January links

Energy sector revolution. A long article summarizing important changes in the energy sector in the last decade. A must-read when I have time.

India riots. An anti-Muslim immigration law was a slap at a religious minority in India. How far will the Indian government go in its authoritarian policies? It seems that India might erupt, considering the much worse than typical fighting, even at universities.

Friction with South Korea. Short, focused summary of our strategy with South Korea and why tough love is a mistake there.

A critique of Trump Mideastern policy. This is written in stark terms without hyperbole or catastrophizing. Pretty refreshing, really. No, the world isn't going to end, but could we please have a bit of coherence? Actually, though, foreign policy tends to be incoherent, maybe because there are truths that you can't say out loud.

A prediction about Iran. I like it when someone makes a definite prediction because you get to test whether it comes true or not. Here's a prediction that Russia will end up mediating between Iran and the US. Ummmm, I don't think so. If we were all angels, that might happen, but we aren't even close, so no deal.

Boeing behaved badly. And they put it into emails! They're thrilled they got to avoid costly training. Too bad about the deaths lack of training caused. Come on, folks, be realistic and care about safety more than the bottom line because lack of safety is going to kill your profits.

Media whitewashes Trump. Not completely, but they often don't show how batshit crazy, angry, or insulting he is. People ought to know this before they vote again.

Epic story of Trump's temper. Top military and civilian officials tried to school Trump on international relations and learned instead that his opinions are fixed, and anyone who disagrees with him is stupid.

Martin Luther King. For his holiday, lots of anecdotes about how King listened to the ideas of others, often leading to his finest moments.

Image : abcnews.go.com

To kill the bad guys or not

The US military/administration found a top Iranian military leader in a vulnerable position and they blew his two-car convoy to kingdom come. As a bonus they got a top Iraqi militia leader, who maybe was conferring with Iranian on new year's resolutions or maybe the next moves in Iraq's current riots.

When I was young, I was taught always to doubt the actions of the US government, as though they were thoroughly untrustworthy, though not as evil as, say, the Nazis. At some point I wised up and I started to look at reality instead of propaganda, and the US didn't look so bad.

Unfortunately, that liberal middle-class distrust of anything military still exists as unchanging lumps in the heads of many a liberal or progressive, including my mother and some siblings. I also see it every single time the US military does something. Some silly, mindless liberal or progressive denouncing the action reflexively, with no knowledge and seemingly no effort to understand the situation. Liberals are supposed to understand context, but not in these situations. Thank God I'm not like anymore, and haven't been for decades.

There is hand-wringing about the US escalated conflict, as though that US must never respond to attacks. Well, that's obviously stupid, but I wonder what responses would bring out hand-wringers. Of course it brought out the idiotic liberal celebrities, who aren't much different in their mindlessness but are considerably more photogenic than your average liberal.

Iraq has been awash in rioting, and I've got to wonder if that has something to do with this targeted military action. Lo and behold, the US embassy in Baghdad was attacked six days ago on 12/31/19.

Other countries have their idiots too, and the Iraqi parliament has voted to ask the Americans to leave. Yes, the Americans who helped save Iraq when it was overrun by ISIS. Did Iraq turn to Iran for help then, or to people who could definitely help?

The hand-wringing and American-damning forces aren't overwhelming, though. The world is largely being attentive, but not overly worried. Well, maybe not the whole world, but the oil traders. I like to be reassured by the markets, though they aren't infallible. However, Iran hasn't been able to do anything spectacular yet. The biggest victory was hacking the webpage for a US federal library program. If that's the best they can do when they've probably pulled out all the stops, I'm not going to get into a sweat. Yes, there may be repercussions, but I don't think this will be a killing I'm going to regret. The Iranian military aren't good guys, and killing a top guy is probably a favor to the world, not a frightening miscalculation.

DEAD

Image: freep.com

Update 1/7/20. Someone in the Pentagon mistakenly sent out a letter saying that the US and Iraq had better nail down this withdrawal. Oops, folks, that letter went out by mistake. The Iraqi prime minister is demanding an explanation of the mistake, but didn't his country just vote to throw 'em out? This is funnier than the Keystone Kops.

Update 1/9/20. The Iranians responded by shooting a bunch of missiles at bases in Iraq. However, they unofficially put the word out and all personnel were able to hunker down in fortified places. So a bit of damage was down and no one was hurt... in Iraq that is. It's possible that Iran accidentally hit a commercial flight, killing almost 200 people. Oh, the stupidity and waste. Maybe hand-wringers will blame it on the US somehow.

Turkey, Syria, the Kurds, and Trump

In the midst of the whistleblower scandal, Trump announced a total withdrawal of US troops from Syria. I haven't followed the whole Syria conflict closely--it's complex, far from here, so the news is likely to be fairly low quality. It would be hard for me to sort the spin from reality.

However, Trump's withdrawal announcement was clearly very abrupt. It looks like Turkey's dictator  Erdogan had been threatening to invade Kurdish-held areas for months, and he finally flipped the switch. Trump didn't know what to do, so he claims that he's withdrawing the troops, not due to pressure (which would make him look weak) but because the US doesn't need to be involved in endless wars.

Hew and cry because it looks like the US is abandoning our Kurdish allies to be slaughtered by the Turks (not their friends). Also, the Kurds are holding thousands of Isis fighter and their families in camps, and may release them under the onslaught. Cue Trump to say stupid, insensitive things like where were the Kurds on D-Day?

Two days later, Trump sends VP Pence to try to negotiate. Oh, there was a childish letter in the mix somewhere too. Pence gets an agreement from Erdogan about some limits on the invasion. The stated goal for Turkey is to secure a 20 mile wide strip along the border so the Kurds in Syria can't aid the Kurds in Turkey. When I heard that, it didn't seem too bad to me as long as the Turks weren't killing civilians or Kurdish fighters not involved in Turkey. I have my doubts about Turkey's claims about Kurdish fighters, knowing that Turkey has a long history of oppressing the Kurds. But it's possible that their goal is only to set up a secure zone.

This is a big sudden shift in the military situation, and it's accompanied by new alliances. Turkey has been cozying up to Russia in trade and military equipment for a while, but this is the clearest rapprochement so far. Syria isn't happy about the deal due to the loss of territory to Turkey, and they responded with their own surprising alliance with the Kurds. The US and Iran seem to be left out of the deal-making--we don't think they'll do a deal with each other as the only ones left at the dance.

After a messy war and a messy stand-off, this might bring a more stable peace. We'll have to see. One late change is that Trump was convinced to leave some US troops in Syria to control oil fields. He needed the issue dumbed down to that point since fair treatment and loyalty to our allies mean nohting to him.

The whole Syrian war has defied early expectations. At first it looked like an Arab spring uprising, but then everyone and their brother got involved with providing arms and pursuing agendas. The Islamic butchers known as Isis became the horrid common enemy that appeared even worse than the pre-war status quo. Perhaps they saved Assad even more than Russia did. Very strange indeed.

It's hard for me to guess what the ramifications of the US move will be on the future of the Middle East and US policies there. It seems bad policy to flush longterm alliances away, and even worse ethics if it leads to massacres. I can only hope the price isn't too high for both us and the Kurds.

Image: aa.com.tr

June links

Negotiations with Iran. Trump does a U-turn because he wants something done. Also he might be trying to head off Bolton's push to war.

Hong Kong protests. China is trying to depress freedoms in Hong Kong, again. That's a difficult situation, and those are brave people.

Did tax cuts help the economy? Economists were in a race to check for the indicators before they were swamped by Trump's trade wars. The data is rather muddy.

Shaming Congress. Jon Stewart speaking with such humanity and passion to a bunch of butt-kissing politicians. This is the kind of person we need in Congress, not the ones we have now. (Scroll down for video of his full speech.) An economist tells Trump why too many sanctions are harmful.

Shaming a politically correct college. Oberlin College was hit with a massive judgment for abetting trumped-up demonstrations by students against a local business.

Special considerations when pregnant women are jailed. I have never considered this issue, but it seems that the jail and prison managers haven't either, and they have no excuse.

Forged videos and fake news. The fakers now have even better tools for the lies they may want to spread. Yikes!

The internet remembers everything. And Twitter rewards 'mean,' so you're screwed if you've used it, and you're nobody if you haven't.

Image: giphy.com

July links

Travel ban ruling. A careful look at the travel ban (from some Muslim majority nations) and the issues involved. The Supreme Court decision and the dissent are haunted by the decision in the 1940s to intern Japanese-Americans. None of the justices want to make a mistake like that again. But there are other interesting issues, like whether waivers are being granted to those with clearly legitimate needs to visit the US. Definitely eye-opening and different from the usual partisan screamfest.

A history of the politics of Supreme Court nominations. A clear, easy read. I prefer the times when competence was the issue. However, the Bork nomination and anger over it eroded that. This prompted me to look into Bork again, and I found this strong statement of opposition to Bork--that he had no problem with discrimination and segregation as a personal choice of a business owner. Nor did he have any sympathy for the accidentally pregnant. It was the right thing to defeat this nomination. (I've written about before about the history of the Supreme Court.)

Poor standards at Fox News again. This time, Fox reported, Trump tweeted and both were wrong. This isn't actually news, but someone should keep score of how bad news orgs are.

Inside look at land management issue. This is a rare topic, but important for the future. Good choices on land management are a boon. Bad choices are a blight. I've seen it first hand on the Outer Banks of North Carolina.

Why is congress such a circus? There's actually an answer to that question. Gods be praised, and count me surprised. The answer is--messaging is still very important in Congress, but policy isn't. The number of pragmatic policy staff have been greatly reduced, but not the 'communications' people.

The latest winner in Syria... Is Israel. Read about the power plays between Israel, the US, Syria, Russia, and Iran. Fascinating. Seems coherent and solid to me. Will I still think so in a few years?

Image: economist.com

April links

I was away for the month of March with only a tablet, and not in the mood for typing on that infernal non-keyboard. I did read a few interesting items, and a few more since I returned home.

Closing the racial achievement gap. According to Charles Murray, this should be impossible because it's inherent in the genomes. An intensive program in New York City has had very good results. However, skimming the published scientific paper, it's not clear that the gap was erased, just that they were heading that way.

North Carolina's blatantly discriminatory voting act. Struck down, but uggghhhh! This couldn't happen in the Supreme Court hadn't decided that the Voting Right Act was no longer needed. Well, that was a partisan decision, not an honest judicial finding. I read elsewhere that the legislation disallowed the types of IDs that were more common among blacks. Yes, very blatant.

Voter fraud investigation in California. I wonder a lot about California, partly because I nearly became a voter there but bailed out before I committed an actual illegal act. This investigation may be ongoing, but hasn't turn up much. However, I like to watch whatever I can in CA.

Korean strategies. From March. This story is a bit slow, but still an easy read and fairly informative on different ways to view the situation in Korea.

Nazi story. A profile of a leader of a white supremacy group that was involved in Charlottesville.

Unexpected interference in business. Suppose the socialism wasn't the worst enemy of business. Instead, it was a thin-skinned blowhard who ended up as president.

Capsule picture of what's wrong with Trump. This story rings so true to me. Trump as an impetuous glad-hander who doesn't know what he's doing.

Iran's presence in Syria. Very informative story about why Israel is bombing airfields in Syria, and who has missiles where.

Image: dailytarheel.com

More reflections on the Iran deal

No one wants to admit how tough making this deal was. There's Iran, who is a very tough negotiator. There's a rickety alliance that backed the sanctions. There's the president and Secretary of State Kerry saying it's a good deal, it's the best we could get outside of fantasy land, and look at all these promising aspects. There's the noisy opponents of the deal pretending that we should have walked away and screwed Iran down even more. There are Iranian leaders who point out all the nuclear work they'll still get to do, but don't explain why such a defiant nation went into negotiations.

Who out there is saying that this deal probably has more holes than swiss cheese, but it's still the best we could get?

But think about it some more. This isn't just the best deal we could get, it's also historic. By my reckoning, it's the first deal limiting a nuclear program that has a chance of working.

Our deals with North Korea were failure after failure. Now they have nuclear weapons but are still one of the most benighted countries on Earth. Israel stopped Syria and Iraq from trying to build nuclear weapons by bombing them, not negotiations. With Iraq, it was a temporary setback. Their continued ambitions led to the American-Iraq war and the devastation of their country. Qaddafi in Libya gave up his nuclear program freely and willingly, perhaps sensing his own end, which nuclear weapons wouldn't have prevented.

If Iran actually abides by the agreement, it may be the first successful hard negotiation to prevent a country from going nuclear. That will be a surprising success in a field where failure is the norm.

A-bomb in the oven?

Image: outsidetheinterzone.blogspot.com

Extras. One article correctly highlighting how historic this deal is, but perhaps the article is thin on how weak it is. A good look at the problems in the deal, but also the huge obstacles in getting to a deal, including this: "The day [Obama] walked in . . . Iran was already a nuclear threshold state."

The Iran deal--wishing it was better

So the US, France, Russia, the UK, China, Germany, and Iran settled on a nuclear deal after years of negotiations to put sanctions in place and years of negotiations because the sanctions worked in putting the screws on Iran.

The deal is not spectacular. Most countries were hoping that Iran would give up its nuclear enrichment capability. Instead, Iran held fast to its sovereign right, and didn't back down on some enrichment. They could have sent a reassuring message to the world, but that's not what they chose to do.

Instead, they played on weaknesses among the countries supporting the sanctions, and got themselves more leeway for producing nuclear fuel. Yes, there are inspections and limits that they've agree to. But they haven't renounced the capability, as most people hoped they would.

Still, this may be the best deal available to hem them in. The alliance for the sanctions was breaking down. Russia is definitely more belligerent than when they agreed to the sanctions. China rarely wants to forego trading partners, so they were probably not strongly dependable on sanctions.

So maybe this weak deal was the best we could do.

Regional arms race next?

I'm not worried about Israeli reaction to the deal. They already have their nuclear weapons, but those weapons aren't particularly destabilizing. Israel has been suspected of having nukes since the 1960s, and that hasn't caused much of a blip in the Mideast compared to other aspects of Israeli policy.

Iran's nuclear capability causes more worry, partly because it might set off a nuclear arms race in the Mideast. I don't want to imagine what could happen if Saudi Arabia started building nukes. Imagine if ISIS or Boko Harum or a similar successor overran a base and got their hands on nukes. If Saudi Arabia builds nukes, the risk of this kind of scenario would be much higher than we've endured before. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but the risks are definitely there.

So Iran has increased the instability of the Mideast with its nuclear posturing. Sanctions didn't completely stop them, and neither will this deal. I'm not sure whether this deal will increase instability or decrease it. A lot depends on whether Iran misbehaves, and whether other countries will wait to see if Iran misbehaves.

Perhaps this is the best we can do. Iran doesn't want to give up its edge, and they have good reason not to. They have a lot of implacable enemies who wouldn't mind seeing them in ruins. Saudi Arabia would blow them off the planet if they could avoid the consequences of such an action. Lots of countries would blow their enemies to smithereens if they could get away with it. But consequences are unavoidable, and that keeps many people and countries in check.

Cooler heads?

Maybe the Saudis will realize that Iran assures its own destruction (by the US or others) if they ever use nuclear weapons, and therefore the Saudis won't start their own nuclear program. Maybe the Iranians will realize it too, and not proceed to building and testing a bomb.

I've really got to hope for that, since actually stopping them would take entail a huge war--bigger than anything since WWII. No country has the stomach for that.

Image: maxpark.com

Extras. I have a strange argument with a hawk who focuses, oddly, on UN issues. His thesis is that Russia and China would be too embarrassed to break a standing sanctions regime. Color me dubious about this claim.

Interesting article that delves into this question: "Is Iran an irrational rogue state or a rational, cooperating party?" Much of the success of the sanctions were due to US financial centrality, and the US could still exercise that power if Iran backslides. Read the funny/devastating tweets in this article.

Round-up of opinions on the Iran letter

My opinion on the open letter from 47 senators to Iran is that it's an immature poke-in-the-eye to the president, like inviting Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress. It's yet another sign that the GOP puts bombastic rhetoric above careful policy decisions, which is an incredibly bad choice for people who aspire to be leaders. Luckily, it probably won't affect the negotiations (for reasons stated below).

Here are some other opinions:

• Kathleen Parker, a mild conservative columnist, writes that the letter was a "bad but not apocalyptic idea and illustrates one of the more dangerous aspects of Washington’s indigenous narcissistic disorder."
• Another WaPo columnist writes that Tom Cotton just projected his name to great heights among the Tea Party types. That certainly is a good point. He came up with a way to punk Obama that isn't likely to be topped anytime soon.
• Quotes from GOP senators and aides who didn't support this letter, including Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Not... going to be constructive" and "cheeky."
• A somewhat whiny criticism that nonetheless contains insight about the tone and tactical cluelessness of the letter. 
• Finally, Jonathan Chait shows how neocon thinking, tactics, and fingerprints are all over this letter. 

I sincerely hope that this letter has no effect on the negotiations. It might not because it doesn't convey any information we didn't already know. Anyone who thought about it knew that a treaty wouldn't be approved by the Senate. Anyone with eyes, ears, brain, and access to American news knows that the GOP disrespects the president. So nothing new here.

It is terribly sad that American politics has sunk quite this low. This is a critically important issue, so it deserves critical thinking, not partisan foolery.

Tom Cotton undeterred by unintended consequences

Image: cnn.com

The Iran negotiations shouldn't be a partisan football

The worst part of our hyper-partisan environment is how too many issues get sucked into the partisan vortex. Also, policy issues end up having a preset Democratic side and Republican side, instead of having good policy thrashed out through passionate discussion.

Trust issues

The Iranian negotiations are definitely a terribly important issue since it involves an aggressive country that has been moving toward developing nuclear weapons. Iran may not be as aggressive as Iraq or North Korea, but they are supporting armies in other middle eastern countries, so we should worry about them more than we would about, say, Sweden.

According to the Dems, we can trust Obama to make a reasonable deal with the Iranians. According to the GOPers, Obama is either purposely or foolishly walking into a terrible deal that will allow the Iranians to build a bomb and become a truly frightening bully in the Mideast.

I actually agree somewhat with the GOPers. We shouldn't simply 'trust' the president to deliver a good deal. Leaders sometimes get taken for a ride because they want to deliver some sort of deal. We should have a healthy skepticism about the deal. If one is reached, we should look at it carefully before supporting it (though lack of public support won't necessarily derail it). Does Iran show clearly enough that it won't be pursuing nuclear arms? If it holds on to enrichment capability, is it too much, or is it a token for national pride? I want to know this about any potential agreement.

Breakout

A good thing about the Netanyahu speech is that serious people are talking about the real risks of this agreement. What if Iran decides to build a nuclear weapon, and now has the chance to do it more easily because it bargained in bad faith and got away with it? How much enrichment capability is too much?

That last one is a fascinating question when you unpack it. It now seems that we might have some tolerance for Iranian enrichment capability--it's no longer a zero-tolerance policy. Netanyahu talked about a 'ten year breakout' situation, where Iran would have to run its centrifuges for 10 years in order to make enough enriched uranium to make one bomb. Other news leaks suggest a 1-year breakout period.

I wish Iran would consider giving up enrichment capability altogether. However, there is a good reason why it won't. It's not an easy deal for a country that doesn't want to be dependent on others for energy resources. Also, there is national pride--as a proud nation, we should understand that too. However, since Iran has ruled out giving up all enrichment capabilities, how do we know if they are negotiating in good faith, or if their intentions are to renege as soon as sanctions have eased enough?

I certainly don't know how we can tell, and I'm not sure the negotiators can tell either. This is where partisan assumptions can jump in. Dems tend to assume that the Iranians are planning to honor their word, and Republicans tend to assume that Iran is lying and negotiating in bad faith. Dems assume we can come to a satisfactory agreement, and Republicans assume Obama is stupid or treasonous for even talking with the Iranians. Neither of these assumptions is helpful in these negotiations, where we do have to be very wary.

The only way to be sure

I hope for a deal. Our experience with decades-long sanctions on Iraq and our eventual invasion isn't one I'd like to repeat with Iran. I see a deal as the best way to encourage Iran to engage with the rest of the world rather than fight with it. But there isn't certainly it will work. Continued sanctions wouldn't bring certainty either.

Only an extremely bloody, expensive invasion and occupation would bring utter assurance that Iran won't build nuclear bombs. No country is willing to pay that price, so absolute assurance isn't not going to be available to us. Anyone demanding absolute assurance is demanding extreme measures, whether they admit it or not.

Image: telegraph.co.uk

Extras. Longish articles on breakout: from Foreign Policy (simpler), an Israeli news service, and a left-of-center American think tank. Iran's buildup of uranium.

Postponed update April 2015: What are the alternatives to negotiations and could they work?

Letter to the Iranians

Dear Ayatollahs,

We really hate this president. We also understand that you don't like any Americans. So maybe you're willing to help us punk him.

Even though you're currently negotiating with this punk-ass president, you can help us and make him really angry by ending these negotiations with no deal at all. That would be great if you'd do that for us, and it would really embarrass the president badly. As Iranians, you have an illustrious history of punking American presidents, just like you punked President Carter, another piece of scum.

Of course, we have to disclose that we don't personally like you guys or approve of you, but we hate the president even more, which is why we ask you to punk him.

Thank you for taking this request under consideration, and thank you in advance for spiking these negotiations. We're pretty sure you're not missing anything by passing up a deal, so there's no cost to you for playing this great trick on punk-ass president Nobama.

Sincerely,

47 Republican Senators (all the real conservatives in the Senate)

Another proud moment in American letters

Image: wikipedia.org

Short: Iran negotiates, but will the Senate approve?

Here's a fascinating article about the negotiations between the US and Iran. It doesn't focus on centrifuges or which sanctions need to stay, or on timetables, or any of that boring but important stuff.

Instead, it focuses on the elephant in the room. If Obama makes a deal with Iran, there's no fucking way that the Senate will approve it. No fucking way at all.

It doesn't take much reflection to see that this observation is true. The readers are probably nodding their heads in agreement right now. So, chances are that the Iranians know it too. Yet they are still negotiating.

I think they want a settlement and want to be part of global trade much more than they want nuclear weapons. That makes sense, because you can't eat nuclear weapons, live in them, or play them on your Xbox. You can't shoot them at people without HUGE repercussions either. Food, housing, and game consoles are much more practical, and maybe that's what Iranians really want. That's the better choice. Good on you, Iran. I hope it remains that way.

The Senate went nuclear, but Iran isn't... maybe?

Image: telegraph. co,uk

Chamberlain capitulates to the mullahs

I was quite happy to hear that Iran, the US, and five other countries had come to a deal to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. It seems like a win-win situation to me:

• Iran gets to move away from its prideful but destabilizing nuclear program.
• Nuclear worries are cooled.
• Iran gets to start trading again and get out of its spiraling poverty.

My biggest worry is that it could be a whitewash. Iran is eager for looser sanctions, but will it continue its program and give the world a nuclear surprise a la Pakistan or North Korea?

News Source - National Review

When I start my reading with National Review, I find out that this is the biggest mistake since blah, blah, blah, something with Hitler. Sorry, as everyone knows, it's the Munich accords with Hitler, which allowed Hitler to take over a large piece of Czechoslovakia.

Wow, if John Kerry and Obama, not to mention the other countries, have done a Munich-like agreement, why would they have big announcements? Maybe I should find out what's in this horrible agreement. So I google, and find this handy list of the provisions from CNN. It's too long to repeat, but it seems pretty good.

Iran's going to de-enrich its 20% enriched uranium and allow daily inspections. Most of the sanctions stay in place while the enforcer nations see if Iran fulfills its part of the bargain. As a carrot, there is some easing of sanctions. That sounds really good!!! ... as well it should because the list is taken from the White House press release.

Nonetheless, National Review is sorely lacking in its own list of what's wrong with the deal. In the list wars, the White House has won hands-down. That may not be a good way to judge, but the WH provided a damn good list and NRO provided article after article of warmed-over Hitler comparisons. Fourteen articles in all, and no list! Come on, tell me some solid reasons why this is a repeat of the accord that gave free rein to Hitler.

Evaluation Sorely Lacking

I didn't find a strong critique of the deal, so I'm left hoping that it's as good as it sounds. But it's not just me. One commenter reports that the Israeli stock market is soaring! WAY TO GO!!!!

What I didn't realize that the sanctions weren't meant to convince Iran to give up nuclear weapons programs. Instead, they were meant to collapse the Iranian government:

"Realists knew that the sanctions were good for only one purpose: to weaken the regime to the point where it would collapse or be overthrown."--National Review

Stupid me. Regime change was so good in Iraq and Afghanistan that we want it for the even more populous country of Iran. What a plan! That won't destabilize the mideast at all. No wonder the Israeli stock market is cheering.

[Apology: I didn't mean to turn this post into a rant. I honestly wanted to find out more about this agreement. Something in me got wound up by those 14 stories in NRO. I didn't get to chill out because among the Google top news for the US, the Iran story didn't even make an appearance.]

Image: jihadwatch.org

Extras. A more balanced piece in National Review. It reports that Iran's concessions will set its enrichment program back only a few months, with some checkable details. Fareed Zakaria tries to sort it out. George Will declares that Iran will get the bomb for sure now.

Some typical "Munich" rhetoric with an ironic kicker:

"There is not a good record, from Philip of Macedon to Hitler to Stalin in the 1940s to Carter and the Soviets in the 1970s to radical Islamists in the 1990s, of expecting authoritarians and thugs to listen to reason, cool their aggression, and appreciate democracies’ sober and judicious appeal to logic — once they sense in the West greater eagerness to announce new, rather than to enforce old, agreements."--National Review

But wait, didn't the Soviets do just that, cool their aggression, and change their ways without a massive war? Nah, it couldn't ever work that way again.

Image: youviewed.com

Two flavors of flip-flop

So conservatives hate flip-floppers, do they? Well, they'll get to choose between two different flavors of the type.

Romney has famously flipped on abortion, his political leanings, cap and trade, immigration, and (highest of treasons) health insurance mandates. In each case, he's flipped to being harder.

Santorum's flips have been less notorious. He's been walking back his opposition to homosexuality. In the past, he thought it was fine for states to criminalize homosexuality acts. Now, he'd love his son if he was gay (and suppress those lectures on unnatural sex acts, I guess). He's also flipped on raising the retirement age, auditing the Fed, teaching intelligent design as science, right-to-work laws, and No Child Left Behind. Santorum has usually flipped to being softer, except for his previous support for unions and national education initiatives.

This is an important distinction with you're a red-blooded conservative. Do you support the johnny-come-lately conservative, or the becoming-less-paleolithic conservative? Most red conservatives are going for the barely-escaped-the-paleolithic conservative.

For me, it's an easy choice. I hope that, under all his recent pandering, Romney is still a moderate. I also think he's the Republican most likely to address our deficit problems. With Santorum, I suspect it's lower on the priority list, somewhere below "Pursue expensive war on Iran."

I wonder who the whole of the Republican party, not just the hard-core conservatives, will choose. Is there room for a semi-moderate who pretends he isn't? We shall see.

Getting to be a GOP tradition...