Did Jacko get whacked?


whacko jacko
I was chatting with a Spanish banker friend, a man with lots of dealings in Latin America and the conversation turned to Michael Jackson. He said something interesting.

"I'm not saying he was murdered, but his dying is going to make things a lot simpler for a lot of people" he said.

"How so?" I asked.

"Well, apparently he was deeply in debt, but if you look his finances over you can see that his realizable assets far outweigh those debts." he said.

"So where is the problem?" I asked.

"Well" my friend took a deep breath, "it seems that not only was he justifiably paranoiac, because with reason, he hasn't been able to trust a single person in his entire life... especially his family; to top it off, they say he is very canny in his business dealings, very good at reading contracts and so on, so even if wasn't bat shit crazy, which he was, he would have been difficult to deal with... being crazy to boot, makes trying to collect from him like having root canal work done without anesthetic."

"So?"

"With him dead, it's going to be easy to finally collect. Even if there is a huge battle over the inheritance, whoever finally gets the loot is going to want to settle the debts right away and then take the money and run".

"So somebody had him killed?" I asked.

"I'm not saying that, but there are a lot of people who are going to save a lot of time, money and aggravation, with him dead. The world is filled with people who will have you killed professionally for only small quantities just to send a message... imagine what happens or can happen when millions of dollars are at stake in the hands of a nut."

That's what the man said... it makes sense to me.

Honduras, a simple case of is you is or is you aint


The Honduran coup d'état is more important than many might think, as absorbed as we all are in mourning the passing of Michael Jackson.

The United States is in immediate danger of being seen as either helpless or hypocritical or both.

In fact, from a point of view of American credibility the situation in Honduras is more relevant  than even Iran or Afghanistan, because the situation in those countries is obviously quite intractable, but Honduras is a client state of the USA, practically an American colony.

Honduras, the classic "banana republic" is seen by the world as America's creature.

If Zelaya is returned to office because of US pressure to respect the democratic process, then the USA will gain a tremendous amount of credibility all over the world very cheaply.

If this doesn't happen then Obama and the USA will lose credibility accordingly. No one anywhere will ever believe that the USA couldn't turn this thing around if it wanted to.

In fact no one, anywhere will ever believe that the USA was not behind any final resolution of this question.

In fact that cynicism would be the last shred of dignity left to American power.

If the world ever thought for even a moment that the USA was impotent to influence the events in Honduras either as a paladin of democracy or as imperialist brute then that could be the beginning of the end. Things would begin to unravel very quickly for the United States of America.

The skinny:

This little coup could be more important for US credibility than Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan... If the USA can't control the situation in Honduras, how can anyone expect the USA to control anything in the Middle East or Southwest Asia... or the dollar for that matter?

Obama and the return of the chicken hawks


Such an unlikely commentator as the paleo-conservative curmudgeon, Pat Buchanan, has said something quite wise in defense of US president Barack Obama's policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of Iran:
It is impossible to believe a denunciation of the regime by Obama will cause it to stay its hand if it believes its power is imperiled. But it is certain that if Obama denounces Tehran, those demonstrators will be portrayed as dupes and agents of America before and after they meet their fate.

If standing up and denouncing the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad from 7,000 miles away is moral heroism, it is moral heroism at other people's expense.
Buchanan has defined the situation with precision. when he speaks of "moral heroism at other people's expense.

In his analysis of the futility of international pressure on the Ayatollahs he is seconded by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:
One could assume that any country with a "supreme leader" whose power is handed down by God probably has a regime that doesn't care about the beating they'll take on Facebook forums.
But, if perchance I give the impression that Buchanan and Haaretz -- strange bedfellows if ever there were -- are reading off the same page, I should quote the closing lines of the Haaretz article which are a thinly veiled invitation to war:
Pray for the Iranian people, because it will take much more than a handful of martyrs and an endless stream of online flotsam to set them free.
Who exactly are Haaretz suggesting should bell the cat and "set them free"?

Read more »

Remember Paul Wolfowitz? (I rest my case and stand with Obama)


We haven't heard from Paul Wolfowitz for a long time, but the plight of the Iranian people has brought him out of the woodwork.

Today he has a piece in the WaPo entitled "'No Comment' Is Not an Option", where he says

"Now is not the time for the president to dig in to a neutral posture. It is time to change course.".

Wolfowitz's piece is followed by another star of the neocon constellation Charles Krauthammer, who writes:
And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.
This is getting more obvious by the hour.

What I think is evident is that the USA, from its own point of view and interest, has no dog in this fight. The question, is what is moving this story, not in Iran, but outside of Iran.

What I think is obvious is that the internal undercurrents and tensions in Iran are being exploited by the foreign corporate media for their own interests... the neocons are piling on too. Reading through the Iranian cast of characters it is also obvious that America does not have a dog in this fight. Simply put, the situation is being used to weaken Obama's ME strategy. The question: qui bono? Answer: the usual suspects.

There are a lot of people who want the USA to attack Iran and many of them are the same people who wanted the USA to attack Iraq. Since very few people in the USA, including the president (take note that I am giving him full credit here) want to attack Iran, especially after seeing what a disaster attacking Iraq was, it is necessary to build public anger.

After the Cairo speech there are people on the Likud-AIPAC circuit that would like to derail Obama's momentum in the Middle East. The same people are very worried by the pressure from Obama on the settlement freeze. This Iranian opportunity could be seen like knocking over the table in a losing chess game. While everybody is picking up the pieces, the one who was losing gets some time to think and his opponents rhythm is broken. Or the corner cutting a groggy boxer's glove so that the fighter can get a chance to clear his head while the ref is inspecting the glove. Playing for time, changing the subject.

I am very impressed by the way that Obama is handling this one. He reminds me of Eisenhower: a practicing adult. If he doesn't cave into all the neocons on this, I may finally come to Jesus and become a fan of his.

I knew it! The truth behind the Tehran tweets


Bull ShitI have found myself  getting more and more suspicious about the western media coverage of the Iranian elections and their aftermath.

As I wrote before, What I do know for sure is that there are two simultaneous stories:

1.) What is actually happening in Iran

and

2.) How it is being reported here.

What I see is that my point two is pushing Bibi Netanyahu and his version of a Palestinian "state" off the front pages.

It is a good thing to remember that while Iran, in reality, actually poses no threat to Israel's existence (Persians are not suicidal), a free, sovereign Palestinian state in "Judea and Samaria" does. or at least to Bibi's version of it. In my opinion the neocons are back at work.

The run up to Iraq made me a bit paranoid I'm afraid, and all those who whooped up that war, haven't folded their tents or committed harakiri either, they are still with us. I simply don't trust the intentions of the US media, not then, not now.

Just like during the run up to the war in Iraq, the US media is not checking the sources, they are just gushing over the twitters and their tweets. And that is professional negligence if there ever was, because they are quite fishy.

Have you noticed that you can read all these Iranian "tweets"? Are you aware that the language of Iran is Farsi, not English? Does this piece of information suggest anything to you? Perhaps, the world is like in Hollywood movies where all the exotic character speak English, albeit with charming foreign accents? Or maybe, the dial on a person's bullshit meter might tremble a bit?

But, unlike the run up to the war in Iraq, this time some amateurs have take the trouble to do the homework that the "professionals" seem too understaffed to do themselves.

A financial website, "Charting Stocks",  has taken the trouble that the MSM can't be bothered with and has exposed a very effective Israeli psy-op.

So, whatever is actually happening in Tehran, we now know that the Israelis are manipulating our perceptions.

Sit back and read this:

Read more »

Iran: keeping our eye on the ball



With our 24x7 news cycle it is easy to miss the forest for the trees.

Right now the question for me in evaluating the situation in Iran is if the serious disturbances are spreading beyond Tehran. How about Moussavi's home town for starters? If the serious (read violent) protests begin to spread all over the country, then I will begin to think that this is all something 100% genuine, impossible to manipulate.

At the moment all I really see is a battle between two Ayatollahs: Kameini and Rafsanjani, using surrogates. At this point Kameini is ahead on points.

The best write-up of the whole thing that I have seen so far comes from the Asia Times.

What I do know for sure is that there are two stories here:

  1. What is actually happening in Iran and
  2. How it is being reported here in the west.
What I see is that my point two is pushing Bibi Netanyahu and his version of a Palestinian "state" off the front pages. It is a good thing to remember that while Iran, in reality, actually poses no threat to Israel's existence (Persians are not suicidal), a free, sovereign Palestinian state in "Judea and Samaria" does. or at least to Bibi's version of it.

