posted
I've pulled up Twitter and #IranElection. The feeds are coming in by the hundreds. They range from Iranians giving testimonials to Iranian Government bots saying "Its all a US plot." There are tips for first aid, and tips on Twitter feeding that the Iran Govt can't catch.
Its compelling to read. Its sad, and hopeful, and just impressive on so many levels.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Mousavi was approved to run, so he's not really that radically different, but he's better for a few reasons.
Ahmadinejad is a blatant liar and pretty much lies every time he goes on TV. Mousavi is not so anti-women either. He "lets" his wife tag along with him on a lot of his stuff (my roommate has pointed out that that word let is a bit insulting, but it's a heck of a lot better than now).
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Yes. Mousavi was approved to run, so he's not really that radically different, but he's better for a few reasons.
Ahmadinejad is a blatant liar and pretty much lies every time he goes on TV. Mousavi is not so anti-women either. He "lets" his wife tag along with him on a lot of his stuff (my roommate has pointed out that that word let is a bit insulting, but it's a heck of a lot better than now).
From everything I've read it was a huge deal that he had his wife with him during the campaigns. She actually campaigned alone for a short time, making her own campaign stops, and became a big part of his campaign. That's pretty big for Iranian politics and Iranian society.
Some of the stories coming out from women protesters are both impressive in shocking.
The Daily Show last night was pretty interesting. I didn't really believe it at first, but Jason Jones is, or was, actually in Iran. He interviewed three Iranian people of note, all of whom were arrested by the government. Then the son of one of them, obviously shaken, was on the Daily Show last night as well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw that. It was very powerful. I think that Jon Stewart handled it well. He backed off the sarcasm immediately and with reasonable grace when he saw that the son was not (for good reason) going there.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Iranian soccer players who wore green bands in solidarity during the world cup have been banned from soccer for life.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I saw that. It was very powerful. I think that Jon Stewart handled it well. He backed off the sarcasm immediately and with reasonable grace when he saw that the son was not (for good reason) going there.
Yeah I saw that too. He tried a little joke and saw that it wasn't the time and immediately pivoted into serious mode. Classy. The crowd sensed the mood too.
Strider -
Damn, do you have a link to the story?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah I saw that too. He tried a little joke and saw that it wasn't the time and immediately pivoted into serious mode. Classy. The crowd sensed the mood too.
Now I'll have to watch it, because my reaction to these descriptions was first to think, "Wow, Jon Stewart was 'on'* with the son of a guy arrested in Iran?"
My reaction to that wouldn't be 'classy', that's for sure.
*On meaning in the classic Daily Show sarcasm/satire style, which is very enjoyable and often pretty compelling to me when talking about politics in general...much less so when you're actually face to face with someone in real peril, or with a loved one in such.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just watched a segment on the news where protesters were burning American and British flags in Tehran, and were not being stopped, and it occurred to me that broadcasting that to their own people might not have the intended effect they hope for, because now they might just have a better idea of some other ways in which they are being manipulated.
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, the interview with the son followed a pre-recorded segment with one of the "reporters" doing one of their usual "interviews" with the father. In the interview it was crystal clear that the father was a reasonable and nice guy and not at all the bogeyman we (a general "we") tend to think of when we think of Iranian clerics.
Then we find out he has been arrested and Stewart interviewed the son. He started to be sarcastic about what a "threat" the father is, but dropped that schtick instantly and was sympathetic to the clearly very worried son.
posted
Well, I feel better having seen it. To me, it seems like he was going the serious interviewer route initially, slipped a bit into Daily Show interviewer style, and (I'm guessing at his mindset here) realized it was a mistake and dropped it.
Just to be clear, I was never suggesting that the switch back to serious wasn't classy...just that the initial mistake could have been seriously unclassy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:EDIT: I guess before. Man, I'm amazed the son would come on the show at all.
