More of the Same

I keep promising a well-researched, coherent post, but guess what? You're not getting one today. I am waiting for my partner to finish up her end of a project at 12:45 am in the library, so here are some more thoughts:

1. The Democratic party has been hard at work training its challengers for the mid-term congressional elections. The new national security sound bite sounds like this (according to Florida Democrat Tim Mahoney): "It's good to be tough on defense...but it's better to be tough and smart!" Ok. Fantastic. I agree. I cannot argue with that statement, and neither can you, dear reader. The problem lies in its indeterminate nature. Admittedly, the Republican party has many vulnerabilities heading into the November elections, and even the party faithful would like a meaningful dialogue to discuss the direction into which the party - and subsequently the country - are heading. The Democratic party, oft-criticized for having less of a platform than a place from which to throw political stones, has apparently not learned that the American people want to hear alternatives to the status quo. Until they can offer up solutions to the problems facing the country, they will continue to be irrelevant.

2. Iran has been elected to the United Nations Disarmament Committee. If in the past few days you have heard a faint, distant tapping noise, it was coming from New York. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annnan has been slamming his head against his desk in frustration since this transpired. This new episode is stealing the headlines from his efforts to re-legitimize the U.N. by doing away with the Political Punch Line Committee (i.e. The U.N. Human Rights Committee) in favor of the establishment of the new U.N. Council on Human Rights. The cornerstone of the new council will be its selective criteria for membership. The move was made to counter the criticism of the U.N. as a whole that came from having countries such as Libya sitting on the HRC. The U.S. is one of only four countries to vote against the new council, claiming that the measure does not go far enough (Math lesson: new bureaucratic shakeup = $$$$. U.S. Funding = 1/4 of U.N. $$$$. It had better go far enough, or it's not worth the $$$$ blown in a half-assed attempt). In the words of United States Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, "The real test will be whether the new council addresses the tough issues in countries like Iran, Syria, Sudan, and so on."

3. Despite the recent Chief of Staff shake-up at the White House, I do not believe any truly substantive changes will be made to the administration. New Chief Joshua Bolten is a Bush loyalist who has been speaking softly and thus far carrying a small stick. He has talked of the need to "renew and refresh" the administration, and who can argue with that? He recently called on those within the administration who were thinking about quitting to do so now. There is no point to making a public statement like that - except in a weak attempt to convince the country that you are making changes. What Bolten needs to do is convince the American people that the Bush administration is going to completely change the way that it does business. The only way to accomplish that is by giving several high-level advisors the boot. We'll see if he comes through in the coming months. P.S. Donald Rumsfeld, since taking over the DOD in 2001, has had as his stated goal the reorganization of the U.S. Army. He has attempted to create an elite, lightweight, 21st century fighting force. In order to do so, he has slashed the Army's bureaucracy. This has upset many ranking military officials - read, the 6 ticked off general officers. Rumsfeld's plan for the military makes sense. He is a straight-shooter, which makes him a bad politician. He's not the right man to go after in this witch hunt.

Bed time.