The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    William K. Wolfrum's picture

    I support the Egyptian people – provided it doesn’t affect me

    By William K. Wolfrum on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 6:24am | Humor & Satire, World Affairs

    Having watched events unfold in Egypt this past week, I must say I am impressed by the bravery and strength of will shown by the Egyptian people. They are standing tall against a dictatorial regime, and that is to be applauded.

    However, I am not quite certain yet if Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak should step down. Because, while I understand he runs a repressive regime with little to no care about basic human rights, this is not a black and white issue. There are many unanswered questions still, with the main one being - how does it affect me?

    You see, should Mubarak leave power, someone else will take his place, and whoever that is may not have my best interests at heart. Until I know the answer to that, I cannot give the Egyptian protesters my support, or get behind their push to oust Mubarak.

    There are many issues affecting me in Egypt. First off, the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, I’m not sure what they are or what they do, but just the name is horrifying. The word “Muslim” scares me. The word “Brotherhood” scares me. Combine these two words and I must say, I’m terrified enough to wet myself repeatedly.

    There’s also the travel situation. You see, one day I might be interested in visiting Egypt. How does the current protest affect that desire? Will airline tickets go up? Will I need an extra visa? Will the flights to Egypt be smooth, or turbulent? Will the dollar be strong? These issues yet need to be clarified.

    There’s also the news situation. This past week has seen nearly non-stop coverage of Egypt, often interfering with important things for me, such as watching Piers Morgan interview a gaggle of Kardashians. Unless Egyptians can guarantee this sort of thing won’t happen again, it’s impossible for me to support them.

    And I won’t even get into the turmoil I’m currently going through wondering if I can still enjoy the song “Walk Like an Egyptian.”

    In the end, let me reiterate how impressed I am with the Egyptian people. I’m sure they deserve a chance to control their own government and their own destiny. They just need to make sure it doesn’t affect me too much.

    –WKW

    Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

    Topics: 
    Humor & Satire
    World Affairs

    Comments

    [Insert comment from someone not realizing this is satire (despite it being tagged with "Humor & Satire") here…]


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 9:18am

    DONE! In less than the standard 8 hour work day!


    by jollyroger on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 5:33pm

    I steadfastly support democracy in Egypt, whatever the result.  That is assuming Americans can vote in their elections, right?  Palin for Egypt in 2012!


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 9:56am

    It's amazing how the obvious solution can sit right in front of you Wolfcub, and you can't see it. It's like your eyes need a Brazilian. 

    Anyway. Thing is, what we need is not for Egypt to have LESS OF AN AFFECT ON ME, BUT MORE. THAT'S how you boost both the ratings, and public engagement.

    So. You've heard of Nixon goes to China, and what a game-changer that was? (Note: how well it worked out.) Well, here's a twist for the noughty-tweens.

    What I'm seeing is.... KARDASHIAN GOES TO CAIRO! 

    WOOOOOOT! 

    Yeah baby.

    She'd become like Queen Nefertitti and wear those diaphanous gowns and stuff, and tour round the pyramids, and have slaves - lots of hot half-naked dudes swarming around like in videos - maybe half-naked chicks too, ooooh - and basically, be the object of worship for all the Egyptians. 

    And she could give 'em food and shit.

    Now. I think we've got a double-winner here, what with THE KARDASHIANS SAVING THE EGYPTIANS and all! But.

    THERE'S MORE!

    This thing has a storyline. An arc. Like, the arc of a diver. Anyway. People will get bored with watching Kim sit in the heat. Maybe not really bored, cause after all, each little bead of sweat will have to form in various clefts and such, and then, sticking closely to her skin all the while, slowwwwwwwwwly drip down her body. [Oh God. Oh God. Gimme a 5 minute break here, people.]

    Anyway. People will want MORE EXCITEMENT after a while. So we bring in.... THE KARDASHIAN PRINCESSES! 

    So these chicks arrive and start flouncing around, lots of potential for hot make-out in the desert sex with slave guys, or maybe guys like Omar Shariff. But then... THEN... they start plotting. AGAINST QUEEN NEFERTITTI! 

    Awesome so far, right? We can have them all get new and bigger jugs, and pose them all lined up next to the pyramids and ASK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.... WHO'S GOT THE BEST MONUMENTS?

