We Cannot Allow An Unmanned Drone Bomber Gap!

It's the classic case of keeping up with the neighbors. Especially the new ones: the hoards from America who always wear helmets, build massive bases of operation, bring along thousands of "independent contractors", and tend to shoot first and ask questions later.

The latest object of regional envy for militaries in the Middle East: killer drones. The USA introduced them, now everybody wants them.

First, the Iranian government announces they have a new unmanned military drone bomber. Iranian President Ahmabinejad said "The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship." The remote-controlled flying weapon's estimated range means local major enemies of humanity - like Israel - remain out of reach. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-ml-iran-unmanned-bomber,0,4364976.story

Iranian officials gaze admiringly at a model of their new drone.  It will strike fear in enemies of humanity who are within its 620 mile range - and will probably just cause mild anxiety to those farther away.

Then Israel announces, they too have a new unmanned miltary drone. According the the Telegraph in London, "Israel considers Iran a strategic threat because of ...repeated references by its leaders to the Jewish state's destruction." Wouldn't do to have a flying drone gap with an archenemy, so the Israeli version can make it all the way to Tehran:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7287623/Israel-unveils-unmanned-drones-which-can-fly-to-Iran.html

No models here - the Israeli drone makes an appearance. It's capable of carrying diverse payloads - like propaganda leaflets to drop over Iran.

In the meantime, the Middle East pioneer in the field of conducting aerial bombing via remote control - the USA - is way ahead of the game. Actively using them for years now, our tax dollars are funding more operators in obscure Nevada locations and increasing robot drone attacks in Afghanistan (courtesy the U.S. military) and Pakistan (courtesy the CIA):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/world/asia/20drones.html?_r=1

American drone on the job, firing away - is it collateral damage if we bomb targets in an ally's territory?

But remember, as noted in the Telegraph article, President Ahmabinejad has touted spectacular weapons advances before that didn't amount to much. Remember the Iranian long-range missile announcement a couple of years ago?

Iran's latest rocket technology takes flight - with Plan B waiting on the bench. Good thing the Japanese goverment is friendly with Israel.

Besides, we can't let the Iranians usurp our best military slogan!  Peace and friendship?  That's why you call in the USA - we're the professionals:

General Jack D. Ripper and Colonel Lionel Mandrake exemplify the Strategic Air Command's motto: Peace Is Our Profession.

Just in case you thought Stanley Kubrick made that last one up:

Circa 1962 - after all the US military doesn't kid around. Now you kids get off my lawn!

Hollywood's Monied Liberals And The President

It's a cliche, a stereotype that many folks love to trot out: Hollywood is full of liberal socialists, Democrats to the core, and their big money elitism has left them out of touch with the much more conservative American populace.

I can see where that image comes from. Of course it's full of holes. Big time actors/producers like Clint Eastwood, Jerry Bruckheimer, Jon Voight, Gary Sinise, Mel Gibson, Kelsey Grammer, Tom Selleck, and many more are self-described conservative/Republicans. And the bottom line is still the bottom line - money rules Tinseltown, no matter what the political persuasion of the creators.

But Hollywood is made up of people, and people who have enthusiastically committed (and contributed) to a political candidate are loath to give up that support even when their standard-bearer has let them down. And by this point in his presidency, are there any progressive/liberal causes that Mr. Obama has not let down?

That's why this story, "Obama And Hollywood: State Of Their Union" from The Hollywood Reporter, is so interesting. The richest political progressives in Hollywood gathered recently to raise money for Mr. Obama. And while they still support him, many are disappointed. "He had an opportunity to show he's a different generation, and he hasn't done it," said on interviewee. Hollywood liberals are disappointed that war continues in the Middle East, concerned that health care and Wall Street reforms are toothless, and upset that gay rights are not high on the Administration's agenda.

But no one among the many folks interviewed here are ready to throw in the towel. Of course, none of these extremely creative, imaginative people - whose movies and tv shows often dazzle with their unique ideas - seem able to visualize an America with more than two political parties.

Maybe that's because every one of these Hollywood entertainment industry players is ultimately in the employ of, or partnered with, major media corporations. They know the difficulties artists encounter when their creativity challenges the money men. And we all know where corporate America stands when it comes to progressive change.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i4a25a9f106904fc175e55b8dcf6b2e3e

Corporate Money Wins, Part 2

The last restrictions on major corporate political campaign donations were removed by the Supreme Court in January this year (see: http://songofhiram.blogspot.com/2010/01/corporate-money-wins.html).

The first flower of this New Age of Government For Sale has bloomed: Rupert Murdoch handed over a cool million to the Republican Party.

"The contribution from Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and other news outlets, is one of the biggest ever given by a media organization, campaign finance experts said." Read the full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/us/politics/18donate.html?ref=media

To put things in perspective, every time Mr. Murdoch sneezes a couple of million dollars routinely spews out. While this particular donation isn't the biggest given by a media group, it does seem to be the first under the new rules, which makes it newsworthy.

Especially for News Corp outlets. How will Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, WSJ, etc. report this one?