This reminds me that as much as some people like to claim otherwise, the people who brought down the Soviet Union were the people who took to the streets of Budapest, Prague, East Berlin and other capitals to finally say no to being lorded over by an "ideologically pure" elite.
Each action is a drip, drip, drip eroding the facade of legitimacy from this regime. Make no mistake, this is no North Korea, no Syria, no Egypt, no Saudi Arabia. They have a (poorly written) constitution organized around the cult of personality of a dead man, but it is a constitution nonetheless. However, they can no longer stem the tide of history. The average age in Iran is 25; they're ready to participate in the larger world and they see no reason not to. I predict that the armed forces will lose its taste for killing Iranians over the next week or so and push back against the regime. After that happens, all bets are off.
I had no idea how fragile the Iranian government actually is. IMHO they appear to be using a show of force to mask their fear, but no rational person can think that some of these measures are going to quell the protestors. The people over there were moved to this demonstration because the moolas tampered with an election that they had already rigged through the candidate selection. Further provocation by the Iranian government is going to provoke the protestors.
On a personal note, I want to call these people "revolutionaries" so badly. I mean no disrespect when I say that I don't think that they are there yet. I'm not thirsting for blood. I really believe that a lot more good people will be harmed before this is over, but if there has to be a revolution to unseat these oppressors, then I don't want to see them have to start over and relive the first bloody week again.
@ChillbearLatrigue: I think that a group of people qualify as "revolutionaries" when they risk death for their cause. Taking the events of the weekend into consideration, I think they've earned that label.
Amazing.. the Iranian regime is following the same path all authoritarian, dictatorial regimes do, crack down on the people, media, make up stories and denounce anyone who doesn't agree as an enemy of the people...
@BookishLookish: Really? Have you been following his whole "It's So Personal" series? He's maybe the only pro-lifer I've ever seen who's said, "Wow, this really makes me re-think my own views."
Besides which, I hardly think the kids dying on the streets of Tehran are concerned about his views on abortion. Neither am I, while he's providing such terrific coverage of events there.
@BookishLookish: What? Andrew Sullivan's one of the precious few (if not the only) on the pro-life side to open an honest debate on the matter of abortion.
He's a poor choice of target. Not that "choke on it, anti-choice asshole" is ever really a strong position.
@deva14: Yes, he is rethinking his own views over and over, ad infinitum, and then he concludes that women really don't get to decide what to do with their own bodies. Gee, thanks, Andy!
@BookishLookish: yes, because rational human beings base their entire opinions on other people & their work on opinions over the abortion issue and nothing else, obviously.
@BookishLookish: In the article you linked to, they also refer to Sullivan as "a smug, self-righteous, HIV-positive, bareback-loving bear." So they definitely seem on an even keel, if that keel is jerky and irrelevant.
"I have to say I am beginning to believe that these abortions, given their excruciating moral and personal choices, may be the most defensible in context of all abortions. And yet they seem to be taking life in a more viscerally distressing way. I need time to think and rethink these things. I would not have without reading these extraordinary accounts."
What I'm saying is, he's struggling with it, and an extensive sharing of views provoked his perspective to change. If we go round calling anyone who's not 100% pro-choice an asshole, that won't get us far.
Seems more likely that the site is slow simply because so many people are trying to hit it at once. I can see Iiranian government blocking the site. DoS attack seems less likely (though possible).
@Dickens_Ghost: Yeah, long time to re-load. He's really doing great work. I was frustrated this weekend to surf the news channels and see NOTHING about Iran. NewsFAIL.
@SeeingI: Well, people from all corners and all political stripes are recognizing the major FAIL that was cable AND network news the last week on this story.
The Dish has become one of my top 5 daily reads over the last year. AS, Fallows and Goldberg provide some of the best blogging/journalism about the most important stories anywhere on or offline.
I know a lot of people have some long-standing and legitimate criticisms of Andrew Sullivan, but he has been doing yeoman's work over the weekend. Long after the NYT shut down its coverage on Saturday night, Sullivan was aggregating links and putting up posts.
I'm no net geek, but would this attache be a "denial of service" attack where traffic is boosted greatly so others can't access the site? If so, does "please be persistent in trying to reload" really help?
"I am now quite certain, that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but by blood."
If the Iranian people want freedom, then I'm afraid they're going to have to do it the old fashioned way. They're going to have to fight for it. It has ever been thus.
06/21/09
06/21/09
06/21/09
On a personal note, I want to call these people "revolutionaries" so badly. I mean no disrespect when I say that I don't think that they are there yet. I'm not thirsting for blood. I really believe that a lot more good people will be harmed before this is over, but if there has to be a revolution to unseat these oppressors, then I don't want to see them have to start over and relive the first bloody week again.
06/21/09
06/21/09
06/21/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
Besides which, I hardly think the kids dying on the streets of Tehran are concerned about his views on abortion. Neither am I, while he's providing such terrific coverage of events there.
06/15/09
06/15/09
He's a poor choice of target. Not that "choke on it, anti-choice asshole" is ever really a strong position.
06/15/09
06/15/09
[wordsmoker.com]
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
Off-topic and slightly delusional.
This should really be disemvoweled.
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/16/09
Try reading this post instead: [andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com] Specifically, the end of the post. Where he says this:
"I have to say I am beginning to believe that these abortions, given their excruciating moral and personal choices, may be the most defensible in context of all abortions. And yet they seem to be taking life in a more viscerally distressing way. I need time to think and rethink these things. I would not have without reading these extraordinary accounts."
What I'm saying is, he's struggling with it, and an extensive sharing of views provoked his perspective to change. If we go round calling anyone who's not 100% pro-choice an asshole, that won't get us far.
06/15/09
06/15/09
Its loading, but slowly ,which may account for the less than dramatic drop in traffic.
AS is doing the world a great service. He has the best and most complete hour by hour coverage of the situation in Iran.
06/15/09
06/15/09
The Dish has become one of my top 5 daily reads over the last year. AS, Fallows and Goldberg provide some of the best blogging/journalism about the most important stories anywhere on or offline.
06/15/09
06/15/09
Agreed, he has been indispensable the last 48 hours or so.
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
If the Iranian people want freedom, then I'm afraid they're going to have to do it the old fashioned way. They're going to have to fight for it. It has ever been thus.
06/15/09