Appalling Arizona

So I’m sure many of us are familiar with the bill that the state of Arizona attempted to pass as law almost a year ago, in April 2010. This bill, Arizona Senate Bill 1070, sought to make it a misdemeanor for an immigrant to be in the state without constantly carrying proper identity documents, prevents officials from restricting enforcement of the state’s immigration laws, and adds an extra measure to suppress those housing, hiring, or transporting illegal immigrants.

The biggest issue with this bill was the alleged consent to and encouragement of racial profiling, which many believed would target legal and illegal citizens alike. The bill has since been declared unconstitutional, and faces lawsuits from several sources, including the United States government, initiated by President Obama.

Apparently this wasn’t enough, because just this past week, Arizona has come out with a new set of restrictions to further ostracize immigrants. These new controls will prevent illegal immigrants from driving in the state, place restrictions on schooling for children as well as most public services, and will go to the lengths of creating special birth certificates for children born to illegal immigrants, emphasizing the fact that they will not be considered citizens of the state.

In discussing this with one of the immigration lawyers that I work with, she said that restricting public school access to children of immigrants was declared unconstitutional in 1982, making it questionable as to what that portion of the law seeks to achieve.

Thinking back to Obama’s State of the Union address earlier this month, he stressed the importance of education, not only of our own citizens, but also those from outside our nation’s borders. He said that our country is made stronger by welcoming minds and workers from elsewhere. But legislators in Arizona, and other right-leaning states as well, are trying to impede what should be a basic right. Given, their parents have “broke the law” to a certain degree, but does that mean that the children must pay by not having access to a basic education and, by default, a brighter future?

There are other issues that I see with this law, but personally, the education part is most important to me. I’m angered by the moves made to prevent immigrants from entering the United States, especially focused on Latin American immigrants, and I think Arizona is a disgrace to our country and what it’s supposed to stand for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24arizona.html?_r=1&ref=us

_Diana

No War Crimes Prosecution for Gadaffi 's Mercenaries?

With members of the Libyan army defecting, a lot has been made of the fact that much of the forces still loyal to Gadaffi are foreign soldiers. Some news articles have portrayed them as being ideologically loyal to the Libyan dictator, relics of an era when Gadaffi had some popularity in the Global South and indicative of the historically mixed relationship between many African nations and the Gadaffi regime,while other reports have simply painted them as mercenaries.

Either way, Glenn Greenwald at Salon has the most interesting scoop today. Apparently, the recent UN sanctions against the Libyan regime featured this language

Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State;

Greenwald argues that this would essentially include the majority of Gadaffi's mercenary forces. The question than arises--why would the UN include such a provision. Apparently, the Obama administration insisted upon it as a "non-negotiable demand." Greenwald and the Telegraph assert that the move was an attempt to set a precedent that would exclude Americans from being prosecuted in the future.

Are we shielding those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Libya in hopes of setting a precedent of immunity for ourselves?

Posted by Chip Gibbons

Government Secrecy and the Role of the Media

Last week it was revealed by an article in the Guardian, that the American being held in Pakistani custody for the death of two Pakistani citizens was a CIA agent with connections to Xe (formerly Blackwater). This revelation was particularly embarrassing for the US as President Obama had previously claimed that the man in question, Raymond Davis, was a "diplomat."

Of course, now that the Guardian has revealed otherwise the US government has been forced to admit that the man roaming around Pakistan with a glock handgun, a telescopic lens, and various other gadgets was in fact not a diplomat.

More embarrassingly perhaps was the Guardian revelation that some in the US media knew that Davis was a CIA agent, but went along with the ruse after being asked to by the US government. Among those who knew, but refused to publish the truth--The New York Times and the Washington Post.

Just today America's paper of record has run an explanation and defense of their decision not to print the truth about Davis. It can be read here.

For the other side of the debate, I recommend Glenn Greenwald's scathing piece at Salon.

I'm wondering what others think of this controversy--did the New York Times do the right or were they as Greenwald suggested "an active enabler of government propaganda."

Personally, I think Greenwald is right. It's bad enough that the President of the United States intentionally mislead the American people and the world, but it's even worse for a purportedly "free press" to know about this and say nothing. The US is becoming increasingly more engaged in a not-so secret war in Pakistan that was not authorized by Congress and therefore has little or no oversight. Our escalating involvement in Pakistan has serious repercussions for the American people as a whole. It should be remembered that our involvement in Vietnam started first with aid to the French, then with "military advisors," and finally escalated into a full scale war. The American people have a right to know about the foreign policy their government conducts and with our increasingly docile Congress, that role needs to be filled by the media. Sadly, like Congress, they seem intent on shirking their duty.

