Sunday, June 14, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

The World's Best And Worst Cities To Live In Top
The world's ten best and ten worst cities in which to reside, according to Mercer's 2009 Quality of Living survey.
 
FBI Has Been Tracking "Lone Wolf" Extremists Since Late Last Year Top
The recent killings of a U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum guard and a Kansas abortion doctor came a few months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation stepped up efforts to pre-empt violence committed by just such political extremists working alone.
 
Robert Naiman: Based on Terror Free Tomorrow Poll, Ahmadinejad Victory Was Expected Top
Judging from commentary in the blogosphere, many Americans are already convinced by suggestions that have been carried in the media that the Presidential election in Iran was stolen. [Some press reports have been a bit more careful: the lead paragraph of the front page story in Sunday's New York Times says that "it is impossible to know for sure" if the result reflects the popular will.] But the evidence that has been presented so far that the election was stolen has not been convincing. Iran does not allow independent international election observers, and there is a scarcity of independent, systematic data. But shortly before the election, Terror Free Tomorrow and the New America Foundation published a poll that was financed by the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. Based on this poll, the official result - a victory for Ahmadinejad in the first round - was entirely predictable. "Ahmadinejad Front Runner in Upcoming Presidential Elections," the poll reported. The poll was conducted between May 11 and May 20, and claimed a margin of error of 3.1%. Among its respondents, 34% said they would vote for incumbent President Ahmadinejad, 14% said they would vote for Mir Hussein Moussavi, 2% said they would vote for Mehdi Karroubi, and 1% said they would vote for Mohsen Rezai. Declared support for these four candidates represented 51% of the sample; 27% of the sample said they didn't know who they would vote for. [This accounts for 78% of the sample; the survey report doesn't explicitly characterize the other 22% of the sample, but presumably they were divided between those who did not intend to vote and those who refused to respond to the question. The survey reported that 89% of Iranians said they intended to vote.] If one merely extrapolated from the reported results - that is, if one assumed that the people who refused to respond or who didn't know voted for the four candidates in the same proportions as their counterparts who named candidates, the following result would have occurred on June 12: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - 66.7% Mir Hussein Moussavi - 27.5% Mehdi Karroubi - 3.9% Mohsen Rezai - 2.0% The Iranian Interior Ministry said Saturday afternoon that Ahmadinejad received in the actual election 62.6% of the vote, with Moussavi receiving just under 34%, the Times reported. Now, of course it is reasonable to suppose that the opposition might well have taken a greater share of the previously undecided vote than the share of the decided vote that they already had. Indeed, the Terror Free Tomorrow poll reported : "A close examination of our survey results reveals that the race may actually be closer than a first look at the numbers would indicate. More than 60 percent of those who state they don't know who they will vote for in the Presidential elections reflect individuals who favor political reform and change in the current system." So suppose that we allocate 60% of the 27% who told pollsters they didn't know to the two "reform" candidates, Moussavi and Karroubi; and 40% of the undecided vote to the two "conservative" candidates, Ahmadinejad and Rezai. And within each camp, suppose we allocate the votes according to the proportion of reform or conservative votes they had among those in the survey who named candidates. In that case, this would have been the result on June 12: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - 57% Mir Hussein Moussavi - 36% Mehdi Karroubi - 5% Mohsen Rezai - 2% When you account for the scaling up of the numbers from the poll, these numbers differ from the Interior Ministry numbers by less than the poll's margin of error. The Terror Free Tomorrow poll had another important result. One of the arguments being made that there must certainly have been fraud is the claim that Ahmadinejad could not possibly have won the Azeri city of Tabriz, as was reported by the official results, since Mousavi, who is Azeri, is from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Juan Cole, for example, makes this argument . Here's what the Terror Free Tomorrow poll had to say about that: "Inside Iran, considerable attention has been given to Mr. Moussavi's Azeri background, emphasizing the appeal his Azeri identity may have for Azeri voters. The results of our survey indicate that only 16 percent of Azeri Iranians indicate they will vote for Mr. Moussavi. By