Khatami, Cheney, whatever: misunderstanding freedom of speech
Last night I was talking to my fellow Sanity Squad members after taping this week’s podcast (no, it’s not online yet, but should be soon).
The session you hear is usually just the tip of the iceberg for us. As I’ve said before, we bloggers can talk, and after our tongues are loosened by the thirty or so minutes allotted to the taping, we usually go on–and on and on and on. And of course, we’re even more fascinating–as well as sublimely humorous–with the recording device turned off, but you’ll just have to take my word for it.
Last night we got into–among many other things–a post-taping discussion of Khatami’s invitation to speak at Harvard. We all agreed that Harvard shouldn’t have tendered the invitation; after all, why give him such an illustrious forum? I said that Harvard’s argument in its defense is that all views should be heard in the marketplace of ideas, and that truth will out. We all were in agreement, however, that in that case he should at least have been invited to debate with someone on the other side. Netanyahu came to mind, or perhaps Dershowitz, but it could have been any number of people.
Of course, that wasn’t done. Why not? Well, for one thing, Khatami probably would have declined the pleasure if he’d had to face an opponent. If there’s one thing Khatami is about, I think we can safely say that it’s not free debate in the marketplace of ideas.
Then today I came across this article by Caroline Glick that appeared in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post. The subject is Khatami’s invitation to speak at Harvard as compared with a visit by none other than Dick Cheney, who entered the Harvard Club through a back door to evade two hundred protesters who greeted him when he arrived to give a speech there recently.
Well, I happened to have been at the Khatami protest (forgot to bring my camera, folks, but here are Sol’s shots) and although I’m not an expert at crowd estimation, I’d say there were a goodly number of protesters there, but that the number came in well under two hundred.
Ms. Glick also seems to feel that there may be more hatred for Cheney at Harvard than for Khatami. And in her article she makes the exact point the Sanity Squad was discussing in our off-the-record talk last night (could she have been overhearing us through some sort of Rovian wiretap?)–that, if Harvard’s intent in inviting Khatami was to offer a free flow of ideas so that truth would emerge, it would have been good to have had an opposing side present at Khatami’s speech. She agrees, however, that such an invitation would probably have put the kibosh on the whole shebang.
No, I’m not saying that every single speaker at Harvard has to have an opposing viewpoint presented at the same time. That would be ludicrous, for either side. But certainly for a speaker who represents such abhorrent polices as Khatami, it would be a good idea.
The bottom line is that there is no requirement that Harvard offer our enemies a bully pulpit, nor is there any prohibition on Harvard’s doing so. It simply is a matter of the school’s judgment and policy. And given the present state of relations with Iran–actually, the same state of relations we’ve had for virtually all the years since the Islamic revolution there in 1979–inviting Khatami to speak at Harvard is a bit like having invited Hermann Goering over to speak at Harvard during the late 30s. I haven’t checked it out yet, but my guess is that it didn’t happen. The Greatest Generation wasn’t quite as stupid and self-destructive as we are.
One of these days I plan to write at greater length about the misconceptions many people have about freedom of speech (we’ll see–I’ve got notes for several hundred as yet unwritten articles, so I’ve got my work cut out for me). But the summary version is that, when last I looked, the Bill of Rights states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is mainly concerned with prohibiting government intrusion into the right to speak out. It’s not absolute, of course; there are always restrictions, most famously that the government has a right to prohibit the shouting of “fire” in a crowded theater. But there is no requirement that any non-governmental institution invite all comers to spout off from a podium. Of course, if Harvard chooses to do so, the government can’t stop it. That’s why Governor Romney, as a state agent, had no ability to keep Khatami away from Harvard. Instead, he was limited to refusing to supply Khatami with state support for the trip, such as an official state escort (the Federal government provided the main security) or state VIP treatment. The only other thing Romney could do was to use his freedom of speech to harshly criticize Harvard for offering the invite.
But somehow, for some people, the guarantees of prohibition of governmental restriction on freedom of speech has somehow morphed into the thought that one must actively provide an opportunity to speak for those who oppose you or are against you. No. Let them speak on a street corner. Let them publish a leaflet and distribute it in Harvard Square. And yes, of course, if you wish to provide them with a forum in your institution, I can’t stop you. But I can exercise my right to freedom of speech by criticizing you for doing so.
The argument that having someone like Khatami speak at Harvard is a good thing because it furthers discussion in the free marketplace of ideas sounds good on paper (or on the computer screen). But in reality it doesn’t always work that way; it’s best to use some judgment about this. Here’s the much-maligned Wikipedia (how’s that for the marketplace of ideas?) on the subject:
A classic argument for protecting freedom of speech as a fundamental right is that it is essential for the discovery of truth. This argument is particularly associated with the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”…
This marketplace of ideas rationale for freedom of speech has been criticized by scholars on the grounds that it is wrong to assume all ideas will enter the marketplace of ideas, and even if they do, some ideas may drown out others merely because they enjoy dissemination through superior resources.
The marketplace is also criticized for its assumption that truth will necessarily triumph over falsehood. It is visible throughout history that people may be swayed by emotion rather than reason, and even if truth ultimately prevails, enormous harm can occur in the interim.
“Dissemination through superior resources” does seem to be the very definition of giving a speech at Harvard. So, why encourage Khatami in this way? Granted, he’s not Ahmadinejad (is he next on the speaker invite list?) But he’s bad enough.
Does Harvard provide an equally distinguished and public forum for the people who have been tortured, enslaved, or the relatives of those who have been killed by Khatami’s regime?
Harvard didn’t invite Khatami because they’re inveterate champions of free speech (just ask Larry Summers), they invited him because it’s the rebellious thing to do. If BusHitler (daddy) says that Khatami is part of the Axis of Evil, then the overgrown adolescents at Harvard simply can’t help themselves: they have to grab them some forbidden fruit to demontrate how independent and adult they are, not realizing that if you rebel against everything daddy says, he’s still the one in control (duh).
Furthermore, I don’t believe that truth will always out. Truth is usually not easy to accept. It’s often not as palatable as the easy lies offered. Jihad is heady stuff, and to a bunch of aging teenagers, what can be more appealing than someone who can take daddy down? They’re so fixated on having their childish dreams of vanquishing their fathers realized that they don’t see that Khatami aspires to be their father–their absolutist, controlling, you-think-Bush-is-fascist-well-watch-this father.
Harvard’s transparent attempt to “promote free speech” is yet another symptom of the sickness called moral relativism that has taken over higher education. If you can even call it “higher” or “education” anymore…
Excellent post, Neo! I was very impressed with Gov. Romney’s courage to speak up on this issue and take such a strong stand. I hope he will consider running for the presidency sometime in the future.
