Feb
08

Iran and Irrationality

Bomb at NagasakiI’d like to address an important and valid question concerning foreign policy: did Obama decide to withdraw the remainder of US troops in Iraq because the Iraqi people are ready to step into a new era of Democracy? Or is it a logistical necessity based on the Arab Spring and impending future unrest in the Middle East? Consider the following primary facts:

  1. Israel has vowed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms in Iran
  2. Iran has continued to develop enriched uranium. They claim it is for non-military applications, but Israeli/US/UK leadership do not believe their intent.
  3. Despite the overwhelming historical support for Israel, the US has recently taken a few steps back. In addition, the UN is very close to acknowledging an independent Palestinian state.
  4. Because of numbers 2 & 3, Israel feels it is necessary to act pre-emptively in order to prevent current international support from possible deterioration.

Here are a few more details that are relevant to the current turmoil, but secondary in importance:

  1. A power vacuum has been created in Iraq as a result of US troop withdrawal. This creates a prime opportunity for Iranian Expansion.
  2. Syria is in civil unrest and will likely follow in the footsteps of Egypt and Libya
  3. China has ignored UN Sanctions and continues to supply missiles to Iran.
  4. Russia benefits from a general atmosphere of chaos.

Unfortunately, these facts add up to what seems to be inevitable military action against Iran. Military action that seems unecessary and circumstantial to even be classified under the common US excuse of ‘pre-emptive’ action. Israel will attack Iran with both US and UK support. Iran will retaliate and Lebanon will probably bear down on Israel of the north. It won’t be pretty. All as a result of macho posturing by Israel.

Let’s consider a more level headed solution to the Israel/Iranian conflict that could at best prevent military action altogether, but at worst allow for justified military action.

  1. Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear energy, but not weapons, in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty.
  2. Establish nuclear weapons disarmament in the middle east applying to all countries including Israel and the US.
  3. Israel and the US should withdraw all threats of military action against Iran.

“Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”
- Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, 1955

“Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.”
- John F. Kennedy, Speech to the UN General Assembly, 1961

Nov
18

It’s a Conspiracy! : A Somewhat Decent Analogy

con·spir·a·cy [kuhn-spir-uh-see]
noun, plural -cies.

1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

For those of you out there who may not know, the charges I am facing are “conspiracy” charges, meaning that I am not being charged with a specific crime, only with colluding with a group of people to commit said crime.

I’ve developed a rather simplistic (not perfect, but passable) analogy so that those of you familiar with my case will be able to understand how federal conspiracy charges work and better understand my involvement.

Disclaimer: the following story is complete bullshit. Hell, I’ve never even tried a drug, much less sold them.

I am a marijuana dealer. I started out just smoking, but then found out that I can get more, better, and cheaper weed by selling it myself. I found a local strip mall with a few other shops selling and since we all have different types, it works out.

As you may know, selling weed is illegal, but when you question most people one on one, they don’t really have as much of an issue with it. In fact, in some countries, weed is perfectly legal. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it is generally perceived as a legal issue, not a moral one.

So, after I’m selling from this retail store for a few months, I get a letter in the email. It’s an offer to move to a mall with a better location, better prospects, etc. So I decide to take a look. Next thing I know, I’m signing a lease.

I start out by setting up shop, selling a few grams. As I walk through the mall, I see a lot of drug selling I wasn’t necessarily expecting. Cocaine, meth, even heroin. Some of the stories are quite disturbing. I should run, maybe report this place to the police. But I don’t. I mind my own business, deal my weed, and stay to myself. When my lease expires, I move back to a safer strip mall across town.

A year later, the Feds bust this mall. They go through all the lease records and find my name. Rather than charge me with selling weed (which is still illegal, by the way), I am charged with conspiracy to sell every drug available in that mall. I leased a shop in that mall, and by doing so I am responsible for not only my actions and crimes, but the crimes of all involved. It was a haven for dealers, and I was in the middle of it.

Selling weed might not seem as bad as selling meth or heroin, but in the eyes of the law it’s all the same. You can judge me for not running. I should have. But I didn’t. I messed up. I’m sorry for what I’ve done.

(end of analogy)

Hope this helps. Remember, things are not always as they seem.

Nov
02

Atlas Shrugged: A Review (of sorts)

I’m not a big fan of fiction in general. However, if I’m in a pinch I’ll read (and re-read) the back of a Lay’s potato chip bag if it’s all I have. With that said, I should have read this book years ago. Or rather, I should have finished it years ago. I’ve started it at least twice before, but abandoned it for something more appealing. This time, I read all 1069(?) pages (minus 45+ of a speech — I dare you to read that whole thing).

It was a good read, but not without its problems. The characters were split between philosophical stances, a civil war of the minds. More like the ‘Minds’ vs. the ‘No-Minds’. The ‘Minds’, Dagny Taggart, D’Anconia, Galt et. al. were conspicuously likable. They could fly planes, invent new gadgets, and MacGyver their way out of any situation. Comparatively, the ‘No-Minds’ were just that — ignorant saps devoid of intellect and self-worth. The characters were painted with broad strokes and suffer from an overall lack of nuance.

On to the philosophy. Greed is good. Gordon Gecko would love this book. The only way society will reach its full potential (or not crumble to pieces, as Rand would have us to believe) is if every person acts only with his own self-interest in mind. I don’t completely disagree with everything she has to say, but she often comes across as heavy handed.

I would suggest a few refinements. How about a government with laws designed to take advantage of the natural greed and inclination to self-interest evident in mankind? Just as we can channel aggression into arguably socially acceptable (and entertaining) mediums, such as pro football and MMA, we can channel mankind’s selfish intent to benefit society as a whole. Not by asking them to sign over the rights of innovation for the common good, but by giving them incentive to be productive and thusly, improving society. Rand’s ardent followers would claim that she’s been marginalized as a reaction to her disdain of all philosophy (except perhaps Aristotle). Although I haven’t read much beyond ‘Atlas Shrugged’, I’d venture to say otherwise. Rand does set forth admirable, self-propelled autodidacts, but she wraps them in a myopic, self-aggrandized credo of righteousness. I could stand for a bit of selfishness now and then, but it should be tempered with heavy doses of altruism. Rand looks up to Aristotle, but seems to forget his most straightforward advice: ‘all things in moderation’.

Go back to top