contrast, 31 percent of the Azeris claim they will vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad." Thus, according to Terror Free Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad had a 2-1 lead among Azeris over Moussavi. It shouldn't be shocking to anyone who carefully follows U.S. news coverage of foreign countries - particularly "adversary" countries - that in the absence of good data, Western observers would come to the conclusion that Moussavi had majority support. There is an unavoidable tilt in the reporting of Western observers. The Iranians that Western observers talk to - like the Venezuelans and Bolivians that Western observers talk to - are a skewed sample of the population: disproportionately English-speaking, disproportionately well-off, disproportionately critical of their governments. That's why anecdotes and observations are no substitute for hard data. Of course, none of this proves that the election was clean and legitimate. But it does suggest that claims that it was "impossible" for Ahmadinejad to win a fair election should be treated with extreme skepticism. On the contrary, based on the Terror Free Tomorrow poll, not only was it plausible that Ahmadinejad would win - it was extremely likely. Certainly, Juan Cole is right when he says that regardless of the election result, the Obama Administration should press forward with its diplomatic engagement with Iran - as the Administration has promised to do. But we ought to reserve judgment on claims that the Iranian Presidential election was stolen until such claims are substantiated. More on Iranian Election
 
Brian Ross: Death to.. well, "Death to..." Chants & Democracy in Despotic Domains Top
They were in the streets of Tehran shouting "Death to the coup d'état! Death to the dictator!" It was the angry backlash of the young, the optimistic, the moderate religious and secular political believers in something better for Iran. The government clearly and publicly humiliated them last week, with the sham election that offered the false laurel of change to millions of its citizens. The faux election, whose "results" were delivered in less than three hours in a country where it can take days to bring in election results from the outlying towns and villages. The government was wrong to toy with its citizens aspirations for more that way. Yet, for all their anger at the state, the Moussavi loyalists chanting in the streets of Tehran were equally wrong in their response. The mob cried coup! You cannot have a coup d'état in an election run by the state to benefit the status quo. There is not really a proper political term for what the ruling mullahs of Iran did to the people. It was more of a publicus simultas , a public humiliation, than a coup d'etat. The mob chanted "Death to the Dictator!" Whom, exactly, is that is a dictator? Surely no one was being brave enough to call out the rulers of Iran: The Ayatollah Khamenei and his council of clerics who are the real power of the state. "Death to the Puppet!" might be more accurate chant against the rule of Mr. Ahmadinejad. For all his blustering and heated rhetoric, he is more mouthy marionette than world leader. He does not wield power. He merely amplifies the policies and ideologies of the mullahs who pull his strings. Of course, shouting "Death to..." anyone really is the death of any pretensions of a crowd yearning for "democracy," as so many western journalists cliamed. Democrats do not go about the street sloganeering "Death to..." anybody. In a democracy we do not kill our opponents. We may let them shoot themselves in the foot, metaphorically. No need to kill John Kerry or John McCain. Losing politicians play their hand poorly and kill their career aspirations without a shot being fired. The "Death to [Insert Your Leader or Western State, Usually America, Here]" rhetoric is the standard-issue invocation of Middle-East peoples who have long histories of regime and religious leadership change through bloodshed, not the ballot box. It is a reflexive cry that must stop if the doorway to more peaceful change at the ballot box is to become possible. These people in the streets shouting "Death to..." do not put a kinder face on an Iran whose "revolution" has been marked with decades of images of such fists thrust angrily into the skies over Tehran, railing at enemies great and small, real and imagined. If the people of Iran really thirst for change, the first and most profound change will be when we hear calls for "Justice!" not "Death to..." echo from the streets of Tehran. Iranians overthrew the Shah only to replace the dictator with an equally despotic theocracy. Mr. Ahmadinejad can rail on about the evils of the Americans, or the Israelis, but he certainly has little to say about the thugs beating down civil protest in his own country over the decades, or the exodus of his own Diaspora of Iranian business might, culture and society which the "revolution" has driven to new homelands around the planet. How much could have a more tolerant Iran achieved with