So far the protests in Egypt have reached their 17th day, going on nearly three weeks in a country ruled for 30 years under emergency laws and fear. While on Monday Vice President Suleiman offered some concessions that seemed to meet the protesters demands, protesters rejected them in part sine it left Mubarak in power and probably more likely because a dictator can change their mind at anytime. Suleiman would also insist that protests must stop even though the regime would continue to rule with Mubarak until September when he claimed he would step down.
This was intended to divide the opponents to Mubarak and try to dilute the protests. Instead, the protests in Tahir Square actually grew with the largest crowd in two weeks taking part. In addition, the country went on strike as workers joined in the protests. Today we hear that the military may be asking Mubarak to step aside and assuming an administrative role.
The question here if Mubarak does step down is what will happen next? The protesters have already worked on some blueprint for a constitution post Mubarak. Whether the military is willing to cede control if they take it remains a question to be asked. Given reports that some in the military have tortured those who protested it's hard to say what will happen next. At this point it's up to the Egyptian people to create a new country after 30 years of a dictatorship. What happens at the protests tomorrow might be a sign of things to come here.
It will be interesting to see how things unfold.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
DN Special on Egypt
Today Democracy Now broadcast a special two hour show on the uprising/revolution in Egypt. Originally just a stream, it's finally become downloadable. We'll let the program speak for itself. Has a lot of insight here that should be heard.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Egypt, Unrest, Crackdowns, and Possible Blowback
Like many in the Western World I was surprised by the recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. I say Western World mainly because I have a feeling people in those countries had been seeing the signs and the tension building for a long time now. However, given that international news events aren't often covered all that much in the U.S., for many people what has gone down in less than a month comes completely out of left field.
As I said things have likely been building up for a while so imagine the effect that one person vocalizing what a lot of people have felt can have when it goes viral, like this blog did.
Today pro Mubarak forces decided to attack the demonstrators who have been largely nonviolent for the past week since the demonstrations have happened. While there have been some interesting points made about the protestors such as the relatively secular nature of many of them and the increased role of women amongst them (at least before things got violent), the counter protesters and the attackers have had one thing amongst them: they seem to be connected to Mubarak's government in some form.
Sadly this shouldn't be surprising. It has been common in a lot of countries for people to either infiltrate protesters to push people towards violence (or at least have them painted as violent in the media) or act as goon squads to terrorize people into submission. In Egypt some of the arrested looters were found to have police ID cards on them, for example. Granted some people could say said police were simply trying to help themselves given their poverty. However, in a context like this, it's more likely they were intended to give the impression that the protesters were doing all the looting and that Mubarak needed to restore order. In addition, several of the people in today's attacks on the demonstrators were found to have Interior Ministry IDs on them.
At this point it's too early to tell what will happen to Egypt. The simmering unrest has now exploded. Mubarak unleashing force against the demonstrators has pretty much backfired in terms of world opinion. Tensions are high right now and its hard to see what will happen. Mubarak has claimed he intends to stay in power until the September elections but the backlash he faces as a result of the crackdown could possibly speed up the timetable for him to leave the country (even Sen. John McCain has said "Mubarak must go". What does seem apparent is that things have reached a breaking point as the Egyptian people, struggling with high poverty and years of repression, had finally had enough and want an actual role in election and choosing a government that actually represents their interests.
As I said things have likely been building up for a while so imagine the effect that one person vocalizing what a lot of people have felt can have when it goes viral, like this blog did.
Today pro Mubarak forces decided to attack the demonstrators who have been largely nonviolent for the past week since the demonstrations have happened. While there have been some interesting points made about the protestors such as the relatively secular nature of many of them and the increased role of women amongst them (at least before things got violent), the counter protesters and the attackers have had one thing amongst them: they seem to be connected to Mubarak's government in some form.
