So I was thinking, the other day, about a vital topic, as they say.
What is a good size for a new TV? 40" seems good for a small room, yet 3:4 (legacy) content looks really small, as if on a 21" set.
That is, if you letterbox it with dark stripes on the sides. But a lot of people don't do this. They use a mode where the image is stretched. So everybody looks fat.
Then I had a thought. What if the obesity epidemic is really due to 16:9 TVs making everybody look, ah, wide? If top talent on the tube looks plus sized, and people then go to the mirror, they may feel thin enough to keep gaining weight.
This is what we call a theory. A pet theory. Here is another:
It has been proposed that the drop in crime rates tracks the elimination of leaded gas over 20 years ago. The evidence is compelling. What I have not seen studied is the relationship between lead exposure and other kinds of antisocial behavior. Lead in gasoline was phased out starting in 1975, and was nearly eliminated by 1990. Roughly, this correlates with a drop in crime starting in the mid 1990's, that has continued since. So far so good. Crime tracks 20 years later because most people start their criminal "careers" in their late teens to early 20's.
But people born before 1975 are still around. If you were born in 1975, you are now 37, and people older than 37 can be thought of as being potentially less well behaved than those born after. Few professions begin when people are nearing their 40's, so it's hard to see a "lead wave" in disciplines other than criminal activities. There is, however, at least one notable exception: Politics. The average age of a representative in the 111th Congress was 57.2 years. The average age of new members was 49.8 years, so we are talking about guys born in 1962. New senators start at 57.1 years.
This means we need to wait another 13 years to begin to see the effects of an unleaded House, and another 7 years to have an unleaded Senate. So, my pet theory is that:
- The quality of our federal politicians will continue to be poor, and even worsen, till about 2025.
- By 2040 we can expect to see visibly more intelligent, honest, and restrained politicians running the country. Whatever is left of it, anyway, because the theory holds the current crop to be thugs with suits and ties.
- Early evidence of future improvement will come in the form of decent crop of local politicians and state level politicians by around 2020.
- Likewise, the number of good top executives in the private sector should gradually rise after 2020.
So that's another theory.
Now, gentlemen and gentlewomen, it's your turn!


My pet theory
(#278066)is that Limehouse's cleaver is Chekhov's gun.
I think it's pretty clear someone's getting butchered.
(#278072)My money's on a certain fella with a giant baby-head who looks like he even s**ts blond.
A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.
A safe bet.
(#278115)I also took note of how the camera seemed to linger slightly as it panned past that meat grinder.
I was kind of hoping they'd go the Mr. Wu
(#278126)route, if only to continue the Deadwood connections (Ellsworth for sheriff!).
A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.
Correlation, causation etc.
(#278081)My pet theory is about a specific genetic mutation in the Norsemen, a particularly vicious strain, transmitted via nobles around the Duke of Normandy and the de Hautevilles to the Americas. Andrew?
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I'd like that to be true
(#278086)but, sadly, I think that American violence (or at least relative violence of America compared to the rest of the G8 countries) is of more recent vintage.
I know I have lots of these, but I'm usually
(#278124)not aware until someone points them out to me. :)
M Aurelius was probably right.
Theory (not yet a pet one):
(#278228)You want a model, albeit a tricky one to pull off? Israel's ideal is the Gulf I-ization of the conflict with Iran. Short, sharp warfare that leaves Iran isolated and ornery, thus requiring endless sanctions, no fly zones, strikes against suspect sites, etc. The trick is goading Iran into doing something stupid. A strike by Israel against the nuclear sites is too blatant and puts part of the weight on Israel.
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
That's pretty sharp thinking.
(#278232)I have to say it does sound plausible.
That said, I don't think in the long run that kind of chronic instability works in Israel's favor, or ours.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
I don't think the Iranis have a history of being stupid.
(#278256)-
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Well, the embassy thing...
(#278260)...didn't work out too well for them, did it?
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
if anti-Americanism is the metric
(#278281)for stupidity, then perhaps.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Giving The US A Valid Casus Belli. . .