all of its best and brightest working and living side by side in their homeland? The revolution, like many revolutions, has had its costs, with true freedom for its people being chief amongst its major casualties of war. The theocracy always looks for an external boogeyman, be it Iraq or America, to help galvanize those who remain in country to rally towards the causes of the state's choosing. Now, decades later, comes the same push that we have seen in Russia, in China, and elsewhere for the revolution that allows more voices of a people to be heard. Usually these revolutions do not go so well. In a dark, poetic sort of way, the follow-up this week to the suppression of the remembrance of the 10th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in China was another the suppression of the human rights of a people by their government in Iran. Instead of answering the call of Moussavi loyalists for change and inclusion, the mullahs retreated to instilling fear in their base of the poor and ignorant, and using the considerable police powers of the state to silence protest and opposition to their policies. It is the charge of the state-run media and the various thought-police organs of government to try to continue to shape the world to fit the needs of the mullahs running the state. The brand of politics in Iran that its leading clerics conduct has been mistakenly called "Islamic Fundamentalism," but for many who know and love Islam, there is nothing fundamental about it. This is a Shia state, run by a centuries-old sect which venerates its connection to the direct descendants of the Profit and its interpretations of the faith largely through suffering and martydom. The problem is that the Iranian peoples are a diverse lot. They are not all Shia, and, even many Shia in that country do not all follow the dogmatic path taken by the political-religious leaders running modern Iran. That diversity has been honored internally quietly in the past, with well-camouflaged civil liberties as long as it does not interfere with the image of Iran as a political power for change of the Muslim world that the theocracy's ruling clerics want to project. An Iran that is trying to turn other countries in the Middle East into Shia revolutionary states that overthrow their Sunni kings, Sheiks and princes, does not want the warmer and more moderate face of a Mr. Moussavi in the presidency. He is not a holy warrior. He cannot inspire the faithful in other countries to rise up against their governments. The Iranian religious political council is really more of a ulema , a Shia high-council, trying to perpetuate their sect of the faith with a Supreme Imam that follows in the footsteps of the last direct Shia Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi. The Ayyatollah Khomeni, who led the original Iranian revolution, and authorized the taking of the American embassy, was seen as such a figure who galvanized the faithful across nations. If you are trying to get your head around this in more Western terms, it is not all that different than the papacy which wielded both spiritual and political power across the empires of kings and queens in Europe for centuries. The problem for the theocracy's aspirations for a Shia world order is that this is 2009, not 1109. Even though many of the kingdoms of the Middle East still politically resemble those nation-states of old, many of their subjects have cell phones and the Internet and know that there are places in the world where the embrace of the aspirations of the individual and group is done peacefully and cooperatively. Democracy and Shia theology which emphasizes strong top-down control are not political soul mates. Once armed with the knowledge of true democracy and freedom, other than killing everyone with an Internet connection, it is very hard to put that intellectual genie back in the bottle. This was meant to legitimize the edicts of the theocracy, not to open doors to greater freedom and tolerance. The campaign leading up to these elections was a whisper of limited freedom that grew into a chant then into a ballyhooed roar that somehow, in a country that has only known interchangeable forms of despotism, some form of republican democracy would prevail. Iranians took to the polls with the same psychoses that affect Powerball players and Las Vegas high rollers. They could win . Things could change. You cannot beat the house, though. What happens to the freedoms of the Iranian people, or their individual will, is of little consequence to men with more narrow interpretations of the quality of earthly life, whose dogma is focused upon larger, tradition-bound spiritual goals, steeped in centuries of suffering and martyrdom. An individual losing access to their Twitter during an election is not a concern for these leaders. It is not the puppet that needed changing, rather, the puppeteers. The ruling mullahs are quite content with their dogmatic pit bull Mr. Ahmaddinejad as the face and voice of their will in the world. More on Iranian Election
 
