Yes indeed. Me too, intoxicated by the sound of revolution on that feed.

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h...ingy/egypt.jpg

Yes.

---------- Post added at 09:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------

There is the potential for a major out-flow of financial capital from Egypt. Egypt is going to need substantial support from capital markets and national governments. In addition I wonder if those talking the most smack are prepared to put their own money where their mouths are and invest in Egypt. One fast way to do it is with an Egyptian ETF like this one.

Egypt ETF Lures Investors - WSJ.com

The next few months are going to be truly historic. I'm pulling for the Egyptians, I really am.

i think this is an astonishing and beautiful moment.
there's a lot of faith in the military at the moment floating about in egypt, in part because they managed to get through the revolution without shooting up the people they're supposed to protect---that was the job of the police and interior ministry goons---which loops around to the idea---prevalent in many quarters---that the army benefits from being behind the scenes far more than they would were they to take a role in governing. so---for the moment anyway----it appears that egypt is moving in a radical new direction.

there are already reports that the council will abolish mubarak's puppet government and dissolve parliament---and end the 30 year state of emergency.

as for the next steps---i don't think anyone knows quite yet.

Everyone with "skin" in the game knows what their next steps are...like I suggested perhaps one of your next steps would be to help mitigate an out-flow of financial capital. that would be a vote of confidence that actual has some meaning.

i would hope you champions of democracy on the right do exactly as your worldview tells you with capital---and i would hope that your moves get a lot of publicity so that it becomes quite apparent---and publicly so---just what kind of champions of democracy you are. i think it'd be funny. i think lots of people would find it funny. oops, there's whole lot of people who've managed a non-violent revolution in quest of basic freedoms. run away. run away now. bad for business. dictatorship and martial law---we like it. stability uber alles.

Yeah pretty much as I said at the beginning... the Military would be the decider.

By not cracking down on the protesters, by not entering the fray they have by default thrown their support to the cause. Hopefully they'll actually hand over the power once the vacuum starts.

What are you going to do?

Freedom, democracy is all about individuals making choices, there is no centralized control of world capital markets. Capital flows based on the convictions held by those who control capital. The average Egyptian has virtually nothing, the average American has significantly more and can pressure organizations and government to do more. If you don't know your next move, what was all your rhetoric about? Was it empty?

that the military was going to run the show was clear from early on--from before even.
the council issued a statement outlining the initial steps this morning.
the mubarak cabinet stays on until another government is appointed. personally, i'm dubious about this, but it's not my show.
i would hope that the next government takes the form the opposition has been demanding and that they are integral to moving toward elections.
it is not in the military's interest to explicitly hold power.

they also affirmed existing treaties and arrangements.


if the capital wants to effectively punish egypt for tossing out a dictator who was good for business---because capital doesn't give a fuck about the nature of political regimes or other piddling things like freedom and human rights, only about continuity of circulation---then let them.


i think this is pretty great, this revolution.
the next moves are uncertain, but that's part of what democratic process is about when the notion of democratic process is more than a synonym for oligarchy.

btw here's an interesting piece on the structure of the egyptian military:

The vast and complex military machine will decide its nation’s future - Africa, World - The Independent

the more i am finding out about the egyptian military the more it appears as the elephant in the room---the central patronage system that comprises the oligarchy that dominated the egyptian economy under mubarak---motor of the egyptian economy as the 1.5 billion from the us along percolates out into suppliers and related contractors---an important (though highly stratified) machine for social mobility---a classic post-1945 national security state apparatus.

one of the main things that the egyptian revolution seems to have done is made the power structure explicit. it seems to me that the military has every interest in reducing its own visibility, so it seems likely that they'll carry out the transition---form a functional interim government, address constitutional questions etc.
today the existing constitution was suspended and parliament dissolved---but the cabinet mubarak appointed is still place and is full of allies of mubarak....
and it's hard to see how the state of emergency could be lifted if the constitution is suspended---which is a definition of state of emergency----

but if there's been a state of emergency for 30 years, what meaning is there in suspending the constitution?

i am curious to see whether the legal status of the military is altered under a new constitution. at the moment it does not answer to anyone---it is not subordinated to civilian power---it is a parallel world. the elephant in the room.

Stop being dense. People control the flow of capital. Even you control capital. Capital flows based on what people do with it, including you. If people give a "fuck", there is not going to be a problem. I consider it a form of conviction - when people actually "vote" with their dollars (the fruit of their labor, put their financial future at risk, make short-term sacrifice) for the causes they believe in - it is truly a beautiful thing. Otherwise, sitting on the sidelines cheering or whatever, while others put their lives on the line is b.s. in my book.

And I will say at this point, with my financial "vote", I am on the sidelines and would encourage our government not to provide any financial support until it is clear that Egypt will be run as a real democracy with freedom of speech and religion (including women) for all. That is still an issue unresolved. I think the power vacuum is an unnecessary risk, and military control can prove to be more oppressive than Mubarak and his pledge to continue to lead until free and open elections.

Word on the street is that Mubarak wants to make me his neighbour.

rumours galore amongst the egyptian community here in the UAE that he's moving to Dubai.

He'd probably be safer in israel than an arab country though.

protests this morning in yemen, iran and bahrain.
algeria on the weekend.

not sure capital can run away from all of them.

meanwhile, things in egypt seem ambiguous. the military is obviously trying to get some handle on tahrir square, shutting down press coverage, attempting to get protestors to leave. at the same time, there is a proliferation of specific actions about pay, corruption and working conditions from the ministry of antiquities to state employees to transit workers.

the protest movement has reportedly formed a council to "protect the revolution"---it's also a form that enables dialogue with the military.

lots of euphoria still about the actions in egypt...personally, i am wary of the military and do not think anything a foregone conclusion in terms of outcomes.

there are reports that mubarak is in a coma, too, btw.

edit: this is a good outline of what revolution ought to mean from this point forward in egypt.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...458448460.html

seems to me that what we're now looking at is the exposed bones of a national security state apparatus confronted with a democratic revolution.
the constrictions that are generated for political freedom by a national-security apparatus are being performed....it'll be interesting to say the least to see how this plays out.

complicated. not simple.

How about this for simplicity.

The per capita GDP in Egypt is $2,161.
The per capita GDP in Yemen is $1,182.
The per capita GDP in Bahrain is $27,248. The King has actually tried to pay protesters about $3,000 not to protest.
The per capita GDP in Algeria is $4,588.
The per capita GDP in Iran is $4,732.