(#278282). . .to reduce the newly founded Islamic Revolutionary Government to goo-stained rubble has to be considered deeply stupid--it's not as if they could count on Jimmy Carter being *that* inept and spineless in his handling of the crisis. Also, the hostility between the US and Iran contributed mightily to the willingness of Saddam Hussein to invade Iran--doing so before the breach in relations would have been a suicidal move on Iraq's part.*
*--OK, a suicidal move even by Saddam Hussein's standards.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
In order
(#278287)1. The USA didn't exactly have a lily white record of non-intervention in the internal affairs of Iran, pre-Revolution. So we can regard tit for tat retalitaions as exactly that.
2. To suggest that US diplomacy did not have any hand in covertly persuading Saddam Hussein to invade Iran is naive.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Also In Order
(#278288)1. "Tit for tat" doesn't have much standing in international law--particularly when the time frame involved is thirty six years.
2. That would just reinforce my point, wouldn't it? I'm unaware of any evidence of direct urging as opposed to a dictator predisposed to expansionary invasions noticing that Iran's former superpower protector was now a bitter enemy and acting accordingly, but if there was, it would only drive home the point that p***ing off the United States of America is a very bad idea.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
HA
(#278293)and of course, the time between the Iranian revolution and now is ... 33 years.
I blame it all on the Internet
Yes
(#278298)And if we blew Iran to atoms *now* citing the invasion of the US Embassy, we wouldn't get a very respectful hearing in the international community. It's not a complicated concept.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Heh. "International law"!
(#278295)Surely you're not suggesting the USA should be bound by laws meant for us lesser folk! Hasn't the US Congress decided that US citizens cannot be tried for violations of non-US laws?
Your second point I have already conceded to MA, if you always equate stupidity with anti-Americanism. Naturally, I wouldn't expect any American to say less - unfortunately, we still haven't learned that Americanism cannot be flawed.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I don't equate stupidity with anti-Americanism
(#278299)But I do equate stupidity with stupidity. Killing off your own officers while picking a fight with a superpower while also having a hostile neighboring regime is stupid.
And if the argument is that it was a long time ago, making noises that the state of Israel should cease to exist while at the same time refusing to let IEA inspectors look at their nuclear efforts is not smart either.
The regime has a history of misreading the situation it is in.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
That's pretty common after revolutions
(#278301)generals can be very dangerous to a new regime, especially generals who were loyal to the preceding regime. So while brutal, cruel and immoral, I'm not sure stupid is the right word to use.
I blame it all on the Internet
No
(#278302)Stupid is pretty much the right word.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Your response is irrelevant to the discussion
(#278304)the examples you list weren't after a revolution, they were 23 years later. And while they may have been stupid, they didn't stop the USSR from defeating the Nazis pretty much singlehandedly with only logistical support.
I blame it all on the Internet
At The Cost Of Millions Of Lives. . .
(#278306). . .many which probably could have been prevented if the Soviet Union had not exterminated virtually every remotely competent high level officer it had by the time Operation Barbarossa kicked off--which is a major reason that a nation whose military later terrorized the free world couldn't win a war with Finland in 1940, for heaven's sake. Also, the purges were part of the ongoing process of Stalin consolidating his power in the years after Lenin died, and so should be considered part of the revolutionary process (as should the assassination of Trotsky, which did not happen until 1940). Or--if you prefer--it's f***ing stupid to murder ones competent generals when one has external enemies who are clearly eager to attack, no matter what political excuse one might be inclined to concoct for it.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
That's not what a revolution is.
(#278312)It's been mentioned several times already, but attacking the US embassy has worked out very, very well... for the Ayatollahs in Iran. The embassy was their Bastille, and they were able to channel massive popular & nationalist resentment against a foreign meddler to both seize control and liquidate all of the Shah's former supporters in the government.
It's *stupid* for any country to have a civil war while it is faced with opportunistic enemies...France in 1789, the US in 1860, Russia in 1917, etc. etc.... from the point of view of the country as a whole. But from the point of view of the revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries, it's absolutely necessary.
The clerics in Iran have been extraordinarily successful revolutionaries, as far as that goes. Considered purely from the "national interest" angle, attacking the US was a disaster...Iran lost wealthy potential allies and trading partners throughout the western world, and made very powerful enemies. But revolutionaries generally don't seeing the benefit of those alliances anyway, so beheading kings and shooting tsars are eminently sensible things for them to do.
