New dress code in Iran: Jews and Christians must wear badges

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well done MaggieL! I'm an old Omaha fan myself, and I've used that line in conversation time to time. Too bad the tale was never finished AFAIK.

Polymer-frame Commander-length 1911 clone in Gwennie's paw, I see. Somebody has classicist taste in handguns. Is it one of the unusual kind with an external extractor? That dot aft the ejection port suggests something different from John Browning's original internal extractor.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Well done MaggieL! I'm an old Omaha fan myself, and I've used that line in conversation time to time. Too bad the tale was never finished AFAIK.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In early 2004, Waller and Worley had moved beyond their disagreement, and were collaborating to finish the hanging storyline. However, Worley's death interrupted that work. Her widower, Jim Vance, using her notes, took her place. The title has been picked up by NBM Publishing, and has resumed publication as of November, 2005 with the new work being serialized in the magazine Sizzle.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Polymer-frame Commander-length 1911 clone in Gwennie's paw, I see. Somebody has classicist taste in handguns. Is it one of the unusual kind with an external extractor? That dot aft the ejection port suggests something different from John Browning's original internal extractor.

Kimber Pro-Carry 10 II. Yes, it's an external extractor...also serves as a tactile "chamber loaded" indicator

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Sweet. I like 1911s, own two (one's about eighty years old, w/new firing pin retaining plate, and reblued, with "Property of United States" ground off the frame), and have heard good report of Kimber. Next largebore centerfire pistol I get, I'd want either a Kimber or a .45 Kahr.

Is there a chapter of Pink Pistols in your area? They might be fun to shoot with.

Thanks very much for the new info -- haven't bought comix in some time.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Is there a chapter of Pink Pistols in your area? They might be fun to shoot with.

Ya think? :-)

Gwennie and I founded the Delaware Valley chapter about five years ago. She's National Media Spokesperson for the Pistols. The original founder Doug Krick (who had been quite active with the LP up in Massachusetts) was an old friend of hers; we found out *after* getting involved. :-).

DelVal meets every third Saturday for lunch and then shoots at a local range after.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Outstanding, and neato mosquito. If you're going to use arms, you should use them with skill and with diligence. Robert Heinlein once wrote, "A man should . . .fight efficiently, die gallantly. . . [quite an assortment of desiderata in the ellipses]. . . Specialization is for insects."

Maybe someday if you two come out to southern California, we might arrange to shoot in Holser Canyon, the extreme upper end of which hosts the annual Steel Challenge competition every August. Holser Canyon, near Piru, CA, is so end-to-end with shooting ranges it might as well be named "Holster Canyon." It would take a bit of arranging, as I don't have a membership out there, but it might be done.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Outstanding, and neato mosquito. If you're going to use arms, you should use them with skill and with diligence. Robert Heinlein once wrote...

Yes, we're both Heinlien fans, and know that quote and several similar others. (Like "Always keep your clothes and your weapons where you can find them in the dark.". His views on the subject were quite clear.

Originally Posted by RAH

My great-great-great-grandfather Lawrence Heinlein died prematurely at the age of ninety-seven, through having carelessly left his cabin one winter morning without his gun—and found a buck deer on the ice of his pond. Lack of his gun did not stop my triple-great-grandfather; this skinful of meat must not be allowed to escape. He went out on the ice and bulldogged the buck, quite successfully.

But in throwing the deer my ancestor slipped on the ice, went down, and a point of the buck's rack stabbed between his ribs and pierced his heart.

No doubt it taught him a lesson—it certainly taught me one. So far I've beaten the odds three times: continued to live when the official prognosis called for something less active. So I intend to be careful—not chopped down in my prime the way my ancestor was. I shan't bulldog any buck deer, or cross against the lights, or reach barehanded into dark places favored by black widow spiders, or—most especially!—leave my quarters without being adequately armed.

Perhaps the warmest pleasure in life is the knowledge that one has no enemies. The easiest way to achieve this is by outliving them.

It's not widely known that he got into quite a struggle with the woman who editied the Scribners juvenile series over the use of firearms in "Rocket Ship Gallileo"; some of the corresponance appears in "Grumbles from the Grave", the posthumous collection of his letters published by his widow.

Thanks for the invitation; I've been to CA but go there as infrequently as possible.

[MrVisible]

The original article on this subject was a complete fabrication. The author of the story, Amir Taheri, is standing by it, but has no evidence or sources that will corroborate his story. The paper that printed the original column has issued a retraction. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the draft of the law that was being discussed, and confirmed that all it did was encourage Iranians to wear Islamic clothing. The whole story was complete disinformation.