    And then, then, we need to give it another political angle. Cause that's always hot, lots of potential for shouting, blood, torture chambers carved into the pyramids, that sort of shit.

    So here's what we do. And this, BTW, is why I'm a genius.

    We bring in, as a new love interest, BARACK..... OBAMA. 

    How hard does that work? Oh, that works HARD.

    1st, he comes on a state visit. 

    2nd, he does the thoughtful statesman walking through the sands, talking to Queen Kim on her litter.

    3rd. He uses his rhetorical skills to woo her.

    4th. She shows him her tits. 

    5th. Secret, all-night, desert nookie.

    6th. Satisfied glows all round come morning.

    7th. OMG SEX TAPE!!!!! NO, KOURTNEY, NO! THINK OF THE PEOPLE! 

    8th. Too late. Sold like 30 million. 

    9th. OBAMA HAS TO DROP MICHELLE, NAME BIDEN AS HIS CO-REGENT, AND BECOME THE NEW KENYAN KING OF EGYPT. 

    10th. Kardashian heads up the Nile to invade and conquer the Sudan, Uganda and Kenya for her new husband.

    11th. Meanwhile, back at home, Barack and Kourtney get caught doing the.....

    Admit it Wolfie, this storyline is waaaay more exciting than anything the networks are running right now. 

    Now, how does my new storyline affect me? I'll tell you how it affects me. It's LIFE-CHANGING. And not just for me, as someone seeking top-value entertainment and pant-citement. But for the long-suffering Egyptian people. Who not only haven't had an "Egyptian Idol," and who have limited or no access to a good cheeseburger, but haven't had a Queen made famous for her bust in 3300 years. Damn.

    Eye of the Tiger, baby. 


    by quinn esq on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 12:18pm

    I just might have to retract my previous statement about not wanting quinn as President…


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 12:25pm

    I don't know. Mitt Romney had essentially the same plan when he was Gov. of Massachusetts.


    by William K. Wolfrum on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 1:04pm

    I'm sure we can find a place for Mitt.

    How about crypt-keeper? 


    by quinn esq on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 2:29pm

    Pharaoh Obama. Only a matter of time, I guess.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/limbaugh-obama-pharaoh-egypt_n_...


    by quinn esq on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:16pm

    Since you're back, I didn't want to miss the chance to improve your reality tv pitch-having attended closely to the PBS series on the Spartans (OUTSTANDING narrator!) I wondered if the Egyptians, too, might not be famous for hot girl-girl action? Jus' sayin' (and you are quite welcome).


    by jollyroger on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:27pm

    Does this mean the new guy might not read the Bible?


    by Richard Day on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 3:41pm

    I've never visited this blog before, so I'm not really sure if what you're saying is serious or only a silly joke.

    I lived under a nasty military dictatorship (supported by the United States) in Brazil that lasted 21 years. One only knows what living under a dictatorship is when one has this terrible kind of experience himself/herself.

    So, it really doesn't matter what is going to affect you or your country. What matters is what is affecting the Egyptian people and how. If the USA does fight for freedom, that's what this is all about now, and only that.

    I've just read your text again, and you've really got to be kidding. But in case you aren't, please read the text below:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear


    by Monica (not verified) on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 4:55pm

    He was kidding, Monica.  He's actually mocking those Americans who immediately jump to the question "what does this mean for us?"  Those who first ask if they'll like the new government better than the old dictator.  Or what it means for oil prices. 

    This was a bit of satire with a point -- as you say, it doesn't matter how it affects America, we should be supporting the rights of people to determine how they will be governed.  That is our moral obligation.

    Our history in Latin America is too vivid an example of what can go wrong when we act out of perceived expedience rather than our larger morality. 

    Hope we'll see you here again soon!


