Can anyone add content to Ahmadinejad's Blog? I try to find out.

I can not express criticism of your rule without first acknowledging my criticism of rule in the USA. I have plenty and so do millions, millions of others.. I freely read these dally in prominent, freely run newspapers, blog posts and openly discussed in public forums and in the presence of the state and federal authority.

How free do those subjects you rule over at the behest of your Almighty God, the All-Knowing, the Most Lovingly Compassionate feel in discussing matters of national interest, leadership, the path of the country, policy and military? Is there a free press, in-fact are there hundreds of free press organizations which are capable of printing even the most scandalous and scathing reports about how people feel about you? Are they allowed to express in cartoon characterizations how they feel about you or your policies? Can they freely wish you were in jail or dead or kicked out of office-impeached? Do you even believe that this kind of decent exists in Iran or are you still hiding behind the perception that what one does not see does not exist? Do you still hold to the belief that there are no homosexuals in Iran?

Do you wish to see a world in which ALL citizens and countries ruled by Islamic Governance? Is there any room in your head, heart or soul for diversity? Is there room for blacks, asians, hispanics, and a myriad of other genetically distinct tribes and varieties of human to inhabit this vast planet of ours? Is the world you envision limited to Islam?

You speak ardently of an Almighty God, the All-Knowing, the Most Lovingly Compassionate. Did not this Almighty God, the All-Knowing, the Most Lovingly Compassionate create out of it's wisdom all these differences amongst people? Is it not then easy to interpret that the plan is to get along with all these different types of people? Could you actually believe it possible this Almighty God, the All-Knowing, the Most Lovingly Compassionate wishes you to cleanse the world of anyone different from you? If not, how do you explain it? How do you explain this diversity from one god?

You must for the sake of peace at the likely expense of your pride and that of your countries, allow IAEA in to verify openly and without any restriction your nuclear intent. I feel for you, the devastating hypocrisy being displayed by the USA and other countries who possess not only nuclear energy but nuclear weapons as well. And to top it all off, it was the USA who first used WMD against another country. Imagine that, that we would have the audacity and temerity to insist upon your compliance!

Well, for one who has been steeped in American media, I have no other perspective save for that of my own wits in deciphering truth from propaganda. With all due respect, your history of proclaiming your desire for the destruction of Israel leaves one with the impression that should you possess these, it would not be without desire to use them. Of course this makes no sense especially within the context of your Almighty God, the All-Knowing, the Most Lovingly Compassionate. But given the climate of rising radical islamic hatred of the west and to whom the west supports, namely, Israel, it is not without reason you are distrusted by more than the USA. All government should be open, transparent. This is especially applicable to this country of mine, the USA. There has been too much cover-up in this administration and it will be gone soon enough. Our president has the dubious honor of having one of the lowest approval ratings in American presidential history. I disagree with plenty he and our near impotent congress and senate have allowed him to get away with.

All I ask as a free citizen of the USA is that you openly declare your belief in the right of Israel to coexist in peace with the islamic community. That you no longer harbor malevolence for the sovereignty of this nation and that you will never seek to acquire nuclear weapons or other WMD with the intent to use them on Israel or another nation preemptively. This countries policy of preemption is intolerable for the majority of free living citizens in the US. Many are even supporting a presidential candidate with more severe isolationist ideologies.

I supported your right to speak freely in this country when you did so at Columbia University. My opinion was even published in the free press. I was also somewhat offended at the reception the Dean of Columbia gave you, but not entirely so. It was imprudent to use that venue to cast aspersions when he should have been openly declaring the greatness of our constitution which allows for the sharing of ideas through free speech no matter who is sharing them. But what can you expect of a politician who succumbs to the pressure to rebuke!

Freedom is a peoples right and an individuals right to exercise in a responsible manner. I hope to hear words of peace emanate
from your mouth, words of hope for a free world, free of war and talk of war. Free of inter-religious hate and free of self-righteous gallimaufry. You must be an example to the world, a beacon unto all nations, that you are about peace and brotherhood, life and liberty, compassion and concern for the downtrodden. Not just about maintaining power. It is the will of the people who are most important in governance. Be a wellspring of hope that all nations will live side by side, each within its own set of beliefs, whether it be religious or not and let us hear of your disdain for the actions of radicals who seek to destroy with no plan for creation.

You proclaim fidelity to your Allah. That Allah is a Most Lovingly Compassionate God. And as you found guidance and truth in Nahjul Balagha, I would expect you exemplify these precepts through actions that reflect on the great words of this text and rule with them in mind just as Allah expects you to keep Allah in the forefront of your thoughts.

Go in peace, Mr. President, lead in peace.

