Israel has Nukes

The Department of Defense has confirmed (pdf) what has long been known by most, but kept officially secret; Israel is a nuclear power. The report was cleared for release after Obama was elected, but before he took power. It  refers to “a growing arc of nuclear powers running from Israel in the west through an emerging Iran to Pakistan, India, and on to China, North Korea, and Russia in the east.”

Israel is estimated to have several hundred nuclear warheads, placing it ahead of the UK, and likely with the third most warheads of any nation in the world. The purpose of these warheads is obvious. In the event of an organized arab attack, Israel would have the option of massive nuclear retaliation. I don’t think we can really say that this has ‘kept the peace’, but it certainly has kept Israel on  the map. I would like to stress that there is no such thing as a defensive weapon. If a nation were to have an impenetrable forcefield, it would allow them to put all of their other forces on offense without worry, which, come to think of it, seems to be not far from what has happened.

According to Wikipedia, “The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. “ This would seem to be a message from the U.S. to Israel that they are going to have to start following the rules if they want our continued support. This is no small matter, since Israel is in violation of quite a lot of U.N. resolutions, hides their arsenal from the IAEA, and has already been accused of using phosphorus and cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Crusher vs. Cramer

Something constructive has come of the Santelli rant after all, albeit through a rather circuitous route. The above video is the meatier portion of the whole escapade thus far. After being taunted by NBC for just being a comedian, taking things out of context, and making funny faces, Jon Stewart had Cramer on his show and conducted the interview in a more serious and constructive manner than you will see any of the so-called journalists who leveled these accusations do themselves. Cramer was friendly and apologetic, so this must have been a hard thing to do to the man, but Stewart met any evasions with career crushing force. There have been responses from most of the major media and the White House.

CNN has a poll up that asks readers whether they see this interview as being a comic diversion or serious business. Comedy is winning 52-48. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what went down. A bit of background for those of you not well versed in investing; a short is when a broker sells you an investment they don’t own because they think it will go down. They intend to take your money, and when the stock goes down and you wish to sell, they just give you some of your money back and pocket the rest. Kind of like a Ponzi scheme, in the sense that if the stock market booms and everyone wants their money, we see a whole new scandal. This is legal. Some of what he was admitting to doing was not. Listen carefully to the clips Stewart plays, rewind if you have to, but make sure you understand what Cramer was admitting to. He isn’t a rogue bad apple. This is business as usual and whole system is full of rot. The government is rotten, the banks are rotten, as are the analysts, the brokers, the corporations, the media, and the investors. This isn’t something we can just make more rules against. This isn’t a failure of the free market. The people who make the rules are the same people breaking them. What we need is simple transparency. Jon Stewart has given us a taste.

The Rule of Rules

In this TED Talk, Barry Schwartz speaks on a society gone over the edge with regulations, and the ethical nature of autonomy.

It is easy to fall into the habit of seeing the populace as a conglomerate of ignorant sheep, and there is some truth to it. As a group we consistently make poor decisions, but the group is made up of individuals. They have their failings, but most of them get up every morning and go to work. When faced with decisions in their daily lives, they tend to make good ones.  They share your outrage over the state of the system. It isn’t until they are corralled and herded through all the little reverberating insurance policies against litigation that most of their decisions tend to be bad ones. We haven’t added rules over the years because people have become less upstanding, people have become less upstanding because society has increasingly suppressed their spirit of ingenuity and  drive with devices designed to take all of the rewards in order to ensure that no risks are taken. We now reap what we have sown. Fear of innovation. Bloated government, a litigious populace, listless children, high taxes, and low-flow toilets.

Dirty Politcs by the Obama Administration?

In this interview Ron Paul talks a bit about the stimulus bill, and the process by which it was introduced. Ron Paul is an honest guy, so I’ll take him at his word until I see strong evidence otherwise. Obama made a campaign promise to publish all legislation five days ahead of time to allow congress and the public to peruse it. He didn’t do this for the stimulus. It could be argued that the stimulus is an emergency measure and should be exempt, but he also didn’t do this for children’s health insurance, which was hardly an emergency since it doesn’t kick in until mid-year. But this was more than a simple broken campaign promise; according to Ron Paul, the bill wasn’t revealed until the midnight before the vote, and was 1,000 pages. This was made worse by making only five hard copies available, which seems to me to be a clear tactic to prevent the opposition from being able to work together to get it read and discussed before the vote. Lets get this info out to the public at large. I want to see either a denial, an explanation, or a loss of credibility over of this one. If it is true, it is disappointing.

Ball Back in Obama’s Court on Gitmo Tribunals

The chief judge at the Guantanamo Bay war crimes court Thursday rejected President Obama’s request to halt the prosecution of terrorism suspects. Obama had made a request rather than an order. The judge does have a lot of jurisdiction here, but I can’t imagine it holding up if Obama really pushed. I don’t really see the judges rejection of a request like this from the commander in chief as defensible. This could get interesting. There is a full and well written report on the issue over at the LA. times.

« Previous Page — Next Page »