“..we could end up shamed into living our democratic values…”

Shame? Nope, don’t see any of that in D.C.

To have shame one must have a conscience, a soul, if you like. D.C. folks are soul-less, murderous rotting corpses infecting the planet with a parasitic virus that will destroy itself when there is nothing left but dust and ashes.

Raylan:  I agree—but did you read me right?  Sarcasm is allways easy to misunderstand.  I meant:
Most people will take the easy way if possible, for as long as possible.  Or, if there’s an easier than easy way, they’ll opt for that.  Democracy is hard—very hard.  All them that talks democracy ain’t necessarily real democrats—especially when it comes to visiting their Congressperson’s local office or writing a letter to the editor, or turning out for a demonstration for some needed improvement.
It is easy to convince them ahead of time that it won’t do any good, and so of course it doesn’t do any good—because they were’t there—along with 50 million others like them.
  Leaders of “democracies” think this is just ducky because they have no opposition and can do anything if they have the money to do it—which they usually do make sure of ahead of time by stealing it from the people behind their backs.
  People don’t want or like violence—and rightly so, because it leads to more violence.  But doing the things ahead of time that avoid violence—well, please excuse them here, too, because “it won’t work.” Violence is “human nature.” etc. etc.
  How can you believe in something that you are convinced ahead of time won’t work?  You can’t. So you don’t believe in anything, because nothing works, etc. etc. Or you believe in something somebody else tells you to believe in because you “like” that person. 
  P.S.  Most people badly need education, though they won’t admit it.  Why?  Because they are uneducated.  It’s downhill all the way.
  Unless ................?

gerard
“It’s so much easier to opt for either/or—democracy or no democracy. “
No question of easier.
Nothing is possible without making the proper distinctions. If you can’t distinguish a pail from a shovel you ain’t going to garden too well.

So now we must live with the consequences of a failed
foreign policy in the middle east that goes back to
the time of Truman. Can we truthfully say that the
idiots in Washington that fashion this stupid course
of action are really acting in the best interest of
the U.S. citizen?  I can see no way that supporting a
corrupt Dictator for 30 years in Egypt, A repressive
Jewish regime in the Jewish state of Israel for 60
years, overthrowing an duly elected government in
Iran then installing another dictator, giving our
blessing to the discriminating treatment of women in
Saudi Arabia, (and the list goes on) could possibly
be in the best interest of the people in this
country.

In the past 60 years we have spent thousands of
lives, trillions of dollars, much of our integrity,
for what?  So just maybe the Jews could have an
Religious state in Palestine.  I think we came out on
the crappy end of the stick.  With all of that money
we might possibly have purchased all of the land in
those countries, saved thousands of lives, (both of
our soldiers, and that of our perceived enemy) and
had enough left over to improve our worn out
infrastructure here at home.

We can no longer afford the foreign policy that
requires mostly the poor of the country to fight
these stupid wars, and then in a few years later
cannot do enough for our former enemies, such as
trading millions of our hard working citizens’ jobs
for their friendship, spending billions from our
treasury to repair what we have destroyed during the
conflict. We must instead cease supporting Dictators,
start supporting the protester, but without picking
up the tab, that must be the responsibility of those
seeking Democracy.

What we do in other countries, is just the same as we do here.

We install a puppet government, run buy our corporations, the same ones that steal rescources over there.

Then we hold fake elections, wave the flag. Then our politicans line up to feed on K street. 

First we make lots of money, poisoning the air, the water, the food we eat. Create fake regulatory agencies run by the corporations to say its safe. So people will eat fake blueberries, unware they are poisoning themselves with food as healty as a ciggarette.

Then when our children die of cancer, we make more money with fake health care, that prolongs life only long enough for the fake health care companies to make a fortune on each childs death.

Then we starve our old people to death, let them freeze to death in the cold.

Poison our own servicemen and women with experimental vacines, over there, when they come home, we foreclose on their houses, pushing them out in the street.

Sure we call it Democracy, but it’s a Democracy in name only. A false political system built for the rich, dripping with the blood of Americans young and old.

