So I said... #13 - March 5-12

Here we have the latest more-or-less weekly collection of my various musings and comments on things here, there, and everywhere, with context added where I thought it necessary for folks to get what was going on.

A note on style: If within a comment something is in brackets - [ ] - and it is in regular type, that’s how it appeared in my original comment. If it’s in italics, it’s something I’ve added here for additional clarity for those who didn’t see the original.

Onward.

2026-03-05
[A friend asked me via email where was the school that was bombed in Iran at the opening of the war and for a suggestion for keeping up with events. Unfortunately, I overlooked the mail for a couple of days.]

A little late for the purpose, I expect, but yeah, there was a school bombed in Minab, a small city in southern Iran on the Straits of Hormuz. I had heard about a second school, but now I don’t see any reference to it.

The US and Israel both deny responsibility (although the Pentagon is “investigating”), so I guess the place just spontaneously combusted - or engaged in what the Department of Death would probably call a “self-initiated rapid kinetic disassembly.”

It is possible the school wasn’t the target (there is a military site nearby) but al-Jazeera did an investigation showing that either the school was hit deliberately or that the US and/or Israel relied on intelligence that was 10 years out of date.

[To save you having to check the link: Intelligence images showed that 10 years ago the building where the school was had been physically separated from the rest of the base and facilities like a sports field had been added. As a footnote, major US media have started reporting the same thing - over a week later.]

Neither case changes the fact that it was hit and “oops, my bad, oh well,” is not an acceptable response - particularly in light of the fact that there have now been large-scale attacks on undeniably civilian targets including hospitals, residential buildings and schools across Tehran and other locations with repeated accounts of “double-tapping,” that is, bombing a site, pausing long enough for assistance to arrive, then bombing the same place again.

(As a sidebar, that’s a tactic for which the US has been known; for one example, the fire bombing of Dresden in WW2 involved a wave of bombing followed by a second one deliberately timed to catch fire-fighting equipment out in the open.)

For a general source of info beyond regular media (where I STRONGLY recommend non-US sources), two that are good on keeping up with events in the vicinity are Drop Site News and within that Jeremy Scahill because they have contacts within the Iranian government (and also Hamas) for perspectives we generally never see in US media. I’m usually very suspicious of partisan sources, but I’ve seen enough cases of something reported on Drop Site being confirmed - days later - in major media to give them a fair degree of credibility.

==

2026-03-05
[Indiana AG Todd Rokita has been compiling a list of his state’s trans people, apparently intending to copy Kansas in invalidating their IDs and maybe charging them with the felony of “falsified” documents.]

FWIW, “retroactively enforcing this would pose a significant legal question” is an understatement as it would appear to be a blatant example of an ex post facto law, trying to make into a crime an action that was not illegal at the time it was performed.

That may be why [Kansas AG Kris] Kobach, who has never shown any shyness about pursuing his own personal obsessions (including extremism in restrictive voter laws, being anti-choice, and xenophobia, the latter of which being where I first encountered him in 2004) didn’t try that route in Kansas.

==

2026-03-06
[This was about a video by Dave McKeegan about Bill Kaysing, considered the father of the “we never landed on the Moon” conspiracy theory. McKeegan is a professional photographer who uses that expertise to debunk photo and video “evidence” that the landing was faked.]

Something that struck me was in the clip about the interview that mentioned the [Werner] von Braun memo supposedly saying a Moon landing was impossible. Part of the answer got rather buried under the interviewer’s next question; that part being that the memo reported von Braun as saying there was a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting to the Moon on the first try.

Considering the idea of just shooting a rocket straight to the Moon and landing there was at one time on the table, the existence of such a memo is plausible. But since we didn’t do it that way, we first just went around the Moon and later sent a multi-stage rocket to end with a module orbiting the Moon with a lander that descended from that orbiting module to make the actual landing, that memo, even if real, is wholly irrelevant.

==

2026-03-06
[This is sort of out of sequence. In the previous issue of “So I said...” I posted my reaction to a video by the Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta questioning the report about a US military commandeer preaching “last days” theology to his troops. Subsequent to that posting, I got a reply to my comment; I think my response is worthy of including here. For the original, go here and scroll down to March 3.]

“Until it’s sourced, it’s just more smoke and that’s the last thing we need more of. Don’t you think?”

It’s not unsourced. It’s from a reputable source with access to the original material whose accounts have proven accurate in the past.

Should we dismiss as “smoke” accusations of Trump abusing a child because we don’t have the original source? In fact all we truly have is a paper reading that someone whose name we don’t know said that someone whose name we don’t know said it was so. But given the overall circumstances, I have no trouble giving a great deal of credence to that report even though a court could legitimately dismiss it as hearsay.

Same here. Lack of perfect knowledge does not prevent reaching justifiable conclusions. And my conclusion is that, given that Hegseth is a Christian nationalist who has conducted Bible study classes while in office and has opened the gates to proselytizing (plus the fact that right-wing religion being pushed in the military has been an issue before), yes, there was a commander preaching apocalypticism and yes, there are others preaching some flavor of fundamentalist Christianity to those under their command.

And I find Hemant’s doubts quite unpersuasive.

==

2026-03-08
[Still more on this. Jonathan Larsen, author of the piece Hemant questioned, replied to the critique. In comments there some suggested Hemant acted out of jealousy that he hadn’t broken the story himself.]

I don’t think jealousy is part of it. Hemant tends to work in the areas of court cases, public and organizational statements, and news accounts - that is, areas where questions about sources generally don’t arise. So I expect he’s not used to dealing with stories like this where you have to some degree make the call as to the trustworthiness of sources.

Jonathan touched on one of the reasons I found the story persuasive: MRFF has been reliable in the past, so it may be a single source, but it’s one that has demonstrated trustworthiness.

==

2026-03-08
Sam Ames (sames) recently posted an essay about forced outing of transgender students in schools.

He referred to his “least favorite line” in a recent SCOTUS action upholding at least for now an injunction against a California law barring the practice. (To be clear, this doesn’t mean California now has forced outing; it means that such outing can’t be banned statewide pending further court action.)

That line was “But those [student privacy] policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

“Least favorite” is a worthy description because a world of hurt can be found in that supposedly self-evident homily.

I started to say “because it assumes,” but that’s not strong enough. It doesn’t just assume, it sets as a baseline declaration not only that parents protect the best interests of their children but also that they know what those interests are, that parents by definition “know what’s best” for their kids.

And we do like to tell ourselves that. But in fact, in practice, we don’t say that, not by definition. Rather, it’s a “rebuttable assumption,” an assumed stating point that can be overcome by evidence - where possible before any harm arises. That’s why there are agencies like Child Protective Services, why there is such a thing as foster care, why there are custody battles in divorce proceedings, because we as a society recognize that parents don’t always know what’s best for their children, that sometimes they are even harmful to them.

Forced outing policies strip away a layer of protection for children, turning “rebuttable assumption” into “final decision” and opening LGBTQ+ (these days, mostly trans) children to risk of harm without the chance for questions to be raised until it’s too late and without providing them any benefit.

