Teaching Lilly About the War on Terror

The War on Terror has been an enigma of sorts. It is has only loosely defined and grossly misinterpreted on both sides of the political aisle. Some say it’s a merely a Trojan horse for America to imperialize the Middle East and control the oil market while others are not nearly as cynical. These folks accept that the War on Terror is in fact the last great struggle for Western Civilization. It is as some have called it, the fourth great global war in history (for those that consider the Cold War the third great war.)

But despite all of these grand phrases and such, just what is the War on Terror? If you were to ask the average American in the street what he or she thought the War on Terror was, you would most definitely get a bevy of answers:

It’s a war against radical Islam.

It’s a war against Muslims.

It’s a war for oil.

It’s the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

We’re at war?

And while there might be many answers to that simple question, I truly wonder if people really understand just what is the War on Terror and why does it look the way it does. Why does it feel the way it does? What’s different about this war than the battles of the past? It is easy to accept what our leaders tell us so that we don’t have to think too hard about it but the fact remains that after nearly 5 years of battling this elusive foe, many simply do not know what it is we are trying to do. Mind you, for that I blame our president but that is a column for another day.

We, the capitalist modern West, are fighting a combination of radical religious fundamentalism and Fascism, as purported by Arabs and Persians who dominate the oil rich Middle East of Eurasia. That’s the headline right there but even that doesn’t really begin to describe in detail to those that need a better explanation what the whole point of this conflict is. In fact, it is because most people don’t really understand the headline that the war has become as muddled and misunderstood by the masses

Now let me tell you about Lilly. Lilly is a 17-year-old Mexican-American recovering meth addict from rural parts in central Florida. A friend of the family in the trailer park she lived when she was a little girl raped Lilly. She had a history of violence toward others that would make Sabu blush. To say our girl Lilly was limited in her understanding of the world would be a rather gross understatement. After nearly a year in an inpatient rehabilitation facility the girl could barely even fill out a job application and did not understand the concept buying insurance for her car what exactly the point of insurance was.

Now here’s the rub; Lilly will be able to vote in the very near future. In fact, if the current political trends hold, every pandering politician this side of Cuba will seek after her vote. When I think of how the message of what it is to fight the War on Terror has been so badly communicated, I think of poor, feisty, barely literate Lilly because if grown adults whom actually follow politics really don’t understand what is going on, this kids got no chance in hell of figuring it out.

One day at work, Lilly came to me after group and asked if we were going to get bombed by Iran. She stated that she had seen something in the on-campus that school on TV that scared her half to death and made her wonder if she was at risk. That prompted me to have to boil down nearly every important historical even from World War I to the War on Terror to its lowest common denominator in order for this girl to understand the current Iranian nuclear showdown. After about an hour of me drawing boxes and arrows on a marker board to illustrate the finer points of global policy and war, low and behold this child that resembles more animal than girl in her behavior actually understood the complexity of the War on Terror. She had somewhat of a difficult time explaining it to her peers but regardless; I was like a proud father watching his daughter taking her first steps into a larger universe.

That is when it hit me. My social studies teacher once told me that when you teach somebody something, you own that information for life. Teaching Lilly about the War on Terror actually cleared up some of the problems I had understanding the war. First off, and I didn’t realize this until after we were with our impromptu tutoring session, most people don’t know the first thing about fighting a conventional war, never mind an ideological one.

War is simply one mans attempt to secure resources for his people. Land is where the resources are kept obviously so as Sepultura once said, we war for territory. It its most base form, you mass an army to control the enemy’s territory and then either take over or sever their supply lines. Once you’ve done that, it’s over. The war is done. Mission accomplished. All of the ballyhoo, pomp and circumstance that we’ve learned in countless history classes regarding battles and such were about nothing more than the acquisition of scarce resources by competitive peoples.

People are expendable, good soil and a dependable water supply isn’t. People are replaceable; coal, oil, uranium, gold and other precious metals aren’t. That’s been the driving force of war, to risk people in trade for goods you cannot find elsewhere or are running out of in your own territory.

However, scarcity of resources may be enough for individual men to send millions of his brethren to their doom, but for those on the death march, even the ancient version of warring for oil was not appealing. That is where ideology comes in.

Whether it is religion, patriotism, revenge or the love of a hot chick, to make men fight you must give them a reason they can buy into. Convincing them to hate total strangers who look different from them is a good start but anyone who has studied marketing knows, you need a common denominator for people unite under. Once you’ve got your us VS them ideology rolling it’s easy to make men grab resources for you. It’s easy to commit mass murder in the name of whatever boogeyman you’ve created to unite your army.

The problem we’ve come to since the end of War World II is that somewhere along the way the ideology that makes men fight seemed to have surpassed the quest for resources that is the reason men are made to fight. The Cold War was absolutely about acquiring more resources or retaining the ones you had but those resources were for the first time in history actual people. Capitalist need people to buy their wares and Communists need people to man supply lines and make widgets. If either side had killed too many people then the whole point of the war would have been lost. After all, you can’t rule a country of corpses, until you are Tim Burton (cue rim shot).

The War on Terror is an extension of the Cold War. If you were to look at the possible endgame for the radical Muslims, what you would get is a world full of fellow believers whose sole purpose is to keep this ideology alive. Islam, like all belief systems feeds on humans willing to drink Kool-Aid. That’s it, that is all there is to it. I’m not even sure if Bin Laden and company has thought far enough in advanced to what they’d do with a world where Mohammed wasn’t threatened naked white chicks and newspaper cartoons.

That in a nutshell is why this is such a hard war to fight. If killing people were the way to win then the Muslims would have already lost, just ask the Japanese what I’m talking about. But that isn’t it. Even taking territory such as in Iraq and Afghanistan does next to nothing for us in the grand scheme of things because having control over those places doesn’t cut the average Muslims steady supply of blind faith.

However, not fighting is an even worse option than fighting badly. Because just as we cannot cut their supply of faith, it is that endless supply of faith that keeps them in the quest for the resources they seek. And that resource is us.

Somewhere in Central Florida a 17-year-old Mexican-American girl came away from a rehab understanding why we fight. Only 300 million more left to go.

US pressuring foreign banks on Iran

Isolation appears to be the name of the game when dealing with Iran. In theory, this is the best of all possible options where stability in the Middle East is concerned. Economic pressure and an ability to manage your country's finances are what were responsible for bringing down the USSR so it's a good model to use on Iran...in theory. You see, the more pressure we place on Iran, the more underground they will go. Every sanction or limitation we place on Iran on enlarges the black market where they do their greatest work. So on paper this is the way to go, in all practicality however, this will accomplish nothing more than continuing to turn Iran inward in that secretive North Korean-ish way.

US pressure has prompted four major European banks - UBS and Credit Suisse of Switzerland; ABN Amro of the Netherlands; and the London-based HSBC - to reduce their business dealings with Iranian banks and businesses in light of Iran's intransigence in the international crisis surrounding its nuclear enrichment program, The New York Times reported Monday.

