40 Comments

1. Jamie Irons:

Cool!

Jamie Irons

Nov 4, 2004 - 2:43 pm 2. Catherine:

OK, I’m gonna be printing that one out very shortly here . . .

Nov 4, 2004 - 2:45 pm 3. Knucklehead:

Well, this leads me to a question… will the Iranians who are not prone to shrieking “Death to the Great Satan” at every opportunity be irreparably upset with us if we blast the shit out of their nuclear program?

Also, what is it these Iranians define as “support”? Are they looking for an invasion similar to Iraq? Moral support? Clandestine support from some specops guys? A well placed bullet or ten?

Nov 4, 2004 - 2:46 pm 4. tipper:

I believe today is the 25th anniversay of the storming of the US embassy in Tehran and the start of the hostage crisis.

Nothing like that is gonna happen on this watch.

Nov 4, 2004 - 3:21 pm 5. Dishman:

Could it be that Iran is another on the short list of countries where Bush has an approval rating higher than 50%?

This is great.

Nov 4, 2004 - 3:26 pm 6. Mark Poling:

Color me unsurprised.

Faster, please.

Nov 4, 2004 - 3:29 pm 7. Morgan:

Knuck -

I’m not sure what kind of support they expect. I’m not even sure they know.

But I do know that the United States is once again a source of hope to the oppressed. They believe that we are on the side of freedom.

And they’re right.

Nov 4, 2004 - 3:36 pm 8. DennisThePeasant:

I’m a middle-aged, middle-class, Christian, Anglo-Saxon C.P.A. from Central Ohio and it has come to pass that I now have more in common, in the most meaningful sense, with a great many young, poor, Muslim, Persian students from Iran than with either of the United States Senators from the state of Massachusetts.

But hey, the problem isn’t the Democratic Party. It’s me. Right?

Nov 4, 2004 - 4:42 pm 9. DEagle:

Now there’s a “link” to be passed around. Just hav’ta love it!

Nov 4, 2004 - 4:49 pm 10. Ed Poinsett:

I confess to not “knowing” anything about Iran. But from reading the Iranian blogs and English version of news, my intuition says they are not looking to the US to invade re Iraq.

They are looking for outside pressure on the Mullahs. Economic pressure, WMD pressure, cultural pressure, political pressure, etc.

Iran has recently executed two teenage girls. One for her “attitude” and the other because her brother raped her. They routinely imprison and torture dissidents and even professional journalists. The regime is ready to be challenged both internally and externally. The IAEA and the UN are patsies, the Brits, French and Germans have been trying diplomacy, but they get met with cold stares.

After the Iraqi elections, GWB will focus more attention on Iran, that is what the populace is waiting for. They want the freedom that is coming to the Iraqis. They have a democracy in place that has been hijacked by the Islamic fundamentalists. They don’t need to learn democracy, they just want to get it back.

Nov 4, 2004 - 4:51 pm 11. AlanC:

DtP:

I’m a white, middle aged, middle class systems consultant from Central MASS and I have more in common with those Persian students than with either of MY F***ING senators, too.

There really are a few rational Massholes.

Nov 4, 2004 - 4:54 pm 12. charlotte:

In junior high school, Houston in the 70s, my best friend was an Iranian girl whose father was a cancer doctor and emigre from Iran who detested the Shah. He also hated the US, even though he made a nice living here. His household always had many visitors from Europe and the Middle East and they held clandestine meetings. He started making his daughter cover her head when men were in a room, and she and her mother were treated like household help for all of the men in her family. She had to give up her girlfriends, when her father said having close female relationships was “sick”. Later he arranged her marriage with an Iranian whom she had never met and who was here on a student visa and didn’t work. My friend graduated from med school and worked as a doctor by day and served him and his men friends tea by night. He rarely even talked to her. My friend’s father became even more virulently anti-American, and then…

The Shah was overthrown with this man by Khomeini’s side. He moved back to Iran and served as Foreign Minister for a while and then in parliament. Over the years something must have happened, because he is now a leading dissenter against the hardliners in Iran. My sympathy for him is rather thin but enormous for all of those who have been oppressed by his medievalism and misogeny which, for too long, he had equated with cultural pride and religiosity. For a smart man of science, he really was absurdly reactionary.

