Reaction Mixed On The NIE Report

In regards to the recent NIE report that indicates Iran has suspended its nuclear program in 2003, it interesting to note reactions.

I have already linked to Fore Left's reaction:

...we saw one of the weirdest attacks in modern history over the eastern Syrian desert in the end of summer with Israeli jets and special forces crushing something out there. That we still don't know precisely what is itself high evidence it was something major, perhaps deal-altering. Perhaps one of the sticks in the carrot bag?

Then, we have the Islamic Republic News Agency's response:

Government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said on Wednesday that the report released by US National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) put an end to the dispute over Iranian nuclear program.

He told reporters on the sidelines of Conference of Judiciary Chiefs of the Islamic Countries that it is a confession on the part of the US administration that they wasted the time of the international community for political objectives by bringing up unfounded allegations against Iranian nuclear program.

No story like this can be complete without HateBush.Com's countless different ways to say it's all Bush's fault, and how he lied. Here's one title of one post, there are many others like it (but this one is especially funny):

White House Reveals Bush Lied: Was Told In August Iran’s Nuclear Program ‘May Be Suspended’

And now, there's John Bolton's response:

All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function.

Two of these reactions are opinions put forth by people that have no agenda, rather they are thinkers that seek to put forth a possible explanation. The other two are political propaganda pieces that have a specific agenda.

Who you choose to believe indicates whether you have the ability to put forth your own theories or merely rely on scripted material that others think for you. It may very well be that the two thinkers here are wrong, but they may not be. The point is, one can fully expect the responses from the two propaganda pieces, they are similar to most responses they put out in response to events that have deeper meaning, than what normally appears on the surface. The other two are from careful thought processes, completely devoid of a predetermined desired outcome.

There are things we may never know about why this report now contradicts what has been the conventional wisdom, concerning Iran's nuclear program. I have some thoughts, but I don't always articulate them here. I have many possible scenarios that have run through my head of late, but I will save them for another day.

For now, you can buy into these reactions or you can come up with your own. But, I caution everyone not to buy into sources that have specific objectives of steering your thoughts into a ditch that has been dug and re-dug, many times over. Analytical thinking is a healthy thing, but robotic acceptance of thoughts that are intended for mind control, is anything but.


Update:

Here is a poll indicating the percentage of Americans that think Iran has stopped nuclear program. Evidently, not a lot of people aren't buying the report.

WANTED: European Input

Rest assured that I am not on the Social Sense payroll, but my friend Mustang is looking for European opinions on immigration in Europe.

Merci

Danke

Gracias

Grazia

Dank u

Obrigado

Takk du

спасибо


Note-These thank yous are sponsored by freetranslation.com

News In Brief (And The Usual Opinionated Commentary)

Risky Romney

As Romney prepares to make a speech about his Mormon faith, there are some that think he's taking a huge gamble. Personally, I do not care about a President's faith when I cast my vote. I am not electing a pastor. I think it's a dangerous precedent for evangelicals to set. It may even partially explain the recent rise in Huckabee's numbers, especially from those that are not pleased that Romney is a Mormon. People like James Dobson seriously need to get over themselves. I am not sure about Romney either, but it isn't because he is a Mormon.


Top Five Election Mistakes, So Far

Tom Bevan has them at RCP. I am not sure I agree with the exact order Tom puts them. But by the time this campaign is over, these will seem like little things, the night is still young.


Nothing New Here

Like the heading on this item says, this is not a new thing. But Flocon is once again singing the praises of Jacques Chirac for standing up to the arrogant American empire and being right about Iraq (although the overall outcome has yet to be written). I swear, Chirac must be his Ronald Reagan. ;)


Looks Like Europeans Are Smitten By Technology

If they are not careful, they will find themselves in a similar predicament as Americans. And that would be bad. Very Bad. ;)

For The Common Bad

In the world today, there are two predominant economic schools of thought, capitalism and socialism. Both, in their purest forms, are diametrically opposed to each other. And while neither exists (in their purest forms), the argument will always exist on which is the most efficient and which truly meets the needs of the people, best.

If you missed it, John Stossel wrote a brilliant piece at Thanksgiving, detailing the failing of socialism as it applied to the pilgrims in the new world. You can read it, here.

In a follow-up to that piece, he has written a sequel that really carves out a solid argument against the ideology that many progressives see as a panacea to everything that is wrong with capitalism.

I recommend reading both essays in their entirety. But if I had to pick one part that really makes the entire idea of "for the common good" seem flawed, it would be this:

(Emphasis is mine)

I believe in sharing. But when government takes our money by force and gives it to others, that's not sharing.

Now, you may have somewhat of a problem with my emphasis here. You may ask yourself, how does the government take our money by force?

When we earn and receive a paycheck, take a look at the withholdings. Pay close attention to the section on the check stub that says, federal tax. That is the amount that the federal government has taken from us, before we even see a dime of our earnings. It's the law. And if you really want to see where the force comes in, try being an independent contractor where no tax is withheld, and don't pay the taxes on those earnings.

Let's continue (again, emphasis is mine):

And sharing can't be a basis for production -- you can't share what hasn't been produced. My point is that production and prosperity require property rights. Property rights associate effort with benefits. Where benefits are unrelated to effort, people do the least amount necessary to get by while taking the most they can get. Economists have a pithy way of summing up this truth: No one washes a rental car.

This all boils down to incentive. Without it, human beings will be human beings.

Take a good look at the experiment in New Harmony (Indiana) in the 1800s and you will see that pure socialism failed on the smallest of scales. Imagine the outcome of such measures, should they be applied on a macro level. The USSR and China are the two that quickly come to mind. Both failed miserably under socialism and both now sport free market economies, with much greater success.

Recommended Reading

It's another long day for me. But if you want something interesting to read, I have some things here you may be interested in looking at:


Interesting discussion over at Mustang's Social Sense. Take a look here.


Equally interesting is this post by AC at Fore Left.


Interesting article over at NRO, about the efficacy of Congress. You can say NRO is biased if you want, but the vast majority of Americans think this Congress is a dismal failure (albeit for different reasons).


Today's liberalism is not your daddy's brand of liberalism. You can read about it here in the LA Times.

Monday Morning Quarterback

Colts 28 - Jaguars 25

It wasn't the prettiest game, but it was enough to win.

Jacksonville, probably the biggest division rival the Colts have, is a good solid team with a hard hitting defense and an offense that likes to pound the ball on the ground. Their defense was really little match for the big plays that the Colts love to run, but the thing that kept this thing close was their ability to sustain long time-eating drives, using the run as the main weapon.

Normally, I don't gloat after wins like a lot of people do. But there are some factors here that lead me to depart from this policy, this time around.

The Jags have complained that they receive little respect in the world of professional football and to some degree, I must agree with that assessment. But the thing that hurts this team the most is their mouths. They spend more time running them in the days leading up to a match with the Colts, than actually preparing for the game. They also beat themselves by committing cheap shots against the Colts, which is something I rarely see them do against other teams.

The chip they carry against Indianapolis is two-fold.

Mike Peterson was once an Indianapolis Colt, but was not re-signed a few years back. He has carried that grudge ever since. When asked why they didn't re-sign him, Bill Polian said they only re-sign great players. Obviously that statement didn't set well with Mike.

The other facet of this animosity is Paul Spicer. He is from Indy and played for Indianapolis Northwest High School. His brother was murdered here a few years ago and to date, it has not been solved. So, being the immature being he is, he wants to transfer that bitterness toward the Colts, by running his mouth when he is town. Word has it that this time around, he stated that Peyton Manning is below average when he is pressured in the pocket. (No quarterback is as effective when there is pressure on him, but to say Manning is below average is both childish and irresponsible.)

In one sense, I can understand Spicer's anger. If my brother were murdered and the crime was yet unsolved, I might be angry too. Believe me, I feel his pain. My brother wasn't murdered, but he was killed almost 30 years ago in an accidental shooting. He would have been 45 now. So, in no way do I want to exploit any of that pain, for the purposes of this football post. But, there's a time to mourn and a time to heal. And if a person doesn't want to heal, it will affect his/her ability to function in real life.

However, playing football has nothing to do with real life. His job has nothing to do with any of this business of verbal potshots toward an opposing team's quarterback. His anger towards the Indianapolis Police Department has nothing to do with football or the Colts, which is the team he rooted for, when he was a kid. When doing his job and getting on with his life, he must learn to let go, if he is to heal properly.

I believe that Jacksonville is the best second-tier team in the NFL. Instead of harboring grudges against a team that pretty much has their number on the field, they need to look inward towards taking the next step towards greatness and reversing the results that almost always seem to haunt them, after another loss to Indy. If they do less talking in the pre-game and concentrate on winning the game, they may have a shot at greatness someday. Until then, they will be leaving Colts games with their tails tucked between their legs.

In this loss, it not only cost them the game, but has now likely cost them a shot at winning their division. That's a hefty price to pay when you are a football player, all for a few cheap verbal shots along the way.

