Althouse: At the Skylight Café...

July 3, 2018

At the Skylight Café...

... make an impression.

95 comments:

Sydney said...: How many copies of that dancer statue are there? Seems like it's in every museum I go to.; 7/3/18, 10:35 AM
MountainMan said...: Unless I missed it I would still love to hear your comments on the Trump Hotel.; 7/3/18, 10:41 AM
Anne in Rockwall, TX said...: From Ace of Spades:

Hillary Clinton goes on a fact-finding visit to Israel. While she is on a tour of Jerusalem she suffers a heart attack and dies.The undertaker tells the Americans accompanying her, "You can have her shipped home for $50,000, or you can bury her here, in the Holy Land for just $100".
The Americans go into a corner to discuss for a few minutes. They return with their answer to the undertaker and tell him they want Hillary shipped home.

The undertaker is puzzled and asks, 'Why would you spend $50,000 to ship her home, when it would be wonderful to be buried here and you would spend only $100? The American diplomats reply, 'Long ago a man died here, was buried here, and three days later he rose from the dead. We just can't take the risk.; 7/3/18, 10:49 AM
Sydney said...: Annie C- Ha!; 7/3/18, 10:53 AM
Sydney said...: Answer to my own question from Wikipedia:
The 28 bronze repetitions that appear in museums and galleries around the world today were cast after Degas' death. The tutus worn by the bronzes vary from museum to museum.; 7/3/18, 10:57 AM
walter said...: Women are under represented in the film industry, right?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/secret-roe-v-wade-film-now-shooting-new-orleans-1124557
As Nick Loeb walked to his car with a production assistant during a day of shooting his upcoming feature film, Roe v. Wade, outside of Tulane University last week, a woman wearing a headset approached and asked: “Are you the director?”
“When I told her I was, she told me to ‘Go fuck myself,’ Loeb recalls. "Then she threw her headset on the ground and walked off. I found out later she was our electrician."
<
casting has been a problem throughout, as actors have walked away once they realized there was a pro-life tilt in the film. “We had to replace three local actors, including one who was to play Norma McCorvey, even after she begged for the role,” says Loeb.
<
Among the crew members who quit in protest was a costumer who left after two weeks “because of the subject matter and pressure from her peers,” says Allyn. Even the director, also a woman, quit on the first day of shooting, so Loeb and Allyn are co-directing. They are also producers and they co-wrote the script.

And when they shot in Washington, DC, their location manager there sent an email that read: “I have been doing research on the movie trying to figure out who is producing and what the gist of the story is and I finally found it and so I am withdrawing from this project. I am a staunch pro-abortion feminist activist and I will not be party to such horrible propaganda.”; 7/3/18, 10:58 AM
Ralph L said...: What's the famous painting on the left?
It's escaped me.; 7/3/18, 11:07 AM
Sydney said...: @ Ralph- Paris Street, Rainy Day; 7/3/18, 11:25 AM
Henry said...: Gustave Caillebotte -- I will admit, I googled for the correct spelling. Callibaut is a Belgian chocolate maker.; 7/3/18, 11:30 AM
Ralph L said...: Thanks.
They need a big bull in front of the dancer. Was Meade there?; 7/3/18, 11:44 AM
J. Farmer said...: The Degas statue is a minor plot point in the underrated Harold Becker film Malice. It's not without its faults, but it's a smorgasbord for neo-noir nerds. It's worth it for Alec Baldwin's "God complex" speech alone.; 7/3/18, 11:48 AM
rhhardin said...: Scott Adams says the Hot Babe is the obvious supreme court pick. It's hard to get public support for rejecting good looking people.; 7/3/18, 11:58 AM
tim in vermont said...: I still wish that somebody had hun a sign on “Fearless Girl” that said “Hold my beer.”

BTW, my million dollar t-shirt idea ‘Get ‘er drunk”; 7/3/18, 12:09 PM
Carol said...: Dear Meadhouse and commenters, How do you talk to a Trump-hating spouse about Trump? I mean I never bring him up, but DH is always baiting me..e.g. he was sure that Trump would appoint one of his asshole buddies for the SC. I said don't you know about the list the Federalist Society put together for him? No idea. Then he folds. Then the next day it's something else..I don't care if he hates Trump but it's like he's trying to get my goat.

