THE WORLD IS YOURS

The Information Superhighway

A few words on…information overload

“Data asphyxiation.” “Data smog.” “Information fatigue syndrome.” “Cognitive overload.” “Time famine.” All terms coined to address symptoms of what many experts feel is increasing social unrest and anxiety stemming from “information overload.” Some have argued that living in our instant-access digital age raises may risks, including inciting reductions in creativity, feelings of powerlessness, and loss in productivity.  The Economist argues in this week’s print edition that normative business values have typically made “most companies better at giving employees access to the information superhighway than at teaching them how to drive.” Luckily this is changing. As with Edison’s phonograph, Marconi’s radio and Baird’s television, CERN’s World Wide Web must be utilized with self-discipline and focus.  

Whether one is studying Moore’s law or International Political Economy, empirical evidence will show our global society’s technological growth and development is not likely to slow or waver. The hundreds of millions who have become empowered by accessible and affordable advances in computer technology since the mid-1990’s will never again wish to live in the dark. The often-overwhelming amount of information fueling the digital information age is a product of a healthy market. It does, however, require a more deliberate effort at concentrating on specific content and rationing consumption. Sometimes, it’s simply a matter of knowing when to walk away from one’s laptop, smart phone, or both. 

So what am I trying to say? When you do find yourself under your daily information limit, I thoroughly hope you enjoy these sources of sapience and insight as much as I have come to. An updated everyday reading list for all you fellow foreign policy wonks, political junkies, and erudite capitol hill pundits. When in the course of human history has the individual ever been so self-empowered with regards to access to information?  I urge you to rejoice in this reality with me and acquisitively feast on the following: 

International Politics - Print/Online: 

the daily beast 

wall street journal | world edition 

al jazeera | english 

cnn | international 

reuters | world news 

- - - 

the economist

foreign policy magazine

the diplomat

the atlantic

- - -

council on foreign relations

foreign affairs

International Politics - Blogs:

laura rozen | the envoy

fareed zakaria | cnn global public square

fareed zakaria | washington post

clausewitz | the economist - defense, security and diplomacy

passport | foreign policy magazine - editor’s blog

the cable | foreign policy magazine - inside the foreign policy machine

turtle bay | foreign policy magazine - inside the united nations

the best defense | foreign policy magazine - national security

security | the diplomat

politics | the diplomat

defense | politico

danger room | wired

threat level | wired

- - -

banyan | the economist - asia

baobab | the economist - africa

americas view | the economist - the americas

charlemagne’s notebook | the economist - china and europe

eastern approaches | the economist - ex-communist europe

- - -

marc lynch | foreign policy magazine – abu aardvark on the middle east

the call | foreign policy magazine - ian bremmer on eurasia

the oil and the glory | foreign policy magazine – steven levine on the geopolitics of energy

shadow government | foreign policy magazine -  “notes from the loyal opposition”

stephen walt | foreign policy magazine - “a realist in an ideological age”

david rothkopf | foreign policy magazine - “how the world is really run”

the multilateralist | foreign policy magazine - david bosco on the new world order

wikileaked | foreign policy magazine – inside the state department cables

American Politics - Print/Online:

the daily beast | politics

the hill

roll call

the new republic

politico

aviation week

- - -

washington wire | wall street journal

politics & policy | wall street journal

politi cal | la times

five thirty eight | ny times

American Politics - Blogs:

democracy in america | the economist

lexington’s notebook | the economist

jonathan cohn | the new republic

jonathan chait | the new republic

ben smith | politico

front row washington | reuters

bernd debusmann | reuters

will wilkinson

politics | esquire

Government:

press room | united nations

press room | white house

committee on foreign relations | united states senate

dipnote | state department

press room | california governor jerry brown

- - -

open congressional research service

voice of America

data.gov

Photography:

photo journal | wall street journal

photo of the day | the white house

photo of the day | national geographic

check it:

http://www.economist.com/node/18895468#footnote2

http://www.economist.com/node/18928416?story_id=18928416

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_communication_technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Eisenhower’s Caveat Fifty Years Later

A few words on…the military-industrial complex

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” – PresidentDwight Eisenhower, Farewell Address (January 17, 1961) 

Let’s talk the military war. More importantly, let’s talk about a former President’s farewell address in which he warned a nation of the possible irreparable consequences of allowing America’s post-WWII war machine to continue. He cautioned that an overreaching military establishment directly threatened the peace the United States had fought for over the last century in blood and treasure. He advocated that relationships between the private and public sectors in the forms of weapons manufacturers and legislators in Congress were a bit too cozy. He warned of continuing trends, many still found today, that involved a majority of retiring generals choosing careers in consulting for the nation’s largest defense contractors. One can see the possible conflicts of interest when former top military brass are helping their former junior officers make sound and unbiased decisions with their contract decisions.

“The Globe analyzed the career paths of 750 of the highest ranking generals and admirals who retired during the last two decades and found that, for most, moving into what many in Washington call the “rent-a-general’’ business is all but irresistible. From 2004 through 2008, 80 percent of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives, according to the Globe analysis. That compares with less than 50 percent who followed that path a decade earlier, from 1994 to 1998. In some years, the move from general staff to industry is a virtual clean sweep. Thirty-four out of 39 three- and four-star generals and admirals who retired in 2007 are now working in defense roles — nearly 90 percent.” – Bryan Bender, The Boston Globe (December 26, 2010)

But there’s always a plus side to everything, isn’t there? Let’s talk innovation. Until the past few decades, the military has always been the greatest driving force for advancement in everyday technology. Successful reverse engineering led to waves of corporate and consumer consumption. We could look to computers created during WWII to calculate artillery fire and to break codes. Private industry would later apply them to help the everyday private citizen. Or to the first instance of global positioning systems (GPS) intended by Congress as a nuclear detonation detection system. Only afterward would the idea of a personal navigation device be implemented. Not to mention home microwaves, radar, Blu-ray discs, Velcro and Tang - all reverse engineered from military insight into radar, lasers, and NASA expertise respectively. Fifty years later and President Eisenhower’s departing words may need a bit of tweaking, given that achievements in state-of-the-art technology are now just as likely to come from within private industry as from our nation’s military or government. The many benefits once seen as a plus to a necessary evil, that being the need to spend a substantial amount each year on defense, are now being made-up for in the private sector. However, the need to be cautious and hesitant of the “military-industrial complex” still remains firm.

