Last week, Benjamin Netanyahu said this, in regards to Iran

“Iran has been exposed for being the most irresponsible power on earth today. The one that exports terror with abandon is murdering people and breaking all the rules,” Netanyahu told reporters during a one-day visit to Cyprus.

This week’s poll question is Can Iran legitimately be called “the most irresponsible country in the world”?  I would like to offer up my response.

No.  Netanyahu’s quote is a dangerous mix of hyperbole and misleading non-sequitur.  What are ‘the rules’ that Iran seems to be breaking ‘all’ of like some leather-jacketed punks from the 1950s?  This is hyperbole by way of vagary.  However, I’d like to direct greater scrutiny towards the quote that our poll is taken from.

When Netayahu uses the term ‘irresponsible’, the question that he is unable or unwilling to answer is “Who is Iran being irresponsible to?” There’s a case to be made both ways that pursuing nuclear technology is irresponsible, in regards to the people. However, there’s a case to the affirmative, that, in fact, if the government of Iran wants to protect their sovereignty from the U.S. and Israel (both of whom have posed existential threats to Iran repeatedly over the last 35 years) it would actually behoove them to procure nuclear weapons.  The greater risk, from this perspective, would be to not do anything.

At best, Netanyahu’s usage of the word ‘irresponsible’ is a sloppy adjective choice resulting in a semi-amusing nonsensical phrase.

Now that I’ve casted doubts upon the nature of what ‘irresponsible’ even means in this context, let’s be generous to Netanyahu and substitute ‘dangerous’ (which has a markedly different meaning, but, perhaps is closer to what Netanyahu was trying to say).

If we were to infer that what Netanyahu is attempting to say is ‘Iran is the most dangerous country on Earth’, there are two responses:

1) Globally speaking, no.  More countries are terrified of the ‘black hand’ of the U.S., Russia and China than Iran.

2) In the eyes of Israel, absolutely. They threaten your regional nuclear hegemony, are of a different religion than your country and, historically, you have a really poor relationship with one another.

From the foreign policy view of Israel, Iran is the most dangerous country to them. This is by virtue of 2 things of equal import.  First, their disposition, a derivative of the strategic and religious differences coupled with historical events between Iran and Israel. Second, their proximity.

Indulging this generous interpretation of ‘irresponsible’ to mean ‘dangerous’, I would offer up this list as a short list of the biggest military dangers to the United States:

1) The United States

America wouldn’t be the first superpower to engage in ‘suicide by empire’ and it wouldn’t be the last, either. Additionally, the U.S. lost 36000 pounds of weapons grade plutonium and uranium. Whoops.

2) Pakistan

Perhaps a bit less obvious. However, they have nuclear weapons, an unstable government and terrorists all over the mountainous regions who wouldn’t mind getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. Those nuclear weapons, incidentally, are being driven around in trucks. In the case of any nuclear power, the biggest danger is that nuclear power becomes a failed state. That’s how nuclear technology gets ‘lost’ like in the case of Russia. Other than North Korea, Pakistan is the most unstable of the nuclear powers

3) Russia

The biggest risk Russia posed to the U.S. was when their government collapsed in the late 80s. This risk is less now, but, we still don’t entirely know what was sold and to whom. This is the danger of the failed nuclear state. Weapons and technology from the world’s 2nd strongest nation got sold for quick profits in the havoc. However, it’s not like it’s all sunshine and roses now under Putin. Yeah, I said ‘under Putin’. Fascism by any other name still smells like shit.

4) Mexico

The case of Mexico is much more one of proximity. In fact, all of the dangers that Mexico poses to the U.S are issues of proximity and not of disposition. The Mexican government, for what it’s worth, are our ally. However, they are effectively impotent these days due to the Mexican drug cartels. The cartels pose a threat to citizens within our southern border. That’s why I included Mexico. To illustrate my point earlier about proximity

5) China

While it doesn’t look like China has any interest in nuking the United States, they still have a ton of United States debt and a stockpile of 1 trillion dollars of U.S. currency. At present, they are also responsible for a lion’s share of all the hacking of the U.S government.   Information and capital are powerful weapons.

In summary, the usage of ‘irresponsible’ is borderline non-sequitur. There’s is an inherent question of agency. Who is Iran responsible to? Who are other countries responsible to? Is it a common practice for a nation’s project to include ‘being responsible to other countries’?  Is it fair to frame this issue using the word ‘irresponsible’? The usage of the term ‘irresponsible’ is sufficient cause to reject the proposition outright.

However, even if we were to generously interpret ‘irresponsible’ to mean ‘dangerous’ we would run in to an issue of subjectivity.  ’Danger’ is a by-product of a nation’s relationship with the antagonistic country couple by proximity.  This mean, inherently, ‘danger’ shifts relative to who is being asked.  There is no ‘single greatest threat’ shared by all the nations of the world.  Rhetors who attempt to frame things in this light are being intentionally hyperbolic.

Syntactically, structurally, and (noting that this is just an opinion statement wrapped in the guise of ‘fact’) factually, Benjamin Netanyahu is wrong when he says “Iran has been exposed for being the most irresponsible power on earth today.”  They are not powerful.  Debatably, they are irresponsible.  Either way, they don’t seem like a candidate for ‘most’ in regards to either.

This week’s poll:

Can Iran legitimately be called “the most irresponsible country in the world”?

• Yes
• No
• Only if you’re Biebs Netanyahu

“Hello Me. Meet The Real Me.”

Well, soon.

This is Week 1 of our podcast improvement project.  There are new features including a weekly poll and the DWATG-A-PHONE!

What is the DWATG-A-PHONE, you ask?  You’ll have to listen to the show (or click on this link).

This week Roni, Chris and Joe discuss the growing tensions between Israel and Iran and the ramifications of the United States’ involvement in that potential conflict.  After that lighthearted discussion, they lift their spirits by discussing the woes of Greece and it’s impending exit from the Euro (which will, in the end, probably be not such a bad thing).  After that, they discuss how Al-Queda is now working against the Abbas government in Syria and how that affects the potential involvement of the United States in the developing civil war inside of Syria.

It’s a very musical gong round with Madonna, Foo Fighters and Chris Cornell getting mentions.  Additionally, the new bastardizations of the Star Wars Trilogy are discussed.  Roni, Chris and Joe may not agree on everything, but they all know Han shot first.

Also, who won and who lost in this week’s poll?  There’s only one way to find out.

Lastly, we’re looking to expand the show and your help and feedback is greatly appreciated.  This time is exciting for all of us and, as can be expected, a bit awkward and new.  Thanks in advance for bearing with us.  We hope to become less awkward (well, maybe not Joe) and more awesome on the other side of these improvements.

Please send us an e-mail or leave us a voicemail and let us know how we’re doing!

For all of us here at Don’t Worry About The Government,

Thanks!

Episode 165

A new feature we’re trying out: After the episode goes up, we’ll put a poll up that is related. The poll will be referenced in the widget on the right side of the page, with a link to the Facebook Question.

We’ll also put up a post that you can comment on here.

This week’s poll:

What’s your take on Obama embracing super PACs?

• Agree with Roni: It was a necessary, pragmatic move.
• Agree with Chris: This could have been Obama’s chance to prove that he has principles and that you can win without super PAC money.
• Phone book

Answer over on our Facebook Question or feel free to comment below.

In the Gong Round:  How does one end up with an SS flag?  Do oil pipelines promote caribou breeding?  Would you favor someone randomly picked out of the phonebook in lieu of your current congressman?

Episode 164

As any fan of The Simpsons knows, it’s critical for politicians to like dogs and children. Can a candidate win with only one out of two? The group Dogs Against Romney might have something to say about that:

Woof woof. A group of “Dogs against Romney” plan to gather outside the Westminster dog show at Madison Square Garden tomorrow.

