Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV

Or, click to learn more


« Iran: Greening YouTube --- An Interview with Mehdi Saharkhiz | Main | Iran: Enduring America's Coverage of 22 Bahman As It Happened »

Iran on 22 Bahman: Ahmadinejad "Wins Ugly" (This Time)

I guess it was inevitable that --- to post a dramatic headline or to make artificial sense out of the complex and messy politics of events --- the open-and-shut, Victory-or-Defeat results would already be declared. Britain's Sky TV, known best for its across-the-wall sports coverage, puts the onus of loser on the opposition: "The danger for Iran's anti-Government Green movement is that after yet again failing to mobilise huge numbers on a key day, it will lose momentum....The Government looks to have maintained its firm grip on the country." The Times of London pronounces, "Iran crushes opposition protests with violence". Others leer --- The Herald Sun in Australia, "Iran regime strangles Green Movement on the streets" --- while some don't even see a contest (Time: "Where Was the Opposition?")

The Tehran Bureau ran up the white flag, "A big anticlimax," "defeat," "An overwhelming presence from the other side. People were terrified." Even Juan Cole, normally an expert offering nuanced, in-depth analysis, leaps to "Regime Victory on Revolution Anniversary; Opposition Fails to Mobilize".

OK, if we have to resort to a sporting metaphor to summarise the twists and turns of 22 Bahman, let's use one that offers some insight into what is to come as well as what has happened.

The Regime Won Ugly. And that's not the same as winning.

The Latest from Iran (11 February): Today is 22 Bahman

Let me explain: when a team "wins ugly", it doesn't triumph through overwhelming superiority, a strength that is likely to see it chalk up victory after victory. Instead, it scrapes through --- in a contest in which all sides makes mistakes and miscalculations --- because its faults aren't quite enough to take away its lead, because it hangs on with just enough of a territorial advantage, because it has a bit of luck to offset its weaknesses or enough tenacity to avoid exhaustion.

That's a good starting point for 22 Bahman. If the regime prevailed today, it did so in part because expectations of the opposition had been set so high. The dramatic scenes of protest of Ashura (27 December), fuelled in part by the recent death of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, the relay of strong statements by Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Mohammad Khatami, and the signs of regime fatigue offered the prospect of overcoming the blunt force and propaganda of the Government. And "overcome" was not the triumph of years or months from now but of this moment; 22 Bahman, 31 years after the Islamic Revolution's victory, might prove the triumphal day once more.

That didn't happen, and I guess in that sense, it has to be Government and Supreme Leader 1, Mousavi-Karroubi-Khatami and Greens O. But that winning score is a "negative" margin, rather than a tribute to the "positive" efforts of the regime. There was nothing hopeful in the rows of security forces who, having been prepared after the humiliations of Ashura, were not going to countenance another retreat. There was nothing of glory or Islamic value in the confrontations with Mehdi Karroubi (wounded, his son missing), Zahra Rahnavard (beaten), Mohammad Khatami and Mir Hossein Mousavi (forced into retreat), let alone the thousands of encounters in which chains, batons, and flying-squad detentions trumped hope and determination.

"Negative", not "positive". And no, the regime's rally in Azadi Square does nothing to alter that assessment. President Ahmadinejad's speech was not even subtle enough to offer a pretence of legitimacy through economic progress, social cohesion, or political manifesto for a post-election Iran in which the election is still a matter for dispute. This was a 75-minute diversion puffed up with a "surprise" (the 20% enrichment of uranium) which had been announced four days ago, the ritual denunciations of the "West" and Israel, and a fantastical vision --- awaiting the 12th Imam --- of Iran straddling the globe. Even the snapshots of the rally were beholden to these fancies, all deployed to avoid any reference to internal issues. There was the big rocket of Presidential strength:

And there was the eternal Western evil that would sweep over Iranians if they did not acknowledge Presidential leadership:

Of course, this was converted by State media into the markers, as the numbers in Azadi Square went from hundreds of thousands to a million to 2 million to 5 million, of all of Iran unified. And that unity was sustained by the reduction of any evidence to the contrary to a "couple of hundred" protesters in an outlying square in Tehran, soon to be dispersed by security forces.

But an unity sustained only by the "negative" is destined to melt away almost as quickly as the crowds dissipated from Azadi Square, duty done, needs met, or loyalties rewarded by the time slot allocated for the Ahmadinejad speech. Come tomorrow, or perhaps after the extended holiday that ends Sunday, the 31st anniversary of the Revolution will be just a date in the calendar as economic disputes resume, the qualms over the President resurface, and the detainees languish in Iran's prisons amidst the symbolic, limited but important manipulation of abuse cases such as the Kahrizak scandal.

There are distinctions to be made in this "negative" victory. It is probably more substantial for the Supreme Leader. The window of political opportunity to curb his authority and, in extreme visions, to remove him from office has now closed; those pursuing compromise within the system like Hashemi Rafsanjani have had to do so by pledging fealty to Ayatollah Khamenei, and figures like Mousavi and Karroubi have now defined their resistance as one that accepts the Leader's rule, provided he deals with an unjust and abusive Government. Khamenei is a damaged figure, a damage that is seen not only in the failure to get resolution but in his own bouts of self-doubt, but he will survive.

Not so Ahmadinejad. He lives another day because Iran's security forces held the line, even advanced in the physical battle against the opposition. But there is no political authority accrued from his postures: even Seyed Mohammad Marandi, the staunch defender of the Iranian regime, was at great pains this morning, when he spoke on British radio to say that the Iranian people had come out for the Republic, not the President (no Marandi interview is now complete without ""I Didn't Vote For Ahmadinejad").

If the opposition had truly been "crushed" today, that might have been sufficient to ensure Ahmadinejad's longer-term survival, even in the absence of any positive measures. But the Green movement and figures like Mousavi and Karroubi were not crushed. They were bashed about, dispersed, and, most importantly, exposed as tactically naïve with today's loudly-declared plan to march from Sadeghiyeh Square to the Government's lair in Azadi. Their ranks have been thinned by the detentions, and their communications have to fight new ways to deal with regime restrictions.

But they are not crushed. They also live for other battles. A Mousavi or Karroubi declaration could come tomorrow or Saturday or later in the week. The Green websites, with new ones emerging as others are closed, will be trying to find the front foot in stories of defiance and justice. And the planning will be moving beyond the tactic of trying to "hijack" the regime's highlight days.

That does not mean easy answers for the opposition, let alone those establishment figures who would like to see the back of Ahmadinejad not today but a moment in the near-future. But --- and perhaps this was the hubris that fed into the build-up for 22 Bahman --- nothing was ever going to come easy in this post-election crisis.

"Winning ugly" doesn't mean winning. It means a scrappy, jaded, exhausting victory on this day and this day only. There will be another game soon, and the negative of force and the rhetoric of diversion may not be enough, especially if those who see behind the batons and the speech-screens refine their approaches.

Put this on your scorecards. Without "legitimacy", the President --- if not the regime --- has to "win ugly" every time. The opposition --- from within the system or without --- only have to win once.

Reader Comments (27)

Today the military regime sowed a littIe more hatred. My fear is that it feels strong enough to arrest Mousavi, Karoubi and Khatami. We will maybe witness the end of the "legalist" opposition. In any case the green movement wil have to reorganize. Nevertheless, one thing is certain: it is far from over.

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterGloumdalclitch

I agree with the title of your article, but I think it was mostly due to a tactical mistake by Greens than anything else!

Lots of people gathering in Azadi square were actually Green! They had been told not to show Green signs beforehand to be able to join the crowd, and then turn the ceremony all against the government. And in fact, i beleive that was a tactical mistake Greens made today. They didn't show Green signs, so they couldn't identify other Greens! You can't be in a big crowd, without knowing the person next to you and start chanting! Especially if the person next to you might turn out to be a pro-AN thug.... This is what I have read from the notes of Greens who were out today!

Moreover, you could tell Greens were present around Azadi sq. simply by listening to AN's speech as it was broadcasted on IRIB. The state TV had turned off the background sounds, which probably means Greens were chanting right there! They let the background sound come out only when AN was pausing to let the audience support him, and even in those few seconds you could also hear Green chants... So i think IRIB somehow hijacked Greens' presence in Azadi sq., by introducing them as gov't supporters..