Let’s use the video games industry as our case study for the emergence of the “entertainment-industrial complex.” Take for example the new Microsoft Kinect; a device that uses advanced algorithms to recognize facial gestures, body language and voice commands, all without the need of a single button or controller. Other winning pieces of innovation could be Apple’s iPhone and subsequent iPad, often regarded as premiere tech symbols of our era. A closer examination of the inlaid technology, that in color LCD displays, low power consumption and precision manufacturing, shows its roots can be traced back to handheld videogame systems such as the Nintendo DS and the Sony PSP. We will be sure to see a future with technology that incorporates voice and gesture driven tools. There are even some who say that the future of proficient work meetings will utilize advancements in communications technology gleaned from recent popular gaming titles. Activision’s Call of Duty and Blizzard’s Starcraft and World of Warcraft incorporate features that allow for real-time texting and talking while players coordinate game plans from remote locations around the world. It’s simply incredible when one realizes how much more productive and efficient people worldwide are now able to communicate due to a series of adolescent video games. We may very well see the future captains of industry battling it out over the Internet in avatar form soon enough. Don’t forget to throw in the spillover into industries such as entertainment (see: Netflix instant online video streaming vs. cable television) and the media (see: Yahoo and Google online marketing and ad sales vs. newspaper print advertising).

How should we account for this paradigm shift in funding and technological prowess?

“For one, capital formation. Governments had the unique capacity to raise (read: tax) the enormous capital needed to fund state-of-the-art projects. But a fully functioning stock market can raise billions for productive commercial applications, bypassing the military connection. Hate Wall Street all you want, but it’s now better than wars at driving progress.

Second, displacing the military is about high sales volume. Often that means lower costs. The $300 Roomba automatic vacuum, which the company iRobot says it has sold to five million customers, helps drive down the cost of the Army’s robotic bomb removers.” – Andy Kessler, Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, (January 3, 2011)

So what am I trying to say? Eisenhower may have warned of an encroaching “military-industrial-complex,” but I doubt he would have foreseen an “entertainment-industrial-complex.” While the arguably snug relationships between lawmakers in Washington and the former top military brass spearheading America’s defense contractors is still very much in tact, its monopoly on the technological betterment of our society and culture no longer holds true. And with videogames proving to be as recession proof as pornography, alcohol or narcotics, I don’t see this trend going anywhere anytime soon. So the next time someone gives you a hard time for playing a little Xbox, kindly remind them that you’re doing your part to help spur American innovation in state-of-the-art consumer goods.

check it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203418804576040103609214400.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/warfare_and_corporate_welfare

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/26/defense_firms_lure_retired_generals/?page=1

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/12/the-revolving-door-pentagon-edition/68575/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/secdef-wars-remain-an-abstraction-for-most-americans/63973/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/03/AR2011010304967.html

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

The Bernard Madoff of Russia?

A few words on…Mikhail Khodorkovsky 

Let’s say Bernard Madoff, the former American stock broker and investment management guru who was arrested in 2008 for spearheading history’s largest Ponzi scheme to steal over $65 billion from clients, had somehow managed to continue to fly under the radar this entire time. Let’s also say that his rise to becoming a captain of industry had also been largely dependent on his ability to cooperate and appease the political powers that be. Now, what happens when the man who had played ball in order to have the opportunity to have his company and aspirations ascend to oligarchy-level status becomes unwilling to continue to oblige the status quo? Go ahead and also throw in there the funding of opposition political parties, lobbying against attempts to establish a state-run oil monopoly, and becoming an outspoken critic of the current political leadership. If this man happens to be Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Russian billionaire and oil tycoon who was arrested in 2003 for fraud and tax evasion, then he would probably be wishing he really were Bernard Madoff. That is, unless you’d rather be in a Siberian prison camp until 2017? It’s true that neither business manager’s dealings were exactly squeaky clean, but should we really compare Mr. Khodorkovsky to such white-collar scum?

Khodorkovsky’s business practices as head of the Yukos Oil Company in the 1990s were notoriously tainted with terror tactics, most notably when his head of security was convicted to a twenty-year sentence for a string of contract murders. Local journalists often became unwilling to print anything overly critical of him or his company in fear for their wellbeing. If we fast-forward several years we’ll see that the Yukos oil company and its assets are eventually sold off at state-run auctions as a means of paying for Mr. Khodorkovsky’s unpaid back taxes, being subsequently purchased by the state-run oil company Rosneft. Many critics of President Putin and proponents of Mr. Khodorkovsky’s conviction as purely political take strong efforts to highlight that the elimination of Mr. Khodorkovsky was of both political and economic benefit to the Russian Federation. Many see his recent sentencing in a Moscow court this past Thursday to six more years in prison as another scene of retribution for the billionaire’s efforts to challenge the Kremlin’s control. Others would still argue that regardless of Mr. Khodorkovsky’s public image revival the past decade, that this is still very much a criminal case against a man who was as guilty as the worst of his peers. As the government kick-backs and taxation exemptions enjoyed under President Yeltsin became dissolved under President Putin, Khodorkovsky failed to mimic the cease and desist of many of his fellow other oligarch. He instead opted to be a overly avaricious and challenge the Russian state, losing his freedom and empire in the process.

I have included an excerpt from Mr. Khodorkovsky’s statement addressing the court. It received almost instant international acclaim, being heralded by many in the human rights community as literary gold. I found his words quite moving and sincere:

“I am ashamed for my country.

Your honour, I think we all perfectly understand the significance of our trial extends far beyond the fates of Platon [Lebedev] and myself. And even beyond the fates of all those who have innocently suffered in the course of the reprisals against Yukos that have taken place on such a huge scale, those I found myself unable to protect, but about whom I have not forgotten. I remember every day.

Let’s ask ourselves, what does the entrepreneur, the top class organizer of production, or simply an educated, creative individual, think today looking at our trial and knowing that the result is absolutely predictable?

The obvious conclusion a thinking person would come to is chilling in its simplicity: the bureaucratic and law enforcement machine can do whatever it wants. There is no right of private property. No person who conflicts with the “system” has any rights whatsoever.

Even when enshrined in law, rights are not protected by the courts. Because the courts are either also afraid, or are part of the “system”. Does it come as a surprise that thinking people do not strive to realize themselves here in Russia?

I am far from being an ideal person, but I am a person with an idea. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in prison, and I do not want to die here.

But if I have to, I will have no hesitation. What I believe in is worth dying for. I think I have shown this.” – Mikhail Khodorkovsky (November 2, 2010)

So what am I trying to say? We’ll have to see where a little bit of help in the form of a multi-million dollar public relations and lobbying campaign funded by his supporters, a myriad of international attention, and the symbolic transformation of his story into one of the fight against corruption in all of Russia takes him in the coming years. His is easily the story of how a man progresses from businessman and feared tyrant to victimized martyr and symbol of a people’s struggle to purge a nation of corruption. I also believe we can all agree that Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s criminal court case, its implications on the consistency of the Russian judicial system, consequences for private industry, foreign investment, research and innovation, as well as diplomatic relations abroad will certainly have a presence in history forever.

check it:

http://www.economist.com/node/17804461

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204304204576051380563222042.html#project%3DKHODOR1229%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204304204576051380563222042.html

http://theweek.com/article/index/210649/russias-tycoon-show-trial-is-putin-abusing-his-power

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/27/russian-court-mikhai-khodorkovsky-guilty

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/12/27/white-house-criticizes-moscow-court/

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article25265.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky#Early_years_and_entrepreneurship_in_Soviet_Union

http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2010/12/27/17760/?KEYWORDS=Mikhail+Khodorkovsky

Who You Calling Lame?

A few words on…the 111th Congress

Simply…beautiful.

I’ve written and rewritten this introduction at least a dozen times while waiting for my flight out of SFO. And now while on my train ride from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara. Maybe it’s the distraction people watching provides or the multiple eyes I feel reading my words as they’re being freshly written on this page, but I’ve been struggling. I wanted to ensure I captured the most basic feeling I have after reflecting on the historical legislative success the 111^th Congress has accomplished during its “lame duck” session. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), the $858 billion tax proposal, the 9/11 first responders health bill, the FDA’s extended tobacco regulations, and even the FCC’s net-neutrality initiative. There was of course legislative stagnation as well, most namely the failure of the DREAM Act or an approved 2011-2012 budget. Regardless, the 111^th Congress is being hailed by many historians as one of the most active in history, with their lame-duck session progress being surely landmark.

The repeal of DADT, a policy that bars gays from serving openly in the armed forces, has been a priority of the Democratic Party and ray rights activists since the Clinton administration originally instituted it. Even though President Clinton had campaigned on allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, the amount of opposition against him from the more conservative elements of the armed forces and Congress left the DADT compromise as the least painful option. A decade of struggle towards equality later and many of our nation’s bravest sons and daughters will no longer need to fight for this country while simultaneously hiding from it. Furthermore, the support of a newly completed one-year Pentagon study on troop effectiveness and morale should a repeal be initiated, provides further evidence to support Congress’s recent decision. One of my favorite former professors and director of the Palm Center (a UC Santa Barbara think tank that studies the issue of gays in the military), Aaron Belkin, was quoted recently highlighting the historical significance of the repeal.

“One of the greatest, if not the greatest, victory in the history of the movement for gay and lesbian equality…going back thousands of years, the marker of a first-class citizen has always been someone who’s been allowed to serve in the military.” – Aaron Belkin (December 19, 2010)

While the START nuclear arms treaty with Russia has historically passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, the 111^th Congress found itself playing partisan politics to a new degree of severity on this one. Fortunately, thirteen Republican senators found themselves crossing party lines on this one. The reapproved bipartisan treaty ensures that as the world’s two leading nuclear powers, by both sheer volume and global positioning, the appropriate steps for a safer and more nuclear-free world are in place. The addition of improved safety and maintenance standards alone is tremendous, but there is also the reduction in the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers, new inspection and verification systems, as well as a reduction in the number of inactive stockpiled nuclear warheads. Without such measures in place, the most likely place for a rogue state or terrorist organization to acquire a nuclear weapon would most likely be a less secure site within the Russian Federation.

As for the $858 billion tax and unemployment agreement, I don’t quite understand. Did everyone believe that President Obama’s efforts recently to negotiate a tax-deal with the Republican leadership would turn out a zero sum game? That concessions, compromise, and the need to find a middle route wouldn’t play a factor? The temporary two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts in exchange for thirteen months of extended unemployment benefits and green infrastructure investment may seem a bit one sided, especially given the President’s campaign promise of not extended those tax cuts affecting only the wealthiest of Americans, but lets investigate further.

Charles Krauthammer, widely regarded are one of the most prominent Republican minds of today, may have best summed up my favorite perspective.

“Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don’t have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?” – Charles Krauthammer (December 10, 2010)

“This is the public option debate all over again,” said Obama at his Tuesday news conference. He is right. The left never understood that to nationalize health care there is no need for a public option because Obamacare turns the private insurers into public utilities, thus setting us inexorably on the road to the left’s Promised Land: a Canadian-style single-payer system. The left is similarly clueless on the tax-cut deal: In exchange for temporarily forgoing a small rise in upper-income rates, Obama pulled out of a hat a massive new stimulus - what the left has been begging for since the failure of Stimulus I but was heretofore politically unattainable.” – Charles Krauthammer (December 10, 2010)

One perspective could be that President Obama managed to slide in a second stimulus even larger than his first one, pulling a quick one over both Republicans and Democrats alike before anyone could reflect and realize his accomplishment. Another perspective is that President Obama sold his liberal base down the river by providing flexibility on a legislative priority very dear to many. Regardless of one’s leanings towards either extreme, I believe inaction would have been far worse. To have stood idly while the upper-income tax breaks expired would have means that unemployment and middle-class tax breaks would have expired as well. To me, that means the vast majority of Americans would have found themselves damaged, leaving no one in Washington a winner politically either.

And the 9/11 first responders healthcare bill is truly astonishing. Astonishing that it took nearly a decade to have approved. Jon Stewart’s Daily Show a few weeks ago showcasing the struggle of many within the NYPD, NYFD, NYDOT and other affiliated organizations involved with the September 11^th clean-up was truly heart breaking. To hear about the unwillingness of the City of New York to take responsibility to provide healthcare coverage for those who were willing to risk their lives attempting to search rubble and debris in hopes of finding signs of life or survivors. Disease, cancer, severe illness, and often death have followed those who were willing to lend their hands and hearts to help, including many from out-of-state.

So what am I trying to say? It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas for Barack Obama and his 2012 re-election prospects. Given the substantial gains the GOP will make in the House and Senate come January, the need for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to wrangle in the necessary votes to pass the above-mentioned legislation was more pressing than ever. President Obama was able to fulfill a few more of his campaign promises, while also appealing to moderate voters he’ll certainly need. Was every piece of legislation perfect? No. Are there areas to be improved upon in future years? Of course. Did concessions and ideological compromises have to be made? Pragmatically, yes. I’m thinking we may need to re-think titling the past two months as a “lame duck” session and start pinning the nickname “comeback kid” to President Obama.

check it:

http://www.tnr.com/article/80381/obama-democrats-lame-duck-congress-victories

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/the_forgotten_accomplishments.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1210/The_Chairmen_John_Kerrys_and_Richard_Lugars_START_victory_.html?showall

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-collins/911-health-bill-winners-a_b_800818.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/22/most-of-the-internet-grumbles-about-fcc-net-neutrality-rules/?KEYWORDS=fcc+net+neutrality

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BK5Q520101221

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/11/AR2009061100323.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-shows/obama-can-win-by-securing_b_801475.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/19/nation/la-na-gay-rights-year-20101219

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/dadt-study-pentagon-gays-military_n_789626.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html

Palin: A Serious 2012 Contender?

