...he or she forswears any connection to a political organization outside the Republican Party and shows some independent thinking.
I've long wondered why so many Republicans are suddenly anti-union, anti-immigration, anti-healthcare, and raising a hue and cry about voter fraud. I thought that there has to be some hidden group behind such a lock-step must-pass list of issues.
Well, there is. It's the American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC. To join, you have to be a Republican legislator in "good standing" or pay several thousand dollars.
I did write about ALEC in "Freedom, democracy, and unelected legislature", but I was reminded of ALEC again when I was cleaning out my email. I had sent myself a link from my iPod to a New York Times editorial, "A Shabby Crusade in Wisconsin", 2011-03-25. The Republican Party of Wisconsin demanded the emails of a Wisconsin history professor who criticized the union-busting law.
I followed the link to his blog, Scholar as Citizen. It is to the article "Who's Really Behind Recent Republican Legislation in Wisconsin and Elsewhere? (Hint: It Didn't Start Here)".
His article delves into the available evidence to show how the Republican Party is being manipulated and funded by a hidden government, one that is not democratic, republican, or elected.
Until you can find a Republican who is for open government, accepts contributions only from those eligible to vote for him or her, decries attack ads against opponents, and thinks independently, vote for a Democrat (using the previous guidelines), a third party candidate, or write someone in. But whoever you support, be sure to show up and vote.
Showing posts with label hidden government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hidden government. Show all posts
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Friday, June 26, 2009
The quiet before the storm?
The mass protests in Iran have petered out in Iran because of overwhelming action by the security forces. Even protests made without crowds seem to have been feeble.
Yesterday was supposed to be a day of releasing green balloons. I wondered where the protesters would get enough balloons to fill the sky. Even if there had been enough green balloons in the stores, wouldn't the authorities rush to buy all the balloons?
Supposedly because protesters ran out of green balloons, they used trash bags instead. I knew they would never have enough helium; who stores a helium tank in their apartment? A quick Google search led me to the clue - hair dryers, and I didn't even have to read any full article.
Maybe the time it would take to fill a trash bag with sufficient hot air explains why the only pictures I saw of green balloons were of single groups of four or five bags tied together. Not a very massive demonstration. I was surprised that a trigger-happy Basij didn't shoot them down.
However, a couple of Iranians have been quoted as there is plenty of heat beneath the ashes. We haven't heard for several days about Rafsanjani's work behind the scenes with the Council of Experts, the group that can hire and fire the Supreme Leader. We have read that the mayor of Tehran thinks that people should be able to protest peacefully. We know that several clerics, including some very senior clerics, have spoken out against the clampdown. We know that many members of Parliament did not attend the congratulatory party for Ahmadinejad. What many of us didn't know is how much the security forces control so many aspects of Iranian society. But even in the security forces, not all agree with the necessity of the crackdown.
If there is indeed heat beneath the ashes, what, if any, fuel will start a new conflagration. The 1979 revolution took a year; the 2009 revolution could also.
Yesterday was supposed to be a day of releasing green balloons. I wondered where the protesters would get enough balloons to fill the sky. Even if there had been enough green balloons in the stores, wouldn't the authorities rush to buy all the balloons?
Supposedly because protesters ran out of green balloons, they used trash bags instead. I knew they would never have enough helium; who stores a helium tank in their apartment? A quick Google search led me to the clue - hair dryers, and I didn't even have to read any full article.
Maybe the time it would take to fill a trash bag with sufficient hot air explains why the only pictures I saw of green balloons were of single groups of four or five bags tied together. Not a very massive demonstration. I was surprised that a trigger-happy Basij didn't shoot them down.
However, a couple of Iranians have been quoted as there is plenty of heat beneath the ashes. We haven't heard for several days about Rafsanjani's work behind the scenes with the Council of Experts, the group that can hire and fire the Supreme Leader. We have read that the mayor of Tehran thinks that people should be able to protest peacefully. We know that several clerics, including some very senior clerics, have spoken out against the clampdown. We know that many members of Parliament did not attend the congratulatory party for Ahmadinejad. What many of us didn't know is how much the security forces control so many aspects of Iranian society. But even in the security forces, not all agree with the necessity of the crackdown.
