American guy writes about news and current events, with an emphasis on Iran. Topics include current events, politics, culture and history - among others. American guy lived in Teheran when he was a teenager. He attended Tehran American School while in Iran. The school closed in December of 1978. He enjoyed his experiences there very much, and remains active in TAS alumni activities. Witnessing the revolution first hand, had a profound effect on him. He still loves Iran.
Sunday, June 27
State Department Backs "Reformers" who don't Exist
State backs Iranian "reformers” who don't exist National Review - By Mohammad Parvin
June 24, 2004
Recently, the State Department has posted a 15-page document on its website under the title of "Voices Struggling to be Heard." This document has been presented as a "fact sheet," but much of it is more fiction than fact. Although it's a positive step on the part of the State Department to publish such a report in the first place, what is disappointing is that this publication is geared more towards promoting the so-called reformists in Iran than exposing human-rights violations by the Islamic regime.
State Department: "Today the courageous voices of the Iranian people are being stifled as they call for their rights, beliefs and needs to be respected. In response, the non-elected elements of the Iranian Government hierarchy are rebuffing these calls and attempting to extinguish the voices."
Fact: The State Department reference to "non-elected elements of the Iranian Government" implies that some elements of the government in Iran are elected. The State Department is wrong. There are no democratically elected elements in Iran. For example, President Mohammed Khatami, the darling of the U.S. and Europe, was among just four selected candidates by the Guardian Council after 234 candidates were eliminated. All the so-called reformists who were "elected" in the previous parliament were first selected by undergoing the same filtering process.
State Department: "In June 1997 and again in 2001, a decisive election victory ushered President Mohammed Khatami into office under the auspices of a reformist agenda. The realization of this reform movement has been actively stifled by hard-line elements within the government, most specifically by the un-elected Guardian Council, a board of clerical leaders and legal scholars. Reformist and dissident voices within the government and society have been repressed and harassed by government and quasi-government factions under the influence of the hard-line clerics."
Fact: The proclaimed "reform movement" by Khatami did not materialize because he never had the intention of changing the status quo. He used the hollow promise for reform to stabilize the shaky regime and to prevent the escalation of popular unrest. What the oppositionists (not the reformists) want is very different from what the reformists within the government want. The reformists realize that some changes must be made if the whole system is going to be preserved. What the freedom-loving people of Iran want is a fundamental overhaul of the system; they want a separation between religion and state.
State Department: "In a move to diminish pro-reformist reelection chances, the Guardian Council disqualified approximately one-third of the 8,200 submissions for candidacy, including those of more than 80 reformists currently holding Majlis seats, effectively limiting the democratic alternatives available to Iranian voters."
Fact: The Guardian Council follows the rules and laws written into the Islamic constitution. Contrary to the State Department's assumption, all these actions are very much within the law. Those who accept this constitution, including the reformists, have nothing to complain about. Where were they when the other candidates were eliminated in last "election"? These sham elections are not democratic because at best, they only allow regime loyalists to participate, thus eliminating any chance of a real democratic election for Iranians. Therefore, there is no democratic alternative available to Iranians.
State Department: "Students have mobilized to demand greater freedoms and to support reform efforts by the Khatami Government, the Majlis, and individuals willing to speak the truth."
Fact: The Iranian students no longer support reform efforts by Khatami and his government and have repeatedly rejected him. Slogans such as "shame on Khatami" and "Resign Khatami" have been favorite catchphrases in recent demonstrations. The Iranian students are struggling for a secular democratic regime that by its definition cannot include the clerical elements.
In sum, the State Department has used human rights as a tool to promote the reformist faction of the government in order to justify reestablishing relations with the Islamic regime. The so-called hardliners have also started making hollow gestures towards reform. And why shouldn't they? It works. It does not cost them anything and it makes them competitive with their reformist rivals. (The recent move of the hardliners on banning torture in Iran was well received by the entire world. Nobody noted, however, that the Islamic constitution allows torture under the name of tazir and that this has remained intact.)
We believe that the majority of Iranian people does not recognize the Islamic regime as its elected representative and is determined to change the regime of terror by civil disobedience and nonviolent action. If the Islamic regime claims otherwise, it should take up the challenge of a nationwide referendum monitored by the international human-rights community.
