As I'm sure you are all now aware thanks to the triumphal trumpeting of Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Secretary Hague a deal has been finally done to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran. After months of negotiation most of which has been held in secret away from the media platform of Geneva, the US has apparently managed to convince Iran to stop continuing down the path of developing nuclear weapons - if they were in the first place - and in recompense some of the financial sanctions that brought Iran to this particular table in the first place have been relaxed. On the face of it this is a 'historic deal' as described in that self congratulating manner that the state department and the foreign office do so well. But one moment, as this high level diplomacy is often devised and derived via a combination of smoke and mirrors, are we being offered the real picture here? Why would the US now apparently trust an 'axis of evil' to keep to their word? Has the great threat to the US and us just disappeared into the desert? Moreover, was the nuclear proliferation risk proffered by the US as critical as it was once described?

Meanwhile, in Israel the Prime Minister is incandescent as he sees this development as a 'historic mistake' making war in the region more likely not less so. Consequently, Netanyahu is sending a team led by the Israeli national security adviser, to Washington to work with state department officials on the 'final details' of the deal. This was agreed after Barack rang Benyamin and invited Israel to contribute to the 'on going' negotiations.  So, the deal just agreed as 'historic' whether it be a triumph or a mistake is actually not a deal at all but an interim agreement to allow the final deal to be considered - I hope you are following this. In other words, the Geneva 'victory parade' was just a dress rehearsal for an event that might or might not happen. Who said today's media just offers us another reality program called 'diplomacy' that is just an updated version of charades?

Having been busy describing 'history in the making' I failed to mention the other main objectors to this deal or non deal are the US Congress and the Saudi's. But do not worry we will be hearing quite a lot from Congress over the next week or two since they not only tend to be very pro Israel but with 'Netanyahu's team' in town expect much grand standing, growling and Barack baiting. However, the Saudi's are a very different' kettle of fish' for they offer their form of diplomacy quietly and often secretly but as some have observed, far more effectively than the headline grabbing circus that maintains it pitch in Washington. The input that Riyadh will offer will be hard nosed and powered toughly, Obama's advisers will be listening more intently to this conversation than to the 'historic message' once again being offered from Tel Aviv.                
 

The impending fiftieth anniversary of 'Jack' Kennedy's shooting has triggered the usual array of articles, second hand accounts and fading personal reflections in an attempt to shed some further light onto and into a very murky period of American History. For many the early 1960's represented an opportunity to move from the set piece conservatism that had been heavily laced in the cold war world of fixed assumptions and predetermined realism to a space that offered a chance for the younger generation not only to shine but have a genuine voice in the way US society was going. Whether the subject be sex, civil rights, war or want this youthful America now had a champion - Kennedy the boy wonder - embodied this idealistic but imaginative and innovative alternative.  

So, what was cut short, what was turned off in Dallas on that November day was not just a man's life but an association of ideas that had inculcated themselves via the  image, political rhetoric and timing of a political figure that had not been formed in the Victorian age but informed in the American Age.  What makes this tragedy even more deplorable is that we still have little real idea as to who shot these ideas to pieces. Moreover, the political elite decided in their worldly wisdom that they would not subject their citizens to the truth or truths but to obfuscation and then institutional ennui.  The official conclusion -the Warren Commission - that it was one man acting alone seems so unlikely that even the United States Select Committee concluded in 1978 that Kennedy was probably a victim of a conspiracy. Yet the truth or the most likely truth remains locked up inside the 1100 hundred odd CIA documents that are due to be released in 2017. But, do not hold your breath, these files are closed on national security grounds. In other words, the 'security services' will ultimately decide whether it is safe or not for us to know who really de-constructed Camelot. What this distrust and distaste of the people by the 'inner government' has helped produce over many years is that youth filled dreams have been replaced by a cynical and often corrosive view of government and power. In other words, this unwillingness to share this moment of despair with the rest of the nation instantly erased the very space where you could close one eye and briefly see a fairer and more equitable society.   

Some will ask, does it really matter who killed JFK after all these years? Well the obvious first response is yes otherwise they would have let us see all the evidence and all the files. How can a man who died fifty years ago still carry a true threat to national security? There are largely two ways to keep the majority of people, the majority of time away from the truth, you either tell them nothing or tell them so much they cannot see the wood from the trees. In today's technological world it is the later, in the 1960's it was the former Moreover, if you also wish to shield the average citizen from the truths that lay behind the use and abuse of power what you can do in conjunction with telling too much or too little is make sure that period of time that elapses while your disclosing or not the 'facts' is sufficient for people to lose the will to care. Does anyone really care that Kennedy was removed because he spoke, he represented in his own very flawed human form an alternative to the cold, grey vista of realism, rationality and the national security state. Kennedy, Camelot emitted a fleeting romantic glimpse of how the world could be if only we could slay the dragons and not allow the dragons to slay us. Chillingly, as one Russian dissident recently observed having spent much of his younger life in a Siberian Gulag, 'In my country at least I know who my enemies are... you have no idea'. We still don't.       



         

Last week I attended a conference on the importance of political rhetoric, during this fairly interesting 'get together'  I heard one presenter suggest that Obama was comparable to FDR. I nearly fell off my chair, now Obama is seen by many as an iconic figure for very obvious reasons but FDR - do me a favour. But what this unthinking comment did was prompt me to consider who would I compare Obama with. During this same conference I gave a paper that was highly critical of the current President's political performance - the Americans in the audience were not happy.  Interestly, Roberto Unger, political philosopher, Harvard and a old lecturer of the President, has just observed during a television interview that Obama has been a political 'disaster' - I'm glad someone is listening to me. Anyway, what I did say was that although the President's significance is not to be found in what he has achieved, it can be seen in what he stands for. In other words, the importance of Barack sits within the office of the Presidency as opposed to his operational and governmental position as the President. For he is a constant visual and rhetorical reminder that American society is not only in transition but is changing socially, culturally and politically in a way that is not reversible. Moreover, these changes require the US to reflect more carefully on what they mean and for outside observers to consider the US in new ways.