For the record, he has hated all presidents since I met him in 1992. So there's that.; 7/3/18, 12:14 PM
Hagar said...: Don't.; 7/3/18, 12:18 PM
Sydney said...: @Carol- My husband and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. We just never discuss politics. I got silently angry with him for voting for Obama because I knew a Democrat majority and president was going to put my ability to continue a solo medicine practice in jeopardy, but we never argued about it. I was right about that, and it took me some time to get over my anger, but I think our marriage remains strong despite it all. Some things are just more important that politics.; 7/3/18, 12:21 PM
J. Farmer said...: Some things are just more important that politics.

Most things in fact. The blurring of that line is one of the most pernicious effects of identity politics.; 7/3/18, 12:23 PM
walter said...: "he has hated all presidents since I met him in 1992. So there's that."
So..he votes how??; 7/3/18, 12:27 PM
Carol said...: I don't know how he votes. I assumed we cancel each other out. He's private about hit.

Swearsies I never bring up politics but as a history nut I can't hide my fascination. I feel something extraordinary is happening, for good or evil I'm not sure. So my non-hatred is noticeable.; 7/3/18, 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Speaking of the Art Institute of Chicago: I disagree with the people who think that a good reproduction of a painting is as good as seeing the original. Or rather, close enough that putting more than minimal effort into seeing the original isn't worth it.

Nevertheless, I do own good reproductions of paintings I love, and I do think that paintings vary in how satisfying looking at good reproductions is. Some, very much so; others, the magic isn't there. (Why that is is an interesting question.) Which brings me to the Art Institute, where on a recent visit I ran into a painting that had an entirely different effect on me than it had ever had in the numerous reproductions I'd seen over the course of a lifetime: Gauguin's "Day of the God".

Its reproductions never got (or get) anything but a "meh" response from me. "In the flesh", it mesmerized me. I kept wandering back to stare at it some more.

Anybody else have that experience with paintings? Which ones?; 7/3/18, 12:33 PM
Ralph L said...: Put one foot forward, clasp your hands behind your back, tilt your head back, and glour enigmatically. Coating him in bronze also helps.; 7/3/18, 12:36 PM
walter said...: Dunno. After it came up enough, I would find it hard not to, you know, give him the goat, at least to frame it in terms choice A or B.
I suppose if the person just likes talking shit about whoever's "in charge" at a given point..i.e. no real conviction behind it.; 7/3/18, 12:37 PM
Drago said...: Richard Cohen's article in the NYT today begging the young commie/socialists of the dem party to STOP using the word "socialism" is a masterpiece in lefty claptrap and self-delusion.

It's so bad I fully expect the entire gang at MSNBC/HuffPo to adopt the talking points, which ienvitably means 24 hours later LLR Chuck will be spewing them here.

Forewarned is forearmed.; 7/3/18, 12:37 PM
Carol said...: I have a print of the the Boats at Argenteuill by Monet. I found it at an arts and crafts fair at the U, then managed to see the original at Jeu de Paume in Paris. I love that thing, so full of wonderful bright sunlight and white sails, like the wonder of a beautiful summer day on the mind of a child.

My ex had some color-coordinated water color prints, decor art, and my friends oohed and ahhd over it. Then I realized no one likes that impressionistic shit. Any kid could paint better! LOL.; 7/3/18, 12:43 PM
Rusty said...: I'm afraid I already made one and it wasn't good; 7/3/18, 12:55 PM
Ann Althouse said...: “Scott Adams says the Hot Babe is the obvious supreme court pick. It's hard to get public support for rejecting good looking people.”

Does he mention that Bork was terribly ugly?; 7/3/18, 12:58 PM
eddie willers said...: Which brings me to the Art Institute, where on a recent visit I ran into a painting that had an entirely different effect on me than it had ever had in the numerous reproductions I'd seen over the course of a lifetime: Gauguin's "Day of the God".

Mine happened at the Art Institute as well. I went specifically to see Seurat's "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" (I had fallen in love with Sondheim's play). Well the Helen Birch Bartlett collection also had Van Gogh's "Bedroom in Arles".

Suddenly I understood what Don McLean was singing about.; 7/3/18, 12:58 PM
Etienne said...: Iranians suckered Trump again.

"Obama gave away American citizenship in order to get the Iranians to sign"

I didn't even know Presidents could do that. I mean, past an Honorary.

What is Trump smoking?; 7/3/18, 1:03 PM
Etienne said...: Bork was put in a cage, and separated from his parent Party.

