Mona fights the Muslim stereotypes
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 pseudo-"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.
when the topic is anywhere in the middle east.
I don't think it's fair to call him O'Reilly. O'Reilly would of never let her get a word in edge-wise. He'd of just out-shouted her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrNl6-j9x5w
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
Maher has long been an anti-religious bigot. It's tied to his militant atheism, but there's a large amount of xenophobia too since he's much more prejudiced toward Muslims.
"This is reality" - Maher sounds exactly like O'Reilly saying "These are the facts!" in his typical sneer.
Well, religion is stipid so being called a
anti-religious bigot is a honour imo.I'm Alerta_Alerta and i'm a
anti-religious bigot and proud of it. Screw you.
Edit: confused now. Am i an anti religious bigot or a religious bigot. :p
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
Poor religious people. There is no worse kind of oppression than you not being able to oppress other people like in the old days. Right? If only we could turn back time to those godly days of the dark ages so that Maher could be properly roasted at the stake by the least xenophobic, not bigoted at all and non-militant of institutions ever: religion.
Some people happen to not believe in your invisible friends in the sky, deal with it. But please quit it with the trying to equate those not wanting to believe in what you do, with them being bigots. They are entitled to their own opinion, as well as you are to yours, that is not bigotry or xenophobia, or whatever other BS you're trying to pull. You're entitled to say how Mithra is the blesser of your contracts, and he is entitled to say how stupid that really is. Deal with it.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
no one is forcing you to believe...why do you feel it is necessary to mock those who do?
and that is what mahr does
... your parents make you go to church? Did they brainwash you?
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
mock mock mock jesus jesus jesus god god god..it's ALL crap
All religion is a scam. Jesus is a myth. God is pretend.
GET OVER IT!
GET USED TO IT!
that believe in talking snakes, humans impregnated by gods, people flying up into the sky, 72 virgins, etc. He's a comedian - comedians make fun of people. He does it to politicians, too, if you have not noticed.
The main issue Maher, and I 100% agree with him, has with religion is not someone believing. That's fine and a personall matter. It is when religions try to force their beliefs on others, either through politics, violence, or both, and dictate how we all live based on what they believe. Some examples: teaching creation and other Biblical stories in public schools. Discrimination against homosexuals (and others in times past). Controlling women's reproduction. And that's just Christianity in the US - Islam has some much more extreme examples.
And then, of course, their is always the hypocrosy revealed by so many of those that have chosen to believe...
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
that you sound more defensive than the religious people you claim are oppressing you...
that old argument that an atheist is a person who believes in one less god than a religious person. Christians don't believe in Apollo or Thor or Ahura Mazda do they? I wouldn't care to assert that all religious people are exactly what you have described, anti-religious bigots, but most are. They're just bigoted against the other guy's religion.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I think that comment was more directeed toward Maher than Athiests really. I think Maher has alot of anger toward religion, almost irrationally so.
He also has a neo-colonial mindset about the middle east, the super cultural superiority of the west vs the east, he said so himself.
But these demonstrations, which are CALLING for western values, seems to be making him a bit uneasy. When really, he should ask: "why is the brotherhood so docile right now?"
(and it's worth seeing) then you'd have to say his contempt for all religions is tinged with anger. And not without reason.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
no, but seeing religion everywhere as being the ONLY big threat or ONLY cause for the worlds problems doesn't help inform his viewers of the issues.
Religion is dangerous invasive imposing trash...irrational to hate it? No, it's delusional to not hate it.
reality is that religion is dangerous trash and people who refuse to see it are delusional
And you are an anti-atheist bigot.
reporters and at the very least Maher does not pretend otherwise. Obilk-O is a has-been arrogant sham--that screeches more loudly as he becomes less relevant!
I like the lady --she is calm and reasoned..batting away the wingnut fearmongers one at a time!
Maher was right on target, but she did a decent job of avoiding him.
Ya, why didn't she address this issue - at least to say that religious factions could begin to pose a problem... It's actually a bit of a problem here is it not? Why not there? Democracy and freedom of speech is not a bed of roses, when you have stupid people mixed in with ambitious carnivorous power mongers.