A good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ir...aw_controversy

And another:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0525/dailyUpdate.html

It may interest some of you to know that Amir Taheri was invited to the White House on Tuesday to offer his 'expert' opinion on Iran.

So we're being fed inflammatory disinformation in order to get us to start a pre-emptive war in the middle east. This sounds oddly familiar...

Originally Posted by Heinlein

A generation which ignores history has no past -- and no future.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

It may interest some of you to know that Amir Taheri was invited to the White House on Tuesday to offer his 'expert' opinion on Iran.

That's not what the briefing said. Wouldn't want to get a story only partly right...:-)

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

That's not what the briefing said.

Yes it is:

Q Can you give us a readout on the President's meeting this morning with the Iraq experts?
MR. SNOW: Yes. Oh, my goodness, I forgot to bring the list. But actually -- do you have the list, Fred? Yes, it was an interesting meeting. What you ended up having was -- I've got all the names but one written down here. We had Wayne Downing, Barry McCaffrey, Michael Vickers, Amir Taheri, Fouad Ajami and Raad Alkadiri. And you had a combination there of military men and also scholars who are students of Iraq. And it was an interesting discussion that touched upon cultural issues, on political issues, on the state of affairs in Iraq. You had a number of people who've been there recently, General McCaffrey having returned just last month from his latest visit. Fouad Ajami last year had the occasion to sit down and speak with the Ayatollah Sistani, Ali al Sistani.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Yes it is:

No, it isn't.

You do know the difference between Iraq and Iran?

[MaggieL]

One does like to read original sources. Also responses. More from the same author.

[MrVisible]

Well, it's an interesting strategy. You don't address any of the facts about the debunked story from the articles I posted, like that the National Post retracted the story in question or the refutation by the Associated Press, but instead repost the story, and a couple more articles by the same author. Perhaps you'd like to explain what it is you're trying to prove? Once someone's veracity is questioned, maybe you should check to see that their facts right instead of taking their word on their own honesty.

And are you actually suggesting that it's all right to invite this man, widely recognized as having fabricated disinformation to feed into the 'attack Iran' mentality, invited to the White House to provide 'expert' advice on any Middle East policy? Perhaps you think that, though he lies about Iran, he's scrupulously honest about Iraq?

Or was it just a reflexive "you made a typo, neener neener" response?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

Or was it just a reflexive "you made a typo, neener neener" response?

Ah...so you actually knew he was invited to speak on Iraq, not Iran, and accidently typed the name of the wrong country, as opposed to being misled by what Molly Ivans' wrote?

As for "strategy", what I actually said was "it's interesting to read original sources"...which was apparently was the Taheri opinion piece (rather than the retracted Canadian article), which, far from being retracted, Taheri say's he's standing by. The other "original source" of course is the Snow briefing vs. the Ivans screed on "Truthdig".

I say it's interesting to read them. And I'm standing by that.

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Ah...so you actually knew he was invited to speak on Iraq, not Iran, and accidently typed the name of the wrong country, as opposed to being misled by what Molly Ivans' wrote?

Yes. Do you think it's wise to have someone who authored an inflammatory article based on a complete fabrication being consulted as an "expert" by the White house?

As for "strategy", what I actually said was "it's interesting to read original sources"...which was apparently was the Taheri opinion piece (rather than the retracted Canadian article),...

The Taheri opinion piece you linked to, dated May 20th, came out the day after the National Post story. The National Post has removed the original article from its website, so we cannot compare them, but the text seems to be substantively similar.

...which, far from being retracted, Taheri say's he's standing by.

Let's get a little perspective on what that means exactly, shall we? Here's the retraction published by the National Post.

Last Friday, the National Post ran a story prominently on the front page
alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law that, if enacted, would
require Jews and other religious minorities in Iran to wear badges that would
identify them as such in public. It is now clear the story is not true. Given
the seriousness of the error, I felt it necessary to explain to our readers how
this happened.

The story of the alleged badge law first came to us in the form of a column by
Amir Taheri. Mr. Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist, has written widely on
Iran for many major publications. In his column, Mr. Taheri wrote at length
about the new law, the main purpose of which is to establish an appropriate
dress code for Muslims. Mr. Taheri went on to say that under the law, "Religious
minorities would have their own colour schemes. They will also have to wear
special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faith."

This extraordinary allegation caught our attention, of course. The idea that
Iran might impose such a law did not seem out of the question given that its
President has denied the Holocaust and threatened to "wipe Israel off the map."
We tried to contact Mr. Taheri, but he was in transit and unreachable.

