Making history in Iran | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Michael Haley

Making history in Iran

Monday, June 29, 2009

Comment

By MICHAEL HALEY

Napablogger

October 28th, 2009

One final thought before signing off

September 23rd, 2009

Time for local economic stimulus

August 31st, 2009

Community in a world of chaos

August 20th, 2009

Schwarzenegger finally proposes pension reform

No matter how things turn out in Iran in the immediate future, a huge statement has been made by the Iranian people that they want more freedom, and my belief is that in the future we will see the manifestation of their courageous actions.

This whole situation is very reminiscent of the events in 1989 in Tiananmen Square in China, where as many as 20,000 people may have been killed in the streets protesting for their freedom.. Because the media was closed down by the Chinese government, we may never know the exact number killed or exactly how the events unfolded. Since that time various witnesses have provided information, and there is no doubt that thousands were killed.

One chilling description was provided by a young American woman who was interning at a college there and had an apartment on Tiananmen Square itself. As she watched through her window, she saw that all through the night protesters lined up and threw themselves at the soldiers, who then gunned them down, in line after line, going on all night literally for hours.

In contrast, in Iran they have been unable to completely shut down the media, and indeed using twitter protesters were able to get thousands, by some reports tens of thousands, of Iranian protesters to go to their roofs last night to shout Alaho Akbar. It was chilling watching the YouTube on line, particularly knowing that that was what happened during the Iranian revolution in 1979 when the Ayatollah Khomeini was installed as dictator.

This is a story that is largely being carried by new media on line, bloggers and on line video, twitter, while over the weekend CNN and the other news channels were largely absent. This is a huge positive story that is world changing in potential and it is amazing how out of it the major media has been.

I am watching Glenn Beck doing his usual slobbering, at the moment about bond yields, on Fox and most of the media is carrying this as just another segment on their usual broadcasts. The New York Times even ran an embarrassing story that Ahmedinijad has consolidated his power while riots still rage in the streets and the Iranian government was forced today to make concessions to Mousavi that they recount the ballots which were almost certainly fraudulently counted.

Everyone wondered what happened after the Tiananmen riots, and was it all for naught? As time has unfolded, however, it has become apparent that that resolve for freedom by the Chinese people gradually manifested itself in greater and greater freedoms as the government was forced to loosen up control. Those students who came out and spoke out for freedom in China gradually became part of the power structure and their reforms have brought China into the world as a major economic force, as well as granting more and more freedom for individuals there as well.

The same process is starting now in Iran, and Obama is wise not to intervene too directly in this. It is the Iranian people’s process, and they are giving their lives for freedom as I write. It will have huge benefits down the road for all of us.

87 comment(s)

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 15, 2009 4:05 PM:

" Well said, NB!

In China, we have the model of corporatism and authoritarianism.

In Iran, we don't know the results as yet, but we can see what the results of religiosity and authoritarianism are.

My hope is that the Iranian people WIN!

~Ruff "

glenroy wrote on Jun 15, 2009 6:09 PM:

" This would have never happened if Saddam had not been removed….. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 15, 2009 10:21 PM:

" Thanks Ruff, the Mullahs could not totally put this down thanks to twitter and internet technology that wasn't developed at the time of Tiannamen. Otherwise I think they would have.

Glenroy, how so? This seems unrelated to Iraq to me. This potential for the public to rise up and demand more freedoms in Iran is something that many experts have deemed possible for a long time. Not that they have succeeded yet, but I bet they will.

I think this is a far preferable way to change, people changing themselves, rather than war. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 16, 2009 9:47 AM:

" You can't stop progress. The modern world may scare the mullahs(and other fanatics), but the harder they fight against change, the faster the end will come. It's like that line in Hamlet about taking "arms against the sea of trouble, and by opposing, end them." "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 16, 2009 10:12 AM:

" Frankly, glenroy, the antics of the Bush administration, the bellicosity and threats, weakened the hand of the 'moderates'.

I read a saying years ago... a cold blustery wind makes someone pull their threadbare coat even tighter around themselves the harder it blows, but the warm sun will have that coat off in no time.

Bush actually delayed the onset of populist movements around the world.

Obama had more effect on Iran with his one speech in Cairo, knocking the underpinnings of the little holocaust denier in Tehran out from under him, than Bush did with years of threatening war.

Of course, war apologists are constantly looking for some pretext to push Bush as hero when colossal failure is Bush and the Republican's legacy.

~Ruff "

glenroy wrote on Jun 16, 2009 11:04 PM:

" How so?….It is opinion no doubt, based on 35 years of studying the region. The only difference between this election and all the others since the fall of the Shah has been the absence of the ayatollahs most effective excuse for denying basic rights. Iranians don’t fear Israel or the United States….they feared Saddam.

Until Saddam was removed Iran remained on a war footing and did not tolerate anti-government demonstrations, opposition in or of the press, or moderate candidates on the ballot.

The ayatollahs determine the candidates, subject to the ‘Anointed Ayatollah‘…. This was the first openly reformist block allowed on the ballot, ever. The few reformists to hold office over the years became reformists after being elected, once their terms expired were not allowed to run again. This was a brokered ballot agreement subject to Rafsanjani staying off the ballot… in the ayatollah’s view Rafsanjani was the only real threat, intellectually and especially religiously.

There have been sporadic, and comparatively miniscule, ‘student’ campus demonstrations prior to and shortly after Saddam was removed which were ruthlessly suppressed….outside that, excluding ethnic uprisings, this is all new stuff.

It's not one thing, I think it’s a combination, the Iranians hope knowing our forces are ‘actively’ in the region having removed Saddam, and a miscalculation on behalf the ayatollahs thinking they could control the situation by removing Rafsanjani…..one without the other is neither…as Arab’s like to say.

The political science journals aren‘t out yet…but I’d bet those with a track record of accurately predicting the region are thinking along these lines….could be wrong, but I doubt it. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 17, 2009 7:05 AM:

" The Iranian demonstrators are still out there making a mockery of the Iranian 'democracy'-flavored coating over an 'Islamic' religious theocracy.

Yay for the Iranians!

But let's not forget how close America came to a 'democracy'-flavored coating over a 'Christian' theocracy during the Bush years.

Temporal governments need to concentrate on the 'general welfare' of their people in this life and leave the people alone to seek (or not seek) God in their own ways.

~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 17, 2009 7:11 AM:

" Saddam was an old man, his military was contained. Saddam Hussein was brought to power by the USA.

Only the USA kept him from losing the Iran/Iraq war which the USA encouraged him to start and which fostered the famous picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand.

Many old dictators are removed by age and/or sickness such as the Shah of Iran who was placed in power by the USA.

Time would have solved the Saddam problem and 4,200+ American soldiers would still be alive.

Bush is still a foreign policy failure.

~Ruff "

steph wrote on Jun 17, 2009 9:27 AM:

" Oooh, glenroy, nice piece!

I've been fascinated with Iran for a long time.

I loved Lipstick Jihad and worked my way through Reading Lolita in Tehran, both of which are really good books--very readable, biographical first person. The first book delves into the malaise of post-revolution Iran, and the restlessness of its youth who have not much better to do than challenge the oppressive rules of backwards mullahs and their street thugs. The latter book discusses the build-up to the revolution, the battle between communists and religious fundamentalists, and the misunderstanding that took place when women wore hijab as a show of authentic cultural pride--only to have their culture hijacked by power-hungry oppressors. It's as if the moderate, sophisticated muslims had made a terrible deal with the devil to escape the Shah and US influence.