In my opinion most the furor over Iran in the western press, now and before, can be explained by this simple fact. The whole "Iran is a threat to the world", could easily be a massive red herring.

Josh's question and the "hundred Persian flowers"


Josh Marshall asks the following question:
Bill Keller (editor of the whole operation) and Michael Slackman have a piece in Times arguing that Ahmadinejad and the hard line clerical establishment emerge from Friday's selection with a stronger hand than ever before. I'm curious whether others share that impression.
In this case, the answer is probably yes.

How so?

The first thing that someone who has grown up in a democracy has to get clear is the difference between a lone dictator and a regime.

A regime, even with an unquestioned, charismatic leader such as Mao T'se Tung can live and even thrive without the charismatic leader, while when the lone dictator like Uganda's Idi Amin Dada or the Congo's Mobutu Sese Seko disappears so does his entire ruling apparatus.

Obviously Iran, whether qualified democracy or iron fisted autocracy, is a regime; one which has handily survived the death 20 years ago of its über-charismatic founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A regime that lasts this long under successive leaders, of necessity has a complex, multi-layered, organization and a wide popular base.

In the case of Iran the regime's popular base is made up of the  traditional peasants and urban poor and finds the body of its critics among the urban middle-classes: people who would have the education, money and the leisure time to enjoy freedom of speech, a more relaxed dress code and travel abroad.

How does the present situation re-enforce the regime?

The easiest example would be Mao T'se Tung's "Hundred Flowers" campaign, where he encouraged criticism of the party under the slogan;
"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land."
When the flowers had "bloomed", when the intellectuals had spoken their minds, Mao lowered the boom on them. This is how Wikipedia describes the result,
The result of the Hundred Flowers Campaign was the persecution of intellectuals, officials, students, artists and dissidents labeled "rightists" during the Anti-Rightist Movement that followed. During this time, over 550,000 people identified as "rightists" were humiliated, imprisoned, demoted or fired from their positions, sent to labor and re-education camps, tortured, or killed.
That is  what I imagine is happening or going to happen in Iran right now.

Iran, certainly the regime, feels itself to be threatened by the USA and Israel and has every reason to feel so threatened: even a paranoiac can have enemies.

What they have done by encouraging a free and outspoken presidential campaign is to encourage any serious opposition to the status quo which might collaborate in any way with the west in time of war, to come forward and identify themselves. Now they will round them up or at least know exactly who to round up at a moment's notice in case Obama doesn't turn out to be quite so friendly as he'd like them to believe.

So yes, the regime is strengthened by all this dissent: all the rallies and the demonstrations have been filmed, the regime's dissenters  have taken the bait and all Khomeini's successor, Khameni has to do is reel them in.

Iran: stop and take a deep breath


sound and fury
In regard to the Iranian elections, I think it would be wise to pause before jumping on any bandwagon.

The western media reaction is beginning to remind me a bit of all those "(choose color) Springs", that the CIA organizes here and there, from time to time.

I am surprised at how much footage of police brutality is being freely filmed by western journalists and how freely they are allowed to beam this footage out of Iran. My experience of dictatorships tells me that this sort of thing is not typical of dictatorial behavior. (check Burma etc)

If I was going to make a "dark" reading of all of this, I might come to a tentative conclusion: that if someone wanted to start a war with Iran, this media frenzy would be just the sort of agit-prop to prepare western public opinion for something "surgical".

We lived through this same "Hitler of the month" thing with Bush and his neocons in the run up to the war in Iraq. This might be similar, only much better done this time.

In short, I don't trust US corporate media, or its "opinion makers" any more now than I did then.

Taking the settler's "hate" seriously


armed and dangerous
First this from Haaretz:
Asked by Israel Channel Two Television reporter Shai Gal what would happen if Israeli forces tried to evacuate Havat Gilad, Arele replied, "At most, they'll demolish one measly shack, so they'll have something to show - that Kushon [a Hebrew slur equivalent to the "N" word] in the United States, in order to have an Etnan [the biblical term for a fee paid to a prostitute] to give him - if you [secular] guys know what an Etnan is."
I ask myself the following question:

If an Israeli wingnut was able to kill the prime minister of Israel and has received a lot of support in Israel for doing so, why should anyone think that an attempt on "Kushon" Obama would be out of the question? One of the drunk kids in the video, "Feeling the Hate" even says he would like to kill the president. OK, so he is just a drunk kid, but there are a lot of settlers, who aren't drunk, but are very dangerous and are American citizens.

What I am really afraid of is that one of these settlers, who is an American citizen, who can enter the US without any restriction, who can blend into an American crowd without being noticed as "foreign looking", who has had military training, will try to kill Obama the same way they killed Yitzak Rabin... Then the shit will really hit the fan.

I think this is a real problem and perhaps the only way to keep it from happening is to talk about it. Normally this would be putting ideas into people's heads, but I think the ideas are already there.

After thought:
 
Reading some of the comments to this post I think that there is a slight confusion: I am not talking about the drunken American louts in the video and I am not talking about wingnuts and sons of the wild jackass in general. There are always lone crazies around in the USA like the guy who shot Reagan. I am talking about the Israeli settlers "movement".

We are talking here about a group of people which is not only messianic and fanatical like Al Qaeda, but which also is closely connected to the Israeli establishment. We are talking about people who practice racist violence on a daily basis, who have weapons and have been trained to use them and who have used them, not just had fantasies about using them.

It also happens that some of the most fanatical and violent settlers are Americans of dual-nationality, who have many connections and admirers in the USA; these are people who can enter and reside anywhere in the USA without restriction, speak the language without a "foreign" accent and blend into the landscape without calling attention to themselves. In short "ordinary" Americans.

So what I am saying is that we have a climate of hate and group of well-connected, armed fanatics that consider themselves "on a mission from God", who are also native Americans. This has all the ingredients for a history making disaster.

The European elections


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
How should we read the European Parliament elections?

To begin with, elections to the European parliament are usually fought country by country as local referendums entirely on national issues and despite the growing power of the European parliament in the daily life of all EU citizens, its role is hardly mentioned in these campaigns, which therefore are extremely boring and so abstention is normally very high.

In Spain's European parliament elections, for example, it usually happens that the party in power is roundly defeated by the mobilized base of the opposition party who come out en masse because they see an easy win, this happens because the party in power's voter base, seeing nothing much at stake, leaves them hanging in the wind. This is what has happened this time too.

This particular victory of the Partido Popular has had the perverse effect of consolidating Spain's conservative leader, Mariano Rajoy, who is considered so unattractive that even most of his own party think he has no chance against president Zapatero in the general elections three years from now.

If Partido Popular had lost the elections, this would have probably led them to change their candidate for the general elections, and since they have several candidates that are more charismatic than Rajoy, this victory may cost them dearly. So as you can see that in a European-wide election it is hard to see the forest for the trees.


The disaster in waiting

Probably the most dangerous result of this election has been the literal collapse of Britain's Labour Party under the leadership of Gordon Brown, which came in third behind the ultra-right UK Independence party (UKIP). If this leads to an early election before the the Lisbon Treaty is ratified it might lead to the British either leaving the EU or actually being expelled from it. Here is how the Financial Times columnist, Phillip Stephens lays it out:
Hang on in there, Mr Brown. Europe needs you for a while yet. The alternative could be a Conservative prime minister leading Britain towards the European exit. Such are the whispered anxieties in continental capitals, and among pro-Europeans in Britain, as Gordon Brown's troubles stir speculation about an early general election.(...) the leaders in Berlin, Paris and elsewhere have selfish reasons for hoping that the present British government can stagger on until next year. They have spent the best part of a decade designing, redesigning and patching up an agreement to remake the European Union's institutions. Once it was called the European constitution; now it goes by the name of the Lisbon treaty. But, horror of horrors, with the end at last in sight, David Cameron's Conservatives are threatening to wreck the project.(...) The timing of the government's demise could mark the difference between a serious argument about Britain's relationship with Brussels and a rupture that would set in train its eventual departure.(...) It is clear to all that Mr Cameron wants to derail the process of European integration. His decision to withdraw from the European People's party, the European parliament's mainstream centre-right group, is a step in that direction. By aligning with a hotchpotch of small far-right parties, Mr Cameron has downgraded his party's relationship with its French and German cousins. To move Britain to the sidelines of influence is one thing. To threaten to blow up the Lisbon accord is another. This is what Mr Cameron proposes by pledging to campaign for its rejection in a British referendum. And this is where the timing of the general election really matters.(...) Mr Cameron might argue that earlier versions of the treaty were rejected in referendums in France, the Netherlands and Ireland. But these were not conscious acts of government. Withdrawal from the EPP is a Tory shot across the bows of European integrationists. Wrecking the Lisbon treaty would be a declaration of war.(...) One thing is certain: neither Britain nor Europe needs an autumn general election. Nor, unless he wants to sleepwalk towards Europe's exit, does Mr Cameron.
So the British results are the only ones that might have direct and historic consequences.

What happened to the European Social Democrats?

Most of the left's classic battles have already been won in Europe, from strong labor unions, a sturdy social net and free health care, right down to even "free love": all of these have been adopted by the center right. What have the social democrats got left to sell?

Here is how columnist Henryk M. Broder described in in Der Spiegel
Germany, and a large part of Europe, has in recent decades incorporated vast swaths of social democratic values into their societies. The Social Democrats have lost their unique selling point. With the exception of the business-friendly Free Democrats, Germany's parliament is full of politicians who are, in some shade or another, adherents of the social democratic worldview. The Christian Social Union (the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union) is to the left of the SPD on some issues. Merkel's CDU is sometimes greener than the Greens and the far-left Left Party continues to cozy up to Germany's mainstream parties. When almost all the parties on offer are center-left, there is no longer a compelling reason to vote SPD. On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with taking a look at those who offer something a bit different -- not unlike the way loyal Aldi shoppers take an occasional look at what rival supermarket chain Lidl is offering.
In general the problem right now with the European left is that they have not shown that they have a coherent critique of the system, which is what the voter of the left really wants from them. Until they produce that critique or the ultra-right makes more significant gains that frighten them sufficiently many left wing voters will simply abstain. It is interesting to note that the one figure of the left who did well in the elections was the French "Green", Daniel ("Danny the Red") Cohn-Bendit, who campaigned solely on European issues with a strong progressive message that would be far to the left of any mainstream American discourse.


An American reading (take care)

Americans may be tempted to see the European social democratic parties representing the same things as the Democratic Party of Barack Obama and the European center right taking the same positions as the Republican Party in the USA: this reading would be erroneous. For one thing, the Republican Party would be very far to the right of any mainstream party in Europe on economic and social issues and also foreign policy.

It is also important to clarify that the USA's Democrats are not really a party of the "left" in European terms. The reforms that the Democrats timidly put forward, like universal(?) health care and reasonably tight financial regulations are defended by European conservatives. The Democratic party is well to the right of the European center on most issues, most of the time.

You could say that the years of Thatcher-Reagan-Friedman have intellectually castrated the left. This is a problem in Europe, whereas the progressive voter in the USA is quite happy with neutered tom cats.

"Feeling the Hate"... looking on the bright side



This is certainly the year that a lot of stereotypes have bitten the dust: of course the top of the list of broken prejudices is symbolized by our president, Barack Obama, the first person of known African descent to occupy the Oval Office and soon we will have the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.

This is wonderful. But the destruction of other stereotypes, though they fill the observer with wonder are anything but wonderful.

Max Blumenthal's little film "Feeling the Hate" has broken more stereotypes for me, personally, than the election of Barack Obama or the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

The success of either Obama or Sotomayor is no surprise to me on racial or ethnic grounds, as I have never thought that the color of a person's skin or ethnic origin had any bearing on their ability to carry out the duties and responsibilities of high office.

However, I also never thought I would ever hear Jewish people throw the word "nigger" around with such practiced aplomb as in this video.

As a matter of fact, I don't ever remember seeing a Jewish person as drunk as those portrayed in Blumenthal's interviews in my whole life; in my youth it was proverbial that, "Jews don't drink": getting roaring drunk was something that was left to brutish, wife-beating, Polish peasants and to feral Russian Cossacks.

So here, thanks to Mr. Blumenthal, we have a group of future "my son the doctor(s)" and Jewish Princesses, stumbling drunk, talking with the same disgusting bigotry as the Polish peasants and Russian Cossacks that used to rape their great grandmothers or the rednecks that spat on the Jewish Freedom riders in the 1960s or that lynched Leo Frank.

To whom do we owe this transformation, this leveling?

To the USA?

To Israel?

In the words of a great American poet, "C'est la vie say the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell".

Cairo: George Bush gets his lipstick


lipstick
Oink

Let's not forget that President Bush, and Condi Rice, also went to the Middle East and made lofty speeches about freedom and about how the U.S. was not in conflict with Islam. It was not the rhetoric that failed them; it was the disconnect between the rhetoric and the policies.(...) What he says in Cairo will make little difference to the way he's perceived in the Arab world and beyond; he'll be judged by what he does. Tony Karon

Speaking about a policy of pursuing a war against extremism and working towards two states for peoples on Palestinian lands is no different from the policy of his predecessor, George W Bush. Ayman Taha, Hamas spokesman in the Gaza strip - BBC

Arabs are waiting for pressure to be exerted on Israel so it can stop its violations in Gaza and the West Bank. Iraqi government spokesman - BBC

"The United States is in a weaker position now," said Omar Amiralai, a well-known 65-year-old Syrian film maker. "They are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan and don't know how to get out. Bush, after the Iraq war, had some ability to pressure Sharon on Israeli settlements, but I don't see that the United States has the ability to impose its law or desires on Israel now." New York Times

The immediate effect though is to buy America space and time. Daniel Levy - TPM

What is the Obama administration's objective in the Middle East?

I ask the question because the stated objective, the Palestinian state, if it ever gets off the ground, will be nothing more than a huge concentration camp with no sovereignty over its borders or air space, with the most trusted inmates being allowed to run the day to day affairs of the prison,
keep order among the prisoners, keep their jailers well informed of the other prisoner's doings and presumably to skim the cream off the "state's" budget for their pains.

This, of course is essentially repackaged Rice/Bush.


Read more »

More on Tiller and the Taliban


wingnutYesterday I posted on the political assassination of Dr. Tiller here at TPM; I also posted the same picture and text at my home blog. The title of my post was: "Dr. Tiller or why search the world for Taliban, when they grow wild at home?".

This morning I received the following comment from the lady at the left:
Debra J.M. Smith said...

Obama said, "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence." --If Obama only cared that much about the countless babies who died at the hands of that abortionist...

A family member said, "Today we mourn the loss of our husband, father and grandfather. Today's event is an unspeakable tragedy for all of us and for George's friends and patients. This is particularly heart wrenching because George was shot down in his house of worship, a place of peace." Wow, how about the wombs that all of those babies were in? The womb is supposed to be a safe place of peace for a baby. But that monster would intrude and kill each one of them, with no remorse.

And I do not feel sorry for a family who loved a murderer. And I sure do NOT feel sorry for a church that had no problem allowing a murderer to attend.

Debra J.M. Smith
of
www.InformingChristians.com

If you visit her web page, you will see that she is no shrinking violet and certainly would welcome controversy with some satanical lefties. I myself don't feel up to the job; the best I was able to muster was the following:

I just published Ms. Smith's, murderous, hypocritical and thoroughly disgusting little letter because it proves the point of my post. Why are we fighting Afghanistan's Taliban, when we have our hands full fighting our own?

I'm sure that many of TPMs readers can do much better than that and I encourage them, and any friends they might have on their mailing list to do so.

I doubt that this will put even a dent in Ms. Smith's self-righteousness, but I think she should  feel a little heat.

Dr. Tiller or why search the world for Taliban, when they grow wild at home?


bang
The medium is the message

A world waiting for the synergies


on the brink
Let's see... There is North Korea, Israel/Palestine, Iran, Af-Pak... and don't forget Iraq, and this flu thing... that hasn't gone away either... Oh, yes, and the economy... "green shoots", some say, others say we are in for a long haul.

Any of these problems, would be a plateful for any US administration that I can remember, all together they give me the feeling of a chaos that I have often read about in history books, but have never personally experienced before.

Read more »

David Seaton

user-pic

Following: 4
Followers: 31

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address