ICC Arrest Warrants are a Joke, Part II

Last week, I wrote that the arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Gadhafi was a joke because there was no way to enforce it.  Today, another blow was dealt to international justice.  Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir traveled to China for a visit, mainly to sign business deals, and China refused to arrest him despite having an ICC bounty on his head.  Now, China is not member of the ICC, neither is the U.S., but most thought it was appropriate the warrant still be respected.  Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said the following:

"There is duty and responsibility on the part of every country, including China, to assist the court in bringing to justice individuals who have been indicted," Pillay told a news conference.
"So I think it's disappointing when states do not deliver on this responsibility. In this particular case there was an opportunity to ensure that Mr Bashir is enabled to stand trial. The whole world favours trial."

Not to say that all non-ICC states would have acted this way.  If Bashir traveled to the U.S., for instance, he certainly would be handed over.  But in the world of international law everything is optional.  States have interests and will make decisions about which laws apply depending on those interests.  In this case, China gets lots of oil from Sudan.  Unless nations are accountable for not upholding or at least recognizing these statutes, then the laws and institutions are useless.  

Photo Credit: Voice of America

Misplaced Ideology and Philosophy Debate

This conversation was a good one about understanding political philosophy in the modern world.  I have a tendency to say that since no one really fits one paradigm of philosophical thinking completely, for example no one says this they oppose a bill because it is against the John Stuart Mill philosophy of liberty or Ayn Rand's concept pursuing self interest, then the practical use for these debate is a bit far removed from really policymaking.  In fact pragmatism and reacting to live situations is what determines our decision making process.  We are influenced by philosophy, but not solely guided by it.

However, philosophy and ideology can be misappropriated or not applied in the right way.  My biggest criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget was how the concept was presented.  He basically said, we are on the brink of disaster and something must be done now. Although, it was a conservative proposal, and he was angry when liberals rejected it.  Ryan presented his plan as purely a numbers game and tried to transcend the debate about what a government should do.  If you try to do a voucher system for Medicare, despite how many red flags you put up about the system going bankrupt, eventually someone will disagree with you because they fundamentally believe the government should provide a health insurance to the elderly.

The debt talks are the same way.  We are just approaching this from a numbers point of view.  Unless we sit down and define what a government should and should not provide for its citizens, then we have a framework for talking about this.  I know Republicans and Democrats have very different answers to what the government should do, but you might be surprised at what commonalities each side has.

T-Paw's Hard Edged Foreign Policy

While the rest of the country was focused on Michele Bachmann's latest jump in the polls, Tim Pawlenty gave a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations about his foreign policy stances.  I was disappointed that it only covered the Arab Spring and not other topics, a good U.S./China relations discussion or North Korea debate is always refreshing.  It was the typical rhetoric you expect from a GOP nominee.  He used the word "freedom" so many times Ronald Reagan would have an orgasm.

His big focus was on helping those who are protesting and seek freedom.  I have no objection to that.  If there is a way to help protesters to exert change, outside of regime change or picking the party we want to get in power, than I am all for it.  However, Pawlenty's speech is just unrealistic.  It always sounds to good to imply that you would never work with regimes hostile to freedom, but you have to at some point.  In fact, if you want to look out of the states interest, which is what the realist platform advocates, then you must negotiate to not stand in the way of those interests.

The other big problem is his, quite frankly stupid, statement about Israel/Palestine not being key to region.  Tell that to Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan or any other country/party that has been marred by wars and problems from this conflict in the last 60 years.  The peace process has nothing to with the "Arab Spring," but it does have to do with anger towards the U.S. for supporting Israel at every turn.  By the way those settlements he and Sarah Palin always blow off are the reason a resolution can't be found to the conflict. He did not mention Yemen, Pakistan, or Afghanistan.  Hearing his views on the secret drone wars in Yemen and Pakistan would provide a context for the U.S.'s role as a global policeman.

In the end, Pawlenty is appealing to the old fashion Cold Warriors and the Bush interventionists who are still believers in these absolutist policies.  I am not sure what value that has in 2012 election where that type of talk is hated on both sides.  Nevertheless, he does see an opening, and he plans to grab it.  It also gives him a chance to knock other GOP contenders who are running towards a more "stay out of the way" methodology.  Pawlenty certainly hit the field pretty hard with his remarks.  My point is that it makes a good campaign speech, but its bad practical policy and so far removed from real policy making that it almost becomes a joke.

Photo Credit: Politico

The War Between NATO, the U.N., and Congress

With two attempted failed resolutions to end the war in Libya (or whatever we are calling it), there is another debate brewing that is not necessarily about the War Powers Act, which stipulates the president can authorize war if he sends it to congress 60-90 days after.  It is about the conduct of international organizations usurping the authority of congress.  The original "No Fly Zone" over Libya went through the U.N. Security Council, and passed.  Operation "Odyssey Dawn" was the passed on to NATO.  The need for this is so the international community can come together effectively without consulting each legislative body in their respective country and so, theoretically, the world can work as one.

With the GOP's majority in the house, large gains in the senate, and the anti-war Democrats coming out with a strong voice, the value of international intervention is being questioned.  The question then posed is: Who ranks higher in authority to declare war, congress or an international organization?  Could Obama start, or continue, a dangerous trend whereby American presidents use international organizations to justify there means of action?  George W. Bush tried unsuccessfully in Iraq, but his father was successful in the Gulf War.  Certainly dealing with politics on the international level, where diplomats are not elected, makes it much easier to authorize force.

Being a committed believer in the international system, I do wonder whether this argument about Libya is really about the War Power's Act or, what I think might be the real motivation, the erosion of sovereignty these representatives and senators feel is happening by staring a war through the greater influence of international organizations?

The IMF Proves Life is Unfair

It is widely expected that former French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde will be voted in as the next head of the International Monetary Fund.  After Dominique Strauss-Kahn's attempted sexual assault charges brought him down, the latest talk was how this would impact the IMF and, more importantly, was it time for a change at the helm for the organization?  Every sitting president of the IMF has been a European, just like every president of the World Bank has been an American.  Its not written in the rules that this is the case, but the general "gentlemen's agreement" between the U.S. and Europe after the Bretton Woods conference has made this so.

Some thought this was the time when developing economies, such as Brazil, China, and Russia, would attempt to reverse this trend.  After all, they are the future of the global economy.  The European countries greatly disagreed with this logic.  In their minds, the E.U. is going through a major crisis in confidence with Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and possibly Spain, running into crushing debt trouble they believed a European was best to handle the situation to a European problem.  Despite balking from the developing world that a refreshing look was necessary, Lagarde will probably win.

