What’s the number one political story on your mind this month?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
33 Comments
Recent Comments
The terrible tragedy of Jon and Kate. I hear from reliable sources it was gay marriage liberals who destroyed their opposite marriage happiness.
democratic bullshitting and backtracking on health care and single payer while they hand billions to the banks.
The battle to get Rush Holt’s bill to the floor for a vote without the bill being gutted by Hoyer and others who take e-voting vendor dollars.
Please help with this. Truly, our Democracy is at stake. I’m not being overly dramatic here. Most people have no idea of the concerted effort being made to take our vote from us while leaving us only the illusion of one.
More info?
#1 story is Iran.
#2 story is health care.
But the most diverting story is that Sanford news conference which I admit, reluctantly, that I just watched.
Another moralizing adulterer bites the dust.
And neither of those are fixable if we don’t have a vote that counts…!
Oh, come on! Surely Jon and Kate have kept you transfixed for hours.
Sanford admits to an affair.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
tell me all bout how the gays destroyed your marriage, mark:
tell us all about it!
Meanwhile, I have two gay friends celebrating over 25 years of marriage together, regardless of what the state calls it.
I suppose when the gays got married he just didn’t feel Special anymore, so he figured Jesus must want him to bring his mighty sword and cross to the godless atheist South Americans.
.
Change offered …
Cuba: Lifting travel restrictions to Cuba
Arab World: Cairo speech signals end of the 9/11 era
Israel: Universal support for Palestinian statehood and peace settlement
Syria: New ambassador to Syria to promote peace and stability in ME
Russia: US, Russia resume nuclear arms reduction talks
Venezuela: U.S. and Venezuela to restore expelled ambassadors
Kyrgyzstan: Kyrgyzstan Reverses U.S. Base Closing
Iran: Britain is great satan
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."USA: Jon and Kate show is canceled mid-season and the whole thing drops off the radar.
(Well, I can dream, can’t I?)
The President’s willingness to fuck the country in favor of bipartisanship by being open to dropping the public option as reported by the NY Times.
He says one thing, then does the opposite: lobbyists, transparency, cramdown, FISA, and now health care. Change we can believe in.
Slightly off topic…
Neda Soltan’s family ‘forced out of home’ by Iranian authorities
Parents of young woman shot dead near protests are banned from mourning and funeral is cancelled, neighbours say
Read entire story here…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/24/neda-soltan-iran-family-forced-out
This just makes me sick and angry..how would any of you feel if this happened to one of your children?
Not being able to mourn the death of a family member in ANY culture in a crime that should be punishable by death.
My only hope is that the “resistance” can keep up the pressure to overthrow these bastards and their holier than thou attitude, so this family can one day mourn the murder of their daughter properly in their culture
and her death and the others who are dying as we speak will not have died in vain.
While I agree that getting involved in the internal affairs of another country is a tricky subject how can we as Americans sit idly by and allow this kind of brutal repression to go on?
Least we forget we created democracy and all the freedoms that go with it such as right of peaceful assembly, habeaus corpus, etc. For over 200 years our shining light of what freedom is has shone and been an inspiration to millions of oppressed people. We have gone to help many in the past why is this any different?
I know it is a radical thought but we need to do something. We have an obligation in the name of everything that democracy stands for to do something.
How about sending a 100,000 of the troops that are still in Iraq to the Iranian border? That would certainly get the f##kers attention. They are going to blame us or the British and everyone else anyway. So who cares if they dont like it.
We are not interested in conquering Iran or meddling in the affairs we would just be trying to stop the bloodshed as a “peacekeeping force” until some solution other then the continued violence, destruction of property an the immoral killing of unarmed ppl could be worked out.
End of rant Yes I know I am nuts!!!!
Btw – I gave you points for sentiment, but I disagree with getting involved. It’s their revolution. Let them have it. If an organized opposition comes to us for money, and we can afford it, that’s one thing. But for us to step in without being begged to (and neither side is begging) would only help solidify the existing government, which came to power on its anti-American-interference rhetoric.
“If an organized opposition comes to us for money, and we can afford it, that’s one thing.“
Believe me, Lisa, if anyone opposed to the regime begs the U.S. for anything it will be to sit down, shut up, and stay out of it. Anything the U.S. tried to do for any opposition, overtly or covertly, would be the kiss of death.
In fact, the ones who really, really wish the U.S. would step up and “help” the opposition are Khamenei and AhmadiNejad. That would be a pure gift to them.
first things first – bring those 100,000 troops home to lobby for real health care
Really appreciate your emotion on this, but…
If you want to see the opposition come to a screeching halt, go ahead and send those troops to the border. That will put an end to the whole thing immediately.
Look, even a mild endorsement by the U.S. would be the instant kiss of death to any politician, let alone sending troops. In all reality, Obama has said too much already, and what some members of the Congress have said is positively dangerous to the opposition.
It’s all about U.S. history with regard to Iran, and it is absolutely justified. If you are aware of it, think about it and you will see why what you are suggesting is the worst possible action to take if you support the opposition at all. If you don’t know about it, check it out.
PS There is no guarantee that even if the opposition succeeds the US will be pleased with the result, or the new regime will be a nice, liberal secular one.
I should be Googling first, but my recollection is that Mousavi was one of Khomeni’s most vicious henchmen. Not that that would bother the US neocons as long as he talked nicer about Israel and didn’t make threats about oil supplies.
Yes, Musavi was with Khomeni, and he was a piece of work. He’s not by any stretch a liberal reformer.
That depends on context.
He ran on privatizing control of television and allowing for increased government transparency. He ran on ridding the country of the ”morals police” or basiji. He ran on re-examining all laws related to women’s rights. He ran on negotiating with Obama if Obama was good to his word.
These reforms may be insufficient, but they are laudatory.
Yes, in this election he did, but his history is something else, and that is what I was referring to.
On the other hand, I agree that calling him “most vicious” is not really accurate.
He did not run on making constitutional changes, so his campaign was limited in its reformist aims. Of course, that’s be Khamenei’s design. No one would be allowed to run on a radical platform.
But he became a vessel for the people that would vote for constitutional changes if they were allowed to do that. And that is what is playing out now.
I don’t think it is accurate to call him one of Khomeini’s most vicious henchmen.
Iran was at war with Iraq for almost his entire run as prime minister, and I am sure that there is much that is unpraiseworthy in his record. But I don’t think he should considered vicious, necessarily. I don’t want to make excuses for Iran’s behavior in the 1980’s, but he seems to have been a moderating force more than a strictly reactionary one. And he governed in vicious times.
Our Republicans in the state legislature are going to vote to remove funding from the elderly and disabled today.
Is that before or after the Guvinator terminates 80% of our state parks???
The Obama Administration’s brief supporting The Defense of Marriage Act. The language of the brief was so offensive, it turned many prominent LGBTs against the Democratic Party.
I don’t believe the brief would have had this effect if the Obama Administration had done anything substantial for LGBTs this year.
Fortunately some good came out of this. On October 11th record numbers of LGBTs will be rallying in Washington.
Bob,
In the Sarkozy/burqa thread you made a couple of pretty interesting assertions, and when I asked you to substantiate them and/or provide specifics you did not respond at all. Assuming that you did not respond only because you missed seeing the questions, I am using this open thread to give you another opportunity to substantiate your claims.
First:
Bob: “We have video evidence of a young woman who was shot through the heart in Tehran for wearing western clothes and standing on the streetcorner.”
Hurria: “by what evidence do you conclude that the reason that young woman was shot was because she was wearing western clothes and standing on the street corner as opposed to some other reason?”
Second:
Bob: “Female circumcision…is justified by religious rationale.”
Hurria: “What religion provides the rationale for FGM, and specifically what is the rationale under the tenets of that religion?”
DaveW, you made a pretty serious accusation in the Sarkozy/burqa thread, and did not respond to my request that you provide an example. I’d really like to know on what you based that accusation, so I am going to ask you again.
DaveW: “I don’t recall any time that you’ve held back from slamming US and Western ways”
Hurria: “show me one instance in which I have criticizing “Western ways”. Show me where I have ever slammed western culture or social practices? Show me where I have slammed Western styles of dress, or ever suggested that I had the right to tell western women how to dress or behave in public or private.”
Since you implied that I have “slammed US and Western ways” many times, surely you can find one example somewhere.
You repeatedly declare that what happens in the ME is none of the US’s business, for example. It would follow that what happens in France is none of your business. You called Sarkozy a moron as I recall. You assume the worst possible motives for US/Western behavior in the world (as I do 99% of the time). You claim that only experts like yourself have a right to an opinion on anything related to the Middle East/Islam, and others are just racist/prejudiced by definition.
I have no firm opinion on the burqa controversy in France. Their government thinks it’s disruptive and divisive to their society but apparently have no right to have an opinion. I think banning it probably does no benefit, but your insistence that Muslims, because they are Muslims, should be absolutely free to do anything as long as it can be passed off as religious — except that wearing a burqa has nothing to do with religion.
The argument is not about styles of dress, it’s about symbols, as you know. You were not defending a style, you were denying that France had any right to ever regulate behavior of any resident except those of their own majority culture. And yet you don’t apply that standard to the countries of the ME, where simply writing a book is sufficient to bring a murder contract from the highest authority in the land.
PS — I do not consider it a “serious accusation”, just an observation. The US has plenty of qualities deserving of contempt. So does Iran.
I stopped following the debate on the burqa over a day ago, so I can’t say whether your critiques of Hurria are accurate or not.
But, I can say that it is my feeling that a Muslim woman who chooses the burqa of her own free will is doing it for her own personal, religious and spiritual reasons. That decision should be protected. And, if you feel there are some people that are being coerced into wearing the burqa, the solution is to set up a hotline and support agency to help them deal with their familial pressures, not to deny the right of the burqa to all women.
As for minors, that is the most difficult area of law. But wide latitude must be given to parents when it comes to their children’s religious instruction and education. Nevertheless, abuse is abuse, and it would be possible to have procedures of appeal and even state custody for egregious cases.
But it is absolutely legitimate for women, of their own free will, to cover their faces if they feel that is what they want to do. No laws should take that right away.