Check it out, the brackets are set and now Democrats vs. Dictators 2012 is available. You can see my brackets here. Later I will break it down for you.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
376,000,000 returns
Go to google search. Type in Iran Military News 2012, I did at 11:45 this morning and got 376,000,000 returns. Without any other way to discuss this result, simply ridiculous is the first thought to come to my mind.
The mainstreaming within the communicative media of "war talk" in regards to Iran is staggering (typing in Iran Military War News 2012 reduces the returns to 343,000,000 returns). Why are the news outlets trying to convince people that war with Iran is likely or even a positive possibility? I am having a hard time understanding this phenomenon. The population of "news" reporters in the world has access to most of the information to which I have access. Most of this information points out three things of importance.
One, Iran does not have a credible ICBM program, so even if they get nuclear devices, delivery of the devices is not easily accomplished. Two, why does Iran likely want a nuclear weapons capacity and is it likely to use such capacity offensively? The answer is Iran likely wants it to shore up their own perceived need for protection against outside powers, and that offensive use (against Israel?) is unlikely (who else lives in Israel other than Israeli Jews--the Islamic population that Iran wants to lead). Three, does Iran have a nuclear weapons program? No, Iran has a nuclear enrichment program that might, I REPEAT MIGHT, produce enough uranium of high enough quality to produce a few weapons a few years from now.
Can we talk diplomacy here? Just my two cents, but the Russians were considered ideologically fanatical and a grave threat to all of humanity. The Iranians may have some religious fanaticals in their leadership and are considered by some to be a grave threat to some of humanity. Didn't we negotiate regularly with the Russians? Ok, can we at least negotiate first (I mean seriously negotiate, not the high windbag elocution to which we have been treated for the last 10 years by all U.S. administrations including the current one) before we "war talk". Again, just my two cents, but I think the Cold War should have taught us a few things.
The mainstreaming within the communicative media of "war talk" in regards to Iran is staggering (typing in Iran Military War News 2012 reduces the returns to 343,000,000 returns). Why are the news outlets trying to convince people that war with Iran is likely or even a positive possibility? I am having a hard time understanding this phenomenon. The population of "news" reporters in the world has access to most of the information to which I have access. Most of this information points out three things of importance.
One, Iran does not have a credible ICBM program, so even if they get nuclear devices, delivery of the devices is not easily accomplished. Two, why does Iran likely want a nuclear weapons capacity and is it likely to use such capacity offensively? The answer is Iran likely wants it to shore up their own perceived need for protection against outside powers, and that offensive use (against Israel?) is unlikely (who else lives in Israel other than Israeli Jews--the Islamic population that Iran wants to lead). Three, does Iran have a nuclear weapons program? No, Iran has a nuclear enrichment program that might, I REPEAT MIGHT, produce enough uranium of high enough quality to produce a few weapons a few years from now.
Can we talk diplomacy here? Just my two cents, but the Russians were considered ideologically fanatical and a grave threat to all of humanity. The Iranians may have some religious fanaticals in their leadership and are considered by some to be a grave threat to some of humanity. Didn't we negotiate regularly with the Russians? Ok, can we at least negotiate first (I mean seriously negotiate, not the high windbag elocution to which we have been treated for the last 10 years by all U.S. administrations including the current one) before we "war talk". Again, just my two cents, but I think the Cold War should have taught us a few things.
Myanmar Elections
April 1st will see, unless scuttled by the government, open elections for the first time since 1990 in Myanmar. In 1990 the results were nullified by the government when the National League for Democracy (NLD) was the apparent winner of most parliament seats. In 2012 the government, represented by the Union for Solidarity and Development Pary (USDP) has already begun to act in ways that undermine the growth of open participatory democracy.
USDP candidates are accused of buying votes and promising infrastructure improvements to neighborhoods that vote for the USDP candidate. The government recently banned the use of public sports stadiums for political rallies by the NLD. Aung San Suu Kyi (the leader of the NLD) has complained of errors in voter lists that count some people multiple times, omit some potential voters, and in a Kennedy and Daley-esque move includes numerous dead people.
