Does anybody care about Charlie Sheen?

http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/thefamous/charlie-sheen-demands-3-million-per-episode/739?nc

   This Yahoo! article, from their... OMG! section talks about how Charlie Sheen is demanding three million dollars per episode of Two & a Half Men now that he's quite publicly hated-on everyone involved with the show. He plans to take CBS and Men creator Chuck Lorre to court for breach of contract if they fail to give him ever more money. The writer of the article, Erin Carlson, makes a point of stating the considerable wealth Sheen has amassed as well as including some greater-than-thou quotes from him explaining why he needs more money.

   I only chose this topic because this whole issue is clogging up my RSS feeds and I keep having to see Charlie Sheen's self-righteous face. As the title of this post asks: who cares? My mom is the only human being I know who watches Two & a Half Men, but she doesn't care about this; she'll just watch Conan or DatelineNBC instead. All this because Sheen has obviously had his feelings hurt because people blame his arrogance on drug and alcohol addictions, which makes him even angrier it seems. Now if Charlie could end his temper tantrum and find a nice late-night timeslot on HBO, I think everyone would be a lot happier.

How Quaddafi Lost Libya

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/02/how-qaddafi-lost-libya.html

    Andrew Solomon of The New Yorker details in this article the several failings of Moammar Qaddafi, currently the longest ruling leader in the Arab world, that have in recent days enabled Libyans to rise against him. One of many is the long-delayed promise of reforms delivered by one of Qaddafi's sons, Seif-al-Islam. Solomon recounts how he, along with a number of American diplomats, attended a meeting with Seif in 2005, who then, as now, promised those same reforms. As such, Solomon, as well as myself, find it hard to find credence in his promise more than five years later. Solomon seems to know a good deal about Libyan politics and how Qaddafi runs the country, so he has good ethos. Overall, I am persuaded that Qaddafi is losing Libya, seeing how he has ruled the country with an iron fist since Nixon was President.

The Egyptian Military's Decision

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110131/ts_yblog_thelookout/all-eyes-on-egypts-military-how-will-it-respond

   Zachary Roth from Yahoo's news publication The Lookout speaks to Stephen Zunes  about the role of the Egyptian military in the current popular uprising. Zunes says that the military is the linchpin for where the crisis will go from here; the top generals are likely aware that the protesters on the street will never take President Mubarak's authority seriously until he is removed from office. But he doubts that they are truly democratic, and would be hesitant to allow a transition of the sorts that protesters are demanding. However, Zunes says that the rank-and-file soldiers are generally conscripts from the lower classes of Egyptian society, and it would be unlikely that they would turn their guns on their fellow countrymen.

   Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and the chair of its Middle Eastern Studies. As such, he brings a good deal of ethos to the argument; but just because this is an academic discussion, I don't feel as though Zunes assumes that the audience knows all about Egyptian political and military history. He lays out what he sees as the behind-the-scenes situation involving both the military leadership and political leadership, who are often the same people. I have to agree with his doubtfulness that the ordinary Egyptian soldier would allow a Tienanmen Square-type crackdown on their own people, but I don't think that the top generals would be foolish enough to think that they could get away with reimposing an authoritarian state when the whole world is watching. But of course, crazier things have happened in politics.

No online civility.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/21/pearlman.online.civility/index.html

   Sports Illustrated writer Jeff Pearlman discusses why normal, likable people turn into nasty, hateful monsters whenever they get online. Pearlman acknowledges that he's used to negative comments in his line of work, but after a particularly dreadful experience he decides to find a couple of those people and call them up. Turns out that yes, the people who wrote these vulgar responses are indeed decent human beings who simply got caught up in a moment of anonymity.

   This is what I've felt about the Internet for quite some time. I hardly even glance at the comments section of a given website anymore. Youtube is an abyss of endless arguments over entirely unrelated issues, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a balanced opinion following a political article. The sad thing is, we've accepted this. We've become accustomed to "flame wars" and "trolls", even though people would probably never be so hateful if those involved were to meet in person. I'm not particularly thrilled that Pearlman was able to find out a good deal of information on these people through undisclosed means. However, it was telling that the people he contacted poured out apologies and summed up their actions to anonymity and "being in the moment." At the end of the day, it's impossible to find and shame every person we disagree with, even in real life. But by simply making the argument that "yes, there is a human being behind that computer screen", a few of us online can think twice before spouting off in the heat of the moment.