MikeLigalig.com

Bing Integrates Quora to Social Sidebar

Microsoft has just announced that the Bing website is now integrating Quora in the social side bar.

Source: Bing Integrates Quora to Social Sidebar

New German Copyright Law Would Force Google to Pay for Listings

"...the draft law would make search engines pay for reproducing newspapers' headlines and first paragraphs. So, take those away and the links are fine. Even if nobody will have the faintest idea what they're linking to."

Source: New German Copyright Law Would Force Google to Pay for Listings

Amazon search queries are up 73 percent in the last year.

"What Googlers worry about in private is a growing trend among consumers to skip Google altogether, and to just go ahead and search for the product they would like to buy on Amazon.com, or, on mobile in an Amazon app."

Source: Amazon search queries are up 73 percent in the last year.

alert: Google Showing Only 7 Listings When #1 has Sitelinks

The first major change to the number of sites returned on Google SERPS in it's history: "For some search queries, where sitelinks are displayed for the top result on Google's 1st page there are only 7 results in total on that 1st page."

Source: alert: Google Showing Only 7 Listings When #1 has Sitelinks

Google ordered to disclose all paid "commenters"

"... the search giant "has failed to comply" with a 7 August order to provide the names of parties whose commentary on the suit may have been influenced by money."

Source: Google ordered to disclose all paid "commenters"

Google and Opera extend search provider deal

Google Inc. has agreed with Norway's Opera Software ASA to integrate Google as the default search partner for the Opera mobile and desktop browsers

Source: Google and Opera extend search provider deal

Click Distance Patent May Make A Shallow Site Structure Important

Microsoft's 'Click Distance' patent is a "System and method for ranking search results using click distance."

Source: Click Distance Patent May Make A Shallow Site Structure Important

Google's Rank Modifying Patent for Spam Detection

As I understand it, the idea here is to identify, by algorithm, what looks like an attempt to manipulate rankings in a spammy way. The patent details things like keyword stuffing, invisible text, link-based manipulations and so on.

Source: Google's Rank Modifying Patent for Spam Detection

Wikipedia and DMOZ Listing Leading to an 'Unnatural Listing' Slap In Google

WebmasterWorld Members discuss the apparent 'unnatural listing' slap in Google after Wikipedia and DMOZ scraped listings appear in Google's index.

Source: Wikipedia and DMOZ Listing Leading to an 'Unnatural Listing' Slap In Google

Google AdSense Suggest Left Aligned Ads: A Potential Organic Penalty

A recent Google AdSense e-mail is suggesting left-aligned ads, which could end up in an organic search penalty.

Source: Google AdSense Suggest Left Aligned Ads: A Potential Organic Penalty

comScore: July 2012 U.S. Search Shares, Google 66.8, Bing To 15.7 pct

"Google Sites led the explicit core search market in July with 66.8 percent of search queries conducted."

Source: comScore: July 2012 U.S. Search Shares, Google 66.8, Bing To 15.7 pct

Facebook Is Now The Second Largest Video Site in the U.S.

"Google Sites, driven primarily by video viewing at YouTube, ranked as the top online video content property in July with 157 million unique viewers, followed by Facebook with 53 million,..."

Source: Facebook Is Now The Second Largest Video Site in the U.S.

Twitter Tightens Rules For Developers With API V1.1

"...you will need our permission if your application will require more than 100,000 individual user tokens."

Source: Twitter Tightens Rules For Developers With API V1.1

WebmasterWorld Weekly Roundup August 16

WebmasterWorld's weekly roundup of hot topics and discussions you may have missed in the last few days. (-Subscription required)

Source: WebmasterWorld Weekly Roundup August 16

The Importance of Humility in SEO

It's easy, in a frustrating situation, to lose track of the fact that Google doesn't focus on me - that they're focus is on THEIR user base, just as my focus should be on mine. Emotion will not resolve an SEO problem - that's a fact!

Source: The Importance of Humility in SEO

Google: DMCA Notices Will Be a Factor in Search

"Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results."

Source: Google: DMCA Notices Will Be a Factor in Search

When Best to Use CSS or HTML

WebmasterWorld Members discuss the use of CSS  and HTML as control options, and where one may be better than another.

Source: When Best to Use CSS or HTML

WebmasterWorld Weekly Roundup August 9

WebmasterWorld's weekly roundup of hot topics and discussions you may have missed in the last few days. (-Subscription required)

Source: WebmasterWorld Weekly Roundup August 9

How To Turn Facebook 'Likes' Into Sales

WebmasterWorld Members discuss the successful ways to turn Facebook 'likes' into sales. (-Subscription required)

Source: How To Turn Facebook 'Likes' Into Sales

WebmasterWorld Weekly Roundup August 2

WebmasterWorld's weekly roundup of hot topics and discussions you may have missed in the last few days. (-Subscription required)

Source: WebmasterWorld Weekly Roundup August 2

WebmasterWorld Weekly Roundup July 26

WebmasterWorld's weekly roundup of hot topics and discussions you may have missed in the last few days. (-Subscription required)

Source: WebmasterWorld Weekly Roundup July 26

WebmasterWorld Weekly Roundup July 12

WebmasterWorld's weekly roundup of hot topics and discussions you may have missed in the last few days. (-Subscription required)

Source: WebmasterWorld Weekly Roundup July 12

What US Foreign Policy Needs to Know

Beyond Geopolitics        
       

This article originally appeared in Foreign Policy.
Many analyses have been made about Iran's strategic and geopolitical role in the Syrian regime, but not enough attention has been paid to the crucial and changing economic relations between the two countries. By analyzing Iran-Syria relations through this prism, one can shed light on the more nuanced, unconventional, and complicated aspects of Iran's role in Syria. 
Without a doubt, Syria is geopolitically and strategically the most significant regional ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This alliance has also given Iranian leaders a crucial leverage over Western powers, particularly the United States. Syria is Iran?s most important regional proxy and Assad?s ouster would throw into disarray all the pieces on Iran?s strategic game board; namely, Hezbollah and Hamas. Such an outcome will have potential impacts on Iran?s regional and international geopolitical leverage.
However, little has been said about Iran?s economic ties with Syria. Iran has invested a considerable amount of money, resources, skilled forces, and labor in Syria. These investments were ratcheted up, particularly, in the last few years before the uprisings erupted in various Syrian cities such as Homs, Hama, Latakia, Daraa, and the suburbs of Damascus.  Although a considerable amount of money and resources were allocated to investments in Syrian transportation and infrastructure, Iranian-Syrian economic ties are not limited to these spheres. A few months before the popular uprisings erupted, Iranian authorities signed a US$10 billion natural gas agreement with Syria and Iraq for the construction of gas pipeline which would start in Iran, run through Syria and Lebanon, through the Mediterranean, and reach several Western nations. According to the agreement, Iraq and Syria would receive a specified amount of cubic meters of gas per day. This proposal was endorsed by the Supreme Leader who also supported the allocation of US$5.8 billion in aid to Syria by Iran?s Center for Strategic Research (CSR).


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

Another unique and significant agreement that was signed before the crisis broke out in Syria was a proposal to establish a joint bank in Damascus, 60 percent of which the Iranian government would own. This agreement was significant because it would have allowed Iran to identify other financial hubs with which to conduct its transactions in Syria. At that time, there were no international financial limitations imposed on Syria - because Syrian banks were allowed to engage in trade and transactions with the West. A more comprehensive agreement that took place shortly before the uprisings was the one which was discussed between the Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi and Syrian President Bashar al Assad. This agreement sought to establish a regional economic bloc. As a result of this proposal, a 17-article agreement was signed which focused on ?trade, investment, planning and statistics, industries, air, naval and rail transportation, communication and information technology, health, agriculture, [and] tourism.? Additionally there are claims that Iran has been assisting Syria further develop its nuclear program.
The recent rounds of sanction imposed by the international community, the Arab League, and Turkey, has led to the suspension of all former agreements that Iran was attempting secure in the region which has put tremendous pressure on Iran. The Syrian pound (SYR) which was 47 to US$1 has fallen to 67 to US$1 which means that Syria has lost 25 percent of its spending power. The Syrian Ministry of Economy has stated that food prices have surged dramatically. The prices of some items have increased by up to 37 percent compared to before the popular uprisings began. Due to increases in military expenditures, public expenditures increased by US$19 billion in 2011. Meanwhile, public revenue has decreased by US$2.31 billion.

Although Iranian officials have frequently pointed out that their economic alliance would not be shaken by the security issues after the uprising which erupted in March 2011, Syrian state companies as well as business operators have encountered growing difficulties and obstacles in trading and reaching deals with Iran due to the restrictions on dollar transactions. These regulations were imposed by the American administration, European Union and other Arab Gulf states after the popular uprising, which has consequently led to the difficulty of utilizing and sourcing foreign currencies through the Syrian Central Bank. It is worth noting that the Iran-Syria economic alliance was operated by multi-level contracts of state and semi-private organizations through the adoption of the US dollar for transactions, which amounted to billions of dollars worth of exchanges.
These economic pressures on both countries pushed Iran and Syria to sign a symbolic free trade agreement on December 13, 2011. The move was an attempt to diminish the effects of economic sanctions imposed by the United States, EU, and some members of the Arab League, as well as reduce trade hurdles that have emerged due to the progress of rebels, the kidnapping of some Iranians in Damascus, and continued insecurity. According to the recent agreement, trade will be further liberalized between the state-owned companies and both countries declared that they would decrease custom fees in order to facilitate trading and business. Particularly, Syria has decided to reduce fees on Syrian goods exported to Iran by 60 percent in order to ratchet up the bilateral trade. Minister of Economy and Trade Mohammad Nidal al-Cha'ar pointed out at the Syrian-Iranian committee meeting "The road to Iran has always been paved for the two countries." 
These recent financial agreements are crucial for both countries, but particularly Syria, in order to open up a new market for its products and increase revenue. These agreements are believed to increase Iran and Syria's annual trade volume to US$5 billion. Allaedin Boroujerdi stated that the recent agreements were "a firm response" to the United States and its Western allies "investing billions of dollars to change the political structure of the Syrian government." They also are intended to offer the needed moral and economic support for Assad's isolated regime as well as the Iranian government.
It is clear that Iran has tremendous geopolitical and strategic interests in Syria. In addition, Syria is a crucial economic lifeline for Iran. Due to the current crisis in Syria, billions of dollars in Iranian investments (which were originally meant to be allocated to planning and statistics, industries, air, naval and rail transportation, communication and Foreign Policy, United States, Syria, Iran, Middle East, Foreign Affairs, World, Saudi Arabia, human rights, politics, information technology, health, agriculture, and tourism) have been suspended until either Assad regains control of Syria or a new government is established and stability is restored. 
MAJID RAJIZADEH, an Iranian-Syrian, is president of International American Council. He served as ambassador for the National Iranian-American Council. He is scholar, political expert, and human rights activist. He is regular commentator on national and international news outlets including CNN, BBC, Aljazeera, Russia TV, CCTV and France 24 International, to name a few. His works have appeared on various journals and magazines including New York Times, Foreign Policy, Fox News, Aljazeera English, Huffington Post, and Jerusalem Post. 

Source: What US Foreign Policy Needs to Know

Crunching data in the campaign cave

During an appearance on campus, Michelangelo D?Agostino explained how he worked to mine fundraising data, helping President Barack Obama win re-election.

Source: Crunching data in the campaign cave

Finding ?a solution to closed doors?

A Harvard Divinity School panel explored the workings of Shariah law and the rights of women under its rules, in part through the eyes of its first female judge.

Source: Finding ?a solution to closed doors?

School Pregnancy Case Before South Africa?s Constitutional Court Today



Source: School Pregnancy Case Before South Africa?s Constitutional Court Today

The film that stirred a cause, perhaps

Berkman Center Fellow Ruha Devanesan described some of her research on the ?Kony 2012? campaign in a recent talk and in an interview with the Gazette.

Source: The film that stirred a cause, perhaps

The Funny Thing About Pilgrimages

From Harvard University’s SoundCloud: PhD candidate in South Asian Studies Nicolas Roth joins us to discuss his recent visit to the Kumbh Mela, a mass Hindu pilgrimage that can grow to be the largest human gathering on Earth. Roth also discusses another “research interest” of his: Indian soap opera. Listen to the interview here: https://soundcloud.com/harvard/the-funny-thing-about [...]

Source: The Funny Thing About Pilgrimages

Harvard-Asia: Ties deep and broad

Harvard President Drew Faust?s coming trip to South Korea and Hong Kong is framed against a long history of Harvard?s engagement with Asia?s many nations.

Source: Harvard-Asia: Ties deep and broad

Tracking disease in a tent city

At India?s Kumbh Mela, the largest temporary city in the world, public health researchers from Harvard and beyond staged a small but nimble operation to follow health measures and disease outbreaks. The results will hold lessons not just for future Harvard students, but for urban health planners in India and elsewhere.