Let's hope that the State Department and other U.S. institutions will eventually show respect for the freedom movement in Iran by not legitimizing and promoting its enemy, the Islamic regime of Iran.
Mohammad Parvin is an adjunct professor at the California State University and director of the Mission for Establishing Human Rights in Iran.
The Iranian People Deserve the Free World's Support
The Iranian People Deserve the Free World's Support
By Owen Rathbone
June 27, 2003
Iran is back in the spotlight again following a recent series of student revolts and mass gatherings calling for greater freedoms and an end to Muslim clerics twenty-four year stranglehold on the Iranian people. According to observers and participants, the demonstrations and displays of defiance are the most intense in five years of sporadic protests.
Whereas earlier protests were mainly against the mullahs (the Iranian word for clerics), today "moderate" President Mohammad Khatami is also being denounced for failing to implement meaningful reforms. Although many Western leaders and commentators still pin their hopes on Khatami and the possibility of reform from within, most Iranians have accepted that true change is impossible without a radical transformation of the entire political system.
The desire for democracy is not restricted to students or fringe elements in Iranian society. Disenchanted people from all backgrounds and regions have taken to the streets over the past two weeks to demand an end to the Islamic Republic and the establishment of a secular government based on democratic principles. A Christian Science Monitor poll reveals that "90 percent of Iranians want change" and "70 percent want dramatic change."
Liberal pundits would have us believe that the increased displays of public defiance against the Iranian clerics and government are U.S.-orchestrated and part of a wider plot to destabilize Iran and increase American influence in the region. Such characterizations not only parrot the mullah's party line, but also do a great disservice to the Iranian people, who must endure great hardships on a daily basis.
In the late 1970s, Iran's per capita income stood roughly equivalent to Spain's, but since the time of the Islamic Revolution the country has experienced steady economic decline. Inflation sits at 20 percent, while unemployment has soared to 30 percent. Although Iran is rich with petroleum and natural gas, nearly 60 per cent of the population lives under the poverty line.
Far more disturbing than the dismal economic conditions in Iran is the political repression of the Iranian people. Up to 700,000 Iranians are imprisoned in secret jails, claim dissidents. Floggings, torture, mutilations, public hangings and executions are just a few of the means the conservative mullahs use to terrorize the populace.
In the past several weeks, pro-mullah vigilante paramilitary forces, many of them foreign thugs recruited from Afghanistan and other terrorist hotbeds, have scoured the country intimidating pro-democracy activists. Wielding chains, clubs, knives and guns, the vigilantes have attacked and threatened demonstrators in a brutal bid to quell dissent. According to human rights organizations, the vigilantes have even resorted to driving motorcycles into crowds to break up demonstrations and injure protesters.
In such a repressive political climate, freedom of the press is non-existent. Nearly 100 pro-reform journals and newspapers have been shut down since 1997, leaving the Internet and foreign radio and television broadcasts as the only means to spread democratic ideals. To the chagrin of the mullah authorities, hundreds of tech-savvy Iranians have become expert Internet bloggers, skilled at providing up-to-the-minute commentary on local developments and disseminating information from outside news sources. U.S.-based Iranian satellite TV shows have also become a favorite of viewers ranging from students to housewives.
As Iranians clamor for freedom it is worth noting the outside world's reactions.
The U.S. government, steadfast in its principles, has expressed strong support for the demonstrators. President George W. Bush recently went on record saying that he viewed Iranians' protests as the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran. U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice echoed the President sentiments in a June 20 Fox News interview, stating how important it is to recognize the rightness of the peoples cause and to let them know that there are those in the international community who care.
In contrast to the U.S.A's highly principled response, the United Nations (UN) has been noticeably reticent. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who should be expected to side with the Iranian people, has kept tight-lipped over the pro-democracy demonstrations. Rather than expressing any overt support for greater freedoms and improved human rights in Iran, Annan has only managed to say that "Any change in regime is a matter which only the Iranian people can decide," indirectly chiding the U.S. for rallying behind pro-democratic forces.
For good reason, Iranian political activists have lost complete faith in the UN. For more than two decades, Iranian civic groups have made repeated appeals to the UN's Human Rights Commission only to be rebuffed. In fact, to the great anger of the Iranian pro-democracy movement, Kofi Annan has actually praised President Khatami's accomplishments and the freedoms he has bestowed upon the Iranian population.
