Even as this is typed, it is a fair guess that the situation in Egypt is changing, at least a little. Western media has been illustrating the fluidity of the Egyptian protests by highlighting the speed of information being posted in social media forums like Twitter (in spite of attempts by Mubarak’s government to prevent it), and by regular updates to the story – a story that might have ended up with the same clips for an entire news day if it wasn’t for rapid changes on the ground.

I’ve chosen footage from Al Jazeera above primarily because they are the “biggest game in town” for the Middle East, and not for any agenda they may or may not have.

While relatively unexpected, it was not utterly unpredictable that President Hosni Mubarak would come out stating that he intends to step down from the elections in September. It was theoretically always an option since the protests started, but an unlikely choice, especially not with the additional comment that he does not intend to place his son on the ballot to replace him. As for the protesters, it would be better if they would accept this, and get to work on building a new political system – organize parties in preparation for an open election. However, there is little hope that they will accept Mubarak’s concession, and willingly wait for him to step down in about seven months. Based on the words of the protesters in the footage above, it seems that they will settle for nothing less than Mubarek leaving office immediately. If that would happen, the likelihood of severe political unrest in Egypt increases significantly, if for no other reason, because there is no political structure (outside of the Muslim Brotherhood that may or may not be prepared to fill the void) waiting in the wings to replace Mubarak’s government.

Add the latest round of protests in Amman, Jordan, and the U.S. is left with a foreign relations nightmare in the Middle East. While the Muslim Brotherhood is apparently remaining in the shadows in Egypt, they are active in Jordan, and will undoubtedly be dissatisfied with the Jordanian King just firing his government officials. They want the King to give up the ability to appoint government officials, not just get rid of the current leaders.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, while it may claim to only be interested in promoting free elections in the Middle East, and social justice programs for the people, one must remember that its founder believed firmly in the Islamic faith having a place in the everyday lives and governance of the people. Any “democracy” created with the influence of this organization will not resemble secular forms of government we see in the West, and more likely than not, these governments will not recognize Israel as a sovereign state in the best circumstances. Worst case scenario, they could become hostile toward Israel, and her allies.

So the U.S. is left between a rock and a hard place. Expressing support for the status quo, or supporting the spread of democracy in the Middle East does little for our future diplomatic relations in the Middle East. There have been commentaries out there that suggest this could be Obama’s equivalent of Carter’s Iran. But it is too early to call for conservatives to take to the streets here in celebration.

If truth in advertising is even a small part of winning the battle, hands-down the winner is Tom Corbett. Thanks to Pittsburgh radio station WDUQ for fact-checking the most recent crop of campaign ads in the Pennsylvania Gubernatorial race.

To place things in a little more perspective, WDUQ’s contention about the energy tax having to do with natural gas extraction, not cap and trade – that is the “close to home” issue for Pennsylvanians, since there are many natural gas wells across the countryside. Beyond creating higher utility bills for residents in general, it has the potential to decrease the amount of money paid to property owners by natural gas providers for use of their land. Currently, land owners can end up with stipends not only for natural gas pockets beneath their property, but also for lines crossing through.

As for the Dan Onorato ad, WDUQ points out that none of the cuts that Onorato claims that Corbett will cause, or is “for” have ever been mentioned by Corbett in any context. While the Corbett ad is easy to find on his website, Onorato’s does not appear to be available on YouTube, and isn’t linked to on his website. It is understandable why. It is a blatant smear. At least his campaign was smart enough to preface the fallacy with a comment stating that these are cuts that “could” happen if Corbett becomes Governor. When a candidate has a “tax and spend” history, the only option when engaged in debate over budget and spending is to scare large blocs of voters with claims that anyone that suggest fiscal responsibility will cut programs for those voters first. The fact is that there is plenty of fat in the Commonwealth budget that could be trimmed before anyone would start talking about cutting programs benefiting seniors, especially considering the fact that our state lottery subsidizes many of those programs in the first place. That said, to any Pennsylvanians out there, by all means go out and buy some lottery tickets, show them to your senior citizen neighbors, and remind them that those sales help keep their programs alive – not Dan Onorato.