Source: Tracking disease in a tent city

U.S. Policy on Syria is Naive and Counterproductive

March 1, 2013"The big question people here ask is whether the United States should provide military aid to help the Syrian rebels improve their chances of defeating and overthrowing the Assad family regime. The hesitance of the Obama administration to do this (beyond the military training that is widely assumed to be underway in Jordan) is a classic example of why American foreign policy in the Middle East is so erratic, often leading to the growth of groups that feed off anti-American sentiments."

Source: U.S. Policy on Syria is Naive and Counterproductive

Coming Monday: Rendition and the European Court of Human Rights; Rethinking Personhood

Posted by Cara Solomon We’ve got two very different and pretty fascinating talks coming up on Monday. Plan ahead! And in the meantime, happy weekend. Monday, March 4, 2013 ?The United States and the European Court of Human Rights: Coming … Continue reading →

Source: Coming Monday: Rendition and the European Court of Human Rights; Rethinking Personhood

"My Neighbourhood" Panel Discussion



Source: "My Neighbourhood" Panel Discussion

Busting the budget

With the sequester closing in, the Gazette asked Harvard analysts to weigh in on how the dramatic spending cuts might affect the economy, politics, and the funding of research universities.

Source: Busting the budget

A deadly foe

Experts from public health, trade, finance, agriculture, and the law participated in a conference on tobacco governance sponsored by the Harvard School of Public Health and the World Health Organization.

Source: A deadly foe

Tomorrow: Perspectives on International Criminal Justice

Event Notice March 1, 2013 “Perspectives on International Criminal Justice” A Discussion with Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 12- 1:30 pm WCC 3036 Serge Brammertz is the Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal … Continue reading →

Source: Tomorrow: Perspectives on International Criminal Justice

When water causes sickness

A team of students with the Harvard College Engineers Without Borders is working with residents in a tiny town to improve both access to water and its quality.

Source: When water causes sickness

Military's limits show need for America's neglected weapon



Source: Military's limits show need for America's neglected weapon

When Citizens Claim Sovereignty

February 28, 2013In the midst of experiencing history being made on a daily basis, as has been the case in many Arab countries during the past two years, it is important now and then to step back from the day-to-day developments and try to understand more clearly the motivations that drive ordinary people to do extraordinary things. Two developments during the past week fall into this category, and give us better insights into why the continuing citizen agitation for human rights and a legitimate political order across the Arab world is likely to go on for some time.

Source: When Citizens Claim Sovereignty

Turkey's Regional Role: Public Attitudes in the Middle East



Source: Turkey's Regional Role: Public Attitudes in the Middle East

Hope ahead, hell behind

An Institute of Politics panel at the Harvard Kennedy School ? including a politician, a soldier, and an activist actor ? praised the resilience of post-earthquake Haiti but acknowledged the country?s long road ahead for recovery and stability.

Source: Hope ahead, hell behind

Event Today: Transitional Justice and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal

Event Notice February 26, 2013 Khmer Rouge Tribunal and its Contribution to Transitional Justice A Discussion with Andrew Cayley UN Chief International Co-Prosecutor of the ECCC 4-6 pm Hauser 102 Please join the Human Rights Program and the Humanitarian Academy … Continue reading →

Source: Event Today: Transitional Justice and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal

The Hong Kong model

Anson Chan, the former chief secretary for administration for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, outlined her hopes for a more democratic China when she delivered the Rama S. Mehta Lecture at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.

Source: The Hong Kong model

Commercializing the Crisis

Affleck Steers Argo towards familiar Hollywood tropes        
       

Critics and audiences agree: Ben Affleck has done it again. With its numerous award nominations and victories, including last night's Best Picture, Argo will surely join Gone Baby Gone and The Town as an Affleck-directed box-office success, and rightfully so. In Argo (based on Joshuah Bearman?s 2007 article in Wired, which itself is about the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis), classic movie elements are strung together to weave a story that leaves the viewer hostage to the film?s suspense. 
Argo?s greatest success lies in its ability to capture the viewer?s mood. Pairing the hangings of counterrevolutionaries with Hollywood dazzle and wit is an odd cocktail, indeed, and the viewer is made to feel it. The narrative itself is always comprehensible, but rather disorienting, as it well should be: the strangeness of the actual historical plot made little room for factual liberties to be taken without backlash by the writers and director. 
Sadly lacking is emotional depth in the protagonist, Tony Mendez, played by Affleck himself. Stone-faced throughout, sympathizing with him is emotionally draining. The least interesting portions of the film are those associated with him, and other characters are forced to serve as virtual beacons of light to distract from our bearded paragon of laconism. Perhaps ironically, the characters in the Hollywood industry, played by John Goodman and Alan Arkin, come across as the most human. The hostages, while forming a dynamic group appropriately suffering from cabin fever, are minor characters: they enrich the plot and make their experience memorable, but are not given any more attention than is necessary.  
Enthusiasts of history will appreciate the film?s initial depiction of the Islamic Revolution and its resulting despotism, although the portrayal is abandoned by the end of the film. This is a shame, as few films have done as well as this one at capturing the raw power of a politically motivated mob, or the sadly all-encompassing role suspicion plays in the aftermath of revolution. The historical lessons are predictably and shamelessly sacrificed for the sake of suspense. Instead of enriching viewers with evenhanded examination of political implications, Affleck forces viewers to anxiously follow the hostages from checkpoint to checkpoint until they reach their salvation. 


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

The film has been criticized by some for its factual errors. Some of these errors, such as the appearance of an Ewok figurine from the 1983 Star Wars movie, are benign. Yet others, like the fact that,even during the revolution there were still US teachers in Tehran are more serious, since they alter the plot. Further error can be found in the final airport scene: while in the film, the team is harassed, interrogated, and chased by the police, in reality, the US saviors made it onto the plane without a hassle. More importantly, the movie inaccurately makes the CIA (with the help of Hollywood) the sole hero, while in reality, Canadian Ambassador Taylor did much to aid the US diplomats in what is known historically as the ?Canadian Caper??although, given the source of the movie?s funding, this may not be surprising. 
Beyond technical criticisms, the film has opened audiences up to new perspectives of the United States? relationship with Iran. Through the depiction of the countless murders and rampant suffering of Iranian civilians under the rule of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, it reveals them as a people then under a cruel dictator. Although on the surface, the movie makes the United States out to be the victim of a radical Iranian regime, to a close observer, Iran is the film?s true victim. Argo creates empathy for the Iranians, who are enraged that the man who caused their countrymen, their friends, and their families to endure decades of hardship is being protected by the very country that helped keep him in power. Despite the revolution being an internal upheaval, the United States saw fit to interfere by providing Shah Pahlavi asylum, which, as one would expect, only added fuel to the fire. The story, perhaps pointedly, highlights the consequences of powerful states? interventionism, especially in popular movements.
Some Iranians, at least as shown in the movie, had real  hatred towards the United States: the events of Argo depict the beginning of the end of US-Iranian relations. With the fall of the Iranian dictatorship and the rise of the Ayatollahs, Iran completed its transformation into a theocracy. Moreover, the role of the United States in fometing resistance to the Islamic Republic abraod, and the subsequent US support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, furthered the anti-American sentiments in Iran. 
While there is a fair degree of expected inaccuracy necessary to render Argo as a film account of one of history?s great escapades, one gets the feeling that the director simply tries too hard to enthrall audiences with action. Reality itself tells a story well exciting enough, and the seasoning distracts from the taste of the meal. Not everything must come down to second-by-second, skin-of-the-teeth plot points for the viewer to know that the situation is precarious.  While this film appears to have taken a few lessons from, and may very well have been like Charlie Wilson?s War, it ends up much more like Safe House.

Source: Commercializing the Crisis

Syria's Breakup is a Levantine Norm

February 25, 2013The talk about Syria by knowledgeable friends and colleagues whose views I respect has turned increasingly pessimistic in recent weeks, with expectations ranging across a span of bad outcomes. These range from Syria becoming a Levantine Somalia, where power is in the hands of hundreds of local warlords and tribal chieftains, to a totally fractured state that is defined by a combination of raging civil war and sectarianism that pulls in interested neighbors and perhaps ignites new regional wars.

Source: Syria's Breakup is a Levantine Norm

The Rome Statute ? A Missed Opportunity

Once upon a time, there was a government with an acute sense of justice. This self-proclaimed ?world leader of democracy? joined a few others that felt morally obligated to find a way to punish those who commit atrocities against their own people. After some deliberation, they decided to create an international court in which such criminals could be brought to justice. More than 120 countries, small and large, poor and rich, signed and ratified the agreement establishing such a court. And then something strange happened: this self-proclaimed leader of democracy that was so intent and instrumental in forming the court had a change of heart and refused not only to ratify the international treaty but also bullied smaller nations into granting it immunity for its own actions. Without further ado, I present to you the United States of America.

As countries are experiencing sweeping political changes, the global political arena is shifting. From the Middle East and North Africa to Myanmar, the US attempts to maintain its leadership status. However, its chance to assert democratic ideals of transparency and accountability is blighted by a refusal to join 121 nations. Although the US orchestrated the Rome Statute, it refuses to ratify the doctrine, which puts it in a precarious position of being a leader of a cause it cannot bring itself to support.
The Rome Statute is the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court at The Hague, and countries that have ratified it are considered ?States Parties? and are therefore subject to its jurisdiction. By refusing to officially recognize the court, which it played a key role in designing, the US acts like this arm of justice is good enough for others ? just not good enough for it.


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

The US refusal to officially back the International Criminal Court (ICC) undermines the authority of the UN Security Council and peacekeeping missions in general. The US seems to be in bed with Russia and China when it comes to international law: by joining them in not ratifying the treaty, it is telling the world that it shares the priorities of these governments. Although US ratification would do little to motivate Russia and China to make the same move, it would send a clear message to the world that the US is ready to accept accountability for its actions and separate its record of human rights from those of Russia and China. The move would further ostracize Russia and China, both of whom face intense criticism today for their reluctance to reprimand the Syrian government. Furthermore, US ratification of the Rome Statute would create a bigger dichotomy between states that actively condemn human rights abuses and those that do not. The political pressure of isolation can prove such a strong diplomatic tool: it is crucial to publicly and globally separate the nations that are committed to prosecuting crimes against humanity and those that are not. Were the United States to officially recognize the ICC, states would no longer have easy justification for failure to accede to the only established system of international due process. The US and North Korea would no longer be partners in their refusal to recognize the international rule of law.
In addition to strengthening the resolve of multilateral institutions such as the UN, ratification of the Rome Statute would reinforce the unilateral professed missions of the US. Presently, there exists an overwhelming contradiction in US efforts to bolster democratic ideals in the Middle East: how can the US not only preach, but also attempt to impose, democratic ideals, such as transparency and due process, when it fails to fill the gaping holes in its own realization of them? To legitimize its alleged goals in the Middle East and do away with the blatant double standard, the US must ratify the Rome Statute. In doing so, it will elevate the rule of law over the rule of force. It is clear that the US wants the right to assert unilateral force. However, globalization and rising interdependence solidifies the need and legitimacy of an international rule of law, the enforcement of which must be multilateral and cooperative.
Bringing the subject of the ICC to the public stage in the US would be very healthy for its own democracy. It would force a national discourse that has been lacking?one that embraces the topics of law, immunity and US exceptionalism. Furthermore, such a discussion would force both government and citizens to reassess the costs and benefits of establishing international norms and the effects of opposing or complying with them. The United States is in far too comfortable a position regarding international due process, as it refuses to match it goals and ideals with actions.
The opportunity to ratify the Rome Statute presents the Obama Administration with a concrete way to dispel a significant portion of US exceptionalism in the case of human rights policy. Formal acceptance of the treaty would mark the beginning of a veracious commitment to upholding human rights and justice. US diplomacy should not be hinged on special interests, namely those of the military-industrial complex. Instead, foreign policy should align with the ideals of a peaceful and just world order. Obviously, the ICC must tread a fine line, as it is a judicial body operating within a highly political realm. The rhetoric of international law and justice often flows into abstraction. However, the full-fledged support of the US would make the goal of universal jurisdiction much stronger.
If the US judicial system is as sophisticated and pervasive as it is touted to be, then the fear of politically motivated indictments of US military officials and servicemen by the ICC is unfounded. Under the Rome Statute, domestic courts wield the primary authority, and only when they are unwilling or unable to prosecute crimes against humanity does the ICC have jurisdiction. The US judicial system would, one would hope, respond with alacrity to violations of humanitarian law committed by the US and allied nationals, thereby eliminating the ability of the ICC to prosecute. Furthermore, the statute ascribes ICC jurisdiction to only the most egregious and systematic crimes against civilians, not to individual accusations of ill doing.
If the US continues to act as though ratifying the Rome Statute is beneath its dignity, it perpetuates hypocrisy on a global scale. The message the US risks sending to the world is thus: we want the authority to dictate a system of international justice, but are too mighty to be subjected to its terms. Wake up, America: you cannot confer legitimacy or leadership through a series of half-hearted pleas for international justice only in the instances that bolster your image or advance your interests abroad.
Promote individual responsibility, justice without violence and the rule of law. Defend human rights, end conflicts and impunity and deter future crimes against humanity. These are the goals of The Hague. The US played a leading role in setting up tribunals at Nuremberg, in Japan, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda to bolster these goals. Aren?t they in line with US values, at least in principle? So why does the US continue to refuse to back them?

