Jump to content
  • entries
    8
  • comments
    72
  • views
    26,785

Teenagers in Iran tortured and executed in Iran, for being gay.


C James

2,969 views

Teenagers in Iran tortured and executed in Iran, for being gay.

May they rest in peace.

 

Let it not be forgotten that those two executed gay young men were not alone; there have been at least hundreds executed in Iran for homosexuality in recent years. There's a word for that, it's called genocide.

 

07.09.24.Outed-X.gif

 

For anyone who doesn't know, Iran's president recently said that they don't have homosexuals in Iran. He and his ilk are trying to make that into a fact, one gallows at a time.

 

This isn't a political issue; it's a gay issue, because in Iran, (and Iran is not alone, just one of the worst offenders), being gay is a capitol offense. I'm sure as heck no fan of the bigots in this country, but it kind of puts things in perspective, ya know?

20 Comments


Recommended Comments

What a travesty! :angry:

 

The cartoon is linked to the cox and forkum article, which lists several websites with stories about the two gay teens executed. I must warn everyone; some of the photos of the execution are very graphic, but IMHO they need to be seen.

 

Incidentally, this wasn't a hanging in the sense of a gallows and trap door, with a quick death from a broken neck (bad enough). They stood them on the back of a truck, put the nooses on very loosely, removed their blindfolds (to make it worse) and drove away, making for a slow death by gradual strangulation.

 

What makes this exaction unique is not the brutality (it is not especially brutal compared to some of the methods used there for executing gays) but that it was photographed. This is all too common a fate for gay teens in Iran and some other countries as well. In many cases, they add "rape" to the charges (this has been documented my many human-rights organizations) to make the sentences a little less noteworthy, but those are tumped-up charges.

 

In this case, the teens (about 15 at the time) confessed under torture. They were beaten and tortured repeatedly in the two years before their execution, knowing all along that they would be executed in the end.

 

I'll say this plainly; any regime that has homosexuality as a capitol offense (remember, the above was an official government trial and execution) should be the avowed enemy of every gay man and woman, as should any group that supports such an outrage.

 

:angry:

Link to comment

CJ-

 

Anybody who has ever been to a big city gay club will tell you that men from the Middle East are world class pervs- even dirtier than the Japanese. :unsure:

 

They will proposition you to do things that I've only heard of on Nifty and when you say no, they'll whup out a big roll of bills. They are sickos for that blond hair.

 

In fact rich Middle Easterners keep the sex slave trade in business. Rumor has it that the reason so many kids go missing in the US and are never heard of again is that they are abducted and end up in some shiek's harem. The FBI is forbidden from blowing the whistle on this because of the sensitive relations with one of the worst offenders: Saudia Arabia.

 

Having friends like these makes you feel like you need a shower.

Link to comment

You know, it's true in general of Iran. It's also true in a number of countries. I'm not excusing the thing at all: what I'm concerned about is that your attention is being focused on a particular country which is right now trying to stay out of an unprovoked war with the United States. Please don't fall into the Iraq trap and allow yourself to be caught up in the "Iran-is-the-enemy" fervor that will lead us into yet another disastrous failure.

 

If you want to work for human rights in other countries, fine, do it, but don't allow the same mainstream media that persecutes you here to dictate your targets and your passion.

Link to comment

James, I can't ever agree with a generalization of an entire group (There are good people from the middle east, too) , but regarding Saudi, I will say that they are, indeed, amongst the worst offenders in a lot of ways; one of which is that they, just like Iran, follow Sharia law in all it's particulars, including the execution of gays. I certainly include them on my list.

 

While I don't buy the kidnap theory as you describe it, there are indeed many Americans being held against their will in that country, in many cases Children when the non-custodial parent has taken them, and also American women who have been married to Saudis and entered the country. Anyone dealing with a Saudi should be aware; in Saudi, they would be the official "host" of the visiting American, and as such under Saudi law the "guest" cannot leave Saudi without their permission.