Too early for the zeitgeist of post war liberation, Mr. Brooks!

David Brooks wrote an opinion on why he believes there is less talk about the war in Iraq. I sought to correct him.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/opinion/11brooks.html

Mr. Brooks:

I am a bit surprised by the irresponsibility and casual disregard in which you speak of a post war mentality. I haven't heard any end to hostilities, haven't seen all our troops come home yet and haven't heard from any government official what we are going to do with the billions per month we are now not spending on the military sans the rebuilding costs. That is the obvious. For all the general publics ADD, which I might add the press exacerbates with commentary such as yours, the war is still a major issue all debate monitors are questioning about and the candidates are speaking about. Just because the public asks less and less about it might just be a reflection on just how much the press is reporting about it. Or is it the press that is jumping the gun here, fed up with the whole war issue like we are talking or bickering over the price of a used car? Many of us take our lead from you-the press-because that is the purpose of a free press, to keep the public informed of all important and non-important events in a society. If you stop talking we stop listening.

Look, Does the NYTimes have an issue (or you personally perhaps) with the betterment of the situation that has been reported as of late on the ground in Iraq? Because if that is the etiology of your supposition, then I have quite a bone to pick with you all. If the Republicans who supported the deployment of further troop numbers are tasting the fruits of their policy at the consternation of the Dems and that bothers you or the times, I have much to worry about with regard to the integrity-a word much inclined to use these pending primary days-of the press and maybe less from perspective leaders of the free world.

Hey, I am no red stater, not by a long shot. But I won't disparage a policy I might have disagreed with if I find that it might be working. If indeed the build-up is serving its purpose, then REPORT IT. It isn't the papers place to only report what it wants to or in a manner that might slant public opinion.

I hope you give this at least a few minutes of thoughtful reflection. No need to respond unless it means something to you. I rather think it might make a good LTTE.

Some people make me feel like I should read some more.

This R&R is my response, as uneducated as it might be regarding an opinion from Stanley Fish of the NYTimes titled:
Integrity or Craft: The Leadership Question, Here is the website address -

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/integrity-or-craft-the-leadership-question/?em&ex=1197522000&en=1d1e3ac51fc5e5bc&ei=5087%0A

Man do I feel ignorant! I am so happy to have stumbled upon this article and discussion.
Let me get this straight, please…I am against abortion but do not want to forge laws preventing it for various reasons that are sound and principled; what does that make me? Do I have integrity because I maintain my position against it to any one but do nothing legislatively to prevent it? If that is the case, integrity is the lest of a persons qualifications to serve in office. No? Those who genuinely demonstrate integrity wham it matters are those who would throw their bodies on a grenade to save their buddies or fellow civilians. What good will integrity beget them? A metal at their funeral.

A person who says they will do this or that because they believe that this is the way to lead a people and does that, that is whom I want to lead. Better yet, one who inspires people to take responsibilities for their very lives is who I want. A pretty speech isn’t good enough though. I want an orchestra conductor, so we all play in tune and in synch.
Let us effect the changes necessary. For this populace to rely on elected leaders is lazy, unengaged and imprudent. WE ALL KNOW we have been unable to trust our leaders as of late, we all complain about it. Let the people take back the government in a peaceful fashion. Raised voices in unison will grab the ear of those we elected to be in power. We are the ones in power and we have forgotten that.

Until the day comes that we as a people are more concerned with what is going on in all of our lives and not just our life will we ever see the light of day in assuring progress in this United States of America. United we stand, divided we bow down. Postures of supplication must end. We are a people not sheep. It is time we heard our own voices.
As much as we want a G-d to call down from on high to guide us, we also want a strong person to bring us into tune with one another so we can sing the praises of our humanity.

A baptist minister for president?

A baptist minister for president? Why that's as funny as an actor for president. Oops.

I will admit in public that I have no ambition to see a theologian serve as president. While there is no exacting comparison to religious islamic leaders in say, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, to those that would serve in the United States, the prospect of one scares the wits out of me. Notice I did not say hell out of me. Yes, I am an atheist. But before you go, "Well, there you have it!", let me say that it has nothing to do with a belief in G_d or not. It has to do with the way people of faith tend to look at those either without it or of a different faith. At the very least, all atheists are alike but one cannot say that about all religious, G_d loving or G_d fearing people. (G_d=respect for your beliefs). People of G_d seem to possess self-righteousness because they follow a religious tenet and dogma that makes them that way by default. I don't think they can help it. At least I have never meet any devout believers who don't look at me with some sort of pity or disdain or a combination of both. Even my own brother whom I would never have thought would embrace the concept of G_d does so as to affirm the very reason for his/our existence, that without it, there can be no meaning. So be it.