M Aurelius was probably right.
This whole discussion is from the national interest angle
(#278323)The reason for that is that we are talking about whether Iran is stupid or smart in the context of possible conflcit with Israel, the US, and other nations in the Middle East.
The goals of the fundamentalists are not relevant.
What's good for the Ayatollahs is not necesarily good for Iran, and certainly wasn't in this case.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
It's a mistake to think of them as a tiny oligarchy
(#278325)with zero popular support.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I don't think of them that way
(#278333)And nothing I said points to that. I said, and say, that the regime is unwise, often stupid, in how it deals with the outside world.
By the way, a regime with popular support does not by so having it become wise in foreign policy. Often the opposite is true. At the invasion of Iraq, bush had popular support, did he not? How did that work out for us?
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
BTW, I'm not a fan of the regime
(#278340)I'd much rather religious theocracies were fewer in number, but I do consider the Irani regime to be exceptionally resilient. I also hope that you are correct and that they will eventually fail and fall.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
It is resilient, yes
(#278344)It will fail, but it may not fall. The regime is so overwhelming over any alternative, that the alternative will rise from its own ranks. A split is probable. In the short term it may even become more radical. But this is a dead end and at some point more lucid actors, now prohibited, will take the stage.
This is all assuming they don't manage to get themselves into nuclear war with Israel before them.
By the way, I don't think Israel is on a sustainable course itself, in foreign policy terms.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Well, lets look at the national interest angle, then.
(#278337)I don't see that the Iranis are in a worse state than when the Revolution was launched in 1979. At that point, to the west, their major enemies were the USA, funding pan Arabism via KSA and Egypt, Saddam Hussein's US-supported Sunni-dominated Iraq, Israel, who had successfully concluded hostilities with Egypt and finally a USSR-backed regime in Afghanistan to the east.
What's the situation with these entities today? Iraq is largely neutralised as an enemy. There is considerable Irani influence in Iraq today, much more so than in 1979. Egypt is in a mess. The KSA only just managed to keep the Bahraini government alive - and for how much longer? Today, Iran has considerable influence in Karzai's Afghanistan.
To an impartial observer, these are pretty significant gains in 30 odd years, and which is why I consider the end results of Irani FP non-stupid. As for the country being in a bad shape internally? [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Iran]Look at their healthcare.[/url] Its a lot better than ours.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
It all depends on the metric...
(#278343)Iran is such a radically different place, it depends what you are measuring. A pile of dead people and a police state are hardly advances over 1979.
Iraq was neutralized by the US and handed on a silver platter to Islamists. This is no achievement of the Iranians. It was a gift from the bush administration. Likewise Afghanistan. A stupid United States does not a smart Iran make.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
A quibble...
(#278320)You can murder some of your generals. What you can't do is wipe out your officer corps.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
True
(#278324)As long as you have enough to run the show, sure.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Who said generals?
(#278317)They killed and exiled officers of all ranks. They decimated the air force, where by definition all pilots were officers. Stupid. It cost them dearly.
Hank, why are you defending these guys? Look, I am no fan of American policy towards Iran, but you do realize that you are justifying the policy of people equivalent to the more extreme elements of the American religious right?
The revolution was certainly justified, and it was led by a wide coalition of groups, many moderate and democratic. The worst, most reactionary elements took power, and you consider this not stupid? Imagine the same thing in South Africa. What if Mandela had purged all the whites?
If you want an example of not stupid, that's Mandela. A bunch of fundamentalist zealots will get you to stupid like clockwork, in Iran, in the US, or anywhere else.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
I guess you missed
(#278327)the "brutal, cruel and immoral" part.
There are many actions that I find abhorrent, but that given the (lack of) moral compass of the participants I can see that it worked. Do I think Hitler was moral for playing on the fears of Germans to establish a dictatorship? No. Do I favor a dictatorship? No. But do I recognize that he consolidated power very effectively and in a way that was unthinkable before he started? Yes, and it should be obvious to anyone who reads history. I look at the Iranian revolutionaries the same way. Abhorrent people, but against extremely long odds they did establish a state that exists to this day.
