new site/domain

CaptiveNation(s) will of course remain here, but I finally got my own domain name and website up and running. The site will showcase my photography and writing, and the domain will provide much-needed graphics to CaptiveNation(s). My domain/site is: www.marcjohnson.info. I always welcome visitors.


Marc posted this at 27.6.04 | Permalink

some serious earthmoving

Iran's response to additional pressure from the international community, the IAEA, and the European Union hasn't been to undertake a complete, zero-based review of how they could have been so misread. Nor have they appointed a blue-ribbon commission to consider how, at the next IAEA meeting, they can get back on track towards favorable recognition and thus pursuit of the peaceful nuclear weapons program they profess to want, strictly for energy needs.

No, rather they have (1) abrogated their agreements with the IAEA, (2) indicated that they plan to continue uranium enrichment plans, and (3) apparently keep bulldozing sites they don't want the international community looking too closely at.

Stay tuned.


Marc posted this at 26.6.04 | Permalink

can't believe i'm quoting him...

But in anyone was still considering seeing Michael Moore's new film, Christopher Hitchens has some piquant observations on Unfairenheit 911.


Marc posted this at 24.6.04 | Permalink

stop or i'll issue a strongly-worded statement

The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on Friday in which they "deplored" Iran's insufficient cooperation. In section L, subparagraph 2:

[the IAEA] deplores, at the same time, the fact that, overall, as indicated by the Director General's written and oral reports, Iran's cooperation has not been as full, timely and proactive as it should have been, and, in particular, that Iran postponed until mid-April visits originally scheduled for mid-March -- including visits of the Agency centrifuge experts to a number of locations involved in Iran's P-2 centrifuge enrichment program -- resulting in some cases in a delay in the taking of environmental samples and their analysis...

Strong stuff indeed. I'll be Khamenei is really smarting after that tongue-lashing.

The IAEA remains seized of the matter.

Meanwhile, across the hall, someone else associated with the IAEA was waiting for an engraved invitation:

...[State Dept Spokesman] Boucher also accused Iran of razing nuclear sites to hide banned nuclear activity.

"I can't give you any independent information but commercial satellite photography shows complete dismantling and razing of a facility at Lavizan Shiyan (a Tehran suburb).

"And that's a site that was previously disclosed as a possible Iranian [WMD]-related site," he said.

A senior diplomat close to the IAEA told AFP the agency was interested in this site but had not yet been "invited" by Iranian authorities to visit it.

[emphasis mine]

How odd that the Iranian government wouldn't invite an international regulatory agency to visit a site which the Iranians were bulldozing and which had been suspected of being associated with their covert nuclear program. Quite perplexing. We'll have to appoint a blue-ribbon commission to look into that and report in six months.

Meanwhile, the Iranians in response have said they will throw the IAEA a bone by halting enrichment activities, but plan to continue producing centrifuges, which, you will recall, were explicitly mentioned in the IAEA's "j'deplore" paragraph as being one of the key sticking points. (Not to mention the fact that it's hard to continue with enrichment when you still haven't even finished all of the centrifuges that help you enrich Uranium.)

What is the Bush Administration doing about this? Not enough, certainly, but at least they're not sending the mullahs campaign materials. On the "maybe we're making progress" front, we could be turning the corner on the recent US-EU Cold War (for elaboration on this "late unpleasantness," see No Pasaran). At least the mullahs think we and the Europeans might be getting friendlier. They roundly condemned that dangerous cabal, the US, Britain, France and Germany for colluding against them in (apparently) making up lies to keep Iran from pursuing a peaceful nuclear program.

And the State Dept seems to be, if not thrilled, at least generally satisfied that the UN hasn't yet been definitively proved irrelevant.

So where does that leave us? As always, with a lot of work to do. The administration needs to press harder on a security council resolution condemning this obfuscation and ultimately force Iran's hand. It's an area that the US has felt strongly about for a long time (about 25 years, to be exact) and about which the Europeans have been embarrassed one time to many. It's a topic which the administration can use to rebuild our relationship with Europe -- not that tearing it down was a one-sided affair, mind you -- and maybe achieve a little international security in the bargain. Let's get going.

(cross-posted at etalkinghead.com)
Marc posted this at 20.6.04 | Permalink

the el baradei follies, cont'd

So not only has the IAEA missed the boat once again on properly criticizing Iran's deliberate obfuscation of its clandestine nuclear program, they arsed up a technical point which has allowed the clerical regime to crow about the IAEA's mistreatment of them at the behest of that evil unified bloc, the United States, Britain, Germany and France.

And now the bastards are using pistachios.
Marc posted this at 18.6.04 | Permalink

the mike moore - hizballah connection

Loathe as I am to admit a hat tip to Drudge (linking to him being rather cliche), one has to give credit where credit is due.

Michael Moore's latest film, "Fahrenheit 911," is being sought out by terror's A-Team.


Marc posted this at 18.6.04 | Permalink

iran v. iaea: the continuing saga

Now the bastards are using magnets.

Mohammed El "Watch Out or I'll Issue Another Strongly Worded Statement" Baradei & Co. are really exorcised this time about the nth instance of Iran flouting the United Nations' international nuclear regulatory body's authority, such as it is.

And Hamid Reza Asefi is showing his pique at the scurrilous accusations about the peace-loving Iranian government's pursuit of nuclear energy.

The Iranians are threatening to pull out of the NPT, but this begs the question, "Why did they join in the first place?"


Marc posted this at 15.6.04 | Permalink

intellectual property for dummies

Brian Micklethwait (lately of Samizdata) has a worthwhile primer to the epistemology of intellectual property rights here.

Brian points out that most people, while recognizing intellectually that property rights exist for ideas/concepts as well as for tangible articles, don't necessarily believe that those rights extend as far as concrete, "ownable" objects.

Intellectual property is fascinating to me since it represents one of the few philosophical discussions left in business and economics. This is good for me since I purposefully avoided a major in Economics simply because I didn't want to take statistics, calculus and econometrics when I was at university. The philosophy of economics interests me; marginal cost curves, not so much.
Marc posted this at 13.6.04 | Permalink

wanted: maverick republican for democratic ticket

So Sen. John "Fight the Power" McCain has told Sen. Kerry to go pound sand.

Besides the obvious humor, I find this whole McCain imbroglio very telling -- it essentially is an admission by the Democrats that they can't find anyone more palatable to the voters in their own party and so must look to steal an appropriate VP candidate from the Republicans.

Even more bizarre, they chose as their would-be Veep a guy who's running the Bush-Cheney campaign for Arizona. That wouldn't seem to be an intelligent choice, but perhaps Terry McAuliffe has something very clever up his sleeve.

I thought JM had put the whole issue to rest when, in an interview with Conan O'Brien, he said,

"I spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, in the dark, fed with scraps. Do you think I want to do that all over again as vice president of the United States?"

Look elsewhere, Senator Kerry. The Democrats must have someone that won't completely embarrass you.


Marc posted this at 12.6.04 | Permalink

my brief tribute to the gipper

As another blog noted (I'd link it if I could remember which one), there's been a lot of purple prose of late over the passing of President Reagan. But every other person who loved the "Morning in America" ad is writing a Eulo-Blog, so why not me?

I'll note only this: I watched the rotunda ceremony last night, and everything leading up to it, from the time they left Andrews to the last speech on Capitol Hill. It surely was moving. And historic. And nostalgic. But there's something wrong when the best speech of the evening is given by Vice President Cheney (who I'm sure is a sterling chap in person but isn't known for his flamboyant speaking style).

But this oratorial desert swung into sharp relief what a truly "Great Communicator" Reagan was. I felt more emotion listening to five minutes of any one of a dozen of Reagan's speeches over the weekend than I felt during nearly two hours of watching spectacle, symbolism, military precision (which, to be sure, was as impressive as the US military always is), and Ted Stevens, Dennis Hastert and the Veep put together.

That's what I remember most about the man. It'll be a long time 'til we see another like him.


Marc posted this at 11.6.04 | Permalink

reagan I, bush I - different men, similar worlds

At first glance, President Bush would seem to be the Republicans’ anti-Reagan — Bush, often ill at ease speaking, is from privileged roots, and works with (some would say alongside) a strong vice president. Though Bush is clearly guided by his beliefs and is unrepentantly ideological, his ideology doesn’t emit the warm glow Reagan’s did; Bush sometimes seems to be missing what GHW Bush called “The Vision Thing.” Where Reagan was relatively old when he took office, Bush is still in his sprightly fifties.

But amongst the deluge of retrospectives on the life and times of Ronald Reagan, it is difficult to ignore the commonalities between Reagan’s first term in office and Bush’s. Very different personalities, they lived in similar times. The similarities are particularly striking because they get at the very heart of some of the key issues that Bush and the administration are facing as the election draws near. How they approach these issues — and not (barring some unforeseen circumstances) external factors — will determine whether Dubya I gets to have a II.

To wit:

Media Portrayal. Both men were depicted during most of their first terms by their detractors in the media, Hollywood and the Democratic party as being slightly addled, dim-bulb commanders in chief. Neither was given much credit for independent thought. Public perceptions notwithstanding, close colleagues in both administrations singled out for praise each man’s strategic viewpoint, allowing others to iron out details.

Protesters, Polarized Populus. Both men had their share of protesters. Reagan had literally millions marching against his defense buildup and for disarmament; Bush is facing the occasionally confused anti-globalists and, moreover, hordes opposed to the war in Iraq. The polarization of the electorate was increasingly evident as each man’s first term neared its end.

Unilateralism. Accusations of excessive unilateralist tendencies dogged Reagan throughout both terms, largely as a result of his administration’s spending at the Pentagon, both conventional and the Strategic Defense Initiative, and his actions against the Soviet Union via Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua. Bush’s push to Baghdad, though not entirely absent allies, was widely decried in the US for its lack of regard for world opinion.

Irritated Europeans. As an outgrowth of the aforementioned unilateralist tendencies, both men managed to singlehandedly compromise relations with numerous European allies in the short term (not surprisingly, chief among these allies were the Germans and French) whilst maintaining unusually close personal relationships with British prime minister of the day. European protesters in both periods took to the streets, using their most virulent slogans and caricatures, to blame the United States and its president for the world’s problems. And where in 1982 they were ignoring the Soviet Union’s defilement of human rights and contribution to world instability, twenty-two years later a new generation is ignoring al-Qaeda and Saddam.

National Security Cabinet Choices. Both men had generally solid and dependable, but not flamboyant, Secretaries of State, in the persons of George Schultz (discounting the couple of early years of Al Haig) and now Colin Powell. Similarly, both presidents were derided by the press for choosing Secretaries of Defense who were, by some estimations, borderline pathological — remember Cap Weinberger?

Big Enemies. Bush had Saddam Hussein, and Usama bin Ladin still lurks in the wings; Reagan’s world featured the Evil Empire as the looming focus of his determination.

Bad Economies, Big Deficits. Both men spent the early parts of their administrations focused on an ailing US economy, and neither had made noticeable progress at remedying the situation until late in the first term. And, chiefly due to defense spending outlays, both men presided over the creation of significant deficits.

Democratic Opponents, Political Backgrounds. By 1984, Reagan was facing Senator/Former VP Walter Mondale, a milquetoast Democrat from a traditionally liberal state (Minnesota) who was known for being rhetorically challenged; Bush is squaring off against Sen. John Kerry, another Democrat suffering from the perception that he doesn’t connect with people — Mark II Mondale. And both Bush and Reagan had been governors of large Western states (California and Texas).

The point here isn’t to make Dubya into Ronnie or even to hint that the former is the latter’s ideological heir — I’ll leave it to the Republican National Committee to decide whether that leap is politically and/or logically tenable. Nor is it to expect specific actions by the administration; in fact, many of the key problems of Reagan’s first term were still hanging fire by the time the '84 election was upon him. Reagan's style was very different from Bush's, and what might have worked in the Cold War won’t necessarily work in the War on Terrorism.

But if the men themselves aren’t in the end all that similar, their worlds surely are. Bush & Co. could learn a lot from The Gipper.
Marc posted this at 9.6.04 | Permalink

i'll miss the cicadas

For those who don't live in the Washington, D.C. Metro area, we have lately been inundated with cicadas. These are reasonably good-sized jet black bugs with bright red eyes that make an awful lot of noise. They can be up to 5cm (nearly 2 inches) long, with large silvery-bronze wings; they fly around haphazardly and there are millions of them in every back yard in suburban Washington. Less than two weeks from now, they'll be little more than an early summer memory.

Call me crazy, but I'm gonna miss them.

To be sure, cicadas can be irritating. They are large, generally ugly, and the dead ones litter the streets. They fly every which way, and have been blamed locally for at least one car wreck that I'm aware of. In death they stick forlornly to the front of trucks, and regularly glance off the car as I'm driving around town, unless I'm on the highway, in which case they make a nasty splat on the windshield. It pays to keep the windows up and the A/C on. My dog enjoys them as a playful flying snack (though local TV stations have noted that this isn't entirely healthy -- we've tried to curtail his insect diet of late). Having medium-sized flying bugs coming randomly at you from every direction isn't most peoples' idea of a good time. But I for one will be sad to see them go.

My friends know I'm no eco-freak, but I find the cicadas fascinating. They truly are one of nature's enigmas, coming out only once every 17 years for barely 30 days to sing, mate, lay their eggs underground, and die. Cicadas are entirely harmless (unless, like my dog or other hapless individuals, you happen to ingest them). They don't sting, bite, eat my herbs or strawberries, or otherwise pose a menace to society. They are there for each other and nobody else.

The noise they make only occurs during the day, and it can be surprisingly loud, like crickets on steroids. And eerie. It's a medium-pitch hum, reminiscent of sound effects from 1950s science fiction movies. It's loud enough to hear clearly inside the house with the doors and windows shut. But I got used to hearing it after a few days, and it went from creepy to oddly soothing and even reassuring, a warm, rich sound that's always there -- omnipresent but not oppressive.

Cicadas are vulnerable to predatory bugs, birds, car windshields, and -- as we now know -- dogs. To my knowledge they have no defense mechanism for the survival of their species other than sheer numbers. I have frequently noticed cicadas lying pathetically on their backs on the sidewalk like beetles, struggling to turn over but never quite making it. After a while, I started helping them up, and they have rewarded me by sitting patiently on my hand and letting me look at them before drunkenly flying away to a nearby tree.

As much of a nuisance as the cicadas can be, their plight is sad, even poignant. Their entire harmless, benign existence lasts a mere month, and their offspring lie dormant for nearly two decades until the brood's next foray into the world. I mentally associate cicadas with summer -- warm weather, cooking on the barbeque, sitting on the porch, enjoying the fine weather after a miserable winter. Spring, with all of the cliche rebirth, seems to be accented by the cicadas' presence. Like fireflies, they're something to be enjoyed for their mere existence, not because we derive any benefit from them other than basking in their presence.

I will be over 50 years old the next time this particular type of cicadas makes another appearance. There will be others in the intervening period, of course; different varieties with different sounds and characteristics, and I'll look forward to them. But for now I've found something quietly beautiful about these cicadas, and I shall be sad to see them go.


Marc posted this at 4.6.04 | Permalink

internationalist tendencies do not a foreign policy make

(cross-posted from etalkinghead.com)

Sen. John Kerry has been on the stump for the last few days pushing his foreign policy/national security "message" as if it were the flavor of the week, a tried and true method of rousing the base. Although he has briefly turned to Russian nukes, the general message has been "let the United Nations do its good work."

Indeed, Kerry has flogged this squishy line regularly since he locked up the nomination, but to date he has (a) declined to elaborate on precisely what he expects the UN to do beyond its currently cautious stance, and (b) failed to indicate why, given the UN's spotty (to be charitable) history, they should be entrusted with the job.

Kerry says,

"I would go to the United Nations with a legitimate diplomatic effort, with humility, with a genuine effort to acknowledge some misjudgments, and to start to state clearly to the world, the way in which the world has a stake in what is happening. I would turn over to the U.N. legitimate authority for the civil reconstruction, for the humanitarian mission, and for the governance. And I would use the U.N.'s good services to help to internationalize this effort so that we reduce the sense of American occupation and the targeting of American troops."

Begging your pardon, Senator, but "huh?"

The current administration has (minus the hat-in-hand humility and self-flagellation) done essentially what Kerry has outlined, to the extent that the UN is willing to go along with it, which has not to date been far. Let's not forget that, while American, Spanish, Italian, Polish, British, and other (not, I would note, German or French) troops have been on the receiving end of pot shots from throughout Iraq, it was the UN that bailed out after their Headquarters was bombed, very early in the game.

Not to diminish the risk, nor the lives lost in the attack, but this is the essential issue at hand in Iraq. If you are not willing to stand firm against terrorism in Iraq -- and the UN has shown repeatedly that it is not -- you have no business being there until the professionals have cleared the way for you to do your work. Forget root causes, societal inequities, justifiable anger, poverty, lack of infrastructure, etc. -- these are facts of life in post-conflict countries, and surely there are people in the UN that know this. But does Senator Kerry?

Until Kerry and his team come up with a more detailed explanation as to why the UN -- which has shown itself to be not only bureaucratic, slothful and anti-American but also highly risk averse -- should take over, given its checkered past in places like Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, his supposed foreign policy credentials and campaign platitudes will mean nothing.
Marc posted this at 2.6.04 | Permalink