Revolution in Iran goes underground, but continues
“A senior Iranian cleric has called on the government to punish the leaders of the country’s post-election protests cruelly and without mercy.
In a sermon at Tehran University on Friday, Ahmad Khatami described the demonstrators as rioters who wage war against God (”moharem”), a crime in Islamic law, punishable by death.
He also accused foreign journalists of instigating the protests.
Meanwhile, the relatives of citizens detained by authorities sent a letter to the head of Iran’s judiciary, Ayatollah Shahrudi, and Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani, expressing concern for the detainees’ well-being. The letter says they are concerned the detainees, who include prominent reformist politicians, are being pressured to confess to crimes. Iranian authorities have arrested hundreds of people since the election.
… Defeated presidential candidate and reformist leader Mir Hossein Mousavi vowed on Thursday to resist pressure to end his challenge of the election outcome. He also urged supporters to continue protests in a way that will not create tension.
The Washington Post quoted Khatami as saying “I want the judiciary to . . . punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson. … They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely.”
The good news, what there is of it, is that turmoil apparently continues within Iran’s ruling elite. Another top cleric, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem-Shirazi, yesterday talked of the need for national reconciliation, an approach that would seem to imply some negotiation or concession from the government.
“Definitively, something must be done to ensure that there are no embers burning under the ashes, and (to ensure) that hostilities, antagonism and rivalries are transformed into amity and cooperation among all parties,” he said.
And according to the BBC, 290 members of the Iranian Parliament were invited to join a “victory celebration” in honor of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Only 105 showed up.
In other words, while outward expressions of dissent in Iran have been crushed through violence, it’s not over and may not be over for years. The structure of power has cracked, even if it has not yet fallen.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
114 comments Add your comment
Kamchak
June 26th, 2009
4:00 pm
Paul
If you want to judge Monica Conyers, then fine hold her up to the light. She is an elected official and should be held accountable. You make a spurious comparison in an attempt to create a “gotcha” scenario. John Conyers did not “raise” his wife–he married an adult. Sarah Palin most certainly did raise Bristol who was not an adult when she got pregnant.
Scooter
June 26th, 2009
4:23 pm
Kamchak @ 4:00 pm,
There is no reason to bash Palin or anyone else for that matter!
Paul
June 26th, 2009
4:23 pm
Kamchak
Let me try rephrasing.
I am not talking about judging Monica Conyers.
My question was directed at those who attacked Gov Palin (and her supporters) for her ‘morality’ views in light of her daughter getting pregnant.
It wasn’t about her politics. It wasn’t about her decisions. It was about her family member and Gov Palin being held to account or questioned for what she did.
I made the point she raised her daughter – but at that age they definitely make their OWN decisions. But Gov Palin took the heat. I also made the point, lightly, that if there is any greater association, it should be for a spouse one has picked and spent years with and who shares the same goals and values. Not a kid one has produced.
So I take it you’re one of the ones who think Gov Palin is fair game for criticism for what her daughter did but not Conyers for what his spouse did?
Kamchak
June 26th, 2009
4:53 pm
“I’m not talking about judging Monica Conyers.”
Yeah, I got that. You want to judge John Conyers about what his wife did. His wife, who is an adult and came into their marriage with a developed set of values.
“I also made the point, lightly, that if there is any greater association, it should be for a spouse one has picked and spent years with and who shares the same goals and values.”
So, I’m more responsible for what my adult spouse does rather than a minor child whom I have raised since infancy?
I’m not sure the law will be in agreement with you on that one. Sarah Palin allowed unsupervised sleepovers for Bristol’s boyfriend in the Palin household.
Paul
June 26th, 2009
5:35 pm
Kamchak
Are you trying to be obtuse?
[[You want to judge John Conyers about what his wife did.]]
I’m asking all those who judged Gov Palin for what her daughter did if they should apply the same judgment to Rep Conyers for what his wife did.
The ‘morality’ argument applies, as with Conyers it was his ‘preaching’ about public trust and responsibility while his wife was in politics.
Do you get it now?
Are you making the case that parents should be held responsible for what their 16-17 year old kids do? Really? You sure?
But I’d really prefer an answer to the original question. All you’ve done so far is go quite afar off track in avoiding it.
