Iran’s nuclear program has made headlines in the past week, sending the world into a frenzy of discussion about the military capabilities of an unstable Middle Eastern country. News broke last Friday that Iran has been concealing a second, partially built uranium enrichment facility in a mountain near the city of Qom south of Tehran. Iran acknowledged the existence of the site in a letter to the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and understated the facility’s significance claiming that it is only a pilot plant, still under construction, and intended to produce fuel for nuclear power. President Ahmadinejad still professes that his nation is against nuclear weapons and points to the IAEA letter as a defense that Iran is following international nuclear protocol. The IAEA, on the other hand, claims that Iran failed to follow through with the Subsidiary Agreement it agreed to after its main uranium enrichment plant in Natanz was discovered in 2003. The Subsidiary Agreement stipulates that Iran inform the agency of new construction while a facility is still in early stages of design. Iran countered that it rejected this agreement because the Iranian parliament did not ratify it. The IAEA refuses to recognize this repudiation.

Given the dispute surrounding the legality of Iran’s notification, many wonder about Iran’s intentions for this plant. If we give Iran the benefit of the doubt, this plant may be intended to supplement the existing plant in Natanz. The IAEA has admitted that equipment at the plant would be insufficient to enrich uranium to the point of nuclear explosion. At the same time, Iran would have filed proper notification if it had nothing to hide. President Obama has called the second plant “inconsistent” with the peaceful enrichment of uranium for energy.

The American media has reported that President Obama knew about the existence of this second plant before his inauguration last January. Conservative critics maintain that Obama’s confrontation of Iran during a summit of world leaders at the UN was intended to create the most forceful reaction possible. The White House is now seeking harsher sanctions against Iran, targeting banks and the oil and gas industry specifically. While sanctions are attractive against a belligerent nation whose president denies the Holocaust and imprisons political dissenters, some experts wonder if they will work. Many Americans agree that military engagement in a third Middle Eastern nation with no clear-cut exit strategy is out of the question. But sanctions are not necessarily the best alternative. In the New York Times last Friday, Jim Walsh of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology pointed out that sanctions are most effective against a small country with few resources of its own. As a large country with great oil wealth, Iran hardly fits this description. Moreover, further sanctions from Western countries are most likely to provoke greater rebellion and more dissonance between Iran and the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, Iran and the nations opposed to its nuclear program are making progress in talks in Geneva. This collaboration marks the first time Iran and the US have directly discussed a bilateral issue since breaking relations 30 years ago. Both sides have agreed to delay further negotiations and Iran has pledged to allow inspectors into the facility.

David Letterman, host of CBS’s The Late Show, confessed on Thursday’s show to having sexual relationships with members of his show’s staff over his career. The host deceptively began his confession telling by the audience, “I have a little story I’d like to tell you”. Through ten tense minutes, he walked the audience through a harrowing account of blackmail, culminating his bizarre story cum confession with the admission: “I have had sex with women who work for me on this show”. Undoubtedly the strangest part of the confession was the audience’s response as the funnyman laid out the lurid affair. Long after it became apparent that there was no tagline or somewhat clever visual featuring an aging celebrity, the audience still guffawed and chuckled at the appropriate moments. Philadelphia Inquirer columnist David Hiltbrand put it best when he described the tone as “Court TV with a laugh track”.

Since Thursday, two women have stepped forward as Letterman’s former lovers. The New York Daily News reports that Letterman’s assistant, Stephanie Birkitt, was his first inter-office romance followed by former CBS intern Holly Hester in the early 90’s. Hester has even gone so far as to publicly reminisce to TMZ.com, “I was madly in love with him at the time… I would have married him. He was hilarious”.

Letterman’s blackmailer has since been identified as Robert (Joe) Halderman, producer of the Emmy-winning CBS news show 48 Hours. While keeping Halderman anonymous, Letterman described how he had three meetings with the blackmailer and attorneys, eventually passing off a fake check for the demanded $2 million. Halderman is now free on $200,000 bail after denying the blackmail scheme. Letterman joked that he tried to pass off a giant fake check, similar to those given out on game shows and golf tournaments.