In fact, I wrote somewhere else recently that I can recall from my youth seeing PSAs saying that if there’s trouble at home, “tell someone,” with one specific example being “a trusted teacher.” With forced outing, a teacher becomes someone you must not trust, not just because they might out you but because they would have no true choice in the matter, not when silence risks their entire career.

Trans children get no benefit from forced outing and supportive parents effectively have no need for it. Rather, I would argue that the only people who benefit from such a policy - other than the trans-hating ideologues who just want to force all trans folks so far into the closet they couldn’t even find the door much less open it - are the hostile parents, those whose response to having a transgender child would range from fury to forced conversion therapy to total rejection and ejection from the home.

So to any parent who would say “Why didn’t the school tell me my kid says they’re trans,” my reply is that’s the wrong question. The right one is to ask yourself “Why couldn’t my kid tell me? What message am I giving out such that they felt they needed to hide this from me?” Or, both more philosophical and harsher, “Do I really love my kid? Or do I just love the idea of what I imagine them to be?”

Forced outing answers neither of those questions. It just provides a means to avoid them.

==

2026-03-09
On February 25, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said an “historic” agreement with the US was “within reach” ahead of renewed talks in Geneva. On the 27th, Oman’s foreign minister said a “breakthrough” had been reached in the negotiations.

On the 28th, the bombing began.

In the ST:TOS episode “The Savage Curtain,” one character is a reincarnated version of an Earth warlord named Colonel Phillip Green. Kirk says he was known for attacking his enemies in the middle of peace negotiations.

That description was used to establish Green as representative of historic evil.

Just a thought.

==

026-03-09
Wait - so Dep. UN Ambassador Tammy Bruce says “two times they voted for him,” that is, Trump? (About 7:15 at the linked video.)

So Bruce is saying The Orange Overlord lost the 2020 election? She better hope the The Boss doesn’t notice!

==

2026-03-11
[The 4th CCoA upheld a West Virginia law that denied Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery, in so doing effectively extending the Skrmetti ruling allowing bans on transgender care from youth to adults.]

“It is not irrational for a legislature to forgo Medicaid coverage of arguably ineffective and dangerous procedures.”

The word “arguably” is doing a hell of a lot of work - in fact, all the work - in that sentence.

I suppose we can expect the same panel at some point in the future to rule that a state can ban the teaching of evolution because it is “arguably” (according to creationists) incorrect and ban the use of globes in schools because the planet is “arguably” (according to flat Earthers) a flat disc while asserting, as it did here, the state “did not have to take any third party at its word to find a good reason” for the bans - that is, “We don’t need to hear from no stinkin’ experts.”

It sometimes seems the 4th and 5th Circuits are in some private competition as to which can make the stupidest argument to support the cruelest outcome. This one will be hard to beat, but I’m sure the 5th will take up the challenge.

Oh, btw, for all the terfs and “LGB without the T” types out there who I’m sure are quite gleeful over this, who will you turn to when some court rules that a state’s authority to “encourage citizens to appreciate their sex” is interpreted to mean their “natural” sex, so “becom[ing] disdainful of their sex” by rejecting “normal reproduction” sex by being gay or lesbian can legitimately be outlawed?

Reminder: Niemöller’s poem was not just about Nazi Germany.

==

2026-03-12
[Under a new rule, the State Department will be able to revoke trans people’s visas over “misrepresentation,” giving ICE grounds to suspect all non-native born trans people of being in the US illegally. In response, someone asked “Why is our government so obsessed with the genitals of strangers?”]

Because they are trying to suppress the lurid, guilty fantasies the concept of being transgender stirs in them, an outgrowth of our on-going, Puritanical, gross immaturity about anything even remotely related to sex or sexuality.

So I said... for February 25 to March 4

Updated to include links, which I failed to include before posting.

The next issue of my irregular compilation of comments I’ve made at various places on various issues over the past week or so, with some added context as seemed needed.

2026-02-25
[In the SOTU, the Orange Overlord endorsed forced school outing of trans kids.]

What still seems so tragic to me that is I can recall from a good number of years ago PSAs on TV (okay, maybe it was radio; the words are what I remember) telling children that if there were problems at home and they needed help, to tell an adult, including, I remember this specifically, “a trusted teacher.”

Now, that’s simply no longer true. If you’re trans and home feels like a hostile environment, a teacher is someone you dare not trust. Not just because they might expose you to your parents but because they might have no choice in the matter, so you remain silent, feeling trapped and isolated and alone - and potentially suicidal.

Ignorance leads to fear (transphobia). Fear leads to hate (transmisia). Hate leads to inflicting suffering. And the infliction of suffering will be described as doing good - because the alternative is facing the reality of what it is being done and that is too much to bear.

[Footnote: “Tell a trusted adult” is still standard guidance. The issue is, if you’re a trans child, who could such a person be?]

==

2026-02-26
[H.R. 7661, introduced hours after the SOTU, would prohibit schools from “promoting” or “facilitating” anything involving “gender dysphoria” or “transgenderism” and codify the idea that anything to do with trans people is “sexually explicit.” The only thing other than being trans designated “sexually explicit” is depictions of sexual intercourse as defined in 18 USC §2256.]

This just goes to confirm what I’ve been saying for a long time: These are mentally disturbed, ethically warped people driven nearly mad by their obsession with sex such that they can’t conceive of being transgender as a matter of who a person is but only in terms of how they “do it” and “what’s in their pants” and all their attempts at disappearing trans folks are really attempts to repress their hidden, lurid, guilty fantasies.

==

2026-02-27
A simple question I have not seen asked regarding impending war on Iran:

WHAT THE FLAMING HELL IS “COMMERCIAL-GRADE ENRICHED WEAPONS MATERIAL??”

I have to assume the “enriched weapons material” refers to enriched uranium or plutonium. The only sense I can make of “commercial grade” is that it’s enriched to a degree useful for commercial applications - specifically, running a nuclear reactor.

That’s an enrichment level of 3-5% (i.e. 3-5% of the fuel is actual U-235 or Pu-239). Weapons-grade is >90% enriched.

So unless there is some explanation of which I am unaware, the administration of The Orange Overlord and his coterie of clowns and lickspittle liars is threatening to go to war because Iran is “a week away” from being able to operate a nuclear reactor.

[I made essentially the same comment just in a shorter form on another site on March 1 in reply to the observation that “they’ve been saying Iran is days away from producing nuclear weapons for decades. They’re probably hoping we don’t remember that so they can justify what he wants to do.]

==

2026-02-27
[In the Orange Overlord’s SOTU he said “The first duty of government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.” The same day, a nearly-blind, non-English-speaking Burmese refugee was found dead after being dumped by CPB at night, in a Buffalo winter, five miles from his home.]

“If he’s going to die, the better he do it sooner, so to reduce the illegal population!”

Seems to me I heard that or something like it sometime in I think it was December.

==

2026-02-28
So Secretary of “War is Peace” Pete “Manly Man” Hogsbreath says the Pentagon has made a deal with Scouting America to eliminate DEI programs and end tolerance of transgender scouts.