If you don’t think Conyers should be judged as Palin was, fine. Then again, you may be one of the bloggers who never held Palin and her supporters should be held accountable or ridiculed for her abstinence talk when her daughter got pregnant, so it doesn’t apply for you to state if you’d hold Conyers responsible for his political morality talk while his wife was engaged in criminal activity and violating a public trust.
Kamchak
June 26th, 2009
6:26 pm
Paul
John Conyers wife is an adult. He did not shape her values during her formative years. She came into the marriage as a fully formed adult.
Do you get that now?
Bristol Palin was raised from infancy by her mother who instilled values in her during her formative years.
Do you get that now?
Your attempt to compare John Conyers, a man who is not responsible for his adult wife, to Sarah Palin, who is responsible for a minor child again is spurious. Your original question is meaningless because there is no rational comparison other than your attempt to create a gotcha scenario.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Parent+and+Child
“At common law, parents were not responsible for the TORTS their children committed against third parties. When they had neglected their duty of supervision, parents could be held liable for their own negligence. This largely remains true, although many state statutes now holds parents vicariously liable for torts committed by their children, for a limited amount.”
So yeah, I am making a case that parents can be held responsible for what their 16-17 year old kids do. Really. I’m sure.
Paul
June 26th, 2009
7:10 pm
Kamchak
Do I get that? I believe I made that point quite a while ago!
You may want to go upstairs and check DDRs response. It’s similar. So’s my follow-on about how much responsibility parents bear for their childrens’ success, as well as when they go astray. Especially after they’ve been taught correctly.
May you never have a ratty kid. Or a sister or brother with one. As they’re obviously a failure.
So to narrow it down a bit more, after all Conyer’s railing against political immorality, betrayal of the public trust, criminal acts by politicians, you don’t think his judgment should be the least little bit questioned, as it was his life companion, the person he picked and allied himself with, who betrayed the public trust and committed criminal acts?
Kamchak
June 26th, 2009
7:31 pm
Paul
The difference between the two cases boils down to negligence. John Conyers can’t be found negligent because he is not responsible for his adult wife. Sarah Palin can be found negligent because a minor child is her responsibility.
If John Conyers knew about, aided/abetted his wife’s crime then he should/will be held accountable. You have, however, offered no evidence to this. You only link John to his wife’s crime by citing his influence as a life partner. By that logic Jenny Sanford is culpable for Mark’s infidelity because of her influence as his life partner.
Paul
June 27th, 2009
7:26 am
Kamchak
Sigh.
Didn’t think it was that difficult to understand. [[You have, however, offered no evidence]]
Point was never to ‘offer evidence’ – or to ‘judge Conyers’. Or to judge Mrs. Sanford. It was to find out why people who condemn Palin for what a family member did do or do not have the same standard of judgment for Conyers.
I’ve long thought the ‘outrage’ against Palin was based on a way to demean a candidate to gain political advantage.
But I understand, from this exchange with you, that some Liberals think parents – and this is the essential element I glean from your posts – what a child does or does not do is a direct reflection upon the parent. Any minor who follows what the parent taught, the parent is ‘good’ and ‘responsible.’ Any parent whose child makes a moral choice that contradicts what they’ve been taught, that the parent is negligent.
Reminds me of a discussion I observed years ago. Didn’t take part – no way! This group had a couple women, the topic was birth control. The two women were stating their belief there should be no ‘artificial’ methods so it was no sex. Moderator asked if they were married. They said ‘no.’ The group hooted and hollered and cracked up. Credibility was shot.
I dislike it when posts go personal, but guessin’ the factors that led to your belief system – I’m guessin’ you’re not a parent –
And if you are, your kids are either very, very good at doing what you want, or very, very good at deceiving you.
Thanks for the insight.
Paul
June 27th, 2009
7:56 am
Kamchak
Let me be clear: I do NOT think Rep Conyers should be ridiculed, condemned, made fun of, judged or held responsible for the criminal acts of his convict wife. Even though he takes a strong morality stand when it comes to politicians.
Likewise, I do NOT think Gov Palin should be ridiculed, condemned, made fun of, judged or held responsible for the stupid decisions of her adolescent daughter. Even though she takes a strong morality stand when it comes to certain issues.
josef nix
June 27th, 2009
7:57 am
PAUL–good morning…found Normal upstairs looking for company!
