From Sky News:

As anti-Mubarak demonstrators continue their protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, away from the area there are signs of growing divisions among their ranks.

One protester, Ahmed, fought the president’s hated riot police a week ago but he has now stopped going to the square.

For him, Mr Mubarak’s concessions, including stepping down at the next election and promising reforms, is enough.

He told Sky News that as the protests continue he “doesn’t want chaos”…

The report goes on to note that some are still willing to keep it up – but how long, really, can you keep up a demonstration? Eventually, people have to get back to work if for no other reason than they need to obtain food and other necessities. It is still possible that the rebels will prevail, but I consider this a fast-disappearing possibility.

Things will not go back to normal, however – new men and forces have been thrown up in this rebellion and various second and third tier players in the regime now will see their opportunity to clear out the upper levels, thus allowing their rise to power. The Moslem Brotherhood, while not officially un-banned, has had the lid taken off – they will now have far greater ability to organize and propagandize. But for the mass of Egyptians, things will not improve – because they will still have a regime which does not allow free expression of the will of the people, nor will they shed their crony-capitalism/state-socialism economic model.

If this rebellion does fizzle, it will be because of the essential mindlessness of the revolt – just wanting a tyrant out doesn’t do the trick, even if you get him out. A tyrant is not a stand-alone operation. All tyrants have massive support systems built in to their societies. Mubarak has had his willing participants in his rule – if you want to have a revolution, then you have to know what you want to put in place of the old regime. I doubt the masses in Tahrir Square had any ideas beyond getting rid of Mubarak and maybe a vague idea of “democracy”, for which concept they may or may not have a realistic view. Because there was no firm direction of the revolt, it was unable to garner the sort of hard force necessary to topple a regime and install a new one – the army first stayed aloof, and then clearly decided to protect the regime.

If the Egyptians are to get any political change, they’ll have to decide what they want – and the really bad news here is that “democracy” has failed, while the Moslem Brotherhood has been strengthened and will now be able to carefully explain just what they want to do – and in contrast to a disastrously failed “democracy” movement, the MB may seem a good alternative to what will remain a corrupt and repressive Egyptian government.

UPDATE: Some things to keep in mind about Egypt:

…The regime’s weakness, in turn, reflects the dysfunctional character of the country. 35% of all Egyptians, and 45% of Egyptian women can’t read.

Nine out of ten Egyptian women suffer genital mutilation. US President Barack Obama said Jan. 29, “The right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny … are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere.” Does Obama think that genital mutilation is a human rights violation? To expect Egypt to leap from the intimate violence of traditional society to the full rights of a modern democracy seems whimsical…

From Big Government:

Following the release of a video that has received nationwide attention showing Planned Parenthood staff at a New Jersey abortion center helping alleged sexual traffickers cover up their crimes with abortions and STD testing, Governor Chris Christie has vetoed a bill funding Planned Parenthood…

In a rational America, all government agencies would cut funding to that horrific, anti-human organization. What is a bit shocking is that Christie’s action is unique – we’ll see how many other governors and legislatures are willing to follow suit, and that will tell us just how far the rot has gone…anyone and any agency which doesn’t cut funding is in really bad shape.

From the AP:

Shell Alaska has dropped plans to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea this year and will concentrate on obtaining permits for the 2012 season, company Vice President Pete Slaiby said Thursday.

The recent remand of air permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency was the final driver behind the decision, Slaiby said at a news conference…

And its all just tied up on absurd environmentalist worries – which include that the cold, inclement weather causes risks while at the same time the project would further stress animals feeling the effects of global warming…which is it? It can’t be both – unless it is neither, which is almost certainly the case. What the environmentalists want is no drilling – so they’ll just throw up whatever objections they can knowing that liberal Democrats in DC will do their bidding.

