text
stringlengths 2.57k
160k
| hyperpartisan
bool 2
classes | bias
int64 0
4
| cleaned_text
stringlengths 1.79k
91.8k
| word_count
int64 512
12.5k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
<p>(Bloomberg) — Central bankers are gingerly trying to take away the punch bowl without interrupting the party.</p>
<p>Led by interest-rate increases by the and the , central banks around the world shifted toward a tighter monetary stance this week. Yet the moves were either so well-telegraphed, or so tiny, and the language about future action so hedged, that there was barely a ripple in financial markets.</p>
<p>“They’re terrified of upsetting the markets,” said Paul Mortimer-Lee, chief market economist at BNP Paribas. So “they’re all exiting quite slowly from emergency settings” on monetary policy.</p>
<p>The likely result of this leisurely approach: another year of synchronized global growth in 2018. Indeed, both the Fed and the European Central Bank revised up their forecasts for the growth of their respective economies next year even as they signaled that they would be slowly scaling back the stimulus they are providing.</p>
<p>“The global economy is doing well,” Fed Chair Janet Yellen told reporters on Wednesday after the U.S. central bank raised interest rates for the third time this year. “We’re in a synchronized expansion. This is the first time in many years that we’ve seen this.”</p>
<p>PBOC’s Surprise</p>
<p>While the Fed’s rise had been widely anticipated by investors, Thursday’s move by the PBOC was a surprise. Yet the move was so small — only five basis points — that the markets took it in stride.</p>
<p>“The central bank does not want to jeopardize the market with an aggressive hike,” said Raymond Yeung, chief greater China economist at Australia &amp; New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., although the move “does indicate the tightening bias of the policy makers and this stance will continue in 2018.”</p>
<p>Sun Guofeng, director of the PBOC’s financial research institute, said in a recent speech that emerging market economies should also start monetary policy normalization and exit the easing measures that were put into place to address the global financial crisis.</p>
<p>Mexico’s central bank raised its benchmark for the first time since June on Thursday, lifting borrowing costs 25 basis points to 7.25 percent in a split vote that saw one board member favoring a 50 basis-point hike.</p>
<p>Turkey’s central bank raised one of its main interest rates by less than expected and vowed to keep policy tight until the inflation outlook improves. The move sent the lira sliding.</p>
<p>What Our Economists Say …</p>
<p>Improving growth prospects, amid subdued inflation expectations, are permitting central bankers to proceed with caution as they normalize monetary policy. What policy makers need to admit is that they have underestimated the amount of lingering slack in the world’s largest economies, which means tightening will need to remain well communicated and measured through 2018.</p>
<p>— Michael McDonough, Bloomberg Economics</p>
<p>In spite of the global upswing, major central banks have moved slowly to reduce stimulus because inflation remains muted and below their targets.</p>
<p>While ECB President said on Thursday that he’s grown more confident that inflation will eventually rise to the central bank’s goal, the ECB’s own staff forecast doesn’t even see that happening by 2020.</p>
<p>The euro-area’s monetary authority, which has an inflation target of just under 2 percent, on Thursday reaffirmed its plan to halve its asset purchases to 30 billion euros ($35 billion) a month starting in January and continue for at least nine months until the end of September.</p>
<p>The Bank of Japan is one notable outlier, with officials keen to avoid any inkling of a move away from their unprecedented stimulus. While a new dissenter on the board calling for more stimulus has prompted the BOJ to adjust its communications to flag risks of additional easing, it’s wrong to interpret such comments as a signal of an earlier policy exit, according to people familiar with the central bank’s discussions.</p>
<p>A different story unfolded at Russia’s central bank, which unexpectedly accelerated its pace of monetary easing on Friday with a . It said oil-production curbs have reduced inflationary risks.</p>
<p>Central bankers around the world are also wary of getting too far ahead of their counterparts in tightening policy out of fear that could boomerang on them by spurring a steep rise in their currencies — a rise that would dampen both economic growth and inflation.</p>
<p>Currency Risk</p>
<p>Norway’s central bank got a taste of that on Thursday, as the climbed more than 1 percent against the euro after policy makers signaled they may start raising interest rates earlier than indicated in the past.</p>
<p>Mindful of the potential fallout in the foreign exchange market, Swiss National Bank President Thomas Jordan said on Thursday his institution was in “no rush at all” to normalize policy even as it forecast that inflation will breach its 2 percent target in 2020.</p>
<p>The Bank of England also seems to be in no hurry to tighten policy further after raising rates in November for the first time in a decade. The Monetary Policy Committee held its unchanged on Thursday while reiterating that “further modest increases” would probably be needed over the next few years if the economy performed as expected.</p>
<p>Economy</p>
<p>Decision</p>
<p>Key Messages</p>
<p>While the global monetary largesse has been slow to lift inflation, it has turbo-charged asset prices, with stock markets around the world trading at their highest levels in years.</p>
<p>Policy makers though played down fears that asset price bubbles were building that could threaten the financial system and the economy. “When we look at other indicators of financial stability risks, there’s nothing flashing red there or possibly even orange,” Yellen said.</p>
<p>While a prolonged period of very low interest rates does provide “fertile ground” for financial stability risks, there’s been no big rise in leverage, Draghi told reporters on Thursday.</p>
<p>Besides, the way to deal with possible threats is with macro-prudential tools such as changes in lending standards rather than with higher interest rates, he said.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean there aren’t potential perils ahead. If inflation does pick up, policy makers might have to remove stimulus more quickly, jolting financial markets. And then there’s the risk that even a slow shift to tighter policy around the world could have more of a deleterious impact than expected simply because it’s concerted.</p>
<p>“Central banks, who’ve been pumping money into the system for the past decade or so, are going to be removing it,” said Iain Stealey, fixed-income portfolio manager at JPMorgan Asset Management in a Bloomberg Television interview on Thursday. “It’s going to be slow to start with, very gradual, but it’s going to be a real change in rhetoric.”</p> | false | 1 | bloomberg central bankers gingerly trying take away punch bowl without interrupting party led interestrate increases central banks around world shifted toward tighter monetary stance week yet moves either welltelegraphed tiny language future action hedged barely ripple financial markets theyre terrified upsetting markets said paul mortimerlee chief market economist bnp paribas theyre exiting quite slowly emergency settings monetary policy likely result leisurely approach another year synchronized global growth 2018 indeed fed european central bank revised forecasts growth respective economies next year even signaled would slowly scaling back stimulus providing global economy well fed chair janet yellen told reporters wednesday us central bank raised interest rates third time year synchronized expansion first time many years weve seen pbocs surprise feds rise widely anticipated investors thursdays move pboc surprise yet move small five basis points markets took stride central bank want jeopardize market aggressive hike said raymond yeung chief greater china economist australia amp new zealand banking group ltd although move indicate tightening bias policy makers stance continue 2018 sun guofeng director pbocs financial research institute said recent speech emerging market economies also start monetary policy normalization exit easing measures put place address global financial crisis mexicos central bank raised benchmark first time since june thursday lifting borrowing costs 25 basis points 725 percent split vote saw one board member favoring 50 basispoint hike turkeys central bank raised one main interest rates less expected vowed keep policy tight inflation outlook improves move sent lira sliding economists say improving growth prospects amid subdued inflation expectations permitting central bankers proceed caution normalize monetary policy policy makers need admit underestimated amount lingering slack worlds largest economies means tightening need remain well communicated measured 2018 michael mcdonough bloomberg economics spite global upswing major central banks moved slowly reduce stimulus inflation remains muted targets ecb president said thursday hes grown confident inflation eventually rise central banks goal ecbs staff forecast doesnt even see happening 2020 euroareas monetary authority inflation target 2 percent thursday reaffirmed plan halve asset purchases 30 billion euros 35 billion month starting january continue least nine months end september bank japan one notable outlier officials keen avoid inkling move away unprecedented stimulus new dissenter board calling stimulus prompted boj adjust communications flag risks additional easing wrong interpret comments signal earlier policy exit according people familiar central banks discussions different story unfolded russias central bank unexpectedly accelerated pace monetary easing friday said oilproduction curbs reduced inflationary risks central bankers around world also wary getting far ahead counterparts tightening policy fear could boomerang spurring steep rise currencies rise would dampen economic growth inflation currency risk norways central bank got taste thursday climbed 1 percent euro policy makers signaled may start raising interest rates earlier indicated past mindful potential fallout foreign exchange market swiss national bank president thomas jordan said thursday institution rush normalize policy even forecast inflation breach 2 percent target 2020 bank england also seems hurry tighten policy raising rates november first time decade monetary policy committee held unchanged thursday reiterating modest increases would probably needed next years economy performed expected economy decision key messages global monetary largesse slow lift inflation turbocharged asset prices stock markets around world trading highest levels years policy makers though played fears asset price bubbles building could threaten financial system economy look indicators financial stability risks theres nothing flashing red possibly even orange yellen said prolonged period low interest rates provide fertile ground financial stability risks theres big rise leverage draghi told reporters thursday besides way deal possible threats macroprudential tools changes lending standards rather higher interest rates said doesnt mean arent potential perils ahead inflation pick policy makers might remove stimulus quickly jolting financial markets theres risk even slow shift tighter policy around world could deleterious impact expected simply concerted central banks whove pumping money system past decade going removing said iain stealey fixedincome portfolio manager jpmorgan asset management bloomberg television interview thursday going slow start gradual going real change rhetoric | 651 |
<p>Four cities paid Clark County hundreds of thousands of dollars to run municipal elections this year — and less than 10 percent of the electorate participated.</p>
<p>Time after time, the cities see paltry turnout. And while some have called for syncing city elections with Clark County’s, which could provide considerable savings, there hasn’t been enough support to make that move.</p>
<p>“I believe financially, we should do the county cycle, not our own cycle,” Las Vegas Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian said.</p>
<p>City officials in Las Vegas, Henderson and North Las Vegas have discussed making that move in recent years, but none has pulled the trigger. Mesquite, Reno and Sparks have synced municipal elections with their counties, but the Clark County cities aren’t outliers when it comes to off-year election cycles. Cities large and small across the country do the same thing.</p>
<p>Changing the date of the election would draw more votes, but there is a tradeoff, said Las Vegas Councilman Bob Coffin.</p>
<p>“Turnout would increase,” he said. “But would the electorate be focused on the city issues? That’s a question.”</p>
<p>Last fall, <a href="" type="internal">North Las Vegas Mayor John Lee raised the idea</a> to move municipal elections to align with national and statewide races. The shift, Lee said, would have decreased costs and increased voter participation in North Las Vegas.</p>
<p>His four colleagues on the City Council shot down the idea in December.</p>
<p>Councilwoman Anita Wood said then that she was concerned that the city’s races would be placed near the bottom of a crowded ballot, below higher profile races and even judges seats.</p>
<p>Increasing turnout</p>
<p>A collective 8.7 percent of registered voters in Clark County cast ballots in Tuesday’s municipal elections, according to unofficial county results.</p>
<p>“It’s really embarrassing to have so much money and so much at stake and have so few people show up,” said state Sen. Tick Segerblom, who helped pass a 2011 Assembly bill that allows cities to coordinate their elections with state contests.</p>
<p>Not all registered voters received ballots, however. North Las Vegas had only two council races in the April primary, <a href="" type="internal">and one remained on</a> <a href="" type="internal">Tuesday</a>. That meant only voters in Ward 3 could vote, but turnout figures take into account all registered voters. <a href="" type="internal">Henderson also had only one council ward</a> on the primary ballot.</p>
<p>In Las Vegas, the only at-large position on Tuesday’s ballot was a municipal judge race. In the primary, only voters in the city’s three even-numbered council wards had anything other than judge contests on their ballots.</p>
<p>Of the four cities, <a href="" type="internal">Las Vegas saw the most voters, but the lowest ratio</a> — 7.6 percent — of ballots cast. <a href="" type="internal">Boulder City, the smallest of the bunch, had the largest share</a> — the 4,403 general election voters are 42 percent of registered voters. Boulder City had two at-large council seats up for grabs.</p>
<p>Finding savings</p>
<p>Last year, Las Vegas and Clark County <a href="" type="internal">entered into an agreement that calls for the city to pay the county</a> a flat fee of up to $500,000 for off-year elections.</p>
<p>The price, down from $1.47 million during the city’s last election, came as part of the sweeping agreement that also called for the city to waive nearly $5 million in fire protection fees from a decades-old deal. In the event of a recall or special election, the city will pay the county the actual cost to conduct the election.</p>
<p>Las Vegas and North Las Vegas also cut election costs by moving from polling places to voting centers. Las Vegas previously staffed 75 polling places but used 15 voting centers in the primary and general elections. The move was for cost savings and convenience. The centers allow voters to cast their ballots at the most convenient location, not an assigned one.</p>
<p>Henderson’s Charter Review Committee has studied a possible move to sync up with county elections twice, and it didn’t recommend a change, Mayor-elect Debra March said.</p>
<p>City officials there do want a law to allow for the use of mail elections for municipal contests, but doing so would require amending the city charter or action by the Nevada Legislature.</p>
<p>“I support giving us the option to use vote by mail for Henderson elections,” March said.</p>
<p>Contact Jamie Munks at [email protected] or 702-383-0340. Follow <a href="http://www.twitter.com/JamieMunksRJ" type="external">@JamieMunksRJ</a> on Twitter. Staff writers Ben Botkin, Art Marroquin and Sandy Lopez contributed to this report.</p>
<p>By the numbers</p>
<p>— In the high-dollar race to represent Las Vegas’ Ward 2, three candidates and two political action committees raised a combined $1.1 million, which amounts to $152 per the 7,366 general election voters. Challenger Steve Seroka triumphed over incumbent Councilman Bob Beers.</p>
<p>— Last year, the city of Las Vegas and Clark County entered into an interlocal agreement that calls for the city to pay the county a flat $250,000 fee for each odd-year primary and general election through the 2023 election cycle. For municipal elections that aren’t citywide, the cost is $42,000 per item on the ballot. The maximum the city will pay the county to run an election per year is $500,000.</p>
<p>— North Las Vegas was projected to pay more than $325,000 to Clark County to run the 2017 primary election in April and the general election in June, according to the City Clerk’s Office. That cost was cut by roughly 21 percent to $256,000 this year, when the city ended the practice of operating more than 20 polling places and moved toward using voting centers.</p>
<p>— The county billed Henderson $349,174 for the primary, and City Clerk Sabrina Mercadante expects a similar bill for the general election.</p>
<p>— Boulder City’s primary election cost about $26,000. It will take the county to the end of the month to tally the general election cost.</p>
<p /> | false | 1 | four cities paid clark county hundreds thousands dollars run municipal elections year less 10 percent electorate participated time time cities see paltry turnout called syncing city elections clark countys could provide considerable savings hasnt enough support make move believe financially county cycle cycle las vegas councilwoman lois tarkanian said city officials las vegas henderson north las vegas discussed making move recent years none pulled trigger mesquite reno sparks synced municipal elections counties clark county cities arent outliers comes offyear election cycles cities large small across country thing changing date election would draw votes tradeoff said las vegas councilman bob coffin turnout would increase said would electorate focused city issues thats question last fall north las vegas mayor john lee raised idea move municipal elections align national statewide races shift lee said would decreased costs increased voter participation north las vegas four colleagues city council shot idea december councilwoman anita wood said concerned citys races would placed near bottom crowded ballot higher profile races even judges seats increasing turnout collective 87 percent registered voters clark county cast ballots tuesdays municipal elections according unofficial county results really embarrassing much money much stake people show said state sen tick segerblom helped pass 2011 assembly bill allows cities coordinate elections state contests registered voters received ballots however north las vegas two council races april primary one remained tuesday meant voters ward 3 could vote turnout figures take account registered voters henderson also one council ward primary ballot las vegas atlarge position tuesdays ballot municipal judge race primary voters citys three evennumbered council wards anything judge contests ballots four cities las vegas saw voters lowest ratio 76 percent ballots cast boulder city smallest bunch largest share 4403 general election voters 42 percent registered voters boulder city two atlarge council seats grabs finding savings last year las vegas clark county entered agreement calls city pay county flat fee 500000 offyear elections price 147 million citys last election came part sweeping agreement also called city waive nearly 5 million fire protection fees decadesold deal event recall special election city pay county actual cost conduct election las vegas north las vegas also cut election costs moving polling places voting centers las vegas previously staffed 75 polling places used 15 voting centers primary general elections move cost savings convenience centers allow voters cast ballots convenient location assigned one hendersons charter review committee studied possible move sync county elections twice didnt recommend change mayorelect debra march said city officials want law allow use mail elections municipal contests would require amending city charter action nevada legislature support giving us option use vote mail henderson elections march said contact jamie munks jmunksreviewjournalcom 7023830340 follow jamiemunksrj twitter staff writers ben botkin art marroquin sandy lopez contributed report numbers highdollar race represent las vegas ward 2 three candidates two political action committees raised combined 11 million amounts 152 per 7366 general election voters challenger steve seroka triumphed incumbent councilman bob beers last year city las vegas clark county entered interlocal agreement calls city pay county flat 250000 fee oddyear primary general election 2023 election cycle municipal elections arent citywide cost 42000 per item ballot maximum city pay county run election per year 500000 north las vegas projected pay 325000 clark county run 2017 primary election april general election june according city clerks office cost cut roughly 21 percent 256000 year city ended practice operating 20 polling places moved toward using voting centers county billed henderson 349174 primary city clerk sabrina mercadante expects similar bill general election boulder citys primary election cost 26000 take county end month tally general election cost | 596 |
<p>It was judgment day for “ <a href="http://variety.com/t/the-greatest-showman/" type="external">The Greatest Showman</a>.”</p>
<p>The brass at 20th Century Fox and a cadre of financiers were descending on New York City to decide whether or not to give the greenlight to a musical biopic about circus impresario P.T. Barnum&#160;— one that by 2015 had been in development for seven years. In order to convince the studio, director Michael Gracey and star <a href="http://variety.com/t/hugh-jackman/" type="external">Hugh Jackman</a> had arranged to do an elaborate read-through, with several Broadway greats playing supporting parts.</p>
<p>There was just one catch. Twenty-four hours before the presentation,&#160;Jackman had gone to the doctor to have a basal cell carcinoma removed from his nose.</p>
<p />
<p>CREDIT: Danielle Levitt for Variety</p>
<p>“‘Michael, I have some good news and some bad news,’” Jackman said on the phone to Gracey. “The operation was a huge success; that’s no problem. But I’m in the surgeon’s office, and he’s not letting me leave until I call you and say there’s no way I can sing&#160;tomorrow.”</p>
<p>Gracey’s heart sank.</p>
<p>Fearful that people wouldn’t make the trek across country if they found out their leading man would need an understudy, the two men conspired to wait to share the bad news until everyone was seated. At the run-through, “Newsies” star Jeremy Jordan did the singing for Jackman while the actor mimed the stage directions. Concerned that if he burst into song, he would split his stitches, cause an infection and possibly disfigure a face that has sold millions of movie tickets, Jackman tried to stay silent. But at one key moment, when a power ballad titled “From Now On” was to be sung, Jackman strode to center stage, spread his arms wide and held forth with his burly, rafters-shaking baritone.</p>
<p>“Everyone jumped up on top of their seats,” recalls Gracey. “It was a euphoric moment. The man that everyone had come to hear sing was finally singing. That’s when we got the greenlight.”</p>
<p>On&#160;Dec. 20, the movie that Jackman willed into being and ignored doctor’s orders to deliver finally hits theaters. The actor’s $84 million passion project represents a big risk for Fox, which will spend more than $100 million to market and release the film worldwide. It arrives&#160;without having been road tested on Broadway, and with the&#160;rare, modern-day&#160;exception of “La La Land,” original movie musicals like “I’ll Do Anything” or “One From the Heart” have wilted on the big screen. Moreover, “ <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/box-office/box-office-jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-1202627089/" type="external">The Greatest Showman</a>” is unabashedly nostalgic. Whereas “La La Land” was grounded in a darker realism, this film is bright and ebullient, infused with a let’s-put-on-a-show spirit that’s been largely missing from cinema since the days of Judy Garland and Gene Kelly.</p>
<p>“It’s a risky proposition,” admits Stacey Snider, chairman and CEO of 20th Century Fox. “But I do believe it’s the antidote to these tough times. It was our goal to anticipate the zeitgeist and speak to the turbulence of our era by offering something that was joyful and optimistic at the holidays.”</p>
<p>On a blustery late-summer day, Jackman walks into Perry St, a posh SoHo eatery overlooking the Hudson. Even dressed down in a gray T-shirt and cargo pants, the six-foot-three actor with the gleaming smile and jet-black hair is every inch the movie star. He cuts a figure so dazzling that even here, a gathering spot for 1 percenters, patrons will glance over at the corner table where Jackman parks himself, hoping to catch a glimpse of the actor in an unguarded moment.</p>
<p />
<p>CREDIT: Danielle Levitt for Variety</p>
<p>Jackman looks revived after four months spent traveling with his wife, Deborra-lee Furness, and their kids, Oscar and Ava, to Greece, Italy and their native Australia. He’s ready to plunge back into work. Next week he’ll fly out to Colorado to spend time with former Sen. Gary Hart, whom he’ll be playing in Jason Reitman’s “The Front Runner,” and then he’s back to New York for four days of reshoots on “The Greatest Showman.”</p>
