Pen Pals: Ahmedinejad and Bush

Yesterday Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad wrote a letter to Americans. I thought that was so thoughtful of him. No seriously. Other people around the world just dislike us behind our backs and do nothing about it. This guy wrote an 18-page letter to president Bush, incidentally the first correspondence between the 2 countries since Iran-Contra. But what does our president do? He ignored it. NOT COOL. This is a PR move by Ahmedinejad and the US doesn't know what to do with a Muslim country that actually knows how to play the game. Now don't get me wrong, Iran is in no way NEAR the PR-wonderland that IS the United States. But his letters are quite polite...with a dash of Willy Wonka (the 2005 version). Here's a bit:

"Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities;

And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity;

Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you.

While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together."

Now that's just plain sweet as apple pie. But I'm confused about exactly why he wrote this letter. The people of America have done their part to get our country out of Iraq. I'm so proud of us for getting Democrats into the government and for making Republicans (especially Rumsfeld) regret their foolhardy insistence on a 'pre-emptive' war. Everyone involved in the war has agreed that a pull-out is necessary and the plan is that they will leave as soon as they can, about 18 months. I'm satisified with that. I don't think it makes any sense that EVERY American in Iraq should get on a plane tomorrow and leave the country broken and in chaos. I don't think Ahmedinejad realizes that they CAN'T just go. And this is probably because Iran hasn't sent any troops to help rebuild Iraq. Everyone agrees that it's good that Saddam is gone. But if America ousted him 'for the public good' as they claimed then they have no future interest in the area.

The same for Iran. if Ahmedinejad lays a hand on Iraq everyone in the world should cry foul. Because not only did he NOT help fight the Saddam regime, but he has been the biggest advocate of Iraqi freedom.

I see why he doesn't want America occupying the country directly next to his - because the whole world KNOWS that Iran was Americas next step. Then on to Syria. I have learned not to rule anything out so it may still happen. But the point is, the Americans did not send thousands of soldiers to Iraq to fight and die so that another country can take over after all the dirty work is done. Not that America should take over either. No one should. A government should be established and Iraq should be an independant nation.

Now if Bush would take his head out of his ass and actally respond to Ahmedinejad, they may be able to come to some sort of agreement where Iran sends troops to Iraq to help them rebuild and start a government, while America overlooks and helps financially. That way Iraqis see a friendly neighbor instead of invading Anglo-Saxons waving American flags with pictures of naked prisoners in their pockets. At the end of the day I'm just a diplomat (reference: October post)

Celebrity?

Went to a discussion panel at Frontline Club in London the other day. Its quite famous as far as 'country clubs for frontline war correspondents' go. A stimulating evening you could say. The discussion was about the affects of new technology on journalism, a very heated debate in the journalism field right now.

The panel was hosted by Christiane Amanpour, CNN's Bosnia correspondent during the Bosnia war. She did a great job presenting as did all the presenters (journalists usually are cuz they tend to like the sound of their own voices). After the discussion I walked up and asked her about how to get started as a resporeter in Bosnia, something I have always been interested in since my mother thinks I will marry a Bosnian :). I had my notebook and pen ready to take down any contacts she provided. She gave me some poignant advice, which I may use.

But then she just took my notebook.

I stared at her for a moment, bewildered. Then she took my pen. I was like 'oh, ok...' And she asked: 'did you want me to sign this?'

Being the ill-mannered ass that I am, I said, rather surprised: "Umm - NO..."

Even worse, I didn't even realize my mistake until days later when my mom yelled at me. And she had a point, as she said: "even if you didn't approach her specifically to get an autograph, it would have been so much more polite to say yes and thank her graciously. She probably gets it all the time. And why WOULDN'T you want her autograph?"

The Prince-iple

Tahir Mirza, the Leeds man who was in prison in Pakistan for killing a taxi driver (he claims in self defense), was released a few days ago to come back to the UK. Prince Charles, Tony Blair and Mirza's family had appealed to President Musharraf to release him. And after 18 yrs on death row, they finally did.

I am very happy for the man and his family. Its wonderful that they are happily reunited. However.

If the courts found him guilty of murder, a crime they saw worthy of death, and stood by their decision for 18 yrs, why would they just release him back to the world now? Not only does that seem illogical but also unsafe. But the point is : Prince Charles requested it. England would have been very disapointed to be ignored.

While the man was from Leeds and possibly held a British passport (I'm not sure), he WAS Pakistani by birth. So why was this case even brought up by the Prince? I just cannot wrap my mind around the reasoning for his release. Because his family would have been sad if he died?

What about the family of the man who was killed? But then - they aren't British, they are just Pakistani. So we cannot make British ppl sad, then?

