Iranian cleric blames quake on promiscuous women

BBC:

Women who wear revealing clothing and behave promiscuously are to blame for earthquakes, an Iranian cleric says.

Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediqi, the acting Friday prayer leader in Tehran, said women should stick to strict codes of modesty to protect themselves.

"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes," he explained.

Tens of thousands of people have died in Iran earthquakes in the last decade.

Mr Sediqi was delivering a televised sermon at the Tehran University campus mosque last Friday on the need for a "general repentance" by Iranians when he warned of a "prevalence of degeneracy".

"What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble? There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam's moral codes," he said.

Correspondents say many young Iranians sometimes push the boundaries of how they can dress, showing hair under their headscarves or wearing tight-fitting clothes.

Remind me again how religion is a force for good in the world.

Realism 101

Stephen Walt explains China's motives on the issue of a nuclear Iran.

Weapons bound for Hezbollah

LGF:

The IDF has uploaded a video presentation showing the huge shipment of weaponry from Iran, intended for Hezbollah, that was intercepted this week by an Israel Navy commando force aboard the civilian ship Francop.

Judging the Obama team's talks with Iran

Shadow Government provides a framework.

The U.S.-Iranian triangle

Roger Cohen's latest op-ed on Iran's nuclear program makes my head hurt.

Next Beer Summit

And it goes a little something like this...

Red Stripe, the beer in the short, stubby, ugly bottle. If ugly people stand next to a Red Stripe, they look beautiful. You, Bibi. Yeah? Would you say that you're ugly? You are very ugly! Here, hold this Red Stripe. Look! You are beautiful.

Red Stripe, it's beer! Hooray beer! ... Says the beautiful man.

Addendum: here's the 'tube

Trouble

Still dead...

American and Iranian nationalism

Via hilzoy, Larison:

"Americanists believe that any statement from the President that fails to build up and anoint Mousavi as the preferred candidate is discouraging to Mousavi and his supporters, because they apparently cannot grasp that being our preferred candidate is to be tainted with suspicion of disloyalty to the nation. It is strange how nationalists often have the least awareness of the importance of the nationalism of another people. Many of the same silly people who couldn’t say enough about Hamas' so-called "endorsement" of Obama as somehow indicative of his Israel policy views, as well as those who could not shut up about his warm reception in Europe, do not see how an American endorsement of a candidate in another country's election might be viewed with similiar and perhaps even greater distaste by the people in that country."

Somewhat tangentially, I'm reminded of an Orwell quote:

"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

Guilty pleasures

I thought the Michael Jackson coverage would be a total bore, but some old gems have turned out to be surprisingly fun. From the Woot blog:

Moonwalker--this 1988 arcade game captures the creeping megalomania of the white-suit period, positing Michael as a whirling, moonwalking superagent on a mission to, yes, free the children from a villain unimaginatively named Mr. Big. In this clip, Michael trades the white suit for body armor. Best part: the special weapon that clears the screen by forcing all the baddies to dance offstage. Michael's military strategy was as forward-thinking as his beats.

An Eddie Murphy impression (NSFW language):



One of the most amazing tributes, Filipino prisoners dance to "Thriller":



And finally, an oddly moving Pepsi commercial:



Update: Of course Andrew had to go round up some Iran-themed vids.

Iran's Assembly of Experts

A real picture:

In case you're a little lost, a chart from the Beeb:

The responsibilities of the Assembly of Experts are to appoint the Supreme Leader, monitor his performance and remove him if he is deemed incapable of fulfilling his duties. The assembly usually holds two sessions a year.

Although the body is officially based in the holy city of Qom, sessions are also held in Tehran and Mashhad. Direct elections for the 86 members of the current assembly are held every eight years and are next due in 2014.

Members are elected for an eight year term. Only clerics can join the assembly and candidates for election are vetted by the Guardian Council.

The assembly is dominated by conservatives. Its current chairman is former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who lost the 2005 presidential election to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A different perspective on Iran

Via TBP...

Tidal channels near Iran's Qeshm Island. (NASA/JSC) [map]

A port near Bandar Abbas, Iran. (NASA/JSC) [map]

Keeping quiet

John Schwenkler is disappointed with Obama's latest remarks on Iran:

..having just lived through a period where the “international community’s” (proper) condemnation of our own nation’s unjust actions led to boycotts of French wine and frantic calls to “double Gitmo”, can it really be believed that being incessantly hectored about how best to run elections and deal with political protests is going to lead the Iranian government to be more respectful of liberal values? Of course not. No matter the thrill it might be for Americans to see the Leader of the Free World get up on his high horse, the people with the guns are going to view these words as a provocation, if not an attempt at exactly the kind of coercion Obama professedly deplores. So why add fuel to the fire? Why not just keep quiet, when it’s as clear as day that this kind of moralizing is only going to strengthen the oppressors’ resolve?

The pressure from Republican pundits for Obama to be more vocal and "less timid" in his response to the situation in Iran has been horrible.

Exhibit A: Andy McCarthy's post at the Corner is a disgusting, ridiculously unhinged piece of work.

Iran election tracker

Super-filtered #IranElection info for the easily overwhelmed (ht Ambers)

Recount

Frederick Delign Le Pelerin, France

Line of the month

From a Dish reader...

Twitter revolution in a nutshell: Anne Frank's diary. Live. Multiplied by millions.

Roger Cohen in Iran today

A must-read.

Escalating violence in Iran

Given the recent violent clashes with protesters, condemnations like H Res. 560--which Ron Paul just voted against--are looking more appropriate.

I still admire Rep. Paul's restraint, but today's subsequent violence has been horrible. Here's Obama's latest statement:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

I think this is appropriate--it doesn't threaten Iran in any way, which would undoubtedly be counterproductive for the protesters, given the prevailing anti-American sentiment. It just reminds them the world is watching. And boy, are we.

Should the worst happen, with Ahmadinejad and his allies continuing to crack down and stay in power, I think the outcome will still be positive. The international community--including Europe and Russia--will not be able to ignore the government's illegitimacy--the rigged election and violent crackdown has been too well publicized.

Bravo, Ron Paul

Here's the text of H Res. 560, "Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes."

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

Ron Paul's response made memeorandum—his was the single vote against. Emphasis mine below...

Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives

Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran

June 19, 2009

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

Lesson in democracy for neocons

Via Andrew, AL points to the fact that the nuclear program has an 84 percent approval rating within Iran:

Bombing that country would, in addition to generating many casualties, significantly strengthen the hand of the hardliners. It would poison public opinion against the West and stifle reform efforts. And on the flipside, if the reformers succeed and the result is a more democratic Iran, there's little reason to think Iran's elected leaders would abandon the country's nuclear program. In functioning democracies, elected leaders tend not to kill programs that are massively popular. To truly embrace democracy in the world, you have to understand that people in other countries will often see things differently than you see them.