June has been a slow month for my blog. There is not much out there which has provoked me of late. The death of Michael Jackson has completely taken over the air waves, even though there is never anything new to report. The media, which was totally consumed by Iran for a few days, has now found a new bone to chew on. It's all quite boring.
So I thought it might be timely to go back over a couple of my earlier postings and topics and bring them up to date.
I'll start with my favourite topic - President Obama. I have written quite a lot about him. On March 22, for example, I complained about his need to always be in our faces - perhaps a professor's never ending obsession with publicity (hence my blog??). This provoked a lot of angry comments, although I suspect most of them came from one commentator under a series of juvenile, made up names. Well, the President has not lost his interest in controlling the media and the messages. He even jokes about the reporters being in bed with him, openly mocking the journalists, who apparently have no clue about their roles as members of the fourth estate. The President has now decided that the fawning media is not fawning enough, so he has taken to planting a reporter in his press conference, so that he can be asked the appropriate question. This has not gone over well with the mainstream media suitors, whose own affections have been spurned. Even the Obamaniac, Bill Maher, has been critical of Obama's need for constant attention. Then there is the ethics concern over the appointment of Tom Brokaw to the President's Commission On White House Fellowships coming shortly after he participated in what has been describes as an "in the tank" interview with President Obama.
In my posting of February 18, I commented on the fact that there was a disconnect between Obama's personal popularity and approval for his policies. I wondered how long the disconnect between Obama the personality and Obama the policy maker would go on. Well it appears that this disconnect still continues; although Obama's personal approval rating is beginning to fall.
In my posting of May 6, I wished Poor Arlen Specter good luck with his new found faith in the Democratic Party. Well, it looks like he is going to need it. Poll results show that only 28% of registered voters in Pennsylvania think Specter should be re-elected. It looks like the issue of his seniority might become moot.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Iran - What Now?
In my previous two postings on the topic of Iran, I made two general points. The first ("Iranians Give Their Answer") was that Iranians had overwhelmingly re-elected Ahmadinejad as President, despite his virulently anti-Semitic, anti-West, anti-U.S., Holocaust denying, terrorist supporting rhetoric and actions. I recognized that there were allegations of electoral irregularities, but no clear evidence of massive voter fraud which would account for 11,000,000 or so votes. I also referred to pre-election American conducted polling which predicted the result. The second posting ("Who is Hossein Mousavi?) looked at the "reformist" Hossein Mousavi and his history. The suggestion there was that his policies and views are not that much different than those of Ahmadinejad.
A few days have past. There have been massive protests in Iran, accompanied by violence, a media clamp down, and general ugliness. The election of Ahmadinejad has been confirmed by Iranian authorities. A fair question can be asked of me - have my views changed?
The answer is "no". As for the election, we still have not seen any definitive evidence that Mousavi actually won. The fact that there are millions of people in Iran and in the West who wanted Mousavi to win, and Mousavi supporters who are prepared to risk their lives on the streets of Iran to make their point, does not make the case for a rigged election. At any event, the point is now surely moot as the election results have been confirmed by Iranian authorities and nothing anyone in the West does will change that fact.
As far as what Mousavi himself stands for, again there is no change in my position. He clearly wanted to win, thinks he won, and is apparently prepared to become a "martyr" for his own cause. His history of anti-West, anti-US, anti-Israel views and his previous willingness to crush dissent is a matter of record.
As for criticism of Obama for not doing more, I have to say here I am with Obama. Despite the views of some of my critics who falsely claim that I have a "nervous twitch" when it comes to Obama and disagree with every one of his policies, as with some of his other decisions, I agree with his position. There is nothing useful or helpful he can do about "regime change" in Iran, and getting involved by supporting Mousavi and the protesters, will unify the Iranian people against the US. Of course, he should condemn the violence and the deprivation of human rights, as he has in fact done. But in terms of influencing the outcome of the election by his words or deeds, or supporting one group of Ayatollahs against another - no. The best thing that the USA can do, is to stay out of what seems to be an internal power struggle.
A few days have past. There have been massive protests in Iran, accompanied by violence, a media clamp down, and general ugliness. The election of Ahmadinejad has been confirmed by Iranian authorities. A fair question can be asked of me - have my views changed?
The answer is "no". As for the election, we still have not seen any definitive evidence that Mousavi actually won. The fact that there are millions of people in Iran and in the West who wanted Mousavi to win, and Mousavi supporters who are prepared to risk their lives on the streets of Iran to make their point, does not make the case for a rigged election. At any event, the point is now surely moot as the election results have been confirmed by Iranian authorities and nothing anyone in the West does will change that fact.
As far as what Mousavi himself stands for, again there is no change in my position. He clearly wanted to win, thinks he won, and is apparently prepared to become a "martyr" for his own cause. His history of anti-West, anti-US, anti-Israel views and his previous willingness to crush dissent is a matter of record.
