What God thought about civil rights in the 1960s:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting given the influence this man had on the modern Christian Right to note what his views were on the "universal brotherhood of man" and whether or not God's idea of equal rights had or did not have a racial bar.

 

( cut for FLs )

 

This reminds me of how the Southern Baptist Convention, where what Alexander Stephens called the "cornerstone" of (Southern) society, "that the white man is superior to the black man" was considered official doctrine into 1995 is suddenly and completely confused as to why anyone could possibly see racism where it is concerned. I'm thus going to ask a simple question, one that probably straddles the idea of religion and politics and also a few other issues: which view of God's will in the 1960s was correct? Martin Luther King's Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory vision where "the descendants of slaves and of slaveowners" are "treated according to the content of their character, not the color of their skin" or Falwell's view that ": "The true Negro does not want integration.... He realizes his potential is far better among his own race."

Whose God is the real God? They both alike see in the same Scriptures two incompatible messages when they are both alike from a Denomination that takes the belief that someone reading the same Bible should come to the one true message God preaches. They also use alike the same Scriptures to condemn each other. Who is the voice of God, and who is not?

Democracy, Nation States & the Middle East

[brockulfsen.livejournal.com]

The current agitation for democracy in the Middle East reflects a change in the porosity of borders, not to people, or goods, but information. It reflects the transition to a distributed model of both consumption and production of what was once called media. Al Jazeera as a transnational broadcaster is almost uniquely a Middle Eastern phenomena, needing as it does a commonality of basic culture across borders. Twitter is more like Speakers Corner than Letters to the Editor, and has the immediacy of drunken complaint and rumour in the pub.

Democracy appeals to anyone not close to the centre of power, because it makes them slight less powerless and offers the hope of protection from the worst excesses of those who are. In a Big Man society it is often tribal, ethnic and regional affiliation that determines who can eat at the Generalissimo's table, and who's ambition can bring them no closer than the kitchen. In a democracy, the cook may not be any better off, but he or she feels a legitimate expectation of equality before the law. Jackboots are fine only so long as it is your Brother-In-Law wearing them and you are on good terms with your wife.

Nation States are a European idea that has spread across the globe, drawing a line around "Us" to define the edge of the land of "Them". The Middle East largely had them imposed by colonial powers, with some major mistakes like the division and marginalization of the Kurds. That they are a poor fit in the Middle East can be best observed in the history of Yemen. In many cases colonial and neo-colonial powers (I'm looking at you USA) have propped up dictatorships to maintain these artificial Nations, with varying degrees of failure and disruption.

The push to democracy has potential pitfalls. Most noticeably theocracy, balkanization and corruption. Egyptians are a relatively informed and modern population, much more ready for participation in a democracy than the Afghanis. It has the public infrastructure and stability to reduce the influence of both corruption and local Big Men. It does have a worrying infiltration of Wahhabism, which can be tracked easily by looking at crowd pictures in the media over the last 50 years. Crowds go from having many women, none veiled to being increasingly male and the decreasing number of women more often scarfed, veiled or covered by robes of one kind or another.

The transition to Democracy can only occur with the support of the international community. Withdrawal of moral and material support for the current regimes is vital to the success of populist movements. Pressure must also be brought to ensure that protesters and opposition figures are not targeted. The Egyptian authorities attempts to intimidate journalists and shut down access to the so called New Media demonstrate more than anything else the precariousness of their position.

Violence against ones countrymen requires either fanaticism or division. Many of the oppressive regimes in history have held sway by use of armies composed of one tribe happily stomping on members of another. While the Nation State is a peculiarly 19th century creature, its greatest strength is in making each citizen the sister or brother of every other. In the Middle East the question comes down to will sectarian or tribal or ethnic or other divisions be stronger than the feeling that the protestor on the other end of the gunsights could be ones own child or parent or sibling.

Patriot Act vs. "limited government:" the state of the Tea Party revolution

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

So, last week the U.S. House of Representatives voted not to suspend debate on extending certain provisions of the Patriot Act. The freshmen Republicans voted 78-9 for suspending debate. Now, the Act extensions will have to go through the messy debate and amendment process.

My question is, how do those 78 new freshmen Republican congressmen, many of whom ran on a platform of "the government is too bloated, too intrusive into the private lives and freedoms of Americans!," justify trying to ram through the Patriot Act extension without debate, when the Patriot Act is arguably as intrusive as Obama's healthcare reform that they despise so much? You can't even open a bank account without being subject to the Patriot Act's provisions. Sure, I get the whole "protect our country against international terrorism" argument (quoth Michelle Bachman), and I get that for many self-styled small-government types the words "shrink the size of the federal government" apply to everything but national defense, but seriously, how do they reconcile extending the Patriot Act with the promises that won them Congress, reducing the deficit, shrinking the government, and reversing the government's intrusion into private lives?

Because you can ask pretty much any American who is Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent about how the Patriot Act purports to fight terrorism while respecting their individual civil liberties.

Also last week, Republicans failed to get the necessary votes to suspend debate and pass the United Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act, which would demand the return of some $180 million the U.S. overpaid to the United Nations (funny, that, considering how many other UN members are always screaming about how mean and un-supportive the US is WRT the UN). In fact, only two Republicans voted for it! Now, y'all know I'm no fan of the Tea Party, but even I get fed up with the UN's general atmosphere of "Death to America/Israel!" and "We need to appease more cruel dictators!" and wouldn't mind seeing us get every penny of that $180 million back (and hey, let's send it all to Israel, just to piss off the U.N. Commission on Human Rights!). The UN has been one of the great bogeymen of the American right for decades; many conservatives wouldn't cry if we withdrew completely and kicked the UN's headquarters off US soil (I remember, back when I was a conservative myself, the common anti-UN rhetoric). So...why, Tea Partiers, why didn't you take the chance to give the UN a well-deserved black eye?

(no subject)

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=a8f80098-3bd4-4138-86b7-f5673ef2da9f&k=85232

The UK and Canadian governments are working on the possibility of merging their respective stock exchanges.


Economics isn't my strong point but I do think this is a fairly big deal if it happens. If nothing else it's a big sign of the growing interconnectedness of the modern global economy. I also have to wonder why Canada would merger with the UK stock exchange instead of the US which is in the same time zone if nothing else.

But some questions do remain. Just how is this going to work in terms of a closing bell? What happens if the pound or Canadian dollar takes a dive? Is this really a good thing for either nation? Who's going to regulate all this? Seeing as how Canada is the US's largest trading partner what is the possible impact of this here?

Thoughts?

Kudos to the people of Egypt

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/10/egypt.protests/index.html?hpt=Sbin


Apparently they have been successful in ejecting their strongman dictator from power and doing so in a relatively peaceful and bloodless way (please note the term relatively, also all of the bloodshed seems to have been the responsibility of Pro Mubarak forces) and for this they deserve all of the congratulations in the world.

Now we can just pray for them that they are able to resist the efforts of those who would like to take over and become the next Mubarak and I truly hope for their sake that they are able to, even if it means that for a while they are not quite the ally to the US that they have been. In the long run a truly free and Democratic Egypt governed by the rule of law is a far greater asset to the US than a country run by a puppet dictator.

One question I do wonder though is what will happen to Mubarak now? Does he stay in Egypt or does he leave? Either way does whatever government that replaces him try to prosecute him for his many crimes? Or do they instead take the road that national healing and unity is more important than vengeance for past wrongs?

My thinking on this is the best course for Egypt is if he leaves the country for good and they don't work too hard to extradite him because the inevitable trial would be far too divisive for a nascent democracy to likely handle.