Tag Archives: morality

More Dishonesty Regarding the Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal

Posted on by
Reply

Fred Leitz at National Review has identified a couple of secret—as in deliberately attempted to be kept secret from Congress—side deals. Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR) and Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R, KS) have gotten wind of them, too, though, so….

One of these side deals concerns inspection of the Parchin military base, where Iran reportedly has conducted explosive testing related to nuclear-warhead development. The Iranian government has refused to allow the IAEA to visit this site. Over the last several years, Iran has taken steps to clean up evidence of weapons-related activity at Parchin.

The other secret side deal concerns how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran’s nuclear program. In late 2013, Iran agreed to resolve IAEA questions about nuclear weapons-related work in twelve areas. Iran only answered questions in one of these areas and rejected the rest as based on forgeries and fabrications.

President Barack Obama and his motorboat skipper occupant of SecState’s chair have kept these secret (unsuccessfully, it seems) from Congress. Of course, the administration denies this. They wouldn’t be secrets, if they talked about them, though.

It’s one more reason to toss this deal and then to override Obama’s veto of the tossing.

Nuclear Weapons Deal Agreed

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama and his lesser foreign policy wonk, John Kerry, have agreed that Iran can have nuclear weapons and the missile delivery systems to carry them.

This is from Omri Ceren, via Power Line:

The Iranian nuclear program will be placed under international sponsorship for R&D

Sort of: “a major power” will work with Iran to develop next-generation centrifuge technology, ostensibly merely for production of useful isotopes of various elements. Never mind that “isotope production” other than bombarding atoms with neutrons is exactly what is done to enriching uranium.

The sanctions regime will be shredded

Completely. The sanctions to be lifted are limited to sanctions against the Iranian nuclear weapons program. However, this better policy wonk than his policy wonks has agreed that all sanctions currently in place against Iran are to be defined as part of the “anti-nuclear weapons program” sanctions régime. Thus, sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, “conventional” weapons, and ballistic missiles will be lifted. This one is especially well done by Obama.

The US collapsed on anytime-anywhere inspections

Completely. The IAEA gets to ask, “Pretty please,” the Iranians get to say, “No,” and the whole thing goes to arbitration. With Iran as an arbitration panel member. With no deadline, no maximum time frame within which the question must be arbitrated.

Under this deal in our time, Iran gets to traffic in conventional arms, legally, in five years, and it gets to build/acquire ballistic missiles, legally, in eight years.

Iran’s legal path to nuclear weapons is wide open. Actually, that path is a multiplicity of multi-lane highways.

Obama, with a straight face, proclaims his pride in this failure. What a legacy he’s built.

An Accelerating Nuclear Program?

Posted on by
Reply

Iran keeps threatening to greatly accelerate its nuclear weapons program if the current “negotiations” break down.

While US-led world powers hold talks with Iran in Vienna to curb Tehran’s illicit nuclear weapons program, the Islamic Republic’s spies have been seeking atomic and missile technology in neighboring Germany as recently as last month, according to German intelligence sources.

Iran’s illegal activities have continued since talks between Iran and the P5+1 [now carefully relabeled “EU + 3”]…began with a Joint Plan of Action in 2013, according to German intelligence sources. The JPOA was intended to stop Iran’s work on a nuclear weapon until a comprehensive agreement is reached.

It seems they already are—have been for some time—accelerating their nuclear weapons program.

Given this, on what basis could anyone possibly accept a deal signed by the current men of the Iranian government—beginning with Ali Khamenei?

Disparate Impact

Posted on by
1

Disparate impact is the racist theory that if practices result in an imbalance (as defined by disparate impact aficionados) in racial representation in this or that arena (see housing, for instance), than the practices must stop until—based solely on race—sufficient races are brought into the arena to achieve an acceptable balance of races. Notice that none of disparate impact has anything to do with the wishes of members of this or that race, already present or absent from the arena. By design, it has nothing to do, also, with the intent of the managers of the arena.

Consider, now, a case brought by

64 organizations alleging that Harvard uses de facto quotas to limit Asian-Americans on campus.

The case was brought to the Civil Rights division of the Department of Education—who promptly dismissed the case, ostensibly because of “pending litigation.” There is a case pending, but as DoE knows full well it’s unlikely to be finally adjudicated for another two or three—or more—years.

Never mind that

Asian-Americans need to score 140 points higher on the SAT than white students to be considered equal applicants on paper, and 450 points higher than African-Americans

and that they’re still underrepresented in Harvard admissions.

Never mind, either, how insulting that 450 point handicap is for blacks–the very group Harvard pretends to be wanting to help.  Or the insult of those 140 points for whites.  But that’s OK, whites have too much privilege; they need to be insulted every now and then.

Apparently, disparate impact is applicable only to certain government-favored groups of Americans. But then, such special treatment is at the very hearts of racism and of bigotry in general.

Fools and Statistics

Posted on by
Reply

You’ve already heard about Pseudo-Republican Donald Trump’s remarks about Mexican illegal immigrants and the murderous, drug-hazed rampage in the US he says they’re on. Although he assumes there are some good people among them, too. Real white of ol’ Trump to toss that in.

Now we get Ann Coulter:

I will bet you by the end of the weekend, more Americans will have been killed by Mexicans than by ISIS or by sharks[.]

Coulter is very carefully abusing statistics in the same way that her BFF Trump is doing. What’s the immigration rate—illegal or otherwise—of Daesh or sharks? Compared with the Mexican immigration rate? What per centage of those Daesh or shark immigrants, after entry, become fine, upstanding members of the local community?

What’s the Daesh or sharks per, umm, capita kill rate of Americans compared to that of Mexicans?