Updates and Musing
I was listening to the news this morning when there was a lengthy piece on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. They are an outlawed organization there but still a potent influence in the country’s politics. So much so that in recent elections Muslim Brotherhood activists captured 15 seats in the Egyptian parliament. Meanwhile, the Egyptian authorities have forty of the more radical elements on trail in what is described as some kind of military tribunal. This could in fact be incorrect and a normal courts trail is being held on a military base completely closed to the public and the press. I think that the explanation or description of the Mubarek presidency as democratic or a stickler for western jurisprudence methods would be a stretch. Its an open secret that the Egyptian government might be best described as a semi-benevolent dictatorship. It is another in the “friendly regimes” that insures the application of western values and western traditions on wholly non-western cultures. This weighed against the warm and fuzzy description of the Muslim Brotherhood by that article in FA. There is the final element that the story was delivered by the BBC, a news organization whose editorial bias appears rather imperial.
What can one conclude? I think that they’re all lying to me. I think that they’re all telling me the truth. I think that things in the near and middle east are far more complicated than everybody in charge wants us to think. Let’s start with these organizations that are challenging the status quo. They seem to consist of the same groups as most other revolutionary organizations: a militant element, a political element, some kind of functioning bureaucracy and professional services that in combination with the bureaucratic and political elements deliver those goods and services that the ruling party cannot. I example the situation in Israel amongst the Palestinians; Hamas has taken the political upper hand from the dysfunctional PA and has done so through elections that the US had insisted on. Great political cartoon; “well, that didn’t go according to plan…” I think that we face the same situation in Egypt with the preparation by Mubarek to hand over the presidency to his son and that while there is a functioning parliament and democratic elections, they really don’t mean much unless the results come out as the government wishes it to. The same can be said of Pakistan and of Saudi Arabia. These opposition groups, outlawed by most of the government mentioned, form and grow from the needs and desires of the people that are being less than served by the governments of these people we support. Unfortunately, many of these groups take positions and opinions that are detrimental to our interests in the region. For many decades it was propagated far and wide that if these radical elements were allowed to dominate these governments that chaos and oppression would follow. Of course the truth is that oppression already exists in a lot of these places and the reason for the lack of chaos is the brutal suppression of anything that could smack of free expression. The opinion that might be emerging in the west is that the continuation of the status quo in the middle east, and through out the rest of the world for that matter, is in fact beneficial to the elites in the west and that it has very little to do with the rest of us.
The threat of terrorism is real and is something that concerns everyone these days, but the statistical probability that it will happen to me is very low. The government tells us that our way of life is a stake. I’m beginning to believe that this is not true. This administration has stripped us of all the constitutional protections that they say this war on terror is supposed to be protecting. So who are we protecting by the support of all these dictatorial regimes? A few of the rich and powerful? The multi-national corporation and its fiduciary responsibility to the share holder? It’s their way of life that we’re trying to protect. This is not to say that I advocate an eat-the-rich kind of egalitarian revolution, but I think the institutions that have lead us into these precarious times are not the ones that are going to lead us out of it. Examination of these societies and organizations that are causing so much havoc do promise a path forward for the peoples that they claim to represent. Unfortunately they are paths that don’t feel comfortable to most of us. There are those amongst us that see these paths as abomination and horror. It’s my conclusion that these paths are ones they recognize as unacceptable primarily because it’s not their banner at the head of the parade. They like things as they are. They are shrill voices and they pound the drums loudly. I also believe that many of the opinions consumed in this country are through these voices that supply the drums.
