Democracy: The What's Left of It Edition (Part 1)

Democracy - a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. - Merriam Webster Dictionary

Think you live in a democracy? Think again. Yes, the most egregious offense against democracy - slavery - was officially ended long ago. All citizens, including women, over the age 18 now have the right to vote thanks to some Constitutional amendments.   On paper, the United States appears to qualify as a democracy.  In reality, American democracy is now under assault. Attacks against the "supreme power.. vested in the people" and against "periodically held free elections" have been ongoing for a long time. But recent Supreme Court decisions, legislative actions at the State level, the unchecked influence of special interest money, the rampant disregard for the truth, the abuse of the filibuster, and the continuing excesses of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act have made a mockery of the concept.

Over the next two posts, I'll present my personal top 10 list for the assault on democracy in America. Feel free to add your own or reorder as you see fit.

Numbers 10 through 6 in the assault on democracy:

#10 - Disparity in the distribution of wealth

In this country, elections are almost always determined by the amount of money spent during a campaign. In 2008 elections. for example, "in 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics." The interests of the ruling and contributing classes are well represented; those of the not-so-well-off, less so. How else can you explain the opposition to tax increases on the wealthiest in society and the demand that benefits be taken from the less well off so that we can balance the budget?

#9 - Misinformed citizenry

An informed citizenry is critical to the functioning of a democracy. Corporate media misrepresentations of the facts (think Fox News viewers who thought that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9/11 attacks) and government secrecy and distortions (think pre-Iraq invasion intelligence reports and non-existent WMD) are the primary bad actors. Antidotes to this toxic misinformation: teach critical thinking in the schools, support organizations like FactCheck.org.

#8 - Government Spying

Government spying on its own citizens - either warrantless or by using overly broad warrants - has no place in a democracy. It is part and parcel of totalitarian regimes. Germany's current president Joachim Gauck, who helped expose the workings of East Germany's secret police, said whistleblowers like U.S. fugitive Edward Snowden deserved respect for defending freedom. Gauck knows of what he speaks. He lived in communist East Germany before the fall of the Iron Curtain. Instead of "respect for defending our freedom", our government prosecutes and punishes those who, like Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden, shine a light on these undemocratic goings-on. Where will it end? Who knows? Just today a powerful NSA tool has been unveiled. As reported in The Guardian on July 31: "A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden." See the Guardian article for more details on this latest revelation ("XKeyscore").

#7 - Special interest money

When 80-90% of the public favors a piece of legislation and it is not passed, you know something is wrong in the democracy. In one of the most egregious examples of this, the NRA's political money was enough to kill universal background checks for gun purchases in the Senate. If the filibuster had been broken in the Senate, what do you think the chances for passage would have been in the House where Republicans hold a 34 vote majority? In a political system where money wins elections, where politicians must raise inordinate amounts to compete, where special interest groups are free to lie and distort at will, we should not be surprised at such outcomes. 

 

#6 - Third-party political attack ads

Considering the role of political advertising in the outcome of elections, you would think that there would be some control over lying in attack ads. Unfortunately there is none. An interest group can pretty much make up anything they want without ever being held accountable. Combine this "license to lie" with the shielding of the names of supporters of these shadow organizations and you've got a powerful tool for the hate and fear mongers to use.

Sunday Round-Up - July 28, 2013

This is the weekly selection from sources outside the US mainstream media.  Today we look at the ongoing violence in Egypt, the GOP feeding frenzy following SCOTUS' gutting of the Voting Rights Act, small hopeful signs of change in Iran, Israeli interference in EU humanitarian aid projects in the Occupied Territory, and the US efforts to extradite and punish whistleblower Eric Snowden.  Sources include Al Jazeera, Mother Jones, The Guardian, antiwar.com, Haaretz, and Reuters.

On Saturday Al Jazeera reported on the violent clashes between ousted President Morsi's supporters and Egyptian security forces.  Scores have been killed with the exact toll not immediately clear: If the death toll of 120 is confirmed it would be the deadliest incident since Morsi was deposed by the army more than three weeks ago.  On July 8, 53 people, mostly Morsi supporters, died when armed men opened fire close to a Republican Guard compound in the area.  Each side accuses the other of firing weapons.  Al Jazeera also reported that the Interior Minister has warned that security forces will soon be dispersing the protesters: Egypt's interior minister has pledged that protests calling for the reinstatement of ousted president Mohamed Morsi would be dispersed "soon".  Speaking at a news conference on Saturday, Mohamed Ibrahim said security forces would act "in a legal fashion" to disperse the demonstrations "as soon as possible".  Let's hope that this violence soon ends before more have died. [Photo: Al Jazeera]


In a Mother Jones blog on Friday, Kevin Drum reported on the "GOP feeding frenzy" occasioned by the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court several weeks ago.  The first out of the box is North Carolina whose legislature recently enacted perhaps the worst voter suppression law in the country.  Not only will they require voter ID, they have, among other things, reduced early voting days, outlawed paid voting registration drives, and prohibited provisional balloting.  (For the complete list, follow the link to the article.) Drum comments: In the past, all of this would have required preclearance from the Justice Department, and it almost certainly would have been dead on arrival.  Given the control of the House by Republicans, there is no hope of Congress remedying SCOTUS' striking down of Section 5.  Drum concludes: What's happening in North Carolina, after all, is part of a broad push by the Republican Party itself throughout the country. So now it's up to the Justice Department to go in after the fact and take these laws to court one by one. The Supreme Court seemed to think this was a perfectly adequate substitute for preclearance. We'll soon find out if they were serious when one of these challenges eventually wends its way onto their docket. 

On Friday, The Guardian reported on some small signs of change in Iran after the June election of moderate Hassan Rouhani as preparations get underway for his inauguration.  Some political prisoners have been released, local media have pushed the boundaries of their reporting, street celebrations for Iran's World Cup qualification went unmolested, and "25 independent Iranian documentary film-makers accused of working clandestinely inside the country for the BBC's Persian service were all acquitted."  Iranians realize the fragility of the gains.  Their hopes were crushed once before by conservatives after the last moderate President was elected.  In the West, there is some debate over how to respond.  The UK Ambassador will not be attending but that "decision was quickly condemned by the shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander, as 'a misjudgment and a missed opportunity'."   The Guardian article reports on the situation in the US: Washington has tweaked its draconian sanctions to allow the transfer of more medical equipment. At the same time, however, the Republican-run House of Representatives is preparing to vote on the imposition of even more stringent sanctions before going on its August recess. A joint letter by two retired senior US officers...and the head of the National Iranian American Council, published on The Hill's congressional blog said: "Rouhani's election represents what could be the last best hope for serious negotiations with Iran to produce a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear dispute.  The House must not snuff out hopes for Iranian moderation before Rouhani even gets a chance." 

On Friday, antiwar.com and Haaretz both reported on the barring of European humanitarian workers from the Occupied Territory in apparent retaliation against EU sanctions against the illegal Israeli settlements.  Antiwar.com reports: In a move Israeli officials described as “retaliation” for the European Union’s policy statement barring aid to illegal settlements in occupied territory, Israel has unilaterally blocked the EU from a large number of humanitarian endeavors in those territories.  Haaretz expands on Israel's reported actions: "On Thursday, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon ordered defense officials to halt cooperation on the ground with EU representatives. This includes any assistance to EU infrastructure projects in Area C, which is under full Israeli civilian and military control. Ya'alon also reportedly planned to make it more difficult for EU officials to pass through the Erez Crossing, to the Gaza Strip or back to Israel.  In Brussels, Maja Kocijancic, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, said on Friday: "The EU is concerned by reports in the Israeli media that the Israeli Minister of Defense has announced a number of restrictions affecting EU activities supporting the Palestinian people."  Let's see if I got this straight.  Because of their stand that Israel comply with international law, the EU will be hindered in its efforts to provide humanitarian relief to the Palestinian people.  Unbelievable.
[Photos are of Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza.  Half of the total population of Gaza are children.  Credits: UN Relief and Works Agency website]


