Well, the folks in Lynwood, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, have had enough. The City Council, with the Mayor leading the charge, has passed an ordinance making it a legal offence for anyone to dress in public with more than three inches of their underwear showing. Personally, I would have gone for one inch, but I guess that would trampling on some civil right or another,

As it is, the good ol’ ACLU is planning a lawsuit complaining that the law is aimed at young men of color. Sure it is. The colors in question being black, white and all shades in between. I see as many young white punks on the street, their pants slung so low that, excuse the expression, their butt-cracks show. Between that and their ball-caps turned backwards or sideways, it triggers an almost irresistible urge to drag then into the nearest alley and address a stern lecture. But what good would that do? As one young man in Lynwood put it, the law impinges on his “personal style.”

Well, how about if my “personal style” would be to wear nothing at all? That would violate any number of number of laws. Would the ACLU come to my defense? If I know them, the answer is, “probably.” The ‘American Civil Liberties Union’ never sees a “right”, no matter how offensive to people in general, that it will not defend.

I have heard two defenses for this “baggy-shirts pants hung low” style, if it can be called that. One is that prisoners are deprived of their belts, and so the low-hung look is a show of solidarity. Solidarity for what, I have no idea. Rapists and killers are shorn of their belts, right along with drunk driving offenders. What virtue can possibly adhere to showing solidarity with rapists, child-molesters and murderers?

The other, even less defensible reason, is that baggy clothes offer many places in which to conceal weapons. If you wish to appear that you have a weapon on your person, I wish you all that goes with that, considering that other persons who actually are carrying weapons might consider you a threat. Such gestures of implied hostility are the enemies of a civil society. Or, on the other hand, all citizens should be armed, just to even things out.

When I see men, young or old, of whatever ethnicity, dressed in this “personal style”, I am at once offended and pitying. Offended, because such dress is meant to be “in your face”; pitying because it is such a clownish way of showing defiance. Should more such “public decency” laws be passed, as in Lynwood, Illinois? I am somewhat torn on the question. I would have to go with the “reasonable person” premise in such cases.

Do I feel an impulse to yank these low-riders pants the rest of the way down? I confess that I do. After which, I would like to have a none-too-pleasant conversation the parent(s) who would allow their sons to leave the house in such a state.

( al-Qaeda may be playing possum in Iraq)The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq says “…there is some assessment going on as to the continued viability of al-Qaeda’s fight in Iraq.” If you need a translation, it would be this: “We believe, based on intelligence that is not entirely reliable, that al-Qaeda is shifting resources out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.” Certainly, that is where U.S. and NATO forces are most heavily engaged with insurgents, mainly Taliban, but increasingly al-Qaeda militants. At the same time, General David Patraeus told the Associated Press that that the intelligence is not “solid Gold”, meaning he’s not entirely sure what’s afoot here.

In just a few week, Petraeus will issue a key assessment of the situation in Iraq. Among other things, he will note that far fewer foreign militants are crossing borders to participate in Iraqi fighting, and that more are making their way through the largely ungoverned northwest passage into Pakistan and Afghanistan, where allied casualties have been increasing.

But Petraeus does not believe al-Qaeda has given up on Iraq. However, it’s clear that Osama bin-Laden’s forces have stood down to a marked degree there, and much of the violence recently has involved the Shi’ite-backed Mehdhi army, aligned with Iran. To my mind, this raises the very real possibility of a battle between the two opposed sects in Iraq, once the U.S. has sufficiently drawn down its troop levels.

In recent days, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has said he would prefer the American troop draw down to be sooner rather than later, as his own military and police forces gain strength. He also has said he likes U.S. Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan for a 16-month timetable for bringing all U.S troops in Iraq home. I cannot penetrate the workings of al-Maliki’s mind, but I am highly suspicious of all this optimism.

