[Independent] Incest between siblings and necrophilia should be legalised, a branch of the Swedish Liberal People's Party has argued.
The Stockholm branch of the party's youth wing (LUF) voted on the controversial motion at its annual meeting on Sunday.
It called for the repeal of several laws to make consensual sex between brothers and sisters aged over 15 legal, as well as allowing people to "bequeath" their bodies for intercourse after death without fearing the perpetrator would be prosecuted.
#4
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus to the white courtesy phone...........paging Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus to the white courtesy phone...........HEY Caligula get on the phone!!!!
Dear gun advocates, That would be I :) Et moi. Me three, though I don't own or carry one.
Some of you want pistols to protect yourselves and your families. Some are vigilantes, like George Zimmerman, who want to keep neighborhoods safe. Some are police, some of whom need to use weapons more responsibly. Some shoot defenseless animals for sport. Feral hogs cause half a billion dollars in damage annually in Texas. I don't know what the figures are for other states but a guy brought down a 500-pounder in North Carolina that had destroyed ten acres of crops not too long ago. He used an AR-15 chambered in .308, but you probably never heard about it because he didn't use the gun to shoot up a school or a park. A boy in Alabama killed one that weighed over a thousand pounds with a pistol. He didn't shoot anybody up, either. Charging wild boars aren't "defenseless," by the way.
And some own military weapons that can mow down large groups of schoolchildren or moviegoers. Still haven't hit on my own category. Oh, well. Maybe next time. Legal weapons are one shot at a time, not full auto-gettem. "Semi-automatic" means that a round gets chambered after the last one's fired. But "semi-automatic" sure sounds scary, doesn't it? Brrrr!
I am writing to this last group. Please, help me understand. That last category is done talking, dearie. They just want blood.
It may be a constitutional right to bear arms, but the Constitution said we have the right to bear arms in a militia, those arms being muskets at the time, guns that you could shoot once, taking much time to reload. Not AK-47 weapons. Failed to understand the difference between being a "recruit" and being a volunteer in a self defense force, huh? When the 2nd Amendment was written it was intended to include sufficient ammunition and arms. Including the AK.
Please, help me understand. Today's bozo boy shooting up his school cafeteria has nothing to do with the second amendment and everything to do with growing to the ripe old age of 14 playing "Call of Duty" and watching movies like The Matrix.
Why these weapons? Are you waiting for a once-rare-but-now-more-frequent mass shooting or another shooting so you can save the day, planning to kill the “bad" guys? How many times might you have that opportunity in life? One can always hope, I suppose. The notion of point defense is lost as well, I guess. Dunno about people with handguns saving the day, but it seems to me that if you can counter a bad guy using a firearm with your own firearm -- even if it is an AK -- and you survive, you can count that as a good thing. The writer assumes nothing but malign beliefs and influences for gun owners and advocates. There's not one ounce of willingness to listen or to see the other side. It's not an 'open letter', it's the usual lecture...
Have you listened to police chiefs who say that they don’t want their staff entering an active shooting scene where “bad” shooters and “good” shooters are battling around innocent families and children, unable to discern who is bad or good? Do you think you can shoot your AK-47 and hit only the bad people instead of innocents as well? Shot placement, baby. It's where it's at. And besides, I have yet to read of any encounter in which a civilian on civilian gun fight has lasted for more than two minutes, and I doubt I ever will.
Please, help me understand. He's trying real hard not to.
The police might mistake you for a “bad” shooter. The might shoot and kill you. The investigators will also need to determine if your bullets killed the innocent. Are you asking to be imprisoned? They may make that mistake indeed, but by the time they arrive, the shooting is over. And if you can hold your fire for a sufficient time to engage only the bad actors, then your only problem should be taking cover and not getting shot. Firing a gun isn't about slapping in the mag and blasting away. You have to discriminate among targets, which in an environment in which only one shooter is shooting, should be easy to do. Dunno how pistol carriers train, but they should already know that their weapon should not be fired until the background is clear, but they also should always scan the background, including their rear, for additional shooters.
