Theocracy or Democracy? Is One Always Better?

Hmm,
I think I'll stick with a constitutionally anchored representative Democracy - like the US.
If we could survive the theocratic dictatorship of the christianists under shrub, we can survive anything.

In all seriousness - the danger with theocracies is that they are too easily abused. Democracies don't work very well, but they do tend to fend off the worst abuses, if only because each group of nasty, grasping people knows what will happen to them if the others are allowed too much power.

Can you imagine if Bush#43 had been able to appoint just one more justice?

Shudder.

Panthera,

I'm shuddering now that BHO is appointing racist justices to the Supreme Court. How I wish that GWB had gotten to replace Souter. We would actually have a majority on the court that respects and interprets the Constitution as it was written - not as they wish it was written.

A Letter to a Jewish Friend after reading your articles of late.

Dear Carole,
 
Kind of a well adjusted commentary,quite appropriate in light of the current situation in Iran, and equally applicable in light of the Christian Right,and many others who have never read the famous first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which I will take the liberty to quote:
 
 
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
 
The Laws of Nature and concept of Nature's God are not Abrahamic in origin, but Greek. Thoma Jefferson was neither a Mason nor a Christian. Regardless of belief,the Divine Rights of Kings which justified the moral actions of the The King of England, the Divine Rights of Kings, is substantiated by Christianity, and the Masonic Order id based on the Occult Powers of the Houses of King David and Solomon. It is kind of interesting to the visual arts lead by Tom Hanks and The Kid From Lassie, attempt to portray these real secrets of symbolic cults such as are hidden in the symbolic rites of the Biblical Cults. If they were even close they would never be in another movie in Hollywood. It is like the people who produced the Tolkien Trilogy, when they asked Hollywood for money they told them to hit the road. They would wind up in New Zealand and Australia bullshitting their way through astronomical budget deficits. This of course is due to the fact that these mythologies were what Hitler was in touch with when he took over Germany, possibly the most Masonic nation next to England. These secret symbolic cults rule the world in a very significant fashion as I have found out in oil painting, because we are also a secret symbolic cult. I often see Mozart's death in this light. The Russian composer Rimsky Korsakov accused Salieri of murdering Mozart, but even though nobody in the populist media realized it, the producers and directors did show the symbolism in the operas and in his composition of the Requiem, Mozart's Requiem. 
I just put over 170 oil paintings in a back bedroom, and have quit painting by this solstice when certain spirits rising in the aethers of the Collective Psyche might give me the needed mental punch to go forward to California where my son is entering film school. There is a good reason why a legitimate school of art beyond Abstract Expressionism has not been acknowledged or accepted. As a matter of fact, depending on how much you listen to Charlie Rose, listen for his interviews on modern art out of New York. He is right on the shortcomings of what is being done, and when they describe what they are looking for it is exactly what I am doing. But then there is the theological side of it, which is interpreted to me as just shut up about the theological and psychoanalytic overtones. 
Even in academic philosophy and theology, the only people willing to give me a chance are the Indians and Chinese. The Boards of Directors at most universities I have come into contact with, which is not by any means enough of a sample, I am by no means independently wealthy enough to continue on my own and they know my chances of getting recognition,money and a grant are approaching 0 rather than 1. 
It is equally depressing knowing Fathers' Day is approaching and I have been such a horrible parent because of this fanaticism. My only psychological rationality for this is it just had to be this way, knowing all the time it did not have to be. Some really crushing events concerning people I have known have seriously manifested themselves, my son's new screenplay being the brightest spot, and i add your letter to these significant bright spots.
I can only wish you well, WIth A Sincere Wish for YOUR HAPPINESS.
The Painter...
PS. Now attempting to organize my writings,one of which is a second edition of Religious & Symbolic Game Theory and more. I am even seriously thinking of applying to Barach Obama and Rahm Emmanuel to become the first Artist and Philosopher in residence at the White House. It is their duty to be aware of these shifts in Spirit effecting the governed. By the way I sent Barach Obama a copy of Religious & Symbolic Game Theory during his campaing. He is very much in line with this being a post Judeo-Christian Society. The new title for Religious& Symbolic Game Theory I am considering is Scripting a New Chapter In The Mind of God.  
 
 

Having been in transit during the start of the Iranian election protests, I've taken a little time to come up to speed on the issue. Scanning English-language (UK) papers in airports, I will say that my initial reaction to the euphoria I saw breaking out all over the West -- especially the US? -- to the obtusely labeled "green" revolution was, Why should we be so happy about Mousavi? When I learned that Mousavi was Mullah Rafsanjani's boy, that A-jad was Mullah Khameini's boy, my wonder deepened, as in: What's the diff? When I read John Bolton's piece at Politico noting that nobody runs for president in Iran without the express approval of the mullahs, my gut reaction was bolstered by some real facts. Here is Bolton's cheat sheet rundown:

First, only candidates screened and approved by the mullahs in the Guardian Council could run — in this case, exactly four presidential candidates out of nearly 500 who applied. Second, Iran’s highest official is not the president but, rather, the supreme leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Third, Iran’s election officials are not independent but rigorously controlled by the supreme leader. Fourth, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and other security forces stand ready, willing and able to preserve public safety if the “wrong” candidate appeared to win or protestd in defeat.

And fifth, whoever won wasn’t going to change Iran’s 20-year campaign to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons or its role as the central banker for international terrorism. The supreme leader and the IRGC control Iran’s foreign and national security policies, under both “reformist” presidents like Seyed Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) and incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad alike.

Credulous foreign reporters missed all of this....

You can say that again.

When Bolton further noted that Mousavi had been the Ayatollah Khomeini's prime minister that was more than enough for me. Still, there was more. As Bolton put it to Fox's Greta van Susteren:

Well, he [Mousavi] was the Ayatollah Khomeini's prime minister. I mean, let's get started there. So that qualifies him. He is the person who negotiated with A.Q. Khan to set up the beginnings of the Islamic revolution's nuclear weapons program. He's fully committed to Iranian terrorism, a lot of it began under his administration. So whatever changes there might be inside Iran, make no mistake, the foreign policy would remain essentially the same.

So what is the difference between A-jad and Mousavi? Andrew Bostom, who at his blog has been working through the all-important backstory and historical context wholly lost in this media spectacular, sent me this revealing translation, via MEMRI, of a recent debate between the two "candidates" that perfectly conveys the tweedledumness-tweedledeeness that is camouflaged by the media's emotional reaction to the drama of the street.Here's one point of "conflict" regarding the 2007 Iranian seizure of 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters: Does Mousavi disagree with this hostile act? No! Here is part of what he said:

"With regard to the release of the British sailors - these sailors invaded our territorial waters, and our forces arrived on the scene and detained them, which made us proud. This action was worthy of support. According to what I've just said, we declared, at first, that they should be executed for invading our territory. Thus we created a major international crisis. But later, we decided to dress them up in suits, and our own president - who, in terms of status and responsibility, represents the entire people, not himself - went to bid them farewell, sending them off on their way, in a ceremony the likes of which are held only for heads of state.

"This was the dreadful situation in which we found ourselves with England. Was this an act that maintained the honor of our country? I think not.

In other words, had Mousavi had been in charge, the Brits would quite likely have been a) further humiliated b) still in captivity or c) perhaps executed to better maintain "the honor" of Iran. Which doesn't sound too "moderate." Meanwhile, Mousavi also explains in this same debate that when it comes to A-jad's endless acts of Holocaust denial, Mousavi's beef is not that A-jad engages in ahistorical ravings, but that it is bad PR for Iran. So much for our favorite "reformer." And if all that's not enough, the man is a founder of Hezbollah (and his wife is on film stomping on an American flag...).

Isn't it time for the media to take a breath and rethink this one?

If a revolution occurs in Iran, it will not be about making one man president, but about ripping down the entire structure. The images that will be circulating, taken by the people, circulated about, will stir simmering anger into a frenzy. It may end peacefully before reaching that point, but if doesn't, it will be a primal bloodbath as anger which was previously held in check by fear incites the people into a frentic rage. I expect to see the oppressors killed in ways that will make everybody's guts turn. That is what happens when repressed anger overcomes fear in crowds.

Panthera,

A white male who said that his race and gender would make him better suited to judge than someone who did not share that race or gender would rightly be called racist and sexist. No double standards, please!!