It is all too easy, when dealing with terrorists and barbarians, to mix up how they act with how they think. These people may be fanatical, but they are not stupid. They are all too capable of thinking strategically, rather than simply tactically. What I am saying is that, with the prospect of American troops going home, it would be in the interests of militants, both Sunni and Shiite, to de-escalate in Iraq, so as to make it appear that the situation is stabilizing and we are longer needed; all the sooner to get us out.

It’s not hard to imagine Iraq at the center of a tug-of-war. The Shi’ite leadership in Iran has demonstrated in the past their wish to absorb Iraq. The radical Sunnis could be expected to fight that eventuality tooth and nail. And to where would they turn for support, for true military strength? Syria is a Sunni nation and heavily armed, and has shown no reluctance in the past to use its military. While I see the logic in discussing when U.S. troops might be recalled or redeployed, I also see the danger in letting our enemies know when that might be. Possessed of that knowledge, all they need do is temporarily call off the dogs of war and wait.

It is far too early to make accurate assessments of the Middle East situation. And the stakes are for to high to act precipitously. Let’s send more troops to Afghanistan and, with Pakistan’s help, defeat the Taliban once and for all. That won’t be easy, but it’s a high-end payoff. Iraq becomes less of a challenge if we’re not looking over our shoulders all the time.

Look, this is not some make-believe war we’re fighting. We have spent our blood and treasure on a cause that is just and necessary. It is absolutely incumbent upon us to grit our teeth and see it through. Or do we not have any teeth left?

(Two significant changes in policy - unrelated bur important nonetheless)

The government says it’s okay to start eating tomatoes again. This is heartening news to me, since I never stopped in the first place. Warnings from federal scientists about food safety seldom make an impression on me. I may be betraying myself as unwise, but it would probably take a sticker reading ‘contains cyanide’ to put me off a food I like. God help me if it’s discovered ice cream causes Lymphoma or something. It would be a toss-up.

The Food and Drug Administration announced in recent months that it suspected tomatoes as the source of a Salmonella outbreak that afflicted thousands of people in 42 states. The food-borne virus is seldom deadly, except occasionally to the very young and old, but its gastrointestinal symptoms have been known to make sufferers wish they’d die. The problem all along was a lack of scientific proof, which one would think should be pretty easy to establish. Anyway, the Great Tomato Panic of 2008 is over. Not too soon, however, to have greatly decreased sales and prices of tomatoes just at the peak of their seasons. I don’t think I need to tell you how tomato growers in Florida and California, the nation’s number one and two tomato producers, are feeling just about now. Angry doesn’t say it. I am picking up the strong scent of big lawsuits in the air.

The FDA inspectors, spoilsports that they are, still say tomatoes may have been involved in the viral outbreak, the biggest caused by some kind of food in ten years. But they assure us the tomatoes now on the market are Salmonella-free, unless you slice them on a cutting board just used for chopping up raw chicken. Now, they’re scrutinizing jalapeno and Serrano peppers, prime ingredients in salsa, and most of which are imported from Mexico. I’m not urging anyone else to act irresponsibly, but I’ll wait to hear something definitive before I quit putting hot salsa or Tabasco sauce on my scrambled eggs. That’s just the kind of American I am.

Possibly you’re wondering what any of this has to do with Barack Obama. The answer is: nothing. Except that the presidential candidate has just announced a major policy shift of his own. Obama has a history of opposing the Kyoto Environmental Accords as being ruinous economically. Which indeed they would be if fully enacted. The U.S. never signed on. But it seems Obama has had a “Damascus road” epiphany in this regard and has turned his back on the Illinois coal-miners who were pivotal in his elections both to the state legislature and U.S. Senate. He now supports the Kyoto Accords, and calling for an 80% reduction in global emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. Why don’t we just issue ray guns to developing nations and mandate they be used to vaporize their economies? Not to mention our own. I wonder what all those coal miners think of their fair-haired boy now.