Perhaps she thinks that's a bridge better crossed when [and if] they get there.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
she is very practiced at it
she can say anything she wants, but the fact remains that the iranian revolution also seemed to be about freedom, till the mullahs took control
there are no safeguards in that not happening in egypt
we are talking generations of egyptians that have been kept poor and ignorant
hope she is right...and i hope she is not purposefully lying
but it wasnt america that put nassar into power or sadat...and i would love for anyone to tell me the difference between them and mubarak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVKsd8z6scw
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Stop reading Robert spencer. Taqqiyah is a shiite concept allowing them to hide their religious beliefs IN THE FACE OF THE FEAR OF DEATH.
Most muslims are sunni, and the concept isn't even a part of sunni jurisprudence.
I find i hear this concept more from non-muslims than muslims. This isn't Taqqiyah, not at all. She's a progressive muslim.
"but it wasnt america that put nassar into power or sadat...and i would love for anyone to tell me the difference between them and mubarak"
This comment is really confusing. Nasser almost entirely eliminated the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Sadat brought them back, along with things like "Islamic Finance", while he attacked the left and got much closer to Israel and the US. Nasser was no prince, but he was a giant in the Third World movement, the Non-Alligned Movement and the Mid East at the time and at least he talked about things like socialism, he called it "Arab Socialism", and I wouldn't call it socialism myself, but rhetorically he and people like him were important. It is the absense of the left in the Mid East, thanks in large part to the US, Britain and Israel, that has left a vacuum that fundamentalist Islamists have filled over the last few decades. If you want to read about the differences between Nassar and Sadat I would suggest reading Vijay Prahad's "People's History of the Third World" or "Devil's Game" by Robert Dreyfuss. Israel benefited from Sadat greatly, as did the US. If Nasser was to take power now the Islamists would not be happy, neither would the US or Israel, and I don't think that would be a bad thing in many regards. Mubarak has no following internationally, like Nasser had, he would never in a million years even bother to talk about any type of socialism, Arab or otherwise, and he has stollen billions from the poor people of his country.
"she can say anything she wants, but the fact remains that the iranian revolution also seemed to be about freedom, till the mullahs took control"
Who the hell are WE to lecture others about fundamentalists taking power, or democracy for that matter? We are the most fundamentalist country in the West by a long shot, we have a horribly corrupt democracy that is imploding as we speak, we are incapable of solving any of the big problems facing our (by "our" I mean those making and directly benefiting from the short sighted, reactionary and immoral foreign policy in the US) country and we could frankly give a damn about democracy in other countries unless it suits our interests. What right do we have to lecture others, or to try and stick our noses in the affairs of other countries? What would we think if, for example, Iran did exaclty what we have done and want to to do in Egypt here to us?
Bob Schieffer had a comment on Egypt on Sunday. He said, basically, that yes, democracy is good, and dictators are bad, but Mubarak has brought "stability" (for whom and at what cost?) to the region and his rule has benefited Israel. What an immoral creep.
Do a thought experiment for a second, to see what an imperialist mindset this is. Let's say a favorate boogey man, say China, had supported a dictator here for decades who had killed and had gotten rid of all opposition, who had stollen a large portion of our GDP and pocketed it, who instituted economic "reforms" (ie pillage) that benefited Chinese capital, who had done things that were in the interests of China but not the American people. We get tired of it, revolt and want to remove this dictator from power. The Chinese media elites go on TV and admit that yes, China had supported this dictator, and dictators are bad, but he has created a stable North America and gosh, he sure has done nice things for their ally North Korea. So democracy is nice, but China should think twice about allowing us to do anything about this because democracy is scary and we have a lot of Chistrian crazies here. What would you think of the Chinese media elites who would say those types of things? It is only because we always think within the reactionary, narrow bounds of the millionaire corporate media that we even for a second take horrible opinions like that seriously. That might fly in a reactionary, violent country like ours, but objecctive people in other countries think we can be monsters at times because of this mentality and I have to agree. It would be horrible if China did that and it is horrible that we have done these types of things for far too long.
"there are no safeguards in that not happening in egypt" So this means what exactly? Yes, it is possible, so what does that mean? We aren't Egyptians, we have supported this thug in power, so if that can happen what does that mean we should do in your eyes?
"we are talking generations of egyptians that have been kept poor and ignorant"
What better way to reverse that than to institute "economic reforms" that will lead to even MORE inequality, corruption and poverty or to get in the way of people trying to control their own destiny. Clinton has said she is ok with people like Mohamed el-Baradei because of his possible support of those "economic reforms" in Egypt and thinks that Egyptians want those reforms, which we all know are horrible failures. Better we, the educated West step in and think for them. We've done such a wonderful job with our democracy and economy here as well as the promotion of "democracy" abroad, haven't we?
