I'm not sure of what to think

Does adding a second bible add any substance, legitimacy or truth to what Trump swore to on Inauguration Day?  I doubt it.  It only serves to create an image of false piety for a man from whose mouth only comes lies - including the words "And" and "The".

- - - - - -

As I write this entry, less than two weeks have expired since Trump took office, and we're already seeing chaos in the land. Previously approved refugees, legal residents/green card holders, and other vetted people are being denied entry to the USA, because of Trump's latest executive order. How does this make us any safer? How does this make us appear to the rest of the world?  To me, it only gives nations such as Iran a propaganda advantage, as they will not reject previously approved holders of American passports from visiting their country. And to make things worse, the 3 Arabic speaking countries which are exempt from Trump's executive order (Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia) are those in which Trump has business interests.  Two of these countries (Saudi Arabia and the UAE) are countries that supplied the 19 hijackers that commandeered the planes on 9/11/01, killing almost 3,000 Americans.

An op-ed piece in the Huffington Post is already.talking about the inevitability of impeachment. But is that what a Democrat should be looking for?  Each day that Trump is in office, he tarnishes the GOP brand and helps to mobilize more potential Democratic voters - people who could be very useful in 2018 and 2020. When the Women's March gathered 3 times on the National Mall as many people as Trump's inauguration, one has a potential movement.  But when one takes into account the other 1,500,000 people protesting around the world, it's easy to see that a raw nerve has been touched.  We have to make sure that the reaction gets us the results we want.

- - - - - -

It is no accident that ALL of Trump's appointments have been to the extreme political right. His deal with Pence is likely the same he offered to John Kasich: You run both foreign and domestic affairs, while I make America great again.  Kasich has some ethics, Pence does not. He is a religious wingnut, someone more dangerous to us than Trump - something that I found hard to believe at first.  If we are stuck with a President Pence, he will follow the GOP policy with no compromises allowed. This is different from Trump, as he can easily be manipulated with flattery.  

The Huffington Post piece noted that Trump suffers from Malignant Narcissism.  Otto Kernberg characterizes it by an absence of conscience, a pathological grandiosity and quest for power, and a sadistic joy in cruelty. And everything said about Trump indicates a diagnosis of Malignant Narcissism would be one of the things high on the list of possibilities. Can we afford this in a national leader?

It is possible to manipulate someone like Trump.  It has often been said about him, that if you are the last to give him an opinion, he will often lean your way - as long as he feels in charge and feels that he is the strongest alpha male in the room.  However, it is much harder to manipulate someone like Pence, as his currency is power. Pence is smart enough to wait around until someone self destructs. And that's what Trump seems to be doing, seeing how much work and thought goes into being president.

- - - - - -

But I go back to the title of this entry, as it raises an important question: Is it in our best interest to help get Trump out of office, taking an immediate gain? Or, is it better to help Trump stay in office until the 2018 elections, preventing a potential President Pence from serving more than 6 years as President in his own right?  Can we afford the damage that Trump will do to this country in a little under than 720 days?  

I've already accepted that Trump will destroy as many external checks and balances as he can, regarding those we have on large businesses.  I've already accepted that Trump will be a disaster for the environment, given his belief that Global Warming is a Hoax.  And I've already accepted that he will be a disaster for human rights. Do we know ALL the risks of removing him from office either via impeachment or via the 25th amendment to the constitution?  I don't think so.  And that worries me.

Yet another who is unfit to serve

A dog with good taste!  He shows this candidate the respect he truly deserves.

- - - - - -

If Trump is someone we could compare with Hitler, then Cruz would be a more dangerous version of Mussolini.  Cruz has said that he would Carpet Bomb ISIS - and then demonstrated his lack of sensitivity to the rules of war which prohibit attacking civilian targets.

The animosity shown towards us in much of the Islamic world has been caused by our actions over the past 60 years. Cruz even has the gall to state that the Middle East is a safer place than before our "War on Terror."  This does not jibe with objective reality.  How many people remember the role the USA played in overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran, and our actions, such as the Second Gulf War, that destabilized much of the Middle East?  Can we afford to have a bellicose, bombastic, bullshit artist running America?  I doubt it very much. 

Right now, Cruz is making sure NOT to publicly cause Trump any problems.  For the most part, Cruz is laying low, hoping to scoop up Trump's followers if Trump crashes and burns out.  For the most part, Cruz is playing the role of "Trump Lite".  But given Trump's statements in regard to the Middle East, does this bode well?  I doubt it. Recently, a retired 3 star general hinted at "Mass Resignations" if Trump were elected.  I'm pretty sure the same would happen if Cruz were elected.  This retired general went on to say:

“...The American military studies these kinds of things. They know the moral and the values implications associated with these kind of decisions. They will attempt to persuade their leaders the right approaches to take and the various options available. But they won’t do things illegally or immorally.”

