Giving Chavez the Finger

7-Eleven is dropping Citgo as its gas supplier. Citgo is a state-owned company of Venezuela. A 7-Eleven spokesperson had this to say, "Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216079,00.html

Update: 7-Eleven is now saying that the decision to switch from Citgo wasn't politically motivated. Oh well, whether though purpose or accident its hopefully a little less money for Chavez.

Important Words

Reproduced in full from the excellent site, Real Clear Politics

The former Archbishop of Canterbury has chimed in with a strong defense of the Pope, calling his recent speech "extraordinarily effective and lucid." Here is more of what had to say in a lecture at Newbold College, as quoted by The Times:

Lord Carey said that Muslims must address "with great urgency" their religion's association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the "clash of civilisations" endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole.

"We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times," he said. "There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths." [snip]

Lord Carey, who as Archbishop of Canterbury became a pioneer in Christian-Muslim dialogue, himself quoted a contemporary political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who has said the world is witnessing a "clash of civilisations".

Arguing that Huntington's thesis has some "validity", Lord Carey quoted him as saying: "Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power."

This type of language will probably earn a fatwa against Lord Carey of Clifton at some point, of course, but it seems we are indeed finally getting down to the nut. As I wrote back in February, (a real clear politics writer) five years after 9/11 and the scores of terrorist attacks around the globe since, the world is still waiting for moderate Muslims to stand up and take back their faith:
The problem, of course, is that while the West is the target of Islamic fundamentalism and terror, the West is not in control of the outcome of the battle. Ultimately, that responsibility rests in the hands of moderate Muslims. No amount of appeasement, or bombs, or isolation, or troop withdrawals by the West is going to change the core dynamic of the struggle between those who want a modern, tolerant version of Islam and those who want to impose a 9th century version of sharia.

Every religion has its fundamentalists - Christianity no less than Islam. The difference between the two (as well as other major religions) is that over time and through much struggle Christians developed an external, peaceful tolerance toward those who would offend or insult their faith and, just as importantly, an internal discipline and intolerance toward members who would commit heinous acts of violence against innocent people in the name of their Lord. Islam, for the most part, still has that equation backwards.

And so we wait and continue to wonder: where are the moderate Muslims today? Where have they been for the last five years? We saw protests against terrorism in the streets of Amman last year - but only after the horrendous suicide bombing of a wedding shocked the consciousness of Jordanians. Aside from that, we've seen nothing demonstrating the magnitude and seriousness one would expect from hundreds of millions of people outraged over the fact their religion's good name has been hijacked and distorted by a small group of fundamentalists.

There are only two conclusions to be drawn: moderate, peace-loving Muslims are either unable to win the battle against fundamentalism, or they are unwilling to win it. We are fast approaching the day when the continued lack of demonstrable effort on the part of moderate Muslims serves to disabuse the West of the notion that Islam "is peace." That would be a terrible thing, and it would make the struggle of moderate Muslims that much more difficult in the end. The time for action is now.

Jobs

Well, the interviewing process is winding down for me. I've interviewed at most of the firms that I'm interested in for a summer associate position next summer.

For those not familiar, when a firm gives you an offer for a second year summer associate position, it is practically speaking an offer of employment. Most firms extend full employment offers to over 90% of their second year summer associates. So, as long as you don't screw it up, you are all but guarenteed a job with the firm after summering with them.

I am very pleased with my results so far, especially for someone between top 1/3 and top 1/4 of his class. Though, I am still waiting on a several more firms.

The whole process wasn't too painful. I actually don't mind interviewing - maybe I'm wierd, but it can be fun at times. The part I don't like is the travelling back and forth to get to the city I'm interviewing in. Nevertheless, I met a lot of interesting people - most of them incredibly smart. I'm really looking forward to next summer.

The Inferno

An Israeli journalist accompaning an IDF regiment into Lebanon filmed an engagment with Hezbollah in this moving 25 minute video. Cut and paste this url into your browser: http://switch248-01.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=209947&ak=63628786

Take the time to watch the film - it is definitely worth it.

Art I Identify With

Thomas Cole's series of four paintings, titled Voyage of Life, are among my favorites.

