Contemporary History

How to Deal with Iran

Patrick Clawson, in The New Republic Online, correctly points out that economic sanctions against Iran won't work.  Iran has money stashed, and high oil prices mean incentive for nations to violate sanctions.  In addition (my addition), religious fanatics run the country, which means the material wealth of their subjects is not a top concern.  Sometimes getting to Paradise requires a little belt-tightening on Earth. 

Unfortunately, the suggested course of action in the article is a mess: isolation, which includes banning Iran from the World Cup, and containment and deterrence, much as we did with the Soviet Union in the Cold War.  During the Cold War, didn't the USSR become a nuclear power, and hang around for decades as a monstrous threat while being in miserable economic shape?  That one would look to that as a positive example is baffling.  Of course, Mr. Clawson recommends that we be prepared to use military action of Iran if they did something "such as leaving the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and openly acknowledging pursuit of nuclear weapons."  Apparently, clandestinely pursuing nukes will be fine.

We should skip all of the dancing around and go straight to the military action.  Iran pines for America's destruction.  They certainly must see nukes as one way of helping bring that about--another tool to add to the spawning and supporting terrorist organizations.  The only sure way to stop them from getting nuclear weapons and continuing their support for the killing of Americans is to show them that the struggle is hopeless. 

Death does not deter the suicide bombers and jihadis that Iran recruits, because they see it as part of a glorious struggle against the Great Satan.  And given our weak, vacillating attitude, where our biggest threat is that we may talk about things in front of the Security Council, why shouldn't they think they can win?

If, however, we went out tomorrow and declared war on Iran, and bombed their nuclear facilities and cities until they surrendered or were blasted into the Stone Age, the glorious struggle would be a lot less glory, and a lot more struggle.  Iran would have difficulty supplying terrorists, for one.  Enthusiasm for risky terrorist ventures and suicide missions would wane, since there is a difference between dying for a cause and dying for nothing.  Also, rather than guessing that Iran may have nuclear weapons in ten years, we would have a better estimate: never. 

History abounds with examples of nations that talked big, like Iran does today, but surrendered or succumbed to superior force, relentlessly applied: Germany and Japan in WWII, Carthage in the Second Punic War, and Persia in their war against the Greeks come to mind immediately.  Heck, it doesn't even have to be superior forces.  We won our independence from Britain against considerable odds.  The odds are in our favor in a war against Iran.  Isn't it time we freed ourselves from worrying about them?

Live 8: Brain Dead

The past "solutions" to the abject poverty of Africa have been: foreign aid given to African governments, loans to  those same governments, then debt forgiveness when those loans change from "sound investment in Africa" to "crushing debt burden foisted on hapless Africa."  The result of this assistance has been continued abject poverty.

So, if you were to make a suggestion for the next round of solutions, would you suggest more aid and debt forgiveness?  Well, yes, you would, if you were Bob Geldof and the long list of rock stars involved in Live 8.

I think a quote from Ayn Rand is relevant here: "freedom is what the have-nots have not."  In other words, what African nations lack is a respect for individual rights.  And in this Washington Post article, you see that some in Africa have an inkling of this, when they talk about the uselessness of giving aid to "corrupt" governments.  Rising out of poverty requires that people build factories, expand farms, and pave roads--i.e., invest in the future.  But few if any people, will make that effort if it can be taken away on a whim by any petty bureaucrat.  Africa is a whole continent full of examples of the truth of this.

The problem with the 'solutions' demanded by Geldof et al. is that they do not fix what causes the problems in Africa.  What the continent needs are rights-respecting governments.  This is not something that can be handed to them, like food or a check.  It requires an intellectual movement demanding that rights be upheld, and would also probably require armed revolutions in many of the nations--Zimbabwe, for example.

To insist that a few more boxes of food and the tearing up of a loan statement will be helpful is to engage in fantasy.

Aiming the Cannon at Individual Rights

There is talk of treating violations of indecency regs as criminal acts.  Stating his goal in appropriately horrifying terms, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Illinois says he wants to "[a]im the cannon specifically at the people committing the offenses."

I hope the sheer evilness of this needs no further elaboration.  I hope that anyone who thought that the Republicans had a shred of respect for rights, notes what party Sensenbrenner is in.

Exposing the "Culture of Life"

Another must-read op-ed from Alex Epstein, this time exposing the religous right's claim that they promote a "culture of life" as smokescreen to cover what they really stand for: suffering.

And just to demonstrate to yourself how far these nuts will go, read this Bill Bennett op-ed proclaiming that it is fine and dandy for the executive to step in and enforce its idea of a constitution any time it disagrees with the interpretation of the judiciary.  The specific law here mentioned is the "Terri's Law" passed by the Florida legislature, which essentially gave Governor Bush the power to overrule the courts and legislate on his own.  So, what do you call a situation where one man writes, interprets and executes laws as he sees fit, with no oversight?  Oh yeah, dictatorship.

