WTF

The CIA has established a new task force to investigate the WikiLeaks fiasco, the Wikileaks Task Force.  Also known as: WTF

Thought that was blog-worthy.  I'm in Vienna, Austria and will be in Israel the next two weeks with the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), and this will be transformed into a running blog of the trip for the next two weeks.  Thanks for checking in and don't forget to subscribe!

THE WORLD IS SAVED!!!

Breaking: The world (may have) just avoided a nuclear Iran

If it weren't for you meddling Israelis...

HOLY SHIT.

For those of you who heard about the Stuxnet computer worm that seemed to mysteriously appear out of the blue and target specifically Iran's nuclear reactors - it appears that it's done a lot more damage than the 2 months as originally reported.  Try 2 years.

*Top German computer consultant Langer who was one of the first to analyze Stuxnet's effects says: "It will take two years for Iran to get back on track... This was nearly as effective as a military strike, but even better since there are no fatalities and no full-blown war. From a military perspective, this was a huge success.”


Iran will have to throw out all the infected computers, bring in new ones (after being sure that they also weren't infected, or else they'd have to start over), then rebuild the centrifuges, then buy a new turbine.  Total time estimate: 2 years.  A LIFETIME for Ahmadinejad, who is dealing with crippling sanctions and domestic unrest.

It's hard to imagine this playing out any better.  Zero casualties, a massive setback to the nuclear program, and an anonymous cloak of 15,000 lines of code that took more than one country to develop (a joint US-Israeli venture?).  Sleep easy, tonight.  This can be a game-changer.

If you want more info on how the Stuxnet virus works, you can read about it here.  Feel free to edit the "Implications" section, it doesn't seem like it's been updated yet.

Study Break: Meet Alvin Greene

In a country as big and diverse as the United States, there are bound to be plenty of eccentric characters who somehow find their way onto the political stage.  Like a circus mirror, these 'representatives of the people' show us for what we are: a hilarious motley crew of personalities, sometimes a few Leinenkugels short of a 6-pack.  This morning's case study goes by the name of Alvin Greene. 

Meet Alvin:

I'm about to make you scratch your head in disbelief

To start this off, everything you're about to read is true.

Alvin Greene was the Democratic nominee for Senate in the state of South Carolina during the 2010 elections.  He won the primaries with 59% of the vote before losing to Rep. Jim DeMint in the general election.  Far from being discouraged after the loss, Greene is talking about a possible 2012 presidential campaign.  When asked about his potential bid, Greene replied,

"I’m the man. I’m the man. I’m the man. Greene’s the man. I’m the man. I’m the greatest person ever. I was born to be president. I’m the man, I’m the greatest individual ever."

Green hasn't yet specified which party he will represent, which is good news for the Democrats, who tried to get him to quit the Senate race after he astonishingly won the primary without campaigning.  That's right - Alvin Green, a 32-year-old unemployed man with the nickname "Turtle" who still lives with his parents, didn't raise any campaign money or have a website, and paid for his own registration fees out of pocket... WON THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR SENATE.

He was also implicated in a felony obscenity charge for allegedly showing porn to an 18-year-old USC student in a computer lab and following it up with the line, "Let's go to your room."

After a reporter tried to ask him about the incident, Greene started moaning "GOOOOOOOOO" in an attempt to get him to leave.

With Alvin screaming in the background, the anchor's calm summary of the whole thing is the best part: "That is Democratic Senate candidate Alvin Greene at his home, telling a reporter, to GO."

Part of Alvin's success is attributable to the catchy campaign video which eventually just becomes a Lebron James highlight reel.  He even manages to deny the obscenity charge (:51).  You really can't make this stuff up (UPDATE: Stephanie Wong has discovered that Jay Friedman produced the video, not Alvin Greene, I guess video editing wasn't one of his talents):

You know what, Alvin?  If the 2012 race comes down to you and Sarah Palin... you have my vote.

The Real World: Red, Black & Blue

Great video of Harvard-educated Fareed Zakaria picking apart Glenn Beck's recent claim that 10% of Muslims are terrorists by showing that, under Beck's loose definition of "terrorist", even he could be considered one for his frequent criticism of the US government.

You're a terrorist for reading this

I have an idea for a new reality TV show.

I want to put all the talking heads - Beck, O'Reilly, Zakaria, Obermann, Maddow, and Michael Moore - in a house.  Call it The Real World: Red, Black & Blue.  Make them all live with each other for an extended period of time, and don't let them leave.  The way I see it, there are two possible outcomes:

1) A brawl.  I'm taking the conservatives on this one - they aren't gonna pull any punches.

2) Yanked out of their niche tv spots and target audiences, the talking heads get back in touch with reality when they learn that other people can have valid viewpoints, too.

The great irony of our national media is that what makes the most economic sense doesn't lead to the best-formed opinions.  While catering to a specific audience can bring in massive ratings and make someone like Ann Coulter a best-selling author, having a tunnel vision when it comes to politics can be extremely detrimental.  You might just end up like Beck.

