Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 734)

• Muslim Brotherhood to hold talks with government • US swings support behind vice president Omar Suleiman • Banks and business reopen today in key test for protests ترجم هذه الصفحة إلى العربية 10.05am: Graphic rooftop footage has emerged purporting to show a protester being gunned down in Alexandria [Warning: disturbing content] . Towards the end of the film the protester is seen gesturing with his arms out before he falls to the ground after gunshot is heard. It is unclear when the incident took place. 9.54am: More than 340 banks, including 152 in Cairo, have opened for business for the first time since the protests began. The Egypt Daily News has this report on queues for money : A steady stream of employees flowed into Cairo’s financial district and customers queued to access their accounts, on the first day for the country’s banks to open after a week-long closure due to political protests. Bankers are bracing for chaos in dealing rooms with foreign investors and local businessmen fleeing the Egyptian pound after the street protests paralysed much of the economy and dried up important sources of foreign exchange. Armoured personnel carriers stood guard at intersections where soldiers had erected sandbag barriers, as buses dropped employees off at large state banks. Outside the banks, dozens of customers were waiting to enter when they opened for public business at 10 am. “We have to have some order around here. People are anxious to get paid and pull money out. It has been almost two weeks and life is at a standstill,” said Metwali Sha’ban, a volunteer making a list of customers to organize who would enter first. 9.22am: If you’re an Arabic speaker you may find this blog easier to follow using this (automatic) translation button. ترجم هذه الصفحة إلى العربية 9.19am: The new Egyptian vice president, Omar Suleiman, is emerging as the key figure in what happens next. One of the key opposition parties, the Muslim Brotherhood, said it plans to hold talks with him. A Muslim Brotherhood spokesman told Reuters: “We decided to take the people’s demands to the negotiation table, ” Essam el-Erian, a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, told CNN. The party’s meeting with Suleiman is is due to take place later this morning. Only yesterday the Brotherhood were reported to be opposed to negotiation . The apparent change of tactics, came after the US swung its support behind Suleiman , to the dismay of many protesters. Banks and businesses reopened today in the first clear test of how far anti-government protesters can maintain momentum. “We want people to go back to work and to get paid, and life to get back to normal,” Egyptian army commander Hassan al-Roweny said. The other main developments overnight are: • Several leading figures, including Hosni Mubarak’s son Gamal, resigned yesterday from the ruling National Democratic Party. A relative liberal, Hossam Badrawi, was appointed the party’s new secretary general. • Hillary Clinton signalled US support for vice presidnet Suleiman and stressed the importance of “the transition process” that he is heading. • The US State Department has distanced itself from remarks made by US envoy Frank Wisner in which he said Mubarak should remain in office throughout the transition period. • Ahmad Mohamed Mahmoud, a photographer with the newspaper Al-Ta’awun, has become the first journalist to die in the unrest . Two New York Times journalists, Souad Mekhennet and Nicholas Kulish, give an account of their arrest last week . Our discomfort paled in comparison to the dull whacks and the screams of pain by Egyptian people that broke the stillness of the night. In one instance, between the cries of suffering, an officer said in Arabic, “You are talking to journalists? You are talking badly about your country?” Chris McGreal gauges the reactions among protesters on Tahrir square to the latest political and diplomatic manoeuvring: So many in the square take a sceptical view of Washington’s plan for Mubarak’s deputy and intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, to oversee the political transition. There is suspicion of Suleiman because of his past, but there is even greater concern that he will serve American interests which, among other things, are believed to be partly about containing the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. “When Obama said Mubarak must go, we were very happy,” said Amira Ismael. “If Obama gets rid of Mubarak, you will see that many people in Egypt will love America. If Obama leaves it to the Egyptian people, we will love him. But if Obama tries to force us to have a government we don’t want, it will be different. We will win and then we will judge Obama by what he does and take decisions according to how he behaves.” After covering both the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings Peter Beaumont says the mood change among people is the most significant development : A threshold of fear has been crossed. For what has happened in both countries is that the structures of a police state have been challenged and found, to the surprise of many, to be weaker than imagined… Even if Mubarak continues to hang on, what is clear is that a transition of power is already under way. It is not, however, one defined by negotiations between parties or the behind-the-scenes diplomacy at the behest of the US and the EU. Instead the shift taking place is a leaching of power from existing elites in both states’ authoritarian centres. They have been forced, in Tunis, into the effective purging of Ben Ali loyalists, and in Cairo Mubarak’s state has had to offer ever more concessions. And suddenly the small, brave worlds of activists in both countries have been embraced by a wider population no longer afraid to speak or to assemble. The Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley castigates the response of western leaders : Officials and ministers frankly acknowledge – at least in private – that these convulsions have caught Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels with their pants around their ankles… We could put this down to simple incompetence, but I fear that would be a bit too charitable. It is also the result of an ingrained assumption among too many opinion-formers and policy-makers in the west that certain parts of the world “can’t do democracy”, that there are fellow citizens of planet Earth who are somehow less deserving of freedom or less capable of exercising it. What happens next? On Friday The Guardian’s Middle East East editor Ian Black outlined four possible scenarios which are still relevant: climbdown; protests subside; escalating violence and standoff . Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East Matthew Weaver guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …

Last week I was in Cairo and Alexandria. This is my diary Sunday January 30 We arrive at Ben Gurion airport at 9am after a panicky and much-delayed drive involving torrential rain and a broken-down car. The departures board says our flight to Cairo is cancelled. The woman at the ticket office is unsympathetic; she thinks we are insane to be trying to get to Cairo. The only other option is an El Al flight at 8pm. We’re told this one will depart as every seat on the return leg tonight is booked by Israelis desperate to get out of Egypt. We settle down for an 11-hour wait. At the boarding gate, it’s clear that there are only around a dozen people on the outward leg to Cairo – all journalists bar one, an EU official going to assess the situation in Cairo for staff based there. We land around 10.30pm and are told by a cheery airport official that there will be no problem getting into the city centre tonight, everything is “normal”. A cruel joke? The curfew means no taxis will take us downtown or indeed anywhere. We persuade a shuttle bus driver to drop us at an airport hotel. In the lobby, there are chaotic scenes: luggage piled up; people either milling about aimlessly or sleeping on every available chair and floor space. We decide to try the next-door hotel. The scene here is similar but not quite as bad; there are no rooms available, but the doorman says he might be able to find rooms at another hotel in half an hour. We go to the bar. An hour later, we cut our losses and find a corner of the lobby. But before we can lay down on the carpet to try to sleep, a group of stranded Brits want to tell us every detail of their abortive holiday. It is an extraordinary tale, but I am swaying on my feet, desperate to shut my eyes. Monday January 31 We wake up early, having slept fitfully. The curfew lifts at 8am, no chance of any transport until then. Eventually we get one taxi back to the airport terminal, then another into the centre of Cairo. The road is punctuated by army tanks and armoured personnel carriers. I wonder why the vehicles are painted yellow instead of the standard green until I try to find a more accurate description of the colour. Sand yellow. Ah yes, that’s why. There is almost no traffic on the roads: the journey from the airport takes around 40 minutes, in contrast to a more standard two hours according to one of my fellow passengers. Smog lies over the city. It is my first visit to Cairo. I check into the Marriott although the rest of the Guardian team are in another hotel, closer to Tahrir Square. I take a cab over there – a stupid mistake as what is a 15 minute walk becomes a 45 minute car ride as the driver takes a circuitous route to avoid roadblocks and vigilantes. Peter Beaumont and Jack Shenker are there, on the 19th floor in a room that looks a bit like a war zone itself. They give me a debrief on the latest situation and some useful phone numbers; then they are off to report stories. I head to Tahrir Square. It’s an amazing spectacle – thousands of people gathering with home-made signs and one message: Mubarak must go. The protesters are good-humoured and relaxed; everyone is keen to speak to a western reporter. I feel fine about wandering around on my own, tweeting, doing phone interviews with Matt Weaver, our live blogger in London, and filling my notebook. People are eloquent about the reasons for their uprising. Many speak of economic hardship, lack of democracy, the desire for freedom. One of the most memorable comments in a day, a week, of memorable conversations comes from a guy who tells me he has come “to fight the fear inside me”. The curfew starts at 3pm but no one takes any notice – in fact more and more people are coming into the square. There is no military or police presence in the square itself, and the soldiers a block back are friendly. Eventually I head back to file a piece. There is no internet of course, so the choice is dictating my copy down the phone or faxing it over to the office. I choose the former. This is what it was like before the internet. It’s not just getting the copy to London; I can’t find anything out. “Now I’m here, you know a million times more than me what’s happening,” I joke to Dave Munk, deputy foreign editor. Except I’m not joking. Tuesday February 1 I decide to leave for Alexandria, Egypt’s second biggest city, and the scene of some of the worst violence the previous Friday. I find a driver willing to take me – it’s not clear whether the roads are open, although I am in touch with Channel 4′s Lindsey Hilsum who made the journey the previous day without hitch. I call the hotel where Lindsey and other journalists are staying. “Are you a reporter?” the guy on reception asks. When I say yes, he refuses me a room, saying there has been trouble at the hotel over journalists staying there. I make a reservation elsewhere. The three-hour trip is uneventful, though there are army checkpoints and roadblocks on the way into Alex. I check into my eerily locked and deserted hotel and head out immediately, despite the hotel security guys trying to stop me. Today is the “million man march” day and I’m not going to watch from my hotel balcony. The area around the Ibrahim mosque fills up quickly. It’s a carnival atmosphere, people are cheerful and happy to talk – this is easy reporting. There are incredible sights and sounds: people praying on the pavement; a man in army fatigues being