But with the rhetoric of religion and the belief in G_D comes the inevitable,
"I get my wisdom and guidance from G_D". And that is the scary part. How many people have been convicted of violent crimes and declared that G_d made them do it? Don't we find these people really sick? And given the fact that history is replete with scriptural stories of G_d talking to man, man talking and praying to G_d, isn't it a bit disingenuous to be condemning people who believe G_d is talking to them? Isn't that the fervent hope and manifestation of faith of all G_d loving beings for G_d to select them for speaking directly to? If they get their wisdom and guidance from G_d, just how did they get it? I would like to ask anyone running for president if G_D has spoken to them directly. How would you feel about that if their answer was unequivocally yes? What if it was no?

Be it as it may that most laws in western society are derived in principle from biblical and religious doctrine, our government can not be administered from a position of theology. I don't mind if leaders believe in G_d; actually, I really do, but I am tolerant enough for now to accept this as the norm in this society; I just don't want to feel that the basis for their important decisions stem from conversations with G_d or church leaders or reference to the holy scripture. I/we have already been the recipient of a great dose of this from G. W. Bush.

Mike Huckabee frightens me for these reasons. He pardons on advice of minions of the church. What ever qualities he may possess outside of this-wait, there are no qualities outside of this. He is defined by his religion. He is inescapably bound at the hip; it is the most fundamental part of his being that he is a man of G_d and faith and church. The closer we move to a theocracy, the more trouble we will get ourselves into. The sooner we wake up to the fact that critical and logical thinking will help us dig out of the quagmires we are in, the sooner we can all share a world of peace and joy.

Iran is not a nuclear threat, really?

This R&R is a comment I made regarding an editorial written by NY Times columnist, Helene Cooper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/us/politics/08web-cooper.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Cooper,%20Helene

No matter what has been happening in Iran as far as their nuclear ambitions, they are a clear and present danger and must be kept under watchful eye by this government and others as well. In fact all radical islamic regimes are suspect when it comes to this country’s national security as was evidenced by 9/11 here, the tube terrorism in England and the attacks in Spain, Indonesia, ad infinitum. With the possible exception of the United States, and I say this with a sense of cheeky humor, radicalized arab nations pose the single greatest threat to all peace-loving sovereign nations. But because of OIL, we are overly careful in asserting our higher principles of equality for all, preferring to instead offer up our more noble and higher principles of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for political and economic expediency. If we pull ahead in the world in the development of alternative energy sources, we will be the ones all nations will turn to for their energy needs. We will be the new middle east.

Nothing that happens on the democratic or republican side will act as a watershed moment in this political season. Most people have already made up their minds along party lines. I can not imagine any one candidate from either party offering enough substance that is a departure from the usual rhetoric to sway that much opinion. We are a stubborn people propelled into action through a crisis management mentality rather than proactive considerations. I hope all of you do your homework like I am doing; for the first time I feel engaged and compelled to learn about ALL the candidates in both parties.

Brain scans not fingerprints for behavior

This is a response to an article printed in "Slate" online magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/2179392/fr/flyout

In the real world of medicine, signs and symptoms that might relate to brain function or rather dysfunction (based on science) are routinely investigated via CT scans , MRI scans PET scans or other. If the scans reveal a physiological basis for the patients presenting symptoms (behavior) then the diagnosis is made. Usually stroke, in the form of hemorrhage or clot. Sometimes chronic vascular changes can be identified as a culprit in changing behavior patterns. Perhaps a tumor or other vascular maliday. The point here is to make clear that the scans are done to confirm or rule out illness, not to discover it without having a history of behavioral changes. In other words, it is highly unlikely that any single person can have a blind scan that will reveal whether they are fit for the duty of U.S. President due to physiological changes especially if not comparable to a previous scan of the same type or known behavioral manifestations. Chemical imbalances in the brain that result in depression, schizophrenia, manic or bipolar tendencies or antisocial personality traits have yet to be proven conclusively and repeatedly demonstrable on scans.

I am not against this investigative research, so long as it is done under the auspices of true science. Brain scans are not fingerprints to identifying etiologies of behavior, not by a long-shot, at least yet given the current technology. But I also have no problem allowing the press to publish preliminary data by any sort of research affiliate as I do not wish to impose censorship on a free press. So long as the information is not damaging to the public welfare and not done for the exclusive purpose of profit, I want to be informed of opinion on all aspects of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This gentleman, Dr. Amen, having graduated from Oral Roberts University, in my opinion, immediately negates any scientific research he may have been doing especially since he claims he is doing this at the behest of god. Perhaps he needs a scan to see if his brain has been rewired into a cross. Enough said.

