KHIN MAUNG WIN/AFP/Getty Images

Since last week's deadly cyclone in Burma, the nation's ruling military junta has been reluctant to allow aid to enter the country. Since then, trickles of food, water and medicines have been allowed to enter the country, but international aid workers have not. Citing a government that failed to even warn its citizens of the impending disaster, international observers believe that the regime in Burma has neither the will nor the capacity to distribute aid fairly, that corrupt officials are profiting from aid packages, and that the situation created by these conditions threatens to outpace the humanitarian devastation of the 2004 tsunami.

Last week, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner--the founder of Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders)--suggested that the international community and the UN are obligated to intervene in Burma, regardless of the wishes of the military junta, in accordance with the "Responsibility to Protect", or R2P, as outlined by the UN at the General Assembly in 2005. The concept asserts that the international community is obligated to intervene in cases where states fail to protect their populations from "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."

There are widely varying opinions (pdf) on the legality of the Responibility to Protect. Some argue that it violates the basic concept of sovereignty, while others like the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt, believe as Kouchner does, that the UN is abdicating its responsibility in Burma. Garreth Evans, of the International Crisis Group, offers a more nuanced interpretation in an editorial for The Guardian:

If it comes to be thought that R2P, and in particular the sharp military end of the doctrine, is capable of being invoked in anything other than a context of mass atrocity crimes, then such consensus as there is in favour of the new norm will simply evaporate in the global south. And that means that when the next case of genocide or ethnic cleansing comes along we will be back to the same old depressing arguments about the primacy of sovereignty that led us into the horrors of inaction in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990s."

He admits that if the inaction and neglect of the Burmese government is widely interpreted as a crime against humanity, then there might be room for the principle's application.

But there is no disagreement that the people of Burma can't wait for these issues to be bandied about at the Security Council or across editorial pages. Frustrated nations have a choice to make: either they must defy the wishes of the Burmese junta and send aid workers or airlifts to the Irrawaddy Delta, or they must submit to the regime and send whatever they have in the hopes that it will reach those in need. Regardless, it is clear that moralizing and posturing on the issue is not going to influence many, either in Rangoon or at the UN.

PAL PILLAI/AFP/Getty Images

Forbes reported recently that the world's first billion-dollar home is currently under construction in India. Mukesh Ambani, the CEO of the petrochemical company Reliance Industries Limited and India's wealthiest man (5th richest in the world) is building a 27-story skyscraper on 4,500 sqare meters of land his company purchased 6 years ago. Apparently, the 22-story tower where the family currently lives was beginnning to feel a little cramped. The new digs will soon house the Ambani family and nearly 600 staff members in a space the size of nearly seven football fields.

The Ambanis' dream home, which they are calling "Antilla," has sparked some controversy in Mumbai. Reliance Industries purchased the land -- the site of a former orphanage -- at an auction in 2002 for just over 5 percent of its market value. That sale is now in dispute because the land was donated as a Waqf, an Islamic religious endowment (much like a trust) set aside to house Muslim orphans in perpetuity. The Waqf's board has petitoned to stay the construction of the building, but the courts have ruled that construction can go on. 

Antilla, which is expected to be completed in September, boasts some of the most luxurious accomodations in the world, including a movie theater, six floors dedicated to parking, a replica of the gardens at Babylon, an 'entourage room' where security staff can relax, and an ice room with man-made snow for seeking relief from the Mumbai heat. I wonder what the orphans did without an ice room?

Recently, a colleague turned me on to Vice Magazine, a Brooklyn-based project that writes about the underground music scene, extreme sports, and all things counterculture. Increasingly though, as Vice's notoriety grows, it's venturing into territory that is decidedly less fluffy. Incorporating international reporting on areas most people only hear about in wonkier publications like The Economist or The Washington Post, Vice manages to open up new worlds to its urban hipster clientele by maintaining a cynical and subversive edge.

