the way I see things

For your (in)convenience, here is a quick summary of the truths of many of the situations that we are presented with:

1) The diplomatic corps of Iran and its fascist President Ahmadinejad must really be rolling on the floors of Tehran right now, offering to 'negotiate', (a word meaning obfuscate and draw out a debate) over its nuclear program, knowing that it is buying itself some time before having to face the still nebulous 'consequences' of its actions.

Iran is after an A-Bomb, and has no intention of stopping or slowing its pursuits. The world ought to get used to the notion and face up to it. Talk of sanctions and consequences is the moral equivalent of doing nothing.

Want to hurt Iran? There are two ways to do it. The first is for every nation in the world to stop all trade with Iran, (yes, I am talking about oil). Will that happen? Most likely not. Even our staunchest allies will look the other way when it comes to choosing between taking a principled stand or shutting down a lot of their respective economies. And our staunchest allies are not Iran's big customers. The second method is not usually talked about, (but may be the secret desire of many folks), is to take the country down and seize the oil fields. The logistics and long term ramifications of this are enormous, (even discounting the fact that we would necessarily have to kill most or all of the citizenry of that country). Will that happen? Probably not.

The only readily acceptable solution is to get used to the idea, and begin to undercut the Iranian powerbase, (fossil fuels). When/if Iran becomes a nuclear power, they will have chained themselves to the same rock that quite a few other countries have camped on, and be slave to the same drain of resources, the same responsibilities, (to put up or shut up in diplomatic issues), and the same quasi-paranoid view of the world military equation that skews the rest of us. We need to do in the energy arena what Japan did in manufacturing following WW2, and what China and India are doing today.


update: Bill Emmott in the Washington Post made this very astute observation.


2) The dangers of a nuclear armed North Korea and/or Iran are not measured in the tragedies of megadeaths, they are measured in the relative complexity of all other transactions, social, political and economic in the world. Were one of these countries (or a few other unnamed states) to actually use such a weapon, the issue would be settled, likely in days, if not hours, by the rest of the nuclear armed world. All the diplomatic hand wringing and press conferences and stern toned warnings amount to simply ignoring the problem, and therefore, exacerbating it.


3) On the domestic front, the issue of racial profiling is again at or near center stage. Tough luck pal. The only just answer to this burning security issue is to treat everybody equally badly. Keep in mind that this is an effort of monumental scale, and it will be expensive---your taxes will go up.

There. Wasn't hard to reach a decision after all.

On the same line, we need to be visiting the issue of persons living in the U.S. but holding citizenship in those parts of the world that are in turmoil. Some, not all, but many, of these persons actually hold citizenship in two countries, the U.S., where they principally reside and do business, and in one of several (mainly middle eastern) countries that allow them to exploit certain lagalities in the tax codes of the two nations to their own advantage.

4) George W. Bush has been a bad President, possibly the worst ever, but it is not all his fault.

He was elected by a population that likes to see things in simple terms, and to hear a simple explanation of a solution to the problems that they perceive, (not actually experience). That kind of situation is ripe for a despot to come in and take the reins of power, manipulating society as others have done through the centuries. The difference is that George is not that guy. He is as dumb as the next guy, as are most of his influential advisers, common bozo's, like the voting public.

Truth is, I am no genius either. It will be hard to find a good candidate to back in '08, from either party.



5) It has been reported that scientists are able to extract human stem cells without actually destroying an embryo. It appears that the method for this is something similar to a procedure used in fertility clinics to check for/guard against genetic damage in embryo's that were fertilized in vitro.

OK. This may neutralize one of the strongest arguments against this line of endeavor, but I have to note that this may be a lot of smoke and mirrors as well. It is not clear to me that this procedure can be done in utero, (forgive me if the spelling or use of that term is wrong), or if it is necessary to be in a lab environment. If the latter is true, is the embryo then implanted into a/the mother? Was it actually extracted or fertilized in vitro? These questions need to be asked, and forthcoming answers delivered. Whatever one thinks about the value of this science, it deserves to be in the cold light of the whole truth. I hope that this is not an end-run around what is perceived to be a political stance by a special interest group.

I firmly believe that, one way or another, this research will go forward and be exploited commercially, there is just too much revenue potential for it not to be. The question is of its value, to individuals who need, or have no other recourse for treatment of illness, and to us all, as the body of humanity.


update: it appears that the wording of the original press release may have been imprecise.
see this article from technocrat.net