Iran's Nuclear Threat, SuperPac Growth and ZIPPERONI!

Followiers of Jack's Potpourri cannot be reminded too often that as the title at the top says, this is your blog as well as mine.  If you have an opinion, let's hear it.  If you have a story, tell it!  And if you don't like the museum exhibit I recommend in this posting, tell me that too. 

Oh yes, in regard to the picture off to the right and the POTPOURRI POLL below it, they are independently managed. That means that the changes I make in them are not necessarily concurrent with new postings on the blog.  That's just the way things are set up by Google Blogspot, the system on which Jack's Potpourri is based.  

As for the most recent poll, voters chose Mitt Romney over all other G.O.P Presidential aspirants by a wide margin, and now, we have a slightly different question: your favorite ice cream flavor, to be chosen from the traditional basic flavors.

When will Israel Attack the Iranian Nuclear Facilities?

A prominent Israeli journalist, Ronen Bergman of the Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth and author of the "Secret War with Iran,” recently reported that Israel knows precisely how far the world can let Iranian nuclear development proceed without the Iranian sites where such research and development takes place becoming “immune” to attack.  Israel knows that if Iran’s nuclear program is not put under International control by that point, that program will have to be destroyed.  It is said that point in time will be reached during 2012.  

                                         

Bergman, who was interviewed on National Public Radio on January 30 by Neil Conan, says Israel has long posed a three-part test to decide whether it's time to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. 1. Would such attacks make a severe dent in Iran's program? 2. Can Israel count on international support, particularly from the United States? 3. Have all measures short of war been exhausted?  Bergman concludes that Israel's political leadership is convinced that for the first time, the answers to all those questions is “yes.”  

Of course, the Iranians are fully aware of this, and that is why this week’s visit of UN nuclear arms inspectors to Iran is important.

Jack Lippman

                                                         * * *   * * *   * * *

Cocktail Culture at the Norton

                                   

For those of you in South Florida, there is a wonderful exhibition at the Norton Museum of Art in West Palm Beach.  It is called “Cocktail Culture” and deals with what cocktails people drank illegally during the days of Prohibition, after its repeal and on through the Depression, World War Two and the half century that followed.  The exhibition includes dresses, shoes, millinery, jewelry, cocktail mixing paraphernalia, glassware, art work and motion picture clips tracing “cocktail culture” during that period.  The exhibit is remarkable from an historic and fashion standpoint.  There is a wonderful computer based guide system to explain each item on display.  “Cocktail Culture” continues until March 18.  And I almost forgot to tell you that the gallery’s walls are covered with detailed recipes for making many of the drinks popular during the period including such libations as the “Harvey Wallbanger” and “Long Island Ice Tea.”  Take notes.  No samples were available the day I went.

JL

                                                      * * *   * * *   * * *

SuperPac Money

In a posting on this blog on January 21 regarding SuperPacs and the awful Citizens United Supreme Court decision, I commented that “More money will probably be spent in 2012 by such groups than either the Democratic or Republican parties and their candidates will spend.”  Well, not quite, but almost as much according to a study released by Weslyan University on January 30. 

Excerpts from that report state that “A new analysis shows that in the deluge of TV ads in the early voting states for the Republican presidential primaries, nearly half of the ads are coming not from the candidates but from superPACs — the new breed of political committees that raise unregulated money.  Political scientists at Wesleyan University in Connecticut found that so far, there have been about the same number of GOP primary ads as there were four years ago.”  The analysis went on to show that “while the overall number of ads is similar in the 2012 Republican presidential primary to four years ago, the source of the ads has changed.”  The  following chart illustrates this.  Interest Groups are synonymous with SuperPacs.

Republican Primary TV Ads -  2008 compared with 2012

Stopping the influence of the SuperPacs in the Presidential election will be difficult, but not impossible.  The White House should not be for sale.

                                         

Jack Lippman

                                             * * *   * * *   * * *

Zipperoni!

There is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  It probably exists in many places out there.  But I am going to concentrate on one particular life form on a distant something or other (I can’t call it a planet because I don’t know what it is) so far from us that it would take 1,000 generations to reach there, wherever “there” is, on a spacecraft flying at the speed of infinity.  I know this although I don’t understand it because this is what “they” have told us by whatever means of communicating with us they have developed, which I don’t fully, or even slightly, understand.