It is far, very far, from being a proven fact that man-made emissions have much, if anything to do with recent fluctuations in global temperatures. The news media like to talk about a “scientific consensus” that human driven output of gases such as carbon dioxide are warming the planet catastrophically. The word “consensus”, as used here, is code meaning that a growing number of climatologists and others of various disciplines have had second thoughts. That does not mean we ought to cut down the rainforests or otherwise run rampant over the environment. It means the study of earth’s atmosphere is in its early infancy, and it’s grossly premature to make hasty and damaging decisions based largely on unreliable computer projections.

Obama now says, “…climate change is one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation.” That’s pretty good campaign rhetoric if we leave out the “moral challenges” part. Earthquakes are not a moral challenge, and neither are hurricanes and tornados, except when it comes to how we pitch in to help repair the destruction they cause.

In my view, Obama has just made his first major campaign mistake. Most Americans do not list the environment high on their list of things they want the government to do something about. Government is bloated, bumbling and clumsy and tends to overlook the Law of Unintended Consequences. The environment, especially that of the entire planet, is something to be approached with caution and a high degree of surety. Calls for what amount to economic suicide, through actions that may do little if any good, do not meet those criteria.

(Some scientists theorize an increase in the salt crystals because of rising temperatures)

I don’t care if Steven Hawking proposes it, some things simply are too hard to swallow - or in this case, excrete. Some scientists now are warning that global warming will lead to a significant increase in the incidence of kidney stones in human beings A study by the University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine concludes that since kidney stones are caused by dehydration, and since dehydration is more prevalent in hotter climates, it only stands to reason that a rise in global temperature will lead to a greater incidence of kidney stones, which I have not experienced but are said to painful and no fun at all.

The study was based on some other study (aren’t you getting sick of studies?), commissioned last year by the one of the myriad United Nations panels assigned to look into this and that. That study concluded that global temperatures will rise by three to seven degree Fahrenheit by 2050, based solely on human emissions of ’greenhouse gases’. Subsequent research has shown that we have been experiencing a cooling trend since 1998, which has effectively wiped out a modest half-degree Celsius of warming over the past century.

This may or not come as news to you, but the earth’s temperature is not based on atmospheric phenomena alone. Far from it. A predominant factor in global warmth or coolness is the surface temperature of the water that covers two-thirds of the world’s surface. Indeed, scientists at the “Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute’ have determined that fluctuations in ocean temperatures at or near the surface have caused radical climate change many times in the past, and that this phenomenon has had little or nothing to do with atmospheric changes, man-made or otherwise. Our planet is not one thing, it is many. Its atmosphere and climate zones are influenced by factors of which we are just now gaining a tiny glimmer. And the major factor that dictates climate change, abrupt or gradual, is water. What’s more, the oceans do not remain the same. There are naturally-occurring changes in currents and ocean temperatures that have profound effects on climate. We may or may not be witnessing such changes now.

Recently, Oceanographers have noted changes in the Gulf Stream, which brings warmer waters into large sectors of the North Atlantic Ocean. They believe it presages a pronounced global cooling factor, which could last ten years or more. The impact on regional climates is impossible to predict. Some will be colder, some warmer. The last major shift of this kind, they say, occurred around eight thousand years ago, before homo sapiens could do more than sketch out drawings of major events. And they don’t know the duration of this change in climate zones. About the most they can predict are harsh winters in the upper portion of the northern hemisphere, accompanied by cooler weather, and milder winters elsewhere.

All this should really come as no surprise. It is abundantly obvious that earth’s deserts once were either oceans, pushed back by volcanic activity, or verdant plains which cyclical changes in climate and plate tectonics made them what they are today. Probably the most important finding of the ’Woods Hole’ research is that climate change is regional, not global. This will become that, and that this, not as a holistic phenomenon, but varying from area to area. That is the history of earth as best we can now understand it. And that understanding is dim indeed, considering the infinitesimal time we’ve had to study it. It is the main reason why our scientific inquiries often lead to contradictory results.