Nov 4, 2004 - 5:05 pm 13. Caroline:

I have to admit that after casting my protest vote against the Dem party (for playing politics with the Iraq war, embracing Michael Moore etc etc) on Tuesday I have been somewhat discouraged to see the blogosphere and the MSM cast Bush’s win as a referendum against gay marriage and abortion and other liberal social issues. I kind of thought – what have I done? But this makes it all better. So does Alaa’s ( at the Mesopotamian) joy. This is why I did it. Its the Iranians and the Iraqis who are quietly celebrating and there are no insurgents and Palestinian terrorists dancing in the streets. This is more important. Gay marriage will just have to wait…….

Nov 4, 2004 - 5:06 pm 14. Charlie (Colorado):

But I do know that the United States is once again a source of hope to the oppressed. They believe that we are on the side of freedom.

You’ve said something deep there.

That is what was wrong with the line of the unsuccessful candidate in the recent contest: a pullback from the notion that the US is on the side of freedom, that we are the shining city on the hill for the oppressed of the rest of the world.

Even if we could do a better job than we do, we do a better job than pretty much everyone else.

Nov 4, 2004 - 5:25 pm 15. Rick Ballard:

Charlotte,

Great post. I hope everyone takes the time to read and think about it carefully. When I see a successful transfer of power in a Muslim land I’ll be happier than just seeing a first election. Turkey has had eighty years of experience in democracy but it is so fragile that the military provides the only check or balance. It will take as long a US military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq as it did in the Phillipines to firmly establish democracy.

My point is not that it is not worthwhile to try but that great care must be excercised in the attempt. We need to take out the nuclear project completely in Iran in order to secure our own security interests before we think about a ‘Democracy Project’ for Iran.

Nov 4, 2004 - 5:26 pm 16. Connecticut Yankee:

Gerard van der Leun has a wonderful post about his Tuesday conversation with Paul–Once a week Paul and his sister come to my house to clean it. They’re recent arrivals to America from Russia and work at cleaning houses in order to support themselves and take courses at night at Irvine’s community college. They’re part of a larger group of Russians that live, not in the astronomically expensive beach towns along Southern California’s solid gold coast, but inland where life is considerably cheaper. Every Tuesday Paul and his sister arrive in a beat-up old Toyota, haul their vacuums and supplies in and set to work with a single-minded thoroughness at their job. They’re in and out in an hour and off to another house. If they’re ever down, I’ve never seen it. They’re pleased to be working and they work hard…. I was standing in the laundry room of my home and Paul entered to say, “The election, today, right?”

“That’s right. The election is today,” I said and waited.

“You vote?”

“Always. It is the duty,” I said dropping quickly into the pompous, “of an American to vote. Your one duty above all others.”

….After a long moment of just looking carefully at my face, Paul said, “So…. who?”

“Bush.”

He smiled and relaxed. “Good. Very good. I would too and will when I can vote. I will vote always.”

“He won’t get to run again.”

“Oh, yes. I remember. But I will still vote.”

“Really. For who, the Democrat or the Republican?” He looked at me and thought about it.

“Not for either. I will vote always for best, always. In Russia when I was small there it was always the party this and this…. But I don’t like the Party. I think. I think I must vote for best.”

“Did I vote for the best, Paul?”

“Yes.”

“Why do you think so?”

“Because he makes freedom. He does not say freedom only, but makes freedom. In my country, a lot of people say things of freedom and make nothing.”

“So you think the war for Iraq is good?”

“Yes, very good for them I think. Here I think, people do not like the war that makes freedom. But they do not know. They have too much too long. Me, I remember first no freedom and then freedom quick. When freedom came I knew what I wanted in it.”

“What was that?”

“To come here. To be here. Quick to America.”

“Why so quick?” He shook his head and looked at me as if I was the one who didn’t understand English.

“Because in Russia, freedom can go away. Here, never.”

http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/002569.php

Nov 4, 2004 - 6:14 pm 17. Sandy P:

Charlotte, for some odd reason, “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” popped into my head.

From what little I’ve read, the opposition is only dialed 1-2 levels down, there’s really not that much difference.

But I really haven’t read that much.

Nov 4, 2004 - 6:22 pm 18. asher:

Yankee, thanks for that great link.

Nov 4, 2004 - 6:52 pm 19. asher:

BTW, Jane has a great post over at Armies of Liberation.

Nov 4, 2004 - 6:53 pm 20. Lem:

Sully watch

ìThe war was not the issue. Gays were.î

Funny; coming from Sully who on account of Bushís ësocial agendaí dropped him, over Kerry, during war time! If war was not the issue; it certainly wasnít for Sully.

I donít remember any stories of Rove urging gays to marry, so he could cynically turn it into a political issue. Did I miss something?

