What, Me Sanction?

The White House has delayed its plan to impose new financial sanctions on Iran for its ballistic missile program, according to US officials, amid growing tensions with Iran over the nuclear deal struck earlier this year.

It gets worse.

US officials offered no definitive timeline for when the sanctions would be imposed after the decision was made Wednesday to delay them.

Never mind that Iran has been violating the nuclear weapons agreement since a very few days after Vienna. Never mind, either, that Iran still hasn’t actually signed the agreement. This administration is putting us and our friends and allies in a very dangerous position over the next year. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want more of the same, too.

The Contained Daesh

While President Barack Obama thinks—and says out loud—that he’s “squeezing [Daesh’s] heart and making it harder for them to pump out its propaganda,” the Pentagon is describing an expanding Daesh.

Now it’s Afghanistan. Daesh has become

“more operationally active” there by carving out territory and openly fighting the Taliban.

In particular, Daesh in Afghanistan’s Khorasan Province

has progressed from its initial exploratory phase to a point where they are openly fighting the Taliban for the establishment of a safe haven, and are becoming more operationally active[.]

Even were “containment” succeeding, this is an illustration of why it’s badly insufficient merely to “contain” or to “defeat” this Evil. It must be destroyed, utterly.

It’s a long, dangerous year we have ahead of us.

Use Nuclear Weapons on Terrorists?

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday the Russian missiles used to combat terrorists in Syria could be fitted with nuclear warheads, the Russian government-funded news agency RT reports.

He’s not talking to the terrorists in Syria, though. He’s talking to Poland, the Baltic States, and eastern European nations generally.

And to us.

Naturally, this is not necessary when fighting terrorists and, I hope, will never be needed,” Putin said of the possibility. “But overall, this speaks to our significant progress in terms of improving weaponry and equipment being supplied to the Russian army and navy.

Hmm….

A Weapon in an Economic War?

A growing number of Central Bankers around the world are considering ways to develop and issue digital versions of national currencies, in response to and somewhat analogous to Bitcoin.

This raises a question in my paranoid pea-brain.

Many electronically delivered items, most ubiquitously music and books, but software programs, also, are delivered with DRM—Digital Rights Management—software embedded in them. These DRM thingies are used to limit, for instance, subsequent redistribution of the items without prior permission from the original seller.

Many electronically delivered items, primarily images here, although the concept need not be limited in practice, also have embedded in them malware, encrypted messages, and the like. This is what steganography is all about.

So: what’s to keep a nation’s Central Bank from embedding DRM and/or steganographic files in each unit of its digital currency? A couple of uses come to mind.

One use is simply to track the currency unit’s—a dollar, maybe—movement around the globe from the time of its initial issue. The economic information from such gloriously detailed information boggles the mind. The economic information made available to intelligence agencies about the inner workings of another country’s economy and government handling of that economy is equally boggling.

But think of a country with a large holding of a foreign currency as a reserve—the way the PRC’s renminbi, the US’ dollar, the EU’s euro, Great Britain’s pound, and Japan’s yen are used. Think further of a country whose foreign exchange holdings represent a significant fraction of that nation’s cash on hand.

Now think of the outcome if a file embedded in the particular units held were triggered, and all those units of the targeted digital currency were simple erased and ceased to exist as if they never were.

The mind reels.

Language

Does Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speak the same language the rest of us Americans do? Does anyone on the Left?

Asked about the terms “radical Islamist” and “radical form of Islam,” she, like her Left constituents and supporters, says you can’t use those terms. On ABC‘s This Week Sunday, she said,

I don’t want to do that [use those terms] because, No. 1, it doesn’t do justice to the vast numbers of Muslims in our own country and around the world who are peaceful people[.]

In what way does it do anything to “vast numbers of Muslims…who are peaceful?” In the American version of English, those modifiers—by definition—limit the ones being discussed in those terms to a carefully restricted subset of Muslims. Those modifiers explicitly exclude “vast numbers of Muslims” from the characterization.

It seems part of the problem with trying to reach agreements with anyone from the Left is that they don’t even speak the same language. They appear to have napped through their grammar school lessons.