I didn’t like your show, got annoyed with your comments more than a few times, but like anyone else I don’t like in the media, I respected your right to speak your mind. What is really bothering me right now is the fact that I’m finding myself in agreement with Michelle Malkin on your departure.

Bluntly, it is a matter of so much [redacted]. Admittedly, it’s not as bad as political correctness running amok, but it’s not far off. As far as hate language goes, the term “bitch” as applied to women was considered nearly as incendiary as the n-word, and has since been claimed from that infamy by women. Initially that transition typically allowed for only women to use the word without fear of being accused of using it with malicious intent. And that is theoretically where society is with the n-word. But I keep thinking that is just as much the fault of the editors of our dictionaries, as anyone else.

There used to be a point where the n-word had the potential to end up with one of the same meanings as the word bitch. The context is when referring to working environments, where the word bitch is equated with the word slave. I was actually raised in the family that used the n-word to describe the lowest level of laborers, regardless of race, because they had the hardest or dirtiest jobs for the lowest pay. But that use appears to have been lost to society today, since just about every reference I could find linked the term to race, as opposed to stature in the workplace. And bluntly, that makes absolutely no sense. The term was originally used to describe slaves, and was dropped from civil discourse shortly after slavery was abolished. The irony is that the attempt to grant some semblance of respect to newly freed slaves through language, opened the door to hate speech against them.

But Dr. Laura, in spite of generally being an annoying pain in my eyes over the years, was wrong to apologize. She pointed out a greater truth – we’re stuck in the middle of a verbal minefield, at the mercy of people that are clinging to separatist ideologies that demand special treatment as opposed to seeking true equality. Well, speaking as a female – another “minority group” that is theoretically granted that special treatment – I don’t give a damn what people call me. It would be a challenge for anyone to come up with terms that are worse than the ones that have flown so easily from the lips of men I’ve had romantic entanglements with in the past. It doesn’t bother me, because I learned a long time ago that in the end, it’s all just words. I give those words power – or I can choose to consider the source, and either outright ignore them or laugh them off. I’m guessing that’s what Dr. Laura was trying to say to her histrionic caller. The answer isn’t in finding a way to change others, it is in changing the way we react to the actions of others. And when it comes to derogatory terms, grown-ups ignore childish outbursts.

Picture a polling place on election day, with a group of poll watchers standing just inside the door. It’s not raining, or particularly cold out – they are avoiding a group of individuals that are accosting voters on their way in to vote, using threatening language against anyone that they think shouldn’t be voting. Their goal is obviously to control the polls for the day, and prevent “undesirables” from voting at all by playing on their fears of retribution, brandishing weapons, and acting in a menacing manner. Add that it is an historic presidential election, with a great deal on the line for many groups of people nationwide. The results could either signal the end of an era, or rekindle the fires of discontent and hatred. While it could have been the election of 1860, or even 1960, it was actually the 2008 presidential election, and whites were the targets.

And given the evidence above, and the fact that the defendants never appeared in court to contest the charges, this should have been a slam dunk case for the Department of Justice. Normally, this should have been dealt with quietly, and disappeared from the headlines. But here we are, heading on two years later, and Fox News is resurrecting this story practically daily thanks to a whistle blower named J. Christian Adams.

Of course the easy solution would be to immediately discount the allegations made by Adams, given the fact that he is now engaged in writing on politics for Pajamas Media. But perhaps that isn’t wise. Pajamas Media is nothing if they’re not loyal, and they’ve provided readers with a list of former Department of Justice officials willing to make public statements in support of what Adams has said, or simply in support him personally and professionally.

And the problem is that while the Bush Administration levied the charges against these men, the Obama Administration has chosen to drop the charges. This is not “news”. Of course, there’s debate on whether or not it deserves major coverage. There is plenty for one to read on this throughout the conservative media outlets, but it’s buried deep on sites like MSNBC. But this is an issue of law – not politics – or at least it should be.