<p>Even Jackman sounds surprised that the Barnum musical got made, confessing that he put the odds at less than 50-50 that cameras would ever roll. Yet there was something about the story of this self-made man, who climbed the social ladder by displaying bearded ladies, tattooed men, sword-swallowers and other curiosities in his traveling circus, that he couldn’t shake. He had a kind of chutzpah that was infectious.</p>
<p>“He created this world that no one had even thought possible,” says Jackman. “He really, for me, epitomized the idea that your imagination is your limit in a time where things were very rigid and when the social position you were born into was the one you were stuck in.”</p>
<p>It’s been quite a year for the actor. Not only is Jackman hoofing it up as Barnum, but 2017 also saw him bid farewell to his signature role of Wolverine. “ <a href="http://variety.com/t/logan/" type="external">Logan</a>,” his swan song to the world of mutants, was a critical and commercial smash, a bloody neo-Western that featured the clawed hero beaten up, grappling with his own mortality and staring down the neck of too many empty whiskey bottles.</p>
<p>“This was not a film about selling lunch boxes or action figures,” says director James Mangold. “It was oriented toward adults. The goal was to make something gritty that was also a character piece.”</p>
<p>Jackman says that despite playing Wolverine in nine films over nearly two decades, he had a hard time finding the heart of the cigar-chomping bad boy.</p>
<p>“I wish I’d started playing him like that 17 years ago,” he says. “So there’s some sense of missed opportunity, but when I saw ‘ <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/features/logan-director-james-mangold-1202621143/" type="external">Logan</a>,’ I sat there and I did have tears in my eyes. The main feeling I had was: “There, that’s the character. I feel like I’ve done it now.” And I was calm and at peace, but I’m going to miss that guy.”</p>
<p>Jackman could be forgiven for feeling uneasy in those initial “X-Men” films. He was a last-minute substitute who only got the part after Dougray Scott, the original choice, was forced to drop out when “Mission: Impossible 2” went over schedule. It’s an example, Jackman says, of the role that fate played in making him a star. He’d auditioned for “X-Men” nine months before shooting was scheduled to start and failed to land the gig. A chance visit to Hollywood changed his life.</p>
<p>“I was only in L.A. to do the paperwork for the adoption of my son,” Jackman remembers. “I had an agent at the time, and I gave him a ring and said, ‘I’m in town for a week. Is there anything I can read for?’ He said, ‘I’m hearing some whispers about [‘X-Men’] — let me make a few calls.’”</p>
<p>Patrick Stewart, who played the mutant leader Professor Charles Xavier in several “X-Men” films and in “Logan,” vividly remembers meeting Jackman when he came in to do his screen test.</p>
<p>“We’d been shooting for a week or maybe more, and we were running out of stuff to shoot without someone to play Logan. One morning this slender, pleasant-looking guy with a strong Australian accent is introduced to us all,” recounts Stewart. “He spent 15 to 20 minutes chatting, and by the time he was called to do his reading, we’d fallen in love. He charmed everybody.”</p>
<p>Jackman wasn’t as confident. He thought he’d blown the audition. As he left, he whispered to Stewart, “You’re never going to see me again.”&#160;Four days later&#160;he was stunned when he got a call telling him they needed him to come back.</p>
<p>At a time when Hollywood movie stars are a rare breed indeed, Jackman has leveraged the Wolverine films to bankroll a diverse number of personal projects and has emerged as one of the last of the bankable leading men. It’s a status he’s worked hard to achieve, not just in the care he’s taken in selecting films but in the hours he spends at the gym bulking up to superhero size.</p>
<p>“People always say to me, ‘Why are you in such good shape?’ and I always answer, ‘If I told you that you were going to be on film on a 40-foot screen with your shirt off, you’d be in good shape too.’”</p>
<p>“A bad musical stinks to high heaven, but when a musical works, there’s nothing like it. It’s everyone coming together and opening their heart.” <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/features/hugh-jackman-willem-dafoe-child-actors-logan-florida-project-1202625236/" type="external">Hugh Jackman</a></p>
<p>Even as Wolverine has kept him on the A-list, the actor hasn’t felt the need to add another film franchise to his stable. At one point, when the James Bond producers were casting a net to find a replacement for Pierce Brosnan, Jackman rejected their overtures.</p>
<p>“I was about to do ‘X-Men 2’ and a call came from my agent asking if I’d be interested in Bond,” recalls Jackman as he dives into a plate of salmon. “I just felt at the time that the scripts had become so unbelievable and crazy, and I felt like they needed to become grittier and real. And the response was: ‘Oh, you don’t get a say. You just have to sign on.’ I was also worried that between Bond and ‘X-Men,’ I’d never have time to do different things.”</p>
<p>Instead of trying to land a 007-style crowd-pleaser, Jackman has focused on proving he can act without the aid of adamantium claws.</p>
<p>“I always tried to do different things,” he says. “But there was a time between ‘X-Men 3’ and the first Wolverine movie when I could see the roles getting smaller. People wanted me to play that kind of hero part exclusively. It felt a little bit claustrophobic.”</p>
<p>To battle typecasting, Jackman has alternated between stage and screen, playing a variety of roles in a number of genres. There was his Tony-winning performance as flamboyant songwriter Peter Allen in “The Boy From Oz”; his riveting work as a father willing to bend the law to find his missing child in“Prisoners”; and his Oscar-nominated turn as the brooding Jean Valjean in “Les Misérables.”</p>
<p>“He has such a humongous range,” says Mangold, who has worked with Jackman on three films. “He’s like a fine musical instrument. He can play comedy and go light, but he’s also capable of delivering a performance of tremendous power. He’s got this incredible masculinity and strength and the courage to throw that all away and do a musical on Broadway.”</p>
<p>“The Greatest Showman” continues the actor’s push to demonstrate his versatility. He proved he could hit some high notes in “Les Misérables,” but the Barnum story required another approach. It’s more upbeat, with a family-friendly vibe.</p>
<p>Barnum’s edges, such as getting into feuds with family members and his semi-exploitation of people with physical deformities, have been largely sanded off in favor of emphasizing his razzle-dazzle.</p>
<p>“We like to say that we made the movie that Barnum would have liked to make,” Jackman says.</p>
<p />
<p>CREDIT: Danielle Levitt for Variety</p>
<p>And then there were the technical differences. Whereas the “Les Misérables” cast members were shot performing their numbers live, “The Greatest Showman” had the actors sing along to a recording, the approach favored by most movie musicals.</p>
<p>To get in shape for the dancing, the cast did 10 weeks of rehearsals, blocking out elaborate routines that find Jackman, Zac Efron, Michelle Williams and the rest of the actors&#160;waltzing across rooftops, juggling liquor bottles and high kicking around a barroom, and doing backflips and jazz hands across the circus stage. They discovered that often their voices were better when they had just gone through a strenuous dance routine, so Gracey had a recording studio built on set to capture them at their best.</p>
<p>“Vocally, sometimes you have those ‘I can do anything’ days, and the next day you’re at 80%, so on those days when you’re feeling great, we would just pop over to the studio and record,” says Jackman. “There’s a couple of bits where I sing notes that I’ve never sung. I couldn’t have done that live.”</p>
<p>Zendaya, the Disney Channel star who plays a lovestruck trapeze artist in the film, marveled at the warmth with which Jackman treated everyone on the set — from his big-name co-stars to the production assistants and gaffers. He also imparted some advice to the 21-year-old actress.</p>
<p>“I was trying to figure out what project to do next, and he told me don’t do it if it doesn’t make you happy,” says Zendaya. “You have to make your own decisions. Don’t listen to other people. Just trust your gut.”</p>
<p>Others who have worked with Jackman echo Zendaya in noting his generosity. He has a politician’s knack for learning names — at lunch, for instance, he engages in a lengthy back-and-forth with a waiter about their respective families, greeting him like an old friend. But he insists that all the stories that talk about how “nice” he is are blowing things out of proportion.</p>
<p>“It’s the way I was brought up,” says Jackman. “My parents always treated people with great respect. My father never yelled, and I admired that. I also genuinely love the family aspect of what we do, and I feel more comfortable being relaxed and myself with everybody, rather than a feeling of ‘Oh, I’m a big actor; you can’t talk to me.’ My way of connecting — maybe people attribute it as being nice, but it’s just being a normal person.”</p>
<p>“The Greatest Showman” isn’t just a risky commercial proposition, it could also signal a pivot in Jackman’s career. It’s the first time since breaking into the business that he doesn’t have an “X-Men” film or spinoff on the horizon. That said, Fox doesn’t seem as eager to close the door on future Wolverine adventures as Jackman is.</p>
<p>“We’re going to stay open-minded,” says Snider. “If there’s an inspired way to bring Hugh Jackman back, we’ll know it when we see it, but it would have to be an idea of integrity that we all wanted to do.”</p>
<p>Looking ahead, the actor wants to keep singing. Emboldened by the success of “Hamilton” and “Dear Evan Hansen,” he’s itching to return to Broadway and is developing an original musical.</p>
<p>“A bad musical stinks to high heaven, but when a musical works, there’s nothing like it,” he says. “People are screaming and cheering. Nothing I’ve found has matched it. By the end, as you take the curtain call, there’s no sense you’re in front of strangers. It’s an intimacy you get that’s more intense than you have with people you’ve known for many years. It’s everyone coming together and opening their heart.”</p>
<p>Jackman has loved the theater since he saw a high school production of “Man of La Mancha” starring Hugo Weaving, a classmate at the time who went on to star in “The Matrix” and “The Lord of the Rings.” He immediately bought a cast recording of the Broadway production, learning every word. The effect was profound, and growing up, Jackman became determined to have a career onstage. After going through drama school, his early professional years were spent with turns in the Australian productions of “Beauty and the Beast” and “Sunset Boulevard.” He felt like he’d earned his big break when he was cast as Curly in the West End production of “Oklahoma!”</p>
<p>“I remember being at the National Theatre doing that show and walking across Waterloo Bridge thinking this is as far as my dreams have got me,” says Jackman. “I was 28, pretty much having reached most of the goals that I’d set for myself. I was always very vague on the Hollywood thing. I felt like if I pinnedall my hopes on that, I was destined for disappointment.”</p>
<p>Movie stardom may have come to him despite those initial doubts, but some things haven’t changed. Like Barnum, Jackman comes alive in front of an audience. Even after decades at the center of popular culture, he still gets a thrill in those moments before the curtain rises.</p>
<p>“To this day when I’m doing stage work, I go down to the wings even if I’m not on first to hear the crowd shuffle in,” he says. “It’s the height of excitement as the orchestra starts to play.”</p> | false | 1 | judgment day greatest showman brass 20th century fox cadre financiers descending new york city decide whether give greenlight musical biopic circus impresario pt barnum160 one 2015 development seven years order convince studio director michael gracey star hugh jackman arranged elaborate readthrough several broadway greats playing supporting parts one catch twentyfour hours presentation160jackman gone doctor basal cell carcinoma removed nose credit danielle levitt variety michael good news bad news jackman said phone gracey operation huge success thats problem im surgeons office hes letting leave call say theres way sing160tomorrow graceys heart sank fearful people wouldnt make trek across country found leading man would need understudy two men conspired wait share bad news everyone seated runthrough newsies star jeremy jordan singing jackman actor mimed stage directions concerned burst song would split stitches cause infection possibly disfigure face sold millions movie tickets jackman tried stay silent one key moment power ballad titled sung jackman strode center stage spread arms wide held forth burly raftersshaking baritone everyone jumped top seats recalls gracey euphoric moment man everyone come hear sing finally singing thats got greenlight on160dec 20 movie jackman willed ignored doctors orders deliver finally hits theaters actors 84 million passion project represents big risk fox spend 100 million market release film worldwide arrives160without road tested broadway the160rare modernday160exception la la land original movie musicals like ill anything one heart wilted big screen moreover greatest showman unabashedly nostalgic whereas la la land grounded darker realism film bright ebullient infused letsputonashow spirit thats largely missing cinema since days judy garland gene kelly risky proposition admits stacey snider chairman ceo 20th century fox believe antidote tough times goal anticipate zeitgeist speak turbulence era offering something joyful optimistic holidays blustery latesummer day jackman walks perry st posh soho eatery overlooking hudson even dressed gray tshirt cargo pants sixfootthree actor gleaming smile jetblack hair every inch movie star cuts figure dazzling even gathering spot 1 percenters patrons glance corner table jackman parks hoping catch glimpse actor unguarded moment credit danielle levitt variety jackman looks revived four months spent traveling wife deborralee furness kids oscar ava greece italy native australia hes ready plunge back work next week hell fly colorado spend time former sen gary hart hell playing jason reitmans front runner hes back new york four days reshoots greatest showman even jackman sounds surprised barnum musical got made confessing put odds less 5050 cameras would ever roll yet something story selfmade man climbed social ladder displaying bearded ladies tattooed men swordswallowers curiosities traveling circus couldnt shake kind chutzpah infectious created world one even thought possible says jackman really epitomized idea imagination limit time things rigid social position born one stuck quite year actor jackman hoofing barnum 2017 also saw bid farewell signature role wolverine logan swan song world mutants critical commercial smash bloody neowestern featured clawed hero beaten grappling mortality staring neck many empty whiskey bottles film selling lunch boxes action figures says director james mangold oriented toward adults goal make something gritty also character piece jackman says despite playing wolverine nine films nearly two decades hard time finding heart cigarchomping bad boy wish id started playing like 17 years ago says theres sense missed opportunity saw logan sat tears eyes main feeling thats character feel like ive done calm peace im going miss guy jackman could forgiven feeling uneasy initial xmen films lastminute substitute got part dougray scott original choice forced drop mission impossible 2 went schedule example jackman says role fate played making star hed auditioned xmen nine months shooting scheduled start failed land gig chance visit hollywood changed life la paperwork adoption son jackman remembers agent time gave ring said im town week anything read said im hearing whispers xmen let make calls patrick stewart played mutant leader professor charles xavier several xmen films logan vividly remembers meeting jackman came screen test wed shooting week maybe running stuff shoot without someone play logan one morning slender pleasantlooking guy strong australian accent introduced us recounts stewart spent 15 20 minutes chatting time called reading wed fallen love charmed everybody jackman wasnt confident thought hed blown audition left whispered stewart youre never going see again160four days later160he stunned got call telling needed come back time hollywood movie stars rare breed indeed jackman leveraged wolverine films bankroll diverse number personal projects emerged one last bankable leading men status hes worked hard achieve care hes taken selecting films hours spends gym bulking superhero size people always say good shape always answer told going film 40foot screen shirt youd good shape bad musical stinks high heaven musical works theres nothing like everyone coming together opening heart hugh jackman even wolverine kept alist actor hasnt felt need add another film franchise stable one point james bond producers casting net find replacement pierce brosnan jackman rejected overtures xmen 2 call came agent asking id interested bond recalls jackman dives plate salmon felt time scripts become unbelievable crazy felt like needed become grittier real response oh dont get say sign also worried bond xmen id never time different things instead trying land 007style crowdpleaser jackman focused proving act without aid adamantium claws always tried different things says time xmen 3 first wolverine movie could see roles getting smaller people wanted play kind hero part exclusively felt little bit claustrophobic battle typecasting jackman alternated stage screen playing variety roles number genres tonywinning performance flamboyant songwriter peter allen boy oz riveting work father willing bend law find missing child inprisoners oscarnominated turn brooding jean valjean les misérables humongous range says mangold worked jackman three films hes like fine musical instrument play comedy go light hes also capable delivering performance tremendous power hes got incredible masculinity strength courage throw away musical broadway greatest showman continues actors push demonstrate versatility proved could hit high notes les misérables barnum story required another approach upbeat familyfriendly vibe barnums edges getting feuds family members semiexploitation people physical deformities largely sanded favor emphasizing razzledazzle like say made movie barnum would liked make jackman says credit danielle levitt variety technical differences whereas les misérables cast members shot performing numbers live greatest showman actors sing along recording approach favored movie musicals get shape dancing cast 10 weeks rehearsals blocking elaborate routines find jackman zac efron michelle williams rest actors160waltzing across rooftops juggling liquor bottles high kicking around barroom backflips jazz hands across circus stage discovered often voices better gone strenuous dance routine gracey recording studio built set capture best vocally sometimes anything days next day youre 80 days youre feeling great would pop studio record says jackman theres couple bits sing notes ive never sung couldnt done live zendaya disney channel star plays lovestruck trapeze artist film marveled warmth jackman treated everyone set bigname costars production assistants gaffers also imparted advice 21yearold actress trying figure project next told dont doesnt make happy says zendaya make decisions dont listen people trust gut others worked jackman echo zendaya noting generosity politicians knack learning names lunch instance engages lengthy backandforth waiter respective families greeting like old friend insists stories talk nice blowing things proportion way brought says jackman parents always treated people great respect father never yelled admired also genuinely love family aspect feel comfortable relaxed everybody rather feeling oh im big actor cant talk way connecting maybe people attribute nice normal person greatest showman isnt risky commercial proposition could also signal pivot jackmans career first time since breaking business doesnt xmen film spinoff horizon said fox doesnt seem eager close door future wolverine adventures jackman going stay openminded says snider theres inspired way bring hugh jackman back well know see would idea integrity wanted looking ahead actor wants keep singing emboldened success hamilton dear evan hansen hes itching return broadway developing original musical bad musical stinks high heaven musical works theres nothing like says people screaming cheering nothing ive found matched end take curtain call theres sense youre front strangers intimacy get thats intense people youve known many years everyone coming together opening heart jackman loved theater since saw high school production man la mancha starring hugo weaving classmate time went star matrix lord rings immediately bought cast recording broadway production learning every word effect profound growing jackman became determined career onstage going drama school early professional years spent turns australian productions beauty beast sunset boulevard felt like hed earned big break cast curly west end production oklahoma remember national theatre show walking across waterloo bridge thinking far dreams got says jackman 28 pretty much reached goals id set always vague hollywood thing felt like pinnedall hopes destined disappointment movie stardom may come despite initial doubts things havent changed like barnum jackman comes alive front audience even decades center popular culture still gets thrill moments curtain rises day im stage work go wings even im first hear crowd shuffle says height excitement orchestra starts play | 1,459 |
<p />
<p>While the world barely took notice, justice came upon a tribe of Guatemalan Indians and their supporters this month when their 13-year claim of genocide and crimes on humanity produced a guilty verdict against a former de-facto president said to have organized the mass killings—marking the first time in world history that a head of state had been brought to trial for genocide by his own country.</p>
<p>But days later and just as unnoticed, the achievement was reversed, as they had been before, as it had been most notably in 1953 when presidential land concessions to the country’s impoverished were rolled back following a coup d’état organized by higher powers—and the act added one more chapter to the country’s continuum of bitter tribulation for Guatemala’s disenfranchised masses.</p>
<p>Guatemala’s Constitutional Court voted to overturn the genocide verdict, citing what amounted to procedural missteps in the trial which needed correcting; a symbolic reinstatement of a disruptive defense lawyer, an official recognition of the admissibility of defense evidence already allowed, the proper routing of case files between judges, all raising doubt about the Court’s integrity and true independence.</p>
<p>“There was nothing invoked [in the proceedings] that suggested the lack of a fair trial,” one Constitutional Court judge wrote in his opposition to the vote.&#160; He went on in some detail about the obstructionist tactics of the defense and how they were being rewarded by the Court’s decision, and how “manifestly disproportionate” the Court’s overturn decision was in relation to faults that may have occurred in the trial court.&#160; The other of the two dissenting judges in the 3-2 Constitutional Court overturn vote wrote about inconsistency and imprecision in the Constitutional Court’s behavior toward the proceedings.&#160; “And so I believe that this Court has no basis whatsoever to interfere with the application of ordinary justice through a meaningless appeal to restore reported violations.&#160; It is burdensome for the victims,” she concluded in her 5-page dissent.</p>
<p>But the Constitutional Court is made up of individuals.&#160; And individuals are susceptible to the wants of others, particularly when money or favors or threats are involved.</p>
<p>The day before the trial was set to conclude, after overwhelming court testimony detailing genocidal behavior, a once-involved judge declared the entire trial annulled.&#160; This is the same judge, Judge Patricia Flores, who found enough evidence to move the genocide case against the former dictator to the trial phase.&#160; “We can establish these are acts so degrading, so humiliating that there is no justification,” Judge Patricia Flores&#160; <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/nisgua_guate" type="external">said</a>&#160;to the accused, Jose Efraín Ríos Montt, in January 2012. &#160;“You were the general commander of the military and had knowledge of the execution of these plans.”</p>
<p>Though it is still unclear what power or place she had to impose such a ruling beyond her jurisdiction, Judge Flores’ staggering annulment order on April 18 halted the trial for almost two weeks while the Constitutional Court sorted out the mess.</p>
<p>But the Constitutional Court was cryptic on the matter, saying only enough to allow the trial to continue.&#160; The Court did not immediately uphold or overrule the annulment order.&#160; And so when the guilty verdict came it was felt as a provisional ruling, conditional on what the Constitutional Court would eventually say.</p>
<p>“Today’s ruling is not set in stone,” Guatemala’s current president, Otto Pérez Molina, said the day of the verdict, as if he might know something of what was to come.&#160; Pérez Molina initially supported the trial and the idea of getting at the truth once-and-for-all, despite his public claim that genocide never occurred.&#160; Many found it odd that a president would say such a thing before a trial of this nature even began, but he repeated it when the trial was underway.&#160; Ten days into the trial, when a prosecution eyewitness implicated him in the massacres, Pérez Molina, a Major during the Army’s occupation of the region in question, hardened his rhetoric and joined Guatemalan high-profile voices who condemned the trial and warned that a guilty verdict would polarize the country.&#160; The former Army specialist testified ten days into the trial that Pérez Molina, his then-superior, commanded the Army’s rounding up of villagers for transport to military outposts, where they were then executed.&#160; “The soldiers, on orders from Major ‘Tito Arias,’ better known as Otto Pérez Molina,” Hugo Ramiro Leonardo Reyes told the court, “coordinated the burning and looting, in order to later execute people.”</p>
