going through the motions

Does President Obama seriously believe the Israelis and the Palestinians can achieve a peace deal? I doubt it. So what can he possibly hope to achieve by the planned year long peace talks? If the talks fail, as they almost certainly will, Obama will look even lamer than he does now. The only way the talks can succeed is for the US to threaten to dump Israel, by cutting off military and financial aid, unless and until Israel curtails its expansionary settlement building. I just don't see that happening. Obama backed off when Netanyahu called his bluff on settlements last year, and his entire Presidency is characterized by a general lack of backbone.

Unless the Israelis get a super push from the US they will happily continue down the expansionary path. The Israelis will talk and talk and talk. And as they talk the settlements will expand, and more and more Palestinian territory will be occupied and annexed. It's a wonderful stalling tactic for them. If the Palestinians walk out they will say they tried. If the Palestinians make concessions, as they always have, Israel will eventually renege on its part of the bargain. Just as the US broke just about every treaty it ever made with the Indians.

In the unlikely event that Israel's negotiators make concessions, either the Israeli parliament will reject it or the government will have to make war on the settlers. Why should they give up anything when they are winning, with America's continued backing all but guaranteed?

So why are the Palestinians there at all? Well it is only Fatah for a start, the party that lost in the Palestinians' last democratic election. Because Fatah relies on the limited foreign aid it gets to prop itself up. If Fatah walks out that aid is in jeopardy. But even Fatah has its limits. If the temporary partial freeze on settlements is not extended there is no way they can save face with their people. They would be conceding defeat before the process is even begun.

How can there be peace talks when one party continues to wage war? Israel's illegal occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory is what the hostilities are all about.

Only the US can put a peaceful stop to Israeli expansion and it simply won't. Israel intends to continue its unrelenting 60 year expansion until every Palestinian is either dead, permanently exiled or confined to concentration camps. The final solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians only hope is for enough foreign military intervention to do at least some damage to Israel. If these hostilites do break out the US will find itself hopelessly trapped in the Israeli camp, and will pay ever more dearly for it.

a tragic figure

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

William Shakespeare 1564-1616: Julius Caesar (1599)



How could we better summarize the unfolding drama of the Obama presidency? Here is a man who held the nation in his hands on the night of his election. But in failing to seize that moment he has condemned his Presidency to limp from disappointment to tragic disappointment.

Certainly he was right to hold out the offer of bipartisanship until his inauguration. But once the Republicans showed their true colors he should have trampled them down and dispatched them with all guns blazing. And a man with his oratorical powers could have scattered them to the far corners and kept them hiding under their rocks for one, if not two congressional terms.

These were the stooges of the disastrous Bush presidency. The cowards who failed to speak up when conservative principles were discarded to the trash. The ignorant who didn't know any better. And the populists who didn't care. In a breathtaking political instant it was they who claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility, and stole the moral high ground. Emboldened by Obama's weakness they managed to pull off the greatest "flip-flop" in American history. The people who all but bankrupted the country were suddenly the champions of government restraint. Not content with that, they painted their President as a Fascist and a Nazi, and made him the scapegoat for all the nation's ills. Like Dr Goebbels they succeeded in their "big lie" because they had the ruthlessness that Obama lacked, reinforced by a complete lack of moral responsibility, and aided and abetted by a servile media. How else could we have gone straight from Cheney's "deficits don't matter" to cries of "we'll all be ruined"?

As soon as these reptiles poked up their heads Obama should have hammered them down. They were the ones who lead the country into an ill conceived and disastrous war, who dragged down America in the eyes of the world, who decreased taxes while escalating spending, who mismanaged government, who failed to address the health care shambles, and who dared not burst the economic bubble. These disasters should have been labelled Republican disasters, as they truly were. And if at first the message failed to resonate with the American psyche, the accusations should have been repeated over and over until the reality sank in. The sudden conversion back to conservative values should have been ridiculed for the joke it was, and the Republic Party made to re-earn the respect of the American people.

But it wasn't just a matter of letting the Republicans off the hook. The instinct for seeking bipartisanship was a good one, but the way to realize it was to hammer the Democratic Party with the same, if not greater ferocity. The Party has been morally neutered and leaderless for over a decade. There is no unity of vision and nothing resembling a backbone. The Democrats dance to the tune of the same vested interests as the Republicans and are equally despised by the American public. Obama had the same mandate from the American people that Bush had. Reform the electoral system, clean up the corruption and drive the lobbyists out of the temple. And this is what he had promised to do. He had the people with him. He could have gone over the heads of Congress to the people, and shamed both parties into accepting his leadership.

