Devious Disguises for Terrorists

New strategy of #ISIS revealed! Cleverly disguised twitter accounts using pictures of cute #kittens. pic.twitter.com/Fx0lbjBttD
— Renny (@ThillingHeroics) March 16, 2015

Even evil fanatics like kittens. 

Never Give Up, Never Surrender!

Netanyahu the Eighth, 80 years into the Iranian-American war. (Artist's Rendition)

In his speech to congress, Israeli PM Netanyahu came out strongly against a deal with Iran to limit their nuclear program.  

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs. 
Iran's Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount -- 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision. 
My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

The exact details of a deal aren't public, but it seems likely that Netanyahu has someone privy to the secret talks keeping him up to date.  That said, I find it highly unlikely that these details are concrete.  Things can change very rapidly in negotiations.

So why the pressure?

The easiest answer is that this is a political ploy designed to win Netanyahu a few more votes in the Israeli parliament.  The second answer is that Netanyahu doesn't trust Obama to make a good deal with Iran.  This could put pressure on Obama to negotiate harder.  It could be an attempt to damage Obama politically, seeing as Israel is (for now) very popular in the US.

The best answer is probably e) All of the above.

How Republicans Learned to Stop Worrying, and Love the Bomb

47 Senate Republicans just sent a letter to the supreme leader of Iran, reminding him that they don't like him, and have some power to reject a nuclear deal because -> constitution.

Why would Republicans try to sabotage a deal with Iran?

Well, many reasons.  

If I had to guess, I'd say the fundamental dynamic underlining this letter is that it's a part of a GOP strategic calculation along these lines:

-If Obama can get a good deal, when push comes to shove no one will block it.
-The Senate may not pass it, but anything reasonably strong will probably stay alive, simply because at the end of the day (some) republicans are perfectly aware invading Iran is a bad idea.
-Republicans think they have more to lose should they appear weak in front of their base than if they attack the deal and it still is passed.
-If the deal fails, it can be blamed entirely on Obama and most of the public will be none-the-wiser

It's not always easy to discern the difference between ideological blinders and genuine democratic-political necessity: a politician who makes idiotic decisions could be doing so because he/she is an idiot, or because that decision is genuinely what their constituents want and will help them politically. Obviously it's always some of both, but it's difficult to untangle the two.

I'm going a bit off the reservation here, but if I had to guess, I'd say that many establishment republicans are less concerned with the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear state then they would ever admit. For one, Israel has been crying wolf for so long that "being concerned with Iran" is more of a political shibboleth than an actual worry. When it comes to the hard political realities, I don't buy it that all 47 of these senators actually want to sabotage the nuclear deal. Some probably think this nonsense won't actually matter when it comes down to it, but god forgive them if pass up the chance to score short term political points in the mean time.

Ideology definitely plays into this though. In the mind of the right, the only reason the US wouldn't be able to stop Iran from getting a nuke is weakness on Obama's part. You might call this "Reagan Syndrome", where all it takes to defeat our enemies is to stand strong, call out the axis of evil for the evil things they are (along with lots of patriot chest-thumping), and they will fold because they cannot stand up to our democratic perfection and military prowess. All you need to do is shout "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and it will single-handedly bring down the USSR.
That's my armchair-psychoanalysis, at least. Mind you, sometimes threats and force are warranted and useful, but republicans tend to go off the reservation when the country is led by a democratic president. Their bias is that democrats are weak, always, forever, regardless of the circumstances. 'Obama is playing into Iran's hand, how could he be so naive? He must be selling out Israel because he hates them' etc. etc.

Resisting Arrest While Black

Concerning the homicide of Eric Garner, someone recently pointed out to me that Garner resisted arrest.

Really?

He didn't resist arrest anymore than the average grandmother would do.

And when he lay there dying on the ground they stood there and watched. When the EMT came and asked them why no one administered CPR a cop lied and said he was breathing. He was not.

If you think this had nothing to do with race, I would ask you to sit down for a moment and just watch the footage. And then watch it again. The police violently strangled a man who was non-threatening, who "resisted" by pleading with them that he couldn't breath while like five or so of them pinned him to the ground. The whole situation happened very quickly, but they just stand around, watching this man die. He was large and he was black, and if you can write that off in your head and excuse the cops for whatever reason you can come up with to satisfy that cognitive dissonance, but I hope this will make people think. The country needs to come to terms with the way we approach race. Ferguson polarized it for obvious reason, but the fact of the matter is that black people are killed, beaten and mistreated by the police more than the rest of us. And you wonder why they don't trust police?

Come Together, Right Now - Middle-East!

As ISIS's advance into Iraq begins to freak out just about everyone, I would like to call for a grand coalition between all involved parties.  I'm calling on the US, Iran, Iraq, Ukraine, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Guatemala to band together in unity, and fight off the crazy Jihadist extremists.

From this winning NYT article yesterday:

"Reports that Iran has sent its paramilitary Quds Force to help the struggling Iraqi Army battle the militant group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, raised the awkward possibility that the United States could find itself allied with Iran in shoring up an unpopular Shiite government in Baghdad." 

 Nothing like a common enemy to unite the forces of good¹!

Oh, and I've been slow on the inevitable ISIS puns, but don't you worry; they're coming.

¹ Terms and Conditions may apply

Actually Doing Something

I will come out and admit that too often I'm just another armchair social-crusader.  I argue will people, I advocate on issues, occasionally I make a call to my representatives (who knows how much that helps), but my paltry $100 a year of charitable donations is a fraction of what it should be.  Like most of us, I should make an effort to be more involved in some way; volunteering, letter writing, whichever.  I have the usually excuses; I'm an over worked student, I sleep far too little as it is, etc. etc.  Those sort of excuses are often valid, and helping should always be balanced with not driving yourself into the ground.  But I suspect that for myself, like many, those excuses are sometimes just that; excuses.  When I have more free time, I don't usually go volunteer.  So here is a little public pledge to be better, for what it's worth.  

This summer I will do as much volunteer work as is productive and possible.  In this silly little bit of unprofessional and perhaps hypocritical advocacy, I urge everyone to do the same.

I'm going to post a lot on this soon, but my issue, THE issue of the day and the century is how in the hell we're going to prevent ourselves (I mean humanity) from wrecking our climate and the world.  So that's where I'm going to be focusing.  Who knows if I'll be able to make a difference.  Who knows if anyone will be able to, if anyone or anything is enough to confront this.  But I'm tired of talking about it.

Here is a list of some organizations trying to save the world.  (No, that's not actually hyperbole)

The National Resource Defense Council should be at the top of this list. They're doing fantastic work fighting climate change both publicly, and behind the scenes in Washington. At this point we need everything we can get.

For example, they were responsible for the proposal that the EPA modeled its new regulations after. While I think most would admit these aren't enough long term, they're the best possible solution for reducing carbon emissions that can be both effective and politically/legally defensible; keep in mind that these rules will inevitably have to face a supreme court challenge. The Clean Air Act was not written with this sort of regulation in mind, so it was a hugely important step.

Another small thing; you can also set up amazon smile to automatically donate a (admittedly small) fraction of your purchase to any of these organizations. It WILL NOT substitute for directly donating and volunteering, but everything helps. Doesn't cost you anything.

Good Policy and the GOP: Like Water, Oil and something that doesn't Mix with Water or Oil

I wish I had mentioned this at the time, but Republican Dave Camp came out with a tax plan a while ago that seemed actually pretty decent - insofar as GOP tax plans go.  It seemed to be revenue neutral, partly due to a tax on too-big-to-fail banks.  Unlike previous republican tax reforms (I'm looking at you, W), it didn't just lower taxes by increasing the debt (that cardinal sin, according to any republican, if it's done by a non-republican).  
Camp's plan would lower the tax brackets, although not excessively, but more importantly it actually confronts the many loopholes tax code.  Some of the biggest, like the mortgage-tax deduction, would be removed.  That's politically brave beyond most politicians these days, so you have to give it to Camp for his effort.  This is the GOP first tax reform attempt in memory that can actually be called a tax plan, rather than a piece of conservative agitprop.  It gives real detail to the cuts and difficult choices necessary to lower the highest tax bracket and the corporate tax.  It explains how these tax cuts will be paid for, without the handwaving and mystical "economic growth from trickle-down effects will balance the budget" which characterized Paul Ryan and Romney's plans.


Naturally, other Republicans hated the plan.  This leads to my favorite pundit/snark-machine Jonathan Chait's analysis;

Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell (“no hope”) and John Boehner (“blah blah blah blah”) have dismissed Camp’s plan as a utopian exercise, both because they fear its specific provisions will be used against Republicans, and also because they are soulless hacks. 

So predictably the plan has now been discarded and disowned by the GOP.  As Robert Frost might have told us, Nothing Gold Can Stay.  

Henry Kissenger is a Dove, Apparently.

That or, maybe, just perhaps, the chicken hawks yelling for Obama to "confront Putin" (whatever that means) have no actual strategy beyond posturing and demagoguing.  

"A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction."

Does this sound like it's coming from the exact opposite of the spectrum as Ted Cruz?  Seems that way to me.

"Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers."

