
By Christopher B. Barrett, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Christopher B. Barrett is a professor at Cornell University and author of an American Enterprise Institute paper on U.S. food assistance programs and the book Food Aid After Fifty Years: Recasting Its Role. The views expressed are his own.
How many of us read a story of disaster striking people half a world away and respond by getting out our checkbooks? Tens of millions of us in any given year, and Americans are especially generous. Relief agencies received more than $1.2 billion in the wake of the disastrous 2010 earthquake in Haiti and $3.9 billion following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. But is anyone foolish enough to go to the local grocery store, buy food and ship it to communities devastated by disaster? Of course not. That would cost much more, take too long to reach people in need, risk spoilage in transit, and likely not provide what is most needed.
Yet with only minor oversimplification, this is precisely what our government’s food aid programs have done since 1954. Our main international food aid programs are authorized through the Farm Bill and must purchase food in, and ship it from, the United States. This system was originally designed to dispose of surpluses the government acquired under farm price support programs that ended decades ago. These antiquated rules continue today thanks to political inertia in Washington.
By Fareed Zakaria
As we debate whether the two parties can ever come together and get things done, here’s something President Obama could probably do by himself that would be a signal accomplishment of his presidency: End the war on terror.
For the first time since 9/11, an administration official has raised this prospect. Jeh Johnson, the outgoing general counsel for the Pentagon, said in a speech to the Oxford Union, that as the battle against al Qaeda continues, “there will come a tipping point…at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al Qaeda and its affiliates have been killed or captured such that al Qaeda as we know it…has been effectively destroyed…At that point…our efforts should no longer be considered an armed conflict.”
If you want to know why we’re in such a deep budgetary hole, keep in mind that we have spent around $2 trillion on foreign wars in the past decade. In addition, we have had the largest expansion of the federal government since World War II. Dana Priest and William Arkin have described how the U.S. government has built 33 new complexes for the intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet, the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols, or three Pentagons.
Watch the video for the full Take.
By James Lindsay, CFR
Editor’s note: James Lindsay is senior vice president and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. This entry of Water’s Edge was first published here. The views expressed are his own.
The new college rankings are out. No, not the rankings for football prowess (though they are out too). The Times Higher Education World University Rankings. They debuted last week, and American higher education has reason to chant, “We’re Number One!” The question, though, is for how long?
Now university rankings should always be taken with a grain of salt for anything other than establishing broad trends. For example, I don’t know any University of Virginia graduate who thinks that UVA (#118) ranks behind the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (#42), let alone nearly every school in the Big Ten (which oddly enough has a dozen members). The reality is that universities have different strengths and weaknesses, and there’s no sure way to measure either. Even if there were, it’s not obvious whether great strength in, say, engineering should count more, the same, or less than great strength in the physical or social sciences. Throw in the differences across borders in terms of teaching formats and approaches, and global college rankings are a dicey enterprise.
By Enrico Moretti, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Enrico Moretti is professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and director of the Infrastructure and Urbanization Program at the International Growth Centre (London School of Economics and Oxford University). He is the author of ‘The New Geography of Jobs.’ The views expressed are his own.
The economic map of America today does not show just one country – it shows three increasingly different countries. At one extreme are America’s brain hubs – cities like Seattle, Raleigh-Durham, Austin, Boston, New York and Washington DC – with a thriving innovation-driven economy and a labor force among the most creative and best paid on the planet. The most striking example is San Francisco, where the labor market for tech workers is the strongest it has been in a decade. At the other extreme are cities once dominated by traditional manufacturing – Detroit, Flint, Cleveland – with shrinking labor force and salaries. In the middle there is the rest of America, apparently undecided on which direction to take.
Historically, there have always been prosperous communities and struggling communities. But the difference was small until the 1980’s, and has been growing dramatically since then. In 1980, the salary of a college educated worker in Austin was lower than in Flint. Today it is 45 percent higher in Austin, and the gap keeps expanding with every passing year. The gap for workers with a high school degree is a staggering 70 percent by some estimates. It is not that workers in Austin have higher IQ than those in Flint, or work harder. The ecosystem that surrounds them is different. The mounting economic divide between American communities – arguably one of the most important developments in the history of the United States of the past half a century – is not an accident, but reflects a structural change in the American economy.
Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's Daily Telegraph. He is the author of the new book "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Timothy Stanley.
Thursday afternoon, Barack Obama presided over the unveiling of George W. Bush's official portrait in the White House, a warm event that reminds us: It feels like years since President Dubya regaled the world with his famous spoonerisms. His retirement has been defined by an awkward silence. While John McCain's endorsement was trumpeted by Mitt Romney, Bush delivered his in just four words. "I'm for Mitt Romney," he shouted to a journalist as an elevator door closed between them. If, just for old time's sake, Bush had said, "I'm for Ritt Momney," it would have been perfect.
Bush's silence may be motivated by the recognition that much of the public doesn't like him. He left office with the worst approval rating for a president since Watergate. But Bush could undergo a renaissance of enthusiasm. FULL POST

Editor's Note: The following text is from GlobalPost, which provides views — important, moving or just odd — from around the world.
By Paul Ames, GlobalPost
French President Francois Hollande thinks he’s found a solution to the eurozone crisis: the name’s Bonds. Euro bonds.
Unfortunately, Angela Merkel’s still playing Dr. No.