The gay -marriage of bust- agenda lobed Rove a softball now Sully complains because he hit it out of the park.

Lets face gays may have bitten more than they could chew (honest, no pun intended). Too fast, too soon, too little political capital. Gay marriage may happen yet, but some discussion may be needed to give people some berth to get their head around it.

Iím not willing to call an 11 to 0 defeat an exercise in homophobia. At least not yet.

Nov 4, 2004 - 6:56 pm 21. Morgan:

That is what was wrong with the line of the unsuccessful candidate in the recent contest: a pullback from the notion that the US is on the side of freedom, that we are the shining city on the hill for the oppressed of the rest of the world.

I agree. It was as if he were saying “Freedom is important, but…”

The US may be hated in many parts of the world, but being universally loved is not a reasonable goal. At least half the people will find some reason to hate our country, whatever we do.

So, people hate us because we invaded Iraq for oil and empire? That will change when we see Iraq through to freedom, and the troops leave, and the oil is still in the hands of Iraqis. In the long run, actions speak much louder than words.

By actively supporting those things have always claimed we support – freedom, democracy, self-determination – without cynicism and without nuance, we can also be the shining city.

Is Bush simple, unnuanced and uncynical? Good. So am I. Simple, unnuanced and uncynical is the American character. We dream big, stupid dreams and work hard and take risks to make them reality. We fail and fail and sometimes succeed. We’re slow to ask for help and quick to offer it. We believe in big, stupid things like freedom for everyone, and we’re chimps enough to think they’re possible.

I apologize to all the international readers of Roger’s blog for going all “I am an American” here, and claiming things as part of the American character that maybe can be found in people anywhere. I apologize to any Americans thinking “um, that’s not me” and turning red. But I’m proud to be a stupid Bush-voting American.

Nov 4, 2004 - 7:06 pm 22. BeckyJ:

Very cool! A great link that will be shared among those who don’t understand (of course, I’ll probably get flamed, but whatthehell).

Interesting discussion with one of my classes today (on post-Soviet politics no less) about the lack of intelligence, and raging evangelical nature of residents of the red states including the whole blood-for-oil meme (geez, and I thought I trained them better than that!) The link to the Iranian site will be sent in addition to a post I sent found via Instapundit to The Backseat Philosopher on what Dems need to do before the next election.

Nov 4, 2004 - 7:18 pm 23. BeckyJ:

Aw, hell. Link should be Backseat Philosopher.

As many have said before…preview is my friend.

Nov 4, 2004 - 7:22 pm 24. doug b:

Haven’t we been here before? The U.S. President disdained by polite society and the European leaders but a source of hope to those fighting for freedom. One can only wish that it will turn out as well in the Middle East as it did with Reagan and Eastern Europe.

If you’re a liberal, champion of the oppressed doesn’t this reaction give you pause? I’d think I’d be asking myself, what happened to us.

Nov 4, 2004 - 8:05 pm 25. Charlie (Colorado):

I’m going to impose on Roger just a tad here because this thread fits with something else I’ve seen. Bob Cringely’s column today applies to just this duscussion.

Here’s some of what he says:

Back to the election. If the experts are correct, the 2004 election results mean we now live in a country where morality is apparently the major concern of people. Am I wrong, or is the same thing not true in Iran? And if our morality is in fundamental conflict with their morality, which side will be willing to sacrifice more to obtain what they view as their just end? I can tell you it ain’t us.

….

Now put this in a current context. What effective limit is there to the number of Islamic kids willing to blow themselves to bits? There is no limit, which means that a Bush Doctrine can’t really stand in that part of the world. But of course President Bush, who may think he pulled the switch on a couple hundred Death Row inmates in Texas, has probably never seen a combat death. He doesn’t get it and he’ll proudly NEVER get it.

Welcome to the New Morality.

I was more than a little disappointed, because I usually respect Bob’s opinion. So here’s the kicker to the letter I sent back:

…. The real mistake is in believing the Bush Doctrine is “we’ll just kill the furriners.” The Bush Doctrine is, in real life, “we’ll make terrorism too costly for states to support.” He’s putting the methods of terrorism off-limits, and saying he’ll use the US military to enforce it. He’s saying that terrorism will no longer be something for states to use against their enemies, while maintaining “plausible deniability” about the results.

This isn’t, by any means, unprecedented. In fact, it’s exactly what Jefferson did about the Barbary Pirates. In 1750, piracy was a common way for countries to make war without committment, and a way for the Barbary Pirates to extract a little cash from whoever came by. In 1801, it started getting costly, and in 1815 it got to be too expensive. In 1854, the Declaration of Paris officially ended the practice, and it had died about by about 1870.