In the past, I wouldn't believe this general, having been tainted by the reporting of the Vietnam War.  However, I have more faith in our military than I had 30-40 years ago, and I feel that many of our top military leaders would rather resign than allow America to make the mistakes Germany made in the 1930's-40's. But would enough resign (as a vote of "No Confidence") to make a difference, if a leader like Cruz was to be elected?  I'm not sure, and I don't want to take the chance. 

If I don't feel that even the military would be comfortable following Cruz as a leader, he is likely unfit to serve as President of this country.  Hopefully, most Americans will feel the same way in both the GOP primaries and on Election Day....

Iran and the remaining folk in the Clown Car.

Most of the people in the GOP "Clown Car" are saying that the deal with Iran is a bad one, and that they will overturn it when in office.  Do any of them understand that pandering to the base only makes them look more idiotic for the general campaign?

- - - - - -

The deal with Iran was not only a deal with America, but a deal with Germany, France, Russia, China, and Great Britain.  Although the Israelis could not be a direct part of the deal and had to condemn the deal for existential reasons, I have no doubt that they have had to have some input into the deal due to their relationship with America.

It is very pleasant to read this statement from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, that the Republican presidential candidates were so “laughable” that “the people of Iran look at them as a form of entertainment.”  Why, you might ask?  Well, he is wise enough to know that even if the USA were to back out of this deal, that it would still be in force with the other G5+1 members.  This deal needs no treaty with the USA, nor does it need America's cooperation to be implemented.  It helped that the USA was on-board when the deal was crafted, as it allowed America and Iran an ability to openly work with each other - something that has not been possible since before 1980.

The Iranian President went on to say the following:

“Can a government become a signatory to an international agreement and then the subsequent government tear it to shreds? This is something that only the likes of Saddam Hussein would do. So, any government that replaces the current government must keep itself committed to the commitments given by the previous administration. Otherwise, that government, that entire country will lose trust internationally,”
To me, this is the most salient point of the conversation noted in a late September post in Raw Story.  Iran's president knows that America's foreign policy can not make rapid flip flops based on which party is in charge of the executive branch.  It took over 50 years for America to start having civil relations with Cuba.  And he expects that it will take more time for America and Iran to learn to work with each other again - this deal being one of many steps geared to fixing the problems of the past.

- - - - - -

Can we trust the Iranians?  If we were to look at it from a different point of view, one could ask - can they trust us?  Right now, the Iranian President is wise enough to know that the "Clown Car" is spewing out noxious fumes, and will likely get its tuneup in the prelude to the general election.....

Chaos in the house

From what I understand, our forefathers thought that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would be America's most important political position, and not the office of the President.  However, it is the presidency which has become the most important office - and for good reason. As Harry Truman said: "The Buck Stops Here!"

Lately, no sane man would consider the position of Speaker of the House.  Rep. Boehner resigned, as he felt that he couldn't control the extremists in his party and get them to vote on "must pass" bills needed to keep the government running. He was tired of the responsibilities of the office, and decided to retire instead of destroying himself by staying in the battle. But this left Rep. McCarthy next in line for the office.

There are many reasons why McCarthy should not be Speaker of the House. But I won't go into the ones that many Democrats might bring up.  Instead, I'll trust his judgement that he is not the right man for the job, and speculate that he did not want to take the blame for a likely government shutdown (which would likely happen by the time this entry is made public). He's smart enough to know that the same angry people who are propelling Trump's candidacy are also the same people who no longer trust political insiders to do anything to address their concerns.  They feel they have nothing to gain by keeping the present elite in charge, so they are willing to collapse the system to make their voices heard.

But what does this mean for our "democracy"?  

If the House was designed as a place where the people could vent their feelings, and the Senate was a place to prevent short term feelings from mucking up the system, then what happens when the legislative branch is dominated by a party which is unable to govern? To me, this forces a president (most likely from the opposing party) to govern by edict and by novel interpretations of existing law.  This is very dangerous, as power keeps shifting from the legislative branch to the executive branch - and this power is subject to fewer checks and balances as time goes on.

Eventually, one party will control the two elected branches of government.  And if the party is as dysfunctional as today's GOP, then I have serious concerns. The angry mob that is disrupting the functions of the House could gain control of the executive branch - and that could be the end of the republic.

Why such a concern?

