Well, 2009 Nobel prizes were handed out, all except economics, and now it’s time for us to react. Since this is not a scientific blog we only talk about two of the prizes: literature and peace.

First of all, let’s take a look at 2009 literature prize. This years’ prize was awarded to Herta Müller, the Romanian-born German novelist, poet and essayist. As far as I know, she has two famous works, The Land of Green Plums, her major novel, and The King Bows and Kills, a series of essays. Of course, I’ve read only The Land of Green Plums. It was a very great novel. One can’t say she didn’t deserve the prize, but one can surely be surprised by the decision. I mean, I don’t necessarily disagree with choosing Müller, but I think other candidates were far better.

In 1950s, Bertrand Russell, François Mauriac, Ernest Hemingway, Juan Ramón Jiménez, Albert Camus, and Boris Pasternak are the great laureates. As you see, 6 out of 10 of winners absolutely deserved it.

In 1960s, John Steinbeck, Jean-Paul Sartre, Mikhail Sholokhov, Miguel Ángel Asturias, Yasunari Kawabata, and Samuel Beckett are the great names. Again you see 6 of the winners are indisputable.

In the 70s, the trend follows and Pablo Neruda, Heinrich Böll, Patrick White, Saul Bellow and Isaac Singer were laureates, but the academy suddenly changes its mood asfter this decade.

From 1980s onward, Octavio Paz, Günter Grass and Harold Pinter are the only three literal giants who have been awarded. Of course some would add Gabriel García Márquez to the list as well, (but I don’t, since I dislike his works), but, why Nobel’s list is so empty from great names.

But this tendency reaches its extreme when it comes to 2000s. Look at these names: Gao Xingjian, V. S. Naipaul, Imre Kertész, J. M. Coetzee, Elfriede Jelinek and J. M. G. Le Clézio are the authors one would never guess they would win Nobel. All of them are good authors, that’s for sure. And one can’t firmly say they shouldn’t be there. But compare the list of 2000s with 70s, 60s, or 50s. Are they comparable? Of course not. In 2000s only Pinter rises to those standards, and Doris Lessing is another writer who should’ve won the prize anyway, although I don’t see much of value in her art. Why is that?

People who are obsessed with sending arts to grave might say literature is dead and this shows the downfall of literature. But I disagree. Look at the list of some authors who can win the prize now: Carlos Fuentes, Amos Oz, Haruki Murakami, Philip Roth, Cormac McCartey, Adonis, Les Murray, Mario Vargas Llosa, Tom Stoppard, Thomas Pynchon, E. L. Doctorow, Alice Munro, Margaret Atwood, Ngugi wa Thiongo, Bei Dao, Milan Kundera and J. D. Salinger. Wouldn’t this make a better list? Why all these great artists are ignored?

Despite all this nagging, still congratulations to Herta Müller, she deserved it. But now to the peace.

If the Literature prize surprised us, the peace prize WOWed us. (Or, if we want to be rude, made us say: WTF). Barack Obama? Of all people? Out of more than 200 candidates? Why?

If we want to look at this prize’s record, I think it’s far more better than the literature one. Let’s go backwards: when Martti Ahtisaari won, that made my life. Al Gore and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were excellent choices. Muhammad Yunus and Green Bank? Couldn’t think of anything better. Mohamed ElBaradei plus International Atomic Energy Agency? Righjt on spot. Wangari Muta Maathai? Yes, of course. I can’t think of anyone more deserving than Jimmy Carter. Kofi Annan and the United Nations deserve it too. And I have so much respect for Kim Dae Jung that I think Nobel was honored by using Kim’s name, not the other way.

In 2000s I disagree with only two of the awards. One is given to one of my country men: Shirin Ebadi. I disagree because she hasn’t done anything concrete. Don’t take me wrong, I have unending respect for her. But she hasn’t done something to make her that important. The other is this year’s award.

David Foster, the Aljazeera broadcaster, who’s my favourite broadcaster, said it nicely: he compared it to giving Olympics medal to someone at the front of studio before the race has begun. Let him DO something then give him the stupid prize! (dammit!) Imagine he drops atomic bomb somewhere! And he’s leading two wars!

I disagree with committee’s reasoning that it should be given because he has given hope. Hope is very liable to be false. Of course, I have hope in him. And if you ask me: “What do you think, would you support this prize 10 years later?” My prediction is yes, not no. But wait a bit! Let him prove himself then praise him.

Herta Müller is most noted for her heartbreaking remarks about Romanian dictatorship. We respect her more because of humanitarian reasons than literal one. Obama, in power for only 9 months, is loved more because of his oration than his acts. Maybe these two can swap their prizes. Nobel Peace Prize for Herta Müller and Nobel Prize in Literature for Barack Obama. That may sort things out.

The Westerners follow Israelis in this way, and therefore, Jews have become the ultimate taboo: don’t say anything against their religion, their “state”, or even Zionism, because you’re antisemite then. Cool, huh? This has been Israel’s defence against any criticism, and a way to suppress people. It’s an immoral tool, misusing a concept.

Freethinkers should end this stupid myth for good. There are points one must clear up.

First of all, this is the definition of Antisemitism in Wikipedia: Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, or religion. While the term’s etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, it has been used exclusively to refer to hostility toward Jews since its initial usage.

Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from individual expressions of hatred and discrimination against individual Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs or even state police or military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Extreme instances of persecution include the First Crusade of 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the expulsion from Portugal in 1497, various pogroms, and perhaps the most infamous, the Holocaust under Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

To explain more clearly, Antisemitism is hating Jews solely because they’re Jewish. Therefore, we now need to point out what things are NOT Antisemitism.

First of all, attacking Judaism as a religion. Sam Harris, whatever he has said against Islam, isn’t anti-Muslim, because he solely attacks their beliefs, not them as human beings. To me, Judaism is one of the most perverted sick ideologies shone upon man, out of which two other sick perverted ideologies, Christianity and Islam, emerged as illegitimate children, three sick perverted ideologies that are to blame one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, share of wars and crimes done in the name of an ideology. I confidently believe Torah is a sick book, maybe no other book, possibly Mein Kumpf is the only opponent, contains this amount of hatred and racism in one place. (Read it please, if you don’t agree).

