By the time you read this, the fall of Tripoli will be history -- along with the capture of Gadhafi, hopefully:

BENGHAZI, Libya — The long, brutal reign of Col. Moammar Gadhafi appeared to collapse Sunday as rebels swept into Tripoli, captured three of his sons and set off wild street celebrations in a capital that he’d ruled by fear for more than four decades, Libyan and NATO officials said.

With NATO bombings paving the way, rebel forces entered Tripoli with surprising ease and by early Monday controlled large swaths of the city. Gadhafi’s personal guard surrendered to rebel forces, and live television footage showed crowds of opposition supporters in Tripoli’s Green Square — the regime’s symbolic heart — unfurling the tricolor flag of pre-Gadhafi Libya and smashing the ruler’s portraits in scenes that were unthinkable just days ago.

“This is historic,” Amal Abdelrazk, a 42-year-old resident of downtown Tripoli’s Andalus Street, said by phone. “After 41 years, eight months and 27 days, we witness this moment….

“The whole thing is like a dream.”

As rebels partied in the streets, hailed “as the victors of war,” Abdelrazk said, rebel military spokesman Col. Ahmed Bani told McClatchy that his forces were hunting Gadhafi in and around Tripoli. Gadhafi’s whereabouts were unknown, but a U.S. official said, “We have no reason to believe (he) has left the country.”

Late Sunday Gadhafi made a brief audio statement on Libyan TV, sounding desperate as he called on individual tribes and cities to “take weapons” and defend “beautiful Tripoli."

"All the tribes, you must all march to Tripoli in order to defend and purify it,” he said, calling the rebels agents of Western powers. “Otherwise you will have no dignity; You will become slaves and servants in the hands of the imperialists.”

DOWNLOADS: (1185)

PLAYS: (2202)

Embed

Every day, Glenn Beck gets a little more shrill and a little more weird. Yesterday, his show was interrupted for President Obama's statement on Libya, which gave him even more grist for his mill. But don't write him off as a lunatic. He is one of the most calculating and dangerous blowhards ever to grace our airwaves.

This clip comes shortly after President Obama's statement on Libya. No matter whether one is conservative or liberal, Libya is a complicated situation with many ramifications. It's true that we want to be on the side of the true proponents of a democracy there, and everyone agrees that Qaddafi is an evil despot who is not going to go without leaving death, destruction and havoc in his wake.

But if you're Glenn Beck, you somehow twist this up in order to make President Obama look like a subversive rebel with a deep love of revolution. He rants about how the administration has not made public statements about Iran or Libya and those brave young fighters for democracy. He holds those freedom fighters up as heroes and martyrs, then turns right around and damns protesters in Wisconsin as agitators out to wreck the country.

The only way to go there is if you understand Beck's perspective as a raging American exceptionalist who applauds freedom fighters in other countries while believing this country is perfectly fine with the oligarchs in charge.

Here's a transcript of his little rant:

He might be busy, his wife just hired a personal shopper. [evidently referring to Michelle Obama...] What are these people thinking?

Back to the rebellious kids, I guess. What's happening in Wisconsin. It's just those kids and workers, just like you. Obama was worried about the assault on the unions immediately, but not about the hippie dope radicals who are having Woodstock in the capitol, whose MO is to bring down the US AND the free market.

There are reports now of vandalism in the Wisconsin capitol and it is spreading. Is there nothing sacred?

Who are we? The world has to know what America stands for and who we are and that they can count on American principles and values. We don't know them ourselves.

We've destroyed our relationships with Great Britain and Egypt. We did that a long time ago. Now we learn that the last telephone call President Obama had with the Saudi Arabians ended in a huge disagreement. You can attack a warship and not worry about it because we're not going to do anything. Iran can send warships for the first time through the Suez Canal and the President says zero.

Who are our friends? Who are our enemies? By the way we walk, I can't tell.

We have a president who apparently loves instability and revolution. And that is the antithesis of those two words: Social Security.