He continued talking like a Washington outsider, but his actions contradicted his words as they began to do in all other areas. Rather than take Congress by the horns he chose to hand over the initiative for vital health care reform to a hopelessly ill-equipped committee of insiders. Perhaps he saw advantage in later playing the knight coming to the rescue of the maiden. But it looked more like Pontius Pilate not wanting to get involved with anything messy. Whatever his thinking, it proved a disastrous miscalculation. He was barely able to rescue himself. He has been playing catch up ever since. For the rest of his term he looks condemned to wade through "shallows" and "miseries". With astonishing rapidity the Democrats lost their Senate "super majority". But even a Democratic minority would have been enough for a President who had the option of appealing directly to the people.

If Obama had chosen to ride the tide in those early days his could have been a great presidency. But there is no recovering from a lost opportunity of this nature, as Shakespeare well knew. Like Hamlet, crippled by his early indecision, Obama can only earn his place in history now by sacrificing himself for the greater good.

ban bio-fuels now

America has a new weapon of mass destruction. And it is being used to inflict increased suffering, misery and death on the world's poor.

The last twelve months have seen massive rises in the prices of staple cereals and grains culminating in the spectre of widespread famine. For the billions who already spend more than half their income on food, the price rises spell malnutrition at best, and eventual starvation. The world's big food producers are banning exports, governments are exhausting precious reserves to subsidize food prices, armed guards protect food warehouses, and protests and food riots are breaking out everywhere.

The production of bio-fuels is not solely responsible for these price rises, but it has been a major factor. Things can only get worse if present expansion plans continue. The evidence against bio-fuels is now overwhelming. What seemed like a good idea has proved to be a disaster. It is time to admit it was all a mistake and dismantle the infrastructure.

All the touted benefits of bio-fuels have failed to materialize:

• It was never environmentally significant to begin with. It might be clean burning, but its contribution to air quality will be negligible.
• At best it can be argued that it is carbon neutral. Carbon is fixed from the air in ethanol production and released on burning. But this ignores the fact that energy is used in its manufacture. And the fact that ethanol does not burn as efficiently as gasolene, results in more carbon exhaust per mile driven.
• The only way to make up for the lost food production capacity is to cultivate more marginal lands and destroy more rainforest. There is already powerful evidence of these disastrous environmental consequences. Poor farmers world wide are abandoning food production to supply the more lucrative bio-fuel market, and rainforest destruction is accelerating. The latter tips the carbon equation further in the negative.
• That leaves energy independence. But even if present plans to boost production are realized, the overall impact on fuel supplies will not be significant.
• Economically the initiative is a dead set loser. Ethanol is heavily subsidized and the need for subsidies is likely to continue indefinitely. Now add to that the costs of increased emergency food aid to poor countries like Haiti. Better to invest the money in solar, wind and nuclear power.

At the end of the day the only beneficiaries of the whole sorry mess are America's over subsidized, and mostly wealthy farmers, and the politicians they control. One United Nations envoy called it a "crime against humanity". Make no mistake. We are party to this crime so long as we allow these criminals to get away with what is, literally, mass murder.

There are two other factors driving food price rises. One is adverse weather conditions. The devastating drought which destroyed Australia's wheat crop may well be a hint of things to come. The threat of climate change is no longer something Americans can ignore.

The other major factor in the price rise equation is increased meat consumption. The Indians and the Chinese have not dramatically increased their caloric intake. But they are eating more and more meat. That means calories which were feeding people have been diverted to livestock. It takes four times the calories to feed a meat eater. If Americans drastically reduced their animal food intake, it would free up enough grain to feed more than half a billion people. If China and India forego increased meat consumption as well, the crisis would be well and truly over. One year ago meat eating was simply a luxury the planet could not afford. Now it will directly cost millions of lives. And condemn hundreds of millions to the devastating physical and mental effects of malnutrition.

it's not about him

Electing a President is like buying a car. We have a list of all the things we hated about our last car, and we look for a model that has none of those annoying features. Trouble is, after a few months of driving, we find the new car has a whole lot of annoying features of its own.

In 2000 all most Americans wanted was a President who would remain faithful to his wife. The number one reason people gave for electing George W Bush in 2000 was "moral values". It was still the number one reason in 2004, though the percentage was not as high.

So, in 2008 what do people hate about George Bush? The answer is, just about everything. Republicans and Democrats are both looking for a candidate who is as different from Bush as they can be. So we have maverick Republican and outsider, John McCain on one side. And a major Democratic contest for the title of "Least Bush" on the other.

But the voters' assessments have little to do with policy. Even if people were willing and able to analyze the policies of each candidate, there is very little to distinguish one candidate's policies from another. Instinctively people know the larger question is, who is best able to implement policy, and effect results? As with cars unfortunately, this assessment is mostly based on "look and feel", rather than substance. The whole contest comes down to one of presentation and marketing.

For a long time Hilary Clinton was the Democratic front runner. Being a woman made her very different from George Bush. More importantly, people had seen her perform under all sorts of pressure. She was a great debater and could take on any of the men, and she had survived 17 years of tough public exposure. But when husband Bill took on an attack dog role, it brought her leadership into question, apart from waking the "moral values" ghost.