I think The Real World: Red, Black & Blue can merge economic interests and our country's long-term interest.  Who's with me?

CNN and the Dangerous Assumption of Rationality

This article is really pissing me off.  Right now it's featured on the front page of CNN under the thought-provoking headline:

"Self-Sufficient Iran a Nuclear Threat?"

The story goes on to describe (very briefly) the uranium enrichment process, and quotes Iranian madman Ahmadinejad as saying that uranium enrichment for a peaceful program is an "inalienable right" that he doesn't plan on giving up.

The farthest CNN will go in condemning Iran is to claim that "The U.S. and its allies say Iran's lack of transparency and its pattern of secrecy are evidence that Iran is using its nuclear program as a cover to build nuclear bombs."

Really, CNN?

This is why so many Americans are misinformed.  Because if you're like I was, you find comfort in CNN's name, prestige, and big-budget interactive touch screens on election day.  Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer will make all your troubles go away with their polished studio and calm demeanor.  You can get all the news from across the world without leaving comfort of your own couch, or your own mental comfort zone.

There's no situation The Situation Room can't handle!

But the world unfortunately isn't aligned with our expectations.

Ahmadinejad is not a rational actor.  He doesn't value freedom, tolerance, or equality of opportunity.  Ahmadinejad wants to spread Shariah law, which he believes is his G-d given duty.  Here are some characteristics of Shariah law:

*Punishment of theft by amputation of hands
*Punishment of adultery by stoning (graphic)
*Prohibition of liquor and gambling
*Women must wear the traditional hijab

I know what you're thinking because I thought it: you know what, it might be a bit different from what we're used to, but live and let live, right?

Sure.

As long as you're ok with giving a nuclear weapon to a man who believes his government is guided by the Messiah, calls the Holocaust a lie, and claims that the US and Israel will soon die.

If you're giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, where are you ever going to draw the line?  Remember, according to a German newspaper, US officials have called Ahmadinejad "Hitler".

Journalism should have a conscience.  It should be a very well-behaved conscience, not the kind that will pop up in the form of biases over what should be (99% of the time) objective reporting.  But it should have enough balls to call out a genocidal maniac instead of giving him just as much credit in a story as, say, the United States government.  This is straight from the CNN story highlights:

Really, CNN?  If I read this article without knowing anything, I'm coming out a supporter of Ahmadinejad.  Why can't their country have peaceful nuclear energy?  

Iran Got Haterz Everywhere!

Shame on you, CNN.  And to the rest of you, I hope this has cracked a bit of that comfortable liberal shell that keeps you from ever having to stand up for your values (harsh words, but I'm speaking from personal experience).  Not everyone is good in this world, and we need to fight the baddies, so we can keep quoting them as if they're legitimate, rational people worthy of our consideration.

You should read that CNN article and realize, this is what makes us awesome.  We are quoting a man who has threatened us with mass murder and giving him equal standing in our own paper.  But whatever you do, don't fool yourself into thinking he's one of us.  He's not.  And remind people that, too.  Because freedom of speech, while protecting our enemies, also empowers us to be well-informed.  Spread the word!

Obama's Middle East Bluff, and a Human Disaster

Diplomacy is often compared to a high-stakes poker game.  If that's true, then Obama is playing like notorious bluffer Phil Ivey.

For the past two years, Obama has been telling Netanyahu that the Middle East peace process was vital for Arab support against Iran.  After WikiLeaks, we know now that Obama was bluffing.  After all, he had the following information:

*As early as 2008, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was urging Obama to "“cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake.”

*King Hamad of Bahrain told Obama about the Iranian nuclear program, "That program must be stopped," he said. "The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it."

*The United Arab Emirates and Egypt called Iran "evil" and an "existential threat"

*Crown Prince bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi worried "not how much we know about Iran, but how much we don't."

*Jordan viewed Iran like an insidious octopus, whose tentacles should be "severed" (although, Jordan also wanted the US to help resolve the Palestinian issue)

Obama's repeated emphasis on the 2-state solution as a stepping stone to dealing with Iran simply didn't mesh with reality.  Arab leaders were already urging him in private to do something about Iran, and Obama publicly bluffed that the peace process was necessary to winning their support.  He bluffed to pressure Netanyahu to make concessions, and ultimately pushed Israel in a corner they didn't have to be in.  (I'm going to make this blog bi-partisan.  If you're conservative, skip ahead now.)

But like any good poker game, it's a lot more nuanced than it seems. (Liberals, keep reading)

The Arab leaders weren't ready to publicly condemn Iran - it would have been too politically dicey for them to appear pro-Western.  Even after the WikiLeaks came out - when anyone with an Internet connection can actually see the Arab leaders' words condemning Iran - not one has yet publicly backed up his private statements.  If the 2-state solution had succeeded, it may very well have made these leaders more comfortable publicly adopting an anti-Iran position, which I'm sure was Obama's aim all along.