                                     

There is no doubt that whatever is there is intelligent, but what form it takes, and from what it evolved is an unknown.  I doubt if we would recognize any of the species inhabiting the place, if indeed it is a place in the sense that we use the word, or in what dimensions life exists there.  It apparently is, however, far advanced over civilization on Earth.  Proof of this is that they have managed to transmit the following story to us for publication in Jack’s Potpourri.  How they did it, and how they found out about this blog, is inexplicable, but apparently they know enough about us to put their thoughts, if that’s what they are, into something vaguely comprehensible to us.   

Here is what showed up on my computer a few hours after I sent out my most recent “Blog Update Alert” inviting recipients to submit material to the blog.  And that’s exactly what “they” did.  Don’t ask me why they didn’t send it to the Library of Congress or Cal Tech or M.I.T, but they didn’t. So here it is: Jack’s Potpourri’s first exclusive cosmic connection, reproduced here exactly as received by us.

Here we do not umph have names but you umph do so us will have one if please you will umph use it when communicatttting with me/us/we you see we all are more than umph one combined together but you umph are one so preeeeetend us is one which is not.  Cal us or me Pisha.  Okay? Umph.  Let me explain why I am umphing so much as us, I mean me, writes this to you.  Most times me or I, very confusing which to use, don’t breathe but when communicatttting with you, me have to breathe and that is why umph I am umphing a lot. Capishioso?

Me work in research lab studying inner space where is you located.  Here is my colleague I wil call Paysha.  Paysha has good news for you on Zuckerberg.  Us know you call ur place umph Earth but that obsewleet inner space name.  On all our charts, it called Zuckerberg and same for the charts of other places we have umph been. U shuld start using it. Eberywon else duz.  But now Paysha want talk to you.

Thank you, Pisha.  Zuckerberg-man.  Heh, Heh .. you stil have men and woo-men there. We got rid of that forty seven infinities ago.  Anyhoo, I got noooows for you, Zuckerberg-man.

Hold on, I said, although I had no idea to whom I was talking, or if he could hear me as I read the Email before me.  I blurted out “How come you’re not umphing like Pisha was, Paysha?” (Apparently, they were able to alter the Email, or whatever it was they had already sent, before my very eyes when I interrupted with a comment. Wow!)

Usta scuba dive and am using old tank with breathing device.  Okay, Zuckerberg-man?  But here is the noooows I got fer ya.  You got over seven billiyonims peepuls living on Zuckerberg.  We survey it and you is rich.  You got enough everythings to support seven trilliyonims peepuls  … which you is going to have soooon since half a millionims more Zuckerbergers .. I just made that up … heh, heh, get borned each Zucker year than get dead.  You is racking my brain, Zuckerberg-man, to think dis way because here nobody gets borned or gets dead any more.  We just is and is and is and is.  Hold on.  Pisha gotta question.

Dis be Pisha again umph and me ask why you got Zuckerbergers starving and killing each other.  Zuckerberg got enough everythings for everybodies there for umph sixtrillionins more Zucker year whatchmacallitz. 

Look, guys, I interrupted them again. I don’t want to get into economics, politics and population problems, but you must know that Earth’s, I mean Zuckerberg’s, wealth is spread out all over the planet.  We have many different nations on Zuckerberg, some rich, some poor, with different economic systems, and it works out pretty well if everyone works hard at it.  And we are trying very hard.

Dis be Paysha again.  Not good enough, Zuckerberg-man.  U gotta cut owt the tribull stuffff.  You got enuf everythings down dere so no one be starve and no one killy to get what other have.  Stupidoso. You gotta change.  Scuba tank running out and I don’t want umph have for breathe.  What you want, Pisha?  Oh, we gotta get back in bottles for nuther Sixpillions eons. Wurry you nott. I wil keeep check out ur blog on skypad bought onlinerino.  Keep in bottle next to Chivas Beagle pet. Umph. Zipperoni!

I still cannot figure out what happened, or how this Email got to me, but I think I owe it to Pisha and Paysha, whoever, wherever, whatever and whenever they are, to include it on the blog today despite its lack of clarity.  Zipperoni, guys, if you can read me!

JL

                                                        ***   ***   ***                                                                                
Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by contacting me at Riart1@aol.com. Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.

