Morning Coffee (105)

I woke up this morning to about 4 inches of light, fluffy white stuff on my truck. No, a Cessna filled with Colombian cocaine did not explode over my house. It was snow. And it was coming down. Of course, the city hadn’t yet bothered to mobilize the legions of snow plows, so the drive into work was like being a lone merchant vessel in the North Atlantic circa 1940; just waiting to take one to the keel. It never happened though, thankfully.

Delusional Change Someone Else Can Believe In (Revisited):

Talk about beating a dead horse. I was fortunate enough to hear the Obama commercial again this morning. The cute-girl-sounding announcer nearly has me convinced to vote for Obama on primary day. “Obama has a way of brining people together.” How? Where’s the proof? Give me an example. Alas, they do not. She says, as to why one might vote for Obama, “Maybe you want to end this war.” Then some teenager kid says to me, as if to illustrate the burning desire of all young people to end this “illegal, immoral war,” “Obama was against the Iraq War from the beginning.” Great. Wow. Can you put that into context for me? For what reasons was he against the war? Was he against it for being against its sake? Would he support any war? In what ways would war be a valid option for Mr. Obama? I have a lot of questions for the freshman Senator from Illinois on foreign policy and war. None have ever been answered. (Of course us proles don’t get sit downs with Presidential candidates, even the ones who have a way of bringing people together.) Then Obama comes on, and I’m reminded of a portion of his ad that I forgot about yesterday. He says, in closing out his ad, “Believe in the dream we call America!” America’s a dream? Nobody told me! I’ve been living in a dream world my whole life and just now I find out about it. What’s worse, I’m told to believe in this “dream” in the same breath. Must America be merely a dream? Can it not be something far more substantive? I’m clearly being facetious here, but I hope you get my point. Flowery rhetoric is Obama’s forte. But what substance does he have? Is he any more substantive than the dreams of which he speaks? Obama wrote a book called, “Dreams from My Father.” Dreams is a prevailing theme in his speeches and one might think that dreams make up his entire political persona. No substance, just dreams. Dreams might make us feel good, but the do not solve or assuage reality. Sure, I like a forward thinker as much as the next man, but a man who dreams and doesn’t do…is that who we want as President? Flowery rhetoric and feel-goodery is just that.

Obama’s wife, Michelle, is apparently proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. Go ahead, read it if you want. Barack’s excuse for her is…lacking. Hers was a poor choice of words.

McCain’s 100 Years War:

I don’t even want to talk about this whole thing, because it’s stupid. Obama’s campaign has unleashed the rhetoric-monsters on a fairly old McCain bit in which McCain made mention that it doesn’t matter how long we’re in Iraq so long as we succeed and we aren’t suffering casualties; even 100 years if necessary. I’ll be the first to admit that McCain’s phraseology was stupid. First of all, if we are, as McCain states, to “maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world,” we’d be suffering casualties, probably right up until the time we left. They may be minor, but we’d still lose men and women over there. I do see his point, that being that a secure Iraq is an important goal, and a set timeline is not something that is necessarily conducive to success. But the statement was dumb. And the Democrats seized on it. Now all you read about from the spokesmen of their campaigns is how McCain wants more than 100 years in Iraq, no matter what the topic is. He doesn’t “want” 100 or more years in Iraq. And they should remember, as McCain pointed out, that we’ve been in South Korea and Japan and Germany for quite a long time. There is an overwhelming precedent for long-term deployments of US troops overseas. What annoys me so is the misleading characterization that these political campaigns make on a daily basis, and on virtually every issue (tax cuts, anyone?).