The series is comprised of four different paintings, each representing a stage of life.

The painting shown here is titled Childhood.

On the boat is a small baby. The boat is ornately carved and in great condition. The angel stands behind the baby, guiding the baby at its young age. The boat is a common artistic element used when representing passage through life.

The river represents the path of life. It begins in a dark carve representing the mystery of birth. The river is narrow representing the small range of choices we have at that stage of life. It is also very calm.

The riverside is full of beautiful flowers. The sky is bright and clear. There is almost no view of the future, but everything is merry and right.

The other three paintings in the series are just as great and full of imagery. I first saw the series in the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. The room was a small and sat at the innersection of two halls. The series were hung on the four walls, one painting per wall.

Walking into the room, I was taken aback at the size and complexity of these works. The great detail and contrasting vivid colors were overwhelming. What doesn't come across well in the reproductions and photos is the immense size of the paintings. I do not recall the exact dimensions, but they were at least 4 feet by 4 feet.

Maybe that explains my fascination with Rembrandt's Night Watchman. I have this amateurish fondness for large paintings.

Regardless, even more than the size, the message and imagery contained in the Cole's masterpieces enthrall me. I don't know if they would ever be for sale. But if I ever could scrape together a few tens of millions - I would purchase them in a second.

If you are ever in D.C., you must check them out. You will be glad you did.

Poignant Comics

A simple truth.


As with all simple truths, it does not capture the nuance.


Nevertheless, the overrarching point remains . . . and it is damning.





Another comic which captures my thoughts.

My feelings on the issue are some combination of the two sentiments expressed. How well they fit together, I have no idea.

I just hope some good comes out of it all.

Freakin Sweet

"A single Skyguard system can defend deployed forces, a large military installation, and/or a large civilian population or industrial area. One Skyguard system is capable of generating a protective shield of about 10 kilometers in diameter.
'The THEL Testbed has demonstrated unequivocally that lasers can engage and destroy rocket, artillery and mortar threats in flight,' noted Mike McVey, vice president of Northrop Grumman's Directed Energy Systems business area. 'This test bed has been remarkably successful. To date, it has shot down dozens of live threats, including long- and short-range rockets, mortars and artillery projectiles, in very realistic attack scenarios, and under simulated operational conditions such as surprise attacks and mixed threats'."
http://www.primezone.com/newsroom/news.html?d=101970

Unfortunately Funny Cartoon

Mere coincidence? Maybe, but interesting nonetheless.

From http://volokh.com/admin/trackbackdrum.pl?post=1153048318

Arguments from a Center Lefty on Why the NYT Shouldn't Have Published the Swift Article

Conclusion: "To publish or not to publish a story like this is seldom an easy decision. But given its relative unimportance to most Americans and Europeans, the absence of apparent wrongdoing on the part of the government, and the potential for it to be helpful to terrorists, the Times might have been wise to put this one on the spike."

http://www.slate.com/id/2145619/

Read the whole thing. Jacob Weisberg lays out the case reasonably and convincingly (well, to me at least).

Bloggers as Leaders?

Quick observation.

I've been observing a recent "blogosphere tussle" and its shows me the important part influential bloggers play in framing debate and ensuring civility. From my admittedly weak anecdotal evidence, it seems that bloggers who post with frothy and outlandish rhetoric seem to attract the worst of the blog commentators (those who contribute in the comments sections). While, other sites likes Volokh and Balkanization, etc. stimulate for the most part, intelligent civilized debate, despite the fact that comments are rarely ever deleted. The blogger(s) sets the tone and through a combination of the occasional verbal warning combined with the peer pressure of other commentators the standards seem to be fairly well upheld.

However, thus ends my short forray into the darker corners of the blogosphere. It isn't pretty.

How Sadly Relevant

From Winds of Change, "I want to take a few minutes and expand on my thinking about why the NY Times and LA Times were so wrong to publish the story about the SWIFT monitoring program.
I don't think that the newspapers are treasonous, or doing this solely in an effort to thwart President Bush (i.e. I don't think that a Democratic president would be getting a free ride right now). That doesn't mean that the impacts of what they are doing doesn't damage the country, put lives at risk, or negatively impact President Bush's effectiveness.
I think, in simple terms, that they have forgotten that they are citizens, and that they have an obligation to the polity that goes beyond writing the good story. I don't think they are alone; I think that many people and institutions in the country today have forgotten they are citizens, whether they are poor residents of New Orleans defrauding FEMA or corporate chieftains who are maximizing their bonuses at the expense of a healthy economy.
But that's another blog post.
I wrote about journalism and citizenship back in February, and one of the examples I cited was James Fallows' story about a conference in 1987 held at Montclair State College as a part of a PBS series called "Ethics in America".This conference was about the ethical issues involved in being in the military, and one of the discussions involved media superstars Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings. Here's Fallows:

Then Ogletree turned to the two most famous members of the evening's panel, better known than William Westmoreland himself. These were two star TV journalists: Peter Jennings of World News Tonight and ABC, and Mike Wallace of 6o Minutes and CBS. Ogletree brought them into the same hypothetical war. He asked Jennings to imagine that he worked for a network that had been in contact with the enemy North Kosanese government. After much pleading, the North Kosanese had agreed to let Jennings and his news crew into their country, to film behind the lines and even travel with military units. Would Jennings be willing to go? Of course, Jennings replied. Any reporter would-and in real wars reporters from his network often had. But while Jennings and his crew are traveling with a North Kosanese unit, to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by American and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly cross the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst, the northern soldiers set up a perfect ambush, which will let them gun down the Americans and Southerners, every one. What does Jennings do? Ogletree asks. Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to ambush the Americans? Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds after Ogletree asked this question. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he finally said. "I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans." Even if it means losing the story? Ogletree asked.
Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction." Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." "I am astonished, really," at Jennings's answer, Wallace said a moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot? "No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!" Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said. "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached. As Jennings said he agreed with Wallace, everyone else in the room seemed to regard the two of them with horror. Retired Air Force general Brent Scowcroft, who had been Gerald Ford's national security advisor and would soon serve in the same job for George Bush, said it was simply wrong to stand and watch as your side was slaughtered. "What's it worth?" he asked Wallace bitterly. "It's worth thirty seconds on the evening news, as opposed to saving a platoon." Ogletree turned to Wallace. What about that? Shouldn't the reporter have said something? Wallace gave his most disarming grin, shrugged his shoulders and spread his palms wide in a "Don't ask me!" gesture, and said, "I don't know." He was mugging to the crowd in such a way that he got a big laugh-the first such moment of the discussion. Wallace paused to enjoy the crowd's reaction. Jennings, however, was all business, and was still concerned about the first answer he had given. "I wish I had made another decision," Jennings said, as if asking permission to live the last five minutes over again. "I would like to have made his decision"-that is, Wallace's decision to keep on filming. A few minutes later Ogletree turned to George M. Connell, a Marine colonel in full uniform, jaw muscles flexing in anger, with stress on each word, Connell looked at the TV stars and said, "I feel utter . . . contempt. " Two days after this hypothetical episode, Connell Jennings or Wallace might be back with the American forces--and could be wounded by stray fire, as combat journalists often had been before. The instant that happened he said, they wouldn't be "just journalists" any more. Then they would drag them back, rather than leaving them to bleed to death on the battlefield. "We'll do it!" Connell said. "And that is what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get ... a couple of journalists." The last few words dripped with disgust. Not even Ogletree knew what to say. There was dead silence for several seconds. Then a square-jawed man with neat gray hair and aviator glasses spoke up. It was Newt Gingrich, looking a generation younger and trimmer than when he became Speaker of the House in I995. One thing was clear from this exercise, he said: "The military has done a vastly better 'job of systematically thinking through the ethics of behavior in a violent environment than the journalists have." That was about the mildest way to put it. Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace are just two individuals, but their reactions spoke volumes about the values of their craft. Jennings was made to feel embarrassed about his natural, decent human impulse. Wallace was completely unembarrassed about feeling no connection to the soldiers in his country's army considering their deaths before his eyes as "simply a story." In other important occupations people sometimes need to do the horrible. Frederick Downs [an earlier speaker who had discussed the ethics of torture and battlefield interrogation], after all, was willing to torture a man and hear him scream. But had thought through all the consequences and alternatives, and he knew he would live with the horror for the rest of his days. When Mike Wallace said he would do something horrible, he didn't bother to argue a rationale. He did not try to explain the reasons a reporter might feel obliged to remain silent as the attack began--for instance, that in combat reporters must be beyond country, or that they have a duty to bear impartial witness to deaths on either side, or that Jennings had implicitly made a promise not to betray the North Kosanese when he agreed to accompany them on the hypothetical patrol. The soldiers might or might not have found such arguments convincing, but Wallace didn't even make them. He relied on charm and star power to win acceptance from the crowd. Mike Wallace on patrol with the North Kosanese, cameras rolling while his countrymen are gunned down, recognizing no "higher duty" to interfere in any way and offering no rationale beyond "I'm with the press"--this is a nice symbol for what Americans hate about their media establishment in our age.

