Translate

Monday, January 31, 2011

What do John McCain, the Shah of Iran, and Rupert Murdock of fox news have in common?

Can you guess this one?

Tick, tick, tick.

OK. I will tell you. They are all men who
1. had vast economic and/or political power
2. divorced their older wife and then married a younger woman of childbearing age to had more children with a second or third wife.

I was reading about the Shah of Iran and Wikipedia and according to wikipedia even though he was the first Muslim leader to accept Israel yet he also said that the America media is controlled by the Jews.

With what is gong on with Egypt which is scary with Mubarack but regardless he has done little to work with Israel and in addition to this the coptic Christian leader is very anti-Semitic (which has been reported on sites like Debbie Schlussel who then say she doesn't care that they were bombed) which I don't want blame all Christians for this but that the Egyptian government gives the official power to a clergy person who is very anti-semitic and if he wasn't that way the Egyptian government would not give official support as the religious leader has to play politics with the government to have the official power.

In addition the SHAH WAS FOR WOMAN'S RIGHTS from the wikipedia article although from reading it seems disingenuous so women don't focus on his own behavior. His first wife he divorced after 19 years and they had one child. His second he divorced when it became apparent she couldn't bear children. He had 4 children with his 3rd wife.

I'm sure it wasn't good for the first child that he was divorced and it is ironic that one of his reforms was to OUTLAW POLYGAMY. I don't think it is an ideal but that would be better then this then divorcing an older women who can no longer bear children and marrying a younger woman who can. It is bad for the children of the original marriage that their mother is cast outside for a younger woman as they no longer have a father and mother as a unit to talk about their own situation.

So I find it ironic that actually in the Shah's case getting rid of polygamy actually was so he could more easily divorce his first and second wife and I'm sure he compensated them (at least I hope he did although who knows) and just be with a younger woman all the time.

I just got thinking to this with the situation in Egypt but in both cases I'm not sure their support was Israel was genuine and at the end of the day an enemy that is seen for what it is may be better then an enemy that pretends to be your friend because you let your guard down and they use more indirect ways to destroy you which is what they really want to do anyway.

No comments: