A Political Season

Cool Factor

2008-07-06T23:40:00.000-04:00

On cool factor alone - Who is the next President?

Why McCain Isn't Catching Fire

2008-07-04T09:47:00.001-04:00

McCain has yet in my mind to really find a solid angle of attack on Obama. He can go after Obama on the issues, but to make it stick he has to cut those issues in a fresh way. You're gonna cut taxes? Well, any republican off the street should be down with that, so why should I be impressed? That is a minimum requirement. You want to get me excited, tell me you are going to radically cut taxes for working class people, go flat tax, or fair tax or something that is really game changing and gets the IRS off my middle class ass. Give me some exciting, cutting edge republican ideas on education for example. You're going to champion school voucher and choice expansion? Big deal. That is not a new idea. You want to get me excited, tell me you are going to VASTLY expand charter school implementation nation wide to create true competition and innovation in publicly funded education. He can try to run on issues, but to me, part of McCain's problem is that his candidacy is mired in the safe, and I just don't think that will catch fire. So far, he is boring and Obama is exciting. He is exciting if you are a Democrat because he has been such a success, he has left wing positions (though he's already made the jump to lightspeed in a race to the center) and he is a great orator. He's exciting because he'll be the first black president. He is exciting if you are a republican too, because he gives you a target, gives you a reason to be politically scared, a reason to fight the power if he takes office because he is who he is. That's more galvanizing, just plain more fun than the prospect of a McCain presidency. If republicans are honest with themselves, a McCain loss is better for the party than a win. They will work a whole lot harder if they lose.

Is War With Iran Coming?

2008-07-03T13:30:00.001-04:00

Geopolitical Diary: A U.S.-Iranian Dance of Diplomacy

by STRATFOR

The United States has raised the possibility of opening a diplomatic interests section in Iran. To avoid giving the impression that the idea was an unqualified U.S. position, State Department officials carefully leaked word of an ongoing debate about the plan to the press. But the news was not met with immediate denial by U.S. officials. In fact, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to rule the idea out — instead Rice said she preferred not to comment on internal U.S. deliberations.

Hours after her statement, the official Iranian news agency said Iran was prepared, in principle, to consider the request if it is officially made by the United States. So, a week after word was leaked to The New York Times of Israeli maneuvers in preparation for a possible air strike on Iran, the Administration has opened a diplomatic door.

Currently, American affairs in Iran are handled by the Swiss Embassy, without U.S. diplomats present. Under full diplomatic relations, which this new deal still would not be, the United States would have an embassy and ambassador in Tehran, and the Iranians would have one in Washington. This is a step short of diplomatic recognition. U.S. diplomats would be present in Tehran — and Iranians in Washington — but likely working under the auspices of the Swiss and Pakistani Embassies, which house their respective interest sections presently. The United States has this sort of arrangement with Cuba. It allows diplomatic presence and representation without full recognition.

Cuba is hardly a model of international warmth for the United States, but the question is trajectory. At the moment, there is no formal diplomatic presence in Iran. There would be if this were to happen. And that would obviously represent a major psychological shift in U.S.-Iranian relations. It is not that the Americans and Iranians don’t talk. Apart from direct meetings in Baghdad, the Iranians have high-level diplomats in New York. There have also been meetings, varying in degrees of formality, in Switzerland and other venues. In fact, the Americans and Iranians talk all the time, directly, indirectly and sometimes it appears in Haiku poetry. The idea that the United States and Iran don’t talk just isn’t true.

The importance of this offer is not what it would yield, but that it was made. The United States took the first step, even if it did not take it irrevocably and no formal offer was made. The administration is being cautious. The Americans still recall how in 2003 they were embarrassed by the Iranians who rebuffed an offer by the United States to send help and a visit by a high-level U.S. delegation, including the elder George Bush, to the earthquake-ravaged city of Bam.

Today the United States is not offering diplomatic exchanges. While it said it might offer them, the United States emphasized its division on the subject. U.S. diplomatic translation: “We’d like to exchange diplomats but if you say no, we never asked.” The Iranians quickly replied that if asked, they might agree. Iranian diplomatic translation: “Ask and we’ll say yes.” The speed of the Iranian response is telling. They were not surprised by the request. Their answer was ready. Which means, as one would expect, they were sounded out before.

So on Friday it appeared that the world was on the verge of war between Israel and Iran, with the United States supporting Israel. By late Monday, the United States was proposing raising the level of diplomatic relations and the Iranians were indicating that they were open to it. In our mind this reinforces the idea that the careful leaking of putative Israeli war games was part of a “bad cop, somewhat better cop” routine, designed to work the Iranians psychologically. They were offered the choice between Israeli air strikes or improving diplomatic relations. The second offer sounded much better than the first.

Setting aside the purple rhetoric on all sides, we have long believed that the Americans and Iranians were talking and actually working together in Iraq. The massive decline in casualties in Iraq is not simply due to U.S. military operations. The decision by the Iranians to rein in Shiite Iraqi militias had a significant impact on it. Indeed, in our view, the Iraq issue has always been more important to both countries than the nuclear weapon issue, and in Iraq, there has been progress.

Both governments are urgently concerned with face. Neither wants to appear to be conceding anything to the other. When the Great Satan meets the Axis of Evil, no public compromise is possible. So all compromising is done privately. And that’s what makes this important. The tentative offer is very public and comes from the highest levels of government. It has been acknowledged officially. Now, this is the United States and Iran so anything public can collapse quickly. But the offer itself, no matter how it was couched, is extremely significant as is the response. In many ways we regard this as more significant than the Israeli exercises.

Nader: Talking White? More like Talking Trash

2008-07-03T03:35:00.005-04:00

Nader is a storied name in the annals of consumer protection. He had enough juice to be a spoiler when Gore ran. Now he's back for a third pointless run for.....king of the also rans I guess, cause it sure as hell ain't POTUS.

I listen to Nader, and I'm thinking, "hey, preciate your contributions on the consumer protection front and all, but WTF appointed your old, crusty behind status as the authority on authentic blackness? Or on what is or is not a legitimate political issue to be pursued by a black politician. Or made you an authority on what's going down in the ghettos of America? For a guy who supposedly has such tremendous street cred as an activist and reformer, Nader displays the full blown arrogance of a crusty liberal prick who thinks his past contributions give him leeway to speak with authority about black people. I can't say I've seen Nader in the hood, or anywhere near some hot issue in the black community lately. Obama called it correctly, its a pathetic attempt to get some attention to a meaningless, nowhere campaign. Way to go out like a sucker Nader.

Obama: Resist FISA in Senate

2008-07-02T22:00:00.001-04:00

This segment from Olberman's show is a nice emotional rant on the issues involved on the FISA legislation that has now passed the house. Its long on heat, but unlike many of his special comments not terribly enlightening. So thats your warmup. For the real meat and potatoes, read Glenn Greenwald's clear eyed explanation of Obama's ridiculous flip flop on FISA. Pelosi and the democrats, cravenly cringing before the telco lobby, had repeatedly tried to cave in the past, but protests from the blogging community and informed public had made them back off. Now, with only months to go in the Bush term, they finally get this legislation headed to the senate and hand the Bush administration exactly what it wants, retroactive immunity and coverup for its warrantless wiretapping activities.

We now have a government that can wiretap any citizen at any time without a warrant and it can't be lawfully challenged. Period. Point blank. And our boy Obama is right now gearing up to be a party to this surrender of our constitutional protections to this government. Dodd and Leahy told the House members not to send this crap to the Senate, but they were ignored by Pelosi. The senate has delayed consideration of the bill until after the July 4th holiday.

I don't want McCain or Obama to have these powers. I don't trust a republican or democratic administration to have these powers. I don't trust the government to have this power, period. They have enough as it stands.

Obama promised to filibuster this abdication of fourth amendment rights if it ever came to the senate. We should make him keep that promise. Obama is going to flip on a lot of things, but this is not one of the things he ought to be allowed to flip on without being given a clear understanding of the downside. He is a pragmatic guy. We need to make him see the downside.

BlackLight: A New Era Coming?

2008-07-02T17:15:00.002-04:00

BlackLight's physics-defying promise: Cheap power from water

An entrepreneur with $60 million in venture funding says he's found an endless source of cheap energy. Trouble is, it violates the laws of quantum physics.

My take: When McCain and Obama talk about energy independence, I want to know that something like this is on the radar screen. If we are going to invest in new technologies, lets make the investment that shifts the entire paradigm. The academic community seems to be scoffing, but whether the theory is understood or not, if it works, it works. If this technology is for real, a new era could be about to dawn and it sounds like we'll know in about a year.

Windfall Profits Tax is A Stupid Democratic Party Idea

2008-07-01T20:04:00.001-04:00

The question to ask relative to the graphic on the left is; so what? A windfall profits tax is a tax on profits that ensue from a sudden windfall gain to a particular company or industry. Imposition of such a tax is a linchpin of Obama's energy policy. Its also a stupid idea which is every bit as pandering to the electorate as McCain's almost equally stupid summer gas tax holiday.

Lets use an analogy that's easy to assimilate: Before the housing bubble burst, housing prices were on the rise at a rapid clip. Many homeowners who sold at the height of the bubble made sizable gains on the sale of their home basically because they sold at the right time in the market. Maybe you were one of them. Now what would you say if Obama was proposing to levy a special extra tax on those gains you realized? Hell No! In fact, you won't find anybody proposing to tax those gains. My point exactly. What Obama is proposing to do to the oil companies is no different. It's hard to see why oil companies shouldn't make a lot of money when their product is suddenly in short supply. They are vulnerable to weak profits and losses during times of glut. Back when gasoline was cheap, nobody was shedding tears because oil companies were making small or no profits.

Face it folks, its a pander. Moreover, it frankly doesn't have as much going for it as McCain's gas tax holiday. At least with the gas tax holiday, in theory, we save a few pennies at the pump. Obama's plan simply taxes the oil companies more heavily so the government can spend the money on alternative energy research that even assuming the government did that correctly, won't pay off for years. So as a practical matter, it means squat at the pump where you and I are getting mauled on a daily basis.

I'm all for energy policy change, but if we are going to do it, then lets do it right and dispense with the half measures. We need to end US dependence on oil which is an economic drain, a national security weakness and keeps our country locked into a fossil fuels based economy that is bottling up innovative technologies that could change everything. On the one hand, high prices are doing us a lot of damage. On the other, the pain is spurring new approaches, and thats not all bad. As the Motley Fool points out:

"..... back in the 1970s, Brazil relied on the rest of the world for 85% of its oil. The result? Debt ballooned, and rampant inflation became the norm for decades. But those high prices pushed the need for change, and change is exactly what Brazil got. Innovation and commitment to overcoming the oil burden pushed Brazil to energy independence today by way of sugar cane-based ethanol (which is, importantly, far different from the corn-based ethanol made in America.) The oil embargo of the 1970s also pushed Denmark, which was 99% dependent on imported oil, to become one of the world's leaders in alternative energy, such as windmill technology. The important thing to realize is that it's highly doubtful that any of this would have happened if higher prices hadn't spurred people to action."

