1. BP CEO saying that the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill is relatively tiny compared to the size of the ocean. By that logic, someone could argue that the over a million people killed in a war built on a false pretext is tiny compared to the 6 billion people in the world.  Oh, wait…
2. SB 1070 – more popularly known as the “Arizona Immigration bill”
3. Arizona banning ethnic studies
4. Texas conservatives working to revise history along Biblical/American exceptionalist/racist lines in textbooks
5. Corporations authorized to buy U.S. elections after the Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission case
6. The surge of people “tweeting” and “microblogging” about nonsense while remaining dormant on things that matter
7. People wasting their time talking about Jay-Z is a devil-worshiping Freemason.  Even if he is, who cares? There are bigger things to worry about.
8. Republicans and Democrats both screwing the public through bankrupt policy, while continuing to trick people into thinking there’s any substantive difference between them.
9. The fact that legally, BP may only be obligated to pay no more than $75 million in damages, which doesn’t even begin to cover it, and that they’re fighting even that.  You want to know what’s “tiny”?  $75 million compared to the hundreds of billions^PDF that BP makes every year
10. Open racism coming back in style
11. The mainstream media continuing to report on sensationalist bullshit, rather than covering the stuff that really matters – the corporate version of #6
12. Omar al-Bashir “winning” the election in Sudan, in spite of being convicted of war crimes and genocide by the U.N.
13. People chasing conspiracy theories, while doing nothing about evil acts being committed every day out in the open
14. How perfectly the “divide and conquer” social strategy is continuing to work
15. All this talk of Iran having nuclear weapons, while no one says anything to Israel
16. The betrayed promise of “change” from President Obama
17. How the people around me don’t know and don’t seem to care about what’s going on in the world
18. Facebook’s new privacy policy violations
19. Obama authorizing the targeted killing of a U.S. Citizen, setting a dangerous precedent
20. How people are pawns of their respective political parties, rather than thinking critically as individuals

So now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go play some Torchlight, as an alternative to shooting myself in the head…

The Iranian president has warned that a new round of UN sanctions against his country over its disputed nuclear programme could permanently damage Tehran’s ties with the United States.

So much for all of Obama’s talk about reaching out to Iran, even going so far as to correctly acknowledge it as the Islamic Republic.  Remember his message, back in March, tactically delivered at Norwuz, the Persian New Year?  As if to symbolize a new dawn in Iranian-U.S. relations?

Obama’s message said the United States seeks engagement with Iran “that is honest and grounded in mutual respect,” but cautioned that the country cannot “take its rightful place in the community of nations . . . through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.

More hopeful rhetoric backed by zero substance or commitment.  Maybe Ahmadinejad doesn’t represent all Iranians, but most Iranians do want nuclear energy as a clean and efficient option.  So in the U.S. persistently denying Iran a right to that technology and threatening it with sanctions that further cripple the people economically, exactly how does that represent “mutual respect”?

For his part, Ahmadinejad could be more open to U.N. inspection of the Iranian nuclear program, but one can hardly fault his skepticism towards a body that has openly disregarded, ignored, and walked out on him in relaying the interests of his nation and his people.  Especially considering that all of the rhetoric coming out of the U.S. and the U.N. revolves around stopping Iran’s nuclear program, not merely making sure that it is exclusively for energy.

There is also the small matter of the double standard of the United States’ hard-line against nuclear proliferation, while completely ignoring Israel not being a signatory to the treaty.  Or the hypocrisy of the U.S. criticizing any country for nuclear ambitions when to date we are the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against anyone.  Not only that, but there’s also the recent affirmation that military action against Iran is “not off the table”.

All this, under the pretext of “mutual respect”?  Yeah, okay.

The supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seem to be coming out in equal force to match the protests of the Mir-Hossein Mousavi supporters.  To me, even if the election was a fraud and the outcome was more like Ahmadinejad 50.5% vs. Mousavi 49.5%, that’s still millions of people who supported Ahmadinejad.  While Mousavi sounds like the better candidate to me, and Ayatollah Montazeri sounds better still as a Supreme Leader than Ali Khamenei, ignoring the strong support behind Ahmadinejad and Khamenei would be no more democratic than a corrupt election.

