Write in Farsi or English, That is the Question!

I created this blog for the sake of writing, so that it would be a start for me, to get my hand going, if that is even an expression. But I am so lazy in every regard that I won't even do this little thing. Or maybe not so very lazy. It's the end of the term now and last Tuesday I had this huge presentation and I still have this paper to finish. But still. I think it has more to do with me thinking that I don't have anything to say. That's why I won't write or feel little motivation for writing.
But I think I need more practice, I still am not used to it and the longer it takes between my posts, well the less I get used to it. My last post was in Farsi and when I was writing it, I realized that I like to write in Farsi more than in English. Maybe it's because I'm more used to it. Words form more quickly and correctly in my head into Farsi than English. Maybe, no, definitely, the reason is because I don't speak English as often as before. I have very few classes, I am rarely out of the house and therefore don't speak to non-Persians. And since Hubby has moved in all we speak is Farsi. This is bad for both of us, but Farsi's just way more sweet and comforting to hear. As well, we get our messages and opinions across with more feel and sentiment than when speaking English.
Anyway, back to school. My presentation went well, I think. Poor Hubby stayed up making my power point and I editing my paper. Now the main paper is due in a week and a half and since finishing my presentation last Tuesday till now, I have not made a single effort towards my paper. I'm screwed, yes I know. Especially since I am starting to worry about some other issue. But since it's not for certain I am not going to write about it, yet.
But then I guess we have to pay the price ourselves. Our English will never be as good, I mean not nearly as good as our English, even for me who has been here for a lot longer than Hubby. He is losing even more on this, because if at least I speak to him in English, his English would improve.
So I was debating whether to write my blogs in Farsi or in English, and I told myself, "the main reason you started this blog was to practice your English writing, and now you want to start writing in Farsi?" Although I know it would be great for me to do both, I am not writing often enough in my English blog, so as to start a Farsi one. But then again,I could write Farsi here as well when I really feel like writing in Farsi.
Yeah, I think that would be good, to write both in Farsi and English, whenever I feel like either.

فو نت فا رسي

.اخ جون فونت فارسي
به زحمت دارم مي نويسم
از همسر دارم دونه دوته ميپرسم
اعساب نذاشثم براش هه هه
فعلا بسه

Noam Chomsky Article

This is an article by Noam Chomsky published in The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2029918,00.html

A predator becomes more dangerous when wounded

Washington's escalation of threats against Iran is driven by a determination to secure control of the region's energy resources

Noam Chomsky
Friday March 9, 2007
The Guardian

In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington's basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important. As was the norm during the cold war, resort to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq - a country otherwise free from any foreign interference - on the tacit assumption that Washington rules the world.
In the cold war-like mentality in Washington, Tehran is portrayed as the pinnacle in the so-called Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to Hizbullah in Lebanon, through Shia southern Iraq and Syria. And again unsurprisingly, the "surge" in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited to Iraq.

Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is intended to allay the growing fears and anger elicited by Washington's heightened aggressiveness. These concerns are given new substance in a detailed study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism experts Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, revealing that the Iraq war "has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide". An "Iran effect" could be even more severe.

For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance. Iranian influence in the "crescent" challenges US control. By an accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in largely Shia areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US.

Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid based in China. Iran could be a lynchpin. If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the US position of power in the world.

To Washington, Tehran's principal offence has been its defiance, going back to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the hostage crisis at the US embassy. In retribution, Washington turned to support Saddam Hussein's aggression against Iran, which left hundreds of thousands dead. Then came murderous sanctions and, under Bush, rejection of Iranian diplomatic efforts.

Last July, Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978. As before, US support was a critical factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the US-Israel invasion is that Hizbullah's rockets could be a deterrent to a US-Israeli attack on Iran. Despite the sabre-rattling it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran. Public opinion in the US and around the world is overwhelmingly opposed. It appears that the US military and intelligence community is also opposed. Iran cannot defend itself against US attack, but it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting even more havoc in Iraq. Some issue warnings that are far more grave, among them the British military historian Corelli Barnett, who writes that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch world war three".

Then again, a predator becomes even more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded. In desperation to salvage something, the administration might risk even greater disasters. The Bush administration has created an unimaginable catastrophe in Iraq. It has been unable to establish a reliable client state within, and cannot withdraw without facing the possible loss of control of the Middle East's energy resources.

Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilise Iran from within. The ethnic mix in Iran is complex; much of the population isn't Persian. There are secessionist tendencies and it is likely that Washington is trying to stir them up - in Khuzestan on the Gulf, for example, where Iran's oil is concentrated, a region that is largely Arab, not Persian.

Threat escalation also serves to pressure others to join US efforts to strangle Iran economically, with predictable success in Europe. Another predictable consequence, presumably intended, is to induce the Iranian leadership to be as repressive as possible, fomenting disorder while undermining reformers.

It is also necessary to demonise the leadership. In the west, any wild statement by President Ahmadinejad is circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US media tend to ignore Khamenei's statements, especially if they are conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, calling for normalisation of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state settlement.

The US invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. The message was that the US attacks at will, as long as the target is defenceless. Now Iran is ringed by US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf, and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to US support.

In 2003, Iran offered negotiations on all outstanding issues, including nuclear policies and Israel-Palestine relations. Washington's response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer. The following year, the EU and Iran reached an agreement that Iran would suspend enriching uranium; in return the EU would provide "firm guarantees on security issues" - code for US-Israeli threats to bomb Iran.

Apparently under US pressure, Europe did not live up to the bargain. Iran then resumed uranium enrichment. A genuine interest in preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Iran would lead Washington to implement the EU bargain, agree to meaningful negotiations and join with others to move toward integrating Iran into the international economic system.

Unfinished Paper

It's been so long since I've last posted. I still haven't gotten used to this writing thing, especially blogs. Right now I am just worrying about this paper and the presentation due next Tuesday.
My worries are really legitimate since I have only 7 pages of notes, nothing original, and about 40 books scattered around me, without any idea what I'm going to say in my presentation or worse, in my paper.