Iran’s Government : iToday’s ‘Evil Empire.’

“Either the Trump administration is trying to goad Iran into war or a war could come by accident because of the administration’s reckless policies,” declared former Obama official Wendy Sherman Wednesday, after the State Department withdrew personnel from Iraq.

That’s from the Wall Street Journal today.  That and other Democrat ‘leaders’ from the Obama administration are seeking political advantage in 2020 by positioning themselves as peace-seeking opposition candidates. 

Okay, I get the politics but not at my expense and not at the expense of national security.  Neither at the expense of the cash millions that   Obama gave to the Iranians with a planeload of U.S. dollars paid for the 2015 Nuclear Iran Deal.

You’d almost think Obama official Wendy Sherman had sat down with the mullahs for  tea and sympathy.   Considering that Dems were raising issues of ‘collusion’ for talking to Russians,  it would seem that Wendy Sherman, Obama, and wobbly old 30s socialist Bernie Sanders would be a little more cautious about giving encouragement and succor to the enemy. 

Bernie Sander’s latest hymn to Iran Mullahs is that  recent U.S. actions to protect American troops, American, Arab, and European interests in the region as “provocations on the part of the United States against Iran.”

Iranians have had several rebellions against their militant Islamist leaders.  Some   remember (perhaps from reading western books)  the freedom once had before the 1979 Iranian revolution with its 444 day brutal capture, torture, and display of American hostages.  

Don’t doubt that the Iranian terrorist militias (al quds forces) are responsible for the horrors of Yemen, recent violent attacks on four ships, an attempted assassination of a Saudi official in Washington D.C. and  much more. 

Iran’s Government is at the heart of today’s ‘Evil Empire.’  

Beware the Writer's Group : John Updike is Watching from Above

Most people realize that some writer's groups are helpful whereas others may be toxic.  Often there is a mix of toxicity and helpfulness.  In my own group, there are people whom I listen to and others whom I discount the minutes their lips begin to move.  Too many people are in the latter category though I have to admit sometimes even that amuses me.

One of the dumbest criticisms I've heard in my group is that the writer (whomever is being reviewed) should use a simpler or less descriptive word than the one used. This is absolutely insane.  I'm currently in a throwback reading mood and going through a very clever and witty novel by John Updike (Bech at Bay).  I shudder to imagine his ghost sitting at our round table.

This dumbing down in my group has gone on too long. I thought it was time  I spoke out:

"Gotta' say I get a little stressed at Meetups when I hear (too often) a critique saying a writer should look for an easier word than the one used (or a shorter sentence where a longer one is warranted) so that a reader with a less developed vocabulary or level of comprehension  will find the writing more accessible. Aside from the fact that a limited vocab leads to flat and dull writing, it's a bit insulting to assume that readers are of such a low level that they couldn't figure out from the  context  of last night's piece that such terms as "voir dire" have something to do with questioning jurors before they are seated. 

Besides, it's not like we're as erudite as. .. say, John Updike for example.  Neither is it like back in the day when you had to keep three or four paper dictionaries on your desk.  Just spit a word into your cell phone and the definitions pop out a nanosecond later.  The English language is rich in nuance -- it behooves us all to reach for  the heights of it and not to surrender to our inner Neanderthal".