It sounds to me like the changes in Iran will have to be piecemeal – a re-education of the people to understand what is wrong with the Islamic Republic as it is, so that eventually someone like A-Jad would not even be a contender.

At the same time I realize that maybe the results could’ve been inverted, with Mousavi the overwhelming winner, but…who really knows?  While I’d like to say I support the “Iranian people”, I don’t think they all feel one way, and I don’t know how they feel in any case.

Just because the dissenters are the ones twittering and blogging doesn’t mean that they represent the majority.  The older and/or less technologically savvy – which could include the poor who simply do not have access to the internet – may not support Mousavi.  They may not support Ahmadinejad, either.

To be clear, although I have defended him in other posts, because I think that he is misrepresented in Western media, I do not support him in any capacity as a politician, and I am as wary of him and his government as I am of my own.  I think politicians as a species are a corrupt sort, and therefore I do not trust them.

I am also skeptical of pro-Western sentiments coming out of Iran, not because I support the anti-Western conservatives and extremists, but because I am wary of propaganda, and wary of any attempt to exploit the wishes of the Iranian people to bolster Western interests.

In summary, my stance is going to remain neutral.  It is not for anyone in the West to say what the Iranian people want, since we just plain do not know.  President Obama, I think, has taken precisely the right stand in the matter.  For now, we wait.  And watch.

However, at the recent World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Geneva, Ahmadinejad showed a different face. Other UN member states were wary of his presence, thinking that he would use the conference as a platform to spout Anti-Semitic rhetoric. And indeed, once he started speaking, diplomats from 23 European countries walked out, to return only once he was finished speaking.

The thing is…Ahmadinejad did not spout anything remotely Anti-Semitic. He was quoted as saying:

Following World War II they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering…

AND:

In compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.

Nowhere in these statements does Ahmadinejad disparage Jewish people. Nowhere does he make any sweeping negative statements about any people or culture. In fact, he even seems to reverse his previous stance as a Holocaust denier by acknowledging – twice – that the Jews suffered much during World War II. Note the phrases “Jewish suffering” and “dire consequences of racism” – both referring to the Holocaust. He then goes on to say that under this pretext – pretext not pretense – Israel has gone on to establish a racist government, that is, one that is anti-Palestinian.

Anti-Semitism, which for reasons unknown as been given its own separate status apart from prejudice of any other kind, has come to mean not only racism towards Jewish people, but any sort of condemnation of the state of Israel or its government. This is a strange phenomenon which has allowed Israel to be cavalier on the global stage, for to speak out against their actions means the possibility of being dubbed an Anti-Semite. One can even be an Anti-Semite by association, it seems, as Israel condemned Swiss president Hans-Rudolf Merz – host of the event – for even meeting with Ahmadinejad.

The diplomats who walked out – and they were out of their chairs within seconds after Ahmadinejad started speaking – had already made up their minds about what he was going to say, and must not have heard his actual words.  If they had, could they honestly deny that Israeli aggression towards Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank – looks even a little like racism?  Could they deny the overtly racist statements of one Avigdor Lieberman – an influential member of the Knesset – who is unapologetic in his Anti-Arab rhetoric, going so far as to say that Arab Israelis (not Israelis in general) should take a test of their loyalty to Israel in order to retain their right to vote?

How could anyone capable of such a denial, in good faith, attend an anti-racism conference?  It is a strange sort of thing when people acknowledge racism where it is to their political advantage, but ignore it otherwise.  It is also a very common thing.

If Anti-Semitism is saying anything negative about Jewish people or the state of Israel, then how can defaming, oppressing, and killing Palestinians not even be considered within the context of racism?

Welcome to the first installment, featuring none other than Nobel Peace Laureate and President of Israel, Shimon Peres, and God’s earthly emissary (according to the Catholic Faith), his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

President Shimon Peres of Israel

What he said:

“I think the Iranian nation will topple these leaders – leaders that do not serve the people. In the end, people will understand this.”

and:

“To our dismay, our diplomatic relations are at a low point flowing from the desires leading the current leaders of your land to act in every way possible against the state of Israel and its people, but I am confident that the day we are hoping for is not far, when the good neighborly relations and the cooperation will flourish in all fields for the welfare of our nations and for the betterment of our common future.”