This marketplace of ideas rationale for freedom of speech has been criticized by scholars on the grounds that it is wrong to assume all ideas will enter the marketplace of ideas, and even if they do, some ideas may drown out others merely because they enjoy dissemination through superior resources.
The marketplace is also criticized for its assumption that truth will necessarily triumph over falsehood. It is visible throughout history that people may be swayed by emotion rather than reason, and even if truth ultimately prevails, enormous harm can occur in the interim.
Though this statement is true, IMO, it should be used to justify legal restrictions on speech very sparingly. This is just the sort of justification that produced the McCain-Feingold abomination.
You happen to have been at the Khatami protest?! A protest babe! Did you hold the green apple up during the entire proceedings?
It’s sad. Harvard used to be one of our very finest. For a portion of my life I have been proud that Harvard was a part of American life. It existed in my imagination, after its ubiquitous presence in movies, books and articles, as a place that other institutions would be measured against.
But I’ve learned that universities are ultimately of the intelligentsia and Western intelligentsia, with a few exceptions, went south some time ago. Universities in the West have evolved into self-replicating hives of anti-Enlightenment and political correctness.
Grackle: as a southerner, I wish you northern folks would avoid the phrase “went south” when you want to be negative. Why not say “turned brown” as in scorching the toast instead?
Roger L. Simon quoted Publis Pundit as saying the Khatami protest attracted around 150 to 200 people. Roger himself evinces pretty strong disappointment in the turnout:
“According to Robert (Mayer, Publis Pundit), 150-200 people showed up… 200 people in a city the size of Boston is an abysmal failure. Nobody cares.
—–
Regarding Harvard’s invitation itself: I don’t object just straight out no-matter-what to inviting controversial figures to speak. If this were a series of lectures showing a multitude of viewpoints and including, as Fausta highlights, dissidents and other Iranian citizens presenting different narratives and opinions on the Iranian government, I’d actually welcome it. But to extend the invite in the absence of any attempt to present a complete view… that really bothers me. The result may not be an overt endorsement of the Iranian regime’s views, but the lack of any attempt to offer alternate viewpoints results in an emphasis, a highlighting of only one of the narratives. That’s endorsement by default, even if it isn’t by intent.
Are there any saving graces to this issue at all? Well, yes, two come to mind:
1. There was a protest, and even though the numbers didn’t exactly blow Roger Simon’s or my socks off, at least it was there (I do share his disappointment at the numbers, though).
2. At least it wasn’t Ahmadinejad. I’m not about to defend Khatami – look at which government he used to represent – but at least he did make attempts at liberalization back when he represented it. Anyway, back to the point: He’s not Ahmadinejad, whose administration has cracked down on journalists and bloggers, pushed for a purge of politically moderate as well as secular-minded university instructors, actually already purged many diplomats and other civil servants in favor of religious hard liners, and has personally spouted factual inaccuracies regarding the Holocaust. Featuring Ahmadinejad without any countervailing view would just be ridiculous.
Does anyone know what he said in his speech? Did the anyone in the MSM carry it? The fact that I haven’t seen one word about it makes me think that it was too embarrassing to publish.
Grackle: as a southerner, I wish you northern folks would avoid the phrase “went south” when you want to be negative. Why not say “turned brown” as in scorching the toast instead?
Scattershot:
Your first mistake: I’m not “northern folks.” I was born and live WAY south of the Mason Dixon.
Second mistake: Not knowing the meaning of the idiom, “went south,” which has nothing to do with the Southern United States at all but simply means ‘went into decline,’ or ‘declined.’ It comes from a phrase used by Native Americans as an euphemism for ‘death.’
A tip: Before taking offense take the time to do a bit of research.
I’ve become a fan of Pajama’s Media new site. They do have a link to this:
Available now @ YouTube: Murderer In The Cathedral: An Exclusive Pajamas Media video presentation on Iranian President Khatami’s visit to the Washington National Cathedral. Produced by Andrew Marcus with Richard Miniter.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/09/murderer_in_the_cathedral_now.php
CSPAN broadcast one of his speeches this weekend, but I refused attention.
NEO opens interesting discussion. I think we have to understand the enemy’s campaign. Mr. Khatami had no ‘good’ reason to speak to Americans, except–with my suspicious mind–to count ‘coup’ for Islam. Image points.
Or perhaps Iranian intelligence is canny enough to seek to exploit American politics, knowing that a civilised fanatic would show well in the minds of the disoriented Left. The proximity to 9-11 cannot have escaped the Iranians.
Just today I happened to CNN harping that Iran is no menace. Leave them– as we should have Saddam– to their own ‘devices.’
It’s interesting that Khatami cut a public speaking swath through, first, the National Cathedral and, then, Harvard, both bastions of moral relativism and intellectual elitism.
Our so called National Catherdral is run by the ever more disparate and declining Episcopal Church. In my visits to the Cathedral over the past few years, I have heard more nonsensical, politically correct rhetoric, including Bush Derangement Syndrome, than even in the MSM.
If I had ever given donations to either institution, which I haven’t, I certainly would never do so again. Before we are all subdued into Islam, we can at least level some free market forces on these ridiculous excuses for “free speech and healthy exchange of ideas!”
To both Harvard and the National Cathedral I have only one other thing to say:
No cigar.
-another good Post and demonstration of why your site meter is nearing 700K… I came across your blog when it was in the low 20s, as I recall…
Another creepy post, Neo-neocon. You are at your creepiest when you deal with media or communication, no doubt about it.
A lecture to an American university audience, let alone Harvard, by a former leader of state, any state, isn’t something you right wingers should worry about. A Harvard crowd is well equipped to deal with ideas.
Would you trust yourself to attend a lecture by Khatami, or would you fear for your mind?
If Idi Amin weren’t dead, Anonymous,I would like to hear him expound on why he felt it necessary to personally hit prisoners in the head with a hammer. Less interesting would be the deeds of Khatami and his role as one of Khomeini’s enforcers, not that he personally tortured/shot anyone, or hung any women for indecent dress. Legitimize monsters at your own expense, Anonymous, and snarl elsewhere please. Your use of the words “creepy” and “creepiest” reflect but a shallow intellect and lack of critical thought.
Even if taking “free market” metaphor as template, one should remember that at any civilized market some items are prohibited – poisons and illegal drugs, for example. And some ideas are very poisonous and induce unhealthy addictions. They are not only addictive, but also contagious, and push then publicly is a crime comparable to cholera bacilli trading.