These are all nations with real national wealth with the wealth concentrated at the top and people being oppressed and having a difficult time providing for their families. Those with wealth either are moving it out of the country or have done it already. If other sources of capital are not made available the people in these countries will suffer further and risk isolation from the rest of the world depending on how they handle their "revolutions". You can pretend this is a concern to joke about or pretend some invisible magical capital infusion event is automatically going to take place just because people protest, if you want - I just hope people who can make a difference understand what is really the issue.

ace, once again you alternate between imaginary arguments and restatements of the obvious.

it is self-evident to anyone who looks at egypt at all---which you've not really done---that class stratification there is extreme.

it is also self-evident that this class stratification as it has taken shape over the past 30 years of dictatorship has been intertwined with patronage/corruption that centered on the twin power sources that ran the country---the military and the mubarak regime.

it is entirely obvious that getting rid of the mubarak regime has not gotten rid of the effects of that regime in either the military or the economic oligarchy that relied on one or the other or both for their wealth.

it is self-evident that this concentration of wealth played a fundamental role in sparking this revolt.

it is self-evident that the reason this concentration of wealth sparked a revolt now as opposed to at some other time has a lot to do with wikileaks and tunisia and longer-term mobilization---but really, it's conjuncture that allowed people to bring down the mubarak dictatorship.

if class stratification and/or the massive transfer of wealth into the hands of a few and away from most people was on its own reason for revolution, i would expect that you would be in hiding in another country as you support the economic ideology responsible for the most massive transfers of wealth in recorded history in that direction.


what is also obvious is that there are segments of the population of egypt who benefitted greatly from the corruption of the mubarak period who are very very concerned-to-panicked because of what they stand to loose. these are the people who are running away. these are the interests represented by short-term capital flight. this is the perspective you are arguing, as if it were not obvious--but your knowledge of the situation is so small that you can't even figure out what political interests are being expressed through the infotainment you adduce.

it is also self-evident that nothing has changed in the distribution of wealth or the sturcture of the economy yet. things **could** change now---but there's no magic wand that was waved about. so nothing has happened yet.


the revolution in egypt has just started. the hard stuff begins from here. that too is self-evident.

the economic order---and the question of qui bono---will change as the political situation changes.

as for the rats that flee the sinking ship of the mubarak regime---who cares?

Yes, ace, it's really simple. Capital tends to flow away from instability and towards stability. Protests and revolutions aren't forms of government.

al jazeera reporting that there are protests in morocco planned for next week. looks like its spreading, but i dont see it going east into saudi or into the UAE.

this line of posts started with your post #204 where you suggested that there was uncertainty regarding the next steps, I then suggested in post #205 that there is no uncertainty regarding what people are going to do - implying that the only uncertainty is with people like you. Your suggestion of uncertainty is grounded in some theoretical b.s., however people actually needing to make decisions make them. the sum of those individual decisions governs the general direction of this or any other "revolution". The sum of those individual decision is not difficult to predict.

---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------

My position is that Mubarak was made powerless and that the insistence on his resignation prior to free and open elections, was symbolic. The result of which put the country in a state of unnecessary uncertainty that will have consequences - many of which will not be for the good of democracy or the people. Even Mubarack staying on as a figure head would have sent a message of an orderly transition.

society and history and politics: all "some theoretical b.s."

wow, ace.
amazing stuff.
you should do stand-up.

The "b.s." comment was a reference to the way you avoid directly supporting your positions when challenged. Some of your comments clearly have no merit in context and are solely ideologically driven. You do it in the guise of - if you say it, it is so, and any question or challenge is obviously from an individual not worthy of your exceptional world view. But by the time an issue has run its course your superficial presentations surrounded in a shroud of verbosity and pleonasm has little value.:rolleyes:

ace, dear, what the fuck are you talking about?
i'm merely tracking what is happening in egypt.
nothing you post evinces the slightest understanding of that.
the few factoid you post are obvious.
so nothing you are saying is accurate, useful or insightful.
therefore i dont know or care what you're on about.
welcome to the consequences of posting the way you do.

i usually don't cite editorials, but in this case, because i should have guessed...

Eugene Robinson - The GOP loves freedom, but not for Egypt

and this for a quite eloquent viewpoint on egypt and its regional ramifications as signaling the crumbling of american-dominated neo-colonialism:

The toxic residue of colonialism - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

and not a moment too soon.

rb-

ALL media is editorial nowadays.

It seems to me that both parties are having a difficult time with their response to this event. The struggle is that, what is good for the people of Egypt, could be very bad for the US. It's this simple struggle which has politicians waffling. If anything, an elected official should be most interested in the advancement of the people he serves. Since some of the possible outcomes in Egypt would not advance the people he serves, I can see the messaging trouble. I, for one, am pleased that the GOP message is all over the place. It implies those guys might actually be expressing an opinion as a single person with a set of convictions rather than page 432 in a playbook.

good lord. Rick Santorum is going to run for president? yikes.

anyway, I think the editorial piece hits the nail squarely on the head:

1. it's dangerous to praise praiseworthy things on Obama's watch

and

2. if it involves a considerable amount of non-white people without an agreeable figurehead willing to kiss their ass, conservatives only support democracy in theory

the americans have paid the egyptian military a shit-ton of money to look out for their interests---namely preserving the figleaf of legitimacy on the united states' degenerate policies regarding israel. oil is a minimal interest. american paranoia about islam is in the best of circumstances thinly concealed racism and in any event is a non-problem in egypt.

so i don't know what the right is on about. particularly not that fuckwit john bolton, who apparently feels the need to repeat the bromides of henry kissinger with reference to the election of salvador allende in chile, 1972. we all know how that turned out. go conservative geopolitics!


the al jazeera edito is more interesting. faulk gets it right here:

Reading and responding to questions is not difficult to follow and understand.

You often include unsubstaiated ideologically driven statements here and there, and those are normally the basis of my challenges and or questions.

On one hand you write that you are merely tracking what is happening which is as obvious as it gets, yet you have a problem with "the few factoid"s I post??? Isn't this a political forum, isn't it about digging deeper into the facts and about how events relate to political views. Or, is this simply about you tracking what is happening?

What are the consequences? The way I see it, it is you that generally avoids addressing direct questions and you who is unable or unwilling to support your views when challenged. I have not suffered any "consequences" based on how I post. I know what I do, I understand what I do and I know why I do what I do.

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

Is the above tracking what is happening? You write some b.s. like what appears above and you want people to rollover and live with it, because after all it came from - you. You don't want challenge, you can not support your views above and then you get pissed if someone asks you about it, looks for clarification or challenges it. And you pretend that I have a problem!

wrong again ace darling.
i enjoy being challenged.
but i don't suffer fools.


meanwhile, back in the world....

[/COLOR]Egyptian army hijacking revolution, activists fear | World news | The Guardian

What I wanna know is, do your comrades know that you are actually a capitalist pig? In your support of the Egyptian "revolution" and call for democracy, you do realize that it also includes Egyption's gaining the right hold legitimate title to real property and to be able to sell valued goods and services in a free market to provide profits and individual wealth for a prosperous future? Oh, and that they will want to do this without an oppressive centralized government or military rule? I never would have thought based on your writing that you were such a supporter capitalism.:thumbsup:

once there's some advantage to be gained relative to iran of course the united states gets much less ambivalent about this revolution stuff....

