From Iran to Illinois, Religious Radicals Fail to Grasp Causality, Consequences

Bob Ellis will surely consider this post treason as well.

Among the documents in the latest Wikileaks release is this August 1979 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran to the State Department. Deputy Ambassador Victor Tomseth, who was among the American hostages taken three months later, wrote home with some less than flattering observations on the Persian psyche. Tomseth remarked on the incompatibility of Ayatollah-style fundamentalism and reason:

Coupled with these psychological limitations is a general incomprehension of casuality [sic]. Islam, with its emphasis on the omnipotence of God, appears to account at least in major part for this phenomenon. Somewhat surprisingly, even those Iranians educated in the Western style and perhaps with long experience outside Iran itself frequently have difficulty grasping the inter-relationship of events. Witness A Yazdi resisting the idea that Iranian behavior has consequences on the perception of Iran in the U.S. or that this perception is somehow related to American policies regarding Iran. This same quality also helps explain Persian aversion to accepting responsibility for one's own actions. The deus ex machina is always at work [Victor Tomseth, Deputy Ambassador to Iran, cable to U.S. State Department, 1979.08.13, as published by Wikileaks].

Hmm... fanatic faith clouding grasp of causality and consequences... why does this sound familiar?

The earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood. ... I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect [Rep. John Shimkus, quoted in David Gibson, "Bible Protects Against Global Warming? Energy Chair Hopeful Tells Us So," Politics Daily, 2010.11.27].

That's Republican Congressman John Shimkus from Illinois, whose Lutheran (?!?) faith apparently tells him human actions don't have earthly consequences. We can emit all the greenhouse gases we want without destroying the world. By the same logic, we could stop using crop rotation and no-till farming, or unleash biological weapons, or just throw a global thermonuclear war and not see crops fail or the world end.

Congressman Shimkus also wants to be chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Expect policy based on rejection of the conservation of matter and energy.

Folks who fret that President Obama is related to Muslims are missing the point. Considering what Ambassador Tomseth said about our Iranian friends, it's the fundagelical Republicans who act more like the mullahs.

Bonus Causality Quiz: To restore your ability to recognize cause and effect, connect these dots.

...Shimkus and the Bible-believing skeptics of climate change have powerful allies in the emergent Tea Party movement, which in turn has extensive support for the oil and coal industry [Gibson, 2010].

SD Iran Divestment Bill Gets Branstad's Attention

Nice to see South Dakota showing some leadership (dare I say Leder-ship?). Republican candidate for Iowa governor Terry Branstad gives South Dakota and state legislator Dan Lederman a shout-out for the Iran divestment bill our legislature passed this year and says he'd like to see Iowa pass similar legislation:



District 8 House candidate Patricia Stricherz did some useful Facebook campaigning for this bill last winter. Now if I can just get her on board with energy security legislation....

No word yet from Ahmadinejad on how he will retaliate against us perfidious prairie infidels.
------------------------------
Somewhat related: Stricherz is back on record opposing domestic oil barons as well. Yahoo!

Energy Security Legislation: Why Wait?

Heartland Consumer Power District chief Mike McDowell is just peachy-keen-thrilled at the prospect of America drifting for another year without a coherent, serious energy security law. I am not. Why should the Senate listen to me and not Heartland and pass energy security legislation?

1. Teabag Vote: Acting now on energy security legislation would cut the deficit. One flavor of energy legislation, the Kerry-Lieberman(-neé Graham) bill, would cost $723 billion over the next ten years, but bring in enough revenue to cut the deficit by $19 billion. That's not much, but it's even better than the $9 billion the House bill would save.
2. Science Vote: There's still a problem waiting to be solved. Climate change is real, the science is solid, and the claims of the "Climategate" criers from last year have been investigated and deemed bogus.
3. Bomb-Iran Vote: Why spend another year lining Ahmadinejad's pockets? The sooner we pass energy security legislation, the sooner we reach the day (years from now, yes, but it will come) when our economy does not depend on shipping money to Iran. (And don't forget: even the oil we buy from those nice Canadians has connections to Iran.)