All this serves the wealthy and the elite, quite well, as they continue to amass their fortunes, selling their countrymen into debt, bondage and death. With no concern, that their non stop party will ever end.

Degrees and shades?  Who wants to deal with them?  It’s so much easier to opt for either/or—democracy or no democracy. The United States is a democracy.  Period.  Question mark?
  Even in a “democracy” Some people seem to enjoy more “rights” than others.  Some people have the right to enjoy rights, and some do not.  Some people have the “right” to enjoy some “rights” but not other “rights” etc. etc. blah, blah.
  There is nothing in the world that is not relative, IMO.  It all depends upon who tells other people what their “rights” are, and whether they have the “right” to tell other people. etc. etc.
  Excuse the facetiousness, but all is not gold that glitters. But if we can ever gete together, we can decide (peaceably) what is more or less equal for everybody.  It’s called “fair sharing” based on “cooperation.”

FiftyGigs
“God and family values gave us America’s first divorcée President”
Oh you mean the party that took away habeus corpus and involved us in immoral murderous wars. Oh right and wants to defund social services - So Christian.

Calm, citizens, peace!

Let’s us not mar this 100th anniversary of Reagan by forgetting the truth that the party of God and family values gave us America’s first divorcée President.

So much for vows.

“Wonderful to see that it’s back in vogue to speak and
write of democracy and representative forms of
government.  A short time ago such talk was labeled
evil, fascist, rhetoric.”

a short time ago, medgar evers was murdered for
speaking of democracy. you are an insufferable bore.

Redhorse
“Our wound, is the abscence of human moral reason, in “
Right, human reason deals with Ideas. It’s not just the thinking that is ‘black and white’ as you say, but the nature of Freedom and Democracy that is inherently and rationally incompatible with dictatorial oppression which has complete grasp of the levers of power.
Of course the categories of thought are not those of the slippery world - that is a deep philosophical issue but it doesn’t alleviate the need to think clearly and not live on duplicitous blah - like the political leaders - who believe in the ass-covering sappy irrational idea of an ‘orderly transition’.
Thomas Paine saw no compromise between the two- that is autocracy and democracy - squaring a cirle is a logical impossibility.

gerard
” if every problem could by solved by using either this or that—”

Slipping on the meaning of ‘simple’ - not easy but clear and distinct (simple). Flipping an autocracy is never easy (simple), though the issue is not one that admits of compromise - their is no ‘orderly progression’ unless we believe than an autocrat will simply abdicate without pressure.

What is simplistic is this idea of a gradual transition cause its sounds righteous and flexible - that’s a semantic kludge with sappy overtones.

This is a big step for democracy in Egypt. 

The Muslim Brotherhood is currently negotiating with the government of Egypt regarding a transition, according to some news reports. 

“The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state”.

I am not sure that is what democracy is all about, but that’s just me.

David Sirota, you bring up a very important point, but your view that “we could
end up shamed into finally living our democratic values” sounds a bit too
optimistic.  This country has comfortably lived with the deep-rooted illusion of
having uncompromising democratic values when, to begin with, we don’t even have a democratic election process ourselves.  Just like with our elections, our democratic approach to foreign policy has to do with who can be bought.  But, of course, anything is possible.

It would be so much easier if ...IT ... if every problem could by solved by using either this or that—nothing in between.  Luckily, things are seldom that simple, no matter how many people wish they were. 
  One obvious example?  “Freedom” has to allow for the fact that, if some people are absolutely free, very shortly nobody else will be even a little bit free. (That’s the very problem with unregulated capitalism, by the way.) 
  It is more than my impression that Americans are somewhat unique in their general tendency to want to avoid relatives and cling to absolutes.  In Japan they call us “simple-minded”—that is, if we get to know them well enough.

of the people… by the people… and for the people…

http://citizenvoices.us

the best of wishes’n'ways’n'todays to each’n'everyone!...