Mark Joseph: Dispatch From Tokyo: The Economy, Music Biz & Google Top
Japan is about to wrap its second decade of being in a seemingly unrelenting economic funk. Tim Geithner is supposed to be a student of what Japan did wrong, but I can't help but shake the feeling that he's making the same mistakes they made. Japan is still an odd hybrid of the past and the future. They've skipped the personal computer and gone straight to the cell phone, where much of e-traffic occurs. The trains are full of people who are either texting or sleeping. Outside of one train I ride, another Japanese has committed suicide on the tracks-delaying us for 20 minutes while the difficult job of cleaning up is done by a railway employee. Japanese do this on average, 100 times per day, every day of the year. I-Tunes is irrelevant here where 90% of consumers get their digital music delivered straight to their cell phones, bypassing the PC. Yet, finding a wireless connection isn't as easy as it should be. I stopped at a fast food burger joint called Lotteria and was promised a free 15-minute wireless connection. When I couldn't connect, the guy selling burgers couldn't help me and said there was nobody else in the store who could either. Up the street at McDonald's they promised me unlimited access in the basement, but there was no signal there either. I dropped by the Cerullian, a swank mid-town high-rise hotel and was told that there was no wireless available in the hotel. Moving to the bar, a waiter gave me a knowing glance and promised me wireless. Turns out Google Japan is headquartered in the same building and they're kind enough to make their wireless connection available to strangers just passing through. God bless Google. They may be trying to take over the world, but maybe they deserve to. My longtime friends in the music biz here all lament what has happened to the business of music. One, a long time employee of one of the largest record labels in the world, laments the layoffs and predicts they'll soon have to move from their cool, expensive offices to more modest digs. I'm looking for the silver lining though: maybe as the music business becomes less and less lucrative, those who were just in it for the money and don't actually love music will leave and find something else to do. I'll never forget the conversation I had with Terry McBride, CEO of Nettwerk Music Group and our JV partner for our label, Bully! Pulpit Records. When I was deciding which artist to sign first to our new venture, Terry stopped me and simply said "Sign the artist whose music you love" or something like that. He caught me off guard. It was nice to talk to a music executive who loved music-for a change. We are in an era of upheaval-and people who can't seem to shake a general sense of unease that their best days may be behind them. The best days are definitely behind for my friend Koji Ubukata who passed away last month in his sleep, of an aneurysm. He was only 46. For the last 15 years Koji and I produced the music for TV commercials together. I saw him last in December and I will miss him. It's just another reminder that life is short and tomorrow isn't promised to any of us.
 
Tasha Gordon-Solmon: The Bachelorette: Marry Me Monday at Your Own Peril Top
Tomorrow's episode of The Bachelorette is extra special. And not just because it looks like Jillian might cry in every scene. ABC and Touchstone have teemed up (or rather, been teemed up by their parent company, Disney) to bring us an unprecedented event: Marry Me Monday. During the commercial breaks, real people will have the opportunity to propose to their girlfriends on television! (And the rest of us will be inspired to buy a ticket to see The Proposal in theaters now!) Yes, I know what you're thinking: how is this special? There are lots of shows devoted to the sole purpose of broadcasting real peoples' marriage proposals. (You can also spend hours perusing local-news proposals posted on youtube, like this delightfully awkward one. ) Marry Me Monday is different because the proposals take place during Bachelorette Time. And Bachelorette Time is a very special time for women. But it is also a very delicate time. So for those men out there, who are lucky enough to be part of this proposal extravaganza, I warn you: consider your timing wisely! 1. Don't do it directly after Michael, Ed or Tanner P have appeared on screen. Michael is more adorable than you, Ed is more perfect than you, and if it's Tanner P, she'll want to put the ring on her fourth toe. 2. Don't do it too early. Yes, your proposal is more important than a television show. But after she says yes, she's going to have to call her parents. And her parents will still be there after 10pm Eastern Standard Time. So don't force her to choose between finding out which bachelor has a girlfriend back home, and telling her parents she's engaged. It won't be pretty. 3. Don't do it at a point in the episode when Jillian is distraught. Your future fiancé will empathize with Jillian, so much so, she may adopt her feelings of anxiousness and insecurity and project them on to you. Trust me, you don't want your "Will you marry me?" to be answered with: "Are you here for the right reasons?" 