Posted by Chip Gibbons

Times They Are A-Changin

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/us-libya-protests-idUSTRE71G0A620110222?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FworldNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+International%29

Will Libya succeed in overthrowing Gaddafi? Gaddafi is intent on staying in power, relentlessly abusing the protesters. The Libyan riots are different from the Jasmine Revolution in that Gaddafi is not gentle with his attacks. Rather than dispersing the riots, it seems like he is keen on stamping out any form of opposition. Furthermore, Libya is not tied to the U.S., as Egypt was, providing a very different situation for change. The country seems more at "war" rather than calling for change.

Concurrently, China seems to be shaking as pressure from the West increases. The lack of web freedom in China prevents greater solidarity from happening; it is the government's biggest and strongest tool. I don't see a Chinese revolution happening until the people can break the "Great Fire-wall of China."

Finally, as I am on the note of change, Ban-Ki Moon plans to run for his second term as UN Secretary-General. I'm not sure how I feel about this, as he has not established himself as a stellar mediator and fighter for change as his predecessor, Kofi Annan. Ban-Ki Moon has fulfilled his role as a Secretary-General, but I wish he could be seen as a model for trying to make the world better. In my personal opinion, he does not have the fiery passion to applaud good and condemn the bad, not matter which country (as Annan had done in 2003 for the Iraq War).

By Saya

Revolution in the Air!

At a time when change is sweeping across the Middle East, the United States appears unsure of its footing. At once eager to embrace change that could bring enormous benefits to the people of the region, Washington clearly also fears that revolutions have a way of producing unexpected results, not all of them happy.

What are your hopes and fears? What are you hearing from others? Will Egypt and Tunisia and any which follow in this wave go down the route of Indonesia, which overthrew a pro-American dictator in the 1990s only to emerge as a vibrant democracy? Or will Iran's 1979 revolution be the model.

And what of the ethics of the issue? Can the U.S. pursue its interests, defined realistically as stability in the flow of oil, avoiding major realignments (i.e., with Tehran, for instance) and civil wars, and of course the survival of the Camp David accords, without being hypocritical?

Oh Baby!

I read this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12276623 and I was really surprised. Is this healthy for the babies? There has been no information on how safe this practice is.
I wonder what led to this practice happening, as it's not something that's been scientifically proven. At the same time though, many cultural practices in different countries and cultures have not been "scientifically proven" or are practices that have been admonished by Western/ developed (but still developed with Western standards) countries. For example, coining is a traditional South East Asian and Chinese tradition. In order to release excess wind causing colds and aches, a coin is rubbed with tiger balm or a balm of the sort and rubbed against the sing. The abrasive technique is not really accepted in the U.S., with teachers often mistaking students with coin-marks to be victims of child abuse. While this technique is not as questionable as the Dynamic Baby Gymnastics, it points to the issue of cultural divide. For the Russians involved in this technique, was it a continuing tradition within the family? Although I question this technique as well, I don't want to be hasty in shutting down the idea. I want to know more about what process is involved and what the health benefits and risks are.

I managed to track a video of this practice (I was honestly nervous) but I can't dismiss the practice without the proper evidence. Nevertheless, I was scared that the baby's arms were going to be ripped off.

Video: http://www.guzer.com/videos/baby-gymnastics-or-child-abuse.php

Posted by Saya

Pending (Forever?): What Happens Now

Saya Iwasaki

Tunisia and Egypt successfully overthrew their long-standing autocratic government. While congratulations seem appropriate, “what next?” is an important question to ask; especially with the sudden influx of about 3000 Tunisian immigrants into Sicily. The Revolutions are far from over and until both countries can regain stability, I don't think I can say that they were 100% successful.

Many Tunisians are migrating to Europe in hopes of making the big money, especially since the economy of Tunisia is in a fragile state and not strong enough to support a certain population. The unemployed have gained nothing from the revolution since they continue to remain in the same state. While Italian officials can talk about reducing the number of immigrants, the numbers will not lessen until Tunisia is stable again and able to increase the standard of living for their citizens.