Our family of web sites includes:   www.computerdrek.com  - www.politicaldrek.com  -  www.sportsdrek.com  -  www.healthdrek.com. 
Check all of them out, find out what “drek” really means and feel free to submit your thoughts and articles for publication on these sites, which, while still “under construction,” already contain some interesting content.

Jack Lippman

                                                    * * *   * * *   * * *

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below.

         

Jack's Potpourri Reaches 5000 Pageviews! - And on this Posting: Iranian Crack in the Door?, State of the Union Speech Reaction, Professors and Journalists as Opinion Makers and Keystone XL Pipeline Pro & Con

Look over on the right and a little bit down at the our "pageview" counter."  We have passed the 5000 mark!  That's the number of times someone in this country, or anywhere in the world, has accessed this blog since its inception in 2009.  (My own "hits," as I work on the blog, are not included in this count, so I cannot "fudge" the numbers.)  Let's see how long it takes for the counter to reach 10,000!

Iranian Door Open a Crack?

The posting of Tuesday, January 24 included a piece from Stratfor.com which hinted at a possible rapprochement with Iran.  All listeners to Tuesday’s State of the Union address will recall President Obama’s saying, “Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal,” but it should not be forgotten that he continued his remarks by adding “but a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.”  This is the direction in which Friedman’s piece in our last posting pointed, and his reasons for saying so should be noted.  If you skipped over that posting, check it out now. The door is open, even if no more than a crack.  I get the feeling that there is something going on which you won’t see on TV nor in the newspapers. But you may on this blog.

JL

                                                    * * *    * * *   * * *

                              

Reaction to the State of the Union Message

I received an Email from a friend who was elated after hearing the President’s State of the Union Message, constrasting it to the un-statesmanlike utterances of the aspirants for the Republican presidential nomination.  I cautioned him to be less optimistic in the following Email, reproduced below:

Many elections have been lost because candidates overestimated the intelligence of the voters. Obama should carry all 50 states easily, but he won't, and he may not even be re-elected. An enormous amount of education, and debunking of the lies the Citizens United decision will allow to be broadcast daily, must take place. You can start by trying to convince some of your unenlightened neighbors that the President was not born in Kenya, is not merely a mouthpiece for George Soros, is not a socialist, is not out to destroy the State of Israel and that he is not a Muslim. Then you will get an idea of the problem at hand right here and throughout the nation.

JL
                                                              * * *   * * *   * * *

                                              

Ever write a "Letter to the Editor" of your local paper?   It's a great way of voicing your opinion.  The Florida campaign to re-elect Barack Obama makes it easy for you to do so and in view of the Republican primary here, suggests you give it a try.  Just go to http://fl.barackobama.com/Write-a-Letter and you're on your way!  And if you aren't interested in writing a letter in support of the President, the templates at the site can be used for any kind of letter you choose to write.  The site automatically forwards your letter to the paper of your choice.
JL

                                      * * *   * * *   * * *

Reporters and Professors – Makers of our Opinions?

I frequently hear complaints from conservatives saying that the opinions of those in the media and of academics should be taken with a grain of salt because those groups are traditionally liberal and hence, are not giving conservatives a fair shake.  With this complaint in mind, let’s look at how the media and the academic world approach things.

Professors are supposed to be objective.  That means that they should take in viewpoints and ideas and look at them from a logical viewpoint, adding up the facts, measuring the pros and cons, and come up with empirical decisions, factually based and not prejudiced by previous opinions.  Therefore, their conclusions based on facts and logic should be taken seriously.  

                                

My gut feeling is that conclusions drawn by academics are liberal 75% of the time. Some of this may be attributed to the idea that academics must maintain a mindset open to new ideas and that in itself is a liberal idea, but that does not mean that the other 25% of academics are any less objective in reaching their conclusions. All it means is that one should not generalize about academics and that there is room for disagreement as to whether they are always liberal or not. 

Similarly, professional journalists, in print, video and internet media, should be striving for objectivity in the same manner.  Bloggers and pseudo-journalists, and I admit that I am one of them, often are not so objective and should be distinguished from real journalists, and often ignored. 

                                      

Achieving objectivity is not an easy thing for a journalist since newspapers, television networks and electronic media often have an agenda to promote, and it is inevitable that such agendas hamper true objectivity to varying extents.  There also are sponsors paying the bill for media who must not be offended.  Even public radio and television find it difficult to always be objective since their non-commercial nature is in itself a statement as to where it stands in our otherwise commercial society.

