The administration of President Obama has threatened to boycott the upcoming UN World Conference Against Racism in Geneva unless language equating the State of Israel’s policy of Zionism with racism is removed from the conference’s final communiqué. The conference is scheduled for mid-April and is a sequel to the contentious meeting held in Durban South Africa in 2001, where the U.S. and Israel both walked out. Objections have also been raised to the Conference raising awareness over the issue of slavery reparations, another sore point for the United States.
One can only conclude that this is world politics as usual.
Mr. Obama has missed an incredible opportunity to demonstrate to the world his progressive sociopolitical agenda. Although the administration has made good will gestures towards the Arab world, boycotting this Conference offsets any previous gains. Having Dr. Susan Rice, a lady of color, as the UN Representative to the United Nations, spearheading this travesty makes this episode even more regrettable.
The State of Israel presents a harsh political reality for the administration. Yet, the driving force of Obama’s sociopolitical legitimacy is severely undermined in the progressive world with this action. Mr. Obama and Dr. Rice are in a unique position to slowly erode the concept of Zionism as an acceptable form of governance, much the same way that apartheid was eventually discredited in the early 1990’s in South Africa.
Failure to moderate from our historic hard pro-Zionist stance smacks of hypocrisy in its most hideous form.
President Obama and Dr. Rice need to think this one over.
The decision by former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to challenge incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will pose a fascinating set of circumstances for both the Iranian people and the nascent foreign policy direction of U.S. President Barack Obama.
Khatami was President of Iran from 1997-2005. He was the fifth president of the Islamic Republic. The previous two presidents before Khatami currently serve as the two most powerful figures in Iran today. Former President Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i (1981-89) now serves as the nation’s Supreme Leader, having succeeded Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini upon his death. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-1997) succeeded Khāmene’i and is now the Chairman of the Assembly of Experts (electors of the Supreme Leader).
When Khatami assumed power in 1997 he was widely viewed as a reformer and a progressive thinker inside of Iran. Over time during his presidency, the ruling religious elite managed to rein in the reformist imagery that he had carefully crafted. Political expediency dictated that Khatami publicly retreat from his reformist ideology, prompting criticism from the reform movement in Iran. Simultaneously, a ground swell of conservatism in the country, as well as, the disqualification of many reformist candidates running for office on dubious grounds, ushered in the presidency of the former mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
An interesting dynamic is forming in the run up to the June 2009 presidential elections. Khatami will be up against the formidable incumbent Ahmadinejad and another reformist candidate, Mehdi Karroubi, who had a strong showing in the 2005 presidential elections, finishing third in the first round of voting. He is an outspoken cleric and has challenged the ruling theocracy, albeit cautiously, in the past. He dared to accuse the religious elite of manipulating the 2005 elections in favor of Ahmadinejad earning a strong admonishment from Supreme Leader Khāmene’i in the process.
Conventional wisdom would dictate that both Khatami and Karroubi will spilt the reformist vote forcing a run-off election between either candidate and the incumbent Ahmadinejad. Incidentally, the same occurred in 2005, when Karroubi, former President Rafsanjani and physician Mostafa Moeen split the reformist vote. Rafsanjani, who was the first round winner eventually lost to Ahmadinejad.
One thing is evidently clear with the upcoming elections. Should Ahmadinejad win the election, the Iranian government will almost surely strike a defiant tone in its negotiations with the Western powers over its nuclear ambitions. A reformist victory may invite a more mollifying approach from the Obama administration. Regardless of the results, any Iranian administration will demand that the United States be less arrogant and more conciliatory at the negotiating table. Iran will not negotiate if it feels that it must do so under duress and pressure. One thing is certain. The Iranian nuclear program will continue to expand regardless of the diplomatic overtures made by the Obama administration. The nuclear program is for the Iranians a matter of national energy security. A reformist victory will not change the nuclear chess match in the region.
Christopher at From the Left recently wrote about something that should be getting more attention. Apparently, while the media has been focusing on Bobby Jindal or whatever idiotic tripe comes out of Alan Keyes’ mouth, Los Alamitos’ Republican Mayor decided to send out an email.
The mayor of Los Alamitos is coming under fire for an e-mail he sent out that depicts the White House lawn planted with watermelons, under the title “No Easter egg hunt this year.”
Local businesswoman and city volunteer Keyanus Price, who is black, said Tuesday she received the e-mail from Mayor Dean Grose’s personal account on Sunday and wants a public apology.
“I have had plenty of my share of chicken and watermelon and all those kinds of jokes,” Price told The Associated Press. “I honestly don’t even understand where he was coming from, sending this to me. As a black person receiving something like this from the city-freakin’-mayor – come on.”
Here is the image:
Grose confirmed to the AP that he sent the e-mail to Price and said he didn’t mean to offend her. He said he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.
…which is clearly horseshit. If Mayor Grose was truly ignorant of the racist stereotype about watermelons…what would be the point in the email? It would be completely nonsensical to send out an email about our first black President having a White House lawn full of watermelons if the watermelons signified nothing at all.
I have written about the racism Obama’s election has sparked in the past…but this, coming from an elected official, is just offensive on a whole new level.
Citizens of Los Alamitos…I’m sorry your Mayor is a dumbass.
Following an inspiring speech by President Barack Obama is indeed a tough act to follow. Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal now knows as does the rest of the nation.
To the lions!
The decision to have the Louisiana governor give the Republican response, I believe, was not coincidental. Where was the Republican Party leadership? The Republicans knew that following the President would be simply inconsequential, sound irrelevant and probably appear sophomoric. And it did! To his credit, the governor’s personal story was engaging. Had this been the Republican convention, it may have played better. Following the President, who is fast becoming recognized as one of America’s greatest orators, Governor Jindal purpose seemed confused; not very good for an aspiring presidential candidate. I am positive that Governors Pawlenty and Palin (other Republican hopefuls) must have watched this spectacle with a degree of morbid satisfaction.
What was he thinking?
Much to the nation’s surprise, Governor Jindal evoked the federal response to Hurricane Katrina as an example as to why government does not work. No governor, Hurricane Katrina is an example of how Republican controlled government does not work!
No one, including myself, doubts the governor’s sincerity to his cause. The Republican ideology is becoming more and more irrelevant and those who publicly and fervently espouse these views are looking more and more clownish. The circus must have been in town in Baton Rouge last night!
Here is Governor Jindal doing his best Bozo imitation and getting grilled on Fox!
Since his inauguration, President Barack Obama has had to endure indignities that no other President has had to tolerate. Granted, during the election cycle, certain things are always said that are not very endearing to the candidate. But once the election is decided the political bickering is expected to subside somewhat while the personal attacks should stop. In both cases, the Republican Party has increased their political attacks on the President while the personal attacks have continued.
The president has been in office less than two months and he has had to endure:
§Zero Republican support for his economic plan.
§An about face from a would-be Republican cabinet member.
§The publication of a garish cartoon in a NY newspaper alluding to the president as a simian who has been shot by the police while making reference to his stimulus plan.
§A sitting United States Senator (Richard Shelby R-SC) rehashing the already discredited notion of the president not being a citizen.
At this point, the political hijacking, character assassination and plain disrespect to the President of the United States must clearly stop. These antics are obstructionist at best, racist at worst. I shudder to think what lies in the future, but if I were the president, I would put an end to this right now!
Call me naïve, but I for one am sick and tired of being held hostage by the banking/financial industry. And you should be too! The stimulus bill that was recently passed included a little nugget that prohibited top banking executives from receiving any type of cash bonus until the institution repays in full their TARP obligations. What is somewhat surprising is that the Obama Administration opposed the provision.
The reasons for any opposition to restricting executive compensation are as creative as they ridiculous.
Prohibiting bonuses will cause the banks to repay the TARP funds more quickly thus limiting their ability to lend.
Since when is it a bad thing to repay a loan quickly? The banks should be required to repay the loans in the most expeditious manner while loosening credit at the same time. Am I missing some thing here, but if I am loaned money I do not have the right to set conditions for my repayment. I can hear the credit card company collector laughing in my face!
Prohibiting bonuses will encourage financial institutions to increase salaries in lieu of bonuses.
Let me get this straight… The bank is going under but since the CEO cannot collect a bonus we’ll just quintuple his base salary. Real smart!
The banks claim that raising base salaries removes performance incentives. No, paying performance incentives for poor performance removes performance incentives!
Prohibiting bonuses will cause a flight of top executives… a “brain drain”.
Let us hope that it causes exactly that. Why in the world would we allow the very same characters who caused the greatest banking catastrophe in global history to remain in their positions? The bankers and traders have committed criminal acts. A great place to empty the brain drain may be the state pen.
When the government moved in to provide bridge loans to the automakers, the Republicans where bitching and moaning about the salaries of the union autoworkers. Where are those Republicans now? I don’t hear a peep from these robber baron, class warfare loving legislators. They will not be happy until our national economy resembles the Walmart model. I guess if you make $45.00 an hour you are destroying the company but if you rakeit its in a $500 million dollar bonus while the company is failing, you are part of a much needed brain trust. I’m sorry folks but for the first time on this blog I will have to make use of an expletive. This is absolute, complete and total BULLSHIT!
It is time to nationalize the failed financial institutions. Call it government appropriation of assets, nationalization or call it socialism.
Imagine for one second if the Russians had invaded and installed friendly regimes in both Canada and Mexico. Also imagine if both these North American nations were occupied by Russian forces. Then add to that a Russian missile presence in Honduras and possible Russian controlled nuclear arms in Cuba. Pretty scary thought right?Now replace Canada, Mexico, Honduras and Cuba with Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey and Israel and you have the actual real life scenario that Iran confronts.
In a previous blog piece about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, I explored the evolution of Iran’s program and how the West has generally mishandled it. Now, in 2009, the stakes are much higher and the reality of a nuclear Iran is much closer to reality. The ability for Iran to deliver a nuclear payload has been greatly improved with the successful launch of a space orbiting satellite earlier this month. Despite the assertions of western intelligence sources that Iran has exhausted its nuclear materials, the Iranian program continues to evolve.
What should Obama do?
Once the Obama Administration settles into Washington and the economic situation begins to settle down, the issue of Iran must take center stage. It is in the best interest for all parties that cooler heads prevail in the region. The fact that the United States remains embroiled in Iraq and in Afghanistan reduces the appearance of American sincerity in any type of political negotiation. The era of American arrogance may have peaked with the Bush administration. The Obama administration should usher in an era of honest diplomacy. It would be shocking to see a continuation of the disdain that the Bush administration had towards diplomacy in the new Obama administration. Until the American State Department treats Iran as a respectable partner, and not like a rogue state, the crisis will continue to disintegrate. The U.S. must also realize that Russia has a vested interest in the region. Low level, multilateral talks may serve as the spring board to higher level direct negotiations.
Israel’s role in the process
The recent victory by the Kadima Party in Israel will create more pressure on the Obama administration to negotiate with a more forceful tone. The disastrous showing of the left wing Labor Party in the recent elections reflects the political mood in Israel. The ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party will wield immense power as a result of its strong finish. This shift to the right in Israel will make negotiations with Iran very delicate. It would not be surprising if the Iranians, as a precondition to any nuclear negotiations, request that the United States formally recognize the existence of Israeli nuclear capabilities. In President Obama’s first news conference, he carefully dodged the Israeli nuclear question that was posed by reporter Helen Thomas. If the United States is serious about dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it must seriously consider and effectively address the region’s suspicions of Israel’s capabilities. Israel follows a policy of deliberate ambiguity in neither confirming nor denying possession of nuclear weapons. Yet, it is considered the region’s worst kept secret. Should the Iranians put the Israeli question on the table and the United States side steps the issue, the negotiations will be dead in the water and a sham.
Development of Iranian nuclear capabilities is of great concern for the United States, in the context of the balance of power in the region and its relationship with the State of Israel. Any negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program should also include Israel’s nuclear capabilities. Approaching this dilemma in an even handed and fair manner may just be the strategy for long term peace in the region and mutual security in the region.
Call me overly simplistic but I think that it’s time for President Obama to make a major course adjustment in dealing with the whole economic stimulus bill. I have to hand it to him though. After his electoral mandate, he arrived in Washington and extended an olive branch to the opposition. The Republicans, in typical fashion, responded with partisan politicking. In the meantime, the clock continues to tick and the economy worsens.
Looking Back Again
As I have been blogging recently, there numerous parallels between the economics crises of depression era and post-Reagan Americas. The causes are eerily similar; the ideological actors are laughably alike. FDR, at first brought in officials from he failed Hoover administration. His Budget Director was a Republican and one of the most fiscally conservative voices in the Congress at the time. Yet, when push came to shove, FDR knew that he had won the election by a landslide and the American people would not support complacency. FDR was granted enormous power by Congress to wage war against the economic depression. While wielding that power judiciously, he was not averse to twisting an arm or two in the process.
President Obama’s persona is that of a calm, collected and composed politician. We are not aware (at least not yet) of his political persuasion skills when it is time to get down and dirty. I believe that it is time to publicly show a flexing of political muscle. And here is how he can do it:
The Plan
Should there continue to be political squabbling over the stimulus package, the President should reintroduce a series of separate bills, each addressing the fundamental problems that this nation faces. A separate bill for jobs creation; another for the mortgage crisis; yet another for middle class tax relief and yet another addressing the banking crisis. In trying to address all the issues with one mega piece of legislation, none of the problems are being addressed efficiently and are subject to petty political squabbles. Let’s face it, should the current legislation fail to solve the crisis (and it will fail), the Republicans will be first in line to blame the President. Even as he accommodates the Republicans, the reality is that zero Republicans voted for the bill in the House and he has only garnered the support of 3 in the Senate. If he wants Republican support then he needs to submit a pro-tax cut, anti-spending bill to Congress; which is what got us into this mess in the first place! The Republicans will never support a progressively inspired bill regardless of the potential benefits of its success. Never!
If the Republicans wish to filibuster the separate legislations, the President can call them out for being obstructionists. In addition, the President needs to completely scrap the notion of tax cuts that have been negotiated into the present bill and publicly denounce the dogma that tax cuts lead to economic prosperity thus breaking from the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush cabal of laissez-fair free traders. President Obama needs to strong arm his economic plan in much the same way that George W. Bush shoved his “let’s keep America safe at whatever cost” ideology on the American people.
President Obama must realize that 53% of American voters voted for change last November. Pushing through an economic agenda that upsets the other 47% is nothing to be afraid of when 95% of all Americans will be adversely affected by inaction. The President has 66,882,230 reasons to act decisively.
There are many progressives in this country who are angry, confused or disillusioned with President Obama’s handling of the political shenanigans that the Republican Party has indulged in during this time of crisis. His historic victory emotionally energized the progressive movement. Yet, less than a month into his presidency, there may be who now doubt his prospects of success. (Note: This writer is not included in this group). Given his resound electoral victory, his calls for bipartisanship appears somewhat incongruent. I strongly believe that there is a method to this somewhat bewildering approach.
What is going on here?
It would be palatable for progressives to see the President just go on the offensive and attack the opposition. I am sure that lingering in the back of liberal minds is the notion that it’s our turn to do to them what they did to us the past eight years. But, Mr. Obama may be looking beyond this natural “red meat” reaction in appeasing the party faithful. His broader goals may be more grandiose. And although I think that conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is a mere propagandist, he nailed it right on the head when he recently declared that the President is out to change the political landscape for the next few generations. While the right wing has been pretty much diplomatic in their attacks on the President, they have assailed the legacies of the “New Deal” and FDR. Facing a nearly identical economic morass as was seen in the 1930’s, the Republican Party knows that their conservative ideology will be dealt a mortal blow should this President succeed as FDR had. Moreover, the Republican Party knows that President Obama is aware of this also.
Change is coming soon… but not just yet!
It is obvious that the current economic stimulus package is nowhere near the size that it should be to be effective. It has been reported that up to 42% of the “stimulus” is in the form of tax cuts that Republicans demanded be included. Let’s face it… the package will fail and the country’s downward economic spiral will continue. When this happens, the President will then have all the pieces in place to enact a much broader and sweeping agenda that will forever change the political landscape. He knows full well that any plan that relies on the conservative tenets of increased tax cuts and the likes are destined to fail. The country is hurting badly now, but there are no images of Americans standing in line at soup kitchens. As cynical as this may sound, this may have to happen. Mr. Obama has already warned us of the troubles that lay ahead. When all is said and done, a package that will dwarf FDR’s New Deal will be clamored for, legislated and succeed.
Repeating History
Like FDR, Mr. Obama commenced his presidency attempting to enlist the opposition in solving the nation’s economic crisis. Like FDR, President Obama will eventually get the support of almost all Americans. Like FDR, Mr. Obama will enact changes that will dramatically change the definition of prosperity in this country for decades to come. Ironically, much like FDR, President Obama will have the Republicans to thank for the next Great American Progressive Revolution.
.jpg "Internation Freedom of Expression eXhange")
.jpg "Ron Kuby: Doing Time")