The biggest concern is the post-Revolution state of the nation. The Constitution in Tunisia is being written out right now, but the lack of government leaves an empty position of authority that could be filled by A. a proper government, B. another autocrat or military official or C. by the Islamists returning from exile. In Egypt, people are celebrating and the power was handed over to the military, but will the people’s wish for a democracy be answered?

The problem with revolutions is always after, never during. Once the former power has been removed, the new power is in charge of running the nation. In Myanmar, one of the underlying intentions of the coup d’etat of 1962 was to remove democracy and centralize power in order to promote economic and social movements. Well, that clearly worked brilliantly. With the faltering economy of Tunisia, will a new centralized government emerge to temporarily lessen the impact of the revolution (and end up staying for another 20 years)? Positively speaking though, Egypt will have the support of the U.S. so I predict that their revolution will be more successful than Tunisia.

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (at this stage) remind me of Bakunin's writing on revolutions, especially since the people fought to overthrow the government but not to transfer power. Bakunin was a revolutionary that emphasized anarchy and power to the people. He didn't care to plan out the post-Revolutionary state, which was heavily by Marx. Let's hope that the hubbub will begin to settle down and both nations can chisel a clear path to a strong democracy.

What now?

As everyone surely knows by now, Hosni Mubarak resigned on friday from his post as President of Egypt, turning over power to the military. There has been a lot of debate about what exact will happen now-- whether Egyptian will become a flourishing democracy or succumb to the tyranny of another autocrat. There has been much hand-wringing in the media about what role the Muslim Brotherhood will play in Egypt's path to democracy. This is an interesting article I read in Foreign Affairs I read early this week (before Mubarak had resigned), that works to dispel the worries of many about the Muslim Brotherhood. Hope you all enjoy!--Abigail G.


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67348/carrie-rosefsky-wickham/the-muslim-brotherhood-after-mubarak?page=show

Insite

By Sara Abramowitz

This is on a slightly different note than everyone else’s post but I thought this article in the New York Times was fascinating so I wanted to share it with all of you. This piece illuminates a program, Insite, in Vancouver that offers a safe place for drug addicts to shoot up.

Drug users are able to get there fix at Insite and not have to worry about being abused, overdosing, or not having a clean needle. This program offers clean needles. The employees that works there are trained nurses and they are able to deal with overdoses. Insite also offers HIV testing and treatment and information on rehabilitation programs for those interested.

Insite is located in a hard neighborhood, which was once the fastest growing AIDS epidemic in North America. Studies show that the transmission rate has declined and the reasoning behind why is due to the increase in the amount of infected individuals taking antiretroviral medications.

The article discusses why this would never work in the US and I think this is a shame because the benefits of the program are more than just reducing HIV/AIDS transmission. It could lower the amount of crime, overdoses, and in the long run save money on treatment. The article states that it could never work because of the type of health care the US has in place and that doctors prefer patients’ satisfaction rather than reducing incidence. The epidemic in the US is mainly found in poor ethnic neighborhoods where there is a stigma about getting tested.

These reasons are all true for why it would not work in the US but I also think it would fail because American voters would be scared of the supposed repercussions. There would be a fear among many that this would in fact increase the use of drugs among teens, because it would be an “accepted” thing people do. In the most recent past elections, Prop 19 in California did not pass, which I found very surprising. One possible reason for it not passing is the fear among parents about what this would tell their children. The same issues arise in both, and if Prop 19 could not be approved in California than I have a hard time seeing a program like Insite being allowed to function in the US.

Will the US ever be able to open up a program similar to Insite? I think not, and it is a shame.

Egypt in a Picture

by Matthew Boisvert

To me, this picture from the Associated Press (via the Guardian) encapsulates the current state of the Egyptian Revolution (or whatever they are calling it these days). What first caught my eye is the look of sheer joy on her face as she sings patriotic anthems (or so I am told), rejoicing at the news that the hated Mubarak has resigned in response to the protests of her and thousands (millions?) of those like her. The weeks of protesting have resulting in bringing Mubarak's corrupt regime to its knees, with Parliament dissolved, and the interim military government promising elections within six months. The revolutionary movement, largely youth-based, around the age of the woman pictured, has won.