Their beef? A 1983 incident when Romney put the family dog, Seamus, on the roof of his station wagon for a 12-hour drive from Boston to Ontario. …

Dogs against Romney, is the brainchild of Scott Crider, an Alabama online marketing and social media specialist and lifelong dog owner, who was shocked to read about Seamus in 2007. “I started Dogs Against Romney as a free blog the next day,” Crider said. “I was just mortified that somebody would put a live animal on top of their car and drive for 12 hours.”

As promised, we’re posting up Sean Freeder’s thesis on the the effects of Citizens United on the campaign cycle.  Here’s the his abstract, for those of you who want to get a little taste.  For those of you who want to go deeper, click here to see the text in full.

Abstract: Since the 2008 elections, the American media has highlighted a variety of electoral and legal developments suggesting a significant shift in the manner in which elections are and will be contested. The 2010 Citizens United ruling has potentially increased the ability of corporations and unions to contribute to and influence the electoral process, and the rise of the Tea Party movement has ostensibly bolstered the visibility and strength of a variety of ideologically based conservative lobbying organizations, such as FreedomWorks and American Crossroads. Editorials and reports published by a variety of media outlets shortly after the Citizens United ruling suggested that it would lead to a deluge of outside money in national races, and raised the concern that this would have a chilling effect on democracy; by increasing the dependency of candidates on corporate funding, it may change both the nature of the candidates that gets elected and how they vote while in office. This project sets out to answer several questions raised by recent developments in American politics. Was there indeed a measurable increase in the amount of spending by lobbying groups in the 2010 election? If so, was this increase limited to groups on the conservative side of the partisan spectrum, or were liberal groups also increasing their spending at the same rates? Has this spending increased more amongst ideologically-­‐extreme groups, generally identified with the Tea Party, or amongst interest-­‐based (corporate, trade, and professional) groups, who are more associated with the Republican mainstream? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, has the rise of ideologically based spending groups actually increased the likelihood of victory for the politicians who are the recipients of their money? In other words, is there a correlation between receipt of funds from ideological allies and electoral success? In order to answer these questions, I examine campaign finance data collected by the Federal Elections Commission from the 2006 and 2010 elections. Donations to every Senatorial candidate in both the primary and general elections of each year are coded into various donor categories, such as Ideological, Interest, Individual, and Partisan, allowing one to assess how much money is being spent by each type of group, and if it changed before or after the Citizens United court ruling. Using this data, I have conducted statistical analysis to assess patterns. Based on my findings, I argue that spending in recent years has indeed generally increased, that this spending increase has occurred among conservatives more than liberals, and that it has increased amongst ideological groups more so than any other spending group. I also find some evidence of a modest increase in the electoral success of conservative candidates who are the recipients of this ideological money.

Are corporations people?

They seem to be made up of people, but it’s fairly clear that having a large entity throwing its money behind something makes it different than an individual.

Should money the deciding factor in who wins an election?

Probably not.

Should Obama not have a Super PAC if Romney is?

Isn’t politics about winning (hopefully) within the legal guidelines? Even if Obama doesn’t like Citizens United, does it really make sense to hogtie yourself? I don’t see what option Obama has. It doesn’t make sense for him to cripple his campaign simply based on principle. If everyone else is doing it, sometimes you have to, no?

photo via Talk Radio News Service

“It’s not about contraception,” Santorum said. “It’s about economic liberty; it’s about freedom of speech; it’s about freedom of religion. It’s about government control of your lives and it’s got to stop.”

I perfectly understand the idea that requiring a religious institution to provide a service that they deem immoral can be seen as an infringement on religious freedom. On the other side, not allowing someone to do something because of religious concerns is along the lines of the sharia law that Tea Partiers are so worried about. You should be happy about this compromise.

Roni and Chris talk about the Clint Eastwood Chrysler Super Bowl ad and the blatantly racist “Debbie Spend It Now” Michigan Senate race ad.