Iran

Eighty-six year-old Florida woman
badly hurt when hearing aid falls,
beeps so loud her dog attacks her.

Once again I feel compelled to discuss the situation with Iran. Iran is not on Hillary’s itinerary at the moment but she has said that on this trip to the Middle East she was surprised at the fear of Iran she encountered. And, she repeated again that Iran supports terrorism. She mentions their support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and “other proxies” she does not specify. She now has also reportedly said that Iran is not only a threat to the Middle East, but also to Europe and Russia. Although I know very little about much of anything, and I am hardly an expert on Iran or the Middle East, I believe this idea that Iran is such a threat is nothing more than sheer balderdash. The idea that Iran is a threat to Europe and Russia is clearly just so much hot air. Iranians are intelligent people, why on earth would they want to attack Europe or Russia? Iran has not been an aggressor nation for more than 200 years. They don’t need more territory or oil, or much of anything else. Hillary and most everyone else keeps harping on the subject of Iran’s attempt to build a nuclear bomb, even though there is no evidence they cite for this claim. And, as I have said before, what if they did have a bomb? They are not foolish enough to just run out and start dropping nuclear bombs on Israel, Europe and Russia. If they did develop a bomb it would be for defensive purposes, just as every other nations has done. This fear of an Iranian attack, nuclear or otherwise, is just plain crap.

So what is the problem with Iran? Why is it there is fear of Iran in the Middle East? Perhaps it has to do, in part at least, with the fact that Iranians are not Arabs, but are a significant player in Middle East politics. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Iranians are Shiites whereas most of the Arabs are Sunni. More likely, it has to do with the fact that the Iranian national interests do not coincide with those of the Arabs, who say Iran is meddling in their affairs. This most importantly has to do with Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the Palestinians. But is it the case that Hamas and Hezbollah have no rights with respect to Middle East affairs? Indeed, how in the world can Hillary and Obama believe they can bring about a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem without including Hamas? The very idea is ludicrous. Hamas, I remind you once again, is the legitimately and democratically elected government of the Palestinians. There are a million and a half of them crowded now into Gaza and abused on a daily basis by the Israelis. While they may engage in terrorist acts (as they have no other means of fighting back against Israel) they are not primarily a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanon, and it, too, is not primarily a terrorist organization. I guess Iran is a threat because they support Hamas and Hezbollah while we do not. It is obvious to me that Iran has much more legitimate interests in Middle Eastern politics than we do. They live there. We are meddling from 8000 miles away. And yes, Iranians once captured and held a number of Americans hostage for a long time. We deposed their legitimate government and replaced it with the Shah, a murderous tyrant if ever there was one. And just who are these mysterious “proxies” Hillary mentions. Have you heard of any terrorist act in Europe or the U.S. that was blamed on Iranian terrorists? I do not know what the real problem is here, but I’m pretty certain it is not at all what we are being told. Obama should begin diplomatic overtures to Iran immediately, and tone down all this anti-Iranian nonsense. We claim they are trying to make a nuclear bomb. They claim they are not. There is no evidence they are, nor are they violating their rights under the existing treaties. And yet, with Bush/Cheney, they were supposed to stop what they were (not) doing or we wouldn’t even talk with them. That was not diplomacy, it was arrogant paternalism, and the Iranians had every right to be offended by it. Surely Obama/Clinton should be able to do better.

I find it impossible to feel sorry in any way for the wealthy people who may have to start paying the same percentage in taxes as their secretaries. I don’t remember what the rates were under Clinton, but I know the wealthy did not suffer from them, and they certainly won’t suffer now if they have to go back to paying them. I bet some of them will see their incomes drop from 100 million to a paltry of only maybe 80 million, poor babies. And of course some of the billionaires will really suffer. Imagine only have a few billion a year left after taxes. And yes, I overwhelmingly support the Employee Free Choice Act. I believe that working people deserve to make living wages and unions are the only way that has been brought about. Without them, there would be no 40 hour work week, no benefits, nothing except wage slavery.

Some legal scholar just observed that, considering the memos that have been recently released, we were technically living under a dictatorship from 2001 to 2009. It seems that Bush/Cheney had the power arranged on paper but lacked the nerve to actually try to completely implement it. They certainly did bad enough anyway.

Behold the ego
Set in glowing emptiness
On the edge of time
Noel Kaufman

TILT:
There is no practical difference between .380 caliber and .38 caliber cartridges.