There had been no leaders on Tahrir. Wael Ghonim spent much of his ten days in prison convincing his interrogators that he was not the mastermind head of this mythical overnight media sensation, “the Revolutionary Youth.” The generals spent a lot of time negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood to tamp down the protests, not quite realizing that the Muslim Brotherhood were not in control of the crowds. The beguiling beauty of Tahrir had been its collective nature; no organization save word of mouth. During the eighteen days, everyone was committed to the same cause: “Leave!” Initially the lack of leadership was the revolution’s strength—no figurehead to arrest, co-opt or defame, according to the usual best practices. But after Mubarak fell it quickly became its weakness.
The revolution had no leader. The revolution had espoused no ideology. Freedom! Bread! Social justice! Egypt had no political parties except for the Muslim Brotherhood and some discredited old leftists and Nasserists. None of them had any idea of what to do next and had been so long in sleepy opposition that political reflexes had long atrophied. No one had any template or plan and in all the crazy months to follow no one ever really came up with one. There was a new word called transition. At first this was vague and promising.
In the early months, there was a whirl of activity. But now I look back and it seems we were all just rushing around a hole. For example, there was so much calling up and meeting and talking that Egyptians, overwhelmed by the constant ringing, stopped answering their mobile phones. At first people just ignored the calls from numbers they did not recognize; brrring, click to silent, continue conversation. Later it was impossible to get even close friends to pick up for weeks at a time. Phones vibrated on tables like buzzing flies. Texts tinkled and piled up like tin cans on a string. Facebook instant messages sometimes worked if you could catch someone online. DM via Twitter produced an instant response, but only from activists under the age of thirty.
Sketches, finger drawings in the air, scribblings on restaurant napkins. For the moment it didn’t matter that there was no plan because everything was possible and everyone was so pleased and happy to congratulate each other on this lovely extraordinary revolution that had made everything possible—Look! we are voting next week! Constitutional referendum! Everyone will have a purple finger and we will say yes or no! Then everyone will get a pay raise because the thieves won’t steal all the money, and my bumpkin neighbor with the son-in-law in the police who likes to dump his trash right outside my door will be taken down a peg or two and learn to be respectful like a neighbor might be in, say, well, Sweden, where everything is fair and even the street kids have shoes and also gloves!
Never mind that most people (the majority) had spent the eighteen days watching TV on the couch—they became known as the Couch Party—muttering, “I don’t know what these kids are doing.” Grumpf. “They’ll burn the whole country down just because they want to have a bonfire party!” Mubarak was gone. Now there was this big new shiny word that was called democracy—a word that we all reminded ourselves came from the Greek, demos, “people,” merged with kratia, “rule.” Fridays on the Tahrir continued protests and intermittent violence. I recalled studying Coriolanus at school, Shakespeare, lamenting the fickleness of crowds. I mentally amended the etymology to “rule of the demo-nstration.”
"It will support both FDD and TDD LTE network. It will not be locked handset but will come with bundled plans which the company feels will glue customers to its network. Expected time line for launch of these handsets is around the upcoming festive season of Diwali, say October-November," the source said.
Airtel has started launching 4G service across the country in a phased manner. Anyone who has seen Orson Welles’ classic portrayal of the newspaper mogul in “Citizen Kane” knows, at least by reputation, the real-life Kane: William Randolph Hearst. His world-class castle, San Simeon, perched above the California coast, is a popular tourist destination for the many thousands each year who wish for a jaw-dropping glimpse of American opulence. By comparison, anything Donald J. Trump has built as a monument to his ego has to be considered third-rate.
Trump may think he’s one of a kind, but that isn’t quite true — not in the way he built his empire, and not in the broader political sense either. A century ago, Hearst ran for president and was, for a time, taken seriously. The bicoastal billionaire thrived on the art of the deal and domination in international business. Besides his influential San Francisco and New York newspapers, he expanded his multi-media business by going Hollywood. As a pioneer in the motion picture industry, he produced silent film classics as well as war propaganda, and proved that the entertainment industry could weigh in on, and even direct, national political controversies.
We all know what Trump did to command attention these last few weeks: He went after Mexico, whose illegals were somehow sent north by the Mexican government, and who pose a significant threat to the health and well being of the U.S. Trump may think his Great Wall provides the answer; but he doesn’t go half as far as his more glamorous predecessor did. Will Hearst urged that the government intervene militarily in Mexico, capitalizing on political upheaval there. “There is only one course to pursue,” he editorialized in 1913, “and that is to occupy Mexico and restore it to a state of civilization by means of American men and American methods.” He generalized about the Mexicans as “cunning and unscrupulous,” as he proposed all-out invasion.
