Challenge Pit

This is not what I think but why

Monday, June 07, 2010

to suffer wrong or to do wrong

It’s a couple of days I’m busy reading Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. Every morning on the train I read my newspaper in Dutch, then my train book in English and if I have the internet connection, I read the news from my country in Persian.

I read the morbid headlines that a judge and her secretary are shot dead in Brussels at the end of a court sitting. Murder has become so ordinary these days, you know, just the day before a taxi driver in Whitehaven, England has gunned down several people, a couple of weeks ago in Thailand several protesters were shot dead and next week one year ago tens of peaceful protesters to the election fraud in Iran were ruthlessly shot by the special guard and the sub-military pressure group. Violence has become part of our lives. Albert Camus’ words in The Rebel rankles in my ears that “as soon as a man, through lack of character, takes refuge in doctrine [ie establishing an ideology behind a crime], as soon as crime reasons about itself, it multiplies like reason itself.” And indeed it has become so.

I move on to Dostoyevsky and read the underlined sentence that “actually, people sometimes talk about man’s ‘bestial’ cruelty, but that is being terribly unjust and offensive to the beasts: a beast can never be as cruel as a human being.” Taken up by a resonant quandary , I think of the forthcoming election in Belgium and hear the cry in my head that when are these politicians going to really think of the real problems and authentic solutions instead of thinking of the luxurious language problem in Brussels, Halle and Vilvoorde? Can’t they really find a way to stop illegal weapons proliferation?

I reach my school and while going to the classroom, a colleague of mine says over his shoulder, “have you heard about the murder in Brussels?” and when I say yes, he looks at me with his eyes squinting and says in his customary funny tone, “he’s been one of your men.” I take it as a joke as I am the only foreigner at school and sometimes my colleagues like to joke with me. I even let them call me a terrorist so that we laugh ourselves loose, but this time it’s not a joke. I can’t believe it. Not that nationality has anything to do with the nature of crime, no. Only that this is inexplicable in the face of being victimized by a totalitarian regime that is killing our people right and left. Now I flounder to find an explanation for this flouncing murder.

Through the whole past year after the fraudulent election in Iran, the GREEN opposition movement as we are called, being hunted and beaten and tortured and imprisoned as we are, have been trying to show to the world the salient fact that we protest with equanimity and act in deference to the human rights. We have even enunciated that we dispense with violence and are ready to forgive our torturers. And now an Iranian brandishes his pistol and guns down two human beings.

Back at home I follow the news on TV only to find out that it had been an act of revenge. What can vengeance bring for the avenger? In Dostoyevsky’s words, “what can vengeance put right?” I can’t look into the eyes of my wife and I don’t know what to say to my students if they ask me about this ignominy. I call a friend and ask with supplication to write at once a statement condemning the malice. Belgium has been ineffably friendly with refugees. She has provided many with shelter and has saved many more from persecution. The Belgians that I know will certainly forgive us and will not look at all of us Iranians as potential murderers.

Will I be able to sleep tonight?

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Mr Ahmadinejad has my many thanks

There were people who had not voted in thirty years as a sign of protest to what is termed as hi-jacked fruit of the 1979 revolution later named the Islamic Revolution. Many millions had sulked away from the regime but this time they came to the arena to claim their honour back.
I voted after twelve years, I even took my son who was a first-timer and called my family and relatives in Iran asking them to turnout and say “no” to Mr Ahmadinejad and his allies, namely the sub-military pressure group of “Bassidge,” the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader.
The last time I had voted was in May 1998—then as a student in Teheran—for the more moderate Mr Khatami whose intention was to show our civilised face to the world which really mattered for us, though he was also a part of the regime whose founder Ayatollah Khomeini had claimed in 1979 to have brought a better life—secular as well as spiritual—to the nation without ever intending to take political power either in his hands or present it to the clergy. That was 1979. Almost 20 years later and we wanted a change of the established theocracy into democracy. A lost cry, apparently, as the regime could not tolerate our electing Mr Khatami with a ground-breaking poll, though the Supreme Leader interpreted it as a big referendum recognising the legitimacy of the Islamic System—what has become a norm after elections whether there be a turnout or not. Whatever.
Mr Khatami’s election was, however, battered down by crushing the students’ protest of July 1999 by the imposition of the Supreme Leader’s will above the constitutional law implementing a parliament bill on reforming the press statute. The incident marked the beginning of the end of reform within the political framework of the country to which Mr Khatami’s waning solid reaction was an internecine party. Many of those days’ activists ended up either in solitary cells and prisons or if not totally liquidated were forced to leave the country and live in exile.
Imagine our big surprise when four years ago Mr Ahmadinejad was declared president in a much disputed election which was hailed by Mr Karoubi—then also a candidate—as a big fraud, the majority of the nation never realising that they would be so disgraced and internationally shamed by the president’s unconventional behaviour and irresponsible speeches. From the morning he was ordained President of the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Supreme Leader, he began speaking on behalf of all Iranians many millions of whom were against him but had no means to show their objection except for scattered civil resistance and disobedience which have always been ruthlessly demolished.
Iran is a country where every impossibility can wear the mantle of possibility and plausibility if you have the blessing of the Leader, who stands above the constitution, with you. Mr Ahmadinejad has spent the pile of oil money sometimes without documenting the expenditure, and has since last year eliminated many of the monitoring administrations, supervising councils and institutions. Instead he has overtly and expansively donated millions of dollars to Hezbollah in Lebanon much to public disappointment and the Supreme Leader has smiled away any objections by pointing an accusing finger to “allegations of those connected to the enemy.”
This time, however, we as the silent majority wanted to save our honour, regain our demolished pride, and reclaim our legitimate basic civil rights back. Mr Ahmadinejad’s irresponsible speeches and behaviour at political arenas such as Columbia University and Geneva defending the Palestinian cause at the expense of Iranian honour and economy—his anti-semitic position and nuclear ideals as well as anti-American standpoint have brought sanctions to the Iranian people—gave rise to a turnout of Iranians conducting a non-violent discourse through the ballot-box within the framework of Iran’s constitution with the Supreme Leader. A myriad of voters stormed the polling stations and were determined not to allow Mr Ahmadinejad to take Iran to a pending critical situation whose end would be a catastrophic international vortex.
The result? Well, an ignominious rigging of the votes. Mr Ahmadinejad’s third minister of interior, who had officially allowed a ten-million-dollar donation to his president’s campaign, as the managing authority of the election brought Mr Ahmadinejad out of his Pandora box, little-knowing that people’s unabated frustration would be unforgiving and unsparing. (Mr Ahmadinejad’s first minister of interior resigned objecting to his dominating decisions and the second minister of interior Mr Kordan was impeached for his forged PhD degree which he had claimed was from Oxford University in LONDON!!!)
Mr Ahmadinejad has had the overt support of the parliament and the Iranian TV—an organisation controlled by the Supreme Leader, as well as the Guardian council whose duty is to supervise elections and six of those twelve members are chosen by the Leader, not to mention direct and indirect support of the Supreme Leader himself, while Mr Karoubi and Mr Mousavi were deprived of any peaceful public podiums: their internet sites are either hacked or shot down by the State Attorney, and their public lectures attacked by the Bassidgis and plain-clothed pressure group protected by the Military Ground Force whose chief is chosen by the Supreme Leader.
However, when on Saturday primary results were announced by the ministry of interior just a couple of hours after the closing of the ballot, a blood-curdling shock took the nation by surprise. Contrary to the norm and before the Guardian Council confirmed the veracity of the election, the Leader hastily congratulated “the president-elect,” in his words, chosen in an “epic demonstration of the will of the nation.” He had achieved his goal in different ways: for the first time in thirty years more than eighty percent of those qualified to vote had taken part in the polling, and more than sixty percent had voted for Mr Ahmadinejad. On Saturday afternoon the police organised a “manoeuvre of might” to frighten back the thousands of protesters loosely looming on the capital’s streets. When the protests developed into a vituperating mass, SMS networks were shot down, internet sites and blogs acting against this act were brought down, too. On Sunday morning mixed news came from different sources that more than a hundred mainstream political activists had been rounded up and again university students had been attacked. The very same afternoon Mr Ahmadinejad together with his supporters celebrated his victory that was already recognised by Mr Hamed Karzai, the president of Afghanistan who is running as a candidate for a second term in Afghanistan, not to mention that Russia and China followed Mr Karzai. In his victory speech Mr Ahmadinejad called the protesters “woodchips and straw that would be washed away by the flood of the nation.” Well, my brother who is doing his obligatory military service on the phone confided to me that he and many thousands of the like were forced to attend the rally.
Apparently Mr Ahmadinejad’s allies have turned a blind eye to the fact that the mass of voters appeared on the scene not to award legitimacy to the regime but to defend and assert the “republic” element of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the election was to choose a chief for the republic. It seems however that the many years of the nation’s frustration is not going to spare the culprit, especially now that the Supreme Leader has confirmed the health of the election.
The simmering demonstrators on Monday evening marked if not the biggest but one of the biggest spontaneous demonstrations with over a million people from all walks of life who were asking for revocation of the falsified election. But the special military unit and the para-military Bassidgi group did not tolerate these demonstrations and having rigged the votes ripped through the people by opening fire directly to the civilians which has so far left tens of people dead and many more injured. Foreign news agencies and journalists are banned from reporting the incidents by the ministry of interior. I am doing my best to restrain myself from using the political expression “coup d’état.”
I do not regret casting my vote this last Friday, I am rather happy and all the more proud that I’ve become part of a cause to show the real face of naked violence to the world. If ever I should have a regret it would be because I am not there among my people to shout slogans against the oppressor.
For all this thanks to Mr Ahmadinejad.

Buridan's ass starved because he was placed between two equally attractive bales of hay.

S Freud

"When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life."

Nietzsche

"There are no facts,
only interpretations."

18th c German Jewish writer

"Where they burn books, they will finally burn people."

H Arendt

"It is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong."

Harold Pinter in his Nobel Speech Dec 05

"There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true, and what is false.
A thing is not necessarily either true or false, it can be both true and false."

Karl Marx

"The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion."

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

for the six formers--1

Metre (meter) means measure and the unit of measurement is foot.
A foot can be dissyllabic (formed of two syllables) or trisyllabic (formed of three syllables).
(A line of verse can contain one foot or more: monometre, dimetre, trimetre, tetrametre, pentametre, hexametre, heptametre, octametre, nonametre, decametre)


Iamb is an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable: alone
Trochee is a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed syllable: lonely
(Spondee: two stressed syllables together: air, fire; Dactyl: a stressed syllable followed by two unstressed ones: touch her not; Anapest: two unstressed syllables followed by a stressed one: and the sound of a voice that is still)

Verse: metrical poetry
Prose: ordinary language not restricted in rhythm, measure or rhyme.
Free verse: poetry without a fixed metrical pattern.
Blank verse: poetry without rhyme.

Rhyme: when two words have the same last stressed sound pattern and all the following speech sounds are the same: beauty/duty, night/fight

Couplet: any rhymed pattern of two lines
Ode: a long lyric poem, serious in subject and elevated in style
Sonnet: a complete poem of 14 lines in Iambic Pentametre.
Petrarchan sonnet has got an Octave (eight lines setting the central theme formed of two quatrains) and a Sestet (six lines explaining the result and the decision formed of two triples):
abba/abba cde/cde
Shakespearean sonnet contains three quatrains and a final couplet:
abab/cdcd/efef gg

Stanza: from Italian stopping place means a group of verse lines together forming sth like a paragraph in prose

e.e. cummings--1

when serpents bargain for the right to squirm
and the sun strikes to gain a living wage-
when thorns regard their roses with alarm
and rainbows are insured against old age

when every thrush may sing no new moon
inif all screech-owls have not okayed his voice-
and any wave signs on the dotted line
or else an ocean is compelled to close

when the oak begs permission of the birch
to make an acorn-valleys accuse their
mountains of having altitude-and march
denounces april as a saboteur

then we'll believe in that incredible
unanimal mankind(and not until)

Ivan Klíma on Kafka

"A regime that is built on deception, that asks people to pretend, that demands external agreement without caring about the inner conviction of those to whom it turns for consent, a regime afraid of anyone who asks about the sense of his action, cannot allow anyone whose veracity attained such fascinating or terrifying completeness to speak to the people."

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Nawal El Saadawi

"Nothing is more perilous than truth in a world that lies.
Nothing is more perilous than knowledge in a world that has considered knowledge a sin since Adam and Eve."

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Comenius

will be away in Hungary for an 8-day week along with my students

Saturday, March 03, 2007

language learning

It was at a language-teaching conference in Karaj (mid March 2000) when I raised the question: "why do the European students learn English better than their Iranian mates?"
There and then I myself had a queerly obscure idea as to the possible ways to approach this question, but after experiencing teaching college students, about to leave their teen years, in Germany and Belgium, I have a gathering clear vision of the scopes of relativity by dint of which one can address this question.
1. Cultural backbone: as English belongs to the European club of Germanic languages, and the European students are more or less familiar with the European state backdrop of history and culture, they have the advantage of having the presuppositional and presumptuous awareness of European state history and culture, while Iranian students are barely even aquainted with their own culure, let alone a western and long-incriminated language as such. Say, when you name Ann Frank for instance at a school here, everyone has already read the book and knows a lot more beyond the limiting borders of its history. But say Leonard Cohen's "Halleluja" and ask how many Iranian students have ever heard of it, not to ask about its storyline. You may say that Iranian students know enough about Islamic cum Quoranic stories of for instance Moses, but do you think it gives enough to know Abosolum Absolum or to interpret why Christians cross swords with Jews. What is the concept of an Irnian student when they are reading "A Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock" ? Do they know Lazarus? Do they know John the baptist? What about " A Clean Well-Lighted Place" when Hemingway makes a parody of Our Father prayer?
2. Language affinity: basing the discussion on the fact that the Germanic languages are of one big family, we can understand why a Polish, Dutch, Swiss etc student learns English faster than an Iranian student. It's enough to master the phonological mutations as morphology remains almost the same in the deep structure while an Iranian student should learn the lexicon plus pronunciation plus culture capsules in exact contextual situations. Examples are so ample that I can't limit myself to one or two.
3. Channels of communication: they are open for European students: we listen to Roger Waters, Madonna, U2, K3 etc, we discuss (Speaker's Corner) daily political issues condemning this and that, we watch film excerpts, we use the internet inside the classroom, we take day or week trips to England, we disscuss contemporary novels and poems, we watch English TV channels and watch films in original language, in short we live with English, we sleep and wake up with English, we play games with English and nothing can hinder this in an open society. But which one of these we had back in Iran when we were learning and later teaching English? Our teachers here have at least two MA's who work only 20 hours a week (as full-time) and are not obliged to have a second job....., our students are free and are not squeezed between fake and phoney superego moral teachers in society and natural exigencies of life.....

This can be extended to further more discussions but I'm pressed for time now. Misschien later!