On Tuesday, the United States Senate passed a non-binding measure to add the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to the State Department’s list of “foreign terrorist organizations”; this just one day after the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, spoke to a hostile assembly of faculty and students at Columbia University. Not to be outshone by such magnificent displays of histrionics and incivility, President Bush, the consummate paragon of each, delivered a tangential address to the United Nations General Assembly, and reassured the country that its "childrens [sic] is learning." This week's events mark a potential watershed for the future of American-Iranian relations and, considered in relation to one another, suggest some rather frightening prospects for the development of peace between the two nations.
The central question fuelling the debate is how best to stop a country led by a religious fundamentalist intent on the development and proliferation of nuclear energy, from dominating Middle Eastern geo-political affairs; it should come as no surprise that the question is being asked on either side. What is rather surprising, is the degree to which all notions of truth, justice, and equity have been abandoned in the United States’ pursuit of global dominance; in fairness, a notion shocking only to s/he who has failed to peruse a newspaper in the last fifty years. There is, then, an historical precedent for beating the societal war drum loud enough to frighten the ignorant majority, which remains but a meddlesome annoyance to those who have heard its siren songs before. A wise man once reminded us of an old saying in Tennessee -- one he knew to exist in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that said, "fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Despite a semi-literate command of his mother tongue, the idiot-savant's point is more or less clear: being tricked into supporting a war with no other purpose than imperialistic expansion on the pretext of "fighting terrorism" and "protecting the homeland" is one thing; mistakes happen, no one is perfect, and few of us even had the sense to express some degree of doubt about claims the rest of the world knew to be false. But to fall victim to a similar -- even identical -- effort to control the public mind to justify a war against a non-enemy, would just be shameful. With that in mind, it saddens me to be forced to proclaim "Shame on us!" Now that I have not so subtly accused my fellow citizens of once again gulping from the chalice of deception, I suppose some degree of qualification is in order.
The most well-known (and frequently referenced) charges against the Iranian President are that he regards the Holocaust as a "myth," and that the state of Israel should be "wiped off the map." These positions are certainly not benign and, if accurate, deserve nothing but categorical censure. I am of the opinion, however, that in light of the available evidence, their accuracy --both in and out of context -- must be accepted with some degree of skepticism.
A point of departure as suitable as any, is to make the obvious observation that translation necessarily entails interpretation; and in contexts which involve passionate rhetoric, the all-important emphasis on literacy is frequently neglected. My knowledge of Farsi is admittedly non-existent, but in each of the independent translations that I've encountered, the word "map" is conspicuous only in its absence. In fact, the translations arrive at a relative consensus, contending that Ahmadinejad's remarks are best expressed as, "the Zionist regime in Israel must vanish from the page of time." This is indeed a far cry from the virtually uncontested translation which connotes state-sponsored genocide and the destruction of a sovereign nation-state. His remarks are ambiguous; I'll be the first to admit that. Nevertheless, it seems at least possible that they may be interpreted more accurately to mean that the state of Israel is an oppressive and possibly illegitimate regime, and is responsible for inciting political unrest in the region; to the extent that any of that might present a problem, emendations to (not necessarily the annihilation of) the state of Israel could be seen as desirable.
Ahmadinejad's remarks regarding the Holocaust tell a similar tale. I am not aware, in fact, of any documentary or audio-visual evidence which attests to his use of the word "myth" in a description of the existence of the Holocaust. Based on his most recent remarks on the subject at Columbia, his principle point seems to be that though the Holocaust occurred and six million Jewish human beings were murdered, its legacy should not serve as a modern-day justification for the brutal and oppressive policies of Palestinian subjugation at the hands of Israel and its stalwart patron, the United States. This is in no way to challenge verifiable fact; merely to question the manner in which its consequences have been appropriated. This position is surprisingly difficult to refute, because, in light of the historical record, it is essentially correct.
The difference between reality and perception, though, is evidently rather unimportant to such exemplars of journalistic integrity as the
New York Times, the
Washington Post, the
National Broadcasting Company (NBC),
Columbia Broadcast System (CBS),
Cable News Network (CNN), the
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and, inexplicably,
Fox News Channel (FNC). Whether or not Ahmadinejad's comments were translated accurately, interpreted in context, or even deliberately taken out of context doesn't really seem to matter to any of them, because each continually reference that which is demonstrably inaccurate. Some have graciously acknowledged their oversight -- though refused to offer a retraction -- and others, namely FNC, continue to refer to it as unequivocal truth. (This is the same conglomerate, incidentally, which left virtually unchallenged the Bush Administration's initial charges that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction.) So, what seems to be a somewhat dubious series of quotations continues to be passed around the societal circle like a propagandistic prostitute. Divisive and politically charged as one's choice of media outlet may be, when it comes to independent investigation of alleged truth, i.e. journalism, our supposedly free press bears a striking resemblance to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. Perhaps the pompous publishers of "all the news that's fit to print" have more in common with "the most powerful name in news" than initially meets the eye.