Let's take an inflammatory issue such as abortion.  Many scholars thought that Roe vs. Wade was a horrible decision - not because of which side won, but because it forced society to adapt too quickly to change.  Later rulings have softened the blow, and have rolled things back a bit.  But they (SCOTUS) have always relied on judicial precedent to guide them in new rulings.  What would happen if a new, replacement elite were to ignore precedents? The loss of abortion rights in themselves might not be that onerous. But could you imagine possible government intrusion in a woman's reproduction to make sure that all fetuses are tracked and accounted for?  

Long term government policies that cross administrations could also be overturned at a whim.  Could you imagine the lunacy of a rapid rapprochement with North Korea?  Heck, Cuba and Iran have never been as much trouble to the US as the DPRK has been, and yet they get all the press these days because of a slow and careful movement towards normalization with these countries.  Would we kill NAFTA without serious thought? Possibly. But this is why our government was designed to implement change slowly - so that we don't make the mistakes often made when the voice of the mob drowns out the voice of reason.

But what role should an elite play?

This question has been central to American polity since the days of Jefferson and Hamilton. As for me, like Hamilton, I believe that there is a natural elite that tends to form in any society. But like Jefferson, I also believe that to be free, "the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants."  America has been a stable republic because its design provides for a greater tolerance of instability in the system.  I only hope that the design keeps working - and I'm not too sure of this any longer....

The Iran Deal.... What the average political hack misses.

This is a picture I dare not blow up any further (pun intended) - it is of "Fat Man", the plutonium based bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.  And it is a little knowledge of the Manhattan Project and Nobel Prize winning scientist Glenn Seaborg that is needed to understand what is "in between the lines" of the deal recently cut with Iran.

According to nonuclear.se, Plutonium is a man-made nuclear explosive; it is created inside all nuclear reactors when uranium is bombarded with neutrons. Some uranium atoms can absorb a neutron without fissioning; when that happens, they are transmuted into plutonium atoms. Plutonium has become the nuclear explosive of choice in the world’s nuclear arsenals. Therefore, the goal of this deal had to be to stop Iran from developing a Plutonium based nuclear arsenal - Iran still could tell its hard-liners that they can produce a bomb.  The P5+1 (The permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) gets to be able to tell its hard-liners that Iran will not be able to produce Plutonium based bombs, explaining why this is so important in private.

No deal is perfect.  But this deal allows both sides to save face.  If anyone is worried about what will happen to Israel, they shouldn't be - the history of the US and the USSR shows how Mutual Assured Destruction helped prevent World War 3. (Or, I should say, that this war was fought via proxies and with money - a much safer form of warfare for all sides.) The Iranians may be crazy, but they are not insane.  The last thing they want to do is provoke the Israelis into exploding 1 of their estimated 100-200 warheads over Tehran.

If one looks at the size of a ball that represents the amount of fissile Plutonium needed for a bomb, it's easy to see that one could easily transport that much material anywhere on the globe.  Years ago, my high school had some non weapons grade "Yellowcake" (Uranium) - and I expect that 64 Kilos of the stuff would be much larger than the ball above.  In short, Iran has signed off on a deal which prevents its fissile material from being used by non-state operatives.  (That means: No Uranium or Plutonium in the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah.)

I'm not sure if Iran will live up to the letter of this deal.  But I expect that there will be many people interested in keeping everyone honest - and I'd bet that the Iranians are serious, if only because they prefer not to ignite an arms race between it, the Saudis and Egypt....

The impermanence of the news cycle.

It never fails to surprise me about how little people retain from each day's news cycle. A few weeks ago, Obama's warming up towards Cuba was big news - and the "conservatives" were all chastising him for abandoning tactics which have been proven not to work. The same thing was done with Iran - and again, it was big news for a few days, and almost forgotten. We're seeing public opinion swayed by talking heads, in ways that George Orwell could only dream of....

Orwell, in "1984", presented a public speech where someone was ranting about one enemy, and in the middle of the speech the enemy changed. The former enemy was now a friend, and the former friend was now an enemy. Although this type of change isn't happening as fast as in Orwell's novel, we're already seeing this in our media.  How many of us remember when our enemy was "godless" communism? And now our biggest trading partner is the People's Republic of China - governed by the Communist Party.

Although George Washington warned us against having any permanent entanglements, I don't think that he would believe how quickly the world changes in our lifetime.  My father has seen Germany and Japan go from being friendly countries, to enemies, and back to being friends. And in my lifetime, I've seen the same happen with Vietnam, and am seeing it happen with Iran and Cuba.

- - - - - -

About 50 years ago, the city of Baltimore had its riots. And now, it had another round of riots. The problems are the same as they were 50 years ago - a general lack of economic opportunity. Americans will forget about this round of riots, as they have other important things in the news. But will we learn from them?