Legitimize monsters
And how is that worse than denying fellow citizens the opportunity to hear Khatami speak directly? You have to form opinions, why do it only via mediated material?
snarl elsewhere please
My god! This is a snarling pit. You have no idea how your group sounds to a foreign socialist. I post here to remind you you’re all in public, that some of your ideas are inflammatory and can’t pass unchallenged in civil society.
If you prefer the fantasy of an echo chamber, ask Neo-neocon for a password system. I certainly wouldn’t register for such a place.
My god! This is a snarling pit. You have no idea how your group sounds to a foreign socialist. I post here to remind you you’re all in public, that some of your ideas are inflammatory and can’t pass unchallenged in civil society.
Yes indeed – the topsy turvy world of those who apologize for terrorists. They are offended not by the terrorism perpetuated by these murderers – but by our outrage that a (formerly hallowed) institution would lower itself by giving a terrorist leader a prestigious podium to spout his chilling nonsense – and near the anniversary of 9/11, too. I feel nauseous.
I am glad to find your blog. I think Khatami shouldnt be welcome in the US for the crimes he has done since 1979. He’s a mullah and a good mullah is a dead one. I am sad that US allowed him in.
Neo wrote:
Of course, that wasn’t done(a debate with neoconservative). Why not? Well, for one thing, Khatami probably would have declined the pleasure if he’d had to face an opponent. If there’s one thing Khatami is about, I think we can safely say that it’s not free debate in the marketplace of ideas.
I beg to differ. The man shows no unwillingness to engage in the discussion – he after all, was the creator of the ‘dialouge among civilizations’ theory – constructed to opposition to the neoconservative one of elimination of ‘the enemey’ and the like.
There was no debate because neoconservatives invariably do not do well at all in public debate.
Particularly Dershowitz. Apart from being identified as the ‘torture professor’ he has been systematically taken apart in public debates by leftist intellectuals and authors Chomsky and Finklestein. Badly.
It was not in the interest of the neo-agenda to have an articulate and intelligent man debate. Better to keep the whole thing quiet – play it down and play up the propaganda…
Go fuck yourself, Anonymous – how’s that for real snarling? Preach your foreign socialist doctrine and hysteria to the benefactors of the rotting European economies – we don’t need or could care less about such tripe, and feel free to call on the US to save your neutered selves when needed. This is private intellectual property and if I were the Host, I would delete you, or at least gut-shoot you. Ciao!!
Gut-shoot?
Nice…..
I have to say goesh – you’d do better to argue a point that issue pathetic and empty threats.
I must say upon reviewing Mr. Winston’s Blog it is refreshing to see real Iranians speaking out against the current and past brutality of the Mullahs, including Khatami the Renouncer. From my de facto perspective, it is disheartening to see the almost total lack of attention given to the oppression of the Iranian people by Western peoples. In particular, I am saddened by European and American feminists who lack the insight and basic concern to even speak out against the Mullah’s stated and implemented policies of returning women to obscurity and second-class status. Proper, Islamic attire rules are being pressed upon the women as we speak. How bitterly ironic that an instituion such as Harvard University would fete the likes of Mullah Khatami when Iran has just now placed a Cleric in charge of all academia and forced a number of so-called Liberal Professors to retire. How bitterly ironic for some to tout Freedom of speech for Khatami when any number of Editors were oppressed and brutally silenced under Khatami and student activists simply disappeared, yet in the bastion of Freedom, America, Khatami goes unchallenged as he speaks his lies and deceit. Is this arrogance or weakness on the part of Americans?
“I beg to differ. The man shows no unwillingness to engage in the discussion – he after all, was the creator of the ‘dialouge among civilizations’ theory – constructed to opposition to the neoconservative one of elimination of ‘the enemey’ and the like.”
People can create theories and yet not believe in them. Karl Marx and snake oil salesmen are examples.
Just because a person claims to be open to ideas doesn’t mean they are. Khatami has proven, through his betrayal of student protest leaders in Iran to the tender mercies of the mullahs, that he is not. He is a charletan and a liar, and anyone who still trusts anything he says is not just a dupe, but a moron.
“How bitterly ironic for some to tout Freedom of speech for Khatami when any number of Editors were oppressed and brutally silenced under Khatami and student activists simply disappeared, yet in the bastion of Freedom, America, Khatami goes unchallenged as he speaks his lies and deceit. Is this arrogance or weakness on the part of Americans?”
This is a good post – but I think it needs to be said that there was a perfect oppurtunity spurned at Harvard to put him on the spot on these issues.
Unfortunately – the neoconservative concern isn’t for the Iranian people(despite the empty rhetoric). As I say, dialouge about U.S and Israeli polices(as well as revealing Iranian geopolitical concerns) in the region needs to be avoided at all costs in public debate – and that takes prescedent over human rights issues in Iran itself.
Shameful…
It is shameless hypocrisy of Harvard faculty members: they invite an ideologue of Islam women apartheid and sack their President, Samuel Summers, for mere arising question, purely scientific one, on possible gender differences in human mind.
Correction: I meant Lawrence Summers.
I keep reading Stephen’s comments even though it brings a sense of revulsion and shame to do so. One can sympathize with the lamb as it is led to the sacrifice. But what does one feel if it offers its neck without struggle? And bleats back to the flock to follow; to hurry with it into oblivion?
For me pity is still there but overlaid with a sense of the shame of the destructive rationalizations of which we humans are capable. Not only are humans capable of murder but certain segments of mankind also seem able to willingly offering themselves and others up for murder. I guess that’s where the shame enters: to willingly enter the kill-floor chute and insist that others follow.
“You have no idea how your group sounds to a foreign socialist.”
Oh, of course we do.
YOU have no idea how utterly bankrupt your comments sound to people who have seen the complete failure of socialism to produce anything like the benefits of capitalism ANYWHERE socialism has been tried. Not to mention the horrendous human death and suffering that socialism has caused in the past century.
There is a REASON neo has self-titled her blog: she WOKE UP. You are still dreaming.
And Stephen/Stevie/Yahmir/ad nauseam…why do you continue to read this blog if you are so offended by it? Do you suppose that citing certified academic idiots like Chomsky is going to change any of our minds? But then, if you thought at all…
Stephen:
Were you the one complaining the other day that the Right continually misrepresents the Left’s stance? I didn’t go back to that thread later, so I don’t know if you attempted to articulate the Left’s stance or provide some links to where someone else has done so.
I would actually like to hear a well-articulated version of what the Left believes. I would prefer to disagree with what you really believe and not some flimsy straw-man.
One thing I remember from that discussion is a mention of the US not being attentive to cultural mores and stuff. And that our foreign policy is a huge contributor to Islamic fundamentalism.
