Articles

Obama In Cairo

Well, here he was.

Massive hype, of course, an event touted as a game-changer for American/Arab relations and something that a lot of people were eagerly expecting.

Even before the event, certain facts were being highlighted within the region -

Unlike most, if not all, US Presidents of the last few decades, Obama would not be visiting Israel and would not be driven straight from the airport to the Holocaust Museum.

Obama would make his speech from Cairo, not from any of the other Middle-Eastern U.S. Buddy Nations of Arabia. This, in itself, is seen to augment Egypt’s arguably waning influence within the region.

And so he comes, with a security details of around, apparently, 3,000 Americans – most of whom entered the country with no visa or who were given rushed, no-questions-asked visa’s in the airport as they landed, putting in a more embarrassing light the humiliation and contempt with which the average Egyptian has to contend with if he desires to travel to the US, or for that matter, most other ‘Western’ countries in the 1st Century PWTC (Post World Trade Center).

Egypt, of course – painted any roads that Obama would drive or fly anywhere near. Traffic was restrained, and people pretty much stuck to their homes. Obama’s trip through Cairo would be pretty and unencumbered by the usually troublesome Cairo traffic.

A courtesy?

Perhaps.

So he’s at Cairo University, and he speaks. He tries the Arabic but keeps stumbling on the name ‘Azhar’. Still, he’s trying – so we listen.

The speech is very well written, rhetorically speaking – it’s quite well designed. A bit cliché-ridden here and there, the usual forms and patterns, but with a generous serving of credit to Moslems and to Islam. In any case -

These are my issues:

Obama not only regurgitates the standard Holocaust accounts of 6 million Jews killed (never mind that we’re ignoring the other non-Jewish 12 million people killed during the war) – but states that these are undeniable facts which nobody can dispute. With this he ignores the very real dispute put forward by historians like Roger Garaudy, and others. In short – that Jews were killed, but that many other races and/or groups were killed, and that it’s highly unlikely that the figure is anywhere near 6 million. Not only does the Obama regurgitate all of these (yes) disputed numbers, but you must remember that he does so while speaking to a people who were in no way at all responsible for a single one of those murders, and who despite this, have suffered from the event for the last 60 years at least, and are still suffering from it today.

In an attempt at ‘balance’ – the Obama uses the word ‘Occupation’ when referring to the Israeli aggression on Palestinians and yet by insisting that the Palestinians must renounce violence he is basically attempting to strip them of one of their basic human rights. In order to mask this, he mentions the agonizing example of school buses being targeted by Palestinian rockets – ignoring the fact that the Palestinian rockets are home-made pieces of flying debris and that thousands of them raining on Israel would amount, in effect to a nasty day-full of hail-stones. Ignoring the fact that a single Israeli helicopter or F16 can and does (routinely) inflict far more damage to the Palestinians.

The attempt at balance is shameful, and a simple scenario should clarify why it’s a false platform:

I steal $100 from you. A 3rd party walks in, hoping to arbitrate. You say it’s your $100, I say it’s my $100. In an effort at ‘fairness’ – the 3rd party offers to split and to give each of us $50.

Balanced? Only if you have the attention span of a goldfish.

Obama mentions that the settlements must ‘stop’. Stop? Stop to me, sounds like a gate through which what the Israelis call ‘natural growth’ will pass through unharmed. If, as Obama seems to admit, he knows they are illegal – then why is he not using the much more appropriate verb ‘dismantle’?

Feeble.

Obama throws around references to nuclear arms in the region – incredibly – and oh, the audacity – he is not talking about Israel. Israel has an estimated 200-300 nuclear bombs, and has never demonstrated anything resembling a desire for peace, and yet – the Obama is talking about IRAN.

He claims a desire for a nuclear free world, while he sits on around 20 or 30 thousand nuclear weapons and represents the only country in the world to have used them twice.

A word on that. First of all, the regular apologetics claim that the U.S. saved lives by nuking Hiroshima and Nagazaki is fallacious – it ignores the documented facts – that Japan was trying to surrender anyway. There is also the matter of why the U.S. felt the need to use TWO bombs – and for those still looking for an explanation – here’s a simple clue – they had two types of bombs.

Science, folks.

