Author On the Town

President Putin and the Vocal Opposition

2012-03-05T14:06:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

It should come as no surprise that Vladimir Putin won Russia's presidential election yesterday with some 64.7 percent of the vote, thus avoiding the inconvenience of a run-off. The fact is the opposition candidates never stood a chance, chiefly because at least politically no credible opposition party exists. Sure, you've got Gennady A. Zyuganov who ran once again on the Communist ticket as he has in the past four elections; Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky, leader of the nationalist party; and Sergei M. Mironov of the Just Russia Party; not to mention new candidate and billionaire businessman (and New Jersey Nets owner) Mikhail D. Prokhorov, but no one really took him seriously to begin with. So it stands to reason that Mr. Putin won yet again, thus assuring himself six years at the head of the Kremlin with the possibility of another six beyond that.

But while Putin claims "victory" as everyone expected him to, this should be tempered by the fact that for the first time in eighty-something years, an opposition force is gathering strength at the grass-roots level. Last December's protests drew record crowds as did subsequent protests last month which were all the more impressive given the fact that outside temperatures dipped well below freezing and even this didn't seem to alter the numbers who came out to express their dissatisfaction with Putin and the whole Kremlin regime. Another such protest is scheduled for today.

Of course it remains to be seen whether President (formerly Prime Minister) Putin pays these protesters any heed. Up until now he's chosen ridicule as his primary response and that was before the election. Now, despite the fact that yesterday's election was widely seen as having been rigged in Putin's favor--regardless or resultant of the widespread presence of Kremlin-sponsored election observers--Mr. President may decide he can act as he wishes and crackdown on the protest movement with impunity. It's still very early days yet. In the meantime, it's imperative that foreign governments continue to encourage democratic reform in Russia, though Putin has time and again refused to bow to any outside pressure even if that pressure is done in the name of the greater collective good, as we've seen with Russia's position on Syria.

Taking a long-term outlook, it is important that the opposition movement be allowed to gather strength and to coalesce around leaders who--in six years' time--can actually pose a serious threat to another Putin six-year term. The problem leading into yesterday's election was that the opposition lacked any real cohesive leaders. It is all well and good that anti-Putin bloggers such as Aleksei Navalny are able to rally thousands of middle-class citizens onto the streets of Moscow, yet this isn't going to win elections. A more determined effort has to be made to encourage those living in rural areas--where Putin still derives huge support--to come out in support of the opposition. An organized and credible opposition party needs also to be developed, though Putin will be loath to allow this.

Still anything can happen in six years. What Putin faces now--for the first time ever in his political career--is a vocal opposition. While his election yesterday was a shoo-in, this doesn't mean Putin can run roughshod over his electorate. The Russian people have rediscovered their collective voice and are proving that they aren't afraid to use it. We should encourage them.

Ciao.

Show Trial in Egypt: SCAF vs the NGOs

2012-03-01T15:46:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Craziness in the Egyptian courts. The trial against seventeen NGO employees accused of fomenting revolution and other "anti-government" activities kicked into action on Sunday. The fear has been that this case was nothing more than anti-American grandstanding by the military tribunal (SCAF) currently running the country in the lead-up to May's presidential elections. On Tuesday, the three presiding judges abruptly stepped down and then yesterday it was announced that a travel ban against seven Americans--including Sam LaHood, head of the Egyptian office was the International Republican Institute--had been lifted after over $300,000 in bail had been posted for their release by an undisclosed payee. The trial has officially been adjourned until the end of April. It is unclear, without the three judges, whether the trial will resume at that time.

This case was set in motion last December when the police unexpectedly raided several offices belonging to three leading NGOs in Cairo--the International Republican Institute, Freedom House, and National Democratic Institute--confiscating documents and equipment. At the time, the ruling military council justified its actions by claiming these organizations were violating Egyptian sovereignty by influencing the protest movement and essentially training people on how to rebel against the Mubarak regime. The council said the NGOs were operating illegally without the necessary permits. In truth, these NGOs had been stuck indefinitely in bureaucratic red tape as they repeatedly attempted to apply for these licenses only to have their applications either rejected or conveniently lost in the transom. The thing is, for years Mubarak had tacitly allowed these organizations to function although he levied severe restrictions on their movement.

The irony of course is that these organizations are not in any way, shape, or form independent of the U.S. government. The International Republican Institute is closely affiliated with the Republican Party while its sister organization, The National Democratic Institute, is aligned with the Democratic Party. So at least on paper the Egyptian government was right in its claim that these organizations are branches of the U.S. government and are involved in promoting U.S. interests in Egypt.

It is anyone's guess what will come of this. Most of the defendants have not even appeared in court and those that have treated it quite casually. There's a great photo in today's New York Times of Nancy Okail of Freedom House reading a paperback copy of George Orwell's classic history of the Spanish Civil War, "Homage to Catalonia." When the accused don't even take the proceedings seriously, it doesn't bode well for the legitimacy of the military council's case.

What we're seeing are the actions of holdovers from the Mubarak regime who are desperately trying to prove their ridiculous claim that the Egyptian revolution was not home-grown but rather the results of foreign meddling. Bashar al-Assad in Syria at least publicly has said as much about his own country's revolution. Libya's Muammar Qaddafi said the same before he was killed. Unfortunately, in Egypt as in all these countries affected by the Arab Spring, the jury is still out on whether its revolution will result in true democracy or whether the military and, to a certain extent, the Muslim Brotherhood--now the majority voice in Parliament--will concern themselves merely with preserving their stake in power at the expense of the democratic freedoms upon which the April Spring was launched.

I am becoming more and more skeptical every day.

Ciao.

Putin and Assad: Best Friends Forever

2012-02-27T15:32:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

So in a bid to prove his legitimacy, Bashar al-Assad held elections of a sort yesterday. The Syrian people voted on a referendum of changes to the government that Mr. Assad believes proves that he is indeed reform-minded. The referendum includes changes that are supposed to shift the monopolistic hold on power currently enjoyed by the ruling Baathist Party. For the first time, presidential term limits are being introduced. According to this referendum, the Syrian president is now limited to two terms at seven years a pop. Lest anyone think Mr. Assad is planning to cede power any time soon, these new term limits don't actually go into effect until 2014 which is when his current term expires. This means that Mr. Assad can potentially remain in power for another two terms. This is reform in name only.

As one might expect, voter turnout was high in Damascus and Aleppo, both of which are bastions of support for Assad. Meanwhile in the embattled city of Homs, the polls--understandably--weren't exactly teeming. Nor were they in other locations around the country despite the images and messages broadcast by Syrian state television that declared the vote was truly a step toward Syrian democracy.

I don't think anyone was fooled. As the votes trickled in, the bombs continued to blast Homs to mere rubble while the so-called Friends of Syria alliance tried to figure out how to bring Mr. Assad to the negotiating table without the support of Russia.

And speaking of Russia...

This morning it was announced that a major assassination plot against Vladimir Putin was foiled. The thing is, this isn't exactly breaking news as the plot was uncovered last month but was only made public today. Apparently it involved the rebel leader of Chechnya and suicide bombers set to disrupt the election process later this week. It isn't just the Syrians who are going to the polls. Vladimir Putin is set to win back the presidency on March 4th. The election, of course, is a mere formality. Of course, whether or not there really was plot against Mr. Putin's life is almost irrelevant. It's all in the timing. Reveal to the Russian public just days before an election that their leader successfully thwarted an assassination attempt, the people are supposed to believe that they need Putin's strength in the face of outside elements that are poised to attack the Russian heartland. Therefore, it's almost unpatriotic not to "vote" for him.

Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Syria and Russia: best friends forever. Both are corrupt. Both need the other to 'legitimize' their hold on power. Both see themselves as besieged by foreign aggressors who would dare to disrupt their delusional little fairy tales. Both hold elections (of a sort) that seek to prove they have the support of their people. As farcical as it seems, they're doing a fairly good job staving off the rest of the rational world. Hopefully, it'll only be a matter of time before the cracks really start to show.

Ciao.

Burning the Koran: How Ignorance is Costing Us the Peace in Afghanistan

2012-02-24T14:40:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

As the United Nations tries to put out fires in Syria, this week saw a whole new conflagration erupt in Afghanistan...again. This time it isn't video of U.S. marines urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban and then joking about it, as if that wasn't bad enough. No, this time we've gone back to our old standard of burning the Holy Koran. When will we learn?

It doesn't matter if this desecration was performed out of malicious intent as we saw last year in the case of the "mock trial" officiated by Florida pastor Terry Jones or out of seeming ignorance as we witnessed this week at Bagram Air Force base in Kabul. Burning the Koran is not only the epitome of disrespect toward Muslims worldwide, but it's just plain stupid. And frankly it's this stupidity that is costing us the so-called "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people our forces are trying to win over.

American military personnel were clearing out a room in Bagram that contained books they claimed were filled with handwritten communication pertaining to terrorist strikes against coalition forces. Obviously they couldn't keep these around. These personnel also claimed that they had no idea that the books were copies of the Koran. As they were being tossed into an incinerator, a couple Afghan workers at the base noticed what these guys were doing and intervened. Word got out and understandably outraged Afghanis took to the streets in violent protest. This was on Monday.

Yesterday, President Obama issued a formal apology to the Afghan people which was accepted by Afghan President Hamid Karzai who expressed outrage at the offense but, realizing the last thing he or the Americans need is another outbreak of anti-American violence, urged his security forces to help maintain calm while calling for a swift trial for the offenders.

It's already too late. As of yesterday, seven Afghans were killed in the violence while an Afghan Army soldier attacked and killed two American servicemen. This is only the latest in a series of killings of coalition servicemen and women at the hands of their supposed allies in the Afghan Army. One such attack against French troops is what prompted Sarkozy to announce his early withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan this year.

After over ten years of war in this part of the world, you would think by now that we'd know better than to blatantly demonstrate our continued ignorance--or lack of consideration--of the Islamic faith. While killing of any nature is rarely justified, I can understand the rage that the Afghan people feel over yet another desecration of their religion at the hands of foreign occupiers. Our troops complain about not winning the fight in Afghanistan and the Muslim world, well, is it really so surprising? Without taking away from the courage and valor demonstrated by our men and women in the armed services, there seems to be a continued and demonstrated lack of knowledge about the countries and cultures to which they are being sent. Or perhaps it's just a lack of intelligence? Either way, it's no wonder the Taliban continue to be as powerful as they are.

And while I again don't believe we should be legitimizing an organization that indiscriminately stones women to death, bans music, and commits other unspeakable acts against its people in the name of religion, I can see how the Afghan people are angry, disillusioned, and fed up with the insults they and their religion are subjected to by our troops that after ten years still have not learned to respect their religion and their culture.

What a shame.

Ciao.

Why the West Needs to Get Its Act Together About Syria

2012-02-22T14:19:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

While I am certainly not a warmonger and I believe that the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a serious misstep in foreign policy that has thoroughly messed up the U.S. approach to the Middle East, it is unconscionable to allow the devastation that's occurring hourly in Syria to go on any longer. I understand the West's reluctance to intervene militarily as it comes so shortly after the debacle that was Iraq. However, as the U.S. and its European and Arab League allies continue to dither on whether or not to put forces on the ground in Syria or to, at the very least, arm the Syrian opposition, the massacre continues without any sign of Assad backing down or halting the violence of his own volition.

It's painfully obvious that anything less than overt aggression is not going to work. The world should have learned its lesson back in December when the well-intentioned Arab League observer mission crashed and burned. What was the result? Pro-Assad forces ramped up their bloody campaign and killed multitudes without batting an eye. The observers had their hands tied as they were under the constant supervision of Assad loyalists.

Then just last month we saw the the failure of the United Nation Security Council's resolution calling for Assad to transfer power to a vice president as a precursor to new elections. What happened then? Russia, China, and India vetoed the resolution because they were more concerned with preserving their business interests in Syria than saving lives. (And of course in the case of Russia, it didn't want to be seen condoning anything that reeked of regime change because its in the midst of its own contentious election drama.) As a result, Assad saw this as something akin to an endorsement for his brutality. Ever since, he's amplified his tactics by laying unrelenting siege to the city of Homs.

Last week the United Nations General Assembly put the same resolution to a vote. It passed but again without Russian support, the resolution was rendered more symbolic than anything. So now we have another meeting to talk about Syria scheduled for Friday in Tunis that brings together a new government body called the Friends of Syria. China hasn't said whether it's going to attend while Russia, not surprisingly, has said it wouldn't be sending any delegates. Instead, according to reports in today's New York Times, Russia has sent a couple war ships to its port in Tarsis, on the Syrian coast. There were reports yesterday that Iran had done something similar, but the veracity of this remains unproven.

So amidst all this international handwringing and committee-organizing, it appears that the opposition movement within Syria is becoming more and more splintered. Military experts and terrorism analysts claim that there's a strong possibility that al Qaeda has moved into Syria from Iraq and is fighting on behalf of the insurgency, which certainly makes the situation all the muddier. And all the while, men, women, and children who want nothing more than a better life and personal freedom are being slaughtered with impunity.

If we're not ready to put troops on the ground, we can be arming the opposition. We can put covert operatives within Damascus. We can (and should) be helping the Free Syrian Army come together in a cohesive and united form that stands a chance of effectively beating back the government forces. We also should be working with exiled Syrian political groups and politicians to build a platform upon which a new post-Assad government can be developed. It's not going to happen overnight as Assad does command strong loyalty among the armed forces, his Alawite clan, and the Christian minority. But we need to lay the foundation for a Syria without Assad. As I've written here before, we'd be killing two birds with one stone: 1) getting rid once and for all of another brutal dictator and 2) cutting off Iran's conduit both militarily and logistically to Hamas and Hezbollah, its proxy threats in the region.

The alternative? The genocide of an entire population, the continued strengthening of Iran, and yet another haven from which al Qaeda can export its hate and violence to the rest of the world.

You choose.

Ciao.

The Brotherhood and the Rise of Political Islam

2012-02-20T13:35:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

For anyone interested in reading a concise overview of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its presence in the Middle East since its founding in Egypt in 1928, I suggest you pick up a copy of this week's The Economist. As is typical of its reportage, the article provides an in-depth though thoroughly readable discussion on how, in the ongoing wake of the Arab Spring, the Brotherhood and its confederates are determining the political direction of the entire Middle East.

Branches of the Brotherhood are present in almost every country in the Arab World. Surprisingly, they aren't necessarily as aligned as one might think. In Egypt's recent elections, the Brotherhood dominated the polls and now make up more than 50 percent of the new parliament. The same is true in Tunisia. In Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (a Brotherhood affiliate) comprises the political opposition and has been dominant in this role for decades. Over in Gaza, Hamas--otherwise known as the Islamic Resistance Movement--was born from a Brotherhood charity. In Iraq, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Yemen, offshoots of the Brotherhood have been influential in the respective parliaments of these countries. And although the Assad regime in Syria has banned its own Syrian Brotherhood, it has allowed Hamas to run its headquarters from Damascus much to the Syrian Brotherhood's chagrin, although this has changed of late as Hamas has moved out of the country in light of the Syrian uprising and Assad's bloody crackdown.

What the Arab Spring has done is given the Muslim Brotherhood--or Ikhwan as it known in Arabic--genuine political legitimacy. No longer is it a cultish underground organization kept under persecution by the ruling secular elite. As the recent democratic elections in Egypt and Tunisia have demonstrated, the majority of people want a solidly religious (and thereby moral) leadership. It's not really all that surprising when one considers the extent of corruption and graft that were inherent of these previous autocracies. And while the rise of political Islam may not be what the West has hoped for, the Brotherhood--at least for now--is being quite pragmatic in its approach to government.

In Egypt, for example, Brotherhood leaders have attended Coptic Christian religious ceremonies as proof that they support a religiously pluralistic landscape. They have also been vocal in their support of women taking a greater role in government, which has also been true in Tunisia and within Hamas. They have been criticized however for not being tough enough against SCAF, the military counsel that now dominates Egypt's transitional government, and have been accused of discouraging those who have protested for an immediate SCAF withdrawal. But again, this is pure pragmatism. What's important right now--as the Brotherhood has openly stated--is to get society back on track after a tumultuous year that has severely weakened the Egyptian economy and wrecked its tourism industry. It would seem the last thing on the Brotherhood's minds right now is extremist ideology, though of course that is always a concern.

Bottom line: it's simply still too early to determine whether the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East is going to prove an asset or a detriment to the economic and social development of these countries on the world stage. While the West certainly has some cause to be wary, the Brotherhood as it has evolved and will continue to evolve, is not al-Qaeda. It is remarkable that amid all the turmoil in the region over the past year, al-Qaeda has not been a dominant voice, although of late there has been concern that it has infiltrated the Syrian opposition movement. If we want democracy to blossom in the Arab World, we have to withhold judgement and allow things to develop organically, even if an Arab version of democracy does not always align with Western interests.

When you empower the people to speak, you have to listen to what they say. This does not mean you always have to agree. That's the spirit of true democracy.

Ciao.

Sunday Book Review: Revolution 2.0 by Wael Ghonim

2012-02-19T13:23:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

If you're looking for a book that provides an effective first-hand account of the events leading up to the overthrow of Egypt's President Mubarak last year, then Wael Ghonim's just published memoir, "Revolution 2.0" is a strong bet.

Mr. Ghonim is the Google employee who more-or-less inadvertently became the face of Tahrir Square. What is extraordinary about his story is how he was able to harness the power of social media to bring together a revolutionary popular movement that succeeded in toppling Mubarak's entrenched regime in just eighteen days. Mr. Ghonim's activism was sparked when a friend of his sent him horrific photos of a young man named Khaled Said who was beaten to death by state security outside an Internet cafe in Alexandria, Egypt in the summer of 2010. The security officials planted a plastic bag of marijuana on Khaled's body and tried to convince the public that the young man had died of asphyxiation in an effort to swallow the drugs as a means of hiding them from the police. In actuality--as the photos attested--Khaled had been savagely beaten with his head bashed-in against a wall. This event prompted Mr. Ghonim to create a Facebook page in support of determining the truth about Khaled's death. He named this page "Kullena Khaled Said" or "We Are All Khaled Said."

The page grew by leaps and bounds in a remarkably short period of time, in part as the result of Mr. Ghonim's tireless rallying of supporters through Facebook and Twitter and his (and others like him) ability to tap into a growing sense within young Egyptians that the status quo could no longer hold. This evolved into January 25, 2011 -- Jan25 -- the opening salvo in an incredible popular (and peaceful) uprising that changed Egyptian history forever.

Mr. Ghonim's memoir is written at a breathless narrative pace that is hard to put down. His voice is determined and uncompromising, yet very humble at the same time. He takes pains throughout to emphasize the fact that he did not and does not see himself as the leader of the revolution. He was merely one man acting upon a deep-seated moral belief that decades of corruption and social injustice could no longer be tolerated. The more he witnesses, the deeper his conviction.

While his portrayal of his arrest and beating by state security after January 25 and his subsequent interrogations and psychological torture make for compelling reading, what I found most intriguing was how beautifully he articulates the power of social media in uniting millions of people on behalf of a justified cause. What makes his account so extraordinarily readable--not to mention downright inspiring--is the fact that he publishes dozens of actual excerpts of his Facebook messages and Tweets that put the reader right there in the middle of the action. You feel you are experiencing the revolution as it's happening which adds to the poignancy and our understanding of the scenes in Tahrir Square that we've all seen on television and on YouTube.

This ability to utilize social media for a greater common good is what gives the book its backbone and supports Mr. Ghonim's statement at the end of the book--as well as the book's subtitle--"The Power of the People is Greater Than the People In Power." This is a worthy notion to keep in mind as we continue to watch the ever-unfolding events in the Middle East, particularly Syria.

"Revolution 2.0" is more than a memoir. It's an important documentation of the first phase of a remarkable period in world history and an affirmation that all of us have a responsibility to work toward social justice--however great, however small--in each of our daily lives. The tools are there. We just need to use them.

Ciao.

Why Assad Needs to Be Stopped: Videos from Homs, Syria

2012-02-17T13:06:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

While the world dithers on what to do with the ever-increasing violence in Syria--including a non-binding United Nations General Assembly resolution that passed yesterday 137-12 votes, with 17 abstentions--I've included here a series of videos that portray the situation in Homs, Syria as it appears on the ground. The videos are graphic but they should be a reminder that we cannot continue to allow Bashar al-Assad to kill his own people. It is simply inexcusable. Innocent children are dying and for what purpose?

Ciao.

El Sistema--Keeping Kids Off the Streets through Classical Music

2012-02-16T14:28:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

I wanted to focus on something positive today, something inspiring, something that proves that there is still humanity and good in the world despite daily headlines. That something good comes in the form of El Sistema.

For those of you who haven't heard of it, El Sistema is a Venezuelan-based program that aims to get thousands of Venezuelan children off the streets and into classical music. Schools across the country, though predominantly within the country's most poverty-stricken and crime-ridden neighborhoods, have set up these special after school programs from 2 until 6pm that teach kids how to play an instrument, how to sing, conduct, and even repair instruments themselves.

The program was founded in 1975 by Jose Antonio Abreu, a trained musician and economist. In the ensuing 37 years, El Sistema has enrolled 310,000 children (starting at preschool and continuing through high school) in 280 teaching venues--called nucleos. According to El Sistema's executive director, Eduardo Mendez, the program has launched some 500 orchestras across the country, including the world-renowned Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra.

While much deserved criticism has been aimed at Venezuela's populist president, Hugo Chavez, who faces a critical election later this year, credit should be given to a government that believes in the introduction of classical music to young people, especially those who might otherwise have fallen victim to drugs, prostitution, or other crimes that are so rife within Venezuelan society today. The Chavez government allots around $64 million a year to El Sistema whose goal is to touch the lives of 500,000 children by 2015.

One of El Sistema's most famous graduates is conductor Gustavo Dudamel. Mr. Dudamel--who is only thirty-one--is currently the music director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic and is currently in Caracas with the Philharmonic to perform a complete cycle of Mahler's symphonies. While most of El Sistema's graduates do not necessarily go on to celebrated music careers, many return to the program as adults to teach and offer encouragement. As one adult graduate states, "Once you get touched by El Sistema, you will never leave El Sistema."

While researching the program online, I was pleased to discover that El Sistema's reach has extended beyond Venezuela with affiliate programs being established throughout the US and overseas. Click here to learn more about El Sistema and find out whether your community is within El Sistema's network: http://elsistemausa.org/.

That's the beauty of classical music. It can reach out and affect everyone, regardless of socioeconomics, nationality, or creed. Mr. Abreu, you do your country and educators throughout the world--whether musically-inclined or not--proud. Thank you!

Ciao.

Bungled in Bangkok

2012-02-15T13:28:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Not for the first time I'm trying to get my head around just what the heck is going on with Iran. The past two days have seen terrorist attacks--albeit relatively minor--that bear all the signs of Iranian backing. On Monday, members of Israel's diplomatic community were targeted in both Delhi and Tbilisi. The attack in India was on a car carrying Tal Yehoshua-Koren, the wife of an Israeli diplomat on her way to pick up her children from school. Eyewitnesses said that an unidentified man on a motorcycle pulled up alongside her car and attached an explosive device to it before speeding off. In Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, explosives were discovered near the Israeli Embassy and safely neutralized before detonation.

Yesterday bore witness to a series of explosions in a residential neighborhood in Bangkok that led Thai authorities to uncover a collection of bombs and capture two men--both of whom identified as Iranian--trying to shoot and grenade their way to safety. A third man--also Iranian--tossed two hand grenades at a taxi that refused his fare, thereby blowing off his legs and injuring several passersby. One of the men was detained at the international airport while the other still remains at large.

Iran denied responsibility for Monday's attacks and remained conspicuously silent when questioned about yesterday's rather bungled efforts in Bangkok. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said there was no ambiguity whatsoever as to who was responsible for these terrorist actions: "The attempted terrorist attack in Bangkok proves once again that Iran and its proxies continue to perpetuate terrorism," he said.

Yitzhak Aharonovitch, Israel's public security minister, went further in his statement: "We know who carried out the terror attacks, we know who sent them, and Israel will settle the score with them."

So again I ask the question, what the heck is Iran doing?

It would seem that Iran is deliberately provoking Israel to follow through on its threat to bomb Iran's nuclear processing facilities. The question is why. There's little doubt that an Israeli military strike on Iran would deal a serious (though probably temporary) setback to Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations. Surely, Iran is cognizant of this. But does Iran possibly have something more nefarious up the ayatollahs' deep sleeves? This is an election year for Iran, the first since the widely disputed presidential election in 2009 that saw thousands of Iranians take to the streets in an aborted precursor of 2011's Arab Spring. Protesters took the the streets of Tehran yesterday in limited numbers and were largely unhindered by police, though there were reports of arrests and tear gas.

Could Iran be deliberately goading Israel into an attack that Ahmedinajad and the Ayatollahs could then use as a rallying cry to unite the Iranian people under the banner of patriotism and thereby deflect attention away from corruption at the polling centers come March? It's an interesting theory and one that Israel (and its allies in the West) should consider when weighing the pros and cons of targeted military retaliation.

It's like a game of chess between two masterful opponents. Who can out-strategize or dupe the other into a checkmate scenario? Hopefully, it won't be Iran.

Ciao.

Apple: Rotten to the Core? Part II

2012-02-14T15:04:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

So yesterday Apple announced that it had hired the Fair Labor Association to audit working conditions in its manufacturing plants overseas, predominantly in China. This is after several scathing reports were published last month--including this blog--that sought to highlight how Apple was cutting corners when it came to worker benefits and safety as a means of getting mass production for the lowest cost.

As the New York Times reiterates today, 137 workers at an Apple parts supplier in China were injured last year as the result of being told to use a hazardous chemical to clean iPhone screens before said iPhones were shipped out for sale. Also last year, four factory workers were killed and 77 injured in two explosions at iPad factories. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

Apple's chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, said that the Fair Labor Association (F.L.A.) had already begun inspecting Foxconn factories in Shenzhen and Chengdu. "We believe that workers everywhere have the right to a safe and fair work environment," Mr. Cook stated, "which is why we've asked the F.L.A. to independently assess the performance of our largest suppliers."

This is all well and good and I am pleased that Apple, whose products I use, respect, and swear by, is taking measures to correct the slave labor conditions at some of these factories. It is definitely a step in the right direction. However, calling the F.L.A. an independent monitoring group is a bit of a misnomer since it receives at least some of its funding from the corporations that hire it to audit their manufacturers and parts suppliers. One of F.L.A.'s biggest clients, heretofore, has been Nike who itself has a rather checkered past when it comes to making sure its workers are properly compensated. According to reports, the F.L.A. did have a positive effect on making sure that Nike's overseas suppliers were adhering to safety standards and ethical practices. However, an Indonesian supplier--PT Nikomas--was asked to pay $950,000 in unpaid wages for 600,000 hours of overtime that were due to some 4,500 workers over the course of two years. This apparently came to light after the F.L.A. had concluded their initial audit. The obvious risk here is that when an auditing organization is being paid by a corporation to monitor its facilities, the organization--F.L.A. in this case--is going to be pressured to give the corporation a high rating, perhaps overlooking certain things (like $950,000 in back overtime pay) in order to receive its paycheck.

Perhaps I'm just nitpicking, but I do think that a company like Apple with a record market value of $469 billion can afford the inconvenience of not only making sure its overseas suppliers work in safe 21st century-modern facilities, but also paying its employees the overtime they are due.

Ciao.

An Appeal to Help Save Afghanistan's Starving and Cold Refugee Children

2012-02-13T07:33:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

I want to bring your attention to a situation in Afghanistan that can use everyone's help. Over the past several weeks there have been confirmed reports that at least 28 children have died of hunger and cold in a string of refugee camps in and around Kabul. Afghanistan is in the midst of one of the coldest and snowiest winters in its recent history. Temperatures have consistently fallen below 5 degrees Fahrenheit with no warm-up predicted for several more days. People living in these camps have inadequate housing, clothing, food, and fuel. And for reasons that no one has really been able explain the plight of these refugees has long been neglected until now. The story was brought to light last week in a New York Times article that profiled a refugee named Sayyid Mohammad who has recently lost eight of his nine children to the cold. Since the article ran, Mr. Mohammad was visited by officials sent from President Karzai who pledged official assistance and an audience with the president. An audience with Mr. Karzai is all well and good, but unless promises turn into deeds, the situation won't improve and more young lives will be lost.

Thankfully, donations are starting to pour in from all over the world. I've listed below several relief organizations and their websites that are actively working to alleviate the tragic situation in Afghanistan's refugee camps. We're already behind the eight-ball but it's never too late to make a contribution.

Lamia Afghan Foundation
http://www.lamia-afghanfoundation.org

Save the Children
http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.6150517/k.8737/Afghanistan.htm

World Food Programme
http://www.wfp.org/countries/afghanistan

Afghan Red Crescent Society
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/where-we-work/asia-pacific/afghan-red-crescent-society/

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
http://www.unocha.org

Ciao.

