Iranian American Bestiality

Do Americans marry animals? I became aware of this hotly debated topic from watching Glenn Beck’s conservative talk program on Headline Prime. This cable television host aired a video from Iran where a speaker engaging a crowd claims that Americans marry animals. Evidence, asserts the speaker, is available on the internet. The skeptical Glenn argued that the very idea was nuts, adding one more fragment of evidence to advance his crusade that the Iranians are crazy.

Allow me to expose two technical flaws in Glenn’s argument, the first being that Glenn worked from an English translation. The original was in either Arabic or Farsi, the Persian language. Glenn’s second, and fatal mistake, was taking the English translation literally. Taken figuratively the allusion “Americans ‘marry’ animals” assumes its intended meaning; as in the sense: men “marry” sheep, or women “marry” donkeys. The term ‘marry’ understood in this vein is clearly euphemistic. Although I have no inclination to pursue the trail of evidence posted on the internet, I’m willing to accept the assertion as plausible without objection, which raises the question in my mind: Why were the Iranians surfing the internet for American smut in the first place?

I submit that in all probability the per capita instance of casual sex between men and sheep in Iran far exceeds that in America. My deduction is purely based upon statistical variations in areas of means, motive, and opportunity. I’m guessing the per capita number of shepherds in Iran exceeds that in America by a whopping margin. The Iranian speaker should have picked on Australia or New Zealand to make his accusation withstand incredulity. The only lamb loins most American urbanites ever encounter are in butchers’ sections of grocery stores.

Conversely I will concede that America probably surpasses Iran in per capita instances of consensual sex between women and donkeys, simply because there’s money to be made in America for this sort of entertainment, whereas Islamic laws against women’s activities, in all honesty, are brutal. Granting all that, I’d still wager the actual incidence of these carnal affairs is marginal in both cultures. Both sides of this divisive topic are using the exception-proves-the-rule argument, which is invalid. Yet in general, people are gullible enough to choose sides without any afterthought.

Also there’s no sense in alluding to something that your audience can’t comprehend either. Glenn entirely missed the point, but presumably the speaker knew that his audience in Iran could catch his pitch. You see, if I say, “Brittany cactified Glenn,” then you would have no clue what I was referring to. The context is missing. If I supply the missing context, then the meaning becomes clear. Brittany is my daughter and as a child she made up the word cactify. The verb, to cactify, refers to giving your enemies time out, or immobilizing them, which she did, only when necessary, to misbehaving action figures and toy animals. Curiously, the etymology of the word delves deeper. The Latin root of the word cactus means bad, and the ending of cactify is similar to petrify. Cactify makes perfectly good sense, after its use in proper context is understood.

This raises another question; did Glenn present a valid argument that the Iranians are crazy? The answer is no. Glenn you’re cactified. The major difference between Iranians and Americans is internet posting privileges. Maybe the point the speaker intended to make was one of internet censorship? In that case, Glenn seems to be the sort of fellow who would welcome such a proposition, not oppose it. I’m inclined to believe that Glenn laments the degradation of American moral values, the exact point the Iranian speaker was trying to make about us, “The Great Satan.” Why do we permit such blatant depravity anyway?

The problem is freedom of speech, what in their wildest dreams were our founding fathers thinking: Americans ‘marrying’ animals; the very idea? Although it’s true that many founding fathers were slave owners, and slaves were considered animals up through the Civil War. In fact slaves were property, and most Americans from that era were farmers too. Who knows? Sodomy and bestiality were primitive forms of contraception. Maybe our founding fathers would have favored the idea of Americans ‘marrying’ animals, in the figurative sense of course. We know that Washington and Jefferson were both dyed in the wool practitioners and indulgers in slavery. But in the modern context we know better. Slaves aren’t animals. So there goes that argument or does it? Who decides these things; outsiders or insiders? Internal conviction sans benefit of external verification is the womb of dangerous beliefs.

Reason without rhetoric is dull and boring, but madness without method is delusion. Reason erected upon decrepit foundations is faulty. Rhetoric void of reason is folly. When rhetoric reinforces a point of view that’s already held it becomes effective. Politicians and commentators are married to unreasonable rhetoric as a means to fame and power, as a device for achieving self-serving ends; for herding gullible followers, lacking critical thinking skills, like sheep. In this sense, the Iranian political elite are just like their American counterparts; so I ask you now, “Who’s ‘marrying’ whom?”