Actually, Judith and Claire, I got my info from the rabid Sunni mouthpiece BBC News, though I did see similar reports on Al-Jazeera.  Fortunately, this guy had an answer to my question.  

I think Fidel may have beat you to it.

I was just in the Michigan Diag with a few hundred rabid Islamists hoping to turn Egypt into a sharia state that bans alcohol and blows up petting zoos in the daytime.  Actually, I was with a few hundred mostly-Arab students holding up signs like "Injustice to some is injustice to all!"  There's a good chance a new leadership will take this revolution as an endorsement of Islamist principles, but if they do so, they'll be going against the will of a lot of people.  I'm holding out hope.  

1.  Why do the people trust the army over the police?  Is the army seen as independent, and the police force an arm of the executive?  If a regime change comes quickly and uncontrolled, will the army be the thread holding the country together? (Egypt has the 10th largest active army in the world)

2.  Similar to Scott's question, if we were to unequivocally side with the Egyptians, what is the worst that could happen?  Would we legitimize a possible Islamist regime that comes to power?  Would other leaders in unstable countries see us as fickle and untrustworthy?

3.  What can an average and remote person do, besides keep up to date?

A third of the laptops in view are tuned in to what's going on.  People care about this stuff.  

I don't know a whole lot about the situation in Egypt, and I'm a still a bit hazy about '79 Iran, but how can we make sure than we don't end up on the wrong side of a possible revolution?  I see a lot of similarities with Iran, especially in the revolutionary tendencies of the people, divorced from Islam, but that didn't stop Khomeini et al.  Will Mubarak be another Shah?  We ended up tossing the Shah under the bus, and that didn't do us any favours with the Persians, though I don't think we've propped up Mubarak quite like we did the Shah.  

It seems to me that indifference would be just as bad supporting the wrong regime.  I think we have to just plant our feet and say "we're with the guy carrying the hoe and torch."  Besides the Arab/Persian cultural differences, is there any reason this may end differently?

Well, that's easy for you to say, dressed up like a dandy - ruffles, cloak, embroidered vest/man-corset and all.  

I like them all except Rule #42.  One of the blessings of the internet is that you address people on the level of ideas, not title or station.  If I was a prince (or maybe I am...) I'd be relieved at the anonymity and honesty of online peasant life.

I don't know if he was a Palin or Marx supporter, and it doesn't matter tonight, even if others try to make it matter.  Politics can come off the back burner when the important things cool down. All that matters is the skill of the doctors, the peace and comfort of those close to the victims, and the mercy of God.  Prayers for you, George, and everyone else affected.  

This is definitely more of an eye-roller than a fist-shaker.  It's actually a bit fun to see a governor get behind college football; I remember Jindal sneaking a "Go (Geaux?) Tigers" into one of his speeches.  More "Everyman", I guess.  

If using that word scares people away from reading the book, then take it out.  Yes, it's their own fault for being over-sensitive, but they're missing out on a great adventure and a unique friendship.  I've got enough confidence in American literature to overcome PC knee jerks.  

My only experience with the guy is catching a few episodes of "Hard Knocks," HBO's docuseries on the Jets. He seems to like Bill Callahan's work; perhaps he could take on Bill's former offensive coordinator. Please, Rex? Please?!

I can see that, this article talks about Albuquerque's profits, but $1 million for a city of 500,000+ doesn't really seem that huge, especially considering the size of the force and the effort.  And really, the fines are the least of a person's worries.  But it seems like a lot of times DUI fee increases are justified as budget control measures.  Penalties that go beyond punitive never really sit well with me.  

CDC doesn't define it; you gotta go to the study.  MADD probably doesn't define it when they link to the CDC study. It's cite ready, people don't do it though.  Just because you define it a certain way doesn't make it reasonable, if the general usage is contrary to how it's defined, and crowding it into a footnote doesn't help.  

I agree that the key is controllability.  I'm talking about why the stats are misleading, not whether we can change behaviour.  Though I am for changing behaviour, through laws that focus on behaviour and not paying city budgets.  

I got that, I think you worded it fine, I think I probably worded my point poorly.  If ten percent of people have red hair, and 15% of accident fatalities have a red hair driver involved in them, people may think "well, that's unusual."  But statistically that would be about right, if you assume both parties are likely killed.   It's not that they're more dangerous because of that, the statistics just make it look that way.  

32% of fatalities doesn't correspond to 32% of all traffic. There are often two or more parties to a crash, so it's likely "alcohol-impaired drivers" account for less than 32% of all traffic. "Alcohol-impaired drivers" aside, conditions at night are more conducive to serious crashes, and people that drink are more likely to be drinking at night.  Of course, that's the problem with focusing on proxies like BAC, rather than conduct.

And I would call that definition misleading. Most BAC charts refer to impairment on a scale, so the term "alcohol-impaired" is cite ready for all the zero tolerance groups (the CDC is pretty honest about it though), with the associated causation implied. Just because they define it doesn't mean the term itself isn't misleading out of context. I usually don't hold it against an agency if someone else misrepresents their analysis, but they should know better.  

Yep, blood alcohol is possibly worse, since it gives a false sense of precision. I'm all for giving cops less leeway, I just don't see why the 0.08% has to be a presumption. 0.08% + additional evidence of impairment would be better.

You can shut off a cellphone, but I'm not sure people do. If impaired reaction time's the issue, how is a person to judge whether someone will unexpectedly drive out in front of them, so that they know to put the phone down in time? Both decisions require people to consciously consider their own capabilities, and distraction could easily impair that consideration. It's a difference, but I'm not convinced it's one that matters in practice. 

And why does temporary impairment (i.e. drinking) have to be criminalized? You can deter it by making it a civil infraction, like speeding, another risk-increasing activity, and additionally taking away the car keys at the spot of the infraction.

IwontgetstartedonMADD (word limit).