While enjoying posts and opinions today it crosses my mind that the “TRUST” issue drives a tremendous amount of TRUTHDIG discussion. “We the people—” look to a political leadership that operates in a large part as an open lie. The American psyche experiences manipulation, spin and outright distortion of reality and the “shadow boys” always have their nasty little fingers deep in any pie the political oven may hold: It’s crazy making.

    The Obama betrayal, an MSM that pretends lunatics like Boehner and Palin represent political sanity, the obscene influence of capitalist cash and the real time disintegration of American social/financial systems is a serious body blow.

    Life isn’t a mathematical equation, and Ideals of Freedom and Democracy (definite affairs of the heart and Soul) make “black and white” thinking an impossibility. Our wound, is the abscence of human moral reason, in a reliable trustworthy visionary leadership.( Read any Thomas Paine lately?) Our practical distrust of the entire system borders on paranoia but represents the only sane view a People whose own Liberty and Democracy is under attack can take.

  We all know that perpetual war and American World domination is unsustainable. In fact, TRUTHDIG poster reality seems to reflect the belief that an international fascist elite is looting American treasure for its own ascent at the expense of the American future. The Egyptian people are doing a magnificent thing. Perhaps we should all accept (Suez included) that the Egyptian people (and all Arabs) have the right to their own destiny and get on with putting our own crumbling house in order.

In the realm of political and social thought maybe the question is not so much, “to
be or not to be,” as it is to do or not to do.There are no static ” either/ors” to fix in
time, as there is a process of governance to participate in. Democratic government
is always a work in progress, that is beginning to find some traction in the city
streets of Egypt. Momentum and direction are the issues not questions of
left/right,up/down.

The Pew Research Poll(s) cited by Canada’s Globe and Mail national newspaper, “Egypt, Democracy and Islam” and “Muslim Publics Divided on Hama and Hezbollah”  regarding the attitudes of the people of Egypt is enlightening and startling. The poll is available to all, and the Polls deal with other issues, as well as segregation of the genders and preferred punishment for adultery, apostasy,  and theft.

For example, the Poll shows a broad majority support for democracy in all but Pakistan, of the Muslim nations polled. The poll, “Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah,” shows 20% support for Al Qaeda in Egypt, and minority support for both Hamas and Hezbollah in Egypt.

The polls were taken in 2010, before the current events in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Yemen occurred. Whether the data of these polls would change if these countries would adopt democracy can only be conjecture. Whether democratic governments would be more destabilizing in the Middle East seems to be refuted by the most recent polls.

I’ll suggest that support for Al Qaeda would be 0% if not for the events that occurred in Afghanistan from the 70’s to the present, in Iraq from the 90’s to the present, and the events that occurred in Pakistan over the last decade.

Some are saying, “Be afraid, be very afraid,” I’ll suggest that the time to start being be afraid is long past, and that what should be feared is/was U.S. and Israeli policy in the Middle East, and South Asia. I’ll suggest that, going forward, a policy of non-intervention and an avoidance of “Foreign Entanglements” would be the best policy for the U.S. to pursue, along with a tacit approval for democracy, and a cessation of support for Dictatorships, Monarchies, and Juntas.

RayLan, I am tiring of our discussion as well.

My final thoughts will include a reminder that nowhere did I write ‘There are no absolutes’ or “Everything is relative’ which you appear to attribute to me.  And which you correctly identify as contradictory.

My point, which you ARE absorbing, is there are usually more than 2 ways to look at things. 

Beware of those who frame issues with false “either/or” dichotomies.  (Also watch out for their close cousins, the “zero-sum-gain” thinkers who believe their side can only advance at the expense of their adversaries.) 
Think outside the box and consider “both/and” alternatives, as gerard nicely put it.
Or, if you must cling to a two-dimensional model, consider the Yin & Yang which acknowledges elements of opposites within. 

And finally, re: your assertion that “there is no orderly progression of steps from a despotic government to one of democratic equality.”

Consider this passage as a counterpoint:
“Egypt is a beautiful model of the democratic process EMERGING from dictatorship.”
It’s from your own post on this thread 15 hours earlier, my emphasis.

Everything may not be relative, but anything to do with human beings, their psyches, and their social relations is going to be far too complex for simple absolutes, including ‘justice’ and ‘democracy’.  Not only do different people have profoundly different ideas as to what these words mean, but one person often entertains mutually contradictory ideas about them.  Furthermore, I think it would be fairly easy to construct examples of sets of actions, or policies, or regimes, in which some could be said to be more just or more democratic than others, while coming nowhere near any sort of absolute.

redsox
“perhaps, then, degrees of justice”
Degrees of justice is an incoherent concept. The conditions or requirements of justice might be quantifilable - but justice itself is an absolute term.
I drew the line at such ideals of justice and democracy- which depends on self-determination which are not relative terms.
A commonplace of freshman philosophy arguments are similar to your ‘There are no absolutes’ or “Everything is relative’ which are self-contradictory being absolute statements. I made my point several times already and don’t want to continue in this sophomoric arguing over philosophical basics. I recommend reading the Plato’s Republic.

RayLan, “Both sides? What are you talking about?- that implies dichotomy. Sides- meaning two - get it?”

Ah, good catch, you’re correct.  Should be “all sides,” right?

And you acknowledge “degrees of guilt” for murder, and “degrees of torture.”  And, perhaps, then, degrees of justice, ay, RayLan?

Still wondering if you’re getting my point, though.

You write:  “there is no orderly progression of steps from a despotic government to one of democratic equality.” 
I’m hopeful that events in Egypt soon prove you wrong, although perhaps we’d then quibble over definitions of “orderly” and “democratic.”

You finish: “(despotic government)just has to be toppled and defeated because it is inherently incompatible with (democratic equality), therefore dichotomous.”
Again, may events in Egypt soon prove you wrong. 
At this stage, I suspect that Mubarak is looking for a way to step down gracefully.  He’s already given in to holding elections without nepotism. 
Would that be “toppled and defeated” or just a compromise to achieve orderly transition?

gerard
“People in leadership who can articulate the restrictive limits of either/or and present the urgently required patience to explore both/and, and point toward possibilities outside the old, habituated paradigm of either/or.”

The difference between despotism and freedom IS either/ or . Ask the protestors. Their demands are absolute. What does patience have to do with ‘possibilies to explore both/and’ when the two are completly incompatible?
They don’t want dictatorship. Period. There is no compromise. You don’t ‘blend’ a solution of autocracy and freedom. That is not extremism. It is the nature of things.

oddsox
“Yes, RayLan, there’s middle ground between murder and respect for life (self-defense and life sentence, no parole, depending on which perspective we use).
Torture and non-torture (skilled interrogation, limited psy-ops, with or without adherence to Geneva convention limits)
Freedom and oppression (my goodness, just read just about any of the threads here—but read both sides), all the opposites you mention.”

Both sides? What are you talking about?- that implies dichotomy. Sides- meaning two - get it?
Self-defense is a middle ground? By definition murder is unjustified killing. There are no degrees of murder though the law distinguishes the degrees of guilt. In every case the victim is absolutely dead.
Interrogation without adherence to Geneva conventions would be tantamount to torture, not this semantic fictitious middle ground you speak of. That only means there are degrees of torture. The dichotomy still exists.
It is this cliche about moderation and middle ground which is dumbing down.
Philosophically not all opposites can be reached from a position of relativity.
Justice , as indeed democracy, are qualitatively distinct from injustice and despotism. They are not simply degrees of difference.
I repeat - there is no orderly progression of steps from a despotic government to one of democratic equality.  The former just has to be toppled and defeated because it is inherently incompatible, therefore dichotomous.

Steve R said: Firstly, I am not at all sure that the revolution in Egypt is really about democracy, or whether it is an effort to instill an Islamic government that will make Egypt a strict Islamic state

The answer is “both”. A recent poll shows that 59% of Egyptians think that democracy is preferable to any other form of government. Also 95% believe it’s good that Islam plays a large role in politics, which isnt necessarily bad if Islam is a source of not only order and virtue but also freedom and tolerance. That is the million dollar question. According to multiculturalists the evil Christians lack freedom and tolerance, while Islamic culture practically invented it.

