So He's Jewish, Eh?

Hey, hiker boy. Yeah, you. And your two dimwitted hiker friends who like to hike right next to the Iranian border. Yeah, you guys. I have a question for you. You all seem pretty down on the United States and its policies toward Iran. Actually, you all seem pretty down on the United States in general. (Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of any of the wars. (I've lost count. Are there still just the two or are we counting our NATO involvement over there in Libya as three?) I don't think that the U.S. is perfect and/or flawless. But I'm not so disgusted with it that I'm going to run off and go live in and sing the praises of Syria for cryin' out loud.) You made it VERY clear that you were held in Iran for as long as you were because you were Americans. (Dumbass Americans, but Americans none the less.) You made it sound like the policies of the United States were your ONLY enemy during your situation that you got yourself into. You made it sound like if only the U.S. had done things differently in regard to its stance with Iran that things would have turned out differently for you. Why then is it that everyone went to great lengths to hide the fact that you, Josh Fattal, are Jewish?

Now, I don't give a fat rat's ass what religion anyone is. I kind of care what they do in the name of their religion (Islamic extremists, I'm talking to you), but other than that, have at it! I don't care and I don't understand people who do care. But you know who cares? You know who really, really cares if you're Jewish? That's right. Ol' Ahmadinejad (I'm a Dinner Jacket) of Iran. He's not a fan of the Jew. Or of the Israel. He has infamously said that he'd like to see Israel wiped off the map. (And for those of you sticklers out there, the actual quote was "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Yes, I realize that there's nothing in there about a map, per se. But tell me that doesn't mean the same thing. He does not like them.)

So it wasn't until after all of the wayward hikers had been released from Iranian custody that the word gets out that Josh Fattal is Jewish and that it was purposely kept under wraps while he was in prison. (Can I just say that I am amazed that any secret can be kept these days, especially when it involves a story/person in the news.) Now, why would that be an important thing to keep secret if the only reason that they were being held is because they were Americans and because of U.S. foreign policies? Oh, could it be because Dinner Jacket is a lunatic and if he were to find out that Josh was Jewish that he might never be let go? Yeah, that sounds more like it.

Look, all I'm trying to point out is how intellectually dishonest those three are being with themselves and with others in regard to what they "believe". If they truly believed that they were being held simply because they were pawns, then wouldn't they have believed that it should be OK for it to have been known that Josh is Jewish? You'd think. But obviously, since that information was suppressed (and I totally believe that it should have been), there are other components at work here than simply the nationality of a prisoner or the foreign policies of the countries of origin of the prisoners. They're dealing with a country that is run by a man who may or may not be a lunatic. You really can't get into a lot of "reasons" why things happen when that's the case.

I don't know exactly why this particular story has really ticked me off. Maybe it's because these three seem to be so ungrateful for what people in this country have done for them. Maybe it's because they seem to be so ungrateful for this country in general. Maybe it's because this story is treated in the news as if something horrible had happened to these three that was out of their control. (If you didn't know the whole story and you listened to the recaps, you might be under the impression that they were snatched from their beds in Berkeley and taken to Iran for two years. That's because all of the reporters always use their "Something bad that was completely uncontrollable has happened" voices when reporting this.) I don't know, but I think I'm done with it for a little while. I'm at least maybe going to wait until they start making the talk show rounds before I go off again. Look forward to something that is not this tomorrow.

Sphere: Related Content

Go Hike By North Korea Next

The two dumbass "hikers" who perhaps strayed over the border into Iran and had been imprisoned for the past two years have finally been released. And let me just tell you that given their apparent attitude about what happened to them and why, I hope their next hiking trip is along the border of North Korea. I don't know about you, but I'm thinking that if I were just freed from an Iranian prison after my country forked over a million dollars for the release (well, $500,000 apiece), I'd be a little more grateful to my country and a little bit less bleeding heart pacifist. Maybe that's just me, but I don't think so. Those people seem to be completely out to freaking lunch when it comes to how country's deal with one another. And their stance on the relationship between the United States and Iran is simply mind boggling.

