Month: March 2012

A helpful Reuters piece pulls together the evidence that Iran is, in the words of one, “keeping the soup warm but they are not cooking it,” on weaponization of nuclear capacity. Money quote:

Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran’s nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped. That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had “high confidence” that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.

Current and former U.S. officials say they are confident that Iran has no secret uranium-enrichment site outside the purview of U.N. nuclear inspections. They also have confidence that any Iranian move toward building a functional nuclear weapon would be detected long before a bomb was made.

Deconstructing a classic of the conservative art genre. Bonus Tea Party painting here.

A reader quotes me:

"But what does it say about Obama's strength that he's still polling only four or five points over this gaffe-prone robot?" Doesn't it say "it's only March and most non-Republicans aren't paying much attention"?  Look at turnout at the primaries from independents – it's even more "meh" than from Republicans. I think most people don't dislike Romney only because they don't care about the election yet.

Another is on the same page:

Keep in mind, Obama's not really campaigning against Romney yet.

I can't remember the last time Obama has even mentioned Romney by name. I could be wrong but, surely when Team Obama goes into full campaign mode and turns it's sights squarely on Romney, it will be worth a few more points? Romney has had to spend a ton of money to beat back the likes of Santorum and Gingrich. In some states he's barely beat them back by a point or two. He loses the money advantage in a general campaign and surely Obama is more well liked and a better campaigner then the has-beens Rick and Newt. I don't think the Obamaites should be over confident, but their guy is just getting started.

Another writes:

A "disqualifying comment"?!  Oh come ON. I know you despise Romney, but he wasn't even the one who said the Etch-A-Sketch comment. And of course a general election campaign approach is different than the primaries.  That is obvious to anyone not quite so biased again Romney and obviously what the advisor meant.

Quite frankly, I've been surprised by your complete rejection of Romney for Santorum. Rick Santorum, really?  I know you believe that his nomination would push the "Christianist" faction to the forefront and finally cause the rejection of the more extremist part of the party due to his inevitable loss. But that is complete foolish recklessness. Due to unexpected economic, international or domestic events, you know that even a Rick Santorum could win the presidency. Yes, he could, and completely validate all you oppose in the Republican party.  Surely that fills you with more dread than the idea of a Romney presidency.

Another makes a broader point about the candidate:

Romney makes much of his experience as a CEO.  But for most of his career, he was a consultant.  If you haven't dealt with consultants much, here is the difference:

A CEO has to have some kind of vision for where he wants to take his company,  even if it is just a steady-as-she-goes vision.  It defines what he does for his tenure, and only gets changed if major outside events impact the company.

A consultant is different.  What he has is an idea he can sell to the current customer.  It matters not at all whether it is the same, or diametrically opposite, as the idea that he sold to the last customer.  All that matters is selling the idea, getting paid, and moving on (before there is any way to know if it actually worked).

And that is Romney's candidacy in a nutshell: sell the current idea to the audience of the moment and move on.  But there's a problem.  Consultants are not generally subject to videos of what they told the last client becoming public.  And prospective clients are not likely to spend time comparing notes with past clients.  In politics, however, everybody has a record of what you said at the last campaign stop, or in the last electoral cycle, or any other time in your career.

And regarding the above video, it's difficult to see robotic Romney react like this:

Stephon stood just a few feet away from Barack Obama. The president, busy shaking hands, looked right at him. “It was like he was waiting for me to say something,” he said later. So the 26-year-old Prince George’s Community College student took his cue and spoke to President Obama in his first language: American Sign Language. "I am proud of you," Stephon signed. The president, almost involuntary, instinctively, immediately signed back. "Thank you," Obama replied. This is one of those moments that humanize the office of the presidency.

It’s a video hard to watch, so it’s below the jump. Whether these young men are targeted for being gay or having long hair or any kind of deviation from Islamist attire is unclear. What is clear is that they are being murdered, in this case by being hanged from an overpass:

Ask Steven Pinker Anything

[Re-posted from yesterday, many questions added since then.]

Steven Pinker needs no introduction to regular Dish readers. For many months we have aired and debated aspects of his most recent book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. A sizable sample of that debate here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. A snippet from the book:

A third peacemaker has been cosmopolitanism—the expansion of people's parochial little worlds through literacy, mobility, education, science, history, journalism and mass media. These forms of virtual reality can prompt people to take the perspective of people unlike themselves and to expand their circle of sympathy to embrace them. These technologies have also powered an expansion of rationality and objectivity in human affairs. People are now less likely to privilege their own interests over those of others. They reflect more on the way they live and consider how they could be better off. Violence is often reframed as a problem to be solved rather than as a contest to be won.

Here's your chance to ask Steven about Better Angels, the history of human violence, or anything else related to his past writings. We have primed the Urtak poll with some questions but please add some of your own.  Answer "Yes" if you are interested in seeing Steven answer the question or "No" if you don't particularly care. We will air the answers within the next week or two.

Question? askandrew@thedailybeast.com Video archive here.

A reader writes:

Here's another example, which I sent you last week. Perhaps relevant now?

 "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone," – Mitt Romney, 2007

Shake, shake.

"I'm very disappointed that the president has not over the last year or two talked about what's happening in Afghanistan, what progress is being made, describing a time table, or why his timetable makes sense or not," – Mitt Romney, 2012.

Readers are invited to send in more etch-a-sketch Romney "swift evolutions" over the past couple of decades.

David Kiefaber WTFs:

A German Reebok ad that advised patrons of the brand's partner gyms to "Cheat on your girlfriend, not on your workout" has been pulled after complaints from probably every woman in Germany. And rightfully so. The ad makes Reebok look like a bunch of dumb bros, and it's not funny or clever enough to defend as an example of anti-PC humor. Who do they think they are, Ashley Madison?

Looks like Louisiana will be a rout:

Rick Santorum is headed for a commanding win in Louisiana on Saturday. We find him with 42% to 28% for Mitt Romney, 18% for Newt Gingrich, 8% for Ron Paul, and 2% for Buddy Roemer. 

Blumenthal downplays Santorum's likely win:

Santorum may be headed toward a big popular vote win in Louisiana on Saturday, but even a huge margin of victory will do little to help Santorum gain ground in the all-important contest for Republican convention delegates.

More bad news for Santorum: the media has begun tuning out the primaries:

In an American Bar Association survey of legal experts, 69% determined that the most likely conservative to uphold the ACA is not Anthony Kennedy, but Chief Justice John Roberts. One of Jon Cohn's readers explains why:

A historically minded judge — such as Roberts — will be well served to recall the difficulties that Federal courts encountered during the 60 years preceding Wickard in distinguishing between Federal statutes that legitimately affected "commerce between the several states" and those that allegedly did not — cases involving things such as antitrust laws, the Pure Food and Drug Act, restrictions on child labor and alcohol distribution and the creation of the NLRB. That is another reason for why the Roberts Court will, in my opinion, decide that legal challenges to the individual mandate are too much of a departure from legal precedent and too fast of an assault on the citadel of Federal powers. Such a decision would be profoundly conservative — in the best sense of the word.

Conn Carroll nevertheless expects that Republicans will never forgive Bush if his appointee joins the liberal majority:

If Roberts does end up being the fifth and deciding vote to uphold Obamacare, Bush's Supreme Court legacy will be regarded as a failure too. His reputation among conservatives will never recover.

(Photo: John Roberts is sworn in as the 17th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in the East Room of the White House on September 29, 2005. By Dennis Brack/Bloomberg via Getty Images)