Her opponent was Agustin Carstens, the head of Mexico's central bank and former Mexican Finance Minister, he looks very qualified.  Many see him as a very gifted economist with a knack for getting countries out of trouble, like Argentina in the late 1990s and Mexico today.  The main criticism leveled at him is that he studied at the University of Chicago, home of famed free market economist Milton Friedman.  Although he does have a belief in free markets, Carstens is not completely opposed to regulations, he advocated for tighter regulation on Mexico's banks in 2009 and said Brazil should have tight regulation of foreign capital.

Alas, both Lagarde and Carstens would be good candidates for the position.  They both are qualified to run the institution in a time of crisis.  However, the debate is not really about the candidates.  Rather, it is about power exerted by the U.S. and Europe.  The U.S. holds 17% of the vote and the European countries have 47%.  U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner threw his support behind Lagarde this morning.  With both support the U.S. and Europe she is on a sure path to victory.

The main problem is that the developed world does not vote in lockstep.  We talk about them as one group of nations, but they do not have a united coalition.  Even so, Brazil, Mexico, and Russia all supported Carstens, but Russia will switch its vote to Lagarde later today.  China, the anchor of the this loose coalition also pandered to both candidates and would wait until the U.S. and Europe decided before announcing its position.  In the end, no one wants to stand up to the U.S. or Europe.  With growth trends leading away from the West and towards the South and East, they can never exercise their power because the international system is rigged towards a post-World War II way of thinking.  Reform is not bound to happen because the U.S. and Europe do not want to give up that power they've had for so long.

This race is more than nominating an IMF Chief, its about power and the politics of institutional inequality.  Its proof that if you make the system, you win, but if you just become a new player, no matter how hard you work, you will always lose.  Who knew the U.S., touting its values of upward mobility, would take part in such a system of old, European aristocratic rule.  I guess the U.S. sees it more like Orwell's paraphrased final words in Animal Farm, "All countries are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Photo Credit: Google Images

The ICC's Latest Joke Arrest Warrant

Today, it was announced that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Muammar Gadhafi and for his two top aids, one of which happens to be his son Seif al-Islam.  The charge, crimes against humanity.  Of course, this means very little.  The ICC has no way of arrest the G-man or his family.  Maybe someday the U.N. will hire a police force.  In response, Gadhafi just laughed it off and the regime continued to call the court biased only towards African regimes.

In a sense, Gadhafi's group is right.  It is hard to ever imagine the ICC ever persecuting a U.S. president, even if evidence of genocide ever existed.  Plus, the ICC can only prosecute "member states."  Meaning, each country has to ratify the treaty in support the court, which the U.S. failed to do under Presidents Clinton and Bush.  Currently, the other major "man at large" on the ICC's arrest warrant list is Omar Al-Bashir, the president of Sudan (after July just Northern Sudan) for ordering massive killings in Darfur.  As long as Bashir only travels to safe, ally countries, he will never face arrest and neither will Gadhafi.

It was one thing when the ICC went after leaders who were out of power.  Now, the credibility of this well intended organization is very much up in the air.  Let's face it, unless there is an enforcement mechanism, the only arrests the ICC will get of any arrogant, genocidal dictator is if they walk into the Hague and turn themselves in.  Finally, why has the ICC not gone after other brutal dictators not in Africa?  Why has Bashar al-Assad of Syria not been arrested?  Kim Jong Ill also appears to be a good candidate for arrest?  Come to think of it China and Russia have some pretty terrible human rights records, why are those cases not on the docket?

My point is that the ICC really loses legitimacy when it cannot arrest leaders and has a fluid view of human rights violations.  It does not need to be this way.  The World Trade Organization tries economic cases all the time and nations, usually, go to trial and comply.  If only the ICC had that type of power.  To be sure, all the leaders tried at the U.N. criminal tribunals certainly deserve punishment, but unless there is reform the ICC will always be the biggest joke of all the multilateral forums.

Photo Credit: Daily Nation

Weekend Review: June 25

Weekend Review: June 25

Graph of the Day: Obama/Bush Troop Level Comparison

Matt Yglesias posted this on his blog earlier today.   It gives you a good idea of what the troop levels look like with real numbers:

The New Way To Declare War?

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer outlines a good point about all the balking on Libya:

Problem is: No one declares war anymore. Since World War II, we’ve been involved in five major wars, and many minor engagements, without ever declaring war. But it’s not just us. No one does. Declarations of war are a relic of a more aristocratic era, a time when, for example, an American secretary of state closed his department’s code-cracking office because “gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.” The power to declare war has become, through no fault of anyone, archaic and obsolete. Taken literally, it is as useless as granting Congress the right to regulate horse-and-buggies.

So, he proposes this solution:

 First, formalize the recent tradition of resolutions (Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq) authorizing the initiation of war, recognizing them as the functional equivalent of a declaration of war.Second, establish special procedures for operations requiring immediacy and surprise, for example, notification of the House speaker, Senate majority leader and their opposition counterparts, in secret if necessary.Third, in such cases, require retroactive authorization by the full Congress within an agreed period — but without any further congressional involvement (contra the War Powers Resolution). The Constitution’s original grant of power to Congress was for a one-time authorization, with no further congressional constraint on executive war-making except, of course, through the power of the purse.

No One Was Pleased But Him

I think the president gave a pretty strong performance in his Afghanistan speech.  He did not stumble, and he projected strong language.  Still, his plan was typical Obama.  He wants to draw down slowly with an increment of 10,000 troops first and bring the rest of the surge troops home by next July.  2014 will be the final withdrawal date, not surprising because NATO made commitments until 2014, and we are NATO.

In the end, Afghanistan is not a winnable situation.  President Hamid Karzai is corrupt, Pakistan is an unreliable ally, it is impossible to eliminate all Al-Qaeda's presence, and reports show that aid to the country is a failure, with all that the deck is stacked against the administration.  Added onto the war weariness (56% of the public wants to leave) and parts of both political factions calling for withdrawal, the president is trapped.  The slow withdrawal is just delaying the inevitable.  There was a time when the slow decrease in troops was politically the best option, but now it just appears to be a cop out.

Tonight, the president gave the speech everyone thought he would give.  The problem, nobody wanted that speech.  The dream for both sides was for the president to call for immediate withdrawal of all troops and shift towards a secret counter terrorism strategy, similar to Yemen or Pakistan, than continuing the counter-insurgency strategy, which requires nation building.  I'm not even convinced that speech would please the right, who would hate the speech no matter what.  It was a night to please no one except himself and for that I say "Mission Accomplished."

