home

Tuesday Open Thread

I'll be busy at work most of this week. I'll put up open threads, and check in a few times a day or night, but I will have little, if any, time for blogging or even reading the news.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday Night Open Thread: Breaking Bad | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Rouhani (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 09:28:41 AM EST
    Is Obama going to meet Iran's democratically elected president today ?

    These guys... they are like highschoolers with their bravado and putting some form of dominance into handshakes and stares.

    Rouhani has said publicly he wants to work with the US, IMO there isn't one GD good reason for Obama not to meet with him beyond some idiotic sense of posturing.

    But I am guessing he won't because the idiot brigade would view it as a sign of weakness and Obama seems to really care what the people who hate him think.

    Why is it (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 09:57:09 AM EST
    people are more concerned with optics than substance. In the last two weeks we've accomplished more with Iran than we have since we cut off diplomatic relations in 1979.

    Obama has already had beneficial exchanges with Rouhani and Kerry is meeting with Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif at the UN this week. This is the highest contact between the two nations in 36 years and it's being praised by nearly all world leaders.

    Parent

    This household is thrilled (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:24:30 PM EST
    Syria and Iran not hanging up on us all in the same month?  And our last President lied and immorally invaded and destroyed the infrastructure of their neighbor, killed a whole bunch of people just for shits and giggles and shock and awe and threw around "the axis of evil".  President Obama Friggin Rocks!!!!!!!

    Parent
    Guy's awesome! (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:11:06 PM EST
    I've never seen such eleven dimensional magicianin' in my life! Lol.

    He covertly turned the whole world against him to stop him from starting WWIII, while making everyone think he had his finger hovering over the button to blackmail them into stopping him and nobody noticed!

    He frickin' rocks like nobodies bidness!

    OMG! He's like sooo totally awesome!

    Heh! Hand me an airsick bag, wouldja? Heh. heh heh heh... sigh.

    Parent

    I will admit... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    He blows me away.

    Parent
    Because the Two... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    ...aren't mutually exclusive; optics & substance that is.  Especially in a democracy.

    Are you suggesting that open exchanges between politically powerful folks serves no purpose other than show ?  Pleaze.

     

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    But based on your negative comment about what's happening between Obama and Iran, it's apparent you're only interested in the show and not the substance. It was a Nancy Grace type comment.

    Parent
    Thanks for Denying... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    ...what you originally claimed and then spinning it off by calling me NG.

    How about defending what you wrote and how it relates to what I responded with, namely that optics and substance aren't mutually exclusive, especially in terms of politically powerful leaders meeting publicly.

    Or would you rather take another cheap shot ?

    Parent

    It wasn't cheap (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    it was deserved. You earned it with this line

    These guys... they are like highschoolers with their bravado and putting some form of dominance into handshakes and stares.

    Your original post showed you have no interest in the substance that is taking place or you would have spoken of the progress, and of the highest level meeting between the countries since the 1970's. Instead you opted for pompous puffery.

    Parent

    So I Guess... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 03:23:54 PM EST
    ...when I see world leaders trying playing those the games, like who goes through a door first or whose hand is on top of a shake, I shouldn't make note on how ridiculous that is ?

    Their petty needs and grudges have real world effects.  It's a damn shame they can't be above it all and check it at the door for the good of the millions they represent.

    So in that regard, I agree, it's juvenile and ridiculous, but pointing it out isn't.  Don't put their idiocy on me, I didn't make it up.  LINK

    Parent

    You don't have to be worry about your optics (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:05:34 PM EST
    Rouhani chose not to attend the luncheon where your photo op was to take place.

    Parent
    Because... (none / 0) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 09:05:37 AM EST
    Two senior administration officials told White House reporters that a meeting -- even a handshake, even on the sidelines -- proved "too complicated" for Rouhani back home.
    LINK

    Parent
    So could you clarify (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 09:20:30 AM EST
    Where does this fit your definitive statement from yesterday:

    there isn't one GD good reason for Obama not to meet with him beyond some idiotic sense of posturing

    Based on your statement, who resorted to idiotic posturing by not meeting for a handshake?

