SOS Clinton backs “Brave Saudi Women”

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. supports the move by Saudi Women to seek the right to drive in the kingdom.

We’ve made clear [to the Saudi government] our views that women everywhere, including women in the kingdom, have the right to make decisions about their lives and their futures,” Clinton said. “They have the right to contribute to society and provide for their children and their families, and mobility such as provided by the freedom to drive provides access to economic opportunity, including jobs, which does fuel growth and stability.”

 Clinton stressed her role as being part of “quiet diplomacy”.

“What these women are doing is brave and what they are seeking is right, but the effort belongs to them,” said Clinton. “I am moved by it and I support them, but I want to underscore the fact that this is not coming from outside of their country. This is the women themselves, seeking to be recognised.”

The protests have put the Obama administration, and Clinton in particular, in a difficult position. While she and many other top US officials personally oppose the Saudi ban on female drivers, the administration is increasingly reliant on Saudi authorities to provide stability and continuity in the Middle East and Gulf amid uprisings taking place across the Arab world.

Thus, some officials have been reluctant to antagonise the Saudis.

On Monday, a coalition of Saudi activists urged Clinton to support publicly the campaign to end male-only driving in the ultra-conservative Muslim country.

Clinton said on Tuesday that she and other US officials had raised the matter “at the highest level of the Saudi government”.

“We have made clear our views that women everywhere, including women in the kingdom, have the right to make decisions about their lives and their futures,” she said. “They have the right to contribute to society and provide for their children and their families, and mobility, such as provided by the freedom to drive, provides access to economic opportunity, including jobs, which does fuel growth and stability.

“And it’s also important for just day-to-day life, to say nothing of the necessity from time to time to transport children for various needs and sometimes even emergencies,” Clinton said. “We will continue in private and in public to urge all governments to address issues of discrimination and to ensure that women have the equal opportunity to fulfill their own God-given potential.”


Obama’s War

For a candidate that basically ran on the brag that he was the only candidate who genuinely opposed the Iraq War Resolution, Barack Obama sure turned into a President that is relying on similar Bushian war logic.  The NYT’s Charlie Savage has a must read article up on the behind-the-scene maneuvers this President made on the way to joining the NATO operations in Libya.  It seems that Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon who questioned the legal authority of the President to approve the operation without Congressional consent.  Glenn Greenwald has some analysis of the article at Salon.

The growing controversy over President Obama’s illegal waging of war in Libya got much bigger last night with Charlie Savage’s New York Times scoop.  He reveals that top administration lawyers —  Attorney General Eric Holder, OLC Chief Caroline Krass, and DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson — all told Obama that his latest, widely panned excuse for waging war without Congressional approval (that it does not rise to the level of “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution (WPR)) was invalid and that such authorization was legally required after 60 days: itself a generous intepretation of the President’s war powers.  But Obama rejected those views and (with the support of administration lawyers in lesser positions:  his White House counsel and long-time political operative Robert Bauer and State Department “legal adviser” Harold Koh) publicly claimed that the WPR does not apply to Libya.

As Savage notes, it is, in particular, “extraordinarily rare” for a President “to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice.”  Just imagine if George Bush had waged a war that his own Attorney General, OLC Chief, and DoD General Counsel all insisted was illegal (and did so by pointing to the fact that his White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and a legal adviser at State agreed with him).  One need not imagine this, though, because there is very telling actual parallel to this lawless episode …

Obama is holding to the idea that the Libya operations fall short of the definition of “hostilities” and that the campaign does not fall under provisions of the War Powers Resolution which states that any “unauthorized hostilities” must be halted after 90 days.  This is explained in more detail in the NY Times article itself.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

The logical follow-up question is, of course, is Boehner acting in the interest of Republican politics or the rule of law?  I’ll avoid that one and instead rely on other liberal writers to take the argument that even if Boehner is wrongly motivated, he’s got the action right.  James Fallows writing for The Atlantic states that  “Obama Is Wrong About Congress and Libya”.  Fallows does not have Republican gamesmanship in mind.

But after three months of combat, and after several decades of drift toward unilateral Executive Branch action on matters of war and peace, Obama is doing a disservice to the nation, history, and himself by insisting that the decision should be left strictly to him. If the Libyan campaign ultimately “goes well,” he will not in any way lessen his own political and historic credit by having involved the Congress. If it goes poorly, he will be politically safer if this is not just his own judgment-call war. More important, in either case he will have helped the country if his conduct restores rather than further weakens the concept that a multi-branch Constitutional republic must share the responsibility to commit force. We can only imagine the eloquence with which a Candidate Obama would be making this exact case were he not in the White House now.

Additional analysis can be found at The New Yorker where Amy Davidson argues that bombing Tripoli is the very definition of hostilities.

But the War Powers Resolution doesn’t say anything about wars in which we have allies not counting, or ones the U.N. likes; it isn’t about lonely wars or bad wars, just wars. The Administration adds a second set of rationalizations, which make even less sense:

U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.

Is the point that, while we are bombing Libya, we are doing it from a distance, out of Qaddafi’s forces’ range, so there aren’t “exchanges” of fire, just one-way barrages—hostility, rather than hostilities? By the same reasoning, it wouldn’t count as war if any overwhelming force attacked anyone who couldn’t effectively hit back; that exemption could apply not only to cruise missiles and drones but to a column of tanks rolling into a village. Is the only concern of the War Powers Act—is our only concern about war—whether our own soldiers can be shot? Aren’t we also interested in making sure there is some accountability when our government decides to shoot? (Would, someday, Congress have a say when it came to human troops, but not robot soldiers?) A war is not simply a short-term public-health issue; it can inveigle our country diplomatically, financially, and morally for decades.

The other question is whether the Administration’s summary even describes the reality on the ground in Libya. (No “sustained fighting”?) And given reports of covert operatives, the pressure to end a stalemate, and the continuing threat to civilians, the assertion that there is no “significant chance of escalation” is mysterious—does it just mean that we promise we won’t go in too deep? Wishful words don’t dispel legal obligations.

So, why is Obama afraid of facing congress at this point in time?  Senator Dick Durban–an Obama ally–is currently calling for Congressional authorization of the Libyan actions and his done the paper work.

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin is backing many of his colleagues in the Senate as in believing that an act of Congress is needed to justify the U.S. military action in Libya.

While the U.S. has gone only so far as launching air strikes, Durbin says a joint resolution authorizing force, barring ground troops and setting an end date should be approved by Congress. Military operations involving Libya have been going on for three months.

“Congress alone has the constitutional authority and responsibility to declare war,” Durbin said. “The founding fathers were very clear that before we commit troops in an offensive situation, that the government can only do that with the approval of Congress. Now the Libyan situation is not as clear as some others but I think it’s clear enough that we should pass an authorizing resolution.”

Durbin says he would vote for it and says what President Obama is doing in Libya is the right thing.

Durbin is posed to do the authorization.  It’s obvious that many Republicans and Democrats would probably support the measure. So, the question remains, why isn’t the President seeking congressional approval at this point?


Driving as Act of Radical Feminism

Today has been a very special day in Saudi Arabia.  Some Saudi women are participating in “Wheels of Change” by driving their vehicles as an act of civil disobedience against treatment of women in the nation.

Saudi activists, encouraged by the Arab Spring and by the outlets for expression offered through Facebook and Twitter, declared Friday a day for Saudi women to take to the streets, behind steering wheels.

Saudi Arabia remains perhaps the only country in the world where women are banned from driving — even though no law explicitly bars Saudi women from driving. Saudi leaders from King Abdullah on down have said they believe Saudi women should be allowed to drive.

Inside and outside Saudi Arabia, some tend to see the ban as a frivolous issue — the stereotype being a Saudi woman princess in sunglasses wanting a little independence as she drives to Starbucks for a latte.

Activists and writers like Eman Fahad al Nafjan, a blogger, doctoral student, and mother in Riyadh, call the impact of the ban profound, saying that it limits women’s mobility into female employment and education, despite efforts by King Abdullah to boost both. And in a kingdom that the International Labor Organization says is the only country in the Gulf Cooperation Council with a significant poverty rate, the ban is a drain on the resources of women, forcing many households to pay thousands of dollars a year for drivers, opponents say.