The Ten Best Films of 2011

2012-02-12T14:00:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Okay, so here's my list from 1 to 10 of the Ten Best Films of 2011:

1. The Artist
I kept putting off going to see this for no other reason than the thought of sitting through a black-and-white silent movie just didn't appeal to me. But I knew that I'd regret not seeing it before the Oscars. So I bit the bullet and went to see it this morning. I'm so happy I did. Not to sound trite, but "The Artist" is one of those films that just makes you fall in love with going to the movies all over again. From the opening shot to the final tap dance sequence, this movie is a valentine for all people who care about movies. The two French lead actors, Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo (both of whom are big stars in France), are a joy to behold and what's incredible about their performances is that somehow watching them act without audible dialogue is a testament to their skill as actors. Mr. Dujardin, in my opinion, gives the best performance of the year for an actor in a leading role. I'll be interested to see what the Academy says in a couple weeks.

2. A Separation
This Iranian film was my number one pick until I saw "The Artist." "A Separation" is a beautifully understated film about life, family, relationships, and religion in a country that many in the West have come to consider the world's greatest threat to peace. There are so many nuances and layers to the storytelling that it begs a second viewing. You find yourself throughout the film questioning the characters' motives and in so doing may even discover surprising things about yourself and about your perceptions of truth and justice.

3. Melancholia
Lars Von Trier's Cannes Film Festival Award Winner is unlike any film you'll see this year or any year, for that matter. Deeply disturbing yet not without it's moments of black humor, "Melancholia" tells the story of a manic depressive young bride, played with wit and genuine pathos by Kirsten Dunst; her severe and overprotective sister, played by Charlotte Rampling; and her sister's intense stargazing husband, a fine Kiefer Sutherland, who fearfully await the apocalypse. The ten-minute opening montage, set to Wagner's 'Liebestod' from "Tristan und Isolde" is a tour de force of foreshadowing that nearly stops the film in its tracks before it really gets going. This is one of those films that at times you may want to switch off but at the same time you feel strangely compelled to keep watching. The pay-off is spectacular. Of any film I saw in 2011, "Melancholia" is the one that--from an emotional standpoint--stays with you long after the final credits have rolled. It'll shake you up.

4. The Flowers of War
I said a few weeks ago this was my pick for the best film of 2011. That may have been a little premature yet from a purely cinematic perspective, it's still worthy of a top place on this list. Chinese film director Zhang Yimou paints an epic canvas with both broad and finely etched brush strokes, telling the story of a down-and-out American, played by Christian Bale, who finds himself in the unlikely position of protecting a group of young Chinese convent schoolgirls and a gang of local prostitutes from the brutality of the Japanese attack on Nanjing, otherwise known as the Rape of Nanking, in 1937. The violence of war is visceral but an unmistakable humanity shines through that is both stirring and devastating. This is epic filmmaking at its finest.

5. Shame
Michael Fassbender gives a brilliant and tortured performance as a young New York sex addict whose addiction comes at the price of terrible tragedy. While this is Mr. Fassbender's film, I found myself gravitating most to Carey Mulligan as his troubled younger sister, a nightclub singer who wants nothing more than the love and approval of her brother. Visually arresting and definitely not for the faint of heart, "Shame" packs an emotional wallop you don't see coming and leaves you gasping for breath as you leave the theater. In my opinion, both Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan were robbed of Oscar nominations for their performances here.

6. Circumstance
Another Iranian film though for political reasons, unlike "A Separation," this was filmed in Beirut. At the center of this film is an unconventional love triangle between two high school girls in Tehran and the troubled religiously conservative older brother of one of them. "Circumstance" shows a different, and perhaps more overtly critical side of Iran, set in the upper class neighborhoods of Tehran amid the backdrop of a Western subculture rife with clubs, fast cars, drugs, and alcohol. Stunningly photographed with richly understated performances by each of its three young lead actors, "Circumstance" serves as a worthy book-end to "A Separation" in that it brings life and humanity to a surprisingly sophisticated society we in the West struggle to understand.

7. Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen's latest is a lovely confection of a film and an endearing tribute to Paris both past and present. Owen Wilson does a wonderful job capturing the neurotic charm of a role that, in his younger days, would have been played by Woody Allen. The film makes you long to go back in time, re-read the works of Fitzgerald and Hemingway, spend an afternoon in the Louvre admiring Picasso, and finish the night drinking absinthe with the likes of Luis Bunuel and Toulouse-Latrec. From a purely nostalgic sensibility, "Midnight in Paris" is magic.

8. Tree of Life
Reclusive director Terrence Malik's film about life, global warming, and growing up in the 1950s, among other things, is unlike any other film I saw in 2011. I hated it at first but slowly as successive images arrested my attention, I found myself unable to look away from the screen. Brad Pitt gives, in my opinion, the best performance of his career here though admittedly it's difficult to rate because this isn't a film so much about acting or linear storytelling but more about impressions and memory. It is another film that warrants a second or third viewing--which I have yet to do--because there's deep complexity here that doesn't immediately jump out at you...at least I think there's complexity. In some respects, "Tree of Life" is a cinematic riddle, a puzzle that requires careful attention, a meditation on what it means to be alive. Again, not a film for everyone but worthy of consideration.

9. Delhi Belly
Shifting from the sublime to the ridiculous, the Hindi gross-out comedy "Delhi Belly" is, as I wrote in my review here a couple weeks ago, the most obnoxious and flat-out funniest film I saw all year. A Hin-glish cross of "The Hangover" and "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" with a little "Shaft" thrown in at the end for no apparent reason, this film had me in stitches from the very first minute and didn't let up until the very end. Young Bollywood heart-throb Imran Khan (not the Pakistani cricket player) leads an ensemble cast through 90 action-packed minutes of diamond heists, diarrhea, shoot-em-up action sequences, more diarrhea, and an end credits musical number starring great Hindi actor, producer, and Imran's uncle, Aamir Khan, that wouldn't be out of place in "Cleopatra Jones." I loved it though I think I'll think twice about ordering Tandoori Chicken.

10. W.E.
Madonna's labor of love about the romance between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson is by no means a perfect film. The narrative is a little muddied from time to time and the filmmaking itself suffers from occasional lapses into film school self-consciousness. Yet, despite its faults, "W.E." is an achingly gorgeous and romantic film that is very deserving of a place on this list. British actress Andrea Riseborough gives a captivating performance as Mrs. Simpson. You simply cannot take your eyes off of her when she's onscreen. It's a shame that Ms. Riseborough was overlooked by the Academy because I believe hers is one of the great screen performances of 2011. The film did receive an Oscar nomination for Best Costume Design and Madonna's song "Masterpiece" that plays over the end credits won the Golden Globe for Best Song last month. Having directed and co-written the screenplay, "W.E." shows that Madonna has the talent and the potential to be a true cinema auteur. As I said in my review a couple days ago, "W.E." is my pick for the most visually beautiful film of 2011.

Ciao.

Al Qaeda in Syria

2012-02-11T14:54:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

The woes continue in Syria. Yesterday witnessed the dual car bombings of two security buildings in Syria's largest city, Aleppo, that until now had remained largely untouched by the violence that has wracked the country for the past eleven months. No one claimed responsibility for the blasts, which collectively killed 28 people and injured hundreds of others, though there is concern that al Qaeda may be taking advantage of the chaos to set up operations in Syria. Yesterday's bombings were similar to those that rocked Damascus last December, another city--and a stalwart bastion of support for Assad--that has heretofore remained mostly quiet. If indeed al Qaeda is behind these bombings, it adds another troubling layer of complexity to the situation, and one that the U.S. and most Western and Arab countries for that matter would be loath to see.

But again, the West continues to be stymied in its efforts to bring a unified diplomatic force together to oppose Assad and insist upon his overthrow. Additional meetings are scheduled on Sunday with the Arab League ministers in Cairo and on Monday at the United Nations General Assembly. A draft of a General Assembly resolution not unlike that which was originally vetoed by Russia and China in the Security Council is currently making the rounds at the United Nations. No one has particularly high hopes that any resolution will be passed as long as Russia remains committed to pursuing its own peace plan with the Assad government. After a much ballyhooed meeting of Russian and Syrian delegates in Damascus earlier this week, it appears nothing came to fruition there either.

If indeed al Qaeda is taking root in Syria--as Assad has claimed in the past though no one gave it much credibility--and working on behalf of or in conjunction with the Syrian Free Army and its supporters, a situation that has seemed impossible up until now has just become untenable. The United Nations and its allies within the Arab League will not want to be seen supporting an opposition movement that has any connection whatsoever with the perpetrators of 9/11 and two decades' worth of horrific terrorist activity. At the same time, the United Nations isn't going to react positively to anything that gives credence to Assad's continued claims that he is battling foreign insurgents. But then...the Obama administration is openly holding negotiations with the Taliban, thereby creating a diplomatic framework within which the Taliban can legitimately take back control of Afghanistan despite ten years' of unsuccessfully trying to oust them. By that same logic...why not negotiate with al Qaeda? If you can't beat them, appease them. Right?

As history has shown time and again, appeasement doesn't work. Just look at 1938-39.

Ciao.

Friday Movie Review: W.E.

2012-02-10T20:33:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Right off the bat I will say that Madonna's latest (and best) cinematic foray "W.E." is hands-down the most visually beautiful film of 2011. I'll take it one step further to say that "W.E." is, in my opinion, deserving of a spot in my top ten list of best films of 2011.

I'll admit, I'm biased. I've been an unabashed fan of Madonna since the 8th grade so I'm not necessarily known for being totally objective where she's concerned. And I'll be the first to say that "W.E." is not a perfect film. But where it succeeds, it succeeds tremendously. In fact, its successes far exceed its failures, despite what many professional critics have said.

In brief, the film tells two stories that are somewhat, though not always convincingly connected. The first is the story of the American divorcee Wallis Simpson, played with commanding panache by British actress Andrea Riseborough, and King Edward VIII, a suitably bland James D'arcy, who famously abdicated the British throne to marry Ms. Simpson in 1937. (Last year's Oscar winner "The King's Speech" told part of this story.) The second is set in 1998 in Manhattan and tells the story of unhappily married Wally, a somewhat opaque but always stylishly lit Abbie Cornish, who is obsessed with the history of Wallis and Edward for reasons that are never really explained, and spends much of her time wandering around Sotheby's during its auction of W.E. artifacts. She meets a mysterious Russian security guard named Yevgeni, an appealing Oscar Isaac, who happens to play piano and provides Wally comfort and solace away from the increasingly abusive treatment of her husband. This actually all plays a lot better than it sounds, though from a plot perspective, the way Madonna weaves the two together isn't as seamless as one might hope. I wasn't entirely sure what the parallel was supposed to be between the historical Wallis and the fictional Wally, though this being Madonna I'm sure there was a definite subtext. I just couldn't figure it out.

What most impressed me was the attention to detail. This shouldn't come as a surprise because Madonna is well known for the meticulous way in which she approaches every one of her creative endeavors. From the exquisite detailing of the period costumes to the evocative lighting of interiors, the film is a visual feast. This doesn't always serve to the film's benefit, however. In fact, there were moments where I felt as though I was watching an extended high-end perfume commercial, as though Madonna the director were more interested in the beauty of the images she was presenting than the narrative content of some of the scenes. Especially in the early part of the film there seemed to be an over-reliance on quick camera cuts and close-ups that made for a rather ponderous and distracting viewing experience. As the film progressed though, things calmed down a bit and Madonna the director seemed to settle into a more comfortable and assured narrative pace.

"W.E." is clearly a labor of love for Madonna and despite its shortcomings that love is very much in evidence on the screen. It's clear both from the film and interviews that Madonna has given about the film that she strongly identifies with Wallis Simpson. She has said that Wallis is very misunderstood and much maligned in history and that she wanted to portray her as a woman who sacrificed everything to be with the man she loved. As captivating as Ms. Riseborough is as Wallis Simpson--the fact that she wasn't nominated for an Oscar is a shame--I never found her to be sympathetic. Determined, yes. Ambitious, yes. Witty, yes. But sympathetic? No. She claims at one point that she feels bad because she's ruined Edward's life, but she had to have known all along this would be the likely outcome and yet she still married him. She also claims to hate being the center of the media spotlight but I wasn't particularly convinced of this either.

Yet, despite all its flaws and its failure to convince me of its central message or thesis, "W.E." completely won me over. I'll even admit that once or twice a tear came to my eye. While Madonna has never succeeded much as an actress--though her Golden Globe-winning turn as Evita was pretty spectacular--as a screenwriter and director she's pretty damn savvy. This is intelligent high-caliber art house filmmaking. And I can't help but wonder, if this film had been written and directed by anyone other than Madonna, would it have received such a drubbing from the critics? Probably not.

I'll be coming out with my Top Ten Films of 2011 list on Sunday. "W.E." will be on it.

Oh, and be sure to sit through the closing credits for a chance to here Madonna's Golden Globe-winning song "Masterpiece." It, like the film, is a stunner. (It's also going to be featured on her upcoming studio album "M.D.N.A" next month.)

Ciao.

In Defense of the Iranian People

2012-02-09T10:41:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

With all this belligerent talk being hurled back and forth between the West and Iran and speculation about whether Iran has reached a "zone of immunity" as far as its nuclear aspirations are concerned, one is at risk of losing sight of the fact that Iran is a nation comprised of 74 million people who are all, for the most part, concerned with getting on with their daily lives--raising families, working to make sure they have money to put food on their tables, a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs with perhaps a little saved over to splurge on the occasional vacation. In other words, the average Iranian is really not all that different from you or me. Yes, thirty-three years ago, the "people" violently overthrew a secular (and corrupt) dynasty in favor of an Islamic theocracy, but much of that fervor was derived from a collective--and perhaps naive--belief that the ayatollahs would strip the government of corruption and install a society that made up for the inequality and lack of morality that had been rife for decades under the Shah.

Thirty-three years later, those revolutionaries are now senior citizens. Two-thirds of the current Iranian population is under the age of 30, which is significant in that more than 50 percent of Iranians alive today were either not born during the Islamic Revolution, or were too young at the time to understand what it was all about and what it was in reaction against. All these young people know is that they live in a repressive and paranoid society that prevents them from enjoying personal freedom and has become the pariah of much of the civilized world.

As the U.S. and its allies assess the effectiveness of ever tightening sanctions and debate how best to destroy Iran's nuclear aspirations and cripple Iran's economy, let's pause for a moment to consider how all of this affects the average Iranian family mentioned above. A recent Gallup poll, quoted in today's New York Times, shows that "nearly two-thirds of Iranians though the sanctions would hurt their livelihoods. The poll also found that almost half of Iranians said there were times in the past year when they lacked enough money to buy food their families needed--triple the level from 2005."

I ask, how is this fair? Are these sanctions meant to incense the average Iranian to rise up against the government in the spirit of Tunisia or Egypt? They tried this in 2009--unfortunately, to little positive effect. Iran is essentially being held hostage between two rival political powers--Ayatollah Khamenei and the religious council versus President Ahmadinejad--each of whom is more concerned with preserving their grip on power than improving the lives of their citizenry. Put yourself in the shoes of our average Iranian. If your livelihood was indirectly being destroyed by a foreign power collective, would you be more likely to express anger at your own government or at the country/countries that were making your lives more difficult on a grass roots level? My guess is you'd choose the latter.

This column is not in defense of the ayatollahs. I am merely taking the humanitarian approach. Let's think about the Iranian people for once. Iran possesses a culturally diverse and rich history with a highly educated and sophisticated population. Until these people can effect positive change in their country on their own, we need to adapt a more compassionate and nuanced approach to how we deal with their government, otherwise we risk destroying an ancient civilization and inadvertently fostering an anti-U.S. mentality out of which nothing good will come.

Ciao.

Stopping Iran Through Syria

2012-02-08T11:21:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Before I begin today, I just wanted to alert all of you to a special promotion I'm currently running on Amazon.com. Starting today and lasting through February 12th, you can download the Kindle version of my novel "Birds of Dreams" for free. Yes, that's right. For free. The same promotion is running concurrently on Amazon.co.uk for those of you living in the UK. After February 12th, the price will go up...so take advantage of this offer now. "Birds of Dreams" is a satirical look at contemporary reality TV-obsessed society and portrays the lengths people will go to for a shot at their own Kardashian dreams. It's funny, it's irreverent, it's a novel for our times.

Changing focus...I was particularly gratified to read an Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times by Efraim Halevy, the former Israeli national security adviser, ambassador, and Mossad director from 1998 to 2002. In his column, entitled "Iran's Achilles Heel," Mr. Halevy argues that the best (and most overlooked) way for the West to defeat Iran's spreading influence in the Middle East is to support regime change in Syria. Never mind, he writes, a military strike on Iran's nuclear processing facilities that would prove extremely costly and would run the risk of furthering antagonizing Iran into its own strikes against Israel and other Western interests in the Middle East.

A far better approach--and one that no one in the U.S. seems to be considering as all focus is on weighing the pros and cons of a U.S. or Israeli missile strike---is to undermine Iran's influence by tightening the noose around Bashar al-Assad's neck. If the West works to build unity among and influence upon the various rival factions within the Syrian opposition, it can effectively cut off Iran's conduit to its allies in Hamas and Hezbollah, get rid of Iran's Republican Guard training camps throughout the country, and thereby limit the scope of Iran's influence in the country upon which it most relies as a proxy for regional dominance.

Of course a major stumbling block in this scenario is continued Russian intransigence. But, Mr. Halevy writes, this is not necessarily insurmountable. If the West and the post-Assad government is able to assure Russia that it can maintain naval access to its Mediterranean ports at Tartus and Latakia and continue to serve as an arms supplier to Syria, Russia might be feel that its interests are not being overlooked. Russia needs to feel that it is not being sidelined in any negotiations involving the future of Syria, its main ally in the region. Russia will not allow another repeat of Libya, hence its unconscionable veto of the U.N. Security Council/Arab League-backed resolution.

Russia is trying its own diplomatic approach and claims it is committed to peace in Syria. Despite the Russian flag-waving and pro-Kremlin rallies that greeted the Russian delegation in Damascus yesterday, it seems very little was actually accomplished. Bashar is stubbornly holding fast.

Mr. Halevy, you've got it right. Your strategy is exactly the one I've been suggesting here for days. A missile strike or any overt military action against Iran's nuclear sites, regardless of their possible justification, is only going to make matters worse. By focusing on Syria, we'd be killing two birds with one stone--assuring regime change in Syria which--if managed correctly--will put a stranglehold on Iran's influence not only in Syria, but around the world.

Ciao.

Why the Syrian Opposition Needs a United Front

2012-02-07T13:56:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

The more I think about the situation in Syria, the angrier it makes me feel. I realize there is no perfect solution for halting the violence and that the overthrow of the Assad regime does not guarantee a peaceful or orderly transition to democracy. The main problem the Syrian opposition has--as I've said before--is that there isn't a central leadership. The Free Syrian Army, mainly comprised of Syrian army deserters, is a loosely confederated network of freestanding militias. Whatever binds them together is under threat of dissolution. According to a recent report on CNN International's website, three rival rebel leaders are claiming that they are the driving force behind the rebellion, none of whom seem interested in sharing credit.

Major Mahar Naimi, spokesman for the newly created Higher Military Council, told CNN over the weekend that his organization, under the command of General Mustafa Sheikh, is the leading force driving change in Syria. In a case of tit-for-tat, Colonel Riad al-Assad long known to be one of the "commanders" of the Free Syrian Army, dismissed Major Naimi's charge by saying: "This man represents himself. He has nothing to do with the Free Syrian Army...those people are representing themselves and do not represent the revolution and the Free Syrian Army."

Into the mix we need to add Lieutenant Bassim Khaled, another defector from the Syrian army, who claims that neither the Free Syrian Army nor the Higher Military Council are the ones in command of opposition forces--at least not in Homs, the city currently being pummeled into the ground by Assad's pro-government troops--but rather a militia calling itself the Al Farroukh Battalion.

Who to to believe? Or are all claimants telling the truth? It doesn't really matter. The point here is that it is all well and good for each of these organizations to be fighting the good fight against Assad's forces. These are brave and patriotic men leading the charge in defense of a better and ostensibly freer Syria. I commend them and the men and women who fight under their leadership wherever they may be. The problem though is that despite these pockets of resistance, Assad still commands an army of at least 200,000 and, unless Russian and Chinese leaders are lobotomized, overthrown, or come to recognize their grievous error in vetoing the Security Council resolution, Assad will continue to benefit from Russian arms sales that will provide his army with vastly superior weaponry with which to quell the rebellion.

But further to that, the question remains: Without a united non-sectarian opposition front headed by qualified politicians and experienced diplomats, if and when Assad falls, what happens then? In the wake of the failure of the resolution, the West and its allies in the Arab World should work together to not only arm the rebels but actively work towards building an opposition leadership that can credibly work to building a free and democratic Syria when the fighting comes to an end. Otherwise, I fear more chaos and Sunni vs. Alawite sectarian warfare.

Ciao.

A Call for Eyewitness Accounts of the Events in Egypt

2012-02-06T12:54:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

When I'm not following current affairs in the Middle East or tutoring high school kids in the inner-city, I'm a playwright. I'm in the process of writing a new play, tentatively titled "Tahrir." It's a very different sort of piece from what I've written in the past, different in that it's very topical as one can probably assume from its title. I mention it here because I know I have readers in Egypt and other places in the Middle East that are currently being rocked by the tidal wave of the Arab Spring. And while I've done all this research, what I feel I'm lacking is some in-depth stories from the trenches from people who have been actively involved in the protest movement, whether it be in Egypt or Tunisia, Syria or Lebanon. I am currently reading Wael Ghonim's excellent memoir "Revolution 2.0" that gives a brilliant first-hand account of how social media was responsible in large part for putting the Egyptian revolution into motion. This is very helpful, but I need more.

In a nutshell, the play tells the story of Alistair, a young American blogger who goes to Cairo in the early days of Tahrir, meets and becomes influenced by a young Egyptian activist named Gamal. Gamal comes from the Egyptian elite. He is Western-educated, lives in Heliopolis, and prides himself in his life as a playboy. His father is one of Egypt's leading businessmen with very strong ties to the Mubarak regime. But despite all this, Gamal is moved by the protesters' demands and the plight of the everyday Egyptian. As much as this is a story about Alistair's understanding of these events, it is also--perhaps more so--the story of Gamal's social awakening and the conflict he feels between his socioeconomic background and what he believes to be right. I'm still in the early days of writing the play but I do know that Gamal will be arrested in Tahrir, will be tortured at the hands of the police, and will eventually be martyred.

Contrary to the impression many of you may have received of me from this blog, I have never been particularly politically motivated...that is, until I started following the extraordinary events of the past year. I have become very impassioned and feel a strong need to express this passion through my writing, which has always been my strongest suit. So if any of you who follow my blogs regularly or just happened to stumble upon it can offer any insights or put me in touch with anyone who may have been in Tahrir or have been arrested or suffered first-hand the injustices of these governing regimes, please let me know. You can respond here with a comment or contact me on Twitter at @jonmalysiak. Your insights are invaluable. I want my play to do your story justice, especially here in the West where people may not be as aware or well-versed on what's happening in Egypt or Syria on a daily basis.

At any rate, that's my pitch. Tomorrow, back to the news analysis.

Ciao.

The Syrian Civil War

2012-02-05T13:17:00.000-08:00

Happy Super Bowl Sunday, everyone!

As predicted, Russia and China vetoed the Security Council resolution requiring Assad to essentially turn the Syrian government over to a vice president pending elections. As if on cue, Syrian government troops intensified their crackdown on the town of Homs, which has become the eye of the Syrian protest movement. The vote would have resoundingly passed had it not been for Russia and China who said any such resolution would have been a violation of Syrian sovereignty. This veto has initiated a diplomatic firestorm with angry accusations being hurled between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, among others. According to Mr. Lavrov, Russian objection to the resolution stemmed from the fact that Russia feels there was an inadequate balance of blame for the violence being placed on the Syrian government and that the opposition was just as responsible, if not more so, for the rising body count.

Of course, this isn't the real reason for Russia's objections. The real reason, as I've written here before, is that Russia makes a lot of money selling arms and other types of military equipment to Syria. If Russia were to be seen criticizing its number one client, that business and lucrative source of income would surely evaporate. Russia can't afford to lose that.

It seems there's very little to be done unless the U.S. or other countries within Europe or the Arab League take matters into their own hands. This, however, isn't likely. After Iraq, the U.S. is loath to take the lead in setting foot in another Arab country without such action being unilaterally approved. I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Arab World has its own multinational force--like, for example, the African Union Force that currently has troops on the ground in Somalia--that could intervene through military action. It's a shame because I do believe any sort of intervention has to be Arab-led. But the state of affairs between most of these Arab countries is so fraught with uncertainty and sectarian animosity that I don't imagine it would even be possible.

In Egypt and other countries throughout the Middle East as well as Germany and Greece, Syrian embassies were burned overnight in direct protest of the intensifying action against the opposition in Homs. Because foreign journalists are not allowed inside Syria, it is difficult to get a true sense of the violence taking place there. However, video has been smuggled out and posted on YouTube that vividly brings the situation to life. According to one eyewitness account related in today's New York Times:

"It's a real massacre in every sense of the word. I saw bodies of women and children lying on roads, beheaded. It's horrible and inhuman. It was a long night helping people get to hospitals."

Unfortunately, I think the situation is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better especially as the Free Syrian Army advances closer to Damascus, Syria's capitol that has until now been spared most of the carnage. While diplomats and military experts are hesitant to label it thus, what we are seeing in Syria today is a civil war. Unless Russia is made to stand down from its position, there's really nothing the Security Council or anyone can legally do. And the Free Syrian Army is too scattered and ill-armed to seriously be considered capable of overthrowing the government. What are we left with? More of the same.

Ciao.

Saturday Movie Review: Coriolanus

2012-02-04T12:18:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Ralph Fiennes' critically-acclaimed modern-dress film version of Shakespeare's play "Coriolanus" finally opened in Chicago yesterday. From all the reviews I've been reading over the past few months, I was eagerly anticipating the opportunity to see it. This is one of Shakespeare's least familiar plays. I think I'd read it in college years ago but it's not one that I'd gone back to since. So I was going in to see this film without much in the way of expectations beyond great performances, great visuals, and the chance to hear Shakespeare spoken by a couple of the greatest British actors alive today--Ralph Fiennes (who also directed) as General Coriolanus and Vanessa Redgrave as his mother.

I'll start with the good. There's an immediacy to the battle scenes--of which there are several--that gives the film a quick-cut, grainy documentary quality and grounds the film very vividly in the present. Although the setting is Rome and its environs, the film looks as though it takes place somewhere in the Balkans, Belgrade perhaps during the reign of Milosevic in the '90s. The performances, of course, are outstanding, though not uniformly so. While Vanessa Redgrave and Ralph Fiennes act the hell out of their roles--both share a steely determination that's utterly convincing as mother and son--I was most impressed by Gerard Butler as Coriolanus's arch-enemy Tullis Aufidius. I've always sensed there's a fine actor somewhere in Mr. Butler but it's never had a chance to shine through. This film is his moment and he steals every scene he's in, including those that pair him off against Mr. Fiennes. As much as they loath each other and are driven to one another's destruction, I sense in Mr. Butler's Aufidius a respect--even a love--for Coriolanus despite the actions taken by both against each other. Because of Mr. Butler, I found the final scene quite moving. Seeing Coriolanus from Aufidius's eyes, made me feel for the first time a bit of sympathy for Coriolanus that I hadn't felt through any of the preceding two hours. This is one of the problems I had with the film.

I don't think it's Mr. Fiennes fault as actor or director that I found Coriolanus himself a bit of a cipher. There's a reason this isn't considered among Shakespeare's great plays. The problem is, Coriolanus is totally unknowable. We don't really understand him nor do we as an audience know all that much about him. He's a famous Roman general that saved Rome from destruction at the hands of Aufidius, leader of the Volsces. He prefers fighting to politicking, would rather be out on the battlefield commanding troops than actively courting the support of the people. He has a power-hungry and rather quietly frightening mother who seems to control him physically and psychologically. When he's nominated to become Rome's leader he's arrogant in his dismissal of the established political process and in so doing alienates himself from the populace.

That much is clear. What isn't clear though is why Coriolanus is like this. You don't have to like a character to care about him as long as you are given something that causes you to either admire or despise or have some sort emotional reaction to that character. In this case, I didn't feel anything except, after a while, annoyance because I didn't understand why Coriolanus makes the choices that he does. Consequently, I felt indifferent to him as a character. He annoyed me.