Photo Credit: Globe and Mail

Good Compromise

After bashing Tom Friedman's plan for Israel-Palestine the other day, I think he deserves a little recognition.  His column today matches my political beliefs pretty well:

The truth is, we need to do four things at once if we have any hope of maintaining American greatness: We need more stimulus to keep the economy from slipping back into recession. But we need to combine that stimulus with a credible, legislated, long-term plan for cutting spending and getting the deficit under control — e.g., the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction plan. And we need to raise new revenues in order to reinvest in the sources of our strength: education, infrastructure and government-funded research to push out the boundaries of knowledge.

What Gay Marriage and Afghanistan Have in Common?

The answer to the implied question for the title of this post is the president's unwillingness to commit to a strategy and stick with it.  Tonight, President Obama will address the nation on Afghanistan for what most anticipate to be a speech about a drawdown of troops, and maybe, a move towards counter-terrorism operations instead of counter-insurgency.  Later, the president will address a group of gay and lesbian activists in New York for a fundraiser. New York state is just one vote shy of becoming official for endorsing same sex marriage. Sadly, the president is still "evolving" on the issue.

"Evolving," "Leading from behind," and "Compromise" are all phrases I would use to describe the Obama administration's over-cautious demeanor.  There is nothing wrong with making careful decision, but every issue is the same.  He needs to be a leader.  I want to challenge the president to be more like the Republican candidates for president, not in the sense that he needs to support their ideas, but he should speak with conviction and certainty on a topic.  I challenge the president to say tonight on Afghanistan "This is the way its going to happen" and leave no room for questioning.  Same thing on gay marriage, he should just come out in support of the issue - bam he's in the history books.

I'm convinced that if the economy does not cause him to lose the 2012 election, his lack of assertiveness might.  With two strong speeches, he can change all that.  Not very often in politics does that happen.

The Non-emotional Candidate

Former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman sure has the resume to be the president of the U.S.  The media also fawn over his every move, despite their pessimism about his chances of winning a job at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  During his announcement today, he appeared poised, well spoken, calm, rational, civil, and ready for business.  Running as the left-center Republican, however that is defined, he will try to woo the moderates and establishment poobahs of his party he is the chosen one.

Besides having strong foreign policy experience, Huntsman's biggest advantage, and his biggest weakness, will be his inability to show emotion.  Huntsman is just like President Obama.  He is cerebral and thoughtful, but does not get worked up like Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin.  That will be difficult when he needs to show he is angry about the economy like the "regular Americans."  He might be a common man, but he does not connect with the common man.  With his stellar suit, million dollar smile, and good looking (not creepy) family no one will believe he understands the pitfalls of the everyday working Joe.  I fear that if he even tries to sound angry, it will come off as fake and scripted just as Obama does.  

The man from Utah might have tried to play himself off like the Gipper from California, but he is far from great communicator.  Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan all understood how to feel pain, or at least act like they did.  Obama won in 2008 as the anti-George Bush.  Candidate Obama was an intellectual with a pragmatic liberal attitude.  The country was in the mood for that drastic change.  The country likes drastic changes and two distinguishable candidates.  Would the Republicans really nominate someone with the same demeanor as Obama who can't show anger?  Just ask Old H.W. and Bob Dole how the men with elitist credentials plays against smooth talking every day guys.  

Photo Credit: Politico 

My Opposition to John Bolton

The former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is thinking about getting into the race for the presidency.  I do not take his candidacy very seriously.  The main reason is because he does not have the groundwork to win a campaign.  Bolton's only line is that he has executive experience and foreign policy experience.  In an interview for the National Review he says:

“I have more experience in the executive branch of the federal government — which is what the presidential candidates are running to head — than anybody in the field, or those likely to get into the field,” he asserts. “There are members of Congress, but they have never been in the executive branch. And there is a huge difference — a huge difference — between being a member of Congress and being president.” President Obama, he insists, is “proof positive.”

Yes, being a governor or a vice president makes a difference in your decision making power.  But, Bolton has never held an elected public office, only diplomatic type positions in which the people cannot vote you in or out.  Frankly, being in the executive branch does not always make you a better president.  Lyndon Johnson, whether you agree with his policies or not, was very well accomplished because he understood how congress worked.  In the end, I think being a strong leader matters more than just being in the executive branch.

Beyond his foreign policy knowledge, Bolton is pretty much the same as all other GOP candidates.  These are some of this domestic policy views:

Turning to domestic issues, Bolton tells me that he is pro-life. “I think that Ronald Reagan had it right, being against abortion except in certain limited, defined circumstances,” he says. On fiscal issues, he is an avowed hawk who fully supports Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget. “It is important that we are prepared to defend it, even if that is not ultimately the adopted plan,” he says. “It does not change for anyone 55 and older, but I honestly wish it did, that we could go further than that.”

Judging from these stances, I would say he is just a run of the mill conservative.  There is hardly anything unique about being pro-life or supporting the Ryan budget in the Republican Party.  On foreign policy, Bolton is what I would call a Henry Kissinger realist:

Foreign policy, though, remains Bolton’s bailiwick. He remains a strong supporter of the military effort in Afghanistan. He is also frustrated with recent GOP primary chatter. “We should not be seduced by momentary swings in public opinion,” he warns. “It has been a rock of conservative policy that we protect the national interest, whether it’s popular or unpopular. If we deviate from that, just because it’s politically opportune to do so, we are really making a mistake.

I hate to burst his bubble, but when you are a president, and your concern is getting re-elected, public opinion matters in everything you do.  Only diplomats can get away with cold, calculated realist talk.  Finally, Bolton attacks Obama's ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman:

What about Jon Huntsman? The former Utah governor recently served as ambassador to China. If Bolton is not on that stage, maybe he could be aneffective foreign-policy foil. Bolton scowls at the thought. “I continue to believe in the Eleventh Commandment,” he says, referring to Ronald Reagan’s maxim not to criticize fellow Republicans. “But I will say this, unequivocally: I would not work in Barack Obama’s administration.”Bolton wonders why Huntsman, if he is a conservative, decided to accept the president’s appointment. “There is no patriotic obligation to help advance the career of a politician who is otherwise pursuing interests that are fundamentally antithetical to your values. That’s not the call of patriotism,” he says. “I don’t understand it. This is not like World War II, when we are facing an existential threat to the country as a whole, and you do put partisanship aside.” 