Officials in the Treasury and State Departments have invoked various laws addressing banking and antiterrorism, specifically a 1984 statute banning any dealings with nations deemed sponsors of terrorism and the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. An additional directive signed by President George W. Bush prohibiting business activity with partners suspected of contributing to the proliferation of unconventional weapons specifies Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization and its Atomic Energy Organization as off-limits.

Since any bank maintaining a branch in the US, as nearly all European banking institutions do, is subject to US law, the US brings no small amount of leverage to its demands. Foreign banks have already been financially penalized for failing to comply with US decrees regulating foreign business policy. Two years ago, the Federal Reserve fined UBS $100 million for transferring dollars to - among other countries - Iran. ABN Amro was fined $80 million for violating anti-money laundering regulations and sanctions against both Libya and Iran.

In addition to legal pressure, officials have also campaigned in Europe and the Middle East to persuade economic powers that Iran is too unstable to function as a viable business partner. US pressure was a factor in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's April decision to raise Iran's rating as a credit risk.

Over the last year, Iran's economy has shown a growth rate of less than five percent, and its stock market has plunged over 20%. "I think there is a real and growing sense that there's a risk associated with doing business with Iran, with lending Iran more money, or providing it with a line of credit," Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security told the Times.

New Review: The Swamp

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

You might not think that a book about the cyclical transformation of Florida swampland into livable, productive land and then back to swampland is very interesting -- but you’d be wrong. You’d also be missing out on a tale of one of America’s longest lasting, near-mythical sagas.

Like the Lewis and Clark Expedition or the California Gold Rush, the taming of Florida’s Everglades is its own fantastic story with heroes and villains, twists and turns, and tragedies and triumphs, including a rare moment when Democrats and Republicans got together to do some actual good for our country.

The dramatic story of Florida, in essence, compelled Washington Post reporter Michael Grunwald to write ,“The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise.”

We are living in an age where our greatest inventions and quality-of-life resources are quickly becoming our undoing. Grunwald takes this theme and runs with it, specifically by cataloguing the transformation of the Everglades and asking why mankind insists on rehabilitating Mother Nature before she incinerates, drowns, or blows us all back to the Stone Age.

A host of images come to mind when one thinks of the Sunshine State. Orlando’s Disney World, the happiest place on Earth; Miami’s South Beach, made famous by shows like Miami Vice and the movie Scarface; Daytona Beach’s Bike Week celebration; Ft. Lauderdale’s Spring Break parties; the Florida Keys’ snorkeling, dolphin swimming and sport fishing, made famous by the Beach Boys; Tampa’s Gasparilla pirate festival; and the Florida Panhandle’s Redneck Riviera .

With all of the ballyhoo and fun-in-the-sun advertised about this celebrated state, one rarely remembers that huge amounts of land south of Orlando used to be a swamp -- a river of grass as it were. The subtropical marshlands known as the Florida Everglades is one of a kind. The Everglades has been home to innumerable species of plants and animals. It was once the uncontested home of the Seminole Indian tribe. It was once and it remains today one of America’s greatest attempts to tame and control Mother Nature. Continued

New Review: The Lost Gospel

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

Clearly, an alternative version of the crucifixion story puts all that we know about Jesus’ life and death on its head.

"The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot” by Herbert Krosney as presented by National Geographic, chronicles the remarkable story of how the Gospel of Judas was written, condemned, buried, found, stolen, locked away, nearly destroyed, disassembled, and finally resurrected and republished for a modern audience. The Gospel of Judas was never meant to be seen by anyone of the Christian faith, and because of the helter skelter nature of Middle Eastern antiquities, it almost never was.

Krosney starts the tale in Egypt where a local who was trying to make a buck by finding ancient trash buried beneath the stands, stumbled upon a tomb that had been the final burial place of the aforementioned gospel. From his hands the gospel, as well as a few other preserved ancient documents, ended up in the hands of a local Egyptian dealer. Though he had no idea what he was holding, he still tried to garner a large fortune for it.

“The Lost Gospel” reads like a spy novel as this unlucky dealer travels around Europe and the US trying to find a buyer, only to be ripped off by a former colleague. This same dealer, unbeknownst to him at the time, nearly destroys the gospel in trying to protect this coveted document.

We learn that eventually a guardian angel comes to rescue the document and takes Judas on a journey of rehabilitation. A quarter of the book is dedicated to illuminating the painstaking process of piecing together the shattered and tattered remnants of the gospels while attempting to translate its ancient script. It’s like CSI, but less dramatic. Continued

Mexican Drug Bill Worries Police

Readers of this blog should know by now that I am a big fan of decriminalization when it comes to drug possession. I believe that the way to stop drug use is to treat the users, not lock them up in a place where that will most assuredly amplify their addiction. On my job I treat kids who, while they may need therapy for family dysfunction, don't really need drug treatment for the dimebag of pot they got caught with in the parking lot of the local Waffle House.

I absolutely abhor drug use and I want to eliminate its scar from the face of humanity but the way to do that is not with prohibition, which never works. Let the police concentrate on the mafia bosses and leave the party users alone to seek treatment when they are ready.

Police and business owners from Mexico's beaches to border cities say they are worried a measure passed by Mexico's Congress that decriminalizes possession of cocaine, heroin and other drugs could attract droves of tourists solely looking to get high.

Mexican and U.S. government officials insist that the bill eliminates legal hurdles to prosecuting drug crimes large and small. But it also lays out specific amounts of drugs - including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and Ecstasy - that can be legally possessed for personal use.

President Vicente Fox has yet to sign the bill, but his office praised it shortly after Congress approved it on Friday.

In Juarez, which borders El Paso, Texas, 58-year-old waiter Raul Martinez said Sunday he was worried "for the kids of Texas, the kids of Juarez. I worry for all the kids."

Martinez, who works at the popular border-area bar the Kentucky Club, noted that American teens already swarm the city's bars and clubs because the Mexican legal drinking age of 18 is rarely enforced. He said he feared the new measure could lead youths to try hard-core drugs.

The legislation also confused some police.

"On one side, they're asking us to fight it," said Jose Valencia, a police officer in Mexico City's tourist-oriented Zona Rosa district. "On the other, we have to allow consumption."

Currently, Mexican law leaves open the possibility of dropping charges against people caught with drugs if they can prove they are drug addicts and if an expert certifies they were caught with "the quantity necessary for personal use." The new bill drops the "addict" requirement, allows "consumers" to have drugs and sets out specific allowable quantities, which do not appear in the current law.

Under the bill, people would be allowed to posses 2.2 pounds of peyote, the button-sized hallucinogenic cactus used in some Indian religious ceremonies. Police would also no longer bother with possession of up to 25 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of marijuana or 0.5 grams of cocaine - the equivalent of about 4 "lines," or half the standard street-sale quantity.

