June 2008 Archives

Just wanted to welcome the Daily News editorial intern, Lina Chung. Lina is a junior at at UCLA, and she'll be with us all summer. Welcome!

And, with a heavy heart, I report that Bridget Johnson won't be with us much longer. Bridget is leaving Southern California to become an editorial board member/writer, columnist, and online opinion editor at Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Colo. Bon Voyage, Bridget -- and good luck!

Lina Chung is an editorial intern for the Daily News. She is currently a third-year undergraduate student at UCLA, studying History and Art History. She is also a columnist for UCLA's Daily Bruin, and focuses on local environmental issues that affect the greater Los Angeles area.

I just read in the New York Times that some Obama supporters are changing their middle names to Hussein as a reaction against the misuse of his middle name by Obamaphobes and Muslim haters. I would like to take some credit (or blame if you prefer) for starting this new trend in February with my article: What's in a Name?

Note that my FF bio has the Hussein modification and explanation.

I am one of those squealing liberals about whom Earl Ofari Hutchins is complaining. No, I'm not threatening to vote for McCain, withhold my vote or my money because Obama is shifting towards the middle. I am however both disappointed and scared.

In a regular election between two generic candidates--one generally liberal and the other generally conservative, Earl's analysis is exactly correct. This, however, is not one of those years, and Barack Obama is not a generic candidate. He is sui generis--one of a kind. To the extent that he does the conventional and expected, to the extent he adheres to the conventional wisdom, he risks losing his raison d'etre.

In regular years, we know that 45% of the electorate will automatically vote for the Republican, no matter how bad. Another 45% will toe the Democratic party line and vote for their nominee no matter how charismatically challenged. The election is normally determined by the 10% in the middle, the independents and uncommitted. It usually makes good political sense for the candidates to run their primary campaigns at the edges to attract the activists and then to migrate to the center to get the 10% in play.

So, why is this year different from all other years? Barack Obama has lit up a portion of the electorate that is not normally involved, not to mention enthusiastic. Young people are showing up at rallies and showing up at the polls. Minorities, and not only Blacks, are involved and passionate. People who have not voted are registering. People who have never contributed to a political campaign are sending in money. The energy and enthusiasm are amazing. These are the people who must not only vote but also contribute their time and money in order for Obama to win. These are the people, not the middle 10%, who must remain emotionally involved. Obama risks losing their passion by becoming ordinary.

He has been running on an image of change: Change we can believe in. He has been representing himself as not just another, "I'll say anything to get elected," politician. But now that he has the nomination, he is trending towards the conventional. This is common wisdom but in an uncommon year. Yes, he can survive any one of his recent migrations towards the center. He can defend taking private money. He can defend capital punishment for people who rape children. He can wear the flag on his lapel. He can side with the reasoning of Scalia in finding the DC ban on handguns unconstitutional. Each is individually defensible, but the pattern is disturbing--disturbing in its familiarity. It is just what we expect from a regular politician.

America is not traditionally an ideology-driven country. We tend to vote for the chemistry. W seemed more fun to have a beer with than Gore. He seemed "comfortable in his skin and genuine, while Gore seemed a product market from way too many focus groups. People who disagreed with Reagan voted for him because they liked him and thought he was real. People voted for JFK because he was young and vigorous and excited something in them. All this has been true for those energized by Obama--so far. He risks throwing away his uniqueness. If he becomes just another pandering pol, the energy will seep out. If he wants it so bad that he appears willing to say anything, he will not win.

This election is his to lose and he can if he goes to the middle for the uncommitted and forgets--not the hard left activists--but the enthusiastic hoard that craves real change and a sense of the authenticity of the candidate and his values.

It took me a second to recover my breath when I received this email from a leading journalist, critic and fervent Obama backer
"Sen. Obama,
I've supported you in my capacity as a journalist from the day you declared, and in spite of struggling with my finances; I've sacrificed to pay your campaign like it was a bill. But if you support this assault on the Constitution in the guise of this FISA bill, it's over. I will immediately have my bank stop any further funds going to your campaign, and as a journalist I will feel honor bound to inform my readers that yet another politician has caved in."

The writer as he aptly notes has raised money, made personal donations, and sent out countless emails touting Obama. He has often raked me over the coals publicly and privately for my blistering political criticisms of Obama. But Obama's back flip to support the absolutely terrible FISA bill was too much for him to stomach.
Obama's pirouette on the bill also drew a mild squeal from left Obama backers such as Alternet, Move On .org, blog OpenLeft.com and the Huffington Report about betrayal and a tepid call for progressives to start holding him accountable. They have virtually turned the Obama campaign into a personal life and death crusade.

Obama's reversal on FISA capped a painful week for them. In quick succession he rejected public financing, blasted the Supreme Court's decision striking down the death penalty for child rape and in the process proclaimed that he's not against "a blanket" prohibition on the death penalty. He touted his Bible acumen with Christian fundamentalists, back pedaled from his pledge to sit down for talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said he wouldn't support the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine and endorsed white conservative Georgia Rep John Barrow in his election battle with Regina Thomas, a liberal black state representative. The most painful Obama flop is Iraq. His much played up alleged anti- Iraq war stance was the biggest single reason the Left bought him. He now says he favors a glacially slow, vaguely laid out timetable for a phased withdrawal from Iraq.

The explanation for his policy shifts, back flips, and muddled statements is that this is an effort to parry a McCain prime attack point that he's a too liberal tax and spend, appeasing Democrat, woo fence straddling centrist to conservative independents, and do fence mending with Hillary Democrats. Or that he is merely conforming to his centrist, Beltway insider political beliefs.

It's all of the above. He is simply adhering to the ancient political axiom that Democratic presidential candidates run to the left and Republicans to the right in the embryonic stages of the campaign. Then when the chips are down they move quickly to the center, the conservative center that is.