But the same poll shows that 82% of Egyptians think that adulterers should be stoned, and 84% want anyone who leaves Islam to face the death penalty.

In my opinion that not is not freedom, liberty, or tolerance. But thats just me.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/crisis-in-egypt/poll-shows-egyptians-favour-democracy-and-stoning-for-adultery/article1892414/

As I have said before the turmoil started, the alliance between Leftists and Islamists is built upon mutual disrespect. Both sides think that the other side can be used today but will be enlightened to the real world tomorrow.

Leftists and Islamists dont share positive values, instead they share powerful negatives… mutual hatred for Israel and Jews, for the Western Tradition, for uppety Christians.

Leftist and Islamist…which side comes out on top in Egypt? in Jorden? in Tunisia? In my opinion the Islamic Fundamentalists are more pragmatic and better organized. They play the Left like a fiddle(think of Iran during the revolution, think of the 9/11 Truthers) and therefore I reckon they will score 2 out of 3 at least.

So while you Leftists line up like lemmings for the Golden Age of Andalusia, please excuse me since i find the foundation for freedom and tolerance elsewhere. I will not be moved away from that foundation for anything.

Anarcissie—

Just to be responsive, as I appreciate your comment.

Suppose Israel had committed too many bad things… Just suppose. And O-Stupid felt that he had to come out and insist that the leader of Israel, turn in the keys, close the bank accounts, claim vital assets, close security offices, and so on…

Now, I would not be against reform in Israel, or any other place where there would be reform needed.

But closing down a country is not the same as closing a business, as painful as that can be.  There are weapons, bank accounts, hospitals, elderly, school systems, prisons, etc…

I even heard a stupid American politician claim that there should be an “interim administrative team”. To run a country?  Really? Totally unelected and with the keys to a government. Crazy.

Perhaps El Beredai might have surrendered to any mob that yelled loud enough. Who knows? How strong is he? Perhaps not very. That is the worry.

But… Despite former bad acting, most likely at the behest of the U.S., I respect this man for his strength. He has already said he will not run. He has pledged to elections. That is the basic stuff. We will see. Maybe his country will ask him to return? You never know.

Throwing the keys to the unknown mob is totally unacceptable for ANY head of government. That just shows their inexperience.

oddsox:  I’m with you on this one:  “But it’s the binary ‘no middle ground’ mentality that will ultimately lead to an extreme solution, rather than one based upon reason and the greater common good.”

Couple things are required before belief in this paradigm will “stick” as habitual practice.  (It’s a whole new alternative.)
1 People in leadership who can articulate the restrictive limits of either/or and present the urgently required patience to explore both/and, and point toward possibilities outside the old, habituated paradigm of either/or.
2. Imaginative problem-solving, mass education, building the articulation of common goals (things all sides are ready to work toward), and above all the ability to get rid of the limited either/or expectation.

The Internet is absolutely essential and well adapted to help bring these changes about, if only enough people are aware of the possibilities.

Yes, RayLan, there’s middle ground between murder and respect for life (self-defense and life sentence, no parole, depending on which perspective we use).
Torture and non-torture (skilled interrogation, limited psy-ops, with or without adherence to Geneva convention limits)
Freedom and oppression (my goodness, just read just about any of the threads here—but read both sides), all the opposites you mention.

I’m not ignorant of history & realize the odds of a peaceful transition in Egypt are slim.  There has already been loss of life. 
But what I’m objecting to here is the dumbing-down of an issue by someone who should know better.
Unfortunately, it’s not peculiar only to Sirota. 

