Blessings to you,

Justin

Barring any true scientific study that will never be conducted(unless you count that Progressive Insurance Snapshot thing), I arrived at this conclusion based on a series of simple observations of myself and others as they drive. By the way, isn’t this how great discoveries in the universe start…with a simple observation?

Anyway…

• Let’s just start by saying the posted speed limit is just a very limited guidepost. Obviously a great deal of people think you’re actually supposed to follow it everywhere you go. Rule of thumb: add about 17.34280% to it. Then you’ll really get somewhere and get people like me off your ass.
• Your cellphone doesn’t drive your car(at least not yet). Driving while yakking about yuk that can likely wait until later causes you to tilt your head, which in turn causes you to drive left/right of center. It also makes you look like a fool for not buying a device called a Bluetooth. Get off the phone loser!
• There is no such thing as driving etiquette. When driving on the interstate, hell…when driving in the parking lot…there simply is no mercy. No one has to let you in just because you have groceries or a hostage in your trunk. This also applies if you drive a big truck, have taken Tae Kwon Do or have ambitions to fight in the MMA. None of us are scared or impressed. The rest of us have places to go as well.
• If you do not know where you are…what road, what street, what state or even what planet or galaxy then you should not be driving. The rest of us would be better off if you attempted to train a blind chimpanzee to drive.
• Finally and likely most importantly, in the pursuit of arriving at a destination there is no path that cannot be tread on. These include; alleys, junkyards, front lawns, church parking lots, woodsy walkways, golf courses & tennis courts. If it can shave a couple of minutes off your trip and help get you around someone who shouldn’t be driving…it’s worth it. But let’s face it, trimming time while trying to cut across a graveyard is pretty under-handed.

Once again, no scientific study can prove I’m the best driver. After all, being the best is a relative term. If anything, I may not be the best…but I’m a hell of a lot better than most. Maybe even better than you:)

Yusef Komunyakaa.

Camouflaging The Chimera.

By Yusef Komunyakka.

We tied branches to our helmets.
We painted our faces & rifles
with mud from a riverbank,

blades of grass hung from the pockets
of our tiger suits. We wove
ourselves into the terrain,
content to be a hummingbird’s target.

We hugged bamboo & leaned
against a breeze off the river,
slow-dragging with ghosts

from Saigon to Bangkok,
with women left in doorways
reaching in from America.
We aimed at dark-hearted songbirds.

In our way station of shadows
rock apes tried to blow our cover
throwing stones at the sunset. Chameleons

crawled our spines, changing from day
to night: green to gold,
gold to black. But we waited
till the moon touched metal,

till something almost broke
inside us. VC struggled
with the hillside, like black silk

wrestling iron through grass.
We weren’t there. The river ran
through our bones. Small animals took refuge
against our bodies; we held our breath,

ready to spring the L-shaped
ambush, as a world revolved
under each man’s eyelid.

To find out more about Yusef Komunyakka, you can visit the following link:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/yusef-komunyakaa

Check out the following article at Wired by by Spencer Ackerman, January 26, 2012.

The big loser in the Pentagon’s new budget? Ordinary human beings.

About 80,000 Army soldiers and 20,000 Marines are getting downsized. Half of the Army’s conventional combat presence in Europe is packing up and ending its post-Cold War staycation. Replacing them, according to the $613 billion budget previewed by the Pentagon on Thursday: unconventional special-operations forces; new bombers; new spy tools; new missiles for subs; and a veritable Cylon army of drones.

This is the first of the Pentagon’s new, smaller “austerity” budgets: it’s asking Congress for $525 billion (plus $88.4 billion for the Afghanistan war), compared to a $553 billion request (plus $117 billion in war cash) last year. Only the Pentagon is emphasizing (.pdf) what the military is keeping, not what it’s cutting. That’s because congressional Republicans don’t like swallowing these cuts — and really don’t want to acquiesce to a currently-scheduled law that could tack on another $600 billion-plus to the already-scheduled, decade-long $487 billion in cuts. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is preempting the objections, promising a force that’s “smaller and leaner, but agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced.”

That means no changes to the U.S. fleet of 11 aircraft carriers and 10 air wings, all reflecting the Obama administration’s emphasis on the western Pacific. It means leaving the nuclear triad — the bombers, subs and missiles that can end all life on earth — alone. (With one exception: the military will delay replacing the Ohio-class submarine by two years.) It means electronic weapons to jam enemy defenses and attack online networks. It means elite commando forces like the ones who just rescued two aid workers kidnapped in Somalia. And it means drones for breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert.

As previewed by President Obama earlier this month, the new budget is going to fund 65 Predator and Reaper combat air patrols — squadrons of up to four drones — “with a surge capacity of 85,” up from 61 today. The Army may be losing 100,000 soldiers, but if it’s any consolation, the Army’s forthcoming Gray Eagle drone gets the thumbs-up.

So does “sea-based unmanned” systems like the Navy’s Fire Scout robo-copter, and unspecified “new unmanned systems with increased capabilities,” probably a reference to next-gen drones like the Navy’s X-47B, which should be able to fly from an aircraft carrier at the click of a mouse by 2018 — the better to patrol the Pacific.

Some other programs get expanded, too. For 20 years, Navy’s studied creating non-aircraft-carrier bases at sea, to put in places where the U.S. can’t have land bases, to launch small jump jets like the F/A-18 Hornet, helicopters or drones. Now the Pentagon will fund “development of a new afloat forward staging base,” according to budget documents, although it’s not specifying what how large those ships will be or how much they’ll cost.

It’s also a great time to be a snake-eater. Pentagon budget documents describe Special Operations Forces as “critical to U.S. and partner counter terrorism operations and a variety of other contemporary contingencies.” In other words, whereas the military invaded and occupied trouble spots during the 2000s, it’ll send commandos for discrete missions in the 2010s.

More money is also going into the Air Force’s new long-range bomber, which won’t always have a human in the cockpit; “improved air-to-air missiles,” probably to prepare for the day when China’s stealth aircraft are a challenge; new jammers and communications gear; and even designing “a conventional prompt strike option from submarines.” It’s going to be good time to manufacture powerful, non-nuclear missiles.

Even the most expensive defense program in history, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet family, is getting a mere haircut. After Panetta embraced the planes on Friday, the Pentagon says it’ll merely “slow Joint Strike Fighter procurement” — even though weapons testing recently found it to have 13 expensive new flaws.

All that will let the military “retain a decisive technological edge,” Panetta said, “leverage the lessons of recent conflicts and stay ahead of the most lethal and disruptive threats of the future.”

Non-human beings actually do get the budget axe, though — mainly in the Air Force. As Danger Room first reported, the Air Force is losing older aircraft — specifically 27 “aging C-5A” cargo planes, as well as 65 of the newer C-130s (the Air Force will still have 318 of ‘em). It’s also losing 38 of what the Pentagon calls the “niche capability” C-27s, a curious propeller-driven cargo plane. And a variant of the Air Force’s much-used Global Hawk spy drone is getting cut, although an upgrade version will survive.

That won’t go over well with the flyboys. Their lobbying organization, the Air Force Association, sent a letter to Congress yesterday that represents something of a warning shot to the Pentagon. “While attributes like stealth, speed, and range were not necessary above [Iraq and Afghanistan], they are essential preconditions for securing US interests elsewhere,” 14 former top generals and Air Force official write. “Over the long-term, we must not assume de facto preeminence when it comes to innovating and producing the next generation of systems.”

But it’s not just the Air Force that gets cut. The Army’s fleet of missile-spotting blimps, the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System, is getting “curtailed” — slowed down, but not cancelled — a move sure to raise eyebrows as the defense industry moves to make spy blimps the aerial surveillance tool of choice. The Army’s Humvees won’t get upgraded either, as the Army emphasizes its next line of armored trucks.

The Navy gets off mostly unscathed, owing to its primacy for Pacific defense. It’ll lose 7 cruisers ahead of schedule, most of which can’t contribute to seaborne missile defense, along with two small amphibious ships. One of its big-deck amphibious ships will be delayed a year. It’ll buy two fewer Littoral Combat Ships than it expected during the next five years, eight fewer Joint High Speed Vessels, and one fewer Virginia-class sub. But that should make the Navy happier than the Air Force and the Army.

Next week, lawmakers will lecture Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about how the cuts are irresponsibly endanger America. The GOP presidential candidates have already started. But the Pentagon may actually be overstating how large its budget cuts truly are.

Over the next five years, “total U.S. defense spending, including both base funding and war costs,” its budget documents contend, “will drop by about 22 percent from its peak in 2010, after accounting for inflation.”

Except that’s not exactly true. “When you set aside the fictional budget projections for Iraq and Afghanistan, which are ending anyway, this is about an eight percent cut from the most recent Pentagon budget projection,” says Gordon Adams, a former Clinton-era defense budget official. “What’s more, the defense budget would continue to grow over the next ten years, just less than they previously projected.”

No one said a military staffed with robots would come cheap.

by Joshua Kurlantzick
July 19, 2012

Filipino fisherman working in the disputed South China Sea.

