One headline in particular, from Israel's Haaretz, could aptly sum up the feelings of the Palestinian blogosphere: “Obama visit all about wooing Jewish American voters.” Indeed, the words of the Palestinian blogosphere echo this notion, with particular focus on Obama's choice of Sderot as a destination.

bruised earth felt that Obama took advantage of the situation by visiting Sderot, not giving thought to how his actions would affect greater Palestinian opinion. The blogger remarked:

I know he is looking for some votes - but the nerve to visit Sderot (with just a flying visit of Ramallah - where no such statements were made) and again speak out against the daily misery of border settlers who have chosen (!) to live in this location and who are not caged or bound - or worse - imprisoned by the military, shows a level of ‘cheek’ here-to-fore unimaginable.

Let us not forget that Obama was the one Presidential hopeful strong enough to speak out against the violence and plight perpetrated on the Palestinian people. Where is that leader now? Are we to assume he will return once elected?

A very dangerous game continues to unfold…can votes possibly be worth this?

The title of a recent blog post from Desertpeace reads “Obama at the Wall.” Using few words, the blogger explained further:

NOT the wall of apartheid as one might have hoped…..But the Western Wall.

AMPAL (American Palestinian) expressed surprise that Obama hadn't visited the Holy Sepulchre, explaining:

Quite the contrary, it seems that the correct place for a CHRISTIAN future president of the United States of American to visit (kinda like his visit to AIPAC's convention days after he won the nomination) is to the Jewish Wailing Wall. Mind you the Moslem's third holy site, the Haram al Sharif, is just across that Wailing Wall. Seems like he has got it right twice in a row: prostrate yourself, nay, grind yourself into the dirt, in front of the rulers of your destiny (Zionists of both American and Israeli flavors) in order that you be receive some blessing by the so-called Chosen Ones. And even then they doubt you Oh Obama…

While other bloggers focused on Obama's actions, The Angry Arabs' Comment Section took issue with his words, particularly his proclamation that Jerusalem “will be the capital of Israel.” The blogger pondered:

Huh? The phrase “I say it will be the capital” is diametrically opposed to the view that it's a final status issue to be negotiated by the parties. Unless he's got a crystal ball and knows the outcome in advance.

The question remains: Will Obama's seemingly unwavering support of Israel strongly affect his campaign? Joseph Al-Khoury, writing for the Arabdemocracy blog, gives reasons why, for Arab-Americans, it shouldn't:

The US has been unwavering in its support for the Zionist entity since its creation in 1948 providing it consistently with the financial, technological, military means to dominate the Middle East and wreck the hopes of one Arab generation after the other. This is unlikely to change regardless of who takes over the White House come November. But two factors Arab voters should consider while casting their votes. The first factor is that An Obama administration will not be motivated by ideology in its position vis-a-vis Israel while remnants of the neo-conservative and evangelical Christian agenda will persist in a Bush-McCain transition. Pragmatic policies might still be detrimental to the Palestinians but are easier to debate and challenge than those backed by divine intervention. The second factor is that the election of a Liberal modern Black man to the highest office will be good for America, whatever foreign policy he adopts. This is a revolution in the making and as all astute immigrants know it is by joining hands with the locals for the common good that you gain acceptance. As the American poet Gil Scott-Heron cynically puts it: ‘The revolution will not be televised…’ but the election certainly will!

We are the opium eaters; we are the consumers of the 6,500 tons of opium produced in Afghanistan and Pakistan with an export value, according to the United Nations, of about $3.1 billion. While we fought the war against terror and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, against the Taliban, the war against opium growing and trafficking was neglected, went soft. A virulent opium trade has flourished in Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2004, a time when the Taliban had all but eradicated poppy growing. Now, ninety percent of the world’s opium is produced in the region of southern Afghanistan and border areas of northern Pakistan. But the world continues to have a tremendous need for opium products to be used for legitimate medical purposes. India is a producer of licit opium for the pharmaceutical market, however, the farmers are paid so little to grow approved amounts of opium that they have also learned how to subvert the system and receive ten times the amount for their crops on the illegal market. There is a shortage of raw opium for medical uses, while the illegal trafficking of opium continues. Efforts to eradicate opium in the fields as it is grown have been ineffective. Graft, bribery and corrupt political forces have protected the growers; only a tiny proportion of the entire opium 2007 crop grown was destroyed. The fields that were destroyed with weed cutters were frequently those of the poor peasant who did not have the support of a landlord or a war lord. Aerial spraying of poppy fields has been prevented by those in high authority in Afghanistan. Supply and demand, that is, the need we, a drug culture, express for opium, is what moves the trade of this narcotic, and move it does, by the hundreds of metric tons annually.

Amazingly, America through its international clout exerts controls in many other sovereign territories it avoided many years ago. Remember The Monroe Doctrine? What is that? What we may remember is President T. Roosevelt’s statement, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Now we speak loudly, explosively, and carry huge economic sticks and massive military ones but the opium trade goes on, seemingly ignoring the international sanctions, the military presence of the United States, and in the past of England, in Afghanistan, and their tanks rumbling on paths right through the middle of the bright and beautiful fields of poppies growing in Kandahar or in Nangahar along the Baluchistan border where the greatest increases in opium production have occurred.

De Quincey’s famous book, Confessions of an English Opium Eater, 1822, is a classic rendition of one who used opium and who experienced the “...extreme euphoria initially,” as well as the hellish results of addiction in the later stages, “...the darkness and nightmares.” In the late eighteen hundreds, at the time of the Monroe Doctrine which spoke of American autonomy and non-involvement in European wars, and in the early nineteen hundreds, opium was consumed widely and openly in Europe, England and the United States. It could be purchased in the local chemist shops or drug stores as we call them; women took laudanum drops in a glass of water for the ‘vapors’ or other ailments. We were a nation of opium ‘eaters’, however, in terms of actual volume, more opium is now consumed in various forms illegally in the United States than during that early period.

“The State Department’s bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) plays a key role in carrying out the President’s National Drug Control Strategy by leading the development and implementation of U.S. International drug control efforts. INL manages a diverse range of counter-narcotics programs in 150 countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, Africa and Europe. These bilateral, regional and global initiatives aim to fight the cultivation of drug crops at their source, disrupt the trafficking of drugs and precursor chemicals, and help build host-nation law enforcement capacity.”

(Nancy J. Powell, Acting Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, July 12, 2005, Washington D.C.)

The efforts of the US government to get a handle on the drug and opium problem, continues world-wide. Since more than ninety percent of the opium of the world is grown in Afghanistan and Pakistan, special efforts are made there to slow down opium growing, because its sale, transport and processing, provide the very ones we are fighting in our world against terror with the financial means to carry out their activities. Taliban and Al Qaeda receive some of their financial backing from such drug trafficking. Corrupt officials at every level have their hands out for bribes to allow the growth of the opium poppy, the transport of opium and processing of it, and this trade is growing.

A blind eye. It seems there are many along the way when it comes to opium. Such blindness pays off very well. So well in fact, that the small business man has learned that huge profits can be made by becoming part of the purchase and sale of opium; much like we buy stocks, they buy shares in its purchase, transport and sale. Many of these actors are not huge investors by international standards. Sixty thousand rupees may seem a vast sum to many Pakistanis, however, $6000 may not be a huge investment in other parts of the world. But it is small investors like this who make it all happen, make the opium flow freely across international borders to Iran and on to Europe and the States. We in the western world are the eventual buyers which make it all possible. We are the consumers, the infidel opium eaters.

I talked with a few opium growers in NWFP, the small-fry types, and asked if this was not an activity proscribed by their religion. They were surprised at my question, “Of course not, the growing, sale and dealing with opium is business, a way for a man to make a living by growing a crop.” They were amazed at my placing an immoral connotation on the activity. But when it comes to talking about foreigners in their country who are trying to manipulate them, to destroy them if they do their business, then the strong ‘moral and immoral’ words fly, shaitan, words of condemnation and frustration, oaths calling on Allah to destroy the infidel invaders. Americans, by Nancy Powell’s own words, are involved in 150 countries carrying out anti-narcotic activities; involved in an equal number of military programs, carrying out our nation’s efforts to control and fight against our enemies, terrorism and anti-democratic activity. “While undermining the narcotics industry through successful eradication and interdiction, we are also helping extend democracy and strengthen security...by building democratic institutions that provide security and justice.” (Counter-narcotics Programs, 5/23/2007)

The small man in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt or Iran looks at this monster and sees the big infidel bully that is pushing around, getting its way in the world through the power of money and the might of armed force. Hatred! Why? Hatred is focused against this force that is such a powerful agent for change; hatred is the strong emotional undercurrent to undermine it. Drugs, opium and the power of it on the international market has provided the little man, the student of truth, the Taliban, with tools to undermine our world-wide efforts of domination, albeit extending democracy. The more we buy opium, the stronger their cause. Our appetite for opium means the Taliban will prosper. Their strength is surprising. President Karzai was their target for assassination in April of 2008. He did not die, but others around him did. Puppets are hated as vehemently as the one who holds the strings. Puppets, whether they be leaders ‘nominated’ by America in Iraq, leaders who are supported in Israel, or even those wearing the green robes of aristocracy in Afghanistan are looked at in distaste; but it is really the string pullers who are the target of hatred, the demon puppet master.

Our threats in Jan. 2008 to go after ‘them’ in Pakistan from our already compromised ‘puppet’ base in Afghanistan drew surprisingly strong words from President Musharraf during his hay day. If I may paraphrase it, “Don’t mess with your troops and anti-terrorist programs on Pakistani soil. The terrain is terribly rough out there, you won’t like it.” (Italics mine) We are not used to having ‘sovereign nations’ react like this, particularly Islamic nations who accept our foreign aid to the tune of a billion dollars of American taxpayer money in AID, a great deal of which is used for their military purposes.

The little guys, thousands of them, support the ‘opium eaters’ through their moving opium on the back roads from Afghanistan, through Pakistan and to the markets beyond. Opium is the livelihood of thousands of farmers, thousands of merchants and truck drivers, thousands of shippers. These actors on a small stage in Pakistan say their lines in the play on drugs with halting voices, but keep the play alive.

I have walked on small paths in the opium fields on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and talked to the farmers. They make so little from their sales of raw opium; it is those who buy it and move it that reap the huge financial benefits. I have talked to the farmers about trying alternative crops; they smile and say, yes, yes, sahib. Stretching out in front of me were vast acres of white and red blossoms, another harvest of opium getting ready for the opium eaters. I have on my computer screen a wonderful picture of Afghani men harvesting opium, standing in their fields as British and American tanks rumble by on the dirt roads, oblivious to the harvesting activity around them, and carefully staying on the roads between the poppy fields. That picture is the metaphor for opium eaters.

During my research, I discovered that Senator McCain has made a total of 61 flip-flops based on the data compiled by alternet.org.  Alternet.org is a decidedly liberal media platform hence we can assume that their count is pessimistic. Senator Obama on the other hand has made anywhere from 17 - 33 flip-flops depending on which blog you are reading. Let’s take the most pessimistic scenario in both cases which leave’s Senator McCain with the greatest number of flip-flops. My two favorites from both candidates are:

13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.

I was born in South Africa and I know quite well what the Government did to the people there, the fact that Senator McCain opposed divestment at any stage is unfathomable.

Senator Obama supported the FISA bill despite calls from the majority of liberals to Vote NO.

I was dissapointed like most liberals given our feelings about the FISA bill, however I do understand the Senator’s position given he is running for President and a “No” vote would have fueled the fires of “weak on national security” until the general election. These fires would have given the Republican party a focused line of attack which they are unable to attain thus far.

Given the number of flip-flops by both candidates, do they really matter at this point? I am not so sure but that depends on what the media has in plan for both these candidates before the election. I found this great McCain video on politifact.org, whoever created it made one hell of a video with some cool background music:

The United States needs oil; the price of oil is currently where it is due to a combination of speculation, increasing demand and regional conflicts in oil supplying areas. Recent polls suggest that the majority of American’s support offshore oil drilling but I believe we can attribute that support to the Republican Party inciting support amongst their base for the wrong solution. The biggest factor as asserted by Boone Pickens of BP Capital Management is that there is not enough supply in the world. I agree with that statement given the increasing demand on the world’s oil supply by the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations. As much as the EU and the United States try to slow down oil consumption, that reduction is immediately offset by the exponential increase in the Far East. I wrote about Mr. Pickens in an earlier post some weeks ago where he outlined his plan on CNBC, however I am pleased to discover he has set up his own website to promote his “dependence on foreign oil reduction plan.”

I will admit that I am skeptical about wind power but in all the time I spent in America, I have to say I have never ventured to middle America where it is apparently quite windy. If it is indeed that windy and an investment in wind turbines would provide a 38% drop in oil consumption, I don’t see a reason why the government and private organizations should not start investing today.

Offshore oil drilling will only have a long-term impact as admitted by the GOP and Senator McCain however the politicians in Washington need to make the right choice, a choice to ensure America’s long term survival in an increasingly energy demanding world. Sustainable energy could also said to have a long term impact but the difference is that it would be long term infinite source of energy as opposed to drilling which is a short-term strategy using a finite resource. The survival of America is dependent on sustainable energy, unfortunately oil does not fall into that category.

This might just be the media talking for me at the moment since when I think back to the election coverage, I am remember hearing the term “dream ticket” at least once a week. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Senator Clinton is going to be the on the same ticket with Senator Obama in the general election. Here are my reasons:

1. Both Senator’s would appeal to the entire democratic base which has surpassed the republican base in terms of turnout during the primary process. It is this turnout that many claim will be the nail on the coffin in the general election for the Republicans
2. Both Senator’s appeal to different segments of the American population and could potentially steal voters from the Republicans in the general election.
3. Senator Obama is essentially the leader of the Democratic party but the Clinton’s and their supporters form a sizable part of that party.
4. The fallout from a Clinton Vice Presidency would be minimal with the most likely outcome still being a win for the Democrats
5. Listen to how Senator Obama talked up Senator Clinton in his nomination victory speech and in New Hampshire, that is going to set the tone for future campaigning together.

The sources said the job was likely to be filled by Haim Nawas, a Jordanian-American who filled a similar role for the campaign of General Wesley Clark in 2004.

The job is complicated by the fact that Obama has been forced repeatedly to deny that he is Muslim, a situation that grates on some Muslim-Americans.

Nawas wrote in 2005 that the Bush Administration should take a more nuanced approach to public diplomacy directed at Muslim women.

“We need to recognise that the social structure in the Muslim world is very different from America's,” she wrote. “American women need to understand that what is best for them is not necessarily what is best for Muslim women. Advocacy of women’s rights in the Muslim world must show sensitivity to local political realities.”

Sensitivity? Meaning what? Don't push for women's right so as to not upset useful, yet dictatorial allies? Although of course, it will also upset the conservative Muslim public in those countries.