It can be no other way. The American electorate is staid, traditional, and moderate to conservative. It will not elect presidents who are on the fringe on the big ticket issues of the economy, foreign policy, health care, the environment, civil rights and civil liberties.
In Obama's case it's even more crucial that he run to the center, even right. There are three tormenting X factors which can easily translate into voting booth negatives for him.

They are race, his inexperience on foreign policy, and what he fears most, his past record as a relatively liberal Democrat. No matter what the polls say and despite the very premature talk in much of the media about Election Day landsides and routs of McCain, no one knows how the election will be decided. Take the polls as a cautionary tale. A much hailed recent poll showed Obama with a 15 percent lead over McCain. In 1988, three months before the election Democratic presidential contender Michael Dukakis led his Republican opponent Vice President George Bush Sr. by 16 percentage points in polls. There was much joy and confident talk among Democrats of a Dukakis landslide based on voter's presumed longing for change, and large scale voter fatigue and fury over class and racial polarization during the eight Reagan years. Bush Sr. won.
Some on the left are mildly disappointed with Obama only because they had an inflated, starry eyed hope, even desperate yearning, to believe that he was the man on the white horse who would magically undue Bush's economic and foreign policy wreckage. This expectation was unfair to Obama. Even when uttering his best shake up the Washington establishment stump rhetoric, Obama has never made any promise to make big sweeping changes. He could not have come as far as fast he did without engaging in the traditional deal making, political horse trading, and policy spins to corporate donors and Beltway insiders. This was confirmed when Democratic Party regulars publicly backslapped Obama for his recent moderate policy shifts.

The left can moan over Obama's political role reversals all it wants. But the hard reality is that presidential wannabes routinely do policy back flips to win. It's simply part of the American political game.

The Supreme Court's decision to find in the Constitution the right to bear arms, apart from a "well-regulated militia, is not a shock. It is a disappointment. Okay, so far I'm completely predictable as a liberal. However, I am not anti-gun. I am a former member of the NRA and a hunter.

This decision is a good example of the old legal adage that bad cases make for bad laws. The Washington DC statute was badly written, ill-conceived and unequally applied. Their complete ban on handguns in a crime-ridden city with guns available just a few miles away was bound to be thrown out on some grounds. Common sense comes to mind.

Unless guns are banned nationally, gun free zones are counter-productive. They make true the NRA motto that "if you criminalize guns only the criminals will have guns."
The place to deal with gun violence is in licensing and enforcement. Gun crime ought to be punished automatically with twice the severity of non-gun crime. Yes, I know that if you stab or club someone to death, it is the same for the victim. But we do have a larger societal context and culture. Background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people with violent criminal records or mental issues make sense to me.

This is why, while I am happy to murder helpless skeet and to hunt, I am a former member of the NRA. They resist virtually every restriction on guns and ammunition with the slippery slope argument that all legislation is only a first step to confiscation. Of course, we are not going to ban guns from the nation; nor will we confiscate the somewhere around 200 million guns already in our hands. It just can't be done. But as to the Constitution and the original intent, it is nearly impossible to believe that when the Founders wanted citizens to have guns, they could have foreseen Uzis, Kalishnikofs, AK-47s, grenade launchers and armor piercing ammo. Although, maybe Jefferson could have known.

What strikes me as amusing about the Supreme Court's split ruling on gun ownership -- and the predictable responses to it -- is this:

Why is that people who are convinced that the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion, despite its never mentioning the subject, are generally the same people who believe the Constitution doesn't protect a right to bear arms -- even though it articulates one explicitly?

It's summer time and, according to the Gershwin brothers, the living should be easy, the catfish jumping and the cotton high. Well, I don't know about the catfish--if they are jumping it's probably to escape the toxic water. And as to the cotton...well, it is high and so are corn, ethanol, gas, oil and rice. Everything is high--except our spirits.

It is summer time and the liv'n is tough. We fear for our jobs, our largest investment (manifest for most in our homes); we hesitate to drink the water and breathe the air. A once simple BLT is a big commitment in the price of the bread, the cholesterol in the bacon and now even the safety of the tomato. I'm also not sure what to make of the lettuce and mayonnaise. We don't know if social security will outlast us and if we can afford the medicines prescribed for us.

We seem, as a nation to be (dare I quote a line attributed to Jimmy Carter?), in a "general malaise." Polling data indicate that most Americans believe we are headed in "the wrong direction." This is true of both Republicans and Democrats. This is the good news of the season: We have bridged the great national divide and agree that it is a bridge to nowhere and we are lost. While there is no trans-party agreement on what to do, I think most Americans would like to be living in peace, have gas cost half what it does today, have real wages rise enough to keep up with inflation--or to use another term from the unlamented Carter era, stagflation.

As Americans we seem to have a sense of foreboding. 9-11 woke us from sweet sleep to a waking nightmare, a sense of vulnerability and dread as we wait for the other shoe to drop. A war in Iraq has shaken our sense of our might as well as our right to spread our views and values. A war in Afghanistan has been both supported by the public and ignored by the politicians. Strange.

Our political language is debased and a Clean Skies Initiative is meant to degrade clear air standards. Save Our Forests is a license to cut down more trees. Weapons are called "peacekeepers," and we not only do not say what we mean but often exactly what we do not mean. Genocide pretends to be cleansing. Dead human beings become "collateral damage." A first strike military attack is now "pre-emptive."

The number one observer, commentator and critic of this kind of cant was George Carlin. Sadly he just left the stage--much to our detriment. We have also lost, at nearly the same time, Tim Russert. This is exactly the wrong time to be missing these two great decoders of our society's mendacity, hypocrisy and spin.

You might wonder what Russert and Carlin had in common that we would miss them so in this election season. Aside from being Irish, their jobs and styles seemed very different...and yet they served the same end. They made us think, question and look more deeply at our world and at the language people use to elucidate or obfuscate.

