But all three contenders to the presidency, reformist and conservative, have raised serious doubts about the result.

Mousavi claimed that, on Friday night, he had been informed by the interior ministry that he had won the election convincingly. That claim was first published on a popular website which was subsequently closed down.

There were also reports of a leaked interior ministry document which suggested that Ahmadinejad had come third in the vote.

Mousavi has also challenged the decision by Iran's supreme leader to endorse the official results. He is reported to have met Khamenei and asked him to reconsider that endorsement.

In a letter to the guardian council, a powerful clerical body that oversees ­elections, Mousavi is also reported to have said: "Fraud is evident and review and nullification is requested."

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/ahmadinejad-whips-crowd-to-frenzy-as-opposition-muzzled-1705296.html]The day started badly with another of those dangerous, frighteningly brief statements from Tehran's loquacious police commander, Bahram Radan. "We have identified houses which are bases for the political mobs." This was the only reference the authorities would make about the outrageous street battles in which Radan's black-clothed cops beat Mousavi's supporters insensible on the streets of Tehran.

Then there was the front page of "Etemade Melli" – "National Trust" in English – which belongs to another of Ahmedinejad's enemies, Mehdi Karoubi. After the election results at the top of the front page – Mousavi officially won only 33.75 per cent of the votes and Karoubi 0.85 per cent – there was a caption: "Regarding the election results," it read, "Mehdi Karoubi and Mirhossein Mousavi made statements which we cannot publish in our newspaper." Beneath was a vast acre of white space. You could doodle on it. You could construct a crossword on it. You could draw a red light on it. But you couldn't read those statements.[/url]

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html]An interval here for lunch with a true and faithful friend of the Islamic Republic, a man I have known for many years who has risked his life and been imprisoned for Iran and who has never lied to me. We dined in an all-Iranian-food restaurant, along with his wife. He has often criticised the regime. A man unafraid. But I must repeat what he said. "The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad."

My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. "You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd.[/url]

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/a-face-in-the-crowd-a-cry-from-the-heart-1705287.html]When I have wiped my tears away, I have something to be happy and proud of. Mousavi may have lost this fraudulent election, but people will not forget him, and what is more they will draw a line between him and what he represents and this government.

What is more, we will never forget this event. People will not give up. They are being crushed into silence, but they won't be silent forever. They have new ways to connect to one another. They, the regime, can block Facebook today but they can't do it forever. Something has changed in this country, people have been cheated but they have seized more freedom. Now we are like caged lions, so taking anything from us will be harder in future.

I will never lose my hope and as long as I live in Iran, I will do my best for it. America must try to negotiate with Iran. President Obama has offered Iran a chance. This election is a setback, but he must not give up. It is just a moment in time, the blink of an eye. Time will expose the liars' lies and history will be its witness.[/url]

what matters to many Iranians has been the reshaping of Iran's political space to open it up to concepts like pluralism, human rights and the promotion of democracy.

Having allowed the space for vigorous debate, the president and the supreme leader who permitted such political expression will struggle to put it back in its box. Despite the mandate he is now claiming, Ahmadinejad's slick populism and Shia messianic imagery may not be enough to paper over Iran's widening cracks now that people have found their own voices.

momadance wrote:From Twitter.

[img]mob[/img]

Mr. Monserrate’s switch would leave the Senate split evenly at 31 to 31, suggesting an era of legislative gridlock that would be unparalleled even by Albany’s notoriously dysfunctional standards.

...

If each side has 31 members, that means neither the Democrats or Republicans would have the 32 votes necessary to change the Senate’s leadership structure. Ordinarily the lieutenant governor would cast a tiebreaking vote, but that position has been vacant since David A. Paterson replaced Eliot Spitzer as governor in March 2008.

lethal wrote:So in New York, one of the defecting State Senators has switched sides again leaving the chamber evenly split at 31-31. In such cases, the Lt. Gov. casts the tiebreaking vote. However, NY has no Lt. Gov. as the former governor resigned over a sex scandal and the Lt. Gov. was never replaced.

Yes, we are a functioning state government.