So the new revolution is captivating. May the best man win. The Persians have had enough strife. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 17, 2009 12:38 PM:

" I dunno, I think both political sides in the US are trying to take some credit for what is happening in Iran but I doubt we have had much influence on this.

Freedom is just a basic desire of people everywhere, it is a part of the human spirit and can never be totally suppressed, only repressed.

This isn't about Mousavi who is only slightly different than Ahamdenijad, this is about using that as a platform to demand more freedom.

I remember talking to Iranians in LA in the 1980's about how they believed Iran would eventually revolt against the religious oppression. This has been a long time coming.

Ruff makes a good point to remind us about how we were a major factor in installing Saddam. It shows that war is a really bad way to try to change things, and doesn't really seem to work any more.

We are hardly out of the woods on this in Iraq, which could still easily fall apart into civil war in the near future. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 17, 2009 2:26 PM:

" Thanks Steph… it was a rush job while trying to keep our employees employed. Lolita is a good read and a very brave woman… I wouldn’t have submitted it to my cranky polysci professors… unless I felt like being ridiculed.

Then, as the Carter was undermining the Shah, pretty much all the polysci professors, Andrew Young, the entire Carter Administration excluding Zig, were preaching the coming of an Islamic Angle, new era of Human Rights, another despot bites the dust, etc.…yea right, while every other moderate in the region was predicting the start of radical Islam’s 100 year war. To say Carter’s policies failed the test of time would be an injustice to the incompetent…it was criminal… like our economy with Freddie and Fannie…..but they seem to get away with it…disgusting and remarkable all in one.

NB… seriously, I made it clear up to the start of the Iraq Liberation that I was opposed, but the benefits, to us, our allies, Iraqis and Iranians are becoming more significant. I had hoped my post would open a light discussion of unintended consequences. Intended or not, had Saddam remained in power this moderate block would never have been allowed on the ballot….I believe a little research on Rafsanjani might reveal his comments that he would not openly oppose the regime while the risk from Saddam remained….perhaps referred to as outside threats….

When the geopolitical power matrix changes radically, as it did after Saddam’s removal, when the Shah fell…..Whatever caused that change either deserves credit or the blame….that’s just the nature of geopolitics.

If moderates exist in Iran with any power base, it will likely be the military…the rest were shot and hung on meat hooks when Carter's Islamic Angle arrived… "

steph wrote on Jun 17, 2009 4:57 PM:

" Alright, glenroy, this is interesting.

The right-wing talk shows are critical of Obama's silence on the Iranian elections. Yet, there's a news article today where Iran accuses the US of meddling in the post-election fracas.

Seems to me that the Persian people don't really want the US to intervene, do they? They don't exactly trust us.

Isn't Obama better off just keeping mostly quiet, and letting the people of Iran fight their own battle??

What do you think?

Also, which journals will you be following?

I'm a fan of Azadeh Moaveni, author of the book I mentioned above, Lipstick Jihad, who is a contributor to Time--perfect for a political layperson like myself. When I have more time, I'll be catching up on her articles.

Mean time, I just ordered her next book, Honeymoon in Tehran.

But, I have an important something to do today. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 17, 2009 5:05 PM:

" Come on, glenroy- Once again, Saddam was an old man and even Dark Cheney said he was not a threat.

Taking out Saddam empowered Iran and the majority Shiites.

Chelabi the embezzler that the Bush administration was going to install as the next strongman in Iraq was in closer contact with Iran that Saddam was with Al Qaeda.

The Iranians are doing their own thing and the US has little it can do without strengthening the hands of the mullahs.

Bush is still an epic failure.

Republicans are still desperately trying to spin straw into gold, but they don't even have unused straw as a raw material. Just the straw that's been through the horse once.

~Ruff "

steph wrote on Jun 17, 2009 10:16 PM:

" Ruff--remember what the old man in N.Korea did? He installed his own son. What makes you think Saddam wasn't grooming his devil sons to do the same? "

napablogger wrote on Jun 18, 2009 1:10 AM:

" I'm afraid Ruff is right on this one, Glenroy. I had forgotten but someone mentioned today on the news that there was a student uprising a few years back, but the government put it down forcibly. Those students were the harbinger of this weeks actions. Bush has nothing to do with this.

Reading everything today, I have a bad feeling that that violent put down is about to happen again only on a much bigger scale.

As I said in my article, if that happens I won't feel all is lost. Change happens slower than we want, but the wheels grind on. This action by way more than just the students portends big changes one way or another. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:22 AM:

" Steph…. …. Fascinating ... Addicting…Diffusing...take your pick.

I don’t have an opinion regarding talk shows…listen occasionally if driving. I will say, they’re better informed than our politicians, but how hard is that?

I read, among others, Foreign Affairs, Long War Journal, Himalsouthasia, Hoover, Cato…opinions American Thinker, thanks to another intelligent NVR ‘poster’ Daniel Pipes…

We’re in a war, Obama doesn’t seem to think so, but we are ….the forces in Iran are between known enemies and potential allies… we cannot win this war without additional Muslim allies.

Moaveni is a brave intelligent woman … truth and Iran, not conducive to a long life…. Lipstick is a good book….I like her interviews better, but that’s a style thing….LOL…maybe even a man thing?

Walid Phares is the Middle East expert of our time…he has written extensively since the last days of the Shah and on virtually every major issue in the region since. His books are very straight forward, if not repetitive….

I agree the Iranians would view our involvement suspiciously…Iraqis did until our intentions became clear. If it survives, at some point this movement will need outside aid because the Chinese or Russians have no qualms about keeping this regime in power….another part of the Great Game.

I look at this way…….to the east Afghanistan, west Iraq, two struggling Republics….it’s a good time to try and bring this regime down to help stabilize a region that hasn‘t had stability since the Ottoman Empire. Why now?….because this regime will never stop undermining it’s neighbors, it is funding regional terrorist groups by the dozens….and the only difference between Saddam and this regime is a few miles of sand. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:42 AM:

" LOL ….…. ruff…….how many millions died while Saddam was in power? How many have died at the hands of Iranian funded terrorists? How many billions were we spending annually to contain Saddam? How many Iraqis/Americans have died because Iranian built IED? How many American hostages has Iran taken of the decades? Who funds Hamas? Who funds Hezbollah? How many Muslims now live under a republican form of government? How many don’t?

Your opinions aren’t even in the relative proximity of reality, much less debatable….sort of like talking about budgets with Pelosi and Obama… budgets? What budgets?

This has nothing to do with Republicans, has nothing to do with moderate Democrats…….this is just another mess created by a Liberal Democrats, compounded by Liberal Democrat failures…..left for us and the world to deal with…..

Anyway…….happy 4th of July… "

glenroy wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:43 PM:

" NB….no biggie, not many people understand the region either….just trying to open a few eyes to the reality of the region, which I not only majored in, worked with Iranian, Palestinian and Saudi investors for several years, have relatives there…and was born in there.

