To this point, I have not posted links to other sites here on this blog nor am I certain if I will in the future. But I am sorely tempted to post what has become perhaps the signature moment of the recent turmoil in Iran - a video of a young woman who was allegedly shot by the Iranian security forces dying. I have seen the video and it is very disturbing, to put it mildly. Even in the generation of the gratuitous violence freely available through our many media outlets, this video is chilling. In the video, you can see the woman falling down and others rushing to her side (including, allegedly, her father). There is blood on the ground surrounding her and it continues to pool around her chest area - she was apparently shot in the heart. Then, blood starts pouring out of her facial orifices, until her young face is changed into a grotesquely bloody visage reminiscent of a horrifying Halloween mask. Men surround her in a futile attempt to save her.
Her death is clearly haunting the Iranian leadership. Her family was allowed to bury her quietly and have been told that there are to be no public remembrances. The implication is clear - her death can all too easily become a rallying cry. Despite government attempts to prevent it, the video is available in Iran and protesters who have spent the last week demonstrating for what they feel was a rigged election will soon demand justice from their government for the unnecessary murder of one of their countrymen/women. What has been a series of protests focused on the election results that were worrying for the leadership but perhaps not truly threatening could become the death knell for the Islamic Revolution. The government may well survive, but it is unlikely that it will enjoy the same legitimacy that it has since its inception under Ayatollah Khomeini 30 years ago. If it does not, then the cause will be one of its own making.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Father's Day
In the US, tomorrow is Father's Day. A day to celebrate the men who are fathers. And a father is not necessarily the man who can physically create a child but the one who can take on the role of a father and be the role model and the guide for his children. To be a father, much like being a mother, is not a mantle that can be taken off at times where it may be inconvenient or to take on only when it suits him. It is a role that, once assumed, will last for the rest of his life. It does not demand perfection, it requires perseverance. It does not require money or a certain physique, it needs time, patience and understanding. It is the most demanding effort that will ever be required of a man and the most rewarding - often at the same time. The more that is put into being a father, the more that will be reaped - though not always in the most obvious ways.
A good father is not just the one who carries pictures of his children everywhere to show to others. A good father is not just the one who plays games with his children when he gets off of work. A good father is not just the one who is rubbing his children's foreheads when they're ill. A good father is the one who knows that he is the one who is setting an example for what he wants his children to do and to be when they grow up. A good father knows that there is never a timeout in setting an example, only when he must apply one for bad behavior by his children. A good father can be a friend to his children but it does not prevent him from having to impose discipline when needed. A good father knows that he must be all things good at all times and any mistakes and failures must be addressed as quickly as possible.
Given these criteria, a good father is hard to find. But aspiring to be a good father is perhaps the most important thing of all. And fathers everywhere reap the rewards today of their efforts to be good fathers.
A good father is not just the one who carries pictures of his children everywhere to show to others. A good father is not just the one who plays games with his children when he gets off of work. A good father is not just the one who is rubbing his children's foreheads when they're ill. A good father is the one who knows that he is the one who is setting an example for what he wants his children to do and to be when they grow up. A good father knows that there is never a timeout in setting an example, only when he must apply one for bad behavior by his children. A good father can be a friend to his children but it does not prevent him from having to impose discipline when needed. A good father knows that he must be all things good at all times and any mistakes and failures must be addressed as quickly as possible.
Given these criteria, a good father is hard to find. But aspiring to be a good father is perhaps the most important thing of all. And fathers everywhere reap the rewards today of their efforts to be good fathers.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Writer's block?
Barely a week into the effort to work on a blog and I hit a writer's block. Or perhaps that is a misnomer. I can think of plenty of things about which to write, but the issue is more related to whether I can write well about them. This is particularly troublesome because I have to be able to not only write on whatever subjects are at hand but I also want to be sure that they're written well with no grammar or factual errors. On more than one occasion, I have posted something only to have to go back and then edit out the grammatical errors. And I only have four posts prior to this one! Perhaps if I had an editor, this would not be an issue - or at least not as much of one. But, then again, if I had an editor, I probably would be compensated for the things I write. That, however, is something to which I will have to aspire for the future. Perhaps when I retire from my current career - not a career based on writing, unfortunately.
Tomorrow I may feel more inclined to editorialize on the other issues randomly floating through my mind at the moment. Or not...
Tomorrow I may feel more inclined to editorialize on the other issues randomly floating through my mind at the moment. Or not...
Monday, June 15, 2009
Another revolution?