In its continuing effort to capture, extradite and punish NSA whistleblower Eric Snowden, the Obama Administration recently assured the Russians that they would not torture Snowden or seek the death penalty against him.  Russia so far is having no part of it and Snowden remains in Russia awaiting temporary asylum.  The Guardian reported on Wednesday: Anatoly Kucherena, [a lawyer for Russia's Public Council of the Federal Security Service] who was visiting Snowden at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport on Wednesday, said he was staying in the transit zone "for now". According to the lawyer, migration officials had said that they are looking at his asylum request, but had not issued the expected confirmation certificate that would allow Snowden to leave the airport.  On Friday antiwar.com reported on Snowden's father's comments on the situation: Snowden’s father Lon Snowden says that the administration has vilified his son to such a point that he is “better off” staying in Russia or some other safe haven “until an administration that respects the Constitution comes into office.”  Also on Friday, Reuters reported on the comments of Germany's President Joachim Gauck: Germany's president, who helped expose the workings of East Germany's dreaded Stasi secret police, said whistleblowers like U.S. fugitive Edward Snowden deserved respect for defending freedom....Gauck, who has little power but great moral authority, said people who work for the state were entitled to act according to their conscience, as institutions sometimes depart from the law.  "This will normally only be put right if information is made public. Whoever draws the public's attention to it and acts out of conscience deserves respect," he told Friday's Passauer Neue Presse newspaper.  Gauck certainly knows what he is talking about.  As the Reuters article notes: After the fall of communism, Gauck, a dissident Lutheran pastor, headed a commission in charge of the Stasi's vast archive of files on people it had spied on, using them to root out former Stasi members and collaborators.

The IRS "Scandal" and other Darrell Issa BS

So it turns out that the IRS showed no particular preference in going after right-wing groups claiming tax-exempt status. Progressive groups engaging in political activity were also investigated with equal fervor.  The most notable fallout from this manufactured scandal is the skyrocketing of contributions to Darrell Issa's next campaign because he is so mind-numbingly anti-Obama.  

 

A June 25 post on The Hill website provided an update on the machinations behind the "scandal":

The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans. A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.” ...top congressional Democrats have wielded new information from the IRS this week that liberal groups were also flagged for extra attention on the sorts of “be on the lookout” lists (BOLOs) that also tripped up conservative groups.

Can you believe this sack of crap? I think the House Oversight Committee should investigate it own chairman. But somehow I feel that's not going to happen.  Oh yeah, the trail in this IRS "scandal" was supposed to lead to the White House, right?  Unfortunately for the Obama conspiracy theorists, it apparently starts and ends in Cincinnati.   As detailed in Rep. Elijah Cummings' masterful June 13 letter to Issa , in which the ranking Democrat on the Committee asks Issa to release the full interview transcripts from the Committee hearings:

I asked for the Screening Group Manager's interview transcript to be made public because I believe it will establish several key facts...[among them that] there was absolutely no White House involvement whatsoever in the origination or development of the process to screen Tea Party cases. Neither the Screening Group Manager nor any other witness who has appeared before the Committee has provided any evidence to back up this wholly unsubstantiated claim. The Inspector General also identified no evidence of White House involvement.

This isn't the first time Issa's Oversight Committee tried to prove dastardly doings in the Obama White House that just weren't so. From Timothy Egan's July 11 blog in the NYTimes, " The Charade of Darrell Issa":

..after millions of dollars in investigative forays, the wheels come off the ride. Fast and Furious — that gunrunning scheme into Mexico by federal agents, known to conservatives as a vast conspiracy by Obama to bring on gun control — is traced to the White House, just as Issa predicted. Except, it was George W. Bush’s White House, where the practice of letting guns cross borders originated in a similar program called Operation Wide Receiver. Move along. Solyndra, the subsidizing of a money-losing solar energy company, and the tragedy of Benghazi — Watergate-level cover-ups, yes? They both sank with truth that was much more banal and sad.

