An incredible reminder that 2011 was in no way a strange and unfamiliar occurrance, those shots were taken during the 2009 protests against the G-20 summit being held in London. Everyday people screaming their disappointment, anger, frustration and bitterness at the system that gambled with their aspirations and trusts are being met with a Metropolitan Police armed to the teeth. Alexander Schulenburg shares with us those fantastic shots of the protests.

Alexander Schulenburg has a Ph.D. in social anthropology and works as a historical researcher in local government.


status quo. n.m. the existing state or condition.

Jean-Paul Sartre was very clear in his description of existentialism: it is not just responsibility for you and your fellow citizens, it is also a form of humanism, in which, through our collective and individual awareness, we are creating a possibility for improvement, betterness – in other words, hope and change.

Those two key words were also the key words used by President Obama during his campaign, and that we are now realising are nothing much but a brand, as put by Chris Hedges in his slap-in-the-face piece for TruthDig, “Liberals are useless”. Once again, Chris Hedges, the author of The Empire of Illusion, has nailed the truth, one that we do not want to hear but must face: for as long as we subscribe to whatever has been sold, we are never going to change, and we can hope, that we can do, but it is not going to bring about change. Change is not something that appears, out of the blue, into your hands. Liberals are not supposed to believe in change like Catholics believe in the birth of Jesus. We are not supposed to adorn our elected leader with an aura of pure faith and wait for the blessings of Babylon to be handed out to us. Like free coupons.

Jean-Paul Sartre: he no likey

Tha majority of the American people who voted for Obama mostly acted on two ideals: the escalation of war and violence must be stopped, and health care must be provided to every citizen on the basis of international conventions, so as even full-time workers could support a family and not descend into Dickens-like poverty as soon as fate hit them with a disease, most often curable and temporary in western countries in which universal health care was a tradition no politician would ever consider denying. Obama was supposed to bring the United States into a new age of equality and fairness, justice and democracy, everything its predecessor had failed to provide. Instead, we are at a standstill: as the war in Afghanistan escalates with more than vague timeframes for withdrawal, as the health care reform has been watered down to the point of being nothing more than what it already was, and as unemployement is on the rise to the point where college students have to rely on foodstamps, it is a legitimate statement Chris Hedges made when he said we were a “useless lot”.

For what it is worth, Obama said it the day of his inauguration: “Help me achieve what I must do”. A mandate is precisely what this is, but apathetic as we had become accustomed to be, we simply left our lives into his own hands, tied by the private insurance companies and polluted by Blackwater, until we are scared of questioning his decisions. He can not be wrong, we are saying, because he is our leader, he is not like them; we are consciously and purposefully setting him apart with as much rethorical power as we can, to dissociate him from the previous presidents in place, in opposition as well as in our own camp – the Clinton era was a trainwreck – so well we might as well have erected a pedestal. Problem is: this is not Obama’s job to decide what is and what must be. This is ours. Electing a representative is one thing; giving him the power to decide without your input is one another entirely. The situation the nation is in right now requires more popular uprisings, yet the streets are empty and liberals are urging everyone to “just wait”, we are not even halfway through his mandate yet; just like we were asked to “just wait”, he was only in the first hundred days of his presidency.

I was an Obama supporter myself; I made my decision over Hilary Clinton because she seemed to be more of a war supporter than he was. I believed in his Chicago southside background, and I believed that his past as a community organizer would make him just that, a community organizer on a wider scale. In place of a community, of a united nation behind democratic and legal principles, we are sold the “bipartisanship” brand, the type of compromise that is so condescending in its description we are just babies waiting for big daddy to tell us the facts of life. We did not elect Barack Obama because he was a compromise; we did not elect him because he was a hybrid between John McCain and Ralph Nader. We elected him because he was leftier than Bill Clinton, and because as liberals, we were too chicken to see what was going on in Ralph Nader’s corner.

