Celebrity Stupidity
Why do celebrities always feel the need to give their political opinion? Usually I have no problem with any American giving their political opinion, but I think I might have to make an exception for celebrities. They’re just always ignorant and wrong.
Ashton Kutcher kept up that trend this week when he tweeted about the situation in Iran. He was able to show his extreme ignorance on the topic in just 140 characters. Very impressive!
Considering how well fighting 4 freedom in Iraq went, I dont know that we should B jumping in2 this Iran deal. I think that truly the only people that can change things in Iran are the Iranians themselves and they seem to be speaking their minds now.
1. The fight for freedom in Iraq went extremely well. Is Kutcher seriously arguing that Iraq is less free now than they were under Saddam, what else could he possibly be saying. Not to mention Iraq is actually holding free and fair elections, Iran certainly can’t say that.
2. It’s my belief that if we hadn’t invaded Iraq the uprising in Iran would not be happening now. This type of bully government isn’t new to the Iranians, but because of Iraq and Afghanistan they can now literally see a democracy working to their east and west, that gives them the hope that their government can change and it will work. Before they were surrounded by dictatorships and similar governmental situations. Hope appeared to be lost.
3. I hate to say this but, the Iranian people cannot do this alone. The one thing they can do is draw international attention to the problem and give other countries reasons to take out the current Iranian administration. As much as I’d like to think they can do it on their own, they can’t. We can’t expect them to, if we do nothing will change.
–jb
4 Comments
Jacob on June 19th, 2009
“In addition, Iranians have elected reformists before for President so they should be able to do it again.”
When the elections are rigged that’s rather difficult to do.
wayne on June 19th, 2009
Don’t get me wrong, I truly hoped Mousavi would win. I also know that the Iranian democracy is more robust than many in the region.
Iran has never really voted out their president. All presidents post revolution have won the maximum of two constitutional terms. In addition, Ahmadinejad has a lot of support in poorer areas so I think that a lot of his support are a “silent majority” compared to the overwhelmingly vocal young, wealthy liberals who support Mousavi.
I welcome recounts, I don’t deny oddities but I think Ahmadinejad has still been elected fairly (in an Iranian context).
Jacob on June 19th, 2009
If that Iranian context is padding the vote and not even counting certain regions, than yes, I guess that would be fairly in an Iranian context. But a fair election in Iran should be the same as Iran. The definition of fair does not change.
wayne on June 19th, 2009
The words “I think that truly the only people that can change things in Iran are the Iranians themselves and they seem to be speaking their minds now.” are inherently sound.
The Iranian theocratic democracy was created in revolution and it is up to the Iranians themselves to liberalise it.
According to Wikipedia:
“The first militant anti-Shah demonstrations were in October 1977, after the death of Khomeini’s son Mostafa.[80] Khomeini’s activists numbered “perhaps a few hundred in total”, but over the coming months they grew to a mass of several thousand demonstrators in most cities of Iran.[81]”
So, small protests began in 1977 and by 1979 an Islamic Republic was created by revolution.
In addition, Iranians have elected reformists before for President so they should be able to do it again.