It is obvious that media madness is indulging some bogus notions to fill airtime. BBC did this past weekend’s run of "Talking Point" program at the American Univerity of Beirut. There were the usual moon-battish notions and paradoxes raised by the panel in order to display their indignation.
One panelists was trying to build his "secularist cred" when he averred that "the US is a religious regime" and that George Bush is the "biggest fundamentalist"... So too with this notion that corrupt Arab regimes are all the creation of the United States.
They presented the usual ridiculous, even self-delusional notions. And to a European audience which has been largely seduced by it, merely more red meat.
What one saw none of was actual analysis or reflection. None at ALL. How VERY rare it is to see an Arab commenter actually not say that some negative event is the cause of their own action, or that of their countrymen, co-religionist, or fellow Arab. They are in the cultural straight they're in because of this very dwelling on the notion that everything flaw in the universe is somebody else's fault. The cultural norm is a textbook case of learned helplessness.
Don't you think it's emotionally convenient that the one-at-fault always seems to be a group of people who would otherwise be the object of some envy? Either in the civility, efficiency, or economic success of their society or sub-culture? A brief look at the hate spewed by many Arabs even on the house of Saud confirms this.
Rami Khouri, an erudite and articulate editor of The Daily Star, and english languge
Beirut daily put forward thay there HAVE been generations of Arabs calling for democracy and pluralism. There certainly were, and one could virtually count them on your hand. They learned this in the west that their children now hate, and many were either shot or deported. They expressed that sentiment where they could - in north and south America.
How arrorgant it was when he said that this grand history of 'calling' for democracy should be cause to "call Bush's Bluff" on wanting to promote pluralism by way of a chain reaction and social change which permits a new generation to act. He is clearly not bluffing. There would have been a great deal more hesitation in the start of the Cedar Revolution were it not for George Bush's consistency and clarity. They knew he would neither talk it down or indulge in failed "realpolitik" with the tyrants running Syria - not just because of its' basic wrongness, but because it would give the Syrians a way to stay in Lebanon and retaliate by themselves or through their proxies.
I'm sure the BBC's panel and the middle-minded who can't face how wrong they've been would still find a way to disparage "the other" for it. Turn around, and you will find the same disparagement of Europeans, but only when they aren't there to hear it.
It is the childish act of sticking ones' tongue out knowing that Americans and Europeans will not call them on it - nothing more.
The most perplexing thing to President Bush's opponents is that he isn't bluffing, and that's why things are changing. He does what he says, and gives his reasons for doing it. I'm sure they would be more comfortable with the evasions and double-talk that they've been used to, but I find it childish and hypocritical to look down their noses at straight talk and transparency for little more than their own emotional satisfaction.
It is after all, like many leftist pursuits in the west, the sign of a problem of the individual so wrapped up in the attitude of a group that can't perceive the wrongness of many thing and don't think much further in time than their immediate urges will let them, and certainly not any longer than their own lives.