>> ^newtboy:

Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

Also very broad and inaccurate generalizations.
You can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions for a pretty detailed explanation.

Dilution of ethnicity and claim of their ancestral lands can just as easily apply to 'Arabs' there.
And just like Jews, "Arabs" is a general term for various ethnic and religious groups.
So whose land it is is a very subjective topic of how far back in history you want to go.

Not all Israelis are Zionists. The word Zionist have many various meanings and definitions, but you seem to have a totally wrong understanding of what it is. There's a sizable portion of Israel Jew's population that is against those settlements and treatment of (to call it broadly) non-Jewish populace.

There are also many other wrong assumptions and generalizations in your post.(right now I'm too tired after work to elaborate on them all).
Needless to say the whole Israeli conflict is a very complex and messy situation. There are guilty parties on both sides. Cutting funding/aid to either side will not move things for the better. Over the last 10 years US aid to Israel was about ~$2.5billion/year. That is about 1% of Israel's $217billion GDP economy. While sizable, cutting that aid will not be a significant hindrance.
External boycotts, protests and especially antisemitism will not help things either. That will only make them more stubborn and have justification for potential threat to their sovereignty and survival. The only real solution is a diplomatic approach to change governments' policies.

Article 1.
* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
* No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
* (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
* (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
* (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
* (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
* (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
* (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
* (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
* Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
* Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
* (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
* (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
* (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
* (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
* Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^marbles:
Jesus taught love and "turning the other cheek".
O'Reilly makes a very important point... that you cannot judge someone by what they call themselves, but by their actions.
It's common, and not just in the case of religion, to allow people to self-identify in personal matters. This guy believes he's a Christian, therefore he's a Christian. If Christians want to dictate who among self-identifying Christians are actually Christians, then they can't say things like "80% of Americans are Christians!" in defense of keeping "Under God" in the Pledge because each among the various Christian Churches considers the others to be heretical.


I think the bigger point is it doesn't matter what someone claims to be. A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of their religion. Religion is just a tool used to manipulate and control people. It's evil because it tells the individual to give up his sovereignty to some supposed greater authority. There's plenty of belief systems that preach this that are not religions.

The Cherokee Natives cloaked their irrational belief in sovereignty when they stood up against the first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson. Their armor was the US Supreme Court, the law of the land, but Democracy shown brighter that day and demonstrated to the uppity Engines they have no rights when the majority are whites.

Two wolves. One sheep. Democratically voting the menu of the day.

>> ^marbles:

With AA, being any minority is a significant advantage.
No it is not. If we lived in some egalitarian society where race had not been a massive limiting factor for centuries, and where decisions like going to college took place in a fairy land where money, the schools you went to, the opportunities you had earlier and familial obligations play no part, then you might have a point. We don't live in that world.
>> ^marbles:

Opportunity isn't distributed.
Yes it is. If its more than twice as hard to get a job because your skin is dark (it is), if your family doesn't have money to allow you the freedom, to have a safe environment in which to grow up, to allow you to get a good education or to start your own business because they too have suffered financially and socially from the legal and social forces that distribute the power to choose, then you are being denied opportunity for non-meritocratic reasons, and those opportunities are being given to others, for non-meritocratic reasons.
>> ^marbles:

Just like every other social problem in the past century, the government's solution has done more harm than help.
Sure, property rights and national defense are terrible impositions on personal sovereignty, and if we dispensed with both of them then AA would probably not be needed, but I don't really care about fairyland politics, I'm only concerned with reality and how to realistically address problems within it
>> ^marbles:

Anyway it's not the role of government to be distributing anything.
Um... except that they distribute EVERYTHING. Property is a government system that codifies the distribution of resources. They set land boundaries, they arbitrate disputes, what the hell are you talking about?
>> ^marbles:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
Social Convention is not reason or eloquence either, it is force just the same. I would rather the bullies fight each other, then just let the less accountable one loose to beat the shit out of us.
>> ^marbles:

Better solution? Stop subsidizing poverty and end drug prohibition would be a good start.
"subsidizing poverty" I presume is a reference to social programs that allow poor families to have a stable enough environment that their kids can have some opportunities. How exactly does trapping future generations in poverty solve the disproportionate racial distribution of class privilege?

drug prohibition is only tangentially related, consider:

1) All classes do drugs at similar rates
2) poor people get caught more often
3) non-white people get convicted more often

The double whammy of historical poverty and racist jurisprudence are the problem. The insane "war on drugs" certainly has racist consequences, but they are symptomatic of a larger problem that decriminalization will not solve.