 

You know, it's true in general of Iran. It's also true in a number of countries. I'm not excusing the thing at all: what I'm concerned about is that your attention is being focused on a particular country which is right now trying to stay out of an unprovoked war with the United States. Please don't fall into the Iraq trap and allow yourself to be caught up in the "Iran-is-the-enemy" fervor that will lead us into yet another disastrous failure.

 

If you want to work for human rights in other countries, fine, do it, but don't allow the same mainstream media that persecutes you here to dictate your targets and your passion.

 

Lucy,

No, I'm not falling into any trap. The trap here is very well illustrated by your statement that "a particular country which is right now trying to stay out of an unprovoked war with the United States." Anyone who believes that is soundly in a tarp his or her self.

 

Let's look at the facts; I mentioned Iran in particular becuase of their president's statements in New York; they are the same as if Hitler had said "We don't have any Jews in Germans" becuase his regime is actively exterminating them. Secondly, though not my reason in this case, Iran has been designated as the #1 terror-supporting nation by five US administrations going back over 20 years. This isn't propaganda, it's a cold, hard fact. For example, they openly fund and manage Hezzbolah, and Hezzbolah has a lot of American blood on its hands.

 

They are attempting to develop nuclear weapons. If allowed to obtain them, they will be untouchable. Given their current genocidal activities, this would be folly of the highest order, and it must be stopped, by any means necessary.

 

Back during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I was opposed to it, for a very simple reason; I felt Iran was by far the greatest danger. History has proven me correct. I don't favor a ground occupation, I never did, for reasons Iraq has proven. There are, however, better ways to remove that regime, or at least render it toothless.

 

I also mentioned all regimes and groups that practice and support the systematic execution of gay people. I said those should be our avowed enemy. If you disagree, I'd very much like to know why?

Link to comment
No, I'm not falling into any trap. The trap here is very well illustrated by your statement that "a particular country which is right now trying to stay out of an unprovoked war with the United States."

"SNAP" said the trap... :P

 

Let's look at the facts; I mentioned Iran in particular becuase of their president's statements in New York; they are the same as if Hitler had said "We don't have any Jews in Germans" becuase his regime is actively exterminating them. Secondly, though not my reason in this case, Iran has been designated as the #1 terror-supporting nation by five US administrations going back over 20 years. This isn't propaganda, it's a cold, hard fact. For example, they openly fund and manage Hezzbolah, and Hezzbolah has a lot of American blood on its hands.

Alright, let's give a little perspective to this. Look back some years... back to ... well, lets start with the 70ies. Iran was considered a "good country" back then. During the cold war us-government supported every government and every unscrupulous dictator in the world they could find to build bulwarks against communism. The shah of Iran was put into power by a CIA-Operation back in the 1950ies. The Shah was strongly supported and armed by especially the usa and uk up until 1978. During these years, the Shah enslaved, gagged and bled to death his own people so bad 'till Iranians in black despair crowded around a religious leader, Ayatholla Khomeini. Millions of people have been on the streets against the oppressor in 1978/79, it was called the "white revolution". You probably remember the Iran hostage crisis. Anyway, the shahs army retreated, and he had to flee.

(of course these are my own words. For more detailed look in history books or here)

After that, everyone was angry. Iranias were angry because of all the us-support for the shah, usa were angry because now all their weapons have been passed to the hands of islamic fundamentalists and the loss of control over the oil in the middle east. Iran went from "good country" to "evil country".

To regain control, us-government searched out another sympathetic young man in the region, just around the corner: Saddam Hussein. Hussein was not a communist and did good business with a lot of western countries back then. He was very willing to jump at the opportunity to boost the seize of his country and his ego, and so the Iran-Iraq war began. Soon the usa openly supported Hussein. The war continued for 8 years, hundreds of thousands people died on both sides; the only ones who won anything during this war, have been the companies that are producing arms and ammunition. Look up where the worlds biggest arms manufacturers reside (and when you're at it, you can also look up the keyword "Iran-Contra Affair").

 

I'm quite familiar with Middle Eastern history and politics, and I take issue with some things you claim, but not others.

 

Was the Shah a corrupt and ruthless dictator? Yes. Was he as bad as the current despots? No. He was at least trying to modernize the country, whereas the current regime seems well-rooted in the dark ages. Dis the Shah har oceans of Iranian blud on his hands via the tactics of SAVIK (his secret police) and others? Sure he did. The problem with all this moralizing and hand-wringing over the Shah is what followed was worse, both for the US and the people in Iran.

 

 

 

Given only that history, do you now understand why these sickos in Iran support organizations like Hezzbolah? Please note, that i am in no way tring to to justify what they do, i just want you to understand why they do it.

 

I'm afraid there is a very deep logical flaw in your argument; Hezzbolah is primarily dedicated to exterminating Israel. I don't much care what their excuses are; they are funding a terrorist organization that has as its stated goal a new holocaust. Even if they had a legitimate grievance against the US, creating and supporting Hezbollah is inexcusable.

 

 

They are attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

How do you know that? Oh wait... is it possible you got that information from the fine people that told you Iraq is threatening us with weapons of mass destruction? A reliable source indeed...

 

Ummm, do bear in mind that the Clinton administration warned about Saddam's WMD's. That said, I was opposed to going into Iraq, becuase Saddam was a minor irritant compared to Iran. I also felt, at the time, that the focus on WMD's was foolish in the extreme; not only did it set us up for one hell of a "gotcha" if Iraq removed the WMD's to Syria (there is strong evidence that they did exactly this) but chemical weapons just aren't that big a threat and Biologicals are helaciously hard to use effectively. I felt that *if* there was a geostrategic case for Iraq, it should have been laid out instead of putting all our eggs into the sound-byte-oriented overly simplistic WMD claim.

 

Regardless, as for Iran's nuclear program. Look at the facts; They have a nuclear program that is enriching Uranium. There is no dispute on this; they claim it often. Second point; they are building and/or have built cascading cernterfuge arrays, which by their design are not optimized at low-level enrichment (the few percent needed for reactor fuel) but for higher enrichment, which has but ONE purpose, and that's inside a bomb case.

 

Secondly, ask yourself this; WHY are they persuing a nuclear program? They sit atop a sea of oil, yet they want nuclear power, for what exactly? They claim they seek "energy independence" yet they can't even be bothered to build enough refining capacity to refine their domestic gasoline; they, one of the world's leading petroleum exporters, have to import over half their gasoline. (From as far away as Venezuela)

 

Another proof of their lie; they claim they want to enrich their own uranium so they can control the entire nuclear fuel loop, ignoring the fact that they don't have a domestic source of uranium; they import it. They have to; there are no known uranium ore deposits in Iran.

 

No, I don't need the Bush admin to tell me that Iran is after nuclear weapons; the evidence is out there in plain sight if you look and use common sense.

 

 

 

 

Iran stated on several occasions that they have no interest in developing nuclear weapons. What reason is there not to trust them? In contrast to others, Iran is not known to ambush their neighbouring countries.

 

Oh come on! A regime of genocidal fanatics, and you think we should take them at their word? I'd suggest taking a look at another genocidal regime, and it's protestations of peaceful intent, and their denial of the concentration camps, etc, etc, etc. But, why shouldn't we have trusted Hitler? Surely he wouldn't lie?

 

 

 

genocidal activities - I think you're a bit out of line. The incident you called attention to is more than 2 years old (but hence not less abominable). In last years ai-report you find a couple of horrible things but nothing gay-related. Your exagerration and the usage of this 2 year old incident at this current time is simple propaganda.

 

Yes, Genocidal activities, because as i said the first time; the only unique thing about that execution was that it was photographed. In Iran, homosexuality is a capitol offense, and their regemes' mouthpiece said that they don't have homosexuality in Iran (Should we trust them on that, too?) There have been at least hundreds of others in recent years. Don't take my word for it, check with the human rights organizations, which are hardly friends of the current US administration.

 

Also, they have repeatedly pledged to wipe out Israel. That would be genocide, and if you don't believe me, check a dictionary. So too is trying to exterminate gays as a group, which is exactly what they are doing.

 

Here's why: the us-government has no right to punish other countries for felt or real errors or disobedience. It has also no right to install regimes in other countries, that are friendly to their business matters. History has proven the world, that no good comes from that.

Think about his: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

To make this unmistakingly clear: I do not care the least bit about Iranian government or Islamic fundamentalists whatsoever. Ahmadinejad is an antisemitic idiot.

There are horrible violations of human rights in Iran, but you will not stop these things or change the way people think with bombing them.

 

Oh come on, "do unto others", that's absurd. That only works (and often not even then) if you are dealing with rational and decent people, which that regime clearly is not.

 

I'm also not overly concerned about some spurious notion of "rights" regarding a genocidal fanatical dictatorship.

 

The entire focus of my post is that, as a gay man, I take serious exception (understatement alert) to a regime that systematically executes people for being gay, and that I feel any such regime (and Iran isn't the only one) ought to be the avowed enemy of gay people. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to have it. What bought Iran into this is the mouthpiece of the regeme, in a speech at Columbia University, denied that there were any homosexuals in Iran, while at the same time being part of a regime that executes them.

Link to comment

Ooooo Hot Topic!

 

I wish I were atending Columbia.

 

I wish I were part of the presentation team at Columbia.

 

I would have loved to show a few choice pictures as the biggot said "We dont have homosexuals in Iran."

 

:pissed:

Link to comment
The entire focus of my post is that, as a gay man, I take serious exception (understatement alert) to a regime that systematically executes people for being gay, and that I feel any such regime (and Iran isn't the only one) ought to be the avowed enemy of gay people. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to have it. What bought Iran into this is the mouthpiece of the regeme, in a speech at Columbia University, denied that there were any homosexuals in Iran, while at the same time being part of a regime that executes them.

Following the links you offered, I got to read several testimonies of gay men in Iran. Of course, their situation is far from being fun. It didn't read as they were systematically hunted or murdered, though of course they belong to a minority that is oppressed. As are any people who enjoy life, arts, freedom, etc.

 

As for genocidal activities: here is the legal definition, found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

 

So, deliberate murder. Breaks of basic Human Rights. Not genocide. But I agree with 97a, and you didn't reply to this: this is a 2-year-old news. Should we then all wholeheartedly agree that the next set of bombings is meant to defend our "race"?

Link to comment
The entire focus of my post is that, as a gay man, I take serious exception (understatement alert) to a regime that systematically executes people for being gay, and that I feel any such regime (and Iran isn't the only one) ought to be the avowed enemy of gay people. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to have it. What bought Iran into this is the mouthpiece of the regeme, in a speech at Columbia University, denied that there were any homosexuals in Iran, while at the same time being part of a regime that executes them.

Following the links you offered, I got to read several testimonies of gay men in Iran. Of course, their situation is far from being fun. It didn't read as they were systematically hunted or murdered, though of course they belong to a minority that is oppressed. As are any people who enjoy life, arts, freedom, etc.

 

As for genocidal activities: here is the legal definition, found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

 

So, deliberate murder. Breaks of basic Human Rights. Not genocide. But I agree with 97a, and you didn't reply to this: this is a 2-year-old news. Should we then all wholeheartedly agree that the next set of bombings is meant to defend our "race"?

 

Hrmmm, I thought most any gay person would support the concept that making homosexuality a capitol offence and acting on it would be considered genocide? We decry often enough the fact that we aren't granted the same legal protections against discrimination as race or age, so do we really want to sign on to a definition that does not

happen to list sexual orientation when it clealry should? I don't think so, but, its a moot point anyway; National groups are listed, and I think wanting to exterminate a nation would count? They've pledged to destroy Isriel, to "Drive them into the sea", and its not mere rhetoric; they founded, manage, and supply and support Hezzbolah, which has the same stated aim and acts on it often. Trying to exterminate a country is genocide, so my claim of "Genocidal Regime" stands, regardless of the semantics regarding whether gays should be considered a group under the definition for genocide.

 

And yes, I did answer that part of 97A's post; I said that the execution was unique only becuase it was photographed; there have been at least hundreds more. One quick peek at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Right's commission's page gives us this excerpt;

 

 

Link to comment
  • Site Administrator

Iran is national sponser of terror. The war in Iraq is a proxy war with Iran. (for those of you too slow to follow this... American Soldiers are being killed by weapons and people from Iran. This is what they refer to as Casus belli. Act of War)

 

I'm assuming that you antiwar for any reason types would be the ones that also denied that Hitler was exterminating Jews. You probably also think President Bush was the one who flew the airplanes into these buildings:

wtc-attack.jpg

 

We are in a global war against Islamic Fundamentalism. Or Islamic Facism, if you prefer the proper term.

 

These facists, like the Nazis, want to exterminate Jews, Gays, and Americans. They will do everything they can to do so.

 

It sickens me that the first targets of these people are the ones playing Neville Chamberlain demanding that we surrender to them because they are oh so nice.

 

Myr

Link to comment
Iran is national sponser of terror. The war in Iraq is a proxy war with Iran. (for those of you too slow to follow this... American Soldiers are being killed by weapons and people from Iran. This is what they refer to as Casus belli. Act of War)

 

I'm assuming that you antiwar for any reason types would be the ones that also denied that Hitler was exterminating Jews. You probably also think President Bush was the one who flew the airplanes into these buildings:

 

We are in a global war against Islamic Fundamentalism. Or Islamic Facism, if you prefer the proper term.

 

These facists, like the Nazis, want to exterminate Jews, Gays, and Americans. They will do everything they can to do so.

 

It sickens me that the first targets of these people are the ones playing Neville Chamberlain demanding that we surrender to them because they are oh so nice.

 

Myr

It sems you didn't read my post. If at some point a military intervention is needed, I won't cry over Islamic soldiers falling under bombs. I do remember history. I won't give in the other cheek, as I won't follow blindly people who are so eager to spend tax-payers money in hopeless wars that are not planned in any sensible way that would make them worthwhile, since they're meant to promote good VS. evil. I also know the US record of foreign intervention since WWII. And my country's for that matter. They're not too brilliant.

 

Link to comment
  • Site Administrator

I've been quietly reading this with interest.

 

I see a lot of good points being made, but I also see misinterpretation of others comments to back their point.

 

Can I ask primarily of CJ and 97a as well as Bondwriter one question: If we all agree that Iran is wrong in their treatment of Homosexuals, what can the average person do to try and change this?

 

I know this is a big question, but it has been on my mind the past week since the president of Iran was in New York.

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

Link to comment
Can I ask primarily of CJ and 97a as well as Bondwriter one question: If we all agree that Iran is wrong in their treatment of Homosexuals, what can the average person do to try and change this?

What we've done in democracies for ages: write letters through Amnesty International, petition to our representatives and the local embassies, and vote for the candidates whom you deem the most able to handle the situation and a possible conflict when time comes. I personally have lost on the last point ever since I voted in presidential elections, but I'll keep on going to the polls and fighting the dimwit who was elected last May through my vote and the other democratic ways.

 

These are also keeping informed, trying to get news from various points of views and discussing it whenever possible. As long as the people I talk to are willing to listen to what I say and are willing to be pragmatic and see facts, that are often more complicated than what appears. After a while, with any bigot, you're better off giving up. In my time, I quit discussing with royalists, far-right wingers, Born Again Christians, Islamic fundamentalists and trotskyites.

Link to comment

As a citizen of a country which declared himself to be neutral (at least politically) about 300 years ago, I followed all the comments above and understood very well the positions of both sides. I also find at least odious the actual policy of Iran in human rights and I quite support the position of the western world against its government.

But on the other side, even a State like USA has its limits. An old sentence in policy says:

Link to comment
Oh come on, "do unto others", that's absurd. That only works (and often not even then) if you are dealing with rational and decent people, which that regime clearly is not.

I'm also not overly concerned about some spurious notion of "rights" regarding a genocidal fanatical dictatorship.

I am disappointed that you think so. It implies, that you are simply dismissing everyone who is not your opinion, has a different set of rules, or a different cultural background.

 

That is a rather gross mischaracterization, to put it mildly. I am dismissing the so-called "rights" of a tyrannical dictatorship, just as I dismiss the "rights" of, say, a serial killer to practice what he does.

 

The entire focus of my post is that, as a gay man, I take serious exception (understatement alert) to a regime that systematically executes people for being gay, and that I feel any such regime (and Iran isn't the only one) ought to be the avowed enemy of gay people. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to have it. What bought Iran into this is the mouthpiece of the regeme, in a speech at Columbia University, denied that there were any homosexuals in Iran, while at the same time being part of a regime that executes them.

Believe me, i am as offended by this ahmadineshit as you are. I am in no way trying to defend any crimes that he or his mediavel fundamentalist friends are commiting.

I am nonetheless trying to point out, why i think your obviously prefered politics are wrong and will cause more harm than good to everybody.

 

I've said at least once, earlier in this thread, that I am opposed to a US invasion of Iran, yet that bumper sticker you linked to clearly indicates the opposite. It would be preposterous for me to support such a move; Looked at solely as a matter of practicality, the US could not invade and occupy Iran; we don't have the uncommitted forces to do so. (for every deployed soldier, you need two on rest and retraining). This would be true even without Iraq;

Iran is a far larger country in both population and area.

 

And yes, I was preoccupied with other things in the 70;s too, :) like Kindergarten, which for some reason dimmed my political awareness at that time. :)

 

I've been quietly reading this with interest.

 

I see a lot of good points being made, but I also see misinterpretation of others comments to back their point.

 

Can I ask primarily of CJ and 97a as well as Bondwriter one question: If we all agree that Iran is wrong in their treatment of Homosexuals, what can the average person do to try and change this?

 

I know this is a big question, but it has been on my mind the past week since the president of Iran was in New York.

 

Thanks,

Steve

I'm with Bondwriter on this one; vote for whom you believe is best able to handle the situation (though it is quite possible that my opinion differs from his as to whom).

 

Old Bob has a good point on the practical limitations of what can be done, and also about giving the mouthpiece (I'm too lazy to look up the spelling of his name) a podium at Columbia university.

 

As to the latter, I have very mixed feelings. One one hand, I'm disgusted. On the other, it allowed the lunatic the opportunity to further expose himself for what he is, including that "we have no homosexuals in Iran" line, bringing needed public awareness to the issue.

 

I'd like to clarify my remarks here: I am condemning the regime in Iran, not Iranians in general, nor any religion.

My sole point was, as I've said, to decry what that regime is doing.

Link to comment

Ok, sorry for coming in late. I didn't read all comments.

 

But there's one question tormenting me! What can we do? I mean, all of us are affected by this news. The most we will do is to talk here and say a few things about some persons! That's it? How will it help those who are living in fear? Those who can do something are far more interested in their money and who want to do can't do anything...

Link to comment
Ok, sorry for coming in late. I didn't read all comments.

 

But there's one question tormenting me! What can we do? I mean, all of us are affected by this news. The most we will do is to talk here and say a few things about some persons! That's it? How will it help those who are living in fear? Those who can do something are far more interested in their money and who want to do can't do anything...

 

I think the best thing any of us can do is watch Iran closely. Personally, I think the US should launch an air strike against Iran, but as long as Bush/Cheney/Clinton are in power, that's not going to happen for purely political reasons. Myr's right about the fact that Iranians are killing our soldiers, but it's rarely talked about in the news media here in the US.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • By C James
      Yep, I've decided to take the plunge and start blogging. My plan is to post on a variety of things, prety much anything. For example, my first real blog post will be sort of political as it will be about Daylight Savings time.
       
      So, welcome everyone (assuming that anyone but me ever comes here! ).
       
      Now, on to my Rant of the Day: Daylight Savings Time!
       
      I live in Arizona, and one of the things I love about Arizona is that we are not burdened by Daylight Savings Time. We don't have to change our clocks every spring and fall, and I love it. (note: on the Navajo Indian reservation, they do observe daylight savings time, though the rest of the state does not)
       
      This begs the question: Why does anywhere bother with Daylight Savings Time? I can see some arguments for it, maybe, in more northern state where the Winter days are even shorter, but why have it anywhere in the Southern half of the country? We seem to get along just fine without it in Arizona, and the lack of it is exceedingly popular amongst residents.
       
      The only issues that seem to ever arise are from occasional confusion with airline and train schedules, plus TV broadcasts on some stations, due to the rest of the nation changing its clocks twice a year. It can get slightly confusing when making long distance phone calls, too, but that is quite minor.
       
      With DST, each year there is one 23 hour day and one 25 hour day, causing all kinds of headaches in scheduling, record keeping, etc.
       
      The most laughable reason given in support of DST is that "the farmers need it". Evidently, anyone saying that has never asked a farmer about it! Farmers need to be up at daybreak, regardless of what the clocks say. It is of no use to them, and some hindrance: the changes serve to put them more out-of-sync with their communities (everyone else can change their schedules to the DST, but farmers cannot).
       
      Fuel savings are often mentioned as a reason for DST, and played a role in the recent extension of DST by three weeks (beginning next year). The fuel savings are quite negligible, and could be vastly exceeded by common sense: for example, allow and encourage urban businesses, where practical, to vary their work hours to avoid rush hour traffic. Instead of 9-5, try 8-4, or 10-6. This has been done with some success in Phoenix, and it does alleviate some traffic congestion, which in turn saves on both fuel and air pollution (not to mention time, frustration, and lives).
       
      The energy savings often quoted for DST are based on a reduced need for electric lighting by having sunset one hour "later" each day during DST. This did have some truth decades ago, but now is largely if not completely ofset by workers coming hom in summer closer to the hottest part of the day (and thus increasing the use of power-hungry air conditioners.)
       
      If energy savings are the reason, a far better argument can be made for having DST year-round; no changing of the clocks. California is talking about this for that very reason. However, in California's case, a better argument can be made for terminating DST: their power crisis is a peak-load shortage, and that is exacerbated, not helped, by having people return home closer to the hottest part of the day. So, in essence, one could argue that California would be better off observing DST in winter, and not in summer, the opposite of the rest of the nation. Also, the latest boondoggle, the extension of DST a few weeks beginning next year, will raise trouble with all the devices that adjust the time based on date, and many will thus show the wrong time.
       
      My position is that, given the costs and hassles of DST and changing the clocks, either adopt it year-round, or do away with it. Schools and businesses that need daylight are quite capable af adjusting their schedules rather than their clocks.
    • By C James
      Oh, Rats!!!
       
      In my prior blog entry, I described some of the storm damage to my house. Well, the good news is that I found a roofing contractor willing and able (they have 4x4's) to drive out this far. The bad news is they have only one 4x4, a pickup, and so it's been one or two guys working on the roof.
       
      Sadly, none of them fit the stereotype of hot young shirtless roofers. Oh well.
       
      There has, however, been an unexpected fringe benefit; I have house guests! Yes indeed, unexpected visitors who have clearly overstayed their welcome (not that I was ever particularly welcoming).
       
      The roofers have had to removes some of the plywood underlayment on my roof. They've covered the holes with plastic. So far, so good. However, in my area we have a varmint called the Desert Pack Rat. According to the literature, these don't climb. I wish I could get the little suckers to read that, becuase they don't seem to be aware of their inability to climb.
       
      They've discovered that they can get in via the roof holes, and are doing so. Hence, I have unwelcome house guests.
      Oh, Rats!!!
    • Guest
      By Guest
      Many contemplated the meaning of life and the mystery of death, but life is life, living day after day, year after year until one can live no longer. The world is full of opposites, like light and darkness, love and hate & so on associated with each we feel ultimately pain or happiness. Without one the other doesn
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Our Privacy Policy can be found here. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..