If we want to fix the problem, we have to go long. Hydrogen and electric car technology is within reach. The US and Canada sit on top of the largest shale oil deposits in the world, larger than Iraq's biggest fields, we just have to figure out how to get it out. McCain makes the point that the Europeans are using nuclear technology and have been doing so for years, so whats our problem? And you know, call me a hippie if you want, but somebody explain to me why we have after several million years on the planet, not figured out how to milk the solar systems largest, most reliable and don't that beat all, FREE energy source, the sun.

I don't know, but seems to me we got an embarrasment of energy alternatives, but we are too damn lazy and short term in our thinking to make it happen. Meanwhile, we ship hundreds of billions of dollars daily to regimes that don't like us much for last century's energy source, the oil crack our country has to have. Obama's my boy, but this aspect of his energy policy is simply stupid.

Courting Colin

2008-07-01T15:34:00.005-04:00

NPR ran a story today about the degree to which Colin Powell's endorsement is being sought by both the Obama and McCain campaigns. We have opined in the past about the Dream Ticket that will never be, and its a shame that we are likely to be frustrated here as well. By NPR's account, McCain is certainly talking to Powell about getting his support. They are both military men with a long relationship both professional and personal. McCain reportedly is making the case that the republicans brought Powell to the dance, and he ought to stick with them, no matter his public statements that he is considering supporting Obama.

On the other hand, Powell's departure from the Bush administration was not a voluntary one. He was pushed out, in favor of keeping Rumsfield around, who was later very unceremoniously sacrificed to the incoming Democratically controlled Congress. He, depending on the narrative you want to believe was among the few counseling the President not to pursue war in Iraq, and felt he was misled in going to the UN to make the case for a unanimous resolution for the invasion of Iraq. The right wing of the republican party has never much cared for him, though they will admit begrudgingly that he was a good soilder and did what he was asked.

He has met with Obama and has given him advice. Of all the choices for Veep, this is the one I could bet on without hesitation. Alas, by every account, Colin promised Alma he would not run for President when many were urging him to do so and I imagine that she would not encourage him to seek or accept the vice presidency either. Were I Obama, I would make a strong and vigorous appeal to Colin that his country needs him as never before. Certainly Obama could use his counsel and he would have the Cheney like advantage of having no desire to ascend to the Presidency, which I think is an effectiveness force multiplier for VPs.

Is an Obama/Powell ticket in the universe of possibility? Would Alma sign up for one last ride? If you had to put money on it, will Colin back Obama, McCain or keep his peace?

Contrasts in Justice: Joe Horn & John White

2008-07-01T12:03:00.005-04:00

Stop. Don't read the post yet. Just check the visuals. Sorta telegraphs the outcome and damn if I'm not just plain weary of that.

A Pasadena, TX grand jury has declined to indict Joe Horn on any criminal charges stemming from a Nov. 14, 2007 incident when he shot and killed two black hispanic men who were robbing his neighbors home. Horn observed the robbery taking place from inside his home and called the police. Despite repeated instructions from the police dispatcher to remain in his home, Horn insisted on going outside and confronting the thieves. When he attempted to stop them, they tried to run and Horn shot each one in the back with his shotgun, killing them both.

This stands in stark contrast to the fate of 53-year-old John White, convicted of manslaughter and now serving time for the August 9, 2006 killing of 17-year-old Daniel Cicciaro during a confrontation in the front yard of White's home. Cicciaro and his friends had come to intimidate and potentially assault Aaron White, John's son. They called his home and told him they were coming for that purpose. John and his son armed themselves and waited, rather than calling the police. When the guys arrived, they confronted them and in the ensuing confrontation, John White shot Cicciaro in the face, killing him.

The white man in Texas who confronted burglars robbing his neighbor's house completely unnecessarily killing two men with shotgun blasts to the back will not face a single charge or consequence, and in fact is lauded as a hero on many fronts, though in fairness the City of Pasedena appears to at least have some awareness that this result is not quite right.

The black man who confronted a group of teens in his own front yard, teens who called his home at least 30 minutes in advance to say they were coming to physically harm his son and who rather than call the police, armed himself and waited for them to arrive to confront them, and shot a foolish, perhaps malovelent teenager? He's in jail, serving a maximum term of 5 to 15 years in prison.

In both of these cases, the shootings were not justified in my opinion. Both men had ample opportunity to avoid harm and allow the authorities to address the situation. In both cases, each man chose confrontation and reckless, unnecessary self help tactics to address the situation with tragic results. Both should have faced a consequence. The results of the justice system handling of these two cases has been depressingly predictable in its disparity of result.

Do you agree with me? Aren't both of these guys wrong? Or were they both justified? Or have the courts sorted it out correctly?

Open Letter to Fox News: Clean Up Your Act or Suffer the Consequences

2008-06-26T15:54:00.002-04:00

Dear Mr.Ailes,

As an African American viewer and consumer, I find myself repeatedly outraged by Fox News' aggressive and intentional use of irresponsible language and racist stereotypes in their coverage of Senator Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama. From E.D Hill's "terrorist fist jab" comment to the extremely offensive labeling of Mrs. Obama's as "Obama's baby mama," Fox is making a clear statement to African American viewers that it holds our community in a degree of contempt.

Fox has a pattern of using on air racially offensive language, then apologizing after controversy erupts and these apologies are clearly insincere and are not evidence of good faith because the pattern of offensive rhetoric continues.

Its clear Fox has a made a decision to aggressively use race as a divisive, wedge topic in its coverage, to sensationalize it in a quest for viewership.

Your network must stop cynically using racial stereotyping and intentionally provocative language with overt and covert racial undertones to extract money from advertisers with sensational coverage.

I urge you to immediately take steps to restore integrity to your news coverage.

I am tired of repeatedly being offended by the programming, editorials and commentary on Fox News during this election campaign. I intend to do everything I can to hold you, your network, its advertisers and personalities accountable for the continuing attempts to undermine the Obamas, Black institutions and other Black Americans by purposely preying on prejudice, ignorance and racial division in your programming.

Many people, black and white feel the same about your coverage. In a year when anything seems possible in the political life of this country, people are deciding enough is enough. I urge you to change course, or you may find that your network's brand and bottomline rightly suffers.

Send your own letter to Fox News right now

Mediterranean Flyover: Telegraphing an Israeli Punch?

2008-06-23T17:23:00.002-04:00

By George Friedman - Honorary Political Season Contributor

On June 20, The New York Times published a report saying that more than 100 Israeli aircraft carried out an exercise in early June over the eastern Mediterranean Sea and Greece. The article pointed out that the distances covered were roughly the distances from Israel to Iranian nuclear sites and that the exercise was a trial run for a large-scale air strike against Iran. On June 21, the British newspaper The Times quoted Israeli military sources as saying that the exercise was a dress rehearsal for an attack on Iran. The Jerusalem Post, in covering these events, pointedly referred to an article it had published in May saying that Israeli intelligence had changed its forecast for Iran passing a nuclear threshold — whether this was simply the ability to cause an explosion under controlled conditions or the ability to produce an actual weapon was unclear — to 2008 rather than 2009.

The New York Times article, positioned on the front page, captured the attention of everyone from oil traders to Iran, which claimed that this was entirely psychological warfare on the part of the Israelis and that Israel could not carry out such an attack. It was not clear why the Iranians thought an attack was impossible, but they were surely right in saying that the exercise was psychological warfare. The Israelis did everything they could to publicize the exercise, and American officials, who obviously knew about the exercise but had not publicized it, backed them up. What is important to note is that the fact that this was psychological warfare — and fairly effective, given the Iranian response — does not mean that Israel is not going to attack. One has nothing to do with the other. So the question of whether there is going to be an attack must be analyzed carefully.

The first issue, of course, is what might be called the “red line.” It has always been expected that once the Iranians came close to a line at which they would become a capable nuclear power, the Americans or the Israelis would act to stop them, neither being prepared to tolerate a nuclear Iran. What has never been clear is what constitutes that red line. It could simply be having produced sufficient fissionable material to build a bomb, having achieved a nuclear explosion under test conditions in Iran or having approached the point of producing a deliverable nuclear weapon.

Early this month, reports circulated that A.Q. Khan, the former head of Pakistan’s nuclear program who is accused of selling nuclear technology to such countries as Libya, North Korea and Iran, had also possessed detailed design specifications and blueprints for constructing a nuclear weapon small enough to be mounted on missiles available to North Korea and Iran. The blueprints were found on a computer owned by a Swiss businessman, but the reports pointedly said that it was not known whether these documents had been transferred to Iran or any other country. It was interesting that the existence of the blueprints in Switzerland was known to the United States — and, we assume, Israel — in 2006 but that, at this point, there was no claim that they had been transferred.

Clearly, the existence of these documents — if Iran had a copy of them — would have helped the Iranians clear some hurdles. However, as we have pointed out, there is a huge gap between having enriched uranium and having a deliverable weapon, the creation of which requires technologies totally unrelated to each other. Ruggedizing and miniaturizing a nuclear device requires specializations from materials science to advanced electronics. Therefore, having enriched uranium or even triggering an underground nuclear device still leaves you a long way from having a weapon.

That’s why the leak on the nuclear blueprints is so important. From the Israeli and American point of view, those blueprints give the Iranians the knowledge of precisely how to ruggedize and miniaturize a nuclear device. But there are two problems here. First, if we were given blueprints for building a bridge, they would bring us no closer to building one. We would need experts in multiple disciplines just to understand the blueprints and thousands of trained engineers and workers to actually build the bridge. Second, the Israelis and Americans have known about the blueprints for two years. Even if they were certain that they had gotten to the Iranians — which the Israelis or Americans would certainly have announced in order to show the increased pressure at least one of them would be under to justify an attack — it is unclear how much help the blueprints would have been to the Iranians. The Jerusalem Post story implied that the Iranians were supposed to be c rossing an undefined line in 2009. It is hard to imagine that they were speeded up to 2008 by a document delivered in 2006, and that the Israelis only just noticed.

In the end, the Israelis may have intelligence indicating that the blueprints did speed things up, and that the Iranians might acquire nuclear weapons in 2008. We doubt that. But given the statements Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made over the years, the Israelis have to be planning based on worst-case scenarios. What the sum total of their leaks adds up to is an attempt to communicate widely that there is an increased urgency in dealing with Iran, based on intelligence that the Iranian program is farther along than previously thought.

The problem is the fact that the Israelis are communicating. In fact, they are going out of their way to communicate. That is extremely odd. If the Israelis were intending to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, they would want to be absolutely certain that as much of the equipment in the facilities was destroyed as possible. But the hard truth is that the heart of Iran’s capability, such as it is, does not reside in its facilities but in its scientists, engineers and technicians who collectively constitute the knowledge base of Iran’s nuclear program. Facilities can be replaced. It would take at least a generation to replace what we already regard as an insufficient cadre of expertise.