The Reality of the Schiavo Case

Before coming to any conclusion on the Schiavo case, read this information page from the blog Abstract Appeal.  Mr. Conigliaro does an excellent job of presenting the facts of the case.  Note also that this is all this page is intended to do.  He does not there take a position on the case.  I do.

I may have more comments on it in the near future, but I would like to take the time to say that those who vilify Michael Schiavo are demented.  He worked hard at getting her fine medical care, and tried therapy for years, before deciding that things were beyond hope, and concluding that Terri would not have wanted to continue in her current state. 

Her current state, by the way, is not being brain damaged, or in a coma.  Her cerebral cortex, which is where all of the higher brain functions reside, is dead and gone.  It won't regenerate.  Terri Schiavo will be as she is until the day she stops breathing.  How is it monstrous to think that someone would shun a 'life' of diaper changes, feeding tubes and random grunting?

Also, the case is out of Michael Schiavo's hands now.  He and Terri's parents went to court, asking the judge to determine what Terri would have wished to do.  The court agreed with Mr. Schiavo.  All of those offers to pay him off if he will just 'walk away' are so much grandstanding.  Even if he 'walked away,' the court order is NOT to execute Mr. Schiavo's wishes, whatever they may be, but to pull the feeding tube, because it was determined that is what Terri Schiavo would have wished.

****

I guess I do have more comments.  I have read in the news that people are asking Governor Jeb Bush to step in, overrule 5 years of court decisions, and just seize Terri (articles one and two).  The Republicans in DC wrote their astounding bit of legislation allowing Terri's parents to appeal to a Federal court, blatantly giving two people special legal privileges, with Bush swooping in from Texas just to sign the bill.  This, after Governor Bush signed a law in 2003 that was struck down as blatantly violating Florida's Constitution.

In other words, Republicans and their Religious Right supporters, the same ones who have conniptions anytime a judge does anything they believe steps outside of the role of the judicial branch, have no issue with exhorting the other two branches to pander to mob rule and overstep their bounds of power, as long as the mob in question is theirs.   

Think about this if you are tempted to laud President Bush for bringing 'democracy' to other countries.  (Or, if you are certain Objectivists, giving him any credit for bringing his twisted, mangled idea of 'freedom' to nations in the Middle East, because he emits the words 'freedom' and 'rights' on occasion).

A question...

...that occurred to me after reading this commentary in the March 11 TIA Daily:

The bad news: the Kurds have struck a deal with the Shiites that will allow
"moderate" Islamist Ibrahim al-Jaafari to become the new Iraqi prime minister.
The good news: none of this was a cake walk for the Shiite Islamists. It took
them three weeks after the election results were announced just to form a
government....

If this is the good news, isn't Iraq doomed?  After all, it took Hitler over ten years after World War I to become Chancellor, and even then his Nazi Party did not have a majority in the Reichstag.

The obvious follow-up question is this: what standard does one use to call the above news 'good,' or even a mix of bad and good?

God Help Us

The latest actions of the Bush Administration are appalling.  Iran wants to build nuclear weapons to aim at Israel and send to the US.  We try to bribe them.  This, after watching them continue their nuclear program while the effete leaders of Europe already tried to bribe and appease.  Apparently, being in the 'Axis of Evil' pays well.

Now, some have called what Bush has done a shrewd diplomatic move.  Iran rejected our offer, so now we have a clear demonstration that they are unwilling to negotiate, and we can be really bold, and clamp down on Iran by bringing our case to the United Nations, and maybe even imposing economic sanctions.

I say this: if someone is not already convinced that the leaders of Iran are unreasonable and desire nothing but nukes and destruction, then we shouldn't be talking to or pleading with that someone.  Demonstrations of facts do not work on those who are blind by choice.  This, I think, excludes about 150+ United Nations members from getting any talking or pleading.

To reiterate: Iran wants to kill Americans.  It would destroy our nation utterly if it could.  We have responded by subtly threatening to go to the UN and possibly get a resolution that will stop some countries from sending stuff to Iran.  Oh, and we probably won't be sending any of those spare parts for commercial airliners.  No lugnuts for Iran.

What is so frustrating about watching all of this is that those who are representing and (supposedly) defending our nation have right on their side.  Ours is the nation where the founders recognized that 'all men are created equal,' and have 'certain unalienable rights.'  Because of this, the minds of men were unshackled, free to uncover truths, free to invent, and free to profit, creating the greatest nation on earth.

When someone threatens so great a nation, it needs leaders who understand what is at stake, who are mightily angered that anyone would look at this nation and respond with calls for and action towards its annihilation, as Iran has been doing.

Instead we have George W. Bush and his merry band of negotiators.  May his God help us, because he certainly won't.

How NOT to fight for individual rights

The Institute for Justice (IJ), claiming to be dedicated do defending the right to property, has brought a case before Supreme Court. They are arguing against the naked land grab by New London, CT. They are doing it all wrong.