Bill Maher has plenty of his own wacky beliefs, but his fear of religiosity is consistent and universal. If it turns out that the Egyptians who end up running Egypt after the current uprising settles are genuinely inclined toward freedom and dignity for all Egyptians, I suspect O'Really? would begrudge it. I suspect that Maher would not.
We need to have honest conversations about the nature of beliefs, and how they drive action in the world. It is difficult to have if bringing up the kinds of things Maher brought up counts as Bull O'Really?-style stereotyping and political incorrectness. I didn't hear Maher supporting the notion that Egyptians were inherently lazy, passive and in need of a strong man. I heard him express concern about the possibility that irrational beliefs are widespread enough to make a potential wave a freedom no more than the substitute of one style of tyranny for another.
Not that Maher or his figures are necessarily correct, but asking honest questions about the religious beliefs of major populations, and how they will affect the world, is something that should be done. And that doesn't just go for Egypt. It goes for Israel, the United States, Northern Ireland and everywhere else where religiosity fuels atrocity.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Karen,
Thank you. I am glad someone was watching the same interview that I was. I thought that Ms. Eltahawy was more of an advocate than a journalist. I think Bill was looking for the latter and was disappointed to get the former. Her avoidance of the question regarding polling was rather telling and it goes again to the need of certain people (including many writers for C & L) to believe that this revolution is "organic".
By the way, scarce, just because someone is born somewhere doesn't make them an expert of that location. Sometimes myopia sets in, as it appeared with Ms. Eltahawy. Yes, it would be great if religious extremists didn't take over when the revolution is done, but as we have seen in our own nation, the religious extremists have ways of getting in.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
"Yes, it would be great if religious extremists didn't take over when the revolution is done, but as we have seen in our own nation, the religious extremists have ways of getting in."
Yep. There you go. Welcome to freedom Egypt.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
isn't organic? Who do you think is organizing this? Do you think there's money in resisting tyranny? Power? What do you think people who work for freedom in authoritarian countries are working for? They want the very freedom which is pronounced so vocally in the US.
Maher has valid concerns. I couldn't help but think seeing some women protesting for "freedom" while covered in black from head to toe was somewhat disturbing. And "90% support freedom of religion" means absolutely nothing! That number is probably even higher in the US, but how many actually are TOLERANT and RESPECTFUL of other religions when it comes down to it? Agreeing with a concept and practicing what that concept requires are two different things, and I, along with Maher, am skeptical of Egypt being so "free" when it comes to religion.
And Maher is no less critical of other religions and their tolerance - one certainly can't say that about Billo.
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
... that is why they are false to begin with ;-)
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
with the lady. Stats have a way of telling lies and when one lives in a dictatorship, how do we even know whether those stats are at all reliable? In the second segment, with her evocation of Egyptians' interest in human dignity, rights, and freedom, I think she touched on the essential human values which many Egyptians want.
No free pass for religion does not equal antagonistic...religion needs more antagonism and confrontation..not less...eeeeesh
"Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people."
Doris Egan, House M.D., The Right Stuff, 2007
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/40423.html
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
She just got in a fight with Alan Dershowitz on CNN. David "Dullard" Gergen was also on the show. She didn't take any crap. Dershowitz was kind of a douche.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
"Dershowitz IS kind of a douche"
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
"Dershowitz is VERY MUCH a douche"
me-oww!
Hmmm....I didn't see much of a smack down there
.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Half of these comments are the kind of veiled fearful racism that lead most Americans to support dictators throughout the Middle East who promised to keep the savage Arabs at bay. We should be supportive of freedom and those fighting against tyranny, not equivocating because we're not quite sure of they are the "good" kind of Arabs or the "bad" kind of Arabs. This kind of pathetic, and spineless liberalism makes me sick to count myself among the American left and one of the main reasons why we are stuck with the ruined vestige of a political organization we call the Democratic Party.