4. Don't do it after a commercial for The Proposa l In the movie, Sandra Bullock's character proposes to Ryan Reynolds' character in order to get a Green Card. Like I said, Bachelorette Time is a delicate time. Even if neither one of you is foreign; you don't want to give your girlfriend any inspiration to consider your motivations. You also don't want her to be thinking about Ryan Reynolds. 5. Propose as close to the Rose Ceremony as you can. The energy will be running high and the suspense will be at its peak. Your fiancé can also draw out the whole blissful-freaking-out thing for a few minutes while watching who gets the roses out of the corner of her eye. Finally, if you don't get to choose when your proposal is broadcast, I wouldn't risk letting it happen at the wrong time. Change the channel during the commercials, ask your girlfriend to make you a snack every ten minutes - do whatever it takes. Yes, you spent hours filling out that online application and being vetted by ABC and making your heartfelt video proposal. But better to play it safe than sorry. After you've watched the show, ride the warm fuzzy feelings it has awakened in your beloved, find a nice park bench or restaurant, and propose there. Or, if you have access to a helicopter or remote tropical island, those are the best places to nail down her affection. The Bachelorette can be a powerful treatise on the trials and tribulations of love, and you don't want that to work against you. Besides, if the show has taught us anything, it is that proposing on television does not guarantee a happy ending. For every Trista & Ryan, there is an Aaron & Helene, Andrew & Jen, Byron & Mary, Andy & Tessa, Meredith & Ian, Deanna & Jesse, Shayne & Matt, and Jason & Molly. And you don't want to be a Jason, trust me. PS-If there are any eligible bachelors out there are, thinking they just might want to marry me, disregard everything I just said. Even if we've never met, or if we have met and I don't like you; if you pop the question during The Bachelorette tomorrow, I will totally say yes! More on ABC
 
Artie Wu: The Wisdom of Moms: Summer Fun on a Tighter Budget Top
School is out, and millions of moms around the country are gearing up for summer! At Mamapedia we are seeing hundreds of thousands of moms sharing advice and wisdom around their best strategies for summer -- last-minute summer camp planning, family travel strategies, and doing everything possible to keep the kids active and away from the TV/computer. This year, the economy has moms asking each other for the best ways to get everything done -- but on a much tighter budget. This past week we did a survey of over 700 moms and found that 41% of them were cutting back spending "a lot" and fully 97% of them were cutting back at least somewhat. What are Mamapedia moms advising for keeping summer fun on a tighter budget? Unpack the vacation: In past years the family may have gone to a full-service resort or packaged vacation, relying on the resort's kid programs, sightseeing tours and theme park rides to "do the entertaining for you". This year many moms are simply taking that back into their own hands -- they are keeping the vacation closer to home, organizing the fun around town and with other neighborhood kids. For instance, one mom suggests rotating a "day camp" at multiple mom's homes with a mix of older and younger kids (who may be too young for camp) -- and letting the older kids run the activities: "science experiments, building forts, obstacle courses, putting on a magic show," keeping them all away from the computer and teaching the older ones "leadership, planning and patience." Practice "working": Moms who want to let their tween kids start gaining work experience -- but who are not yet ready for a real summer job -- will partner with another mom and send the kids to each others' homes to do chores and other "mommy's helper" duties for a little extra money. The work is more fun when done with a friend and they start to learn a new level of responsibility. And the moms, of course, get great help while keeping the kids busy. Find water: For most kids, it simply isn't summer without water -- day trips to local pools, water parks and children's museums -- or even the front lawn -- are a must for cooling off and goofing off, and every kid is good and tired at the end of the day. You can ask other moms for local water parks and you will be surprised at how many "secret" kid-friendly water features there are in your area. Even on a budget, it can be easy to assemble all the elements of a great summer -- to have new experiences, learn new responsibilities, spend time with friends and family and of course, to be deliciously exhausted at the end of an endless summer day. Perhaps that's why over 50% of our moms reported that adjusting their spending habits has actually been "Challenging but positive" or downright "Enlightening." Happy summer!
