The United States largely has itself to blame for the history of tensions and animosity between itself and Iran.
It goes back to the 1950s when a democratically-elected government was ousted—this might have been one of countless instances where the US helped engineer the overthrow of a democratic government—and, in the aftermath, the US helped engineer the assumption of power by the Shah ('king'). The Shah turned out to be a hated ruler because he was tyrannical and despotic, and his secret police imprisoned and tortured dissenters.
Later, in the Iran-Iraq War, the US supported Iraq and in fact armed Sadaam Hussein's Iraq, on the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Iranians don't want to forgive America for that because it was a bitter, bloody, and costly war.
Actually, suspicion of the US and of the West by Iranians goes back even further because of Western—perhaps more British than US—actions and intervention in the Middle East during and after World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. To a degree, in this case, Iran's animosity should perhaps be directed more toward Britain than toward the US because the former was the bigger player, doing much to advance its interests and secure its influence in the area at that time. (For one thing, Britain was looking to protect the Suez Canal, which was jointly operated by Britain and France, but also, as one of the superpowers of the time, may have been moving into a power vacuum).
Update, February 1, 2012
I should add that the overthrow of the Iranian government of Premier Mossadegh in 1953 was due to OIL (surprise, surprise). He had nationalized Iran's oil production, which did not sit well with the US.
Also, two other reasons why the Shah was disliked had to do with his lavish lifestyle and his having offended conservative Iranians by embracing the West and western things.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The Fine Art of the Left-Handed Compliment
Left-handed compliment may be a term you don't hear very often; so, for those not sure what it means, I'll explain. It means someone is trying to be gentle and not hurt your feelings, but at the same time they feel they have to tell you something you don't want to hear. So they make it sound nice—sort of—whereas it's really telling you bad news. Dissing you.
An example: A friend of mine reported to me that he was taking some sort of art or painting class. The teacher, he said, told him, "You have a very interesting sense of color." Translation: "Dude, you have no idea what colors to put together. Not a clue. Whatsoever." I have to hope that friend won't read this because he never knew that he had been anything other than complimented. The teacher accomplished her mission. Take a bow.
Two from my own life: I was taking a playwriting course in college. I asked the professor—tactlessly—whether he thought I had any talent. He was more tactful than I was, and replied, "I think you have some of the symptoms of talent." I had to ponder what that meant, but today I'd translate it thusly: "You're fucked up like a lot of talented people, but that doesn't mean that you've got even a single molecule of talent in your entire body."
A few years later I was a graduate student at the prestigious University of M_____. One time I was talking to the department chairman in his office, and he said to me, "You seem to have the right instincts." Now, what the hell does that mean? It must mean, "At times you look like you incline toward doing the right thing, but you absolutely are not going to be a superstar." Hard to tell if that's a true left-handed compliment or a kindred tactic, damning with faint praise. That's similar in that it seems, at first blush, to be saying something nice about you but, if you scratch the surface, you see it really is not a sincere or genuine compliment.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
An example: A friend of mine reported to me that he was taking some sort of art or painting class. The teacher, he said, told him, "You have a very interesting sense of color." Translation: "Dude, you have no idea what colors to put together. Not a clue. Whatsoever." I have to hope that friend won't read this because he never knew that he had been anything other than complimented. The teacher accomplished her mission. Take a bow.
Two from my own life: I was taking a playwriting course in college. I asked the professor—tactlessly—whether he thought I had any talent. He was more tactful than I was, and replied, "I think you have some of the symptoms of talent." I had to ponder what that meant, but today I'd translate it thusly: "You're fucked up like a lot of talented people, but that doesn't mean that you've got even a single molecule of talent in your entire body."
A few years later I was a graduate student at the prestigious University of M_____. One time I was talking to the department chairman in his office, and he said to me, "You seem to have the right instincts." Now, what the hell does that mean? It must mean, "At times you look like you incline toward doing the right thing, but you absolutely are not going to be a superstar." Hard to tell if that's a true left-handed compliment or a kindred tactic, damning with faint praise. That's similar in that it seems, at first blush, to be saying something nice about you but, if you scratch the surface, you see it really is not a sincere or genuine compliment.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The Faustian Urge
I think Mankind has what I call a "Faustian urge" (I probably am not the first to coin the term). It's an allusion to the character of Faust or Doctor Faustus, subject of novels and operas. Faust wanted to know everything so he made a pact with the devil. (Maybe just to make it a little more human and less ivory-tower academic, there's a woman, whom Faust also gains in the pact with the devil.)
Well, Man has been driven to explore and/or "conquer" all of the Earth. It all started when one man was curious to see what lay beyond the river or on the other side of the mountain. Then he had to climb the highest mountain, reach the poles, dive the oceans. Where he can't dive to the bottom of the ocean he uses tools such as little submarines.