I have heard elsewhere that the Left believes that Muslims are simply punishing us for our sins, i.e., that we pretty much deserve what we get (as a nation, not necessarily as individuals). Blowback and all.
Can you specify what those sins are? Please don’t say “foreign policy,” say which foreign policy. Explain the consequences of those policies. And it would also help if you provided your understanding of how Muslims see the world, especially with regard to their relationship to the West.
If you’d prefer to not enumerate those ideas in this comment section, hop on over to my blog and we’ll have us a little téªte é téªte. Find the Augean Stables post and comment there.
“..Khatami goes unchallenged as he speaks his lies and deceit. Is this arrogance or weakness on the part of Americans?”
M.Pahlavi asks.
Both, unfortunately, sir. Well put observation. And, on Harvard’s part, a continuing stupidity.
“Can you specify what those sins are? Please don’t say “foreign policy,” say which foreign policy. Explain the consequences of those policies. And it would also help if you provided your understanding of how Muslims see the world, especially with regard to their relationship to the West.”
While I admire the patience of those still seeking rational explanations from the Blame America Firsters, this is a well worn road that always leads to a declaration of absolute faith in one or more blatant lies.
The greatest sin the US commits against the terrorists is our support for (aka refusal to help destroy) Israel. The left truly believes Israel is the real problem with the Middle East, desperately in need of a Final Solution. To support this belief, they will either elevate battlefield errors to the level of premeditated war crimes (Deir Yassin, Sabra, Chatila), or simply make up stories outright (Jenin, Gaza Beach, and the most recent accusations of destroying ambulances in Lebanon), in order to demonize Israel.
The only cases in which discussion with some leftist doesn’t descend quickly into anti-Zionist propaganda, is when you’re talking to one who doesn’t believe there is any such thing as Islamic terrorism, and that the Bush Administration actually destroyed the WTC themselves using any of a number of discredited conspiracy theories.
Not meaning to discourage you, but the best response you’re likely to get is one that only looks rational on the surface, possibly with a veiled threat against digging any deeper.
YOU have no idea how utterly bankrupt your comments sound to people who have seen the complete failure of socialism to produce anything like the benefits of capitalism ANYWHERE socialism has been tried. Not to mention the horrendous human death and suffering that socialism has caused in the past century.
You’ve conflated socialism with communism.
Every time I visit the States I can’t help noticing that you guys are too cheap to pay enough taxes to run a civil society.
In case my earlier comment was too subtle or something, let me reiterate: let the Bad Man speak and let the Smart People attend and figure things out themselves.
Tatter wrote
“The greatest sin the US commits against the terrorists is our support for (aka refusal to help destroy) Israel. The left truly believes Israel is the real problem with the Middle East, desperately in need of a Final Solution. To support this belief, they will either elevate battlefield errors to the level of premeditated war reached the point crimes (Deir Yassin, Sabra, Chatila), or simply make up stories outright (Jenin, Gaza Beach, and the most recent accusations of destroying ambulances in Lebanon), in order to demonize Israel.”
It’s amazing the level of dishonesty you can find amongst the ‘supporters’ of Israel. Tatter knows full well that the events he lists were indeed premeditated war crimes. There in no doubt at all. 100% fact.
I read rightwing sites alot -Frontpage, Daniel Pipes etc, and alot of works put out by the American Israel lobby. The thing I find most facinating is the level to which groups and individuals will go – even educated, ‘decent’ people will go to support immoralities they would otherwise not condone in other areas. It used to be disturbing but I’m beyond that now – now I’m more interested in the social-psychology of it; pondering the various reasons as to why certain groups support atrocities against other groups and by certain groups at the exclusion of others.
And the ability to lie and continue to argue the same issue with a moral righteousness is truly a cultural phenomenha of the extreme right. This might not be Tatter – he, as I’ve said before, probably derives his entire dialouge from right wing literature, and as such, might simply be unaware that what he writes is completely bogus.
I’d bet though that Tatter is a ‘card-carrying’ member of one the far-right Jewish groups in the U.S. It is here where you can get detailed instructions on how to ‘debate’ when Israeli policies are criticized. How to act; how to change the subject, how to confuse the subject – anything to play down Israeli crimes. Utterly amazing.
And these are the same people, who as I’ve said before, use liberal arguments to justify atrocities and war crimes.
Have you ever has an epiphany, Tatter?
Ever paused to even consider that Israeli propganda has very little to do with reality? I mean when the Chief military commander of the IDF defends using 100 000 cluster bombs on a civilian population(on the eve of a ceasefire) by saying that all Israeli ammunitions conform to international law you know you’ve reached rock bottom. If you care. But one could easily conclude that these people have some serious contempt for anybody but themselves to give the world this.
Is reality important to you, Tatter?
The fact that Tatter is particularly focused on discouraging dicentra from hearing other viewpoints should be red flag to those who are only interested in finding out facts.
Especially when the reasons is this classic:
“Not meaning to discourage you, but the best response you’re likely to get is one that only looks rational on the surface, possibly with a veiled threat against digging any deeper.”
Tell us, Tatter – what ‘threat’ would that be?
Stevie, just about everything you said about deriving “his entire dialouge from right wing literature, and as such, might simply be unaware that what he writes is completely bogus” could be applied to you, with the simple substitution of “left” for “right”. You’ve swallowed the lies of the left hook, line and sinker…and we really don’t care to hear the same bs anymore. Go away.
anonymous, I will share with you a small anecdote that I heard while in England in the ’80’s: people there were all for National Health; in fact, the saying went, “Any woman in England can have an abortion—it’s just that the waiting period for the surgery is 11 months.”
In a consultation with my doctor about upcoming surgery, which I can schedule as I please (and have done so for November), he informed me that the for same operation in Britain and Canada the wait is 2 years. You can have your socialist paradises, thank you very much. And lest you think otherwise, Communism IS a form of socialism, as was National Socialism (Nazism) and the Ba’ath party of Saddam Hussein.
You too, can find somewhere else to peddle discredited social systems. We know better.
dicentra wrote:
“One thing I remember from that discussion is a mention of the US not being attentive to cultural mores and stuff. And that our foreign policy is a huge contributor to Islamic fundamentalism.”
I was going to say that it’s terrorism and not fundamentalism, but you could argue that I suppose. Certainly having the middle east in chaos and destroying infrastructure and political stabiliy will lead people to religous extremism. But, for me, I prefer to keep the argument simple and as relevant and factual as possible. And yes, U.S policies have created extreme resentment in the middle east which have given rise to terrorism. As well as training and encouraging Islamic militants in the past against enemies – this is what the term ‘blowback’ means.
