Iran kills Gays?

Who cares?

Is it the job of the United States to protect the world's gay population from oppression by their Governments?

because Methusela needs time to spend on hymn-singing and a lovely one is "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam". I can just imagine it; one relentlessly firing off quips and the other in the shower firing off....Never mind but the singing in basso profundo would probably raise the roof of the motel. I'll have to log off now and hope that the worst doesn't come to the worst, although the blog was about Iran's nuclear capacity. As for those two, every old stocking finds an old shoe.

You don't care about gays? Why not?

It's all the hand-wringing and speculating that I see in your posts and the discussions that follow that are annoying. What exactly do you think you're accomplishing? As for criticism, isn't it just possible for us all to wait until he's in office and actually starts DOING things, or does that just take all the fun out of it?

Look at the initial post again followed by Update III. What hand-wringing? These are statements Obama made. No one forced these words from his lips reflecting this change. If Obama knows something now he didn't know in 2007, he can say so. He did not.

And what is being accomplished? Remember what happened to John Brennan? He was Obama's orginal (as reported) choice for, I believe, CIA Director. But public responsiveness, led in part by Glenn Greenwald, led Obama to select someone else.

One of the basic functions of democracy is that it neither begins nor ends at the time of voting. Pressure--yes, the pressure of an informed citizenry--is requisite in keeping this "noble experiment" alive. Why should any of us exist in stasis while waiting for Obama (or any other president for that matter) to "actually start[] doing things"? Isn't he supposed to be responsive to the citizens that elected him?

anyone in its custody or in custody sanctioned by the United States (ie: renditioned) who has been subjected to torture. That should go for anyone subjected to torture by or under the sanction of the United States, whether or not they are terrorist suspects.

All these efforts by the Bush Regime and the Incoming to jigger a way to around the forfeit should be rendered futile forthwith.

That does not mean that none of them can ever be tried and that they all must be released willy-nilly. What it means is that the United States Government cannot charge them, try them, and should not be permitted to hold them.

However, if there is evidence of terrorism or crime involving these suspects (and remember, every single captive at Gitmo is a suspect, not a convict, as is the case for the tens of thousands of others being held on terrorism charges in gulags abroad) then let that evidence be handed over to an international neutral tribunal, and let the suspect, if warranted, be charged and tried under applicable international statutes.

The United States has no right to hold or try them, nor should there be some "work around" that enables their trial by United States authorities.

The Obama's are closing in on their new puppy!

Obama narrows down puppy breeds

President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday he is close to naming a key White House aide: the puppy he promised his daughters on election night.

In an interview yesterday with ABC television's George Stephanopoulos, Obama said:

They seem to have narrowed it down to labradoodle or a Portuguese water hound. A medium sized dog

He said the family was starting to look at shelters.

We're closing in on it. This has been tougher than finding a commerce secretary.

...

Should he get one of these two breeds, or scrap them in favour of a mutt? What do you think?

I think a Labradoodle is a mutt.

I don't think he's mentioned by name (I presume you mean Zbigniew...spelling?).

If you're interested, both are available on the web:

Silverstein/Harper's:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

Street/Black Agenda Report

http://tinyurl.com/8ocdc3

(Personal note: Although he scores several points, Street goes over the top, from time to time, at least imo. But nevertheless a nice antidote and worth taking a peek at.)

If you say so. If dismissing certain periods of antiquity for 'more representative' others is as much substantiation as you offer to support your claim that the Greeks 'demonized' the Persians, that's about the only way I can think of to respond. You've yet to clarify what it was about Thermopylae that illustrates this demonization, btw, so not clear what brings us to that particular place and time other than woeful pop culture. It was a battle against two warring factions, with attendant implications, yada yada wake me when this gets interesting.

My point in throwing out the Moguls and Persian cultural influence and military antagonisms east, was to address the distinct impression that you have special rules for the West and for everyone else; that Westerners occupy a special place in Adam's garden where free will exists. One wonders, for example, why the Greeks managed to get singled out, when it's less than clear that the Egyptians were big fans. Or why Persian cultural influence (imperialism?) on the West is evidence of some profound truth while its more profound influence elsewhere doesn't merit mention. Images of Mogul civic works are indelibly etched in my brain, so I ran there for anecdote. I did not claim that 'the Moguls brought Persian influence to South Asia', only that they are a particularly notable instance of said, and a particularly notable instance of concomitant resentment.

More broadly, it doesn't surprise me that there is antipathy where there is warfare, nor that there is warfare where there are opposing powers. I don't even tend to sift through ancient or even medieval history for insight on current sentiment toward Iran. The meaning of that record for current events is impossibly hamstrung by complexity, such that these types of things are always colored to flatter some precious 3000 year contiguous narrative, and your pat iteration is no exception.

I guess you could say that my point was to inquire as to how 3000 years of relations between the eternal Persia and the governments of civilizations that, at least a few hundred years of cognoscenti might call 'the West', were so happily organized and exceptional, and what that tells us about current events.