Obama urges Mideast allies to 'get out ahead' of protests, denounces Iranian crackdown

and yemen.
and maybe morocco.
and maybe algeria.

what's odd is that none of these actions have the slightest resemblance to pro-capitalist pro-western markety face things. they're more politically oriented. they're directed against the fossilized political orders that the americans have supported quite consistently (and some that they haven't) that are of a piece with the reality of neo-colonialism.

Funny, your point of view is...as Yoda who say it. Other might say something like this:

Hernando de Soto: Egypt's Economic Apartheid - WSJ.com

As us capitalist pigs are known to say, it all about the Benjamins.

http://maxdb.co.za/sound/uploads/new...3d6f548108.gif

i was reading an article about the bizarre-o coverage in the wall street journal of egypt. it is in le monde and it's in french. that's one of them there complicated languages.

Les Etats-Unis face à la nouvelle donne égyptienne - LeMonde.fr

on the opinion pages, the mouthpiece for the american financial oligarchy seems to have made it a little mission to reassure its readership that there's nothing to these political demands, that it's all really about the same old same old. that way the official mouthpiece for the american financial oligarchy can pretend to its readers that there are not political problems with radically skewed distributions of wealth---no no, it has to come from something else, some imaginary distortion in the otherwise perfect functioning of capitalism imaginary style.

ace,

I think you just started arguing the same point as rb. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe his point is that the US supported government of Egypt created an environment where the average citizen can not break free of poverty. He views this revolution as a way for that government to be replaced by one which will allow those people a chance. I guess I don't see how your posted article differs from that.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

rb-

In French class, do they teach you how to say "I surrender" on the first day or the second. :D

I love ya, man. Just kidding.

the second. the bring it up by way of a really bad joke.
Q. why do the french have tree-lined streets?
A. so the germans can march in in the shade.

they musta forgot about napoleon.
but that was pre-germany.

ace...look. it's not obvious how things are going to play out in egypt. the situation is at an interesting impasse, but that impasse is political.
the economic situation is self-evident.
the problem that economic situation creates for the united states is that the united states bankrolled mubarak for a very long time as a payment---in effect (there's a bunch of evidence about this in the thread)----for signing onto the camp david accords.

the wsj line is basically to argue for some imaginary separation between mubarak and capitalism. now the bad state---which the united states supported fully in all its oppressive glory because it suited geo-political interests (typically as parsed by neo-cons) was the problem. and some imaginary capitalism--associated for the editorial writers of wsj (and no-one else) with the united states---is about to somehow rescue folk.

all of which is a therapeutic story told to people who don't know anything about what's happening on the ground.

it has no bearing on the political situation.

in that political situation---as the guardian article i posted earlier points out---and as i've been saying for days----the military could very easily----*very* easily---hijack the revolution. they've given some commission 10 days to write a new constitution.

10 days to start from scratch.

something strange is afoot.

some folk say that it's theater, it's about showing seriousness in getting away from military rule.

but it's the fucking constitution in 10 days.

rehearsing the economic situation right now is basically repeating some of the major, underlying causes of the actions of the last 19 days. **some** of them. it says nothing about where things stand now in egypt because the revolt is in another place. and there's no way to know from here how things are going to shake out.

parallel movements are happening all over the region, some more advanced, some less. they're not **all** about access to a better standard of living, but that's certainly part of it. access to a better standard of living is a **political** matter. it's only amongst the most orthodox free-markety set that the economy is somehow not political.

but no-one believes that. certainly people in egypt don't. no-one does except maybe people who watch too much american tv and read ibd and wsj editorial pages and like simplicity at the expense of reality.

Let's play a game, its called Pick One. The rules are simple, you just - pick one.

People will revolt for:

A) an enigmatic political concept
B) ability to feed their family

Of course you won't answer and i know your pick was A, which I believe is because you have not been told what the real issue is by your ideological sources.

Catch up, the food crisis is very serious. I know it is not impacting intellectuals in ivory towers or Americans yet, but it is impacting everyone else.

Food Surge Is Exacerbating Poverty, World Bank Says - Bloomberg

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

I don't think the US support of Egypt is relevant. The problem with Egyptians not economically thriving is because of the lack of capitalistic style opportunity. For example Egypt compared to Israel in terms of economic opportunity is directly related to the level capitalism in each country. I am of the school of thought that free market capitalism will have a bigger impact on living standards in a country than its political structure. I doubt Roach shares that view.

I believe any political system can fail and be subject to abuse, even democracy. They all have some strengths and some weaknesses. I doubt Roach shares that view either.

The political system in Egypt became "the" problem because of the lack of economic opportunity. The connection with the US is that our current economic policies are supposedly good for the US but they are severely hurting the rest of the world excluding China.

ace,

The thing is, you yourself have revolted for A. You've been to tea party events. You and I both know we would still be able to feed our families, even if the federal government took "more" of our paychecks. Yet we still "revolted".


...as to your most recent post:

I guess my point is that we, the US, knew the limitations this Egyptian government placed on its people and we still sent them billions a year. We've withheld aid to other countries for similar reasons. So, one has to be honest about why we sent that money to people who were surpressing their people.

You don't seem to get the fact (yes, fact) that economic issues drive politics.

The argument is that Mubarak rule not allowing capitalistic opportunity is the reason for the "revolution".

Right. WSJ = no credibility. Got it.

Why not just give us your list of approved sources?

Yes, yes, I bet history is full of revolutions over political systems and not things like food - I am just not aware of them.

http://www.the24hoursecretary.com/bl...nomyStupid.jpg

this is a relatively conservative analysis of the constitutional situation in egypt at the moment:

Egypt's Constitutional Ghosts | Foreign Affairs

but it's interesting i think...i did not know much about the existing constitution as a document and the ways in which its history shaped how the opposition framed it's overall political project.

this also explains to some extent why many in the opposition (including the folk behind "we are all khaled said") consider the military junta (de-facto) and rapid constitution-making process (10 days? really?) to be less ambiguous a situation than it appears to folk who observe what's happening from outside.

nothing makes any sense without an idea of the complexity of recent history. there is no separation between economic and political spaces; each impacts upon the other.

We know that in ace world, everything is black and white, as you often remind us. It is the only way you can rationalize your narrow and ideological thinking.

Unfortunately, the real world is more complex as are causes and effects.

Sources?

How about the April 6 Movement or the Coalition of the Revolution's Youth......the folks on the ground and at the heart of the revolution who took to the streets to protest an end to police brutality, the abolition of emergency law, free and fair elections, constitutional changes....concepts that were not enigmatic to them.

My Tea Party participation is directly related to my ability to earn a living and keep more of what I work for. It is not at all complicated, and has nothing to do with choice A.


