World Politics Blog S02

On Globalization and Disease

The link between globalization and disease is not one that has recently been discovered. In fact, since the beginning of the United States of America, the spread of disease has been a direct effect of the world shrinking due to globalization. Some of America's first settlers, along with their boats and guns, brought the Plague with them. Next, the settlers on the Mayflower and other ships that came in the early 1600s carried with them Smallpox and other diseases the New World had never seen.

Even before Bird Flu and Swine Flu, the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s showed the world just how dangerous globalization can be. The smaller the world got during the burgeoning end of the 20th Century, the more prominent epidemics such as AIDS became. Swine Flu and Bird Flu luckily were contained within pandemic status but still gave the entire world serious scares.

Disease is an evil that goes hand in hand with increased contact between foreign peoples. Let's hope we find more and more cures as the risk of disease grows with each passing year.

Internet Censorship

I found Hailey and Karinne’s presentation on Internet censorship particularly interesting in light of the Arab Spring. Censorship can be viewed as an impediment to the globalization of ideas, in that certain countries prohibit their citizens from exposure to “unfavorable topics.” Internet censorship is a tool favored by autocrats to 1) prevent unfavorable press and 2) to monitor political opponents. The Arab Spring is a prime example of the role of Internet censorship in shaping the modern world. The Arab Spring began when a Tunisian fruit vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi immolated himself in front of a government building in the rural town of getting ready to sell fruits and vegetables in the rural town of Sidi Bouzid. Normally, the news of the self-immolation would not have spread farther than the town, except that as a result of the with globalization of technology, hundred of other young fruit vendors pulled out their camera phones and began recording. Within hours, the video of protestors popped up all over Tunisia sparking more protests, in the beginning stages of what would become an Arab World Revolution. The Tunis government’s response: censorship. The problem with Internet censorship is that governments cannot control it. Even if the government blocks or monitors certain websites, by logging in from foreign networks, people can access the webpages. Another problem is that censorship angers people: they want to know what is being barred from their viewing and why. Within days of the video from Sidi Bouzid surfacing on the Internet, Arabs all over the world began joining together to protest the inequality inflicted upon them by corrupt regimes. However, unlike the social-media connected countries of Tunisia and Egypt, Libya was a different story. In Libya, Moammar Gadhafi took drastic action: going as far as shutting off the Internet and phone lines. Cutting off access to social media in this day and age serves as a form of isolation from the global world. However, social media does not cause revolution; rather, people do. Social media only helps facilitate revolution. While Gadhafi thought internet censorship would halt a revolution, all he did was slow the arrival of the revolution and, in the process, bring more bad press to his regime from people around the world.

Another interesting aspect of Internet censorship is the role is plays in development. Looking at the difference in North and South Korea, that development is obvious. North Korea a censorship hub is lagging behind in the development department. On the other hand, South Korea has prospered and developed into a relatively wealthy nation over the past 40 years. However, censorship cannot be the sole contributor to this development difference. If we look at China, which is also a censorship hub—albeit to a lesser degree—we see China flourishing and developing to become the second largest power in the world (the U.S. being the first). Censorship is a product of regime type. As states earlier, autocrats and dictators have more to gain from censorship. Censorship allows them to limit the audience costs that are faced by many democratic countries. The difference in development between North Korea and China is a reflection on more comprehensive regime decisions than just censorship. Moreover, censorship is a continuing problem in our highly globalized world, one that affects the rate of revolution and development.

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/17/143897126/the-arab-spring-a-year-of-revolution
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/overtoyou/2011/02/libya_how_authorities_have_blo.html

McDonald's is a Symptom of Peace, Not a Cause

I want to comment on the Golden Arches theory covered by Joey and Sarah. I find it interesting that someone like Thomas Friedman, who clearly spent so much time and effort investigating the correlation between McDonald’s restaurants and war, could be so bad at identifying causal relationships. Don’t get me wrong - the correlation-implies-causation fallacy is very common, and we’re all bound to fall for it from time to time. Furthermore, it’s easy to see the flaws in a theory in hindsight, and laugh at how silly our predecessors were. So maybe I should cut Friedman some slack.

