The Egyptian Military's Decision

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

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

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

No online civility.

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

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

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