Is the Great Recession Over?
Yes. No. Yes.
Here's the real method to measure if the recession is over, Mr. Appel.
I'M STILL UNEMPLOYED. IT'S REALLY A DEPRESSION. AUGH.
Hope that helps, sir.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Via the Atlantic: Is the Recession Over?
Sullivan is on vacation (or hopefully on a covert mission to Iran... oh damn I hope I didn't blow his cover), so he's got his regular crew of misfit toys covering for him. Patrick Appel is posting:
Here's the real method to measure if the recession is over, Mr. Appel.
I'M STILL UNEMPLOYED. IT'S REALLY A DEPRESSION. AUGH.
Hope that helps, sir.
Here's the real method to measure if the recession is over, Mr. Appel.
I'M STILL UNEMPLOYED. IT'S REALLY A DEPRESSION. AUGH.
Hope that helps, sir.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
What other topics can be of interest?
There are times I have great interest in politics, in seeing issues discussed, plans enacted, realities confirmed. Then there are times I see the political arena overrun by goddamn wingnut lunatics and wonder why I ever developed an interest in political affairs in the first place... and why I was ever a registered Republican (I think I can blame dad - a Nixon Republican - for that)...
I mean, what else can be said or done regarding how the mainstream media doesn't do journalism anymore, how government is tied up by obstructionist politicians going insane over a national census process that's been in effect for decades, how we still haven't dealt with the previous administration's lawlessness, how an ever-growing number of Americans are out of work and unable to save their homes or families while corrupt financial institutions that caused our recent economic depression (until unemployment drops below 8 percent or I get a full-time job whichever comes first, I'm calling this a depression dammit) are going back to encouraging the same reckless behavior that got us into this hellhole in the first place.
Unlike hilzoy of Obsidian Wings, however, I refuse to decide on retiring from political blogging. Hell, I'm trying to see if I can get hilzoy's job there...
I mean, what else can be said or done regarding how the mainstream media doesn't do journalism anymore, how government is tied up by obstructionist politicians going insane over a national census process that's been in effect for decades, how we still haven't dealt with the previous administration's lawlessness, how an ever-growing number of Americans are out of work and unable to save their homes or families while corrupt financial institutions that caused our recent economic depression (until unemployment drops below 8 percent or I get a full-time job whichever comes first, I'm calling this a depression dammit) are going back to encouraging the same reckless behavior that got us into this hellhole in the first place.
Unlike hilzoy of Obsidian Wings, however, I refuse to decide on retiring from political blogging. Hell, I'm trying to see if I can get hilzoy's job there...
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Return of Iran Uprising: Day 28
After more than a week of relative calm, the populus is back up in arms and the streets again filled with smoke and spattered with blood. Today was apparently an anniversary of a student uprising (EDIT: 1999 Student Protests).
Sullivan as always is as up-to-minute as possible. Including links now to Nico Pitney. Pitney's reporting indicates large crowds, larger than expected:
Sullivan as always is as up-to-minute as possible. Including links now to Nico Pitney. Pitney's reporting indicates large crowds, larger than expected:
(via Robert Mackey): The regime assumed that with Khameni's speech last week forgiving the protesters, and arresting all the reporters and heads of reformist movement, the issue of unrest was resolved. Today's marches and protests are not supported by Mousavi, Khatami, and Karoubi. It is a grassroot uprising meant to let the Islamic regime know the people will not be silenced.
Makes one forget about... hmm, something about someone quitting somewhere (I've gotten to the point Re: That Crazy Lady's coverage is overdone, so I'm currently in the Ignore phase).
CIA Lying to Congress? Color me Not So Shocked
Via Steve Benen at Washington Monthly (with MSNBC making big hay out of it last night to boot. Oh and the Bold highlights are mine):
Aw, gee. Congress being lied to. Like that's never happened much before. /sarcasm
This is why I've posted an amendment idea to state "Lying is NOT Protected Speech" (Because some bastards interpreting the First Amendment seem to think lying is okay), and to state that any elected official or civil servant (basically ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT) caught lying be 1) suspended without pay, 2) investigated for the lies, and 3) removed and banned for life from government if proven there was intent to lie.
In May, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the CIA had misled Congress years ago on the use of waterboarding. Republicans were apoplectic -- the very idea that intelligence officials would mislead lawmakers was so despicable, some GOP leaders suggested Pelosi should resign. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said Pelosi had launched a "massive attack on our intelligence community," and added that it's "outrageous" for the Speaker to "call our terror-fighters liars." Newt Gingrich seriously argued that the Speaker's comments increased the risk of a terrorist attack against the United States.The whole mess caused something of a media frenzy, and the Speaker's poll numbers tanked.
Perhaps it's time to revisit the question of whether the CIA has a tendency of being less than truthful with Congress.
The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, has told the House Intelligence Committee in closed-door testimony that the C.I.A. concealed "significant actions" from Congress from 2001 until late last month, seven Democratic committee members said.
In a June 26 letter to Mr. Panetta discussing his testimony, Democrats said that the agency had "misled members" of Congress for eight years about the classified matters, which the letter did not disclose. "This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods," said the letter, made public late Wednesday by Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, one of the signers.
In an interview, Mr. Holt declined to reveal the nature of the C.I.A.'s alleged deceptions. But he said, "We wouldn't be doing this over a trivial matter."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) added that his committee "has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one occasion) was affirmatively lied to." Spencer Ackerman, who was among the first to report on this (if not the first), has a copy of the full letter from the Democrats on the committee.
Aw, gee. Congress being lied to. Like that's never happened much before. /sarcasm
This is why I've posted an amendment idea to state "Lying is NOT Protected Speech" (Because some bastards interpreting the First Amendment seem to think lying is okay), and to state that any elected official or civil servant (basically ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT) caught lying be 1) suspended without pay, 2) investigated for the lies, and 3) removed and banned for life from government if proven there was intent to lie.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Palin Is Insane
Actually I'm just saying that so I can get sued by her lawyer. Bwhahahaha. Anything to increase interest in this blog...
But seriously, you have to ask WHY? Why did she resign her governorship? Why so sudden that it caught even her staff unprepared?
Best theories I can think of:
1) Palin genuinely wanted to leave the national spotlight. After months of public bashing, especially all the salacious stories about her kids, she's had enough. In this, I wouldn't blame Letterman, which was sooooo last month, but the more recent Vanity Fair article that painted such an unflattering light and exposed how unpopular she was getting inside her own state.
Problem with this theory: This doesn't entirely jibe with what we've seen of Palin's psyche, and with her ambition. Ambitious people don't quit like this: not haphazardly, always with a plan, always with something right there waiting for them that would be a bigger better prize. If this is true, a run for the Presidency is clearly out of the question, because a hostile primary contest against the other likely contenders (Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty) would be just as spiteful as what she's been getting this past year. So if this is Palin's reason for leaving now, then she's left for good, and there is no presidential run in her future...
2) Palin felt confined in the governorship job and felt resigning would free her to run a national campaign. Let's be realistic: Alaska is a sparsely populated state miles away from the country's centers of power (DC, NYC, LA, even Chicago and Atlanta). Anything she does of any merit wouldn't impact a whole lot of people, and other than basic management needs - improving schools, child care, and other social services that Republicans simply don't do - there's little reason to use Alaska as a state-level laboratory for policy innovations (too small a population to be useful). When she talked about being a "lame duck" during her resignation speech, this was partly what she's referring to: knowing that she wasn't going to run for a second term in 2010, there's nothing left at her job to hold her interest or provide opportunities to show off to the nation any leadership skills she thinks she has.
The other part of this theory is the idea that this frees her up to run a national campaign. It surely does: no more need to hang aboot Juneau, she can travel nationwide to fund-raise for herself and for others during midterms. She can get any number of gigs: big-ticket name for the guest speaker circuit; talk show on FOX (who else would take her?); lecturer/part-time college professor at a major poli-sci university; Las Vegas greeter; anything else that would appeal to her interests and keep her name on the front pages. She could argue that it would be unfair to split her time between governing and campaigning, and besides, others have quit before to focus on campaigns.
