It's not our fucking decision. We lost that by supporting a dictator for 30+ years, and the measured tones coming from the administration are only because it lacks any principles whatsoever. Do we stand for freedom or do we stand with dictators? It's a simple question that Obama/Clinton are trying to split the difference on.

I do not think that Obama should be on TV leading pep rallies for the protesters...though he and Clinton were willing to do so when the protests were in Iran. But he should be forcing Mubarak out and not setting it up to replace Mubarak with an Intelligence chief tied tightly to the US rendition/torture program.

Jon Stewart's turning into a dumb, fucking asshole. How exactly did we manage to bring this about? Because we talk about freedom and democracy while supplying dictators with the tools for repression? Because the administration has begun sounding like it's behind the protests, but only when the writing was on the wall (just contrast what they're saying now with what they were saying when it started).

I don't like the Muslim Brotherhood, mostly because i'm not a fan of religion. But i would like to see some proof of your assertions, given that they contradict everything the Brotherhood has been saying about itself for years.

What it sounds like you're really saying is that you're for freedom and democracy so long as you can define what it means and its results. If the Muslim Brotherhood win a majority in a free and fair election that's none of my damned business...at least until they start curtailing the rights of women, etc.

I don't think that but a tiny slice of Americans actually believes in freedom and self-determination anymore. It's always with caveats and patronizing the brown people. And that's how we end up supporting dictators. It's also why our leaders talking up our supposed ideals all sound like hypocrites to the rest of the world...because that's what we are.

The only time that lighting a fuse is really all that interesting is when there's something explosive at the other end. Butterfly wings won't cause hurricanes without a big tropical depression there to help them. Pretending anything like this has a single cause...

As far as the "Gospel of Freedom" is concerned, we need only look back to the 2006 and Palestine to see that Democratic elections are not a panacea.

whose population has grown 21% in ten years, whose oil production capacity has fallen to zero, and whose cost of food has risen to 40% of per capital income.

The drought in Russia last summer, and now the drought that has gripped China will lead to more and more of these kinds of situations. The revolutions are triggered by hikes in prices, something a change in leadership can do nothing about.

Every country on the cusp of this kind of uprising is a non-energy producing, heavy food importing country. Every uprising can be paired with a governments austerity program as they struggle with an inability to maintain subsidies to soften the blow of rising prices.

You can probably add Greece to this list, and even England when they cut subsidies for education. You can add France and India as well, where subsidy cuts were met with smaller scale revolts.

It reminds me of a story about Bald Eagles in Montana. When drought affects water temperature the shift in fish populations results in bald eagles being unable to find enough food. In response they begin to change the location of their nests, on the reasoning that moving the nest will result in better fishing. Of course it doesn't but there is the illusion of control. People cannot afford food, so they respond by trying to change their leaders. It is the same thing really, we want that illusion of control. Better than the fear that in reality, the absence of food in the face of drought is too terrifying.

There are a lot of factors causative here, and several possible outcomes. It's very hard to predict at this stage.

Transition to a European-style multiparty parlamentarian govt may be on the long term menu, but a country like Egypt will not be able to do it quickly. They have too many deep changes to make in their culture, religion, and politics, and those take a generation or more to accomplish.

Add the economic problems on top, and situation gets pretty complex.

Fortunately in Egypt, the military brass seems to think that helping maintain stability during a transitional phase is their highest priority. And I was heartened to see the Egyptian citizens doing things like banding together to prevent looting.

I can't predict what the new govt will look like, but I will predict that if they can't make progress on the food issue and the economy, whatever the new govt is probably won't last very long.

The new govt has to provide food security, and ways for the people to prosper. Arguably, even a fairly repressive new regime can hold power if they address those issues effectively.

How much Democracy we'll see I'm not sure of, my guess is that we will see more aspects of democracy emerging in Egypt over the coming decades, as they grow into it, and learn how to integrate it into their culture.

But I agree that the Bushies proved that millions of people standing around with purple thumbs to proved they voted doesn't mean much. A successful election only comes when the politcal infrastructure is in place to support meaningful elections. It's putting the cart before the horse to hold elections in a vacuum where there is no established government.

Ideally, the military safeguards the situation while the politicians negotiate it out among themselves. This almost never works as planed however, and often leads to military dictatorship, more assassinations and blood-feuding among top political families, and sometimes even civil war.

Egypt is treading very dangerous waters right now. It's one thing for an angry citizenry to hit the streets and exercise raw people power, and entirely another for the country to move forward in an organized manner to successfully accomplish political and economic restructuring.

The American Revolution is a very limited reference point, mainly because we transitioned to a new form of governance, but we had a strong economy and a very strong base of natural resources. There was no question of Americans starving to death, or not being able to produce food and other goods at that time.

But Egypt has the double whammy of transforming it's economy at the same time as transforming it's political structure.

There are lots of places where the process can get derailed along the way.