AJ is also reporting on these acts of civil disobedience against one of the most conservative monarchies in the area. This is truly an act of bravery in this country. Saudi Arabia has not yet experienced much civil unrest during the so-called “Arab spring’.

The subject of women driving was as puzzling as every woman-related issue in the tribal, patriarchal, and religious alloy of the Saudi mindset.

Women have driven in rural areas and in some compounds within cities all the time. There were no religious or legal pretexts to prevent women from driving. The opposition came from a group of religious scholars – purportedly for fear of “gender mixing” and anticipated sins – a fallacy that is obviously refuted by the fact that gender mixing is already in effect, whether women are in the back or the front seats of the cars – unless a parallel public world can be created for each sex, an idea which must occupy many scholars’ minds.

This was nothing new; religious views opposing women’s autonomy were the norms of Saudi scholars, fearing changes in the traditional gender roles. And when religious unrest contradicts official plans, the government often acts to keep the clerics in check. Examples are many, such as the beginnings of women’s education half a century ago and the opening of KAUST, the first co-educational university – which cost a known scholar his elevated position at the supreme committee of scholars.

I would like every one here to be aware of the bravery of the people in Saudi Arabia–the women and men–who are trying to bring modernity and women’s rights to what is unquestionably a misogynist society.  For more information on the role of social media in this movement, see the BBC’s story here.  Many Saudi women are posting videos and stories like the one above.


Monday Reads

Good Morning!

I’ve been following a few stories recently.  Of course, one is about my favorite blood sport: politics.  One interesting recent announcement is that the two Mormons contending for the Republican Presidential slot are skipping Iowa.  Most of the speculation has to do with the role of religionists in the Iowa Republican party.  Law professor Ann Althouse has some interesting observations on what appears to be the unwillingness of evangelical Christians to vote for Mormons.

It’s distressing to see this conflation of conservatism and prejudice. It’s one thing if Iowan Republicans tend to go for someone with a stronger message of social conservatism, quite another if they are hostile to Mormons. Plenty of Mormons are social conservatives, and it just happens that the 2 Mormons in the race are not social conservatives. Can we get some serious research on this point? It’s a dangerous thing to allow insinuations of religious bigotry to seep into the public consciousness. I can’t tell if the Times is really against bigotry or not. If you portray Iowan religious conservatives as anti-Mormon, in one way, it seems anti-bigotry. But it’s also inviting us to feel hostility toward the Iowan evangelicals.

Althouses’ comments are based on this NYT article which states that Iowa may have an ‘ebbing influence’ on national elections.

But there are signs that its influence on the nominating process could be ebbing and that the nature of the voters who tend to turn out for the Republican caucuses — a heavy concentration of evangelical Christians and ideological conservatives overlaid with parochial interests — is discouraging some candidates from competing there.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, announced Thursday that he would skip the state’s Republican straw poll this summer, saving his resources — and lowering expectations — for the state’s caucuses next year.

Earlier in the week, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former governor of Utah, conceded that he was likely to skip the Iowa caucuses altogether, noting that his opposition to ethanol subsidies makes him unpopular in a state where support for the corn-based fuel is all but demanded.

“I’m not competing in Iowa for a reason,” he told The Associated Press. In addition to his stand on ethanol, Mr. Huntsman, who served in the Obama administration as ambassador to China, says he believes in global warming and has not embraced the Tea Party movement like some of his rivals. And like Mr. Romney, Mr. Huntsman is a Mormon, a religion viewed with wariness by some conservative Christians.

Repercussions from the Arab Spring are continuing through Summer. Syria appears to be the latest country where members of the military are having second thoughts about cracking down on civil unrest in the general population.

The escalating military offensive in northwest Syria began after what corroborating accounts said was a shoot-out between members of the military secret police in Jisr al-Shughur, some of whom refused to open fire on unarmed protesters.