I do agree, mostly, with Roach regarding the US sending military aid to Egypt in exchange for a promise of peace. Other than military aid I am not aware of any other type of material aid being sent to directly help the Egyptian people.

---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

You confuse me, are you of the belief that people are protesting for the concept of democracy or something at a more base level like simply being able to feed their families, have a job, earn a living, have a better future?

Have you not read the articles I cited? Have you thought about my question regarding the historical causes of revolutions on this planet? The causes of revolutions are normally pretty simple and in my study of history they are almost always due to some form of economic opportunity.

What is your source? to me it seems that the Western media romanticizes over certain concepts like those you present above. I again ask what is different this time as compared to a year ago, five years ago, 25 years ago? I say the severity of food inflation and the global economic slow down.

this from the guardian live blog today:

Middle East protests - live updates | News | guardian.co.uk

here's the context referred to above, a critique of the structure of us aid to egypt from 2009 via the carnegie endowment for intl peace:

U.S. Aid to Egypt: The Current Situation and Future Prospects - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Here is how you or anyone can make sense of what is happening in Egypt, it is like a daily score sheet. Watch the flow of capital in capital markets.

Egypt Stock Exchange Rules Out Annulling Transactions, Will Remain Closed - Bloomberg

ace...i am simply suggesting that it is not that black and white....and neither were most revolutions.

Sure, economic issues are part of the mix, but does not tell the full picture.

Having a good job and food on the table is not the only measure of dignity and quality of life for which people fight. Oppression through police brutality, government corruption and the lack of a role in the political process are equally meaningful.

Read the words of those involved, not the western media romanticizing:

your aversion to complexity makes of you a dull boy, ace.

i have a friend who's a trader who argues similar things after 5 or 6 beverages---"watch their feet" he says. he calls me comade. i call him my favorite reactionary. when we push off that har-de-har stuff, it's possible to have conversations about things in which, to both our surprise, we often actually agree about some things because working with a common data set is like that.

you have set up some arbitrary division between economics and politics.
you have done it in a way that seems almost set up to grind discussion to a halt.
you pretend that you're refuting some claim i've made, when reality is that i've said over and over there's nothing to the split you're arguing for outside your simplifying imagination.

yet you continue.

the thread is about the revolts that are happening across the region and not about aceventura's inability to think in terms of complexity.


=====

speaking of which, here is an interesting interview (in french, sadly) about the situation in algeria at the moment.

http://www.liberation.fr/monde/01012...soit-trop-fort

the woman being interviewed is a researcher at the cnrs who was in oran last week when the protests happened in algiers. she talks about how difficult it is to get a sense of what "the situation in algeria" really is, that what it appears to be varies by geography and social group/community...so its not one thing, "the situation"---she talks about the presence of the kabyle population and its political mobilization, which has had the effect of making protest into "a kabyle thing" in some areas.

but mostly it's about the divergent history of algeria, which had open elections in 1988 in which the fis (islamic salvation front) won---the result of that was almost a decade of civil war.

her main point is that things are building---something is going on---and a lot of younger folk (from her perspective of course, but she says as much) are interested in leaving the country on account of it because the experience of civil war raises the possibility that the price to be paid for revolt may be too high.

it's interesting, i think.

there's more in the interview...

I'm going to make this point, and then back off of this line. You gave two, and only two options:

A) an enigmatic political concept
b) the ability to feed your family

There was no option c) ability to earn a living and keep more of what I work for.

Clearly, you will still be able to feed your family, even if Obama et. al. get everything they want. You knew that was never in question. We were revolting against a violation of our principles. And I think we can all agree that the tea party did not exactly have laser political focus when we started attending rallies, it was quite enigmatic.

Look, I hate to spring your own trap on you, I really do. It's just difficult to accept a two item list of reasons for political revolt when your yourself immediately created a 3rd upon query. Isn't that proof that it isn't as simple as just those two?

If that is the case we disagree. I suggest that some people see value in making what is simple appear overly complicated. There are reasons that well fed Phd. level educated people never lead "revolutions", because they are well fed and they don't understand what motivates the masses.

O.k. that is a safe statement that I can not disagree with, but my stand is that - like when people look at the Mona Lisa, they don't care too much about the bridge in the lower right corner in the background of the picture, it is all about the girl or boy depending on who you believe - and "revolution" is about economics.

You used the word "equally", that is where you are wrong in my view. Go back and look at Maslow:

http://www.legalcybertips.com/images...y-Of-Needs.jpg

What is real is more important than words, anyone's words.

just in case it's of interest what is happening in actual multi-dimensional reality and not merely in that simple-minded quadrant where ace here is able to take a regional revolution and turn it into a reason to talk about himself and his new-found vulgar marxist theory of revolution, this goes to the guardian live blog for the day:

Middle East protests - live updates | News | guardian.co.uk

stuff happening in libya, agitation in morocco, bahrain, yemen, iran and egypt.

al jazeera coverage of bahrian:

Live Blog - Bahrain | Al Jazeera Blogs

a quite interesting post about the complexity in algeria:

Additional notes on the Algerian situation The Moor Next Door

the ny times coverage is heavier on iran:

Latest Updates on Middle East Protests - NYTimes.com

I get it, ace.

You will just ignore what the April 6 Movement leaders said when they called for the people to protest against, and condemn, police brutality or what the Coalition of the Revolution's Youth demanded- the end of emergency laws and for free and fair elections....

You and your little chart know better than what is the hearts and minds of the people on the streets of Cairo.

Or Bahrain and what the Bahrain Youth for Freedom movement is demanding in that country:

We want a genuine political life in which the people alone are the source of powers and legislation.

We want a constitution drawn up by the people, and agreed upon, which is the arbitrator and judge in the relationship of the ruler to the ruled.

We want genuine and fair elections based on fair foundations and the distribution of constituencies in which the vote of every individual Bahraini is equal.

We want genuine representation, without the accusation of treason whenever we go out to demand our rights.

We want a Council of Representatives that reflects the composition of the Bahraini people, without the majority being a minority and the minority a majority.

We want a government that is elected, based on people’s competencies rather than “loyalties”.

We want to fight corruption and stop the plundering of resources, and achieve a fair distribution of wealth.

We want to stop nepotism, and to prevent recruitment according to affiliation, and to open all sectors, especially the military, to all people.

We want an end to indiscriminate political naturalisation, which has increased the burden on services and oppressed people.

We want true freedom, without a law against “terrorism” and “gatherings”.

We want true media freedom, and the door to be opened for everyone to express their opinions freely and without fear.

We want security in villages and towns, and the release of political prisoners and the reform of prisons, and the end of oppression, torture and intimidation.

We want genuine solutions to the problems of unemployment, housing, education, and health.

We want the police to “serve the people”, and we want the army to be of the people.

