People vs Non-People


Do you think it ever crossed the mind of Dr. Eappen that in reality the “people of Iran” includes many millions of that country’s citizens who faithfully support the theocratic regime (referred to as “greedy, keller [sic] thugs” in Dr. Roy’s mangled parlance) for whatever reason(s).

I only raise the question because Eappen’s unequivocal “support” for the “people of Iran” would seem to necessitate a rather curious distinction of sorts being made by the so-called doctor.

If his statement isn’t simply to be regarded as completely fatuous or utterly nonsensical, then should one logically deduce that those who support the Islamic Revolution and/or the current political status quo in Iran aren’t to be regarded as “people” in the scheme of things imagined by Dr. Eappen and his ilk. And if so, exactly what then are they to be considered as?

One really has to wonder about the troublesome implications associated with such a woefully misbegotten opinion.

Odd Coupling

Willfully blind to the somewhat awkward irony of having Chris Kofinis, a former spokesman for the John Edwards campaign, sanctimoniously opine about the apparent “values problem” within the GOP, David Schuster and his guest nonetheless boldly stake out the moral high ground for liberals…

Granted, there isn’t an exact “apples to apples” correlation here, but surely someone more removed from a high-profile case of marital infidelity and moral indiscretion could have been trotted out by MSNBC to sound off on the completely obvious fact that many right-wing Bible-thumpers are actually dirty rotten scoundrels.