Problem with this theory: The certainty that she quit her governor job TOO SOON. Palin could well have waited until the 2010 midterms were over to see what the revamped landscape would be like, what the GOP fortunes would be like, and still have 2 full years to campaign hard for funds. As a popular figure for the Far Right, getting money should never be a problem (well, until her next gaffe...). As for being a "lame duck" even lame ducks can get things done during their last few months in office, by being proactive, by being effective, by getting members of her own party to join in efforts that would A) look good in the papers and B) show that she was still working hard for her paycheck. As for others who quit their jobs to focus on campaigning... that never really worked out well, for example Bob Dole's quitting the Senate so he could focus full-time on his 1996 Presidential campaign. And in Dole's case, he quit only after securing his nomination, after 20-plus years of effective leadership in the Senate and after proving his mad skills. Most people in politics who quit their job usually did so - like Obama quitting his Senate seat after November 2008 Election Day - because they'd won a higher office. Palin's sparse resume didn't give her the luxury of quitting what has been her highest-value job, one she's barely had for 2 years and quit on with another 1 1/2 years to go.
Palin's opponents are going to have a field day with this if she does run in the 2012 primaries. What are now the three major candidates - Romney, Huckabee and Pawlenty - don't have a problem looking like quitters: Romney declined to run a second term as Governor but still finished out his term; Huckabee's governorship started by finishing out his predecessor's term (guy was convicted of a felony and forced from office) and getting elected twice on his own, completing both terms; Pawlenty doesn't face term limits in his state, but is currently insisting to finish out his second term by 2010, leaving him two good years to fund-raise for the 2012 Presidential campaign.
3) There was a scandal coming. This was the first thought amongst Palin's critics, and the early circumstantial evidence pointed to it:
Problem with this theory: as Huckabee mentioned this Sunday, EVERYBODY at the state level gets hit with ethics probes, usually by disgruntled rivals looking for any means to drive you from office ("I had constant ethics complaints filed against me, even by newspaper editors, and a lot of it was because if they can’t attack you on policy...they just absolutely bombard you with personal attacks and keep you tied up in court...") Palin had for the most part survived most of the ethics challenges, although I think there's still one or two still under review. And that reported FBI probe into Palin's house supposedly built by the company that built her town's sports complex was debunked after a few phone calls. Unless there's a completely new scandal no one but Palin and a few others know about, this isn't the reason Palin's quitting...
4) Palin is batsh-t insane. Something in her ego simply told her to jump ship and swim for shore.
Problem with this theory: You'd think somebody in her family and circle of friends would check on her medications...
And thus did the GOP 2012 Doomwatch march on...
But seriously, you have to ask WHY? Why did she resign her governorship? Why so sudden that it caught even her staff unprepared?
Best theories I can think of:
1) Palin genuinely wanted to leave the national spotlight. After months of public bashing, especially all the salacious stories about her kids, she's had enough. In this, I wouldn't blame Letterman, which was sooooo last month, but the more recent Vanity Fair article that painted such an unflattering light and exposed how unpopular she was getting inside her own state.
Problem with this theory: This doesn't entirely jibe with what we've seen of Palin's psyche, and with her ambition. Ambitious people don't quit like this: not haphazardly, always with a plan, always with something right there waiting for them that would be a bigger better prize. If this is true, a run for the Presidency is clearly out of the question, because a hostile primary contest against the other likely contenders (Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty) would be just as spiteful as what she's been getting this past year. So if this is Palin's reason for leaving now, then she's left for good, and there is no presidential run in her future...
2) Palin felt confined in the governorship job and felt resigning would free her to run a national campaign. Let's be realistic: Alaska is a sparsely populated state miles away from the country's centers of power (DC, NYC, LA, even Chicago and Atlanta). Anything she does of any merit wouldn't impact a whole lot of people, and other than basic management needs - improving schools, child care, and other social services that Republicans simply don't do - there's little reason to use Alaska as a state-level laboratory for policy innovations (too small a population to be useful). When she talked about being a "lame duck" during her resignation speech, this was partly what she's referring to: knowing that she wasn't going to run for a second term in 2010, there's nothing left at her job to hold her interest or provide opportunities to show off to the nation any leadership skills she thinks she has.
The other part of this theory is the idea that this frees her up to run a national campaign. It surely does: no more need to hang aboot Juneau, she can travel nationwide to fund-raise for herself and for others during midterms. She can get any number of gigs: big-ticket name for the guest speaker circuit; talk show on FOX (who else would take her?); lecturer/part-time college professor at a major poli-sci university; Las Vegas greeter; anything else that would appeal to her interests and keep her name on the front pages. She could argue that it would be unfair to split her time between governing and campaigning, and besides, others have quit before to focus on campaigns.
Problem with this theory: The certainty that she quit her governor job TOO SOON. Palin could well have waited until the 2010 midterms were over to see what the revamped landscape would be like, what the GOP fortunes would be like, and still have 2 full years to campaign hard for funds. As a popular figure for the Far Right, getting money should never be a problem (well, until her next gaffe...). As for being a "lame duck" even lame ducks can get things done during their last few months in office, by being proactive, by being effective, by getting members of her own party to join in efforts that would A) look good in the papers and B) show that she was still working hard for her paycheck. As for others who quit their jobs to focus on campaigning... that never really worked out well, for example Bob Dole's quitting the Senate so he could focus full-time on his 1996 Presidential campaign. And in Dole's case, he quit only after securing his nomination, after 20-plus years of effective leadership in the Senate and after proving his mad skills. Most people in politics who quit their job usually did so - like Obama quitting his Senate seat after November 2008 Election Day - because they'd won a higher office. Palin's sparse resume didn't give her the luxury of quitting what has been her highest-value job, one she's barely had for 2 years and quit on with another 1 1/2 years to go.
Palin's opponents are going to have a field day with this if she does run in the 2012 primaries. What are now the three major candidates - Romney, Huckabee and Pawlenty - don't have a problem looking like quitters: Romney declined to run a second term as Governor but still finished out his term; Huckabee's governorship started by finishing out his predecessor's term (guy was convicted of a felony and forced from office) and getting elected twice on his own, completing both terms; Pawlenty doesn't face term limits in his state, but is currently insisting to finish out his second term by 2010, leaving him two good years to fund-raise for the 2012 Presidential campaign.
3) There was a scandal coming. This was the first thought amongst Palin's critics, and the early circumstantial evidence pointed to it:
- Palin scheduled the press conference so suddenly that even local media rushing to the scene barely made it.
- Said conference was sparsely attended, her handlers apparently unable to round up a good-sized crowd to cheer her on such short notice.
- The speech Palin gave was best described as "rambling": relying too much on cliches that ran against each other; points being made that were never followed up later on in the speech; signs that the speech wasn't vetted or edited by professional speechwriters.
- The fact the speech was delivered on a Friday, traditionally known as a Dump Day when politicians simply 'dump' damaging facts/reports/notices because the mainstream media is set to take the whole weekend off (and what a weekend this was, Fourth of July when EVERYBODY
including Mark Sanfordsorry including the Comedy Central crew was going to be on vacation). - The basic fact this was coming completely out of the blue: usually politicians send out feelers, drop hints, promote unusual legislation, start acting in certain ways that suggest moving on to other things, stuff like that. Local media - which is supposed to have their ears to the ground - hadn't been picking up any signs this was going to happen.
Problem with this theory: as Huckabee mentioned this Sunday, EVERYBODY at the state level gets hit with ethics probes, usually by disgruntled rivals looking for any means to drive you from office ("I had constant ethics complaints filed against me, even by newspaper editors, and a lot of it was because if they can’t attack you on policy...they just absolutely bombard you with personal attacks and keep you tied up in court...") Palin had for the most part survived most of the ethics challenges, although I think there's still one or two still under review. And that reported FBI probe into Palin's house supposedly built by the company that built her town's sports complex was debunked after a few phone calls. Unless there's a completely new scandal no one but Palin and a few others know about, this isn't the reason Palin's quitting...
4) Palin is batsh-t insane. Something in her ego simply told her to jump ship and swim for shore.
Problem with this theory: You'd think somebody in her family and circle of friends would check on her medications...
And thus did the GOP 2012 Doomwatch march on...