Nevertheless, most journalists at least try to be objective, even if their doing so is no more than window dressing. Unfortunately, some are hopelessly opinionated and that is why a Sean Hannitty on the right and a Rachel Maddow on the left cannot be counted on to be objective, although each would stoutly maintain that they are.  But they are not. They spend too much time “preaching to the choir.”  Most journalists, more so in print than on TV, nevertheless try to be, as Fox TV claims it is, “fair and balanced.”  The very use of the word “balanced,” unfortunately, is a confession that what some journalists produce is indeed prejudiced and needs to be “balanced.”  

Sometimes there is a marriage of the academic and the journalistic such as Princeton professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.  Many think he is opinionated.  I am sure he feels that he is totally objective.  But so does another purported academic (my prejudices have just sneaked through), Newt Gingrich, feel that he is objective, basing his ideas on fact and logic.  One should not be the judge of one’s own objectivity.

By and large, however, if I have to make a judgment call, I must conclude that the opinion of an academic or a reporter is more likely to be based on facts and the result of logical thinking than the opinion of someone who is not an academic nor a reporter.  And more often than not, as I indicated above, academics end up on the liberal side of political and economic arguments and this, I suppose, applies to reporters as well.  That’s why conservatives often criticize the liberal media.  But don’t liberals similarly criticize Fox News? 

Does this mean that liberal answers are therefore the correct ones and that conservative ones are not?  Does it mean that conservative answers are not based on facts and logic?  Can the words “liberal” and “conservative” be reversed in the preceding two questions?  The answer to questions like these has to be “Maybe” or “Maybe Not.”  Think about this the next time you hear someone screaming about the liberal media or the head-in-the-clouds academic world, or the ideologues on Fox or MSNBC.  Learn the facts, if you can.  Apply some logic to them.  Form your own opinions.  (Send them to me for inclusion on Jack’s Potpourri.)  

And as an exercise in forming your own opinion, try to do so after reading the following article.

Jack Lippman

                                                        * * *   * * *   * * *

Facts About the Keystone XL  Pipeline – Form Your Own Opinion

The following, which can be read in its entirety at http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Keystone_XL_US-Canada_oil_pipeline  presents two sides of the arguments regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, which the Administration is not authorizing at this point.  Included are the Pro and Con arguments concerning the Environment and Human Safety.  Check out the above site for still more information, including the sources of this pro and con information.  Form your own opinion.  Don’t leave it to the reporters and academics.  Let us know and we will include it on Jack’s Potpourri.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

