Okay, okay. I must admit it took me SOME time to figure out why exactly Iran's new ultra-conservative president Ahmadinejad keeps furiously throwing about caustic and derisive remarks (e.g. Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth; the Holocaust didn't happen; we're going to have uranium enrichment and you don't have to like it). At first I thought, oh, this fool just wants to solidly place himself in the minds of his people, as the brazen defender of Iran against the nefarious hegemony of the Western nations & Israel. Then I thought, well, perhaps its more of a passing phase of empty nationalist rhetoric designed to endear himself as a 'true' Iranian and patriot à la LePen, Kim Jong-Il, or Cheney. After further analysis of political posturing I came up with the profound idea that, "this fool's crazy."
But alas, it may in fact be not related to potential schizophrenia or Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. It may be due to the same reason why short cops give tickets, 90-pound women love SUVs, and George Dubya can't seem to quit pissing the world off.
The Paris newspaper Le Monde recently ran an article on Ahmadinejad's current diplomatic trip to Syria. Upon inspection of the accompanying photograph I discovered that homeboy is short as hell! After a relatively simple Google search, apparently this abrasive little Persian is a diminutive 5 feet 2 inches...ahem...tall. My message to him is, its not so terrible being short (of note: this I surmise given my lack of experience in this area). Some of the best...er...consequential leaders of the world were short, right? Let's see.
Teddy Roosevelt?
- Oh crap, 5'10
Napolean?
- Oh wait, actually given a historical snafu he's was actually a more than an 18th-century-respectible 5'6". Hmm....maybe this is a poor approach.
Well, at least we can count on Alexander the Great.
- He was 5 foot even...albeit half-blind, physically hideous, and with all the social adroitness of a feral bear. Not to say that this former conquerer of Persia has anything to do with you, of course, Mr. Ahmadinejad.
But in regards to his recent fervent assertions of interest in uranium enrichment (read as scientific exploration in Iran and nuclear war head in Washington), I'm very torn.
On one hand:
1. Iran isn't exactly stable or friendly. There's the whole 1979 Revolution, Iran-Iraq war, governmental saturation with radical ideologues, and most recently a breaking of an agreement with France, Germany, and the UK to stay out the reactor cupboard. Now, just so we're clear, the US can be said to be guilty of two of the above, but at least we don't try to make our beautiful women shroud their pretty black hair. That's simply unconscionable.
2. Recent Ahmadinejad remarks pains one to find logic at risking political and economic isolation just for some pipette pushing or paying the electric bill.
3. They just ain't right, don't trust 'em (they of course being an Iranian cleric-run government)
On the other.
1. Its difficult to assert that anyone does not have the right of scientific discovery, especially given Iran's strong history in the sciences. This is based on the assumption that weapons aspirations are unquestionably and emphatically undesired.
2. The subject of much deserved and misguided vitriol, Israel is the owner of nuclear weapons much to the chagrin of their neighbors, and Western pleas for a non-nuked Arab world would be hypocritical. We helped the Hebrews and haven't disarmed ourselves.
3. They just aint right, don't trust 'em (they of course being a US Bush & Co.- run government).
Though the thought of a nuclear-capable Iranian is a frightening as a nuclear-capable Bush Administration, I can't be mad at them. Interestingly enough, if we examine the so-called Axis of Evil, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, the only country that Bush & Co. publicly assert they won't f&!k with is North Korea.
The North Korea that broke UN seals, performed rogue enrichment, and has nuclear arms at the ready.
Ahmadinejad doesn't sound so crazy.
But he's still tiny.
I recently read aWashington Post article that absolutely ticked my fancy. Now this may be a secret to a number of you out there, but 'intrinsic bias' (that feeling that compels one to clutch purses tighter in Harlem) seems to be related to the voting for W. In other words those that showed an bias against Black faces tended to vote more often for our current President. And although I could have told them this, this study is certainly an amusing and provacative academic curiosity. The primary investigator gave quite a stimulating thought:
