The sanctions were designed to exploit Iran's over-reliance on its paramilitary force, the IRGC, for ways to evade the sanctions, and to prevent its oil industry from obtaining the foreign investment necessary for development. A U.S. official said that Iran was recently forced to abandon an effort to develop an oil field because the IRGC didn't have the expertise and the country could find no subcontractors who were willing to risk the penalties imposed by the sanctions.
"By continuing to expose their evasions and deceptions, we create the dynamic of a private sector reticence to do business with them," another official said, as well as disquiet within Iran's business community and its middle class.
The fact that Russia and China are on board and the Europeans have beefed up their sanctions must also weigh on the coup government's calculus. And there are signs of small progress in Iran. Ignatius notes:
Officials said these signs include the strike last month by Tehran bazaar merchants who are unhappy about the battered economy, as well as recent signals through various channels that the Iranians want to come back to negotiations… What came through in Obama's upbeat presentation was the administration's view that for all Tehran's bombast, the United States and its allies have the upper hand.
One reason for this confidence is that Iran appears to be having serious technical problems with its enrichment process — due to bad design, bad luck or deliberate sabotage. A senior official said that only 3,800 centrifuges were now operating at Natanz, at only about 60 percent of their design capacity, with another 4,000 in reserve to cope with breakdowns.
And so Obama, again, is offering an open hand to the coup regime to open its nuclear sites for effective and genuine international inspection, and to move toward shared anti-Taliban goals in Afghanistan. This may come to naught, but it turns the tables on Ahmadi on the international stage. And in the end, this matters. By tightening sanctions while keeping an open hand, Obama avoids the appearance of America being the bully, and prevents cooptation of national pride by the regime. The alternative – a military strike by Israel or the US – would unite Iran's opposition and regime, unleash a global religious war, intensify Shiite-Sunni polarization, kill countless civilians in the West, put US troops in an untenable position in Iraq and Afghanistan, and add turbo-charged gasoline to the Islamist brush-fire.
None of the current policy is emotionally satisfying or risk-free. But the real alternative is so much worse we should hang in, and hope. That's called pragmatic, realist government. And it's a relief to see it at work again in America's corridors of power.
Allahpundit grins at Marceaux’s official campaign ad:
And so, after a months-long trek up the slope of a mountain of zany campaign ads, we finally reach the summit. Nothing will top it, my friends; even Dale Peterson’s Winchester can’t compete with the next governor of Tennessee mumbling his policy platform while misspelled graphics (“vegitation”?) fill the screen. My only question: Is this just Marceaux being Marceaux or is he actually winking at his own goofiness here? I want to believe it’s the latter, but…
And yet the wonderful thing about Marceaux is that he does represent a core constituency. Aren’t his views on gun-control identical to Glenn Reynolds’? Isn’t his nostalgia for the Jim Crow south one strand of Southern conservatism that now dominates the GOP? Aren’t his views part of what Palin calls the “real America”? It seems to me the right cannot have it both ways. If this man’s views make him a joke, then why isn’t the GOP as a whole a joke?
Serwer analyzes prisoner demographics. The inmate population is getting older:
Obviously you don't want any Lockerbie Bomber type situations where dangerous inmates or those who have committed heinous crimes are getting a pass just because they're old, but by the time you're 55 you're pretty much past crime-committing age. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, offenders over 50 have a recidivism rate of only 9.5 percent. Compare that to offenders under 21, who have a recidivism rate of 35.5 percent. Until states start using their geriatric release programs more often and study the effects, it's hard to know whether geriatric release would save money overall or just in corrections budgets. But it's important to remember that being as punitive as we are in the U.S. costs real money.
Austin Frakt flags this graphic from economist Joe Newhouse's new article:
If health spending increases at just 2 percentage points above GDP (which is low by historical standards), government spending on non-health goods and services must plummet (yellow line). If such a reduction in government non-health spending seems unlikely too, then by process of elimination the health care cost curve must bend. After rejecting increased debt, taxation, or reductions in non-health spending it’s the only option left.
The state of the economy is considered the main determinant of presidential approval; Bernstein takes a stab at why politicians bother governing at all:
No, Barack Obama will not win any votes if he manages to "win" in Afghanistan, whatever that actually means. But he'll lose plenty of votes if Americans continue to die there in ever-increasing numbers. He'll also lose votes if Americans leave, the Taliban takes over and shelters bin Laden, and that allows more devastating terror attacks (followed by another invasion, followed by more US casualties). Turning closer to home…as far as I know, the administration did an absolutely terrific job of responding to the swine flu last year …
So, who is voting for the Democrats this year or generally supporting Obama because he or she didn't die horribly in the prevented horrible pandemic of 2009-2010? Well, nobody; no one even remembers last year's flu scare, (perhaps) because successful government action turned it into a non-story. But if things had gone wrong, people would have blamed Obama and, beyond that, people would have been more unhappy about everything, which tends to hurt incumbents.
Dahlia Lithwick thinks Judge Vaughn Walker was writing with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in mind:
Any way you look at it, [yesterday's] decision was written for a court of one—Kennedy—the man who has written most eloquently about dignity and freedom and the right to determine one's own humanity.
1) A lot of the Obama agenda has passed, actually.
2) To the extent that the agenda has not passed, the causes are bigger than the slow motion of the Senate. Look again at George Packer’s list of stalled initiatives. On how many is the American public clamoring for immediate action? On how many is the Obama agenda on the wrong side of public opinion altogether?
Scott Horton explains how doctors colluded with lawyers to excuse torture:
The duplicity in this affair is amazingly circular. The Justice Department’s torture lawyers relied on the CIA’s torture doctors for the conclusion that specific techniques did not produce “severe pain” that ran afoul of the criminal law prohibition on torture; the CIA doctors relied on the Justice Department lawyers for the same conclusion. It looks like a compact, and an alert prosecutor would no doubt call it a joint criminal enterprise: I’ll shield you, and you’ll shield me. But the conduct of the OMS involves laughable games with the ethics requirements. The obligation to “do no harm,” the physician’s foremost ethical injunction, is converted by OMS into an injunction to avoid “severe pain.” In other words, in the OMS’s book, anything that falls one iota short of prosecutable torture, including cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (which is also prosecutable) is just fine. It’s hard to see at this point whose behavior was the more ethically odious, though evidence suggests that both engaged in professional misconduct so egregious as to warrant formal disciplinary proceedings.
Today on the Dish, Prop 8 was struck down. Judge Walker's eloquent opinion here; Arendt's timeless truth here. Andrew glimpsed hope. Ambinder laid down the facts, and Schwarzenegger followed Cameron's lead. The full reax here, and readers responses here and here and here.
Conservatism floundered in the face of the Mosque; some even missed Bush. Bloomberg took the high road; the National Review took the low road, and Chait and Andrew Sprung showed Dan Senor where to shove it.
Fiscal fraudulence still plagued the GOP, and bicycles were their new worst enemy. Colbert busted Ingraham; Andrew blasted the doctors behind torture. Congress cowered and Angle elevated fears of Palin 2012.
Douthat and Andrew found their fiscal cup of tea, and with the help of Christopher Preble addressed the elephant in the room, defense spending. Time's Cover kept kicking up dust, the Wikileaks war remained on the radar, and another round of Manzi vs. Kleinman here. On race, McWhorter scoffed, TNC ignited and E.D. Kain simmered.
Hitchens healed with humor. Bristol and Levi split; Arianna put Palin on the couch and Slate uncovered her Facebook farce. Weigel blamed the media, Andrew feared for our future. Madame Governor campaigned; Iceland creatively gamed. VFYW here; True Colors MHB here, FOTD here. America quickened its descent, and you know it's bad when Canada wins.
The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.
Did the White House just say that they agreed with the federal court's reasoning that "no rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." Really? I doubt it. I think the White House just tried to have its cake and eat it too – sound supportive, but not dare embrace the decision itself. But now that they've weighed in, and tried to make it look like they're on our side in this case – they are such great self-proclaimed champions of LGBT equality, they'd have you remember – it's time for the White House to answer the question, do they agree with the ruling or not? Maybe you should sign our open letter to the President and ask him.
Nate Silver wonders if marriage equality will become a campaign issue:
My best guess is that the Tea Party will largely continue to shirk the issue, but that the Republican Establishment will be fairly happy to engage it. The real battle, however, may come in 2012, when the Supreme Court could be about ready to take up the case. The leading indicator may be the reactions of the major Presidential hopefuls. For instance, will Sarah Palin produce a tweet or Facebook post containing the the phrases "activist judge" or "judicial activism" within the next 24 hours? It may depend on which type of conservatives — the tea- partiers, or the movement conservatives of the Republican Establishment — that she ultimately wants to affiliate herself with.
With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.
This decision grants rights to be married. As the court held, there is no harm to anyone’s rights as a result of this decision. In fact, it increases the stability and value of marriage for our society. No legitimate interest of the state in discriminating against a group of our citizens. That’s what even the defendant’s witnesses admitted, and that’s what the judge found. Everyone oughta read this opinion. It’s long but clear and sets the facts forth that everyone in this country might think a bout. I’d challenge anyone putting out those kinds of press releases (speaking to NOM) to read this opinion and tell me what they disagree with and what they have left to say. Shouldn’t just ignore this opinion, but take a look at this opinion.
Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.
There is a reason why this country has checks and balances. And there is a reason why people can’t arbitrarily vote on the rights of others without having to defend this vote in the logical arena of courts, where you can’t invoke panic by proverbially yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
In the courts, you must defend your position. And in the long run, you couldn’t.
In this case, the Judge seems to be trying too hard to insulate the opinion, and I doubt that on such a momentus finding of a new constitutional right for same sex marriage that an appeals court, much less the U.S. Supreme Court, will care much about the credibility of witnesses as a basis for a legal ruling.
For all of NOM’s fretting over the institution of marriage, this decision only has a day-to-day impact on those of us who were robbed of our rights in November 2008. None of my hetero colleagues are running around in a panic because their marriages have been redefined or devalued or deinstitutionalized. They were married before. They’re married in the same way now. And no amount of scary propaganda from NOM is going to change that.
CNN says the motion by the anti-gay forces for a stay of the judge’s order has been granted by the district court. That’s not surprising, but it’s too bad that marriages can’t go forward right now.
The elephant in the room is now the question of a stay. Yesterday, in anticipation of losing, the anti-equality Intervenors filed a motion asking the Court to stay its decision pending appeal. In other words, they argue that since an appeal is inevitable, the Judge should not enforce his ruling until after the inevitable appeal is exhausted. Judge Walker has not yet ruled on that motion. Even if Judge Walker denies the stay, the Intervenors will ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to issue an immediate stay of the decision. In a case like this, a stay is very likely. It remains to be seen whether Judge Walker will grant the stay or if that issue will be decided by the Ninth Circuit.
It’s only judicial “arrogance” or “activism” when they don’t like the decision. District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down popularly supported gun control laws, legislated by the duly elected representatives of the people in DC? Not judicial activism at all.
The Dish 