carried shoulder-high through the cheering crowd; tens of thousands of people singing the national anthem. Then the crowd moves off, and I go with it. No one seems to know the destination. All the side streets are guarded by citizen-vigilantes bearing sticks, iron bars and even knives. There was a lot of looting and violence last week. Eventually I peel off, needing to go back to the hotel to write a story. It’s about 5pm and getting dark, and I realise the only way back is to walk. Despite – or because of – the citizen-vigilantes, it’s not frightening; at least, not until I realise I’m lost in a city under curfew. I try to flag down the occasional passing taxi but they are all completely full. At the next citizen-checkpoint, I ask for directions. It’s not safe for you to be on the streets, they say, we will find someone to take to your hotel. They are stopping all cars anyway to check the occupants. When they find one with a spare seat, they tell the driver to take me. Later someone asked me if it had been wise to get into a car with an unknown person in a city on the brink of revolution. I didn’t really have much choice. Wednesday February 2 I need to change hotels; I want to be with other journalists. I go to the hotel I tried to get into 24 hours previously and they give me a room, but plead with me to be discreet and not take pictures or use recording equipment in or near the hotel. Time for the streets again. I go the mosque, and immediately it feels different. There were reports overnight of violence in Alex; 12 people have been injured in clashes I’m told. Today there is a smaller number of anti-regime protesters, but there is a fightback by Mubarak supporters. Furious arguments, complete with finger-jabbing and shoving, break out everywhere; the mood is ugly. Anti-regime protesters repeatedly tell me that the pro-Mubarak people are paid agents of the state. Then people begin to question me – who am I? Where am I from? What news organisation do I represent? Every time I try to interview someone, an angry crowd forms around me. Ramy, a tall and friendly student, appoints himself my protector but nevertheless I feel the need to move out of the thick crowd. This is not like the previous days; I begin to feel uncomfortable about being alone. Confrontations between supporters and opponents of the regime continue through the day; and although the threat of violence is palpable, it never seems to be quite realised. It’s only later, back at the hotel, that I learn the full extent of the street battles and bloodshed in Cairo. The internet comes back to life later in the evening. I want to kiss my laptop screen. Thursday February 4 I’m keen to try to get back to Cairo – that’s where the main action is and I’d rather be with the Guardian team there. But I have no idea whether the roads are open, and my editors want me to stay; it’s good to have a perspective from outside the capital, they say, and we have enough people in Cairo. I hook up with a local fixer and we head off to speak to people for a piece my editors have asked for on the mood among students, traditionally the forefront of any uprising. All the universities in Alex have been closed – locked and guarded – for more than a week, so we go first to coffee shops in quiet back streets. It’s a mixed picture; away from the protests, most of the students I speak to are worried and frightened and to varying degrees feel it’s time to scale back or halt the protests. All say their economic prospects are dim and this is the reason for the protests. But in the square in front of the mosque, students are adamant they must keep going until Mubarak is toppled. It’s even harder today to speak to anyone without being surrounded by angry people. They are now saying journalists are Israeli spies, and that my fixer is also a Zionist. I am shoved in the shoulder by a man yelling in my face. My fixer tells me the Egyptian state tv has told viewers to beware of Israeli spies masquerading as western journalists. I become acutely conscious that I have an Israeli work permit in my passport, and business cards identifying me as the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent. This is not good; we retreat to the hotel. There we meet up with the Channel 4 team again, who have just had a very threatening situation in a residential street. They feel the hotel is now a target – it has been mobbed by protesters several times, looking for western journalists. Two NPR reporters were surrounded on the street by an angry crowd who then followed them back to the hotel. The security guys are getting very, very twitchy. The Channel 4 team are decamping to an apartment which they are using as their bureau. They invite me to go with them, and I gratefully accept. But the apartment’s owner vetoes this plan; he knows his property could also become a target. Reports filter through from Cairo of journalists being intimidated, detained and beaten up. I call my editors for advice; they feel it’s time to get out and book me on a flight from Alex to Amman the following day. Friday February 4 The “Day of Departure” turns out to be mine, not Mubarak’s. I meet two Danish tv guys in the hotel lobby. They arrived in Alex the previous evening. Coming into the city, their car was surrounded by 60-70 people brandishing knives and sticks and trying to drag them out of the car. They got away, but are very shaken up and have also decided to leave. We go to the airport together. My trip home – Alex to Amman, then Amman to Tel Aviv – takes 10 hours despite being in the air for only around 120 minutes. I feel very ambivalent about leaving. It had become almost impossible to do any proper reporting and in any case the focus, rightly, was on Cairo. But I now have a huge attachment to the story, and I keep thinking about the extraordinary people I met and the amazing things I saw, both in Cairo and Alexandria. It’s hard to know how this is going to pan out, but it’s impossible to be indifferent. • Comments on this article are set to remain open for 12 hours from the time of publication but may be closed overnight Egypt Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …

Click here to view this media Bill Maher tried out his best Bill O’Reilly impersonation last night on Real Time with guest Mona Eltahawy, Egyptian-born journalist and a leading advocate for the current uprising. While O’Reilly Maher trotted out a list of “facts” underlining the “reality” of the Arab world to someone who was born there, Eltahawy smacked his arguments down one by one, saying at one point “I didn’t think we were going to get into Fox News sparring matches”. She declared that what we’re seeing now with this uprising is nothing less than the demolition of these myths about the Arab world, for example the need for the strong man as leader, and that the people are inherently passive and lazy. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was impressed enough to say: “Sister’s on message. She does not flinch. You’re exactly right,” as she detailed where the money and support comes from that allows dictators like Hosni Mubarak to stay in power for so long. The segment above was from the Overtime portion, which was not aired but appears on the Real time website. The full segment which aired is seen below the fold. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …
The people of Egypt should be trusted to choose their own leaders On one side are hundreds of thousands of Egyptians demanding fair elections; on the other side is an authoritarian president mobilising a bullying state apparatus against the crowd. Leaders of western democracies need not have hesitated over whom to support. To his partial credit, David Cameron expressed fairly promptly the view that Egyptians are entitled to political freedom. He also condemned repression by forces loyal to Hosni Mubarak. Less laudable is equivocation over the fate of the president himself. The moral imperative is clearly that he leave office immediately. But strategic considerations – the implications of a chaotic interregnum – have forced Mr Mubarak’s erstwhile western allies to hold back from publicly insisting on his exit. “Orderly transition” is the euphemism of choice. President Barack Obama has been similarly reticent, while coming under intense domestic pressure to direct the outcome of events in Cairo. Washington’s influence vastly outweighs London’s, but the same dilemmas are being pondered on both sides of the Atlantic. The choice is essentially between competing schools of foreign policy – pro-democracy idealism and strategic realpolitik. The idealists see events in Egypt, following similar turmoil in Tunisia, as the revolutionary spring after a long authoritarian winter during which economic and political development in the Arab world was frozen. Their preferred analogy is with the 1989 national uprisings in eastern Europe that tore down the Iron Curtain. By extension, the duty of the west is to embrace the popular revolt with unalloyed exuberance and consign Mr Mubarak to the dustbin of history. By contrast, the realpolitikers see events in Cairo as dangerous instability in a tricky part of the world where, crucially, radical Islam is a factor. In that analysis, the preferred comparison is with the Iranian revolution of 1979, when popular demands for democracy were hijacked by religious fanatics. Then Mr Mubarak looks like a secular leader and long-standing ally who should not be jettisoned to please a fickle mob – at least not in the absence of a clear alternative. It is easy enough to see why the US should want to hedge its bets. For as long as there was the possibility of Mr Mubarak prevailing over the protesters, Washington did not want to sabotage the relationship, not least since doing so would have repercussions for other alliances. Foreign policy hawks have been reminding Mr Obama of other Arab rulers – in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, for example – who, for all their unpleasant domestic political arrangements, are useful in the global campaign against jihadi terrorism. These “strategic partners” would react badly to the US being seen to support or even foment grass-roots civil uprising. If, however, Mr Obama was seen to be propping up a despot in defiance of Egyptians’ democratic impulses, the US would lose any vestiges of moral authority it might have to influence the evolution of the post-Mubarak state. That would make it more likely that radical religious parties might capture the revolution. Meanwhile, there are practical obstacles to holding prompt parliamentary and presidential elections. Egypt’s constitution and administrative system are designed to preserve the existing regime. A poll that enabled Mr Mubarak’s party to reclaim its monopoly on power with a superficial imprimatur of democratic legitimacy would ill serve the people who have bravely insisted on a sweeping change. Western diplomats also fret that a hurried and disorderly election would benefit the ultra-conservative Muslim Brotherhood – active as an opposition force for many years – at the expense of the inexperienced, new secular civil protest leaders. Fear of the Brotherhood lies behind much western half-heartedness in welcoming the new era in Egyptian politics. That fear expresses most of all how little is known about strength of Islamist feeling on the streets. There is plenty in the Brotherhood’s past doctrines and rhetoric to cause alarm. It is an ideological relation to al-Qaida; the question of how distant cousins they are is fiercely debated by clerics and policy-makers alike. The more pertinent question is how relevant the organisation is to events unfolding in Cairo. It did not organise mass protests, nor has it dictated their demands. The crowds in Tahrir Square are clearly not the vanguard of some fanatical religious uprising. They are ordinary Egyptians who want a better life and are demanding the obvious political change – democracy – that will unlock other opportunities. They are in no hurry to replace a repressive secular regime with a repressive religious one. One of the defining features of western reaction to the abrupt upheaval in Egypt is sheer ignorance. The vast majority of diplomats, politicians and journalists failed