More Active Posts
Front Page
Whirled Views 4.16
 |
 76 Comments |
Bonjour!
Today’s quote is from an animated movie: “I suffer from short term memory loss. It runs in my family…. At least I think it does…. Where are they?”
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Less is more
“Finding Nemo”
Dory.
We named our cat after her; she has a totally Dory personality.
Finding Nemo is in my view the best animated movie created in the past ten years. It is funny how many people I meet now who are just like Dorie.
Kristin - would you please ban Datewealthy? This person has spammed several threads.
Dory.
I knew that one! But, I wasn’t here first.
finding nemo is amazing…
I think the incredibles was probably better, but only by a hair.
They were both great.
I’d be hard pressed to say one is better than the other only because they were so different.
They were meaningful and entertaining!
I loved the little fashion designer, Edna.
That was actually played by a man.
My husband surprised me with a talking Edna doll (We live near Disneyworld) for my closet. It is so funny.
I agree with Klasko re Dateworthy.
Thanks for the tip, Klasko. Hopefully it’s taken care of now.
Samuel gets the virtual cappuccino of the day. Enjoy!
Klasko (#4),
What does “spammed several threads” mean?
I want a talking Edna doll!
Michael - If you look on several of the top 25 threads, exact same comment - an unsolicited advertisement - is on some of them. Placed there by someone whose handle is “Datewealthy.” It is off topic and clearly meant to generate traffic for a dating site.
It’s called comment spam.
Edna seems like she is a caricature of a very good friend of mine. She is short, wears the same hairstyle and glasses and has the same personality. It was uncanny. When we first saw The Incredibles, we all said the same things. Mutual friends all said it too. Weird.
Klasko (#13),
Ah, thanks. Good thing to know about.
Klasko @#14. I too have a friend much like Edna. But Edna is a caricature of fashion designer Diana Vreeland.
General Paraeus made it clear that the nation of Iran is using special forces to kill US military in iraq. They are at war with us and they may be responsible for more US military deaths than Al Qaeda. In fact, while Al Qaeda is focusing more on slaughtering as many innocents as possible(including Iraqis and Muslims), the special forces from Iran are focusing more on killing Americans.
And the media makes nearly nothing of it. Iran has learned that they can poke us endlessly and pay few consequences, until the recent surge at least. So they keep poking and killing. I do not have sufficient information or intelligence to come to a position now on what we should do militarily, and I believe that war should be the last resort. But I stand ready to consider support for serious action to deal with Iran.
Is it safe to comment now? Is the pretender to the thrown asleep? Has she put away her false scepter? Only time will tell.
Kristin:
I just posted this at yesterday’s WV thread, but just to cover my bases, I’ll post it here too. See what you think … thanks!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/10/njerusalem110.xml
The lyrics can be read at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/10/njerusalem210.xml
Joel Mark,
1) Iran can at least argue that they have a legitimate national security interest in that a neighboring country is under occupartion by foreign forces. (Imagine for a moment that Cuba was occupying northern Mexico. Wouldn’t you expect US Special Forces to be busy trying to disrupt/harm/kill them?)
2) Even assuming that Iranian Special Forces were killing our soldiers in Iraq (which, for several reasons, I find rather dubious), that problem would cease if we withdrew our soldiers from Iraq.
3) Don’t you find it the least bit curious that Al Maliki is buddies with both us and with Iran? (And ain’t it especially curious that when US dignitaries go to Iraq, they require all manner of military protection, but when Ahmadinejad is there, he requires no such protection?)
If our troops come back home where they belong, they will no longer be at risk from Iranian Special Forces or Iraqi insurgents, and the Sandbox can keep right on being the Vacation Spot of the world that it is right now without us.
Joel Mark, I agree.
JOel Mark, I agree with you
What’s up with Jimmy Carter? Does he have no sense at all? Laying a wreath at the grave of a terrorist? Meeting with terrorists to negotiate peace? After members of Congress have asked him not to. What is he thinking?
Klasco, I saw the spam last night just before we went to bed. In just a few minutes the ‘creature’ had hit about 11 threads.
How’s your head?
I’m awake Peter. Don’t call it a ’scepter’ it’s a silver BONG with a gold ball on the end, attached to a silk cord with a tassel. How many times do you need this explained?