Although the meltdown of the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting in Phnom Penh last week seemed like an unmitigated disaster, and already has resulted in a flurry of press coverage blasting the organization, the situation in the South China Sea is not necessarily headed for a steep descent into real conflict. To be sure, both sides seem likely to send more “fishing vessels” and other boats that straddle the line between civilian and military vessels into the disputed waters, raising the possibility of further skirmishes. Meanwhile, in the wake of the summit Philippine opinion leaders, and the Philippine media, are both livid at Cambodia for allegedly scuttling any joint position and increasingly aware of how vulnerable the Philippines is, having allowed their armed forces to deteriorate badly over the past two decades.

I am hardly interested in absolving either China or ASEAN, an organization poorly prepared for dealing with 21st century challenges like a rising China, but in the near term, it is not unimaginable that all sides in the dispute will cool down. Indeed, there remains some room for compromise between all Sea claimants and the United States, in order to avoid any real shooting war in the Sea. While it is unlikely that Beijing will give up its claims to the entire Sea anytime soon, Chinese officials recognize that their forceful, increasingly vocal positions on the Sea have alienated many Southeast Asian nations and pushed countries like Vietnam and the Philippines closer to the United States, exactly what China, which has ambitions of denying the U.S. access to and control of Southeast Asian waterways, does not want. Already,China has lost much of the regional good will it fostered in the late 1990s and early 2000s by agreeing, in theory, to work for a code of conduct on the South China Sea, as well as by launching a “charm offensive” of aid, diplomacy, and cultural diplomacy in Southeast Asia.

At the same time, though some ASEAN nations like Cambodia are drawing nearer to China, while others such as the Philippines are moving closer to the United States, all ASEAN nations value the organization’s coherence, and realize that Southeast Asian states must generally provide a united front on issues if they are to be treated as a major power in East Asia, and if they hope to be the center of any future Asian regional security architecture. The savviest ASEAN officials realize this, which is why everyone from Indonesia’s foreign minister to the ASEAN Secretary-General has, in the wake of the summit, been engaged in back-and-forth diplomacy among ASEAN members to try to get them to agree to some kind of joint position on the Sea, even if that position is weaker than what the Philippines and Vietnam would have wanted.

Crazy as a loon.

“Crazy as a loon!”

They’ll say, but let them.

They have no feathers to escape with

                            or beak to browse with.

Loony as I,

who wouldn’t choose to fly

away from nine to five & church only on Sundays?
 
 

God.

   My God.

        Your God.

            Polyamorous.

                ‘Their Gods.’

                    “IT,” seems to be bigger than Sunday,

                          Bigger than wars “IT” didn’t start-

                                                    Or care who wins them.
 

When’s the last time you heard of Buddha’s war?

Ghandi’s war or saw a picture of Jesus with a rocket launcher?

Revenge gets you nothing but licking the feet

                                                                   Of those your given to hate.
 

Have you ever seen truly dirty feet?

I have-those in a nursing home &

This is not a wise place to end a poem.

“Crazy as a loon!”

They’ll say.

But when a Chinese girl threatens

to cut up your turtle you’ve done something wrong-

likely, very wrong.

                                            In the interlude:

                                 You can’t beat this machine

                    With arrows or bombs.  But beaten with ideas

                        above money, bones, blood & cheap fuel-

                such simplicity shouldn’t keep us from a new flag.
 

And I have digressed-

“Crazy as a loon!”

They’ll say. But let them.

                        They have no feathers to escape with.

Only wings & bombs to train with.
 

Poe. Bach. Debussy.

They had it right…

Sing…sing…sing…

Make God’s voice another man’s tragedy.
 

Justin Kirby, Copyright 2011.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

Having discussed this issue with several family and friends, it’s my very unqualified opinion (& novice at best) that I feel the deciding issue in the American presidential election will be the issue of Iran & how America handles their desire to acquire enriched uranium, not American domestic issues or necessarily a slower than expected economic recovery. Matter of fact, the very issue of Iran as it relates to the global energy markets plays a direct role in global economic recovery of the Unites States, its allies & enemies.

How Iran decides to press their issue, and they most certainly will given it is an election year in America, may decide who becomes the next American president.

No doubt there are countless scenarios, but at a basic level it could play out like this; If Iran feels their fate is more positively affected by Obama, then they will only make minute ripples and not play into his hands by raising the stakes. If they feel their future more reasonably affected by the Mitt Romney or a Rick Santorum, then they may pursue a path of harassment and pull every minor card possible from their deck of cards.

The worst case scenario is that Iran feels completely cornered by an unwavering U.S. policy & they behave highly erratic, forcing U.S. action & possible Israeli action, which seems likely to guarantee an Obama victory based on the idea that America will unlikely change leadership during a crisis period.

