nukestan

Today's USA Today has an article saying that most normal Iranians want their country to continue its nuclear program. This is claimed as if it's a surprise--like it's so out of the ordinary. I'm so sick of it. Why is it so odd to think that a country like Iran would WANT its government to pursue nuclear technology--both for energy and for weapons? Why isn't it obvious that Iranians think the US is arbitrarily bullying them?

Just this year, President Bush told India--not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--that the US would help India out with getting fuel for its nuclear reactors. India, meanwhile, gave next-to-nothing in assurances that it would even slow down its military (i.e., weapons) program; just that it would split off its military reactors from its civilian ones. And (this is my favorite part) the civilian reactors will be open to inspection by the IAEA, but the military ones won't. Where does that get us? They admit to having military nuclear enrichment and development sites, completely separate from their civilian ones, and refuse to let inspectors in, and in exchange they get to buy nuclear fuels from the nuclear suppliers' group?!?

North Korea, by all accounts a more rogue state that Iran--and with a one-man, unelected dictatorship that oppresses its people beyond all comprehension--has dialogue with the US even though it has said, over and over again, that it has nuclear weapons and has no intention of giving them up (though who knows if this is true). Talks have been going off and on for as long as I can remember. The country has test-fired rockets that could hold nuclear warheads. But do you ever hear any talk of the US bombing NK's nuclear sites? No. No, we don't.

Meanwhile, Iran has no official diplomatic dialogue with the US. Iranians resent the US, and for good reason: backing an oppressive (and unelected) king; supporting Saddam Hussein in Iraq (politically and materially) during EIGHT YEARS of war with Iran; and maintaining a crippling trade embargo. To Iranians, it might certainly feel like they've been unfairly singled out. Who can blame them? I'm no fan of Iran's crazy-ass government and even I understand that feeling. The US's foreign policy stance on Iran sucks. It's senseless and does more harm than good. The money that the US government sets aside for "democracy promotion" in Iran just ends up discrediting the few pro-Western, pro-democracy groups that take it, leading to an ever-weaker internal resistance movement and an exile community with little or no credibility in the country. So when the Iranian government--as insane as their President might be--stands up to the US, people cheer, the same way you or I would if the geeky kid with glasses suddenly got up the guts to kick the big, hulking, lunch-money stealing bully in the nuts.

mishmash

It's hard to know quite where to begin.

There is some good news to start with. The FDA finally approved wider sales of contraceptive Plan B, or the "morning-after" pill, after years of dragging its feet for what seemed to be entirely political reasons. At one point an administration official suggested that approval of the drug would lead to teenagers forming "sex-based cults." And last year the senate approved Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt only after receiving a promise from the FDA to make a decision about Plan B, yet shortly afterward, the FDA continued the delays.

Another piece of news seems to invalidate the administration's opposition to stem-cell research, but I doubt it will. They are very good at finding new reasons not to like things after old reasons are thrown aside.

In keeping with that trend, in case you missed it, Bush held a news conference the other day in which he suggested Iraq had something to do with attacking the United States, denied it in the next sentence, and then babbled incoherently. Relevant bits:

Bush: You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and -- you know, the stir-up-the-hornet's- nest theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned.

The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were ...

Reporter: What did Iraqi have to do with that?

Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Reporter: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

Bush: Nothing. Except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill, to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

Now it seems to me that that could be a valid assessment, that "resentment and lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists." It also seems that that is exactly the sort of situation the U.S. has created in Iraq since deposing Saddam Hussein.

And speaking of depositions and invasions (this all really strings together well, huh?), there have been recent rumblings from the administration complaining that intelligence agencies aren't portraying Iran as quite the threat they would like it to be.

This is a bit scary, as the U.S. has proven very adept at forming evidence to fit our theories in the past, and this suggests that may be the current trend in dealing with Iran.

Particularly amusing is Newt Gingrich's response to the intelligence agencies' assessment that Iran is not close to building nuclear weapons: When the intelligence community says Iran is 5 to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon, I ask: ‘If North Korea were to ship them a nuke tomorrow, how close would they be then?

I'm starting to think it's a Republican policy to try to so thoroughly confuse people and muddle the issues that they can do whatever they want because people get annoyed thinking about it.

In closing, Paul Pillar (former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East) makes a good point at the end of that same article, stating “It reflects a certain way of looking at the world — that all evil is traceable to the capitals of certain states, and that, in my view, is a very incorrect way of interpreting the security challenges we face.” He also has a rather lengthy read on the administration's disregard for intelligence.

They seem to think that there are a certain number of identifiable "bad people" in the world, and that if we find them and kill them, the world will be safe. And they manage to ignore the rational conclusion, that every time we knock down someone's wall and throw them in prison, all their friends and family hate the U.S. that much more, and will be more inclined to perform acts of terrorism.

But then what use is reason and intelligence when you have an agenda to complete?

ewwwwwwwwwwwww

Simply because there haven't been any posts here in too long, and because for some bizarre reason disgusting is contagious -- that is, being disgusted makes you want to pass it on to someone else -- here's an article from the New York Times about a tapeworm.

Relevant bits:

"After purging, Rita discharged a tapeworm three feet long."

"Tapeworms sometimes reach a length of 30 feet and can live up to 20 years. They have a complex life cycle; in adult form they attach themselves by suction cup to the small intestine of vertebrates."

"The fishworm is a compact sex machine containing both male and female sex organs sufficient to produce and release up to a million eggs a day."

And to go along with that, disgusting pictures from the internet!!

ewwwwwww
ewwwwwww

But the good news is that soon you may be able to take a tapeworm instead of using birth control.