Did it end because they ran out of people willing to be pirates? Of course not; occasional piracy happens to this day. But it meant that pirates no longer could expect to have friendly home ports, logistical support, and the protection of another nations sovereignty. Similarly, the Bush Doctrine is saying “We will treat this tactic not as a deniable action, but as a direct act of war, and will respond to it; don’t expect the results to be sufferable.”

Does this mean that people will never ever go blow themselves up? Of course not — any more than WWI solved the problem of the Serbs and the Croats. What it does mean is that states that might have tried to use terrorism for their own purposes — as the Talib in Afghanistan did, as Saddam Hussein certainly did, as Khaddafi we know did — will see that the costs are not worth the benefits.

The Talib and Saddam had to have it explained to them in some detail; Khaddafi, at last, figured it out without such pointed instruction.

It means something else, too: it means the US is once again becoming a symbol of the freedom to live out from under the rule of authoritarian thugs. The mullahs won’t last much longer, and now the Iranian people can see that there are nascent democracies on either side of them. They no longer expect that their rights will be sold in the coin of “stability above all.”

When it comes down to it, that’s the real Bush doctrine: the idea that freedom for others means safety for ourselves. And that idea — that other people, too, desire freedom, deserve freedom, and can be free — is the most powerful weapon of all.

After I re-read the letter, I wanted you all to see it as well.

Nov 4, 2004 - 8:11 pm 26. ambisinistral:

Charlie (Colorado),

Outstanding letter.

Nov 4, 2004 - 8:36 pm 27. Rick Ballard:

Great letter, Charlie. As long as the nuclear facilities are destroyed first, I’m with it all the way.

Nov 4, 2004 - 8:43 pm 28. Tagore:

I’d like to believe it, but given the source you can color me a bit skeptical that this represents majority opinion in Iran. You can color me very skeptical that it would be if we took a heavy-handed interest in the country- not that we shouldn’t, under some circumstances, just that we shouldn’t be all that sure that the Iranians would welcome it.

I basically supported (and continue to support) the Iraq war, partially on humanitarian grounds, but I was never very confident that the Iraqis wouldn’t wind up hating us anyway. Seems they mostly have.

I think it’s wisest to avoid jumping to conclusions about the mood in Iran based on a report by one radical student organization.

Nov 5, 2004 - 1:22 am 29. bill:

Nice try Charlie but do you really think that we can eliminate all possible harbors for terrorists? Do you think we could afford (with lives and money) to eliminate all possible harbors for terrorists. We have been 1.5 years and $1.5B and counting trying to shut down Iraq, multiply that times ???? to eliminate all of the others. I do believe we will find ourselves in the same boat as the Soviet Union, bankrupt and no longer a power at all.

Why not take the logical way and just let the troubled parties fight a fair fight amongst themselves and winner takes all. That’s the way it had always been done in the past. Why must we side with Israel? What is so important to the U.S. that there be an Israeli state? What is so important to the U.S. that there not be a Palestinian state? Why do we supply guns and munitions and subsidize the economy of one nation over another?

You can tell me we have an interest because of 9/11 but how many times were we terrorized prior to 9/11 of 1960? The terrorists don’t hate Americans they hate American foreign policy.

Nov 5, 2004 - 4:43 am 30. vegetius:

“I think it’s wisest to avoid jumping to conclusions about the mood in Iran based on a report by one radical student organization.”

There’s an unintended irony here. It’s the US ‘consevatives’ who are backing ‘radical’ democratic movements while the US ‘progressive’ elements can only be charitably discribed as

ambivalent or pro-stauts quo.

What a flip-flop from the attitudes of the 60’s.

The Republican base is now the revolutionaries and

and the Democrats the reactionaries. The worm has truly turned.

Nov 5, 2004 - 5:48 am 31. Mark Poling:

bill:

The terrorists don’t hate Americans they hate American foreign policy.

And that’s why they kill Dutch filmmakers and Russian schoolkids.

Brilliant.

Nov 5, 2004 - 5:49 am 32. vegetius:

“many where seen shaking hands and showing discrete v- signs”……….that’s the same dicretion that conservative students have to exercise on many an Ivy League campus.

Nov 5, 2004 - 5:52 am 33. Morgan:

What is so important to the U.S. that there not be a Palestinian state?

The longstanding position of the US is that there should be a Palestinian state alongside Israel, just not on top of what once was Israel.

Nov 5, 2004 - 6:24 am 34. ambisinistral:

Bill,

Neither American foreign policy nor Isreal are the true issue with the Jihadists. In fact their movement predates the existence of the state of Isreal and America as a major player on the world’s stage. The Wahabis were founded in the early 1700s. Precursors to the modern Islamic states reach all the way back to Al Mahdi in Sudan during the mid 1800s. That same century saw the birth of the concept of pan-Arabic movement which shaped the Moslem debate over the relationship between Islam, religion, and the West for over a century. The Moslem Brotherhood, which is one of the main intellectual sources for current Jihadism, was started in the 1920s.

All of these movements spring from Islam’s decline from being the premier world political power to the complete dissolution of the Caliphate. Now, not only politically, but also culturally, the West continues to make even greater inroads. The Jihadists, who speak of regaining Andalusia and the lost Caliphate, are seeking to regain a lost world and reacting against the encroaching Modern World. The logic they use to return to their glory is a return to their “true” religion.

As for the endless hoards of Jihadists, consider this quote from a Moslem living in the U.S., “How many Muslims have been lost to Islam in the last fifty years here? Tens of thousands have been lost. The only reason Islam is still growing here, by large, is because of a steady stream of immigration. But when that dries up, the assimilation will dwindle our community down to nothing. It’s like we have a bucket with a hole in the bottom. We keep pouring new immigrants in, but so many are leaking out are lost forever.”

[source]

There is the answer. The U.S. doesn’t need to dry up every haven. We don’t need to play whack-a-mole with every terrorist. All we need to do is push them deeper into hiding as we offer our seductive notions of modernity and freedom as a viable option and a hole in the bucket will take care of the problem for us.

Nov 5, 2004 - 6:38 am 35. Charlie (Colorado):

Bill, I think I didn’t make my point. I don’t think we can or will eliminate all potential harbors for terrorists: I think that once it’s clear that terrorism as an asymmetric tactic no longer has the advantages it has had, potential harbors will eliminate themselves.

Ambi:

All we need to do is push them deeper into hiding as we offer our seductive notions of modernity and freedom as a viable option and a hole in the bucket will take care of the problem for us.

Yes.

Nov 5, 2004 - 7:00 am 36. Alexandra:

Thank you Yankee for the wonderful post. I do understand Paul’s sentiment. I am an immigrant. I left Viet Nam and came to American in 1980. Coming to US allow me a great sense of freedom not just political but also personal freedom. I do not shared Paul’s optimistic that freedom will never go away in US. Freedom will go away if we allow it.

I was not well verse in politic until I have my 2 sons. I realized that I do not want my children to learn the hardship of a communist regime and I do not want them to make the hard decision of leaving the country not knowing if they will live or die. I will continue to put my vote to whoever makes freedom and not to those that just talk about it.

Nov 5, 2004 - 7:59 am 37. Knucklehead:

Wow, Bill…

Nice try Charlie but do you really think that we can eliminate all possible harbors for terrorists? Do you think we could afford (with lives and money) to eliminate all possible harbors for terrorists. We have been 1.5 years and $1.5B and counting trying to shut down Iraq, multiply that times ???? to eliminate all of the others.

If we can’t eliminate all “harbors for terrorists” then why bother eliminating any (or the largest/deepest/most active)?

Do you really believe the point you are making has a shred of validity?

If we can’t arrest all murderers/rapists/thieves then what’s the point of tracking any of them down and arresting them? We’ll never cure cancer so what’s the point of all the surgeries and chemos and radiation treatments?

I do believe we will find ourselves in the same boat as the Soviet Union, bankrupt and no longer a power at all.

Geeze, we’ve been at this a whole 1.5 years and have spent BILLIONS, BILLIONS I tell you. How can this end as anything but a replay of the collapse of the Soviet Union and backruptcy and no power at all? Good grief, Bill, surely you can do better than this.

Could you at least tell us how the current US situation in some way resembles the Soviet Union? How does the past three years equate to the 70 years of the Soviet Union? How is spending a few hundred billion over several years going to backrupt us when watching several hundred billion evaporate out of our economy in one morning didn’t bankrupt us. Are you even vaguely aware that the Manhattan Project consumed something close to 10% of our nation’s GDP when it was ongoing? Not 10% of our government budget – 10% of our GDP! We’ve spent TRILLIONS fighting “poverty” yet poverty still exists and we aren’t bankrupt. Why not just recognize that we’ll never eliminate all poverty and trying to will run us into bankruptcy and, well, just leave the poor to perish. Are there no work houses!

