Sadly, No!

This BBC report — which was shot at least partially using camera phones — is flat-out amazing:

I have spent my entire Sunday glued to my laptop. I even started streaming BBC Persia for a while even though I don’t speak a word of Farsi. What is happening in Iran right now is amazing.

What the Iranian regime is doing right now is awful and repressive even by its own standards. I know I’m going to catch a shitload of flack for this, but I don’t see how Obama can continue with his plans to engage the country at this moment. You’ve got a regime that has lost legitimacy in the eyes of its people, you’ve got widespread beatings of demonstrators, you’ve got a stolen election. While obviously it would be fucking stupid for Obama or any American official to pull a Bush-Cowboy routine that would give the Iranian government propaganda to use to justify its suppression, I don’t think the United States can accept the election outcome either.

At the end of the day, this is about the Iranians and not about us. But I would like my country to do whatever will best help the opposition succeed. Mostly, that means keeping our mouths shut and letting the Iranians fight for their own country. But just because the United States should not be involved in actively helping the resistance, that doesn’t mean it should stamp a seal of approval on the really awful bullshit that’s going down right now.

UPDATE: Somebody accused me of “international concern trolling” in the previous thread because I said that a Mousavi win would lessen the chance of war with Iran. Dude, that’s not just concern trollin’ — it’s what the neocons are saying right now:

Even the Obama administration will be hard put to enter into serious negotiations with Ahmadinejad, especially when his scant credibility has been undermined by these utterly fraudulent elections and the resulting street protests.

That doesn’t mean that Obama won’t try–but he will have a lot less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Mousavi. And that in turn means there is a greater probability that eventually Obama may do something serious to stop the Iranian nuclear program–whether by embargoing Iranian refined-petroleum imports or by tacitly giving the go-ahead to Israel to attack its nuclear installations.

So in an odd sort of way a win for Ahmadinejad is also a win for those of us who are seriously alarmed about Iranian capabilities and intentions. With crazy Mahmoud in office–and his patron, Ayatollah Khameini, looming in the background–it will be harder for Iranian apologists to deny the reality of this terrorist regime.

These guys want a war with Iran in the worst way. I, being the liberal fascist that I am, do not. That’s why I’d like to see the opposition at least force an election do-over with international monitors on hand. It’d be even better if they brought down the entire gubmint, of course.

As you can tell, I’m pretty obsessed with the Iranian elections today. (And sorry, it’s a serious topic, I promise I’ll get off my soapbox and get back to laughing at stupid people in the near future.)

The question I’ve been mulling over is, how can the international community express its displeasure with the obvious electoral theft while not inadvertently boosting the regime’s status among its people?

Spencer Ackerman talks with Hadi Ghaemi, New York-based spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran:

Iran: Don’t Lead, Don’t Follow, And Instead Get Out Of The Way

By: Spencer Ackerman Saturday June 13, 2009 4:12 pm

In my previous post, I wondered whether the Obama administration would need to make a stronger statement about Iranian electoral fraud or consider other measures for dealing with the regime. The strongly anti-Ahmedinejad Hadi Ghaemi, New York-based spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, explains why that’s a mistake.

Robert Gibbs’ White House statement may not fully capture the depth of the crime committed against the Iranian people. “But I think it’s wise for the U.S. government to keep its distance,” Ghaemi says. The White House can and should “show concern for human life and protesters’ safety and promote tolerance and dialogue.” But to get any further involved, even rhetorically, would “instigate the cry that the reformers are somehow driven and directed by the U.S., whether under Bush or under Obama, and there’s no reason to give that unfounded allegation” any chance to spread.

Ghaemi continues to say that the international community should present a united front that gives “no legitimacy” to the election. In particular, he wants U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to express “serious grievances” about how the election was conducted. “Sanctions and military threats, all these things are counterproductive,” Ghaemi says. The initiative has to be expressed and promoted by the Iranians themselves, particularly from Mir Hossein Moussavi and other exponents of popular Iranian outrage. “It very much depends on what leading reformers, including Moussavi, ask them to do, and how much responsibility do they take for exposing them to danger. If they put their tails between their legs and walk away, it will be very sad.”

After years of being told in this country that no initiative for the expansion of global human rights will occur absent active U.S. support, Ghaemi’s advice can come across as passivity or indifference. But that reflects a certain arrogance, and occurs at the expense of the goal in question. “We should not have the U.S. lead,” says Ghaemi. Instead, the Iranian people have to lead, and the international community, with the U.S. in a background and muted role, ought to refuse acceptance of the regime’s contentions, and not offer positive endorsements of the dissidents and the protesters.

The problem I have with a lot of rightbloggers is that when they talk about promoting democracy, they’re really only talking about making themselves feel big and tough.