Obama did not perform as well in those early debates, but he did have a lot of non-Bush credentials. Apart from being black, he was younger. Hilary might have had proven experience, but his very lack of experience was also an asset. He was a fresh face, untainted by past scandals and relatively uncorrupted by the party machine. He successfully marketed himself as the candidate of change. What would he do differently to George Bush? Answer. Everything. More importantly, everything you wanted. "It's not about me" he said "it's about you". I'm your candidate and I will do whatever I can to deliver the America you want.

That's clever marketing. And young people buy that sort of rhetoric. The young and the internet savvy formed his base. He was one of them and they went out and told their friends. That gave him momentum and he started to nip at Clinton's heels. When she tripped up and went negative, he gained further momentum and became a phenomenon. When Edwards pulled out Obama seems to have picked up most of Edward's supporters. Now, the thing about band waggons is that most people jump on them, just because they are band waggons. Looking like a winner is all it takes to be a winner. No one wants to be left standing alongside the loser.

But is Obama capable of effecting real change? How competent is he? What does he really stand for? How will he fare when his honeymoon period ends, as it surely will? Will he be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine, or will he crumple?

From what little we have to go on, these are a few of the things of importance to me I have distilled:

• The thing I seek most in a candidate is someone who is willing to take the side of law and justice in the Israel-Palestine conflict. America's unconditional support for Israel is morally indefensible. It is the main cause of Arab and Muslim hatred and suspicion, and costs US taxpayers billions in aid and wasteful and ineffective anti-terrorist campaigns. How surprising that a black candidate, a self-proclaimed champion of those without a voice, barely acknowledges the existence of a Palestinian grievance in his Foreign Policy statements. His website devotes several paragraphs to continued over the top support for Israel, notwithstanding that country's appalling human rights record. He voices support for a Palestinian state, like everyone else, but shows no intention of giving Israel the push it needs to get there. He talks of beginning "to lay the stones that will build the road...." How timid and non-committal is that?
• This issue raises further questions of credibility. Some time back Mr Obama let slip his view that no one has suffered more than the Palestinians. That little indiscretion unleashed a full scale Zionist attack, with the usual anti-Semitic smears. Obama has been working hard to restore his pro-Israel credibility ever since. The first question is, does he have a hidden pro-Palestinian agenda? Can he be taken at face value? Or second, has he surrendered what he believes in, just to win votes and campaign contributions. If he thinks he can change policies once he gets into office he is naive. If he is willing to compromise his principles for the sake of electoral success, he is not the force for change he claims to be.
• The other big issue for me is the environment. Like most Americans, Mr Obama seems completely unaware of the world's number one environmental problem, namely America's unsustainable diet. He supports efforts to address climate change, but he also seems to think bio-fuels are some kind of a solution. His careful wording does emphasize "Next Generation Biofuels". This at least suggests he is well aware of the growing scientific evidence against the proclaimed benefits, not to mention the horrifying consequences for world poverty. But at this stage he continues to lead on America's corn growers.
• Mr Obama's voting record places him squarely on the left wing of his party. How good is his grasp of economics? And what major economic changes may he attempt if he gets into office? How acceptable will his policies be to middle America?
• Mr Obama's foreign policy statments place heavy emphasis on diplomacy? This is well and good. But what if diplomacy fails? This is an option his statements simply do not contemplate.

On the things which matter to me, Clinton and McCain are no better. Indeed, when it comes to Palestine, they are both as bad or worse than Bush.

But for me there is a bigger issue, and it is this. Anyone who claims he will do whatever people want is no leader. It is about him, and it's all about him! A true leader is someone who knows what needs to be done, how it needs to be done, and persuades the public to follow. What Americans need today is someone of courage to tell them that they are the ones who need to change.

Americans cannot go on gobbling up the world's resources, and tell the rest of the world that they need to do more to limit their populations and their carbon footprint. They cannot return to protectionist policies which will perpetuate world poverty and limit everyone's economic growth. And they cannot lecture the world on freedom and democracy, when they support so many regimes that are less than shining examples.

So far the only candidate I see saying exactly what he thinks is John McCain. He was brutally frank about the loss of jobs in the car industry, to his detriment. Unfortunately he failed to point out the upside of free trade, possibly due to his self-confessed weakness when it comes to economics. His support for addressing climate change is commendable, in the face of conservative opposition. But he voices the same pre-conditions which make American action dependent on other countries. Either way he sees little need for America to change.

Mrs Clinton probably has a better grasp of what needs to change and how to make it happen. But she won't speak her mind for fear of alienating more voters. Unfortunately, clever marketing can no longer do it for her.

Mr Obama is now the Democratic front runner. He got there by promising everything to everyone. He now carries the hopes of millions of Americans. But what evidence is there, at this stage, to suggest that those hopes might be fulfilled?

If Americans ultimately chose the Obama model, what faults might they find when they drive it home?