... [Hidden] Dragon (informally.)

Without respect to a single statistic, it is important to have the idea, if you are an informed person, that the development and proliferation of massively destructive arms is dangerous.  Dangerous not only as far as the intended use of the weaponry and its proliferation (again,) but to the makers of such arms and the danger of retaliation.  It is clear, in the nuclear arms developments in countries like Iran, the purpose of such things is primarily twofold:  a.  Such things serve to signify and determine the arrival and importance of nation - states like Iran on the international stage, and b.  As a retaliatory threat against any attack on any area of Iranian influence in the Middle East.

No one has doubted for a long time that Iran is an important country and that even in the time of its recent revolution, as a country, it influenced politics and ideas in many areas, especially Islamic ideas, that have provoked major and salient debates and discussions for a long time, both among national leaders and men in the street.  That Iran wishes, and this apparently, to assert its nuclear power and by that nuclear threat(s,) not only in the Middle East, but in prepondering fashion, as a bargaining chip to invite and extract tribute from other nations in its immediate vicinity and beyond does indeed lack some sense in what it might otherwise do to make friends and influence people.  Many people, and this due to what came out in the debates among the so - called great powers in the 1980's, do understand the visceral fear Eastern culture has about western ideas and society approaching and then invading its regions, among other things.  The argument of Iran in its tacit avoidance of speaking about this gives cause for suspicion about its motives in developing a massively destructive arms complex.  The same is true of other states who are developing nuclear weapons as well.

The visceral fear about societal and cultural influences invading and corrupting Islamic culture are indicative of pre - nuclear age nationalism as applied to the modern world and its present and potential security risks without respect to not only what is (the international status quo, to use old language,) but what might be.  A reasonable person, when examining things like the financial expense and energy, and other outputs necessary to the inputs of a nuclear arms complex, and the proportions of effort in a country such as Iran as used to develop such a complex and its capabilities resulting from deployment of such arms, probably will not agree that this state should have them.  This level of analysis comes from a strict examination of the scope of developing and deploying such arms, maintaining them and so forth; and this against NPT and other rules that are widely accepted by the great powers.  In fact, the strident call for such nuclear attributes in that country appear to be out - of - balance with any analysis of the allocation of its national assets, investments, income and / or capital.

Why is this so apparent?  While people like me do not read nor watch Arabic or Farci broadcasts, nor do we read publications in these languages, the thing is there is a common and known premise upon which Iran carries out its policies as evidenced by news reports, mostly trusted in free countries, that country is doing the bidding of others who are fed up with western ideas about society and specifically about government (bicameral legislature, separation of powers, rule of law (constitutional, civil, and others,) equality and rights, freedom of travel and expression, and the list goes on,) and the approach of the great powers to a little country called Israel.  This begs the question "How can an Islamist have any regard for Israel with its reform - minded and cosmopolitan people and ideas?"  This question, and its variants and derivatives is an old, nationalist - type question that invites direct slurs and epithets on the part of people who are not prejudiced among their own, but they are thereby highly nationalist and belligerent, and the smaller the better the country with fewer people, the easier the target for this mindset - and this has been true on the part of Middle East neighbors for years.  The implications of this question by association to Israel can be scaled upward to apply to more populous and important places, even entire regions whose applecarts are for the upset by Iranian nuclear, and other political ambitions.  With respect to this, and with respect to Iranian influences and politics now in evidence everywhere, the post - nationalist question might be proposed as "What can we do [together] to make a new approach to nuclear proliferation in view of these nationalist ideas?"

That this could be accomplished, just proposing a new approach to nuclear arms in the Middle East and elsewhere with some acknowledgement of the belligerence that goes along with some forms of nationalism, might itself be a way to invite a response to end the currents of what people like me know to be overt racism in the area as a tabled or distinctly different avenue of discussion apart from the current linkage racism and nationalism have there.  This, combined with a discussion about the visceral fears of being struck from outside, would serve to de - escalate at least some of the tensions that caused, for example, the 2006 war, continuing problems in Lebanon, and the useless formation of paramilitary brigades and other activities counter to peace in the area.

THS

Some comments are that "It Could Be Worse." - 2009 New York Times Magazine

Also - Click President Signing Unemployement Act - 2010 as well for more ...

The above link is a 2009 interview site where the U.S. president sat down with a magazine editor and went over some items not only affecting our country, but other administrations as well that look to the O'Bama administration as an example, especially those in the western hemisphere.  This is the first I had heard that the president's mom had a cancer attack, then she apparently had stroke and upon that fell and broke her hip.  This would be a sorrowful thing for anyone, and this happened during the presidential campaign which must have been doubly disconcerting for the to - be president - elect and it shows his leadership skills to be able to speak about this openly, and to talk about it within the overall framework of medical care in the U.S.

It seems to me that with respect to this article that someone make a determination as I have that public finance began the financial crisis and (through Fannie and Freddie, and maybe even other entities of the same nature) with their collapse led to further problems that eventually touched upon the private sector and snowballed further.  The president in his interview appears not to know this and despite the conversation, the interviewer appears lost on it as well, even despite some discussion of the now passing financial rules in Congress and the Volcker - influenced regulations relating to macroeconomic financial safety and soundness.  Here also seems to be some cloudiness on the subject of the role of the U.S. Treasury now that the scandals have been remedied and how the moneys that funded the failures are to be repaid.  There is, however, some discussion of the technology and other crucial sectors driving paper profits and these parts of commerce, at least in the future, according to the interview, will not have the same primary role as revenue and income drivers in the economy as they did before. 

The interview includes a discussion of the president's overall views on the economy and his perceptions about workers and their choices and goals, for example, of the workforce toward greater vocational fulfilment, greater employment, and better lives for workers.  There is a surprising omission of any discussion of the basic relationships between the means of production and labor in the talk illustrated in this article, and in fact it appears that the president has decided, maybe accurately, the economy of the U.S. must at this point, and for very healthy reasons, become at least in part a labor economy among others.  By this he must believe in anti - inflationary measures and the general provisions of labor economics with the all encompassing statistics they have and so forth.  There was a significant discussion on the subject of health care and this article notes that ninety percent of health care costs are attributed to chronically ill patients in clinics and hospitals - and with this in mind, what one can do with health care costs - with the emphasis on the cost structure of delivering health care when the fixed costs are so high.  One back - of - the - envelope solution has been to "socialize" health care, but given the structure of insurance and other vehicles that cover health care in the U.S. and they way they have been for years, it does appear, for further discussion yet, that health care is already socialized.  This lawyer - president appears to want to depend upon quantitative methods for his executive powers and their implementation, and it is in any event very interesting to have read through this year - old magazine piece from May 2009 to find many of the same issues as looked -at still up - to - date.