Just a reminder, imaginary reader: Christmas is coming

Please, for the love of all that is good and decent; somebody please bring me one of these.

Updated 3/22/2016 because the link was dead and I had no idea what I wanted so badly.  Try this, instead.

Sub

Obama, Israel, Iran, and Few Options

The composition of Barack Obama's presidential cabinet is daily becoming more clear. A strong influence is evident from the last Democratic presidential administration with Bill Clinton's wife leading the pack. What does this mean in terms of the change in probability that the United States may or may not become involved in a military strike against the nuclear weapons research and production capacity of Iran?
First it is instructive to parse out who would stand to benefit from a nuclear-armed Iran. First and foremost would be Iran itself. Having even a small nuclear arsenal (assuming a delivery system is available) is a powerful deterrent against future aggression by other nation-states of course, and a certain amount of prestige also accrues. The capacity to use nuclear weapons also lends a very big stick to the stick-carrot dichotomy of foreign policy, assuming that Iran's adversaries would be intimidated by such a thing.
So, obviously Iran benefits. Who else might stand to benefit from Iran's ability to (theoretically) obliterate the cities of Teheran's enemies? Syria, of course is closely allied with Iran and is in a constant state of quasi-war with Israel. Syrian leaders might justly feel that fear of attack by Iran would temper any Israeli military response to further provocations along the Syrian-Israeli border. For the Syrians then the benefits of Iranian nuclear weapons development outweigh the potential liabilities.
What are those liabilities? The same issues that prevent Iranian nuclear empowerment from being a net advantage to everyone else; namely that it is widely assumed Israel possesses a potent nuclear weapons arsenal of their own. While Israel's threats of atomic retribution are veiled at best, one would assume that if attacked by nuclear weapons themselves vengeance would be swift, devastating, and widespread. Israel rightly believes that they are surrounded by enemies both very open and very hostile. After a hypothetical nuclear first-strike by Iran it would be likely that at least a few Israeli cities would be reduced to smouldering, radiating, holes in the ground. Israel has some credible ABM (anti-ballistic missile) capability with its US-supplied Patriot missile systems and its home-developed Arrow 2 Theatre Missile Defense systems, though they would be unlikely to form a leak-proof barrier to a determined attack. With the sure knowledge that any nuclear weapons use by the Israelis would harden the loose coalition of Arab nations in their region against them, one could be assured that Israel would make all efforts to ensure that their enemies were critically weakened to forestall any attempts to take advantage of their own nuclear disaster.
This has been a drawn-out way of saying that Tehran and Damascus would certainly be destroyed. Other likely targets would include regional military force concentrations, especially aircraft and naval assets. Looking at the list of nations which had warred with Israel in the past is disquieting: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, Yemen, and others. With the present US military presence, Iraq would be spared. Others on the list are weak, bit players, and could be expected to sit out any conflict if left alone. Libya in the past has aided the enemies of Israel as has North Korea.
The list of threats to Israel is long, but with estimates as large as 200+ available nuclear weapons so is their ability to render a fearsome nuclear strike with plenty left over to use for a second strike or as a diplomatic tool.
So clearly a nuclear armed Iran is a direct enemy of Israel. Ahmadinejab's frequently veiled and not-so veiled belief that Israel should be destroyed is all the evidence of hostile intent a reasonable person needs to perceive the threat of a nuclear first-strike against Israel. Between the physical damage of the nuclear explosions themselves, the EMP damage, and resultant fallout, large parts of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and depending upon wind patterns,Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, Turkey, and Iraq could face a contaminated future. Then the Iranian retributive strike. Military sites from Saudi Arabian airfields to Iranian centers of population and industry might well lie in ruins. A nuclear-armed Iran therefore is an indirect enemy of every Middle Eastern nation as well as Libya and North Korea tangentially and every industrialized nation economically. With the potential obliteration of oil production and distribution facilities throughout the region the world's economy would take a deadly blow, and in the present climate of global recession and depression, a blow which might take decades to recover from. At the worst, scenarios which addled survivalists have prepared for might come to be pass. Bad times all around at the least, and worst times at the worst.
Now how does this all tie back into Barack Obama's cabinet choices? First, a philosophical theme seems to be emerging. For whatever else one might think of Bill Clinton he seemed to pursue a very pragmatic foreign policy. That is one of minimizing threats and foreign provocations while also minimizing any inconvenient idealism abroad. Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Iraq continued to be disasters for the most part during Bill Clinton's presidency, but they were almost never American disasters. He continued to support Israel as have other presidential administrations have to help maintain the regional balance and status quo. With a decidedly Clintonesque inner circle forming around Obama it will be hoped this ideology will be adopted as Obama's own, if it isn't already.
If, however, Obama metaphorically leaves Israel twisting in the wind, its enemies will be emboldened. Nothing good can come of that. For better or worse, as Israel proved at Bushwer and Osirik, they will destroy nuclear capabilities which become active. Unlike Bushwer and Osirik, the targets in Iran are much better defended, dispersed, and have been hardened against attack. The United States effectively controls Iraqi airspace and would be in the unenviable position of choosing between assenting to Israeli overflight or engaging their aircraft with USAF assets. Either way the United States would be perceived as an ally, active or supportive, of Israel. Again, nothing but trouble there.
What are Obama's choices? Regime change via hard power in Iran I believe is off the table. Hawkish as I am even I think that would be a terrible idea. Regime change via soft power looks better but with the mullah's grip on power somewhat firm unlikely to be successful. Declaration of a formal US military protective agreement with Israel might be part of the equation. Israel is already perceived to be America's pet lapdog so we could hardly be perceived any worse. Still, this approach seems unlikely as Obama will likely be loath to make such binding agreements on such a contentious issue.
Whatever options Obama has, doing nothing will just lead to us all waking up to the news that Israel has just launched a massive coordinated assault of all known Iranian nuclear weapons development sites with a correspondingly large report of damage and death.
What do i think will happen? I believe that Obama's Secretary of State will work the phones hard, but to no avail. Israel will launch their expected preemptive attack and announce their intentions to defend themselves with all vigor, including the use of widely-distributed mushroom clouds on the homelands of those who would be their enemy. Obama will be forced by circumstance to allow overflight of Iraq to carry out this mission although I doubt aerial tanker or other logistic assistance would be given. The USAF will not allow overflight of Iraq by Iranian aircraft and ABM defenses would definitely be activated. The middle eastern security situation will of course deteriorate and the calls to pull out of Iraq will increase. Oil prices will skyrocket just as western economies are at their most fragile making an already bad situation worse. Obama not be allowed to choose middle ground; either he will actively support Israeli defense or he will be forced to abandon the traditional American position entirely.
Either way its a big crap sandwich, and our only choice will be to learn to like the taste of crap.

