...more recent posts
I know this is obvious, but I have to vent.
If I hear one more politician say that we need to "keep all options on the table" with regard to Iran my head is going to explode. There is not a single person who actually thinks we should keep *all* options on the table with regard to Iran or any other country or situation we might face. Obviously we aren't going to release smallpox in Iran. Obviously we are not going to launch an all out ICBM attack on every city and town in Iran. So why the fuck do people keep saying we need to keep every option on the table. It doesn't mean anything. What they mean is they want to keep the option of nuking Iran with locally deployed weapons on the table. But they want the cover of being able to say that they aren't saying specifically we should use nukes - it's just part of "keeping everything on the table."
Why won't a reporter follow up with a question asking one of them if that therefore means they support keeping the smallpox option on the table? Or how about crashing the Moon into Iran? I mean come on! Every option is *not* on the table. This is ridiculous.
juan cole piece on the harvard report on the power of the jewish lobby.
Patrick Fitzgerald demonstrates ability to deliver convictions