On Palin: as you know I am liberal (and do know what the term means) and am no big fan of Palin and will be among the first to take a swipe or two at her, but this trotting her out as a whipping post for the most scurrilous and unseemly commentary is disturbing enough, but the attacks on her family are not just unseemly, but really quite disturbing.
As I see it, she and hers do a pretty good job of practicing what they preach. She says she is personally opposed to abortion and then chooses to keep and raise a Down’s Syndrome child. She says she believes in abstinance and then supports her daughter who made a mistake and chose to raise her child. That’s what parents are supposed to do.
Her daughter, cast into the limelight, chooses to speak to other young women about her experience and tell them she probably should have waited. She at least knows what she’s talking about. When Sarah Palin lends her name to efforts to raise awareness of and promote programs for the children with special needs, she’s not just out there doing feel-good charity work.
When she got pulled on the ridicule carpet for her “I can see Russia from my front porch,” I daresay that the majority of those jumping on the bandwagon had no idea that the United States and Russia share a common border with Russia or that there is a sizeable portion of Alaska’s population who still speak Russian as their home language. These same people are blind to the fact that Caribou Barbie took on the oil companies and won, not a bad recommendation given that energy is supposed to be a big concern and the next great source will be the artic where the United States and Russia are already vying for drilling spots.
I’ll be the first to jump on the conservative hypocrites and there’s nothing quite as funny to me as watching their Jimmy Swaggart routines when caught with their britches down. But let me bring up The Great One’s record as such a “fierce advocate” for gay folks and just watch the two-step. Bring up his connection to the hate spouting preachers in his life and what comes out as defense is far more hypocritical than the defenders would care to admit.
I could go on and on, but my own kind have as much of a blind spot as any conservative republican out there and they’re every bit as rude and hateful.
Paul
June 27th, 2009
8:06 am
josef nix
Thanks much. Well said and good job of bringing in other examples.
I think blogs generally attract people with some pretty strong views and blogs also seem to bring out a bit of extreme language and attitude in some. You’ll notice when I posted I thought I understood Kamchak’s position I said ’some’ Liberals. Thanks for bringing forth another viewpoint.
Always got me how many blog Liberals were so quick to condemn the really conservative Republicans of the religious sector for their ‘orthodoxy’ stances (like Sean Hannity saying ’so and so can’t be a Republican because Republicans believe (list examples) yet they are pretty orthodox and exclusionary in their views of what Liberals think. Or should think.
I’m more for diversity, general principles and live and let live, myself.
True enough about Palin. Keeping the Down’s child. Loving her daughter. Then when the daughter has the bravery to say “I didn’t make the best choice, learn from me” she gets ridiculed. ‘course, addressing kids having babies gets awfully touchy for some special interest groups. I’ve said all along I give Pres Obama lots of credit for addressing that head-on. If anyone has the standing to turn around that travesty, it’s him.
josef nix
June 27th, 2009
8:24 am
Oh, the blogs are fun and do bring out the worst in us allowing the anonymous to say what they’d never say under their own names where they might have to later eat their words. As Granny always said, “choose soft, tender and sweet words. You may have to eat them later.” Politicians of all stripes should have listened to Granny!
Kamchak
June 27th, 2009
9:26 am
Paul
You continue to create a gotcha trap using the same materials. A relationship between two adults does not equate to a relationship between a parent and a minor child. Whether or not the minor child follows the teaching of the parent is irrelevant. These two types of relationships are not the same because while an adult can and often does influence another adult, each adult is individually responsible for their own actions. This is not true of the relationship between a parent and minor child. The child’s entire life has been influenced by the parent and the parent can and will be judged negligent when the parent fails to properly supervise the child. Sarah Palin did not properly supervise her child–to the contrary, she allowed unsupervised sleepovers with Bristol’s boyfriend. I am not criticizing Palin on her hypocrisy, but on her failure to properly supervise her child.
As for you advocating that spouse/life partners is a more responsible role than that of parent here’s a little experiment you might want to try. Go out and cheat on your spouse/life partner then tell them that it’s not all your fault and they should share the blame because of their influence on you. I think you will be surprised when you find out who is on the receiving end of an exercise in behaviour modification.