The following article comes from www.crisisgroup.org and is part of a larger white paper written on Iran’s nuclear program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  23 Feb 2012

The dramatic escalation in Israel’s rhetoric aimed at Iran could well be sheer bluff, a twin message to Tehran to halt its nuclear activities and to the international community to heighten its pressure to that end. Or not. As Israel sees it, the nuclear program represents a serious threat; the time when Iran’s putative efforts to build a bomb will become immune to a strike is fast approaching; and military action in the near future – perhaps as early as this year – therefore is a real possibility. While it is widely acknowledged in the West that war could have devastating consequences, and while U.S. and European efforts to restrain Israel are welcome, their current approach – ever-tightening economic sanctions designed to make Tehran bend – has almost no chance of producing an Iranian climb­down anytime soon. Far from a substitute to war, it could end up being a conduit to it. As 2012 begins, prospects of a military confrontation, although still unlikely, appear higher than ever.

The nuclear talks that appear set to resume could offer a chance to avoid that fate. For that to happen, however, a world community in desperate need of fresh thinking could do worse than learn from Turkey’s experience and test its assumptions: that Iran must be vigorously engaged at all levels; that those engaging it ought to include a larger variety of countries, including emerging powers with which it feels greater affinity; that economic pressure is at best futile, at worse counterproductive; and that Tehran ought to be presented with a realistic proposal. If it is either sanctions, whose success is hard to imagine, or military action, whose consequences are terrifying to contemplate, that is not a choice. It is an abject failure.

The picture surrounding Iran, rarely transparent, seldom has been more confusing or worrying. One day Israel issues ominous threats, hinting at imminent action; the next it announces that a decision is far off. Some of its officials speak approvingly of a military strike; others (generally retired) call it the dumbest idea on earth. At times, it appears to be speaking openly of a war it might never wage in order to better remain silent on a war it already seems to be waging – one that involves cyber-attacks, the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists and mysterious explosions. U.S. rhetoric, if anything, zigs and zags even more: the secretary of defense devotes one interview to listing all the catastrophic consequences of war and another to hinting a military confrontation cannot be ruled out. President Barack Obama, among others, appears seriously resistant to the idea of yet another Middle East war, yet keeps reminding us that all options are on the table – the surest way to signal that one particular option is.

Iranian leaders have done their share too: enriching uranium at higher levels; moving their installations deeper underground; threatening to close the straits of Hormuz and take action against Israel; and (if one is to believe Washington) organising a wild plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. More recent reports of actual or planned Iranian terrorist attacks against Israeli targets in India, Georgia, Thailand and Azerbaijan are equally if not more ominous. Confusion is a form of diplomacy, and all sides no doubt are engaged in an intricate political and psychological game. But confusion spawns uncertainty, and uncertainty is dangerous, for it increases the risk of a miscalculation or misstep that could go terribly wrong.

How perilous is Iran’s nuclear program and how close the regime is to assembling a weapon are matters of opinion, and often substantially divergent opinion at that. Israelis express alarm. Others point to important technical obstacles to Iran’s assumed goal: it has had problems expanding its enrichment program; is at least months away from being able to enrich at bomb-grade level; and is probably years away from the capability to manufacture a deliverable atomic weapon.

Too, there is disagreement regarding intent. Few still believe Tehran’s motivations are purely innocent, but whereas some are convinced it is intent on building a bomb, others hold the view that it wishes to become a “threshold state” – one with breakout capacity, even if it does not plan to act on it. There also is disagreement as to what the critical redline is. Israelis speak of a “zone of immunity”, namely the point after which nothing could be done to halt Iran’s advance because its facilities would be impervious to military attack, and say that point is only months away. Again, others – Americans in particular – dispute this; the divergence reflects different military capacities (immunity to an Israeli attack is not the same as immunity to an American one) but also differences in how one defines immunity.

Israelis, not for the first time, could be exaggerating the threat and its imminence, a reflection of their intense fear of a regime that has brazenly proclaimed its unending hostility. But they almost certainly are right in one respect: that sanctions could work and nonetheless fail, inflicting harsh economic pain yet unable to produce a genuine policy change. There is no evidence that Iran’s leadership has succumbed or will succumb to economic hardship; the outlook of its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, rests on the core principle that yielding to pressure only invites more. Seen through the regime’s eyes, such apparent stubbornness is easy to understand. The measures taken by its foes – including attacks on its territory, physical and cyber sabotage, U.S. bolstering of the military arsenals of its Gulf enemies and, perhaps most damaging, economic warfare – can only mean one thing: that Washington and its allies are dead set on toppling it. Under such conditions, why would the regime volunteer a concession that arguably would leave it weaker in a hostile neighbourhood?