By the way…I mentioned the student uprising, which, coincidently, was inspired in large part by the prospect of a region free of Saddam, thought I might a little context,…that the students hoped our presence might force the regime to be a little more accommodating….

It’s your blog….we’ll play like it’s a spontaneous uprising unrelated to Rafsanjani’s agreement to remove himself from the ballot, despite the reality he is the only moderate with any base to speak of, that in the past he refused to do so because he knew he would denied a place on the ballot……. That a unknown former member of the regime who worked in the Foreign Ministry of the first revolutionary government, neither a history of sticking his neck out or political base….just happened to be in the right place at the right time… wow….

....it just doesn't add up.... "

Bill wrote on Jun 18, 2009 5:50 PM:

" N.B. your best point is not to trust either of these would be “Iranian leaders.” Western eyes love to simplify complicated situations and boil them down to individual scenarios but that’s just not the real world especially not in the tribal Middle East and societies that are still mired in the Middle Ages.

These are largely two puppets of competing Mullahs. People delude themselves if they believe that this kind of unrest or opposition would be tolerated with out the support of a large number of clerics. Westerners tend to sigh and remark “ah yes the breath of freedom” in street protests when its not really about who controls a democracy but what wing of the theocracy will gain the upper hand in the struggle. We get little real solid information out of Iran even before these events.

The real sore spot is internal economics not any love of freedom. After 35 years of supposed study one would think there might be a better take on the situation than claiming Sadam’s removal provided the atmosphere for this situation. Rather it still seems to be Jimmy Carters fault along with Fannie and Freddy. Some body really does not know what he is talking about, just a raw agenda. Ignoring Regan and Eisenhower administrations that actively mismanaged U.S. policy in the area is the same old blame game.

Only lip service is given to the establishment of democratic institutions and what was largely window dressing during the cold war has become the political mantra for an overt foreign intervention in the first decade of this century. There are very few democratic institutions in the middle east much less Iran so don’t get your hopes to high over this opposition. These are societies that revere servitude and obedience not dissent. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 19, 2009 10:40 AM:

" Bill, good post. To you and Glenroy both, to me it really seems like there is one thing that truly motivates the people there, and I agree that it isn't really the difference between Mousavi and Ahmedinijad, I think it the innate desire that people have for freedom.

I believe that this whole thing became a pretext to demand that freedom and that that is what people are willing to lose their lives over, not to get Mousavi into office.

I still think Obama is right to not get overinvolved, he seems to me to have done enough to support the desire for freedom there without getting too involved in the outcome of the election.

Wait and see, it will take time most likely but like Tiannamen and China, the new freedom will gradually evolve and over time make a profound difference. "

Bill wrote on Jun 19, 2009 8:12 PM:

" I don't know about innate desire for freedom. The only telling point of Glenroy's is that quite possibly the Mullahs relaxed their grip when Sadam was removed but that is more of a justification for the adventure in Iraq, but he was less of a threat to them after the 1st gulf war. How soon we forget the real butchery that was the Iran Iraq war and the some times gleeful role played by U.S. foreign policy and its advocates.

There are no truly trustworthy parties to recognize here and at the risk of repetition this is a sham democracy run by the clerics. There is a wide economic gap in the different supporters as well as a rural urban divide that we ignore at our own risk. Our real history in that country was to prop up a dictator in the "Shaw" as a bulwark against Russian intervention then get caught with supporting a dying thug at the risk of sending the wrong message to our other client fascists. Years later do we want to see freedom flower or any stabilized government willing to play with us? "

glenroy wrote on Jun 20, 2009 7:04 AM:

" Minor correction Bill….Mullah vs. Ayatollah, otherwise as NB pointed out indeed very good. It’s minor to us anyway.

Bill has the patience it takes to write about complex issues….something some of us lack.

When it involves politics, which to this region is interchangeable with person interest, 90% of the time your friend is your friend because of a common enemy and that’s the way it’s been for centuries.

The winds of change….

Very good….. "

cubs1969 wrote on Jun 20, 2009 11:11 AM:

" Glenroy,

Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent comments on this topic. It's nice to have an alternative to those, who 5 months after the inauguration of Barack Obama, still suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrom (BDS). "

freeport56 wrote on Jun 21, 2009 12:21 PM:

" Now only if our President had a spine to support the protestors! "

a teacher wrote on Jun 21, 2009 12:25 PM:

" I can't help but wonder if the recent marking of the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square has as much to do with current events in Iran as anything else.

Also - Tiananmen Square eventually led to a more open Chinese society, but not necessarily a more democratic one. I think that will probably be true in Iran. "

Bill wrote on Jun 21, 2009 7:56 PM:

" I know this is disrespectful disagreement but those who see this protest and equate it to Tiananmen Square are mistaken. Somehow the media show case and the clerical reaction is lost in translation. People and the press of all political persuasions see and hear what they want to not what is.

There may be a great divide in Iran but it is not about democracy, the votes were split between two bloody toadies and had little to do with anything other than a sham theater of a theocracy. Many of the supporters were major players in the revolutionary guard and have not proven they are more honorable than Ahamenedidijad (misspelling intentional) or his opponent the former over seer of torture and illegal arrests, detentions and political shenanigans.

This is Tweedle Dumd and Tweedel Dee. To raise a fuss in support of this may appear a noble beckoning to freedom but it would be misguided and dangerous to accept this view, so many wish to willfully misunderstand. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 22, 2009 1:23 AM:

" teacher, it depends on how you define Democracy. Chinese people are getting what they want much more so, if not through elections then through public opinion and simply demanding it.

Bill, I don't think it is a disrespectful opinion but you couldn't be wronger. This is all about freedom and the anger over 30 years of oppression. That is why it is exactly like Tiannamen Square. To miss that is to miss the whole point of what is happening. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 22, 2009 10:23 AM:

" NB….Bill is pretty close to being dead right on about this one…..close enough to be precisely right, only time will tell.

At the top are two heads of the same snake, not at the street level, at the top….the moderate opposition leadership supported the embassy hostage taking and continue to claim it was justified. They have stated they what to keep the Koran at the center of the legal system. Then again, it could be because to say otherwise could lead to a big X being placed on your chest followed by severe leakage….

Unless the military steps into the fray the likelihood this is going anywhere is slim….and if they do step in there will be a bloody war which al Qaeda will attempt to benefit forming alliances….with Obama’s preoccupation with his perception, we don’t even have a dog in this fight.

….it appears the best we can hope for is a civil war…. "

Bill wrote on Jun 22, 2009 5:05 PM:

" I know I am a skeptic and realize that may be my downfall but neither China or Iran will become paragons of democracy without the institutions that sustain democracy. Single party control clerical or secular is not freedom.

Being romantic about these protests and nostalgic comparisons only serve to build false understandings that paint future events and circumstances with what we want to view as acceptable. The Chinese people are not freer today than they were after the slaughter. They still toil under a dictatorship no mater how benevolent, market oriented or they may appear. The Republican guard in Iran traded one set of chains for another and where there is an argument that they are now freer than thirty years ago the current situation is far different from Both China and the Shaw.