The law lays out allowable quantities for a large array of other drugs, including LSD, MDA, MDMA (Ecstasy, about two pills' worth) and amphetamines.

However, the bill stiffens penalties for trafficking and possession of drugs - even small quantities - by government employees or near schools, and maintains criminal penalties for drug sales.

And sales of all those drugs would remain illegal.

A former Pentagon anti-drug official, Ana Maria Salazar, said the law would make it easier to convict street-corner drug pushers and more difficult for people to bribe judges and prosecutors, who now have discretion in deciding what quantity of drugs are for "personal" use.

"All of those who think this legalizes drugs in Mexico, not only are they wrong but they are going to get in a lot of trouble if they come here and try to use drugs," said Salazar, now a political and security analyst in Mexico City. "It's designed to go after the smaller groups of drug smugglers."

U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Judith Bryan agreed the measure could actually make it easier to prosecute drug crimes because it attempts to "precisely specify the amount of narcotics in possession of a suspect to allow a criminal prosecution."

But some fear the new measure could make drug-related violence worse in places like Nuevo Laredo, a city across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas, which has been terrorized by deadly battles between rival drug gangs. Since Jan. 1, there have been 92 killings in the city of 330,000, including eight police officers.

"Here things are very tense and many of our compatriots have died," said a police officer who asked only to be identified as Jose. "What will happen if we have to concede them the right to use drugs?"

Shining shoes for tourists, Elipio Rodriguez said drugs were already everywhere in Nuevo Laredo.

"There by the bridge (to the U.S.) anyone can do drugs," he said. "Police always patrol there, by those who are selling, and nothing ever happens. Do you think something will change now?"

New Review: Help At Any Cost

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

An angry teenager loose in your house can be an awfully terrifying prospect. If it’s your teenager it’s even worse because (in theory) you actually love this person and you don’t want to see them get hurt. While it is typical for all teenagers to go through an oppositional and defiant stage in their development, when you add illicit drugs and underage sex into the mix with parents who are often ill-equipped to soothe the savage beasts running roughshod throughout their homes, you have a recipe for certain disaster.
In most cases, the average parent doesn’t want their child on drugs, even if they themselves are using drugs in the home. In the best of families, you’ll have parents who have never used drugs or have long since stopped, but will try everything in their power to dissuade their child from using. Some kids might respond appropriately, others will have some difficulty. Many kids will destroy household items, hurt a parent or sibling, and get arrested for being in possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia. Some will get arrested for selling the drugs they covet.

When life gets to this point and parents have nowhere else to turn, many will seek outside help. Often this begins with outpatient rehabilitation consisting of individual, group, and family therapy. But when that fails, as it often does, the system will just remove the child from the home and place them in residential care. Parents with money can seek out private residential rehabs, while others will have to settle for places the state recommends that are also covered by Medicaid.

Many of the residential programs kids are sent to, such as the one I work in, will do as much as possible to treat the clients with dignity and respect. In my program, it’s completely hands off, the gate is always open, and the clients can write grievances against the staff if they feel they are being treated unfairly. We also actually help many of the kids kick their drug habit and I’ve personally helped reunite over a dozen families since October 2005.

But there is a darker side to the helping industry that exposes an undercurrent of child abuse so pervasive that it has strong connections to the Republican Party. “Help At Any Cost: How the Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids” by Maia Szalavitz catalogs the history of how abusive teen-help came into existence, how they’ve destroyed many kid's lives, and why they are allowed to continue operating today. What you’ll learn in this book will disturb and horrify any decent person with a conscience. Continued

Comic Book Review: The Adventures of Carrie Giver

One of the activist campaigns I'm involved with and very much support is the proposition to convert the child tax credit to a caregiver credit. In other words, those that spend there days caring for the elderly, the infirmed and of course children, would be given a tax credit.

While the numbers work in favor of the people that support this idea, explaining to those who could make a reality is a different story. First off, many people still believe that caring for people should not be paid labor, unless of course you are being paid to take care of a complete stranger...which doesn't really make a lot of sense to me but I digress.

The Caregiver Credit Campaign has come up with a great way to make their message heard in way that's both informative and entertaining. I very smart woman once said to me that since politicians don't want nor have time to read anything important, you have to feed them information in bite-size portions. Thus these folks have taken their efforts and placed them in of all things, a comic book! After all, everybody loves a good superhero story .

The Adventures of Carrie Giver, focuses on a superhero who spends her nights avenging the loss of her own family by rescuing choking children and abused wives. Her alter ego is Carrie Miller, a Department of Labor policy wonk who struggles to convince politicians that America needs a Caregiver Tax Credit, which would provide a tax credit to mothers and other caregivers who aren’t paid for their work. The comic was published by TR Rose Associates, 212-755-4801.

Carrie Giver uses astral projection, as made famous by the X-Men (actually, she does strongly resemble Psylocke before she turned into a killer ninja), to be in two places at once. This is a fairly obvious allusion to the idea that caregivers are very much stretched thin and often have to in fact be in two places at once.

As both an entertaining story and a tool to lobby lawmakers to do something productive for women, I think The Adventures of Carrie Giver works pretty well. It's as educational as it needs to be without being heavyhanded and preachy. Carrie is actually a lot like Spiderman as she attempts to balance her day life as a lobbyist with her nightlife as a superhero. There's even the tragedy element that haunts all good heros.

For comic book fans and social activists alike, I would highly recommend The Adventures of Carrie Giver.

Washington opposes seats for Venezuela and Cuba on U.N. bodies

Yet another example of how the UN is just a backwards organization. This time it is Cuba whom wants in the UN Human Rights Commission.

The Bush administration is battling to stop Venezuela and Cuba from gaining seats in important U.N. posts in a confrontation that has many Latin American nations caught in the middle, diplomats and analysts say.

Most observers believe Washington faces an uphill battle to keep Venezuela out of the Security Council and Cuba out of a newly created U.N. Human Rights Council.

While President Bush is generally disliked abroad, leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro have courted nations with a strong anti-U.S. discourse and offerings that range from discounted oil to free eye surgery.

The first showdown will take place May 9, when the 191-member U.N. General Assembly votes for 47 members of a new Human Rights Council. Eleven Latin American nations, including Venezuela and Cuba, are vying for eight spots reserved for the region.

Venezuela also wants to replace Argentina as one of the two Latin American members on the 15-seat Security Council. That election, to a two-year term, is expected in October.

''It is consistent with [Chávez's] quest to be a global player,'' said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think-tank, who noted that Chávez has supported Iran's nuclear program.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has personally appealed to countries not to vote for Venezuela, and Washington is making it clear it doesn't want Cuba or Venezuela in either U.N. agency.

''It's about ensuring that these organs in the U.N. are effective in upholding the principles of the U.N., and the membership is key,'' said Ben Chang, a spokesman for the U.S. mission before the United Nations.

The new Human Rights Council replaced the previous Commission on Human Rights, where countries accused of rights abuses like Cuba, Iran and Zimbabwe regularly became members and then worked to stop its condemnations.

In March, the United Nations created the new body with tougher membership requirements and other changes. But the U.S. government, arguing the reforms did not go far enough, voted against the new council and then declined to run for a seat.

Many human rights activists and diplomats believe Cuba has a good chance of winning a seat on the council, thanks to Havana's efficient diplomatic corps and friendships with other small and poor nations.

Washington, however, would view Cuba's election as a bad sign.

''It would be an unfortunate and sad statement that it's business as usual,'' said a State Department official, who asked for anonymity to speak freely on a delicate subject.

The other Latin American countries running for council seats are Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Uruguay, according to Human Rights Watch.

Diplomats say Venezuela's bid to join the council is more of a long shot because the country sharply criticized the resolution that created it. But its chances are much better at securing a Security Council seat.

Venezuela has been campaigning for months for the post, reaching out to countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, said Imeria Nuñez de Odreman, Venezuela's acting ambassador to the United Nations.

Venezuela needs at least two-thirds of the General Assembly votes and to beat out Guatemala, a U.S.-backed candidate for one of the rotating seats on the Security Council.

Rice asked Caribbean leaders to support Guatemala's bid when she met Caribbean Community leaders last month. U.S. and Latin American diplomats say she is also likely to raise the issue when she meets Friday with Alejandro Foxley, the foreign minister of Chile.

But most observers say Guatemala, despite U.S. support, has little chance of winning because it lacks Venezuela's worldwide reach.

Venezuela has 11 embassies in Africa -- a crucial voting bloc -- second only to Brazil and Cuba. And the Chávez government has aggressively used its oil wealth to gain more influence on the international stage, selling crude to Caribbean nations on easy terms, buying billions of dollars worth of bonds from Argentina and Ecuador and ordering oil tankers from Brazilian shipyards.

Iran Elected to UN Disarmament Commission

Folks, this is why I don't blog much anymore. Here we are trying to stop this country from arming itself as it threatens to build a bomb and send children to the frontlines of war with bombs strapped to their chest and the UN rewards this behavior by putting them on the DISARMAMENT COMMISSION!!!

This Iran issue and the UN itself has officially jumped the shark.

Under threat of United Nations Security Council sanctions for its own nuclear program, Iran has been elected to a vice-chair position on the U.N. Disarmament Commission, whose mission includes deliberations on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

The commission's deliberations began last Monday and are scheduled to continue until April 28. On the first day of the commission meeting, Iran along with Uruguay and Chile was elected as one of eight vice-chairs, elected to serve for one year.

It happened on the same day that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised his people "good news" about the country's nuclear program.

The following day, Iran announced that it had managed to enrich uranium, a key ingredient in the production of a nuclear bomb.

On Monday, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said that his country would continue to enrich uranium, and dismissed the idea that the U.S. might attack nuclear facilities in Iran.

"We are certain that Americans will not attack Iran because the consequences would be too dangerous," Rafasanjani was quoted as telling the Kuwaiti parliament.

Dr. Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. said that electing Iran to a leadership position on the UN Disarmament Commission was like asking the "cat to guard the milk."

"Clearly the Iranians have an interest in establishing disarmament rules that protect their clandestine nuclear weapons program," said Gold, author of Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos.

"For the last decade and a half, Iran has appointed a very large diplomatic mission to the U.N. and has sought to obtain appointments to as many U.N. bodies as possible," said Gold in a telephone interview.

It is not a surprise, therefore, that Iran would find a place at the table of even the most sensitive committees, he said.

According to Gold, the various commissions at the U.N. establish the "background noise" and "international norms" that are adopted for dealing with problems worldwide.

"They have a way of penetrating the judgments of the U.N. secretariat and other U.N. bodies," he said.

The Disarmament Commission's new chairman, Joon Oh from South Korea, said prior to the group's meeting that it was not intended to be an isolated event but should be considered an integral part of worldwide disarmament efforts.

According to a release on the Disarmament Commission's website, the agenda items include recommendations for achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and "practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons."

The commission was established by a U.N. General Assembly resolution in 1978 to, among other things, pursue "effective international control of atomic energy" and make sure that atomic energy was used only for peaceful purposes.

While Iran's election to the commission is not a "decisive development," Gold said, it is "one link" in the chain that helps Iran use multi-lateral organizations to serve its interests.

Prof. Anne Bayefsky, who edits the Eye on the U.N. website, quoted U.N. Undersecretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Nobuaki Tanaka, as saying that the commission "played a unique role" with "the advantage of being a fully universal deliberative body."

"This is the U.N. fiction, which brings us close to nuclear war with each passing day," Bayefsky said. "The allusion is to universal democracy, though the majority of voters is non-democratic and include thugs, racists and war-mongers."

As tensions grow over the situation in Iran, Washington has not ruled out the idea of a military option in dealing with Iran, though it has downplayed the idea.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently referred Iran to the Security Council, where the U.S. is pushing for sanctions to be leveled against the Islamic Republic.

But Gold said that if the U.N.'s dealings with Iraq set a precedent for its dealings elsewhere in the world, then it is not likely that the U.N. would be an effective body in dealing with Iran.

"The U.N. has long ago forfeited its role as an international body safeguarding international peace and security and this is just the latest proof of why the U.N. doesn't work," Gold said of Iran's election to vice chair the Disarmament Commission.

Iran says its nuclear development is for a civilian energy program but the U.S., Israel and other Western nations believe Iran is really developing nuclear weapons.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a U.S. think tank, released satellite images on Sunday showing that Iran had expanded its uranium enrichment site at Isfahan and has reinforced its underground site at Natanz.

London's Sunday Times quoted unnamed Iranian officials as saying that Iran had recruited and trained 40,000 suicide bombers, who were ready to attack American and British targets.

"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities," said Dr. Hassan Abbasi, head of the Center for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards.

New Review: The Psychology of The Simpsons: D'oh!

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

American pop culture is like an airborne virus. Once somebody gets it, they keep it for life and gleefully pass it on to anyone they know. Whether it’s music, TV, or movies, we entertain the world and the world (though some are loathe to admit it) just eats it all up. Everyone from the lowliest of citizens to dictators such as Kim Jung Il makes an effort to tap into a piece of American entertainment that suits their fancy.
So the question must be asked, "Why is it that a country that is allegedly so hated by the known world is the most sought after producer of entertainment goods?" It should follow that if the world hates the US, they should hate our music, TV, and movies. But as we all know, it doesn’t.

The reason is that the most beloved of American characters are the ones with universal appeal. While many of our favorite characters are distinctly American, the ones that transcend borders are the ones that relate to everyone, from Canada to East Timor to China. The very element that makes something work in America also makes it work far and wide.

That is why The Simpsons are so popular here and everywhere. Even though they are yellow and have four fingers, the characters that populate Springfield are very much consistent with real world behavior. Granted this is a satire cartoon program so there are limits, but the reason it’s worked for so long is that even though the situations tend to be absurd, those same situations carry with them threads of real life issues -- the kind of issues that every family and community deals with.