Here’s the deal. McCain wants there to be a secure, stable Iraq, no matter the timeline. Success is the measure of success. Clinton wants the measure of success to be the withdrawal of all troops within 60 days of her election to the office of the President, no matter what that might mean for Iraq or the region. Obama would like to enact a “phased-redeployment” wherein all US forces are removed from Iraq by 31 March 2008. Getting involved in Iraq may have been a poor choice, but now that we’re there, we should make every effort to finish the job. I’ve written a great deal on the reasons for doing so, as some of you might remember. Not only are the pragmatic reasons, such as Iraq being secure from outside forces (Iran), important, but the more esoteric reasons like how we are perceived by the rest of the Muslim world are important as well. I’ve contended that leaving Iraq to its own fate after having annihilated its army, economy, and infrastructure and sewn the seeds of ethnic and religious violence is a terrible idea. A terrible one. If leaving Afghanistan to its own devices in 1991 was a bad idea that netted us 9/11, imagine how Iraq might turn out for us.

Cancer, Bacteria, Whatever:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his friends get their blights confused. Last week, one of his lackeys described Israel as a cancerous growth. Today, Mahmoud has described it as bacteria. Not just any bacteria, but filthy bacteria. He says, “The world powers established this filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime, which is lashing out at the nations in the region like a wild beast.” I love propaganda. Such beautiful prose. Like a wild beast. Lashing out. Filthy bacteria. As humorous as his bloviating sounds, we should remember that most people attempt to eradicate such things as cancer and filthy bacteria. Hell, one of the chief methods of eliminating cancer is radiation. You know where you get radiation? Enriched uranium. Know what you can do with uranium? Make nukes. Nukes kill cancer. I’m unaware as to whether or not the Iranian regime is working on antibiotic-tipped missiles, but they may be doing just that. If so, we know what their intentions are, don’t we?

Ahmadinejad later says that Israel “uses terror as a threat every day, and afterwards is happy and joyful.” This in response to the actions against the pink mist that was Hezbollah chief Imad Moughniyeh. Iran doesn’t do terror. Nope. No way. Not on your life. Unless of course you consider a little thing like bankrolling Hezbollah as, I don’t know, supporting terror every day. Or kidnapping British Marines right off the Persian Gulf. Twice. Nah, Iran does not support or condone any form of terrorism. And if I get cancer, I know where I’m going: Bushehr.

Castro Steps Down:

After nearly 50 years of rule, Fidel Castro has stepped down as the President of Cuba. Castro had been in power since 1959. I haven’t really anything remarkable to add to this event, as it doesn’t appear that much will change in Cuba right away. Castro’s brother Raul will take over. There’s hope, as Raul has indicated that things need to change in Cuba, but I doubt much will happen while Fidel is still alive. Anyway, I just figured I’d mention it if some of you only get your news from the MC (which would be a bad thing).

A hearty Happy Birthday to our US Postal Service, which celebrates its 215th birthday today. The Postal Service Act was signed by George Washington in 1792. Let’s test your unofficial motto and see if I get my mail today.

Word of the Day: Ersatz (adjective): Being a substitute or imitation, usually an inferior one. We are presented with ersatz Presidential candidates.

On This Day in History: Congress proposes the Twenty-First Amendment, which will end Prohibition (1933). Good idea Congress. Movie studio executives agree to allow the Office of War Information to censor movies (1943). John Glenn becomes the first American to orbit the earth (1962). Marilisa Xenogiannakopoulou, a Greek politician, and current record holder for the person with the longest name to receive an MC mention was born (1963). Kurt Cobain was born (1967).

“It is possible to provide security against other ills, but as far as death is concerned, we men live in a city without walls.” – Epicurus.

Morning Coffee (89)

I regret that I failed to brew you any Coffee this past weekend, dear readers. And it has been five days since you’ve tasted the robust flavor of the MC. The wait is over. Here is your fix.

The Battle for New Hampshire:

Big news everyone: Hillary and McCain are not out of the running for President of the United States. Sense my enthusiasm? They both won a significant battle against their rivals in the Shire of New Hamp. Since people seem to put such large stock in Iowa and NH, we can safely say that now there is no real front runner in either party. I could probably spend a half an hour of your time (and two hours of mine) closely examining the inanity of this whole deal. But I won’t and will instead summarize. McCain won despite having been virtually left for dead last summer. Romney lost despite spending beau coup bucks (of his own) there (similarly of course, he lost in Iowa to a man (Huck) who spent virtually nothing in comparison). Huckabee had a pretty poor showing this time around, coming in third. Not a whole lot of Army of God, evangelical types in the ‘Shire I guess. When I went to bed last night (pathetically early) Fred Thompson had roughly 850 votes, which I found somewhat hilarious. He ended with 2,800 votes, or roughly 81,000 less than McCain. I hope he didn’t expect more; I’m not even running and I have a more robust campaign for President than he has. Ron Paul accrued ~18,000 votes, which actually makes me fear for the future of my country (see below).