800 jobs will be lost over this – as well as losing the chance to lessen our dependence upon foreign oil. This action, in its effect, is anti-American and those who caused this should be ashamed of themselves. If they really felt themselves to be American, they would feel that shame…but I doubt they’ll lose any sleep over it. In fact, they might even feel a bit of delight in that they’ve further hobbled America and made us just a little bit weaker in the world, in keeping with a general liberal belief that it is bad when America is predominant.

From Zero Hedge:

At 64.2%, the labor force participation rate (as a percentage of the total civilian noninstitutional population) is now at a fresh 26 year low, the lowest since March 1984, and is the only reason why the unemployment rate dropped to 9% (labor force declined from 153,690 to 153,186). Those not in the Labor Force has increased from 83.9 million to 86.2 million, or 2.2 million in one year!

If you were to add even half that 2.2 million back in to the labor force, the unemployment rate would probably be above 10%. And even with such a huge reduction in the number of people looking for work, the best Bernanke can promise us is that employment will get back to normal in two or three years.

Of course, I don’t entirely trust the number – it seems odd that we’ve had so many straight months of declining labor force participation. Keep in mind that the keepers of the stats say the recovery began in 2009…surely by now we’d have an increase in participation, wouldn’t we? I mean, if there really was any genuine increase in wealth creation as opposed to a “wealth effect” created by massive amounts of fiat money.

And that, ultimately, is my worry – that we’re buying this “recovery” with fake money and mountains more debt and we’re not getting any net increase in national wealth for it. This means at the end of the day, even more debt will have to be supported by relatively less actual wealth. This is a recipe for complete economic collapse. Time will tell how this comes out, but if one wishes to bet, don’t bet that a printing press and borrowed money leads to prosperity.

UPDATE: More information on the unemployment numbers. “Bogus” seems an accurate description.

Here’s the story at NRO’s The Corner:

Despite the recent repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the drive to reinstate the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps at Stanford University is facing resistance.

In March 2010, the Faculty Senate appointed a committee to investigate whether to allow ROTC back on campus after an almost 40-year absence. The committee will report back in May 2011.

In the meantime, anti-ROTC groups have been making their opposition known. One group, Stanford Says No to War, created a website at the misleading domain name http://rotc.stanford.edu to air its displeasure. (Earlier this month, the university revoked the domain name to avoid further confusion.) Unsurprisingly, the anti-war group believes ROTC’s presence is antithetical to the university’s purpose. It cites Professor Cecilia Ridgeway, who once said in Reading Eagle: “Universities are about solving problems through discussion, not military approaches.”…

Well, ok. Here’s what we do – we move Stanford (buildings, professors, student body, the whole shebang) to, say, Tehran. There the wonderful people of Stanford (especially the worthies at American Indian Gays, Black and Queer at Stanford, Feminist Collective and Queer and Questioning Asians And Pacific Islanders) can go and discuss their issues with the Mullahs. I’m sure that a group of unarmed, earnest college students and professors will have no trouble at all in convincing the Iranian government, by discussion, that there is a place for Black and Queer in the Islamic Republic.

Talk about ivory tower! These fools really don’t seem to understand that they are able to sit around doing hardly anything of importance while giving themselves airs of superiority because rougher men and women are willing to carry a weapon in their defense. There probably won’t be too many ROTC types at Stanford – or any other of our elite universities – but there will be some, and simple common sense and a desire for self-preservation would get rational people behind such a such a group of people. Sadly, common sense is what is most lacking in American “higher education” these days.

Of course, we really can’t ship Stanford to Tehran. But there is something we can do – if they don’t immediately allow ROTC back on campus with full access and no problems from faculty, then we cut them off. No student loans, no grants – no nothing; not another penny of taxpayer funds. That’ll make them squeal like stuck pigs – and get them to stop being quite so stupid.

Hat Tip The American Catholic – and a second on the wonder why Fox would block such an ad…let’s face it, a good part of Fox’s Superbowl audience will be people delighted with John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

Not exactly the most controversial statement one can make – though bound to offend the usual collection of anti-religious pinheads who get upset about such things. But, on balance, offending people like that usually works to your advantage.

Very strange action – I’d like to hear a rational explanation from Fox about it.

From Bloomberg:

The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater-drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.

Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling…

Obama and his liberals don’t care about our national energy situation – that we are importing massive amounts of oil from enemy States; that gasoline looks to be heading towards $4 a gallon by summer. All that doesn’t matter – what matters is if Obama can keep part of his liberal donor base happy; and they are kept happy by a drilling ban. Regular folks? Who care? Especially as Obama knows he won’t win any of the Gulf States in 2012, anyways…they can go get stuffed.

Liberalism is laid bare here – the complete disregard for law; the hatred of any activity which actually creates wealth; the contempt for so-called “bitter clingers” who won’t vote for them. As long as Obama is President, policy will be subordinated to whatever is thought best to maintain and expand the political and economic power of the liberal Ruling Class.

We’ll see where this case – and the ObamaCare case – go…but my bet is that Obama will just defy the courts and keep at it, secure in the knowledge that as long as Reid is Majority leader, no Congressional efforts to call him to account will go anywhere.

More of that “new tone” our liberals want…

To be asked by Ron Paul – from the Committee on Financial Services:

Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Ron Paul announced today the Subcommittee will meet for a hearing to examine the impact of Federal Reserve policies on job creation and the unemployment rate. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 9th at 10 am in room 2128 Rayburn.

Subcommittee Chairman Paul said, “I’m very pleased to hold our first subcommittee hearing in the new Congress on a topic that could not be more critical, namely unemployment. Despite enormous amounts of monetary and credit expansion by the Federal Reserve in recent years, the nation’s unemployment picture remains bleak. While many focus on the impact of fiscal policies on employment, the effect of monetary policy often goes unexamined. In my view we are now experiencing the bust that inevitably results from the misallocation of capital and human resources in a period of artificially cheap credit. It is important to understand the Federal Reserve’s role in creating today’s unemployment crisis, while also highlighting that high unemployment and low economic growth can persist even in the face of tremendous monetary inflation.”

The Federal Reserve has taken unprecedented action to provide liquidity to financial markets and some U.S. corporations; however, unemployment remains above 9 percent. The hearing, entitled Can Monetary Policy Really Create Jobs?, will focus on the Fed’s recent actions, the likelihood those actions will reduce unemployment, and the critical role of the private sector in job creation…

Long time readers will recall that I’ve not often had kind things to say about Ron Paul – I disagree with him heartily in matters of foreign and defense policy, as well as in some areas of social policy where he takes far too libertarian a view. But in matters of monetary policy, Ron Paul and I see pretty near eye to eye. I can’t imagine anyone I’d rather have looking in to the actions of the Federal Reserve than Ron Paul. The Federal Reserve has been uniformly baleful to the American economy since it was first created in 1913 – it has been the instrument of our currency devaluation, our de-industrialization and our massive debt. The tough thing about the Fed, however, is that most Americans are only slightly aware of it – a good series of hearings about what it is up to can go a long way towards educating the people about the Fed, and thus setting it up to be dissolved.

Don’t expect immediate revolution – this is the opening shot. This is where we just start the process of getting rid of the Fed and eventually getting ourselves back to a sound money economy. This effort will be fought tooth and nail by all those who stand to lose – the gigantic banks, the bureaucracy and every grafting politician out there who looks at the Treasury as a means of buying votes for re-election. They’re already a bit worried but if it starts to look like their fiat money cash cow is going to be pole-axed, they’ll rise in fury. Be ready for it – with your best defense being a presumption of “BS” on any story which asserts that without the Fed things will completely fall apart (we had no Federal Reserve from 1776 until 1913 – during which time we rose from agrarian backwater to global powerhouse…a century on in to our Federal Reserve and we’re being out-competed by the Chinese, for crying out loud).

Onwards to revolution, my fellow Americans – the beast is cornered and we will have it down.