Huckabee

Mike Huckabee is a religious extremist.  In the runup to his last bid for the presidency, he tried to soften his image, and moderate his message.  And did so quite convincingly -- I almost fell for it myself at times.  He then nabbed a show on Fox News, and immediately reverted to type, spouting religious fanatacism, hatred and intolerance day in, day out, all of it on tape.

He knows that he has no chance of winning over moderates a second time around, and thus, no chance at the presidency.  He is 'running' for the Republican nomination in order to raise money, and to raise his profile in conservative circles.

Tell Congress to do their constitutional duty & reject the Obama-Kerry #IranDeal --> http://t.co/SaIyuq4w01 pic.twitter.com/2rFJgdDHhV

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) July 26, 2015

And so, if cynically invoking the Shoah in reference to the Nuclear deal with Iran, and implicitly linking Obama & Kerry to Nazism, provokes outage, then job done !  The more outrage the better form Huckabee's point of view.  The man is a shameless self-aggrandising huckster, and unworthy of any serious consideration or attention.

Breitbart's Cuban Butthurt

Surely, more like a victory for common sense, abandoning a long-standing decades-long policy of isolation, that, multiple dead US Presidents later, was still failing to bring about regime-change in Cuba ?  This, on top of other accomplishments by Obama in the last couple of years, his continuing support of the right-wing capitalistic establishment aside, is making it harder and harder for me to maintain my disapproval of the guy.  I may still not agree with the guy 100%*, but compared to Dubya...or worse still, the lunatics even further to Dubya's right ?...

And yet, I get the impression from Breitbart that I'm meant to be outraged, incensed even over the idea of the flag of a 'communist dictatorship' flying in DC...

Former ambassadors, murderous guerrilla icons, and even folk singers have descended upon Washington, D.C. today to celebrate the raising of the Cuban flag over the newly-minted embassy of the communist dictatorship in America.

Cuban state media is treating the event, which has no analog at the American embassy in Havana, as a victory over the American people.

Erm, is the People's Republic of China, which has agents online and in person infilitrating US' governmental agencies and businesses left, right, and centre, not a communist dictatorship ?  A country that bullies the US' allies and has nuclear weapons pointed at the US.  And even Vietnam, for that matter, are they not considered a communist dictatorship ?  Oh, and that last line is bullshit, as the raising of the US flag in Havana is specifically planned to coincide with the visit of, I believe, John Kerry, in the country.

The State Department has raised the Cuban flag over the new embassy in Washington, D.C. while the American embassy remains barren in Havana, though operating officially as an embassy. It released its first press release today as an official embassy and not the Office of American Interests. It will be run by interim head Jeffrey DeLaurentis as Congress gears up to oppose the appointment of any ambassador to the communist dictatorship so long as the Castro regime continues to flagrantly violate human rights.

So the PRC doesn't violate human rights ?  How about Saudi Arabia ?  How about unquestionable Israel, the ultimate third rail of American politics ?  You would be willing to shut down the Israeli embassy over criticism of treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank ?

Granma, the official propaganda outlet for the Cuban government, is treating the ceremony as a victory for the communist revolution. In an article quoting the various members of the delegation to D.C., a number of them described the flag-raising ceremony as analogous to a military victory against America. Pez Ferro, who participated in the 1953 attack on the Moncada military barracks that made Fidel Castro a nationally-recognized terrorist, told Granma that the flag-raising ceremony proves the communists “were in the right.” “This confirms that former policies were a failure,” he states, as well as “the recognition of the resistance of a country that did not cede to pressure despite not being a great power like its rival.”

Well, as for a communist victory, obviously they're fantasists.  They have a point regarding the failure of US policies towards Cuba, but, either way, why so much butt-hurt ?

I suppose, ultimately, it's a similar case as with Viet Nam.  Right-wingers in the US can never get over the idea that they were legitimately defeated, almost exactly as the British were defeated by their ancestors, via the guerrilla tactics of the ordinary populace.  A narrative has to be adopted, that somehow, the media were to blame, lefty liberals like Jane Fonda, traitors in the established political parties with insufficient will to crush the...'enemy.'  The 'enemy' who happened to be pawns on one side of the political chessboard than the other, and the same 'enemy' who are today coveted 'allies'.

Once, and perhaps future, ally of the US, Cuba, was condemned and demonised for similar reasons as other 'Communist' countries of the 'fifties and 'sixties, most of which are today, whether they nominally identify as Communist or not, eagerly courted and fêted by the West.  I suspect that a decade from now, right-wingers in the US will be talking about Cuba, much as they would talk today about Vietnam, and with their own current hyperbole conveniently forgotten.


* Well, not even close to that.

Fox 'News' on that 'Bad Deal'

So, I find myself wondering*, what does Fox News have to say about the deal the Obama administration has apparently reached with Iran ?  A measured 'let's wait and see, while we digest the details' perhaps ?  No, of course not.

Officials: Iran nuclear deal fuels Middle East arms race, boosts Russia’s influence

Those 'officials' being, apparently, professional neo-con lunatic and bomb-thrower John Bolton, perpetual (to the point that it almost seems like compensation for something) warmonger Lindsey Graham, an obscure first-term senator called Ben Sasse, and some unknown 'intelligence official'.

The newly announced Iran nuclear deal and the negotiations leading up to it already are fueling an all-but-declared nuclear arms race in the Middle East, according to current and former government officials who say the situation also creates an opening for Russia to exert more influence in the region. 

As opposed to the inevitable arms-race that would result in the absence of a deal, as Iran felt compelled to seek a deterrent against an attack by the United States or Israel, and the almost inevitable move of Iran closer into Russia's orbit.

"We have given Iran the path it has been seeking for almost 35 years. The other states in the region are not going to sit idly by, which is why in effect the nuclear arms race is already underway," former U.N. Ambassador and Fox News contributor John Bolton said, adding that Iran and other nations have used civilian nuclear energy programs as cover for covert enrichment programs. 

You've given Iran the path they've been seeking ?  Huh ?  Because, it is so much easier to develop nuclear weapons whilst under international monitoring and scrutiny, than to do so under a covert programme ?

"Every Sunni Arab nation is going to see [a nuclear Iran] as an inevitable outcome," Republican presidential candidate and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said. "The worst possible outcome of the deal would be to create a nuclear arms race in the Mideast where Sunni Arabs feel threatened." 

Why would they see that, unless they were getting their information from Fox News & Bibi ?  I certainly hope they have far better sources of intellligence than that.  A nuclear arms-race is the inevitable outcome of no deal, as Iran clearly sees a nuclear weapon as the only effective deterrent against an attack by the US and/or Israel (and the desire in the West for 'regime-change' in Tehran, at any cost, with or without the nuclear issue, is real and clear), as neither the US nor Israel is willing currently to wage an actual ground-war against Iran to prevent it obtaining a weapon, and as the completely hypothetical 'better deal' imagined by the Republicans & Likudniks seems to require the total capitulation of Iran to Western interests.  Short of the West being willing to threaten Tehran with an actual nuclear assault, there is nothing, no amount of bombings, no amount of sanctions that will ever bring that about, without massive expenditure and loss of lives by the West.

Your choices are as they ever were: war, nuclear war, or an attempt at least at diplomacy.  Here's hoping that the grownups retain control of the White House for the next couple of electoral cycles.


* Is there such a thing as a rhetorical lie ?

Nina Paley: This Land is Mine

Was looking for something else entirely, but this piece by Nina Paley is a classic, and arguably says something more universal about us humans, than the specific historical/spatial context might imply.


Sita Sings the Blues is worth checking out as well, if you like her style.

Uh, WTF Diane Rehm ?

Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont who is vying for the Democratic nomination for president, took offense on Wednesday to a statement from a radio talk show host who suggested that he is a dual Israeli-American citizen.

According to a report in the online news magazine Politico, Sanders, who is Jewish, was surprised when WAMU radio host Diane Rehm remarked during their interview, "Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel."

The liberal senator, who is officially an independent but is running as a Democrat, replied: "Well, no I do not have dual citizenship with Israel. I'm an American. I don't know where that question came from. I am an American citizen, and I have visited Israel on a couple of occasions. No, I'm an American citizen, period."

Rehm, whose show is syndicated nationwide by National Public Radio, said that she learned of Sanders’ purported citizenship status from “a list” that was circulating on the Internet which alleges that a number of senior figures in Congress and the administration hold Israeli citizenship.

"That's some of the nonsense that goes on in the Internet. But that is absolutely not true," Sanders said.

Didn't even know that Sanders was Jewish, but even so, and even if he did hold Israeli citizenship, who gives a shit ?  Until very recently, having been born there, Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen.  And yet no-one seems to care (unlike the situation with a certain other sitting president say).  And no fact-checking, really ?  Time to consider retirement Diane ?

<Checks Wikipedia, curious about Diane's age (she doesn't exactly sound young, not to be rude), and wait, 'Arab-American', really ?>  Oh shit, this is a potential minefield here.  Time to shut the fuck up...

Stay Classy, JPost

What ?  We're just sayin'.  And if you click on the link, the Title specifies 'Not Just News.'   I'm willing to bet that a large part of JPost's readership wouldn't even see or acknowledge what is so very fucking wrong with that shit in the middle of the image above.  I try to keep an open mind.  I really do.  And then I see shit like this.  And I just give up...

Felix Kiprono is in love, and the young Kenyan lawyer is aiming high.

According to the daily newspaper Nairobian, the object of Kiprono’s affections is none other than President Barack Obama’s daughter, Malia.

Just how far is Kiprono willing to go to snatch the girl of his dreams? According to the Nairobian, he is prepared to offer the leader of the free world a dowry of 50 cows, 70 sheep, and 30 goats.

"People might say I am after the family's money, which is not the case. My love is real," Kiprono told the Nairobian newspaper.

Just how smitten is Kiprono with Malia Obama?

"I got interested in her in 2008," he said. "As a matter of fact, I haven't dated anyone since and promise to be faithful to her. I have shared this with my family and they are willing to help me raise the bride price."

He said he plans to deliver a letter to the US Embassy in Kenya to officially declare his intention.."

Ours will be a simple life. I will teach Malia how to milk a cow, cook ugali (a starchy dish) and prepare mursik (a sour milk) like any other Kalenjin woman," he said

Update: Apparently CNN & The Indy. also 'reported' on this non-story.  Which I guess, makes it okay...er, No.  No, it doesn't.  Our modern news-media is such a fucking disgrace.

Breitbart: Obama Thinks Iran is...'Rational' !

Gasp.  <Faints>  How dare he speak so of our former alliesthe evil empire that is the Satanic Republic of Iranistan ?

Okay, okay, let's get to it...

However, the most interesting point reported by The Times of Israel, is Obama’s opinion of the Iranian regime.

(Reported by The Times of Israel !  Not like we can't just read the damn transcript for ourselves)

Goldberg asked Obama if the fact that the Iranian regime is anti-Semitic, and thus possessed of a warped view of the way the world works, shouldn’t preclude a negotiating strategy that treats Tehran as a rational player. But the president replied that the regime’s survival instinct is more powerful than other calculations, including its hatred of Jews and imperialist aspirations.

“Well, the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival,” he said. “It doesn’t preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.”

Tehran, he continued, won’t make irrational decisions — an apparent reference to the regime breaking away to a nuclear weapon or attacking another country — that would threaten its very survival. “What we’ve been very clear [about] to the Iranian regime over the past six years is that we will continue to ratchet up the costs, not simply for their anti-Semitism, but also for whatever expansionist ambitions they may have,” he said.

Just shocking.  I can't believe he said all that.  It's just outrageous !  What is wrong with the man ?

Obama is right. Iran is suffering severe internal problems. Rampant, out of control drug abuse, obscene levels of corruption, and severe economic problems are tearing at the foundations of the Iranian tyranny.

According to the Daily Mail, around seven per cent of Iran’s population remain addicted to hard drugs. On top of Iran’s already hideous problems with the flood of dirt cheap opium and heroin pouring out of Afghanistan, Iran has lately acquired a dangerous taste for crystal meth.

Okay, just WTF now ?

...

For all we know, the Supreme Leader of Iran himself could be a meth addict – suffering drug induced psychosis, paranoia, experiencing drug induced delusions about his own mission to remake the world, lusting for the destructive might which nuclear weapons would grant to his addled megalomanic fantasies.

Hitler was a well known meth addict  – under the influence of meth, he ordered the commission of irrational atrocities, such as the infamous Nero decree, Hitler’s order to destroy everything of value which might be seized by advancing Russian soldiers. The Nero decree was not executed – Albert Speer, in the final days of the war disobeyed Hitler, and refused to pointlessly destroy the infrastructure of Germany. But an occasional outbreak of reason was more the exception than the norm, in Hitler’s meth fuelled Reich.

And that's how the 'article' ends.  Reductio ad Hitlerum.  Shit.


For all we know, Bill Clinton could be a lizard-person from an alternate dimension.  George W Bush could have been an elaborate AI construct in the matrix. Vladimir Putin could be the second coming of Christ as understood in the cryptic version of the Gospel of Judas.  Steve Jobs could have been secretly an Arab (well, not really a secret as such).  Margaret Thatcher could have had a secret sexual obsession with Ken Livingstone.  For all we know, Ayn Rand could have been a rabidly anti-Christian atheist (uh, well, actually...)  Stalin could have had a really vulnerable soft spot for puppies, and secretly donated to funds for orphans.  For all we know, Luke Skywalker could have been the bastard child of Darth Vader.  For all we know, John McCain's anti-aging regimen could involve the daily bathing in the blood of Mexican babies.  For all we know, the staff at Breitbart might contain an actual journalist or two.... What after all....do we...actually...know ?


So easy, and ultimately futile (given the audience) to mock, but the full interview is arguably worth reading...okay, skimming, especially if you want to skip the facile spin than the traditional outlets will inevitably want to place on it:  http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/obama-interview-iran-isis-israel/393782/


Below the fold, here's how the interview ends, and the part that I personally found the most interesting:

Ofra Haza: Chai

From a time when Eurovision didn't totally suck.

A US 'Nuclear Umbrella' for Saudi Arabia ?

From the LA Times:

Obama administration officials are promising a major strengthening of U.S. defense commitments to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies, possibly including a nuclear commitment to their security, in an intensifying effort to win their support for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran.

Officials say they hope to reassure nervous gulf Arab states by providing more military aid and training to their defense forces, and by making more explicit commitments to help them repel external attacks.

The administration is studying whether to make any nuclear assurances, though officials emphasize no decision has been made.

...

One challenge for the White House is whether it can expand a defense relationship that already is enormous.

...

It's also not clear that U.S. nuclear security commitments would be useful or welcomed by the gulf states.

The administration would have a hard time trying to get Congress, which has been skeptical about the U.S.-Saudi relationship, to enact a treaty that put a U.S. nuclear "umbrella" over Arab Sunni nations, as the United States has over Japan and South Korea.

Such agreements aim to deter nuclear attack by warning foes that the United States would retaliate with overwhelming force if an ally is attacked with a nuclear weapon.

...

Another possible gesture would be to declare the gulf states "major non-NATO allies," said Thomas Lippman, a Saudi specialist at the nonpartisan Middle East Institute in Washington. The designation, applied to close allies like Japan, Australia and Israel, provides special help in buying weapons and obtaining U.S. weapons.

This, if true, is insane.  Though I do wonder about the article's provenance.  Sure are a lot of unspecified 'officials' mentioned in the article.  And it doesn't appear to actually be a new story at that.  Seems it was being reported in the Israeli media over a month ago:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Analysis-US-Sunni-states-talk-about-regional-nuclear-umbrella-393131

http://www.haaretz.com/news/1.645573

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192178

From the latter two, it seems their source was an Arabic paper, al-Hayat.  Huh.


I want to be sceptical.  But this is Barack Obama & John Kerry we're talking about.  Given the completely ham-handed way they've handled Ukraine...I think I could believe it.  And so what happens next ?  Does Russia do a deal with Iran to promise them their own 'nuclear umbrella' ?  What could possibly go wrong with drawing the battlelines of a new Cold War between the West and Russia across the heart of the Middle East and the Sunni/Shia divide ?  Have we learned nothing in the hundred years since, from the Great War of 1914-18 ?

Insane.

That 'mushroom cloud somewhere near Tehran'

So I guess this...'article' from Politico 'clarifies' that quote I'd heard from Senator Mark Kirk.

Sen. Mark Kirk blasted the nuclear deal with Iran on Thursday, saying the Obama administration’s diplomacy was worse than Britain’s attempts to appease Nazi Germany and predicting Israel would soon be pulled into a war with Iran.

The Illinois Republican trashed a deal struck by global powers with Tehran, concluding in a phone interview “that Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than Wendy Sherman got out of Iran,” a reference to a top State Department negotiator on the deal.

But Kirk wasn’t done, forecasting that lifting any more sanctions on Iran “dooms the Middle East to yet another war,” one that Israel will have to clean up, perhaps in a nuclear fashion.

“We should be a reviewing presence to see how this unfolds,” Kirk said of Congress’ role, adding: “Which we all know is going to end with a mushroom cloud somewhere near Tehran.”

I'd assumed that it most likely referred to the only possible US (or Israeli) military alternative to 'the Bad Deal' (disregarding fictional magical 'Good' deals whereby the Iranians give us everything we might possibly desire for nothing in return), short of total invasion and occupation of Iran, i.e. requiring tactical nuclear strikes on Iran's heavily hardened & bunkered nuclear facilities.   Do we really think that the BushCheney administration would have held back in their war against 'The Axis of Evil' if a 'Daisy-Cutter' would do it, let alone lesser ordnance ?  That the Israelis held back under the present Netanyahu government because of...what...this absurd idea that the Americans would actually shoot down IDF jets ?  Because of fears about flight-times....under an...existential threat ?  And under the previous Sharon government and earlier Netanyahu government because...something ?

If there were truly a military solution to Iran's nuclear programme short of actual nuclear war and/or all-out invasion and occupation, I suspect a lot of even the most lefty-of-lefty Western politicians would welcome it (not that they'd admit it, granted) if Israel took out Iran's nuclear facilities as it did Iraq's back in the eighties.  But that ain't gonna happen.  Not even when President Ted Cruz takes office...

But, the 'article'...I'm forgetting..,

Kirk’s office called to clarify that Kirk was referring to a nuclear test in Iran.

Yah, that's what Kirk meant: an above-ground nuclear test by Iran near the largest and most important city in Iran.  That totally makes sense...

Well, the 'Good Deal' is a joke, the Republicans will do their damndest to torpedo any efforts of any kind made by the Marxist Kenyan Anti-Christ Obama, and there's no way we'll see a non-nuclear military solution anytime soon.

So I guess it's mushroom clouds somewhere near Tehran sometime soon...Anyone care to guess which other cities might follow ?

Israel in Colour by British Pathé

Interesting time-capsules in these videos, including in the way Israel was portrayed by British Pathé back in the 'fifties & 'sixties.  Keeping in mind that Israel during much of this period was more political ally of the UK & France than of the United States.  There's a more than somewhat touristy if not propagandistic tone to many of the videos, but always cool to see a window into the past.  And in colour no-less.  Hell, most British teevee was still in black-and-white till the seventies.

Last line of the last video, from '69: 'They hope for peace.  The tragedy is, can it be achieved ?'  Well...

Obama on the Israeli Elections and the Deal, Good/Bad/Otherwise with Iran

Mike Lumish: One State. Two State. Red State. Blue State.

Didn't intend to link again so soon to the artist formerly known as Karmafish, but...I just can't resist with this piece.

Not sure how seriously I can take the idea of community service (as proof of 'loyalty' no less) as a solution to the demographic problem for a one-state solution to I-P (begs so many questions), but at least Mike Lumish has a proposal for a solution, rather than simply denying the problem exists, as seems to be the default for most Likudniks.  And with Bibi's recent pre-electoral comments, maybe it's time we starting having the debate in the West, rather than clinging to the fantasy that a two-state solution is still possible in this generation (Myself, I still think it might have been back in the nineties...but water under the bridge).  And while I hesitate to say too much about the whole I-P situation, my own 'evolving' attitudes being somewhat at odds with the tide in the West, I will say that there is much in Lumish's piece with which I agree.

In fact, the last two sentences quoted below reflect almost exactly what for years now would have been my advice to Israel.  In fairness, I guess I should also state what my advice would have been to the Palestinians, which is to publicly declare that as a two-state solution was clearly no longer viable that they would henceforth abandon claims to a separate statehood, and demand full and total rights as de-facto Israelis, including suffrage.  Which is another kind of one-state solution, but not on Israel's terms.

I disagree, however, that a single-state must necessarily mean the demise of Israel as either Jewish or democratic.

The reason for this is because there is no requirement that a democracy must incorporate hostile foreign elements into it, in order to remain a democracy.  What I propose, under the circumstances of initiating a single state, is that those non-Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria who wish to gain the franchise would need to demonstrate good will toward their Jewish neighbors through the completion of two years community service of some kind.

Those who receive a good report would be given the full franchise.

As for those Arabs who remain resident non-citizens, their children should be given every opportunity to join as full citizens of the state.  Since education would no longer be in the hands of hostile terrorist organizations, Israel could educate Arab youth to the benefits of joining with the country and clearly demonstrate those benefits as young people see their older siblings getting good university educations and well-paying jobs.

By limiting the franchise to only those Arabs who actually want to live peacefully within the Jewish state, Israel would remain both majority Jewish and democratic.  In fact, it would remain more democratic than the United States because the US, for far less good reason, does not allow Puerto Ricans to vote in national elections, despite the fact that Puerto Rico is incorporated into the United States. 
...
I certainly appreciate the dilemma, but since a negotiated conclusion of hostilities is, in fact, impossible - because this is not the Palestinian-Arab national objective - that leaves only the option of unilateral action.
Israel should, thus, declare its final borders, remove the IDF to behind those borders, and toss the keys over its shoulder.  Good-bye and Good luck

And, as I finish this piece, Biko of all things comes up in the shuffle.  Shit you not.  That you, God ?

Interesting Times

So okay, based on ep. two at least, seems Community transitioned from broadcast to the web mostly intact, better certainly than can be said for a certain Israeli outlet in the opposite direction.  And meanwhile, seems Bibi beat Bupi after all (sorry, pollsters), meaning Barry likely gets to deal with an Israel in which the one-state solution is now official policy.  Hoo boy.

PS, am only the one to get a distinctly Lorraine Bracco vibe from the Paget Brewster character ?

Israelis: What do you think of Ireland and the Irish?

...from an interesting series w/Israelis & Palestinians.  Watched one video too many in the series to recommend it overall, but girls at 1.58 must not be missed.  And so Israelis (and the world) basically see the Irish as friendly red-headed likeable drunks.  Huh.

Israeli Elections, a la Haaretz

Just a few days till Israelis get a similar choice to that likely facing Brits. in the next general election: Do I want to support the right-wingers, the slightly-less right-wingers, or the lunatic-fringe right-wing extremists ?  Same choice basically for the US electorate, except that two of those choices will come with an (R) after the names, and one with a (D).  And in case, anyone is in any doubt where Haaretz stands on the prospect of Bibi being re-elected, we have this lovely image.

I mean, no, what the fuck ?  What editor looked at this and thought yeah, that looks professional, and totally unbiased, let's run with that picture of Bibi ?  Are you shitting me ?  And as for that rather unfortunate typo. vis-a-vis the word 'public'...  I've read Haaretz on and off for years (albeit mostly pre-paywalls), and don't recall quite this level of idiocy in the past.  Is Haaretz the Grauniad of Israel ?

Bibi the Babysitter

In which I actually post a campaign ad. for Likud, because I kinda love this.  What is wrong with me ?

Bibi's Completely Innocent and Reasonable Speech before Congress about the evils of Gargamel

If it weren't for that insane 'Axis of Evil' bullshit from the Bush administration (Thanks David Frum !), we might have had a peace deal with Iran over a decade ago.  Now, fresh after starting to normalise relations with Cuba (MANY decades overdue), Obama is working on a deal with Iran.  And inevitably, as with any of the president's initiatives, the Republicans are doing their damnest to blow things up, their latest effort involving bringing Binyamin Netanyahu, a man who has spent the last decade or more trying to trick the US into waging war against Iran on Likud's Israel's behalf to speak before Congress, behind the White House's back, and on the verge of Israeli elections.  Because, domestic issues, schmostestic issues, look look EXISTENTIAL THREAT, NUCLEAR TERROR, EVIL, RADICAL, MUST DESTROY NOW, and WIMPY PACIFICST, MUSLIM TRAITOR, SECRET ISLAMIST, NEW WORLD ORDER, NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, BLACKITY BLACK BLACK BLACK....no, no wait, forget we said that last bit.

Now, the manner of Netanyahu's appearance does suggest a certain desparation, and one might wonder what is behind the same.  Could it be that Bibi is sincere in the suggestion that we are in a once-in-a-lifetime last-minute existential crisis with Iran, completely unlike the dozens of other times he has suggested exactly the same over the decades ?  Well, maybe.

And Iran, they're the bad guys, aren't they ?  I mean ask anyone...like er, Saddam, er...I know, I know...like the leader of that country in southern America called, what is it again...Las Malvinas...no, no....ah, yeah, Argentina, but...no, she doesn't want to talk about that for some reason.  Damn Iranians, starting wars all the time, except all the times they're...er, not starting wars, and giving money to terrorists, like...er our bestest ever buddies in <dynasty-name-redacted> Arabia...

So what does Iran really want ?  To nuke Israel and ensure its own immediate annihilation, including that of all its ruling classes ?  Well, er...maybe...  To have, but not necessarily use, a nuclear weapon, and possibly still invite...its own immediate annihilation, including that of all its ruling classes ?  Well, er...maybe...  To have the plausible threat of one day in the not unforsee-able future being able to, in response to an external threat rapidly develop a nuclear weapon as a deterrent against a country (by which I mean the US, duh) that has treated it as if it were an existential enemy for decades ?  Ding-ding-ding, I think we have a winner.  And prizes go to those of you who guessed the bleeding fucking obvious.  One might reasonably assume that Iran wants peace and prosperity, both of which are threatened by the ongoing sanctions.  It also, as the inheritor of a once-great empire, presumably wants a certain degree of respect and authority in its own backyard, a want that is completely unreasonable from the point of view of the country that promoted the Monroe Doctrine in the 1800's.  Basically, the Iranians want the same thing as virtually every people on the planet: a chance at a decent life without living under constant imminent threat of having a bomb dropped on one's head.  What radical assholes, huh ?

One more thing: this is a country that gave us in the Bush-era puppet-leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a perfect foil for George W Bush, a ranting anti-Israeli lunatic, and a prime gift to Iran-haters like Bibi, but has since elected the relatively moderate Hassan Rouhani.  Opportunities to deal with possibly reasonable players often don't come that often in reactionary states and we throw away those opportunities (*cough*Khatami, *cough*Medvedev) at our peril.  And had Reagan rejected the (perhaps looking back now far too generous) appeals of Gorbachev back in the eighties ?...  Well, we'll never know, will we ?

Siouxsie and the Banshees: Israel

The incredible thing is, Sue & Steve Severin, started out literally as groupies of the Sex Pistols, in the same company in the Bromley Contingent as the likes of Sid Vicious & Billy Idol, and in Susan's case, certainly best known for their role in the onscreen downfall of Bill Grundy. And within a few short years, they were producing the likes of this.