Why he should shut up:

Today President Obama released a video calling for a new relationship between the United States and Iran, a symbolic gesture given that it came on Nowruz, the start of the Iranian new year.  Obama, as usual, was savvy and tactical in giving his speech, even going as far as to refer to Iran by its official name – the Islamic Republic of Iran, something which shows recognition of its current leadership.  It is under this current leadership – following in the wake of the revolution of 1979 – under which Iran-U.S. relations deteriorated, beginning with the hostage crisis that same year, and perhaps culminating in George W. Bush naming Iran a member of the “Axis of Evil”.  Obama’s gesture throws such combative rhetoric out the window by accepting and acknowledging the current leadership in a proactive way.

Unfortunately, Peres timed his comments to coincide with those of Obama, as if he were joining in this venture towards peaceful collaboration.  The trouble is that while Obama’s words were friendly and optimistic, those of Peres were critical and condescending.  Not only does he take legitimacy away from the Iranian leadership by suggesting that the people will overthrow them, but he places the blame for poor relations between Iran and Israel solely and squarely on their shoulders.

One would think by listening to Peres that Israel was a country singlemindedly dedicated to Middle East peace, while the Iranian leadership are merely the antagonists standing in the way of that goal.  It would seem to imply that Israel’s own actions played no role in its adversarial relationship with Iran or other Arab nations, which is not only ridiculous but offensive.

Furthermore, Peres seems to be suggesting that at least since 1979 the people of Iran have been misguided in their acceptance of the current leadership, and that is only a matter of time before they become “enlightened” and see things the right way (i.e. the Israeli way), and overthrow those leaders.  Such an implication undermines the overwhelming public support that came behind the 1979 revolution, and the judgment of the Iranian people in selecting their Presidents since then.  Oh, poor misguided Iranians, one day you will see the truth!

At a time when any peace in the Middle East is tenuous, the next phase of war only an impulse away, the country at the center of the tensions might not want to get on the high horse when speaking to those who view it as the antagonist.

So President Peres, with all due respect, please shut the hell up.

Pope Benedict XVI

Ever since taking over the papacy in April 2005, the new Pope has become notorious for making controversial statements.  In October 2006, he quoted a 14th century emperor – who at the time was at war with the Muslim Ottoman Empire – saying:

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Within the context of the intensely adversarial relationship between that Christianity and Islam through the proxy of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, the quote’s obvious bias can be understood.  In 2006, without any pretext, Benedict’s use of the quote was irresponsible and offensive.

Most recently, during a trip to Cameroon, he said:

“HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.”

These comments, which fly in the face of every scientific conclusion with regards to condoms and HIV prevention, place ideology above practicality. Such comments, made by a figure of immense visibility and influence, to the people of a region where millions are infected with HIV/AIDS, are outright dangerous.  They undermine the efforts of health workers and global initiatives to combat the deadly disease.

All for the sake of pushing for abstinence, a position the Pope also says should be taken by homosexuals indefinitely in order to uphold the mandate of the creation, but on which, hypocritically, he was more lenient when it came to the moral weaknesses – i.e. pedophilia – of his fellow clergymen.

As his tour of Africa continued, the Pope offered some additional words of wisdom, this time drawing upon the church’s pro-life ideology:

“Today it is high time to place greater emphasis on this: every human being, every tiny human person, however weak, is created in the image and likeness of God.  [...] Every person must live. Death must not prevail over life. Death will never have the last word.”

Actually, sir, death by its very definition does have the last word.  Now while I recognize that he is invoking the Christian ideal of an afterlife, a person so focused on the afterlife might not be the best one to talk to those who are struggling to survive in this life.  In talking about earthly issues such as abortion and the AIDS epidemic, it might be prudent to limit the discussion to this realm.

And so, your Holiness, with all due respect, just shut the hell up.