Either we are on the side of freedom, as messy, frightening and chaotic as it is, supporting those who will advocate for real change and opposing those looking impose new forms of totalitarianism OR we simply abandoned that effort as "too hard" and back another Mubarak with a different name and call it "change."
supports the only multi-party democracy in the Middle East, Israel. (I don't think Iraq actually qualifies yet as having anything you could call a government.) I'm not sure why anyone thinks nations with democratically elected politicians are more peaceful or disposed to play nice with other nations. History says otherwise. It doesn't seem all that hard for a politician who is democratically elected to drum up support for a war if they want one does it?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Because Bill has decided that religion is the root of all evil.
religion gets good people to do evil
religion is dangerous outdated trash
dear god, please protect me from those who believe in you.
For the same reason they were relevant when we had our revolution in 1776: Beliefs inspire people to action, and much of world history involves devout people killing one another for maintaining the wrong beliefs. Colonies that were a majority of one denomination were terrified of colonies of another denomination gaining too much power a new United States government. So, when the Constitution was finally formed, it expressly limited the government's power on religion.
It is not unreasonable to ask what's going to happen after a revolution in region rife with religious warfare.
I don't think anyone here wants dictators in the Arab world or is thinking of Arabs as savage. And merely asking questions and raising issues about religious beliefs should not count as fearful racism. That kind of sentiment makes it very difficult to have any honest discussion about religion at all.
And asking about religious beliefs is asking whether the people we are supporting genuinely are looking for real change and opposing new forms of totalitarianism.
If merely asking the questions counts as bigotry, we'll never have an honest conversation. Nobody here is saying that Arab people, as a race, just can't govern themselves, and need a dictator.
To me, your statements sound as simplistic as the neo-conservatives' arguments for invading Iraq.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
It's obvious quite a lot of people posting on this thread had the same unease Maher has with liberated Middle Easterners.
That's actually quite insulting.
The concerns people express have nothing to do with fear of a people. There are legitimate concerns about widespread, irrational beliefs. Somehow, when we question the Christian Right with the same tone in our voices, progressives here cheer us on. But when we question the Muslim world, we're politically incorrect bigots who just can't handle the idea of a free Egypt. Heh, hard core American Christian candidates spout similar nonsense when we express our concerns about their beliefs once they're in office -- that we're violating their freedom of religion just by asking the question, that it shows that we're just bigots who can't stand the idea of a Christian in public office, that clearly we're afraid of a country whose majority is religious and thus can't really govern themselves.
Those of us who share Maher's concerns share it universally with all of faith. It has nothing to do with fear of Egyptian liberation. If anything, it is more a fear that Egypt's people won't be liberated at all.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Ms. Eltahawy has seemed ecstatic in every interview I've seen her in, and understandably so-- but I do think she glosses over a very real danger here. Religious fundamentalists could well take power.
exactly
is such that he has made himself the measure of all things.
New Rule: When you invite someone on from another country, assume that she knows more about her country than you do and try to avoid playing the time-honored role of ugly American.
Such arrogance.
I thought that this show was really weak.(I know its only the 3rd) Maher has a rep for being particularly anti-Islam above and beyond his atheism, but rather than question the facts of the uprising, he immediately went on the attack. I've followed the events quite a bit and haven't seen any God Is Great, or religious banners anywhere. I take it on the surface, that its a true uprising of oppressed people wanting to get rid of the SOB who's had his thumb on them for 30 years.
The panel was weak, John Fund was the usual John Fund, the Inside Job guy said maybe 10 words the entire show and Weiner mouthed meaningless blather and was probably relieved that Maher didn't badger him about Israel. .
It speaks volumes that the most cogent political/social analysis was from an astrophysicist, and a Black one at that, as Bill pointed out repeatedly.
The opening monologue sucked, the GOP trinkets bit was beyond lame, even Talking Points was weak, from Bill flubbing to just really bad humourless bits.
Bill either mailed it in or was somewhat addled by some unknown substance...oh, and it's time to get some new writers and maybe Bill could do a read-through before the show.
Sorry, I usually like the show, but this one, meh.
It's not as if outside support is absolutely necessary for that to happen. There are lots of examples of long lasting regimes who had no real outside support at all. And it is rather foolish to assume that most of the MIddle East variety would not exist if it weren't for the support of the US or anyone other nation. The recipe for staying in power is pretty straight forward: you divide your nation into two classes of people. You have those who are with you and benefit by your patronage and those who either are, or you suspect are against you. You hammer those people. The ratios of ins to outs varies by dictator but as long as you keep your army happy this model worked pretty well. If the Egyptian Army is not satisfied that their status and perks will remain unchallenged by whatever regime is proposed to replace Mubarak then I expect they will weigh in instead of waiting on the sidelines.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
If the Egyptian military really is just going to do what's in their own best interest, and not their nations best interest, then since the military gets their money from the US, maybe they will tend to do whatever the US wants then to do... like they have been doing so far.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
I think the US has considerable leverage with the Egyptian military and it's not just because of the money. There is no alternative empire, if you will, that is willing to bankroll the Egyptian government or their military. Most importantly a lot of their most powerful weapons systems are of US origin and without support from the US would soon be so much inoperable junk. It takes a heap o' technical and parts support to keep an F-16 in the air or an Abrams tank running smoothly. Without US support the Egyptian armed forces would degrade quite rapidly. And they know it.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Two points:
One
The central question should be our own country's (in my case the US) position toward other nations. Whether this or that dictator could survive without outside support is largely irrelevant. The question for us in our own nation should be to what ends we are supporting or hindering freedom and self determination in any given nation. In the case of Egypt, "freedom loving" Americans seem to have suddenly become practitioners of "real politik" and would rather play games of national interest calculation than actually take a stand on something and support real people fighting a brutal dictatorship.
Two
The army in Egypt is obviously the deciding factor. BUT as various transitions to democracy in Central and South America have shown, democratic governments with strong popular mandates will not forever be under the heel of a strong military. They can and will assert their control. The question is whether we in our country will even attempt to support such a process or simply go with the "easy" option of supporting Mubarak 2.0
Realpolitik with Egypt has been going on since before Mubarak became a dictator. Personally I agree with you that the west in general should support such democratic movements. I just think that the expectations that the world will somehow be a more peaceful and less violent place because nations in the Middle East become multi-party democracies is quite unrealistic. The fundamental tensions in the Middle East regarding resources like water and land and oil don't go away because a government is elected.You're second point is spot on. I don't think the Egyptian army wants to take power. They just want the money and perks that go with their position in Egyptian society. They are respected and I think they want to keep it that way.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I think people want hope more than anything right now. Realistically, because of some of the things you mentioned, amongst many others, simply electing people doesn't solve all of societies problems. Since most change happens outside electoral politics, it probably won't change much really. People in a country like Egypt, who have instituted the horrible "market" reforms that have made poverty even worse, where unemployment is extremely high, simply want a chance at something better. Many people here, in this corrupt country, want the same. They can't find jobs and don't see anything in the future to look forward to. Would electing Superman solve all their problems? Nope, they along with other committed people will organize, educuate and collectively solve their problems, possibly, but they want to know that something better is possible, that THIS reality isn't something they have to accept as given. Out of this uprising you might see a new class and political consciousness, there are signs that this is the case. The unions are decently strong in Egypt, I remember them leading general strikes a few years ago in Egypt. Social movements are growing. That could, in the future, lead to something. It could die off too, or implode, but at least it provides hope and allows people to see the world and their country with new eyes. We, here, have no hope like that. There's nothing in front of us providing any viable alternative to the two party corrupt system. Even if a revolt here wouldn't solve all our problems it could really awaken people, give social movements an impetus and lead to something. It's better than the options we now have in front of us.
To call Maher "O'Reilly" for this is not fair. He did bring up at least some valid points, and Mona simply ignored them in favor of some fairly vapid cheerleading about "freedom". The idea that a revolution can be exploited by extremists and result in a new government as bad or worse than the last isn't just a flight of fancy. Look at what happened in France in the late 1700's, or Iran in the 1970's, just for two examples.
Religious extremists could capture the Egyptian government this way. It may not happen, but it could. That is a cold hard fact.
like Venezuela.
"It's not as if outside support is absolutely necessary for that to happen. There are lots of examples of long lasting regimes who had no real outside support at all."
a response to Peter G.
... when did that happen?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
When in the face of a popular revolution against a brutal dictatorship, people would rather equivocate about the protesters "real motives," how genuine they are, and the possibility that this will all turn into some terrible Islamic dictatorship. Given this I think the assumption that racial bigotry is involved is not unfounded.
In the 80's it was this same mentality that lead leftists to sit on the sidelines while Central and South American countries fought brutal dictatorship, because of course, "they may turn into Communist beach-heads for the invasion of the United States... it's possible."