Nevertheless, I truly believe that if I were doing the same research as Friedman, I would never have made the same mistake. One thing that my classes at Michigan have drilled into me over and over is the fact that you ALWAYS have to consider alternative explanations for your observations. That’s critical (and very basic) even when you’re just doing a project or paper for a college class; the stakes are a great deal higher when your work is going to be published. I simply can’t believe that not once - in the entire years-long process of researching, writing, and publishing his book - did Friedman stop and think, “Hey, maybe I’ve got this relationship backwards.” And I can’t believe no one he encountered during the process challenged the concept. It actually makes me question the integrity of the project.

Needless to say, I don’t put much stock in the McDonald’s Peace. I believe, as Joey and Sarah explained, that McDonald’s franchises instead serve as a marker for countries that are unlikely to go to war in the first place. I find the Democratic Peace to be a more compelling argument. Basically, I don’t think a developed country with a serious motive for war would back down just because of global market connections. I think that the transparency of democratic states is more important; you can read a democracy’s intentions and abilities a bit more easily due to free public debate and relatively visible political processes. This makes bargaining between democracies easier. Furthermore, Friedman’s comments about people in developed countries not wanting to fight wars is simply false. As we discussed in class, democratic states don’t fight less than others - they just choose weaker and less democratic targets.

Overall, I believe globalization does raise the cost of war and serve as a safeguard against interstate conflict, to a modest extent. But international relations are international relations - states have many interests besides economic stability, and we can expect them to risk their position in the global market under the right circumstances.

Is Environmental Cooperation Possible?

Perhaps one of the most controversial issues in international relations today is international protection of the environment and the battle against global warming. The controversy begins even before thinking about how to solve the problem, because many people disagree as to weather global warming is even a hazard, or to what extent it causes problems. If this initial hump could be overcome, it would be a lot easier for people to start cooperating to make the global environment a better place. Because the effects of global warming cannot be contained to one area, it becomes a huge free rider issue. Carbon dioxide emissions in the United State do not simply affect the air in the United States. So everyone around the world should want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The problem is that, because air is a public good, even people or states that do not pitch in to solve the global warming issue will benefit from the cleaner air. And this is why the global environment poses a tragedy of the commons issue. Often times, there are simply not great enough incentives to make a state want to participate in carbon dioxide emissions. If a state is gaining personally by increasing industry and getting better profits from the emission of greenhouse gases, then they are not going to stop just to protect the environment. States tend to believe that it is the job of others to reduce their emissions in order to protect the environment – so that they, in turn, can benefit from this without having to alter their lifestyles.

However, it is possible for institutions such as nongovernmental organizations to motivate countries to voluntarily contribute to the global environmental cause. International environmental institutions can facilitate cooperation by establishing clear standards of behavior to which states can be held accountable. Take for instance the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. This convention, adopted in 1985, regulates activities such as the emissions of CFCs that damage the ozone layer. While certainly a start, the Montreal Protocol proved to be even more effective, because it specified progressively deeper cuts in emissions and increased the range of restricted chemicals and practices. The more complete the ban, the more likely states are to cooperate, because there is less wiggle room. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Seas by Oil initially set standards that allowed some, but not a lot, of oil to be discharged into seawater. It later changed to be a more complete ban. Environmental TANs also are central in verifying compliance with international environmental accords. States under the Kyoto Protocol use an emissions trading system. This is extremely beneficial in that it allocates emissions to states that want to emit more, but it lessens overall emission. States have to trade in order to have more emitting power, and in turn, other states cannot emit as much. Nongovernmental organizations are also great for facilitating decision-making and resolving disputes. Clearly, none of these methods are perfect. People still disagree as to the extent of the problem, and the large number of people in the world makes it nearly impossible for everyone to agree on ways to fix the problem.

Environmental NGOs

In order to promote environmentally friendly policies on a national scale, environmental NGOs have attempted to work with the government to promote environmental reform. Environmental NGOs have dramatically changed their approach to influencing policy change in the past few decades. In the 60s and 70s, these NGOs largely acted out of anger against government practices and were confrontational rather than convincing. Since then, these NGOs have become more focused on compromise and cooperation, which has often made them more effective. They have garnered increasing support for progressive government action by relying on scientific evidence and environmental analysis rather than emotion in the public sphere.
Cooperation between environmental NGOs and the government is occurring more frequently. In order to effectively promote environmental reform, NGOs must be on friendly terms with the government. This ensures that their positions are taken into account rather than brushed aside as angry rhetoric. Additionally, recent environmental disasters have provided opportunities for cooperation. In times when the environment is more of a public concern, NGOs can promote the importance of their agenda and can use public concern to promote reforms.
Unfortunately, the interests of environmental NGOs and the government often come into conflict. NGOs frequently publicize the wasteful habits of the government or the environmental degradation that the government promotes, and these exposures create conflict between the two groups. NGOs are put in a difficult position when trying to work with the government. Their credibility relies on their ability to hold true to their positions, but cooperation with the government often forces them to sacrifice many of their original goals.
Since there is a large collective action problem when it comes to the environment, increased public awareness about environmental concerns is usually the only way to force the government into action. Investing in environmental reform and alternative energy requires huge initial investments, and governments can only justify these costs when the public demands it. NGOs can be most effective by standing by their goals while realizing the political processes of the government. The government is more likely to respond to environmental concerns when it becomes a major public interest, so NGOs should focus on creating awareness about the issues and working closely with government agencies.

Globalization and Disease

Hillary's presentation on the effect of globalization on the spread of disease was particularly concerning to me, so I've looked into the issue a bit on my own. Over the past few decades, there have been more and more instances where increased global trade has facilitated the spread of disease at unprecedented rates. Health officials have attributed the fast spread of dengue fever in El Salvador to easy international travel. A recent dengue fever epidemic probably originated in Vietnam and travelled via Cuban workers, quickly infecting people in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. In the 80s, the CDC discovered that a killer mosquito from Asia was traveling to Texas on shipments of used tires - a common breeding location for mosquitoes. The West Nile virus spread to America so quickly that evidence explaining its travel route is lacking, but scientists have attributed the disease's travel to jets, birds, used tires, and infected frogs.
Despite growing concerns for how quickly diseases can spread because of globalization, no one seems to have any solutions. To prevent the spread of disease, the CDC vaguely advises us to stay at home when we're sick, wash our hands, and to get vaccinations. But if these measures didn't work even in a more fragmented world, how will they work now? Will people stay at home when they're sick when they're too poor to skip a day of work? What if people who carry a disease travel before they know they're infected? What about the billions of people that can't access clean water and soap, let alone expensive vaccinations? The spread of disease is a negative effect of globalization - but how can we stop it?!

Honors Showcase/Environmental Protection (4/18-4/24)

Choose one of the following promts:
-Comment substantively on any of the honors showcase presentations (exculding your own).

-Environmental protection seems to be the largest public good, and interest in it would suffer from the largest collective action problems- after all, every human being prefers a healthy environment. Yet NGOs do, at times, motivate voluntary action to protect the environment. How can they be successful given the huge potential for free riding?

Liberty and Justice...when convenient.

The state may indeed be an institution that is meant to support the people; we all hand over some of our autonomy in exchange for governmental protection and services. However, even the most ostensibly democratic system is an entity unto itself. It is important to keep in mind that each actor on the international stage has its own interests. The state may have been created with good intentions for the good of its citizens, but the fact remains that what benefits a state is often far removed from the best interests of its people. This is the key to understanding human rights violations by the state.

I admit that I was skeptical that Statecraft would teach me anything about politics that the classroom could not. But I must say that within the Democratic Republic of Tatooine, the simulation very clearly demonstrated the difference between state interests and people’s interests. A few months ago, I was prone to asking rather whiny questions about the international system. Most importantly, I constantly wondered why governments aren’t more conscientious about responding to the people’s requests. I couldn’t forgive our world leaders for ignoring marginalized groups. When I found myself at the helm of my own virtual state, my views changed almost overnight. My fellow leaders and I quickly found ourselves saying, to put it kindly, “Forget the capitalists - they’re only 5 percent strength anyway.” I didn’t want to personally target any particular beliefs; it just didn’t make sense for us to cater to their interests. If the leaders wanted to stay in office and maintain national stability, we couldn’t afford to waste time coddling the capitalists when we had a huge faction of environmentalists banging down our door. The fact was, we could afford to have the capitalists go on strike every turn because they had so little power.

My point is that if the leaders of a completely virtual state could be convinced to shove less influential groups off to the side, it should come as no surprise that this happens in the real world, where much more is at stake. Even the most well-intentioned leaders have to ignore and sometimes exploit certain groups for the sake of the whole. Add a less-than-democratic system or a few corrupt leaders into the mix, and of course you will see human rights begin to suffer - as long as those being exploited are not strong enough to fight back.

So all in all, Statecraft has given me a rather depressing view of world politics. I have to conclude that wherever there is government, there will be some form of oppression. But we must remember, as difficult and miserable as life can be under repressive regimes, things could be even worse if we had no governments at all...couldn’t they?

Human Rights

It is fascinating that the most prominent offenders of upholding human rights are states. Although very interesting, this phenomenon does not strike me as surprising, though. States are created by a group of people that believe they have the right idea as to how its inhabitants should live and the rules they should live by. These people, once in power, wield their power in order to meet these goals and in certain circumstances do so violently. Inhabitants of the land that don't fit the blueprint in the mind of the leader(s) are thus susceptible to maltreatment.

For instance, when Croatia decided to secede from Yugoslavia, its leaders encouraged the country purge itself of all non-Croats as well as those who didn't belong to the Roman Catholic Church. What resulted from this schism was one of the bloodiest civil wars of the 20th century. Members of the previously Yugoslav state that took residence in the province of Croatia no longer had a home in the new country. The formation of the Croatian state spurred vehement hatred of those thought to be "impure" and brought on unfathomable violations of human rights.

I believe that in instances such as the Yugoslav civil war, it is necessary for other countries to step in and deter such gross violations of human rights. As a member of the UN, the United States, for example, has signed and ratified the Universal Bill of Human Rights and thus should intervene in such circumstances when they arise. Although Yugoslavia was sovereign at the time, the atrocities that occurred were inexcusable. It was evident that the standing Yugoslav government was incapable of stopping the Croatian violations; therefore, another sovereign government should be able to step in and end the violence. It is sad that as I write this blog post, the U.S. has yet to intervene in Darfur where similar ethnic cleansing is occurring.

Human Rights: Making the Problem Known

One of the biggest problems concerning the world’s ability to solve the issue of human rights is that international norms for proper treatment of human beings do not exist. While developed and influential nations such as the United States have come up with ideals of human rights policy, they cannot easily disperse their values to other nations. This goes back to chapter 10 of FLS and the description of the three-step process to making temporary values permanent norms. This process seems simple, yet it hardly works out nicely. Different nations have a variety of goals, and because these goals are not coordinated, the nations often conflict on proper steps to reach their goals. States have differing legal traditions, political regimes, and institutions, which means they often have different interests in human rights.

While states certainly should protect their citizens, there are a number of reasons that might cause them to slight their own people. Human rights violations by states are not ideal for the state itself – they give them bad reputations. However, states may find such actions the best way to protect national security interest. And sometimes states are simply too poor to take care of all of their citizens adequately. But the most controversial issue is that states do not always agree that they are violating human rights. Because all states have different norms, and there is not one simple definition of human rights, there is no ideal way of measuring to what extent human rights are being violated. Another problem is that it is hard to decide where to draw the physical boundary as to where citizens of one state can commit a crime and where they can be punished. The International Criminal Court attempts to provide a structure for all nations to follow. But this institution has not been utilized frequently, and perhaps the most influential nation, the United States, is not a member of this system. This creates a void in the ICC’s credibility. If the democratic powerhouse of the world has not agreed to partake in it, maybe the ICC is not the most effective judge of human rights violations – at least, this is how other nations might view the situation.

When we think of human rights, we tend to imagine torture or killings. But states usually do not strive to cause such harm. Rather, states often do not have the capacity to provide things like free primary schooling to everyone or to police and control their military properly. And the US would consider these violations of human rights. But I think it is most important to look at more extreme examples of human rights violations, such as the systematic killings of a nation’s own people. Terrible events like this have taken place in Darfur and Rwanda recently. I do not think that states necessarily violate human rights more often than individuals violate other humans’ rights. I think that state actions is more visible, and on a much grander scale. States attempt to preserve their rule and maintain the status quo in national security. The most important thing to do is to find other solutions to help nations solve their problems without violating their citizens’ human rights. We are on the right track right now. Many nations are on the path of democratization, and these states are the most likely to sign agreements stating they will not violate human rights. We have already done one of the most important things we can do – spreading the word of the injustices of human rights violations. This is not enough on its own, but making the problem public makes nations more likely to cooperate in order to preserve their reputations.

Human Rights Blog (4/7 to 4/14

By far, the most likely actor to violate human rights is the state, surpassing violence committed by foreign powers, extremists, and terrorists.
-How is it that the state, an institution with the goal of providing security, is the biggest threat to basic human rights?
-Does the international community have a perogative to act when a sovereign state is violating the rights of its people?

FIghting Terrorism in an Increasingly Globalized World

In an increasing globalized society, the claws of terrorism seem to extend farther than they ever have in history. Advancement in technology and communication allow terrorist organization and the cells within them to do more damage around the world. Only with the help of today’s modern technological advancements can a person learn how to build a bomb on YouTube or communicate the plans for a terror attack for free via Skype. Technology has only made these terrorist organizations harder to track and harder to stop. As the movie The Siege accurately portrays, the old way of thinking about terrorists is gone, “the traditional model of the terrorist network: one cell controls all others. Cut off one head, the body will wither” has disappeared, and has been replaced: “The new paradigm is each cell operates independent of the other. Cut off one head, another rises up in its place.” The reason why catching one terrorist is no real help is that each terrorist only knows his handler and the people below him. His knowledge of the chain of command only extends up one level. This fosters the organization’s sense of anonymity and is also the source of its commitment problems. The point-man may agree to make concessions with a state and call in end to the violence, but that does not guarantee that radicals won’t continue the violence. As a result, many states have adopted a policy of non-negotiations with terrorists. But sometimes it is easier to negotiate, even if the results will only yield temporary peace. For example, Israel agreed to withdraw its troops from Lebanon after a series of brutal suicide bomber attacks in the 80’s in the hopes that this concession would yield temporary peace.
The big question is how can terrorism be prevented? There is no simple answer. Where there is a will there is a way: terrorists will always find a way to get around even the best defensive systems, it is only a matter of when. Offensive tactics have not been so successful. While individual missions, such as the one that killed Osama Bin Laden, may have been a success, there is always a second in command waiting in the wings to step-in. In addition, it is hard to fight an enemy that one cannot see. Whereas states have national armies that wear the same uniform, a war of terror is not like a regular war. Terrorists do no have the same accountability that established states have; therefore, they can resort to unfair tactics:, such as disguising as civilians and launching rockets from schools. While these acts can be condemned, there is no real acceptable response for retaliation; any state that attacks a school—even one that is housing terrorists—can be condemned by the international community. As a result, the best strategies have been defensive: increasing security, more inspection, and more technology. Each strategy has its limits. As Professor Stam states in lecture, “terrorism is the weapon of the weak and the extreme.” This statement could not be truer: only a cowardly group of individuals could consider using or threatening the use of force against noncombat. Our goal should not be to eradicate these cowards, but to stay one step ahead of them, a feat that seems to be increasing challenging in the age of disposable cell phones that can be used to set off bombs and instructional videos on building weapons.

How does potential EU membership affect domestic political competition?

As someone with a genuine interest in History, specifically 20th century modern history, the development of the European Union into an overarching single market and customs union is something about which I have often wondered. Despite the current euro zone crisis involving greece, the EU is seen, overall as a union that is benefical to all of its member countries. It promotes free trade, requires certain human rights and policies. However, what is usually not discussed is how the stringent requirements to which a country must adhere in order to be accepted into the EU affects domestic politics and economic conditions.
For instance, post-socialist Eastern Europe populations were under the impression that after the fall of socialism in 1989, they would be able to hold truly democratic elections and join what they saw as the model of democracy and efficient capitalism, "Europe" and the EU. What broke this euphoric vision was the realization of the immense number of policy reforms that each country would have to implement before being allowed into the EU. These reforms were almost all encompassing for the government, meaning that political parties really could not afford to have policy differences as any party that came to power would have to introduce the EU mandated reforms and austerity measures. So, the political candidates came to rely on personality to differentiate between competitors rather than political platform. This is particularly relevant today because of the candidacy of controversial nations like Turkey. I am curious to see how Turkey will afford to implement all of the changes necessary to gain membership into the EU and how this will affect their own domestic politics. The EU is portrayed as a generally positive and benefical entity but this is a view point presented from the side of highly developed Western European nations, nations that introduce crippling austerity measures to implement policies and endure a homogenization of domestic politics are often overlooked.
This also helps to explain the huge amount of anti-EU sentiment that is currently developing in Eastern European nations like Hungary. After 40 years of socialism, countries were excited to regain a sense of nationalism and be freed from the soviet bloc. However, extremists in Hungary and Poland are now arguing that the EU is another type of "bloc" that almost erases the possibility for national autonomy.

Great Expectations: The EU and Domestic Political Competition in East Central Europe
Anna Grzymalala-Busse and Abby Innes East European Politics and Societies 2003 17: 64 DOI: 10.1177/0888325402239684

Does the US Need a Middle Eastern Ally?

As it is very clear, the United States is heavily involved in the Middle East. Since we cannot satisfy our own demand from oil, we must import it from the oil rich Middle East. Since World War II, the United States has seen its position in the Middle East as a part of the national interest and security. This is even enshrined in the Carter Doctrine which states that any assault on the Persian Gulf region as an attack on the interests of the United States. This has led to the United States to having a strong, polarizing presence in the region. The problem, however, is that the United States has put itself in a position where it has given great wealth and security to its allies but threatened nearly every other hostile regime in the area. The quest for stability has led to the United States supporting some countries that have had some questionable human rights records at best and have turned much of the population against us.
The main idea that I am trying to advance as that the United States has embolden allies in the Middle East that have actually harmed our efforts. Israel has aggressively expanded into the West Bank and taken severe action against the Gaza Strip, the regime of Hosni Mubarak has collapsed, and the Iraqis are falling more under Iranian influence. The result of American intervention in the Middle East is a rise in anti-American sentiment. By trying to pursue short term interests of stability, we have created long term instability that may completely undermine American efforts. The United States should take a more hand off approach to the Middle East and allow a steady equilibrium to form, one that is not so resentful of American intervention.

Close Encounters of the International Cooperation Kind

In 2007, a Malaysian astrophysicist named Mazlan Othman, was given the title of director of the United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA),.while the day-to-day operations of this office mainly deal with international cooperation in space, managing space trash, weaponization of space, etc. the office gained particular attention as Othman has spoken at numerous conferences about the possible existence of extraterrestrial life, and possible encounters. Upon her promotion to the head of UNOOSA, the question was raised: has she become the de facto representative of the world for an alien encounter? Although Othman denies that the responsibility would fall to her, it begs the question of what role the United Nations and other international actors have in representing Earth. Intrade, the predictions service often quoted by pundits like Nate Silver to make political predictions, places the likelihood of an extraterrestrial encounter by 2015 at 15%, much higher than other predictions such as a Santorum ticket in 2012. So assuming that they will ‘come in peace’ and avoid the scenario played out in countless science fiction films, how will the multiplicity of states that exist on Earth interact? To tackle this question we must first assess what actors will rise to the challenge of taking the lead on first contact, I will assume that the international political field will mimic the current one by 2015. Even with the newfound internationalism of the United States that is seen in interventions in Libya and the lack thereof in Syria, we will almost certainly attempt to take the lead, whether through NATO, the Security Council, or Alone. The European Union and China will both most likely attempt to take a leadership role in the encounter, and it seems that while the United Nations might be the default and most proven fosterer of international cooperation, its history of inaction and gridlock will most likely preclude it, and by extension UNOOSA from acting on behalf of the world. Most small states will most likely try to leverage the larger international organizations such as NATO, so that they will not be completely discounted, as might happen if one nation such as the US or China assumed the mantle. To understand how this crisis might be dealt with, we must look to other time sensitive global crisis; in the Cuban Missile Crisis, action was taken completely by the leaders of the countries without any international intervention, currently attempts to gain international cooperation on Syria have been slow and ineffective, and almost in general any attempts to gain an international consensus are slow and inefficient. So one might assume that while high level talks would most likely occur in the security council, we could expect the US to take the lead under the guise of NATO, Germany through the EU, or China as a superpower and the most populous country on Earth.
http://news.discovery.com/space/no-un-alien-ambassador-as-the-bets-roll-in.html
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=74412