Will that make me an Antisemite? No. Why not? Because, if we go by definition, I don’t hate Jews, simply because I don’t hate Christians and Muslims either, and of all these faiths I have many friends. I just don’t like what they believe in. They can hate atheism as much as they like, as long as they don’t hate “atheists”, this is no hate speech. So, if you say Judaism is sick, this is fine, (it’s also fine if you say atheism is sick), but you shouldn’t label people, and you shouldn’t hate “people”. You’ll never hear me generalizing all the “Jews” and asking for any war against them, with the exception of those in debate rooms or on paper.

So, point number 1: We’re entitled to attack Judaism as an ideology, and this is NOT Antisemitism.

Second point. I don’t know how we got to the conclusion that Judaism = State of Israel? Do I oppose the existence of a Jewish state? Sure as hell I do! Are you kidding? A Jewish State? What the hell is that? Of course I do, as I completely oppose a Christian State, a Muslim State, a Buddhist State, or a Scientologist State. I thought we believed in the separation of Church and state! (or the separation of Synagogue and state for that matter). And I’m personally not comfortable with the philosophy behind Israel. It’s, to me, stark madness to consider a place you’ve most probably never been to, or if you had, not later than 4000 years ago, your “homeland” and be willing to go there and start a country just because it’s written so in a fairy tale book.

Look at it this way. The Jews have survived a massive Holocaust which is undoubtedly the most horrifying crime in the whole history, now they want a country to stay immune from future hatred. For this reason, I personally don’t consider the idea of a country with Jewish majority, (but not a Jewish state), a bad idea at all. But the question is where? I imagine we as atheist are creating a country, where we want to go? Somewhere 1) with fewer wars 2) less population 3) uncontroversial 4) inhabited by hospitable people. But the “Holy” Land is somewhere 1) with most wars in the history 2) populated 3) very controversial 4) inhabited by people happy to blow others and themselves up for stepping on the land of their god. Why should I go there? Why should I go to the worst possible place on the planet earth? Because: in my fairly tale book it is written so.

I want you to see how equally rooted in religious fanaticism is Jewish occupation as Muslim resistance. If not for Judaism and Islam, people in the “Holy” Land maybe could live together in peace.

I tried to demonstrate that defying Israel is not defying the Jews, but a form of religious fanaticism. As defying Hamas is not defying all the Muslims.

So, point number 2: Defying Israel is NOT Antisemitism, new or old.

This brings us to our Swedish report. Israel has done many crimes. And it either has removed organs of the dead Palestinians or hasn’t. The Swedish paper should prove its claim, and Israel should stop acts that provoke suspicion, for example burying the dead body late at night, refusing to return dead bodies to their families, or blowing a fuse when confronted with accusations. However, it mustn’t have the right to misuse the notion of Antisemitism to escape explanation.

There’s no doubt that one must deplore Antisemitism as an evil. There are many people equally hiding behind Antizionism to cover their Antisemitism. I believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an Antisemite, but not, for example, Jonathan Miller or Vanessa Redgrave.

So, as good as fighting against Antisemitism is, we must not turn a blind eye one whatever is done for the fear of being labeled.

The problem is, however, the settlement progress haven’t been frozen. I don’t know why Brown doesn’t know that, or pretends he doesn’t know that, but the settlements are continuing to grow like mushroom. If Mr. Brown would trouble himself to watch Aljazeera news bulletin yesterday, he could see a report from Jackie Rowland. Jackie travelled to the settlements and she showed us how new buildings are being constructed rapidly. Of course, Jackie’s report is the latest example. You can watch many Arabic channels or read many Arabic newspapers that give overwhelming evidence that settlements continue to grow.

Well, Mr. Brown should know that. Then what makes him so confident? Natanyahu’s outright lies?

Brown has said: We also discussed the issue of settlements in East Jerusalem. I made it clear that settlement activity was a barrier to a two-state solution.

That’s touching the Jerusalem issue subtly. But can Brown hope any positive action in that case? I don’t think so. He can be “increasingly confident” that Netanyahu won’t budge a bit and he’ll screw the whole peace process up.

Why? Because Netanyahu has said: I’ve made it clear [...] that Jerusalem is a sovereign capital of Israel and we accept no limitations on our sovereignty. [...] To put a fine point on it, Jerusalem is not a settlement. [...] The settlement issue is outstanding. It has to be one of the issues resolved in the negotiations, alongside Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state, effective demilitarisation, for any future peace agreement.

A little ago a sunshine of confidence rose up in the smile of lovely western leaders when Netanyahu accepted two-state solutions. The point is, however, when someone describes somewhere like Gulac and then calls it a state, well, you shouldn’t be confident.

Meanwhile, just to help boosting Mr. Brown’s confidence, Avigdor Liberman has began to put pressure on Arab diplomats, almost to the point that they swear stupid oaths or be explained. Of course, how much hope there’s in the Liberman’s anti-Arab policies!

Why all these westerners show a lot of confidence when a Jewish Taliban is in power in Israel, and Palestine in the hand of useless Fath and a crazy Hamas? (A Muslim Taliban of another version?) There might be four reasons:

1) There are behind-the-closed-doors negotiations and agreements we don’t know of.
2) They’re stupid.
3) They’re playing around with Israelis, trying to show they’re putting pressure on them for peace but really just horsing around.
4) A combination of all above.

What is the truth? We must wait and see.

Meanwhile, Mr. Gordon Brown can be confident. Confidence is a sign of good psyche health.

Written by:
Nader Amini

When Barack Obama started his journey to the White House from the same route that Abraham Lincoln had started his journey, and when he swore on the same bible Lincoln swore on, he made it clear that he wishes to be a 21st century Lincoln. However, he has been successful in creating the same amount of hope, but has he been successful in fulfilling the hopes as well?

Obama started well by ordering to close the Guantanamo down. But he simply ordered it, and no real change was observed. Guantanamo is still isn’t closed, and all the people who follow human rights issues closely know that most of the detainees are transported to Bagram, which is a prison equally bad, if not worse, but yet it’s under shadows. And what about all those secret CIA prisons? We’re promised that they’re closed, but why there’s not enough information on them? Where were them? What’s good anyway if we close one notorious prison down and leave a worse, but less known one open? The main problem is still there.

He tried to pull things together in Afghanistan. But what did he do? He placed a good general there and promised a lot. But still American forces kill a lot innocents in their every attack, and the Taliban is getting more and more powerful everyday, and even the fragile election they had 5 years ago, this year was held amid violence, frauds and irregularities, and low turn out. The main problem is still there.

And about Iraq! He tried to end the siege there. But Iraq is still a virtually destroyed country. The main problem is still there.