Much has been made of the way in which the film uses pseudo-cable TV newsflashes etc to convey background and context. The great BBC presenter Dan Snow is even shown at one point conducting an on-air interview with another character. (Mr. Snow speaks Shakespeare quite eloquently, in fact.) I got what Mr. Fiennes was trying to do here, but it struck me as somehow artificial and forced. It was effective at first but then the technique was used so often I found it all a bit gimmicky. I also didn't feel that Shakespeare's language, particularly in the crowd scenes and even more so in the television studio when the audience finally turns against Coriolanus, always worked within this particular contemporary milieu. I felt the themes and parallels Mr. Fiennes was trying to make as a director were a bit forced and heavy-handed. There's not a lot of subtlety to be had here which is a shame because Shakespeare as a writer is quite nuanced. Nothing needs to be hammered home.

I also found that Jessica Chastain was woefully miscast. As I've said, the performances across the entire cast are quite strong but whenever Ms. Chastain--playing Coriolanus's long-suffering wife--I felt like I was suddenly watching an amateur production. It was jarring and I wanted her to go away. Her character isn't particularly developed which may have been part of the problem, but I don't understand why a stronger actress couldn't have been cast in the role.

So all in all, I didn't like "Coriolanus" as much as I was hoping to. If you're looking for some great Shakespearean acting, like I've said, the entire cast (minus Ms. Chastain) does a good job. It's a nice opportunity to watch one of Shakespeare's more rarely performed plays, though here I think that Juliet Taymor's bloody and wonderful 2000 film of "Titus Andronicus" starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange remains a stronger cinematic adaptation.

In a nutshell, "Coriolanus" is worth seeing but don't expect an emotionally fulfilling experience.

Ciao.

Fear and Loathing in the Arab World: Syria, Egypt, and Algeria

2012-02-03T10:00:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

As I expected, the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council came out of their negotiations yesterday with a severely watered-down version of their resolution against Syria. Whereas the original draft had stipulated Assad must step down and cede power to an acting vice president before new democratic elections were held, the document that came out of yesterday's meeting drops any mention of Assad's ouster. It also doesn't articulate an arms embargo or new sanctions. This is because Russia (quietly backed by China and India) has expressed utter antipathy toward any punishment for the Assad regime's horrendous treatment of its protesters and threatened to veto any resolution that even hinted at regime change. Russia has continued to supply pro-government forces with arms and ammunition and sees no reason why it should stop. The Kremlin claims it is no friend of Bashar al-Assad but does not agree with foreign intervention in domestic affairs. More to the point, Putin knows his own political actions lack legitimacy and, by showing any support for the Syrian protesters, he doesn't want to be seen supporting a movement that calls for the ouster of another dictator.

So thanks to Russia, we have a resolution that doesn't really mean all that much. The Arab League and the Security Council are in agreement that Assad is bad and that the country would (though the resolution doesn't say this) be better off without him. We already know this. This isn't news. So what's next? Assad continues to kill with impunity, the rest of the world (minus Russia, China, and India) collectively shakes its head, and the death toll hits 10,000.

Elsewhere in the Arab World, things aren't all that rosier. Mass protests continued in Cairo yesterday in response to the soccer stadium massacre in Port Said Wednesday night. Eyewitness reports continue to come in which only throw mud in the eye of the Egyptian security apparatus and point toward at least tacit SCAF support for what happened. Apparently, right when the game ended and the El Masry fans charged the pitch, the stadium lights blacked out, providing the rioters temporary cover as they initiated their attack against the unsuspecting al Ahry team and fans. Other reports claim security closed and locked the gates of the stadium when the violence began, in effect trapping those trying to escape inside. Al Ahry's "Ultras" as their ardent supporters are called have been very vocal in their demands that first Mubarak and now the military council step down, having taken a front-and-center role in the protests since their start a year ago.

But--lest this column be too much gloom and doom going into Super Bowl weekend--there was some levity to be had. Iran hosted a conference in Tehran this week where it expressed pride in having been the birthplace of the "Islamic Awakening." Right. Conspicuously absent from this "conference" was any mention of Syria whose protest movement, Iran insists, is the work of foreign meddling and provocation. Try telling that to the thousands of Syrian people and defecting soldiers on the streets of Homs and Hama who are being mowed down by pro-Assad tanks.

I don't know where this is all headed and I'm fearful of the worst. Democratic transition is never easy and it is unrealistic to expect the process to be a success overnight. But the West, having been burned by involvement in two wars in the region over the past ten years, is loath to jump into the fray again. I understand this reluctance but can we in good conscience sit on the sidelines while hundreds of innocent people are killed on a daily basis?

It reminds me of the attitude France took after its eight-year undeclared war with Algeria. Once Algerian independence was granted in 1962, De Gaulle turned his back on Algeria and more-or-less refused to address it or acknowledge the concerns of pro-French Algerians in both Algeria and France. As British historian Martin Evans points out in his thorough and informative but at times tedious new book "Algeria: France's Undeclared War," when considering the French Resistance movement during World War Two and France's fight to preserve its colonial integrity in Indochina, France had been in a state of war for over twenty years by the time the Algerian conflict wrapped up. Consequently, it turned inward and focused on domestic and European affairs, much as the U.S. is doing now.

I suppose only time will tell. And while I understand Egyptian rage and their fear that the military will never step down, killing each other is not the way to effect positive change. Violence begets violence. It's the stuff history is made of.

Ciao.

Hooliganism for Political Means

2012-02-02T13:23:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Soccer hooliganism has always existed on the fringes of the world's beautiful game. A little healthy fan rivalry is an inherent part of any sport, sometimes it gets a little out of hand. Sometimes, unfortunately, it gets a lot out of hand. Over the past 30 years a handful of situations have erupted into something worse than good-natured ribbing, the deadliest of which was a stampede in which 78 people died during a soccer match in Guatemala City in 1996.

That dubious distinction was awarded anew last night in Port Said, Egypt. A match between two soccer clubs with an historic and deep-seated rivalry--El Masry of Port Said and Al Ahly of Cairo--spun violently out of control after El Masry came from behind to win the match 3-1. The winning goal was scored in the final seconds of play and then, as if on cue, El Masry's fans stormed the pitch, purportedly armed with knives, rocks, and clubs, and began attacking Al Ahly's team members and fans, chasing them on the field, killing indiscriminately. In the chaos, many others were trampled to death, some were suffocated, and apparently according to some reports, still others were pushed or thrown off the stands.

Where was security when all this was going on? Well, that's the question being asked by many, including the authorities. Video of the riot shows security merely standing around looking helpless, or at worst, passively complicit in the stampede. One of Al Ahly's top players, Mohammed Abu Trika, is quoted in the New York Times as saying: "People here are dying and no one is doing a thing. It's like a war."

Exactly. There's more to this than yet another example of soccer fans behaving badly. What happened last night in Port Said is an example of soccer fans behaving badly out of political motivation. In this part of the world, die-hard soccer fans are called Ultras. The Ultras are actually a fairly organized lot and were among the first to take to the streets when the protests against the Mubarak regime ignited last year. Last night was the eve of the first anniversary of what came to be known as the Battle of the Camels when pro-Mubarak forces attacked peaceful protesters in Tahrir Square with rocks, gasoline bombs, whips, knives, and clubs.

The ruling military council (SCAF) recently agreed (albeit reluctantly) to dismantle parts of the emergency laws that have been in place since Mubarak took over upon the assassination of Anwar Sadat. There's chatter that what took place last night was planned ahead of time and that the police were indeed complicit, hence their lack of involvement in doing anything to stop the massacre. Why? The military council is asserting its control and is using the riot as justification for maintaining its draconian laws as a means of further cracking down on the protesters. It's all rather obvious.

Egypt's acting head of state, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, phoned Al Ahly's satellite TV channel to offer his condolences and to assure all parties involved that the perpetrators of the violence would be dealt with accordingly and that the victims would see justice done. How convenient for him. Now all he and his military cronies have to do is point to what happened last night in Port Said as evidence that without a strong military presence, anarchy will reign.

Who are the real hooligans here?

Ciao.

Delhi Belly: The Best Comedy of 2011

2012-02-01T19:34:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

What do you get when you cross "The Hangover" with "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" with a little disco madness in the form of the great Hindi actor Aamir Khan (who also produced the film) playing a character named "The Disco Fighter"? -- the madcap Hin-glish comedy "Delhi Belly," my pick for the funniest movie of 2011.

Never heard of it? You probably haven't unless you're one of the billion people who follow Hindi cinema, otherwise known as Bollywood. "Delhi Belly" was released last summer and grossed huge box office everywhere it seems except here in the U.S. But it is now available on Netflix in both DVD and streaming formats.

I just watched it and I have to say as ridiculous and vulgar as it is, I haven't laughed this hard in a long time.

The plot is too convoluted to really summarize but I'll try in a nutshell. Three down on their luck room-mates, Tashi (Imran Khan), Nitan (Kunaal Roy Kapur), and Arup (Vin Das) find themselves in the center of a drug and diamonds crime syndicate. A case of really bad food poisoning (hence, the Delhi Belly of the title) results in a botched drop-off involving stolen diamonds and a stool sample, a lot of shooting and chasing, a double--or was that a triple?--cross resulting in a burqa-clad getaway, and a wonderfully ludicrous end credits number to the tune of a 1970s blaxploitation pastiche called "I Hate You Like I Love You." (This is where Aamir Khan's Disco Fighter comes in.)

It definitely isn't your typical Bollywood film. Ninety-five percent of the dialogue is in English (though you may want to turn on those English subtitles for the Hindi bits) and it's running time is a brisk hour and forty-two minutes. The two musical numbers don't interrupt the flow of the story and are frankly totally tongue-in-cheek. If this had been made in the U.S. it would certainly have earned an R rating and it was criticized in India for the fact that it basically throws the Hindi film formula out the window.

I loved it.

Word of warning though: next time you order Indian take-out, you may want to rethink that Tandoori Chicken. Or, more to the point, don't order Tandoori Chicken from a street vendor in Delhi. Oh, and also...beware of living in an apartment beneath a traditional Indian dance studio. I'll say no more.

Ciao.

Syria + Iran = A Whole Lot of Kicking and Screaming, But a Fall Nonetheless

2012-02-01T13:54:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Want to know the best way to thwart Iran's ambitions? Regime change in Syria. At least that's the theory posited by Rick Gladstone in today's New York Times. It's an interesting suggestion.

It turns out that Iran is more than a little dependent on its only true friend in the Middle East. It is through Syria that Iran channels its money and arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But now that Hamas's prime minister Khaled Meshal has effectively closed up shop in Damascus with no plans to return there any time soon, Iran finds itself without one of its most trusted anchors. It also seems, at least from my perspective, that Hamas is seeking to distance itself from Iran. Mr. Meshal has been on an Arab World tour lately, hoping to gain support and legitimacy from governments in the region that up until now have preferred to keep Hamas at arms' length. Iran is currently undergoing its own financial problems, what with U.S.-backed sanctions slowly crippling its economy, legal action being threatened against any banks that deal with Iran's central bank, and a threatened oil embargo. In retaliation, Iran is flexing its muscles. It threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, but everyone knows this move would only be self-defeating and isn't likely to really occur. The source of much of the world's consternation with Iran is its continued pursuit of nuclear enrichment, regardless of nearly universal objections. Despite its continued threats, however, Iran now appears to be taking a slightly more diplomatic tact in allowing inspectors from the IAEA back into the country.

Word on the street is that Iran is supporting the Syrian army by providing it with weapons and tactical training against the protesters. No doubt it sees itself as supporting its best friend and neighbor. But one can almost guarantee that this is only going to bite Iran in the ass when the Assad regime eventually (and inevitably) falls and the new Syrian government is comprised of the heretofore opposition who aren't going to respond kindly to any Iranian meddling. Once this happens, Iran will only find itself even more isolated than it already does. And let's face it, as sanctions continue to squeeze the Iranian economy, the amount it gives to Syria is going to dwindle to nothing. It's kind of ironic really. By continuing to provoke international sanctions upon itself, Iran is hurting its buddy Syria more than it's actually helping. No more Iranian money means less that can go toward buttressing Assad and his cronies which means the inevitable downfall of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.

It won't happen overnight. Syria and Iran will go down kicking and screaming. But they will go down...

Ciao.

Tunisia: Can Islamism and Secularism Peacefully Co-Exist? Why or why not?

2012-01-31T13:34:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Can Islam and secularism co-exist peacefully (and productively) in a government setting? I find myself on the fence.

As the Arab world continues to be rocked by change, with predominantly secular-oriented dictatorships falling to the power of the people, more and more of these countries are taking a more Islamist bent. Look at Egypt--more than 65% of its new democratically-elected parliament is comprised of the previously banned Muslim Brotherhood and the hardline Salafist party. Tunisia is now run by a coalition headed by the Ennahda Party which claims it is moderate, yet the recent protests over the airing on Tunisian television of the Iranian-French animated film "Persepolis" give one pause to consider whether secularism is being gradually stamped out. The "Persepolis" uproar is over a scene in the film where God is portrayed speaking in Tunisian slang. A mob attacked the home of the station director and two other men who spoke out in support of him were beaten outside the courthouse in Tunis. Iraq and Pakistan are awash in religious-fueled sectarian violence. The Moroccan government is more Islamist-leaning now than it ever was. And Syria? Well, when Assad finally falls, the government that replaces him is surely to be more Islamist than ever.

Pundits and Middle East experts, as well as government officials in countries dealing with the ongoing transition sparked by the Arab Spring, hail Turkey as an example of a moderate Islamist country where religion and secularism successfully co-exist. But how successful is Turkey really? It's an uneasy alliance at best.

The fundamental problem of course is the fact that these repressive governments were based on a strict secular code that sought to cover over the deeply religious convictions of the people they oppressed. When these governments are overthrown and the people are given a democratic initiative, a knee-jerk reaction is to vote into office governments that represent the opposite of everything the dictatorships stood for. This isn't to say that the people are voting for Islamist parties strictly because they want to merely rid themselves of any and all vestiges of the past, but it makes you wonder. I do believe that it's human nature to go to the extreme when something has been forbidden for so long. I wonder if that's not what we're seeing now in the Middle East.

It also doesn't help that the West is viewed as having given at least tacit support for years to some of these dictatorships. During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, for example, the U.S. turned a blind eye to the atrocities of the Saddam regime and covertly sold arms and equipment to Iraq because it didn't want Iran to emerge victorious. The U.S. also supported Mubarak for decades despite the regime's well-documented oppression of the Egyptian people because it viewed Mubarak as a stalwart ally on behalf of the Arab world's--albeit uneasy--detente with Israel. The West was hesitant in demanding Mubarak step down because it was unsure of the type of government that would rise up in its place. From the West's perspective, their greatest fears were and are being realized.

So the West now finds itself in a conundrum. The Arab Street is becoming increasingly Islamist though it is indeed occurring as a result of the democratic process. What to do? Democracy only works when all parties are given the freedom of expression. What happened in Tunisia last week gives a lot of cause for concern. Once these new governments have gone through their growing pains, will there be room for a secular minority? The jury is out.

What do you think?

Ciao.

Honor Killings -- a Verdict Reached in Canada

2012-01-30T11:16:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

A verdict was decided yesterday in a Canadian courtroom in the three-month trial for the murders--"honor killings"--of Ms. Amir Mohammad, age 53, and Zainab, Sahar, and Geeti Shafia, ages 19, 17, and 13 respectively. In 2009, Ms. Mohammad and the three girls, who were of Afghan descent, were discovered locked and submerged in a car in a 19th century canal near Kingston, Ontario.

The defendants are Mohammad Shafia, aged 58, the father of the three girls and husband of Ms. Mohammad; his second wife, Tooba Yahya, aged 42, and their 21 year-old son Hamed. According to trial transcripts, Ms. Mohammad arrived in Canada from Afghanistan in 2007 under the guise of being Mr. Shafia's cousin, not his first wife, as polygamy is illegal in Canada.

Apparently, Mr. Shafia was disgusted by the thoroughly Westernized behavior and dress of his daughters. Police wiretaps had recorded him expressing extremist views in regards to his daughters: "They violated us immensely," he is heard saying in one tape, "There can be no betrayal, no treachery, and no violation more than this."

It is still unclear how exactly the murders were committed; however it seems the three girls and Ms. Mohammad were dead before their car was pushed into the canal. Charges were based in part upon diary entries by Ms. Mohammad that chronicled a long history of abuse by all three defendants, and particularly by the son Hamed whom the girls were said to have feared.

While a sentence has yet to be determined, according to Canadian law, first-degree murder carries a compulsory sentence of life in prison with no chance for parole until after 25 years.

As horrific as these murders are, unfortunately, they are really just the tip of the iceberg. Honor killings are widely practiced in parts of India, Pakistan, and throughout the Arab World. And although there have been other cases of honor killings in the U.S. and Canada, this most recent example is one of the first to gain so much attention in quite some time.

The first reported case here in the U.S. was in St. Louis in 1989, committed by a father, Zein Isa, and his wife against their 16 year-old daughter, Palestina. Together Mr. and Mrs. Isa stabbed the girl thirteen times for, among other "offenses," having an African American male friend (who wasn't the girl's boyfriend) and for asking a school counselor for help because she was being beaten at home. Both Palestina and Geeti, one of the girls killed in the Shafia case, had also asked to be placed in foster care. Another similarity between the two cases is that none of the defendants expressed any remorse about their crimes. In fact, all have declared that they themselves are the injured parties, not the people they have killed.

I've chosen to focus on these cases today as a means of highlighting the fact that for a religious community that complains of being misunderstood and marginalized here in the West, particularly post-9/11, such behavior as honor killings and female circumcision and the general subjugation of women isn't going to help the Muslim cause for winning Western hearts and minds. I realize of course that these are examples from the fringe. And, as I've written before, I believe that in order to better integrate the Muslim way of life into contemporary Western society, governments and communities need to improve their system of integration starting at the grass roots level. But it seems that for every step forward taken by the Muslim diaspora, we hear or read about another example of behavior that causes most of us non-Muslims to scratch our heads and wonder and, frankly, turn away in disgust.

I realize that honor killing is a tradition that's been around for well over a thousand years. (Look at the story of Romeo and Juliet, or even Othello.) But isn't it time we put an end to this senseless barbarity? Islam is a religion based on peace and shared ethical values. Can someone please explain to me what drives men such as Mohammad Shafia and Zein Isa--not to mention their wives--to commit such heinous acts in the name of religion? Please. Explain it to me.

Ciao.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Syria?

2012-01-29T11:43:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

So the Arab League finally did it. Deciding that their observer mission to Syria was inadvertently doing more harm than good, it suspended the operation until further review. This means there are no observers on the ground and that the Assad government is now free to unleash its vengeance upon the opposition with impunity.

I suppose this shouldn't come as a surprise. I mean let's face it, the observers were never given the freedom of movement required to really get an accurate view of the situation. When you are under strict escort by troops loyal to the Assad government--the source of the problem to begin with--how much could they actually have expected to see? Not a lot.

Even though the League voted last week to extend the mission for another month, observers were dropping out right and left, thereby further eroding the credibility of the entire endeavor. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the Arab League does have a peace proposal on the table with the United Nations Security Council. In fact, most of the world--with the exception of course of Syria, Russia, China, and Iran--welcome the League's proposal as being the most proactive approach yet to taking the first steps toward ending the violence. The plan calls for Bashar to step down, temporarily ceding power to a vice president while a new government was formed. Of course, Bashar has stated ad nauseum that he has no intention of doing any such thing. He knows he has the support, in particular, of Russia from whom Syria imports tens of millions of dollars of arms each year. Russian Vice President (and soon-to-be President) Vladimir Putin has publicly expressed support for Bashar and has joined him in condemning Western (read U.S.) influence in inciting the Syrian insurgency. This is a similar accusation to that which Putin has made about the recent protests in his own country.

Although I have always been a skeptic of the Arab League observer mission, now that the mission has been suspended--albeit temporarily but I'm not hopeful of a renewal--where does that leave things? In a very bad way indeed. For however long it takes the League to decide whether to continue the mission or not, Assad has a perfect window of opportunity to inflict maximum damage upon the opposition movement. You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.

What gets me is that no one outside the Arab World really seems to care all that much. The Obama administration repeatedly claims to be "closely monitoring" events in Syria but what does that really mean? I don't advocate sending American troops to Syria. This would give Iran an opportunity to further decry American hegemony in the region and who's to say that Iran wouldn't use this as a catalyst to move the Republican Guard into Syria under the guise of protecting its Syrian ally? We don't want another Iraq. It's unlikely this would happen anyway given the fact that Obama is in the process of initiating a "reset" in its relations with Russia and is unlikely to do anything that would provoke further Russian consternation. It seems where the U.S. is concerned, democracy is great as long as it falls in line with our own political sensibilities, otherwise democracy just gets in the way of promoting our master agenda...though I'm not sure anyone--including our leaders in Washington--really knows what that is anymore.

There has been mention in the U.N. Security Council of enacting a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. It was an effective tool in bringing down Qaddafi in Libya and to a lesser extent Saddam in Iraq. But there are enough dissenting opinions in the Security Council about this that it's unlikely a no-fly zone is realistically within the equation.

So what to do? We need to give full support to the Arab League peace proposal and perhaps offer a sort of amnesty to Bashar and his allies in the Syrian government as an incentive for stepping down, not unlike that which was offered to President Saleh of Yemen--who, incidentally, is now in New York for medical treatment. Beyond this, our hands are tied. The situation on the ground is dire but, in Syria, military intervention could truly ignite a much greater regional conflagration than we've seen to this point, a conflagration that might include Iranian missile strikes on Israel, the threatened closing of the Strait of Hormuz...and much much worse.

Not good. Not good at all.

Ciao.

The Battle of Algiers: History Repeating Itself

2012-01-28T15:33:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

I've been reading a lot lately about the Algerian war for independence from France. I'm nearly finished with Martin Evans' exhaustive (and exhausting) history of the war, "Algeria: France's Undeclared War" published this month by Oxford University Press, and watched Gillo Pontecarvo's classic 1966 film "The Battle of Algiers." What strikes me are the similarities between what took place in Algeria from 1954-1962 and what is going on in the Middle East today.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Algerian War, it was waged for the most part by the FLN (the National Liberation Front), based in Tunisia and comprised of Algerian nationalists, against France who had first colonized Algeria in 1830. What began as a series of loosely connected guerilla strikes in the Algerian countryside morphed into better coordinated terrorist attacks in Algiers and other metropolitan areas.

The colonization of Algiers had never been particularly easy for the French. In fact, it wasn't until 1870 when France more-or-less successfully put down initial Algerian resistance. After World War Two, as Britain was divesting itself of its colonial territories and France was facing certain defeat in Indochina, the French government decided it was necessary to reaffirm its presence in Algeria. In fact, they even went so far as to annex the North African country as a district of France, making it as integral a part of the country as, say, Normandy or Brittany.

In its formative days, the Algerian resistance was by no means unified. The dominance of the FLN only came after particularly bloody internecine warfare between the FLN and the ALN (the National Liberation Army) that left many thousands of Algerians and whole towns massacred.

The Battle of Algiers solidified the FLN's central role in the conflict, both from a political as well as military standpoint. It began in 1957 as an eight-day general strike after the French and anti-Muslim European activists bombed a neighborhood in the Casbah, the city's densely populated Arab area, that resulted in the deaths of many innocent men, women, and children. This gave rise to a series of coordinated attacks on French government employees and bomb attacks on public places--restaurants, cafes, and a casino--frequented by the Europeans.

This strategy of terrorism strongly resembles the tactics we have seen--and continue to see--from the likes of al Qaeda, for example. Prior to the Battle of Algiers and its aftermath, most of Algeria's nationalist groups restricted their efforts to combating the French occupying forces. Starting in 1957, however, these tactics changed with the intent of stoking terror in the lives of the European community at large. The attacks on public gathering places were carried out by women who were able to change their appearance enough so that they could pass through checkpoints set up throughout the city that separated the European areas from those inhabited by Algerians. We know from recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan that identical tactics are being used against not only U.S. and coalition forces but on native citizens from opposing religious groups.

Another element that strikes me is France's military response. The French, under the command of General Massu, put together a chart that attempted to breakdown the FLN hierarchy. (The Bush administration did a similar thing with playing cards.) The FLN, much like al Qaeda today, organized themselves into separate sects comprised of a leader and one or two seconds-in-command. These individual sects, while working under the FLN umbrella, were divided to such an extent that one sect simply didn't know 1) from whom their orders were being given and 2) who were actually involved in other parallel sects. This made it extremely difficult for anyone to be traced and captured by the French. Interrogations of captured FLN foot soldiers resulted in very little real information because these foot soldiers were kept in ignorance of the FLN hierarchy-at-large. And, finally, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the French occupying forces utilized torture as an integral means of disseminating information.

While the FLN ultimately lost the Battle of Algiers--it would take another 3-4 years of bloody conflict before they won Algerian independence in 1962--where they succeeded was in solidifying native Algerian support, something the French simply failed to do in their subsequent 'winning hearts and minds campaign.'

In the thirty years that ensued from 1962-1992, Algeria enjoyed independence but as time went on and a series of governments--led by resistance leaders Ben Bella, Boumediene, and Mohammed Boudiaf respectively--rose and fell from power, the Algerian people became increasingly disillusioned with the way their country was being run. In 1992, Mohammed Boudiaf cancelled general elections that were poised to be won by a hardline Islamist party, and was promptly assassinated. This led to a devastating civil war between Islamists and more moderate Muslims, the effects of which are still being felt today.

My point in all this is that history really does seem to repeat itself. There is very little difference between the tactics used in Algeria by the FLN in the 1950s and '60s--and the French military response--to those being employed by al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan and currently the opposition in Libya, Syria, and other countries in the throes of the so-called Arab Spring.

Pontecarvo's film "The Battle of Algiers" plays like a documentary in its look, tone, and overall feel. The experience of watching it today is eerie. Throughout, I found myself thinking that this could easily be a newsreel of Baghdad--albeit shot with a black-and-white camera--or any other country in today's Arab World. As a blueprint for today's Islamic insurgency, it is incredibly prescient and hauntingly relevant.

Ciao.

Friday Movie Review: A Separation

2012-01-27T15:41:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

The Iranian film "A Separation" finally opened in Chicago today at the Music Box Theatre. I've been looking forward to seeing it ever since it opened in limited release last year so I schlepped up to see it this afternoon. Let me tell you, it was worth the wait.

"A Separation" has already won the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film and is a two-time Oscar nominee this year for both Best Foreign Film and Best Original Screenplay. It is rather ironic that this film is probably going to win at least one Oscar at a time when relations between the U.S. and Iran are at a thirty-year low.

In brief, the film tells the story of a married couple, Simin and her husband Nader, an average middle-class Iranian family living in Tehran. After fourteen years of marriage, Simin files for divorce so she and their teenage daughter Termeh can leave Iran for (assumably) a better life in the West. Nader refuses to leave because he is in the midst of caring for his elderly father who is suffering from Alzheimer's. The divorce petition is rejected and Simin moves in with her parents. Termeh, the daughter, chooses to stay with her father. At Simin's suggestion, Nader hires Razieh, a thirty-something pregnant woman with a strong religious conviction, to care for his father while he works during the day at a bank. The job proves too much for Razieh and when she tries to quit after a particularly bad (and at first unexplained) spell with Nader's father, things quickly spin out of control.

This film is riveting on a number of levels, not the least of which is that it illuminates a culture that is alien to so many of us in the West and a country that, because of its theocratic leadership and government-sanctioned extremist ideology, is as frightening and unpredictable in many ways as North Korea. Religion plays a key role in much of what unfolds onscreen even if it is less overt than many might expect. Simin and Nader are average workaday people who only want what's best for themselves and their child, although they do not agree on how to achieve this. For them, religion is not the issue. It has more to do with Nader's devotion to his ailing father than anything else. Razieh, however, who dresses in flowing chadors and calls religious hotlines to tell her whether a decision is morally acceptable, is forced to choose between doing what is right and what she believes God would want her to do. For someone with such a pious religious and moral conviction, she finds herself rendered powerless. Her hot-headed and unemployed husband, Houjat, doesn't help matters either.

While I was watching the film, I found myself asking all sorts of questions, particularly in regards to who was in the "right" and who was in the "wrong." Each of these characters suffers for stubbornly adhering to their own personal ethic. My own sympathies tended to side with Nader while my heart really went out to the daughter Termeh who is sadly caught in the middle and, at the end of the film, is forced to make an extremely difficult decision. As accusations mount and events devolve into a he said/she said situation with potentially strong ramifications, the film portrays the undercurrent of fear and paranoia that runs through Iranian society today. It never overtly condemns or criticizes the Iranian legal system but it is does show how it is based upon perceptions of religious morality and hearsay that from a legal perspective offers its citizens very little protection.

Asghar Farhadi--the writer, director, and producer--was banned from making the film in September 2010 after he was accused of making 'politically incorrect' statements in support of several banned or exiled Iranian filmmakers; however, the ban was lifted in October after it was determined Mr. Farhadi's statements had been misconstrued. The film received its premiere at the Fair International Film Festival in Tehran last February and has gone on to win great acclaim and several awards on the international film festival circuit.

For anyone interested in strong international film-making and receiving at least a glimpse of insight into a world closed to most of us here in the West, "A Separation" succeeds on both counts. It is one of the very best films of 2011.

Ciao.

Apple: Rotten to the Core?

2012-01-26T16:23:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

As an Apple user, I was saddened and more than a little enraged to read an article in today's New York Times that documented the sub-standard and even fatal working conditions frequently found in the factories that supply and/or manufacture Apple electronics. The majority of these factories, perhaps not surprisingly, are in China where Western-based companies tend to look (there and Southeast Asia) for cheap labor.

The front-page article "In China, the Human Costs That Are Built Into an iPad" by Charles Duhigg and David Barboza cites numerous examples--from both former and current Apple employers and their suppliers--of situations where Apple has knowingly overlooked dangerous, if not illegal, conditions in these factories because the time it would take to improve the facilities would risk delaying the release of new Apple products.

One particular example of Apple's apparent disregard for the safety of its outsourced employees took place in Chengdu, China last May at an iPad factory. A series of explosions caused by a dangerous build-up of aluminum dust (a problem at many of these factories) killed two workers on impact and injured more than a dozen others. A similar explosion at another iPad factory last year resulted in an equal number of deaths and injuries. Two years ago, the article states, 137 workers at another Apple supplier were sickened because they were asked to clean iPhone screens with a chemical known to be hazardous.

Not all of these conditions necessarily result in death, but are horrific nonetheless. In one factory, workers were forced to work 24-hour shifts without a break--and were then even asked to stay for an additional 24-hour shift to keep production flowing. Some of these workers suffered such severe swelling in their legs that they were unable to walk.

Depression is rife among these workers. One dormitory that houses employees of Foxconn, one of Apple's suppliers, had such a high rate of suicide attempts that its managers installed safety nets throughout the building to prevent workers from jumping.

According to the article, Apple does conduct audits of these factories and, since 2007, annually publishes the audit reports. These reports have shown widespread violations of Apple's code of conduct wherein more than half of the factories audited showed evidence that employees were working more than six days a week for less than minimum wage. In addition, audits have shown cases where suppliers have employed child laborers and then lied about their ages to avoid scrutiny. Other violations include employee record falsifications and mass exposure to dangerous chemicals that aren't properly disposed of.

Apple claims that it is doing all it can to minimize if not eliminate these problems. But many consultants who have worked with the company disagree. According to one, a consultant at BSR (Business for Social Responsibility) to whom Apple has twice turned to for counsel on labor issues: "We've spend years telling Apple there are serious problems and recommending changes. They don't want to pre-empt problems, they just want to avoid embarrassments."

A former Apple executive concurs: "If you see the same pattern of problems, year after year, that means the company's ignoring the issue rather than solving it. Non-compliance [at Apple] is tolerated, as long as the suppliers promise to try harder next time. If we meant business, core violations would disappear."

Because competition to land an Apple contract is fierce among these suppliers--and because Apple hires suppliers who charge the cheapest rates for their parts--there is demand to keep prices low. One supplier quoted in the article says that Apple frequently purchases its first order at one rate and then asks the supplier to further reduce their cost for all future orders. This results in a lowered bottom line for the suppliers which then reduces employee pay and, frankly, the ability to maintain safe working conditions at the factories. So what is the ultimate result?--more accidents like the one in Chengdu last May, more deaths.

The report is shocking but I'm not all that surprised by it. Sweatshops have always existed and will continue to exist as long as there is consumer demand, a cheap labor force, and corporate fat cats who care more about filling their pockets than human rights and basic decency. In the case of Apple, consumer demand is at an all-time high. They earned a record $46.2 billion in profits last year! Most people don't think about how or where their iPod, iPad, iPhone, or Macbook was manufactured. I certainly didn't, at least not until I read this article. But the really sad thing is, now that I know the chemical that was used to polish my iPod screen may have resulted in the premature death of some nameless Chinese worker, am I going to stop using it? Um...no. But it may make me think twice about whether or not to purchase an Apple product in the future.

I'll close with a quote from a current Apple employee that concludes the article: "...right now, customers care more about a new iPhone than working conditions in China."

It's sad, but oh so true. This is how technology has changed us. I'm afraid we've forgotten our compassion.

Ciao.

One Citizen--An Extraordinary Plea for Human Rights by Maikal Nabil Sanad

2012-01-25T10:57:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody!

I want to introduce you all to a remarkable young man. Maikel Nabil Sanad is a twenty-six year-old Egyptian who was released from prison yesterday after enduring a hunger strike and nearly a year in Cairo's El Marg Prison. You probably haven't heard of him, right?

Mr. Sanad never really got the opportunity to join his peers in the protests at Tahrir Square. In 2009, he spoke out against conscription into the all-powerful (and corrupt) Egyptian army. In 2010, he ignored his draft notice and was subsequently detained and released. Then, last February, Mr. Sanad was arrested again en route to Tahrir Square. After a sequence of further arrests and beatings, he began writing anti-military statements on his Facebook page and other blogs, claiming that the army did not share the democratic values of the protest movement and that it cared nothing for the rights of citizens but rather only for preserving and inflating its power. He went on to say that the revolution "so far managed to get rid of the dictator but not of the dictatorship," a criticism that has been expressed frequently by many who fear the interim military council will never step down from power as promised in June.

Mr. Sanad was then arrested again on March 28, 2011, initially sentenced by a military tribunal to three years that was then shortened to two for the 'crime' of criticizing the Egyptian army.

As Michael Wahid Hanna, a lawyer and fellow at the Century Foundation, writes in today's New York Times: "[Mr. Sanad's case] illuminates a broader challenge facing Egyptian society itself, if it hopes that democracy and pluralism will replace the Mubarak government."

The reason Mr. Sanad's case hasn't received the same amount of attention as other Egyptian dissidents who have been unjustly imprisoned is because, as Mr. Hanna points out, 1) Mr. Sanad is a Coptic Christian, a member of a religious community traditionally aligned with the former Mubarak regime; 2) Mr. Sanad is an avowed atheist and pacifist; and 3) he is a passionate supporter of Israel in a region that for the most part would probably rather that Israel didn't exist at all.

His criticism of the military is merely icing on the cake. Coptic Christians are a minority in this increasingly Islamist country. Last October, the military unleashed the full might of its power on a Coptic demonstration that resulted in the deaths of 27 people. It would seem that there's a strong community in Egypt--even among the protesters--who don't necessarily believe in freedom or justice for all...and I'm not just talking about the military.

Mr. Sanad eloquently argues his points in an essay he wrote last year while in prison that was smuggled out and published online in December. Entitled "One Citizen," Mr. Sanad writes that in a truly democratic society, if there's even one citizen with a view that runs counter to the majority, society has an obligation to allow that citizen his/her freedom to express their opinion. I've included the full text of that essay below.

Mr. Sanad's words pertain not only to Egypt as it grapples with its ongoing democratic transition, but to all citizens and all nations of the world.

The One Citizen

by Maikel Nabil Sanad

Thanks to Nariman Youssef for the translation.
At a pressconference last week, SCAF’s Mukhtar Al-Mullah issued a number of statementsthat revealed the hidden intentions of the military to kill the nascent democracyin Egypt. When towards the end of the conference he was asked about me, herefrained from answering. And when asked about Alaa Abdel-Fattah, he tried tojustify the detainment of Alaa, and then concluded by a very telling sentence, “MaikelNabil and Alaa Abdel Fattah are Egyptian citizens, and we are very keen toprotect all Egyptians, but we’re talking here about one citizenout of 85 million”. Al-Mullah did not say who that “OneCitizen” was, Alaa or myself but what difference would that make?
-    The Military in their stupidity think that One Citizen is without valueand easily marginalized… Their minds do not comprehend the fact that OneCitizen put an end to Mubarak’s regime, one citizen: Khaled Said.
-    The first thing that came to my mind when I read Al-Mullah’s words was aquote by John Stuart Mill: “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion,and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no morejustified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would bejustified in silencing mankind”… This is precisely the differencebetween fascism and freedom. Fascists claim that there’s no harm in sacrificingOne Citizen for the good of the community, and it was under this banner thatpeople in Germany, in the Soviet Union, in fascist Italy, Nasserist Egypt,Baathist Syria and Maoist China, in Cuba and Milosevic’s Serbia, lost theirfreedom to tyrants who massacred whole communities while claiming each timethat it’s just One Citizen, sacrificed for the community.
   In my lectures on liberalism I always said “that if theindividual was at odds with society, as liberals we should take the side of theindividual against society.” Protecting the individual (the OneCitizen) means protecting the values of individualism and individual liberties.Those who claim they can build a society made up of oppressed members aredeceiving themselves, for if the individual is the building block of society,how do you construct a building out of stones that are crushed and broken?!
–    Neo-fascists forget that all great deeds in history were done by “OneCitizen”. It was One Citizen named Galileo who maintained that theearth was round, while all the inhabitants of the planet denied it. One Citizennamed “Muhammad” who brought Islam to humanity; the message wasnot revealed to 85 million people, but to One Citizen… Throughout history,human creativity has always been individual creativity: Plato, Aristotle,Newton, Nietzsche, Darwin, Edison – great deeds were always carried out byindividuals who stood out, even while the rest of society did not go far beyondtheir natural instincts… The sacrifice of one individual for the good of thecommunity is the argument put forward by tyrants to enable them to persecutethinkers, philosophers, scientists and all others who offered their servicesand their creativity to humanity.
-    I am not addressing myself to the military, for they are advancingtoward their end like the enchanted, ignoring all indications of their fate. Iam addressing myself to society, a society that was taught to accept theviolation of One Citizen’s rights for the greater good of the community, as ifthe power that oppresses one will be able to later respect the rights of thecommunity. This society that has accepted the displacement of the Nubiancommunity in the name of national interest, that has accepted the expulsion ofEgyptian Jews, the confiscation of their property, the revoking of theirnationality, in the name of the interests of the majority. The same societythat has sequestered homosexual rights, that has limited the individualfreedoms of individuals under the guise of maintaining the family system andthe interests of the greater society. It is time for the 85 Million tounderstand that their freedom is tied to the freedom of that One Citizen, thatall freedom is lost once they allow the wolf to choose the first victim fromamongst the herd, that they cannot regain the freedom of society unless everyOne Citizen is free.
Immediatefreedom for Alaa Abdel-Fattah, for myself, for Ayman Mansour, for AmrAl-Beheiry, for each and every One Citizen in Egypt. Not because that would bethe moral thing to do, but because you will never be free as long as the “OneCitizen” remains captive.
Maikel Nabil Sanad El-Marg general prison – prisonhospital
 2011/12/15

A Case for Greater Muslim Integration

2012-01-24T12:19:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

On the op-ed page of today's New York Times, Jonathan Laurence, an associate professor of political science at Boston College and the author of "The Emancipation of Europe's Muslims: The State's Role in Minority Integration" has written an insightful piece about the need for European governments to do more from a political standpoint to integrate Europe's rapidly growing Muslim population.

The piece, "How to Integrate Europe's Muslims," perhaps counterintuitively places blame for Muslim disenfranchisement on 'an excess of tolerance toward the large-scale Muslim immigration that began in the 1970s.' Mr. Laurence goes on to say that for all the talk of religious integration, the root cause of the issue has to do with the fact that this integration model is contradictory at best. He seems to be saying that most European countries have had a more-or-less open-door policy when it came to Muslim immigration, with a very specific caveat: It's okay for you to come into our country as long as you assimilate with our predominantly Christian-based way of life. This means we will not go out of our way to recognize your religious holidays, we will not support your desire for Islamic education or the building of new mosques or Islamic cultural centers, and we will insist that--as France has lately done--you divest yourself of any openly Muslim clothing--the hijab, for example--on threat of arrest and even deportation.

It's no wonder that European Muslims feel like second-class citizens. What Mr. Laurence suggests in place of these perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately rather draconian laws is, for one, a 'period of benign neglect of the Islam issue.' First, however, European governments need to formally recognize that Islam is now woven into the very fabric of their nations' existence, just as are Christianity and Judaism. He writes, in essence, that Europe needs to end its "us versus them" approach when addressing Muslim issues within the community, taking it beyond a tacit acknowledgment of Islam's right to exist alongside the Judeo-Christian tradition to a much more proactive program that truly integrates Islam at the grass roots level. This may include issuing mosque permits, incorporating Muslim holidays into school holiday schedules and encouraging the right to form all other types of political and non-political organizations, just as other non-Muslim Europeans have had the right to throughout history.

Only by making Islam a non-issue will Muslims ever feel truly included within the social and national fabric of their adopted countries.

To many this may read as rather simplistic. It doesn't address the rise of radical Islam, for example, which particularly since 9/11 has been at the heart of Western antipathy toward Muslims. And while there will always be extremists--on both sides of the equation--I do support Mr. Laurence's point. By continuing to pursue policies that merely seek to assimilate Muslims into society rather than truly integrating them, we are only furthering their feelings of disenfranchisement which can only add fuel to their simmering hostility. From anyone's perspective, this is a lose/lose situation. It's high time for a change.

Ciao.

A Glimmer of Hope in Syria--The Arab League Peace Proposal

2012-01-23T12:40:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

So despite the gloom and doom of some of my previous posts having to do with the ongoing democracy movement in the Arab World, there is indeed progress to report.

Yesterday was a big day in Syria, one might even go so far as to call it a turning point. We all know that the Arab League observation mission has been rather a bust. Hundreds of protesters were killed while the observer delegation kind of bumbled around the country, seeing glimpses of unrest and the government crackdown while expressing frustration that Assad's regime wasn't honoring the agreement that put the observers on the ground in the first place.

So what did the Arab League do yesterday? They unexpectedly issued a peace proposal demanding that Assad step down and begin negotiating with the opposition within two weeks. According to reports, this proposal is modeled after a similar agreement signed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, who finally left his country yesterday en route to the U.S. for further medical treatments for the burns he sustained last June in an attempt on his life. What may differentiate these two proposals, however, is that the Yemeni agreement offered Mr Saleh immunity from prosecution for war-related crimes if he agreed to step down. The Syrian proposal offers no such incentive for Assad and his cronies.

No one expects Assad to accept the proposal. He has unequivocally declared that he'll more-or-less die 'defending' his country. The reason I describe the Arab League proposal as progress is that it's the most sharply-worded response to the continued violence in Syria that we've heard from the Arab World. According to Reuters, Qatar's foreign minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, said "We ask that the Syrian regime leave and hand over power. We are with the Syrian people, with their will and with their aspirations." Again, change in Syria is not going to happen overnight. But with this declaration from the Arab League--really the only force that has much street cred on the Arab Street--it shows that with the exception of Iran and perhaps Russia, Assad has very few allies in his corner. He'll go down fighting, but eventually he's going to have to go down.

But with the end of the Assad dynasty, who's going to replace them? Chances are, we'll be faced with a similar situation to that which is currently roiling Libya. Over there in North Africa, the opposition was a rather rag-tag group of rebels who were united only in their desire to see Qaddafi overthrown. Now that he's dead and gone, the country is on the precipice of renewed chaos because none of these rebel factions can unite behind one course of action. The same can be said of Syria. The Free Syrian Army, a militia comprised of deserters seems to be the most direct opposition Assad faces, at least in terms of boots on the ground. There is also the Syrian National Council, a more politically-oriented opposition group that when all is said and done doesn't wield all that much influence.

So what to do? Wait and see, I guess. Along with the peace proposal, the Arab League announced that the observer mission would continue, citing that some progress has been made. I have my doubts but I'd rather them stay because as ineffective as the mission might appear, they are a collective set of eyes in Assad's backyard. With a peace proposal on the table, the Arab League observers might finally have a bit more clout.

The ball is in your court, Mr. Assad. Act wisely.

Ciao.

Brother vs Brother?: A Generation Gap in the Muslim Brotherhood

2012-01-22T19:26:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

I came across an interesting article in today's New York Times Magazine about a gentleman named Mohamed Beltagy. Mr. Beltagy is a doctor and a popular leader within the Muslim Brotherhood, which incidentally won 40 percent of the seats in the new Egyptian parliament.

The article discusses the conflict brewing within the Brotherhood between its moderate members--like Mr. Beltagy--and the hardliners who have traditionally been the more dominant faction. Because of this, many fear that any government majority comprised of hardcore Islamists is going to result in a repressive society, a fact that would appear to contradict the democratic values upon which the Egyptian protest movement was founded. It's disappointing that the youth movement, at least from a political perspective, appears to have lost its influence. The party it backed in the recent elections barely registered with voters who turned out in droves to elect a parliament that is at least 65 percent Islamist.

While the Muslim Brotherhood came out with the majority of votes, not too far behind it are the Salafists who advocate strict religious rule...a theocracy if you will. It would appear then that there should be a modicum of overlapping values between these two political parties. But, as the article points out, there is not. In fact, although the Brotherhood claims to have abandoned its more fundamentalist leanings--at least for the sake of elections--the Salafists have hardened their more extremist stance. This poses an obvious problem for the future, let alone stability, of any Egyptian government. If the two leading parties are unable to compromise for the sake of a united and stable parliament, it just gives the military council (SCAF) further reason not to step down as promised in June. In fact, when the unofficial election results started to trickle in late last month, the military revised its position and said it would not step down and would in fact take control of the writing of the Constitution.

But there are other, perhaps more immediate concerns as well...or if not concerns per se, then questions. Where, for example, has the Brotherhood been in the most recent bout of protests? A year ago, the Brotherhood was a dominant presence in Tahrir Square, serving--according to New York Times writer Robert Worth--as a sort of makeshift security apparatus, frisking anyone who came to the protests before allowing them into the square, etc. This is no longer the case. In fact, the Brotherhood has consciously put distance between itself and the protests, at least from an external perspective. The reasons for this are about murky as the politics.

Many believe that most of the top dogs in the Brotherhood (who are used to a strong military involvement in government) are not necessarily as adamant about getting rid of the military as are the younger generation, or for example, Mr. Beltagy. The military is still viewed by many older Egyptians as a stabilizing presence without which many fear anarchy. This may just be a case of better the devil you know...

But it does give cause for concern. The Brotherhood appears to be contradicting itself. In response to the most recent spate of violence that left at least 10 dead and hundreds more wounded, the Brotherhood spoke out against the violence--which it conceded was committed at the hands of the military--while telling protesters that their efforts would be better served by going to the polls and encouraging others to do the same. While elections are certainly an important part of the democratic process, if the military ultimately refuses to step down and widespread violence once again returns to Tahrir Square, on what side of the conflict is the Brotherhood going to find itself? After a year of dramatic change and continued uncertainty, the Egyptian public are not going to stand for a parliament--elected for the first time by the public--that sits on the fence and does nothing.

And as for that conflict within the Muslim Brotherhood between moderates like Mr. Beltagy and the traditional hardline cohort, many predict that once the Brotherhood is firmly in power, the moderates are going to be pushed out in favor of the old school...or the old madrassah, as it were. The hardline Brothers will align themselves with the hardline Salafists and you'll have a theocracy like Iran at worst, or Saudi Arabia at best, which isn't saying much.

The one-year anniversary of Tahrir Square is this Wednesday, the 25th. The new Parliament is also supposed to sit for the first time this week. Whatever happens, Egypt is definitely in the spotlight once again.

Ciao.

The Best Film of 2011: Zhang Yimou's "The Flowers of War"

2012-01-21T18:08:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

I'd normally feature a book review today but I've been so busy that I didn't make as much progress on Martin Evans' "Algeria: France's Undeclared War" (Oxford University Press, 2012) as I'd hoped. I'll be reviewing that next Saturday.

Instead I've decided to review Chinese director Zhang Yimou's latest film "The Flowers of War" which I just returned from seeing. You may know of Mr. Zhang from his previous martial arts historical epics "The House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero". While I'm not a fan of the genre, I've always appreciated Mr. Zhang's eye for stunning, almost achingly beautiful cinematography and a rather languid yet exciting narrative pace. You may have heard about "The Flowers of War" from the press it received upon its premiere in Beijing last month and from the diplomatic brouhaha its star, Oscar-winning actor Christian Bale, found himself in when he attempted to visit a dissident Chinese journalist under house arrest and was subsequently roughed-up by Chinese police.

Politics aside, "The Flowers of War" is a remarkable film that deserves to be given just as much Oscar attention as any other film currently in the running this season. It tells the story of a ne'er-do-well American mortician named John (Mr. Bale) who finds himself trapped in a convent school in Nanjing, China during the brutal 1937 Japanese invasion and massacre. Against all intentions, John ends up pretending to be the priest in charge of the convent and subsequently the protector of the convent schoolgirls and a group of Chinese prostitutes who have come seeking refuge from the brutality of the Japanese siege.

Mr. Zhang does not spare his audience the atrocities the Japanese committed. The film is rife with bloody and horrific battle scenes that will have you tied in knots, wanting to look away at times were it not for the fact that the images on screen are so visually arresting you simply can't. But there is also much beauty to be seen and humanity where you might least expect it. I was frequently reminded of three films by Stephen Spielberg, a great friend of Mr. Zhang's who also apparently suggested he cast Mr. Bale: "War Horse," "Saving Private Ryan," and "Empire of the Sun." The battle scenes have a grainy, documentary-style quality that brings to mind the urban combat scenes in "Saving Private Ryan" as well as the hellishness depicted in the trench warfare scenes of "War Horse."

The costumes, lighting, and sheer visual sweep at times reminded me of Bernardo Bertolucci's great Oscar-winning Chinese historical epic "The Last Emperor."

As for the performances, Christian Bale gives a nicely rounded portrayal of a man who goes from living only for himself to sacrifice on the behalf of others. Chinese actress Ni Ni looks great and wins our sympathy as Yu Mo, the 'leader' of the prostitutes and the film's ultimate heroine. Young actress Xinyi Zhang is particularly affecting as the film's narrator who is also one of the convent girls. The supporting cast--both Chinese and Japanese--is strong as well.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "The Flowers of War" is my pick for the Best Film of 2011. It won't win any awards here in the U.S. and it's certainly not receiving broad distribution, though I was happy to see that the screening I attended at one of the AMC theaters here in Chicago was pretty well-packed and the audience seemed quite engrossed. While I've definitely seen films with stronger performances, better screenplays, etc...where "The Flowers of War" succeeds for me is in pure cinematic impact. For as much as I enjoyed "War Horse" from a visual perspective, "The Flowers of War" had a more visceral immediacy that drew me in from the opening shot and didn't let go until the closing credits.

I'll be sharing more of my top film picks next weekend--including my Top 10 list for 2011. But in the meantime, if you happen to live in a city or a near a city that is showing Mr. Zhang's latest (his masterpiece)...I encourage you to check it out. I don't think you'll be disappointed. The story it tells is grim and unpleasant but it demonstrates that even in the midst inhumanity, the twin flowers of hope and heroism can still blossom against all odds.

Ciao.

The U.S. in Afghanistan: Whatever Happened to Being an Officer and a Gentleman?

2012-01-20T11:17:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Disturbing news out of Afghanistan today...it appears that last week's release of video documenting American soldiers urinating on Taliban corpses is not an isolated incident. This is bad in and of itself; however, what is more shocking--though not particularly surprising--is the response this video has apparently generated among many American servicemen, many of whom have cheered the video and have posted supportive (and racist) comments about this incident on various social networking sites.

But this points to a much greater problem, and one that causes me to reconsider the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and whether or not we should indeed be negotiating a peace settlement with the Taliban. A lengthy article in today's New York Times details a history of animosity between U.S. soldiers and their Afghan counterparts. It documents various incidents dating back to 2007 that have remained classified, providing more information about a series of attacks on U.S. soldiers by Afghan soldiers who are supposed to be working together to eliminate the insurgent threat.

Official reports claim that these incidents are isolated cases and do not reflect a broader trend of Afghan soldiers killing or otherwise harming members of the American-led International Security Assistance Force. According to an ISAF spokesperson: "We train and are partnered with Afghan personnel every day and we are not seeing any issues or concerns with our relationships."

But classified reports say otherwise. Apparently, there have been at least three dozen attacks on ISAF forces by Afghan soldiers since 2007. From May 2007 to May 2011, this report states that at least 58 ISAF members were killed in 26 separate attacks, the majority of which occurred post-October 2009, comprising 6 percent of all ISAF deaths in this time period.

So what's the impetus behind these attacks? Well, last week's video provides a pretty vivid example. An ever-increasing level of animosity between U.S. and Afghan soldiers is creating a climate that seems to be pushing both sides to extreme behavior. Afghan soldiers accuse their American 'brothers-in-arms' of being rude, ignorant, and disrespectful of their country and Islam. The Americans, on the other hand, accuse the Afghans of being cowardly, undisciplined, and addicted to drugs.

What we have here is a classic example of culture clash, supplemented in no small part by a sense of colonial superiority on the part of the U.S. military. If we haven't been able to resolve these interpersonal/cultural conflicts over the past ten years, chances are we never will. I also don't doubt that there's an overwhelming sense of frustration among ISAF forces, given the fact that after ten years, the Taliban insurgency shows no signs of being vanquished while the Afghan population (and the Karzai government) are expressing fatigue at the continued presence of U.S. and coalition soldiers. Any student of Afghan history can point to the fact that no invading/occupying force has ever been able to successfully control Afghanistan. Why bother?

Which leads me to re-evaluate my previous position against allowing the Taliban to open an office in Qatar from which to launch peace talks. Perhaps, after all, it's time to let Afghanistan (and Pakistan, for that matter, because everyone knows Pakistan holds the winning hand in this part of the world) get on with it. The Karzai administration doesn't want ISAF forces in his country. He's always been a sketchy ally at best and is now claiming that the U.S. is cutting Afghanistan out of negotiations with the Taliban. Karzai does have a point. He says that any deal that isn't headed by the Afghan government is doomed to fail. He's right. So maybe it's time to cut our losses and bring the troops home.

I don't deny that the Taliban is a terrorist organization or that once ISAF pulls out in 2014 Afghanistan won't devolve into a narco-terrorist state as it was from the mid-90s to 2011. But if the majority of Afghans want us out, then it's time to leave. Frankly, though, I don't blame them. Desecrating the dead--regardless of who they might be--is despicable. It serves no purpose other than to confirm (or reconfirm) for many in the world that the U.S. is little more than a nation of ignorant, uncouth rednecks.

Whatever happened to that phrase, "an officer and a gentleman"? If that video and the support for it expressed in social media is any indication, our armed forces are woefully lacking in both.

Ciao.

The Further Misadventures of Captain Schettino and the Costa Concordia

2012-01-19T13:13:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

The drama surrounding the wreck of the Costa Concordia continues. Rescue operations were suspended due to the threat of incoming storms and rough maritime conditions that caused the ship to dangerously shift on the ocean floor, hampering divers from continuing their search for survivors...or, now more likely, bodies of the deceased.

The latest toll: eleven confirmed dead with twenty-one still missing.

The big question that's on everyone's mind is, why was there an hour's delay from the time the Costa Concordia struck the rocks to the start of emergency/evacuation procedures? To Captain Schettino's credit, he did attempt to steer the doomed ship closer to land assumably to ease the difficulty of rescue operations. But what isn't clear is whether or not the Concordia's operator, Costa Crociere--a division of Carnival Corp, the world's largest cruise ship line--was in contact with the ship's captain during this time and, if so, what was the exact nature of their contact?

We all know by now that Mr. Schettino somehow ended up in a lifeboat when he should have been directing evacuation procedures on board the ship. According to Mr. Schettino: "I had no intention of escaping. I was helping some passengers put some lifeboats in the sea." I suppose there is some credibility to his claim that he tripped and fell, given the ship was listing at a 60-70 degree angle moments after the initial impact, but eyewitness reports of passengers and fellow crew members further attest to the chaos that ensued on board and the accusations that the Concordia's crew were poorly trained on how to handle a crisis such as this.

Mr. Schettino continues to state that the rocks upon which his ship ran aground were a surprise to him, given the fact that only a few weeks before he had successfully completed a similar maneuver to that which got him in trouble on Friday. Top brass at Costa Crociere concur that they were knowledgeable of Mr. Schettino's prior recklessness...not only knowing of it, but admittedly signing off on it. Costa Crociere's chief executive, Pier Luigi Foschi, says he didn't give Mr. Schettino permission to steer the ship through the risky maneuver that got it into trouble. According to an article in today's Wall Street Journal, Mr. Foschi said that Mr. Schettino and Roberto Ferrarini, director of marine operations, were in phone contact around 10:05pm, at which time Mr. Schettino said he was dealing with an "emergency" but didn't specify what exactly that emergency was, because he claimed he didn't know.