**************************** Everyone back!**********************************

The above is a picture of the bus that was engulfed in flames in the massive fire in northern Israel.  41 people have died, including a 16-year-old named Elad Riven, pictured below.  Elad skipped school to volunteer fighting the fire, and he tragically got caught in the flames. 

Elad Riven, 16

This is a human disaster.  And amidst all the political games, all the manipulating, deceiving, and lying, the world leaders have come together to help Israel fight this fire.

*Erdogan of Turkey has sent planes and firefighting equipment to Israel, even in the midst of a diplomatic crisis resulting from the Gaza flotilla controversy.

*Abbas expressed his condolences to Netanyahu and offered to help, marking the first time Netanyahu and Abbas have talked since peace talks stalled in September

*Russia is sending a Boeing 747, the largest plane of its kind, even after selling arms to Iran.

*And perhaps most surprisingly, Iran is sending three airplanes to help put out the fire because "nobody will threaten Israel but us!" 

It's beautifully simple how all the word games in the world can't get these leaders to agree on anything, but when it comes to a human tragedy, everyone knows to put down the cards and help out.  There is a common morality, even in this high-stakes political poker game.  

Maybe the holiday spirit is catching on.

What I Would Do if I Were Julian Assange, World's Most Wanted

Forget Mark Zuckerberg and "The Social Network".  The man below is bound to have a movie made about him sometime soon, and the true story is a hell of a lot more exciting than any contrived Hollywood plotline:

Barney Stinson or World's Most Wanted Criminal?  (Both??)

The man pictured above is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.  He has embarrassed the world's most powerful leaders and is currently on the run from Interpol and Swedish authorities on allegations of rape (Assange claims it is a smear campaign, and there is certainly something fishy going on: a few months ago, Sweden withdrew his arrest warrant, with the chief prosecutor claiming the case lacked substance).

But Assange isn't backing down - he's traveling nomadically, with his computer in his backpack, Skyping from unknown locations.  In a recent interview, he (conditionally) called for Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's resignation and revealed that he has been offered asylum in Ecuador.  The man has cajones.

But is he hero or villain?

The dividing line appears to be a political one: liberals like Daniel Ellsberg are defending Assange, claiming he is performing work that "is serving our [American] democracy", while conservatives want him locked up in Gauntanamo as an "enemy combatant".  Adding to the fire are claims that he has endangered lives by the release of confidential information - as Daniel Yates claims about the leaked Afghan war diary (the second biggest WikiLeak), "The logs contain detailed personal information regarding Afghan civilians who have approached NATO soldiers with information.  It is inevitable that the Taliban will now seek violent retribution on those who have co-operated with NATO.  Their families and tribes will also be in danger."(source) 

For his part, Assange seems to welcome the controversy.  When describing the philosophy behind WikiLeaks, Assange says:

"To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not." (source)

Assange is a self-described cynic, but if he truly believes in his own ideals, he will turn himself in and, like Socrates, put his faith in the people.

Democracy!

Let's take a logical look at Assange's philosophy:

1) Sharing information is good

Assange believes that "opening up governments" to expose their corruption is a good thing, that's why he started WikiLeaks.  Exposing corruption is good because...

2) People are rational

If the public learns about corruption, they will not tolerate it, but rather change their government to eliminate the corruption.  People don't like corrupt people.

************************

Assange, look in the mirror.  You have leaked a quarter million documents and plan to expose the corruption that will turn a major American bank inside-out (UPDATE - looks like it will be Bank of America).  Yet despite all of these seemingly noble acts, you are on the run for rape charges.  The jury's still out on you, and taking asylum in Ecuador will make you look like a coward.

If you truly are innocent and really believe in the people, you will do the following:

1) Turn yourself in to Switzerland, cooperate with authorities, and win your case.

2) Travel freely, telling people IN PERSON why you did what you did.  Go on Larry King, the Daily Show, NBC.  Welcome the same tough-hitting journalism that you strive to create with WikiLeaks. Defend yourself.

3) If you are arrested by authorities (a very reasonable thing to expect), cooperate fully but use the trial (and publicity surrounding the arrest) to criticize the government.  It's called civil disobedience - Rosa Parks didn't change the world by fleeing on a motorcycle after the cops were called (but that would've been awesome).

Above all, make yourself vulnerable.  If you're truly a visionary, spending some time in the pound shouldn't scare you - in fact, it could be the most effective way of championing your cause.  People aren't going to listen to a nomadic rapist, but they may just open their ears to a helpless man in jail who's been chased around the world by repressive government authorities.

You've done everything a reasonable person could aspire to do.  Now's the time to man up and make this whole thing about something bigger than yourself.  Good luck.

UPDATE (11:25 am, 12/6/10): The case for Assange is getting harder to make as WikiLeaks listed sites vital to US security interests in a move that was criticized as "a gift to any terrorist".  It's hard to justify how the broader public would benefit from this obviously sensitive information.