Politicus USA has the article Liberals Bernie Sanders And Al Franken Stand With Obama In Support Of Iran Nuclear Deal.

President Obama laid out the options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program during his statement today:

For the fact is, we only have three options for addressing Iran’s nuclear program. First, we can reach a robust and verifiable deal — like this one — and peacefully prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The second option is we can bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, thereby starting another war in the Middle East, and setting back Iran’s program by a few years — in other words, setting it back by a fraction of the time that this deal will set it back. Meanwhile, we’d ensure that Iran would race ahead to try and build a bomb.

Third, we could pull out of negotiations, try to get other countries to go along and continue sanctions that are currently in place or add additional ones, and hope for the best — knowing that every time we have done so, Iran has not capitulated but instead has advanced its program.

For some numbers to back up what the President said in the last paragraph above, see my previous post Netanyahu enters never-never land.

For those of you that think that working out a deal with Iran is anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, I suggest you do a little research into the backgrounds of these two “liberals” who are supporting the President. You may be shocked.

WND has the article Mayor takes stand against Muslim Shariah courts.

The media frenzy was touched off by reports that an Islamic tribunal was being set up in the Dallas, Texas, area. A group of imams from surrounding mosques would sit on what they call a “mediation panel,” as defacto judges, and mediate disputes between Muslims who voluntarily submit to its edicts. They denied this was a Shariah court, saying the panel would mete out nonbinding decisions in business disputes, divorces and other family matters “in full accordance with the law.”

Normally, I wouldn’t even bother with a story from a source like this, but this stuff is seeping into the real world.  It is time for me to speak up.

Their are other religions in this country that have similar setups. People who don’t know about them live their lives happily in their ignorance. Ignorance is not bliss anymore when people start to think that only Islam has such practices.

A quick Google search gives one example, Jewish Divorce 101.

The entire get procedure is performed in front of a beth din (rabbinical court consisting of three rabbis). Though technically only the presence of the husband, wife, and two witnesses is required to effect the divorce, practically, the get process is so complex that it cannot be done correctly unless done in the presence of experts in the field. In fact, rabbinic law automatically invalidates any get which was not written and transmitted in front of experts.

I am certainly no expert on Judaism, so it isn’t hard to believe that I don’t know the details for other religions in this country.  However, if any of you want to look up quasi-judicial processes in Christian religions practiced in this country, it shouldn’t come as a shock if you find similar things.  I won’t name any names myself.

It’s time we all rebelled against media frenzies.

Naked Capitalism has the article Ilargi: Warren Buffett is Everything That’s Wrong With America.

The introduction to the article emphasizes some points that interest me lately.

Yves here. I’m sure readers can add to this antidote to the pervasive Warren Buffett hagiography in American media. For instance, Buffett lavishes praise on the executives of Wells Fargo, when Wells engages in abusive servicing (see here and here for examples). So Buffett is part of the cohort that has held bank leaders as competent and deserving of their leadership roles, which serves to hide the fact that a big chunk of industry profits rests on predatory behavior, like gotcha terms in checking accounts and credit cards.

The article itself focuses on another recent foible of Warren Buffet.

Last week, Buffett announced a plan to merge a number of ‘food’ companies in a deal he set up with Brazilian 3G Capital. For some reason, they all have German names (I’m not sure why that is or what it means, if anything): Heinz, Kraft, Oscar Mayer.
.
.
.
Buffett, the supposed genius, can only do these deals because nobody demands anybody to pay for the externalities that arise as a result of Warren pushing crap posing as food upon the American people. And then when he’s done getting even richer off of poisoning your kids, he’ll donate billions to their well-being.

The article makes very good points that are more general than just the food issue. You’ll have to read it yourself to get the full benefit.

As I started to read, I thought that Warren Buffet isn’t all bad. I put the explanation for that thought into the following comment:

There is this feeling, partly myth and partly real, that Warren Buffet has a unique management style that lets companies that he buys continue to excel. He picks companies with good managers, and he lets them continue to do their thing. He only offers advice and direction moderately when asked.

Some or all of that may be true, but there is the other side of Warren Buffet which Ilargi highlights in this article. He is ruthless at times. The bargains he gets can only be achieved because his wealth is what gives him great power to drive hard bargains.

I admire Warren Buffet for the part of the myth that may be true, but that doesn’t stop me from seeing the negative side. When I used to watch Nightly Business Report on PBS, it used to drive me batty to see how Suzy Gharib would fawn all over Warren Buffet. You know you aren’t getting straight news when you see behavior like that.