Words like “radical” and “socialist” are being used as insults while newspapers, this so-called “leftist media” that Sarah Palin blamed for her downfall, are praising the decisions made by Barack Obama when this is no step forward: simply because it is not even a step backward. It is a statu quo. Nothing changed. Even John McCain, the maverick, is pleased with the foreign policy on Afghanistan. The little outrage sparked by the attribution of the Peace Nobel Prize to someone fighting two and a half wars and still supervising illegal detention centers (such as Baghram, and Guantanamo Bay still not taken care of) was the proof that we are considered like stupid, braindead, brainwashed, and manipulated infantilized group of people. Follow the leader, they said, so we did. The marching song sounded nice enough, so why not.

Nothing that has to be done is anything new. Before Chris Hedges came Naomi Wolf, before Naomi Wolf came Amy Goodman, and before Amy Goodman came Ralph Nader, before Ralph Nader came Noam Chomsky. And before all of them came all of those rescapees, those refugees of the great popular movements of 1968, that are giving us the warning signs, that are begging us not to repeat the same mistakes, that are telling us that our generation might have given free-flowing, no-hold-barred capitalism a try, but when a system is not working, it is not up to your leader to stop it, it is up to you, and you only, to tell your leader to stop it. You are not supposed to follow the leader: the leader follows you, your incentive, your mandate, your propositions, suggestions, and orders. Don’t ask for permits, don’t wait for elections, don’t sit on everything you are told until you are so nauseous you want to vomit this so-called democracy and be done and over with. We are useless because we don’t act and are satisfied too easily.

That is called a status quo. And yes, this is a problem.

My morning headache had a name (as they always do), and beyond the nightmare that is swine flu, this one is named Stupak.

Stupak is also one of those Democrats belonging to the blue party for reasons that are beyond our comprehension (he’s fiercely pro-life, much in the likes of Sarah Palin currently hosting fearfully successful pro-life rallies in the South). The Stupak Amendment is an amendment to the current healthcare bill that considerably reduces the federal funds given to abortion. Basically, if you need an abortion, please pay out of your own pocket, thank you. Considering the fact that women in need of abortion are generally mostly of lower to poor working classes, this is not going to help women at all. But this is 2009 and Maine has already given us our federal quota of legal gay-bashing for November; so who else were we going to stump on this time? You’re right, the <i>other</i> second-class citizen: poor women.

The Stupak Amendment, which real name is Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Smith-Kaptur-Dahlkemper Amendment, is already mirroring the Hyde Amendment asking for the complete refusal of federal funds for abortion under health care policies, and the removal of abortion from government-funded health care programs. Planned Parenthood was just about to shoot itself in the head before it heard the news, and is now considering committing itself to the nearest government-funded mental illness program created just for women who have no other choice in life but to turn to the 19th century literature already condemning the use of underground abortion. Guess that a teenage Austrian Jew knew more about women than Democrats do.

As per Republican custom – which once again makes me question Stupak’s allegiance to the Democrat Party – at the moment of voting, Stupak called to the “conscience” of Congressmen, in order to secure the place of his amendment on the bill. The proposed health-care reform, already the product of a severe compromise and the dismissal of anything that would be actually historical and life-changing in the history of healthcare in the United States, is now crowned with the title of the first health care program that completely ignores women’s rights and women’s health in it. I am talking about western countries obviously since we have already stated that the United States has a healthcare record placing them behind Cuba. According to Stupak,

“Passage of the Stupak Amendment does not impose a new federal abortion policy; it simply continues what has been the law of the land since 1977 and I am pleased that with the addition of this amendment the House health care reform bill will continue that policy.”

“I have long been an advocate of health care reform. My goal has always been to ensure that the voices of the majority of Americans who oppose federal funding for abortion were heard in this important debate. Now that those voices have been heard we must move forward and pass a bill that provides quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

“I thank Speaker Pelosi for allowing this important vote to occur and I appreciate the hard work and perseverance of my pro-life colleagues in Congress who held strong and stood with me over the past several months as we worked to find a way to allow this vote against all odds.”

Against all odds, indeed, since Nancy Pelosi is herself a woman and should vote in her conscience with the hundreds of thousands of women she is now condemning by allowing Stupak to use all his manly force to restrict women’s rights a little bit further, in case we weren’t already worried with our situation. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a teacher at Princeton University, twittered this morning: “So angry about Stupak last night that I had to practice meditation at 2:30AM to finally get to sleep.” Then: “It’s Sunday morning and I am seeking more balance, greater optimism, and the courage to move in a new direction.” We do, actually, and proponents of women’s rights such as Rachel Maddow and Planned Parenthood have already geared up their responses for the bill that passed with a bipartisan vote of 220 – 215 (thank you, Anthony Weiner!)

