Senator Carl Levin Responds to Our Concerns Regarding the Iran Situation

We forwarded our comments, postings and concerns to our honorable Senator, Carl Levin. Mr. Levin graciously responded to us almost immediately. (We contacted Senator Levin as a follow-up to our suggestion that we contact our Senators and our Congresspersons in our last posting, Ahmadenijad, Bush and Putin - Is it Time for a Treaty?).


"Thank you for contacting me concerning U.S. policy toward Iran. As a member of the Senate, I have closely monitored the situation in Iran. Among other things, I have supported efforts to encourage democratic reforms and to protect religious minorities in that nation.





The Iranian government's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons, support of international terrorism, opposition to the Mideast peace process, and repression of civil society have caused the U.S. to continue to distance itself from the government in Tehran. We must take a strong stand and work with our allies to address these issues.





The U.S. has had serious concerns about Iran's domestic and international actions since 1979 when Iran seized American hostages in Tehran. Since that incident, the U.S. has imposed a number of sanctions, including a ban on financial assistance and the sale of arms to Iran. The sale of dual use items was restricted when Iran was added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1984. In 1995, President Clinton issued an Executive Order banning U.S. trade and investment in Iran, which has been renewed by President Bush. I supported the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) of 1996, which tightened sanctions against Iran even more. I also supported the Iran Freedom Support Act (P.L.109-293), which extended the ILSA until December 31, 2011. Additionally, this law makes the export of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or advanced conventional weapons technology to Iran sanctionable.





Over the years, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made numerous statements that are deeply disturbing and detrimental to efforts to secure a lasting peace in the Middle East. His statements have also been threatening to nations around the world, including the United States, that formally recognize the State of Israel. Furthermore, Iran's clandestine nuclear activities and its attempts to develop nuclear materials and possibly weapons pose a serious threat to peace in the region and could potentially offer terrorist organizations access to fissile materials. Iran's reluctance to cooperate more fully with the international community, especially with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), indicates that the government in Tehran is not committed to taking the steps necessary to make the world a more secure place.





On March 29, 2006, the U.N. Security Council issued a presidential statement calling for Iran to reinstate its suspension of enrichment and reprocessing, reconsider construction of its heavy water reactor, ratify and implement the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allowing for enhanced inspections. Iran continued its enrichment activities, while claiming it was cooperating with the IAEA.





On December 23, 2006, the Security Council passed a resolution (UNSCR 1737) demanding enrichment suspension by February 21, 2007, and preventing the financing or sale of technology that could contribute to Iran's uranium enrichment or heavy water reprocessing activities. It also required U.N. member states to freeze the financial assets of ten Iranian nuclear and missile firms. On February 22, 2007, the IAEA stated that Iran had not suspended its enrichment programs. On March 24, 2007, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1747, expanding on Resolution 1737 by banning all arms trade with Iran, freezing the assets of an additional ten Iranian firms and requiring all countries to report to the U.N. when an Iranian diplomat travels to their country.





Iran's confrontational stance toward the international community and its apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons have led some to suggest military action against Iran and its nuclear facilities. As always, the use of military action should be considered only after all suitable alternatives and diplomatic options have been exhausted. I believe we must continue to work with our allies to address this situation diplomatically. We should not refuse to talk with Iran, while we work with our allies to send a clear and strong message. In the short term, I support the continuation of U.S. sanctions and the imposition of international sanctions through the United Nations as necessary.





In order to re-enter the international community, Iran must fully disclose all of its nuclear activities and give up any nuclear weapon ambitions, as well as strive to improve its human rights record at home. I will continue to monitor the situation in Iran closely.





Thank you again for contacting me.





Sincerely,Carl Levin"

Ahmadenijad, Bush and Putin - Is it Time for a Treaty?

Ahmadenijad, Bush and Putin - Is it Time for a Treaty?

After our previous posting (Are We Behind the Sanctions Curve?) and the one previous to that (The Coming Nuclear War with Iran?...), we wondered why weren't we proposing any solutions? After all, that is the appropriate response to the serious ethical dilemma(s) we discussed before. After all, a solution is needed to resolve any political dilemma. We think we might have the penultimate dilemma in the current situation.

We propose a trilateral treaty between these three arguing states. After all, shouldn't we be discussing peace prior to going ahead with further war plans? We would be willing to back that up. Now why hasn't the Bush administration proposed that? Or are they working on one in secret - or just the missile defense shield plan and other war plans? That would be the appropriate response - to design a treaty to resolve the potential conflict before any military engagement with the potential loss of life. The inappropriate response would be to proceed with war plans without looking at an accord, an agreement or peace plan. Would it not?