One issue that finds itself being both promoted and skewered on The Simpsons is psychology. Many times throughout the 16 seasons the characters play out scenarios that heavily rely on at least a cursory knowledge of psychology, pop or otherwise. We have Lisa quoting Freud, Bart getting diagnosed with ADHD, Homer becoming intelligent after removing a crayon from his nose/brain, family therapy with the late Dr. Marvin Monroe, etc.

It should come as no surprise then, that a group of practicing and teaching psychologists have compiled an anthology of essays taking modern themes of psychology and applying them to our beloved Simpsons sit-com. In much the same vein as “The Science of Star Wars,” “The Psychology of the Simpsons,” edited by Alan Brown, PhD with Chris Logan, looks at the Simpsons family and the larger population of Springfield through the prism of how these characters relate to psychological theory and practice. Continued

Iran's Oil Bourse: A Threat to the U.S. Economy?

As I've written about before, one of the reasons the US or Israel may end up bombing Iran is that they want to stop Tehran from opening up an oil bourse. The reason we don't like it is because they intend to trade oil for euros instead of dollars, thus causing untold damage to our economy. Now Drudge has an article up from Bloomberg.com stating that the Iranians are 16 days from having the bomb, according to the US State Department. Does this announcement have something to do with the bourse? All things are possible, read this and decide for yourself:

While Iran's nuclear program has become a major focus of the international media, there are many who strongly believe that the program is only a cover for the U.S. government's true motive in a possible attack against Iran.

What some analysts posit is the real concern for the United States is Iran's plan to open its own oil exchange — the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB) — with the alleged goal of becoming the dominant center of the Middle East's oil trade.

What makes the IOB the subject of such interest by the American government? According to rumors, which first vaulted the issue into the spotlight, the financial exchange in the aforementioned bourse will trade for oil in euros instead of the U.S. dollar. The dollar has long been the dominant currency for international oil trade.
A Threat to the U.S. Economy?

The debate over the ultimate financial impact of trading oil in euros rather than dollars is a complex one, but according to some experts such a move could lead to a huge drop in value for the American currency, potentially putting the U.S. economy in its greatest crisis since the depression era of the 1930s.

The IOB has been on Iran's domestic agenda for quite some time and different dates have informally been announced for its opening, all which have been quietly disavowed as the deadline neared.

March 20, the most recent rumored date, was the first day of the Persian calendar year. The Iranian Oil Ministry's public relations department has denied that the date corresponded to the opening of the bourse, and has mostly remained silent about the existence of such a program.

Of course, the effectiveness of the IOB will depend on whether the big international oil trading companies decide to accept deals in euros or not. However, the potential financial impact on the U.S. economy remains more than just idle speculation.
"The weapon of oil in the hands of Iran's regime is more dangerous than any other weapon," said a recently published article in Italy's Panorama newsmagazine.

Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad Javad Assemipour, director of the IOB program, told Panorama that the oil trading center, due to open in a few months, will turn Iran into a major oil exchange point.

"Iran's oil exchange with the region's countries and also some of the East Asia states will take place in euros instead of U.S. dollars," said Assemipour.

Some of the major oil-producing countries such as Venezuela (which has boosted its economic ties to Iran) and a few of the larger oil consuming countries, most notably China and India, have already announced their support for the IOB. China and India, along with Russia, are powers that have at various times backed Iran's right to establish its own nuclear program.

There is speculation that the IOB represents Iran's plan to escape any possible future economic sanctions spearheaded by the U.S. However, some postulate that the plan could also endanger the continued existence of Iran's regime. William Clark, an American security expert, predicted that if Iran threatened the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the international oil market, the White House would immediately order a military attack against it.

Some Insist Impact will be Negligible

A number of economists believe that establishing the bourse will prove to be an impossible task for Iran.

"More than 68 percent of the global international oil exchange is in U.S. dollars, and by abandoning dollars Iran will put its own economy in greater danger," said an unnamed Iranian professor of Economics in Paris.

Other experts believe that even if the IOB commences operations, there is not much harm it can do to the U.S. economy.
"Given the fact that Iran's share of the international oil market is somewhere around 5 percent, I do not believe that it can really absorb enough customers around the globe," said Russian economist Natalia Arlova.

"And Iran's unstable political system is another obstacle. Let us not forget that one of the biggest characteristics of the international oil trade centers is stability. Apart from that, the reason the U.S. dollar has been the dominant currency in the oil trade is the huge share America has in the global economy. I do not think that only Iran's ambition to replace the dollar with the euro will be enough. There are much bigger factors."

However the IOB, to be located in the free trade zone of Iran's Kish Island on the Persian Gulf, remains a potential destabilizing factor for the U.S. economy. This, according to some strategic analysts, is a probable motive for the rumored U.S. attack against the country.

Experts point to the fact that the Iraq invasion in 2002 took place after Saddam Hussein refused to accept dollars as a payment medium for its oil exports and Oil For Food program, choosing euros instead. After discovering no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, speculations have been raised that the main cause for the invasion was the White House's fear of the possible financial repercussions of Saddam Hussein's plan to substitute dollars for euros.

Maybe it was that fateful decision by the former Iraqi president which was the last straw for the White House before it sent U.S. soldiers marching into Baghdad.

As Japan Studies Brazil Ethanol,Brazil Traders Bet On US

You may have read elsewhere that Iran is going forward with a full-scale uranium enrichment program. This of course has the oil market in a tizzy as crude is trading at a 7 month high of about $69.17 a barrel. Predictions for summer oil prices, which are always higher than normal, are that the price of oil will stay in the high 60's, possibly higher depending on whether or not we attack Iran's aforementioned nuclear sites.

So now would be an excellent time to re-examine our alternative fuel possibilities:

Brazil's state-owned oil firm Petrobras SA (PBR) on Monday signed a new agreement furthering ethanol export studies with Japanese trading company Mitsui (8031.TO), but local traders and analysts say they are far more excited about the U.S. market these days.

"Forget (Japan)," said Tarcilo Rodrigues, the director of Sao Paulo-based Bioagencia consultancy. "The U.S. is the big buyer this year."

"The top buyer of ethanol will definitely be the U.S.," agreed a local trader, adding that the possibility of the U.S. reducing its 54-cents-per-gallon direct ethanol import tax is looking more likely in coming months.

There are several reasons for a new Brazilian burst of enthusiasm about U.S. ethanol purchases, as well as lessened interest in Japan, say local traders.

For one, as the U.S. this year phases out its use of gasoline additive MTBE, which contaminates water supplies, its demand for a clean-burning oxygenate such as ethanol could sustain world ethanol prices between $500 and $550 per cubic meter, traders said. That is as much as 60% higher than a rough average of $350 per cubic meter last year, said traders.

