With a new round of sanctions against Iran, it’s important to look at a number of things: what are the repercussions of the sanctions and what is really motivating the US to pursue Iran’s further economic deterioration. Is the US further destablizing the region? What it is most certainly doing is ramping up the anti-US sentiment among the countries in the Middle East.

What are the reasons for this round of sanctions? Condi Rice’s press statement offers a litany of complaints about Iran. Most of them we’ve heard already:
1) Iran is purusing the development of nuclear weapons. This assertion is still speculation.
2) Iran is supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq. How so? The Iranian-made weapons argument is weak. Is Iran donating these weapons or selling them the way the US sells its massive supply of weapons all over the world?
3) Denying the existance of Israel.
4) Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, which by now many know to be utterly false.

According to Condi Rice, these new sanctions are “designed, among other things, to punish Tehran for its support of terrorist organizations in Iraq and the Middle East.”

Rice and other Bush Administration officials continue to harp on the “threatening behavior of the Iranians.” Once again notice the choice of words in Rice’s propagandizing speech. “Iranians” [plural] might lead you to believe she means the entire people of Iran. Not so. Far from it. Governments in many ways fail to represent their people, so put the breaks on the invasion equation.

She also said that Washington remains open to “a diplomatic solution.” This should set off alarms right away. If it doesn’t, please let me point out the utter hypocrisy of Rice, the Bush Administration, and US government in regards to our relationship with Iran.

You’ll have to consider first why Iran developed into the way it is today. I use the term “developed” loosely, since it may suggest lack of interference, which is certainly not the case. A recent Adbusters magazine article charted this bit of history well, stating that “the story of how Iran-US relations arrived at such a critical juncture has been all but expunged from historical memory.” Quite so. For the average American impressions of Iran begin with images of American hostages during the 1979 revolution. What the average American does NOT know is that the 1979 revolution was preceeded by a constitutional democracy in Iran. In 1953 the United States elminated this democracy by means of a CIA coup, overthrowing the democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, who was Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” one year earlier in 1952. Why overthrow a democratically elected leader? Dr. Mossadegh believed fervently in national independence and very quickly nationalized Iran’s oil industry. Ah, the oil. Look back in time and you’ll find that England had a monopoly on Iran’s oil. During World War 2 Britain and the Soviet Union (who by then had a finger in the pie) invaded Iran to secure their oil fields and supply lines. Just before Mossadegh’s ascent to power of Premier, Britain owned most of the stock in the Anglo-Iranian (later British Petroleum) Oil Company, gave Iran a raw deal for the oil coming out of their own ground, and taxed them more than they profited! Raping of the Iran, raping of the Middle-East, a theme for decades.

After years of outside control, Iranians elect Mossadegh in 1951, a man who believed that Iran and its oil belong to Iran (not to the West). How did the West respond? First with British warships in the Persian Gulf and an economic blockade. When this failed to convince Mossadegh, the British government persuaded the incoming Eisenhower administration to send in the CIA. Within a month Iran’s secular and democratic future was under permanent house arrest courtesy of the good ol’ well-meanin’ USA. The official CIA report included a cautionary note: “Possibilities of blowback against the United States should always be in the back of the minds of all CIA officers involved in this type of operation.” Wise words from the spook department, never heeded. Moving on, how does the US replace Mossadegh’s democratic government? With a monarchy! Why would the US commit an act that it would later apologize for? Well, for the same reason it has always futzed in the affairs with the Middle-East and other parts of the world, not to spread democracy but for full economic advantage, because of power and greed.

Let’s keep going with the history lesson. Iran’s new US-backed ruler Mohammed Reza Shah enjoys his throne, his American-trained secret police, the SAVAK, which kidnapped and tortured its dissidents, and unbridled corruption from start to finish. The Shah plunders Iran’s fortunes over the next quarter of a century, but that is okay for the West. Economic revival at the expense of democracy and personal freedom. What about his character? If the US supported him, he must’ve been a good guy. Right? Wrong. The Shah said once to a female journalist: “Women are important in a man’s life only if they’re beautiful and keep their femininity. You’re equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability.” Doesn’t matter. The Shah’s rule meant economic gain for the US. Priorities, people. In Iran, however, the Shah’s corruption inspires vast widespread revolutionary fervor. Understandably so! Their symbolic leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, returns from exile in Paris and dethrones the Shah.

And the rest is more recent history, which most people know of but without the above context.

Was deposing Mossadegh a “diplomatic solution”? Absolutely not.

If the Bush administration wants diplomacy with Iran, Iran has welcomed it for quite some time. Iran sent a letter to Washington in 2003 shortly after we invaded Iraq. It was an offer from Iran to help stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas! The U.S. State Department was open to the offer. What happened? As this Washington Post article goes on to say, as soon as the letter got to the White House, as soon as it got to the vice president’s office, the old mantra of ‘We don’t talk to evil’ reasserted itself. Dick Cheney flatly rejected the proposition. Again, we turned our backs on Iran.

By that, should we believe Condi Rice when she says the US wants a diplomatic relationship with Iran?

No. The government lies.

What does the US really want? Why impose these sanctions and isolate Iran even more from the rest of the world? Because Iran sponsors terror? Maybe, maybe not. According to our own definition of state-sponsored terrorism, the US is positively guilty of many acts of state-sponsored terror of its own. I will support that argument when the US stops toppling other governments and installing monarchs and dictators.

What are the sanctions really about? The nuke issue? Somewhat. Iran is more than 10 years away from ever building a nuke. There’s time to talk. And by the way, who would their possessing a nuke affect? The US? No. Israel? Yes. Who is lobbying for the invasion and destabilization of Iran? Answer: The very powerful Israeli lobby. Why else undermine Iran’s nuclear development? Iran’s nuclear powerplant built 30 years ago but still unopened is lucrative for the Russians for many years to come, if it’s ever to get up and running, and will set the stage for future Iranian-Russian cooperation. Imposing sanctions, however, will slow down that process, which might explain why Mr. Putin has not supported the sanctions.

What other unspoken motivation is there for the US to impose sanctions? Oil. Ah, the oil. According to this article: “Iran houses the second-largest pool of untapped petroleum in the world, an estimated 125.8 billion barrels. Only Saudi Arabia, with an estimated 260 billion barrels, possesses more; Iraq, the third in line, has an estimated 115 billion barrels. With this much oil — about one-tenth of the world’s estimated total supply — Iran is certain to play a key role in the global energy equation, no matter what else occurs.” Consider also: “Iran also sits athwart the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which, daily, 40% of the world’s oil exports pass. In addition, Iran is becoming a major supplier of oil and natural gas to China, India, and Japan, thereby giving Tehran additional clout in world affairs. It is these geopolitical dimensions of energy, as much as Iran’s potential to export significant quantities of oil to the United States, that undoubtedly govern the administration’s strategic calculations.” If the US topples the current regime in Iran, it secures its place first in line for Iranian oil. In the meantime, government officials are doing their best to prevent other countries from doing business with Iran. Stave off competition until we get a foothold. Sound possible? Sound ludicrous? I think so. But governments are not rational entities and seldom admit their actual intents.

While it remains hazy why we’re letting our leaders impose new sanctions on Iran, consider who this is going to affect. The Tehran elite? No. It will affect Iran’s people. With new sanctions forbidding our allies from investing in Iranian banks and therefore in its oil industry, which is most vulnerable to sanctions, it would be a tough blow. Sanctions might also inflame anti-US sentiments not only among Iranian people but among people in the Middle-East as well.

These sanctions are entirely counter-productive. Nor does Iran deserve the constant demonization that our government and this current administration has churned out on a regular basis. They are typically half-truths and hypocritical accusations meant to distract us from the real reasons we are trying to break Iran.

In his article on economic sanctions against Iran, William O’Beeman concludes the argument well: “The lesson that the Bush administration refuses to learn is that Iran will not respond to pressure. The only route to Iranian cooperation is face-to-face dealings with no preconditions, where Iran is treated respectfully as an equal partner. This proposition sticks in the craw of the Bush administration—to the point where the irrational call for military action becomes preferable in some quarters.”

There are few better ways to appeal to your constituents in this country than by appealing to their religious beliefs. I personally have believed that Piyush “Bobby” Jindal is a classic example of a politician tailoring his public persona to fit in with those around him and thus improve his general acceptance and political success. The name has always made me laugh. “Bobby.” How can his ethnic peers not laugh at that. I never met an Indian-American that had adopted an American first (or last) name. Then there is his conversion to Catholicism, a necessary political move, at least in the deep South. Interestingly a friend of mine from highschool, who’d worked on Jindal’s first campaign for governorship, also Christianized himself once he decided in college that he too would eventually pursue public office (that friend was previously a self-proclaimed atheist with a Catholic upbringing). But that Jindal would go so far as to lambast Protestants in an article for a Catholic journal makes you wonder. Bad political move, number one. It will cost him north Louisiana voters. But is this true religious fervor gone too far, or is this a ruse meant to convince people (like me) that he actually does adhere to Catholic beliefs?

Holy sh*t! A major news network had the balls to send a journalist to Iran to see what life is like! Not surprisingly, Iran is vastly different from the terrorist regime that the American government has made the public fear that it is.

