There had been some pundits predicting that Friday’s Presidential Election in Iran would devolve into their Tiananmen Square.
Given the Anti-Iranian propaganda we hear in America, I figured the Iranian theocracy was a pretty tight ship and they would easily rig this election and insure a peacful acceptance of whatever result the Grand Mullahs desired.
Turns out I was wrong as Iran is indeed seeing widespread urban protests, disrupted communications and the ongoing expulsion of foreign reporters. As the above video attests, the Iranians are bad at both rigging elections and suppressing reporting on rigging an election.
All this could have been easily avoided had Iran just followed America’s lead in rigging an election.
Imagine this scenario:
Following the closing of polling booths Friday, the government should have gone into delay mode. Whether blaming tremendous voter turnout or a close election the government could have spent the next weeks and even months counting votes and rounding up overly vocal protestors.
If Iranian leaders had known recent American history they could have used the example of of our election of 2000 to learn the value of a cooling off period when stealing an election. Imagine our protests had Bush been declared the winner on election night 2000 with a unthinkable 65% to 35% margin of victory. Even our uneducated electorate could have smelled that stinky a fraud.
Combine the delaying tactic with the anti-protest tactics of NYC Mayor Bloomberg. The weeks of delay could have allowed the Iranian authorities the dual benefits of being able to round up protestors and inserting agent provactuers to sully the oppositions reputation.
A) American’s don’t want a public healthcare plan.
B) A public health care plan will force out private insurers.
So we don’t want a public option but if it’s offered we’ll all select it??
A) American’s want their big SUV’s and not fuel-efficient econoboxes.
B) GM went out of business because it was making cars American’s didn’t want.
So American’s want big SUV’s that GM made but won’t anymore.
A) Bank of America is Too Big to Fail
B) Bank of America is forced to buy the biggest mortgage lender, Countrywide, and the biggest retail broker, Merrill Lynch.
So stress tests now prove that new bigger Bank of America will no longer fail nor need to be disassembled.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” (guess the speaker)
The question by NY Times reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin at the end of this clip says it all: “”Name a Successful Unionized Company!”
I guess they all forget UPS, GE, all six major movie studios, AT&T, and many many others. Like most in my generation, his job depends on his being uninformed, or appearing as such, about his area of expertise.
So much for the Times being a Liberal Rag
Here’s the email I sent to the Public Editor of the NY Times, Clark Hoyt:
Dear Mr. Hoyt,
One of your BUSINESS reporters, Andrew Ross Sorkin, while appearing on MSNBC as a New York Times representative, stated that he could not name one successful corporation with unionized employees.
Can your newspaper really be successful if it has reporters who lack such basic knowledge about their area of expertise? His statement is so egregiously incorrect, I was surprised the unionized employees at the immensely successful General Electric, who were filming his segment on “Morning Joe”, didn’t just turn off the camera’s and lights.
I have yet to hear a correction from either Mr. Sorkin or the New York Times.
Hopefully the correction will be as prominent as Mr Sorkin’s asinine comment.
We all know the meme, “Government wants to take over health care and get between you and your doctor”, and we all know it’s not that simple. In fact the UK system is quite simple. They have guaranteed healthcare for all but you can still get health insurance if you are dissatisfied will the governments system.
In the United Kingdom, both emergency care and standard physician services are guaranteed for all. Then why do they still have Health Insurance?
There is a grain of truth to the threats of long waiting times for medical procedures under government run health insurance and it typically doesn’t cover “elective” procedures. This is where health insurance fills in for the governments deficiencies.
For example, an athletic sixty year-old might purchase insurance to cover procedures like hip replacement or optical laser surgery that might be neglected in a government insurance plan. We can all be sure that the insurance companies will be quite adept at pointing out these gaps in coverage.
Why haven’t we heard this argument from the Dems? Either they think its a nuance too complicated for our feeble brains to understand or (much worse) they think we might.
Welcome to the Ruminations of an Aspiring Renaissance Man
I hope you enjoy the social commentary and economic interpretation.
Any supporting arguments and constructive criticism are welcome.
Please take any investment advise to your personal financial professional (even if he seems to be an idiot), before implementing any investment OPINIONS contained within this blog.
Just because I'm a well educated financial professional doesn't mean I'll be right. It doesn't mean I'm wrong either though.
Live Long and Prosper :)