> And I think an "it's none of our
> business" approach would have a
> lot of popular appeal, though of
> course the ruling class would
> fight it hard. I don't think you'd
> have to preface the argument with
> a long analysis of the suckiness
> of the Iranian regime (or, for that
> matter, the deeper suckiness of the
> Saudi Arabian regime). But it's
> inevitable that it's going to come
> up in conversation or debate, and
> I don't see any purpose in being
> evasive or dishonest in answering.
Why is it evasive or dishonest to resist feeding the prejudices of the crowd? Why do we have to reinforce the morbid sense of moral superiority that people in the Western world "naturally" feel towards Persians, Arabs, Latin Americans, etc.?
(You've frequently made this point in the context of religion, even though persuading people to abandon religion altogether is a much tougher nut to crack than convincing people of the need -- not to love and embrace, but simply -- to respect other nations, races, etc. even if for our own sake.)
Shifting the focus to Iran, away from the nature of our foreign policy and society, is what is evasive. And, often, blatantly dishonest.
martin replied to my question:
>> How is funneling a static image?
> Depends on the consistency of what
> you're funneling.
Let's see. I was funneling multiple options into two bags. Perhaps as many options as there are individuals with an opinion about the Iran-U.S. conflict. Maybe not as many as to allow us to align them as dimensionless points on a continuum. But each of them still very fine. I'd think that the substance thus constituted is fluid enough to ensure that the state of the funneling system varies from time 0 to time 1. No?