This time, we're seeing people around the world "armed" with cell phones (most of which contain the latest software) and active internet connections. Even in Iran's riots of a couple of years ago, the central government was unable to suppress all the news from getting out of the country. It couldn't suppress the news being passed along by its citizens. And the same thing happened here - the Baltimore Police could no longer cover up what triggered the riots - a "thug" whose rights were ignored by the police, and a death that couldn't be ignored.

Now, I've just used the word "thug" to describe this person. But is he as bad as the label I've attached to him?  In an area as economically depressed as his section of Baltimore, over 56% of the adult male population is unemployed. Dr. Phil noted in an interview on Fox News that the people living in these poor sections of cities may have the same potential, but not the same opportunities, education, or inter-generational social pass-throughs. Was this person's rap sheet caused by a defect in this person's character, or was it caused by the environment he lived in?  

- - - - - -

Two generations ago, we didn't need to worry about the problems of structural unemployment.  Today, both people in the inner city and the suburbs are affected by these problems. The low end jobs which were stepping stones to greater opportunities no longer exist. Low value/High Labor cost manufacturing left the United States years ago. Computers have replaced humans in many tasks which would have provided work - the computer managed "help lines" we call are perfect examples of this. It is cheaper to have a human interface with a series of telephone menus than to reach a real, live, flesh and blood human. And society no longer provides the full and free education needed to fill the jobs of tomorrow.

Our college education system has been corrupted by government funding - instead of having our government expand access to college by building more colleges, we've seen our government increase the monies available to students in student loans. Simply adding more money to buy more education doesn't do much good - it only raised the nominal price of an education, making it much harder for both the poor and the middle class to afford college. And for those that got the student loans, they often now have onerous debt to repay, and are deferring having children. (I'm not even talking about those who took out predatory student loans issued by for-profit colleges that provided sub-standard educations - these students were screwed the day they entered school, and no one wants to fix this problem because the affected students come from the lower castes....) Since student debt can't be erased in bankruptcy, we now have a generation of Americans who will not be able to afford what will be needed from them in the future.

- - - - - -

It is very interesting is that the problems that once only afflicted the lower class are now affecting the middle class.  Poverty used to be clustered in the inner city and in remote rural areas. Now, we're seeing newly poor people scattered through middle class neighborhoods. Houses are becoming derelict because of predatory lending combined with "Zombie Titles" that insulate banks from maintaining foreclosed properties - Banks are no longer foreclosing on many properties, making it impossible for borrowers to walk away from debt that they can no longer afford. Sadly, this may only be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what the banks will be doing next to preserve their power in society....

- - - - - -

Where will we end up?  I don't know. I'm afraid for our future, as we're seeing the signs of America's upcoming collapse - and we, as a whole, have a lot of questions about our society's future that need to be asked and need to be answered.  So far, all our leaders are doing is pandering to us and our fears - they do nothing to deal with the real problems. And this is a great danger that we all should fear....

Iran - Again

What many of us often forget is that the people of Iran are human beings just like us.  Yet, a letter from the op-ed page of the New York Times stated that the only way to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons would be to bomb the country into submission.  This offends me. Iran and the USA may have been participating in a cold war against each other, but we have not been bombing each other's cities, nor have the two nations been in direct ground conflict with each other. Shouldn't diplomacy be given a chance before we see more American man and women come home in body bags?

In 1979-1980, I would have advocated blasting Iran off the map during the "Hostage Crisis". But as official US documents (carefully pieced together after having been shred) show, we were about to attempt to overthrow their democratically elected government. How could they trust any peace overture that could have been made? (especially when none were made for years.)  And yet, our current president overcame 35 years of hostilities to work with 5 other nations AND Iran to cut a deal that reduces the risk of nuclear war in the Middle East.

The following text was in an article written by Bill Moyers: 

"In its refinement of uranium, Iran has not progressed toward the level required for a nuclear weapon since its 2013 interim agreement with the global powers known as “the p-5 plus one” – for the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Instead, Iran has dialed back the level of refinement to below 5 percent (what’s needed for generating electricity) from its earlier level of 20 percent (needed for medical research) — compared with the 90-plus percent purity to build a nuclear weapon." 

This makes me wonder - Is Iran really the threat our media has made the country out to be? I doubt it.  But, if Iran were to restart Uranium refinement, it could trigger a Middle East arms race, as noted in the New York Times op-ed piece:

Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.

Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions. Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish interests are complex and conflicting, but faced with Iran’s threat, all have concluded that nuclear weapons are essential.