If there is indeed heat beneath the ashes, what, if any, fuel will start a new conflagration. The 1979 revolution took a year; the 2009 revolution could also.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
An interesting non-violent counter-attack in Iran
If you have seen many of the pictures coming out of Iran, you may have seen a middle-aged man on the back of a motor-bike pulling a gun out of his belt. According to the Christian Science Monitor, he is a provocateur trying to increase the level of violence. See "Who's behind Iran violence? Website posts video in name-and-shame campaign".
An Iranian website has posted a few pictures of these provocateurs and some have been identified. People are surprised to learn that they are their neighbors. Supposedly one of the identified provocateurs has left town.
Many critics complain we have become beholden to our gadgets and our technology. But these gadgets and technologies are really giving power to the people. Power is held by the few when information is held only by the few.
An Iranian website has posted a few pictures of these provocateurs and some have been identified. People are surprised to learn that they are their neighbors. Supposedly one of the identified provocateurs has left town.
Many critics complain we have become beholden to our gadgets and our technology. But these gadgets and technologies are really giving power to the people. Power is held by the few when information is held only by the few.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Al-Jazeera more liberal than many think
Because Al-Jazeera broadcasts videos and other press releases from the likes of Al Qaeda, many Americans think of Al-Jazeera as nothing more than a mouthpiece for terrorists.
However, if you actually visit Al-Jazeera's web site you will find a much broader reportage. For example, see "Iranian writer on poll result", an interview with Azar Nafisi, author of "Reading Lolita in Tehran". Afisi doesn't pull any punches on what she thinks of the regime in Iran and of reactions to it. For example, "The US government is sometimes silly in its response to Iran."
Because I don't know Arabic, I can't say if this interview was also posted in Arabic. I can say if you click "Arabic" in the sidebar on the left, you will find many of the popular photos from Iran, including a demonstrator holding up a sign, "Where is my vote?"
I probably will not live to see it, but the 22nd century may see no dictatorships. Optimistic? Consider that in the 1950's Western Europe had Franco in power in Spain and Salazar in Portugal.
However, if you actually visit Al-Jazeera's web site you will find a much broader reportage. For example, see "Iranian writer on poll result", an interview with Azar Nafisi, author of "Reading Lolita in Tehran". Afisi doesn't pull any punches on what she thinks of the regime in Iran and of reactions to it. For example, "The US government is sometimes silly in its response to Iran."
Because I don't know Arabic, I can't say if this interview was also posted in Arabic. I can say if you click "Arabic" in the sidebar on the left, you will find many of the popular photos from Iran, including a demonstrator holding up a sign, "Where is my vote?"
I probably will not live to see it, but the 22nd century may see no dictatorships. Optimistic? Consider that in the 1950's Western Europe had Franco in power in Spain and Salazar in Portugal.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Many views on how to support the Iranian people
The comments on the Lede of the New York Times are all over the map: unquestioning support of the Iranian demonstrators, unquestioning support of the Iranian government, ignore the Iranians, stop the Iranian government, and more.
Those calling for no support believe that the Iranians are the enemy, government and people alike. This is the terrorist mindset: all of the X are the enemy, and so they all deserve to die.
The hard-nose cold warriors: they don't understand how foreign interference rallies people to support their government and backfires. Sen. John McCain faults President Obama for not doing enough. See "President Obama Reiterates Concerns about Iranian Election", New York Times, 2009-06-16. “He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election,” Mr. McCain said in an interview on NBC’s “Today.” “The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights. We support them in their struggle against a repressive, oppressive regime.”
Boy, am I glad I voted for Obama! This is not the kind of talk we need coming from a President.
“We make sure that the world knows that America leads,” Mr. McCain said.
Wait a minute! If the Iranian election was corrupt and flawed, in what election was American chosen as a leader of the world?
There are the overly sympathetic meddlers: they call upon people to join a denial of service campaign against Iranian government sites. But denial of service on a few sites also reduces the available bandwidth in the local network and hinders outgoing messages. It is also stooping to the level of your opponent. In fact, one should avoid any Iranian site; the foreign traffic decreases the available bandwidth. Internet access in Iran has become very slow. Depend on non-Iranian sites to aggregate.