Maybe you just don’t feel very good about yourself or your life, and you need to boost your confidence and self-esteem by openly carrying a giant weapon, hiding your disappointing body parts and/or your psychological distress. Maybe you really are fearful, thinking that Muslims are taking over this country, and if not Muslims, that perhaps black and brown men and boys are wreaking havoc. Maybe you have been severely traumatized and need help. Decent people don't talk about private parts, or private matters as a means of resolving public policy differences. Overreaching and overbearing statists such as yourself have a large enough bullhorn, that they do with with impunity. In the matter of the right to keep and bear arms, it is a notion that is well outside the polite conversation of firearms.
I still don’t understand. Perhaps because you don't want to? Or perhaps you're just dull?
Who makes you God? Who makes a person shooting at the rest of us God? Nor does one need to be a god to defend oneself, one's loved one, or the community, nor does one need to be a god to leave other good people alone.
Even if you were in a challenging shooting situation, are you the judge or jury? Maybe just a self-defender. Self defense has been a part of English Common Law for so long that I don't believe it was ever passed as a statute; it's a mere matter of common sense. Litigation has always centered on the situation and whether the amount of force used was justifiable...
Can you sort out facts in the heat of the moment instead of using our justice system to work through an agreed-upon process for determining innocence, guilt and sentencing? A shooting situation isn't about the law. It is about surviving a hostile shooter. I would rather let the legal industry sort out my culpability in a gunfight after the threat is abated -- after I have used a firearm to quell a threat. A shooting situation is one that any reasonable person tries to avoid. Sometimes they're thrust upon us and we have to react quickly, having been reminded in the past of the aphorism, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away." We can always sort out guilt. If we're still alive...
I, for one, am extremely frightened of you because you hold my and my family’s lives in your hands when you carry your weapons of mass destruction around our schools, parks and churches. "Weapons of mass destruction" are chemical, biological, and radiological (i.e., atomic weapons). You don't get a permit to lug an AK-47 around in public. It has quite a bit of symbology around some violent factions, kind of a magic totem. See, for instance, Hezbollah's flag, which features a disembodied arm waving an AK-47.
Tiny children find your weapons, thinking they are toys, forever ruining or ending their own or others’ lives. Who gave you the right to endanger so many people? Frightened, are you? I have a solution. Get a gun, learn to use it and then train to use it in a gunfight. That children find guns toys are the fault of parents who refused to put in effort to teach their children about the utility and safe use of a firearm. Whenever someone is losing an argument it's time to invoke "the children". That's justification for all sorts of nefarious nonsense that would never stand the light of cold reason and common sense. Yup, he invoked the children. He's lost, and he doesn't know it.
Please help us all understand your thinking, feelings or logic. And then, maybe we can have a safe and honest conversation about your fear, your anger and your obsession with power, control and violence. "Honest conversation." With the idea that gun owners are angry, obsessed with power and control that you have expressed, without even knowing an individual gun owner, I very much doubt any honesty is on the agenda. I suspect yet another lecture about firearms is. And that won't be honest.
#1
Who the f*ck is this psychotherapist in Nashville? What an insulting commentary. Does she actually expect a dialogue with this type of insults?
Perhaps she is the one who requires therapy.
#3
She is definitely not yer typical Tennessean. Most everyone I know here is a gun owner. Many carry. Last I looked about 1 in 10 adults have a carry permit. If she knew this I wonder if she would ever leave her house?
#4
Back in the day of the musket, the average gun owner had a piece roughly equivalent to the standard Infantry weapon of the time.
Today,an AK or AR15 or some variant of these...is roughly equivalent to the standard Infantry weapon of the time (the present).
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
03/01/2016 7:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Sadly, there are a lot of these non-thinking train wrecks running around loose in Tennessee. Not enough to form a critical mass, but their numbers are increasing. This one is probably a refugee from the "workers paradise" of the liberal northeast.
#6
This one is probably a refugee from the "workers paradise" of the liberal northeast.
Posted by Nguard
Not all have found refuge in Tennessee. A great many have moved further south to Georgia.
Lacking simple courtesies, they're easy to spot. Rather than use the car park, they park their BMW's along side red painted curbs blocking sidewalk entrances as they pick up their dry cleaning. Knowing they are really not welcome, most speak in low tones, not wishing to give away their refugee dialect.
#7
It may be a constitutional right to bear arms, but the Constitution said we have the right to bear arms in a militia, those arms being muskets at the time, guns that you could shoot once, taking much time to reload. Not AK-47 weapons.