"To me, your statements sound as simplistic as the neo-conservatives' arguments for invading Iraq."
Fair enough, but I've heard your arguments as well. They've been presented on Glenn Beck's show nightly for about a week now.
Later in the other clip, she addresses his concerns, citing states from the same polls that show little support for crazy religious extremism.
Also, the brotherhood is significantly different from something link hamas or the talban
As totalitarian as Qutbs philosophy was, the brotherhood has long evolved since qutb created it. There are even secular members of the brotherhood.
The real question is, who in the brotherhood will have real power? The fanatics, the moderates, or the secular members of the brotherhood?
And if egypt were to become a caliphate by the brotherhood....why is the brotherhood acting so subdued?
Finally some context and content...
"The real question is, who in the brotherhood will have real power? The fanatics, the moderates, or the secular members of the brotherhood?
And if egypt were to become a caliphate by the brotherhood....why is the brotherhood acting so subdued?"
These are legitimate questions, grounded in political realities and not assuming some all encompassing generalizations about race or religion. Obviously there are real factions vying for power in Egypt, and religious extremists may be among those. But to tar this entire movement with such a broad brush and to dismiss ll the people on the front lines because they may be "possible extremists" is ridiculous.
Fox, and often Maher, makes it look like any political movement with any religious connections in the middle east will form a new taliban. Fox has made up it's mind about it, while Maher to his credit atleast had someone like Mona come on, and have an arguement on it.
She also, unlike other, pulled out stats to counter his stats.
He is NOT bill O reilly however.
"Fox, and often Maher, makes it look like any political movement with any religious connections in the middle east will form a new taliban. Fox has made up it's mind about it, while Maher to his credit atleast had someone like Mona come on, and have an arguement on it. "
Completely correct. And this approach completely ignores the social reality of the Middle East, which is that social, political and religious organizations are often tightly intertwined. Dismiss all people with a connection to religion in the Middle East and you are left with almost no-one to deal with. At the same time the intertwining of religion, politics and social organizations does NOT automatically mean that the religious aspects/people are the immediate and most dominate in any given organization.
Exactly, agree completely.
He's very critical of Muslims, but obviously he's more honest than Falafel O'Loofah and he has honest brokers on his show and doesn't totally shut them down.
The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt. The fact that a dictator like Mubarak outlawed them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/636468...), that al Qaeda condemned them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherho...), and that they condemned the attacks of 9/11 indicates to me that the organization is not violent (http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm).
What is true now might not be true at a later date as well. If a secular regime does come in and fails to deliver significant economic and social improvements who will people turn to? This could go either way. Informed opinion suggests that the Muslim Brotherhood has moved towards moderation. That's good. But what's to stop them from going back or from some other party becoming radicalized in their stead. It' entirely the Egyptian's decision, of course, but that doesn't mean it will be easy.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Iran, '79: The secularist-led revolution lost momentum, the ayatollahs had the infrastructure in place to win the support of those disenchanted with the initial outcome.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
ah yes but the egyptions also have the living example of iran in front of them as well.
Seems the youth no longer seem to put faith in the theocratic way of things anymore. Who knows where it will all go, we may see a slow but sure metamorphisis of the muslim brotherhood to the secular egyptiopn brotherhood.
...right along their western border. Though I should point out that the parties that make up the Northern Alliance are also Islam-based parties (and I should also point out that I think the Taliban is a lot less fundamentally religious than it is a Pashtun nationalist group...but that's me).
Don't get me wrong: Egyptian democracy is a good thing. I just hope that the infrastructure is in place to survive the tumult that will very probably occur as this plays out.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
That's like arguing over what will happen to America in the next election if the larouche Party wins the White House.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
The fact we had coptic christians protect muslim protestors while praying shows this is mroe than a battle of secularism vs theocracy.
B I N G O!
... Far too many people, Bill Maher included, conveniently fail to recognize this fact. Case in point, anytime someone uses the red herring of Shariah Law and "grandfathered" Christianity as their EXCUSE to make their argument does so intentionally making it about theocracy. Truly disingenuous in the light of knowing that what is happening in Egypt is not even about religious differences.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
"I just think that the expectations that the world will somehow be a more peaceful and less violent place because nations in the Middle East become multi-party democracies is quite unrealistic."