Therefore, if Israel wanted not simply to take out current facilities but to take Iran out of the nuclear game for a very long time, killing these people would have to be a major strategic goal. The Israelis would want to strike in the middle of the workday, without any warning whatever. If they strike Iran, they will be condemned widely for their actions. The additional criticism that would come from killing the workforce would not be a large price to pay for really destroying the Iranian capabilities. Unlike the Iraqi reactor strike in 1981, when the Israelis struck at night to minimize casualties, this strike against a more sophisticated program could not afford to be squeamish.

There are obviously parts of Iran’s nuclear capability that cannot be moved. There is other equipment that can be, with enough warning and with more or less difficulty, moved to unknown locations. But nothing would be easier to disperse than the heart of the program — the people. They could be moved out of harm’s way with only an hour’s notice. Therefore, providing warning that an attack was coming makes very little sense. It runs counter to basic principles of warfare. The Israelis struck the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 with not the slightest hint of the attack’s imminence. That was one of the reasons it was successful. Telegraphing your punch is not very smart in these circumstances.

The Israelis have done more than raise the possibility that an attack might be launched in 2008. They have publicized how they plan to do it. Based on the number and type of aircraft involved in the exercise — more than 100 F-15 and F-16 fighter jets — one Israeli attack scenario could involve a third of Israel’s inventory of fourth-generation strike aircraft, including most of its latest-model F-15I Ra’am and F-16I Sufa fighter bombers. If Greece were the target in this exercise, then the equivalent distance would mean that the Israelis are planning to cross Jordanian airspace, transit through Iraq and strike Iran from that direction. A strike through Turkey — and there is no indication that the Turks would permit it — would take much longer.

The most complex part of the operation’s logistics would be the refueling of aircraft. They would have to be orbiting in Iraqi airspace. One of the points discussed about the Mediterranean exercise was the role of Israeli helicopters in rescuing downed flyers. Rescue helicopters would be involved, but we doubt very much they would be entering Iranian airspace from Israel. They are a lot slower than the jets, and they would have to be moving hours ahead of time. The Iranians might not spot them but the Russians would, and there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t pass it on to the Iranians. That means that the Israeli helicopters would have to move quietly into Iraq and be based there.

And that means that this would have to be a joint American-Israeli operation. The United States controls Iraqi airspace, meaning that the Americans would have to permit Israeli tankers to orbit in Iraqi airspace. The search-and-rescue helicopters would have to be based there. And we strongly suspect that rescued pilots would not be ferried back to Israel by helicopter but would either be sent to U.S. hospitals in Iraq or transferred to Israeli aircraft in Iraq.

The point here is that, given the exercise the Israelis carried out and the distances involved, there is no way Israel could do this without the direct cooperation of the United States. From a political standpoint in the region, it is actually easier for the United States to take out Iran’s facilities than for it to help the Israelis do so. There are many Sunni states that might formally protest but be quite pleased to see the United States do the job. But if the Israelis were to do it, Sunni states would have to be much more serious in their protestations. In having the United States play the role of handmaiden in the Israeli operation, it would appear that the basic charge against the United States — that it is the handmaiden of the Israelis — is quite true. If the Americans are going to be involved in a strike against Iran’s nuclear program, they are far better off doing it themselves than playing a supporting role to Israel.

There is something not quite right in this whole story. The sudden urgency — replete with tales of complete blueprints that might be in Iranian hands — doesn’t make sense. We may be wrong, but we have no indication that Iran is that close to producing nuclear weapons. Second, the extreme publicity given the exercise in the Mediterranean, coming from both Israel and the United States, runs counter to the logic of the mission. Third, an attack on Iran through Iraqi airspace would create a political nightmare for the United States. If this is the Israeli attack plan, the Americans would appear to be far better off doing it themselves.

There are a number of possible explanations. On the question of urgency, the Israelis might have two things in mind. One is the rumored transfer of S-300 surface-to-air missiles from Russia to Iran. This transfer has been rumored for quite a while, but by all accounts has yet to happen. The S-300 is a very capable system, depending on the variety (and it is unclear which variety is being transferred), and it would increase the cost and complexity of any airstrike against Iran. Israel may have heard that the Russians are planning to begin transferring the missiles sometime in 2008.

Second, there is obviously the U.S. presidential election. George W. Bush will be out of office in early 2009, and it is possible that Barack Obama will be replacing him. The Israelis have made no secret of their discomfort with an Obama presidency. Obviously, Israel cannot attack Iran without U.S. cooperation. The Israelis’ timetable may be moved up because they are not certain that Obama will permit an attack later on.

There are also explanations for the extreme publicity surrounding the exercise. The first might be that the Israelis have absolutely no intention of trying to stage long-range attacks but are planning some other type of attack altogether. The possibilities range from commando raids to cruise missiles fired from Israeli submarines in the Arabian Sea — or something else entirely. The Mediterranean exercise might have been designed to divert attention.

Alternatively, the Israelis could be engaged in exhausting Iranian defenders. During the first Gulf War, U.S. aircraft rushed toward the Iraqi border night after night for weeks, pulling away and landing each time. The purpose was to get the Iraqis to see these feints as routine and slow down their reactions when U.S. aircraft finally attacked. The Israelis could be engaged in a version of this, tiring out the Iranians with a series of “emergencies” so they are less responsive in the event of a real strike.

Finally, the Israelis and Americans might not be intending an attack at all. Rather, they are — as the Iranians have said — engaged in psychological warfare for political reasons. The Iranians appear to be split now between those who think that Ahmadinejad has led Iran into an extremely dangerous situation and those who think Ahmadinejad has done a fine job. The prospect of an imminent and massive attack on Iran could give his opponents ammunition against him. This would explain the Iranian government response to the reports of a possible attack — which was that such an attack was just psychological warfare and could not happen. That clearly was directed more for internal consumption than it was for the Israelis or Americans.

We tend toward this latter theory. Frankly, the Bush administration has been talking about an attack on Iran for years. It is hard for us to see that the situation has changed materially over the past months. But if it has, then either Israel or the United States would have attacked — and not with front-page spreads in The New York Times before the attack was launched. In the end, we tend toward the view that this is psychological warfare for the simple reason that you don’t launch a surprise attack of the kind necessary to take out Iran’s nuclear program with a media blitz beforehand. It just doesn’t work that way.

Is It Just My Imagination..........?

2008-06-23T00:14:00.004-04:00

........or has the eating out experience for black folk taken a qualitative leap forward? Case in point. My wife and I and the kids were out today at a restaurant near our home called Charleston's. We had decided to eat out after church and picked this particular place to eat. We were seated, the waitress took our orders and in due course, our food arrived. My wife had ordered chicken with some fried okra and mashed potatoes. Upon tasting her food, she proclaimed the okra off the hook, declaring it "I would hurt you if you tried to take it from me" good. However, the rest of her food was lukewarm. So she asked the waitress to warm it up for her. No biggie, right? A few minutes later, the waitress returns, accompanied by the manager with my wife's food. He apologizes that the food was not warm enough and tells us they simply made her a fresh plate altogether, asks if everything else is okay and goes back to the kitchen.

We were kinda like, oookaay. We just needed it warmed up, but it got us to commenting on a phenomenon that I think we have increasingly experienced since the large scale lawsuits against Denny's and Cracker Barrel. We notice now when we dine out that if we have a problem or express some level of dissatisfaction with our meal, we are often responded to by the establishment's management with accommodation and apologies and in some cases, adjustments to the bill. Mind you, these are not unwarranted responses or beyond what would be appropriate to the circumstances, but we find ourselves regularly experiencing the kind of common courtesy we used to have to be prepared to demand because you didn't get it on GP. We experience this at restaurants other than Denny's or Cracker Barrel, and have had the experience often enough in the past year or so that it really got us to wondering.

Are we crazy or delusional, or has there actually been an industry wide uptick in courtesy afforded black people dining out? Is anyone else finding themselves continually surprised at being courteously treated when eating out? Could it be that an entire industry caught a clue after continued disrespect of black people resulted in a major hit to the brands and bottom line of two major chains? Could it be that other major restaurant chains looked at the Denny's and Cracker Barrel experience and said, you know what, we better get out ahead of this now. And if that's true, it certainly supports similar strategic approaches for other arenas where routine disrespect is a consistent problem such as the BrightLine Wiki project to fight disrespect in the media.

Now, I must admit, it weirds me out just a tad to think that in wait and management staff manuals and trainings, they are like "complaints regarding service by African American customers should be responded to promptly and with a high degree of courtesy and every reasonable accommodation in order to avoid costly lawsuits and or ill will in the black community that could severely damage our brand and bottom line". But don't get me wrong, I'm okay with it. I really am. Because bottom line, if you are not going to respect me just on GP, I'm fine with you respecting the power and capability of my community to punish disrespect by your establishment. Either way gets my wife's plate warmed up without an attitude, and I'm good with that.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Obama Lames Out on Telco Immunity

2008-06-20T21:35:00.004-04:00

The House Friday approved a compromise bill setting new electronic surveillance rules that shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from the government's warrantless eavesdropping on phone and computer lines in this country. Barack Obama has in the past opposed the retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies. The House, which had seemed to grow the spine necessary to defeat this legislation, fought back against the administration for months, today caved like big dogs and gave Bush and friends an early Christmas present that effectively prevents the public from ever finding out the extent of their warrantless wire tap activities. What did Obama have to say about this today?

“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.”

Thats a bunch of crap and pablum. This marks my first major dissapointment with Obama and the first incident that causes me to really question if any of his rhetoric is worth squat. Columnist David Brooks commented in the NYT that Obama is "an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator"....He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades."

Obama's lame and tepid response to the House's capitulation on FISA and the soon to come Senate cave which Obama intends to enable only serves to confirm this assessment.

Back Up Off Michelle Obama

2008-06-20T19:04:00.002-04:00

Cindy McCain, the GOP nominee himself and a host of folk on the right have attempted to skewer Michelle Obama for comments she made during the primaries about being proud of her country. But looky here at McCain's repeated comments and lo the double standard is revealed.

My esteemed fellow republicans I'm sure would say "that's different" when McCain does it. I think not.

I Am Outraged at Barack Obama!

2008-06-20T14:55:00.003-04:00

I'm outraged at Barack Obama! I'm so incensed and angry right now that I am nearly ready to spit.

I simply cannot believe that Obama has decided to refuse $84 million dollars of taxpayer money for his campaign, and instead will finance it entirely from privately raised support.

He's going to raise the money for his campaign himself from people who want to give him the money, rather than use money from tax payers. Absolutely outrageous!

Barack is going to do the the exact opposite of John McCain, my fellow republican, the maverick, the man who won't take a single earmark. He is not going to raise the money from private parties, but instead will use taxpayer dollars to run his campaign. Barack is not going to do that. He is going to raise ALL his money privately, from 1.5 million and counting donors and let $84 million of taxpayer money go for other things like flood relief.

I am outraged!

A&E Network: Here's How To Become a Racist Brand

2008-06-18T01:25:00.004-04:00

Day of Blogging for Respect In Media

The "Dog the Bounty Hunter" tv show is making a return to the A&E network this summer. As you may remember, Dog was outed as a bit of a racist pig when his son and his girlfriend made public a recording of Dog's racist tirade caught on tape.

