On Iran

I think it would be worth a try to finance insurrection by Iran's powerful non-Persian minorities, though I doubt it would work. Our real options, I suspect, are an air war with a minor dilatory effect on their nuke program or a ground war that dismantles it (and perhaps installs a proper regime)--to make things simple we should also break up the country on ethnic lines, to achieve stability and an American exit, and to weaken post-war Iran. The other road is to appease our way into a nuclear arms race among the Middle Eastern nations. 

The CIA Factbook says there are 15 million Azeris, 8 million Kurds, and 5 million other non-Persians in Iran. The total population is 78 million. Without the Kurds and Azeris it would be 55 million. If the Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Syria united, the new Kurdistan would contain about 15 million, a respectable force, especially given their substantial oil resources. There are 15 million more Kurds in Turkey, who might also break away in future. New Kurdistan's main weakness is a lack of access to the ocean if the new state's borders are set according to current population distributions. And the new Azerbaijan would have 24 million, also with oil. Both of these new nations ought to be sustainable and would weaken Iran and Iraq. The Turks derive no benefit beyond pride from controlling part of Kurdistan. They would be spared the expense of borders with Iran and Iraq, and the expense of fighting the endless Kurdish insurgency. Unfortunately, on this plan, the Iranians would not lose any significant part of their oil and gas reserves.

Criminal Law Reforms: African Style

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?ref=books Basically, she's saying that if arrest rates do not adhere to disparate impact standards, they're racist. She claims that the only major reason more blacks are arrested is racism and that drug laws must be repealed because blacks have disproportionate arrests under those laws. I will pass over her idiot imputations about the whole system being an anti-black conspiracy. This entire line of reasoning signally fails to break with the long tradition of blaming white America, and only white America, for black problems. Instead of constructive criticism of the black community, black leaders persist in destructive criticism of black-white relations. Blacks have chosen to adopt a parasitic role in America. It's unhealthy for them. It's unhealthy for their hosts.

The Conservative Climate

This climate change denial is just a case of anti-science populism, driven by the fact that conservatives believe reductions in emissions will rob them of their last freedoms. Aggressively opposing efforts to conserve the environment is not conservatism, it is selfish stupidity. Keep in mind this problem could largely be solved by going nuclear--especially by using either fast breeder reactors or liquid flouride thorium reactors, for both of which we have effectively unlimited fuel supplies. A massive system of nuclear reactors could also produce liquid fuels for transport and allow America to be energy independent and environmentally responsible. The military certainly believes in climate change and has policies in place to guard against the international security contingencies it will create.

As a general principle of thought and action, conservatives ought to think of ways to improve the world, rather than inflexibly hold to all that is just because it is. If conservatives continue their present braking strategy, the socialists will once again take the initiative on an inescapable issue and transform it into another step toward dystopia. Instead of choosing a conservative response to the threat, they will be run over again by the socialists. The current conservative "leadership" deserves to be run over.

Israel and Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/israels-last-chance-to-strike-iran.html This is the take of a former Israeli fighter pilot, one who bombed Iraq's nuclear facility in 81'. I agree with everything he says, except his conclusion. In the end, Israel cannot rely upon the U.S. for protection. A sovereign nation must assume the necessity of self-reliance. As Machiavelli put it, with Israel's position corresponding to that of the prince: "since men love at their convenience and fear at the convenience of the prince, a wise prince should found himself on what is his, not on what is someone else's." And Israel has a decidedly (and I would add, necessarily) Machiavellian tradition in foreign relations.