podpolia

Somehow I don’t believe Putin that it would be impossible for Russia to become a totalitarian state again, just as I don’t believe him that Teheran is developing its nuclear program for only ‘peaceful purposes.’ Bush has publicly criticized Putin for what seems to most outsiders to be a lack of concern for upholding democratic standards. (Expect criticism from Democrats on ‘rocking the boat’ with Russia, despite recent complaints that Bush wasn’t doing enough to encourage democracy in Russia.) With Russia pushing its weapons and intelligence capabilities, it is more vital now than ever that our relationship with Russia remain friendly. However, the best way to do that over the long term is to ensure that Russia remains democratic. Putin may not like it, but Bush’s commitment to democracy everywhere may come into conflict with the typically Russian taste for control.

There’s an interesting article from the Washington Post on Condoleezza Rice’s choice of clothes the other day. I was rather struck by the picture I saw of her wearing this outfit the other day, but this is more of a fashion analysis. Not that I’m into fashion, mind you; I can’t even match colors, and my clothes choices are generally such that would send stylistically sensitive people into seizures. But I thought this was interesting nonetheless.

There’s an interesting article from the Washington Post on Condoleezza Rice’s choice of clothes the other day. I was rather struck by the picture I saw of her wearing this outfit the other day, but this is more of a fashion analysis. Not that I’m into fashion, mind you; I can’t even match colors, and my clothes choices are generally such that would send stylistically sensitive people into seizures. But I thought this was interesting nonetheless.

Chrenkoff has a post on a good article. How come I can never find these interesting articles on my own? I always end up stealing his, or somebody else’s. Anyhow, go read it.

Arlen Specter is in the news again, this time for worrying about judicial confirmations. His fear of using the “nuclear option” (changing the filibuster rules in the Senate) is fairly well founded — Democrats are likely to be extremely unhappy about such a maneuver and will undoubtedly be more than willing to sabotage whatever else they could as revenge.
The filibuster, in my mind, does need to go. It would be best if that could be decided by a bipartisan agreement, but as such a move would limit the power of whichever party was in control of the Senate at the time, it’s unlikely to happen that way. Requiring 60 votes to allow a 51 vote majority to pass something strikes me as being fairly ridiculous. Yes, it is a procedural rule that encourages bipartisan cooperation, but it essentially allows the minority party (or any single individual) to block the will of the majority; something that strikes me as extremely undeomocratic.
Specter says he’ll try his best to pass Bush’s nominees, and I believe him. I also don’t think that Bush is likely to try to force the issue for small-fry judicial nominees. Expect more of a fight over Supreme Court nominees. Hopefully Specter (much as I dislike his politics) will be able to work things out, but it seems to me possible (if not likely) for him to step down as Chair (citing his illness) if things become too unworkable. I just realized I put three parenthetical phrases in that last sentence alone.

I hope things in Lebanon are going as well as they seem here. I doubt they’re quite that rosy, but we can always hope.

There is an excellent piece here on one of the biggest real failings of the UN. This is one of my pet peeves about the UN (and believe me, I have many) — their unwillingness to do their actual job, and instead start rubbing their grimy noses into stuff that really isn’t their business. Your job is to make the world a better place, ok? Not to try to expand your power until you’re a world government. I think that’s one of the reasons the UN hates the US as much as it does — the US provides much of the UN’s funding and resources, and yet also restricts what the UN can do. In an organization that is essentially a bureaucracy for a state that doesn’t exist, bureaucratic rules apply to the exclusion of the regulatory effect that an executive, legislative, or judicial branch would have. The General Assembly really doesn’t bother to control the bureaucracy at the UN because for the most part, what the bureaucracy does would not provide political power to the constituent governments represented in the Assembly. Not having a true executive or even a concrete reason for existance, the UN serves as a tool to obtain power for the governments that take part in it.
The only true limitations on bureaucratic bloat at the UN are political, not constitutional or procedural. The US provides a strong check in the amount of political power the UN can pick up, so that makes the US the primary opponent to the natural trend of the bureaucracy. It also provides ammunition for other countries who can accuse the US of not ‘cooperating.’ The UN would be a whole lot better if it could be reconstituted with more concrete rules, and a more constitutional system.
Oh, and the link (you know, the one before I started wandering off topic) was via Rantingprofs.