Calm in the Storm

The news is full of the rioting in Egypt. As always Nicholas Kristoff, a NYTimes columnist, is paying attention to ordinary people. Today he writes of watching pro- and anti-government mobs facing off in the main square of Cairo, blood, nasty weapons, like straight razor, shouting all around. Kristoff tells of seeing two women, sisters, walk into the square. The angry mob on the anti-government side made a little space for them to advance toward the pro-government mob. No one touched them, shouting continued all around but the women walked together to the very middle of the square where they faced the pro-government mob. They seemed very ordinary, rather timid, very plain. They came face to face with some of the pro-government mob and stopped to talk in ordinary voices to some of the angry men who listened and did not touch them. After a while the pro-government mob moved away from the women who walked out of the square, apparently, thought Kristoff, the rioters wanted to hold onto their anger and to continue the violence against those on the other side.

Kristoff approached them, asked their names, and asked what they had said. They said they simply explained that the country needs democracy now, that it's been undemocratic much too long and people have suffered greatly. They said what they came to say, they were heard even if their words seemed to have no impact.

This scene is worthy of contemplation. A time comes when reason is not enough, a time comes when riled passions and the expression of anger is too overwhelming to be damped by rationality. At least the time has not come when calm can't happen, however briefly in however a small puddle in the ocean irrationally hyped angers. I'm grateful to Kristoff for writing about this tiny scene instead of using his pulpit for descriptions of slashings and beating and the insanity of pent up emotions once they have been unbottled.

Tibet-China Solution

On the op-ed page of today's NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff, a writer whose scope and values I have admired for a long time, presents his answer to the problem of Tibet and the Chinese occupation. He talked at length to the Dalai Lama who allowed him to write of compromises that HH is willing now to make. Kristoff offers his own version of what both sides would, in his view, need to agree about. It's sweeping on both sides.

I read it with wonder -- first of all at the chutzpah of a columnist, albeit a very involved and respected man -- to propose that two parties make such an agreement. Then at the naivete of thinking they would sit down and talk at all [the Chinese have been unwilling to do anything positive] and then the deeper naivete to think that if such an agreement were made between two heads of state that the terms would actually be carried out.

Yet -- how could a sincere and well meaning man as I am certain Kristoff is, NOT write this column? He has a far reaching proposal and if it lights even a small fire in the minds of the Chinese powers it might make a difference. Perhaps they will be receptive -- if not on the very eve of their Olympics, at least a bit later since Bush IS mouthing criticisms -- although also attending the Olympics. But for Bush to talk about human rights violations is laughable - what moral credibility the US used to have has been destroyed by Bush's administration.

Most of all, I'm glad the subject of Tibet is brought up again and again in the public discourse. If anything can staunch the bleeding wounds of that culture it has to be tried.