“Planned Parenthood serves three million women every year through its more than 850 affiliate health centers across the country and has worked tirelessly on behalf of those patients for affordable, quality health care. On behalf of the millions of women Planned Parenthood health centers serve, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America has no choice but to oppose HR 3962. The bill includes the Stupak/Pitts amendment that would leave women worse off after health care reform than they are today, violating President Obama’s promise to the American people that no one would be forced to lose her or his present coverage under health reform.

It is strange, a bit eerie, and terribly confusing that this health care reform, so long promised, so long talked about and so long decried by a Republican Party afraid to lose its homophobic, women-hating and gun-toting base, finally became exactly what the Republican Party expected it to be: expensive for sick people, unaffordable for minorities, reducing women’s rights, denouncing equality, and finally going back to square one, all of that without having mastered a single debate yet. We had been encouraged to look toward European countries and favor systems such as La Sécurité Sociale in France and the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, without ever using this said inspiration to anything progressive, productive in useful. In times of recession, only government-based means of social security are saving societies from decrepit downfalls of epic proportions. It is only because of health care and welfare that most European countries managed to keep their level of conumption to a degree that kept their economies somewhat afloat. What will happen to the United States now?

One question: what is the use of Congress – and most importantly, the use of a majority in Congress – if we are not using it to bring about the ideas and the reforms propulsed by said majority? It’s not as if the Republicans had ever hesitated to press with all their weight when they were in Office. Why, all of a sudden, must everything be bipartisan, to the point it’s not even a question of balance, but a question of pleasing the minority? Barack Hussein Obama wanted to bring the United States into the third millenium after George W. Bush had run it into the ground and hit reverse – now we are retreating further back into the Dark Ages of feodal rule, and I am not so happy about the future of women, of gay people, of minorities, and of low incomes anymore. If anything, brace yourselves, because this future is indeed a bleak one.

By the way, Stupak, please do leave your Democrat Party card at the door when you leave, thank you.

It is becoming harder and harder to maintain something resembling innocence in this world; every victory is tainted by cynism and every hope is being trashed by disappointment, every change held back by rampant conservatism. In the aftermath of Barack Hussein Obama’s election, divided forces of the United States are shaking the benches and tables of the Senate, slamming their fists and creating even more turmoil and chaos than the overwhelming electoral victory would have led us to believe. It is all acceptable, as leading through ideology is often faced by those less inclined towards progress.

Barack Obama has been telling the Human Rights Campaign that his willingness to end the absurdity of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is still vivid, but didn’t mention any timeframe during which he is planning on putting the end of this legislation to a vote. Barack Obama has been meaning to uphold a diplomatic vision on the extremely belligerent US foreign policy history, but is sending more troops to Afghanistan. Until then, most of us Obama supporters have been biting the insides of their cheeks understanding the complexity of governance and hoping that the compromises made during the first year of his term would be softly removed as the years went by in order to bring about change.

One thing we certainly did not count on would be the spite that we had become accustomed to by the far right. The “internet left fringe” to which this blog belongs, and which has solidly, steadily and successfully carried President Obama to a positive end to his national campaign, is now being dismissed in the most patronizing and condescending manner by Obama’s advisers, none the wiser when it comes to understanding the way new media is emerging onto the social and political scene. Sadly, it is to our own detriment that we have to teach those who should take the opportunity of having a flexible and opinionated base when FoxNews’s ratings are doubling ever since the election.

According to advisers, bloggers are children in their pajamas with a free blogger dot com account and parading their pseudo-knowledge of political science as a means to express their teenage rebellion. The subsequent protests taking place all over the country as we speak are no more than hormonal surplus and boredom, all swallowed whole by the monster that is internet access without parental control. It has somehow failed to occur to those “advisers” than most of the bloggers they are referring to are academics, journalists also taking part in the print media world, college graduates, and media-savvy adults. Most of them even wear clothes as they are typing.
From John Knefel to Jay Rosen, from Naomi Wolf’s internet platform to Allison Kilkenny, bloggers hardly are the same crowd that had entered the internet  in the late 1990s and merely used the platform as a public journal. Blogs are now a democratic and open-minded source of information, opinion, often more reliable and inclined to fact-checking than some respectable news sources (I am looking at you, New York Times). The contempt displayed by supposedly “mature” writers such as Maureen Dowd who, although she despises bloggers, does not mind plagiarizing them, and White House staffers who, despite seeking their help desperately when in need of fundraising, are treating bloggers like attention-whoring children, is becoming not only frustrating, but also insulting.

Is it a vain and naive misunderstanding of the emerging technologies impacting the media world, or is it deeper propaganda aimed at killing the embryo of an inner-Democratic Party revolt against promises unkept? The United States, for long denounced for their political apathy benefiting conservatism ever since the Reagan era, are now waking up and paying attention to the dire situation they are in; they feel empowered enough to express themselves through the democratic means at their disposal, protest movements included. If the internet is allowing a faster dissemination of the information so be it, and let’s be glad it is happening: this is exactly what Barack Obama had referred to when asking his younger base to engage into the sort of community organizing that did not exist when he was himself working on the South Side, but is for sure helping movements grow and expand their possibilities of outreach.

Bloggers certainly do not deserve such scorn. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you – and then you win. Ignoring the blogosphere can only last so long, especially when said blogosphere constitutes the majority of your audience. Journalism may be the fourth power, but the street belongs to the people, the only place when democracy takes real action. When both forces mingle, compelling action is required. Ball’s in your camp, Barack.

After a winter and a spring marked by the rise of racism and gay-bashing, six months in a so-called post-racial world where instinctive and primal social conservatism is threatening to tear down the thin fabric of national cohesion, the House of Representatives passed a Hate Crime Bill, systematically vetoed under the Bush Administration, yet now a reality.

A hate crime is an attack – verbal or physical, assault – sexual or physical – or even murder based on the victim’s race, gender, sexual orientation, or mental/physical disability. A hate crime is exactly what it is: it is a crime, a severe threat and violation of one’s integrity, based on pure, unabashed hatred for what is different. Until today, a hate crime was not recognized as such in the United States, unlike most western countries; a specific intent on the defendant’s part could only contribute to a tougher sentence, but did not constitute a separate crime in itself.  If the law has to mirror the society in which it is developed in order to provide a more efficient protection, then there is no doubt the United States desperately needed the Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

Because hate crimes are dividing a nation and respond to different stimulus than a ‘regular’ crime, and because it is often symptomatic or a deeper social issue, Obama urged the House of Representatives to sign the bill into law. “I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance”, he said. But as it often appears to be the case in the recent american political rhethoric, the question of equality seems to raise a serious concern for inequality on the part of opposing Republicans, who firmly convinced themselves that giving people rights would take theirs away. As if Proposition 8 was not enough to prove that civil rights still have a long way to march in the nation of Freedom, a handful of elected officials raised their concern: Lamar Smith, on the Representative Judicial Committee, believes the Hate Crime bill undermines the very core concept of US Justice. “Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system — ‘equal justice for all.'”

John McCain is simply upset that the Hate Crime Bill does not cover attacks against the elderly.

John McCain is simply upset that the Hate Crime Bill does not cover attacks against the elderly.

In an argument that seems to defy all logic, “”Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime.” Following that logic, creating a longer and tougher sentence for acts of pedophilia would make adults lesser than children, teachers lesser than students, and male lesser than women under the law. Following that logic, affirmative action would make white people lesser than black, hispanic, or asian people. Strangely enough, we have already heard that before, and it certainly feels as if whenever one part of the population finally accesses to what is duly and properly theirs to be reckoned with, the privileged pundits are jumping to their feet in an attempt to defend oligarchy.

Former presidential candidate John McCain, a seemingly permanent Washington DC resident and unsuccessful in the race to political credibility, objected to the Hate Crimes Bill on FoxNews.  According to McCain, the Hate Crimes Bill is stealing the spotlight of the Defense Budget discussion, a topic very close to his heart, the belligerent watchdog believes that bipartisanship, that Obama claimed to have owned during votes on the health care reform, is nowhere to be found and will not support another attempt to promote civil rights. Well, no one ever said that the Defense Budget was not worth a national debate, Mr. McCain. No one even believes that cookie-cutter clean cut bipartisan ship really exists, Mr. McCain. No one would ever deny the possibility of discussion among the Representatives of the people, Mr. McCain, and I do believe it took place before the vote. But here is the thing. Young Americans have been dying at the hands of other Americans, Mr. McCain. How long are we going to discuss this for?

Much ink and spit were spilled about the historical election that took place on November 4, 2008. It wasn’t just about the landslide that surrounded the Democratic Party’s victory, the biggest in decade, it wasn’t the celebration of a Bush era finally coming to an end. Barack Obama is black, forcing the United States to face its history with slavery. In truth, Barack Obama is half-black, and that noticeable half seems enough to proclaim the end of racism. One symbolic measure and all is healed forever: a new reconciliation technique, or the burial of centuries of segregation?

Nothing like a stark reminder to set the score. In case anyone thought that racism was dead and that Equality trampled the pathetic ghosts of division and white supremacy whilst riding the streets of New York on a glistening unicorns, Philadelphia is coming to the rescue by walking all over our beautiful new, post-race Utopia by throwing a 1950s theme party. Not the kind of bouffed-up hair and checkered shirts: the kind where black people are not invited. Allison Kilkenny reports that a Philadelphia-based private swim club has taken upon itself to kick out over sixty children from its pools, the reason being that they had apparently spent too much time in the sun. In the words of John Duesler, president of said club, “there was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion… and the atmosphere of the club”.  Translation: if seen from the sky, the club would have looked like a melting pot of different races, instead of a homogenous white human sheet that would refract sunlight. John Duesler would have none of that.

The Valley Swim Club – let’s give names in case you want to know who you’re going to write an angry letter to – was kind enough to tell the black children, who had managed to come up with the inexplicable price of $1900 to use said pool, that the club “does not allow minorities” and that they were to “exit the pool immediately”. As a result of said black children goofing around in chlorine water like their civil and constitutional rights are supposed to allow them to, all the other little white kids, perfectly raised by their white parents in white schools with white teachers reading white books, all stormed off the pool, in the manner of an offended SS officer who just realised his right hand came in contact with that of a Jew. Such distinct and spontaneous behaviour coming from children is extremely suspicious when children are generally non-discriminative until they are told to be.

Obviously, one would expect that The Valley Swim Club would now be at the heart of a horrible Pennsylvania State Court controversy regarding their politics of segregation. Let it be known that in 2009, this is perfectly legal, and that John Duesler’s white supremacist pool is far from being the only one in the country. Kilkenny highlights that although some private clubs have been sued in the past for discrimination, their privacy – and the fact that their inner sanctum rules are therefore not part of public records – it is complex to stress the exact number of white-only private clubs, the secrecy surrounding enrollment policies being as thick as a toxic cloud.  This said, all-white golf tournaments do take place every year and are only spoken of when famous politicians participate in those shenanigans. From Bill Clinton to lawmaker Tom DeLay, The Valley Swim Club’s only mistake was to be a little more upfront about their policies than some other clubs claiming that “no black people have applied”.

Regardless of the pathetic excuses that The Valley Swim Club is attempting to put forward as some sort of exoneration for their obsolete and segregationist rules, discrimination against colored people or gay people needs to be highlighted and emphasized when it becomes so institutionalized. Telling children to not mix with other children because they are different is one horrid educative method. Having staff removing said children from the pool because of the same difference as it would allegedly cause other club members some distress is just as disgusting and backwards. Wear white cloth robes and burn crosses in your backyard if you believe it, but under no circumstances must a club, allowing other members and accepting outsiders under the paiement of a royal fee only to kick them out is the same principle than making them sit at the back of the bus. Money is no different regardless of the color of the hand it is coming from. Children’s innocence, however, is priceless.

From Allison Kilkenny’s Twitter, “Just received information that the law firm of Mildenberg and Stalbaum is filing a class action lawsuit against The Valley Club”.  Let’s hope that the price of progression and equality will finally reason John Duesler and his small-brained ways.

I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow.  Maybe they will turn violent.  Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed.  I’m listening to all my favorite music.  I even want to dance to a few songs.  I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows.  Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see.  I should drop by the library, too.  It’s worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again.  All family pictures have to be reviewed, too.  I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye.  All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them.  I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that.  My mind is very chaotic.  I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure.  So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them.  So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism.  This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children…

These words are from a courageous Iranian blogger, struggling against Ahmadinejad’s willingness to shut down internet access to rebels; defying the very rationality that is supposedly an inherent ingredient to political, social and human apathy; challenging his very life by fighting for the only life is worth living for: freedom.

UN Resolution 1540, pertaining to the rights of colonial people – and technically not applicable to Iran’s case – is however universal in its call for independance, uncompromising freedom and as a hidden, half-secretive call for rebellion: All peoples have the right to Self-Determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. any have called international law and the subsequent humanitarian and human rights legal branches utopist, ideological, and completely unpragmatic. What is happening in Iran right now is proving that whenever a population is vehemently, violently and obnoxiously denied their rights of expression, they rebel, and would fight with all their might to prove that they exist, that they deserve to exist, that their voices deserve to be heard. If you are, by any sort of complex and cynical stretch of the soul, unconvinced that revolutions can reach their goals, keep in mind that the goal is not necessary the focal point of a revolution. The point is to revolt.

is it safe to ignore that many peoples plight?

is it safe to ignore that many people's plight?

Revolutions are bloody. They are also often unplanned, chaotic, and often become historically embellished over the years, depending on which side have won over the flesh and limbs of the nation to form the government forcing it to return to relative peace. Revolutions are progressive. They are driven by a force that goes way beyond national interest, and appeals to the very core of a population that had often been divided and isolated in the past. Revolutions are collective, they call to the heart of empathy, of community, and of solidarity. They’re a fantastic means of social upheaval. Iran is revolting because they believe their votes have been hijacked, and that the election has been stolen away from them. They believe Ahmadinejad is attempting a coup to stay in power despite a relatively democratic regime, and they want him to leave. All they want are for their votes to be counted.

In the meantime, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is flaunting his racist rhetoric, anti-semitic speeches and bragging about his hatred for the western world. Giving Samuel Huntington a little more than he’s asked for, he’s build nuclear weapons faster than India even did, once again showboating to the greatest dismay of the United States, unnerved, afraid and aggravated by such a mental, unstable presence a little too close from the hot spot that is Palestine. Ahmadinejad has been running towards a war with the United States in the last few years, begging for it, calling for it, praying for it, hoping that a strike from the long-standing ignorant and revengeful enemy will give him the legitimacy he’s always waited for. Unable to bring his country back into the light it once was for its surroundings, Ahmadinejad chose the path of the religious crusade to the Ayatollah’s greatest delight. Now that a more moderate candidate is claiming victory, Ahmadinejad sees his martyrdom dream vanish in front of his eyes.

But that’s not what matters here. What matters is the spontaneous, willing, and sudden outburst of a young, motivated, and fearless population, claiming the core values of democracy, marching for the respect of their human rights, and re-establishing what we in the western world had taken for granted, then entirely forgotten about: by the people, for the people, and for this precise reason, people are killed. People are being targeted by a governmental police for being patriotic. They’re being dragged away and beaten to the pulp for having a political conscience. Their legitimate electoral winner has been placed on house arrest for simply defying the leader of the coup. Now, shamelessly, in front of the whole wide world to watch, in front of our bewildered eyes, murder is taking place for one simple ideal: freedom.

Ahmadinejad wanted a war. It may not be the one he had been longing for, but he’s got one. Civil wars are shameful and their long-lasting effects are devastating. The outcome is not known yet, but here’s the bottom line: anyone marching in the streets of Tehran with a piece of green fabric tied around their arms knows what they’re here for. And we shall take lessons from them.

Be informed: Twitter #iranelections,  ontd_political Iran Elections Watch. Also keep in mind that Iranis are being refused Internet access: bloggers and twitters can be arrested for giving out info to the rest of the world. Find more about how to become a proxy server for the Iranis (thanks to mr_spivens)