RadioApricot.org

Why is it that Israel, “which is assumed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal”[Reuters] and, yet, is not a signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, can get away with contemplating a preemptive attack on Iran (which is a signatory to the treaty) for Iran’s stated goal of working on a non-military, nuclear project?  How do Israel’s threats not count as aggression under international law?

Similarly, why are The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal both quoting Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who called for “crippling sanctions” against Iran, which “must be applied right now.”? He was quoted in both papers even though: 1) Israel is not a party to the discussions with Iran, 2) Israel has not provided any evidence that Iran is (or is capable of) building nuclear weapons, and 3) Article IV of the NPT protects all signatory’s “inalienable right…to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes…”

The only conclusion I can come up with is that in the minds of everyone writing about foreign affairs (on both the left and the right) Israel is naturally good and Iran naturally is bad.  I’m not saying that I think the inverse is true.  (It’s not; the Iranian government is quite obviously run by homicidal jackasses.)  And I’m not saying that Iran should be able to develop nuclear weapons.  (It shouldn’t–no governments should, Israel and Iran included–and the NPT, which allows for any peaceful action Iran may take, prohibits it.)

But when one country refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but is nonetheless assumed to have offensive nukes, I don’t see any reason why it should be consulted as source for possible punishments to another country which has signed the treaty, which doesn’t have nukes, and which is appearing to be enacting legal, legitimate, and peaceful nuclear policies.  This is especially true since, as The New York Times puts it, “The spokesman for the I.A.E.A. said Iran’s declared nuclear facilities were among the most closely monitored in the world after Canada and Japan,” and that “…it remains far from clear that Iran has the capacity to enrich fuel to [20%],” let alone to the 90% it would take to make a bomb.

I think it’s funny that the mainstream conservative movement, which back in 2008 appeared terrified that a Democratic administration might try to limit the 2nd Amendment, is now seemingly terrified that the same Democratic administration–with regard to Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab–has decided not to limit the 5th Amendment.

It would seem to me that if you are worried that your political opponents will use threats of death, destruction, and mayhem to limit one set of rights, you wouldn’t want to use the same threats to limit another.  It would seem…

To be fair, I think that the inverse of the conservative position (supporting trials for people like Abdul Mutallab but insisting on strict weapons bans) is an equally contradictory one held by the mainstream left.  It’s just this particular contradiction has been very loud recently, and no one seems to be calling anyone out for simultaneously holding opposing opinions.

Amendment 28

1. The rights and freedoms granted in the Constitution apply as rights only to individual, natural persons.  With regard to corporate entities these rights may be restricted or repealed by Congress, by the legislature of any state, or by any local government at any time through the normal legislative process.
2. Individual, natural persons within the United States retain all their Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms regardless of the status of these rights for corporate entities.  The rights of individuals may never be restricted or repealed, except as explicitly provided for in the Constitution.

I’m not sure if Section 2 is necessary, but I’d feel pretty dumb if I accidentally got everyone’s rights eliminated due to poor phrasing or an unexpected interpretation of the amendment.  Kind of like how Texas may have accidentally outlawed marriage, which I think is hilarious, but it’s still a lesson for anyone messing around with the law.  Also, I figured it couldn’t hurt to reestablish that our civil rights apply to everyone “within the United States” and not just to citizens.  Some people seem to have forgotten that.

Two things popped into my head when I saw that James O’Keefe–the guy responsible for filming and, apparently, heavily editing the ACORN videos last year–and three other people had been arrested for messing around with Senator Mary Landrieu’s office telephones in New Orleans.

The first was that I will be very interested to see what happens when this investigation gets going.  It’s the same thing I said when the ACORN videos came out, so it seems that this O’Keefe character just pulls stunts that require significant amounts of time to be resolved.  The accusation in the nola.com article that they had “a listening device in a car blocks from the senator’s offices,” is interesting, but seeing as how I haven’t been able to confirm it with any other newspaper, I have to call it unsubstantiated for now.

The second was simply the phrase, “That’s cute.  He’s like a little G. Gordon Liddy.”  Just my bias, I guess.

What is the difference between the Bay Area’s 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, in which 63 people died; northwestern Turkey’s 1999 İzmit earthquake, in which 17,000 people died; and southern Haiti’s 2010 earthquake, in which a quarter of a million people are feared to have died?  The answer is building codes.

In the US building codes exist, and they’re enforced.  In Turkey they exist–kind of–but a few bucks in the right hands can make them go away pretty quickly.  In Haiti there are no building codes whatsoever.”

If you’re anything like me, you want to help out the people in Haiti, but–thinking back to the political situation there prior to the earthquake–you’re worried that your money will either go to a fly-by-night scam or to fund soldiers “clearing streets…bringing law and order” rather than to the food, water, or doctors you had expected.

Well, I found this list of charities from the American Institute of Philanthropy.  They all seem like worthy places to donate your money that spend little on administrative costs and won’t likely pay to help send down troops.  I’ll be picking a group off this list.