Beyond the politicking within the current administration, there is the problem of the radicals involved in the initial crimes – voter intimidation. Glenn Beck, for better or worse, decided to devote his entire program today to this issue. Of course he is drawing many lines between otherwise unconnected individuals and situations. But the most important point that he has bothered to point out is the historical significance of this situation. It is repetition of our past of racism, and the fact that unfortunately, racism knows no bounds. It is neither the property of Democrats nor Republicans alone, but both, as long as “we the people” stand by and allow it.

In the coming days and weeks, there will undoubtedly be more information brought to light about this situation. There are some journalists out there that are determined to find out precisely how high this decision to ignore the rule of law went in the administration. It has been a great many years since we’ve had a man sitting in the Oval Office that was honestly willing to stand up and say what needs to be said in a situation like this. “The President–whoever he is–has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.” His name was Harry S. Truman, he had a placard on his desk that said “The Buck Stops Here”, and he was a Democrat. That placard still sits in the Truman Library – has been there since 1957. Perhaps the curators there will let Obama borrow it for inspiration.

Now that everyone has had their chance to complain about all of the major players in the BP Oil Spill, it’s time to take a moment and reflect on what it all really means. The Congressional Hearing with Tony Hayward started off with quite a bit to keep the media hopping. While there was just a little coverage on the crazy woman that decided to cover herself in oil (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), the big story of the day was Congressman Barton, and his apology to Hayward.

Personally, since the dust has somewhat settled, I am thinking that the mainstream media and most bloggers alike would have been better off focusing on the crazy lady. First of all, the whole situation was blown out of proportion primarily because Barton’s speech was too long, and that made it possible for the press to edit at will. Now, if he’d said just one sentence – “I’m sorry that our President has found it necessary to dispense with the use of our court system to settle the financial end of this disaster” – the headlines, and the situation, would be much different. Primarily, I suspect that the crazy lady would have been lead on the evening news.

Hayward has been tripping over his tongue since the explosion, and it is easy to understand why just about everyone has no desire to see anyone play nice with him. While the GOP has been blaming Obama for not meeting with Hayward until nearly 60 days after the explosion, there’s room to wonder whether or not the BP executive had anything to do with the delays.

If one bothered to keep up with the British press, one would know that as of June 6th, Hayward was saying there was no need to meet with Obama. Of course this is coming from a man who in mid-May was severely downplaying the entire situation. All in all, Hayward is a public relations nightmare, and even Slate.com has taken a stab at evaluating the company from that perspective.

And that brings us back to Congressman Barton and his beleaguered statement. Although I can’t pretend to understand precisely what prompted the Congressman’s apology, I can figure out that it probably stung Hayward rather severely. Since Hayward was so arrogant about our legal system, I can understand why he wouldn’t be comfortable with any of our leaders suggesting that he be left to its not-so-tender mercies.

“This is America—come on. We’re going to have lots of illegitimate claims. We all know that.”

That statement was met with a fair amount of righteous indignation when it was made early on in the situation. But apparently it was forgotten, or not even considered in the context of Barton’s statement. We were stuck on being called “little people”, or something like that, I suppose. And while creating a Federal fund out of monies from BP to disburse to those affected by the spill might sound like a lovely idea in comparison with the long process of lawsuits, perhaps that’s precisely what BP wants. Maybe it will be like the age-old question – which came first, the chicken or the egg? – did BP offer billions to Obama before or after the president came up with the idea to handle the finances of the clean-up without lawsuits against BP?

Now that’s the practical end of the situation, and Barton waded into the murky ideological end. While it might be tempting to immediately assume that because Barton is a Republican and received monies from oil companies directly related to the disaster, he was speaking from greed, that isn’t necessarily a correct assumption. If one bothered to listen to the entire speech that is now splattered all over the web, Barton talked about taking money as a Congressman in consideration for a favor as an example paralleling what Obama is doing with BP. He was pointing out that Obama was allowing BP to side-step legal actions by paying what can only be considered at this point as an out-of-court settlement on behalf of thousands of litigants that were never granted the ability to obtain legal counsel.