Sadly, reaching across the aisle and working with someone you do not like is how Washington works.  Serving your country in any capacity makes one a patriot in my eyes.  To win moderate GOP voters, Bolton will need to show some flexibility.  Huntsman is more the foil to Bolton as a moderate than as the other guy with foreign policy experience.

In my view, Bolton is great primary candidate who can win the Goldwater, a man whom he campaigned for, style Republicans, but he does not have the libertarian chops to win the Tea Party and the social conservatives are anyone's guess.  Even if he does win, courting independents will be his big problem.  Politically, Bolton is about on the same level as Herman Cain or Donald Trump.  He has never been elected to public office, never faced a constituency, does not think before he speaks, and has no clue about operating a political campaign.  His campaign will go nowhere.

Photo Credit: Google Images

Breaking Reputations on World Refugee Day

The U.N. High Commission on Refugees issued a big report today in honor of World Refugee Day.  Two findings struck me from the report.  First, Afghanistan and Iraq still have considerable amounts of refugees leaving the country.  The Guardian reports:

The main reason cited for the drop was the number of Afghans returning home. But after 30 years of almost continuous war, it is still the leading country of origin for refugees, generating 30% of the global total. Iraqis make up the second largest group with 1.7 million people.However over the last decade there has been a dramatic fall in the number of refugees from sub-Saharan Africa, falling by 1.2 million from the start of the millennium.

Although the global number is up to 43.7 million refugees and displaced people, not counting all those, well, are waiting to be counted.  With that factor, the number is much higher.  I'ts like how the unemployment rate for the U.S. is 9.1%, but that only counts those looking for a job and on unemployment.  It does not count those who have stopped looking for work.  Meaning the number is much higher.  I know that Afghanistan and Iraq are places of conflict, and one would expect those places to be high, but does it reflect the nature of political stability within the country?  If you thought conditions were going to get better, wouldn't you stay?

The other finding of the day from this report was how inflated the imagined number on refugees going to developed versus developing countries is.  80% of the world's refugee go to developing countries.  Pakistan has the most with 1.9 million.  Germany has the most for a developed country, coming in fourth place, with 594,000.  If you think about it, this makes sense.  Most people who are in places of conflict will probably go to a developing country for two reasons.  First, the border access point is much easier.  Second, most developing countries are next to other developing nations.

Now, refugees leave not just for reasons relating to war, but also for changing climate patterns, lack of resources, government corruption, economic reasons, etc.  Solving a whole refugee crisis requires much more than ending violence, it also requires external and internal changes to human behavior plus systemic change.  None of which the world has the total capacity to change.  In that sense, a refugee crisis is about as solvable as the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs.

Photo Credit: Globe and Mail

Jon Stewart vs. Chris Wallace

After watching this interview a couple of times, it becomes clear that what could have been a strong conversation about media bias turned into a defacto shouting match.  Fox News Sunday host, Chris Wallace, would ask Jon Stewart if the mainstream media had a liberal bias then Stewart would respond by saying it was a bias towards sensationalism and finding people to hate, but it was not the same type of political bias exhibited by Fox News.

To an extent, I agree with Stewart.  The media is about sensationalism and finding an enemy.  However, I do think there is an actual liberal bias in the mainstream media.  Its hard not to compare the coverage of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama without noticing a difference.  In a way, AM right wing talk radio was born as a reaction to this bias.  The only problem is, Fox News did not help the situation.  Most people recognize the Fox has a conservative bias.  Anyone who buys the "Fair and Balanced" claim is a bit delusional in their thinking.

My problem with Fox is how they decided to counteract the problem of left wing media bias.  Instead of providing a news network that was free of bias, they just decided to offer a conservative slant on the news.  That did not really solve the problem, it just added to the bias that already existed.

The other problem with these types of conversations is they never go anywhere.  If one station or pundit says the other is bias the response is a childish "Nuh uh!"  Then the conversation just ends there.  Sunday's exchange was no exception.

I also wonder how many people who are conservatives believe there is a liberal bias in NPR or the New York Times but just say that dogmatically without really listening to NPR or reading the New York Times?  Same with liberals and Fox?  My point here is not that media bias doesn't exist, but rather, that people do not investigate on their own or are willing to listen to other stations for information.  They would rather just accept that because Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann says one station is bias it must be so.  That is also where this reactionary attitude to create alternative sources like the Huffington Post or Drudge Report comes from.  In the end, just finding ways to weed out bias would be better than creating a reactionary television or radio station, but I guess this business will never learn.

One last question, if there was a conservative Jon Stewart would the right feel better and less attacked?  Is having a conservative version of the Daily Show even possible?

Tom Friedman's Fantasy Plan for Israel-Palestine

Thomas Friedman believes himself to be a man of genius in his latest column for the New York Times on the Israel Palestine crisis, when I question in what universe this would work.  In September, the Palestinians plan to go before the U.N. to approve statehood unilaterally.  Like most, Friedman sees this to be a pointless proposition, since it will just split the international community and force the main arbitrator the on and off talks between the two parties, the U.S., to vote no.  So, to counteract, Friedman recommends this plan:

If the Palestinians want to take this whole problem back to where it started — the U.N. — I say let’s do it. But let’s think much bigger and with more imagination. On Nov. 29, 1947, the U.N. passed General Assembly Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine into two homes for two peoples — described as “Independent Arab and Jewish States.” This is important. That is exactly how Resolution 181 described the desired outcome of partition: an “Arab” state next to a “Jewish” state. So why don’t we just update Resolution 181 and take it through the more prestigious Security Council? It could be a simple new U.N. resolution: “This body reaffirms that the area of historic Palestine should be divided into two homes for two peoples — a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The dividing line should be based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed border adjustments and security arrangements for both sides. This body recognizes the Palestinian state as a member of the General Assembly and urges both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve all the other outstanding issues.” Very simple. Each side would get something vital provided it gives the other what it wants. The Palestinians would gain recognition of statehood and U.N. membership, within provisional boundaries, with Israel and America voting in favor. And the Israelis would get formal U.N. recognition as a Jewish state — with the Palestinians and Arabs voting in favor.

In essence, Friedman's plan is to just re-write the original U.N. declaration as voted on by the U.N. Security Council so two states are formed, an Arab and an Israeli state, with all the other topics hammered out during later discussions.

Besides the fact that changing these documents is extremely difficult, Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. would never go for this plan for several reasons.  First, with the current coalition government of Hamas and Fatah, Israel will not start a new negotiating strategy until Hamas, which does not recognize Israel as a legitimate state, is out of the picture.  Second, Israel will never work within the 1967 borders, case closed.  Third, the U.S. wants these talks hammered out bilaterally, and probably does not want other nations throwing their weight around in the matter.  Fourth, the Israeli settlement issue has not been resolved, and that is the reason the negotiations break down every time.  I hardly call that a sideline negotiating issue.  Finally, Israel hates working through the U.N.  Israel will just see it as a way for other countries to bash it.