At the same time, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be promoting democracy, especially in a case such as this where you have people rioting in the streets because they just had an election taken from them. If I were the Obama administration, I’d keep a fairly low profile on this for the time being but there’s no way in hell I’d recognize this election as legit. (Not that it matters since I’m not the Obama administration. I’m just thinking out loud here.)

(And memo to everyone who will bring up Bush-Gore — yeah, I’m not saying America’s a perfect country. But we have a different gubmint now that is vastly better than the last one. That counts for something.)

Tintin adds: Putting on my serious pants for a moment, this stolen election in Iran, and the reaction in Tehran, is a major story that, as Steve Benen rightly points out, is being completely ignored by cable news even though covering stuff like this is the only thing that differentiates CNN and MSNBC (and, frankly, even Faux News) from a gigantic Billy May infomercial for silly fucking putty. Last night, at the height of things, CNN was re-running a Larry King interview with a bunch of sleeveless, toothless, hairless, tattooed obese baboons who build ridiculously gigantic motorcycles for men with small penises and large wallets. We are all so fucked.

ABOVE: Heather Mac Donald (the Sadly, No! tour de toilettes continues)

Heather Mac Donald, America’s Shittiest Website™
Hispanic 101

• Hispanics aren’t really a separate race the way Negroes and Whites are separate races. Oddly, though, almost all Hispanic girls are sluts, but that’s just a statistical observation, not a racial slur. In fact, “Hispanic” is just an artificial construct by liberals for a particularly worthless group of white people.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

Dudes, if you’re going to steal an election, you gotta at least make it within the realm of possibility. Hell, Bush won Florida by, what, 700 votes in 2000? Now that’s a believable margin of victory. Giving your incumbent a lead of more than 30 points at a time when there’s massive inflation, unemployment and social unrest just ain’t credible. And especially don’t make it out that the opposition lost even in areas where he was considered the strong front runner. It’s like having John Kerry lose Massachusetts — no one’s buying it.

Check out this video I found via Twitter of the scene in Tehran the day after the election:

As you can see, that’s a buttload of people marching in the streets and chanting Mousavi’s name. That doesn’t look like a group of people who just suffered a crushing electoral defeat. They know they was robbed.

At any rate, I’ve been following this “election” pretty carefully because I thought it would be nice to get rid of the neocons’ prime bogeyman. Engaging Iran is a lot easier if its nominal figurehead isn’t running around denying the Holocaust and proclaiming that his country contains precisely zero homosexuals. And it’s especially easier to engage Iran when their nominal figurehead didn’t win his election through an absurd level of fraud.

Where does the B. Hussein Obamee administration go from here? Where should they go? Idears, people?

UPDATE:

Massive protests over Iranian election

Riot police charged on protesters Saturday in Tehran as the Iranian government declared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected president, sources said.

Both Ahmandinejad and his rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, declared victory with Mousavi urging his supporters to stand firm in the face of a “dangerous charade,” The New York Times reported Saturday.

“I am the absolute winner of the election by a very large margin,” Mousavi said late Friday night.

Police with riot batons charged thousands of Mousavi supporters gathered in central Tehran Saturday, but it was unclear if there were serious injuries.

Again, you don’t normally get these sorts of protests when people lose an election by more than 30 points.

UPDATE II: Juan Cole agrees. This shit was stolden.

Ann “Babe” Huggett, RenewAmerica:
Michelle Obama: First Lady of fashion victims
June 11, 2009

Above: Hello, mens!

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

Above: The time now is always

---

Pastor Swank sets the scene:

He, dapper, was dressed in expensive casual duds. I figured him to be in his mid-20s. Sure enough, I was right.

We shook hands. I asked him if he had a degree, for I assumed he did in that he appeared suave, educated and of cosmopolitan mindset.

Good writers use their keen powers of observation to establish character.

He answered, “I went to hell’s hole.”

That snapped my attention, obviously. I asked the definition of “hell’s hole.” He said, “Lynchburg Virginia.” Of course, that translated as Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University.

Good writers use strong declarative statements to gain their readers’ trust.

Why do you call Liberty University as “hell’s hole,” I wondered. He answered, “Well, you might imagine a woman had something to do with it.”

Ok. I let it go at that. But he did add that he spent two years in the hole. Must have been quite the young lady.

Good writers often use double meanings to humorous effect.

All the while, he had no idea that he was talking to an evangelical minister of half a century. So I told him.

He remained cordial, though learning the data about his new acquaintance.

“So what do you do for work?” I ventured. He double-talked an answer.

Therefore, I let that go.

Good writers occasionally leave some details to the reader’s imagination.