I blame it all on the Internet
If you look at Hitler as an example...
(#278332)...I can only ask, how did that work out for Germany?
This whole thing started with a comment by Manish saying Iran wasn't stupid, in a foreign policy context. In that context, the ability of the regime to hold on to power is ultimately irrelevant. The question is if the regime will act in a way consistent with Iran's best interests, and I think I have amply shown that it failed to do so in many key instances.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
To echo MA on this....
(#278311)....picking fights with bigger powers is usually (though not universally) stupid. Given that the U.S. is one of the largest, QED. Even if you win, you usually kind of lose. The only plausible class of exceptions is the attempt to play multiple larger powers against each other, but we know post-revolutionary Iran was nearly as hostile to the USSR as to the US, so that doesn't look like a non-stupid solution.
Is this really that controversial, M.? I'd suggest that whenever Nepal picks a fight with India or China, it is likely being stupid. When it picks a fight with both simultaneously, it is almost certainly being stupid. Etc.
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
Well, it depends. Lots of small countries have stood up to
(#278316)larger bullies - from the Greeks at Marathon against the Persians, the Americans against the British, the Vietnamese against the French and Americans and Chinese, or the Afghans against the Russians.
And yes, it does depend on what your metric for stupidity is - I tend to think the Iranian theocracy are stupid using the metric that religious conservatives are generally stupid. However as Micky and Jordan point out, for those religious conservatives to have eliminated their internal enemies (the Tudeh was once very powerful in Iran) using the USA as a bogeyman, and kept themselves on top, the anti-Americanism of the Iranian theocracy seems pretty non-stupid.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Bad examples...
(#278319)The Greeks bought time to prepare for a home ground defense against a paper power, that had numbers and momentum but not as much military sophistication or experience. Greece was also a major player at that time, not a "small country" by any means.
The Vietnamese had Soviet backing, in the form of weapons, training, intelligence, and advice.
The Americans fought the British having sought and achieved the backing of the French, who first covertly provided powder and weapons, and later openly entered the war landing thousands of well-trained troops on the ground while running a blockade on the sea and engaging the British around the globe. It was a textbook example of Bernard's exception of getting two powers to fight each other.
What Iran did was the equivalent of picking a fight with the British while spiting the French. The American revolution would have failed within the year had the founders been that stupid.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
And yet, Iran is still around.
(#278326)Their success at remaining in power is counterpoint to everything you've been saying.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Not really...
(#278331)They have a basket case economy, no plan B for when the oil is gone. They did survive the war, but at a huge cost and partly due to the luck of having a militarily inept enemy.
I'll grant that they are tough, ruthless, and unresponsive to the needs of their people. But I believe the regime has more road behind it than in front of it, one way or another, because it is not on a sustainable course. Something has to give.
Time will tell.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Heh. The USA intervened in the Iraq war when Iraq was losing -
(#278334)a direct intervention, if you will. I refer you to Mr Howard Teicher's [url=http://www.webcitation.org/5flvP0UgC]deposition[/url]
[quote]1. My name is Howard Teicher. From 1977 to 1987, I served in the United States government as a member of the national security bureaucracy. From early 1982 to 1987, I served as a Staff Member to the United States National Security Council.
2. While a Staff Member to the National Security Council, I was responsible for the Middle East and for Political-Military Affairs. During my five year tenure on the National security Council, I had regular contact with both CIA Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates.
3. In the Spring of 1982, Iraq teetered on the brink of losing its war with Iran. In May and June, 1982, the Iranians discovered a gap in the Iraqi defenses along the Iran-Iraq border between Baghdad to the north and Basra to the south. Iran positioned a massive invasion force directly across from the gap in the Iraqi defenses. An Iranian breakthrough at the spot would have cutoff Baghdad from Basra and would have resulted in Iraq's defeat.
4. United States Intelligence, including satellite imagery, had detected both the gap in the Iraqi defenses and the Iranian massing of troops across from the gap. At the time, the United States was officially neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict.