One thing, however, emerges with certainty. Nothing that humans can do, or not do, will alter the simple dictum of change. Nothing stays the same, much as we’d like to have it so. Whether its today’s weather, or an arrogant forecast for years hence, you may be certain that some influence, which might appear tiny on its face, will influence the future in major and unpredictable ways. And then there is God, who we must assume knows what He’s doing. We, on the other hand, most decidedly do not.

Some of Barack Obama’s speech to the NAACP could have been delivered by Alan Keyes. Naturally, he sounded the traditional Democratic theme that government must do more. He also earned my respect, if not my vote, by emphasizing to a crowd of 3,000 that, while the government has a role to play, it is the black community itself that must take responsibility for it own advancement and welfare.

One excerpt: “…no matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many ten-point plans we propose or how many government programs we launch - none of it will make a difference, at least not enough of a difference, if we don’t seize responsibility in our own lives.” My translation of what Obama was saying, and it has been said by other black leaders: ‘The government cannot solve the problem of single-parent families, of fathers who ignore their responsibilities, of the gangs that terrorize your streets, of the joblessness caused in part because businesses are afraid to open in certain areas.’

This is not a message the black electorate is used to hearing from a liberal Democrat, who happens to be the first black man to secure the presidential nomination of a major party. Many so-called “black leaders”, and Al Sharpton springs readily to mind, preach a gospel of entitlement, if not hate. Who would not like to be told that their problems are someone else’s fault, that “whitey” is keeping them down, that the CIA introduced crack cocaine into the black inner-city, that Jews are in conspiracy against them, that they are being exploited by Asian merchants? Such talk is pure poison and has no other purpose than to line the pockets and increase the power of those who repeat it, over and over.

I do not agree with Barack Obama on major policy issues. But it is refreshing to hear one in his position speak the truth, whether or not his aim is to court the white vote - and I give him the benefit of the doubt that he means what he says.

The history of this country is not some fairy tale of rugged individualists, each of whom had from the beginning an equal chance at success. Slavery, racism, cruel exploitation, discrimination and other ugly factors are part of our checkered past, as they are of every major country on earth. But the principles upon which this country was founded, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, were so constructed, and purposely, so that such evils would disappear from our Democratic Republic - so that we might truly be “the land of the free.” We are closer now than ever the achieving that noble end, although the individual human heart has flaws that no document or law can correct.

I am not urging a vote for Barack Obama - heaven forbid. I am saying that few people are entirely wrong, and Obama shows courage when he stands before the NAACP and says black people have a responsibility for their own well-being - that government cannot be the answer to all problems and never was meant to be. One would think the 70-year disaster that was the USSR would evidence enough of that.

It is the responsibility, the duty, of all Americans to report crime and testify against those who commit it; to keep their neighborhoods in such a way that criminals are discouraged from plying their trade; to vote based on sound principles of governance; to look out for their neighbors; to recognize in a police officer someone who is willing to risk life and limb to keep order; in short, to be good citizens. Holding such concepts firmly in mind and acting on them would go a long way toward making this a truly civil society, toward which goal we already have made strides.

Forgive me for my exhortations from the soap box. Once in a while, my idealism comes flooding out. But does anyone disagree with that I’ve said? Please comment if so. I would be fascinated to learn by what other precepts a nation can govern itself.

After nearly 20 years as a broadcast journalist, I decided to channel my efforts into writing as a commentator. Suffice it to say it was not one of my better financial decisions. The point I’m getting to is that, even though technically among their number, I find myself cheered when the bulk of pundits turn out to be mistaken in their musings. Maybe it’s because I disagree with so many of them.

I don’t much care for polls, either. Give me an issue, and I’ll show you 20 ways to ask the public about it that will justify a preconceived outcome. However, there are several public research organizations that deserve respect. Without making a list, I will simply say the ‘Pew Research Center’ is among them. And ‘Pew’ is now out with answers to some basic questions about the upcoming election.

First of all, much was made, when Hillary Clinton conceded the nomination, of her supporters saying they’d sooner vote for Republican John McCain than Democrat Barack Obama. The latter has gained some ground among the disenchanted since then, but over 30% of the 2,004 people interviewed by ‘Pew‘ still say the same thing. Obama has his work cut out for him and, when it comes to wooing the “undecided” vote, so does McCain An unusually high number, a third, of likely voters say they haven’t made up their minds yet. And this “33%” finding runs across the board. That’s how many say they’re leaning McCain’s way, and the same percentage say they’re tilting toward Obama. That leaves a further third who are completely undecided. The tone and substance employed by the candidates will be especially important between now and November.

I am not especially impressed, as other commentators seem to be, that Democrats are more “excited” and “engaged” as regards the electoral process. Thomas Dewey’s supporters were “excited and “engaged” in 1948, and so were Nixon’s in 1960. One person’s excitement is another’s ennui. Republicans - and, unsurprisingly, conservatives - are less transported by all the hoopla. McCain would not be the first choice of the Republican Right, which will not come as news. I wouldn’t expect them to be turning cartwheels. I would, however, expect them to dress in clown suits if they allow their dissatisfaction to give the election to Obama.

But what about the Arizona Senator’s age? McCain is going on 72, after all, and would be the oldest man ever elected president. Surprisingly, for all the media have made of the issue, over three-quarters of respondents say it means nothing to them.. McCain is energetic, in good health, and needs only to avoid too much exposure to the sun. He has fought a couple of successful bouts with melanoma.

I am vaguely surprised that voters seem to like Obama’s economics better than McCain’s. It has always been my conviction that Americans don’t like having their pockets picked by Uncle Sam to pay for hugely expensive programs such as universal Health Care. Perhaps an aging population, swayed by the self-interested ‘American Medical Association’ and the swelling ranks of the ‘American Association of Retired Persons’ has played a role there. Congratulations to them. If successful, they will have done their part to substantially decrease the quality of medical care in this country, no matter what siren’s call they employ.

Summarizing some other findings: 55-percent of Democrats surveyed think Hillary ought to be Obama’s running mate. But there’s an anomaly here: only 39% of those who voted for Obama in the primaries share that view, compared with 78 % of former Clinton supporters. Hmmm. And about 12 % still think Obama is a Muslim. I can only assume those are the ones with no radios or TV’s, and who read the news through the glass in the vending box.

Overall, this remains a wide-open election, and one in which I still expect a narrow McCain victory. Events overseas give his favorable foreign policy rating a boost among the electorate. And when the nuts and bolts of economics are scrutinized further, I believe, I pray, he’ll prevail there, too.

(Photo analysts say widely-published pictures of Iranian missile tests were doctored)

Iran appears to be not quite the threat many nations have feared. This past week, the Iranians twice have test-fired intermediate-range missiles, once from a land-based site, another time from ships in the Persian Gulf. In the U.S. and elsewhere, the tests were seen as a direct response to Israeli military exercises that convincingly demonstrated the Jewish state’s considerable air power. The general idea seems to have been to make it clear to Iran that Israel could knock out its nuclear development facilities at will. This is not the sort of thing the international community wants to see, with two wars already being fought in the Middle East.

But in the past few days, more and more photo analysts have called into question the authenticity of an Iranian picture, broadcast around the world, of four ‘Shahab 3’ ballistic missiles lifting off from the ground. They say one of the four missiles was digitally inserted into the photograph, with the obvious intention of making it appear Iran has more of the weapons to spare than is the case. Now, why would the Iranians do that?

The ‘Shahab 3’ has a range of 1250 miles, capable of carrying a one-ton conventional warhead. It can be surmised the missile could be converted to deliver tactical nukes, should Iran acquire the capability to develop them. Since its range fully encompasses Israel, and obviously Iraq, Tehran is making clear that it can reach out and cause pain to its enemies if provoked or attacked.

There are unmistakable signs, however, that companies doing business with Iran have backed off supplying the country with energy-producing components, nuclear and otherwise. What’s more, Middle East analysts believe the fundamentalist Shi’ite Islam regime that rules Iran would be toppled, if not for the threat of force against its own citizens. Two respected policy experts, one at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington and another, an Iranian specialist at ‘Jane’s’ consulting service in Alexandria, Virginia, are saying Iran’s military bluster may well be an attempt to draw attention away from a deteriorating domestic situation.

Unfortunately, Americans have been hearing for years that Iran’s populace is yearning for new leadership, yet nothing seems to change. The general consensus is that Iran is playing a duplicitous game of appearing to be open to negotiation, while proceeding as far as it is able to develop means of manufacturing weapons-grade nuclear material. It is one reason why a presence in neighboring Iraq, a platform for the projection of stabilizing American power in the region, is so vital. This is an element of foreign policy that utterly escapes the American Left.

There are two primary reasons for having a strong military: one is defense, the other is deterrent. Thousands of years of human history have demonstrated beyond any doubt that nations which allow themselves to become vulnerable are at high risk for incursions of all kinds by the power-hungry and unscrupulous. It is a base element of human nature, which can be attested to by any police officer who works a beat. Liberals would have us believe that there is something evil and wrong about looking after our own interests, and those of our friends, abroad. Quite the opposite is true, especially as it relates to the United States of America. Where we have conquered militarily, we have disengaged governmentally. If that were not so, we would not find ourselves dealing with the arrogance of the European Union, or the economic competition from free Asia.

In any event, if what the analysts are saying is true, Iran is a country much weaker than it would have us believe. It is still extremely dangerous in terms of starting a broader, even catastrophic, conflict in the region. The fanatical rhetoric of its theocratic leaders must be given some credibility. And its ties with Russia are a matter of grave concern. But to borrow from Teddy Roosevelt, amid the talking, there can be little question about who carries the bigger stick

(Analysts offer views on the persuasive powers of speaking style between candidates)

Listen to the cadence, the syntax, the stressors in a Barack Obama speech. It is smooth oratory with a certain evangelical zeal. It can be very persuasive, especially with a particular type of audience - a crowd 70-thousand strong in a stadium, for example. Contrast that with the public speaking style of John McCain, which tends to resemble more of a briefing…as one analyst put it, like a blunt-spoken platoon leader, readying troops for battle. Which is more effective? As always, it depends.

An article in the new issue of U.S. News & World Report offers the opinions of a number of analysts, whose life’s work is the teaching or measuring the effectiveness of various modes of public speech. At this juncture in the American poli-sphere, the balance seems to tip McCain’s way.

As an example, after a McCain speech this week in a struggling Appalachian city on the need for more nuclear energy to offset the rising cost of oil, he opened the forum for questions. And the first person he chose to call on was a woman back in the corner, holding a “No Nukes” sign. As he approached the woman, McCain said, “Because of the interest of exchanging ideas and views that we may not agree with, I’ll bring you a microphone and you and I can have a little exchange and dialogue.” Was that a campaign trick? I don’t think so. Rather, it bespeaks a candidate with confidence in his policy positions and, maybe more importantly, a willingness to engage and try to persuade average voters. It’s reminiscent of dubbing his 2000 campaign bus ‘The Straight Talk Express.”

Obama, on the other hand, speaks in eloquent, transcendent terms, and it’s hard to imagine him wading into a crowd to debate with a dissenter on-mike. By and large, the analysts say that when voters are looking for a break from the past, they are drawn to the “hope and change” style of campaign oratory. When daily living becomes more challenging, they want to hear more precise proposals from candidates - “What are you going to do about gas prices?”. That style is better suited to smaller gatherings than to stadium-sized crowds, and McCain prefers the former.

One social worker, on her way out of the McCain speech in Portsmouth mentioned above, and who had been a Hillary Clinton supporter, said, “The more flowery Obama gets, the less you trust him. She labeled McCain “Straight and direct”. That quality more than any other may give McCain an edge with middle-class “undecided” voters and disenchanted Democrats.

Do not discount, however, the power of eloquence and ease of speech in campaign oratory. Obama has those qualities in abundance and they show themselves best in large venues and in speech-craft in general. One reason for McCain’s recent staff shake-up was to hand over more control to those who want to give his public addresses more “punch” and to refine his stagecraft. Never doubt that style often wins over substance.

To make what I hope is an apt metaphor, John McCain is the guy on those TV shows with the saws, hammers and nails, while Obama displays a handsome model of how things will look when he’s finished. It is the difference between a vision and the hard, day-by-day work involved in bringing a vision into reality. And, of course, the visions themselves differ.

It is my view that ultimately, voters will respond to McCain’s realism and experience, and that he will gain a slim margin of victory in November. This is not 1960, when John F. Kennedy could speak to likely voters who were pretty much well-off but tired of the status quo on several fronts. This is a time of armed conflict and economic struggle. It will require a warrior to take it on.

(McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm’s mouth moves before brain engagement)

It’s getting to where the respective presidential contenders are spending a lot of time explaining or repudiating the remarks of their campaign officials. Recently, Obama attack dog General Wesley Clark had to be told to lay off McCain’s military record, of which he had spoken in belittling terms. Now, John McCain is in the position of “strongly disagreeing” with one of his economic advisers, former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, that America has become a “nation of whiners.” All this may have its element of fun for those of us who observe, but it’s not what candidates want to be addressing less than four months before the election.

Actually, Gramm’s comment, during an interview with the Washington Times - an interview the McCain camp was unaware of - was more in the way of a spur-of-the-moment transitional phrase than a declarative statement. Asked about the economy and the number of Americans who name it as their top concern, Gramm maundered, “We have sort of become a nation of whiners, You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline.” Oops. Guess what question John McCain was asked most frequently after Gramm’s interview was published Thursday?

McCain says he “strongly disagrees” with Gramm on this “whiners” business. As well he better. However, in Gramm’s defense, and it’s not a strong one, there are verbal cues that the former Senator was not articulating well-thought-out statements. The phrases “sort of” and “you just hear” are tip-offs that Gramm was trying to frame an evasive sense into words. That is not a good idea when talking to reporters, not even at the conservative-leaning Washington Times.

Of course, the opposition pounced within hours. In reference to another Gramm blurt - “You’ve heard of a mental depression. This is a mental recession.” - Barack Obama told a gathering of supporters, “Let’s be clear: This economic downturn is not in your head. It isn’t whining to ask government to step in and give families some relief.” Which leaves open to more fertile debate the question of how much relief and what kind government should offer.

McCain was left to acknowledge that “America is in great difficulty. And we are experiencing enormous economic challenges as well as others.” As for former Senator Gramm, he called CNN in an attempt to clarify his comments. The one-time Texas lawmaker, who’s been known to have his sour moments, said he was really referring to the current American leadership, especially in Congress, not the American people, whom he characterized as the “victims” of all the negativity. Gramm stood by his meaning that the economy is not as bad as portrayed.

All of this side-show politicking has its positive side. Since a majority of U.S. voters list the economy as their topmost concern -driven mainly by spiraling gasoline prices and a depressed housing market - it presents the perfect opportunity for the candidates to juxtapose their proposals for economic improvement, to offer voters a choice of philosophies. The Republican idea, whether adhered to by elected GOP officials or not, always has been to get government - mainly in the form of taxation and over-regulation- out of the way, so people can have more money and spend it more freely. The Democratic notion traditionally has been more direct: spend money from taxes on programs that offer financial benefits to low-income Americans. I would suggest those who are serious about comparing these two philosophies look at the differences in the U.S. economy between Presidents Jimmy Carter - a Democrat in the classic mold - and Ronald Reagan, the quintessential conservative Republican. I am not suggesting, by the way, that John McCain is a true Reagan Republican. I am, however, saying that Barack Obama, based on his voting record in the Senate, is a liberal Democrat, with a “tax and spend” orientation.