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Iran: Clerical Group Challenges the Election
Via Sullivan via the NY Times, news is out that the the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom are calling the tainted presidential election illegitimate:
What does this mean? It means Rafsanjani's finally gotten at least one group of clerics to openly criticize Khamenei and his ilk. Past that, this is still a long slog ahead. Khamenei is not about to back down (he's gotten to the point where any admission of "Oops, shouldn't have done that" is gonna collapse his own little empire). But this also gives the protesters in Iran hope...
The editorial was written by Hossein Shariatmadari, who was picked by the supreme leader to run the newspaper.
The clerics’ statement chastised the leadership for failing to adequately study complaints of vote rigging and lashed out at the use of force in crushing huge public protests.
It even directly criticized the Guardian Council, the powerful group of clerics charged with certifying elections.
“Is it possible to consider the results of the election as legitimate by merely the validation of the Guardian Council?” the association said.
Perhaps more threatening to the supreme leader, the committee called on other clerics to join the fight against the government’s refusal to adequately reconsider the charges of voter fraud. The committee invoked powerful imagery, comparing the 20 protesters killed during demonstrations with the martyrs who died in the early days of the revolution and the war with Iraq, asking other clerics to save what it called “the dignity that was earned with the blood of tens of thousands of martyrs.”
What does this mean? It means Rafsanjani's finally gotten at least one group of clerics to openly criticize Khamenei and his ilk. Past that, this is still a long slog ahead. Khamenei is not about to back down (he's gotten to the point where any admission of "Oops, shouldn't have done that" is gonna collapse his own little empire). But this also gives the protesters in Iran hope...
Friday, July 03, 2009
Well, You Won't Have Sarah Palin To Kick Around Anymore...
...at least not until she thinks the coast is clear for 2012... Somewhere in Hell Nixon is smiling...
Palin's resignation from the governor's job in Alaska came completely out of the blue. Sure, the past month for her has been a bit tabloid-ish, what with all the battles with David Letterman and all, leading up to the Vanity Fair article that painted her in the most unflattering way possible, and with renewed chatter about how she contributed to an imploding McCain presidency run. But of the Republican Governors having a bad week or two, Palin wasn't really in the running: Sanford (Remember, Mark, Michael Jackson Died For You) and Schwarzenegger were better bets to use this Friday dump day to run screaming for their lives.
Instead, Palin quickly announces that she'd be making a statement this afternoon. Immediate thoughts were that she was A) openly responding to the Vanity Fair article, or B) openly beginning a primary run for the Republican Presidential ticket for 2012. Then word leaked that she was leaving the governor's job.
And then she had the presser. The best word to describe it is "rambling." The only ones viewing this as a shrewd career move are Bill Kristol and Kathryn Lopez... and those two aren't exactly the wisest or learned of the Villagers. When the Ace of Spades guy is saying you're toast, you're toast.
'Cause Palin's big job has been this governorship. She's only had this one term, and she's not even finishing it. Being Mayor of Wasilla may lead you to Juneau, but that alone doesn't lead to the White House. If she was willing to just finish this one term, it wouldn't look bad. But this... she's QUITTING before her job's even supposed to be done, breaking her 4-year lease with the people of her state of Alaska. How is this gonna compare to others in the running for 2012, especially Romney or Huckabee? Even if she was quitting just to immediately focus on a campaign for 2012, it wouldn't look good. 2012 is THREE YEARS down the road, more than enough time to pace herself as Governor AND Candidate, get the ball rolling while focusing on duties at home until 2010, yadda yadda.
The chatter now is that for Palin to resign so suddenly, and in such a haphazard manner, suggests that a massive scandal (bigger than Sanford???) was coming down the pipeline. Schadenfreude doesn't entirely cover this just yet, because there's still too many questions (especially WHY?) to be satisfied in any way about this.
And Sanford still hasn't really dodged a bullet, even though for a second I considered that possibility. Sanford now combines with Palin as part of a newly growing meme: the GOP Candidate Doomwatch. Which potential 2012 Candidate is gonna ruin his/her chances next?
Palin's resignation from the governor's job in Alaska came completely out of the blue. Sure, the past month for her has been a bit tabloid-ish, what with all the battles with David Letterman and all, leading up to the Vanity Fair article that painted her in the most unflattering way possible, and with renewed chatter about how she contributed to an imploding McCain presidency run. But of the Republican Governors having a bad week or two, Palin wasn't really in the running: Sanford (Remember, Mark, Michael Jackson Died For You) and Schwarzenegger were better bets to use this Friday dump day to run screaming for their lives.
Instead, Palin quickly announces that she'd be making a statement this afternoon. Immediate thoughts were that she was A) openly responding to the Vanity Fair article, or B) openly beginning a primary run for the Republican Presidential ticket for 2012. Then word leaked that she was leaving the governor's job.
And then she had the presser. The best word to describe it is "rambling." The only ones viewing this as a shrewd career move are Bill Kristol and Kathryn Lopez... and those two aren't exactly the wisest or learned of the Villagers. When the Ace of Spades guy is saying you're toast, you're toast.
'Cause Palin's big job has been this governorship. She's only had this one term, and she's not even finishing it. Being Mayor of Wasilla may lead you to Juneau, but that alone doesn't lead to the White House. If she was willing to just finish this one term, it wouldn't look bad. But this... she's QUITTING before her job's even supposed to be done, breaking her 4-year lease with the people of her state of Alaska. How is this gonna compare to others in the running for 2012, especially Romney or Huckabee? Even if she was quitting just to immediately focus on a campaign for 2012, it wouldn't look good. 2012 is THREE YEARS down the road, more than enough time to pace herself as Governor AND Candidate, get the ball rolling while focusing on duties at home until 2010, yadda yadda.
The chatter now is that for Palin to resign so suddenly, and in such a haphazard manner, suggests that a massive scandal (bigger than Sanford???) was coming down the pipeline. Schadenfreude doesn't entirely cover this just yet, because there's still too many questions (especially WHY?) to be satisfied in any way about this.
And Sanford still hasn't really dodged a bullet, even though for a second I considered that possibility. Sanford now combines with Palin as part of a newly growing meme: the GOP Candidate Doomwatch. Which potential 2012 Candidate is gonna ruin his/her chances next?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Iran. The Twitters Have Dwindled. The Streets May Be Calm...
...but there's still outrage among the Iranian population. It's just we are seeing the signs of the theocratic junta's willingness to outlast and overwhelm the peoples' anger. Sorta like "We'll see who rusts first," where in the short-term the Khamenei hard-liner faction survives. But in the long term, it all depends on how well Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and their cronies can pay off the Revolutionary Guard. People's support for the regime will be as slight as possible. It also depends on the back-room politics still in effort: rumors abound that Rafsanjani is working overtime to get enough clerics to turn against Khamenei.
Meanwhile, Iran's hatred of the British spilled over into a game of diplomatic brinkmanship, each country expelling or recalling ambassadors, and Iranians arresting UK staff. While it doesn't change much - Europe's general outrage isn't going to frighten a mullah class that hates the West already - it does escalate the isolation Iran is going to be getting from the rest of the world over this election sham.
And so, we turn our attention to Honduras. Aw dammit, not Central America AGAIN! You'd think they'd have fixed their "free dictatorship" systems decades ago...!
Meanwhile, Iran's hatred of the British spilled over into a game of diplomatic brinkmanship, each country expelling or recalling ambassadors, and Iranians arresting UK staff. While it doesn't change much - Europe's general outrage isn't going to frighten a mullah class that hates the West already - it does escalate the isolation Iran is going to be getting from the rest of the world over this election sham.
And so, we turn our attention to Honduras. Aw dammit, not Central America AGAIN! You'd think they'd have fixed their "free dictatorship" systems decades ago...!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Battleground Iran, Day 13
From what I'm seeing from the Sullivan livetweets, and also from Nico Pitney's updates (he's a must-read on this as well), the violence in the streets is getting worse, and it's not just one-way as it looks as though the protesters are pushing back.
The pro-Khamenei/Amhadinejad people are moving forward on an 'official' inauguration by next month, clearly confident that they will prevail in this, but Nico's reporting that more than half of the Parliament members invited to a celebration snubbed the event (180 MPs did not show out of 290), clearly showing a deep split at the higher echelons of the Iranian government. I really doubt a lot of people outside of the Revolutionary Guard will show up for such an inauguration... heck, they might be a little busy elsewhere at the time...