Headline grabbing was, literally, Hearst’s business. His combustible personality had already been responsible for the “yellow journalism” that got the U.S. into war in Cuba in 1898. Trump hasn’t done that yet. While “The Donald” tells us China is a subverter of all that is of value to the health of the American economy, “The Chief,” as Hearst was known, accused the same government of setting a subversive example among the key nations with which the U.S. conducted its trade. He attacked the “rich mandarins” of the East who, he said, stood as the model for an across-the-board American business failure.
Indeed, the egocentric Hearst aimed every bit as high as Trump, making noises (as Trump did) about running for mayor of New York City (he almost won) and governor of New York, and making a serious run for president in 1904. He spent millions of his own money in the process, constructing an independent political organization, appealing directly to the people, and dismissing his national competition as lesser men who were barely worth paying attention to. It was as if the election was a referendum on him. Yet he groused about incumbent President Theodore Roosevelt: “He is a creation of newspaper notoriety.” Hearst’s campaign strategist, Arthur Brisbane, said: “The American people, like all people, are interested in PERSONALITY.” Even then they knew.
But here’s the crucial difference between Hearst’s and Trump’s loud efforts to capture the presidency: The earlier billionaire (worth seven times what Forbes says Trump is worth; three times what Trump says Trump is worth) was a more credible populist. He was a staunch union supporter, and said the following: “Wide and equitable distribution of wealth is essential to a nation’s prosperous growth and intellectual development. And that distribution is brought about by the labor union more than any other agency of our civilization.” Yes, he said that while running for president in 1904. Also, “the corporations control the Democratic machine as much as they do the Republican machine.” There was a touch of Bernie Sanders in the Hearst message. Trump, for his part, has only this to say: “I’m very, very rich.”
Though he failed to capture the presidency, Hearst actually represented New York in Congress for two terms. It is hard to imagine Trump doing anything so mundane. His ambition is to be the ringmaster of the Greatest Show on Earth, and if it can’t be the presidency (which of course it won’t be), then he’ll be perfectly content to maintain a visual media presence and intermittently steal headlines.
Just like Hearst before him, Trump loves seeing newspaper headlines about himself. He puts his name on city structures, just as Hearst newsreels helped to create a corporate brand that capitalized on one man’s name. Social critics thought Hearst a cheap demagogue and called him a “spoiled brat.” And why not? He boasted that he could produce a war in Cuba. And voilà! Trump brags that he will be a “great” military leader if elected. (Based on what past experience?) Never mind that he hasn’t studied under foreign policy professionals or given thought to lessons of history beyond the most superficial — just apply what works in the real estate biz. It’s all the same to him: Okay, maybe it’s someone else’s territory, but that doesn’t mean it can’t profit from American aegis, one way or another. Understand another’s culture? Why? Business is business. Diplomacy is business. What isn’t business?
Without indulging in pop psychology, we are all aware of the overall syndrome and its corollaries: Making their own rules, men like Hearst and Trump are not to be told “no” when they see something they want, no matter how small or how grandiose. It extends to the narcissism of personal life: a Hearst or a Trump is not likely to be tied down by one woman. Hearst married a New York showgirl and later took as his mistress Marion Davies, a Hollywood comic actress whose career he subsequently micromanaged. The couple lived together openly for many years, and partied hearty with other be