About the Israel-Palestine conflict. It was good that he supported the two-states solution and asked the Israelis to stop the settlements and for the first time we saw some real frowning in the ultra-romantic relationship of the two country. However, Israel doesn’t budge. The main problem is still there.

Why Obama has taken great measures but has done no real change? I personally don’t think its because he’s not sincere enough. Or even because he lacks the ability.

To me there are two reasons. One is not Obama’s fault, the second one is.

Firstly, are the odds against him. He has a lot of terrorists, some conservatives and some Republicans, and the Iranian government, all and all are against him. Maybe all these troubles can justify him.

However, the main thing I’d like to point about Obama here is that what he lacks: He lacks a certain confidence. A political confidence if you like. He walks so slowly, and he seems willing to satisfy everyone. What he needs a little more toughness. For example in his health insurance service, he should confront the Republicans instead of going round the country like a missionary. In Iran, he really should scare the Iranians, he should show them there’s not a beautiful end if you don’t take my hand. About Afghanistan, he really should end civilian casualties. But the only way to do that is to dissatisfy Americans, who, funnily, and very inhuman indeed, value the lives of their own soldiers more than the innocents of the other countries. And instead of just “advising” Israel, and even China, he should put real pressure on them.

Of course, taking a decisive step in any of the challenges Obama faces will create some confrontation, and soon Obama will fighting a war in many battlefields. But that’s it.

America has had some really great presidents like Jefferson and Lincoln. They’ve been people who were never afraid to fight and confront and finally they created big changes. On the other hand, some other great presidents like Kennedy, Carter or Clinton have been good points in American history, but because they were better presidents than other ones, not necessarily because they made a huge contribution. People will cherish Clinton’s memory, but simply because he worked better in the same system. But Lincoln? Lincoln changed the system, the world, the history. If Lincoln was as tactful as Obama, if he had avoided the Civil War, then the slavery was still legal in the United States and the Evangelicals would support it but yet a black man could be elected to the White House and then after a few month he’d be assassinated. Something like abortion, or homosexuality, or stem-cell research, or whatever other topic that America can be proud that she’s more backward in these cases than any other democratic country.

This can be very clear when we see when Jimmy Carter was in the White House his presidency was almost a mess, not only he almost destroyed the country’s economy, he had the mess of Iranian 1979 revolution on his hand and the mismanagement of the 444 days hostage crisis, and the only positive thing he did was the Camp David peace between Sadat and Israel. But when he came out of the White House he became a real champion of peace and democracy and he won the Noble Prize and he wrote great books on the Palestine issue, giving the ultimate way of achieving peace. Outside of the White House, he was more useful to the world than inside it. The same almost goes for Bill Clinton.

Obama has two ways to go: the way of Jimmy Carter and the way of Abraham Lincoln. Both Carter and Lincoln will be revered in history, but as Bush says, and it’s the only witty thing he’s said, who cares for the long term history? We all will be dead then.

Written by:
Nader Amini

P.S. Just when I was about to publish this, I read that New York Times has reported that the name of the detainees of Bagram will be reported to the Red Cross. Let’s hop it’s true, and let’s hope there will be greater steps.

We’re getting impatient, Mr. Obama!

The first thing we can understand by looking at this cabinet, shows the cul de sac Ahmadinejad has created for himself. Except maybe one, the rest of the ministers are low ranking people with almost zero political experience, and they’re in the lowest levels of the forces of the regime. This list shows, more than anything else, that all able and powerful elite have been wandered from Ahmadinejad. His cult of personality have made him really alone. There’s not a single prominent conservative in the list. And the reformists don’t even recognize him legitimate. So, all the major players, instead of the most major player the Supreme Leader, have deserted him. There are many people among them that are unknown, and I saw their name for the first time in the list. I’m not alone in that, one of the major MPs, Mohammad Reza Bahonar, who’s also one the key conservatives, told that he too didn’t know them. There are some people that are completely known, but unfortunately they’re notorious. Bahonar agrees with that too. (The only topic you can bring up and a liberal in my calibre and a conservative in Bahonar calibre will agree twice on some points, is a cabinet proposed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).

Such a weak cabinet, certainly weaker than every other cabinet in Iranian history, shows that Ahmadinejad himself will have to run the whole cabinet. Not only most of the candidates have zero experience, but what they’ve done is irrelevant to the post they’ve been chosen to.

Some controversy was due to the fact that for the first time some women are chosen for the ministry. This could be good. Of course I personally not interested in such topics. Media’s obsession with records have weakened our knowledge and logic. It doesn’t matter that someone is the first black president or the first Hispanic head of supreme court, what matters is that we destroy out biases and really don’t care about race, gender or sexual orientations. But these three women can’t even satisfy those who like to play with numbers and “firsts” and “seconds”.

These are the three women.

Marzieh Vahid Dastjerdi, for the ministry of health

Fatemeh Ajorlou, for the ministry of welfare

Susan Keshavarz, for the Education Ministry
These women are, first of all, unsuitable for their position. Not enough experience, no political strength, nothing that can be considered a good point. Furthermore, they’re sexist. They’re as sexist as the most insane fundamentalist men. For example one of them had asked for men’s and women’s hospitals to be separated. Their record as MP shows that if such sexist people enter the government every women’s movement will go back by years. Therefore, precisely because I identify myself as a feminist I object to the choice of these three women.

Now let’s look at some of the shining examples of Ahmadinejad’s choice.

Heidar Moslehi for the Ministry of Intelligence

He has no background in intelligence. He’s worked as a member of Basij, so he comes from one of the forces that oppressed people and their hand is soaked in blood.

Ali Akbar Mehrabian for the Industrial and Mines Ministry

He’s been convicted in a trial for fraud. He’s stolen someone else’s invention and he has made millions out of it. So yes, there’s a thief in this cabinet. There are more, but this one has been even convicted.

Mohammad Ali Abadi for the Ministry of Power

He’s been running Iran sports for 4 years now, and he has managed to destroy it for good. He has been one of the most unsuccessful managers of Iran history. Now he’s taking a ministry that’s already in a mess.

Mostaffa Mohammad Najjar for the Interior Ministry

He has zero political experience. He has worked in military and was the minister of defence. A dangerous man, it’s really dangerous to put a military man in the most political ministry that has to manage the elections, in country that’s rapidly becoming a military dictatorship instead of a theocracy.