The editor who was dealing with Mr. Taheri's column wrote to Rabbi Abraham
Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. The
Wiesenthal Center is an international Jewish human rights organization that
keeps a close watch on issues affecting the treatment of Jews around the world,
and maintains contacts in many countries, including Iran. Asked about the
specific allegation that Iran had passed a law requiring religious minorities to
identify themselves, Rabbi Cooper replied by e-mail that the story was
"absolutely true." When a reporter spoke to Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the
Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, a short while later, Rabbi Hier said the story
was true and added that the organization had sent a letter to UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan asking him to take up the matter. (Rabbi Hier has
since said that, contrary to the understanding of the reporter, the Wiesenthal
Center had not independently confirmed Mr. Taheri's allegation.)

The reporter also spoke with two Iranian exiles in Canada -- Ali Behroozian in
Toronto and Shahram Golestaneh in Ottawa. Both said that they had heard the the
story of the badges from their contacts in Iran and they believed it to be true.

Canada's Foreign Affairs Department did not respond to questions about the issue
until after deadline, and then only to say they were looking into the matter.
After several calls to the Iranian embassy in Ottawa, the reporter reached
Hormoz Ghahremani, a spokesman for the embassy. Mr. Ghahremani's response to the
allegation was that he did not answer such questions.

We now had four sources -- Mr. Taheri, the Wiesenthal Center and two Iranian
exiles in Canada -- telling us that according to their sources the Iranian law
appeared to include provisions for compelling religious minorities to identify
themselves in public. Iranian authorities in Canada had not denied the story.
Given the sources, and given the previous statements of the Iranian President,
we felt confident the story was true and decided to publish it.

The reaction was immediate and distressing. Several experts whom the reporter
had tried unsuccessfully to contact the day before called to say the story was
not true. The Iranian embassy put out a statement late in the day doing what it
had failed to do the day before -- unequivocally deny such a law had been
passed.

The reporter continued to try to determine whether there was any truth to the
story. Some sources said there had been some peripheral discussion in the
Iranian parliament of identifying clothing for minority religions, but it became
clear that the dress code bill, which was introduced on May 14 and has not yet
been passed into law, does not include such provisions.

Mr. Taheri, who had written the column that sparked the story, was again
unreachable on Friday. He has since put out a statement saying the National Post
and others "jumped the gun" in our characterization of his column. He says he
was only saying the provisions affecting minorities might happen at some point.
All of the people who read the column on the first day took it to mean the
measure was part of a law that had been passed. Mr. Taheri maintains the zonnar,
or badges, could still be put in effect when the dress code law is implemented.

On Saturday, the National Post ran another front-page story above the fold with
the Iranian denial and the comments of the experts casting doubts on the
original story.

It is corporate policy for all of CanWest's media holdings to face up to their
mistakes in an honest, open fashion. It is also the right thing to do
journalistically.

We acknowledge that on this story, we did not exercise sufficient caution and
skepticism, and we did not check with enough sources. We should have pushed the
sources we did have for more corroboration of the information they were giving
us. That is not to say that we ignored basic journalistic practices or that we
rushed this story into print with no thought as to the consequences. But given
the seriousness of the allegations, more was required.

We apologize for the mistake and for the consternation it has caused not just
National Post readers, but the broader public who read the story. We take this
incident very seriously, and we are examining our procedures to try to ensure
such an error does not happen again.

Douglas Kelly,

Editor-in-Chief

National Post

You'll note that Mr. Taheri's idea of 'standing by his story' goes like this:

He has since put out a statement saying the National Post
and others "jumped the gun" in our characterization of his column. He says he
was only saying the provisions affecting minorities might happen at some point.
All of the people who read the column on the first day took it to mean the
measure was part of a law that had been passed.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I say it's interesting to read them. And I'm standing by that.

Meh. I prefer the truth. I've had it up to here with liars recently.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

You'll note that Mr. Taheri's idea of 'standing by his story' goes like this:

No, that's not his statement about it at all. (Did you read it?)
You are instead quoting the Post retracting what they wrote about what Tahiri wrote. We have Tahiri's article, and his statement after the brouhaha. If you want to call him a liar, wouldn't it be better to use his words rather than those of The Post, the Majalis or Molly Ivans?

Pardon me, but your "typo" story severely strains my credulity...I find you reading Ivans and parroting her line (rather than reading the original Snow briefing) much more plausible. On the other hand, Happy Monkey was able to actually quote the Snow briefing and still get it wrong, so...