What constitution?

The fuss about the constitutional ammendments in Egypt is nothing but a load of proctorrhea (a morbid anal discharge if you are wondering).

Mubarak thinks it's good for democracy:

President Hosni Mubarak has billed the changes as part of a reform package aimed at increasing democracy in the country he has ruled unchallenged for a quarter-century.

The Muslim Brothers, on the other hand, think it's bad for democracy:

But the Muslim Brotherhood has said the 34 amendments would limit freedoms, keep it from becoming a legitimate political party and perpetuate Mubarak's grip on power.

The US state department, thinks it's neither good nor bad:

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Tuesday that Washington has some concerns about some of the amendments that have been proposed. But despite its concerns, Washington did not want to prejudge the changes, because it viewed the decision on the amendments as an internal Egyptian matter, he added.

All of them are wrong I think, because they all assume that there is a degree of democracy in Egypt.

The fact that a quarter of the Egyptian parliament is Muslim Brothers is not a sign of democracy. They were deliberately allowed to enter the parliament to prove to Washington that democracy in Egypt is not such a good idea, and guess what? It worked.

The United States has reduced public pressure on Mubarak to adopt democracy in Egypt, apparently focusing more on getting Cairo's support in resolving various Mideast crises (as if Mideast crises are ever going to be resolved).

Renaming the "emergency laws" as "terror laws" is not a big deal. Everybody knows that the emergency laws that were imposed in 1981 were not going to be dropped.

So what's all the fuss about? What's new?