There is a serious debate going on in the United States over whether or not Iran is trying to develop a nuclear device and whether or not we should use force to prevent them from doing so (really it often seems like the debate is over whether we should bomb Iran a la Libya or proceed with a full scale land invasion). This is a serious debate, and people will argue on one side or the other (when we catch Ahmadinijad and Khameini do we stage trials and THEN execute or do we let the rebels torture them first), but from here on out the debate over what to do with Iran and the are-they-or-arent-they tease is going to be irrelevant to this entry. What I don't understand, and yes, I am being completely serious, is why we care whether or not Iran develops a nuclear device.
I mean, for fuck's sake, Pakistan has nuclear weapons (plural). What does it matter if Iran has one little old weapon of mass destruction?
Okay, that was reductive and a little bit misleading. No country would stop at creating a single nuclear weapon. The better question would be how is it that we allow a country full of people who cannot stand the United States, that engages in all kinds of belligerent acts with its (also nuclear capable) neighbor, and that is constantly teetering on the edge of collapse to have an ever-expanding arsenal of over one hundred nuclear weapons? I'm not suggesting an invasion of Pakistan, but I do believe the very real threat of a Pakistani nuclear device puts the Iran situation in perspective.
But the problem with the rhetoric that inevitably surrounds this debate (even progressives seem to start any opinion on the matter with "if Iran got a bomb it would the single worst thing that ever happened in the history of the world BUT") is that it actually takes a fair amount of backwards, unsupported logic to suggest that it would be a BAD thing if Iran had a nuclear weapon.
If this debate ever happened in the news (it hasn't) and the opinion that it wouldn't be a bad thing were expressed (it wouldn't) the other side would sit with a wide open mouth. "Of course it would be bad," they would say as if it was self evident, "Iran would use a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel!" This is a familiar argument to anyone who watches or reads the news, and somehow it has turned from theory into law in spite of the fact that Iran hasn't started a war with anyone since the Russo Persian war of 1826 (which itself was really just a continuation of a war Russia had started, but now we're nitpicking). Iran has announced no intentions to attack Israel, ever (the "wiped off the map" statement has been so thoroughly debunked that it requires some serious mental gymnastics to take seriously), and who can blame them? Israel has a state of the art army, one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, and, oh yeah, a veritable (although not verifiable) FUCK TON of nuclear weapons.
And a thirty year history of bombing and or invading the shit out of any country in the region that doesn't do what it wants. And a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction in these invasions. All of this suggests that if Iran were to use a nuclear device against Israel (with or without provocation), there would be no more Iran within a few days.
So to recap, there is one country that essentially can do whatever it wants (excuse me, feels necessary for its survival) in the middle east because it has nuclear weapons, and because of that ability has been able to turn the southern portion of a neighboring country into a smoldering pile of rubble and starve another country (excuse me, occupied territory) to the precipice of death. There is a term, "nuclear deterrent," that probably somehow applies here.
NEXT TIME WE'LL PONDER WHY WE CARE ABOUT "SELLING OUT"
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
...About The 2012 Presidential Election
You've undoubtedly heard some variation of this statement: "If [Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Rick Santorum, Cookie Monster] wins the [general election, Republican primary, Voice] then [the world will end, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, my taxes will go up]!!" Of course, anyone who gets worked up about the 2012 election is deluding themselves about whether or not these things matter (get with the program, the world is going to end before the year's out anyway) and yet it seems as though a number of people in the news media seem to think that this ritual is an important part of our democracy.
Which brings us to the central question at the top of this blog, and which I'll be asking about a new topic every few days. Why do (or rather should) WE, ordinary people, care? Granted, the question is facetious in this case, although it won't always be. We don't care about the 2012 presidential election. Maybe we should; in theory it is an opportunity to select the person running our country. In reality, however, it has a hilarious amount in common with the recent election in Russia that reelected Vladimir Putin and perhaps even more in common with the 2009 election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.
Like in Iran, voters are given the opportunity to choose between candidates that have been long predetermined by forces that they have absolutely no control over (in our case a small cabal of business interests, in Iran's an even smaller cabal of religious leaders). But wait, you suggest, if this were true we would have no primary system in which voters in the two different parties can select the candidate they want to represent them in the election. There is no such preliminary participation in Iran or Russia. The fact is, if these candidates had not been hand picked prior to their running, you would have heard from folks like Buddy Roemer or Gary Johnson, both successful politicians (Roemer is the former governor of Louisiana and Johnson the former governor of New Mexico) who were barred from debates due to views that were clearly anathema to various business and governmental interests (Roemer ran on a platform of strict campaign finance reform and Johnson supports the decriminalize ton of drugs and an isolationist foreign policy).
Obviously Johnson has a fair amount in common with Ron Paul, another candidate in the primary who has no prayer of winning due to a lack of support from anything other than actual voters. Coverage of Paul in the media, however, treats him as a sideshow in spite of the fact that he received more votes than Gingrich in almost every Super Tuesday contest.
But none of that even begins to touch on why this election is a waste of time. Our current president, the great liberal savior of the most free country in the world, who ran in 2008 on a platform to soften our government's stances on immigration and marijuana, has since deported more people in the last four years than Bush did in eight and begun prosecuting medical dispensaries that follow state laws to the letter. He has embraced and accelerated the erosions of civil liberties and doctrine of executive power that Bush began after 9/11. He has failed to prosecute any executives (or non-executives, for that matter) at banks that clearly committed documented fraud in the run up and aftermath to the biggest financial disaster since the great depression.
So go ahead, vote for Obama because you're afraid the other guy will take away the right to choose (never mind that at least three different Republican administrations have failed to overturn Roe v. Wade, possibly because it would be POLITICAL POISON). Or vote for Mitt Romney because... Well, to be honest Mitt Romney is considerably less likable than Barack Obama, and their policies are virtually identical (remember the health care bill that Republicans hated so much? It's concepts were introduced in a law drafted by a certain Republican governor in a blue state) so maybe you should just vote for Obama.
But I have a hard time believing that any of the others would do anything different, because anyone with an original idea has already been weeded out by the process.
NEXT TIME WE'LL PONDER WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT AN ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEVICE
Which brings us to the central question at the top of this blog, and which I'll be asking about a new topic every few days. Why do (or rather should) WE, ordinary people, care? Granted, the question is facetious in this case, although it won't always be. We don't care about the 2012 presidential election. Maybe we should; in theory it is an opportunity to select the person running our country. In reality, however, it has a hilarious amount in common with the recent election in Russia that reelected Vladimir Putin and perhaps even more in common with the 2009 election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.
Like in Iran, voters are given the opportunity to choose between candidates that have been long predetermined by forces that they have absolutely no control over (in our case a small cabal of business interests, in Iran's an even smaller cabal of religious leaders). But wait, you suggest, if this were true we would have no primary system in which voters in the two different parties can select the candidate they want to represent them in the election. There is no such preliminary participation in Iran or Russia. The fact is, if these candidates had not been hand picked prior to their running, you would have heard from folks like Buddy Roemer or Gary Johnson, both successful politicians (Roemer is the former governor of Louisiana and Johnson the former governor of New Mexico) who were barred from debates due to views that were clearly anathema to various business and governmental interests (Roemer ran on a platform of strict campaign finance reform and Johnson supports the decriminalize ton of drugs and an isolationist foreign policy).
Obviously Johnson has a fair amount in common with Ron Paul, another candidate in the primary who has no prayer of winning due to a lack of support from anything other than actual voters. Coverage of Paul in the media, however, treats him as a sideshow in spite of the fact that he received more votes than Gingrich in almost every Super Tuesday contest.
But none of that even begins to touch on why this election is a waste of time. Our current president, the great liberal savior of the most free country in the world, who ran in 2008 on a platform to soften our government's stances on immigration and marijuana, has since deported more people in the last four years than Bush did in eight and begun prosecuting medical dispensaries that follow state laws to the letter. He has embraced and accelerated the erosions of civil liberties and doctrine of executive power that Bush began after 9/11. He has failed to prosecute any executives (or non-executives, for that matter) at banks that clearly committed documented fraud in the run up and aftermath to the biggest financial disaster since the great depression.
So go ahead, vote for Obama because you're afraid the other guy will take away the right to choose (never mind that at least three different Republican administrations have failed to overturn Roe v. Wade, possibly because it would be POLITICAL POISON). Or vote for Mitt Romney because... Well, to be honest Mitt Romney is considerably less likable than Barack Obama, and their policies are virtually identical (remember the health care bill that Republicans hated so much? It's concepts were introduced in a law drafted by a certain Republican governor in a blue state) so maybe you should just vote for Obama.
But I have a hard time believing that any of the others would do anything different, because anyone with an original idea has already been weeded out by the process.
NEXT TIME WE'LL PONDER WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT AN ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEVICE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)