And Victoria, how long are you going to use a slang term for drug paraphernalia in reference to your substitute scepter?
Victoria - Feeling better, thanks. Just minding my p’s and q’s trying to stay out of trouble.
Frank, are you aiming for a discussion on freedom of speech or freedom of religion? I’ve always thought of the spiritual Jerusalem, not the city of Jerusalem in Israel, and I would have thought that’s what a church would think, too. I’m not really surprised by this happening in Britain, it’s the home of political correctness.
I saw the President and the Pope’s speeches this morning, and I have to say the President pulled out all the stops on his greeting at the White House. I enjoyed that half hour, especially seeing the “soldiers” in colonial dress, hearing the singing of the Lord’s Prayer and the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I have no doubt that someone somewhere will criticize the President, but I think he did a good thing meeting the Pope at the airport and at today’s little birthday party at the White House.
#16 - Adios - When I first saw Edna Mode in The Incredibles I immediately thought of movie costume designer Edith Head, especially because of the glasses. Ms. Head’s glasses were almost as famous as she was! I got curious just now and looked on Ms. Head’s page on IMDb.com, which confirmed that the character was based on her. Ms. Head was an 8 time Oscar winner for her costumes, so I would think basing the character on her was a little tribute. She’s my favorite character in the movie.
I also looked at a website with a photo of Ms. Vreeland and I can see a resemblence there, too. She wore her dark hair in the same kind sort of “page boy” do.
Frank,
I don’t think it is the nationalism of that hymn most find objectionable, but that it is a favorite of those who hold to the British Israel theory. In a nutshell, that caucasians are the ten lost tribes of Israel and everyone else is Gentile and bound for hell. It’s the superior race and all that rot.
I love Blake’s poetry, btw, which is why I say it was a fav of the theorists not necessarily Blake’s intended meaning.
Kayvee,
I looked up their pics too. I think you’re right. I was thinking Vreeland, but picturing Head. Edna/Edith makes more sense too.
We are all well-trained to make sure our tax returns are post-marked by midnight April 15. (I believe, to be perfectly correct, that should be midnight, April 16.)
So what happens if someone slips theirs in the mail on their way to work on the morning of the 16th? I read that the penalty for filing late is something like 5% per month added on what you owe. Or maybe it was 5% of one’s total taxes for the year?
But what about if it was just a matter of those extra 8 hours or so?
Victoria - Yesterday I joked that the bong you hit me with gave me a thundering headache (& the munchies). Today, I really do have a thundering headache.
I doubt your power no longer!
All right, on another thread Victoria said something about my having a spelling class. So here is just a brief lesson, and then y’all can hang around and study, maybe chat for a bit. Victoria, I know you were getting tired with all your hard work on the scepter thread last night, so just relax and put your feet up. Get comfortable. I’ll try not to be technical.
We’ll start with homonyms–words that sound alike but are spelled differently. The best place to start with that is actually a brief review of possessives. Now, you all know that if Alice has a violin, the violin belongs to Alice, and we show possession by saying “Alice’s violin.” If Tom and Alice own the violin together, we use the ’s only once, to show they own it jointly: “Alice and Tom’s violin.” If they own separate violins, technically you need “Alice’s and Tom’s violins” (though I don’t see that distinction made much anymore).
Well, pronouns get made possessive differently, and this is where many people get confused. You don’t use an apostrophe to make a pronoun into a possessive–you want to say its, hers, his, etc., not it’s, her’s, hi’s. Remmbering “his” might help you remember the rule. Do remember that apostrophes are also used with contractions. So, we’re back to homonyms….
*its is possessive; it’s is a contraction: it is
*theirs is possessive; something that belongs to “them” (it’s theirs; it is theirs)
*their is the possessive of “them” (their house); “there” is a location (over there)
*”two” is a number, “too” means also, and “to” is always used as part of a phrase (going TO the store)
That’s probably enough for one day. Go ahead, Victoria, hang around a bit. If anyone has any questions, I’ll check back here later….
Thank you Cheryl. It’s always nice to get concise explanation of this stuff. Well done.
I especially liked the tip about placing apostrophes on pronouns. I’m sure I’ve botched that one many a time.