A few words on…Sarah Palin

I’ve wanted to write this piece for some time now. I find Sarah Palin as a political and social figure incredibly interesting. Her rise to media mogul status, as well as her successful entrepreneurial endeavors including two books, a TLC reality television series, and multiple public appearances and candidate endorsements, is also very impressive. There’s also her uncanny ability to utilize social media networks, namely Facebook and Twitter, to give her voice mainstream attention without the need of a major media outlet to facilitate. This has debatably allowed her to combat one of the most unprecedented demonizing of a political figure in modern history with the ability to dictate the format and context of her public messaging. The combination of Sarah Palin having represented the conservative GOP establishment in the 2008 presidential election, her having kept herself politically relevant the past two years, and the midterm’s conservative rebirth all make her a dangerous candidate to keep in mind for the 2012 presidential race.

This past midterm election showed a national resurgence of the ideological far-right in the form of the “Tea Party movement.” Prominent newly elected candidates include U.S. Senator-elect for Massachusetts Scott Brown, U.S. Senator-elect for Kentucky Rand Paul (son of Congressman Ron Paul), U.S. Senator-elect for Utah Michael Lee, and arguably U.S. Senator-elect for Florida Marco Rubio. While many Tea Party candidates will not be taking office, including many endorsed by Mrs. Palin herself, she did manage to walk away with a few victories in hand. In terms of hard numbers she went 7-2 on Senate endorsements, 7-6 on House endorsements, and 6-3 on gubernatorial endorsements. Even though the Tea Party may not be an official institution, but rather a loosely organized faction within the Republican Party itself, its influence on energizing the GOP’s more conservative base come election time is nonetheless apparent.

It’s because of this apparentness that I believe the Republican leadership in both chambers of Congress over the next two years leading up to 2012 will have to respect the presence their new conservative Tea Party peers will have. And even though many among the mainstream GOP do not want to admit this, Sarah Palin is very much the front-runner for the Tea Party nomination for at least Vice-Presidency once again. The other typical rightwing candidates who may be seen as likely primary competition include Former Governor of Alaska Mike Huckabee, U.S. Senator-elect for Florida Marco Rubio, and Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney. Now there are a few problems here. For starters, while Mike Huckabee could possibly steal a few evangelical Christians and blue-collar conservatives from Palin, their voter base is still largely the same with the former VP nominee winning in the polls. Combined with a history of un-Tea Party friendly taxing and spending habits as Governor and his ability to draw voters dwarfed in comparison to that of Mrs. Palin, I see him largely disarmed. Marco Rubio, while largely seen as the “Hispanic Obama” during Florida Senate GOP primaries and midterm election as his political appeal has many parallels to that of the current President, will still be a rookie by the time 2012 rolls around. Yes, he does have legislative experience having served as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, but not as a sitting U.S. Congressman or Senator. Depending on the political contour of the country in 2016, I could see him as a serious contender given a few more years of federal legislative practice.

And then we get to the former Bain & Company CEO Mitt Romney. Call it timing. Call it bad luck. The introduction of over 20 states appealing that the “ObamaCare” mandate that individuals be required to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional is reminding folks of Mr. Romney’s support of similar legislation in Massachusetts while Governor (see: Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, 2006). While Mr. Romney did attempt to veto several sections of the mandate, including a penalty placed on employers who met a minimum employee threshold but who failed to make an honest effort in providing them with health insurance, they were all were eventually reinstituted in the state legislature. Many are feeling that his “intelligentsia” background and his support of a healthcare system too closely similar with that of President Obama’s is alienating him from the very faction (see: Tea Party, conservative right) that allowed his party rejuvenation this past November. It may not have been the full-blown socialist Canadian style single-payer system conservative fanatics are blaring Obama was attempting to introduce, but was evidently still too close for comfort.

So what am I trying to say? Yes, I think Sarah Palin is a ridiculous political figure whose comments and remarks are often reminiscent of the least winning parts of George W. Bush’s presidency. Furthermore, I find her grossly under qualified for the position as her qualifications on any number of issues relating to international and domestic governance are severely lacking in comparison with many other Republican and Democratic frontrunners. That being said, she has still managed to galvanize her image as a symbol of resurgence for the ideological right, for traditional American values, for Christian and faith-based households, and for those hoping to find a “real person” in a pool of “politicians.” All of this in combination with what is obviously an attempt to brush up on her international relations and foreign policy experience, having planned expensive trips overseas to ally nations including Great Britain and Israel, it seems to me Sarah Palin is planning to be a serious contender in 2012. And I’d say she’s preparing herself accordingly.

check it:

http://theweek.com/article/index/210257/will-palins-trip-abroad-make-her-more-presidential

http://theweek.com/article/index/209881/should-the-gop-man-up-and-reject-sarah-palin

http://theweek.com/article/index/208610/5-easy-steps-to-a-sarah-palin-presidency

http://theweek.com/article/index/205108/sarah-palins-rumored-2012-run-a-timeline

http://theweek.com/article/index/208864/the-gops-next-task-stop-sarah-palin

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/business/media/05carr.html?_r=1

http://theweek.com/article/briefing_blog/46/sarah-palin-media-star

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/17/does-palin-now-need-the-lamestream-media/

http://www.tinadupuy.com/uncategorized/sarahpalinsenemylist/

A Yuan-Sided Argument

A few words on…Chinese Yuan

It seems the People’s Republic of China is treading through some new and novel territory in the regulation of their domestic currency, the Yuan.

Many believe Beijing is attempting to curb the recent rapid accumulation of their currency overseas, following the announcement that an increased number of Chinese exporters will now be allowed to settle their debts in Yuan. The acting policy until a few months ago was one of Chinese importers, and not exporters, being given the option of settling payments in Yuan (Hong Kong of course being the largest exception as deregulation reigns king). This led to an imbalance between the flow of Yuan leaving the country (paying for foreign exports) and lack thereof returning to it (revenue from domestic imports). It’s a pretty bright strategy for both controlling your currency’s value while also allowing for confidence to build among offshore firms interested in increasing the Yuan’s global accessibility and usage.

However, the new hurdle China now has to clear will be providing large holders of Chinese currency a place to spend their cash. A combination of the PRC leadership limiting foreign investment on the mainland and expectations of steep currency appreciation has many unsure if China’s new policy will indeed work. Will foreign firms choose to pay for new Chinese exports in Yuan rather than their domestic currencies or will they wait and act conservatively? Historically, most offshore currency markets spring up independently of direction from a currency’s issuing country. As was the case with the United States and the Eurodollar market in the 1950s and 1960s as a combination of increased costs associated with the Federal Reserve, deposit insurance, and restrictions on capital movement caused companies and individuals to seek placing their dollars overseas.

So what am I trying to say? China’s deliberate and closely monitored development of an overseas currency market is something no nation has attempted to do before. Also, the emergence of a readily accessible Yuan market overseas should provide a base of confidence, providing potential investors and debtors encouragement to spend on Chinese goods. The question now becomes: with the whole world now on board, where will the Chinese government steer their currency next?

check it:

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/12/09/bringing-balance-to-cross-border-yuan-settlement/

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/12/14/china-experiments-offshore/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704472704576014503283242080-search.html?KEYWORDS=view+from+hong+kong&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/07/08/the-400-or-how-to-convince-foreigners-to -pay-in-yuan/

James Earl Carter’s Humanitarian Legacy

A few words on…Jimmy Carter

I was pleased to read recently that Susan Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, is pressing America’s commitment to international human rights. Last month, the UN General Assembly renewed its moratorium on the use of the death penalty for the third time in four years. However, during final legislative amendments, the UN’s Third Committee on social, humanitarian and cultural issues voted to remove any reference to sexual orientation from the resolution. Warning of the dangers associated with exacerbating homophobic cultures globally or providing legal loopholes for oppressive nations to exploit, many prominent international human rights NGOs are calling for an immediate revision. Ambassador Rice hopes to maintain America’s role as a global leader in human rights and human development (see: HDI) by restoring the removed language during the UN General Assembly’s next vote on December 20^th.

“While noting ongoing national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty, it would call upon States to restrict the use of the death penalty, to reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed, and “to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty”.  States that have abolished the death penalty would meanwhile be called upon not to reintroduce it.” - U.N. Press Release, November 11, 2010

What I was most pleased with was the pledge that the United States would not budge on what it considered a “basic principle.” Something America and its Western allies would likely not have pushed as a political priority just forty years ago. The idea of asserting international human rights as a tenet of American foreign policy was something unfamiliar to the United States until Jimmy Carter took office in the late 1970s. While certainly influenced by the Soviet “containment” policies of his predecessors, Carter wanted to distinguish himself both from Nixon and Ford as well as to “regain the moral stature we once had.” Despite certainly having a progressive and ambitious agenda, his public criticisms of oppressive regimes that that were also trade partners or political allies drew heavy criticism. His critiques of the Soviet Union, as well as numerous other countries, were often seen on both sides of the political aisle as harmful to international relations and destructive of détente. However, one must also acknowledge his progress in pressuring authoritarian regimes in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America towards reform. His efforts helped facilitate the dissemination of democratic values and human rights throughout the world.

So what am I trying to say? While Jimmy Carter’s presidency may be regarded historically as one of the more unsuccessful, (see: Iran hostage crisis and sputtering economy) his progressive foreign policy agenda has a continuing legacy today. Even as President Reagan would begin to do business with the “bad guys” again, including reopening economic relations with Deng Xiaoping’s China and engaging in arms deals with Iran (see: Iran Contra affair), our standards as a nation on international human rights would remain forever elevated. The Obama Administration’s inflexibility and rigidness on the inclusion of a sexual orientation clause in the UN General Assembly’s moratorium on the death penalty screams James Earl Carter.  

check it:

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/10/US_Vows_to_Change_UN_Resolution//

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121103045.html

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gashc3996.doc.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDI_index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter

Ahmadinejad and Tehran’s History with Distrust

A few words on…Iran

In a world where terrorist organizations, rogue nuclear-states, and authoritarian regimes threaten to undermine the international community and dismantle a century of progress towards ensuring a safer world for all (okay, for most), few names are of greater concern than the Islamic Republic of Iran. Over the past several decades the authoritarian regime, once labeled a member of President George W. Bush’s infamous “Axis of Evil,” has been consistently at odds with the United States and its allies. From their reluctance to cooperate with world powers on their nuclear “civilian energy” program, a tendency to sponsor terror organizations, complete disregard for human rights, and major arms trafficking with the likes of North Korea, China, and Taliban insurgents, Iran at this point deserves your full attention. The idea of adding long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles with weapons grade plutonium to that list in a few short years should underscore the need for Western forces to make haste in finding a solution to Iran’s rising threat.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s anti-Western rhetoric has always put the world on edge. In combination with an unwillingness to comply with the UN Security Council’s recent fourth round of sanctions, the diplomatic contour has only worsened. However, a mixture of cyber-hacking, manufacturing espionage, and scientist assassinations have combated what many fear will be a shifting of regional nuclear power. Since reports first surfaced of a possible Israeli full-scale nuclear arsenal in the late 1960s, many other regional powers including Iran, have wanted to balance their neighbor’s nuclear monopoly. In July 2010 a computer worm named Stuxnet infiltrated Iran’s Natanz nuclear facilities and Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. The Bushehr facility’s centrifuges were damaged, delaying the start up of the plant. Furthermore, recent speculation over the assassination of two Iranian nuclear scientists, killed when explosives attached to their cars were detonated, suggests similar or related forces may have felt Stuxnet was insufficient in ensuring Iran failed to reach nuclear capabilities. Inspecting recent events in relation to the past century’s record of interventions and attacks on the state by imperial powers, it becomes understandable why Iranian leadership would be skeptical of the United States. To disregard Iran’s hesitation to trust U.S. backed international institutions as paranoia, would be to ignore the Iranian people’s history with colonial imperialism and exploitation entirely.