to anticipate it and lack a sufficiently textured understanding of Egyptian society to forecast what might happen next. Western foreign policy has tended to treat the Arab world as a vast mass of potential recruits for jihad, best warehoused in authoritarian regimes, under rulers whose chief appeal lies in their lack of overt Islamist ideology and their appetite for military and intelligence co-operation. The events of the past few weeks demand an end to that approach. The policy of supporting governments that scorn democracy is a dead end. It makes a hypocrisy of western claims to support the aspirations of ordinary people. It alienates opposition movements, non-governmental organisations and civil society leaders who are the best hope for transition to more stable, plural politics in the region. A clear-sighted appraisal of western interests in the Middle East would reveal that the choice between the idealism and realpolitik is a false one. Putting trust in leaders such as Hosni Mubarak is not a mark of strategic caution, but a reckless gamble and a guarantee of future instability. Trusting people to choose their own leaders in free elections is also something of a gamble. But that approach has a better chance of preserving the west’s moral authority and retaining some popular goodwill in the Arab world. Those are far more reliable guarantors of stability and security. Egypt Hosni Mubarak Barack Obama David Cameron Islam guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …

The way Twitter managed to get past Egypt’s internet shutdown was the perfect example of a crisis breeding innovation When they first came to office, the Obama team had a mantra: “Never waste a good crisis”. They then spent the next two years doing exactly the opposite. In the past few months we’ve seen a couple of decent crises – the first involving WikiLeaks, the second involving the political upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt. Both involve the internet in one way or another. So, in the spirit of Obama Mk I, let us ponder what might be learned from them. As far as the leaked US cables are concerned, the fury of the US administration and of certain US politicians was, for a time, positively comical. It stopped being funny when they began talking about prosecuting Julian Assange for “espionage”, given the draconian penalties that a conviction would carry. But the State Department’s indignation over the leaks of allegedly valuable secrets was, and remains, preposterous. Why? Because there is absolutely no way that a huge database containing 250,000 “secret” documents that can be lawfully accessed by more than a million officials can ever be secure. Any security engineer will tell you that it cannot be done: if you want to keep things secret online then the only way to do it is by compartmentalising the system. Huge, monolithic systems are intrinsically insecure. Ironically, that is how the Americans used to do it. They kept stuff in data silos. But in the recriminations after 9/11 there was a great deal of angst about the government’s failure to “join up the dots”, because it turned out that some of these silos had contained useful intelligence about the hijackers. So the silos were breached and linked – which is how Private Manning was able to access the system and download a quarter of a million documents on to the CD-Rom which eventually found its way to WikiLeaks. The moral of the story: if governments want to keep information secure, then they have to think architecturally about system design. And if the UK government thinks that the NHS can put all our health information into a single, national system that can be accessed by more than 100,000 staff, and still keep it secure, then they ought to think again. The WikiLeaks story has lessons for the rest of us too. The speed with which Amazon and PayPal dropped WikiLeaks should be a wake-up call to anyone who thinks that Cloud Computing services can be trusted to protect the interests of their customers when the government cuts up rough. The idealistic kids who signed up to participate in denial-of-service attacks on PayPal and the credit-card companies as retribution for cutting off WikiLeaks’s funding need to learn how to conceal their IP addresses before they engage in “hacktivism” – as many of them discovered this week when the police came knocking. For hardcore geeks, the WikiLeaks saga should serve as a stimulant to a new wave of innovation which will lead to a new generation of distributed, secure technologies (like the TOR networking system used by WikiLeaks) which will enable people to support movements and campaigns that are deemed subversive by authoritarian powers. A really good example of this kind of technological innovation was provided last week by Google engineers, who in a few days built a system that enabled protesters in Egypt to send tweets even though the internet in their country had been shut down. “Like many people”, they blogged , “we’ve been glued to the news unfolding in Egypt and thinking of what we can do to help people on the ground. Over the weekend we came up with the idea of a speak-to-tweet service – the ability for anyone to tweet using just a voice connection.” They worked with a small team of engineers from Twitter and SayNow (a company Google recently acquired) to build the system. It provides three international phone numbers and anyone can tweet by leaving a voicemail. The tweets appear on twitter.com/speak2tweet . What’s exciting about this kind of development is that it harnesses the same kind of irrepressible, irreverent, geeky originality that characterised the early years of the internet, before the web arrived and big corporations started to get a grip on it. Events in Egypt make one realise how badly this kind of innovation is needed. The way in which the Mubarak regime was able to shut down the net provided a sobering reminder of the power of governments that are prepared to take extreme measures. As the country disappeared from cyberspace I was suddenly struck by the thought that if PCs still came with steam-age built-in dial-up modems, Egyptians could have logged on to servers abroad and stayed connected. The only way of stopping that would be to shut down the entire phone system. And even Mubarak might have balked at that. Internet Computing Twitter Google WikiLeaks Egypt Mobile phones John Naughton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …

The Day of Departure has passed, but anti-government protesters say they will stay until they get their freedoms back Hosni Mubarak’s presidential portrait still hangs in the grey concrete government office block that overshadows Tahrir Square. Demonstrators still pack the streets below, even though the largest protest of the past fortnight on Friday – declared the Day of Departure on which Mubarak would finally be driven from power – failed to see him toppled. But even as the thousands who fill Tahrir Square each day take on board that it might yet be a long haul to finally ridding themselves of a hated system, they are steeled by an ever more certain sense of victory after a week in which they have warded off the regime’s bloody efforts to break their demands for freedom, and heard their ruler finally talk about quitting. With that has come ever greater determination among the protesters to see the showdown through to the end. Tahrir Square was an unusual mixing of Egyptian society. Poorer workers and the middle class. Middle- aged parents and young idealists. Islamists and those who view Muslim politics with fear and suspicion. But there are many more men than women. Some men are quick to say that they don’t believe protests are a place for women and that at home there are six people – wives, mothers, children – who support the anti-Mubarak cause for every one of the demonstrators in the square. Amira Ismael, however, is in the square with her three-year-old son, Taha. They have been camped there for five days. Ismael’s husband, Ahmed Awad, makes periodic trips out for food, but other than that the family does not intend to move until Mubarak has departed. “I am doing this for my son,” said Ismael, an accountant. “Mubarak has to go because with Mubarak my son has no future, no life. We can’t afford to send him to the good school and Mubarak makes the government schools bad because he wants to keep the people stupid. The government is Mubarak’s government, not our government. I will stay here until Mubarak leaves. I will stay here days, months, years.” Awad is a computer technician who hasn’t been to work in days. A job is a precious thing in Egypt and he worries that he might lose it. But if he does he regards it as a price worth paying. Ahmad Mahmoud is standing in front of the shuttered entrance to the metro system holding a yellow sign with a single word spelled out in capital letters: Freedom. “I’ve been here every day for nine days,” he said. “I will come every day until he leaves because now I know we have won.” Mahmoud, a 35-year-old teacher, talks of a revolution, but what he means is not so much people on the streets toppling a hated figure as how they see their relationship with this government and all future governments. “People have changed. They were scared. They are no longer scared. We are not afraid of his system any longer and when we stopped being afraid we knew we would win,” he said. “We will not again allow ourselves to be scared of a government. We will not be afraid to say when we think the president is wrong or the government is bad. This is the revolution in our country, the revolution in our minds. Mubarak can stay for days or weeks but he cannot change that. We cannot go back.” Ahmed Mora, a biochemistry university lecturer, came to the protests late but said he, too, would see them through. “It’s time. I know there are people who are afraid. There are people who are afraid of chaos. There are people who are afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many of those people are not pro-Mubarak, they are pro-stability,” he said. “But we cannot be afraid to free ourselves. I’m 30 years old and I’ve never voted in an election because they were always corrupt and fake. We are going to stay until he goes.” Not long after dawn, the thousands who keep vigil in the square through the night – a few with tents but most sleeping in the open on blankets and rugs – set about cleaning up. Some brush the street with branches snapped from the trees, others pick up the rubbish. The rocks collected for defence are piled. A man scatters water to try to keep the dust down. Newspapers are distributed and men settle on the pavements to read and sip tea. On the edge of the square, the queues to enter and join the day’s protest start to form. Soldiers check identity cards and search for weapons. Some demonstrators carry food for those who have remained in the square overnight. Once past the soldiers there is a second line of security run by the anti-Mubarak campaign where identity cards are shown again and male protesters are politely patted down. It’s an orderliness Egyptians have surprised themselves with – designed not only to minimise confrontations with the army and keep the protest peaceful, but also to suggest that it is the regime that is the source of chaos. It hasn’t been easy. A few days into the protests, a wave of looting was unleashed. The pro-democracy movement suspected that the regime might be creating disorder in the hope that ordinary Egyptians would welcome a crackdown that could be used to clear the anti-Mubarak movement from the streets. But Cairo’s residents took matters in to their own hands, policing their neighbourhoods, and the protest movement grew stronger. Every now and then, there is a crack in the order. Periodically, someone among the protesters is determined to be a security police agent or agent provocateur. Two men spotted on a balcony overlooking the square are pounced on, their hands bound with white cord before they are frogmarched, looking petrified, through a hostile crowd to soldiers who take them off to a makeshift pen. A little later, another man, in a blue shirt, is not so lucky. The kicks and blows come from every direction as one group of protesters attempts to protect him from more agitated demonstrators as they march the suspected government agent across the square to hand him over to the army. There are shouts of “hang him” from some men, young and older, venting years of anger at the vast, anonymous machinery of state repression on one of its agents suddenly alone and powerless. More reasonable protesters plead against any violence. Only with a determined effort by his protectors and help from a couple of soldiers is the man finally prised away from his attackers. Across the square, other protesters are spraying graffiti to add to the slogans and posters demanding that Mubarak go. Walls and store fronts are covered. So are the tanks blocking the roads on the edge. One sign reads “Game over”. Another says “Free speech”. A couple of effigies hang from lampposts. Ismael points and says that’s what she would like to see done to Mubarak. Sprayed close to where the tanks and soldiers are lined up in front of the Egyptian museum is another demand: “USA don’t involve. USA admin we will get with our will”. There is no particular anti-American mood among the protesters. Most of the signs and the anger are directed directly at Mubarak. But there is suspicion. The demonstrators are watching Barack Obama closely after 30 years of successive American governments backing Mubarak as a force for stability, widely seen in Egypt as a strategy to maintain peace with Israel at the expense of freedom for Egyptians. So many in the square take a skeptical view of Washington’s plan for Mubarak’s deputy and intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, to oversee the political transition. There is suspicion of Suleiman because of his past, but there is even greater concern that he will serve American interests which, among other things, are believed to be partly about containing the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. “When Obama said Mubarak must go, we were very happy,” said Ismael. “If Obama gets rid of Mubarak, you will see that many people in Egypt will love America. If Obama leaves it to the Egyptian people, we will love him. But if Obama tries to force us to have a government we don’t want, it will be different. We will win and then we will judge Obama by what he does and take decisions according to how he behaves.” Ismael added: “Egypt is not against America. I don’t want the Americans to tell my country what to do. All Egyptian people must decide. America has an agenda. It is not our agenda and this is our revolution.” Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …

Chris Matthews, who famously fawned Over Barack Obama for creating a ” thrill ” up his leg, appeared smitten with the politician long before he reached the White House. In his book, Life's a Campaign , the MSNBC anchor enthused, “In 2007, a new-generation candidate arrived on the national stage, declaring his presidential candidacy and preaching the gospel of good news.” The 2007 book recounted Matthews' reaction to Obama's 2004 speech at the Democratic convention. On page 52, the author extolled, “There, in Boston's FleetCenter, he delivered what might have been the most inspiring speech many Americans listening that evening had ever heard.” Matthews continued, ” Obama, at that moment not elected to the U.S. Senate, was offering a miraculous gift with those words .” Foreshadowing the praise he would heap on President Obama, the Hardball host gushed, “With thoughtful eloquence, Obama was marrying the immigrant story to the African American legacy not simply by his genes, but by his genius.” “No wonder the country's youth turned to him as their hope as well as their hero,” the anchor concluded. During live coverage of the 2004 Democratic convention, Matthews offered an early version of his famous “thrill” line, saying Obama gave him a ” chill in my…legs .” Clips of both the “thrill” and the “chill” can be found below:
Continue reading …
(h/t PoliticsUSA ) Mike Stark somehow managed to get on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show yesterday . After confronting Limbaugh with Reagan’s actual “accomplishments”, Stark asked how on earth Limbaugh and conservatives could possibly support Reagan. The response (or lack thereof) was just classic radio, not to be missed. You just have to love this: “I want to know why an amnesty-giving, tax-raising, cut-and-running, negotiating-with-terrorists kind of guy is a hero to the conservative movement.” Rush has no answer other than to blame Media Matters and suggest that liberals “just wouldn’t understand.” Predictably, he turns it into proof that liberals just need to be destroyed: So you, sir, a nice individual, I’m sure you’re a fine guy (probably not too much fun at a ball game, unlike Bill Clinton), but still, you illustrate that people like you just have to be defeated, not met halfway and gotten along with. I mean politically. Stark’s question has been my question. I can point to a lot of Reagan damage, but by today’s conservative standards, Reagan would be considered too liberal for their movement. The Social Security payroll tax had to go up. Had it not been raised, Social Security would have been bankrupt within 10 months. There was no option. The trade-off for that was the increase in Social Security retirement age, which could have been averted had the wage base for Social Security been determined in a way that kept up with the rise in wages. This weekend, conservatives are descending on Santa Barbara, California, for the Grand Celebration of Reagan’s 100th birthday. That’s right up the road from me. Sarah Palin is the keynote speaker tonight. Cheney will be speaking tomorrow. It’s an extravaganza! I hope to survive the pollution that comes with all these prominent “conservatives” hanging out in my neighborhood, and wonder how it is that they can dance so delicately around the fact that Ronald Reagan was no conservative, at least not as they define it. The full transcript is at the end of Stark’s post here . It has some of the most amazing contradictions I’ve ever seen. I wonder how it must have pained Limbaugh to twist himself up like a pretzel in order to go where he went.