I don’t usually confuse “their” and “there” but it really gets to me when I mispell “to”.
But I guess it’s more of a typo when I spell it “ot”. Eh?
Regarding the hymn “Jerusalem”, I agree that it doesn’t have much to do with God, but it shouldn’t be banned. I think that the building of Jerusalem in England is a spiritual reference albeit a vague one.
I guess the people who banned that hymn would ban something like “My Country ’tis of Thee” too. It’s not a song with a lot of spiritual content, but there’s nothing wrong with singing it occasionally.
Frank in Phoenix,
I disagree with your notion that Iran has a legitimate national security interest in Iraq. They are the unwelcome foreign presence sroking up strife and murdering innocents. They fought viciously with Saddam, and later, when we deposed Saddam, they continue to foment terrorism there. Their aims are nefarious and evil. Iran resented our liberation of Iraq even thohgh they also hated Saddam.
Frank, if we removed our soldiers from Iraq, the most decent people in the country who have been resisting the forces of terror and jihad would be subjected to a blood bath. Our departure would empower the worst forces trying to destabilize that country.
I trust David Patraeus far more than your doubts, Frank. On one hand, you think Iran has legitimate national security interests in Iraq, and on the other hand, you convey doubts that they are even there seeking such distorted interests. Think about your inconsistencies here. In any case, Patraeus is correct: Iranian Special Forces ARE killing our soldiers in Iraq. Deal with it!
No, I don’t find it curious that decent peace-seeking leaders need military protection in that region, but rotten murderous leaders like Amadinijhad do not. Amadinijhad shares the same mission with the butchers and jihadists.
I just heard a report that the president of Iran (Amadinijhad) is now calling into question 9/11 itslef (let alone the holocaust).
I have dear friends whose son was killed by an Iranian I.E.D. in Iraq while serving in the interest of peace and stability there. I am sickened by your naive comments, Frank.
Now I’m really confused, Cheryl made it worse. You did this on purpose didn’t you Cheryl?
Oo! Oo! Oo! (Karen O is raising her hand, trying to get the teacher’s attention.)
Miss Cheryl, I have a question about spelling.
I remember learning that when adding a suffix such as -ed or -ing to a word in which the preceding vowel is short, one should double the ending consonant. Ex. - begin, beginning; outwit, outwitted.
But it seems that the more I read, the more exceptions to the rule I see. Now it seems that more words are the excpetion than the rule.
Now I’m so confused I don’t know what to do! Was I taught wrong?
Karen, we are a mess!
or should that be we’re?
I too was shocked, SHOCKED to find Victoria distributing bongs in such a carefree fashion. Who would have guessed!
Are these the real “Bong hits for Jesus”?
Hey, does anybody know where the Drillbits are practicing? Somebody told me it was in the archives but when I arrived, the place was empty. I guess they forgot to tell me where, or the invitation was lost in the mail, or my name was “inadvertently” lost, or it is a computer problem. Or something.
Karen, how do we know if the vowl is short?
I have lots of problems with was and were.
Mumsee, I still think there is a cabal going, watch for Victoria.
Joel Mark (37): I have dear friends whose son was killed by an Iranian I.E.D. in Iraq while serving in the interest of peace and stability there.
Frank: They have my sincere sympathies.
I’ll remind you that I served in the armed forces. My oath was to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies foreign and domestic, not to “uphold and defend the peace and stability” in foreign hell-holes of our own making.
If those were your friends’ son’s ideals, fine. God bless them and him. But those same ideals aren’t shared by every military man or woman over there, and we shouldn’t insist that those who believe Iraq is an unjust war serve in it against their consciences.
Joel Mark (17): I do not have sufficient information or intelligence to come to a position now on what we should do militarily, and I believe that war should be the last resort. But I stand ready to consider support for serious action to deal with Iran.
Frank: How do you feel about diplomacy, JM? You know, Bush, Al Maliki and Ahmadinejad all sitting down at the table and discussing their nations’ goals, differences and concerns? Al Maliki is friendly with both the US and Iran, so how about it?
Joel Mark (37): I am sickened by your naive comments, Frank.
Frank: I’m similarly sickened by the beating of war drums against Iran from the same crowd who were beating them against Iraq.