<p>Some speculated that Pérez Molina was behind the annulment order, that once his name was mentioned in the testimony he acted to close it down.&#160; Allan Nairn, who had filmed the younger Pérez Molina when he was an Army commander in 1982 and who was scheduled to testify as a prosecution witness, said that the trial’s suspension, which occurred shortly after the implicating testimony, was the result of a “secret intervention by Guatemala’s current president and death threats delivered to judges and prosecutors by associates of Guatemala’s army.”</p>
<p>“At the last minute I was kept off the stand ‘in order to avoid a confrontation with the [Guatemalan] executive,’” Nairn wrote on his blog.&#160; “What that meant, I was given to understand, was that Gen. Otto Pérez Molina, Guatemala’s president, would shut down the case if I took the stand because my testimony could implicate him.”</p>
<p>Certainly it’s an odd pairing: a former Army major, now president, trying to hide his role in the country’s 1960-1996 civil war massacres; and a subordinate Attorney General he inherited who is determined to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes.</p>
<p>Days after the historic genocide finding on May 10, Guatemala’s Attorney General, Claudia Paz y Paz, praised for bringing the case to trial against enormous opposition, was in San Francisco to accept a human rights award.&#160; But in both private and public remarks she stayed clear of talking about the trial or the verdict, as if it hadn’t happened.&#160; Even the next day, at a program at University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Latin American Studies, she never acknowledged the verdict in her 1-hour talk, and instead spoke from notes about social conditions that give rise to justice.&#160; On both days a documentary crew posed her in various situations for a forthcoming film, “Paz y Paz: Inside the Prosecutor’s Office.”</p>
<p>“Things are really hectic in Guatemala,” Ms. Paz y Paz’ press intermediary said to my request for an interview in San Francisco.&#160; “We don’t want to say anything that might upset the situation,” he explained.&#160; “I can speak with you next week, on Monday,” Ms. Paz y Paz told me later that night.</p>
<p>But on Monday, the Constitutional Court spoke, this time in a clear voice, releasing a 32-page ruling that outlined its reasons for annulling the verdict and ordering the case retracted to an earlier time.&#160; Central to its justification was protection of the defendant’s right to counsel of his own choosing.&#160; Ríos Montt’s lawyer, Francisco Garcia Gudiel, had gotten himself thrown out of the courtroom on the first day of the trial after he became disorderly when two trial judges would not recuse themselves for bias, and later used this to petition the Constitutional Court to have the proceedings vacated.&#160; Garcia Gudiel’s expulsion left Ríos Montt without counsel of his choosing during the trial’s opening day afternoon, the Constitutional Court reasoned, and its remedy, via its Monday ruling, was the reinstatement of Garcia Gudiel as Ríos Montt’s attorney and the annulment of trial proceedings after April 19.&#160; But Garcia Gudiel had already been reinstated when the trial resumed on April 30 (the trial was suspended from April 19 to April 30), whereupon the court re-read the indictment against Ríos Montt and set aside witnesses testimony heard during the first day when Ríos Montt was without Garcia Gudiel, though Garcia Gudiel did little defending in his reinstatement.&#160; Despite repeated prodding by trial judges, Garcia Gudiel and Ríos Montt’s defense produced only two of the twelve witnesses it said it would present to refute the charges.</p>
<p>Guatemala’s Constitutional Court ruling technically brings the case back to April 19, presumably preserving all witness evidence entered prior to that date, and presumably continuing the trial in the same court with the same judges, though language in the ruling is not specific about any of that.&#160; There are still other defense petitions that haven’t been ruled on by the Constitutional Court, and it’s very possible that the entire trial is eventually annulled.&#160; “Once these things get stopped they are very difficult to get going again because there are a thousand ways for the defense to divert the matter and tie this thing up in knots,” a human rights law expert close to the trial advised.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Judge Flores, who persisted with her effort to annul the trial by staging a second vacate order during the trial’s closing arguments, is under investigation by Guatemala’s Judicial Authority and its Human Rights Ombuds Office after a complaint by the International Commission of Jurists calling for Flores’ dismissal for behavior that “demonstrates[s] that organized crime has infiltrated her position.”</p>
<p>From the get-go, apathy and impunity were the obstacles to bringing Guatemala’s genocide case.&#160; In normal times a finding of genocide would arouse outcry around the world.&#160; But these are extraordinary times, and the world has been numbed to ambient group killing, and the genocide verdict barely won mention in major newspapers.&#160; Even among Guatemalans the news didn’t seem to matter much.&#160; “Guatemala is racist,” said one native Guatemalan about the country’s widespread indifference to the case against Ríos Montt.&#160; “Indians don’t matter to most Guatemalans.”&#160; As for Guatemalans here in the US, most were unaware of the trial against Ríos Montt.&#160; “He was the best president Guatemala ever had,” was the reaction I often heard.</p>
<p>It’s a stunning contrast to see Ríos Montt in public today, silent most of the time, showing himself a victim, bewildered by the commotion around him, and clips of him as an Army General and later President, so brash and glib, brimming with justification, boasting to an interviewer in 1982, “The fact is that in 16 months we won a 20 year war.&#160; We did what we had to do.&#160; We didn’t assassinate or kill, we simply told the truth.&#160; (Here he pauses for effect.)&#160; And truth can be painful and uncomfortable.”</p> | false | 1 | world barely took notice justice came upon tribe guatemalan indians supporters month 13year claim genocide crimes humanity produced guilty verdict former defacto president said organized mass killingsmarking first time world history head state brought trial genocide country days later unnoticed achievement reversed notably 1953 presidential land concessions countrys impoverished rolled back following coup détat organized higher powersand act added one chapter countrys continuum bitter tribulation guatemalas disenfranchised masses guatemalas constitutional court voted overturn genocide verdict citing amounted procedural missteps trial needed correcting symbolic reinstatement disruptive defense lawyer official recognition admissibility defense evidence already allowed proper routing case files judges raising doubt courts integrity true independence nothing invoked proceedings suggested lack fair trial one constitutional court judge wrote opposition vote160 went detail obstructionist tactics defense rewarded courts decision manifestly disproportionate courts overturn decision relation faults may occurred trial court160 two dissenting judges 32 constitutional court overturn vote wrote inconsistency imprecision constitutional courts behavior toward proceedings160 believe court basis whatsoever interfere application ordinary justice meaningless appeal restore reported violations160 burdensome victims concluded 5page dissent constitutional court made individuals160 individuals susceptible wants others particularly money favors threats involved day trial set conclude overwhelming court testimony detailing genocidal behavior onceinvolved judge declared entire trial annulled160 judge judge patricia flores found enough evidence move genocide case former dictator trial phase160 establish acts degrading humiliating justification judge patricia flores160 said160to accused jose efraín ríos montt january 2012 160you general commander military knowledge execution plans though still unclear power place impose ruling beyond jurisdiction judge flores staggering annulment order april 18 halted trial almost two weeks constitutional court sorted mess constitutional court cryptic matter saying enough allow trial continue160 court immediately uphold overrule annulment order160 guilty verdict came felt provisional ruling conditional constitutional court would eventually say todays ruling set stone guatemalas current president otto pérez molina said day verdict might know something come160 pérez molina initially supported trial idea getting truth onceandforall despite public claim genocide never occurred160 many found odd president would say thing trial nature even began repeated trial underway160 ten days trial prosecution eyewitness implicated massacres pérez molina major armys occupation region question hardened rhetoric joined guatemalan highprofile voices condemned trial warned guilty verdict would polarize country160 former army specialist testified ten days trial pérez molina thensuperior commanded armys rounding villagers transport military outposts executed160 soldiers orders major tito arias better known otto pérez molina hugo ramiro leonardo reyes told court coordinated burning looting order later execute people speculated pérez molina behind annulment order name mentioned testimony acted close down160 allan nairn filmed younger pérez molina army commander 1982 scheduled testify prosecution witness said trials suspension occurred shortly implicating testimony result secret intervention guatemalas current president death threats delivered judges prosecutors associates guatemalas army last minute kept stand order avoid confrontation guatemalan executive nairn wrote blog160 meant given understand gen otto pérez molina guatemalas president would shut case took stand testimony could implicate certainly odd pairing former army major president trying hide role countrys 19601996 civil war massacres subordinate attorney general inherited determined bring justice responsible war crimes days historic genocide finding may 10 guatemalas attorney general claudia paz paz praised bringing case trial enormous opposition san francisco accept human rights award160 private public remarks stayed clear talking trial verdict hadnt happened160 even next day program university california berkeleys center latin american studies never acknowledged verdict 1hour talk instead spoke notes social conditions give rise justice160 days documentary crew posed various situations forthcoming film paz paz inside prosecutors office things really hectic guatemala ms paz paz press intermediary said request interview san francisco160 dont want say anything might upset situation explained160 speak next week monday ms paz paz told later night monday constitutional court spoke time clear voice releasing 32page ruling outlined reasons annulling verdict ordering case retracted earlier time160 central justification protection defendants right counsel choosing160 ríos montts lawyer francisco garcia gudiel gotten thrown courtroom first day trial became disorderly two trial judges would recuse bias later used petition constitutional court proceedings vacated160 garcia gudiels expulsion left ríos montt without counsel choosing trials opening day afternoon constitutional court reasoned remedy via monday ruling reinstatement garcia gudiel ríos montts attorney annulment trial proceedings april 19160 garcia gudiel already reinstated trial resumed april 30 trial suspended april 19 april 30 whereupon court reread indictment ríos montt set aside witnesses testimony heard first day ríos montt without garcia gudiel though garcia gudiel little defending reinstatement160 despite repeated prodding trial judges garcia gudiel ríos montts defense produced two twelve witnesses said would present refute charges guatemalas constitutional court ruling technically brings case back april 19 presumably preserving witness evidence entered prior date presumably continuing trial court judges though language ruling specific that160 still defense petitions havent ruled constitutional court possible entire trial eventually annulled160 things get stopped difficult get going thousand ways defense divert matter tie thing knots human rights law expert close trial advised meanwhile judge flores persisted effort annul trial staging second vacate order trials closing arguments investigation guatemalas judicial authority human rights ombuds office complaint international commission jurists calling flores dismissal behavior demonstratess organized crime infiltrated position getgo apathy impunity obstacles bringing guatemalas genocide case160 normal times finding genocide would arouse outcry around world160 extraordinary times world numbed ambient group killing genocide verdict barely mention major newspapers160 even among guatemalans news didnt seem matter much160 guatemala racist said one native guatemalan countrys widespread indifference case ríos montt160 indians dont matter guatemalans160 guatemalans us unaware trial ríos montt160 best president guatemala ever reaction often heard stunning contrast see ríos montt public today silent time showing victim bewildered commotion around clips army general later president brash glib brimming justification boasting interviewer 1982 fact 16 months 20 year war160 do160 didnt assassinate kill simply told truth160 pauses effect160 truth painful uncomfortable | 955 |
<p>Among&#160;liberals, it’s almost universally assumed that of the two major parties, it’s the Republicans who have become more extreme over the years. That’s a self-flattering but false narrative.</p>
<p>This is not to say the Republican Party hasn’t become a more conservative party. It has. But in the last two decades the Democratic Party has moved substantially further to the left than the Republican Party has shifted to the right. On most major issues the Republican Party hasn’t moved very much from where it was during the Gingrich era in the mid-1990s.</p>
<p>To see just how far the Democratic Party has moved to the left, compare Barack Obama with Bill Clinton. In 1992, Mr. Clinton ran as a centrist New Democrat. In several respects he governed as one as well. He endorsed a sentencing policy of “three strikes and you’re out,” and he proposed adding 100,000 police officers to the streets.</p>
<p>In contrast, President Obama’s former attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., criticized what he called “widespread incarceration” and championed the first decrease in the federal prison population in more than three decades. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, has chosen to focus on police abuses.</p>
<p>One of the crowning legislative achievements under Mr. Clinton was welfare reform. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, loosened welfare-to-work requirements. Mr. Obama is more liberal than Mr. Clinton was on gay rights, religious liberties, abortion rights, drug legalization and climate change. He has focused far more attention on income inequality than did Mr. Clinton, who stressed opportunity and mobility. While Mr. Clinton ended one entitlement program (Aid to Families With Dependent Children), Mr. Obama is responsible for creating the Affordable Care Act, the largest new entitlement since the Great Society. He is the first president to essentially nationalize health care.</p>
<p>Mr. Clinton lowered the capital-gains tax rate; Mr. Obama has proposed raising it. Mr. Clinton cut spending and produced a surplus. Under Mr. Obama, spending and the deficit reached record levels. In foreign policy, Mr. Obama has shown himself to be far more critical of traditional allies and more supine toward our adversaries than Mr. Clinton was. Mr. Obama has often acted as if American strength is a problem to which the solution is retrenchment, or even retreat.</p>
<p>Another bellwether: Hillary Rodham Clinton, in positioning herself for the 2016 election, is decidedly more liberal than she and her husband once were on illegal immigration, gay marriage and incarceration. She has called to “end the era of mass incarceration” and spoken about the importance of “ <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/politics/hillary-clintons-quest-to-prove-her-populist-edge-is-as-strong-as-elizabeth-warrens.html?referrer=&amp;_r=1ns.html?referrer=&amp;_r=0" type="external">toppling</a>” the wealthiest 1 percent. She has remained noncommittal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade agreement that has drawn ire from the left.</p>
<p>The Democratic Party, then, has moved steadily to the left since the Clinton presidency. In fact, since his re-election, Mr. Obama’s inner progressive has been liberated. (An exception is the administration’s conditional approval of oil drilling off the Alaskan coast, starting this summer.) Other examples are his executive action granting temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, his claim that gay marriage is a constitutional right, and his veto of legislation authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.</p>
<p>The Democratic Party is now a pre-Bill Clinton party, the result of Mr. Obama’s own ideological predilections and the coalition he has built. Liberals will argue that the Democratic Party has benefited from this movement to the left and cite the election victories of Mr. Obama as evidence of it. The nation has become more liberal, they say, and the Democratic Party has wisely moved with it.</p>
<p>In some respects, like gay rights, the nation is more liberal than it was two decades ago. On the other hand, it is more conservative today than it was in the mid-1990s. A recent Pew Research Center <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2015/02/26/democrats-have-more-positive-image-but-gop-runs-even-or-ahead-on-key-issues/" type="external">poll</a> found that Republicans have opened substantial leads over Democrats on dealing with terrorism, foreign policy and taxes. They’re competitive on the economy, and a good deal more competitive than in the past on traditional liberal issues like immigration and health care. Self-identified conservatives significantly outnumber self-identified liberals.</p>
<p>One can also plausibly argue that the Republican Party is the governing party in America. After two enormous losses by Democrats in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, Republicans control the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are currently 31 Republican governors compared with 18 for Democrats. Republicans control 68 of 98 state legislative chambers and the most state legislative seats since the 1920s. Nearly half of Americans now live in states under total Republican control. The Obama years have been politically good for Mr. Obama; they have been disastrous for his party. That is a problematic legacy for a man who envisioned himself as a Franklin Delano Roosevelt-like transformational political figure.</p>
<p>Those who insist that the Democratic Party’s march to the left carries no political risks might consider the fate of the British Labour Party earlier this month. Ed Miliband, its leader, ran hard to the left. The result? The Conservative Party under David Cameron won its first outright majority in Parliament since 1992. Before the election, the former Labour prime minister Tony Blair warned his party against letting the election become one in which “a traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result.”</p>
<p>Mr. Clinton acted on a lesson Democrats learned the hard way, and moved his party more to the center on fiscal policy, welfare, crime, the culture and foreign policy. Progressive figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Bill de Blasio are the politicians who electrify the Democratic base.</p>
<p>For demographic reasons, many Democrats believe that they are riding a tide of presidential inevitability. They may want to rethink that. They are placing a very risky bet that there are virtually no limits to how far left they can go.</p>
<p>Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the last three Republican administrations and is a contributing opinion writer.</p> | false | 1 | among160liberals almost universally assumed two major parties republicans become extreme years thats selfflattering false narrative say republican party hasnt become conservative party last two decades democratic party moved substantially left republican party shifted right major issues republican party hasnt moved much gingrich era mid1990s see far democratic party moved left compare barack obama bill clinton 1992 mr clinton ran centrist new democrat several respects governed one well endorsed sentencing policy three strikes youre proposed adding 100000 police officers streets contrast president obamas former attorney general eric h holder jr criticized called widespread incarceration championed first decrease federal prison population three decades mr obama meanwhile chosen focus police abuses one crowning legislative achievements mr clinton welfare reform mr obama hand loosened welfaretowork requirements mr obama liberal mr clinton gay rights religious liberties abortion rights drug legalization climate change focused far attention income inequality mr clinton stressed opportunity mobility mr clinton ended one entitlement program aid families dependent children mr obama responsible creating affordable care act largest new entitlement since great society first president essentially nationalize health care mr clinton lowered capitalgains tax rate mr obama proposed raising mr clinton cut spending produced surplus mr obama spending deficit reached record levels foreign policy mr obama shown far critical traditional allies supine toward adversaries mr clinton mr obama often acted american strength problem solution retrenchment even retreat another bellwether hillary rodham clinton positioning 2016 election decidedly liberal husband illegal immigration gay marriage incarceration called end era mass incarceration spoken importance toppling wealthiest 1 percent remained noncommittal transpacific partnership freetrade agreement drawn ire left democratic party moved steadily left since clinton presidency fact since reelection mr obamas inner progressive liberated exception administrations conditional approval oil drilling alaskan coast starting summer examples executive action granting temporary legal status millions illegal immigrants claim gay marriage constitutional right veto legislation authorizing construction keystone xl pipeline democratic party prebill clinton party result mr obamas ideological predilections coalition built liberals argue democratic party benefited movement left cite election victories mr obama evidence nation become liberal say democratic party wisely moved respects like gay rights nation liberal two decades ago hand conservative today mid1990s recent pew research center poll found republicans opened substantial leads democrats dealing terrorism foreign policy taxes theyre competitive economy good deal competitive past traditional liberal issues like immigration health care selfidentified conservatives significantly outnumber selfidentified liberals one also plausibly argue republican party governing party america two enormous losses democrats 2010 2014 midterm elections republicans control senate house representatives currently 31 republican governors compared 18 democrats republicans control 68 98 state legislative chambers state legislative seats since 1920s nearly half americans live states total republican control obama years politically good mr obama disastrous party problematic legacy man envisioned franklin delano rooseveltlike transformational political figure insist democratic partys march left carries political risks might consider fate british labour party earlier month ed miliband leader ran hard left result conservative party david cameron first outright majority parliament since 1992 election former labour prime minister tony blair warned party letting election become one traditional leftwing party competes traditional rightwing party traditional result mr clinton acted lesson democrats learned hard way moved party center fiscal policy welfare crime culture foreign policy progressive figures like senator elizabeth warren mayor bill de blasio politicians electrify democratic base demographic reasons many democrats believe riding tide presidential inevitability may want rethink placing risky bet virtually limits far left go peter wehner senior fellow ethics public policy center served last three republican administrations contributing opinion writer | 580 |
<p>At the core of every social, political, and economic system is a picture of human nature (to paraphrase 20th-century columnist Walter Lippmann). The suppositions we begin with — the ways in which that picture is developed — determine the lives we lead, the institutions we build, and the civilizations we create. They are the foundation stone.</p>
<p>Three Views of Human Nature</p>
<p>During the 18th century — a period that saw the advent of modern capitalism — there were several different currents of thought about the nature of the human person. Three models were particularly significant.</p>
<p>One model was that humans, while flawed, are perfectible. A second was that we are flawed, and fatally so; we need to accept and build our society around this unpleasant reality. A third view was that although human beings are flawed, we are capable of virtuous acts and self-government — that under the right circumstances, human nature can work to the advantage of the whole.</p>
<p>The first school included those who (representing the French Enlightenment) believed in man's perfectibility and the pre-eminence of scientific rationalism. Their plans were grandiose, utopian, and revolutionary, aiming at “the universal regeneration of mankind” and the creation of a “New Man.”</p>
<p>Such notions, espoused by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other Enlightenment philosophes, heavily influenced a later generation of socialist thinkers. These theorists — Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Henri de Saint-Simon among them — believed that human nature can be as easily reshaped as hot wax. They considered human nature plastic and malleable, to the point that no fixed human nature existed to speak of; architects of a social system could, therefore, mold it into anything they imagined.</p>
<p>These theorists dreamed of a communal society, liberated from private property and free of human inequality. They articulated a theory of human nature and socioeconomic organization that eventually influenced capitalism's most famous and bitter critic: the German philosopher, economist, and revolutionary Karl Marx.</p>
<p>The second current of thought, embodied in the writings of 17th-century Englishmen Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Mandeville, viewed human nature as more nearly the opposite: inelastic, brittle, and unalterable. And people were, at their core, antisocial beings.</p>
<p>Hobbes, for example, worried that people were ever in danger of lapsing into a pre-civilized state, “without a common power to keep them all in awe,” which, in turn, would lead to a hopeless existence, a “state of nature” characterized by “a war of every man, against every man.” It was, Hobbes wrote, a life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To avoid this fate, one must submit to the authority of the state, what he termed the “Leviathan” (a monstrous, multi-headed sea creature mentioned in the Hebrew Bible). In the process, we would gain self-preservation, but at the expense of liberty.</p>
<p>The third model of human nature is found in the thinking of the American founders. “If men were angels,” wrote James Madison, the father of the Constitution, in Federalist Paper No. 51, “no government would be necessary.” But Madison and the other founders knew men were not angels and would never become angels. They believed instead that human nature was mixed, a combination of virtue and vice, nobility and corruption. People were swayed by both reason and passion, capable of self-government but not to be trusted with absolute power. The founders' assumption was that within every human heart, let alone among different individuals, are competing and sometimes contradictory moral impulses and currents.</p>
<p>This last view of human nature is consistent with and reflective of Christian teaching. The Scriptures teach that we are both made in the image of God and fallen creatures; in the words of Saint Paul, we can be “instruments of wickedness” as well as “instruments of righteousness.” All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the Bible declares — yet it also tells us to be holy in all our conduct, to walk in His statutes, and not to grow weary in doing good. Human beings are capable of acts of squalor and acts of nobility; we can pursue vice and we can pursue virtue.</p>
<p>As for the matter of the state: Romans 13 makes clear that government is divinely sanctioned by God to preserve public order, restrain evil, and make justice possible. This, too, was a view shared by many of the founders. Government reflects human nature, they argued, “because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”</p>
<p>The Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment philosophies of Adam Smith, David Hume, and Francis Hutcheson both informed and aligned with the views of the American founders and Christian teaching. Smith was himself a professor of moral philosophy; The Theory of Moral Sentiments preceded The Wealth of Nations. Smith and his compatriots did not believe in the perfectibility of human nature and thought it foolish to build any human institution on the possibility of attaining such perfection. Neither did they believe that human nature was irredeemably corrupt and devoid of virtue.</p>
<p>Self Interest: A Positive or Negative Human Characteristic?</p>
<p>The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”</p>
<p>Michel Guillaume Jean de Crèvecœur, among the first writers who attempted to explain the American frontier and the concept of the “American Dream” to a European audience, captured this view when he wrote:</p>
<p>The American ought therefore to love this country much better than that wherein either he or his forefathers were born. Here the rewards of his industry follow with equal steps the progress of his labour; his labour is founded on the basis of nature, self-interest; can it want a stronger allurement?</p>
<p>Smith took for granted that people are driven by self-interest, by the desire to better their condition. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner,” is how he put it, “but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”</p>
<p>Harnessed and channeled the right way, then, self-interest — when placed within certain rules and boundaries — can be good, leading to a more prosperous and humane society.</p>
<p>Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest — unlike selfishness — will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good, as every Christian knows full well.</p>
<p>Advocates of free enterprise believe that creativity, enterprise, and ingenuity are essential parts of human nature. Capitalism aims to take advantage of the self-interest of human nature, knowing that the collateral effects will be a more decent and benevolent society. Capitalists believe that liberty is an inherent good and should form the cornerstone not only of our political institutions but our economic ones as well. Free-market advocates also insist that wealth and prosperity can mitigate envy and resentment, which have acidic effects on human relations. Markets, precis ely because they generate wealth, also end up distributing wealth.</p>
<p>The Relationship between Human Nature and Government</p>
<p>Why does all of this matter? Because our “picture of human nature” determines, in large measure, the institutions we design. For example, the architects of our government carefully studied history and every conceivable political arrangement that had been devised up to their time. In the course of their analysis, they made fundamental judgments about human nature and designed a constitutional form of government with it in mind.</p>
<p>What is true for creating political institutions is also true for economic ones. They, too, proceed from understanding human behavior.</p>
<p>It is hard to overstate the importance of this matter. The model of human nature one embraces will guide and shape everything else, from the economic system one embraces (free-market capitalism versus socialism) to the political system one supports (democracy versus the “dictatorship of the proletariat”). Like a ship about to begin a long voyage, a navigational mistake at the outset can lead a crew to go badly astray, shipwreck, and run aground. To use another metaphor, this time from the world of medicine: A physician cannot treat an illness before diagnosing it correctly; diagnosing incorrectly can make things far worse than they might otherwise be.</p>
<p>Those who champion capitalism embrace a truth we see played out in almost every life on almost any given day: If you link reward to effort, you will get more effort. If you create incentives for a particular kind of behavior, you will see more of that behavior. The book of Thessalonians boils things down to fairly simple terms: “If any would not work, neither should he eat.”</p>
<p>A free market can also better our moral condition — not dramatically and not always, but often enough. It places a premium on thrift, savings, and investment. And capitalism, when functioning properly, penalizes certain kinds of behavior — bribery, corruption, and lawlessness among them — because citizens in a free-market society have a huge stake in discouraging such behavior, which is a poison-tipped dagger aimed straight at the heart of prosperity.</p>
<p>In addition, capitalism can act as a civilizing agent. The social critic Irving Kristol argued, correctly in our view, that the early architects of democratic capitalism believed commercial transactions “would themselves constantly refine and enlarge the individual's sense of his own self-interest, so that in the end the kind of commercial society that was envisaged would be a relatively decent community.”</p>
<p>But capitalism, like American democracy itself, is hardly perfect or sufficient by itself. It has a troubling history, as well as a glorious one. And, like America, it is an ongoing, never-ending experiment, neither self-sustaining nor self-executing. Capitalism requires strong, vital, non-economic and non-political institutions — including the family, churches and other places of worship, civic associations, and schools — to complement it. Such institutions are necessary to allow capitalism to advance human progress.</p>
<p>A capitalist society needs to produce an educated citizenry. It needs to be buttressed by people who possess and who teach others virtues such as sympathy, altruism, compassion, self-discipline, perseverance, and honesty. And it needs a polity that will abide by laws, contracts, and election results (regardless of their outcome). Without these virtues, venality can eat capitalism from within and use it for pernicious ends.</p>
<p>We need to understand that capitalism, like democracy, is part of an intricate social web. Capitalism both depends on this web and contributes mightily to it. Morality and capitalism, like morality and democracy, are intimately connected and mutually complementary. They reinforce one another; they need one another; and they are terribly diminished without one another. They are links in a golden chain.</p>
<p>Arthur C. Brooks is the president of the <a href="http://www.aei.org/" type="external">American Enterprise Institute.</a> Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. This article was adapted from their newly published monograph, <a href="http://www.aei.org/book/100063" type="external">Wealth and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism</a>.</p> | false | 1 | core every social political economic system picture human nature paraphrase 20thcentury columnist walter lippmann suppositions begin ways picture developed determine lives lead institutions build civilizations create foundation stone three views human nature 18th century period saw advent modern capitalism several different currents thought nature human person three models particularly significant one model humans flawed perfectible second flawed fatally need accept build society around unpleasant reality third view although human beings flawed capable virtuous acts selfgovernment right circumstances human nature work advantage whole first school included representing french enlightenment believed mans perfectibility preeminence scientific rationalism plans grandiose utopian revolutionary aiming universal regeneration mankind creation new man notions espoused jeanjacques rousseau enlightenment philosophes heavily influenced later generation socialist thinkers theorists robert owen charles fourier henri de saintsimon among believed human nature easily reshaped hot wax considered human nature plastic malleable point fixed human nature existed speak architects social system could therefore mold anything imagined theorists dreamed communal society liberated private property free human inequality articulated theory human nature socioeconomic organization eventually influenced capitalisms famous bitter critic german philosopher economist revolutionary karl marx second current thought embodied writings 17thcentury englishmen thomas hobbes bernard mandeville viewed human nature nearly opposite inelastic brittle unalterable people core antisocial beings hobbes example worried people ever danger lapsing precivilized state without common power keep awe turn would lead hopeless existence state nature characterized war every man every man hobbes wrote life solitary poor nasty brutish short avoid fate one must submit authority state termed leviathan monstrous multiheaded sea creature mentioned hebrew bible process would gain selfpreservation expense liberty third model human nature found thinking american founders men angels wrote james madison father constitution federalist paper 51 government would necessary madison founders knew men angels would never become angels believed instead human nature mixed combination virtue vice nobility corruption people swayed reason passion capable selfgovernment trusted absolute power founders assumption within every human heart let alone among different individuals competing sometimes contradictory moral impulses currents last view human nature consistent reflective christian teaching scriptures teach made image god fallen creatures words saint paul instruments wickedness well instruments righteousness sinned fallen short glory god bible declares yet also tells us holy conduct walk statutes grow weary good human beings capable acts squalor acts nobility pursue vice pursue virtue matter state romans 13 makes clear government divinely sanctioned god preserve public order restrain evil make justice possible view shared many founders government reflects human nature argued passions men conform dictates reason justice without constraint angloscottish enlightenment philosophies adam smith david hume francis hutcheson informed aligned views american founders christian teaching smith professor moral philosophy theory moral sentiments preceded wealth nations smith compatriots believe perfectibility human nature thought foolish build human institution possibility attaining perfection neither believe human nature irredeemably corrupt devoid virtue self interest positive negative human characteristic american founders believed capitalism rests belief people driven selfinterest desire better condition selfinterest necessarily bad fact smith believed capitalism presupposes general welfare depends allowing individual pursue selfinterest long violate laws justice person acts interest frequently promotes interest society effectually really intends promote michel guillaume jean de crèvecœur among first writers attempted explain american frontier concept american dream european audience captured view wrote american ought therefore love country much better wherein either forefathers born rewards industry follow equal steps progress labour labour founded basis nature selfinterest want stronger allurement smith took granted people driven selfinterest desire better condition benevolence butcher brewer baker expect dinner put regard interest address humanity selflove never talk necessities advantages harnessed channeled right way selfinterest placed within certain rules boundaries good leading prosperous humane society important distinguish selfinterest selfishness selfinterest unlike selfishness often lead one commit acts altruism rightly understood knows man island part larger community good others good us put another way pursuing good advance common good even advancing common good advance good every christian knows full well advocates free enterprise believe creativity enterprise ingenuity essential parts human nature capitalism aims take advantage selfinterest human nature knowing collateral effects decent benevolent society capitalists believe liberty inherent good form cornerstone political institutions economic ones well freemarket advocates also insist wealth prosperity mitigate envy resentment acidic effects human relations markets precis ely generate wealth also end distributing wealth relationship human nature government matter picture human nature determines large measure institutions design example architects government carefully studied history every conceivable political arrangement devised time course analysis made fundamental judgments human nature designed constitutional form government mind true creating political institutions also true economic ones proceed understanding human behavior hard overstate importance matter model human nature one embraces guide shape everything else economic system one embraces freemarket capitalism versus socialism political system one supports democracy versus dictatorship proletariat like ship begin long voyage navigational mistake outset lead crew go badly astray shipwreck run aground use another metaphor time world medicine physician treat illness diagnosing correctly diagnosing incorrectly make things far worse might otherwise champion capitalism embrace truth see played almost every life almost given day link reward effort get effort create incentives particular kind behavior see behavior book thessalonians boils things fairly simple terms would work neither eat free market also better moral condition dramatically always often enough places premium thrift savings investment capitalism functioning properly penalizes certain kinds behavior bribery corruption lawlessness among citizens freemarket society huge stake discouraging behavior poisontipped dagger aimed straight heart prosperity addition capitalism act civilizing agent social critic irving kristol argued correctly view early architects democratic capitalism believed commercial transactions would constantly refine enlarge individuals sense selfinterest end kind commercial society envisaged would relatively decent community capitalism like american democracy hardly perfect sufficient troubling history well glorious one like america ongoing neverending experiment neither selfsustaining selfexecuting capitalism requires strong vital noneconomic nonpolitical institutions including family churches places worship civic associations schools complement institutions necessary allow capitalism advance human progress capitalist society needs produce educated citizenry needs buttressed people possess teach others virtues sympathy altruism compassion selfdiscipline perseverance honesty needs polity abide laws contracts election results regardless outcome without virtues venality eat capitalism within use pernicious ends need understand capitalism like democracy part intricate social web capitalism depends web contributes mightily morality capitalism like morality democracy intimately connected mutually complementary reinforce one another need one another terribly diminished without one another links golden chain arthur c brooks president american enterprise institute peter wehner senior fellow ethics public policy center article adapted newly published monograph wealth justice morality democratic capitalism | 1,061 |
<p>The Republican victory in the midterm election was decisive. Now the victors must chart a sensible course for the next two years—one that demonstrates they can be trusted as America’s governing party and sets the table for 2016.</p>
<p>The landscape is more treacherous than it looks. The Republican majority is strong in the House but surprisingly thin in the Senate. Even with 54 Republican senators (if Rep. Bill Cassidy is victorious in his runoff against Mary Landrieu in Louisiana), there will be precious little room for maneuver, as a few defections on any given vote would give Democrats the upper hand. Moreover, Democrats are sure to hold together at least 41 senators, and probably more, on critical votes. That gives them the power to filibuster most legislation pushed by Republicans, which can only be overcome with a supermajority of 60 votes. Then there is the problem of the presidential veto. If Republicans somehow manage to get a piece of legislation through both chambers, the president can still kill it. Rounding up enough votes for a congressional override under these circumstances would be the longest of long shots.</p>
<p>At the same time, there is much pent-up frustration among conservatives that is already turning into high expectations for the incoming Congress. The GOP’s core supporters have watched with increasing dismay and alarm as the president has implemented his agenda, often with arguably unlawful executive actions, and they will expect a Republican Congress to put a stop to it. Complaints about the limited power of one branch of government are unlikely to go over well.</p>
<p>So a Republican Congress will have to balance the need to make tangible progress in rolling back the Obama agenda against the very real obstacles it will face in trying to achieve that goal.</p>
<p>To navigate this difficult terrain, it will be important for Republicans to clearly set expectations and articulate their goals at the outset. The first temptation for the new Congress will be to follow the 1995 road map. After the Republican sweep of 1994, the House spent the first months of 1995 passing the legislative provisions of the Contract With America. Although important symbolically, these bills were not consequential in terms of reforming government. The real work in early 1995 was taking place behind the scenes, as House speaker Newt Gingrich, House Budget Committee chairman John Kasich, and the key committee chairmen plotted out a balanced budget plan that incorporated just about every feature of a conservative vision for governance: tax cuts and reforms; major changes in entitlement programs; welfare reform; elimination of scores of programs and agencies; and significant spending reductions.</p>
<p>The idea was to lay out a comprehensive agenda that contrasted sharply with the plans of President Bill Clinton, precipitate a confrontation of some sort, and then use the power of public opinion to force the president to accept a substantial part of the Republicans’ program. It was also important that the budget process, and especially budget reconciliation, allowed this plan to move forward in the Senate without any supportive votes from Democrats.</p>
<p>The 1995 strategy did not work as planned, to put it mildly. It took nearly a year for the Republican leadership to draft and pass its agenda. During that time, very little else was considered in Congress, as the entire GOP agenda was wrapped up in the budget process. Democrats spent the year regrouping and attacking the politically weak points of the Republican approach. In the confrontations with the Clinton administration that ensued, it was the Republican Congress, not the president, that suffered the most in public opinion. President Clinton’s standing with voters improved dramatically as the confrontation dragged on into 1996, and he won reelection handily over Sen. Bob Dole.</p>
<p>In the end, Republicans did secure enactment of welfare reform in 1996—a major achievement. But little else from the 1995 reconciliation effort made it into law, save for the creation of child tax credits.</p>
<p>In 2015, Republicans should resist the temptation to pursue a 1995-style maximalist agenda, which would very likely squander valuable time and ultimately put the party in a worse position heading into the critical election of 2016.</p>
<p>A better approach would be to start with politically sensible first steps, and build from there. At the beginning of the year, Republicans should identify straightforward legislation that is targeted, understandable, achieves an important objective, and is a clear political winner. The prototype is legislation repealing the employer mandate in Obamacare. Democrats included this mandate in Obamacare out of an anticorporate, populist impulse. But now, even many liberals are realizing that imposing new costs for “full-time” employees (those working at least 30 hours per week) is a recipe for fewer jobs and lower pay. Bringing up repeal of the employer mandate for a vote early in 2015 in both the House and the Senate would put Democrats and the administration on the defensive. In fact, such legislation would likely garner some bipartisan support. And if it were ultimately filibustered by Senate Democrats, Republicans would benefit from forcing the issue and holding the Democrats accountable for blocking it. Other candidates for early action include rolling back costly and ineffective regulations, restoring fast-track trade authority, authorizing (again) the Keystone XL pipeline, and allowing Americans to reenroll in the insurance plans canceled by Obamacare.</p>
<p>Rather quickly after scoring some legislative victories, however, Republicans in Congress will need to lay out a plan for passing a budget. Virtually all Republicans have called for a balanced budget, so a GOP-led Congress will need to pass a plan that reaches fiscal balance within the next decade. And that plan will need to be built on a foundation of broad-based tax and entitlement reform. Those are the pillars of conservative governance.</p>
<p>But a distinction needs to be made that wasn’t in 1995. It is possible for a Republican Congress to lay out a vision for governing in a budget plan and not proceed to consider all of the component parts in actual legislation. The budget plan will be considered in the form of a budget resolution, which does not get sent to the president for approval. Consequently, the House and Senate can write a general budget plan, and it cannot be vetoed. In 1995, Republicans followed up the budget resolution with implementing legislation—called a reconciliation bill. Reconciliation bills are critically important legislative vehicles because they cannot be filibustered in the Senate and thus can pass with a simple majority vote. The 1995 reconciliation bill became the centerpiece of the GOP’s agenda, and the main target for Democratic attacks.</p>
<p>It does not have to be that way in 2015. Among other things, the Republican budget plan could assume structural reform of the Medicare program, along with other entitlement reforms, but there’s no reason these changes have to be taken up and passed as part of a reconciliation bill. The president would engage in his usual demagogic attacks, and the issue would become highly politicized again. It is very likely that the Republican nominee in 2016 will embrace at least the concept of structural entitlement reform, and so it would be better to allow the debate to occur during the presidential campaign—without the baggage of a specific proposal considered in Congress serving as an easy target for Democrats.</p>
