[The transcript of President Obama's Inaugural Address comes by way of The Drudge Report.]

On its face, the President's speech on the Capitol steps this morning was a fair effort that could not possibly live up to the expectations set by Beltway pundits and the hunting hounds of the national press corps.  Much of the text (said to have been written by the President himself) was predictable, but it was anything but safe.  By applying a rough chop to the transcript, parsing it without splitting hairs, I find many things to be concerned about if you are one who believes that what a person says matters. 

In the vast log of speeches given since he began his run for the office he officially took today, Obama has given us very little concrete indication of his worldview, his view on the role of government.  What he has offered has been illuminating and the inaugural address given this morning is no different.

(The speech transcript is in block quotes and my comments are inserted as regularly-formatted text.) 

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

It is comforting to hear Obama imply that We the People will still be using the same founding documents as we move forward into the Age of The One.  Will his Democrat-controlled government be true to those venerable texts?

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

The first "hard choice" falls upon the shoulders of President Obama, and it is the choice not to shield average Americans from all of the necessary learning experiences that are brought on by crisis.  In identifying all of the sources of our current crisis, the hard choice will be not to allow citizens to move forward under any assumptions that the government will always be there to cure the results of poor decision-making.  Will he?  No.  Should he?  Yes?

Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

What is sapping our energy is the knowledge that because the United States Congress, after decades of extreme fiscal mismanagement and near-sighted regulatory actions, is now rewarding us with a series of financial bailout measures that will ensure an increased role for the federal government and the potential for federal insolvency within the next fifty years.  This saps our energy because we know that there are other ways to emerge from this crisis without deconstructing the free market.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. ...

(Let Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin know that a truce has unofficially been called.)

... The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. ...

I don't think I need to give anyone a trail of breadcrumbs to interpret all of the hypocrisy in the above set of comments.

... Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

The emphasis here seems to be on immigrants and slaves, and the message may be that their contribution to American prosperity needs to be recognized.  The specter of reparations rises anew.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed.

This passage is perhaps the most disheartening portion of the speech to this point.  Is our new president a Pollyanna or is he knowingly whispering sweet nothings to the electorate? If the latter is true, that course is for populist campaigning but does not do any favors to a country in great need of a wake-up call.  Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Promises of moving mountains and parting seas. Vintage Obama.  Now we know that Obama may actually have written many of those messianic speeches.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

It is not the size of the plan that worries some; it is the size of the budget that puts those plans into action.  It is the amount of space the government may occupy in our lives.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

In the words of Robert de Niro: "You talkin' to me?"

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

Nice try here to push the question of the size of government to the margins.  We should always ask whether our government is too large or too small.  It is the crowning achievement of the founding fathers that they created a system that puts the hands of people on the throttle of the federal machine.  At least in theory.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill...

The market is an intangible force and as such does not have the power of choice.  Without the element of choice there is no morality, there can be no good or evil.  It does not surprise me that from the same party that attempted to blame President Bush for Hurricane Katrina exists a glaring failure to notice that it is not the system that is either good or ill; it is the people acting within it who define their individual morality.

This is basic political theory on the foundations of republican principles of government and law, a 100-level course that most liberals habitually fail.

... Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

Amid the calm of the inaugural proceedings, I swear I could hear the footsteps of scores of regulators marching down the halls of their federal enclaves.

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

America is a friend of Iran?  America is a friend of Venezuela?  America is a friend of North Korea?  Americans are truly friends to every person on the earth but not to the governments that often act against the interests of those people.  I am hesitant to compare him to yet another president, but his idealism reminds of Woodrow Wilson's flawed beliefs that there can be harmony in the whole community of nations. 

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

Is Obama aware of the suspension of civil liberties during World War II, putting in the hands of FDR immense executive power?  In times of great crisis, our system places its trust in the humility of whatever man occupies the Oval Office to protect us.  We have chosen - wisely - not to cast off 99% of our liberties during a war on terror that has claimed thousands of American lives.

They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

I would still like to hear how Obama defines our way of life, in his own words.  For his words about defending it to hold any meaning, we first need to know of what he thinks he is standing in defense.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

I actually like this section.  It is a message to the Muslim world, much of which is still clinging to a repressive, Luddite existence and legitimacy that their path is sowing the seeds of discontent within their own populations.

It sounds like something that Bush might have said, which may be why they are already burning Obama's image on the streets of Tehran.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

Kum-ba-yah.  If the world all ran out and jumped off the tallest building, would we be obliged to follow suit?

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

There is a disturbing verbal sleight-of-hand in this paragraph which begins by suggesting that government must act and ends by describing how a parent's "willingness to nurture a child" (odd choice of words) can determine our future.  We should hear echoes of this theme that government is assuming a parental role as additional government programs become necessary to nurture the American economy back to health.

I have never been a believer in the good of ordinary citizens (excluding civil servants and military personnel) dedicating themselves to service for the greater good, at the behest of government.  It just seems a little preachy to tell people they need to think of others.  I'm teaching my five year-old this lesson, but I expect him to have learned it by the time he is old enough to vote.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

God?  Who said that?  The next pay-for-play scandal is almost certain to involve Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel buying off the ACLU.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

Now we can finally move on to the post-racism era of no affirmative action, no incessant categorizing by race or ethnicity... Right?

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

God bless America and God bless President Obama and give him the wisdom to see what is good for the country. 

###

Maybe in all of the bluster and fluster surrounding the pleading - nay, begging - from the chief executives of America's automotive manufacturing firms the quid pro quo being proffered will seem reasonable. After all, the symbolism of discarding corporate jets and forgoing high salaries seems like a step in the right direction. But symbols are just that, and they masquerade as a panacea, obscuring the need for real organizational reform that must be undertaken to save America's automotive industry.

It would appear that Ford CEO Alan Mulally pulled the short straw for the role of Detroit's lead beggar. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi sits on her throne in this time when President Bush has no power and President-elect Obama has yet to be crowned, the rush of adrenaline must be sublime. Mulally, a man who actually does things, knows things, risks everything, comes to her Congress, begging for intercession. Her staff must have to conduct a morning wardrobe check and confiscate her tiara and ruffled collars before Madam Speaker enters the public sphere.

The kind of power-mad arrogance we have come to expect from Pelosi is trivial under ordinary circumstances. It provides a lot of wonderful material for political writers to show their comedic chops, but does not translate to having a real effect on public policy. Now, she is truly a gatekeeper and the politics of her party have shaped Ford's plan for revival in ways that will reduce the company's chances for survival.

In the interest of presenting a $9 billion loan request (the lion's share of the combined $34 billion requested by Chrysler, General Motors and Ford) that would get speedy Congressional approval, Mulally has proposed the following:

• Mulally will work for $1 per year (methinks there is fine print therein)
• Cancellation of all management bonuses for 2009
• No merit increases for North American salaried employees in 2009
• Ford will sell all five of its corporate aircraft
• Acceleration of plans for plug-in electric and gas-electric vehicles

In the Democrat vortex that is now our federal government, the forces that govern a capitalist economic system - freedom of choice and the supply-demand curve - are going to begin clashing violently with the forces that govern the Democrat party - the Green cabal and the labor unions.

Capitalist markets operate organically, more like forces of nature than machines, and they do not make special accommodations for special interest politics. 'Green' economics is just another word for higher cost of production, resulting in higher prices. Research and development will eventually produce an affordably-priced vehicle fueled by some alternative source of energy, but mass-producing such technology is still expensive. All costs are passed along to the consumer in one form or another. 'Green' cars cost more, and unless the federal government is going to the next step of banning gasoline-powered automobiles, lower prices will tip the vast majority of buyers toward old-fashioned petro-cars

Given enough time, Detroit will get alternative-fueled cars to market, but it should not be a priority or condition at a time when simply surviving is the first priority.

Still, looking ahead to the probable realization of President-elect Obama's heavy-handed “New Energy for America” plan, Mulally has little choice but to play the hand he has been dealt, if only to buy a little more time. So, toss a promise to build 'green' cars in the plan even though following through will hinder the company's chances. In the current political climate, Ford really has little choice.

Most dangerous, though, are the concessions proposed by Mulally on the issue of employee compensation. Capitalism thrives on the concept of reward for merit, and Mulally intends to place a moratorium on pay increases given for good work? In a company with depressed morale, what will be the driving force to move ahead, to innovate? The effect of removing incentives is what occurs as a result of communism. Work hard, don't work hard; your value will always be the same as your co-worker. More to the point, who wants to stick their neck out and break a sweat if there will be no marginal reward?

In a company that suffers from a lack of innovation and low morale, incentives can provide a useful engine for the creation of new ideas. A company such as Ford should not be doing away with salary increases and bonuses, it should be finding ways to target them to enhance the effort of becoming relevant to consumers again.

But, white-collared workers voted too fervently for Republicans in the past few elections. So, throw them on the fire. Only a worth sacrifice will earn Ford the grace of Congress.

Perhaps more destructive than the salary concessions themselves is the decision to impose these restrictions only on white-collared, non-union jobs. Unions are not being encouraged (or coerced) by representatives of Pelosi's Congress to participate in the life-saving operation of employers of union labor. When labor unions ask their rank and file to strike, members understand the concept of shared sacrifice for the greater good, but not when the Man is the one with whom the burden is being shared.

For more than a decade, jobs have been lost overseas as a result of high labor costs at American auto plants. Union self-interest will eventually kill the host, thus depriving their membership of their livelihood. When that happens, there won't be enough fingers on the hands of union bosses for all the finger-pointing that will ensue.

In the meantime, Ford's white-collared sacrifices, unmatched by comparable offerings from the United Automobile Workers union (gathering today for an emergency meeting), are almost certain to create animosity and resentment between the working classes. Just what a failing company needs - more internal dissension and factional politics.

Even after the political tsunami in November, there are still a few conservatives and pro-business Republicans who either clung to the palms (congratulations to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)) and fingers remain crossed for Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)) or stand safely on high ground. Now is the time to start performing the role of the opposition party that the Republicans will be for the next two years. Make the case that there are options, not a single way of resolving this, and thereby give Detroit a little political cover to avoid the groupthink that will doom their chances for survival.

Or don't. After all, the economy isn't going to be an issue with voters in the next election. Right?

###

Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of the Obama-Biden transition team, and the person rumored to be President-elect Obama's choice to fill his vacated Senate seat, has finally let the cat out of the bag.

"Given the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."

Ms. Jarrett made this statement while speaking to Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press, in one swift sentence she has confirmed the fears of some that an Obama presidency, without lack of loyal opposition, could allow Americans to do some political tourism without leaving home. We may have an opportunity to experience what a constitutional monarchy would have been like, if things had gone differently in the years of our nation's birth.

The phrase "take power" is borderline, but does the Obama administration really want to begin by establishing that President Obama is a 'ruler'?

Ruler, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:

rul·er, (roo'l?r) n.

1. One, such as a monarch or dictator, that rules or governs.

If you prefer, WordNet.com also defines a ruler as, "a person who rules or commands; 'swayer of the universe'."

If we strip it down to the root - rule - it might be okay. Right? It turns out there is no hiding place there either. All definitions of 'rule' in the context of governance, and when used as a verb in conjunction with a singular object (e.g., a person who has been elected president), imply some form of autocratic governance.

After two-hundred and thirty-two years of independence from a monarchy maybe it wouldn't hurt, I suppose, to sneak back onto that old horse and see if the ride wasn't really as bad as we thought. Alexander Hamilton didn't think it would be so terribly awful. Plus, it just isn't fair that Britain gets all the fun of having royals at which to poke fun, and leaders tend to look more respectable on the world stage when wearing a sash. We should be open-minded.

With all seriousness, American presidents heretofore had been very careful about how they verbally defined their place in government. Even FDR never used the verb 'rule' in reference to the function of his office, and he would be one who could have used it correctly.

Ms. Jarrett, or some member of the transition team, should issue a statement of clarification. Although her words were almost certainly a slip of the tongue (Vice president-elect Biden's first press conference will likely put this gaffe to shame), as a law school graduate, she would be well-advised to remember that words carry meaning in our society. There are those of us who expect her to select them carefully so as to not be confused as signaling a radical shift in our system of government.

We did elect him, after all. I think the least we deserve is some recognition that he understands the limitations of what we elected him to do.

###

Cross-posted at Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com

Here's One Analysis That Might Give McCain Voters a Spring in Their Step on Election Day 

There is no doubt that this election will be a close contest and every vote will be important in the final count.  Fear, hope, anxiety, optimism and despair are gripping voters of all backgrounds and the country has been plunged into a cauldron of racial politics, class politics and good old fashioned lying for a year and a half.  If Rasmussen or Zogby could correlate blood pressure and heart rate along with voting preference insurance actuaries would be bracing for a run on the hospitals.

Here's how I justify giving McCain the states that are currently painted blue on most mainstream media maps, states that could tip the election for a McCain victory.

Pennsylvania (21 EV), Minnesota (10 EV) and Wisconsin (10 EV): There is every reason to believe that Obama has failed to secure crucial support among union workers (as differentiated from the union leadership) that is so crucial to these blue collar states.  High democratic turnout in the primaries was at a time when Obama and Senator Clinton were going at each other full force.  There will be a lot of Clinton supporters who will simply stay home or jump the fence to vote for McCain.

Florida (27 EV): In the primaries, the ratio of GOP votes to Dem votes was 1.12:1, and Florida is a state in which party politics still drives electioneering.  Also, in the primary election, McCain got a 5.3% better showing than polls were predicting just before the vote, demonstrating that Team McCain knows how to get out the vote in the Sunshine State.

Three other voting blocs will be critical.

Jewish voters have proven to be difficult to poll accurately.  The issue of how Obama will protect Israel may bring many of these voters to a single issue decision.

Florida is represented largely in the military.  All responsible polling has indicated a heavy McCain vote coming from the armed forces.

Immigrants who came here seeking asylum from despotic or communist oppression.  This includes tens of thousands of Vietnamese, Cuban, Haitian, and other Latin Americans who have made their homes in Florida.  Will McCain's efforts to pin Obama as a socialist be in their minds as they mark their ballots?

Nevada (5 EV): Using the primary turnout to calculate the same 'strength-of-base' ratio as I used to predict Florida for McCain, Nevada shows a 2.11:1 ratio of GOP voters to Dem voters.

Of course, McCain also has to win the races in which he is currently running ahead in the polls.  It's not going to be an easy victory, and at this point he has to be considered an underdog.

It is time to simply go and do our civic duty, come what may.

As confirmed by Politico.com's Ben Smith in his corroboration of the story that broke on the Drudge Report last night, the Obama campaign did indeed bump three major newspapers from the press group traveling aboard the candidate's plane.  Although press accounts are not specific, it is assumed that their removal was conducted while the plane was still on the ground.

The Obama campaign indicated that they will try to find seats on campaign buses for the disenfranchised Dallas Morning News, Washington Times and New York Post staff, and that they are encouraging them to travel with Joe Biden. 

(Two major right-leaning newspapers, who now have an axe to grind, riding along with the king of the gaffes?  One would think that Team Obama would be better served in the final days of the election by giving them daily interview sessions with Barack than by placing them within earshot of gaffemaster Joe.)

While it is true that in a similar move, Senator McCain barred Maureen Dowd and Joe Klein from his campaign plane, there is a subtle but important distinction between that punishment and the kind of retribution Obama is meting out. 

Dowd and Klein are columnists.  They write commentary and analysis in their own voice and the result is mainly the opinion of the writer as an individual.  When a columnist gleefully pounds away at a politician, it doesn't seem at all out of bounds for the politician to shut down that one person's access.  Even if the lex talionis - eye for an eye - mode of justice may be harsh, at least it observes some semblance of symmetry.

A newspaper's endorsement of a candidate is a decision more often made by the ownership of the paper, in consultation with the editorial staff, but it is never made by reporters.  The reporting done thus far by the ejected journalists has not been harmful to Obama.  On the contrary, most campaign trail reporting tips toward positive coverage of a candidate as reporters develop a relationship with the candidate they are covering.  Label it human nature or the Helsinki Syndrome, depending on your perspective.

There is no balance in Obama's retaliatory strike and it could say something larger about how he will apply power to other problems that arise.  In international terms, we assign a particular label to people and causes that consider innocents as appropriate tools for conveying political messages.  In domestic terms it is political thuggery and the penchant the Obama camp has for silencing dissent should at least give us a reason to retain skepticism, whether you color yourself red, blue or purple.

The Chicago-style politics of making war on anyone a politician classifies as 'enemies' by hitting their proxies is something that we, as a nation, have been trying to extinguish for more than one hundred years, but the Obama machine is reviving those tactics of naked power and proving that they still work.  He is giving us a sample, a sneak peak of his wilder side.

With the prospect of single-party rule of the federal government, and intimidation of media who are perceived as 'unfriendly' to an Obama administration, more than ever it seems clear that a vote for Obama is a vote for change.  When we realize what the word 'change' really means in Obamaspeak, I only hope that we will be able to change back.

Cross-posted at Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com

Handling of Obama/Khalidi Tape is Handbook for 'Swiss Banking' of Politically Radioactive Material 

As a student of journalism since junior high school, I was indoctrinated in the notion that the great reporters of the American press lived and breathed that thing called 'the story'.  When journalists such as Upton Sinclair and Nellie Bly received information it went into the story, not into the wall safe.  Maybe that's why the Los Angeles Times' refusal to release the infamous and enigmatic Khalidi video strikes me as so odd, even for that paper.

A reporter's right to keep their sources anonymous must be preserved and protected.  It is also not strictly unethical to allow a source to place conditions on how information is used, even though striking such a deal would seem counterproductive to gathering information.  On that score, the Los Angeles Times' refusal to release the controversial video has a sliver of ground on which to stand.  That ability to claim the right to keep the video from the public is, however, elective and not strictly required by law. 

The Times has not claimed that the agreement with the tape's source was contractual or in any way legally binding, but there is the possibility that the manner in which the tape was given to the paper was an orchestrated act intended to give all sides - Obama, the source and the Los Angeles Times - a way to avoid having to reveal the tape's contents to the public, contents which might give American voters a way to assemble a picture of Obama's worldview that does not flatter the candidate.

Since no illegal acts are alleged to have been captured on the video, and we must assume the tape was delivered to the newspaper legally, there is no legal method to pry the material from the Times' icy grip.  If the source gave the newspaper the only public copy of the video, it could conceivably be hidden away for as long as its owners, its custodians and the powerful person appearing on it wish to keep it away from our eyes.

The mystery unfolds further when consulting the article, written by Peter Wallsten and run in the print edition on April 10, 2008, for which the video was used as a reference.  Its main effect on the piece seems to have been to give the Wallsten a way to portray Obama as a cool-headed mediator of Middle Eastern tensions.  This passage appears nine paragraphs into the story:

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground.

That doesn't seem so bad.  Why would the source want to keep that video away from the public?  In fact, with the Obama campaign fighting for their life to maintain the Democrat stranglehold on the Jewish vote in the battleground state of Florida, one would think that a video showing Obama standing up to be the voice of reason in a room full of Arabs would be campaign gold.  Axelrod would be setting up half hourly screenings at every senior center from Pensacola to Boca.

Of course, if there was other material on the video, material that was both relevant to campaign or character issues, and damaging to Obama, the Times would have its own reasons to suppress it lest readers and fellow journalists question the ethics of how the Wallsten article constructed. 

The question arises: Did the LA Times and the source of the tape knowingly enter into an agreement that would give all parties to its hiding a plausible reason to deny the public access to its content?  There is no way to ever answer that question, but the very presence of the question in the minds of readers will very likely  have consequences for a newspaper already on the verge of collapse.

Right now, if the LA Times holds the only copy, there is no safer place to keep it away from the rest of the media and prevent it from damaging the Obama campaign in the final crucial days of this presidential election. 

Where are Liddy and the Plumbers when you need them?

###

Cross-posted at Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com

Potentially the Greatest Baseball Blunder Since Buckner in '86

There is no example in American history of a political showcase preempting the World Series, just as there is no example of a sporting event preempting an election. They are once-in-a-lifetime events, and we previously, collectively, considered them to be greater than an individual. Now I wonder if we should just insert 'Obama' between baseball and apple pie.

The very fact that the World Series schedule was already established at the time Team Obama made their media buys shows every indication that they are as out of touch as critics contend, but also that they are showing - again - their predictable ability to take their eye off the ball.

A virtual cone of silence seems to have descended today within the advertising and entertainment trade press on the subject of Obama's infomercial that will air across several networks and is said to have cost the campaign between $3 and $5 million. Still, I was able to find commentary from PRWeek's Ted McKenna, offering some take on the obvious downside of Obama's media blitz.

Enjoying a major cash advantage over the John McCain campaign, the Obama campaign has been able to place advertising in all sorts of unexpected places of late, including video games. Some political commentators wonder whether there might be a downside for the campaign in potentially irritating voters by the practically ubiquitous Obama advertising.

McKenna references Jeanne Cummings' 'Obama infomercial: Smart politics or risky overkill?' piece (Politico.com) in which she attempts to make the point that this strategy of a media blitz helps Obama to avoid "the filter of the media". In fact, it is just as likely that the opposite will occur and that the media will be talking about this for the next few days in the analysis and commentary portion of the story's new cycle. Neglecting the realities of the news cycle will not be the greatest effect caused by this larger-than-life blunder. It will be the backlash of a politicians greatest bugaboo - the loyal sports fan.

I offer the following encapsulated geography lesson for the Democrat nominee's edification. If anyone has his - or David Axelrod's - email, feel free to forward.

For many baseball fans (the last two World Series games received an a little more than 15 million viewers each) the baseball championship is an destination, not an event - a place to which they have been traveling for months, even years. Nowhere is that more true than in Philadelphia, a city whose baseball franchise hasn't appeared in a World Series in fifteen years and hasn't been victorious in one since 1980.

The Philadelphia Phillies hail from... Philadelphia, a large metropolis in the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a state in which Senator McCain has been gaining ground in the last week, a state that swung hard for Hillary Clinton and came in weak for Senator Obama in the primaries.

In the opposite dugout are the Tampa Bay Rays, whose fans are clinging on to hope that their team can fend off elimination and possibly play on to win their first championship. Another point of geographic fact: Tampa Bay is in Florida, a state in which the McCain campaign has been gaining ground in the last week, a state that swung hard for Clinton and came in weak for Obama in the primaries, even though the Democrat Florida primary didn't officially count.

I asked myself a question: If my Seattle Mariners were in the World Series, set to play the clinching game and possibly bring the championship to Jet City, and General Motors showered the broadcasting network with enough cash to bump the baseball game for the airing of a half-hour advertisement for the new Yukon hybrid, I would be furious and it would negatively affect my feelings about GM.

When your name is Lenny Bruce you can get away with showing conceit for your audience, not if your name is Barack Obama. In battleground states, walking on eggshells is standard operating procedure when you're the front-runner and inconveniencing sports fans just so you can broadcast another political ad that comes following a tsunami of political ads may just be enough of an irritation to sway precious votes.

Or not. I could be wrong. But if you were Barack Obama, would you feel like you need to take that chance?

Senator Obama's has seriously overestimated the public's appetite for political theater, and similar misjudgments have often placed him in hot water during the campaign. This time, the look for tiny bubbles forming in the pot as the Democrat nominee places himself ahead of the national pastime; and this gives Obama's opponents a chance to drive the temperature to 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Meanwhile, John McCain will continue to smile and point to left field.

 It showed up in my inbox late yesterday afternoon.  Invited but still unwelcome, each day I receive the propaganda email distributed by the Obama campaign.  I have learned by experience to keep a supply of air sickness bags in my laptop bag to use in case of rapid lunch loss.

The one sent to me yesterday was different from those preceding it, in that it did not direct me to remind my friends that the RNC is somehow responsible for Biden's gaffes.  Nor did it offer yet one more explanation that the Obama tax plan is not socialist even though it raises taxes on the people who create jobs and makes payments to the poor. 

No, this one was different because in a time of great economic crisis, when all Americans should regard every dollar they earn as precious, Jon Carson - Obama's field marshal - advocated... taking Election Day off?

The text of the email reads:

Bryan --

Ask your Boss. Ask your Professor.

Take Election Day off and volunteer to make history.

Watch this video and sign up to help get out the vote on Tuesday, November 4th:

This election will be decided by what this grassroots movement can accomplish on Election Day.

We have volunteer shifts to fill throughout the day -- make calls, knock on doors, and make sure your fellow voters get to the polls.

No previous experience is required. Sign up now to take the day off and make history on November 4th:

http://my.barackobama.com/takethedayoff

Thanks,
Jon
Jon Carson
National Field Director
Obama for America

(I left every single glorious syntax, grammatical and punctuation error intact for your review.  Capitalizing 'Boss' and 'Professor'?  At least Obama isn't running to become the Education President.)

Now I am going to tweak the text, flare the contrast knob and squelch the color a little so it's easier to interpret the black and white in Carson's message.  Cutting through the bull, here's the subtext:

Bryan --

November 4th is "Elect Barack Day'.  There is no higher responsibility than attending to the duty of electing Barack.

If he fails to win election, it could be because you were selfish and chose to fulfill your responsibilities to your families and employers instead of working for Barack, who loves you and wants only good things.

Don't be challenged by a lack of experience in political action.  If you have worked with the homeless or mentally incompetent, or if you can drive a van and know your way around the inner city, you have all the skills required.

Barack gives you permission to do this and he knows that you want him to win.  He also knows when you've been bad or good.  So be good, for goodness sakes, and vote Barack.

Barack thanks you.  May Barack live a long and healthy life.

Thanks be to Barack,

Jon
National Field Marshal
Obama for Amerikca

Only in America could freedom of expression open the door for the kind of egotistical charismatic ideologue we have with Obama.  There is too much worship in the politics of Obama, too much call to re-prioritize everyday life and place Obama and his agenda at the forefront of our lives.  Whether it is in the aggressiveness of his plans to fine families who are too poor to buy healthcare but too "affluent" to qualify for state-run programs, or in his expansion of volunteerism (see "community organizing", see "liberal political activism") as an exchange for government subsidized college loans, one feels the chill wind that precedes a shift in the culture. 

What the Obama campaign's "Take the Day Off for Barack" campaign symbolizes is the all-too-familiar double-standard of the candidate and his followers.  On the stump, Obama leans in to the podium when he speaks about the need for America to get back to work, with the exception of days when their services are more useful to him, one man.  Mr. Obama should take a lesson from Star Trek's Mr. Spock who lived by the creed that, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," or, in this case, "The One".

Being elected president may get your picture hung in every government office but leadership of people requires respect for their values, not cultivating a culture of adoration for oneself.

I hope that the McCain campaign team are able to find a way of countering the chilling nature of the superficially innocent "Take the Day Off for Barack" push.  When viewed as a part of a wave of over-the-top Obamacentrism generated by the Illinois senator's campaign, the clear picture emerges of a man whose ego is not restrained by humility, that response in our psyche that balances us and reminds us of our fellow man.  This declaration of Election Day as a pseudo-holiday for Obama sends a tingle through me, but, unlike like some media pundits, mine runs down my spine and not up my leg.

My wish is for McCain to deliberately and loudly call attention to this stunt by cheering Americans to do what they have always done on Election Day - work hard, go to school and vote early.  There is much that is great about this country but our ability to arrange our schedules to both work/study and vote is not an amazing feat.

Put another way, if a person's right to vote isn't important enough for them to a) arrange to vote absentee, or b) plan to waken early enough to get to the polls when they open, or c) take advantage of the atrocious early voting laws in many states to find a window of time that works with their schedule, if none of those opportunities seems convenient enough for them, it would seem that taking Election Day off from work or school would just be an excuse to not work or study.

If Obama's run for the White House is successful, can we expect more Barack-themed holidays?  Will there be 'Volunteer for Barack Days' and 'Get Green with Barack Days'?  Franklin Delano Roosevelt styled himself as the country's omniscient father- America's answer to the USSR's Josef Stalin.  Will Americans be invited to fireside chats hosted by our cool Uncle Barack, broadcast live on CNN.com from a Starbucks near you?

Cross-posted at Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com

The New York Times has dropped even the pretense of applying a delicate coat of sophistication to their bias.  Perhaps this is just a strategy born of the Old Grey Lady's survival impulse, that by leaning hard to the left they might hijack the readership of the Village Voice and thus delay their hastening demise.

The picture accompanying this post was a teaser on the New York Times web edition's Politics main page at midday today.  It wasn't an extraordinary experience, finding an example of liberal bias.  No cause to bring in Mulder and Scully, but was it an accident that the photog was lined up perfectly for the shot that placed Senator McCain's head in the middle of the bold red 'X' that is is, in fact, the Florida state flag? 

Plausible deniability will be the order of the day if some of the bigger blogs notice this image and shake the Times for comment, but it is ultimately the photo editor who chose this one image out of hundreds available of the Republican candidate. 

Since the press has advocated the idea that Americans respond to - or even act on - subtle messages embedded within speech and images, we owe it to them to take a moment and consider the potential message being transmitted by the Times' photo. (It is uncredited, so I'm going to assume it belongs to the Times.)

If memory serves me, the bold red 'X' is used most frequently to label something in need of elimination. It is a shorthand, easy for our eye and mind to interpret and store without conscious thought. 

Is the Times sending out subliminal orders that McCain is to be "eliminated"?  Of course not, but this kind of sophomoric camera work used to be relegated to news blooper segments on The Tonight Show, not applied to the sober business of reporting from the campaign trail. 

Does this kind of juvenile antic really rise to a level worth spending a great deal of time talking about?  Were the Times' photographer to have carefully lined up Senator Obama so that his cranium was centered betwixt a red 'X', would the NAACP or the DNC have anything to say about it?  They would label it inflammatory and say that it might be sending a message that Obama should be targeted and eliminated.  My feeling is that such hypothetical charges would be fair and justified.

The media has truly abused its license in its coverage of this election.  We rely on the media for information and context, and we need it to be stripped as cleanly as possible of bias, or labeled appropriately in the case of commentary or opinion.  Our way of life breaks down without a free and responsible press.  This very fact is what makes reform such a challenging proposition.

One would have thought that reform would have been self-imposed, within media organizations, as the market of ideas began to heat up with the ascendancy of Fox News, talk radio and Internet blogging.  Instead, the traditional media have attacked those new media and the people who consult them for news and information.  The mainstream media are championing the cause of the candidate who is most likely to impose federal guidelines for how the media comment on news, much as the British loyalists of Revolutionary America courted the aristocracy in a vain attempt to gain favor with power as a means of protecting their own way of life.

Our system was built with an elegant attention to checks and balances, to prevent the government ascribing enough power to itself that it would cast aside the "negative liberties" Obama lamented in his 2001 interview on Chicago Public Radio.  All of the bodies of government were placed under the watchful guard of the press, who the government was specifically not allowed to tamper with.  This is as it should be, but then who stands vigilant over the press to ensure that it does not become drunk with its own power?

With the power to shape opinions, set norms, transmit values - all of that glorious sociological material that you should have been learning in your Communications 101 class - the press is only constrained by how much power the public feeds to them by either being an audience of buying advertisers products.  The question for us now is: Are the press acting responsibly, or are they abusing their power?

Place the journalistic and editorial decisions involved in two stories side by side and make a common sense judgment of whether the press is doing their job. 

In the case of Joe the Plumber, as the substance of a story begins to hurt Senator Obama, Joe, who questioned the candidate on the nature of the candidate's economic views has reporters investigating his past, digging for dirt.  His reputation is sullied; he is smeared.

In another case, a single reporter for a small-town newspaper claims to have heard someone yell, "Kill Him," at a McCain-Palin rally.  Although the reporter gives no description of the alleged hate speaker, no other witnesses have reported hearing the remark and Secret Service on the scene do not report hearing or seeing any such event, the story is reported as fact by a variety of willing media sources with the commentary added to imply that the McCain-Palin campaign is generating and tolerating a dangerous culture of hate and violence.

How do we communicate to the communicators that we want balanced reporting?  The answer is... competition and consolidation.  Maybe an editor or two who don't have Carter campaign buttons in their junk drawer.  It would be a start.  Since many papers are losing readers, I would think it might don on one or two to try something... different?  Who knows?  If it worked it might spread to other papers.  My guess is that's what they're afraid of, but I would think that unemployment would scare editors more than the distaste they might have for working alongside people with different points of view.

I am not saying that liberal voices in media are a cancer that needs to be excised.  America is a fabric of competing ideas, but the ideas must compete honestly in order for the system to properly function.  If the 'debate' consists only of contradiction, but does not contain elements of agreement, it fails miserably to arrive at conclusions and only serves to polarize supporters of propositions pro or con.

The media should, at least, be functioning as an impartial referee, sorting through the partisanship to keep both sides honest.  As they currently operate, the media is furthering the endemic apathy (verging on nihilistic compulsion) in the public-at-large.

Still, there are signs that the public wants something different.  The commencement of a purge in traditional print media begins with the rapid downgrading of New York Times bond issues, this in the same time that non-traditional media are thriving.  There will be advancements in how non-traditional media delivers its content that may make it far easier for "small" media to develop the kind of large circulation that big newspapers had at one time.  In the entrepreneurial period, there are always opportunities for new content and forms of presentation to emerge.  In that phase, the public can have its greatest impact on how news is reported.

The need for reform in our media is great. 

The results of a poll done by the Pew Research Center showed that 70% of respondents believed that the media favors Obama to win the upcoming election versus 9% who believe they favor McCain.  (You might be surprised to learn that only 8% feel that the media supports neither candidate, but that is actually the highest percentage since the first time the poll was taken during the 1992 election.)

When the election is over, and the ballots have been counted, vetted, and possibly recounted, a discussion of how consumers of media can effect reform will have to occupy some of our attention, regardless of who will occupy the White House next year.  The abuses of the media in this election have been committed in pursuit of vengeance against a party they don't like, but with reckless disregard to their ultimate duty in our society, the duty to provide for the "public enlightenment ... by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues." (That's excerpted from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.  Context intact.)

The media has a conscience and they know in what instances they have fallen down on their responsibilities.  If they feign amnesia, remind them.  If they promise to do better, hold them to that promise.  Organize a letter-writing campaign to the editor of your least favorite newspaper, detailing stories in which context was tipped to favor one ideology over another.  Offer suggestions for creating balance.  Do anything except doing nothing.

In browsing Brit Hume's Political Grapevine column this morning on FoxNews.com, I found this not-so-surprising morsel:

London Calling

An Iranian Foreign Ministry official says his government should target one of the United States' closest allies to ensure that President Bush does not attack Iran during his final weeks in office.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reports Wahid Karimi was quoted as saying, "The last two months of Bush's presidency... will be the worst days of his presidency for Iran and during them he can exploit his power to carry out political adventurism and an ill-conceived operation. If so, how can we restrain him?"

He adds, "The most appropriate means of deterrence that Iran has, in addition to a retaliatory operation in the [Gulf] region, is to take action against London."

What was shocking was the insinuation of transcontinental strikes against the British capital when Iran has never publicly admitted its use of terrorism to advance it's national foreign policy goals, nor has it even made veiled threats to use extra-national groups to do its bidding.  Either this represents a stark change in Iran's policy - embracing the open use of terror as a 'legitimate' form of warfare - or they are signaling some other kind of attacks.

Is there an attack that could be launched on one continent and cause widespread damage in another?  Well, sure, the advanced nations of the world could launch a nuclear strike from a continent away, but Iran isn't in that league.  Right? 

Iran would have to have long-range missile technology as one would expect from a country operating its own space program.  They would need to be within months of developing a nuclear payload.  They would also have to have a military treaty with a powerful - and heavily armed - ally to discourage immediate retaliation. 

If we can't find any evidence of those factors, we can disregard their threats as the rantings of a pariah state.

This looming threat presents a dilemma for Senator Obama, a man who has advocated unilateral disarmament, reductions in defense spending and dismantling our nuclear arsenal?  There is every reason to believe that the next decade or two will present America with her greatest challenges since the Civil War.  The next president will set the tone for how we address those challenges in national security and the economy, and the first leg of any journey establishes its course.  If the first leg of our march through the approaching storm takes us into dangerous territory, such a miscalculation may prove disastrous.

In times of peril, whether they are centered around our corporeal or financial survival, Obama's idealism will only invite conflict.  A case in point is Jimmy Carter, a man who met challenges by using his own worldview as his diplomatic playbook.  During Carter's time in office, Soviet-styled communism gained a foothold or expanded its grip on every continent.  Americans sat helpless and frustrated as our citizens were held hostage for 444 days in Tehran, and the world took note.  As Carter conducted experiments on his own theories on international relations, the real world continued on its course. 

Obama shows striking similarities to Carter in his willingness to make events a testing ground for his idealistic principles.  His attitude toward negotiation - even if he has truly moderated his position from "no preconditions" to something more diplomatically sound - only works if the opposing parties end-game is to achieve diplomatic objectives.

(It sure would have been nice to see his senior thesis on nuclear disarmament negotiations so that we could at least have a basis to begin understanding his philosophy on high-level negotiations.  Alas, he is the only person I know who didn't, out of some vanity, keep a copy laying around.  Come to mention it, even his wife had a copy of hers on the Princeton library shelves, although it was pulled until after the election.)

Just as Chamberlain believed that Hitler's aggression was a tool used to obtain other concessions, it is never safe to assume that war and conquest are not the goal of your enemy.  That is not to say that war is the only end to the troubles with Iran (and please pay attention to Russia skulking along the baseboards) but it does mean that has to be a possibility considered in the calculus of our decision-making process.  It is unclear whether Obama truly understands how to work the formula to arrive at a solution that will protect America.  He shows more interest in proving an academic point.

The first responsibility of our leaders is to define where our national interests lie and act to protect the lives of Americans.  Idealist foreign policies and the leaders who cling to them don't generally cover that territory very well.  We can see that in all occasions when Obama has been asked to provide details for how he would handle foreign affairs.  He points to the past - the Bush years - as the reason America is on unstable ground, but he offers no definition of what our interests are and how he will protect them.

(It can't go without saying that for someone who has railed against the Bush White House and the war in Iraq, he has gratefully accepted the endorsements of an entire cadre of Bush neo-conservatives and General Powell.  If we flip back a few years in our history textbooks you will remember that Powell is the man who "fabricated evidence" according to Jonathan Schwartz writing for Huffington Post on February 5, 2008:

Powell's loyalty to George Bush appears to have extended to a willingness to deceive the United Nations, Americans, and the coalition troops about to be sent to kill and die in Iraq.

Doesn't this completely invalidate Obama's claim that he will be taking the country in a new direction?

Back your regularly-scheduled commentary.)

Without a doubt, there are other issues facing the country, most of them carrying crushing penalties awaiting us if we fail to effectively grapple with them.  The potential of violent conflict supercedes all such issues.  Jefferson wrote "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as the rights of Man in that necessary order or priority. 

When we hope for better hearts in our enemies, we give them safe passage to strike at our own.  Without life there is no liberty, no happiness.

Cross-posted at Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com

I can think of no better reason to vote for McCain.

Brevity is the shortest path to truth.  This one speaks for itself.  I grabbed the story from Fox News.

If that didn't do it for you, maybe knowing that the speaker of Iran's parliament, Ali Larijiani, would prefer an Obama presidency will tip the scales. You can peruse that tidbit at the Telegraph UK site.

Cross-posted at Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com

As rumors swirl around Iran's nuclear program, it was only a matter of time until a spy would be caught in the act of gathering up-close intelligence. The first prisoner has been taken and we only hope that it will be returned with all of its feathers intact.

You read that right. The first spy caught inside of Iran during this time of international intrigue was nothing other than a pigeon, as reported by the London Telegraph's online edition.

Iran arrests pigeons 'spying' on nuclear site
Iranian security forces have arrested two suspected 'spy pigeons' near the Natanz nuclear facility.
By Our Foreign Staff Last Updated: 7:45PM BST 20 Oct 2008

 

 

One of the pigeons was caught near a rose water production plant in the city of Kashan in Isfahan province, the Etemad Melli newspaper reported. It said that some metal rings and "invisible" strings were attached to the bird, suggesting that it might have been somehow communicating what it had seen with the equipment it was carrying.

 

"Early this month, a black pigeon was caught bearing a blue-coated metal ring, with invisible strings," a source told the newspaper.

 

The source gave no further description of the pigeons, nor what their fate might be.

 

Natanz is home to Iran's heavily-bunkered underground uranium enrichment plant, which is also not far from Kashan.

 

The activity at Iran's controversial uranium enrichment facility is the focus of Iran's five-year standoff with the West, which fears it aims to develop nuclear weapons. The Tehran government insists its programme is intended to generate power for civilian use only.Last year, Iran issued a formal protest over the use of espionage by the United States to produce a key intelligence report on the country's controversial nuclear programme.

 

It is also highly suspicious of Israel, whose extensive intelligence activities are not known to include the use of pigeons.

The Western world holds its breath until news of the pigeon's fate is disclosed by Iranian officials. Word is that Amnesty International and PETA are dispatching a special negotiations team to Tehran. More details as events unfold.

Cross-posted at Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com

Israel's DebkaFile has reported today that US intelligence sources have briefed government leaders - including the two main presidential candidates, Senators McCain and Obama - on recent changes in the national intelligence estimates regarding Iran's nuclear capability. According to those unconfirmed reports, current estimates indicate that Iran is likely to have built its first nuclear weapon by February of 2009, around the time we will be inaugurating the next president.

This revelation places Senator Biden's tough talking remarks about the challenges Obama would certainly face in a much different - and darker - light. When Biden received this sensitive information about Iran in his intelligence briefing, he had several choices in how to deal with it. Abandoning discretion, Joe opted to share his special knowledge with party insiders.

Like a teenaged boy showing his father's girlie magazines to his friends, Biden giddily teases. In doing so he simultaneously sent a message to voters and our enemies that nothing is secret if it can be used to make Joe look impressive. America's security is of less importance to Biden than the aggrandizement of the egos of he and his running mate.

Will Colin Powell be taking calls from reporters this afternoon? Does he wish to comment on what he thinks an Obama administration should do with a Middle Eastern nation on the verge of obtaining weapons of mass destruction? Or will he simply pass out from the concussion wave emanating from the collision of karma and déjà vu?

The focus of the campaign is shifting swiftly back to foreign policy. Economic security is trumped by issues of survival and a nuclear Iran would seem to fall squarely into the latter category.

We have every reason to believe that this threat is real and it places much of what is happening in the world into sharper relief. We can expect the tone of campaign speeches to become more serious. McCain must use what he can of media coverage and the Internet to force his opponent to finally answer questions that he dodged in the first presidential debate.

• How do you see our relationship with Russia, considering Russia's recent strengthening of ties with our enemies in key areas of the world?
• How will you address the issue of leaving Iraq, if Iran becomes a belligerent actor armed with atomic weapons?

And the big one:

• What will be your criteria for determining when and how to apply the force of the US military?

For those who are worried that Obama may be in trouble if foreign affairs and national security become the point issues in the campaign, put the sleeping pills down. Obama is a skilled campaigner, surrounded by a team of detail-oriented tacticians. In fact, make sure to near a television on October 29th, the night of the planned Obamathon across the major networks. I feel an October Surprise in the wind.

Cross-posted at Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com

It happened right here in my hometown of Seattle, WA. (Please-Keep-Him-Just-a-)Senator Joe Biden dropped what could become his most serious gaffe of them all.

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking," Biden said.

"Remember I said it standing here. if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough -- I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen," Biden continued.

Does the Obama-Biden ticket view international terrorism and geopolitics as a kind of Survivor challenge? Machismo has no place in foreign relations because it winds up costing job, lives or both.

The hubris of the Obama-Biden ticket has now reached critical mass, Biden's recent remarks outshining even the "take 'em out" bravado displayed by Obama in comments about how to deal with Osama bin Laden in his ilk.

Biden's prediction should entirely erase the perception that he is a skilled diplomat. Loud talk is usually a replacement for a will to act, as most career statesmen will note. I suppose we can expect Joe to next begin conspicuously professing his bedroom prowess for all to hear?

I am now getting a clear vision of what the Obama Doctrine will look like in action and if you have a billowy white shirt, a cutlass and a rope to swing down on your enemies from, you can play along yourself. So much for that Obama rhetoric about the need to repair America's damaged reputation in the world.

It is ironic that Biden and Obama sound hungry to practice the kind of "cowboy diplomacy" that the Bush administration has been accused of, and this may be the beginning of the end. Perhaps this is all designed to generate backwind behind a slogan reaching as-of-yet untapped Obama voters, the Cowboy Left?

We can take our lessons, however, from the great Greek tragedies, in which the mighty are quickly felled by their own pride and arrogance when even their followers can no longer recognize the righteousness in their crusade. Unfortunately, in those stories it takes years for destiny to correct the balance and we only have two weeks.

Cross-posted at Unequal Time.

From the same newspaper that has reported eloquently and abundantly on the bogeyman of Republican use of fear politics, the Old Grey Lady raises her cane to deliver a double-whammy of paranoia to those readers still shackled to the carefully crafted words on her faded pages.

They're pulling out all of the stops, reaching into the deepest recesses of the bag of tricks for what can hypereuphemistically be called "election enhancements" for the Democrat cause.

Whammy number one: Polling places may become magnets for violence on the day of the election.

Whammy number two: Wait a second, doesn't your child's school serve as a polling place?

The implication is made clear in the third paragraph of the piece (emphasis added):

"School districts across the country now spend millions of dollars each year on controlling access to buildings with locked doors and surveillance cameras to keep strangers out," said Kenneth Trump, president of the National School Safety and Security Services, an advocacy group, in Cleveland. "In a post-Columbine, post-9/11 world, we shouldn't be opening the doors at our schools on Election Day, and just hoping everything will be O.K."

With no evidence indicated in the rest of the article that government law enforcement agencies were in any heightened state of readiness, or had indications of actual planned attacks, this kind of fear-mongering would seem to have only one purpose; to keep people from going to the polls and provide whatever candidate wished to embrace the paranoia a tool to assume a mantle of victimhood for their followers. (If you need a hint to solve the mystery of who might pick it up just do a web search for news items containing terms racial, violence and election to perform your own analysis.)

Then look up "Odinga".

The ability to vote without fear has been what has separated us from less civilized parts of the world where power is consolidated through the manipulation of basic instincts for survival.

Are we to become the "thugocracy" that Michael Barone feels is our future? If the populace responds to the New York Times obvious attempt to spread fear through false mirroring of popular opinion, maybe that is the path we are on.

God save America and her perpetual determination to coddle only one fear - the loss of her freedom - and confront all threats to our liberty.

Cross-posted at Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com