Reward for Iranian protesters: torture and rape

From the London Times, reports of the torture and beatings of many protesters:

Ardeshir — not his real name — is one of scores, perhaps hundreds, of detainees who have been raped and tortured by their jailers in the past three months in what appears to be a systematic attempt to break their will. Mehdi Karoubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi, the defeated presidential candidates, accused a regime, which claims to champion Islamic values, of raping opposition supporters.
Times continue to be tough for those seeking reform, as reported by Dr. Fatemeh Keshavarz of Windows on Iran. The battles include cyber-battles, as reported by Dr. Keshavarz, who provided this information in a mass emailing to which I subscribe:

All signs point to the fact that difficult - and decisive - days may be ahead in Iran. But the good news first. For years, Iranians who are ranked as number four bloggers in the world, have been prevented from visiting the sites that the Iranian government has considered containing information contrary to its interests and filtered. Those who devised creative ways to break the filter and get into such sites, are usually in danger of being found and subjected to jail and other punishments. What is most amazing is that the Iranian government considers the existence of undesirable websites as "foreign interference" in its internal affairs.

But there is also some good news of a new work-around to avoid detection and capture (and, often, torture):

Well, this state of affairs may have been ended once and for all. Using Google, an Iranian by the name Mehdi Saharkhiz has come up with an internet tool which he has called the "Green Machine." The Green Machine! Good News for the Greens in Iran

Here is the site that gives you instruction for downloading the Green Machine. According to Mr. Mousavi's facebook, after you download the Green Machine, you can visit any website - filtered or otherwise - without being detected.

Continue ReadingReward for Iranian protesters: torture and rape

9/11: An Observation

Comparisons of the disaster of 9/11 to Pearl Harbor break down in the aftermath. What I remember is getting a phone call from my wife to turn on the news, any news, and then seeing the images on CNN. I then called several people, including some on the west coast, early as it was. It was a binding experience. Then the silence of the skies for next few days. All planes grounded. We don't pay attention to all that background noise until it disappears. And I remember wanting to strike back. But at who? I am not a reflex pacifist. I do not believe in turning the other cheek as an automatic gesture. The world, in the aggregate, does not yield to such gestures until much blood is spent, and disgust comes to the aid of the peaceful intent. Strike at me, hurt my family and friends, threaten my home, I have no compunction about the use of violence. But not thoughtless lashing out, flailing, blind retaliation. That does less good than the habitual use of peaceful surrender. If we were to find these people, we needed to be smart about it, and move carefully. When caught, punishment must be determined accordingly. That was not to be. I watched our so-called leaders turn this event into a justification for major abuse globally. The sympathy we had from the entire world evaporated as the United States began stomping around acting like a pissed off child whose lunch money had been taken by a bully. But we were not small and weak, so embracing the automatic response of schoolyard tactics resulted in calamity. I was horrified by the unfolding nightmare of the Bush years, all done supposedly in my name as a citizen.

Continue Reading9/11: An Observation

Tasteless? Funny? I can’t decide.

I did a double-take when I saw this van today on the way to work. It seemed both clever and unkind. It left me wondering whether, and to what extent, it was over the line. I wonder what blind people would think about this play on words. If they all said that they were OK with it, should that be the deciding factor? Am I just being too PC? img_9391

Continue ReadingTasteless? Funny? I can’t decide.

Get real about Afghanistan?

Building on our recent discussion of Afghanistan, a couple of items of interest today. Daring to stand up to the budding consensus that it may be time to get out of Afghanistan, Ruben Navarette today released an commentary on the topic. He notes that "Senior Pentagon officials are expected to ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops this month. Currently, there are about 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan." To him, this is not a bothersome development. He complains that the only "nation-building" the left supports is the type done by the Peace Corps, rather than the military. With no indication why this position is incorrect, he asserts that "Liberals love to build things, especially with other people's tax dollars. They just don't like the idea of U.S. troops doing the building. Maintaining a military presence on foreign soil makes the left nervous because it feeds the perception that the United States has an itch for imperialism and can't go long without scratching it." Maybe it's just me, but I think it's the 737 military bases around the world and millions of deployed soldiers that really "feeds the perception" that we have an "itch for imperialism." I wonder why Navarette doesn't criticize war-mongering conservatives for "loving to build things, especially with other people's tax dollars"?After all, the Pentagon estimates that our overseas bases are worth at least $127 billion-- does he think they were paid for through donations from grateful Iraqis and Afghanis?

Continue ReadingGet real about Afghanistan?

Madison’s View On Appropriate Power

This quote is from the Federalist Papers, number 41 to be exact. I lifted this paragraph as it bears, I think, directly on the current political climate. I think Madison is more sanguine about the average American than many today may be. But I think his view is worth noting.

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

Continue ReadingMadison’s View On Appropriate Power