If one ignores the bellicose position of the op-ed piece's author, John R. Bolton, one sees that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks have been considering going nuclear in response to Iran's position. Yet, the Iranians are willing to ratchet down their nuclear technology and use it (for now?) for peace. Currently, the Saudis and Iranians are on opposite sides of a war being fought in Yemen. Could you imagine what would happen if either (or both) nations had nuclear weapons at its disposal? Could you imagine what would happen (and I believe it would) if any of this material would make it out of the labs and into unauthorized hands?

To Israel, any but the most restrictive and emasculating deal is unacceptable - Iran is an existential threat to the Jewish state. But is this deal unacceptable to America's long term interests? Israel pays us no taxes. Israel does not vote in our elections. And Israel is not necessarily an ally we can trust. If the Prime Minister of Israel can destroy the hope for a two-state peace solution for Israel and Palestine in a reelection bid, can we trust him to act in other ways that benefit the United States?

Yes, gradual normalization of relations with Iran is a risk. But it is the only path that makes sense. As I see it, there will be three regional players jockeying for influence in the Middle East - Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. And it is America's interest to make sure that none of these powers becomes a hegemon - especially when the world is still addicted to Middle East Oil. America needs to disentangle itself from the Middle East, and a deal with Iran may be our ticket to leave the region. Given our headaches in the region since 1980, this may be the only time we can use that ticket and go home.  If the Chinese need that oil, let them get stuck in the regional quagmire!

The more things change, the more they stay the same - in the South

Years ago, scenes such as this were common through the states that rebelled against the Union in 1861. Although Slavery was eliminated by 1865, the South created "Jim Crow" and "Separate but Equal" as tools to keep Blacks disenfranchised. Making Blacks use separate facilities (if they existed) for basic needs (such as getting a drink of ice water, as in the photo above) was a way of telling Blacks that they were valued little more than cattle on the farm. Today, these signs are long gone. Yet, the South (with other conservative states) are creating a new class of third class citizen by use of laws that discriminate against a very small number of people - Transgenders. 

It shocked America when the former George Jorgensen came back to the United States in 1951 as Christine Jorgensen. She was looked on as a form of oddity then, as there were only a handful of people who had undergone a sex change operation. Even Louis Farrakhan (in his pre-Muslim Brotherhood days) wrote a song about her - "Is she is, or is she ain't?" Yet, I can't recall anyone trying to deny her the rights to go about as a woman in society. (I can't say whether she had an amended birth certificate or other ID that identified her as female, but she was treated as such by most people she met.)

However things have changed. We now know that transgenders are at least 1/3000th of our nation's population, and maybe more. And as more and more transgenders decide to live in the gender other than that assigned at birth, we're seeing conservative elements in society attempting to bring back obstacles that are intended to let transgenders know that they are considered not worthy of having basic rights.

The author of this blog entry (Wingnuts and the political machine) notes that the bigots are attacking basic human needs, such as the right of the transgenders to go to the bathroom. Since it doesn't make sense to provide separate facilities (there is no "Separate but Equal" requirement for transgenders) for such a small population, the laws that ban transgenders from using appropriate bathrooms mean that there is no place for these people to go.

Why does the sight of a transgender person worry a certain class of conservatives so much? I think that the idea of transgenders provide a proof that the gender binary that has been indoctrinated into some people since childhood is at risk. And they would rather destroy any facts that challenge their understanding of the world.  Could you imagine what these people would feel if they were to see one permanent exhibit at NYC's Museum of Sex? The exhibit I note has examples of animals which change their sex, animals which have both male and female sex organs, and animals that do not reproduce sexually. This certainly does not agree with the biblical account of creation.

- - - - - -

You'll notice that I started with an issue that affects a small percentage of the population. But it gets worse from there. America is a nation of immigrants. Yet, narrow minded people are "suggesting" that people change their names when they come to America to reduce the effort that the "natives" need to expend to learn their new neighbors' names. 

Time and time again, I see postings trying to stir up hatred of Islam from some of my more conservative friends. There is legitimate fear of extremists - these friends see evidence of what happens when radical Islamists get control of countries, and they are right to be worried. But they don't see that their imposition of a fundamentalist form of Christianity is almost as bad as what they fear. Yet, they do make some good points, when they note how the imposition of fundamentalist Islam has affected several countries.

 Iran - Before and After

 Egypt - Before and After

And this problem even infects a "Christian" country when a large number of fundamentalist Muslims immigrate there.....

The Netherlands -

Before and After

What I find interesting is that Christian fundamentalists who fear change can be just as extreme as Muslim fundamentalists. Both believe in forcing others to live their way - even if it means destroying anything which challenges their world view. And in the United States, it is our South that tends to put the most social restrictions on individual liberty. 