5. President Reagan was forced to choose between (a) maintaining strict neutrality and allowing Iran to defeat Iraq, or (b) intervening and providing assistance to Iraq.
6. In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982. I have personal knowledge of this NSDD because I co-authored the NSDD with another NSC Staff Member, Geoff Kemp. The NSDD, including even its identifying number, is classified.
7. CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secret NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat. For example, in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. Similar strategic operational military advice was passed to Saddam Hussein through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state. I authored Bush's talking points for the 1986 meeting with Mubarak and personally attended numerous meetings with European and Middle East heads of state where the strategic operational advice was communicated.
8. I personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or CIA Deputy Director Gates noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons such as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off the Iranian attacks. When I joined the NSC staff in early 1982, CIA Director Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were a perfect "force multiplier" that would allow the Iraqis to defend against the "human waves" of Iranian attackers. I recorded those comments in the minutes of National Security Planning Group ("NSPG") meetings in which Casey or Gates participated.
9. The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.
10. The United States was anxious to have other countries supply assistance to Iraq. For example, in 1984, the Israelis concluded that Iran was more dangerous than Iraq to Israel's existence due to the growing Iranian influence and presence in Lebanon. The Israelis approached the United States in a meeting in Jerusalem that I attended with Donald Rumsfeld. Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked Rumsfeld if the United States would deliver a secret offer of Israeli assistance to Iraq. The United States agreed. I travelled with Rumsfeld to Baghdad and was present at the meeting in which Rumsfeld told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz about Israel's offer of assistance. Aziz refused even to accept the Israelis' letter to Hussein offering assistance, because Aziz told us that he would be executed on the spot by Hussein if he did so.
11. One of the reasons that the United States refused to license or sell U.S. origin weapons to Iraq was that the supply of non-U.S. origin weapons to Iraq was sufficient to meet Iraq's needs. Under CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S. manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq. In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq. I specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq was a case in point. The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files will contain references to the Iraqis' need for anti-armor penetrators and the decision to provide penetrators to Iraq.
12. Most of the Iraqi's military hardware was of Soviet origin. Regular United States or NATO ammunition and spare parts could not be used in this Soviet weaponry.
13. The United States and the CIA maintained a program known as the "Bear Spares" program whereby the United States made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs. If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States, the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries or insurgent movements (such as the Afghan rebels and the Contras). Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other countries. Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program. The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's manufacturing capabilities. The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's sale of weaponry, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.
14. The mere request to a third party to carry out an action did not constitute a "covert action," and, accordingly, required no Presidential Finding or reporting to Congress. The supply of Cardoen cluster bombs, which were fitted for use on Soviet, French and NATO aircraft, was a mere extension of the United States policy of assisting Iraq through all legal means in order to avoid an Iranian victory.[/quote]
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Which Indicates That I Should Amend My Comments
(#278335)"Don't p**s off the United States of America *or* Israel."
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Indeed. Expect expropriation or extermination,
(#278339)its the moral Way, besides, especially if you're sitting on a needed resource, land or mineral. And why not?
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
1979 was an opportunity lost
(#278356)What you say is too often true, but Carter was probably the first president to start unwiding US foreign intervention policies, with his emphasis on human rights. He was the one guy who could have dealt fairly with a rational Iran. Iran totally missed that opportunity, did not even understand it, while Carter fumbled by allowing the dying Shah safe harbor in the US for cancer treatment.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
And to my other examples
(#278336)Athens was a pretty minor power compared to Persia of the Achaemenids.
Darius came to power soon after Cyrus had established what was arguably the world's first empire. I agree that the Persians were paper tigers, and the Greeks had better tactics and so forth but that is a post-facto realisation. Even in Xenophon's, or even Alexander's time, the Persians had a much, much larger sphere of influence than the Greeks.
As for Vietnam and the early Americans, yes, of course there was canny use of the superpower rivalry of the time. But you have to look at the premises of the Irani Revolutionaries. They were not in the situation of being able to get aid from the Russians - quite apart from to their antipathy to Marxist ideology which they were trying to purge from Iran, the army of the ayatollahs was largely supplied by Shah-era American equipment. You can regard a simultaneous anti-Americanism and anti-Marxism as stupid, but they [i]were[/i], on their own terms, inaugurating a new Islamic paradigm. As you say, whether this is truly stupid or not only time can tell.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Iran, as Persians, have a very long Time Line....