You remember, the same crowd who said “war was a last resort” over 5 years ago, and then vowed to the American people and their representatives that invading Iraq was absolutely necessary to the security of the US and the rest of the world?
Joel Mark,
Incidentally, I also have dear friends whose son just got back from a tour in Iraq as a USMC MP. Without a scratch, thankfully. (Though to hear him tell it, he nearly died of boredom.)
He’s still got 2 1/2 years left in his enlistment, and I’m praying he won’t have to go back there.
That’s not treasonous, is it?
Frank, do you really believe in your heart of hearts that Ahmadinejad is interested in talking? That he wants to resolve anything with the Israel or the West? I don’t.
Chas,
Long vowels “say” their name–a long A is pronounced like the letter of the alphabet, for example.
Short vowels have a softer sound: a short A is the “ah” sound you hear in “ball”. E = “eh” as in “bed”, and so on.
Was is generally singular and were is generally plural, except in the conditional, which is fancy talk for when you say things like “if”.
Example: She was going to the store. If she were also going to the bank, I would ask her to cash my check.
Hope that helps!
It’s hard to reconcile “Kill the infidel wherever he is found” and the idea of peace talks with said infidel….
A reasonably solid grounding in english grammar has helped me SO MUCH in spanish grammar.
I love my Spanish Grammar 303 class… It’s a blast.
TomBob,
hola! (complete with upside down exclamation mark that only Peter L is authorized to use on here)
Karen,
I think that’s generally true. Generally I can’t actually remember “the rules,” but just how to use them (I’ve heard other editors say they’re the same way). With most words, I simply remember the proper spelling. But I have some I simply cannot remember, and rely on spell check or the dictionary (e.g., I’ve seen both “worshipping” and “worshiping” and know that both are acceptable, but I never remember which is the preferred–or is that prefered–spelling).
Sorry, Victoria. I’ll refund your tuition if you want.
NJLawyer,
What do we have to lose by asking Al Maliki to ask Ahmadinejad for a sit-down?
Don’t you find it the least bit odd that our friend Al Maliki is more than a bit friendly with our “Great Satan”?
Why not see if that relationship can be exploited to possibly avoid a war with Iran?
We’re holding all the cards. (At least, we seem to think so.) What do we have to lose?
(These are not hypothetical questions, NJL. I’d genuinely like to know what you think about them.)
Cheryl keep the tuition, I would never hear the end of it, if I took it back.
I wonder if Lynn is reading any of this stuff. If she is, I bet she’s getting a good laugh.
NJLawyer (28): Frank, are you aiming for a discussion on freedom of speech or freedom of religion?
Frank: Neither. I just found the story interesting.
But since this is a matter being raised by Anglican church leaders re. what transpires within their own congregations, I really don’t think there’s a “freedom issue” here either way.
Now if the British government was prohibiting the singing of the hymn — or for that matter requiring the church to allow it — there would be freedom issues galore at stake.
NJLawyer (28): I’ve always thought of the spiritual Jerusalem, not the city of Jerusalem in Israel, and I would have thought that’s what a church would think, too.
Frank: I’m only passingly familiar with the hymn because it’s on the “Chariots of Fire” soundtrack, which I had once a long time ago — and even then, I was quite unaware of the lyrics the choir was singing.
But reading the lyrics to the hymn, it is clearly about England more than Jerusalem, whether “spiritual” or otherwise.
NJLawyer (28): I’m not really surprised by this happening in Britain, it’s the home of political correctness.
Frank: Elaborate, please. The vicars cited in the article all seem to agree that the hymn neither worships nor glorifies God. What makes you think they are acting out of “political correctness”?
Cameron, I understand the plural part. It’s the was/were going to the bank that usually causes trouble.
TomBob: I took Greek for my foreign language requirement in college. My main problem is that I didn’t know enough English to learn Greek. e.g.
“There is no indefinite article in Greek.”. I still remember that statement was Greek to me.
But I remember having to explain “article” to a lady at work who has a master’s degree.
Victoria, we have probably given Lynn a two week setback.
MUMSEE
No puedo ver el punto de exclamación, pero me aprecio el pensamiento.
Si Ud. quiera hablar mas español, espere por casi dies años, y toda la gente en Estados Unidos necesitan hablar español.