I hope that over time, it will become impossible to hold people down using religion and god as excuses to justify mistreatment of individuals. To see this day, forward thinking people will need to gain control of the media and broadcast their messages louder and more often than the opposition. As long as backward thinking people control the messages heard by the general public, we have a great risk of moving backward - as illustrated by the above pictures of Iran, Egypt and The Netherlands.  It will mean that we protect people that we don't really understand, such as Transgenders. But by protecting small minorities first, we prevent the back sliding that would put larger groups (such as Blacks) at greater risk....

Persia, Iran, no matter what one calls this nation, we must deal with it.

I can still remember that in my lifetime, the United States once considered Iran as one of its closest allies. And there is no reason not to do so today, save for a 35 year pissing match that was triggered by the Embassy Hostage Crisis and the United States getting exposed as preparing to overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.

This conflict between nations should not only be examined from the American side (we have just complaints), but from the Iranian side as well (where they also have just complaints). What would be the key issue getting in the way of normalizing relations between the two countries after a generation and a half, if Israel was not given a veto over our actions in the Middle East?  Both countries want to crush ISIS. Both countries want stability in the region. And both countries have legitimate concerns about the balance of power in the region.

Looking at the above map, one can easily see the regional importance of Iran - it borders part of the former USSR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and shares the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E. and Oman. This country could either cause a lot of mischief, or be a valuable power for peace. But without normal diplomatic and trade relations, we have no direct way to influence them to work with us. (I must note that American soldiers are reported to being ferried over Iranian airspace to Afghanistan via foreign flagged aircraft, with the tacit approval of the Iranians. So there is something going on behind the scenes that few people want to talk about in a loud voice.) So it only makes sense to find ways to openly work with this country, if only because they hold a strategically important position in the region.

- - - - - -

When I started writing this entry, the P5+1 (5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - a major Iran trading partner) negotiations are taking place to resolve the West's issues with Iran's stated plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses. These negotiations have been extended for several months because both sides realized the importance of cutting a deal everyone could live with. 

As it was 35+ years ago, both sides have legitimate issues. From our perspective in the West, it's easy to understand our goal - this world does not need another nation with the capability of making nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan developed their bombs, it took a lot of diplomacy to develop deals that preserved most of the pre-bomb status quo, and allowed both countries to save face while not getting into a nuclear arms race as the USA and USSR did after WW2. But Iran has a legitimate issue that we in the West don't think of - Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on Earth. Iran's leadership knows that it must lead the country out of the fossil fuel age, and sees nuclear energy as the best short term way to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel age and a renewable fuel age. They simply want to control their destiny - and this is very understandable.

When the Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, was invited to speak to Congress, it was a slap in our president's face, and a violation of protocol. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power is solely invested in the executive branch of government. When Bibi spoke, he was against a deal with Iran, considering that nation's policies to be an existential threat to his country. And most in the GOP support Israel with unquestioned loyalty - as if they want to accelerate the "Second Coming" via support of Israel's bellicose policies. Bibi had no alternative to negotiations - and it appeared that he wanted the USA to fight a war against Iran that his country couldn't win alone.

Luckily, Obama is more cerebral in his thought patterns. He knows that we have a once in a generation chance to gradually shift Iran into a partner for peace. With the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, no Middle East Muslim country has relations with Israel. Officially, they all call for Israel's destruction, while working very quietly with Israel on the side. This is what we would likely see several years after a deal with Iran. But it will take time to get there.

- - - - - -

Sadly, 47 US Senators wrote a letter to Iran attempting to undercut Obama's ability to work with the Iranians in negotiating a nuclear technology treaty. The NY Daily News labeled these Senators as traitors on its front page. And the Washington Post simply considers the actions of these senators irresponsible. Luckily, the Iranian leadership recognizes this as a Propaganda Ploy and responded accordingly, enlightening these Senators about what our Constitution and International Law say about the subject. And in an article in the Daily Kos, they note that Al Jazeera got it right - The Iran deal will be a Security Council Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution, and likely be covered by a previous treaty ratified by our Legislative branch of government. I'll bet that these Senators now wish they had tried to make their point with softer words and actions....

- - - - - -

As I said in this entry's title - Iran is a country that must be dealt with. And it only makes sense for us to deal with Iran from a position of mutual respect, as only with respect will we be able to resolve our differences.....

It's not just what you know, but how and when you use that knowledge.

Not many people have seen an Enigma machine close up - but I have. It's an amazing piece of engineering, but not as amazing as the fact that we cracked the code AND knew enough not to use all the knowledge we had, lest we clue the enemy in to the fact that their codes were broken.