To emphasize this point, we scan when there are behavioral changes. Hence, one merely needs to look at the behavior of candidates inclusive of their voting record to determine if they are fit for duty. Scanning is the lazy mans way of doing due diligence when one wishes to cast an informed vote for this high position. Lets get real. This country doesn't need anymore reason to sit on a couch and flip channels by having our candidates culled from a series of, at best, weakly speculative cerebral scans.

Regarding Mitt Romney's speech

It can be found at: http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/sns-ap-romney-text,0,2110328.story

Because I am an atheist, I hold a skeptical impression of those running for elected office, stemming from the fear I have about religious tenants and politics not mixing. Even though the law of the land is based upon religious ideologies, I get this sickening worry that people who believe in god will also believe they will hear god talking to them like so many individuals convicted of violent crimes because they confess that god told them to do it. We have pretty much determined that these folks have a chemical imbalance that perpetuates these thoughts and are unable to fight them off unless on medications which effectively, if with serious side effects, eliminate them. I mean all these people with faith in god, a written and oral history of god talking to people, people talking to god through prayer and anyone who suggests that god has spoken to them is deemed a lunatic. It make no sense to me. How is it that god cannot speak to us in the open, only in our hearts? There is no logic (thats faith) and I believe peoples brains are better suited for critical thinking then for faith based thinking which I believe is lazy and ignorant. (it is just an opinion, not an attack)

With this in mind, when a candidate for president of the USA declares that his faith, "...is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We're a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency ", I get plenty fearful. George W. Bush felt compelled to attack Iraq in some sense out of a religious morality, that god himself has required of him to do such a thing as evidenced by what he states himself: I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's one part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can't tell you how encouraged how I am to see freedom on the march. And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me. And religion is a part of me." In other words, his imperatives are a calling from god to act, as I see it. I do not see that they would be any different for Mitt Romney. Many of you will dismiss that as poor interpretation or reading out of context. Fine. I accept that. But he said what god wants is what his foreign policy is derived from. That is scary s*#t. I wait for your comments and attacks.

Click here to check out
The New York City Photography/Photo Safari Meetup Group!

Click here to check out
The New York Mac Meetup Group!

...the right to life..doesn't this extend to the right to live if healthcare can effect this?

This R&R is in response to an AMNY.com article that appears on its website and in its daily paper edition:

http://www.amny.com/news/local/ny-bc-ny--attacks-health1203dec03,0,6117990.story

This is thee perfect example of healthcare for profit, not for the sake of helping people. Why the heck should people have to fight for their right to adequate and cost-effective healthcare, and it is a right so long as people have a Declaration of Independence right to life, liberty...etc! This is a sham and and a shame and people, especially our elected pols, need to fight back and demand healthcare for all. If France, England and Canada can do it and their economies are stable, why can't we? This 9/11 money was allocated for disbursement, not to be litigated over ad infinitum. What kind of legacy is established when we can't or won't help those in need? Where are the family values in it? I guess I am not apart of your family, is that it? It is no wonder God is written on our money. Its as if to say, God can be equated with money, therefore, God is money, money is our god. Perhaps it would be better to take the words, In God We Trust, off the dollar and put instead: In Profit We Trust. Healthcare for profit is a failure. The HMO managed care model is a failure.(Unless gaged on its profitability). How can a sane society which espouses family values and the best healthcare system on the planet allow people to die because they can not afford to live? Are we all insane? Where is the humanity in charging for basic rights? I have no problem paying a fraction more to cover everyone. Lets get real and prove we care about the citizens of the USA and wash ourselves of the healthcare lobbyists who line the pockets of our senators and congressional leaders.

This R&R is in response to Metro's News article regarding inclusion criteria for the list of those murdered on 9/11

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Toxic_dust_death_outrage/10939.html

I profoundly understand the emotional reaction of family, friends and general citizens regarding the medical examiner's decision not to classify Officer Godbee's death as a homicide. (He was not present during the attacks). This then begs the question: were his traffic directing duties city sanctioned? Was he on payroll for this duty or did he volunteer for this service? Walking into an unknown risk to perform city ordered work as an officer should be well covered under workman’s comp and he should be given comendation for duty above and beyond the call of duty. This does not constitute murder. If he volunteered to stand in that toxic environment, for me, this does not constitute murder either as the ME puts it, and I agree with that delineation. It is because the circumstances of the effects of that cloud were unknown, many feel he is a deservedly appropriate candidate for inclusion on the list of those killed that day and days and years after. It’s a tough call and in light of the fact that trusted pols declared the area safe to return to, I’d say that if he gets included on this list, the family should then sue these pols for murder for prematurely and irresponsibly considering the city’s economic recovery over the health and life of it very citizens who create that economy!