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 5:10pm

    Is that the same as the Culture-Of-Fear-Of-Loosing-Ones-401K ? Just curious.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 5:14pm

    Regardless, glad for the comment. I actually live in Brazil and my wife grew up under the dictatorship, my in-laws living through the worst of it.


    by William K. Wolfrum on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 5:33pm

    "I...live in Brazil..." Wow! What are the odds?


    by jollyroger on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 5:40pm

    Brazil population: 201,103,330

    World population: 6,768,181,146

    Odds: 2.97%


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 6:34pm

    Nothing dampens the poet's metaphor like the arrival of the literalist, brandishing precision...

    by jollyroger on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:16pm

    Shorter: All Hail Genghis! 


    by quinn esq on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:22pm

    Oh yeah? You still sure about that "46" ...time has passed.

    by jollyroger on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:39pm

    Heck, yeah!  Sometimes standing up for democracy in America means we have to keep our friends in power in other places. The Egyptians couldn't handle a democracy anyway. They write by cutting out birds and crocodiles on stones and they don't have any oil so what's to fight over anyhow?


    by The Decider on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 9:26pm

    How can you possibly support the Egyptian people? They are marching in the streets of Cairo to demand accountability from their government. But that is poppycock. It isn't "up to all of them". They have a system of representative government. It really is up to Mubarak. He's the President. The powers of office belong to him and him alone. How he chooses to use those powers is also his responsibility and his alone.

    It's clear as mud.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 10:21pm

    Indeed. The powers of office still belong to him and him alone. Just as they will belong to the man who replaces him. Video of the Egyptians taking ownership to rid a street of standing water are touching, but ultimately it takes a government to maintain the sewer systems that spirit that water to whatever it's final destination may be. For governments with a president, responsibility for getting such things done often falls to the holder of that office.

    The need for a chaotic/violent street revolution is an indicator a leader is an abject failure. If what is occurring in Egypt is necessary for a people to get their needs acknowledged by the government supposedly representing them, it seems difficult to assert they live in a functioning democracy. When a president does the job well, people are free to happily conduct the business of having a good life, confident the government is led in a way responsive to the needs of civil society.

    The Egyptian people aren't marching to demand accountability. By the time a leader forces people to take to the streets, it's a bit late for accountability. Attempts at making a new "accountable" government aren't quelling the protests in the least. People are demanding Mubarak step down and that his party be banned from participating in future governments. Which seems to be about right. If party enablers support their leader in creating conditions which drive fellow countrymen into the streets, it makes a lot of sense to ban that party from future government.

    I know it has become fashionable to imply the behavior of American politicians is somehow mitigated/justified because people are not having a violent uprising in the streets. The events in Egypt highlight a clear reality of that view: by extension it accepts as given Obama's government is no more responsive to the people than Mubarak's.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 4:16am

    That's right. You have only two choices: Sit on your dead ass and wait for the Prez to do everything, then march in the street if he doesn't.


    by Donal on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 5:23am

    Nah. I have a ton of choices. Walt Minnick didn't go back to Washington, Harry Reid did. That was in part my doing.

    The important point being that my actions (or total inaction) don't change the fact that the president and the president alone is responsible for carrying out the duties of the presidency - and he alone can wield the powers.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:34pm

    Would slaves and sympathizers have been better off going fishing and depending on the all-white government to end slavery? Should the suffragettes have stayed home learning new recipes while depending on the all-male government to hand them the vote? How about the organized labor, civil rights or antiwar movements? Were those movements also poppycock?


    by Donal on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:49pm

    I'm not entirely understanding your point here. Or, I guess it's more accurate I feel you are trying to shadow-box a nonexistent opponent. I sure haven't promoted the idea that people should sit idle. Indeed, I personally commit time on a routine basis to the improvement of my government.

    In what way do the activities you highlight change the reality that our system of government grants powers and responsibilities to the president that are held by a single individual ... and that this individual holds sole responsibility for the execution of those duties/powers?

    Also, don't all the actions you highlight represent a response to a situation where democracy (and by extension those in charge of setting government policy within said democracy) had specifically failed to address the needs of a large cross-section of civil society? And wouldn't any set of conditions that require such drastic actions ultimately mean that the people in leadership were totally failing at their duties to meet the needs of society?