- - - - - -

During WW2, one of the biggest clandestine goals of British intelligence was to break the German Enigma codes. Every day, the Germans would change the rotors and give the Enigmas new settings to code and decode messages. The Allied forces could not break these codes until Alan Turing figured out the weaknesses of what the Germans were doing. 

After the codes were broken, what next? One had a good idea of what the enemy knew, but could they prevent disasters? Often, NO! Unless there was a plausible way to explain why a troop movement was changed, why a convoy was rerouted, why some action was not taken, the Allies had to accept the known attack to come.

Today, we are in a similar war - but against many powers. Ars Technica describes what one division of the NSA is likely to have done in infecting systems around the world, so that America has a technical edge which might be used militarily.  

- - - - - -

In the past, America has tapped Soviet (now Russian) cables connecting the mainland to Vladivostok to keep tabs on the fleet stationed there. But the Soviets were able to plant a bug in the American Embassy in Moscow - inside the Great Seal given to us as a gift. And the Chinese are known to have their electronic spies as well. All the major nations are playing this game, and they have likely evolved a form of "rules of engagement" for use when dealing with each other. But this doesn't apply to nations that aren't top tier powers. Nor does this apply to non-national powers, such as Palestine (not yet a nation) or ISIS.

As civilians, none of us (for all practical purposes) have any clue to what is going on behind the scenes. We do not know for sure how successful the STUXNET virus was in attacking Iran's Uranium enrichment program, but it likely set Iran back by a year or two. Even more interesting is North Korea's military programs - could they have been compromised by malware hidden in the hard drives they bought from outside the country? (I'd bet that China may playing a role here, as they have gotten weary of keeping this dysfunctional regime afloat.)

- - - - - -

Much of the time, information like this never makes it to the history books. Alan Turing's accomplishments were kept Top Secret by the British for a couple of generations. Once classified as Top Secret, few governments ever bother to reclassify information which no longer needs to be kept secret. Yet, some secrets are kept by hiding them in plain sight. Leon Theremin was reportedly kidnapped from the United States in the 1930's (there is information that says he left for tax reasons), and after a stint in the gulag, then working for the KGB, ended up at the Moscow Conservatory of music (building Theremins and other musical instruments) before becoming a professor of Physics at Moscow State University.

- - - - - -

There are people who want our president to go to war against ISIS, putting boots on the ground.  Are we ready to have our children come back from the war in body bags (or worse)? I doubt it. Years ago, President Kennedy contacted the pilots flying spy planes over Cuba and gave them orders (with explanations) to NOT report any hostile fire from the ground while flying their missions. Many planes came back perforated - and the pilots claimed they hit birds and other things. This gave the president the room he needed to talk peace. But it was not only an American who prevented the Third World War - there was a Soviet Officer, Vasili Arkhipov, who kept his submarine from launching nuclear missiles while the submarine he was on was being attacked by American depth charges. Hard Liners in both countries wanted war - thankfully, that war never happened. Are we ready for yet another "Forever War", because we're seeing extreme inhumanity from an enemy? Or, are there other things we can do (or are being done) that can limit the scope of the war?

Right now, we do not have all the facts, and we are being manipulated by the media. We have to watch out how the media is being manipulated - when the Jordanian pilot was burned to death, none of America's Left and Centrist media provided links to see this murder. Only the Right wing media provided links to view the murder, as it is trying to stir up the will for Americans to endure yet another war. In fact, politicians are already saying we should resort to nukes, and kill ruthlessly. Wouldn't it make more sense to get more information before another rush to war?

Reading between the lines

It seems like the GOP establishment is taking the 2016 election seriously. The two most electable contenders recently had a "social meeting", and if I read between the lines properly, they discussed how they could avoid bloodying each other before the main event", the 2016 election. 

Romney's departure from the race only makes sense for the GOP establishment. He is damaged goods. Not only did he have to disavow his greatest achievement as the Governor of Massachusetts, but he had to take on relatively extreme positions (due to the Tea Party and other GOP wingnuts) that alienated him from the moderates he needed to be elected.

Jeb was the Bush brother who should have been elected president in 2000. Instead, we got George W. and his neo-con friends, and a "Forever War" that no average American really wants. To give Jeb credit, he did not pursue higher office when the establishment may have wanted him to do so - he seems to have followed his own path. He was smart enough to know that his brother damaged his chances of running for president. And even more so, waiting until 2016 when Hillary Clinton would likely run again.

- - - - - -

Hillary has some baggage which may be able to become assets. She was working on healthcare long before Obama became a US Senator. The question is - can she turn her prior failed efforts in this arena into an asset among the Democratic base, while separating herself from Obamacare to attract a small number of independents.