No shit.

And a key point here:

"Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one."

"Putin has actually acted. Obama must do the same!"

Or so someone just told me.

So if Putin takes off his shirt, does that mean Obama should do the same?  What if Putin makes a move on an underage blond somewhere, should Obama follow suit?  What if Putin puts on a goofy hat?  Takes up line dancing?  MY GOD MAN, WHERE DOES IT END???

Right now, Obama is ordering the CIA to get him a pair of goggles.  For America! 

Chris Christie to New York and New Jersey drivers: You Shall Not Pass!!!

Why do I create these lame shoops?

BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO.


---
EDIT:

Alternatively,

Is the Pope Catholic?

From the NYT: 

Francis has regularly attracted huge crowds in Vatican City, and almost overnight he has emerged as a major figure on the global stage, surprising many Catholics with hisnonjudgmental tone on issues like homosexuality and divorce, and his focus on the plight of the world’s poor. He has also been unpredictable, telephoning ordinary people who have written him letters, embracing a badly disfigured man at St. Peter’s, and making unannounced visits in Rome.He proved unpredictable again on Wednesday, when he went off script to include atheists in his call for peace, rare for a Catholic leader.“I invite even nonbelievers to desire peace,” he said. “Let us all unite, either with prayer or with desire, but everyone, for peace.”

Fox News must be flipping s#$%.  I would go check, but I don't want to spoil such a wonderful day looking at that page.

In the words of Tiny Tim: "A Merry Christmas to us all; God bless us, every one!" -
and Peace to All Good People.

Blessing of Peace from the Ayatollah. Wait, what?

No, not that Ayatollah.

Ali Khamenei, also known as the Ayatollah of difficult-to-pronounce-yet-amusing-names has apparently given the public nod to the US-Iran peace deal.  More than that, "decider-in-Sharif" (zing!) has gone above-and-beyond in supporting the deal, even against the more hard-line Iranian conservatives (read: the really crazy people).

From Max Fisher at the Washpo:

What makes this letter significant is not just that Khamenei is blessing the deal, but that he's giving Rouhani some political cover in Tehran. This suggests, and is surely meant to broadcast as much, that Khamenei not only supports the deal so far but that he supports it sufficiently that he's willing to publicly pressure Iranian hard-liners to get behind it.

.... 

As Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution told me recently, "Khamenei does have, as best as any outsider can tell, all of the power he needs to force this through the system, to overcome the opposition of the hardliners. But. We've never seen Khamenei actually overrule the hard-liners on an issue of this kind of importance." 

Awesome!  So it sounds like the deal will survive the Iranian version of our Neoconservatives and Republicans.  Now we'll see if Obama can do the same.

I'm curious though; who is the dark authority who can quell the chicken-hawks?  Do we need to start baking cookies for Roger Ailes?


And what kind of cookies does Roger Ailes eat? 
I have my money on chocolate-chip and brimstone.



One last thing: the award for political understatement of the year goes to Max Fisher for this whopper (from the article above): 

"It can be easy for Americans to forget that Iranian politics are complicated and noisy."

It is also easy for Fisher to forget how much Americans have ever known about Iranian politics: almost nothing.

A Sign of The (Tehran) Times

I've been trying to check the Tehran Times to get the Iranian perspective on the recent nuclear/sactions deal.  Seems like an import point of view, right?

No dice.

Got this when checking the website:

Either they're really busy, or someone is not happy with their website.

A Sea Slug Mindfuck

...literally:

If you're an aficionado of sea slugs, you're probably used to weird and cringe-worthy sex acts. When two of these hermaphrodite animals penetrate each other at the same time like an R-rated yin-yang symbol, you won't bat an eyelid. When several of them link up in a long mating chain, you'll have seen it all before. When one amputates its disposable penis after sex only to uncoil a spare, your only reaction will be, "Meh."
Still, when two sea slugs penetrate each other in the head while having sex, even the most jaded expert might do a double-take.

From Ed Yong at Not Exactly Rocket Science. 

The scientist who discovered this whopper now has all the cocktail party gold he or she will ever need.

The Best Hope for America

"Crazy, am I, Mr. Boehner? We'll see whether I'm crazy or not, after we hit the Debt Ceiling"
- Ted Cruz

... is that the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot.  

An NYT headline: G.O.P.’s Hopes to Take Senate Are Dimming.

