Well there is that other slightly nutty state department guy who makes Zuckerberg look positively restrained in his social media evangelism. The New York Review of Books had a profile of him within a review of various books on the Iranian uprising. Apparently he is increasingly influential in the administration, despite being something like 26 and clearly a bit unhinged.
It's probably a lost cause among many segments of the media and population, but you'd hope that one result of recent events would be Al-Jazeera being accepted as not only a legitimate news source, but an extremely important one. But it's not as if the comparative track record between them and the US mainstream outlets from 2002-2006 shouldn't have been sufficient.
Crowley seemed to make the remark somewhat off the cuff. His point was that the ability to communicate over these networks is an important component of actualizing free speech and assembly. He probably had in the back of his mind the State Dept's involvement in keep social media accessible in Iran, and elsewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if social media was viewed as a policy tool in increasing information flow and reform movements within closed societies.
Overall, despite the fact that he could not simply state the truth - we like democracy but we're a little concerned about who will take power, and consequently how democratic (in a full sense) the resulting government will be and remain - I thought he danced as well as could be expected. I don't think I heard "Muslim Brotherhood" or "Islamist" once, though I may have missed it.
Delivering interviews on controversial topics to multiple audiences with sharply divergent views, when you want to make progress with all of them, can be difficult. Huge constraints on what he could really say.
3:We like democracy, my ass.
"What is the Egyptian Army Doing?"
"The army command is still presumably banking on gradual transference of power within the regime, perhaps to the intelligence chief Omar Suleiman. Stratfor's analysis suggests that army chiefs are basically managing the situation behind the scenes according to directions from the US State Department."
"Update: Al Jazeera reports that leading officers have received orders to use live rounds on protesters yesterday. They have not done so yet, but are now threatening to come down hard on protesters who defy the curfew. "
Al Jazeera has been prohibited from live coverage this morning.
Suleiman will now mow the kids down, with Obama's permission, at Obama's direction.
What did you expect to happen? And did you expect Obama to be open about it?
Supporting Andrew's view, I think Crowley comes off pretty well. I don't think this is a situation that lends itself to easy answers.
Supporting JPStormcrow's view: You know who really comes off incredibly badly in that interview? CNN.
It seems painfully obvious that the Continuer-in-Chief and the imperial militarists along the Potomac are seeking desperately to keep this golden applecart on the road. Installing a longtime chief of intelligence like Suleiman fits the bill nicely. Mubarak had better start packing his bags. For as always, whenever the American Power Structuralists find that a foreign puppet no longer serves their purposes, they are quick to toss him aside. No doubt we will soon see a steady leakage of stories from "senior White House aides," "unnamed intelligence officials in a position to know" and "Pentagon insiders who asked to remain anonymous" telling us how terrible Mubarak has been all along. This will be done either to undermine the puppet if he tries to cling to office, or else as the usual erasure of the historical record, if Hosni has already hopped a Lear Jet to new digs beyond the Nile.
Yeah, I guess our being the main international backer of a 30-year dictatorship does, like, "complicate" things a bit. So obviously, the main thing for Washington to do now is "nothing." That is, it should take no action whatsoever to change the status quo. It should not repudiate the murderous dictator -- whose American-trained, American-armed security forces have already gunned down 100 innocent people taking to the streets to demand dignity and freedom. (Although of course if these irritatingly ultra-serious people had just stayed home cat-blogging, they'd still be alive!) Washington shouldn't apologize abjectly for this atrocious record. Washington shouldn't cut off the spigot of bribery and weaponry to the Egyptian elite. Washington shouldn't stop using Egypt as an off-shore outlet for torture. Washington shouldn't pledge to support and respect the emergence of genuine democracy in Egypt -- wherever it might lead. No, Washington should do none of this, or anything like it. It should simply do nothing, make no changes at all.
"Obama's Handling Egypt Pretty Well"
Mohamed ElBaradei and his faction would have pretty decent relations with the US, even if they had to form a coalition government with the Islamic Brotherhood.
If we can just decide that we should someone like Ahmed Chalabi dictator of Iraq, surely we can decide to back ElBaredei.
Also, 1.3 billion in military aid is a pretty damn big carrot. We can start by making the continued recognition of Israel a condition for continued aid. After all, the aid was a reward for recognizing Israel to begin with.
7:Yes, Obama/Clinton should back Mohamed ElBaradei and his faction, or someone like him. EB does not have a strong domestic following. Suleyman and Safik could theoretically do a transition to civilian rule, but neither I not the Egyptians trust them. Suleyman is evil incarnate, an Armani torturer that is beloved in DC. Also, apparently a good buddy of Pat Lang's.
The US really has to make the first huge step to reversing military-intelligence control of governments, in Egypt, in America, and around the world. Egypt cannot afford to have generals in charge, that is why they are starving.
Baumann at Huffington is doing good live-blogging.
Juan Cole is good
>blockquote>The present regime is widely seen in Egypt as a state for the others- for the US, Israel, France and the UK- and as a state for the few- the Neoliberal nouveau riche. Islam plays no role in this analysis because it is not an independent variable. Muslim movements have served to protest the withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities, and to provide services. But they are a symptom, not the cause. All this is why Mubarak's appointment of military men as vice president and prime minister cannot in and of itself tamp down the crisis. They, as men of the System, do not have more legitimacy than does the president- and perhaps less.
Juan Cole, yesterday:
Moreover, it is not clear that these procedural, legal changes would actually have the slightest impact on poverty or class stratification. In fact, the US, among the world's most vibrant democracies, has been spiralling down into epic inequality, with masses of unemployed and poverty-stricken while the tiny class of super-rich at the top has seen its wealth quadruple.
No generals. After the generals, or better, now, down with neo-liberal process hijackers. I don't trust ElBaradei.
First property, all property & privilege. Then maybe democracy. Otherwise Yggles and Obama, and their ilk everywhere, will just auction off revolutionary freedom to the vampire squids. Get the money first.
First Egypt. Praise Allah for the workers of Egypt. Then the world.
Sorry, Nick Baumann is at Mother Jones
Does every thread have to turn into bob wanking?
11:You thought the OP was not wanking? What "How Sorkin explains Egypt for Americans?"
ElBaradei is addressing the crowd in Cairo as we write. He is asking for a new transitional gov't with himself at the head, the Muslim Brotherhood a partner, and the military as backers only. He is surrounded by tanks.
But hey, twitter as fundamental human right for VSPs.
Has anyone written a story about a society that is completely and voluntarily controlled by sentient social media software that mediates all personal interactions? Because I would totally read that.
14: Written in 140-character or less self-contained sentences.
2: It's probably a lost cause among many segments of the media and population, but you'd hope that one result of recent events would be Al-Jazeera being accepted as not only a legitimate news source, but an extremely important one.
This Week with Christiane Amanpour (on ABC) had one Abderrahim Foukara of Al Jazeera as a panelist this morning, and he made a quite sober and intelligent case for just that. Let's see, quoting from here:
FOUKARA: Obviously, the offices of Al Jazeera in Cairo have been shut down. The -- as you mentioned, satellite, Nilesat, owned by the Egyptians on which -- on whose frequencies Al Jazeera has traditionally broadcast, has been switched off. So Al Jazeera has switched now to an Arab site.Look, this is a classic example of a government in the region going in one way and its people going in another way, as far as coverage is concerned. We've heard this story about Al Jazeera from previous governments before.
I don't want to make too much propaganda for Al Jazeera, but let me just say this: Al Jazeera is an imperfect medium in an imperfect world. But the importance of what's going on in the Middle East right now, this is the story of a generation. Al Jazeera, despite its imperfections, has brought this story to 300 million people in the Arab world and beyond. This is a story of huge importance and consequence of the United States. And Al Jazeera is, in its own way, bringing this story to the United States, to the Arab world.
A few years ago, several years ago, Bill Clinton talked of Al Jazeera as a beacon of democracy. Should that be true, and to the extent that the United States is invested in the future of democracy in the Middle East, Al Jazeera will be an asset. It has provided a platform on which people in the Arab world, from one corner of it to the other, have expressed their grievances and aspirations.
The same guy was on Chris Matthews (on NBC) later, so at least some forms of mainstream opinion-making media are giving him a platform.
15: That's good: written as a collection of the character's status updates.
Dammit. Also, links are hard. One more time.
Huge constraints on what he could really say.
That's exactly the respect in which he doesn't come off well. Circuitous inanities, hooray. It's not that I think another person might have come off better, mind.
It's not that I think another person might have come off better, mind.
So what you meant to say in the OP was, "He did as good a job as could be expected in an impossible situation."?
Aim for the kids, Suleiman. I know they're small, but they're also slow and weak.
Well, let me amend that. Someone who wasn't all that concerned with keeping his job could have come off better by saying something like "obviously I'm not going to answer a question like that" rather than offering pretend answers. Crowley is like this guy; he may be doing as well as anyone but he still comes off poorly for being in the situation at all.
Look, the point and purpose of political speech, especially diplomatic speech, is to disguise and obfuscate, to hide what is really going on, to lie to the people. Whether or not this is how politicians and diplomats speak to each other behind closed doors, and whether or not deception is the purpose of most if not all human communication, are other questions.
What is said is not interesting, except possibly as lies. What is apparently done is only slightly interesting, because we never see everything done. What is important is what happens, and how things are.
The presumption should always be that the people with the power are responsible for what happens.
You're being a bit of an ass on this matter, bob. No one denies that international diplomacy can involve one story for the public, another behind closed doors, but suggesting that Obama is orchestrating the mowing down of protesters is obnoxious.
Aim for the kids, Suleiman.
19: The new statesman blog comments mostly seem to be the usual newspaper comments, that is, perfect examples of the categories listed in that post, but I liked this one:
I think there is a concern that this ruling will mean that if I wanted to get a slice of ham, for example, from a large block of ham, and I was cutting at it, but instead of a knife I had jagged pointy hands with bits of sandpaper-like edge on them, and there were a team of football commentators covering themselfs with a thin layer of oil and grease, and you (Steven Baxter) were there but you had a bird of prey on each shoulder, perhaps a hawk, and inside there is a word echoing around "Cut the ham! Cut the ham with the slice-paper-hand". What does this mean for the future of the feminist movement?
That Stratfor piece seems to have been over 90% bullshit, by the way. Hamas crossing the border to help the Muslim Brothers. Er, no. If that happened it would be the other way around, but the MB has more sense than to wander off getting involved in some bollocks in Gaza when there's Cairo and Alexandria to argue about.
Weird day. They called up a pair of F16s and had them do low passes over the middle of Cairo. And that was it - they just skid turned, did the same flypast again, and continued until bingo fuel. Then nothing, as if two of their pilots had decided to put on an airshow for the mob.
Also, is 10 to 13 the fastest U-turn in Bob's record - from accusing El Baradei of being "a process liberal hijacker" and as bad as Matthew Yglesias* to thinking he's Lenin on a tank in two comments?
*in a world that includes Omar Suleiman!
28:El Baradei is a useful tool, the only tool the Washington pigs can accept, to get the Revolution started. The people can use him to destroy the NDP, and then discard him
I am trolling Yggles. They hate me. From Nick Baumann at Mother Jones
Ayman Nour, an opposition politician, spoke to Al Jazeera earlier this hour. 4PM
"This govt has not communicated with the opposition party until the last minute, they will be forced to negotiate with us. Today was the first session of the People's Popular Parliament which includes El Baradei, Mohammed El Beltaji, myself, [other members], Justice Mahmoud El Khodairi, George Ishaq, Mr Abu Al Ezz. It is a ten member committee. This committee will have the duty to manage the crisis. We will negotiate in order to improve the security conditions in the country. We want all the resolutions issued by Mubarak since January to be revoked & invalidated." etc
Real real simple. Obama must publicly recognize the People's Popular Parliament of Egypt as the legitimate gov't of Egypt. NOW. Today this minute.
I don't know the other names besides El Baradei.
You always start off with assholes like Mirabeau, Danton, Kerensky. They don't last long.
The longer Obama dithers, the more likely we will see a massacre. Being very generous about the dithering part for parsi. I don't think there is dithering.
Suleyman, torturer for nations, was in DC last week. I think a deal was made with that well-dressed articulate scum.
Follow the news, the police are reassembling on the outskirts of Cairo. I think Obama recognizing the people's government is the only way to stop the massacre tomorrow.
Suleyman, torturer for nations, was in DC last week
I think you mean the head of the Army. Not the same man. Suleiman is a spook rather than a soldier.
Ayman Nour is the opposition leader from 2005 - you probably wouldn't like him as he's a declared liberal. The people listed are a who's who of opposition politics - Ezz, I think, is a renegade NDP member.
31:The fucking guy Mubarek appointed VP this week. The probable successor. The spook who was the main intermediary between Mubarek and Washington. The rendition guy. The one the people in the streets are demanding leave the country. That guy.
No to Suleiman. No to Shafik this guy
Pat Lang's good buddy
Wasn't in Washington? Who gives a fuck.
...you probably wouldn't like him as he's a declared liberal.
We've seen this game too many time, liberals get in promising change and hope for the people and filling their bank accounts. Poor Latvia and an endless list. Most recently in November 2008. Forgive me if I no longer give the suits the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe truckers and cabdrivers would be no better, but at least they would be different. I am sick of suits.
You're so vain. You probably think this throng is about you.
God, I was looking the E military budget and saw the gini index
EU 31
Egypt 34.5
USA 46.8
This should help you understand what kind of force the USA are in the world, what kind of Egypt Obama wants. Like America!
34:It is. I want the rest of the world to help me in this black cesspool of my corrupt authoritarian nation. 2008 taught me that internal reform is impossible.
We can start by giving ME oil to the people.
34 is the kind of thing that makes civil unrest worthwhile.
Twitter from the streets of Cairo. No love for El Baradei and military here.
The Chilean Solution ...Richard Estes.
There is also a possibility that the military will not be able to fully restore order. Again, make no mistake here, either. The US and Israel will covertly provide whatever assistance is necessary to reassert control. As in Chile in the 1970s, the nascent Egyptian labor movement, the movement that participated in laying the groundwork for challenging the Mubarak dictatorship, will be crushed. A ruthless implementation of neoliberal policies of privatization and structural adjustment, policies that have been hesitantly pursued by Mubarak to date, would facilitate this objective quite effectively, although it remains to be seen whether Mubarak (if he remains in a position of power), Suleiman, Egyptian elites and the military would embrace it. We can only hope that the Egyptian people, and their supporters around the world, have the resiliency to overcome what Mubarak, Suleiman and the Obama administration have planned for them.
We can start by giving ME oil to the people.
That wouldn't help the Egyptians. Or the Tunisians nor really help the Yemenis much. Nor does being 'anti-liberal' or anti-American do much good. The Iranians, with oil, have a Gini of 44.5. Syria isn't too far behind. The Chinese, with their non neo-liberal state guided authoritarian capitalism are doing their best to catch up to the US on the inequality front, in spite of our best efforts to stay ahead at least on this one key index of economic freedom and capitalist prosperity.
A ruthless implementation of neoliberal policies of privatization and structural adjustment
Oh mate, someone's not done their reading.
Also, re 38, how exactly would you go about giving Saudi Aramco to the people? Focus on the first word in its title. It's a nationalised industry. It has been for forty odd years.
Can we keep that ToS contribution as a work of reference?
41 Soviet style of course. Kill the old guard and implement a ruthless policy of structural adjustment, nationalization, and curbing of any bourgeois reformist false consciousness working class impulses like fighting for better wages or working conditions. But the working class will own it all, so they'll have nothing to complain about.
45:Stalin's biggest mistake was letting the bourgeois elite back in. The lawyers and professors spent the 30s cheerfully informing on each other in pursuit of a few more square feet of apartment.
Read a book about this. 2000s. Can't remember. Explains the purges as mostly competition within the educated elites.
46:But Tony Just does go into this dynamic in Postwar. The same thing happened in Easter Europe. Elite cannabalism.
45 You're misremembering. The argument that's been made is that the desire by the new educated ex-working class or peasants to move up above the old pre-revolutionary educated class that helped drive the purges. Regardless of how much truth there is to that, the purges were characterized by the elimination of the old guard 'experts' who had been allowed in by the communists in the early twenties since there was nobody else available who could do the necessary work. Furthermore, we're mostly talking engineers and managers, not profs and lawyers who were a pretty minute number of people in Tsarist Russia.
Stalin's biggest mistake was letting the bourgeois elite back in.
Not ordering entrapped troops to defend their ground, condemning them to death by battle or exposure while nearly fatally weakening his military for no gain (and then sending freed POWs into the Gulag because only 95 out of 100 had died)? Not requiring his scientists to use a theory of evolution so absurd that Creationism looks evidence-based? Not deliberately starving the Ukraine for misunderstanding the surplus value of labor? Not invading Finland and Poland for the crime of holding territory that might have helped his defense if he had actually considered that Hilter might not wait to invade the USSR?
51: Pay attention, Moby. All of that and more stemmed from the former.
All the lawyers I know want a farm in Poland. Now I know why.
50:Do you remember title or author? Kinda broad to google
51:Okay, there were a couple other boo-boos. It was a long career and difficult times.
You're so vain. You probably think this thong is about you.
Sheila Fitzpatrick is who I associate most closely with that argument.
You're so vain. You probably thing this Tong is about you.
Never mind, I found some Slavoj Zizek on the Purges, I think the very essay that Holbo hates so much.
Stalin = Abraham, Bukharin = Isaac, Lenin's "Leap of Faith"
In Soviet Russia, mistakes made Stalin.
You're so vain, you probably think this Jong is about you.
You're Ho vain, you probably think this Cong is about you.
You're being a bit of an ass on this matter, bob.
How long have you been reading this blog?
How long have you been reading this blog?
Over 3 years! I was told some time ago that nobody likes a scold, however, so I only say anything to bob when I'm particularly miffed. Miffed, I say.
Read a book about this. 2000s. Can't remember. Explains the purges as mostly competition within the educated elites.
Hurm. At your best, Bob, you really do a bang-up Rorschach impersonation.
I would bet you've been here at least 4 years, parsimon.
May or June of whichever year UnfoggeDCon II was --- 2007?
I feel like I've been here too long. Things have changed tremendously, and I miss quite a few people around here. I had occasion to think of IDP recently.
5.2: You know who really comes off incredibly badly in that interview? CNN.
CNN had McCain on this morning to discuss Egypt. Apparently everything he said was contradictory platitudinous bullshit. Shockingly.
Whenever someone mentions people that they miss, I always want to stick up for the wonderful people who have started commenting, or commenting more frequently, in the last two years or so. There is a season, turn, turn, etc.
And there are probably people lurking who, once they break a crippling addiction to porn, will have great things to add to the conversation.
Everybody is definitely wonderful, always and at all times, but it's okay to miss SomeCallMeTim.
Sure. But it's also a common pitfall to have rosy-colored memories of those departed instead of fully appreciating people who are current.
69: Its not a crippling addiction. Its just a crippling enthusiasm.
But mainly its the whole having to come up with a whole internet pseudonym. There's a lot of stress in picking a good one.
Oooh! Pseud-suggestion time! I think you should be Monkey Business.
71: The tone and flavor are different now, heebie, that's all. It's been remarked on before. I can note it without being in a pit, blinded by rose-colored glasses. IDP I especially miss because he was older, and his comments reflected it; this is a younger crowd now, and I feel that. This has nothing to do with rose-colored glasses.
65: Huh. Somehow I thought you were already well-established before I started trying to really delurk, which was like mid-2007 or so? I guess not.
There are a lot of old commenters to miss.
It's been remarked on before.
Yes, it gets remarked all the time. Anyway, there are still quite a few old farts around.
I suggest a one-word pseud. I find them more aesthetically pleasing.
Anyway, there are still quite a few old farts around.
Rude.
Someone who has known me for a long time just described me as "folksy". It had never occurred to me that I might be "folksy". I'm not sure how to react to this.
It's probably worth pointing out that the single worst current commenter has been here, fucking things up, for years.
His timing can be off a bit, however.
Blume seems to put up with him.
Yeah, he's not mean like Sifu Tweety.
82: Yeah, sorry, we can let it go, but honestly: I said that I missed a few folks around here and felt like I'd been here too long, and you scolded me for be blinded as to the wonderfulness of newcomers. Come on. Remarks about remaining "old farts" (really?) are just going to make me point out the incessant mommy-blogging, and then we'd have to fight. With nerf bats. In a pit. I'd win because I think you're short.
I'm not taking this back and forth as ill will, even if it's direct.
People point out all the time how great it used to be. People rarely stop and say how nice it is currently, except for Awl last week. Last year on my birthday I did a post about how much I appreciate Unfogged, and that day is approaching, and I'd been thinking about doing something in the same vein. So I'm primed to notice how often people say they miss the good old days.
There's also a link between the commenters who have departed and the current front page posters. If we had more political blogging, probably more of them would have stuck around. Unfortunately, that's not my strength. There has indeed been a lot of mommy-blogging lately. Mostly I try to throw as many things up as possible and hope at least some of it sticks.
Also I just can't believe that "old farts" is rude.
Also I may be short, but I'm scrappy, and I go for ankles.
this is a younger crowd now, and I feel that
Time is taking care of that inexorably, parsimon.
Time flows inexorably, nose flows like a metaphor.
People rarely stop and say how nice it is currently, except for Awl last week.
Yeah, that was nice. Stick around, Awl!
At least Pauly regularly tells us we're the best.
I can't help but suggest that disparaging "mommy-blogging" is at least as rude as noting that there are still a few old farts around.
I tried to miss Ogged, but since he left well before I started reading, it didn't work that well.
I just had something very funny to say. But I forget what it was. That wouldn't have happened in the old days.
I've missed lots of commenters. But my aim is steadily improving.
100: Maybe you can be a new old fart!
Also I just can't believe that "old farts" is rude.
Maybe I'm just sensitive. You'd probably best me in the pit, with the nerf bats, because of my lumbago, not to mention the sciatica.
For what it's worth, after I posted 93, I reminded myself that you're sensitive about the blog. It's okay: nothing here needs my or anybody else's approval. I hadn't been saying how great it used to be; just how different it was. People drift off when it doesn't engage them any longer. There are quite a few people I don't miss at all.
102: I'm afraid not. I think this is where I say, head cast down, "Nothing gold can stay."
I miss in the morning (but wipe it up).
It's rude not to recognize rudeness.
104: You remembered your joke!
People drift off when it doesn't engage them any longer.
And, indeed, drifting off seems a kinder approach than making public pronouncements that it doesn't engage you.
They foolishly assume I don't have spreadsheets documenting everyone's participation.
My spreadsheets, let me show them to you.
The new thread is not being passive-aggressive because of the mommy-blogging, but because I thought it might genuinely be a fun thread.
105: I see! I guess my point was that "old farts" was used affectionately, while there's really no way to read "incessant" as well-intended. Seems we both were being too subtle in making our points.
If there's something you want to say, Di, you can come on out and say it.
I stomp on posts, big and brashly.
I have been told that at least one person left because of the mommy-blogging. Not me, though.
Also, old farts are better than new ones because the smell has had time to dissipate.
I left either because people supported Obama too much or because people were too critical of Obama. I can't recall which, but I was very upset.
109
And, indeed, drifting off seems a kinder approach than making public pronouncements that it doesn't engage you.
Well there is the faint hope that pointing out that the blog has gone down hill might prompt the powers that be into doing something about it.
114: I thought I was being pretty direct already. But okay, I think you are being pretty rude and it bothers me because I have a good bit of affection for this place -- frontpage posters, commenters old and new. If you feel this place doesn't suit you anymore and that it's time to move on, that's fine. But random comments about how the forum no longer suits you strikes me as bad manners.
And I think we all know how I feel about bad manners.
123: There is a standing offer for guest posts.
Glad you've persevered.
It doesn't bother me.
125: Now I feel guilty for not having any ideas.
127: Guest posts Moby, not ideas.
Now, now. Every little bit of guilt helps.
124: But random comments about how the forum no longer suits you strikes me as bad manners.
This is a pretty fucked-up misrepresentation of anything pars actually said.
</earnest>
124: 114 was to 109, before I saw 113, but that doesn't seem relevant.
If you feel this place doesn't suit you anymore and that it's time to move on, that's fine. But random comments about how the forum no longer suits you strikes me as bad manners.
My initial comment had more to do with the number of years I've been here; don't you reflect on that from time to time? Do you expect to be actively commenting on unfogged 20 years later? Don't you feel like there's a point -- unspecified -- at which it should be time to move on, regardless of what's going on with the blog, just because enough is enough? I insist that it's fine to reflect on that, in public. It's not like nobody else has ever done so.
You, my dear, read my comments as a personal attack on the blog, just as you read many comments as personal attacks. You're a highly defensive person. I did not say that the blog doesn't suit me any more, but that people -- in general -- drift off when it no longer engages them. So calm down. My manners are fine; I may be more direct than you like, but you'll just have to live with it.
If I have misread, I apologize. But that is certainly how I read things like "I've been here too long", "incessant mommy-blogging."
Do you expect to be actively commenting on unfogged 20 years later?
When I picture being an active commenter 20 years from now, I actually feel warm and cozy in a "When I'm 64" kind of way. I think it's so great when people know each other from way back when only nerds were online, like some of the people who reminisced about Domineditrix.
And I guess you'll have to live with me being more "defensive" than you may like, so I guess we're even. But in the spirit of being direct, I will go ahead and say, yes, your directness does bother me because it often comes across as condescending. Tone, of course, can always be misinterpeted in a textual forum such as this. But there it is. "[I]incessant mommy-blogging" did in fact read to me as a personal attack on the blog.
Needless to say I'm not 100% on board with bob's analysis of events in Egypt, but Omar Suleiman really is bad news, and really is close to Washington: 1, 2.
Based on this one article, Amr Ezz sounds like good news.
The long-term future of Unfogged is an interesting question. I've had one sort of internet forum or another serving as a source for procrastination, entertainment, debate, and community for, what, maybe the last 14 years? So it seems to be something I find useful regardless of other circumstances in my life. But some of those fora have worked well and others have been poor substitutes. This, not to to be too mawkish about it, is the best I've found, and I hope it sticks around a while.
Bob's comments have a slight tendency towards hyperbole, but one can do worse than to read the links he post.
Incessant mummy blogging or not (and I for one like reading about pretend internet friends' offspring) surely nobody really reads Unfogged for the posts? It's the comment threads that need to be interesting to keep people here, so if Unfogged is less good these days, it's your own fault.
incessant mommy-blogging
My theory is that there is a constant level of mommy-blogging on the internet, and that if it seems to have increased here it's to compensate for BitchPhd closing down.
Martin, I think you have to read the posts, if only so you can ignore them in comments in the most appropriate way.
Egyptian Carly Simon is a genuinely brilliant idea, and well worth keeping in mind. I'm always amazed by the way the most radical people you can find in America share so much conceptual structure with David Brooks or any given Kagan. It kicks off with the meta-assumption that it's really all about us, and then proceeds to pick one from the choice of about three all-explaining analogies that work for everything.
For the Kagans everything is always like Appeasement (It's 1939 and tonight, Matthew, I am Winston Churchill!), Iwo Jima (USA! USA! Go Marines!), or 1989 (Let freedom ring! not that they have a non-delusional analysis of 1989).
For the extreme* left (and to a certain extent the extreme right, in so far as you can find one who even knows there's a country called Egypt), everything is always either Chile (so the usual mistake is to vastly overestimate the US's ability to control anything) or Vietnam (the usual mistake is to romanticise the hell out of anyone who the State Department doesn't like) except when it's October 1917 (where the usual mistake is to generalise hugely from a revolution that is still the only historical one to happen along the Leninist two-stage pattern**).
But it's still a way of thinking that assumes that the US is the Middle Kingdom and that whatever happens can be explained with a convenient toolkit of three fairly glib analogies.
*in US terms
**this should be less surprising in the light of the fact that Lenin himself came up with the idea after the revolution and basically ret-conned Marxism to fit how it turned out in the event
Whenever someone mentions people that they miss, I always want to stick up for the wonderful people who have started commenting, or commenting more frequently, in the last two years or so.
I'm just happy Pauly Shore started commenting here. He's such a wonderful antidote to the relentless negativity of our fallen world.
Well I just want to know who Pauly Shore is! The real one, that is.
The Middle East is diseased with stagnation and its leaders must "upgrade" themselves and their societies to keep up with the demands of their people, Syrian President Bashir al-Assad says, according to AFP news agency.Er, dude!
14: Has anyone written a story about a society that is completely and voluntarily controlled by sentient social media software that mediates all personal interactions? Because I would totally read that.
Yes, Primo Levi has - he wrote one called "For a Good Purpose" (in The Sixth Day) about what happens when the Italian telephone network achieves sentience; it starts initiating phonecalls between people whom it thinks need to talk to each other, such as mothers and estranged children, people in the same line of business, etc. Then it starts breaking in on conversations and offering well-meant advice. It's rather good.
Also: Bruce Sterling's "Maneki Neko", which is set in a Japan that's become a completely cashless economy, because everyone just gives gifts to strangers as dictated by their AI personal assistants.
Didn't Arthur C. Clarke have a sentient local exchange story as well?
I love the fact that when an Italian guy writes a story about a global computer network that becomes self-aware, he doesn't think "The first thing it will do is to destroy humanity with its army of robot soldiers" but "Obviously, it's going to start forcing people to call their mothers more often".
The Middle East is diseased with stagnation and its leaders must "upgrade" themselves and their societies to keep up with the demands of their people, Syrian President Bashir al-Assad says, according to AFP news agency.
Maybe he's just offering his professional opinion that their eyeglass prescriptions may have gotten out of date. Leaders need excellent vision.
148: compare the fact that when Mark Zuckerberg, American smart-arse, actually built something like that, it started trying to sell more Coca-Cola. I think you're onto something.
When some Brits built a huge computer system to get people to talk to their old friends, it essentially ended up facilitating them to get horribly drunk and mock each other's inadequacies, before rotting away in a pile of spam, but at least it enabled the founders to sting ITV for enough money to buy a house each.
When some Brazilians did something similar, as far as I can make out, it persuaded them to spend all their spare time hacking on the linux kernel...
139
... It's the comment threads that need to be interesting to keep people here, so if Unfogged is less good these days, it's your own fault.
Perhaps we need more open threads.
Bob: You really think credible the claim that the Egyptian military is "taking direction" from the US State Dept? I don't see the Egyptian government as taking tactical or strategic direction from the US, particularly on a matter like this. I respect your passion on the subject, but I just find it difficult to imagine the Egyptian military believing that the US State Dept. knows better how to handle disorder in Egypt than the Egyptian military does.
I don't know enough about Egypt to predict anything with much confidence. Having the present ruling institution fall, however, strikes me as something which would be very destabilizing for a society already on the edge, and something that would be bad for the rest of the region.
I'd prefer - based on very limited knowledge - that Egypt transitions slowly to a democracy, and for now I think that will include a transition first to a still authoritarian government. My concern is that "instant democracy" would result in either a single election, after which theocracy begins to grip the nation, or that it would result in a paralyzed government, followed by collapse and massive sectarian violence.
But, it's all based on very limited knowledge on my part, and I'm open to changing my mind.
Alex: I agree re the frequency and misuse of those analogies. Turkey's experiences over the latter half of the 20th century might furnish richer comparisons.
The U.S. gives the Egyptian military 1/3 of its annual budget. This is not like Tehran--we have a powerful influence.
154. The guy on the BBC liveblog just made the point that one consideration for the military is that if they let things take their course and Egypt ends up with a [Islamic] government that Washington doesn't like, they stand to lose that subsidy. So they have to gamble on the outcome - keep Mubarak, keep the sub. vs. get rid of Mubarak, maybe lose the sub.
They could, of course, take power.
For instance, the Dep't of State says the gov't released 6 Al Jazeera reporters from detention in response to a U.S. request for their release.
This is not like Tehran--we have a powerful influence.
Also, you say that like it's a good thing. Do I want Robert Gates calling the shots in this situation?
I said it in response to a poster who said it was not plausible that the Egyptian military would listen to us. The point is that we bear some responsibility for whatever happens--I would guess that it is within our power to prevent the protesters from being massacred, arrested en masse & tortured, etc. Do I want us to handpick Mubarak's successor? No; I was arguing directly against that.
Do I want Robert Gates calling the shots in this situation?
They might end up with gays serving openly. Who'd have expected that from a Bush-era holdover?
Sure Katherine, I didn't mean to imply that the US has no influence. What the US gets in exchange for that subsidy, though, is only weakly tied to how Egypt deals with internal dissent. The US knows that; Egypt knows that. The military aid buys leverage insofar as the threat to remove or reduce it is credible.
Releasing 6 journalists isn't likely to have any affect on order or disorder in Egypt, and I could see US influence helping to persuade Egypt to do so. But taking directions from the US State Dept as to how to react to unrest would be an enormous surrender of command by a military force which has far more skin in this game than the US does. Such a hypothesis also likely assumes that the US is conditioning its military aid on the complete obedience of the Egyptian government on this matter. I don't have evidence either way, but it would take a lot to convince me that this has taken place.
^ that should obviously be "effect" not "affect."
146: Awesome. I thought I might get an answer here.
153:You really think credible the claim that the Egyptian military is "taking direction" from the US State Dept?
I really dislike this reductionism.
Look, for just two tiny examples, and I am not being reductionist here either, Cargill Inc is building a 70 million dollar sugar refinery and the Chinese are financing a 2 billion dollar oil refinery in Egypt.
Egypt is relatively corrupt, and there are high-level Egyptians making big money, either in bribes or future profits. Those Egyptians are quite possibly military officials, definitely NDP functionaries.
What happens to that money stream (and all the other commercial streams) a) if there is a massacre, or b) if there is a democratic egalitarian revolution probably is more important personally to colonels and generals than the American military aid, which, as I understand it, is actually weapon systems and munitions with less direct profit.
Negativity (shock,shock)
1) Business as usual after Tianenman (?) Square set a precedent. Which does not mean there would not be progress, opening, improvement after a message sent about the limits of possibilities.
2) Even nastier, I've been thinking about the social dynamics of a soldier on the edge of the square in real time, the ones "who won't fire on their cousins."
a) some colonel gets one unit to fire into the crowd, what does the soldier 100 yards away do, in immediate decision?
Fire on the other heavily armed soldiers?
Run, not knowing whether his refusal will be believed by the crowd sometime in the future, but knowing that it will be remembered by his commander?
Fire, knowing that he will be protected and rewarded by the brass?
Once the shooting starts, the ordinary conscript will need to make an instant assessment of the short term outcome, whether the regime will fall at all, or fall quick enough that his insubordination won't be punished.
So I think the decision rests with the officers, and the soldiers will fire on orders.
Egyptian Military Will Not Fire On Civilians
FDL, but all over the place
I'm typically pretty negative about such things, but about the only thing worse for an authoritarian regime than an army that won't fire on protesters when ordered is an army that makes this fact public knowledge in advance.
I mean, obviously everything's changing by the minute, and it's not like our musings matter at all. But it's hard to not be cheered up by that announcement.
But it's hard to not be cheered up by that announcement.
Meanwhile, Elliott Abrams is among the people invited to the White House to chat about the situation. On the plus side, he couldn't make it. On the minus side, he still walks the earth a free man.