To the relief of some, the group declared it would still “have transgender people in our program going forward.”

For my part, I’ll hold my applause until I hear more details. The statement says that yes, trans kids are still welcome - but it does not say that they will not be programmatically segregated by birth sex nor does it say anything about the cutting back on or elimination of DEI programs.

Suppose some state said “Of course trans people are welcome to use our bathrooms or compete in sports - as long as they do it according to their sex assigned at birth.” Would that satisfy? Because it shouldn’t.

This may turn out better than I think it sounds, but I’ll need to be convinced it isn’t just a smokescreen over what is essentially a surrender.

In any event and personally, I think Scouting America should tell the Pentagon to, as I used to put it, “remove thyself to an alternate location, there to engage in autoerotic activities” - i.e., GFY. Crafts, outdoor camping, and sports should not be pipelines to the military.

==

2026-02-28
[In response to the same announcement, someone noted the Scouts are significantly dependent on the DOD, e.g., the Corps of Engineers maintains a lot of Summer Camp infrastructure.]

Yes, and why do they do it? Civic duty? Contribution to the public good?

Nah. It’s because Scouting America acts - whether consciously or by default - as recruitment for the military. The group will even brag about how many of its participants wind up in the military.

==

2026-03-01
[Robert Reich referred again to how offended he was by Randy Newman’s song “Short People.”]

Randy Newman’s song “Short “People” was intended as a satire about prejudice. Apparently he was unaware of the prejudice based on height, saying later he couldn’t see why people would think that anyone “was as crazy as that character” or something to that effect. It was not his only satirical song about bigotry where he spoke in the voice of the bigot, it was just the one that became well known. If you still wonder, you should read the lyrics to see that it is deliberately way over the top.

Just remember, Newman also wrote “Political Science” in which he said we should “drop the big one” on everybody because everybody hates us - except on Australia because we “don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo.” Failing to recognize obvious satire is a rookie mistake.

==

2026-03-01
So I see people saying “Iran is just another distraction from Epstein.”

NOT EVERYTHING IS A DISTRACTION, DAMMIT!

This is a real war with real people really dying, not a damn sideshow and I guarantee you it’s not a “distraction” to the people doing the suffering and dying.

Do you really think that there would be no war, no attacks on immigrants, no undermining of science and public health, no stripping of LGBTQ+, particularly trans, rights, no voter suppression, no pushing of white Christian nationalism, no assertions of near-dictatorial powers, no threats about Greenland or Canada, no the list just goes on and on and on, if it wasn’t for Epstein?

Get a flaming grip!

[This resulted in my being accused of being unconcerned with child rape so I’ll add this addendum, something I apparently should have included but didn’t because I thought it was apparent: When you label something as “a distraction,” you are saying it is unimportant, irrelevant, not worthy of attention and can be safely ignored; in fact it should be ignored so as to keep all focus on whatever is claimed in the particular case to be the singular “real” issue.

As horrific as the facts and the further implications surrounding the Epstein files are, I find myself incapable of letting pass without resistance all the other examples of heinousness coming from the court of the Orange Overlord. I will make no apologies for that and I reject the underlying suggestion that those actions would not have been undertaken, that is, were done only to serve as distractions, were it not for Epstein.]

==

2026-03-03
[Hemant Mehta wrote about his doubts about a story that a combat-lever commander told officers under their command that Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon,” leading to the Second Coming.]

I come to this as, if you will, a virgin, as while I had seen the headline on [Jonathan] Larsen’s story, I hadn’t read it. I still haven’t.

That said, I was put off by your “just asking questions” approach, one that despite your disclaimers came across much more as debunking the story than as expressing healthy skepticism.

For example, you took a couple of personal shots at [Mikey] Weinstein[, President and Founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the source of the story] - “he brags about being repeatedly nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize,” “every email publicized by MRFF reads more like an internal fundraising email,” the group “takes in a lot of donations on the backs of stories like these,” he personally gets paid about $375,000, about half the group’s total income - while insisting they’re not relevant or “not accusations, just observations.” Then why bring them up?

What’s more, some of your “red flags” aren’t even flags, much less red ones. So the theology expressed by this commander isn’t the same as that of Pete Hegseth? Okay, now that is irrelevant not only to the truth of the story but to the central issue of such “last days” theology being expressed in the military and how far it is being spread, if it is. 

You also said “If they’re actively editing the emails, then they need to admit that” just a few paragraphs before stating that he did precisely that when you asked for an original.

So do I think that some commander could have expressed that sort of “final days” theology to those under their command? Yes. Considering the number of examples of right-wing pastors declaring Trump was “anointed of God” to be president and “Jesus is returning,” I have no doubt.

Beyond that, I suspect that a lot of the reports were repeating scuttlebutt and that they didn’t “call a reporter” because beyond concern about being outed - seriously, how many reporters would be willing to deal with a report from someone who wouldn’t ID themselves, leaving no way know the source - they didn’t have additional info to offer and it was more a case of “I heard about this and I thought you should know.”

The question of how widespread the particular form of religious extremism involved is in the military and if it’s being promoted by higher-ups are important ones and wholly worthy of investigation. But neither was the question at hand; the reliability of the story and therefore the trustworthiness of the MRFF was.

Bottom line: At this point, do I have cause to doubt that basic story? No. And bluntly, neither do you.

==

2026-03-04
[In this case, literally “said.” A local Board of Education was considering revoking its guidance on dealing with transgender students, that is, stripping away their protections. Several folks spoke against it at the meeting; this is from what I prepared (which likely makes it seem more polished than it was as delivered).  In the end, the motion lost on a tie vote of 4-4.]

Good evening.

I come before the Board tonight to urge you to continue to support and indeed where possible to strengthen the Transgender Student Guidance.

I say this despite the fact that I am not trans, no one in my family is trans, and in fact as far as I know I do not personally know a single transgender person.

The point is, you don’t need to have a personal connection to be to be aware, to understand, to have empathy.

I was bullied growing up. A lot. I was a fat, shy, bookish kid, the kind who becomes a natural target for bullying, for mockery, being picked on, teasing, and “jokes.” The result was that I never felt connected, never felt I belonged.

It was bad enough that in my teen years I seriously considered suicide and a few years later I attempted it.

Looking back on that time, I can understand to some degree what it’s like to be trans, indeed how much harder to be trans than it was for me. Because if you’re trans, you’re not just made to feel apart, you’re actively set apart, tagged, marked  as the “other,” as the “not us” by the society around you - increasingly, even legally so.

Transgender children deserve support, protection, and encouragement sufficient to thrive of the sort that any child should be able expect in any public school.

I’m not an expert, but as a layperson I’m fairly conversant with the science involved here. But you don’t have to be an expert to know the difference between what is right and what is wrong, between fair and unfair, just and unjust, between what is kindness and what is cruelty, to recognize the difference between performative concern and concealed contempt.

So I want to again, call on the Board of Education to continue, and where possible deepen, the support. the protection, the inclusion for trans students in this school system.