I completely agree with you. I have no illusions that democracies will be automatically more peaceful, more domestically liberal etc... BUT, given the alternatives I would rather have a US foreign policy that is supportive of national self determination and less concerned with playing the "grand chessboard." To the extent that this will create more just and peaceful societies I am cautiously optimistic though not naive about the possibilities. I think I could sleep better at night knowing my tax dollars were going toward this aim of foreign policy.
the sort of voice that US Policy Makers (a majority of them being older, truth to tell) should be listening to when it comes to charting future Middle East Policy. She is 100% right about a new, better educated less secular generation of Egyptian youth who want something better. Remember this: The people who rule Egypt now Grew up when Radio and Telephones were coming of age. Mubarak is 83 years old. He wouldn't know what to do with a computer if you gave him one. The big difference in everything is the box we are all sitting in front of right now. Generations change, technology has, and along with them social attitudes must also change.
Mubarak and his generation of dictatorial "strongmen" are not only dinosaurs, they are already extinct. This is only the reality check that countries like the US have been helping them to duck, dodge, and hide from for almost twenty years now. This is because it's in US "Interests" to prop up these old mummies, and infuse them with our cash, which becomes their stolen cash, as life's blood. Change in Egypt isn't only good for Egypt. It signals that American "leadership" had better get on the right page of History (never mind the right side of it) and do it darned quick, or we also risk being left in the Egyptian dust, along with the relics of history.
you might remember when kids had penpals around the world as we knew it. Unfortunately, now if you had an email pal in another country, you could be susspected of communicaqting with terrorists. The new forms of communication has it's pluses and minuses.
proud to say that as a lad, and even today, I have pen friends in many places. Altho the nature of the "pen" has changed, as has the "Paper" All of my friends, Pen or not, are still my friends. Unfortunately, what you say is also to true, even today. It is yet another way in which we have allowed the terrorists to win.
scarce:
Hmm. Let's look at that:
Segment 1:
Eltahawy's answer was either the most clever and brilliant evasion of the question, or she just missed the point. Maher was questioning whether American television was making it seem that the Egyptian revolution was supported by nothing but sophisticated liberals crying for freedom, and whether it was a fair depiction, or one that would exaggerate the support for genuine freedom just as videos of demonstrations in some of America's most liberal regions might give a false impression of America at large.
Eltahawy answered at once that no, American television is not giving an accurate depiction because it's not showing the fight going on in all of Egypt, and that if it did give an accurate depiction, Americans would see that, in fact, what's happening in Cario and Alexandria is representative of how the rest of Egypt feels. She agreed that America was not showing all of Egypt, but disagreed that doing so misrepresents all of Egypt.
Which is why Maher had to press his point further. Eltahawy seemed to miss it.
Segment 2:
That's a smackdown? What's is it about Maher's facts that require us to focus on Eltahawy's "more exciting" fact? Yes, we get it. People of all stripes in Egypt want Mubarek out. Maher's question is essentially, "With what or whom will Egypt replace Mubarek, considering that large majorities apparently believe in certain religious propositions?" It's not an unreasonable question. It's certainly not a bigoted question.
Suppose Rachel Maddow asked of a Tea Party organizer, "FOX News likes to show the people in the Tea Party who talk about universal freedom, but it doesn't show us the seedy underbelly of racism and theocracy that permeates the Tea Party movement. I have polls that show that most Tea Party members believe in imposing Christian laws on people, and many are members of old racist holdover groups. Are we really getting a fair representation of the Tea Party and its real views given these polls?"
Would it really suffice for the Tea Party organizer to answer, "The whole Tea Party is all about freedom! Why do you wanna keep harping on polls that show our members are racists and theocrats? I'm giving you more exciting facts about people who want freedom. We have people from many walks of life, and we're all fighting for freedom. It's very exciting. I've never seen anything like it before, and I'm an American! I didn't realize we were getting into liberal media MSNBC catfights, but hey, you want to let's go!"?
Segment 3
Eltahawy's comments that the leaders the U.S. has supported are the kinds of dictators who make all opposition impossible except for religious opposition is fascinating. Truly. I mean that in a good way. It's enlightening, and should be taken into consideration when deciding how we really view the average person in the Middle East, especially when hearing poll numbers like the ones Maher cites.
But the rest of her comments betray that she is so excited about the prospect of overthrowing Mubarek that she's not interested in talking about the possible aftermath.