“I have heard elsewhere that the Left believes that Muslims are simply punishing us for our sins, i.e., that we pretty much deserve what we get (as a nation, not necessarily as individuals). Blowback and all.”
Well, generally speaking, the left doesn’t believe that we are ‘getting what we deserve’. The temptation, I suppose to those less politically inclined(and more ideologically or religous) is to see the left as blaming America first(whatever that means), or supporting ‘the terrorists’ and other such phrases that don’t have much meaning – but they are intended to be rhetorial and polarizing and emotional and quash logical discussion.
The left doesn’t see Muslims punishing us for our sins – it doesn’t have anything to do with religon. Policies that have contributed to terrorism by Muslims against the U.S are as follows.
1. Support for despotic regimes.
2. Supporting war in the region. During the Iran Iraq war the Reagan administration armed and aided Saddam Hussein in a war against Iran which killed millions – all the while secretly shipping arms to the Iranians. The people in the middle east are often more informed about these things than the American public.
3. Outright terrorist operations against Muslims populations – bombings, torture, etc – in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan.
4. Interference(a kind word for it really) in the political affairs in the region. Covert efforts at destablization to outright coups – in Iran, 1953 and most likely Saddam Hussein in Iraq. CIA has been most likely behind serveral terrorist attcks in the middle east.
5. Which brings us to oil. The coup in Iran occurred after the Iranian prime minister at the time sought take control of the countries oil supply from the British and Americans who were essentially robbing the country blind of it’s oil and it’s profits.
6. Which brings us to Israel. U.S support for Israel is generally accepted by serious analysts to be as a counter to Arab nationalism – and thus removes the danger of having these countries move to democratic polices which would inevitably lead to nationalizing resources and less U.S control.
Thats a very general run dow
Thats a very general run down of the argument – which, as I say, has mostly to do with facts and reality – and not ‘bashing’ America. I should probably add the left also view U.S support for backward, despotic regimes has also retarded the move of Muslim populations to modernity -social, political and economic growth – actually another contributor to the ‘blowback’ theory.
Those who feel threatend, or who see it as unpatriotic to draw attention to these facts – simply have a retarded view of what patriotism is, or have a vested interest in demonizing without alot of merit, a group of peoople.
Thats just touching on it really, but if you really are interested in learning more I could recommend some reading.
I’ll check our your site…
stumbley – it could be interpretated as you say if you aren’t familiar with the two. I am.
You’re not.
“The fact that Tatter is particularly focused on discouraging dicentra from hearing other viewpoints should be red flag to those who are only interested in finding out facts.”
… Immediately preceded by proving me right, in every possible way.
And I’m even Jewish, for good measure! The Zionist World Conspiracy owes me a crapload of back pay, now.
Muslim populations have no interest in modernity at all, it seeks revenge and even more primitive forms of society. Destabilizing of “despotic” regimes will give them no good, it will make situation worse – as Iran revolution shows.
In medieval societies mass is a reactionary force, not “progressive”, and only governments, inevitably despotic, have and support some shreds of modernity. Democracy and modernization in such countries are totally incompatible. In Russia, for example, Provisional Government of Kerensky was fairly democratical – and lasts only half a year, sweeped by Bolsheviks tyranny, which was much worse that any previous Russian autocracy. These countries can not modernize themselves without foreign intervention.
Inferiority complex is epidemic in every Muslim society, it amounts to what Freud termed “universal neurosis”. Psyhologists know, that this personality disorder cannot be satisfied by anything. It also usually involved projection, ascribing one’s own failures to other persons and peoples. So it is very naive to take at face value Muslim “grievances”, they are products of unhealthy imagination and belong to realm of psyhopatology – individual and collective. Rampant antisemitism and antiamericanism are symptoms of deep society crisis – as it was in pre-Nazi Germany and old Russia.
“…. Immediately preceded by proving me right, in every possible way.”
And without even saying why!
Bravo.
The Zionist lobby does owe you brother.
Or maybe you owe them….
Every time stevie careens down the political road, in the wrong lane, blowing his horn (hooter)because it thinks it’s the right lane, I’m reminded of something my kids used to say several years ago, “See ya’, wouldn’t want to be ya’.”
It displays the kind of mental pathology that Doc Sanity outlines on her blog and which Sergey mentions.
Stumbley, medical bills account for half of U.S. personal bankruptcies. And your doctors are greedy pricks.
And lest you think otherwise, Communism IS a form of socialism, as was National Socialism (Nazism) and the Ba’ath party of Saddam Hussein.
Same diff then, eh? lol. Gee, I’m a communist nazi tyrant and didn’t even know it. Lest you think you’re not an ideologist (and for a really good laugh) read Naomi Klein’s Baghdad Year Zero, wherein she describes the catastrophic dismantling of the functional socialist industries in Iraq by your tribe’s pie-eyed utopian capitalists.
“Gee, I’m a communist nazi tyrant and didn’t even know it.”
The Nazis at Nuremberg insisted to the very end that they had no idea the Holocaust was being committed by their fellow Nazis.
“Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed America’s intention to bypass, if necessary, restraints on the use of force codified by the U.N. Charter. Washington reserves the right, he warned, to anticipate hostilities and to strike first and pre-emptively — alone, if necessary — to counter a perceived threat to our national security.
“Now, I do not wish to compare any Americans to the Nazi leaders. But after hearing Rumsfeld’s words, I could not avoid being reminded of the argument put forward by the lead defendant in the Einsatzgruppen trial at Nuremberg, S.S. General Otto Ohlendorf. When asked to explain why his unit murdered more than 90,000 Jews, including their children, the remorseless defendant casually explained that it was justified as anticipatory self-defense.
“Germany anticipated an attack from the Soviet Union, Ohlendorf argued, and since Jews were perceived as supporters of Bolshevism, they presumably posed a potential future threat to German national interests. And if Jewish children knew that their parents had been executed, he continued, they, too, might become enemies of Germany, and therefore they had to be killed.”
— Benjamin Ferencz, one of the American prosecutors who helped convict some of SS leaders during the Nuremberg trials.
There’s been some talk on this thread of what in particular is wrong with American foreign policy. This radio interview (17 minutes) with Ferencz covers some of the issues, and rather eloquently.
Very eloquently, and to the point.
Thanks for that Anon – should be required listening for Sergey and the trash the UN crowd….