Europeans and Americans offer a retort: that only now have sanctions with real bite been adopted; that their impact will be felt within the next six to eighteen months; and that faced with an economic meltdown – and thus with its survival at stake – the Islamic Republic will have no choice but to finally engage in serious negotiations on the nuclear agenda. Perhaps.

But so much could go wrong. Confronting what it can only view as a form of economic warfare and feeling it has little to lose, Iran could lash out. Its provocative actions, in turn, could trigger retaliatory steps; the situation could well veer out of control, particularly in the absence of any meaningful channel of communication. Israel’s and the West’s clocks might not be synchronised: the West’s sanctions timetable extends beyond the point when Iran will have entered Jerusalem’s notional zone of immunity, and Israel might not have the patience to stand still.

Placing one’s eggs almost exclusively in the sanctions basket is risky business. There is a good chance they will not persuade Iran to slow its nuclear efforts, and so – in the absence of a serious diplomatic option including a more far-reaching proposal – the U.S. might well corner itself into waging a war with high costs (such as possible Iranian retaliatory moves in Iraq, Afghanistan and, through proxies, against Israel) for uncertain gains (a delay in Iran’s nuclear progress countered by the likely expulsion of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, intensified determination to acquire a bomb and accelerated efforts to do so).

Among countries uneasy with this approach, Turkey notably has stood for something different. It is highly sceptical about sanctions and rules out any military action. It believes in direct, energetic diplomatic engagement with a variety of Iranian officials. It is of the view that Tehran’s right to enrich on its soil ought to be acknowledged outright – a nod to its sense of dignity. And it is convinced that small steps that even marginally move the ball forward, even if far from the finish line, are better than nothing.

Ankara is not a central player, and its opposition to broad sanctions and support of dialogue are not dissimilar to the views of key actors such as Russia and China. But Turkey knows Iran well – an outgrowth of its long, complex relationship with a powerful neighbour. As a non-traditional power, anchored in Western institutions but part of the Muslim world, it can play to Tehran’s rejection of a two-tiered world order. This is not to say that Turkey is amenable to a nuclear-armed Iran. But it is far more sympathetic to the view that the West cannot dictate who can have a nuclear capacity and who cannot; is less alarmist when it comes to the status of Iran’s program; and believes that the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is both distant and unsure.

Even if a relative newcomer to the nuclear issue, Turkey also has useful experience. In 2010, together with Brazil – another rising new power – it engaged in intensive talks with Iranian officials and, much to the West’s surprise, reached a deal on the Tehran Research Reactor. Iran would deposit 1,200kg of low enriched uranium (LEU) in Turkey and, in return, would receive 120kg of 20 per cent enriched fuel for its reactor. The deal was far from perfect; al­though it mirrored almost exactly an earlier proposal from the P5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany), time had passed; Iran’s LEU stockpile had grown, and it had begun to enrich at 20 per cent itself, an important though not definitive stage toward possibly enriching to weapons grade. But it could have been an important start; had it been accepted, Iran presently would have 1,200kg less of LEU and a step would have been taken towards building trust. However, the P5+1 quickly dismissed the agreement and turned to tougher sanctions instead.

Today, with news that Iran has responded to the P5+1’s offer of talks, a new opportunity for diplomacy might have arisen. It should not be squandered. That means breaking with the pattern of the past: tough sanctions interrupted by episodic, fleeting meetings with Iran which, when they fail to produce the desired Iranian concession, are followed by ratcheted-up economic penalties. Instead, the parties would be well inspired to take a page out of Turkey’s playbook and pursue a meaningful and realistic initiative, possibly along the following lines:

• Iran’s ratification and renewed implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Additional Protocol to its comprehensive safeguards agreement, thereby accepting a more rigorous monitoring system; enhanced IAEA inspection rights for non-nuclear alleged weaponisation testing sites (Additional Protocol Plus); and resumed implementation of the IAEA’s modified Code 3.1, ensuring that the decision to build any new nuclear facility is immediately made public;
• Iran’s decision to clear up outstanding issues regarding alleged pre-2003 nuclear weaponisation experiments referred to in IAEA reports;
• recognition by the P5+1 of Iran’s right in principle to nuclear research, enrichment, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with its NPT obligations, subject to its having settled outstanding issues with the IAEA;
• agreement by the P5+1 and Iran to a revised Tehran Research Reactor deal, pursuant to which Iran would trade its current stockpile of 20 per cent uranium for fuel rods and temporarily cap its enrichment at the 5 per cent level, while the P5+1 would agree to freeze implementation of new EU and U.S. sanctions. In return for some sanctions relief, Iran could agree to limit enrichment activities to its actual fuel needs (one-year backup for the Bushehr reactor). Any excess amount could be sold on the international market at competitive prices. Broader sanctions relief would be tied to Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA regarding its presumed past weaponisation efforts, implementation of the rigorous IAEA inspections regime and other steps described here; and
• in parallel to nuclear negotiations, the U.S. and Iran would enter into discussions on other issues of mutual concern and interest, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Of course, this would have to be accompanied by an end by all parties to the kind of hostile behaviour and provocative rhetoric, including threats to attack and involvement in bombings or assassinations, that risk derailing the entire process.

There are more than enough reasons to be sceptical about a diplomatic solution. Mutual trust is at an all-time low. Political pressures on all sides make compromise a difficult sell. The West seems intent on trying its new, harsher-than-ever sanctions regime. Israel is growing impatient. Tit for tat acts of violence appear to be escalating. And Iran might well be on an unyielding path to militarisation. One can imagine Khamenei’s advisers highlighting three instructive precedents: Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, which had no nuclear weapon and the U.S. overthrew; Muammar Qadhafi’s regime in Libya, which relinquished its weapons of mass destruction and NATO attacked; and North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons and whose regime still stands. There remains time to test whether Tehran is determined to acquire a bomb at all costs and to consider whether a military option – with all the dramatic implications it would entail – truly would be the best way to deal with it. For now, the goal ought to be to maximise chances that diplomacy can succeed and minimise odds that an alternative path will be considered.

• http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/iraq-iran-gulf/iran/116-in-heavy-waters-irans-nuclear-program-the-risk-of-war-and-lessons-from-turkey.aspx

Here are more articles regarding the Iranium nuclear issue:

• http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/06/world/meast/iran-timeline/index.html
• http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/309823/20120306/iran-nuclear-eu-iaea-parchin.htm

The U.S. Economic Stimulus Plan

Author: Lee Hudson Teslik
Updated: February 18, 2009

Introduction

President Barack Obama took office in January 2009 facing the biggest global economic crisis since the Second World War. Obama and U.S. congressional leaders, mainly from the Democratic Party, crafted an economic stimulus package to confront the crisis. This package, they say, will save or create over three million U.S. jobs and provide most Americans with tax cuts. In the longer term, Obama says the plan will stimulate vital sectors of the economy such as energy and health care, making U.S. firms more competitive internationally. The $787 billion package, which Obama signed February 17, 2009, comes amidst a global wave of stimulus spending. If it succeeds in pulling the U.S. economy from recession, economists say, the positive impact could be felt around the world. Yet experts also see a number of ways the plan could go wrong. Some point to budgetary concerns and argue Obama should implement targeted, temporary stimulus measures so as not to exacerbate the U.S. budget deficit. Doing too little to solve the financial crisis could prove calamitous, they say, but legislative overreach could also have serious consequences.

Obama’s Stimulus Plan

The stimulus plans adopted by both chambers of Congress have some notable differences but also overlap considerably. Both aim to stimulate employment, certain critical economic sectors, and U.S. consumer spending. The House measure calls for spending roughly $505 billion on new projects and about $282 billion in tax cuts. The following are areas with some of the most significant outlays:

• Energy, including more than $30 billion spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, as well as electrical grid improvements; and $5 billion to weatherize low-income homes;
• Science and technology, including $10 billion for new scientific facilities and $7 billion to improve broadband Internet access in rural areas;
• Infrastructure, including nearly $30 billion for highways; $8 billion for the development of high-speed rail; and $19 billion for clean water and flood control;
• Education, including $44 billion for local school districts; $25 billion to school districts for special education and funding the No Child Left Behind law for students in kindergarten through twelfth grade; and $15.6 billion to broaden the federal Pell Grant program, which gives need-based grants to fund education;
• Health care, including $87 billion for Medicaid; $20 billion to improve health information technology; and about $10 billion for health research and construction of facilities for the National Institutes of Health.

The package also includes a provision requiring that iron, steel, and other manufactured goods used in public construction projects be produced in the United States. But it also says the “Buy American” policy shall not violate U.S. obligations under international trade agreements.

No Republicans voted for the House measure and only three Republicans voted for the Senate version.

Some analysts say the Obama administration’s spending on economic stimulus will be broader than what’s included in the stimulus spending plan. “You’ve got to look at the whole picture,” said Adam Posen of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in a January 2009 interview (PDF). Posen and several other analysts have noted that stimulus spending could come in many ways beyond what’s in the plan, including:

• The Treasury’s $700 billion in TARP funds, initially aimed at stabilizing the financial sector, seems likely to be used to provide relief to other industries and “for things that look more like stimulus and less like asset purchases,” according to Posen;
• Automatic economic stabilizers like extensions of unemployment insurance;
• Expansions of health insurance;
• Some form of “mortgage relief” aimed at helping Americans facing default;
• Federal Reserve purchases of mortgage-backed securities and perhaps other types of distressed securities in the future; and
• An expanded GI bill for returning veterans.

