There are also some good posts going up on Mineshaft regulars' non-Unfogged sites, particularly check out Jackmormon's site. Or you could try answering my music meme questions, if your fancy runs that way.

We can't be seriously thinking about invading Iran. With what army? (I say army as it seems that we don't know where the facilities we need to bomb are, and they may be underground, so it looks like we'll have to go hunting for them.)

I realize a nuclear Iran is a serious fucking problem, but how the hell are we going to manage this without starting a world war?

RE Lizardbreath's post at unfogged

This book (although recomended by David Brooks) is pretty awesome. The author did fieldwork into middle class, working class and poor families to check out different parenting styles. The indivdual chapters describing what goes on in the different families is facinating if you have kids.

Working class and poor parents tend to use a traditional parenting style that doesn't sync up well with the institutions in the kids lives. Physical disipline that was common among all social classes 30 years is now mainly done by working class and poor parents. Interactions with schools and doctors are complicated because they can potentially lead to the state taking away your kids.

The Hersh piece (which I haven't yet read, as I'm waiting for my hard copy to arrive in the mail) just makes me keep shaking my head and say, "that'll be the third war under this presidency."

Yeah I liked Unequal Childhoods too, except the writing style was so confusing -- I could never get a handle on who was speaking at any given point, assumed it was mainly Dr. Lareua speaking in the first person except that didn't always make sense. I wished the researchers would have been identified at least by pseudonym.

See, I'm starting to think it's all part of the same war. The first two were just getting the pieces in place for the main strike.

Of course, they didn't go quite as planned. And maybe my hat needs more tin foil. But the timing and placement is all verrry convenient.

Cala, they aren't talking about invading Iran, but bombing it. Our air force hasn't been used much since the shock and awe stuff in 2003. That only makes it slightly less insane, but still possible. See the ever-more dislikable William Kristol here.

That's nice of you to say, Teh Modesto Kid!

B, I also usually wait for the hard copy, but this time it's been instructive to have the information under my belt as the White House flacks (and right-wing bloggers) carefully phrases their denials, non-denials, and hand-waving. A lot of fascinating--yet depressing! always depressing!--anonymous leads there.

While I agree a nuclear Iran is a problem (in the same way that a nuclear anyone is a problem) I feel like I'm a little less worried about it than most other people. Partly, it's the air of inevitability around it. Iran getting the bomb is a matter of when, not it.

But even when they do, I'm not entirely convinced that it's the end of the world. The Soviet Union was nuclear armed, and we managed to avoid a world war through deterrence. I expect that deterrence should work even better against a much smaller and weaker state like Iran.

Of course, there's the added variable of terrorism, and the prospect of a nuclear armed Hezbollah or something. That is pretty terrifying, so I guess we have to hope that deterrence works there, too.

As to the first point (what army) I think the planners in the Pentagon are chubbed out at the chance to use their overwhelming air power and cruise missiles again. I can't imagine even those crazies think we have infantry to spare.

But apo, according to the article, we don't know where the facilities are and we think they're underground where our airstrikes can't get them. Wasn't that part of the multi-layered justification for Iraq? For why bombing was wimpy and not an option?

What, we're going to bomb the wrong target and the students will pull off a putsch and change the regime? Are we going to give them guns first?

Matt - Exactly. A nuclear Iran is no more dangerous than a nuclear Pakistan or a nuclear Israel. Probably less dangerous than Pakistan, all things considered.

Iran isn't a rogue state and, despite what our leaders would like to have us believe, they aren't going to give a nuke to a terrorist group. I don't care for the folks running Iran - any more than I care for most of the governments in that region - but when their neighbors began going nuclear, it was only a matter of time.

Cala - we know where some of them are, and the argument (as made by Kristol) is that just hitting parts of it would set the program back years. It has a certain logical consistency, apart from the batshit craziness that's apparent when you take a couple steps further back to see the big picture.

On the other hand, we've got all those illegal immigrants milling about.

Maybe we can make a big army out of them and kill two birds with one stone.

Seriously, though, we need to think of better ways to deal with the eventuality that someone we don't like will get a nuclear bomb, because we're not going to be able to bomb everyone's program back a couple of years. That problem's only going to get harder.

and the students will pull off a putsch and change the regime?