Back to the question, who would you compare Obama too ? As we draw closer to the deadly anniversary of Dallas and Jack Kennedy's demise there are some curious connections. Firstly, placing aside the complex, confused and often misunderstood Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy was not as sure footed and productive as many think or suggest - The Bay of Pigs, his handling of Khrushchev and the Vietnam War are just three examples of his lack of managerial skill, Afghanistan, Health Care, and the Financial Crisis are Obama's.  However, like the contemporary President JFK's heart was often well placed especially in the area of civil rights, but it took a political fixer like LBJ to tackle this issue in a practical and effective way. I get the feeling that a certain Hilary Clinton in 2016 will return and turn 'Obama Care' into something far more meaningful.  The Berlin speech (1963) comes directly to mind when we talk about JFK, and for Obama his 'A More Perfect Union' in Philadelphia (2008) was 'on the money'. Both  utilised their rhetorical skills to resonate with people that were and are feeling insecure.                   

A 'great' US President does not come along very often simply because of the inculcation required: the requisite managerial skills; the political space; and the good fortune to perform. FDR had all three, while JFK and Obama lacked them all. This triumvirate are all iconic because they represent or represented transition, FDR - New Deal and US pre-eminence, JFK - A new frontier, a new generation and a new societal way of thinking, Obama - ethnic, economic and  societal change. But, only one seized the opportunity, managed the moment and actually made a  difference - FDR was  the 'real deal', Barack remains a rhetorical question mark.

KK 

For many Europeans the mysteries and mystic that lay behind the present United States health care system seem somewhat impenetrable, as currently the US private medical insurance scheme leaves some 45 million citizens without any medical protection. Moreover, if you include the number of US citizens that have only the most basic of medical cover, over a third of the nation's population lacks a level of care consummate with their health condition. In other words, approximately a 100 million US citizens will only be treated for their medical ailments once their condition becomes critical - life threatening.    

However,  Obama  seemed to offer  a way out of this unfair and unequal predicament, in the form of The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. This in effect took away many of the obstructions to obtaining health care cover whilst offering federal financial support for the many citizens who could not afford the insurance premiums. What could be more straightforward? Ah, 'Obama care'  is many things to many people but what it is not is straightforward. Firstly, the funding of this policy, which was somewhat opaque to start with has become even more complex for although the US Supreme Court recently ruled that this bill was constitutional the element of enforcement whereby individual states contribute to the overall cost of this scheme was struck-down. So far over sixteen different States - all republican -  have decided not to play or pay meaning that the Federal cost automatically rises.By how much? Nobody seems to know.  Moreover, the computer system supporting this new scheme 'fell over' within the first few hours of operation due to inappropriate software, hardware and technical support, in other words, lack of investment. The current best government guess is that the system will be back on line by January!

If you have been one of the few lucky citizens that has managed to get onto the system and register -this takes about an hour - before it collapsed in a heap, then you might find out that your present limited protection enforced by pre-existing conditions can now be adjusted to offer you far better medical cover but obviously the cost rises. So, citizens can find they are now being included into an insurance scheme that once effectively excluded them but they remain excluded because they cannot afford the increased premiums. But, didn't you say the federal government would help? Well yes but because many states have now backed out of the system it remains unclear as to who will now pick up certain elements of the bill.  Now if you are slowly losing the will to live while reading this do not worry because you are in good company, since the federal government have little real idea as to how effective this new scheme will be or how much it will eventually cost. Why, because ultimately the cost of medical cover cannot be determined by the government but by the private medical insurance companies. So, if I was a opponent of this bill I would keep my own counsel since the people implementing this policy are doing a really effective job of ruining its prospects of success. If on the other hand, you are of those citizens waiting to join the scheme I would just suggest you keep taking the medication - that is if you can afford it.

KK           

Top of the bill tomorrow night fighting for the Virginia governorship we have in the red corner representing the Republicans Ken Cuccinelli and in the blue corner representing the Democrats is Terry McAuliffe. Now besides the good people of Virginia and the nearest and dearest of the two contestants, who actually gives a fig about this latest mid term, middle ranking political bout? I'm glad you asked.

Firstly, dear Ken is a Tea party associate, in other words, he represents the sharp end of conservative America - a hard sell one might think after the recent shenanigans in Washington. However, Virginia is not known for its bleeding heart liberalism - the present incumbent in the governor's house is Republican. Moreover, Ken is a committed objector to that 'socialist implant'  - Obama Care.  Secondly, dear Terry who was co chairman of  Bill Clinton's re-election campaign in the 1990's, subsequently, became chairman of Hilary's presidential attempt in 2008. In other words, the Clintons and Terry are close. Moreover, Hilary has been down in Virginia actively campaigning for her pal Terry. Now taking into account that the ex Secretary of State is not exactly welcomed with open arms in this neck of the woods one wonders what she is actually doing or who she is representing ?

Now what is even more interesting about Virginia is the changing demographics of this particular state as more Hispanics and Asians arrive  - a microcosm of national socio-political changes no less. Hence, the political media word is that Hilary is preparing the ground for her next presidential run in 2016 and a Terry victory would help oil the wheels of this political process. However, a victory for tea party Ken suggests that conservative America is still alive and kicking regardless of ethnic trends and Congressional nonsense. Therefore, keep an eye on this particular bout since the winner could either signal the further entrenchment of conservative values in the blue ridge mountains or give us a real hint as to who might be a real contender to become the next Champion of the White House.