Drinking the Kool-Aid, redux

As I've said before, I've always thought that Apple Fan boys are drinking a little too much of the Kool-Aid. I can understand now how unlikely addictions begin. First I bought a 30-GB iPod, which I promptly broke. Replaced under warranty I soon lost it. After stomping around the house for two weeks my wife told me to just buy another and quit bugging her. Less than a week later I found the lost iPod and I gave it to the wife. As a present, you see. It ran out of space eventually so I bought an 80-GB Classic and gave the old 30-GB to the son. I of course confiscated his 2-GB Nano so I could use it at the gym. I'm no fool. Then my daughter's birthday came and she was pouting about how everyone else has cellphones and iPods, and she will never, ever, get either one. The summary is that my little family now has five iPods. Who's drinking the Kool-Aid now?

IEDs and Homeland Security Dollars

The US leadership was criticized (rightly) for planning the Iraq adventure without thinking realistically about the likely threats. I'm not sure why DHS-types in Massachusetts wouldn't think that the deadliest weapon used by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan might be used against Americans here in the US. Generals always (initially at least) fight the last war, and I can't believe AQ and its ilk are any different. IEDs have worked especially well in Iraq. Perhaps though, its not that the IEDs have worked well, its just that every other tactic has worked so poorly.
AQ has found that standing up to the Americans in pitched battles and firefights is nothing less than suicide without any hope of real results. A good bomb maker can assemble hundreds of IEDs which can be planted by any old goon. That is a better return on the investment. So IEDs are the weapon of choice used by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why on earth wouldn't anyone believe that small-scale terrorist attacks in America would vary much from this formula? Low-risk, low-cost, variable-reward sure beats out high-risk, high-cost, low-reward any time.
The likelihood of terrorist attacks, especially small-scale attacks are a question for another debate. Take it as given that both the federal and state governments consider it a realistic possibility. Shouldn't the states use the grant money they get to prepare for the most likely form of attack? Buying equipment which can be used to support counter-terrorism in many ways is just wise use of resources, but using Homeland Security money to buy trucks to pull horses around is another (last paragraph of the linked NYT article).

12-year old kills man attacking his mother, now worrying about jail

It would be a travesty to charge this boy with any crime. Defending your mother against a man clearly intent on murder should call for praise, not fear of charges.

...he heard his mother cry out. Rushing to her aid, he found her on the kitchen floor, straddled by a fellow resident of their Prince George's County boarding house, the man's hands wrapped tightly around her neck, the boy said yesterday." I kept saying, 'Stop! Stop! Stop!' " the boy said, describing the events of Monday night. "But he just ignored me. He didn't stop. He just kept hurting her."
The boy said he grabbed a knife and swung, slashing 64-year-old Salomon Noubissie across the neck and opening an artery. Noubissie [the attacker] was fatally wounded

I'm reminded (tangentially) of an incident during a rugby game (bear with me.) My teammate Ike who stood 7'+, weighed over 300 lbs. kept getting punched in the ribs when he jumped for passed balls. Finally he had had enough and laid the offender out with an elbow to the face. The cheap-shotting punk sniveled to the referee who replied "Play on; you had it coming."

The lesson here: if you do wrong don't cry about just retribution. In the absence of new information, this child shouldn't have to worry about going to jail; he should get one of those medals the police give to citizen heroes.

Ruggers straighten out airliner drunk

An irritating airline passenger gets a 'tuned-up,' courtesy of a South African rugby team. Sadly enough, while I was playing rugby BITD I recall being the disruptive guy. . .

For Your Own Good

America shares a certain legal sensibility with paragons of liberty Mongolia, Indonesia, and Palau. Palau shouldn't even count, as it only became fully independent from US trusteeship in 1994. That legal sensibility is of course, the minimum age which a citizen is allowed to use alcohol.
I suppose by now most people think that the arguments for a drinking age of 18 are a bit stale. At 18 (or before,) Americans can sign contracts, enter into marriage, exit marriage via divorce, adopt children, pursue political office (exclusive of presidency,) enlist in the armed forces, be drafted into the armed forces, become a policeman, fireman, or physician. At 17, an American can join the armed forces and in the course of events be forced into mortal peril with the sure knowledge that survival might be impossible, if the mission is important enough. Americans can do many things at age 18. It seems shameful that drinking alcohol is prohibited.
I understand the arguments used by the prohibitionists at MADD. Eighteen year-olds don't make good choices. Their bodies are still developing. Drunk people are more likely to cause automobile accidents if driving. But still. Eighteen seems an arbitrary number. Why not thirty-five? Why not forty-five? As long as we are using arbitrary figures, might as well shoot for the moon. After all, by age forty-five development has stopped, judgement has improved, and the accrued life experiences of the middle-aged should lead to better decisions all around. Don't worry, I smiled when I wrote that last passage. But using arbitrary cutoff ages to restrict behavior can be tricky. Where exactly should the cutoff be, anyway? And since its Mothers Against Drunk DRIVING perhaps what should instead be restricted is DRIVING age. Why doesn't MADD advocate increasing the driving age to 21, or 35, or 45? After all, their stated mission is to prevent death from automobile accidents after one or more drivers have used too much alcohol. If they feel (and they do) that underage drinking is a major cause of drunk driving deaths then not allowing any driving by persons unable to legally drink by virtue of low age would seem the most effective route.

Sadly enough, when enough MADD literature and press releases are examined we find that MADD is actually nothing more than a modern-day prohibitionist lobbying firm. Through various initiatives like the Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device, they are attempting to eliminate alcohol use in almost all social settings. The Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (AIID) is a system which when installed into an automobile will disable that vehicle if an "unauthorized" alcohol level is detected in the driver. Setting aside concerns about exactly whose alcohol-laden breath might actually be measured (after all an automobile IS essentially a closed container itself,) the likelihood that the sensor will measure blood alcohol levels accurately (there is a reason police breathalyzers aren't installed into a wall, with suspected offenders asked to breath in the 'general direction' of the sensor,) and the likelihood that other atmospheric contaminants might adversely affect the AIIDs accuracy (i.e. perfume, diabetic's ketotic breath, cleaning solutions, etc.) What is also concerning is this; at what level does the AIID shut off the ignition? At .08% BAC, the limit it many states? But cars are sold in all states, and are expected to be used by anyone who has a license. Many states are now considering lower BAC limits in general, and specifically for those previously convicted of a DUI/OWI. Lets not forget that minors (under 21 in this case) might also purchase and drive automobiles. For them no amount of alcohol is legal. Most states define a BAC of .01 or higher evidence of alcohol use. So, automobiles would be unable to be started, or will quit running if the dashboard breathalyzer detects a BAC of .01 or higher. Everyone will effectively be prohibited from using an automobile with any measurable amount of alcohol in their (or possibly a passenger's) system. Forget about going to dinner and having even one drink, or if the sensors get finicky, forget the perfume too.
But, you say, couldn't there be a switch installed in the AIID which set the interlock at a different limit based on who was driving? I suppose so. It couldn't be a manual switch because the underage would just set it for the higher limit. The mindset which demands AIIDs in the first place wouldn't allow such a measure, anyway. Then how to set variable limits? Perhaps one's drivers license would work like an ATM card; insert/swipe it in the dashboard to activate the car. Again, easily bypassed by using another person's ID, or using a fake ID. I don't see any solution which would appeal to a MADDite other than the universal .01% BAC cut-off. Hey, that's alright; I wasn't using my civil rights anyway. What you should perceive by now seems to be the real goal of the MADD crowd, a new prohibition. Restrictive legal limitations upon private activity "for your own good." Most of us know by now that "for your own good" rarely is anything of the sort. Generally those words are a reliable indicator that what follows next is oppression of some sort.
Thinking of the most egregious forms of oppression extant in America today I note a common theme: "for your own good." Campus speech codes, censorship of media (remember Tipper Gore?), and the calls for dissenting climate scientists to be subject to Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for calling into question global warming hypothesis' (George Monbiot in his book Heat.) Oddly enough, these are all proposals put forth by our freedom-loving friends on the left side of the political divide. Even the most right-wing of the right-wing-types hasn't called for all beds sold to be equipped with sensors to detect gay sex and/or underage and/or unmarried sex. It would take a leftie to come up with a proposal so intrusive and which bypassed civil rights so egregiously. But of course, it would be for my own good so I'd better not complain. If I do, maybe they'll have me stand before a Nuremberg tribunal, too. For my own good.
Returning to the topic at hand, though. Minimum drinking age laws in America are a disgrace, and should be changed to reflect the reality of our society. At age eighteen we are considered adults, and should be considered so before the law. Not just the laws which MADD condescends to permit. Telling me that a twenty-one year-old drinking age saves lives is like telling me that a thirty-five year driving age saves lives. Interesting, but hardly persuasive in a free society.

Irony, defined

After a real-world road test in Europe driving ". . . just over 200 miles of autoroute, about 200 miles of B roads, including winding ascents and descents in Switzerland, and 100 miles of urban driving," a head-to-head competetion between a BMW 520d and Prius ended thusly:

BMer guy: ". . . I had averaged more than 50mpg."

Prius guy: "For all my defensive driving, slippery bodywork and hybrid
technology, my average fuel consumption was 48.1mpg. I’d lost to a Beemer and I
was disappointed; I had never driven so slowly or carefully for so long in my
life."

The Prius is a wonderful car, depending upon what you need and what you plan to do with it. Sadly enough, just like in real life, good at one thing doesn't necessarily equate to good at another.

Brits at their Best

Brits at their Best

Now, for something completely different.

The Canadian Space Agency’s radio telescope has been reporting Flux Density
Values so low they will mean a mini ice age if they continue.

Wouldn't this be a bit of non-delicious irony? Perhaps I'd better install a wood-burning stove and buy an SUV before its too late.