Lest We Forget is a Short Film with a Long Memory

Lest We Forget is a short civil war film directed by Brandon McCormick and produced by Whitestone Motion Pictures.  It’s the kind of short film I don’t see much of anymore.  Very simple and well-produced.  I really like its fearless punch and its call to the audience to not forget.  Because we do forget.  We forget everything.  We want to forget.  In fact, we’ve been seeing a lot of wonderful old-fashioned folk come out of the woodwork around this country to put on a country fair display of their rancid all-American racism.  This film is for that guy at the town hall meeting on health care reform who decided to tear up the poster of Rosa Parks.  Boy did he forget!  That guy should watch this film and think about it a lot.  Then put himself out with the garbage.  Because I really don’t care whether a guy like that remembers or not.  He’s really just a hole in the road that needs to be paved over.

But the one great thing about all this raging racism coming out, much of which is directed at President Obama, is that it does in fact come out.  We see the bigots.  Yes, indeed… we know who you are.

U.S. Defense Secretary Doesn’t Understand Free Press

Yesterday, an Associated Press photograph by Julie Jacobson of a mortally wounded U.S. marine sparked intense controversy when the picture was released for printing in newspapers.  U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, attacked the decision by Associated Press as  an “unconscionable departure” from the restraint that most journalists have shown in covering the military since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  He went on to say in a letter to Associated Press:

Why your organization would purposely defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me.  Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple newspapers is appalling.

This public official clearly does not understand the function of a free press.  He is a holdover from the Bush administration which was the most repressive in the history of the United States, going so far as to prevent any photographs of the caskets of our war dead.  Journalists have been ’embedded’ with U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001.  Most of their photos stay well clear of the true nature of war.  In fact, the majority of the journalism practiced in the theater of war since 2001 has been pathetically weak, looking as if it were all passed through some secretive military approval process before being published.  Most of what passes for journalism really looks like nothing more than a military recruiting program.  We see pictures of soldiers walking around, eating, firing howitzers, driving Humvees, or firing their weapons over a wall.  We see very little of what war actually is.  It is dead people.  It is people blown apart.  Bleeding.  Screaming.  Burning.  Dead soldiers.  Dead civilians.  Dead children.

Secretary Gates has no business attacking journalists for doing their jobs correctly.  The subject of war is death.  A photographer who takes pictures of soldiers walking around or shooting or eating in the mess hall is not taking pictures of war.  War is death.  You can only photograph war by photographing the dead, dying and injured.  No other photographs count.

The soldiers are very brave and do an incredible job.  But they are employees of the federal government and work for the people of the United States.  We have a right to see photographs of the true nature of our soldiers’ work.  We have the right to see our soldiers when they are alive and when they are dying.  It is truth.  It is reality.  Photojournalists are there to capture reality.  Not what we wish would happen.  Not what we imagine happens.  They are there to photograph what really happens.

Why does Secretary Gates not object to photographs of dead enemy soldiers?  Why doesn’t he object to photos of injured earthquake victims?  For some reason, photographs of dead or dying U.S. soldiers are off-limits.  Why would the primary outcome of war be off-limits to a free society that owes a great deal of its freedom and strength to a free press?

Associated Press did the right thing.  They did what journalists do.  They reported what they saw.

Bob Dylan Drives a Big Stinky SUV

I didn’t realize that Bob Dylan meant his exhaust fumes were blowin’ in the wind. Check out this ridiculous Cadillac commercial featuring a leather-fetishist ersatz-cowboy Bob Dylan driving a huge honking stinky earth-eating Cadillac Escalade right through the big red heart of America. Sometimes a guy does something so damned dumb that you just have to say a few words about it. Look, if you need ten bucks for a cab ride, Mr. Dylan, come on over to the house and I’ll give it to you. Get out of the bloody Escalade and drop the silly cowboy costume. Escalades are for short people who can’t read.

Honestly, I really can’t stand finding out how dumb famous people are.

