|
Iranian Election: The Revolution Will Be Youtubed (pg. 19)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
Anyway, this discussion has gotten stupid.
What's interesting to me in the last few days is how the conflict has transformed from being one of political unrest in Iran into something bigger. I don't know what the outcome will be of the political struggle - I have a good deal of skepticism about Mousavi's chances for gaining any sort of power. But it strikes me that there are some social developments coming out of this situation that are more far-reaching.
For instance, much has been made of the innovations used by dissenters in Iran in the field of social networking and communication. Twitter and facebook have been the predominant tools of this "revolution" - before now did any of us fully realize the impact of globalized media? The bulk of this revolution is being waged online, and the government's attempts to shut down avenues of dissent remind one of a feeble man grasping at straws. The regime doesn't seem to fully recognize the diversity of tools used to oppose it. In some sense, the reversion to political violence seems to be a signal by the regime that it wants to flex its muscle where it knows not only that it can win, but in an arena where it can recognize "the enemy". Would this revolution have as much steam without the anonymity of the internet? I have my doubts about that too.
It's clear, however, that this revolution has ushered in a new age of engagement in politics. It used to be that you had to march on Washington, attend regular meetings, or step into a voting booth to be politically active. Now, you simply need to interact with others on your Twitter feed. It's become easier to be politically aware.
Furthermore, we've seen what might be the first death throe of media as we know it. CNN has been lambasted for being two steps behind and cross-eyed in its coverage of Iran. Is anyone getting any of their news about the situation in Tehran from network media? Blogs and eyewitness accounts are the definitive narrative of what is going on - we don't need a media to package stories any longer; we can now access them ourselves, see the pictures, read the messages firsthand. The middleman of the media has largely been cut out. And where people long for analysis, CNN has more or less failed to deliver. Aside from Fareed Zakaria's program these past two Sundays, the talking heads of cable news jabber on about nothing, and try to deliver half-understood lessons in the manner of grade-school teachers.
The real analysts are on the op-ed pages of newspapers and blogs. Their content is fresh, and doesn't consist of rehashes of something written two days before an invitation to appear on TV was issued.
Much has been made of the death of newspapers; after Iran plays out, I wonder what the relevance of corporate news media will be. We're seeing just how incapable CNN is of reporting on events around the world from a nice clean studio in Atlanta. In an age where news bureaus refuse to send journalists around the world to report on stories, audiences are learning that they can access those corners of the world themselves much and learn firsthand from them much more quickly than our modern-day "international" correspondents can do the same and repackage it. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Well, clearly you read a lot of Andrew McCarthy.
I'm not attributing anything to his speech - after all, rhetoric is a slow-moving tool of foreign policy. But you do have to admit that Obama is uniquely situated to speak to the Middle East. His acknowledgment of his favorite Urdu poets this week was another masterful gesture to South Asia and Pakistan - apparently it was the talk of Lahore and Islamabad today.
The speech isn't a panacea - but it symbolizes a re-orientation of American policy, and a softening of hard-line militarism toward the Middle East. I don't think it's absurd at all to recognize that it has the power to resonate among moderates there. |
You are correct sir... I do read (and love) McCarthy's point of view; it's more from a rational, legal position with the emotion stripped from his reasoning (very Jerz-like).
But I do have to agree with you... he has a better shot at speaking to those people than they standard boilerplate president; his middle name is his key to the door. But did you read that Hitchens article I posted yesterday in this thread? It kind of doesn't matter... the US and the West in general is going to get blamed, and already are, by Iran's State controlled media and by the Mullah's words that this is all a U.S./UK plot. It is so engrained in their culture and thinking, it's hard to believe that even if Obama's name was Muhammad Allah that the U.S. wouldn't get the blame. Those fundamentalists need America to be the Great Satan to further their ed up causes.
I saw that about mentioning the Urdu poets. Good move, yes. But I think more people will see it as pandering, which it kinda is. I'm just so tired of the pandering and the "reaching out"... what else do we have to do? We aren't a nation of evil people bent on destroying other religions and have tried over and over to placate the hard liners. It just doesn't work.
