Motley Moose – Archive

Let me start by saying three things:

1. I support diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons
2. I support the Schumer-Menendez-Kirk bill
3. I don’t think there are any right answers here, but only answers that are less wrong than other ones

Inherent in the first statement is the fact that I do not believe Iran’s claims it is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes.  I believe there is one purpose behind Iran’s nuclear program and that is the development of a nuclear weapon.  That said, I do not believe the Iranians would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons on Israel.  The ayatollahs, as 2009 demonstrated, are interested, first and foremost in the maintenance of their power.  The surest way to lose that power is to use nuclear weapons on Israel.  Israel would have no compunctions about massive retaliation against Iran in such a situation and no reasonable person could fault Israel for taking such action.

While many would argue that support for the Schumer-Menendez-Kirk bill is the quickest way to end the diplomatic process and ensure war, I believe that wrongly reads the situation.  It was the pressure brought to bear by sanctions, and the effect upon the Iranian economy, that caused Iran to come to the negotiating table in the first place.  To successfully conclude a deal to end the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons requires that Iran understand that consequences exist in the event negotiations fail.  The threat of additional sanctions helps serve that purpose.

From today’s Wall Street Journal explaining how Chris Christie is so much better than President Obama when it comes to showing contrition in the wake of misconduct by his underlings:

Not that this should make Mr. Christie or any other potential GOP candidate complacent. Republicans operate under a double media standard that holds them to a much lower scandal threshold. (emphasis my own) In that sense the pathetic New Jersey traffic-lane scandal may be, as Mr. Obama likes to say, a teachable moment.

Perhaps the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal hasn’t watched its sister outlet, Fox News, try and stir outrage over Benghazi 24/7 on a story that doesn’t exist.  Perhaps it hasn’t watched the same channel on Fast and Furious.  Perhaps it hasn’t watched the same channel on the IRS scandal.

Perhaps they consider reporting on Iran Contra or the no-bid contracts of the Iraq war not newsworthy and therefore any reporting on them is creating a double standard.  Perhaps they consider petty political revenge because a politician from the other political party did not endorse their candidate for re-election.  Perhaps they consider investigating whether that revenge broke federal law and whether it affected emergency response to be a non-story that is only reported because it is a Republican.

Please sign up to become an organ donor, if you haven’t already done so.

Last night, my mom’s life was vastly improved because someone made that decision.  That means she has the new kidney she’s been waiting for a life free from dialysis.  And that all happened because some decided it would be a good thing that G-d forbid anything happened to them their organs could be used to save and improve lives.  Taking those five minutes can really make a difference and do a whole world of good for many people.

I’m very happy to report that she’s doing well at the moment.  The kidney is starting to come to life and she is doing really well for someone that came out of major surgery around two o’clock this morning.

So, have a happy and healthy new year and please, please, please, make the decision to become an organ donor (if you haven’t already done so).  

So, it’s almost Chinese Food Day again (also known as December 25).  While most Americans will be celebrating with their families, many of us will be going to the movies and eating Chinese food.  Yes, it’s cliché, but it is what it is.  I don’t know what movie I’m going to see tomorrow, so I am open to any suggestions people might have (I just saw The Hobbit on Sunday night, though).  I do know, however, that I’ll be eating Chinese food, although somewhat complicated by the fact that the Chinese place I usually eat out in has apparently closed.

This, ironically, is also a time for me to be thankful to be an American.  This is a country where I can openly practice my religion and embrace my culture.  I am free to be a Jew and do not have to worry about whether the government will decide it’s a good time to stir up some violence against me.  I don’t have to worry about being consigned to the ghetto or the shtetl.  I’m free to go to see the movie I want to see and eat the Chinese food I want.  Those actions might seem irrelevant, but they mean that I am free to embrace my Jewishness.

Many conservatives have invoked Holocaust comparisons – and claimed that if European Jews only had guns in the 1930’s and 1940’s there would have never been a Holocaust – when it comes to any effort to implement new gun control laws.  This time, the focus of their anger is Jersey City mayor Steven Fulop, himself a grandchild of Holocaust survivors.

Mayor Fulop’s offense is that he supports a measure which would require gun vendors that seek contracts with Jersey City to fill out a gun safety questionnaire.  For this, his grandparents ordeal in the Shoah was invoked by Scott Bach, a member of the National Rifle Association’s board.

Mayor Fulop’s response to the claim that if only his grandparents, and other Jews, had guns when the Nazis came for them:

If my grandparents had guns in their house when the Nazis came, my grandparents would be dead and I wouldn’t be here. (emphasis my own) So that’s probably the reality of the situation. But I don’t think that you can equate religious persecution to a manipulation of the intent of the Second Amendment.

These conservatives seem to forget exactly what would happen if you had one or two people go up against fully equipped soldiers.  Maybe one or two or even three soldiers would get killed, but, in the end, it would be the ordinary people that were killed.  No, it wasn’t a lack of guns that caused the Holocaust, but the complicity of millions of people in Germany and occupied Europe who actively assisted in the Shoah and those, throughout the world, that turned a blind eye to what was happening and the countries that closed their doors to Jewish refugees fleeing for their very lives.

Back on October 4, Vincent Reinhart wrote in The New York Times’ Deal Book that despite all the political maneuvering currently going in Washington the contingencies to prepare for a default are “a waste because the United States government is not going to default, ever.”

Reinhart argues that government officials will be forced to violate one of three laws or constitutional mandates:

1. The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 that establishes the debt ceiling;
2. The Federal Reserve Act that prohibits the Fed from lending directly to the Treasury; or,
3. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which holds that the debt of the United States government, lawfully issued, will not be questioned.

Finally, of the consequences, Reinhart writes:

An official anticipating stretching the law ranks alternatives by precedent, punishment as specified in the law and standing as to who can claim a violation of the law. Either a secretary of the Treasury who holds No. 3 as the overriding instruction or a chairman of the Federal Reserve who waives No. 2 saves the global financial system and, at most, risks being impeached or fired. That seems to be a reasonable risk and reward trade-off.

That, however, ignores the real nightmare that would happen immediately after any of those actions were taken to avoid default by the United States Government.

Chemical weapons are a terrible thing.  I disagree with the assertion that dead is dead.  They are a torturous method of killing innocent civilians.  They cause civilians to die a gruesome and slow death.  Those that survive are permanently disfigured.  With conventional weapons, yes, they leave the person dead, but they tend to be considerably quicker in bringing about that death.

In the modern era of warfare, militaries can effectively protect soldiers against their use.  That leaves them as nothing more than a weapon of civilian murder – a weapon that kills slowly and gruesomely.  A strong moral argument exists that when such weapons are used, the world has a responsibility to take those actions necessary to prevent their further use and punish the perpetrators.  This can include military action.

At the same time, war is war and we should not enter it without serious discussion (the exception being in response to a military attack; think Pearl Harbor and us declaring war on Japan the next day).  What happened with the Iraq war represented a severe failure of this process and we cannot afford a repeat of that hear.  We need to see the evidence put out there.  We need to have the discussion.  We need to enter this with our eyes open.  Remember, even limited strikes put our men and women in uniform in the line of danger and cost us money in a time when we really don’t have the money to spare – especially on another war.

This comes in an attempt to raise money for the state Republican Party by using two high profile candidates in this year’s New York City elections.  One of the candidates, Anthony Weiner, is pretty much dead in the water.  He’s lagging well behind in the polls and will not make the Democratic runoff that will follow the primary.  The other is former governor Eliot Spitzer, who is running for comptroller and currently leading in his race.

The mailing’s basic premise is that because these two men did icky things, and because the Democratic Party is considerably stronger than the Republican Party in New York, all Democrats are icky and you, the recipient, should send money to help Republicans.

It’s been five years since I graduated from law school (June 2008) and eight years since I graduated from college (June 2005).  Now, after five years out of the classroom, and holding some temp jobs here and there a few years back, I’m finally heading back to school to do something that I considered back when I was still in undergrad.

Way back in 2005 I considered staying in college an extra year so that I could graduate with double major of History and Accounting.  The idea was that I would become both an attorney and a CPA.  Instead, I ultimately decided to head to straight to law school and graduated pretty much right in the heart of the Great Recession.

After that I found some temp jobs once I was admitted to the bar, but a little more than a year after that my mom’s health declined to the point that it was best for me to stay home and take care of her.  Since she’s been a single parent since I was three, I’m an only child and the rest of our family doesn’t live nearby everything fell on me.  I’m not sorry or resentful about that happening.  Family is family.  That’s my view.

Thankfully, now, her health is good enough that she can pretty much care for herself at home.  In fact, she’s now healthy enough that I can go away to visit family for a few days.  That said, it’ll be even better once she finally gets her kidney transplant.

Anyway, back to the main subject below the squiggly.

Back when he was a student at Harvard, Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) wrote a piece detailing what he described as women’s greatest fear and the solution to help ease that fear (h/t The Huffington Post).  This conclusion and its basis?

Cotton, who is unmarried, wrote that he surveyed several women — whom he referred to as “Cliffies,” or female students at Radcliffe — and they all told him the same thing: that their “greatest fear” in life was to be left by their husbands, and their “deepest hope” was to be “a good wife and mother.”

And Cotton’s proposed solution?

Make divorce harder through the elimination of no-fault divorce and the promotion of covenant marriage.

His reasoning?

This will help ease women’s greatest fears, stop the ‘problems’ caused by no-fault divorce and keep men in line.