I'm a big fan of honesty.

The truth is that I don't read Jadaliyya... perhaps I should though - some good work, and not just on Tunisia. Prior to reading the comments here, I had never seen Hesham's post <a href="http://(http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/469/what-happens-in-tunisia-stays-in-tunisia)" target="_blank">(http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/469/what-happens-in-tunisia-stays-in-tunisia). If I had, I may have structured mine a bit differently.
While we've both written about some of the same things (big surprise there), there are also many points on which the two pieces differ such as the whole topic of self-immolations across the Arab wold in the wake of Bouazizi's passing. There are many other points of contrast, but I'm not about to list them all...
Having said that, I can see how someone might read the opening paragraphs of my piece and see glaring similarities with Hesham's. The truth is that is purely coincidental.

Oops... I was wondering why the title had changed!
My bad

Micheal was really something else. He mastered his craft. May he rest in peace. It didn't really hit me until I heard his music...

Nice post. You make a good point. Too bad so many will miss it.

On another note, I feel like an asshole now for my last post about the man. Thanks!

Why is that closer to reality? In fact, those numbers are just as bad as those released by the authorities. 85% turnout?! 13% of the vote for Ahmadinejad?! While it is highly probable Mousavi received more votes than him, these numbers suggest his hands aren't clean... just like anyone sanctioned to run by the Supreme Council.

The Iranian people definitely deserve better than the Mousavi-Rafsanjani clique, which is not that much different from the 'conservative' clique. Not only does Mousavi appeal to the revolution, but he was instrumental in maintaining it. Of course he is supported by some elements of the clergy which is hardly a homogeneous entity. I was not trying to frame my argument as one of theology vs. secularism, but the current 'Islamic' system of government is riddled with problems. That it is more democratic than anything since 1953 is not saying much, considering that what Iran suffered under in the 20+ years leading to the revolution was a ruthless tyrant supported by the US. People tend to forget that what happened was not an Islamic revolution per se. Islamists, socialists, and other oppressed groups banded together in what appeared to be a promising movement. Khomeini was the most powerful figure at the time and he was successful in positioning himself and his allies to run the country as they saw fit. It helped that all major political forces of the time had been discredited in the eyes of the Iranian public (i.e. the US, USSR, capitalism, communism, etc). The last vestige of hope was in Islam. The system was set up to keep Iran safe and independent. It has definitely succeeded in maintaining the former, but at what price? It may be unique and sophisticated, but I do believe the system can be blamed for many of Iran's recent woes. Of course, parties like the US are also to blame; they were responsible for creating the climate for revolution and maintaining the status quo thereafter.
I don't think I'm overemphasizing Obama's role here. He is more popular in Iran than their president, but this is not about him (even if so many of Mousavi's supporters like to make superficial comparisons between the two). But how Washington handles the situation will be crucial in determining how the rest of the story unfolds. The Islamic Republic was put in place as a result of US policy and it is more likely to fail after that policy changes. If the US is seen to be meddling in Iranian affairs, the establishment will be given a major boost.
I don't understand what it is we are in disagreement about.

It's a stupid question because the Palestinian Authority has no real authority to do anything as it is under occupation. Continued settlement activity trumps any hope for a peaceful settlement to the conflict. The biggest obstacle to peace is occupation and continued colonialism; it really is that simple, but then again, I don't expect you to understand.

Excellent post!
I feel you on the Lieberman thing - Bibi is no better. His fifth condition should be a 'president' Ibish.

Inexcusable indeed.
BTW, who are these 'moderate' regimes you speak of???

First of all, I don't understand what part of the post suggests that I support any one side over the other. I'm not a fan of Saad Hariri and the not-so-secular groups he's allied with. But I don't support the other side either. If one thing has been clear in all my posts on Lebanon, it is that the whole system is screwed up; all parties are bad.
What I do advocate is cooperation and acceptance. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas may be riddled with problems, but that does not mean they should be ostracized. On the contrary, they should be accepted with open arms. Their pariah status only serves to justify their policies and positions in the eyes of their support base whose own attitudes are radicalized as a result.
If there is any part of me that would have liked to see a victory for Hezbollah (something I never really expected), it was because that would have pushed Barack to put his money where his mouth is. Good for the headlines.
As far as the whole secularism thing is concerned, PC and Joe do not seem to understand that religious identity is at the crux of the Phalange (Gemayel) & Lebanese Forces (Geagea). All that doesn't matter anyways. The problem in Lebanon is not one of religious extremism so much as it is tribalism. Secularism is not what's important.
(And while I wouldn't necessarily describe the FPM and its supporters as secular, PC's "party of God" equation is one of the most illogical things I've ever seen)

Fisk is right on point.