Even at the beginning of the 20^th century, Iran was still fighting for sovereignty and survival between the expansionist Russian and British Empires. Both world powers ignored Iran’s sovereignty, then Persia, claiming different spheres of influence over her lands. By 1908, the British Empire solidified her economic investment in Persia, purchasing a controlling share of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company after a substantial petroleum discovery had been made. A suspect land agreement negotiated with Britain required the company to share only 16% of net profits with Persia. Between 1914 and 1918, the British Empire found itself occupying Persia in collaboration with Russia as a means of utilizing APOC as their primary source of fuel for the wartime Royal Navy. Shortly after, 1919 brings about a failed attempt by the British to establish a protectorate in Persia. 1921 allows for a coup d’état to establish Reza Pahlavi, a military officer at the time, as Prime Minister. In 1925 Pahlavi is enthroned officially as Shah of Persia, helping lead the country into modernization by establishing necessary systemic infrastructure and public services. However, his attempts to help his nation’s failing economy by re-negotiating the APOC oil concessions from Britain in 1930 were unsuccessful. The Shah’s decision in 1935 to change the name of his country from Persia to Iran had APOC follow suit, renaming their company the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The onset of World War II and Shah Pahlavi’s pro-Nazi relations led to the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941. Once Iran’s oilfields and seaports were secured, Shah Reza Pahlavi was exiled and replaced by his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The end of WWII leads into the Iran Crisis of 1946 in which Soviet forces refused to leave Iran, only agreeing to do so under pressure from the United States and newly created United Nations.

The 1950s led to arguably the largest recent example of imperial intervention in Iran, beginning with Iranian civilian and political discontent over the AIOC’s unwillingness to operate under a more transparent budget. Many Iranians feared the petroleum company was not distributing the appropriate and legal share of profits to Iran for the use of their oilfields, creating popular support for nationalizing Iranian oil. In 1951, the Iranian parliament created the National Iranian Oil Company, led by freshly elected Prime Minister Mossaddegh. Mossaddegh had ambitions of re-negotiating his nation’s substantially disadvantaged oil concession agreement with Britain, favoring an even 50/50 split. Britain promptly refused the deal, conceding that their economic losses would be too large. At the time AIOC constituted the British Empire’s largest overseas asset and a large source of national pride. The Abandan Crisis would follow from 1951 to 1954, as the British established a naval blockade and sets of economic sanctions against a nation they considered to have stolen from them. Many prominent members of British society at the time believed that as the Iranian oil fields were discovered, developed, and maintained by the British, that they were therefore intellectually and legally theirs. The only nation to come to the aid of Iran when in need of labor to replace British workers on petroleum facilities was Italy, a strong showing of international support for Britain.

While the Truman administration was hesitant to help the British retake the Iranian oilfields by force, Eisenhower’s administration would feel a bit differently. Worried about the rise of Communism in the developing world and the possibility of a regional “domino effect” should Iran fall, the United States in 1953 agreed to help. US and British forces successfully carried out Operation Ajax, removing democratically elected Prime Minister Mossaddegh by force after Shah Pahlavi refused to remove him from power himself. 26 years of an authoritarian monarchy would follow as Prime Minister Mossaddegh’s approved replacement would be dismissed shortly thereafter, leaving Shah Pahlavi to rule unfettered with the assistance of CIA training and resources. Of course the United States would now also get a substantial percentage of Iranian oil profits as well as reassurances in having contained a possible Communist expansion. In the aftermath of Operation Ajax in 1954, the NIOC renamed itself the British Petroleum Company (BP). That’s a familiar name, right? The Iranian Revolution of 1979 would overthrow Shah Pahlavi and establish the Islamic Republic of Iran with Islamic fundamentalist Ayatollah Rehollah Komenei as their Supreme Leader. The Iran Hostage Crisis would follow from 1970 to 1981 when several Iranian students and militants in support of the Iranian Revolution would take over the US embassy in Tehran, holding over 50 US citizens hostage for 444 days. Jimmy Carter is largely credited with losing his re-election campaign due to his inability to bring a close to the situation, including a failed rescue attempt. Their eventual release would coincide within minutes of Ronald Reagan winning the Presidency. Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran and the resulting Iran-Iraq War from 1980-1988 would find the United States and United Nations once again forcing a peace resolution. While relations with Iran under the President George W. Bush would keep the authoritarian state isolated as the Administration refused to negotiate diplomatically with “bad guys,” President Obama has since taken a different perspective.

So what am I trying to say? Obama’s willingness open negotiations at the beginning of his term with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il at least presented to the world that the United States was willing to play ball if both nations kept in line. And luckily with UN International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors at Iran’s nuclear energy facilities in both Natanz and Qom, the international community would be made aware of any sudden changes in their progress. While I feel for Ahmadinejad not wanting to budge on his nation’s right to be a nuclear power, I also understand Obama not wanting to budge on his nation’s right to ensure an oppressive authoritarian regime does not become a viable threat to the free world. Call me bias, but Obama’s long-term strategy of first building regional allies in China and Russia, fending off regional threats such as Saudi Arabia from preemptive attack, and increasing the costs of continued Iranian defiance may just prove ingenious should the Islamic Republic agree to return to the negotiating table. Its now in Iran’s hands to ensure its relationship with imperial powers in the 21st century prove more beneficial than they did in the 20th.

check it:

http://www.economist.com/node/17677840           

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/chipped-detainees-iran-mega-missiles-and-more-in-latest-wikileaks/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missiles.html?_r=1&hp

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6B80WR20101209?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/iran-to-russia-give-us-missiles-or-lawyer-up/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/is-iran-supplying-the-taliban-with-missile-tech/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/07/iran-missile-ph/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/09/iran-unveils-its-new-spying-flying-boat/ 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

Who cares if Proposition 19 failed to pass?

A few words on…California

There were a few ways I wanted to approach the contour of Sacramento politics post the mid-term elections and the defeat of Proposition 19.

First, I wanted to avoid perpetuating the idea that just because California’s controversial Prop 19 did not pass, it means that the state’s voters are opposed to more liberal approaches to solving the state’s budget deficit, or continuing to be a flagship state for progressive social reform. Second, I wanted to illuminate some of the overshadowed and arguably more important voter approved ballot propositions that should help the state get back on track fiscally. Many of the approved ballot initiatives were very much progressive and held true to California’s “direct democracy” approach. Namely Propositions 20/27 (congressional redistricting), 23 (air pollution suspension), and 25 (simple majority budget) are all prime examples of the states recession proof values towards continuing to protect the environment, eliminate political gerrymandering and corruption, and finally allow for political gridlocks on the state budget to be better avoided. The last approved budget required a 100 day delay, a national record I doubt any legislator in Sacramento is proud to have contributed to. The ability for a simple majority, as opposed to a 2/3 majority, to pass a state budget will be tremendous. Also, the new congressional redistricting system will require legislators to be less ideologically polarized. Political redistricting will now be decided by a non-partisan 14 member commission, whose voting membership includes Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party. Without legislators having a conveniently (and ridiculously drawn) district that favors heavily to one political ideology or political party, they will need to appeal to independent and moderate voters as well.