See, I wasn't going to rip into these people until they were back on American soil. I figured that maybe they had to say certain things when they were still over there. That makes sense to me. Praise the soul of President I'm A Dinner Jacket all you want when you're over there. Compliment his stylish Members Only jacket if you must. But after your $500,000 flight touches down in the United States, I'm going to be expecting you to start singing a different tune. And when you don't then I'm going to be angry when you blame the policies of the United States for Iran's actions against you and your two dumbass friends.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but I guess I'm about to try another one. There are people in this world who want to kill us. There are people in this world who do not give a fat rat's ass about our Western democracy and our freedom. It has been that way for thousands of years. And guess what? It's going to continue to be that way regardless of the policies of the United States. I wish that they had been more specific as to which U.S. policies they are so opposed to, but from what I can tell, their statements were their version of "Can't we all just get along?" (And by the way, the answer to that is "No". No, we can't all get along. Yes, it would be very nice if we could. But we can't. It's called human nature; perhaps you've heard of it?)

Let's look at some of their ridiculous statements that they have made since returning to the U.S. (And I'm going to go a little light on Josh Fattal. He seems to be the most reasonable one out of these three delusional idealists. Shane Bauer and Sarah Shourd seem completely clueless as to how international relations work. No wonder they're engaged. They even look alike.) Here's one made by Shane Bauer: "I would like to be very clear: This was never about crossing the unmarked border between Iran and Iraq. We were held because of our nationality." Hmmm. Yeah, see, I've got news for you. It totally WAS about you crossing the border. It was about you crossing the border AS an American. And you knew that the U.S. and Iran are not exactly on friendly terms, yet you chose to hike in a dangerous region anyway. And for some reason, you're surprised at how things turned out for you? Odd. I'm not surprised at all. I'm surprised that you're out as soon as you are, but the other stuff doesn't surprise me at all.

What else does Shane have to say? Well, there's this: "Sarah, Josh and I have experienced a taste of the Iranian regime's brutality. We have been held in total isolation from the world and everything we love, stripped of our rights and freedoms." Yes. That is exactly what has happened. But the part about being stripped of rights and freedoms? See, he's under the wrong impression that the freedoms and rights of the United States are applicable without fail in other countries. That's not how that works. And besides, if you're in jail ANYWHERE you're stripped of you're rights and freedoms. That's how jail works. Moron.

I think this is my favorite little outtake from Shane's speech: "However, we do believe that these actions on the part of the U.S provide an excuse for other governments, including the governments of Iran, to act in kind." Right. So, let me get this straight. If, IF the United States ceases to use prisons such as Guantanamo Bay and other CIA prisons then, THEN other countries will be nicer as well, right? It's only because of the "poor example" that the United States "sets" that makes other countries want to hold idiot hikers in prison for over two years, is that right? Good God, make him go away.

In neither one of their little speeches have I heard nearly the amount of gratitude being paid to the United States as I would have liked. They have a lot of nerve implying that the US policies with freaking Iran (of all places) led to their situation. We the taxpayers paid your bail, you little utopian-building hippies! (Which, by the way, was quite the gesture on our part considering that Bauer and Shourd had been living in Damascus since 2008. That's in freaking Syria! They chose Syria over the United States....except when they needed a little help? Shocking.) How about a little thanks for that?! (And don't tell me that it was Oman that paid the ransom (which is essentially what it was). Oman posted the bail. That means they gave the money to Iran. The U.S. gave the money to Oman as the U.S. doesn't have diplomatic relations with Iran and had to go through other channels. Posting the bail and paying the bail are two totally different things.)

They all act like they're surprised that Iran is big on taking hostages. (Fortunately, neither of the gents made any mention of how they wished that there was a US Embassy in Iran the way that Sarah Shourd did when she was released. I mean, I thought that we all knew how that turned out. Apparently not.) And their vision of how the world works is complete fantasy. I'd really like to know what they would like our policies toward Iran should be. I mean, this is a country that would like to see Israel blown off of the map. It's also a country that is working hard to get a nuclear weapon. (Hmmm. I wonder what they want to do with nuclear arms. I can't imagine, what with all of that built up hatred toward Israel and all.) What do they want our policies to be?