The romanticism associated with this representation permeates news analysis and public opinion especially in our internal partisan battles leading to the false belief that we can impose democracy with a force of arms or strident threatening diplomacy and seek an end to troubles. Thus leaving real politik behind to embrace altruism and “The End of History” with full embrace when even Fukiyama realizes this view is a fatal mistake. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 22, 2009 5:36 PM:

" I agree that the choices presented to the Iranian people in their election were not much of a difference. The mullahs choose who will run in what is a sham democracy. What is significant is that a significant section of the Iranian population is calling the mullahs on their bluff. What they are saying is:"you claim we are a democracy and you won't even give us the poor excuse we voted for and you keep sticking us with the fool we have already."

That has potential to upset the balance in Iran. "

Mr4 wrote on Jun 22, 2009 11:24 PM:

" Teacher, There are huge differences between China and Iran. In China, the totalitarian leaders are at least rational. Tiananmen Square was not the moving force in China, the opening to Western markets was. For that we should thank President Nixon. The Chinese leaders realized that free markets were good for the country - but probably underestimated the power of such markets to free the people. China is in for a wild ride, but it should be peaceful.

Iran, on the other hand, is under the power of a medieval theocracy. Rationality has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of very good people in Iran, many of whom have close Western ties. But it is an absolute tragedy that we are abandoning them by Obama's policy of appeasement.

Reagan's support of Solidarity in Poland led to the freedom of millions. Obama's reaction in Iran could not be more different. His appeasement, like Chamberlain's and Carter's before him, could spell catastrophe. "

Mr4 wrote on Jun 22, 2009 11:58 PM:

" Ruff wrote: "My hope is that the Iranian people WIN!"

While I completely agree with your sentiment, hope is not a strategy. "

Sandra wrote on Jun 23, 2009 8:47 AM:

" Michael,
I am not sure if you are really clear on what is happening in Iran. Glenroy and Bill have a clearer picture of what is truly happening.
We are looking at something totally different from China. The culture in Iran is Fundamentalist Islam. China was not ruled by religion.
People may want more freedom, but the struggle for power is pretty much meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The guy on the street who wants more freedom, is more likely to end up dead.
Glenroy,
I can see why you feel this is an opportunity to stabilize the middle east, but where do we get the resources to do so? Our military is already streched about as far as it will go...the funds are decidely lacking, (thank you Mr. Obama for making that bad situation worse)....and how many pans and how many fires can we tend until it all collapses?
As evidenced by the countries reaction to Iraq, should we embark on the attempt, we do not have the fortitude to follow it through. "

steph wrote on Jun 23, 2009 12:10 PM:

" Listening to NPR this morning, was reminded of something that the people in the Middle East don't need a reminder of: when Bush Sr. told the Kurds to rise up, that we would support them against Saddam.

The US needs to stay out of the Iranians' business. We have no interest represented in this struggle, and our involvement will only taint one side or the other. We are not considered friends in the Middle East. Our involvement will only be eyed with suspicion. I agree with Obama on this issue. "

Bill wrote on Jun 23, 2009 12:17 PM:

" Mr. 4 does well until he pulls the blame game card from the political deck and the over worn analogy to Chamberlain. Let’s blame Carter and praise Nixon and Regan is a road most traveled by talking point enthusiasts looking to provoke sentiment and not critical reason that might insure a workable foreign policy in the modern world.

Lindsay Graham’s comments yesterday exemplify this partisan approach. It is my view that it would be ultimately stupid to stridently take a specific side in the current situation as not only could it be used to discredit the opposition view in Iran but lead to a further deterioration of our ability to bring any influence to that part of the world.

This is not the moment for saber rattling or hyperbolic calls to interfere in the domestic events of Iran. This is a time to be shrewd and calculating and not let romanticism endanger our own national interest. We do have an interest in the liberalizing of Iranian politics but we are far from being an effective player in their internal politics.

The path of a careful eye is not appeasement and if we are indeed a powerful nation then the mere appearance as a spectator and not cheerleader will be a sufficient condition to send a message to both parties in the Iranian struggle and not damage our own prospects. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 23, 2009 2:31 PM:

" Sandra….excellent questions……I don’t think we’ll need answers anytime soon, which is good because there aren’t any. I’m not even enjoying watching my former Obama supporter friends wake up to the reality they helped create….it is all disgusting to me.

The only way I can phrase a response is along the lines; The means that could have been used to help the Iranians, which like Iraq is freedom, was destroyed years ago…what is needed will take years to build…in the interim Iranians will be slaughtered, little will change, an opportunity we have wanted decades for is missed.

We really don't have a dog in this fight ..... "

kevin wrote on Jun 23, 2009 6:08 PM:

" Our dog should be there to make sure whomever comes out on top doesn't disrupt the flow of oil... "

Sandra wrote on Jun 24, 2009 7:19 AM:

" Kevin,
Should and can are two different things. When the outcome is the choice between two very similar outcomes....then what would be the point of sticking our noses in?
The only reason we should get involved would be to overthrow the theocracy. Do we have the means, the fortitude, or even the ability to do so? Can we follow through with the long term commitment we would need to not end up with another Afghanistan, or even Iraq?
Has our past behavior given you any indication that we would do what needed to be done to achieve success? Do you think that under this President there is even sufficient understanding of what we face?
Our dog needs to stay in the dog house. We need to cut our ties to middle eastern oil by developing our sources here at home. Money we send to purchase oil from the middle east goes to support an ideology that wants our downfall. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 24, 2009 7:28 AM:

" Kevin...no doubt...but all we have to work with is conventional forces......our dog was euthanized by Admiral Turner under Carter's order....then Clinton turned around and did it again.

It takes at least a decade to rebuild in part what was destroyed....Iran is a tough nut. "

freeport56 wrote on Jun 24, 2009 1:40 PM:

" Steph-

Never have you been so WRONG!

The United States of America stands for freedom and liberty. When people around the world have that abused, denied, and revoked we must stand up speak with them. We must defend their human right to liberty and freedom. Sandra is correct, we do not have the military might to fight all the battles. But if one battle can bring stability to a region and evil can be defeated...then we should get involved.

I hope you love and cheerish your liberty and freedom as much as I do. I also hope you understand that freedom carries a price. It looks like the Iranian people are ready to pay that price! "

steph wrote on Jun 24, 2009 4:51 PM:

" The president of Azadegan Iran, Dr. Assad Homayoun, was on Savage a few years back, and I have been really interested in what he has to say ever since. I can't find anything negative about him on line, though I must admit I haven't looked far. I like what he stands for, but I'd like to hear fom anyone who opposes him, in case there's something I'm missing.

So, freeport, maybe I'm wrong:
http://azadeganiran.com/PDF/VisionEng.pdf

But I do really believe we need to be very careful about not appearing to support some puppet who will lose credibility with the Persian people, who, though they may value freedom, also disagree with many of our positions in the Middle East. We are not paragons of virtue over there, no matter how we perceive of ourselves, and even though we may want freedom for the Iranians.

Dr. Homayoun says all the Iranian people need is not funding, not military intervention, but enthusiastic moral and verbal support. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 24, 2009 6:39 PM:

" We have allies that could bring a lot more pressure on and in Iran than we can….a lot more….unfortunately our chain smoking president is trying to get his lifetime healthcare squared away…… "

napablogger wrote on Jun 25, 2009 1:33 AM:

" Sandra, I think it is more that we disagree. I am talking on another level, which I think is the more real and more important level.