Through print features such as "Moldova: Mental Asylums and Psychadelic Gravestones," their recent interview with the Iraqi Minister of Tourism (um, Iraqi tourism?) and now their new online venture VBS.tv, Vice founders Suroosh Alvi, Eddy Moretti, and Shane Smith have moved into territory previously uncharted, something they themselves have summed up best as "60 Minutes meets Jackass." 

VBS.tv's slogan is "Rescuing you from television's deathlike grip," and features mini-documentaries by staff members exploring news-y topics such as the lost boys of Sudan, or Palestinian media campaigns aimed at luring women and children into committing acts of terror. A documentary of their trip to North Korea features comical mash-ups of North Korean propaganda with creepily orchestrated Pyongyang tour stops and drunken noribong with government chaperones. It is at once inane and fascinating -- the Vice trademark. Check it out.

In a speaking engagement today at my alma mater Skidmore College, former Attorney General John Ashcroft confused Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden while talking about the importance of the Patriot Act. The former attorney general then waited patiently as students booed and jeered:

Beware folks, Skidmarks--as the locals in mostly conservative Saratoga County call Skidmore students--are a tough crowd.

Last week, I wrote about climate skeptic J. Scott Armstrong's attempt to goad Al Gore into a wager regarding global climate predictions over the next 10 years. It seemed to me a cheap attempt to prove that the former vice president isn't as sincere in his environmental platforms as he professes. This week, Gore is showing that he's not shy about putting his own money on the line in the name of the environment -- he just wants to do so on his own terms.

On Wednesday, self-proclaimed "PR Agent for the Planet" Gore will announce that he has donated his profits from his Oscar-award-winning film An Inconvenient Truth as well as his Nobel prize winnings (which he and wife Tipper matched) to fund an ambitious new climate media campaign.

Called the We Campaign, its main goal (pdf) is to create a sense of urgency about action for climate change, elevate the level of public discourse in the United States, and make the environment a top issue during the upcoming general election. In order to accomplish this, the We Campaign has placed its spots during programs like American Idol and The Daily Show.

You can view the campaign's first installment here:

Future ads will seek to stress the bipartisan support for environmental reform by pairing strange bedfellows such as Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi, or Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton. In the Sharpton/Robertson ad, which highlights the moral and spiritual need to combat climate change, the two lightning rods sit next to each other on a couch on the beach, acknowledging that they hardly agree on anything -- except for the climate. So, Passport readers, what other unlikely pairings can we come up with? Sinéad O'Connor and the pope?

John Moore/Getty Images

Tomorrow, nearly 6 million of the world's poorest billionaires will head to the polls to elect Zimbabwe's next president. Which could be same president the country has now.

Yet Freedom House Deputy Executive Director Thomas Melia yesterday described the atmosphere in Harare, the nation's capital, as one of "nervous hopefulness" at an event co-hosted with the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). That's because this is shaping up to be the 84-year-old Robert Mugabe's toughest election since he took over as president in 1980.

The tide may have turned against Mugabe in rural areas that he and his party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), used to be able to count on for support. Thousands now rally for rival party MDC, largely without the kind of politically targeted violence that took place last year against Morgan Tsvangirai, who has been the party's leader since 1999.

If elected, Tsvangirai promises to make desperately needed reforms including improvements to the health sector, better food security, and the creation of new jobs (admittedly, it's hard to do worse on these fronts than Mugabe has). Tsvangirai has also proposed desperately needed reform of the economy and vowed to create a new currency within the first six months of his presidency. The value of Zimbabwean dollars it plummeting so quickly these days that it is being issued with expiration dates.

In addition to Tsvangirai, a new opposition candidate has recently thrown his hat in the ring. Although some think his candidacy will split the opposition vote and end up helping Mugabe, he is more than just the Ralph Nader of Harare. Simba Makoni, ZANU-PF party member and former finance minster, has presented himself as an alternative to Tsvangirai, and there are rumors that his ties to the ruling party could be helping him to build a secret coalition of powerful supporters. His candidacy could be laying bare fissures within ZANU-PF and hurting Mugabe's hold on the party.

The two opposition candidates announced yesterday that they would form a united front in the event of a runoff. But if Mugabe and his supporters have anything to do with it, they'll never get that far. Multiple incidents of attempted election rigging have been cited, including the printing of 9 million ballots for a registered 6 million voters. Investigations have also determined that recently deceased Ian Smith, the last white leader of what was then known as Southern Rhodesia is still on the ballot. Add to this allegations of planned intimidation at the polls and a new gerrymandered voting district system (click here for an interactive map outlining other deleterious election conditions), and it seems a foregone conclusion that Mugabe will be declared the winner.

The real question isn't whether Mugabe tries to steal the election -- his attempts to do so are glaringly obvious -- it's whether his fellow Zimbabweans, party leaders, military elements, and civil servents will agree to help him do so yet again. While he seems to still be able to get folks to rallies, it's possible that the time has come when the bribes simply aren't enough to keep him in power.

RAVEENDRAN/AFP/Getty Images

J. Scott Armstrong, a forecasting expert and climate-change skeptic from the Wharton School of Business, thinks he is smarter than former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. Armstrong believes he can "make more accurate forecasts of annual mean temperatures than those that can be produced by current climate models," and has repeatedly challenged Gore to put money on the proposition. Today is Gore's deadline to take him up on the wager.

If Gore accepted the bet, both men would deposit $10,000 into an escrow account that would be distributed by the winner to the charity of his choice in 2018, when the contest would end. The prize goes to whomever has the closest-to-accurate predictions of average temperature, over one to 10-year horizons, at 10 independently chosen weather stations around the globe over the course of the next decade.

Armstrong's Global Warming Challenge came in June of last year, as Gore revelled in the success of his film An Inconvenient Truth and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was preparing its most grim predictions on climate change to date. Armstrong and a colleague published a paper (pdf) entitled "Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts" blasting the IPCC models as unscientific.

Armstrong initially challenged the former veep to answer the wager by December 1, 2007, but was rebuffed by Gore's representatives. Armstrong, in a letter to Gore, then granted an extention of the wager deadline until today, March 26th, 2008. Gore has again declined (click here for the Armstrong's account of the exchange between the two camps), but he still has a few hours in which to change his mind.

I hope he doesn't. Gore is right to dismiss this antagonistic offer. Subjecting complex scientific issues to a game of gotcha only heightens the conflict surrounding the issue, and doesn't bring us any closer to bridging political divides or solving problems that most scientists agree will plague us for generations to come.

But if Armstrong wants people to put their money where their mouths are, perhaps he would agree to this wager: Both he and Gore can purchase vacation homes of equal value, Gore's house on high ground, and Armstrong's on the tiny Pacific island of Tuvalu. Then we'll see who's really full of hot air.

On Sunday, what has been described as a "game-changing" evolution in trans-Atlantic travel regulations will take place, when the open-skies agreement takes effect. Current regulations force carriers to base flights out of their own countries only, and place restrictions on which airlines can use which airports. The new agreement means that any airline can fly from any city to any airport. The move will undoubtedly increase competition between airlines, resulting in shorter flying times and greatly reduced fares. (A new European airline is already in the works that promises to send passengers from Liverpool to Baltimore for a mere 16 bucks.)

This is great news... if you live in Europe. New fares may apply to folks on both sides of the drink, but Europeans are finding great opportunities to spend their euros in the United States, while American tourists find that a dwindling few countries even accept dollars at tourist attractions anymore.

The effect of the dollar's fall on American tourists has been much discussed, and this European travel season for American tourists is shaping up to be the most painful in a five-year-slump. Stories about $40 ice cream or $10 bottles of water are scaring American tourists away from European summer jaunts, and make lower airline prices sort of look like the free food and drinks at Caesar's Palace.

Non-stop flights from European cities will no doubt open up new American markets to European travelers. And therein lies perhaps the one consolation for the dejected American Europhile: "I may have lost Paris, but they're only gaining Detroit." I mean, where would you rather vacation?