(#278338)...which I believe causes them to think a little differently on these issues.
Americans simply cannot conceive of even America in a thousand years. It is not in their mind-set, they would not even know how to respond to such a question.
Iranian's have no trouble with this concept. They may be entirely wrong on where they see Iran in a thousand years, but at least they can think about it.
American's, not so much.
Best Wishes, Traveller
PS I do think that the Iranian Revolution was spectacularly successful....in that the principal danger to every revolution is Counter-Revolution by the Old Guard and they so far have avoided any soild hint of this contingency. The French Revolution did not manage to avoid Counter Revolution, while the Russians did, defeating British and even United States direct aide to the Whites.
The Chinese Revolution is a more interesting case...was the arrest and trial of the Gang of Four for Counter Revolutionary acts...really the Old Guard charging the true Revolutionaries, Mao's wife and the other three, with Counter Revolution....though it was really them abandoning the goals and values of the Revolution for Quais-Capitalism?
I suggest that the latter will in history be considered to be true.
Best Wishes, Traveller
1,000 years
(#278342)Any nation that thinks it has a clue 1,000 years out is totally disconnected from reality in the 21st century. There are at least four different large scale disruptive forces brewing: environmental collapse (including being long past peak everything, and climate change), biotechnology, AI (even without consciousness, we are looking at robot weapons and workers of all kinds) and nanotechnology, and economic dislocation due to automation. We are at the start of all of these. The world will look nothing like it does today in 1,000 years.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Oh, You are right MA, But This Infects Your Thinking on Now...
(#278346)...the world in a thousand years will be a vastly different place...regardless of collapse or salvation by technology.
But this is American thinking, Persian thinking on the future, and more importantly, on the present is infused with a 3,000 year rear glancing view.
Persia will still be there and Persian in a thousand years if there is collapse....or if mankind leaps out and populates the cosmos....Persia will be there and still Perisan.
You may consider this to be magical thinking....I assure you they do not.
Best Wishes, Traveller
I believe you...
(#278347)And I get your point.
Which is why, broadly speaking, I believe the best thing we can do with the Middle East is disengage. Step one is to make oil irrelevant to the world's energy matrix.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Exactly....(more after the fold, as they say...)
(#278348)...crazy people are crazy. I wish them well, but in all my modest wisdom, I firmly believe it is best to let them be...within their self contained world view.
Stay a safe distance apart.
Best Wishes, Traveller
OT Trav
(#278349)but I was just remembering drinking with you and Harley a year ago. Hope we get to do it again soon.
I blame it all on the Internet
For Reasons Not Entirely Know, I've Become a Bit of a Recluse
(#278350)...I now have many fewer court appearances, much more paperwork, (deep, long and detailed....something I hate), and all of this has changed my life.
I have yet to entirely figure out what is going on...there are health issues, (though I seem fine...just what the hell is a cyst doing on the top of my left kidney?!?, etc, etc), society has changed, many family lawyers are almost out of business, though I have been fortunate to also have a business/real estate client base, but on Friday I turned down an offer to be hired by a large Chinese company, (good decision or bad?)
Life changes; I try to stay smart....but as with our Indian Friend, if there is ever a possibility of getting together, I will be there....Of Course.
Let me know.
Best Wishes, Traveller
I have a better excuse than you
(#278352)being a family man and all. I have so much going on right now, business is way up this year, we're travelling to OSU and then UC Boulder this week and next to check them out since my daughter is going to one of them next year, and we're starting to sell/donate/toss all of our stuff so we can hopefully sell the house next summer and move into an apartment downtown.
But you know, I'm starting to wonder if the state of semi-retirement where my wife and I can back off work a bit, live in an apartment and enjoy more travel and leisure time isn't an illusion, something that keeps moving to be just out of reach the closer you get to it.
I blame it all on the Internet
I Made a Decision Some 5 Years Ago When I Could Retire....
(#278354)...that I couldn't just look at a ceiling.
