absolve

The New York Times’s Wordplay to Absolve Iran’s Leadership

On Monday, Iranians took to the streets nationwide to mark the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. The rallies celebrated Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's triumph in toppling Iran's monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, along with Iran's 2,500-year-old monarchy, on Feb. 11, 1979. Before the year's end, Khomeini would engineer the formation of the Islamic Republic—an oppressive, anti-Western theocracy—and become its first supreme leader, until his death in 1989.

Every major publication seems to have published an article reflecting on the anniversary, and on the state of Iran's revolution after 40 years, including the New York Times. The paper's Tehran bureau chief, Thomas Erdbrink, on Sunday wrote a piece whose headline—"The Iranian Revolution at 40: From Theocracy to ‘Normality'"—immediately reveals his hackneyed, pre-scripted take. Under the guise of a straight-news report, Erdbrink epitomizes the flawed, dangerous view of Iran that most of the political left, and some of the isolationist-leaning right, hold.

First, Erdbrink does not assign any explicit blame to the regime for Iran's dark situation. In a remarkable show of wordplay that would make any college professor cringe, Erdbrink employs vague language and the passive voice throughout his work to avoid holding the mullahs accountable for Iran's economic crisis and their oppression of the Iranian people.

"Forty years ago, Iranians swelled with pride, hope, and the expectation of a better future," Erdbrink writes. "But great, rapid change can leave deep and lasting wounds. There were lashings, hangings, amputations, and mass imprisonment. Thousands of people died and hundreds of thousands left the country, some fleeing for their lives, never to return."

"What materialized after those first bloody years was truly revolutionary: an Islamic republic, a theocracy built on ideological choices inspired to a great extent by Ayatollah Khomeini," he continues.

Erdbrink cannot bring himself to say the obvious truth: that Khomeini and his followers perpetuated the violence, and that their Islamic project was the cause of all the rape and murder and torture to come. The Islamist radicals did not hang and imprison people, according to Erdbrink's article. No, hangings and mass imprisonment just happened out of thin air, and amid the chaos, the Islamic Republic emerged. Who or what drove this process? Erdbrink's unclear language does not provide an answer. Instead, he obfuscates and dances around the issue, painfully avoiding the clarity that would report the truth to readers.

Second, Erdbrink implies throughout his piece that the Islamic Republic has evolved, almost naturally, for the better.

"Over the years, as the early revolutionary fervor gave way for most people to a yearning for a more normal existence, the rules became negotiable," Erdbrink writes. "While the political system is basically the same as in those early years, the society changed slowly, at times almost imperceptibly. Those changes have been enormous, and the Iran celebrating the 40th anniversary of the revolution on Feb. 11 is closer than most outsiders generally appreciate to being that ‘normal' country Iranians want."

Erdbrink describes the Islamic Republic almost like a western European country. It is true that the regime has loosened some of its rigid cultural and religious rules instituted after 1979. But Erdbrink completely ignores the terrible tyranny that continues to subjugate the Iranian people, from hanging homosexuals in public to mistreating minorities and political prisoners. The regime is an ideological entity that, at its core, hates the West—hence the scenes of supporters of the regime burning American flags and chanting "death to America, death to Israel" on Monday.

The notion that Iran is progressing toward a brighter future under the regime's control was the basis of the Obama administration's approach to Tehran. Why else would American negotiators agree to a deal that lifts sanctions on Iran in exchange for placing restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program that only last for 10-15 years, thus allowing Tehran to break out toward a nuclear weapon after that time? The deal makes perfect sense if one believes that Iran's leaders will moderate over that time with more exposure to the West. This misguided view ignores key systemic and ideological factors at play in the Islamic Republic that make such a transition practically impossible.

Third, Erdbrink claims in not so many words that the real culprits of the current hostility between Tehran and Washington are not the murderous mullahs, but rather the Trump administration's principals. "Actually, one big thing has changed politically, as Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said last week," Erdbrink writes. "The ‘Death to America' chant that had been a bulwark of Iranian ideology from the earliest days of the revolution now means something else: Death to President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and the national security adviser, John R. Bolton."

That is how Erdbrink concluded his piece—at least until the final paragraph was curiously deleted the next day, without an editor's note explaining the change. Perhaps Erdbrink and his editor finally remembered how the last 40 years of hostility began: with Iran declaring America the "great Satan" and taking American diplomats hostage for more than a year.

The greatest shame of Erdbrink's piece is that he never mentions the ongoing nationwide protests against the regime, which erupted in December 2017. Nor does he mention the demonstrations in his reporting on Monday's rallies, beyond one measly sentence. Instead, Erdbrink tries to highlight popular support for the regime, ignoring the Iranian people's clear rejection of theocracy. There is a reason why Iranians across the country—including in more rural, peripheral provinces, the regime's supposed base of support—have called for the Islamic Republic's downfall, saying, "Our enemy is here, but they always say it is America." Yet Erdbrink wants to portray the regime as a permanent part of life.

Erdbrink has long omitted and obfuscated in his reporting on Iran, and he is far from alone among journalists. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this problem, albeit one that has fallen out of favor: just report the facts. But then again, that might make the regime look bad, which could undermine Obama's approach to Iran and portray the approach of his successor in a positive light. And we can't have that.

Police absolve ex-coaches at Nihon University in late hit case

Police dropped their investigation into two former coaches of a Nihon University football player who committed a vicious late hit, a decision that was immediately denounced by the school and the college football association.