    Parent

    Right... (none / 0) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    ...I called Obama out on the idiotic posturing, turns Iran beat him to it, which of course precludes finding out what Obama would have done.

    But the point still stands, idiotic leaders posturing instead of doing what is best for the people they represent.

    I thought optics didn't matter.

    Parent

    As you might expect, Groucho Marx can explain (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 12:26:22 PM EST
    this situation absolutely perfectly.

    Parent
    "Noooo...it was a seven letter word..." (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 02:01:10 PM EST
    "Upstart!"

    Love that movie.

    Parent

    "Duck Soup" is one of the best (none / 0) (#77)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 03:19:04 PM EST
    American movies ever made, if you ask me.  And it was Groucho's favorite, according to his memoirs; he called it "the war movie."

    Parent
    Yesterday was meaningless (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 10:31:16 AM EST
    There was no idiotic posturing on either side. What takes place between Kerry and Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Thursday along with 6 other nations is the next of many steps.

    Handshakes only matter for those keyboard shrinks that try to psychologically evaluate them from their living room Barcalounger.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:27:06 PM EST
    Optics and substance are not mutually exclusive.  Indeed, optics relate to tone, and tone influences substance.   For example, public announcements of letter exchanges could be considered optics that create tone and support more substantive gains.   And, the  opportunity for a meeting, albeit preliminary and informal, should not be missed.

    Parent
    In this particular diplomatic kabuki, ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:00:47 AM EST
    ... the only thing that really matters is what Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khameini, thinks. He's the guy who ultimately calls the shots in that country, and not President Rouhani.

    If the Ayotollah's open to dialogue with the U.S. in an effort to reach some sort of mutual understanding and accord, and the indirect word is that he just might be -- and it's always indirect with the Ayotollah, who tends to not speak with anyone outside his own inner circle, let alone to journalists --  then whatever meeting or interaction that takes place today at the UN between Rouhani and Barack Obama would be very meaningful.

    If he's not, those two could sit together today at a piano and cover Paul McCartney's "Ebony and Ivory" as a duet, and it would ultimately amount to bunk.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Meeting of figureheads... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:52:16 AM EST
    Obama's not the guy that calls the shots either...our supreme leaders are just more shadowy than the Ayotollah.

    Parent
    Nope. You can do better, kdog (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:26:59 PM EST
    It may be nice playing to a certain audience (wink, wink) with a comment like that.  So ... let me ask -- since we know the specific person calling the shots in Iran, and that is the Ayatollah-- who is the specific person or who are the specific identities of who is calling the shots, as you suggest, for Obama.  (Or do you want a pass on that one :) )

    Parent
    The "business interests"... (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:35:35 PM EST
    that every modern American president has been beholden to.  In the case of diplomacy with Iran, or lack there of, my money is on Big Oil, the military industrial complex, and AIPAC.

    Parent
    At least (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    AIPAC's agenda is justifiable; they enjoy living, and would like to see to it that their children get that opportunity also.

    It's not their imagination that their neighbors aren't making plans to send their children to Ben-Gurion University any time soon.

    Parent

    Palestinians want their children to live as well (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:13:31 PM EST
    and AIPAC's support of Israel's settlement and apartheid policies doesn't exactly give Palestinian families much hope.

    Parent
    Amen... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:21:42 PM EST
    f*ck zionists and f&ck islamists....sign me up for OPPAC, the One People Public Affairs Committee.

    Parent
    Do you really believe (none / 0) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:46:31 PM EST
    a subject as intractable as the Israeli/Palestinian one has proven to be is appropriate fodder for a political blog? I hope  you'll excuse me for not wishing to be involved in a discussion of such tragic seriousness in a venue where snark and one-liners are the instruments of choice.

    Parent
    Love ya brother... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 03:23:36 PM EST
    but it was you who brought up the Israel/Palestine situation.  All I said is the president has to answer to AIPAC among other special interests, when questioned by christime as to who our versions of the Ayatollah are.  

    We're certainly not gonna solve anything on Talkleft, but I don't see why it would be inappropriate fodder...it's what we do here, talk about this f*cked up world and hopefully provoke thought in our sometimes snarky way.  

    Parent

    And, you know (none / 0) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:48:03 PM EST
    the love is mutual, dogman. I've got no beef with you or shoephone.......99% of the time. My only point was that AIPAC is more than the nefarious, blackmailing, racist, enemies of humanity they've been morphed into becoming the last couple of decades. And, these instant experts who, yesterday, didn't know AIPAC from CUPCAKE are sudden scholars on this incredibly complicated, tragically difficult problem.

    I don't care what blog you go on these days; mention AIPAC, or, just Israel for that matter, and, you're immediately bombarded by barely literate now-nothings accusing you of being a child killer, or even better, a Nazi.

    People have been studying the history of that region for centuries and scholars still haven't agreed on a chronology of what has taken place there. And, out of respect for that, and, readily admitting that I don't have the answers, I'm simply saying that I don't want to "go there." And, those who feel they're knowledgeable enough about the subject to cast dispersions, hey, go for it.

    I just don't want to participate. And, you'll have to excuse me, but, making a slight, benign comment about AIPAC doesn't automatically "open the door" to everything, and anything, else about them. That's one of the reasons I hardly comment here anymore. If I were to say, for instance, "Hey, did you see the picture of Bill Clinton on the cover of ABC magazine; he looked really good." I can guarantee you that the snark assault would be instantaneous, brutal, and predictable as rain. "He killed 30,000 babies!!!!" would be the general theme of the responses. And, by your reasoning I "opened the door."

    Anyway, I hope you understand what I'm trying to get across, kman.


    Parent

    What is striking about Israel (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 12:43:28 AM EST
    is how thoroughly the Jewish people were consistently routed militarily--until 1947.

    Love Paris?  The Arc de Triomphe is majestic and beautiful?   The history behind it is not so nice, and actually disgusting.   Napoleon had it built to mimic the Arch of Titus in Rome.

    I remember the Arch of Titus being the only structure fully preserved or restored in that pile of rubble chock full of feral cats otherwise known as the Forum.  The Arch of Titus is the monument built to celebrate the thorough destruction of Jerusalem and obliteration of its people in the First Jewish War circa 70 C.E.   How extensive was the defeat?  The military campaign eradicated the center of a new Jewish sect so completely that its center shifted to Rome.  But for the defeat of the Jewish people in the First Jewish War, the Popes would have reigned in Jerusalem.

    For the Jewish people in general and the Israelis in particular, it must be horrifying to know that two of the most venerated monuments oohed and aahed over are monuments to the slaughter of the Jewish people.

    Parent

    I believe I do... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:16:01 AM EST
    my friend.  And I certainly make no claim to scholarship on the issue (sh*t any issue except confusion;).

    On the flip, mention the plight of the Palestinians, or mention our role as Israel's sugar weapons daddy that AIPAC lobbies/greases so hard for, or our role in the coup of '53, or supporting Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war, and you're called a suicide bomber supporting anti-semite.  

    I guess ya gotta discuss/debate with those rational enough to do so, and ignore the rest.  And to some extent we all get irrational when it comes to issues we feel most strongly about.  We're not Vulcans;)

     

    Parent

    Exactly, (none / 0) (#71)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 01:43:15 PM EST
    and, as you so ably point out, this is an issue that truly does have two sides.

    So, my point stands; The Israeli/Palestinian situation should be discussed by intelligent, informed, well-meaning people who understand the legitimate interests, and histories, of the folks it affects.

    And, as you well know, a blog like this one is not the forum for that type of debate.

    If ever a subject defines, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," you got it right here.

    Parent

    Agree to disagree to some extent... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    I still see nothing wrong with anybody and everybody discussing it...how else do you get educated and informed?  But I agree "well meaning" is critical...and most here at TL are well meaning imo, it's why we subject ourselves to the depressing torture of current events and world affairs...we mean well and wanna try to understand why the world is so f8cked up, even if there is little that we can do about it that doesn't involve arrest.