On the surface and on style they could not have been more different. Russert was a life-long devout Catholic for whom his religious belief was central to his life. Carlin was also of Catholic origin and his religion too remained central to him in that it was what he rebelled against. Carlin didn't so much leave completely as stand in the doorway and shout criticism--definitely from the prophetic tradition. Russert was almost unfailingly polite and civil. Carlin, not so much. He loved the dirty words--and wondered how words got to be dirty, believing that actions were the truer test. Still, they were both fascinated by the world and strove to make sense and non-sense out of life.

My favorite George Carlin routine was about drivers. He observed that "any one who drives faster than me is a maniac and anyone who drives slower is an idiot. I'm the only perfect one." This standard of self-importance and self-deception is central to how many of us think about ourselves while judging others.

Carlin, in the tradition of the Fool, told truth to power in a way that illuminated hypocrisy and deception. It was Carlin who famously wondered that if fire fighters fight fires and crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? It was Carlin who pointed out that jumbo shrimp, plastic glass and military intelligence were oxymorons.

I will miss them both. Russert took the chaos, and with incisive questions, formed it into some shape of order. He was able to take the words, positions, contradictions and spin of politicians and help us see what they were really saying. He pricked the bubbles of the verbiage pols used to mislead us.

If Russert made order out of chaos, Carlin made chaos out of the appearance of order. He pricked the bubbles of pomposity and self-importance of public figures--both political and religious. He also made us look at our own confusion and self-deception. He made us think.

Now, in this summer of our discontent, in this election season, just when we need clarity and straight thinking, we have lost two great observers of the social and political world. With great decisions before us, with not so great politicians and PR people doing their best, which strangely is also their worst, we have to wade through the muck and mire without the help we counted on. We know that as much as we object to negative campaigning, lies and distortions work. We will be buried in fear mongering from both sides and on every issue. We may feel we need to wash the muck off, but water is growing scarce. We may wish to flee, but who can afford the gas? We'll just have to stay around, do our own due-diligence and try to make sense of it all. We will have to do the hard work of thinking about what we believe, what we want and how to achieve our visions. We will have to do the hard work of getting us all headed in the right direction. It won't be easy without Russert and Carlin.

When did this cranky codger become a barometer of racial harmony in the United States? Everybody is hinging on the next racist word to come out of Don Imus' mouth. And there will probably be more, mind you. But if the guy's offensive, don't listen to him. Don't advertise on his show. Don't buy the products that advertise on his show. Money talks, and bad pundits then walk.

Both times when Imus has incurred the wrath of Al Sharpton, it's reminded me that what Imus thinks passes for humor doesn't do anything to add to the conversation of race in America. I grew up watching the Wayans family's "In Living Color" show, which was not only hilarious but had brilliant and poignant things to say on racial relations and stereotypes, whether it was Homey D. Clown succumbing to The Man at Chez Whitey or the timeless skit of Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan doing their version of "Who's on First?"

Even the man who dethroned Imus from his shock jock throne, Howard Stern, beats Imus by a mile when it comes to talking race: When Stern has as a guest Daniel Carver, an imperial wizard and grand dragon (see, there's room for jokes there already) of the Ku Klux Klan, there is nothing more powerful than hearing the racist banter come directly from Carver's mouth. We're shocked by the reality of what's out there, but we're better for knowing about it. And we laugh at a guy who is so silly, so antiquated in his view of the world as he reviews movies such as "Jungle Fever," etc. And it reminds us that racism has no place in today's world.

Entertainment needn't shy away from race, but can frankly bring these issues to the forefront and make you laugh at the same time. Imus sorely lacks this ability.

More than a decade ago, I used to listen to Imus in New York. He was no Howard Stern, and no racist, either. For the most part, his show featured long, thoughtful conversations with prominent newsmakers of all kinds -- think NPR, but without the monotonic hosts and with a sense of humor.

But "Imus in the Morning" always had its edgy moments, too. What mass entertainment these days doesn't? This is the era of dehumanizing reality TV, of gangsta rap, of public "Scarface" swear-alongs; an age in which an insulting, God-trashing scold like George Carlin gets heralded as a comedic prophet.

Imus plays to his times, knowing that pushing the limits of good taste makes for boffo ratings. It's a dangerous game, because sometimes you get burned -- especially, as Mariel notes, if you pick on the wrong groups.

Compared to the offenses of countless others, I'm not sure Imus is getting treated fairly, with demands that he make an offering, once again, at the altar of Al Sharpton. But I don't weep for him. America's love of "shock" has grown wearisome -- and shock's purveyors make their millions at their own peril.

Imus is the class clown, but he isn't funny. He's vulgar, childish and insincere.

I agree with Earl that Imus' explanation is baloney. Like Mariel I can't read into his soul, but his many past racist rants provide an historic context. Thus, it is fair not to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe his intent was racist stereotyping but more importantly it wasn't funny. He lacks the redeeming social value that a Lenny Bruce or George Carlin would have added.

I know that this round of Friendly Fire is too friendly, and we all are in agreement. A circular firing squad might be more entertaining, but I also agree with Rob: This fool should not lose his job and microphone just because he's stupid, unpleasant and juvenile. I too can slip into stupid and juvenile and a joke sometimes does bomb--or so my wife tells me.

I believe in handling Imus with benign neglect. Do not ban him; avoid him. Do not laugh with him but at him. He's pathetic. The greatest curse in Judaism is not a vulgarity but simply "May his name be erased." I undertake never again to type his name.

I thank the dreadlocked gods in heaven that I am not Don Imus' publicist. The only upside of being his PR man this week is that you could pool resources with Shaq's publicist with one joint press conference, "C'mon, did you really think our guys meant what they said?"

Beyond that, allow me to take the Imus discussion in a different direction. Demands for swift, harsh retribution remind me of why we do not have peace in our society. I am (well, was) a pacifist, a relentless peacenik who decried all forms of violence. Then I realized I am very prone to righteously dangerous anger against various stripes of nitwits. I will not bomb them, but I will often look for other ways to hurt those who offend me.

