or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
February 05, 2009
Entire World Menaced By Better Iranian Cell Phone Reception
By: John Caruso
Things that threaten world peace:
Western countries have expressed their fears about the launch of Iran's first domestically-built satellite. The United States, France and Great Britain believe that the rocket from which the satellite was launched could also be used to fire nuclear warheads.
The satellite, dubbed Hope, will orbit Earth 15 times every 24 hours. Iran insists that it was designed for research and telecommunications only.
Things that do not threaten world peace:
Israel strengthened its foothold in space on Monday by successfully launching a spy satellite that defense officials said provided the IDF "unprecedented operational capabilities." [...]
The Ofek 7's elliptical orbit reportedly takes it over Iran, Iraq and Syria every 90 minutes.
(Ofek 7 was launched in June of 2007, and—in what I'm sure was an entirely unrelated event—Israel bombed Syria three months later.)
In a masterpiece of understatement, the UK Guardian helpfully points out that the Iranian satellite launch "does not imply Iran is on the brink of targeting Washington with a nuclear warhead." While I appreciate this distressingly rare bow to sanity, I feel compelled to point out a few more things that would not imply Iran is on the brink of targeting Washington with a nuclear warhead:
- Actual development by Iran of a nuclear warhead
- Claims by U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran is on the brink of targeting Washington with a nuclear warhead
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appearing on TV screaming, "We are on the brink of targeting Washington with a nuclear warhead!"
This is because there's no reason to believe that Iran's leaders are determined to commit national suicide. And it's a testament to the discipline of the Western media that this unspoken, absurd premise of U.S. posturing over Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons is treated seriously rather than with the derisive scorn it deserves.
(Previous contemplations of the awesome threat posed to us by Iran here, here, and here.)
AND ALSO: Hillary Clinton echoed Obama when she recently said that "we are reaching out a hand, but the fist has to unclench"; apparently threatening total obliteration amounts to "reaching out a hand" in Clinton's book. Meanwhile, in the latest evidence of Iran's intention to keep fisting us for the next four years despite heartfelt offers of peace like Clinton's, they've just refused visas to the U.S. badminton team. Can the targeting of Washington with a nuclear warhead be far behind?
— John Caruso
Posted at February 5, 2009 12:11 PMAGAIN, the only answer is to bomb Iran into the stoneage. AMERICANS and only OUR most trustworthy allies should be allowed any techonology other than bows and arrows or spears.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 5, 2009 12:27 PMIn a masterpiece of understatement, the UK Guardian helpfully points out that the Iranian satellite launch "does not imply Iran is on the brink of targeting Washington with a nuclear
warhead." While I appreciate this distressingly rare bow to sanity, I feel compelled to point out a few more things that would not imply Iran is on the brink of targeting Washington with a nuclear warhead...
Strikingly Schwarzian style! Nice post, John.
Posted by: Nell at February 5, 2009 12:36 PMWell, "targeting" perhaps in the sense of "aiming at". What they actually mean is this: "does not imply Iran is on the brink of deterring Washington with a nuclear warhead."
Posted by: abb1 at February 5, 2009 01:47 PMI do think the unstated assumption of many of these articles is, "The Iranians will use the bomb as soon as they get it, regardless of the fact that we would subsequently nuke Iran until it was the temperature of the Sun. Those Iranians are all rabid, suicidal Islamists who want nothing more than to destroy our society, after all!" Which is absurd in the extreme, but that's what racism is good for.
Posted by: saurabh at February 5, 2009 01:51 PMyes abb1, I've also noticed no one talks about bombing North Korea, now that they actually have nukes.
Posted by: Jonathan Versen at February 5, 2009 01:54 PMOf course, when the major news outlets say: "Iran is not on the brink of targeting Washington with a nuclear warhead." - what they really mean is "What kind of warhead is it?" and "How many does Iran have?"
Posted by: AlanSmithee at February 5, 2009 02:07 PMPersonally, I feel extremely uncomfortable just knowing that the Iranians have knives. Something should've been done about it long time ago.
Posted by: abb1 at February 5, 2009 02:27 PMYeah, but John you're so picky. For example, Ahminedejad wouldn't have to go on TV and scream that he's targeting Washington. He could issue a press release in the paper saying in a normal voice that he's targeting Washington with a nuclear warhead. You have to be aware of the subtleties of our enemies.
I'm digging into my scorn supply, which I have to keep replenishing constantly, as I use it so much.
Posted by: catherine at February 5, 2009 03:36 PMI agree with Alexander Cockburn that every nation should have at least one nuclear weapon.
On another note I like the idea of Iran launching all its conventional missiles at Israel. Half of them would fall short and destroy Damascus and Amman. The other half would destroy Cairo.
Posted by: Seth at February 5, 2009 05:27 PMYou really do despise the Semites, don't you, Seth? Or a vast majority of them anyway.
Posted by: abb1 at February 5, 2009 05:36 PMabb1: On the contrary. I think the ideal situation, as Chomsky has suggested, would be for the Turks to resume control over the whole area. The Ottoman period offered the most stability, openness and mutual respect between competing groups in the history of the region.
You know what, it wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians secretly targeted Cairo, Damascus and Amman anyway. If you want to see anti-Semitism try calling a Persian an Arab. Shiite control of Mecca is an old aspiration anyway.
Posted by: Seth at February 5, 2009 05:44 PMI'm sure those who suffered under the Ottoman empire would disagree.
Posted by: dapajoe at February 5, 2009 06:08 PMdapajoe: You're apparently under some sort of misapprehension. There was no Armenian genocide, remember?
Posted by: saurabh at February 5, 2009 07:28 PMI'm going to choose to look on the bright side. Maybe it means lots more money for math and science teachers.
Posted by: SteveB at February 5, 2009 07:46 PMThose Persians have been too chicken to invade anybody for a coupla thousand years. Once they get one A bomb, NATURALLY, their courage will 'dutch up' and they'll want to conquer the world, starting in downtown Des Moines. (Where is Raza Shah when WE need him most?)
Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 5, 2009 07:59 PMOn the contrary. I think the ideal situation, as Chomsky has suggested, would be for the Turks to resume control over the whole area.
Head*desk ... head*desk ... head*desk ... head*desk ...
Posted by: NonyNony at February 5, 2009 09:17 PMYeah, but Rob, Seth didn't even mention Chomsky, or Iran, or the Ottoman empire.
Posted by: Duncan at February 5, 2009 09:45 PM:D
Posted by: RobWeaver at February 5, 2009 09:53 PMHead*desk ... head*desk ... head*desk ... head*desk ...
Now look at that, you've injured a good man!
Posted by: Save the Oocytes at February 5, 2009 10:22 PMWhatEVS! You see the point...it wasn't so bad under Ottoman control from a relative perspective.
You guys love to play this holier than thou game...Oh Seth wants Pamuk jailed, Oh Seth favors Armenian genocide, Seth misrepresents Chomsky...
Would you have liked it better if I was like, "Gee Nasserite panArabism is such a wonderful and pure idea, why can't it be allowed to flourish?"
Posted by: Seth at February 5, 2009 10:52 PMEveryone be kind.
As someone who only reads this bleg on and off, I feel like there's been a trend toward bickering. Cut it out. It's not fun, funny, informative nor really does it smell very nice.
If everyone who frequents this blog remembers that there are many others reading silently--you are on public display--it may help you to be less crass in expressing your annoyances with one another.
Thanks.
Posted by: Joel at February 6, 2009 02:18 AMI think my favourite comment on this was the BBC news solemnly stating that the satellite was launched using "missile technology" -- as opposed to what, exactly? A giant catapult?
And if it were a giant catapult, I can imagine that they would have reported that Iran had developed the biggest catapult in the world and, as a result, was a threat to world peace…
Insane, really, given that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme at all... And all a few years after the whole Iraq WMD nonsense... I guess that the media is busy trying to prove Chomsky right...
Posted by: Anarcho at February 6, 2009 03:55 AMOr if the comments suck, you could just not read them. It's worked for me in the past.
Posted by: Save the Oocytes at February 6, 2009 04:15 AMPerhaps Hillary was referring to her own clenched fist. In which case, she is expecting Iran to carefully peel back her fingers one by one, presumably through diplomacy. They get 5 chances, in other words.
In this extended metaphor, Iran's refusal of visas to the badminton team uses up one of those chances and is practically an act of war. Why do they want to be obliterated so badly?
Posted by: Baldie McEagle at February 6, 2009 08:22 AMi was gonna say what baldie mceagle was going to say - it looks like hillary is the one with the clenched fist, just waiting to sucker punch the other guy
Posted by: almostinfamous at February 7, 2009 09:52 PM