For your education which you do not want (you just want our guns) -
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Please note - when talking about musket loaders
1 - they were the same standard arms of the small standing federal army. The militia formation was to assemble right on the flanks of the literally standing army in the field armed with the same functional weapon. They would do that in 1812 and 1861. The regular army traded in the musket or variation thereof in the late 19th Century. The militia needed to upgrade as well.
2 - At the same time as the newly minted musket armed militia, neither were there any 'Press' institutions, just the technology for the free flow of information. So, taking your logic, I want to grab all those modern institutions and organizations concerned with 'news'. Let's get back to when someone had to hand press the paper at night to sell those pieces of paper in the morning. No big conglomerates to manipulate the financial books to cover propaganda that masquerades as 'news'. Either your word sells on its own or it dies literally in the market place of ideas. So how about some principles rather than just power cause you wanna to impose your gun grabbing agenda. You get the guns and we get your lying Big Brother propaganda machine.
#8
Go home vermin and tell your masters that we will not be enslaved by the likes of them or you. Tell them you should be beaten for speaking to your betters.
An armed person is a citizen, everyone else is a slave.
#9
Does not matter. Once Hillary appoints 3 justices, the second amendment is done, it will be "reinterpreted."
Trump has consequences.
Posted by: Jack Tojo6075 ||
03/01/2016 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#10
You think 3 million guns are going to be collected? By whom? You've gutted the armed forces. They barely held on in Iraq and Afghanistan till the locals decided to cooperate. The national guard and sheriffs are composed of "We the People". They'll be lucky to hold their own just in the established gun free urban areas (not including the hoods where they already fear to tread).
#12
Please note - when talking about musket loaders
1 - they were the same standard arms of the small standing federal army.
And the British army at the time. There were also individuals and units who armed themselves with the state of the art, American-made long rifles. These long rifles, though slower to reload than muskets -- and remember that the machine gun at the time was a three-line musket unit where each line shot, dropped back to reload, then stepped forward to shoot again (yes, I know you know, but the metaphor just occurred to me) -- were unthinkably precise at the impossible distance of 300 yards, enabling the Americans to reach out and kill British officers without British troops being able to shoot back.
So there was an expectation that some of the volunteer militia units would be snipers carrying their own guns. Incidentally, I found Chris Kyle's book on the subject very informative.
#15
"Please note - when talking about musket loaders...". P2K, I agree with you. But just one thing, you probably meant 'muzzle loaders', not 'musket loaders'. I presume this, and write in case you wish to or are able to correct that. Maybe a kind mod? Bugs me at the same level as clips and magazines; both exist, but are often mis-used/mis-applied. Small minded of me, but I apologize, and can't fix it.
Darth; strongly agree.
A question; how many guns ARE there in the USA? I am guesstimating / SWAGing 400 million plus. I haven't found any good numbers for 2014 and 2015, and so extrapolated from 2013 data, which is suspect in and of itself in any event. I could be WAAAY low, and hope so. Your estimate may vary.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
03/01/2016 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Mea culpa...yep, the coffee hadn't kicked in yet this morning. Muzzle loaders, less Ferguson's breach loader. (Ferguson would 'buy the farm' at King's Mountain)
#17
C'mon, you guys. Take it easy on her. She lives in a bubble where she is fed a steady diet of the New York Times and CNN. She's never been off the pavement. She drives her Volvo between her nice little suburban home and her nice little cushy job in academia. She's probably a very nice lady but she has never faced any kind of a challenge where she had to respond physically. She's never had a real man challenge her intellectually or in any other way. There just isn't much that you can expect from her.
#18
Why these weapons? Are you waiting for a once-rare-but-now-more-frequent mass shooting or another shooting so you can save the day, planning to kill the “bad" guys? How many times might you have that opportunity in life? One can always hope, I suppose.
Dear Sunshine. You're probably not old enough to remember the LA Riots though you're aware of the Baltimore and others recently. Here's an example why you got to be prepared just like for earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes. When government fails, the militia in one form or another is there. Those 'Korean' store owners weren't looted.
#19
It isn't a question or lecture, it is an application.
David Hackett Fischer's books Paul Revere's Ride and Washington's Crossing are excellent sources of who and what was expected of the Militia, and how their kit different regionally.