The good point is i see Greens have already started thinking about today! Most of them (based on what i see on blogs, FB notes, etc..) have realised the fact that they clearly outnumbered AN supporters, but their presence was not felt. Now there are two questions Greens are thinking about: 1) How could they turn today's protests into a clear victory? 2) How should they forge ahead into next steps? What tactic should they adopt?

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered Commenter@Bsalamati

"Without “legitimacy”, the President — if not the regime — has to “win ugly” every time. The opposition — from within the system or without — only have to win once."

This is exactly what I have been trying to say to the people who think that the Green movement lost today. Victory for the Green movement isn't going to come from a mass of protesters storming the palace. The importance of the protests is that they continue to show that the regime is now being held in power exclusively by brutal force, and that doesn't cut it forever.

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterAdam

@Bsalamati, I've been reading the same comments about Greens in the crowd being unsure of who was next to them, causing hesitancy.

Scott, another point to keep in mind is that the internet is still blocked/very slow in Iran. We've had the experience before where immediate news from protests sounded as though turnouts were low, protesters were scared off, etc. I suggest it will take a few more days, at least, before we have sufficient eyewitness and participant reports to have an accurate perspective on what happened today. For example, we had early reports from Tabriz, but nothing since.

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterShhh

To the brave memebers of the Green Movement,

First and foremost this was a well orchestrated charade nothing more. One could liken it to a soccer game in which one side was allowed to field their team while the other was prohibited--no mystery who would win that one. Keep heart because the regime is on borrowed time. They are on borrowed time simply because they have to go to extrodinary lenghts to manufacutre the semblence of "succesful" rally. Just imagine how many of these pro regime supporters would actually rally if they were met with beatings, death, and the possibility of rape. None would show and any intelligent person can see that. I would even hedge a bet many of these "pro regime" supporters only came out because they were told to show up like they were at other rallies.

The regime won this day but it is a hollow victory because everyone knows it is a manufactured victory built on lies. The victory of Green movement will come but only with faith in the truth, persistence, and most importantly smart hard work. Learn from today, improvise, and remain steadfast in your claim for the rights guranteed you in the Iranian consititution. It may take time but eventually anything built on lies crumbles becasue truth is the only foundation anything lasting can be built on. We are all praying for you and know the free world is behind you 100%!!!

Marg Bar Dicatator


(Lie continually fed to western media: An example of lies fed to the West is the use of the University of Maryland polls. They keep mentioning this but fail to point out 27% of the people refused to respond. This is an unheard of statitical variance in any polls in the West. It is a vairance that in fact invalidates the poll itself!!!)

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBill

Great post! Completely agree - this confrontation is asymmetric and judging it in symmetric terms (like which camp got more people in the streets, or which got the upper hand) is nonsense. The real story in Iran is the continued resistance after eight months of ruthless repression. I made these points before today's events:

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRational Idealist

The unrealistic expectations are the biggest factor in today being perceived as a defeat for the Green movement.
A totalitarian dictatorship put on their annual propaganda rally on the anniversary of their "revolution" and had to publicly beat their own nation's clerics and political leaders, young people, women, etc... and the regime even had to silence the actual noise from their own rally to block out chants of "liar" and "death to the dictator".
By what insane standard is that a victory? If that happened in North Korea we would be counting the days before Kim Jong Il's hanging.
I say again, victory for the Green movement is not going to come from unarmed protesters storming Khamenei's palace, that's not how dictatorships fall. But as the protests go on and the regime is constantly seen as staying in power exclusively through brutality, more and more cracks appear in the regime's unity and gradually the political class, military, clergy, and business interests lose patience with the status quo. Unfortunately in this case the most important economic interest is oil production.

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterAdam


Well said! To many people look at each event as the "pivotal" moment to end the regime. They fail to realize it is a war with many battles. You won't win all the battles but if your steadfast, remain faithful to the truth, and learn from your mistakes you will win the war! The expectation on the movement should be shifted from daily events to a long term strategy of just remaining relevant. The longer the movement stays afloat the more time it gives the lies the regime is built on to crumble. We are already seeing the cracks!!! The cracks themselves are proof the movement is ushering in change! The simple message is to keep the faith no matter what because the truth always wins!


February 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBill

[...] Winning Ugly 11. Februar 2010 — Thomas v. der Osten-Sacken Einige Reflexionen von Scott Lucas am Ende dieses Tages: [...]

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterWinning Ugly « FREE IRAN

Two words for the Greens: FLASH MOBS. Telegraphing this so far in advance gives security forces PLENTY of time to prepare. Doing what you can, when not expected might work better.

Also, I'm not sure I would have challenged on this day. The regime WAS NOT going to "lose" on this day, the anniversary of the Revolution. So, let them have it.

Om Khamenei, you're right about Rafs (at least in public. Could he still be scheming in private?), but after today, esp., I wonder if Mousavi and Karroubi still accept Khamenei's Leadership?

His regime beat Rahnavard, attacked Mehdi Karroubi, arrested (we think) one of Karroubi's sons, and briefly detained Khomeini's granddaughter.

On points, maybe they pulled it out today. But I'm not convinced it was a "good" day for them either.

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterkevina

Dear Scott,

let me first thank you for your wonderful journalistic work!
I am really not sure, if this whole metaphor of sports about winning or losing here is very helpful or relevant. This regime has 'lost' this game a long time ago, and the greens are continuously winning because of their insistence on non-violence. So there, now I am also guilty of using the metaphors!
First, really no sports metaphors are even suitable since, the playing field is not even, to call this an 'ugly win' in a 'contest in which all sides makes mistakes and miscalculations' is forgetting that the rules are more like what Bill quite rightly describes above. I think it is more accurate to call it a hollow win as Bill does if we must pretend the situation is symmetric which is accurately questioned by Adam.
Let me also say that I whole heartedly agree with @Bsalamati, in that the regime lied with manipulation of pictures to mask the participation of greens.
I have also seen very interesting blogs that have reflected on today's event and have yet to see one that think this was some sort of a win for the regime.
Keep up the good work!

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered Commentermrzand

I'm not sure today's turnout would have satisfied even modest expectations. Regardless of how the authorities 'won', today's events may have a chilling effect on future turnouts and may very well leave Karroubi, Mousavi, etc. feeling more vulnerable and the hardliners more emboldened.

As Scott said earlier, this is a marathon, not a sprint. The most unrealistic expectations are those which harbor the belief that there could be relatively quick and dramatic changes in Iran's power structure.

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterlotfali

The most cogent analyis on the situation, post 22 Bahman. Well done Scott! Thank you for writing this. It should be shared and distributed broadly.

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterIran News Now

Have you seen the google satellite photo of the protests today?

contrary to what the state TV showed, the Azaadi square at 10:45 am looks very empty! It is possible the regime set a limit to the number of people that could get in the square and then sealed it off.

Also interesting is the clouds from the tear gas (?) north of the square.

All in all, the crowds seemed big in the surrounding routes.

February 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterS

I agree with what others have said about this being a fair assessment of the day.
(I too smiled at your sentence that they have to 'win' every time, the greens only once. All afternoon I had been thinking of something similar: 'they have to be lucky every time, us once')

I do wonder Adam if:

"The unrealistic expectations are the biggest factor in today being perceived as a defeat for the Green movement."

are more on the outside than within Iran?

For me the biggest positive for the people today, was that somehow in spite of all the restrictions and blocking of internet etc, they still managed to get information out, and yes they also apparently disrupted Ahmidinejad's speech.

Maybe another plus will be that new leaders will be born in this - I don't mean like Mousavi & Karroubi, but people who will be able to think and plan strategically - I think that's what looked missing today, the lack of on the ground leaders. (The people looked like sheep without a shepherd in some of the videos that we saw)

And maybe as others have pointed out maybe trying to hi-jack the regime's days is not the best way forward now. (And Noor Rooz is most certainly not a regime day:-)!!! When many people will leave their cities and go to other parts of the country . . . ) I would love to see the greens not giving the IRI the opportunity to prepare.

February 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRoe Lassie

Marandi should watch out for his pants if he didn't vote for AM

February 12, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterpessimist

What matters is what Khamenie and world powers are thinking today; that the regime has "won" and have crushed opposition. Now they may be empowered to crack down even further with arrests and prosecution of opposition leaders/members. I don’t think the opposition has time in terms of months or years to have their peaceful movement achieve its goal, since Israel and US will now have doubts about the opposition strength and will likely think that military action may be the only viable option; while Khamenie and AN would love nothing more to instigate a war to cement power. Incredible misery awaits people in Iran unless they come out in tens of millions, say this weekend, to counter what the world has been shown to be “reality”.

February 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterThe Ugly

Amazing, Scott. I’m starting to think you are like one of those sports greats, like Michael Jordan, who always brings his very best games at the most important times. Remember how Michael used to have the occasional lethargic games and mistakes, just to show he was human, but somehow he always rose up at critical times? Your analysis is just amazing, especially considering the pressure you undoubtedly had to write that under -severe time constraints, distractions, and without benefit of any time to reflect. Sort of like Michael playing with the flu in the U.S. basketball championships, and making the championship winning shot with 1 second left :)

Here is what I’m thinking about 22 Bahman at this early hour in terms of analysis, trying to put aside my own personal dissapointment.

What the regime accomplished today was a tactical victory. They won one battle through superior tactics. It wasn’t a moral victory, it wasn’t a victory for all time, and they certainly didn’t win the war. It may not have even been a strategic victory, although it could become one if the greens don’t make adjustments soon.

A few months ago that I wrote here on EA comments. At the time, I made an analogy between two U.S. football teams with disparate levels of talent. I stated my concerns that if the greens did not adjust their strategy/tactics, that unless they were somehow able to keep bringing more people with higher determination, then the regime would start winning. On Ashura, the greens managed to “win” when, owing to an incredible series of gelling events, they did manage to get a massive amount of people onto the street who kept up an incredible amount of passion. However, without changing strategy, this meant that to win again on 22 Bahman they had to bring an even greater amount of people and an even higher amount of passion, since the regime would have even more time to keep learning how to combat them effectively. That proved to be a bit too much to ask.

At this early hour, it appears to me that one adjustment that the regime made was to turn the crowds – once the cover for the greens – against the greens. By perfecting plans to rigidly control the entire central area, and stripping the Greens of anything that would distinguish them, they created great confusion amongst the opposition crowds. There are many reports coming in to us now about how the people that did make it close to the Azadi area could not unify or assert themselves because they were completely unsure who were opposition supporters, who were regime supporters, and who were undercover thugs. Clearly, the regime also has begun to perfect tactics designed to exploit the green movement’s weaknesses and minimize their strength. As can be seen, if the greens merely make their maps and plans available ahead of time, and there are no contingencies, then the regime will employ their control of communications and the essentially “leaderless” nature of the green movement to ensure that the greens cannot change tactics “on the fly” (in the middle of the day.)

So, at any rate, I truly hope, as you say, that “the planning will be moving beyond the tactic of trying to ‘hijack’ the regime's highlight days.”

Two more thoughts on issues you bring up:

1) I thought pointing out that the opposition only has to win once so long as Ahmadinejad is considered illegitimate was brilliant. I’d like to illustrate it with yet another sporting analogy  Let’s say that Ahmadinejad was the current World Boxing Champion. Let us furthermore say that the World Boxing Championship had a rule that stated that the champion’s title could be held for up to four years without a defense. If Ahmadinejad were a legitimate champion, and was universally regarded as such, he could simply hold onto his title for 4 years without having to defend it against a challenger. However, because such a high percentage of people believe that he cheated to get into his position, and because they keep up the pressure, he keeps being forced to box a new challenger every few weeks. If any of these challengers win, then he will lose his title. Therefore, he does remain in a precarious state. However, the challengers still have to keep in shape, sometimes having to go through brutal and painful workouts, to have a chance of winning one of these fights against a champion who has lots of advantages.

2) Yes, the regime did “win ugly”, but it is important to remember they always have “ugly” on their side. It needs to be taken into account. There is no reason, to my knowledge, that its impossible for them to win ugly over and over again for a sizeable chunk of time. I’m reminded of this famous scene in Raiders of The Lost Ark: The regime has the guns, and the advantages that brings. If the regime want to fight unfair every time, and they don’t mind “winning ugly”, then the greens need to come up with a strategy to deal with that. Simply running up to the regime the same expected way each time, will create the same result every time. Perhaps the first time you can take the gunman by surprise and he can’t get his pistol out. However, unless you confuse him, the next time he will ready to shoot. Perhaps the third time he’ll bring a bazooka. It’s only up to his morality to determine whether he wants to employ these tactics, and as we’ve seen so many times, this regime has little morality. The greens really need to rethink about their advantages and how to maximize them.

3) CNN has done quite a good job today; perhaps they are finally trying to make up for #CNNfail. They’ve been playing many videos, including several sent to YouTube and individuals, in addition to the state television ones. Ivan Watson has been very good at the Iran Desk, and has offered nuanced and cogent explanations for events. He’s even been on Twitter asking greens who he should follow to get the best information. CNN has not glossed over the fact that the greens did not have a great day, nor the fact that the regime still has control. However, they did use an impressive collection of amateur videos to show how the greens did try to show up, and to illustrate how the regime prevents the greens from gathering (via beatings and other tactics.) Since we tend to give CNN a lot of criticism, I do feel like we should give credit when they deserve it.


February 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKevin Scott

Thank you Scott for a wonderfully written, astute analysis.

February 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSusan

[...] PDRTJS_settings_487714_post_6282 = { "id" : "487714", "unique_id" : "wp-post-6282", "title" : "Dangerous+Ideas+%26amp%3B+Perilous+People", "item_id" : "_post_6282", "permalink" : "" } Iran on 22 Bahman: Ahmadinejad “Wins Ugly” (This Time) [...]

February 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterDangerous Ideas & Perilous

In college we had a saying, "Go Ugly Early" Ahmadinejad and his crew done that today.

February 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBasher

Great comments everyone. Don't forget in addition to dealing with the Green movement, the government has to deal with its own internal fractures, failing economy, unpaid workers etc.

February 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterFoxButters

Thank you very much for your excellent coverage and analysis of this day (and beyond)! We can only again and again remember: this is not a 100m sprint but a marathon, one day will not bring the decision. I think with all the statements in advance of 22 Bahman and the protesters in the street despite all repression, the Greens have proven that they are very much alive and are keeping the confrontation up.
The losers of 22 Bahman are in fact the Western media who again fall into the "nuclear trap" and focus on AN's bombastic statements rather than putting them into the context of his struggle for legitimacy (as you have done so brilliantly). However, read this interesting op-ed in the NYT to see that views on the longterm significance of the Green movement are evolving... ( I don't know if you already posted the link somewhere)

February 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMac

In political arena it does not matter whether a political statement is correct or not; what matters is how masses percieve that statement. It is quite possible that Green people outnumbered the government supporters but this was not perceived by the public opinion inside and outside Iran. This certainly could be attributed to tactical error on the part of Green movement, nonetheless is going to have a negativ impact. I would not be surprised if the icons of the Green movement would not be arrested next few days or a new wave of executions is not initiated. On the other hand, this experienced could be considered as a turning point for the Green movement. It seems that demonstrations and public acitivities only on specific days, as it has been the case in the past 8 months, comes to an end. Green movement must look for alternative means of social disobedience such as strike.

February 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterHooshang

Just want to add one little addendum to what I wrote above...

It's actually an authentic strategy to "win ugly". And it can work. Let's say me and my 6th grade buddies are stealing lunch money from 3rd graders. We can decide that if the 3rd graders try to stop us from taking their money, we are just going to beat them up. They might become more angry at us for that, but if they become angry enough to confront us, we'll just beat them up again.

Now, we aren't going to get any legitimacy out of this. Almost nobody is going to think we "deserve" the lunch money and side with us. Nor will many think the money really belongs to us. But we might think we can just "run out the clock" till we graduate, and continue to have the lunch money till then. It's a valid strategy. Who says that this is not what Ahmadinejad is doing? Who says that his primary motivation is a desire to appear authentically legitimate to the majority of the population?

Now if my family is close friends with the school principal, and that will cause the principal to likely "look the other way" from what we are doing as long as possible (or even tacitly endorse it), there is even more reason to believe our strategy might work...

February 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKevin Scott

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>