Is Hillary Going to Run for President in '08?

Answer: Follow the Money.

A Provision worth noting

While scouring the FNC website, I came across this article discussing a change proposed to the Patriot Act. I hope to go over it more thoroughly later, but it suggests to me a worry about Al Qaeda agents disguising themselves as protestors in order to carry out attacks/assassination.

Do People at the Times Read History's End?

It sure seems like it to me. Here is an article discussing the possibility of war with Iran. While the whole article is worth reading, this part definitely caught my eye:

Iran, of course, secure now behind its nuclear wall, will surely step up its campaign of terror around the world. It will become even more of a magnet and haven for terrorists. The terror training grounds of Afghanistan were always vulnerable if the West had the resolve. Protected by a nuclear-missile-owning state, Iranian camps will become impregnable.

This phrase, nuclear wall, was one that I used over a year ago to describe why Iran was going nuclear. This author doesn't go as far as I do, however, in explaining why Iran wants that wall, namely to re-open the Sunni/Shi'ite Islamic civil war. The results of that war could be just as catastrophic as any nuclear war between Israel and Iran.

America up for More?

Courtesy of Drudge, here is a poll from the Financial Times stating something rather interesting. Some anti-Iraq War fluff is present, as is easily seen, but this is still an important poll. Supposing that any action against Iran was quick, this seems to provide enough public support for the President to take a harsher stand against Iran, and appear able to back up any threats made against Iran. I wonder if the Admin has been polling on this issue as well? If not, perhaps this will convince them to ratchet up their rhetoric.

Something Fishy in the State of Denmark

Charles at LGF has alerted me to this post over at the Jawa Report.

Rusty asks a simple question that the Kossacks should be asking themselves:

I wonder how many Christian fundamentalists have threatened to blow themselves up in New York over Kanye West's portrayal of Christ in Rolling Stone?

Christianity has pretty much weeded out the kind of militarism that is still running strong in Islamist theology today, not withstanding what the Kossacks think. There are exceptions, but they are extremely rare, and are always immediately, and sincerely, denounced. The same can't be said for Islam.

Victory and Defeat...

...can sometimes be difficult to tell apart. Case in point: Hamas wins the Palestinian elections. Some might think this a defeat, but I am one of those who thinks differently. Echoing others, I see a potential victory here. Hamas won the election because it promised to make Israel pay. Now it will have to live up to that promise, or lose the support of the Palestinian people. So now it must make a chioce: Anger the world by trying to carry out its threats against Israel, or anger the Palestinian people who voted for it(and not because of its mafia-esque social programs). I look forward to this, actually. Perhaps the best thing for the region would be Hamas finally being unveiled for what it truly is. If all goes well a full out Palestinian Civil War will break out, and whatever the sides are, I wish the best of luck to them.

Enough is Enough

I am sick and tired of American companies caving in to Chinese demands when it comes to censorship. Google is the latest, and I have had enough. It may not be much, but I do not intend to use Google, ever again, until it stops supporting censorship. Other search engines exist, and I am going to use them from now on.

France Chooses MAD

France is the first nation to publically adopt the option of Mutually Assured Destruction with Iran, or at least, that is what I am getting from Chirac's statement concerning nuclear weapons. The full statement can be found here. Unless I am grossly mistaken, Chirac has just informed Tehran that the French government will regard any terrorist actions sponsored or supported by Iran against France as a threat to its integrity as a nation-state, thereby justifying the use of nuclear weapons as retaliation. This is a form of Mutually Assured Destruction, with a moder twist. Now France will regard terrorist attacks as on the same level of danger as a nuclear attack, thereby instigating France into using nuclear weapons in retaliation, all the while knowing that Iran in turn will launch back at France. In short, the French have either accepted Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, or at the very leas consider it highly likely and are planning ahead for such a condition.

France's official policy can be summed up as such:

Terrorist Attack in France=Nuclear attack on France=Nuclear Retaliation.

Of course, the threshold was not specified by Chirac, nor should it be. Setting any kind of obvious standard would give terrorists more leeway. France is now forcing the Iranians to gamble on how much they are willing to take before using nukes. While this may have been the case before, it is in the open now.

This makes me wonder if the French think this alone will be adequate to protect them, or is this a result of desperation?

Storm Clouds

Iran has been getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere lately. A lot. Michelle Malkin has an excellent roundup on this. This raises many questions for me. You see, the network nature of the Web helps produce something close to a collective consciousness at times, and I sometimes wonder just how effective or smart that pseudo-consciousness is. Is this suddenly renewed attention towards the Mullahs the result of specfic recent events, like the suspension of diplomatic talks, which Publius Pundit covers so well? Is it a result of an apparent cooldown of Iraq, thus directing attention elsewhere? Or is it something else? A perception that perhaps efforts and attention have shifted towards Iran. A subconsious perception that perhaps things in Iran are coming to a head?

I cannot say at this point. What I can predict is that, diplomatically at least, Iran will occupy a fair amount of attention in the International Scene. As for whether or not something will come of it, I am doubtful. Personally I am now convinced that Russia either doesn't care if Iran goes nuclear, or that the Russian leadership is convinced that the US or Israel will take care of the issue before it becomes a problem for them. I am not not so sure about China. Pakistan is China's major ally in the region, not Iran. An Iranian bomb threatens Pakistan somewhat. So China has to decide whether or not Iran going nuclear is benefitial for them. Is the threat to Pakistan too great? Or perhaps the threat would be an incentive for Pakistan to buy even more military equipment from China. I expect a Russian Security Council veto more than a Chinese one.

Update: I may have been wrong about China.

On to the Final Frontier?

Instapundit has linked to this article in the Scotsman detailing a possible idea for a hyperdrive capable of sending a spacecraft to Mars in only 3 hours. The actual scientific article in question can be found here. Fascinating to read, though I suspect I understand less than a tenth of it.

Wrench in the Gear

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke and subsequent hospitalization has essentially thrown the Israeli political scene into chaos. For a good take on what is going on, head here. Hat Tip: LGF

Commentary: I suspect that unless Olmert takes as much control of Kadima as Sharon had, and quickly at that, Kadima is doomed. It needs direction, and given the short time until elections, a committee is no place to find that direction within 3 months. A lot ride on Olmert's shoulders right now.

A New Year...

...meaning new stories, new triumphs, and new tragedies. Plus some things that we could have really done without. Like this. Its a mad, mad world.