 | carldavidson on Forget Bob Dylan, remember Bob… |
| carldavidson on Roberto’s question: So w… |
 | here on Occupy’s tear in the fab… |
 | Maju on Roberto’s question: So w… |
| Maju on Roberto’s question: So w… |
 | Suprava Mondal on What is a Bandh in South … |
 | Dave on Forget Bob Dylan, remember Bob… |
 | eric ribellarsi on Urgent… today…. NO… |
 | PatrickSMcNally on Roberto’s question: So w… |
 | Red Fly on Urgent… today…. NO… |
| carldavidson on Roberto’s question: So w… |
| Red Fly on Roberto’s question: So w… |
| carldavidson on Roberto’s question: So w… |
 | People2thePower on Roberto’s question: So w… |
| Red Fly on Roberto’s question: So w… |
Posted by Mike E on June 21, 2009
Adrienne writes that this video shows a young woman shot down by the Basij killer, Saturday June 20. (Warning, it’s explicit.)
Iranian killed by death squads (warning here too):
Iranian killed by death squad, kasamaproject.org
Adrienne said
Thanks for posting the video, Mike.
I received that yesterday from an Iranian (American) friend. I see it’s now featured in a lot of the blogs talking about Iran. Since yesterday a little more info about the young woman has come out. She was 24 years old and her name was Neda. (which means “call” or “proclamation” in Farsi — people are making a big deal out of that fact.)
Here is some more info about her death which was reported on Andrew Sullivan’s blog:
poetwarrior said
Who could have guessed that Andrew Sullivan, a “Conservative Catholic” who never met a US invasion he didn’t like, would be cheering the demonstrators in Iran?
Adrienne said
Yeah, you can go ahead and shoot the messenger poetwarrior, along with all of the Iranians massing in the streets, but often the message will still remain. I don’t think that all those people in those photos are agents of the CIA and the US government, or even bloggers like Sullivan.
I think they’re ordinary Iranians rising up in protest.
gangbox said
You know, I could post autopsy pics of dead fascists or kluxers, and it would look just as horrifying and disturbing as that pic above.
But it still doesn’t prove that this is a movement we should support – just that the guy in the pic was the victim of what forensic medical folks call a “wrongful death”.
Not to mention the fact that if the defeated presidential candidate that this guy died supporting, Moussavi, was elected, he would kill lots of Iranians – the slow, non dramatic way, through food price increases, cuts to welfare benefits, closing of public hospitals.
And their autopsy pics (if they even HAD an autopsy – because post mortem medical examination is a privilege of those who die under medical care) would be way less dramatic, and their death certificates (if they even got them)would say “natural death” – because, under capitalism, starvation and disease are the silent and legal ways the capitalists kill the poor.
So no, shock pics are NOT going to get me to jump on the “Free Iran” bandwagon.
land said
Not a difficult image from Nepal.
Did people see the almost half page picture in the New York Times June 20 page A4. A picture of the Nepalese with torches in the background. Also I suspect there were more than hundreds.
Was entitled Maoists March in Nepal.
Hundreds of Maoists marched with torches in Katmandu on Friday in a protest of the Nepalese cabinet’s formal revocation of a firing. The Maoists leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, resigned last month after President Ram Baran Yadav prevented him from firing the army chief, Gen. Rookmangud Katawal.
very exciting picture.
Mike E said
Land: can you give us the URL?
Tell No Lies said
For those who (rightly) find the above images infuriating, here is what the Iranian people in the streets are doing with their anger:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml
The last part is the best.
Miles Ahead said
While this video was extremely difficult (and heartbreaking) to witness, it is also so upsetting, if you will, to read the most recent post on K., because it’s for real but necessary–i.e.,
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/interview-revolutionary-lives-in-theocratic-iran/
“Interview: Revolutionary Lives in Theocratic Iran”
But for me, it is becoming even more difficult to read some of the comments coming from those who are contending that if the changing events in Iran (changing on an hourly basis) isn’t a struggle against imperialism (outright, and mainly U.S.), or making the Ahmedinjad/Islamic Republic clerical forces out to be anti-imperialist, or that these demonstrations and battles simply consist of a bunch of “rich kids”, ad nauseum, and that some of those commentators can’t (in good conscience support the Iranian people) because the politics of this earthshaking event are not in lockstep with their own narrow view of the world and its people, for me, this is what is becoming almost unbearable to slog through…and these comments almost belittle the tragic murder of Neda and the others.
