More bags
They killed the patient trying to save her.
An Iranian girl, 16, has died after she was allegedly beaten by morality police for not wearing a hijab.
Why is it so important for women to wear bags on their heads that it’s necessary to beat them to death for not doing it?
It’s not to protect them from anything, especially not from the sexual violence of godbothering men. It’s to make a big fuss about the “honor” of men, which is besmirched by the existence of those horrible oozing sluts known as “women.” If they’re not tightly wrapped like a supermarket cheese, they flop down in the street and spread their legs, so that explains why the “morality” police have to kill them for taking off the wrapping.
Activists have alleged Geravand was attacked because she was not wearing a hijab.
They also demanded an independent investigation by the United Nations’ fact-finding mission on Iran, citing the theocracy’s use of pressure on victims’ families and state TV’s history of airing hundreds of coerced confessions.
Maybe the CIA should have left Iran alone…
The BBC’s ‘balanced’ headline and sub-head:
altercation
/ˌɒltəˈkeɪʃn/
noun
a noisy argument or disagreement, especially in public.
Sounds so innocent, doesn’t it?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67248449
The UN will declare it a Zionist Plot.
No matter how miserable, lonely, unsuccessful, and unpopular you are, if you can control The Women you have power and privilege. They hold on to it as if it’s their defining characteristic.
It infuriates me.
Worth remembering however: In 1953, Iran was a democracy led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeqh, who had an ambition to nationalise Iran’s vast deposits of oil and spread that wealth more evenly through the Iranian population But the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, backed up by Britain’s MI6 and the American CIA had other ideas. They encouraged local Islamic extremists to stage a coup against Mossadeqh, and install the reactionary Pahlevi Dynasty led by the Shah in his democratic government’s place. The Shah’s regime was duly overthrown not by democrats, but by the present government dominated by the Islamic Mullahs.
When my wife and I visited Iran a few years back, at the Teheran Airport our passports were closely inspected for any sign that we might have visited Israel. (We never have.)
But what goes around, comes around. The world now faces the beginning of a war between Israel and its Western backers on the one hand, and Hamas (using the Palestinian population as a human shield) backed up by Iran and God knows who else in time from the Muslim world.
.The trouble with Western democracies is that the people who stand for political office are commonly not themselves democrats. They prefer their own wills to prevail rather than those of the population-at-large. Some prize examples of elected anti-democrats spring readily to mind.
I always wondered what the purpose of a divided government was, why didn’t the founders set up a parliamentary system where the majority party holds the executive? The way it is, the executive branch can be hamstrung as it is about to be when the next U.S. government shutdown battle comes along (and Johnson will not make a deal like McCarthy did). But, when someone like Trump or Sanders comes along as a populist who promises to “fix things” and have a “people’s revolution,” we are far better off with a strong Congress that can say “hold on there. Not so fast.”
People don’t vote for who would be the best administrator as President in the U.S. They vote for who would be a Strong Leader and make the country over by will and inspiration, and that’s bad for democracy. In Minnesota, the Democrats had a weak opposition in the most recent session and passed through a cornucopia of liberal wetdreams (some of which I think are pretty good.) But the opposition had no fangs and the Democrats were able to label any opposing voices on issues as being the plaints of RW bigots, they were basically toothless. So, the trans sanctuary bills, and “anti-conversion” bills were passed with no dissent among the Democrats and the Republican objections were dismissed. That’s what happens when demagogues rule, the groupthink takes over. If our governor had faced a legislature with at least one house on the opposition party, he would have had to listen to them. Instead, we become yes-men, and I am thankful that the governor doesn’t have the power to do as much as a president would. I may secretly give money to Republicans in the next election here, not because I like them, but because I think we need opposition in the government. Slow down, fight for the hard compromises, and make sure all of the people have some voice and not just the members of the majority party.
Democracy depends on deliberation, but power is more attractive to the voters.
I am far from an expert, but my understanding is that the founders didn’t like political parties at all, and didn’t set up anything that depended on their existence. And many of the details of the construction of the government were set up as a compromise, to facilitate adoption of the resulting constitution. So, not so much a grand design with noble goals, but a makeshift structure that was not flatly rejected by some group of states or another.
[…] a comment by Mike Haubrich on More […]