There is the reasoned approach: President Obama gave restrained support for people without undue criticism of the government. See the above article quoting John McCain. Also, note that Richard Lugar, Ind.-R, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agrees with Obama. “For the moment, our position is to allow the Iranians to work out their situation,” Mr. Lugar said in an interview Tuesday morning on CBS’ “Early Show.” “For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy and to use us, really, to retain their power.”
Those calling for no support believe that the Iranians are the enemy, government and people alike. This is the terrorist mindset: all of the X are the enemy, and so they all deserve to die.
The hard-nose cold warriors: they don't understand how foreign interference rallies people to support their government and backfires. Sen. John McCain faults President Obama for not doing enough. See "President Obama Reiterates Concerns about Iranian Election", New York Times, 2009-06-16. “He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election,” Mr. McCain said in an interview on NBC’s “Today.” “The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights. We support them in their struggle against a repressive, oppressive regime.”
Boy, am I glad I voted for Obama! This is not the kind of talk we need coming from a President.
“We make sure that the world knows that America leads,” Mr. McCain said.
Wait a minute! If the Iranian election was corrupt and flawed, in what election was American chosen as a leader of the world?
There are the overly sympathetic meddlers: they call upon people to join a denial of service campaign against Iranian government sites. But denial of service on a few sites also reduces the available bandwidth in the local network and hinders outgoing messages. It is also stooping to the level of your opponent. In fact, one should avoid any Iranian site; the foreign traffic decreases the available bandwidth. Internet access in Iran has become very slow. Depend on non-Iranian sites to aggregate.
There is the reasoned approach: President Obama gave restrained support for people without undue criticism of the government. See the above article quoting John McCain. Also, note that Richard Lugar, Ind.-R, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agrees with Obama. “For the moment, our position is to allow the Iranians to work out their situation,” Mr. Lugar said in an interview Tuesday morning on CBS’ “Early Show.” “For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy and to use us, really, to retain their power.”
Whither Iran?
"Yet [Ayatollah Khameni] must have been troubled by a sense of déjà vu having lived to hear the calls of “God is Great” from Tehran rooftops denouncing his handpicked president. The same calls 30 years ago brought the shah’s regime to its knees."
- "A Middle Class Uprising", Abbas Amanat, New York Times, 2009-06-16, appended to an editorial "Where Will the Power Lie in Iran?"
Amanat also points out that 80% of Iran's population is urban or semi-urban. So much for the rural people were dominant in the election.
- "A Middle Class Uprising", Abbas Amanat, New York Times, 2009-06-16, appended to an editorial "Where Will the Power Lie in Iran?"
Amanat also points out that 80% of Iran's population is urban or semi-urban. So much for the rural people were dominant in the election.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The size of the crowds in Tehran is unbelievable
See http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi1388/sets/72157619701000269/ for photos posted by Moussavi1388. 1388 is the current year in the Iranian calendar.
Also a counterattack on Iranian government websites is underway. Two can play the game of web-blocking. Simply by requesting a web site, thousands of people can block that web site. Try Ahmadinejad's web site. Since there are more Iranian citizens upset with the election results than there are government employees who can block opposition web sites, the only government defense is to shut the web entirely. And that would upset lots of business people who have not been demonstrating. I think the strong-armers in the Iranian government have put themselves in a no-win situation.
I think we're going to see the Web as the biggest promoter of democracy that we've ever seen.
Also a counterattack on Iranian government websites is underway. Two can play the game of web-blocking. Simply by requesting a web site, thousands of people can block that web site. Try Ahmadinejad's web site. Since there are more Iranian citizens upset with the election results than there are government employees who can block opposition web sites, the only government defense is to shut the web entirely. And that would upset lots of business people who have not been demonstrating. I think the strong-armers in the Iranian government have put themselves in a no-win situation.
I think we're going to see the Web as the biggest promoter of democracy that we've ever seen.
Will Iranians bring democracy to the Middle East?
Many Americans think of Al-Jazeera as an anti-American, anti-Israeli broadcaster. However, you might want to take a look at one Al-Jazeera story on the crisis in Iran, "Iran protesters defy rally ban", Aljazeera.net, 2009-06-15. It is a rather even-handed reporting of the events and the conflicts in Iran.
When people in the other countries see footage and stories like this, will they starting asking why they shouldn't be doing likewise?