There had been no leaders on Tahrir. Wael Ghonim spent much of his ten days in prison convincing his interrogators that he was not the mastermind head of this mythical overnight media sensation, “the Revolutionary Youth.” The generals spent a lot of time negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood to tamp down the protests, not quite realizing that the Muslim Brotherhood were not in control of the crowds. The beguiling beauty of Tahrir had been its collective nature; no organization save word of mouth. During the eighteen days, everyone was committed to the same cause: “Leave!” Initially the lack of leadership was the revolution’s strength—no figurehead to arrest, co-opt or defame, according to the usual best practices. But after Mubarak fell it quickly became its weakness.The revolution had no leader. The revolution had espoused no ideology. Freedom! Bread! Social justice! Egypt had no political parties except for the Muslim Brotherhood and some discredited old leftists and Nasserists. None of them had any idea of what to do next and had been so long in sleepy opposition that political reflexes had long atrophied. No one had any template or plan and in all the crazy months to follow no one ever really came up with one. There was a new word called transition. At first this was vague and promising.ในเดือนแรก มีวนของกิจกรรม แต่ตอนนี้ ผมกลับมอง และดูเหมือนว่า เราได้ทั้งหมดเพียงวิ่งรอบหลุม ตัวอย่าง มีโทรศัพท์มากขึ้น และการประชุม และการพูดที่อียิปต์ จม โดยการคง ringing หยุดตอบโทรศัพท์มือถือของพวกเขา ที่คนแรกเพียงละเว้นโทรจากหมายเลขที่พวกเขาไม่รู้จัก brrring ต้องเงียบ ดำเนินการสนทนา ในภายหลังก็ไปรับเพื่อนสนิทได้รับสัปดาห์ละครั้ง โทรศัพท์ vibrated ตารางเช่นพึมพำแมลง ข้อความ tinkled และคั่งเช่นกระป๋องดีบุกในสายอักขระ ข้อความโต้ตอบแบบทันทีของ Facebook บางครั้งทำงานถ้าคุณไม่สามารถจับคนออนไลน์ DM ผ่าน Twitter ผลิตการตอบสนองทันที แต่เฉพาะจากนักเคลื่อนไหวอายุสามสิบร่าง ภาพวาดนิ้วในอากาศ scribblings ในร้านอาหารผ้าเช็ดปาก ตอนนี้ มันไม่สำคัญว่า มีแผนไม่มี เพราะทุกอย่างเป็นไป และทุกคนมีความยินดี และยินดีที่จะแสดงความยินดีกันบนนี้สวยพิเศษการปฏิวัติที่ได้ทำทุกอย่างได้ดังนั้น — ดู เราจะออกเสียงลงคะแนนสัปดาห์หน้า การลงประชามติรัฐธรรมนูญ ทุกคนจะมีนิ้วสีม่วง และเราจะบอกว่า ใช่หรือไม่ แล้วทุกคนจะได้รับการเพิ่มค่าจ้าง เพราะขโมยจะขโมยเงินทั้งหมด และใกล้เคียงกับลูกเขยในตำรวจที่ชอบเทขยะของเขาขวาด้านนอกประตูของฉัน bumpkin ฉันจะทำการตรึงหรือสอง และเรียนรู้จะเคารพเหมือนเพื่อนบ้านอาจสามารถ พูด ดี สวีเดน ทุกอย่างเป็นธรรม และแม้เด็กถนนมีรองเท้าและถุงมือยังNever mind that most people (the majority) had spent the eighteen days watching TV on the couch—they became known as the Couch Party—muttering, “I don’t know what these kids are doing.” Grumpf. “They’ll burn the whole country down just because they want to have a bonfire party!” Mubarak was gone. Now there was this big new shiny word that was called democracy—a word that we all reminded ourselves came from the Greek, demos, “people,” merged with kratia, “rule.” Fridays on the Tahrir continued protests and intermittent violence. I recalled studying Coriolanus at school, Shakespeare, lamenting the fickleness of crowds. I mentally amended the etymology to “rule of the demo-nstration.”"It will support both FDD and TDD LTE network. It will not be locked handset but will come with bundled plans which the company feels will glue customers to its network. Expected time line for launch of these handsets is around the upcoming festive season of Diwali, say October-November," the source said.Airtel has started launching 4G service across the country in a phased manner. Anyone who has seen Orson Welles’ classic portrayal of the newspaper mogul in “Citizen Kane” knows, at least by reputation, the real-life Kane: William Randolph Hearst. His world-class castle, San Simeon, perched above the California coast, is a popular tourist destination for the many thousands each year who wish for a jaw-dropping glimpse of American opulence. By comparison, anything Donald J. Trump has built as a monument to his ego has to be considered third-rate.Trump may think he’s one of a kind, but that isn’t quite true — not in the way he built his empire, and not in the broader political sense either. A century ago, Hearst ran for president and was, for a time, taken seriously. The bicoastal billionaire thrived on the art of the deal and domination in international business. Besides his influential San Francisco and New York newspapers, he expanded his multi-media business by going Hollywood. As a pioneer in the motion picture industry, he produced silent film classics as well as war propaganda, and proved that the entertainment industry could weigh in on, and even direct, national political controversies.We all know what Trump did to command attention these last few weeks: He went after Mexico, whose illegals were somehow sent north by the Mexican government, and who pose a significant threat to the health and well being of the U.S. Trump may think his Great Wall provides the answer; but he doesn’t go half as far as his more glamorous predecessor did. Will Hearst urged that the government intervene militarily in Mexico, capitalizing on political upheaval there. “There is only one course to pursue,” he editorialized in 1913, “and that is to occupy Mexico and restore it to a state of civilization by means of American men and American methods.” He generalized about the Mexicans as “cunning and unscrupulous,” as he proposed all-out invasion.