The Washington Post: "After four national crises, what has the GOP gained?". The Wallstreet Journal: *crickets*. Fox News: Book: RFK stole JFK's brain after assassination (No, I'm not linking to that.) NRO: "Get Wise, GOP." (Then they go on to rail again Washington's dysfunction... funny how something is dysfunctional when it's not going your way.) The NRO also rants about Obama not negotiating on saving the credit and creed of America, which they supported, but also included McConnell: ‘We Have a Math Problem in the Senate’ which is hardly a shout out for GOP representatives.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that the GOP was expecting to take control of the Senate next election.  They were expecting to get even more seats in the House; the numbers were stacked again the Democrats in terms of what seats are up for election.

Now it appears that recent events, namely the 'shut-down-the-government-and-almost-sucker-punch-the-US-credit' plan didn't work, there may be a change in the wind.  Moderate republicans are facing the promised primary attacks from more conservative republicans.  Tea Party republicans are facing backlash from their business-constituents.  From the ever-insightful Molly Ball at the Atlantic:

Conservatives have declared war on the GOP.
...“Conservatives are either going to split [from the GOP] or stay home,” Erickson, the influential editor of RedState.com and a Fox News contributor, told me. “They’ll first expend energy in primaries, but if unsuccessful, they’ll bolt.”
...When [Glenn] Beck made his appeal to "defund the GOP," he told his listeners to stop giving money to Republican committees and give to FreedomWorks instead. "We kind of agree," Clancy told me. “Giving to the party committees is wasted money, because they’re just incumbent protection clubs .... Sometimes you have to beat the Republicans before you beat the Democrats. Just because they're 'our guys' doesn't mean they'll be our guys when it counts."
...In the Tea Partiers’ view, the clueless establishment hasn't yet internalized the seriousness of the threat to its supremacy. The grassroots has taken control, and it will have its way or secede. “This is where the wind is blowing,” Deace said. “I don’t think you can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. [Tea Party] People like me are not just taking marching orders anymore—they actually want something in return for a vote.”
It will not be possible, Deace predicted, for the two factions to coexist. “This is going to end in divorce,” he said. “One side is going to win control, one side is going to lose, and the losing side will go do something else. There will not be a reunification.”

This is a disaster of the Republican's own making.  The Tea Party made the current GOP coalition possible; it enabled the GOP to effectively block most of the Democrat's agenda for the last few years.  It has mostly been seen as a useful and benign tool by the GOP elite; funded by it's business elite and spurred to a frothing-anger by the Fox News echo-chamber.  But the cat is out of the bag now, and the Institutional Republicans are now looking on in horror at the monster they created.

A split between these two factions would spell doom at the ballot box for the next two elections.  Short of a political miracle, there is no way the conservative establishment would be able to avoid painful, costly and dragged out primaries, only to face emboldened democrats.  In many districts the Tea Party candidate would win, and possibly lose to a moderate democrat when the district realizes he's better than a lunatic.  Even if this is a seldom occurrence, the wasted advertising and disheartened activists would be a drain on the GOP.

It's a year of schadenfreude for the left.  Watching the crazies we've been trying to sound the alarm about for three years begin to destroy their own party is nothing short of a righteous 'I told you so".  And perhaps there is an element of bias in my desire for the razing of the Republican Party.

But I genuinely want a functional opposition party.  Even if it has views I hold distasteful, the country needs another party with the desire and ability to actually govern.  I would rather Obamacare be repealed than the country hit the debt-ceiling and plunge the world into another recession.  The right has no space to manage this now, and the most effective way for it to regain that would be for it to burn itself to the ground.

This is how the GOP falls, not with a bang but with a fiery, electoral defeat.

There is no possible outcome I can think of for the GOP to fix itself short of massive, widespread electoral defeat.  And for the good of the country I hope it comes soon.

Unions are Why Democrats are Losing the Country.

In response to an NRO article, which I shall avoid naming to give it some rest from the shame.

Apparently, the Democrats will lose in the future because they get all their support from the Unions.

Yes... Unions, the left-wing supporters whose declining political power has been shouted from the rooftops by everyone, this rag included; *they* are the reason for the democrats problems.  

Not that the GOP has fallen off the cliff of insanity.  Not that many see the Democratic party as actually trying.  It can't be that for the remainder of the country, in a battle between two evils they view the Democrats as the Nanny State with good intentions, and the GOP as the party to destroy All Government, that rails against everything ever proposed by the democrats. including the the Republican's own plans when adopted by the democratic. 

Not because the demographic the GOP caters to is increasingly being refined to white, bitter, fundamentalist culture warriors longing for an idealized 50's era world that is less complicated, less brown, and less modern.  The same people who live in a bubble - where Obamacare is a government take-over (Romney and the Heritage Foundation had nothing to do with it), where Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh are the authoritative voices in news, and where the GOP is a champion of fiscal responsibility; the deficit has been ballooning under democrats year by year (and not topped, then declined during the last four years).

