Sunday, December 03, 2006

Ahmadinejad's Term Shortened

Image v. reality

The Iranian Parliament has voted to cut short the term of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The parliamentarians apparently want him gone 18 months early by changing the timing for the next presidential elections from August 2009 to February 2008, says Hotair.

The 80% majority voting in favor of the measure, point out the measure would reform the executive and legislative powers providing greater cooperation between the two powers and strengthening the supervisorial role of parliament. Elections for the presidency and the legislature would be held simultaneously saving time and money.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting conducted a poll recently as reported by CBNNews. The results showed a drastic drop in confidence for Ahmadinejad. Last year, 60% of Iranians approved of the job Ahmadinejad was doing. I the recent poll, 69% dissapprove of his performance.

Ratification of the bill is required by the Iranian Constitutional Committee headed by Ahmadinejad arch-rival Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president. Rafsanjani is running for a seat in the Assembly of Experts, an 86 member body that monitors the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Rafsanjani is running against Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor Masbah Yazdi.

What does this mean for Iran and the rest of the world? Who knows? The workings of Persian politics has been a mystery for a thousand years and nothing is likely to clarify anything now.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.


Anonymous said...

Hmmm. Interesting.

Maybe the Iranians aren't as crazy as we think they are.

But I wish they'd get rid of him faster than that.

mudkitty said...

If only Iran could go back to being Persian. People who see themselves as Persias are very gentle, sophisiticated, and open minded. I believe the original Persian faith was Zororastrin (sic.)

Indigo Red said...

Zoroastrian. It is possibly the original monotheistic religion.

"...Persia[n]s are very gentle, sophisiticated, and open minded." And you probably have no idea how racist that comment is.

mudkitty said...

So now it's racist to not hate another culture. I get where you're going with this Red, but it's not going to work. Semantics is easy. You're getting into tautology now.

However, that pic is CREEPY!

Indigo Red said...

Singeling out any group of people, for good or ill, based upon generalized characteristics is racism. You may call my logic whatever you wish, but your example remains racist. Besides, "very gentle" hardly describes the Persian Empire.

Well, at least you can read the picture.

mudkitty said...

Have you ever known any Persians?
And are you saying that all generalizations are racist?

Indigo Red said...

Yes, I do know Persians.

Yes, when generalizations are applied to a singular group, but only insofar as race actually exists.

mudkitty said...

I don't think Persian is a race...I believe it's closer to a culture. Infact the term Persian is actually nostalgic, as Persia, techniquely doesn't really exist.

Mike's America said...

Persian is a race!

Indigo Red said...

I'm a nostaligic SOB. I like Persian and so do many Persians.

Before one can claim anything to be a race, one must first define what race is. So far, no one has done so. Charles Dickens once wrote about "this current race of lawyers." Is anyone here willing to say the lawyers are a race? Or physicians, or plumbers, or Olympians, or dog walkers?

There is not an ounce worth of difference between a person with white skin and one with dark skin. But, there is even less difference between any person and a mouse than between any two people. So what is Race?

mudkitty said...

Persia is not a race. Oh my goodness. Persian was a nation, now no more. Goodness. Do you really want to stand by that statement?

Red, Dickens is my fave author, and I happen to be somewhat well versed. Dickens was using poetic license. He wasn't being literal.

What is race...well it's generally defined as Latin, Asian, Caucasian, Negro and Semetic, plus mixtures thereof. Would you disagree?

Indigo Red said...

Yes, I would disagree. All you have listed are groups of ethnicities. You haven't answered my question - what is race?

And why would you be so concerned with race differentiation? You have described yourself as a "flaming liberal" - aren't Liberals in favor of raceless societies? Humankind is all one in love and understanding and all that squishy crap.

And no, I'm going to let Dickens off thehook with poetic licsense. Dickens may be your "fave", but I absolutesly guarantee unequivically that you have never read anywhere that Dickens ever wrote about lawyers as a race. It does not appear in any of his books. So again you are blowing smoke about your autodidactitudness.

Again, What is race?

mudkitty said...

No Red, we liberals are pro-all-race societies, no non-race societies.


Races are distintions based on physical characteristics combined with geographical heritage.

Ethnicities are distinct, in that they have more to do with cultures: the term originally refers to non Xian, and non Judeo population groups.


So you're actually going to stick by that statment that lawyers are a race, and that Dickens' meant it literally? Ok...

Indigo Red said...

Fool! You just don't get your own stupidity! Incredible.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE! It's a construct of 19th century white Europeans explaining why European empires dominated the world and not Africans or Asians. Race doesn't exist. Genetics has proven it over and over again. But you are a liberal and you are certainly not about to let facts get in the way of a good delusional lie.

Liberals are not "pro-all-race". Liberal positions are totally dependant upon race distiction based victimology you clowns can't give it up. You NEED racism as much as a junkie needs heroin. Without race victims you have no purpose to exist as political entities. Liberals must maintain and perpetuate a self-created racism constructed from wholecloth.

It's not so pitiful you are deluding yourself, mudkitty, but that you are deluding and conning the very people you claim to care about.

mudkitty said...

ALL catagories and lables are man made constructs. So you're point was moot even before stating it. (Anyway, you REAL point was a lame attempt at a "got cha.")


You're wrong about liberals, and as I am one, I should know better than you what liberals think and feel. If I want to know what an exteme rightwinger thinks and feels, I'll have the decency to ask you. Please have the decency not to tell me what I think and feel, and not to speak for liberals whom you loathe, merely for disagreeing with you. You loathe liberalism so much, you have lost all objectivity.

I suggest that if you want the comman definition of a the man made construct of race, than you ought to go to your dictionary, and stop playing coy, as if the concept of race isn't an aspect of the real world.

Anonimous said...

Nice! Nice site! Good resources here. I will bookmark!

Maxwells said...

I see first time your site guys. I like you :)

Anonimous said...

Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!