A timeline of events released by the Italian investigators puts the initial impact between the ship and these mysterious rocks at 9:45pm. The evacuation alarm didn't sound until 10:58, more than an hour later. At 12:42am, Mr. Schettino is now on a lifeboat. Presumably one hour later, at 1:46am Gregorio De Falco, the coast guard's commander, barked the now immortal lines that will forever represent the disaster: "Vada a bordo cazzo!" Get back on the effin' boat...

Almost a week later, Mr. Schettino is under house arrest and concerns are mounting that there's an ecological disaster-in-waiting. The ship is apparently sinking in an environmentally-protected zone which is leading to fears that its oil is going to seep into the water, thus endangering wildlife in the area.
This story is far from over.

What really bothers me about this event is not so much that the crew couldn't handle evacuation procedures calmly or effectively, but that Costa Crociere--aka Carnival Corp.--knew from recent experience that Captain Schettino was a hotshot, that he'd successfully completed his "Ferrari-like" moves in this same exact area, and yet seemed to have either approved or turned a blind eye to it. What does this say about Carnival? What does this say about the cruise-line industry as a whole? The level of negligence and outright incompetence is shocking, especially when thousands of lives are at stake.

A hundred years after the sinking of the Titanic, you'd have thought these companies would have learned their lesson. On a trivial note, I can't help being struck by the irony that this is happening just a month before James Cameron releases the 3-D version of his Oscar-winning film "Titanic." You couldn't have asked for a better publicity stunt.

Ciao.

"Vado a Bordo Cazzo" -- How the Sinking of the Costa Concordia Inspired a Fashion Statement

2012-01-18T15:19:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Before I get into the subject of today's blog, I wanted to let all of you know about a guest column I am currently writing for a friend of mine: the Top Ten Mistakes Authors Make. Having worked in the publishing industry for fifteen years both as an acquisitions editor and a literary agent, I've seen all manner of mistakes committed--often with the best of intentions--by first-time authors. Over the next few weeks, my top ten list of these mistakes will be featured on Melissa G. Wilson's Networlding blog.

Mistake Numero Uno: Do Not Assume Your Work is Done Once You've Turned in the Final Draft of Your Manuscript. Click on the following link to read more: www.networldingblog.com. This is the first of a series that will be featured over the course of the next few weeks. If you're an author--either experienced or first-time--please check it out!

Now...on to what's top of mind. I'm sure by now you've all read about the Costa Concordia, the mega cruise ship that went down off the coast of Italy last Friday with 4,200 passengers aboard. The story is undeniably tragic, what with the confirmed loss of eleven lives and, as of this afternoon, twenty-six still unaccounted for, but there is (unfortunately) an element of humor to the story which has prompted another round of soul-searching on the part of the Italian public.

The ship's much-maligned--and rightfully so--captain, Francesco Schettino, has today said that he didn't intentionally end up in a lifeboat trying to save himself at the expense of his passengers, but rather he "accidentally fell" into the lifeboat amidst the chaos of those first tragic minutes. Come on! Did he really think anyone would actually believe this...or if credibility wasn't what he was after, then doesn't he just realize what an idiot this makes him sound? I mean seriously, of all the places he could possibly fall while a ship is sinking, a lifeboat just strikes me as little too convenient.

What doesn't help Mr. Schettino's case is that his ship's crew and other passengers have criticized him in the press for behavior that reeks of stereotypical Italian machismo. Remember, this is a country that is still struggling to overcome the ridiculous, not to mention criminal, behavior of Silvio Berlusconi. "Bunga bunga" anyone? According to an article in today's Daily Telegraph, one of the ship's officers claimed that Mr. Schettino drove the ship "like a Ferrari" and was in the midst of trying to give a salute to an "old friend" before it hit a reef that apparently hadn't appeared on any the ship's maps. The first thing Mr. Schettino did when he realized he was in trouble? He called his "Mamma."

If it weren't for the quick-thinking of Gregorio De Falco, an Italian Coast Guard official, who reportedly told Mr. Schettino "Vado a Bordo Cazzo" or in other words, "Get back on board, for f***k's sake!" there's no telling how many more lives would have been lost.

What I love though is that Mr. De Falco's directive 'Vado a Bordo Cazzo' has now become a fashion statement. Tee-shirts have been designed featuring these words and are now apparently all the rage in Italy. I might have to get one. I'm not planning on going on a cruise anytime soon--though my parents are--but I'd dare anyone who is to order one of these tee-shirts (I'm sure they're available for purchase online) and wear it with pride, especially if they happen to be dining at the Captain's Table.

Ciao.

Protest Ennui Cannot be Allowed to Snuff out the Flame of Tahrir Square

2012-01-17T10:01:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Discouraging news coming out of Egypt. As January 25th rapidly approaches--the anniversary date for the start of the protests in Tahrir Square--it seems that the youth movement responsible for initiating the downfall of the Mubarak regime is losing favor with the average Egyptian. According to an article in today's Wall Street Journal, many have simply grown weary of the protests and long for a return to some semblance of normal life.

A dangerous sense of ennui seems to be settling in. I say dangerous because if the Egyptian everyman and woman decides to pack it in and go along with the ruling military council (SCAF) out of a feeling that nothing is ever going to change so why bother, the momentum built up over the past twelve months will truly have been naught. The military will take encouragement from this and it then becomes increasingly likely that the longed-for and promised transition from military to civilian rule, currently scheduled to take place at the end of June, will be at great if not greater risk.

To mark the anniversary, a protest 'festival' of sorts has been planned for Tahrir Square, comprising of musical performances, lectures, and other activities designed to commemorate the protest movement and reignite the flame against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Over the weekend, however, the Muslim Brotherhood (who along with the hardline Salafist Party are set to assume control of more than 45% of the seats in the new parliament which is set to meet for the first time on January 23rd) announced that they would not be participating in any renewed protests against the interim military rulers. Without the Muslim Brotherhood's blessing, it is doubtful turnout for the protest will be as large as it otherwise might have been.

Another blow to the youth protest movement was the announcement that Mohamed ElBaradei has withdrawn from the upcoming presidential race. In his official statement to the press, Mr. ElBaradei said: "The regime did not fall yet. My conscience would not allow me to run for the presidency or any position without having a real democratic system that implements the real concepts of democracy, not only its framework."

Mr. ElBaradei's reasons for withdrawing are admirable. Despite recent parliamentary elections, Egypt still has a long way to go before it can unequivocally be said to have transitioned into a full-fledged democracy. As long as the interim military council remains even nominally in control, the country is still technically a police state.

However, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate is perhaps Egypt's most qualified presidential candidate. His experience as the former secretary-general of the International Atomic Agency propelled him into the international spotlight. He is a known commodity as well as being familiar with the fundamentals of democratic government. Who else in Egypt is similarly positioned?

It seems that the fervid youthful revolutionary zeal of a year ago is fading in the face of continued repression and lack of true identifiable reform. The Egyptian economy is in the toilet, crippled by a lack of tourist dollars upon which the country could always depend as well as further uncertainty about the next six months. The youth movement may also be viewed by some older Egyptians as promoting anarchy. To counter this, the movement has initiated a public relations campaign called "Protect the Egyptian Military" that seeks to promote the efforts of the average policeman/woman on the street in contrast to the perceived corruption of their commanding officers.

It is of course understandable and perhaps inevitable that a certain level of 'protest fatigue' is to be expected. A year is an awfully long time to live in a state of economic and political uncertainty. Let's see what happens when the new democratically-elected parliament sits for the first time on the 23rd. Here's hoping the flame of Tahrir Square isn't allowed to die out.

Ciao.

One Year On: The Elusive Myth of Democracy in the Arab World

2012-01-16T08:37:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

After a year now of violent unrest and protests--with the exception of Tunisia--how much has really changed?

Despite the overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt and recent parliamentary elections that more-or-less went off without a hitch, the ruling military council (which was originally intended as a transitional thing) is still pretty firmly entrenched while protests continue, the economy free-falls, and the country is rife with rumors about an increase in the price of fuel beyond the affordability of the average Egyptian citizen, 40 percent of whom live beneath the poverty line.

Over in Syria, the Arab League observer mission is in shambles with less than a week to go as dozens of protesters continue to be killed, wounded, or disappeared. Bashar announced an amnesty yesterday for so-called criminals of the protest movement, meaning army deserters and any protester caught in possession of illegal arms or violation of laws governing peaceful protests. This is the fourth such amnesty, following similar announcements in May, June, and November. No one on the ground takes this seriously.

King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain paid further lip service to Bahraini protesters by saying that his government will be held under greater scrutiny by Parliament; however, Parliament will still be unable to dismiss government officials--usually members of the royal family or their sycophants--it deems unworthy of holding government office. This, protesters say, falls far short of what they are actually demanding--the institution of a full constitutional monarchy.

Meanwhile, in Tunisia, there were reports last week that there has been a five-fold increase in the number of self-immolations timed for the one-year anniversary of the birth of democracy and the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi, the young street vendor whose death ignited the Arab world. According to the BBC, these are mostly poor unemployed young men who have become disillusioned by the continued lack of jobs and government aid despite the installation of democracy.

So I repeat my question: How much has really changed?

I realize of course that in the grand scheme of history, one year is a relatively short period of time. And taking this into consideration, the sweep of the Arab Spring remains impressive. But when all is said and done, what is the true extent of these improvements? For the first time in decades, Egyptians were allowed to vote in free and fair parliamentary elections, though it remains to be seen whether the ruling military council will actually allow the new parliament to draft a constitution and become a truly democratic and functioning government. If the generals don't step down, more bloodshed on the streets of Cairo is pretty much a guarantee. Syria is a mess any way you look at it and heading toward a bloody sectarian war, if it isn't there already. How is this an improvement? And as evidenced by the continued public suicides of unemployed Tunisians, have changes in the government really translated yet to reforms on the street?

At this point, I suppose, there aren't any real answers. We can only wait, watch, and see. Still, it would be a shame if for the millions of people across the Arab world, democracy remains little more than an elusive myth.

Ciao.

Sunday Movie Review: "Carnage"

2012-01-15T13:53:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

"Carnage" is Roman Polanski's film version of Yasmina Reza's popular play "The Gods of Carnage," which ran on Broadway a couple years' back and picked up numerous awards. As I haven't seen the original play, I can only base my opinion on the film, though I have a feeling that the film is a pretty faithful adaptation, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

In case you're not familiar, let me give a brief overview of the story. "Carnage" is set over the course of a single afternoon in a fairly upscale apartment somewhere in New York, assumably near the Brooklyn Bridge Park. As the opening credits roll, we see from a distance a group of young-ish boys playing in a park. There appears to be a verbal altercation between two of the boys, and then one boy picks up a stick and thwacks it across the other boy's face.

Cut to the apartment. Nancy and Alan Cowan, played by Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz, are the parents of Zachary, the aggressor in the 'attack.' They have come to meet with Penelope and Michael Longstreet, played by Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly, the parents of Ethan, the 'victim' of the aforementioned attack. It turns out that Ethan lost two teeth and suffered from some nerve damage as a result of being hit across the face with a branch. Penelope is particularly set on exacting some sort of apology from Nancy and Alan for the behavior of their son. Things start off awkwardly and then just go downhill from there.

Let me start by saying that for the first 45 minutes or so, I was absolutely drawn into the characters, the dialogue, and the situation. On the first glance, it seems that these are basically good people who are trying to be good parents while looking out for the best interests of their children. But as the film progresses, the cracks in their relationships start to come through as do the cracks in their own individual psyches. Alan (Christoph Waltz) is an arrogant lawyer working for the pharmaceutical industry who would rather mediate the recall of a particular drug on his cell phone than have any involvement in the discipline of his son. His wife, Nancy (Kate Winslet), is an investment broker and somewhat of an ice goddess, though her brittle exterior only masks an extremely unhappy and lonely woman. On the other side of the equation, Penelope (Jodie Foster) is a basket-case of nerves and liberal do-goodism whose academic and philanthropic aspirations--she's writing a book about Darfur--are delivered with a rigid and rather uncompromising sense of moral superiority and stifling political correctness. Her husband Michael (John C. Reilly) initially comes across as a straightforward, rather happy-go-lucky blue collar guy--he buys and sells parts: door handles, flush mechanisms on toilets, etc--who, as it turns out, bitterly resents his wife's pseudo-intellectualism.

Things start off on a rather tense note. These are clearly not the type of people who would normally interact or socialize with each other. They each come into the situation with some fairly well-defined preconceived notions about the other couple. But then coffee and cobbler is served, one character has a horrendous bout of projectile vomiting--which I have to say came as a surprise and I would say is the highlight of the whole film and probably one of the most truly memorable scenes of the year. I was literally gagging and laughing hysterically at the same time. What some people won't do to preserve their collection of rare art catalogues!

The dialogue comes fast and furious and is witty enough to keep you listening. But...after around the halfway point, it all gets a little tedious. I think what it boils down to is a case of what works on stage doesn't necessarily translate as well on film. Eventually, I found myself wondering, why the hell do Alan and Nancy hang around, especially after all the copious vomiting...which, again, I thought was staged brilliantly. It turns out that all four of these characters are miserable, that their marriages are a sham, and the antisocial behavior exhibited by Zach and Ethan is really just a physical manifestation of the emotional and verbal violence the parents hurl at each other but manage to keep under wraps in public. It's a rather thin premise than becomes rather threadbare by the end, especially when the Scotch is poured and tongues are loosened by the alcohol.

However, as an ensemble piece with some pretty terrific moments, "Carnage" worked for me. I thoroughly enjoyed it even as I didn't particularly buy into it. Christoph Waltz gives a standout performance that is nicely matched by his male counterpart in John C. Reilly. The women fair less well. Kate Winslet is good, especially early on when she's trying to maintain an outward level of calm and decency despite a violent case of nausea, but I found her less interesting as the film went on. I appreciated what Jodie Foster was trying to achieve with her character but she was just too shrill and hysterical from the onset for me to really find her all that compelling.

In the end, what's obvious is bullies are bullies no matter their age and we don't really change or mature all that much as we grow older. We just become more pathetic.

Ciao.

Saturday Book Review: "Justine" by Lawrence Durrell

2012-01-14T13:32:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

This week's book is "Justine," the first volume of British writer Lawrence Durrell's classic The Alexandria Quartet. First published in 1957, "Justine" and its companion novels have acquired somewhat of a cult following over the years.

On the surface, the book tells the story of a quartet of lovers in Alexandria, Egypt in the years immediately preceding the Second World War. On the one hand, we have Justine, an exotic Jewess with a vague but tragic past, married to Nessim, a handsome and vaguely mysterious Coptic Christian. On the other, we have Melissa, the consumptive cabaret dancer of Greek origin who falls in love with the Narrator, an Irish schoolteacher whose name we never learn and whose real identity remains a cipher. Through a series of betrayals and adulterous liaisons intermixed with rhapsodic descriptions of the Levant and the seething, vaguely menacing and hyper-sexualized atmosphere of Alexandria in the 1930s, the reader isn't presented so much with a traditional story, but with a series of gauzy perceptions and stunning imagery, philosophical dispositions on the nature of love, sex, marriage, and the Kabbalah, and an intricacy of puzzle pieces that, by novel's end, really don't quite all fit together.

This last point, however, is by no means a criticism. We get the sense as we turn the last page that the Narrator has deliberately kept certain truths concealed--perhaps out of ignorance himself (which calls to mind the age-old question about the reliability of first-person narratives) or from the mere fact that these characters--Justine, Nessim, Melissa, and the Narrator--in addition to the studied and colorful supporting cast, are simply unknowable...to the Narrator, to the reader, and to themselves.

Of course this is the first in a series. The second novel, "Balthazar," is purported to be told from the perspective of one of "Justine's" peripheral characters. I haven't read it yet, but will report back soon.

What I found so captivating about this novel is Mr. Durrell's writing. His sentences exude an erotic languor that sucks the reader in with an almost hypnotic power. Each word feels meticulously and perfectly chosen. While the novel is relatively brief at 250 pages, the narrative scope is epic while still being quietly intimate. A case in point, describing the tortured agony of Nessim's almost obsessive love for his wife Justine, a woman seemingly incapable of being faithful to him:

Of course this is the unhappiest love-relationship of which a human being is capable--weighed down by something as heartbreaking as the post-coital sadness which clings to every endearment, which lingers like a sediment in the clear waters of a kiss.

The novel is comprised of many such beautifully-rendered passages. While occasionally the beauty of the prose veers a little too much towards the poetic, I found myself going back and rereading whole sections not because I wasn't understanding it (though I'll admit there were a few instances that had me scratching my head in perplexity) but for the sheer joy of hearing and reading Durrell's descriptions out loud.

"Justine" is a novel to be savored and read at leisure. It presents for the reader a sepia-toned picture postcard of an exotic time and place that hints at the darkness and corruption of a pre-Arab Spring Egypt, though an argument can be made that things haven't changed all that much today. The menace is there, but it is the beauty that shines through.

Ciao.

"Have a nice day, buddy."

2012-01-13T13:08:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

I'm sure by now you've probably read about or seen footage of the video posted on YouTube the other day of the American marines urinating on three dead insurgents in Afghanistan, one of whom is heard on the video saying: "Have a nice day, buddy." The video was most likely taken some time last spring or summer in Helmand Province. No one knows for sure who took the video or posted it online, but investigators have identified the marines as part of the Third Battalion, Second Marines, who have since returned to their base in Camp Lejeune, N.C. or have been posted elsewhere.

While it would be unfair of me to categorically condemn the U.S. Marines for the actions of a few individuals, I think it does betray a certain lack of sensitivity training on the part of the U.S. armed forces. This latest incident does not a exist in a vacuum. Over the past ten years of war--both in Afghanistan and Iraq--we have unfortunately born witness to a series of acts by our servicemen and women that not only push the boundaries of decent humanity, but thoroughly undermine the so-called good those men and women are there to perform.

Not since the horrendous abuses documented at Abu Ghraib has there been such an outcry against the behaviors of our forces fighting overseas. While there is something to be said for the adverse psychological effects of warfare--the extent of which I can only surmise--what this video and similar occurrences calls into question is not an issue of combat stress but basic dignity and humanity. Ever since the U.S. and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and then Iraq in March 2003, we have been waging not only a more-or-less traditional war on the ground, but a war for the hearts and minds of the people most affected by our presence there: native Afghans and Iraqis, both of whom were already sensitive to the negative perceptions the world has had of Islam, especially since 9/11.

Again, I cannot possibly imagine what it must be like to lose a close friend or acquaintance to an IED or a sniper's bullet, nor can I say that I wouldn't be driven a little crazy by the unrelenting stress and fear that these men and women have to contend with on a minute-to-minute basis. Still, have these people lost all sense of right and wrong? Do they not inherently know that pissing on the corpses of enemy combatants is not something to be taken lightly, that it offends human sensibility, not to mention that it goes against internationally agreed-upon protocol for the humane treatment of war dead and prisoners? I was interested to read that if caught, the perpetrators of this latest act could be convicted as war criminals.

I realize that the argument can be made that the "enemy" has committed acts of horrific violence against not only our troops but civilians--who can forget the video of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl's beheading in 2002 at the hands of al-Qaeda--but we are not supposed to be upholding the tenet of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If we do, this makes us no better from a moral standpoint than those against whom we are at war. If anything, it undermines our purpose over there. It gives the Taliban and the Islamic insurgency-at-large further ammunition against us, which is the last thing we need.

I don't believe the War on Terror will ever truly be won. I do believe, however, that our servicemen and women should be upholding the values upon which the U.S. and other Western democracies are founded. If we lose sight of our humanity, then the war truly is lost.

"Have a nice day, buddy" ... indeed.

Ciao.

Love and Joy and Happiness: A Song to Make You Smile While Syria Burns and Sanctions Cripple

2012-01-12T11:29:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

First of all, I hope you enjoyed the music video I posted last night. "Smile" is a new song and collaboration between two of world music's biggest stars: Tamer Hosny, the Egyptian pop singer who is about to embark on a tour of the U.S. and Canada next month, and Shaggy, the critically-acclaimed reggae singer. I got turned on to Mr. Hosny's music after reading Robin Wright's book "Rock the Casbah" about the origins of the protest movements that have resulted in the Arab Spring. Mr. Hosny's been criticized by some within the Arab world for not initially embracing the protest movement but then making a point of being in support of it, staging appearances in Tahrir Square, etc. Regardless, his music is poppy and infectious, and frequently alternates between Arabic and English-language lyrics. It's dance music with a slightly exotic Middle-Eastern flair that's right at home in any club from Cairo to London to New York to Chicago. "Smile" is one of my favorites. Although the song is not available on iTunes yet, Mr. Hosny's extensive discography is. I encourage you to check it out if you haven't already done so.

Unfortunately, though of no surprise, world leaders in the news today aren't subscribing to the song's upbeat and positive mantra: "We share love and joy, love and joy and happiness." Yesterday saw Bashar al-Assad making his first public appearance in months, addressing tens of thousands of his supporters in Damascus's Umayyad Square. In the ten minute address, he reiterated his "iron hand" stance against the protesters and the increasingly violent insurgency, telling them "I belong to this street...I came here to draw from your strength." This is rather rich coming from a leader who rarely appeared before "his people" before and, to many critics, seemed to prefer to hide behind advisors and sycophants (and perhaps other family members) than take center stage.

It was yet another day of tragedy in the beleaguered nation as word came of the death of respected French journalist Gilles Jacquier. Mr. Jacquier was reportedly killed by an exploding shell as he reported on a pro-government rally in Homs. It is unclear whether the shell was fired by government troops or the insurgency, such is the rather confusing situation on the ground. Meanwhile, Anwar Abdel Malik quit the the Arab League observer mission, claiming on Al Jazeera that "the mission was a farce and the observers have been fooled. The regime orchestrated it and fabricated most of what we saw to stop the Arab League from taking action against the regime." This is what I--and many others--have been saying all along. I'm starting to feel like a broken record where this whole issue is concerned. The Arab League observer report is due on January 19th. At this point, why bother? Assad is clearly unconcerned with anything the report might reveal, although the mission itself at least has a bit more credibility given the fact that Mr. Malik and others like him are finally coming out and saying they've seen atrocities first-hand. Syria is already under the crunch of sanctions as well as having lost its position on the League. Still Mr. Assad seems determined to keep his chin up and lead. Nothing short of direct foreign military intervention will stop him.

As for sanctions, I've always been kind of skeptical about their overall effectiveness. Look at Iran, for example. Recent reports say the economy has been severely affected by all the sanctions imposed upon it, yet Ahmedinejad and the ayatollahs seem just as determined--if not more than ever--to continue to subvert the West's desire that it end its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The only people who seem to suffer are everyday Iranians going about their lives. Sanctions only work if they incite the "street" to rise against their government in protest...that doesn't seem to be happening.

And I'm also skeptical of these targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, like the one that occurred yesterday. It is a well-known fact that Israel has been chomping at the bit to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities into the oblivion and that while the U.S. doesn't necessarily advocate military action, it probably doesn't disagree with it all too vociferously. Iran claims yesterday's assassination was the work of Israeli and American agents. Some Iran watchers have said it isn't completely out of the question that Tehran isn't responsible itself for these attacks given the fact that these scientists are pretty closely monitored and that it would be fairly difficult to successfully mount an operation against them. Who knows?

I agree that we don't want nuclear technology to fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations. There needs to be some semblance of checks and balances here. But I hold to the belief that nations should be allowed at least some level of self-determination. Were the roles reversed, I don't think the U.S. would react kindly to another country dictating how it defends itself. As people, if we feel like we're coming under attack, our natural reaction is to defend ourselves. Countries and governments are no different.

Iran should continue to be closely monitored, but I don't advocate murder. We look with horror at events unfolding in places like Syria, where the ruling autocrats kill dissenters with abandon. How is the West any different when it assassinates foreign citizens who flout Western ideals and norms?

Agree or disagree with me, it does give food for thought. But in the meantime, I'm putting on my ear buds and listening to Mr. Hosny and Shaggy sing about "love and joy and happiness." If only it could be. We'd all be much better off.

Ciao.

"Smile" Official Music video Tamer Hosny Ft Shaggy H.Dكليب تامر حسني و ...

2012-01-11T18:36:00.001-08:00

The 'Iron Hand' of Bashar al-Assad

2012-01-11T15:35:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Surprisingly, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave an address yesterday on Syrian state television, only the fourth such appearance he's made since the resistance struggle began last March. Not surprisingly, however, was the actual content of his message. If the free world--and the majority of the Syrian people--were hoping that Mr. Assad would boldly declare an end to the government crackdown and agree to Arab League demands that he withdraw his forces and end the daily massacre, they were sorely disappointed.

Mr. Assad did no such thing. In fact, his speech gave quite the opposite message. He reiterated his long-standing (and ludicrous) assertion that foreign elements were the ones responsible for inciting the uprising and that his troops were merely acting in defense of the realm. Moreover, he vowed to crush the rebellion with "an iron hand." And as for the Arab League-sponsored observers, Mr. Assad lumped them in with the supposed foreign rabble.

What does this tell us? Well, for one it further confirms the overall ineffectiveness of the Arab League mission. While Mr. Assad ridiculed them in his speech, he did say that the observers could stay in the country until the 19th, as scheduled. Secondly, Mr. Assad's address should serve as a wake-up call to the West and the Arab League, for that matter, that more needs to be done--and now--to protect the lives of the Syrian protesters, which I suspect comprise a majority of Syria's population.

Again, the West seems to be keeping to its "wait and see" approach. I've argued against this in previous columns, but it appears the powers-that-be are more concerned with not risking the ire of Russia or China than saving innocent men, women, and children from daily slaughter. Or perhaps some are still holding out hope that Mr. Assad will back down at the eleventh hour...not likely.

It seems Mr. Assad is under the misguided belief that he needs to evoke the ruthless behavior of his father who infamously put down an Islamic rebellion in Hama in 1982 that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of the Syrian military. Bashar has been viewed by many as a weak leader. He was educated in the West and spent four years in London studying to become an ophthalmologist. His older brother, Basil, was originally next in line to rule but his assassination thrust Bashar to the top position. Some say Bashar is beholden to another brother, Maher, who is currently commander-in-chief of the Republican Guard.

Regardless, to the outside world, for all intents and purposes, Bashar is the guy in charge. Doesn't he realize that the use of his "iron hand" will only doom him and his cronies to a fate that will ultimately prove as ignominious as that of Muammar Qadaffi, one of his former dictatorial peers? But perhaps not. Perhaps Bashar will be allowed to remain in power as the death toll mounts and the West merely looks the other way, not wanting to be accused of interfering in the internal affairs of another country that has nothing in particular to offer because it doesn't have oil? I hate to say this, but this response isn't all that out of the question.

Ciao.

Amir Mirzaei Hekmati--a Pawn on the Chessboard of U.S.-Iranian Relations

2012-01-10T11:10:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Yesterday, Iran sentenced and condemned to death a 28 year-old American citizen for spying for the CIA and being an "enemy of Islam." Amir Mirzaei Hekmati was apparently visiting family in Iran last fall when he was arrested. News of his arrest only came to light in December when a videotaped "confession" was broadcast on Iranian television. According to Iran, Mr. Hekmati admitted to being sent to Iran by the CIA to spy on the Intelligence Ministry. He has twenty days to register an appeal against the ruling.

This latest bit of madness marks the nadir in 33 years of contentious U.S.-Iran relations. It is not, however, the first time in recent history that Iran has detained and accused American citizens of espionage. Just last September it finally released two American hikers who had been accused of illegally entering Iran with the negative intent. In 2009, an Iranian-American journalist was also arrested but later freed after an international diplomatic uproar. Given this history, it is highly likely that Mr. Hekmati's arrest and sentencing is little more than Iran playing its usual game of brinkmanship as a means of lessening scrutiny on its suspected nuclear weapons program. In this most recent case, however, there is a twist.

Prior to visiting Iran, Mr. Hekmati acquired an Iranian passport as a means of easing his ability to travel to the country. He is, therefore, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen. The problem though is that Iran does not recognize dual citizenship. Therefore, in the eyes of Iran's judicial system, Mr. Hekmati is first and foremost a citizen of Iran and as such is to held accountable to Iranian law which would uphold the death sentence. Another possible strike against Mr. Hekmati is that from 2001 to 2005, he served in the U.S. Marine Corps and had active duty in Iraq as well as--though the Obama administration will not confirm this--in Afghanistan. From Iran's perspective then, this makes Mr. Hekmati somewhat of a jewel in their crown. They are less likely to suspend his sentence or to give in to international calls for his release.

Of course, it would serve absolutely no benefit to Iran were they to go ahead and execute him. Iran is increasingly a pariah state on the world stage, with very few allies outside of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and a small handful of Latin American autocrats propping it up. With sanctions crippling the Iranian economy and increasing threats of an embargo against Iranian oil exports, Iran has very few credible bargaining chips left to it. A threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping last week failed to materialize because such an action would have done more damage to the Iranian people than the foreign economies it was meant to target. It would seem then that Iran is grasping for anything that they feel boosts their position at the negotiating table.

But while Iran claims a desire to reopen talks with the U.S. and the West regarding the true motives behind its development of nuclear capabilities, it contradicts itself by announcing this week that it had begun to enrich uranium at a second location. The new site is reported to be deeply entrenched beneath a military installation, thus protecting it from U.S. or (more likely) an Israeli missile strike. So it's not really clear what Iran is playing at...but then Iran has always been rather opaque.

I would like to believe Mr. Hekmati is merely being used as pawn on the ever-shifting but deeply entrenched chessboard of US-Iranian relations, and that when the West refuses to make any concessions for his release, Iran will cede defeat and release him. This is just going on past history. But there is always the possibility for surprise. If Iran truly feels it is being backed into a corner and that it has no other option other than to lash out, there is a chance that Mr. Hekmati may not be saved. How this would serve Iranian aims in the long run is anyone's guess. But then, that seems to be what Ahmedinajad does best--keeping the world guessing and holding it off at arms'-length while it continues to "secretly" enrich its uranium.

Ciao.

Syria and the Arab League--a Diplomatic Travesty

2012-01-09T14:09:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody! Hope y'all had a good weekend.

Lots of interesting developments in the news today, not the least of which is the fact that the Arab League voted over the weekend to increase the number of observers in Syria from its existing 165 to 300. I'm still not sold on the effectiveness of this mission--the first of its kind from the Arab League--due to the fact that the number of people killed seems to increase with each passing day, another 15 just yesterday, despite the observers' presence. The numbers of dead keep mounting. The current estimate is already at about 6,000, which is more than the number of U.S. soldiers dead in almost ten years in Iraq.

The mission is due to wrap on January 19th, just 10 days from today, with a report on whether or not Assad's regime has complied to the Arab League mandate. As I've indicated before, I am extremely skeptical of this whole mission. I just don't see how things are going to change. Assad's brutal crackdown of the Syrian people has been going on for almost a year now. What's changed? How are the protesters being helped by the Arab League? Government forces are still killing innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Homs and Hama with an alarming hubris. The Syrian army escorts the observers, making sure to steer them clear of any hotspots. I don't know, but when that report is issued on the 19th, I'd be surprised if it offers more than a perfunctory slap on Assad's wrist. Then what happens?

What particularly irks me is the fact that because of Russia and China, the U.S. and/or NATO is not considering airstrikes like they did in Libya, which had a proven rate of success. I could be wrong but from a strategic standpoint, Syria has a helluva lot more influence in that part of the world than Libya under Qaddafi ever did...and is a much greater menace. Syria essentially rules Lebanon by proxy through Hizbullah..it's agents are reputed to have been responsible for the car bomb assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005, not to mention the fact that Damascus has served as the main base of operations for Hamas, though the latter is said to be distancing itself from the Assad administration while it seeks greater international legitimacy.

While I believe that countries should be allowed to govern themselves without the participation of occupying forces, something has to be said for at least some outside assistance when and where it's due. Nation-building doesn't work--just look at the fiasco that was (and increasingly continues to be) Iraq. But in Syria's case, from an international perspective, relying solely on the dubious word of Arab League observers (however well-intentioned), headed by a Sudanese general with a proven history of human rights abuses, is like the blind leading the blind. And once the Arab League mission ends on the 19th and the observers pack up and go home, what's to stop Mr. Assad from furthering his reign of terror?

Please, people, don't let Syria be the final word on the Arab Spring.

Ciao.

Sunday Movie Review: A Dangerous Method

2012-01-08T18:26:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

I went to see David Cronenberg's critically acclaimed film "A Dangerous Method" this afternoon. It stars the acting triumvirate of Michael Fassbender as Karl Jung; Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud; and Keira Knightley as Sabina Spielrein, a troubled young Russian woman who starts off as Jung's patient, becomes his lover, and then goes on to a successful career as a psycho-therapist.

Over the course of its 99 minutes, we see beautiful cinematography of the Swiss countryside and period-perfect costumes while listening to a lot of psychoanalytic babble, Freudian angst about sex, juxtaposed with not-infrequent scenes of Ms. Knightley falling out of her bodice while Mr. Fassbender "spanks" her with a belt.

I wanted to like this film. Michael Fassbender is currently one of my very favorite actors and, based on his visceral performance as a hopeless sex addict in Steve McQueen's masterpiece "Shame," one of the best youngish actors gracing our silver screens today. He was good as Jung, just as Mr. Mortensen was good as Freud, and just as Ms, Knightley was merely decent as the sexually repressed Sabina, though her Russian Jewish accent soon got on my nerves as she sounded like she was speaking with a mouthful of marbles.

There was nothing inherently wrong with any of the performances. The problem I had was that the whole production was just a bit stodgy and emotionally detached. It often felt more like I was watching a well-filmed stage play than an actual film, or a costume drama you might see on PBS or the BBC, though not nearly as good as, say, "Downton Abbey."

Another problem I had was that I got the feeling that the script was targeted more towards an audience with a pretty good knowledge of the birth of psychoanalysis and, specifically, the relationship between Jung and Freud. Toward the end of the film, Freud criticizes Jung for giving too much credence to "Shamanism" and "religiosity," neither of which we see any indication of in the film itself. What was more fundamentally problematic for me though was that I didn't believe Mr. Fassbender's Jung had any real great passion for Ms. Knightley's Sabina. For all their chit-chat about sex and violence and Sabina's fantasies about incest, when the spanking begins there's no spark, no chemistry at all between the two of them. It's all just rather bland and fairly clinical. The only real glimmer of any sort of life on screen is when Sabina slashes Jung's face with an envelope opener after he tells her the first time that they need to break things off. Oh, and there's the opening sequence when Ms. Knightley is being dragged into the sanitarium while writhing and screaming like a banshee.

I'm not necessarily saying "A Dangerous Method" is a bad film. Like I said, the performances are by-and-large quite solid and the production values are visually appealing. French actor Vincent Cassel is a standout in his brief appearance as one of Jung's patients, but he disappears all too soon. The script, while not being terrible, is serviceable but too academic to hold much interest. A ninety-nine minute running time does not make for a long film but I was ready for it to be over at around the eighty minute mark.

If you're a Michael Fassbender fan or want to see what all the hype about him is all about, I strongly suggest you check out his performance in "Shame." His performance, paired with the increasingly surprising Carey Mulligan, is truly one of the highlights of the year.

Ciao.

Saturday Book Review: Last Man in Tower by Aravind Adiga

2012-01-07T17:13:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

I've decided to devote my Saturday and Sunday blogs to entertainment-related features. Saturdays will take the form of a book review, while Sundays will most likely consist of a movie or some other type of artistic review. Culture and the arts have always been a big part of my life and I kind of like the idea of taking some time off from political and current affairs analysis/discussion to focus on other passions.

I spent the bulk of this Saturday afternoon finishing British-Indian writer Aravind Adiga's latest novel, "Last Man in Tower." Mr. Adiga won the Man Booker Prize a few years ago for his novel "The White Tiger," which I own but have yet to make it past the first few pages. Based on "Last Man in Tower," however, I feel I am going to have to revisit the earlier novel because Mr. Adiga is quite the literary talent.

In brief, "Last Man in Tower" tells the story of the residents of Vishram Society Tower B on the outskirts of the vast Vakola slum in Mumbai, India. Dharmen Shah, an avuncular real estate developer whose glitzy high-rise building projects are devouring the Mumbai skyline, makes a generous offer to the inhabitants of Tower B to buy their flats for an extraordinary sum in order to raze the building to the ground for a new glamourous high-rise development. There is a hitch, however: the decision to accept Mr. Shah's offer has to be unanimous and has to accepted by a certain date or else the entire offer is rescinded.

Of course, Mr. Shah has no intention of being refused. He employs a certain Mr. Shanmugham, his "left-hand" man, to essentially strong-arm the residents of Vishram Society Tower B to accept his offer, using less than ethical tactics (bribery and extortion) to turn the residents against each other. An elderly, retired and respected schoolteacher and widower, "Masterji," ends up the last hold-out. Masterji is 'the last man in tower' and what happens to him as a result of his stubborn resistance to corporate corruption provides the basis of Mr. Adiga's novel.

"Last Man in Tower" is perhaps best described as an allegory. What happens within Vishram Tower B is no doubt representative of Indian society-at-large. The perspective is largely negative. Mr. Adiga is fairly ruthless in his portrayal of a society rife with corruption and violence, where life is cheap regardless of whether one lives in a shanty amidst desperate migrants in Vakola or a penthouse among Bollywood hotties in Bandra. The faintest whiff of money causes seemingly decent and protective mothers to smear excrement all over a neighbor's door or a young boy to beat up an elderly man in his own living room. People who have co-existed as neighbors in a more-or-less amiable fashion for decades suddenly turn on and inform upon each other and--ultimately--conspire to commit murder, all for the sake of a shot at a better life for themselves and their children.

Mr. Adiga's narrative voice is sharp. He is unstinting in his descriptions of the sights and smells of modern-day Mumbai. And while his characters often behave in ways that are objectionable at best and reprehensible at worst, the reader gets the feeling that he has a lot of affection for these people...as a result, the reader does as well.

As much as I enjoyed the novel (I read the last 100 or so pages in one sitting), I do think it could have been shortened by about 50 or so pages. I had more-or-less figured out what was going to happen before it happened and as a result I wasn't particularly shocked by the outcome. Still, Mr. Adiga's characters are so well-drawn and his descriptions so visceral, I couldn't help but turn the pages.

If you are looking for a fictional account of life in modern Mumbai...or are particularly drawn to stories that portray the shameless lengths people will go to for the sake of money, "Last Man in Tower" is a worthy investment of your time.

Rescue at Sea: The U.S., Iran, and Basic Human Decency

2012-01-06T13:36:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody!

I was going to keep it light today as it is Friday but I changed my mind after I started going through the afternoon's news. Earlier today, the U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis rescued a crew of Iranian fishermen that had been detained since November by pirates somewhere in the North Arabian Sea. This is the same aircraft carrier that the Iranian government had indirectly warned on Tuesday not to dare enter the Persian Gulf on threat of a presumed military strike. The Stennis is on a return voyage from transporting aircraft for use in Afghanistan.

While initial reports are pretty vague, it seems the Iranian fishermen were rescued without incident and are on their way back to Iran, though how they are getting there is not publicly known. The pirates, whose nationality has not yet been released though we can probably assume they are Somalian or in the very least are backed by el-Shabab, are currently being detained on the aircraft carrier awaiting further action.

If nothing else, this is a good example of human decency on the high seas. It is common practice in sailing that when one encounters a sailing vessel in trouble one offers assistance if reasonably possible, regardless of nationality. I suppose it is more than a little ironic that in this particular case, the rescuer is American and the rescued is Iranian given the two countries' acrimonious history, especially recently. But there you have it.

I saw the initial report on CNN while I was in the gym this afternoon and then afterwards went to my trusty New York Times website to find out a little more. What set me off are the tone and content of many of the comments posted in response to the article by other readers. I know and appreciate the fact that relations with Iran aren't good and that there is still a lot of resentment toward Iran for the taking of hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. I get that. But haven't we moved on just a little bit since then? Obviously, I can't speak for Iran but I will venture a guess that perhaps the majority of Iranian citizens don't necessarily harbor the government-perpetuated belief that America is "The Great Satan." They may chant "Death to America" in their government-sanctioned demonstrations and burn effigies of our presidents and secretaries of state but I'm inclined to think that most Iranians today don't hate the U.S. with the fervidity of the 1979 revolutionaries. I read that something close to 50% of the Iranian population is under the age of 30 which would mean that half of all Iranians weren't even born or were just out of their mothers' wombs when the Shah was overthrown and the country became the world's first true theocracy. (On a side note, for an insightful and revealing look at the lives of a group of pretty extraordinary Iranian women at the time of and just after the revolution, read Azar Nafisi's brilliant memoir "Reading Lolita in Tehran.")

Okay, it is dubious that President Ahmedinajad or Ayotallah Khamenei will issue a public outpouring of gratitude to the U.S. for the rescuing of the sailors. And if the roles had been reversed, it probably isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that Iran would detain the rescued sailors and parade them in front of the media for some sort of political purpose or use them as pawns in a ploy to alleviate or negotiate the easing of recent U.S. and European sanctions. But is it really necessary to use this as a platform for Stars and Stripes Forever posturing? One person even commented: "Take that, Iran!" Really? What purpose does that serve other than to make the average American look like a petty redneck, which pretty much confirms what most of the rest of the world already thinks.

I realize this may sound like I'm the one being petty, and that isn't my intention. I just think that many Americans have a tendency to jump on the opportunity to shove the patriotic thing down the world's throat and tell everyone how morally superior we are, which ultimately does nothing to help our standing on the international stage.

The crew of the John C. Stennis did a good and decent thing today. The Iranian sailors are appreciative even if their government is not. Let's not make this into something more than it is: an example of basic human kindness. Some things are what they are and aren't meant to be used as props for needless patriotic muscle-flexing.

Ciao.

The Sane and Silent Majority: Why I Can't Get Excited About the 2012 U.S. Presidential Race

2012-01-05T11:44:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

At least from my perspective, a sense of ennui seems to be hanging over the reporting of much of today's news. With the exception of continuous analysis of last Tuesday's Iowa caucus--in case you haven't heard (which is unlikely), Mitt Romney eked out a narrow victory over Rick Santorum, winning the caucus by merely eight votes--there's not a whole lot to get excited or incensed about today. I feel at least it's too early in the game to expend too much time and attention to the U.S. presidential race. I'm not a political junkie--at least not as far as U.S. politics is concerned--so I'm really not going to devote too much time in this blog to the race to unseat Barack Obama in November. If you haven't already surmised, I'm not an Obama supporter. I didn't jump onto the Obama bandwagon in 2008 when his star was on the ascendent and four years later I'm certainly not going to hitch my horse to his team.

While I would like to see a change in the White House this year, unless things go horribly wrong for Obama between now and Election Day I'm doubtful my wish is going to come true. I just can't get excited about this crop of Republican wannabes. Mitt Romney seems the best choice out of the lot--i.e. he comes across as the least offensive and appears to be, at least on the surface, an intelligent and decent guy. He had a good record as governor of Massachusetts. And the fact that he received Senator John McCain's endorsement yesterday boosts the likelihood of his chances. For the record, I liked McCain in 2008...until he chose that annoying Alaska governor as his running mate and then it was just one big downhill snowball from there, not gaining momentum particularly, just rumbling rather awkwardly to oblivion.

As for the other GOP hopefuls, Rick Santorum...really? With those awful sweater vests and that hair he looks like he's trying to channel Joel Osteen...and not very successfully. As for Ron Paul...going into New Hampshire next week, he has a surprisingly devoted fan base in the under-40s. I nominally agree with him on domestic issues. I just don't trust his foreign policy. I'm not an ageist at all, but 76 is really too old. And Newt? Whatever.

The problem is, American politics is too skewed to the far-right and the far-left, leaving those of us in the middle (the sane and silent majority) with very little to choose from. It's become less about a candidate's true stance on foreign or domestic policy and more about his/her ability to raise millions of dollars in cash to keep the campaign running and certain lobbyists happy. I've never felt any real connection to any of the candidates in any of the elections I've voted in over the years. And voting just for the sake of voting is not terribly constructive.

What if there was another choice on our nation's ballots come Election Day? What if the ballot read something like this:

___ Barack Obama

___ Mitt Romney

___ None of the Above

I'd be really interested to see what would happen if a significant percentage of U.S. eligible voters punched the bottom chad. While it's a pipe dream, I don't doubt that third option aligns more closely with how most of America really feels.

But who cares about the silent majority?

Ciao.

Taliban Inc. -- The Legitimization of a Terrorist Organization

2012-01-04T14:26:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

So I'm a little confused. We've spent the past ten years fighting a justifiable war against the Taliban only to suddenly give them legitimacy by allowing them to open a business office in Qatar. I don't get it. Is the U.S. and NATO conceding defeat? Is the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to be remembered as another example of an occupying force's inability to gain victory over the Afghani people? It happened to the British a hundred years ago and then again, in more recent memory, to the Soviets. I remember being a kid and watching the long procession of Soviet tanks and forces marching out of Afghanistan on television. While NATO is committed to keeping troops in the country until 2014, is this latest news the first step in giving the country back to the Taliban lock, stock, and barrel?

In addition to granting the Taliban office space in Qatar, the U.S. is considering releasing Taliban detainees from Guantanamo, including one Muhammad Fazl, a former Taliban deputy defense minister. According to a report in today's New York Times, Mr. Fazl is responsible for, among many other such 'indiscretions' I'm sure, directing attacks against Shiite Muslims and killing thousands of them.

So what is this all about? We can't beat them, so we might as well play along with them? If that's the case, and if I were one of the thousands of soldiers who have given their lives and limbs to fighting the good fight in Afghanistan, I'd be pretty pissed off. The Taliban have a proven track record of medieval brutality, suppression of women, and other barbaric atrocities, not the least of which is the stoning to death of women and young girls suspected of infidelity or of merely having a voice. The Taliban embraced Osama bin Laden, or have we forgotten ten years after 9/11?

I realize there is only so much that can be done in Afghanistan. President Karzai's administration is far from trustworthy and his connections to the opium trade and feudal warlords is well- and often- publicized. Government incentives and subsidies to help poor farmers grow wheat and other 'legitimate' crops in place of poppy cultivation has proven a failure any way you look at it. But...for the first time in more than twenty years, girls have been allowed to go to school, giving them some hope for a future brighter than what they had known before. If we legitimize the Taliban by giving them the tools and resources to open an office and become something like Taliban Inc., when those final troops pull out in 2014, do we really believe they won't undo everything that has been attempted to improve the lot of the average Afghani citizen? It is not only foolish, but irresponsible, to think this way.

Sahar Gul and Sayyid Hashemi deserve better than this.

Ciao.

Sahar Gul

2012-01-03T17:08:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Whew! Just got home from two weeks in the mountains of Colorado with the family...didn't have much fresh powder, but it's so beautiful up there, it doesn't matter.

Now back to business...

The other day I profiled the work of an inspiring young Afghani man, Mr. Sayyid Hashemi, who is working with the Afghani government to improve the lives of Afghanistan's 1.6 million orphans. Today I want to bring your attention to an example of the types of behaviors and conditions many young Afghanis face on a daily basis--particularly young girls and women--that unfortunately, more often than not goes unreported.

Fifteen year-old Sahar Gul was rescued last week from an insidious plot by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law to sell her into prostitution. The girl was found in the basement of her in-law's house, where she had been kept a prisoner for six months. During this time, as reported in today's New York Times, Sahar was subjected to repeated abuse and torture, which allegedly included the ripping out of her fingernails, burning her with hot irons, and breaking her fingers.

According to the article, Sahar was married around seven months ago. Her husband, whose name the article doesn't mention, is a soldier in the Afghan Army. An arrest warrant has been issued for his capture. The article goes on to say that Sahar's in-laws were involved in "criminal activities" that may have included selling alcohol and prostitution. Sahar resisted her in-law's insistence that she become a prostitute, whereupon they subsequently locked her in the basement and tortured her.

Apparently, this case has sent shockwaves through the Karzai administration. And well it should. In a tribal society where women are often treated as less than second-class citizens, where as a regular occurrence girls as young as seven and eight are married to much older men, Sahar's story is probably not all that uncommon.

If there is one fortunate thing to come out of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, it is the fact that stories like Sahar's now have a better chance of coming to the attention of international human rights advocates as well as the media. It also calls to attention the fact that much still has to be done. It may very well prove to be an impossible task to reform and "modernize" the practices of an ancient society that has never taken well to outside intervention. And while I believe that there is something to be said for letting a country be in charge of its sovereignty, there is absolutely no place in the 21st century for this kind of barbarity to be allowed to continue.

Until human rights abuses are completely eradicated from the world -- knowing full well that this is probably an impossibility -- it is our duty as human beings to bring to light stories such as Sahar's, and work to eradicate the subjugation of women and children throughout the world.

As this blog continues to evolve, I will work to bring to light both the good and the bad and remind all of us that, as citizens of the world regardless of religion or political affiliation, it is our responsibility to come together to help those who are simply not in a position to help themselves.

Our prayers are with you Sahar.

Ciao.

Contradiction and Continued Suppression in the Middle East

2012-01-02T12:28:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

While the United States prepares for its first RepublicanParty caucus in Iowa tomorrow – a reflection of the democratic processes uponwhich the country was founded but doesn’t always follow through on – turmoil inthe Middle East continues.

In Syria, the Arab League delegation continues its lame duckobserver mission while more and more criticism is launched at it from withinthe Arab world. On Sunday, the 88-member Arab Parliament, which has no realpower over the Arab League beyond serving as a voice of reason, issued astatement calling for the end of the observer mission. Rather than preventingor ending the violent suppression of Syrian protesters, if anything, theobservers have inadvertently increased the intensity of the governmentcrackdown that has killed more than 5,000 people since the start of theuprising last March and 150 reported killed since the Arab League delegationarrived last Tuesday. The suspicion is that the only reason Assad agreed to theobserver mission is so he can buy more time before more stringent outsidesanctions are levied against his government.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, the process of democratic oppressioncontinued yesterday as the military-led government further justified its raidson the offices of nonprofit organizations in Cairo. Faiza Abu El-Naga, civilian cabinet official in charge ofinternational relations, claimed that the raids were part of an ongoinginvestigation into the corruption of the Mubarak regime. The groups, Ms. Nagaalleges, received funding without the knowledge of the Egyptian government,which directly—according to Ms. Naga—undermines it. Whether or not anyonereally believes this is anyone’s guess, but the fear is that further raids onany organization that acts independently for the betterment of human rights inEgypt will soon be stifled altogether.

Over in Bahrain, violence overwhelmed the funeral of a15-year-old protester who was killed on Saturday by a tear gas canister—firedby government troops—that reportedly struck him in the chest. It’s no surprise that Bahrain’sInterior Ministry has denied these accusations. I continue to find it appallingthat the U.S. continues to allow such injustice to go on in Bahrain for thesake of not offending or jeopardizing relations with Saudi Arabia. This is justanother example of the U.S.’s contradictory approach to Middle Easternpolitics. It is all very well for the Obama administration to support thedemocracy movement in Libya, for example, whose former leader was adecades-long thorn in the U.S.’s side. But because the U.S. relies on theSaudis to support and promote its Middle Eastern foreign policy, it will notpublicly voice support for the Bahraini protesters out of fear of disturbingU.S.-Saudi relations. While the U.S. did criticize Saudi Arabia for sending introops to put down the initial Bahraini protests last spring, the criticismfelt half-hearted and done more from a sense of obligation than genuineconcern.

At any rate, it is clear that what began a year ago andevolved into the Arab Spring is still ongoing. I think 2012 will continue tobring us tremendous change, not just in the Middle East but in Russia, Europe,and the United States as well. Whether that change is for the good or for theworse, is still anyone’s guess. Regardless, I’ll be watching closely.

Ciao.

Saving Afghanistan's children -- one orphanage at a time

2012-01-01T16:30:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year, everyone!

I'd like to start 2012 off by highlighting the important work of one Afghani man -- Sayyid Abdullah Hashemi -- in improving the lives of Afghanistan's 1.6 million orphans. (2011 UNICEF estimate.) Mr. Hashemi is the director of the National Directorate of Orphanages within Afghanistan's Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and the Disabled.

An article in today's New York Times profiles the challenges Mr. Hashemi has faced over the seven months since he took over this position. In a country steeped in official and unofficial corruption at all levels of society, the very fact that Mr. Hashemi is unafraid to travel throughout the war-torn country visiting orphanages and demanding that changes be made is remarkable in and of itself. But what makes him all the more inspiring is that he is dogged in his determination. Mr. Hashemi was once an orphan himself so he knows first-hand the plight of Afghani children and the terrible conditions in which most of them live. According to the article, his father was killed fighting for the mujahideen against the Soviets when he was a young boy. As a result, Mr. Hashemi's mission has been to make sure that orphans grow up in an environment that not only feeds and shelters them, but gives them the tools and skills they need to help make them productive citizens.

The article mentions two government-run orphanages in particular, both in Kabul. Before Mr. Hashemi assumed his directorate position, these orphanages were notorious for their truly inhumane living conditions. In fact, the Tahya-e-Maskan orphanage gained notoriety for the poisoning of several of its children who almost died as a result of drinking bad milk. Today, however, under Mr. Hashemi's tutelage, this same orphanage is now run as a school where classes such as computer science and English are taught and students are going on to pass university entrance exams.

Mr. Hashemi continues to come up against bureaucratic challenges and governmental ineptitude on a daily basis. Government money that is allotted to the orphanages for basic necessities is distributed through the local provincial governments who more often than not keep this money for themselves with barely a trickle of the amount actually going to the orphanages. Mr. Hashemi complains of visiting orphanages where children are left long hours without adult supervision, where food is scarce, and abuse rampant. He's fired staff only to have his actions challenged by local government officials -- not to mention the fired employees -- who claim he has no authority to make improvements because these decisions are supposed to be made at the local, not national, level.

What strikes me most about Mr. Hashemi is his tenacity. He is utterly realistic about the uphill battle he faces and yet because he cares so much about these orphaned children he continues to push for reform and improvement. All too often we turn on the news or read the papers and see nothing but negatives coming from this part of the world--the Taliban still control vast swaths of the country, the government of Hamid Karzai is corrupt and funded by the cultivation of the opium trade, etc etc etc. On this first day of the new year, I was heartened to learn of the genuine good that is being done and not only by foreign NGOs or occupying troops, but by an Afghani national concerned with the well-being and future of his country's youngest generation.

Even if Mr. Hashemi can help effect positive change in the life of only one orphaned Afghani child, that is one more than might have been helped otherwise. No small task indeed.

Happy New Year to you, Sayyid Hashemi.

Ciao.

From the Arab Spring to the Russian Winter: 2011 in Review

2011-12-31T13:26:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Hard to believe it's the end of another year...and what an eventful year 2011 has been. From an international perspective, 2011 brought about waves of tremendous change: from Tunis to Cairo, Tripoli to Damascus, Benghazi to Moscow and beyond, the world witnessed demonstration after demonstration that affirmed and reaffirmed the power of the individual and collective voice to move mountains and bring about positive change. From the Arab Spring to the Russian Winter, it seemed not a day went by when we weren't greeted with incredible scenes of personal courage spurred on by gross government abuse and corruption.

2011 wasn't a good year for dictators. We saw the demise of longtime Libyan strongman and resident crazy Muammar Qaddafi; the overthrow of Egyptian dictator and Western ally Hosni Mubarak; and the fall of Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. In the midst of all this, we witnessed the deaths of terrorist icon Osama bin Laden and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il. 2011 ended with the largest anti-government demonstrations in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union and, for the first time in eight years, Prime Minister Putin's iron grip on the Kremlin may be loosening as another round of protests has been called for February.

But there remains a lot to be done. As we count down the final hours to 2012, Syrian President Bashir Assad seems determined to maintain control of his country by any and all means possible. While on the one hand he invites representatives from the Arab League to observe his "compliance" with an international mandate to cut back on the violence with which his government handles the protesters, on the other he sends troops to open fire on peaceful protesters in Hama and Homs a mere two-three blocks away from the Arab League delegation. Innocent Syrian men, women, and children are being mowed down in cold blood while the Arab League observers remark that nothing seems to be out of order. I suppose this isn't surprising when the delegation itself is led by Sudanese General Mustafa al-Dabi who has, no doubt, more than his share of blood on his hands from his work in support of Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir. (Darfur, anyone?)

Unfortunately, things aren't looking so great in Egypt either. The interim military-led government recently launched a series of raids on foreign and domestic NGOs in Cairo, stealing computers and documents and preventing humanitarian aid workers from doing their work. Iran appears to be flexing its muscles again in the wake of threatened sanctions against its banking industry by threatening to cut off access to the Strait of Hormuz, thus disrupting the flow and transport of oil to the rest of the world. North Korea continues to assure the smooth transition of power to Kim Jong-il's youngest son Kim Jong-un, who vowed to continue his government's policy of zero cooperation with South Korea. The future is still up-in-the-air in Russia as well. Will Alexei Navalny and the tens of thousands who support him successfully alter the outcome of March's presidential elections? ... or will they and the rest of the democratic world be sorely disappointed?

And, of course, here in the US we face another election year. Will Obama's sadly underwhelming and arguably rather inept four years in office be awarded another term, or will we see the election of Republican Mitt Romney, who would be the nation's first Mormon president? Next week's upcoming Iowa caucus will officially launch the 2012 presidential race.

Hold on, folks...if you thought 2011 was a wild ride, wait till you see 2012!

Ciao.

A United Russia Not So United

2011-12-29T11:35:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

A rift appears to be growing within the United Russia party as a series of party insiders have come out in support of the recent protests. Sergei N. Filippov, United Russia party member and a chief regional executive at the government-controlled Gazprom, spoke out last week at a session of the Vladimir Region legislature saying that corruption is rife within United Russia and must be rooted out and fixed. Another party insider, Olga V. Kryshtanovskaya was instrumental in creating a group on Facebook called "UR for Free Elections" that combined the protest movement's logo -- a white ribbon -- with the United Russia logo. Furthermore, Vladimir V. Semago, United Russia governing council member in Moscow, penned an op-ed piece in an opposition newspaper wherein he confessed his own involvement in political corruption and the personal shame it has caused him.

But while a few days ago it appeared President Dmitri Medvedev was gradually acknowledging the validity of the protesters' calls for change, this week it seems he has taken a big step in the opposite direction. According to an article in today's New York Times, earlier this week Medvedev promoted several Kremlin top-dogs with former ties to the KGB and Prime Minister Putin. Among those promoted was Sergei B. Ivanov, formerly of the KGB, to the position of chief of staff of the presidential administration.

Putin, it appears, has broken his silence of late about the growing protest movement. On Wednesday, he told a group of Russian journalists that "dialogue" must take place with the protesters but that he wasn't certain at this point to what degree or in what format that "dialogue" should take place. In other words, Putin has no intention of deviating from the path that will guarantee him the presidential position come elections in March. Putin and his toadies at the Kremlin -- including President Medvedev -- can pay all the lip service they want to the opposition movement, but as we've seen all too frequently throughout history, talk that doesn't result in action is just that...talk.

I only hope that bloggers like Alexei Navalny--a verifiable hero of the opposition and anyone who believes in the freedom of speech--don't back down or aren't swayed by the Kremlin's false promises to wipe out corruption and genuinely reform. Momentum and recent history are both on the side of the opposition. Russians who believe in a fair and representative form of government should take inspiration from the precedent currently being set by their brothers and sisters in the Arab World. While it still remains to be seen what will come of Tahrir Square, the Egyptian people did successfully (and for the most part peacefully) bring down a despot less than a year ago.

The collective will of the street is just as powerful--if not more so--than the iron grip of a ruling elite.

Ciao.

Censorship in the State of Israel

2011-12-27T13:54:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

There's a freedom of speech battle currently being waged in Israel between the media and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to a report in today's New York Times, Israel's Channel 10 -- one of only two independent channels in the state of Israel -- is under fire for a report it broadcast last spring about an expensive vacation Netanyahu and his wife had taken to New York, London, and Paris on the dime of wealthy friends in 2009, before he became prime minister but was a member of parliament. The network went so far as to make public the bills the Netanyahu's racked up during their trip. As a result, the prime minister's rightist Likud party has refused to extend the end-of-January deadline Channel 10 had been granted to pay back its $11 million debt.

This isn't the first time Channel 10 has infuriated the Likud Party. In 2006, Channel 10 broadcast a series of negative reports on Israel's handling of the Lebanon War as well as allegations of under-the-table land deals conducted by Ariel Sharon's family while he was prime minister. In addition, Channel 10 was instrumental in reporting on the deaths of a Palestinian doctor and his three daughters during Israel's military strikes against Gaza in 2008-2009. In other words, what this boils down to is an attempt by the Israeli government to stifle freedom of speech in a country that was purportedly founded on democratic principles. The latest moves against Channel 10 come mere weeks after legislation was introduced in the Knesset that seeks to prevent loudspeakers in Israel from announcing the Islamic call to prayer and another that prevents left-leaning Israeli groups from receiving financial aid from foreign governments.

According to the New York Times, over the past ten years, Channel 10 was financed by several wealthy investors who happened to be friends of Netanyahu, including American cosmetic mogul Ronald S. Lauder and Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan. Netanyahu had initially supported the idea of a right-oriented news network because he'd felt Israel's news channels were too liberal. But once Channel 10 started criticizing the Likud Party's more hawkish policies the channel rapidly fell out of favor. If the network fails to either get another extension on its debt repayment or pay the $11 million outright, it will be off the air in a month's time, which means Israel will be left with only one independent television network...again a rather dubious distinction in a country meant to be a democracy.

Of course, democracy in Israel is a selective affair. Any country that practices a brutal form of apartheid against its native inhabitants can hardly be considered a democratic state. This is also a country where its Arab population is forced to live as second class citizens and is not granted a representative voice in parliament. I realize that Israel has had to endure its share of terrorist attacks and should be granted a certain leeway in defending itself, but the indiscriminate and disproportionate killing of innocent women and children in the name of self-defense is not only shameful, it is criminal. Unfortunately, precedents for this have long since been set -- the U.S. (Israel's biggest backer) has only to look to its own history of violence against its Native American population. All one has to do is drive through New Mexico or Arizona to witness the continual devastating effects of this genocide.

At any rate, Israel is now facing perhaps its most uncertain time since the Yom Kippur War. With the Arab Spring opening the door for more Islamist-leaning governments that don't necessarily intend to honor a long-standing detente with the Jewish state, Israel is facing an existential crisis. However, government-sanctioned suppression of news reports that criticize the ruling party is not the way to go about protecting itself. Censorship of this kind is what prompted millions in the Arab World to take to the streets in demand of greater freedoms. If the Israeli government continues to suppress dissenting views in its media and legislation as seems to be occurring, could an Israeli spring be next? It's doubtful but not totally outside the realm of possibility. Of greater probability though is a third intifada as Palestinians and Israeli Arabs choose to follow the lead of their brothers and sisters in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, and elsewhere in the Arab World. If this were to happen, Israel would find itself in serious trouble indeed.

Ciao.

Religion: An Extremist Opiate for the Dispossessed Masses

2011-12-26T13:39:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

It is always disappointing when religious-inspired violence mars religious holidays. While sitting in my post-Christmas dinner food coma last night, I was upset when I turned on the BBC and saw that a Catholic church in Madala, a suburb of the Nigerian capital Abuja, was bombed as the faithful filed out after Christmas Mass. According to the New York Times, at least 25 people were confirmed killed while many others were wounded or unidentified. An Al-Qaeda affiliated insurgent group, Boko Haram ("Western education forbidden") claimed responsibility for the attack which comes on the heels of a series of lesser bombings and skirmishes in the area over the past few days.

According to various reports, Boko Haram have typically limited their terrorist activities to the northern, Muslim-dominated, area of Nigeria while focusing their attacks on local government headquarters and the police with the reported aim of imposing a stricter form of Shariah law on the country. In August, however, they claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing of the United Nations building in Abuja, which killed at least 23 people. The Christmas bombing marks the first time Boko Haram have specifically targeted a Christian institution, and the fact that they chose Christmas Day, one of the holiest days of the Christian calendar, is particularly disturbing in that it indicates a decision to deliberately aggravate Christian-Muslim tension in the area.

I feel particularly disappointed in these events because for the past year I have been cheering on the Arab Spring movement and have been heartened by the fact that fundamentalist Islam has remained more-or-less out of it. And while I know that at its heart Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by a relatively small minority of its adherents, I continue to be sickened by the tenacity of those who corrupt Islam to serve their nefarious means. In the grand scheme of history, Islam is a new-ish religion, at least when compared to its Judeo-Christian counterparts. Christianity has its own history of violence, particularly upon Muslims during the dark days of the Crusades. An argument can be made--and I have heard this--that Islam is merely going through its Dark Ages and that every religion must endure a period of growth and development that puts it in conflict with, well, the rest of the world. Perhaps this is what we are witnessing now?

Meanwhile, Gaza-based Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya embarked yesterday on a two-week mission throughout the Arab World to raise money and support for Hamas. While Hamas has been labeled a terrorist organization by the US and other Western governments, one cannot deny its role in Gaza as a humanitarian organization. Many Palestinians have greatly benefited from Hamas's efforts to help those who have been affected by the Israeli blockade. It is no wonder that it enjoys the support that it does. While I certainly do not condone Palestinian terrorist activities, I understand their frustration as that of the powerless. I believe that the majority of Palestinians (and Israelis for that matter) support a peaceful resolution to their ongoing conflict. Unfortunately, each side is hijacked by extremists--Arab and Israeli--who use religion as their most lethal weapon.

While organized religion of any ilk has the capacity to be a source of comfort and genuine good, I fear that it has an equal--and perhaps more powerful--capacity as an extremist opiate for the dispossessed masses. I want to believe in its positive and life-affirming elements but am continually disappointed by what I am seeing perpetrated in the world, all under the guise of organized religion, regardless of whether it's done in the name of Christ, Moses, or Mohammed. I fear I am going to be disappointed for a long time.

Ciao.

The Russian Revolution Redux

2011-12-25T22:52:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas everyone!

I'm writing this on the tail-end of a packed Christmas Day out here in the mountains of Colorado. I overate and am ready to call it a night but I did want to comment on this weekend's news coming out of Russia. Yesterday's second rally to protest the recent Russian elections sounds to have been a tremendous success with estimates of anywhere from 30,000 to 120,000 people filling the streets and squares of Moscow.

As reported in today's New York Times, what set this rally apart from the first was the presence on the platform of high-level Kremlin officials--including former Finance Minister Alexsei Kudrin--giving measured support for the gathered crowd. Russian business oligarch and newly minted opposition candidate Mikhail D. Prokhorov was also in attendance, although he didn't give a speech, choosing instead to show his support through photo ops and meet-and-greets at the street level. Without a doubt, however, the man it appeared the crowd was there to see was dissident blogger Aleksei Navalny. Mr. Navalny, who was recently released from a fifteen-day detention and who has been tireless in his very public criticism of Mr. Putin, did not disappoint. In a fiery and impassioned speech, Mr. Navalny said, "I can see that there are enough people here to seize the Kremlin. We are a peaceful force now and will not do it now. But if these crooks and thieves try to go on cheating us, if they continue telling lies and stealing from us, we will take what belongs to us with our own hands."

Whoa! Is Mr. Navalny hinting at the possibility of a more violent attempt at overthrowing the government if the Kremlin continues on its current course of generally ignoring or ridiculing the protesters' demands? Or is he merely using dramatic rhetoric to whip up additional support from the protest movement? Mr. Navalny's motivation isn't exactly clear. And herein lies the crux of the issue: while it is all well and good for the Russian people to brave the notorious Arctic winter cold in a massive show of support for ending Putin's political aspirations once and for all, it becomes quite a different matter if they are indeed successful in bringing down the government but are left with a political vacuum and no individual or party in a position that can actually enact much-desired reform. As I've said repeatedly over the past several weeks, the situation facing Russia right now is not dissimilar to that currently facing Egypt or Yemen or Libya, for that matter. Okay...so you successfully forced out a dictator...what then do you have lined up in place of him?

This is precisely what appears to be lacking in any discussion about a Putin-free political landscape. The current opposition is dubious at best. Prokhorov is not particularly well-known and some skeptics believe that he is little more than a tool of the Kremlin, a puppet disguised as opposition but whose function in truth is to only give the impression that he represents change while dividing the genuine opposition and thereby assuring Putin's win in March's presidential election. Outside of Prokhorov, who else is there? Mr. Navalny is an intriguing possibility but with no real political experience, what are his chances of winning political office? I suppose there is always Dmitri Medvedev who appeared this week to give measured support of the protest movement while holding to his line that foreign governments and agitators were behind the unrest. The question remains: how married is Medvedev to Putin these days? Is there indeed a break between the two? We just don't know. And, speaking of which, where was Putin all weekend? He seems to be lying low. Even former president Mikhail Gorbachev lent his support to the protesters, saying it's time Putin cedes control now as a means of preserving his positive legacy in the future.

If we can be certain of nothing else, we can be certain of this: unless Putin and the powers-that-be in the Kremlin are miraculously lobotomized between now and next March, we can expect more of the same: both from the current government and from the Russian street. If Mr. Navalny's speech is any indication, the Russian people are losing patience. If peaceful protests don't bring them what they want, who's to say that more forceful tactics won't be employed in the near future?

Is this the second coming of the Russian Revolution?

Ciao.

Dmitri Medvedev---Voice of the Russian People?

2011-12-24T15:41:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

It seems that President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia has finally decided to listen to the collective voice of his people in calling for democratic reforms. On Thursday, Mr. Medvedev gave his final state of the nation speech as president, calling for the direct election of governors and an end to nepotistic hiring practices within Russia's top corporations. He also announced plans for the creation of a public television station that would be independent of the Kremlin. In essence, Medvedev has flown in the face of Vladimir Putin and seems to be further distancing himself from the prime minister's more totalitarian leanings. While it would appear Medvedev is bending to the demands of the Russian voting public, in his address he completely failed to mention the allegations of fraud in the recent parliamentary elections, the root of the reason thousands of Russians have taken to the streets in protest. In fact, he continued to tow the official Kremlin line that the U.S. and other Western governments were behind the current unrest. Still, however, it is rather striking that Medvedev has chosen to take this approach. While he hasn't publicly broken with Putin--his erstwhile mentor--he does appear to have broken from the standard Kremlin ideology. What remains to be seen is whether the Russian people embrace Medvedev's attempts at reform or choose instead to greet it with justifiable skepticism or outright rejection. Regardless of whether one believes Medvedev is sincere or not, one cannot deny that this is a step in the right direction. What isn't clear is Medvedev's motivation. Kremlin politicking is often as opaque as that of North Korea. To what extent is Putin behind these proposed reforms? Is Putin still the puppet-master manipulating Medvedev's strings? If so, to what end? If Putin and Medvedev are indeed working in agreement, then wouldn't these reforms carry greater clout and/or credibility if they came from Putin himself?

I would like to believe that Medvedev--who came to office in a wave of optimism that he might have somewhat an independent, more Western-oriented voice--is acting from a genuine desire to effect democratic reform in his country. In his address to the newly elected Parliament last week, Medvedev did give credence to the stated desires of the protesters, saying that their voice could no longer be ignored. Still, there is the cynic in me that questions the true motivation of what is going on here. I guess it only remains to be seen. As I write this, another mass demonstration is taking place in Moscow. What will be the outcome? What will be the official Kremlin response? I suppose we'll know more as the day progresses.

Elsewhere in the world, a series of coordinated bomb blasts rocked Damascus yesterday on the eve of the arrival of Arab League observers. At least 44 people were killed with hundreds injured. The Assad government immediately placed responsibility on the shoulders of Al Qaeda, claiming that unrest in other areas of the Middle East have created an opening for Al Qaeda to establish itself within Syria. The truth is, however, that Al Qaeda has had a strong presence in eastern Syria for years, particularly as a launch point for attacks within Iraq. The Daily Telegraph of London reported that one Syrian official went so far as to accuse the United States of secretly forming an allegiance with Al Qaeda as a means of bringing down the Assad government. An utterly preposterous allegation but not necessarily unexpected. After all, there are still conspiracy theorists in the Arab World who honestly believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Mossad. What this kind of theorizing boils down to is mass brainwashing. We see it in North Korea. We see it in the Middle East. We see it here in the United States.

I hope the current wave of protests throughout the Arab World, Russia, and parts of China prove that the collective voice of the people are better than those of their governments. If 2011 is the year of the protester, I hope 2012 sees the the fruition of these efforts. But in order for true reform to take place, the West needs to be prepared to enter into genuine dialogue with whomever the people choose to replace these dictators. Brainwashing is not irreversible, but it cannot take place without outside help.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Do you believe the presence of Arab League observers is going to make a difference in Syria's continuing brutal crackdown of the opposition?"

A Russian Spring?

2011-12-22T17:24:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

So Russia held its first session of its new Parliament yesterday in a bid for a return to normalcy and, no doubt, a hope that with the appearance of business as usual, the wind will have been taken from the protesters' sails. Mr. Putin paid lip service to some of the protesters' demands by saying he was committed to investigating and rooting out corruption, particularly in regards to business and off-shore accounts. He said he wants to make Russia an entrepreneur's dream within the next ten years. At the same time, however, anti-Putin blogger Aleksei Navalny was released after fifteen days' in jail, only to hold a news conference outside his detention center to further denounce the fraudulent elections and rally the Russian people for another demonstration this coming Saturday, Christmas Eve. He said his detention had done nothing to diminish his ardent calls for bringing down Mr. Putin and the current Kremlin hierarchy. In fact, he said he enjoyed listening to radio broadcasts while in prison of the recent 50,000-strong demonstration in Bolotnaya Square. He wrote on his blog, "You cannot imagine how cool it was to listen to the radio broadcast from Bolotnaya." And while the people seem to be united behind Navalny's anti-Kremlin stance, there are signs that there isn't a similar unity among the leaders of the opposition. Boris Nemtsov, head of the Solidarity party, was faced with the embarrassment of having several recorded telephone conversations made public wherein he denounced some of his fellow opposition leaders as "scum" and "half-witted."

While I am dubious of the chances of any sort of Russian Spring coming into fruition in March when Putin is more-or-less guaranteed to win the country's presidency, I do wonder what would hypothetically happen if the collective opposition succeeded in bringing the government down. It is all very well and good for Mr. Navalny to rally his supporters on the streets of Moscow and motivate Russian society to come out in force in Bolotnaya or Red Square, but would the people really be all that better off if the current leaders of the opposition were voted into office? If Mr. Nemtsov and his ilk are already hurling insults at one another, how are they going to behave in the event they are voted into office?

We see this to a certain extent in recently liberated Libya. Now that Qaddafi is gone, the various rebel factions that united to reach this goal have very little in common and have in some cases turned against each other. Egypt isn't dissimilar. The military after Mubarak's oust was seen by-and-large as being an important source of stability while the Egyptian people adjusted to a new, more democratic leadership and society. But now that same source of stability is wreaking devastating havoc on the people because it has become power-hungry and is loathe to give up the power it has enjoyed. Are the Egyptians now back to square one?

Political change is always tough, especially when a country makes the transition from a one-party/one-leader hegemony to a democracy. It's human nature to want to hold onto power when it's been granted. We don't cede control willingly. For the time being, we can only hope and pray that the military will step down in Egypt and that the opposition in Russia, Mr. Navalny aside, overcome petty disputes and childish name-calling in favor of the overarching good. I fear though that this may be too much to ask.

I hope I'm proven wrong.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "With Parliament back in session in Russia, are the Russian people destined for more of the same or will change really and truly come?"

The Girl in the Blue Bra

2011-12-21T22:59:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Greetings once again from Dillon, Colorado where I'll be staying with the family through the holidays. It's late, I'm tired, and it's snowing outside. And while I usually am not much one for snow, we need it up here. More snow means better skiing conditions which makes everyone that much happier...including me.

I've been a little behind on the news today. I was pleased to read however that hundreds of Egyptian women marched through the streets of Cairo yesterday to protest the brutality of an attack--captured on video--upon a woman by Egyptian soldiers earlier in the week. The video shows a woman being beaten to the ground with truncheons, her abaya being torn open to reveal her blue bra, before being savagely kicked in the stomach and stomped upon. The video has generated an international outcry against the military's suppression of the protest movement and the woman in the video has come to be known as "the girl in the blue bra." It remains to be seen whether this video will have the same effect in further rallying protestors as the infamous video of Neda, the young Iranian woman shot to death on film during the 2009 unrest over elections in Iran. One thing is certain, however: the Egyptian protest movement has a new face for their cause and are using the video--justifiably so--to promote their moral advantage.

It is rare for women in Egypt to step out so publicly and demand that their voices be heard. The fact that they were joined by and received support from their male counterparts is an additionally encouraging sign, for it shows that there is a unity of purpose in these protests that is not divided down gender lines. Further to this, it seems there has been an outreach between the conservative Islamic political parties and the more liberal democrats creating a united front against the military ruling council's draconian crackdown on the protestors and refusal to cede power to a civilian-oriented Parliament. Whether this unity between the Islamic and secular political parties continues once the military steps down--whenever that may be--is up for discussion. But for the time being, in order for the protest movement to achieve its goals of setting up a democratic government without the influence of the armed forces, the protestors must continue to present a united front, breaking down the barriers that exist between male and female, the wealthy and the poor, and the religious and the secular. This is the only way for Egypt (and the Middle East in general) to emerge out of this anarchic morass and reach its full potential.

Given the deeply entrenched social and cultural mores that exist in this area of the world, however, unity of this kind is easier said than done.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "How much longer do you believe the Egyptian military counsel can hold out against true democratic reform?"

Twitter and the Winter of Arab Discontent

2011-12-20T16:08:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

What are we to make of the world today? I have to admit, I'm riveted by the news these days. While I have always been a foreign affairs junkie, my senses seem to be particularly attuned to every last bit of information--real and unsubstantiated--that comes across my Droid touchscreen all hours of the day and night. I've lain in bed, unable to sleep at two and three o' clock in the morning, scrolling through tweets reporting the latest up-to-the-second details (many of which are in Arabic, which I don't understand) of violent mayhem and democratic idealism. It's making me an insomniac. Maybe it's because I have finally figured out Twitter and am obsessively following the tweets from Egyptian protestors who are live in Tahrir Square breathlessly reporting that the military is rounding up protestors and firing upon them with machine guns. This is an actual example of last night's reading while trying to focus on the equally riveting events in the latest episode of "The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills," which, by the way, was a real corker. Kyle's breakdown at her White Party while awaiting the arrival of Taylor and Russell Armstrong had my blood pressure ratcheted up and me on the edge of my seat while texting my sister--who is also a Real Housewives fan--about the emotional debacle unfolding on the screen, speculating about the outcome of the confrontation to come...well, the drama was intense and it only added fuel to my doubts about the veracity of Taylor's accounts of her marriage.) But I digress...

The Arab Spring is, it seems, devolving into the Winter of Arab Discontent. The Egyptian general Adel Emara accused the protestors of inciting violence against his troops while lashing out at the media for only giving a one-sided account of events heavily biased toward the protestors. This is further calling into question whether or not the ongoing parliamentary elections are actually going to result in anything constructive or forward-thinking. The Egyptian military clearly doesn't care about the welfare of the nation and is determined to dig in its heels at any and all costs. In Syria, the government finally signed the Arab League initiative that allows outside observers to come in and oversee the government crackdown on Syrian activists. This would appear to be a step in the right direction, but sadly even as the initiative was signed, reports of government-sanctioned violence against protestors continued in all its bloody glory.

And in a rather ironic--but not really all that surprising twist--it's now been reported that Somalia's Shabab terrorist group is using Twitter to articulate and justify its horrific actions against innocent Somalis in perfectly rendered English. This is ironic because Twitter is concurrently being used by pro-democracy activists throughout the Arab World to relate and promote their justified cause. American authorities are reportedly trying to figure out whether or not they can legally shut down the Shabab's access to Twitter...which raises the debate of whether or not a brutal terrorist organization (affiliated with Al-Qaeda no less) has the same democratic right to freedom of speech as all those using social media to raise awareness of the lack of democratic ideals in the Middle East.

One place where Twitter is definitely not being used is North Korea. No one knows what's going on there and it's doubtful anyone will until another nuclear missile is tested or another South Korean fishing boat is attacked. It's doubtful even ordinary North Koreans know the truth about their government, as evidenced by the truly insane public outpourings of grief we all were witness to yesterday. And if they could or were on Twitter, can you only just imagine the nature of those Tweets???

I don't know. It's a mad world we live in. It's scary and uncertain and dangerous and...I'm strangely, unabashedly smitten. And I can't wait to see what all transpires next week on the "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills'" group vacation to Hawaii!

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "How has Twitter changed the way news is reported? Is it more or less reliable than traditional newspaper accounts?"

The Dissident and the Dear Leader

2011-12-19T08:01:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

How ironic is it that two leaders on opposite ends of the political spectrum should pass away on the same day? I woke up yesterday to news of former Czech president, dissident, and playwright Vaclav Havel's death at the age of 75, and went to bed with the news that North Korean dictator and resident nutcase Kim Jong Il had died on Saturday from "overwork" at the age of 69.

Mr. Havel was a reluctant politician. He is said to have cared initially more about reform within the Communist party than leading his nation through political upheaval. However, under his guidance, Mr. Havel did just that. Without a drop of blood being shed, in 1989 he negotiated the peaceful end of Communist rule in Czechoslovakia and then, through two terms as president, he oversaw the split of the country into the Czech Republic and Slovakia before leading the Czech Republic into a close alliance with the West that resulted in its joining NATO in 1999 and the European Union in 2004.

Kim Jong Il, on the other hand, otherwise known as "Dear Leader," ruled a secretive and hermetic police state through a bizarre cult of personality that remains the world's last true Communist holdout. While he dined on French haute cuisine, drank cognac and watched Hollywood films, he also starved millions of his own people, built up its nuclear weapons program, arrested and executed no doubt thousands of dissidents, and generally sought to wreak havoc and instability on the Korean Peninsula for reasons that no one has ever really been able to fathom. Even his closest ally in the region--China--seemed to prefer to distance itself in recent years from its troublesome neighbor. While politicos have been speculating for years about what would happen in the event of the Dear Leader's death, North Korea wasted no time in announcing the succession of his son Kim Jong-um, otherwise known as the...um..."Great Successor," a guy no one knows too much about but who certainly does not appear to have been groomed for political office to the extent his "dear" father had been. Many worry that the Great Successor will instigate some sort of military action as a means of proving his mettle.

It is anyone's guess what will happen in the days/weeks to come, but one thing is likely. I doubt North Korea is heading for political change anytime soon. Kim Jong-um is...um...definitely no Vaclav Havel. And it is equally doubtful the North Korean people will...um... rise up against the Great Successor, at least not based on the videos of mass hysteria and outpourings of grief state-controlled North Korean television has broadcast to the world. (As horrifying as it is, the first time I saw this film I couldn't help but have a big ol' hearty laugh. I mean...seriously? Don't these people realize how ridiculous they look? But then, many of them probably don't know any better...when you've been brainwashed from birth you can't function in any other way. Anyway, I had to share...)

My point is, the North Koreans don't appear to be a people in a position to organize themselves en masse as their brethren in the Middle East have lately done. One can only hope, but I'm not holding my breath. And neither should any of you.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Do you think we will see any glimmer of democratic reform in North Korea, or will it be just more of the same?"

Conflict for the Good of Change

2011-12-18T13:58:00.000-08:00

Privet vsem!

Reading the Sunday papers this morning I was once again struck by the volatility shaking much of the world today. Of course, one could argue that there's never been a time when the world hasn't been riven by conflict--both petty and catastrophic. As humans, we seem to thrive on it. If we don't have enough drama in our lives we seek it out on television, in our relationships with friends, family, co-workers, in the daily news... But some conflict is good. Some conflict is necessary. Conflict is what forces and drives change...for better and for worse, though ideally it is for the better.

Take, for example, the top story in today's New York Times. The main headline reads: "Libya's Civilian Toll, Denied by NATO: Scores of Unintended Casualties, and a Reluctance to Investigate." It seems that while NATO was helping to bomb the hell out of Qaddafi's loyalist forces on behalf of the rebels, NATO pilots made egregious errors that resulted in anywhere from 40 to 70 civilian deaths, in some instances, wiping out whole families. Granted, there was at least one case where Qadaffi's top brass deliberately met in civilian areas and this is an area of the world where civilians have been used more often that anyone would care to admit as human shields: just look at the staggering number of civilian deaths in the Iran-Iraq War. A margin of error is to be expected. And while no one likes to read about innocent people being slaughtered in the name of a good cause (as I believe the overthrow of Qadaffi and his family to have been), collateral damage is almost unavoidable. It remains to be seen what the outcome in Libya will be, what with reports of rival rebel groups shooting it out in the streets of Tripoli while U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Libya's interim government (which also happened to be the first time a U.S. Defense Secretary has ever visited Libya), but hopefully Libya will right itself after surviving for years as a pariah state under Qadaffi. So...out of conflict--fingers crossed--comes good.

In nearby Egypt, Cairo was rocked by yet another day of violence as the military continued to crack down on protestors occupying Tahrir Square and nearby government buildings. While the moral advantage is definitely with the protestors, an article I read today said that many average Cairenes are getting fed up with the upheaval as it increasingly interferes with their daily lives. People can't get to work because of the protests and subsequent government crackdown, and there were reported cases of non-protestors being rounded up and beaten by the military police in a case of merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time. One Egyptian blogger posted a particularly ominous Tweet this morning that said something along the lines of Tahrir Square being eerily quiet and dark tonight, with an impending sense of blood about to be shed soon. But again, we have conflict out of which--judging by the relatively peaceful elections--good is coming.

