A quick look at the punditverse
So, Hillary Clinton is running for president. That ought to be good for a few laughs. Let’s see what people are saying about that.
First up: Jonah Goldberg says in his column:
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems obvious to me that if you claim to be a conservative and then suddenly discover that Hillary Clinton is really one too, then you were either never a conservative in the first place or you care about something other than your principles a whole lot more.
That is purity trolling, but it’s weak sauce, I assume Jonah knows it’s going to be a long, long campaign and is pacing himself. He’d hate to go full paranoid delusional Whitewater-Vince Foster-Benghazi right out of the gate, that would leave him nowhere to go next week, and he’s got 15 months of Hillary bashing columns to write. Let’s take a look at what the other conservative pundits are saying about Hillary…
Bill Kristol, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, figure with 18 months of election to go, there’s pleanty of time to talk about Hillary, they all have one more pressing issue on their mind: Iran. This quote from George Will seems to sum up their attitude fairly succinctly:
Obama’s obnoxious air of entitlement to unearned immunity from oversight should not blind us to this fact that has been obvious for some time: Iran is going to be a nuclear power if it intensely wants to be, and it does; no practicable sanctions can be severe and durable enough to defeat this determination.
Here’s the thing. No country has ever been stopped from developing a nuclear bomb by any means short of a full scale military assault. North Korea managed and they were watching their population starve while they were busily making bombs. Could a more active and engaged administration have prevented that? Clinton managed. He traded food for the end of the bomb program and for the eight years of his administration, that was enough. The Bush administration played tough, ended the food support and concentrated on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and North Korea built a bomb. They saw what the US did to two enemies that did not have nuclear weapons in their arsenal.
So that’s why Iran wants the bomb, to stop US (or Israeli) military intervention. But why do so many conservatives have such a hate on for Iran? Is it wounded pride from the hostage crisis of 1979? The memory of the 1973 energy crisis when OPEC collectively pulled the western world by the short hairs? The vindictiveness of thwarted colonialism that thinks ‘we stole it first’ is a good reason that BP should still own the Iranian oil fields? Is it the Israel lobby who sees a mortal enemy in a country that funded Hamas? Is it the Saudi lobby that sees 80 million Shiite heretics?
It’s all of the above. Plus the thought of increased profits for military contractors if the USA did go to war.
Here’s a story that was reported in USA today right after the deal was announced:
http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/04/02/oil-prices-fall-on-word-of-nuclear-accord-with-iran/
The historic animosity of the US to Iran, in the wake of the Iranian revolution has been, among other things a price subsidy for every other oil company in the world.
That’s why I want to see renewable energy implemented worldwide. I want national governments to be more powerful than petrochemical companies. I’d love for there to be a windmill energy boom in the great plains states which won’t ruin the water or cause earthquakes or belch more greenhouse gasses into the air. I’d love for rooftops worldwide to sprout solar panels. I’d like to see nine out of ten oil refineries close their doors. I’d even be OK with Lockheed Martin perfecting the fusion power plant they’ve been touting in their press releases, as pollutants go, I can deal with some extra helium.
But the happy little future I outlined above is basically the worst nightmare of the neocons. They depend on a world order supported by and supporting a limitless appetite for oil. The post world war II world order has been sustained by the western world’s control of oil production. I’m not naive enough to think that if no one was fighting over oil and oil money that there would be no fighting, but I’m sick of oil money funding the paranoid warmongering ambitions of a revolting group of reactionaries.
Apologies for the long post on the front page, when I figure out how to make a jump, I will do that.
The Bush administration played tough, ended the food support and concentrated on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and North Korea built a bomb.
And somehow the braying dogs of the right never made a sound, because it’s always OKIYAR.
But if Obama had been president… WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Think Evita after Botox treatments. Think Madame Defarge on a bad hair day. Think Lady Macbeth with serious issues (“Out, out, damned bimbo!”).
Yay!!!
Don’t forget about Pakistan.
Also Bibi isn’t helping. Doubtful that Israel would retaliate for an Iranian backed terrorist attack or Hizbollah strike by nuking Iran. Doubtful that is until Bibi showed exactly how crazy he is by biting that hand that feeds him. But even Bibi wouldn’t attack a nuclear Iran. Way to go keeping Israel safe, Beebs.
Although as far as Israel’s concerned, if the Iranian leadership could have gotten that general to shut up about destroying Israel, that would have helped.
GOPer outraged— how dare Hillary play the Family Values card!!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/hillary-clinton-estrogen-gop-strategist_n_7054594.html
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems obvious to me that if you claim to be a conservative and then suddenly discover that Hillary Clinton is really one too, then you were either never a conservative in the first place or you care about something other than your principles a whole lot more.
I mean… I don’t think I really disagree on this. (And I’m not willing to pageclick to find out if there’s anything more to it).
Iran…
I just want to throw this additional thing in for consideration; I’m not at all convinced that Iran does want the bomb.
I take the Iranian leadership’s fatwas against nuclear armament about as seriously as I take their threats against Israel (though it’s noteworthy that our politicians and pundits seem to insist that we must take them at their word on one but not the other). But realistically speaking, Iran has to know that getting the bomb will only make things much, much worse for them diplomatically and economically for the immediate future, not to mention that it’ll probably lead to a Saudi bomb that they have no more interest in seeing than we do.
All things being equal, maybe they do want the bomb and maybe they don’t, but all things are not equal. Having the bomb comes with its own set of nasty consequences, and I don’t think they think these consequences are worth it (they’ve been getting really eager to get the embargo off their necks) – unless they’re absolutely convinced that there’s no way to guarantee their survival without it.
In other words, the U.S. has a pretty good chance of negotiating an Iranian bomb away right now, but if the Republicans convince them that there is, in fact, no way to survive without the bomb, they’ll go the North Korea route.
So that’s why Iran wants the bomb, to stop US (or Israeli) military intervention. But why do so many conservatives have such a hate on for Iran? Is it wounded pride from the hostage crisis of 1979? The memory of the 1973 energy crisis when OPEC collectively pulled the western world by the short hairs? The vindictiveness of thwarted colonialism that thinks ‘we stole it first’ is a good reason that BP should still own the Iranian oil fields? Is it the Israel lobby who sees a mortal enemy in a country that funded Hamas? Is it the Saudi lobby that sees 80 million Shiite heretics?
As you say: yes.
I’m going to add one more: Iran, especially now that the hostile Arab regimes are falling like dominos, is pretty much the last “conventional” enemy (e.g. the kind that our neocons are comfortable dealing with) in the region.
As we saw in the “Axis of Evil” speech, our neocons have absolutely no fucking idea how to deal with the world of non-state actors, transnational terrorism, etc, especially as tied as it is to “allies” like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikdoms. So for fifteen years they’ve eagerly kept the conversation centered on enemies that they’re comfortable with – hostile regimes clearly defined by a nation-state with an army, police, government structure et al, and clearly on the “other” side. Iran’s the last one of these.
And yes, in all seriousness, can’t underestimate the amount of influence Israel and Saudi Arabia have on our foreign policy. I remember reading a few Reagan-era briefs in the White House and thinking “holy shit, I swear to God these briefs were written in Riyadh.” It was the purest Saudi-oriented bullshit – “there are two kinds of Muslims, Sunnis and Shi’a, and the Shi’a are the dangerous and extreme and revolutionary ones” – and it’s what was being delivered in official, big shot, National Security Council level reports.
Senate Republicans:
“150 years ago today, the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. America is forever indebted.”
Ghostly Ron Paul.
I agree with this statement very strongly, neocons especially seem to believe that they still live in a bipolar world where all countries that do not prioritze staying on Uncle Sam’s ‘nice’ list above the well being of their own citizens, are clearly cooperating to bring about the downfall of the USA.
Good to see you on the Sadly front page, Helmut.
I recently saw that for the cost of GWB’S Excellent War Adventures, we could have outfitted pretty much every house in America with rooftop solar panels.
Bit of a difference in ROI on those two items. Of course, the oil tasters would never allow their profit schemes to be depleted by that kind of communistical craziness, let alone the War Profiteers allowing such an impressive potential profit source remain untapped.
our neocons have absolutely no fucking idea
There. Just tightened that up a bit for accuracy…
The conventional wisdom about Iran fiending for nukes to preempt a US-Israeli attack may well be correct but this is also an interesting take on the deal…
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/04/thoughts-on-that-maybe-deal-about-irans-nuclear-achievements.html#comments
The conventional wisdom about Iran fiending for nukes to preempt a US-Israeli attack may well prove correct but, b has an interesting take on the deal as well. It’s worth the read.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/04/thoughts-on-that-maybe-deal-about-irans-nuclear-achievements.html#comments
I go out drinking (and taking in a neuroscience lecture) one night and I find Helmut on the front page. High five, old chum!
I can’t add anything to this post. It’s quite true.
Well, the ‘Source’ link is mistyped.
I take the Iranian leadership’s fatwas against nuclear armament about as seriously as I take their threats against Israel
Why shouldn’t we take their threats against Israel at least somewhat seriously? At the risk of committing a Godwin’s law violation, there is, shall we say, a history of threats against Jews and Jewish interests that are not taken seriously even though they ought to be taken seriously.
Fookin’ Ada it’s going to be a long campaign. If the election is November 2016 we’ll have plenty of time to get sick of all possible candidates. Meanwhile, there’s no coverage of TPP anywhere.
Ontkefe … the TPP is the long con going on here, isn’t it? While we’re focused on Iran the TPP is gonna be approved without anyone noticing in time to protest. And when we push for increased Congressional oversight for TPP our opposition to same with the Iran deal will be used to shut us up. And the GOP will come off as the party of Congressional oversight and hence can run as a firewall against TPP even as they really support it behind the scenes.
I’d even be OK with Lockheed Martin perfecting the fusion power plant they’ve been touting in their press releases
Yeah, about that…ain’t gonna happen. The problem with fusion is all those excess neutrons making everything radioactive. Nobody has solved that, not even as a thought experiment.
LM’s promises and timelines follow the genre of fusion breakthrough announcements: big things just a few year/decades away but never making it. One of the greatest mirages in all of science.
This is the most common criticism of fusion research. But unlike turning lead into gold or the promise of eternal life, we get proof every day when the sun rises that nuclear fusion can provide lots of power. I admit that I’m just the kind of optimist/fan of science fiction/sucker that LM is hoping to convince when they talk about nuclear fusion being right around the corner, but I’m not convinced it’s a scam. Nuclear fusion funding in the US (outside of ‘inertial confinement fusion’ aka hydrogen bomb testing) is at a pitifully low amount, especially given the possible payoff. If the feds spent the same amount on nuclear fusion that got poured down the missile defense rathole, we’d either have proof practical nuclear fusion reactors are impossible, or we’d have mr. fusions on every corner.
The TPP doesn’t exist yet. There’s nothing to debate or argue. Fast-track just means skipping sitting around in committee, nothing more.
So far all we have are out of context rumors and misunderstandings.
Yeah, about that…ain’t gonna happen. The problem with fusion is all those excess neutrons making everything radioactive. Nobody has solved that, not even as a thought experiment.
Yeah, it’s always been “twenty years in the future”.
Except that’s not true! Aneutronic fusion, which is a damn fine thought experiment that only requires 10 times more confinement energy than D-T fusion requires. And it would still create some neutrons, around 1% of what D-T fusion would create. So, if regular fusion is impractical or unattainable, aneutronic fusion is an order of magnitude more so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
Oh pshaw, cold nuclear fusion is totally a thing, we swear it is!
Also FYWP
Now this is fucking awesome. TIL some chimps use fucking spears.
Bummer. Ezra Levant was supposed to testify today at the fraud trial of Senator Humpty-Duffy, but they ran out of time, so he’s coming back Monday.
Who says Canadian politics is boring?
Why shouldn’t we take their threats against Israel at least somewhat seriously?
Of course I’m only supposed to believe them when they say something that justifies us bombing them (which we wanted to do anyway).
“But why do so many conservatives have such a hate on for Iran? Is it wounded pride from the hostage crisis of 1979? The memory of the 1973 energy crisis when OPEC collectively pulled the western world by the short hairs? The vindictiveness of thwarted colonialism that thinks ‘we stole it first’ is a good reason that BP should still own the Iranian oil fields? Is it the Israel lobby who sees a mortal enemy in a country that funded Hamas? Is it the Saudi lobby that sees 80 million Shiite heretics?”
Or, they could just really have a boner for killing more people. Anywhere, anytime. It’s terrible to think that we’ve got a whole slice of our country that’s literally *salivating* at the thought of mass murder, but it is what it is.
See also horrible shits like this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/hateful-katie-hopkins-column-on-migrants-causes-twitter-backlash-as-russell-brand-wades-into-debate-10186342.html
Mmmmm…yup, Matt, your Katie Hopkins could win the coveted “hate-filled narcissist bitch” gold medal
Looks like ESPN reporter Britt McHenry will have to settle for silver:
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/video-espn-reporter-goes-vile-rant-against
I take the Iranian leadership’s fatwas against nuclear armament about as seriously as I take their threats against Israel
Why shouldn’t we take their threats against Israel at least somewhat seriously? At the risk of committing a Godwin’s law violation, there is, shall we say, a history of threats against Jews and Jewish interests that are not taken seriously even though they ought to be taken seriously.
Well yeah, sorry, but I am calling Godwin’s Law. “These people did this to these Jews in this context, therefore we should worry about these completely different people doing this completely different thing to a completely different group of Jews in a completely different context” is a pretty egregious violation.
We’re not talking about a government rounding up a minority of its own citizens, or even invading another country to do so – the idea here is that Iran, if it got a nuke, would use it on Israel, a country that’s not only the greatest military power in the region, but a nuclear power itself, which would retaliate emphatically enough to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth if that ever happened. So, people who ask you to take this notion seriously are basically asking you to believe that Iran’s government is happy committing national suicide, or that they don’t realize this would happen, e.g, in either case, basically that they’re crazy.
It’s not inconceivable – the Nazis were overconfident to the point of lunacy and it brought down their entire regime and their country as they knew it, and you could make a similar case about Saddam playing with fire when he started firing SCUDs at Israel – but it’s also kind of the exception rather than the rule, especially when nukes are involved.
The Iranian government’s been around for thirty years plus, and it hasn’t exactly gone out of its way to act irrationally – it hasn’t started any wars or used any WMDs, it hasn’t financed any 9/11s, heck, it’s shown itself to be pragmatic and realistic enough to work with the West in the early phases of the Afghanistan War, and to send George W. Bush a letter basically suing for peace after the Iraq War, putting everything from their support for Hamas to their nuclear program on the table. Apart from its early revolutionary phase (and these things are a shit show pretty much everywhere they happen), Iran hasn’t behaved like the kind of government that would court collective suicide simply to kill a few Jews.
(Conservative claims to the contrary were usually based on two things; 1) Ahmadinejad’s state of mind. Which was always irrelevant. Even if you take him at his word and don’t assume that his pronouncements towards Israel were just your basic Nixonian bluster, he was never the ultimate power in Iran or the man in control of its armed forces, so worrying about his state of mind is like worrying about the White House Press Secretary’s. And in any case, he’s gone now. And 2) “They’re Muslims. And Muslims are an apocalyptic death cult which doesn’t value human life like we do.” Yeah. Whatever you say).
It’s interesting how the powers of the Iranian President change based on who’s in office.
When it’s a hardliner like Ahmadinejad they’re portrayed as an absolute dictator.
When he’s a moderate, the Iranian President is a mere puppet of the “mad mullahs”.
Note that in either case the leadership is portrayed as “mad” or “insane” and therefore can’t be negotiated with – because of course we don’t want to negotiate.
It goes way beyond Iran, too. Whether it’s the Soviets, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Nicaraguans or the Panamanians, whoever’s opposing us is always “mad” or “insane,” always completely beyond any attempt to deal, there’s never any way to deal with them unless there’s lots and lots of guns fired and bombs dropped, and they’re always too dangerous not to be dealt with.
Well yeah, sorry, but I am calling Godwin’s Law. “These people did this to these Jews in this context, therefore we should worry about these completely different people doing this completely different thing to a completely different group of Jews in a completely different context”
Except there is a long history of all sorts of groups doing some pretty nasty stuff to all sorts of Jews in all sorts of contexts. When do we start taking threats against Jews seriously?
I don’t think Iran would use a nuke against Israel. For that matter, I think we should make a deal with Iran, and those who are trying to block a deal are actually putting Israel’s security in grave danger. What having a nuke would do is embolden Iran: a nuclear armed Iran would be able to support Hamas, for example, without worrying about retaliation from Israel.
Late to this. But some thoughts:
— Fusion: It’s a real thing, and it can work, and even the neutron problem isn’t as bad as it sounds. The sun fuses hydrogen and doesn’t generate neutrons in great numbers – the sun does H + H –> He + gamma and then you get He -> D + e + neutrino. Research hasn’t focused on that on Earth because the initial energy requirements are so large. So we go with D + T (deuterium + tritium) or some combination thereof. Those processes do make neutrons, but for now that isn’t the biggest single problem. One funky proposal was just to use hydrogen bombs — that could actually work (LANL demonstrated the idea once). But the problem there is using hydrogen bombs — lots of them.
— Nukes in Iran: The Iranians are not crazy and thy have demonstrated such. If we convince them that national survival is predicated on having a nuke then we have only ourselves to blame. That said they haven’t done much to actually make one — they have worked to developing the technological capacity though. In some ways this isn’t any different from Japan, which could put a bomb together in a few months or so if they were pressed.
— Danger to Isral : There is a huge honking difference between dangers to the Jewish people and dangers to Israel as a nation/ government. There are as many Jews living in the US and local paranoia to the contrary ( a local synagogue near me in New York freaking City has those Jersey barriers in front of it to stop attacks and security dudes present at Shabbos) there’s little danger to the Jewish people as a whole here. It’s a little bit like saying that an attack on Tajikstan by the Chinese reveals some deep animosity to Central Asians. Yes, the Han can be racist jerks, but their interest in putting pressure on the -stans probably is due to something else. Similarly, being pissed off at the Israeli government for enacting policies that are awfully akin to South Africa and even Germany does not an Anti-Semite make.
“Well, I think, going forward, that it’s got to be on the table, driving the narrative in this cycle, going forward, I think.
How does this not make me a pundit?
Close but no banana. Not bipartisan enough.
Except there is a long history of all sorts of groups doing some pretty nasty stuff to all sorts of Jews in all sorts of contexts.
Whoosh.
When do we start taking threats against Jews seriously?
When they are serious threats rather than Bibi bluster.
Next step: strap-ons.
I think we should not remove the economic sanctions on the chimpanzees until they:
a) agree not to continue developing their bow-and-arrow development program.
b) provide for inspection of former sites suspected of being used for bow-and-arrow resting.
c) stop oppressing the bonobo minority.
d) accept and respect the existence of the lemur state.
e) stop funding gibbon terrorist groups in gorilla nations.
Oy.
Except there is a long history of all sorts of groups doing some pretty nasty stuff to all sorts of Jews in all sorts of contexts. When do we start taking threats against Jews seriously? I don’t think Iran would use a nuke against Israel.
Well, my mistake for not clarifying. Back when I said “their threats against Israel,” I was referring to the old canard that they want a nuke because they want to hit Israel with it – in turn based on a few proclamations from Khamenei and especially Ahmadinejad – which is what’s regularly trotted out as “why Iran must absolutely not, ever, ever, get the bomb!” If we’re talking “threats” in terms of supporting anti-Israeli militias, then yes. That I do take seriously. Though I’d point out that “support militias that are fighting your enemies” is a pretty widespread tactic that America and Israel themselves have been happy to engage in – including, if the rumors are true, anti-Iranian militias. Which matters for the next point;
What having a nuke would do is embolden Iran: a nuclear armed Iran would be able to support Hamas, for example, without worrying about retaliation from Israel.
Well, as noted above, they’re already supporting Hamas. But yes; having a nuclear armed Iran would mean that Iran would be safe from any possibility of Israeli nuclear attack or American invasion.
Which is the real reason our neocons and Israel’s Likudniks are terrified of Iran getting the bomb; it means that without that ultimate option, they might have to start actually negotiating with Iran. It means no opportunities to play the kind of bullshit games they did in 2002/2003 when they demanded unilateral disarmament from Iraq and then invaded anyway – they’d have to treat it like North Korea instead.
‘gratz on getting keys Helmut.
First post opens with Loadberg. It’s like old times again.
Also in re: fusion. No need – solar is the way to go. Heck even Lockheed Martin is getting into solar.
Seriously, localizing fusion power sounds great and all, but the fact is we already gots plenty of fusion power available, it just needs to be scooped up and bottled for use.
Anybody want to palp some palpable irony?
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/roy-moore-compares-anti-gay-fight-resisting-slavery-segregation
While we’re on the subject, N.Y. Judge Grants Legal Rights To 2 Research Chimps
Can’t wait to see Rick “Frothy Mix” link it to marriage equality. Because bestiality, you know.
The right wing simply cannot stop themselves. Iran has been a known enemy for so long they must have a war. It is their ‘great Satan’ and they long to confront him in yet another installment of the Holy War Bush started in Iraq.