Look, the whole reason the Palestinian Authority is pursing the unilateral declaration is to gain pride in their cause and show that they have international support.  Wars and violent protest have been fought over this topic.  Meaning, the Palestinians feel like victims in the status quo.  Does Friedman really think signing a declaration that will make the PA concede from starting gate will look appetizing to them?  Its pretty silly when you think about it!  

Week End Review

This week I talk about frustration with the Obama administration on the right and left, the GOP NH debate, big Washington interests lose ground, and Libya.

My Podcast on Anthony Weiner

I present my podcast on "Weinergate."

Independent Internationalist Radio Show on Location

The topics on this are old, but I discuss my trip from India.  With computer trouble, I could not upload it earlier. I also talk about Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Obama's Middle East policy.  Next time, I will do some editing and add music!

Jon Huntsman Talks Afghanistan and Libya

In an exclusive interview with Esquire Magazine, Former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, discusses his positions on Afghanistan and Libya.  On Afghanistan Huntsman stated:

"If you can't define a winning exit strategy for the American people, where we somehow come out ahead, then we're wasting our money, and we're wasting our strategic resources," Huntsman told Esquire as part of a long profile in its August issue. "It's a tribal state, and it always will be. Whether we like it or not, whenever we withdraw from Afghanistan, whether it's now or years from now, we'll have an incendiary situation... Should we stay and play traffic cop? I don't think that serves our strategic interests."

Huntsman continues with a criticism of Libya:

Huntsman also said that he wouldn't have intervened in Libya — "We just can't afford it" — and would seek to make serious cuts in the military's budget. "If you can't find anything there to cut, you're not looking hard enough."

Huntsman must win the Tea Party and moderate Republicans in order to take the nomination.  Sadly, due to his Mormonism, it will be very difficult for him to take the social conservate/evangelical vote of the party. 

Who Ya' Gonna Call?



The trend Herman Cain started in the first debate, that is starting to catch on, is the notion that deferrence to another source is always the most reliable way to solve a foreign policy quagmire, such as Afghanistan.  In particular, presidents always want to defer to generals and the military for advice on the ground.  Usually, the answer the top generals will say is "give us more resources and time."  Is that a shock to anyone?  To me, it is like asking the owner of a large corporation what they want to pay in taxes.  The answer will always be zero. 

In one sense, this is the most honest answer.  Presidential candidates always fall into the trap of promising big plans and then, when reality sets in, they my change course.  President Obama fell into this trap in 2008.  He called for troop withdrawal.  When he got into office, it turned into troop escalation.  The need for caution and not disappointing is necessary to ensure a possible re-election. Let's also not forget that most presidential candidates have little foreign policy experience.  Meaning, they will defer as a cop out answer.

Although, is deferring to the military brass really the best policy?  The conventional wisdom says yes, but there are other compelling reasons not to do this.  First, as I mentioned above, the military usually wants escalation.  Second, most military generals are not politically held accountable, the president will be.  Finally, regional experts in the State Department have a better idea about politics and culture in the region for a better understanding about whether certain operations will be successful in the end.  To put it simply, if the country is not responsive, military action will not pacify it. Now, this is not to say that the military is not the best at what it does or should not be consulted, but putting so much weight on just their input does not always make the situation better.

I would think the Tea Party/Libertarian/We the People/Republican answer now would be to say congress will decide the next step.  After all, congress is the "will of the people" in action.  It also couples nicely with the current Libya critism thwarted at Obama, which is that he should have consulted congress before continuing with the mission.  The reason, most likely, this answer does not gain much traction is due to the fact that presidents like more latitude in foreign policy and congress likes political expediency.  Therefore, giving congress more consulting power may not be the best solution to the problem. 

In the end, nothing is perfect.  Flawed intelligence capabilities, political dynamics, the military industrial complex, and conditions on the ground decide military intervention practices.  I just think deferring to one group as the "high experts" makes them seem infallible and the only consulting body, when in reality, that is further from the truth. 

Photo Credit: Google Images

Morning Memo: Wednesday, June 15

Good Morning!

Mitt Romney looks like Ken doll

Top Topics:

Foreign Policy:
- President Obama visits Puerto Rico
- GOP sings a different tune on Foreign policy
- Boehner sends Obama a letter about the Libyan intervention
- U.S. has concerns about connections between Al-Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia
- Military increases airstrikes in Yemen
- Meet the new commander in Afghanistan
- Gates predicts congress will side with Obama on Afghanistan plan
- $649 billion approved defense spending backed by House panel
- Romney's confusing Afghanistan statement

Politics:
- Bachmann comes out strong after debate
- Obama must be jobcentric for 2012
- Sen. Tom Coburn - the agitator of the senate?
- Federal Court upholds Prop. 8 ruling
- Romney heads to California for fundraising
- Bernake calls for an end to politics on debt ceiling
- July 4 new deadline for debt ceiling agreement to be written

Figures of Note:





Opinions of Note:

Eugene Robinson discusses Romney's predicament

Todd Graham offers debate analysis

David Brooks protests covering this next election cycle- but will anyway

My First Thought: The Foreign Policy Shift

I will confess now, I did not see the foreign policy section of the debate.  I was busy working on some computer issues.  Although, from the statements I have been reading, it was the most exciting part of the debate.  Most are talking about the change in tone with the GOP.  Suddenly, the Bush-era nation building strategy is out and good ole' fashion neoisolationism is back in!  The trend is not surprising.  People are mad that the economy is in bad shape + the war has been going on for ten years = a political opportunity for the right.  Attacking the war is not a new strategy.  The Democrats did it in 2006 and 2008 with great success.  Republicans have also attacked Democrats for past positions on needless intervention, remember the attacks on Clinton about Somalia  and Balkans nation building?

Foreign policy has more wiggle room now than it ever did. The truth is, both parties have shifted significantly on military action in foreign lands.  At different points, both parties become the "interventionist party."  Right now, the Democrats are it.  My take is that no person can say he or she would not intervene in a scenario.  Lots of problems come up during a presidency that could require the use of U.S. intervention.  Unlike the economy, interventionist foreign policy is not unique to any one party.  So therefore, the shift makes it a very fluid political topic with a potential win for Republicans and a pain in the side for Democrats.  That would be irony, if Obama lost the election on one of the very issues he was elected to change.

