Will We Cut Egypt’s Aid?

Fisher doubts it:

It is probably unlikely that the Obama administration will want to substantially cut aid to Egypt. (Put aside the Camp David money for a moment — it’s not clear to me that this is effected by the Foreign Assistance Act, and even if it is, it’s very difficult to imagine Congress or the White House being willing to jeopardize this lynchpin of peace with Israel.) Like many aid programs, the hundreds of millions of dollars that goes to Egypt is not meant as a present or a reward; it’s considered to ultimately serve U.S. interests. Egypt’s troubled economy has been a key contributor the political instability there. That instability is bad for everyone, including U.S. interests.

Can Anyone Govern Egypt?

Marc Lynch worries about the consequences of today’s coup:

There remains a very real, urgent risk of major violence and further political or even state collapse, of course. But even if the worst is avoided, Egypt faces a real risk of becoming trapped in an endless loop of failed governments, military interventions, and popular uprisings. The very idea of democratic legitimacy has taken a severe beating, and the coming constitutional reforms and new elections will not pass easily. Building real consensus behind genuinely democratic institutions has to remain the guiding light for U.S. policy and the Egyptian political class, no matter how difficult this appears.

Larison expects that “large numbers of Morsi supporters will regard any new government created as a result of the coup as illegitimate and will seek to sabotage and undermine it”:

That bodes ill for religious and political minority groups that will probably be scapegoated in response to Morsi’s overthrow, since they will make for easier targets and have been identified with the coup. Perversely, the coup may have done what the Muslim Brotherhood could not have done for itself, which is to return it to the role of a persecuted opposition movement.

The Origin Of “Cracker”

It stretches “all the way back to the age of Shakespeare, at least”:

“The meaning of the word has changed a lot over the last four centuries,” said Dana Ste. Claire, a Florida historian and anthropologist who studies, er, crackers. … Ste. Claire pointed me to King John, published sometime in the 1590s. One character refers to another as a craker — a common insult for an obnoxious bloviator.

What craker is this same that deafs our ears with this abundance of superfluous breath?

“It’s a beautiful quote, but it was a character trait that was used to describe a group of Celtic immigrants — Scots-Irish people who came to the Americas who were running from political circumstances in the old world,” Ste. Claire said.

Those Scots-Irish folks started settling the Carolinas, and later moved deeper South and into Florida and Georgia. But the disparaging term followed these immigrants, who were thought by local officials to be unruly and ill-mannered. “In official documents, the governor of Florida said, ‘We don’t know what to do with these crackers — we tell them to settle this area and they don’t; we tell them not to settle this area and they do,” Ste. Claire said. “They lived off the land. They were rogues.”

One Scots-Irish view of the matter:

What Lessons Will The Muslim Brotherhood Learn?

Nathan Brown asks:

The immediate reaction among its members will be to complain that the Brotherhood was cheated. And in a sense it was, but complaint will not substitute for reflection forever. What will be the movement’s more studied reaction? In a conversation two months ago with a Brotherhood leader Amr Darrag, I made a bold prediction that in ten years, the organization will regret having sought the Egyptian presidency in 2012. He politely disagreed. In retrospect we were both wrong: The regret will likely set in over the next several months.

And what will this reflective organization regret?

He goes on to outline three possibilities.

Eat Your GMO Fruits And Vegetables

Scientists Engineer Cancer Fighting Purple Tomatoes

Consider the “purple tomato,” engineered to preserve the nutrients by splicing “two genes from snapdragon plants into normal red tomatoes”:

Purple tomatoes are not only more nutritious than red ones, but they also have a long shelf life, as researchers recently found. The short shelf life of many fruits and vegetables poses major logistical issues. To get fresh-looking, ripe tomatoes into your local grocery store, tomatoes are harvested while still green, kept in cold storage, and then artificially ripened right before they’re put up for sale. We’re all familiar with the result: pale, tasteless tomatoes that have a lower nutritional value than tomatoes that are allowed to ripen while still on the vine. … The researchers found that purple tomatoes produce lower amounts of these self-destruction enzymes. As a result, purple tomatoes are less susceptible to fungus, and they remain firm more than twice as long as red tomatoes. This means that purple tomatoes could be harvested later, after they’ve ripened naturally.

The article concludes, that, as “the technology to make them improves, GMO foods designed to be healthier could become a bigger part of your diet.” Recent Dish on the benefits of GMOs here and here.

(Photo: Scientists from the John Innes Centre, UK have genetically engineered tomatoes to contain very high levels of the cancer-fighting antioxident ‘anthocyanins’, which as a result have turned the usually red fruit into a deep purple. By John Innes Centre UK/Getty Images)

Putting Slurs In Context

John McWhorter writes that “there’s a difference between, say, the white man who once dismissed me as ‘just another nigger’ when I bested him in an argument in 1993 and [Trayvon] Martin referring to [George] Zimmerman chasing him as a ‘creepy-ass cracker’: power.” He also considers the intended audience:

Martin didn’t call someone a cracker in a public forum, nor did he call someone a cracker to his face. He referred to someone as a cracker in a private exchange that he had all reason to suppose would never be heard again by anyone. That’s different, even to the extent that using the term wasn’t ideal.

One must be consistent here, and I am: I argued last week that Paula Deen’s use of the N-word in private in 1986 was different from her hauling it out upon someone or popping up with it on the air or at a booksigning. Again, degree matters. I think Deen’s apologies were sincere—and enough. People almost never completely erase the psychological conditioning of their childhoods. Many note that Deen has spent most of her life living after the Civil Rights revolution, but remember, as a 66-year-old, Deen’s formative years were the fifties, in the Deep South. Of course such a person might pop out with the N-word in a private heated moment, even in her forties. Unideal, but unsurprising at her age (although I don’t mean that all Southerners of her years are so likely to pull it) and so many people do so much worse: I don’t think Deen should suffer the penalty of losing her livelihood because of it. I’d feel otherwise if she were 30: degree, again.

Alyssa thinks Deen’s use of the racial slur is only part of the story: 

An investigation by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition into Deen’s employment practices suggest that many workers in Deen’s businesses have had good experiences, but also that many of them fear retaliation, and that some feel there’s an environment of racial discrimination in promotions and raises. Those allegations are significant and important, and deserve just as much attention as Deen’s language. But they’re also less shocking and sexy, and less easy to dismiss as a somehow-forgivable relic of the past than Deen’s use of ugly words or antiquated sense of aesthetics.

In other words, Deen’s potential use of the word “nigger” renders her exactly the kind of figure the Hollywood vulture industry likes: a little old lady who did wrong without knowing what she did, and who can be rehabilitated and educated for everyone else’s profits and amusement. Addressing her as a bad boss would make her greedy and vindictive in a rather more commonplace way, and in a way that reflects on quite a large number of other people whose racial biases may not show up in their words, but are obvious in the composition of their workforces.

Dissents Of The Day

A reader quotes me:

I wouldn’t be bothered with his Baldwin-like inability to own his own anti-gay record, if he weren’t obviously trying to win the White House back again, by-passing the 22nd Amendment via his wife.

Okay dude, I’m not gonna bicker with you about the proper amount of penance for Bill Clinton. It’s fruitless, and because the HIV travel ban affected you so personally and directly, I don’t see that much movement is possible in that discussion, which is fine.

What’s less understandable is your reversion to the third-term-for-Bill meme. What happened, man?I’m off to work and don’t have time to dig governor-elect-lurleen-wallace-and-her-husband-outgoing-governor-george-wallacethrough your archives, but its a real reversal for you to start treating Hillary like some political pawn for her husband’s machinations again, or like a Lady to his Macbeth. Did you just forget the last four years? If she becomes the President, she’ll be the President, not her husband.I don’t think you’re being fair to Bill, but god knows he wasn’t fair to you. But to reduce a remarkable, accomplished, and frankly gracious woman like Hillary to the backdoor into power for her husband is (however unintentionally) sexist and blind.

That wasn’t my intent, and I’m sorry it came out that way. I have long seen both Bill and Hillary as an equal power couple, and have faulted Hillary’s feminism for not demanding the first crack at national power. Another reader:

Hillary Clinton is many things, but she’s surely not a pushover or a mere front for her husband. We’re not talking about Lurleen Wallace here [seen above with her husband, George, whom she succeeded as governor], and it boggles the mind for you to suggest so.

Agreed. Hence my apology and clarification. Another reader:

The gal can’t win.

When she was First Lady, she was condemned for wielding imagined power.  Now that she may become president, are we supposed to see her as made of tissue paper, with Bubba pulling the strings?  Ugh.

I have qualms about power families.  But I think Hillary Clinton has demonstrated enough independence and political ability in her own right that this line of thinking is moot.  She is more obviously qualified than George W. Bush or, heck, even Bill Clinton circa 1992.

Maybe this was just a snarky one liner, not meant to be taken literally as a sexist belittling of Hillary Clinton.  Irony anyone?

I do agree that in some respects having Bill as a husband is a liability.  As a progressive, I am well aware of Bill’s cynical, triangulating ways.  But I also recognize that in the face of the toxic, nihilist modern GOP, the man got things done.  He brought the Democratic Party back to national significance.  In the last election, that speech he gave at the Democratic Convention was an ass-kicking that nobody else in the party could have delivered.  And whatever flaws in his character or leadership are far, far outweighed by the sleazy villainy of his political opponents.

Anyway, I know you are getting lots of emails on this, so I don’t want to pile on.  It does seem to me you are quite forgiving of some folks, and relentlessly unforgiving of others, but I guess all of us can be like that.  You write a blog, and you wear your emotions on your sleeve, and that is often a good thing.  You have a lot of anger about liberals in particular, their hypocrisy and political correctness.  I can see that.  But please don’t forget the bullshit Republican craziness that has been going on since the early nineties in ever increasing amounts.  This stuff does have a political context.

Another:

I read your blog constantly. It’s usually such a well-rounded, smart take on what’s going on in the world that it’s a “must click” at least hourly. But lately I’ve been clicking less – this week you seem to have homed in on this relentless effort to take down Bill and Hillary Clinton and Alec Baldwin in some sort of half-assed effort to shore up your independent bona fides. Well, it just comes across as cranky, whiny and stubborn. You’re clearly not going to let your Bill Clinton-bashing go, but just when I’ve thought you had come to see the light on Hillary (i.e., she’s not evil), today you decide that in the spirit of your cranky “I hate the Clintons” diatribe, you’d decide to write off the Baby Boomer generation entirely (“God save us from another Boomer president”). I’m far from a Boomer, but what? That’s such an uneducated and overboard stance that you have to know that you come across like a humorless, unhappy asshat.

As my friend and fellow Dishhead put it, hopefully P-town will chill you the fuck out this holiday weekend.

Morsi Out

https://twitter.com/CynicalIslamist/status/352503797924368386

https://twitter.com/basildabh/status/352504280500015105

https://twitter.com/maxstrasser/status/352490603075993600

https://twitter.com/bradleyhope/status/352495868517167104