The pro-Khamenei/Amhadinejad people are moving forward on an 'official' inauguration by next month, clearly confident that they will prevail in this, but Nico's reporting that more than half of the Parliament members invited to a celebration snubbed the event (180 MPs did not show out of 290), clearly showing a deep split at the higher echelons of the Iranian government. I really doubt a lot of people outside of the Revolutionary Guard will show up for such an inauguration... heck, they might be a little busy elsewhere at the time...
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Baharestan Square, Iran
Reports of a massacre.
If wishes were horses... A wish to get in Khamenei's face for five minutes, and explain to him how he's already lost the Iranian people, that with every dead body there's family members and friends who will rise up, that sooner rather than later the regular army is going to rebel because it's their brothers and sisters dying in the streets, that he needs to stop the violence himself, that there are other ways... But it's too late now. There are no wish-granting djinn, there is no way some shmuck like me could wrangle a visit, there is no one who can talk sense into a dictator once he's got bloodlust in his heart.
If wishes were horses... A wish to get in Khamenei's face for five minutes, and explain to him how he's already lost the Iranian people, that with every dead body there's family members and friends who will rise up, that sooner rather than later the regular army is going to rebel because it's their brothers and sisters dying in the streets, that he needs to stop the violence himself, that there are other ways... But it's too late now. There are no wish-granting djinn, there is no way some shmuck like me could wrangle a visit, there is no one who can talk sense into a dictator once he's got bloodlust in his heart.
Quick asides to other issues of the day
Having blogged constantly about Iran lately, I'd like to take a moment to look about at the rest of the political sphere of activity and make a few comments:
* The whole Obama-Asked-Nico issue is a non-story. As staged set-up questions go, this doesn't rise to the level of that whole Gannon fiasco. One, Nico Pitney is a real editor/reporter working for a real news/politics blog. Two, Nico posted beforehand he was going to the Obama presser to ask a question emailed to him from an Iranian. Odds are Obama and/or his staff saw that and knew it was coming away. And Three, considering how screwed up the Mainstream Media is nowadays, why NOT ask a blogger?
* I vaguely recall once thinking South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford could have made a decent Veep candidate for McCain in 2008. But then he had that brainfart on national television where he couldn't recall a single good thing McCain did as a Senator. And then when Obama pushed for a stimulus package that went towards funding projects at the state level, Sanford openly fought it trying to score political points on the national stage. Problem was, his OWN STATE REPUBLICANS fought back BECAUSE THE STATE NEEDED THE MONEY (personally, I have met people moving from South Carolina to Florida because the job market in SC is worse than in FL... what the hell?). And now, Sanford got caught disappearing for roughly six days. Lemme count each point out on this one:
And Sanford is acting like he's going to run for President in 2012? Not if he's acting crazier than Palin.
UPDATE: Sanford just had a press announcement. He wasn't hiking. He wasn't in a fugue state (where a person under stress suddenly goes atraveling and doesn't snap out of it until he/she is in Mexico or in this case Argentina). And he wasn't "Going Galt".
Sanford was off on a f-ck run.
He's apparently resigning as head of the Republican Governors Association or some such thing (does that leave Crist or the Governator in charge? I mean, other than Palin and Jindal, who's left?). He ought to be resigning from a few other things, especially his job. Idiot didn't think his overseas journey through, did he? If he was smarter, or craftier, he'd have left the Lt. Gov in charge, at least pretend to go to hiking, and bring his Argentinian girlfriend to him to a secluded lakeside cabin in North Carolina or something. Sheesh. Instead, he pulls this crap, forcing everyone to question what, when, why, where and who, basically forcing himself to admit to this affair. IDIOT.
Also, running off for some nookie ON FATHER'S DAY??? I don't think his kids should have to get him any more Father's Days presents ever again.
* It seems rather crazy that the Democrats are gonna try for bipartisanship on the healthcare reform and environment reform bills they're trying to pass when the Republican side is offering no concessions and want to force the Democrats to water their own bills down into non-relevance.
* I've tried to get my parents to rely on more than one news source - and they do read the two local papers but I don't think that closely - but I'm catching them watching Glenn Beck. I can handle them watching the other Fox Not-News talking heads, especially since my dad did admit that O'Reilly was a blowhole, but BECK??? As such, my parents are highly miffed about the Walpin firing, during one dinner visit I basically just sat there and nodded and hummed while they griped at how partisan the firing was. Then I went and checked online through various other websites and news sources about this. TPM had a decent concise review I'm linking here. Where the Far Right is yelling conspiracy and investigation and criminal charges, a more balanced review showed that both sides were in the wrong: Obama is apparently supposed to give Congress notice to any IG firing; Walpin's conduct during the AmeriCorps/Kevin Johnson probe was questionable and partisan enough to have others involved in the investigation (especially US Attorney Lawrence Brown) complain about it. Mom, Dad... Obama may have screwed up the firing, but Walpin ain't a martyr.
Now, back to your previously scheduled Iran updates.
* The whole Obama-Asked-Nico issue is a non-story. As staged set-up questions go, this doesn't rise to the level of that whole Gannon fiasco. One, Nico Pitney is a real editor/reporter working for a real news/politics blog. Two, Nico posted beforehand he was going to the Obama presser to ask a question emailed to him from an Iranian. Odds are Obama and/or his staff saw that and knew it was coming away. And Three, considering how screwed up the Mainstream Media is nowadays, why NOT ask a blogger?
* I vaguely recall once thinking South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford could have made a decent Veep candidate for McCain in 2008. But then he had that brainfart on national television where he couldn't recall a single good thing McCain did as a Senator. And then when Obama pushed for a stimulus package that went towards funding projects at the state level, Sanford openly fought it trying to score political points on the national stage. Problem was, his OWN STATE REPUBLICANS fought back BECAUSE THE STATE NEEDED THE MONEY (personally, I have met people moving from South Carolina to Florida because the job market in SC is worse than in FL... what the hell?). And now, Sanford got caught disappearing for roughly six days. Lemme count each point out on this one:
- Sanford ditches his own security detail.
- Sanford doesn't alert his own Lt. Governor that he's going off for the weekend, and doesn't leave instructions or a telephone number in case of emergency. Basically, leaving South Carolina leaderless for what turned out to be six days.
- Sanford leaves his wife and kids at home. Doesn't let his wife know where he's going.
- Sanford is gone during Father's Day, basically ignoring his four sons. Nice Family Values gesture there, boss.
- Sanford's staff claims they don't know where he is.
- Sanford's cell phone is traced to being used in Atlanta before he completely vanishes. Officials find someone who spotted him boarding a flight at the airport.
- Sanford's staff then claims he's gone hiking on the Appalachian Trial. Problem is, that's 2,000 miles and 11 states long.
- Sanford finally returns Wednesday. And it turns out his staff lied - or he lied to his staff - about where he was. Sanford had gone to Argentina (!). Odder still, the U.S. embassy in Argentina didn't know, noting it was odd for any elected official not to check in with them.
And Sanford is acting like he's going to run for President in 2012? Not if he's acting crazier than Palin.
UPDATE: Sanford just had a press announcement. He wasn't hiking. He wasn't in a fugue state (where a person under stress suddenly goes atraveling and doesn't snap out of it until he/she is in Mexico or in this case Argentina). And he wasn't "Going Galt".
Sanford was off on a f-ck run.
He's apparently resigning as head of the Republican Governors Association or some such thing (does that leave Crist or the Governator in charge? I mean, other than Palin and Jindal, who's left?). He ought to be resigning from a few other things, especially his job. Idiot didn't think his overseas journey through, did he? If he was smarter, or craftier, he'd have left the Lt. Gov in charge, at least pretend to go to hiking, and bring his Argentinian girlfriend to him to a secluded lakeside cabin in North Carolina or something. Sheesh. Instead, he pulls this crap, forcing everyone to question what, when, why, where and who, basically forcing himself to admit to this affair. IDIOT.
Also, running off for some nookie ON FATHER'S DAY??? I don't think his kids should have to get him any more Father's Days presents ever again.
* It seems rather crazy that the Democrats are gonna try for bipartisanship on the healthcare reform and environment reform bills they're trying to pass when the Republican side is offering no concessions and want to force the Democrats to water their own bills down into non-relevance.
* I've tried to get my parents to rely on more than one news source - and they do read the two local papers but I don't think that closely - but I'm catching them watching Glenn Beck. I can handle them watching the other Fox Not-News talking heads, especially since my dad did admit that O'Reilly was a blowhole, but BECK??? As such, my parents are highly miffed about the Walpin firing, during one dinner visit I basically just sat there and nodded and hummed while they griped at how partisan the firing was. Then I went and checked online through various other websites and news sources about this. TPM had a decent concise review I'm linking here. Where the Far Right is yelling conspiracy and investigation and criminal charges, a more balanced review showed that both sides were in the wrong: Obama is apparently supposed to give Congress notice to any IG firing; Walpin's conduct during the AmeriCorps/Kevin Johnson probe was questionable and partisan enough to have others involved in the investigation (especially US Attorney Lawrence Brown) complain about it. Mom, Dad... Obama may have screwed up the firing, but Walpin ain't a martyr.
Now, back to your previously scheduled Iran updates.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Oh and about the blog ads
Yeah, I'm allowing ads to show up on this blog. I don't know how to control which ads I get, otherwise I'd be blocking these damn scientology ads. I'm going to check in on that right now in fact. Meanwhile, Please DON'T click any of these dianetics ads. Remember kids, this is a wholesome Unitarian blog dammit!
EDIT: I went and cut the Adsense stuff anywho. Wasn't making any money on it.
EDIT: I went and cut the Adsense stuff anywho. Wasn't making any money on it.
Small gestures
The Obama Icon site now has a feature for Iran Vote, so I went and made one. Lemme see if I can get it up on mah blog here:
I think it worked.
Yeah, I know this doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, while real people are dying on the streets of Iran for their rights and their freedoms... but we need to, all of us need to let the Iranians know we are with them...
With the current news that the protests are now switching to strikes, that the police are increasing arrests, and that the Guardian Council overseeing the election has basically said "Nothing to see here. Move along," this is proving to be a long struggle. The struggle for freedom never is:
I think it worked.
Yeah, I know this doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, while real people are dying on the streets of Iran for their rights and their freedoms... but we need to, all of us need to let the Iranians know we are with them...
With the current news that the protests are now switching to strikes, that the police are increasing arrests, and that the Guardian Council overseeing the election has basically said "Nothing to see here. Move along," this is proving to be a long struggle. The struggle for freedom never is:
...Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. - Thomas Paine
This won't end in a week. Maybe in a month. Possibly a year. But it will end. We can only pray it ends the right way: with less blood spilled and Khamenei and his pawns driven from power.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Why I Don't Think The Iranian Revolution Will Stop Any Time Soon
When you look back on Iran's history, you see a pattern.
Iran as we know it emerged in the 1500s as a shi'a nation under the Safavid dynasty. It was pretty much stable (with a few Afghan problems) until the late 1700s under the Qajar dynasty.
From the late 1700s to the early 1900s, Iran got caught up with border wars with Russia and later on became a pawn in Russian vs. British interests in the Middle East (aka the Great Game), which weakened the regime. So for all that whittling away at a once-great Persian empire, the Iranians could blame the Russians and the British.
From the early 1900s - say, 1925 - the Qajar dynasty ended and the first Shah propped himself up. Unfortunately, World War II made Iran a major pipeline for the British and Soviets, and with that Shah's pro-German leanings, the Allies invaded in 1941 and installed the Shah's son (Reza Pahlavi) as a puppet. So again, the Iranians could blame the Russians and the Brits.
In 1953, a popularly elected prime minister Mossadegh was nationalizing the oil industry. The Brits encouraged the United States to depose the prime minister, which they did. This led to Pahlavi becoming a dictator, crushing political opposition for 25 years. So for that, the Iranians could now blame the Americans.
In 1978-79, the Ayatollah Khomenei led an uprising against the Shah, driving him out into the protection of his American patrons. One hostage situation later, a lot of bad blood builds up and remains there between the U.S. and Iran. Iranians could still blame the Americans for that.
In 1980, Saddam Hussien figures he could smash and grab Iranian territories to expand his rule and greater access to Gulf seaports. So he goes to war against Iran, 8 bloody years of it, even with Saddam using chemical weapons. Iranians could now add Saddam to the list of blame.
From the 1990s to 2005, Iran was able to focus on internal matters and improving their economy. On foreign matters, they had to deal with Saddam to their West and the Taliban to their East, with Russia and their breakaway Islamic states to the North. Times are hectic, but slowly reforms are being made, and quiet attempts at reconciliation with the West being made. But Sept. 11, 2001 happens, and in 2002 Bush comes out with his "Axis of Evil" speech putting Iran on the spot. Getting bunched together with Iraq (whom they hate) and North Korea (with whom they really didn't do a lot of business) doesn't do the moderates in Iran's government any favors. Equally harsh is that the United States stops their dealings with Iran, even after the successful team-up they made driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Slipping prestige and a hard-line reaction to Bush's bullying by the governing mullahs prevent moderates from running for elections in 2005 (either the moderates failed to get permission to run, or they refused to out of frustration). When a hard-line crazy guy Ahmadinejad became President, Iranians suffer under his poor rule (corruption, global embarrassment, etc.). However complex the whole mess is, Iranians could seriously blame Bush and his neocon cronys for inflaming the situation.
Now, it's 2009. Ayatollah Khamenei basically calls a questionable election result too early and too eagerly for Ahmadinejad. Even though enough Iranians know among themselves there's no way Ahmad could have won all those provinces so handily, even with widespread reports of ballot box tampering and fraud. Now acting like a bullying teenager caught in a weak lie, Khamenei is threatening violence on anyone who dares question him, and starts acting in a very Shah-like manner with violent arrests, use of acid sprays, the works. Thing is, for all of Khamenei's rhetoric against the Brits, and the Americans, and Zionists and 'foreign interlopers', the Iranian people know that's not really true. There's no evidence the Brits or the Russians or the Americans tampered with the election. It wasn't BBC or Fox News rushing to proclaim Ahmadinejad the winner "by divine will" inside of an hour after the polls closed. This time, the Iranians have no one to blame but their own leaders. And that's why I think the protests are going to continue, because Khamenei is now the target of blame. The violence will get worse, which is the pity of it all, but it's not gonna stop until he's gone.
Iran as we know it emerged in the 1500s as a shi'a nation under the Safavid dynasty. It was pretty much stable (with a few Afghan problems) until the late 1700s under the Qajar dynasty.
From the late 1700s to the early 1900s, Iran got caught up with border wars with Russia and later on became a pawn in Russian vs. British interests in the Middle East (aka the Great Game), which weakened the regime. So for all that whittling away at a once-great Persian empire, the Iranians could blame the Russians and the British.
From the early 1900s - say, 1925 - the Qajar dynasty ended and the first Shah propped himself up. Unfortunately, World War II made Iran a major pipeline for the British and Soviets, and with that Shah's pro-German leanings, the Allies invaded in 1941 and installed the Shah's son (Reza Pahlavi) as a puppet. So again, the Iranians could blame the Russians and the Brits.
In 1953, a popularly elected prime minister Mossadegh was nationalizing the oil industry. The Brits encouraged the United States to depose the prime minister, which they did. This led to Pahlavi becoming a dictator, crushing political opposition for 25 years. So for that, the Iranians could now blame the Americans.
In 1978-79, the Ayatollah Khomenei led an uprising against the Shah, driving him out into the protection of his American patrons. One hostage situation later, a lot of bad blood builds up and remains there between the U.S. and Iran. Iranians could still blame the Americans for that.
In 1980, Saddam Hussien figures he could smash and grab Iranian territories to expand his rule and greater access to Gulf seaports. So he goes to war against Iran, 8 bloody years of it, even with Saddam using chemical weapons. Iranians could now add Saddam to the list of blame.
From the 1990s to 2005, Iran was able to focus on internal matters and improving their economy. On foreign matters, they had to deal with Saddam to their West and the Taliban to their East, with Russia and their breakaway Islamic states to the North. Times are hectic, but slowly reforms are being made, and quiet attempts at reconciliation with the West being made. But Sept. 11, 2001 happens, and in 2002 Bush comes out with his "Axis of Evil" speech putting Iran on the spot. Getting bunched together with Iraq (whom they hate) and North Korea (with whom they really didn't do a lot of business) doesn't do the moderates in Iran's government any favors. Equally harsh is that the United States stops their dealings with Iran, even after the successful team-up they made driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Slipping prestige and a hard-line reaction to Bush's bullying by the governing mullahs prevent moderates from running for elections in 2005 (either the moderates failed to get permission to run, or they refused to out of frustration). When a hard-line crazy guy Ahmadinejad became President, Iranians suffer under his poor rule (corruption, global embarrassment, etc.). However complex the whole mess is, Iranians could seriously blame Bush and his neocon cronys for inflaming the situation.
Now, it's 2009. Ayatollah Khamenei basically calls a questionable election result too early and too eagerly for Ahmadinejad. Even though enough Iranians know among themselves there's no way Ahmad could have won all those provinces so handily, even with widespread reports of ballot box tampering and fraud. Now acting like a bullying teenager caught in a weak lie, Khamenei is threatening violence on anyone who dares question him, and starts acting in a very Shah-like manner with violent arrests, use of acid sprays, the works. Thing is, for all of Khamenei's rhetoric against the Brits, and the Americans, and Zionists and 'foreign interlopers', the Iranian people know that's not really true. There's no evidence the Brits or the Russians or the Americans tampered with the election. It wasn't BBC or Fox News rushing to proclaim Ahmadinejad the winner "by divine will" inside of an hour after the polls closed. This time, the Iranians have no one to blame but their own leaders. And that's why I think the protests are going to continue, because Khamenei is now the target of blame. The violence will get worse, which is the pity of it all, but it's not gonna stop until he's gone.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Iran. Day Eight. Blood and Tear Gas
As always I've linked to Sullivan, who is updating the Iranian crisis on what is now a minute-to-minute basis. He's pretty much it. The cable news have gone to WEEKEND features, MSNBC is showing re-runs of hour-long crime specials for God's sake, just like they did LAST weekend. They haven't learned from their mistake last week where they got lamblasted for ignoring a major global event, and they've forgotten what made Cable News: the non-stop coverage of wars and global events like the fall of the Berlin Wall from the late-80s through to the first Gulf War. CNN and Fox are providing some updates, whereas MSNBC is still stuck in Weekend repeat mode. I still suggest if you want any television coverage on Iran, go find BBC World on your HD. They're doing a *slightly* better job of it, but still not as in-depth as I'd want...
Khamenei threw down last time I posted, saying that any future protests would be violently put down, and saying it would all be on Mousavi's hands. Of course, Khamenei isn't about to admit that the person ordering the violence is himself responsible, can he... So today there's more violence in the streets. The cops are now using anti-riot gear, tear gas, water cannons, and now reports of acid sprays - apparently an old trick from the 78-79 uprisings. Again Congratulations, Khamenei: You're now the moral equivilent of the Shah. You must be... so thrilled...
Still not too sure what can be done from this end of things other than to pray for everyone's well-being - and that God's Mighty Anvil falls on Khamenei real frakkin soon - but with escalation to violence by the regular police, that means wounded and dying. Part of me is wondering if we can check with groups like the Red Cross/Crescent or Amnesty International about what can be done for the peoples of Iran.
UPDATE: One question to consider for ponderment. What happens if this round of violence doesn't keep people off the streets like the mullahs hope? The Iranian economy is starting to crimp from the growing number of strikes, closed offices, and lack of normal telecommunications. Khamenei and his lackeys aren't controlling the images getting out to the world. The longer this gets strung out, the more likely international condemnation from other Islamic nations will increase. For all the violence we're seeing - and I know this sounds cynical because it's not my life on the line - this really isn't as bad as it *could* be: the Iranian leadership is too afraid to kill too many people lest they create a literal army of dead martyrs. They're trying to kill *just enough* people to induce fear and hopelessness... but that doesn't seem to be working as more people are out in the streets chanting. And they're still making too many martyrs for the protesters' cause.
This isn't China, where the protest was focused primarily in Tianneman Square, where the army could go bulldozing in and flatten 2000-3000 people, and be able to do it mostly off-camera (this was before twitter and cell-phone cameras ever existed). The protests are in multiple cities, covering a broad array of the population (while the secret thug police have been smashing up colleges, they're going after the more high-profile targets but missing everyone else marching in the streets), and with enough of the population armed with 21st century technology that the mullahs can't stop.
One other point about this not being China: lack of viable allies. China in 1989 still had a Soviet Union to back them up internationally, and the nuclear firepower (and growing financial power) to ensure the United States and the West not argue the point too often or too loudly. Iran? They may be on good speaking terms with Russia, but this isn't their fight (Russia could benefit from a more liberal Iran that's not agitating other Islamic ethnicities to rise up). Can you think of any Islamic nation (not internal terror group, btw) that has openly accepted the questionable voting results, or would now ally with a mullah-led state that's openly supressing their own people?
Another point about this not being China: the regular Iranian army is still not moving in. With China, in went the tanks, out went the bodies (except for this guy. Oh Gods. I still hope he's alive and following this story), and that was that. The longer the army stays on the sidelines, the better. And the Iranian army can afford to stay on the sidelines. The mullahs can't go after the army too harshly if they do prevail, because that will get the army back into the fight on the protesters' side: the citizenry will be grateful to the army's non-intervention if they prevail, and whatever civilian power comes into office will need the army to stablize what will be a chaotic next few years. It's win-win for the regular army to just sit there. Mind you, if they do go in it's game over for the protesters and it'll be a win of sorts for the army: but only as long as Khamenei stays in power. And Iran will be another unstable military/mullah junta with zero international credibility. One would question if Russia or China would help Iran continue their nuclear program...
Now there is the Revolutionary Guard special forces army, but they don't have enough manpower/firepower to take care of all the protests nationwide, and if they go in to bloodily wipe out any one citywide protest that would actually cause an inverse reaction where the protesters will throw up more barricades and prolong the fight like it was 1840s France... or 1979 Iran...
What was my point again? I admit, I meandered there. The point is, Khamenei played a game of chicken with the protesters: the protesters called his bluff. And while the body count is going up, the bodies are showing up on global TV and creating an environment where global political pressure is going to fall on Khamenei (not Mousavi). This can, as said before, get a lot worse. Depends entirely on how stubborn Khamenei is compared to how worried he has to be that he's already lost one way or another...
Khamenei threw down last time I posted, saying that any future protests would be violently put down, and saying it would all be on Mousavi's hands. Of course, Khamenei isn't about to admit that the person ordering the violence is himself responsible, can he... So today there's more violence in the streets. The cops are now using anti-riot gear, tear gas, water cannons, and now reports of acid sprays - apparently an old trick from the 78-79 uprisings. Again Congratulations, Khamenei: You're now the moral equivilent of the Shah. You must be... so thrilled...
Still not too sure what can be done from this end of things other than to pray for everyone's well-being - and that God's Mighty Anvil falls on Khamenei real frakkin soon - but with escalation to violence by the regular police, that means wounded and dying. Part of me is wondering if we can check with groups like the Red Cross/Crescent or Amnesty International about what can be done for the peoples of Iran.
UPDATE: One question to consider for ponderment. What happens if this round of violence doesn't keep people off the streets like the mullahs hope? The Iranian economy is starting to crimp from the growing number of strikes, closed offices, and lack of normal telecommunications. Khamenei and his lackeys aren't controlling the images getting out to the world. The longer this gets strung out, the more likely international condemnation from other Islamic nations will increase. For all the violence we're seeing - and I know this sounds cynical because it's not my life on the line - this really isn't as bad as it *could* be: the Iranian leadership is too afraid to kill too many people lest they create a literal army of dead martyrs. They're trying to kill *just enough* people to induce fear and hopelessness... but that doesn't seem to be working as more people are out in the streets chanting. And they're still making too many martyrs for the protesters' cause.
This isn't China, where the protest was focused primarily in Tianneman Square, where the army could go bulldozing in and flatten 2000-3000 people, and be able to do it mostly off-camera (this was before twitter and cell-phone cameras ever existed). The protests are in multiple cities, covering a broad array of the population (while the secret thug police have been smashing up colleges, they're going after the more high-profile targets but missing everyone else marching in the streets), and with enough of the population armed with 21st century technology that the mullahs can't stop.
One other point about this not being China: lack of viable allies. China in 1989 still had a Soviet Union to back them up internationally, and the nuclear firepower (and growing financial power) to ensure the United States and the West not argue the point too often or too loudly. Iran? They may be on good speaking terms with Russia, but this isn't their fight (Russia could benefit from a more liberal Iran that's not agitating other Islamic ethnicities to rise up). Can you think of any Islamic nation (not internal terror group, btw) that has openly accepted the questionable voting results, or would now ally with a mullah-led state that's openly supressing their own people?
Another point about this not being China: the regular Iranian army is still not moving in. With China, in went the tanks, out went the bodies (except for this guy. Oh Gods. I still hope he's alive and following this story), and that was that. The longer the army stays on the sidelines, the better. And the Iranian army can afford to stay on the sidelines. The mullahs can't go after the army too harshly if they do prevail, because that will get the army back into the fight on the protesters' side: the citizenry will be grateful to the army's non-intervention if they prevail, and whatever civilian power comes into office will need the army to stablize what will be a chaotic next few years. It's win-win for the regular army to just sit there. Mind you, if they do go in it's game over for the protesters and it'll be a win of sorts for the army: but only as long as Khamenei stays in power. And Iran will be another unstable military/mullah junta with zero international credibility. One would question if Russia or China would help Iran continue their nuclear program...
Now there is the Revolutionary Guard special forces army, but they don't have enough manpower/firepower to take care of all the protests nationwide, and if they go in to bloodily wipe out any one citywide protest that would actually cause an inverse reaction where the protesters will throw up more barricades and prolong the fight like it was 1840s France... or 1979 Iran...
What was my point again? I admit, I meandered there. The point is, Khamenei played a game of chicken with the protesters: the protesters called his bluff. And while the body count is going up, the bodies are showing up on global TV and creating an environment where global political pressure is going to fall on Khamenei (not Mousavi). This can, as said before, get a lot worse. Depends entirely on how stubborn Khamenei is compared to how worried he has to be that he's already lost one way or another...
Friday, June 19, 2009
Iran, Day Seven
From Sullivan:
@elilake: "Shorter Khamenei: Ajad won, u are all going to take it, if u don't my goons will murder u." - posted by Ambers.
That might be a bit too concise, but Khamenei's speech basically went that way: he claims the vote counts were legitimate, that the protests are all the work of foreigners and dirty Zionists, and that the "British are the worst" (WTF? England hasn't f-cked with Iran since 1945. Let's be blunt: the U.S. has been a far worse transgressor. Why bring the Brits into this? Unless the guy hates Dr. Who or something... ooooo, Khamenei's a tasteless bastard, now we HAVE to get rid of him). And that any continued protests will lead to more violence that will be blamed on the Zionists and foreigners.
The biggest problem with Khamenei's speech, other than that he's a damn liar, is that he's throwing off the gloves. The odds that the Revolutionary Guards (not the regular Iranian army, nor the local street thugs) are about to jump into the fray went up to - literally - dead certain. The violence is going to get worse. The big question is now, will the other mullahs and will the regular army step up for the people?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
And Iran. Day Six.
As always, keeping up with Sullivan on this.
Sullivan linked to a 16-point brief as a means of sifting through the mass of rumors and unconfirmed reports, which itself is commenting on a thread posted at Anonymous Iran. The best verifiable news?
Also, when the ICHC political section Pundit Kitchen (site no longer valid) had some protest photos uploaded, I couldn't resist:
Keep watching. Keep praying.
(Update 8/30/2016): Yeah, it's been seven years since this article. I'm still getting traffic to it, even though some of the political dynamic have changed since 2009. I'm mostly here to fix the links with permanent (hopefully) additions of the original photos I created in I Can Has Cheezburgr site, which should help those still looking for this blog.
Click the Iran tag at the bottom of this article, you should get the more current blogging I've done on this ongoing situation. Thank ye.
Sullivan linked to a 16-point brief as a means of sifting through the mass of rumors and unconfirmed reports, which itself is commenting on a thread posted at Anonymous Iran. The best verifiable news?
7. Protests have occurred not just in Tehran yesterday, but in Ahvaz, Mashhad, Kermanshah, Qazvin, Shiraz, Tabriz and EVEN Qom. [Largely verified, although we are checking the Qom claim.]
13. As of today, not a single report of the military’s intervention into the peaceful protests has been established. Not a single one. [Verified. Apart from a brief reports of tanks on the streets on Monday night, there has been no evidence of Iranian military challenging the demonstrations.]
Also, when the ICHC political section Pundit Kitchen (site no longer valid) had some protest photos uploaded, I couldn't resist:
Keep watching. Keep praying.
(Update 8/30/2016): Yeah, it's been seven years since this article. I'm still getting traffic to it, even though some of the political dynamic have changed since 2009. I'm mostly here to fix the links with permanent (hopefully) additions of the original photos I created in I Can Has Cheezburgr site, which should help those still looking for this blog.
Click the Iran tag at the bottom of this article, you should get the more current blogging I've done on this ongoing situation. Thank ye.
Monday, June 15, 2009
New color: Iranian Green
One thing we can do for the protesters standing up for their freedoms in Iran is show solidarity.
Go Green.
(image from digby's Hullabaloo blog)
Stand up. Sing out.
P.S. Obama's supposed to be speaking re: Iran by 5 pm, makes it less than 1/2 hour from now. Hope he's wearing a green tie. >:-)
UPDATE: John Cole of Balloon Juice caught some flack from Sullivan about Cole's questioning how changing your font color is gonna save the world. Thing is, Cole, Sully wants to do something, anything, that includes being the funnel through which all the news about Iran is going through, and changing font colors as a sign of solidarity is merely part of the moment. It's akin to an expression of passion, for the Iranians standing up. It may be meaningless in the real world, but it's from the heart...
Go Green.
(image from digby's Hullabaloo blog)
Stand up. Sing out.
P.S. Obama's supposed to be speaking re: Iran by 5 pm, makes it less than 1/2 hour from now. Hope he's wearing a green tie. >:-)
UPDATE: John Cole of Balloon Juice caught some flack from Sullivan about Cole's questioning how changing your font color is gonna save the world. Thing is, Cole, Sully wants to do something, anything, that includes being the funnel through which all the news about Iran is going through, and changing font colors as a sign of solidarity is merely part of the moment. It's akin to an expression of passion, for the Iranians standing up. It may be meaningless in the real world, but it's from the heart...
Save Iran
Right now, all any of us outside that country can is pray. All we can do is sit here and read the Twitter reports coming in. People are dying, they are getting rounded up by the truckload, school dorms shot up, the violence, the madness.
The Iranian people are asking for our help. But what can we do? Any military saber rattling and the Ayatollah and his cronies will be screaming 'imperialism' and 'Death to America', and then claim the protesters are traitors and justify to themselves their 'right' to line 'em all up against the wall. Think the violence is bad now, think how bad Ahmadinejad and Khamenei would get the second the U.S. or any other nation in the region (Turkey or even Syria, for example) makes any noise about all this. Any action we could do would cause an unequal and more violent reaction. So the 40-plus million unarmed Iranians rising up against the crooked election are going in physically alone against their own armed police and armed military. Rest of the world is praying for 'em (other than the usual suspects of idiots like Hezbollah and U.S. Neocons), but prayer can only go so far...
I wish to GOD I could more than sit here and cheerlead. I'm no soldier else I'd be AWOL and parachuting in on my own. I'm no politician else I'd be in ambassadors' faces calling for sanctions and military intervention. I'm no wise man else I'd have found a solution to this whole sorry mess years ago.
Keep watching. Keep praying. Pray to God this will end up like the Philippines in 1986 when People Power worked.
The Iranian people are asking for our help. But what can we do? Any military saber rattling and the Ayatollah and his cronies will be screaming 'imperialism' and 'Death to America', and then claim the protesters are traitors and justify to themselves their 'right' to line 'em all up against the wall. Think the violence is bad now, think how bad Ahmadinejad and Khamenei would get the second the U.S. or any other nation in the region (Turkey or even Syria, for example) makes any noise about all this. Any action we could do would cause an unequal and more violent reaction. So the 40-plus million unarmed Iranians rising up against the crooked election are going in physically alone against their own armed police and armed military. Rest of the world is praying for 'em (other than the usual suspects of idiots like Hezbollah and U.S. Neocons), but prayer can only go so far...