Mr. Monserrate’s switch would leave the Senate split evenly at 31 to 31, suggesting an era of legislative gridlock that would be unparalleled even by Albany’s notoriously dysfunctional standards.

...

If each side has 31 members, that means neither the Democrats or Republicans would have the 32 votes necessary to change the Senate’s leadership structure. Ordinarily the lieutenant governor would cast a tiebreaking vote, but that position has been vacant since David A. Paterson replaced Eliot Spitzer as governor in March 2008.

traderdave wrote:I am probably very naive about such things but, as somebody mildly involved in local politics and strongly considering a run for elected office in 2010, I have a certain lack of respect for somebody who would vote a particular way just because that is his/her party's position on a particular issue. Elected officials should vote his/her own conscious, IMHO, not the way they are expected to vote by his/her party's leaders.

Wizlah wrote:Regardless, the suggestion of dajafi's that some kind of covert ops be used to keep the rabble-rousers rabble rousing strikes me as a foolish one. it wouldn't guarantee helping mousavi's people, and would allow ahmadenijad to blame it all on the crafty corrupt west. that kind of thing strikes me as a desperate, last resort tactic, the kind that usually leaves a lot of burnt military vehicles in the middle of a desert and a crowing ayatollah.

dajafi wrote:Right, b/c it wouldn't work. Our spy services aren't good enough to do that sort of thing anymore (if they ever were), and the very likely outcome would be as you describe--to strengthen the regime, almost to the extent that a full-on military strike would.

No good options, as I said.

dajafi wrote:Great David Leonhardt analysis of our budget problem.

When it comes to economics, many of us tend to the thinking not of Smith or Keynes or Galbraith or Laffer but to that of Wilkins Micawber, the character in Dickens's David Copperfield who, confronted by the challenges of life, always held that "something will turn up." Given the largely mysterious workings of the economy—as in politics, clarity about events in real time comes mainly in retrospect—Micawberism is a fairly rational philosophy. But there is optimism, and then there is wishful thinking, which Eleanor Roosevelt called America's "besetting sin."

....

Often something does turn up—but only for the well connected and the well organized. The politically powerful will always find the ways and means to secure their benefits and protect their interests. The losers in an economy constrained by deficits and debt will be the unconnected and the disorganized. The result is resentment and, ultimately, conflict: a dearth of money may lead to a decisively fragmented politics conducted with an intensity of passion usually reserved for issues of war and peace. Then the Micawbers will look anew for something to turn up. And they may find that Mrs. Roosevelt was right after all.

Werthless wrote:Here's an article blasting the 401k system we have today. There's a ton of either factually incorrect and spin, but I thought people may enjoy reading it. I did, because it's helpful to understand how many people think about money and investments.

Quick summary: Author claims that 401k were meant to make us more secure, and they don't. Author feels duped into investing in things he doesn't know about, and wants the government to provide a secure retirement. He thinks 401Ks have created more harm than good, and he'd rather save through a government plan.

drsmooth wrote:

traderdave wrote:I am probably very naive about such things but, as somebody mildly involved in local politics and strongly considering a run for elected office in 2010, I have a certain lack of respect for somebody who would vote a particular way just because that is his/her party's position on a particular issue. Elected officials should vote his/her own conscious, IMHO, not the way they are expected to vote by his/her party's leaders.

Getting votes is difficult b/c most people, most days/weeks/years, don't really care all that much

so, getting "automatic" votes is helpful. It allows you to focus more on people that actually intend to actively make up their minds.

to get them, you might have to concede that yes, that outfit that can help with the "automatic" getting of votes for you (the party), may have a point on an issue or 2 or 3 that you - being like most people, most days/weeks/years - don't really care all that much about*. Now some of those automatic votes would go your way anyway, so that outfit doesn't deserve the entire credit - but as in advertising, or business, or baseball, or other activities, it can be hard to suss out cause/effect when it comes to what produced results - in this case, in the vote-getting process (JHoya will no doubt strenuously object).

(*I know that YOU care more than most people most days, but I'm just using "you" to make the point more emphatically).