Why not take the logical way and just let the troubled parties fight a fair fight amongst themselves and winner takes all. That’s the way it had always been done in the past.

The “logical way”?!?! Who’s logic is that? Would you care to give us some example of this historically proven method of “let the troubled parties fight a fair fight amongst themselves and winner takes all”? I’m thinking Third Reich vs. Poland, Third Reich vs. Chechloslovakia, Italy vs. Ethiopia sorta examples but maybe you better ones in mind.

Why must we side with Israel? What is so important to the U.S. that there be an Israeli state? What is so important to the U.S. that there not be a Palestinian state? Why do we supply guns and munitions and subsidize the economy of one nation over another?

Ummm… geeze, those are tough questions, Bill. How ’bout because Isreal is the only democracy that has ever taken root in the totalitarian cesspool of the ME. How ’bout because the world has already allowed too many sick and twisted mudering scum to pursue their Final Solutions by slaughtering every Jewish person they can round up.

It could be that. Then again, maybe we just want to save the Palestinians from their own stupidity by not letting the “winner take all”. If recent history is any guide it could be that the Israeli’s would mop the floor with the Palis.

And where does this claim that it is “important to the U.S. that there not be a Palestinian state?” come from? Have you paid any attention during the decades that this has been going on? A “Palestinian State” has been out there on a hanger, dry-cleaned and pressed, for quite some time now. All the Palis had to do was put on the clothes.

You can tell me we have an interest because of 9/11 but how many times were we terrorized prior to 9/11 of 1960? The terrorists don’t hate Americans they hate American foreign policy.

it just goes to show that I just can’t keep the promises I make to myself. I swore to myself that I’d be kinder and gentler here at Roger’s Place. That I wouldn’t start screaming at other people who just wanted a place to chat. But I can’t keep the promise. Bill, of all the stupid crap you had in your idiotic post, those final two sentences really take the cake.

Nov 5, 2004 - 8:40 am 38. MichelefromLA:

Ha! Before I clicked onto the link, I thought this story was going to be about the Bush supporters here on the left coast…having to smile discreetly and flash the “V” sign to each other in the streets. Well, though it often seems that bad here in L.A., I am aware that I am free to dance a happy victory dance on a tabletop at the El Coyote here in L.A., with a margarita in one hand and making a “V” sign with the other…and yes I’d be called an idiot by some psuedo-hipster Kerry supporters – but the mullahs wouldn’t come out and stone me to death.

Here’s hoping for a revolution in Iran!

So tell me again…who are the idiots? I have an idea these young Iranians are not the people who are calling Middle America morons, like most on the coast here in our own land of the free.

I can live with being called a moron as long as freedom spreads from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran…throughout the Middle East and over the world. If that’s moronic…well, I’m the biggest moron there is!

Nov 5, 2004 - 9:35 am 39. MichelefromLA:

Speaking of Iran, I have a personal story:

For years, my neighbor – a little old man, named Al – would bring me a bouquet of sweet pea and freesia flowers on my birthday from his garden. Since he would spend nearly every moment of daylight tending to his flowers, I would often visit him. We usually spoke about his garden and my child – but the last time I went to visit him, I learned about his past.

I asked Al, after all these years, “Where are you from again?”

And he told me how he and his family had to flee Iran after Khomeini came into power. He was a well off business man, who lived in a nice home with his family, and often flew to the United States. Because of these visits to America, Khomeini thought he was a spy and put a death threat on his head.

He and his family were able to escape and move to the U.S. where they started their lives over again.

“Jimmy Carter is nothing but a damned peanut farmer!” Al yelled.

Because I knew more about him, we began to discuss the fact that so many people here in California will act horrified by our own Government yet seem to glorify – if not ignore – dictatorships like the one Al left, or Cuba, Iraq (ala Michael Moore), North Vietnam, etc.

“Doesn’t it drive you crazy?” I asked.

Al, walking ahead of me in the garden, stopped and looked me in my eyes, “Why do you think I spend all my time here?”

He began walking again, shook his head and said, “Those people are so naive.”

He voted for Bush.

Nov 5, 2004 - 9:59 am 40. Charlie (Colorado):

By the way, Bob Cringlely wrote me back. He suggested I needed to have my mother read his column and explain it to me.

I wrote back and explained that as I was a long time fan, and someone who had bought both his books and his videos, that I was a customer and he should therefore keep a civil tongue in his head.

Nov 5, 2004 - 1:22 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: