July 30, 2015
— Open Blogger
- US Health Spending Growth Increased
- Is Corporate America Letting America Down
- What Did You Idiots Think Would Happen?
- I'm Starting To Think That Sanders Can Win
- Hardly Any Mention Of Due Process At Senate Hearing On Campus Sexual Assault
- Alan Greenspan Not To Excited About Government Spending (video)
- Japan Creates Death Star Laser
- Will Dana, Rolling Stone's Managing Editor, To Depart
- Will The Media Cover Their Sham Marriage And Bill's Continued Adultery?
- 10 Important Developments On The Planned Parenthood Scandal
— andy Dave in Texas has a nice Storified tweet analysis of the sham that is Planned Parenthood's non-abortion revenue from the taxpayers.
July 29, 2015
— Maetenloch more...
Albert Bierstadt, "Sunrise on Mount Tacoma" (n.d.)
— rdbrewer This is a follow-up to my computer post the other day. I received an email from fellow Moron "TheCoat" that was wonderfully informative, and I asked him if I could share it. He said okay, but he was worried about the curse words. I told him to think about that for a second: not a problem.
So yea, for many years now the most annoying malware has been software that masquerades as anti-virus/anti-malware software.
There are three general types of malware:
1.) Advertisement malware, which generally seeks to hijack your web browser. Basically it tends to load webpages you go to through their website, adding advertisements to each webpage you load. The key initial indicator that youve contracted something is when your browser homepage suddenly changes on you. To make matters worse they generally send you adds from less than reputable add services. Many sites use something like google adds, they put a google applet on their website that loads up adds out of a database when a visitor hits the site, and they get a small bit of revenue for each hit. Malware like this loads adds from someone else hence the creator/distributors financial incentive to do this. They endeavor to get their crap on as many systems as possible to cash in on advertisements, but these come from sources that are less than secure in who creates adds for them, and the content of said adds. Often times this means that the adds that get loaded have embedded exploit attempts, to load you guessed it even more of this add crap. These exploits and pieces of software tend to be created by really shitty programmers, which means not only are they malicious but they tend to be buggy and do things that you shouldnt be doing to a system in an attempt to hide themselves.
2.) What you seem to have gotten. Fake malware/spyware/virus protection and removal. These tend to be easier to track down and source simply because they give you a website to go buy their product, and often times their other product is whats screwing up your system. The quickest way to tell youve gotten this tends to be a popup for security software you never loaded. Often times in an effort to hide its self from simple removal, and to change your system and cause problems, even if you do pay them they dont get your system restored to the right state, because their programing is again done by crappy coders who dont care.
3.) The latest is the cryptolocker series. What this little bag of hell does is scan your drives looking for any document types and then encrypts them. When its done it gives you instructions on how to go to their website pay them money and theyll give you the key to unencrypt your files. Unlike the prior two, these are reputable scoundrels. If you pay them they will indeed give you the key and you can fully recover, however this funds them to keep spreading their ransomeware. I honestly think this one is based in an organized criminal racket. They make no bones about the fact that they are the ones screwing you over but if you pay them they want to make good because that encourages others to do so.
Im a developer for a software company, and we tend to see quite a bit of this stuff when we get calls about something with our software not working. Our support gets hooked up only to find that our software is having problems because they have infections of this nature messing things up. Although its technically not our problem we often times help people get this crap cleaned up, however in some cases the infections are so bad we have them call in someone local simply because to clean it up you either have to reload the system or do the clean ups outside the operating system, making it impossible for us to clean it up remotely. Sometimes people just get infected due to bad luck, more often we see repeated infections at the same clients usually because they allow their employees to go to social and gaming sites at work, or whatever else they feel like. In one instance I got a maintenance guy fired because I tracked down the source of their infections and was able to piece together enough info to show them that the porn sites their computer was visiting late at night were the source of infection this in an accounting office. They setup a sting and caught the guy sneaking in and surfing porn while he was supposed to be working.
Some of the things Ive seen in the past few years make me think I really specialized in the wrong area. Im no novice when it comes to computer and network security. I run my own firewalls and intrusion detection systems at home and do penetration testing on my home as well as our corporate network, and yet these last few years Ive done more security related stuff to my home network out of fear than out of general playing around. Many years ago in the age of dialup I ran a full computer based firewall and dialup server for my home network because I could . Now I run things like an intrusion detection system on the edge of my network because I feel I need the security. There has been a ton of security gains made since the early days of the internet revolution, however this has just made the crooks get smarter and more insidious. What bothers me is if I had steered less toward business software development and more toward network security which I pursued as more of a hobby Id be in a better position to do what I really get a kick out of doing, and that is taking the fight to these assholes, not just cleaning up their messes. Eh its probably a good thing though, as much of what Id like to do to them and their criminal enterprises would probably be legally grey at best even if its unquestionably morally white.
No, everyone hates computer pirates. Anything short of taking a Ghurka kukri knife to them is fine with me.
Thanks, "TheCoat," and thanks again to all others who helped.
— Ace I missed this when it was floated earlier. But it seems interesting, and people are talking about it again.
It's not so much that it's proposed that Germany exit the Euro-- they'd continue to have the Euro as a currency, if I understand this right.
It's that they would re-introduce the hard-currency Deutschmark, to compete with the Euro; their relative values would fluctuate against each other.
Germany (and the hard-money northern/central European states) would have what they want -- a stable, hard currency which is not devalued due to Mediterranean spending habits, and the rest of Europe would get the falling-in-value New Lira that it really seems to want.
A better, bolder and, until now, almost inconceivable solution [to the Greece crisis] is for Germany to reintroduce the mark, which would cause the euro to immediately decline in value. Such a devaluation would give troubled economies, especially those of Greece, Italy and Spain, the financial flexibility they need to stabilize themselves.
Although repeated currency devaluations are not the path to prosperity, a weaker euro would give a boost in competitiveness to all members of the monetary union, including France and the Netherlands, which is why they might very well choose to remain in it even if Germany were to gradually leave. A resurgence of manufacturing would also allow the vast unemployment rolls of Spain, Portugal, Greece and other countries to begin to decline. The tremendous loss of human capital and human dignity we are witnessing would ease.
Unlike Greece -- whose exit from the euro would require either a redenomination or outright repudiation of its euro-denominated debts (with potentially catastrophic financial consequences) -- Germany would be able to reintroduce the mark without altering the form of any current asset, liability or contract. For example, euros deposited in German banks would remain euro-denominated. So would outstanding German sovereign and corporate debt now denominated in euros.
It's not all upside -- German industry would be hurt, due to (if I understand this) their hard-currency Deutschmarks making their products more expensive.
Meanwhile, German economics experts say that countries unable to get their finances in order should be invited to exit the Euro.
Countries should be able to exit the euro as a "last resort" if they are unable to manage their debts, the German government's independent economic advisers say, in a sign of Berlin's hardening attitude towards propping up fellow members of the single currency....
"A permanently unco-operative member state should not be able to threaten the existence of the euro," the economists said in a special report, published on Tuesday, calling for countries to exit the eurozone if it is necessary as an "utterly last resort".
The panel is made up of five so-called "wise men" of German economics, so this is fairly influential suggestion.
— Ace At Hot Air.
The key bit from WKYC:
According to the report, Razo, 35, admitted being in the country illegally. However, U.S. Border Patrol officials declined to take custody of Razo, the report shows.
— Ace No government money-- the project is being funded by Russian billionaire Yuri Milner.
Well, I guess that's a lot of Russian government money siphoned off, probably. But none of your money.
The project will just listen, not send out signals. Because, no seriously, you cannot simply assume these will be peaceful, Reeces Pieces eating ETs.
Hawking famously revealed his worry that any aliens advanced enough to contact earth would be "looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they could reach" during a 2010 episode of the miniseries Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking.
And he clearly hasnt changed his mind completely. "If you look at history, contact between humans and less intelligent organisms have often been disastrous from their point of view, and encounters between civilizations with advanced versus primitive technologies have gone badly for the less advanced," he told reporters at the Breakthrough announcement. "A civilization reading one of our messages could be billions of years ahead of us. If so, they will be vastly more powerful, and may not see us as any more valuable than we see bacteria."
The project will undertake to scan the million stars closest to us.
— Ace Via @rdbrewer4 in the sidebar, she's on to something here.
The whole interview is worth reading, but I'll just excerpt the zestiest bits.
You're an atheist, and yet I dont ever see you sneer at religion in the way that the very aggressive atheist class right now often will. What do you make of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the religion critics who seem not to have respect for religions for faith?
I regard them as adolescents. I say in the introduction to my last book, "Glittering Images", that "Sneering at religion is juvenile, symptomatic of a stunted imagination." It exposes a state of perpetual adolescence that has something to do with their parents-- they're still sneering at dad in some way....
Im speaking here as an atheist. I dont believe there is a God, but I respect every religion deeply. All the great world religions contain a complex system of beliefs regarding the nature of the universe and human life that is far more profound than anything that liberalism has produced. We have a whole generation of young people who are clinging to politics and to politicized visions of sexuality for their belief system. They see nothing but politics, but politics is tiny....
But this sneering thing! I despise snark. Snark is a disease that started with David Letterman and jumped to Jon Stewart and has proliferated since. I think it's horrible for young people! And this kind of snark atheismlet's just invent that term right nowis stupid, and people who act like that are stupid....
I think Stewarts show demonstrated the decline and vacuity of contemporary comedy. I cannot stand that smug, snarky, superior tone. I hated the fact that young people were getting their news through that filter of sophomoric snark.....
As for his influence, if he helped produce the hackneyed polarization of moral liberals versus evil conservatives, then hes partly at fault for the political stalemate in the United States....
The resistance of liberals in the media to new ideas was enormous. Liberals think of themselves as very open-minded, but thats simply not true! Liberalism has sadly become a knee-jerk ideology, with people barricaded in their comfortable little cells. They think that their views are the only rational ones, and everyone else is not only evil but financed by the Koch brothers. Its so simplistic!
Now let me give you a recent example of the persisting insularity of liberal thought in the media. When the first secret Planned Parenthood video was released in mid-July, anyone who looks only at liberal media was kept totally in the dark about it, even after the second video was released. But the videos were being run nonstop all over conservative talk shows on radio and television. It was a huge and disturbing story, but there was total silence in the liberal media. That kind of censorship was shockingly unprofessional.
She argues for the liberal view of information, which is to say, we should have that information, whether it helps the right or left, and we should not suppress it, whether it helps the right or left.
That latter idea -- suppressing information based upon what politics the information might help or hurt -- is of course as illiberal and authoritarian an idea as you can have.
Paglia has an interesting mind, despite her incurable leftwing political tendencies, and interesting minds despise the make-the-world-simple-to-understand-by-censoring-any-unpleasant-or-politically-troublesome-information world we live in.
Whether the Planned Parenthood videos help or hurt the abortion lobby is quite beyond any possibly-legitimate point. It is information, and human beings, possessed of reason and moral intuitions, ought to have this information, so that they can make judgments about it.
Otherwise, we are simply cattle in one of Temple Grandin's slaughterhouses, in which the cows are led through a serpentine course which prevents them from ever seeing what's up ahead, what's happened to the cows further up in the queue.
That's fine for cows. The slaughterhouses are intended for humane treatment -- of animals.
Humans should not be subject to the "humane treatment" of a media-enforced serpentine ramp. We should know-- we should see -- what's happening to the other humans.
— Gabriel Malor We've been over this. It's weird how people get super-attached to a slur they just heard for the first time last week. Yesterday, in response to the whitewashing of the word "cuckservative" by the website abusing the good name of Andrew Breitbart, I tweeted about the racist origins and usage of the term "cuck."
In short, "cuck," a derivative of "cuckold," is a noun used by white supremacists to refer to whites who invite the destruction of the white race by tolerating other races, which they view as weak whites inviting the other races to rape their wives, steal their homes/schools/society/etc. People saw white supremacists who were enthused by Donald Trump's Mexican rape statement yelling "cuckservative" at the GOP leadership and others who condemned Trump.
Unfortunately, many of these folks who saw the slur being slung did not realize the term's racist origin or meaning. They just saw one group of people yelling a new word they'd never seen before at another group of people they already hate. So they started using the term, most of them without knowing where it came from. Now that they know, however, they want to keep using it.
The responses to my tweets came in two general categories: (1) well-meaning people who said that they didn't realize and yeah that's bad; and (2) people who did this:
The general response to my tweets about "cuckservative" have not changed my mind about its use. pic.twitter.com/9gXYKZzhd9— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) July 28, 2015
My experience was by no means unique. Today, Erick Erickson discusses the racist origins and usage of the foul term and provides some further examples of the sort of people who use it.
The other day I was attacked as a cuckservative and the proof that I was one is that I fill-in for Rush Limbaugh. The proof that Rush is a cuckservative is that, according to the person with the confederate flag for his twitter picture, Rush had hired outside his tribe for his call screener. Yes, Bo Snerdley is black. Seriously, that was the argument.
The Breitbart piece defending the word suggested it came from the bowels of the internet, but if you look at its first usages beyond 4chan, what do you get?
Erickson takes a dive into the bowels of the internet. It's not pretty, but you should read it.
The tumult over the term has made its way into the legacy media, because of course it has. How could the media resist a story about people on the right consciously giving an assist to white supremacists?
Updated: Eh, I'm not sure why it's not embedding those tweets. Replaced them with pics.
— Ace He probably could, actually.
"I actually think Im pretty good president," he said today in a speech before the African Union in Ethiopia. "I think if I ran, I could win. But I can't."
Even though he's confident in his re-election abilities, Obama said he's more interested in life after the presidency.
"I'll be honest with you, I'm looking forward to life after being president. I won't have such a big security detail all the time," he said. "It means I can go take a walk, I can spend time with my family, I can find other ways to serve, I can visit Africa more often."
And watch Sports Center, and enjoy fine dining with Interesting Italians, and get shined on by Sir Elton John, and watch Premium Cable Dramas, and all the things we know he actually prefers doing.
— DrewM Congressman Mark Meadows is apparently a subscriber to the "Animal House School Of Politics"....."I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!"
And he's just the man for the job.
Meadows said he introduced the resolution to spark a "discussion" about how leaders are running the House and did not intend to force a vote on removing Boehner.
Its really more about trying to have a conversation on making this place work, where everybodys voice matters, where theres not a punitive culture, Meadows said.
His resolution argues that Boehner has been "bypassing the majority" through centralized decisionmaking and that he has "caused the power of Congress to atrophy." The motion says Boehner punishes members who "vote according to their conscience," limits amendments on the House floor and doesn't allow enough time for lawmakers to review legislation before votes.
All reasonable points but this will lead to exactly nothing happening.
The resolution will be shuffled off to the Rules Committee where Boehner loyalists will do....nothing about it. Well, they might shake their heads and laugh a bit but basically nothing.
Meadows could get a majority of the House to sign a discharge petition to bring it to the floor but that's not happening. Sure a handful of Republicans are annoyed at Boehner but most aren't. And do you think the Democrats would support removing him? Of course not. He's the best deal they are going to get as Speaker from the GOP. Hell, Pelosi would fight harder for him than any Republican.
Conservatives aren't serious abut getting rid of Boehner. If they were they would have organized behind a candidate in January and made a real run at him. A handful of people voting for nonsense names like Rand Paul and Alan West isn't a serious effort.
In other futile GOP gesture news....
The Senate spent all weekend telling conservatives to go to hell over the highway bill, Iran, Planned Parenthood and the Ex-Im Bank. Well, they are now going to cave and accept the House's short term patch, which doesn't include saving the Ex-Im. It was pretty clear all along that the House was never going to take up the Senate's bill but McConnell put everyone through the dog and pony show anyway.
Next time Team GOP tells you to stop attacking them and focus on Democrats, remind them of this bit of needless blood shedding.
The only possible good to come from the Senate passing it's highway bill and then ditching it in favor of the House's version is that we *may* have seen the last of the Ex-Im from the Senate.
Personally I have my doubts. Sure McConnell claims he's personally against it but it did get 64 votes in the Senate. If members want to keep offering it, well that's the Senate. What I object to is McConnell giving it priority status over all other amendments. If supporters want to offer it again ok but it can't be the only amendment allowed while conservative amendments are locked out.
— Ace Just a word on why I've been away: Once again, things have hit a stage in the unending lawsuits requiring my attention. These come occasionally; you might remember another not-fun-time-away-from-the-blog last February and March.
I will post here and there, but once again I am forced to work a second job and not do my actual job.
— DrewM First, sorry about my audio on yesterday's interview with Noah Pollak (If you missed it, it's all about the Iran deal. Listen here.). Not sure what happened. Today's sounds fine so no excuse for you there.
Dan Holler (@danholler) is the Director of Communications at Heritage Action where he does a great job of keeping track of the ins and outs of policy and politics from a conservative perspective.
You can listen to the interview (which is under 25 minutes) here.
We spoke late yesterday afternoon about a number of things including:
This weekend's clown show in the Senate where Mitch McConnell told conservatives where they could stuff it.
Why the battle to end the relatively small and obscure Export-Import Bank is so important for anyone who wants to shrink the size and scope of government. Fun fact: The law requires the bank to be closing up shop but in typical Obama fashion the head of the bank has said, nah.
We also discussed the first 7 months of the GOP Congress and the many ways and reasons it's been such a dumpster fire.
Dan tries to convince me that the GOP is salvagable without burning it down. I felt a little twinge of something in my cold, black hear. It might have been....optimism. But then it unlike any legislation conservatives support, it passed. You might have better luck.
To give you some fodder for discussion while you're listening (and hey, tell your friends!) Tim Carney writes today about something Dan touches on in the interview...Mitch McConnell's flawed vision.
Next fall, when Hillary Clinton and her proxies in the media point to government shutdowns to argue that Republicans aren't mature enough be left in charge, McConnell wants to point to two legislative years full of accomplishments. Already, he boasts of passing a budget (something Harry Reid basically never did), an update of No Child Left Behind, Trade Promotion Authority and a permanent "doc fix."
From a simply political perspective, there are reasons to question McConnell's strategy. The electorate complains about dysfunctional Congress, but are they really going to reward a Congress that passes small-fry bills that most regular people will never hear about?
Then there's the policy strategy: Can you possibly set the stage for an agenda of shrinking government by passing a bunch of bills that mostly increase government restarting an expired subsidy agency, increasing Medicare spending and increasing federal spending and revenue through a highway bill?
My argument is, no. If you don't make the case when you have the power (even if Obama vetoes everything), you can't sell people on the idea that if you give them more power you will use to do the exact opposite of what you spent 2 years doing. The lesson the GOP will learn is cutting deals with Harry Reid and Patty Murray comes with no cost from the right and in fact they will be rewarded for it.
Does anyone, other than McConnell and Boehner, think that if you keep handing the Democrats all these "compromise" bills (aka, government expanding laws) they will suddenly become more pliable if Jeb! is in the White House? Of course not. They will double down on their demands and obstruction. Then the argument will be, "well, we have to cut a deal with the big government types because the mid-terms. We have to show we can govern after all."
Either you make the case for what you want to do with to the public and let the chips fall where they may or you just simply accept that the job of both parties is to manage the growth of the government in a way that isn't to shocking to low information voters. If it's the latter, the GOP serves no real purpose other than as the right wing of the Democrat party.
Did I mention that the tinge of optimism from Dan didn't last long?
Listen for yourself. Maybe it'll work better for you.
Thanks to our own Andy for the technical support in getting these interviews up online.
— Open Blogger
- The Revenge Of The Radical Middle
- The Insidious Political Powers Of Minimum Wage Laws
- Toleration Is Postmodern-Speak For Bigotry
- The Word 'American' Is Now Problematic
- She Will Be The Worst Candidate To Ever Win The Presidency
- What's Happening In States That Are Paying Attention Is Reassuring
- Fox News Lowers Threshold For Debate Participation
- Another Coup Attempt Against Boehner?
- Does Feminism Make Women Ugly
- A Year In Jail For Running Over A Family Of Ducks With A Lawnmower
— andy Happy hump day, people of the Internets.
July 28, 2015
Now that unobtainium is due to be on store shelves for Christmas, the impossible is set to become commonplace.
Like all radical egalitarian philosophies, feminism appeals to the ambitious malcontent who, feeling herself somehow disadvantaged by the status quo, dreams of a utopia in which women will be treated according to a "fair" standard, which is to say, a standard that will make her Queen Bee of the hive. A woman who declares that she is "oppressed" by "male supremacy" usually means nothing more than this: Men don't treat her the way she would like to be treated, and so she wants to destroy civilization as we know it, and institute a gynocracy in which women will be empowered to inflict humiliating punishment on men. Whatever else feminism may be, it is always in large measure a sadistic revenge fantasy whose strongest appeal is to women of unlimited cruelty. If any man doesn't like her "feminist perspective," his disagreement proves he's a "whiny piss baby," and she will celebrate by drinking your tears.
She hates you. She really, really hates you.-- Robert Stacy McCain
Vox has written an insightful explainer on why buying a certain brand of shoe doesn't necessarily make you a good person. The piece also, perhaps unintentionally, explains a lot about the young liberal hipsters who read Vox.
The gist of the explainer is as follows: The shoe company TOMS is popular among a certain crowd of enlightened trendsetters (Vox readers, Daily Show watchers, Obama voters, etc). One reason is because TOMS offers more than just a trendy pair of shoes, it also, critically, provides customers with wearable proof that they care about poor people. That's because whenever someone buys a pair of TOMS shoes, the company donates a pair of shoes to a child in a poor country. Vox's Amanda Taub explains that, yes, wanting to help poor people is a good thing, but buying TOMS shoes is one of the worst ways do it. Not only is TOMS exploiting its customers' charitable impulse to persuade them to buy its products, which is problematic to begin with, but there is also research to suggest that "buy one, donate one" programs aren't a terrible efficient or effective way to improve the lives of poor people. At worst, they're counterproductive.
Safe link but trust me the title, author and publication tell you everything you need to know.
You'll be shocked, shocked to find out that Rall is a lying liar who lies. In fact as far back as 2003 Ted Rall was known as a long-time scumbag. The fact that he was ever employed by reputable publications after this cartoon is reason enough for the MSM to be destroyed in a cleansing fire of incandescent righteousness.
In a May 11 post on The Times' OpinionLA blog, Ted Rall - a freelance cartoonist whose work appears regularly in The Times - described an incident in which he was stopped for jaywalking on Melrose Avenue in 2001. Rall said he was thrown up against a wall, handcuffed and roughed up by an LAPD motorcycle policeman who also threw his driver's license into the sewer. Rall also wrote that dozens of onlookers shouted in protest at the officer's conduct.
Since then, the Los Angeles Police Department has provided records about the incident, including a complaint Rall filed at the time. An audiotape of the encounter recorded by the police officer does not back up Rall's assertions; it gives no indication that there was physical violence of any sort by the policeman or that Rall's license was thrown into the sewer or that he was handcuffed. Nor is there any evidence on the recording of a crowd of shouting onlookers.
It turns out that pretty much everything Rall claimed about the incident was a complete provable lie.more...
— Gabriel Malor The suggestion has been made that the feds didn't oppose this because Obama is hoping to soothe the Israelis.
Hey, want to hear another coincidence? The US government, which has adamantly refused to release Pollard to the Israelis up to now, didnt put up any opposition to release with the parole board. The WSJ also notes that the parole hearing turns out to be quite unusual. As it turns out, he wasnt due for consideration for another 14 years, but then four weeks ago, something changed.
Ehhh, I can see them doing it because it really matters to Israel and doesn't matter much to Obama. I don't think it's Obama's style to try and placate Israel. He doesn't care that much. And, obviously, this doesn't offset the Iran deal.
"Here, take Pollard, I'm not sorry about the nukes," doesn't really cut it.
— DrewM This is unbelievable.
Morgan Freeman, Jack Black, Queen Noor of Jordan and other celebrities are raising their voices to get Congress to back the nuclear deal with Iran.
Without a deal, ultimately we could be forced into a war with Iran another dangerous, drawn-out and expensive conflict in the Middle East with many lives lost, Freeman says in a new three-minute video produced by Global Zero, an organization aiming to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
Apparently several war loving Democrats didn't get to see the video yet.
There's so much crap it here it's hard to tell where to start.
Actual quote, "If Congress sabotages the nuclear deal with Iran." Stop. Right. There. Congressional oversight (such as it is) is not "sabotage". It's actually a rather important part of ensuing liberty and preventing the devolution into tyranny. But yes 3rd rate celebrity, tell me more about your feels on this matter.
And then there's a Valerie Plame sighting. Why won't you people let her live her life in privacy? Why are you forcing her in political ad on highly charged subject matters with people like Morgan Freeman and Queen Noor of Jordan? Damn you people!
Yes if you want to stop Iran from getting a nuke or 12, it's going to take military action. That's horrible but so is the alternative....an aggressive Iran with hundreds of billions of dollars to spread around to terrorist groups and a nuclear arms race in the Mideast.
You can't stop Iran from getting the one thing they want without force. It will be costly but the alternative is more costly. I know that gives people the sadz so they'd rather stick with Jack Black making "Whoa!" faces. But that's what children do, retreat to the comfortable. Adults are supposed to deal with the harsh realities of life.
Oh and the group that put this out, Global Zero...former Secratery of Defense Chuck Hagel was (and might again be) a supporter.
Seriously, watch the whole sorted mess. It's jaw droppingly vapid.
Then listen to my interview with Noah Pollak of the Emergency Committee for Israel for some actual facts about the deal and its consequences.
Harald Sohlberg, "Natteglød Night (Night Glow)" (1893)
42 queries taking 2.0718 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.