    Parent
    Which is why (none / 0) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 04:14:35 PM EST
    I said yesterday that I have no problem at all with you and/or kdog. Even if we should disagree about some topic, motivation is everything......meaning, I know that in your hearts you're good, empathetic people. And, if I were to make an argument that, logically, disproves a position you may have held I trust you would be capable of changing your mind. Or, at least, you might say, "you know what, I don't know enough about this subject to take a definitive stand so get back to me when I learn a little more."

     I know I don't have to waste a lot of time convincing you such is not always the case when it comes to the blogosphere. Whether the subject is guns, racism, politics, or the "one who shall not be named," most people enter the debate with predetermined, unshakeable positions and have no interest in listening to another point of view. And, unfortunately, this is why we don't have open minded debates, or discussions, we have food fights.

    Maybe it's my heritage but, I sure wish a little civility would enter our world.


    Parent

    Right there with ya... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    on the lack of civility in internet communication...Bill Maher did a great bit on that very topic on his show last week.  

    But I like to think Talkleft has always been a step above the fray, at least in comparison to the comments sections on news articles or youtube, where sh&theads and arseholes seem to exclusively hold court.  This venue has always been special, the occasional spats and nastiness aside. And long may she run.

    Parent

    Discussed (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 02:33:32 PM EST
    That is what needs to be done. The problem in the US (and quite frankly your argument)  is that discussion is shut down in the US promptly when anyone criticizes Israeli policies.

    In Israel the left is allowed to fully discuss and criticize. Here in the US the right aided by well meaning liberals, shuts down any discussion other than blind allegiance to Israel, with cries of anti-semitism.

    Parent

    I'm surprised at you ole buddy (none / 0) (#80)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 04:58:54 PM EST
    that an acute, critical thinker like yourself would fall for the current urban legend.
    "...shuts down any discussion other than blind allegiance to Israel, with cries of anti-semitism."

    Look around, read anything, there's nothing but criticism of Israel. And, that would be fine IF the person doing the criticising actually had done a little studying regarding the issues involved instead of simply jumping on the, "look how liberal, and cool I am, I can bash Israel all I want to as long as everyone, and, I mean everyone, is bashing them too. All I have to do is drag out the non-existent, imaginary, anti-Semitic straw man as a defense, and you can't touch me." Ha-ha.

    But, having said that, you know the old adage, "it's not paranoia if someone really is following you." So is the cover that legitimate criticism of Israeli policy gives to actual anti-Semites. I don't think its coincidence that so many barely literate and, totally uneducated people regarding that region's history suddenly have this outpouring of concern for the plight of the Palestinians. Having shown zero interest in the suffering of so many other disparate groups around the world, all of a sudden we have this spontaneous epiphany of sympathy for a group of people they know absolutely nothing about.........except, of course, that they hate Jews.

    Criticize Israel? Absolutely! But, it's not asking too much that those doing the criticizing actually learn something about its history and, not just repeat today's trendy bumper slogan.


    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    People can snipe all they want, anti semite or not about Israel, but once a discussion moves into the realm where those who wield some actual power in the US, have to get involved in the discussion the discussion is shut down. And being critical of Israel almost always brings on accusations of anti-semitism. Self hating jews etc.

    It is not possible to have a meaningful dialogue on the subject of Israel and Palestine here in the US.

    And, regarding anti-semitism, arabs are semites as well, and there is much more bigotry in the western world, regarding that brand of semite, more so on an institutional level than the anti-semitism you are referring to.


    Parent

    uneducated? (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 11:05:57 PM EST
    Really Shooter, who are the end times goyim who want to help Israel take possession of the Temple Mount and "Judea and Samaria" and begin sacrificing red heiffers in order to bring on the advent of the Messianic Age -- and all based on a Marvel Comics-level reading of scripture --
    Those people are what? Deeply learned, nuanced thinkers working toward a sustainable future?

    The useful idiots get a pass?

    Parent

    I truly hope (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 05:05:30 PM EST
    that is not what you inferred from my comment.

    There are more than enough "useful idiots" on both sides to make this problem as intractable as it has become.

    Parent

    Palestinians (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 11:45:07 PM EST
    simply by virtue of being Palestinians, all "hate Jews"?

    That's supposed to pass muster as a fair-minded, objective asssessment of the situation?