Hillary won, and I wonder if it was mostly because people felt sorry for her; she was nearly in tears the other day when, for a whole news cycle, there was talk of her quitting the campaign (which I thought was grossly premature). But now, pundits are wondering if she, like her husband in 1992, is a “comeback kid.” Obama’s second place finish didn’t damper his spirits any, since he’s still “fired up and ready to go.” For a man like Joe Biden, who finished sixth, it’s got to be like a blow to the solar plexus though, to not only finish behind Dennis Kucinich, but to net a mere 616 votes. If Mickey Mouse were on the ballot, he would have probably scored higher than Biden, who seems to be fairly reasonable despite the paltry amount of press he gets. And like Huckabee, he’s got great one-liners, which as you know is a make or break skill for a President. In a 30 Oct debate he said of Rudy Giuliani, “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb, and 9/11.” Pretty funny stuff Joe.

Iran in a Boat:

If you get your news from outlets other than the bitingly bitter Morning Coffee (which you should), you might have missed, in the din of the coverage of New Hampshire’s primary, the real big news of the day yesterday. Five Iranian high-speed boats intercepted and made aggressive, threatening maneuvers towards three US Navy ships (one destroyer, one cruiser, one frigate) operating in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian boats had three to four people in them and rapidly approached the Navy vessels and made a number of runs toward USS Hopper, the lead ship. The Hopper’s crew apparently heard a radio call that threatened that the US ships would explode, and two of the boats dumped unidentified boxes in the water. It is unclear whether or not the radio call came from the boats or a ground station, however. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the Iranian vessels were aggressive. How is this clear? Because the Navy recorded their actions on video, and has accompanying audio, which they have released to the public. I’ve seen it, and the Iranian boats acted in a way not conducive to peaceful interrogation of unidentified vessels. The Iranian boats fled the scene just as the Navy ships were preparing to open fire, i.e. obliterate them.

The Iranians, of course, have a different take: they were simply trying to identify the large, gray, armed ships, which flew American flags. In broad daylight. Despite the ships having been identified earlier in the day by another Iranian ship (possibly a Revolutionary Guard ship), two or three Iranian ground stations, and an Omani station.

This event is interesting for several reasons. Had the Navy ships opened fire on the Iranian vessels, tensions between the US and Iran would have increased exponentially. And one thing you could be sure of is that oil prices (and thus gas) would have skyrocketed, since a great deal of our oil travels through the very waters in which this confrontation took place. Additionally, the US could have been portrayed by Iran as the aggressor, since three honest-to-goodness warships opened fire and (likely) destroyed several poorly armed Iranian boats. But the professionalism of the US Navy prevented this from happening, although from the sounds of it, this very thing was mere moments from happening. These ships would have been justified in taking such action, but Iran would garner sympathy. These boats do pose a legitimate threat to ships as large as the three Navy ships (USS Cole, anyone?), but they’re small, and inept looking in comparison to modern destroyers and cruisers. It would be like a trained police officer shooting dead five 120lb weaklings who might have had grenades under their shirts. They kept running towards the man, only to swerve way at the last second and even shouted that they were going to blow him up. His buddy was killed previously by a 120lb weakling armed with a grenade under his shirt. The officer might have been justified, but people would have sympathized with the weaklings, especially if they perceived the police as bullies, which is exactly how the US military is perceived by many in the Middle East and elsewhere. Could this have been an instance where the Iranians were trying to goad the US into action? It think so.