As to the candidates getting their people in line, there is a well known political tradition of circulating “talking points” among those who appear in public on behalf of one contender or the other. A spokesperson straying too far from these basic campaign premises almost inevitably gets into trouble. I may enjoy it, but it’s an unnecessary distraction from the important stuff.

There are two things to be learned from the current flap over off-hand remarks made by Jesse Jackson about Barack Obama. One is a lesson public figures should have stamped on their frontal lobes: if there’s a microphone nearby, assume it is on! Newspeople are what they are, and a sound tech worth his or her pay will leave the switch in the “on” position if there’s any chance of catching some newsmaker uttering a verbal gaffe. The other dictum is that not every black leader is thrilled about Senator Barack Obama’s run for the presidency. People are individuals, regardless of skin color.

Little did Reverend Jackson know that when he made a remark better suited for the TV series The Sopranos after a news conference Sunday, a mike picked up every word. Following a Fox News interview after the public event, during which he took Obama to task for “talking down” to black people about morality and dodging issues of racial equality and the housing crisis, Jackson got into what he assumed was a private conversation nearby. There can be no assumption of privacy when news microphones are around. And Fox caught Jackson saying of Obama, “I’d like to cut his nuts off.” Wow. This is not the language of politics or diplomacy, to put it mildly. Why say it? Jackson has been a fixture in politics for decades. It might be considered understandable that he’d resent newcomer Obama, who is trying a middle path Jackson has seldom employed. In short, he doesn’t like the guy.

 The really surprising thing is that Fox opted not to go with the story immediately. Most news agencies would have, and I tip my hat to FNN for a few days of discussion and debate before running with it. The story, including a “bleeped” sound-bite that still made it clear what Jackson had said, was aired Wednesday night. Tipped in advance that Fox planned to air the remark, Jackson tried to get out in front, using a CNN interview to apologize for what he called “regretfully crude” comments and saying he was “very sorry.”

Elements of the Obama campaign were forgiving. Spokesman Bill Burton said his candidate “…will continue to speak out about our responsibilities to ourselves and each other, and of course he accepts Reverend Jackson’s apology.” But Jackson’s own son, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Junior, was not so tolerant. The younger Jackson said he was disappointed in his father for making such “reckless comments“, calling them “derisive and demeaning” and saying they “contradict his (Jackson’s) inspiring and courageous career.” Jackson Jr. has a seat on Obama;s national campaign committee.

Turning to another issue I believe cannot be ignored, it has been learned that Iran has test-fired missiles which can reach Israel. The development is viewed as a clear response to recent shows of force by Israel, seen in turn as giving notice to Iran that the Jewish state can destroy Tehran’s nuclear program if it is seen as a genuine threat. Iran’s President, who is little more than a mouthpiece for the radical Islamic theocrats who really run the country, has said, publicly and repeatedly, that his country is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It’s highly questionable whether the average Iranian is willing to see his homeland reduced to a smoking ruin in order to accomplish that evil goal.

Certainly, the position of the United States is clear. While in recent days Washington has vowed there are no plans for an attack on Iran due to its major role in training and dispatching terrorists to neighboring Iraq, Secretary of State Rice has said unequivocally that Israel can depend on military assistance from U.S. forces in the event of any attack on Israel. At the close of a three-day visit to Eastern Europe, Rice told reporters, “We take very strongly our obligation to defend our allies and no one should be confused (about) that.” All by itself, the combined air power of the U.S. and Israel could devastate Iran. The question where Iranian leaders are concerned is whether they care. They are scary. fanatically-driven people.

Getting back to Reverend Jackson: this is the same man who, under similar circumstances, once referred to New York City as “hymietown”, a disparaging remark about Jews picked up by a microphone during a volatile time in the mid-80’s. My advice (as if Jackson would hear of or follow it) would be for the good Reverend to keep his immoderate mouth shut for the remainder of the Presidential campaign. Having said what he said in such stark terms, all apologies are likely to be seen as CYA. I trust that needs no translation. And to be honest, anything that hurts the Democrats’ chances suits me fine.