 
Byron Williams: Dysfunctional Family Court System may be Doing More Harm than Good Top
This is my Sunday column, while it specifically addresses Alameda County, chances are others may find similar experiences in their area. The family court system has, in theory, operated on the question, "What is in the best interests of the child?" But the findings articulated at a one-day workshop hosted by Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele and the Center for Judicial Excellence suggest that question is more theory than practice. If the statistics are accurate, the frequency with which children are allowed to have unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents after divorce in this country is alarming and worthy of the public's attention. According to the Center for Judicial Excellence, "Not since the Catholic Church pedophile scandal has the United States seen this level of institutional collusion and corruption harming innocent children." This may sound like hyperbole, but the comparison holds if, in fact, most family court professionals know the system is broken and are allowing the most vulnerable members of society to potentially suffer lifelong consequences. It is indeed a broken system that allows 58,000 children each year to be placed in harm's way simply because the abusive parent also possesses the resources to hire a bevy of professionals who plead his/her case to judges, mediators and other family-law professionals. Heavy caseloads, bad judges and unqualified mediators, who evaluate families sometimes based on no more than a one-hour meeting, can add up to decisions that permanently affect families. As one parent shared with me, "I wouldn't believe my own story if I didn't live through it. We trust the courts to do the right thing, but it's just not that simple." Those who are not directly involved trust the system to work -- but there was a consistent message at the workshop that it does not work, and children are paying the price. Are these simply the musing of parents and attorneys who did not get their way? No, there is more than enough data to suggest there is a problem that warrants investigation. The primary charge finds that many judges, for reasons ranging from being overworked to becoming jaded by the system, have placed an inordinate reliance on court appointees such as mediators, evaluators, investigators, and minors' counsel, who may or may not act in the best interest of the children. This has created a scenario whereby individuals who have no understanding of the law often sway the individual who is appointed to administer justice. Steele also cites a level of dishonesty that she states is pervasive throughout the system. "It's not just mediators but social workers who are not telling the truth," she said. The workshop featured experts in the field and parents sharing their gut-wrenching, first-hand testimony and offering solutions to the problem-plagued system in California. State Sen. Mark Leno and other members of the Legislature are calling for an audit that will evaluate the magnitude of the concerns expressed over a number of years. A number of participants also made it clear the problems they cite are not emblematic of the whole, maintaining there are indeed a number of good judges within the system. But there are enough bad ones who are not held accountable, causing the system dysfunction. Steele should be commended for her willingness to bring attention to an issue that has flown under the radar for years. Investigation is long overdue. Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his website: byronspeaks.com
 
Disabled Woman Turned Away From White Castle (VIDEO) Top
It was after midnight when Ariel Wade rolled into the drive-through at the 24-hour White Castle, one block from the State Capitol. Wade rolled away "madder than fish grease" after the staff refused to hand over any burgers.
 
Stephen Zunes: The Stealing of the Iranian Election Top
It is certainly not unprecedented for Western observers to miscalculate the outcome of an election in a country where pre-election polls are not as rigorous as Western countries, particularly when there is a clear bias towards a particular candidate. At the same time, the predictions of knowledgeable Iranian observers from various countries and from across the political spectrum were nearly unanimous in the belief that the leading challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would defeat incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decisively in yesterday's presidential election, certainly in the runoff if not in the first round. This also appeared to be the assumption among independent observers in Iran itself. So overwhelming were the signs of imminent Ahmadinejad defeat and so massive was the margin of his alleged victory, the only reasonable assumption was that there has been fraud on a massive scale. What polls did exist showed Mousavi leading by a clear majority and Ahmadinejad well under 40%, a margin roughly similar to what most analysts had suggested based on anecdotal evidence. Instead, the official results show Ahmadinejad winning by an overwhelming 63% of the vote. The unmistakable political trend in Iran in the past four years has been toward greater liberalism and moderation, particularly with the addition of millions of new younger voters who are overwhelmingly disenchanted with Ahmadinejad's ultra-conservative social policies and failed economic policies. The very idea that he would do substantially better than he did in the election four years ago, therefore, is ludicrous at face value. Indeed, in municipal and other elections held over the past couple of years, Ahmadinejad's preferred slates lost heavily