Renee and Iran

So Iran has admitted to mass causalities. A place that has actual repression. A place where women are actually stoned to death for not dressing properly. A place where the female protestors are removing hijabs as a protest and literally getting killed for it. Such actions demonstrate that at the least many Muslim women are not wearing them voluntarily, as our left wing often claims. Over here, we have one unfortunate death where a protestor was caught on camera being violent, leading to her death. Yet we are trying to equate the two. In fact, not even equating the two, but basically ignoring Iran, because that would mean admitting we have a problem with an Islamic nation and conceding our problems aren't so bad.

Why can't the left criticize Islam? They're very good at criticizing authoritarianism here (while quite guilty of it themselves) then wear hijabs to show support for that religion while the Muslim citizenry in Teheran are being shot for removing theirs.

I'm going to say it: the sanctimony of the protestors is simply appalling. They see the splinter in our eyes while not the plank in theirs.

What happened to Renee Good was tragic yet ultimately avoidable if she had simply done as ordered, even if you believe the ICE agents acted wrongly. There's a very easy to follow rule in this country: do what the officer says and you will almost always (because I understand that authorities are subject to act wrongly...yet the exception does not negate the rule) walk away alive. Remove your face covering in Iran and You. Get. Shot.

The United States isn't perfect. But it's a damn sight better than most of the rest of the world, and it's about time our progressive friends admitted it. They can start by actual peaceful protesting, and not obstructing justice.

Time to leave the UN behind?

Yesterday, in a day of speeches which ranged, well, from the sublime to the ridiculous, the United Nations were a world forum of sorts. What long term use such a forum may offer is, or at least should be, a subject of debate.

The purpose of the body, one would think, is to work towards closer relationships among nations. Further, it is to seek long term stability and harmony among peoples, and perhaps overall we are expected to believe that it will lead eventually towards a stability which will insure security for all. But can that really happen when it is used as a sounding board for hatred, a bully pulpit for deranged leaders and rogue nations?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rambled to a half empty chamber about maybe being ready to work with the West while also attacking the those same nations in no uncertain terms. It did not sound as though Tehran actually wants dialogue.

Then the world stage was given over to a rant by Libya's Muammar Gaddafi which was called by at least one human rights activist, Geoffrey Robertson, "arguably the lowest point in that organization’s history." That in itself may be debatable, but it nonetheless demonstrates a real weakness in the whole idea of a United Nations: how can we really expect world peace and cooperation when we also give the insane ramblings of little more than mobsters who happen to be the heads of state the same standing as those of civilized countries?

If that is what the UN stands for, then perhaps we ought to consider something a bit more likely to produce true peace: smaller organizations of like minded, pro-Western nations which act in concert against these dictators. When Iran and Libya are granted equal stature with the United States and our allies, we do not advance our cause one whit. Indeed, we may be harboring long range moral equivalence. It is a road we travel at our peril.