| quote: | I'll just post this once more since you may not have seen it:
OK, let me see if I've got this right. Since Barack Obama has taken the presidential oath of office we have witnessed: a) Hezbollah lose a shoo-in election in Lebanon, b) Pakistan begin serious efforts to control the Taliban and al Qaeda elements inside its borders, c) Netanyahu of Israel mumble support about a two state solution and rethink settlements and, d) A major awakening of the Iranian citizenry against the heavy-handedness of the mullahs. What hasn't changed? The simple-minded thuggery of the Right when it comes to foreign policy (and Grover Norquist, someone should gently remind him that it's 2009, not 1989). They have long preferred a modified Teddy Roosevelt approach. Speak loudly and wail away with the biggest stick you can find. I don't know if all this is the results of one speech in Cairo by the President but if it is I hope he gives a second, and soon." |
Yeah I read that when you posted it. a)The Pakistan stuff I agree with, although he has been calling for drone strikes that have killed civillians, which he lambasted Bush for doing (airraiding villages and killing civillians) last year. I don't know enough about the Hezbollah stuff to comment on. Netanyahu did mumble support for a 2 state solution, but with conditions the Palestinian Authority will never agree to (disarming). The major awakening of the Iranian citizenry, I thought was established, has been brewing for quite some time... it would have happened with this type of bogus election no matter who was in the White House. As for the thuggary point, maybe/maybe not- but I just find it hard to believe that wratcheted up international crazyness would be happening if Bush/Cheney were in office, or even McCain for that matter; it seems like the world's crazy dictators/leaders are getting more ballsy with Obama sitting at the healm. For example-
How do you feel about the Department of Justice sponsoring a booth at an event run by the Islamic Society of North America, an organization last in the news with the DoJ because of its status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation criminal prosecution? Five convictions in the H.L.F. case hasn't deterred Eric Holder from linking up with a descendant organization of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now the very agency which prosecuted the H.L.F. defendants and identified ISNA as a partner in funding terrorist activity is acting as though the ISNA is just another community group, making no particular threat to the US, despite its connections to groups funding Hamas and other terrorist networks. Does this trouble you at all? Read the story below.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-is...lamic-radicals/
| quote: | | I don't agree with him on every issue - I've made that very clear several times. In fact, I hesitate to say I'm happy with "the bulk" of his work in office. The majority? Yeah, probably. But I have plenty of criticisms. As you might imagine, those criticisms don't mirror your own, and are in most cases not in the same policy issues. This thread is about Iran, so I won't go into the national debt/stimulus debate here, but I am firmly in Krugman's camp on that subject. |
Krugman. :whip:
| quote: | | Now that just seems absurd - re-making the Constitution? Please. |
He said it himself in 2001:
| quote: | | As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. |
Constraints that the Constitution places? (He also said a few months ago that "Al Qaeda is not constrained by a constitution"). He obviously looks at that document as something that limits his powers, therefore in his mind to make progress he has to change it (through the courts) or ignore it.
A "charter of negative liberties" that says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state governments must do on your behalf? (It actually does say what the govt. must do on our behalf- provide for the general welfare and provide for the common defense). But to Obama, it doesn't say what he can just do by his own accord, like jack up the taxes even more on the super rich and redistribute, for example. Remember, he views it as a constraint in his own words. He grew up believing that the Constitution was inherantly unjust, and surrounded himself with people like Wright and Ayers and Dorn who share those views. Now it's time to make the unjust just (enter Sotomayor, stage left). |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Anyway, this discussion has gotten stupid.
What's interesting to me in the last few days is how the conflict has transformed from being one of political unrest in Iran into something bigger. I don't know what the outcome will be of the political struggle - I have a good deal of skepticism about Mousavi's chances for gaining any sort of power. But it strikes me that there are some social developments coming out of this situation that are more far-reaching.
For instance, much has been made of the innovations used by dissenters in Iran in the field of social networking and communication. Twitter and facebook have been the predominant tools of this "revolution" - before now did any of us fully realize the impact of globalized media? The bulk of this revolution is being waged online, and the government's attempts to shut down avenues of dissent remind one of a feeble man grasping at straws. The regime doesn't seem to fully recognize the diversity of tools used to oppose it. In some sense, the reversion to political violence seems to be a signal by the regime that it wants to flex its muscle where it knows not only that it can win, but in an arena where it can recognize "the enemy". Would this revolution have as much steam without the anonymity of the internet? I have my doubts about that too.
It's clear, however, that this revolution has ushered in a new age of engagement in politics. It used to be that you had to march on Washington, attend regular meetings, or step into a voting booth to be politically active. Now, you simply need to interact with others on your Twitter feed. It's become easier to be politically aware.
Furthermore, we've seen what might be the first death throe of media as we know it. CNN has been lambasted for being two steps behind and cross-eyed in its coverage of Iran. Is anyone getting any of their news about the situation in Tehran from network media? Blogs and eyewitness accounts are the definitive narrative of what is going on - we don't need a media to package stories any longer; we can now access them ourselves, see the pictures, read the messages firsthand. The middleman of the media has largely been cut out. And where people long for analysis, CNN has more or less failed to deliver. Aside from Fareed Zakaria's program these past two Sundays, the talking heads of cable news jabber on about nothing, and try to deliver half-understood lessons in the manner of grade-school teachers.
The real analysts are on the op-ed pages of newspapers and blogs. Their content is fresh, and doesn't consist of rehashes of something written two days before an invitation to appear on TV was issued.
Much has been made of the death of newspapers; after Iran plays out, I wonder what the relevance of corporate news media will be. We're seeing just how incapable CNN is of reporting on events around the world from a nice clean studio in Atlanta. In an age where news bureaus refuse to send journalists around the world to report on stories, audiences are learning that they can access those corners of the world themselves much and learn firsthand from them much more quickly than our modern-day "international" correspondents can do the same and repackage it. |
now this is a praiseworthy post. ;)
And, unfortunately you're probably right about Mousavi... the UK Guardian reports that Ahmadinejad's fradulant election victory will stand: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...SS&attr=2015164
And even more unfortunate is that the vast majority of media coming out of Iran has been shut down. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You are correct sir... I do read (and love) McCarthy's point of view; it's more from a rational, legal position with the emotion stripped from his reasoning (very Jerz-like). |
It probably doesn't surprise you, but I have a very different take on McCarthy. I read NRO pretty frequently, and I find him to be one of their less dispassionate contributors to be honest. I actually don't mind Rubin and Steyn that much. In all honesty, I read more conservative commentators on a regular basis than liberal ones.
| quote: | | I saw that about mentioning the Urdu poets. Good move, yes. But I think more people will see it as pandering, which it kinda is. I'm just so tired of the pandering and the "reaching out"... what else do we have to do? We aren't a nation of evil people bent on destroying other religions and have tried over and over to placate the hard liners. It just doesn't work. |
I don't think it hurts to point that out from time to time. People abroad seem to have forgotten it. And Obama isn't targeting hardliners - you're right that they hate America quite unwaveringly. He's aiming at moderates, in order to chip away at the fundamentalists passive support.
I wouldn't call that admission pandering either - the off the cuff way he mentioned it leads me to believe he actually is familiar with the subject. I'm reading a book on Hindi poetry right now, so it doesn't seem a stretch to imagine a man 100x smarter than me dabbling in a similar subject.
| quote: | How do you feel about the Department of Justice sponsoring a booth at an event run by the Islamic Society of North America, an organization last in the news with the DoJ because of its status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation criminal prosecution? Five convictions in the H.L.F. case hasn't deterred Eric Holder from linking up with a descendant organization of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now the very agency which prosecuted the H.L.F. defendants and identified ISNA as a partner in funding terrorist activity is acting as though the ISNA is just another community group, making no particular threat to the US, despite its connections to groups funding Hamas and other terrorist networks. Does this trouble you at all? Read the story below.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-is...lamic-radicals/
|
Hmm... that certainly sounds fishy, but the link to terror laid out in the article is certainly a tenuous one at best. I know nothing about the agenda or membership of ISNA, so I am withholding an opinion for the moment.
| quote: |
Constraints that the Constitution places? (He also said a few months ago that "Al Qaeda is not constrained by a constitution"). He obviously looks at that document as something that limits his powers, therefore in his mind to make progress he has to change it (through the courts) or ignore it. |
I don't see it. Constraints on power isn't necessarily a negative thing, and given the context of Obama's statement, I don't see a self-evident negative connotation. He's saying that the Warren Court wasn't radical because it stayed within the constraints laid forth by the Founding Fathers - that sounds like praise to me.
A "charter of negative liberties" that says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state governments must do on your behalf? (It actually does say what the govt. must do on our behalf- provide for the general welfare and provide for the common defense).[/QUOTE]
I think he's talking about specifics. Our ideological differences are a perfect representation of the disagreement that rises from the phrase "general welfare."
| quote: | | Remember, he views it as a constraint in his own words. |
So did Jefferson, who argued that the constraints were necessary. I don't see the negative connotation. Jefferson argued that constraints on government action were a necessary provision to ensure liberty and unchecked power in a federal executive (this was the spat he had with Hamilton). Jefferson used the word constraint and check frequently, but it wasn't a negative opinion of the document (in fact, his criticisms largely ran the opposite direction, claiming there was still too much power implicit in the Constitution).
| quote: | | He grew up believing that the Constitution was inherantly unjust, and surrounded himself with people like Wright and Ayers and Dorn who share those views. Now it's time to make the unjust just (enter Sotomayor, stage left). |
I am really struggling to see how you arrived at this conclusion. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
It probably doesn't surprise you, but I have a very different take on McCarthy. I read NRO pretty frequently, and I find him to be one of their less dispassionate contributors to be honest. I actually don't mind Rubin and Steyn that much. In all honesty, I read more conservative commentators on a regular basis than liberal ones. |
I love mark Steyn... he is like a less biting version of Hitchens at times. So you read more conservative commentators than liberal ones and are against conservatism/for liberalism? Baffling.
| quote: | | I don't see it. Constraints on power isn't necessarily a negative thing, and given the context of Obama's statement, I don't see a self-evident negative connotation. He's saying that the Warren Court wasn't radical because it stayed within the constraints laid forth by the Founding Fathers - that sounds like praise to me. |
No, he's saying it wasn't radical enough to his liking... that the Constitution DIDN'T break from the "essential constraints" the founding fathers put in it, making it an "inherantly flawed" document that dosn't allow him to do the kinds of social justice things he wants to, which the Constitution isn't actually designed for. This statement actually came right before the one about the Warren Court, thought to be the most liberal ever, as being not radical enough:
| quote: | | If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. |
... so you see, he is unfortunately constrained, in his mind, by the constitution to make policy in terms of "fairness" and social justice; he is faulting the founding fathers, not praising them.
| quote: | | I think he's talking about specifics. Our ideological differences are a perfect representation of the disagreement that rises from the phrase "general welfare." |
Right, but it's not his duty to change the language of it to reflect what HE believes the specifics should be.
| quote: | | I am really struggling to see how you arrived at this conclusion. |
see above |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Yeah, I really disagree with that interpretation of his comments. I don't see that at all.
As for the conservative/liberal thing - I don't identify with the Republican Party at all, but there are some more moderate conservatives I agree with on many issues. Ross Douthat, Megan McArdle, and Stephen Walt, for instance, are people I read with great interest if only to examine the other side of the coin from time to time. Aside from Iglesias, Ezra Klein, and Josh Marshall, I don't really frequent any liberal blogs with real regularity.
Oh, and Krugman. :) |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You are correct sir... I do read (and love) McCarthy's point of view; it's more from a rational, legal position with the emotion stripped from his reasoning (very Jerz-like). |
in the HR 234234 (something) thread, colurotten and doombot have me out of character. lol
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Constraints that the Constitution places? (He also said a few months ago that "Al Qaeda is not constrained by a constitution"). He obviously looks at that document as something that limits his powers, therefore in his mind to make progress he has to change it (through the courts) or ignore it. |
to this, i would say that the constitution (more specifically, the bill of rights) is viewed by everyone as a constraint on the government. It is not an exclusive view of obama.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
A "charter of negative liberties" that says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state governments must do on your behalf? (It actually does say what the govt. must do on our behalf- provide for the general welfare and provide for the common defense). But to Obama, it doesn't say what he can just do by his own accord, like jack up the taxes even more on the super rich and redistribute, for example. Remember, he views it as a constraint in his own words. He grew up believing that the Constitution was inherantly unjust, and surrounded himself with people like Wright and Ayers and Dorn who share those views. Now it's time to make the unjust just (enter Sotomayor, stage left). |
i can't speak to that stuff, but i can say i'm very unhappy how obama is handling tax policy. Not necessarily from your position of taxing the wealthy, etc..., but rather because his international proposals are going to really hurt our multinationals and likely ship jobs overseas and really shift financing activities offshore. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Of additional concern:
| quote: | | Four players on the Iranian national team have been banned — err, retired — from competition for wearing green wristbands in their Wednesday match. Two others also defied orders to remove the green gear, and their fate is "unknown." |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/200...test-ban?stupid |
|
|
| whiskers |
For the lulz:
Iranian IT departments were sending out keyloggers in hopes of gathering more info on the protesters; paswords; websites; etc.
They keyloggers eventually made it into the 'right' hands (4chan, of course), got disassembled, and the email addresses that were embedded in the loggers, gathering info, were flooded with typical 4chan entertainment material - horse and various bestiality porn, gay porn, the regulars tubgirl and goatse, and other such offensive material to the point where one of the addresses started responding with a "recipient not found"
Right now things seem quiet on the cyberfront but Anon seems to be brewing something. More at 11 (relayed from Fark, I have not been on the chans) |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
protesters giving flowers to the police!!! |
some things are eternal |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| Did you guys hear that the footballers that played against south korea with green bands were "retired" from the national team:wtf: |
|
|
|
|
