Posts tagged ‘Revolution’

August 31, 2011

What Kind of Nations Will Come From The Twitter Revolutions?

by Vince

Looking back on the world’s history, I have a funny feeling that today’s revolutionaries may not turn their countries into such benign places as we’d like to think. How do we know they will be able to put everything together and democratically operate? Will a new despot emerge from the rubble? This is not to say that I prefer Mubarak or Ben Ali or Gadaffi, but it is too soon it some regards to sound the horn of cheer. The real work may still be before them. Countries like Tunisia have a lot of problems and a charismatic leader may emerge with a scapegoat strategy for rebuilding. Aaron Brady is more optimistic:

[I]nstead of the personality cult by which Presidents-for-life like Ben Ali and Mubarak have ruled for decades, the masses of nameless Cairenes and Tunisians—assembled on Facebook and in the street—represents a kind of anti-personality cult. When everyone is “Khaled Said” (or “Mohamed Bouazizi” in Tunisia), after all, the story being told is not only that the nation is united, but that it is united by the common experience of having suffered at the hands of the state. In this sense, instead of “leaderless revolutions,” perhaps we might think about how Facebook helped facilitate a “revolution of leaderlessness“?…

In other words, what Gladwell flags as a weakness of social media—the difficulty of producing strong commitment to a single idea or plan—might actually be what makes it uniquely valuable. By uniting around the crimes of Ben Ali and Mubarak, the much more difficult political question of what kind of government was to succeed him could be deferred until later.

H/T: The Dish

June 5, 2011

The Revolution Will Be Live

by Vince

Paying respect to Gil passing the other week with a neat video to his one song “The Revolution will not be Televised”.

March 24, 2011

Candidate for America’s 4th War

by Vince

Sure, why not? Pick Syria:

January 29, 2011

Why Care About Egypt?

by Vince

It seems that every time a foreign nation undergoes a revolution,

it is easy for America to ignore it. We can switch the channel on the TV, turn the page in the newspaper, and say to ourselves that, well, we can’t really do anything about what’s going on in Tehran, Tunisia, or Egypt. I have responded in all of those ways before and also struggle with wondering what to think, which side to take, and to what level of interest should I dedicate to becoming an informed participant in worldwide affairs?

I still feel that I am lagging behind in keeping up with the news in Egypt. I had a chance to talk to a friend about it today and was brought up to speed. It seems to be amazing how truly effective despotic regimes can be when it comes to stamping out oppositional forces (see China, Iran, and now Egypt).

Where I am going with this is to the money line: we as America fund Egypt in the amount of $1.3 billion a year. We should care; its our money. Not to mention its a fellow nation under the rule of its despotic leader. Unfortunately, I am left asking this question: will Obama support to keep Mubarak in power solely to keep an ally on our side in a oil rich and tense region?

June 9, 2010

Obama and the past year of Tehran

by Vince

Jonathan Schanzer describes Barack Obama’s role with Iran over the past year:

After learning Iran was building a covert uranium-enrichment facility near the city of Qom, Obama inexplicably chose not to hammer the Iranians during a major policy address at the United Nations in September. Obama, in fact, asked France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s Gordon Brown to keep the facility secret so that he could deliver a general speech. The topic? Nuclear disarmament.

Then, on Nov. 3, in a speech marking the 30th anniversary of the Tehran hostage crisis (when Iranian radicals held 52 American hostages for 444 days), the president bent over backward to let the Iranians know that Washington was trying to accommodate them. He announced that he had “accepted a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency” that would enable Iran to continue enriching uranium for medical purposes, similar to a deal forwarded by Turkey and Brazil last month.

To be sure, this was a mixed message. How could the United States allow Iran to maintain facilities for enriching uranium for one purpose but forbid the country from enriching uranium for others?