Able bodied men were expected to be in the militia, and to arm and equip themselves.
Private individuals and organizations equipped themselves with cannons.
Benjamin Franklin was able to square the circle in Quaker Pennsylvania to allow a militia to form.
There is a story about how a captured frontiersman would entertain the British by shooting coins at 200 yards.
Tiny Children *snort* come up with that one within two glasses of whine? And yes, I am a bit disappoint with certain aspects of my body, such as I cannot shoot lightning from my eyes and fireballs from my arse.
"How come you people arming against mass shootings and acts of bad guys are so dangerous?"
Wow. One would think a qualified psychotherapist would have a better grasp of their own thought processes. This op/ed is dribble.
#20
An,er, "interesting" screed, but mostly due to the ignorance shown by the author, who, presumably, prescribes psychotropics (i.e. Ritalin) to teenagers which were, also interestingly, not mentioned.
When I was a kid, it was not unusual to see a teen carrying a cased .22 on a public bus. But that was pre-video games and the now not uncommon FUBAR of the family.
Also at Forbes if you have a subscription. Superb commentary and, as advertised, 10 maps that explain why Russia behaves the way it does. Quite enlightening, and I'm sure badanov will have some thoughts. Recommended.
Hard to argue the basic notion that Russia wants as much of a buffer as they can get. The maps also, albeit unwittingly, explain why Russia took over the Crimea. Since the advent of the aircraft, Russia has needed its "aircraft carrier" and naval ports in Krimea. The Maidan coup musta scared the living hell out of the Rooshun general staff, when it likely implemented plans to retain its naval bases there.
As an aside, I think Putin is carefully watching Ukraine because in the next three years as several of Ukraine's state run enterprises are about to be sold on the market. If Russian businessmen/oligarchs/cronies can get a piece of that action the Russians may come to terms.
That said, Crimea is gone to Russian hands forever. The Russians will not give it up because it is too large a part of their national security structure.
If anything, Russia's strategy reminds me of that espoused by nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky back in 1995, who wanted the early Russian governments to negotiate spheres of influence with the west. The US could have Latin American, Europe could have Africa, and Russia could have the middle east and southern Asia.
But Russia's strategy is limited in that it relies on having Russian speakers in all the right places, sufficient enough to enable some kind of pro Russian republicanism, whereby Russia can exert its power to establish a protectorate.
I doubt the Russians would want to attempt to overrun eastern Europe again. They did it in 1945 when their military power was overwhelming, and but for the power of the United States at the time, unchallenged. Now, although the Russian Army's equipment and esprit de corps is as good as it has ever been, Putin has sunk all his ducats into a much larger navy, and has reinforced his navy to pursue a littoral naval strategy.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/01/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
See also WAFF > THE END OF RUSSIA? ... TURKEY WILL EMERGE AS A MAJOR POWER IN AREAS WHERE RUSSIA [once] DOMINATED | [News.com.AU] RUSSIA SET TO LOSE POPULATION, POWER AND INFLUENCE, [StratFor] REPORT PREDICTS.
Rise of OWG Co-Superpower TURKEY???
RUSSIA = "WEAK/DECLING" US, RISING TURKEY = RISING CHINA???
VERSUS
* WAFF > [Ria.RU] RUSSIAN ADMIRAL: "WE WILL FLOOD THE MEDITERRANEAN WID KILOS" [SSKS]. BIG ORDER ON WAY TO ENSURE SOVIET [now Russian] SUPERIORITY IN THE BLACK SEA AND MED, NO NATO FORCE WILL BE ALLOWED DOMINANCE.
* SAME > PUTIN DEPLOYS SAMS TO NORTH KOREAN BORDER FEARING [NOKOR = Kim] REGIME COLLAPSE.
IMO ARTIC also read, SSSHHH ... CCCCC DETER CHINESE DESIGNS/AMBITIONS ON RUSSIAN-CONTROLLED SAKHALIN + RUSSIA'S FAR EAST.
Darth Putin isolating the coming US-JAPAN-vs-CHINA Battlefield in KOREAS???
#4
Unhappy or not, it just takes a few artillery pieces and rockets to close the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. The Turkish cork is in the Russian bottle...
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/01/2016 7:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Reading 200 years of Russian history (we can start with Peter the Great) will explain Russia's strategy, or for that part much of European social-political-economic strategy. China's goes back 2000 years, but basically is the same. They had a much earlier head start on national identity and empire building.
The betting markets on the American primary elections show an 87% probability that Hillary Clinton will head the Democratic ticket and a 76% probability that Donald Trump will lead the Republicans. Between the two, Trump is the pro-Israel candidate. First, his daughter Ivanka is an observant Orthodox Jew after her conversion and marriage to Jared Kushner, the scion of a prominent family of Jewisih philanthropists. Second, and most decisive, Trump feels no obligation to win favor among Muslims, proposing a temporary ban against any Muslim entering the United States. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, surrounded herself with advisers openly hostile to Israel and pondered covert funding for Palestinian civil disobedience to pressure the Israeli government.
Rarely have Americans had such a clear choice between pro-Israel and not-so-pro-Israel candidates. Remarkably, the neo-conservatives prefer Hillary Clinton. That should confuse the conspiracy theorists. A Google search produces 400,000 hits for the search terms "neoconservative" and "Zionist." Yet the leading neoconservatives say they won't vote for Trump under any circumstances, and one prominent neocon, Robert Kagan, has already declared for Hillary against Trump. Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard and head of the Emergency Committee for Israel, has declared that he would never vote for Trump under any circumstances
...Remarkably, Kristol's Emergency Committee for Israel is running a TV ad denouncing Trump for "kissing up to anti-American dictators"--an unusual use of funds by an organization founded to support Israel rather than support particular candidates, and especially unusual when it is directed against a pro-Israel candidate. Trump notoriously has said that America could work with Russia's Vladimir Putin against terrorists, and argued that toppling Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi benefited the terrorists. One cannot quite say that Trump paints with a broad brush; rather, he throws the bucket of paint against the wall. But the neo-conservatives' defining dogma is to undermine dictators and promote democracy. Trump's view is closer to that of the Israeli consensus. Israel is pragmatic, generally preferring the Arab dictatorships to the chaos that replaced them. Israel's relations with Russia are complex but generally good, especially in operational matters in Syria.
For the most part, Trump is exactly correct. The Libyan adventure, backed vociferously by the neo-conservatives as well as the Obama Administration, turned Libya into a Petrie dish for terrorists. Imposing Shia majority rule in Iraq under the Bush administration turned Iraq into an Iranian satrapy. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein as such was not the problem; marginalizing Iraq's Sunnis prepared the ground for ISIS. Russia has far more to worry about from Islamic terrorism than the United States, and in theory might cooperate with Washington even while opposing US interests in other spheres.
#3
Trump will lose - the press will dredge deep into his very questionable past and dump on him far worse than any GOP candidate to date. It will be constant spin, and Trump has given plenty to spin with his arrogance and stupidity. The dirt is there. You have been warned. By the time you wake up it will be too late to apologize to the majority of GOP voters who voted for someone other than Trump, the irreparable damage will be done. Get ready for Hillary - unlike those of us against trump, you will deserve your misery.
#6
I'm not a Trumpalo, but he's managed to turn every MSM/DNC move back against them. If they attack him, he'll say: "They want a Democrat or a person THEY can control" and it will work, because people are so f*cking tired of being lied to, what's one more, if he attacks the previous liars?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/01/2016 19:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
When institutions, cultural elites, and political power have turned against the vast majority of the populace that does a large part of working to support the rest, you are setting the stage for cultural, if not political upheaval. We'll be lucky if it doesn't come to shooting in a couple decades
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/01/2016 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
[DAWN] THERE should be a reluctance to mention the two names together. One man, Salmaan Taseer, the late governor of Punjab, was a towering champion of human rights One man's rights are another man's existential threat. and a historic defender of the marginalised.
Few in contemporary Pakistain have come close to demonstrating the bravery and principles that Taseer embodied.
The other man, Mumtaz Qadri, an assassin, an individual who violated his oath to protect and serve, embodies everything that has gone wrong with state and society in recent years.
Qadri was a criminal and a murderer and the day he was convicted under the country’s anti-terrorism laws, justice was served. Nothing further was going to be gained by putting Qadri to death. Capital punishment has no place in a modern state and a humane society -- and that is what Pakistain must aspire to be.