I hope these three go away and are never heard from again. But I know that's not going to happen. I know that there will be a book or a Lifetime movie of the week or a slew of TV appearances. And if I have to put up with that, then I also hope that they'll pay back the money that was spent for their release. Is that too much to ask? Maybe that would help our relations with them. Idiots.

Sphere: Related Content

Show Me The Money

Remember that story of the three American dumbasses hikers who thought that it would be a good idea to go for a little stroll right there along the border of Iran? And then the Iranians arrested them and accused them of being spies? And they've been in an Iranian prison ever since? You remember, right? Right. Well now, it looks like Iran might be willing to release them on "humanitarian" grounds, but there's kind of a catch. See, "humanitarian" to the Iranians means they want a million dollars and then they'll let them go.

And I really don't care one way or the other whether or not they let those numbnuts go. As much as I dislike Iran, I really don't have any problem with any country enforcing the laws regarding their borders and keeping people out of their country. I know it's a foreign concept (pun not really intended) for the United States, but other countries really do seem to give a fat rat's ass about who legally comes and goes. Go figure. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, right. The numbnuts and their million dollars of humanity.

I keep reading all of these news reports about how their release is imminent as soon as the million dollars ($500,000 per dumbass) is paid. As you'll recall, their companion, a one Sarah Shourd, was released a while back after $500,000 was paid for her release. Now, thinking back on that incident and reading about current events, I'm noticing that there is one small item that no one seems to be mentioning. Where, pray tell, is all of this money coming from?

I don't know about you, but a lot of people don't have half a million dollars just lying around in case their children go off on very inadvisable travel plans along the borders of some crazy sand land countries. Where are all of these miraculous half a million dollar ransoms coming from? I mean, those two chicks who got themselves all locked up in North Korea because they were doing the same thing and hiking near the border of a country ruled by a lunatic, they just had Bill Clinton show up and that was that. (Who knew Slick Willie still had that kind of pull?) It didn't cost anything to get them out. But Iran wants money. And from what I can tell, they're going to get it. I just want to know where it comes from.

Please tell me that the United States doesn't have some sort of Stupid Ass Lost Hiker Fund or anything like that. And if we do, please tell me that it's funded by private donations of those sympathetic to stupid ass lost hikers. Don't tell me that it's taxpayer money or anything like that. Sorry that I'm not more sympathetic, but I don't have a lot of patience for things that are REALLY easy to avoid. Look at me! Here I am! NOT hiking anywhere NEAR Iran! See? Easy.

Sphere: Related Content

But Iran Doesn't Like Us

Remember the three American "hikers" that had inadvertently hiked into Iran whilst they were attempting to hike along the Iran-Iraq border? And remember how they were taken into custody by the Iranians? And remember Iran released the girl but the other two have been in custody ever since because Iran says that they were spies? Well, if you didn't remember, consider yourself caught up.

Before I continue, I just need to say a few things about the situation that put those three folks in the position that they are/were in. First of all, if you're in the Middle East and you want to go "hiking", I cannot for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't be either more cognizant of where the borders were or wouldn't just hike really far away from the borders to begin with. Hiking so close to Iran's borders seems to be just asking for trouble if you're asking me.

Second, I find myself conflicted as to how Iran is dealing with this situation. On the one hand, I am fairly certain that these folks were not and are not spies. On that same hand, I really have absolutely nothing to base that on other than the fact that they don't seem like they would be spies. This ideology is based loosely on watching the Pink Panther when I was a child. Oh, and Scooby Doo. Thus, if I am Iran, what do I do? I have to say that I will lend a certain degree of respect to a country that protects its borders. I'm not even so sure that I'm concerned with how a country protects its borders, as long as it does so.