Kamran Daneshju for the Science Ministry

The worst possible choice. The worst choice for the century. He was the president of the staff working for presidential election in Ministry of Interior. He was the person who executed the election fraud. One of the five main players of the coup that brought Ahmadinejad to power. Therefore it’s not surprising that he’s the most hated man in Iran, along his terrorist friends. And he has been chosen for a ministry that manages the universities. And Iran students have always been political, and they hate Daneshju guts. So the worst enemy of university professors and students is their boss now.

Of course, the game isn’t over. The Parliament needs to vote for them. Definitely having these people elected in a Parliament that’s now completely against him won’t be easy for Ahmadinejad, unless the Supreme Leader helps him. However, 8 people, the five men I mentioned and the three women, really need to be blocked, for the sake of Islamic Republic itself, if not for the poor people.

Written by:
Nader Amini

After that he was the voice of freedom in the dictatorship of the time. 5 assassinations took place against his life, he suffering from the wounds to his death. He went to prison and was convicted to death, survived it, went to USA, returned amid the threats of life. After Park’s assassination he was again sent to prison. All these show he never stopped fighting for freedom.

Finally in 1997 he became the first freely elected president of South Korea, and his country began to become frree and grow economically. If you look at the SK and see how it has bloomed during these years, becoming a great economic power and a true democracy, it owes it to Kim Dae-Jung.

If as a political leader he was the voice of freedom, as a president he was the voice of the peace. His sunshine policy was an effort to make peace with North Korea, a policy that made the world a better place, and although it didn’t quite succeed, it was a great endeavour that planned a seed that may fruit later.

In 2000 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.

Lately, he was among the Noble laureates who wrote a letter to Ban Ki Moon asking him to take measure against the violence in post election events of Iran, showing that he was still devoted to freedom, and in an interview he stated that despite all troubles two Koreas still need to negotiate, to show he was still devoted to peace.

South Korea, and the world, have lost leader who will surely be missed in the horrors of today world.

Written by:
Sha’ban Mashhadi

How Safe Is Afghanistan?
You don’t even need to answer that. Its situation is almost post-apocalyptic. You can make a great video game in the location, with a style similar to Fallout 3. But if you can bring real democracy to the Wasteland, you can bring it to Afghanistan as well. Just look at the recent events. Today, one day before the election, there were massive fights and many people have been killed in the recent days, even the presidential palace which you at least hope it should be one safe place in Kabul was attacked by mortars, and the government had to beg the media not to report the violence so people wouldn’t fear coming to the voting stations. That’s really funny.

There are many people who defend Bush’s, and Obama’s, ways by saying that “Why do you always speak about violence?” Precisely because it’s a more important topic. In this state of anarchy, who cares for an election?

Is Afghanistan free?
Of course not. Only as an example, in 2006 a man was sentenced to death for converting to Christianity. The penalty for apostasy is death. So Afghanistan is not a free country. Tony Blair was wrong when he saw the birth of a democracy in Afghanistan. Because, unlike what west thinks or pretends that it thinks election is not synonymous to democracy, it’s just one element of it, one of its many elements, and only this one is present in Afghanistan, and a lame presence too.

Will the Election Be Fair?
Most probably, no. The BBC and Aljazeera correspondents have managed to buy voting registration cards from the black market, and Karzai has used tax money for his campaigning, and these are the clear evidences for fraud. Also he has made alliances with corrupt leaders and warlords and has bought some candidates out so his victory won’t be moral, even if legitimate.

In short, Afghanistan still has a very long way before getting to a good place. An Afghan citizen wrote in the Persian site of BBC, in the Persian “Have you say”, once they asked a camel why your neck is crooked? And it answered: My whole body is crooked, now you just look at my neck?

We, who expect a free and fair election from Afghanistan, make the same mistake. The whole country is the a bad, in the worst, shape. You can’t expect fair elections.

However, candidates like Ahmadzai, Abdullah and Bashardost, and the fact that after all the election is monitored by international community, leave a hope, a hope that Afghan people may use this chance to lead their country to better situation. A hope that’s really improbable.

But there’s nothing wrong with hoping.

All the entries on the subject by:
Nader Amini

Why shouldn’t we support him?
Hamid Karzai is a respectable, good man. He has almost everything that good president must have. He’s an intellectual. I remember him reading a poem by Robert Frost by heart in his interview with David Frost. He’s a man that you’re quick to like and he’d make a great, great person to chat to. But as I said, he has almost everything a great president needs to have, he lacks one of his features. This feature is very important when it comes to most presidents, but in a country like Afghanistan is the most important point, it’s the decisive factor. This decisive factor has many names, but the bluntest one is toughness.

As an Iranian, Karzai reminds me of Khatami. Khatami is still to me a great honorable person, but he wasted 8 years of reform due to his lack of toughness. Right now the green movement has many other tough leaders. Khatami is now overshadowed by Mousavi, Karroubi and Hashemi Rafsanjani. But no one can deny that Khatami’s term was the best era of Iranian contemporary history, the same can be said of Karzai.

In a television debate between Karzai, Ahmadzai and Bashardost, Karzai defended his career by saying in his time the economy grew and a real state was made and such and such. And he didn’t lie. The problem is not that he didn’t make any progress, or that he destroyed anything, the problem is, he didn’t make as much as he should.

Ramazan Bashardost nailed it during the debate. He said: “Don’t look at what people say, look at what they do.” That’s exactly the problem with Karzai. He’s perfect in speaking. You can teach his speeches in oratory classes and you’ll enjoy listening to him. He even speaks English native-like. He reads Robert Frost. He memorizes Robert Frost! But the problem is, he doesn’t do much. He does a little but he doesn’t do enough.

So, in what fields he has failed?

Corruption: Afghanistan political and military powers are as corrupt as a cheese you left in the refrigerator last summer and then turned the refrigerator off. Corruption is the greatest problem of Afghanistan, even worse than Taliban. Karzai has done nothing to fight it. He himself isn’t corrupt, but he has even chosen one of the most corrupt warlords as his vice president. He has bought some of the corrupt candidates to endorse him. So he’s not a good choice for fighting with corruption.

Taliban: Taliban grew in power and raised from the dead and virtually took some parts of Afghanistan back. Yet Karzai is still talking about negotiating Taliban. So he has failed in dealing with them and he doesn’t seem to take it really serious.

Trafficing: Poppy farming is still as it was 8 years ago and no real change has made. Things get worse when you notice drug trafficing is the major source of Taliban income. Karzai has failed to do anything about it.