Yes, Beck actually managed to tie the term (but not with the same meaning) Social Security to instability in the Middle East. He ranted like this for the entire show. But here's why he matters. He plays to the timid older people who are frightened by any change, much less the kinds of sea change we're seeing in the world right now. When he talks about revolution spreading from Egypt to Europe to this country and conflates the protests in Wisconsin with the revolution in Libya, he's appealing to the people who are terrified that a nuclear holocaust is right around the corner.

He thrives on this stuff, and so do they. It's part and parcel of the larger strategy to erode confidence and emphasize chaos in order to impose authoritarian-style politics in this country. Beck is an expert at it, and as weird and whacko as he may seem to anyone who bothers to read a newspaper, he's also singing to the hearts of the silent fearful ones.

Here's an example of how lame our fourth estate has become: They're reporting the Egypt protests as though there has never, ever been any unrest in Egypt. Nothing could be further from the truth, and if they were doing their job, they'd put some context into their reporting. It would help with a couple of things; namely, the ongoing hand-wringing over the possibility of a leadership void and the shape a new government would take. Here are some recent examples. I can find them going back 30 years.

• Time Magazine April 13, 1993, in an article concerning unrest in Egypt attributed to fundamentalist Muslims:
  

  Western experts do not dispute the President's claims entirely. But Egypt would face a fundamentalist threat even if Iran and Sudan did not exist. Homegrown poverty, overpopulation, poor housing and rampant corruption would almost certainly stir radicalism and unrest without any agitation from outside.

• Daily News, June 12, 1994 regarding a newly-released UN report linking poverty to possible disintegration of governments in 17 countries:
  

  The report also noted that Mexico, Egypt and Nigeria have worrisomely large disparities between regions in terms of income and education and said Algeria's continuing political unrest also puts it in danger.

  [...]

  The report also assesses indicators of "human security" to help pinpoint potential trouble spots: food scarcity, high unemployment and declining wages, human rights violations, ethnic violence, widening regional disparities and an overemphasis on military spending.

  The team this year did similar analyses for Egypt, Nigeria and Brazil.

  "In each one of these countries, the disparities are far greater than Chiapas. We all hope that they won't blow up. all that we are doing is allerting the policy makers to be very mindful of the kinds of tensions they may have to face in these countries," said ul Haq, a former finance minister for Pakistan.

• The Record, July 17, 1995 (Excerpt - Full article behind paywall)
  

  Relief was widespread when the assassination attempt on President Hosni Mubarak failed last month. His wave that he was OK reassured many but discontent is rising again in Egypt. People want Mubarak to get moving on the long-delayed structural economic reforms needed to spur the economy, ease growing poverty and reduce the 20-per-cent unemployment rate. Instead, new libel laws have been implemented to stem criticism and tough security measures have been implemented. Intellectuals fear the crackdown guarantees more violence.

• New York Times, November 12, 1996: Concerning economic plight of Palestinians, a brief nod to poverty in Egypt and surrounding countries.
  

  The core economies in the Middle East are doing well, though poverty remains extensive and disparities in income are great. Jordan and Lebanon are growing faster than Western Europe and with tolerable inflation. Egypt is growing slowly, but has recently adopted pro-growth reforms. Israel's growth rate is 6 percent. Israel starts out at income levels -- above $15,000 per person -- four times higher than those of its neighbors.

• Newsday, Long Island, NY, November 23, 1997 (Excerpt - Full article behind paywall):
  

  Egyptians have an average GNP per capita income of $720, the lowest such figure among the region's principal states. About 45 percent of the country's population lives in poverty. The national economy's annual growth rate just barely keeps up with the annual increase in population: Both hover around 2 percent. This means, essentially, that the government of Egypt is under constant economic and population pressure, against which it makes very slow progress. Too slow, in the opinion of many within Egypt.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (236)

PLAYS: (763)

Embed

Nobel Laureate and former IAEA head Mohammed El-Baradei spoke to throngs in Egypt's Tahrir Square earlier today, calling for Hosni Mubarak to step down as President of Egypt.

"Today, I have come to share with you the most beautiful day for Egypt," he told the demonstrators. "Today, I look into the eyes of each and every one of you. Each of us is a different Egyptian. Today, we are proud of Egyptians."