We can laugh off the likes of Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, and Michelle Bachmann, but the scary thing is that Darrell Issa controls one of the more powerful House committees and he apparently is not done yet. On July 18, USA Today even gave him an op-ed column. WTF were they thinking?

Sunday Round-Up - July 20, 2013

This is the weekly selection from sources outside the US mainstream media.  Today we look at the preliminary talks soon to get underway in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Florida's stand your ground law, which played a major role in the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin.  Sources are The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Haaretz and Mother Jones.

Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
This weekend The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Haaretz all had posts dealing with the apparent movement toward preliminary talks in the long stalled Israeli-Palestinian final status negotiations.  The Guardian post noted that the Israelis had agreed to the release of Palestinians held in Israeli jails: "Yuval Steiniz, Israel's minister for international relations, said a prisoner release would be carried out in stages. 'I don't want to give numbers but there will be heavyweight prisoners who have been in jail for tens of years,' he told Israel Radio."  Somewhat more pessimistically they noted that Steiniz "said Israel would balk at agreeing on the pre-1967 border as the parameter for territorial negotiations. 'There is no chance we will agree to enter any negotiations that begin with defining territorial borders or concessions by Israel, nor a [settlement] construction freeze'. "  As for the Palestinian position, The Guardian reported "A senior Palestinian official said President Mahmoud Abbas had signed up 'not to a resumption of negotiations but only talks about talks'. The Palestinians would demand a written statement that the 1967 border would be the basis for territorial negotiations, he said, but the expectation was that Israel would refuse."  Al Jazeera also noted the prisoner release although they quoted Steiniz that the number would be limited.  " 'There will be a limited release of [Palestinian] prisoners,' Steinitz, the minister in charge of international relations and strategic affairs, told public radio on Saturday without giving numbers."  Al Jazeera's Rosalind Jordan, reporting from Washington, said "There's been concern about the number of settlements being built in the Occupied West Bank and a growing sense of dread that the prospect of a two state solution was slipping away.  It could be said that, if nothing else, Kerry has made a full throated effort to try to keep the two state solution alive." Haaretz reported on the role of European sanctions against the illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land in getting the parties to at least be at the same table: "The officials said the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas felt that the EU sanctions supported his position and therefore encouraged him to give up on his demand for a complete settlement freeze. Netanyahu, on the other hand, was alarmed by the sanctions’ effect on Israeli markets and on its international standing; furthermore he feared that Israeli public would blame him personally for Israel’s isolation."

Stand Your Ground
Florida's "stand your ground" law, which played a major role in the acquittal of George Zimmerman has been the object of rightful outrage in the past week.  In The Daily Show’s take on it, "acting-host John Oliver cuts to the quick, beginning with this:

 “… According to Florida law, you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, call the police, have them explicitly tell you to stop following them, then choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, then get into a confrontation with him, and if at any point during that process you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death and the state of Florida will say, ‘Well, look, you did what you could.’”

Meanwhile, Mother Jones debunks the conservative argument that the stand your ground law did not play a role in the acquittal.  From the Florida authorities' early mishandling of the case to the judge's instructions to the jury, the existence of the law was clearly the determining factor in the acquittal.  The July 19 post concludes that, in spite of the defense team not raising the issue of the statute, "in the end the statute still helped the defense.  In a follow-up statement to CNN after her interview sparked criticism, Juror B-37 said: 'My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions.'  And she and her fellow jurors may never have had to endure the trial if it weren't for Stand Your Ground, suggests  [Laura] Cutilletta, [a senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence]. "The increased paranoia that comes with being armed combined with the sense of legal entitlement to kill at will, we think, all contributed to the incident even occurring in the first place."