What’s more, I call on you to not be deterred or stampeded by the fears, fables, and fairy tales likely to be thrown at you in the course of considering this issue but rather to adopt just some portion of the courage it takes to be transgender and embrace the right, the fair, the just, and the kind.

I want to thank the members of the Board for taking on this civic responsibility of being on the BOE and I thank you for your time.

063 The Erickson Report for October 6 to 19, Page 4: Brief comments on Iran and Ukraine

I am not going to try to cover news about Iran. It's one of those cases where events change too quickly and there is no way a show on once every two weeks could keep up. Anything I say here would be obsolete even before you hear it.

But I did want to take a moment to express my profound respect and admiration for the massive crowds whose nonviolent protests have shaken the grounds of Iranian society and even government. They have braved beatings and bullets - over 150 have been killed, hundreds more injured, thousands arrested - and while they may not achieve their goals of a more open society in the face the proven willingness of the Ayatollahs to unleash even greater violence in the face of a challenge, still they stand as evidence that Iran will change.  

As put by Kasra Aarabi, the Iran Program Lead at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, "unrestrained violence against unarmed civilians [may] quash the protests this time around," but

the mood on the streets is explicitly revolutionary. They don't want reform, they want regime change. Of course, no one can predict when this moment will happen: it could be weeks, months or even years. But the Iranian people have made up their mind."

Believe it: As even the Ayatollahs must know in their hearts, change will come.

The other thing I'm not going to discuss, for the same reason (events changing too rapidly), is Ukraine.

But I do want to make one observation: There has been much discussion about the danger of Russia - that is, Vladimir Putin (or, as I call him, Pukin') - to escalate to nuclear weapons if things continue to go badly for him. But there is another danger that should be considered, this one coming from Ukraine, specifically from Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has specifically barred any negotiations to end the war so long as Putin is in power.

I said before the war started that given nations' unfortunate historical preference for war over humiliation, the reality is, if in a confrontation you don't want a war, you have to give the other side a way to back out without appearing to back down. The same applies to ending a war.

I'm sure Zelenskyy is happily envisioning a coup overthrowing Putin, one lead by a group eager to offer Ukraine concessions up to and including forswearing any claims to Crimea. But I wonder if he is really giving full consideration to the increased risk to which he is subjecting his people with such an uncompromising attitude along with the question of what there is still to be gained that is worth the predictable cost.

The Ameerican pacifist A. J. Muste once said "The problem with war isn't with the loser but the winner. Who is going to teach them that might does not make right?" Now that things appear to be going his way, that's a question Volodymyr Zelenskyy should be asking himself.

063 The Erickson Report for October 6 to 19

 

063 The Erickson Report for October 6 to 19

Sources:

Correction regarding school book bans
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2022/09/062-erickson-report-for-september-22-to.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/book-bans-opinion-poll-2022-02-22/
https://hartmannreport.com/p/americans-used-to-understand-public
https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/floridas-hidden-voucher-expansion-over-1-billion-from-public-schools-to-fund-private-education

Follow Up on the shooting of Shireen Abu Akleh
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2022/05/054-erickson-report-for-may-19-to-june-1.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2022/06/055-erickson-report-for-june-2-to-15.html
https://theintercept.com/2022/09/20/shireen-abu-akleh-killing-israel/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXjVDKILC3s
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/06/1121252
https://theintercept.com/2021/11/29/boycott-film-bds-israel-palestine/
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-bds-legislation
https://theintercept.com/2022/09/22/rashida-tlaib-israel-adl/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmZ0ZFgYWf8
https://bit.ly/3xMztNc
https://bit.ly/3dxZyJn
https://bit.ly/3r0OXcG
https://bit.ly/3C3Zlqr

False claims about the future of Social Security
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/search/label/Social%20Security
https://www.gobankingrates.com/retirement/social-security/debt-free-future-biggest-problems-facing-social-security/

Brief comments on Iran and Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/site-search/?query=iran&date=past_month&offset=0
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/analysis-braced-to-crush-unrest-irans-rulers-heed-lessons-of-shahs-fall-analysts/ar-AA12FAAb
https://ajmuste.org/aj_mustes-life-of-activism

The Erickson Report, Page 2: Iran lies and the media

The Erickson Report, Page 2: Iran lies and the media

So last time around, in listing some issues I thought were not getting enough attention from progressives, I included war spending and our wars around the world.

And immediately thereafter, the world blows up.

Or rather, it almost did. It may surprise you that I am not going to be spending a lot of time talking about Iran. That's largely because there is a fair amount of useful commentary going around and I prefer to spend my limited time on things not discussed so prominently.

I will say that I was struck - not surprised, but struck - by how robotically and mindlessly the mainstream media fell into the pattern of unquestioningly parroting government propaganda as if it were clearly established truth and how frequently the broadcast media resuscitated known liars and cheerleaders for the Iraq War and wheeled them out to discuss what was happening now.

As Dan Froomkin of PressWatchers.org said, "Lessons that should have been learned from Vietnam were forgotten in the rush to invade Iraq. And now ... it’s abundantly evident that the lessons that should have been learned from Iraq haven’t been learned at all."

Want to know how obvious that is? In December, the WaPo published a six-part series on how the government - across three different administrations - has persistently lied for the entire (so-far) 18-year history of our war in Afghanistan.

Yet that same Washington Post, in reporting on Sec of State Mike Pompous's appearance on CNN on January 3, simply quoted without challenge his claims that Qassem Soleimani was killed to head off an “imminent threat,” that it "saved American lives,” and “Washington is committed to de-escalation” even as those claims were already crumbling: The night before, and so well before the Post reported on, his appearance, the Defense Department said the murder was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans” rather than at disrupting an "imminent" or for that matter even any identifiable threat.

Indeed, on "Face the Nation" on January 12, Defense Secretary Mark Esper was reduced to saying that he “believed” that there “probably, could have been attacks” that put Americans in the Middle East in danger, but he “didn’t see” specific intelligence indicating an imminent attack - which if there had been he damn well would have seen  it.

Meanwhile, on "Meet the Press" the same day, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien essentially admitted that Tweetie-pie's claims about attacks on four US embassies were simple bullshit, that His High Orangeness just "interpreted" some intelligence about Iran "wanting to inflict casualties" as somehow meaning that there was an active plan to attack embassies.

And the lies continue to crumble: On January 13, the Tweeter-in-Chief coughed up a regurgitation of the "imminent threat" line but then added "it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!" exclamation point. The same day it developed that seven months ago he signed off on killing Soleimani in the event any American was killed by any force the administration considers to be an Iranian "proxy." Now we only need the final touch of just dropping references to "imminent" altogether in favor of the all-purpose "bad dude" defense to complete the process.

So let's sum up:

We have an assassination of questionable legality based on an "imminent threat" which apparently did not exist based on intelligence which produced what GOPper Sen. Mike Lee called "probably the worst briefing I’ve seen on a military issue," a briefing during which Pompeo and Esper "couldn't even agree" on what the administration's policy goals regarding Iran are, all of which lead to the brink of outright war in the Middle East which we avoided - for now, I emphasize, because the war hawks are still in flight - a war we avoided only because Iran chose restraint even as the US used it as an excuse to send more troops to the region and increase sanctions on Iran.

And I haven't even touched on the possible fallout for Iraq, nor have I mentioned Tweetie-pie's claim - one I will, I promise, give more attention to in the near future - that the US is now building hypersonic missiles, potentially sparking a new arms race.

But for now I'm going to end here with three footnotes:

Footnote 1: Do you want to know just how insane the killing of Soleimani was? Benjamin Netanyahu sought to distance Israel from it. He told a Cabinet meeting that “The assassination of Soleimani isn’t an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it.” Hey, if even Bibi isn't on board with this you really should have re-thought it.

Like a crumbling brick wall the lies keep collapsing

Footnote 2: On January 8, a regularly-scheduled Ukranian airliner crashed shortly after leaving Tehran airport, killing all 176 on board. Suspicion immediately arose that it had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile. Iran initially denied it but just two days later admitted responsibility and President Hassan Rouhani said Iran "deeply regrets this disastrous mistake" while offering "thoughts and prayers" and "my sincerest condolences" to the families and promising an investigation to be overseen by a "special court" open to the world. We'll see.

Continuing with the footnote, on July 3, 1988, a regularly scheduled Iran Air flight from Iran to Dubai was shot down over the Persian Gulf by a surface-to-air missile from the US cruiser Vincennes, killing all 290 aboard. After an internal investigation, the Navy exonerated the crew. Eight years after the "terrible tragedy," the US reached a settlement with Iran in the International Court of Justice. The US has never formally apologized.

Footnote 3: One positive development which likely won't make a great deal of difference but still is positive just on base principles is that the House has actually passed a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Act directing Tweetie-pie "to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military" unless Congress has declared war or provided specific authorization.

The reasons it likely won't matter are one that it's chances in the Senate are really iffy: Two GOPpers, Mike Lee and Rand Paul, have said they will support the Senate version of the resolution, but with 47 Senate Democrats (including two independents), even if they all vote yea, it'll take at least two more GOPpers to pass it. With people like Joe Manchin around, that still may not be enough.

The other reason is that the last time there was serious talk of invoking the Act was during the bombing of Libya nearly nine years ago - at which time, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a classified briefing that if Congress did try to exercise its authority under the Act, the White House would simply ignore it. I can't imagine the response would be any different now and it's doubtful Congress has the guts to enforce its decision by cutting off funding and so quote abandoning our men and women in the field unquote.

The Erickson Report for January 15-28

The Erickson Report for January 15-28

Back to the grind after our Thanksgiving and Christmas-New Year's episodes, The Erickson Report for January 15-28 looks at media coverage of the Iran crisis and the White House lies before running though some interesting items Noted in Passing and, of course, Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages.

Corrections
https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-us-election-2020-president-five-terms-rally-speech-8923291
https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-twitter-us-president-executive-power-mueller-investigation-9003321
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-insists-constitution-allows-do-whatever-want-1444235


Iran and the media
https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?e=20cc5fa835&u=e6457f9552de19bc603e65b9c&id=748e115148
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/03/corporate-media-turns-warhawks-including-former-bush-officials-beat-drums-war-iran
https://presswatchers.org/2020/01/what-the-press-needs-to-do-to-stop-the-march-to-war-in-iran/
https://www.mediamatters.org/washington-post/after-afghanistan-papers-we-need-skeptical-media-cover-iran
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/3/21048079/trump-pompeo-iran-lies
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/12/21062399/trump-iran-esper-o-brien-four-embassies-why-soleimani-killed
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/11/1910826/-Evolution-of-a-lie-from-imminent-attack-to-four-embassies-with-no-facts-in-between
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/13/trump-doesnt-really-matter-if-there-was-an-imminent-threat-from-soleimani/23899962/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-authorized-soleimani-s-killing-7-months-ago-conditions-n1113271
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/middleeast/soleimani-strike-legality-doubts-us-iran-intl/index.html
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/8/21057344/trump-congress-iran-intelligence-briefing-soleimani
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-sending-thousands-more-troops-mideast-after-baghdad-attack-n1110081
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-10/with-hundreds-of-sanctions-on-iran-trump-adds-a-few-more?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29
https://www.thedailybeast.com/netanyahu-distances-from-soleimani-slaying-says-israel-shouldnt-be-dragged-into-it-report
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-plane-crash-ukraine-airliner-crashes-iran-kills-all-onboard-today-2020-01-08/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-11/iran-says-it-accidentally-shot-down-ukraine-plane-isna
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/navy-1988-iranian-jet/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-powers-resolution-house-votes-to-limit-trumps-ability-act-against-iran/
https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/war-powers-act


Noted in Passing
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/01/2020s-new-laws-gender-neutral-x-licenses-stronger-id-wear-your-hair-the-way-you-want/23890932/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/01/03/united-methodist-church-is-expected-split-over-gay-marriage-disagreement-fracturing-nations-third-largest-denomination/
=
https://theconversation.com/for-linguists-it-was-the-decade-of-the-pronoun-128606
=
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2229238-a-lazy-fix-20-years-ago-means-the-y2k-bug-is-taking-down-computers-now/
=
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/07/puerto-rico-earthquake/2830673001/
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/11/magnitude-59-shock-rocks-quake-stunned-puerto-rico/23899082/
=
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/8/1910216/-Red-alert-from-World-Health-Organization-6-000-dead-in-Congo-measles-outbreak
https://www.afro.who.int/news/deaths-democratic-republic-congo-measles-outbreak-top-6000
https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/11/1052321
https://apnews.com/0cd4deb8141742b5903fbef3cb0e8afa
https://www.who.int/csr/don/26-november-2019-measles-global_situation/en/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_resurgence_in_the_United_States
=
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/12/1910962/-Taal-Volcano-erupts-in-the-Philippines-Now-at-Alert-Level-4
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/matthewchampion/taal-volcano-lava-philippines
=
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/bushfires
=
https://theconversation.com/wtf-slurs-offend-young-adults-more-than-swearing-125193
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyBH5oNQOS0


Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages - the Clowns
https://morningconsult.com/2020/01/08/can-you-locate-iran-few-voters-can/?fbclid=IwAR0e40DoAUi3WgTLmyPLAXAklAw8XcVy3fk4Uae1D6Njgtau0YcSQE_zqWk
=
https://www.instagram.com/p/B67J4TTlnDn/
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/6/1909727/-Don-Jr-shows-off-custom-assault-rifle-with-white-supremacist-imagery-and-image-of-Hillary-Clinton#read-more
=
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/navy-seals-edward-gallagher-trump.html
https://www.salon.com/2020/01/02/eddie-gallagher-isnt-a-lifestyle-brand-story-its-a-story-about-the-rights-violent-nihilism/
=
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/4/1909453/-eponymous-ground-meat-dish-calls-Nobel-Prize-recipient-brainwashed
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/meat-loaf-greta-thunberg-climate-change-australia-bushfire-sharon-a9270246.html


Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages - the Outrages
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/after-monsey-will-jews-go-underground/604219/
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/3/21039446/anti-semitism-anti-orthodox-farrakhan-conspiracy-theories-bipartisan
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/anti-semitic-attacks-more-violent-hate-crimes-new-york-n1110036
https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Antisemitism/Ilhan-Omar-voted-2019s-antisemite-of-the-year-613308
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/.premium-un-confiscations-demolitions-of-palestinian-homes-rose-by-45-percent-in-2019-1.8347116
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-israel-s-un-envoy-calls-ilhan-omar-anti-semite-of-the-year-1.8369471
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Danon
=
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/trump-accused-of-disgraceful-abdication-of-duty-for-proposal-to-neuter-landmark-environmental-law/
https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathleen-rest/kathleen-hartnett-white-nomination-spells-trouble-for-the-magna-carta-of-environmental-law-nepa

6.10 - The end of the battle for Aleppo

The end of the battle for Aleppo

On December 13, Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin told the Security Council that military action had ended in eastern Aleppo. A deal had been reached for the rebels to leave the city. The rebels confirmed the deal had been made.

The Battle of Aleppo, the battle and the siege that became the symbol for the humanitarian disaster that is Syria, the battle which since 2012 had pitted the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against an array of disorganized opposition rebels in what was essentially a standoff until massive Russian bombings turned the tide and enabled government troops and Iranian-sponsored militias to break through, that battle appeared to be over.

The news came in the wake of what UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called "reports of atrocities against a large number of civilians," including summary executions and even burning of people alive, atrocities committed by government troops and particularly by the militias in the final days of the battle.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights referred to "butcheries" carried out "every hour" and Jens Laerke of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs called it "a complete meltdown of humanity."

But at least it appeared it was over and the haunting question "What would you do about Aleppo," the question to which no one had a good answer, the question that could only bring the heart-shredding realization that sometimes there is nothing you can do, nothing that will not just increase the suffering, the death, the bloodshed, it appeared that question was finally silenced.

Except - the temptation is to say of course - it wasn't. The ceasefire agreement fell apart in less than a day.

It had been negotiated by Russia and Turkey and apparently Syria and Iran were ticked off they they weren't involved. As a result, the Iranian-backed militias refused to allow the evacuation even of the wounded, much less the rebels, to proceed.

The bombing, the destruction, the death, resumed, even intensified, only for another ceasefire to go into effect a day later, achieved after a concession to - notably - not Syria but Iran, involving arranging for a similar evacuation of two villages where Iranian-supported militias are under siege by rebel forces.

This time, it seemed to work. In the very early hours of Thursday, December 15, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed that the evacuation of the wounded from Aleppo had begun and Russia’s TASS news service said the evacuation of 5,000 Syrian rebels and their families was also under way.

So maybe it really is finally over. Over, that is, at least for the moment, at least for a few.

On a more if you will practical level, this is undeniably a military and perhaps more important political victory for Assad, for Russia, and perhaps even more for Iran. Aleppo was the last major urban center held by the rebels against the Assad regime.

But this does not mean in any sense that the war is over. Rebel forces in their varying forms, which include, we need to keep reminding ourselves, a variety of terrorist groups including some - such as the al-Nusra front - the US has supported as "moderates" solely because they say they oppose ISIS, still hold a significant amount of territory and the fact is, Assad is now almost entirely dependent on Russia and Iran for his survival.

Meanwhile, Daesh - that is, ISIS - has retaken the city of Palmyra and launched an attack on a major Syrian airbase.

The future of the war and the future of Syria is a very different question from the end of the battle for Aleppo. The blood continues to flow.

1.1 - What we face with a Clinton administration

What we face with a Clinton administration

Hillary Clinton

This show is going to be a bit odd because I am doing it five days before the election, which means, it being a weekly show, that at least some of you are going to see it after the election is over - and what I'm going to be doing here is looking beyond the election to what will confront us after.

I'm doing this under the assumption that Hillary Clinton will be (or is now, depending on when you see this) president-elect, which despite the breathless blather about tightening national polls - which don't mean a damn thing under our presidential elector system - still seems highly likely.

So the question becomes what we of the left are going to have to deal with during a Clinton presidency.

Because Hillary Clinton, bluntly, is not nearly as progressive as she tried to paint herself during the primaries with her sudden and convenient commitment to populism, a commitment that increased in direct proportion to the shrinkage in the polling gap between her and Bernie Sanders and one which it was clear from the beginning could not be trusted: The last day of the Iowa primary campaign, she declared on the stump "I'm a progressive" only to say the very next day during an interview with Chris Matthews that "We've got to get back to the middle, the big center."

So no, not a true progressive.

Rather, she was the preferred candidate of the political, economic, and foreign policy establishments, the candidate that even though they might not be great fans of all of her proposals, she is still the one that establishment feels comfortable with, the one that establishment has confidence might rearrange the apples on the cart but will not upset it.

So we are going to find ourselves in opposition on a lot of issues and on a lot of occasions. And we had better be ready for that. We will have to watch carefully and be prepared to squawk loudly and to not care when we are told - as we will be - to be quiet and get in line behind Hillary because "OMG! Republicans!" We have got to be prepared to stand firm and not back down because just being better then the GOPpers is not good enough!

You want specifics, let me give you some on a few big issues.

Right at the top, remember that Hillary Clinton was the candidate of Wall Street, which raised $23 million for her campaign, besides having paid her at least $26.1 million in speaking fees over the years.

I have said a number of times that she has so many ties to Wall Street it looks like some kind of kinky bondage party. We are going to have to watch carefully and very likely raise a stink about who she wants to bring on board as advisers and more importantly regulators.

Because in speeches to the bankers and during the campaign she has argued for having the foxes guard the chicken coop, saying that Wall Street executives, not financial or legal experts from outside the industry, not consumer advocates, but the people who run the banks, are the best people to call in to regulate the banks.

Even in 2014, at a time everyone knew she was going to run but hadn't announced her candidacy, Politico was writing that "the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president" because she will not tamper with the Street's vast money pot.

In fact, she may even look to add to it: Tony James, president of the Blackstone Group hedge fund and someone whose name has been floated for Clinton's Treasury Secretary, has been openly promoting a plan to give financial firms control of hundreds of billions of dollars in retirement savings - and the word is Clinton's top aides are warming to the idea.

This plan would replace individual voluntary 401(k)s with a requirement that workers and employers to put a percentage of payroll aside, but not into Social Security, into individual retirement accounts to be, in James' words, "invested well in pooled plans run by professional investment managers" - in other words, by outfits like Blackstone, which could collect a fortune in fees.

What George Bush failed to accomplish - privatizing Social Security - Hillary Clinton could help along.

We also have to be prepared to make a stink not only over actions but over inactions, as there is every indication that a Clinton administration will continue the big bank protection racket of the Obama administration, lots of tough talk combined with no action.

And in keeping watch on that, we have to bear in mind that Hillary Clinton has blamed the 2008 crash on most everything except the deregulation championed by Bill Clinton and enacted during his administration and that she continues to oppose reinstating Glass-Steagall.