It also could have been a simple probe of the Navy ships’ security measures; a simple test of the ships’ responses. Information gleaned from this could be used in a future conflict in the Gulf. Make no mistake about it, Iran’s navy is capable in the confined waters of the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. There is no point in the Gulf that is not within range of Iran’s shore-based anti-ship missiles, which would be launched at ships in salvos which would overwhelm the ship’s defense systems. Iran’s small ships would engage in swarm tactics, much like yesterday’s incident, and would seek to attack larger, better armed targets by using a high number of these smaller vessels, possibly armed with RPGs or even in a suicide role. I know it’s popular to believe that the US Navy is only vulnerable by a comparable force, but that simply isn’t the case, especially when room for maneuverability and stand-off is so limited.

The Iranian Navy’s actions could presage similar actions with the goal of desensitizing the US Navy. This is a common tactic. Time after time these ships approach and push the confrontation to the brink, only to flee. The crews become inured to this, and are blindsided when the Iranian vessels don’t turn away at the last second and then damage or destroy a ship. While it is likely that the media will report, however ineptly, on Iranian action similar to this, it will not prevent Navy crews from becoming numb to the threat over time and let their guard down. Only their professionalism can prevent this.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming days and weeks.

The title of this section is a pun on peoples’ mispronunciation of Iran. It’s actually pronounced Ih-Ron rather than I-Ran.

The Deceived Cult of Paul:

Ron Paul became a legitimate Presidential candidate in the eyes of the media not through his policies, but through his successful grassroots internet effort to raise money. People were astounded at the haul he took in. He’s becoming less viable with every passing primary, despite his impressive bank account and impassioned supporters. The information contained within THIS article from The New Republic and others will do little to bolster his support, and might actually do what nothing has been able to do: drive away his fans.

The New Republic’s (TNR) article, “Angry White Man” is lengthy, so I don’t expect you to read it all on top of reading my long-winded diatribes. But in it, a few things will become painfully obvious. TNR reports that Paul has since 1978 published monthly newsletters with a variety of different monikers (Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, etc.). Many of the articles are published without bylines, so it’s hard to say who wrote them. Many of them are written in the first person, which gives the impression that, since the publication is “Ron Paul’s Something or Other”, that Paul wrote them. If not, one would think that Paul at least approves of these articles published in a newsletter with his name brand on it, which suggest that they reflect his views.

The problem is, the contents of many of the articles contained within these newsletters are very controversial, and in many cases downright racist and paranoid. Skim through to get an idea. It’s actually quite appalling, these being better suited to a Klan publication rather than one possessing the name of a viable Presidential candidate.

Paul’s campaign has apparently stated that Paul “had granted various levels of approval to what appeared in his publications.” Over the years his level of approval ran the gamut, from writing the articles himself to having no approval at all. Jesse Benton, the campaign spokesman, said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He said this after being read some of the passages. TNR makes a good point that this might be believable had these sorts of racist views popped up sporadically, or if the newsletter been around for but only a little while, but the newsletter has contained such content since its inception 30 years ago. A further issue I have, which is mentioned obliquely in the article, is that Paul apparently has no concern for what his subordinates do on his behalf and in his name. How good of a President will he be then, if one were to completely ignore the content of these newsletters and simply focus on the fact that Paul, for years, apparently had no knowledge of what “his” newsletter was saying. It had his name on it, for the love of the gods. Will underlings make statements on behalf of the United States that have not been approved by Paul? Will these statements be grossly out of touch with American sentiment (beyond the KKK that is)? Can we really elect a guy whose name is on a publication that says things such as, “Racial violence will fill our cities because mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves,'" regardless of whether or not he wrote it or believes it? I hope not. And thankfully after New Hampshire, I don’t think he has a prayer. But even though he will probably not be President, TNR points out that he has been “increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate.” And in light of some of his passively sanctioned views, this is scary enough.

Word of the Day: Pertinacious (adjective): 1. Holding or adhering obstinately to an opinion, purpose, or design. 2. Stubbornly or perversely persistent.