"I think we'll have fewer exports this year, given the popularity of flex fuel cars on the local market, but U.S. demand will be high, supporting prices," said a Sao Paulo trader.

At the same time, the U.S. - which last year mandated an increase in renewable fuels to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 - is projected to need plenty of Brazilian ethanol in future years, as demand outstrips supply even with extra U.S. ethanol-producing capacity estimated to come online.

"The U.S. is seeing Brazil as less of a threat and more as a complementary producer of ethanol these days, which means that they could lower their ethanol tariff," said Rodrigues. "Japan is different. As a country that doesn't produce ethanol, it wants to guarantee that Brazil can supply its market before starting purchases."

"These are different methods of buying ethanol, and while Japan is still studying the feasibility of fuel ethanol, we're already selling to the U.S.," Rodrigues added.

Other traders noted that despite Japan's ongoing viability studies, it may take years before the country finally agrees on guaranteed purchases of Brazilian fuel ethanol.

"Japan has been dilly-dallying about buying ethanol from Brazil since 2001," said a Riberao Preto trader. "I don't believe that they'll start buying fuel ethanol anytime soon, now that prices are far higher than they were five years ago."

"Japan will only become a fuel ethanol importer when other countries, such as India, also agree to supply ethanol," said another trader. "If I were Japan, I wouldn't rely solely on the Brazilian supply."

Still, in the medium- to long-term, prospects look good for a Japanese contract with Brazil, say Petrobras executives.

In March this year, Petrobras set up a joint venture with state-owned Japanese firm Nippon Alcohol Hanbai to export ethanol. The new company, Brazil-Japan Ethanol Co., serves as Petrobras' agency in Japan.

Meanwhile, in May 2005, Petrobras, Mitsui and Brazilian iron-ore giant Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (RIO) also jointly signed an agreement to study ethanol logistics in Brazil.

The new memo of understanding signed on Monday between Petrobras and Mitsui occurred during the visit of Brazil's Trade Minister Luiz Fernando Furlan to Japan.

Petrobras has estimated that Japan could import between 1.8 billion to 6 billion liters of ethanol, depending on whether the government mandates a 3% to 10% mix of ethanol in its gasoline.

In 2005, Japan bought roughly 315 billion liters of Brazilian ethanol, but solely for use in its chemicals and alcoholic beverages industries, according to data from Brazil's Agricultural Ministry.

By contrast, however, the U.S. in 2005 purchased roughly 260 million liters direct from Brazil, and an additional 454 million liters duty-free, under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which allows ethanol exports from El Salvador and other countries to enter the U.S. tax free.

Brazil is the world's largest sugar producer and exporter and the world's No. 2 ethanol producer after the U.S., but No. 1 ethanol exporter.

US plans nuke hit on Iran: Report

Whether you believe it is because of the "Israely lobby" or it because of an overall strategy to bring peace through war, it appears that the US is indeed going to bomb Iran's nuclear ambitions. At this point I'm rather ambivalent. When the pull-push in Iraq started I was anxious. I wanted it to start quickly because I thought that the longer we waited, the worse it would be for our troops. This time...this time I feel like this administration has bungled so much of our foreign policy that to me it doesn't matter when go into Iran or if we go into Iran at all.

Now in the past I've tried to shape my views of an Iran-attack through the prism of logic. I figured we'd be stopped by any alliance between Russia, China and Iran. What I've come to realize is that the Bush administration doesn't so much rely on logic as it does intuition. And as I've further realized, they have the intuition of a 6-year-old with ADD.

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.

President George W. Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran’s hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as “the new Hitler”, says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the West Asia, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, like the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Tehran.

Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Tehran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within western intelligence about Iran’s plans.

This magazine disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran’s nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles.

And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the foreign office discussed the consequences of an US-led attack on Iran.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the foreign office that the UK-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington.

Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran’s buried nuclear plants. Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centres for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure.

The election of Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush Administration.

Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’”

Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

Publicly, the US insists it remains committed to diplomacy to solve the crisis. But with Russia apparently intent on vetoing any threat of punitive action at the UN, the Bush administration is also planning for unilateral military action. Hersh repeated his claims that the US has intensified clandestine activities inside Iran, using special forces to identify targets and establish contact with anti-Teheran ethnic-minority groups.

The senior defence officials said that Mr Bush is "determined to deny Iran the opportunity to begin a pilot programme, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium".

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so they say. In general, civilized humanity is a well-meaning lot. We act in ways that, in most cases, are only looking out for each others' best interest. Many of the greatest intellectual theories and philosophies are espoused with the best intentions for the greater population in mind.
Collectivism, for example, comes out of the idea that we should all help each other and share resources so that nobody suffers. We all rise as one or we fall. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that in theory, but as my father would say, it just doesn’t work with people. The same could be said of liberalism.

Liberalism at its core is the belief and/or practice of maximum choice. Lots of energy and change should be the lifeblood of society. Fearlessness and tolerance are liberalism's creed, and when you look at it from that angle, liberalism is not, by itself, a horrible philosophy. After all, when we speak of the modern day political and economic arenas, we say liberal democracies and liberal free markets are favorable to conservative regimes and command economies.

However, liberalism carried too far breeds chaos, as most Western conservatives will tell you. Today’s stalwart liberal believers will espouse all kinds of tools and programs infused with their belief system -- and do so without regard to outcome measurements and accountability. Criticism of liberal programs is met with hostile counter-rhetoric and apologies/excuses. The very people who are defined by a desire to help the most people in the end do more damage than good by trying to get the square peg of collectivist and humanistic thought into a naturally competitive societal round hole.

Now many conservatives have written books about all of this and have made a mint in doing so, but best selling author of “Useful Idiots” and former speech writer for Nancy Reagan, Mona Charen, has really nailed the history of liberalism's political and sociological failure in her new book, “Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (And the Rest of Us).” Charen's book is not in any way a ranting, Savage/Hannity-style tome of angry condemnations. Instead, it is actually a well-researched history book of how liberal policies were enacted over time and of their measured effects on our society far and wide. Continued

Doubts over Iran's saber-rattling

Is Iran playing chicken with the West? It's possible. Having betted that Russia and China would solidly back them at the UN and then coming up short (how short remains to be seen) it appears the mullahs new strategy is to not so subtly threaten American oil tankers in the Gulf with fancy new weapons. They've tried this tact before, as did Hussein and most recently, Hugo Chavez. All the crazy dictators have at one time or another threatened the US with their own military "prowess" in the hopes that we'd be too scared to invade them. What many people from foreign lands seem to misunderstand about is that no matter what the threat may be, if we decide to blow you up, nothing is going to stop us but our own will to keep Armageddon at bay.

Iran can have all the war games it wants, at the end of the day if the Israelis and/or we decide to start bombing Iranian nuclear plants, all the flying boats in the world won't stop us.