The problems in our legal system, particularly the fact that lawsuits of this nature can take years to settle, are the first justifications for this course of action. It is a fair argument, but so is the case for limited Federal intervention in the legal system. There is no reason to simply ignore the option of temporarily creating deadlines for settlements of cases against BP. Extra personnel would be needed, and that would cost money – however it is already typical for court costs to be bundled into settlements. BP could be left footing the bill for judges, magistrates, and court personnel. States and localities could be given the ability to appoint and hire the people needed temporarily. Since BP has already demonstrated that they are willing to pay for the clean up, there is no reason to think that monies could not be acquired from them to pay for these people up front. Regardless, this is a far better option than telling the world – and businesses – that we have no problem with dispensing with silly things like due process for the sake of politicians saving face.

Over the past several months I’ve been keeping track of the Health Care debate, primarily because as a political blogger it’s expected of me, but also because I’ve been generally disappointed in most of what I am seeing. Buzz words like “public option” and “single-payer” have been bandied about, but rarely with any real explanations for voters. And then I ended up with a generally innocuous looking mailer from the Office of Congressman Tim Murphy offering the results of a poll he did with his constituents. Normally these mailings end up in the garbage in our house with little or no attention paid to them – I suspect that is true of many households in our area. The information in it is too important to ignore.

While just about any polling organization out there is willing and able to provide interested citizens with numbers touting the currently proposed plans – including those offering a public option – it seems that no one is willing to do anything but quote them. Here in Pennsylvania, we have one who did bother to question results, and decided to do his own survey. Murphy bothered to ask the important questions without the use of buzz words. What’s surprising about the results is the fact that it seems that at least his constituents aren’t walking in lock step with the majority that other polls are finding in favor of the public option.

The all-important question from Murphy’s survey is: “Do you favor a healthcare system that is run by the private sector or the government?” Pennsylvanians from the 18th Congressional District answered in direct opposition with the current polls with 61.6% favoring the Private Sector and only 6.5% in favor of Government-Run. To be fair, Reuters just released numbers stating that 59.9% believe in a public option, and 40.1% don’t nationwide. Murphy’s question doesn’t mention the public option, but it does get to the heart of the matter. Further, 61.7% of Murphy’s constituents polled do not think that the government should “create and manage a public health insurance plan that would compete for business alongside private insurance plans” and only 25.2% think the government should.

Here Murphy is being extraordinarily generous toward his colleagues who are touting a public option, since none of the plans offered honestly would cause real competition. Unless I missed something along the way, all of the current plans for a public option would not be open to all citizens. The public option would be for citizens who are currently uninsured (2.7% of the respondents to Murphy’s survey.) The question that doesn’t seem to be asked or answered by anyone doing polls is “Do you think that a public option that would be open to a small percentage of the population would encourage competition in the insurance industry?”

Moving on to a few other hot button issues in the debate, when asked whether or not every American should be required to have health insurance, the majority of Murphy’s respondents were not in favor of this requirement (58.4% no, 28.5% yes.) It seems residents of our region are also in favor of tearing down restrictions against selling health insurance across state lines by a little over 70%. Most importantly, apparently Pennsylvanians are wary about where their tax dollars are going, since 70.8% think “a private-sector healthcare system can be improved to provide coverage to more Americans at a lower cost than a nationalized plan.” They’re also unwilling to take any of the 11 different tax increases Murphy offered to pay for this plan, with responses varying from 71% to 95% against them.

Congressman Murphy has done a great service for his constituents by providing this survey and its results. It is unlikely that very many of his colleagues would do the same for their constituents, in spite of the fact that is precisely what we need. The one lesson to be learned is that beyond the politicking and buzz words, it is possible to find the truth. All it takes is the time to ask the questions in context, without the jargon.

Note: Congressman Murphy’s full survey results are available here.