I really dont mean to sound cold-hearted. I don't know if it was self defense or murder and I don't claim to. But if a court decided that he was guilty, shouldn't there be some faith in the system? This really doesn't inspire confidence in the Pakistani justice system.

What do you call the act? The Aristocrats

Anyone familiar with the "pushing the envelope of inappropriateness and shock value", ever-changing, can-you-top-this, longest-running joke knows the deepest, darkest level of human humor. We, as humans, are trained to find some things completely despicable and unacceptable. This joke takes this natural human reaction and uses it to play off of and manipulate in a way that somehow makes us laugh. And we do.

The joke is huge among comedians and even sometimes journalists. As a journalist I have seen the film version of the joke many times in different contexts and I have to say - while a part of me wants to cry for the loss of my innocence, the rest of me, wide-eyed and caught completely unprepared, fights the urge to laugh. But the only thing you can do is laugh. Well, one of the things you can do is laugh. The other is simply cringe. And the average, well-raised, ethical human being will turn off the TV or walk away from the offending joke-teller. But people who have been in offending situations or been treated offensively or been through circumstances that denigrate their human emotions or happiness somehow find that they cannot turn a deaf ear to this joke.

It is somehow a form of therapy in what seems to be an offensive and inappropriate world. Its says to us "Yes you are forced to show up to a job you hate every morning of your life. Yes priests have raped young boys and Muslims have blown themselves up and Jews continue to commit war crimes in the Middle East. Yes we are paying millions for homes that once costed somewhere in the lower thousands. Life pretty much sucks and we are all going to die anyway. But hey, here's something even more disturbing."

A good telling of this joke is considered an art. What have we become, as humans, when we have gone from great word-artists like Kahlil Gibran to Gilbert Gotffried? Words are such tools of emotions. They can support and build us, they can rip us down and limit us, they can disgust us, make us cry, make us ache and make us laugh - sometimes all at the same time. There are so many ways that we use words and "The Aristocrats" joke is just one example of the extreme.

Writers of the joke have said many times that the joke must be revised to meet the level of depravity of the society. What was found vile and taboo in the 90's isn't even cringed at today in some circles. So the joke is taken to higher and higher levels.

Will there come a point, in the 21st century, when someone yells "inappropriate" and we can walk away completely happy knowing we've reached the highest level of 'offensiveness' nirvana?

A Great Day for America

The democrats have reclaimed control of the Congress for the first time in 12 years. They have also reignited a new faith in American politics. Americans have been consistently losing respect from the rest of the world because we have sat back and watched the country be run into the ground with a federal deficit, a never-ending war and corporate scandal. The only questions left to bear are :

1. why has it taken us so long, and
2. since donald rumsfeld has finally stepped down, who is next?

which brings us to the rumsfeld situation. Donald Rumsfeld, the best professional politician of the 21st century and conniving mastermind of the war in Iraq and the fabricated WMDs, is no longer the Defense Secretary. Now I would like to know exactly what happened. The obvious answer is that the Republican party realized that Rumsfeld comes off as a pompous ass and the nation pretty much hates him. They requested he resign in order to save the party from losing power and restore faith in Republican image and judgement.

The second scenario and the one I am inclined to believe based on Rumsfeld's overall persona - they asked him to step down and he said 'kiss my ass'. the party didnt want to fire him and cause a scandal so they left it alone. rumsfeld, seeing the demise of the party and still remaining defiant, he made the decision to rebuff the party for asking him to resign by resigning only after the democrats took a majority. this explains bush's speech saying he would keep his officers until the end of his term just before rumsfeld resigned. it also explains the timing. just imagine. everyone sitting around in the white house, swearing under their breaths about the democrats, drinking brandy and smoking cigars with deep frowns. rumsfeld stand up and says - fuck this, i quit.

thats how i prefer to see it. it seems so unoriginal that he would be put out by the party.

on another election note: hello nancy pelosi. I think the country is really going to enjoy having such a vocal and surprisingly spicy (and female!) speaker of the house. I dont think Dennis Hastert had much a presence beyond blending in with the old, white, rich overwieght male politician persona. He never really did much, never said much and most people didnt really know him. But pelosi is coming in with a bang. Plus she's a democrat, not inclined to be mousey or even agreeable with a republican administration. i am interested to see how long she stays in the position and also what she does with the new post - as a democrat and also as the first woman.

And as for 2008, I am conflicted. Do I want Hillary, the NY democrat to be the first female president, or Obama, the IL (my hometown) democrat to be the first black president? I will have to do more research before 2008. I better get cracking.

We started the TV module in class yesterday and I have to say it is exaclty what I was hoping it would be. Our lecturer, David is amazing and very potent in terms of getting us into the 'journalist/correspondent' mindset. I think I'm really gonna enjoy it.