The LRA and the Colbert Report

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

       Occasionally if I have a few spare minutes after doing homework, I will watch episodes of the Colbert Report. Personally, I think the show is very entertaining, and often gives surprisingly sharp and accurate critiques of politics and well known people. Last week, I saw this segment on his show. If you haven't watched it, do that now.
       You may be familiar with the Lord's Resistance army from middle school, when, at least at WJHS, we watched a documentary called Invisible Children, about how the LRA abduct children and force them to become child soldiers. Or from reading news articles about the hundreds of atrocities they have commited in central Africa. And Rush Limbaugh criticizes Obama for trying to "wipe out Chrisitians."
       In addition to being totally outrageous and terrible, Limbaugh's gaffe presents some cautionary lessons. First is the obvious importance of research. If Limbaugh had even bothered to Google search "LRA," he would have easily learned that they are war criminals and terrorist, not good Christians attempting to defeat dictatorship. Second is to avoid disagreeing with someone on an issue simply because of who they are. Despite what many in the Republican party might believe, Obama is not wrong on everything. In this incident, Limbaugh assumed that because Obama decided to send soldiers to help fight the LRA, they must be good people.

Egyptian Christians and Free Speech

       Over the weekend I read an interesting article in the New York Times about the experiences of the Coptic Christian minority in Egypt during the Arab Spring. The article makes an interesting case that demo
cracy, by necessity, is rooted in ethnic and cultural separations, and that "Any sort of popular sovereignty [In the Middle east] has tended to unleash the furies and drive minorities into exile." I don't agree entirely with the author's conclusion, that there will be significant conflict and religious division in the next few years before a true Egyptian democracy emerges, but what really interested me in the article was the basic idea that democracy can cause civil strife.
       The root cause of the conflict described in the article is an anti-Christian sentiment present in Egyptian society. It is not necessarily a common sentiment, and there are stories of Muslims demonstrating in solidarity with the Christians. However, it is one that is certainly present, and which has existed since long before Mubarak's fall. The advent of democracy, however allowed that sentiment to be expressed openly and acted upon.

       Democracy, by its nature, is a political system which tends to encourage anyone to speak their minds. This leads to both good speech and bad speech. When you encourage everyone to speak out, some will spread destructive messages. We have been discussing similar free speech issues in class as well; When does free speech become a harm to society? Egypt is an example of how allowing everyone to voice their opinion can have negative consequences. I'm not saying that free speech, or the accompanying democracy is a bad thing. It is just that we have a tendency to view democracy as the perfect solution to the troubles of a country. Although democracy (or technically democratic republics) may be the best form of government so far, the conditions necessary for a healthy democracy can cause their own set of problems.

Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/opinion/sunday/douthat-democracys-collateral-damage.html
Image Credit: New York Times

Occupy Wall Street

       Much attention has been given recently to the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters in Zucotti Park in New York, and the sister protests they have inspired across the country. The protesters have no leaders and no unified sense of demands, but are united by the feeling that the rich, corporations, and Wall Street are responsible for the problems facing the U.S. The protesters present an obvious parallel to the Tea Party movement; both are born of deep frustration with the direction of the country and the policies of the government. Both are populist movements claiming to represent the masses, and both present an easy target to blame the U.S.'s problems on, government in the case of the Tea Party, and the rich for the Occupy protesters. Though the two protest movements occupy opposite ends of the political spectrum, they are born of the same current of thought. Both believe something is wrong in America, both believe it is somebody's fault, and both will protest until their message is heard. It is interesting that the two most prominent political movements in the past few years have both been populist protest movements. Americans appear to be deeply frustrated with the direction of the country, and willing to go out in the streets, and outside of the normal bounds of politics, to be heard.