That is what society's most PC elements do, with increasing frequency and effectiveness. They decry distant wars, yet delight in crushing the careers of nitwits and rednecks who clumsily wander into an ever-expanding web of rules about what you can think or say about race, gender or morality. In terms of building a decent world, I am no longer certain that threatening to incinerate the livelihoods of fallen human beings is any better than threatening to bomb them.

Earl makes a good point below: Imus may not be a flaming racist, but he sure isn't a racial crusader.

I can't see into Don Imus' heart -- and believe me I don't want to. But I do know that many people are still raw from his tasteless and truly offensive "nappy-headed hos" comment about the Rutgers University women's basketball team members last year. Everything he says from now on will be filtered through that one instance of poor taste.

He's got free speech rights like the rest of us, but the constitution can't help him protect his reputation. And he should remember that.

In any case, someone should tell Imus that these days the only people you can make offensive remarks about with impunity are white Anglo-American men, Hispanic illegal immigrants and Britney Spears.

Reprieved Talk shock jock Don Imus squirmed on the racial hot seat---again. On his nationally syndicated WABC morning talk show on Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, Imus in response to a statement from another WABC programmer about Dallas Cowboys defensive back Adam "Pacman" Jones legal difficulties asked "What color is he?" When the programmer responded he's African-American, Imus responded, "Well, there you go. Now we know."

The response reinforced the worst racial stereotypes of crime and violence about African-Americans. But Imus knows a little something about how to quickly deflect flak. His take was that he was simply trying to make the point that Jones, being black, is a victim of a racist, and inherently unjust criminal justice system.

Fair enough. But why didn't he just simply say that without coming up with the baloney line that he was using sarcasm to make that point?

Imus deftly cast himself as a racial crusader and many people bought it. But then again, not everyone. The offended Jones fittingly had the most appropriate one-liner for Imus when he said "I'll pray for him." Another racial crack from Imus, and divine intervention, won't or shouldn't help him.

... are going to go bonkers over this video, courtesy of the Southern Poverty Law Center:

There's a lot of guilt by association here, a lot of innuendo, and a lot of circular logic: "Organization X claims to just be against immigration, but really, it's a hate group. Why? Because it's against immigration!"

That said, through all the smoke there are a few flashes of fire in here. Not, not all immigration restrictionists are racists, but their ranks certainly are populated by more than a few. (Just go read the comments box on any article dealing with immigration if you doubt it.)

Yet what's funniest about this video is the SPLC's repeatedly expressed surprise that people "of the left" or environmental extremists could come to hold rabid anti-immigration positions. Duh. Left-wing "population control" zealots and right-wing nativists are the two sides of the same misanthropic coin. Generally, the two hate each other too much for largely cultural reasons to come together, but occasionally you see signs of an alliance.

Both, ultimately, think there's just enough of "us," and far too many of "them" -- and want government to do something about it.

For years the Arab World has been slandering Israel by accusing it of being an apartheid state--and thus linking it with the formerly morally outcast South Africa. This is a fundamental, if intellectually dishonest, type of argument: Take a known and agreed upon outlaw and apply the same label or characterization to another. Voila, they must be equally morally reprehensible. For most of the time the non-Arab world was not fooled by this technique. However, one small corner of the non-Arab world, in the person of Jimmy Carter, apparently bought it and entitled his latest book about the Mid East Peace not Apartheid.

Carter sadly is not alone in using this sloppy and inaccurate term. If you Google "Israel and Apartheid," you find 361,000 hits. This changes how people think and how they act. It helps to explain shifts in world opinion and policy and how some liberal Christian denominations have tried to disinvest in Israel, as they did with South Africa. Clearly, the acceptance of apartheid as a fitting label for Israel is gaining currency. It is more a libel than an accurate label. This is why it must be addressed.

Of course no one is going to argue that the situation for Palestinians in either Gaza or the West Bank is good. There are walls, fences and checkpoints. Life for them is difficult and dangerous. But from where does the danger come? Why are there walls? Does anyone seriously believe that Israel wants to spend its money building walls and controlling checkpoints? Does anyone believe that these separations, both in the territories and within agreed upon Israeli borders, are for anything other than safety, or at least the illusion of safety?

Fencing out danger, whether perceived or real, may be futile, but it is not apartheid. Checkpoints may be needed or abused, this can be debated, but it is hardly apartheid. The policy of overwhelming military response to Palestinian terror may be wrong--strategically or morally. This can be and is debated in Israel, but to label it as apartheid is to misunderstand, perhaps willfully, the nature of both old South Africa and modern Israel.

Words like apartheid and holocaust are powerful and their misuse debases them and diminishes past horrors. South African apartheid was based on the belief that white people were biologically superior to blacks. There was a racial rationale for these monstrous policies. They believed that the races should be kept separate in work, in play, in homes, neighborhoods and marriage.

The original Zionist vision was building a land together, and the presence of Arabs--Christian, Muslim and Druze--was a given. Certainly they did not advocate intermarriage, but there was no ideology of racial superiority. Of course, and tragically, their idealistic vision became occluded by violence and rejection from Faisal to the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem in the 20s and 30s. The Arab invasion, initiated at the moment of the granting of Israeli statehood, continued this tragic deterioration of hope, peace and mutual regard.

From the beginning, Israel offered both citizenship and positions of power to Arabs. Every Knesset (Israeli Parliament) has had Arab members. There have been a total of 59 Arabs members, many of them serving multiple terms. In fact the second longest serving member of the Knesset was an Arab--serving 12 terms and over 41 years. There are currently 12 Arab members of the Knesset, including two who have been Deputy Speaker and one who is a Minister with Portfolio. Though not subject to the draft, Arabs may and have served with distinction in the Israeli army.

So, if Israel is to be judged as an apartheid state, what are the various Arab nations? Which of them grants citizenship to Jews? Which has Jews in elected office? Which grants any freedom of religion to Jews--or in many cases even Christians? I suppose you can't call Saudi Arabia an apartheid state because there are no Jews to separate. The once flourishing Jewish communities of Baghdad and Damascus are all but gone--as are the once Jewish populations of Cairo and Alexandria.

When critics raise the legitimate issue of the Palestinians who fled is Israel at its birth, they forget the forced Jewish Diaspora from Arab lands. Interestingly, the Jews who fled Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Yemen were absorbed into Israel. Tragically the Palestinians who fled Israel for Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon were not assimilated but kept in camps and in squalor. Their bitterness is certainly understandable, but their violence gets in the way of their future. When reparations discussions take place--or more accurately, when the Palestinians make claims--they do not even acknowledge the Jewish land and wealth that was confiscated or abandoned since 1948.

The current situation is volatile and dangerous for all. Each side denies the claims and the pain of the other. This is understandable between the combatants. But out here, in America and Europe, we should strive to understand not just the easy stories of pain and tragedy but the political and moral complexities. Just today I read a column by a liberal columnist whom I usually enjoy, and he had this astonishingly over-simplified sentence: "Jerusalem's hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents, whose ancestors have lived there since Biblical times, are not considered Israeli citizens, and cannot vote."

This is in the category of something that is 100% half true. There are residents of East Jerusalem who cannot vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli citizens. They do vote in Palestinian elections. There are also Arab residents who are citizens who can and do vote in Israeli elections.

The implication of the columnist's sentence would be like saying that in Los Angeles hundreds of thousands of Hispanics cannot vote. This is true. The non-citizens cannot vote. However hundred of thousands of Hispanics do vote and some hold office like say the Mayor. Are Hispanics, citizens and non-citizens alike, treated equally? No. There is prejudice and fear. Is there separation in Los Angeles by race and class? You bet. Do upper class and upper middleclass people try to hide behind walls and gates? Yes. Is it apartheid? No.

We do not have full and equal justice and neither does Israel. Justice and an end of divisions are our goals, as they are Israel's. A ceasefire is a good start. A ceasefire on careless rhetoric might also help.

Here are some fascinating findings from the Pew people.

Although a majority of Americans say religion is very important to them, nearly three-quarters of them say they believe that many faiths besides their own can lead to salvation, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

The report, titled U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, reveals a broad trend toward tolerance and an ability among many Americans to hold beliefs that might contradict the doctrines of their professed faiths.

For example, 70 percent of Americans affiliated with a religion or denomination said they agreed that "many religions can lead to eternal life," including majorities among Protestants and Catholics. Among evangelical Christians, 57 percent agreed with the statement, and among Catholics, 79 percent did.

As an ex-evangelical who was worn down by years of internal criticism that I wasn't Christocentric enough, I wonder if most evangelical pastors and theologians would see this statistic as a good thing or a bad one. I'm tempted to believe that most would be inclined to see it as a case of weak theology, as an example of how society's prevailing pluralistic assumptions have eroded the laity's ability to acknowledge "Solus Christus, Christ alone" -- but when confronted with the charge that evangelicalism is narrow-minded and chauvinistic, they will quickly roll out these same statistics to counter that charge.

Meanwhile, the Catholic wing of Christianity continues to take a fascinatingly open-minded approach (I say this to butter up my boss at this site!).

Mayor Bloomberg rises above partisan politics here in denouncing the whisper campaign against "secret Muzzie" Obama:

The whispers are "cloaked in concern for Israel, but the real concern is about partisan politics," said Bloomberg, who is Jewish. "This is wedge politics at its worst, and we've got to reject it -- loudly, clearly and unequivocally."

Amen to that. I would add, though, that the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim isn't just a mischievous lie -- I believe that many Christian-right hawks genuinely believe it because they want to believe it, they want to believe that the world is filled with such intrigue, and would be bored with the idea that Obama simply loves Jesus and is simply attempting to follow him in a manner that he believes to be consistent with the Biblical witness.

I'm empathetic but not sympathetic to a couple of Muslim women who feel violated and excluded by the Obama campaign. I understand the deep and latent knee-jerk human need to feel incredibly slighted by the slightest slight -- but if you're a Muslim who supports Obama, you're well aware of the image he's battling as either a secret Muslim or a softie on terrorism. Politics is about symbols, these women have chosen a hijab symbol that the majority of Western Muslim women and even most Pakistani women don't employ, and right now Obama doesn't need the sort of symbolism that would make Michelle Malkin go ape-nuts again.

Democrats in recent decades have been too quick to apologize to every offended minority (while being overly eager to offend the culturally conservative majority). They need not apologize here, they need to remind the offense-takers of the larger stakes and issues.

When Mahmoud Amadinejad seems like the voice of reason, there is every reason to lose faith in reason. The terror threatening, Israel hating, Holocaust denying Khomaniac president of Iran believes that oil prices are too high!

What is a sane person going to do with this? Is this a case of a broken clock being right twice a day? Is it a lucky confluence of fact and babble--kind of like infinite monkeys, with infinite typewriters and infinite time writing Shakespeare?

Ahmadinejad said today (June 17) "At a time when the growth of consumption is lower than the growth of production and the market is full of oil, prices are rising and this trend is completely fake and imposed."

As reported in the British paper, The Guardian, Ahmadinejad asserted that there is plenty of oil and the prices are being driven up by a combination of speculators and the rapidly falling American dollar. While it is not clear that there is, in fact, plenty of oil, it is certainly true that the rise in price far outstrips the rise in demand. Thus it is likely that the combination of commodity speculators on the spot market for oil and oil futures and our dollar's decline against the Euro are distorting both the international market and our prices here.

Could it be possible that since Iran profits from oil that Ahmadinejad's thinking is actually subtle and he realizes that when oil get too high, the world will, in fact, look for alternatives? Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Still, on this, he is more right than wrong, and that really bothers me.

I learned this week that L. A. Unified is going to cut 507 staff and clerical positions and that costs have almost doubled in the construction budget for a new "Death Row." Okay, nothing remarkable so far. You have to keep up repairs on death row, which grows far faster than our ability to carry out the penalty. And sure, it's a good idea for L.A. Unified to cut staff and clerical positions and try to keep actual teachers in our deteriorating classrooms.

The payoff is in the fearful symmetry of the numbers. Our school budget has been shorted $400 million by the state. Meanwhile, our new and improved death row construction project has grown from $220 million to (you guessed it!) $400 million.

Just as we have to cut social programs but always have money for weapons systems, we have grown accustomed to the fact that while we short our kids' education, we always have money for them if they drop out and go to jail.

It is not that L.A. Unified spends our money well or couldn't do with losing a fair number in administration; it is that we always cut at the teaching level and have more than a billion dollars to spend on the transportation of students. When they do cut at the non-teaching level, it is almost always to move administrators around--and sometimes back into the classes--taking the places of people who actually want to be teaching students.

As for prettying up death row, we have to ask Why? Kids can be in dirty broken down schools with lead pipes carrying poisoned water to drinking fountains, but the people we plan on killing get newer and fresher surroundings? Doesn't appear, at first blush, like we have our priorities quite right.

In this election season we will be debating medical care and insurance. Liberals will argue that more care should be available and insurance companies should not tell doctors who shall live and who shall die. Conservatives will argue that government is incompetent and the private sector can do just fine. Okay, but can we all agree that the general public should be entitled to healthcare that--even if it does not equal what congress gets--is at least better than felons who are serving time get?

Meanwhile the court appointed receiver for the prisons is demanding $7 billion for mental health facilities and services for the incarcerated. If you need medical services, mental therapy or an organ transplant, either be very wealthy or steal something and go to jail. Don't be so careless as to be middle-class or poor. And yes, you can go to school in jail, earn a GED and even a college degree.

Someone is definitely crazy, and $7 billion might not cover it.

The madness of this national election just got a lot sadder. With the passing of Tim Russert, I feel abandoned and alone to face the sausage factory of politics. Who will make sense of the mess? Who will bring order out of the chaos of rumors and spin?

Tim was a calm presence in the center of the storm. He was enthusiastically and joyfully engaged in the hubbub of politics. He was always prepared and made his hard work look natural and easy. His secret for making it look so easy was very deep preparation.

He communicated his love of politics and people. He spoke and wrote openly of his love of family, of the Buffalo Bills and even of politicians. This is a sad day for journalism, a sad day for political junkies, a yet sadder day for NBC and Tim's loyal staff and friends throughout the network.

The answer to my rhetorical questions of who could replace him is quite simple: No one. He was a one of a kind constellation of intelligence, enthusiasm, incisive curiosity and encyclopedic knowledge.

(Add your thoughts in comments section)

Rob Asghar is a political writer whose essays and commentaries have appeared in three dozen newspapers around the world, including the Daily News, Wall Street Journal, Denver Post, Orange County Register, Providence Journal, Jordan Times and Japan Times. Many of his writings have examined the ongoing cultural collision of the West and his family's native Pakistan. Asghar has also been a columnist for Creators Syndicate and the Ashland Daily Tidings. He is a fellow at USC's Center on Public Diplomacy and a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy and the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

Predictably, Senate Democrats saber rattle threat to block an arms deal to the Saudis unless it pumps out another million barrels of oil went nowhere. The Saudi rattle is fueled by a mix of anger, frustration, desperation, and most importantly politics. It's an election year and strapped motorists are screaming at politicians to do something, anything, to give them some gas price relief. But Senate Democrats showpiece gesture was doomed from the start. Even if they meant what they said the Royal Kingdom would simply buy the arms somewhere else. But that's not necessary anyway. The Kingdom literally has the U. S. over two barrels. The first is the most obvious. About ten percent of the petroleum guzzled daily in the US comes from Saudi Arabia. That's about fifteen percent of U.S. imports.

It was almost laughable to watch the Saudis throw up their hands in mock resignation when Bush on his two recent visits to the Kingdom asked them to increase production. Short of a U.S. takeover of the Saudi oil fields Bush's request was simply a political feel good gesture. Bush officials desperately need Saudi oil. In fact, U.S. dependency on Saudi oil is greater now than it was before the 9/11 attacks, and this mocks Bush's claim that the U.S. can and will at least any time soon wean itself off Saudi oil, or dictate to the Saudi's how they should run their government or diplomatic policy.

It's not just the U.S. that's in oil hock to the Saudis. Western Europe, China, Japan and India's glutinous appetite for oil continues to grow. The Energy Department estimates that it will take up to 120 million barrels per day by 2025 to satisfy that appetite. Over one-fourth of this added oil will come from the Saudis.

Meanwhile, the U.S. occasionally will talk tough to the Saudis about speeding up democratic reforms, and cracking down on Muslim fundamentalist groups. That's more bluster mostly for media and public consumption.

If anything, Bush's visits to the Kingdom sent a huge signal that the U.S. will do everything it can to placate the Saudi regime. The reason is simple. The much hoped for new oil sources that could break the U.S. dependency on Saudi oil have not panned out. The rivers of oil the U.S. boasted would flow into the tanks of America's gas-guzzlers after Saddam Hussein was dumped are a pipedream. Post-Saddam Iraq has shown no sign that it can produce the six million barrels projected by 2010. Currently it barely squeezes out two million barrels a day. Nigeria and Russia are mired in corruption and mismanagement, and Venezuela is government non grata to Bush. Libya, even with the softening of relations with the U.S., doesn't have the oil reserves to meet the U.S.'s bloated needs. Its reserves are about one sixth of Saudi Arabia's.

American oil executives have hammered the Bush administration and Congress to scrap environmental and land protections to tap the millions of barrels in oil reserves believed nestled in shale deposits off the coast and in the frozen ground on Alaska's North Slope. Those millions may or may not be there. It will take big improvements in exploration and drilling technology, as well as beating back environmentalists' challenges to determine the real oil potential of the North Slope and the sea.

While the U.S. is the still the world's most rapacious oil user, China and India have come on strong, and are willing to court the Saudi's and pay top dollar for the oil they need to fuel their industrial boom. The Saudi's can and will play both nations off against the U.S. With oil prices smashing new records every day that means billions more in the Saudi coffers.

The second barrel the Saudis have the U.S. over is the always durable and convenient threat of Iran and more Middle East turmoil. The Saudis are still the most dependable and consistent watchdog and Arab counter balance to Iran, and the U.S.'s perennial helpmate to safeguard regional stability. But there's a Catch 22 in that for the Saudis and the U.S. The Saudi royal family runs the Kingdom as a tight knit, autocracy. It's fair game for both homegrown and foreign Muslim extremists and fundamentalists. A renewed internal insurgency could shake the regime. That could deepen anti-American sentiment in the country, and open the door wide to more terrorist attacks. Even without a Saudi regime shift or change, the anger and hostility toward U.S. policy in Iraq and the U.S.'s rock solid support of Israel, prevent the Saudi government from totally publicly realigning its policies with the U.S. Oil is and always will be the Saudi's main weapon to keep the U.S. at arms length publicly while embracing it politically to maintain its power, security--and obscene wealth.

The talk by Congress of lawsuits, killing arms deals, and presidential visits and pleadings to the Saudis for oil relief will be just that empty talk; talk that will continue to fall on deaf Saudi ears. The U.S. dependency on Saudi oil will grow even greater, and unfortunately so will gas prices.

Our streets are red with blood. Where are the marchers and the outrage? Why the lack of passion for those killed?

Last month was a good month for US forces in Iraq. "Only 19" were killed, way down from previous months and from May of last year. Still though only 19, they were Americans. They had families: mothers, fathers, wives, husbands and children. Anti-war and pro-war Americans alike, will join is mourning these losses. And while each side may draw different conclusions, and formulate different responses, we share in our grief and sense of tragic loss.

While 19 of us died in Iraq in May, this past weekend 14 of us died in Los Angeles from non-accidental violence. So, again, where is the rage? How can it be that this self-slaughter goes so unengaged by the media and the people? Yes, it was headlined in our own Daily News but the Times buried it, virtually without recognition, along with the bodies to be buried this week.

Something is wrong. No, strike that. Many things are wrong with this story. Once upon a time murders made headlines and provoked a reaction by society. Once upon a time the public would have demanded that the government and police do something to stem the tide and staunch the flow of blood in our streets.

Sure, we see brief stories on TV showing grieving parents or schoolmates in tears. Sure, once in a while there is a march and some mom says, "This must not happen again." But it does happen again and again and yet again.

In Iraq when Americans die, there are calls to action--to withdraw or to escalate. There is passion on both sides. Here when Americans die there is virtual silence.

In Iraq, when the elected government fails to disarm the militias we all cry out in rage that the Iraqis are not doing their job. What about our job, our abject failure to disarm our militias: the Crips, the Bloods, the MS13s?

It is so strange to me that we see the tribalism in Africa, but don't recognize it as it is manifest in the Balkans. We see the militias in Iraq but are blind to it as it in our own backyard.

Los Angeles police gang experts estimate that there are 1,200 gangs with 80,000 members here! Do we simply turn a blind eye to them because they are black or brown? Do we ignore the gang graffiti because it is not in our neighborhoods? Do we discount the violence and the death, the drug dealing and intimidation because they are not like us--they are brown, black and poor? As long as they keep the violence amongst themselves, we can pretend. As long as those who mourn do so in a foreign tongue or in black slang, we can act as if these deaths, this level of fear, this degradation of our society somehow doesn't touch us and will never touch us.

Aside from being callas and cruel, this willful ignorance, this numbing of our human sensibilities cannot work in the long run. If not out of compassion but only pragmatism, this tide will touch us, change us and not for the better. It already has, but we are not as aware of our changes as we should be.

In the past decade, we have built more and more gated communities. Iron bars have been installed on houses across the socio-economic spectrum. Our cars have alarms and we are personally alarmed without realizing why. We have built more prisons than schools and have all but abandoned our public schools. We allow over half the kids who start high school to drop out short of graduating. Where do we think they are going? What do we think they are doing?

READ ALL ABOUT IT! They are killing other kids, killing witnesses to their crimes and provoking copycat gang recruitment. To the usual fratricidal Crips and Bloods and the various Hispanic gangs, we now have Asian gangs, Samoan gangs and Armenian gangs. For gang members there are no civilians, no innocent by-standers. If you are unaffiliated, you are fair game.

We can debate whether to get out of Baghdad or Kabul. We can argue whether or not we can bring them democracy or pacify and disarm the militias. But how can we withdraw from Los Angeles? How can we pack up and go to our gated or private security protected homes surrounded by 1,200 gangs and 80,000 armed gang members who are pledged to death destruction? They are keeping their promise to destroy far better than we are keeping our promise to build a decent and civil society.

Some will be tempted to write off the 14 who died this weekend as scum, as illegal's, or only poor people and minorities. We can gate our communities and put locks on our hearts, but the blood will find cracks in our defenses and seep into our souls.

The start of doing something is not dehumanizing them as the evil-doers, though surely they are doing evil. This, however, only re-enforces their own identity as outlaws from a society that hates them. We start by seeing them as people, as children, as our children. We start by allowing ourselves, willing ourselves, to be touched and to mourn for them and their parents. This body count must count. Their lives must count. Their deaths must count and not simply be buried in the back pages of our largest daily paper's grave and in pauper's graves in our barrios and ghettoes. Ignorance, indifference and denial will bring neither hope nor peace--not to them, not to our city and not to our own hearts.

In this age of political sleaze, anyone can be Swiftboated. John Kerry a decorated war hero was smeared. John McCain, a brave and loyal soldier and POW, is attacked by a far right group for "betraying his buddies in Vietnam." Baseless and despicable. No hero can stand unscathed. We can tear down giants and raise up non-entities. Assembling a case is easy. Watch:

The common wisdom is that Bush is a common fool. But what if the common wisdom, as with so much that is common, is wrong?

What if George W Bush is actually smart? What if, as his grades indicate (better than Gore's), he is not the doofus he plays in public? What if all of the abject failures and losses of American interests are not from ignorance, bordering on imbecility, but by cunning design?

Does this seem far-fetched? Of course, it seems that way to me too. But, look at what has happened in the last eight years. When you do, when you add up the destruction of our military, the seemingly irreparable damage to our political power and influence in the world, when you look at how this oil business president has watched over the increase in oil from $12 a barrel to over $135, are ineptitude and stupidity really the best answers to explain the depth and breadth of our failures? It seems to me to be like a kind of Argument from Design, and no constellation of disasters could have given spontaneous birth to this all-encompassing mess. This had to have a guiding hand.

I submit to you that no one else could have squandered the good will of this nation after 9-11. No one else could have spent us into bankruptcy, deflated the worth of the once-mighty dollar against the Euro, allowed the rise in oil, prevented us from moving to more fuel efficient cars, suspended habeas corpus and instituted wire/phone taps without warrants. Anyone of the left would have been crucified, and anyone from the real right would have been stopped by good conservatives who value the Constitution, the rule of law and fight for limitations on government. Bush has laid waste to nearly all the sacred precepts of both Liberals and Conservatives.

The doctrine of Separation of Powers has been blurred beyond recognition. The precious Constitution shredded. The Unitary Executive claims wartime control of all governmental functions and the law itself. It asserts the right to refuse subpoenas from court or congress. It picks and chooses the laws it will follow. It claims that the meaning of a law can be changed at the president's whim by "signing statements" that qualify and limit the law's effect and meaning. This accumulation of power against both law and precedent has not made us wealthier, healthier, stronger, more peaceful, or more powerful. What has it served? Whom, we must ask, does Bush really serve?

Our troops fight and die in a land where we have neither allies nor any prospects of lasting friendship or influence. Caught between the Scylla and Carbides of Persians and Arabs, we spill the blood and treasure of our young. The war that would pay for itself has done nothing but drain us of our financial and military might. Well, that's not completely true. It has also lowered our standing not simply across the Muslim World but also amongst our traditional loyal friends. It has brought down the once promising Tony Blair of England, destroyed one government in Spain and unseated our ally in Australia.

The war, Abu Gharib and Gitmo have removed our ability to defend our own soldiers and citizens from arrest, unlimited detention and Star Chamber trials. We have abandoned the moral high ground--nearly without complaint or cavil from our own society. Could the ruination of our nation socially, militarily, economically and legally be the result of either accident or ineptitude? This is like finding a functioning computer in a cave and claiming it assembled itself out of natural forces and happy accidents of geology.

All of this reminds me of the old Murder She Wrote TV series. Whenever Mrs. Fletcher went to a party, or spent a weekend with friends, someone turned up dead. Now in real life, this seldom happens. I've personally been to a lot of parties and spent many happy weekends with friends. Hardly ever a murder. Really. Were I to show up at two murders, never mind 261 episodes worth, I'm pretty sure the authorities, even without the help of a sophisticated computer, would have me in irons. Now look at everything that has gone wrong under Bush. See a pattern? Is there a design?

The real question must be one of motive. Why would George W. Bush, scion of a politically accomplished family, a family of senators, governors and a past president, hate America? This will be the question for future historians to pour over. Could it be rage at his lack of standing in the family and their belief that Jeb was the smart one?

Could it be yet more sinister and the Bush/Saudi connections, going back over half a century, led to this sorry state of affairs? Saudi money funds the Bush family, while wealthy Saudis flee Saudi Arabia for the safe haven of the Gulf States. Meanwhile, they sell us oil to fuel our cars and wars, oil that pollutes our skies and warms the earth. What, after all, do the Arabs care if the earth's temperature rises another couple of degrees? They come from the desert, and now the desert comes to all of us. Maybe Bush is a secret Muslim. After all, look at the two major benefactors of Bush's policies over the last 7 years. Saudi Arabia gets this monstrous increase in the price of oil. Iran has its chief enemy, Saddam Hussein, removed and is given effective control of Iraq and an unimpeded road through to Syria and Lebanon.

Is any part of our nation better off than 8 years ago? Is the Middle East more peaceful? Is Israel safer with brighter prospects? Is this disaster by default or by Bush design? Is this a comedy of incompetence or a tragedy of treason? We distort, you decide

The first of two parts:
Pt 1 How McCain Can Win the White House
Pt 2 How Obama Can Win the White House

In a talk with reporters in Louisiana, Republican presidential contender John McCain implored disgruntled Hillary Democrats to back him. His pitch was I'm the toughest, most knowledgeable and most experienced on national security. The unmistakable inference is that rival Obama is too green, fresh, and untested to gamble with on national security. McCain's aim was to lop off disgruntled Hillary Democrats. But it also staked out what he must do to win the White House.
The terrorism issue is still a McCain election trump card. Many Americans think there could be a terrorist attack on American soil at some point in the future. Those who think that are susceptible to McCain's pitch that he can best defend the nation's security and with America under mortal danger from a terror attack, that it's risky to change to the Democrats.

This isn't enough. McCain must duck the economic mess Bush made by pushing his economic plan that calls for lowering the corporate income tax rate, more tax breaks for business, and making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Though it looks a lot like Bush's plan, McCain can spin it his way with the standard GOP line that his plan is pro-growth, in contrast to the shop worn tax and spend Democrat's approach to growth. This still has tremendous reverb with wide segments of American voters.

He can claim that his plan will save homes from foreclosure, spark business growth, and create more jobs. He can remind voters that Reagan economic policies sparked the economic boom of the 1980s and his updated version of supply side economic policies is a mirror reflection of Reagan's. This gives him the hook he needs to boast that Americans will reap rewards with his economic policies
McCain must openly and subtly stoke middle and working class workers' disdain for liberal solutions to problems. Only a minority of American voters call themselves liberal. The Republican's repeated smear of th