To be clear, JFK nearly went to nuclear war over the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Union at the time was a REAL nuclear threat. The only reason we haven't bombed N. Korea off the map yet is one, because of China's nuclear arsenal (courtesy of the Clinton Administration) and two, because we haven't found a way to do it yet without losing S. Korea. If we know that Russia and/or China won't retaliate then Iran hasn't got a prayer, should we decide that bomb diplomacy is the only language the mullahs understand.

On a side note, Secretary Rumsfeld, if you are listening, please, for the love of God, SECURE IRAQS BORDERS BEFORE BOMBING IRAN. Maybe it's just me but I'd like not to have a repeat of the Iraq war where you underestimate the locals and we end up being stuck waiting for the local dissidents to grow up and learn how to take care of country while foriegn insurgents terrorists kill our troops. I'm just saying is all.

Iran has unveiled with great fanfare a series of what it portrays as sophisticated, homegrown weapons — flying boats and missiles invisible to radar, torpedoes too fast to elude.

But experts said Tuesday it appears much of the technology came from Russia and questioned Iran's claims about the weapons' capabilities.

Still, the armaments, tested during war games by some 17,000 Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf, send what may be Iran's real message: its increased ability to hit oil tankers if tension with America turns to outright confrontation.

To underline that message, the maneuvers — code-named "The Great Prophet" — have been held since Friday around the Strait of Hormuz, the 34-mile-wide entrance to the Gulf through which about two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass.

The head of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, proclaimed Tuesday that Iran was now able to defend itself against "any extra-regional invasion."

It was a clear reference to Iranian worries of potential U.S. military action to stop its nuclear program, which the U.S. claims is intended to produce nuclear weapons. Iran says it aims only to generate electricity but has so far defied U.N. Security Council demands that it give up key parts of its program.

The new weapons, many of them shown on Iranian state TV during their tests, have come with impressive claims:

• A missile, the Fajr-3, that is invisible to radar and able to strike several targets with multiple warheads.

• A high-speed torpedo, the Hoot, able to move at some 223 mph, up to four times faster than a normal torpedo, and fired by ships cloaked to radar.

• A surface-to-sea missile, the Kowsar, with remote-control and searching systems that cannot be scrambled.

• A "super-modern flying boat," undetectable by radar and able to launch missiles with precise targeting while skimming low over the surface of the water at a top speed of 100 nautical mph.
In Washington, D.C., Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said "the Iranians have been known to boast and exaggerate" their weapons capabilities.

And some experts cast doubt on just how radar-evading Iran's ships and missiles are.

Others questioned if Iran developed the weapons on its own.

The Hoot torpedo — the name means "whale" — closely resembles the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval, the world's fastest known underwater missile, developed in 1995, said Ruslan Pukhov of Moscow's Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

Pukhov noted the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan once had a Soviet torpedo-testing center on the remote mountain lake of Issyk-Kul. And he said that in the turmoil that followed the Soviet breakup, Kyrgyz authorities sold Shkvals to the Chinese, a major importer of Iranian oil.

Whatever the Iranian armaments' capabilities — or origins — they're unlikely to affect the military balance of power in the Gulf, where the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet is based, operating out of the island nation of Bahrain.

For example, the Hoot torpedo — if indeed based on the Shkval — has too short a range, about 7,500 yards, to be militarily significant, said Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian analyst.

Barbecue meats linked with prostate cancer

Well, I'm probably screwed here. I love a good barbecue. I love charred meat. As a matter of fact, my friends just took me to a Brazillian BBQ joint in my old hood of Long Island. This is the place that has put me in a meat coma for three consecutive birthday celebrations. Hot stuff, I know.

Obviously I'm not the only one who indulges on BBQ'ed meat. The outdoor BBQ is a staple of suburban Americana along with apple pie and Nancy Reagan. This picture of the dad at the grill while the kids play in the yard is probably one of the few wholesome images I have left of traditional family life in America. Once again, another good memory is shot to hell.

Who knows whether or not this will turn out to be true in humans as to date they tested this theory on rats but I suspect that my prostate has as much chance in staying free from cancer as Tom DeLay has of running for President of the United States.

A compound formed when meat is charred at high temperatures — as in barbecue — encourages the growth of prostate cancer in rats, researchers reported on Sunday.

Their study, presented at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, may help explain the link between eating meat and a higher risk of prostate cancer.

It also fits in with other studies suggesting that cooking meat until it chars might cause cancer.

The compound, called PhIP, is formed when meat is cooked at very high temperatures, Dr. Angelo De Marzo and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reported.

It appears to both initiate and promote the growth of prostate cancer in rats, they said.

"We stumbled across a new potential interaction between ingestion of cooked meat in the diet and cancer in the rat," De Marzo said in a statement.

"For humans, the biggest problem is that it's extremely difficult to tell how much PhIP you've ingested, since different amounts are formed depending on cooking conditions."

For the study, Yatsutomo Nakai and other members of De Marzo's team mixed PhIP into food given to rats for up to eight weeks, then studied the animals' prostates, intestines and spleens. They found genetic mutations in all the organs after four weeks.

John McCain Warns of Iran 'Armageddon'

You know, you can't make heads or tails out of this Iranian situation from one day to the next. Aside from the bevy of opinions regarding an attack, you also have split opinions on whether sanctions would work. I for one think they won't. Sanctions have done nothing to stop N. Korea from flouting the worlds wants and needs and so I doubt it will change any minds in Tehran. At this point, the conventional wisdom states that Russia and China won't even vote for sanctions anyway. This is what made the latest UN resolution against Iran a paper tiger. There was no "or else" clause. There's no threat of action if the mullahs go ahead and tell the world community to get bent (as they have been since negotiations started).

So it's doubtful that sanctions, if enacted will have any effect and right now the military option appears to be up in the air and not very popular. However, the good senator from Arizona, John McCain has a slightly different opinion. Hey, he's the elected official not me so who knows:

2008 presidential hopeful John McCain said Sunday that the consequences of a military conflict with Iran over that country's nuclear program could be so serious they could lead to "Armageddon."

The Arizona Republican issued his dire warning after saying that before any military option against Iran is exercised, the world community must first put maximum pressure on Tehran through sanctions.

"We're going to the United Nations Security Council with our European allies," he told NBC's "Meet the Press." "We are seeking sanctions . . . . We must have sanctions against Iran."

McCain said that if sanctions fail, the U.S. must be prepared to resort to the use of military force.

"Would it be a difficult military option?" he asked rhetorically. "Sure, it would be a difficult military option. But you cannot remove it from the table."
Asked by "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert if the U.S. might find itself embroiled in two wars at once, McCain responded point blank:

"I think we could have Armageddon."

Without elaborating his the dire warning, the former Vietnam POW said there was still a chance that sanctions might work.

"If we handle this right, and our European allies stand with us, and the Russians and the Chinese stand with us, sanctions might do the job. And I am confident that this administration will exhaust every effort before contemplating seriously a military option."

New Review: Rome, Inc.