We build other tools--microscopes to see the smallest and telescopes to see the most distant. We dig in the earth to go back in time and to see human ancestors and ancient, long-dead, fossilized plants and animals.
So, when people ask why we should spend money on a space program, I answer that it's because we have this Faustian urge and we are compelled to explore continually further and further from home. Who knows where it will end? Since the universe is said to be infinite, it probably will never end.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Well, Man has been driven to explore and/or "conquer" all of the Earth. It all started when one man was curious to see what lay beyond the river or on the other side of the mountain. Then he had to climb the highest mountain, reach the poles, dive the oceans. Where he can't dive to the bottom of the ocean he uses tools such as little submarines.
We build other tools--microscopes to see the smallest and telescopes to see the most distant. We dig in the earth to go back in time and to see human ancestors and ancient, long-dead, fossilized plants and animals.
So, when people ask why we should spend money on a space program, I answer that it's because we have this Faustian urge and we are compelled to explore continually further and further from home. Who knows where it will end? Since the universe is said to be infinite, it probably will never end.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, January 16, 2012
Stein's Laws
At one point everybody seemed to be promulgating their "laws." We had Murphy's Law, Parkinson's Law, the Peter Principle.
Well, here are a few of my own "laws."
1. You usually get an itch when can't scratch it because you've got both hands full.
2. The quality of the food at a restaurant is inversely proportional to the amount of hype from the management. In other words, the more a restaurant hypes its food (e.g., "the best . . . in the world") the worse it actually is. Good food will speak for itself.
3. Within 10 minutes after buying gas, you see it cheaper.
4. That stock you thought about buying—but didn't—will triple or quadruple.
5. As soon as you switch off the vacuum, you notice at least two visible bits of dirt on the floor.
6. Gas station employees should not be asked directions because they don't know the area beyond half a mile from where they are standing.
7. When a new building has been built, you can't remember what used to stand there.
8. Law (or advice) for Asian business people (e.g., people who run Chinese restaurants, stores, etc.): If you need to give an explanation to an Occidental customer, you can give her any BS, because (1) you're smarter than they are, and (2) they won't understand you anyway.
9. Two men who have similar patterns of facial hair are going to be perceived as "looking alike."
10. Sometimes life will give you a second chance. But don't ever, ever expect that you'll get a third chance.
11. Elvis is dead but Picasso lives.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Well, here are a few of my own "laws."
1. You usually get an itch when can't scratch it because you've got both hands full.
2. The quality of the food at a restaurant is inversely proportional to the amount of hype from the management. In other words, the more a restaurant hypes its food (e.g., "the best . . . in the world") the worse it actually is. Good food will speak for itself.
3. Within 10 minutes after buying gas, you see it cheaper.
4. That stock you thought about buying—but didn't—will triple or quadruple.
5. As soon as you switch off the vacuum, you notice at least two visible bits of dirt on the floor.
6. Gas station employees should not be asked directions because they don't know the area beyond half a mile from where they are standing.
7. When a new building has been built, you can't remember what used to stand there.
8. Law (or advice) for Asian business people (e.g., people who run Chinese restaurants, stores, etc.): If you need to give an explanation to an Occidental customer, you can give her any BS, because (1) you're smarter than they are, and (2) they won't understand you anyway.
9. Two men who have similar patterns of facial hair are going to be perceived as "looking alike."
10. Sometimes life will give you a second chance. But don't ever, ever expect that you'll get a third chance.
11. Elvis is dead but Picasso lives.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Growing Social Inequality in America
A little survey of man-in-the-street–type individuals by a TV show showed them all saying that what America needs is to raise the taxes on the rich—and maybe also reduce taxes on the poor.
And that is a core message of the "Occupy Wall Street" and other "occupy" demonstrations.
So millions of Americans feel this way. But—you know what? It's not going to happen. At least not as long as some of the fundamental facts of the American political system do not change.
The fact is that wealthy interests control our government. They can effectively buy Congress through lobbying, and through campaign contributions. Wealthy individuals and corporate-organized and -funded lobbying organizations buy Congress. Whereas political contributions from individuals are limited to $2500, the so-called "Super PACs" (political action committees) have little or no limitations on them. This state of affairs was made possible by the disastrous Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United (discussed elsewhere in this blog).
A recent book by Hacker and Pierson, two social scientists, called Winner Take All Politics, shows how the concentration of wealth in America has worsened. That is, the top few as regards wealth have grown wealthier—in fact vastly, astronomically wealthier—in the last 25 or 30 years.
The concentration of wealth in America is worse than in other Western countries: in Europe, in Canada, in Australia. And of course money is power. It can even be concluded that we no longer have a democracy.
The situation is the result of money buying influence; of the tax code; and of lax or even lack of regulation of Wall Street. (The countries named above, for example Canada, did not have as severe an economic crisis as the US four years ago, because they have more effective regulation of their financial systems.)