Once again Stephon demonstrates an unusually low standard of fact in his posts, as well as a very shallow knowledge of history. It is as if he believes that recorded history began about 50 or 60 years ago. I also wonder about the level of his education, given tha fact that he has an almost child-like concept of cause and effect. He assumes cause-effect even when there are dozens or hundreds of other possiblities; I suppose he is simply unaware of of the complexity and nuance of history and civilization. Education probably wouldn’t help anyway, because he is so shallow that he believes he is eloquent and occupies a singular moral high ground, while the commenters here are just racist brutes that lack the ability to “understand.” He would be interesting if irratiional, intellectual slobs such as he weren’t so common, like cockroaches (always where they’re not wanted, bringing in dung).
Support for despotic regimes.
This made me smile broadly. Anti-Americans always bring this up. It’s because they are ignorant of the purpose of foreign policy, which evidently for them has strange rules of conduct. I don’t agree with Stephen’s premise – which is that the US should only support countries that Stephen and his fellow terrorist-lovers approve.
The purpose of foreign policy and the duty of any US President is to further the interests of the US, not to support(or not) regimes based on some idealistic, unrealistic criteria that Stephen dreams up or that the anti-American, terrorist-pimping likes of Stephen happen to approve of. Besides, Stephen would have us support Iran, a truly horrible regime, in apparent contradiction of his professed anxiety about US support of despotic regimes. It seems that at least some despotic regimes are fine with Stephen and his ilk.
The policy of the US has been to support friendly nations that have mutual interests and goals, all the while encouraging reform if it is needed – much like our policy with Saudi Arabia. None of this is locked in place. Allies will surely come and go as the ever-shifting international situation evolves.
Supporting war in the region. During the Iran Iraq war the Reagan administration armed and aided Saddam Hussein in a war against Iran which killed millions – all the while secretly shipping arms to the Iranians.
With hindsight I believe support of Saddam during the Iraq/Iran wars was indeed a mistake. I am not one who would claim America’s foreign policy has always been error-free. But the reason the US supported Iraq over Iran is because only a short time before the Iranians had committed an act of war against the US, overrunning our embassy in Tehran and holding the US citizens staffing the embassy hostage for over a year. If your enemy is at war support his opponent.
The US had no idea at the time that Saddam would turn out to be the anti-American monster he later became. Remember that American administrations of that era were still depending on the CIA for intelligence, an agency that has the same chance of providing cogent information as the Keystone Cops have of catching a bank robber.
The people in the middle east are often more informed about these things than the American public.
The “people in the middle east” think Israel flew the airplanes into the WTC while the Jews stayed home that day, that’s how “informed” they are. They also cheered and danced in the streets when news of 9/11 reached them. Nope, I’m not going to place much faith in the awareness of the “people in the middle east.”
Outright terrorist operations against Muslims populations – bombings, torture, etc – in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan.
This is just pure BS, the standard anti-American sloganeering that one would expect from Stephen. The US has conducted no “terrorist operations.”
Interference(a kind word
Interference(a kind word for it really) in the political affairs in the region. Covert efforts at destabilization to outright coups – in Iran, 1953 and most likely Saddam Hussein in Iraq. CIA has been most likely behind several terrorist attacks in the middle east.
I’m not really aware of Stephen’s point here. Is he saying the US should not attempt to destabilize terror-supporting regimes? One wonders what would be Stephen’s alternative – invasion and occupation? Learn to ‘live with’ the terrorism? Stephen will have to be a bit less vague before I can adequately debate this particular ‘point.’
Which brings us to oil. The coup in Iran occurred after the Iranian prime minister at the time sought take control of the countries oil supply from the British and Americans who were essentially robbing the country blind of it’s oil and it’s profits.
The US hasn’t ‘robbed’ anyone of any oil anywhere. The Iranian Prime Minister of the time, a Communist, was attempting to “nationalize”(read: steal) Western property in Iran, property that had been built and invested through treaties and trade agreements with the ruler of Iran(not it’s Prime Minister). Naturally, the US did not support someone with THAT intention.
Which brings us to Israel. U.S support for Israel is generally accepted by serious analysts to be as a counter to Arab nationalism – and thus removes the danger of having these countries move to democratic polices which would inevitably lead to nationalizing resources and less U.S control.
Yes, the Stephens of the world believe the anti-Israeli coverage of the ME by the MSM. They believe the problems in the ME are not caused by terrorists and the nations that sponsor terrorism. Instead, they believe that Israel’s very existence must be ended, that Israel, as the Iranian despot also believes, should be wiped off the map. Note to Stephen: Many of the folks here also read alternative news sources.
It’s interesting that Stephen is troubled by the existence of a nation which before the democratization of Iraq and Afghanistan was the only democracy in the region. Democracies are troubling to the Stephens of the world – they always seem to be more comfortable with Totalitarianism or Fascism – spiced with a sprinkle of Terrorism.
Getting back to the original topic – Khatami faced a number to tough questions from students during his time at Harvard, so he wasn’t let off the hook by a lack of a debating partner.
“In a tough question-and-answer session with students, he defended Hezbollah while denying that Iran supported it; endorsed the punishment of Iranian homosexuals while implying that the death penalty was extreme; and criticized the family of a Canadian-Iranian photojournalist for its reaction to her death in Iranian detention.
“When he finished talking he was sweating underneath his robes,” said Graham Allison, a leading expert on nuclear weapons and director of the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Khatami differed sharply on questions of domestic policy with Ahmadinejad, telling a questioner he disagreed with the Iranian president’s call for a purge of secular and liberal professors.
“Iran is in dire need of as many university professors as it can get,” he said. “I believe that Iran should extend its welcome to professors from different countries, even non-Islamic and secular countries.”
Allison said he told Khatami that he thought the U.S. had done a lot for Iran since Sept. 11, 2001 by deposing its key regional enemies,
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in
Afghanistan.
“He said, ‘I actually somewhat agree,'” Allison said. “He said that actually he thinks that the interests of the U.S. and the interests of Iran are more convergent than are the interests of either the U.S. or Iran with any other state in the region.”
Khatami rarely addressed current events so directly in his public talks.
But even his softer message, and the Bush administration’s approval of his trip here, left observers puzzled over whether the U.S.-Iranian relationship was thawing.
Some Iran-watchers said it would have been close to impossible for Khatami to take such a high-profile trip without the approval of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s ultimate authority.
“Definitely everything is OK’d by the big man,” said Sanam Vakil, an assistant professor of Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. “Khatami presented a very nice, pleasant, smiling, accommodating face of Iran … Suddenly Iran was not confrontational and everyone is confused as to what’s going on.”
But Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said he did not believe Khatami sought Khamenei’s permission or was speaking in any way for the regime.
“He’s a private citizen,” Takeyh said. “He goes where he wants to go.” ”
Micheal Weissenstein
Associated Press
Read your reply, grackle.