    To this observer, it seems achieving a political majority has trashed the Democratic partisan's dedication to good governance ... to the point where they refuse to even acknowledge that good governance is a valid concept.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 2:26pm

    Apparently you are so busy inventing what other people have said that you can't remember what you said. I mentioned Amy Goodman's lecture:

    She noted that intrusions to our privacy have only increased under Obama, but observed that after November 4th, Democrats seemed to step back to let the new president do all the work. She lectured us that, "It's not just up to him, it's up to all of us." She recounted candidate Obama quoting FDR, who once listened to Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters organizer A Philip Randolph complain about Pullman, then said, "I don't disagree with you, but you have to make me do it." That sure sounds like Obama. (Randolph later threatened a march on Washington and FDR later issued the Fair Employment Act.)

    So my takeaway is that your job is not over just because we elected Obama. We have to make our voices heard to the average Joe and to Obama himself.

    Your response was:

    This formula of yours (and Amy's) is unadulterated poppycock. Both in it's representation of how our government was designed to work and in it's presentation of reality as it has unfolded over the last two years.

    I call bullshit on what you wrote, and not some crap I'm claiming you wrote, but what you actually wrote. Political movements have had major effects on what happens in this country. So if you can answer this without changing the subject and without putting words in my mouth and without creating a straw man, please do so. Otherwise stop wasting my time.


    by Donal on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 2:29pm

    So, you want to pretend the conversation in this thread here doesn't exist and instead pull up a selectively excerpted comment of mine from completely different thread - made in a completely different context? And then pre-accuse me of changing the subject? Classic.

    In order for me to answer your "calling bullshit" I think it would be fair to ask you to flesh your case out a bit (and also it would be fair to ask you to take my WHOLE comment and not just a little bit of it). I have never challenged the assertion "political movements have had major effects on what happens in this country". Nor is this what Amy Goodman said. Nor is it what the comment of yours I was responding to said. I'm not sure if that's putting words in my mouth or creating a stawman ... but it seems to be a bit of both.

    In the context of your previous comment, there are two major premises I see. The first premise is that a properly functioning representative democracy requires the citizens to dedicate their entire lives to babysitting those ostensibly elected to office for the purpose of maintaining an effective government. Those promoting this concept seem to accept as given if society fails to mobilize en masse on a daily basis that such a "failure" obviates the responsibilities of those holding office or somehow eliminates society's right to call on their government to be responsive. This is dead-wrong. In a properly functioning representative democracy, one should be able to have their needs met without taking to the streets. An assertion that Obama supporters must take extraordinary measures if they want their voices heard is acknowledgment that he does not recognize those voices as worthy of being heard as a part of routine governance. I stand behind my belief that this is not how our government is designed to work. If you have some factual counter-argument to make instead of this passive-aggressive quasi-insulting snarkfest; I'm all ears. Make your case.

    The second implied premise to the Donal/Goodman formula is that people have just been sitting on their asses since electing Obama. You continue this false premise on this thread. An observation that one shouldn't HAVE to go through the machinations being imposed on America by the Democratic majority is not the same as a refusal to take action. Liberal activists have been working their assess off - only to be pissed on. In the bit of my comment you selectively edited out, I observe that in the course of bringing just the sort of pressure you and Amy merely talk about, Fire Dog Lake was specifically and directly attacked by Obama's team in a major financial way. This is typical of how Obama's administration has been responding to pressure from what used to be considered the Democratic core. As I observed in the comment you highlight, and reiterate now, if Obama was genuine in cribbing that line from FDR ... he has one hell of a funny way of showing it.

    A refusal by Obama to respond/acknowledge pressure does not mean that activists have been sitting idle for the past two years. I think your (and Amy's) implication that they have been is unadulterated poppycock. If you'd like to join the fight instead of pissing on what used to be your fellow liberals, the independents and libertarians who stand with them would love to see the support.

    Finally, I've gotta say. There is something quite ironic about a comment which completely changes the subject, puts words into my mouth, and then creates a giant strawman ... while challenging me to not do any of these things. Congratulations on the amazing lack of self-awareness.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 3:45pm

    In order for me to answer your "calling bullshit" I think it would be fair to ask you to flesh your case out a bit (and also it would be fair to ask you to take my WHOLE comment and not just a little bit of it)

    I've made my case. Quote your whole comment if you want.

    I have never challenged the assertion "political movements have had major effects on what happens in this country". Nor is this what Amy Goodman said.