Photos: Bill Pugliano/Getty Images News; JOEL SAGET/AFP/Getty Images

It reminds me of a joke well-known by Manhattanites: Q: "Why are New Yorkers so depressed?" A: "Because New Jersey's the light at the end of the tunnel."

Europe, welcome to New Jersey.

Last May, Passport noted that a Russian developer had purchased a disused Cold War bunker built by Stalin and planned to turn it into a "luxury leisure complex" complete with hotel, retail space, movie theater, restaurant and spa (click here to see cool photos from before the remodel).

Known as Tagansky Protected Command Point, the bunker lies 180 meters below Moscow and is even rumored to have been the operation center for the Soviet regime during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Most recently, though, it played host to a bunch of post-communist, counter-culture, urban-chic, fashion-designing ravers.

In January, the Russian clothing label White.Trash.For.Cash held an "underground" (pun intended) fashion show and rave deep below earth's surface. The organizers intend to put the Russian fashion scene 'on notice':

One of the group's designers, Maxim Kushnaryov, said the choice of location was "a political statement," and served to "show our opposition to the whole fashion scene in Russia."

Ouch. Perhaps Kushnaryov is taking a page from Gorby's book on how to deliver scathing political commentary through fierce fashion statements.

At any rate, to see what an underground Moscow rave is like, check out this video from the night of the show, VJ'd by a future "Yo MTV Bunkers" host.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

This morning, I attended the 2nd Annual International Woman of Courage Awards, presented by Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky in honor of Saturday's International Women's Day. Out of the 95 women worldwide who received the honor, eight were invited to personally accept the award at the ceremony.

The awardees are an inspiring group of women, including: Suraya Pakzad from Afghanistan, whose organization Voice of Women sheltered and counseled women even throughout a repressive Taliban regime; Virisilia Buadromo of Fiji, who heads up the Fiji Women's Rights Movement (FWRM), and pushes for family law reform, Eaman Al-Gobory from Iraq, a physician with the International Organization of Migration (IOM) who has worked tirelessly to find specialized medical care for Iraqis whose afflictions cannot be treated within Iraq; and Binal Thawabteh a Palestinian women's rights activist who has encouraged and trained women to seek public office, and recently founded a monthly newspaper that raises such hot-button issues as polygamy and honor killings. Other awardees hailed from newly independent Kosovo, Pakistan, Paraguay, and Somalia.

The rise of NGOs such as The Initiative for Inclusive Security reflects growing awareness that women's full participation in society isn't just about justice and fairness, it's also about security. Choosing to honor these particular eight women -- all from areas ravaged by conflict and instability -- clearly shows that this is also the line Rice means to take as she seeks to polish her legacy.

JUAN BARRETO/AFP/Getty Images

Hugo Chávez's former defense minister, Raúl Baduel, had harsh words this week for his old boss, who sent Venezuelan troops to the Colombian border over the weekend in response to Colombia's military incursion in Ecuador:

This is a desperate attempt by President Chávez to use the military for political and personal ends, making them participants in an action whose consequences could be disastrous."

In other words, Baduel is accusing Chávez of fomenting an international crisis in order to distract from his domestic political problems. It's a significant move, coming from someone whose personal and professional relationship with the Venezuelan president spans 35 years, culminating with Baduel's resignation from the defense ministry in 2007. Baduel is a legendary revolutionary figure in Venezuela, best known for defending Hugo Chávez during the April 2002 coup attempt, and for his fierce loyalty to the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement that Chávez founded in the 1980s. But as Chávez tried to push through constitutional reforms late last year, Baduel began distancing himself from the president, citing his moral and ethical obligation to point out the harm Chávez would do to Venezuela if he succeeded in centralizing executive power and socializing the economy.

It's good that somebody is calling Chávez to account, because most in the region seem distracted by the accusations being hurled back and forth between Colombia and Ecuador. Colombia claims to have found evidence linking Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), whose leader Raul Reyes was killed in this weekend's raid. Colombian President Álvaro Uribe says that Venezuela has been funding FARC and has pledged to take Chávez to international court for funding genocide. And although Peru's president, Alan García, suggested that Chavez should butt out of the diplomatic row between Ecuador and Colombia, he is also urging Uribe to apologize and avoid setting a bad precedent for sovereignty. As Passport reader joeljournal noted on Monday, though, some would say that propping up a terrorist group in your neighbor's country isn't such a great precedent to set either.