And you accuse me of being arrogant and pompous? Please….
But cheers for at least giving a somewhat proper response. Most of it is rubbish – and I’ll get back to it later…
LIES THEY LOVED AT
HARVARD
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/lies_they_loved_at_harvard_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm
Islam’s Useful Idiots
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Ite
mid=2
If you liberals knew how gullible and uninformed you sound to ordinary Iranians who are not under any illusions that the so-called reformers and the hardliners are one and the same ilk. The “god father” is “Khamnei” who has other smaller mobsters( Rafsanjani, Khatami, Montazeri,etc.) under his umberalla raping and plundering the national wealth of Iranians. The history of these families of mullahs running Iran today goes back to 500 (perhaps even more)years ago who until 1979 were in cahoots with the varitey of monarchists and rulers in Iran. After the Shah distributed the mullahs’/feudals’ land to peasants for free during the White Revolution, they mullahs decided to topple the Shah which was increasingly rendering Islam and their positions irrelevant via modernization. Please educate yourself before parroting vacuous sentiments. You sound foolish to most Iranians who are not either pocketbook supporters or on the payroll of the regime or brainwashed Jihadists.
Here is another great article about the propaganda/PR manager of the Islamic Republic of Ayatollahs.
http://www.iranian.com/Rashidian/2006/September/Khatami/index.html
This story about Iran history only supports my belief that modernization of medieval societies can be only authoritarian. Turkey is the only example of successfull modernization of Muslim society, and Kemal Ataturk was genius and military dictator of Napoleon kind. Instead of trade-off with mullas, as Saudi Kings do, he threw them out of politics by harsh reprisals. And Turks are not Arabs, they are much more civilized. All history of medieval Europe can be expounded as struggle between secular and clerical authority, in which secular eventually overcome. Western liberty arose from this struggle and its outcome. Byzantium generated only tyrannies.
And in ME we see now processes, that correspond to 13-14 century in Europe. If islamic democracy will win, these countries would devolve into 7th century – as Iran and PA under HAMAS. It gives US a very good reason to support Saudi and Jordan Kings, Mubarak and other sane and reasonable despots, with whom it is possible to negotiate, against their psyhotic populations, whis whom no negotiation is possible.
I overlooked the following from Stephen’s comment:
… all the while secretly shipping arms to the Iranians.
This is one I haven’t heard before. I knew the Iranians used weaponry during the Iraq/Iran war that was provided to the(by then deposed) Shah. Perhaps Stephen would do us the kindness of providing some credible documentation? Not that it would make much difference either way. Arms traffickers in the Middle East have constituted a long list of practically every industrialized nation in the world; the fact that the US is also on that list is meaningless – unless you happen to be anti-American. Then of course you mistake any half-truth for the Holy Grail.
Stephen:
The left doesn’t see Muslims punishing us for our sins — it doesn’t have anything to do with religon.
I was using the term “sins” in a figurative sense, to mean wrongdoing in general, not the breaking of divine command.
1. Support for despotic regimes.
Because the Muslims themselves don’t support these regimes? If they hate the despots and hate the US for supporting them, why is their anger directed at us but not at the despots?
Wouldn’t their resources be better used locally, to take down the despots? I mean, the despots aren’t as militarily powerful as the US, so their chances of success are better against the local tyrant than the big bad US.
Does the US typically support a tyrant against a popular uprising? I am unaware of an example of this.
Furthermore, I don’t recall hearing the terrorists making any such demands: quit supporting X or we’ll blow your embassy to kingdom come.
2. Supporting war in the region.
I’ve been reading a book about the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and contrary to some of what I’ve heard, the role of the US was minimal. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran were far more prominent players than the US, as far as foreigners go. But by far the most important factor in the rise of the Taliban were the Afghanis themselves: the choices they made, the allegiances they held, their goals and asipirations (read: will to power), and the religious convictions.
I would bet the farm that there’s not a single war or conflict in the world that is not supported by one or more foreign entities who perceive themselves to have a dog in the fight. Yeah, the US sometimes provides support to a party in a foreign war. And so does everyone else. Thus has it ever been since the beginning.
3. Outright terrorist operations against Muslims populations – bombings, torture, etc – in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan.
Um, you need to provide sources for that. That sounds more like someone’s very subjective opinion of events rather than objective reality.
4. Interference (a kind word for it really) in the political affairs in the region.
Again, see above. We meddle. So does China. So does Russia. So does Europe. So does everyone. You may not like the idea of your homeland engaging in such activities, but try to find a homeland who doesn’t do it at all. Maybe your own private island.
And again, I don’t recall hearing the terrorists air these particular grievances. “Stop doing X or we’ll blow you up.”
5. Which brings us to oil. The coup in Iran occurred after the Iranian prime minister at the time sought to take control of the country’s oil supply from the British and Americans who were essentially robbing the country blind of its oil and its profits.
Oil is a sticky subject, but really, what’s preventing the West from simply seizing the oil fields, protecting them with armies, and taking what we want, without both
Oil is a sticky subject, but really, what’s preventing the West from simply seizing the oil fields, protecting them with armies, and taking what we want, without bothering to cut the natives in on it?
Someone else responded to this already, and I’d have to do more research than I have time for to verify it, so I’ll leave it at that.
6. Which brings us to Israel. U.S. support for Israel is generally accepted by serious analysts to be as a counter to Arab nationalism — and thus removes the danger of having these countries move to democratic polices which would inevitably lead to nationalizing resources and less U.S. control.
Wait. What you’re saying is that we support Israel to… wait… to prevent the Arabs from getting too uppity? That it’s in our interest to keep the despots in power because they’re easier to manipulate than democratic institutions?
OK. Hmm. So we support Israel, effectively preventing its annihilation, to keep the Arabs focused on trying to destroy it. So that they won’t notice that we’re screwing them over.
And democratic policies would inevitably lead to nationalization of the resources.
Where has this happened before? Every time resources get nationalized, AFAIK, it’s been during a socialist-type revolution. Democracy usually goes hand-in-hand with privatization. Would it be a bad thing for us to negotiate with privately owned oil companies? I would think that would be an improvement, since corporations aren’t particularly loyal to political entities such as countries.
Furthermore, if democratization is what we don’t want in the Middle East, WTF is up with the elections we enabled in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why are those crazy neocons trying to spread Liberty and Democracy?
I’ve also noticed that the reasons you’ve stated for the Muslims’ grievances against the US sound suspiciously like the Left’s grievances against the US. Grievances that predate the age of Islamic terrorism and that apply to more than the Middle East.
