-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Jeff, if I may provide some context…the Egyptian “liberals” described by the New York Times aren’t the folks we scrap with here at The Spectacle.
In this instance, the author is describing a political ideology that should sound familiar to us — one founded on secular constitutionalism, due process, and property rights. That emphasizes the liberty of individuals to enjoy freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and markets. A philosophy that demands rulers are subject to the consent of the governed, grounded in an individual’s natural right to life, liberty and property.
I’m talking about an intrinsically Western liberalism — an ideology that came to fruition during the Age of Enlightenment. Its progenitor, John Locke, planted the seeds of natural rights, the social contract and rule of law in contrast to absolutism, aristocracy and the Divine Right of Kings. This is the liberalism of the American and French Revolution that justified the ouster of tyranny. This is the universal liberalism that motivated many Egyptians to depose Mubarak.
We do a disservice to Egyptian liberals (yes, they exist) when we lump them in with folks like Krugman, Moore, and those Occupiers, writ large, who long for a government of enlightened autocrats to dictate social and economic justice.
These are the folks we should be rooting for in Cairo. They’re disorganized, naive and green…but they’re ultimately Egypt’s only hope.
So why do leftists (read: socialists, and even communists in the Egyptian instance), Islamists (the MB, et al.), and liberals find themselves — suddenly and implausibly — allied? Well, they’re all living through some strange days over there, and the tired cliché that politics makes strange bedfellows applies.
To be clear, this marriage of convenience is incredibly unlikely and wholly unnatural. Liberal Egyptians — who are often university educated, and envious of basic freedoms enjoyed here in the West — have little tolerance for Islamists who’d rob them of those natural rights I mentioned. As we’ve learned since the time of Marx and Engels, communists and socialists don’t tolerate religion particularly well, so they’re not particularly fond of Salafi aesthetics that would drag the country back to the seventh century. And while the Islamists exist as the most organized faction — they were vaguely tolerated by Mubarak as a shadow opposition to his now disbanded NDP — as you might have guessed, they’re not particularly charitable to their rivals.
However, to co-opt an ancient Arabic proverb, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In Cairo, such disparate parties as Communists, Islamists and Liberals are working together to advance their common goal — namely, uprooting a calcified, Mubarak-era police state that has proven loath to surrender its political and economic stranglehold on post-Tahrir Egypt.
I’m describing the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) — a military junta that isn’t ominous in name only. Rather, upon reactivation of the country’s “emergency law” the SCAF has come to represent stratocracy, in the extreme.
Their decision to disband the government was alarming, but foreseeable — as I predicted back in April:
If [the Muslim Brotherhood] were to capture the executive office [in addition to the 50% of the parliament they already controlled], the movement could threaten the ruling junta’s significant business interests — which are currently shielded from government oversight. A win at the ballots would mean MB control of the parliament, the constitutional assembly and the presidency…not to mention the bank vaults, national industries and corporate rentiers that line the pockets of the strongest and most enduring elements of Mubarak-era oligarchy.
Now, the tension has reached such frenzy in Cairo that wolves are dwelling with lambs, and the liberals and Islamists have found themselves locked in an unlikely alliance against an unholy adversary.
Please note, I’m not defending or deferring to Islamists or communists. They exist in diametric opposition to my system of values. In this case, I am simply attempting to provide some relevant context to the plight of “liberals” in Egypt.
However, as a sidenote, I would conclude that:
Per terms established by Congress last December, the Egyptian “government” must demonstrate a commitment to a free, fair, and tolerant civic society to receive American assistance. It’s obvious to anyone with a pulse — including the majority of Egyptians — that they’re not living up to their end of the bargain.
Now we know the SCAF never had any intention of meeting that measure, in the first place. Well, don’t look now, but Obama’s still financing their debacle with American dollars.
Your taxes at work in Egypt. Just sayin’…
DRed| 6.15.12 @ 11:13AM
Jeff knows all this. He's deliberately drawing inferences from a false equivalency. It would be like me saying that conservatives dominate saudi arabian politics, so Jeff Lord wants to impose some form of Sharia in America.