So I closed the office but continued to work.
In retrospect, a good course of action...or not?
Damned if I know.
These decisions are so individual....it is hard to predict. Also, things just go wiggy no matter what one decides.
There is very often a Joker in the Deck.
Be...if not ready, then open to this possibility.
(you know, the above is really good advice....I thought I'd write to you some nondescript begging off the question...but the above is a very good answer)
Best Wishes, Traveller
I'll Never Retire
(#278355)I don't like what I see when I see retired people. I don't blame them or anything, but it doesn't feel right.
Guys like these are my heroes.
I will try to get out of IT. It just doesn't mean what it used to anymore.
If I ever become permanently too incapacitated to work even part-time, yet still conscious, then I'll know what to do.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
It depends on the person
(#278358)I've known several retired people who enjoyed themselves immensely by being able to spend time with one or more avocations that they didn't have time for with career and family obligations. If you have enough interests outside of work, it doesn't seem to be a problem.
I blame it all on the Internet
It also depends on how you define work
(#278360)An interest outside work can turn into a work-like responsibility if you start directing energy in that direction.
A friend of the family retired over 20 years ago. She had artistic training and became a full-time artist. In so doing she began to display her work in galleries, sell her paintings, etc. Is she working? Well, she can make ends meet without it, her retirement is certainly enough. But I'd say she got into work mode. She had to meet commitments, organize, promote, etc., and became to an extent a professional artist. Definitely way past hobby stage.
When it's a hobby, there is no external pull. If you commit, in this example, to deliver N artworks by a certain date, there are people who are expecting something from you both in quantity and quality, and you need to deliver. This validates your efforts. If it's only a hobby you don't know, or ultimately care, whether you are simply spinning your wheels to pass the time.
Probably Khan was a bad example because he still does the same job he always did. My point was the he was still active in a work-like way. You certainly don't need to keep doing the job you are doing if you have other interests. On the other hand, I'd ask, if you have other interests, why wait for retirement to pursue them?
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
The difference is concentration
(#278362)I play guitar, I mess around with drawing, I've outlined some stories, but the problem I have now is that I don't have hours of uninterrupted concentration to apply to them. There are a lot of activities that don't really work well if you work on them for an hour or two every couple days, at least I can't work that way. Even if I committed to delivery, there's a big difference from how I work now which is that pretty much every issue must be resolved ASAP whenever the phone rings or an email comes in. I also don't really have a work day in the traditional sense, I do anywhere from 30 - 70% of my work at night after dinner.
I blame it all on the Internet
You might know what you wanted to do
(#278361)but how would you accomplish it? Are living wills legal in the USA? Can you choose not to be treated, for example?
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Increase in earthquakes following fracking
(#278351)tamino has an interesting [url=http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/deja-vu/#comments]post[/url] on this, and a US Geological Survey report.
http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2011.pdf
The energy with which Americans pursue their object is both amazing and instructive.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I am aware of that
(#278341)Like I said, Iran was lucky that Iraq had such poor military competence, because on paper Iraq's firepower advantage was large once Iran exhausted its pre-revolution stock of weapons and spare parts.
Even so, the cost to Iran was horrific by any standard. It was an avoidable war after the revolution. It only came to pass because the fundamentalists took absolute control.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
#2 is the point, my friend
(#278290)They did the following:
So they provided an excuse while decimating their capacity to defend themselves, despite having state of the art weapons. The result was the disastrous Iran-Iraq war.
And in exchange for what? What was the benefit to Iran of taking over an embassy and holding hostages for a year? They had all the documents they would ever get within the first few hours.
You said they don't have a history of doing stupid things, I say they certainly do. They deliberately undermined the Carter presidency, thinking Reagan would be better. If that doesn't show how clueless they were, what do I need to show you?
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
*Scott Glances Into The Shadows Of The Forvm. . .
(#278291). . .waiting for the inevitable "the October Surprise *really did happen!*" posts to emerge in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it never happened and that the alleged logistics were impossible to carry off*
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Sorry, I lost you...
(#278292)...the contempt Iran revolutionaries held for Carter was well known, especially after he protected the Shah. No tinfoil required.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
I Wasn't Addressing You. . .
(#278297). . .as far as I know, but the October Surprise conspiracy theories are definitely tinfoil material. Iranian contempt for Carter is, while true, beside the point.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
It was a smart move as far as internal politics goes
(#278284)It did a lot to cement the social solidarity of the revolution. Everyone knew who killed Mosaddegh and everyone knew who trained the SAVAK.
I blame it all on the Internet
Smart internal can spell disaster external
(#278318)And "cement the social solidarity of the revolution"?
Really? What a joke.
It was more like "establish the new police state".
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Ahmedinejad was one of the main hot-heads
(#278305)The embassy affair worked out very well for the hardline islamists who were ersponsible for prolonging it so much longer than was necessary. (seizing the files, liquidating the spooks) The revolution was carried out by a very broad coalition of liberals, leftists, islamists, merchants, students, women and even the army joined in at the end. The incident created an atmosphere where extremists prospered, and others were marginalized, jailed, killed or hounded from the country. The hard liner islamists remain in control of Iran some 3 decades later. The embassy affair worked out very well for the perpetrators. It's by no means certain, but quite plausible that the current Iranian president, M. Ahmedinejad was one of the main hot-heads leading the Iranian radicals in the embassy, and in any case marked his debut on the public stage.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Indeed...
(#278315)...and in my book, extremism is not conducive to intelligent foreign policy, or any policy.
That holds for the US too, which is why the current crop of republicans is so dangerous.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
your theory falls
(#278264)I think your theory falls because it equates Bibi and the Likudniks with "Israel". Bibi's ties to the US (where congress members recently clapped themselves silly over an address of his) and especially Saudi Arabia leave most Israelis cold, I believe.
At the moment there is a balance between the nations of the gulf, Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia - a balance of tension that must suit the tastes of most Israelis, being Jews in a region of potentially hostile Muslims and all.
Now, granted, the Likudniks, for whatever reason, seem intent on upsetting the balance in the gulf and if they followed your prescription, letting Saudi Arabia gain unquestioned ascendency there. I don't see how this benefits Israel, or her people. I doubt very much this is about weapons of mass destruction, and the Israelis in any case know that a nation bent on acquiring such weapons can simply steal the materials. There is no need to divert them from inspected civilian processes.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
tea and presidents
(#278266)Here's one theory: the closer the two main candidates in an American presidential election, the more rightward the discussion. Romney and Obama are practically indistinguishable "centrists" seemingly without any firm beliefs or commitments. And yet the discussion I see revolves around tribalistic issues like race and the ability of women to control their sexuality.
Here's another: this one is much more solidly grounded and useful. Low quality tea is never sold in expensive packaging. If you want to buy quality tea, choose the fancy packaging.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Re quality tea - try Makaibari
(#278375)worker managed tea estate, fully organic. If you want fancy tea, try one made with a satisfied workforce.
http://www.makaibari.com/ecommerce.php
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Hiddy, No One at all Around Today? Seems Odd...Test...nt
(#278364)Traveller
Sorry Trav
(#278365)been out all day.
What's on your mind?
I blame it all on the Internet
This is why I have to move
(#278366)I just can't take it anymore
I blame it all on the Internet
To Where? It was a Strange Winter for almost everyone....nt
(#278367)Traveller
Anywhere warmer
(#278372)it was nice today and yesterday, but 8 months of gray gets to you.
I blame it all on the Internet
Hank, but that's at the tail end of 8 mos of gray
(#278376)Head somewhere warmer and step in your first fire ant mound. You'll be screaming 'I love the gray, bitches. I love it.'
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Right now
(#278377)we're looking at southern California or Honolulu. Of course I have to get through paying for four years of college starting in September, so we'll see when we can swing it.
I blame it all on the Internet
You kidding?
(#278368)I was in Seattle over the weekend and the weather was gorgeous.
And you didn't call
(#278371)I'm crushed.
I blame it all on the Internet
Next time
(#278373)It was a quickie visit for a conference and an interview.
What I saw of the city I liked.
Too late
(#278374)I'm crying myself to sleep tonight.
I blame it all on the Internet