Iran Sanctions - Irrational And Immoral

I don't expect the new sanctions to accomplish anything good. Even if Iranians were not a proud people and Ahmadinejad not a raving fanatic, still sanctions would be a poor strategy.

Economic sanctions have become a bulwark of United States foreign policy. Some estimate that about 200 nations - and almost half the population of the world - are currently under economic sanction by the USA.

Do economic sanctions work? In other words, do they achieve the stated objectives? That is hard to quantify. Even when the stated objectives take place and economic sanctions are already in place, it does not mean that the two events are causally connected. But the concurrence of these two events is rare. It has happened in only 20-25% of the cases.

What we do know about sanctions is that they tend to hurt not only the ordinary people of the targeted nation but also the ordinary people of the sanctioning nation. About the only people that sanctions rarely inconvenience are the politicians in both nations. Both sets of politicians generally make quick and easy capital out of sanctions.

Israeli Attack On Aid Flotilla

Israel's unbalanced action is yet another painful reminder of the defective notions of "national sovereignty" and "united nations". Such fictions inexorably lead us toward another global war. World government is the only solution.

Oil Spill Measures - Too Little, Too Late

Every step of the way so far, it seems like those responsible and those in a position to do something have understated the problem and minimized their response. BP - just business as usual. Obama - tall talk with no connection to his actions or lack thereof. And Al Gore - Al who?

Obama Report Card

Unlike most new presidents, Obama seems to be doing just as poorly on the international front as he is on the domestic front. Oslo (Nobel Prize) and Copenhagen (Environment Conference) were both disastrous in terms of public relations, if nothing else. On the home front, the health care bill seems to be mired again, unemployment is increasing, prices are rising, terrorism - or allegation of terrorism - is once again a daily occurrence, and ordinary civil liberties are set to
erode further.

Instead of Barack Obama, we might as well call him Bush Obama. That's "Bush" on two counts - historical and semantic.

First, Obama's key economic and military advisers and hence his policies in those areas are little different from that of his predecessor, George Walker Bush. And, though Obama speaks more coherently than his predecessor, the content of his speeches is comparably inane and his conduct with others is comparably tactless.

Second, Obama's performance is indeed bush, that is, "falling below acceptable standards" and "unprofessional". Little wonder that the majority of Americans now disapprove of their president's performance.

At the rate with which Obama's approval ratings have been sinking, he is soon likely to make Bush look good. In that case, I may have to find a new moniker for the man.

Nobel Peace Prize?

Thirty-five years ago, I wrote an article about the political nature of the Nobel prize selection process. But over the years - with all the questionable choices that were made - none struck me as so thoroughly undeserved as Barack Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize. What has he done? Sent more troops to Afghanistan?

Obama's acceptance speech spoke more of war than peace. Obama described himself as a Commander In Chief, engaged in two wars, who, "like any head of state, reserve[s] the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend [his] nation." To soften that saber-rattling remark, his only concession was a platitude: "Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do and isolates and weakens those who don't."

An honest man would have refused the Nobel Prize as undeserved. Had he done so, I would have thought higher of Obama. Today, he just looks like a pompous hypocrite, rather a polished satan. "Great humility"... I think not.

Roman Polanski - Exposing the Hollowness of American Ethics

When it comes to ethics, are the rules not common to all? Or is there one set of conduct rules for celebrities and another set of conduct rules for everyone else?

With few exceptions, Americans seem to be universally appalled when a Catholic priest abuses children. But when the same abuse is committed by a celebrity, many Americans would turn a blind eye. Yes, the priest's hypocrisy does have a compounding effect. But that is not a sufficient explanation for the double standard. The misuse of power or influence to sexually abuse children is more appalling than any priestly hypocrisy.

Michael Jackson or Roman Polanski - child abuse is child abuse. Regardless of any artistic skill, there is no excuse for drugging and molesting a thirteen-year-old.

Chavez=Ahmadinejad?

According to Hugo Chavez, currently in Iran:

Tehran and Caracas should help revolutionary nations through further expansion and consolidation of their ties.

Everyone knows that Hugo likes to portray himself as a revolutionary. And, as Hugo is a revolutionary, therefore Venezuela is a revolutionary nation. If Hugo says that Iran is also a revolutionary nation, then presumably he considers Mahmoud to be a revolutionary like himself. The question is: Does anyone else in the world define revolutionary the same way as Hugo?