A growing number of first-hand testimonies from defected soldiers give a rare but dramatic insight into the cracks apparently emerging in Syria’s security forces as the unrelenting assault on unarmed protesters continues.

Speaking to Al Jazeera from Turkey, having crossed the border on Friday night, an activist based in Jisr al-Shughur and trusted by experienced local reporters described how a funeral on June 4 for a man shot dead by plain-clothes security a day earlier grew into a large anti-government protest.

“As the demonstration passed the headquarters of the military secret police they opened fire right away and killed eight people,” the activist, who was among the crowd, said. “But some of the secret police refused to open fire and there were clashes between them. It was complete chaos.”

There continues to be a mounting human crisis as Syrians fleeing violence pour into nearby Turkey.

As Syrian security forces move in to the besieged town of Jisr al-Shughour, thousands of refugees are fleeing across the Turkish border.  More camps are being set up to house the new arrivals.  Many of the refugees are in desperate need of medical help.

The emergency ward at Antakya hospital is about to receive its latest casualty from Syria.  It is a young girl who has fallen sick and was brought to the Turkish border by her desperate mother, who is also pregnant. The ambulance driver says the violence in Syria means hospitals there are either full with the injured, or the journey is too hazardous.

The clashes in and around the northern Syrian town of Jisr al-Shughour have forced thousands to flee.  Many of them have recorded the horrifying scenes on cellphones and cameras. In the border village of Harabjoz, people have set up tents as they wait to cross into Turkey.  One refugee, who did not give his name, described the conditions they are facing. “There is no milk for the children,” he says.  “We bought some but we have run out.  They are targeting homes and yesterday gunmen targeted us.  All these people will not survive because they burned all their crops,” he says. “Now it’s become sectarian for sure,” he said.

A spokesman for the United Nations’ refugee agency, Metin Corabatir, has warned of a growing crisis.  “The latest figures UNHCR received from the border is 5051 who fled from Syria because of violence and persecution in this country,” he said.

Witnesses believe the true figure could be double that number – including those who have crossed undetected.

The Economist believes Obama is beatable in 2012 but seems dismayed at the Republican field of candidates.  This was my Saturday night bath read and I found it interesting so I thought I’d pass it along.  They biggest question is that how does a candidate that ran as a change agent and outsider run as ‘Goliath’ this time?

In 2008 Mr Obama represented change. This time he will have to fend off charges that he is to blame for the achingly slow recovery by arguing that it would have been worse without his actions, such as his $800 billion stimulus package and the takeover of GM and Chrysler. That may be true but it is not easy to sell a counterfactual on the stump (as the first President Bush learned). And there are other holes in Mr Obama’s record. What happened to his promises to do something about the environment or immigration or Guantánamo? Why should any businessman support a chief executive who has let his friends in the labour movement run amok and who let his health-care bill be written by Democrats in Congress? Above all, why has he never produced a credible plan to tackle the budget deficit, currently close to 10% of GDP?

Asking these questions will surely give any Republican a perch in this race. But to beat the president, the Republicans need both a credible candidate and credible policies.

I may have to change my opinion of Larry Summers a little bit.  In this FT Op-Ed, Summers tries to fight the austerity agenda and a US “lost decade”.  Wow.

Beyond the lack of jobs and incomes, an economy producing below its potential for a prolonged interval sacrifices its future. To an extent once unimaginable, new college graduates are moving back in with their parents. Strapped school districts across the country are cutting out advanced courses in maths and science. Reduced income and tax collections are the most critical cause of unacceptable budget deficits now and in the future.

You cannot prescribe for a malady unless you diagnose it accurately and understand its causes. That the problem in a period of high unemployment, as now, is a lack of business demand for employees not any lack of desire to work is all but self-evident, as shown by three points: the propensity of workers to quit jobs and the level of job openings are at near-record low; rises in non-employment have taken place among all demographic groups; rising rates of profit and falling rates of wage growth suggest employers, not workers, have the power in almost every market.