World Cup 2014

[Photo from FIFA 2014 World Cup website: Rio de Janeiro's legendary Maracana Stadium]

 

The FIFA World Cup tournament is the most watched sporting event, well, in the world. About 2.2 billion people watched at least 20 consecutive minutes of one or more matches in the 2010 World Cup tournament in South Africa. And an estimated 3.2 billion people watched at least one minute. For the Spain-Netherlands final alone, 620 million people watched at least 20 consecutive minutes. [FIFA]

Unlike the World Series, the Super Bowl, and the NCAA College Basketball Tournament, the World Cup tournament is played just every four years. Suspended during the war years of the 1940's, there have been 19 World Cups played since its initiation in 1930. And in the 83 years of the Cup's existence, only 8 countries have managed to win the title game - Brazil (5), Italy (4), (West) Germany (3), Uruguay (2), Argentina (2), England, France and Spain.

The buildup and preparations for the tournament start almost as soon as the last cup is over. If a team had a bad tournament, the search for a new national team coach may begin. Over the next couple of years, the national team itself is gradually re-formed with aging stars replaced and weaknesses corrected. Then come the preliminary qualifying matches which are currently underway.

 

 [Photo from FIFA 2014 World Cup website: Brasilia]

The 2014 World Cup is now just one year away. Brazil will be the host country for World Cup XX and the 64 matches will be played from June 13 until the championship game on July 13. Qualifying matches are about 60% complete in most regions and the field of 32 will be finalized later this year. It's a long way to go but if the current point leaders hold through the remainder of the qualifying rounds, the teams competing for the 2014 World Cup would be:  

  

 

Europe (13)

Belgium

Netherlands

Germany

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Italy

Switzerland

Montenegro

Portugal

Spain

Croatia

Russia

Greece

England

 

South America (5 plus intercontinental playoff)

Brazil*

Argentina

Colombia

Ecuador

Chile

Africa (5)

Egypt

Ivory Coast

Ghana

Algeria

Tunisia

Asia (4 plus intercontinental playoff)

 

Iran*

Korea*

Japan*

Australia*

North, Central America and Caribbean (3 plus intercontinental playoff)

USA

Costa Rica

Mexico

Intercontinental Playoffs

Honduras (North, Central Am, Carib) vs. New Zealand (Oceania)

Winner of Uzbekistan-Jordan (Asia) vs. Venezuela or Uruguay (South America)

* signifies qualification is complete.

Greatest Games

 

Topping several lists of the greatest world cup matches is the 1982 quarter final match between Italy and Brazil. Here is a link to a highlight film of this classic game.

As for the greatest final of all-time, the vote seems to go to the 1950 Uruguay-Brazil championship game. Here's a link to a highlight video.

 

Sports Illustrated's list of 10 top world cup games

 

Goal.Com's list of top 10 world cup games

Other Links

 

Interactive FIFA World Ranking Table

Sunday Round-Up July 14, 2013

This is the weekly selection from sources outside the US mainstream media.  Today we look at NSA Spying and Kerry's efforts to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Sources include Pravda, Mother Jones, Haaretz, and the Calgary Herald.

NSA Spying and Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden, the whistle blower who brought to everyone's attention details of the extent of the NSA surveillance programs, is reported ready to request political asylum from Russia - at least until he can arrange safe passage to one of the Latin American countries that have offered him asylum. He is currently confined to the Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport and is prevented from flying to other countries because US allies are denying him access to their airspace. Pravda reported Friday on Snowden's airport meeting with human rights activists. "During the meeting, Snowden thanked all countries that sent him their offers - Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador. Snowden said that he could not fly anywhere from Sheremetyevo, so he could not address...international organizations because...his personal presence would be required....Snowden wants to stay in Russia and the only way to do it is to receive political asylum...'No actions I take or plan are meant to harm the U.S. .. I want the U.S. to succeed,' Snowden said. In a July 12 post in Mother Jones, Kevin Drum writes: "One of the arguments about Edward Snowden that I've occasionally gotten caught up in is: What difference has he made? Has he really told us very much we didn't know before? In a broad sense, you can argue that he hasn't." Much of what Snowden has revealed was either known or at least suspected by the more paranoid among us. But, Drum continues: "It's one thing to know about this stuff in broad strokes. It's quite another to have specific, documented details. That's what Snowden has given us, and it makes a big difference in public debate. A Quinnipiac University poll released this week demonstrates this vividly. Three years ago, only 25 percent of Americans thought the government had gone too far in its anti-terrorism efforts. Policywise, nothing much has changed since then, but in 2013 that number has shot up to 45 percent....This is how change happens. The public gets hit over the head with something, lawmakers are forced to take notice, and maybe, just maybe, Congress holds oversight hearings and decides to change the law."

Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz

reported on July 4: "Palestinian officials said...that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is closing in on an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians to relaunch peace talks for a period of six to nine months....Two Palestinian officials familiar with the negotiations said that Kerry has floated a compromise in which Israel would freeze settlement construction outside of major "blocs" that Israel expects to keep.... 'Kerry is trying to pave the way for relaunching the peace process. He is serious and we encouraged him. He made progress and we hope he can conclude a deal in the coming week,' said one official." A week has passed since then and nothing concrete has happened. 

Michael Gerson, commenting from Tel Aviv in the Calgary Heraldon July 11 quotes

former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and reviews the impediments to an early breakthrough: "The arguments for Israel to define its borders through a two-state settlement remain strong. 'Given the history and heritage of the Jewish people,' Olmert says, 'we can’t occupy forever three or four or five million people without equal rights.' ....An agreement, he argues, would increase Israeli legitimacy, open global markets and make a Jewish state more demographically sustainable. But these arguments seem abstract and long-term ....The majority of Israelis vaguely support a two-state solution, but there is no critical mass of political support for concessions in that cause." Gerson reluctantly concludes: "Majorities of Israelis and Palestinians support a two-state solution. The broad parameters of a deal have been clear since the Clinton administration....The American secretary of state is energetically on the job. But little is likely to change."

Saturday Round Up - July 6, 2013

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream media.  Today we look at Wednesday's ouster of Egypt's President Morsi by the Egyptian military.  Sources include The Guardian, BBC News, Al Jazeera and Haaretz; and US mainstream media NY Times and The Atlantic.

On Wednesday evening, the Egyptian military deposed democratically elected Islamist President Mohamed Morsi after millions of Egyptians demonstrated for his removal, "claiming he had arrogated power, neglected the economy, and worsened divisions in society." [NYTimes]  While anti-Morsi demonstrators rejoiced in the streets, reaction from world leaders was mixed and uneasy.  BBC News reported  British foreign secretary William Hague as saying the UK "will work with the people in authority in Egypt" but condemned the ousting of its president as "a dangerous thing" and US President Barack Obama saying he was "deeply concerned" by the latest turn of events and called for a swift return to civilian rule.[BBC News] [Photo: Dallas Morning News]


 Al Jazeera summarized the reactions of other world leaders in a post on Thursday: the EU called for a "rapid return to democracy"; German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the military intervention was "a major setback for democracy in Egypt" and called for "dialogue and political compromise"; Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Syria supported the new government - with Syria's President Assad stating that the military intervention means the end of "political Islam" and that this is the "fate of anyone in the world who tries to use religion for political or factional interests."; Iran, Tunisia, and Turkey spoke in support of ousted President Morsi and expressed disappointment at the intervention.

The Guardian reported on Thursday that supporters of the ousted president would take "to the streets after Friday prayers following a series of raids and arrests that decimated the Muslim Brotherhood's senior ranks and consolidated the miltary's hold on the country." The widespread crackdown was launched by Egypt's interim president Adly Mansour even as he reached out to the Brotherhood, calling them "part of the fabric of Egyptian society." On Friday Al Jazeera reported that "at least three supporters of deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi were killed by gunfire as a crowd of several hundred tried to march towards the military barracks in Cairo where he is believed to be held." Al Jazeera also reported in the same post that Egyptian state television said that Mansour had dissolved parliament by decree. On Friday Haaretz covered a Reuters and DPA report : "Egypt has indefinitely closed the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip following attacks on security forces in northern Sinai, a security official said Friday...The crossing was opened in 2011 following the ouster of Egyptian president Hosny Mubarak, whose administration opposed the Hamas rulers in Gaza, and helped Israel to enforce a blockade on the enclave."