In a case with 'major implications nationwide' (see this CNN.com article from a bit back for an overview), the side that claims to fight for property rights (check out IJ's website) might want to bring out the fundamental, and the correct, argument. Namely, individual rights ought to be inviolate, and New London is clearly violating them. But the most fundamental argument they present, at least in this document, is that 'public use' has to have some limits to have meaning. Then they go on to give a list of reasons why New London's particular land grab is beyond the pale.

However, the whole problem with the term 'public' in 'public use' (or 'public purpose' or 'public good,' etc.) is, as Ayn Rand put it: "'The common good' (or 'the public interest') is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as 'the tribe' or 'the public';the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men."    (From "What is Capitalism?" in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal).  In other words, 'The Public' can mean anything at all, and the city of New London is counting on that when it boots people out of their home in the name of 'The Public.' 

There is the objection that property rights and eminent domain, which is in the Constitution, clash, and thus the case for individual rights in front of SCOTUS is hopeless. Even if 5 justices miraculously agreed, this argument goes, how can they rule against the Constitution they are meant to uphold? The best chance for winning is to hope they set up some kind of test, like 'reasonable foreseeability.'

However, even if the justices cannot make a judgment that would seem to aim right at eminent domain, that still does not mean you can't bring up individual rights. In fact, the following would be a fine argument: "The real reason to strike down this taking by New London is that the homeowners have a right to their property, and getting evicted against their will is a violation of that right. No government should be able to do that. But if protecting individual rights is not on the agenda, then consider these more tortured, evasive arguments that fit within the context of the unfortunate terminology of the 5th Amendment."

Obviously, the latter half of that could be stated a little more nicely, as long as the point is made that arguments about 'strict scrutiny' and the like are not the real reasons for ruling against New London.

Even if IJ loses the case while arguing for individual rights, they still get the right argument out there. All it would take, in that case, is one strong dissent, perhaps from Justice Thomas, to get a lot of press for the cause, and some buzz generated among legal scholars. And if our nation has fallen to the point where rights, unflinchingly defendend, will not be seriously considered by even one justice out of nine, then we have bigger problems than city councils like the one in New London being drunk with power.

 

Some Friend

George Bush has, in the past, called Russian president Vladimir Putin 'trustworthy,' 'friend,' and someone who means what he says.  At their latest meeting, however, it seemed, that Bush got a bit miffed that his buddy had stomped on his country's independent press, jailed any businessman that didn't toe the line, and stated that he believed Iran when it said it had no ambition for nukes.  Wasn't Putin listening to all of Bush's paeans to Democracy, and all of his flowery words about the innate desire for freedom?

A rational person might point out that Putin is an ex-KGB agent, meaning that he was a professional killer and liar for one of the most brutal governments in human history.  Thus, Putin's actions today show that he really hasn't changed, that he lusts for power and has no qualms about maiming and killing to consolidate it.  So maybe, this same rational person might conclude, it is a mistake to call Vladimir a buddy of ours.

Unfortunately, we have Bush and his administrators running foreign policy.  Their explanation for Putin's behavior: he's getting bad information.  He thinks Bush fired Dan Rather, and that we send Russia second-rate chicken.  So he feels justified in his actions because, hey, America does bad things, too.

I can't make this stuff up.

 

Liberals (yawn), Fish, and Social Security (Zzzz)

I rarely bother commenting on the blather of liberals, because shooting down their arguments is about as riveting as shooting fish in a barrel. Big, ugly, bitter, angry fish. But "saving" Social Security is the hot topic of the day, and the fish feel the need to flop around while FDR's most famous socialist program is being discussed.

Take Paul Krugman's op-ed in the New York Times. His argument is based on an obvious evasion of the nature of Social Security, with some Finance 101 terms to provide some window dressing.

First, let's look at the window dressing. Yes, if you forgo a 3% return, you have to earn more than 3% to make it worth your time. If Social Security were a risk-free investment giving that annual return, this would be relevant.

Now, let's look at the evasion: Social Security is not an investment. It is a Ponzi scheme.  People paying in today only have a hope: the hope that the generations after will have enough to tax for future payouts. There is no guaranteed return. The 3% is just what the scheme has payed out so far, on average. (For a thorough, well-written devastation of Social Security, read Alex Epstein's essay.)

None of this should be a revelation to anyone, and it should be blindingly obvious for an economist like Dr. Krugman. Yet he writes his whole op-ed on the premise that Social Security is some sort of assured, unending font of money being tinkered with by dolts.

 See why I rarely bother? This isn't even fun.

 [Note: I am NOT in any way endorsing Bush's program. Why his idea stinks requires a separate post.  I may write that post.  But I may not.  It is just as uninteresting to shoot at cowardly, big-talking fish with a penchant for dark-age mysticism.]