    Parent

    oh, please (none / 0) (#85)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 02:51:41 PM EST
    nit-picking a little hyperbole in trying to make a point doesn't further a meaningful discussion on this sensitive issue.

    But, if that's your primary concern, "most" Palestinians hate Jews.

    Fixed.

    Parent

    Absurd (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    Really absurd NYSHooter...  it may be that many Palestinians who are being oppressed by the Israelis hate their oppressors, but to generalize that they hate the jews is absurd.

    This is the crux of the problem in the US,  Israelis and Jews are considered synonymous, so any criticism of Israel is flagged as anti-semitism.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    basically what you're saying is that most Palestinians are stupid bigots.

    I don't buy that sweeping characterization anymore than I buy that Jews just want to lure little innocent flowers of the Rhineland into dark alleyways.

    Parent

    What kdog said, in #34. (none / 0) (#36)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 03:40:27 PM EST
    I really have no desire to engage on that issue on blogs, because I've been lambasted by both sides before. So I'm happy to leave it alone. However, you did open the door with your comment defending AIPAC...

    Parent
    It's a BS Question... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    ...first, you don't know who is calling what shots in Iran and how condensed/distributed that power is.  Secondly, to suggest that other leaders, like say their elected President, have no influence, seems rather naive considering that they are here in the US to address the UN and meet with world leaders.  The point is you have no idea what the decision making process in Iran is.  I doubt few in the US do.

    Our government is designed so that no one person is 'calling the shots'.  So generally, with some exceptions, the President needs Congressional approval.

    Like kdog mentioned, special interests 'call the shots' here through legalized bribery of our elected officials, aka lobbying.  

    We send a man who has nothing to do with the political process, Kerry, to negotiate with other Nations.  How is Rouhani any different than Kerry ?

    Parent

    ScottW714: "[F]irst, you don't know who is calling what shots in Iran and how condensed/distributed that power is. Secondly, to suggest that other leaders, like say their elected President, have no influence, seems rather naive considering that they are here in the US to address the UN and meet with world leaders."

    ... of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Prime Minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh) attempted to challenge the authority of the Supreme Leader (the late Ayatollah Khomeini), he was charged with treason, tried and convicted, and then executed by firing squad. And this was the very same guy with whom we had supposedly negotiated the release of the American embassy hostages in 1980-81.

    I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that President Rouhani is without some influence. We're only noting that whatever influence he does enjoy is almost strictly at the convenience, discretion and forbearance of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Let's please not be so cavalier with accusations of naiveté.  

    According to the Islamic Republic's constitution, the Supreme Leader is the sole arbiter of "the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran." He thus controls both the tone and the direction of the country's domestic and foreign policies, and further, it is he and not the president who serves as commander-in-chief of both Iran's armed forces and its intelligence and security services.

    Ayatollah Khameini is the only person in Iran who can decide issues of war and peace. Further, he has the sole authority to appoint and dismiss the leaders and members of of the Iranian judiciary, as well as the directors of state radio and television networks, and the also the supreme commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He also appoints nine of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians, the powerful body that oversees the activities of the Iranian parliament and determines which candidates are and are not qualified to run for public office.

    Therefore, suffice to say that the Ayatollah Khameini is clearly the guy with the big sombrero in Iran, and if for whatever reason he decides sometime in the near or distant future that he's had enough and President Rouhani's got to go, then Rouhani is going to be gone in fairly short order.

    After all, when the Ayatollah decided four years ago that he really care for all the public criticism which then-recently re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was receiving from members of the opposition, he didn't hesitate to have those critics summarily dismissed from Parliament and / or arrested, and then proceeded to crush with armed force the massive street demonstrations which followed shortly thereafter throughout the country.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Ayatollah Khameini (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:07:14 AM EST
    Explicit public support from the supreme leader of the Islamic republic provides Rouhani and his colleagues with the necessary authority for a diplomatic resolution of a number of foreign policy issues with the west, not just the nuclear issue.


    Parent
    He has agreed to it (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:30:31 PM EST
    Wanted to point you and others to a (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:50:28 PM EST
    new blog that just premiered this week: Just Security, which I think may be a thoughtful, reasoned, educational resource for all these security-related issues.  In two days, there is so much there, I'm not sure I could make my way through it all, seriously.