Worrying as it is that the state is determined to keep executing individuals on death row, the national reaction to Qadri’s execution -- while a unique case perhaps -- demonstrates how far society itself has drifted from the ideals on which this country was founded.
Pakistain is not an myrmidon society -- but turbans find it all too easy to try and project their influence over society.
The supporters of Qadri who erupted into the streets yesterday, vandalised property, forcibly closed markets and caused a huge loss of work hours nationally by denying many people access to their workplaces were clearly not many in number.
Mostly, it appeared that the security apparatus stood back rather than challenge the protesters, a tactic presumably meant to avoid creating flashpoints. But there is a number that must not be forgotten: one. All it took was one man, Qadri, to act on his violent convictions to plunge the nation into a crisis five years ago. On the streets of Pakistain yesterday, there was a frighteningly larger number than one.
On the other side, Salmaan Taseer too was just one man -- and he was the rare ray of light and inspiration that the protesters want to make sure never manifests itself again.
Simply, this country needs more Salmaan Taseers and no more violent monsters. Today, as Qadri is buried, the country has a question it must ask itself: what creates the monsters in our midst and how can it be stopped? In truth, the answer is not yet known.
There are ideas mooted -- deradicalisation, counter-extremism, etc -- but none have been fleshed out as yet. Qadri is gone, but what of the thousands who, in this age of Zarb-e-Azb ..the Pak offensive against Qaeda in Pakistain and the Pak Taliban in North Wazoo. The name refers to the sword of the Prophet (PTUI!)... , intelligence-based operations and NAP, have felt confident enough to spill out into the streets and threaten violence against the state? Where the law is violated, the justice system should take its course -- but what happens when the mind itself is broken and twisted? How are those minds to be saved and the rest of society protected from them? Some deep, urgent thinking is needed.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/01/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Nothing further was going to be gained by putting Qadri to death.
as an example, you whiny symp
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/01/2016 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
If you are following the Iranian elections, prepare to be dazzled. According to major news outlets from the BBC to the Associated Press, the reformists beat the hardliners.
But wait. Didn't Iran's Guardian Council disqualify most of the reformists back in January? Of course it did, but thanks to the magic of Iranian politics, many of yesterday's hardliners are today's reformists.
As Saeed Ghasseminejad, an expert on Iranian politics at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, recently said: "Putting a reformist or moderate label on hardliners does not make them reformist or moderate."
The headlines, however, tell a different story. The Guardian, for example, says: "Iranian elections deal blow to hardliners as reformists make gains." The BBC concludes: "Reformists win all 30 Tehran seats." And on it goes.
Headline writers should be given some slack on this. After all, President Hassan Rouhani -- a moderate, but no reformer -- himself has celebrated the preliminary results in the elections as a major victory. After criticizing the disqualifications, he has held his tongue and tried to make the most of a bad situation, encouraging Iranians to vote nonetheless.
The same is true for many of the marginalized reformists. Khatami, who the state has decreed an unmentionable figure for Iranian media, took to the social network Telegram to urge his countrymen to vote. The logic here is that at the very least, voters could protest the most reactionary hardliners in favor of the slightly less reactionary hardliners. This is hardly a victory for democratic change in Iran. And that is what is important for Westerners trying to make sense of Iran's elections.
While Iranian politicians have to make the best of a bad hand, we don't. Western journalists and analysts don't need to confer legitimacy on illegitimate elections, nor should we call hardliners "reformists." At the very least, it's important to hold out a higher standard for the day real reformers are allowed to compete fairly for power in Iran.
But this is the magic of Iran's elections. In the end, Iran's supreme leader doesn't need to defend their legitimacy. He has plenty in the West eager to do it for him.
Posted by: Pappy ||
03/01/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
...You would think that after, what - thirty seven gorram years now - we'd understand.
But we don't. The difference between Iranian moderate and Iranian hardliner is that one is more open about his hatred for us than the other. They will not be happy until they dance on our graves.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
03/01/2016 5:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's sort of like the Beltway Party. You elect Trunks who then gleefully pass the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Omnibus funding bill*. You thought you voted for a change in government.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Independent] Incest between siblings and necrophilia should be legalised, a branch of the Swedish Liberal People's Party has argued.