Oppression is oppression, and both the Chinese and Iranians, and a lot of other people are oppressed. In both cases there is/was an eruption of the desire for freedom from that oppression, be it political or religious. That is the key point.

I agree with Steph that we need to stay out of this, mostly. We sure don't need a war in Iran, that would be insane.

Wars don't work very well any more.

We are nowhere near out of the woods in Iraq, which could break down in civil war after we leave.

Settling things at the end of a gun leaves one party unsatisfied. Working things out over time politically, like what is happening in China and could well now happen in Iran is a lot more stable. "

sandra wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:46 AM:

" Michael,
I do not see much being "Politically" worked out in Iran at the moment. Nor do I expect a political solution. Have you noticed it's citizens being gunned down?

"Hundreds of thousands gathered in the streets of Tehran in the days following the Iranian presidential election. By June 22, 2009, Iran's Press TV confirmed 13 deaths due to the violence but some reports said as many as 150 people may have been killed in the riots. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/iran.election/index.html

On June 22, 2009, Iranian forces said protesters who cause a disruption would be met with a strong response. In a statement, the Revolutionary Guard vowed to "return peace and tranquility to society" and "clean the country of these plotters and hooligans.
"http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/iran.election/index.html
Riot police used tear gas and shot bullets into the air at a rally in Tehran's
Haft-e-Tir."

I believe when the religious fundamentalism is taken into account, it adds a whole other demension to the Iran situation, that did not exist in China. In light of that fanaticism, an expectation of a similar result to what we saw eventually happen in China is niave. "

freeport56 wrote on Jun 25, 2009 2:24 PM:

" We should still be voicing our support for free and open elections. We should be very outspoken with regard to freedom and liberty.

China's evolution into capitalism is not the result of diplomatic negotiations. It based on ther historical fact that a centrally controlled economy fails! Look at the Soviet Union 1917-1989. "

Bill wrote on Jun 26, 2009 12:33 PM:

" And centrally controlled capitalism succeeds? "

freeport56 wrote on Jun 26, 2009 3:30 PM:

" Bill-

where if ever capitalism has been centrally controled?

It's free markets and only in the USA! "

Bill wrote on Jun 26, 2009 3:47 PM:

" One thing is evident, an understanding of economics the role of government and the flexible theory that is capitalism is not well understood by so many of those who boast about it. "

Mr4 wrote on Jun 26, 2009 8:48 PM:

" Scoreboard, Bill!

The greatest economy in the history of man has had the most market freedom. That is not a coincidence.

Consequently, the most horrific suffering ever experienced by mankind has been a direct result of a powerful central government "

Bill wrote on Jun 26, 2009 9:31 PM:

" So.... What’s your point Mr.4? Blowing the horns for free markets that don't exist or state managed capitalism exhibited by Red China?

Is the current trouble in Iran a thirst for liberty or the hidden hand of the market place? Were the winds of change supposedly launched in China about free choice or just
“I wan’na shop?”

It is called a mixed economy and Ican not recall the constitution or any of our hallowed documents identifying America as the U.S. of free market capitalism.

It’s a flawed economic theory that serves us quite well not a religion. Capitalism flourishes here because we are a free society no matter how flawed but it is not what America is about nor does capitalism exist any where in any pure form that is not managed or regulated it never did and never will. It is a system built by people for people and controlled by people not something that exists in the either of time and space as an absolute truism. "

steph wrote on Jun 26, 2009 10:23 PM:

" Well, Bill, I think your answer lies in your question.

I think that the thirst for liberty IS the hidden hand of the market place.

You can be flippant about people wanting to shop, but they want choice and their free choices will direct capitalism.

You emphasize your point by brilliantly stating that capitalism fluorishes here because we ARE a free society--our constitution was built on supporting and sustaining those freedoms, and protecting people from the tyranny of government oppression--like unreasonable seizure. Remember the tea party? It's just an inherent part of our whole CULTURE.

Well...it USED to be. "

steph wrote on Jun 26, 2009 10:27 PM:

" It's the enterprising immigrants who come to America to live the American dream of hard work and greater prosperity for, especially, their children, who seem to really understand what used to be American culture the best. How ironic.

When our patronizing government loots and confiscates, and creates a growing class of dependence, that's when I worry about erosion of our culture.

I don't want the US government to have the same power that other countries' governments have. That hasn't gone so well for other humans. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 27, 2009 12:18 AM:

" Sandra, I predicted repression of the dissent the second day, if you look up in the comments here you will see it.

Again, what is happening on the ground now is not my point. What is happening in people's hearts and people's will is.

Reality is created out of people's desires, and even though the government can use force to back people down, they can't win forever if the people do not let them.

Some on the thread look at China and only see the increased freedom in economic terms, but the freedom that they have gained by standing up to their government and demanding changes goes to all walks of life.

I think Americans mistake having someone replicate our version of Democracy or capitalism as the only true expression of freedom and that is not so, in fact that is a big mistake to do so.

The Chinese people feel free and in fact are free, but not so long ago they did not. China has undergone a huge revolution is social freedom, not just economic, and that is going to continue.

I believe it started at Tiannamen Square, even though the actual protest at that time was put down violently. Change really doesn't come through violence, it comes through people changing inside themselves.

If Iraq stabilizes, it won't be because people are afraid of getting shot, it will be because they have decided to give up war. "

Sandra wrote on Jun 27, 2009 8:56 AM:

" Michael,
You state :"Again, what is happening on the ground now is not my point. What is happening in people's hearts and people's will is. "
I understood this, and that you did not mean what is happening today. I pointed out what I did in reference to my statement, "The guy on the street who wants more freedom, is more likely to end up dead. " And that is exactly what is happening.
China is not as free as you seem to think. Their prisons are full of political dissidents slaving away to make the cheap items so many Americans seem to crave. But that is beside the point.
Iran is different because the culture is religiously controlled, and the government is a theocracy. There is more for the average Iranian who wants freedom to overcome. The religion is based on submission. The culture subjugates women. The government rules with an iron hand backed by the religion. The history is not China's history. The culture has not rejected faith, as China's cultural revolution did. It is absolutely not comparable.
Iran will not reject fundamental Islam. Until it does, the government will not change. The protestors are the small minority who want freedom. BUT, unless the majority who follow the religion change from Fundamentalist to Reform Islam, things will continue pretty much as they have. Those who go against Islam, will continue to be killed, as they have for over a hundred years. Those who embrace Reform Islam have fatwa declared on them, so it is unlikely they will become the majority any time soon.
If Iran stabilizes it will be because they have killed anyone who does not embrace Fundamental Islam, or fundamental Islam is no more. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 27, 2009 8:57 AM:

" Not too surprising it looks like the revolution is petering out….

Like it or not there have been very few revolutions throughout time that weren’t inspired or funded by an outside source.

Unless one of the power bases within Iran sides with the demonstrators the chances of meaningful change are extraordinarily slim….slimmer yet would be such an event without direct outside assurances of unwavering support….where would that come from? "

glenroy wrote on Jun 27, 2009 11:49 AM:

" Very well said Sandra…..this is the war that has been ongoing within Islam since it became a religion. I still don’t think many Americans realize Moderate Islam has little in common with the western definition of moderate…. There are very few Iranian moderates in position of authority, by Muslim standards of moderate.

Side note….one of the many mistakes President Clinton made during his time in office was granting China Most Favored Nation status without assurance of human rights….without freedom of press…without free multi party elections….all the elements that were suppose to be in place prior to receiving MFN status….of course the DNC and the Clinton Campaign receiving millions of dollars from the People’s Liberation Army had more than a little to do with that. That money was never returned or accounted either...

Excellent piece of work there Sandra…. "

Bill wrote on Jun 27, 2009 12:59 PM:

" Flip? Perhaps Steph, but Ayn Rand is a poor substitute for Adam Smith. Even Smith would recognize that there is no such thing as a free market and to elevate it to the form of religious ideology is as bad as believing that a theocracy would allow real change without repression.

Unless people understand that capitalism does not exist in any pure form they merely wave flags and blow their horns with hyperbole. We chose to be about freedom and democracy not necessarily about a specific economic theory but grander ideals that approach the aura of altruism. Capitalism has nothing to do with altruism rather it seeks what works in a fallible human world.

The current protests in Iran out line the resentment for the existing hierarchy but even its main focus, Mousavi, is unable to give voice to that focus. He plays the mouse that roared while little people in the street suffer the consequences despite his futile attempts to plead with them to stop the protests. Ask your selves from what segment of society these protesters come from? Is it a cross segment of working people, merchants, urban, rural and a variety of society and does it manifest itself in other parts of that nation?

It is not about our concept of democracy or freedom it is a frustration at the heavy hand of the clerics. We see such movements as examples of a people’s inherent desire to be free but all too often we confuse would be reformers with our view of what government should be and not what actually develops. Especially in areas of the world where we sadly lack the knowledge or insight to interpret the reality but would project our aspirations upon others unawares of their actual desires. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 28, 2009 9:50 AM:

" Steph…..outstanding….didn’t see you post until this morning. The Iranians are nothing if not patient …..they’re not industrious but they are capitalists to their core....those not fanatic anyway. I really thought your comments were dead on...a few 'sort of topic' comments to you and Bill who lives in the theoretical world...

We have several clients who were flat broke immigrants 10 years ago who have done remarkably well….the first thing most did was put their children in private schools, imagine that? Proud to say we gave them free space to help them realize the American Dream….now we get a small return as well.

Despite what Bill thinks, the problem with capitalism isn’t capitalists….it is and always has been intrusion, whether King, Dictator or ours. Government’s declare wars and suppress freedoms over those they rule, particularly leftist ideologies, nationalist socialist and marxist....very few times in history has free market countries initiated hostilities.

Capitalism provides the incentive to risk the capital that creates the jobs that creates the revenue for governments to waste. Libs cannot fathom this very simple concept….it boggles their theatrical minds. Chinese marxists have figured it out….

Our standard to living was created by capitalism….our socialistic programs, which have wasted trillions, have brought this country to brink bankruptcy….the only ones who dispute this are the ones who either benefited or wasted the resources.

The undeniable truth is nothing, not theory, idealism, mandates, Democrat, Republican, socialism, marxism, mixed theories…..absolutely nothing is more efficient than ‘incentive‘….everything else is and always has been theoretical….. "

steph wrote on Jun 28, 2009 2:37 PM:

" Thanks, glenroy.

Fact is, fanaticism, by any name, has always been about controlling people and their choices.

Presently I'm very concerned about so-called "environmental" fanaticism. And fanaticism for so-called "fairness."

Power to the people! "

napablogger wrote on Jun 29, 2009 1:14 AM:

" Sandra, well, we will see what happens.

Methinks you overrate fundamentalist Islam as some special evil greater than any other evil that has ever been on the earth, and therefore can never be changed.

The idea that Islamic terrorism is somehow such special evil it can never change is not true I don't think, because nothing is that unchangeable. People can always change and in a repressive society this is how it begins. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 29, 2009 8:14 AM:

" NB wrote: “The idea that Islamic terrorism is somehow such special evil it can never change is not true I don't think, because nothing is that unchangeable. People can always change and in a repressive society this is how it begins. "

NB you’re sounding more Democrat with each post… you would do well to study the Ottoman empire….the war between Islamic extremes has been fought since the days of Mohammad…continuously in every country Islam is dominate without interruption.

To this day, the daily terror that is being waged though out the Muslim world is appalling by med evil standards….there is a reason places like Libya, Jordan, the Emirates, Malaysia, Arabia, Albania, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Iraq have so few non-Muslims and continue to decrease in supposed times of peace.

Islam spread rapidly because of a simple and very basic sales pitch…….convert or lose your head…. The basic tenants of Islam are the diametric opposite of three other major faiths…instead of forgive it is revenge… instead of love, it is hate….. instead of the reason of faith, it is the intimidation of the sword….

Google Piotr Stanczak….. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 29, 2009 12:42 PM:

" "Islam spread rapidly because of a simple and very basic sales pitch…….convert or lose your head…. The basic tenants of Islam are the diametric opposite of three other major faiths…instead of forgive it is revenge… instead of love, it is hate….. instead of the reason of faith, it is the intimidation of the sword…."

That is nonsense. To portray Islam in this light is factually wrong. The Israelites had the same basic philosophy, read the Bible. When entering into Canaan the inhabitants had the same choice, submit or die. The Romans did the same. The Mongols did the same. Even the Americans did the same to the Indians.

Nor did Muslims force non believers to convert. Christians and Jews lived among Muslims in Spain, the Balkans and the Holy land.

If you want to rewrite history, go ahead. However, fewer people are buying such nonsense. "

Sandra wrote on Jun 29, 2009 3:56 PM:

" Michael,
In regards to "Methinks you overrate fundamentalist Islam as some special evil greater than any other evil that has ever been on the earth, and therefore can never be changed. "
Oh Please. Did you really just talk down to me in that manner?
I second what Glenroy says.
I do not think that this is a hopeless cause. But when people such as yourself remain in denial about the reality, I do begin to wonder. Talking down to those whom you disagree with to belittle thier viewpoint as invalid, in this case, only reflects on your lack of understanding as to what is actually occuring.
Shame on you.
Learn some current history of the terrorist movement. Look at how what is happening today can all be tied together, and how using it empowers the current regimes in the middle east. Understand what has contributed to the spread of terrorism, and the growth of fundamentalist Islam. We are all somewhat responsible, in the sense that we just don't understand what we are dealing with, and have made foolish choices because of that. It is not as simple as you presume. If we remain blind to what has contributed, and refuse to see reality, then we are in big trouble. If we refuse to see where it all leads...Heaven help us. "

Sandra wrote on Jun 29, 2009 3:57 PM:

" Teacher,
I believe Glenroy is speaking about how Islam spread historically. Research how it started out, and how it spread. It certainly had a great period of enlightenment, and Jews, Christians and Muslims were getting along pretty well until about 100 years ago when people such as Amin Al Husseini, and Hasan al- Banna strongly influenced the direction of the religion.
There are a few followers of Islam that reject this direction, and wish to reform what is the current fundamentalist view to one which is more accepting of other religions. It would be more of a return to the ways of acceptance that have been brushed aside for what we see in our world today. The current Fundamentalist view is not that far removed from the Radical sects. Reform is actually farther away from fundamental, than fundamental is from Radical. "

Mr4 wrote on Jun 30, 2009 8:33 AM:

" Bill wrote: " Flip? Perhaps Steph, but Ayn Rand is a poor substitute for Adam Smith"

Bill, perhaps you should read Ayn Rand. She is much more than "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead". I suggest you read her treatise "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"(Signet Printing, 1967). It includes some chapters by Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan and Robert Hessen. It explains altruism's role in the real world and describes real-world capitalism, not a theoretical ideal.

While you are at it I recommend you pick up Friedrick Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"- I suggest the Definitive Edition (University of Chicago Press, 2007) - with forwards by Milton Friedman and others. This book eloquently connects economic theory with freedom and democracy and describes the mutual dependence. Even John Maynard Keynes throws in his enthusiastic support! "

glenroy wrote on Jun 30, 2009 3:13 PM:

" Clueless as ever ……. Any wonder high school kids seem to fall further behind every year.

I suppose you think the Ottoman Empire was created and held together by liberals?

Before you keep fooling yourself with your dogma try studying the History of Islam, teach,….. The Golden Age of Islam never existed, except in the minds of fanatical Muslims….and the fools in the west who blame the west for all the worlds problem…like teachers who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Take a little time and find out what the Egyptians think of Arabs, of Islam…..or do you even know there is a difference?

If you took the time to research you might know the greatest accomplishments claimed by Muslims, were usually made by non-Muslims who lived under the oppression of Islam.

As for your other opinions…..

How many Muslims to you actually know and regularly converse?

How many family members within your family have lived under Islam?

How many companies have you worked with or for that were owned by Muslims?

I’m not talking about some hybrid version of Islam in Central Africa….I’m talking about regular Muslims, from a Muslim culture.

This country is in the mess it is today because of liberal know it alls….but as Lincoln often said….they are the ‘know nothings.’ "

Bill wrote on Jun 30, 2009 5:00 PM:

" Thanks Mr4, I have read several of those and Ayn Rands philosophy is quite a snooze but that was many years ago. I tend to existentialism.

Hayek is interesting but Rand is no substitute for sound economic thinking. I find her philosopy highly overrated and prefer Friedmans original works to his later oft misinterpreted optimism. These are theories that these economic thinkers propose not religeous dogma, they are flexible as are all good thinkers. they do not create gospel but provoke thought and change.

I realize Rand is all the rage on the internet nowa days but she is a soft thinker with an axe to grind but that's just my opinion. She is the prime example of the self centered creative free market advocate that refuses to recognize the destructive powers of her postion, nice metaphysical postioning but still poor economics.

Don't assume to know what I have or have not read or researched as Glenroy does or assume that because you don't like or appreciate my writing form that you know what I know or what I may or may not have studied have studied.

By your words you appear to have used some thought but, if I may be so bold the cut and paste method of supporting your point lends itself to misrepersentation. Try being convincing in your own words.

Still that's better than Glenroy's insulting "Clueless" or accusations as to "you don't know what you are talking about" As if some how he was the supreme expert on everything and at at the same time being extermely unconvincing in his word usage. "

Mr4 wrote on Jun 30, 2009 6:00 PM:

" Bill,

I don't know anything about Ayn Rand's current internet popularity as I do not regularly surf, but I do know the substance of her writings - specifically her warnings about the siren call of altruism and how this can result in disaster.

I attended several graduations recently and heard the repeated calls for "public service", "selflessness" and "altruism". It is right out of a Rand novel.

The reason that Ayn Rand continues to sell millions of books long after her death is the fact that she called it accurately. Today's newspaper stories could easily be "cut and pasted" into any number of her writings as a substitute for her contemporary examples without missing a beat.

I have a good friend who calls Atlas Shrugged "turgid". I won't argue the fact. Her writing style does not lend itself to light reading. Frankly, I find Hayek, with his heavy Austrian influence, to be the more difficult read. In both cases, however, the content trumps the style.

I disagree with your assertion that these authors demonstrate poor economics. And Nobel Laureates such as Friedman and Keynes (when Nobel prizes actually meant something) agree with me.

Again, I specifically recommend "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" - presumptive or not. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jun 30, 2009 10:04 PM:

" freeport56, You said "The United States of America stands for freedom and liberty."

Do you mean, SHOULD stand for freedom and liberty? If so, I agree with you. If you mean DOES stand for freedom and liberty, I'm pretty sure that most of the world would disagree with you.

Don't forget that it was the US that helped destroy the brief bit of democracy that Iran had. And I'm sure the Iranians remember that quite well.

We have little or no credibility around the world in terms of our self-proclaimed leadership of the "free" world. It's time we started really earning it.

Real patriotism is loving the country in spite of its sins, and loving it enough to want it to truly repent, and to be better. I love the country enough to want it to live up to its professed ideals. And I love it enough to admit that it has not even come close to doing so.

I believe that, on a balance, we have been the enemy of freedom and liberty more often than we have been their friend. "

Bill wrote on Jun 30, 2009 10:17 PM:

" Mr4; It has been years since I read Rand’s novels and while I found her interesting as writer of literature with her strong philosophical underpinnings I found her wanting and even second hand as a philosopher willing to claim that there was a creative class of altruistic do gooders above the mob and objectivism worse than turgid . She just does not make the first tier of thought and I left off following her a long time ago especially on economics.

You misrepresent my references to Friedman and Keynes as poor economics. They were economists not philosopher and better at their professions than Rand as a philosopher.
Actually I have never referenced either as bad economists. I do regard both and many others as bad candidates for bishoprics in a free market religious philosophy of which the high priestess appears to be Ayn Rand.

I undersatnd Friedman well but lean more to Keynes and find neither to be absloutists.

Altruism is not the sole possession of Rand or her philosophy and I am definitely not one of her fans or acolytes. Libertarians frequently claim her these days and if my repeated derogatory reference to her offends a student of her works I apologize for not sharing such a deep understanding but it is my opinion that she is a much over worked icon in the free market lexicon. Her philosophy has influenced much of economics and for the worse, where we should be analytical about the realties’ of policy we invoke a highly questionable reliance upon her perception of capitalism.

It must be consoling to know that dead economists agree with you. "

Mr4 wrote on Jun 30, 2009 10:44 PM:

" Dead Bolsheviks are no better "

Mr4 wrote on Jun 30, 2009 10:52 PM:

" Ampsthelena: you wrote "I believe that, on a balance, we have been the enemy of freedom and liberty more often than we have been their friend."

Wow, that is a sad thing to hear. I and the hundreds of millions who share my Russian and Eastern European heritage strongly disagree! "

Mr4 wrote on Jun 30, 2009 11:08 PM:

" Bill,

"a philosopher willing to claim that there was a creative class of altruistic do gooders above the mob" ???

If you think that that is Ayn Rand's philiosophy you do not pass this class! "

Bill wrote on Jul 1, 2009 10:53 AM:

" Mr4 if you were a teacher and this were a classroom I might recognize your authority, but since it is neither you have no authority. There are sounder thinkers to concentrate on than Rand.

I could as easily use the epithet dead fascists with you, as you appear to be confused on the divergence of Friedman from Keynes and prefer the metaphysical ramblings of Rand to solid thought and favor name calling.

If I were to suggest that you read Galbraith, either father or son I would now expect to be accused of being a communist at worst or socialist at best. I realize now that using any reference to Krugman would receive a dismissive retort.

The limited accepted pantheon of a universe constricted by Rand’s philosophy leaves little room for intelligent musings but plenty of space for faux philosophical protégés to spread their evangelical gospel of market economies that are not and have never been free but always controlled. Denying that economies are always regulated and not self-regulated from the ether of a metaphysical absolute does not pass any class or merit consideration. "

Mr4 wrote on Jul 1, 2009 3:20 PM:

" Bill,

The more you write the more you expose two facts: 1) You are not well versed in economics, and 2) You like to use your thesaurus.

Start with fascism. It is a variant of statism: the principle of concentrating economic, political and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. In other words, it is the exact opposite of individualism and capitalism!

Fascism differs from its cousins socialism and communism mainly in title to property: Under socialism, the means of production are owned by the state; under communism, by the people; and under fascism, title is private but completely controlled by the state. Since ownership without control is not ownership at all, there is really no difference between all three forms of statism.

Regarding the economists, I read all you have named (sans the irrelevant Krugman) as part of earning my degree in economics (Magna c** laude, thank you) and antitrust-focused Juris Doctor. Let me simplify:

Keynes was a British elitist, pre-Soviet advocate of central planning. He taught economics at both London and Chicago. Hayek was an Austrian free-market economist who came to America to teach political philosophy (not economics) at the University of Chicago. He is known for making the connection between economics and political theory and showed how central planning leads to tyranny. Keynes, shortly before he died, wholeheartedly accepted Hayek's theory. Both men are Nobel Laureates in economics.

Friedman revitalized free-market economics at Chicago and also won the Nobel..

The Galbraiths were wannabe Keynesians - Dad worked for FDR and son worked for LBJ. They were simple statists, nothing more. "

Mr4 wrote on Jul 1, 2009 3:29 PM:

" correction on Keynes: pre Cold War, not pre-Soviet.

Same difference, he never lived to see how central planning worked in practice. "

Bill wrote on Jul 1, 2009 4:26 PM:

" Nice resume Mr4, I could invent one to rival it. However it would still carry no weight. I am surprised that someone with such an education could be so unconvincing and prefer the attack and dismiss mode while selectively choosing just which part of the fray he wishes to misrepresent.

The easy tactic of associating anyone’s argument that is different from one owns narrow view as belonging to the Bolsheviks unless it fits a specific economic consensus is a prime example. Not very becoming of a Magna **, which you have certainly not demonstrated in any form of presentation here. Illustrating two things: you are as arrogant as I am and incapable of using your knowledge to inform should you indeed posses the credentials you claim, perhaps the exact classic elitist above the clamoring mob that is represented by Rand. I suggest John Gault as a future avatar.

Rattling off the names of economists does not an economist or a philosopher make but to suggest that ordinary people with the ability to read and think cannot understand or challenge economic dogma reeks of classism more so than any of my futile rants make me a socialist. Again you assume to know what I know and can only support your self with unsubstantiated claims to authority similar to others claiming 30 to 35 years of experience, study and investigation into the verities of the world.

Using a thesaurus is better than cutting pasting out of context and far more honorable than incipient claims to undemonstrated knowledge. It is not important who one is or what one knows especially if one with such sterling credits is unable to present a convincing argument. "

Bill wrote on Jul 1, 2009 4:35 PM:

" I suspect, as with most people at play here, it is more about the game of “I am smarter than you just look at my credits,” than any real knowledge.

Someone with these credentials should have a column with their own with a byline and not wasting their time dallying amongst the unwashed and unappreciative. "

Mr4 wrote on Jul 1, 2009 9:48 PM:

" Bill, you wrote :" Mr4 if you were a teacher and this were a classroom I might recognize your authority"

Seems to me you were the one trying to pull rank. I just trumped you. Sorry.

ps: it is Galt, not Gault "

Mr4 wrote on Jul 1, 2009 10:21 PM:

" I get a kick out of reading and responding to leftist comments. Kind of like playing whack-a-mole!

But let's get back to IRAN. I read a Washington Post report this evening in which they referred to the theocratic authoritarian government as the "right wing". Why would the Post do that?

That is intentional misrepresentation of terms. "

glenroy wrote on Jul 2, 2009 6:28 AM:

" “I believe that, on a balance, we have been the enemy of freedom and liberty more often than we have been their friend. "

The ignorance of that statement speaks volumes of liberalism….. "

Bill wrote on Jul 2, 2009 7:07 AM:

" No claims to vast knowledge, experience or credentials here. For someone with such claims to knowledge I would expect a reasoned presentation not a cat fight.

Specious claims of authority don’t work in Bridge but pass as cleverness in the Blowgosphere. The more you write the more your statements of authority become transparent and unsupportable. You have 300 hundred words; use that ten dollar internet with honors education to present as case of misrepresentation in terms. "

Sandra wrote on Jul 2, 2009 3:04 PM:

" Bill,
Just curious, who are you addressing in your post of Jul 2, 2009 7:07 AM? It seems argumentative, and the least you could do is make it clear who you are going after.
You, too, have 300 words available. "

Mr4 wrote on Jul 2, 2009 9:00 PM:

" He got so twisted up in his thesaurus he forgot "

glenroy wrote on Jul 4, 2009 11:36 AM:

" Bridge? As in playing or communication? As to the former, having no patience or desire, though my mother is a Life Master..…the latter is how we made a small fortune, most of which was given away to family, friends and causes near, if not dear.

I’ll respond intellectually if a liberal makes an intelligent comment, fair enough? The core of liberalism is that FDR’s spending brought the depression to an end….reality was Hitler. FDR’s economic advisor admitted government did not create sustainable jobs, unemployment was higher 8 years after FDR took office.

Blowgosphere…LOL… you liberals have a habit of accusing others of being like yourselves…so, if you desire comparing resumes, degrees or accomplishments just say so Bill, no need to beat around the bush or imply otherwise. There are many who have accomplished more than I have, and thankfully so… they also help keep liberals from being homeless.

I threw in the towel decades ago trying to ‘appear more intellectual’ than the next, when it became clear to me 90% of those who concerned themselves with such cleverness were incapable of doing much more than that….

A wise teacher said; ‘Write what you mean in the clearest most direct way….’ (being moderately dyslexic, not known until mid 30s, which might explain my lack of interest in written composition in elementary school) being direct was within my limited writing skills. No excuses though…can do pretty complex business math without pen, pencil, calculator etc…as well as very detailed business plans…

Liberal theories remind me of fairy tales….. And I never had much of an interest in the 7 dwarfs to begin with. "

Sandra wrote on Jul 4, 2009 2:00 PM:

" Mr4,
That cracked me up.... "

glenroy wrote on Jul 13, 2009 5:20 AM:

" Unfortunately too little too late…

Quote:
On July 11th a fatwa was issued by Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the most senior contemporary Shi'ite cleric. The fatwa was in response to a series of queries submitted to him by Iranian intellectual and cleric Mohsen Kadivar, pertaining to the legitimacy of the current Iranian government.
End:

Had this fatwa been issued within a few days of the election it could have had a significant impact, as it stands now the best that can be hoped in the short run is that Montazeri doesn’t end up with a bulls eye on his chest…either way he is one brave Ayatollah.

Maybe Montazeri can issue a similar fatwa for the bogus Minnesota Senate recount? "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: