Soto-may-or may not have ruined her chances?

This is more of an update on a previous blog I did but it is a story that I have followed closely for a variety of reasons.

The news came in today that the Sotomayor decision that was up for review by the Supreme Court had been reversed by a 5-4 majority. I searched via twitter to check for reaction in the States and was surprised by what I found. A lot showed very little knowledge of the case and took to the assumption that Sotomayor was discriminating against white people; even amongst the educated class.

If this was the reaction amongst some academics you can only begin to imagine what the wider public thought. As well as the offensive cartoon above, many more people took her decision as an attack on white people in general. Others were just plain racist.

The truth of the matter is that she is likely to be confirmed anyway. She has an outstanding background as a prosecutor, lawyer and judge and there is the obvious political difficulty with attacking a Hispanic nominee. Plus the Senate will look at the New Haven decision but certainly more objectively than the American public.

One more sensible 'tweet' points out that even if Sotomayor was present in the court, the decision would still have been the same. This is true if looking purely along liberal/conservative lines but often a judge can influence the whole court on decisions close to their heart, one only has to look at Safford Unified School District vs. Redding for an example.

So rather than looking upon the reversal as a potential roadblock to tenure, people ought to take note of what is to come from Sotomayor. A lady who feels strongly about discrimination could lead to major beneficial interpretations of the constitution in the future.

BNP win is proof of democracy working

As people woke up this morning to find that the BNP had gained more seats than any other party in the European elections they were rightly disgusted that the UK is, for the first time, returning a fascist to Strasbourg. Interestingly the blog world has also become obsessed with this story and I would suggest this is more to do with the failure of their own party than anything else. One LibDem blogger suggests that proportional representation is not to blame but let us remember that they gained one seat despite losing 1.2% of their total vote share from last time. Meanwhile a Tory blogger goes so far as to suggest that the BNP are on the far-left of the political spectrum! This politically naive argument only detracts from the Conservative party gaining a paltry 1% of the popular vote when the governing national party is in disarray.

Without a shadow of a doubt it is the BNP who have been the most successful in these elections. Although the Green party went up by 2.4% in terms of the total vote share compared to the BNP's 1.3%, the Green's did not gain any extra seats whilst Nick Griffin squeezed into the North-West of England by around 1,200 votes and Andrew Brons earned more than 120,000 votes to secure a seat in Yorkshire and the Humber.

There are many reasons which can be attributed to the BNP winning nearly 1 million votes. Firstly the electoral system has to take some of the blame. Proportional representation (PR) is often banded around as being more fair and democratic but the truth of the matter is that it allows fringe parties not only to get their hands on power but to be a controlling influence as a coalition partner. The good news from this is that a chance of BNP success in a general election is slim.

Going back to the Euro election results though the online world seems almost apologetic for letting the BNP represent the UK but the far-right have had a lot of success across Europe in countries such as Austria, Denmark, Slovakia, Hungary and especially the Netherlands where Geert Wilders' PVV party picked up 17% of the popular vote along with four seats, in the end finishing up in second place overall.

The current economic climate could have left the gate open to parties on the left of the political spectrum who would offer both greater control of the economy but also greater redistribution of wealth. However the far-left only made a small gain in Denmark and none whatsoever in either France or Germany where they were expected to do well. Instead it seems to be the authoritarian right which is doing best across Europe. The UK is a good microcosm of this fact and not just in relation to the BNP. The Conservatives won the election and now seek to form a new anti-federalist alliance with other winners in Eastern Europe. Meanwhile the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) also had success in beating the Labour party to second place, showing that their performance in 2004 was by no means a fluke.

In my opinion, if you do not vote then you accept the results of the election and continuing with this logic, 68% of the total electorate accept the BNP as our representatives in Europe. With poor turnout and PR contributing to the result we still have to say that democracy is working, but as the old cliche goes: 'you get what you vote for'.

Hanging in the Balance

With the upcoming European elections drawing so much attention in the UK press it is a shame that the elections in Lebanon on 7th June have failed to attract much attention. Some argue that even in spite of this the election in a country only 4 million strong can only have a minute effect on the contentious region. This though seems unlikely as many look towards the results here as a barometer for the Middle East.

Most know nothing or very little about Lebanese politics per se but will have heard of the main opposition group; Hizbullah. In 2006, the Hizbullah field militia fought the Israelis in a quick but bruising battle. Now they are seeking to do battle again but this time with the shaky governing coalition consisting of Druze, Sunni Muslims and various Christians. Although the latest opinion polls show a slight lead for the opposition, the March 14th coalition has the advantage of American support and vice-president Joe Biden recently stopped by on a flying visit. He even hinted that a Hizbullah victory could put the vast amount of American aid currently going to Lebanon into jeopardy.

But America isn't the only heavy-weight power to wade in on this election. Both Iran and Syria help to finance Hizbullah and have strong connections with the country as their respective armies dominated Lebanon as a peacekeeping force until 1998. By Western standards, corruption is rife on all sides. In particular, Saudi Arabia is effectively financing an anti-Hizbullah campaign.

Lebanon is taking steps in the right direction with an attempted cap on campaign spending but this is easily exploited and as yet there is no uniform national ballot despite protests.

The general mainstream media, particularly in the US, is all too quick to point out that Hizbullah are the bad boys and they certainly don't endear themselves to the press after claiming "divine victory" in the six week war.Even their leader, Hasan Nasrallah, is a charismatic cleric who has found his way onto the Middle East's 'most wanted' list. There may well be a certain fear of the unknown involved as Hizbullah command enormous street power and their militia has superior training, equipment and morale which is the envy of the Arab world. Nevertheless they have also begun to play the political game nearly just as effectively by allying with an alliance of Christian factions and toning down their own religious zeal a tad.

Hizbullah must not be underestimated though and recent reports that link the group with the assassination of Rafik Hariri only serve to highlight this. In fact the Jerusalem Post is probbaly right to suggest that no matter what the result is on Sunday they will continue to play a major role in Lebanese politics. Rather these elections are turning out to be more important on a wider scale as East takes on West in something of a circus of politics before Iraninans go to the polls themselves on the 12th.

A Dead-Man's Revolution

For all intents and purposes, Guatemala is a failed state and this is of no surprise given its chequered past. Until 1996 there was an ongoing war between left-wing guerillas and governing military dictators in which 200,000 died. As a result there was an influx of guns into the country. When peace arrived, drug-trafficking syndicates were being set-up across Central America and many of the former fighters turned to crime. Nowadays both crime and corruption pervade Guatemalan politics.

With a murder rate of nearly 50 per 100,000 Rodrigo Rosenberg should have simply have been another victim of the state but what the president Álvaro Colom did not expect was a posthumous indictment which was then given to the press. At first the president tried to fob the video off as a fake but when the video was verified, Colom turned to accusations of a right-wing plot.

Unsurprisingly there was a backlash against this with a protest outside the presidential palace in Guatemala City on 17th May. Protesters were also angry about suspected money laundering first suggested by Jean Anleu Fernández (@Jeanfer) on our very own Twitter. Thus, although a rival protest organised with public funds also took place, it was no match for those calling for Colom to step down.

Now the UN and FBI have got involved and will hopefully provide some justice for Mr Rosenberg's family. More importantly though his death must not be in vain. The fact those in political office cannot be prosecuted and that the army has now been given a greater role in quelling unrest must not deter those campaigning for what Colom once offered himself; good government and justice in Guatemala.