Palestine Pales

"The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Abba Eban

"We hold him (Netanyahu) fully responsible for the collapse of these negotiations."
Saeb Erekat of the Palestine Authority (PA), Nov. 8, 2010 (1)

The prospects for setting up a Palestinian state were never better than in the early months of 2009. The new American President Barack Hussein Obama, the first such ever raised as a Muslim (2), had been elected with 53% of the popular vote and had both houses of Congress controlled by his party. He went to Cairo and promised the creation of a state of Palestine, and was determined to put "some daylight" between the US and Israel to achieve it. Obama even obtained a ten-month freeze on settlement construction from the Netanyahu government to create the atmosphere for successful negotiations.

President Abbas of the PA should have exclaimed, " Yes! Let's begin serious talks at once and keep negotiating till we get our state!" Instead , his attitude seemed to be "Hang tough and we will get everything we want!"

At first he was not ready for any talks with the Israelis, then only agreed to "proximity" (indirect) talks with them, then finally met face-to-face . When the ten month freeze expired, he asked for its extension. Now that construction is resuming, the PA is threatening to walk away from the talks altogether. (1) Like a winning football team that "eats up the clock" in the final minutes of the game, the Palestinians have dithered and stalled for the first two years of the Obama presidency. But all they have to show for it is a well-chewed clock.

Meanwhile, changes in the American political dynamic have undermined President Obama's ability to pressure Israel into making the kind of concessions necessary to garner Arab agreement (if that were possible at all):

1. The 2010 Congressional elections
The Democrats lost the House, and have about a 6-vote majority in the Senate. According to AIPAC, the present Congress is pro-Israel, and the next one will be even more so. But more important is the fact that a Democratic-led House would never repudiate the efforts of a Democratic president, but a Republican-led one just might! Obama will have to be very friendly to Israel in 2011 and 2012 to avoid such a humiliation.

2. It's almost 2012.
So far the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination is Obama's for the asking. But if he does something outrageous enough, such as souring our relationship with Israel, an ambitious Democrat could challenge him for the nomination. The first primaries and caucuses are just over a year away, and candidates will be gearing-up their campaigns by mid-2011. Although a challenging an incumbent president for the nomination of his party is usually unsuccessful, a serious challenge could split the party so deeply that the nominee loses the general election. (3)
All the serious potential Republican candidates (Gingrich, Palin, Romney, etc.) are pro-Israel. So even if Obama is the unanimous choice for the Democratic nomination, anything he does that can be characterized as even remotely anti-Israel can and will be used against him by the Republicans in the 2012 campaign.
However, if Barack Obama declines to seek re-election, he can mess with Israel all he wants during his remaining months in office, and Congress may not be able to stop him. But since he will then be a "lame duck", no one will listen much.


So the Palestinians blew their big chance. But in early 2013 the President will revive the "peace-process" and the game will be on again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 4A.

(2) His Indonesian stepfather Loto Soetero was a Muslim, and presumably raised Barack as one. He converted to Christianity in Chicago around 1992.

(3) In 1952 and 1968 the incumbent Democratic president lost the New Hampshire primary and withdrew from the race. Both times the Republicans took the presidency.
In 1884 the Republican Party denied the incumbent (Chester Alan Arthur) the nomination, and the Democrats took the presidency for the first time since 1856.

Uncle Sam, Don't Preach!

US District Judge Barbara Crabb of Madison ruled April 15 that a 1988 law requiring the President to declare the first Thursday in May as National Prayer Day is unconstitutional. (1) The case was brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison.

Those who are most vehemently opposed to the intrusion of the federal government into the lives of individual Americans can be expected to applaud this ruling, though so far they have not been heard from. Certainly, if any area of a person's life should be off-limits to government, it would be that of religious belief and practice. Rev. Billy Graham suggested a national day of prayer in 1952, and the Campus Crusade for Christ urged the passage of the bill that made it official. But the US Supreme Court has ruled that every law must have a secular purpose, and Judge Crabb found that this one does not. Rather, its sole purpose contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Now, I am not against prayer; in fact I pray every day. I have been praying since about 1952, and have never needed the slightest reminder from any government official to do so. The issue is not prayer itself, but rather whether a government official should officially advocate it.

While the Justice Department is considering whether to appeal the decision, the White House indicated that President Obama will issue the proclamation on May 6, as previously planned. Judge Crabb has stayed enforcement of her decision pending filing of an appeal. Given the rock-solid legal basis for the decision, it is hard to believe that either Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder have any enthusiasm for appealing it. ( 2) Even a pro-forma appeal will give private groups that favor public prayer an opportunity to file an amicus brief supporting the law. Although President Obama could simply accept the decision and cancel the proclamation, only a decision by the Supreme Court would be clearly binding upon future presidents. Accordingly, I would favor cancelling the proclamation but appealing only for the purpose of securing a binding decision at the highest level.

The National Prayer Day law is not coercive, but merely symbolic. The symbolic meaning is that it is right and proper for the federal government to recommend that Americans pray. To do this I say, "Thanks, but no thanks, I will decide that for myself on the first Thursday in May and every other day of every other year." I trust that the US Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court will say the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 16, 2010, page 1.

(2) Unlike his predecessor, Obama's religious beliefs do not appear to have any noticeable influence on his official actions.

Hillary on Truth Serum

"Clinton told (AIPAC) that provocative Israeli land policies in areas claimed by the Palestinians are not in Israel's long-term interests."
Associated Press, March 23, 2010

During the heyday of the Soviet Union, KGB agents would close-in on an enemy of the regime on a busy street and use an umbrella point (or the like) to inject poison into the victim. Imagine for a moment that an equally unscrupulous person today could obtain a powerful truth serum and inject it into an important public figure, making it impossible for the victim to lie for hours. For example, if this had been done to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just before her AIPAC speech, would the speech have been any different?

I surmise that the speech would have more like this: (edited to preserve the Glazerbeam's G-rating)

" I am supposed to say that I'm so pleased to be here today, but the truth is that I would rather be undergoing a colonoscopy with a rusty roto-rooter right now. That is because you all hate what the President, Vice President and I have been saying these past few days about Israeli plans to build Jewish housing in East Jerusalem.

Now you know and I know that the more Jews live in an area, the less likely that area is to wind-up in a Palestinian state. So, the more solidly- Jewish a neighborhood in any part of Jerusalem is, the more absurd it becomes to pretend that Israel will ever cede it to Arab rule. Now, some say that President Obama is deeply concerned about building homes for Jews in East Jerusalem; the fact is that he doesn't give a rat's (rectum) if the Israelis put up a (expletive deleted)ing Trump Tower there, and neither do I!

The reason that we are blowing a (expletive deleted)ing ton of political capital on this (urine)ant issue is that while Israeli interests are measured in meters, America's interests are measured in continents. We are fighting Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the like in three Muslim countries right now: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Without Muslim support, we can't win. And all Muslims hate Israel, more or less. Osama bin Laden and other jihadists never miss a chance to link the United States with Israel, and they are smart to do that! If we go along with every (expletive deleted)ing thing that Israel does, we play into that. That is why George W Bush was so ineffective in the Muslim world, and why Barack Obama had to give that speech in Cairo to show that he would be more attuned to Muslim and Arab interests.

So, we have to show the world that there is daylight between the US and Israel, especially on Jerusalem, a real flashpoint for devout Muslims. We have to do it out loud and in public to have any impact. Of course, we know that the Israeli government won't like it, but what are they going to do: give back the $3 billion?

If the President really wanted to make Israel knuckle-under, he would recall our ambassador from Tel Aviv. If that didn't get Netanyahu's attention, he would suspend military co-operation. And if that didn't work, he could impound the whole (expletive-deleted)ing three billion! And that probably would work!
J Street would be ecstatic! So, why doesn't he do it? He knows that Bill got impeached for (expletive deleted)ing just one Jew, and he ain't going to find out what the pay-back would be for doing that to a whole (expletive deleted)ing country of 'em!

So, Barack and I are caught between (urinating)-off the Jews of America and (urinating)-off the whole Muslim world. That's why we talk tough to Israel, but don't really do anything to make Israel listen. Even so, we know we are killing Democrats in New York; a Republican will probably take my old senate seat, and Democratic congressmen in Jewish areas are likely to go down in flames too. If it costs his own re-election bid in 2012, tough (manure)!

So why antagonize the Israel Lobby? Because Barack puts the geopolitical interests of the United States of America above the domestic political interests of the Democratic Party! Yes, its (expletive deleted)ing patriotism! The next edition of Profiles in Courage will have a chapter on Barack Obama!

I hope you appreciate being told the truth for a change, but if you don"t , you can kiss my (donkey)! Happy Passover, anyway.

Weak Reid

" (Barack Obama is)...a light skinned African-American, with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Senator Harry Reid (D, Nevada), during the 2008 presidential primary campaign

This quotation, from the new book "Game Change" (1), prompted Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to demand that Reid resign as Majority Leader, calling his remarks "embarrassing and racially insensitive." (Did you realize that Cornyn was so racially sensitive? I didn't.)

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele compared the quote to one by then Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott that caused him to step-down from his leadership position. At a birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond (R, South Carolina) in early December, 2002, Lott noted that his home state of Mississippi had voted for Thurmond for President in 1948 (2) and added that "..if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over these years." (3) Steele said that if Lott had to resign as Majority Leader for his statement, so should Reid for his. As Steele put it, "It's either racist or it's not. And it's inappropriate, absolutely." (4)

Senator Reid apologized to President Obama for the remark, and the President accepted his apology and considers the matter closed. Apparently the President is less sensitive to racial slights than Senator Cornyn, let alone Mr. Steele.

In my view, the whole controversy is bogus. First, I do not consider the word "Negro" to be racist, if that is what bothers the Republicans. Harlem activist Marcus Garvey proudly used it in the title of his movement: the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Martin Luther King used it in almost every speech. The United Negro College Fund uses the term today, as does the US Census Bureau. ( Obama could have deleted it from the 2010 census questionnaire, but has not done so. ) Until the Black Muslims repudiated the word in the 1960's, everyone used it to describe Americans of African ancestry. Today "Negro" may be a bit quaint, but I do not believe it is pejorative, and certainly not racist.

But what about the remark itself? Suppose that a politician would have remarked in 2004 that Joe Lieberman has a good chance to become president because he doesn't look too Jewish, and does not have a Yiddish accent, although he could speak that way if he wanted to. I would have considered the remark fatuous, but not anti-Semitic. Like it or not, the ethnicity and appearance of a candidate, as well as his style of speech, are factors in his electability. Reid did nothing more than apply these factors to Obama, and I see no need for him to apologize for doing so, let alone resign his leadership position.

But what about the comparison to Trent Lott? Apples and oranges, I say. Reid's comment had no bearing on public policy. But if Strom Thurmond would have been elected President in 1948, as Lott would have preferred, the Executive Branch of the US Government would have opposed racial equality under the law for at least four years, with consequences far beyond that term of office. (5) One would have expected the Republican leader to have endorsed GOP nominee Tom Dewey for the 1948 election, rather than a maverick Democrat! (Thurmond switched to the GOP in 1965.)

As Democratic leader of the Senate, Harry Reid pales in comparison to men like Lyndon Johnson and Mike Mansfield. If he steps down, it would be no great loss--- Charles Schumer (NY), Carl Levin (MI), or Richard Durbin (IL) would all be better. Moreover, polls in Nevada indicate that Reid will lose his seat in November, anyway. He would be no worse off if he had responded to the torrent of criticism by saying, " What I said was true, and I am not sorry for it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) By Mark Halperin (of Time Magazine) and John Heilemann (of New York Magazine).

(2) After the 1948 Democratic National Convention had approved a civil-rights plank for the platform, most of the Deep South delegations walked out and created a splinter party called Democratic States' Rights, aka the Dixiecrats. The new party nominated Gov. Thurmond for President and Gov. Fielding Wright of Mississippi for Vice-President. The ticket finished a distant third with about 2% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes.

(3) Lott said the same thing in 1980. (Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2002, page A06)

(4) Associated Press, Jan. 11, 2010.

(5) As President, Thurmond could have appointed racist judges to federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, who would have decided civil rights cases for decades thereafter.

Prince of Peace Prize

"(The Peace Prize shall be awarded to) the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace conferences."
Will of Alfred Nobel, signed Nov. 27, 1895

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, awarded by a committee of the Norwegian Parliament consisting of four women and one man, will be presented to President Barack Obama. Why was he chosen? Perhaps Obama, like music, " has charms to soothe the savage breast "(1), especially when the savage breast belongs to of one of the female members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

The prize will put Obama in the company of three previous US Presidents (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter). TR settled the Russo-Japanese War, Wilson proposed the League of Nations, and Carter brokered the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation (Egypt). . The Prize also went to Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese official Le Duc Tho in 1973 for settling the Vietnam War, which ended two years later in a Communist victory. Perhaps the most notorious example was the 1994 award to Yassir Arafat (2), who had previously devoted his life to murdering Israelis, and resumed doing so a few years later.

Although Obama's achievements in securing peace pale before those of TR and Carter, he has certainly promoted peace conferences, one of the activities Mr Nobel chose to honor. Barack Obama has, in the past few months, expended substantial political capital in a vain effort to jump-start talks between Israel and the Palestine Authority. (3) He has also adopted a less confrontational approach toward some other nations than that of his immediate predecessor, and maybe that was a key factor in his selection. The President himself admitted that he does not deserve the Prize, and many of his critics agree with him on that point, if no others.

One of the problems with the Nobel Peace Prize is that there is no waiting period between the activity honored and the awarding of the prize. Certainly the awards to Le Duc Tho and Arafat would not have been made several years later, in view of their subsequent actions against the cause of peace. The Catholic Church does not declare someone a saint until at least fifty years after the person has died, so that the candidate's works could be evaluated in the light of history. Nobel might have been well advised to follow the Church's example in awarding the Peace Prize, even if the waiting period were five or ten years.

But the more serious objection to the Prize is that while "holding and promoting peace conferences" are cited as activities to be honored by the award, even though conferences often do nothing for peace (4), other actions that really advance the cause of peace, like blowing away the Osirak Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 (5), are not honored at all. When faced with an aggressive tyrant like Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, or Sadam Hussein, the best way to seek peace is by resolute resistance to threats and aggression, rather than holding conferences or seeking "reduction of...armies" as advocated by Alfred Nobel.

Maybe there should be a new prestigious international prize to be awarded to the person, nation or group that took the right action at the right time to prevent or limit the destruction of war. But this new award should be made in retrospect, well after the consequences of such action will have become clear.

If only men like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump would read this blog, perhaps they would be inspired to establish such a prize in their wills.

Meanwhile Barack Obama will join Mother Teresa as a Nobel Peace laureate. But, Barack, you are no Mother Teresa!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Mourning Bride, by William Congrave, 1697.

(2) Along with Yitzchok Rabin and Shimon Peres. In retrospect, none of them earned it.

(3) As Glazerbeam readers know by now, such talks are doomed to failure.

(4) The Versailles Peace Conference led to World War II, and the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference led to nothing, for examples.

(5) Menachem Begin, who ordered the reactor attack, had already been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978 for the Peace Treaty with Egypt.

Obama's War

A Democratic president inherits a war in Asia, in which American forces were defending a friendly government against an insurgency. In response to recommendations from US commanders on the scene, the president increases the number of American ground troops. Although vastly outgunned by the Americans and their local allies, the insurgents keep coming, and seem to have substantial support among the population. Liberal senators begin to question the war, some even totally oppose it.

Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam? Or Barack Obama in Afghanistan? Just a few years ago Iraq was labeled Bush's Vietnam; will Afghanistan be Obama's?

The war to drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks was supported by an overwhelming number of Americans. The Taliban had permitted Al Qaida to operate numerous training camps in their country, and terrorists trained there had committed the 9/11 crimes. The US had been supporting a group of Afghan tribes known as the Northern Alliance against the Taliban for years, but after 9/11 the American military intervened directly against the Islamic fascists, and within weeks the Taliban had been driven from power. A new government under US ally Hamid Karzai of the Northern Alliance took office, and Taliban and Al Qaida members fled to caves along the Pakistani border.

Mission accomplished? I thought so, as did many Americans. We never did nab Osama bin Laden, but Afghans were at last free of Taliban Sharia (Muslim law) rule. But over the past eight years a strange thing happened: the Taliban have come back fighting, and the government in Kabul needs American troops (as well as money and weapons) to stop them.

What went wrong? ( I have never been anywhere Afghanistan, so my opinions are based on published reports, not personal knowledge. ) First, note that about 90% of the opium produced in the world comes from Afghanistan; it is the most profitable crop that local farmers can grow. The US and its allied government have been trying mightily to stamp out the opium trade, while it is no problem at all to the Taliban. Ironically, American heroin addicts are thus indirectly helping the Taliban to win over local farmers.

Next, consider that Afghanistan has no tradition of democracy. Before the Taliban, the country was ruled by a Soviet puppet regime, before that by a king, and before the monarchy it was ruled by the British. The prime forces in Afghan politics have been and still are: Sunni Islam, tribalism, and hostility to foreign armies. We Americans (and our British allies) view ourselves as liberators, and the Western-educated elite in Kabul concur, but to many Afghans in the villages we are just another foreign army of occupation. The Taliban, despite their cruelty and tyranny, and their oppression of women and girls, are Muslim Afghans, and we are not. Very few Americans in Afghanistan can even speak any one of their languages. How is your Pashto? Urdu?

Of course, the key to success is the local government, whose troops we are arming and training. Americans who have dealt with President Karzai, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have been disappointed with his leadership. Karzai is reported to be weak and ineffectual, especially in confronting internal corruption and the opium trade. His troops are said to need years more of American training, even though Taliban troops seem to be doing fine without any foreign training at all. If the Afghans really appreciate their new-found freedom, why are they not more effective in fighting for it themselves?

The trouble is that the downside of pulling out of Afghanistan is appalling. If the Taliban retake power, Al Qaida will be back training terrorists for missions all over the world. Worse yet, the Taliban forces in Pakistan will have a safe haven in Afghanistan from which to threaten Islamabad for years to come. If Afghanistan is the first domino to fall to the Taliban, Pakistan (armed with nuclear weapons) could be the second. The stakes in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) seem puny by comparison.

Although the war effort in Afghanistan is losing support in this country (1), Obama has little choice but to soldier on. According to one theory, his policy of appeasement of the Arabs in the Middle East (2) is driven in part by a desire to appeal to Muslims in Asian countries, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. If US casualties in the war increase, his popularity in America will decrease; but if he would pull out and the Taliban were to win, the consquences could be catastrophic.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama pledged to transfer US military power from Iraq to the struggle in Afghanistan. So far, he has kept that promise, but the road ahead looks not only rocky, but mountainous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) According to a poll reported by The NY Times reported on September 25, 2009, the number of people who approve of Obama's handling of the Afghan war declined from 56% in April to only 44%.

(2)For example, Obama's speech to the UN General Assemby on September 22 declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegimate. However, in other parts of the same speech he urged Palestinians and other Arabs to stop inciting hatred and violence toward Israel.

Hamas to Save Settlements

"Obama called Israel's settlements in the...West Bank illegitimate and said they must stop......he also said that Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements and recognize Israel's right to exist."
Reports of President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo, June 4, 2009

If Obama could get his way, Israeli soldiers would be dragging thousands of Jews out of their homes in the West Bank before long. But thanks to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), that will not happen, nor will there be a State of Palestine.

Like a visiting imam (Muslim preacher), the President quoted selected verses from the Quran that bolster his contention that Islam is a religion of peace, a view previously expressed by then President George W Bush. However, the leaders of Hamas, who not only quote the Quran but actually live it, apparently hear a different imam. In their understanding of Islam, the presence of a Jewish state of any size whatsoever on consecrated Muslim land (the Arabian Penninsula, at the very least) is an intolerable affront to Islam, and it is the duty of all Muslims to eliminate it.

Obama may consider men like Netanyahu and Lieberman to be intransigent, but next to Hamasniks they are pussycats! Despite the President's oratorical skills and popularity in the Muslim world, Hamas is not likely to change its raison d'etre any time soon.

Hamas does not want a peace deal with Israel, and I doubt that Palestinian President Abbas has the moxie to make one without their consent. Even if the Obama Administration prods Israel into making an offer as sweet from the Arab perspective as that presented by Ehud Barak in 2000, Abbas will reject it. The result: more years of settlements, occupation, check-points and conflict.

Meanwhile, Obama is pressuring Israel into halting expansion of existing settlements. But how much of his considerable political capital will the President expend on this? Even though many Israelis agree with Obama on this point, the kind of coercive measures that would be required to make Israel comply would trigger a backlash in Congress. I do not believe that Obama wants another AWACS-type of fight (1) over such a minor issue. More likely, there will be a face-saving compromise along these lines: adding rooms to existing buildings will be OK, but not building new ones. Does peace in the Middle East really turn on such piddling points? Maybe!

Hamas rules over about 1.4 million people in a land about the size of Milwaukee County, a mere one percent of British Palestine (2). Although Hamas has plenty of rockets, it is an insignificant military force, even by Middle East standards. (3) Yet, this fanatic group has an effective veto over the efforts of the world's only remaining superpower to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict. So, every night the settlers should thank God and thank Hamas that they can stay where they are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) President Ronald Reagan barely won a battle in the Senate to sell advanced surveillance aircraft known as AWACS to Saudi Arabia in 1983.

(2) Based on 1922-1948 borders.

(3) In a month of fighting in Gaza (Dec. 2008-Jan. 2009) Hamas killed a handful of Israeli soldiers, while losing nearly a thousand of their own troops.

Name This Administration!

So far the Obama Administration lacks a catchy moniker like "The New Deal" for its agenda. The most memorable presidencies of recent times have all been known by some brief phrase or theme that encapsulated the essence of the White House and its program, for example:

Woodrow Wilson: "The New Freedom"
Warren Harding: "Back to Normalcy"
Franklin Roosevelt: "The New Deal"
Harry Truman: "The Fair Deal"
Dwight Eisenhower: "Peace and Prosperity"
John Kennedy: "The New Frontier" (afterwards, "Camelot" (1))
Lyndon Johnson: "The Great Society"
Ronald Reagan: "Morning in America"
Bill Clinton: "The Bridge to the 21st Century" (2)
George W Bush: "The War on Terror"

Those presidents that did not choose a theme-word or phrase for their administrations are often remembered by themes invented by others, often unfriendly others. For example, the Nixon Administration is forever linked in the public consciousness with the term "Watergate." Jimmy Carter's term is best remembered for the Nightline tag line "America Held Hostage."

If President Obama wants to avoid having his term of office branded by others, he will have to brand it himself. The Glazerbeam offers to help by providing a few sample names below. You can help by endorsing one of these monikers or suggesting another one by e-mail at GSGlazer@sbcglobal.net. The most popular entry will be sent to the White House.

Suggested Theme-Names for the Obama Administration

1. a. Obamania
b. Obamination

2. Barack to the Future

3. The Big Bail-Out

4. Taxes 'R Us

5. The Real Deal

6.a. The Hip Society
b. The Hip Hop Society

7. The Green Machine

8.a. The Blackberry White House
b. The Black Barry White House
c. The Multi-racial House

If the Republican nominee had won, the only name I could think of for his administration is The McCain Mutiny. But maybe you can do better----I'm waiting to hear from you!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The metaphor "Camelot" for the Kennedy White House was suggested by author Theodore H White in a syndicated essay shortly after the assassination.

(2) His second term might have been known as "Terms of Impeachment." The Lewinsky scandal was dubbed "Bimbroglio" by the New Republic.

A Nation of Cowards

".....in things racial, we have always been....a nation of cowards.... We...simply do not talk enough with each other about race."
Attorney General Eric Holder, Feb. 18, 2009

Does the AG mean that men like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright are too cowardly to speak up about race in this country? I do not think so----they seem to talk about little else!

Perhaps he meant that white people, like this blogger (white as the driven snow, though Nazi-types would deny that) don't talk enough about race? It is true that the Glazerbeam has not dealt much with racial issues-----until now. I proudly accept the AG's challenge to discuss race in America candidly, but I am not sure he would like what I have to say, if he even reads this blog.

Unlike Mr Holder, I contend that talk of race has had too great an impact on public affairs in this country, and here are some examples of what I mean:

Clarence Thomas. When the first black Supreme Court Justice retired in 1991, President George H W Bush appointed US Circuit Judge Thomas to succeed him. Although he was the only black person ever nominated to the Supreme Court by a Republican president, Thomas apparently believed the President's claim that his race had nothing to do with his selection.
Yet, at his confirmation hearing, he never tired of reminding senators of his humble origins in a dysfunctional black family in Pin Point, Georgia. He lambasted criticism of his nomination as a "high tech lynching," deliberately using this racially-charged term to discredit his opponents. Instead of holding him in contempt of the Senate, the Senate confirmed him.

O J Simpson. Despite overwhelming DNA evidence of his guilt in the murders of his ex-wife Nicole and Ronald Goldman, Simpson was acquitted by a jury without even one white male member. (1) To this day, polls show that most black Americans believe Simpson was innocent. (2) He is only behind bars now because he subsequently committed other crimes in Las Vegas, where his race could not save him from justice. If he ever needed Johnny Cochran, he needed him at his Nevada trial.

Barack Obama must be one of the cowards that Holder was referring to, since he rarely mentioned race during his long presidential campaign, until the furor over Wright made him address the subject. But that is exactly where he differed from previous black presidential candidates like Jackson and Sharpton, which is why many whites voted for him!
Obama apparently believes that his partial-African heritage was an obstacle that he had to overcome in winning the Democratic presidential nomination, but the truth is that it was an enormous advantage. As the only African-American in a field of nine candidates, he garnered the lion's share of the black vote in every primary and caucus, while the other candidates scrambled for a share of the white vote. This was crucially important in winning southern primaries, where black voters today are often a majority of the Democratic base. In addition, white liberals could manifest their racial liberalism by voting for an African-American candidate more than by backing a white contender who was merely supportive of black aspirations. In this age of "identity politics", Obama was the "real deal."

As for Eric Holder, I cannot prove that his race was a major factor in his impressive legal career, which included important positions in the Clinton Justice Department, which then paved the way for his appointment as Attorney General. But it probably helped.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The prosecution agreed to move the trial from the district where the crimes where committed to Central Los Angeles, where more blacks would be in the jury pool. Cochran succeeded in eliminating all white males from the final panel, then using the racism of Detective Furman to persuade the jurors that Simpson was framed.

(2) Simpson is an ironic beneficiary of black solidarity, since he preferred the company of whites. Not only did he marry a white woman (as his second wife), but he allowed an unemployed white guy to share his home, even though there were plenty of black losers in LA who would have gladly accepted his hospitality.

Israel After Bush

President George W Bush will be remembered as very friendly toward Israel. To his everlasting credit, he severed all contact with Yasser Arafat after the Palestinian leader lied to him about the Karrine A, a boat loaded with Iranian arms intended for Fatah and intercepted by Israeli naval forces.
However, after the death of Arafat, Bush established a warm relationship with the Abbas government, which led to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Meanwhile, Bush promoted democracy for Arabs, so the Palestine Authority (PA) held fair elections that were won by Hamas. This, in turn, led to the violent Hamas takeover of Gaza.
The Bush Administration has struggled mightily to broker a peace-deal between Israel and the PA before the end of its term in office, but that was not to be.
Many Jewish people fear that President-Elect Barack Obama, who has visited Israel and made many pro-Israel statements, is really anti-Israel and will turn US policy against the Jewish state after taking office. This is partially because the Illinois senator has accepted political support from Arabs and anti-Semites, and has an unfortunate tendency to tell everybody what they want to hear. As a result, both Zionists and anti-Zionists claim that the next President sides with them.
Here is what I believe will really happen in Israel during the next four years:

1. Israeli Election
In view of the corruption and failures of the Kadima Government, I believe that Likud will come in first in the election, and will govern in coalition with Shas and other religious and nationalist parties. The coalition will be dead-set against giving away any part of Jerusalem.

2. Gaza
The ceasefire between Israel and Gaza was abrogated Nov. 4 when Israeli forces found a tunnel under the border. (1) If the Hamas regime resumes rocket attacks into Israel after the Likud Government comes into power, look for an Israeli invasion of Gaza that will crush Hamas.

3. West Bank Negotiations
The US will continue to pressure both Israel and the PA into making a deal, but the issues of Jerusalem and the Right of Return will continue to prevent one. A Likud Government will be more resistant to American and international pressure than the current one.

4. Syria and Hezbollah
If Syria is willing to accept the presence of neutral forces in the Golan to prevent either Syrian or Hezbollah forces from using the Heights to attack Israel, a deal is possible. The neutral forces could be American, French, German or even Turkish. The fact that both Israel and the United States have attacked Syrian territory with impunity in the past year proves that Syria is not strong enough to secure its borders or airspace.
Syria needs Hezbollah to control Lebanon, but cannot afford to let the Shiite militia into the Golan. Hezbollah is armed with thousands of rockets, and could launch them into Israel at any time. If that happens after Likud takes power, the new Israeli Government will devastate southern Lebanon before a cease-fire is imposed.

5. Iran
The US will not attack Iran's nuclear facilities, and will try to dissuade Israel from doing so. There are signs that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is losing power, and may well be replaced in 2009. (2) If so, I believe his successor will allow UN nuclear-inspectors back into the country to verify that the Islamic Republic is not enriching uranium to the levels required for an atomic bomb. This could defuse the crisis, end the sanctions on Iran, and prevent a catastrophic war.
On the other hand, if Israeli intelligence determines that Iran is anywhere near building an atomic bomb, Israel will bomb Iran with conventional weapons. This would trigger attacks upon Israel by both Iran and Hezbollah, God forbid, leading to a big war in the Middle East.

6. The US-Israel Special Relationship
Although Israel has become dependent upon American foreign aid, diplomatic support, and military co-operation, the US has only limited leverage on Israeli actions. This is because no American president wants a confrontation with the Israel Lobby and its many friends in Congress. The last one to incur the wrath of the Lobby, President George H W Bush, was defeated for re-election (3). Members of Congress who openly oppose aid to Israel are targeted for defeat, and most of them lose. (4)

I intend to review each of these predictions in the Glazerbeam following the 2012 Election.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, November 5, 2008.

(2) See "Iran Parliament ousts Ahmadinejad ally for faking college degree", NY Times, Nov. 5, 2008, quoted in that day's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 13A.

(3) The issue was $10 billion dollars of loan guarantees for Israel to settle recent immigrants. Bush Sr complained he was "Just one guy here against hundreds of lobbyists."

(4) Senator Charles Percy (R, IL), Rep. Paul Findley (R, IL) and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D, GA) are a few examples.

Reject McCain-Palin

John McCain is unquestionably a man of patriotism and personal courage. However, his political record and current positions indicate that he should not be the next President of the United States. Here is why:

Court Appointments: The next President will appoint many federal judges, probably including at least one Justice of the US Supreme Court. On his campaign website, John McCain asserts that the Roe v Wade decision should be overturned, and promised to appoint judges who share his view. (1) To me, abortion is like idol-worship: I would not do it, don't like others to do it, but still believe that it should be legal in America.
Justices (and judges) who do not support the right of a pregnant woman to choose abortion are also most likely to hold other authoritarian, Christian-Right views. I would not trust such jurists to protect the civil liberties of Americans against the efforts of government to control them. In particular, the executive branch of the federal government has grown more powerful during the past eight years, and I would prefer judges more concerned about the rights of the people than about the powers of government. Moreover, judges with Christian-Right viewpoints cannot be trusted to defend the separation of Church and State .

Tax Policy: As noted in September 21 Glazerbeam ("Deeper in Debt"), McCain proposes a huge tax-cut for all Americans that would guarantee big deficits for the foreseeable future. A policy of always borrowing and never reducing the National Debt is not sustainable over the long run. The deficit is over $400 billion right now, without the McCain tax-cuts.

Social Security: John McCain has proposed the partial privatization of Social Security for younger workers. (2) This would reduce the revenues needed to pay benefits to current and future retirees.

Immigration: Senator McCain co-sponsored a bill (with Senator Edward M Kennedy) to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the US while applying for citizenship. (2)

Vice-President: Governor Sarah Palin loves Israel, has a perky personality, has some uncommon skills, and has achieved remarkable success. However, her responses to questions in interviews and in the Vice Presidential Debate indicate that she often did not even understand the questions, let alone provide cogent answers. I do not believe she is smart enough to be Vice President, let alone President.
She also has been dishonest about her past support for the notorious Alaska "Bridge to Nowhere" and about $400 billion in earmarks for other projects in her state. (She favored these projects before she opposed them, but gives the false impression in her speeches that she was always against them.)
The fact that McCain chose her as his successor in the presidency shows his own poor judgment of the suitability of people for high-level positions in government.

Dishonest Campaign: The McCain campaign has claimed that Barack Obama is responsible for high gasoline prices, favors raising the taxes of most Americans, favors sex-education for kindergarten children and opposes nuclear power. None of this is true. (3)

Obama is not an ideal alternative candidate: some of his past associations are troubling, and some of his campaign ads have also contained distortions. (3) Yet, he is an intelligent and thoughtful young man with a strong grasp of the issues facing America and the world. A former Lecturer in Constitutional Law at the prestigious University of Chicago, Obama is seriously committed to the civil liberties of ordinary Americans, and his court appointees will be too.
He had the wisdom to choose Joseph Biden, a respected senior member of the Senate, as his running-mate; unlike Gov. Palin, Biden will be ready to assume the presidency at any time, should the occasion arise. As Vice President, Joe Biden will provide valuable advice and assistance, particularly in dealing with Congress.
On balance, the Obama-Biden team is the one that offers the best prospects of dealing successfully with the many problems that now confront our country.

===============================================================

(1) The New Republic, Aug. 27, 2008, page 19.

(2) McCain may no longer hold this position. He switches without much notice.

(3) "War of Half Truths" by Craig Gilbert, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 1A.

An Excellent Choice!

If major party presidential nominations went to the most experienced and able candidate, Joe Biden would be the 2008 Democratic nominee. Biden, a senator since 1973 and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, might then pick a rising newcomer from Illinois named Barack Obama to be his running-mate.



But in the real world, presidential nominations go to candidates with an undefinable asset known as charisma: a combination of appearance, intelligence, and rhetorical skills that make people like and trust them. John F Kennedy, Robert F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan had it, Obama has it now, and Joe Biden never had it and never will.



Non-charismatic candidates do get slated for Vice-president: Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Richard Nixon, George H W Bush and Al Gore are all examples of men who won a presidential nomination after soldiering 4 or 8 eight years as a loyal vice-president. Nixon and senior Bush went on to become President. Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford all inherited the presidency and then were nominated for full terms; I doubt that any of them could have won a presidential nomination any other way.



By choosing the more senior and experienced fellow senator as his running-mate , Obama has followed the example of Senator John F Kennedy, who offered the second spot to Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson of Texas. The ticket carried Texas and narrowly won the presidency. However, when Michael Dukakis picked Senator Lloyd Benson for Veep in 1988 the Texas gambit failed; the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket lost the Lone Star state to Texan-by-choice Vice President George Bush. Apparently Bentsen was no Lyndon B Johnson.



Republicans are already crowing that Biden derided Obama as "not ready to lead" during the Iowa Caucus campaign. Most voters realize that nowadays nearly all contested elections include a certain modicum of negative campaigning (alias "mud-slinging"), so that whenever a defeated primary candidate is slated for VP, the opposite party can find some quote like this. Lyndon Johnson said the same thing about John Kennedy before the 1960 Democratic Convention. And who can forget "voodoo economics?" (1)

If Barack Obama is a political rocket, zooming from Illinois state senator to presidential nominee in a mere four years, Biden is the stabilizer, the gizmo that keeps the projectile on a steady course. Unlike LBJ, Biden does not represent a crucial big state. But to older, working-class voters in the major battle-ground states of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Joe Biden is a living reminder that this is still "your father's Democratic Party."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Bush sr used this phrase to describe Ronald Reagan's proposed tax-cuts. He denied the quote, but videotapes prove he said it.

Let's Talk Politics and Religion!

"This is a Judeo-Christian valued nation."
Senator John McCain(1)

"Senator Barack Obama said Tuesday (July 1) that if elected president he would expand the delivery of social services through churches......"(2)

Although we can prohibit the promulgation of religious beliefs by government agencies, such as the public schools, the connection between politics and religion in this country is not going away anytime soon.

Religion impinges upon politics in two distinct ways:

First, sharing of religious faith establishes a bond of kinship between a candidate and a group of voters. For example,the support of Catholic voters was a key factor in John Kennedy's victories in both the 1960 primaries and the general election. By the same token, I feel drawn to Jewish candidates such as Herb Kohl, Russ Feingold, and Joe Lieberman, even though there is considerable difference in religious practice between these three men.

Moreover, the attitudes of many Americans on "hot button" issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage are rooted in religious beliefs. Groups such as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition were created to channel the votes of devout Christians into the Republican Party, using these issues. The victories of Ronald Reagan and both President Bushes were due, in part, to the support of religious conservatives. In 2008, the initial success of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in Republican caucuses and primaries was also due to their support.

In 2000 John McCain lashed out at the "bigotry" of rightwing clergymen who sank his candidacy in the South Carolina Republican primary. But this year, the Arizona senator mended his relationship with the fundamentalist clergy, even meeting with Rev. Billy Graham and his son Franklin. However, McCain has repudiated the support of Rev. John Hagee and Rev. Rod Parsley, both of whom have made offensive comments about adherents of other religions.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama has famously repudiated the support of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose crackpot sermons he had endured for about twenty years, when Wright became a political liability with white voters. I think that Obama is, and always was, a secularist at heart who found it advantageous to join the biggest church in the neighborhood in which he launched his political career. Had he been seeking elective office in a Catholic neighborhood, he might have found the late Pope John Paul II irresistible and embraced the Roman creed. Obama has been target of persistent (false) rumors that he is secretly a Muslim, but that would imply that he really is motivated by religious belief, which is dubious.

Although it is entirely benign for politicians to hold religious beliefs, as their faith may evoke the more honest and benevolent impulses in their psyches, I believe that their public association with preachers is bad----both for their candidacies and for the public . This is because it is the job of preachers (including rabbis) to extol the righteousness of their own doctrine and denounce rival doctrines as heresy. Politicians, on the other hand, are successful to the extent that they can establish a broad base of support, including voters of widely differing opinions. For a politician, compromise is the key to forging a majority and getting results; for a preacher, compromise is selling-out to Satan.

Although playing the religion card in American politics is overwhelmingly aimed at Christian voters, there are also many Jews who will blindly follow the recommendation of their rabbi in the voting booth. As you might have guessed, I am not among them. There are legions of rabbis who know far more than I ever will about Torah and mitzvos, but there are none to whose judgment I would defer about what is best for my community, state, or country.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Speaking at Kalamazoo Christian High School, Jan.14, 2008

(2) NY Times News Service, July 2, 2008

Misusing History

"...We were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at a time when they were saying 'we're going to wipe you off the planet.' "
Senator Barack Obama in Pendleton, Oregon, May 18, 2008 (Assoc. Press)

The President of the United States has much more power over foreign and military policy than over domestic issues. Moreover, Congress can act as a restraining influence on a President whose actions are considered too aggressive and militaristic, but can do nothing when the President is too timid and accomodating toward hostile powers. For these reasons, statements such as that quoted above by Senator Obama are troubling, especially to those who usually support the Democratic presidential nominee.

First, I do not believe that any Soviet top leader ever made a public threat to "wipe you (US) off the planet." Even Premier Nikita Khrushchev's famous prophecy that "we will bury you" pales in comparison, and was meant (according to Khrushchev) economically, not militarily.

Although we know that the Soviet nuclear arsenal was developed and deployed for potential use against the United States, it is significant that Soviet rhetoric was far more restrained than Obama would have us believe. This is important because US-Soviet diplomacy was conducted in a more civil context than the relationship between this country and Iran, with whom Obama intends to confer.

Between the time that President Franklin Roosevelt established diplomatic relations with the USSR and its collapse the American Embassy in Moscow was never taken over, nor were US diplomats ever taken hostage or otherwise harmed. (1) Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most dangerous time of the Cold War, both formal and informal contacts between the great powers continued, and they led to a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Obama uses the historical precedent of diplomatic contact with the Soviet Union to support his willingness to meet with leaders of Iran and other "rogue nations." If he believes that he can personally persuade Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to moderate his policies, the Illinois senator vastly overestimates his persuasive powers. Although frequently noting the willingness of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan to meet Soviet leaders, he never mentions that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to meet Adolph Hitler in Munich, where Chamberlain not only failed to influence Hitler, but seriously misread the Fuehrer's intentions. Similarly the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna in 1961 was a disaster, as the Soviet leader perceived Kennedy as weak.

Our history with Iran since the 1978 Islamic Revolution is far more relevant to the question of how to deal with the nation than any stretched historical analogy. The fact is that the Iranian regime permitted a gang of thugs to invade the US Embassy in 1979 and hold its staff hostage for more than a year. Despite being branded as "The Great Satan, " the United States initiated contacts with Iran under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, and even sold Hawk missiles to the Islamic Republic. (2)

The US has held low-level talks with Iran (about Afghanistan and Iraq), even in the absence of diplomatic relations, until Iran broke off these contacts in March. In this context, an offer by the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran might not even be accepted. Worse yet, if such a meeting did take place, it would boost the standing of Ahmadinejad with his own people and make his re-election in 2009 more likely. (The best hope for peace in the Middle East is that he is replaced with a more reasonable man.)

In dealing with an adversary, such as Iran, diplomacy has its value if (and only if) it is backed-up by the credible prospect of military action. The blockade of Cuba by President Kennedy in 1962 was an example of this. Senator Lloyd Bentsen once remarked that Dan Quayle was "no John F Kennedy." Unfortunately, neither is Barack Obama.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The KGB did, however, bug the US Embassy in Moscow.

(2) Although a great fan of former President Reagan, Senator John McCain never mentions "The Gipper's" sale of weapons to Iran, which none of the current presidential candidates favors today.

Hillary Echoes JFK

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon a nation in this hemisphere launched from Cuba as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."
President John F Kennedy, October, 1962

" (If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons) we will attack Iran....we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Senator Hillary Clinton, May, 2008 (1)

"It is not the language we need right now."
Senator Barrack Obama, May, 2008 (1)

For those pundits who have said that there are no real policy differences between Democratic candidates Clinton and Obama, the real difference cited above must have come as a shock. Mrs. Clinton, who once promised retaliation as her first response to another terrorist attack on the US, is clearly positioning herself as the more hawkish contender. Perhaps she is overcompensating for the presumption that a female president would be less likely to use military force. If so, it is working.

Despite the obvious similarity to the warning made by President Kennedy, Barrack Obama characterized her threat as "language reflective of George Bush." To have compared her to fellow Democrat John F Kennedy might have solidified her standing with those Democrats who never accepted the McGovern/Carter preference for appeasement over confrontation. The Illinois senator, who favors a dialogue with Iran, Syria and other Middle East powers, has aligned himself with the dovish wing of his party.

Obama should have pondered the consequences of President Kennedy's threat to retaliate upon the Soviet Union. Like many Americans of the time, I was apprehensive during the week following the Kennedy speech. But then the missiles were withdrawn from Cuba, within a year the US concluded a treaty with the Soviets banning tests of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, then the architect of the Cuban missile initiative (Nikita Khrushchev) was deposed, and an era of detente followed. As it turned out, Kennedy's threat was precisely "the language we need(ed)" at that time.

Iran, to paraphrase the late Lloyd Bentsen, is no Soviet Union. At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union had rough parity with the US in both nuclear weapons and missiles. (2) Today, Iran has no nuclear weapons, and its nuclear development program is about where the Soviet Union's was around 1947. Moreover, Iran's efforts are under close scrutiny by both the US and Israel; it is more likely that Iran's nuclear facilities will be destroyed than it is that Iran will actually build atomic weapons.

Even if Hillary Clinton is not nominated for President, her threat to Iran is likely to become an issue in the presidential election; the nominees are sure to be asked about it during the debates. I believe that the ultimate powers in Iran (the Guardian Council and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini) are now paying close attention to the American presidential campaign. If either John McCain or Hillary Clinton is elected President, look for the Iranian powers to dump President Ahmadinejad in 2009 in favor of a less bellicose leader. He is just too dangerous.

If the vitriolic Iranian President could get his hands on an Indiana Democratic primary ballot, I bet he would cast it for Barrack Obama.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, May 5, 2008.

(2) Before being elected President, Kennedy claimed that the Soviet Union was actually ahead of the United States in missile technology.

The Ayers Connection

"Obama's political career was launched in a 1995 meeting at Ayers' home."
Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post, April 26, 2008

By now all non-comatose readers are aware that Senator Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright has been spewing crackpot racist theories from his pulpit, such as that AIDS was invented by the US government to kill "people of color."

But the senator's connection to William Ayers is much less known, even though more interesting. Krauthammer refers to Ayers in his column as an "unrepentant terrorist." But who is William Ayers, and is that a fair characterization of the man?

He was born in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, in 1944, the son of wealthy and rising utility executive Thomas G Ayers, who in 1973 became the CEO of Commonwealth Edison (1). While attending the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, William (Bill) Ayers joined the Students for a Democratic Society (2) or SDS, a leftist student group which became increasingly radical as the war in Vietnam escalated.

SDS organized protests at university campuses across America in the 1960's. The opposition to the Vietnam War began at the most elite schools, such as Ann Arbor, Madison, Berkeley, and Harvard and spread to second-tier campuses . Many of the early organizers were veterans of the civil rights movement, and were committed to non-violence. The protests escalated from rallies to marches to obstruction of military recruiting to takeover of university buildings. SDS, together with other radical student groups, organized a stupendous demonstration at the Pentagon on October 21, 1967, that was immortalized in Norman Mailer's book Armies of the Night. As the war and draft-calls escalated, the demonstrations became more and more confrontational. Many protesters were beaten and gassed by police; soon all pretense of non-violence was abandoned and protesters began fighting back.

By time Bill Ayers graduated from the University of Michigan in June, 1968, he was a rising leader in SDS. Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota had driven President Lyndon Johnson from the race for the 1968 Democratic nomination, but he had lost to Senator Robert F Kennedy in the California Democratic Primary on June 4. Shortly after claiming victory in the primary, Kennedy was assassinated. Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who publicly supported President Johnson on the War (despite his private misgivings) was then certain to be nominated by the Party at its convention in Chicago the last week of August.

Antiwar protesters flooded Chicago the week before the Convention, and frequently clashed with city police force under Mayor Richard J Daley. When a large mob of them tried to march to the Convention site, they were beaten and gassed by police before an international TV audience. Humphrey, dogged by antiwar protesters at every public appearance during the Fall campaign, narrowly lost to Richard Nixon.

For the antiwar movement, working through the American political process to end the War had failed. When SDS convened in Chicago in June of 1969, Ayers and a number of his comrades had already chosen the course of revolutionary violence against the American government. SDS splintered into several factions, of which the most militant chose the moniker "Weatherman" after a Bob Dylan song.(3)

Unlike the majority of SDS members, who had turned to community organizing, the Weatherman faction decided to blow-up government buildings. They sought to avoid hurting anyone by timing their bombs to explode after midnight, when the buildings would be empty. But those who choose violence are often unable to control it; in 1970 three Weatherman members were killed when a bomb they were making went off in townhouse in Greenwich Village, New York City. Among the dead was Diana Oughton, a young woman from a privileged family, who was then Bill Ayers' girlfriend.

In the wake of the explosion, Ayers and some associates "went underground" to avoid the authorities. He married fellow fugitive Bernardine Dohrn (4) and became the father of two children. In 1981 all charges against Ayers were dropped by the federal government due to prosecutorial misconduct. He pursued graduate study in education at Columbia University, where he earned the degree of Ed. D . in 1987.

Ayers and Dohrn returned to Chicago, where he became a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In 1995 he was chosen by Mayor Richard M Daley (son of the mayor who had controlled the police in 1968) to lead the city's effort to reform the Chicago Public Schools. It was about this time that Professor Ayers met Barack Obama in the Hyde Park (U of Chicago) neighborhood and helped launched the young lawyer's political career.

If you did not live through the Vietnam era, it is hard to understand the passions that drove sons and daughters of upper-class families to bomb government buildings. Unlike the Hamas and Al Qaida bombers of today, they did not intend to kill people, but some did (5). Perhaps the Islamic bombers of our time have given the term "terrorist" a bad name.

"Would you even shake his (Ayers') hand?" Krauthammer asks. The current Mayor Daley would, although perhaps his father would have refused. Yitzchak Rabin shook the hand of a terrorist named Arafat whose bombs killed people on purpose. If I were introduced to (Distinguished) Professor William Ayers, I would shake his hand. So I cannot blame Barack Obama for grasping it in 1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia.
(2) Formerly the Student League for Industrial Democracy, an offshoot of a leftist labor group. SLID became SDS at Port Huron, Michigan in 1962.
(3) "You don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind is blowing." The "wind" apparently refers to revolutionary fervor.
(4) She graduated from Whitefish Bay High School in 1959 and the University of Chicago in 1963 (my college class). Described as a "sex queen and street fighter" by Todd Gitlin in Coming Apart: An Informal History of the Sixties, she is now on the faculty of Northwestern University Law School.
(5) Another antiwar radical group entitled "The New Years Gang" blew up the Army Math Research Center at UW-Madison about 4 AM on August 24, 1970, killing a graduate student who was working there all night.

Does Race Still Matter?

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.
And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position.
He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."
Geraldine Ferraro, 1984 Democratic nominee for Vice President

The former New York congresswoman was obliged to resign as a leader on Senator Hillary Clinton's finance committee because of this comment: not because it was false, but because it was politically incorrect. But is there any truth to it?

Barack Obama is an African-American, but in a different sense than the vast majority of black people in this country. His father was a Kenyan, and his mother a white Kansan. None of his ancestors were slaves in America. He never even lived in a predominantly black neighborhood until after college, when he took a job as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago.

Although his first elective office was as an Illinois state senator from a largely black district, he was never a "racial politician" like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. His record of co-operation with white colleagues made it possible for him to win the Illinois Democratic Senate primary in 2004. Just as Senator John F Kennedy famously remarked in 1960 that "I am not the Catholic candidate for President; I am the Democratic candidate for President who happens to be a Catholic", Obama is a Democratic senator and presidential candidate who happens to be bi-racial.

But even though Obama has never "played the race card", might he still benefit from it politically, as Ferraro speculated?

Consider the results of the March 11 Mississippi Democratic presidential primary. The Illinois senator won the primary by taking 90% of the black vote and 25% of the white vote. (1) Since Hillary got only about 10% of the black vote, whites were about two-and-a-half times more willing to vote for a black candidate than blacks were willing to vote for a white candidate. And this is in Mississippi, where in 1964 people got killed just trying to register black voters!

Early in this campaign many important black politicians declared their support for Senator Clinton. But once Obama started winning primaries, these same officials began to switch to his side. No matter who wins the nomination, these politicos could not afford to be perceived as supporting a white candidate when an African-American had a real chance of winning.

Overwhelming black support has also been crucial in Obama's victories in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana.

But Obama has also won in states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Vermont, where the black vote has not been a significant factor. Were these victories due entirely to the senator's positions, youthful good looks and articulate elocution, or was his bi-racial identity also a factor in attracting the votes of white Democrats?

I think the key to the answer that well-educated and upper-income whites choose the Democratic Party because it is the party that stands for justice for the poor and minorities. Upscale white voters know that Democratic policies such as welfare, government-paid health care, and affirmative action programs do not benefit them very much; those who vote Democratic are not voting their self-interest but their concern for the less fortunate. (Democratic support for legal abortion is an exception-----that benefits the middle and upper classes more than the poor.)

Among the field of about ten candidates that originally sought the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama's positions did not stand out as the most liberal; John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich were clearly to his left. In fact, Obama (along with Clinton, Richardson, Biden and Dodd) was always in the center of the Democratic field. But by voting for Obama, the only African-American in the field, the voter was affirming his commitment to racial equality in a way that could not be duplicated by backing any one of the other contenders.

By the same token, a vote for Hillary Clinton affirmed the voter's feminism in way that could not be matched by voting for a man who was equally committed to women's rights. It is no wonder that the two living emblems of identity-politics, Obama and Clinton, have emerged as the surviving contenders for the Democratic nomination.

But what about Ferraro's speculation that "if (Obama) was a woman, he would not be in this position"? But then "he" would be "she".

The best answer is the Yiddish adage:
"If my grandmother would have been a male, she would have been my grandfather!" (2)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)Associated Press, March 12, 2008

(2) The original "Oib meine bobeh volt gehat ayer, volt ze geven mein zadeh!" has been intentionally toned down in the translation.

Is NAFTA Still Nifty?

Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agree on this: the US should threaten to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) unless the other two parties (Canada and Mexico) agree to re-negotiate several important terms.

For Senator Clinton this is an awkward stance to take, since her husband President Bill Clinton negotiated NAFTA and won Senate approval, primarily on the strength of Republican votes. If NAFTA needed to be "fixed" as she now says, why not say so then?

Big labor opposed NAFTA in 1993 because of fear that American jobs would be lost to Mexico, where wages and benefits are much lower and environmental standards much less troublesome. Many jobs have been lost, and big labor today is still against NAFTA. The problem is especially severe in Ohio, where the candidates will be squaring off Tuesday in a presidential primary.

NAFTA, a key component in globalization of trade, is good for America in many ways. Millions of American jobs have been created due to NAFTA. For example, Canada is Wisconsin's largest foreign market. Moreover, Canada (not an OPEC member) is the largest source of imported oil to the United States. The oil-sands of Western Canada are reliably estimated to contain about 175 billion barrels of recoverable oil. (1) Only Saudi Arabia, a much more risky source, has more. Under NAFTA, Canada cannot reduce exports to the US unless d0mestic consumption is rationed by the same factor.

If the US invokes its right to withdraw from NAFTA after a six-month period, Canada would be free to ship all its oil to China, where the precious liquid could command a higher price. For this reason, no American president is likely to actually pull-out the trade agreement. But if a threat to withdraw from NAFTA is not credible, why do Clinton and Obama believe that Canada or Mexico would amend the treaty to make it more favorable to American interests? Why would re-negotiation benefit the United States, rather than Canada or Mexico?

The trouble with free trade is that, even if it results in a net increase in jobs, some jobs are inevitably lost. Those who obtain new jobs as a result of reduction of trade barriers are often unaware of the cause of their employment-----they would attribute their prosperity to a good work record or top-notch skills, rather than to NAFTA. Their votes do not reward the backers of free trade; they more likely vote on the basis of national security concerns, taxes, crime, or moral issues. The beneficiaries of free-trade are widely dispersed, often over many states. Free trade does not pay-off at the ballot-box

On the other hand, those who lose jobs due to foreign competition are intensely aware of the source of their problem, and will vote against free-traders. The latter are also more likely to be concentrated in declining industrial areas, such as many of the older cities in Ohio, so the political effect of their animus toward free-trade agreements will be palpable.

This dichotomy between the winners and losers in the free-trade economy explains what we have seen in Ohio. The only good news is that whoever wins the presidency will promptly forget whatever promises he or she made to the unemployed voters in Ohio, and NAFTA will survive unharmed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) "US Warned on NAFTA", Associated Press, March 2, 2008

All Eyes on Wisconsin!

Wisconsin voters will have a crucial voice in the selection of the nominees for President this Tuesday, February 19. Let's make it count!

Democrats: Obama More Impressive
Barack Obama, raised in a broken home, made his own way to Harvard Law School, the Illinois State Senate, and the US Senate. His charisma on the campaign trail rivals that of John Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
While Obama got where he is in spite of his last name (1), Hillary Clinton got where she is because of hers. (2) The daughter of a privileged two-parent family, her ticket to political prominence was marriage to a young man who would (with her considerable help) become Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States. The Democratic nomination for US Senator was virtually handed to her by retiring Senator Daniel P Moynihan of New York, where she had never previously lived.
Fearless Forecast: Obama will sweep the 1st, 2nd and 4th congressional districts and garner about half the vote in the other five, giving him Wisconsin and probably the nomination. If nominated, he may appeal to both women and Jewish voters by choosing Senator Diane Feinstein (3) of California as his running-mate.

Republicans: McCain an Easy Choice
As noted in our January 8 Glazerbeam, John McCain is the most qualified candidate of either party to lead America in the age of Islamic terrorism. His plan to establish permanent American military bases in Iraq is likely the best hope of maintaining stability in the Middle East, especially in view of Iranian ambitions. He has shown remarkable willingness to work with Democrats, who will probably dominate the Congress.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has surprised most pundits by outlasting better known and better funded Republicans, such as Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. Yet Huckabee is a deeply flawed candidate for two reasons: his zeal to Christianize America and his hare-brained scheme to replace the income tax with a sales tax. (4)
Texas Representative Ron Paul is still in contention, like the cartoon Road Runner who runs off a cliff and doesn't fall until he looks down. His outlandish views have been thoroughly repudiated in every primary and caucus so far, but he seems to have a hard core of 5-10% of Republican voters sticking with him.
Fearless Forecast: McCain will trounce Huckabee in Wisconsin and go on to win the nomination. Mitt Romney would be a logical choice for Vice President.
Ron Paul will probably run for President on the Libertarian (or other third-party) ticket, emphasizing opposition to illegal immigration. If he does so, he will draw enough votes away from McCain to sink the Republicans. Ross Perot sank the first President Bush this way in 1992, and Ralph Nader did the same to Al Gore in 2000. Third parties don't win, but they do count.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Obama doen't even use his middle-name, Hussein, perhaps because it reminds people of Sadam.

(2)Even her husband was not born with the name "Clinton". Born William Jefferson Blythe (after his deceased father), he took on the surname of his step-father Roger Clinton.

(3) Senator Feinstein converted to Conservative Judaism when she got married. She considers herself Jewish, but orthodox Jews would not.

(4) See the December 17, 2007, Glazerbeam entitled "New Tax, Anyone?"

Lyrics for Liberals

Older readers will recall how the tune "High Hopes" (1) embodied John F Kennedy's optimism and help propel him to the 1960 Democratic presidential nomination. Even old readers will recall that "Happy Days Are Here Again" swept FDR into the White House in 1932.

Today's candidates need snappy jingles for their campaigns too; as a public service, the Glazerbeam hereby provides at no charge lyrics for campaign songs for three Democratic contenders. (Some of the music may still be protected by copyright, however.) So sing along with your favorite candidate.

Republican songs are coming soon!

1. Tune of "Bye, Bye, Blackbird"

Hillary's the candidate
The Democrats should nominate
Vote for Clinton!

She can win ev'ry debate
And will carry ev'ry state
Vote for Clinton!

Other politicians want to lead us,
But in between elections they don't need us!

So, Hillary for President
And White House resident,
Clinton, OK!

2. Tune of "Black & White" by 3-Dog Night

His pa was black!
His ma was white!
And everyone says he's very bright!

Some says he' wrong.
We say he's right
The right man to win----this political fight!

3. Tune of "My Boyfriend's Back" by the Angels

John Edwards' back!
This time he'll win the nomination!
Hey folks, hey folks, John Edwards' back!
John Edwards' back!
He's gonna govern this great nation!
Hey folks, hey folks, John Edwards' back!

He cares for the poor
Even though he's very rich, ah-ooooo,
He can beat Barack Obama.
He can even beat the
blonde senator from New York! (2)
Hey, folks, just wait and see!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A non-political version of the song was recorded by Frank Sinatra in 1960 and became a big hit. Another version with lyrics like
"Everybody likes Jack,
"Cause Jack is on the right track"
was used at campaign events.
The Kennedys subsequently dumped Sinatra when his mob-ties became too notorious.

(2) Rhymes not always guaranteed.