It's worse: US Special Forces have apparently been working with the Azari, Baluchi, and Kurds. They've been "stirring up ethnic tensions" in the border areas. Yay!

One of the most worrying bits to me in Hersh's article was that quote by someone who was already working out contingency planning for a post-Hormuz oil transit out of Saudi Arabia...

The bit in the Hersh New Yorker piece that should really be worrying you guys is the implication that Bush & Co. are seriously considering using tactical nukes against Iran. (Me, I'm not so worried, as it would increase my chances of having the last laugh on the Innocence thread.)

we're not going to be able to bomb everyone's program

Yeah, the toothpaste is way out of the tube on this one. In any event, as the only country to have ever used nukes against other human beings, it's a bit rich for us to declare who is and isn't allowed to have them.

post-Hormuz oil transit out of Saudi Arabia

No kidding.

seriously considering using tactical nukes against Iran

Rest assured, we're going to use them against somebody eventually. They have to see if they'll really work.

In my darker moments, I suspect that what we're really trying to do is bring about the Second Coming by bringing fire to the plains of Megiddo or something like that.

Shorter Kristol: Fucking Hersh! He went and reported on it and now people are informed, making it that much harder to make our case!

While I agree a nuclear Iran is a problem (in the same way that a nuclear anyone is a problem) I feel like I'm a little less worried about it than most other people. Partly, it's the air of inevitability around it. Iran getting the bomb is a matter of when, not it.

Again, yes. Not that nukes aren't terrifying, but all sorts of unstable people have them already. While that's a bad thing, and reasonable non-proliferation measures (which we are egregiously neglecting) are very important, there's a limit (and a very low one) to the number of people we're entitled to slaughter in order to prevent one more country from joining the nuclear club.

Not that nukes aren't terrifying, but all sorts of unstable people have them already.

My point exactly.

GMC, I don't know if you've looked at the Innocence thread lately...

I have. The victory of apostropher is fleeting. My kind is here to stay, and someday we shall have the last laugh.

In the meantime, I've printed out the entire Innocence thread and scrawled comment 1428 at the end. So there!

And re: FL's latest post on Unfogged.

That's absolutely mindboggling. People are seriously gambling online on whether the Duke Lacrosse team raped that poor woman? Jesus.

Hey listen, some of you Mineshaft types are really good at composing Weird Al-type lyrics based on an existing song. (I have no such gift.) I was thinking that someone who knows how to do that ought to write an update of "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" using the Duke rape scenario.

Re: FL's latest at Unfogged.

In addition to being appalled at the gambling, I'm puzzled as to how it works and why the odds are set the way they are. Are all 46 samples from different people, so that there are 75-1 odds against the idea that there are 46 different assailants? Why would anyone take this the the victim is aledging three attackers?

On the other hand, 1-1 odds that there are no matches? Are people that confident in complete vindication of the team?

I know, the proper reaction to this is simply to be appalled, but in addition to being appalled, I am puzzled.

The man to ask about odds is Daniel Davies. Don't know if he's made his way over here from the disabled Mineshaft though.

The giant mutant cockroaches of the future post-nuclear wasteland have printers?

Yeah, but they're really shitty dot-matrix printers straight outta the 1982 Radio Shack catalog. Go figure.

LB, lets remember we are the ones who argue about evidence, not truth. I can see the point of a sick game of betting what the samples will show, if anything conclusive, and I suppose, from where on the victim the sample was taken. What I don't know is when this will be known short of trial, if then, and who's going to referee the payoff.

The calabat will referee the payoff. Fuckers. It's just sick.

Great, now I've read this thread and I'm really depressed. Thanks, guys.

True. The gambling thing, though, given that the victim is out there with access to the Internet, strikes me as pretty impressively cold.

Great, now I've read this thread and I'm really depressed. Thanks, guys.

Too right.

I'm sorry. Galgenhumor(sp?) I thought; what can you do?

How are people getting around between these sites? They've bunched together in my recently-visited sites (firefox). Any other tricks?

Aww, cheer up, B. Israel and Palestine are at war again.

A White Bear has a good alternative to thinking about the Duke rape case: make soufflé. Or also, you could look at colorful pictures of Mars.