Reid Smith| 6.15.12 @ 1:09PM
That would be awfully irresponsible.
I'd prefer to believe he simply didn't understand the word, out of his context.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.12 @ 1:44PM
Umm, here's my unwelcome take: the Islamics are going to win, and we are going to deeply regret letting Mubarak be disposed instead of supporting our ally. The story of Sodom is interesting in its analogous situation here: there aren't enough decent people, in the context of an Islamic culture, to make a difference worth a handful of beans here.
In short, while the concept of pro-Democracy Egyptian Liberals is fascinating from an academic perspective, and while philo-Arabists might wish to focus on them, the reality is that Egypt is going to be another backwards, evil, hopeless, Islamic pesthole.
DRed| 6.15.12 @ 2:18PM
We should nuke them, right?
Occam's Tool| 6.15.12 @ 3:13PM
Only if necessary, and rather precisely: hit the Aswan Dam and wave bye-bye. The Israelis demonstrated this capability to Egyptians decades ago. A major spur to Camp David talks.
Dred: the interesting question from my perspective is whether you think there is hope for them or you agree with my "pesthole analysis." If they are a "pesthole," then you do what it takes to advance your interest with minimal damage to you. My interest is to roll back sharia and prevent further concerns regarding rape rings and abuse of women by these scumbags in the West (which is starting to explode in the UK), as well as preserve Western Democracy. What's yours?
Occam's Tool| 6.15.12 @ 3:14PM
The preservation is, of course, by any means necessary. There is a reason I chose as my nom de plume a razor.
DRed| 6.15.12 @ 3:24PM
If your interest is to roll back Sharia, we should be prepping an invasion of Israel after we get done with Egypt, because they've had state sponsored Sharia courts for their entire existence.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.12 @ 8:43PM
DRed: Don't be a buffoon. Please to discuss Israeli state sponsored and supported stoning of women and rape of 9 year old girls. On the other hand, there are plenty of Western Journo women and Egyptian women who can discuss gang rape in Egypt that is ignored by the state. You are not a moron; eschew the arguments of same.
DRed| 6.15.12 @ 8:59PM
Occam, I bring up Israel because they show that it's possible to have some form of Sharia law co-existing with a modern western style democracy and a fairly progressive civil society. What Israel has would not be constitutional here, but it also demonstrates that the mere presence of some sort of Sharia law doesn't mean women will be gang raped in the streets.
DRed| 6.15.12 @ 9:00PM
btw "you are not a moron" is probably the nicest thing anyone on this site has ever said about me.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.12 @ 9:17PM
Yes, but we are not likely to have intelligent restraints on our sharia courts, as the UK does not have any on its.
Sharia tends to be an expansive form of law that inflicts punishment whenever it can on non-Muslims. Israel I am sure keeps very close tabs., and you can bet that an Israeli Jewish citizen who protested being tried under a sharia court with a sharia code enforced would have the option to avoid it. I do not hold out the same hope here, if a foothold has been achieved.
I never said you were a moron, by the way. I generally don't do the name calling unless you are Jack in Wi., John786, etc. Disgusting people. I prefer to engage arguments. I know you are a Liberal, OK, just as I know RCV is one.
Actually, I think you are fairly bright; I just disagree with you, is all. And I'd appreciate being met seriously on this topic, because my kids are going to be growing up in a world with the worst antisemitic situation since Hitler in the 1930s and 40s. And it is only going to get worse as Europe's Western Civilization dies. (And that is inevitable because it is a numbers game, and the next generation's adult numbers have already been set in stone. How do you crank up birthrates when your mean female ages are 40-45? Seriously, DRed, for your sake, look up the birthrates and mean female ages of any Western European country you want to name. Then consider that older workers innovate less and produce less. Retirement investment should be thought of in this light.)