Saturday morning Al Jazeera reported on the aftermath of widespread clashes in Egypt as supporters of the deposed president demonstrated in the streets Friday night: "A tense calm has descended on Egypt following a night of fierce clashes between supporters and opponents of the ousted president Mohamed Morsi.  At least 30 people were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in the violence that erupted on Friday and continued through the night.  A coalition of conservative groups led by Muslim Brotherhood has vowed further demonstrations on Saturday, raising fears of renewed violence."

New elections have been pledged by the military and Western leaders are hoping that this occurs as quickly as possible. However, as of this writing, no specific date has been set for these elections.  This is a test for democracy in the Middle East.  Can a government move from authoritarian rule to democracy seamlessly in one election? Is the Egyptian experience unique - in that Morsi, in the words of US Senator Patrick Leahy, had "squandered an historic opportunity, preferring to govern by fiat rather than work with other political parties." [reported in The Atlantic website] - or is it indicative of things to come in other Arab Spring countries?

Two Spy Novels: "Sweet Tooth" and "A Delicate Truth"

Well, not really.  One, A Delicate Truth by John le Carré, is indeed a spy novel set in the post 9/11 era. The other, Sweet Tooth by Ian McEwan, is more a love story of 1970's England with the MI-5, Britain's domestic secret service, as the backdrop.

Sixty-five-year-old Ian McEwan is the critically acclaimed, multiple-prize-winning author of short stories and novels covering a variety of topics - including climate change (Solar), a day in the life of a neurosurgeon (Saturday), a World War II family saga (Atonement) and, early in his career, Gothic short stories and novels that earned him the unfortunate nickname "Ian Macabre." Several of his books have been turned into movies. Time magazine named Atonement as one of the 100 all-time greatest novels and The Times (UK) listed him as one of the 50 greatest writers since 1945.

Serena Frome is the daughter of an Anglican bishop and the protagonist of McEwan's novel. She is a voracious reader who ends up studying maths at Cambridge. During her last year there, she has a brief affair with a middle-aged history tutor, Tony Canning, who apparently has been grooming her for a career in the Secret Service. The Cold War is in full gear and America is at war in Vietnam. Meanwhile, Britain is dealing with the IRA, labor unrest, and economic difficulties. Feminism and the limited role of women in the Secret Service color Serena's time in the MI-5.  Sweet Tooth's plot is summarized in the first lines of the novel: "My name is Serena Frome...almost forty years ago I was sent on a secret mission for the British Secret Service. I didn't return safely. Within eighteen months I was sacked, having disgraced myself and ruined my lover..." 

Don't expect much in the way of cold war intrigue or dangerous spy missions in McEwan's novel. Though there are references to the Cold War, Vietnam, the IRA and other 1972-ish concerns and though there's a touch of the paranoia common to spy novels (Serena's room is searched, her friend is unexpectedly fired from MI-5, evidence of a mysterious safe house), Sweet Tooth is primarily a love story. The lover referred to is a young writer, Tom Haley, whom Serena is sent to recruit for a cultural propaganda program, code-named Sweet Tooth. In researching the writer, Serena reads Haley's short stories and, after meeting him, recommends that he be taken into the program. Sweet Tooth provides money to promising and, hopefully, MI5-acceptable (that is, anti-Communist) writers. Deceit, love, conflicting loyalties - all make an appearance in McEwan's novel.

Each of Serena's loves leads either directly or indirectly to the next. Her Cambridge boy friend, Jeremy, introduces her to his tutor, Tony Canning. Tony prepares her for joining MI-5. where she meets Max who is part of the Sweet Tooth program. And the Sweet Tooth program leads her to Tom Haley - a writer with a couple of interesting parallels to McEwan himself. Serena reads Tom Haley's stories and wonders if she can read anything into his character (and his approach to women) from them.  Haley is as eager as she to form a relationship and they meet at the National Portrait Gallery where Serena muses: "Looking at pictures with a stranger is an unobtrusive form of mutual exploration and mild seduction."