Watch NBC’s Matt Lauer in the streets of Tehran:
Matt Lauer in Iran Pt. 2
Matt Lauer in Iran Pt. 3
Matt Lauer in Iran Pt. 4

In the last video we listen to Matt Lauer and Iranian University professor Dr. Seyyed Marandi chit chat about I.R. What’s that? Dr. Marandi was born in Virginia and moved back to Iran after the revolution! Was this man kidnapped?! No! Guess life in Iran ain’t that bad after all. My girlfriend’s uncle and wife, who are both successful orthodontists in Tehran, came over to L.A. for several months to get their American citizenship lined up (much of their family lives is here). Southern California culture left them with such a bad taste in their mouths that they said to hell with it and went back to Tehran (I too can’t wait to leave this place). The typical American response to this is to say, well we don’t want’em here anyhow! To each his own, I guess. The point is, Iran is not a hotbed of terrorist organizations. Iran is a country that, like our own, is filled with people getting on with their own lives. You might say, well of course, but how many average Americans actually give this any thought or know anything about Iran? Not so much! These people are easily swayed by the fear campaign that the American government is currently running:

“Is it time to give you authority in pursuit of your mission in Iraq, to pursue those Iranian kutz force operations in Iranian territory in order to protect America’s troops in Iraq?” -Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator and Israeli attache at the recent Senate hearings starring General Petraeus.
Ann Coulter anyone? “You have a lunatic running Iran, who’s running around claming he has a nuke. When do we wait? Do we wait for a city to be taken out?” (remember, the president of Iran does not “run” that country)

Consider a review like this one on YouTube:
“I hope they bomb the shit out of Iran. God bless Joe lieberman and God bless George W. Bush. Iran is fucking with the the greatest military force in the history of mankind. Who the hell are they? They bomb our soldiers we’ll bomb their cities. Im tired of putting up with these bastard’s bullshit!”

It should not be underestimated how it is in the interest of our national security for people in this country to educate themselves, and that takes an active search on part of the individual. Politicians have lied to us, the media has misinformed and uninformed us. It is not the information age, it is the misinformation age. Take the responsibility to learn something you don’t know, especially about people who are supposedly your enemies.

As Americans work themselves into another tizzy over Iran’s president setting foot on U.S. soil–especially the right-wingers, who’ve been spitting venom about Ahmadinejad and decrying him as a maniac–some myths should be exposed about this man, myths propagated by a media that is anything but liberal.

Myth #1 of the not-so-liberal media: Ahmadinejad wants to “wipe Israel off the map.”
REVELATION: Ahmadinejad once said: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time…” The Iranian president is talking about a regime change at a political conference. A regime change is hardly radical for to the American mind, particularly among conservatives, who’ve made it their mission to dissolve any “regime” they deem unfit for American economic interests. And so, in our arrogance and despite the evidence out there of what he actually said, we continue to believe the lie that “Isael should be wiped off the map.” Is this in the interest of a liberal media? No. It is in the interest of right-wing conservatives who want to continue driving the war machine.
Here is a play-by-play rundown if you really want to further scrutinize the quote.

Myth #1, Part 2 of the not-so-liberal media: Ahmadinejad wants to at least attack Israel.
REVELATION: Ahmadinejad once said, “I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met.”

Republicans have said, ‘oh, well how can he talk about democracy when Iran is really a theocracy?!’ This is also used to justify the assertion that Iranians must be freed from their government. But in fact, Iran elected Ahmadenijad in a general election. And then Republicans will counter that by saying, ‘oh, but what about their Supreme Leader! he’s the one running the country!’ But in fact the citizens of Iran WANTED this type of leadership. In 1979 they demonstrated in the streets of Tehran by the millions and overthrew an opressive Iranian monarchy that had been set up by the U.S. government*.

Myth #2 of the not-so-liberal media: Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier.
REVELATION:
Skepticism about the Holocaust narrative has started to take hold in the Middle East not because people hate Jews but because that narrative is deployed to argue that Israel has a right to “defend itself” by attacking every country in its vicinity. Middle East publics are so used to western canards legitimizing colonial or imperial takeovers that some wonder if the six-million-dead argument is just another myth or exaggerated tale. It is dismal that Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to belong to this ill-educated sector, but he has never been known for his higher education.

Still, Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that he said: “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets.” He actually said, “In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets.” This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself - i.e., “myth” as “mystique”, or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the “cult” or “ghost” of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it. (taken from this article on the World News Daily website.

This little bit of counter-journalism exposes the some of these myths along with a perfect illustration of how the so-called “liberal media” is in fact working fully to the benefit of conservatives wanting to sink their teeth into Iranian soil, er, oil.

*Next week: America’s involvement in the 1953 overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian president in favor of a monarch…

“I know the bill is radical, but it’s emblematic…It’s controversial, but it’s necessary for the city.”

Gilberto Gassab, mayor of Sao Paolo, Brazil, the world’s fourth largest metropolis, said this in reference to a recently-passed ordinance that forbids outdoor advertising within the city. Since then, owners of all ad space throughout Sao Paolo have quickly stripped walls, buses, billboards, and buildings of their signage in order to avoid steep fines now enforced by the city government.

What you had in Sao Paolo prior to 2007 was a city smothered by visual pollution. Advertisers had covered the city up—both legally and illegally—to the extent that the city’s visual identity seemed less associated with its architecture and landscapes and more with words and images from “Coke,” “Levi’s” and “Toyota.” This phenomenon has not been limited to Sao Paolo, Brazil. The blanketing of public space by advertisers has plagued virtually every city across America and many municipalities throughout other parts of the West in general. Ad pollution comes in many forms. There’s corporate signage: “Big Box” stores like Best Buy and Wal-Mart prop their store names on top of 30’ high steel beams. There are bill boards, which seem to have no limit as to where they’re placed (along an freeway, right up on the wall of your own apartment building, etc.). What bus or subway isn’t crammed inside out with ads? Everywhere these ads scream out their messages, hammering every individual with hundreds or thousands of words and images each day. Los Angeles is an excellent example of an city laid waste by advertisements. When you compare pre-WW2 photographs of areas (that are still intact) with what exists of it now, there is barely any resemblance. Aside from many of its architecural landmarks having been knocked down, what’s left of its former visual beauty is now littered heavily with ubiquitous ads. Paris, France on the other hand has managed to avoid this. It is easy to conceive how that city’s popularity and high regard would fare if its public space were covered with billboards and signage the way Los Angeles or even my home town of Shreveport, Louisiana is.

Interestingly, once Sao Paolo stripped itself of all its signage, people began discovering aspects of the city that they previously had not known, like what some of the buildings actually look like (i.e., architectural style). One rather extreme example mentioned in the latest issue of Adbusters was the sudden discovery of a small shantytown that had until then been tucked away in a nook of the city and curtained off by billboards. Some shops whose windows had been cleared of ads suddenly revealed Columbian immigrant workers sleeping overnight in the shops where they were employed by day!

The difference that this has made on the city is apparently positive and nothing less than remarkable.

In order for businesses in Sao Paolo to identify themselves, they have resorted to painting their buildings vibrant colors, like yellow, red, deep blue, etc. People now associate businesses like Citibank or Dulce & Gabbanna with these colors.

Sao Paolo is perhaps the first metropolis to pass this sort of ordinance, but other municipalities here in the United States have done the same. The northern California city of Carmel-by-the-Sea is free of ads. It belongs to a county that banned neon signs and billboards along the highways throughout the county. Carmel was the first city in the United States to enact a ban on formula restaurants, such as McDonalds, Burger King, all things chain and fast food. The rules for the ban can be viewed here. Take a stroll through this quiet little town and you’ll find that what attracts people to it—namely its peacefulness and beauty—would be vastly diminished with the presence of corporate fast-food businesses and advertising.

There is something to be said about the old saying, ‘look good, feel good.’ Carmel is an excellent example of practicing such philosophy. I wish that other towns and cities across America had the same guts to pass ordinances banning advertisements from public space. It would help lift appearance of much of this country out of that of a third-world country.

Related links:
These photos give you an idea of what Sao Paolo looks like now, though they focus more on rusted and empty billboard frames.
A December 2006 NYTimes article

Adbusters
The BBC
Art Threat online

An article by the website i-Advertising

You remember browsing through the ultra-B movies in your local video store as a kids and seeing titles like “Blacula” and “Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS”? A sub-genre of these exploitation films pertained to women in prison, which I imagine never had any entertainment value and serve only the purpose of satisfying bizarre fantasies of some peculiar men. I couldn’t help but think of that when reading this article called “Lesbian Gangs Raping Young Girls.”

While any forcible sex is condemnable, the subtext, which links rape with homosexuality, is deplorable but predictable. In other words, gangs are gangs, but lesbian gangs? Lock your daughter in her room and load your guns! You might agree that it makes as much sense as linking rape and pedophilia with Catholicism.

This response to the initial report of widespread lesbian gang violence, made by none other than Bill O’Reilly, reveals that once again it was O’Reilly generating paranoia and fear with “bad information.” On O’Reilly, and this is mentioned in the above linked article, a guest purports that in Baltimore a man was beaten by six women. The actual report from a Baltimore news station exposes two young women and four young men as the attackers. Bad information. What was O’Reilly’s guest thinking? Moreover, what was O’Reilly thinking? Probably about a falafel.

This is going to start an avalanche. The liberal speaks and I can just hear you guys cocking your guns…

Butch’s posting about Moore was not purposeless gossip. It was designed to tarnish Moore’s image and name. At the onset of Sicko’s release conservatives have worked themselves into a tizzy, outraged that, once again, this man is criticizing the system, any action of which conservatives have branded to be wholly un-American, even anti-American. Say what you will about Moore and his comments on Steve Jobs (which I too found ridiculous, but that’s hardly the point), it’s his film that deserves attention. However, his critics and dissenters (not excluded from this blog) follow the typical route of attacking his character in order to discredit the content of his film and distract people from it altogether.

The idea of “character assassins” is something I’ve wanted to elaborate on for a while. This aggressive and malicious form of coercion has become rampant in the news media forum, particularly among, though not limited to, the right-wing press. This vicious behavior is typical of Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Anne Coulter, who’ve been defaming critics of the Republican Party for years now. There might be a tendency among their sympathizers to say ‘well, look at how many fans these guys have’ not only to somehow credit some veracity to their shows but to also justify their libel. Smack-talk is smack-talk and whether political or not it is sensational, attention-grabbing and attracts viewers and listeners like flies to shit. People didn’t consistently watch Jerry Springer, for example, because they actually believed everything they were seeing—most people knew it was largely fictional—but because of its audacity and entertainment value. O’Reilly and Limbaugh retain their audiences for similar reasons and to great appeal: there are countless Americans who respond enthusiastically to bullying. Really, can you imagine O’Reilly having the same popularity if he were genteel and polite?

The only leftist in my mind who is arguably comparable to these guys in terms of celebrity is Michael Moore, though he releases a film once every few years (big deal) versus Limbaugh, O’Reilly, et al, who do their mud-slinging on a daily basis. And while the character assassins on the Right have little purpose other than to defame in the form of “commentary,” Moore composes two-hour arguments that address problems–business moving overseas in “Roger & Me,” gun violence in “Bowling for Columbine,” ineffective HMOs in “Sicko”—and offer insight (our widespread violence is linked to widespread fear, “BFC”) or proposed solutions whether you like them or not.

How does the conservative right respond to Michael Moore? The way they respond to anybody who criticizes Republican policy: namecalling. The anti-Moore website “Moorewatch.com” calls the man a “fat bastard.” Fred Thompson in this YouTube video suggests Moore is mentally disturbed: “a mental institution, Michael, it might be something you ought to think about.” Google “Sicko” and “Michael Moore” together and you’ll find a slew of conservative websites that howl and call Moore a liar and yet offer no evidence of lying. The “Business & Media” website started their review of the film with “Michael Moore is a documented liar” and proceeded to not only state zero examples of Moore lying but rather accused him of failing to acknowledge the bad points along with the good of the Cuban healthcare system (yet B&M themselves failed to acknowledge the good points of the film along with the bad, choosing instead to focus on calling Moore a liar). This weblog “Truthdig.com” reviews “Sicko” and accuses Moore of not telling the truth. The reviewer spends three paragraphs criticizing the film’s music (!), though never points out any lies. What’s up with that, guys? Why would conservatives do that? Just being old-fashioned? Tradition? Anything anti-conservative must be a lie!

The slandering is so unchecked on the Right that I agree with my friend Steele: the Left needs more character assassins of their own. Fratboy neo-cons have been waging war on Democrats for the past two decades. What do you think? Do you think the pinkos ought to start calling their opponents faggots, liars, wackos, fundamentalists, and pedophiles ?

Back to where it started. Michael Moore and “Sicko.” Indeed, Butch, you didn’t even mention his movie or its implication before you chipped in to the right wing smear campaign against Michael Moore. This is the problem. You guys are throwing sucker punches at Moore himself so I’m going to call you on it. You’re passing judgment on this guy and affecting your opinion of his film before you’ve even seen it, if you ever allow yourself to see it. I don’t expect you or anybody on the right to knock off all the belligerence that has run amok in our public forums. The problem is so advanced that it’s not going to change. In the meantime I hope you can at least recognize this as a major setback in social discourse and effective communication in general whose fundamental component is fact not opinion.

As for the film itself,
here’s the best review I’ve seen of SICKO. For anybody too skiddish to watch the film, this article sums up quite well its strengths and weaknesses, commenting not just on Moore as both filmmaker and subject, but also on the issues that the film addresses.