Some states are not keeping up with the others in regard to education. Declining math and reading scores, lower numbers of people with post-secondary degrees, and loss of white-collar workers all imply a decrease in “smart people” compared to the rest of the country. A look at the states in…
Continue reading …On the one hand there is vice-president Omar Suleiman, and on the other young activist Wael Ghonim You only have to hear and see the two men for a few minutes to understand what is at stake in Egypt. On the one hand there is vice-president Omar Suleiman, with his clipped moustache and beautifully cut suits. Clearly intelligent, but also inherently slippery, his words are intended to be reassuring, but every now and then there is a hint of menace. He may well be less wily and less in control than he likes to appear, as our story today on the state of negotiations suggests, but this is still the face of a survivor, a fixer, and a believer in the authority over others of old foxes like himself which his own body language so obviously conveys. Look at the other face, that of Wael Ghonim, the young activist who has some claim to have triggered the Egyptian uprising with his Facebook postings. It is almost bashful, even shy. There is no guile there. His insistence on the diverse nature of the protest movement and his refusal to grab at a leadership role show a pleasing modesty. His honesty in admitting that his own hopes had not initially included the removal of President Mubarak, his care to underline the fact that he was not ill-treated while in detention, and the emotion he displayed when shown pictures of some of those who died in Tahrir Square – all these speak of an open heart and an open mind. His appearance on television on Monday night is certainly one reason why protesters went to Tahrir Square on Tuesday in such numbers. On the very day when the old regime was hoping the revolution would run out of steam, it instead gathered fresh strength. But Tahrir is now as much a cul-de-sac politically as it has become physically. It cannot be abandoned by the protesters because it is symbolically too important, yet just being in Tahrir is not enough. On the other hand, the regime cannot clear the square by the use of force because that would be the wrong kind of victory for them. Some protesters now want to march to parliament or to the headquarters of state TV . They may do so, but the real struggle is now as much about information as location. In a quasi-authoritarian society like Egypt most people did not believe in the government-controlled media in any simple way. And they knew that they could expect little in the way of authenticity or sincerity there. But they studied it nevertheless for coded versions of what was happening. Now a stronger parallel media may be emerging, at the same time as those sections of the old media which had a degree of independence are getting bolder, and cracks are appearing even in the monolithic face of regime stalwarts like Al-Ahram. The return of al-Jazeera to the Egyptian airwaves this week, a concession the regime almost had to make, will reinforce this process. Suleiman’s first reaction was to try to seize control of the political narrative. With his allegations of foreign interference, he attempted to portray the protesters as innocents being used by malign outside forces. With his accounts of harmonious encounters with opposition groups, implying a general agreement on how to proceed was just round the corner, he tried to suggest a process of reconciliation was well under way. With his constant references to the president’s wishes, and his juggling with paper committees, he tried to project a non-existent consensus on the need for Mr Mubarak to remain. Not everything Suleiman has to say is wrong, but the version of events which he, and the regime more generally, offer is tendentious. The fact that it is now so contested is a hopeful development. The allegations about army mistreatment of protesters which we report today, for instance, could shift popular understanding about the real position of the military and affect events in a way not possible before. The people of Egypt can now look from one face to another and decide on their own which they are most ready to trust. Hosni Mubarak Egypt Protest Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The CEO of Deutsche Bank has elicited howls of outrage for commenting that a law to require more women in German boardrooms would make business “more colorful—and prettier,” Der Spiegel reports. Josef Ackermann made the comments in response to a proposed quota for the proportion of women in company…
Continue reading …A UK judge has barred a man from continuing a sexual relationship with another man because of his extremely low IQ, the Telegraph reports. The 41-year-old lives in an assisted living facility, has an IQ of 48, and is “seriously challenged in all aspects of his mental functionality,” according to…
Continue reading …While Hannity schmoozes Rummy, Beck unmasks the TSA staff behind the Egyptian revolution, and O’Reilly reads the Guardian? Coups abounded on Fox news this week – in the form of high-profile exclusive interviews and startling revelations about community organisers. Bill O’Reilly Bill O’Reilly was delighted with himself for having conducted what he believes must be the most watched interview ( view clip ) of all time with President Obama on Super Bowl Sunday. He did take issue with some of the media reaction, however, and particularly singled out none other than the “über-left British newspaper the Guardian” (mentioned several times throughout the broadcast) for Michael Tomasky’s suggestion that his constant interruptions of the president could be seen as “rude and blustery” . Despite the mixed reaction, though, O’Reilly believes his interview has lent legitimacy to Fox News Corporation (FNC) that it may have previously lacked. There are a lot of people all over the world who all they know about FNC is from what they read in the Guardian newspaper in London or some crazy thing like that. So I wanted to show them that, you know, we are a responsible agency and I truly believe we are the most powerful news agency in the country right now. And I wanted to get president Obama’s feeling on that and I don’t know if he was genuine or not. O’Reilly discussed the interview with all his regular commentators: Juan Williams, Brit Hume, Bernie Goldberg and Mary Katherine Hamm. And they all thought he did a fine job. Hamm thought it was strange that anyone could think O’Reilly was rude because he interrupted the president 20 times in 15 minutes, to which O’Reilly responded, “Oh, the Guardian was outraged.” Bernie Goldberg was troubled by how the media covered the interview like it was a boxing match or the “battle between Godzilla and Rodin, you know, a battle of the Giants” that “needed to have a winner”. They did have a winner. The fix was in. The winner was going to be the president no matter what happened, and you know the Guardian goes “Ooh, O’Reilly was brusque.” The Guardian is insane, of course, but it is reflective of the far left. They agreed that overall the interview was a win-win for both parties: Obama got to show off his likeability in front of a huge audience and O’Reilly managed to come off as “reasonable” in front of a huge audience. What was noteworthy, perhaps, in the hour-long analysis was the revelation that President Obama apparently watches the O’Reilly Factor and that the host of the O’Reilly Factor, apparently, reads the Guardian. Sean Hannity Hannity had his own big exclusive this week, having nabbed the first spot on Donald Rumsfeld’s non-apology tour. Predictably enough, he provided the former secretary of defence with a sympathetic environment in which to set about turning into unknowns what we thought we knew about recent history ( view clip ). Hannity appeared a little unnerved in the opening moments of the interview when Rumsfeld spoke warmly of both former President Kennedy, who he said was the “most charismatic” president he had ever met, and former President Clinton, who offered him some kind words of support during the Abu Ghraib scandal. But perhaps in deference to the new era of civility, Hannity gritted his teeth and got on with it. They moved quickly onto more comfortable terrain such as the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the weapons of mass destruction that have yet to be located and whether or not America is less safe now that we have an administration that refuses to say bad things about Muslims. Regarding Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld declared it was a terrible thing to have happened on his watch. He feels very badly about it. It was bad for our nation’s prestige around the world, our military’s morale and it emboldened our enemies, but it wasn’t his fault and there’s no way he could have known about it. Regarding weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld claimed that the international community, as well as the United States, knew that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he suggested that it’s possible the weapons were either destroyed or sent to another country before the US invasion. So, presumably, like Osama Bin Laden they are still out there somewhere waiting to be found. The two old friends shared a chuckle about Guantánamo Bay, which the secretary of defense described in his book as the “least worst place to live”. The heartbreaking thing about Guantánamo, according to Rumsfeld, was that for whatever reason, the administration was incapable of persuading people that prisoners weren’t being tortured there. Evidently, all that video footage we’ve seen of prisoners shackled at their hands and feet, blindfolded and kneeling in the hot sun; all the logs detailing waterboarding sessions and force feeding, sleep deprivation and stress positions that were applied to detainees in US custody were not outrageous in themselves but merely a public relations failure. Hannity raised no objections to any of these misstatements and the pair closed out the interview by criticising the non-Fox media for the biased reporting during the Bush presidency, which tarnished America’s image abroad. It was almost a relief to switch over to the Glenn Beck programme. Glenn Beck Not one to be outdone by the lack of an attention grabbing exclusive, Glenn Beck seized the opportunity ( view clip here ) to expose the patterns that connect community-organising groups in America with the move to overthrow the democracy that does not yet exist in Egypt. The community-organising groups that Beck is referring to are a diverse bunch that includes the UAW, the steel workers, the Tides Foundation, MoveOn.org, any religious groups, any green groups, anything that George Soros or Van Jones has anything to do with, the SCIU, the AFL-CIO, Code Pink and La Raza. Beck declares (as he has, ad infinitum, in the past) that all these groups are working together to “end the western way of life as you and I understand it”, though he does acknowledge that their individual goals may differ. They may disagree on exactly what the new way of life will be – for example, Van Jones, he wants a new green utopia; another one might want a communist utopia; but they’ll work that out later. People that are in some of these really radical communist or socialist, Marxist, “Mexican first” groups that are aligned here may want to give the southern half of the United States back to Mexico. But differences aside, one thing Beck is willing to “die on his sword for” is that they are unanimous in their support for the Egyptian revolution. Now, this might be OK if Beck believed that there was any chance of the Egyptian revolution having a similar outcome to the American revolution, but he doesn’t hold out much hope because he feels the Egyptian people are just not of the same calibre as their more worthy American counterparts. The regular people in Egypt – I’m sorry they might be nice people, but they are not the people of the American Revolution – and I have been trying to make this point that you have to be much different, even than we are, to be able to have revolution and to have it end the way it ended here. Their concept of freedom is different than yours. Let’s not be judgmental and say that it’s … No, I’m going to be judgmental – it sucks compared to our idea of freedom! And what is even more worrying is that while everyone has been distracted by the goings-on in Egypt, no one seemed to notice that the TSA airport screeners were granted union rights last week, a move Beck believes is “potentially disastrous for the country” because it provides the unions with more members and more money, which can be “spent overseas organising revolutions” and nothing good will ever come of that. Democracy will rise up? Really? Sounds beautiful. Democracy, the people’s movement for democracy. Well, that sounds even better. It sounds almost Chinese, doesn’t it? I feel very confident that the workers in Egypt will absolutely thrive under a new government formed by these guys [the radical extremists in Egypt] and supported by these guys [community organisers in the US]. It’s going to be fantastic! Well, time will tell. In the meantime, as his ratings plummet, it’s at least providing Beck with new material. Barack Obama US politics Fox News Fox US television Talk shows Egypt Middle East Glenn Beck Protest George Bush Saddam Hussein Iraq Guantánamo Bay Torture Sadhbh Walshe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Gawker has a new political scalp to go with its new design. GOP Congressman Christopher Lee of upstate New York has resigned after the site printed an email exchange—complete with shirtless photo of Lee—between him and a woman he met on Craigslist. Lee, who is married, presented himself…
Continue reading …Here’s the perfect antidote to reading about celebs on the ropes: The baseball coach at Wake Forest has donated a kidney to a player on his team, reports AP . Tom Walter, 42, did so when 19-year-old Keith Jordan developed a rare autoimmune disorder and nobody in his family proved to…
Continue reading …The main headlines on Al Jazeera English, featuring the latest news and reports from around the world.
Continue reading …