Americans may occassionally have some good-natured fun at the expense of Canadians, but it's not because they dislike their neighbors to the north. In fact, Americans love Canadians. Deeply. A new Gallup survey of Americans' Most and Least Favored Nations finds that Canada is the country Americans view most favorably, which comes as no surprise because the country has occupied one of the top two spots since Gallup first conducted the survey in 1989.

Not far behind are Great Britain, Germany, and Japan, all enjoying a rating of "very" or "mostly" favorable by more than 4 in 5 U.S. citizens. Least-favorite nations include the usual suspects: Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, North Korea, and Iran all drew favorable ratings from fewer than a fifth of respondents.

The survey reveals some noteworthy differences within groups of Americans. Self-described Republicans tend to see Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel more favorably, while Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, China, and France are more likely to be viewed positively by Democrats. On the whole, young Americans are more likely to view Russia and China favorably, with 60 percent of those aged 18 to 34 responding favorably, while only a third of Americans 55 or older have positive feelings about those countries.

Interestingly, two countries -- Russia and Kenya -- received a roughly equal amount of favorable and unfavorable grades. Perhaps the survey serves as a snapshot of Americans' views about recent news. Both nations are in a state of flux right now, with Russia entering an uncertain post-Putin era and Kenya's image as one of Africa's most-stable countries taking a beating due to post-election violence. Depending on how the respective situations pan out, we could see a lot of movement in the numbers next time around. It's just not clear in which direction things will go.

AFP/Getty Images

Over the weekend, both Ecuador and Venezuela sent troops to their borders with Colombia after Colombian President Álvaro Uribe ordered raids on suspected terrorist targets across the Ecudorian border, killing a rebel leader. The standoff between the three nations also featured some pretty harsh rhetoric from Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez, who dubbed U.S.-backed Colombia, "the Israel of Latin America" and said Uribe is "a criminal, not only a liar, he is a mafioso, a paramilitary leading a terrorist state." Chávez has long been a supporter of Ecudorian President Rafael Correa and his government's left-leaning approach. 

Over the past few months, Chávez has increasingly inserted himself into Colombia's ongoing problem with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the leftist guerilla group that has been trying to overthrow the Colombian government for decades. In February, hundreds of thousands if not millions marched against FARC in protests worldwide. Yet Chávez insists there is international pressure on the Colombian government to negotiate with FARC, and that he is just the man to broker the peace. He has had some success in recent months in negotiating the release of a handful of FARC hostages, but the number released pales in comparison to the estimated thousands held by the rebel group.

Such incursions are becoming increasingly common in a post-9/11 era of asymmetric warfare, wherein a guerilla enemy can take advantage of its small size and knowledge of terrain to slip across sovereign boundaries. Turkey recently ventured into northern Iraq in pursuit of the militant group Kurdistan Workers' Party, and the United States has carried out missile strikes in Pakistan and today in Somalia for similar reasons. And although Chávez may have been understandably unnerved by this practice occurring in his backyard, he may want to think twice about bringing his region to the brink of war over a quick and limited military incursion.

JOHN STILLWELL/AFP/Getty Images

Back in October, Passport noted a British war memorial that used Prince Harry's restriction from the Iraq conflict to honor those British citizens "brave at heart" but unable to serve in the troubled region. You may remember that the shocking memorial -- which depicts the prince's "war-mutilated" body lying dead with a desert vulture perched at his feet -- is meant to express the "unfulfilled patriotic aspiration" of soldiers who want, but are unable, to fight.

Today, in a story broken by Matt Drudge, it was revealed that Prince Harry has in fact been fighting in Afghanistan under a British media blackout for the past few months ... thus making what was formerly just the worst war memorial ever now the world's most awkward.

If you've seen the recent Irish film Once -- which just won an Oscar for best song -- you may understand how much the social fabric of Ireland has been changing over the last 10 years. In the film, an Irish street performer falls for a young Czech immigrant, who lives with her mother and daughter in a small flat, shares one TV set with her entire building in a poor Dublin neighborhood, and sells flowers in the street to make ends meet. Although living in difficult circumstances, the immigrant family still manages a happy ending. According to the New York Times, however, such characters typify the new Irish identity, and not everyone in Ireland is thrilled about it.

In the last decade, Ireland has seen an explosion in immigration equal to that experienced in Britain over the last 50 years, and from over 150 different nations. For over a century before that, Ireland was better known for its emigration rate, which may be partly why no thoughtful immigration laws were ever put in place. And although FP put the country on a list of the world's most immigrant-friendly countries, some on the Emerald Isle fear a threat to Irish culture and history.

Recently, Enda Kenny, leader of the Irish parliamentary party Fine Gael, released a statement calling for a "genuine national debate" on immigration and for immigrants to acknowledge that they have both rights and responsibilities -- not least of which to realize that Ireland is a "Christian celtic" state. He has since been forced to defend those comments, which were characterized by commentators as highly xenophobic. While the debate has not yet reached the levels of rancor found in other European countries, Ireland is clearly reaching a threshold, and films like Once may have very different endings in this uncertain Irish future. 

AFP/Getty Images

Tensions have been rising in Lebanon since President Emile Lahoud stepped down in November, with an ensuing series of car bombings in the Christian areas of Beirut, the killings of opposition protesters by Lebanese Army officers, and 14 delays in presidential elections. These events are an escalation in a long period of political instability in Lebanon, including the summer war with Israel in 2006 and the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, three years ago today.

Today, two very different events took place in the tiny Mediterranean country. Hezbollah held funeral ceremonies for Imad Moughniyah, its military leader, who was assassinated Tuesday night in Damascus. Meanwhile, Lebanese government supporters gathered by the thousands, in the pouring rain, to commemorate Hariri's death. The two events happened mere miles from one another in Beirut, and tensions were understandably high. Thousands of soldiers and police were on guard to prevent the two factions from meeting.

It's easy to focus on Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah's declaration of open war on Israeli targets the world over, or the fact that Iran's foreign minister paid his respects to Mougniyah, one of the world's most notorious terrorists. Yet, there is also good news coming out of the Lebanese capital: No violent clashes have been reported from Beirut today. During their rememberances of Hariri, pro-government supporters focused on Christian-Muslim unity instead of the divisions that increase with each violent act. Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's speech calling people to attend the memorial included the following plea:

[W]e call on our brothers who have not joined us to think deeply, so that our causes can be one and they are in reality, and so our mottos can be one and our demonstrations one and victories one."

And, as a sign of demonstrators' committment to peace, church bells rang out at the same moment as the call to prayer, creating a stirring, if dissonant harmony. It's a start.

It's a sad, sad day for everyone out there with a heart of gold. Neil Young:

I think that the time when music could change the world is past," he told reporters. "I think it would be very naive to think that in this day and age."

"I think the world today is a different place, and that it's time for science and physics and spirituality to make a difference in this world and to try to save the planet. If we didn't do that, it would just feel like a bunch of old hippies up there saying what they thought — and who cares?"

PEDRO REY/AFP/Getty Images

Last week, I noted that rogue French trader Jérôme Kerviel had become a minor-league Internet superhero, largely through Facebook fan groups. (Today, the member count for the group "Jérôme Kerviel should be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics" stands at 2,813.) But along with online jokesters, Facebook's members apparently also consist of highly motivated social activists.

On Monday, hundreds of thousands of Colombians, along with supporters around the world in nearly 200 cities, led protests against the pro-communist rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The protests aren't unexpected—the rebel group has been terrorizing Colombia for more than four decades—but the method of organization is what's novel.

Roughly two months ago, after photos and video of FARC captives surfaced, enraged people began to join the Facebook group Un Millón De Voces Contra Las FARC ("A Million Voices Against FARC"). The group then grew with incredible speed to include more than 280,000 members, publishing its pleas for "No More! No More Kidnapping! No More Lies! No More Murder! No More FARC!" in Spanish, English, French, German, and Portuguese. The resulting protests are some of the largest ever seen on an international scale. Not bad for a Web site that started out as a networking platform for Ivy Leaguers.

As I watched Mike Huckabee's speech from Arkansas Tuesday night, I couldn't quite shake the feeling that he was speaking in some sort of code. Here's a little primer for you:

Tonight, we are making sure America understands that sometimes one small smooth stone is even more effective than a whole lot of armor."

The "small smooth stone" refers to the biblical story of David and Goliath. In Samuel 17:41, King Saul gives David, a slim youth, a suit of armor to wear into battle with Goliath, a beefy Philistine giant. David refuses the suit and instead brings five smooth stones from a stream and carries them in a satchel. The rest, you've probably heard something about.

Translation: I'm David and McRomney is Goliath.

And we've also seen that "The Widow's Mite" has more effectiveness than all the gold in the world."

The reference here is to Mark 12:41, when Jesus watches people in the marketplace making their donations to the synagogue. He witnesses the rich giving large amounts of gold, and a poor widow casting her last earnings—two gold coins—into the pot. Jesus declares that it was she who had given the most. 

Translation: My donors may not be the wealthiest, but I'll take 'em over McRomney's millionaires.

Not all of Huckabee's references were from the Bible, however:

Now, it's tough for this old Razorback to say things like 'Roll, tide roll,' but I'm doing it tonight. And it's tough for this old Razorback to look over there to the state just to the east of us and anticipate being able to say that we're too, Volunteers. I think before the night is over, I'll even be singing 'Rocky Top.' This old razorback may even catch some bulldog fever before the night is over. And we're going to forget all about the Cotton Bowl and even be grateful for our friends to the north before tonight night is over, I'm fully believing."

Huckabee is tapping the rich lexicon of southern college football to highlight his decisive win in Arkansas and herald his strong showings in Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri. He ultimately took home all of the above, save the Show Me state.

Translation:  I am from Arkansas, but I also won Alabama and probably took Tennesee, Georgia, and maybe even Missouri.

Editor's note: Thanks to those sharp-eyed readers who pointed out that David was Jessie's son, not Saul's.

Last week, Australia's government announced that it will formally apologize for its decades-long practice of stealing Aboriginal children and giving them to white families to raise. The practice, intented to destroy "Aboriginality" and force racial assimilation, was official government policy from 1915 to 1969. During these years, many children were raised in poor conditions in institutions, received little to no education, and suffered abuse at the hands of caretakers. Apologizing for it is an admirable step by the new Australian administration to move forward from a dark past. Australia aside, though, there has been a real lack of sincerity on the international apology front lately.

Over the past year, some in the U.S. Congress have attempted to force apologies from other nations on two occasions. First, the House of Representatives passed a resolution urging Japan to apologize for forcing thousands of women into sex-slavery during WWII. More recently, the House attempted a vote condemning Turkey for its treatment of Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century. And while I by no means wish to diminish these atrocities, I wonder: Would an apology elicited under pressure really contribute to the healing process?

Tareq al Hashemi (ALI AL-SAADI/AFP/Getty Images)

Consider the case of Iraq. This past Sunday, controversial legislation to reintegrate former Baathists back into Iraqi government became law. It was one of the key "benchmarks" the U.S. Congress has been using to judge the Iraqis' progress. As Feisel al-Istrabadi, Iraq's former deputy ambassador to the U.N., pointed out in a recent Seven Questions interview, de-Baathification had gone horribly awry. The question, though, is not whether reconciliation is warranted, but whether it is real and sustainable given how the bill came about—under U.S. pressure. Can reconciliation be treated like just another benchmark? Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a top Sunni leader and influential member of the Presidential Council, certainly doesn't think so.