Sadly this shouldn't be surprising. It has been common in a lot of countries for people to either infiltrate protesters to push people towards violence (or at least have them painted as violent in the media) or act as goon squads to terrorize people into submission. In Egypt some of the arrested looters were found to have police ID cards on them, for example. Granted some people could say said police were simply trying to help themselves given their poverty. However, in a context like this, it's more likely they were intended to give the impression that the protesters were doing all the looting and that Mubarak needed to restore order. In addition, several of the people in today's attacks on the demonstrators were found to have Interior Ministry IDs on them.
At this point it's too early to tell what will happen to Egypt. The simmering unrest has now exploded. Mubarak unleashing force against the demonstrators has pretty much backfired in terms of world opinion. Tensions are high right now and its hard to see what will happen. Mubarak has claimed he intends to stay in power until the September elections but the backlash he faces as a result of the crackdown could possibly speed up the timetable for him to leave the country (even Sen. John McCain has said "Mubarak must go". What does seem apparent is that things have reached a breaking point as the Egyptian people, struggling with high poverty and years of repression, had finally had enough and want an actual role in election and choosing a government that actually represents their interests.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
In honor of Roe v Wade turning 38
In honor of the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade I post this pro choice anthem from grindcore pioneers Napalm Death. It just seems to fit the climate these days. Hope you like it.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Blog For Choice 2011 Post
Recently there has been a bit of concern in some circles regarding the status of choice and reproductive freedom. The recent Republican takeover of the House of Representatives has vastly increased the number of anti choice voices in Congress while a number of state elections and ballot measures have set out to, if not completely overturn Roe v. Wade, then at least severely weaken it and make it so the right to a legal medical procedure de facto doesn’t exist.
I’m concerned about the state of choice as it applied to a woman’s right to reproductive freedom and reproductive justice this year. However, the concern has been ongoing for a long time. From ballot measures designed to define the fetus as a full human being to various state restrictions based on age or marital status, the war on choice has been going on for decades now. While odds are they might not get a Constitutional amendment overturning Roe, they know that if they chip away at the right of a woman to make decisions over her won body, said right might as well not exist.
The end result is the usual mix of rhetoric that seems to favor DNA over actual living human beings. The current attack of note implies that women aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions regarding what to do with an unplanned pregnancy, either by not really knowing they’re getting an abortion or getting one just out of selfishness. This approach, while claiming to favor life, is an insult to the women the pro forced childbirth contingent are supposedly out to “protect” in the first place. From that to the “crisis pregnancy center” that falsely claim to be abortion clinics to the targeting of abortion doctors, there is a lot to be concerned about regarding a woman’s right to choose what to do with a pregnancy whether it be birth or adoption or abortion.
In a truly just world, this would be a decision made in private between a woman and her doctor. However, we don’t live in a just world but in one where many people who claim to want less government intervention and cry out over a supposed lack of freedom seem to salivate over playing Big Brother on this issue, wanting a government response to this so large and interventionist the society in Orwell’s 1984 practically seems like a progressive utopia in comparison. I’d find it humorous if it wasn’t so scary that people’s lives were at risk as a result of such attacks. Add to this some politicians on the Democratic side of the aisle seeming more than willing to throw a woman’s right to choose under the bus for a few votes and there is much to be concerned about.
So what can be done to make sure a woman’s right to choose is protected? Mainly, those of us who support this issue have to be vigilant against those who want to take away this right either by legal means or by intimidation of some sort. One can’t automatically assume a politician will uphold the right to choose on principle. It will instead take constant putting the pressure on those in power to make sure reproductive freedom and reproductive justice remain safe and legal in this country. It’s far from a new idea and one that will require a lot of effort and work. However, given that the anti choice/pro forced childbirth contingent will continue to do whatever they think is necessary to get their goals across, those who support choice have to keep the pressure up and make sure they get heard.
