There has been entirely too much disrespectful photoshopping going on in the blogosphere, and I must confess, I have in the past been a part of this out-of-control phenomenon. I even went so far as to photoshop Glenn Reynolds into a picture of Benito Mussolini -- a distasteful outburst aggravated further by my tasteless repetition of it.

In linking this post from The Hatemonger's Quarterly, kind-hearted Glenn was magnanimous enough to allow that photoshopping him into a bikini was "traditional." Now that worries me, as the word "traditional" always does. (Honestly, I'd hate to think that I might have had a hand in carrying tradition too far.)

There must be some way to atone for such excesses of tradition, so now I'm wondering... Can photoshopping be used for good? For the virtuous and the positive, instead of for the sleazy and the negative?

I don't know, but photoshopping often involves changing what people wear into something else, I was reminded of an earlier conversation with Justin, about the unfortunate fact that Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad never wears a necktie, and instead prefers the tacky 1970s leisure suit look.

The blogosphere's fashion mogul Manolo has commented on the atrocious nature of Ahmadinejad's attire:

...the same khaki windbreaker, wrinkled trousers, cheap oxford shirts, scruffy beard and wild eyes favored by the aging high school chemistry teachers everywhere.

Q1370: What is the view on wearing a necktie?

A: Generally speaking, it is not permissible to wear a tie, or other kinds of clothes that are considered as the attire of non-Muslims, in such a way that their wearing will promote vile Western culture. The ruling is not confined to people of the Islamic Republic.

I really hadn't known about the necktie rules, but the mullahs' desire to control Iranians is by no means limited to what goes around a man's neck. Amer Taheri takes a hard look at what none dare call "Iranian fashionism":

Religious minorities would have their own colour schemes. They will also have to wear special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faiths. Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes while Christians will be assigned the colour red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the colour of their zonnar. It is not clear what will happen to followers of other religions, including Hindus, Bahais and Buddhists, not to mention plain agnostics and atheists, whose very existence is denied by the Islamic Republic.

The new law imposes a total ban on wearing neckties and bow-ties which are regarded as "symbols of the Cross." Will Iranian Christians be allowed to wear them, nevertheless? No one knows.

The law also mandates the government to wage a campaign against "expensive attire" without defining it. Some mullahs, for example, wear robes made of pure hand-woven silk that costs several thousands dollars. Nor is it clear whether or not the kind of blouson (long shirt) that Ahmadinejad often wears would be deemed Islamic. (Shops in Tehran are selling the so-called "presidential" blouson for US$3 apiece.)

One aim of the new law is to impose a total ban on imports of clothes and dress designs from the West. The Majlis hopes that all jeans will disappear from the Iranian scene within five years. The boutiques selling haute couture Western gear for men and women will also be closed over the next few years. A total ban on designer items, marked by logos, will come into force by the end of the year.

While I'm sure logic has nothing to do with this, how is it that the necktie could possibly be considered either "un-Islamic," or "Christian," or part of any religion? There was no such article of clothing in Biblical times or when the Koran was written; according to Wikipedia the necktie dates back to the mid 1600s.

An inside source reports that for Ahmadinejad, wearing a necktie would be "unthinkable":

I asked a very savvy Iranian source about it, and here is his fascinating analysis:

This issue goes back to the immediate aftermath of the 1979 Revolution. Before the revolution, all public figures in Iran and all officials wore ties, both domestically and when on visits abroad. Shortly after the revolution however, the tie itself began being associated with "Western imperialism", especially after Ayatollah Khomeini branded a large group of intellectuals (who were less religiously zealous than he would have liked) as "tie-wearing cronies of the West" and essentially branded anyone wearing a tie as being Western influenced. As such, no Iranian official since that time wears a tie, whether in Iran or when on official trips abroad. In fact, for many years after the revolution, the site of a regular person wearing a tie in Iran was so rare that heads would turn on the street and funny comments would be made if someone wore a tie outside. Many people still wore them to parties and weddings and things, but it was very "taboo" during the 1980s.

Gradually, as Khomeini's legacy became a bit less overbearing, regular people stopped caring and the rhetorical plays on people who wear ties as "imperialist cronies" were no longer made, meaning that at least ordinary people now wore ties on a regular basis. I myself for example, always wore tie at work in Tehran, as did many of my colleagues. I would actually make a point of wearing a tie outside as much as possible, to do my bit in making sure that people got used to seeing other people in ties.