And lastly, I wanted to confess my pessimism regarding Prop 19’s ability to be realistically implemented should it have passed. To be honest, we would need an White House administration willing to be favorable towards national marijuana reform as any state law which contradicts federal law is routinely expected to be challenged in federal cours by the U.S. Justice Department. Therefore even had Proposition 19 passed, without the support of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to not enforce federal law in the California, legislative progression would have been very difficult. Similar arguments could be made with regards to California’s medical marijuana industry and the opposition presented by President George Bush Jr.’s administration, leading to the eventual crack-down of medical marijuana facilities statewide. To Messrs. Holder and Obama’s credit, they were willing to ease off of medical marijuana distributors, giving the sixteen states currently operating within this system a sigh of relief. While it’s arguably now official U.S. drug policy to not enforce federal raids of medical marijuana facilities, this is very much different from Prop 19’s intent of decriminalization and allowing for the local sale, distribution, and taxation of the drug. It’s not unreasonable then to understand why President Obama and Attorney General Holder were both opposed to the recently defeated initiative. Even Schwarzenegger was reluctant, feeling it was poorly written.

So what am I trying to say? I believe that regardless of the economic and social benefits that the State of California and its citizens may have enjoyed had Proposition 19 passed, several initiatives that were met with success also have tremendous potential. And in a state where all eight major statewide offices were maintained by Democrats, the socially liberal values that would propel another initiative similar to Prop 19 are very much still here. California, oh how you make me proud.

check it:

http://www.economist.com/node/17631115?story_id=17631115&CFID=155978522&CFTOKEN=49180313

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/all/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html

Deng Xiaoping & Beijing’s Rise

A few words on…China

While still a world leader in the abuse of human rights and environmental protection, China has done a good deal the past few decades which deserves admiration. One of the most common beliefs is that post Jimmy Carter, China has been biding its time, having been willing to dampen its military aspirations in exchange for support in the international market. Since Deng Xiaoping’s reign as paramount leader of China from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, the communist nation has been aggressively focused on developing its economic capabilities. Because of this, they have been willing to comply with and invest in an American-backed liberal international world order. Actions include participating in United Nations Security Council dealings, sending troops on NATO peace keeping missions, complying with UN International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, acting in World Trade Organization trade disputes, and even donating readily to humanitarian aid programs. The Chinese government has also focused more on domestic development, resulting in an increase in the rate of urbanization from around 20% to nearly 45% (early 2000s). Bringing the country out of impoverishment is necessary to attain the human potential necessary for China’s economic engine to continue.

Recent WikiLeak’s “cablegate” documents suggest that up to a year ago China was more than willing to see a reunited Korean Peninsula. China was frustratingly silent when its North Korean ally was international recognized as having sank a South Korean naval ship earlier this March. The recent violence on Yeonpyeong Island, however, amid pressure from the United States has yielded a China at least willing to host negotiations and formally ask all parties involved to cease any provocative actions. While this more than likely includes the United States engaging in war games with South Korea and Japan, the important part is that China took a step towards acting like a responsible world power. Many have condemned North Korea’s acts of aggression this year as the most serious along the Korean Peninsula since the signing of the 1953 armistice.

It seems there is a shared belief between Washington and Beijing that the successful facilitation of global commerce and security through peacekeeping organizations ensures a more prosperous world for all. Thus, there is light at the end of the tunnel: if China and the US can agree on an international order where America’s way of doing business isn’t too ideologically threatened and China can be treated as an equal and peer, then maybe we can all just get along? OR…perhaps that pill is just too much for American pride to swallow. If President Obama’s bowing to President Jintao upon meeting him in China earlier last year caused an outcry, unleashing a storm of criticism which called into question his “patriotism,” imagine what acknowledging another nation as equally justified to be a world hegemon would do? It would be a political blood bath.

However, I would be hesitant to believe that Hu Jintao’s communist regime and his socially conservative views towards social reform do not have greater goals in mind. The fear and anxiety being felt from the United States and its allies comes from further belief that this window of cooperation may be soon to closing. While the United States still far surpasses our Asian counterpart in military superiority and sophistication, the gap is becoming narrower. Advancements in Chinese naval, air, cyber, and even space warfare have the Pentagon worried. Furthermore more WikiLeaks “cablegate” documents allude to China’s involvement in the hacking of Google databases in California and several world leader’s email accounts, including even the Dalai Lama. There was also an incident involving a few Japanese sailing vessels which leads to a larger discussion regarding China’s over bearing claim over the entire South China Sea.

So what am I trying to say? It seems that while both China and the United States were privy to seeing the mistakes of the 20^th century’s great powers, they may repeat them nonetheless. The United States and China’s trade relationship, as the world’s two largest economies, should not be taken as enough to rule military conflict out of the question. Prior to World War I, Germany and Great Britain were two of the world’s largest trade partners. It was the two nation’s inability to coexist ideologically that caused a downturn. The same can be said of the United States and the Soviet Union. To this point, China is a not fascist Germany or a communist Soviet Union. It is not in the business of exporting its ideology or attaining new territories. It’s actively worked to secure the trust of its regional neighbors for the purposes of securing trade and economic growth. China seems focused to assert its 21^st century dominance through dollars earned (or lent to the US, and then later returned with interest for a phenomenal investment). I believe the real question becomes whether the United States will be willing to accommodate a China who may wish to excuse themselves from the occasional international rule (as the US often does), or if the two nations will clash in an attempt to balance one another? With the notion of rogue nuclear states like Iran and North Korea being bad news for both world powers, I see a future of pragmatic cooperation and at times reluctant concessions. Appeasement, eat your heart out.

check it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575646472655698844.html?mod=WSJ_World_LeadStory

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704156304576002890526947386.html?mod=WSJ_World_LEFTSecondNews

http://theweek.com/article/index/209813/can-china-stop-a-korean-war

http://www.economist.com/node/17629709

http://www.economist.com/node/17633415

http://www.economist.com/node/17601453?story_id=17601453&CFID=155815626&CFTOKEN=85415354

http://www.economist.com/node/17601475?story_id=17601475&CFID=155815626&CFTOKEN=85415354

http://www.economist.com/node/17601499?story_id=17601499&CFID=155815626&CFTOKEN=85415354

http://www.economist.com/node/17601487?story_id=17601487&CFID=155815626&CFTOKEN=85415354

http://www.economist.com/node/17601443?story_id=17601443&CFID=155815626&CFTOKEN=85415354

Obama’s Goal of Nuclear Non-Proliferation

A few words on…North Korea

What would you do if you were President Obama entering your third year in office, having just lost your legislative majority in the House and arguably the Senate? What’s that you say?…focus on foreign policy and building your alliances abroad? Quite right. Nothing novel about what Mr. Obama’s doing here. But what about the argument that the mid-term elections were a political referendum against Obama’s recent political priorities, and that the voters sent a clear message of wanting Washington to focus more on domestic issues such as job creation or the struggling economy? Honestly, when it comes to Kim Jong-il and the DPRK I think it becomes an issue of preserving the human race rather than political priorities. Here’s the thing about North Korea: they’re scary. Like really scary. As a communist and totalitarian regime, they share similar views on human rights with the likes of China, Myanmar, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and Iran. North Korea is a nation known to enable our most dangerous enemies around the world, harboring terrorists and supplying them with the means to endanger our forces and missions abroad. On top of all that, they’ve boasted about new uranium enrichment facilities amongst being several rounds into United Nations Security Council sanctions for failure to comply with UN International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines (along with Iran, they have failed to continuously allow UN IAEA inspectors into their facilities).