พาดหัวโลภได้ แท้จริง ธุรกิจของ Hearst บุคลิกภาพของเขาเผามาแล้วชอบ "เหลืองวารสารศาสตร์" ที่มีสหรัฐอเมริกาสงครามในคิวบาใน 1898 ทรัมป์ไม่แล้วที่ยัง ในขณะที่ "เดอะโดนัลด์" บอก เราจีนเป็น subverter ทั้งหมดที่มีค่าสุขภาพของเศรษฐกิจอเมริกัน "เดอะประธาน เป็น Hearst ถูกเรียก ถูกกล่าวหาว่าตั้งตัวอย่าง subversive ในชาติสำคัญที่สหรัฐฯ ดำเนินการค้าของรัฐบาลเดียวกัน เขาโจมตี "mandarins รวย" ของตะวันออกที่ เขากล่าว ยืนเป็นแบบจำลองสำหรับความล้มเหลวของธุรกิจอเมริกัน across-the-boardแน่นอน egocentric Hearst มุ่งทุกบิตสูงทรัมป์ ทำเสียง (เป็นทรัมพ์ได้) เกี่ยวกับการทำงานนายกเทศมนตรีของนครนิวยอร์ก (เขาเกือบชนะ) และผู้ว่าราชการของนิวยอร์ก และการทำงานอย่างจริงจังสำหรับประธานใน 1904 เขาใช้เวลาเป็นล้าน ๆ เงินของเขาเองในกระบวนการ สร้างอิสระทางการเมืององค์กร น่าสนใจกับคนโดยตรง และ dismissing แข่งขันแห่งชาติของเขาเป็นชายน้อยที่แทบไม่น่าให้ความสนใจกับ เป็นการเลือกตั้งถูกประชามติเขาได้ แต่เขา groused เกี่ยวกับ incumbent ประธานาธิบดีทีโอดอร์รูสเวลต์: "เขาได้สร้างสรรค์หนังสือ notoriety" ยุทธศาสตร์การส่งเสริมการขายของ Hearst หลีก Arthur บริสเบน กล่าวว่า: "คนอเมริกัน เช่นทุกคน มีความสนใจในบุคลิกภาพ" แม้แต่แล้ว พวกเขารู้But here’s the crucial difference between Hearst’s and Trump’s loud efforts to capture the presidency: The earlier billionaire (worth seven times what Forbes says Trump is worth; three times what Trump says Trump is worth) was a more credible populist. He was a staunch union supporter, and said the following: “Wide and equitable distribution of wealth is essential to a nation’s prosperous growth and intellectual development. And that distribution is brought about by the labor union more than any other agency of our civilization.” Yes, he said that while running for president in 1904. Also, “the corporations control the Democratic machine as much as they do the Republican machine.” There was a touch of Bernie Sanders in the Hearst message. Trump, for his part, has only this to say: “I’m very, very rich.”Though he failed to capture the presidency, Hearst actually represented New York in Congress for two terms. It is hard to imagine Trump doing anything so mundane. His ambition is to be the ringmaster of the Greatest Show on Earth, and if it can’t be the presidency (which of course it won’t be), then he’ll be perfectly content to maintain a visual media presence and intermittently steal headlines.Just like Hearst before him, Trump loves seeing newspaper headlines about himself. He puts his name on city structures, just as Hearst newsreels helped to create a corporate brand that capitalized on one man’s name. Social critics thought Hearst a cheap demagogue and called him a “spoiled brat.” And why not? He boasted that he could produce a war in Cuba. And voilà! Trump brags that he will be a “great” military leader if elected. (Based on what past experience?) Never mind that he hasn’t studied under foreign policy professionals or given thought to lessons of history beyond the most superficial — just apply what works in the real estate biz. It’s all the same to him: Okay, maybe it’s someone else’s territory, but that doesn’t mean it can’t profit from American aegis, one way or another. Understand another’s culture? Why? Business is business. Diplomacy is business. What isn’t business?Without indulging in pop psychology, we are all aware of the overall syndrome and its corollaries: Making their own rules, men like Hearst and Trump are not to be told “no” when they see something they want, no matter how small or how grandiose. It extends to the narcissism of personal life: a Hearst or a Trump is not likely to be tied down by one woman. Hearst married a New York showgirl and later took as his mistress Marion Davies, a Hollywood comic actress whose career he subsequently micromanaged. The couple lived together openly for many years, and partied hearty with other be
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..