Source: The Rome Statute ? A Missed Opportunity

Iranian Sanctions and the West

The US needs to change its position on Iran - but what should it do?        
       

The West sees Iran as an almost mythical supervillain, led by a omnipotent religious overlord and his almost cartoonish puppet President. Concerns about Iran's nuclear intentions have dominated the diplomatic stage for years, but as yet, no progress has been made ? the time is ripe for change. But what kind?

Diplomacy is the Answer
Julia Geiger


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

Iran confounds conventional wisdom. Experts argue that the Iranian regime is an exception to the rule of mutually assured destruction, but no one can say with certainty what the heads of state (President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei) would do were ever to acquire a functioning nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, threatened by the potential acquisition of a nuclear weapon by a country whose leader has declared the desire to wipe his country off the map, wants to draw a line in the sand. Nuclear enrichment past a certain point should, in his eyes, be taken as an act of aggression and responded to with force. US President Barack Obama, on the other hand, has refused to dictate such a line, instead holding out hope for a gradual and diplomatic solution to the Iranian problem. No matter the intentions of Iran?s leaders, world leaders should stand behind Obama?s more diplomatic stance in the near future.
Iran may be more willing to listen than world leaders give them credit for: during the Bush presidency, Iran presented a plan to stop nuclear development, only to be shot down by an administration that not only refused to negotiate, but coined the term ?Axis of Evil? to explain why negotiating with Iran would be utterly impossible. To a regime built on anti-Western sentiments, this harsh rebuke to their tenuous efforts was perceived as a slap in the face, and it sent the Iranian regime scuttling back to its extremist rhetoric. A different approach, built on mutual respect, would fare much better. To the Iranian regime, appearances are everything, so large powers must be willing to listen to what Iran has to say rather than dictating, and to treat the country like something more than a misbehaved child. 
Another reason Iran should be willing to listen to international negotiations is its floundering economy. Tough sanctions imposed by Western powers have certainly taken a toll on it: the latest numbers show Iranian oil revenues are down 45%. The Iranian government is totally dependent on oil revenues to fund the government, as well as to keep its people in check. Since oil is not really dependent on labor supplied, the government can afford to oppress its people without fear of strikes, but only so long as oil funds are constant. If revenues continue declining, or even if they remain at their current rate, the regime may not be able to sustain its stranglehold on the country. The sanctions have also kept vital pieces of the nuclear puzzle out of Iran?s hands. If Iran begins losing control of its people and cannot build a nuclear weapon, they should prove much more willing to negotiate.
Similarly, Syria?s probable demise may force Iran?s hand. Bashar al-Assad has been one of Iran?s staunchest allies, and the only real source of hegemonic power in the Middle East. With the majority of the Western world, including the United States, backing the rebels in the civil war, Assad?s chances at winning the civil war are uncertain at best. If Iran?s most important ally indeed falls, it will be a huge blow. In the current precarious state, Iran would be wise to diversify their group of allies, or at least minimize their enemies.
Even if Iran does not prove overly receptive to negotiations, it would still be in the West?s interests to proceed diplomatically. For one, aggressive actions towards Iran have not historically been well received by Russia, and Iran?s regime feeds off anti-Western sentiment: a move to attack, or even a hard line that seems in the least bit unfair, would be propagandized in no time at all. The West does not have much capital in Iran since the downfall of the oppressive US-backed regime. Perhaps even more importantly, the US and Israel should try to build capital with the rest of the world now: if Iran ignores clear, open efforts at negotiations in favor of building its nuclear arsenal, other world leaders would be much more inclined to favor aggressive actions in the future than if the beginning position had been offensive.
There are arguments in favor of drawing lines in the sand; should Iran succeed in attaining a nuclear bomb, negotiations would become exponentially more difficult and the likelihood of a nuclear war would skyrocket. But in the past, lines in the sand have often been disrespected, and Iran?s current precariousness presents a unique opportunity for its Western antagonists: should negotiations succeed, the entire world could rest easier. Without at least trying out a diplomatic approach without dramatic threats, the potential for a peaceful and agreeable solution to all parties would be lost. Ultimatums have not worked with Iran in the past, and there is no reason to suppose one will work now. A new strategy is in order ? one that allows for the possibility of a rational Iranian regime, and one that will hopefully put an end to the very real possibility of nuclear war in the Middle East.
Iran confounds conventional wisdom. Experts argue that the Iranian regime is an exception to the rule of mutually assured destruction, but no one can say with certainty what the heads of state (President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei) would do were ever to acquire a functioning nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, threatened by the potential acquisition of a nuclear weapon by a country whose leader has declared the desire to wipe his country off the map, wants to draw a line in the sand. Nuclear enrichment past a certain point should, in his eyes, be taken as an act of aggression and responded to with force. US President Barack Obama, on the other hand, has refused to dictate such a line, instead holding out hope for a gradual and diplomatic solution to the Iranian problem. No matter the intentions of Iran?s leaders, world leaders should stand behind Obama?s more diplomatic stance in the near future.
Iran may be more willing to listen than world leaders give them credit for: during the Bush presidency, Iran presented a plan to stop nuclear development, only to be shot down by an administration that not only refused to negotiate, but coined the term ?Axis of Evil? to explain why negotiating with Iran would be utterly impossible. To a regime built on anti-Western sentiments, this harsh rebuke to their tenuous efforts was perceived as a slap in the face, and it sent the Iranian regime scuttling back to its extremist rhetoric. A different approach, built on mutual respect, would fare much better. To the Iranian regime, appearances are everything, so large powers must be willing to listen to what Iran has to say rather than dictating, and to treat the country like something more than a misbehaved child. 
Another reason Iran should be willing to listen to international negotiations is its floundering economy. Tough sanctions imposed by Western powers have certainly taken a toll on it: the latest numbers show Iranian oil revenues are down 45%. The Iranian government is totally dependent on oil revenues to fund the government, as well as to keep its people in check. Since oil is not really dependent on labor supplied, the government can afford to oppress its people without fear of strikes, but only so long as oil funds are constant. If revenues continue declining, or even if they remain at their current rate, the regime may not be able to sustain its stranglehold on the country. The sanctions have also kept vital pieces of the nuclear puzzle out of Iran?s hands. If Iran begins losing control of its people and cannot build a nuclear weapon, they should prove much more willing to negotiate.
Similarly, Syria?s probable demise may force Iran?s hand. Bashar al-Assad has been one of Iran?s staunchest allies, and the only real source of hegemonic power in the Middle East. With the majority of the Western world, including the United States, backing the rebels in the civil war, Assad?s chances at winning the civil war are uncertain at best. If Iran?s most important ally indeed falls, it will be a huge blow. In the current precarious state, Iran would be wise to diversify their group of allies, or at least minimize their enemies.
Even if Iran does not prove overly receptive to negotiations, it would still be in the West?s interests to proceed diplomatically. For one, aggressive actions towards Iran have not historically been well received by Russia, and Iran?s regime feeds off anti-Western sentiment: a move to attack, or even a hard line that seems in the least bit unfair, would be propagandized in no time at all. The West does not have much capital in Iran since the downfall of the oppressive US-backed regime. Perhaps even more importantly, the US and Israel should try to build capital with the rest of the world now: if Iran ignores clear, open efforts at negotiations in favor of building its nuclear arsenal, other world leaders would be much more inclined to favor aggressive actions in the future than if the beginning position had been offensive.
There are arguments in favor of drawing lines in the sand; should Iran succeed in attaining a nuclear bomb, negotiations would become exponentially more difficult and the likelihood of a nuclear war would skyrocket. But in the past, lines in the sand have often been disrespected, and Iran?s current precariousness presents a unique opportunity for its Western antagonists: should negotiations succeed, the entire world could rest easier. Without at least trying out a diplomatic approach without dramatic threats, the potential for a peaceful and agreeable solution to all parties would be lost. Ultimatums have not worked with Iran in the past, and there is no reason to suppose one will work now. A new strategy is in order ? one that allows for the possibility of a rational Iranian regime, and one that will hopefully put an end to the very real possibility of nuclear war in the Middle East.

Decisive Action ? Not the Same Old Refrain
Mark Thomas
When looking for inspiration on solving the great problems of the Near East, I like to turn to the region?s most popular product. Revelation 3:16 reads ?because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.? For too long, the international community has attempted to take the middle ground when negotiating with Iran about their nuclear program, and to no effect. Since the program became of concern to the US after the Shah fell in 1979, it has progressed practically unabated despite all negotiations, sanctions, and other tactics used to delay it. The US and its allies are fully supportive of Iran?s civilian nuclear intentions ? so long as they buy the fuel from outside suppliers, like Russia. The issue at stake is if Iran ought to enrich the uranium themselves, and to what level of purity.
As usual, the US began with a hard line and has slowly had to back down; their original stance was that Iran would under no circumstances be allowed to enrich any uranium. When Iran did anyway, the US tried to bargain for a maximum 3% of fuel purity. Iran ignored this suggestion and enriched to 20 percent, so the US absurdly tried to give a counteroffer of 5 percent. The pattern here is obvious; Iran, like North Korea before it, is doing what it wants to with no regard to foreign negotiating. The global community has had little to no effect on the actual trajectory of their nuclear program. The recent sanctions, although remarkable in their severity and scope, have similarly yet to yield results. Indeed, Iran is successfully stalling the latest round of talks by continually changing their location, a transparent tactic that signals indifference for global opinion.  Despite all efforts, Iran has continued over the past ten years to build centrifuges, enrich uranium, and deny IAEA inspectors access to their facilities. Iran has also recently begun negotiations with Venezuela to mine uranium, creating a consistent source for the raw material they can then enrich at will.
What is the goal of the sanctions? Hopefully not to leave the entire country so strapped for cash that they literally cannot afford the cement to build more uranium storage bunkers. Many foreign powers hope that the sanctions? economic impact will change the tide of public opinion in Iran and convince them to abandon their nuclear designs. This is unlikely. Although in October there were serious protests over rapid currency devaluation, there are now few signs of unrest. Furthermore, it is a vain hope that the protesters? rage will somehow shift from the rial?s plummet to the nuclear program; while many demanded President Ahmadinejad?s resignation over the crisis, it was because he mismanaged the economy, not that incurred international sanctions. Indeed, it seems that Western commentators are the only ones to have identified the sanctions as the cause of Iran?s woes ? except Ahmadinejad, who is so confident in the popularity of the program that his defense against the protesters? accusations was to try to shift the blame to the sanctions. He has reason to be confident in the nuclear program?s support ? polls have consistently shown that a majority of Iran?s population supports the nuclear program. It has become a point of national pride.
Anyone hoping for a sanctions-induced regime change shouldn?t hold their breath. Despite the backlash against Ahmadinejad, there has yet to be any public criticism of the Ayatollah, and there probably will not be. And although Iran will be holding presidential elections this year, all of the major candidates so far are staunch supporters of the nuclear program.
The international community needs to evaluate our actions critically and with a clear head: Iran is not about to stop enriching uranium. Our obsession with sanctions has gotten us nowhere. We need to abandon the middle ground and move to a tenable position: either we use force to physically disrupt the nuclear program, or we radically adjust our expectations.
So far the only demonstrable disruptions to Iran?s uranium enrichment have been cyber attacks, strategically placed explosives and assassinations. If the international community is convinced that a nuclear Iran is absolutely unacceptable, then the only way to prevent it is through similar action. Indeed, Iran?s parallel to North Korea has become much eerier as signs of cooperation between the two countries? nuclear programs continue to emerge.
Alternatively, the US could drastically alter its negotiation tactics and accept Iran?s 20 percent benchmark. Despite all efforts, Iran continues to enrich uranium, and sanctions have only made them more antagonistic and less likely to agree to IAEA sanctions. The US could adopt a friendlier strategy and give Iran the benefit of the doubt that they genuinely intend the uranium for purely civilian purposes (the 20 percent enrichment, somewhat high for a nuclear reactor, is purportedly destined for a medical facility) ? and then leverage that friendship to follow up with IAEA due diligence and inspections. Although sanctions seem like a good idea, the simple fact is they are having no effect; the longer we remain in denial about this, the closer Iran is to achieving nuclear status with no oversight. Better to abandon the middle ground and adopt a new approach ? be it use of force or conciliatory negotiations, at least then we might get results.