Noose Watch: Update

Last week the Baltimore Sun brought us a story of a noose found at Baltimore fire station, which in turn inspired a certain post from yours truly. You can read the entire post, if you haven't already. But here are the highlights that are pertinent to this story:

...the person responsible may not have racist intentions......That's why it's wise to keep quiet until the whole story is better known.

Well, today the rest of the story is known.

A firefighter who reported finding a knotted rope and a threatening note with a drawing of a noose in an East Baltimore station house last month had placed the items there himself, city officials said yesterday.

The man was suspended last week for performance-related issues and will likely face additional punishment, fire officials said. Sterling Clifford, a spokesman for the Police Department and for Mayor Sheila Dixon, said the man admitted to the hoax and will not face criminal charges.

Officials identified the firefighter who they say acknowledged writing the note as Donald Maynard, a firefighter-paramedic apprentice who is black. Maynard could not be reached for comment.

So, once again, we have another hoax.

This is especially troubling because, as you may recall, Mayor Sheila Dixon used these words to describe the incident when the items were first brought to light:

In a written statement, Mayor Sheila Dixon said she was "outraged by this deplorable act of hatred and intimidation. ... Threats and racial attacks are unacceptable anywhere -- especially in a firehouse."

Now that we know what we know, where is the written statement condemning this act (in as harsh of terms as before the story was known)? Why is this man not being prosecuted? Is there no law for perpetrating a hoax such as this? Is this not as equally offensive, now that we know the perpetrator is black?

It would seem to me that if this thing is not a violation of the law, it damn sure should be. Otherwise, others that are in the hot seat for unrelated things will be tempted to do something like this again, to create a smokescreen for the purpose of hiding their own deeds. And as long as we have civic leaders that commit knee-jerk reactions to this kind of thing before the whole truth is known, there will be more of this kind of thing in the future.

Atheists And Leftists: A Comparative Look At Their Methods Of Debate

I have just watched a short debate on TV, which was presented in an interview format. The short subject was an atheist holiday display in Philadelphia.

For the first time a regional atheist group will display a holiday tree on the Chester County Courthouse lawn during the winter holidays, potentially setting a seasonal model for other communities.

County commissioners have allowed groups to display a Christmas tree and menorah on the lawn. But last year, The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, an atheist group, asked the commissioners to either let any group set up a seasonal holiday display or ban the displays entirely.

We can debate the validity of an atheist group choosing Christmas as a time to set up a display, but that's not the larger point I want to make here in this particular post. That, I believe, is a topic that would best be covered on my theology blog. And frankly, I do not care to debate it right now.

The TV debate included a Catholic priest and the director of the Freethought Society of Philadelphia, Margaret Downey. Ms. Downey was allowed to answer questions uninterrupted by anyone, to include the priest. Yet, when the questions turned to the cleric, Ms. Downey saw fit to continually interrupt him in his chance to say his piece.

This is not the only debate I have noticed this kind of rude behavior.

When engaging a leftist or watching a debate that has a leftist participating, many times he/she will refuse to allow those with opinions and views different than theirs, the opportunity to articulate them, without a myriad of interruptions. Mind you I am not calling atheists, leftists here. I am only pointing out an observation I have noticed, in that there is often a similarity of debating style.

Atheists. many times, will attempt to evangelize and proselytize every bit as much as many of the evangelical Christians they claim to despise so much. When discussing politics with a leftist, often they will claim their free speech is in danger in this country. Yet when participating in a debate with someone that disagrees with them, they will often try to filibuster the conversation and suppress the person's (with the opposing view) right to state their position.

Other things I have noted are both groups' desire to avoid answering pointed questions. I cannot count how many times I have watched (or attempted to watch) an intelligent debate between two people with one from one of these groups and another that disagrees with their view, and the leftist or atheist will not answer the question. Instead, they will reroute the conversation to a completely different topic, or take it back to the weak and unsupported claim they are trying to make, offering little or no support for how they arrived at such a conclusion.

Don't get me wrong here. There are Christians and right wingers that do the same thing. But, in my experience, it happens far more with the so called freethinkers and leftist politicos. Are they so insecure in their beliefs that they cannot allow someone that disagrees with them the chance to present an alternative to their way of thinking?

Many atheists are good people that have (for whatever reason) chosen to not believe in God or other religions' higher powers. Many do not denigrate others for their beliefs in those powers, but merely quietly go along and believe what they want, which is their right. In short, they live and let live.