Attempted visits to Unfogged are resulting in 403 Forbidden errors again.

Or I could straighten up the crap on my desk, write an exam, grade some essays, take care of some paperwork, and the like. But who the fuck wants to do that?

Yeah really. You should just talk dirty to us instead.

Hey, baby. Fuck me on my messy desk. Maybe if we're really loud about it and leave the door open, we can get me fired.

Oh, and while we're at it, the need to push two buttons on two different screens in order to post one comment is kind of a hassle, apo.

It's a bigger hassle for a spambot than it is for you, though. They can't seem to figure it out.

403 Forbidden: yeah, we're not sure why, what with comments being disabled and all. Let's just say that the experience with the current (soon to be ex-) host hasn't been all we expected.

the experience with the current (soon to be ex-) host hasn't been all we expected

Well, maybe you should lower your expectations. That's what I always tell the missus when she starts breathin' down my neck. Seems to do the trick.

but how the hell are we going to manage this without starting a world war?

The funny thing - funny in a scary way - is that the question answers itself. We find the armies we need by making a world war. Our allies have all kinds of armies just sitting around not-occupying Iraq. We'll just use theirs.

We do still have allies, don't we?

In other news, the DNA tests came back negative for ALL the Duke lacrosse players...

Kristol says "What’s striking there is that two-thirds of Americans basically say military action may be necessary."

What's striking is that Kristol's argument that a poll of Americans justifies an attack on Iran shows that one of the real purposes of the war will be to capture the poll numbers boost that Republicans think they will get. The timing will be designed to achieve the maximum domestic political benefit. The Republican party now has a VERY BIG war jones.

Concerning the use of nukes, Kristol also says: Everyone would prefer not to do that, and I don’t think we’re going to do that. The military people I’ve talked to don’t believe that’s necessary. We don’t need to take out every scintilla of an Iranian nuclear plant. We need to disrupt their nuclear plans, set them back several years, buy some time for both diplomacy and possibly peaceful regime change in Iran. So no, I do not believe we will use nuclear weapons.

Kristol here, like Hersch, is showing that the military doesn't want to use nukes, but this is not a military decision, but the Administration's call.

But does the administration really expect that after air strikes diplomacy is likely to work better, and that peaceful "regime change" would be more likely?

Kristol is lowering expectations as to what can be achieved by air strikes, and setting the stage for a long-term confrontation.

Note there is no discussion of WHY we should attack Iran as opposed to, say, undercutting the imams and political leaders by lifting our embargo and providing a security pledge.

This is the kind of policy that pleases defense contracors and other Republican campaign donors.

I guess we should talk about the NC rape case somewhere. Where were we yesterday? I've looked but can't find it.

It was here. Is the fox story just a rumor?

I wouldn't say it's a rumor -- you aren't going to get a defense lawyer standing up and talking about the results of the DNA tests unless some DNA tests were done that were in some respect as described.

But.

Given the vagueness of the story, I am entirely uncertain what tests we're talking about. Are these preliminary results, or final results? Are they comparing to samples from all of the lacrosse players or just a couple? Do we know that the players who gave samples are the right ones?

It's a reliable story that there are some DNA results that don't implicate any players. It is not clear to me, and probably won't be for another couple of news cycles, whether the results have cleared all the players, if you see the distinction.

Plus, it's FOX.

Some points that were made over at Alas, A Blog, and other places:

-If the DNA samples were mixed (multiple rapes), then conclusive evidence to any individual will be impossible to obtain. (I have no idea how accurate this is.)
-It's also possible that the rapists wore condoms.
-It's not clear who the lawyer represents. Would he have access to the DNA test results of all the other clients?
-Who else was at the party? Was it lacrosse players only?

In any case, it's awfully early --the DA hasn't dropped the case-- and I must say I am heartened by the goons screeching that this means they must test the black player (who was not tested because she alleged that her rapists were white) that this case will be resolved fairly and justice will be served, if the first thing we do is screech that it was the black guy what done it.

The Soviets were deterring us. The US is the only nation in history to have bombed another nation, and now that the Soviet deterrant is gone, it looks like that option is at least being discussed again.

Yup, revival of the "wasting asset" way of looking at nucs, from the late forties of Curtis LeMay.