Great Britain Releases Pan Am Lockerbie Bomber on ‘Campassionate’ Grounds

Great Britain, the most anti-terrorism and surveillance-oriented nation in the world, has released from prison the mass-murderer terrorist, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who carried out the bombing of the Pan Am passenger jet over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 which killed 270 people.  It would appear that the decision to release one of the worst terrorists in history was made by Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill.  Apparently, the terrorist is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and the authorities in Great Britain saw fit to release him on ‘compassionate’ grounds.  Compassion.  Great Britain feels compelled to alleviate the suffering of a man who bombed 270 men women and children out of the skies over Scotland.  One of those children actually grew up next door to my former wife.

This absolute debacle has the potential to collapse the current government in Great Britain because worldwide outrage is so extreme.  British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is refusing to openly criticize the decision to release made by Scotland’s semi-autonomous justice system.  In fact, there are increasing reports that the release is due to trade agreements between Great Britain and Libya.  The released terrorist was given a hero’s welcome in Libya, with the Scottish flag being waved as part of the revolting celebration.  The nation of Libya employed the terrorists and directed the carrying out of the bombing in 1988.  Libya’s leader, Colonel Gaddafi, actually thanked Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Queen of England, saying:

To my friends in Scotland, the Scottish National Party, and Scottish prime minister, and the foreign secretary, I praise their courage for having proved their independence in decision making despite the unacceptable and unreasonable measures that they faced. Nevertheless they took this courageously right and humanitarian decision.

And I say to my friend Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain, his Government, the Queen of Britain, Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew, who all contributed to encouraging the Scottish government to take this historic and courageous decision, despite the obstacles.

In Great Britain you are on security video surveillance almost everywhere you go.  There are more closed circuit television cameras watching the population there than anywhere else on earth.  The police are hyper-vigilant about anyone so much as lifting a camera in a train station.  Civil liberties are under constant assault in the name of security.  But when a convicted mass-murderer and international terrorist gets prostate cancer he is apparently free to return home to his terrorist boss and have a parade in honor of his accomplishments as a terrorist.

I think the faster the leadership in Great Britain is asked to leave, the better.

Opinion Piece: Obama’s Own Images Influence Healthcare Protest Images

The controversy over President Obama’s health care reform effort is becoming dangerously angry. Groups consisting almost entirely of white conservatives are agitated about the possibility of legislation that creates new rules for health insurers and establishes some sort of public government-run coverage for those who want or need it. I’ve seen the footage of screaming and shoving at the town hall debates. I’ve seen the footage of the raging white guy snatching the poster of Rosa Parks from the black woman and tearing it to shreds while the white audience applauds his shocking act. I’ve seen the protest signs showing Obama transformed into Hitler. I’ve seen the people holding up swastikas. There’s a lot of rage and alarming racism on display by these people. Furthermore, I don’t see many poor, unemployed or uninsured people screaming and calling the president ‘Hitler.’ One must also stop to consider that many of these angry health care protesters are conservative ‘Christians’ who talk a good game in church about helping the poor and about mercy and all that kind of thing. But when the president actually sits down to try to offer money and government support for health care for people who may desperately need it, these conservative ‘Christians’ go into a frothing rage and call the president ‘Hitler.’

Very strange. Or is it?

Where do these people get all this Hitler fascist stuff? You can easily ascertain that they are not intelligent people simply by watching and listening to them.  Most of them could not tell you where Hitler was born but they seem to throw his name around a lot. They certainly weren’t out there calling George W. Bush ‘Hitler.’ They didn’t hold up swastikas for him. If any U.S. president has even come close to behaving like Hitler, it must be George W. Bush. He actually invaded a country on a false pretext. He imprisoned people without any charges and ordered them to be tortured without mercy for indefinite periods. Hitler did those things and plenty more. Of all U.S. presidents in the history of this nation, George W. Bush most closely matches Hitler in his actions and his assaults upon free speech and the rule of law. So why is Obama being called ‘Hitler’ for initiating some health insurance legislation in Congress?

FaireyObamaPosterPart of the answer is right here in this poster by artist Shepard Fairey. This poster of the candidate Obama became a national icon and is one of the most recognizable political images in our history. It also has a problem.  A big problem.

It’s fascist.

Obama is not fascist.  His images are.  Obama chose this image to represent him in his campaign for the presidency.  Strange choice considering that we are a democracy and naturally recoil at images of giant heroic politicians gazing off into the sky.