And it could spread out even wider. China Daily reportage seems on the surface to be pro-government, but those who read between the lines might see more. See "Iran's supreme leader warns against provocative behavior", China Daily, 2006-09-15
When people in the other countries see footage and stories like this, will they starting asking why they shouldn't be doing likewise?
And it could spread out even wider. China Daily reportage seems on the surface to be pro-government, but those who read between the lines might see more. See "Iran's supreme leader warns against provocative behavior", China Daily, 2006-09-15
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Is Tehran Bureau too popular or is it too accurate?
I tried to access Tehran Bureau's website and was diverted to its provider's error page:
Site Temporarily UnavailableIs the page too popular and has exceeded its bandwidth limit? Or is it too accurate and has been hacked again?
This website is currently experiencing technical difficulties. If you are the owner of this site, please contact us for more information. In most cases, this is only temporary.
If the Iranian election was fair, why is the government afraid of criticism?
The Lede and other sources are reporting cell phone service being turned on and off, text messaging being blocked, access to certain Iranian web sites being blocked, and even sites outside Iran being sabotaged.
One of these latter sites is Tehran Bureau. It was hacked but supposedly is back up. If it is up, it must be extremely popular. I can't access it. On one try it stood at "15 of 18 pages loaded" for several minutes. I retried it and after a long wait told that "Safari could not access the server."
The Iranian authorities are even closing news bureaus that one would assume would be "more friendly". The correspondent for Al-Arabiya in Tehran was told to close the bureau and not report any news.
Many in the U.S. felt that George W. Bush stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections. However, there was no wide-scale censorship of the voices expressing this opinion.
One of these latter sites is Tehran Bureau. It was hacked but supposedly is back up. If it is up, it must be extremely popular. I can't access it. On one try it stood at "15 of 18 pages loaded" for several minutes. I retried it and after a long wait told that "Safari could not access the server."
The Iranian authorities are even closing news bureaus that one would assume would be "more friendly". The correspondent for Al-Arabiya in Tehran was told to close the bureau and not report any news.
Many in the U.S. felt that George W. Bush stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections. However, there was no wide-scale censorship of the voices expressing this opinion.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The fallacy of "both sides" continues
This morning's Star Tribune has a front page article titled "Both sides claim victory in Iran". The article is not available on the Star Tribune web site because it is a Washington Post story. In the Post it was titled "Iran Election in Dispute as 2 Candidates Claim Victory", Thomas Erdbrink, Washington Post Foreign Service, Tehran, 2009-06-13.
The Post headline is more accurate as there are definitely more than two sides in the Iran election conflict. The Star Tribune headline ignores that there were four candidates on the ballot and that many more candidates were rejected by Iran's Council of Guardians.
Although the Interior Ministry is under the President, do we really know that the President was responsible for how the vote was counted or miscounted? What if a faction of the Council of Guardians, the Assembly of Experts, or the Supreme Leader wanted Ahmadinejad to win, not so much that they agreed with him, but wanted to control him? Discounting the candidates who got few votes or those who rejected, the possibility that unelected powers have an interest gives us at least three sides.
If this third side was responsible for giving the vote to Ahmadinejad, would he not be somehow beholden to them? If so, would they reign in some of the behavior that embarrasses Iran's interest and get him to work more in the direction they want?
If my conjecture is right, the power brokers should be careful playing with tame bears. Sometimes they attack their handlers.
The Post headline is more accurate as there are definitely more than two sides in the Iran election conflict. The Star Tribune headline ignores that there were four candidates on the ballot and that many more candidates were rejected by Iran's Council of Guardians.
Although the Interior Ministry is under the President, do we really know that the President was responsible for how the vote was counted or miscounted? What if a faction of the Council of Guardians, the Assembly of Experts, or the Supreme Leader wanted Ahmadinejad to win, not so much that they agreed with him, but wanted to control him? Discounting the candidates who got few votes or those who rejected, the possibility that unelected powers have an interest gives us at least three sides.
If this third side was responsible for giving the vote to Ahmadinejad, would he not be somehow beholden to them? If so, would they reign in some of the behavior that embarrasses Iran's interest and get him to work more in the direction they want?
If my conjecture is right, the power brokers should be careful playing with tame bears. Sometimes they attack their handlers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)