On This Day in History: In a move that might have been supported by Ron Paul’s newsletter authors, the Jewish population of Basel, Switzerland is rounded up and incinerated because they are believed to have been the cause of the ongoing bubonic plague (1349).

“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” - Plato

Morning Coffee (81)

Did you know that 4 out of 5 readers prefer their Morning Coffee served with a slice of sarcasm?

On the way in to brew the Coffee this morning, I was once again listening to my massive mix CD. This time, “Born in the USA” by Bruce Springsteen came on, and I came to the sudden realization that Springsteen might have the worst singing voice of any iconic American musician, but for some reason, you like listening to him. For some reason, when you hear that synthesized piano thing in the intro to “Born” you’re always like, “I love Springsteen.” He’s gotten better with age, but back when he did the album “Born in the USA” he just sounded like a tortured kitten with that constant yell/singing thing he did. Despite that, it’s a good album, and he’s a good musician, even if the meaning to his most recognized song is misunderstood.

Presidential Dynasties:

I’m sure by now you’ve all heard that if Hillary is elected in 2008, we’ll have had two families in our highest office since 1988. It would be even worse were she to be re-elected in 2012, which is not out of the question as the incumbent. Maybe no one has thought about this, but we could have a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 28 years total. From 1988 to 2016. This is a very real possibility. Do we really think this is a good precedent?

Allow me to grandly hypothesize for a moment. Join me in it, because if we can’t imagine and be scared of a future, then what shall deter us from it? A worst case scenario could be a 63 year old Jeb Bush running in 2016 and serving two terms. By then (2024) Chelsea Clinton would be 44. She’d be a young candidate, sure, but she could run and serve two terms. That’d put our dynasty out until 2032. Forty-four years of rule by two families. This wouldn’t be such a bad thing if all of the above were qualified, quality candidates. But Hillary Clinton already sees herself as heir apparent, how bad would the Bush/Clinton perception of entitlement get after her terms as our President. Jeb Bush might sweep in like a savior in 2016 as a reminder of the Bush-era. Same with Clinton in 2024. Nostalgia is a powerful thing, and it rarely forces one to remember accurately. And this is only the family members presently in the public eye.

When my grandchildren and their children reflect on our nation in the distant future, I’d rather not have the blight of a 44-year two-family dynasty on the political record. There are enough political blights to be ashamed of in our nation, and by then there will be more. But this, to me, would be amongst the most offensive. I grant you that this is an extremely unlikely possibility, because I do have a little faith in the people to not choose this path, but it is nonetheless a possibility. If we simply dismiss this possibility as impossible, we are then in gross negligence, and what is to stop it from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Thus Falls the Giant:

Have you not heard? We have surrendered. We have surrendered to Ahmadenijad; conceded defeat by issuing the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program. Ahmadenijad says so. The NIE was a declaration of surrender. It was not an intelligence product tainted by political pandering. No, friends, it was surrender to the glory and power of Ahmadenijad. Just keep that in mind for next time. Surrenders are subtle these days.

To celebrate Ahmadenijad’s victory over tyranny and totalitarianism, his government shut down 24 internet cafes and coffee shops and arrested 23 people (11 women) in a 24 hour dragnet intended to fight immorality. You know, immoral computer games, the storing of obscene photos, and the presence of women wearing improper hijab (hats instead of scarves). Go freedom and democracy.

Since I may be called away at any time this morning, I will down the last of our Coffee and bid you adieu.

Word of the Day: Pari passu (PAIR-ee-PASS-oo) (adverb): At an equal pace or rate.

On This Day in History: The Second Battle of Trebia (218 BCE). Hannibal once again thrashes the army of the Roman Republic. In the aftermath, the Roman Senate elects two new consuls, one of which being Gaius Flaminius, who would lead the army to another defeat against Hannibal at Lake Trasimene the next year. Nothing like losing 60,000 men (killed, wounded or captured) in two battles. Also, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified by Georgia, putting it into effect and banning slavery in the United States (1865).

“I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” – James A. Baldwin

“Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.” – George Bernard Shaw

Morning Coffee (78)

As I came into work today, I was listening to a massive mix CD I created a couple of years ago. It has just a shade over 100 tracks on it. Just after I got on base, a song by the German band The Scorpions called “Winds of Change” came on; perhaps you know it. It’s about, well, the winds of change; specifically the winds that swept Eastern Europe during the fall of the Soviet Union. The song itself, while good, is not nearly the best I’ve ever heard, but it evokes something in me that is hard to explain. Allow me, dear reader, to try. Can you imagine experiencing such…liberation? Can you imagine seeing and hearing, nay – living!, events such as those described in that song? Can you imagine the cool breeze from winds such as those felt in Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Moldova and Armenia; how refreshing it must have been? You’ve lived under the yoke of tyranny and ineptitude your entire life, and in the road ahead, you glimpse endless possibilities never before presented to you. It’s difficult to put ourselves in that place.

Another song captures for me the feelings of that moment in time, which I think was one of the most significant periods in the last 100 years (perhaps much longer) but this one is sung from a slightly different perspective. “Right Here, Right Now” by the British band Jesus Jones describes those events as an observer, not as living those events as did someone in East Germany, but watching them. Again, the overwhelming rush of relief. Perhaps, people then thought, we needn’t live in constant fear of nuclear war. What a weight that was lifted. The exuberance. Watching the world wake up from history. These songs, perhaps, put the world into perspective a little for me. They make me feel good to be alive. It pains me ever so slightly that I missed out on the chance to be a part of the awe-inspiring power of momentous, leviathan-esque events such as those. I knew even back then that I was witnessing things of significant, but precocious as I may have been at 10, I couldn’t have possibly fully comprehended what was happening. Nevertheless, I am pleased that I can sit where I am right now and read about the August Coup of 1991 and be amazed at those times.

I wish I could fully encapsulate and explain in succinct terms how these songs move me; perhaps they move you too. Or perhaps you’re dead, or simply too numbed from countless hours of “Heroes” and “American Idol” to feel good to be alive; to be alive where you are, when you are. I hope these songs, or something else, makes you wake up from history.

Political Nausea (cont):

For as much as I despise about politics, it sure seems I write about it a lot, no? All the above warm and fuzzy feelings about change and being alive drain from me like the blood from a slaughtered pig.

A top advisor in the Clinton campaign thinks that Democrats should give more thought to Obama’s admission of drug use. He said that Obama’s “spotty youth” could cause trouble for him if he were to secure the Democratic nomination. I don’t see what this has to do with anything. At least Obama had the cajones to admit that he did drugs. Bill claimed he didn’t inhale. Come on. For one, you’ll be hard pressed to find a large number of people who didn’t experiment with drugs back then and even now. And most of them grew up to be responsible adults. It goes back to not being able to make mistakes and learn from them. This sort of stuff tells our children, “Why bother ever growing up, and growing from your mistakes? If you make any mistakes, you might as well forget about ever becoming anything. You will forever be held back by the foolish things you might have done in your youth, especially if you admit them and speak candidly about them.” Obama was stupid for using drugs. But the man rose above what could have been a life of being a punk. Shouldn’t that be something to sort of celebrate? Especially for liberals like Hillary? In addition to pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals, this tactic serves to show us that Clinton has no vision beyond attacking Obama. Why not tell me more about what she believe, what her background is, why she’d make a good president? Her entire campaign seems to revolve around “electability” and how Obama has none and she has it all. But people are generally stupid, and despite the fact that they themselves probably used drugs and made mistakes, they’ll believe that drug use and other mistakes 30 years ago make a bad person in the now, and they’ll not nominate Obama even if he is more qualified for the job.

Since I don’t want this, our beloved Morning Coffee, to turn into a chronic political missive (of which we have enough), I will try to avoid political issues, despite my overwhelming urge to comment on the insanity. However, I reserve the right to comment if I must.

American Anorexia in the Middle East:

I don’t normally quote large amounts of text in the Morning Coffee. I like you to taste what I’ve brewed, rather than another. I’m possessive like that, I guess. But a portion of Thomas L. Friedman’s recent article in the New York Times, “Losing Weight in the Gulf”, was simply too good to pass up. Friedman wrote the critically acclaimed book, “The World is Flat.”

“Growing up in Minnesota, one of my favorite things was going to the state fair each summer and watching the guy who would guess your weight within 5 pounds. If you fooled him, you won a stuffed animal.

Out here on the Persian Gulf, where small countries learn quickly how to survive large predators, they’ve developed a similar skill: They can calculate a country’s power within 5 pounds, just by looking at it. If they’re wrong, they end up as a stuffed animal.

Right now, the Arab Gulf states are all sizing up America, their protector, and are wondering just how much Uncle Sam weighs in the standoff with Iran — and whether it will be enough to keep Iran at bay.

The Gulf Arabs feel like they have this neighbor who has been a drug dealer for 18 years. Recently, this neighbor has been very visibly growing poppies for heroin in his backyard in violation of the law. He’s also been buying bigger and better trucks to deliver drugs. You can see them parked in his driveway.

In the past year, though, because of increased police patrols and all the neighbors threatening to do something, this suspicious character has shut down the laboratory in his basement to convert poppies into heroin. In the wake of that, the police declared that he is no longer a drug dealer.

“But wait,” say the Gulf Arabs, “he’s still growing poppies. He was using them for heroin right up to 2003. Now he says he’s in the flower business. He’s not in the flower business. He’s dealing drugs. And he’s still expanding the truck fleet to deliver them. How can you say he’s no longer a drug dealer?”

Sorry, say the police. We have a very technical, legal definition of drug-dealing, and your neighbor no longer fits it.

That’s basically what has happened between the U.S. and Iran — just substitute enriched uranium for poppies. Now, Bush officials are trying to tell everyone: “No, no, Iran is still dangerous. You have to keep the coalition together to get Tehran to stop enriching uranium.” But in a world where everyone is looking for an excuse to do business with Iran, not to sanction it, we’ve lost leverage. Everyone in the neighborhood can smell it — and it worries them.”

So clear a caveman could understand the issues. The article is, as you might have guessed, about our problems with Iran, specifically the whole NIE thing. The NIE has resulted in the total collapse of US leverage against Iran. Russia and China have been dreaming of a chance to quash the possibility of strict sanctions against Iran, and low and behold, they’ve got the chance, and we gave it to them. The perception is now that Iran poses no threat to anything. The problem is, they’re still running their centrifuges. “That is the hardest part of building nuclear weapons, and Iran is still doing it,” says Gary Samore, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and former Clinton administration expert on proliferation.

Iran is still in violation of UN proliferation rules (enriching uranium, testing long-range missiles). Iran agreed to these rules. Israeli officials estimate that the Iranians will have a viable nuclear weapon by 2010 – which may seem like a long time from now. French President Sarkozy is still very skeptical and worries about war in the Middle East. This will not be the last you hear about this issue, from me or otherwise, I’m sure.

Word of the Day: Cacophony (noun): 1. Harsh or discordant sound; dissonance. 2. The use of harsh or discordant sounds in literary composition. When I think of Presidential elections, I think of a cacophony.

On This Day in History: The Council of Trent, a response to the Protestant Reformation, begins (1545). Read about it, it’s pretty interesting. Tellus, the Roman goddess personifying the Earth was worshiped on the Esquiline Hill in Rome, and a table was spread for Ceres, the god of agriculture.

“I follow the Moskva, down to Gorky Park, listening to the winds of change. An August summer night, soldiers passing by, listening to the winds of change…the future’s in the air, blowing with the winds of change.” – “Winds of Change”, Scorpions.

“A woman on the radio talks about revolution when it’s already passed her by. Bob Dylan didn’t have this to sing about, you know it feels good to be alive. I saw the decade in when it seemed the world could change in a blink of an eye. And if anything then there’s your sign of the times. I was alive and I waited for this: right here, right now…watching the world wake up from history.” – “Right Here, Right Now”, Jesus Jones.