The flourishing democratic nations of Western Europe have similarly displayed a marked indifference to Iranians' pleas for democracy. While the U.S. maintains a near total ban on trade with Iran, the European Union (EU) profits handsomely from being Iran's largest trading partner, which means that European support for true reform has been tepid at best.
The EU, through representatives such as External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patton, maintains that engagement with Khatami's moderate government is the most effective means to induce positive changes in Iran. However, seeing that it is business as usual with Europe, the mullahs have unsurprisingly been reluctant to alter their oppressive ways. The bloody clampdowns on dissidents over the past two weeks only confirm that conservative hardliners have no intention of acquiescing to the public's demands for greater freedoms and reveal the EU position as a complete sham.
Russia is another interesting case. Eager to earn cash and curtail American power, the former communist nation has been working closely with Tehran to construct a nuclear plant in Bushehr. As Moscow stands to net some $1 billion dollars from the deal, it has remained aloof and refrained from commenting on Iranian politics. That Iran is using Russian experts and technology to establish a clandestine nuclear weapons program seems to be of little concern to Russia. For Putin and other Russian leaders, profits take precedence over justice and regional stability in the Middle East.
It is indeed a topsy-turvy world we live in. European leaders and UN representatives were quick to vilify the U.S. government for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, one of the greatest human rights violators of modern times. These same objectors to U.S. aggression in Iraq are now turning a blind eye to the Iranian people. As European and other supporters of the status quo donned a false cloak of anti-war morality to further their economic or political gain in Iraq, so do they profit from the misery of the Iranian people by supporting engagement and dialogue with the mullah theocracy in Iran.
Ironically, the country Ayatollah Khomeini once called "The Great Satan" is now seen as a beacon of hope by millions of Iranians. In view of Iranians' experiences with Europe and the UN, the United States is esteemed nationwide for its firm commitment to democratic ideals and reluctance to trade with a repressive regime. Formerly denounced for being evil, America is heralded as the only world power that supports the change Iranians desire.
Now that the Iranian people have taken their lives into their own hands and are striving to throw off the yoke of their Islamo-fascist oppressors, they deserve the free world's support. America, at least, has stood behind the Iranian people. It is high time other privileged nations and the UN did the same.
* Owen Rathbone is a political commentator based in Seoul, South Korea.
On the recent Spring Equinox, Iranians and Persophiles (is that a word?) everywhere celibrated "No Rooz" or Now Roos, or even...oh well, I guess it doesn't matter how you spell it. To me, spring seems like a much, much nicer time to celibrate the new year than the middle of winter does.
So what exactly is No Ruz? Where did it come from? (It's not Islamic)
Here is an excerpt from my favorite resource for learning about Persian culture."
"No Ruz, new day or New Year as the Iranians call it, is a celebration of spring Equinox. It is the most cherished of all the Iranian festivals and is celebrated by all. This occasion has been renowned in one form or another by all the major cultures of ancient Mesopotamia. Sumerians, 3000BC, Babylonians, the ancient kingdom of Elam in Southern Persia and Akaddians in the second millennium BC, all celebrated this festival. What we have today as No Ruz with its’ uniquely Iranian characteristics has been celebrated for at least 3000 years and is deeply rooted in the rituals and traditions of Zoroastrian belief system of the Sassanian period.
The familiar concepts of Hell, Heaven, Resurrection, coming of the Messiah, individual and last judgment were for the first time incorporated into Zoroastrian belief system. They still exist in Judo-Christian and Islamic traditions. In order to understand No Ruz we have to know about Zoroastrian cosmology. "
Sistani may have a point. But isn't this just a temporary step?
I certainly can see the logic in trying to encourage Iraq's new leadership to work together to gain consensus.
All of Iraq's ethnic groups have hungered for a greater say in government, for a very long time. What the nation is used to is one group grabbing power and using it to further it's own goals at the expense of others.
I'm not convinced that Ayatollah Sistani truly has the best wishes of ALL Iraqis at heart. He may very well be against the power sharing because he wants to see a Shiite president for a change.
ONE man put up a ladder and another climbed it to take off the nameplate of a Tehran street. Passersby report that the operation lasted a few minutes.
