Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Things Go On

Ahmadinejad Sworn In As Iran President Amid Crisis : NPR:
"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn in Wednesday for a second term as president nearly two months after a disputed election triggered massive street protests, split Iran's clerical leadership and brought attacks from within his own conservative camp over mistreatment of detained opposition activists."



I've written on this before. I think that this is the beginning of a change, despite everything, and I think that it's how it has to be for now. It's still not a fantastic end to the story.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Anonymity and Identity

Foreign Policy: Iran's Terrifying Facebook Police : NPR

"Second, it means, as far as authorities are concerned, our online and offline identities are closely tied and we have to be fully prepared to be quizzed about any online trace that we have left (I can easily see us being asked our Facebook and Twitter handles in immigration forms; one of the forms I regularly fill flying back to the US has recently added a field for email address)."


For this particular blog, I have a created identity. No, it wouldn't be difficult to make the connection between this and my "real" persona if you had any indication of the link previously, but I use an assumed name, and any contact information given here is connected to this faux-identity and not my "true" one. I do this for many reasons, one of them being that my ideal future is one in which thoughts like this might be questioned at the entry-levels and I don't want to find myself in 20 years inextricably linked to what I wrote today.

The mere fact that I have a created identity is because I am afraid of things like this happening. I thought this a few weeks ago when the issue arose with job seekers in Montana, and it's been reinforced here.

For many people, online identities are an escape from their "actual" personas. Even for those whose online image is similar to their offline one, the online can be more revealing than we would generally be with coworkers or police officers.

To what extent are you represented by your online self? Would the image your online self projects interfere with your offline life? Are the borders between the two fading?

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Democracy

And still our vote mattered | Salon News:
"Asking where our vote is, is not enough. Democracy must also be about who gets to reply."


I am pained about the Iranian elections. I've written about them before, and about how I'm not sure how to grapple with the dozens of issues inherent in the topic (westernization, democratization, religious governance, the list goes on), but I can't help but hurt when I see accounts like this:

That the vote was against Ahmadinejad there can be no doubt. Consider this: Over the 30-year history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, some 30 percent of the population has never voted. These are the true disbelievers, citizens who take pride in having a blank shenasname, or identity booklet. They are the friends and family members who take every opportunity to remind the rest of us, at the dinner table, caught in traffic, sitting in the park, that voting is a mistake, that you ought not participate in a system that is at its core rotten.

Except ... Except this time a good half of these nonbelievers came. They came, pulled, pleaded -- coaxed into voting by sons and daughters. They came this year, dramatically reversing what had been a steady decline in participation, lifting turnout to heights not seen since the early days of the Revolution. With the much ballyhooed rural vote already in the bank for the president, the only place left for Ahmadinejad to make up his reported 6 to 8 million new votes was with the apostates. Are we really to believe, as some are now insisting, that these many millions showed up to vote for the incumbent?


There was so much hope, and it was simply crushed. How long will it be before there is enough strength to try again?

Sunday, June 28, 2009

A Brief Summary

Who hates who in Iran | Salon News

Outlines the connections between the various offices and councils in Iranian politics, and the people currently holding the seats, and also gives details on the conflicts between them. If you're trying to follow the Iranian situation, this is a must-read for background.

Collectibles

A little bit too frustrated to write a long post at the moment, but here are a few things to think about:

My Private Casbah: "My view towards religion is that if a particular god doesn't make you want to be a kinder, more loving person, then it isn't worth worshipping."



Sexism Against Conservative Women Is Still Sexism, by Amy Siskind at the Huffington Post. Tulip has some interesting thoughts on this, too.

More on Iranian feminism, from Bust.

Sexist medical assistance from Pfizer? Also on Bust.

Back to y'all later.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Unveiling the revolution | Salon Life

Unveiling the revolution | Salon Life: "The women of Iran have jolted me awake from my cable news coma. So many of the protesters are young and female like me but display a courage I have never known -- clasping rocks in their fists, kicking at baton-wielding policemen and, in the case of Neda Agha-Soltani, dying on the streets of Tehran. Judging from the flood of 'I am Neda' T-shirts and tweets, I'm hardly the only one feeling not just powerful admiration but identification with Iranian women."


The situations surrounding Muslim women right now are so hot-button for me. Iran, France, and the overall treatment of Muslims throughout the West are issues I feel strongly about. On one hand, there is the group of activists including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who claim that Islam is almost always oppressive to women, regardless of its past or the more liberalized versions in the world. This group of people are those who support Sarkozy's forced unveiling of women in France.
And, to an extent, I think the burqa is oppressive. Anyone who is essentially covered in a blanket anytime they leave the house is probably not extremely comfortable.

On the other hand, of course, sit my personal experiences with Muslim women who, for reasons of their own and despite their being entirely free from forced religious or male influence, and in groups where the veil is even discouraged, choose to veil themselves as a testament to their own modesty, as it is a part of their faith. To deprive these women of the ability to express their faith is as oppressive as forcing them to express it. Furthermore, plenty of religions require us to do things that are uncomfortable, oppressive, etc, and which we do willingly and without scorn. Consider Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not accept blood transfusions; male circumcision (both at birth and in adulthood) in many religions; piercings; and even pilgrimages, which generally ask for sacrifice of food, water, or other major sacrifices during the trek. Fasting for Lent, Ramadan, Yom Kippur, or any number of other religions is also a dangerous and certainly uncomfortable religious ritual that millions of people gladly undertake for their faith. I do not find it impossible to believe that a woman would voluntarily choose to cover herself. Unless we wish to eradicate Islam from the world entirely, we should not, in free countries, force people to sin against their gods.

Personally, I think that when a government begins to legislate attire, they have crossed their boundaries. Whether forcing people to wear something, or denying them the right to wear it, such interventions are inappropriate.

And back to Iran, that whole mess is simply beyond my comprehension. Iranian politics are inherently complex and perhaps intentionally difficult to navigate. They are open to corruption, but also open to guidance at all levels. That someone could be elected without the support of the rest of the governmental bodies is highly unlikely, but election without popular support is an inherent possibility. Which is probably why the guy with such low approval ratings among the people seems to be holding his own in the election. Incumbency is the single greatest indicator even in liberal democracies; Ahmadinejad clearly had the support of his political peers or he would have been ousted long ago. The man pushing for change is inherently going to have a much more difficult time gaining a place in that sort of system.

Put simply though, that's how their system works. It's open to corruption, yes, but really, what system isn't? I dare you to suggest Western Democracy; I can come up with a dozen examples to the contrary.

I don't know what the correct solution would be.