Entonces Ud. podrá hablar en español con todos.
Chas…
it’s amazing what people don’t know sometimes.
My spanish professor had to explain what a direct object is at the beginning of the year.
This is a 300-level class… you’d think they’d know by now!
NJLawyer,
Sorry for beating a dead horse, but I just noticed something in your question at (46):
“Frank, do you really believe in your heart of hearts that Ahmadinejad is interested in talking? That he wants to resolve anything with the Israel or the West? I don’t.”
Truth be told, I really don’t “believe” much of anything about Ahmadinejad “in my heart of hearts.” Other than that he is a leader (mostly a figurehead, I think) in an oppressive and possibly dangerous nation right next door to a nation where our military is currently, uh, “involved.”
But I do believe that our current leaders would rather attack Iran than talk with her leaders.
I believe that in my heart of hearts.
Tell me I’m wrong.
mumsee #50- hola! (complete with upside down exclamation mark that only Peter L is authorized to use on here)
¡Cuida! (Careful), Victoria may accuse you of giving me authority without her permission!
Cheryl- In your (not you’re or yore) spelling lesson, you (not ewe or yew) forgot “they’re” (they are) with there/their.
Cheryl just got caught by Peter L.
Another GOLD AWARD for Peter!
I won’t tell you that you are wrong. I think they’re thinking in Washington about military action in Iran. But I also think Iran is looking for trouble, too. Even if Ahmadinejad is a figurehead and his strings are pulled by the mullahs, the mullahs themselves are no prize, and they don’t talk. I don’t think they are any better in attitude than bin Laden. What I found “troubling” in your post at 58 is that you seem to be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt before our own leaders. I get the feeling that you have a problem with the US being an ally of Israel.
I was calling the British nation in general the home of political correctness. I did read the verses in the article, but I had a different chorus in mind, so based on someone else’s comment and your own, I think I may have confused this song with another. The legislature over there has enacted statutes that makes saying certain things impermissible, and I guess I took this to be an anti-Christian, not exactly pro-Muslim thing. They never seem to shut up imams, just Christians. I really didn’t mean to start anything. I was just wondering where you were going with this by mentioning it.
Oh, but do you think Iran wants to resolve its differences with Israel peacefully via dialogue?
Yup NJL,
If he buys that line, I got a watch and some prime swampland in the antarctic that I’ll sell him.
Frank:
Thanks for the link–I’ll check it out.
Long vowels say their name.
Short vowels
a-apple
e-eskimo
i-imp
o-ox
u-umbrella
NJLawyer (61): I get the feeling that you have a problem with the US being an ally of Israel.
Frank: I would expect you to know from my posts over the last few years that our apparent unquestioning support for Israel does, indeed, trouble me. Especially considering our strange acceptance of their official explanation for their attack on the USS Liberty, over the objections of scores of her crew or their survivors.
I’ve never made it a secret that I’m a staunch Ron-Paulian re. the concept of foreign aid. Including military aid. And most especially, including military to both sides of an apparent conflict (Saudi Arabia et al. v. Israel).
But that has nothing to do with my amazement at our refusal to sit down and dialogue with the Iranian leaders. This matter concerns the US, Iraq (whose nation our military forces are occupying/defending — take your pick), and Iran.
So, we have concerns re. Iran’s “designs” against Israel? Those concerns may very well be a legitimate.
So why don’t we sit down face-to-face w/Iran’s leaders and talk about it?
No, we’d rather hang our entire “we’re-military-allies-with-Israel” policy on a speech in which Ahmadinejad quoted something that Ayatollah Komeini said decades ago, and which has a legitimate possible “alternate understanding” other than “Iran will destroy Israel.”
Granted, Iran’s official news agency didn’t help matters any by inaccurately translating Ahmadinejad’s citation of Khomeini’s remarks.
But are you even aware that there are at least two intellectuals — both of whom speak farsi, and neither of who are at all fond of Ahmadinejad — who claim that the “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map” interpretation is a rather unfortunate mistranslation of what Ahmadinejad actually said? If not, it’s not really your fault — that’s the interpretation that both our media and our gummint repeat over and over.