I'm not so surprised-whether or not he is a fan, Daily Show has a pretty darn big audience, after all. And that audience* might be hard to otherwise reach.
*Just anecdotal experience there. In my experience - not talking of Hatrack, which is a curve-wrecker in many ways - the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just anecdotal experience there. In my experience - not talking of Hatrack, which is a curve-wrecker in many ways - the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
And yet somehow they manage to be better informed:
posted
Yup, I've seen that statistic (though not the article you linked) too. It just hasn't borne out in my personal experience is all. It's ironic, though, that in a poll concerning the Daily Show they stack up the Daily Show against Letterman and Leno. I think that's the sort of polling the Daily Show itself would make fun of, heh.
Newspapers and the O'Reilly comparison are good, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I"m not sure the emphasis on Leno and Letterman is the poll so much as the CNN article pulling what CNN thought was interesting.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not suggesting they were the emphasis-just that including them in the poll in the first place wasn't helpful.
I mean, what are Leno and Letterman watchers doing in a poll about which news media viewers are better informed?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe because Leno and Letterman are entertainment shows, just like the Daily Show has always claimed to be. I've heard John Stewart many, many times express disbelief that his show was every compared to actual news sources, such as newspapers or O'Reilly (in his case, "news").
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES) examines a wide range of political attitudes about candidates, issues and the traits Americans want in a president. It also has a particular emphasis on the effects of media exposure through campaign commercials and news from radio, television and newspapers. Additionally, it measures the effects of other kinds of political communication, from conversations at home and on the job to various efforts by campaigns to influence potential voters.
I suppose Leno and Letterman with their topical monologues and interviews with politicians would be considered "other kinds of political communication" as much as The Daily Show or Colbert.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back on subject, the twitter feeds keep bringing up Hamas.
Hamas is the Iranian backed terrorist group trying to become Palestine, and Jordan. Is there any other source saying that they are interfering with sympathetic protests elsewhere in the mid-east?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:EDIT: I guess before. Man, I'm amazed the son would come on the show at all.
I'm not so surprised-whether or not he is a fan, Daily Show has a pretty darn big audience, after all. And that audience* might be hard to otherwise reach.
*Just anecdotal experience there. In my experience - not talking of Hatrack, which is a curve-wrecker in many ways - the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
Did you see last night's segment? It looks like there are Daily Show fans in Iran.
quote:the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
On the contrary, fans of the daily show tend to have higher absorption of news, better recall of current events, and come with a better chance of being factually informed of the news with less incidence of misinformation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No hot dogs for you, Iran. Before the election and riots, the White House and State Dept. were encouraging diplomatic posts to invite Iranian colleagues to 4th of July parties as part of the new administration's outreach efforts. They've since called for posts to rescind the invitations. Which probably isn't a big deal since no Iranian diplomats RSVP'ed anyway.
More generally, though, Obama's reaction to the events going forward should better delineate how much realism he's willing to stomach in his foreign policy. Kissinger would probably say nothing has changed; you still have to engage Iran, regardless of the fraudulent election and repression of human rights. Realism dictates engagement with whoever is in charge, regardless of how they got there. But political considerations, as well as ideological revulsion, may dictate some period of refusal to engage. In the words of the article, quoting the President of the National Iranian American Council:
quote:The necessity of diplomacy has not changed by this...The political feasibility [of engagement] has changed.
So what should the administration do if (as seems likely) Ahmadinejad remains as the President. Obama already backed away from his campaign rhetoric of dialogue without preconditions by qualifying that he only favored "authoritative" engagement (meaning he doesn't want to talk to some patsy). Going forward, should he simply ice engagement all together based on bad behavior (Bush-style bad cop ideological foreign policy), or should he precondition any talks on being with someone other than Ahmadinejad and/or including discussion of Democracy and Human Rights (which seems to be the direction he's going), or should he stick with his campaign promise to engage without pre-conditions? And if he reattempts engagement, how long should he wait for Ahmadinejad's political radioactivity to decrease?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:EDIT: I guess before. Man, I'm amazed the son would come on the show at all.
I'm not so surprised-whether or not he is a fan, Daily Show has a pretty darn big audience, after all. And that audience* might be hard to otherwise reach.
*Just anecdotal experience there. In my experience - not talking of Hatrack, which is a curve-wrecker in many ways - the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
Did you see last night's segment? It looks like there are Daily Show fans in Iran.
friggin bullcrap I hate being linked to places that can't be shown in Canada, whats the point of NAFTA if I can't watch comedy central clips without resorting to a proxy?
IP: Logged |
posted
all the people holding up sings saying things along the lines of "I am Neda" remind me of the end of V for Vendetta.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, if there's any comparison to be made to V for Vendetta, it rather seems like Iran is where England was when Evie's parents were 'disappeared', rather than at the conclusion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Four still held for 'interrogation', says Iranian foreign ministry, amid claims of involvement in post-election unrest
...
Downing Street today condemned the continued detention of four Iranians employed by the country's British embassy, as a partial recount of the disputed presidential poll got under way.
Nine embassy staff were arrested on Saturday accused of playing a significant role in the protests. Five have since been released, while the other four are "being interrogated", according Hassan Qashqavi, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman.
Gordon Brown's spokesman said: "We are deeply concerned at their arrest and their continued detention. These arrests are completely unacceptable and unjustifiable."
Yesterday, the Iranian intelligence minister, Gholam Hossein Mohseini Ejehi, said Tehran had video proof that Iranian employees at the embassy "were distinctly present at the scene of clashes" following the 12 June election.
"The embassy sent its local staff to rallies and inculcated ideas into the protesters and the society," he said.
posted
Hey guys! big news is kind of burbling out from underneath ahmanahanadhdigninigghnajahd's bootheel.
NYT
quote:An important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.
A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult.
“This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic,” said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. “Remember, they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei.”
oooooh, this clerical split is calling the protest dead martyrs.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps most interesting of the chants was the crowd shouting "liar" while Ahmadinejad railed against Israel. I suspect they're hating on the man more than the message, but still, that's something.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps most interesting of the chants was the crowd shouting "liar" while Ahmadinejad railed against Israel. I suspect they're hating on the man more than the message, but still, that's something.
Probably. According to my Iranian friends, every other word that comes out of Ahmadinejad is a lie. Hopes of the western world aside, Ahmadinejad is flat-out a disliked, bad politician who controls the media.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [qb]Probably. According to my Iranian friends, every other word that comes out of Ahmadinejad is a lie.
It's funny how often I've heard that statement, verbatim. I have to wonder if it's a common Iranian saying or something.
quote:U.S. law enforcement appears to be reading from a playbook perfected in the streets of Tehran. In the wake of protests last week at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the police arrested a self-professed anarchist for using the social-networking site Twitter to coordinate communications among G20 summit protesters, and direct them away from police positions. The charge for this exercise of free speech: the criminal uses of a communications facility, in this case a computer and a Twitter feed.
According to news reports, the arrest was followed up by an FBI raid of the man’s house in Queens, NY, where they seized computers, phones, black masks, newspapers, books and pictures of Lenin and Marx (yes, pictures) looking for evidence of additional crimes. ... The next time protestors take to the streets of Tehran or Beijing, armed with cell phones and Twitter accounts, we should not be surprised when countries crack down hard on those tweeting the revolution and point to Pittsburgh as a precedent. And America will be relegated to the sidelines, rendered mute by our own foolish actions.
quote: The next time protestors take to the streets of Tehran or Beijing, armed with cell phones and Twitter accounts, we should not be surprised when countries crack down hard on those tweeting the revolution and point to Pittsburgh as a precedent. And America will be relegated to the sidelines, rendered mute by our own foolish actions.
Yeah, well, as upsetting as this story appears so far, much depends on what actually comes of it in trial. Not time to liken us to Tehran or Beijing just yet.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't compare us to Tehran or Beijing yet either, but I would also insist that the backlash needs to be swift and sure.
It's part of the give and take in healthy democracy, the police recognize that the person was using a tool they weren't use to dealing with and that it was making their job more difficult, we tell the police that as far as the law goes there was nothing illegal in the man's actions (Assuming I read the events correctly) and the man is set free. The police figure out how to deal with this new development and actually discover brains they already had and become more effective in the future.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Basically a man was arrested at the airport when a "routine" search of his laptop revealed child porn.
I can understand checking to see if the computer was a bomb, but going through the actual contents of the computer as a routine search seems to be overstepping their boundaries.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: We'll see, thats why I'm stashing the story for future reference.
But I will say that given the lacklustre response to the current administration pushing the renewal of the Patriot Act or other Bush legacy positions, my expectations are kinda low.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Basically a man was arrested at the airport when a "routine" search of his laptop revealed child porn.
I can understand checking to see if the computer was a bomb, but going through the actual contents of the computer as a routine search seems to be overstepping their boundaries.
I agree with you that checking the files is overstepping their bounds. I can think of some really stretched hypotheticals where the officials might see evidence of child pornography and have grounds to look further into it, but from the articles presentation not in this case.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: BB: We'll see, thats why I'm stashing the story for future reference.
But I will say that given the lacklustre response to the current administration pushing the renewal of the Patriot Act or other Bush legacy positions, my expectations are kinda low.
I was actually curious on how you felt about the possibility of them reneging on dismantling Guantanamo bay. I'm currently trying to figure out a good second option but coming up with nothing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
scholarette:I guess thats an example of a Bush legacy position which does not seem to be under any threat of repeal. These are the new bounds.
quote:The Obama administration will largely preserve Bush-era procedures allowing the government to search -- without suspicion of wrongdoing -- the contents of a traveler's laptop computer, cellphone or other electronic device, although officials said new policies would expand oversight of such inspections.
The policy, disclosed Thursday in a pair of Department of Homeland Security directives, describes more fully than did the Bush administration the procedures by which travelers' laptops, iPods, cameras and other digital devices can be searched and seized when they cross a U.S. border. And it sets time limits for completing searches.
But representatives of civil liberties and travelers groups say they see little substantive difference between the Bush-era policy, which prompted controversy, and this one.
"It's a disappointing ratification of the suspicionless search policy put in place by the Bush administration," said Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. "It provides a lot of procedural safeguards, but it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem, which is that under the policy, government officials are free to search people's laptops and cellphones for any reason whatsoever." ... Goitein, formerly a counsel to Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), said the Bush policy itself "broke sharply" with previous Customs directives, which required reasonable suspicion before agents could read the contents of documents. Feingold last year introduced legislation to restore the requirement.
edit to add: BlackBlade: Well, obviously I'm disappointed.
But in a way, Guantanamo is just a very public and visible symptom. Closing it, while a good thing, does not necessarily solve the underlying problem.
Indeed, it appears that some of the debate (and indeed, some of the prisoners that otherwise were intended for Guantanamo) was already shifting from Guantanamo to Baghram anyways.
Basically a man was arrested at the airport when a "routine" search of his laptop revealed child porn.
I can understand checking to see if the computer was a bomb, but going through the actual contents of the computer as a routine search seems to be overstepping their boundaries.
Basically a man was arrested at the airport when a "routine" search of his laptop revealed child porn.
I can understand checking to see if the computer was a bomb, but going through the actual contents of the computer as a routine search seems to be overstepping their boundaries.
I have to imagine that he'll have an excellent 4th amendment defense.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Suspicionless searches of suitcases and other "closed containers" at the border are considered reasonable, while searches of the person require grounds for suspicion because of the greater dignity and privacy interests involved. The government argues that searching a laptop is legally identical to searching a suitcase, and so far, several courts have agreed.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