I am well aware that one of the great things about Kasama is, it provides a platform and forum for debate, for exchange of political ideas that may not coincide with your own, etc.—to “dig deeper”, et al. IMO what adds to this particular “discussion” is ferreting out the different real analyses of some designs by the imperialists, an understanding of all classes involved, or a more thoughtful (and historical) analysis of the class forces and revolutionary struggle in Iran itself.
But personally I gotta draw the line somewhere. The Iranian people are not waiting for the likes of the defeatists and dogmatists commenting on K. to give their nod of approval. In the face of growing repression and outright murder, they are still marching in the streets—albeit with a myriad of politics in play, encompassing all the complexities in a place like Iran.
I sound like a broken record, but I think what is reflected in some of the actually more conservative, defeatist, dot every “i” and cross every “t” comments, is a lack of understanding about just how revolution, or a revolutionary situation unfolds; and if not an outright revolutionary situation, the development of a mass movement, consisting of many anti-government forces; how struggle for something immediate, in this case the Iranian elections (candidates hand-picked by the I.R. Council BTW) can suddenly become much more encompassing.
This is unfolding before our “revolutionary” eyes, and instead of planting the red flag (and I will add internationalist flag), as Redflags said in another comment on another post , IMO some of the arguments herein are circular, and to me lead only to cynicism. (On the other hand, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, as revolutionary communists we don’t need some rose-colored glasses, voluntarist summation either.)
To quote Redflags, who I agree with::
(http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/a-question-over-iran-serve-the-people-or-not/#comments “A Question Over Iran…” Comments 5 & 9)
I watched Christiane Amanpour last night—actually going against some of the superficial rhetoric coming from a priss-pot news-caster on CNN International. First this newscaster was asking, “Isn’t this the first time in 20 years that people have been calling for the death of the Islamic “Republic” and its leader, Khameini?,” to which Amanpour said—“Excuse me, this is unprecedented…It didn’t happen 20 years ago!” etc. In other words, we are constantly being bombarded with false “facts.”
But more than that, the bourgeois press has now started to call these humongeous demonstrations “student demonstrations” (or unrest)—and this to me is not much better than those characterizing the demos/marches as a bunch of “rich kids letting off steam.”
As far as students go, and even if the Iranian students (who are not some monolithic class bloc, but in fact like most students in various countries, including the U.S. – are made up of youth from different class backgrounds), here’s what I said on another post/comment (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/u-s-no-champion-of-free-flow-of-information/#comments Nº 18, “Free Flow of Information…”)
We are righteously outraged at the police killing of Oscar Grant – Oscar Grant one of thousands of victims at the hands of the U.S. State and its police. And while a “movement” for Justice for Oscar Grant (and against police murder and brutality) is extremely important, and not to devalue either the life of Oscar Grant or the forces that seek “justice” from his murder, that movement is a far cry from some anti-imperialist, revolutionary upheaval or even bourgeois democratic revolution that has (and is) mobilized millions.
Yet Gangbox, who I assume supports any outcry, exposure or outrage at the murder of the Oscar Grants of this world, after seeing this video can say:
Where are people’s allegiances? And to strictly lump this monumental battle and movement in Iran under the sign-board of some “ ‘Free Iran’ bandwagon,” totally boggles my mind.
redflags said
Imagine a world where all I had to do was disagree with Andrew Sullivan to know what we thought… Where there were only two positions, and it was all so simple as the strange coincidence that our ruling parties were the singular, unique force of evil in the world?
I mean, is thinking really that hard?
Has it also occurred to the strange bedfellows of the Islamic Republic that 1) there is no “United Front” that you’re a part of, and 2) the Islamic Republic murdered the entire organized left. They make plain what they are about, yet your logic doesn’t have room for reality.
Liberation forces in Iran are going to rise from the fight against the Islamic Republic, not from its bearded goon squads, which are very much like the mobs chanting USA! USA! over here…
Proletarian internationalism, not this anti-imperialism of fools… The world is bigger than America. Learn this basic fact, deal with its implications. Our revolutionary duty isn’t some bonkers Oedipal rage against Daddy Yankee that ends us up supporting a murderous, capitalist theocracy.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Who could have guessed that Andrew Sullivan, a “Conservative Catholic” who never met a US invasion he didn’t like, would be cheering the demonstrators in Iran?
Andrew Sullivan has also written several eloquent articles against torture, has mocked Sarah Palin’s religious fundamentalism, and he probably believes that 2 plus 2 equals four, the earth goes around the sun, and that human beings evolved from lower forms of life via the process of natural selection.
I suppose now I’m going to have to update all of my beliefs on these issues as well.
You know, I could post autopsy pics of dead fascists or kluxers, and it would look just as horrifying and disturbing as that pic above.
And it would be horrifying and disturbing because a dead Klansman or Fascist is no longer a Fascist or a Klansman, just another dead human being. George Orwell describes his own feelings towards captured fascists in Homage to Catalonia.
These deserters
were the first ‘real’ Fascists I had ever seen. It struck me that they were
indistinguishable from ourselves, except that they wore khaki overalls. They
were always ravenously hungry when they arrived–natural enough after a day or
two of dodging about in no man’s land, but it was always triumphantly pointed to
as a proof that the Fascist troops were starving. I watched one of them being
fed in a peasant’s house. It was somehow rather a pitiful sight. A tall boy of
twenty, deeply windburnt, with his clothes in rags, crouched over the fire
shovelling a pannikinful of stew into himself at desperate speed; and all the
while his eyes flitted nervously round the ring of militiamen who stood watching
him. I think he still half-believed that we were bloodthirsty ‘Reds’ and were
going to shoot him as soon as he had finished his meal; the armed man who
guarded him kept stroking his shoulder and making reassuring noises.
I suppose the POUM member trying to reassure the pitiful fascist is just another class collaborator.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
To follow up on the point about Sullivan. I’m supposed to take his status as a neoconservative warmonger into account as I think about my position on the protesters in Tehran. Andrew Sullivan is bad. He likes the protesters. Therefore the protesters must be bad.
ON THE OTHER HAND, if I point out that Juan Cole and Robert Fisk have both written in support of the protesters and of the idea that the election was stolen, well then, I’m also supposed to believe that these two bitter critics of Israel and deeply knowledable experts on the Middle East and on Islam are just two more Zionist stooges who can be dimissed without further ado.
redflags said
Sure, pictures of casualties tell us very little about the war. On the other hand, pictures of bearded theocratic enforcers beating down people in the streets tells us quite alot. While there is genuine diversity in any popular uprising, the stooges of the Islamic Republic are the Iranian equivalent of our Ann Coulter hordes. I mean, the “anti-imperialis” fellow travelers of the Ayatollahs do know this right?
…to strictly lump this monumental battle and movement in Iran under the sign-board of some “ ‘Free Iran’ bandwagon,” totally boggles my mind.
It would confuse less if you realized that for many, allegiance is akin to choosing what TV station to watch. Like one? Stay a while. Get bored? Change the channel. And the less these “partisans” have invested in any given situation, the more intent they are on “supporting” it. I wonder how many WWP members would themselves drive tanks over liberal students. Actually, let’s not ask that question.
The best example, of course, is rich Western lovers of the Dalai Lama. Easy to love the Gucci Pope of Dharamsala when it’s just another cultural signifier to put on and take off like a scarf. Who cares if he owned slaves and worked actively with the likes of Bush and Sarkozy? The man TALKS about peace. Same with Iran. They TALK against Israel, while actively collaborating and using the US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan to their own ends, which have nothing to do with liberation.
Are we going to be bigger than what they tell us to choose, or much, much smaller?
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Sure, pictures of casualties tell us very little about the war. On the other hand, pictures of bearded theocratic enforcers beating down people in the streets tells us quite alot.
And in some more subtle ways, things like the fact that very large protests are taking up one lane of the street and allowing traffic to pass on the other lane indicate that they’re peaceful protests, not attempts to bring down the government.
poetwarrior said
Hmmm, let’s see: Hugo Chavez comes out in favor of Ahmadnijad while Andrew Sullivan cheers the protestors. What’s RIGHT with this picture? Cole and Fisk are bourgeois liberal critics of Israel, no better nor worse than Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkhun so their support of the Iranian opposition doesn’t surprise me.
Want the straight dope on Iran? Read the English edition of Ha’aretz from Jerusalem—the Israelis can’t contain their glee.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
There’s so much “argument from authority” here it’s hard to keep track of it all.