to moderate conservatives and reformers. Ahmadinejad won a tight presidential race four years ago campaigning as an economic populist, gaining wide support among the poor for his calls for reducing inequality and fighting endemic corruption. However, his administration has been at least as corrupt as his predecessors, his economic policies have resulted in high inflation and high unemployment, and he has been ruthless is suppressing labor unions, such as the bus drivers strike in Tehran. As a result, his popularity has plummeted, making the idea of substantially greater popular support today particularly questionable. There are also more direct indications of fraud. In past elections, there have been substantial variations in the vote of various candidates based on ethnicity and geography, but the official results show Ahmadinejad's vote totals being relatively uniform across the country. Mousavi, an Azeri from the province of Azerbaijan who has been quite popular there, did poorly, according to official results. This is particularly striking since even minor candidates from that area had done disproportionately well in previous elections. Similarly, Mehdi Karoubi, the other reformist candidate and an ethnic Lur, supposedly fared poorly in his home province of Luristan. Nationally, Karoubi went from 17% in the 2005 election to less than 1% this year with no apparent reason for such a precipitous decline. Meanwhile, the much-despised Mohsen Rezaie, the other hardline candidate, allegedly got twice as many votes. Among the most implausible part of the official results is the claim that Ahmadinejad won a clear majority in the capital of Tehran. In reality, most knowledgeable observers have estimated that he has the support of barely half the population in his stronghold in the southern part of the city while he is overwhelmingly despised elsewhere in that city of 12 million. Had Ahmadinejad somehow been able to eke out a legitimate victory, it would have come from the rural areas, not urban strongholds of the opposition like Tehran and Tabriz. Iran's Electoral Commission, rather than waiting the customary three days before having the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei certify the results of the election, instead had Khamenei approve the alleged results immediately, presumably as early returns showed the likelihood of a substantial Mousavi victory. While in previous elections the results were announced by each voting district, which would allow at least some degree of follow-up regarding their validity, this time the results were announced only at the citywide of provincial level. Already, Interior Ministry employees are beginning to speak out about witnessing the fabrication of phony vote totals. The electoral system under the Islamic Republic has always been tightly controlled to the point that the Guardian Council pre-screened potential candidates for what they considered to be appropriate adherence to their theocratic order. However, within that rather limited range of legitimacy, previous elections were deemed relatively free and fair. This massive fraud, then, is unprecedented. Indeed, as security forces seized newspapers and other media election night to ensure the fraud would not be reported and government has shut down much of the country's electronic communication, Iranians spoke in terms of what appears to be nothing less than a internal coup. While there is much to criticize about U.S. policy towards Iran over the years as well as the double-standards of the U.S. government regarding election-rigging and autocratic rule among its allies, there should be no denial that yesterday's presidential election in Iran involved fraud on a massive scale. The stealing of the Iranian presidential elections is a dream come true for American neo-conservatives and others pushing for a more confrontational approach with Iran. It is imperative that we not allow the hard-liners of either country an illegitimate victory and give our support to Iranian democrats in their struggle to reclaim their country. More on Iranian Election
 
Laurence Leamer: "Join Us, Mr. President!!!" Top
I was the next-to-the-last speaker Saturday at a rally in Washington to build a bold new Peace Corps. Rajeev Goyal, the Morepeacecorps.org national organizer, and I had decided to do this rally only nine days before. It would have been a formidable new task even if we have done nothing else. But we were already working ceaselessly to get the House of Representatives to appropriate the $450 million that would allow the Peace Corps to grow and to reform. We were close to success in the House. Our problem was not only what would happen in the Senate but President Obama. For some inexplicable reason, the most inspiring, most capable leader in generations has not followed through on his campaign promise to double the size of the Peace Corps. He is going ahead and tripling the domestic volunteer corps, and his inaction makes no sense. The administration budget contains only $373 million for the fiscal 2010 budget, enough to keep things the way they are, no money for the 20 new countries clamoring for volunteers, no room for the 25,000 who this year have expressed interest in applying, 40% more than last year. There is no new director and the downtown headquarters is practically moribund, waiting for something to happen. And so we decided to stage a rally, and we worked almost around the clock to make it happen. We had the stalwart support of Kevin Quigley, the president of the National Press Corps Association, who mobilized his troops and whose organization funded the rally for one of its programs. It was amazing how everything came together in Freedom Plaza two blocks from