Photo Credit: Rolling Stone

Figures from Gallup and the Economist

What Cane We Learn From "Gay Girl in Damascus?"

After several days of searching for the imprisoned "Gay Girl in Damascus," who was jailed on June 6, the world finally figured out her identity.  It turns out, the girl was not a girl, but an American academic from Georgia.  His name is Tom MacMaster, and he is a graduate student at the University of Edinburgh in Scottland, or that is what the record shows.  MacMaster claimed to make up the story of a girl who was from Syria during the protests to have a medium to show western audiences. 

Besides the obvious anger of portraying a person in a crisis situation, what should people take away from this story?  First, never believe everything you read online.  Especially from a blog.  Blogs are places of opinion, not news.  People make up facts, figures, and stories just to get attention.  In a world where everyone is seeking that Twitter moment of fame to try and to be the next Andrew Sullivan or Ezra Klein, we must remember that in order to achieve that level people will say anything to break news or spark controversy.  

Second, these types of stories can certainly be good to explain situations on the ground, if they are written in fiction form!  So, why not write in fiction form?  The answer is attention.  After Greg Mortenson, the author of  Three Cups of Tea and an inspirational philanthropist who claimed to set up many schools in Pakistan, was actually a fraud.  James Frey, author of A Million Little Pieces, who talked about his harrowing journey from addiction to recovery was also proven a huckster.  NPR had a great story on this topic a while back.  It stated that memoirs embellish to sell and authors do it for fame.  Having an exciting memoir or making up a life story is much better than just writing another run-of-the-mill fiction piece.  

Although, one question I do want to pose.  Is "Gay Girl in Damascus" really that different from a Dear Abbey type column, where the person could be anybody?  Does changing the identity to get attention hurt anyone?  I am not saying we should all develop cool pen names and make up news.  What I am saying is that we buy alias names all the time for other types of work and the story is not that much less meaningful despite our knowledge.  

Alas, in the end, this will go down as another bad rap for the internet and blogging, just as Anthony Weiner gave a bad rap to Twitter or Chris Hanson to Myspace.  

Problems with Global Health Statistics

I saw this stat on Twitter from the U.N.: 15% of the world's population has a disorder.  That sounds daunting.  15% of 6 billion is no small number, but after you breakdown the term disability, it appears a little less great.  The U.N.'s website defines disability this way:

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) defines disability as an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions. Disability is the interaction between individuals with a health condition (e.g. cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and depression) and personal and environmental factors (e.g. negative attitudes, inaccessible transportation and public buildings, and limited social supports).

The word "disability" encompasses so much from severe forms of autism to bouts of anxiety and depression to strong and weak physical ailments.  Not to say that all of those are not bad things.  Everyone should have the opportunity to receive treatment for these disorders, but statistics like this can slightly distort the picture of what people are giving money for or put make the ability to fight these problems so wide that nothing gets accomplished.  Wouldn't it be better, from a policy perspective, to focus on more severe cases of "disability" first rather than one lump some?

So, when reports come out about the war on drugs being a failure or rebuilding entire nations from a destructive war is not going anywhere, could that be because the U.S., and the international community, has made to broad of a focus that any gains made in the effort look small.  Face it, its much easier to just eradicate heroin or polio than stopping all drugs or all disease.  Now, this is not to say that other factors prevent these broad policies from being successful, that is certainly the case.  But narrowing the definition just might make a difference in terms of success rates.

The Reasonable Person Standard in Politics

I was once told by a wise lawyer that to determine if a person was at fault in a crime, one to ask the basic question: What would a reasonable person do in this instance?  Thus, standard is formed for the law to follow whereby a conceptual "reasonable person" exists to apply a law.  I wonder if the same standard can apply to politics?

Let me explain.  Beyond what the pundits and pollsters determine to be what the average American believes, usually it leans towards one side or another depending on the news channel or newspaper, I think it is safe to say that no human being is defined by one party ideology or another.  Only entertaining news analysts do this to, well, energize the public.  It helps that ratings create an incentive to be vitriolic.  Most Americans probably hold some liberal beliefs and some conservative beliefs, I certainly do.  Now, that is not to say that I am a "moderate" or a "centrist" in the traditional sense of the term.  On the contrary, I lean more liberal in my views.

You see, there are two types of liberals and two types of conservatives.  There are MSNBC liberals who are rabid, and only tote the party line because they feel obligated to do so.  Then, there are the NPR liberals, who  are quite, tame, and nuanced in their demeanor.  Certainly, everyone can agree that there is a definite tone difference between The Ed Show and All Things Considered.  The latter category is where I put myself.  On the other side, there are the Fox News conservatives and the National Review conservatives, one is more pugnacious and the other more thought provoking.

Putting aside those people who lye on the fringes, not to say their bad people I just do not think they represent the whole chunk of the U.S. politically, the people who will decide the election are those who are the nuanced thinking part of society.  If you apply this standard to presidential politics, you wonder what the "reasonable person" would choose?  He will most likely pick the politician who, no matter what party, acts rational with a willingness to compromise.  The political figure should look presidential and capable to guide the country through rough times.  Most importantly, this person will not buy the all promises of that particular candidate, who they know is just trying to appease their party.  Rather, a "reasonable person" knows that once the candidate gets into office their proposals will be compromising and moderated to fit the congress he is given.

Take President Obama.  During the election, he had soaring rhetoric renouncing the Bush era policies and promised the liberal policies of healthcare reform, education reform, and environmental reform that his base craved.  At the same time, he was a cerebral man who knew that he would need to move towards the center in his actions.  If you do not believe me, read The Audacity of Hope again to understand what I am talking about.  Even before president Obama, candidate Bush was seen as a moderate Republican governor of Texas who was against Nation building in the Balkans and was not a big government conservative.

It turns out, once you get into office, you must tone down your rhetoric and think a bit more practically.  This includes disavowing your previous statements.  Obama adopted the GOP's old healthcare plan, despite what they say now and Bush supported two efforts of nation building and big government reforms.  Clinton was forced to "triangulate" his way through the Republican controlled congress.  Reagan passed a stimulus to put umph into Reaganomics.  The electorate picks in moderation and presidents act in moderation.  Many will disagree with me on this point, depending on your definition of right and left, but I think voters are smart enough to see through the facade of presidential promises, to an extent.