Face it; the Democrats are winning because of three big reasons; they aren't the republicans, they actually stand for something beyond no-taxes, and the US is changing, as are it's needs.  This is not the Eisenhower administration anymore, much less Taft's.  

They've Got the Whole Wide World in their Hands, and they are Beginning to Sweat

John Boehner's Future Daughter
(Image Credit http://www.takemoto.com.br)

From the Cook Report:

"Somehow, though, Obama and congressional Democrats have to give Republicans, at least the ones who want to resolve this—and I would put Boehner in that category, regardless of what he has said in recent days—a place to land, some way to get to yes."

But how do the democrats give something to the GOP, without giving them something? How do you avoid setting a precedent for paying ransom money without paying any money? How can modifying the very law that the GOP was hopelessly gunning for this entire time be anything *but* paying ransom money?

McGregor mentions the often-referred to 'face saving' measure. But this is the whole crux of the problem; Republicans need more than just a window dressing to take home. The activist base threatening to primary these politicians want blood - actual blood. I think that they want to defeat, or more accurately politically destroy Obama even more than they want to remove Obamacare. You point out that Americans want Obamacare fixed. Of course they do. Now what part? What measure is significant enough to appease the horde of Tea Partiers? Contrary to popular belief, the ACA doesn't actually institute death panels. And as you certainly know most people like most of the things that are in Obamacare. Any fair estimation of the GOP's preference for a healthcare plan is that they don't have one; they will champion whichever weekly (and ever-increasingly laissez faire) idea the Heritage Foundation prints. And then when Obama says okay, the GOP will have to abandon it.

Because the Tea Party's priority isn't governing. They're often not very concerned with winning. They just want the other side to lose.

How do you negotiate with a kidnapper whose family is held hostage by fanatics?

Iranian Diplomacy Spoken In the Forrest

But will anyone hear?

From the NYT:

Iranian nuclear negotiators will offer a new proposal on Tuesday that is intended to persuade world powers that the country’s nuclear program has only peaceful aims, a top official said on Sunday.

On another day this would be exploding across the news boards, or so I would have thought.  The Washington Post had an Op-Ed below the front page.  CNN still doesn't have it.  Fox News puts it in fourth place in the world section, which is not exactly the most prominent focus of their website.  

Is this because of the (admittedly epic) drama going on in Washington, or an instance of "war sells" syndrome, i.e. we may avoid a stupid war, and this is not that important?

And if the West can broker a deal to relieve tensions, this may put a feather in the cap of the sanctions-as-diplomacy folks.  A big, shiny feather.

The War President

From the New York Times;

 President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.

...“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.” 

Should we attack the Syrian government?  Punish them for their murder?

The only honest answer that I can come up with is that I don't know. Anyone who says they can predict what will happen is misguided at best, and an ideologue at worst. Rawanda or Kosovo, Libya or Iraq; we can make historical references till we run out of breath, but in the end the future in unknowable. We are the most powerful country in the world, and as such have taken our role as hegemon to intervene militarily many times - for good and for bad. I have no CIA briefings to go on, no DoD snakes whispering lies in my ear, no secret footage of Assad's forces pushing the button or otherwise. How can I know? How can anyone know, the President included?

Don't believe anyone who says they know. Period. Arguments can be made, predictions cast, but there are no good options here, and Obama could have decided to attack or ignore the situation without consulting anyone; such is the ungodly power of the President these days. But he has chosen to honor the principles of the this country as it was founded. Though the rules of war have been violated by Presidents time and time again, he has stuck with the rules of the flag, tattered and torn they may be. Whatever the result, I can only say one thing, as someone who is as proud to be an American citizen as I ever have;

Bravo Mr. President.

Letter to the BLM about fracking

Includes depressing realism.

"Dear Secretary Jewell,

I'm fully aware that the BLM will probably not ban fracking on its lands, though I wish it were otherwise.  But please consider restricting it as much as possible; we are playing with fire, fire we barely understand (at least outside of the offices of Exxon), and this is nothing but a great danger to the lands that the BLM is tasked with caretaking and conserving.  These lands belong to every citizen of United States. They belong to the oil companies and their employees as well. But how can a rational person believe that breaking up shale and sediment in a haphazard way will not result in contaminating groundwater?  When we need that water for farming, or drinking, or when the land itself starts to die and wither where will Chevron and Shell be? How will they replace this land?  Shall we just tell our children and grandchildren that the need for cheap oil and gas was more important than having vast forests and canyons and beautiful untouched land?

Please consider the interests of the country before those of a few companies, no matter how massive and profitable they are.

Sincerely, 

Renny Young"