Propaganda piece for Jacque Fresco's Venus Project. Peter Joseph does a good job at recognizing problems but a lousy job at offering solutions. The Zeitgeist movement is about sacrificing individual sovereignty for the sake of a one-world vision. Joseph assumes everyone will abandon their own self-interest in the name of some global interest.

I have 2 problems with the Zeitgeist movement: 1) Morally, altruism is incompatible with freedom and individual rights. Man is not some sacrificial animal here to serve the collective group. 2) It's completely unrealistic. Everyone is always motivated by their own self interest. It's part of our DNA. Changing that is impossible.

Now what I'm really curious about is if Joseph really believes this bunk or if he's serving a greater agenda. Wonder who funded this most recent film. From a cinematic standpoint, it's pretty good.

The public responses I find more disturbing are from within Pakistan's National Assembly and Senate hearings. Articles from the Pakistani news outlet "The News" can be found here and here. Here are some of the deeply disturbing comments being made by members of Pakistan's National Assembly and Senate:

Deputy leader of the JUI-F, Mufti Kifayatullah said "We assure the world that Pakistan is not a killing field for the Muslims. Osama is a hero and we consider such incidents an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan".

Dr Khalid Soomro of the JUI-F said "Who can believe that Osama was living in Pakistan and Pakistan was unaware of it," He later said a warning had to have been given before the operation and the operation was launched subsequently and questioned what Pakistan had received as a result of cooperation with the US against bin Laden.

Professor Khurshid said heads must roll for not fulfilling responsibilities towards Pakistan’s security and integrity. “The intelligence agencies and Army who take a big share of the budget are answerable to the people and parliament,” he said.


It seems a very large number of top ranking Pakistani officials are agreed that Osama could not have been hiding there without the help of the ISI and/or military. That it is an outrage that the ISI and/or military allowed Osama the operation against Osama. And their outrage isn't the harboring of a terrorist responsible for killing tens of thousands of Pakistani muslims, their outrage is that Osama was a muslim hero and how dare the ISI and/or military betray such a hero. I find that infinitely more disturbing than these celebrations.

Hahaha, check out this page on Scientology politics. It sounds exactly like......

"Political Spectrum by the Yard.
L. Ron Hubbard in his SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL

If you lay out a yardstick with Zero off on the Left, and 36 to the Right, you'll have a fairly accurate numerical political spectrum.

Consider this a Gradient Scale from Slavery on the Left to Freedom on the Right. Consider this also as a Gradient Scale of Emotions, more enturbulated ones on the left with freer ones on the right. Political philosophies can be identified by the chronic emotional tones they exhibit, and emotional tones follow an exact order. Consider this also as a Personal Sovereignty scale, with none at the Left and all at the Right, also as a Responsibility scale, with all in the hands of government on the Left and all in the hands of the people on the Right. Any number of gradient scales may be examined in this way, compared to the degrees of political and economic freedoms allowed by differing governing philosophies.

At Zero you'll find a form of Anarchy, a "burn down the courthouse" kind of anarchy. At 36 is another kind of Anarchy, an ethical Anarchy where people have no need for governance.

All existing forms of "self-government" lie well to the left on the scale. A monarchical government might fall anywhere on the scale, depending on the benevolence of the ruler at the moment, an undependable situation."

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/sci-politics.htm


>> ^dag:

Yeah, I'm definitely due to get my engrams tested. Pretty sure they're off the chart.>> ^blankfist:

You should look into Scientology!

Did I suggest the the military not be funded? Quote me.

The reality is: even if Canada is going to put 29 Billion or any other dollar amount towards the military, it can be better spent than on 65 warplanes.

As it is, we have a "The Harper Government" sized deficit to dig our selves of first. Why do you think "the decade of darkness" happened? Could it have something to do with an attempt to dig the country out of the gaping deficit the previous government caused? I wonder.