We can act now and ease our way into the transition to clean energy and independence from foreign oil, or we can keep drifting, putting off action because it's just too hard, until we wake up one morning and find the tank dry.

Act now. Pass energy security legislation this year. That's Forward Thinking®.

------------------------
Update 09:20 CDT: Maybe energy security legislation could save even more money by cutting subsidies to the oil industry. Consider that you and I, fellow taxpayers, covered 70% of BP's rent on the Deepwater Horizon rig before it went boom. $225K per day... $82M per year... for just one rig.

Welspun Faces Lawsuits, Has Strong 2009 Profits to Cover Costs

...and South Dakota money goes to Iran after all?

We wait for the mainstream media to pick up the story about the possibility that TransCanada built the Keystone pipeline with defective Indian steel. We also wait for someone to connect the dots and ask why a few sticky gas pedals provoke a recall of over five million Toyotas, but hundreds of faulty pipe joints don't trigger a recall of steel posing an ecological threat to South Dakota's farmland, wetlands, and drinking water.

Meanwhile, here are a few notes on Welspun, the maker of the faulty steel that might lie under the South Dakota prairie in the Keystone pipeline:

1. Indian pipe maker Welspun (I'm waiting for plays on that name) faces three lawsuits from U.S. pipeline companies accusing the company of supplying substandard steel. The litigants include Kinder Morgan, in whose pipelines federal safety regulators found defective Welspun steel, as documented by Plains Justice.
2. I'm not a professional finance reporter, so it'll take me a while to figure out which division is which, but Welspun Corp Ltd. is down 4.6% from its Monday close. Welspun-Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. is down 4.7%.
3. Ah! Welspun Corp Ltd. is Welspun-Gujarat Stahl Rohren. The company changed its name from the latter to the former this spring, taking three months of brainstorming and consultations to come up with the shorter name and a new logo. (Note: stahl rohren is German for "steel pipe".)
4. Shipping bad pipe didn't hurt Welspun's business in 2009: Welspun increased revenue 28% and more than doubled operating profit.
5. Welspun is acquiring majority stake in Saudi pipe maker Aziz. Dang: Even if we use Canadian oil, we're still depending on Saudi pipe.
6. Welspun does business in Iran. TransCanada bought 47% of the steel for the Keystone pipeline from Welspun. This year's South Dakota State Legislature protected a huge tax break for TransCanada. At the same time, the Legislature passed a law to oppose investing state funds in Iran. Connect the dots....

-----------------
Update 2010.07.02: The mainstream media speak! KJAM covers the concerns over Welspun steel pipe.

Make Iran Happy: Wimp Out on Energy Security Legislation

If you think Republicans are happy that Senator Graham is reneging on his support for energy security and climate change legislation, imagine the party going on in oil-rich Iran:



Badlands Blue gets it right: divestment is nice, but if we're serious about cutting off Iran's money for murderous mischief, we need to get serious about energy policy.

Tough Vets Saying Voting for Clean Energy Is Easy

Badlands Blue likes VoteVets.org's new video calling for passage of a clean energy bill. So do I:



"Every time oil goes up a dollar, Iran gets another $1.5 billion to use against us," says Iraq War veteran and Purple Heart recipient Christopher Miller (who I'm sure Bob Ellis will call a silly, petulant Marxist trying to destroy America).

Keeping money out of Iran's hands. Developing our own clean energy resources. Sounds perfectly patriotic to me. Toughen up, Congress, and pass clean energy legislation!

Legislative Notes: Curd vs. Noem on Small Schools

Of interest to small-town voters: The South Dakota House yesterday passed HB 1150 on a 40–29 vote. Compare the votes of two of our Republican candidates for U.S. House: big-city doctor R. Blake Curd votes aye, while small-town ranch gal Kristi Noem votes nay.

