Egypt: Ghonim and Said

Friends of mine, even politically aware friends, ask what's up with the Egyptian "revolution"? Why are they revolting? Most of my friends aren't aware of what is meant by "brutal dictatorship". Khaled Said is the unfortunate classic example.

Khalid Said

On June 18, 2010, the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) reported that:

Egyptian businessman Khalid Said died during what witnesses say was a brutal public beating by police officers on June 6 in Alexandria, [Egypt].

He was described as "an affable, middle-class man." The CSM reported that:

The government’s first official autopsy report claimed that Said died from asphyxiation after swallowing a plastic bag of narcotics when he was approached by police. Said’s family and witnesses at the Internet cafe where police apprehended him tell a different story, saying police began the abuse in the cafe, then dragged him outside, where they beat him to death.

Said was reportedly targeted because he intended to make public a video that allegedly shows police officers dividing the spoils of a drug bust. Graphic pictures of the injuries that killed Said, coupled with the public nature of his beating death ... have propelled his tragic case to prominence, largely through posts on social-networking sites and blogs.

The following photo of Said, prominently displayed on a Facebook site, drives home the word "brutal."



Another Facebook website entitled "We are all Khalid Said" is credited with promoting the uprisings widely said to have begun January 25, 2010. Until recently, the initiator of "We are all Khalid Said" website was unknown.

What was known, however, was that Wael Ghonim was snatched from the streets of Egypt by plain-clothed police. He was widely described on Tweets in late January as a "Google Executive"People of Egypt feared the worst as the days passed with no word on the fate of @Ghonim, as he was known on Twitter. Video of Ghonim being snatched chilled people who understood what the word "brutal" means in the phrase "brutal dictatorship".[1]

Arrest widely said to be Google Exec Wael Ghonim

Then, on February 7, 2012, Wael Ghonim was released. Egyptian blogger @Sandmonkey and @ SultanAlQassemi tweeted the some of the first translations of an interview with Wael Ghonim with Dream TV. Some of Ghonim's statements, roughly translated & tweeted by SultanAlQassemi follow (not originally tweeted in this order):

I was taking a taxi, suddenly four people surrounded the car, I yelled "Help me, Help me" I was blindfolded then taken away. [Doesn't fit with video above, but see link to video with English subscripts below]

They wanted details, information. "Are the people who planned this outsiders?" We didn't do anything wrong, this was an appeal

The interrogators wanted to know if outsiders were involved. I convinced them this was a purely Egyptian movement.

The treatment was very good, they knew I was a good Egyptian. I was blindfolded for 12 days, I didn't see their faces.

I kept thinking "are people thinking of me?" I was wondering if my family knew where I was, my wife, dad, mother.

I can't claim I know what happened when I was inside. I didn't know anything until one day before I left.

I met with the Minister of Interior today. He was sat like any other citizen. He spoke to me like an equal. I respected that

I told the Interior Minister if I stripped naked & told people that I was beaten even without marks they would believe me.

I told the Interior Minister we have two problems 1- we don't talk to each other, this must be solved, 2- There is no trust

There were several men in the room with me & the Minister of Interior. I asked him if I can speak about this he said as u wish

The youth on the streets made Dr Hossam Badrawi (General Secretary of NDP [Mubarak's political party]) drive me to my house today

I am not a hero. I was only used the keyboard, the real heroes are the ones on the ground. Those I can't name.

I spent all my time on computer working for my country. I wasn't optimistic on the 25th but now I can't believe it

The DreamTV interview with Wael Ghonim, with subtitles, the day he was released.

[1] The film repeats, the second time in slow motion. Notice a point in the film in which three police are walking @Ghonim away when fourth police comes in from the right of the screen and lifts off one of his feet as he violently grabs @Ghonim's by the hair, yanking his head down.

Is Corporate Personhood Legitimate?

Most educated people have heard that "corporations are legally considered to be persons." Upon hearing it, most people take on the look of a dog with it's head tilted to the side. Here's one take on corporate "people".[1]

The watershed moment came in 1886 when the Supreme Court ruled on a case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The case itself was not about corporate personhood, although many before it had been, and the Court had ruled that corporations were not persons under the 14th Amendment. Santa Clara, like many railroad cases, was about taxes. But before the Court delivered its decision, the following statement is attributed to Chief Justice Waite:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

The statement appeared in the header of the case in the published version, and the Court made its ruling on other grounds. How this statement appeared in the header of the case is a matter of some mystery and competing theories, but because it was later cited as precedent, corporate personhood became the accepted legal doctrine of the land.

Corporations acquired legal personhood at a time when all women, all Native Americans, and even most African American men were still denied the right to vote. And this was not an era of good feelings between the average person and corporations. It was the time of the robber barons, and the Supreme Court was filled with former railroad lawyers. It was the time of the Knights of Labor and the Populist movement. 1886 was the year of the Haymarket Massacre, the Great Southwestern Strike, and the next year the Pullman Strike. The people were struggling for real democracy and the wealthy ruling class did whatever it took to keep them down.

Great way to set Supreme Court precedent, eh? So, if the foundation of corporate personhood is... corrupt... established by a Supreme Court put in power by the corrupt corporations of the robber baron era, then we have to ask, "Is Corporate Personhood legitimate?"

Confused? You're not alone...









Sources:

1. Abolish Corporate Personhood, Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan, May 20, 2004.

Dispossessed People and the Rise of the Security State

Both Repbulican and Democrat alike seem to acknowledge, and fund, the rise of a security state, spurred in great part by 9/11. More electronic equipment and other hardware, more trained staff, more joint task force committees and "centers", etc.

At the same time, Connecting the Dots, we are witnessing a growing number of dispossessed people, the "jobless" in the "jobless recovery." Detroit and many unnamed towns and cities, like Flint, MI, have had former factory workers sitting on their porches now since the 1980s. (As an aside, the parents of these people sitting on the porches, many of whom have now passed on, got slammed by the Savings and Loan crisis/heist; an "economic failure" not too unlike the sub-prime loan debacle. But I digress....)

The establishment seems blind to the realities of families and individuals who must cope with ... no money... no health care... Where do they go? In the case of Brazil:

These dispossessed people have only two places to flee to: the shantytowns or the Amazon.

We're talking about formerly "lower-to-middle class" becoming destitute. These people "seem" to "go away," and some do, pushed to death. Those who live chop at the edge of rain forests or do whatever it takes to survive.

A glaring image of the dispossessed closer to home (the US) was splashed all over establishment media when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans.





The rise of Security State was seen in New Orleans during Katrina; something new was a heavy presence of privatized security, Blackwater being most notable because of reports of their abusive behavior. The key word is "private;" as soon as disasters become profitable, be the natural or man-made, the security industry benefits... disaster capitalism as described by Naomi Klein.



I could go on, but my only point is to connect-the-triangle-of-dots between the growing dispossessed, the rise of the security state and the bi-partisan support of the latter in the face of the former... the establishment fears the unwashed masses, nothing new there.