The woman is celebrating by singing patriotic songs and waving an Egyptian flag, a very nationalistic exercise. While the protesters have gone against the government that has defined Egypt for the past 30 years (their lifetime), they view it as an essentially patriotic exercise. They aren't going against Egypt, they are protesting for Egypt, against the corrupt government that has brought Egypt down. What I also think is important about this is that the protesters seem nationalistic in nature, not religious. While this certainly bodes well for Western interests, it also is good for democracy. Perhaps this means that Egypt will not establish an Iran-like theocracy, and instead favor a what is best for Egypt as a nation. Of course, as a Westerner, I assume that to be democracy.

Perhaps the photo isn't that perfect, as the protesters have overwhelming been male, but I think that it is quite telling that a woman can be marching in the streets. Egypt is a progressive society when compared to the Middle East-perhaps this progressiveness is one of the reasons why Mubarak has been overthrown.

What I find particularly striking about this photograph is the balance between Islam and modernity: the t-shirt and head scarf. While the head scarf acknowledges Egypt's Islamic roots, the t-shirt (which says 'flirt'-a decidedly un-Islamic concept) counters it, demonstrating the West's pervasive influence on Egypt. This modernity is at the heart of the revolution.

Sudanese Secession

By Diana Pitcher

While Egypt and its neighbors have taken the spotlight in regards to independence movements in the Middle East, other countries’ actions have been put on the back burner for the time being. The most recent events in the African nation of Sudan echo a move toward assertion of the people’s voices, as the results of a late January referendum call for a secession of the south region of Sudan from its northern counterpart.

Sudan has been plagued by bouts of religious and tribe-based violence for years, as the modern-day boundaries created by colonial powers do not reflect those of the tribes living within them, which is the case of many African countries. Sudan has almost 600 ethnic groups that speak around 400 different languages, which have been categorized into two main ethnic groups: the Northern faction comprising the mainly Muslim population, and the South made up of the Christian population. In addition to ethnic and religious disputes, the North is more developed and relatively resource-less, while the South is greatly underdeveloped and possesses oil reserves.

The issue now, as in any case, is where this latest political decision will lead the country next. The fact that this move toward independence from the North was voted upon by 98 percent of the 4 million registered voters demonstrates an action that is not the most common of political events in Africa. Political turns of events usually occur following an assassination, rebel army attacks, or warring ethnic groups. This development came with relatively little violence, indicating that the decision was relatively unanimous. However, this period of non-violence was broken this past week when over 100 people were killed in a clash between the southern Sudanese military and rebel fighters.

The question lies in which outcome this decision of secession will take: violence or relative stability. This past week’s violent attacks don’t give us a whole lot of faith in the stability path, but for others, this break of the cease-fire came as “a surprise move,” according to Philip Aguer, a spokesperson for the southern Sudanese army. This attack is not the first of its kind following the referendum, which would grant full independence to the southern region on July 9^th, 2011. So what do we/the southern Sudanese people have to believe in?

Sudan has long been one of the most troubled countries in Africa, and its stability could be a step in the right direction and set a positive example for the region as a whole. That being said, it needs outside help to achieve this. I’m not suggesting that the United States step in, because honestly I’m not into the idea of playing the world police role, but if the nation is left to its own devices, I don’t think we can expect a positive change any time soon. To anyone who knows more about this topic than I do, or has a suggestion for the future of this country, don’t hesitate to share.

Current article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/africa/12sudan.html?ref=africa

Recent background article: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/27/133241659/north-south-sudans-would-face-high-hurdles

Egypt After Mubarak

Chip Gibbons

The news we’ve all been waiting for is finally here. Mubarak is out. While many of us expected this it was by no means inevitable. Mubarak after 30 plus years of dictatorial rule did not want to go and hung on almost as long as possible. Just yesterday afternoon as he gave a condescending, paternalistic speech leaving many of us wondered if this moment would ever come. And yet it did.

However, while Mubarak is gone it is yet to be seen how much of the system he came to be symbolic of will remain in place. Mubarak, while a dictator, did not govern alone. There is a deeply entrenched elite power structure in Egypt that helped him maintain power and only shed themselves of him when he became more of a liability than an asset. The same can be said of the world’s lone superpower.

If dictators were easy to remove there would none left. The courageous struggle of the Egyptian people, in which young people and labor unions played the defining role, is a historic moment. A mass mobilization of people were able to from below force out the man on top. This is something to celebrate.