Others feel the need to insult and rail against those that choose to believe in God or other higher powers, often times trying to prove that the believers' gods do not exist. They use whatever forum they can to degrade those that have chosen to believe in something, different from their own belief system. This is the same thing they accuse of evangelical Christians of doing.

The same can be said of political leftists. Instead of intelligently presenting an issue-based argument on a given topic, they often will choose to engage in rude behavior that often times include nasty and despicable ad hominem attacks on those they do not agree with. Instead of boosting their arguments with evidence and support, they spend such an inordinate amount of time trying to tear down the other person's arguments.

Personally, I do not care what anyone chooses to believe or disbelieve. I see it as their God-given right to accept or reject, whatever they want. But, I do not believe they do themselves much of a service, when they engage in the kind of behaviors I have described here in this post. It certainly won't win a lot of support from those that sit on the fence (and those are the ones they need to win support from, not the ones that already have their minds made up).

I certainly do not see it as their right to engage in nastiness and rude behavior, just to advance their arguments. If a person cannot use sound reason and judgment to persuade me to re-think my stances, nastiness and vindictive discourse will not be successful. Neither will making an ass of themselves in a public form, like Ms. Downey and many others do.

Another Blast From The Past

For 40 years, this weekend's artist has been writing songs (and singing them). A little rough at the outset of his career, he is now a household name in the music world. And he has been since the early 70s, when he took the music world by storm. From his glamour-rock days through the experimentation with new wave, one thing has always rang true: David Bowie has always stayed true to the spirit of rock and roll.

His first hit that put him on the map was a very unique folk tune, with a very spacey 70s edge. Here is that song (along with some great video), it's called Space Oddity:



One of the bigger selling albums Bowie put out in the 70s, was Aladdin Sane. Oddly enough, the big single from that release was a Stones song. But my favorite one from that LP was a real rock and roll song, called Panic In Detroit. Here is a 1997 live version, definitely worth a look:



As the 80s came, the mainstream rock scene was one of avant garde experimentation. Bowie was no different. This was especially true of his 83 album release, Let's Dance. The title song was a cross between disco and new wave, which sold quite well. But my favorite tune from that album was one that stayed solidly in the rock genre. I cannot tell you how much I really like this one. Here is my favorite song from that record, it's called Cat People (Putting Out Fire With Gasoline):



As much as I like these previous songs, I cannot do a Bowie tribute without posting the greatest Bowie song ever. It's a pensive song with a mellow tune that will always be a favorite of mine. I think it's one of the better songs ever written, by anyone. The title says it all, it's called Heroes:



Enjoy.

Wanted: Person With Or Without Knowledge

Some jobs are pretty open when it comes to the experience level and the knowledge base of the applicant. That's not so bad, if we are talking about sales of hardware, potato chips, or other such items. But we'd like to think that when we are getting information, the one putting out the information is a person that knows something about the information being put out.

If I am watching a segment with medical and health advice, I would hope that the person would be a doctor or some other healthcare professional related to the topic at hand. Can we imagine a grocery store cashier telling us all what treatment regimens work best to treat lymphoma? Better yet, how about a bartender teaching us about what lab values are critical in diagnosing cirrhosis of the liver?

Take CBS for example, they have placed an ad for an eco-beat reporter.

“CBS is expanding its coverage of the environment,” the ad reads. “We seek a talented reporter/host for Internet video broadcast. We are looking for smart, creative, hard working up and comers, who can bring great energy, creativity and a dash of humor to our coverage. A deep interest in the environment and sustainability issues will serve you well.”

So you would think such a job would require a science background or years of covering environmental news? Not exactly.

“You are wicked smart, funny, irreverent and hip, oozing enthusiasm and creative energy,” the ad reads. “This position requires strong people, reporting, story telling and writing skills. Managing tight deadlines should be second nature. Knowledge of the enviro beat is a big plus, but not a requirement.”

If you have any questions as to why CBS is dead last in the ratings, this may help you to understand it better. Credibility is the problem and it has been, since the big Memogate scandal.

I would think a person with a strong ecological background would be the first requirement. But when we see with Al Gore running the show in this global warming cult, we realize that isn't a pre-requisite. Al is a lawyer and politician by trade, yet ask any global warming cult member and they'll tell you, he is the premier expert in this field.

All that matters is, a person needs to be funny and irreverent to get the pre-determined message out. It doesn't matter that there is no consensus in the real scientific world, just be funny and outgoing. We'll tell you what to say.

Now go get 'em killer.

Knock 'em dead.