    There's a pretty impressive group of contributors, in my opinion.

    Here's how the blog describes itself:

    Just Security is an online forum for the rigorous analysis of U.S. national security law and policy. We aim to promote principled and pragmatic solutions to national security problems that decision-makers face. Our Board of Editors include individuals with significant government experience, civil society attorneys, academics, and other leading voices. Just Security is based at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law.


    Parent
    Looks good, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:06:58 PM EST
    Thanks for the link!

    Parent
    People Who Hate Him? (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    Israel, too, sabotaged the chance for the west to reach an agreement with Iran, by injecting scepticism and doubt at the time. On the eve of Rouhani's speech at the UN, Israel has again begun a campaign to discredit him because it fears the end of tension between Iran and the west.

    Those who are trapped by bitter experience make every effort to disrupt the progress of diplomacy once again. These people fail to realise a simple point about the relationship between domestic and foreign policy.

    Mohammad Khatami at the Guardian

    My guess is that Obama will meet with him..  

    During the Presidential campaign, Senator Obama repeatedly quoted President Kennedy: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

    link

    "We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."

    In his Democratic presidential bid, Mr. Obama has vigorously sought to distinguish himself on foreign policy from his rivals, particularly Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, by asserting that he would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions.

    NYT

    We'll see...

    Parent

    To be more specific (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    the Israeli right coalition (here and in the ME) fears the end of tension between Iran and the west..

    And as Norman Finkelstein likes to say, the hardest of the hardliners aren't in Jerusalem and in the settlements, they're in Miami Beach, Martha's Vinyard, and NYC..

    Parent

    ...and living in Pam Geller's house... (none / 0) (#25)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:07:17 PM EST
    Brazil's president, Dilma Rousseff (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    Speaking to the UN General Assembly:
    "Friendly governments and societies that seek to build a true strategic partnership, as in our case, cannot allow recurring illegal actions to take place as if they were normal. They are unacceptable," she said.

    "The arguments that the illegal interception of information and data aims at protecting nations against terrorism cannot be sustained. Brazil, Mr President, knows how to protect itself. We reject, fight and do not harbour terrorist groups," Rousseff said.

    "As many other Latin Americans, I fought against authoritarianism and censorship and I cannot but defend, in an uncompromising fashion, the right to privacy of individuals and the sovereignty of my country," the Brazilian president said. She was imprisoned and tortured for her role in a guerilla movement opposed to Brazil's military dictatorship in the 1970s.

    "In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. In the absence of the respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for the relationship among nations."



    Brazil's Radical Internet Plan (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:09:43 AM EST
    Brazil is not very happy about all these NSA revelations. ... Brazil hates it so much that it wants to disconnect itself from the U.S. internet altogether.

    This will not a simple task, but there is a real plan in place. And to be frank, it's a pretty aggressive move in the direction of the government taking control of how the internet works. President Dilma Rousseff seems bullish about it, though, and has ordered several specific--and potentially impossible--measures to break away from the U.S. internet:

    Force Internet companies like Google and Facebook to build servers inside Brazil's borders so that they would be subject to Brazilian privacy laws.
    Build more internet exchange points in order to route Brazilian traffic around potential spyware.
    Launch a state-run email service through the postal service to act as an alternative to Gmail, Yahoo Mail and others.
    Laying a new underwater cable to Europe so that Brazil can connect with those countries directly

    Gizmodo

    more at the guardian

    From our "When Wingbats Twerk" file: (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    This has to be the stupidest column ever written by Lucianne Goldberg's son -- and that's no mean feat:

    "Ted Cruz is no Joe McCarthy, as so many liberals bizarrely claim. But he might be the conservative Barack Obama. It says something about today's political climate that both liberals and conservatives may find that latter comparison more offensive. Bear with me."

    Uh, no. Politics aside for the moment, people across the ideological spectrum tend to not like Ted Cruz because time and again, he's proven himself to be a pompous, sanctimonious, and totally self-absorbed jackass with a reckless and arrogant contempt for anyone and anything standing in his way. And in that regard, he's very much like the late Sen. Joe McCarthy.

    Why the Los Angeles Times continues to keep Jonah Goldberg on its payroll, I honestly don't know.

    :-P

    Speaking of McCarthy... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    some early red-scare tactics being employed by Brand R longshot for NYC mayor Joe Lhota against Brand D favorite Bill De Blasio, because he did humanitarian work with the Sandanistas and went to Cuba for his honeymoon.

    Desperation is a stinky cologne Joe.

     

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 137 (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:32:15 AM EST
    FEMA Flood Insurance Rising (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    FEMA subsidies to end Oct. 1.

    According to FEMA, starting on Oct. 1, people in homes 4 feet below the agency's base-flood elevation would have premiums of $9,500 a year. For individuals with homes at FEMA's base-elevation levels, the rates would be $1,410 a year. Those with homes 3 feet above base-flood elevation would pay only $427 a year.

    But in high-risk areas, FEMA says on its website, premiums could reach in "excess of $20,000 a year" in some cases.



    I feel for the people... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    of modest means in those high risk coastal areas, but mother nature has spoken and is speaking...she wants to give that land back to the ocean.  

    It's only gonna get worse with climate change, as much as it may pain us to say it, it's time to move inland, mother nature is the boss.  

    Parent

    Well, that's one way ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    ... to solve our democracy's problems with Florida.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Listening to President Obama and Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    Sell Obamacare

    They are doing terrific

    But but but... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:37:12 AM EST
    Teddy Cruz said Obamacare has killed 24 White Castle Restaurants to date (using the term restaurant loosely).  

    This aggression cannot stand man! ;)

    Parent

    Considering (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 06:58:42 AM EST
    Obamacare all started as nothing more than a throw-away line for a speech (not a well-crafted, well-thought out policy), and how many changes have taken place since the bill's inception - they're going to HAVE to do a d@mn good sales job.

    Bill Clinton can do it.  Barack Obama cannot.

    Parent

    Just saw Cher on Letterman. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 02:53:53 AM EST
    My god, she looks fabulous. She was the only guest tonight, just Cher and David talking. It was a bit of a stroll down the rock 'n roll memory lane. At the end she sang a number from her new album.

    She's going to be mentoring Team Blake on (none / 0) (#60)
    by Angel on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    The Voice this season.  That should be something special to witness, and I for one cannot wait!

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 138 (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    Hump Day... (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 12:53:20 PM EST
    ...this is so stoooopid, but it cracks me up every time I see it.  Guess What Day It Is...

    I like Republican Jesus way more than Mojo Jesus.

    Parent

    Then you'll no doubt appreciate ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 02:19:02 PM EST
    ... Sen. Al Franken's "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus," from back in his "Air America" days when he would ridicule the mighty conservative Wurlitzer with his caustic wit.

    Nowadays, the former SNL comedian / writer is all business, which stands in sharp contrast to his GOP Senate colleague, Ted "Carnival" Cruz, who's clearly his own best parody.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Iran Snubs Obama (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    Don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:46:03 PM EST
    what is meant by "typical," given the atypical circumstances.  However, President Obama risked nothing in offering to meet, and gained much in his very willingness to do so.

    Parent
    Overkill.... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 06:49:29 PM EST
    Senior administration officials told the White House pool about half an hour ago that the White House had offered to have "an encounter" on the sidelines of UN General Assembly with Obama and Rouhani, but the Iranians informed the U.S. today that it is "too complicated for Iranians to do at this point."

    This is what you're calling a "snub"? Defined as "ignoring (someone) in a deliberate and insulting way"?

    Saying that an "encounter" (whatever that is) is "too complicated for Iranians to do at this point" is dimensionally different than a public snub.

    You want to make this into the scene from "Duck Soup"?

    Things are moving in the right direction with Iran.
    There are forces on our side and on their side that don't want détente. Let's be calm. Let's not forget that their revolution was to overthrow a real son-of-a-bitch that we installed in their country. We crushed their democracy.

    Be cool.
    This can take time.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:45:52 AM EST
    The NYT has a good take on the biggest event that happened even though, like in magic, we did not see anyones hands move..

    Obama and Rouhani Miss Each Other, Diplomatically, at U.N.

    Parent

    And Gorbachev snubbed (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 05:31:51 PM EST
    Reagan at Reykjavik by rejecting his offer to get rid of all nuclear weapons.

    Parent
    Rouhani did not snub obama. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 07:23:30 PM EST
    He actually LISTENED to Obama:

    "I listened carefully to the statement made by President Obama today at the GA. .. [I'm] hoping that they will refrain from following the short-sighted interests of warmongering pressure groups and we can arrive at a framework to managing our differences."

    Then he outlined what has been the official Iranian position: "Talks can happen; equal footing and mutual respect should govern the talks."

    Then the expectation (actually, the world's): "Of course, we expect to hear a consistent voice from Washington. The dominant voice in recent years has been for a military option."

    But he has another idea. So he sets the stage for the punch line:

    It's WAVE time.

    Wave as in World Against Violence and Extremism.

    "I propose as a starting step... I invite all states... to undertake a new effort to guide the world in this direction... we should start thinking about a coalition for peace all across the globe instead of the ineffective coalitions for war."

    Mr. Rouhani has just invited the whole planet to join the WAVE.

    He buried obama.

    Hat tip to Pepe Escobar (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 08:04:50 PM EST
    for those who need a messenger to shoot

    Parent
    All Iran (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:22:22 AM EST
    is really looking for is time to complete their nuclear plans. Just enough cover to prevent any strike that would stop the program and we will have a new member in the nuke club with less responsibility than Pakistan.

    So you're saying (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 09:25:10 AM EST
    Kill kill kill on a maybe?  

    Kill kill kill so Iran doesn't get their hands on the same weapons the US, UK, France, Israel, Russia, China, N. Korea, India & Pakistan have?

    Makes no sense Mikado...no moral leg to stand on.  Now if we dissamble and destroy all our sh*t, then we might have a moral leg to stand on.  As it is, I can totally understand why Iran might want nuclear weapons...it's the only defense against being bombed at whim or a regime change invasion.    

    Parent

    Forgive the cat (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 09:38:24 AM EST
    he's a distant relative of both John McCain and the Beach Boys.

    Parent
    Shorter Mikado: (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    Whoever is selling... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 10:54:39 AM EST
    smokes out the back door over at the ATF, my email is in my user profile!

    (Just kidding NSA)

    Ted the Terrible (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 11:38:49 AM EST
    stopped talking and sat down.  After that grandstand, the real unknown is ... what that Rand Paul surmises.

    Well, if Sen. Cruz's objective was ... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    ... to make himself appear as a self-absorbed, pompous, arrogant and hyperbolic ideological extremist to as many people as possible in a relatively short amount of time, no doubt he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations these past nine months.

    Personally, I liked the part last night where he compared the Obama administration to Nazi Germany, and offered that those who support the Affordable Care Act are the sniveling equivalents of Neville Chamberlain. Nazi analogies are just always so incredibly classy and appropriate in political debate, don'tcha know?

    If this Lone Star jackwagon believes even a quarter of what he says, he's a world-class crackpot. If not, then we're bearing witness to the most cynical political performance on the Washington stage since the halcyon days of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I am looking forward to the campaign ads (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 03:22:06 PM EST
    showing him reciting "Green Eggs and Ham" on the Senate floor, as his idea of debate on an important issue.

    Parent
    U.S. politicians are citing Chamberlain (none / 0) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    quite a bit these days. First John Kerry invokes Munich and compares those who were uneasy about bombing Syria to Chamberlain. Now Ted Cruz.

    Who will be the next one to use Munich as a cheap political shot?

    Parent

    I don't know Cap'n... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 01:39:20 PM EST
    but if Cruz hates Chamberlain, I can't imagine what he thinks of that commie bastard Winston Churchill.

    The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all . . . . Disease must be attacked whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman, simply on the ground that it is the enemy . . . . Our policy is to create a national health service, in order to secure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.

    Not that the ACA delivers any of that...but you get my drift;)

    Parent