And then finally in Russia yesterday in an address to the United Russia party, for the first time President Dmitri Medvedev spoke out almost in support of the 50,000 protestors who came out en masse last weekend against the recent fraudulent elections there. Mr. Medvedev said it was time to start listening to the voices of the people on the street, as those voices represented the true desires of the Russian people. Putin, of course, was nowhere to be seen. Could this be a sign of a rift between the top Russian powers-that-be? Medvedev has always come across as a reasonable sort. The question is, if he continues to endorse the protestors, is his job as prime minister once Putin takes over the presidency in jeopardy? But then, maybe that wouldn't be such a change as it's clear Putin has always been top brass despite the job title.

So, we have three scenarios here where conflict has the potential to resolve itself in favor of good. A lot remains to be seen. But I'd like to think the world as a whole is taking a step in the right direction.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Is collateral damage to be expected in the pursuit of positive change? Why or why not?"

The Arab Spring, Part Two

2011-12-17T11:18:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

Well, yesterday there was yet another round of protests in Egypt and again the military did not hesitate to use violence in an effort to stem the tide. A peaceful sit-in outside the Egyptian cabinet building turned deadly as members of the military threw rocks and file cabinets down upon the protestors from the roof of a government building.

Polling stations across the country were also scenes of violence between civilians and the army as the second stage of the election was held for positions in the new parliament. The military--once all-powerful---is running scared. Once again, votes coming in confirm the fact that the new Egyptian Parliament is taking on an Islamic bent with the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis earning the majority share of votes, an identical outcome as was seen in round one. The military is secular. The prominence of the Islamists in the new government basically cancels out the influence of the military...at least this would be the case if the military backed down and let true democracy take its course. Unfortunately, it seems, the military has no such plans.

Protests yesterday were not confined to just Egypt. Syria was wracked by violence yet again with reports, according to the New York Times, of at least 17 people killed by government troops. A recent United Nations count puts the total Syrian death toll since the protests began there at 5,000.

Also there's a brouhaha brewing in the southwestern Chinese province of Wufan where the local population have basically taken over a village to protest a local government land-grab. It seems the Chinese government buys land at cut-rate prices that should be owned by the locals and then sells the same land to government-sponsored building companies for a considerable profit, completely shutting the villagers out of the deal. The current protest started after one of the village spokesmen was mysteriously taken into custody by the police and died. The police claim the man had a heart attack but family who came to identify the body said it betrayed signs of torture. The body of course has not been released back to the family while an escalating military presence on the outskirts of the village harbors the potential for rather unpleasant things to come.

Time magazine in its annual end-of-the-year 'Person of the Year' issue awarded this year's honor to the Protestor. It does indeed seem that 2011 is the year of the protest, of the long-oppressed silent majority finding their collective voice and using it to inspire change. The videos and Tweets coming out of places like Cairo, Homs, Manama, Moscow and Wufan frighten and inspire at the same time. My heart goes out to everyone--young and old--who are simply pursuing the basic human rights of democratic representation and the chance to create a better life for their young and loved ones. But, as I've said before and will undoubtedly say again, those in positions of power here in the West need to respect and support whatever results this democratic process brings into being, regardless of whether these new governments are secular or (in the Middle East) Islamic. That's what happens in a democracy--the people elect their leaders without outside pressure or influence. Sure, it may make many of us uncomfortable to see Egypt turn into another theocracy (not that this will happen) like Iran, but who are we to tell the people otherwise? Unless we live in these countries, or are out there occupying Tahrir Square, we don't have a voice. We can only observe and pass the message along.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Do you believe Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will ever cede control, or will he go down fighting like Qadaffi?"

Vladimir Putin and those pesky protestors wearing condoms on their lapels...

2011-12-16T14:58:00.000-08:00

Hello again everyone! Happy Friday!

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin conducted his annual television talk-a-thon yesterday in Moscow, spending over five hours sharing his views on the recent allegations of election fraud, his waning popularity, and the 50,000 or so who converged last Saturday near Red Square to voice their displeasure about all of the above. Based on transcripts of his question-and-answer session, it's clear that Putin is utterly out of touch--or, more to the point, doesn't give a damn--about anything beyond holding onto power. He dismissed the protestors as being paid lackeys of the opposition and made fun of the white ribbons they wore, claiming the ribbons looked like condoms, a remark that sent the opposition blogosphere into overdrive.

Putin went on to reiterate claims he made earlier in the week, saying that the opposition movement was fueled and funded by the U.S. government and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was personally responsible for inciting the unrest. I don't know about you, but this is beginning to sound not dissimilar to the ridiculous accusations of a certain recently dead and dethroned Libyan dictator who said his country's protests were spurred by Western drug dealers and foreign agents.

Has Putin not been following the news? Does he not realize momentum is on the side of the protestors? He did make some concessions, paying lip service to charges of ballot-stuffing by saying he'd have Web cameras installed in 90,000 polling places across the country during the upcoming presidential elections in March. It is doubtful however that this is going to stem the tide flowing against him. Another protest has been called for December 24th that could very well exceed the tens of thousands who turned out last Saturday.

Of course Putin has demonstrated time and again a certain bizarre predilection for advertising his masculine hubris. He seems to relish the photo-op that allows him to pose bare-chested in all manner of manly-man activities, including hunting, fishing, and wrestling. His latest involved a mixed martial arts competition at which he was roundly booed when he took the ring. Putin denies this as he denies everything, claiming the jeers were actually directed at the loser of the previous bout. Whatever.

While even the Western media has said Putin's re-election in March as President (in a much-derided job swap with current President Dmitri Medvedev) is a foregone conclusion, I'm going to take a different stance and say all bets are off. A lot can happen in three months, as we've lately seen in the Middle East. I'm dubious of opposition candidate and New York Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov's chances against Putin (nor am I convinced that he isn't part of the Kremlin-sponsored opposition) but I wouldn't rule out People Power just yet. No dictator is an island...not even you, Mr. Putin.

Do svidaniya.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Do you believe Russia is fated for a similar uprising to what we've witnessed in the Middle East?"

The Playlist of a Revolution

2011-12-15T14:27:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody!

As I mentioned the other day, I'm reading Robin Wright's brilliant and insightful book Rock the Casbah which traces the origins of the current Arab Spring protest movement and what she calls the "counter-jihad." I read a great chapter last night called "Hip-Hop Islam" wherein she introduces the reader to Islam's rather surprising alternative/rap/hip-hop music scene and the influence it's had on the young Arabs filling Tahrir Square and beyond.

One of the most striking things is the fact that in the twenty-three countries that comprise the Middle East, the vast majority of the population are under the age of 40. Ms. Wright writes: "The young make up the majority in all Muslim countries, in some places close to 70 percent" (124). Unemployment within this young demographic is rampant, so bad in fact that Queen Rania of Jordan is quoted in the book as saying that it's a "ticking time bomb," telling a group of business leaders that "the number of unemployed people under thirty years old...could increase from 15 million in 2008 to 100 million in 2020..." (125).

The reason for these staggering numbers? It's hard to say. However, one factor Ms. Wright mentions is the fact that a strictly Islamic education does very little to develop practical skills that can be transferred into jobs. Plus, in many of these countries, the only jobs available go to those who have an in with the government which rules out most of the population...hence the Arab Spring.

As in any culture, music has an amazing ability to communicate and express the soul of a people. This is especially true of the Middle East. In her book, Ms. Wright profiles several Arab musicians who have made an impact. She writes predominantly about hip-hop and the genre's ability to transcend national, religious, and political identity while focusing on the very real needs and concerns of a community. The difference though between Western and Islamic hip-hop/rap is that Islamic hip-hop is still quite devout and is utterly void of the obscenity that has come to define much of the genre in the West.

Ms. Wright writes about a young Tunisian rapper, Hamada Ben Amor, who goes by the name of El General, whose song 'Rais Lebled' became the anthem of the Tunisian protests before going viral on You-Tube and spreading across the entire region. Because the Tunisian government had effectively banned hip-hop from state controlled radio, El General turned to the Internet to get his music out to the public. El General was arrested and imprisoned. His interrogators asked him to stop singing about the Tunisian president before they would release him. But because El General had become such a celebrity among the protestors, his arrest was widely documented and he was released after three days. He then went on to perform in public to major acclaim.

Other artists profiled in the book include the Palestinian rap group DAM whose 2001 song "Who's the Terrorist?" became an international sensation with more than half a million downloads from You-Tube. Ironically, DAM has become immensely popular in Israel among young Israelis whose own rap group Subliminal has performed on several occasions with DAM. There is also, among others, the female Moroccan hip-hop singer Soultana who was nearly killed in the Casablanca bombings in 2003.

So after reading this chapter I decided to do a search on iTunes to see what, if anything, is available. This led to me putting together an entire playlist called The Arab Spring Mix, that features DAM, Soultana, Subliminal, and a number of Egyptian and Lebanese pop singers whose music provides the Western-influenced though very Eastern-infused soundtrack to the current democracy movements.

One of my favorites is an Egyptian singer named Amr Diab. He's been a huge star since the '80s and his latest album was just released a few months ago. His recent single "Ma'ak Bartaah" is a slick, very danceable techno bit of fun that would sound just about as right in any Western nightclub as it does, I'm sure, in the Whiskey Mist Beirut.

I'm loving my new playlist.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "What musical artist (of any genre) has moved you recently?"

The Joy of Giving

2011-12-14T14:07:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

What a foggy rainy day it is here in Galena today! Drove up early this morning with the dog, hoping to get some work done and a little peace before leaving for Colorado with the family for the holidays next week. I'm listening to the "Shame" motion picture soundtrack and it's putting me in a reflective mood.

The question I'm asking today is when was the last time you paid someone a compliment? How did it make you feel? Or, more importantly, how did it make the other person feel? Every year around this time it seems that everyone is always talking about how it's better to give than receive, but the cynic in me often questions the sincerity of these people. I mean, let's face it--I don't care what anyone says--receiving is pretty cool. And I think most of us are better at receiving compliments than actually giving them...I know I am.

But then I started thinking about the kids I taught earlier this year, the looks they got on their faces when I told them they'd done a good job...the utter disbelief. A couple of them looked at me like I was crazy, like no one had ever said a nice thing to them or given them emotional validation before. For a lot of those kids, having by-and-large grown up in broken homes or on the streets, it isn't really all that surprising that they wouldn't know how to take a compliment or, in the very least, would be skeptical about it. As the giver, well, it made me appreciate these kids all the more. The light that would shine in their eyes--however fleeting--when I gave them praise was priceless. I can still see it in my mind's eye. That alone made my decision to go into teaching worth the effort.

Last night in my acting class I praised a friend of mine in there--Justin--on his scene work. We've been in class together now since the beginning of September and last night for the first time it was like he had a real breakthrough. It was cool to see how far he's come since we started and I finally saw his true potential. I told him that during class and others agreed. As we were leaving, he came up to me and thanked me rather profusely for the complimentary feedback. It had really made his night and, I gotta say, his genuine appreciation kind of made mine.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Who have you complimented today?"

Confessions of a Reality TV Junkie, Part Two

2011-12-13T14:01:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

So this blog is a little schizophrenic. One day I'm writing about protests in Russia and the continuing drama of the Arab Spring, the next I'm talking about pork chops and reality television. I think--at least for this post--I'm going to stick with Reality TV. I've been watching "The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" this season if for no other reason than I was intrigued by the news of Russell Armstrong's suicide and was curious to see how (and if) it would play out on the show. Kind of morbid, I know, but I bet there's more of you out there than would admit to doing the same. For those of you who don't know, Russell was the husband of Taylor, one of the Beverly Hills housewives. Having not seen the first season, I can't compare the second season to the first. But suffice it to say that it is clear that Russell and Taylor's marriage was in a bad state for a long time previous.

The second season opened with a scene of all the housewives--minus Taylor--getting together a few days after Russell's death, expressing their grief, their concern for Taylor, etc. Then it flashed back to this past spring, in effect giving this season a narrative arc that has a pretty clearly defined ending. Taylor, not surprisingly, has been a central focus. All the ladies are bewildered by Taylor's increasingly erratic behavior. She apparently has admitted to some--off camera--that Russell physically abused her, though no one sees any outward signs of such abuse. This is fuel for much debate and a couple really nasty public confrontations between Taylor and Camille (recent ex-wife of Kelsey Grammar). We are shown scenes of Russell and Taylor in marriage counseling, interacting with each other at their daughter's fifth birthday party, and having (a particularly awkward) dinner with Kyle Richards and her husband Maurizio. Russell looks uncomfortable while Taylor's lips just seem to get increasingly big as she herself seems to shrink. In last week's episode, Taylor goes ballistic when one of Camille's friends, DeDe--whom I suspect is just trying to get a recurring role on the show because her behavior doesn't make any sense--aggressively confronts Taylor about her spat with Camille, this spat deriving from Camille's previous expression of frustration that Taylor claims she's being abused but then acts normal and lovey-dovey with Russell right after. Are you following this?

I don't know how many episodes are left this season, but I do know that we're only weeks away from Russell's death. And as truly compelling as I find the Taylor "storyline" to be, I'm rather disturbed by it and disturbed by the fact that I find it entertaining. Say what you will about the so-called reality of these reality shows, but Taylor's pain is obviously real--regardless of whether we see the physical marks of violence or not. While many would probably disagree, I like Taylor. I feel very sorry for her. As manic as her behavior is on the show, it's real, it is grounded in a reality that many of us can at least on some level relate to, which is more than I can say for Pandora Vanderpump's million dollar wedding, as entertaining and over-the-top as it is, which seems to be taking up a counter-focus on the show.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that when reality television gets it right, it begs the question of how wrong are we as a society that witnessing the genuine pain of others becomes our Monday night entertainment?

Ciao.

Porkchop: If and When You Find Yourself Craving Pork

2011-12-13T06:14:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone!

Up early this morning because today is going to be one of those days where I'm running from one thing to another with little time in between. It's all good but I know I'll be glad when it's 9pm and I can kick back and finally relax.

I went to a new-ish restaurant last night: Porkchop http://porkchopchicago.com, just down a bit from the corner of Randolph and Sangamon. As you would expect from its name, Porkchop is essentially a comfort food joint with a heavy emphasis on pig. In fact, it reminds me a bit of some of the BBQ establishments I've sampled when I've been in Atlanta. The decor is dark and pseudo-trendy, though I found it just slightly creepy: large heavy wooden tables (fine) arranged at a nice distance from one another (good for conversation). But then, one of my dining companions (my brother-in-law) pointed out the hanging display of rusty saws and other devices more appropriate for a torture chamber than a restaurant, not to mention the rather random (and thoroughly off-putting) presence of taxidermy on a couple walls. I joked that the restaurant was more a front for some bizarre sadist's pleasure cellar than anything to do with pork.

The menu was about what you'd expect from a dining establishment called Porkchop: BBQ ribs, fried ribs, pulled pork sandwiches, porkchops, lots of bacon, etc. In other words, don't go to Porkchop if you don't eat or like pork or are a vegetarian and certainly don't go there expecting to find anything remotely healthy on the menu. There is a cobb salad but I'd be almost embarrassed to ask them to hold the bacon bits. I was hungry so I ordered the chicken sandwich sliders as a starter and the porkchop as the main. The sliders were good--3 came in an order--though in and of themselves they were a meal: basically, grilled BBQ chicken on a bun with provolone cheese and a slice of tomato. The porkchop itself was pretty good, though I think I do a better one, and it came with a side of smashed red potatoes that were really very good though heavy on the mustard. My sister had a half-order of the BBQ ribs and her husband ordered the pulled pork sandwich. Both said their entrees were very good, though my sister complained that her fries were cold. They had also ordered the Elotes starter--corn on a skewer slathered in some kind of chipotle sauce--which our server forgot to put in with the kitchen so it arrived just after the main courses and only because we'd reminded her.

The restaurant--at least on paper--boasts a fairly decent beer and whisky selection, though I had to settle for an IPA after being told my first two choices were no longer being served despite their presence on the menu. Our server then proceeded to tell us at confusing length that their beer and whisky menu was in a state of flux and what was on the menu wasn't necessarily what they had in stock. Whatever.

Which brings me to the service. I'd read online from previous patrons of the restaurant that while the food was decent, the service left something to be desired. Criticisms ran from rude to just plain inattentive. Our server--whose name I don't recall--wasn't rude. In fact, she was really quite friendly and, with the exception of the forgotten Elotes, she was fairly attentive.

I realize this doesn't sound like much of a ringing endorsement for the place, but I did kind of like it. I'm in no hurry to run back there any time soon, but I'd go again. The prices were relatively cheap--considering the neighborhood--and, despite the decor, a not entirely unpleasant place to grab a drink, though be prepared to be told that what's on the menu isn't what's in stock, and for you wine drinkers, there isn't a bottle or even a glass in sight. The bar, at least aesthetically, is cool though we didn't spend any time there. The clientele? Thirtysomething hipsters and pretty people dressed trendily in black, none of whom look like they'd eaten comfort food--let alone pork--in their lives, though I did notice as we were leaving a couple rough-looking trucker-types in tee-shirts drinking beer by the door. Go figure. The food? Again, not bad...it is what it is. If you find yourself craving pork, Porkchop is a decent bet.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "What's your favorite BBQ joint?"

A new and Inspiring creative site: You, Me, and Charlie

2011-12-12T08:47:00.000-08:00

I am about to leave for an interview at the Al Raby School for Community and Development for a part-time AVID tutoring position so I'll keep this brief. I'm excited to be interviewing at Al Raby because that's the school where I spent three amazing months student teaching earlier this year. I haven't been back since May and am looking forward to reconnecting with some of the amazing teachers and students I got to work with there. Al Raby is located in the West Garfield Park neighborhood of Chicago. It's a tough place to grow up and go to school, but the kids I met there were incredible. I never thought teaching British Literature to four classes of high school seniors would be nearly so inspiring. Boy, was I surprised and truly heartened! I'll let you know how the interview goes...

What I really want to write about is a cool and--again--inspiring website I discovered this morning. You, Me, and Charlie www.youmeandcharlie.com was created by actress Dianna Agron. Ms. Agron, as many of you probably know, plays Quinn the former pregnant cheerleader, on Fox TV's hit show "Glee." The site is designed as a forum for creative types in any genre to share their thoughts, their projects (whether it be poetry, photography, short stories, etc), music and movie reviews, etc. The content is uplifting and, as Dianna writes on the home page introduction:

Without the arts I would not wake up each morning with the joie de vivre that encompasses my entire being. I would feel flat as a pancake. Because of the work I do, I get to hear some of the most moving stories, moments of your life…things I am grateful to hear from you, share with you. It blows my mind, each and every time. To know that the show I’m on helps so many people get through hard moments in their life? To hear that people like seeing what I’m going to post and often discover new artists? I never could have dreamed how lucky I would be, as I am, today. I want you to join me now. Let’s share this space as an art collective. There’s enough negativity in this world to smother all of us into a state of infinite sadness. Why not counter that? That’s what this site is for. I hope it just does that.

I love the mission behind the site and will be returning to it frequently to be inspired and to take heart in the fact that despite all the crappy stuff that greets us in the news every day, there are people out there who still can find good and take inspiration from each other. That's what the arts are all about--to inspire, to move, to create, and in doing so, perhaps change the world. So a big shout-out to you, Ms. Agron, and to everyone young and old who contributes to the site. I am a fan!

Sorry if I sound a little new-agey today, but you, me, and Charlie really made me feel good. Now off to my interview...

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "How can the arts be used toward the betterment of the world?"

Confessions of a Reality TV junkie

2011-12-11T15:57:00.001-08:00

Hi everyone!

There's a lot I could write about today: how I've become (albeit reluctantly) intrigued by Denver Broncos' Bible-quoting quarterback Tim Tebow, the fact that yesterday's protests in Russia took place without any discernible conflict, or more on what's going on in the Middle East. Instead, I'm going to write a little bit about my novel "Birds of Dreams," what it's about, and how I believe it captures the state of popular culture/society today.

I will be the first to admit that I am a reality television junkie. Yes, I am huge fan of Bravo's Real Housewives franchise (particularly Beverly Hills) as well as A-List: New York and A-List: Dallas. I think it would be fun to know Andy Cohen and appear as a guest on his show Watch What Happens...Live. I haven't missed an episode of The X Factor and believe it consistently outshines American Idol in terms of talent, production values, and conflict (real or staged) between the judges. While I have never watched an episode of anything to do with the Kardashians, I did root for Rob on the recently concluded season of Dancing with the Stars and found myself surfing the Internet for the latest on the fallout from Kim's wedding. I have watched several seasons of Top Chef and never miss The Amazing Race when it isn't being pre-empted by Sunday afternoon football. Like many of my fellow world citizens, I have often envisioned myself starring in my own reality television show and was at one time depressed by the fact that I am officially too old to appear on The Real World.

I have embraced this about myself and decided to do something constructive about it. I wrote a novel. "Birds of Dreams" tells the story of what happens when Reality collides with Reality-As-Seen-On-TV. It follows the lives of several reality TV aspirants and the rather ruthless and embarrassing things they do to get famous on the small screen. I have fused their story with another of my favorite guilty pleasures: Hindi cinema, otherwise known as Bollywood. And to further ground the story in contemporary society, I have also included a healthy dose of global terrorism. Readers will be introduced to Jordan, the twentysomething wannabe socialite with a mother whose life's obsession is to be featured if only as a walk-on in an episode of The Real Housewives; Yasmin, the Bollywood beauty and celebrity chef who stops at nothing--including staging the assassination of one of her rivals at her restaurant opening--to get her own reality show; and Tristan, the thirtysomething trust fund kid who finds himself--not entirely reluctantly--in the midst of reality show madness. There is also Matt, the entrepreneur who uses his family inheritance to start up an international drug trafficking operation, and his mother, Candace, the North Shore socialite and philanthropist who contracts a South African mercenary to end the rather unwholesome intentions of an unwanted future daughter-in-law.

If this sounds like farce, it is. The novel is meant as a social satire, an expose if you will on today's pop culture. Only a couple of these characters get what they want and when they get it, perhaps they realize that life in front of the cameras isn't what they had hoped it to be. The price they pay is enormous. "Birds of Dreams" is funny, irreverent, gossipy and vulgar. The reader may be repulsed by these characters while secretly admiring their tenacity. The novel isn't high art. It isn't going to change or inspire the reader to do great deeds. It's sole intent is entertainment. We may laugh at them, we may hate them, we may even finds ourselves egging them on. In short, the reader does exactly what we do when we watch any number of the reality shows that take up increasing space on our DVRs. The novel appeals to our worst fascinations and our compulsive need to "watch what happens...live."

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "What is your favorite reality TV show...and why?"

The Russian Protests...Alexey Navalny...Birds of Dreams: a Novel

2011-12-10T18:13:00.001-08:00

Hi everyone! Hope you're all having a good weekend. It's cold this evening in Galena...bone-chilling cold. Just got back from dinner--the French/German bistro Fritz and Frites in downtown Galena, which really is the only decent restaurant in town. Started with the mussels in a champagne sauce, followed by Wienerschnitzel with red cabbage and spaetzle, and profiteroles for dessert. I've never had a bad meal there, which is something to be said for a small town with plenty of dining options but very few of any quality. If you're in Galena, check out Fritz and Frites. They are open for lunch and dinner seven days a week.

Also, before I get down to business, I just want to let everyone know that my first novel "Birds of Dreams" is available for sale on Amazon Kindle for $2.99--a price reduction for the holidays. In a nutshell, it tells the story of what happens when Reality TV clashes with Reality. Part "Gossip Girl," part "Sex and the City" with a little Bollywood spice thrown in, the novel is a social satire with a colorful cast of characters all vying for a spot on a hot new reality show, or if not that, then at least a shot at something outside of boring everyday anonymity. Look for it on Amazon Kindle. The print edition will be published early next year...

I've been following the protest in Moscow all day and am happy to hear that everything went peacefully. Depending on who you read, the number of protesters ranged from a few thousand to over a hundred thousand. I'm thinking the average was around fifty-thousand. Regardless, it was the largest street protest in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Another protest has been scheduled for Christmas Eve. Protestors are demanding the resignation of Vladimir Churov, the head of the Russian Central Election Commission, and a new round of elections, which is exactly what Mikail Gorbachev, the last Soviet Premier, called for yesterday. I don't know--revolution seems to be in the air this year.

One of the most vocal advocates of social change in Russia--and this protest movement--is a Russian political blogger and Tweeter named Alexey Navalny. Mr. Navalny was reportedly arrested earlier in the week after blogging about the election fraud. His arrest is, in part, what inspired today's protests.

The Lede, a New York Times news blog, published a translation of a letter he wrote from jail addressed to the crowds gathered today in Bolotnaya Square and across the country. I've pasted it here:

"It is easy and pleasant to struggle for one's own rights. And it's not at all fearful. Don't believe all this nonsense about unavoidable disorders, fights with the police and burning cars.

Everyone has the only one and the most powerful weapon that we need: dignity, the feeling of self-respect.

It's simply important to understand that this feeling could not be put on and put off as a velvet jacket. It cannot be turned on with a button in your kitchen full of your friends and turned off when you talk with an official, policeman or member of electoral committee.

There ARE people with dignity. There are many of them. Dozens of them are sitting on tattered mattresses next to me. And I know, thousands of them are now at the Revolution and Bolotnaya squares in Moscow and in other cities of the country.

There are no repressions or clubs. There are no detentions or arrests for 15 days. All this is rubbish. It's impossible to beat and arrest hundreds of thousands, millions. We have not even been intimidated, for some time we were simply convinced that the life of toads and rats, the life of speechless cattle was the only way to win stability and economic growth in reward.

The palaver wisps away and we can see that the cattle-like silence was a gift to only a fistful of swindlers and thieves who became millionaires. This pack and their media valets go on convincing us that the electoral fraud in favor of the party of swindlers and thieves is a prerequisite of availability of hot water in the tap or cheep mortgages. We have been being fed with this for 12 years. We are fed up. It's time to shake off the torpor.

We are not cattle or slaves. We have voices and votes and we have the power to uphold them.

All people of dignity must feel solidarity with each other. No matter where they are at the moment, out in the square, in their kitchens or in a jail cell. We feel our solidarity with you and we know that we shall triumph. It simply cannot be otherwise.

We say: One for all and all for one!"

Amazing stuff. Definitely interesting times ahead!

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Do you think change is coming to Russia?"

The Russian Elections

2011-12-09T14:53:00.001-08:00

Hi everyone! I'm coming to you today from my family's weekend getaway house in Galena, Illinois, about a 3-hour drive northwest of Chicago, right on the Illinois/Iowa/Wisconsin tri-state area. It's a beautiful Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired house situated on sixteen acres of secluded woodland with an eagle's eye view of the surrounding countryside. It is indeed the perfect country retreat and I am very happy to be out here for the weekend, getting in some much-needed R&R.

What's on my mind today? I've been following the news out of Russia. It seems that Vladimir Putin is in trouble of losing his grip on his decade-long control of Kremlin politics. This week's elections, which were essentially intended to cement support for Putin's United Russia party in advance of his election to become president again in March, proved (perhaps unsurprisingly) to be a rather corrupt affair, with allegations (and photographic proof) of ballot box stuffing and the like on behalf of Putin. The interesting thing, however, is that despite these allegations, United Russia still faired rather poorly with only some 50% of all votes cast in favor of the party. Speculation is that without these criminal tactics, United Russia would have done even worse. So...what does this say about Putin's chances of becoming President again in 2012? I'm thinking at this point it's a shoo-in, especially as Putin's personal approval ratings are still quite high despite the middling performance of his party at the polls. But, with a massive protest scheduled to hit Red Square on Saturday, and fearful whisperings of an Arab Spring-type revolution in the making, I'd think Putin and his Kremlin cronies might be a little less smug about their chances. Putin's accusation that Hilary Clinton was at the forefront of stirring up the anti-United Russia pot just smacks of desperation...well, maybe not desperation exactly but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I'm curious to know what others think, especially those of you who are reading this blog in Russia. I know there's at least a few of you. I'm curious to know your in-the-trenches perspective. Are any of you planning to be at the protest tomorrow? If so, post a comment. Let me know what you're thinking. Let's get a discussion going. I have my own opinion about democracy in Russia--not unlike that alluded to in my post the other day about the democracy movement in the Middle East--but I'm curious to know your thoughts. Can a country as vast and diverse as Russia in terms of landscape and ethnicity with no real historical experience with democracy be expected to function as a Western-style democracy...or does it need a strong man-type (like Putin) to keep the country together? Share your opinions.

Oh...and my holiday party last night was great, thanks! Leslie, Shannon, Heather, Tom, Melissa, Craig, Mom and Dad and the family---thanks for coming over! The shrimp skewers came out okay after all and there was plenty of food and drink to go around! Cheers!

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "What are your thoughts and opinions about the elections in Russia? Should Putin be allowed to run as President in 2012? Why or why not?"