Dr. R. Blake Curd evidently feels it's perfectly acceptable to punish small schools for their success in attracting open enrollees. Evidently supporting school choice isn't a big issue for this conservative. Noem apparently feels we can find budget savings for the state somewhere other than on the backs of successful school districts.

Locally, District 8 Reps. Mitch Fargen and Gerry Lange joined Noem in voting against HB 1150. Let's see where our senator Russell Olson goes on this school-choice issue.

In other news from the Legislature yesterday:

• HB 1222, the farmers market bill, got unanimous support from the House (yay!).
• SB 21, a rather mushy bill that sort of bans social investing with the state investment funds and sort of doesn't, passed the State Senate unanimously. The more direct SB 134, stopping state investment in Iran, has passed the Senate and awaits attention from House State Affairs.
• Even deferred to the 41st day does not mean dead! Senate Appropriations resurrected SB 193, the pro-life bill that would extend Medicaid to all pregnant women. Alas, they made that effort just to give the bill a formal "Do Not Pass" recommendation.
• Oh yeah, and HB 1277 & HB 1278, those silly little anti-blogger bills, went nowhere in committee. Thank you, Mr. Powers, for your testimony. And thank you, members of the committee, for your rationality. Now, back to the counterplans....
  

Legislative Roundup: Toothless Legislation, Jail Bait, Beavers...

This week in the South Dakota State Legislature:

Genocide Concerns Us, But Keep Investing in Iran: The Senate Retirement Laws Committee stamped SB 21 "Do Pass." They did amend the state's request for unfettered investment in terrorist states. The amendment calls on the State Investment Council to "engage and promote compliance" with federal divestiture laws and authorizes the Legislature to "express its concerns" about state investments that may fund evildoers. In other words, more toothless paperwork. No sign yet of Rep. Lederman's promised legislation to outright ban the state from investing in Iran. Stay tuned....

Sex Sex Sex...: And you thought the budget would be all our legislators had on their minds. There are a slew of proposals relating to sex offenders and the life sentences our state imposes on them. There's also HB 1110, which eases the penalty for statutory rape for certain young and restless penetrators fondlers.

[Update 2010.01.24: HB 1110 primary sponsor Rep. Rich Engels drops by the comment section to clarify! See below! This bill is about sexual contact, not sexual penetration! Errors from the original post are corrected below—sorry for the mess!]

(Read carefully: this is tricky!) Right now, sex with someone under 16 is a Class 3 felony. However, if you're less than three years older than the victim, it's only a Class 1 misdemeanor.

HB 1110 changes the law to read thus:

If the victim is at least thirteen years of age and the actor is less than five years older than the victim, the actor is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Let's try to clarify, kids:

Under HB 1110, if you are this old...	...[correction] serious necking is a felony if she/he's this old (or younger)	..but a misdemeanor if she/he's this old
16	12	13–15
17	12	13–15
18	13	14–15
19	14	15
20	15

Correction: The rules on rape remain the same. basically, kids, don't go all the way! If either party is under 16, it may be rape... and it's probably stupid. And for pete's sake, don't do it a second time: HB 1110 makes second offense a Class 2 felony.

So under HB 1110, two legal adults, one 19, one 18, could perform the same act, sex heavy petting with a 14-year-old. The 19-year-old could get 15 years in the pen and a $30K fine. The 18-year-old could get a year in the county jail and a $2K fine.

Hmm... could we just issue stainless steel underpants to everyone and hand out keys with high school diplomas? (Now that would cut the drop-out rate.)

Darn You Beavers!: In the unnecessary legislation department, HB 1113 adds prairie dogs, raccoons, skunks, and beavers to list of critters GF&P can target on the animal damage control list. Thing is, current statute already says that list can include "other wild animals" deemed injurious to the general welfare. I guess certain legislators just want to say, "Skunks! Coons! Beavers! We mean you!"

Update 13:05 CST: But wait, there's more!

Tightening the Auto Insurance Noose: Driving without insurance could get harder: SB 87 would require folks registering any noncommercial motor vehicle to show their proof of insurance to the county treasurer.

Make Your Own Gun, Dodge Federal Rules!: A majority of the Legislature has already signed on to sponsor SB 89, which will exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammo made and used exclusively in South Dakota from federal regulations. Do whatever you want with your weapons, as long as you don't invade Minnesota.

Sure enough, the "Firearms Freedom Act" is a coordinated national effort. SB 89 copies language used in a "Firearms Freedom Act" proposed in Minnesota last year. Montana led the way, passing the first version of said law last year and now fighting Uncle Sam in court to keep it. Interestingly, the NRA may not be supporting this law.

GOP House Candidate Advocates Friendship with Iran

Why can't the other Republicans give us conversation-starters like this: GOP House candidate Thad Wasson rejects the neocon-Dick-Cheney snarl and advocates lifting sanctions on Iran and (gasp!) cooperating:

America is getting blamed for all the woes in Iran when the Mullahs can't even keep the natural gas flowing. Lets not lose this Nation to our 'friends' Russia and China. If we offer expertise on natural gas exploration and agricultural commodities, we can win over the 66 million Iranians [Thad Wasson, "Time for a Misdirection Play on Iran," campaign blog, 2009.11.08].

More flies with honey...

This isn't one of us progressive wienies talking; this is an ex-Marine who's spent some time around guns and tanks. I can't wait to see Wasson bring ideas like this to a room full of Republicans and a live debate with Chris Nelson and R. Blake Curd.

Obama Duly Wary on Iran: Ahmadinejad and Mousavi Not Too Different

Before we get all excited about expressing our forceful support for democratic uprisings in Iran (and believe me, I want to), let's remind ourselves why this fight between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is more complicated than a nice Hollywood good-vs.-evil script. As Mr. Woodring appropriately reminds us, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the main opposition candidate around whom Tehran's street protesters are rallying, is connected with terrorist attacks on American soldiers. He was Iran's prime minister in the 1980s, when Iran orchestrated the terror campaign that included the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 American soldiers and 58 French soldiers.

Former CIA Middle East field officer Bob Baer explains Mousavi's politics:

"When Mousavi was Prime Minister, he oversaw an office that ran operatives abroad, from Lebanon to Kuwait to Iraq," Baer continued.

"This was the heyday of [Ayatollah] Khomeini's theocratic vision, when Iran thought it really could export its revolution across the Middle East, providing money and arms to anyone who claimed he could upend the old order."

Baer added: "Mousavi was not only swept up into this delusion but also actively pursued it" [Jeff Stein, "Mousavi, Celebrated in Iranian Protests, Was the Butcher of Beirut," CQPolitics, 2009.06.22].

President Obama recognizes that there is not much difference on policy between the current regime and Mousavi. As ABC's Jake Tapper notes, Iran's nuclear program was restarted under Mousavi in 1987. He doesn't recognize Israel, and his response to a question about Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial feels slippery at best.

Supporting democracy is good, but we must also look at the practical results of that democracy. Hamas won the 2006 elections in Palestine, and we felt a little egg on our faces for having pushed for elections that produced results inimical to our interests. Sometimes I can't help wondering if some conservatives are pushing for a "more forceful" response from our president to the Iranian turmoil just so they can blame Obama for whichever pro-nuclear, anti-Israel candidate is in charge of Iran.

Bush:China::Obama:Iran? No One Said Foreign Policy Was Easy...

Twenty years ago when the Chinese Communist government slaughtered thousands of its own youth in Tiananmen Square, I wanted President George H.W. Bush to drop some serious hammer on China. Kick out their ambassador, cut off trade, maybe even stand a battleship or two off the coast.

What did Bush Sr. do?

First, the president and his administration rushed to perpetuate, in a new era, the notion that China's geopolitical importance should outweigh American concerns about political repression in the PRC. The perceptions of China's overriding significance had, of course, been based on the Soviet threat to the United States, and now this threaet was disappearing. Did that mean America would now condemn China's Leninst regime in the same fashion as the Soviet Union or the Communisat governments of Easertn Europ? The Bush administration's answer was no: Despite the end of the Cold War, China remained of great strategic importance to the United States....

The second element in Bush's response to the upheavals of 1989 was the policy of "engagement." Although Bush had announced in public a freeze on high-level contacts between American and Chinese officials, he secretly sent Scowcroft to Beijing for talks with Deng Xiaoping in July 1989 and again five months later. After the visits were criticized, Bush explained that he didn't want to isolate China. He wanted, instead, a "comprehensive policy of engagement" with China. The choice of words was surprising, because the Reagan administration had only a few years earlier used the term constructive engagement to describe its policy of dealing with South Africa's apartheid government [James Mann, The China Fantasy, Viking: 2007, pp. 79–80].

I was disappointed with the Bush policy.

I was 17.

Today President Barack Obama faces the question of how to respond to internal political upheaval in Iran. As Ken Blanchard points out in an exaggeratedly titled "Defense" of the president, Obama faces a no-win situation. If he plays it too aggressively, he becomes a foil for Ahmadinejad and the loyal ayatollahs, who can claim the protestors are just tools of the scheming Great Satan. If he plays it cool, he gives Republicans the opportunity to trot out the old meme of feminizing Obama, portraying him as "timid" and "passive."

Timid and passive? What do you want, air strikes?

Senator McCain suggests we need a tougher, more Cold-War-like response to the Iranian government's oppression of its people. But for political oppression no worse than that perpetrated by our good friend and loan shark China, here's where Iran stands currently in U.S. foreign policy:

• U.S. purchases of only $104 million in Iranian goods (a laughable 0.005% sliver of our $2.1 trillion in imports in 2008; 0.03% of the $337 billion we buy from China; a tenth of the purchases we make from authoritarian Belarus; about the same as we buy each year from the thugs in Zimbabwe)
• economic sanctions extended by President Obama this March
• no official diplomatic ties since 1979
• flanking of the country by 168,000 American ground troops (138,000 in Iraq; 30,000 in Afghanistan) and a half-dozen U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf

I'd say the United States is in about as aggressive a posture toward Iran as it can be right now without ordering our Baghdad garrison to redeploy to Kabul... in an overland march. We're certainly already playing harder ball with Iran than we did with China in 1989 or even in 2001, when China forced down one of our surveillance planes, ransacked it for sensitive equipment, and held 24 of our military personnel captive. Bush Junior responded to the latter crisis with the following language: "I am troubled by the lack of a timely Chinese response to our request..."—a passive voice sentence with the timid word request.

Conservative columnist George Will expressed on ABC's latest This Week the frustrating but sensible reality of President Obama's response to Iran:

The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don’t need that reinforced [George Will, quoted by Ben Armbruster, "Will calls right-wing attacks on Obama’s Iran response ‘foolish criticism.’", ThinkProgress.org, 2009.06.21]

U.S. News's John Aloysius Farrell reminds us of long-standing Iranian suspicion of American meddling, notes the absence of U.S. flags or mock-ups of the Statue of Liberty amid the green banners of Tehran's street protests, and calls criticism of Obama's current tack "self-indulgent and silly." And Henry Kissinger says Obama is doing the right thing.

My sentimental and dramatic heart still craves grand gestures and sweeping victories. Foreign policy, alas, has always been more complicated than that. But even if you think we can and should do more to show our solidarity with the young people demanding honest democracy in the streets of Tehran, you face a hard question: what should we do? We already isolate Iran. We are one misunderstanding at an Iraqi border post away from bullets flying.

To suggest that the President is being "timid" and "passive" is clear domestic political gamesmanship. it also ignore the political and historical realities of how you actually run foreign policy.

Vaclav Havel to Iran: 'Virtue in Working for a Good Cause"

I know better than to believe that the current protests in Iran will lead to some quick Hollywood ending where law and democracy and the good guys win. Hope for the best, but expect Tiananmen Square.

Playwright and former Czech President Vaclav Havel knows a thing or two about fighting what appears to be a losing battle against an oppressive regime. He wrote plays and philosophical tracts that critiqued the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe. He sat in prison for years for his words. And 21 years after seeing the Prague Spring crushed by the Soviet/Warsaw Pact military, he oversaw a bloodless revolution and became president of his country.

Havel offers a few words of encouragement for the Iranian supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi who think the Ahmadinejad government is trying to steal the presidential election:

Interviewer: You are well-known and highly respected by many people in Iran. What would you like to say to Iranians directly?

Havel: [I would tell them that] I sympathize with them, that I'm keeping my fingers crossed for them and I would advise them not to fall prey to skepticism if they do not achieve immediate results in spite of their efforts.

These efforts are important in and of themselves because there is virtue in working for a good cause. And these efforts can pay off later, God knows when, God knows how. But you cannot time it. That, at least, is our experience [emphasis mine; interview, "Havel Expresses Solidarity with Iranian Demonstrators," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 2009.06.15].

Even if your words and deeds do not produce the results—or the regime change—you seek, you do your soul good by fighting the good fight. That's pretty strong idealism.

Havel also recommends a dose of idealism for politicians outside Iran trying to figure out what to say and do:

...expressions of solidarity with those who are defending human rights, with students and others, are important. In general, oil should not be more important than human rights [emphasis mine].

Courage in the Streets of Tehran

Sometimes in the face of danger and violence, regular folks know immediately what they must do:

Supporters of Iranian presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi rush to the aid of another Mousavi supporter being beaten by Iranian government security agents. Tehran, Sunday, June 14, 2009.
Photo AP via Boston Globe's "The Big Picture"

A Mousavi supporter helps an injured riot policeman. Tehran, Saturday, June 13, 2009.
Photo AP via Boston Globe's "The Big Picture"

Check out the entire photo essay at Boston.com. Gritty, stirring journalism.

See also the Twitter-storm at #iranelection, where folks are heeding this call from Mr. Mousavi's own Twitter channel, mousavi1388: "We have no national press coverage in Iran, everyone should help spread Mousavi's message. One Person = One Broadcaster."

America to Iran: Happy New Year -- Let's Talk

Iranians celebrate the new year as Nowruz, the beginning of spring. It seems a better time to celebrate new hope, new beginnings, and new resolutions to make ourselves and the world better.

President Obama sends his Nowruz respects to Iran and the world by saying (I paraphrase) hey, global neighbor, let's talk:



Among the highlights (funny—the White House thought this was a key line, too):

The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right, but it comes with real reponsibilities. And that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy. It is your demonstrated ability to build and create [President Barack Obama, Nowruz address, 2009.03.20].

Happy Spring and, as the President said, Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak!

Free Speech in Iran: Bloggin' for a Floggin'

An Iranian court has dished out eight and a half years of prison time and 124 lashes to four bloggers charged with, among other things, "spreading lies" and "propaganda against the regime."

Boy, and I thought getting chewed out by the high school principal was rough!

No fear of free speech in Madison: the Mundt Debate Tournament is coming up Friday and Saturday at MHS! Kids will be making all sorts of speeches analyzing, advocating, and eviscerating alternative energy plans, the stimulus package, the International Criminal Court, and other hardcore policy matters. Come watch! If you'd like to help (judge rounds, bring chow for the hospitality room, straighten desks, you name it!), contact coach Renee Nills or principal Sharon Knowlton at MHS.