The street in question is a villa-lined boulevard in a once-fashionable part of the Iranian capital. One of the villas housed the Egyptian Embassy before the 1979 Khomeinist Revolution.
In October 1981, the street was renamed after Khaled Ahmad Showqi al-Islambouli, the army lieutenant who murdered Egypt's President Anwar Sadat. In 1992, President Muhammad Khatami, then minister of Islamic Guidance and Culture, inaugurated a giant mural portrait of al-Islambouli on a building facing the Egyptian Embassy.
One of Khomeini's first moves in 1979 was to break relations with Egypt as "punishment" for Sadat's decision to make peace with Israel. When Sadat was murdered in 1981, Khomeini was jubilant: "A true son of Islam has acted to rid us of the Apostate Pharaoh," he declared. He vowed that his regime would never restore ties with Egypt until the Egyptians renounced peace with Israel and joined a Muslim front to wipe it off the map.
So why have the mullahs decided to take the name of the Egyptian terrorist off the street? Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak insists that without the name change he will not go to Tehran for the annual summit of developing nations next month. That would be a major diplomatic snub to the mullahs, at a time when they are feeling the heat of U.S. pressure in the region.
Does the change signal a genuine shift in Iranian policy? The answer must be no.
Even as the workmen were taking down the controversial sign, a team of Khomeinist dignitaries was inaugurating a symbolic tomb for al-Islambouli in Tehran's Behesht Zahra cemetery, in the area reserved for the "hero-martyrs of Islam." The tomb is adorned by a large portrait of the assassin.
And the daily newspaper Jumhuri Islami (Islamic Republic), owned by the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei, has published an editorial implicitly calling for Mubarak's assassination. It says: "The great Egyptian people are fully capable of seizing the Islamic leadership over the Arab world. Naturally, Mubarak's revolting presence is an obstacle to that goal. But the followers of the martyr Khaled al-Islambouli know well how to remove this ugly cancer."
Meanwhile, Tehran's propaganda is trying to present the street name change as a climb-down by Egypt. The official media have invented a story according to which Egypt made the first move by taking the name of the last Shah of Iran off a street in Cairo. "When they took the cursed name of the Shah down, we decided to make a small gesture," says Ali Taskhiri, a cultural advisor to Khameini. In fact, no street in Cairo ever bore the name of any Iranian shah, and Egypt has made no concessions to the mullahs.
Also to hide the fact that they were eating humble pie, the mullahs have found a new name for the street: "Intifada Street." "The new name shows our commitment to the destruction of the Zionist state and the rejection of all peace deals with [Israel]," said a Foreign Ministry spokesman.
The tactic here is one the mullahs have practiced to perfection. It is based on the theological principle of Takiyah, which means hiding one's true beliefs to confuse adversaries. Its political version is known as Kitman (dissimulation).
The idea is to back out of an unequal contest with an adversary by giving him concessions that can easily be revoked later. Political discourse based on Kitman is capable of multiple, almost endless readings, re-readings and misreadings. This is why as Khatami is telling the Egyptians that Iran has made a major concession, Khamenei is telling the Iranians that it is, in fact, Egypt that is begging pardon from Iran.
Khomeini used the tactic in 1988 when he surprised everyone by accepting a ceasefire to end the eight-year war with Iraq. He presented his humiliating retreat as "the greatest victory of Islam in centuries."
The mullahs used the same tactic in 1998 over the Rushdie affair. While Khatami was promising the Europeans that the murder fatwa against the British novelist would not be executed, other mullahs were raising the bounty offered to anyone who would kill Rushdie. "The fatwa is not annulled," Khatami explained, "Its implementation, however, is not government policy."
The Iranian propaganda declared "victory" by claiming that the Europeans had agreed to force Rushdie to leave Britain and settle in the United States.
Late last year, we saw Kitman in action once again, this time over their nuclear-weapons program: The Europeans were sent home dancing with jubilation over a promise made by Hassan Ruhani, a junior mullah who acts as secretary of the High Council of National Security, that Iran would suspend production of weapons-grade enriched uranium.
The promise is backed by nothing concrete as it has never been approved by the Cabinet, let alone the Majlis (Parliament). It could be canceled at any time. In exchange, the mullahs avoided a clash with the United Nations while demanding that the European Union provide them with extra financial and technological aid.
Will the Egyptians fall for the Kitman trick as have the Europeans and others on so many occasions? Perhaps not. The Egyptians are local boys and know many of the tricks in our neck of the wood.
Mubarak may end up going to Tehran, and this writer believes that he should, but Egypt should insist on three points before full ties are restored:
* Acknowledgment of Egypt's right to make peace with Israel, thus ending the Khomeinists' attempts to seize control of a major part of Egyptian foreign policy.
* Closing down the offices and training bases, in Iran, of terrorist groups dedicated to the destruction of the Egyptian state.
* Handing over for trial in Egypt a number of Egyptian terrorists, including dozens who fled from Afghanistan to Iran after the fall of the Taliban in Kabul.
Iran is at the crossroads with what could be a decisive general election only weeks away. (Of course, Iran's "democracy" is itself a form of dissimulation; the recent mass disqualification of candidates is only one sign of that.) Many in Iran believe that it is time to abandon a strategy based on lying and cheating in the name of Takiyah and Kitman, and that a serious review of Iranian foreign policy is long overdue.
By taking a firm and principled stance now, Egypt could help those in Tehran who want a genuine end to two decades of subversive diplomacy by the Khomeinist regime.
'Muslim Eye for the American Guy,' premiering this fall, aims to improve US image abroad. Makeover to include everything except a substantive change in American foreign policy.
Each member of the cast of 'Muslim Eye' has his own unique skill. From left, Jarfouz, the Arabic language specialist; Mohammad, the Islamic fashion guru; Hassam, the militant fundamentalist; Muhammed, the media analyst; and Hiram, the foreign policy wonk.
Mecca--Meet Hassam, Jarfouz, Mohammad, Hiram and Muhammed, the cast of the makeover show that is sweeping the nation and promises to improve the image of the United States in the eyes of Muslims around the world.
It's called "Muslim Eye for the American Guy" and it is the first of many spin-offs planned for the popular "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" series featured on Bravo.
"Muslim Eye" was born out of the growing anti-Americanism in Middle Eastern and Muslim nations resulting from their sneaking suspicion that we are trying to kill them. According to a recent report released by a panel of experts chosen by the Bush administration, good will towards America has plummeted in the past year, from Jordan to Indonesia.
The report, "Changing Minds, Winning Peace", found that 61 percent of Indonesians say the US is the Great Satan and 99 percent of Jordanians have a picture of Bush over the bullseye on their dart boards.
State Department official Jonathan Sperling gets a crash course in rocket launching from Hassam, the militant Islamic fundamentalist Muslim guy, as part of the Muslimization process.
"Anyone want to bet on which way public opinion is leaning on the Arab street in Iraq, Gaza and Saudi Arabia?" Hiram, the foreign policy expert, asked rhetorically. "But that's OK, we're here to help."
Further complicating the situation is neoconservative Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. He came up with the idea to make minor cosmetic changes to the US propaganda effort as a way to avoid any serious reevaluation of American foreign policy.
"The bottom line is we gotta have that oil. It's a strategic necessity and if any interruption occurs in the flow of oil to the homeland our our whole way of life will come crashing down like a tomahawk missle on an Iraqi camel herder," he said, using exactly the kind of language that made the makeover necessary. "So what we're trying to do here is put a happy face on our American brand of imperialism. This is all about packaging."
And the "packaging" is where the Muslim guys come in.
Mohammad, not to be confused with Muhammed, will lead the way by advising US government officials on how to dress when visiting foreign countries or infiltrating terrorist cells.
Secretary of State Colin Powell puts some of his new found Arabic language skills to good use with some one-liners to lighten the mood at a recent meeting with Saudi government officials.
"I hate to say it but you might as well just burn everything in your closet along with your American flag because none of it's going to fly here in Tehran," he warned with head cocked and hands on his hips, the way Muslims often do. "Oh my god, is this a velour tank top?!"
Jarfouz, the Arabic language teacher got busy feeding US diplomats key phrases to use in casual conversation with Muslim arabs.
"Unlike your selective use of Spanish to order mas cerveza at a Mexican restaurant or to find the bathroom, your Arabic will have to be a little more in depth," he instructed. "In a few short hours I'm going to teach you everything you'll need to speak fluently about jihad, Shari`ah law and sand."
Hiram noted that it won't matter how well American diplomats speak Arabic as long as the anti-Muslim, George W. Bush, is in office.
"Seriously, the Bush Doctrine? Going to war with Iraq when they didn't have any weapons or ties to al Qaeda? The terrorists are lining up to kill Americans soldiers in Iraq right now and no amount of spin or 'public diplomacy' will help," Hiram revealed. "I'm sorry, we are absolutely fabulous at what we do but the United States isn't Helen Keller and we damn sure aren't miracle workers."
Eduard Shevardnadze bowed to popular will on Sunday and stepped down from office. His resignation was the culmination of almost daily protests that followed a disputed parliamentary election on November 2 that officially returned pro-government parties to power. ] - MORE
Will this give Iran's pro democracy faction the will to try the same thing? Very interesting times are ahead. With Iran's Majlis (Parliament) elections coming up in February, Georgia's revolution, and Israels plans for air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, who knows what will happen?
Earlier this month, supporters of Israel were outraged to learn that according to a poll conducted by the European Commission, 59 percent of Europeans regard the Jewish state as the single greatest threat to world peace.
This statistic has been loudly denounced as yet another example - as if more were needed - of Europe's chronic anti-Semitism.
And yet the Europeans aren't necessarily wrong about the threat to their security. In fact, nothing imperils world peace, such as it is, more than Israel's disinclination to be the target of Iranian nuclear weapons.
In the last few weeks, Israeli officials have made a series of declarations that they won't permit Iran to get its hands on atomic weapons. These statements should be taken with extreme seriousness, because they echo similar warnings on the eve of Israel's decisive 1981 air strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor.
This attack - although not Saddam Hussein's virtually unopposed effort to get his hands on nukes - was denounced by the entire world. But the following day, an unrepentant Menachem Begin held a news conference in Jerusalem. The Israeli prime minister announced that Israel would not sit back idly while its enemies developed tools of extermination. Although he didn't use the term, he was essentially promulgating a policy of regional pre-emption.
Not all Israelis agreed with this policy. Indeed, many senior Israeli leaders had opposed the attack itself. Some generals thought it was operationally impossible. Diplomats were concerned that it would inspire a horrific international response.
Begin listened to the naysayers, weighed his own understanding of the responsibilities, post-Auschwitz, of an Israeli prime minister and went ahead. He wouldn't have done it without the strong support of his minister of defense, Ariel Sharon.
Fast-forward 22 years. Sharon, now prime minister himself, again faces the prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical Islamic enemy, Iran. And suddenly the Begin Doctrine - dormant for a generation - is back on full display.] - MORE
I've been prediciting this. Now it looks more and more likely to occur. How will Iranians respond? I don't mean the government, but the people of Iran. With the recent events in Georgia, I wonder if it might spark an uprising against the clerical regime???
The Unnoticed Alignment: Iran and the United States in Iraq
On Monday President khatami made an historic annoucement. It hardly made a blip on the radar screen.
From the major American think tank - Stratfor
"Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has quietly announced his
recognition of the Iraqi Governing Council and acceptance of the
U.S. timeline on the transfer of power in Iraq. The announcement
speaks to a partnership that will direct the future course of
Iraq. The alliance is of direct short-term benefit to both
countries: The United States gains a partner to help combat Sunni
insurgents, and Iran will be able to mitigate the long-standing
threat on its western border. What is most notable is that,
though there has been no secrecy involved, the partnership has
emerged completely below the global media's radar. " - The Stratfor weekly (newsletter)
He said specifically, "We recognize the Iraqi
Governing Council and we believe it is capable, with the Iraqi
people, of managing the affairs of the country and taking
measures leading toward independence."
The mind of a 6-year old is wonderful. First grade...true story: One day the first grade teacher was reading the story of the Three Little Pigs to her class. She came to the part of the story where the first pig was trying to accumulate the building materials for his home.
She read: "...And so the pig went up to the man with the wheelbarrow full of straw
and said 'Pardon me sir, but may I have some of that straw to build my house?'" The teacher paused...
...then asked the class, "And what do you think the man said?"
One little boy raised his hand and said:
"I think he said, HOLY SHIT? A TALKING PIG!!!"
The teacher was unable to teach for the next 10 MINUTES.
...A bold prediction, I know. It's just a hunch I have. We'll have to wait and see how he holds up, but I have a feeling. For some reason it just sounds right to me. Try saying it: "President Clark"...see how it just rolls off the tongue? I haven't been impressed with GW Bush so far, and since us Californians are such "trend setters", I doubt GW Bush will get re-elected. So much can happen in a year's time.
At this point, the terrorists probably have the most influence on who will be our next president, as anyone. What they fail to realise though, is their tactics are more likely to get them the opposite of what they want.
["A year ago in Tehran, I noticed a defiantly goofy graffito inscribed on the wall of the old U.S. embassy building, the compound where the American hostages were held in 1979: ON THE DAY THE U.S. WILL PRAISE US, WE WILL MOURN. This was an official slogan — in Iran, as in America, graffiti are the work of miscreants, but in Iran the miscreants run the country — and it was an unintentionally revealing one: the mullahs are terrified of better relations with the U.S. Without the Great Satan, they have no excuse for, and no way to divert attention from, the dreadful brutality of their rule. A wicked thought occurred to me at the time, and recurred last week, as the Bush Administration continued its foolish refusal to meet with the North Koreans: Why not do the one thing that would most discomfort, and perhaps even destabilize, the precarious regimes of the Ayatollah Khamenei, Kim Jong Il and — for that matter — Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi? Why not just say, "We hereby grant you diplomatic recognition, whether you like it or not. We're naming an ambassador. We're lifting the embargo. We're going to let our companies sell you all sorts of cool American things like Big Macs and Hummers. This doesn't mean we approve of the way you run your country, but it's silly for us to deny that you're in charge ... for now"?
Diplomacy is rarely so rash. And yet, "It would certainly catch the mullahs by surprise," says Azar Nafisi, an Iranian dissident who is a fellow at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "It would drive them crazy," she adds, laughing, "the thought of having an American embassy in Tehran again, with lines of people around the block, trying to get green cards. There is a theory that American cultural and economic power is so insidiously attractive that opening up to the U.S. would be the death of these regimes. I've heard it called the Fatal Hug."]
I think it sounds like a marvelous idea! Read the rest here.
By carries more weight I would think that means that their word is more believable or that it has more effect. I'm a little surprised that Russia is so close to the US. So am I to believe that Japan is not believable at all and Britains word is like gold? And why is Russia so well respected? Well, at least I'm glad to see that Iranians aren't paying too much attention to the French. Either am I. If you can enlighten me, at all, I'd appreciate it. ;-)
Batebi kidnapped and held by Iran's Judiciary Intelligence service
From SMCCDI: daneshjoo.org
SMCCDI News
Maverick kidnapped student held by Judiciary's Intelligence
SMCCDI (Information Service)
Nov 13, 2003
Latest reports on the kidnapping of Ahmad Batebi are stating that the maverick student, pictured on the cover of the London Economist, is being held by the Intelligence Unit of the regime's Judiciary force.
The infamous Judge Mortazavi, known as the "Butcher of Press" and involved in the murder of the Iranian-Canadian Journalist Ziba (Zahra) Kazemi, is the responsible for Batebi's abduction and capitivity.
Batebi's kidnapping follows the meeting he had with the visiting UN Rights envoy. He had used his vacation time, from prison, in order to see Ambeyi Ligabo and to give him informations on the fate of his comrades held in the Islamic regime's prisons.
He was initially arrested in the aftermath of the bloody crackdown on July 9th 1999 Student Uprising and tortured by the security apparatus. Condemened to death, his life was saved by a wave of international protests and intervention of NGO's groups as well as, Mr. Xavier De Villepin, the head of the French Senate's Foreign Affair committee, alarmed following the publication of Ahmad's public letter by SMCCDI.
Batebi's sentence was reduced to 15 years of imprisonment for the "crime" of having raised the BLOODED T-Shirt of a killed student in quest of Justice. He was charged as "Having raised the RED colored flag of rebellion" by the Islamic judges.
In his shocking letter, translated and available on the "Fax and Documents" of the Movement's website and mass e.mailed, Batebi was describing his harsh treatement by the regime's Judiciary and Intelligence forces.
The letter can be seen at: http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_88.shtml
The mind of a 6-year old is wonderful. First grade...true story: One day the first grade teacher was reading the story of the 
(