    Yes it is. She quoted FDR advising the porter's union to make him act. He agreed with them, but said you have to make me do it. They organized a march, and he signed the bill they wanted. You called that poppycock, but it worked.

    The first premise is that a properly functioning representative democracy requires the citizens to dedicate their entire lives to babysitting those ostensibly elected to office for the purpose of maintaining an effective government.

    You aren't very good at distilling premises. Good government requires participation by the governed. Do you know what idiot meant in Ancient Greece? Someone that did not participate in government. 

    The second implied premise to the Donal/Goodman formula is that people have just been sitting on their asses since electing Obama.

    A lot have been sitting at their computers. I went to a health care rally in DC and saw the two or three hundred people that bothered to show up. It was pathetic. They showed up for the funsies with Stewart and Colbert, but not for the serious rallies.

    It is ironic when you claim I put words in your mouth by quoting you.


    by Donal on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 4:23pm

    #1 Your definition of making a case and mine are quite different. IMO, you have failed to even fully present your own opinion in such a way it can be met with a direct response on merit - let alone provide factual/logical framework to demonstrate it being correct. This is still feels mostly like low-content interpersonal meta-snark.

    #2 I think your reading comprehension is off base in the interpretation you are giving to Goodman's words. In order to take what she said and use it to make the statement you are making, you must add quite a lot of your own point of view to the words she is using. She is speaking of one specific instance in the context of interaction between an interest group and a president from almost a century past. The statement you are making is sweeping generalization - which can be loosely derived from one of many possible interpretations. Morphing the words as you attempt to do here changes the context and the meaning . Again. Nobody has EVER challenged what you appear dedicated to arguing, certainly not I. You are still boxing at shadows and totally misconstruing my position.

    #3: Likewise nobody has ever argued that good governance does not require the input of those governed. In our system of government, that's called elections. We have 'em every two years. And indeed, every member of society should be involved in the process. It is a huge jump from there to saying people who are very involved in this process are somehow not participating in government if they are not also involved in street demonstrations.

    This is where both you and Amy go off the rails IMO. The ancient Greeks certainly didn't specify that "participation" means abandoning productive life and taking up permanent residence in the street to babysit a government that would betray the public interest in the absence of a high level of demonstrated public angst. I think the ancient Greeks were envisioning acting within the social political framework to advance the needs of society - not a series of popular uprisings in the face of unresponsive representatives.

    #3: Just curious, how many hours did you travel in order to attend that HCR rally ... or did you just hop on the Metro? How much did you contribute to helping provide transportation to folks without the easy access you yourself had? Rich patrons footing the bill for transportation and lodging has been a prominent feature of most successful demonstrations to occur on the Mall in D.C. It seems to me, you are blaming the people for a failure that lies with the rally organizers. Considering we are technically OPPOSING everyone in America with a lot of money; trying to compete with a visual requiring the investment of millions seems to be an inane plan from the get-go. If I recall, it took everyone at TPM pooling their resources to manage to send a single representative. Don't those who gave a few bucks to Ripper get credit for participating also?

    At the same time, we got over 100 people in Idaho to come out in support of the Public Option at a single town hall. I probably wouldn't recognize you without your bush, so I've gotta ask, did you attend OUR rally? If not, why was your absence from my rally any more significant than my absence from yours?

    #4 Had you stopped at the quote, it wouldn't have counted as putting words in my mouth. That is not what you chose to do.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 5:32pm

    IMO you have given up and are in full obfuscation mode. You can't support what you said, so you simply deny it ever happened. Amy Goodman was recommending that people participate in political movements, but you don't want to hear that and doggedly insist that she's asking for a full-time commitment or marching in the streets. She felt that liberals had clearly relaxed their efforts and intensity after the election. You take that as a personal insult. Too bad. When I look at what Goodman does and what you do, I know who I believe.


    by Donal on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 8:30pm

    Wolfy, thanks you always make me laugh.

    In all seriousness though, the problems in Egypt are directly related to the abject poverty experience by the majority of the population. Until the issues of poverty are addressed, it will not matter who is in power.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 6:06pm

    Except that who is in power has a fairly substantial impact on whether the issues of poverty get addressed, no? Do you believe in the wealth fairy?


    by acanuck on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 8:37pm