As Nepal moves through a two-month deadline to deliver a new constitution, Nepal’s former monarch said that monarchy is not yet over. But is it possible? Former King Gyanendra says that “if the people want,” then it is possible.

The former king’s statement just came after the demise of Nepal’s founding father, Girija Prashad Koirala. But, Gyanendra faces an uphill battle to restore the 240-year-old monarchy, which was abolished in 2008. First reason: Nepal is already a federal democratic republic, and most of the people have voted for a democratic framework where an elected citizen can become a president and a prime minister. Second: there are many leaders and activists advocating for democratic republic, and far fewer who are advocating for monarchy.

Former king has increased his public appearances, participating in religious programs, and consulting with people close to him. He seems to be more confident at the present time.

And, while it’s true that the former King is taking advantage of present political instability, this has suddenly made the political parties serious about the constitutional and peace processes. Political leaders in Nepal, including the Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal termed his statement “a day dream”.

So then there is a final question: could a possible come back for the former king come in the form of new party? People close to Gyanendra say that there is not much preparation for one, which means he is less likely to be successful in winning major seats in the election. But the former king’s statement has given a clear hint that he is not going to sit silently as he has done in the last two years.

–Rajneesh Bhandari

Airplanes are one of the world’s worst polluters. Not only do they spew carbon emissions but they cause harmful chemical reactions in the sky that scientists still don’t fully understand. We recently checked in with Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life and Ten Technologies to Fix Energy and Climate, who talked about the grave environmental dangers of aviation.

There’s a dirty little word that Congress doesn’t like to mention, but which, in part, accounts for much of the relentless rise in insurance premiums over the last decade: costs. And with a large part of those costs accrued by Medicare recipients, solutions may prove rather uncomfortable. Especially for those poor folks who depend on their Viagra. Learn more in the latest episode of “A Minute of Your Time.”

The restaurant business has never been easy, but when the mortgage crisis hit, fancy dining was one of the first expenses people cut back on. And in New York, where banks and insurance companies slashed their staffs and tourism dwindled, restaurateurs found themselves in a tough spot.

Bernard Ros, owner of Manhattan’s Meli Melo, has weathered the storm so far. In our latest episode of “Little Green Shoots”, we recently caught up with Bernard to learn what he did to keep his business afloat.

It looks like China is poised to cash in again on Afghanistan, despite having never fired a shot in anger there. This week, Beijing got a step closer to developing natural gas fields in northwest Afghanistan after signing three agreements with Kabul covering economic cooperation, training and trade. If you’ll recall, China won a major deal in 2007 to develop the Aynak copper mine outside Kabul – one of the world’s largest. Work on the $3 billion project has reportedly gone slower than expected due to deteriorating security, leading some observers to conclude that Beijing may be reluctant to significantly increase investment in Afghanistan. But if this week’s agreements are anything to go by, China will continue to do very well for itself in Afghanistan without having sacrificed a thing.

It’s outrageous to think that Britain, the United States and other countries have squandered vast amounts of blood and treasure trying to secure Afghanistan only to help Beijing secure its future natural resources needs. Beijing has much to gain from a peaceful Afghanistan including stemming the threat from militant Muslim separatists within its own borders. But it doesn’t have to commit military resources to stabilizing the country – not when it can sit back and watch the NATO-led coalition do all the hard work.

All for China?

Beijing also seems reluctant to expend political capital to help bring about a diplomatic solution to the Afghan quagmire. China has huge influence with Pakistan – its biggest Muslim ally. Not only does it sell arms to Islamabad; it has invested billions in developing energy routes through Pakistan including highways and a port in Gwadar in Baluchistan province. China could strong arm Pakistan whenever it likes – but it hasn’t and odds are it won’t because it doesn’t have to.

So what should the Coalition do? Should it continue to watch its troops die and pour billions of dollars into Afghanistan only to leave the spoils to China? I personally would like to see Britain wise up. Too many British soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan already. Our defense budget is under siege and our future security is being compromised to pay for the campaign in Afghanistan. It is madness to make Britain weaker only to make China stronger. It’s time to show a little more self-interest and bring our troops home. As China is proving, the only way to win in Afghanistan is to be selfish.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.