When I got home, there was an email from the fellow. It was quite strange in that he talked about the universe, the frequencies set loose between the sun and moon as well as planetary influences on worldly events.

He signed off with: “Service over self.”

That was a threesome that he had verbalized as a farewell to me in the store. I thought him to be a humanitarian of high quality, though not that interested in biblical theology.

Good writers carefully weave philosophic ideas into their narrative without losing its thread.

I knew his good looks brought him many beautiful women. And I learned later that some handsome men found their ways to his confines as well.

One day while several of us were seated outside the shop, a gorgeous female approached. The young fellow immediately stood, approached her, giving all signals that they were close friends now meeting on the sidewalk. There was the warm embrace and kiss.

So it goes when young and attractive.

Good writers sometimes titillate their readers with salacious details.

The other evening I watched the city news. There was this new friend’s photo on the screen. The bottom line: he had strangled a young woman. With that atrocity were other details most gross, one being that he sliced off her head and so forth.

Good writers take care not to dwell on particularly gory subjects.

I think back. I at least told him about Jesus. I don’t have any idea what he will do what that detail.

Perhaps a bit less than what he’s already done, one would hope.

With apologies to Jaffe …

 
Read the rest of this entry »

Oh dear, oh dear. Andy Breitblart sure looks like he is old enough to know the perils of drunk dialing and leaving voice messages. But evidently not. There he was on his fifth (or seventh) Jack and Diet when he read Gawker describing the Holocaust Museum shooter as a “right-wing extremist,” and he lost it, as Andy is wont to do.

While Andy continues his slide into bourbon-fueled, rage-drenched paranoia, we fully expect to hear that he went postal over a news account of a robber driving a Chevy Malibu, screaming “You can’t blame that fuckface robbery on me just because I drive Chevy Malibu, you pathetic fucking piece of shit” Stay tuned.

(LEGAL NOTICE: We don’t know for sure whether Breitbart was baked on bourbon when he left the voice mail. All we’re saying is he sure sounded drunk, and it would be irresponsible not to speculate, etc. Moreover, any readers who drink Jack and Diet should be advised that we are not blaming Andy’s voicemail on you or anyone else who also drinks Jack and Diet, or Jack and Coke, or even just Jack, for that matter.)

It’s hard out here for a wingnut. One day you’re riding high on the hog in the catbird seat, literally the cock of the walk (and sparm at that), like on the day not long ago when the news breached the grillcloths of America’s AM and satellite radio sets that a young Army recruiter had been killed, and another wounded, by some black guy named Abracadabra Muhammad who converted to Muslimism out of hatred for America, and you can imagine what else.

Oh yes, one day it’s such an item as that, blar-harring in so strong a fashion out of the right’s legacy-monaural and digital S-band receivers that a comic book artist might draw the scene as a clock radio hovering unsupported in the air and surrounded by a radial burst of blare lines, peppered at the edges with some of those amoebic crumbs or nuggets whose appearance in proximity to explosions denotes ‘blast power,’ as if bits of ectoplasm or phlogiston were being created from raw energy, the preceding à la Kirby-era Dr. Strange.¹

No, because one day, it’s the Recruiter Shooter, getting liberals back for the Tiller Killer the day before. Liberals had ruthlessly politicized this right-wing vigilante slaying by associating it with the DHS report on ‘rightwing extremism’ that Internet wingnuts had been screaming about a few weeks earlier — after the April 4th rampage of wingnut Richard “The Copper Popper” Poplawski made necessary some kind of aggressive seizing of the narrative reins, some mass outbreak of that reality-creation-through-angry-chanting that wingnuts perform in order to change the definitions of things and switch things around on their enemies. The appearance of the DHS report provided an opportunity to reassert the shame, or rather the exposure of Poplawski’s attack on police officers, through a typically crude rubber/glue, stop-hitting-yourself switcharound, as a massive government assault on conservatives, a blood libel that made trivial the mere spilling of mere actual blood. As Malkin essayed in her syndicated column, eleven days after the Poplawski shootings:

Michelle Malkin, Creators Syndicate:
You might be a “radicalized rightwing extremist” if…
April 15, 2009

What and who exactly are President Obama’s homeland security officials afraid of these days? If you are a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion, favors strict immigration enforcement, lobbies to protect Second Amendment rights, protests big government, advocates federalism, or represents veterans who believe in any of the above, the answer is: You.