On the official side however, wearing a tie is still a no-no and it would be unthinkable for Ahmadinejad, who claims to be one of the "true disciples of Khomeini" to sport a neck-tie under any circumstances.

Mahmoun Ahmadinejad has a pretty sweet hipster style. It all starts with a beard not unlike the one I and many of my twentysomething male friends sport. But it goes deeper. The man went without a tie to address the UN General Assembly.

Doesn't this deliberate flouting of necktie protocols beg the question who's really being Western?

I'm reminded of the recent blogger luncheon with Clinton. While the latter wore a necktie, many of his invitees did not. What might ordinary Iranians -- the man in the Tehran street -- think? That young hip Americans take their fashion cues from Iranian leaders and not American leaders? Is this a good thing?

Considering the genuine danger posed by Iran and Ahmadinejad, I realize that some people might think it's frivolous to focus on what the man wears. But there have been innumerable reactions to the many facets of Ahmadinejad, and considering this blog's penchant for exploring cultural factors, I feel a certain responsibility. Besides, Glenn Reynolds' Ahmadinejad roundup last week included not only the above post from Daniel Drezner, but a fascinating idea from Matoko Kusanagi -- that Ahmadinejad may be suffering from "Short Man Syndrome." (A term said here to define "a short man who is very angry and hostile because he is short and vents his hostility on others.")

By any standard, Ahmadinejad is short (MSNBC says he's 5'4" and the Guardian supposedly measured him at 5'2"). He certainly exhibits many of the Short Man Syndrome features, and he may well be the shortest tyrant in the world today...

But wait! Depending on which news sources are the most credible, Ahmadinejad might be a full two inches taller than Kim Jong Il -- who according to CNN is "only 5 feet 2 inches tall but wears 4-inch lifts in his shoes." If anyone suffers from SMS, it would be Kim Jong Il.

So maybe there's something to this. But Kim and Mahmoud are only two examples, and while we all know about Napoleon, I think the latter might be too distant in time to be be a reliable barometer of short modern tyrants.

What about Stalin? To this day, historians disagree about his height, but that's largely because his coverup machine touched up most of the pictures:

Though Stalin was indeed touchy about his appearance, especially his pockmarked face and shriveled left arm, he was most vain about his height. Perhaps the subtlest touch in nearly all these falsified images is the rendering of Stalin, who was a tad under 5 feet 4 inches, as the tallest man in any group shot.

But isn't something being overlooked? Take another look at the three tiny villains -- Stalin, Kim, Ahmadinejad.

Not one of them wears a necktie! Ever!

Coincidence? I think not. While I think the short stature might have played an important part in the rise to power of these men, history is loaded with tall tyrants (from Goliath on down to the 6'4" Osama bin Laden), and short heroes (from David, I suppose, down to the 5'5" Audie Murphy) and I don't think examples are needed. For every short villain, there's probably a tall hero, and vice versa.

But let's stick with the necktie, and my original goal of positive photoshopping. Lest anyone doubt my contention, consider what would happen if tomorrow, President Ahmadinejad decided to put on a necktie.

I don't think it is understatement to say that this would trigger immediate worldwide attention, and unprecedented speculation. Considering the cultural factors, the world eruption might possibly trigger an Iranian uprising. Maybe a coup. Is it too much to suggest it might even lead to world peace?

I don't know, but it is in the interest of peace that I photoshopped the following:

[Seriously, if that isn't respectful photoshopping, then what is?]

As to the man on the left, I can't be sure why he isn't wearing a tie. Maybe he took his off, and gave it to President Ahmadinejad in the interest of improved cultural ties.

Whatever the case, it seems like a laudable, maybe even non-partisan effort.

Maybe we should all send a tie to Ahmadinejad.

UPDATE (10/01/06): Thank you Glenn Reynolds, for linking this post, and welcome all!

I'm not sure whether this is evidence that the necktie is more powerful (or, for that matter, more traditional) than a bikini, and while I'm always hesitant to make sweeping judgments about these things, I think that in historical terms, "bikini blast" is at least as memorable as "necktie party."