Despicable. And the press wonders why they are one of the most distrusted institutions in America?

Read the rest at http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008743.php

NEDM

Good Quote

"Success in defeating the terrorists at war with us is dependent on good intelligence. Without obtaining it and keeping it secret, the government can’t even find the dots, much less connect them. If the compromising of our national-security secrets continues, terrorists will thrive and Americans will die. It has to be stopped. "

Exactly...


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDVhYWQzMmQ3YWRlNzFkYjRmZmY4ZTQzZmUwZjJhZjI=

High Gas Taxes: Should We Do It?

Various news outlets, commentators, and blogs occasionally address gasoline, its price, and what we should do to wean ourselves off of it.

One of the proposals floating around is to greatly increase the federal taxes on gas but offset the higher cost by reducing the income taxes of individuals. The purpose is to account for the externalities not properly captured by the current price. To reduce our reliance on gasoline to help stop global warming and reduce the wealth of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, etc. The proposed effect of the plan is that people don't pay, on the balance, more through taxes but it reduces their consumption of gasoline. This proposal has support across the political spectrum.

Nevertheless, it raises several troubling concerns.

First, approximately 1/3 of the US populations doesn't even pay a federal income tax, and many of them receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) - which is basically the government paying them. As such, you can't reduce this third of the population's income tax burden. All you can do is give them further handouts at the expense of the other 2/3rds of the population. Now, many will argue that we should help the poor more, but a welfare distribution plan is substantively different than the purpose of this gas tax. As well, this plan would lose much of if support for ths reason, especially from the right.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/207.html

Second, even if a satisfying agreement is reached regarding individuals, this still leaves the harder problem of commerce and industry. A big user of gasoline is the airline industry. By raising the tax, we will effectively price them out of the business, even if you cut their corporate taxes. There aren't any "hybrids" or alternative engines they can use to power their planes. So, you face the hard choice of destroying the airline industry or exempting them (and if you exempt them it will be practically impossible for Congress not to riddle the gas bill with enormous concessions to other interest groups effectively destroying the usefulness of the bill).

Third, the trucking industry. Most physical commercial exchanges (sales of goods) involve enormous amounts of trucking across the country, from ships and factories, to distribution centers and finally to the stores for the consumer to buy. Emblematic of the broader problems with hybrids and (many) alternatively sourced engines is their lack of power. Gasoline is still the most efficient fuel that is (and could be) widely available. It takes an enormous amount of power to truck several tons of goods, let alone all of the massive assortments of cars, steel, piping, etc (practically everything) that must be trucked from one point to another.

By increasing the costs of transportation, we vastly increase the costs to the manufacturer which are passed on to the consumer. The overall efficiency of the economy suffers as capital that would otherwise be channeled into other uses must be brought in to account for the now comparatively (prior to the tax) inefficient uses now required.

Fourth, the alternatives themselves have their own sets of problems. To create one gallon of Ethanol for example it takes 1.29 gallons of fossil fuels. Hardly a good trade-off.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008530.com

See this report for a great comparison of the various alternative fuel options. and to see how gasoline stacks up against them overall. Unfortunately, there are no silver bullets. At best, another fuel option might be marginally better than gas after trillions spent in infrastructure upgrades, retooling of factories, and technology investment. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html

I'm sure other people could come up with even more problems. However, the point remains.

There are several enormous concerns that must be thoughtfully addressed before such proposals can go anywhere. Unfortunately, the green lobby tends to ignore or assume them away. I for one will never be convinced to go along with such a plan until my concerns are adequately addressed.

After all, even if somehow did work, the best computer simulations show we can't stop global warming, we can only slow it down. Further, Al-Qaeda will hate us no matter what we do. Of course they will receive less funding, but 9-11 cost what? A few hundred grand?

Color me unimpressed.

Summer

How is it that the summer involves more work than the school year? It's a cruel irony.

Don't get me wrong, I am very thankful that I am spending my summer on a productive project. I just find it so curiously counterintuitive.

Oh well, enough griping. I do think I am learning a lot. Granted, I will probably never use what I am learning, but it isn't about that. The project is very challenging and is forcing me to dramatically improve my writing and research skills. Whether that occurs is another matter, but it won't be from lack of opportunity.

First Year Done

Well, now I am officially an up and coming second year law student. I had my last final yesterday (by far the most brutal). It feels fantastic to finally be done. I have two weeks off before I start my research assistantship. I'm going home for that time and hopefully going skydiving with one of my good friends from my college fraternity. I can't wait. Jumping out of perfectly good airplanes is the best!

If today was 1945

If we fought World War 2 with our current press and intelligensia, the reporting would probably look like this.

"May 21, 1945 — After the debacles of February and March at Iwo Jima, and now the ongoing quagmire on Okinawa, we are asked to accept recent losses that are reaching 20,000 dead brave American soldiers and yet another 50,000 wounded in these near criminally incompetent campaigns euphemistically dubbed “island hopping.”
Meanwhile, we are no closer to victory over Japan. Instead, we are hearing of secret plans of invasion of the Japanese mainland slated for 1946 or even 1947 that may well make Okinawa seem like a cake walk and cost us a million casualties and perhaps involve a half-century of occupation. The extent of the current Kamikaze threat, once written off as the work of a “bunch of dead-enders,” was totally unforeseen, even though such suicidal zealots are in the process of inflicting the worst casualties on the U.S. Navy in its entire history.
Worse still, our sources in the intelligence community speak of a billion-dollar boondoggle now underway in the American southwest. This improbable “super-weapon” (with the patently absurd name “Manhattan Project” — in the midst of a desert no less!) promises in one fell swoop to erase our mistakes and give us instant deliverance from our blunders — no concern, of course, for the thousands of innocents who would be vaporized if such a monstrous fantasy bomb were ever actually to work.
We are only now coming off even more terrible losses in Europe, after being surprised by a supposedly defeated enemy in the Ardennes where another 20,000 Americans were killed and another 60,000 wounded or missing — again, due to our continued strategic incompetence and abject intelligence failures. Macabre reports of American bazooka shells bouncing off German Tiger tanks and our Shermans ablaze like Ronson lighters have only now come to light as we plow the Belgium countryside for yet another new American war cemetery. Tragically, this is not the first, but the fourth year of this war, when victory rather than endless bloodshed has been long promised."
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson051206.html

Read the whole thing. There's lots of good stuff. Thank God our fathers and grandfathers had a press that understood rightness and moral action even despite the horrors of war. Moral confusion and political hackery by the press, while always around, seem to be something of an art form today.

We are Winning

The American press often focuses on the bombings and the other "sensational" stories from Iraq. However, Al-Qaida offers its own perspective in captured docouments. They are increasily disorganized, unable to mount any real effective resistance, and the Iraqi and US military are able to quickly and deftly change tactics to counter them. It's sad when it takes the enemy to tell us that...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_zarqawi_s_strategy

Thank God

Con Law and Property finals are over! Thank God. Those were tough. I have contracts on Wed. and Civ. Pro. on Friday. I think I see a faint glimmer of light through this dark, oppressive tunnel- that, or I'm just delusional...