Continue reading …

Talks to begin with newly appointed vice-president Omar Suleiman as protests run into 12th day The standoff between Egyptian anti-government protesters and their 82-year-old president has continued into its 12th day, with Cairo’s central square still under occupation and Hosni Mubarak maintaining his refusal to stand down. In an effort to break the deadlock, a group of prominent opposition figures said they would meet newly appointed vice-president Omar Suleiman later today to discuss the possibility of him assuming power for a transitional period. The opening of any negotiations now between the government and opposition forces is being fiercely opposed by a wide swath of the pro-change movement, including the Muslim Brotherhood, former UN nuclear weapons chief Mohamed ElBaradei and many of the pro-change demonstrators on the ground, all of whom believe that talks should only begin after Mubarak resigns. After a relatively peaceful night in Tahrir Square following a huge “day of departure” rally yesterday that once again brought hundreds of thousands on to the streets of downtown Cairo, opponents of the regime are beginning to cast around for new tactics in their struggle to unseat a president who is proving stubbornly resistant to all attempts at toppling him. Attempts made in the early hours by the army to dismantle some of the barricades built by protesters at the northern entrance to Tahrir – the main battleground between pro-change protesters and the regime-supporting baltagiya or “thugs” in recent days – were successfully resisted. “Our focus this morning is very much on what we do next and how we move forward,” Amr Gharbeia, one of the activists camped out in Tahrir Square, said. “I think today is going to be really centred on improving the democratic decision-making process we’ve developed here in the square, but for now there is clear consensus on two things – no negotiations with anybody until Mubarak steps down and no leaving the square until Mubarak steps down. “These so-called prominent opposition figures can do what they want with regards to speaking with the government, but they have nothing to do with those on the ground here.” The self-titled “council of wise men”, who plan to meet Suleiman today, are hoping to activate article 139 of the Egyptian constitution, which enables Mubarak to delegate his powers to a deputy while retaining his presidential post in a symbolic capacity. “The only way forward is for Mubarak to give up power to Suleiman,” explained Diaa Rashwan, an expert at the semi-official Al-Ahram centre and member of the council. “The opposition leadership is so divided that no clear option is available outside the ruling establishment.” But any scenario that involves the continuing presence of Mubarak in government would clearly be unacceptable to the majority of the pro-change movement, who are demanding a clean break from the National Democratic Party (NDP) ruling elite. “The so-called dialogue is the first step to exhaust this revolution. The president must go,” said Mohammad Habib, deputy chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood. Anti-Mubarak protesters received a boost late yesterday evening when Shahira Amin, deputy head of the state-owned English-language Nile TV news station, resigned in protest at government media manipulation of the current crisis. “I can’t be a mouthpiece of this regime with what’s going on, there are people out there sacrificing their lives – if I do what they want me to do and be part of this propaganda machine I will be betraying them,” Amin told local newspaper Daily News Egypt. “The fact is that history is being made. I can’t, as a credible journalist, have my hands tied and prevented from covering what’s going on in our backyard.” Over the past fortnight state-controlled media outlets have painted protesters as being saboteurs, fomenters of chaos and the pawns of unnamed foreign powers, a situation Amin described as “suffocating”. “[The youth protesters] did something my generation didn’t do, so we have to support them all the way,” she added. “I walked away with a clear conscience … no longer scared.” Elsewhere in the country, a key gas pipeline in the northern Sinai peninsula was attacked overnight, triggering explosions across the region. State television blamed a “big terrorist operation” and said that fires around the pipeline had now been brought under control, although gas supply to the pipeline network remains shut off as a safety precaution. Sinai has been the site of major tensions between local Bedouins and the Egyptian government in recent years, with tribal leaders accusing Cairo of marginalising their communities. The area is a high-security zone for the Egyptian government given its proximity to the Israeli border and the Gaza Strip; a controversial gas pipeline that runs from Egypt to Israel is not thought to have been directly affected by the attacks. Egypt Middle East Protest Hosni Mubarak Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …

Click here to view this media ( Joe McCarthy – Crown Prince of Making It Up As He Went Along ) I’ve been hearing the name Joe McCarthy being bandied around in recent days – mostly misquoted and misrepresented by people living in a fact-free environment. Joe McCarthy probably represented one of the darker periods in American history – one based on fear and hysteria and paranoia. A period where innuendo carried weight and facts were so hazy and misquoted that shreds of truth were difficult, if not impossible to find – and it was McCarthy who held court during this reign of terror – one which destroyed and mutilated countless innocent lives. And all because the new-found power was intoxicating and McCarthy luxuriated in it. Portraying himself as the selfless crusader for Justice in America, he took advantage of the susceptible, the easily led, the malleable – much the same as the Teabag movement is doing now. Make up facts if they don’t subscribe to a certain ideology and repeat them over and over until they become true. McCarthy was master at it. Here he is at an Irish Fellowship meeting on the occasion of St. Patrick’s Day in Chicago, speaking to a group of 1500 on March 17, 1954. Joe McCarthy: “There’s only one Communist Party. The Communist Party that puts out this pamphlet. Setting the line for the Communist Party in the United States, is the same Communist Party that tells 5th Amendment Communists how they should testify. It’s the same Communist Party , if you please, that ordered American boys, have their hands wired behind their backs, and their brains blown out with Communist machine guns. It’s one and the same party, my good friends. Now there are those who say ‘well, it’s all right to dig them out, but oh we don’t like your method. Well, my good friends, up to this date, to this very moment, none of those who said they don’t like the methods have told us any other method they could use that would be effective. And when you hear them crying that they don’t like the methods I suggest that you ask them when and where they ever exposed a Communist by their methods? They say, when they say ‘you don’t treat them like gentlemen’, I’d like to ask them, take the twenty, the twenty whom I’ve named to you. If they don’t give us general statements my good friends, say pick out one of those cases, and tell us where we ever mistreated any of those innocent Communists? You know, it’s easy to make those general comments. And when they say we don’t treat them like gentlemen, while we do I might say that if we did not, I would not cry for them. Traitors are not gentlemen, my good friends. They don’t understand being treated like gentlemen!” As ever – some things just never change. Only the names and the faces.
Continue reading …