I’m concerned about the state of choice as it applied to a woman’s right to reproductive freedom and reproductive justice this year. However, the concern has been ongoing for a long time. From ballot measures designed to define the fetus as a full human being to various state restrictions based on age or marital status, the war on choice has been going on for decades now. While odds are they might not get a Constitutional amendment overturning Roe, they know that if they chip away at the right of a woman to make decisions over her won body, said right might as well not exist.
The end result is the usual mix of rhetoric that seems to favor DNA over actual living human beings. The current attack of note implies that women aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions regarding what to do with an unplanned pregnancy, either by not really knowing they’re getting an abortion or getting one just out of selfishness. This approach, while claiming to favor life, is an insult to the women the pro forced childbirth contingent are supposedly out to “protect” in the first place. From that to the “crisis pregnancy center” that falsely claim to be abortion clinics to the targeting of abortion doctors, there is a lot to be concerned about regarding a woman’s right to choose what to do with a pregnancy whether it be birth or adoption or abortion.
In a truly just world, this would be a decision made in private between a woman and her doctor. However, we don’t live in a just world but in one where many people who claim to want less government intervention and cry out over a supposed lack of freedom seem to salivate over playing Big Brother on this issue, wanting a government response to this so large and interventionist the society in Orwell’s 1984 practically seems like a progressive utopia in comparison. I’d find it humorous if it wasn’t so scary that people’s lives were at risk as a result of such attacks. Add to this some politicians on the Democratic side of the aisle seeming more than willing to throw a woman’s right to choose under the bus for a few votes and there is much to be concerned about.
So what can be done to make sure a woman’s right to choose is protected? Mainly, those of us who support this issue have to be vigilant against those who want to take away this right either by legal means or by intimidation of some sort. One can’t automatically assume a politician will uphold the right to choose on principle. It will instead take constant putting the pressure on those in power to make sure reproductive freedom and reproductive justice remain safe and legal in this country. It’s far from a new idea and one that will require a lot of effort and work. However, given that the anti choice/pro forced childbirth contingent will continue to do whatever they think is necessary to get their goals across, those who support choice have to keep the pressure up and make sure they get heard.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
It's Not About LIttle Barricuda.
Like most people I've been trying to process the shootings that happened last weekend in Tucson, AZ that killed six and injured 14 including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. An event like this brings a number of emotions to light. Maybe it's the shock over something so extreme happening. Maybe it's that tragedies like this make one realize that things can change without warning. Regardless, there's something about things like this that shake us out of our usual routine and making us realize that some of the things we get so hung up about aren't all that important in the big picture.
Then there's the video that former Gov. of Alaska turned former vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin posted two days ago. Posted in response to criticism over a pre 2010 midterm election map from SarahPAC that posted gun targets on several Congressional districts (including the one Giffords represents) her response came hours before the Memorial to the victims in Tucson, AZ last night. Coming after days of silence and debate over how heated our political discourse had become it was posted without warning just in time for the morning news cycle.
While many from Keith Olbermann to Newscorp (parent company of Fox News) CEO Rupert Murdoch have urged for a toning down of the rhetoric, Palin took an opportunity to voice sorrow and get people to focus on what went down last weekend and instead cried victim, making it all about her.
IN this speech, Palin tried to play both sides. Claiming responsibility for the shooter was solely on the shooter, Plain said we should never let an event like this deter us from the right to "peacefully dissent" against the government. However, she also implies that those in the media who criticized the rhetoric used by Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the like were the ones that were provoking violence. This tactic of projecting her tactics onto those that disagree with her did little to examine how such a tragedy could go down and much to continue the path the American right has continued to find themselves on over the past couple of decades.
Palin has gained a justifiable amount of criticism for claiming those that disagreed with her were manufacturing a "blood libel" against her. It's hard to know whether she knew what a "blood libel" actually entailed. She did intend to paint herself as a victim of persecution.