Source: Iranian Sanctions and the West

The Allure

How the dream of energy independence may harm more than it helps        
       

Few people would argue that self-sufficiency is a ?bad? thing. After all, there is security in only being dependent on oneself. It is not surprising then that the creation of an energy independent United States, where the nation rids itself of all foreign sources of energy, is a fairly popular political position. The possibility of stable gas prices that are immune to international supply fluctuations, as well as the tapping of the clean-burning natural gas reserves, is indeed attractive. In political rhetoric, the idea is often thrown around: President Obama has stated that ?America's dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation has faced" and that it "bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation, and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism.? On closer inspection, however, becoming an energy independent nation may create more problems than it solves.
The United States is not alone in the world, and the actions of the United States will have far-reaching consequences. Canada is the United States? single largest oil supplier, exporting to its southern neighbor around two million barrels a day, or over a billion barrels a year. As Canada?s largest trading partner, ending this exchange, worth around US$66 billion a year, would severely damage US-Canadian relationships. In addition to Canada, ending energy trade agreements may have adverse effects on the relationships between the United States and its other trading partners. This may especially be true in the Middle East, where regional allies are extremely important. Anti-American sentiment is easily ignited in that region, and any action that would spark a flame is dangerous.
Many Americans find reason enough to end oil imports from nations like Saudi Arabia in their less than democratic practices. As Obama said, this oil dependency is ?bankrolling dictators.? However, cutting these relations may not and likely will not help improve human rights or promote democracy in that nation. Other large consumers of oil would continue to support these regimes; but if these economic relations were to be maintained, sanctions and economic pressure would provide leverage to accomplish such goals. The effectiveness of this is illustrated many times throughout history. In 2003, it was the US sanctions that led Col. Moammar Gadhafi to surrender Libya?s weapons of mass destruction. Libya under Gadhafi, a problem that had plagued the Reagan Administration, was partially resolved due to the leverage provided by oil.  
US intervention and involvement in the Middle East is not likely to end with energy independence, either. The United States is not the only consumer of oil, and with other large consumers like China growing rapidly, it is feasible for China to extend its influence into the Middle East as it continues to diversify its own energy supply. Even now, as sanctions are being placed on Iran, China continues to import large amounts of oil from the nation. Politically, the United States needs to continue its role of maintaining a strong presence in every region of the globe in order to retain its role as a world superpower.


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

Necessary to building an energy independent United States is finding a viable long-term domestic energy source. Supporters of energy independence would point to the possibility of tapping the oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, or drilling natural gas reserves throughout the United States. On closer inspection, however, neither method is either sustainable or sufficient. In a report by the Department of Energy, it was found that drilling for oil in Alaska ?is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices? and that any potential reduction in prices would be negated by OPEC reducing exports. In addition, the report also cites numerous ?uncertainties? when it comes to the Alaskan oil, including the actual amount available. Factor in the numerous environmental concerns of drilling in a pristine wildlife reserve, and the Alaskan oil fields prove to be more harmful then beneficial.
In recent years, the push to drill the natural gas reserves of the United States has gained traction, especially since new technology has made previously inaccessible pockets of gas profitable and economical to exploit. However, the new technology, known as horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or ?fracking?, is subject to much controversy. This type of drilling requires an enormous amount of water and chemicals to be blasted into the rock. Many of these chemicals are already known to be toxic, such as benzene and lead, and there are also many proprietary products whose chemical composition is unknown, as the manufacturers claim trade secrecy.
Furthermore, methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, is released through fracking, and in Pennsylvania, there are cases of household taps going ?foul? or lighting on fire due to methane in the water. In fact, the case in Pennsylvania was one the first cases that state regulators attributed directly to natural gas drilling. Numerous other communities, towns, and cities have come forward, citing contamination of ground water. While it is hotly debated as to whether the actual blasting of the rock allows chemicals to seep into ground water, there are many cases of the chemical-water mixture seeping out from onsite storage at these drilling sites. After drilling, most companies store the flowback water and chemicals in open-air pits that are extremely susceptible to seepage into ground water.  Even with proper precautions, these pits can still leak or overflow. 
While numerous regulations are being proposed to reduce the impact of this type of drilling, companies vehemently oppose them, claiming they would make fracking unprofitable. Drilling these previously inaccessible natural gas fields is more expensive than typical natural gas. As a matter of fact, it may even prove to be even more expensive than previously predicted. The New York Times released a series of industry emails discussing how fracking may be more expensive than previously projected. As a result, this natural gas may prove to be more expensive to the consumer than advertised. To achieve the advertised result of sustainable low prices, subsidies and government tariffs on foreign natural gas may be needed. Viewed in combination with environmental concerns, natural gas may not be as attractive as it once seemed.
Energy independence is a fairly isolationist policy that can create a devastated environment and strained alliances, while not producing anything worthwhile. It is such an extreme policy that it is completely unnecessary. Similar results can be achieved by simply continuing to invest in renewable energy and diversifying the nation?s energy supply. It seems unnecessary to completely exclude foreign sources of energy: in the eyes of other nations, this looks very much like protectionism. There seem to be many benefits of energy independence, none of them are unique to it, but there are many negative costs that are indeed unique. A wonderful idea on paper, it is one that deserves much more attention and scrutiny.

Source: The Allure

The Private Sector's New Role

Why the public sector can no longer fight the war against climate change on its own        
       

As the Doha summit came to an end last month, many left unsatisfied. No concrete progress was made on the planned new protocol agreement for 2015, which, unlike the Kyoto Protocol, would require all nations?not just the wealthy? to cut emissions. Even an outline of the new protocol has yet to be reached. Furthermore, the billions of dollars of funding intended to help developing countries adapt to potential consequences of climate change was postponed for another year. However, the failure of governments to reach effective solutions regarding climate change is not a new trend to the international community. Christiana Fugeress, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change stated after Doha that ?the international policy response is fundamentally behind where the science says we are.? As the frustration over the slow pace of international discussions about climate change starts to grow, many people are starting to question whether the fight against climate change is something that should be left to the government alone, or whether the private sector should start playing a larger role.

Currently, the role of the private sector in combating climate change is mostly focused on reducing corporate emissions. Many companies in the private sector are looking towards renewable energy sources, while others are operating under systems like carbon taxes and cap and trade. The private sector is already stepping up to cut down on emissions and transition into cleaner energies. In the US, the private sector has funded large reforestation projects and renewable energy projects. In addition, projects like the Chicago Climate Exchange, a cap-and-trade system, are good starts to helping the private sector cut down on emissions. Other regions of the world have imposed substantial carbon tax systems. However, the private sector?s focus on emission mitigation may not be enough. Many policymakers are now pushing for it to play a larger role in climate change, especially in developing countries. Since developing countries are often more vulnerable due to dependencies on industries like agriculture, which are disproportionately affected by climate change, it is extremely important that those countries be prepared for the potential consequences. In addition, developing countries have a lower capacity to adapt to any changes, climate related or not, because the country oftentimes lacks the proper resources or infrastructures for response. It is essential that the issue of adaptation in these developing nations be addressed, and quickly.
The private sector is uniquely capable of addressing the issue of adaptation for a few key reasons: first, the private sector is generally able to act faster and more efficiently than the public sector, which could be essential to minimizing the damage from short-term climatic consequences, like natural disasters. Second, according to a report by the UNFCCC in 2008, ?the private sector can provide financial resources for adaptation through investments, financial risk management, the commercial provision of capital and the philanthropic provision of resources through private foundations.? The report continues to state that the private sector has a unique ability to convert assets like buildings and agricultural lands, and adapt various business practices like water management into more environmentally-conscious practices that are also resilient to potential consequences of climate change. This highlights the way in which much of the private sector could engage in climate change efforts. By investing in these countries, the private sector could provide the funding for developed countries that was yet again postponed by the Doha conference. With these funds, these countries would be able to start various initiatives to begin preparing themselves for the upcoming decades of climate uncertainty. 


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

Especially important, the private sector would be able to help with insurance coverage. According to a report by the International Finance Committee, less than five percent of households in developing countries are covered under an insurance policy. An often-proposed solution to this problem is offering of micro-insurance policies tailored specifically for the poor in developing countries. This type of insurance would likely have low premiums and coverage limits to make them more affordable, and cover essentials for survival in developing countries like life, health, and crops. By creating this kind of insurance and risk-management system, the private sector would potentially secure and minimize impacts of climate change while also opening up an investment opportunity. 
One common concern is that the private sector would not be economically incentivized to tackle the adaptation problem. This, however, would not be likely for a variety of reasons: first, tackling the problem opens a market for private businesses, in helping to manufacture and distribute goods that help people be more prepared for climate change. Second, offering services like insurance would be an economic opportunity, especially since those insurances would often be subsidized. Other issues like building flood protection, creating food security and stress-resilient crops, purifying and treating water, and developing irrigation systems all create future investment opportunities for the private sector. All in all, it is not economically unwise for the private sector to start playing a larger role in helping countries prepare for potential consequences of climate change. Not only would the private sector be more efficient than governmental organs, but they would also be incentivized by the numerous investment opportunities to remain involved with the effort.
Overall, it appears that the role of the private sector would be two-fold. Firstly, they would continue to expand their role in mitigating potential negative effects of climate change on developing countries. More importantly, the private sector needs to start playing a larger role in helping countries adapt to potential consequences of climate change, building more resilient methods to deal with those consequences. Though the public sector still must be heavily involved in the fight against climate change, the time has come for the private sector to step out of the backdrop and start playing a larger role on its own.

Source: The Private Sector's New Role

The Future of the Welfare State

The Great Recession of 2008 and the Euro Crisis have triggered a worldwide discussion about entitlements ? protests in Greece and Spain over austerity proved that they have become a beloved part of modern governance. Is this the role the government must play? Must the current model be improved, or is the whole undertaking fundamentally flawed?

The Fundamental Flaws of Welfare
Isaac Inkeles


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

In today?s world of budget crises and austerity, the welfare state is often discussed in practical terms: affordability, tax and benefit adjustment, efficiency, etc. These conversations assume that the welfare state is something to be desired; rarely, however, is the idea of the welfare state itself discussed. Is it a good thing? This question can be pursued several ways. Perhaps ? if we take for granted the favorability of capitalism - the welfare state is necessary because it induces the working classes to accept the capitalist model. Or, it may be that the welfare state simply helps the working classes, and so is good for purely humanitarian reasons. If one explores these thoughts, however, he will find that the welfare state neither in practice nor in theory does or can help the working classes, making it superfluous to the capitalist system.
To determine whether or not the welfare state prevents the poor from becoming disenfranchised with the capitalist scheme, its effects on the poor should be studied. It must, if it is to induce the working classes to participate in the capitalist system, alleviate their condition. Thus, if the meta-purpose of welfare is to maintain capitalism, its specific purpose is to facilitate the economic empowerment of the poor.
At the beginning of The Great Society in 1965, the US federal government spent US$77 billion on ?social welfare?. By 1978, that number had risen to US$317 billion. However, in that time span, the number of Americans living in poverty remained constant at around 2.5 million.
Between 1950 and 1968, the poverty rate in the US dropped nearly 17 points from around 30% to roughly 13%. However, as The Great Society?s welfare programs began to take effect, this progress stopped. Twelve years later, in 1980, the poverty rate stood at 13%, and today sits around 16% -before the recession, in 2008, the poverty rate was just above 13%. Welfare has also increased what the economist and American Enterprise Institute fellow Charles Murray has called the ?latent poverty rate?, or the number of people who would be in poverty if it were not for government assistance. The latent poverty rate dropped until 1968, when it began to rise once again, indicating a new, greater dependence on the government.
In 1982, Walter Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University, published The State Against Blacks, which argues that economic regulation and welfare have dramatically harmed African Americans. In a 2011 interview with The Wall Street Journal, he noted that ?the welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do, and that is to destroy the black family.? Until the 1940s, 75-85% of African American children lived in homes with two parents; today those numbers have flipped, and upwards of 70% of Africans American children are born to single mothers.
Is it possible, however, that everything previously discussed is a case of correlation and not causation? How can it be established that welfare programs have deleterious effects, and this is not just the result of greater social trends?
There is a distinction to be made between a loan and a handout. A loan must be paid back. It is thus implicitly maintaining that the recipient of the loan will one day be in a position of strength and self-reliance. Loans charge people with responsibility and hold that they are capable of being responsible. They are, in this way, empowering.
A handout is fundamentally different than a loan. The recipient of a handout is not expected to be able to one day pay it back. Unlike with a loan, a handout does not expect anything of the poor, and in this way passes some severe judgments: those living in poverty cannot be expected to in one lifetime rise up into prominence, they are not to be given responsibilities (presumably because they cannot meet them), and they are in need not of an opportunity, but of charity.
This comparison between loans and handouts is designed to highlight the nature of welfare. A welfare payment is a handout, and it is hence a vote of no confidence in the people receiving it. It is debilitating and patronizing: it assumes that the working classes need the help of the affluent. In short, the welfare state cannot foster a sense of economic empowerment because it is not empowering. 
The welfare state has been unable to fight back against poverty. Any sense of economic empowerment and mobility that it creates is just that: a sense, totally illusory. Hence, it cannot keep the working classes enchanted with our capitalist scheme. Capitalism must survive or die on its own merits.
Even if the welfare state helped eradicate poverty, and thus was either necessary to support capitalism or justifiable on humanitarian grounds, the wise reader should still be wary of it: in the long run, a welfare state is unsustainable. It would be too easy ? albeit it perfectly fair ? to use the PIGS nations (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) to demonstrate the dangers of profligate welfare spending. Nations that are presumably more responsible are also in danger. In the United Kingdom, as of October 2012, public sector net debt was nearly 68 percent of GDP, and between 2011-12, the UK had to borrow the equivalent of 11 percent of its GDP. In the United States, Social Security will be operating in the red by 2033, and Medicare nine years earlier in 2024. Danish Prime Minister Thornig-Schmidt, who leads a coalition government made up of leftist parties, released a document called Denmark 2032, which began discussing the need for Denmark to prioritize its spending; the Danish welfare state cannot exist as is for much longer.
It seems that I have been quite harsh with welfare: not only is it unnecessary and ineffective, it is dangerous, putting at risk both our self-esteem and our public finances. Some modified welfare programs, however, are more than justified. There are some out there so despondent or so unable that their only succor is the government. Old age pensions, for those who cannot afford a dignified retirement and have worked to a ripe age, are hard to argue with. Those struck by fate with physical or mental illness and cannot work should be taken care of. We all aim to live in civilized society. The issue with the welfare state is that it aims to take all of us there in the same way. A broad and general welfare state is ineffective, but specific and tailored programs that work are rational and reasonable.

Reform: The Future of the Welfare State
Yacine Fares
The future of the welfare state is one of massive, structural reform. It will be brought about by two realizations: that government spending has reached unsustainable levels, and that current welfare models are crumbling relics of a bygone era.  In the post-Great Recession world, austerity and spending reform are hot topics in many capitals across the globe. The recent financial crisis provided an inflection point for many governments that came as unemployment insurance spending rose and unsustainable deficits became reality. Aiming to curb these deficits, politicians have and will continue to look at the main drivers of government spending: entitlement programs. From this factor comes the pressure to halt, and possibly decrease, the rate of government spending on such programs. Long before the recent financial crisis, it became clear that many models of welfare across the globe have begun to crumble. Income inequality has increased globally, and western income distribution stands today in stark contrast to where it was a few decades ago. This is especially true for the United States. Economists forecast that such uneven distributions of wealth may be detrimental to economic growth and may hamper any promise of another ?American century?. Households spend increasing amounts of their paycheck on health care services, and other sectors of the economy are deprived of middle class business. The gap in quality between public schools and wealthier, private schools has increased and cemented a self-reinforcing higher class more able to invest in its future success. Facing a crumbling welfare system, many countries cannot solve their problems through the familiar solution of increased spending. Structural reform to welfare is the only path forward. It must take into account specific, national problems, chief among them being demographic in nature. In many parts of the Western world, older, retiring generations rival younger ones in number and place great strain on national retirement programs. An example of this problem is the US ?Baby Boomer? generation and the necessary reforms their retirement will herald to the Social Security program. While the recent expiration of some George Bush-era tax cuts increased the payroll tax on US workers to raise funds for the program, it is clear that structural changes, such as an increase in the age at which a worker can access full retirement payments, must be made soon. US workers are living longer, and their increased longevity places a great financial burden on the government and current workforce.
In the US and many other countries, health care spending also poses a large obligation for governments. In this arena, the US faces a much graver problem that much of the world. Prices for medical procedures in the US dwarf those of similar procedures in other countries; the health care system is fundamentally flawed. It is composed of a market where the consumer often does not know the prices of the services they are purchasing, or how necessary these services are. There is a pervasive incentive in the market for overprescription and overcharging. A reformed health care model must include new mechanisms that dictate how informed a patient must be in the doctor?s office and disincentivize price increases and overprescription. While much of the world does not share the United States? health care problems in neither number nor magnitude, flawed health care systems and their ballooning costs provide irresistible opportunities for both enhanced quality of care and reducing costs for all nations. In much of the world, there must also be a call for systemic reforms to education policy, an area which is often dictated by special interest groups that do not act with student proficiency as their fundamental goal. Until recent years, education policy has been stagnant and so a dearth of information exists about how specific changes to education system affect student performance. Governments have been hesitant to experiment proposed changes within smaller environments before vetting them as candidates for national policy. Education policy must remain on the cutting edge, must be driven by empirical data. Standardized tests must be improved so that lawmakers are confident that increases in standardized test scores truly do mean an improvement in student proficiency. The inefficient and bloated nature of many welfare systems is a silver lining to the dilemma of welfare reform. It provides a clear alternative to the deficit hawk approach that advocates blind cuts to a welfare system that has proven vital to social stability. The welfare state is integral to the western system of governance. Recent challenges to its existence, and certainly to its robustness, ignore the fact that it is the welfare state that ensures the continued existence of the free market capitalist model that has brought about economic prosperity in the western world. There is an alternative to cutting away a social safety net that calls for providing much-needed reforms to aging systems. A new approach to efficiency, perhaps a technocratic approach to efficiency, will define the future of the welfare state. Facing this approach or that of the deficit hawks, it is clear that reform is the only path forward.

Source: The Future of the Welfare State

A Defense of Drones

The War on Terror is no longer a traditional conflict. The diffuse, decentralized nature of terrorist organizations had already made this an unconventional war; now, the use of unmanned aircraft has added another non-traditional layer. Conventional military strategies have failed in Iraq and Afghanistan: the United States has, in many cases, stopped sending people into combat, opting instead for airstrikes by unmanned aerial vehicles. Over the past decade, US military and intelligence agencies have expanded their use of unmanned Predator and Reaper drones; these robotic aircraft are generally used to carry out targeted strikes against known members of terrorist groups. US reliance on drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries has changed the nature of the war on terror.
 
This strategy is not without controversy. The Obama administration?s heavy use of unmanned drones in the War on Terror has come under fire from a variety of opponents, including human rights groups, think tanks, and even foreign governments. Critics claim that drone strikes cause civilian casualties, incorrectly target only the most prominent leaders of terrorist groups, and create backlash against the US. To hear some tell it, the use of drones exacerbates, rather than solves, the problem of terrorism.
 


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

The reality is not so bleak: drones are very good at what they do. Unmanned attacks are highly effective when it comes to eliminating specific members of terrorist organizations, disrupting terrorist networks without creating too much collateral damage. Their effectiveness makes drone strikes a vital part of US counterterrorism strategy.
 
Predator and Reaper drones are not the indiscriminate civilian-killers that some make them out to be: strikes are targeted and selective. This has become increasingly true as drone technology has improved, and as the military has learned how best to use them. A confluence of factors has made drone strikes much better at eliminating enemy militants while avoiding civilians: drones now carry warheads that produce smaller blast radiuses, and the missiles carrying those warheads are guided using laser, millimeter-wave, and infrared seekers. The result has been less destructive drone strikes that reach their intended target more reliably. A number of non-technological shifts have also made drones a more useful tool: Peter Bergen, a national security analyst for CNN, summarized on July 13th, 2012 that more careful oversight, a deeper network of local informants, and better coordination between the US and Pakistani intelligence communities have also contributed to better accuracy. Data gathered by the Long War Journal indicates that the civilian casualty rate for 2012 and the beginning of 2013 is only 4.5 percent. Even Pakistani Major General Ghayur Mehmood acknowledges that, ?most of the targets [of drone strikes] are hard-core militants.? Imprecise drone strikes that cause many civilian casualties are now a thing of the past. This improved accuracy may also help to mitigate anti-American sentiment that stems from civilian casualties.
 
Moreover, it is not clear that the alternatives to drone warfare are better at killing only their desired targets. Were the Obama administration to abandon its use of drone strikes, it would be left with two other options: troops on the ground or manned airstrikes. Sending in a full fighting force is arguably a more bloody option than drones; although the US government does not publish enemy body counts, which makes calculating the civilian casualty rate difficult, the toll of the war in Afghanistan has certainly been high. The Congressional Research Service estimates that during the period from 2007 to 2012, the war claimed the lives of 12,996 Afghan civilians, 6,595 Afghan soldiers and police officers, and 1,802 American servicemen and women. In addition, some countries ? Pakistan in particular ? have forbidden the presence of US troops inside their borders, but (reluctantly) accept the use of drones as a less intrusive alternative.
 
Drones are also more targeted than other air power. Because they are unmanned, drones can wait and observe situations for extended periods of time before taking action. As far back as 2009, a Wall Street Journal editorial claimed that ?unlike fighter jets or cruise missiles, Predators can loiter over their targets for more than 20 hours [and] take photos in which men, women and children can be clearly distinguished.? The shortcomings of the alternatives make drones the best choice for eliminating terrorist leaders.
 
Critics also claim that eliminating only the senior leaders of terrorist organizations does not make significant progress in eradicating the group as a whole. This argument falls short on two fronts. First, killing the leaders of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar networks does hinder their operations: decapitating terrorist groups interrupts their planning, recruitment, and execution of attacks ? not necessarily because each leader is irreplaceably vital to the success of the group (although some are), but because the threat of death from the skies shifts the strategic calculations of living leaders, changing the actions of the group. The Los Angeles Times of March 22nd, 2009, quoting an anonymous counterterrorism official, reported that Al Qaeda leaders are wondering who's next to be killed in a drone strike and have started hunting down people inside al Qaeda who they think are responsible for collaborating with the US on drone strike planning. The threat of drone strikes sows divisive suspicion inside enemy groups and distracts them from accomplishing their objectives.
 
Moreover, drone strikes have disrupted al Qaeda?s system for training new recruits. The Times of London reports that in 2009, Al Qaeda leaders decided to abandon their traditional training camps because bringing new members to a central location offered too easy a target for drone strikes. Foreign Policy emphasized this trend on November 2nd, 2012, arguing that, ?destroying communication centers, training camps and vehicles undermines the operational effectiveness of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and quotes from operatives of the Pakistan-based Haqqani Network reveal that drones have forced them into a ?jungle existence? where they fear for the lives on a daily basis.? The threat of death from the skies has forced extremist organizations to become more scattered.
 
More importantly, though, drone strikes do not only kill top leaders; they target their militant followers as well. The New America Foundation, a think tank that maintains a database of statistics on drone strikes, reports that between 2004 and 2012, drones killed between 1,489 and 2,605 enemy combatants in Pakistan. Given that Al Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban, and the various other organizations operating in the region combined do not possibly have more than 1,500 senior leaders, it follows that many, if not most, of those killed were low-level or mid-level members ? in many cases, individuals who would have carried out attacks. The Los Angeles Times explains that, ?the Predator campaign has depleted [Al Qaeda?s] operational tier. Many of the dead are longtime loyalists who had worked alongside Bin Laden [?] They are being replaced by less experienced recruits.? Drones decimate terrorist organizations at all levels; the idea that these strikes only kill senior officials is a myth.
 
The Obama Administration shows no signs of slowing down its drone war. A drone strike killed two prominent Al Qaeda members in South Waziristan on January 3rd, and four more on January 10th. Contrary to common criticisms of drone warfare, though, this continued use of unmanned airstrikes is absolutely a good course of action from the CIA and the White House. Drone warfare has proved to be a step forward, not backward, in the United States? struggle to subdue international terrorist organizations. Unmanned airstrikes are highly accurate and effective at disrupting terrorism; drones are and must remain an integral part of the War on Terror.

Source: A Defense of Drones

Food for Thought

The Moral Implications of Aid to North Korea        
       

Humanitarian food aid has long been a tool of diplomacy; no country has exemplified this than North Korea. Even while decrying the government as an instrumental member of the "Axis of Evil", the United States and its allies have funneled aid into the country. Is it worth it?

Bargaining with North Korea
Matt Lowe


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

Whenever international food aid arrives in the "Democratic People's Republic Of Korea," the People are informed by proud superiors that it has been sent as fealty?payments from terrified Western imperialists and the "puppet traitors" to the South.  This is ridiculous, but not so far from the truth: the North Korean government has in fact succeeded in extorting the (seemingly terrified) international community, and it has used famine and systematic malnutrition as leverage.  Although several donor states have recently suspended food aid as part of nuclear negotiations, Pyongyang has consistently won virtually unconditional commitments over the past two decades.  By accepting only "pure" aid without monitors or oversight, it has siphoned off billions of dollars and acted with impunity.  Meanwhile, the People have starved to death.
That over twenty million North Koreans show an unflinching devotion to their dictator makes the situation uniquely challenging.  As the Ministry of State Security routes every would-be dissident and extended family to a network of gulags across the country, the remaining party members and proles fall over themselves to express loyalty and prepare for the next "arduous march" through production shortfalls.  Foreign humanitarian advocates have labored in a parallel spirit of self-infliction: every delivery of free flour and rice allows Pyongyang to spend more money elsewhere, and many deliveries are simply diverted to the military and ruling elite.  While food aid is potentially lifesaving to those trapped in the grossly mismanaged economy, it also extends the life of the regime and does little to address the underlying humanitarian emergency.
With a history of surviving on outside help, the "Hermit Kingdom" has never actually lived up to its absurd "juche" ideology of self-reliance.  Following World War II, it enjoyed decades of Soviet support and since 1989 has continued to maintain strong relations with China.  In the mid-1990s, a series of natural disasters led to unprecedented food shortages and widespread hunger that claimed millions of lives, prompting even South Korea, Japan, the United States to provide relief.  Yet at the height of the crisis, Kim Jong Il delivered on his "military first" platform.  In 1997, World Food Program monitoring officials were greeted in port at gunpoint by the People's Army, who assured them that their assistance would be unnecessary.  A year later, even as it phased "alternative foods" like boiled tree bark into its public distribution system, the government launched its first ever three-stage missile into space, dispelling any lingering doubts about its priorities.
Early incidents of stolen aid installments prefigured a long and ongoing tradition of profiting off hunger while making few concessions.  In 2011, following one of the best harvests in decades, the government cut food spending by 40%, appealed for massive food aid, and then rejected?for the second year in a row?an aid offer from South Korea that it deemed too meager.  In 2012, it agreed to an aid offer from the United States that included conditions for strict monitoring.  Officials stationed in China prepared to ship some 240,000 tons of food products that were specially tailored for pregnant women and children and would have been difficult for the military to use.  Less than three weeks after the deal was struck, Pyongyang excused itself from a litany of UN resolutions and conducted another missile launch.  The shipment was cancelled, and critics condemned the Obama administration for "punishing the North Korean people."
The total cost of North Korea's annual food shortages is a small fraction of the annual budget of its military?an estimated $5 billion, much of which is appropriated to a nuclear program.  After signing the 1994 Agreed Framework in bad faith, exchanging a false commitment to disarm for food and fuel, North Korea went on to become the only state ever to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Following its first successful nuclear test in 2006, several other states held onto hopes that it might disarm and trudged through years of fruitless six-party talks.  Not to be misunderstood, Pyongyang went on to amass a yet more comfortable stockpile and conducted another test in 2009.  The United States?one of North Korea's all-time most generous benefactors, donating over $1.2 billion in food, energy assistance, and medical supplies since the 1990s?has withheld food aid since the 2012 missile launch and instead adopted an even more cunning and fruitless policy of "strategic patience."
Patience is difficult to justify, let alone effect, particularly with the knowledge of hundreds of thousands of guilt-by-association political prisoners enduring endless labor, torture, sexual violence, medical experimentation, and, of course, hunger.  Yet those who bemoan any reduction in food aid hold no monopoly on the moral ground at stake.  No one is eager to deprive food to a population of 26 million people, who, due to prolonged deprivation, are on average several inches shorter than their brethren south of the 38th parallel.  Nonetheless, a backwards, bankrupt government has rendered policymakers impotent and noble-minded NGOs counterproductive.  While those wary of subsidizing the nuclear program balk at the issue altogether, others throw money at the regime, cementing its sovereignty.
The call to withhold food aid does not emerge from an ignorance of suffering, but from the conviction that there must be a more effective, more immediate approach.  The World Food Program mandates strict monitoring in almost all of its operations.  Yet compromises have been made in its largest operation in history, due in part to the fact that North Korea?unlike its other client states?still has a well-functioning political apparatus.  Now, more than a year after the succession from the "Dear Leader" to his (yet unanointed) son, no new compromises need be made.  In his first public address, Kim Jong Un declared the military to be his "first, second, and third" priorities.  Replying to the latest UN inquiry into his government's human rights abuses, he threatened another nuclear test.
Strict monitoring is an essential, though probably insufficient starting point for any operation going forward.  Reports from North Korean defectors describe military personnel recouping aid packages even after monitored deliveries. Given the failure of all international efforts thus far to curb the hunger crisis, the call for more comprehensive intervention should be taken seriously. The diplomatic obstacles in play are significant?principally, China benefits from a dismembered Korean Peninsula.  But as long as Pyongyang crushes any semblance of civil society that might be capable of popular protest, the onus remains on the rest of the world to take more substantive action.

Humanitarianism First
Anthony Wohns
In the mid 1990s, North Korea?s economy effectively collapsed, causing a famine of horrific proportions. The causes included immense flooding and the fall of the Soviet Union, which had been buoying the North Korean economy, along with the general incompetence of the North Korean government. Estimates of the number of deaths caused by the famine range from the hundreds of thousands to the millions. The North Korean government was even driven to ask the United States, South Korea, and Japan, nations usually vilified as enemies, for food. As in all such tragedies, those who suffered the most were people considered nonessential to the regime: children, the elderly, and those who opposed the government. 
Arguments against providing food aid to North Korea are often based on the idea that food aid helps reinforce the oppressive North Korean regime. Others argue that because the food is inappropriately allocated, too much goes to elites and the military.
However, these objections are problematic both ethically and practically. According to the Songun, or ?Military-First? policy, the military receives top priority in the distribution of resources. The ramifications of this policy were evident in the famine of the 1990s, for the food that was available was sent directly to the military and political elites. Because of Songun, the common people were made to suffer the brunt of the shortage. However, fears that food aid is going to the North Korean military do not always have factual support. Humanitarian workers in non-governmental organizations that distribute food in North Korea, such as David Austin of Mercy Corps, say that the food being sent to North Korea is often a corn-soy blend that requires hot water, a food designed exclusively for the severely malnourished; such meager rations would hardly be serviceable to a military that is already comparatively well-fed due to the Songun policy. 
Another one of the common criticisms put forward by objectors and skeptics is that food aid donors have no control over the distribution of the food. However, according to Wonhyuk Lim of the Brookings Institution, international agencies like the UN World Food Program were often able to help guide the distribution of aid to North Korea. Since it has been shown that this oversight is possible, donors of food aid should simply insist on it.
Ethical concerns should come before any political calculations in the debate over food aid for North Korea. While the issue of the means by which food aid is distributed is an important question that must be addressed, the need to help starving North Koreans should take precedence over all other matters. We must take a page from the book of one of the most hardened cold warriors, Ronald Reagan, when he decided to send food aid to Ethiopia in 1985, despite the fact that Ethiopia?s communist leadership fell solidly in the Soviet camp. In justification of his action, Reagan declared that ?a hungry child knows no politics.? Such a maxim should be our vindication for food aid to North Korea.  After all the political and strategic calculations are accounted for, the ability to help suffering humanity will more than justify the risks.
In the mid 1990s, North Korea?s economy effectively collapsed, causing a famine of horrific proportions. The causes included immense flooding and the fall of the Soviet Union, which had been buoying the North Korean economy, along with the general incompetence of the North Korean government. Estimates of the number of deaths caused by the famine range from the hundreds of thousands to the millions. The North Korean government was even driven to ask the United States, South Korea, and Japan, nations usually vilified as enemies, for food. As in all such tragedies, those who suffered the most were people considered nonessential to the regime: children, the elderly, and those who opposed the government. 
Arguments against providing food aid to North Korea are often based on the idea that food aid helps reinforce the oppressive North Korean regime. Others argue that because the food is inappropriately allocated, too much goes to elites and the military.
However, these objections are problematic both ethically and practically. According to the Songun, or ?Military-First? policy, the military receives top priority in the distribution of resources. The ramifications of this policy were evident in the famine of the 1990s, for the food that was available was sent directly to the military and political elites. Because of Songun, the common people were made to suffer the brunt of the shortage. However, fears that food aid is going to the North Korean military do not always have factual support. Humanitarian workers in non-governmental organizations that distribute food in North Korea, such as David Austin of Mercy Corps, say that the food being sent to North Korea is often a corn-soy blend that requires hot water, a food designed exclusively for the severely malnourished; such meager rations would hardly be serviceable to a military that is already comparatively well-fed due to the Songun policy. 
Another one of the common criticisms put forward by objectors and skeptics is that food aid donors have no control over the distribution of the food. However, according to Wonhyuk Lim of the Brookings Institution, international agencies like the UN World Food Program were often able to help guide the distribution of aid to North Korea. Since it has been shown that this oversight is possible, donors of food aid should simply insist on it.Ethical concerns should come before any political calculations in the debate over food aid for North Korea. While the issue of the means by which food aid is distributed is an important question that must be addressed, the need to help starving North Koreans should take precedence over all other matters. We must take a page from the book of one of the most hardened cold warriors, Ronald Reagan, when he decided to send food aid to Ethiopia in 1985, despite the fact that Ethiopia?s communist leadership fell solidly in the Soviet camp. In justification of his action, Reagan declared that ?a hungry child knows no politics.? Such a maxim should be our vindication for food aid to North Korea.
After all the political and strategic calculations are accounted for, the ability to help suffering humanity will more than justify the risks.

Source: Food for Thought

View from the Inside: Solitary Confinement as a Human Rights Issue

Posted by Katie McCarthy, JD ’15 The dramatic expansion of solitary confinement over the past two decades is a human rights issue we can no longer afford to ignore; the United States now holds more prisoners in solitary confinement than … Continue reading →

Source: View from the Inside: Solitary Confinement as a Human Rights Issue

Has Modernization Issued New Commandments?

The Question of Secularism and Religion in a Changing World        
       

There is a common refrain in intellectual circles: the modern world has abandoned religiosity. Proof, supposedly, is in the sky-rocketing rates of atheism and declining church attendance. Is secularism here to stay or is religion on the rise?  HIR Staff examine this question.

Revival of the Fittest
As of three years ago, almost seventy-eight percent of the Singapore population had access to the Internet;  two years ago, statistics suggested that the Internet?s household penetration rate was over one hundred percent in the developing Asian nation, making it one of the best in the world. Curiously enough, this increased global connection wasn?t the only sociological phenomenon that enjoyed an upward trend: to the chagrin of traditional secularization theorists, Singapore prided itself in ascribing to ten major world religions, and Christianity and Islam in particular displayed massive growth during a decade of modernization.  Said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally speech in 2009: ?Singapore is carried along by this global tide [of religious fervor]?. According to him, Buddhism has become especially popular among young people with English educations, but all religions (Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity) are overflowing with new attendees. 


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

 The past few years saw the rise of Facebook and Twitter, as well as the eagerness of eighty-five percent of Singapore to identify with a major religion that embraced the advancement in electronics as a godsend. ?It has always been the emphasis of the Church that we have to move with time and try to make full use of modern technology, and the Internet is one of them to relate with people and also to share faith in God,? explained a Singaporean Protestant leader in an interview in 2004.  In the same discussion, a Muslim imam offered the opinion that ?media is very good [?] when you want to try to communicate with one another, then of course, Islam places a lot of importance on the media.  As [sic] regards to technology, there's no quarrel with the advance of technology and Islam, because Islam is always for progress.?
In 2013, Singapore is one of many countries augmenting a greater wave of Islamic and Christian religious revival, a trend that defies many predictions about the direct relationship between global connectivity and the concept of personal individualism.  Research has shown that developing nations in Asia and the Middle East are more likely to be religious than are smaller, modernized Western countries; thus, the growth of Islam and Christianity in burgeoning places such as Singapore, South Korea, Indonesia, and Malaysia, as well as in volatile Middle Eastern states, is poised to tip the scales on secularization. 
Common theory holds that the encouragement of open-mindedness through technology and education leads to the curtailment of religiosity ? this is not entirely bad.   However, it implies that one characteristic cannot exist without the other, and according to this new global hybridization of religion and learning, the secularization theory is inapplicable in the world?s most dynamic regions.  Take Syria as an example:  in the midst of one of the Arab region?s most violent conflicts centered around personal freedom and escape from oppression, women are utilizing one of the strongest forces within Syria, the Koran, for their own educational gain.  Older female teachers instruct their followers to memorize the Koran in order to gain a better understanding of the laws of the Shari? a and a woman?s rights in the community and in court.  Before the beginning of the conflict, the publication Al- Hayat conducted a survey that discovered 80 schools in Damascus alone, teaching over 75,000 women.  Muhammad al-Habash, a Syrian lawmaker and Muslim leader, commented on female education in a recent publication: ?[in the past], we were told that we had to leave Islam behind to find our futures?but these days, if you ask most people in Syria about their history, they will tell you, ?My history is Islamic history.? [Those of a] younger generation are all reading the Koran.?
The success and popularity of this newly devout demographic in Syria has potential to influence women in similar situations across the Middle East, change the gender dynamics of regional politics and education, and sow itself among the rest of the world?s Muslim population. 
The marriage of learning and technology with Islam and Christianity has propagated beyond the birthplace of the religions to other rapidly changing areas: in 2010, fundamentalists in Malaysia vocalized their (popular) view that the use of the word ?Allah? should be restricted only to Muslims. Not far away, South Korea is home to Yoido Full Gospel Church, whose members number over 750,000, thought to be the largest congregation in the world.  According to a recent BBC profile, ?traditional hymns and contemporary songs [are] both sung, with words projected in Korean, English and Japanese onto (again, enormous) electronic display screens...the services are recorded by TV cameras and broadcast on the internet. There [are] even 10 television cameras being directed from a control room, because services are broadcast to other churches and made available online.? In the church, ATMs are also available for the flock?s easy access to funds used to tithe to the behemoth organization.
In the same area of the world, Indonesian politicians and educators drafted a proposal in December 2012 that called for the addition of Islamic and Christian instruction to balance out scientific and mathematic curriculum in classrooms.  While Syrian women are wielding religion as a learning tool to redefine their place in the community, Indonesian officials see the non-secular path as a way to instruct youth in schools how to better behave in society. ?Right now,? said the deputy minister of education and proponent of religious education, Musilar Kasim, ?many students don?t have character, tolerance for others, empathy for others.?  Students would be instructed in their preferred religion, although Islam outweighs Christianity, reflecting the worldwide progress of Islam as the fastest-growing religion. 
This remarkable amalgamation of religion with the traditionally secular aspects of culture ?technology, education, and social change? in developing areas of the world has too short of a history to predict where it will lead in the future.  Nevertheless, considering the growth of Christianity and Islam beyond their roots in Asia, China in particular may prove to be a host for the next combination of sacrosanct tradition and innovation.  Because of its wealth and population, this would upend classical secularization and normal religious demographics.   Regardless of how one of the world?s most powerful states may evolve in a future full of electronic advancement, the spread and change of religion have undoubtedly proved themselves to thrive best on regional adaptation, be it found in the nailing of the 99 Theses to a church door in Germany, or the sound of an Islamic prayer emanating from a laptop in Singapore.

A Securely Secular Future
The dawn of the Enlightenment was not just the dawn of a new era, but the twilight of another: that of religion?or so argued many of society?s greatest thinkers, from Comte to Marx to Freud. But today?s world is not a secular, urbanized utopia, one where science replaced belief and an adherence to societal welfare replaced an adherence to dogma. Religion continues to rule the hearts and minds of most of the world?s seven billion people. It has continues to be a rallying point for extremism, political movements, and even cultural transformations. Comte, Marx, and Freud would be so disappointed.
But they would not be wrong, exactly. Despite a wave of religious resurgence, global society still strides towards secularism?just not in the manner envisioned by the first philosophes and social scientists so many years ago. While religion remains a critical and particularly visible force throughout society, the rapid pace of development erodes the underlying influence religion once held over societal values. 
Industrialization alone doesn?t account for the downfall of religion. It is the security that industrialization brings, the stabilization of society, the reduced fear of events beyond an individual?s, or a society?s control, that announces Death?s arrival at religion?s door. Religion provides a sense of security, if not in this life, then in the next. , ?Under conditions of insecurity,? argue Pippa Norris and Ronald Ingleheart in their 2011 book:  Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, ?people have a powerful need to see authority as both strong and benevolent?even in the face of the contrary.?
Thus, developed nations, in general, possess greater percentages of atheists, agnostics and others who do not identify with traditional religions. A European Union survey conducted in 2005 reported that overall, 18 percent of the EU?s members do not believe in God, a contrast to the world average of 13 percent.  Even within these regions, areas with more secular populations are statistically more stable, with lower homicide rates and higher levels of education. The same report found that among the most economically stable European nations with the highest living standards possessed the highest rates of atheism and agnosticism, (Sweden 85%, Denmark 72%) contrasting greatly with those nations lacking economic and political stability (Poland 16%, Romania 9%, Portugal 9%, Ireland, 26%). In the United States, often considered an exception to the correlation between religion and industrialization, the country?s most religious states, Louisiana and Alabama, also possess the country?s highest murder rates.
So why does this matter? Even if religious belief is based upon security, it does not prove that society is becoming increasingly secular?or does it? Recent events, be they the 9/11 attacks, the 2008 depression, the Euro crisis, or civil unrest in the Middle East, contributed to a rise in religious resurgence by destabilizing economic, political, and military security. But this religious resurrection was a reaction, not a trend. From 1998 to 2008, the number of atheists and agnostics actually increased across the United States. More important, however, is the distribution of ?nonbelievers? in society. A 2001 study found a sharp contrast in age associated with secularism, with 55 percent of atheists under 35 and only 30 percent 50 or older. As the next generation replaces the previous, a new tide of secularism will start to enter the national dialogue, muffling the disproportionately loud voice of religion. 
And in some respects it already has. Today?s gay marriage debates challenge the views of most traditional religions worldwide, and they continue to garner increasing support. A decade ago, two thirds of US citizens would have balked at the thought of gay marriage. Turn the clock ten years, and over half, including the majority of Catholics, now support it. Despite protest from religious and political leaders (often one and the same), gay marriage is becoming increasingly accepted, as new community values replace religious dogma.  In 2003, the US Supreme Court ruled against any remaining sodomy laws, and in November of 2012, three states legalized gay marriage. Across the pond, Catholic-dominated France ignored the Pope?s disapproval by passing a national bill allowing gays to go to the altar. 
Such trends are not isolated to the Western world. Even in more traditional Islamic societies, secularism continues to erode the influence of religion. Islamist parties may dominate elections across the region, particularly in Egypt, but debates over religious rule have never been fiercer. During the recent political crisis, Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi met with vehement protests from his secular rivals following a power grab. In a rare and significant display of compromise for the electorally dominant Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi backed down. As economic, political and social development continues across the Middle East, a region once dominated by dictators, sectarian unrest, and socioeconomic disparity may one day glimpse a secure future on the horizon. And secularism is sure to follow. Freud would be so proud.
The dawn of the Enlightenment was not just the dawn of a new era, but the twilight of another: that of religion?or so argued many of society?s greatest thinkers, from Comte to Marx to Freud. But today?s world is not a secular, urbanized utopia, one where science replaced belief and an adherence to societal welfare replaced an adherence to dogma. Religion continues to rule the hearts and minds of most of the world?s seven billion people. It has continues to be a rallying point for extremism, political movements, and even cultural transformations. Comte, Marx, and Freud would be so disappointed.
But they would not be wrong, exactly. Despite a wave of religious resurgence, global society still strides towards secularism?just not in the manner envisioned by the first philosophes and social scientists so many years ago. While religion remains a critical and particularly visible force throughout society, the rapid pace of development erodes the underlying influence religion once held over societal values. 
Industrialization alone doesn?t account for the downfall of religion. It is the security that industrialization brings, the stabilization of society, the reduced fear of events beyond an individual?s, or a society?s control, that announces Death?s arrival at religion?s door. Religion provides a sense of security, if not in this life, then in the next. , ?Under conditions of insecurity,? argue Pippa Norris and Ronald Ingleheart in their 2011 book:  Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, ?people have a powerful need to see authority as both strong and benevolent?even in the face of the contrary.?
Thus, developed nations, in general, possess greater percentages of atheists, agnostics and others who do not identify with traditional religions. A European Union survey conducted in 2005 reported that overall, 18 percent of the EU?s members do not believe in God, a contrast to the world average of 13 percent.  Even within these regions, areas with more secular populations are statistically more stable, with lower homicide rates and higher levels of education. The same report found that among the most economically stable European nations with the highest living standards possessed the highest rates of atheism and agnosticism, (Sweden 85%, Denmark 72%) contrasting greatly with those nations lacking economic and political stability (Poland 16%, Romania 9%, Portugal 9%, Ireland, 26%). In the United States, often considered an exception to the correlation between religion and industrialization, the country?s most religious states, Louisiana and Alabama, also possess the country?s highest murder rates.
So why does this matter? Even if religious belief is based upon security, it does not prove that society is becoming increasingly secular?or does it? Recent events, be they the 9/11 attacks, the 2008 depression, the Euro crisis, or civil unrest in the Middle East, contributed to a rise in religious resurgence by destabilizing economic, political, and military security. But this religious resurrection was a reaction, not a trend. From 1998 to 2008, the number of atheists and agnostics actually increased across the United States. More important, however, is the distribution of ?nonbelievers? in society. A 2001 study found a sharp contrast in age associated with secularism, with 55 percent of atheists under 35 and only 30 percent 50 or older. As the next generation replaces the previous, a new tide of secularism will start to enter the national dialogue, muffling the disproportionately loud voice of religion. 
And in some respects it already has. Today?s gay marriage debates challenge the views of most traditional religions worldwide, and they continue to garner increasing support. A decade ago, two thirds of US citizens would have balked at the thought of gay marriage. Turn the clock ten years, and over half, including the majority of Catholics, now support it. Despite protest from religious and political leaders (often one and the same), gay marriage is becoming increasingly accepted, as new community values replace religious dogma.  In 2003, the US Supreme Court ruled against any remaining sodomy laws, and in November of 2012, three states legalized gay marriage. Across the pond, Catholic-dominated France ignored the Pope?s disapproval by passing a national bill allowing gays to go to the altar. 
Such trends are not isolated to the Western world. Even in more traditional Islamic societies, secularism continues to erode the influence of religion. Islamist parties may dominate elections across the region, particularly in Egypt, but debates over religious rule have never been fiercer. During the recent political crisis, Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi met with vehement protests from his secular rivals following a power grab. In a rare and significant display of compromise for the electorally dominant Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi backed down. As economic, political and social development continues across the Middle East, a region once dominated by dictators, sectarian unrest, and socioeconomic disparity may one day glimpse a secure future on the horizon. And secularism is sure to follow. Freud would be so proud.

Source: Has Modernization Issued New Commandments?

The Internet: The Rights Debate Enters a New Domain

The Internet is a wild and unruly place: international coordinated efforts to prevent online crime are patchy at best, hopelessly insufficient at worst. Yet, regrettably, this is unlikely to change in the near future. Whilst these problems need to be addressed, it is imperative that freedom reign on the Internet, and this is proving to be a major international stumbling block. The main issue is this: how can the modern medium of free speech, free assembly, and free press be regulated without restricting or destroying its very purpose? This was the dilemma that faced delegates from across the world in Dubai in December 2012 during the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). Unfortunately, the international community failed to reach an agreement in Dubai, and the deadlock that has developed doesn?t seem likely to end any time soon.

Internet regulation is a truly international issue. The Web knows no national borders; threats originate from and attack all corners of the globe, often simultaneously; suspects in any cybercrime can be any one of the 2.5 billion Internet users worldwide. The modern press is full of world leaders crying out that cyber terrorism is the biggest threat to worldwide security, from Australia?s Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to Google boss Eric Schmidt. However, the online issues that need to be tackled stretch beyond national security. The average age at which a child first sees pornographic images online is eleven; only 37 percent of music obtained by US consumers in 2009 was paid for and legal; 187 million people?s identities and private information were stolen online in 2011. To tackle the (evidently substantial) problem of Internet regulation, therefore, a global solution is required, and that would require an agreed global conception of individual rights and freedoms. Such a prospect is highly implausible.
In the physical world, individual countries are able to strike their own balance between protecting freedom and maintaining law and order. The same two concerns must be addressed in any attempt at Internet regulation: there clearly exist issues with the governance of cyberspace (or the lack of it), especially with regards to cyber-terrorism, piracy, and age controls, among other issues, but at the same time, it is imperative that individual freedoms must be respected online. However, this is easier said than done: it seems impossible to suggest that the freedom-treasuring West and some more authoritarian societies of both the Middle and Far East can share a forum governed by the same rules. To strike this balance online will be as difficult as it would be to provide worldwide governance, law, and order in the physical world. 


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

Nevertheless, some progress is possible, just as it is required. In the same way that some overriding international principles can be universally agreed upon in terms of physical law and order with the International Criminal Court and the UN, a similar system is most likely to evolve with regards to policing the internet. 
There are currently two broad camps of opinion which that emerged at the WCIT in Dubai: firstly, broadly speaking ?The West?, spearheaded by the US; and ?The Rest?, fronted by Russia and China. (Sound familiar? It is with some accuracy that The Economist refers to the situation as ?A Digital Cold War?). The West comprises those who pretty much wish to maintain the status quo ? minimal regulation and maximum freedom. Meanwhile, Russia, China and others have favored a system whereby individual countries have more power to control content more strictly in their realms of jurisdiction.
The West argues that giving individual states, or even some sort of global ?Internet police?, power to control what sites can be accessed by whom and what users can post, to control who citizens are, or are not, allowed to converse with, or to track users? Internet history are powers that could be abused to restrict freedom of speech. However, it is difficult to see how Internet crime, piracy, underage viewing of restricted content or cyber terrorism can be combatted in any way whatsoever without any of these powers, a case argued by ?The Rest? in Dubai. In some cases, western nations? position could be considered somewhat hypocritical: the UK Home Office has attempted, but so far failed, to pass a counter-terrorism bill allowing access to suspects? Internet history (dubbed the ?Snooper?s Charter?); meanwhile, the debate and outrage in the US centered on how the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) infringed upon civil liberties.
Nevertheless, the West has a point. The founding principle of the Internet is that of a free forum to share information that is available to all, with everybody able to take from and add to an open and global resource. The ability for individual nations to restrict access to that resource renders it redundant in its primary goals as a global library or as a medium of free conversation and exchange. 
The fact remains that the current lack of universal regulation is a large enough problem that something needs to be done. However without sufficient compromise from the two opposing sides of the debate, then nothing will be done. It is impossible to know what exact form the first, and long-awaited, Internet charter will take, but one thing is for sure: the US and other Western nations are highly unlikely to back down on their commitment to a free, open Internet for all.  For the foreseeable future at least, the status quo seems pretty permanent. Piracy, pornography and professional hackers, yes, but at least we are still free to Google something, to blog, surf, download, or Tweet. In some places at least.

Source: The Internet: The Rights Debate Enters a New Domain

Among millions, a blank slate

The Kumbh Mela, the world?s largest religious gathering, spawns a city of millions virtually overnight ? and with it, a thriving ecosystem of commerce large-scale and small. Harvard Business School researchers traveled to India to search for the festival?s unlikely lessons in infrastructure, governance, and informal networks.

Source: Among millions, a blank slate

ASEAN?s Great Power Dilemma

By Kei Koga. (This article first appeared in Asia Times Online) Since the end of the Cold War, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has engaged the outside world to play an active security role within greater East Asia. … Continue reading >

Source: ASEAN?s Great Power Dilemma

Drivers of the Nuclear Power Option in Oil Exporting Countries



Source: Drivers of the Nuclear Power Option in Oil Exporting Countries

How Obama Can Win a European Free-Trade Deal

By Ben W. Heineman, Jr. (This article first appeared on TheAtlantic.com, where Ben Heineman is a frequent contributor) The contrast was striking. In his State of the Union address, President Obama buried the start of a U.S.-E.U. free trade negotiations … Continue reading >

Source: How Obama Can Win a European Free-Trade Deal

Shifting perspectives in gun debate

NRA President David Keene and Jonathan E. Lowy presented their views on gun policy during visits to Harvard.

Source: Shifting perspectives in gun debate

The Long-Awaited Apology: Some Justice for the Women of Ireland?s Magdalene Laundries

Posted by Cara Solomon In the wake of the Irish government’s formal apology to the women of the Magdalene Laundries, we bring you some thoughts from Maeve O’Rourke, 2010 HRP Global Human Rights Fellow and advisory board member for Justice … Continue reading →

Source: The Long-Awaited Apology: Some Justice for the Women of Ireland?s Magdalene Laundries

Not So Fast: Pyongyang's Nuclear Weapons Ambitions

"While concern for North Korea's push to become a relevant nuclear power is warranted, it is equally important to recognize the very serious technical issues that have plagued Pyongyang's efforts to date. Building a nuclear weapon and its delivery system, and then keeping them operational for the long term is hard?even harder for those states attempting to do it under the umbrella of international sanctions and monitoring."

Source: Not So Fast: Pyongyang's Nuclear Weapons Ambitions

Best Buy Joins Yahoo, Kills Flexible Work Program


Source: Best Buy Joins Yahoo, Kills Flexible Work Program

NYC School Safety Agents' Lawsuit: Newtown Is Happening Every Day


Source: NYC School Safety Agents' Lawsuit: Newtown Is Happening Every Day

First Furlough Notices Go Out


Source: First Furlough Notices Go Out

Indiana Teacher Suspended For Threatening Notes On Blackboard


Source: Indiana Teacher Suspended For Threatening Notes On Blackboard

Portland Woman Finds Work As ... Chicken-Sitter


Source: Portland Woman Finds Work As ... Chicken-Sitter

Resume Tips For Career Changers


Source: Resume Tips For Career Changers

Is There A Nursing Shortage? [Infographic]


Source: Is There A Nursing Shortage? [Infographic]

New Grads: How To Get A Job Outside Your Major


Source: New Grads: How To Get A Job Outside Your Major

From Loan Officer To Lounge Singer: How Fred Sanford Turned A Passion Into A Job


Source: From Loan Officer To Lounge Singer: How Fred Sanford Turned A Passion Into A Job

A True Kickstarter: Cartoonist Ryan North Raises Half A Million For 'Hamlet' Comic


Source: A True Kickstarter: Cartoonist Ryan North Raises Half A Million For 'Hamlet' Comic

8 Professional Certifications In High Demand


Source: 8 Professional Certifications In High Demand

Country Offering $100,000 Jobs To Tourists


Source: Country Offering $100,000 Jobs To Tourists

Australian Miners Fired For Harlem Shake Video


Source: Australian Miners Fired For Harlem Shake Video

Over 50 And Can't Get Hired? Here's A Possible Solution


Source: Over 50 And Can't Get Hired? Here's A Possible Solution

Why 'Follow Your Passion' Is The Worst Career Advice


Source: Why 'Follow Your Passion' Is The Worst Career Advice

From Wall Street To NYC Cabbie: What I Learned On The Way Down


Source: From Wall Street To NYC Cabbie: What I Learned On The Way Down

7 In-Demand Skills That Will Get You Hired In 2013


Source: 7 In-Demand Skills That Will Get You Hired In 2013

Job Retraining Programs: How To Get Retrained On The Cheap


Source: Job Retraining Programs: How To Get Retrained On The Cheap

Best Second Careers For People Over 40


Source: Best Second Careers For People Over 40

Medical Center's Exercise Program for Kids Highlighted by First Lady Michelle Obama

NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center’s CHALK/Just Move program is one of three programs selected by ChildObesity180, a national organization comprising public, nonprofit, academic and private-sector leaders, for its Active Schools Acceleration Project.
The project gives schools across the country the opportunity to apply for a grant to implement CHALK/Just Move or one of the two other model programs into their curriculum.

Source: Medical Center's Exercise Program for Kids Highlighted by First Lady Michelle Obama

Professor Rafael Yuste Tapped to Advise White House on Brain Study Initiative

Together with other neuroscientists and a group of nanoscientists, Professor Rafael Yuste has been tapped as an advisor for a far-reaching White House initiative to advance deeper understanding of the brain. The news broke in a front-page story in The New York Times story Feb. 17, which reported that the Obama administration was planning a decade-long scientific push to map the brain in much the same way the Human Genome Project unraveled genetics.

Source: Professor Rafael Yuste Tapped to Advise White House on Brain Study Initiative

Columbia Announces Winners of First Edward M. Kennedy Prize for Drama Inspired by American History

Columbia University and Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith are pleased to announce that Dan O’Brien’s The Body of an American and Robert Schenkkan’s All the Way are the inaugural winners of the Edward M. Kennedy Prize for Drama Inspired by American History, known as the EMK Prize.
The judges voted unanimously to divide this year’s award between two exceptionally deserving works.

Source: Columbia Announces Winners of First Edward M. Kennedy Prize for Drama Inspired by American History

Engineering Study Sheds New Light on Infant Brain Development

A new study by Columbia Engineering researchers finds that the infant brain does not control its blood flow in the same way as the adult brain. The findings, which the scientists say could change the way researchers study brain development in infants and children, are published in the Feb. 18 Early Online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Source: Engineering Study Sheds New Light on Infant Brain Development

Columbia Ink



Source: Columbia Ink

Expert in 17th Century English Economic History Sees Parallels to Today?s Fiscal Crisis

History Professor Carl Wennerlind’s most recent book focuses on a financial system come undone, a public looking to its government for answers, and a monetary system badly in need of trust and transparency.
No, it’s not about the U.S. in the aftermath of the 2008 fiscal meltdown. Rather, its topic is the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694 and the events leading to its founding.

Source: Expert in 17th Century English Economic History Sees Parallels to Today?s Fiscal Crisis

At the Vanguard of a Revolution in Computational Genetics

Using mathematics and computer analytics, Professor Itsik Pe’er is examining the genetic makeup of the founding Ashkenazi Jews in order to identify the genetic mutations that predispose their millions of descendants to maladies like Tay-Sachs, Crohn’s and Parkinson’s disease.
“All the Ashkenazis living today are essentially mixes of a small number of individuals who lived hundreds of years ago,” explains Pe’er. “Because the population has been relatively isolated, the gene pool is relatively small, which makes it possible to catalog an entire population.”

Source: At the Vanguard of a Revolution in Computational Genetics

Chemistry Prof. Koji Nakanishi Remains Hard at Work at 87

When Koji Nakanishi retired six years ago, the chemistry department threw a party for him, complete with a cake that said, “Happy Retirement, Koji. See you tomorrow!” Sure enough, he was back in his Chandler Hall office the next day, where he continues to work six days a week. “I’m 87 years old, but I still work Saturdays until at least 8 o’clock,” says Nakanishi, the Centennial Professor Emeritus of Chemistry. “It’s an addiction.”

Source: Chemistry Prof. Koji Nakanishi Remains Hard at Work at 87

Lenfest Distinguished Faculty Award Winners Reflect on What Makes Great Teachers

Great teachers are always learning, from their peers, students, teaching assistants and families. Just ask the 10 winners of this year’s Distinguished Columbia Faculty Awards.
The 10 professors will be honored this month for outstanding scholarship, teaching and service. Some have been at Columbia for decades; others joined the faculty as recently as 2006.

Source: Lenfest Distinguished Faculty Award Winners Reflect on What Makes Great Teachers

ColumbiaDoctors Opens New Midtown Center

Columbia University Medical Center has launched a new medical practice near Rockefeller Center, giving the commuters and visitors who stream into midtown Manhattan easy access to some of the city’s top practitioners.
ColumbiaDoctors Midtown comprises faculty of Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, College of Dental Medicine and School of Nursing. More than 225 physicians, dentists and nurse practitioners offer comprehensive medical services, including cardiology, executive health, pre- and post-surgical care, psychiatry, radiology, travel medicine and women’s health, as well as laboratory services.

Source: ColumbiaDoctors Opens New Midtown Center

Living Language: Faculty Q&A With Linguist John McWhorter

John McWhorter may be best known for his magazine and newspaper writing about race, but the Philadelphia native is at heart a dyed-in-the-wool academic whose first inkling that he would spend his life studying languages came when he was still a preschooler and heard someone speaking a foreign language. “The idea that anybody could talk in more than one way was just mesmerizing,” he said.

Source: Living Language: Faculty Q&A With Linguist John McWhorter

On Exhibit: Attitudes and Latitudes

The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Art Gallery has mounted a new show that aims to expand the public’s understanding of the challenging terrain of conceptual art.
Conceptual Geographies: Frames and Documents, Selections from the Ella Fontanals-Cisneros Collection presents 22 works and series created since 1967 that invoke geography to question relationships of power and to analyze the systems in which art is displayed.

Source: On Exhibit: Attitudes and Latitudes

Amgen Scholars Program Helps Science Students Learn by Doing

Suppose you’re in an elevator standing next to someone with a million dollars in grant money to fund your research, if only you can convince her in the brief span of an elevator ride. You’re in need of the proverbial elevator pitch.
Columbia and Barnard undergraduate summer students engage in such role-playing as part of a summer research program funded by the Amgen Foundation, the main philanthropic arm of the biotech company Amgen.

Source: Amgen Scholars Program Helps Science Students Learn by Doing

Mailman School Study Suggests Folic Acid Supplements May Reduce Risk of Autism

Prenatal folic acid supplements appear to reduce the risk for autistic spectrum disorders, according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
The report in JAMA emerged from the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study and its sub-study of autism, the Autism Birth Cohort Study. This international collaboration comprises the largest prospective birth cohort devoted to the investigation of gene-environment interactions and biomarker discovery for neuropsychiatric disorders.

Source: Mailman School Study Suggests Folic Acid Supplements May Reduce Risk of Autism

$25 Million Gift to Medical Center Enhances New Initiative for Treatment of ALS

Daniel L. Doctoroff, Bloomberg LP CEO and president; David M. Rubenstein, co-CEO of The Carlyle Group; and Bloomberg Philanthropies today unveiled Target ALS, a $25 million three-year initiative to streamline discovery of new approaches to treating ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease).

Source: $25 Million Gift to Medical Center Enhances New Initiative for Treatment of ALS

Medical Center Study Points to Possible Cause and Treatment for Non-Familial Parkinson's

Columbia University Medical Center researchers have identified a protein trafficking defect within brain cells that may underlie common non-familial forms of Parkinson’s disease. The defect is at a point of convergence for the action of at least three different genes that had been implicated in prior studies of Parkinson’s disease. Whereas most molecular studies focus on mutations associated with rare familial forms of the disease, these findings relate directly to the common non-familial form of Parkinson’s.

Source: Medical Center Study Points to Possible Cause and Treatment for Non-Familial Parkinson's

Mailman School Study Finds Old Age Offers No Protection From Obesity Risks

Obesity kills, giving rise to a host of fatal diseases. This much is well known. But when it comes to seniors, a slew of prominent research has reported an “obesity paradox” that says, at age 65 and older, having an elevated BMI won’t shorten your lifespan, and may even extend it. A new Mailman School study takes another look at the numbers, finding the earlier research flawed. The paradox was a mirage: As obese Americans grow older, in fact, their heightened risk of death climbs.

Source: Mailman School Study Finds Old Age Offers No Protection From Obesity Risks

James Jordan Retires as Leader of Columbia University Press

James D. Jordan has announced his retirement as President and Director of Columbia University Press, effective Sept. 1, 2013. Jordan came to Columbia in January 2004 from Johns Hopkins University Press where he served as Director and from W. W. Norton where he ran college publishing.

Source: James Jordan Retires as Leader of Columbia University Press

Engineering Study Explains Mechanics of Cloud Formation and Its Impact on Climate

Researchers at Columbia Engineering and Georgia Institute of Technology have published a study in the Feb. 4 online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showing—for the first time—that certain volatile organic gases can promote cloud formation in a way never considered before by atmospheric scientists.

Source: Engineering Study Explains Mechanics of Cloud Formation and Its Impact on Climate