DRed| 6.15.12 @ 9:26PM
We have the First Amendment. You could have something equivalent to the rabbinical courts we currently have here, but there is zero chance that any form of Sharia could be enforced by a civil court in America on someone who didn't contractually consent to it beforehand. I could lend you money tomorrow and we could agree to have any disputes over the repayment settled by some sort of rabbinical court (if rabbinical courts would hear a dispute between you and a goy-I have no idea if that's the case or not). It's like agreeing to arbitration. I can't get taken before an arbitrator without agreeing to it.
Occam's Tool| 6.16.12 @ 4:46PM
DRed: You may be surprised what happens. There's agreement that is free and unforced, and there's agreement that might involve your legs being broken if you don't agree to it.... I have a feeling that increasingly in areas of England, "agreement" to a sharia court is of a latter sort. Threats of unrestrained violence from anonymous sources happens to people like Pam Gellar and Ayan Ali Hirsi all the time. Geert Wilders has bodyguards for him, too. As the Islamists grow stronger in the US, expect to see more of this occur.
You probably think I am being a bit paranoid about this. OK, maybe I am. But I'm alive.
Occam's Tool| 6.18.12 @ 1:12AM
That "paranoid" bit was stolen from a Southern comedian, from his screamingly funny bit on the "safety" of air travel.
(This November I am going to be flying down to 'Bama to see my father in law. I adore Alabama, and the weather is great at that time of year. If I can time it right, may be we can see the Iron Bowl. The great thing is that B'ham airpost is neither huge nor busy, and I will fly out of my local feeder airport to Lindbergh.When I get to Lindbergh, which is busy, I will already be behind the TSA curtain, so we won't get bugged, and when I fly home, ditto.)
I just don't care for huge cities anymore. The nice thing about my insurance is that if something CAN'T be done in Fargo, we can appeal to get it done at Mayo, which is in another mild sized town in Rochester.
I like living where I live, with the people I live with. And my work is important, and necessary. I treat more Native Americans than any other psychiatric hospital outside of the IHS ones in Minnesota. When I was in Medical school I wanted to do indigent rural work; I remember thinking that I could join the IHS and pay off my medical school loans. Well, that didn't quite pan out; but now I'm making more money than I would have otherwise and doing necessary and useful work. So, despite my screeds, I am generally a happy, very contented guy. This helps me blow off steam on occasion, is all.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.12 @ 9:20PM
And DRed: I do wish you well. I wish most people I know well; you have to really twist my tail on survival issues to get me to lash out: that's why RCV and I get on so well. I have seen too much pain in my profession to wish harm to anyone who doesn't want to hurt my children. (Thus my contempt for Iran and Egypt, etc.)
DRed| 6.15.12 @ 9:28PM
This is the internet, where people tend to be more impolite than in real life, and I'm on a conservative web site spouting my liberal jibber jabber. I would thing something was wrong if I wasn't insulted from time to time.
RCV| 6.15.12 @ 10:52PM
The Egyptian military may well prove to be what Turkey's military was for most of a century: the strong guardian of the secular nature of the state against those who would transform it into a theocracy. I applaud their actions this week, along with those of the nation's Constitutional Court. The Islamists should not be permitted to hijack thevRevolution for their own anti-Democratic purposes.
Occam's Tool| 6.16.12 @ 4:41PM
RCV: from your mouth to G-d's ear. I am of a more pessimistic disposition.
Rich Rostrom| 6.17.12 @ 2:21AM
Not bloody likely. The Turkish army has coexisted with genuine democracy for most of the last 90 years or so. The Egyptian army has been the prop of corrupt dictatorship for over 50 years and has never allowed any sort of free election till this last year.
It is opposed to the Islamists for two reasons: the Islamists threaten their graft; and the Islamists might force another war with Israel, which the army knows they would lose.
RCV| 6.17.12 @ 2:03PM
And third, the Islamists are not to be trusted, ever, with control of the state. They have gone back on every promise they made since the revolution, and allowing them to seize control would bring on tyranny far worse than Egypt has ever experienced.