Beyond that, her entire supposedly "progressive" agenda consists almost entirely of nibbling around the edges, of maybe incremental change that will be presented to us as shockingly dramatic progress but which we will have to be prepared to say out loud is just not good enough.

Consider health care, where she proposes to tweak Obamacare - but she has specifically rejected single-payer in so many words, meaning anything she would do still has the failings of Obamacare in that she still relies on the insurance industry, still depends to work at all on the insurance industry thinking it's profitable enough, and the whole program is actually about health insurance, not about health care. We have to be take the opening offered by any such tweak to demand at least single-payer and even better a national health system because the Affordable Care Act is not good enough.

On climate change, she is all over the map and despite some good rhetoric on the topic, it's policies, not fine words, which matter, and on that count it doesn't look so good.

In a speech, she told an energy group that she wants to "defend natural gas" and, referring people pushing the slogan "keep it in the ground," "it" being fossil fuels, over a concern for global warming, she called them "wild" and said they should "get a life."

She finally came out against the Keystone XL pipeline after dithering about it until it was clearly unpopular, but she said she did it because it was "a distraction," not because it was a bad idea.

During the primaries she was forced to say she is against fracking but she told that same energy group that she wants to "defend" fracking and the fact is that during her time as secretary of state, she sought to export fracking to countries all over the world.

And to show how much we can trust her public assurances on the topic, she picked former Senator Ken Salazar, a big fan of fracking, to chair her presidential transition team.

Which in turn raises another issue where we have to watch and be ready to fight. Because Ken Salazar is also a big fan of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP.

Clinton, as is fairly well known, had been in favor of the TPP; in fact she had called it "the gold standard" for trade agreements. But in the face of clear opposition among the public and Bernie Sanders making it an issue in the primaries, she gradually shifted her position from support to opposition. She even said she was opposed to a vote on the agreement during the lame duck Congressional session after the election.

But there is genuine reason to question how sincere that opposition is and how long past election day it will last.

There was the statement back in January by Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue that once elected, Clinton would flip back to supporting the TPP.

There was the statement in July from Virginia governor and Clinton bestie Terry McAuliffe that once in office, a few tweaks would enable Clinton to support the pact.

Her VP-to-be, Tim Kaine, is a "free trade" zealot who had been the Senate's most fanatical supporter of the TPP.

And of course there was the selection of Salazar to head the transition team.

On top of all that came leaked emails, one which made it clear that she opposed the deal at least in public because her campaign feared she would be "eaten alive" by labor and Sanders supporters if she didn't.

So even if the pact does not pass during the lame-duck session - which, happily, seems likely - that does not mean it will not come up again in the spring with a few "tweaks" that have turned it back into "the gold standard."

We will have to be prepared to fight on matters both of privacy and government secrecy. In Congress, she supported both the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. She has defended NSA spying. She has called American hero Edward Snowden "an enabler of terrorism" who should be prosecuted and imprisoned. During the first debate with TheRump she advocated an "intelligence surge," a new slogan describing, among other things, more intensive domestic surveillance.

In fact, her obsession with official secrecy is so great that as Secretary of State, she once threatened the United Kingdom with shutting off intelligence cooperation if a UK court as part of a then-current case published details of the mistreatment of a prisoner who had been wrongly imprisoned at Gitmo.

That mention of Gitmo brings us to another major concern: Hillary Clinton was not only the candidate of Wall Street, she was the candidate of the neocons - who supported her precisely because she was, in the words of one, "the candidate of the status quo" who would "resist systematic change" - and she was the candidate of the war hawks.

Clinton is a warhawk, far more than Obama ever was - which, when you consider he bombed seven countries during his administration and has troops on the ground in three, is saying something.

For example, by all accounts she was as Secretary of State the strongest voice within the White House for intervention in Libya. That worked out so well that after Qaddafi was killed -an event she quite literally laughed off as "we came, we saw, he died" - Libya descended into the chaos of a multi-sided civil war from which it still has not emerged.

She supported an expansion of the war in Afghanistan, one even bigger than the generals did, and resisted the drawdown of troops.

She has "wholeheartedly backed" the drone war in Pakistan and other nations that has killed at least hundreds of civilians and likely many more; supported so much so that as Secretary of State she had her legal counsel develop a legal rationale for expanding it.

When it comes to Israel, the only fair word is sycophant. From proposing as a candidate in 2008 a US "nuclear umbrella" over Israel, to in 2012, saying "We've gotta support Israel 110 percent here" while getting any mention of the Israeli siege of Gaza scrubbed from a ceasefire proposal, to in 2014, declaring that "If I were the prime minister of Israel, you're damn right I would expect to have [security] control" over the West Bank, she has repeatedly shown a clear bias and declared positions that would make the two-state solution in which she falsely claims to believe, impossible.

She declared a position on Iran's nuclear program that, had it been adopted, would have undermined the agreement that was reached and later said that her policy on Iran would be "distrust and verify." Which is at least consistent: During the 2008 primaries, she called Obama "naive" for saying he would be willing to talk to the Iranians.

And then there is Syria.

She has bemoaned that the US has not been more involved in Syria. As Secretary of State, she devised a plan to arm and train "moderate" rebel factions to create a "credible fighting force."

During the primary campaign she said Obama was "not tough enough" on Syria and called for more special ops troops to train local forces.

During primary debates, she called for a "safe zone" to be established in Syria, something that would require ground troops because there is no other way to secure such a zone.

And she has continued to argue for US-imposed "no-fly zones" in Syria, despite being unable during the third debate with TheRump to say what would happen if a Russian plane violated such a no-fly zone and despite having acknowledged in 2013 that imposing a no-fly zone would mean taking out air defense systems, including in populated areas, and that in doing so "you're going to kill a lot of Syrians."

Here's the bottom line on all this, as reported by the Washington Post on October 20:

In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure from the White House - and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met with quiet relief.

That foreign policy elite, which wants a "more assertive" foreign policy, which is eager for a "more interventionist" foreign policy, is actively looking forward to a Clinton presidency.

All of which means under President Hillary Clinton we face the prospect, the very real prospect, of more bombings and more wars in more places, including the clear possibility of a direct confrontation with Russia.

Altogether, silence, here as elsewhere, is not an option.

240.5 - Elections in Iran

Elections in Iran

A type of, a sort of, example of - or at least a lesson about - what I mean by "a different path" can be found in some news out of Iran of recent weeks.

You may recall I was ambivalent about Iran deal, the one of lifting economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program, because it seemed to me to be a case of imperialism, of big nations bullying a small one into doing what they wanted and doing it over a supposed nuclear weapons program which I was never convinced existed. But I ultimately approved of and supported the deal because I thought its failure would be worse, that it would open door to increased pressure for, and likely would lead to an actual, military attack on Iran.

Sometimes good things come out of bad. Because it can fairly be argued that it was that agreement and the associated lifting of sanctions that provided the political opening for the dramatic victory of reformist and moderate conservative parties in the elections for the Iranian parliament that took place a few weeks ago. Reformist parties won 85 seats in the 290-seat body, with the moderate conservatives winning 73 more.

Meanwhile, hardliner parties lost 44 seats, dropping them down to 68.

Together, the reformist and moderate conservative parties have an absolute majority in parliament and are expected to work together, at least on economic issues, and overall President Hassan Rouhani will face a friendlier parliament as he tries to push for some increased social freedoms and for reforming the economy.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

It's also likely to lead to greater economic and political openings and improved contacts with the West and some among those elected, particularly among the women, are prepared to argue and fight for greater social freedoms within Iran.

The changes, however, are unlikely to be dramatic; the hardliner old guard, primarily in the person of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, still has a strong grip on power. Indeed, some say such changes will not come at all, claiming that many of those who ran as reformers or moderate conservatives are actually hardliners and the Guardian Council, which vets election candidates, screened out all the real reformists.

But even that, while disheartening to the extent it's true, gives some cause for hope: The very fact those people had to label themselves reformers in order to get elected points to the shifting nature of the Iranian electorate, a shift also revealed in the fact that 60 percent of the population of Iran is under 30 and they show much greater interest in let's call it a less-rigorous lifestyle and politics than do their elders.

So even though I thought that the whole confrontation with Iran need never have happened, the fact remains: Ditch the threats, ditch the war mongering, reach an agreement both sides can live with - and then this happens. Some will insist it was a coincidence, some will insist the nuclear agreement had nothing to do with it. Bluntly, I'm not buying it.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/In-blow-to-Iran-hard-liners-moderates-win-6859930.php
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/opinions/iran-election-key-takeaways/
http://www.care2.com/causes/irans-reformist-elections-may-spell-change-for-the-islamic-republic.html

Left Side of the Aisle #240

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of March 10-16, 2015

This week:

Abortion rights under attack
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_casey.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-24/abortion-clinics-are-closing-at-a-record-pace
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/25/abortion_access_is_vanishing_clinics_are_closing_at_a_rapid_pace_and_shameless_conservative_legislators_are_gunning_for_whats_left/
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/08/08/3469232/abortion-safety-trap-laws/
http://khn.org/news/abortion-admitting-privileges-fight/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/us-supreme-court-whole-womens-health-v-hellerstedt/471546/?google_editors_picks=true
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/03/03/3756242/70-percent-bills-false/
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/txpep/_files/pdf/Grossman,White,Hopkins,Potter-PublicHealthThreatofAnti-abortionLegislation-Contraception-2014.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/the-return-of-the-diy-abortion.html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/index.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/supreme-court-texas-abortion-liberal-justices-ginsburg-breyer
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/02/3755868/the-incredible-shrinking-supreme-court-showdown-over-abortion/
http://theadvocate.com/news/14687281-84/louisiana-legal-requirement-that-abortion-providers-have-hospital-admitting-privileges-is-unconstitu
http://theadvocate.com/news/14981272-172/5th-circuit-ruling-allows-louisiana-to-begin-enforcing-its-abortion-law
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/supreme-court-louisiana-abortion-case/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Most equal countries for women
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/11/19/us-falls-28th-global-gender-equality-list/76018174/

Footnote: Most literate nations
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/11/19/us-falls-28th-global-gender-equality-list/76018174/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/03/08/most-literate-nation-in-the-world-not-the-u-s-new-ranking-says/
http://www.ccsu.edu/wmln/

Somalia is proof our "war on terrorism" is not working
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/despite-us-airstrikes-a-somali-militia-is-rising-again/2016/03/08/2fdeeeb8-e537-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html

Elections in Iran
http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/In-blow-to-Iran-hard-liners-moderates-win-6859930.php
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/opinions/iran-election-key-takeaways/
http://www.care2.com/causes/irans-reformist-elections-may-spell-change-for-the-islamic-republic.html

Clown Award: Immigration Judge Jack Weil
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/03/02/3756017/stupid-kentucky-matrimony-bill/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0306/Can-toddlers-defend-themselves-in-immigration-court-One-judge-says-so
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/can-a-3-year-old-represent-herself-in-immigration-court-this-judge-thinks-so/2016/03/03/5be59a32-db25-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

234.3 - Good News: Iran deal advances

Good News: Iran deal advances

In some other Good News, the Iran deal is back in the news. That's the the one that involved Iran agreeing to modify its nuclear research and power program in a way that would prevent it from using it to build nuclear weapons in exchange for a lifting of political and economic sanctions against it.

Well, Secretary of State John Kerry said on January 7 that implementation of the deal may be only "days away" and that Iran is on track to meet its pledge to sharply reduce its ability to manufacture the nuclear weapons it probably was not trying to build in the first place and no, Kerry did not say that last part.

In fact, there was a report that, in line with the agreement, Iran had removed the core of its Arak heavy water nuclear reactor and filled it with cement, an act which Reuters, with notable British understatement, said would "reduce the plant's ability to produce plutonium." Yes, replacing the core with cement would do that.

Iranian officials denied that particular report, but indicated at the same time that the process of "modernizing" the Arak plant, which would involve removing the core, is underway.

It's possible the conflicting reports are due to jockeying among political factions in Iran; if the core has been removed, it would not be the first time that a report of Iran taking steps to accede to the demands of the so-called P5+1 nations was denied only to be confirmed later.

What can't be denied is that Iran has significantly reduced the number of its centrifuges, transferred the bulk of its low-enriched uranium stockpile to Russia, and agreed to sell some of its excess heavy water to the US. Things are progressing.

Congressional war hawks

I say now as I have said in the past in discussing this that I was and am uncomfortable with this deal not only because, again, there was no solid proof Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon - certainly the frequent breathless predictions that Iran was anything from just a couple of years to a few months away from having nukes never came true - but also because it smacks of rank imperialism, of a group of big nations telling a smaller one "you will do this because we say so, like it or lump it."

But I approved it - accepted it is the better term - because the alternative was the real possibility of a stampede to war on Iran. And indeed, that idea still sits in the back of the heads of various Congressional troglodytes, who even now are pushing a bill that would block the lifting of sanctions on Iran - which is supposed to be our part of the deal - until the Administration can "certify the entity is not a terror financier, human rights abuser or involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." In other words, they want to wreck the deal by moving the goalposts not just further back but completely out of the stadium.

Even if that bill passes Congress, which it likely won't, it would be vetoed and there is no way such a veto would be overriden. But it does serve as a reminder that there are those in Congress (and not all of them are GOPpers) who have blood in their eyes and war lust in their groins who would, if given the opportunity, have US soldiers on the ground - I should say more US soldiers on the ground - not only in Syria and Iraq but in Iran as well. For some people, war is the only option they can think of. Which is why I accept the Iran deal and regard the progress as good news.

Sources cited in links:
http://news.yahoo.com/implementation-iran-nuclear-deal-days-away-kerry-193148623.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/02/goody-goody.html
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-removes-core-arak-heavy-water-nuclear-reactor-171943841.html
http://www.albawaba.com/news/iran’s-arak-nuclear-reactor-begins-process-‘modernization-792190
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/world/middleeast/iran-arak-reactor.html
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-sell-40-tonnes-heavy-water-us-official-145525336.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-elsner/opponents-of-iran-nuclear_b_8962566.html