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

It was not too long ago that a series of multi-national corporations were exposed for a series of unethical practices, and then promptly went bankrupt. Enron was one of the biggest ones and probably the most noteworthy of the bunch, but they were certainly not alone. The mainstream press covered the rise and fall of several multi-national corporations, as if their demise were equal to a serial killer's crime wave.

This disastrous episode in American history is not an anomaly. In fact, as business author and corporate cog Stanley Bing points out in his new book, “Rome, Inc.: The Rise and Fall of the First Multinational Corporation,” Rome may have been the first Enron. “Rome, Inc.” is a comical and amusing way of studying how and why the Roman Empire came to be and then crumbled into the dust of history. Bing looks at the history of Rome through the prism of corporatism. Romulus and Caesar aren’t just rulers, they become CEOs. Each conquest and subjugation of territory transforms into acquisitions and mergers. Even the occasional backstabbing finds its counterpart in today’s corporate climate.

When examined as if it was a corporation, the history of Rome makes a lot more sense and comes alive so that the modern student can fully understand the nuts and bolts of how its demise came to be. The players from across the hemisphere of Roman history become more humanized and the reader starts to understand what exactly possesses somebody to make the decisions that a Caesar or a Nero might make.

Bing zeros in on the fundamental element that made Rome successful, in antiquity as an empire and by today’s standards as a corporation. Unlike many empires in the past, when a territory was sacked, the conquered people instead of being enslaved were offered Roman citizenship. Even at the dawn of the Roman empire, citizenship was often better than the paltry existence of living as a member of a different entity. Bing notes that opportunism is a timeless virtue. Continued

UNSC urges Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities within 30 days

It's hard to say whether or not this means anything but at least the UN Security Council is trying to do something. We shall see.

After three weeks of intense negotiations, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a presidential statement Wednesday afternoon calling on Iran to resume suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities within 30 days.

The statement was passed after the five permanent council members -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- reached agreement on the text earlier in the day ending three weeks of haggling over its contents.

In the statement, cosponsored by the EU trio -- Britain, France and Germany, the council noted "with serious concern" that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran."

The council called upon Iran to take steps required by the IAEA to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear program and to resolve outstanding questions.

It also "underlines ... the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA."

The council requests IAEA Director-General Mohamed Elbaradei to deliver in 30 days a new report to the IAEA board of governors and the Security Council on Iran's compliance with IAEA demands, including the suspension of its enrichment activities.

The EU troika originally set a fortnight timeframe for Iran to comply with IAEA requirements, but it had to be extended due to strong opposition from Russia.

Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya told Xinhua after the adoption that the statement supports diplomatic efforts to solve the Iranian nuclear issue.

"The statement sends a strong message to support the authority of the IAEA and to support all diplomatic efforts that will lead to a diplomatic solution," he stressed.

He called upon all sides concerned, including the EU troika and Russia, to further accelerate steps of diplomatic efforts outside the Security Council.

Wang's Russian counterpart Andrei Denisov echoed his position, saying the IAEA must continue to play "a central role in verifying all the evidence on the purpose and nature of the Iranian nuclear program."

He stressed that there was no evidence that Tehran was intent on building nuclear weapons, adding that "for the time being, we have strong suspicions about intentions, but only suspicions."

However, diplomats from western countries advocated that the unanimous approval send a strong message that Iran has to comply with the requests made by the IAEA.

"The ball is now back in Iran's court," French Ambassador to the UN Jean-Marc de la Sabliere told reporters after the council approved the statement.

"Iran has 30 days. We hope that Iran will comply," he noted. "If Iran doesn't comply, then the Security Council will have to take its responsibilities."

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the adoption of the statement demonstrated that "the international community is united in its concern over Iran's nuclear program."

"The Security Council's Presidential Statement sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to conceal its nuclear program and evade its international obligations are unacceptable," she said in a statement.

After the text was adopted, Iran's UN envoy Javad Zarif told reporters that he had been prevented from addressing the Council to make his case.

"We have been told this was a matter of procedure but I believe it was more than that," he said. "Iran will have to consider the statement in Tehran and will respond accordingly."

During Wednesday's negotiations, they also agreed to drop the language which would have vaguely linked Iran's nuclear program with a threat to international peace and security, in a bid to get Russia on board.

The five key council members have been wrangling over how to respond to the crisis over Iran's nuclear plan after the IAEA reported the matter to the council in early March.

The United States claims that Iran's program is designed to develop nuclear weapons. But Teheran insists that its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity and it is entitled to developing peaceful nuclear technology under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On Thursday, foreign ministers of the five permanent council members and their German colleague are due to meet in Berlin to discuss the international community's future strategy toward Iran's nuclear issue.

A presidential statement needs consensus among the 15 council members while a resolution requires a minimum of nine votes and no veto from any of the five permanent members.

More on the Russian Spy Story

This is just a quick follow-up to the on-going story of how the Russians allegedly spied on the US on behalf of the Iraqis and possibly aided them against us at the onset of the war.

As per usual, the Russians are denying they did any such thing. That means nothing as the Russian government has a penchant for lying through its vodka soaked teeth whenever the mood strikes. If you don't believe me, just ask any Russian. Blatant lying is a Russian art form.

From Xinhua:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Monday rejected the U.S. charge of providing intelligence to Iraq at the start of the 2003 U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein, and said the Pentagon report was politically motivated.

The release of the Pentagon report suggested that it "has hidden political motives", Lavrov told media.

He said this move might be connected with the situation in Iraq.

Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service had also voiced its disapproval of the Pentagon's charge earlier in the weekend.

The Pentagon report claimed that Russia had delivered military intelligence obtained from sources in Qatar, where the U.S. "Central Command" was situated, to Saddam Hussein.

Just one day before the Russian foreign minister made his comments, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. government would talk with Russian authorities about the report.

"Definitely we will raise it with the Russian government," she said, adding that she hoped they would take it seriously.

According to U.S. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack, Rice might raise the issue with her Russian counterpart at a meeting of foreign ministers in Berlin on Thursday.

Of course it really doesn't matter what the Russians say as the Pentagon isn't planning on investigating this issue any further, cowards that they are these days.

From Mosnews.com:

The United States has not opened an investigation into Iraqi documents that said Russia passed information to Baghdad on U.S. military movements during the 2003 invasion, a Pentagon spokesman quoted by AFP said today.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would not say whether the documents, one of which indicated that Russia had a spy in the U.S. military command in Qatar, had been previously investigated.

But he cautioned reporters not to “drill down into one particular document and make it more than what it is.”

“At various levels throughout the United States government these documents have been made available for people to examine and to learn lessons from,” he told reporters.

“I’m not aware at this point of any particular review, investigation, whatever you want to call it, at this particular juncture,” he said.

The existence of the captured documents was revealed in a military after-action study of the war that looked at the invasion from the Iraqi perspective.

Russia denied it had passed U.S. military information to the Iraqis, and said the accusation had never been made by U.S. officials before.