Get this country back in the black and we can revisit the necessary equipment upgrades that our hard-working folk in the military deserve. For now, putting that gear on the nation's credit card is poor leadership and bad economics. >> ^Skeeve:

Believe it or not, but nations need a military that is able to maintain their sovereignty - no amount of bubblegum and rainbows can protect a nation.

Again, you are using old information. Kevin Page's estimate is for the cost of the planes over the course of 30 years. The government's estimate is the cost over 20. Plus, those last 10 years, by the very nature of aircraft, are going to cost more money than the previous 20.

Of course the planes are going to cost more over 30 years than over 20. Page's estimates have been ridiculed by most independent sources for this very reason.

As for Harper's military spending, the Canadian Forces were decimated by the previous government in what many have called "the decade of darkness". Massive military spending was necessary to ensure Canada was able to maintain a military at all. And, after all that spending, Canada still spends less on the military as a percentage of GDP than nearly every western country, a measly 1.5%. Believe it or not, but nations need a military that is able to maintain their sovereignty - no amount of bubblegum and rainbows can protect a nation.
>> ^notarobot:

@^Skeeve

Now, as far as my math on $300 Million I'll walk you through that:
29 Billion divided by 65 warplanes is (about) 446 Million per warplane. Subtract the price of the warplanes (I used the average price from the wikipedia page for my ballpark but we can use your numbers and see how they work out) $138 Million equals (about) $308 Million dollars.
Now, I guess that's WITH engines. But Canadians are still going to be paying about $308 Million dollars in costs above and beyond the purchase price announced advertised by "The Harper Government" to own and operate these warplanes. A total cost of nearly $1000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

I find the Libyan uprising inspiring and would like to see them succeed in their revolution. I have no problem with the UN playing a supporting role in this conflict. I'd (obviously) be against occupation, ground forces, IMF/World Bank style imperialism, the building of bases and/or the encroachment upon the sovereignty of a liberated Libya.

I guess the question is whether or not we should take the situation at face value or not. Iraq was obviously bullshit from the start, from it's bogus 9/11 and WMD motivations, to the outrageous no-bid contracts and lavish military spending, to it's secret prisons and torture methods, to the gang of corporations that lined up around the block to make a buck. It lacked international support and clarity as to what it's intentions were.

I'm not seeing any of those telltale signs of bullshit here. This situation is not a unilateral US action. It has broad international support. It's purpose is defined and limited in scope, and I don't see the carpetbaggers lining up. If there is evidence to suggest this is another Iraq cluster fuck, I'd like to hear it, but for the moment, I suppose I am "pro war", or at least pro revolution.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Good points, but I'm still conflicted on this one.


That's because you care deeply for the lives of your common man. That's what I like about you. That and your penis.

But what I see with this Libya interventionism is a means to allow special interest to affect the outcome of the liberated Libyans. There are many other problems with interventionism, such as blowback, encroaching on sovereignty, occupation, corporate occupation and so on. My biggest fear is continued US hegemony and further justification for larger defense spending.

Here's a few things that the Tea Party of my neighbor to the north, Montana, is pushing:

- Ban abortions
- Limit sex education
- Nullifying any federal law or right they don't like

Yeah, the party of 'liberty' wants to take away reproductive rights, restrict education about human sexuality, and nullify any other rights they deem unnecessary.

But I assure you, the Montana teabaggers have their priorities straight. They also want to:

- Declare global warming to be good for business
- Legalize hunting big game with a spear

You see, spear hunting is an urgent issue, and the Tea Party is going to make sure that it gets addressed by the state legislature because the state has oppressed spear hunters for far too long. This is important business, requiring tax dollars for the time and effort for this crucial debate.

Oh, and guess what they have to say if you don't like their agenda: "I say to you: 'This is America: Love it or leave it,'" shouted Rep. William McChesney, during the sovereignty declaration debate.

It's "liberty" on their terms, or get the fuck out.
>> ^Ryjkyj:

QM, how can you endorse people who want to enforce, by law, rules about who can get married, who can raise children, what women do with their bodies, and who should and shouldn't be able to negotiate the compensation for their labor...
But the president's wife suggesting that we might start a program to educate kids about the dangers and benefits of nutrition is just the height of tyrannical nanny-ism...

Insightful analysis. If Mubes Inc. really isn't going to continue running the scene from behind the throne, it will be the muslims taking over. Lesser or greater evil.


>> ^NirnRoot:

I wish I saw as rosy a picture as mainstream media portrays, but I can't. The popular uprising may not have been in the plans of Mubarak's regime, but he and his cronies still managed to come out of it largely unscathed. Democracy? When Sulemain remains as sitting president? He shares all of Mubarak's undemocratic worldview and there is no evidence he will leave power in September.
The Egyptian army has been favorably portrayed in this revolution because it didn't fire on the protesters, but -despite a few words to the contrary- they didn't really side with them either. Oh sure, there may have been some solidarity between the average soldier and the common protester, but none of them broke ranks. Rather, the military elite stayed stolidly in Mubarak's camp and disciplined. The army played "good cop" while Mubarak's internal police forces - disguised as plainclothes Mubarak supporters- were the "bad cop" in the equation. To further heighten the tension, Mubarak then pulled back the legitimate cops so criminals could operate openly. Meanwhile, the army quietly captured the city (literally doing an encirclement maneuver around Tahir square) and providing "safety" and "stability" from Mubarak's own intentionally-fired anarchy. The protesters fled right into the arms of the very forces that are the basis of Mubarak's own sovereignty.
Yes, Mubarak might be "out" (although it is equally likely he will still remain a very real power operating from the background). But the regime that supported him, empowered by the military elite who -to a man- supported Mubarak through the crisis- remains in control. Promise of free elections in September are likely empty. A few of the chairs may gave been shuffled around, but is unlikely that the people have any greater say in their governance than they did a few weeks ago. It was a masterful management of the situation and one, I am sure, our own popularly-elected officials, are taking note of how it could be done should our own people one day rise up and say "enough is enough".
Mainstream media portrays this as a great victory for the common man, but look closely; nothing has really changed in Egypt. It's a snow job designed to make people feel good while the people with the power make sure they remain the only ones with real power; the "common man" (not just in Egypt, but across the world) -lulled by this easy "victory" - goes back to not questioning the power structure because he "knows" he has made a change for the better.

I wish I saw as rosy a picture as mainstream media portrays, but I can't. The popular uprising may not have been in the plans of Mubarak's regime, but he and his cronies still managed to come out of it largely unscathed. Democracy? When Sulemain remains as sitting president? He shares all of Mubarak's undemocratic worldview and there is no evidence he will leave power in September.

The Egyptian army has been favorably portrayed in this revolution because it didn't fire on the protesters, but -despite a few words to the contrary- they didn't *really* side with them either. Oh sure, there may have been some solidarity between the average soldier and the common protester, but none of them broke ranks. Rather, the military elite stayed stolidly in Mubarak's camp and disciplined. The army played "good cop" while Mubarak's internal police forces - disguised as plainclothes Mubarak supporters- were the "bad cop" in the equation. To further heighten the tension, Mubarak then pulled back the legitimate cops so criminals could operate openly. Meanwhile, the army quietly captured the city (literally doing an encirclement maneuver around Tahir square) and providing "safety" and "stability" from Mubarak's own intentionally-fired anarchy. The protesters fled right into the arms of the very forces that are the basis of Mubarak's own sovereignty.

Yes, Mubarak might be "out" (although it is equally likely he will still remain a very real power operating from the background). But the regime that supported him, empowered by the military elite who -to a man- supported Mubarak through the crisis- remains in control. Promise of free elections in September are likely empty. A few of the chairs may gave been shuffled around, but is unlikely that the people have any greater say in their governance than they did a few weeks ago. It was a masterful management of the situation and one, I am sure, our own popularly-elected officials, are taking note of how it could be done should our own people one day rise up and say "enough is enough".

Mainstream media portrays this as a great victory for the common man, but look closely; nothing has really changed in Egypt. It's a snow job designed to make people feel good while the people with the power make sure they remain the *only* ones with real power; the "common man" (not just in Egypt, but across the world) -lulled by this easy "victory" - goes back to not questioning the power structure because he "knows" he has made a change for the better.