The Metropolitan Police Department said Feb. 5 that it could not find compelling evidence that showed Masato Uchida, the former head coach, and Tsutomu Inoue, a former assistant coach, had co-conspired with the defensive player on the late hit or abetted in the player’s crime.

A committee set up by Nihon University as well as the Kantoh Collegiate Football Association (KCFA) had both concluded that Uchida, 63, and Inoue, 30, had given direct orders to the player to intentionally injure the Kwansei Gakuin University quarterback on the first play of a game in Tokyo last year.

After video of the late hit went viral, Nihon University fired Uchida and Inoue, while the KCFA expelled them from the sport.

The injured quarterback’s parents filed criminal complaints against Uchida and Inoue.

However, police absolved the two of all criminal responsibility after analyzing video of the game as well as talking to 195 individuals.

Police did send papers to prosecutors on Feb. 5 on the 20-year-old defensive player on suspicion of inflicting bodily harm.

Police will leave the decision on whether to indict up to prosecutors because a settlement has already been reached between the player and the Kwansei Gakuin University quarterback.

The Nihon University player has insisted the two former coaches ordered the late hit, but police concluded that the player misunderstood the instructions.

According to police officers involved in the investigation, many Nihon University football players said their responses to the university committee and KCFA were made with the intention of helping out their teammate who committed the late hit.

Police said they could find no player who actually heard the coaches giving late-hit orders to the player.

The KCFA found in its investigation that the player pleaded with coaches before the game to put him in because he would “break” the opposing quarterback. The player said Uchida told him he would have to stick by his words, and the association took that as a clear instruction to make the late hit.

However, police were again unable to find a third party who actually heard Uchida’s response.

Video analysis also led police to differ from the views of the football association on at least 10 aspects about how Uchida observed the game or what contact was involved between the head coach and the defensive player.

The KCFA concluded through its video analysis that Uchida clearly saw the dirty hit but did not take the player out of the game. However, the police conclusion was that Uchida never saw the late tackle because he was following the thrown ball.

Mitsuhiro Katsumaru, a former prosecutor who chaired the Nihon University committee, said he could not understand the police findings.

“Such a play would never have happened unless there was an instruction given,” he said.

On the police conclusion that Uchida did not see the late hit, Katsumaru questioned why the head coach never said anything to the player after the team was given a 15-yard penalty for the personal foul.

KCFA officials said the expulsions of Uchida and Inoue would stand despite the police findings.

Yoshiharu Yoshida, who once worked as an assistant coach on the University of Washington football team, said that even if the player misunderstood the instruction, his inability to confirm the true intent of his coach showed there were problems within the team.

Wyoming Senator Lynn Hutchings Defends Death Penalty Because Jesus Was Executed

Deplorable ignorance: Wyoming Senator Lynn Hutchings defends the death penalty because Jesus was executed, and without the death penalty, “Jesus Christ would not have been able to die to absolve the sins of mankind.”

Earlier this week a bill abolishing the death penalty in Wyoming was defeated by the state Senate. The progressive bill passed in the state House, as well as a Senate legislative committee, but it was defeated on the Senate floor.

One of the bill’s opponents, GOP Senator Lynn Hutchings, “argued that without the death penalty, Jesus Christ would not have been able to die to absolve the sins of mankind, and therefore capital punishment should be maintained.”

Hutchings said:

The greatest man who ever lived died via the death penalty for you and me. I’m grateful to him for our future hope because of this. Governments were instituted to execute justice. If it wasn’t for Jesus dying via the death penalty, we would all have no hope.

That’s right, Republican Senator Lynn Hutchings believes the death penalty is a good thing because Jesus was executed. And if it’s good enough for Jesus – well you know the rest.

Hutchings is an idiot. But she is also a dangerous, hateful idiot. Earlier this week  Hutchings compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia while speaking to members of the Cheyenne Central High School Gay-Straight Alliance.

According to reports, Hutchings made the following statement to the high school students:

If my sexual orientation was to have sex with all of the men in there and I had sex with all of the women in there and then they brought their children and I had sex with all of them and then brought their dogs in and I had sex with them, should I be protected for my sexual orientation?

Her remarks are despicable. It’s always ignorant and wrong to compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia, but to do so in front of some gay and bisexual high school students is cruel beyond imagination.

Indeed, many are calling on Hutchings to resign after her hateful and dishonest remarks to the group of high school students.

For example, Wyoming Democratic Party Chairman Joe Barbuto issued the following statement:

Sen. Hutchings’s comments are indefensible, insensitive, and repugnant. Her remarks were not appropriate for any audience, but that she said this to children is especially revolting. It shows a clear lack of good judgment. Senate District 5 deserves a Senator who they can trust to behave and speak in a manner that upholds the dignity of the office and reflects an understanding that every person deserves to be treated with respect. Lynn Hutchings is now incapable of providing that level of representation. She must resign immediately.

Hutchings is a first-term senator and a former House member who is not afraid to use her religious superstition to terrorize and demean high school students, or justify the execution of criminals.

Surprise: She also claims to be “pro-life.”

Bottom line: Wyoming Senator Lynn Hutchings defends the death penalty because “if it wasn’t for Jesus dying via the death penalty, we would all have no hope.”

Wyoming Senator Lynn Hutchings Defends Death Penalty Because Jesus Was Executed (Image via Wyoming Public Media)