In response to viewer demand and clamor for the show, A&E has decided to return the program to the airwaves. Clearly, the price for being a racist, for offending African American viewers and consumers in the TV audience, is simply not high enough. A&E clearly hoped that with the passage of time, outrage would fade, the healing would begin and they and Dog could get back to making money. We should ensure that those hopes are dashed completely.

Here's the thing. If you listen to his recorded rant, Dog was quite the self-aware racist. He was crystal clear about the fact that his little tv career would be finished if word got out that he and his bounty hunter squad spent their time routinely calling black people niggers. He understood quite plainly that his career in tv would be finished. I think we ought to insure that his expectations are met.

Its simply not acceptable that media companies and the advertisers who support their programming have no sense of proportion or respect for the sensibilities of African American viewers. If we are to have respect in the media, it is abundantly clear that we must build and maintain the capability to inflict severe and lasting damage to the brand of any corporation or advertiser which supports media programming that intentionally and knowingly insults African Americans. If we are to enforce even a modicum of respect, this must become so.

In pursuit of that goal, in collaboration with other bloggers, the BrightLine wiki was formed. The BrightLine wiki was created to empower the African American community to enforce media respect. It is an archive that records clear and blatant racial offenses in the media and documents the program and advertisers associated with it. This information will be collected and disseminated to the African American community via blogs, black newspapers, black radio and person to person, so that the brands that support programs which disrespect African Americans can be exposed and held accountable. By establishing clear and well recognized bright lines for media companies and their advertisers which cannot be crossed without risk of serious and sustained damage to their brands, we hope to bring about a sustained improvement in the level of respect demonstrated towards African Americans by television, cable, radio and internet broadcast networks.

Also in furtherance of respect in media, the Afrosphere Action Coalition in conjunction with ConsciousInk has sent a letter to A&E as well as many of its former advertisers of the show to express our disappointment with A&E’s and it’s advertisers decision to financially support the return of ‘Dog the Bounty Hunter’ to the airwaves after the public revelation of Chapman’s disdain for people of color. We are urging them and their advertisers not to reward racism with their financial support. Hopefully they will see the error of doing so.

Now they need to hear from all of you

Tell the programming executive’s at A&E and the companies that advertise with them that their support of someone with such demeaning views is unacceptable. Tell them that linking their brands to racism and disrespect of African Americans is a mistake that can only result in negative consequences for their brand and their bottomline.

A&E VPs of Programing
nancy.dubuc@aetn.com, rob.sharenow@aetn.com,

Travelocity Public Relations:
Vollmer Public Relations
Amanda Borichevsky
E-mail: amanda@vollmerpr.com
svc.travelocity.com/custsvc/0,,TRAVELOCITY,00.html

Tylenol- Online contact form
www.tylenol.com/vcrc/email/tyemailform.jhtml?id=email
1-877-TYLENOL

At&T- Online contact form for customers
localization.att.com/loc/controller?cdvn=landinglocalization&pid=1080&cookieResetted=true&ltype=contactus

Red Bull Energy Drinks- Online contact info
redbullusa.com/?gclid=CLnl1oXc-JMCFQOuFQod5FvoVg#page=CompanyPage.Contact
+1 (310) 393-4647

Yellowpages.com- Online contact form
www.yellowpages.com/contact_us/comments
(877) 647-6278

All State Insurance-Online contact form

www.allstate.com/about/corporate-email.aspx
866.908.2500

LG HD T.V’s- Online contact form

www.lgservice.com/gcsc/b2c/hpi/main
(800) 243-0000

Dell Computers- Online contact form
support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx/support/email_customer_care/emailcustomercare?c=us&l=en&s=gen
1-800-915-3355

Nintendo- Online contact form

www.nintendo.com/consumer/webform.jsp
425.882.2040

Subway
www.subway.com/Applications/CustService/frmCustomerService.aspx

Let Us Draw A Line In The Sand Now

2008-06-12T12:59:00.004-04:00

This is a deliberate, intentional show of contempt and disrespect. This demeaning slur of Michelle Obama was developed, approved and put on the air by the staff of Fox News. No one questioned it, no one said this is not appropriate, no one said "we should not do this".

Its a demonstration that Fox News and its advertisers hold African Americans in contempt. That Fox News and its advertisers consider us unworthy of respect. Michelle Obama is an Ivy League graduate, a mother and wife and an accomplished professional woman in her own right. To use the pejorative and demeaning "baby mama" label to describe her is an obvious racist slur and Fox News knows it.

A vigorous campaign of financial protest against Fox News and the brands of the advertisers who support it is clearly warranted and required. It is now amply and abundantly clear that if we do not begin taking concerted, sustained action to make clear that this kind of blatant racial insult cannot be delivered with impunity, we will be subjected to this over and over again.

If this is how some of the the best and the brightest among us will be casually demeaned, what can we, the average African American expect?

What About Our Daughters, Black Women Vote and Electronic Village among others have successfully led accountability campaigns. Jack & Jill paved the way for the necessary tactics with the Clinton Attacks Obama Wiki. I believe a similar archive that records the offense, the program and the advertisers associated with it is needed. We need to connect that archive to a mechanism for coordinated dissemination to the black community via the black blogging community, the black newspaper community and black radio of information about the brands that supported the offensive material so that our community can express its opinion to those brands, those brands can be exposed to the majority community and those brands can be held accountable.