By the way, and I’m sure you’ll agree, an “egalitarian democracy” would be nice.
But that’s not necessarily what’s in store for the post-Mubarak Egypt.  Another “either-or.”  Not!

oddsox
“There’s ALWAYS a middle ground, a third road, a way to find a compromise or consensus.’
Let’s see. There’s a middle ground between torture and non-torture? - between murder and respect for life?...
between freedom and oppression? There are some antipodes which exists on a continuum of more or less and some which are qualitatively distinct.
Education, violence, weather etc…
What cracks me up is this plea for an ‘orderly transition’ between what is a non-democratic dictatorship to an egalitarian democracy.
You just don’t get here from there.
You could say that freedom is relative but autocracy is absolute by definition and by practice.
A child could be given more or less freedom to act by its parents - but they are still under the direct control of their parents. Their freedom is only at the discretion of their parents’ absolute rule.
Similarly self-determination is an absolute. Either one has access to the levers of power or one does not.
There is no ‘almost’ of control.
That’s why all such topplings of autocracy are called a revolution- not a transition. It wasn’t the French Transition.

The False Dichotomy is a tactic widely used by Sirota and other polarizing fringe columnists and commentators—from both Left and Right.

Today, it’s
“With Democracy or Against It—There’s No In Between”

Last month, after Tucson, Paul Krugman wrote:
“There’s no middle ground between these views,” referring to the Liberal support of a welfare state vs. the Right, who see “taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.”

And on it goes:
“Either you’re for free speech or against it.”
“You either support the 2nd amendment or you don’t.”
“You’re for the right to life or against it.”
“Either with us or with the terrorists,” remember that one?

Just plug your favorite (or least favorite) cause into the absolute template above and create the illusion of decisive leadership. 
(And from there, it’s a short step to thereby justify low tactics when used against those on the “wrong” side.)

Sorry, no sale.
There’s ALWAYS a middle ground, a third road, a way to find a compromise or consensus.

To be sure, those who preach “no in-between” are intellectually lazy, but there is a greater danger.
Because “either-or” thinking serves cut off civil, solution-oriented debate.   

As for Egypt?  Time will tell.

But it’s the binary “no middle ground” mentality that will ultimately lead to an extreme solution, rather than one based upon reason and the greater common good.

The business end of things never did care a bit about
democracy.  No wonder nobody is covering it—

Food Speculation Behind Food Riots N Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan,
Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Morocco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbARnnTXI-s

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41380863#4138
0485

It’s absolutely amazing how we all try to tell other people what to do.

From the White House to the meanest little computer-tapper in town, we are more
than willing to presume that we actually know what is best when the obvious fact
is that we haven’t got the faintest about how to pull our own country down out of
Cloud Cookoo Land and mind its own business for a change.

Who’s fooling whom?  We already know what to do:  Heal the sick.  Feed the
hungry.  Clothe the naked. Teach the children to read and to think and to hope. 
Stop the wars.  Speak truth (yell,  if necessary) to the greedy power-mongers.
thieves and exploiters. All day, every day.

As TapWalker likes to say:  All together now!

It was stated here by a commenter:

“Does anybody really think our government, and the West, are going to sit back and allow control of the canal to be determined by the unknown of free and fair elections?”

Definitely something to keep in mind, as we don’t have a President Eisenhower now, with the backbone and gravitas to quash that sort of talk once and for all.

I am sure that to some in the administration or in other western governments, the Suez Canal might be the sort of low hanging fruit that would be too hard to resist plucking.

The consequences for such action are not even on their radar screens.

The US administration is so mired its own BS on the subject of Middle East democracy promotion(almost sounds like an oxymoron), it’s suprising they can speak at all, both sides of their mouth being so equally full.
It’s tough to make policy when the ‘enable dictatorship to advance our selfish economic interests’ game offers no moves in the ‘liberate oppressed people and actually promote democracy’ game.
Egypt is a beautiful model of the democratic process emerging from dictatorship. I am very proud of these courageous millions. that contrast shamefully with the
corrupt spineless Obama-Blah.

GRYMie makes a good point.

Now, what we need to do is invade and destroy Egypt and its people, in order to install democracy, under the guise that Mubarak has Weapons of Mass Destruction, is in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden, and is planning to Nuke us.

Tropicgirl may be making sense too, but it’s hard to cipher her convoluted wisdoms.

tropicgirl, February 4 at 3:32 pm:

‘... Mubarak is emerging as a man of steel. ...’

It’s never easy being a lawless dictator.  Every day there are people to throw in jail, torture, or shoot.  One must find funds to pay the military and the secret police and the other secret police to do the jailing, torturing, and shooting.  Often, the proceeds of one’s thefts and swindles are hardly enough. And there is always the possibility that someone as steely as oneself in coming along.  No, it’s not easy at all.  I’m sure poor Hosni appreciates your appreciation.

Well, apparently the excitement of the Superbowl, and the related social plans, just took up too much time this week to pay attention to what was fast becoming a botched attempt at a coup.

Obama is emerging as the failed Globalist Ambassador to the Muslims, willing to topple any government, in the streets, in a thuggish manner, under the most questionable circumstances, and in the most dangerous manner, to the Egyptian people, and those around the area.  As long as HE AND THE GLOBALISTS can continue to consolidate power, with any willing group. Not to be trusted.

What he, and Shillary and the rest of the clowns, are asking for, is that a standing government, which is already in a very difficult, almost pre-war state, to simply vacate the government, walk out the door, and leave they keys to power, weapons, the treasury and peoples lives. Nuts. Time to shut up.

Mubarak is emerging as a man of steel. Not to defend the bad behavior, but if this man can hold his ground, under this kind of pressure, than he deserves better treatment. I wonder if ElBaradei would have been as strong. And he might even have set a new tone for the rest of the area, on how to avoid a coming meltdown.

The military is emerging as an example to the world of BEST behavior. Amazing. I hope our soldiers are watching. ANYONE can be blamed for violence, even those who did nothing, (i.e., Tucson). Even Obama knows how to do that one…

The protesters are emerging as used and abused. Its reasonable to demand new elections AND that a certain person not run again. That is even MORE than fair. They achieved an important goal by getting new elections, Mubarak not to run, and got a VP appointed, who can act in interim.  But to demand that a government dissolve itself into the streets, on a moments notice, is appearing irresponsible. Its not SAFE.  Time to go home.

And for O-Banana… At least there’s the Superbowl, and the campaign… and lobster.

Most all the criticisms we’re hearing of the current regime in Egypt seem true. The uprising and demonstrations are riveting spectacles. Hopefully few people will be hurt and killed and real reform will be achieved.

But wait a second.. does having a few hundred thousand people in the streets automatically mean that a government is illegitimate and must go?

I ask this because there are very likely a million angry, mostly white and dis-articulate people who could be in Washington next week (weather permitting). So-called conservative people.. pap-fed on Faux news and the rantings of ‘populist’ neo-conservative Rethuglicans and Koch’s new religious movement aka the ‘Tea’ party..

That would be CHANGE we can BELIEVE in.. We’d have to! ..it will be right there on the boob tube and in front of your courthouse.. Plus, Anderson Cooper just might get beat up by that mob too.. That will prove their legitimacy to doubting Americans.

Adios.

hello. i accept the United States of America is the
voice of democracy. we can not impose our ideology
upon other nations. long ago it would be these United
States of the World. we have had the military
capability, but not the will. inherent in democracy
is the right of the people to chose their own
government. we can support them, but can not chose
for them. it is as always has been an essential
element of self determination, peoples are free to
chose for themselves their form of governance. we do
not make false promises, but it is not the right of a
democracy, to demand democratic societies upon
others. countries seeped in centuries of historic
tradition naturally want to cling to the comfort of
ancestral experience, and fear change more than
regularity. democracies influence change by example,
and it is important to convince other cultures it is
truthful and real, and possible for them to achieve,
if they so chose. that is our role- a voice of
example, which we will support with a big stick. we
are the global voice and example of democracy.
countries have to determine for themselves how they
wish their children to grow.

Wonderful to see that it’s back in vogue to speak and write of democracy and representative forms of government.  A short time ago such talk was labeled evil, fascist, rhetoric.

Mr Sirota left out on important point - The Suez Canal. Does anybody really think our government, and the West, are going to sit back and allow control of the canal to be determined by the unknown of free and fair elections?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_07/b4215016314977.htm