|
|
|
May 04, 2006
Once proud people, ruled by a malevolent clown
While I hate to resort to personal ridicule of a serious person, I have this theory that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a serious man. We've all read his ridiculous remarks, so I won't bore readers by regurgitating them. But the more I look at his pictures, the more ridiculous he appears. Here's just a sampling:                     A shame really, because Iranians are not ridiculous people. They have a long, proud, and serious history. Rather than clutter up the blog with a list going of monarchs going back hundreds of years before Christ, here's a list of the "modern" shahs of Iran (since 1502): Safavid dynasty, 1502–1736The Shia Islamic staters are hanging on, but in terms of Iranian history, they're a small blip. Not only are they an aberration in Iranian history, they're also an aberration in Shia history. One of the big myths that's been promulgated since Khomeini is that Shia Islam is radical, while Wahhabist Islam (the Saudi variety) is moderate. Historically, this is not true. One of the splits between Shia and Sunni Islam is the belief by the former that the Koran can be interpreted. In my view, the Shah of Iran was another post-Watergate casualty, and I think it's a shame. There's more and more talk about restoring the Peacock Throne (the Shah's son, Reza Pahlavi, lives near DC). Interesting discussion here. He's willing to return as a constitutional monarch, but not if he is installed by an American military coup, even though he warns time is running out because of nuclear developments. Although these reports should be accorded skepticism there's also an interesting discussion here, which reveals a deep historical distrust of the United States. It's a Catch-22. Ironically, Iran's nuclear program is what strengthens the mullahs and stands squarely in the way of a resurgence in genuine Iranian nationalism. The West simply cannot sit by and tolerate a nuclear Iran, yet any military intervention will trigger reactive nationalism in the mullahs' favor. I wish the proud Iranians could laugh them out of power. posted by Eric on 05.04.06 at 10:02 PM
Comments
The Shah's problem was that he wanted a 'European' modernization of Iran instead of an 'Iranian' one. He cozied up too much to foreign businesses and neglected his subjects. The Ulama had been growing in political power for decades, and when he turned in the Islamic calendar for a Pagan one and proclaimed himself the "Shah of Shahs" (an unfortunate choice of titles since it seemed to fulfill prophecy warning against such a person) it helped the Shi'i nationalists rally the leftists with them to get rid of the Shah. Personally, I think the current political system in Iran isn't bad. They have universal suffrage and a good system of checks and balances. The Ayatollah and the Council of Experts haven't done much of anything in the last couple decades. And when finals are over next week I will have forgotten all of that. Adam · May 5, 2006 12:07 AM I was just going to post that Ahmadinejad looks like Balka from Perfect Strangers. However, I read Adam's post. Wow. I'm almost tempted to make a joke about how Adam's college must be, well, liberal (one reason I'm not making any such joke is that I can't see how to make it funny). A system that isn't that bad? A system of checks and balances? Homosexuals are tortured before death. The economy has languished or even given ground for over twenty years. The people have no fundamental rights, and while there may be, in theory, a system of checks and balances, all military and social issues are determined by the religious authority, while all business issues are determined by the people in charge of making the oil flow. Crony capitalism wedded to theocracy, hatred, violence and war-mongering. A reality for Iran; mere Democrat propaganda for America. Honestly, it is truly incredible that anyone could say anything positive of such a system. Jon Thompson · May 5, 2006 02:10 AM I've been wondering what happened to Yakof Smirnov. Alan Kellogg · May 5, 2006 02:54 AM Well, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I provided twenty pictures. According to my calculations, the above is the equivalent of a 20,000 word post! (And that's without triggering or escalation of Blogger Burnout symptoms.) Eric Scheie · May 5, 2006 08:39 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Holiday Blogging
• The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
3rd row from the top, middle picture.
Is he not doing "Blue Steel"? And I swear Zoolander patented that. Just add that to his list of provocations:
1. Want to wipe Israel off the map.
2. Trying to get nukes.
3. Blue Steel.