If we are to have respect in the media, it is abundantly clear that we must build and maintain the capability to inflict severe and lasting damage to the brand of any corporation or advertiser which knowingly supports media programming that intentionally and knowingly insults African Americans. We have practiced this type of accountability already. We have the tools. We have the technology.

Let us draw the line in the sand now. Because this shit has got to be stopped.

Qoute of the Day

2008-06-11T20:33:00.001-04:00

"Star formation in Obama's gravitational field is about to begin, and that which was wispy gas not long ago will now begin to accumulate mass"

-Cobb

Obama and Abortion

2008-06-10T22:21:00.006-04:00

Obama is a liberal and a Christian. I'm a conservative and Christian and more specifically, a social conservative. He's a democrat and I'm a republican. But I supported his primary run and I intend to vote for him in November.

Nonetheless, I find myself at odds with Obama on social issues such as abortion, and I am troubled with my decision to support him given his position and voting record on the issue. LaShawn Barber jumped right on that particular sore spot today.

"Barack Hussein Obama is an “articulate” infanticide-supporting liberal who doesn’t like being called a liberal....Anyone who believes it’s OK for “doctors” to crush the heads of infants in the birth canal isn’t getting my vote. If you’re black and pro-life but feel “torn” between racial pride about his nomination and disgust for his pro-death stance, shame on you. Get your priorities straight"

She scored a direct hit on my misgivings about Obama and once again I'm wrestling full bore with the decision to support him in November. In the primary, it was one thing. In the general, its another. So I wanted to get some clarity about his stance. Abortion is a shameful and violent act against innocent children. Partial birth abortion is an extreme version of the abortion practice that even the pro-choice repudiate when they understand the procedure, especially variations such as dilation and evacuation.

Obama's website says he will make protecting women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president. On The Issues reports his background on the subject as follows (read from bottom of list, makes more sense):

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)
We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)
Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)
Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)
GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

In commenting on LaShawn's post, I reconciled my decision to support Obama despite my vehement objection to his pro-abortion stance on the following grounds:

As President, Obama will have no unilateral power to impose his very liberal views. While SCOTUS selections will be in his domain, those selections must be approved by Congress and the people will have a say and I look to activism with Congress as the check and balance on the potential liberal excesses of an Obama administration.
John McCain for all that he is a conservative, is a republican tied to Bush and the republican party's approaches on the economy, on the war, and on expansion and entrenchment of executive power. I believe a departure from that direction is necessary. Obama will be more willingly accountable to the American people than our current President, and moreso than John McCain.
Obama is a Christian, can understand the Scriptural basis for opposition to abortion, is predisposed and sensitized to the issue and is therefore reachable and teachable on this subject. I believe it is possible to bring Obama closer to us on this issue, certainly moreso than it will be to steer republicans from the path they are taking the country in on the war, the economy and the scope of executive and corporate power.

Some of Obama's most recent statements on the issue of abortion lend some credence to #3:

Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception

We've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.

But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.

We're not going to completely resolve it. At some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.

Undecided on whether life begins at conception

Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?

A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life

Q: The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

A: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008

I concluded that electing McCain will not secure a sufficient break with the direction the country is going in now. I would rather elect a reasonable and pragmatic Obama and manage his liberal politics, than elect McCain and ensure no significant change in the policies and practice of the presidency.

I drew some comfort from the fact that apparently LaShawn finds herself conflicted as well:

"I can’t not vote. So, on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, I will head to my polling place. What I’ll do after that, I do not know."

Can a pro-life position and a vote for Obama be reconciled? Am I wrong to believe that Obama's Christian understanding means his position can be moved in the direction of the pro-life camp? Is activism with Congress a reliable, adequate venue and mechanism to blunt an Obama administration's liberal tendencies on social issues?

First Lady Shows Solidarity With Democratic Women

2008-06-09T22:32:00.004-04:00

The First Lady demonstrates why she is as well liked as her husband the President is reviled with words of support and understanding for Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton. I think its a nice show of solidarity with women, the more laudable for being extended to women on the other side of the political divide. A show of class from the First Lady, encouraging us all to heed our better natures.

Post Mortem Thoughts

2008-06-08T01:34:00.003-04:00

Abe, commenting on 3 A.M. For Feminism by Michelle Goldberg

"All this belies the fact that--as you point out--almost none of this actually has to do with anything Obama did other than BEATING HILLARY. What we're really seeing is what happens when the entitlement of feminist identity politics gets into a conflict with the facts: That somebody has to win, and that somebody is the person who has the most delegates. As soon as feminism hits facts, either we have to scrap feminism or we have to scrap reality. Clinton's diehards chose to scrap the latter. What amazes me is the latent racism inherent in all the assumptions made by Clinton supporters. Countless times I've heard Clinton supporters proclaim Obama to be lazy, shiftless, and unworthy while Hillary was "hardworking" and "brilliant". I'll start kissing Clintonian rear end as soon as Clinton supporters get off this sexist-racist "Hillary is so much smarter" meme and start acknowledging that the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and a man who managed to ascend so quickly from state politics all the way to being the nominee of the Democratic Party is someone who is clearly nothing short of a genius. Start giving my guy some credit and I'll stop harping on the now-proven incompetence of your own candidate."

Posted by Kathleen Duffy

"Seriously, it's not that she is a woman. It's that she is Hillary Clinton. I'm a feminist, age 56. I wanted to vote for her. She kept stabbing me in the heart by campaigning like a republican, talking down to me, and pandering with the gas tax holiday. As for the pundits, I agree that some of the coverage was HORRENDOUSLY sexist. But if she had run a better campaign, she would have won handily in spite of some bad coverage. The people are fairer than the pundits."