Like many others, I am sure, I have been thinking about the recent presidential election in Iran. More precisely, and unlike many others, I have been comparing it to elections in the US. Most precisely, to the 2000 election as well as to the 1876 election.
In the 2000 election, there were disputes as to the votes that were tallied and the battle went to the (relatively) impartial US Supreme Court - where the end result was the elevation of George W. Bush to the presidency. There is no independent judiciary in Iran that can be used to resolve this issue - the closest is the Guardian Council which will have to confirm the election results (normally a pro forma process). The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, after initially accepting that Ahmadinejad, has now ordered an investigation by the Guardian Council into possible (and that term is used somewhat loosely at this point) election fraud. While many think it is simply a delaying ploy to temper down the protests by Mousavi supporters, it is possible that they will invalidate the results and... do what? Have a new election? Declare Mousavi the winner? Declare that Ahmadinejad won but by a closer margin? Or simply validate the results? In the end, it seems like very little will be gained by whatever the Guardian Council decides. In truth, it seems that the protests will likely continue (until what?) or they will be brutally put down by supporters of the current administration (the military and para-military forces).
However, an option that seems more likely in Iran can be pulled from the 1876 election. In that election, Rutherford B. Hayes is commonly thought to have worked out an agreement with some Democrats that would allow him to be elected in return for removing Republican troops (and thus control) over several southern states - a move that, in reality, stopped the progress of blacks that had been instituted after the Civil War. This would probably be the most face-saving move that would work in Iran, as well. Mousavi, for all of the moderate tendencies he has attributed to him (rightly or wrongly), is still a member of the conservative elite in the country and may well concede the election if granted certain wishes. He could then move to calm down his supporters which would allow for the leadership to continue as is. The only question is, if such a deal is struck, would the supporters who have protested in his name for the past several days return to their previous lives or consider it another betrayal and continue with the mass demonstrations that have rocked the nation? Just because the system worked in the US (ignoring the long-term effects, the nation stayed together and there was no systemic failure) does not ensure that it would work in Iran. But it could potentially be the lesser of several evils in the eyes of the Iranian leadership.
In the 2000 election, there were disputes as to the votes that were tallied and the battle went to the (relatively) impartial US Supreme Court - where the end result was the elevation of George W. Bush to the presidency. There is no independent judiciary in Iran that can be used to resolve this issue - the closest is the Guardian Council which will have to confirm the election results (normally a pro forma process). The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, after initially accepting that Ahmadinejad, has now ordered an investigation by the Guardian Council into possible (and that term is used somewhat loosely at this point) election fraud. While many think it is simply a delaying ploy to temper down the protests by Mousavi supporters, it is possible that they will invalidate the results and... do what? Have a new election? Declare Mousavi the winner? Declare that Ahmadinejad won but by a closer margin? Or simply validate the results? In the end, it seems like very little will be gained by whatever the Guardian Council decides. In truth, it seems that the protests will likely continue (until what?) or they will be brutally put down by supporters of the current administration (the military and para-military forces).
However, an option that seems more likely in Iran can be pulled from the 1876 election. In that election, Rutherford B. Hayes is commonly thought to have worked out an agreement with some Democrats that would allow him to be elected in return for removing Republican troops (and thus control) over several southern states - a move that, in reality, stopped the progress of blacks that had been instituted after the Civil War. This would probably be the most face-saving move that would work in Iran, as well. Mousavi, for all of the moderate tendencies he has attributed to him (rightly or wrongly), is still a member of the conservative elite in the country and may well concede the election if granted certain wishes. He could then move to calm down his supporters which would allow for the leadership to continue as is. The only question is, if such a deal is struck, would the supporters who have protested in his name for the past several days return to their previous lives or consider it another betrayal and continue with the mass demonstrations that have rocked the nation? Just because the system worked in the US (ignoring the long-term effects, the nation stayed together and there was no systemic failure) does not ensure that it would work in Iran. But it could potentially be the lesser of several evils in the eyes of the Iranian leadership.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Purpose of government?
What is the purpose of government? Is it to to provide for security and national defence? Is it to provide a social safety net for those who are unable to do for themselves? Is it to ensure equality for all? I am sure there are many other interpretations for the purpose of government that are not listed here but probably are felt by many others.
There are those who feel that government is a necessary evil which should be limited to only a very few specific purposes and should otherwise allow people to live as best they can. After all, government is such an over-arching figure with no other peer (aside from other governments) that it is very powerful by its very definition. Limiting its power ensures that the rights and liberties and its citizens shall never be infringed upon. This belief assumes that government, granted more power, will eventually fall into the habit of exercising its power - often at the expense of its citizens.