But what about Egypt After Mubarak? What comes next? Military rule? Democracy? Omar Suleiman? He is certainly no friend of the Egyptian people. Throughout the revolution he called on the people to disperse, blamed the unrest on foreign media, stated he would continue the Emergency law, and is closely associated with the CIA and torture. If he remains in power Egypt may not be much better off than under Mubarak.

Still we cannot underestimate the incredible psychological impact of the Egyptian revolution on the Egyptian people, Arab elites, the Middle East, and the world in general. It is a paradigm shifting event and has created new openings in the Middle East. For points of comparison look at the the unrest that shook the world after Russian Revolution, 1968, the color revolutions and the collapse of the totalitarian Soviet system, the national liberation struggles against colonialism, and the current shattering of the Washington Consensus in Latin America.

In each of these circumstances a triggering event created an opening across regions and nations, and while many of their goals or visions failed to be realized lesser reforms previously impossible were forced from elite structures from below. The failures are obvious. Not only did a totalitarian government prevail in Russia as opposed to the promised worker’s democracy, none of the various socialist inspired revolts succeed anywhere else. Not only did none of the participants in the 1968 uprisings achieve lasting power, in Prague and Tlatelolco they were violently crushed. Many colonial nations gained a de facto status of independence only to face domestic dictatorships and to continue to be made dependent by intentional underdevelopment and neocolonial structures. In the former Soviet Union and its satellite states people faced neoliberal shock therapy and oligarchs that sucked up economic and political power.

Yet, while the socialist-inspired revolution ended very badly for its instigators in Germany, it resulted in the resignation of the Kaiser and liberal democracy in the form of the ill-fated Weimar Republic. The turmoil of 1968 resulted in an opening in the public sphere that allowed for student, women’s liberation, and gay liberation movements to appear. And I think the end of the colonial or the Soviet system is nothing to scoffed at. In short, these mobilizations failed in the most obvious ways, but created openings that allowed for important advances otherwise impossible to made against elite power structures.*

While it’s easy to fall into a celebratory haze, it is also just as easy to think of the a lyric from The Who--“Meet the old boss, same as the new.” But neither blind optimist nor corrosive cynicism gives us any special insight. The historical examples given above are just that. The future of Egypt and the Middle East is by no means written.**.

*

You may notice the current events in Latin America, while previously mentioned as paradigm shifting moment, has been absent from subsequent anaylsis. This is because, the long term effects of the current events in Latin American will be, like the Arab revolutions, remains to be seen

**

Yes, it’s cliche and I feel pathetic not being able to offer anymore insights, but in order to say more I’d have to profess clairvoyance. I do not and am deeply skeptical of those who do.

What Now?

By Saim Saeed

Finally, Mubarak's gone. While Egyptians deserve plaudit for their unity and courageous efforts to get him out, another tough test - perhaps the toughest - remains: free and fair, multi-party elections and a peaceful transition to democracy. None of this will be easy.

Even though Mubarak has taken flight, his right-hand man and acting Vice President, Omar Suleiman, remains. Not to mention that he was the head of Egyptian intelligence, itself responsible for the intimidation, coercion and repression of hundreds of political dissidents throughout Mubarak's thirty year regime. So while Mubarak's departure does indeed signal progress, it would be remiss to assume that the residue of thirty years of repression also departed with him.

So here's the situation as I see it. The United States, for all its calls of democracy, does not trust it in the hands of Middle Easterners all that much. It didn't work with the Islamic Revolution in Iran; it didn't work with Hamas in Gaza in 2006; it's still not working in Lebanon - at least not the way the United States want it to work.

A lot has been said about the Muslim Brotherhood and the potential threat of a radicalized, anti-Israeli Egypt. I'm a bit more skeptical. For one thing, if the Brotherhood were elected into office (big if), there would not be anything illegitimate about it. Based on popular vote, the most popular party deserves to represent its constituency. Secondly, the Brotherhood has been around for far longer than the advent of Islamic militancy and will be there after it has passed. It is a grassroots organization that has done much to alleviate poverty, feed the starving, and educate the illiterate. It has been the only notable dissident to Mubarak's regime throughout his tenure before the protests, and as far as links with Al-Qaeda are concerned, Al-Qaeda hates the Brotherhood for its renunciation of violence. Religious political parties are a part of the political climate in countries everywhere, including Israel, and I find it slightly xenophobic that only religious Islamic parties are treated with such apprehension, even hostility. As the AK Party of Turkey shows, Islamic does not equal radical.