As for criticism of Obama for not doing more, I have to say here I am with Obama. Despite the views of some of my critics who falsely claim that I have a "nervous twitch" when it comes to Obama and disagree with every one of his policies, as with some of his other decisions, I agree with his position. There is nothing useful or helpful he can do about "regime change" in Iran, and getting involved by supporting Mousavi and the protesters, will unify the Iranian people against the US. Of course, he should condemn the violence and the deprivation of human rights, as he has in fact done. But in terms of influencing the outcome of the election by his words or deeds, or supporting one group of Ayatollahs against another - no. The best thing that the USA can do, is to stay out of what seems to be an internal power struggle.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Who Is Hossein Mousavi?
Lost somewhere in the great debate over the validity of the results of the Iranian election, at least in most of the main stream media, is the question: "Who is Hossein Mousavi and what are his policies?".
I decided to try to find out. It seems relatively clear that at least from the perspective of about 20-30 odd years ago, Mousavi was a hard line radical. Pierre Tristam in "Profile: Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Iran's Radical Turned Reformist" notes that when Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran between 1981-1989, he was "a hard liner" and "firm radical". He defended the taking and holding of American hostages, supported the creation of Hezbollah, opposed ending the Iran-Iraq war, and supported the nuclear-enrichment program. As far as his attitudes to the State of Israel are concerned, The Blog in the Weekly Standard citing a Reuters report in 1988 has the following choice quotes from Mousavi: "Israel should be annihilated", and was "a cancerous tumour". The Blog also asserts that in 1989 Mousavi said that Rushdie was "a tool of the Zionists", "who should be killed".
Of course, as you may rightly point out, that was then and now is now. Perhaps the hardliner has mellowed and no longer holds to those views? He did, for example, harshly criticize his opponent Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust, but his problem with the denial seemed to be more a public relations one, as it isolated Iran and affected its international standing. Mousavi does admit that "some people were killed there, some Jews were killed there", which I guess is sort of a step in the right direction. Although I do not believe that Ahmadinejad himself ever denied that anyone was killed in the Holocaust; he just wants to "study" it. As far as Israel is concerned, the current Mousavi does not recognize it. In an interview with Der Spiegel, he is in favour of one state, decided by a "poll of all Palestinians", although Jews living in the region can also vote. We all can guess as to the result - bye, bye Jewish state. This however is also the sometimes expressed view of Ahmadinejad, so again no big change there.
Even President Obama concedes that "the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised".
Perhaps some of you may have more insights into the policies of the reform candidate Hossein Mousavi which you would like to share? One warning, however - politicians, being politicians, do not always carry through with their rhetoric.
I decided to try to find out. It seems relatively clear that at least from the perspective of about 20-30 odd years ago, Mousavi was a hard line radical. Pierre Tristam in "Profile: Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Iran's Radical Turned Reformist" notes that when Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran between 1981-1989, he was "a hard liner" and "firm radical". He defended the taking and holding of American hostages, supported the creation of Hezbollah, opposed ending the Iran-Iraq war, and supported the nuclear-enrichment program. As far as his attitudes to the State of Israel are concerned, The Blog in the Weekly Standard citing a Reuters report in 1988 has the following choice quotes from Mousavi: "Israel should be annihilated", and was "a cancerous tumour". The Blog also asserts that in 1989 Mousavi said that Rushdie was "a tool of the Zionists", "who should be killed".
Of course, as you may rightly point out, that was then and now is now. Perhaps the hardliner has mellowed and no longer holds to those views? He did, for example, harshly criticize his opponent Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust, but his problem with the denial seemed to be more a public relations one, as it isolated Iran and affected its international standing. Mousavi does admit that "some people were killed there, some Jews were killed there", which I guess is sort of a step in the right direction. Although I do not believe that Ahmadinejad himself ever denied that anyone was killed in the Holocaust; he just wants to "study" it. As far as Israel is concerned, the current Mousavi does not recognize it. In an interview with Der Spiegel, he is in favour of one state, decided by a "poll of all Palestinians", although Jews living in the region can also vote. We all can guess as to the result - bye, bye Jewish state. This however is also the sometimes expressed view of Ahmadinejad, so again no big change there.
Even President Obama concedes that "the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised".
Perhaps some of you may have more insights into the policies of the reform candidate Hossein Mousavi which you would like to share? One warning, however - politicians, being politicians, do not always carry through with their rhetoric.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The Iranians Give Their Answer
On March 19, 2009, President Obama spoke directly to the people of Iran. He spoke of the "common humanity that binds us together" and of the "promise of a new day". He told the Iranian people that "you too have a choice".
The Iranians have given their answer to President Obama and have made their choice. They have overwhelmingly voted to continue their support of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over reformist candidate Hossein Moussavi. Yes, I know that there are many who are questioning the results and the fairness of the election. There probably were irregularities. But there would have had to be massive fraud to overturn results which showed that Ahmadinejad out polled his rival by nearly two to one, gaining approx. 63% of the vote. Assuming that the vote is more or less representative of the feelings of Iranians and meets Secretary of State Clinton's "hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people", what is their will and desire"?
Ahmadinejad is a vicious anti-Semite, anti-American, anti-Westerner, Holocaust denier, nuclear program developer, supporter of terrorism and terrorist states, and downright crazy nutbar. Unlike Hillary, I for one hope that the outcome does NOT reflect "the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people", because if it does, there is big trouble ahead. When, (NOT if), Israel goes after Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did with Iraq's and Syria's, I will remember this election choice made by the Iranian people. President Obama probably is beginning to learn that "sweet talk" and disparaging comments over his predecessors' foreign policies will not get the USA very far. Obama has offered his hand of friendship. What he got in return was a clenched fist. Act One is over. Now let's see what Act Two brings.
The Iranians have given their answer to President Obama and have made their choice. They have overwhelmingly voted to continue their support of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over reformist candidate Hossein Moussavi. Yes, I know that there are many who are questioning the results and the fairness of the election. There probably were irregularities. But there would have had to be massive fraud to overturn results which showed that Ahmadinejad out polled his rival by nearly two to one, gaining approx. 63% of the vote. Assuming that the vote is more or less representative of the feelings of Iranians and meets Secretary of State Clinton's "hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people", what is their will and desire"?
Ahmadinejad is a vicious anti-Semite, anti-American, anti-Westerner, Holocaust denier, nuclear program developer, supporter of terrorism and terrorist states, and downright crazy nutbar. Unlike Hillary, I for one hope that the outcome does NOT reflect "the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people", because if it does, there is big trouble ahead. When, (NOT if), Israel goes after Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did with Iraq's and Syria's, I will remember this election choice made by the Iranian people. President Obama probably is beginning to learn that "sweet talk" and disparaging comments over his predecessors' foreign policies will not get the USA very far. Obama has offered his hand of friendship. What he got in return was a clenched fist. Act One is over. Now let's see what Act Two brings.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Top Ten Reasons To Tune Out David Letterman
As some of you might have noticed, I have taken a bit of a break from the blogosphere.
It took the creep David Letterman and his pathetic fans to get me back to my blog. You are all probably aware of Letterman's disgusting joke about Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter getting "knocked up" by Alex Rodriguez during the 7th inning stretch at Yankee stadium. Letterman defends himself by saying he was not actually talking about the Palin's 14 year old daughter, but her 18 year old daughter. Big difference. First, it was the 14 year old daughter who was actually at the game, so Letterman is not only a sexist pig, but an idiot to boot. Second, the 4 year old age difference between the two daughters is neither here nor there. A joke about young girls getting "knocked up" by adult baseball players is not funny.
What I found even more upsetting about the incident was not only David Letterman's pathetic seven minute apology but the mocking, sneering, sexist laughter of his studio audience. Listen to it yourself. Not only were all the jokes repeated, to the great amusement of the audience, but Letterman continued his mocking of the Palin family, to the mob's apparent delight.
Now I am going to make a bit of a leap. I bet that not many of that hooting crowd would see themselves as "conservatives", or were supporters of Sarah Palin. No - they're too good for that. Sexist, vulgar and ignorant wisecracks are fine - fun and games - as long as they are directed at the "right" targets for these enlightened folks.
The whole thing made me sick. I didn't crack a smile.
The top ten reasons for tuning out David Letterman are all the same. David Letterman and his obnoxious followers.
It took the creep David Letterman and his pathetic fans to get me back to my blog. You are all probably aware of Letterman's disgusting joke about Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter getting "knocked up" by Alex Rodriguez during the 7th inning stretch at Yankee stadium. Letterman defends himself by saying he was not actually talking about the Palin's 14 year old daughter, but her 18 year old daughter. Big difference. First, it was the 14 year old daughter who was actually at the game, so Letterman is not only a sexist pig, but an idiot to boot. Second, the 4 year old age difference between the two daughters is neither here nor there. A joke about young girls getting "knocked up" by adult baseball players is not funny.
What I found even more upsetting about the incident was not only David Letterman's pathetic seven minute apology but the mocking, sneering, sexist laughter of his studio audience. Listen to it yourself. Not only were all the jokes repeated, to the great amusement of the audience, but Letterman continued his mocking of the Palin family, to the mob's apparent delight.
Now I am going to make a bit of a leap. I bet that not many of that hooting crowd would see themselves as "conservatives", or were supporters of Sarah Palin. No - they're too good for that. Sexist, vulgar and ignorant wisecracks are fine - fun and games - as long as they are directed at the "right" targets for these enlightened folks.
The whole thing made me sick. I didn't crack a smile.
The top ten reasons for tuning out David Letterman are all the same. David Letterman and his obnoxious followers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
