We won't be there in person, but we'll be Twittering the Vice Presidential debate tonight as we watch it on TV. Follow us! Or, refresh the page to follow the Tweets on our sidebar.

The saga of the Somali swashbucklers is all the rage in the blogosphere.

Passport's Elizabeth Dickinson -- who, coincidentally enough, wrote her undergraduate thesis on the topic -- explains the origins of these "medieval-sounding avengers."

Chris Blattman coins a great new term, calling the pirates' latest antics it a pi-jacking (pirate hijacking).

Adam Blickstein at Democracy Arsenal channels Steve Zissou and reminds us that "well, out here we call them 'pirates,' Ned."

And Robert Kaplan, writing in The Current, notes how combating piracy could end up strengthening international cooperation.

The one upside of piracy is that it creates incentives for cooperation among navies of countries who often have tense relations with each other. The U.S. and the Russians cooperate off the Gulf of Aden, and we might begin to work with the Chinese and other navies off the coast of Indonesia, too. As a transnational threat tied to anarchy, piracy brings nations together, helping to form the new coalitions of the 21st century.

Kaplan is right on the mark (and it's a point I alluded to earlier), but I worry that he is being a little too sanguine about American and Russian cooperation. A Russian ship is en route to join the five American destroyers circling the pirates right now, and, according to Jeffrey Gettleman's latest dispatch, Russian and American anti-piracy tactics don't always, shall we say, see prow to prow. Recent tensions between the two countries don't make the situation any easier, and Somali officials seem to be eager to exploit these tensions.

If the possibility of a nuclear stand-off weren't enough to cool Russian and American heels, then, perhaps this gang of sea bandits will do the trick.

(Image from flickr user AkumAPRIME using a creative commons license)

Yesterday, I read that the United Kingdom was dropping its only remaining objections to the UN Convention on the Rights of Child, bringing its child immigration policy up to the standards of this fundamental human rights text. From a quick look through the FAQs section on the website of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF, the organization that spearheads efforts to implement the Convention), I made the unfortunate discovery that the UK was not the only one not to have fully adopted this treaty.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only two countries, Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated agreement. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify--but has yet to do so.

Somalia? The U.S. government may have its foibles, but it is at least a functioning, recognized government. Sadly, the explanation for the U.S. "delay" in ratification is even more galling.

[T]he US Government typically will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Currently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is cited as the nation's top priority among human rights treaties.

If supporting human rights for different segments of the population has to be prioritized, then these priorities are in need of serious recalibration. They are also clearly in need of a boost, as neither treaty has yet been ratified, putting the United States in a rather ignominious position on the world stage.

Washington has made many legitimate criticisms of the UN Human Rights Council, calling on the body not to shy away from real human rights crises. Surely, the need to uphold the basic human rights of women and children fits under this category, and the United States could signal a more honest commitment to human rights around the world by putting these two treaties into practice. With human rights conventions and the Human Rights Council alike, engagement, not estrangement, will accomplish far more in both defending human rights and ensuring that every country plays by the rules.

Via Green, Inc:

The European Union has said it is prepared to raise its target for cutting greenhouse gases to 30 percent from 20 percent - but only if there are similar pledges to cut emissions from other countries in the industrialized world. In a report issued on Thursday, health and environment campaigners called on the EU to adopt the more ambitious target anyway, because it will lengthen European lives -- and save money.

Representatives from the Health and Environment Alliance, Climate Action Network Europe and WWF, say the higher target could generate additional health savings of 25 million euros each year by 2020, bringing the total annual savings to 76 billion euros.

The groups based the calculation on economic evaluations of how people will live longer and healthier lives by breathing cleaner air, how industry will make savings from reduced loss of working days, and how governments will benefit from reduced costs to health services.

They say the evidence comes from a large number of studies published over the last 20 years that show that sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions are linked to higher rates of death and respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and the exacerbation of asthma symptoms, and cardiac problems.