He was finally deported out of the Senate.

The Senate has a wall...; 7/3/18, 1:06 PM
rehajm said...: Which one's the hot chick?

How do you talk to a Trump-hating spouse about Trump? Through your divorce attorney! Bah-dum-bum..

Why do we want to get rid of ICE so close to the holiday? I mean cold beverages on a hot day go hand in hand with a cookout...what?...oh...well, that's different. Never mind...; 7/3/18, 1:13 PM
rehajm said...: Yorn desh born, der ritt de gitt der gue,
Orn desh, dee born desh, de umn Bork! Bork! Bork!; 7/3/18, 1:14 PM
Sydney said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/3/18, 1:16 PM
Sydney said...: Re: Paintings that had an effect on me.
At age 16, I saw David's Cupid and Psyche at the Cleveland Museum of Art and suddenly, I understood what sex was about. Before that, I could never comprehend all the fuss or even imagine why anyone would desire sex.; 7/3/18, 1:18 PM
rehajm said...: Baby Armadillos in my yard.; 7/3/18, 1:25 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Obama gave away American citizenship in order to get the Iranians to sign"

Trump peddling fake news again, what else is new?; 7/3/18, 1:25 PM
Gahrie said...: Does he mention that Bork was terribly ugly?

I suppose RBG isn't?

She looks like a worn out Ruth Buzzi at best.; 7/3/18, 1:32 PM
tim in vermont said...: For the record, he has hated all presidents since I met him in 1992. So there’s that

I think it was the movie Bananas where Woody had an impeach button for every president from Eisenhower forward, except for the one who got us into the Viet Nam War, Kennedy.; 7/3/18, 1:33 PM
Darrell said...: Just out that the Obama Administration granted citizenship, during the terrible Iran Deal negotiation, to 2,500 Iranians - including to government officials. How big (and bad) is that?

The Obama administration granted citizenship to 2,500 Iranians, including family members of government officials, while negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, a senior cleric and member of parliament has claimed. Hojjat al-Islam Mojtaba Zolnour, who is chairman of Iran’s parliamentary nuclear committee and a member of its national security and foreign affairs committee, made the allegations during an interview with the country’s Etemad newspaper, cited by the country’s Fars News agency. He claimed it was done as a favor to senior Iranian officials linked to President Hassan Rouhani, and he alleged the move sparked a competition among Iranian officials over whose children would benefit from the scheme. He claimed that the deal was made during negotiations for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was reached in July 2015. President Trump announced in May that the U.S. would withdraw from the agreement. “When Obama, during the negotiations about the JCPOA, decided to do a favor to these men, he granted citizenship to 2,500 Iranians and some officials started a competition over whose children could be part of these 2,500 Iranians,” he claimed.

“If today these Iranians get deported from America, it will become clear who is complicit and sells the national interest like he is selling candies to America.”

The conservative Zolnour, who is in Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s inner circle, added: “It should be stated exactly which children of which authorities live in the United States and have received citizenship or residency.”

In 2015, 13,114 people born in Iran were issued green cards, while 13,298 were issued one in 2016, according to figures from the Department for Homeland Security. In 2015, 10,344 Iranians became naturalized, with a further 9,507 in 2016.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/02/obama-administration-granted-citizenship-to-2500-iranians-during-nuclear-deal-iran-official.html; 7/3/18, 1:43 PM
J. Farmer said...: This latest bit of fabulism over the Iran nuclear deal demonstrates yet again how opponents of the JCPOA are forced to resort to outright falsehoods to denigrate a successful nonproliferation agreement. This claim is obviously motivated by internal Iranian rivalries and repeats familiar attacks hardliners made against the negotiations the entire time, including the claim that because Iran's chief negotiator was educated in America, he was secretly working for the benefit of America and to undermine Iran. Zolnour is a well known critic of Rouhani, and for those willing to take his word for this, consider that Zolnour considers the JCPOA a sell out of Iran massively titled towards Western powers.; 7/3/18, 1:49 PM
rhhardin said...: Klavan supports the hot babe for supreme court so that hot babes have something to look forward to in their lives besides being treated better than anybody else.

A smoking hot legal mind is a terrible thing to waste, and easy on the eyes.

Clinging robes.; 7/3/18, 1:53 PM
Lucien said...: Slate has a pre-nomination attack piece on Amy Coney Barrett up today. Yesterday they had one on Kavanuagh. Maybe they’ll cover the whole short-list. Tune in tomorrow to collect the whole set.; 7/3/18, 1:55 PM
Darrell said...: So the media's role is to filter news, rather than report it, when it goes against the Sun-god Obumbo? Zolnour said it, Fars News agency reported it. It is fair game for research and speculation.; 7/3/18, 1:57 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Dareell:

So the media's role is to filter news, rather than report it, when it goes against the Sun-god Obumbo? Zolnour said it, Fars News agency reported it. It is fair game for research and speculation.

No it is the job of the consumers of media not to be credulous.; 7/3/18, 2:02 PM
Rick said...: a successful nonproliferation agreement.

The only event which could possibly trigger a judgment on whether the agreement is successful is that it was signed. This tells you everything you need to know about the treaty's supporters.; 7/3/18, 2:11 PM
Narayanan said...: If They were in the process already ... No problem.
Coincidence.; 7/3/18, 2:16 PM
Darrell said...: @Farmeeeeer

No it is the job of the consumers of media not to be credulous.

We hear/see. We decide. Obama stepped so far outside the rules of Presidential behavior that nothing can be rejected without further intensive analysis at this point.; 7/3/18, 2:18 PM
Nonapod said...: Nothing wrong with being skeptical. It's entirely possible that Zolnour could be telling tales to hurt a political foe (I understand Rouhani is considered liberal by Iranian standards and Zolnour a conservative) or otherwise spreading FUD or gaslighting for other reasons.; 7/3/18, 2:21 PM
mccullough said...: I remember when Hillary called Assad a moderate. I’m fine with undoing anything Obama and W did. They were so wrong about so much. Back to back imbeciles.; 7/3/18, 2:41 PM
Nonapod said...: The DOJ is apparently not gonna prosecute Imran Awan (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's infamous IT guy) due to a sweetheart plea deal.; 7/3/18, 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: I have recovered from my snit over the Kathy Griffin challenge and have resumed my "subscription" to Althouse. I can once again comment guilt free!; 7/3/18, 3:14 PM
J. Farmer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/3/18, 3:17 PM
J. Farmer said...: @mccullough:

I remember when Hillary called Assad a moderate. I’m fine with undoing anything Obama and W did. They were so wrong about so much. Back to back imbeciles.

That is a completely irrational way of approaching the problem. The JCPOA should be evaluated on its merits, which is seemingly impossible for a certain subset of people to do. For them, their logic is (a) I hate Obama; (b) Obama is responsible for the JCPOA; (c) I hate the JCPOA. We are seeing the same logic applied by Trump's opponents, where things are considered bad because Trump did them and not because of the individual merit of the thing being done.

And as for Assad, some things are true even if Hillary Clinton says they are true. I cannot imagine anyone who would find the rat's nest of Salafi jihadists supported by us and our regional partners Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE preferable to Assad.; 7/3/18, 3:19 PM
Professional lady said...: The DIA had a exceptional Rembrandt and the Face of Jesus exhibit a few years ago. I think it was at one or two other cities too. Rembrandt used models from the Jewish quarter of the city where he was living as models for Jesus which was unheard of at the time. Twenty years ago or more, my mother pulled a reproduction of one of those Rembrandt Jesus paintings out of someone's garbage pile on the curb. (She didn't normally do things like that). It hangs in her and my Dad's house to this day. One of the last paintings you saw as you exited the exhibit was the original of that very Jesus painting my Mom pulled out of the trash. The original was so beautiful, it was like a real person was looking at you. The eyes were so expressive and tender. It took my breath away. I guess I never thought I would see the real thing.; 7/3/18, 3:20 PM
mccullough said...: Farmer,

We should evaluate Iran on the merits. Any deal depends on Iran, which is not dependable. The JCPOA is written in water.

It’s really worth nothing given who controls Iran. The people who cut the deal don’t run the show there. Rouhani is nobody. He’s the mullah puppet of the week. A nobody. Obama propped him up like he’s the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He’s got no such power. He’s an errand boy until the Mullahs pick the next errand boy.

The Mullahs needed a cash infusion and got it.

Now they are getting the back of the hand. They didn’t expect Trump. It’s good to keep them off balance. I’m fine with ruining their economy. Inflation out of control. Obama gave them a lifeline and Trump took it away. It’s a good strategy. A very good strategy. It’s realistic.

Our foreign affairs idiocy was predictable from 1990 through 2016. Totally unrealistic. Certainly a lot of people got wealthy on it, just as they did the JCPOA. But they’ll be fine.; 7/3/18, 3:34 PM
mccullough said...: Farmer,

I give Assad (and Putin) as examples of Obama not understanding his opponents. He did the same with Iran.

W was just as stupid. You can’t cut deals with people like this, especially when they think you are predictable and weak. Obama isn’t as stupid as W and neither are as stupid as Merkel or whoever runs France or England but the stupidity was intolerably high. Best to wipe the slate clean and take advantage of Trump.; 7/3/18, 3:40 PM
J. Farmer said...: @mccullough:

We should evaluate Iran on the merits. Any deal depends on Iran, which is not dependable. The JCPOA is written in water.

That is completely, 100% false. For one, thanks to the JCPOA, there were numerous foreign inspectors on the ground, including working in Iran's nuclear facilities. Nothing required simply taking Iran's word for it, and the agreement included the most intrusive inspections that the IAEA has, including a complete monitoring of the entire fuel cycle, 24/7 video surveillance, electronic seals, the use of the On-Line Enrichment Monitor, and air and soil samples. Even the sop to Iran, the 24-day period for access to non-declared or miltiary sites, would not be enough to hide the use of fissile material. The agreement also included the continuous monitoring of Iran's uranium mines and mills. The JCPOA is exactly the kind of agreement you would want if you do not trust the Iranians, because it doesn't require trusting the Iranians. It requires continuous and intrusive inspections.

See Under a Microscope: Monitoring and Verification in an Iran Deal by the Arms Control Association.; 7/3/18, 3:48 PM
rhhardin said...: I see Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever (2002) is the worst reveiwed movie ever at Rotten Tomatoes. I noticed it had no plot that I could follow, tender moments with no context, explosions. Not much punching. Wiki has a plot summary, which makes no more sense than the movie.

But I've seen worse, especially recently. The Humanity Bureau (2017).; 7/3/18, 4:08 PM
rhhardin said...: On the bright side, Ballistic didn't have anybody with a drinking problem. Those are intensely boring stretches of bad acting, always.; 7/3/18, 4:11 PM
J. Farmer said...: @rhhardin:

I see Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever (2002) is the worst reveiwed movie ever at Rotten Tomatoes.

Ha. Certainly a terrible movie but not so sure it is deserving of the worst reviewed movie ever. Might be up there for worst title ever, though. As Roger Ebert once noted, it should be "Ecks and Sever vs. the Bad Guys." But that is already applying way more thought to the movie than apparently anyone involved in the production did.; 7/3/18, 4:15 PM
rhhardin said...: Best throwaway line inserted by a screenwriter in some recently seen movie

Old guy cavorting with young thing in club: You're the same age as my fiancee.

Young thing: You must be rich.; 7/3/18, 4:18 PM
D 2 said...: My carpooler went sailing on the weekend. Didnt enjoy it. Led to a discussion on way home as to who was the first monkey who decided to stop with all the paddling and hey let's let air do the work. She thought woven grass on the nile or yellow or some such, I dunno, think the idea is older than that.

I imagine that in their day, that first sailing monkey was considered pretty impressive.; 7/3/18, 4:39 PM
Sebastian said...: "The JCPOA is exactly the kind of agreement you would want"

OK, then make it an actual agreement: a signed treaty, ratified by the Senate.; 7/3/18, 4:51 PM
mccullough said...: Farmer,

I don’t trust the IAEA, the UN, or any other organization. Inspectors are either from the USA or it’s worthless. Plus IAEA inspectors are tossed out or refused entry often under these useless internationally enforced agreements. No sense waiting for the Mullahs to pull the same shit when they felt like it, as they would. Then we’d get the usual international chin stroking, finger wagging, and a joint strongly worded statement, blah blah blah.

Trump’s strategy was sound. Pull the rug out from under these jagoffs while they are weak and save us the bullshit down the line. Let the inflation continue and the Mullahs scramble. Also, increased US oil production really hurts their fake economy as well. They’ve had 40 years. Time for them to get lost.; 7/3/18, 4:55 PM
J. Farmer said...: @mccullough:

Plus IAEA inspectors are tossed out or refused entry often under these useless internationally enforced agreements.

Please give an example of this "often" occurrence.