Those perspectives that I have are the reasons why I'm not overly sympathetic to the hikers. Sure, people make mistakes. But, come on! How delusional are you if you think you'll be just fine if you accidentally hike into Iran? You should be wearing a helmet at all times if that's how your mind works. And then I read an opinion piece by Sarah Shourd, the freed female American hiker, over there at CNN. And her logic in the piece is a bit surprising. It's as if she has no clue as to the history between the United States and Iran. Then again, this is the same person who was doing all of the border hiking, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Sarah states in her piece that "At a very personal level, I never would have been kept in jail for 14 months if Iran and the United States had a better relationship." I'm not so sure that I believe that to be accurate. It sounds nice, but I doubt it. The United States has pretty good relationships with other countries whose citizens have been caught spying. We don't just let them go. Again, you have to go on the basis that Iran is using, that being that they were spies or doing something that would harm Iran, in order to justify them keeping them in custody. Then again, they were not in the country lawfully, so I guess you don't even really need to justify it with anything other than that.

She goes on to say that "How different our situation would have been if the United States had an embassy in Iran when Shane, Josh and I were arrested on the border with Kurdistan, where we had gone hiking." Um, is she kidding me?! The United States did have an embassy in Iran. Perhaps she is unaware of the little disturbance that took place in that embassy in 1979 when Sixty-six Americans were taken captive when Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Perhaps she is also unaware that 52 of those hostages were held for a total of 444 days. And if that's the case, I guess she also didn't hear about the eight American servicemen who lost their lives during a rescue mission. And she thinks that we need an embassy in Iran? Are you dry shaving me?

Allow me to show you a picture of what the former US embassy in Iran looked like after the hostages were taken. Picture is courtesy of Wikipedia.

Oh, sure. They just loooooove us. She also has the nerve to say "I hope our leaders find the courage to begin to break from our nations' hostile past..." Do you now? Our leaders? Plural? Explain to me what the United States is supposed to be doing when I'm A Dinner Jacket (Ahmadinejad) continues with his nuclear program against everyone's wishes? Explain to me what we're supposed to do with a guy, who wants to blow Israel off of the map, who is intent on making his country a nuclear power? It's not a hostile past that is all of the problem. It's the hostile present, cupcake. I should also note that there are some former hostages who believe that Ahmadinejad was actually one of their captors and have identified him as such. If that's the case and he's now the President of Iran, I'm not so sure that the "courage" is going to be "found" by him to "break from our nations' hostile past".

Look, I totally understand that her two friends are still being imprisoned over there in Iran and she wants to have them freed. Therefore, I can understand why she wouldn't write anything that would be overly critical or take a harsh tone with the Iranian government. But I can't understand why she would write anything like what she did in the first place. Does she really think that it's going to matter what she says? I don't think that it is. Then again, this woman does seems to have a fairly delusional way of thinking when it comes to international relations, so I guess it's to be expected.

Sphere: Related Content

LiLo Is All A-Twitter

As much as I loathe Twitter and think that it is absolutely ridiculous, it is times like this which I am grateful for its existence. And by "times like this" I mean "the day after Lindsay Lohan found out that she's going to be going to jail and has taken to Twitter to express her outrage".

Here's the scoop: Yesterday, Lindsay Lohan was reminded that she is just like everyone else when it comes to the legal system when she was sentenced to 90 days in jail for failing to comply with the terms of her probation that were set back in 2007. She cried. She freaked out. She whined. And that was before she knew she was going to jail! After she found out about all of the jailing that was going to take place, that's when the real drama started. That's also when she did what any other self-absorbed, semi-celebrity would do in just such a situation. That's right. She took to Twittering.

Mind you, this is like 6 tweets all strung together since you can only tweet 140 characters at a time. But it is what it is. And what it is, is absolutely hysterical. Here we go:

"It is clearly stated in Article 5 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights that....No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. this was taken from an article by Erik Luna..November 1 marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. But there were no celebrations, parades, or other festivities in honor of this punishment scheme created by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission....Instead, the day passed like most others during the last 15 years:Scores of federal defendants sentenced under a constitutionally perverted system that saps moral judgment through its mechanical rules."

It's hard to know which part of that whole screed she sees as being relevant to her own situation. Perhaps she feels that she is being subjected to "torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Perhaps she feels that the system has sapped its "moral judgment through its mechanical rules" and that's why she is going to jail. Someone should probably tell her that her issues are not part of the Federal court system and that there are NO sentencing guidelines in her situation. I mean, it's an interesting point of view and all of that, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the mess that she got herself into. Nope. Nothing.

But wait! There's more! Her latest tweet read simply: "http://tinyurl.com/29kxdyf -- please RT". If you're unfamiliar with Tweet-Speak, RT means re-tweet. That's Twitter's way of saying "Psst! Pass it on!" If you click on her link, it takes you to a Newsweek article about an Iranian woman who is a mother of two and who is likely to be stoned to death as her punishment for committing adultery. (Nice system you have over there, Iran. Nice system, indeed.) Wait. What?

Is she comparing her plight to that of the condemned Iranian woman? I...I...I think she is! Hey, does someone want to tell her that it's not the same?! A spoiled, over-partied actress who can't figure out how to complete 13 alcohol awareness classes in 3 years is NOT the same as an Iranian woman who is about to be stoned to death for adultery that she may or may not have committed! No wonder she can't figure out how the whole court system and probation apply to her. My God, is she delusional or what? Holy crap. Well, whatever it is, it's definitely entertaining. And I'm sure that there's only more to come. Stay tuned!

Sphere: Related Content

And The Nobel Prize Doesn't Go To.....

In another not so startling indicator pointing toward humankind slowly but eventually facilitating its own slow and painful to watch demise, we have a suggestion for a Nobel prize nominee. Brace yourselves.

It's Twitter.

Oh, my God. What now? Twitter? The, um, text messaging service for the masses? THAT Twitter? Yeah, right. OK then. I think we're done here. Well, ALMOST done here. Mankind will cease to exist shortly after ideas which are inane begin popping up and regarded as genius. Yep, almost done here.

According to The Telegraph, among other sources, a one Mark Pfeifle (pronounce that however you'd like to) wrote a piece for the Christian Science Monitor. In said piece, he starts off with all of the unruly unrest in Iran (where the citizens (in a regime where the "winner" of Presidential "elections" is all but assured ahead of time and the candidates of said election are hand picked by a bunch of mullahs) were not feeling as if the election ballots were counted fairly) and how "When traditional journalists were forced to leave the country, Twitter became a window for the world...It became the assignment desk, the reporter, and the producer."

It's the "producer" part of that which I have the most problem with. No, wait. I think it's the "reporter" part I have a problem with. Hold on. Yes, yes, I believe I can take issue with that whole statement. See, I prefer my "reporters" to be "neutral". And by "neutral" I mean "neutral". I highly doubt that the "reporting" that was coming out of T.I.S. (Twitter Iranian Style) was all that "neutral" and unbiased. As for the producer, they make the decisions on how to present the programming, yes? I don't know that those not-so-neutral reporters, having just stepped out from behind their self-assignment desk, are going to produce a clear picture of what's going on. You have 140 characters. Not words. CHARACTERS. Use 'em for all they're worth, I figure. Reel 'em in with the most extreme 140 characters you can come up with. (Preferably in English because that Arabic writing stuff just looks like doodles people make when they're on the phone.)

He continues along those same lines with "Without Twitter, the people of Iran would not have felt empowered and confident to stand up for freedom and democracy. They did so because they knew the world was watching." The world was watching. But we're America. We watch ANYTHING. We also have the attention span of a gnat. We were all into your plight for justice over there. Yep, right up until Michael Jackson died and then it was like, "Sorry Iranians! We've got a dead pop star to deal with. You're on your own!"

Here come the questionable and probably misleading statistics: "At the height of the protest activities, according to Mashable.com's Ben Parr, more than 221,000 Iran tweets were sent in one hour." Well, that doesn't say that there were 221,000+ tweets coming from INSIDE of Iran! It implies it, but that's not what it says. That just says "Iran tweets". "I wonder what it's like in Iran" would count as an "Iran tweet" would it not? I'm not saying that there weren't a lot of them. I AM saying that there were likely not 221,000 tweets coming from INSIDE of Iran during that magical hour cited there.

