Seriously, Mubarak's an authoritarian thug who uses intimidation and outright violence to silence dissent he can't throw in a hole by virtue of several decades worth of emergeny powers. Essentially, Egypt has been in an ongoing state of martial law for some time--but what reason do I have to believe the overthrow of Mubarak would turn out any differently than the overthrow of the Shah? Haven't we made this mistake enough times already? Just because a free election approves slavery or genocide doesn't make it right because it has the holy aura of democracy (and never mind the minoritys whose rights are ignored, whose very survival is threatened). Torching buildings, terrorizing bystanders and lobbing Molotov cocktails presents me little evidence that freedom is on the march here.

Sure, I'm disgusted with Mubarak's police beating a dissident to death--I was also disgusted along with everyone else when the revolutionary clerics ruling Iran for 30 years shot a woman in the head for protesting a couple years ago. If thuggery is the order of the day whoever comes out on top, Mubaraks authoritarian order is ORDER, and that's preferable to a nation wide religious war with a Muslim Brotherhood government military clearly on one side. Mubarak's no humanitarian, but how many more terrorist shootings at the pyramids and terrorist Christmas bombings would there be without him? If that's the only change the protesters are offering, why should I stand up and cheer because they call it democracy? It's their country, once again; respect for free expression and self determination means we have no more right to dictate other countrys government than we do the beliefs of our own citizens. I'm just saying that before we embrace either faction we should take a look at what it has to offer, because opposing Mubarak doesn't automatically put all the protesters on the side of justice.