This is truly what we want; we do not want to overthrow the regime, as many imagine, and we do not want to gain control of the government, we do not want chairs and seats here or there. We want to be a people living with dignity and rights.

bint battuta in bahrain: february 14

But you know what is more important than their words....."its the economy, stupid protesters."

you'll likely ignore what the people who are agitating for change in morocco are saying too, ace.

YouTube - Morocco campaign #feb20 #morocco

no doubt these people are not in contact with reality quite the way you are.
they must all be ph.d.s.


(sorry, but i can't seem to get the version with the english subtitles to embed here. dont know why quite)

The point is that people do not revolt over enigmatic concepts like "democracy", they revolt over matters that are simple and easily defined.

---------- Post added at 10:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 PM ----------

I have given support for my point of view - it is not about me.

---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------

You do not get it and I am not ignoring anything. There is complexity and there is "complexity". E=MC2 is complex, but simple. Real intellect is about being able to simplify concepts and issues that on the surface appear "complex" but are not. This philosophical bit of information appears to be beyond comprehension here. So, you can help Egyptian's with the chant:

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...#ixzz1EAAT0bAm

Whatever the hell that means.

ace....take the blinders off, put away the psycho-babble and listen, really listen (or read) what the protesters on the streets of Egypt, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, etc. are saying.

When you ignore it or mock it, I would describe it as a form of American (or conservative) arrogance, suggesting that you know the reasons behind these uprisings better than those on the streets of these countries.

Interesting. All revolutions are about:

A) an enigmatic political concept
b) the ability to feed your family

So where does, "No taxation without representation" fit into that scheme? Were America's founders having trouble feeding their families? How about the Canadian rebellions that sought to break the family compact's influence on the political realm of Upper and Lower Canada? (I know it's a bit of a stretch to expect your understanding of Canadian history... so I'll help you... they weren't starving).

If you insist on boiling these current protests down to some simple slogan, I would suggest it is more about, "Egyptians taking control of Egypt" than anything else. This encompasses, not only the economic realm but the political levers of power that create those opportunities and allow a nation's forward motion through the collective will of the people, rather than the drive of an individual or some oligarchy. In other words, it's not *just* the economy stupid.

Wrong. There is a higher percentage of doctors, lawyers, and engineers protesting than the lower class. If it was a simple "can't feed my family" the technocrats would be silent. Please do your research on the country before proclaiming what the protesters are protesting.

No real intellect is being able to comprehend the entire picture, not simply cutting and pasting only the parts that agree with your theory.

you obviously have no idea on the way bahrain is run nor do you have any idea on the tensions that run between the ruling sunni minority and the shia majority. but of course, this issue is simply a matter of economics and easily defined.

an interesting and useful essay by olivier roy that looks at tunisia and egypt as "post-islamicist revolutions"....an excerpt:

the piece is worth a read:

Post-Islamic Revolution" -- Events in Egypt Analyzed by French Expert on Political Islam | February 2011

meanwhile it appears the the government of bahrain has authorized a violent attack on the protestors there:

Live Blog - Bahrain | Al Jazeera Blogs

From the guy who wrote "...indiscriminate political naturalisation..."???

ace...get a grip.

I didnt write it. It was one of many demands, nearly all non-economic. of the leading protest group in Bahrain.

And, dlish offered an article that explained it.

Evidently, you didnt bother to read the article so I will make it simple so that even you can understand.

Those running the country are Sunni minority. Shiias in the country face discrimination at many level and this is just an example of one such policy.

You underestimate the significance and broad coverage of choice B.

That is clearly item B. That phrase has very little to do with a political system.

Unjust taxation through a colonial system designed to exploit the labor and resources of far away lands and people are never sustainable. I am not sure how you disagree - I did not say things had to be at the level of starvation. To the contrary, people literally starving rarely initiate revolution.

I am not familiar with the above. But revolutions are different in my view than political movements or incremental changes through a political process.

Wait...so now you are suggesting that "taxation without representation" (and the broader goal it represents) has very little to do with the political system?

Or the right to self-determination, representation in the government and free and fair elections?

WTF?

No, I am not wrong. First, I doubt your "percentage" comment adds up. To suggest that a higher percentage is upper class in a country where the most people live in poverty is hard to believe and you give no source. I agree that "technocrats" as a class will join a revolution, but if they lead a revolution the message and appeal has to be targeted to the masses-or the people who are not upper-class.


Perhaps there is a difference between what I share here and what I know. Often it is impossible to get beyond superficial name calling and ad hominim argument here. So, the obvious question to you is - have you come to a conclusion on less than the entire picture?

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

You talking about the tensions that have been there since about 600 a.d. - and last month all of a sudden they start a "revolution" - o.k., is that your story?

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

O.k. you typed it in your post. Sorry.

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

Roach, I am proud of the fact that we stand as "brothers" unified in the support of Egyptians as they fight for capitalist ideals - the ability for everyone to make excessive profits in a free market not controlled by tyrants, military or centralized command. Of course the article you cited misses the mark but I did find one more useful:

News Headlines

You do agree that the Egyptian people are fed up with being exploited and will not tolerate it from Mubarak or the military, don't you?

Power to the people.

---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

Yes.

When did the revolution start - 1775.

When was our form of government established - 1777. it did not become effective until 1781.

So, what eventually became the US, was initiated and fought by people before our form of government was even conceived. They did not even know what the form of government was going to be - and there was a heck of a lot of debate and the "C" word (compromise) right. Good thing I wasn't involved, no slavery or no union.

meanwhile, out in the world that exists outside the tiny confines of ace's skull....

more violence in bahrain and libya.
clashes in yemen
demonstrations in iraq
in egypt, a massive turnout in tahrir square to keep the pressure on the military to carry out what has been demanded, to actually release prisoners and stop disappearing protestors, etc.
the more radical demands are for the elimination of the oligarchy itself. there's been an avalanche of corruption lawsuits over the past week...but the process is only just starting.
meanwhile strikes continue. the military does not have real control. it is interesting to watch.


here's an interesting blogpost assessing the situation in saudi arabia.
note the demands below.

The Arab Revolution Saudi Update | Saudiwoman's Weblog

I think there are two possibilities, either you support the revolution for free market capitalism for the masses or you support the trade of one form of tyrannical rule for another. I bet you o.k. with tyrannical rule as long as it is consistent with your economic ideology. Perhaps, "power to the people" does not characterize what you think is best for Egypt.

Or, do you really believe that without economic reform that includes free market capitalism Egyptians will be o.k. with what is from your post:

And if I may, on this idea of the more radical demands for the elimination of oligarchy -

Isn't the US form of democracy as a political system an oligarchy?
Is there a workable political system in operation on a national level anywhere in the world that is not an oligarchy?
Is the elimination of oligarchy really the ultimate goal of the protesters or is it perhaps more basic?

And before you go into your thing about my skull, understand that some people with formal lernin' have had the same questions:

Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought you would be one who was all into the "iron law of oligarchy" thing. But, I have been wrong many times.

