Abel & Cole have upgraded their website and added new lines of products. Great website. Great company. Highly recommended.
I’ve been following a debate between Sam Harris and Philip Ball, in which Harris takes Ball and Nature magazine to task over their capitulations to religion. In one passage I was reminded of one of many discussions I’ve had over the years with my mother about religion. In this particular discussion she became very distressed and responded to my irreligiousness thus:
But how can you not want to be with me after our time on Earth?
I wish I’d had Sam Harris’ words to quote at the time. This is for my mother:
I’m sure many people … hope that there is a God; they hope that they will see their friends and loved ones after death; they hope that their lives are aligned with some larger cosmic purpose; and they are disposed to make much of this hope—to celebrate it, and to gather with others who hope for these same things. [They] might say that this hope has enriched their lives or has in some way become indispensable to their functioning in the world. But if [they] are really religious—that is, really conforming to the doctrine of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.—they will have taken a further step toward delusion and mistaken this hope for a form of knowledge. They may have yanked their bootstraps this way: “How could I find this hope so consoling if it were not, in fact, well founded? Perhaps this feeling of hopefulness itself attests to the truth of thing hoped for… Praise be to God!” Of course there are many other ways to chase one’s tail under the aegis of religion. … It should be abundantly clear, however, that mere hope does not constitute knowledge, no matter how lovingly one tends it and props it up in the wind.
Neda Agha-Soltan is a young women from Iran who was shot dead while protesting against repression in Iran. She has a page on Wikipedia. Photos and video and of her death have been widely broadcast by the Western media, with copious amounts of faux sympathy.
She deserves our sympathy because she appears to be a victim of the latest Western bogeyman: Iran. She, as Noam Chomsky might note, is a “worthy victim.”
Bassem Abu Rameh, on the other hand, is a young Palestinian man who was shot dead while protesting against oppression and apartheid in Israel and the occupied territories. He doesn’t have a page on Wikipedia. Photos and video of his death have not been broadcast by the Western media. Nor any sympathy.
He doesn’t deserve our sympathy because he is the victim of a Western ally: Israel. He is an “unworthy victim.”
Thanks to Jews sans frontieres.
The Guardian has video of two women being bundled to the ground by police for daring to ask a police officer for his badge number.
I was surprised today to find one of my favourite technology commentators, John Gruber of Daring Fireball, declaring that no doubt remains as to whether the election was fraudulent. Really, because a theocratic government is cracking down on dissidents?
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt from my experiences in the Middle East it is that all is not what it seems when Western governments and the English news media are telling the story.
It … has been curious to see the U.S. news organizations suddenly care about legitimate elections when most of them ignored, ridiculed, or covered-up evidence that George W. Bush stole the U.S. presidential election in 2000 and possibly in 2004 as well.
–Robert Parry, Investigative Journalist
While I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the election was fraudulent—in the same way that I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential elections were fraudulent—there’s just not enough evidence to be in no doubt. At least in the case of Iran an investigation has actually been ordered.
The truth is we just don’t know. The only way to remove doubt would be another election involving neutral international observers. Not on the horizon it seems.
Here’s another theory on Iran’s recent presidential election:
First, a few facts:
- The U.S. and Britain have a history of meddling in the politics of other countries, including leading the 1953 Iranian coup d’état that deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, to ensure Western control of Iran’s petroleum resources.
- The U.S. is reported to covertly support Iranian dissidents.
- Iraq was invaded on the premise of a nuclear weapons threat, which never existed.
- Iraq was invaded because it has large strategic energy reserves and Saddam Hussein wouldn’t do as he was told.
- The Iranian government is in the same boat.
- When no evidence of nuclear weapons could be produced Saddam’s dictatorship was rolled out as the revisionist justification for invasion.
- The U.S. and Israel (both of which have a history of launching wars of aggression) have talked openly of attacking Iran on the premise of a nuclear weapons threat.
- Iran has never attacked another country in aggression.
- Iran may not have a nuclear weapons programme either.
The theory:
- A large minority of dissident Iranians believed they were going to win the election.
- Iranian election was not fraudulent.1
- Many Westerners (some of whom helped elect the invaders of Iraq and continue to vote today) are lead to believe the Iranian election was fraudulent.
- Due to this belief the U.S., Israeli and British governments get to label the Iranian president a dictator. Something to keep the Western liberals happy while they attempt another coup d’état or invasion.
- There is evidence that it may not have been, such as reports from Robert Fisk and a public opinion poll three weeks before the election reported to show “Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin.” [↩]
Recent Comments