Others feel that the role of government is to help provide for its citizens. After all, the world is Darwinian in nature and someone should be able to help those less fortunate fend off the predators. If wealth is a guarantee of the right to do as one wants, it also can lend itself to the feeling of being able to coerce the less wealthy into doing as the wealthy wants. It can also engender a perpetuation of the haves versus the have-nots. The only way to ensure some sense of parity is to have a government that will ensure fairness for all regardless of circumstance. This belief assumes that government will always be benevolent and operate with the best (which is a rather subjective description) interest of its citizens at the forefront of its decisions.
Frankly, both of the preceding views are right but the world does not operate in such a black and white manner. Therefore, the best (there's that subjective term again!) solution is one that operates somewhere in between. No one will be happy all of the time with everything done by government but compromise between opposing points of view is necessary.
There are those who feel that government is a necessary evil which should be limited to only a very few specific purposes and should otherwise allow people to live as best they can. After all, government is such an over-arching figure with no other peer (aside from other governments) that it is very powerful by its very definition. Limiting its power ensures that the rights and liberties and its citizens shall never be infringed upon. This belief assumes that government, granted more power, will eventually fall into the habit of exercising its power - often at the expense of its citizens.
Others feel that the role of government is to help provide for its citizens. After all, the world is Darwinian in nature and someone should be able to help those less fortunate fend off the predators. If wealth is a guarantee of the right to do as one wants, it also can lend itself to the feeling of being able to coerce the less wealthy into doing as the wealthy wants. It can also engender a perpetuation of the haves versus the have-nots. The only way to ensure some sense of parity is to have a government that will ensure fairness for all regardless of circumstance. This belief assumes that government will always be benevolent and operate with the best (which is a rather subjective description) interest of its citizens at the forefront of its decisions.
Frankly, both of the preceding views are right but the world does not operate in such a black and white manner. Therefore, the best (there's that subjective term again!) solution is one that operates somewhere in between. No one will be happy all of the time with everything done by government but compromise between opposing points of view is necessary.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Political supporters
One of the nice things about random thoughts is that they're, well, random. They can come from anything that happens into my mind from any given (usually news) source. Or even just the occasional musings that many of us (and myself especially, it seems) are prone to on occasion.
Tomorrow are the presidential elections in Iran - formerly known as Persia. A contest that was originally felt to be a given to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected has now seemingly turned into a very tight contest between him and Mir Hossein Mousavi, the "reformist" candidate. Many people have already commented on a comparison of supporters of Mousavi and the campaign of President Obama in the US. But an equally interesting comparison would be between the supporters of Ahmadinejad and former President George W. Bush. Those supporters tend to be older, conservative, less inclined to social change and more overtly religious. In an era of international upheaval, much of it centered on religion, it does seem interesting that two very polarizing figures supporters - who would otherwise be polar opposites - seem to have a great deal in common.
Tomorrow are the presidential elections in Iran - formerly known as Persia. A contest that was originally felt to be a given to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected has now seemingly turned into a very tight contest between him and Mir Hossein Mousavi, the "reformist" candidate. Many people have already commented on a comparison of supporters of Mousavi and the campaign of President Obama in the US. But an equally interesting comparison would be between the supporters of Ahmadinejad and former President George W. Bush. Those supporters tend to be older, conservative, less inclined to social change and more overtly religious. In an era of international upheaval, much of it centered on religion, it does seem interesting that two very polarizing figures supporters - who would otherwise be polar opposites - seem to have a great deal in common.
Day 1
What is the purpose of a blog?
To write down whatever may pop into my head at any given moment. And since far too many things pop into my head at far too many (usually inconvenient) moments, this may be a bit of a challenge. Or not. I suspect it will require attention as best I can devote so we'll see how things go. In the meantime, let the good times roll.
Things to expect for those (few) who choose to read, thoughts on some of my favorite topics which include, but are not limited to (and listed in no specific order), some of the following:
politics
international relations
society and culture
religion
technology
philosophy
books and music
Star Wars
To write down whatever may pop into my head at any given moment. And since far too many things pop into my head at far too many (usually inconvenient) moments, this may be a bit of a challenge. Or not. I suspect it will require attention as best I can devote so we'll see how things go. In the meantime, let the good times roll.
Things to expect for those (few) who choose to read, thoughts on some of my favorite topics which include, but are not limited to (and listed in no specific order), some of the following:
politics
international relations
society and culture
religion
technology
philosophy
books and music
Star Wars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)