Although Hillary seems to be the Democratic candidate in all but name, the question is: How far to the left will she need to steer to keep the loyalty of the base, before tacking to the right to pick up independent votes? If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, she'll need to cut a big deal with Elizabeth Warren in order to keep the loyalty of the base.

- - - - - -

We're seeing the GOP hopefuls say strange things to the base. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that legalizing "gay marriage" would trigger the end of civilization. Even more so, I find it amazing that anyone would believe this malarkey.  But they do.  

In another forum, I had a discussion about a controversial issue with some die-hard supporters of a certain status quo.  I stated I supported the status quo, but didn't give a reason why I did so. And then I asked, religion aside, why should we support this position? A person responded not with a reason, but with an echo taught to the loyalists of a political party. I then said that "I believe that group loyalty trumps the need to examine why its causes should be supported." Then, I noted that I always test ideas presented by any leader to see if I'm being lied to, or are earning my respect. And what did I get? A middle class version of the "Whatever" one would hear from someone who couldn't support his/her position on Jerry Springer. 

- - - - - -

Sadly, this fatalistic inability to articulate support for a position is not limited to GOP loyalists - it is present in the Democratic party as well. It is not that I want to agree with people. Instead, I want to understand where they come from - they are not sure themselves, and are unable to say much than to regurgitate 2 second sound bites such as "defending marriage". What makes things worse is history and its marriage with politics. Deciding to slowly normalize relations with Iran should be a no-brainer, as well as negotiating a halt to the weaponization of their nuclear stockpile. But some say that this betrays Israel. Others say that Obama is being this generation's Chamberlain. Maybe, just maybe, there is a multidimensional game going on which is influenced by many things:

• America's relationship with Israel
• America's and Iran's desire to end their cold war
• Stabilization of the Middle-East (shut down ISIS)
• Sunni Islam vs. Shiite Islam (an ongoing battle to legitimize one group of mullahs)
• Arab hatred of Jews 
• The GOP Congress and its wish to emasculate Obama for the last 2 years of his term
• Israel's vulnerability in a hostile neighborhood
• Israel vs. Palestine
• Israel's nuclear stockpile (estimated at 150+ warheads)
• Iran's nuclear stockpile (not enough pure "yellow cake" for 1 warhead)
• Israel's lobby and its effect on both the GOP and the Democrats
• Christian Fundamentalists and the litmus test they use on GOP hopefuls
• Christian Fundamentalists and a desire to speed up Christ's second coming
• Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia - which Muslim nation dominates the Middle-East

The above is only a short list of the factors which are influencing what is going on in the Middle-East, and few people have a clue as to how any of these factors relate to each other on a given day. I'd bet that only Obama's cabinet and a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate have enough information to read between all of these lines. And as such, any noises we make and opinions we have are those of "armchair quarterbacks" - meaningless, as we are only spectators to the main event.

Another year over, and a new one just begun.

As usual, no one knows what will happen at the beginning of the New Year. But we do know that the old year brought a lot of change. And this year was no different. There were many changes, and yet, the world remained much the same as it has always been - an orb where over 7 billion people repeatedly fight to make it through another day of life.

The New York Times Sunday Magazine has put out its usual memorial issue, where they commemorate the lives of those who have passed. And we are reminded of what we have lost, not knowing what we will gain in the years to come. There are many great people we have lost, some famous, and some who are not. But all have a commonality to them - they have made an impact on our lives.

We have seen the development of new enemies, as well as the neutralization of old ones. Who'd have thought that ISIS would be a major concern a couple of years ago? Who'd have thought that North Korea would attempt to threaten Americans if they watched a mediocre film that cast their leader as the focal point of bad humor? Who'd have thought that the USA would be working with Iran, and deescalating years of tension between the countries? And who'd have thought that the United States and Cuba would be normalizing political relations with each other?

Much of the news was controversial - not only because of its content, but for what it meant about the people being reported on. In the case of the Senate Report on Torture, we found that the CIA made a cascading series of moral mistakes after being charged with gaining information from GITMO prisoners, and then did whatever was in their political power to cover up their actions. Yes, the report was going to be political in nature - could anything coming out of Washington, DC not be political?  What saddens me most is that many Americans are so happy to use torture as a tool, forgetting that even our captives deserve to be treated as humans. in accordance with treaties signed by the United States.

But who could have foreseen the Pope chastising the Roman Curia? Of all 2014's events, this one seems the most amazing, as religious leaders have not sparked as much change as this Pope seems to have done. Without changing a letter of dogma, he has changed the focus of the message. Instead of rigid obedience and conformity, it is now one of forgiveness, tolerance and hope.

As they say, "the more things change, the more they stay the same." And this has been true about 2014. Hopefully, we'll see 2015 show more of the good side of humanity than 2014 did....