A legitimate concern of the United States and Israel is the status of the Camp David Accords. The Brotherhood has been critical of Israel in the past, and that is understating it. For this reason, I'm more interested in the internal debate the Brotherhood itself is having with regards to its relationship with Israel (again, that is IF they assume power) than what either the United States or Israel have to say about it. One reason why the Brotherhood has been so critical of Israel is because it caters to popular sentiment; a majority of Egyptians do not support Israel. However, while it might be popular for the Brotherhood to hate on Israel, it doesn't make much strategic sense. Egypt has as much to benefit from the Peace Accords as Israel does, and would be loath to start a re-militarization of forces in the Sinai. Hostilities with Israel would also mean a direct threat from Israel's nuclear weapons and could possibly trigger a nuclear arms race if not all-out war - something Israel has had plenty of experience with and would not hesitate to engage in. Furthermore, Egypt counts on tremendous amounts of foreign aid from the United States in maintaining peace with Israel, and it benefits from substantial revenue that Israeli tourists and trade bring to Egypt. Therefore, I am hoping that the Brotherhood would be sensible enough to maintain the peace accords.

What I am hoping for most is the start of a new political culture. Long has any sort of political organization been a monopoly of the Brotherhood and Mubarak's ironically named National Democratic Party. I'm hoping for new parties catering to different segments of the Egyptian populace. I'm hoping for rallies, new candidates, new leaders, healthy debate, and plenty of opportunity for Egyptians to get their voices heard. This depends on how the military, Suleiman, and Egyptians themselves move from here. It would probably be wise for Suleiman to announce elections for September, giving ample time for people to organize. It might also make elections more competitive than in the current political climate where a dominant leader or party has not emerged to challenge the Brotherhood. However, transitional governments, especially those consisting of the military establishment, rarely tend to be their namesake, and the possibility of Suleiman seeking power for himself remains. In order for this not to happen, Egyptians cannot allow themselves to take their proverbial foot off the gas. They need to make sure their politicians are accountable, and do their duties exactly like they are supposed to. While this might have been a laughable thing to ask of Arabs as recently as a month ago, it is not the case any more. If there was ever a time for governments in the Arab world to fear their people, it is now.

Egyptian Unrest

By Dana Muntean

Maybe because my previous analysis was focused on the Arab World, I was looking for articles that reveal facts about the same topic, in order to have a better understanding of the issue and to enrich my own perspective. The article from the Economist describes well the consequences of the two weeks of unrest in Egypt and brings to the table the possible outcomes for the whole region.

Now Egyptian businesses come back to life and peaceful protests continue. There are listed and described the Mr Suleiman’s concessions that are intended to meet nearly all the protesters’ demands. I wished I could read more about the primary goals of the young protesters. Are they driven by economic or political considerations?

While reading the part about the role of social media in mobilizing people to participate in protests, I had a déjà-vu. The first think that came to my mind was the Twitter Revolution in Moldova. Because I was part of it, I understand how difficult is to promote your ideals in this turmoil of events. Hopefully, the Egyptian sick and tired youth will succeed more than we did in defending their human rights after the end of protests.

My dear friends, how real seems to you, the scenario for Egypt to become an Islamic state?

Will Mubarak step down?

Could Mohamed ElBaradei have enough support to become the new president?

What are your predictions for the Egypt's future, and consequently, for the whole region?

I Love the Smell of Jasmine in the Morning

Welcome to the Spring Semester of BGIA's incisive blog on international affairs. With Egypt hanging in the balance and a wide world of implications dying to be discussed, there's no excuse for this to be a dead zone. Our blog is meant to dissect and distill ideas down to their intellectual stock, like the apples in the press behind me. So, blog away, remembering these rules:

• Be respectful: Whether blogging about a person, an ethnic group or a nation, we won't be perjorative on this blog. Smart, witty, humorous, ironic, even scathing criticism all have a place here. Insults and insensitivity do not.


• Sign Your posts: remember to put your name on your posts - otherwise, the autosignature will be "Bardblogger." Anonymous posts are not permitted on this blog.


• Comment: Commenting is as important as blogging. I want to see conversations going on, back and forth discussions of the issues we surface.


• Tell your friends: anyone can read or comment on our blog. However, the password you have is confidential. Do Not Share outside my class.

That's it, blog away BGIA.

Professor Mike