Discover the familiar

How "normal" can a nation be that so often exudes defiance and antagonism? With a belligerent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the forefront of most minds when it comes to Iran, what could a visitor expect to find in the county? Do women lead a normal life despite a draconian police ready to punish the most basic transgressions of wardrobe? Does the Islamic conservatism of the post-revolutionary era make for a sheltered youth? Recently, I was interested in answering some of these questions. As a citizen of Singapore, I am entitled to a 14-day visa-free entry into Iran>>>

Why I want Obama to win

I backed the war in Iraq even though I have always been a democrat. My reason for cheering the Americans when they invaded Iraq was simple: I was hoping that the American success there would ignite unrest in Iran and bring about the fall of the theocratic regime. While I disagreed with Bush’s policies in every other area I was pro-war. I was a liberal hawk, as a friend pointed out, giving me the very American comfort of a label. Now, like most people, including Hillary Clinton, I have come to realize that the war was a mistake. It was a mistake because Americans don’t know how to be an occupying force in a time when information and ideology travel freely and ruthlessly>>>

No need for another revolution

Revolution seems a good thing, theoretically speaking, but historically speaking it has usually been a not-so-rosy moment in time when injustices took place, lives and relations got shattered, and societies were shaken to their cores, very often taking them a very long time to recover from the trauma. Revolutions in Russia, China, France, Iran and about anywhere else hardly brought anything extraordinary. Their peers who missed the revolutions did quite well, and usually much better. It is complicated to evaluate what would have happened if there was no revolution but one thing is certain that neither the French revolution nor Communist revolutions of Russia, China and other places, nor the Islamic revolution of Iran brought anything to be proud of>>>

Back from the dead

Backstage I told actress Bella Warda that I thought her character, the resilient Mahin Ashtari is in very good hands. If you haven’t been backstage after a play, prepare for a jolting experience. There is strong magic in speaking to someone--still in costume and sweating from the ordeal--who has just returned from the story world. This is something film can never do. As I waited to congratulate actress Sepideh Khosrowjah, she was still the ambitious yet easily dominated character, Shafagh Gooya. The fact that as playwright Khosrowjah created Shafagh and all the other characters in the comedy belonged to the reality she was just coming back to>>>

Friendly fire

The Pentagon has announced that the 41-year navy veteran and commander of US Central Command (CentCom), requested permission to retire and Secretary Gates approved his request. Last week, Thomas Barnett of Esquire Magazine published a revealing piece speculating on the possibility that Admiral Fallon might be pushed out because he “was the strongest man standing between the Bush Administration and a war with Iran.” Gates was quick to call a press conference to announce the retirement and dispel the notion that there were any policy differences between Fallon and the administration>>>

Shaherezad in Santa Monica

This play is about the love relationship between Shahram, an Iranian poet living in exile, and Shaherezad, an Iranian activist who had been in prison for 11 years during both the Shah and Khomeini's regimes. They both had lost their partners, Ezzat and Hamid, in Tehran execution fields in the 1980's. In Act I, they meet in Santa Monica, California, and fall in love. But in Act II, difficulties arise and in Act III, Shahram has to accept the fact that Shaherezad has begun to date an American professor, Sean >>>

Real change

Change, at least in America, has become solely a self-reminder of how much we may dislike ourselves in many of the things we do, or permit to have done, to others in the planet, or even to ourselves. But change – honest-to-goodness change – is something we can rest assured will not take place… not with Sen. Obama, not with Sen. Clinton; not even if either received an unprecedented and miraculous 70 percent of the popular vote – an unquestionable mandate to effect change. Change as a major transformation of our government, or of our civil society, or the way we do things, just won’t take place>>>

شیر آزادی

مرحوم احمد بورقانی که البته من توفیق اندکی در هم صحبتی با ایشان داشتم اما با کارها و زحمت ها و خدمت های او آشنایی داشتم. به خصوص از وقتی که گشایش پس از انسدادی در جامعه ما رخ داد و مردم با آرای خود مردی را بر مصدر ریاست جمهوری نشاندند که از او توقعات بلند و بزرگی داشتند، علی الخصوص برداشتن قدم هایی استوار در راه آزادی و ایجاد جامعه مدنی. وعده های بزرگی هم از او شنیدند. ملموس ترین و دیدنی ترین بهره و بخش آن وعده ها، آزادی مطبوعات و مطبوعات آزاد بود. البته وزارت ارشاد در این امر مسیولیت اول و اهم و احسن را داشت. مرحوم بورقانی چنان چه همه ما اینک می دانیم به سمت معاون وزیر در امور مطبوعات در آن وزارت خانه مشغول به کار شد و آن چه که ما از جنس شکوفایی مطبوعات در دوران ریاست جمهوری آقای خاتمی می دانیم تا حدود بسیار زیادی مرهون دلیری های این از دست رفته عزیز است.>>>

My hero in the dark

We lived in a small town in Mazandaran and my father was respected and well known. He was a busy man and I, as a little girl, craved to spend more time with him. My father took me every Thursday night to the only movie theater of the town. Our family had its own special reserved seats. Row nine, seats 10 to 14. Every time we drove down the main street, I looked for that place. The brown brick building with an orange fluorescent sign at its side. I would stare at the letters forming the word “Cinema.” I could find it from afar, could recognize its shape, and I envied anyone standing in the black line waiting to buy a ticket. I would gaze at the colorful posters of actors and picture their adventures in my daydreams>>>

رئيس جمهور «حسين»؟

آقای «باراک حسين اوباما» مطابق رسم آمريکائی ها، هيچگاه نام وسط خود، «حسين»، را بکار نمی برد، هرچند که در کتابی که دربارهء زندگی و افکارش منتشر کرده بود فشرده ای از گذشته و مکنونات خود را بيان داشته است... مردم آمريکا، طی جريانی کاملاً بی ربط با آقای اوباما، اين اسم را شناخته و نسبت به آن پيشزمينهء ذهنی بشدت منفی دارند. در واقع، طی سال هائی چند، رسانه ها و دستگاه های تبليغاتی آمريکا کوشيده اند تا نام «حسين» (در ارتباط با «صدام حسين») را در افکار عمومی مردم آمريکا با مفاهيمی چون ديکتاتوری، سرکوبگری، ماجراجوئی، تروريسم و مخالفت با دموکراسی و حقوق بشر و نظاير آن يکی کنند. و اکنون مردی پيدا شده است که مردم آمريکا رفته رفته کشف می کنند که «حسين» نام دارد و می خواهد رئيس جمهور آنها باشد.>>>

We live in a different age

We cannot judge the past from the standards of the present. Everyone will willingly admit this. But every one will not admit the equally absurd habit of judging the present by the standards of the past. The various religions have especially helped in petrifying old beliefs and faiths and customs, which may have had some use in the age and country of their birth, but which are singularly unsuitable in our present age. The past brings us many gifts; indeed, all that we have today of culture, civilization, science, or knowledge of some aspects of the truth, is a gift of the distant or recent past to us. It is right that we acknowledge our obligation to the past>>>