The Iran Nuke Deal and Bibi's Speech

The Obama administration has made negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program its signature foreign policy effort.  So far, progress has been tough.  The Iranians need to get sanctions lifted but they are reluctant to give much of their program up. The US, which leads the P5 negotiators, now wants a program freeze for 10 years and has dropped demands for dismantling centrifuges.  Iran still would have to accept a far more rigorous inspection program on all its facilities.

Israeli Prime Minister "Bibi" Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress last week and denounced the current proposal.  He called it a "very bad deal" that would guarantee the Iran gets lots of nuclear bombs.   Judging from the thunderous applause, most of Congress seemed to agree with him.  See Barone's column here:  Sharing Netanyahu's views  Predictably, Charles Krauthammer called Bibi a new Churchill for his stance:  Churchillian Warning.

A few opinions on this.  The administration is right to negotiate and to get some deal that improves our visibility on Iran's program.  Especially with oil prices this low, Tehran needs to work out a deal to get an ease of sanctions.  We should be patient, but not desperate.

Bibi has no solution to the Iran problem other than the US attacking Iran.  Israeli defense officials consistently downplay the Iranian threat.  It was not an issue in their last election.

Do the Iranians have a nuclear weapons program?  The only strong evidence is the large number of centrifuges.  The intelligence community thought back in 2007 they had stopped the weapons portion of it.  Iran's supreme leaders have at various times publicly called nuclear weapons "haram."  This issue took on a lot more urgency when former President Ahmadinejad started threatening Israel, but he's out of power for some time now.

If Iran got a nuclear weapons, would it attack Israel?  Only if you believe it has forged a national suicide pact with itself.

Diversity Perversity in February

At work, our diversity office posted on our website this "timeline" on "black" (sic) history.  It is worth sharing as an artifact of the unique mentality of people who work in these departments.  Note the interesting choices in photographs, especially the last one!  Black History Month Timeline  Yes, let's keep hate alive!

Big omissions in this timeline.  You'd never suspect that Will Smith once was the leading box office actor, or the now unmentionable Bill Cosby the leading entertainer.  (And where's Booker T.?)  Another thing worth pointing out:  how the integration of the Armed Forces during the Korean War assisted many men in finding a new pathway into the middle class.  A key event in U.S. history.

This type of propaganda belittles the real and significant achievements made by "blacks" in this country.  Achievements largely taken for granted.  

Jon Stewart's Greatest Show on Earth

I ran into a coworker this week who told me that his main source of news was Jon Stewart's Daily Show.  This guy is fifty and an engineer.  I wondered: How the hell does this stuff happen?  

I never bought into the Jon Stewart phenomenon, which, let's face it, was driven primarily by media hype.  When Jon attempted more mainstream entertainment, he flopped. Cable niche programming is his metier.  

But he has a sort of low genius.  He's taken his humdrum and lazy liberal beliefs, which have not evolved since 1980 (when I knew him), and his wise-ass south Jersey persona, and made millions off of them. In the meantime, this former psychology major from William and Mary managed to convince millions that he's an authority on public affairs.  

Quite an achievement.  And a good reminder that P.T. Barnum remains an American archetype. 

Kyle Smith, the excellent and underrated columnist for the New York Post, blows up Jon Stewart here:  Lies into Comedy  

On the shoulders of Giants?  

P.T. Barnum (right) and Jon Stewart

 

ISIS is a Death Cult

The ISIS boys are a tough bunch to figure out.  (I still call them ISIS.  Calling them Islamic State seems overly deferential.  Besides its harder to google that and get a clear result.  And try googling IS.  And ISIL just sounds funny.)    When they took over Mosul last June, I thought their leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, had earned the title of a Second Mao.  Had they contented themselves with consolidating their gains in Sunni-stan, they might have pulled off the Islamic State thing.  But no, they decided to attack the Kurds, and by threatening Erbil, they got the US involved.

Then they turned the insignificant town of Kobani into Stalingrad.  Prior to that, it seemed they were concerned about wasting manpower.  Not anymore.  What are they thinking?

They used to swap hostages, or give up hostages for ransom.  They probably could have gotten a deal with the Jordanians.  Certainly the Japanese would have paid up.  But no, they decided to brutally kill their captives.  They don't seem to mind retribution against their own.

Last month they ran a raid into the Kurdish province of Erbil with about 160 fighters, attacking one of the river crossings.  They killed at least two dozen Kurdish interior ministry (asayish) troops.  Maybe more.  But then they got carved up and many were killed trying to return across the Zab river to Ninewa.  What was the point of this operation?  

We are conditioned to think of insurgent organizations like ISIS based on our old Marxist guerrilla movement paradigms.  Well, throw that out: these guys are wired differently.  What we may think of as logical and rational doesn't apply to them.

George Packer calls them a "death cult."  See his article here: ISIS murdered Kenji Goto  Maybe, like the Kali-worshipping Thuggee cult,  that's really the whole objective: just to kill and be killed.

Super Bowl Sunday: Let's Celebrate Nothing

I might just spend the afternoon reading, or weeding.  Super Bowl XLIX is the most over-hyped event of the year.  George Will post a good column on it here:  Letting the Air out of the Super Bowl

The reporting this year has been dominated by "Deflategate":  who let the air out of the Patriots balls prior to their win over the Colts two weeks ago?   (A better name for this non-event: Ballghazi!)  Saturday Night Live nails it here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqn28uCtbO4 

Next year, I understand the NFL intends to drop the Roman numerals, because Americans won't understand what Super Bowl "L" means.

Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo

Do I have to actually say I deplore a terrorist act?   Do I have to make a point of condemning Islamic extremism, intolerance, and violence?  Is that the price of free speech these days, that people are forced to say the most baldly obvious things?

Oh very well.  Yes to all that.  But please, don't force me to shed crocodile tears over Charlie Hebdo.  I have no idea what purpose it served in the world other than to mock religious people.   Have you seen its cartoons?  Would anything of that coarse quality been featured in an American publication?  Did anyone actually read this thing?  Perhaps the greatest tragedy of this senseless crime was giving unwarrented dignity and meaning to a worthless French fish wrap.

And really, is this the best Charlie could do?



Meanwhile, 17 Nigerians died from a suicide bomber, aged ten.  But none of them were important cartoonists, just people.  Say a prayer for them, and for the Charlie Hebdo victims, and the French policewoman doing her job.

 

Americans Support Enhanced Interrogation

You lose, Senator Feinstein.  Condolences!  The American public has consistently believed that enhanced interrogation of dangerous terrorist suspects at least is sometimes justified.  Even when pollsters call it "torture," the public still think it might be okay. See this good summary by former Senate aide Marc Thiessen:  democrats-lose-the-torture-debate  Thiessen sets the record straight here: enhanced interrogation was rarely used, and waterboarding hardly ever.  But it got the job done.