USF Professor Sami Al-Arian Sentenced

Al-Arian was just sentenced today for five years in jail, though he will only serve about one more year. He was a professor at USF and a leader and organizer for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Over the past few years, he had become a cause celebre among many in the left. But now, he has been exposed. The judge in particular made some pointed statements when handing down the sentence calling Al-Arian a, "liar and master manipulator."
http://www.nysun.com/article/31973

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) however does not seem dissuaded in their support for him. It is unfortunate when the supposed "moderates" take the side of terrorists. Of course, many Muslims (in my own limited experience) are overly sympathetic to Palestinian terrorists and terror groups - even though they do decry terrorism in broad terms.

Side Note: I haven't found anything definitive. But several accounts argue that only with the passage of the Patriot Act has the government been able to assemble their case against Al-Arian. Score one for the good guys!

Summer Job

Well, I will finally be gainfully employed over the summer. I know none of you care, but I do! I was planning on going to London if nothing worked out. But I much rather do something productive over the summer.

I will be working with a professor as a research assistant. The work I will be doing sounds very interesting - even though I know very little of the topic. However, from what I understand, I will be learning quite a bit about it! So, I'm really looking forward to it.

UN, How I Love Thee

I don't know what I would do if I didn't have the UN to provide comic relief. Guess what country was just elected VP of the UN's Disarmament Commission (responsible for attempting to curb nuclear proliferation.)

Iran

Yes, Iran

Seriously, I love it.

The US gets kicked off the UN commission on human rights, and Syria or Libya (I forget which) is elected head of the commission. Oh, the wonderful irony.

And people wonder why conservatives are skeptical of the "moral authority" of the UN. Anyone who makes that argument in favor of the UN is not a serious thinker. I don't care how many academic degrees they have, or how much higher their LSAT score was. It's a complete and utter joke.

Another Take on Iran

Mark Steyn has a piece in city journal on Iran. http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_iran.html

I haven't read it, but I will comment later. Steyn is usually an insightful and provocative writer, so check out his piece.

Three Reasons Not to Bomb Iran - Yet

Great essay up on commentary magazine written by Edward Luttwak. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/luttwak0506.html

His essay is one of the best, comprehensive takes on Iran's efforts to get nuclear weapons and our choices in dealing with them. His arguments boils down to these three contentions: first, the people of Iran are our natural allies and consistently see us more positively than the rest of the Middle East; second, "we should not bomb Iran because the worst of its leaders positively want to be bombed—and are doing their level best to bring that about;" third, "the effort to build nuclear weapons started more than three decades ago, yet the regime is still years away from producing a bomb."

Luttwak covers the various political/ethnic/social divisions and problems facing Iran. He also provides many details about the Iranian program that I was not familiar with. Very fascinating article. A must read.

Another Interesting Article on Global Warming

Prof. Lindzen from MIT has an interesting and provocative article in the WSJ. He claims that scientists skeptical of global warming have been harassed, had their funding cut, and other negative consequences. He also lays waste to the claim that increasing temperatures would increase the number of storms such as hurricans. An informative article from a highly respected scholar in his field of Atmospheric Science.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Global Climate Catastrophe

We are facing a global climate catastrophe of immense proportions. Our world as we know it will cease to exist. "Meteorologists 'are almost unanimous' that catastrophic famines might result. This climate change is "widely considered inevitable." Global warming?

No, global cooling. In the mid 70s, the scientific community and the press were abuzz with prophecies of global doom because of a massive global cooling. The NYTimes, Time, Newsweek, Science, and other outlets reported extensively on this scientific consensus. What happened? Nothing, and now all these "experts" are crying about global warming.

Global warming may or may not be occurring. It's beyond the scope of this blog to delve into the specifics (although if anyone wants to challenge me on it in the school lounge I would be more than happy to oblige) My only purpose is to point out that merely 30 years ago - there was a scientific consensus on the exact opposite of what we are told today. And it turned out completely wrong! So, before we go around messing up our economy, let's please make sure we know what we are doing. Please???

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp