Too Much Gaga?

Too Much Gaga?

Africa is presenting some electric perspectives on western world hypocrisy, and I challenge anyone to explain it otherwise. Lady Gaga and cricket.

Lady Gaga’s presentation, lyrics (when there are some), causes and overall demeanor is basically that of an entertainer with a progressive set of political and social beliefs. She supported President Obama in the most recent election, is something of a humanist and a vociferous supporter of gay rights.

Her performances are downright eccentric if anarchic. I think it fair to say she’s a champion of free will.

But today in South Africa where’s she’s in the middle of a very popular performance tour, she’s getting entangled in her own beliefs in a way that would never occur in the western world.

Her concert’s ban on photographing any part of her performance may, indeed, be a violation of the new South African constitution. (As it should be, and as it should be everywhere at any time.)

The South African National Editors Forum has called on Gaga to “at least meet with us” to discuss her possible violation of the constitution, but she declined.

“Previous accepted practice at such events [as the Gaga concert] has been for accredited news photographers to be allowed to take pictures during the first three songs and then to withdraw,” SANEF continued. This time, though, Gaga says Nono.

It’s a long established practice, of course, in the west that concerts and other entertainer-centered performances be treated just like the Sunday NFL Game of the Week, a copyrighted and owned piece of intellectual property that includes virtually all images and graphics.

But the new South Africa, and from my point of view the only moral position, is that when an entertainer achieves “public domain,” then it’s a free-for-all. That’s defacto the situation, anyway. Not Gaga or Ted or Obama or Ricky Martin can keep pirated videos, photographs or sound tracks out of the public domain.

And there’s no way that journalists can report on this without referring to them.

Gaga is steeped in western hypocrisy.

And then there’s the first ever woman to head a national cricket board appointed Sunday in Kenya.

Jackie Janmohamed became one of the first cricket umpires licensed by the world cricket authority in 1989, and she’s been fighting for women in cricket ever since. Cricket is one of the most conservative of world sports, dominated almost exclusively by men.

Unlike press freedom at entertainer’s concerts, though, women in sports is much more accepted in the U.S. than in much of the rest of the western world. And we can specifically and clearly thank Title 9 for this, a series of federal laws passed in 1972.

But unlike Kenya on Sunday, America together with virtually all the rest of the western world limits the heads of governing sports institutions to the same gender of that institution. In other words, America has no Baseball Commissioner for both men and woman’s baseball … as Kenya now does for the even more conservative game of cricket.

“Unisex” in sports has come to Africa. But not to the west.

Lady Gaga and cricket. Just another day of Africa leaving the west behind in its (stadium) dust.

Better Than Democracy

Better Than Democracy

What if they don’t want “freedom”? What if they want a benevolent dictator operating in a framework of Sharia law? Is such liberty to be denied?

The Egyptian diaspora begins voting on a proposed constitution Saturday. A week later, those in Egypt will vote and within two weeks Egypt will likely have a new constitution.

The proposed constitution looks a lot like the old one under Mubarak with one notable difference: the elected president is limited to two 4-year terms.

The powerful role of the military, the judicial process, the suppression of women (tantamount by notably saying nothing about them and referring to citizen rights as the “right of men” and founding law on Sharia), the legislative process and internal geopolitical map are all carbon copies of the Mubarak years.

In addition to the limited terms of an elected president, the effective control that current president Mursi has on the military actually seems greater than Mubarak’s.

Amnesty International who I support strongly is livid. In their article published last week they described with vengeance case by case of Tahrir Square protestors injured by tear gas canisters dated March 2012 and sold to Egyptian police by Americans.

The article ends, “One thing is certain: the protesters will not accept a return to rule by decree, or accept a constitution written by a committee that doesn’t speak for them.“

Is the filibuster more important than one-man, one-vote? What if the protesters are not the majority?

I don’t want to get too philosophical, but we are at least breaching philological meanings of democracy and it strikes me as remarkably parallel to Harry Reid’s current conversations about Senate rules.

Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and other champions of human rights are unanimous that democracy is not as important as their own missions to protect basic human rights.

So that means that protecting basic human rights is more important than freedom, democracy or liberty, right? Do you ascribe to that?

I do: democracy is not always the best mechanism for achieving the most important goals of protecting human rights. And right now in Egypt, we have the greatest example I could ever have concocted to prove this.

Democracy brought both Hitler and Mussolini to power. It enshrined racism in America’s south for nearly a century. Democracy protected torture under Bush; it freed the thug Nixon; it allows even today Peronists to destroy Argentina.

And right now in front of our eyes democracy is crushing the marginal advances in human rights protections that Egypt has made the last generation.

Because that’s what the majority of Egyptians want. That’s the manifestation of democracy.

Are the majority of Egyptians bad? Let’s phrase that more acceptably: is what the majority of Egyptians feel they want as government bad?

Yes. Because, we say with arrogant displeasure, they are either too dumb and uneducated, too coopted by an oppressed civilization, or too immoral to protect human rights.

No! say the protestors in Tahrir Square and herein lies a great test of democracy. The liberals who wish to protect human rights in Egypt as in the U.S. may be in the majority, but they have never coalesced into succeeding well in a democratic system.

Some argue, now, that the incredibly fractured Mursi opposition will coalesce, because if they don’t, they’ll be crushed.

In America a similar argument has proceeded throughout my life regarding the many different directions and movements that have continually had difficulty coalescing into the Democratic Party. Maybe America’s democracy is mature enough that it works for us, today, from time to time.

But in Egypt? I don’t think so. The same self-destructive motive that governs any older American to vote Republican and diminish his rights under Medicare and Social Security, or for any woman to vote to promulgate law to govern her pregnancy, is identical to the majority of Egyptians today who are equally self-destructive, willing to sacrifice their basic free will for something else.

What else?

Probably security. Probably promises of economic advancement. Maybe just more cash.

It happens here, too.

Democracy is sloppy and as society moves into the instantaneous informational age that makes sneaky theory less long-lived, it may be out of date.

Human rights is more important than one-man, one-vote. Egypt does not seem to believe this. And so…

… are human rights so important that they should be protected from without? How far do we go and remain morally correct? Are we a global community first? Or do we dare to accept our brother’s immorality because there is something even more precious than human rights?

Self-determination. Because we are uncertain of the inviolability of our own morality? Because … we might be wrong?