Assuming no questions about the age of the women or their consent in these romances become public, people have to assume this will not permanently harm Letterman’s reputation. Media experts have praised Letterman for confessing before the event became public, pointing out how it gave him control of the story. Presidents and priests have done worse and been forgiven. Why can’t we forgive the man who gave us the Velcro suit?

College Republicans and College Democrats debated the ins and outs of health care reform for two hours in the Roone Arledge Cinema on Wednesday night. The debate, hosted by the Columbia Political Union, touched on issues from the financial potential of a public option to the regulation of private insurance companies and occasionally broke down into a raucous audience free for all.

The Republicans opened by acknowledging that America’s health care system is broken, but framed its problems around government interference and over regulation in the private insurance market. Among their favorite arguments was the idea that the requirement that private insurance companies run separate businesses in each state causes inefficiency. According to college Republicans, if health insurance were deregulated to the point at which companies could operate nationally, the private insurance industry could compete with Medicare and eliminate the need for a government health care system. Such a system, they fear, would encourage companies to drop health insurance for full time employees. While the Republicans presented a consistently solid argument, they at times vilified Democrats as desiring a totalitarian control of health in America. As Republican Jon Hollander said, “the liberal Democrats in Congress are hell bent on using a public health insurance option to achieve a government takeover of the American health care industry”.

The Democrats sought to undercut their opponents’ argument by championing the benefits of preventive treatment. They argued that if we catch serious disease early, it will be less expensive to treat. Armed with numbers and statistics to substantiate his argument, College Democrat Jake Grumbacher told the audience, “it is actually cheaper to insure everyone than to not insure everyone… the cost of emergency room care for those without insurance costs every person $2200 per year, $100 billion total. That is ridiculous”. One of the Democrats’ strongest moments came when they responded that the deregulation of the private insurance market will lead to private insurers setting up shop in states with laws that allow them to drop the sickest and most costly patients. Their argument was significantly undermined though, by brash declarations about the evil nature of corporate America. At one point, Grumbacher sought to drive his argument home declaring, “The insurance companies do not have our interests at heart. Making a profit literally means not giving us care. Okay?”. The over reliance on percentages and statistics from both sides, especially the quote that over 40,000 people die each year from a lack of proper coverage, tried to shock the audience to one side more than it engaged the argument.

While the groups were able to deliberate on the major talking points of the issue, discussion rarely progressed beyond one or two responses to a question. Numbers were hurled faster than anyone could comprehend and it was often assumed that the audience had a strong background on the debate. All hell broke loose at one point when the audience started a shouting match about the interpretation of a Congressional Budget Office report that had been released that day. Even so, the high points of the debate provided a sense of hope for this immense web of problems. Both sides managed to agree that insurance companies must offer coverage to those with preexisting conditions. In the end, the event was worthwhile, even if it was a little disorganized.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to announce today his Senate health care bill, which includes a public health insurance option allowing to states to opt out. The senator spent Friday weighing support for different public option proposals and figuring out what it will take to convince other Senators to support his bill. If Reid proceeds, he will most likely be doing so without committed support from the necessary 60 senators needed to break a filibuster. To win over his colleagues, he is tailoring the bill to the centrist Democrats, believed by many to be a key constituent in the fight for health care reform. Even without their support, Reid aides say the senator believes the public option is the right move and that the senator is "cautiously optimistic he can get the votes necessary".

Last week's mayoral election was closer than anyone could have expected. While Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg eked out a five point lead over Democrat William Thompson Jr. to clinch the election Tuesday night, he seems unphased by the slim margin, a lead of only about 50,000 votes. The sixty-seven year old mayor, estimated to be worth $17.5 billion, announced this to be a "great week" at the Yankees World Series victory parade and seems confident heading into his next term.