I can't say I blame her, but I don't think this really counted as a smack-down of Maher's O'Really-style talking points.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
She kind of did address his points in the overtime segment. Where she cited the same poll talking about great embrace of secular ideals by egyptions.
I think she did a good job of talking to him without getting upset.
But yes, she was extremely emotional.
That woman is really attractive
Mahr is incredibly incurious about....everything.
I thought that was boosh.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I think people should actually learn about religion, politics, war and how it's all related. Fucking incurious people!
Originally I thought Maher WAS a bit stupid but I understand better now his motivations.
Egypt (and the Egyptians I have met) seems to be one of the most secular of all of the countries with majority muslim populations. I see Egyptian women sans headscarves all the time. As one poster noted above, the younger generations (from whom this revolution is originating) appear much more progressive than their parents. Plus, keep in mind that Iran is primarily Shiite and Egypt is vastly dominated by Sunnis, who are MUCH less fanatical about Islam than Shiites. The reason Iraq was as secular as it was is because a majority Shiite population was ruled by secular Baathists and Sunnis.
I personally am not at all worried about radical Islam co-opting this movement. Hell the Iranians just about threw out the fundamentalists recently. I have said many times that if it were not for the imperialist interference of the US, radical Islam would have a small fraction of the support it enjoys today.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
http://www.youtube.com./watch?v=h7Q9nGjZjLY
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
looks like we have another bill'o the clown.
Therefore a shill for Israel. Anytime he can shill for Israel/against Muslims, he will. Its really that simple.
I was once the lead piano player in a whorehouse.
Go fuck yourself doesn't begin to do my feelings justice...
get the fuck out of here with that shit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Mona clearly went on the show to talk, not to have a conversation. That Fox News comment was bullshit. I like what I've seen of her, but still.
Agreed actually. She was overflowing with emotionalism. Can't blame her, i think she has been complaining about mubarak as long as ive been reading her stuff.
...though she DID address them in the overtime thing. Both never fleshed out the arguement, but she DID address them later.
She addressed them secondarily in saying that Egyptians were in favor of religious freedom, that they were in favor of human dignity, etc. I think her point, although I agree that she didn't make it very well, was that some of these poll questions might be asked in ways which might elicit particular reactions.
wait religious people lie about what they believe on polls?
here in the us there aren't enough churches for all the people who say they go to them regularly.
So why would muslims think it's ok the lie about stoning homosexuals?
You cannot trust those Pew studies. There has not been one stoning. Mubarak was such a dictator that people were so very long afraid to speak out.
Maybe not in Egypt but there certainly is video of stonings from other countries. Yes muslim countries. Do I really need to link them to you? Do I really need to say they are barbaric and disgusting? Can I not be called a racist or bigot for saying so?
Mona Eltahawy relies on her knowledge of what it is like to BE an Egyptian...
... Bill Mahr kept relying on red herrings, (beheadings, stoning, Shriah Law, etc.)
While Mona Eltahawy sounded grounded on knowledge of personal experience...
... Bill Maher sounded grounded in FOXPravda FEAR babble. I appreciate that she called him out for it.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
because beliefs inform actions....why so incurious?
but i know both christians and jews that ran from egypt....oh, they were free to practice their religion, as long as they understood their dhimmi status
which included not bitching if one of their family members was beaten or killed by a muslim
Prove it
....yeah and muslims running from egypt as well. Whats your point?
and the term dhimmi may be applied in a theocracy, but mubaraks regime is a secular dictatorship, more akin to saddam hussain than the taliban or Iran.
Dear fellow liberals. Religion is dangerous trash. Some more so than others.
I was glad Bill Maher confronted her. Note how she had nothing to say regarding his questions other than to call him "Fox News"...lame.
This post by scarce is TERRIBLE. Worse post ever on C&L. Embarrassingly so. What fantasy land you you live in scarce?
Actually she DID respond to him in the second clip on overtime. I think she actually did respond to him very well.
You say it is official, and Bill believes it. Her facts flew right in the face of the Pew studies which I think were manipulated. The National Enquirer gets its facts right more than the New York Times that took us to war on lies.
I've always found Maher's anti Muslim, anti Arab screeds exhausting. Accounts for much of the 'hate' portion of my love/hate relationship with him...
If christians are supporting the protests, there must be more than just extremism vs secularism at play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVSS-qjrXO4
Comments are closed on this entry