Trump’s strategy was sound. Pull the rug out from under these jagoffs while they are weak and save us the bullshit down the line.

So the result is no inspections, no verification, and no international sanctions regime. If you think that is better than what we had under the JCPOA, then I want some of whatever it is you are smoking. India, for example, has already announced that they will ignore US sanctions and continue importing Iranian oil. Russia and China will most certainly do the same. So there is little international pressure against Iran, and once the deal collapses completely, Iran will almost certainly expand uranium enrichment.; 7/3/18, 5:08 PM
Bilwick said...: I believe our hostess' "café" sections are free-fire zones, so it being July 3rd, I would like to use this space to put my annual Independence Day question to the statists who post regularly here: Do you celebrate the Fourth, and if so, what the heck are you celebrating? The holiday commemorates what was essentially a tax revolt and which was touched off when the Crown sent troops out to Lexington and Concord to seize the rebels' arms and munitions. Is that something you statists really want to celebrate?

A couple of years ago I posted the same question on the Transterrestrial Musings blog and one of the resident State-shtuppers who used to post there said, essentially, that he was celebrating the right to elect a government which, in effect, would undo the philosophy of the Founders. Weird.; 7/3/18, 5:12 PM
J. Farmer said...: D. Transparency Measures

21. Iran has continued to permit the Agency to use on-line enrichment monitors and electronic seals which communicate their status within nuclear sites to Agency inspectors, and to facilitate the automated collection of Agency measurement recordings registered by installed measurement devices (para. 67.1). Iran has issued long-term visas to Agency inspectors designated for Iran as requested by the Agency, provided proper working space for the Agency at nuclear sites and facilitated the use of working space at locations near nuclear sites in Iran (para. 67.2). Iran has accepted additional Agency inspectors designated for Iran (para. 67.3).

22. Iran has continued to permit the Agency to monitor – through measures agreed with Iran,
including containment and surveillance measures – that all uranium ore concentrate (UOC) produced in Iran or obtained from any other source is transferred to the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Esfahan (para. 68). Iran also provided the Agency with all information necessary to enable the Agency to verify the production of UOC and the inventory of UOC produced in Iran or obtained from any other source (para. 69).

Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)

Opponents of the JCPOA should wonder why they can never point to substantive violations of the agreement and are forced to constantly invent what-if fantasy scenarios to justify their opposition.; 7/3/18, 5:14 PM
J. Farmer said...: @William Chadwick:

What's a statist?; 7/3/18, 5:15 PM
Jim at said...: How do you talk to a Trump-hating spouse about Trump?

My wife of nearly 20 years has turned into a reliable conservative voter since we met. She was raised a liberal and didn't know much about Republicans. Her first vote was for Clinton in 1992 because he was cool.

She now wishes she'd been more informed back then.

With that said, she doesn't much like Trump. Doesn't like the way he talks or acts. Thinks he's a boor. And she's right.

But whenever the subject comes up? I remind her of two things:

1. Look at how the left is behaving. You want to be a part of that?
2. Pay less attention to what Trump says and more attention to what he actually does.

Seen through those lenses, we then move on to what I'm making for dinner.; 7/3/18, 5:19 PM
Bilwick said...: "Blogger J. Farmer said...
@William Chadwick:

What's a statist?"

Gee, I was hoping for a response from people who occasionally read books.; 7/3/18, 5:22 PM
J. Farmer said...: @William Chadwick:

Indulge me.; 7/3/18, 5:55 PM
J. Farmer said...: p.s. Is there a nation on the globe currently that does not qualify as statist?; 7/3/18, 6:00 PM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/3/18, 6:01 PM
Ralph L said...: Does he mention that Bork was terribly ugly?

Stacheless beard only worked on Lincoln.

Bork said he was standing in line at an airport when 2 older ladies mistook him for C Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General. They said, "We're heeding your warnings."
"I was smoking a cigarette at the time."; 7/3/18, 6:31 PM
Anonymous said...: William Chadwick: I believe our hostess' "café" sections are free-fire zones, so it being July 3rd, I would like to use this space to put my annual Independence Day question to the statists who post regularly here...

As long as we're free-firing:

"Statist" is one of those words that immediately makes me stop taking the person using it seriously.; 7/3/18, 6:34 PM
Rick said...: The JCPOA should be evaluated on its merits, which is seemingly impossible for a certain subset of people to do.

Most prominent of whom is Farmer who pronounces it a success based solely on the fact it exists.

Opponents of the JCPOA should wonder why they can never point to substantive violations of the agreement and are forced to constantly invent what-if fantasy scenarios to justify their opposition.

Similarly we can dismiss supporters who pronounce the winners before the races. The rush to declare victory suggests they understand they must do so quickly or be proven wrong.; 7/3/18, 6:43 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Rick:

Most prominent of whom is Farmer who pronounces it a success based solely on the fact it exists.

No.

Similarly we can dismiss supporters who pronounce the winners before the races. The rush to declare victory suggests they understand they must do so quickly or be proven wrong.

The purpose of the JCPOA was to contain Iran's nuclear program and provide for outside inspection and verification. By that goal, it was succeeding. If you want to argue that it was not containing Iran's nuclear program, go ahead and make the argument, especially given that the Trump administration could not point to a substantive violation of the agreement.; 7/3/18, 7:09 PM
Gahrie said...: especially given that the Trump administration could not point to a substantive violation of the agreement.

What evidence would you accept short of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv?; 7/3/18, 7:54 PM
Rick said...: By that goal, it was succeeding.

By this standard any program succeeded. Apparently we're to believe we lifted sanctions and returned assets we should have confiscated in exchange for a program which was literally no different from anything else.

i If you want to argue that it was not containing Iran's nuclear program, go ahead and make the argument,

Apparently Farmer wants us to believe the goal was to prevent nuclear weapons through 7-3-2018. I don't remember Obama publicizing that but I'm pretty sure it would have weakened his support had he done so. It's much like Bill Clinton's NK deal which accepted the eventual end state of nuclear NK but pushed it past his own term in office. We saw how such deals play out with ever more dangerous incidents. But Bill Clinton and Farmer consider these successes because they can always blame someone else when the eventual cost comes due.; 7/3/18, 8:03 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Rick:

By this standard any program succeeded. Apparently we're to believe we lifted sanctions and returned assets we should have confiscated in exchange for a program which was literally no different from anything else.

This makes no sense. Prior to the implementation of the JCPOA, there was no monitoring or on the ground inspections of Iran's nuclear program. Here is just one example:

5. On 6 December 2016, the Agency verified the quantity of 11 metric tonnes of the nuclear grade heavy water at its destination outside Iran. This transfer of heavy water out of Iran brings Iran’s stock of heavy water to below 130 tonnes.

Here is another example:

6. Iran has not pursued the construction of the existing Arak heavy water research reactor (IR-40 Reactor) based on its original design. Iran has not produced or tested natural uranium pellets, fuel pins or fuel assemblies specifically designed for the support of the IR-40 Reactor as originally designed, and all existing natural uranium pellets and fuel assemblies have remained in storage under continuous Agency monitoring (paras 3 and 10).

Here is another example:

15. All centrifuges and associated infrastructure in storage have remained under continuous Agency monitoring (paras 29, 47, 48 and 70).21 The Agency has continued to have
regular access to relevant buildings at Natanz, including all of FEP and the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP), and performed daily access upon Agency request (para. 71). The Agency has also continued to have regular access to FFEP, including daily access upon Agency request (para. 51).

Nothing like this level of inspection existed prior to the implementation of the JCPOA, so it is completely false to say it was "literally no different from anything else."

As for "returned assets we should have confiscated," you again do not know what you are talking about. The US could not have seized those assets as they were payments for Iranian oil exports that were frozen in foreign bank accounts.

Apparently Farmer wants us to believe the goal was to prevent nuclear weapons through 7-3-2018.

Had the Trump administration not foolishly abandoned a good and functioning agreement, these inspections and verification would have continued. As it stands, there is a likelihood that the agreement will collapse and there will be little to no support among countries like China, Russia, and India for strict sanctions against Iran. In other words, no inspections and no broad international sanctions.

The logical pretzel you have to twist yourself into to convince yourself that this is a better arrangement is quite impressive.; 7/3/18, 8:22 PM
Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...: Bjork is terribly ugly, so let's go with the hot babe.
Or at least one who can muster the requisite 98.6, unlike RBG; 7/3/18, 8:33 PM
mockturtle said...: Farmer, have you ever agreed with anyone? Just for the heck of it?; 7/3/18, 8:58 PM
rhhardin said...: They've got very loud sparklers and snakes out there tonight.; 7/3/18, 9:06 PM
J. Farmer said...: @mockturtle:

Farmer, have you ever agreed with anyone? Just for the heck of it?

Well, I cannot imagine ever agreeing with someone "just for the heck of it." Also, I don't see much point to posting anything here if it is only to ventriloquize what someone else has said. I try to say things that (a) I believe and (b) that I don't see other people saying.; 7/3/18, 9:34 PM
Jon Ericson said...: Well, he'd agree with a Jew hater.; 7/3/18, 10:00 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Jon Ericson:

Well, he'd agree with a Jew hater.

Depends on what it was. Something is not wrong or invalid just because a "Jew hater" says it. Arguments rise or fall on their merits. That's what the ad hominem fallacy is all about.; 7/3/18, 10:08 PM
mockturtle said...: Jon, Farmer takes this blog commenting very, very seriously.; 7/3/18, 10:45 PM
Ralph L said...: Nations can fall on a blog comment.

You have to give it all you've got, every time.; 7/3/18, 11:08 PM
Seeing Red said...: Via Rantburg:

ConservativeTreehouse] By now everyone has reported about ABC journalist Brian Ross and his Producer Rhonda Swartz resigning from the network. However, almost everyone pointing back to Ross’s fake news report on Michael Flynn in December; and almost no-one is pointing out the more obvious motive for the resignation.

Brian Ross was almost guaranteed to be "Reporter 4" in the federal indictment of Senate former senior senate intelligence committee staffer James Wolfe. The notorious Senate Intelligence "leaker"....; 7/4/18, 12:36 AM
Rick said...: Prior to the implementation of the JCPOA, there was no monitoring or on the ground inspections of Iran's nuclear program

Whereas now we have inspections theater, it's entertaining but incapable of achieving the goal. The inspection program is so woefully inadequate it's clear it exists only to create a shiny distraction for supporters to point at. It has no effect on Iranian actions.

As it stands, there is a likelihood that the agreement will collapse and there will be little to no support among countries like China, Russia, and India for strict sanctions against Iran.

Which was guaranteed the moment Obama signed the agreement.; 7/4/18, 5:52 AM
Marc in Eugene said...: Rehajm, Thank you for the video of the armadillos! they didn't seem to mind the videographer's presence. I do wonder how old the 'babies' must be-- they look to be pretty large.; 7/4/18, 12:01 PM
J. Farmer said...: @mockturtle:

Jon, Farmer takes this blog commenting very, very seriously.

Strange, you seem to be taking this much more seriously than I. I certainly do not mind that people (gasp) disagree.; 7/4/18, 6:50 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Rick:

Whereas now we have inspections theater, it's entertaining but incapable of achieving the goal. The inspection program is so woefully inadequate it's clear it exists only to create a shiny distraction for supporters to point at. It has no effect on Iranian actions.

The inspection and verification regime is the most stringent that any nation has ever been put under. Iran agreed to limitations above even what they are permitted under the NPT. Do you care to provide an example of where it is "woefully inadequate." I doubt you can, because you haven't even bothered to familiarize yourself with the details of a detail you nonetheless have strong opinions about. You start with an a priori assumption that it is a bad deal and then try to work your reasoning backwards from there.

Which was guaranteed the moment Obama signed the agreement.

No, it was not "guaranteed" that Obama's successor would pull the US out of a successful and functioning nonproliferation agreement that was supported by all of our major allies and in which Iran was keeping to its side of the agreement. Even the Trump administration could not point to a single substantive violation.; 7/4/18, 6:57 PM
Rick said...: The inspection and verification regime is the most stringent that any nation has ever been put under.

Which is exactly like claiming that the DEA is the most professional anti-drug agency ever and therefore anyone opposing the War on Drugs is wrong. Not only is it judging by the wrong standard it does so poorly. But because you support the conclusion you continue to assert this absurdity.

No, it was not "guaranteed" that Obama's successor would pull the US out of a successful and functioning nonproliferation agreement

It's clear we were never in a "successful and functioning" NPA,again you're assuming the conclusion and absurdly claiming that assumption discredits your opponents.; 7/4/18, 10:10 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Rick:

Let's try this a different way. Tell me what was wrong with the JCPOA and why, in your opinion, you do not believe it was a successful nonproliferation agreement.; 7/5/18, 6:36 AM
J. Farmer said...: And...crickets.; 7/6/18, 10:10 AM