Of course, we will not get to see Jimmy Carter return to the field to monitor free and fair elections either. Just my two cents here, but maybe Jimmy Carter not being involved isn't so bad. Myanmar's President, Thein Sein, has vowed that only monitors from ASEAN might be considered. Myanmar is scheduled to be the chair of ASEAN in 2014, hmm.
Well good luck Myanmar. I hope the elections are free and fair. I hope that Europe and the U.S. dismantle economic sanctions and political sanctions soon.
USDP candidates are accused of buying votes and promising infrastructure improvements to neighborhoods that vote for the USDP candidate. The government recently banned the use of public sports stadiums for political rallies by the NLD. Aung San Suu Kyi (the leader of the NLD) has complained of errors in voter lists that count some people multiple times, omit some potential voters, and in a Kennedy and Daley-esque move includes numerous dead people.
Of course, we will not get to see Jimmy Carter return to the field to monitor free and fair elections either. Just my two cents here, but maybe Jimmy Carter not being involved isn't so bad. Myanmar's President, Thein Sein, has vowed that only monitors from ASEAN might be considered. Myanmar is scheduled to be the chair of ASEAN in 2014, hmm.
Well good luck Myanmar. I hope the elections are free and fair. I hope that Europe and the U.S. dismantle economic sanctions and political sanctions soon.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Control Groups
This is what happens when you teach research methods at 8am.
A statistician's wife had twins. He was delighted. He rang the minister who was also delighted. "Bring them to church on Sunday and we'll baptize them," said the minister. "No," replied the statistician. "Baptize one. We'll keep the other as a control."
A statistician's wife had twins. He was delighted. He rang the minister who was also delighted. "Bring them to church on Sunday and we'll baptize them," said the minister. "No," replied the statistician. "Baptize one. We'll keep the other as a control."
Targeted Killing Revisited
I gave my two cents regarding the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in a blog last year (read it here). Obviously I disagreed with the killing based on U.S. Constitutional rights and the fact that al-Awlaki was a citizen of the U.S. at the time of his killing. Now, five months after the fact, the U.S. government (meaning the Obama Administration) is going to outline for us how U.S. law empowers the U.S. government (meaning any administration) to kill U.S. citizens overseas who engage in terrorism.
So, let me see if I get this straight. If the terrorist act is committed by a citizen residing in the U.S. the law says that this individual should be arrested if possible and brought to trial. But, if the terrorist act is committed by a U.S. citizen living outside the U.S. then U.S. law does not apply the same. And, obviously, the law and sovereignty of the country where the U.S. citizen is residing also do not apply. Also slightly humorous to me in the conversation is the contention that targeted killing is not assassination. But, it is assassination if the agents of other government do the targeted killing. Interesting double standard illustrated through the Obama administration's decision making; when the Israeli's engage in targeted killing (which by the way is not illegal by their constitution or by any administrative or legal finding in Israel) the U.S. government and governments around the world wail and gnash their teeth at the impertinence of Israel, but if the U.S. government determines the killing is good to go, then hey why is anyone complaining that the U.S. Constitution just got thrown out the window. Go ahead President Obama, continue to prove that you are one of the most illiberal presidents in U.S. history.
So, let me see if I get this straight. If the terrorist act is committed by a citizen residing in the U.S. the law says that this individual should be arrested if possible and brought to trial. But, if the terrorist act is committed by a U.S. citizen living outside the U.S. then U.S. law does not apply the same. And, obviously, the law and sovereignty of the country where the U.S. citizen is residing also do not apply. Also slightly humorous to me in the conversation is the contention that targeted killing is not assassination. But, it is assassination if the agents of other government do the targeted killing. Interesting double standard illustrated through the Obama administration's decision making; when the Israeli's engage in targeted killing (which by the way is not illegal by their constitution or by any administrative or legal finding in Israel) the U.S. government and governments around the world wail and gnash their teeth at the impertinence of Israel, but if the U.S. government determines the killing is good to go, then hey why is anyone complaining that the U.S. Constitution just got thrown out the window. Go ahead President Obama, continue to prove that you are one of the most illiberal presidents in U.S. history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)