Mehdi Shahbazi

Mehdi Shahbazi's story is a story that should provide courage and inspiration to all of those who seek to oppose the methods of big business's.  He stood up for what he believed was right, against almost all odds and fought to best of his ability.  I must commend him for his unquestionable bravery. 

 I misspoke when I said in class that his death was in vain.  It's not.  It can, however, become in vain if his story doesn't become a tool we can use, and do in fact use, to expand and to continue his fight (something I expect his sons will surely be doing for the duration of their life).  That being said I must ask if all brave acts are wise ones? Are there not many stories of foolish bravery?  How can we use Shahbazi's story to grow from if we can't look at it with a critical eye?  I feel that asking where he made mistakes in his methods, and how he could have been more powerful in what can only be described as an up hill battle (and that's probably an understatement) is more than appropriate, it is necessary.  

My comments in class were probably, again, not articulated as best they could have been, but I was simply trying to point out why I think he wasn't as successful as he would have liked, and saddened by the fact that his path directly lead to his death and that his path was the main aspect of his fight I believe should have been different.  He would have accomplished little to nothing if we are unable to learn from his experience (strengths & weaknesses) and draw on his courage and unrelenting opposition to what may, including myself, would call forces of evil (not to be to dramatic...).  

A pause in the classroom

I fear I may have off-put a number of persons in our last class on Wednesday during out debates on "embedded journalists" and the influence of government over media coverage over the past 20 sum-odd years (and as it evolved the issue of education & media literacy in the same regard).  I think that I didn't express my ideas as clearly as could have been, and I also may have distracted and put-off some folks by the tone and use of "foul" language in my statement.  There was a silence  followed by an awkward tension that filled the class after my statements that I can only assume was felt by the majority of the class.  I cannot say for certain if what I said was the cause or if there was something else that caused  it-an end to the current track of the discussion that didn't transition well perhaps.  

After having a day or so to reflect I worry that my message was not received properly.  If so the credit probably can go to two things - the language and that I simply failed to articulate precisely what I was seeking to.  What I was trying to do was connect the dots between the disparity of education that works to expand a young persons understanding of how to critically engage the various aspects of life (I.E. being able to be media literate and take in their news with the proper filters), and the system of government.  I did not mean to make it sound so conspiratorial and make a case for a certain evil group of people.  I believe that is how the system of government - school boards being elected officials same as  governors same as presidents (those high enough then can appoint other "deciders" for various branches with approval by vote from other government officials) - acts that is the issue.  

In its design it can produce only such vile marriages of interest.  There is to much capital at stake; so many bars on the ladder to climb; to much control to be won.  In the current system of capitalism of this country people become a single type, "they are all fools, intellectual non-persons, emotional half-wits.  Status symbols, supervisory positions, [false comfort via the dollar], and petty power motivates their every act.  Personal, individual, and financial success at any price is their social ethic, the only real standard upon which their conduct is built," (the late, great, revolutionary George Jackson, from his collection of jail letters Soledad Brother). The issue that was brought up in class about media literacy and the lack-there-of in early development education and government tampering or potential tampering (filtering) of the news is just one of the many manifestations of what mr. Jackson was talking about and the point I seeking to articulate.  

I could continue to speak on this issue, but maybe i'll save that for a later post.  I just wanted to clarify it all.  And if it was just that my use of language caused the awkwardness that followed my comments, I apologize because that did us all injustice.  If that is the case it is interesting, however, that in a free speech class my language was still able to throw people off the way it did.  Of all the classes I would except more open communication  and a range of words, in fact all words to be acceptable for use; if not acceptable at least discussed.