The Fairey poster smacks of simplified, hard-edged, focused, efficient, mindless hero-worship.  When images promote hero-worship of political leaders they immediately become oppressive and fascist. NorthKoreaPoster1Look at the North Korean poster with its simple shapes and heroic figures lifting their gazes off and up over the observer’s level as if they are looking into some magnificent future of possibilities and… hope.  The poster from North Korea is doing the same thing the Obama poster is doing.  I’m not going to engage in an argument about the exact definition of fascism versus communism or totalitarianism.  The fact is that all political imagery from repressive governments and totalitarian regimes concerns itself with presenting a leader as a wonderful hero who should be loved for his heroism and his magnificent personality.  The imagery also simplifies itself so that it can be seen from a great distance and be easily understood by unintelligent people.

One may argue that the artist, Shepard Fairey, is infatuated with the techniques of fascist posters from around the world and adopts their forms for his own uses.  Sure.  Artists do that every day.  But as soon as you place those techniques into a political image and promote a particular figure or personality, you are engaging in fascism whether you want to or not.  Perhaps, Fairey never intended the image to become an actual campaign poster.  But Obama easily turned it into one.

Ask yourself this question: what might George Orwell have thought of the Obama poster?

These angry health care reform protesters may not be aware of this direct link between Obama’s imagery and fascism, but they are definitely influenced by it.  They are swimming in fascist Obama imagery everywhere they turn and so they are simply using it for their own purposes.

I’m not letting myself off the foolish hero-worship hook here either.  I was somewhat taken with the Obama poster during the presidential campaign.  I made the following video as my own little effort to help the campaign.  The video focuses entirely on my discovery of one of the posters on the wall of an abandoned building in Baltimore.

My video is part of the problem. It revels in the fascist image of the candidate. I think my little film is actually pretty good, but I am not proud of being bamboozled by that suspect poster.

The Obama cult of personality imagery continues unabated.

obamacoversHe’s popular, certainly.  He’s the nation’s first black president which is fantastic and overdue and accounts for a great deal of the hero-worship.  He is a hero in many respects.  But the images are focused on his face, figure, and personality.  Not his politics.  That puts the images directly into the camp of fascism or near-fascism.  We in the United States typically maintain a somewhat suspicious attitude toward politicians.  That’s a good thing because it keeps them nervous and, with the help of the free press, it keeps them somewhat in line.

But right now president Obama is dealing with people who are expressing enormous hatred which is partly class-based and partly racist.  And, unfortunately, Obama’s own use of images containing fascist elements has unwittingly given these people a weapon with which to attack the foundations of his presidency.  It has also given them the courage to use it.

If you put your face on a poster, someone’s going to throw an egg.

Cambridge Cop Refuses to Apologize for Unconstitutional Arrest of Black Professor

So President Obama sat down today for beers in the Rose Garden with professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the cop who arrested him for being uncooperative and making loud insulting remarks to the police while inside the comfort of his own home.  Apparently, Obama felt bad for having called the Cambridge police ‘stupid’ after receiving news of the arrest for what the police call ‘disorderly conduct’.  Many disorderly conduct laws have actually been ruled to be unconstitutional and the idea that a person could be arrested for insulting a police officer while on his own property is frightening.  Anywhere in the United States, a person is free to insult police officers without fear of arrest.  Such speech is fully protected by the U.S. Constitution.  We are also free to not cooperate with a police officer when asked questions or when asked to step outside of our homes.  We can refuse totally without any fear of arrest whatsoever.  Any police officer who arrests someone under such circumstances is breaking the law and is denying someone their clear constitutional rights.  I would not have any beers with such an officer.  I would not attend any meetings with him and the president.  The officer said in his press conference that both men had agreed to ‘look forward, rather than backward.’ I’m really not sure what forward he could possibly mean.  It would be more productive to look squarely backward at his illegal and shocking arrest of a man who simply didn’t like him.

I watch the officer in the video above and I see a person of limited intelligence, with no understanding of his unlawful act.  Harvard University needs to move itself the heck out of Cambridge if this guy is an example of how the locals are thinking up there. What an embarrassment.

Christopher Hitchens has written an excellent short article about why race is not as important a factor in this episode as one’s constitutional right to mouth off at police officers.