In 1986 legislation was enacted that closed many of the loopholes in the tax code that enabled the super-rich to escape taxation. But in the years since, those tax reforms have been very largely undone.
It's a sad situation in America. People are speaking out and voicing their dissatisfaction. But have they got power to effect change? Are any of the political candidates even promising to do something about the situation? It does not seem to be one of the issues discussed in candidate debates. The Occupy people are aware of all this but otherwise it all seems to be a big secret.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
And that is a core message of the "Occupy Wall Street" and other "occupy" demonstrations.
So millions of Americans feel this way. But—you know what? It's not going to happen. At least not as long as some of the fundamental facts of the American political system do not change.
The fact is that wealthy interests control our government. They can effectively buy Congress through lobbying, and through campaign contributions. Wealthy individuals and corporate-organized and -funded lobbying organizations buy Congress. Whereas political contributions from individuals are limited to $2500, the so-called "Super PACs" (political action committees) have little or no limitations on them. This state of affairs was made possible by the disastrous Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United (discussed elsewhere in this blog).
A recent book by Hacker and Pierson, two social scientists, called Winner Take All Politics, shows how the concentration of wealth in America has worsened. That is, the top few as regards wealth have grown wealthier—in fact vastly, astronomically wealthier—in the last 25 or 30 years.
The concentration of wealth in America is worse than in other Western countries: in Europe, in Canada, in Australia. And of course money is power. It can even be concluded that we no longer have a democracy.
The situation is the result of money buying influence; of the tax code; and of lax or even lack of regulation of Wall Street. (The countries named above, for example Canada, did not have as severe an economic crisis as the US four years ago, because they have more effective regulation of their financial systems.)
In 1986 legislation was enacted that closed many of the loopholes in the tax code that enabled the super-rich to escape taxation. But in the years since, those tax reforms have been very largely undone.
It's a sad situation in America. People are speaking out and voicing their dissatisfaction. But have they got power to effect change? Are any of the political candidates even promising to do something about the situation? It does not seem to be one of the issues discussed in candidate debates. The Occupy people are aware of all this but otherwise it all seems to be a big secret.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Are We Bloodthirsty Like the Romans?
Everybody is familiar with the image of the ancient Romans' entertainments in the Coliseum: gladiators fighting to the death, wild animals fighting one another, Christians being thrown to the lions (this last, it turns out, is completely a myth). So we regard the Romans as bloodthirsty and pat ourselves on the back for being more civilized than that.
But are we? I'd argue that modern Western peoples are probably just as bloodthirsty as the Romans were. The first example that might come to my mind is boxing, which is simply about one man hitting, punching, and beating up another one (I know, boxing's defenders will say that they look for, and admire, grace, strategy, this and that); and the crowd evidently loves it if/when blood flows. Not to mention that boxers' brains quite infamously get permanently damaged. (Mohammed Ali has Parkinson's disease; as Wikipedia says, "Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's syndrome in 1984,. . . a disease to which those subject to severe head trauma, such as boxers, are many times more susceptible than average" [Wikipedia, s.v. Muhammad Ali].)
Then there's football. It's starting to be realized that professional football players can receive concussions, and some high-school football players not only have received concussions but even fatal injuries in the course of a football game. Just in very recent news there was a story of a high-school athlete who received brain injuries and another who became paralyzed from the neck down and died 11 years later—while still a young man.
(If I were a parent I would not want my kid to play football on any school team. I know, the argument on the other side is, "But they want to play." Well, it's notorious that teen-agers don't understand risk, and that is why they have a high rate of auto accidents.)
Last I want to mention car racing. Again I think the crowds of spectators hope to witness a crash. That might not be wishing to literally see blood but it's certainly bloodthirstiness in a less literal sense.
Update, January 24, 2012
Other sports, even skiing or skateboarding, can produce injuries. When or where these are made spectator sports (shown on TV or youtube), I wonder if people are hoping to see a wipeout.
Update, February 1, 2012
I don't really follow sports, but I just saw a news item that said that John Wesley Reed, a "cage fighter" (I confess I don't even know the terminology of some of the new sports) collapsed after a fight on TV and was taken away in an ambulance. According to the online article,
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
But are we? I'd argue that modern Western peoples are probably just as bloodthirsty as the Romans were. The first example that might come to my mind is boxing, which is simply about one man hitting, punching, and beating up another one (I know, boxing's defenders will say that they look for, and admire, grace, strategy, this and that); and the crowd evidently loves it if/when blood flows. Not to mention that boxers' brains quite infamously get permanently damaged. (Mohammed Ali has Parkinson's disease; as Wikipedia says, "Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's syndrome in 1984,. . . a disease to which those subject to severe head trauma, such as boxers, are many times more susceptible than average" [Wikipedia, s.v. Muhammad Ali].)