If it weren’t for our habit of staying with the subject like a slot car stays glued to its track, for instance an Aurora AFX car with Magnatraction on the track of an AFX Thunderloop Screamer set, this would be an appropriate time to recall the Tokyo Rose we used to know, sneering at privacy “chicken littles”, celebrating Christmas by calling for the prosecution of the warrantless-wiretapping reporters, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, and gloating at the failure of an ACLU suit against the unchecked NSA program by plaintiffs who, she dismisses, “have no idea whether they have been surveilled under the program, but are claiming standing because they think they might be among the targets,” even as facts piled up about the widespread surveillance by the military of liberal and anti-war groups including the Friends Service Committee. But of course, that was then and this is now, for here’s how our new Civil Liberties Malkin With Ruby Ridge Playset wraps up the column:

If you can redefine dissenting opinion as “hate,” you can brand your political opponents as “extremists” – and you can marginalize electoral threats. “Antigovernment?” “Pro-enforcement?” “Disgruntled?” Feeling taxed enough already and “recruiting” and “radicalizing” your friends and neighbors through “chatter on the Internet?”

We are all rightwing extremists now. Welcome to the club.

Above: Club was better before they let the rabble in

But then the next day, in your wingnut atelier in the unfinished basement room, as you unwrap the latest package from the Conservative Book Club and look over your new subsidized $1 hardcover copy of Liberal Fascism (and let me just say: Free markets are great if that’s what you’re into, but I’ll take free money any old day²) — there as you attend the blare of the radio, blar-harring through the grillcloth comes the news of James von Brun and his shotgun rampage at the Holocaust Museum. And then, then when he’s down and out again, flat on the pavement under the cold, staring sky, then what is a proud, literally card-carrying “right-wing extremist” supposed to do?

Here’s where Malkin left off before the von Brunn shootings:

Michelle Malkin, Creators Syndicate:
Climate of hate, world of double standards
June 3, 2009

When a right-wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone. These are the instantly ossifying narratives in the Sunday shooting death of Kansas late-term abortionist George Tiller versus the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.

[…]

And you’ll certainly hear little about the most recent left-wing calls to violence by a Playboy magazine writer who published a vulgar list of conservative female writers and commentators he said he’d like to rape (the obscene slang word he used is not printable). The list was hyped by the magazine’s publicity team and light-heartedly promoted by mainstream publications such as Politico.com (founded by Washington Post reporters).

Is it too much to ask the media cartographers in charge of mapping the “climate of hate” to do their jobs with both eyes open?

After von Brunn, what we hear is a series of disoriented shrieks such as the following post (the equivalent syndicated column finds David-Letterman-said-something-bad offered as a topic of timely concern):

Michelle Malkin:
The DHS “right-wing extremism” report and the Holocaust shooter
June 11, 2009

Vindication! Vindication! Apologize! Apologize!

This is the gleeful mantra on the Left side of the blogosphere and cable TV.

A father/security guard/hero is dead and all these political opportunists can do is gloat about “vindication” that isn’t there.

I linked Greyhawk’s post on this issue at Mudville Gazette yesterday, but I am linking it again today. Read the whole thing. It’s updated with a powerful rejoinder from Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters, who takes on some of his fellow Fox colleagues parroting the “DHS report has been vindicated” propaganda.

And the disaster worsens the wider you look. Linked by Malkin in her preliminary draft blame tantrum is Kathy Shaidle, a Canadian wingnut of imperfect renown who attempts an expert dismount from the high horse and ends up flailing limb over limb into a folding refreshments table covered with Dixie cups of Haterade. Shaidle, like Malkin and RedState’s Erick Erickson, among others, is clearly working beyond her ability:

Kathy Shaidle, Examiner Sites:
Holocaust Museum shooter von Brunn a 9/11 ‘truther’ who hated ‘neo-cons’, Bush, McCain
June 10, 2009

[…]

The anti-semitism of von Brunn is the first thing one notices when visiting these bizarre websites. However, like those of most “white supremacists”, many of von Brunn’s political views track “Left” rather than “Right.” Clearly, a re-evaluation of these obsolete definitions is long overdue.

For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”.

And next she cites Liberal Fascism, etc. But while sloppy thinking will never get you fired or rebuked, or indeed, will never cause you to be uncomfortable in any way, in the profession of wingnut punditry, sloppy reading sometimes gives away more than you can afford to part with:

Kalle Lasn, Adbusters:
Why won’t anyone say they are Jewish?
March/April, 2004

[…]

Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. But the point is not that Jews (who make up less than 2 percent of the American population) have a monolithic perspective. Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and many of them disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies and Bush’s aggression in Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Shaidle concludes:

That this shooting occurred shortly after President Obama’s former mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, blamed “the Jews” for his lack of access to his former parishioner is a troubling confluence of events as well.

They got nothing.

Song Sung Blooey,
Number-one su-per guy.
Song Sung Blooey,
Quicker than the hu-man eye.

Me and you, are subject to,
A car that just won’t stop.

Until you take the blues and give a song,
A Song-Sung-Blooey chop,
A Song-Sung-Blooey chop (hi-yah).