Monthly Archives: March 2016

Missile Violation?

Posted on by
Reply

Iran has begun launching ballistic missiles as part of their intermediate-range and intercontinental-range ballistic missile development program.  The motorboat skipper who sits in the Secretary of State’s chair insists that these launches, while “inconsistent” with UN requirements, are not actually violations of the recently concluded nuclear weapons deal.

Here’s what that Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action actually says (the document can be seen here and here).

The E3/EU+3 and Iran commit to implement this JCPOA in good faith…and to refrain from any action inconsistent with the letter, spirit and intent of this JCPOA that would undermine its successful implementation.

It’s certainly true, though, that the letter of the agreement does not proscribe ballistic missile development efforts, but such a program plainly is “inconsistent” with JCPOA requirements, central as missiles are for delivery of nuclear warheads.  Such developments, then, are clear violations of the “intent” not to “undermine” the agreement.

As backdrop to these missile test launches, the JCPOA also says this:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be requested to monitor and verify the voluntary nuclear-related measures as detailed in this JCPOA.

Iran has refused to allow the IAEA to conduct inspections on the military bases that house parts of Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, and it has refused to allow the IAEA to inspect the nuclear reactor at the heart of its program.

And this, buried at the bottom of the first link’s article:

Iranian Revolutionary Guards senior commander was quoted as saying last week that its latest round of missiles were being designed to hit Israel.

Hmm….

Henry Stimson Has Returned

Posted on by
Reply

As Herbert Hoover’s Secretary of State, Henry Stimson shut down the department’s cryptanalytic office saying, “Gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail.”  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, apparently in much the same vein, did Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and innumerable others a solid by not maintaining American secrets, choosing instead to use an unsecured privately administered personal email server in her private residence.

Now we get Barack Obama’s CIA Director.  John Brennan now says that the CIA shouldn’t be viewed as an espionage agency; indeed,

I don’t support government spying….  We don’t steal secrets….   We uncover, we discover, we reveal, we obtain, we elicit, we solicit.  All of that.

This is yet another episode in Obama’s American Retreat.

Is the Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

…above the law, or do they just think they are?

Seven congressional Democrats, including the ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, have written to the State Department and Intelligence Community watchdogs demanding that their investigations of Hillary Clinton’s private email be “impartial, independent and diligent.”

From their letter, signed by, among the five, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA):

Based on public reports and communications from your offices to Congress, we have serious questions about how this review is being conducted….  Already, this review has been too politicized. We are relying on you as independent inspectors general to perform your duties dispassionately and comprehensively[.]

And

Classification determinations are complex, subjective, often in dispute between different agencies, and are not normally within the purview of Inspectors General[.]

Because one of their own and her staff are being investigated for their complicity in mishandling classified information.  Can’t have that.  Never mind that the IGs agree that classification determinations aren’t within their purview.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General has not determined whether the Clinton emails contained classified information,” the source said.  “Recent sworn declarations from the CIA said the emails contained classified information when they hit Clinton’s server.  The ICIG was passing on the CIA’s findings, and was not the decision maker.  This is also true with the NGA (national geospatial) and other agencies.

The Democrats in Congress know this, of course, hence my question.

There’s lots more in the linked article; RTWT.

Tax Dollars

Posted on by
Reply

Yours, and mine, at work. The paper from which the following excerpt was taken (h/t The Wall Street Journal) was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Ice is not just ice. The dominant way Western societies understand it through the science of glaciology is not a neutral representation of nature. The feminist glaciology framework draws attention to those who dominate and frame the production of glaciological knowledge, the gendered discourses of science and knowledge, and the ways in which colonial, military, and geopolitical domination co-constitute glaciological knowledge. Even in a globalized age where the place of women and indigenous people has improved markedly in some parts of the world, masculinist discourses continue to dominate, in subtle and determinative ways. Feminist glaciology advocates for a shift of preoccupations in research, policy, and public perceptions from the physical and seemingly natural, to a broader consideration of “cryoscapes,” the human, and the insights and potentials of alternative ice narratives and folk glaciologies.

The critique and framework outlined here illuminate experiences and narratives that emerged historically but remain potent today. Public discourse on the cryosphere continues to privilege, quite explicitly, manly endeavours and adventures in the field, and those who conduct their science in the manner of masculinist glaciologists and other field scientists of decades and centuries past….

The call for a feminist glaciology is not limited to ice and glaciers, but is a larger intervention into global environmental change (and especially climate change) research and policy.

Those were your tax dollars, and mine. Yeesh.

At This Stage

Posted on by
Reply

…of the Obama recovery and the campaign season to see who should replace him, it’s time for some economist jokes. Live with it.

“Give me a one-handed economist,” demanded a frustrated American president. “All my economists say, ‘on the one hand…on the other'”.

 

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, “Lets smash the can open with a rock.” The chemist says, “Let’s build a fire and heat the can first.” The economist says, “Let’s assume that we have a can-opener….”

 

A man walking along a road in the countryside comes across a shepherd and a huge flock of sheep. The man tells the shepherd, “I will bet you $100 against one of your sheep that I can tell you the exact number in this flock.” The shepherd thinks it over; it’s a big flock, so he takes the bet. “973,” says the man. The shepherd is astonished, because that is exactly right. He says “OK, I’m a man of my word, take an animal.” The man picks one up and begins to walk away. “Wait,” cries the shepherd, “Let me have a chance to get even. Double or nothing that I can guess your exact occupation.” The man says sure. “You are an economist for a government think tank,” says the shepherd. “Amazing!” responds the man, “You are exactly right! But tell me, how did you deduce that?”

“Well,” says the shepherd, “put down my dog, and I will tell you.”

 

Three econometricians went out hunting, and came across a large deer. The first econometrician fired, but missed, by a meter to the left. The second econometrician fired, but also missed, by a meter to the right. The third econometrician didn’t fire, but shouted in triumph, “We got it! We got it!”

 

A civil engineer, a chemist, and an economist are traveling in the countryside. Weary, they stop at a small country inn. “I only have two rooms, so one of you will have to sleep in the barn,” the innkeeper says. The civil engineer volunteers to sleep in the barn, goes outside, and the others go to bed. In a short time they’re awakened by a knock. It’s the engineer, who says, “There’s a cow in that barn. I’m a Hindu, and it would offend my beliefs to sleep next to a sacred animal.” The chemist says that, OK, he’ll sleep in the barn. The others go back to bed, but soon are awakened by another knock. It’s the chemist who says, “There’s a pig in that barn. I’m Jewish and cannot sleep next to an unclean animal.” So the economist is sent to the barn. It’s getting late, the others are very tired and soon fall asleep, but they’re awakened by an even louder knocking. They open the door and are surprised by what they see: it’s the cow and the pig.