Would that these three world leaders be brought together to hammer out some sort of treaty be the best possible engagement? Who could bring them together? The pope? Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? Or, how about former Vice President (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) Al Gore? Could any or all of these luminaries be persuaded to bring this about? Wouldn't these great men be particularly suited to that role? It would certainly enhance their prestige. We would certainly hope so.

Should a petition be drawn up and signed and circulated amongst these gentlemen? We might ask our Senators and Congresspersons to get going on that.

And where should an accord or treaty be made? The Caucasus is too hot right now. Asia seems too close to the problem. Jerusalem? Israel? Switzerland? Malta? Italy? Vatican City? Oslo? Even Canada? The symbolism in any or all of these locations would demonstrate the gravity of the situation.

Is it time for the Trilateral Treaty? Or World War III?

Are We Behind The Sanctions Curve?

Are Our News Organizations Behind The "Sanctions Curve?"




Yesterday, we were warned about the coming bombing of Iran. (See our previous posting: The Coming Nuclear War with Iran? and Is Hollywood Burning?). And today we heard of tough, new UN/US sanctions coming from the mouth of Madame Condoleeza Rice. Are our news organizations behind the "news curve"? We were wondering if the administration was working its own sucker coup against our news organizations by announcing the sanctions while still secretly planning the Iran bombing campaign. Are they really capable of staging such a two-stage plan. Yes, we suggest they are. But, we hope we are wrong.
If we are not wrong, we are looking at a potential nuclear fallout combined with a potential nuclear winter (as described once by the late, great Dr. Carl Sagan in a Scientific American article).This posting continued Saturday, October 27, 2007.

If indeed a nuclear war or World War III (with nuclear weapons) does happen, we estimate human survival at 50,000 to 5,000,000 individuals on the surface if their are any lethal consequences. This is an unscientific estimate - of course - but based on the 50+ year old concept of megadeath.

Of course, there are expected to be troglodytic populations of individual governments surviving in underground nuclear bunkers. These do exist right here in the US, Switzerland, and likely other major countries. The current administration(s) should be able to make it quite comfortably, including a few billionaires.

For the rest, life on the surface will be miserable - if not horrible. The rotting dead and other detritus left over will make it so. Also, if a nuclear winter does set in, they may find survival even more difficult.

Last night, we heard on MSNBC, the use of the word "psychotic" to describe a couple of the leaders involved in this potential war. You can guess at least two of them. They are only thinking of their active offense as a main defense. They are presumed not to be thinking strategically. Look at the current row with Russia over Bush's planned missile shield defense system. Given, it is a plan to intimidate mainly Iran, but is it really? And, you will notice, that the consequences of a potential nuclear conflict are not being discussed. Is anybody else thinking about this? We are sure some are, but they are probably sworn to a secrecy oath that will not allow them to divulge any information in this regard.

President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a headline on his website: Iran seeks to resolve differences through dialogue . But, we invite you to click on this link to read the rest of his posting. It just doesn't seem promising - everybody involved seems to be deadlocked.

Are We Behind The Sanctions Curve?

Are Our News Organizations Behind The "Sanctions Curve?"

Yesterday, we were warned about the coming bombing of Iran. (See our previous posting: The Coming Nuclear War with Iran? and Is Hollywood Burning?). And today we heard of tough, new UN/US sanctions coming from the mouth of Madame Condoleeza Rice. Are our news organizations behind the "news curve"? We were wondering if the administration was working its own sucker coup against our news organizations by announcing the sanctions while still secretly planning the Iran bombing campaign. Are they really capable of staging such a two-stage plan. Yes, we suggest they are. But, we hope we are wrong.



If we are not wrong, we are looking at a potential nuclear fallout combined with a potential nuclear winter (as predicted by the late, great Dr. Carl Sagan).This posting to be continued tomorrow or at a later date.

The Coming Nuclear War with Iran? and Is Hollywood Burning?

The Coming Nuclear War With Iran?...









We have two firestorms to report. One is political the other is real and happening right now.

Regarding the potential political firestorm with Iran, we have received recently information from very well connected sources to the US Government regarding the Iran diplomatic situation. Now, we don't want to alarm anybody, but we feel it is our responsibility to report. Apparently, diplomatic negotiations with Iran have failed. The bombing of Iran is imminent and could take place very soon. Our source (whom we can't identify at this time) also says that this could turn into World War III. We have no information on whether this will be an all-out nuclear war, but we are 90% certain that nukes will be involved in one way or another.

We can't say that the end of the world is going to happen, but with this political firestorm and the firestorms in Southern California, it looks like Apocalypse and Armageddon are approaching in concert. We're not prophets, but we certainly expect that a bombing campaign on Iran would raise the ire of their diplomatic allies. Allies who may be inclined to retaliate.

And, another war campaign - this one close to the Caucasus Mountains and the Caspian Sea - would certainly be of interest to Russia and perhaps China. One or both of them may feel inclined to "actively defend" their borders. If they sense such a border attack may proceed with the current war plans, they could proceed with "the best defense is a strong offense" strategy.

We might suggest contacting your US Representative and US Senator. We might also suggest you begin storing (if you haven't already) basic supplies like; bottled water, canned foods, firewood, fuel, dry clothing, a generator, halazone, iodide tablets, medicines and so on. If anything, do what you can to protect any innocent lives like children and the elderly - even the homeless.

Updated 10/30/07: Did West blow chance to halt Iran's nuke plans?

Updated 12/27/07: Inflation fuels anger toward Ahmadinejad

Is Hollywood Burning?...

It probably is, and may even burn to the ground. The Firestorm in Southern California is both an amazing and terrifying spectacle. So far, the damages tally up to $ 1 Billion and are growing. President Bush has declared a major fire disaster. The firestorm is partly the result of it generating its own wind (part of the definition of firestorm) and the katabatic winds. So far, a half million people have been ordered evacuated from the affected area(s) - including the local celebrities who have lost their homes there. Many folks have barely escaped alive with just the clothes on their backs - and some have left even without their shoes. Most of their homes are completely burnt out. It has become a national disaster and a national tragedy.





The smoke being generated by the fires can easily be seen



from space. It is an awesome and terrible sight to behold.




We can't help but make the comparisons of the firestorm images to a the potential devastation posed by a nuclear war with Iran and its allies. One thinks of images of Apocalypse and Armageddon.

We can't help but wonder if the fire and rescue authorities have considered using or are actively using the following chemical agents:



Borax
alumina trihydrate
Zinc Borate
Azobisformamide.

We understand that these chemicals may pose an environmental hazard and may not be considered for application. But consider the fact that the environment (about 225,000 acres) has disappeared in the firestorm. Also, lives and so much property may have been lost. More may be lost, because the firestorm at this point is expected to advance to the ocean. That may not happen if the winds do die down from their current speeds of 100 mph to 50 mph. More air support and personnel are also needed.


We certainly hope that the rest of Southern California and Hollywood are spared from the flames. Just think what a tragic loss to our American culture that would really be.

Hilary Gets Ripped A New One, Dick Cheney & Barack Obama - Related???

Clinton blasted over 'hippie museum'

Cheney, Obama 'distant cousins'

Mich. lawmaker: Let turtles be roadkill

Indeed, politics does make for strange bedfellows.

Big Al's Sucker Coup & The Bush "King-Maker" Machine

Big Al's Sucker Coup & The Bush "King-Maker Machine"





Big Al's insiders say he's not running. Oh come on, Al - look at your chances compared to the rest of the field. Your would-be Democratic competitors look like the 11 dwarves compared to your newly acquired stature. Nobody else has the stature you have now. Your credibility is now at an incredible high, not to mention your popularity. (By the way, just what are your approval ratings right now, Al?) If you do run against your Democratic Brethren (and sister), you should be able to pull the rug right out from under them and make them all look like a bunch of saps.





Is that the problem? You think you may sacrifice prestige if you pull that off? You're now the apparent front-runner - you can mash a pie in Hilary's face and crap in her cornflakes, if you felt like it. It would be pretty funny, you know. Oh, that's it...you just don't want to embarrass Big Bill. Don't worry about that, he's already embarrassed himself plenty of times. And, when you are the new prez, he'll be polishing your shoes.





No need to fear the Republican front. Right now they are all looking like a bunch of giant-sized losers compared to your facade. They would literally wilt if facing you in debate or an election... And what about the anointed heir-apparent to George Bush. Who's that you say? Well, heck we're not sure either. Normally it would be the Veep, but his popularity is lower than Bush's. What about Jeb? You owe him a big one for that debacle in Florida. It would be kind of funny to seem him slip on your Nobel Prize like a political banana peel. Unseemly, but funny. You just make a mental picture of that.





Oh, and the Bush "King-Making Machine"? Who's he picked so far? Two failed Attorneys General, failed Defense Secretaries, a miserable, custodian of a White House Counsel...we don't want to speak ill of these folks...that's why we're not naming names. And the Republican nominee, who's that going to be? You can make any one of them look like a cracker-jack sucker chump in line at the three pitches for $ 1 game at the local fall carnival.





It's a win-lose situation for you, Mr. Gore. If you don't position yourself to win, we all lose. Res ipsa loquitor.

Big Al's Sucker Coup & The Bush "King-Maker" Machine

Big Al's Sucker Coup & The Bush "King-Maker Machine"

Big Al's insiders say he's not running. Oh come on, Al - look at your chances compared to the rest of the field. Your would-be Democratic competitors look like the 11 dwarves compared to your newly acquired stature. Nobody else has the stature you have now. Your credibility is now at an incredible high, not to mention your popularity. (By the way, just what are your approval ratings right now, Al?) If you do run against your Democratic Brethren (and sister), you should be able to pull the rug right out from under them and make them all look like a bunch of saps.

Is that the problem? You think you may sacrifice prestige if you pull that off? You're now the apparent front-runner - you can mash a pie in Hilary's face and crap in her cornflakes, if you felt like it. It would be pretty funny, you know. Oh, that's it...you just don't want to embarrass Big Bill. Don't worry about that, he's already embarrassed himself plenty of times. And, when you are the new prez, he'll be polishing your shoes.

No need to fear the Republican front. Right now they are all looking like a bunch of giant-sized losers compared to your facade. They would literally wilt if facing you in debate or an election... And what about the anointed heir-apparent to George Bush. Who's that you say? Well, heck we're not sure either. Normally it would be the Veep, but his popularity is lower than Bush's. What about Jeb? You owe him a big one for that debacle in Florida. It would be kind of funny to seem him slip on your Nobel Prize like a political banana peel. Unseemly, but funny. You just make a mental picture of that.

Oh, and the Bush "King-Making Machine"? Who's he picked so far? Two failed Attorneys General, failed Defense Secretaries, a miserable, custodian of a White House Counsel...we don't want to speak ill of these folks...that's why we're not naming names. And the Republican nominee, who's that going to be? You can make any one of them look like a cracker-jack sucker chump in line at the three pitches for $ 1 game at the local fall carnival.

It's a win-lose situation for you, Mr. Gore. If you don't position yourself to win, we all lose. Res ipsa loquitor.

The Al Gore Sucker Coup

The Al Gore Sucker Coup

It's official, Al Gore wins...the Nobel Prize (Gore and UN panel win Nobel Prize). Congratulations to Mr. Gore. Yes, this is probably the most prestigious prize on the planet, and they don't give these out by mistake. Mr. Gore has recovered nicely from all the stab wounds to his literal back over the years - and has succeeded phenomenally. Will Mr. Gore turn this great award and accomplishment to his political advantage? Will he use it to sweep out his would-be competitors in the coming presidential election? Is this to be his revenge over the Bush Dynasty and the loss of the 2000 election? Yes. It seems highly unlikely that Mr. Gore (or anyone in his position) would leave this extremely valuable political capital laying on the table. If his competitors had this same unique opportunity, we feel that it would be a sure bet that at least one or two of them would do the same. This is the year of Gore, and he has already got a nominating committee out there: DraftGore.com. This will be the year of his sucker coup.

Please note: in fairness to Mr. Gore, the readers of this post, and his competition, please read Gore climate film's 'nine errors'.

Did Radiohead Get It Right?

Did Radiohead Get It Right? (Or: Right On!)?

Beloved by most all alternative rock music fans, we pose the question: did Radiohead get it right? Read the opinion: AHHH! Radiohead creates Internet Anarchy!

That is, for pure art, does the money really matter? Have they tapped into an alternative compensation system for art forms - such as music? Is this new and revolutionary (actually, the honor system is not that revolutionary) an alternative to capitalism, communism, and other ism's? At the Handbook, we normally don't "do" music, arts, and so on...unless the trend is so groundbreaking as to enter into the Global political discussion - such as this one. Always cutting edge, Radiohead appears to have taken the lead in reestablishing what great and good art has always been - for art's sake and not the sake of money. Indeed, alternative compensations have been revolutionized by alternative music and alternative art. That is the true value of art.