But that is boring stuff, tell me more about my imagination or that I don't know noth'n - or how about 'oh my goodness, he used Wikipedia'...:rolleyes:

how about we actually stick to the topic of the thread?
that topic is not you, ace.

sorry.

ace, capitalism is a mode of economics, not a system of government. And free-market capitalism is a concept, not a practice.

And why must you always think in absolutes?

Capitalism will be a part of the picture. However, capitalism in itself is not a panacea for social ills.

oh no....the ace A or B Solutions for Simpletons Game again.

A - support the revolution for free market capitalism even though the revolution was about basic human rights and not free market capitalism. (BTW, free market capitalism does not exist anywhere in the world.)

or

B - support the trade of one form of tyrannical rule for another

How about neither of the above?

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

Well stated.

Would you be ok living in China because they're capitalistic even though they have 0 rights? Government systems and economic systems are separate.

A complete tangent but I'll bite. You're right, the US is an oligarchy. It's also the biggest danger we as a country face, as the rich families convince us to continually vote in their favor as the country itself suffers. Hell I learned a long time ago I'd never get to retire... at least now I know it's because of the oligarchy we live in.

You continually show your lack of education for the region Ace, please stop arguing about stuff you've had 0 education in.

Lawyers, Engineers, and Doctors are NOT the upper class in Egypt. They belong to the technocrat class, a class that developed as a result of free education granted in the Socialist system through the 70s/80s/90s. The good part about it is it created from scratch an educated Middle Class where before none existed, the problem is they had too many highly educated people who now found themselves without jobs that supported their education. We are seeing more or less the same thing here in the US, where employment levels for College Grads are approaching 30% when you don't count jobs that pay less than $25k.

This causes a big issue when educated people are not granted social climbing abilities, as seen in Egypt where the Government chooses who is allowed to be successful and the military controls the vast majority of production in the country. These technocrats are the face of the revolution in Egypt. They have no problem feeding their families, but have no opportunity for social advancement regardless of skills possessed. Notice this isn't 100% in opposition to your economic justification for the problems, but you'll also notice it's significantly more complex than your "can't feed the kids" reasons that have almost no basis in the reality for the country.

Please don't just "quotation" any word you've never heard of before and write off the entire reason for it to be there. It's not too hard to google something you don't know, and it might enlighten entire aspects of the world you don't know.

No. im talking about Bahrain, not the sunni-shia split in Islam. I stand by my comment that you have no idea about the motivations of the Bahraini protestors.

in other news in Bahrain, interesting news coming from al jazeera is that wikileaks documents have Bahraini officials warning the US that some people in the Bahraini opposition have been trained by Hezbollah in lebanon. lt looks like the iranian element may be at play here.

dlish: bahrain is different than the north african countries in terms of social composition (the overlay of shiá/sunni onto class differences)....and it seems more likely that iran might be interested in stoking the fire there in the abstract....but at the same time the mubarak regime was arresting people right and left the week before it fell including a couple friends....and they found themselves labeled iranian agents and/or as working for hezbollah....so that's also a red flag to wave, first to generate paranoia amongst the population and second in front of the united states as a way to shore up support for a crumbling dictatorship.


the revolt that's unfolding cannot be capitalist in the sense that it cannot and will not replicate the assymetries of wealth and power and the concentrations in the usage of resources like water....removing repressive regimes is a first step to dismantling (to one extent or another) the oligarchies that grew around those regimes; there is also economic policy/orientation and rationalities that need to be rethought once a transition into a different political arrangement is effected.

the information below about water is interesting...

(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: Lebanon News :: Middle East News :: The Daily Star - Lebanon)


libya
bahrain
algeria
yemen

Libya and Bahrain protests ? LIVE | World news | guardian.co.uk

AJE - Al Jazeera English


and just in case you thought that all this change would be reflected in any way in united states policy toward israel....

US vetoes UN draft on settlements - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

unbelievable.

i have a friend who lives in Manama in Bahrain who i spoke to yesterday. He's not in a position to say too much right now, which is understandable, but what he did say was that where he is, there is absolutely nothing going in in or around his neighbourhood.

By the sounds of it, he seems to think that there's just a few punks running around causing a ruckus and they're getting the exposure they want on Al Jazeera.

has AJ taken a stand to report in a biased manner against all of these governments? AJ has reported in the last few days that Libya has blocked access for AJ to broacast there as well as access to the AJ website.

AJ is not winning friends in the arab world right now. What i find interesting is that if things start to go haywire in Qatar, how would AJ report it? would they even be allowed to broadcast?

the reports coming out of libya are really grim. there may be 200 people killed already in benghazi. rumors are that mercenaries are being brought in from chad and sudan to suppress the protestors. they are apparently firing live ammunition at unarmed people.

i don't think the problem is al jazeera.

Regarding Libya, I hear numbers could be as high as 300 to 500, while "official" numbers are just above 80.

Yet after this unrest, it would seem the regime in Libya could be poised to fall next, despite the incoming mercenary forces. It's still early, and it hasn't been confirmed, but the Libyan ambassador to China has resigned on the air, and stated that the brothers Gaddafi had it out with gunfire and Gaddafi himself may have fled the country.

Regardless, things are looking quite volatile. One of Gaddafi's sons has admitted that the east has been lost.

Libyan PM Gaddafi may have fled country, says Al Jazeera, citing unconfirmed reports | The Daily Telegraph

I was reading that the median age of the population in many of these countries is anywhere from 20 to 26. The median age is the age that divides the population (i.e. half of the population of any one of these countries is below the age of 20-26). Compare this to a median age of, roughly, 40 in the US or UK.

If you add into this, that many of these youth have been highly educated at the expense of the government (a form of buying off opposition using oil profits) you can see where a massive amount of discontent is coming from.

What I continue to find amazing is that a lot of this does not appear to be driven by the Fundamentalists.

its borne out of discontent of the rule of tyrants. Saif Ghaddafi isnt any better than his father, though he's more sellable to the west. i really think its time to try another system of government if the last one did work for 42 years.

if they dont do it now, another libyan generation will live under similar rule and under similar oppression. 42 years is a long run..how many american presidents have we had in the meantime?

charlatan- is there a difference between Fundamentalists & fundamentalists?

Richard Nixon wasn't even president for a year when Gaddafi became de facto leader.

I suppose there is a difference but I was not intending one. The capitalization was unintentional.

well the gaddafi's are blaming the fundamentalists at the moment ...as well as "troublemakers"...it may have been "hoodlums" i dont remember, but it makes no difference really. I think they're all made up anyways.

i dont even know if there's a religious party in Libya that would be influencial enough to make any impact on the reformists.