Then there's football. It's starting to be realized that professional football players can receive concussions, and some high-school football players not only have received concussions but even fatal injuries in the course of a football game. Just in very recent news there was a story of a high-school athlete who received brain injuries and another who became paralyzed from the neck down and died 11 years later—while still a young man.
(If I were a parent I would not want my kid to play football on any school team. I know, the argument on the other side is, "But they want to play." Well, it's notorious that teen-agers don't understand risk, and that is why they have a high rate of auto accidents.)
Last I want to mention car racing. Again I think the crowds of spectators hope to witness a crash. That might not be wishing to literally see blood but it's certainly bloodthirstiness in a less literal sense.
Update, January 24, 2012
Other sports, even skiing or skateboarding, can produce injuries. When or where these are made spectator sports (shown on TV or youtube), I wonder if people are hoping to see a wipeout.
Update, February 1, 2012
I don't really follow sports, but I just saw a news item that said that John Wesley Reed, a "cage fighter" (I confess I don't even know the terminology of some of the new sports) collapsed after a fight on TV and was taken away in an ambulance. According to the online article,
Nobody in in the mixed martial arts scene was prepared to acknowledge that he might have suffered serious trauma, instead blaming his condition on "fatigue and dehydration."
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Friday, January 13, 2012
Racism in America
I can remember well a trip I made through the American South in 1964. This was during the era when new laws and so forth were just beginning to ameliorate the discrimination and segregation in the South; and at the time the South and Southerners were not very willing to change their very long standing ways.
Some of the things I saw: In a small town in Arkansas, just across the border from Missouri, the local movie theater required blacks to sit in the balcony. And when visiting the Black section of the town I saw that it had dirt streets. In Memphis, a big city, a restaurant had a sign over one door, "Colored Entrance."
It's certain things have changed, but one might ask, "How much?" Today African Americans can be doctors, lawyers, college professors. But I have a feeling they are under-represented in these and many other professions.
Here is an interesting fact: Middle-class African American women complain that they have trouble finding suitable mates. (We will disregard the issue of whether they do or must or even should look only within their own race.) In other words, there is a relative lack of middle-class African American men.
The implication of this is that it's been easier for African American women to move up into the middle class. It's easier for African American women to get good jobs. And African American men are more likely to be effectively limited to lesser-paying jobs.
Okay, now we must wonder why. And to do that I have to talk about a subject that is unpopular and virtually never confronted. One lingering, and maybe tough, part of racism is that White people are afraid of African American men. When walking in an African American neighborhood, would anybody be afraid if approached by an African American woman? No. Not so in the case of an African American man.
I'm confident it would be extremely hard to find anyone who would admit to this. But part of a stereotypical, racist image of African American men that perhaps has still not completely gone away is that at best they are looked on as thuggy, brutal, wild. I could go on with other very negative, racist adjectives and images but even I am reluctant to do that.
But this is my explanation for the gender difference noted above: people are not afraid of African American women, but they may be of African American men. At least there is more of a certain wariness we have of African American, which holds them back in the job market.
Of course there are other sorts of evidence that the lot of African Americans in America is still not equal; but I'm going to let those things lie outside the scope of this blog posting.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Some of the things I saw: In a small town in Arkansas, just across the border from Missouri, the local movie theater required blacks to sit in the balcony. And when visiting the Black section of the town I saw that it had dirt streets. In Memphis, a big city, a restaurant had a sign over one door, "Colored Entrance."
It's certain things have changed, but one might ask, "How much?" Today African Americans can be doctors, lawyers, college professors. But I have a feeling they are under-represented in these and many other professions.
Here is an interesting fact: Middle-class African American women complain that they have trouble finding suitable mates. (We will disregard the issue of whether they do or must or even should look only within their own race.) In other words, there is a relative lack of middle-class African American men.
The implication of this is that it's been easier for African American women to move up into the middle class. It's easier for African American women to get good jobs. And African American men are more likely to be effectively limited to lesser-paying jobs.
Okay, now we must wonder why. And to do that I have to talk about a subject that is unpopular and virtually never confronted. One lingering, and maybe tough, part of racism is that White people are afraid of African American men. When walking in an African American neighborhood, would anybody be afraid if approached by an African American woman? No. Not so in the case of an African American man.
I'm confident it would be extremely hard to find anyone who would admit to this. But part of a stereotypical, racist image of African American men that perhaps has still not completely gone away is that at best they are looked on as thuggy, brutal, wild. I could go on with other very negative, racist adjectives and images but even I am reluctant to do that.
But this is my explanation for the gender difference noted above: people are not afraid of African American women, but they may be of African American men. At least there is more of a certain wariness we have of African American, which holds them back in the job market.
Of course there are other sorts of evidence that the lot of African Americans in America is still not equal; but I'm going to let those things lie outside the scope of this blog posting.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
