Of course, I'd have thought that voting for Ahmadinejad would be unthinkable in America at any time.)

The last 8 years would be absolutely unbelievable to most people from our past (not most of the founding fathers or Mark Twain or Heinlein)
Imagine telling Harry Joe 1950er that a political party would run on losing a war and raising taxes.
And win.

I'm not calling it the Funniest End of Civilization Ever (with recently added caps!) for nutting.

There's so much that's both funny and endy.

True Democracy is possibly the worst form of government possible. The Founding Fathers were educated men who knew well the catastrophe that was Athenian Democracy. That is why they created a Republic with severe limitations on government powers.

The most famous Greek Democracy blooper was the Sicilian Expedition – when they voted to lose a war. Alcibiades talked a majority into mounting an invasion force against Syracuse in order to build an empire. Once the fleet set sail, the minority who opposed the invasion became the majority. So they tried Alcibiades in absentia and recalled him to Athens to be executed (an invitation he declined by fleeing to Rome). Without its leader, the invasion turned into a complete disaster – the entire fleet destroyed, the entire army of 9,000 hoplites killed or captured. Athens never really recovered from the loss – but nobody was disenfranchised.

What's the big deal? US citizens in foreign countries can vote absentee, in both primary and general elections, and in fact the Democrats had an "expat primary" (which Obama won, IIRC). No one here would accept that any other country has the right to prevent US citizens from exercising their rights under US law; so why should we claim a right to prevent citizens of other countries from exercising their rights under their own countries' laws? It's not like any country has any right to interfere with citizenship status in any other countries.

And besides, how do we know all those Iranians are voting for Ahmanutjob?

And if they're voting in Iranian elections, hopefully that means they'll accept the result as legit, whether or not their guy wins.

Bram: I sotrongly suspect you're getting the history alll wrong. For starters, did "Rome" even exist in Alcibades' time? I don't remember Thucidides mentioning that name.

Also, based on what I read, Alcibades was tried for insubordination or some other specific crime against Athens. If he really wanted to win one for Athens, then he bloody well should have "put Athens first," and not done anything to cause his city to question his loyalty.

Besides, the whole Sicily campaign was a stupid idea for Athens in the first place. The mere fact that Alcibades could be put on trial, after leaving to fight it, shows how little public support his war had, and how weak Athens' committment to it was. Alcibades was a selfish little war-profiteer, swithcing sides to suit his own interests after getting Athens to commit resources to his cause. That ain't right. Athens didn't "vote to lose a war;" they merely wised up and recognized that Alcibades wasn't winning it for them.

Right, I just had a look at your source, which was an article in Pajamas Media that had absolutely no data on how Iranians in the US planned to vote. All this blowhard had to offer was this:

A fair number of these Iranians will be going into Southern California stations in such redoubts as the City of Commerce and Anaheim and exercising their franchise to reelect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Note the phrase: "A fair number," not an actual specific number. In other words, just another right-wing idiot blowing vaguely scary-sounding nonsense out of his ass.

Roger L. Simon is a great guy who helped me in the infancy of this blog when I was known to no one. He encouraged my writing over the years, both here and as a PJM writer.

RB, by calling Roger "another right-wing idiot blowing vaguely scary-sounding nonsense out of his ass," you discredit your argument and only invite similar characterizations of yourself.

(Also, I think Bram might have said Rome when he meant Sparta.)

This guy's your mentor? That explains a lot. And you're defending him the same way he put forth his original argument: with absolutely no substance.

(Also, I think Bram might have said Rome when he meant Sparta.)

Oh yeah, it's easy to get the two confused, them being so close and all. Like I said, he was a selfish little war-profiteer, swithcing sides to suit his own interests. That whole "voting to lose a war" argument is pure vapor-ware. If Athens ever "voted to lose a war," it was when they FIRST voted to start something in Sicily.

Raging Bee:

1. The Sicilian Expedition started in 415 BC. Rome was supposedly founded by Romulus and Remus in 753 BC. By 415 BC Rome was the strongest city-state in central Italy.

2. Alcibiades was charged with Sacrilege. Athens, as a true Democracy, did not have a separate court system – trials took place in public and the public voted on the verdict. Alcibiades’ enemies waited for the fleet to sail then prosecuted him on the trumped up charge of breaking religious statues since they now had more votes.

3. How could they be losing the war when the trial and recall of Alcibiades occurred before the fleet even reached Sicily? It was pure political revenge based on majority politics at the expense of a generation of Athenians. It was the equivalent of recalling Eisenhower on the eve of D-Day because he lost a vote.

4. Yes, the Sicilian Expedition was a bad idea – supported by a thin majority of Athenians (before the fleet sailed). So is government health-care, social-security, Medicare, Ameri-corps, and every other idiotic government welfare program the majority of Americans support.