For my part, I merely seek truth; unlike some, I don't claim, nor do I wish, to have a monopoly on it. I am, therefore, reluctant to take seriously the charges of hostile Iranian nuclear weapons proliferation. The Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Muhammad ElBaradei, has spoken out on this issue and concluded that, as yet, "there's no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iran," nor is there "any concrete evidence that the Iran program is being weaponized." Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), Iran is permitted to have facilities for civilian nuclear power; yet the United States, itself in violation of the NNPT and the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons against a civilian population, contends that Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for purportedly industrial purposes, is simply unacceptable. To translate, an
enrichment program -- which is not yet fully operational -- to help a fledgling nation enter the modern world, is a sinister threat to world peace and must be eliminated. To this end, the United States continues to "keep all options on the table," with regard to Iran, including those like the "use or threat of force," which violate international law. Apparently, it is perfectly acceptable for one country to issue
actual threats, but completely out of bounds for another to be perceived as a
potential threat.
This is nothing less than a wholesale endorsement of the doctrine of preventive war, not to be confused with preemptive war, which aims to quell an existing threat actually in existence. The distinction between the two is incredibly significant; the former sanctions death and destruction on the basis of perception; the latter requires credible evidence on the basis of reality. The difference is quite literally a matter of life and death, but is evidently trivial to anyone who aspires to, or wishes to remain in, elected office.
Tuesday's vote in the Senate is an alarming reminder of just how popular the cavalier policy of "preventive war" is on both sides of the political spectrum, and just how close it has brought us to armed conflict with Iran. The resolution's supporters reference US military officials' allegations that the Revolutionary Guard is arming Shiite militias in Iraq, and supplying sophisticated roadside bombs used to kill US soldiers; the veracity of their claims is unknown. Similarly, and despite all evidence to the contrary, the Bush Administration accuses Iran of seeking to build an atomic bomb under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. In light of the voluminous litany of misinformation offered as truth in the recent past, why should anyone believe anything that either has to say? If one is prepared to grant the plausibility of what seems to be a truism, is it too much to ask to remain reticent to accept the continued attempts to portray Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Islamic progeny of Ghengis Khan, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin? I harbor no love for Ahmadinejad or Iran, and given credible evidence, am quite willing to add the Iranian President's name to the barbarous triumvirate of evil. However, I reject entirely the notion of doing so simply because it dovetails nicely with governmental policy. I have long since become sick of the meddlesome sirens emanating from White House Press Briefings. Though I can't claim to have lived long enough to remember, the historical record attests that their themes have been relatively consistent since the end of the second World War.
Any foreign political leader who challenges the United States' authority and presents an obstacle to its imperial ambitions, is automatically held to be a brutal, oppressive, and "evil" dictator who is just itching to kill every man, woman, and child who lives in freedom. The intent should be all too obvious; when military action cannot be justified on the basis of fact, it becomes necessary to frighten the population into supporting it on the basis of fiction; for that is the only way the obstacle may be eliminated.
When I was seven years old, I thought that a monster lived under my bed and threatened to harm me in my sleep; by the grand old age of ten, I had discovered that my fear was illusory. Why must so many otherwise rational people revert back to their childhood at the mere suggestion that an "evil" man in a far away land might somehow threaten them? (The fact that a man whom much of the world regards as the greatest danger to international security lives in their own country, and is, in fact, their President, is seemingly much more frightening!) Why must they continue to repeat the very same mistakes that the most elementary standards of intellectual competence could prevent? As long as these questions remain unanswered and the themes they address unresolved, we will continue our failure to heed the lessons of our own history. This is a choice involving life or death for some, and, quite possibly annihilation or survival for all. Shame on us if we choose incorrectly.
Born in Blackpool, England, Graham Nash is one of those overlooked musicians of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Nash’s original claim to fame was with the Hollies. A group he and his schoolmate Allan Clarke formed in the early 60’s. The Hollies soon had a hit single with “Bus Stop” in 1966. The album “Evolution”, their answer to Sgt. Pepper hit shelves in 1967. But, Nash soon became unhappy with the musical direction of the group (an album consisting entirely of Bob Dylan covers) and left the group in 1968. Nash would soon join ex-Byrd David Crosby and ex-Buffalo Springfield member Stephen Stills to form CSN. After Apple Records passed on signing the trio, they found a home at Atlantic and released their self-titled debut in 1969. “Déjà vu” followed in 1970 with Neil Young added to the lineup. Prominent, Nash tracks from the two albums included “Marrakesh Express”, “Our House”, and “Teach Your Children”. After the success of the Déjà vu, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young released solo efforts. Nash’s “Songs for Beginners” album, released in 1971, had no shortage of talent, with the likes of Dave Mason, Neil Young, David Crosby, and members of the Grateful Dead all lending a hand. Songs like “Military Madness” and “Chicago” made their way into the listeners’ conscience. Some feel his 1974 follow-up “Wild Tales” falls short of “Song for Beginners”. But, I believe that “Wild Tales” is perhaps a more complete album. With that said, below are some links to sample some Graham Nash contributions. 