You choose to ignore the substance of posts that contains question, comment, argument or information that does not support your point of view, while making sport of commenting on the poster. You should be sorry for that. I make sport of targeting you because of your arrogance to posters who either challenge you or make a comment not consistent with your ideology. Whenever you want to elevate the discourse, it will be done. Yes, I already know that I am kinda petty, like that - but at least I know it when I am doing it.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------

I worship at the alter of capitalism, so to speak. I put capitalism above any form of government. In my mind capitalism is more than just a concept.

It is my nature.

I can ask you - why do you think in straight lines and right angles? Your thought processes are linear - similar to many others who post here.

I disagree.

---------- Post added at 09:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

What is a more basic human right than being able to profit ( gain benefit) from one's labor, intellect and property?

If you ever answer any question, please think about and answer this one. Perhaps, if you do answer, we can understand each other for once.

libya's un delegation has had enough:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/wo...ef=global-home

there have been reports of resignations in multiple libyan embassies around the world in protest of kadhafi's use of mercenaries (in some reports) or the army (in others) to massacre civilians in benghazi and tripoli (the former being at this point confirmed as worse...but reports are sketchy still).

two fighters defected to malta after the pilots refused to fire on protestors.
there are reports of other pilots also refusing in benghazi.

Live Blog - Libya | Al Jazeera Blogs

other reports of army incursion into cities in the east are counter-balanced with reports that the libyan army has moved off the egyptian border.

the situation in tripoli is apparently a function of class position; pretty quiet in middle-class areas, bombing of poorer areas. again, so go the reports.

there are caravans with medical supplies heading from egypt.

it's a brutal situation at the moment.

meanwhile

FT.com / Commodities - Oil surges as Libyan protests threaten supply

Your question is confusing, because I do not know how you have real capitalism without rights.

I moved out of California because those in power were not in sync with my views. I moved to a state where those in power more closely reflected my values. hence I have no problem with oligarchy, when those in power reflect my views and my values.

That is my point. You and others seem to think this situation is somehow special and unique - it is not. Human behavior is predictable.

Excessive centralized controls over the economy, like in Egypt hinders productive employment. Egypt, and to a lesser degree here, has an economy not growing fast enough to absorb the growth in the labor pool. The problem is global in scope and affecting various countries in various degrees - but it stll comes down to economics. That has been the general theme of the points I present, and it is not complicated.

When I use quotations around a word, it is often when that word is open to various interpretations or is more context based than would be the case in normal discourse.

---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 PM ----------

I agree that there are going to be factions in a "revolution" that will have what may be considered hidden motivations not consistent with the motives of the masses.

i was watching aljazeera arabic, and aljazeera english seems tame in comparison.

i also watch al arabia arabic channel, and the comparison between it and al jazeera is worlds apart.

aljazeera is reporting 250 dead in carpet bombing of protesters in tripoli. There are also reports coming out that an air force general is warning the protesters of bombing by air within the next hour.

all in all, a dire situation. you cant turn on your people and expect them to support you. this has got to be the endgame for this tyrant.

Capitalism is more than a concept. Free-market capitalism is just a concept.

This is unfortunate because it limits you to a theoretical mode of thinking. It is probably why we disagree much of the time, and would also explain why much of the time our discussions are non-starters.

Can I get an explanation with an example? I try to think of these things logically and realistically. If that brings about a linear process, then so be it.

I can only assume the reason for this is largely theoretical. In the real world, capitalism in and of itself does not cure social ills. In the real world, capitalism should be tempered with good governance. It's why we have such things as laws against child labour and slavery.

I know some have a problem when I use quotations, but this is an example of when quotations would come into play - no one that I know has ever clearly defined "free-market capitalism". So, in that regard I agree with you. However, depending on scope and timing there can very well be micro-economies that are based on free-market capitalism.

I once described my style of thought to French impressionist art (use of dots or simple yet small definitive brush strokes), to a linear thinker there is no clear image because of the lack of straight lines and the inability or unwillingness to take a step back and look at the picture from a different point of view. Very frequently I feel a need (and it happens with my wife who is also a linear thinker) to have to make a special effort to connect the dots for a linear thinker.

http://faculty.evansville.edu/rl29/a...et_sunrise.jpg



An example would be the use of Maslow to understand the "revolution" in Egypt. A linear thinker has problems connecting the two because there is no direct line. A "black and white" thinker says Maslow was correct and is obviously applied to understanding human behavior, even when it comes to Egypt - so the motivators become as clear as a bell very quickly.

This is getting outside the scope of this thread - I stand by my view. Child labor is not inherently bad and slavery is about poor governance or one governing body exploiting another based on force.

I don't see it, ace.

Thinking in absolutes doesn't conjure images of impressionism. What is impressionistic about your thinking, however, is that although your big-picture ideas are clear (albeit disagreeable), upon closer examination, they tend to become a confused muddle.

Thinking in absolutes tends to remove context and ignore unavoidable factors and influences.

I've asked you to elucidate, and you've instead bewildered.

It would seem we've come across another non-starter. Enjoy your theories.

meanwhile, out in the world:

Libya erupts as Gaddafi clings on - live updates | World news | guardian.co.uk

i don't know, but it seems to me that kadhafi is unhinged. he has at least some control over the military (aspects of it remain loyal) and the mercenaries he's brought in.

and he claims that he hasn't really started to use the kind of violence that he could use.

um....

i don't see anything good coming of this.

an analysis of libya under kadhafi:

Libya's falling tyrant - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Of course not. I think it is because of a lack of effort.

This comment further illustrates my point.

Yes, we know you only color inside the lines. I don't, never did, never will.

The primary motivating factor in "revolution" in Egypt is all about basic human needs. That is it, that is the answer. Why do you and others insist it is more than that? No doubt we can understand what those basic needs are and why those basic needs are not being fulfilled, but once we know it is all about basic needs all that flows from that is simple. To pretend that obscure il defined and vague concepts are behind the "revolution" is wasteful and will lead to problems going unsolved. So, if you think democracy is the answer time will prove that you were wrong but you will never go back and see it because linear thought processes won't allow it.

I do thoroughly. Thanks.

---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

What has it been a day or two without me asking you a question that you can't honestly answer without you appearing to contradict yourself?

Do you unconditionally support equal rights for women in the ME? Or, do you stand in support of equal rights for some, but not all in the ME? How the does the "revolutionary" view of what is happening in the ME really differ from what is currently in place assuming all this in not about basic human needs?

ace: i cannot imagine anyone caring about your dilletante forays into pseudo-explanations for egypt and tunisia and libya and bahrain and morocco and algeria and yemen.

that you can repeat the same fatuous "thinking" means only that you can repeat the same fatuous "thinking"---what you're arguing is self-evidently wrong. particularly this goofball theory that you've pulled out of your ass that somehow or another these revolts are for some imaginary "free-market capitalism."


all evidence in the actually existing world that other people know about point in almost the opposite direction---this is about the collapsing american empire and the "free market" ideology that it has used since reagan in an attempt to legitimate american domination.


here's an article you are unlikely to read.