Again I wonder aloud as to what would happen to me if all that these Muslim organizations advocated came to pass. I wonder what would happen to Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda if we just took a step back and let them sort it out for themselves. I find so many sources that these ultra-violent elements of Islam aren’t the core of the militancy in Islam. These ultra-violent are mutations from the conditions that the west advocates through complacency. Could the maniacs figure out on their own that the right mix of capitalism, democracy and social justice can create a stable and prosperous society? The maniacs I’m referring to are the ones running this country and the 25% of the US voting population that supports them. I’m tired of the bloodshed and any position that advocates the use of force to convey a point. And what is it that these Muslim organizations want. The destruction of the state of Israel? Nope, that’s off the table. Security, schools hospitals, a functioning economy leading to a better life for your children? Well, that what we want for these peoples also. The problem is that in the sixty years since the end of WWII, the west has done a pretty bad job on delivering on these desires. So these peoples form organizations and parties to try and deliver the goods using our democratic methods. This failed also. We are told that this is because of the immaturity of the institutions and the democratic traditions in the Muslim world. Perhaps it is, and always has been, that we wish these nations to grow with our ultimate success in mind. Hardly original this notion of neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism but perhaps our own ministrations of the role of religion in government points to a societal Freudian slip. We, as a group, society, culture or as simple human beings wish to dominate the whole human race as we did when western civilization began its ascendancy two thousand plus years ago. As a result we accept the actions of our government as right and just. There is a destiny to fulfill and we must take the appropriate actions. There is another alternative. We could have dialog with various associations and find out what it is that they want. They know what we want, and they have demonstrated that there are in their number of those willing to use any means to prevent us from attaining it. This includes the destruction of the civilization they are claiming to protect. This is a blunt description of the situation. What is wrong is the talking point in western news outlets that this is where the situation began. I also think that there is a false impression in this country that if we expend enough ordinance we can return things to how they were. There are all sorts of things wrong with they way they were but that’s a topic for another time but dovetails nicely into the root of what I’m trying to say.
There is a television series “The Western Tradition” hosted by a Professor Eugene Webber that really is a masterpiece of the Western Civilization 101. A one point he makes the observation that one of the truly significant philosophical conclusions to come out of the western Reformation, Enlightenment and Renaissance was the notion that both sides of an argument could be right, that both viewpoints could present convincing arguments supporting their positions. Do we now stand at a point in history that dictates a conclusion that both sides of an argument can be wrong? That we present arguments and evidence that fully supports the opposing positions but only relative to the abstract? Have we convoluted the exercise of self-examination to a point where nothing of the reality of the suffering all around us has any relative value? Theoretical solutions to complex dynamic systems. Too often we reduce the answer to destruction of that which exist and to remake the world anew. Hardly a realistic goal.
Conclusions? None that anyone would consider. Marginalization of the violent and ultra-violent elements on both side of the argument. Send them out to the desert with their guns and ammunition while the rest of figure out if we can get along. I’m sure we can. I’m also sure that there are going to be some awkward compromises along the way. Failures too. Although I’m hoping to confine the bloodshed to the loonies out in the desert shooting it out. Send them all the weapons they need. Just leave the rest of us to get on with the business of peaceful coexistence.
What can one conclude? I think that they’re all lying to me. I think that they’re all telling me the truth. I think that things in the near and middle east are far more complicated than everybody in charge wants us to think. Let’s start with these organizations that are challenging the status quo. They seem to consist of the same groups as most other revolutionary organizations: a militant element, a political element, some kind of functioning bureaucracy and professional services that in combination with the bureaucratic and political elements deliver those goods and services that the ruling party cannot. I example the situation in Israel amongst the Palestinians; Hamas has taken the political upper hand from the dysfunctional PA and has done so through elections that the US had insisted on. Great political cartoon; “well, that didn’t go according to plan…” I think that we face the same situation in Egypt with the preparation by Mubarek to hand over the presidency to his son and that while there is a functioning parliament and democratic elections, they really don’t mean much unless the results come out as the government wishes it to. The same can be said of Pakistan and of Saudi Arabia. These opposition groups, outlawed by most of the government mentioned, form and grow from the needs and desires of the people that are being less than served by the governments of these people we support. Unfortunately, many of these groups take positions and opinions that are detrimental to our interests in the region. For many decades it was propagated far and wide that if these radical elements were allowed to dominate these governments that chaos and oppression would follow. Of course the truth is that oppression already exists in a lot of these places and the reason for the lack of chaos is the brutal suppression of anything that could smack of free expression. The opinion that might be emerging in the west is that the continuation of the status quo in the middle east, and through out the rest of the world for that matter, is in fact beneficial to the elites in the west and that it has very little to do with the rest of us.
The threat of terrorism is real and is something that concerns everyone these days, but the statistical probability that it will happen to me is very low. The government tells us that our way of life is a stake. I’m beginning to believe that this is not true. This administration has stripped us of all the constitutional protections that they say this war on terror is supposed to be protecting. So who are we protecting by the support of all these dictatorial regimes? A few of the rich and powerful? The multi-national corporation and its fiduciary responsibility to the share holder? It’s their way of life that we’re trying to protect. This is not to say that I advocate an eat-the-rich kind of egalitarian revolution, but I think the institutions that have lead us into these precarious times are not the ones that are going to lead us out of it. Examination of these societies and organizations that are causing so much havoc do promise a path forward for the peoples that they claim to represent. Unfortunately they are paths that don’t feel comfortable to most of us. There are those amongst us that see these paths as abomination and horror. It’s my conclusion that these paths are ones they recognize as unacceptable primarily because it’s not their banner at the head of the parade. They like things as they are. They are shrill voices and they pound the drums loudly. I also believe that many of the opinions consumed in this country are through these voices that supply the drums.
Again I wonder aloud as to what would happen to me if all that these Muslim organizations advocated came to pass. I wonder what would happen to Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda if we just took a step back and let them sort it out for themselves. I find so many sources that these ultra-violent elements of Islam aren’t the core of the militancy in Islam. These ultra-violent are mutations from the conditions that the west advocates through complacency. Could the maniacs figure out on their own that the right mix of capitalism, democracy and social justice can create a stable and prosperous society? The maniacs I’m referring to are the ones running this country and the 25% of the US voting population that supports them. I’m tired of the bloodshed and any position that advocates the use of force to convey a point. And what is it that these Muslim organizations want. The destruction of the state of Israel? Nope, that’s off the table. Security, schools hospitals, a functioning economy leading to a better life for your children? Well, that what we want for these peoples also. The problem is that in the sixty years since the end of WWII, the west has done a pretty bad job on delivering on these desires. So these peoples form organizations and parties to try and deliver the goods using our democratic methods. This failed also. We are told that this is because of the immaturity of the institutions and the democratic traditions in the Muslim world. Perhaps it is, and always has been, that we wish these nations to grow with our ultimate success in mind. Hardly original this notion of neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism but perhaps our own ministrations of the role of religion in government points to a societal Freudian slip. We, as a group, society, culture or as simple human beings wish to dominate the whole human race as we did when western civilization began its ascendancy two thousand plus years ago. As a result we accept the actions of our government as right and just. There is a destiny to fulfill and we must take the appropriate actions. There is another alternative. We could have dialog with various associations and find out what it is that they want. They know what we want, and they have demonstrated that there are in their number of those willing to use any means to prevent us from attaining it. This includes the destruction of the civilization they are claiming to protect. This is a blunt description of the situation. What is wrong is the talking point in western news outlets that this is where the situation began. I also think that there is a false impression in this country that if we expend enough ordinance we can return things to how they were. There are all sorts of things wrong with they way they were but that’s a topic for another time but dovetails nicely into the root of what I’m trying to say.
There is a television series “The Western Tradition” hosted by a Professor Eugene Webber that really is a masterpiece of the Western Civilization 101. A one point he makes the observation that one of the truly significant philosophical conclusions to come out of the western Reformation, Enlightenment and Renaissance was the notion that both sides of an argument could be right, that both viewpoints could present convincing arguments supporting their positions. Do we now stand at a point in history that dictates a conclusion that both sides of an argument can be wrong? That we present arguments and evidence that fully supports the opposing positions but only relative to the abstract? Have we convoluted the exercise of self-examination to a point where nothing of the reality of the suffering all around us has any relative value? Theoretical solutions to complex dynamic systems. Too often we reduce the answer to destruction of that which exist and to remake the world anew. Hardly a realistic goal.
Conclusions? None that anyone would consider. Marginalization of the violent and ultra-violent elements on both side of the argument. Send them out to the desert with their guns and ammunition while the rest of figure out if we can get along. I’m sure we can. I’m also sure that there are going to be some awkward compromises along the way. Failures too. Although I’m hoping to confine the bloodshed to the loonies out in the desert shooting it out. Send them all the weapons they need. Just leave the rest of us to get on with the business of peaceful coexistence.