The conflict between her mission and employment by MI-5 on the one hand and her growing feelings for the young author on the other leads her into a continuing series of lies and deceptions. She does not come across as either a heroine or a villain, just a conflicted young woman coming of age in the 1970's. Although it's not a spy novel per se, before Serena's story is over, McEwan provides two surprising twists - one having to do with the abrupt disappearance of Tony Canning.

McEwan is a tireless researcher for his stories. One of the people he spoke to while preparing to write Sweet Tooth was none other than John le Carré (the pen name of David Cornwell).  John le Carré was himself a British intelligence officer and has authored numerous espionage novels. Now 81, le Carré burst onto the best-seller scene with the 1963 publication of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. The novel received critical acclaim and became an international best-seller. It was selected as one of the All-Time 100 Novels by TIME Magazine. In 2006, Publishers Weekly named it the “best spy novel of all-time”. Published at the height of East-West tensions, the novel became known for its portrayal of the inconsistency of Western espionage methods with our democracy and our declared moral values. A Delicate Truth continues that tradition.

The novel opens with an attempted extraordinary rendition in the British Crown Colony of Gibraltar. The target of "Operation Wildlife" is a jihadist arms buyer and is to be carried out by US military and intelligence and a security firm (somewhat ironically named "Ethical Outcomes"). Since the operation takes place on British soil, it is to be supported by British intelligence. An experienced member of the Foreign Office (Christopher (Kit) Probyn, renamed Paul Anderson for the operation) is recruited by Cabinet Minister Fergus Quinn to serve as Quinn's "red telephone" during the operation. In spite of the misgivings of the ground team, the night-time operation goes ahead and, unbeknownst to Paul, terribly wrong. As Paul is hustled unceremoniously off the scene, his handler Kirsty's parting words are: 'It was a triumph. Right? No casualties. We did a great job. All of us. You, too. Right?'  

Three years later, Kit Probyn has retired from the Foreign Office.  He and his wife Suzanna have settled into a remote North Cornish village after his final posting to a tropical location, which he suspects was a reward for his participation in the Gibraltar operation. Jeb, one of his comrades from Operation Wildlife, shows up as an itinerant leather goods peddler at a summer festival in town and Kit is at pains to prevent him from creating "the most outrageous, the most irresponsible breach of the Official Secrets Act." But Kit is beginning to suspect something more may be going on here. "Was he in present or past time? It was the same shirt, the same sweat, the same heat in both places: here and now on Bailey's Meadow to the thump of the hurdy-gurdy, or on a Mediterranean hillside at dead of night to the throb of engines out to sea...And how do two confiding, darting, brown eyes manage to grow old and wrinkled and lose their lightness of being in the ridiculous short space of three years."   Unfortunately, before Kit can resolve his conflicting emotions, the apparently untraceable Jeb leaves and the aging Kit resolves to find him.

Meanwhile, Toby Bell, "a thirty-one year old British foreign servant ear-marked for great things" has decided to go public with a secret recording of the meeting of Quinn, "Paul" and Jeb just prior to the launch of Operation Wildlife. Toby has become increasingly frustrated when his supervisors and mentors stonewall and warn him off from pursuing the matter. He is an idealist who had opposed British support for the Iraq War and "wished to make a difference - or as he had put it a little shamefacedly to his examiners, take part in his country's discovery of its true identity in a post-imperial, post-Cold War world."

Jeb resurfaces and Kit arranges a meeting. When Jeb fails to show and "a woman doctor who is patently not a doctor and should have been a man calls Kit, alias Paul, and tells him that Jeb has been confined in a mental hospital", Kit reaches out to Toby.  Kit's daughter Emily, concerned for her aging father, also becomes involved in what becomes a perilous search for the truth. Hunted by unnamed elements in British intelligence, their search takes them to Jeb's ex-wife, Toby's mentor, and Shorty, Jeb's best friend  and an Operation Wildlife operative, as they race to release the documentation of the failed operation.

"If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out." - Oscar Wilde (frontispiece quote from A Delicate Truth)