Arab uprisings mark a turning point for the taking | Peter Hallward | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

ace, you missed my point. You think of your way of thinking as the opposite the way it is, and you think of my way as the opposite the way it is.

I'm now thoroughly convinced that you have no interest in pursuing any line of thinking outside of your own pristine theories. You seem to refuse to look at situations within the context of reality, which includes a level of multiplicity that you avoid to even acknowledge.

I normally welcome attempts at having a discussion with you. However, this time you've outdone yourself by mischaracterizing both you and me.

For example, you don't even understand the level at which I agree with you, nor the level at which I disagree with you, in your theories. And yet you continue to make assumptions and continue to muddy the waters.

I don't even know your position on the topic, really. I heard something about Maslow and free-market capitalism. Beyond that, I don't know what you mean to say beyond "people don't like to starve and generally like capitalism." You haven't really applied any of that theoretical stock to anything real. And now you've gone ahead and assumed I don't know what you're talking about—that I can't understand conceptually or logically—which is false. I know exactly what you're talking about. Half of it is bullshit, the other half irrelevant.

For the record, I do unconditionally support equal rights for women in the ME. A "revolution" that fall short of that is incomplete in my imagination.

---------- Post added at 08:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------

No I did not miss your point. My response is that it depends on perspective. Perhaps, you are getting lost in the French Impressionism thing because the art appears to be fluid or that it flows. Perhaps, a mosaic would be more helpful because it appears more digital.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...7/Mosaic01.jpg

You actually agree with me on something, what? Come on, my assumptions that you find fault in everything I present here has been wrong? If true, I will openly and publically state that I have been a fool in my exchanges with you - just give me something specific.

Basic human needs, like food and being able to provide for family, are the driving motivations of the mass protests in the ME. Other suggestions of the driving motivators are pseudo-intellectual b.s.

from bbc


al abidi was kadhafi's security minister.


kadhafi's regime is crumbling before our eyes, but the process is not over by any means.
and while accurate information is a problem---things appear to be devolving for kadhafi at speed.

the question is whether he is nuts enough to use the materials he still has at his disposal to scortch some earth on his way out---or if he is looking for an escape hatch, as some reports have suggested.

it's very confusing and potentially quite chaotic.


al jaz live blog on libya:
Live Blog - Libya Feb 22 | Al Jazeera Blogs

bbc:
BBC News - Middle East and North Africa unrest[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

---------- Post added at 10:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------
==================================

added: now that libya is maybe crumbling, the first of the major oil-producing authoritarian systems may come down and with that an image will pop to the surface of the financial belly of the beast.

closer and closer.

Gaddafis' hidden billions: Dubai banks, plush London pads and Italian water | World news | The Guardian

Hey Roach,

Unconditional rights for women in the ME is complicated, right?
I don't understand the real issues, right? It's just Ace and his "black and white" imaginary world right?
Or as DC would say i don't understand that women may have to compromise for the good of the formation of a new government.
Or as Baraka might suggest, unconditional rights for women in the ME is just a concept.

Oh, sorry for yet another tangent from what is really important, let's get back to the real world after all no one really wants that in the ME.

So I guess it's safe to say, at least, that the shit is currently hitting the fan in Libya.

A couple of tidbits from the interior minister, Abdel Fattah Younes, who has resigned:

"The Libyan people have suffered too long. We have so much oil, the people could have lived as in a 5 star hotel."

"Gaddafi's speech was very clear to any one who has a brain. He is nervous, he is stubborn. He may commit suicide."

Also, in other developments, the Canadian government has finally condemned Gadhafi, and has begun the planning and process of extracting Canadians from the country:
Ottawa condemns Gadhafi, plans evacuation - The Globe and Mail

Also, have a look at an interesting infographic regarding Libya and Gadhafi's influence in Africa, and the implications of it vapourizing:
Gadhafi's influence on Africa - The Globe and Mail

Sorry Ace, I enjoy political discussions a great deal... but I honestly feel I'm done with your conversations here. I don't feel you're adding to the discussion as it's not pertinent to realities on the ground.

I find Libya very interesting. Reports of the Air Force bombing protesters I was initially skeptical of, resulted in Air Force Pilots defecting as they refused orders to bomb their own civilians and feared execution from their own officers. I've also read about tanks firing on protesters and even some tanks defecting to the other side.

I can't imagine being on one of these planes or ships that are defecting. How do you coordinate landing in another country? Totally justified when ordered to fire on your own people, but what a terrible position to be in.

malta adds two planes to their air fleet. sweet!

i cant imagine what malta was thinking when these guys first showed up on the radar heading towards it from libya.

Armed Forces of Malta: "AFM to unidentified crafts, identify yourselves and your intentions."
Defectors: "Defecting from Libya."
Armed Forces of Malta: "I... wait, what? Frank? Frank, is that you? This isn't funny, Frank."
Defectors: "No joke, we're defecting."
Armed Forces of Malta: "John? Come on, John, I have an important job!"
Defectors: "DUDE, WE'RE SERIOUSLY DEFECTING!!"
Armed Forces of Malta: "DUDE, CAPS IS ON"
Defectors: "Oh, sorry. But yeah, totally defecting."

When people don't understand the root causes of problems the problems don't get fixed.

It won't matter what form of government Egypt adopts if it is without adopting capitalism or at least taking major steps in that direction.

It won't matter who is in charge without adopting capitalism.

The details in a new constitution won't matter unless it includes capitalistic principles.

You can be done with me, but understand that 5/10/15/30 years from now Egypt will have the same problems without capitalism. Yes, it is that simple.

Egypt ETF Gains in Post-Mubarak Era Hobbled Without Free Market - Bloomberg

meanwhile, back out in the world

Libya on the brink as Gaddafi promises showdown - live updates | World news | guardian.co.uk

and the international community does nothing.


Intervening in the Libyan tragedy | Marc Lynch

What do you want the international community to do? Should the international community use military force to control the situation?

there are reports that kadhafi is already using the military to attack opposition actions.

well, the interior security forces as he has apparently been afraid of a military coup since he came to power via a military coup in 1969 so has worked to keep the military weak...libya is controlled by the interior security forces that overlap with effectively private militias----you know, the kind of feudal arrangement that would result in a lot of place as the logical outcome of taking conservative paranoia about the state seriously

there are reports of military jets being used.
there are reports that there are naval vessels in position off tripoli that may be used to bombard the city.

so no, there's no reason to worry too much about what might happen.

the international community has a great track record of not knowing what to do when massacres present themselves:

Rwanda: Why the international community looked away | World | Deutsche Welle | 07.04.2009

much better to sit around and watch people get massacred and complain about how o so terrible it all is.

The implication in your posts is that you want something done, but you don't say what? What is the point of your compliant? Is it just too complicated? Not for me, I know what I would do, but I am a simple minded person who is in an imaginary world.