Last week President Obama announced a surge of 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan in addition to the 68,000 already there. The President announced the first installment of 16,000 troops this morning. Marines from Fort Lejeune, North Carolina are expected to be the first to deploy later this month and are scheduled to arrive in Iraq by Christmas. This American military presence will supplement the 40,000 NATO troops already in the region and the 7000 more the organization has committed to send next year.

By now we’ve all heard the endless speculation about the meaning behind Senator-elect Scott Brown’s upset over Martha Coakley in last week’s Massachusetts senatorial election. Pundits and journalists are quick to label his victory a harbinger of midterm Democratic loss. Perhaps even more crucial is what this election means for national healthcare reform. Having taken their licks, Democratic leaders are already considering changes to the Senate bill to pass it through the House. Through a process of reconciliation, which requires only 51 Senate votes, Senate Democrats can make limited changes to the existing bill and present it to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s caucus for review. Alternatively, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could include changes in an entirely different piece of legislation. In White House meetings last week, House and Senate leaders discussed changes regarding a deal with labor unions to lower the tax on the so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans, Medicare cuts and taxes, and the elimination of a Medicaid funding deal for Nebraska and funding for prescription drug coverage for seniors.

Hesitant critics have warned against a new bill, regardless of the changes, claiming that last week’s Republican victory in Massachusetts is indicative of American unease with national healthcare reform. What few people take the time to consider is the relatively small difference national reform will have on healthcare within the state. Even though costs have skyrocketed since the commonwealth instituted universal healthcare in 2007, a Washington Post/Harvard poll of special election voters shows that participants in last Tuesday’s election support the universal healthcare law in Massachusetts by a margin of 68-27. Despite this inclination toward universal care despite the high costs, Massachusetts seems to have cast a vote to delay a bill proposing national health coverage similar to its own. Out of this discrepancy Democrats should infer that it is not the content of the bill voters find contentious, but rather the bipartisan stalemate and Democratic glorification of the filibuster proof majority that Massachusetts voted against.

Two days ago, Andrew Young, a former aide to John Edwards, turned over the now notorious sex tape featuring Edwards and his mistress to a North Caroline judge. Young, who recently released a tell all account of the Edwards presidential campaign and the scandal that destroyed it, is one of the many supporters whose careers, political loyalties, and deepest affections Edwards has squandered with his lies and infidelities. Edwards' career now lies in ruins as his reputation is further demolished by everything from the heartbreaking, his repeated denials of his daughter's paternity, to the absurd, Young's claim that the former North Carolina senator asked him to steal the baby's diaper to conduct a secret paternity test.

One week ago, television pundits and journalists from both sides of the aisle actually came together in agreement about the futility of the health summit. While some conservatives declared the meeting a trap meant to ensnare negotiation and an equal number of liberals ballyhooed the President’s attempt at open dialogue, most Americans agree the summit was just another reiteration of the consensus from both sides. Open dialogue and expression of opinion is enlightening and necessary, but many Americans feel the time has come for action, if only for its own sake. The public has endured hours of congressional debate, town hall meetings, and media discussion on this issue with no new agreement. Last Thursday’s summit was no exception.

The nationally televised event lasted over seven hours and achieved an atmosphere of cooperation, but no actual legislation. President Obama opened the event by expressing his desire to find a middle ground, but also showed how his year in office has made him aware of the limits of hope. “We might surprise ourselves and find out that we agree more than we disagree," Mr. Obama said. The President then qualified this hope adding, "It may turn out, on the other hand, there's just too big of a gulf."

Republicans refused to budge on their stance and expressed the need to erase the past 13 months of reconciliation and begin again. Senator McCain took the floor at one point and read off a list of “unsavory deals” in the Democratic bills that his party could not stand for. In the end, Mr. Obama concluded that if the two parties cannot reach a deal, Democrats would push legislation anyway and let voters judge in the next election.

Even though the President implied that the healthcare stalemate might soon be over, recent Democratic losses in both houses of Congresses suggest that any decisions made now may be rescinded in the near future. President Obama’s clamor for action after months of listening and debate is admirable and needed, but may be in vain without bipartisan support.