"We have restored our rights, restored our freedoms, and what we have begun cannot be reversed," ElBaradei continued.

"And as we mentioned before, we have a key demand, and that's for the regime to step down, and to start a new era," he concluded.

El Baradei returned to Egypt on January 25th, the same day protests began against the Egyptian government, and has been under house arrest since January 26th. Today was the first day he was seen in public.

Al Jazeera reports:

The protesters in Cairo, joined by hundreds of judges, had collected again in Tahrir Square in the afternoon to demand the resignation of Hosni Mubarak.

Al Jazeera's correspondent, reporting from the scene, said that demonstrators confronted a fire truck, at which point army troops fired into the air in a bid to disperse them.

He said the protesters did not move back, and a tank commander then ordered the fire truck to leave. When the truck moved away from the square, the thousands of protesters erupted into applause and climbed onto the tank in celebration, hugging soldiers.

Mubarak's regime is crumbling as it continues to lose support from the West. In a series of telephone calls this morning, President Obama called for an orderly transition from the Mubarak regime to a government elected through free and fair elections. This is not to say Mubarak is without support. The Saudi government has condemned the protests as being the work of "infiltrators".

However, the Saudi government has condemned the protests, saying many of them were "infiltrators" who seek to destabilise their country.

King Abdullah called Mubarak and, according to the Saudi Press Agency, "was reassured" about the situation in Egypt.

"During the call, the king said, ‘Egypt is a country of Arabism and Islam. No Arab and Muslim human being can bear that some infiltrators, in the name of freedom of expression, have infiltrated into the brotherly people of Egypt, to destabilise its security and stability and they have been exploited to spew out their hatred in destruction, intimidation, burning, looting and inciting a malicious sedition,’" the news agency said.

Saudi Arabia "strongly condemns" the protest, it said.

Despite the measured calls for reform, beginning with free and fair elections, it's clear that the people of Egypt are fighting for an end to the Mubarak regime, starting now. Ayman Nour, leader of the El-Ghad Liberal Party spoke on Al-Jazeera earlier today. These quotes from Nour from the Twitter stream of Sultan Al Qassemi, columnist for The National, who has been sending updates constantly since the protests began.

"We have formed an opposition committee for change that involves ten members, represented by El Baradei."

"Today was the first session of the People's Popular Parliament which includes El Baradei, Mohammed El Beltaji, myself.."

"(other members) Justice Mahmoud El Khodairi, George Ishaq, Mr Abu Al Ezz, it is a ten member committee."

"Our key demand is for Mubarak to step down, we will negotiate with the army, we will negotiate with other opposition members

We are not negotiating with Mubarak since our main demand is for him to step down. We will negotiate with the army.

"We are not asking for an (army) coup. We are asking the army to take the side of the people not the side of the tyrant"

"This govt has not communicated with the opposition party until the last minute, they will be forced to negotiate with us"

This committee will have the duty to manage the crisis. We will negotiate in order to improve the security conditions in the country"

We want all the resolutions issued by Mubarak since January to be revoked & invalidated" (doesn't say which date exactly).

The army's duty is to defend the country not the oppressor who has been ruling by an iron fist. All the rallies ask him to step down.

We ask the army not to play a political role. We ask it to defend & safeguard the security, stability of the country."

"People were wreaking havoc, chaos & looting around including the undercover police personnel. We have arrested many of them..& found that they were carrying police identity cards. They were looting around, intimidating people."

Therefore people are now adamant about toppling of the regime. We will negotiate a peaceful exit for Mubarak for the sake of Egypt.

Today will be a key day in these protests, because Mubarak has indicated the police will be on the streets tomorrow. If their previous behavior is any indication, there will be much more bloodshed than there has already.

Christopher Hitchens: Not So Brave

via A Tiny Revolution : I can see why Christopher Hitchens has refused to debate Dennis Perrin.

Don't forget to check out Mile's Blog Round-Up. We are still posting a bunch of cool things.

