The Failed States Index

This seems like a good article on "failed states." Read here.

Obama: lack of political sophistication

Overall political analyst believe this was Obama's best debate albeit one crucial mistake on foreign policy. "The Nation" blog has a good piece (read here) on Obama's foreign policy blunder: speaking from the gut.

Steven Weber: on American unilateralism

Read Steven Weber's, professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley, blog entry on American Unilateralism here

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf will not fail, world powers will not allow it

Anyone who has been reading the papers lately are aware the President Musharraf of Pakistan has had a tough year.

In May there were a series of anti-government marches. One of the largest marches was spurred by President Musharraf’s suspension of Pakistan’s Chief Justice—the suspension was recently reversed. The second anti-government movement was organized by a right-wing alliance of religious parties, “the Muttehida Majlis-e-Amal, or M.M.A., which has become a significant force in Pakistani electoral politics. The alliance’s imposing patriarch, Liaqat Baloch, was standing on a jeep, exhorting his flag-waving supporters" William Dalrymple. The third group was made of members of the now infamous Red Mosque: a revolutionary group that would like to impose Sharia Law on the state.

This has lead many analysts to worry if President Musharraf would be overthrown by a "radical" group. How radical these groups really are I’m not sure. The State apparatus goes to great length to maintain its monopoly on power and nothing scares state institutions more than groups who don’t recognize its authority: remember the extermination of the Black Panthers or Tiananmen Square, China. Both of these groups, especially the Black Panthers, were not a real threat to the state.

With respect to Pakistan I don't believe an overtly religious and anti-Western revolutionary regime will overthrow Musharraf, though not impossible. The United States and other world powers learned a good lesson from the 1979 Iranian revolution: don't underestimate them. More importantly, the stakes are much higher with Pakistan.

Pakistan is a hugely populous state with a large military that is will equipped with conventional and nuclear weapons. It is unacceptable for the United States and its allies to allow Pakistan to fall into the hands of an anti-Western group.

The White House has already made it clear that they will send troops into Pakistan if necessary. “We never rule out any options, including striking actionable targets,” the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said in response to a question, according to a report from Agence France-Presse.

“The most significant assertion about possible US attacks on targets inside Pakistan came from Bush's Homeland Security Adviser Frances Townsend.

Asked why US should not be sending troops inside Pakistan in pursuit of terrorists, she said, ‘There's no question the president has made perfectly clear if we had actionable targets anywhere in the world, putting aside whether it was Pakistan or any place else, we would pursue those targets.’”

I wonder what China's role is? They are the principle weapons suppliers to Musharraf's regime.

Obama's strategic mistake

At a Planned Parenthood event 2008 presidential candidate Obama gave a talk that has created a minor controversy. Obama told Planned Parenthood that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

read story here or watch it here.

Some people were horrified by the thought of teaching a five-year-old about sex. Honestly, I don't know what one would tell a five-year-old about sex.

I think the problem with Obama's statement was that it was incomplete. By simply saying that he approves of "age-appropriate" sex education he fails by not telling us what "age-appropriate" sex education is.

As a US Senator Obama is privileged to have access to a lot of information: expert advice, personal researchers, government researchers, senate hearings, interest advice, etc. Thus, his statement is probably backed by much scientific research. He should have told us exactly what "age-appropriate" education is. By failing to do that he leaves it up to the individual listener to conjure up all types of ideas.

I assume a vast majority of people--including myself--are not going to do a research project on "sex education in schools" in order to understand the issue. Instead they will think about it, listen to radio and television pundits about it, maybe read an article, and speak to their family and friends about it.

As a result, Obama never gets to make his case.

Paul Krugman (economist) on universal healthcare

Click here to read article.

On Facebook

Click here to read

Clinton and Edwards: caught on tape

So I assume everyone has heard about how Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (2008 presidential candidates) were caught on tape talking about how they want and were planning on getting the “trivial” candidates off the debating circuit.

Click here

My response, like so many of my political conscious friends—was one of relief because it explicitly made clear what we already new; that is, political campaigning is purely about winning: obvious. The problem is this big-money-high-pressure-winner-takes-all system leads to deceit.

I would not say that the candidates are to blame. The political process encourages this type of behavior. In order for a politician to win an election she/he must “act,” so to speak. What is important is appearance and slogans, not truth.

I should be more upset at Hillary and Edwards but I’m not because they are doing exactly what it takes to win: there playing the game.

In order to change the “players” we must change the rules of the game.