I should think that the Muslims’ grievances should arise from the Muslim world-view, from what they value and despise, not from what the Left sees as problematic.
Furthermore, your assertion that Muslims are more well-informed about events than we are might be true, given that they are geographically closer to the events and more interested in them, but unfortunately, impoverished cultures are rife with urban legends, conspiracy theories, rumors, distortions, omissions, and downright lies. I’ve lived in a third-world country; I’ve heard some pretty weird stuff. And they all believe it, too. Weighing facts and analyzing viewpoints doesn’t come into the equation. It’s just not what they do.
They believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true. They believe the blood libels against the Jews. They believe the 9-11 conspiracy theories. They believe that the U.S. is controlled by evi
They believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true. They believe the blood libels against the Jews. They believe the 9-11 conspiracy theories. They believe that the U.S. is controlled by evil Joooos who want to rule the world and eliminate Muslims.
They see the world through Islamic eyes, and their religious narrative informs their perspective in a way that secularists don’t seem to understand. (After all, if religion doesn’t move me, why would it move someone else?)
To many of them, this is the Ultimate Battle of Good over Evil, and they’ve been commissioned by Allah to represent the forces of Good. That’s heady stuff, and it trumps all of the political reasons you’ve listed.
Look, we meddle in everybody’s business, not just the Muslims’. And yet I don’t see the Peruvians and Samoans arming themselves for Armageddon.
[Criminy! Did I really write that much?]
“Stumbley, medical bills account for half of U.S. personal bankruptcies. And your doctors are greedy pricks.”
Well, Anon, you certainly are entitled to your opinion, coming as it does from ONE source cited in a Communist website; however:
“Most previous studies of medical bankruptcy, however, have relied on court records—where medical debts may be subsumed under credit card or mortgage debt—or on responses to a single survey question. None has collected detailed information on medical expenses, diagnoses, access to care, work loss, or insurance coverage. Research has been impeded both by the absence of a national repository for bankruptcy filings and by debtors’ reticence to discuss their bankruptcy; in population-based surveys, only half of those who have undergone bankruptcy admit to it.”
…seems like there’s no evidence to support your claim.
For those who have integrated Carter/left propaganda regarding the Shah into their fabric of their beings: it was the Shah who signed the oil nationalization bill into law and it was the Shah who appointed Mossadeq by his royal decree to be prime minister (twice, and every time with disastrous consequences for the country). It was Carter who called Khomeini, a “Saint”, an Aytalloah who married a 14 year old in his seventies. I never understood why the left in the US tends to align itself with the most reactionary forces of Islam. It was Khomeni whol issued a Fatwa in 1989 to kill almost 30,000 leftist within a period of one month….
BTW, If Shah had plundered and raped and killed and maimed half as much as the mullahs, he would’ve still been in power. I can’t tell you how sick it makes me as an Iranian-American to witness the willfull ignorance of the left when it comes to sympathizing with the most brutal regimes who like nothing more to turn America into a totalitarian country like their own.
This Perhaps answers the left’s complicity in ignoring the crimes of the mullahs:
Ok! Let us say Harvard is not funding terrorism but the school sure loves to give voice to a terrorist or it wouldn’t invite Khatami over! How about inviting David Irving or David Duke (and these two… haven’t acted out their hate!) Are we Iranians less of a nation that our dead and our suffering are not counted as equal to those of others? How can it be that Khatami who headed a terrorist regime and during those years several activists were arrested, and murdered, and the stoning of the Iranian women continued to pace its way to even higher numbers… is invited to speak of civilization at Harvard! Khatami is mocking the very idea of a Dialogue Among Civilizations.
The above quotation is from:
http://zaneirani.blogspot.com/n was from:
Crimes of Ayatollahs:
The Omid Memorial is an online memorial database founded by two sisters, Ladan and Roya Boroumand, which serves as a digital commemoration of those executed by the Islamic regime in Iran since 1979. Omid, which means “hope” in Farsi, is concerned with the protection of human rights and the documentation of committed abuses. The virtual memorial’s goal is both to preserve memory of the victims and to alleviate the suffering of the survivors by acknowledging their pain and documenting the events that took place. The hope is that feelings of revenge and hatred will be diminished.
http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial.php
Stumbley, you’ve pulled a quote from the literature review of the 2005 Himmelstein et al paper published in Health Affairs, aka my source, you twit.
Anon:
Really? I thought it was from this one:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/bank-a28.shtml
In any event, the study was bogus—so who’s the twit?:
“The idea that more than half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical debt comes from a study by Harvard associate professors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, published on the Web in February 2005 by the journal Health Affairs. Both Himmelstein and Woolhandler have long advocated creating a single-payer system of national health insurance in the United States. The purpose of their study was to convince middle-class voters that they need socialized medicine to truly be secure from health-related financial catastrophe.
When the article came out it generated much controversy because the authors used a very broad definition of medical-related bankruptcy. In response, Health Affairs published more than 30 letters to the editor – as well as a follow-up study by researchers critical of the Himmelstein-Woolhandler study’s methodology.
Fortunately, a new study by Aparna Mathur surveys the literature and puts matters straight. Dr. Mathur, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, found that only about one-quarter of bankruptcy filers have debts that are primarily medical in nature. Far more common are bankruptcies related to credit card debts.”
Stumbley, I assumed you just found a string of text that supported your argument and didn’t realize you were making an ass of yourself by taking it from the lit review of a paper making my case. In other words, I assumed you went to the trouble to read a bit (kudos), actually found a decent journal (kudos), but were really more interested in scoring points than actually debating.
The alternative is that you knowingly cherry picked the material, which would be astonishingly rich given you accused me of having no credibility, and particularly sleazy given that you accused me of basing my argument on a single communist website (wtf was that, btw?)
There’s a huge debate over the article, with rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, and counter-counter-rebuttals. Readers here should know that “Dranove and Millenson … acknowledged that their own work was financed by America’s Health Insurance Plans, for which a single-payer system would be a catastrophe.” — Modern Healthcare. Chicago: Mar 6, 2006.Vol.36, Iss. 10; pg. 36, 1 pgs
Anon:
So we’ll agree, then, that the study is controversial, unproveable and basically void? That your argument is based on a flawed study? That you by extension have no argument at all?
And if the U.S. is such a terrible place, why do some 1.5 million people attempt to come here every month? That socialist paradise, Sweden, has a similar problem, no doubt?
That’s the company you keep, hostess.
Dialogue of civilization abroad but Tyranny at home:
http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/2006/09/iranian-journalist-condemned-to-74.html
“That’s the company you keep, hostess.”
Same back at ya, buddy.