First of all, Hugo Chavez, unlike Fisk or Juan Cole isn’t an expert on the Middle East. Fisk is an investigative journalist, and a very good one, so I doubt he’d let his politics color his position on the Iranian election. Same with Juan Cole. Why would he risk looking like a fool and damage his reputation by going off half cocked in support of the Israeli position on Iran? It makes no sense.
And Chavez endorsed Ahmadinejad before the electionm, which means he’s essentially just one politician endorsing another politician who happens to be his friend, which of course he has every right to do, but which also shouldn’t necessarily be looked at any differently from John Kerry endorsing Barack Obama. Politicians do this all the time.
But anyway, a lot of this seems to be getting down to the feeling that if Ahmadinejad goes, the support for Hezbollah goes. Well, it might. But then again, if Hezbollah and Hamas are so dependent on Iranian support that they’d both fall without it, they’re not organic expressions of the Palestnian people anyway, just a relatively large country warping a tiny, impoverished refugee society desperate for any aid at all.
But here’s what I don’t think anybody’s quite addressed yet.
In America, candidates from any party not supportive of corporate capitalism get screened out. You can vote for anybody, as long as he’s within the narrow consensus dictated by big capital. Obama is in. Dennic Kucinich is out.
IN IRAN, you have something similar. The candidates are screened by the theocracy. You can vote for candidates acceptable to the theocracy, but nobody outside the theocratic consensus. And here’s the important point.
The mullahs approved of the candidacy of both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. That means the mullahs consider both economic populism and neoliberalism inside their consenus. They’re willing to entertain both. That means if a crackdown comes, you could get BOTH theocracy and neoliberalism.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Just to add a useless hypothetical to all the argument from authority, imagine this.
Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee run on an economic populist (and theocratic) platform in 2012. Obama runs as a secular, neoliberal centrist. Palin/Huckabee definitely have the support of the working class and Obama still has the support of the urban, educated elites. The election is close, as close as Bush vs. Gore.
Who would you support?
Probably neither, right? But, to add useless hypothetical to useless hypothetical, the Supreme Court declares the Palin/Huckabee ticket the winner and Obama’s supporters take to the streets.
Who would you support?
Once again, probably neither. But, to add useless hypothetical to useless hypothetical to useless hypothetical, what if it’s revealed that for the past few years Palin and Huckabee have been organizing a paramilitary, Christian brownshirt organization. And they start beating up Obama’s supporters in the streets. Most of them are working class, and, in our hypothetical situation, Palin/Huckabee have been running economically to the left of Obama.
Who would you support then?
redflags said
The cartoon logic that upholds a capitalist theocracy in the name of anti-imperialism is utterly confused about what “imperialism” is. Hint: it’s not colonialism.
Imperialism is an economic arrangement, and the bureaucrat-capitalist, semi-feudal arrangements in Iran work quite well (all and all) in the international order. Controlling Iran and the Easter Mediterranean are the twin pillars in global domination. Iran bucked the old colonial arrangement by a turn to the reactionary right.
Nobody here is arguing to support US imperialism, and the issue is how to actually defeat these oppressive systems – not choose among them, not identify with reactionary authoritarians because they don’t get on well with the Americans. Fine with the Russians and Chinese. Because “imperialism” isn’t genetic to Anglo-America. Or do you not understand the world you live in?
The argument that democratic rights and popular agency are “tools” in the service of Zionism seems a little flattering to Israel and friends, and to be frank: moronic.
poetwarrior said
Yeah, I guess Hugo Chavez is just too dumb to understand the Middle East, not being an “investigative reporter” so why not let this whole Iran quagmire rest in the hands of the experts? For the record, Chavez supported Ahmadinejehad before and AFTER the election: “A Venezuelan foreign ministry statement, “in the name of the people,” hailed the “extraordinary democratic development” that resulted in Ahmadinejad’s victory.
“The Bolivarian government of Venezuela expresses its firm rejection of the ferocious and unfounded campaign to discredit, from abroad, that has been unleashed against Iran, with the objective of muddying the political climate of this brother country,” said the statement issued June 16. “We demand the immediate end to maneuvers to intimidate and destabilize the Islamic Revolution.””