In this world, is a President Romney really that different from a President Obama?  Or a President Pawlenty? Both Romney and Pawlenty, unless Rick Perry jumps in, are the most likely candidate for the GOP nomination.  The other candidates are just funny sideshows.  Both Romney and Pawlenty will act all tough and Republican-like during the campaign, but in the end they will support more center-right proposals with the Democrats in power.  In the end, Obama did not repeal most of the Bush era policies liberals despised, and the next GOP president will have the same amount of luck repealing any of Obama's bills they believe are "Destroying America."

Really, when American politics is broken down this way, the results are pretty disappointing.  If pundits talked about politics this way, the shows would thrill the audience about as much as golf on television does.  Although, if you apply the "reasonable person standard" politics seems a lot less scary.  

Photo Credit: Google Images

Morning Memo: Friday, June 10

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

Foreign Policy:
- U.S. continues secret air campaign in Yemen
- World leaders pledge more aid to Libyan rebels
- Senate readies bill to unfreeze $10 billion in Gadhafi's assets for humanitarian aid
- Reuters story says Clinton in talks to become World Bank president
- Clinton denies Reuters claim
- Gates warns NATO not to rush out of Afghanistan
- New U.N. resolution on Syria will most likely get a Russian and Chinese veto
- A recent report says U.S. War on Drugs is failing
- Panetta confirmation hearings begin

Politics:
- Gingrich's staff resigns
- Gingrich's demise could be Perry's rise
- Gingrich co-chair heads over to Pawlenty's campaign
- 2,200 pages of Palin emails to be released by the State of Alaska
- Debt ceiling talks continue, very slowly
- Pressure increases on Weiner after new X-rated photo surfaces online
- Top Democrats call for Weiner's resignation
- 56% of Weiner's constituents don't want him to resign

Figures of Note:





Opinions of Note:

John Dickerson declares Newt's campaign over

Ann Coulter says liberals have a "mob mentality"

Dana Milbank has low hopes for Afghanistan

Ramesh Ponnuru asks Republicans to consider revamping supply side theory towards the middle class

Videos of Note: A view of Islam



Photo Credit: Google Images

Figures from Gallup and the Economist

Is Increasing Aid to Private Donors Best?

An article in the Nonprofit Quarterly stipulates:

USAID just established the Center of Excellence for International Corporate Volunteerism, developed in conjunction with IBM and the nonprofit CDC Development Solutions, an organization that manages international corporate volunteerism programs. CDS does well in this deal, getting $743,076 from USAID over two years to get the Center’s website up and operational and IBM will kick in $4.1 million in addition to in-kind donations of technology plus 100 volunteer employees. According to CDS 21 major corporations are on tap to send 2,000 employee volunteers overseas this year compared to only six companies that sent 280 employees to volunteer overseas in 2006. One of the benefits of the Center is apparently the ability of corporations to access IBM for its extensive international volunteering expertise. IBM admits that volunteering can lead to business, as happened as a result of its volunteering activity last year in Nigeria. But what is USAID’s agenda? Or the Obama Administration’s? 

Is this a good idea?  Well, it is not hiring out to private firms that are not necessarily that part of the government regulations, but it does raise the question of whose interest is being served: the corporation or the people in the country?  Is it just a gesture of good will in order to get business?  I wonder how long it will last until businesses don't see the profit coming in fast enough and they bail out on the project?  Then, we will better understand their sincerity. 

My Other Life

This summer, I am interning at an organization called Star of Hope International.  The head office is based in Sweden, but the U.S. office is in Ellinwood, Kansas, which is about ten minutes from where I live.  Star of Hope focuses on child sustainability.  This includes providing education, health and wellness information, construction work, and social comfort to various countries.  Our office focuses on Haiti, Argenina, Trinidad and Tabago, Mexico, and other Latin American nations.  My job is grantwriting and miscellaneous office work.  There are about five of us who work in our Ellinwood office and we all love it!

There are two pages you can visit to get a better idea of what SOH does, or if you are interested in making a donation.  The U.S. website is starofhope.org.  The Sweden website is http://www.hoppetsstjarna.se/, the website is in Swedish, but there is a translate to UK English in the top righthand corner of the screen.  The Swedish page describes projects in other parts of the world that the U.S. page does not, but they are both great websites. 

I encourage you to take a look at both of these websites if you get a chance.  Also, I want to add a quick disclaimer.  I am solely responsibile for all the opinions on my blog.  My opinions do not reflect the beliefs of SOH in the U.S. or Sweden.  Throughout the summer, I will post some updates to my blog of the organization, along with my usual opinion pieces I normally post.

Afghanistan is still a Failure

I know most people do not have high hopes for the nation that has been described as the sinkhole of empires, but after this recent report, your confidence will not rise much higher.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee put out an enlightening report detailing how U.S. civilian aid to Afghanistan is not working.  When the president authorized sending 30,000 troops to the region, he also continued a "civilian surge" strategy to accompany the military component.  As part of the counter-insurgency plan (COIN), rooting out the left over remnants of the Taliban would require alleviating poverty.  In the eyes of the beltway, poverty makes you desperate, so you become a terrorist?  I'll get back to this slightly misconstrued point in a second.  The total spent in the last ten years for foreign aid has been approximately $18.8 billion.  This fiscal year, the president is requesting $3.2 billion, which is down from 22% from FY 2010.

The report itself is very intricate in laying out the problems around the U.S.'s concept of foreign aid to Afghanistan.  The first is assumptions.  Remember the whole alleviating poverty stops terrorism argument earlier. The U.S. utilized this fact as gospel.  So, the U.S. developed infrastructure, like building hydroelectric dams, roads, and schools.  The problem is that often power struggles between leaders and groups cause conflict, not an underdeveloped area.  The second problem is the agriculture program.  In total, the U.S. has spent $1.4 billion in various agriculture programs.  One of those was an "agriculture voucher program" that allowed Afghan farmers who planted opium to trade in for a more respectable crop.  While this appears reasonable, the results are mixed.  Many farmers must now sell at market price and they will usually get a surplus of materials, when the demand is not that high this is not good.  Proper storehouses were also not built to keep the surplus, so the crops just died.  As you might imagine, the farmers often went back to selling opium again.

Dispersing aid and the political fallout makes things complicated.  For starters, the State Department and USAID realized they have too much red tape.  This does not produce results quickly.  So, they opted to use more private contractors and what was described in the report as "off budget" spending, meaning it goes to contractors directly instead of through the Afghan government, like all the aid "on budget" does.  Policymakers are in a catch-22 here.  They don't want the regulations that go along with aid, yet they want private contractors to be regulated and adhere to strict standards?  Welcome to Washington!  Although given the choice of a private contractor without strict government oversight or the appropriating it through the corrupt Afghan government, no choice is a good one.