President Obama just signed Congress’s health care bill into law. But will it really solve the country’s medical woes? Health care advisor Nathan Kaufman tells us that creating a viable system – you know, one that won’t bancrupt the country – will be a very long and involved process. And signing the bill is only the first step.

Dr. Jason Shafrin, a health care economist, gives a preview of this week’s “Minute of Your Time,” which tackles the issue of costs. It’s one thing that the current health care legislation barely tackled. Why? Well, because it’s very tough.

I was at the funeral procession and last rites for Girija Prasad Koirala. The five-time prime minister of Nepal died on Saturday at the age of 85 after a decade of influence. He was the one to lead the successful mass street demonstrations in 2006 that forced then-King Gyanendra to give up his authoritarian rule, and he was also the major actor in bringing Maoists into mainstream politics.

But if his dream of delivering a new constitution and concluding the peace process remain unaccomplished, Koirala’s dedication was remarkable. He spent 60 years in politics, often choosing the difficult route. His father, for example, lived in exile because of Koirala’s activities against the then-autocratic rana regime.

I have reported some of Koirala’s important events, programs, press conferences and speeches in the last five years. He was in different positions then: sometimes as a acting head of the state, prime minister, and most of the time as a president of Nepali congress. One thing I can say: he was not a media-friendly person. Most of the time, he was indifferent to our attempt to get his short statement. However, he had a gifted art of story telling, he used to recall his past experiences to prove his argument artistically.

He had that strong capacity to handle the most problematic situation with confidence. His touch was the final touch, and what he said became the guidelines for all. That was how he could abolish the autocratic regime of the king and bring the Maoists in the mainstream politics. And, this is why the Nepalese government recently nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Most of Koirala’s friends have said that his death is an irreparable loss to Nepal’s peace process. That’s why the government of Nepal had given him a state honor. His daughter, deputy PM Sujata Koirala, lit the funeral pyre.

While I watched this, it seemed to me that life couldn’t be compassionate and generous to everybody and all the time. There are a few things that I did not like about him, but let me not remember at his “day of the dead.”

–Rajneesh Bhandari

(Our continuing series of your representatives, at work.)

When we interviewed Charlie Stenholm about the deficit for our 2008 election coverage, we asked him about losing his U.S. congressional seat after 13 terms. A deficit hawk who focused much of his career on fiscal discipline, Stenholm found himself in the crosshairs of then-majority leader Tom DeLay in the pursuit of party dominance.

“He got me,” Stenholm said with a grim smile.

DeLay famously engineered a dismantling of Stenholm’s district in 2003, and the fellow who unseated him was Lubbock city councilman and real estate developer Randy Neugebauer, who is in the news today for shouting “baby killer” at Rep. Bart Stupak during yesterday’s congressional debate on health care reform.

Neugebauer told reporters that he meant the bill was a “baby killer,” not Stupak. Regardless of views, pro or con, on the bill itself or on babies, shouting inflammatory statements on the House floor is a questionable use of congressional time.

Consider that: Stenholm introduced the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which led to a national fiscal surplus; Neugebauer co-sponsored a bill in 2009 which would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate in reaction to claims that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

Stenholm worries now, to us and in congressional hearings, that the banking crisis of 2009 is leading to a security issue. “Our banker,” he says, “is the People’s Republic of China. And at some point, we’ve got to pay our banker.”

Neuegebauer’s contribution to the 2009 banking crisis: during a congressional hearing, with the CEOs of Citigroup, Bank of America and others before him, Neugebauer asked, “Why don’t we let the markets work these things out?”

DeLay has yet to weigh in on the change he wrought, but perhaps Neugebauer should re-read Stenholm’s farewell note to his colleagues, which read, in part: ““To my fellow Democrats: Think about adopting a Republican. You don’t have to take them home. Just try being kind to one and see what happens. To my Republican friends: You may prefer a dog, but maybe, just maybe, working with a Democrat every now and then might help solve some serious problems like Social Security and health care.”

It’s only just started. Dr. Ken Thorpe of Emory University explains that the metrics used by insurance companies needs to change, and how.