Akhenaton

“...though it is disguised by the illusion that a bureaucracy accountable to a majority of voters, and susceptible to the pressure of organized minorities, is not exercising compulsion, it is evident that the more varied and comprehensive the regulation becomes, the more the state becomes a despotic power as against the individual. For the fragment of control over the government which he exercises through his vote is in no effective sense proportionate to the authority exercised over him by the government.”--Lippmann

***

Only 1% of The #Forbes 400 is under 40, the lowest percentage in at least two decades.

***

Overriding all the problems of the current Biden crisis is the obvious unwillingness of the administration to do what is best for the nation.

***

Akhenaton

I have always thought that Obama looked like Amenhotep IV aka Akhenaton. Of course, his statues changed with his reign --and, I think, his religious vision --but the long, long face is pretty consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GD-EG-Caire-Mus%C3%A9e061.JPG

Amenhotep has always been fascinating. He was unknown to history until his temples were uncovered in el-Amarna in the 19th century and gradually quite a story emerged. He was the son of Amenhotep III and assumed the throne--either singly or as co regent for a short time--in about 1350. He seemed to be an interactive, concerned leader as he dealt with the problems of empire, particularly the growth and incursion of the Hittite Empire. But his main contribution to Egypt was his startling attempt to reverse, indeed revolutionize, Egyptian culture. He was Egypt's--perhaps the world's--first monotheist. (This observation was expanded into a whole thesis by Freud who argued in Moses and Monotheism that Moses was an Egyptian and had learned monotheism from the Aten cult). The current god was Amen. He gradually began to dismantle the pantheon of myriad gods and goddesses ruled over by Amen and substituted the single god Aten--really a re-emphasis of the old sun god Ra-- in their place. He also established himself as the intermediary between Aten and the world, thus bypassing the priest caste. This may have been a difficult process against the priests and tradition but perhaps it was a cult of the upper class with the lower classes clinging to the old gods and ways; nonetheless, the images and charms of the older gods seem to have continued unchanged. Amenhotep IV eventually changed his name to Akhenaten, moved the capital to a new site, Amarna, dedicated to the new god, and destroyed and desecrated the old Amen statues and religious sites.

There are so many interesting and unique aspects of this man. He changed art; representations of the pharaoh became softer and more personal. His family became prominent (his first wife was the elegant Nefertiti) and for the first time, statues became less rigid, more life-like . Temples were bright, airy, and filled with representations of family and community scenes.

Things ended badly. He died--or was overthrown--and his family began rule. But soon Horemheb took the throne and all evidence of Akhenaten, his family, and his new god was erased from monuments and records. Indeed Horemheb is recorded as directly following Amenhotep III. Amarna was abandoned; Akhenaten was anathema. Amen and his priests were back.

A Great Day for Madison and Jefferson

So now Mubarak has resigned. Likely it will be seen as a great victory for "the people" rather than the loss of his chair when the music stopped.

There is a great distinction between being overthrown and becoming inconvenient.

Optimism as Old as the Pharaohs

The football player Ben Roethlisberger is said to go out frequently to dine locally and not pay his bill. This became such a problem for restaurant owners that most banned him. Apparently he never caused a fuss, was not overserved and often was alone. He never argued; he just left. Certainly this was not because he was under economic pressure or that he habitually forgot. My bet is he thought it his due. Like the travelling kings of yore who would visit their vassals, the rich, the famous and the powerful assume their own type of "entitlement" where they live by different rules and deserve what we working stiffs do not. It should be our pleasure to serve them and that, in itself, is reward enough. So rock stars destroy hotels, producers seduce children and movie stars live as they live, all without consequences.

So why is anyone shocked at Mubarak's decision to stay in power? It is said he is "out of touch" with his people. Out of touch? A man who lives like a pharaoh? A man who takes what he want, who he wants, when he wants? A man who has been the absolute ruler of 85 million people for thirty years? Out of touch?

Mubarak's non-concession speech revealed only one thing: He is not a politician, he is a warlord. A politician would have made the optimistic and insincere platitudes sound believable. A politician would have made it sound that his continuation in office was exactly what everyone wanted. A politician has learned, as his popularity requirements for office is broader than just the military, to convince the public that his self serving and incompetent reign is just what the electorate needs.

In Iraq, under Hussein, the women would flee the streets when the ruler's sons appeared; the princes would take what they wanted.

Rather than being "in touch" with their "leaders", most people just want to be beyond their reach.

The Bathoes Show an Ugly Face

Anyone seeking insight into the workings of contemporary democracies should study the crisis in Egypt. Not that they are a democracy in any way other than parody; most democracies seem to be moving towards Egypt, not Egypt towards them.

A small number of people, 250,000--not small for a ball game but small in a city, city, of eighteen million--have gathered in a square and chanted for the removal of the current president-for-life. Their motives are unclear, certainly disparate, and apparently conflicting. Drawn to the chaos, groups without colors or flags move through the crowd fighting, intimidating and killing. A sniper sets up somewhere. The American press is frightened and several are roughed up.

Editorialists discuss and debate. "Democracy" is apparently in the air, in the air of a country where a candidate for president must have two-thirds approval from the parliament, a country whose current president has been in power for thirty years, a country in which the only nonreligious institution is the military. Somehow this event is seen as optimistic, democratic and hopeful. Somehow this is change, and change in the dialectic view is by definition positive. A vacuum is just the intermediary of progress, chaos the stew before the meal.

No thinking person would defend the Mubarak regime. But the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular group regardless of what the American government says, "change" in itself has no inherent value regardless of what the President says and destabilization of the Middle East would be a nightmare beyond anything the military thugs in Egypt could imagine to wish upon their enemies.

The government has changed positions so many times they seem to be waterboarded. But they, like Mubarak, always come up pompous and idealistic, full of absurd pronouncements. This is a microcosm of our future: Stupidity, violence and insincerity presented by the idealistic, the incompetent and the homicidal.