A POLITICAL REVOLT IN FRANCE

Direland has an analysis: The massive defeat of the new European Constitution by the French in today's referendum means a virtual political revolution in France. The polls have only been closed for an hour as I write, but the exit polls for French public TV show at least a 10% margin of victory for the No vote, with a large 70% voter turnout...read on

Grisly game theory: can you avoid torture?

Marginal Revolution

Let us say that you have been captured and threatened with torture. You are, for whatever reason, entirely willing to betray the information you hold. Your primary goal is to avoid pain, and perhaps you positively want to squeal. How should you present what you know? I see a few options:

1. Break down immediately, beg for mercy, humiliate yourself, and spill the beans. (If you talk right away, will they torture you anyway? And since no further good information can be offered why should they stop?)

2. Go in acting tough, really tough. At the first sign of serious pain, start crying and switch to strategy #1.

3. Wait until they apply their "best shot" torture, and then talk. They will feel they have done their job and stop.

4. First offer (or make up) compromising information to show your disloyalty to the cause your torturers are fighting. Your confession will then be more credible.

5. Say you don't know anything, try to fight the torture, but break down when you can't stand it any more. You can't fool them, so the best you can do is to actually "go through the wringer." You are stuck in the pooling equilibrium, and trying to deviate only makes you worse off.

Which of these is the most credible signal that you have told all you know? Can you do any better than number five? And how does your best answer depend upon the hypothesized motives of the torturers? Is there anything you can say to the U.S. to avoid being sent out for rendition? I don't see any simple answer here, the question is which behavior your torturers will interpret as an unlikely tactic from a truly determined trickster.

",0]);D(["mi",8,2,"10398be269634c83",0,"0","C&L","C&L","crooksandliars@gmail.com","FinnsAgain","7:52 am (15 hours ago)",[""FinnsAgain@aol.com" "],[],[],["C&L "],"May 1, 2005 7:52 AM","Re: Roundup: May 1","",[],1,,,"Sun May 1 2005_7:52 AM","On 5/1/05, C&L wrote:","On 5/1/05, C&L <crooksandliars@gmail.com> wrote:"]);D(["mb","Finn, WHat is the form of punishment the Opus Dei goes do to themselves whne they whip themsleves? an important story about Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Kinsey film pushes the religious right's buttons!

Check out this debate between Kristi Hamrick from "Focus on the Family" and Rev. Debra Haffner from the "Religious institute on Sexual morality."

Video

Hamrick: Kinsey embraced the mind of the sex offender. His research was a fraud!

Haffner: Kristi knows most of that is not true. He broke a silence in America about sexuality!

from AmericaBlog

Religious right to seek legislation to punish Hollywood? Today's Washington Post reports on the radical right's attack on the new movie about Kinsey. What the Post fails to report is that the freaks have been trying to smear Kinsey for at least ten years. They hope that by undermining the father of the sexual revolution they can undermine sex itself. Kind of a large point to miss, but oh well.

In any case, check out this little admission from Robert Knight, the chief anti-gay bigot of the religious right. Sounds like they now want to get laws passed by Congress that somehow punishes Hollywood every time it makes a movie the religious right doesn't like.

I'm serious folks, it's time to strike back, hard, against these little Hitlers.

Robert Knight, director of the conservative Culture and Family Institute in Washington, said evangelical Christian and Roman Catholic groups also want to bring to bear the political clout they demonstrated in the presidential election.

"Just as Reagan was not content to contain communism but announced a rollback, pro-family organizations are not content to protest the latest outrage anymore, but will seek legislation and will punish sponsors of lewd entertainment," he said.

Knight acknowledged, however, that some opponents of the Kinsey film may be reluctant to try to punish its distributor, Fox Searchlight, owned by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Religion and the Founders

The Founding Fathers were not devout by the standards of many of today's fundamentalist Protestants. To carefully examine writings by the principal framers (Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington and Madison) is to note the striking degree to which they all shared attitudes toward religion that would disqualify them as "Christians" in the eyes of the religious right, even though they described themselves as such. All these men emphasized the supreme importance of individual reason and conscience--not ecclesiastical authority and dogma--in shaping personal faith. To be sure, they recognized religion's valuable social role, but the assertion heard so often these days, that America was founded as a 'Christian nation', simply is not true.