Staying with the category of "More Misleading Statistics": "In one day, 3,000 Iranian videos were uploaded on YouTube, and 2.2 million blog entries were posted." Blog entries in general about Iran? I can believe that. Do you know how many freaking "bloggers" there are out there? A gazillion. And bloggers will write about damned near anything that they want to. Why? Because they're bloggers! That's what they do! It doesn't mean they know what they're talking about, and it certainly doesn't mean that they even had a blog "entry" that was anything of substance. (I'm still looking for the number of blog entries on Michael Jackson death day. The only point in that being that it doesn't matter what the news story is, it's going to get blogged about and 2.2 million might seem like a lot at the time, but it also might seem like nothing when you compare it to a dead Jackson.)

He says that "Although we don't know how the uprising in Iran will end....Twitter and other social media outlets have become the soft weapons of democracy." I'd agree with the part about how we don't know how the Iran deal is going to turn out. Oh, wait a minute. Yes we do. I'm A Dinner Jacket will continue to be the President. Protesters will continue protesting until they realize that they're going to get their heads kicked in if they do. The uprising became a "downsinking" when the government cracked down and cracked some heads to quell the protests. It worked well. I don't advocate that approach, by the way. I'm just saying that's what happened, that was the outcome and I'm A Dinner Jacket is still in control We DO know how it will turn out. It's turned out already! It's over. Twitter isn't going to change the political system of Iran.Tweet that!

By the way, there are serious uprisings in China right now, with at least 140 people killed by the government and over a thousand arrested during some riots that have been building up for a while now. And just like the situation in Iran, the pictures and the videos and the Tweets are coming in on Twitter. So how come we aren't hearing about China the way that we were hearing about Iran? I just said that there were Tweets! Is is broken? No, of course not. But Twitter itself isn't responsible for anything is my point. People pay attention to what they want to pay attention to, regardless of if it's Tweeted (or is it twat? No, no! Definitely NOT "twat"!) or not. And right now, we're busy paying attention to a dead singer. You're on your own China. You too, Twitter. You're on your own and you're not getting a Nobel Prize. That's ridiculous. That'd be like someone suggesting Al Gore get a Nobel Prize. Ha! Like that would ever happen!

::: sigh ::::

Twitter is NOT worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Have those Google boys gotten a Nobel Prize for The Google? No? Not yet? Well, when that happens (which will likely be never. And it probably should be never.) let me know and then we'll talk about Twitter. Or tweet about it. Or something. Twitiots.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not Change If It's The Same

Continued unrest going on over yonder in the sand country of Iran after the incumbent "President" Mahmoud I'm A Dinner Jacket likely had a hand in or some sort of knowledge of the election being rigged to end up in his favor by "defeating" the opponent, a one Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Thousands of folks are protesting in the streets. Iranian government is freaking out and doing absurd things like shutting off access to Facebook and Twitter. (Oh, no! They won't be able to update their status! How FB rude!) Journalists are confined to their hotel rooms. It's not good. But the more I heard about how their whole system works over there, I became rather confused as to why what is going on is actually going on.

OK, so the throngs of people protesting in the sand are upset because they believe that their candidate, ol' Mousavi, was robbed! They're acting as if he was going to be the President Barry of Tehran. Um, not quite. See, this will come as a HUGE shock to you, but they don't do things in Iran the same way that they are done in the United States. The US has processes of electing a leader that are actually like electing a leader. Anyone who meets the requirements can run and can theoretically be elected. And the requirements are pretty basic. You just have to be a certain age and have been born in this country. (And by the way, for the very reason that someone who has been born in a foreign land cannot be President is the exact same reason why it is going to mean eventual disaster by the US continuing to ignore the illegal immigration problem and allowing folks to not only live in this country illegally but to provide them with services as well! But no one is screaming that it's "anti-immigrant" to not let an immigrant become President. Hmmm.) Not so in Iran.

In Iran, they have what they call the Council of Guardians which consists of 12 clerics who sort of vet the folks who apply to be a candidate. Usually hundreds of people apply, none of which are women because of course, they're forbidden in Iran from running for President. God, could you imagine how great that would be if they were allowed to run and one of 'em won? It'll never happen, but I do think it has pretty good Hollywood crappy comedy movie potential. So the guys who are running for President have been approved of by this Council of Guardians who seem to be kind of like the Paula, Randy and Simon of the Middle East, only there's twelve of them.