I agree with Palin that such a tragedy shouldn't interfere with our right to peaceful dissent in our society. This is also a stance taken by Matthew Rothschild at the Progressive. In fact, many people who wish the right wing media would "tone it down a notch" actually don't want a law to censor anyone's speech. However, such nuance clashes with the cultural dissonance people like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and the like have helped to ratchet up since Obama was inaugurated (and have been slowly pushing under the radar since the rise of the Christian right in the late 70s/early 80s).
So why the speech now? Mainly Palin is playing to her base; trying to keep her name in the media outside of her e-mail/text missives to Glenn Beck during the past few days before her video. However, the video also takes a horrific tragedy that shook up most people in this country and, instead of focusing on the big picture, painted herself as the real victim. It is this that is truly sickening about the whole incident.
As for her point about "Peaceful dissent," it becomes laughable given that her facebook page routinely deletes comments critical of Palin though leaving up a hateful comment regarding the killing of 9 year old Chritina-Taylor Green. In addition, her insinuation that those requesting that the rhetoric be toned down actually are cuasing violence is a cheap attempt to have it both ways, stating she can say whatever she and her allies want but those who oppose them shouldn't. So much for "peaceful dissent" in that context.
At this point in time we still don't truly have a whole picture of what led Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner to do what he did. However, at a time like this, the worst thing to do is take something like this and make it about yourself. Yes, Sarah Palin has the right to say whatever she wants about any issue she pleases. Making this about herself rather than honoring those who died or were injured in the shooting is extremely distasteful at best.
In other words the best response to this is this: Little Barricuda, it's not about you.
It's sad that she's the last person to realize this simple fact.
A NOTE ON READER COMMENTS: After careful deliberation, I've decided to allow comments on this post for the time being. However, they will be moderated and anything that I don't feel is constructive will be deleted. Given that many on the right routinely delete comments from those they disagree with or don't allow comments at all, I think this is fair.
Then there's the video that former Gov. of Alaska turned former vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin posted two days ago. Posted in response to criticism over a pre 2010 midterm election map from SarahPAC that posted gun targets on several Congressional districts (including the one Giffords represents) her response came hours before the Memorial to the victims in Tucson, AZ last night. Coming after days of silence and debate over how heated our political discourse had become it was posted without warning just in time for the morning news cycle.
While many from Keith Olbermann to Newscorp (parent company of Fox News) CEO Rupert Murdoch have urged for a toning down of the rhetoric, Palin took an opportunity to voice sorrow and get people to focus on what went down last weekend and instead cried victim, making it all about her.
IN this speech, Palin tried to play both sides. Claiming responsibility for the shooter was solely on the shooter, Plain said we should never let an event like this deter us from the right to "peacefully dissent" against the government. However, she also implies that those in the media who criticized the rhetoric used by Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the like were the ones that were provoking violence. This tactic of projecting her tactics onto those that disagree with her did little to examine how such a tragedy could go down and much to continue the path the American right has continued to find themselves on over the past couple of decades.
Palin has gained a justifiable amount of criticism for claiming those that disagreed with her were manufacturing a "blood libel" against her. It's hard to know whether she knew what a "blood libel" actually entailed. She did intend to paint herself as a victim of persecution.
I agree with Palin that such a tragedy shouldn't interfere with our right to peaceful dissent in our society. This is also a stance taken by Matthew Rothschild at the Progressive. In fact, many people who wish the right wing media would "tone it down a notch" actually don't want a law to censor anyone's speech. However, such nuance clashes with the cultural dissonance people like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and the like have helped to ratchet up since Obama was inaugurated (and have been slowly pushing under the radar since the rise of the Christian right in the late 70s/early 80s).
So why the speech now? Mainly Palin is playing to her base; trying to keep her name in the media outside of her e-mail/text missives to Glenn Beck during the past few days before her video. However, the video also takes a horrific tragedy that shook up most people in this country and, instead of focusing on the big picture, painted herself as the real victim. It is this that is truly sickening about the whole incident.
As for her point about "Peaceful dissent," it becomes laughable given that her facebook page routinely deletes comments critical of Palin though leaving up a hateful comment regarding the killing of 9 year old Chritina-Taylor Green. In addition, her insinuation that those requesting that the rhetoric be toned down actually are cuasing violence is a cheap attempt to have it both ways, stating she can say whatever she and her allies want but those who oppose them shouldn't. So much for "peaceful dissent" in that context.
At this point in time we still don't truly have a whole picture of what led Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner to do what he did. However, at a time like this, the worst thing to do is take something like this and make it about yourself. Yes, Sarah Palin has the right to say whatever she wants about any issue she pleases. Making this about herself rather than honoring those who died or were injured in the shooting is extremely distasteful at best.
In other words the best response to this is this: Little Barricuda, it's not about you.
It's sad that she's the last person to realize this simple fact.
A NOTE ON READER COMMENTS: After careful deliberation, I've decided to allow comments on this post for the time being. However, they will be moderated and anything that I don't feel is constructive will be deleted. Given that many on the right routinely delete comments from those they disagree with or don't allow comments at all, I think this is fair.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Holiday Music Review
Malone Malone for the Holidays EP
In the most recent print issue of TTWN we reviewed the final Malone EP, The Tropic of Malone, thus bringing to a close the history of one of Columbia's more interesting bands. However ther ewas one chapter that was still uncovered and we realized it was time to bring it to light. With that in mind let's exam Malone's late 2009 release Malone for the Holidays.
The three song EP starts off with "Christmastime This Year," a high energy uptempo raveup that takes from both the British Invasion of the 1960s and from 80s "college rock" to create a catchy, rockin' song for the occasion. "Do It For The Kids" is a more introspective number that takes on a midtempo, almost ballad-like nature and a more somber tone filled by guitar anpeggio jangle and a simmering vibe that fits the feel of the song more. Then there's "Christmas on the Moon" which draws from roots rock as much as indie and delivers a partly chaotic, somewhat twangy with rough guitar power chords and a vibe that borders on charging the barricades. It's high energy aural attack brings this to a uplifting, if somewhat humorous, conclusion.
This limited edition release was burned onto CD-R just before a December 2009 show in Columbia. Why didn't we cover it then? We would've if we'd known about it. Instead I found out about the EP at the band's farewell show back in May and realized it was javascript:void(0)best to wait until the Holiday season to look at this EP.
Malone for the Holidays is a breezy, melodic disc that shows the band just having fun with a few songs. Definitely will rock your holiday season.
www.malonetheband.com
In the most recent print issue of TTWN we reviewed the final Malone EP, The Tropic of Malone, thus bringing to a close the history of one of Columbia's more interesting bands. However ther ewas one chapter that was still uncovered and we realized it was time to bring it to light. With that in mind let's exam Malone's late 2009 release Malone for the Holidays.
The three song EP starts off with "Christmastime This Year," a high energy uptempo raveup that takes from both the British Invasion of the 1960s and from 80s "college rock" to create a catchy, rockin' song for the occasion. "Do It For The Kids" is a more introspective number that takes on a midtempo, almost ballad-like nature and a more somber tone filled by guitar anpeggio jangle and a simmering vibe that fits the feel of the song more. Then there's "Christmas on the Moon" which draws from roots rock as much as indie and delivers a partly chaotic, somewhat twangy with rough guitar power chords and a vibe that borders on charging the barricades. It's high energy aural attack brings this to a uplifting, if somewhat humorous, conclusion.
This limited edition release was burned onto CD-R just before a December 2009 show in Columbia. Why didn't we cover it then? We would've if we'd known about it. Instead I found out about the EP at the band's farewell show back in May and realized it was javascript:void(0)best to wait until the Holiday season to look at this EP.
Malone for the Holidays is a breezy, melodic disc that shows the band just having fun with a few songs. Definitely will rock your holiday season.
www.malonetheband.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)