Posen says the Obama administration, “for understandable political reasons, doesn’t want to put it all under the cover of one title called stimulus, in part because these things have their individual merits, but in part because they don’t want to have a bill of $1.5 trillion.”

How Economic Stimulus Works

Economic or “fiscal” stimulus stands in contrast to monetary stimulus, a process through which the U.S. Federal Reserve Board adjusts interest rates to encourage or discourage lending. By 2009, the Fed had lowered rates to near zero. Because it can’t lower rates below zero (which would amount to lenders paying people to take a loan), the Fed had few remaining policy options. Economic stimulus is another means by which a government can seek to boost its economy, either in the short term, by encouraging consumers or companies to consume goods, or in the longer term, by encouraging the growth of businesses and the creation of jobs through investments in infrastructure and research.

There are many different forms of potential economic stimulus and they work in different ways. Tax cuts for individuals generally encourage short-term spending. Tax cuts for companies encourage both spending and investment. Expenditures on public works create contracts for firms and provide short- to medium-term employment opportunities. Investments in research and development take a longer-term approach under the theory that businesses will thrive in the future (and thus provide jobs) if they have the money to make intelligent investments in their operations now.

Finally, some forms of economic stimulus seek to make investments that will pay off in the long run by making consumption cheaper for everybody. An example is investing in the U.S. energy grid. Theoretically, a one-time outlay could make energy costs for both individuals and businesses less expensive for decades to come. Similar arguments are made about health care spending. Critics say an outdated and illogical health care system presents significant costs for U.S. businesses that could be eased through front-end investments. Obama has called attention to both energy and health care as sectors in which infrastructure investments could help make U.S. firms more competitive internationally. Other countries, including China, have similarly focused stimulus spending on infrastructure development.

Analysis

Stimulus as a Strategy

Economists disagree on the wisdom of extensive stimulus spending, as well as the particulars of the current U.S. plan. Given the current economic climate, most mainstream economists now say that the potential downsides of collapse are sufficiently grave that large stimulatory expenditures may be necessary. As the global financial and economic crisis has worsened, this viewpoint has gained international popularity. In a December 2008 paper released by the UN Conference on Trade and Development, leading UN economists call for coordinated stimulus packages across the world’s leading economies, above and beyond the money already spent to boost credit market liquidity.

Two scholars from the conservative Heritage Foundation argue in a December 2008 paper that the best medicine for the U.S. economy would be to reduce overall government spending. CFR Senior Fellow Amity Shlaes adds that governments can throw good money after bad if they seek to stimulate unsustainable businesses. “It can be perverse because you stimulate something [i.e. an industry] that’s really pretty weak and should maybe fade,” Shlaes told CFR.org. In a December 2008 op-ed, Shlaes also argued that huge public works projects often fail to revive national economies, as evidenced by Japan’s experience during the 1990s.

Disagreement over Tax Cuts

Some people who support the idea of a stimulus package, including some of those within Obama’s Democratic Party, still criticize aspects of the president’s plan. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has criticized the plan for its tax cuts, saying they extend further than he would have wanted. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate economist and Columbia professor, supported Frank’s position in a Financial Times op-ed.

The chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, and another economist, Jared Bernstein, who works for the office of Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., explain the rationale behind the tax cuts in a recent paper (PDF). In the paper, Romer and Bernstein acknowledge that tax cuts and fiscal relief to states will likely create less of an immediate economic boost than direct government investments in infrastructure. But they defend the tax cuts on the grounds that there are limits to the amount of money the government can invest efficiently and quickly in infrastructure; therefore, they conclude that some outlays for states and for tax cuts are merited, given the severity of the current economic climate.

Risks of Large Stimulus Packages

Economists point to several possible risks posed by large stimulus packages and say lawmakers would be well advised to take these risks into consideration as they mould the current package. Most basically, there is a risk that the stimulus package won’t work, or won’t do enough, and that the economic crisis could continue despite massive government expenditures.

Beyond that basic risk, experts say there are several contingencies under which the stimulus plan could prove problematic, even if its works in many of its goals. A January 2009 paper by two Brookings Institution fellows, one of whom, Jason Furman, was a senior economic adviser to Obama’s campaign, argues stimulus spending should be:

• Timely, to guarantee that spending affects the economy when it is needed most, and to prevent against capital injections leading to overexpansion or rapid inflation.
• Targeted, to make sure each dollar spent creates the maximum possible bump in short-term gross domestic product (GDP), and to make sure that spending benefits the people most adversely affected by the economic slowdown.
• Temporary, to prevent unnecessary strain on a country’s budget in the long run.