So, what do you do about a renegade nuclear state which has been teetering towards causing regional or even world nuclear instability? Do you engage in a preemptive attack in the hopes of removing their nuclear capabilities, while simultaneously risk being the catalyst for WWIII yourself? With allies like China and therefore Russia, it’s unhinging to think of the international alliances that would need to be respected in that tug-o-war. Or, like many in the Obama Administration now, do you push for stronger international and U.S. based economic and political sanctions. What about face-to-face negotiations? We can’t do that though, because we’d be “rewarding recent bad behavior with concessions” as one senior Obama official has stated it. Beginning with the sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean warship this past March, North Korea has been involved in multiple instances of military aggression against its neighbors to the south. Such violent activity has not been seen since the signing of the armistice in 1953.

So what am I trying to say? Worst of all, one could argue that due to the significant amount of mystique surrounding Kim Jong-il, and his youngest son and soon to be heir to the presidency, Kim Jong-un, that any analysis of their character is shaky at best. To assume most Realist or Liberal political theories apply in this scenario also assumes that the DPRK is being led by rational actors trying to maximize their individual gains. I don’t know about you, but a man who refers to himself as a god in his autobiography hardly seems sane or rational to me. Obama might just have the right idea in attempting to pressure China to influence their North Korean allies to play ball, stop their uranium enrichment processes, and allow UN inspectors into their labs. I bet Clinton will even throw in additional humanitarian and infrastructure aid for kicks.

check it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704377004575650960600657360.html?mod=WSJ_World_LEFTSecondNews

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/30/executive-order-president-blocking-property-certain-persons-with-respect

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/29/executive-order-designating-iranian-officials-responsible-or-complicit-s

Julian Assange: TIME Man of The Year?

A few words on…WikiLeaks

Regardless of your position on whether Julian Assange and his whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks should be praised or eradicated, the argument of government censorship vs. national security are worth looking at. This could very well turn out be a landmark moment in legal and presidential precedence in regards to future policies surrounding politically sensitive and classified material. I find myself rather torn on the subject, with feelings of ambivalence towards Mr. Assange’s stated intent versus its possible consequences. His hope of promoting a more transparent and open government may be offset by the possible enabling of America’s enemies with valuable intelligence. Some would call this tantamount to treason. The Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs, while mainly only field reports, did contain insight into our process of gathering and reporting military intelligence in the field. Furthermore, the “Cablegate” release of Department of State diplomatic cables may very well have yield negative repercussions for our diplomatic abilities abroad. One of our nation’s strengths is our ability to have frank and candid discussions with foreign leaders. Those worried of their remarks being repeated to the world may hesitate to trust us. However, beyond those two drawbacks the War Logs did expose the United States possibly understating the number of civilian deaths from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan thus far, as well as ignoring possible reports of prisoner abuse and torture. “Cablegate” also seems to have exposed orders signed by Secretary of State Clinton herself ordering United States Department of State personnel working in the United Nations to collect information on foreign nationals and their staff. These orders would directly violate international agreements on espionage within the UN. Hmmm…let’s see if Clinton can just slide under the radar on this one.

So what am I trying to say? Regardless of whether you agree with Mr. Assange or his values supposedly behind WikiLeaks, you can’t deny both the cultural clout and historical significance they’ve cemented for themselves.

WikiLeaks: About

“Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.”  - wikileaks.org

“WikiLeaks has sustained and triumphed against legal and political attacks designed to silence our publishing organisation, our journalists and our anonymous sources. The broader principles on which our work is based are the defence of freedom of speech and media publishing, the improvement of our common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create new history. We derive these principles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, Article 19 inspires the work of our journalists and other volunteers. It states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” - wikileaks.org

WIkiLeaks: Values

“Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.” - wikileaks.org

“In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that ‘only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.’ We agree.” - wikileaks.org

check it:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-01/julian-assange-should-espionage-act-be-used-against-him/

http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2010/12/03/a-counter-productive-wikileak/

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2028733,00.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/after_secrets

ELECTED: California’s first woman and first minority Attorney General

A few words on…Kamala Harris

Who’s replacing good old Jerry Brown as he moves up (again) to the big leagues? Kamala Harris, California’s first African-American and Indian-American candidate to be elected to Attorney General. Democrat Kamala Harris’s victory over Republican Steve Cooley this week solidifies the Democratic Party’s win over every statewide post in California this past midterm election. Wow, quite the impressive feat given the rest of the country’s red uprising. What to expect from Ms. Harris? She pledges to 1) reduce the state’s recidivism rate, 2) protect homeowners, 3) protect the environment, 4) uphold civil rights, and 5) use innovative technology.

check it:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/11/kamala-harris-california-attorney-general-victory.html

“Breakfast of Champions”

So I have this friend. She’s beautiful, intelligent, funny. Her job is the most impressive of any of my fellow Gauchos to graduate in the past few years. Best of all, she’d kick your ass if need be and then buy you lunch. She flew in from NYC to visit family a few months ago and spent a day in Santa Barbara visiting my housemates and I. Among the more enthralling activities we engaged in outside of visiting the local pub, was discussing politics and what our favorite news sources were.  I promised Steph I’d give her my list of favorites for political dialogue and discourse, so I figured I’d share them with you all as well. I call it my “Breakfast of Champions” as I typically start my day consuming a good portion of these. Most focus on a mixture of domestic and international relations, national security, and foreign policy. Enjoy.

blogs

the economist - “democracy in america”

the economist - “lexington’s notebook”

la times - “politi cal”

ny times - “five thirty eight”

politico - “on foreign policy”

reuters - “front row washington”

reuters - “bernd debusmann”

wall street journal - “washington wire”

the new republic - “citizen cohn”

wired - “danger room”

wired - “threat level”

print/online

the daily beast

the wall street journal

the economist

the week

the diplomat