And the position of President of Iran is not as it is in the United States. It's not even how it "used to be" in the United States (because now the President of the United States is some sort of travelling rock star who wows us with his ability to swat flies and eat burgers all at the same time as he saves the world from utter destruction.). Iran also has something called the Supreme Leader. NOT Diana Ross. The Supreme Leader is a one Ayatollah Khamenei. I don't think he's the same Ayatollah Khomeni from a few years back, so I can just assume that they recycle the names of their leaders in the same way that they're all named Mohammed. But his title is just as it sounds: Completely made up and the supreme leader of the country.

The President of Iran has very little power that he himself can assert. You wouldn't know it the way ol' Ferret Face is always shooting off his mouth, would you? The Supreme Leader is the one calling the shots. The President of Iran can appoint people to his cabinet, but regardless as to what they do or they decide, the Supreme Leader can reject anything he wants to. He also the commander-in-chief of the armed and police forces; the head the state ministry in control of television and radio; and he's in charge of the country's judiciary. Oh, yeah. And he gets to be Supreme Leader for the rest of his life. It's like a tenured dictator. Nice.

So the guy will have not a lot of ability or influence for change unless that sort of change is OK with the Supreme Leader. Seems strange that people are as gung-ho as they are for what would appear to be the status quo. But what kind of a guy is Mousavi? According to a one Robert Baer over yonder there at TIME Magazine, Mousavi, who was the "Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989, almost certainly had a hand in the planning of the Iranian-backed truck-bombing attacks on the U.S. embassy in April 1983 and the Marine barracks in October of 1983." Hmmm. Soooooo....he's an alleged truck-bombing planner. Well, maybe that was just a one time thing? Um, probably not. Remember, the 1980s were when Iran was wanting to go all terrorist on the United States' ass. And there he was, leading the charge from the Prime Minister throne or whatever it is they have over there to sit their sandy asses on.

Remember when Iran took all of those US folks hostage back in 1979. When interviewed in 1981, Mousavi's take on it was "It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution. It was after that we discovered our true Islamic identity." I see. Oh, and he also appointed a guy to be the ambassador to Damascus who was the main truck bombing planner guy and who coordinated the taking of Lebanese hostages in his spare time. (And one of the coordinators of the whole 1979 hostage taking fiasco over there in Iran? Allegedly and assumed to be none other than I'm A Dinner Jacket himself. Birds of a feather, these folks are, I'm tellin' ya.)

Those sorts of extra curricular activities got him noticed by Mousavi who then put him in charge of the Interior Ministry which seemed to be rather down on democracy. He also has referred to the US as "The Great Satan". Hey, at least he knows we're great, so I can't really complain about that content. Oh, but I can complain that he's just like I'm A Dinner Jacket in that he has publicly stated that he would like to see Israel annihilated from the map.

Yeah, I'm not so much thinking that this Mousavi guy is the Changey McOptimism that he's been portrayed to be in the media. He sounds almost exactly like Dinner Jacket. Only not so much of an overt and blatant jackass.

So this is all where my confusion lies. I don't understand why everyone thinks this Mousavi guy is so great. I don't understand why people seem to be acting as if the President of Iran actually wields any real power. I don't understand why this has been portrayed as an injustice of a democratic election process. The Supreme Leader has final say over who the Council of Guardians approves to even RUN for President, so doesn't that kind of give everyone a hint that the result was fixed before it even started? I can see folks being upset that it's not the democratic society that Iran wants to say that it is. But this election is nothing new as it's been like that for a while. But why all of the support for Mousavi? He's not different, he's not change, he'd have no power, so who cares who is President? It certainly doesn't seem like anything to go out and get yourself killed over because at the end of the day, what the Supreme Leader wants is what the Supreme Leader gets. So if anyone can shed some light on what I"m missing here and why the swooning masses over the Dinner Jacket twin there, I'd really appreciate it.

Sphere: Related Content