the White House. We had called Anthony Johnson, the Jamaican ambassador, the day before, and he gave a passionate, compelling speech. Former Senator Harris Wofford gave a marvelous talk, putting our movement in historical context. The wonderful musicians performed for free because they believe in a bold new Peace Corps. We stretched out a hundred-feet-long scroll in which rally goers wrote letters to the President and First Lady which we plan to deliver to the White House. Even the weather gods cooperated, holding off on threatened thunder storms. Speaker after speaker made compelling cases for an enlarged, reformed Peace Corps reaching out to the world in powerful new ways. I felt inspired as I stood on that stage before hundreds concerned with the future of the Peace Corps. "The first person we contacted to speak was Tim Shriver, the president of Special Olympics International and the son of Sargent Shriver, the founder of the Peace Corps," I said, standing in front of a great banner for a BOLD NEW PEACE CORPS. "Within hours he said yes. Two days ago we decided that it would be fantastic if we could march to the White House at the end of the rally led by Tim Shriver. It would be incredible. And so I called Tim and he said yes. And he said, 'Larry, I don't care if it's twenty people, fifty people. I don't care. It's about the Peace Corps. It's about this movement. It doesn't matter.' "HEAR US MR. PRESIDENT!! "And so I look out now on this immense plaza and I see a scene I thought I would never see. I see this great space filled to over flowing. I see 195,000 returned volunteers standing proudly in their bold new Peace Corps t-shirts. Up front laughing, jumping up and down with joy, I see Sarge Shriver telling us we are doing the right thing in building this bold new Peace Corps. I see the flags of the 139 Peace Corps countries. I see millions of supporters. I see America. I see the world. "HEAR US, MR. PRESIDENT!! "And I hear them shouting in unison in their great voices. I hear them shouting so loud, so clear, that two blocks away in the White House, the president hears the voices of the Peace Corps calling him to be true to his vision. He hears us and he acts. "HEAR US, MR. PRESIDENT!!! "HEAR US, MR. PRESIDENT!!! "HEAR US, MR. PRESIDENT!!!" Then Tim Shriver got up and gave a powerful extemporaneous speech that was a high point of the rally. To my mind, he is so far the best candidate to become the director that there is no second candidate. Some say he is not a great administrator. That was the same criticism that was made of his father and Sarge was the best director in the history of the Peace Corps. After his formidable speech, Tim led us to the White House behind the flag of the Peace Corps and our banner for a bold new Peace Corps. As we walked up 14th Street, Tim led us in the chant "Mr. President" and "Bold new Peace Corps." We were powerful in passions and belief, and strong in our voices, and we turned as one person and marched to stand in front of the White House and to shout out so loud and so strong that surely anyone inside would have heard us. The son of the founder of the Peace Corps leading our march was one of the most powerful acts of political symbolism I have ever seen. You will read about this here but you will read about it nowhere else. Last week I called newspapers and television news desks and tried to get someone out there, but except for the Washington Post , no one came. The Post did a small story today, writing "dozens rally." That's literally true. So is "dozens march in St. Patrick's Day Parade." When I stopped counting there were over 300 people in our enthusiastic crowd. Actually, the only media to contact me has been Newsmax.com, the conservative website, who are doing a piece on Republicans and the Peace Corps. It's another indicator of the growing power of Internet journalism, keeping ahead of their newspaper rivals. If we are able to get the righteous appropriation of $450 million through Congress and build and reform the Peace Corps, the traditional media will have missed an important, inspiring story. And if we are successful, the series of stories I have done on Huffingtpost.com will be one of the keys. Posting them on the site is just the beginning. We email the pieces to tens of thousands of our supporters who email them to their friends and lists, and it has helped to build a movement of fervent supporters. Two weeks ago I wrote an "Open Letter to Chairman Lowey" and asked readers to send in their own open letters to Rep. Lowey who is Chairwoman of the House State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Lowey has the power to give the Peace Corps the full $450 million in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. The response was astounding, hundreds of serious, well conceived, well written letters. We chose 67 letters and turned them into an exquisite, professionally printed book titled WE IMPLORE YOU, CHAIRWOMAN LOWEY. Last week Rajeev and I handed the first copy to Rep. Lowey in her office and told her that every member of Congress will receive a copy. Wednesday the subcommittee is scheduled to meet and on that day we believe it will make history by giving the Peace Corps the full appropriation. Then the struggle moves to the Senate. But, Mr. President, we need you. We know that you heard our united voices Saturday. When we come back, we will march even stronger in number and even louder in voice. We will be shouting, "Join us, Mr. President!!!" You belong with us. You are one of us. And we know that when you finally decide to act, you will build Obama's Peace Corps, an emboldened institution for a new age. More on Barack Obama
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)