JL

Environment: Is the Keystone XL pipeline tolerable for the environment?
Pro    Keystone XL will not appreciably add to global emissions. A 2010 assessment of a US Energy Department study found that Keystone XL would "not appreciably increase" global life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. These findings were reinforced by the final Environmental Impact Statement from the State Department in August of 2011. Overall, it will simply be a drop in the bucket relative to global supply.[2]    Climate targets could still be met with oil sands. Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "I have no doubt that if you look at the amount of resources that are talked about with the tar sands, or around the world, if we were simply to burn all of these oil reserves, we could probably still meet some of the climate targets of two degrees or three degrees Celsius. You know, scientists say that we can release only another 500 billion tons of carbon, and if you look at natural gas or oil, we can probably burn through most of that and still meet those numbers. We can’t do that plus burn all the coal in the world, of course."[3]    Keystone pipeline important as long as economy depends on oil. Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "The larger debate [...] is whether we need to wean ourselves off of oil in the near term, period. And that is a debate worth having. But so long as we’re an oil addicted economy, the tar sands I think can play an important role in the world oil market."[4]	Con    Keystone XL will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions Russell K. Girling, TransCanada Corporation. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." The Hill. July 13th, 2011: "a new report from Canada’s environmental ministry shows how great the impact of the tar sands will be in the coming years, even with cleaner production methods. It projects that Canada will double its current tar sands production over the next decade to more than 1.8 million barrels a day. That rate will mean cutting down some 740,000 acres of boreal forest — a natural carbon reservoir. Extracting oil from tar sands is also much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution. One result of this process, the ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions."    Keystone taps Alberta tar sands, the world's dirtiest fuel. "Keystone XL Pipeline." Friends of the Earth: "Pollution from tar sands oil greatly eclipses that of conventional oil. During tar sands oil production alone, levels of carbon dioxide emissions are three times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive extraction and refining processes. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 900,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, doubling our country's reliance on it and resulting in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than six million new cars to U.S. roads."    Keystone XL will emit more than other oil production    Investing in tars sands delays transition to clean energy    Refining tar sands oil is more polluting to air quality    Keystone XL taps water-wasting tar sands
Safety: Is the Keystone XL pipeline safe for human communities?
Pro    Pipelines are the safest mode of transportation. Russell K. Girling. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." TransCanada Corporation. July 13th, 2011: "Pipelines remain the safest method of transporting oil – safer than tankers, trucks or rail. Each day in the U.S., more than 200,000 miles of pipelines move oil and other energy products safely to where they are needed. That’s enough pipe to circle the earth eight times."    Pipeline spills are uncommon. Russell K. Girling. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." TransCanada Corporation. July 13th, 2011: "National pipeline statistics indicate that pipeline accidents are uncommon and that leaks tend to be small; most pipeline leaks involve three barrels or less, 80 percent of spills involve less than 50 barrels and less than 0.5 percent of spills total more than 10,000 barrels."   Keystone XL would be one of the safest pipelines ever. Russell K. Girling. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." TransCanada Corporation. July 13th, 2011: "Using the most advanced technology, the pipeline will be monitored 24 hours a day through a centralized control centre. 16,000 sensors embedded in the pipeline provide data via satellite every five seconds. If the slightest drop in pipeline pressure is detected, remote valves are automatically closed, shutting off the flow of oil within minutes. Our pipeline would cross Montana’s Yellowstone River. As Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) pointed out, Keystone XL will use the most advanced construction techniques, including horizontal directional drilling that allows us to drill under the river a minimum of 25 feet. The pipe will be built with thicker steel, operate at a lower pressure and use advanced coatings to protect the surface from abrasion – all in an effort to further improve safety. To ensure the integrity of our pipelines longer term, they are cathodically protected, which means a low-voltage electric current runs through the pipeline, inhibiting external corrosion."	Con   Keystone XL pipeline contains significant risk of spills. "Keystone XL Pipeline." Friends of the Earth: "TransCanada already attempted to cut corners by seeking a safety waiver to build the pipeline with thinner-than-normal steel and to pump oil at higher-than-normal pressures. Thanks to the pressure exerted by Friends of the Earth and allies, the company withdrew its safety waiver application in August 2010. The threat of spills remains. In summer 2010, a million gallons of tar sands oil poured into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan from a pipeline run by another Canadian company, Enbridge. The spill exposed residents to toxic chemicals, coated wildlife and has caused long-term damage to the local economy and ecosystem. Heightening concerns, TransCanada's Keystone I pipeline has spilled a dozen times in less than a year of operation, prompting a corrective action order from the Department of Transportation. Experts warn that the more acidic and corrosive consistency of the type of tar sands oil being piped into the U.S. makes spills more likely, and have joined the EPA in calling on the State Department to conduct a thorough study of these risks. The Keystone XL pipeline would traverse six U.S. states and cross major rivers, including the Missouri River, Yellowstone, and Red Rivers, as well as key sources of drinking and agricultural water, such as the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies two million Americans."   Keystone XL crosses and jeopardizes sensitive environment. Mark Bittman. "Profits before environment." The New York Times. August 30th, 2011: "XL is right: the 36-inch-wide pipeline, which will stretch from the Alberta tar sands across the Great Plains to the Gulf Coast, will cost $7 billion and run for 1,711 miles — more than twice as long as the Alaska pipeline. It will cross nearly 2,000 rivers, the huge wetlands ecosystem called the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer, the country’s biggest underground freshwater supply."

                                                * * *   * * *   * * *                                                                                                                   
Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by contacting me at Riart1@aol.com.  

Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.

Our family of websites now includes www.politicaldrek.com, www.sportsdrek.com, www.healthdrek.com,  www.computerdrek.com  as well as  www.jackspotpourri.com.

Check all of them out, find out what “drek” really means and feel free to submit your thoughts and articles for publication on these sites, which, while still “under construction,” already contain some interesting content.

Jack Lippman

                                                      * * *   * * *   * * *

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below.