In addition, when the money is provided by congress, it is done on a fiscal cycle.  Depending on the political mood, funds can increase and decrease at congress's discretion.  This gets even worse when politicians demand deadlines to show their constituents tangible results.  Sometimes the money is given to the World Bank for distribution, but if it gets lost there is not a way for the U.S. to audit the World Bank to get the money back.  What is suggested in the report is a separate account not controlled by congress that can all for the funds to be distributed evenly.

Finally, what I feel is the crux of the problem is technical advising.  Technical advisors are hired members of the international community who teach the Afghans civil service jobs.  The advisors are hired through the U.S. government.  They are paid huge salaries and are expensive to maintain.  They also are not well supervised.  This approach was used instead of creating stronger vocational schools in Afghanistan for faster results.  This system leads to massive corruption, allows the advisors to impose their vision or will on the Afghans, and it costs $500,000-1 million annually for just one.  The worst part is, the Afghans are unable to take responsibility for their own country because the advisors do not train them well.

Solutions look bleak for this crisis.  The report recommends revamping the whole system and adding more accountability to the civilian aid programs.  Also, the U.S. should better coordinate with international goals.  Right now, the government wants to pass off the country the local people by 2014.  Does anyone believe this can be done in three years?  This seems even more unlikely when we are approaching the problem like Iraq, which has a completely different political landscape from Afghanistan, and the U.S.'s priorities do not always match reality.  With bad paradigmatic assumptions and even worse political debates, Afghanistan looks to remain a mess.  Maybe it is the graveyard empire after all.

Photo credit: Christian Science Monitor

Morning Memo: Wednesday, June 8

Good Morning!

Wednesday is always a drag...

Top Topics:

Foreign Policy:
- NATO bombs Gadhafi's compound, and he releases a message
- Yemen's president suffers much worse than initially released and Clinton calls for transition
- German Chancellor visits WH
- Merkel gets state dinner
- Germany and U.S. differ on economy
- Obama says Greece default would be disastrous
- Iranian President: U.S. wants to sabotage Pakistan's nuclear facilities

Politics:

-Pawlenty lays out economic plan
-Uneasiness by both parties over Weiner scandal
-Ron Paul raises $1 million attacking Romney
-Romney dodges "homosexuality is a sin" question on TV
-Austin Goolsbee out as economic advisor
-Stocks fall after Bernake's speech

Figures of Note:



Opinions of Note:

Lloyd Greif on Obama's new Israel-Palestine peace strategy

Henry Kissinger lays out his Afghanistan withdrawal strategy

My First Thought: Obama's Stuck

Both Yemen and Syria will not have any relevance in America's foreign policy lexicon anytime soon.  With the current intervention in Libya, the president is tied down and unable to put any force on either nation.  Yesterday, reports came trickling in alerting the people that Yemen's president Saleh is in bad shape after a building his was presiding in was struck by an opposition attack.  About 40% of his face was burned, according to reports.  He is in Saudi Arabia for surgery, and appears to be recovering.  No one know for certain if he will return to power or not, most likely yes.  If he does, there will not be any consequences for his rule.  In Syria, Assad continues to kill his own people and will not reform his government.

Is Libya to blame for this?  I would say no.  Many will disagree.  Here is the issue.  The probability of the U.S. invading at least one country with an autocratic ruler refusing to leave was relatively high.  If it wasn't Libya, then it would have been Syria or Yemen.  No matter what, the U.S. would have been tied down.  Face it, for as good as the American army is, it cannot occupy every country in the Middle East.  Unfortunately, I have a feeling the U.S. will no nothing of value for Yemen or Syria.  Obama will most likely get blamed for his inaction, when he was in a "Catch-22" to start with.  What will happen?  No one knows.  Civil war and bloodbath are probably on the way.  Sadly, all the world can really do is watch in agony.

Photo Credit: ABC News

Figure from the Washington Post

My Thoughts on "Weinergate"

The news has been cluttered the last few days with the constant annoyance of, I disparage the term, "Weinergate."  Rep. Anthony Weiner from New York sent dirty pictures of his male naughty zone and a bizarre webcam shot of him shirtless to about six different women over Twitter.  After claiming to be "hacked" when one of the pictures, which showed no nudity whatsoever, was found by the news he then retracted his earlier statement yesterday in a press conference.  Besides the overly obvious point of him having a last name the same as a certain male anatomy part which went with the scandal, everyone saw this as a teachable moment about the dangers of sex and power, plus the added bonus of social media and sexual deviance.

There is hardly anything original I feel I can add to this story.  Although, I do have a few remarks.  It is tragic that another talented member of congress and good liberal representative, even though I did not agree with him all the time and found him to be too rapacious for my taste, has been damaged.  I'm sure in the next few days the pressure will decide if he stays in office or not.  For any side, Republican or Democrat, these events are never good.  Power and lust never mix well together, especially when lust gets the better of you.

However, I will say this.  Weiner's mischief has given the world a break from all the serious talk we divulge into in our political discourse.  Notice how the debate about raising the debt ceiling is out of sight and out of mind.  Talk of congressional censure over Libya has died down.  The unemployment rate is not part of every other headline.  Right now, the world is in a reprieve. I often wonder if these scandals are more for the world's amusement, not that this story is that amusing, to distract and provide a sanity break between all the infighting.  Certainly this summer will be packed with more debt ceiling debates, Libya brawls, and, soon to come, a fiery feud about the president's upcoming announcement over his new Afghanistan policy.  But, for right now, a sex scandal is happening and the world is not ready for a wonky debate just yet.

Photo Credit: Daily Telegraph

Morning Memo: Tuesday, June 7

Good Morning!

Let's get this party started...

Top Topics:

Rep. Anthony Weiner apologizes

Weiner will not resign

Obama administration is consulting Saudi Arabia about Yemen

After attack kills 5 U.S. soldiers, a new debate flourishes on U.S. involvement in Iraq

Obama announces a significant drawdown announcement in Afghanistan

German Chancellor visits White House today

U.N.'s Ban will seek second term as Secretary General

U.S. condemns Syria in provoking violence at Golan Heights

NATO reiterates, no troops on the ground in Libya \

Rick Santorum is running for president

Sec. of Treasury Geithner might be forced to support European choice to head IMF

Figures of Note:





Opinions of Note:

Christopher Hitchens witty take on the Edwards and Weiner scandals

Jonah Goldberg about moral behavior and Weiner

Videos of Note: Inspirational Video about eradicating Polio



Photo Credit: Politico