A sick economy constrained by demand works very differently from a normal one. Measures that usually promote growth and job creation can have little effect, or backfire. When demand is constraining an economy, there is little to be gained from increasing potential supply. In a recession, if more people seek to borrow less or save more there is reduced demand, hence fewer jobs. Training programmes or measures to increase work incentives for those with high and low incomes may affect who gets the jobs, but in a demand-constrained economy will not affect the total number of jobs. Measures that increase productivity and efficiency, if they do not also translate into increased demand, may actually reduce the number of people working as the level of total output remains demand-constrained.

I’m beginning to feel like part of a chorus these days.  Nearly all economists are telling whatever news source they can that this is your basic demand problem.  Now if the TV media would hire some one other than lawyers and political consultants we might get some traction here on getting a conversation about policy solutions.

I’ve got one more interesting link given to me by our resident psychologist, Bostonboomer. TNR has an interesting article up on why poor people can’t escape poverty easily.

In a paper in April 2010, Harvard behavioral economist Sendhil Mullainathan (for whom, full disclosure, I once worked) and MIT’s Abhijit Banerjee applied this same notion to decisions requiring self-control. If a doughnut costs twenty-five cents, they wrote, then that “$0.25 will be far more costly to someone living on $2 a day than to someone living on $30 a day. In other words, the same self-control problem is more consequential for the poor.” And so, in addition to all the structural barriers that prevent even determined poor people from escaping poverty, there may be another, deeper, and considerably more disturbing barrier: Poverty may reduce free will, making it even harder for the poor to escape their circumstances.

All of this suggests that we need to rethink our approaches to poverty reduction. Many of our current anti-poverty efforts focus on access to health, educational, agricultural, and financial services. Now, it seems, we need to start treating willpower as a scarce and important resource as well.

Okay, so what’s on your reading and blogging list this morning?


Friday Reads

Good Morning!!!

The news continues to be fairly depressing as news tends to be, but we’ll try to cover some interesting things today!

It’s really hard to believe, but we’re about to mark the 30th anniversary of the AIDS epidemic.  All of us that came of age during that period have a lot of lost friends and stories to tell. Thankfully, AIDS is a manageable disease now.  Unfortunately, too many people still don’t do what it takes to protect themselves.  Here’s an interesting story of how Congress came to realize that we had a growing health threat on our hands.

Oddly enough, it was the specter of Republican budget cuts that led to the first awareness of the AIDS epidemic in Congress. Ronald Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman, had targeted public health agencies for massive cuts. A Waxman staffer, concerned about their potential effects, had gone to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta to do reconnaissance. CDC scientists were alarmed and predicted that the cuts would lead to an epidemic, although they imagined it would involve a preventable childhood illness, since Reagan had proposed cutting the immunization budget in half. Waxman was worried enough by what he learned to join with a Republican colleague, Pete Domenici, to protect the immunization budget.
The epidemic came anyway. While in Atlanta, the Waxman staffer was told that he should meet with a doctor named Jim Curran, who had noticed an outbreak of an unusual and deadly pneumonia among gay men in Los Angeles. Today, Curran is renowned as the doctor who first raised the alarm among epidemiologists. But back then, he declined the offer of a congressional hearing to help direct research funding to his work because he was afraid that the attention would interfere with his access to a gay community that was fearful of the government (homosexuality was a felony in many states). “I’ll call you when I’m ready,” he told Waxman’s staff. Let’s pause here to note that before AIDS even had a name, members of Congress were aware of the disease and working to help.

Curran called a year later. In 1982, Congress held its first hearing on what was now called AIDS, a field hearing in Los Angeles. A single reporter showed up. But eventually Waxman and a group of colleagues succeeded in drawing attention to the epidemic

Texas continues its attacks on women’s right to choose.  It has revived an anti-abortion measure to omnibus legislation. It’s also continuing the Republican extremist attack on Planned Parenthood.

Besides the two health care provisions to privatize Medicare and Medicaid, the Texas House attached several anti-abortion amendments to the omnibus legislation: (1) a bill to “ban hospital districts from using local tax revenue to fund abortions, except in emergency situations — or else risk losing state funding,” (2) “limit the state family planning funds received by Planned Parenthood,” (3) force physicians who provide abortions to collect more data on their patients.