Obama tells us that he’s shutting down Guantanamo – and the people applaud. Unaware perhaps that as Obama was saying this, a 31-year-old Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo who had been imprisoned since 2001 was killing himself. He had been on a hunger-strike, and was thereafter held in a psychiatric ward where he was force-fed in a restraint chair and most likely held sedated.

These same people are also most likely unaware that in fact, most American ‘detainees’ are not held in Guantanamo at all, but around the world in what can only be described as torture-franchise stations in various third world countries around the world.

Naomi Klein, author of No Logo, The Shock Doctrine, and other works – said that “Obama is making us stupid.” – and in an single attention seeking moment, one of the actors present at the Cairo speech shouted ‘We Love You Obama!’ – during the speech. Obama, dutifully, thanked him, and continued.

Obama went on to claim that the ‘war’ (read ‘invasion’) with (read ‘of’) Afghanistan was forced on the U.S. by the attacks of 9/11 (which, it should be mentioned he mentioned at least 3 or 4 times during the speech) – ignoring completely the well-reported (do your homework if you don’t remember this) fact that the Taliban explicitly made an offer to surrender any of those proven to be responsible (including Osama Bin Laden) to a neutral country for trial if any evidence was presented. Ignoring the fact that 6 months before the invasion of Afghanistan the Afghanis were threatened with just that – an invasion – if they did not submit to the pipe-line demands of Haliburton, etc.

And so it goes.

America Marches On.

Ironically, it is the people on the street who see through the lies. The cab drivers of Egypt, the doormen, the plumbers and the carpenters – all of those seem to understand innately – that the Obama is all talk – all of those are skeptical of mere words, and are in wait of any real action, any substance to the smoke and mirrors.

It is the educated of the Middle-East, the ones with degrees, the ones who’ve invested in Americana – who are most eager to believe him, who are most eager to wash themselves aglow with his apparent sincerity – with his apparent good intentions – with his apparent respect for Islam.

We need much more.

Quotes

Lie To Me, She Says.

Buffy: “Does it ever get easy?”

Giles: “You mean life?”

Buffy: “Yeah, does it get easy?”

Giles: “What do you want me to say?”

Buffy: “Lie to me.”

Giles: “Yes, it’s terribly simple. The good guys are always stalwart and true. The bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats..and uh…we always defeat them and save the day. No one ever dies and…everybody lives happily ever after.”

Buffy: “Liar.”

From Season 2, Episode 7 “Lie To Me.”

06
Apr 2009
POSTED BY KarmaMole
POSTED IN

SeptiC (Politics)

DISCUSSION No Comments
Articles

God Bless You, Mr. Vonnegut…

He’s dead.

Kurt Vonnegut, author of some truly wonderful books such as ‘God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater’, ‘Slaughterhouse 5′, ‘Deadeye Dick’, and various others is dead.

He spent years warning us about ourselves. He wrote and wrote and wrote, and, of course, we ignored his warnings and his alarms. He saw the last few years and realized what a terrible time we’ve been going through, and…well, another sane voice now silenced by time.

In 2002, during an interview, reflecting on Bush’s America, he said “our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been.”

Thanks, Kurt.

And so it goes.

13
Apr 2007
POSTED BY KarmaMole
POSTED IN

SeptiC (Politics)

DISCUSSION 1 Comment

From Ali G. To Borat – It’s STILL Not Funny…

I first saw an Ali G. show years ago.

I laughed.

I didn’t laugh much, but I did laugh once, as I ‘got’ the joke, and then something spectacularly simple happened; I no longer found it funny. Sacha Baron Cohen was, and continues to be, a one trick pony; 1 ) lie to people, 2) subject them to a false premise conducted by somebody pretending to be even more stupid than he really is, and 3) watch them get initially frustrated by the sheer idiocy put on display, before 4) they finally grow annoyed as they realize that this is nothing but a cheap offensive waste of their time.

That was Ali G then, and that, today, is Borat.

Needless to say, since Sacha is such a one trick pony, he can never quite play the same place twice, such is notoriety. Thus, having pretty much beaten a dead horse to shreds across the ocean, he now comes to Amerika – where the audience has not yet been vaccinated to his particular brand of social offense.

It might be interesting to dwell on the possible motivations inducing a one trick Zionist comedian hack to choose a real nation, and in fact, a nation whose population is mostly Islamic to be the home of the idiot character he portrays – when a fictional nation would have served just as well. One wonders if the extra toxicity was necessary, but that is an issue deserving of a whole article in and of itself.

Of course this tendency on Sacha Baron Cohen’s part is not new. It is certainly no coincidence that his previous idiot of a character was called Ali.

It might also be interesting to wonder how an American media might react to the inverse situation; that a Muslim actor make a movie in which he plays a stupid, rude, crass, offensive, creepy, clumsy, buffoon of a Jew with the likely name of, say, Cohen.

The charges of antisemitism, I suspect, would in sheer volume drown out the cacophony of the wars raging in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Those charges of antisemitism would be leveled not only at the actor, the producers, the studio responsible, the director, but also, I suspect, at those viewers who pay to watch this offense and who laugh, and laugh, and laugh…

As though this were funny.

And yet – no such charges are spoken against Sacha Baron Cohen, or at Everyman Studios, or Four By Two, or Gold/Miller Productions, or One America, or 20th Century Fox, or Larry Charles – or the 837 theaters that screened the movie, or the audiences that have paid upwards of $70 million to enjoy the vicious venom of a vicarious racism.

How did we get here?

What’s Wrong With Alan Shore?

Well, initially, nothing.

Season 3 of Boston Legal, however, has put the character in grave danger. There are two reasons, not one, for why Alan Shore had been such a fascinating character in The Practice, and in the first episodes of Boston Legal. He had been (as he yet continues to be) quirky – and more importantly he had been (and by Season 3 he has lost this) – scary.

This has been lost. We are no longer terrified at the extents to which Alan Shore might go in order to set things right. Alan Shore was the ultimate ‘egg breaker’ – when it came to omelette’s.

In an episode of The Practice – he illegally obtains a document with which to effectively blackmail a pharmaceutical company into paying a settlement for a widow whose husband had apparently been driven suicidal by their drug. Her husband is dead, she has three children – Alan Shore knows what he must do – and yet – that a force for good should be quite so corrupt – is eerily disturbing. On the one hand, you are repulsed by his complete lack of faith in procedure, and yet – you have to admire, and this is a careful phrase, his willingness to sacrifice his own professional integrity for the sake of the particular good.

In the same episode, he refuses to walk into a conference room at the office, because he suspects that his client has left a murder weapon in there. He maintains that since he hasn’t actually seen the murder weapon, then he has no real knowledge of evidence that he is suppressing. He chooses, in what can only be described as pragmatism, to remain sincerely ignorant of the contents of the conference room.

In all cases, he is certain that he can do a better job than the system, and in most cases, we see that to be true. I remember perhaps one exception in season 1 or 2 of Boston Legal where he had just won a case, and then had caught a glimpse between two involved parties, a glimpse that seemed to have meant he had been duped. That his sympathies had been played upon, and that he had used his skills to help the bad guys.

In any case…

Alan Shore represented nothing short of the triumph of morality over ethics, now he’s been nipped, fixed, sterilized – and all we’re left with is…quirkiness.

Not enough.

02
Nov 2006
POSTED BY KarmaMole
DISCUSSION 2 Comments

Wargames

[after playing out all possible outcomes for Global Thermonuclear War]

Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.
Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

Strangely powerful movie, having just re-watched it. It’s lost none of the power it had when I was a teenager and saw it for the first time. Granted, it was cheesier in retrospect, but the main idea is both powerful and on the dot, and the main sequence at the very end – when Joshua is going through all the possible scenarios is heart wrenching when considered in context.

I wonder if this is what Gardner might have meant by moral fiction?

Homework.

09
Oct 2006
POSTED BY KarmaMole
DISCUSSION 3 Comments

On Simple Human Decency…

A good read found on Harpers.org.

“Because I am loath to violate whatever fresh new mores the people have agreed upon, or have been told they agree upon, and because I do not care to have my ass kicked repeatedly in a holding cell while I beg to see a lawyer, I almost hesitate to ask the following question. I will ask it, though, out of what used to be called simple human decency:

Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush, the president of the United States, and kill him with my bare hands?”

You can read the whole thing here.

Yeah.

It gets better.