I wish to GOD I could more than sit here and cheerlead. I'm no soldier else I'd be AWOL and parachuting in on my own. I'm no politician else I'd be in ambassadors' faces calling for sanctions and military intervention. I'm no wise man else I'd have found a solution to this whole sorry mess years ago.
Keep watching. Keep praying. Pray to God this will end up like the Philippines in 1986 when People Power worked.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
I'm just wondering why Jimmy Carter didn't go in to observe the Iranian 2009 Election...
Well, among other things, that is.
Iran's 2009 Presidential election promised to be interesting for one thing: to see how much cheating the clerics who actually run Iran would commit to block the reform-minded forces from winning.
Let's try to note a few things first:
The election's done, and the shouting is just switching to bonfires and street riots. The reform candidate Mousavi is claiming voter fraud: and interestingly there's already a damn good chart on Sullivan's blog showing just how sick the election results are proving. My God. The chart goes in a STRAIGHT LINE. Incoming election results DON'T work like that: they peak and valley, up and down, they fluctuate as the results differ from region to region as they report in. I took classes on statistics and research methods for my journalism and library science degrees: polling results are organic, they ebb and flow. A straight line like that can only occur through direct interference with the numbers: a straight line is a FRAKKING ALGEBRA EQUATION. They're not even trying properly to fake it.
C'mon. They're giving a guy like Ahmadinejad who couldn't consistently break 50 percent in the pre-election polls (the only polling service that gave Ahmad-whateva anything close to that was some outfit called Alef, which I just noticed has ties to Iran's official broadcasting service: nearly every other polling service was showing close wins either way but mostly to Mousavi) a 69 to 28 percent victory? Anything over 52 percent and we're talking fishy numbers here. He's getting 69 percent? Obama didn't get 69 percent. Reagan in 1984 didn't get 69 percent of the popular vote, for God's sake, and that was one of the biggest butt stomping election wins in American history.
I have just one question for the Ayatollah: if everything happens by the Will of Allah... Why did you have to cheat? I just have one other thing to say to the Ayatollah: Congratulations. You are now just like the Shah of Iran that your dad drove out of power. Enjoy.
Sullivan's explanation about why the Ayatollah and his lackeys cheated is the simplest: the clerics panicked. People who enjoy the status quo always do.
And now it's on to an easier bigger, and even nastier, question: does the Iranian military enjoy the status quo enough to roll in the tanks and squash the rioters? Or will enough officers in the military see an opportunity here, to end an unpopular theocracy and broker a peaceful transition of power from the clerics to honestly-elected officials? Because we've seen this film before: that time, it didn't have a happy ending...
UPDATE: Keep reading Sullivan. He's as obsessed about this as I am, and he's got better sources of information.
On the bad news side, there's reports of deaths in the streets now. Mousavi apparently under house arrest. On the good news side, Sullivan's most current update suggests people have been protesting well into 4 a.m. Iran-time. The Iranian people are NOT backing down on this yet. Gods, I hate this waiting. It'd be nice to be able to do something to help, other than just cheerlead from the keyboard. But for all this can affect other nations, this is an internal affair: there's nothing we can do to get our government to anything to help the people of Iran. The best we can hope for is that enough cops, enough soldiers realize the Ayatollah's days are numbered...
UPDATE II: Mousavi not under house arrest (for now), violence has gotten worse for both sides, with reports of college dorms getting shot up and students and professors disappearing. For the most part, the army and official police are staying out of the fight. The real bloodshed is being spilled by some sort of auxiliary security force called Basij, with additional reports that Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon being bussed in for out-of-town muscle (I immediately thought of Hessians when I heard about that). There's still too much unresolved and up in the air. If you're seeing this, Keep reading Sullivan (and yes Cole he's sliding into poetry readings: so what, I'm tempted to break out some e.e. cummings before too long!).
Iran's 2009 Presidential election promised to be interesting for one thing: to see how much cheating the clerics who actually run Iran would commit to block the reform-minded forces from winning.
Let's try to note a few things first:
- The incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been unpopular during his term of office (I'm tempted to use adverbs like "monstrously" or "hideously" before the word "unpopular", but that would be rude). His administration has been dogged by charges of corruption, by inability to deal with the current global recession, and by various controversial statements that - if you're being charitable - bordered on Holocaust Denial and outright elimination of Israel.
- Iran's election isn't as open as they claim: all candidates have to be approved by an oversight committee -
The Guardians of the Universesorry Guardian Council - basically meaning the candidates have to kiss the ring of the Ayatollah just to even get the right to step outside their house. While I can gripe about how candidates have to suck up to our two established parties here in the U.S., at least they aren't forced to suck up to a non-elected dictator who rules for life and answers to no one (and despite the rhetoric, Limbaugh doesn't have *that* much pull). - For all I'm reading on how Iran holds it's elections, I see no method of independent review and oversight to ensure fair results: all the counting is done by an election commission that answers to - you guessed it - a non-elected dictator who rules for life and answers to no one.
The election's done, and the shouting is just switching to bonfires and street riots. The reform candidate Mousavi is claiming voter fraud: and interestingly there's already a damn good chart on Sullivan's blog showing just how sick the election results are proving. My God. The chart goes in a STRAIGHT LINE. Incoming election results DON'T work like that: they peak and valley, up and down, they fluctuate as the results differ from region to region as they report in. I took classes on statistics and research methods for my journalism and library science degrees: polling results are organic, they ebb and flow. A straight line like that can only occur through direct interference with the numbers: a straight line is a FRAKKING ALGEBRA EQUATION. They're not even trying properly to fake it.
C'mon. They're giving a guy like Ahmadinejad who couldn't consistently break 50 percent in the pre-election polls (the only polling service that gave Ahmad-whateva anything close to that was some outfit called Alef, which I just noticed has ties to Iran's official broadcasting service: nearly every other polling service was showing close wins either way but mostly to Mousavi) a 69 to 28 percent victory? Anything over 52 percent and we're talking fishy numbers here. He's getting 69 percent? Obama didn't get 69 percent. Reagan in 1984 didn't get 69 percent of the popular vote, for God's sake, and that was one of the biggest butt stomping election wins in American history.
I have just one question for the Ayatollah: if everything happens by the Will of Allah... Why did you have to cheat? I just have one other thing to say to the Ayatollah: Congratulations. You are now just like the Shah of Iran that your dad drove out of power. Enjoy.
Sullivan's explanation about why the Ayatollah and his lackeys cheated is the simplest: the clerics panicked. People who enjoy the status quo always do.
And now it's on to an easier bigger, and even nastier, question: does the Iranian military enjoy the status quo enough to roll in the tanks and squash the rioters? Or will enough officers in the military see an opportunity here, to end an unpopular theocracy and broker a peaceful transition of power from the clerics to honestly-elected officials? Because we've seen this film before: that time, it didn't have a happy ending...
UPDATE: Keep reading Sullivan. He's as obsessed about this as I am, and he's got better sources of information.
On the bad news side, there's reports of deaths in the streets now. Mousavi apparently under house arrest. On the good news side, Sullivan's most current update suggests people have been protesting well into 4 a.m. Iran-time. The Iranian people are NOT backing down on this yet. Gods, I hate this waiting. It'd be nice to be able to do something to help, other than just cheerlead from the keyboard. But for all this can affect other nations, this is an internal affair: there's nothing we can do to get our government to anything to help the people of Iran. The best we can hope for is that enough cops, enough soldiers realize the Ayatollah's days are numbered...
UPDATE II: Mousavi not under house arrest (for now), violence has gotten worse for both sides, with reports of college dorms getting shot up and students and professors disappearing. For the most part, the army and official police are staying out of the fight. The real bloodshed is being spilled by some sort of auxiliary security force called Basij, with additional reports that Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon being bussed in for out-of-town muscle (I immediately thought of Hessians when I heard about that). There's still too much unresolved and up in the air. If you're seeing this, Keep reading Sullivan (and yes Cole he's sliding into poetry readings: so what, I'm tempted to break out some e.e. cummings before too long!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)