More Kind and Kompassionate Konservative philosophy comes from a Republican in Massachussetts who believes that any undocumented worker who has been raped “should be afraid to come foreward”.

Massachusetts GOP state Rep. Ryan Fattman has such contempt for illegal immigrants that he believes undocumented women who are raped should be afraid to go to the police. Yesterday, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported on Fattman’s incendiary comments, which he made while defending a controversial federal immigration program that many say will damage the relationship between law enforcement and immigrant communities. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) has refused to join the program out of concern that immigrants who are victims of violent crimes will be afraid to report them and seek help…

Representative Fattman supports deporting any undocumented rape victim who goes to the police immediately.  That appears to be more important to him than preventing crimes and supporting victims of crime.  Unbelievable.

Robert Reich continues to be an outspoken advocate for the unemployed and for a stimulus to correct the current economic problem.  He accuses Obama of going over to the supply side fairy tale spun by Republicans.  Yup, it’s not about more business incentives, it’s all about the lack of customers.  He joins me and other economists who say it’s all about the Demand side right now.

Obama says he’s interested in exploring with Republicans extending some of the measures that were part of that tax-cut package “to make sure that we get this recovery up and running in a robust way.”

Accordingly, the White House is mulling a temporary cut in the payroll taxes businesses pay on wages. White House advisors figure this may appeal to Republican lawmakers who have been discussing the same idea. It would, in essence, match the 2 percent reduction in employee contributions to payroll taxes this year, enacted as part of the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Other ideas under consideration at the White House include a corporate tax cut, accompanied by the closing of some corporate tax loopholes.

Can we get real for a moment? Businesses don’t need more financial incentives. They’re already sitting on a vast cash horde estimated to be upwards of $1.6 trillion. Besides, large and middle-sized companies are having no difficulty getting loans at bargain-basement rates, courtesy of the Fed.

In consequence, businesses are already spending as much as they can justify economically. Almost two-thirds of the measly growth in the economy so far this year has come from businesses rebuilding their inventories. But without more consumer spending, businesses won’t spend more. A robust economy can’t be built on inventory replacements.

The problem isn’t on the supply side. It’s on the demand side. Businesses are reluctant to spend more and create more jobs because there aren’t enough consumers out there able and willing to buy what businesses have to sell.

The so-called Gang of Six are close to releasing their budget ideas.  They’ve shared what they’ve come up with so far with some members they feel may be responsive.  Will it be enough to head off Republican calls for default on US debt?

Freshman Republican Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who was in the meeting, said she was open to looking into any potential plan that would address the deficit in a serious and responsible way. She characterized the meeting as an update on the group’s progress.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) who is spearheading the group’s efforts with Chambliss was tight-lipped about the presentation and refused to take any questions or even vaguely describe the mood of the meeting.

“Do you really think, as somebody who’s obsessed about this that I’m going to do anything to screw it up now?” Warner said emphatically Thursday afternoon.

Even Dick Durbin, another Gang member and the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, was coy with reporters after the meeting. The Illinois Democrat is typically quick to present even a basic line expressing optimism or progress made in the meeting, instead opting to playfully pretend with reporters he knew nothing about the group or the meeting.

“I can neither, confirm, deny or retract [anything about the meeting,” Durbin teased with reporters.

Aides on the Hill are quick to point out that lawmakers will talk more when things are going poorly and less when things are going well. Perhaps after a few weeks of uncertainty, the remaining “Five Guys” trying to forge a deal are close to one.

NATO has upped the ante in Libya by hammering Tripoli and directly targeting Colonel Gaddafi. Some countries are seeking to give access to the country’s frozen assets to the rebels.  Many believe that the regime’s days are coming to an end shortly.  Qaddafi is said to have ordered mass rape and to have handed out Viagra to troops. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in the middle east working with other nations to plan for a post-Gaddafi Libya.

But another U.S. official indicated there was a conscious effort by NATO military planners to target air strikes closer to where Gaddafi is thought to have been taking shelter — and the Obama administration  is privately supporting the intensified strikes.

So, that’s a little bit of what I found is going on in the world.  What’s on your reading and blogging list today?