Iran says IAEA Atom Report Shows Us Charges Wrong

VIENNA - Iran’s uranium enrichment program is operating well below capacity and is far from producing nuclear fuel in significant amounts, according to a confidential U.N. nuclear watchdog report obtained by Reuters.

A senior Iranian nuclear official said the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) report showed U.S. suspicions about Tehran’s nuclear intentions were baseless. Officials familiar with the report said the IAEA could open future inquiries into Iran’s atomic activity if new suspicions arose, even after Tehran answers questions about the program under a transparency deal reached this month.

Western leaders suspect Iran wants to build atom bombs, not generate electricity, and were alarmed when Tehran said in April it had reached “industrial capacity” to enrich uranium. But the IAEA report said Tehran remained far short of that threshold. Iran had just under 2,000 centrifuges divided into 12 cascades, or interlinked units, of 164 machines each refining uranium at its underground Natanz plant as of August 19, it said. A 13th cascade was being run test-run empty, another was stationary undergoing tests under vacuum and two more cascades were being assembled, said the report, sent to the IAEA’s 35-nation board of governors and U.N. Security Council members. “Iran made a fast start but then there was a leveling off,” said a senior U.N. official versed in the IAEA’s findings. “We don’t know the reasons, but the slow pace continues.” The report’s detail on new Iranian cooperation with inspectors and Tehran’s lack of significant enrichment progress are likely to blunt Washington’s push for painful sanctions.

The rest of the press release by Reuters at the following link.

On Poverty, Maybe We're All Wrong by Steven Pearlstein

This week in the Washington Post, Steven Pearlstein had a very interesting view on poverty.

"It is more than a bit disingenuous for liberals to push for worthwhile programs like food stamps, housing vouchers, child tax credits and the earned income tax credit -- and then to constantly cite official income and poverty statistics that do not include the impact of food stamps, housing vouchers, child tax credits and the earned income tax credit. At the same time, these revisions help put the lie to the right-wing conceit that government tax and transfer policies only make poverty worse.
Conservatives are left to fall back on the argument that government handouts and social insurance programs, while appearing to lift some out of poverty, have created a permanent underclass by discouraging work and thrift and fostering a culture of dependence. Much better, conservatives say, to do away with all those patronizing and inefficient social welfare schemes that create perverse incentives and "empower" the poor to act in their own best interest using the same traditional market mechanisms as everyone else.

The best refutation of this argument that I've seen in a long time is contained in a new book, "The Persistence of Poverty," by a friend of mine, Charles "Buddy" Karelis, a professor at George Washington University. Karelis isn't an economist or social welfare expert but a philosopher by profession with wide-ranging curiosity, a dry wit and a weakness for unconventional wisdom. And after doing lots of reading and giving it extensive thought, Karelis concluded that the reason some people are perpetually poor is that they don't have enough money.
Let me say that this isn't as self-evident, or tautological, a truth as it might appear. Rather, the argument goes something like this: The reason the poor are poor is that they are more likely to not finish school, not work, not save, and get hooked on drugs and alcohol and run afoul of the law.

Liberals tend to blame it on history (slavery) or lack of opportunity (poor schools, discrimination), while conservatives blame government (welfare) and personal failings (lack of discipline), but both sides agree that these behaviors are so contrary to self-interest that they must be irrational. After all, the reason we study, work, save and generally behave ourselves is that these behaviors allow us to earn more money, and more money will improve our lives.
And, by logic, that must be particularly true of the poor, for whom each extra dollar to be earned or saved for a rainy day is surely more valuable than it is for, say, Bill Gates. In economics, this insight -- that the fifth ice cream sundae is less valuable than the first one -- is enshrined in the law of diminishing marginal utility.

But what if this iron law of economics is wrong? What if it doesn't apply at every point along the income scale? If you and everyone around you are desperately poor, maybe it's perfectly rational to think that an extra dollar or two won't make much of a difference in reducing your misery. Or that you won't be able to "study" your way out of the ghetto. Or that if you find a $100 bill on the street, maybe it's logical to blow it on one great night on the town rather than portion it out a dollar a day for 100 days."

This is only a partial citing of Pearlstein's article. For the rest of the article follow this link.

Book review: Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card

Card is an author that has worked in many genres. Card started in the science fiction genre (Capitol and the Ender saga) and moved on later to the fantasy genre. He remains best known for the seminal “Ender’s game”, which has been among the most popular sci-fi novels ever since its publication in 1986. “Ender’s Game” and its sequel “Speaker for the dead” were awarded both the Hugo Award and the Nebula Award, making Card the only author ever to win both of sci-fi's top prizes in consecutive years.

Ender is the youngest in a family of two boys and one girl. This is strange in a world where the government allows most people to have only one. The reason this family was allowed to have 3 children was that Peter (the older brother) was far too cruel, while Valentine (the older sister) was the sum mum of altruism. Ender is in the middle of this carrying the best elements of both of them. He has both Peter's ability to lack mercy when forced to as well as Valentine's ability to feel empathy with every other living being. The government was established in order to withhold a possible third invasion of the 'buggers' (an alien race that almost succeeded in annihilating the human race in earlier invasions). This government selects the most appropriate children in order to create a commander that could live up to Mazor Rackham, the most capable and ruthless commander in human history. As they believe that with Ender they achieved their goal, Ender is taken to the battle school when he’s seven.

The rest of the novel follows Ender’s stay in the battle school, each and every time his capabilities stretched to the maximum and then some. It’s a novel from the point of view of a little child that is suddenly forced to use his capabilities in order to stay up in a miniature ‘survival of the fittest’ society, brought to perspective by the need for ruthlessness in a real life ‘survival of the fittest’ race against the buggers.

As you probably have already figured out by now, I'm a big fan of 'Ender's game'. What attracted me in this book is that the reader feels so related to Ender. You read about his struggle, his doubt and his despair. This and terrific yet disturbing inventions like the war game, creating analogies with ‘Lord of the Flies’, make Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game a classic in the Science fiction genre! This novel to me definitely deserves a 10 out of 10.