Relations with America: Karzai has been called a puppy of America. Of course he’s different to Nouri Al Maleki in the fact that he nags from time to time but a real Afghan president must make it clear to America that they can’t kill innocents in their fight with Taliban and if they do they’ll face a lot of problems. Karzai gave the greatest medal of Afghanistan to president Bush, while you expected him to ask ICC to put Bush on trial for the horrifying crimes he was responsible for in Afghanistan.

Whoring with warlords: Karzai has actually empowered the warlords and he has used the help of these corrupt people. An example is the return of General Dostum to Afghanistan and his vice presidents. Actually Karzai’s campaigning methods has erased any hope of him being reformed.

Mismanagements: Karzai could’ve done much better concerning economy but he suffered from lack of planning, and mismanagements, and of course Mafia-like tribes and warlords that suck the blood of the country.

Abdullah told Farid Zakaria in an interview that when Karzai was elected there was a lot of hope within Afghanistan and abroad that things will get better. They didn’t. So the hope is dead.

In short, Karzai has been in power for 8 years. In western countries he would have to give his power up at this moment. These 8 years are enough to show that he has failed his test. Afghanistan needs a new president now.

Ramazan Bashardost

Short bio: Ramazan Bashardost, a Hazara, was born in 1965. He finished his school in Iran, and after Iran he migrated to Pakistan, and then to France. He has studied Law at Grenoble University, Diplomacy and Political Sciences at Paris University, and finally, he received his Ph.D in Law from Toulouse University. Bashardost returned to Afghanistan in 2002. He worked for the ministry of foriegn affairs until he became the planning minister in 2004. In 2005 he tried to close down 1935 NGOs but since he couldn’t, he resigned. Then he ran for an MP seat and he was elected with a high vote. He’s now an MP. He gives his salary to the poor.
Election policies: His campaign center is a tent. He doesn’t spend much money on campaigning, and this shows his shows earnestness against corruption.
+
Usually such a politician sound like a populist, with his austerity and all. But when you look at the level of corruption in Afghanistan, you see that country really needs a politician with exactly like Bashardost, not only promoting austerity, but merciless when it comes to fighting corruption. Closing 1953 NGOs over one day may seem horrifying but these NGOs really are corrupt, and closing them down does no harm. (Bashardost himself calls them No-Good-Organizations).

His other great advantage is his independence, he has proved himself to be free from tribal or military ties. That, again, is exactly what Afghanistan needs.

He has a realistic view towards negotiating with Taliban. He says they won’t negotiate. Moderate Taliban is not only a logical contradiction, but also it’s so stupid that it sounds like a joke. And that’s right, they won’t negotiate. I don’t think other candidates really mean it when they say it too. They just want to please the Americans.

Which brings us to the next great Bashardost feature: He doesn’t like to please Americans. And that can give him an edge in defending Afghan’s rights, and their national interest, which doesn’t necessarily always coincide with the American’s.

Yet his another great advantage, is his human rights record. He has been a stern human rights activist and his presidency will improve human rights without any doubt. Not only he himself has a great background of human rights defend, he has chosen Afifa Maroof as his second VP. Not only she’s a woman (a good sign for women’s rights) but she’s a member of Afghanistan independent human rights commission. His symbol shows it all: white pigeon.

In short, although Abdullah and Ahmadzai are both great candidates and their presidency will improve things a lot, Bashardost is all Afghanistan needs, the perfect president.

If I was Afghan, I would vote for Mr. Bashardost.

-
Well, although there are all those good things about him, running for him also involves a risk. He might end up a populist because of his austerity, and he might end up a tactless radical due to his hard stances. But at the other hand, any great change will involve these risks, and if I were an Afghan I’d take them.

Abdullah Abdullah

Short bio: Abdullah, a Tajik, was born in Kabul, Afghanistan, on September 5, 1960. His father was a senator. He studied ophthalmology at Kabul University’s Department of Medicine where he graduated at the top of his class. He worked in war-ridden places in Afghanistan. He became close to guerrilla leader and AFghan national hero, Ahmad Shah Massoud. In 1995 Abdullah became the Spokesperson for the Islamic State of Afghanistan. When the Northern Alliance was created and Abdullah became Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in September 1997. He worked as an anti-Taliban activist throughout the period. As Rabbani’s minster he played an important role in gathering international support. He became Hamid Karzai’s foreign minster until 2006.
Election policies: Changing the sytem of government, fighting corruption, security and freedom.
+
He’s popular, has the most chance to defeat Karzai. He can establish a great relationship with west. He can change the system. He favours parliamentary system.
-
I can’t find any.

Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai

Short bio: Ashraf Ghani, a Pashtun, was born in 1949 in the Logar province of Afghanistan. He holds a PhD in anthropology and has studied in American University of Beirut and Columbia University. He has taught in Kabul University, Aarhus University in Denmark, University of California, and Johns Hopkins University. He has also worked for the World Bank. During these years he was also known as an analyst for western media. In 2001 he became Special Advisor to the United Nations and assisted Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, the Special Representative of the Secretary General to Afghanistan. But after a few months he joined the Afghan government as the chief advisor to President Hamid Karzai. He became the finance minister until he resigned in 2004. He made some finacial and economical reforms but had face with a lot of opposition. Mr. Ghani tried to succeed Kofi Annan as Secretary General of the United Nations at the end of 2006, but he lost the race to Ban Ki Moon. He, after resigning from Afghan government, has been a staunch opposition to president Karzai’s policies.
Election policies: He promises to establish a representative administration; good governance; build a dynamic economy and create employment opportunities for the Afghan people.
+
His work as a fantastic finance minister is a lot promising. He can work for the good of Afghan people financially. He’s trusted in west and he can establish a great relationship with west. He might fight corruption as well.
-
He supports the current system which is full of holes. Maybe he won’t be able to change a lot without changing the system.

To be continued…

First of all, Mousavi, the real elected president, and Karroubi, other defeated candidate, Khatami, the former president, Nategh Nouri and Hossein Rohani from within the rightist wing, Hossein Khomeini, the grandchild of the founder of the regime, and most important of all, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of two of the most important bodies of the regime and former president, Khomeini’s second man and one of the founders of the regime were absent. These absences show that the split among the regime is so wide that even Khamenei’s ceremonies will be boycotted.

But the split is wide even among those who took part. The third defeated candidate, Mohsen Rezai, did take part, but his brother mentioned that he “still doesn’t accept election results” and “took part to show respect to the supreme leader”. And here comes the story of a kiss. Four years ago, Ahmadinejad kissed Khamenei’s hand, and then Khamenei kissed his face and four times in a row. Back then this romantic kissing made it clear for us that the Supreme Leader is going to have a very good relationship with his new president.

But these two, like Clark Gabel and Vivian Lee, have long story of kisses. This year Ahmadinejad didn’t kiss Khamenei’s hand, and only kissed his shoulder. None of them were eager for those romantic kisses of 4 years ago. Ahmadinejad’s mouthpieces claimed that this was due to a cold Ahmadinejad had caught, but we’re far far beyond believing what they have to say. We can confidently say that the romantic relationship has ended a bit.

Not only a great part of the regime boycotted the ceremony for good, a great portion of people attending the ceremony have problems with Ahmadinejad and the Junta that didn’t read people’s votes and brought him to power. Many conservatives attended the ceremony just for not being labeled anti-Supreme Leader, but they oppose Ahmadinejad and make trouble for him in every chance they get. Not only that, the “winners” of the election fraud are divided among themselve

Yesterday’s ceremony showed one more thing. The ceremony wasn’t aired live, and its hour wasn’t announced. They knew they would face a lot of riots, and they were so afraid that they even didn’t say when they’re going to hold it. The shadow of the green movement darkened the ceremony.

And after the ceremony was over, riots again sparked, and again tear gasses and bullets were fired into the people who seem to be no more afraid of anything.

And at night, on the rooftops, the shouts of “God is greatest” and “Death to the dictator” were louder than before.

Ahmadinejad, yesterday, began his second term as president. However, a rare, historic unity between those who find his presidency illegitimate, protests of people who show no sign of letting it go, division among his supporters, a shattered cabinet, a ruined economy, and the adversity of the West, are just some of the problems he’s facing.

I wouldn’t like to be in his shoes at all.

Written by:
Nader Amini

We’re completely sure that this is not a real trial. This is just another stupid show to put Daw behind the bars. But why they should delay the game? They just want Daw out of reach, why they just don’t do it?

Some critiques say because right now there’s a lot of international pressure on the Junta (that stupid plastic bag quote is being repeated) and they want to pass the verdict when the eyes are wandered elsewhere. I don’t agree. These generals know that the eyes will return when the verdict is passed, those eyes will simply return. And the situation is too messed up for them to care for that.

Why then? There’s another theory which concerns elections, they say they want things loosened up for the election. But since the future election is just another game and no one even mentions it, I disagree with that too.

So why? I don’t know. You might say why you should waste your time writing and our time reading to tell us about something you don’t know, which leads me to what I want to infer.

All the recent events, in Iran, Nigeria, China, Burma, and other countries, show the fact that there’s simply no logic behind what dictatorships do. As simple as that. And all those dear experts and analysts waste their time when they struggle to find a logical reason behind all these.

Why Khamenei brought Ahmadinejad to power using election fraud? Why he backs him? Why Iranian police clashes peaceful demonstrations? Why the Chinese began attacking Muslims? Why they killed them later? Why the Junta chose this ridiculous “crime”? Why this “trial”?

The very question is wrong. When you give people more power than they should have, they’ll soon become so occupied with power that they stop acting wisely, even to preserve their own power. So there’s one answer: “Because they’re stupid.”

Written by:
Sha’ban Mashhadi

What we’re happy about? We’re happy about the fact that American Senate has unanimously passed the VOICE act. It stands for the Victims of Iranian Censorship. Senate has authorized up to $50 million to help Iranians evade their government’s attempts to censor the Internet and to pressure foreign corporations not to help Iran. This really is a benevolent act, and a nice two-level word acronyming too. Freedom of speech, freedom of access to information, is the basic core of freedom. When a repressive regime such as Iranian theocracy limits the access of its citizens to real information, any free country and any person with a conscience has a duty to act against it.

I personally was trapped behind Iranian firewall for a time, before I was freed by the magic of UltraSurf. Here in Iran the theocracy limits people’s access to the true information with as immorality possible. Not only the internet is illogically and wholly filtered, watching the foreign TVs are prohibited. Reformist newspapers are having a hard time. They’re strictly censored before being published. And also they’re always at the brink of closure. Yesterday the reformist newspaper Seday-e Edalat was closed. A little while ago, Kalamey-e Sabz, Mousavi’s mouthpiece, was also closed. Right now maybe the only prominent reformist newspapers are Etemad-e Melli and Etemad, which fill in the gap a little, and their resistance is really praiseworthy. With the exception of a little reformist press under heavy censorship (they can’t report the protests, too harsh speeches, and all of their articles and news are filled with [...], sign of the points or the words they were forced to censor), all the information Iranians are allowed to get come from government-run TV and radio, and also pro-Ahmadinejad newspapers which report their own fantasies instead of the truth. I can only compare this level of lying to that of USSR under Stalin.

Of course, Iranians, like any sensible person, refuse to obey these stupid laws and get their hand on their news anyway possible. Our homes are armed with satellite receivers, there channels such as BBC Persian or VOA Persian are waiting for us. our computers with proxies. And we buy Etemad-e Melli or Etemad everyday. (By the way, the editor in chief of Etemad-e Melli is in prison right now). With these weapons we fight the weak enemy of misinformation.

And what else than happy we can be if the most powerful nation of the world contributes $50 million to help us in our cause? One of the senators told us that the American people stand by us. And I tell them, that they can be sure that the vast majority of Iranians welcome this move. Russians and the Chinese are welcomed with “Death to Russia” and “Death to China” slogans by protesters, because they’ve sided with the enemy of Iranian people. America has chosen to side with Iranian people. We’re happy.

Now a little nag. America doesn’t do the same for the Chinese people. Nokia sold censorship devices to Iran and was slammed by the senate. That’s great. But unfortunately, Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft, all of them, have sold censorship devices and software to China and nothing has stirred, no one acts as if something is wrong. Iranian firewall is much weaker than the Chinese one, any person with an average knowledge of the Internet can bypass it. Why there’s no act, no $50 million for the Victims of Chinese Censorship?

The world has worked really well when it comes to condemning violence in Iran. But the recent violence in China was worse, in the term of the number of the casualties. Then why Obama meets the Chinese and wags his tail for them, and talks about how the world can be this or that with Chinese, why he starts romantic relationship with those monsters? Please don’t talk about his mentioning human rights. You don’t go to a criminal advise him in a brotherly way. That means nothing.

America is one of the freest, greatest democracies. But it doesn’t act as it should in the international community. We, the independent liberals, don’t ask America to break its relationship with China, or lessen its trade. But we sure expect them to act as they’re morally obliged to. We ask them to wholeheartedly condemn the massacre of ethnic minorities and create trouble for China as they do for Iran, to use any force possible and stop Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft, as they did with Nokia, and help Chinese people in their fight against misinformation as they help Iranians.

But let’s end this with a positive note. I’m sure that America is honest about the value it gives to democracy and human rights. Under President Bush I couldn’t be so sure, but under President Obama I can. Therefore we don’t doubt that VOICE act was a genuine move, and we thank America for it. At the same, we’re eagerly waiting for the VOCCE act.

Written by:
Nader Amini

I guess most of the readers of this article have a shared goal in Israel-Palestine conflict, and that goal is achieving peace by a two state solution. However, Israel has shown that it’s not willing to take peace efforts seriously. President Obama tried hard to take a step at the beginning of his term, but the radical right-winger Netanyahu and his foreign minister, Avigdor Liberman which is more than radical, and we can easily call him a racist right-winger didn’t budge a little. Netanyahu hasn’t even agreed to stop expanding its settlements, and his picture of a Palestinian state is more of a ridicule of the solution than discussing it, while even stopping the settlements and agreeing to the American version of a Palestinian state is miles away from what can satisfy the Arabs. Therefore, we can say that peace efforts have made no progress.

A great step forward can be engaging Hamas in direct negotiations. Not only the international community must negotiate with Hamas but it can force Israel to do so. But why? Maybe it’s better to first ask: Why not? Those who disagree with this theory chiefly have one reason. They say that Hamas is a terrorist group which targets Israeli citizens and therefore should not be engaged in negotiations. In return, I have five reasons why we should negotiate with Hamas.

1) We can calm Hamas: I agree that Hamas is a terrorist group but that doesn’t mean we have to boycott them from negotiations. What separates Hamas from groups such as Alghaede is the fact that Hamas has much less ideological ground than them, and more than that it follows certain political demands. Alghaede seeks only to convert all members of mankind to Islam, and their version of it. Talking to them is simply wasting time. But Hamas more than anything looks forward to free Palestine. So we hope to achieve something by negotiating with them. They have already said that they’d agree with a “timeless ceasefire” with Israel. Israel asks Hamas to disarm and realize Israel’s right to existence and then negotiate, and Hamas asks Israel to draw back to the 1967 boarder, let Palestinian refugees return, free Jerusalem and free political prisoners. In such situation negotiations are meaningless. International community can promise certain things to Hamas. Hamas is reasonable enough to give after it takes. Pushing Hamas towards moderation is no little achievement. An evidence is Khaled Mashal’s praise of Obama’s efforts. If Obama’s true efforts can make Mashal happy then we can hope that Hamas will respond better to other genuine efforts of the international community.

2) If number 1 failed, we can erase Hamas: Even if Hamas doesn’t budge nothing is lost. Then the international community can join Israel and eliminate Hamas using military force. Right now such act is cruel because no diplomatic chance has been given to Hamas. So we can achieve two things by negotiating with Hamas, either a less radical Hamas, or a full legitimacy to crush it down, and none of them is a bad thing.

3) Israel is at war with Hamas: This is simply common sense. Israel is at war with Hamas, not with Fath. Normally, you hold peace talks to achieve peace, and normally you want to achieve peace with something you’re at war with. So the Palestinian party of any meaningful peace talks should be Hamas in order to end the war. If you negotiate with a group you’re not at war with, it can have many names but peace talk is not one of them.

4) Hamas is the representative of Palestinians: No matter how much you like not to accept that, that’s simply a truth. Mahmoud Abbas’s term has expired, and he hasn’t held any elections. But Hamas’s term in parliament hasn’t expired yet. Hamas was democratically elected and will be elected again in any election. Abbas is a corrupt politician and can’t be the true representative of Palestinian people.

5) It will satisfy Palestinians: Palestinians are deeply radicalized and enraged. That’s understandable to me. They feel ignored in the political game of the Western countries and their Arab counterparts. None of the USA’s favorite moderate states is popular among Arab people. One of the reasons that Palestinians have turned to Hamas and a sick anti-Semite like Ahmadinejad is popular among them, generally the reason behind Arab Antisemitism, is this feeling of being ignored. If Hamas is engaged in the direct negotiations Palestinians can finally believe that international community really cares for them, and this is a step forward.

It must be hard for many of my Western readers to imagine engagement with a group like Hamas. But to Arab people equally is hard any engagement with Israel. We have to break the ice and try to really work for peace. Working for peace means trying to convince the most horrible sides of war to sit together and reach an agreement.

Written By:
Nader Amini

Iran is a country with many great poets. Ahmad Shamlou is certainly one of the greatest ones. He, alongside Nima Youshij, Mehdi Akhavan Sales, Forough Farrokhzad and Sohrab Sepehri is one of the five pillars of Persian poetry in 20th century. Many consider him the greatest contemporary poet. I don’t go as far as that and say along the four other poets I mentioned he belongs to the greatest level.

His style is very unique. His poems are famous to be “White poems” in Persian poetry. His poems usually have no rhyme, and their rhythm is not the traditional or even musical rhythm, more of a prose-like, natural rhythm. Like most other contemporary poets his language sometimes approaches every day speech. What gives his poems their great power is his choice of vocabulary, his unique, individual descriptions, and his fantastic imagery, as well as the power of his message and the strong emotion they convey.

About whatever subject he composes poetry, he sets a great message within it. Among his great poems some are about his wife Ayda, some sad poems, some hymns, and some deeply political poems, they all share an international imagination and a great message. They accompany a great emotion. All these have made Shamlou the most international Iranian poet.

Because of his great art, he definitely deserved The Nobel Prize in Literature.

He worked also as journalist, writer and researcher, but he was mediocre, to me, in these fields. He never really understood the great tradition of Persian poetry, and made crude remarks about Ferdowsi and some other poets. He was never a great theoretician, he was a great artist.

Below I quote one of his great poems so you can grasp a little of his art.

Written by:
Sohrab Jamshidi

…

Poetry
is liberty and liberation,

Poetry is a suspicion
that at last
congregates with conviction,

And a bullet
shot at the midst of the targeted end.

It is a content sigh,
It is the relief’s sign.

And it is the concrete verdict of seat
when it falls apart from underneath the feet
to allow the burden of body bursts
beneath its own mass
whenever the salvation of soul
is submitted to this last resort.

***

No bird had ever guided me
to the depth of this land:
I grew
by myself
from the dimness of this soil,
alike a wild flower
beside the moist of a trivial waterway
devoid of gardener.

