The latest results from Iran’s recent presidential election featured Mir Hossein Moussavi, the primary opposition candidate, in a disappointing and suspicious loss to incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, considered by many Iranians to be at fault for the years of economic instability during his presidency, enjoys staunch support from rural communities and is to some an enemy of the wealthy and “champion of the poor.” In contrast, Moussavi is believed to be a more moderate candidate, advocating greater cooperation internationally and engagement with the United States. While Moussavi was predicted to win by the vast majority of Iranian media, his loss is suspicious due to large number of what are being referred to as irregularities.

Even before polls had closed Moussavi condemned the election as unfair. Within hours, the United States and Canada both expressed “concern” over the potentially unfair nature of the elections. From the amount of skepticism both inside and outside the state of Iran regarding the elections it’s fairly clear that something at least marginally democratically improper occurred.

Thinking critically, the important outcome of the election is not a presidential candidate, but the progress of Iranian democratic values, the traditional precursor to democratic institutions.  After election results were announced Iranians gathered in Tehran and chanted “Death to the Dictatorship,” and Mousavi supporters conducted sit-ins. While most gatherings were peaceful, some turned violent involving clashes with the police and burning buses. With Iranians who publicly denounce the government often disappearing, this is an intriguing turn of events.

All governments rule through a combination of legitimacy and coercion. No state exists solely through either legitimacy or coercion, but rather through a combination of the two. Generally, the more coercion required to maintain state control the more unstable that state becomes. (An example of this could be the Soviet Union’s control over the Warsaw Pact, as legitimacy of the Communist ideology eroded it became increasingly necessary to execute coercive control over the Warsaw pact countries, In 1991 Gorbachev refused to use the necessary force to retain Soviet control and the Warsaw Pact disbanded.)

Iranian elections began, with relatively little at stake, as a means to create a more legitimate form of government. (It remains unclear how much power the elected executive branch truly has, and all candidates must be cleared by the Supreme Council before being allowed to run) This week’s election may symbolize a turning point in Iranian politics. The population is becoming so upset over the potential irrelevance of their vote that in order to restore order and stability the government will have two options for future elections; choose to conduct fairer and freer elections (a turn towards more legitimate rule), or choose to continue elections with predetermined results, a turn towards greater coercive rule. Although one is clearly favorable, either outcome could prove positive in the long-run. Less legitimacy domestically generally translates to less legitimacy internationally, and the Iranian regime appearing illegitimate would be useful for creating international support to slow or stop a proliferating Iran. In contrast, a free and democratic Iran would surely translate positively for US-Iranian relations.

The evolution of the Iranian political system to a point where an inherent assumption exists that the will of the majority creates legitimacy is far more encouraging than the election of a moderate on what is a very limited political spectrum.

I conclude with a statement one voter made to the Tehran Times following the election:

Despite all the country’s problems over the years, we see that the culture of democracy is beginning to take root in Iran, and the people are becoming confident that they can control their destiny by casting ballots. And the people are happy. These are good signs that augur well for the future.

( Source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=196629 )

Due to a serendipitous act of God, The Melon has obtained previously undiscovered documents concerning 1776’s siege of New York and the Battle of Long Island, particularly regarding Nathan Hale, America’s first patriot spy, and other influential patriots. Since we are committed to America’s legacy, we are now releasing these documents to the public.

General Washington: (arriving in New York) Okay! We’ve shown the British what’s what in Boston, we have a Declaration of Independence in the pipe, and I’m pretty sure that they are coming for New York next. So, Major General Nathanael Greene and my trusted adviser, how are we going to defend this place?

Nathanael Greene: Well, sir, we have several plans for defending the city here (points to plans on a table.)

Washington: Hmmm. Well.  I don’t know anything about the terrain, the loyalty of the people appears to be mixed, the troops think that they deserve freedom from discipline as well as freedom from tyranny, we have no idea where the British are or what their plans may be, we cannot afford to pay the men wages most of the time, and everyone keeps getting typhoid.

Greene: That about sums it up, sir. So what plan do you want to try?

Washington: Let’s do…everything.

Greene: What?

Washington: Yes. We’ll divide up the troops into uselessly small divisions on Long Island, Manhattan, and a few other places for good measure, and the only communication route between most of them will be by sea, which is soon to be in British control. Sounds solid to me.

Greene: Uh-oh.

Washington: What we really lack is…(hears noise from window) What is that?

General Charles Lee: (shouting) HEY GEORGE!

Washington: WHAT, CHARLES!

Lee: CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE PICKED ME TO LEAD THE TROOPS! YOU SUCK!

Washington: Asshat. (ignoring Lee’s shouts) Now -

Lee: JUST BECAUSE YOU AND JOHN ADAMS HAVE A THING

Washington: (slams window closed) Now, what we lack here is intelligence.* We need a spy. Do we have any of those?

Greene: Well, there’s this one guy…

Nathan Hale: (Bursting in the door) I’ll do it!

Washington: Who are you?

Hale: I, sir, am Nathan Hale, a patriot.

Washington: Do you have any experience at espionage?

Hale: I will serve my country to the best of my ability.

Washington: Uh, well, do you know how to write in code or how to weasel information out of people?

Hale: I have no qualifications for this job whatsoever.

Washington: So why should I let you do this?

Hale: I’m enthusiastic!

Washington: Can you keep your mouth shut?

Hale: (silence)

Washington: Off you go.

————

(Hale goes to a bar in British-controlled New York City)

WHY I VOTE.

Voting.  We’re taught to view it as our civic duty, one of only three remaining “sacrifices” this country actually asks of its citizens (the first of the other two being to pay your taxes, which – I’m ashamed to say – a sizable percentage of this country cheats, and the second being to register for the selective service upon reaching age 18 – a sacrifice from which an entire sex is exempt.) So given how little modern American actually asks of us, it’s not surprising that the majority of us view voting as something like a chore.  In many ways I’m no different.  From age five onward, I was reminded every November that voting is just one of those things responsible people do; like saving 10% of every paycheck or never having sex without a condom.

Read More >>

Amendment 48: Defining a person in the Colorado Constitution as any human being from the moment of fertilization [of an egg], and giving said person all rights under the Colorado Constitution.

Sigh. Yet another poorly thought out plan by extreme pro-lifers to undermine abortion. The only goal of this statute could be to prevent abortion. It makes even a few fertilized cells equal in rights to the woman that carries them.

Here’s a scenario this stupid amendment could create: say a pregnant woman gets into a car accident. She needs emergency surgery, but the doctors CANNOT do anything that could also harm her fetus, because said fetus is a separate person. Her emergency health care and the long-term health of the fetus are artificially set up as oppositional. Depending upon its stage of development and what they needed to do, perhaps the woman would have to be denied morphine or anesthesia during surgery for fear of harming the fetus. As a result, the mother is unnecessarily crippled. If the fetus does die as a result of efforts to save the woman’s life, the doctors may come up for manslaughter or murder charges. Good law, right?

Vote NO on 48.

Amendment 50: Proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to allow residents of the gaming cities (currently only Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek, not counting casinos on reservations) to extend casino hours, add games, and increase the maximum single bet limit. Increased revenue would be put toward enforcing gaming laws, with the remainder going toward each community to “help address the impacts of gaming” and community colleges across the state.

This amendment seems like a win to me. If it is passed, the gaming communities have the ability to decide how to better control the casinos for each community – which does not necessarily mean they will hold a vote to change anything now, just that they might. If they do make changes, the tax on the increased revenue will fund not only local projects, but improve the lot of community colleges across the state. Considering how Colorado has been slashing financial support for higher education for years, community colleges will soon be the only way for poor students to access higher education, so a reliable method of support should be in place for them.

Now, the concerns about this amendment are not frivolous. For one thing, casinos on reservations might feel the need to change their regulations in order to compete, and this law does not take into account the negative effects this might have on those communities. For another, more opportunities to gamble may increase the number of compulsive gamblers in the state. And finally, the new money generated will be limited to a certain kind of use.

Of these concerns, only the first is valid, though I don’t know enough about reservations with gaming in Colorado to make an assessment of how this law could affect them. As far as increasing compulsive gamblers: well, maybe. Certainly changes will attract compulsive gamblers from other states, but I’m not sure that it would create new ones. Someone who is gambling for fun is not going to suddenly become addicted just because the casino closes at 3 a.m. instead of 2 a.m., while a compulsive gambler will not be deterred if the place keeps the 2 a.m. closing. I don’t mean to downplay the harm that gambling addicts cause to themselves and to their families, but the kinds of changes being proposed are relatively small. I believe that they could only affect the rate at which a compulsive gambler ruins his/her finances, not that they would create more of them. I could be wrong.

And the concern that this law doesn’t allow for budget prioritization – what, are community colleges never going to be a need? The funds will make a difference to community colleges, and they won’t be subject to limitations under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR).

Vote YES on 50.

Amendment 51: Proposes to raise taxes in order to eliminate the waiting list for services for people with developmental disabilities, and prevents reducing revenue for this purpose by any means.

Providing long-term care for developmentally disabled citizens is an example of a time when only the government can provide what is needed. It’s nice and all to depend upon non-profits like churches to feed the homeless and whatnot, but long-term care for needy adults with challenging disabilities requires a reliable paycheck. And only the government has reliable funding on a great enough scale to ensure that no one falls through the cracks.

However, people DO fall through the cracks, because the budget priorities are different each year while the need for services remains the same. Again the challenging nature of the clients means that the private and non-profit sectors won’t be able to (and they do not) effectively cobble together a response. The government is never going to spontaneously decide to meet this need or else it would have done so already, so we need to force it to by this method instead. Neither will voters prioritize this use of tax dollars based on what revenues will already have, when there are potholes to be fixed and police to be paid.

The sales tax increase is equivalent to only one penny per $5, which is hardly backbreaking enough to claim our economy would be ruined. (If you spent $5,000, you would only notice a $10 increase due to this tax on that purchase. Other sales taxes, of course, still apply.) But without that penny, we will spend much more money in the future when the kid with cerebral palsy has degenerated due to a lack of preventative health care. No one denies that the kid should be treated when sick, but to prevent the kid from getting sick – oh, man, that’s going to ruin the economy! That view is short-sighted and I daresay ethically bankrupt. It treats a nearly unnoticeable increase in taxes as more important than the welfare of a developmentally disabled person.

Vote YES on 51.