Green (!) Revolution and reminders of why the American system works.

While I haven't been reading any primary sources about the nascent rebellion amongst Mousavi supporters in Iran, Andrew Sullivan, Justin Gardner at Donklephant and Josh Marshall/TPM have been doing an admirable job following the tweets and reports coming out of Tehran and elsewhere in Iran.

Based upon all that information, it seems something is brewing Iran. Frustration over Ahmadinejad's isolating tendencies and crippling economic policies have boiled over following the purported outcome of the election - the Iranian authorities first having told Mousavi that he was victorious then only to announce that Ahmadinejad had trounced all takers, winning over 63% of votes cast.

People in and from Iran have been twittering allegations of fraud that appear extraordinarily consistent: ballot boxes stolen and burned, government clampdown on media during the final hours of the election, brute violence, et cetera. Now Mousavi's supporters have taken to the streets and are protesting the election, clashing with police and an internal group called Ansar-e Hezbollah. It appears, based on Sullivan's posting of tweets, that Ansar-e Hezbollah has been targeting college and university students and brutally attacking them.

Could you imagine that in the United States?

I can't.

Here's a link to English-language twitter feeds that Sullivan compiled: Following the Revolution in Iran.

Please discuss.

-rl

What if the left-wing had done this to the right-wing?

CNN is reporting that there has been a shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. Certain sources are also claiming that the shooter was/is an 87 year-old white male with a history of anti-semitic/anti-Jewish writings and ties to white supremacists. Just last weekend, a radical right-wing man with a gun shot and killed a woman's health specialist (read: abortion provider) in a church for his providing women with abortions.

In less than two weeks time, there have been two instances of right-wing people perpetrating acts of violence against objects/people with perceived liberal/left-wing tendencies.

Tell me, when is the last time you heard about a left-wing fanatic attack and kill people in this country? Yes, I will freely admit it has happened. Remember, Sarah Palin says our President pals around with terrorists (Bill Ayers). But when in the last two decades has this happened?

Please. I want to know.

Food for thought and other bits of lead plumbing

For all the hemming and hawing that certain right-wing organizations do comparing the downfall of the United States, due to its lack of Christocity, to that of the Roman Empire, we must remember that they are wrong. Why are they wrong?

Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 AD by Theodosius I, well before the sack of Rome in 476 AD by Odoacer. Remember that correlation is not causation and I do not mean to imply that Christianity hastened the fall of the Western Roman Empire, but rather I simply wish call out those certain right-wing organizations for the lack of fact-checking.

Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter

Judge Sotomayor's name has circulated much lately as a replacement for retiring Justice David Souter, so her nomination is a little anti-climactic. I can't say that I know much about her, other than she helped bring an end to the 1994-1995 baseball strike and was once considered by none other than GW Bush to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor (which ended up going to Justice Alito).

All I've read about her suggests that she works hard at meeting concensus, something that sounds thematically consistent with this administration, and that her appointments have been supported by Republicans, including her initial appointment by George HW Bush.

So far, I like the sound of it.

-rl

Marriage statute in Iowa jettisoned by court

Justin over at Donklephant has a take on the shocking unanimous decision of the Iowa Supreme Court.

An excerpt of the opinion, emphasis mine:

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.

We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.

The dream?

Mexicans, tacos, and undies:



Bad paintings of Barack Obama.

Wow, America. Wow.

-rl

Utah Gov. Huntsman: Credit where credit is due.

Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, laid out the truest and most realistic assessment of his party's current state in a piece with the Washington Times.

Calling congressional GOP leadership "inconsequential", Gov Huntsman calls out his party's lack of principle, particularly in regards to spending, during the Bush administration and admonishes them for their hypocrisy in calling out Democrats for spending. Unlike Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Huntsman has no intention of turning away money from Washington, despite misgivings about the effects of the stimulus on government "size". The video embedded into the article is worth a watch.

Governor Huntsman gives a very refreshing take on what a real party in opposition should do, instead of pouting and behaving like a group of petulant four-year olds. The GOP needs more Huntsmans and fewer Sanfords, Boehners, McConnells, and, based on his reaction to the non-State of the Union, Jindals. Republicans, please be a party of active and creative opposition and not one of petulance and ignorance.

Conflict over Fairness Doctrine not over

Apparently Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) isn't satisfied with President Obama's non-support of the Fairness Doctrine.

Yes, I followed this from Drudge, but still, here it is.

What I find interesting is DeMint's assertion:

With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?

The Fairness Doctrine, in simplest description, requires broadcasters to provide two sides of an issue into a conversation broadcast. DeMint's assertion that the Fairness Doctrine would silence voices of disagreement is bollocks. To wit, the current media craze of yelling until you're red in the face to stifle your critics, à la O'Reilly's No-Spin Zone, seems to be more than effective silencing the voices of disagreement. If anything, I'd think that a fairness doctrine would help return a certain civility to the airwaves.

Senator DeMint, please tell me how giving equal time is censorship? Senator DeMint, please tell me how giving equal time is silencing voices of opposition?

-rl

UPDATE: Here is a link to DeMint's press release. Contact your local Congressional office and tell your Senator and Congressman that you oppose Senator DeMint's forced vote.

The Roland Burris dilemma

Senator-select Roland Burris of Illinois has further complicated his own fate in revelatory testimony that was made before the Illinois House committee overseeing Guv Blaggerwocky's impeachment. In it, Senator-select Burris contradicted prior assertions that he had not had inapropriate contact with former Illinois governor Blaggerwocky.

Inappropriate contact: being solicited by Rob Blaggerwocky for $10,000 in campaign cash prior to being named Senator by Guv Hot Rod himself.

Did he previously deny such contact? Yes. Why disclose now? Blaggerwocky is out of office and Burris is in, I'd assume. He lied to Illinois, the Senate, and the rest of the country about the nature of his contact and relationship with Hot Rod and Cool Rob. Unethical behavior on the wave of Democrats hollering about ethics reform and the like. Ouch.

You know, Democrats could have had the upper hand on ethics and accountability. But no, apparently that would have been too easy and too honorable. Let us count the Democrats to have fallen to ethical issues in the last two months:

Bill Richardson, someone I had supported to be President
Tom Daschle (those glasses are a crime)
Blaggerwocky (didn't have far to fall, though)
Tim Geithner (didn't fall)
John Murtha (feh.)
Charles Rangel (remember rent issues in NYC)

--

Burris' fellow Senator from Illinois and fellow Democrat, Richard Durbin, gave a statement which is just short of a direct request for Burris to resign:

Short of Roland Burris resigning or resolving this issue -- if he can, and I don't know if he can -- I don't know what will stop it. I'm tired of this Blagojevich burlesque that's been going on for so long. The people of our state should be spared this.

Given the fight that was put up against appointing Burris initially and the persistent misgivings since, Harry Reid should also be calling for Burris' head on a silver platter. This is an embarassment upon embarassment for the Democrats.

Senator Burris, you were given a seat you have since shown that you do not deserve. If you have any honor, you will do what is right: resign now.

I am a winner and, darn it, people just plain like me.

Well, it might not be true that people like me, but I am this week's NPR Political Junkie's Scuttlebutton winner.

Winnar.