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Yeah, I guess Hugo Chavez is just too dumb to understand the Middle East, not being an “investigative reporter”
Well, I’d have to agree with that dead white slaveholder Thomas Jefferson on this one. If I had to choose between a government without a free press and a free press without a government, I’d choose the latter.
For the record, Chavez supported Ahmadinejehad before and AFTER the election:
That was kind of my point. He endorsed Ahmadinejehad before the election. So barring anything that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt Ahmadinejehad won, he’s not going to want to go back on his endorsement. He’s a politician, not an objective observer.
FWIW, Fisk has a new article on the election where he concludes Ahmadinejehad might have squeaked by.
www independent co uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fiskrsquos-world-in-tehran-fantasy-and-reality-make-uneasy-bedfellows-1710762.html
This is also my suspicion: that Ahmadinejad might have scraped in, but not with the huge majority he was awarded. For with their usual, clumsy, autocratic behaviour, the clerics behind the Islamic Republic may have decreed that only a greater majority for the winner could decisively annihilate the reputation of its secular opponents. Perhaps Ahmadinejad got 51 per cent or 52 per cent and this was preposterously increased to 63 per cent. Perhaps Mousavi picked up 44 per cent or 45 per cent. I don’t know. The Iranians will never know, even though the Supreme Leader told us yesterday that the incredible 63 per cent was credible. That is Iran’s tragedy.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
The argument that democratic rights and popular agency are “tools” in the service of Zionism seems a little flattering to Israel and friends, and to be frank: moronic.
Does Iran give money and arms to the Palestinians because it supports their liberation, or because it (Iran) is acting as a regional power player and using the Palestinians as objects in their struggle with the United States and Israel.
After all, didn’t Saddam send money to the Palestinians? Didn’t Saudi Arabia send money to the Palestinians? Is either “anti-imperialist”?
Mike E said
Moderator note: I want to encourage people to drop any snarky notes of disrespect.
gangbox said
The New York Times is a mouthpiece of the liberal wing of the dominant section of the capitalist class of this country – they make much of their “objectivity” but at the end of the day, that’s who they represent, and that is the audience their reporters write for.
Considering the very high salaries the Times pays it’s writers (STARTING SALARIES for new hires there are over $ 100,000 a year – and most of the celebrity reporters there, like Friedman, Rich ect – are millionaires) their writers not only think like the ruling class, some of them are actually junior members of it!
So when the New York Times supports a “revolution” in a Third World country, that’s a good hint that the “revolution” is not quite as “revolutionary” as it might seem.
Considering that the leader of this “revolution” – Moussavi – is one of the filthiest butchers of the Khomeini era – the architect of the massacre of 30,000 communist political prisoners on the eve of the Iran Iraq War ceaasefire in August 1988, and in more recent times is an advocate of privatization, austerity and sharp cuts in welfare benefits for the Iranian poor, and who wants to dismantle Iran’s military defenses against US imperialism, this is also evidence that this “revolution” is only “revolutionary” for that high income demographic of Iranians who have twitter accounts and wish to see better relations with America because that would make it easier for them to visit their rich relatives in Los Angeles and take classes at UCLA, Colombia or Harvard.
Colonel Hugo Chavez Frias’ endorsement of Ahmadinejad is also useful evidence here – we have one populist Third World leader who’s been a target of US imperialist meddling (including rich kids picketing in the street against him) making common cause with another.
I have lots of disagreements with Col Chavez – his anti abortion policies being but one example – but I do stand with him in his opposition to US imperialism.
And if Col Chavez stands with Ahmadinejad…… it’s really not that hard a call to make!
With the New York Times on one side – and Hugo Chavez on the other, is it even a choice at all?
Tell No Lies said
Gangbox,
Indeed its a very easy call to make if you just take your cues from others. It gets dicier when you actually have to think it through yourself. Hugo Chavez can be wrong sometimes. This is one of those times. I have no illusions about Mousavi. My solidarity is with the Iranian people rebelling against a repressive theocratic regime who I imagine will dispense with Mousavi when they need to. Within the fundamentally rigged Iranian electoral system that provided the only available space for political dissent Mousavi became a vehicle for a whole tangle of undoubtedly contradictory grievances and aspirations. Many people in the streets now are carrying pictures not of Mousavi, but of Mossadegh which I think is quite significant.