And it is so that some are such regarding me:
“I live off their earnings,
and I exhale the malodorous air of my breathings
in the space of their territory.”

Except the truth is that
when they disembarked
in this land
the one who received them
with open arms
was me.

By Ahmad Shamlou
Translation: Maryam Dilmaghani
Translated from the poem “…” from the book The Dirgy of The Earth first published in 1969 Tehran.
Quoted from:

http://www.ahmadshamlou.com/

Simply shocking. What else this criminal regime does far from the world’s eyes, to that isolated nation?

Read the full article:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/07/20097165415127287.html

Written by:
Nader Amini

In Liberman’s visit to Brazil reflects the fact that Brazilians act wisely in this matter. For example, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim indicated support for Iran’s goal of nuclear development. This part satisfies Iran. But then he goes on and adds for “exclusively non-military purposes” and within a “verifiable framework”. This satisfies Israel. This is what I mean by middle stand.

Liberman said in this meeting: “I think that Brazil more than other countries can try to convince Iranians to stop their nuclear programme and, of course, to convince the Palestinians to start direct talks.”

I hope Brazil really to go and take a role in both these hot issues, Iranian nuclear program and Israel-Palestine conflict, because it’s a wise player and its presence can make a change.

Written by:
Nader Amini

But Why?

Because corruption exists in every country, a country without corrupt politicians is non-existent. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is in the fact that in a democracy the media has the power to uncover this corruption and the law will side with them. Therefore corrupt politicians are arrested, and corruption becomes a hard crime.

But in the dictatorships the law is completely in the hand of the politicians, therefore they become something beyond the law and they can’t be arrested, and the media is censored and can’t reflect the truth. So the corruption of such countries becomes norm.

So such cases not only show the corruption or the inefficiency of democratic system, but they show its health, and they show how the free media and a powerful force of law can cure any diseases that an overall healthy body night catch.

Written by:
Nader Amini

Barack Obama and John McCain, Mousavi and Reza Pahlavi, they all paid tribute to Neda Agha Soltan. It seems that those killed have finally gathered opposing Iranians. And that’s simply natural. You only need to be human to be moved by the death of people like these.

But why these people get so famous? Stalin, maybe in reality and maybe in fiction, once said, “If you kill one person, it’s a tragedy. If you kill 10 million (or whatever number) it’s statistics.” It seems at least in the latest protests in Iran this hasn’t happened. The dead maintain their individuality. We simply don’t say 20, 30 people are killed, we know many of them by name, by face, we know their family members. They’re not simply some people killed in protests. They’re not number of the casualties in a report. They’re human beings. We know them. We know them personally, and we mourn them. They’re our dear ones, dear ones we’ve lost.

But why?

There are two main reasons. First of all, they’re apparent innocence. They at worst were people protesting peacefully, claiming their vote. They weren’t even asking to overthrow the regime, they just wanted their vote back. Some, such as Neda or Mohammad Kamrani didn’t only do this. They were simply bystanders who happened to be in a wrong place. We may forget people who died for a reason, but not the blood shed in vain, the blood that could simply remain intact.

Next reason is the personal features of the dead. Neda is a very beautiful girl, and Sohrab, Massoud Hashemzadeh and the rest are handsome boys. They’re all young. Sohrab was 19, and Massoud, the oldest, 27. And their family members frequently interview the media. So in short, we know them; every mother who watches the news knows that this person can be her own son or daughter, and you have this feelings, this inevitable feeling, that Neda, or Sohrab, or Mohammad, or any other deceased, could be you, your girlfriend, or boyfriend, in short, somebody you love.

Therefore all of the dead have a story behind them, a tragedy. We know the story, are moved by it, and we won’t forget the hero. Therefore Neda, Sohrab and the others are not the extras, or the minor characters of the story of Iranian post election protests, a story written by politicians, no, the minor characters are Mousavi, Karroubi, Khatami, Ahmadinejad, and the rest, the heroes of these stories are the protesters in the streets, and among them the most prominent ones are the dead.

The green movement of Iran will be remembered in history. But it will be remembered because of its red shades, and Neda and Sohrab and the others will represent the true face of the green movement: innocence, and being the victim of injustice. And Neda’s beautiful face will be remembered the most. She’s the protagonist of this story. And the green movement will be remembered as Neda, and Neda as the green movement. Precisely because she was an innocent bystander, beautiful, young, had a great future ahead of her.

Therefore, unlike what I said at the beginning of my article, Neda isn’t really a symbol. She’s a person. A human being. An individual. And she’s the sister, the beloved of a nation, of all people.

Symbols aren’t really hard to be defeated. You make another symbol. You try to steal it, and Ahmadinejad did attempt to steal Neda as a symbol when he wrote a letter and asked for investigations on her death.

But you can’t make other humans, and you can’t steal humans. You can’t do anything when you’ve killed somebody’s beloved. It’s too much. Too criminal to leave any hope for forgiveness.

So let them compare it to the other things as they like. They might say (and some do say) that the death of Neda was too much paid attention to. I refer them to Stalin. When you kill 10 people it’s just statics. But one person who is killed is a tragedy. Neda, Sohrab, Ya’ghoub, Mohammad, Nasser, and the others, were not 10 people killed, each of them was one person killed who happened to succeed the other.

Maybe the green phantom of post election protests never devours Islamic Republic. But a phantom with an innocent smile will devour it, the phantom of Neda Agha Soltan.

Written by:
Nader Amini

In short, The Main Currents of Marxism, Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution is a master work, written by a true master, an instant classic, a great work and it’s absolutely a must read for everyone interested in philosophy.

But my interest in Kołakowski doesn’t end here. The main reason to pay tribute to his great memory is his great life. His father was killed by Nazis in Poland. He became a staunch Marxist later. But soon he broke with Stalinism, and advocated a humanist Marxism. This separation widened and he completely left Marxism. He had rightly found out that “the totalitarian cruelty of Stalinism was not an aberration but the logical end product of Marxism.” [quote from Wikipedia].

He was a great moralist and activist to the end of his life. He wanted to see a more moral world and he fought for it. And he was a true convert to liberalism, he left Marxism because he had found its totalitarian roots, and he spread liberal values the rest of his life. He was one of the few remaining intellectuals, such as Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Einstein who thought well and fought well for a better world. He’s not only someone the world will miss, he belongs to a race that if is extinct the world will miss.

Written By:
Nader Amini