Economists say an important determinant of the long-term success of Obama’s plan will be the degree to which he is able to follow these principles and prevent short-term stimulus from turning into massive long-term budgetary obligations. The size of the U.S. budget and current account deficit remain major concerns. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast in early January 2009 that the U.S. deficit will tally $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2009, which would mark the highest U.S. budget deficit as a percentage of the country’s GDP since World War II. The Financial Times examines this risk in a January 2009 editorial and concludes that the contours of Obama’s plan are “mostly right” in that they seem to acknowledge that some of the fiscal expenditures called for in the bill should be temporary.

Prospects of International Debt Default

Some analysts are concerned that a rapidly expanding U.S. deficit will force Washington to borrow internationally, weakening its geopolitical might and increasing the risk of the United States defaulting on its international debt and facing a true financial meltdown. In a Washington Post op-ed, Gregory Ip, the U.S. economics editor at the Economist, notes that in early 2009, markets pegged the probability of a U.S. default in the next decade at 6 percent, as opposed to a 1 percent risk a year before.

Obama and his advisers have defended the scope of the package, saying the expenditures will boost confidence in the United States by convincing foreign partners that action is being taken to lift the U.S. economy from recession. Tyler Cowen, a respected economics blogger, wrote recently that Obama’s plan appears to take into account the very frightening possibility of the United States defaulting on its international debt, and that concerns over default risk probably explain why the package isn’t larger.

Finally, and perhaps counterintuitively, some analysts point to potentially frightening risks if the stimulus package works too fast. With the world economy destabilized, foreign governments poured money into the U.S. dollar and U.S. treasuries during the latter half of 2008. If a rapid economic recovery leads to a sudden flight from U.S. debt, some analysts say, the result could be inflationary pressures and an environment in which Washington couldn’t borrow as easily internationally. This could potentially press Washington closer to a default scenario.

By feeling stone chiseled, calloused
Marbles
from out of a pirate’s jar
             
                                  I have made gold

And am talking to you
With a peg-leg

Where a hook arm was.

Wind blows my promises
Across     the seam of an island

Where tiny, mad children
Reconvene

to sand castles,
hiding    jubilant    treasure..

                     Burying us.

Justin Kirby, Copyright 2010.

 Now, as an allergy sufferer year-round, none of these symptoms alarmed me  of the sleeping beast to come. With a busy schedule I pushed through work and social commitments, all the while the cold catching up with me until it tackled me and put me down. Bronchitis. YUK.

Lifeless. Passionless. UGGH. Antibiotics the size of my big toe(& I have really big feet).

Being sidelined for several days and generally feeling lifeless I watched time just slip away as I lay in various places; the couch, the bed and my office chair. What I find most disturbing about being sick is how it steals away all inspiration I have. I can remember mumbling to myself as I sat down a pile of creative work I planned to get done on the footstool next to couch…”nothing can stop my inspiration!”

Six hours later I awoke. I had achieved nothing except succumbing to the codeine in my cough syrup. Clearly my inspiration could indeed be stopped & stopped rather easily. All the writing I had planned for my blog, my novel rewrite & the reading I had intended to do…POOF! Gone.

In the middle of this sickly cycle I’m in I went to the pharmacy to pick up my prescriptions as well as pick up some extra over-the-counter medicines my Dr. recommended me to pick up to help ward off this type of bronchitis & sinusitis in the future. I take these medications to the counter where the Pharmacist makes me sign something electronically before ringing me up for my drugs.

“You know you can’t take all these at once, right?” he says.

I think he’s got to be outta his mind. There’s like five different kind of drugs there. Some for daytime, some for night, some for only when I get a runny nose.

“Yeah, I think that would be a bad idea” I replied.

“You never know what people will do. I’m here to help them” he says like he’s running for office or something greater.

“The world needs more of you,” I say and realize I have no idea how to finish the sentence. “These drugs can be confusing. This cough syrup would probably kill a cat or bird.” The man was either not impressed or he knew I was right.

“As long as you know sir, that’s all.” He finished ringing me up & I realize I really do need to find a new pharmacy. This grocery store pit-stop I go to is really starting to get on my nerves. What’s next? Will the cashier tell me I shouldn’t put my newly purchased Frank’s buffalo sauce on my rice? Will my pork  go well with my Masala sauce?

I’m a big boy I decided. I know not to take four hundred different cold medicines at once. But all this intrusiveness into my purchases has me wondering how long it is before all of my buying habits are critiqued by some sentient being that I carry around inside my earlobe?

The only way I’m gonna agree to it is if it will guarantee I don’t get a cold that steals away my passion, leaving me feeling like a recently severed eunuch. UGGH. Time to take my couch medicine again.