I urge you to read the following:
1) “‘Wiped off the Map’ – The Rumor of the Century” by Arash Norouzi, May 26, 2007:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
2) Juan Cole’s “Informed Comment” blog post, dated May 03, 2006:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
As I said, neither Norouzi nor Cole have any love whatsoever for Ahmadinejad. But they don’t want to see this lie continue to be spun to help lead us to another useless war.
And we refuse to talk to Iran … why, NJLawyer?
From where I sit, it’s because we’d rather have another excuse — another arrow in our quiver of pretexts — for military action against Iran … someday. (And perhaps sooner than we realize.)
If it was reported to me by several friends that they heard a man say he wanted to hurt one of my friends, would it be better for me to sit down with that man and ask him if this is true, or just to avoid him and assume that my friends are a) right, and/or b) completely objective and of the purest intent?
We have nothing to lose by sitting down with our friend Al maliki, and his friend Ahmadinejad, and asking Ahmadinejad some straight-from-the-hip questions about things like Iran’s nuclear program, her intentions re. Israel, etc.
Nothing to lose.
So why won’t we?
NJLawyer (62): Oh, but do you think Iran wants to resolve its differences with Israel peacefully via dialogue?
Frank: I must say, in a discussion of Bush, Al Maliki and Ahmadinejad, I find your continued interest in Israel’s well-being interesting.
That said, Israel is nevertheless an ally of ours. So let’s make it a foursome:
Bush and Olmert (or Peres), across the table from Al Maliki and Ahmadinejad. C’mon, boys, let’s get started on getting this thing settled.
What, are they afraid that them Ay-rabs have cooties?
To Frank in Phoenix: I must admit, Brother, that when I saw your post on the hymn being sung in Britain, the only thought in my mind was the boys choir singing “Jerusalem” at the end of Chariots of Fire. I too, loved that soundtrack (which I still listen to on cd). Although it seems to some (politically correct brits) to be too nationalistic, one must consider the authors nationality. He was a brit! Still Frank, I am glad you posted the links. Now I finally have the words to go along with the tune, every time I listen to the Chariots soundtrack.
Thank you muchly!
Thanks Cameron and Bob. I never got good English training. A roommate (& friend) in college said of the English dept. “They assume you know grammar. If you don’t already know it, you won’t learn it here.” I’ve learned some from my wife who says she used to diagram sentences for amusement. I hated diagraming.
(My first sentence illustrates what I mean. But I’m not going to change it.)
Look, Frank, I bought Israeli wine for Passover yesterday!
I’m doing the Kosher thing, ya know!
Seriously, I am not against speaking with the Iranians, but I have to tell you that I don’t believe it will be fruitful. I have nothing against putting their feet to the fire. I think speaking to them will prove that they have no interest in peace at all — just like the people they fund, i.e., Hamas. You want a deadline. Give the Muslims a drop-dead date for deciding about Israel: can it exist or not? See what you get.
Honestly, Iran doesn’t border on Israel, so I don’t see why Israel should even be an issue for them — unless this is more about Islam than anything else. I care about the Canadian and Mexican borders, the people who fly in, and sometimes Cuba, but I don’t really lose sleep about anything south of Mexico. Why would little Iran care about what goes on even smaller Israel?
I’m not saying the Israelis are always 100% right. That’s simply not true. But when I look at their enemies, I don’t see one country that uses its money to help its people or the Palestinians or Muslims in general. They’re really no different than Mr. Hitler. They need someone to blame for their own lack of initiative, their own lack of success. They need someone to hate. It’s easier to blame Israel than taking a hard look at their vicious religion, their subjugation of women, their lack of industry, etc.
I’ll sit with them — but I’ll make the talks public, kinda like C-Span, so people can see that they speak in circles.
NJL,
Thanks for your thoughts.
And have you looked at the two articles to which I linked in (66)?
I’ve looked at them. Now I will agree that “wipe off the map” is inflammatory, certainly blunt, but “vanish from the page of time” pretty much means the same thing to me. It’s like a first class train car to Auschwitz — but you’re still going to Auschwitz.
The second article has this quote: “He (Admadinejad) said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.”
Our friend Ahmadinejad also spoke about the Palestinian NATION — which didn’t exist 60-70 years ago. Borders change all the time. (Just a month ago, we had Bosnia declare its independence.) When asked a straight yes or no question about Israel’s right to exist, however, Ahmadinejad wouldn’t answer. Someone dealing in good faith would answer and at least attempt to clear up the “true” meaning of the words in question. He doesn’t.