Editor's Note: Isobel Coleman is a Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Initiative. This blog post is reprinted with the permission of the Council on Foreign Relations.
By Isobel Coleman, CFR.org
Libya’s emergence from years of dictatorship is predictably a rocky one. The country is moving toward its first post-Gadhafi national elections next month, but the process is marked by considerable confusion and deep disagreements.
On Tuesday, Libyan candidates and voters began registering for June elections for a constituent assembly that will be tasked with writing a new constitution. However, a recent law restricting political parties has sparked some bewilderment.
Last week, the NTC banned political parties “based on religion or ethnicity or tribe,” but the implications are not clear. When the law was first announced, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party complained, “We don’t understand this law… it could mean nothing or it could mean that none of us could participate in the election.” FULL POST
Editor’s Note: This is an edited version of an article from the ‘Oxford Analytica Daily Brief’. Oxford Analytica is a global analysis and advisory firm that draws on a worldwide network of experts to advise its clients on their strategy and performance.
Israeli Chief of Staff Benny Gantz reportedly said yesterday that he did not believe Iran would decide to build an atomic bomb. Officials in Tehran argue that Israel will not launch a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities due to its fear of retaliation. While the Iranian regime tends to exaggerate its military capabilities, it has a number of options that, in a worst-case scenario, would broaden an Iranian-Israeli conflict into a global campaign against Israel, the United States and their allies.
Iran's response to any Israeli attack will depend heavily on whether Israel limits its strikes to a handful of nuclear sites or targets the Islamic Republic's centers of power. FULL POST
Editor’s Note: This is an edited version of an article from the ‘Oxford Analytica Daily Brief’. Oxford Analytica is a global analysis and advisory firm that draws on a worldwide network of experts to advise its clients on their strategy and performance.
Bahrain hosted the Formula 1 Grand Prix yesterday amid clashes between government forces and protesters. Extremists on all sides have outflanked the moderate middle ground with recent bomb attacks on the security services and instances of loyalist vigilantism indicating that a dangerous radicalization is taking place. This suggests a bleak future for Bahrainis caught between a ruling family seemingly unable to reform, and a significant segment of the population that no longer believes the ruling Al-Khalifa family has the legitimacy to rule.
This year's Grand Prix was supposed to signal a return to normality after the race was cancelled following the outbreak of the uprising in 2011. The authorities had exerted significant pressure on motor sport's governing body to ensure it went ahead this year. They were keen to demonstrate to their international partners that meaningful reforms were underway in the wake of last November's recommendations from the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI). FULL POST
Editor’s note: Jolyon Ford PhD is senior Africa analyst at the consultancy Oxford Analytica, and a senior consultant to the Institute for Security Studies, South Africa.
By Jolyon Ford - Special to CNN
This month marks the anniversaries of the first free general elections in South Africa (April 27, 1994) and independence from white minority rule in neighboring Zimbabwe (April 18, 1980). In coming months, the sun could set in each country on the lives of two major African leaders whom history will remember very differently.
Nelson Mandela is 93 years old. The anti-apartheid icon retired over a decade ago after serving as post-apartheid South Africa’s first democratically-elected president. The contribution his leadership and example have made to that country’s longer-term prospects for racial harmony and social cohesion is generally seen as incalculable. The anxiety following his brief hospitalization in February signalled the levels of respect and affection in which he is held in South Africa and around the world: his death and funeral will undoubtedly be significant global events.
Zimbabwe’s current president Robert Mugabe has been in office, in effect, since 1980. Last week he walked unaided off a flight from Singapore. Reactions to reports in early April that the 88-year old was dying in a foreign hospital provide further proof - if more were needed - of the considerable political uncertainty prevailing in contemporary Zimbabwe. FULL POST

Editor’s Note: This is an edited version of an article from the ‘Oxford Analytica Daily Brief’. Oxford Analytica is a global analysis and advisory firm that draws on a worldwide network of experts to advise its clients on their strategy and performance.
Compared with the judiciary in any other advanced democracy, the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are uniquely influential in the country’s politics. With a ruling expected in June on the constitutionality of President Obama’s landmark healthcare legislation, some parallels can be drawn between this Court and the Court under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
In the extremely difficult economic circumstances of the 1930s, Roosevelt launched innovative and unprecedented ‘New Deal’ schemes to help stimulate economic growth and job creation. After initially upholding some new laws that expanded federal involvement in economic activity, the Supreme Court turned dramatically against the Roosevelt agenda in May 1935. It unanimously struck down his signature legislation on industrial recovery and agriculture as unconstitutional extensions of federal power not justified by the extraordinary economic conditions facing the country. FULL POST
Editor’s Note: This is an edited version of an article from the ‘Oxford Analytica Daily Brief’. Oxford Analytica is a global analysis and advisory firm that draws on a worldwide network of experts to advise its clients on their strategy and performance.
Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population and a critical swing vote in national elections. There are now more Hispanic U.S. residents than African-Americans, and this group's projected growth rate greatly exceeds native-born blacks and non-Hispanic whites. Although both political parties will make substantial outreach efforts to Hispanics, the latest data show that a significant political advantage resides with the Democrats.
The Hispanic community has accounted for over one-half of U.S. population growth over the past decade. In 2008, there were 19.5 million adult Hispanics who were eligible to vote; this year, there will be 21.5 million. FULL POST