Also, in Washington, D.C. this week a young attorney was out with his friends discussing the Gates arrest.  He decided to have some fun and test the constitutional principal which gives protection to people to who express their dislike of police.  He walked past several police cars that had stopped another vehicle and he chanted ‘I hate the cops. I hate the cops.’

According to him, he was immediately rushed by an angry D.C. police offer who pushed him against a utility box and said, “Who do you think you are to think you can talk to a police officer like that?”  The officer arrested the young attorney for disorderly conduct.  The young man now has an actionable claim against the police department and is probably going to sue them and win because, contrary to what the cop thinks, the young man does have the right to talk to a police officer like that.  Many police seem to think that because they protect security they have rights and privileges beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides.  This problem is getting worse, not better.  The fundamental right to freedom of speech and the right of free assembly in this country is under direct and heavy assault from police who see their responsibility to protect security as trumping all other rights and constitutional safeguards.

Police who do not understand that people can insult them and dislike them and say nasty things to them should be dismissed immediately from duty wherever they serve.  And our president should feel free to call them stupid.

Cambridge Police Arrest Famous Black Professor for Breaking No Law

APTOPIX Harvard Scholar DisorderlyWell-known black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was returning home from a trip when he and his driver found that the front door to Gate’s home was jammed. The professor went into his home through the back door and and helped the driver push the front door open. Meanwhile, a neighbor, suspecting a burglary, called the police. Of course, you might wonder why the neighbor didn’t spend a bit more time figuring out that the homeowner was simply opening his own door. But that’s not the real story.

The real story is that when the Cambridge, Massachusetts police showed up, professor Gates didn’t like the way the officer treated him and he did not cooperate fully with the officer.  Remember that in United States we are under no legal obligation whatsoever to cooperate with a police officer who is asking questions.  We don’t have to say anything.  Professor Gates decided that since he was inside his own home the cop had no business asking him to prove that he was in fact in his own home.  This is a perfectly justifiable attitude to have inside one’s own home.  A police officer must be extremely cautious in dealing with a situation like this, especially when it becomes quite clear to anyone of average intelligence that it really is the homeowner the officer is dealing with.  So professor Gates decided to give the officer a good piece of his mind.  He apparently refused to show ID then changed his mind and did.  He apparently told the officer that he was being racially profiled and that he was suffering under the treatment given to blacks by law enforcement.  He may have insulted the officer and yelled at him.  He may have insulted the officer’s mother.

The officer says that there are radio call recordings that will prove professor Gates was yelling in the background.  So, this Cambridge police officer arrested professor Gates for ‘disorderly conduct’ – in his own home.  Disorderly conduct for being angry at a police officer in his own home.  Disorderly conduct is a very vague statute in most states, used primarily to give officers the ability to round people up for simply being uncooperative.  Basically, if a cop doesn’t like you, he or she can arrest you for ‘disorderly conduct.’

I post about this episode at length because it goes straight to the heart of free speech in this country.  Law enforcement versus free speech is the subject.  We are living during a time when law enforcement seems to think it can record the phone calls of American citizens without a search warrant, physically assault journalists during the Democratic and Republican conventions, and harass photographers in public places while attempting to confiscate their equipment.  Police in Minneapolis, Minnesota staged an armed assault on a young peaceful protest group just prior to the Republican Presidential Convention in 2008.  They burst into their house with weapons drawn and made these young people lie on the floor while illegally searching the house because they wanted to prevent the group from protesting near the convention.  Much of this was caught on video and witnessed by onlookers.   Many police officers around the nation seem to have very little understanding of what constitutes protected free speech and what constitutes a real threat.  Some officers actually do understand the difference but choose to ignore the law.

If professor Gates insulted the officer in his home, it’s protected free speech.  If he insulted the officer’s mother, it’s protected free speech.  I he called the officer a racist, it’s protected free speech.  None of it matters in the slightest.  The correct response from a police officer in such a situation is to shrug it off and say, ‘Have a nice day.’  To arrest someone for behaving the way professor Gates did is outrageous and stupid.  Just like president Obama says: the Cambridge police acted stupidly.

Now the Cambridge police department is furious that Obama has insulted them and they demand an apology.  Obama owes them no such apology.  He called them stupid and they most certainly are.  All you need to know about this arrest is that prosecutors refused to press charges and all charges were dropped.  That means it was a bad arrest.  That means the police behaved stupidly and made an arrest that was not supported by law.  They arrested someone for breaking no law.  I cannot think of a better word for it than ‘stupid.’

To arrest a prominent black scholar for expressing his outrage inside his own home to police officers is stupid and might possibly be an act of racism.  The police are now parading a black officer around who was at the scene of the stupidity and says he supports the arrest because ‘Mr. Gates was acting strange.’ Acting strange.  Obviously, being a black Cambridge cop has not prevented this guy from being stupid.  We are not supposed to be arresting people in the United States for ‘acting strange.’ If there’s a cop on a force who thinks that acting strange qualifies for an arrest, he or she should be let go pronto.

So we join president Obama in calling the Cambridge police who arrested professor Gates stupid. They also seem to be poorly trained, insensitive, unaware of legal protections for free speech, and perhaps somewhat racially biased.  The race part really isn’t the important part because we don’t know if anyone on the scene really is racist.  But we do know beyond any doubt whatsoever that the police on the scene arrested someone for exercising his right to free speech.

Officer Friendly sure isn’t working up in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Amazon Deletes Purchased Copies of ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’ From Kindles

KindleWe have totally had enough of Amazon.com at Candlelight Stories and have completely removed them from advertising space on this site and permanently severed our ‘associate’ relationship with the company.  The reason is simple.  Over the weekend, Amazon went into customers’ Kindle ebook devices and deleted purchased copies of George Orwell’s classic novels, Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm.  Apparently, the U.S. owner of the novels’ copyrights either decided to change its mind about offering an ebook of the novels or complained about illegal electronic copies on Amazon.  So Amazon removed them from the site and then reached out into Kindle devices that are legally owned and whose owners had legally purchased Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm from Amazon’s own site and completely removed all traces of the novels from those devises.  I call it an eBurn.

What this means is that when you buy a Kindle ebook device you don’t actually own the device or anything on it.  Amazon does.  They can simply reach into your device and destroy any file they want to at any time, without your knowledge or permission.  I call that vandalism.  I think any company behaving that way should face a class action lawsuit and be investigated for violations of law.  I will not allow Candlelight Stories to engage in any further business with such a company and cannot recommend that anyone purchase a Kindle or any electronic file from Amazon.com whatsoever.  What Amazon did was basically like this:  imagine you go to buy a book for $14.95 at a Barnes & Nobel store.  Then Barnes & Nobel decides for whatever reason that they actually didn’t really want to sell you that book.  So they send an employee into your home while you’re out to remove the book from your bookshelf and leave $14.95 under your pillow.  That’s exactly what Amazon thinks it can do to you.  Appalling.  George Orwell must at this moment be laughing in his grave.  And the joke’s on Amazon.

Amazon has gotten into the habit recently of engaging in digital censorship and then apologizing once they get wind of a public outcry.  They then try to spin their bad behavior as a technical glitch that won’t happen again.  They have replied to this latest debacle by saying that it happens ‘rarely’ and that it will not happen again.  We do not believe them.  What this episode proves beyond any shadow of doubt is that the company can press a button and blow away any book you may have purchased.  Refunding the purchases simply does not make up for this grotesque behavior.  So, when you buy a Kindle, you really don’t own anything.  You are simply renting a little portable Amazon cash register that Amazon retains full rights to.  Companies like Amazon are building distribution systems that make censorship as easy as the press of a button.  How far are we willing to go in allowing just a few companies to control the distribution of most of our literature and reference material.  If that handful of companies decides it doesn’t like the politics of a certain kind of literature, it can blow it away completely by pressing a button or entering a simple code.  Book burnings have never been able to eradicate ideas so efficiently.  We now have something new: the eBurn.  No company that cared in the slightest for literature or for books would ever behave this way for any reason.  I am disgusted and horrified by Amazon.  I actually bought a television through Amazon.  Now I’m wondering if they can get inside it and delete my favorite TV shows.  My digital camera.  Can they blow away my vacation photos?

We have an excellent open-source web browser called Firefox, we now desperately need an open-source ebook device that allows us to purchase from any bookseller in any format available.  Hey, Mozilla, are you listening?

Oh, and by the way, here’s a technology writer to stay away from.  He actually says he thinks it’s a good idea for Amazon to sneak into Kindles and destroy books: Read his dimwitted comments on nothing other than C-Net.com.

But here’s a writer who understands the problem.

Here’s a New York Times article about the eBurn.

YouTube Offering Citizen Journalism

A fascinating development at YouTube: The Reporters’ Center, where you can get tips on effective journalism from prominent reporters. The new YouTube channel went live today and is already offering some interesting how-to videos like the one above by reporter Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. He shows you how to be careful when trying to interview war lords with big guns, how to hide your money, and how to always be a little skeptical and double-check witness accounts and stories that sound too good. Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post has a video about the impact of citizen journalism best demonstrated by the recent uprising in Iran. During the past few weeks, the government of Iran tried to shut down the operations of journalists and restrict the use of internet and text messaging in order to suppress information about government violence against protesters. But they were not able to prevent people with cell phone cameras from making videos and sending them out of the country for the world to see. These people have also been reporting on the situation via Twitter to give real-time coverage of many events in Iran.

This movement toward citizen journalism is extremely interesting because it democratizes the press. Cameras in the hands of millions become a formidable tool for keeping an eye on government and limiting its ability to suppress information.  The press has always functioned like a fourth branch of the U.S. government, preventing the administrative, legislative, and judiciary from thinking they operate out of sight.  In fact, it probably wouldn’t hurt to constitutionally formalize the press as some kind of fourth branch!

Continue reading

We Make Stories: Oddly Deceptive Membership Site from Penguin Books

Penguin’s Puffin Books has a new membership site called We Make Stories, where kids can use an online tool to create stories.  There are several types of story creation, including a remix tool to use on existing classic tales, a map maker, and a comic book style creator.  It’s all drag and drop type stuff and is intended to teach creativity and encourage literacy.

While this is reasonably fun-looking, I cannot understand why a site would present itself for pay membership and not really give any useful demonstration versions of its tools.  There is a single demo based on remixing old stories, but this is not sufficient to make me want to offer $9.99.  That price, by the way, is very effectively hidden from view and presented in a rather disturbing manner.  Here’s what I mean:

1. First create a user name and password and give us your parent’s email address.

2. Your parent will then get an email asking them to pay for the membership (£5.99/$9.99).

3. Once your parent has paid this, your membership will be activated and you can start to play all the games.

Those are the instruction on the sign-up page.  So kids are expected to blunder forth and sign up without the benefit of an effective demonstration.  Give away a parent’s email address without permission.  Then the parent receives an email demanding money.  No sir.  Absolutely not.  You put the price in big print on the front page and you don’t mislead children into presenting their parents with an unexpected request for money.  Everything should be up-front and visible right at the beginning.  I just can’t believe what I’m seeing online from a major publisher.  Perhaps we have here an example of how the publishing industry intends to get money out of people – by tricking their children.

Iran’s Religious Leaders Murder Young Woman On-Camera

In an act that has probably sealed their doom, the Islamic religious government of Iran brutally murdered a young woman by shooting her in the heart as she stood next to her father at a protest march. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has threatened the protesters with violence and death.  This weekend he delivered on his promise when one of his thugs murdered a woman in front of cell phone cameras.  These cameras have enabled the world to watch the brutal horror that comes from a religious government.  The girl is Neda Soltan, a 26-year-old philosophy student.  She does not know it, but the blood that runs from her in the video is probably going to drown Iran’s government in relatively short order.

Continue reading

Iran: A Nation of Bloggers

Created by Hendy Sukarya, Aaron Chiesa, Toru Kageyama and Lisa Temes as a student production, this film offers interesting information about the revolution of young people in Iran who have made the repressive Islamic nation the third largest nation of bloggers in the world.  It is very well done and packs a good informational punch.  Young bloggers getting their words out from under the watchful eye of an extremist religious government is admirable.  But a nation that becomes a fanatical religious state run by clerics who kill people for speaking out cannot be trusted even a little.  That goes for its young bloggers too.  I am wholly unconvinced by the urge to ‘freedom’ in Iran.  It requires a fire much stonger than a blog to burn religion out of a government.

Iran Protests Are Irrelevant

The rallies and protests in support of opposition presidential candidate Hossein Moussavi or current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran are totally irrelevant.  The president of Iran is purely a middle-management position that reports to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenie who is an Islamic religious leader of a theocratic state.  The protesters in the current uprising are arguing for their votes to be counted in a meaningless election which does nothing but support a theocratic regime that rules the entire country by their interpretation of the word of god.  The religious government of Iran completely suppresses anything that might pass as free speech, it treats women like animals who have no rights and who count as only one half of a man.  It also threatens to wipe other nations off the face of the globe.

If I were a crowd of a few million protesters in Iran (after all, crowds often act as a single entity), I would not bother about protesting presidential votes.  I would remove the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Counsel completely and by any means necessary.  I would eliminate the religious government entirely.  Only then would the protests have any meaning.  Only then would there be any possibility of a free election.  And only then would I take the protests seriously.  It’s all or nothing, folks.  If you don’t like your government, get rid of it.  Meanwhile, you’re just a side-show.

Iran Election Fraudulent Because of No Free Press and No Free Women

The protests raging over the recent presidential election in Iran are an expression of distrust of the official election results that seem to declare the current and totally insane president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the overwhelming victor.  Riots are becoming extremely violent, with police beatings in the streets and clouds of black smoke rising above Tehran.  However, the arguments over whether or not the election was fraudulent are a complete waste of energy.  No election in any country that does not have a free press can ever be legitimate.  Without a free press to report on an election and possible election fraud there is no one to hold a sitting government accountable to the people.  You cannot have a democracy or an election in a country that does not allow reporters freedom to write whatever they want.  It’s impossible.  Iran’s election is fraudulent because Iran’s government is controlled entirely by Islamic clerics who have absolutely no respect for freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of religion, freedom of education, or freedom of women.

I define as barbaric any country anywhere on the planet that forces women to wear specific attire.  Iran is a barbaric nation with a population of extremely fearful males lacking in an essential self-confidence.  This is what drives male-dominated Islamic governments to require certain codes of conduct and dress for women.  In countries where elections are legitimate women wear shorts and makeup.  Think I’m just being glib?  Go check it out.

Iran has cut off internet services, cell phone service, and texting services in order to prevent discussion and organization of opponents to the religious government.  It has arrested journalists, shut down newspapers, and confiscated television cameras in a crackdown on activities of the international media in Iran.  These are the actions of a total dictatorship.

In fact, there is almost no hope at all for the protesters in Iran.  Even if they succeed in overturning the election, they would not be able or willing to eliminate religious control of their government.  Countries ruled by Islam are permanently and hopelessly barbaric.  It’s like a law of physics that’s completely unbreakable.

The root of the problem with Iran is the root of the problem for almost every single government in the Middle East: religious control.  There is no possibility of the slightest freedom of expression or freedom for women in any country controlled by a religious entity.  None whatsoever.

Photo from AFP/Getty

Author Toni Morrison Talks About Free Speech

tonimorrisonIn a time when we have a president who is actually attempting to hide photos purported to show United States military personnel allegedly raping prisoners during torture sessions in Iraq, author Toni Morrison is speaking out in support of free speech.  The two things are related because of the government’s use of fear to justify hiding the photos of brutal criminal conduct by U.S. personnel.

Over the years, Morrison, author of Beloved and Song of Solomon, has had several of her novels threatened with being banned for their content.

Here’s a sampling from an Associated Press article about the launch of the Free Speech Leadership Council which includes Toni Morrison:

Morrison said the problem was fear — fear of information, dating back to the book of Genesis and the fatal temptation of the Tree of Knowledge.

“Knowledge is bad” is the Bible’s message, Morrison said, while being interviewed by author-humorist Fran Lebowitz. “It is sinful. It will corrupt you and you will die.”

Freedom of speech and information is under far greater threat these days than most people seem to realize.  It is extremely important for well-known authors to discuss the issue openly.

The photo is from AP’s Seth Wenig.