Times Reality said
That’s great Greg. My friends who work for the times are going to be THRILLED now that you’ve doubled their pay!
Your average NYC plumber makes more than a Times reporter. So do many waiters. They also totally rely on freelancers and short-contract workers.
What you don’t know is a lot. I bet you don’t even mind.
Entitlement + Ignorance = Typical American BS
gangbox said
Times Reality,
Be that as it may, (and I admit I was going by Newspaper Guild data from a few years back – apparently Times starting salaries have gone down a bit in the digital age – but $ 1,023 a week for a web developer right out of college is nothing to sneeze at in New York City these days – and, starting reporters on the print side make $ 1,742/wk – or $ 90,574) it is still correct that the superstar Times reporters – boldface names like Sorkin, Rich, Friedman, Kristoff and the left’s favorite Krugman – are making high six figure base salaries, and are all millionaires.
That was my main point – and it’s still valid.
I don’t have any friends that work for the Times – but I do have a lot of friends who work construction, having been a union carpenter for 17 years.
We make a high hourly wage – but, unless your a foreman or have a relative who’s a contractor, you spend a lot of time out of work in our business, between getting laid off at the end of a job, or getting laid off because the boss doesn’t like you, or getting laid off because you’re a shop steward who takes his unionism very seriously (that happens to me quite a bit) or simply because you get sent on a lot of one and two day jobs.
So, if you only work 500 or 600 hours a year, even at $ 43/hr, that only works out to $ 25,000 a year – and these days, there are a LOT of tradespeople who are lucky to get 500 hours a year.
By contrast, according to the most recent figures I got from the Newspaper Guild’s website moments ago – the lowest paid of your Timesman/Timeswoman friends makes $ 53,196 a year ($ 90,574 if they work on the print side of the Times).
Not much compared to Tom Friedman.
But way more than a Local # 1 union plumber who made $ 51.36/hr but who only worked 500 hours this year ($ 25,680) – and the print folks make a whole lot more than a plumber who works 1,000 hours ($ 51,360)
Now, if that plumber worked for a maintenance shop, he/she only makes $ 30.40/hr – even at a full 2,000 hour year, that’s only $ 60,000 a year.
And let’s not even talk about the majority of New York City plumbers who are non union – some of whom make as little as $ 7 an hour.
And, for everyone’s edification, I’ve reprinted the Newspaper Guild wage scale for the New York Times, from the salary database at http://www.newsguild.org the Guild’s official website (note, these are starting salaries – most Times reporters make more than this, even with the recent 5% pay cut):
The Newspaper Guild-CWA
The Newspaper Guild-CWA holds contracts with over 250 newspapers and news organizations in the U.S. and Canada. The Following weekly scales are based on a 37.5 hour work week except where noted. Scales are in U.S. dollars or, in Canada, Canadian dollars. Numbers to the right of the scales are the years of experience required to reach the top. The top minimum is the minimum an employee can be paid in each position. All contracts provide for over-scale above the minimums to reward merit and expertise.
New York Times top minimum in 2009
News Organization: Eff. Date: Scale: Exp: Notes:
Web Developer/Webmaster 2009-03-31 $1023.31 3
News Assistant 2009-03-31 $1170.23 3
Adtaker 2009-03-31 $1509.39 4
Librarian 2009-03-31 $1509.39 4
Copy Editor 2009-03-31 $1742.97 1
Reporter/Photographer 2009-03-31 $1742.97 2
Editors 2009-03-31 $1917.2 0.5
________________________________________________________________________________
Footnotes: 1: 40 hour week
2: Plus commissions and bonuses
3: Plus premiums and differentials 4: Commission only
5: Canadian dollars
6: Expired contract
Miles Ahead said
From today’s AP/TIME: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599190604900;_ylt=Ar8_jP2ONN3C8YW_azZHzF.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJoZ25zdWVzBGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAwOTA2MjIvMDg1OTkxOTA2MDQ5MDAEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM4BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA25lZGFzbGFpbmlyYQ–
“In Iran, One Woman’s Death may have Many Consequences”
land said
To Moderator:
How does one do the URL?
Thanks
Mike E said
Land:
You can do several things. But the easiest is to copy the URL and past it into your comment.
The other possibility is to insert the HTML code for links, making some text clickable.
But it would be fine if you just paste the URL into your comment (the system will make it automatically clickable).