Frank,
In several of your posts on this thread you have made the inaccurate assertion that the United States refuses to talk with the Iranians. You have made this assertion to bolster your long held, and again inaccurate view, that the U.S. is the primary aggressor, that we have no interest in diplomacy, and we are only seeking to build up sufficient excuses to attack Iran. Our supposed refusal to talk, demonstrates, according to you that we are the villains in this conflict. I disagree on both counts. We are talking and we are not the villains.
Your view is naïve. History repeatedly reveals, after conflicts have ended, that on-going private diplomatic contacts between belligerents have been the norm. For obvious reasons these cannot be made public at the time. The current conflict is no exception.
Or, rather than being simply naïve, perhaps your rhetoric is just purposely deceptive in order to make the case for your politics.
In either case, I offer the following assessment to show that your view is just plain nonsense.
Michael,
Just logged on at lunch, and saw your post. Will read it soon as I post this. Looks interesting — thank you.
NJLawyer,
The issue that both Norouzi and Cole raise is not so much whether the correct simile is that Israel will be “wiped of the map” or that they will “vanish from the page of time.” They both discuss some of the translational details of this simile, but that’s not their main point.
Rather, the primary issue is whether or not Ahmadinejad said anything like, “Iran will wipe Israel off the map” or “We will make them vanish from the page of time.”
Taking Norouzi and Cole at their words (not speaking Farsi myself), Ahmadinejad’s statement was 1) a quote of Ayatollah Komeini, who said 2) that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” (Norouzi) or “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time” (Cole).
I’m no grammar expert, but even I can tell the difference between somebody saying that something “must happen” (i.e., eventually) or that something “should happen” (indicating hopefulness), as opposed to “I am going to make this happen” (indicating that I intend to be the primary actor in bringing it about).
E.g., Kruschev saying “We will bury [the US]” (which he did say!) is not the same thing as saying “The US will someday be buried.”
It happens to be quite convenient for those who seem to be itching for a military confrontation with Iran to claim that Ahmadinejad said, “Iran will wipe Israel off the map,” when it sure seems to me that he/Khomeini actually said something more like, “The regime that occupies Jerusalem will eventually fail” (i.e., vanish from history).
I guess the proper way to characterize the grammer is that Ahmadinejad’s statement was passive, not active. “This must occur to the regime in Jerusalem,” not “We will cause this to happen.”
To put it another way, Lincoln didn’t wipe the South off the map, but he did cause the Confederate regime to cease to exist. Now if a contemporary foreign leader who was sympathetic to Lincoln’s cause had said, “The Confederate regime must fail and disappear from history,” that’s not the same thing as saying, “We are going to help Lincoln wipe the South off the map.”
I hope you’ll read Norouzi’s and Cole’s pieces thoroughly if you haven’t already. They both make the case quite clear. (Certainly clearer than I am making it!)
Frank, I came back to this thread because I just looked at the abortion as art thread, and I am so stunned by the fact that anyone did this — either that or my sugar is way off — that I’m not sure I can turn my thoughts to Iran and make sense.
I understand what you’re telling me regarding the grammar, but honestly, that sounds like a lawyer game to me. It reminds me of Clinton’s “that depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
If I could ask Ahmadinejad questions, they would be simple yes or no questions, i.e., does the nation of Israel have a right to exist? Yes or no? Do you plan to invade or assist financially or by any other means with an invasion of Israel with the sole purpose of destroying it? Yes or no.
And I would give him 30 seconds to answer. They are simple questions. I’m all for putting the Iranians to the test. Go for it, I don’t think you’re going to get an answer. Ever.
NJLawyer,
I understand fully your concerns about ne’er-do-wells who misuse language to try and subtlely deceive their hearers. Yes, Clinton and lawyers do come to mind. (Present company excepted, of course!)
Still, remember that, as Rush is so fond of saying: Words mean things.
And I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of asking Ahmadinejad straight questions.
Still, don’t take my word on the grammar/linguistics thing. I hope you don’t mind my asking: Did you ever read Norouzi’s and Cole’s pieces?