<p>Republicans instead should use the reconciliation process to advance targeted budgetary items that constitute fiscal progress, but also pose more political risks for Democrats than Republicans. For instance, reconciliation could be used to make targeted changes to Obamacare that lay the foundation for repeal and replacement of the law. Among other things, excessive subsidies for insurers could be eliminated, the tax on going uninsured rolled back or eliminated, the Independ-ent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) repealed, and states could be freed to pursue creative reforms without the need of a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services. All of these changes unite Republicans and divide Democrats.</p>
<p>It will be particularly important for a Republican Congress to approach Obamacare rationally. It will not be possible to repeal and replace Obamacare without a Republican president. Moreover, moving a full repeal bill without an accompanying replacement plan is politically risky for the GOP. The public is not interested in returning to the pre-Obamacare status quo, which was flawed. But repeal without a clear replacement plan implies returning to just that, in addition to removing insurance protection from several million people now on Medicaid or enrolled in insurance plans offered on the Obama-care exchanges.</p>
<p>It will be far more effective for Republicans to use the reconciliation process to begin rolling back Obamacare as much as possible and to enact aspects of a replacement plan that have broad support, such as enabling the cross-state purchase of health insurance or giving states greater freedom to fashion creative health care solutions that lower costs and expand coverage.</p>
<p>Beyond their efforts on the budget and Obamacare, Republicans should also use the next two years to demonstrate their depth in policy areas that traditionally haven’t been the focus of the party’s attention. That includes passing legislation to make higher education more accessible and affordable, enhancing choice in K-12 education, particularly for kids in failing schools, and reforming the federal government’s approach to antipoverty programs. The impending exhaustion of the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund in 2016 presents another opportunity for Republicans to advance systemic reforms that will benefit the party’s nominee in the upcoming presidential election.</p>
<p>These legislative initiatives are not a substitute for action on the core economic concerns of middle-income Americans, particularly job growth. That must remain the top focus for Republicans going into 2016. But a robust agenda that addresses other top concerns of middle-class families will go a long way toward convincing voters that Republicans can govern effectively and with an eye toward helping working families improve their standing.</p>
<p>Republicans won a resounding victory in the midterm election in November 2014, but that was just the beginning of their work. To be trusted with control of the White House in 2017, Republicans will need to demonstrate that they have the strategic vision, tactical skill, and ability to execute on a coherent agenda between now and the next presidential election, which is less than two years away.</p>
<p>James C. Capretta is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Lanhee J. Chen is the David and Diane Steffy research fellow at the Hoover Institution and served as the policy director on the Romney-Ryan 2012 campaign.</p> | false | 1 | republican victory midterm election decisive victors must chart sensible course next two yearsone demonstrates trusted americas governing party sets table 2016 landscape treacherous looks republican majority strong house surprisingly thin senate even 54 republican senators rep bill cassidy victorious runoff mary landrieu louisiana precious little room maneuver defections given vote would give democrats upper hand moreover democrats sure hold together least 41 senators probably critical votes gives power filibuster legislation pushed republicans overcome supermajority 60 votes problem presidential veto republicans somehow manage get piece legislation chambers president still kill rounding enough votes congressional override circumstances would longest long shots time much pentup frustration among conservatives already turning high expectations incoming congress gops core supporters watched increasing dismay alarm president implemented agenda often arguably unlawful executive actions expect republican congress put stop complaints limited power one branch government unlikely go well republican congress balance need make tangible progress rolling back obama agenda real obstacles face trying achieve goal navigate difficult terrain important republicans clearly set expectations articulate goals outset first temptation new congress follow 1995 road map republican sweep 1994 house spent first months 1995 passing legislative provisions contract america although important symbolically bills consequential terms reforming government real work early 1995 taking place behind scenes house speaker newt gingrich house budget committee chairman john kasich key committee chairmen plotted balanced budget plan incorporated every feature conservative vision governance tax cuts reforms major changes entitlement programs welfare reform elimination scores programs agencies significant spending reductions idea lay comprehensive agenda contrasted sharply plans president bill clinton precipitate confrontation sort use power public opinion force president accept substantial part republicans program also important budget process especially budget reconciliation allowed plan move forward senate without supportive votes democrats 1995 strategy work planned put mildly took nearly year republican leadership draft pass agenda time little else considered congress entire gop agenda wrapped budget process democrats spent year regrouping attacking politically weak points republican approach confrontations clinton administration ensued republican congress president suffered public opinion president clintons standing voters improved dramatically confrontation dragged 1996 reelection handily sen bob dole end republicans secure enactment welfare reform 1996a major achievement little else 1995 reconciliation effort made law save creation child tax credits 2015 republicans resist temptation pursue 1995style maximalist agenda would likely squander valuable time ultimately put party worse position heading critical election 2016 better approach would start politically sensible first steps build beginning year republicans identify straightforward legislation targeted understandable achieves important objective clear political winner prototype legislation repealing employer mandate obamacare democrats included mandate obamacare anticorporate populist impulse even many liberals realizing imposing new costs fulltime employees working least 30 hours per week recipe fewer jobs lower pay bringing repeal employer mandate vote early 2015 house senate would put democrats administration defensive fact legislation would likely garner bipartisan support ultimately filibustered senate democrats republicans would benefit forcing issue holding democrats accountable blocking candidates early action include rolling back costly ineffective regulations restoring fasttrack trade authority authorizing keystone xl pipeline allowing americans reenroll insurance plans canceled obamacare rather quickly scoring legislative victories however republicans congress need lay plan passing budget virtually republicans called balanced budget gopled congress need pass plan reaches fiscal balance within next decade plan need built foundation broadbased tax entitlement reform pillars conservative governance distinction needs made wasnt 1995 possible republican congress lay vision governing budget plan proceed consider component parts actual legislation budget plan considered form budget resolution get sent president approval consequently house senate write general budget plan vetoed 1995 republicans followed budget resolution implementing legislationcalled reconciliation bill reconciliation bills critically important legislative vehicles filibustered senate thus pass simple majority vote 1995 reconciliation bill became centerpiece gops agenda main target democratic attacks way 2015 among things republican budget plan could assume structural reform medicare program along entitlement reforms theres reason changes taken passed part reconciliation bill president would engage usual demagogic attacks issue would become highly politicized likely republican nominee 2016 embrace least concept structural entitlement reform would better allow debate occur presidential campaignwithout baggage specific proposal considered congress serving easy target democrats republicans instead use reconciliation process advance targeted budgetary items constitute fiscal progress also pose political risks democrats republicans instance reconciliation could used make targeted changes obamacare lay foundation repeal replacement law among things excessive subsidies insurers could eliminated tax going uninsured rolled back eliminated independent payment advisory board ipab repealed states could freed pursue creative reforms without need waiver department health human services changes unite republicans divide democrats particularly important republican congress approach obamacare rationally possible repeal replace obamacare without republican president moreover moving full repeal bill without accompanying replacement plan politically risky gop public interested returning preobamacare status quo flawed repeal without clear replacement plan implies returning addition removing insurance protection several million people medicaid enrolled insurance plans offered obamacare exchanges far effective republicans use reconciliation process begin rolling back obamacare much possible enact aspects replacement plan broad support enabling crossstate purchase health insurance giving states greater freedom fashion creative health care solutions lower costs expand coverage beyond efforts budget obamacare republicans also use next two years demonstrate depth policy areas traditionally havent focus partys attention includes passing legislation make higher education accessible affordable enhancing choice k12 education particularly kids failing schools reforming federal governments approach antipoverty programs impending exhaustion social security disability insurance trust fund 2016 presents another opportunity republicans advance systemic reforms benefit partys nominee upcoming presidential election legislative initiatives substitute action core economic concerns middleincome americans particularly job growth must remain top focus republicans going 2016 robust agenda addresses top concerns middleclass families go long way toward convincing voters republicans govern effectively eye toward helping working families improve standing republicans resounding victory midterm election november 2014 beginning work trusted control white house 2017 republicans need demonstrate strategic vision tactical skill ability execute coherent agenda next presidential election less two years away james c capretta visiting fellow american enterprise institute senior fellow ethics public policy center lanhee j chen david diane steffy research fellow hoover institution served policy director romneyryan 2012 campaign | 996 |
<p>Discussions of legalizing the use of marijuana often revolve around the contention that pot functions as a “gateway drug” — a substance that can lead individuals to abuse “harder” substances like cocaine or heroin.</p>
<p>That assertion, which has been raised in connection with Nevada’s Question 2 on the Nov. 8 ballot, has some support in the scientific community, but experts say a lack of definitive research on the subject leaves plenty of room for argument.</p>
<p>“There’s not enough evidence to prove (it) one way or another,” said Nathan Gillespie, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Virginia Commonwealth University who has done research on drug use and genetics.</p>
<p>Marijuana, the most commonly used illicit substance in the country, is legal in Nevada for medicinal purposes and would become legal for recreational use if voters approve Question 2, which was narrowly leading in the most recent <a href="" type="internal">Review-Journal poll</a> on the measure.</p>
<p>Though most people who abuse substances like cocaine or opioids try marijuana first, there is no proven causal relationship between use of marijuana and other illicit drugs, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.</p>
<p>The issue from a scientific perspective is that a typical pattern of progression isn’t the same as establishing that Behavior A causes Behavior B, Gillespie explained. For example, he said, studies have shown that hard drug users also frequently drank alcohol and consumed nicotine before moving on to more dangerous and addictive drugs.</p>
<p>“(But) just because there’s a temporal order doesn’t mean there’s causality,” he said.</p>
<p>SOME SCIENTISTS ARE PERSUADED</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.ijdp.org/article/S0955-3959(14)00204-7/abstract?cc=y=" type="external">commonly cited 2015 article</a> on marijuana’s potential “gateway” properties in The International Journal on Drug Policy, based on responses to a national survey on use of alcohol and other mind-altering substances, found that about 45 percent of adults who used cannabis at some point progressed to use of at least one other illicit drug.</p>
<p>The strong correlation between marijuana use and use of harder drugs found by that study and similar research has supported the belief of some scientists that the link is real.</p>
<p>In an April <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/26/is-marijuana-a-gateway-drug/marijuana-has-proven-to-be-a-gateway-drug" type="external">opinion piece</a> in The New York Times titled “Marijuana Has Proven to Be a Gateway Drug,” Robert L. DuPont, president of the Institute for Behavior and Health and a past director of NIDA, argued that legalizing marijuana would expand the country’s drug abuse problem.</p>
<p>“Like nearly all people with substance abuse problems, most heroin users initiated their drug use early in their teens, usually beginning with alcohol and marijuana. There is ample evidence that early initiation of drug use primes the brain for enhanced later responses to other drugs,” he wrote.</p>
<p>A series of studies on animals have bolstered the gateway theory, finding that tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana, can increase the risk for addiction to nicotine and opiates, though other published studies have cast doubt on the opiate claim.</p>
<p>Critics of the gateway argument in regard to marijuana say the animal studies fall short of establishing a causal connection and more studies of marijuana’s effects on humans are needed.</p>
<p>They also note that similar correlations have been found with alcohol and nicotine. A <a href="http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/3/107/107ra109" type="external">2011 journal article</a>in Science Translational Medicine, for instance, found that nicotine also altered the brain, making it easier for users to become addicted to cocaine.</p>
<p>Some researchers believe environment and accessibility play primary roles in people’s progression from marijuana to harder substances, according to the <a href="https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug" type="external">NIDA website</a>.</p>
<p>Instead of a gateway-type theory proposing that marijuana leads to use of harder substances, proponents of this theory believe the movement from drug to drug is predicated on outside factors like genetics or environment.</p>
<p>“An alternative to the gateway-drug hypothesis is that people who are more vulnerable to drug-taking are simply more likely to start with readily available substances like marijuana, tobacco or alcohol, and their subsequent social interactions with other substance users increases their chances of trying other drugs,” NIDA says.</p>
<p>A third theory indicates use of the drugs is a mixture of gateway effects, genetics and other factors.</p>
<p>Because marijuana is listed as a Schedule I controlled substance by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, research involving the substance has been tightly controlled in the past. However, the DEA announced in August it would allow more approved growers to distribute the drug to authorized institutions to foster research. That, in turn, could pave the way for comprehensive studies that could put the debate to rest.</p>
<p>Gillespie said a lengthy study of twins could definitively answer the question.</p>
<p>Such a study would allow scientists to control for factors like genetics and environment, Gillespie said, and demonstrate once and for all what role marijuana use plays, if any, in leading a user down the path to addiction.</p>
<p>“The correct models have never been properly or adequately tested,” he said.</p>
<p>Contact Pashtana Usufzy at [email protected] or 702-380-4563. Follow <a href="http://www.twitter.com/pashtana_u" type="external">@pashtana_u</a> on Twitter.</p>
<p>RELATED</p>
<p><a href="" type="internal">For average marijuana user, legalization may not alter enforcement in Nevada</a></p>
<p><a href="" type="internal">Marijuana opponents debut campaign ads against Question 2 in Nevada</a></p>
<p><a href="" type="internal">Study suggests tentative link between teen pot use and IQ</a></p>
<p><a href="" type="internal">Upsides and downsides of legalizing recreational marijuana in Nevada debated</a></p>
<p><a href="" type="internal">Colorado offers cautionary lessons as Nevada studies legalizing recreational pot use</a></p>
<p /> | false | 1 | discussions legalizing use marijuana often revolve around contention pot functions gateway drug substance lead individuals abuse harder substances like cocaine heroin assertion raised connection nevadas question 2 nov 8 ballot support scientific community experts say lack definitive research subject leaves plenty room argument theres enough evidence prove one way another said nathan gillespie assistant professor psychiatry virginia commonwealth university done research drug use genetics marijuana commonly used illicit substance country legal nevada medicinal purposes would become legal recreational use voters approve question 2 narrowly leading recent reviewjournal poll measure though people abuse substances like cocaine opioids try marijuana first proven causal relationship use marijuana illicit drugs according national institute drug abuse issue scientific perspective typical pattern progression isnt establishing behavior causes behavior b gillespie explained example said studies shown hard drug users also frequently drank alcohol consumed nicotine moving dangerous addictive drugs theres temporal order doesnt mean theres causality said scientists persuaded commonly cited 2015 article marijuanas potential gateway properties international journal drug policy based responses national survey use alcohol mindaltering substances found 45 percent adults used cannabis point progressed use least one illicit drug strong correlation marijuana use use harder drugs found study similar research supported belief scientists link real april opinion piece new york times titled marijuana proven gateway drug robert l dupont president institute behavior health past director nida argued legalizing marijuana would expand countrys drug abuse problem like nearly people substance abuse problems heroin users initiated drug use early teens usually beginning alcohol marijuana ample evidence early initiation drug use primes brain enhanced later responses drugs wrote series studies animals bolstered gateway theory finding tetrahydrocannabinol active ingredient marijuana increase risk addiction nicotine opiates though published studies cast doubt opiate claim critics gateway argument regard marijuana say animal studies fall short establishing causal connection studies marijuanas effects humans needed also note similar correlations found alcohol nicotine 2011 journal articlein science translational medicine instance found nicotine also altered brain making easier users become addicted cocaine researchers believe environment accessibility play primary roles peoples progression marijuana harder substances according nida website instead gatewaytype theory proposing marijuana leads use harder substances proponents theory believe movement drug drug predicated outside factors like genetics environment alternative gatewaydrug hypothesis people vulnerable drugtaking simply likely start readily available substances like marijuana tobacco alcohol subsequent social interactions substance users increases chances trying drugs nida says third theory indicates use drugs mixture gateway effects genetics factors marijuana listed schedule controlled substance us drug enforcement agency research involving substance tightly controlled past however dea announced august would allow approved growers distribute drug authorized institutions foster research turn could pave way comprehensive studies could put debate rest gillespie said lengthy study twins could definitively answer question study would allow scientists control factors like genetics environment gillespie said demonstrate role marijuana use plays leading user path addiction correct models never properly adequately tested said contact pashtana usufzy pusufzyreviewjournalcom 7023804563 follow pashtana_u twitter related average marijuana user legalization may alter enforcement nevada marijuana opponents debut campaign ads question 2 nevada study suggests tentative link teen pot use iq upsides downsides legalizing recreational marijuana nevada debated colorado offers cautionary lessons nevada studies legalizing recreational pot use | 525 |
<p>Bruno Mars was the big winner at the 2017 American Music Awards. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend the ceremony. That didn't stop him from going a little crazy on his socials once he found out he had won seven out of the eight AMAs he was nominated for.</p>
<p>This interaction between the AMAs and Bruno Mars post-show has been hilarious.</p>
<p>Below are the live updates from the show. As you'll quickly realize, this music loving pop culture reporter thought the AMAs were awesome.</p>
<p>Diana Ross just sang an incredible medley of songs that spanned her momentous career. In every audience shot we saw from home during her performance, no one was without a smile on their face. There was certainly one on mine, from the very first note of "I'm Coming Out."</p>
<p>The rest of the night is going to be all about the one and only Diana Ross, honored tonight with the American Music Award for Lifetime Achievement.</p>
<p>President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama just congratulated Diana Ross and recalled when she was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom last year.</p>
<p>Next, Jared Leto presented the biggest award of the night. (To the artist we totally predicted.)</p>
<p>Artist of the YearBruno MarsThe ChainsmokersDrakeKendrick LamarEd Sheeran</p>
<p>Not every award was handed out live on stage this evening. Here's a rundown of the untelevised categories and winners:</p>
<p>Tour of the YearGarth BrooksColdplayU2</p>
<p>Video of the YearBruno Mars "That's What I Like"Luis Fonsi &amp; Daddy Yankee f/ Justin Bieber "Despacito"Ed Sheeran "Shape of You"</p>
<p>Favorite Male Artist - Pop/RockBruno MarsDrakeEd Sheeran</p>
<p>Favorite Album - Pop/RockBruno Mars "24K Magic"Drake "More Life"The Weeknd "Starboy"</p>
<p>Favorite Song -Pop/RockThe Chainsmokers f/ Halsey "Closer"Luis Fonsi &amp; Daddy Yankee f/ Justin Bieber "Despacito"Ed Sheeran "Shape of You"*</p>
<p>Favorite Female Artist - CountryMiranda LambertMaren MorrisCarrie Underwood</p>
<p>Favorite Duo or Group - CountryFlorida Georgia LineLittle Big TownOld Dominion</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - Rap/Hip-HopDrakeKendrick LamarMigos</p>
<p>Favorite Album - Rap/Hip-HopDrake "More Life"Kendrick Lamar "DAMN."Migos "Culture"</p>
<p>Favorite Male Artist - Soul/R&amp;BBruno MarsChildish GambinoThe Weeknd</p>
<p>Favorite Female Artist - Soul/R&amp;BBeyoncéKehlaniRihanna</p>
<p>Favorite Album - Soul/R&amp;BBruno Mars "24K Magic"Childish Gambino "Awaken, My Love!"The Weeknd "Starboy"</p>
<p>Favorite Song - Soul/R&amp;BBruno Mars "That's What I Like"Khalid "Location"The Weeknd "Starboy"</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - LatinDaddy YankeeLuis FonsiShakira</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - Contemporarty InspirationalLauren DaigleMercyMeChris Tomlin</p>
<p>Top SoundtrackGuardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2: Awesome Mix Vol. 2MoanaTrolls</p>
<p>Back to the show recap:</p>
<p>Performing for the first time on U.S. television, the international pop powerhouse you've likely never heard of, BTS, made a lot of people in the AMA audience dance. And cry. And probably deaf in at least one ear as the fans screaming for them were the loudest of the night. That was more than insane. Wow.</p>
<p>Kelly Clarkson, looking like she was about to take flight at any second, just performed her classic "Miss Independent" and her current "Love So Soft." I'm so, so happy we got seconds of both Kelly and P!nk tonight. In my opinion, these two ladies were responsible for the three best performances of the night.</p>
<p>Time for another award:</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - Alternative RockImagine DragonsLinkin Park - WINNERtwenty-one pilots</p>
<p>Niall Horan, who won the AMA for New Artist of the Year just moments ago, did his best to perform "Slow Hands" over the incessant screaming from the front rows of the Microsoft Theater.</p>
<p>Here's the next award, another big one:</p>
<p>Collaboration of the YearThe Chainsmokers f/ Halsey "Closer"DJ Khaled f/ Justin Bieber, Quavo, Chance the Rapper, &amp; Lil Wayne "I'm the One"Luis Fonsi &amp; Daddy Yankee f/ Justin Bieber "Despacito" - WINNERMaroon 5 f/ Kendrick Lamar "Don't Wanna Know"The Weeknd f/ Daft Punk "Starboy"</p>
<p>Holy sh*t. When a lot of pop stars have trouble singing live while safely standing on a stage, P!nk just sang every word to her single, "Beautiful Trauma," while suspended from the roof the of the J. W. Marriott hotel and danced on the face of the building with a crew of aerial performers. Wow.</p>
<p>This is not the first time P!nk has taken to the air to perform. She's been doing it for years now but tonight many are saying she really took it to another level.</p>
<p>Nick Cannon presented the next award, one of the night's most anticipated.</p>
<p>New Artist of the YearJames ArthurNiall HoranJulia MichaelsPost MaloneRae Sremmurd</p>
<p>Imagine Dragons, AMA winners from earlier tonight, performed a confetti-filled "Thunder" alongside Khalid.</p>
<p>Lady Gaga, again live from Washington D.C., accepted the next award:</p>
<p>Favorite Female Artist - Pop/RockAlessia CaraLady Gaga - WINNERRihanna</p>
<p>Zedd, on piano, and Alessia Cara, with her amazing vocals, were channeling a little Clean Bandit with that string section accompanying their electronic dance hit, "Stay."</p>
<p>Portgual. The Man followed Macklemore on stage and sang their hit, "Feel It Still." Loved it. These guys are so much fun.</p>
<p>Macklemore, with Skylar Grey, performed their new single, "Glorious," for the AMA crowd next. Capping off their performance, Macklemore very sweetly wished his grandma a happy birthday.</p>
<p>Lady Gaga just performed her hit "The Cure" live via satellite from her concert date in Washington, D.C. (I think we can all agree that everyone was way too close to the pyro during that performance, right? I know it made me and a couple of my friends very nervous.)</p>
<p>Next award up:</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - Adult ContemporaryBruno MarsShawn Mendes - WINNER (The first of his career, by the way.)Ed Sheeran</p>
<p>Singing "I Will Always Love You," "I Have Nothing," "Run to You," and a choir-backed version of "I'm Every Woman" that had the entire audience on its feet, Christina Aguilera honored her idol, Whitney Houston, on the 25th anniversary of the release of the film The Bodyguard. I don't mind telling you, I was on my feet at home as well.</p>
<p>No one is having more fun at the American Music Awards than P!nk and Kelly Clarkson. Here's proof:</p>
<p>Next award up was:</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - Electronic Dance MusicThe Chainsmokers - WINNERDJ SnakeCalvin Harris</p>
<p>Next award - no, make that awards - went to a country music superstar.</p>
<p>Favorite Male Artist - CountrySam HuntThomas RhettKeith Urban - WINNER</p>
<p>Favorite Album - CountryJason Aldean "They Don't Know"Chris Stapleton " From a Room: Volume 1"Keith Urban "Ripcord" - WINNER</p>
<p>Favorite Song - CountrySam Hunt "Body Like a Back Road"Jon Pardi "Dirt on My Boots"Keith Urban "Blue Ain't Your Color" - WINNER</p>
<p>Urban couldn't hold all three awards and make his speech so it was convenient Nicole Kidman was in the front row to grab a couple for him.</p>
<p>For the first time publicly, Selena Gomez performed her new single, "Wolves."</p>
<p>The first few lines of Shawn Mendes' "There's Nothing Holding Me Back" were nearly drowned out by the screams of his many, many fans in the audience. Apparently one of those fans is Keith Urban, who was caught standing, dancing and singing along to every word. Mendes really killed it onstage tonight at the AMAs and over the course of this last year.</p>
<p>Next award up:</p>
<p>Favorite Song - Rap/Hip-HopDJ Khaled f/ Justin Bieber, Quavo, Chance the Rapper, and Lil Wayne "I'm the One" - WINNERKendrick Lamar "Humble."Rae Sremmurd f/ Gucci Mane "Black Beatles"</p>
<p>Next up, an interesting choice of collaborators, Hailee Steinfeld with Alesso, Florida Georgia Line and Watt. A lot of genres represented during that performance of "Let Me Go," for sure.</p>
<p>A leather jacket-clad Nick Jonas took the stage next with his new single, "Find You." (I'd hate to have to follow Demi Lovato but Nick and the eight great dancers who backed him up sure did their best.)</p>
<p>First award of the night:</p>
<p>Favorite Duo or Group - Pop/RockThe ChainsmokersColdplayImagine Dragons - WINNER</p>
<p>Demi Lovato performed her megahit, "Sorry Not Sorry," with a stage full of back-up dancers and singers. It was great.</p>
<p>Did Tracee Ellis Ross just walk out and open the AMAs by saying, "YAASS" several time? Yes, yes, she did. Sorry, I mean, yaass, yaass, she did. I can already tell she's going to be hilarious all night long.</p>
<p>P!nk and Kelly Clarkson just opened the show with a cover of R.E.M.'s "Everybody Hurts," in honor of the many first responders to some of the worst natural disasters and episodes of hate-fueled violence we've seen this year. Powerful. Beautiful. Wow.</p>
<p>And that hug at the end? Awwwww.</p>
<p>I'm very excited to see the beginning of the 2017 American Music Awards. In today's music world, the collaboration is so important, thus, they occur very frequently. How two of the biggest names in pop music, Kelly Clarkson and P!nk, have never performed together is beyond me. I'm a huge fan of both of them, own everything they've ever released. We're just a couple minutes away from the show.</p>
<p>To see what everyone wore to the 2017 American Music Awards, click <a href="" type="internal">HERE</a>.</p>
<p>For lots more preview information about the AMAs, see below.</p>
<p>-----</p>
<p>The 45th annual American Music Awards (AMAs) will air on ABC Sunday at 8 p.m. ET. Singer Bruno Mars leads the pack with eight nominations and I can't imagine a scenario in which he doesn't work his "24K Magic" and goes home empty handed.</p>
<p>This year, the AMAs - the world's largest fan-voted award show - can be seen in 200 countries, which is pretty impressive.</p>
<p>That means viewers all around the world can watch Tracee Ellis Ross, star of Black-ish, not only host the show but honor her superstar mother, Diana Ross, with the AMA for Lifetime Achievement.</p>
<p>And, they'll be handing out some coveted statues, some shiny mantle candy previously awarded to some superstar singers, like these fellas:</p>
<p>And to some incredibly talented women:</p>
<p>Audiences, both watching at home and live in Los Angeles, will witness what will surely be a memorable performance by the elder Ross before she's most certainly helicoptered immediately out of there. Oh, what I would give to be on the roof of the Microsoft Theater as she's coming out and asking that chopper pilot if he knows where he's going to.</p>
<p>There are multiple options for watching red carpet arrivals during the two hours prior to the live award show, but if you're more into the music than the manicure-cams, the 8 p.m. ET show open is what it's all about.</p>
<p>This year, two pop music icons are kicking things off and will be, given their killer careers, kicking major ass. Yeah, I'm talking about P!nk &amp; Kelly Clarkson, just like everyone else has been since the moment this diabolical duet was announced.</p>
<p>How have these two powerhouse performers, these world class vocalists never previously shared a stage? As a rabid fan of both, I literally cannot wait. It seems like they kinda can't either, as per Twitter.</p>
<p>One artist P!nk has done a (now classic) collaboration with is Christina Aguilera, who is also an AMA performer this year.</p>
<p>They won a well deserved GRAMMY for their 2001 Moulin Rouge megahit, "Lady Marmalade," which also featured Mya, Missy Elliott and Lil' Kim.</p>
<p>Aguilera will be paying tribute to Whitney Houston and her performance in the blockbuster film, The Bodyguard. That film hit theaters 25 years ago this November 25th.</p>
<p>That film's soundtrack, the best-selling of its kind in history, hit shelves on November 17, 1992, and has sold more than 45 million copies.</p>
<p>As a huge fan of both Houston and Aguilera, and as a person who has seen The Bodyguard in a theater over 20 times and at home at least another twenty thousand, I'm super-excited for this part of the show.</p>
<p>I've been imagining Aguilera's "And I.......," over and over as she performs what has become Houston's signature song, one of the best-selling singles of all time, Record of the Year GRAMMY winner, and Dolly Parton-penned anthem, "I Will Always Love You."</p>
<p>In addition, there are a ton more performers scheduled to be part of the broadcast:</p>
<p>Selena Gomez</p>
<p>Demi Lovato, performing one of my favorites of 2017, "Sorry Not Sorry"</p>
<p>BTS, in their first U.S. television performance</p>
<p>AMA for New Artist of the Year nominee, Niall Horan</p>
<p>Imagine Dragons w/ Khalid</p>
<p>Zedd and Alessia Cara will perform their EDM hit, "Stay"</p>
<p>Portugal. The Man doing their breakout hit, "Feel It Still"</p>
<p>Lady Gaga</p>
<p>Nick Jonas</p>
<p>Shawn Mendes</p>
<p>And, presenting the awards over the course of the evening will be artists like:</p>
<p>Jared Leto</p>
<p>Baby Driver Ansel Elgort</p>
<p>Viola Davis</p>
<p>Stranger Things actor Gaten Matarazzo</p>
<p>and Billy Eichner</p>
<p>Here are all the categories and nominees. (Also, there's a * next to the nominee we think will end their day with an AMA.)(Winners in bold.) (We got 15 out of 28 categories right. Not bad. But, not great.)</p>
<p>Artist of the YearBruno Mars*The ChainsmokersDrakeKendrick LamarEd Sheeran</p>
<p>New Artist of the YearJames ArthurNiall Horan*Julia MichaelsPost MaloneRae Sremmurd</p>
<p>Collaboration of the YearThe Chainsmokers f/ Halsey "Closer"DJ Khaled f/ Justin Bieber, Quavo, Chance the Rapper, &amp; Lil Wayne "I'm the One"Luis Fonsi &amp; Daddy Yankee f/ Justin Bieber "Despacito"*Maroon 5 f/ Kendrick Lamar "Don't Wanna Know"The Weeknd f/ Daft Punk "Starboy"</p>
<p>Tour of the YearGarth BrooksColdplay*U2</p>
<p>Video of the YearBruno Mars "That's What I Like"*Luis Fonsi &amp; Daddy Yankee f/ Justin Bieber "Despacito"Ed Sheeran "Shape of You"</p>
<p>Favorite Male Artist - Pop/RockBruno MarsDrakeEd Sheeran*</p>
<p>Favorite Female Artist - Pop/RockAlessia CaraLady GagaRihanna*</p>
<p>Favorite Duo or Group - Pop/RockThe Chainsmokers*ColdplayImagine Dragons</p>
<p>Favorite Album - Pop/RockBruno Mars "24K Magic"*Drake "More Life"The Weeknd "Starboy"</p>
<p>Favorite Song -Pop/RockThe Chainsmokers f/ Halsey "Closer"Luis Fonsi &amp; Daddy Yankee f/ Justin Bieber "Despacito"Ed Sheeran "Shape of You"*</p>
<p>Favorite Male Artist - CountrySam Hunt*Thomas RhettKeith Urban</p>
<p>Favorite Female Artist - CountryMiranda LambertMaren MorrisCarrie Underwood*</p>
<p>Favorite Duo or Group - CountryFlorida Georgia Line*Little Big TownOld Dominion</p>
<p>Favorite Album - CountryJason Aldean "They Don't Know"Chris Stapleton " From a Room: Volume 1"Keith Urban "Ripcord"</p>
<p>Favorite Song - CountrySam Hunt "Body Like a Back Road"Jon Pardi "Dirt on My Boots"Keith Urban "Blue Ain't Your Color"</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - Rap/Hip-HopDrakeKendrick Lamar*Migos</p>
<p>Favorite Album - Rap/Hip-HopDrake "More Life"Kendrick Lamar "DAMN."*Migos "Culture"</p>
<p>Favorite Song - Rap/Hip-HopDJ Khaled f/ Justin Bieber, Quavo, Chance the Rapper, and Lil Wayne "I'm the One"*Kendrick Lamar "Humble."Rae Sremmurd f/ Gucci Mane "Black Beatles"</p>
<p>Favorite Male Artist - Soul/R&amp;BBruno Mars*Childish GambinoThe Weeknd</p>
<p>Favorite Female Artist - Soul/R&amp;BBeyoncé*KehlaniRihanna</p>
<p>Favorite Album - Soul/R&amp;BBruno Mars "24K Magic"*Childish Gambino "Awaken, My Love!"The Weeknd "Starboy"</p>
<p>Favorite Song - Soul/R&amp;BBruno Mars "That's What I Like"*Khalid "Location"The Weeknd "Starboy"</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - Alternative RockImagine DragonsLinkin Parktwenty-one pilots*</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - Adult ContemporaryBruno MarsShawn MendesEd Sheeran*</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - LatinDaddy YankeeLuis Fonsi*Shakira</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - Contemporarty InspirationalLauren Daigle*MercyMeChris Tomlin</p>
<p>Favorite Artist - Electronic Dance MusicThe Chainsmokers*DJ SnakeCalvin Harris</p>
<p>Top SoundtrackGuardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2: Awesome Mix Vol. 2Moana*Trolls</p>
<p>For more music stories on Circa, click <a href="" type="internal">HERE.</a></p> | false | 1 | bruno mars big winner 2017 american music awards unfortunately unable attend ceremony didnt stop going little crazy socials found seven eight amas nominated interaction amas bruno mars postshow hilarious live updates show youll quickly realize music loving pop culture reporter thought amas awesome diana ross sang incredible medley songs spanned momentous career every audience shot saw home performance one without smile face certainly one mine first note im coming rest night going one diana ross honored tonight american music award lifetime achievement president barack obama first lady michelle obama congratulated diana ross recalled given presidential medal freedom last year next jared leto presented biggest award night artist totally predicted artist yearbruno marsthe chainsmokersdrakekendrick lamared sheeran every award handed live stage evening heres rundown untelevised categories winners tour yeargarth brookscoldplayu2 video yearbruno mars thats likeluis fonsi amp daddy yankee f justin bieber despacitoed sheeran shape favorite male artist poprockbruno marsdrakeed sheeran favorite album poprockbruno mars 24k magicdrake lifethe weeknd starboy favorite song poprockthe chainsmokers f halsey closerluis fonsi amp daddy yankee f justin bieber despacitoed sheeran shape favorite female artist countrymiranda lambertmaren morriscarrie underwood favorite duo group countryflorida georgia linelittle big townold dominion favorite artist raphiphopdrakekendrick lamarmigos favorite album raphiphopdrake lifekendrick lamar damnmigos culture favorite male artist soulrampbbruno marschildish gambinothe weeknd favorite female artist soulrampbbeyoncékehlanirihanna favorite album soulrampbbruno mars 24k magicchildish gambino awaken lovethe weeknd starboy favorite song soulrampbbruno mars thats likekhalid locationthe weeknd starboy favorite artist latindaddy yankeeluis fonsishakira favorite artist contemporarty inspirationallauren daiglemercymechris tomlin top soundtrackguardians galaxy vol 2 awesome mix vol 2moanatrolls back show recap performing first time us television international pop powerhouse youve likely never heard bts made lot people ama audience dance cry probably deaf least one ear fans screaming loudest night insane wow kelly clarkson looking like take flight second performed classic miss independent current love soft im happy got seconds kelly pnk tonight opinion two ladies responsible three best performances night time another award favorite artist alternative rockimagine dragonslinkin park winnertwentyone pilots niall horan ama new artist year moments ago best perform slow hands incessant screaming front rows microsoft theater heres next award another big one collaboration yearthe chainsmokers f halsey closerdj khaled f justin bieber quavo chance rapper amp lil wayne im oneluis fonsi amp daddy yankee f justin bieber despacito winnermaroon 5 f kendrick lamar dont wan na knowthe weeknd f daft punk starboy holy sht lot pop stars trouble singing live safely standing stage pnk sang every word single beautiful trauma suspended roof j w marriott hotel danced face building crew aerial performers wow first time pnk taken air perform shes years tonight many saying really took another level nick cannon presented next award one nights anticipated new artist yearjames arthurniall horanjulia michaelspost malonerae sremmurd imagine dragons ama winners earlier tonight performed confettifilled thunder alongside khalid lady gaga live washington dc accepted next award favorite female artist poprockalessia caralady gaga winnerrihanna zedd piano alessia cara amazing vocals channeling little clean bandit string section accompanying electronic dance hit stay portgual man followed macklemore stage sang hit feel still loved guys much fun macklemore skylar grey performed new single glorious ama crowd next capping performance macklemore sweetly wished grandma happy birthday lady gaga performed hit cure live via satellite concert date washington dc think agree everyone way close pyro performance right know made couple friends nervous next award favorite artist adult contemporarybruno marsshawn mendes winner first career wayed sheeran singing always love nothing run choirbacked version im every woman entire audience feet christina aguilera honored idol whitney houston 25th anniversary release film bodyguard dont mind telling feet home well one fun american music awards pnk kelly clarkson heres proof next award favorite artist electronic dance musicthe chainsmokers winnerdj snakecalvin harris next award make awards went country music superstar favorite male artist countrysam huntthomas rhettkeith urban winner favorite album countryjason aldean dont knowchris stapleton room volume 1keith urban ripcord winner favorite song countrysam hunt body like back roadjon pardi dirt bootskeith urban blue aint color winner urban couldnt hold three awards make speech convenient nicole kidman front row grab couple first time publicly selena gomez performed new single wolves first lines shawn mendes theres nothing holding back nearly drowned screams many many fans audience apparently one fans keith urban caught standing dancing singing along every word mendes really killed onstage tonight amas course last year next award favorite song raphiphopdj khaled f justin bieber quavo chance rapper lil wayne im one winnerkendrick lamar humblerae sremmurd f gucci mane black beatles next interesting choice collaborators hailee steinfeld alesso florida georgia line watt lot genres represented performance let go sure leather jacketclad nick jonas took stage next new single find id hate follow demi lovato nick eight great dancers backed sure best first award night favorite duo group poprockthe chainsmokerscoldplayimagine dragons winner demi lovato performed megahit sorry sorry stage full backup dancers singers great tracee ellis ross walk open amas saying yaass several time yes yes sorry mean yaass yaass already tell shes going hilarious night long pnk kelly clarkson opened show cover rems everybody hurts honor many first responders worst natural disasters episodes hatefueled violence weve seen year powerful beautiful wow hug end awwwww im excited see beginning 2017 american music awards todays music world collaboration important thus occur frequently two biggest names pop music kelly clarkson pnk never performed together beyond im huge fan everything theyve ever released couple minutes away show see everyone wore 2017 american music awards click lots preview information amas see 45th annual american music awards amas air abc sunday 8 pm et singer bruno mars leads pack eight nominations cant imagine scenario doesnt work 24k magic goes home empty handed year amas worlds largest fanvoted award show seen 200 countries pretty impressive means viewers around world watch tracee ellis ross star blackish host show honor superstar mother diana ross ama lifetime achievement theyll handing coveted statues shiny mantle candy previously awarded superstar singers like fellas incredibly talented women audiences watching home live los angeles witness surely memorable performance elder ross shes certainly helicoptered immediately oh would give roof microsoft theater shes coming asking chopper pilot knows hes going multiple options watching red carpet arrivals two hours prior live award show youre music manicurecams 8 pm et show open year two pop music icons kicking things given killer careers kicking major ass yeah im talking pnk amp kelly clarkson like everyone else since moment diabolical duet announced two powerhouse performers world class vocalists never previously shared stage rabid fan literally wait seems like kinda cant either per twitter one artist pnk done classic collaboration christina aguilera also ama performer year well deserved grammy 2001 moulin rouge megahit lady marmalade also featured mya missy elliott lil kim aguilera paying tribute whitney houston performance blockbuster film bodyguard film hit theaters 25 years ago november 25th films soundtrack bestselling kind history hit shelves november 17 1992 sold 45 million copies huge fan houston aguilera person seen bodyguard theater 20 times home least another twenty thousand im superexcited part show ive imagining aguileras performs become houstons signature song one bestselling singles time record year grammy winner dolly partonpenned anthem always love addition ton performers scheduled part broadcast selena gomez demi lovato performing one favorites 2017 sorry sorry bts first us television performance ama new artist year nominee niall horan imagine dragons w khalid zedd alessia cara perform edm hit stay portugal man breakout hit feel still lady gaga nick jonas shawn mendes presenting awards course evening artists like jared leto baby driver ansel elgort viola davis stranger things actor gaten matarazzo billy eichner categories nominees also theres next nominee think end day amawinners bold got 15 28 categories right bad great artist yearbruno marsthe chainsmokersdrakekendrick lamared sheeran new artist yearjames arthurniall horanjulia michaelspost malonerae sremmurd collaboration yearthe chainsmokers f halsey closerdj khaled f justin bieber quavo chance rapper amp lil wayne im oneluis fonsi amp daddy yankee f justin bieber despacitomaroon 5 f kendrick lamar dont wan na knowthe weeknd f daft punk starboy tour yeargarth brookscoldplayu2 video yearbruno mars thats likeluis fonsi amp daddy yankee f justin bieber despacitoed sheeran shape favorite male artist poprockbruno marsdrakeed sheeran favorite female artist poprockalessia caralady gagarihanna favorite duo group poprockthe chainsmokerscoldplayimagine dragons favorite album poprockbruno mars 24k magicdrake lifethe weeknd starboy favorite song poprockthe chainsmokers f halsey closerluis fonsi amp daddy yankee f justin bieber despacitoed sheeran shape favorite male artist countrysam huntthomas rhettkeith urban favorite female artist countrymiranda lambertmaren morriscarrie underwood favorite duo group countryflorida georgia linelittle big townold dominion favorite album countryjason aldean dont knowchris stapleton room volume 1keith urban ripcord favorite song countrysam hunt body like back roadjon pardi dirt bootskeith urban blue aint color favorite artist raphiphopdrakekendrick lamarmigos favorite album raphiphopdrake lifekendrick lamar damnmigos culture favorite song raphiphopdj khaled f justin bieber quavo chance rapper lil wayne im onekendrick lamar humblerae sremmurd f gucci mane black beatles favorite male artist soulrampbbruno marschildish gambinothe weeknd favorite female artist soulrampbbeyoncékehlanirihanna favorite album soulrampbbruno mars 24k magicchildish gambino awaken lovethe weeknd starboy favorite song soulrampbbruno mars thats likekhalid locationthe weeknd starboy favorite artist alternative rockimagine dragonslinkin parktwentyone pilots favorite artist adult contemporarybruno marsshawn mendesed sheeran favorite artist latindaddy yankeeluis fonsishakira favorite artist contemporarty inspirationallauren daiglemercymechris tomlin favorite artist electronic dance musicthe chainsmokersdj snakecalvin harris top soundtrackguardians galaxy vol 2 awesome mix vol 2moanatrolls music stories circa click | 1,552 |
<p>The Netflix original film War Machine constitutes the extent of the punishment that the real Stanley McChrystal will ever receive for his crimes.</p>
<p>The new movie, War Machine, on Netflix starring Brad Pitt begins as a hilarious and satisfying mockery of General Stanley McChrystal, circa 2009, as well as of militarism in general. Hilarious because of the deadpan sincere idiocy. Satisfying at least to those of us who have been screaming “What are you idiots doing?” for the past fifteen-and-a-half years.</p>
<p>Should we be glad that a Hollywood movie can still be made mocking the murderous malevolence of true believers in militarism, or should we be disturbed that theaters won’t show such movies and they have to end up on Netflix? Should we be glad that a war satire set in Afghanistan didn’t have to wait decades for a different war, in the manner of MASH, or should we be disturbed that most viewers will not know a current war is being mocked because they either believe the war on Afghanistan has ended or they simply can’t keep up with the proliferation of wars?</p>
<p>Regardless, I recommend making sure every movie-lover, Brad Pitt fan, young person, and old person watch this movie. Watch a sincere true-believing military commander and his sycophants consciously choose to win an unwinnable war, proposing straight-faced to work on protecting people while not killing them — or killing them less, or something.</p>
<p>The basic truth that people don’t want armed foreigners in their towns and would rather not be bombed is presented here in straightforward dialogue as well as comedic exchange. And Brad Pitt’s character, based on Stanley McChrystal, and on Michael Hastings’ account of McChrystal, is depicted as having turned himself into a human hammer, unable to see any problem as anything other than a nail — his ambition to “win” a war driving his blindness to the absolute unwinnability of foreign occupations or “counter-insurgency” or “counter-terrorism,” also known as terrorism.</p>
<p>The whole thing stops being funny three-quarters of the way into the movie, when the protests of troops that they cannot distinguish civilians from enemies becomes an actual demonstration of that inability. When we get to watch the General in charge articulate all of his usual platitudes and nonsensical pep-rally lies (even if lies to himself, still lies) to a man whose child has just been murdered by U.S. troops, the laughter is gone.</p>
<p>Even when we see a village leader ask the General to “please leave now,” there’s little satisfaction in this plea of the Afghan people for the past decade and a half finally making it into U.S. ears, because we know that the U.S. military will not ever listen.</p>
<p>We also know that this movie constitutes the extent of the punishment that the real Stanley McChrystal will ever receive for his crimes. There will be no trial, no legal judgment.</p>
<p>Speculation as to the cause of death of Michael Hastings continues, but speculation as to whether the individuals crashing the U.S. war machine into Afghanistan year after year have committed murder in a futile and criminal attempt to advance their personal interests should end. There is no doubt that they have done and are doing just that on a massive scale. They are, as this movie points out, and as no U.S. newspaper or television station dares to state, endangering the United States under the banner of slogans claiming they are defending and protecting it.</p>
<p>Here’s part of an open letter to President Donald Trump that anyone can sign <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h1/WQ-2BlIwq7W2eCmkkcwbDiBV0Frf8aO-2BhheoIczpshG3DzGC4ogWeNkerDYCd-2Bk3LVPevGngrJ-2FPcq4dCYP1yLd6Mv0EfJdNVB5c3jTKsqsdwo8OH1-2FSiAkUrvXm76V-2F12MLHI6gBKKdx6jhE8Fs-2BkDyP2FKWOxU5s0hiUdRfMkbgLRtmPVsHS-2Bua5ypqVERN9AxYXWZzHtYWIGzJS6D0LAypf956X-2FAVKYMbXfankMH9S8HuzN9rFg28sFqF85ysG7nf45ON4Gx-2B9YyJDgmG-2FQYrnldWGuVHoYIwe1Nh2IQk5IvqBuhbgZmQZRhAP03aUDEj9s0GdXOQT2IC6otzuY6dw6kizQq5FoixblsITZQ8nVf9p4QifMNn-2FSP7Covqt34zN7dClsSdNVxnhnQ2St6gGR7Bwf3hvhSwfjZ812OVc8ygwiERuqA-2BZaHaq9O26ymm5jrXkTwIhOnA2la-2BwIqpyJFkZyMr-2FucCWu1bEUafmGiRLr3xdaSYNrh5g0cSk" type="external">here</a>:</p>
<p>The United States is spending $4 million an hour on planes, drones, bombs, guns, and over-priced contractors in a country that needs food and agricultural equipment, much of which could be provided by U.S. businesses. Thus far, the United States has spent an outrageous <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h2/hrrHYVl00KlMcVCA9JiaTX7VmwBf78b-2BCSUVXpkWe-2BzDyYdYdtdSX-2B-2F83R3AGpjY2SokfCblfCrccyiJ5O1fRL7TUKUFam6gmMHETSN6vW-2Beo-2B-2F0CIRNrWLBI84tc5rECbhCd4rqdPBnOjejv0Qjh6AXuOtOQaLe4i-2BkFFfN6QmS2hZpPqW3xI4NVzPRFD3E2ofr9NOIxoiREBozoeu6PJnz1CUtOEgr6UBqeztdXL68DyOE7-2BUdHNdkmRP3Hc9c-2BxnVzpK1-2BfkZK6zTyILHw7rQpP7Dl4oCS8I3kthLZ1p-2BAveAxuIn0jp9ijaNHgW0GU45zw3RaFmtPDyvX6vZyaI-2FBAilr4Um-2Bln-2BiL38kMoiz8NYi3Pl-2FKxPcPzb60Nim9aN1Zi35VTiHPa1F-2FkjXbCX7LniBxwSYLNLlzltAJ5QH1a3dRNaLxSR1K-2BSu6poO52rYk7ELey7vVdUJqJlow-3D-3D" type="external">$783 billion</a> with virtually nothing to show for it except the death of thousands of <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h3/DZhDW-2BZVxBhPgRyZsc18-2Boicrg3fH1w-2FwHIAlAsUrlEnMIk58KCH5NhthL0oepGp6Haipx8qZUQqTIpQVrBK1d7U4DaZObh0crf6wOuAHNtWMzoNTsltBmxIYxiwwyk-2Bl-2BmCI0kYFpPcS21DbOGKsRhKege48NqPXCn6GE5VyfcE5MtrUsYAR-2BYpwLs0QyS6aQPsaLYLL2z4tYlHjS4S4I8D1bqmXt9VsEhIihz5Ly2DvrD77baepy787Ve-2FG5K8kTnK742abik9u4UkoiYdjw0hmvTxTWrxcbVC6M2nPegSA5kLcCb9HA9oodB82BJsexQkypPtJvjh1pTmc5OoZn7o5lmO3YFG8TrHriOA-2BBq-2BWPsDMn-2Bf7-2BUt7jV03LlYWIg9nneoyJ8IKFx4QXzkpQxzZ-2FY5jQ6EsZGoW3LvcWgFfyQ4oUJ-2F79YdipHK2tUZzDBHz6JCp4NXH0rllXVvt42HMyK8GTFUrk5-2F8Ww1s75t4hgIgsge3nQ-2B2xLzBCiZcJ2zpQycCLqX50GMq4zYEDQ-2BYswFICx7pJw0ICwInGSHK-2FevYs9qN6DDiTKscpaKAYpsIvZC51fp3ewDjBRchw-3D-3D" type="external">U.S. soldiers</a> , and the death, injury and displacement of millions of Afghans. The Afghanistan War has been and will continue to be, as long as it lasts, a steady <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h4/Ey2E0cZeDClTvPEYGcEMIEO5NMOq-2By37HdMzFNExto5EpJ2Ni1Y1Rnq1c-2FdOXupIW8euJSA790ONePod0oQgm9mK6mcXykn46vvu-2FUfKsMnCH3wOgngEI34GXmkAlAZkX3xDhTwS0eqinzAkql4D19N05oCIv1REcNVPGjEjwnAYAC4p9LmgwdkAlTUyihRQCp2IteLxEkGeyoV6gu55SejPVw8q9jyJS-2B-2FqYPThlT5ncUABhd1r1AyzcsJ7fly-2BF-2Fqdvc3AvTZH3wjHT0elggSNb8nVohGHmTTOFrruPNLinbfJP0UDyj2ZTu2TebJzYmpPcI7M4IapsqU7nlKRBp-2FScxa-2FD-2FN-2FnG4XgDkBLj77kE9opvLnK3EQjevGFluFlRSIJVlVnj-2FiQUsi-2FNogVoG5d8kcPsP1Xz0RhgSgoah5GN530kFyqoS8A8MFSdyCoHbLuNM7-2BPG5BvIoH2XRtp6G2zh2XaGshwne5RUppi1g3GvnoFiOzxUYDkQaqHurC3xV-2BW-2B8sMTG1r5D-2B8n4x878ccW8bea0mPJMdLVpDug-3D" type="external">source</a> of scandalous <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h5/XRKgPkcogAW-2FcrBWJXPDlJS6Q-2FiSp2IxOUbyuv0Rdec-2Bjz-2BFz9qbEDBOnYeSMeCsCguNM0XqCYL4er8ypP0ph0F8JFOJ7kai-2FKOJEtAmCU-2BaCQUeu8g1oGJfmWu-2FvlO7BvQvYPAQ6hnVNiGfS8-2BG8LjrcGiwPgyeDaXwroYfKrwYPdrzWWdY264-2Fi26q7kze3cByoO0NSepe3pEBkrN8nMgFTfMHHD7adPI76T1Towb00eTyXzcDTiHLMdqSnsMELe302XiwYBnzo-2FLM0Vdxt1C-2BxAyeZS87hSLMvhvjZs1dQ4myIYAXH9fN6NDJNJ4AOkdJzNPm9IS0POVrxU4yvX3P90JTJds0ByAUKW455pKyPddZP-2Fqlk5gnORUhx59HjKiyykpuQl1FwKvW-2Bj1TB2yfvQ8p2SkiLhPrUsmCXNX-2BEGy37FN-2FJ7aQnX8TDj-2F8LFkNwQ0dXrqqUJGbFRxcZNe7GvZISeYNpjCzFaXxvdD4vmg1N9DvH1yr8ZznrJ6BaB2q-2F5IequB-2Fwca-2BM7EujyAvdl6wzLqqudIspC5FvhObkMg1bjEylyrBsUdpiA4N" type="external">stories</a> of <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h6/xBcAx3HbYqeyHIz5GdL8zcbM3Tp6Ia88oejgmkgJx0Jw3Hw75k7PIWSkTLxzrR6YxcUuebengMyjmhRFtb8CwyERFkWt1k0cosAisKy6NIoaM4-2BJfoLZdJuwW2Su-2FNZqokAwkfJZ1H-2FvWRy9O5dlkBCZgyWc-2F076i4zzvhvcuPM-2Bns892isC980yi9R8opD-2FyJhbQ-2BlaJ2B16kKq6xaO7T8wMXXZDet0bSX5nsCvQ5pN5akFq0teneaDhkJlbFwj0JgmWwV30wPzi-2BvKBonIkAiGjZGvZRtZhUoU8WySQ242GgyiHXN-2BgXfC7ienAZUB3jGHqCcvfXuQbPVEwd5YgxhMF6lC2Seuxe4rw0D2L4uIxgMm9bchKNBRAARGIs5bR4zrQ2YhSBzOaSLivwkugJioRcalm5sS77UuhcRrXcO6tRzzXvFB-2Be4o04MjPC3NkVCSPRMqCVoaXejnWtA2D0NtMBg-2Bnt97UqZbdG1LEQtqMFptWfwYx2NtaiJuicp0y3tkPg-2ByFumxs3hI6599-2FpO9pL-2FIm46FytJ5QIerB2U-3D" type="external">fraud</a> and <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h7/xE9xEY-2FaPDx8aHXofvG4yPrZ0xtY-2BM7O84PIYADPp7iKHih2NM5WIkI3f30D0rho7k0DfggsqbY8JXLdVz2rnFaPWEfLAbbxRI-2B2wdqrjEYkM8y4sWrMVR48s-2FmXGRBW2cP9kBNtXOJCvGVQgYCKlDo-2B39pPI1-2FAvFaSFH1MeTA72ZM0byIiAncfMN5GyHK6AWa6Hm50vlwAdJcSljPI6-2Bw0cXxEf-2BntSZEm9sB9AmgEh0SgNZQUb-2FTF9rrXT-2BlZmBQBO92FMpC3sTb2QTaaNTbdWSkzrsU4lrKFzCR8McEu587MpmJKdEcZ-2FCs-2FrxfzbiHgu9rmLqYs35S-2FKCIynjSSLlR-2B3aY1t9JdA4osfk8be3XXXaq4XpzhXhSeoRun4RzTcCp9OtUeEW61H9uDOAn0TfYi3Lp1ZOzus2pjFXaRBIrR578SLvq8jFQBpS8L4QMK-2BiGokgz6oOU9kPmmVpQ8sNwZuNGgIXO3I6Qtc3WMsCYtHZHq8WeJyazjXHkHwo7EThSJAzzg5Za34fOxJxWQwgbPXtORnItH9yvutn3sJXGg7Q9rMWP8hdo-2FzwD2fbqLRVp6iDgHMhbrtujqDUudYvpaon11i610rJ258dM-3D" type="external">waste</a>. Even as an investment in the U.S. economy this war has been <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h8/lQAFXLiaWjoOhd28p5uwOmNuAxW7-2Bt3dzbHKOuXCfJtDhrfEiyt2wBc6yxrjZ2WE-2B9jQmUFbR-2FbgMD5ZVAMFfBHZQdVUIaSwZHGQyXjkoZcWB3wAKvBzV8oXstW6q-2B9XQNnFYOt2Xa74wD8Wxxq3CKRxKH12Wn-2FjG-2BQFQ2JrT8ZKFlfub9E99T6tjRkMXM7yapLZvazOtunXq2u0h19Ofoxzr93JQanYbyaOzcHXdCHK-2Bcx2TsaB13uAPWikBYhXemnEdLrD1W-2FcKu7pFntyBcdPOENdG4-2F7Jy76-2FvRs1g1iauOcOqIo05bpYfAy7AdIuKWSAQoI9bCr37ki7IMB4lqJhEOFc4u4QFgaUw40KuSpJNsX5dIZoFxEDJqb23mFouWUABrwiFH6YnyubQvKcOJ0XcgEOQcyMj5pnj8YDmWUrvSdXLhQ3GIQjlh6RHGRp7w20J33cJJJjbmck2AI198VaCi5ILAm27-2BqG-2BfcK31gml6qyaEWGP4EuuHVNypQvdWOKezgt85hosEsANNARFMzQ-2Fsmcch1RFjBNec7Cs-2FXHxRUqFCHIB4J6Uz-2FEFVHU1wqksUjoiVzR0HoE2tLhQ-3D-3D" type="external">a bust</a>.</p>
<p>But the war has had a substantial impact on our security: it has endangered us. Before Faisal Shahzad tried to blow up a car in Times Square, he had tried to join the war against the United States in Afghanistan. In numerous other incidents, terrorists targeting the United States have stated their motives as including revenge for the U.S. war in Afghanistan, along with other U.S. wars in the region. There is no reason to imagine this will change.</p>
<p>In addition, Afghanistan is the one nation where the United States is engaged in major warfare with a country that is a member of the International Criminal Court. That body has now <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h9/0NMlYTJFelCc96MaVI-2FD-2FgI3Xl3EHKAYJeDXl1tJo4hu1pmYbV3k7oSsEtGRuuJs0xFX66ffhfwNVzgVQHqf3Qzyo9caVHKh3gvkYjx49Upml3P2xNrsnm3zxQDAcq1YgSTC7NA7SzXjgZd14ANejy2MA-2FCRWz1kT0RanAQVKZt-2Bfj0B951tWwMZSnqacNVXFmFgkPQZ0lXONv1Jnz7Y-2Fqf-2F-2BMBcrI2UdSyREs71nQ8-2BQNW6fp6tbnRxl74cqjKCHWdpe2gcFk6l0hfGrin8ZFrc3jrd7E4Rd-2BaTAj-2FX3XOAYu2-2FLsp0tXEkWC6TlsPVSV8X4NtTcHhJRt1uF2heZnj6aYB5cahTVMFvuS86b1oDzgr6mIKhaiKnNhZzQlyk9IoVmZM2Vl9wFV-2FHFr3iTEBz62zfq17ZKWtVMt4t-2Bt-2F1oHKXbmPHiQQt6VF4XzqfmBFu9VN-2B5FZIZNmGKq96HLw0jSwQjcEEP32huu8NHx5CydcyfssxwpOsHvTu5gk1" type="external">announced</a> that it is <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h10/o3hKGjP2lyKkChtzXOzYGfH6JCTQMWK9QvsjBG2lPsEiwZfEOrNTaLzOOjLIiimNDkLMR2S0UebzmHVL8A3SMRScvm4RBkf3gU8ThSxXRe4zAT5ncSYAscza5MjgmuRzDXMM-2FM1MpjjkPQREtle9WSFThZFd-2FxHJoE7zMBbx14KSbqvGU-2FE9Xt-2FVrB-2BnJcFmOOruRWNd1bprC3SYFZG3AsMiJVAWjkmbJfjz1-2FlZs7NllBW4-2FSVc-2F8YPECqXbIbdkqRZU1yGzzdBToX7muDCD306LzkCslLiqCccjQ2Ydcxry4H-2BSkG38-2BhrAhwLcXwVWCsqz4FG2VsXZBhwK4NBDQ0U19TIX4cgT5rnI2Ork5M2GKM2lrwQL5KDsDn0UUajCdg6efPH1fGgTRKOuhSKhst6-2BnE7LDeRuIeuyX3wwIlALmUOgVi92T5ggT-2Bkk43rlv1eZOPML0QOAdXaWKsID1oJAQq376iuIkwJLlcEMZXRTvopYSLi35WBA5gNBO6rAa4r-2F1mm406zfv1ozppr-2FZlf-2F264YIfp000ss3d-2Fpc9Ht3aHFZDxIFmghgjI1oRH95mkGCv4LPw4saN4SeH-2FHw-3D-3D" type="external">investigating</a> possible prosecutions for U.S. crimes in Afghanistan. Over the past 15 years, we have been treated to an almost routine repetition of scandals: hunting children from helicopters, blowing up hospitals with drones, urinating on corpses — all fueling anti-U.S. propaganda, all brutalizing and shaming the United States.</p>
<p>Ordering young American men and women into a kill-or-die mission that was accomplished 15 years ago is a lot to ask. Expecting them to believe in that mission is too much. That fact may help explain this one: the top killer of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is suicide. The second highest killer of American military is green on blue, or the Afghan youth who the U.S. is training are turning their weapons on their trainers! You yourself recognized this, <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2QA/ni0YAA/t.27x/EXDlZfkHT-yU_I6Y0t4LwQ/h11/kDzY-2FVtrXQTbhmyM1aiDSy-2B3MBcLsIgMx553d75YZz4zshH-2FH-2FcjZd1a3DLE8Ixv8PPyyUOlxGhPChUxEFIhpMR5mCQ-2FrbuXmPRpPSkTzychcOvYgfjffVp7ROm1-2Fux-2BRVJqJEjqCfTCJs8FP4k0WL9uSWP5x-2FkruGH5bW1iWGY1FRYe0cmrIGsafLiYtG2U4FVmnm6fK-2FqVf9FlvQ0ZFmBWQWmIi5j8a7PU-2FKjOO9n8jMuhTIvpbKen4uUK-2FWGaJ5o2aKkb6ZRT8qOlQnTyGx347KVFK22IBzrigw1O9FZI12aQvrNiIy5uTxyApqq-2B-2FEi5ctwyDCdLcyZPXMQsi2Dx2eM2fkG7x68Zh6oJhDUlAIeET-2Fk60SAbZV-2FG3yvDdSqwNVWWDEfst-2BXN-2BcpQe46tp2C4wRPt7GZ-2BCsqX-2B5ycS9hDhU9ssGB2fYwn2YS696jTmOsRnt2mtR1t2F0b-2B7yRWU6TnxwNDIvL2x6EiXxHS3STF09RnfT3Z3X-2B-2BecG" type="external">saying</a>: “Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghans we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.”</p>
<p>The withdrawal of U.S. troops would also be good for the Afghan people, as the presence of foreign soldiers has been an obstacle to peace talks. The Afghans themselves have to determine their future, and will only be able to do so once there is an end to foreign intervention.</p>
<p>We urge you to turn the page on this catastrophic military intervention. Bring all U.S. troops home from Afghanistan. Cease U.S. airstrikes and instead, for a fraction of the cost, help the Afghans with food, shelter, and agricultural equipment.</p>
<p>­This article was originally published at <a href="http://davidswanson.org/brad-pitt-does-stanley-mcchrystal-when-netflix-war-movie-stops-being-funny/" type="external">DavidSwanson.org</a>.</p> | false | 1 | netflix original film war machine constitutes extent punishment real stanley mcchrystal ever receive crimes new movie war machine netflix starring brad pitt begins hilarious satisfying mockery general stanley mcchrystal circa 2009 well militarism general hilarious deadpan sincere idiocy satisfying least us screaming idiots past fifteenandahalf years glad hollywood movie still made mocking murderous malevolence true believers militarism disturbed theaters wont show movies end netflix glad war satire set afghanistan didnt wait decades different war manner mash disturbed viewers know current war mocked either believe war afghanistan ended simply cant keep proliferation wars regardless recommend making sure every movielover brad pitt fan young person old person watch movie watch sincere truebelieving military commander sycophants consciously choose win unwinnable war proposing straightfaced work protecting people killing killing less something basic truth people dont want armed foreigners towns would rather bombed presented straightforward dialogue well comedic exchange brad pitts character based stanley mcchrystal michael hastings account mcchrystal depicted turned human hammer unable see problem anything nail ambition win war driving blindness absolute unwinnability foreign occupations counterinsurgency counterterrorism also known terrorism whole thing stops funny threequarters way movie protests troops distinguish civilians enemies becomes actual demonstration inability get watch general charge articulate usual platitudes nonsensical peprally lies even lies still lies man whose child murdered us troops laughter gone even see village leader ask general please leave theres little satisfaction plea afghan people past decade half finally making us ears know us military ever listen also know movie constitutes extent punishment real stanley mcchrystal ever receive crimes trial legal judgment speculation cause death michael hastings continues speculation whether individuals crashing us war machine afghanistan year year committed murder futile criminal attempt advance personal interests end doubt done massive scale movie points us newspaper television station dares state endangering united states banner slogans claiming defending protecting heres part open letter president donald trump anyone sign united states spending 4 million hour planes drones bombs guns overpriced contractors country needs food agricultural equipment much could provided us businesses thus far united states spent outrageous 783 billion virtually nothing show except death thousands us soldiers death injury displacement millions afghans afghanistan war continue long lasts steady source scandalous stories fraud waste even investment us economy war bust war substantial impact security endangered us faisal shahzad tried blow car times square tried join war united states afghanistan numerous incidents terrorists targeting united states stated motives including revenge us war afghanistan along us wars region reason imagine change addition afghanistan one nation united states engaged major warfare country member international criminal court body announced investigating possible prosecutions us crimes afghanistan past 15 years treated almost routine repetition scandals hunting children helicopters blowing hospitals drones urinating corpses fueling antius propaganda brutalizing shaming united states ordering young american men women killordie mission accomplished 15 years ago lot ask expecting believe mission much fact may help explain one top killer us troops afghanistan suicide second highest killer american military green blue afghan youth us training turning weapons trainers recognized saying lets get afghanistan troops killed afghans train waste billions nonsense rebuild usa withdrawal us troops would also good afghan people presence foreign soldiers obstacle peace talks afghans determine future able end foreign intervention urge turn page catastrophic military intervention bring us troops home afghanistan cease us airstrikes instead fraction cost help afghans food shelter agricultural equipment article originally published davidswansonorg | 558 |
<p />
<p>“I want people to see the truth…regardless of who they are…because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” – Bradley Manning</p>
<p>“Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.” – George Bernard Shaw</p>
<p>Ever since <a href="http://www.wikileaks.ch/" type="external">WikiLeaks</a> became a household name this past summer, following the release of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-war-logs" type="external">77,000 secret U.S. documents</a> relating to the ongoing occupation and destruction of Afghanistan, many American politicians and pundits have been calling for blood. Despite then-top military commander General Stanley McChrystal’s own <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/asia/27afghan.html" type="external">admission</a> in March of this year, the U.S. military in Afghanistan has “shot an amazing number of people” even though “none has ever proven to be a threat,” the ire resulting from the activities of WikiLeaks is directed at the whistle-blowers themselves, rather than at those actually implicated in war crimes as shown by the leaked documents.</p>
<p>In their eternal allegiance to government secrecy, aggressive imperialism, and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/28/AR2010112804139.html" type="external">American exceptionalism</a>, numerous WikiLeaks’ critics have been outraged over the publication of U.S. government documents.&#160; While accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of everything from <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-indictment-us-charge-julian-assange-espionage-act/story?id=12369173" type="external">espionage</a> to <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitch-mcconnell-julian-assange-is-a-high-tech-terrorist/" type="external">terrorism</a> to <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-lieberman-thinks-ny-times-should-be-criminally-investigated-for-publishing-wikileaks/" type="external">treason</a> (Assange isn’t a U.S. citizen), they hold him <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-29/us/wikileaks.mullen.gates_1_julian-assange-leak-defense-robert-gates?_s=PM:US" type="external">responsible for the deaths</a> of both soldiers and civilians and have even publicly suggested and supported threats to assassinate him.</p>
<p>The U.S. State Department <a href="" type="internal">claimed</a> that the release of classified cables would “at a minimum…place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals”, and Attorney General Eric Holder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks.investigation/" type="external">stated</a> his belief that “national security of the United States has been put at risk. The lives of people who work for the American people have been put at risk. The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that I believe are arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way.”</p>
<p>Defense Secretary Robert Gates has <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkpoint-washington/2010/11/the_obama_administration_has_w.html" type="external">described</a> these hysterical reactions to WikiLeaks release as “fairly significantly overwrought” due to the continuing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/weekinreview/12shane.html" type="external">slow and calculated release</a> of over 251,000 previously secret and classified U.S. diplomatic cables ( <a href="http://wikileaks.ch/cablegate.html" type="external">fewer than 1,500</a> cables have been released so far).&#160; Still, there are increasing calls not only for Assange’s <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-12/13/usa-chasing-assange?page=all" type="external">indictment</a>, but also explicitly for his murder.</p>
<p>On November 29, Fox News‘s Bill O’Reilly <a href="http://www.newser.com/story/106441/oreilly-execute-wikileakers.html" type="external">declared</a> on air that those responsible for the leaked documents are “traitors in America” and that they “should be executed,” adding “or put in prison for life,” as a dismissive afterthought.</p>
<p>The next day, Bill Kristol, in a The Weekly Standard article entitled “Whack WikiLeaks,” <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/whack-wikileaks_520462.html" type="external">urged</a> the United States government to “neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are” and hoped for a glorious, unified bipartisan effort “to degrade, defeat, and destroy WikiLeaks.” One need only recall what Senator Lindsey Graham said in early November about “ <a href="https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hGDFKykJx818laJsg5DLiL6oKAbw?docId=CNG.b7b0e11361e7847889195c6db3707f9e.6f1" type="external">neutering</a>” the Iranian government to get an idea of what Kristol is talking about.</p>
<p>Sarah Palin <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2010/12/01/sarah-palin-hunt-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-down-like-osama-bin-laden-115875-22753049/" type="external">chimed in</a> on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587&amp;notes_tab=app_2347471856#%21/note.php?note_id=465212788434" type="external">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/1130/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-Does-Sarah-Palin-think-CIA-should-neutralize-him" type="external">writing</a> that Assange “is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands” who should be “pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.” This very urgency was mentioned in a presidential debate in October 2008 by Palin campaign opponent Barack Obama, who <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2008_Pres_2_War_+_Peace.htm" type="external">made the following promise</a> to Americans: “We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.” One can assume that Palin meant that the WikiLeaks founder should be hunted with a similar kind of lethal force and not that he should simply be left alone to <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&amp;aid=15601" type="external">die peacefully</a> from <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8444069.stm" type="external">kidney failure</a> in the mountains of Tora Bora <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020701-265412,00.html" type="external">nine years ago</a> while his <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml" type="external">family is quickly placed under the protection of the FBI</a> and flown to a secure location. But then again, it’s Sarah Palin.</p>
<p>On the same day, another 2012 Republican presidential hopeful <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee" type="external">wished for the assassination</a> of Assange.&#160; Former Arkansas governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee, speaking at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation &amp; Library, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45757.html" type="external">told reporters</a>, “Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” Huckabee, who was signing copies of his new children’s book, “Can’t Wait Till Christmas!” at the time, was presumably referring to U.S. Army intelligence analyst <a href="http://www.bradleymanning.org/" type="external">Bradley Manning</a>, who is accused of providing WikiLeaks with the classified documents and is currently being held in <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html" type="external">intense solitary confinement</a> the brig at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. Manning has been locked up in Quantico or five months now, after spending two months detained in a military jail in Kuwait. Manning, like Assange, has not been convicted of any crime. Kids, Christmas, and Capital Punishment. Thanks, Mike!</p>
<p>Fox News national security analyst Kathleen McFarland <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/30/yes-wikileaks-terrorist-organization-time-act/" type="external">urged</a> the United States to declare WikiLeaks a terrorist organization, kidnap Assange, and try him in a military tribunal for espionage. Furthermore, McFarland, who served in the Pentagon under the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations and is currently a “Distinguished Adviser” at the Iran-hating/Israel-advocating think tank The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, agreed with Huckabee that Manning should be charged and tried as a traitor for exposing American war crimes, criminal negligence, and diplomatic duplicity. “If he’s found guilty,” she wrote, “he should be executed.”</p>
<p>Also on November 30, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) – whose <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-general-israel-palestinian-conflict-foments-anti-u-s-sentiment-1.264910" type="external">contradictory</a> motto reads Securing America, Strengthening Israel – addressed the WikiLeaks release by <a href="http://www.jinsa.org/node/2074" type="external">musing</a> whether the U.S. government would “try to hang Manning from the nearest tree?”</p>
<p>In a post on the right-wing website Red State on December 1, a commenter by the moniker “lexington_concord” fantasized about Julian Assange receiving the Abe Lincoln treatment. “Under the traditional rules of engagement he is thus subject to summary execution,” he <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-state-poster-urges-small-caliber-round-in-the-back-of-his-head-for-assange/" type="external">writes</a>, “and my preferred course of action would be for Assange to find a small caliber round in the back of his head.”</p>
<p>The following day, Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/assassinate-assange/" type="external">published a vitriolic attack</a> on Assange, whom he accused of being “an anti-American radical who wants to see the United States defeated by its Islamic fascist enemies.” Other goals Kuhner ascribed to Assange included the humiliation of America “on the world stage, to drain it of all moral and legal legitimacy – especially regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Kuhner wrote that Assange “is aiding and abetting terrorists in their war against America,” and suggested that the Obama administration “take care of the problem – effectively and permanently” by treating Assange as an “enemy combatant” and “the same way as other high-value terrorist targets.” It is no surprise, therefore, that Kuhner’s column was entitled “Assassinate Assange.”</p>
<p>Though it may seem strange that a Montreal native like Kuhner is disappointed that “America is no longer feared or respected,” he is not the only Canadian to harbor such violent visions of Assange’s murder. Tom Flanagan, a senior adviser to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee" type="external">plainly</a> on the Canadian TV station CBC, “I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something.”</p>
<p>Speaking with Chris Wallace on Fox News, former House Speaker and paid Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/gingrich-assange-enemy-combatant/" type="external">said</a> on December 5 that “Julian Assange is engaged in warfare. Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed is terrorism. And Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism.” As such, Gingrich suggested, “He should be treated as an enemy combatant and WikiLeaks should be closed down permanently and decisively.” If recent history is any indication, as an enemy combatant Assange would most likely be either murdered in his own country by U.S. soldiers and air strikes or kidnapped, tortured, and indefinitely imprisoned in inhumane conditions without charge or trial.</p>
<p />
<p /> | false | 1 | want people see truthregardless arebecause without information make informed decisions public bradley manning assassination extreme form censorship george bernard shaw ever since wikileaks became household name past summer following release 77000 secret us documents relating ongoing occupation destruction afghanistan many american politicians pundits calling blood despite thentop military commander general stanley mcchrystals admission march year us military afghanistan shot amazing number people even though none ever proven threat ire resulting activities wikileaks directed whistleblowers rather actually implicated war crimes shown leaked documents eternal allegiance government secrecy aggressive imperialism american exceptionalism numerous wikileaks critics outraged publication us government documents160 accusing wikileaks founder julian assange everything espionage terrorism treason assange isnt us citizen hold responsible deaths soldiers civilians even publicly suggested supported threats assassinate us state department claimed release classified cables would minimumplace risk lives countless innocent individuals attorney general eric holder stated belief national security united states put risk lives people work american people put risk american people put risk actions believe arrogant misguided ultimately helpful way defense secretary robert gates described hysterical reactions wikileaks release fairly significantly overwrought due continuing slow calculated release 251000 previously secret classified us diplomatic cables fewer 1500 cables released far160 still increasing calls assanges indictment also explicitly murder november 29 fox newss bill oreilly declared air responsible leaked documents traitors america executed adding put prison life dismissive afterthought next day bill kristol weekly standard article entitled whack wikileaks urged united states government neutralize julian assange collaborators wherever hoped glorious unified bipartisan effort degrade defeat destroy wikileaks one need recall senator lindsey graham said early november neutering iranian government get idea kristol talking sarah palin chimed facebook writing assange antiamerican operative blood hands pursued urgency pursue al qaeda taliban leaders urgency mentioned presidential debate october 2008 palin campaign opponent barack obama made following promise americans kill bin laden crush al qaeda biggest national security priority one assume palin meant wikileaks founder hunted similar kind lethal force simply left alone die peacefully kidney failure mountains tora bora nine years ago family quickly placed protection fbi flown secure location sarah palin day another 2012 republican presidential hopeful wished assassination assange160 former arkansas governor fox news host mike huckabee speaking ronald reagan presidential foundation amp library told reporters whoever government leaked information guilty treason think anything less execution kind penalty huckabee signing copies new childrens book cant wait till christmas time presumably referring us army intelligence analyst bradley manning accused providing wikileaks classified documents currently held intense solitary confinement brig marine corps base quantico virginia manning locked quantico five months spending two months detained military jail kuwait manning like assange convicted crime kids christmas capital punishment thanks mike fox news national security analyst kathleen mcfarland urged united states declare wikileaks terrorist organization kidnap assange try military tribunal espionage furthermore mcfarland served pentagon nixon ford reagan administrations currently distinguished adviser iranhatingisraeladvocating think tank foundation defense democracies agreed huckabee manning charged tried traitor exposing american war crimes criminal negligence diplomatic duplicity hes found guilty wrote executed also november 30 jewish institute national security affairs jinsa whose contradictory motto reads securing america strengthening israel addressed wikileaks release musing whether us government would try hang manning nearest tree post rightwing website red state december 1 commenter moniker lexington_concord fantasized julian assange receiving abe lincoln treatment traditional rules engagement thus subject summary execution writes preferred course action would assange find small caliber round back head following day washington times columnist jeffrey kuhner published vitriolic attack assange accused antiamerican radical wants see united states defeated islamic fascist enemies goals kuhner ascribed assange included humiliation america world stage drain moral legal legitimacy especially regarding wars iraq afghanistan kuhner wrote assange aiding abetting terrorists war america suggested obama administration take care problem effectively permanently treating assange enemy combatant way highvalue terrorist targets surprise therefore kuhners column entitled assassinate assange though may seem strange montreal native like kuhner disappointed america longer feared respected canadian harbor violent visions assanges murder tom flanagan senior adviser canadian prime minister stephen harper said plainly canadian tv station cbc think assange assassinated actually think obama put contract maybe use drone something speaking chris wallace fox news former house speaker paid fox news contributor newt gingrich said december 5 julian assange engaged warfare information terrorism leads people getting killed terrorism julian assange engaged terrorism gingrich suggested treated enemy combatant wikileaks closed permanently decisively recent history indication enemy combatant assange would likely either murdered country us soldiers air strikes kidnapped tortured indefinitely imprisoned inhumane conditions without charge trial | 743 |
<p>I had thought that Matt Lewis’s new book about the conservative Republican future, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Too-Dumb-Fail-Revolution-Conservative/dp/0316383937" type="external">Too Dumb To Fail</a>, had a title that was accurate but a bit ahead of its time. Then, on the eve of the book’s publication, Sarah Palin endorsed the Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, with a rambling “speech” that thoroughly earned a New York Daily News front page headline “I’m With Stupid”. When real life proves your point more than any publicity campaign possibly could, it’s time for concerned conservatives to see what Lewis teaches us.</p>
<p>Lewis argues that the current conservative crisis stems from an intellectual crisis he terms the dumbing down of conservatism. As conservatism has increasingly become less tied to serious intellectual arguments, Lewis contends that it has become defined by its lowest common denominator, anger at the left. This, combined with the rise of an establishment that profits enormously from stoking that anger (he calls it “the Con$ervative Movement”), has created a conservatism that is both unable to argue rather than assert and uninterested in persuading Americans who are not already true believers to join their cause. This has resulted in “a sort of red meat-hurling style” that harms rather than advances the opportunities conservatives have to govern and change America. Moreover, since “the dumbing down of conservatism has (so far) resulted in the worst offenders failing forward,” (i.e., their stature and income grow as they make conservatism less appealing to the broader swath of Americans), “[t]hey are, in essence, too dumb to fail”.</p>
<p>Lewis, an up and coming conservative journalist with gigs at The Daily Caller and Morning Joe, does not shy away from naming names. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz come in for criticism, the latter for his futile and counterproductive crusade to shut down the government rather than approve a budget that included funding for Obamacare even though there was never slightest chance of funding repeal becoming law. Talk radio and television heavyweights Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham get called out for their roles as ringleaders in the “conservative entertainment complex”. The august Heritage Foundation’s new lobbying arm, Heritage Action for America, also gets knocked for its increasingly strident efforts to enforce a conservative orthodoxy of its own definition through money and muscle.</p>
<p>This book is far from a standard D.C. “if only they listened to me” critique. Lewis’ essential argument is that the current crisis is decades in the making, the unintended consequence of a series of understandable decisions made decades ago to help address the challenges the movement faced in the 1980s and 90s. The first was the decision to court Southern evangelicals. Lewis is himself a Southern (West Virginia) evangelical, so here he criticizes his own when he notes that evangelicals have long shied away from engagement with the less-devout world. This has meant they as a group tend to lack intellectual curiosity and rigor. Bringing a decidedly unintellectual group into the movement, Lewis contends, encouraged the movement itself to move away from its strength, its use of argument to explain America’s challenges and propose real solutions that solve them.</p>
<p>The second was the decision to create an alternative conservative media universe. In the face of the left’s domination of the high ground of intellectual discourse (universities, newspapers, and television), this was both necessary and helpful. But, combined with the appetite for red meat arguments from the newly converted base, it has led to a conservative ghetto where well-meaning conservatives can live without ever coming into contact with people who disagree with them. Pandered to by “leaders” who profit enormously from keeping their flock sheltered, this has created a worldview in which conservatives are an embattled majority suppressed only by the betrayal of elites and their putative leaders. “Informed” by such falsehoods, it is no wonder when we ponder a future as I write of a Republican party led either by a demagogue or a charlatan.</p>
<p>How to get out of this rabbit hole? Lewis offers a host of ideas, but they boil down to one phrase: Get smart. Conservatives should start to read deeply in their own tradition (he proposes a set of books to get started with). They should learn how political engagement really works if they want to become politically active (starting with learning how campaigns really work), and those who want to engage the culture should become excellent at their craft (literature, movie making, music) rather than simply use mediocre talents to advance their views. They should spend some time outside of the conservative ghetto to understand the broader world they live in, and in so doing sharpen their arguments to make conservative victory more, not less, probable.</p>
<p>I have my quibbles with some of Lewis’s advice. He correctly observes that demographics will force the current GOP to change, as its core white, non-college-educated base shrinks in size and Hispanics, Asians, and college-educated whites grow in numbers. In the short term, however, I believe the only path forward is to court non-evangelical non-college-educated whites, as they both currently in motion between the two parties and are the decisive voting bloc in the electoral vote rich Midwest. Doing so will also help conservatives learn in the long term how to increase their support among Hispanic and Asians, as those voters tend to come from lower-education and more communal backgrounds that make them less hospitable to an individualistic, purely classical liberal economic message. Hispanics, according to polls from the Public Religion Research Institute, favor increasing taxes and government spending over cutting taxes and letting the private sector work by a 2-1 margin. Learning how to court working- and lower-middle-class voters, which is the only way to both win the Midwest and increase the GOP’s vote share among Hispanics and Asians, requires more than simply arguing for lower taxes.</p>
<p>But this quibble is merely a difference among allies about strategy. Indeed, such an approach requires more of exactly what Lewis says the movement and the party need: practical intelligence, pragmatism and skillful deployment.</p>
<p>Conservatives who feel dismayed at the current state of affairs should run out and buy Lewis’ book. He will show you how to begin to stop being too dumb to fail, and start being smart enough to succeed.</p>
<p>Henry Olsen is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and co-author of Four Faces of the Republican Party: The Fight for the 2016 Presidential Nomination (Palgrave, 2016).</p> | false | 1 | thought matt lewiss new book conservative republican future dumb fail title accurate bit ahead time eve books publication sarah palin endorsed republican frontrunner donald trump rambling speech thoroughly earned new york daily news front page headline im stupid real life proves point publicity campaign possibly could time concerned conservatives see lewis teaches us lewis argues current conservative crisis stems intellectual crisis terms dumbing conservatism conservatism increasingly become less tied serious intellectual arguments lewis contends become defined lowest common denominator anger left combined rise establishment profits enormously stoking anger calls conervative movement created conservatism unable argue rather assert uninterested persuading americans already true believers join cause resulted sort red meathurling style harms rather advances opportunities conservatives govern change america moreover since dumbing conservatism far resulted worst offenders failing forward ie stature income grow make conservatism less appealing broader swath americans essence dumb fail lewis coming conservative journalist gigs daily caller morning joe shy away naming names trump senator ted cruz come criticism latter futile counterproductive crusade shut government rather approve budget included funding obamacare even though never slightest chance funding repeal becoming law talk radio television heavyweights rush limbaugh sean hannity laura ingraham get called roles ringleaders conservative entertainment complex august heritage foundations new lobbying arm heritage action america also gets knocked increasingly strident efforts enforce conservative orthodoxy definition money muscle book far standard dc listened critique lewis essential argument current crisis decades making unintended consequence series understandable decisions made decades ago help address challenges movement faced 1980s 90s first decision court southern evangelicals lewis southern west virginia evangelical criticizes notes evangelicals long shied away engagement lessdevout world meant group tend lack intellectual curiosity rigor bringing decidedly unintellectual group movement lewis contends encouraged movement move away strength use argument explain americas challenges propose real solutions solve second decision create alternative conservative media universe face lefts domination high ground intellectual discourse universities newspapers television necessary helpful combined appetite red meat arguments newly converted base led conservative ghetto wellmeaning conservatives live without ever coming contact people disagree pandered leaders profit enormously keeping flock sheltered created worldview conservatives embattled majority suppressed betrayal elites putative leaders informed falsehoods wonder ponder future write republican party led either demagogue charlatan get rabbit hole lewis offers host ideas boil one phrase get smart conservatives start read deeply tradition proposes set books get started learn political engagement really works want become politically active starting learning campaigns really work want engage culture become excellent craft literature movie making music rather simply use mediocre talents advance views spend time outside conservative ghetto understand broader world live sharpen arguments make conservative victory less probable quibbles lewiss advice correctly observes demographics force current gop change core white noncollegeeducated base shrinks size hispanics asians collegeeducated whites grow numbers short term however believe path forward court nonevangelical noncollegeeducated whites currently motion two parties decisive voting bloc electoral vote rich midwest also help conservatives learn long term increase support among hispanic asians voters tend come lowereducation communal backgrounds make less hospitable individualistic purely classical liberal economic message hispanics according polls public religion research institute favor increasing taxes government spending cutting taxes letting private sector work 21 margin learning court working lowermiddleclass voters way win midwest increase gops vote share among hispanics asians requires simply arguing lower taxes quibble merely difference among allies strategy indeed approach requires exactly lewis says movement party need practical intelligence pragmatism skillful deployment conservatives feel dismayed current state affairs run buy lewis book show begin stop dumb fail start smart enough succeed henry olsen senior fellow ethics public policy center coauthor four faces republican party fight 2016 presidential nomination palgrave 2016 | 599 |
<p>Senator Hillary Clinton has it exactly backwards. Government-run Medicare is not the solution to what ails health care. It’s a big part of the problem.</p>
<p>In the reform <a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf" type="external">plan</a> she unveiled last month, Clinton proposed creating a new insurance option for Americans under age 65 that is “similar to Medicare.” If a worker doesn’t like his employer plan or other private-insurance options, she promised, he will be able to sign up for this new government-run insurance plan.</p>
<p>This is not a new idea. During the 1993-1994 health-care debate, it was dubbed “Medicare for All” and was pushed by single-payer advocates in Congress as an alternative to the original Clinton plan.</p>
<p>Clinton has now embraced and updated the idea — enrollment would be voluntary, not mandatory as it was in the 1990’s version — but the effect would be the same: more bureaucratic control of health-care arrangements, with lower quality, less innovation, more inefficiency, and still rapidly rising costs. Indeed, the irony of Medicare is that the program’s complex and burdensome payment regulations, aimed at controlling costs, actually drive up costs for the program — and everyone else who pays for health care too.</p>
<p>Government-run Medicare is 1960’s-style fee-for-service insurance. No attempt is made to manage the use of services with a network of affiliated providers or other mechanisms. The only way to controls costs in this kind of insurance is to require enrollees to pay for some of the costs when they get health care, thus discouraging unnecessary use, or to cut the payment rates per service. Predictably, politicians have preferred to cut payments rates rather than impose cost-sharing on beneficiaries. Today, most Medicare fee-for-service enrollees pay little or nothing at the point of service.</p>
<p>The result? An explosion in demand. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) reports that the average Medicare beneficiary used 30 percent more physician services in 2005 than they did just five years earlier. Spending for physician-administered tests went up 46 percent during this period, while use of CT scans and MRIs went up 61 percent.</p>
<p>To combat the costs of rising service use, Medicare administrators have tried just about every trick in the price control playbook. Indeed, the care and feeding of the payment systems for hospitals, physicians, physical therapists, nursing homes, labs, home health agencies and many others is now an all-consuming, all-year enterprise for the Medicare bureaucracy. Not surprisingly, doctors, hospitals, and other service providers have engaged their own small army of advocates to watch the bureaucracy’s every move and respond as necessary to protect their financial interests.</p>
<p>More often than not, it’s the health-care service providers who come out ahead in this struggle. Politicians and program officials do not want to be accused of disrupting how or where seniors get care. So, naturally, service providers use exactly that threat — closed facilities and reduced access — to extract payment rate concessions. And so, despite the issuance of mountains of payment rules by the bureaucracy, Medicare’s costs continue to rise as rapidly as ever, with no end in sight.</p>
<p>Medicare’s price controls not only don’t work to control costs, they also undermine the incentive for true, cost-reducing innovation. New types of organizations (like integrated hospital-physician efforts), pricing approaches (like a single bundled payment for a full episode of care), and ways of taking care of a patient (like over the internet and phone) are simply not accommodated by the program’s inflexible payment rules. Doctors and hospitals are thus understandably reluctant to invest in new, consumer-friendly and cost-effective approaches to providing care which will only pay off in the unlikely event Medicare officials will accommodate the change within a reasonable time frame. The result is that today’s costly system for delivering services is virtually frozen in place — for all users of U.S. health care, not just Medicare beneficiaries.</p>
<p>If Clinton succeeded in creating a new Medicare-like insurance option for working-age households, there is no reason to believe the results would differ from the four-decade experience of current Medicare. Many workers would enroll in the new government-run insurance because the price control system and other rules would shield them from high cost-sharing. With prices artificially low, demand for services would be high, and the government would respond with flawed and clumsy attempts to keep a lid on costs with tighter payment rates and more regulation. All the while, service providers would become resigned to working the payment regulator for higher fees instead of searching for better and less expensive ways of providing care.</p>
<p>What’s needed is a Medicare reform which deregulates consumption and fosters competition and cost-cutting innovation while ensuring reliable insurance for enrollees.</p>
<p>Reformers should look to the design of the new drug benefit for how to get started. For drug coverage, the government relies on price competition, not price controls, to keep overall costs in check. The Medicare program pays 65 percent of the weighted-average of the bids submitted by the competing insurance plans. The beneficiary then pays all of the difference between the Medicare payment and the actual premium charged by the insurance plan they have chosen.</p>
<p>The competition for drug benefit enrollees is not distorted by the presence of government-run insurance with regulated pricing. Drug plan sponsors are all private insurers competing on exactly the same terms: their ability, using only private-sector tools and innovation, to put together an attractive combination of covered drugs, price per prescription, and beneficiary cost-sharing — at the lowest possible premium.</p>
<p>The results have been promising — and unheard of in health care. Beneficiary premiums fell from 2006 to 2007, and Medicare officials <a href="http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicareadvtgspecratestats/Downloads/PartDandMAbenchmarks2008.pdf" type="external">announced</a> in August that the average monthly premium for 2008 will be just $2 higher than it was in 2006 — and 40-percent below original projections.</p>
<p>Despite these clearly favorable results, Clinton wants to impose government-dictated prices on drugs too. And yet she insists she no longer supports “government-run health care.” If she really meant it, she would be trying to make the rest of Medicare look more like the new drug benefit instead of the other way around.</p>
<p>— James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is also a health-policy and research consultant.</p> | false | 1 | senator hillary clinton exactly backwards governmentrun medicare solution ails health care big part problem reform plan unveiled last month clinton proposed creating new insurance option americans age 65 similar medicare worker doesnt like employer plan privateinsurance options promised able sign new governmentrun insurance plan new idea 19931994 healthcare debate dubbed medicare pushed singlepayer advocates congress alternative original clinton plan clinton embraced updated idea enrollment would voluntary mandatory 1990s version effect would bureaucratic control healthcare arrangements lower quality less innovation inefficiency still rapidly rising costs indeed irony medicare programs complex burdensome payment regulations aimed controlling costs actually drive costs program everyone else pays health care governmentrun medicare 1960sstyle feeforservice insurance attempt made manage use services network affiliated providers mechanisms way controls costs kind insurance require enrollees pay costs get health care thus discouraging unnecessary use cut payment rates per service predictably politicians preferred cut payments rates rather impose costsharing beneficiaries today medicare feeforservice enrollees pay little nothing point service result explosion demand medicare payment advisory commission medpac reports average medicare beneficiary used 30 percent physician services 2005 five years earlier spending physicianadministered tests went 46 percent period use ct scans mris went 61 percent combat costs rising service use medicare administrators tried every trick price control playbook indeed care feeding payment systems hospitals physicians physical therapists nursing homes labs home health agencies many others allconsuming allyear enterprise medicare bureaucracy surprisingly doctors hospitals service providers engaged small army advocates watch bureaucracys every move respond necessary protect financial interests often healthcare service providers come ahead struggle politicians program officials want accused disrupting seniors get care naturally service providers use exactly threat closed facilities reduced access extract payment rate concessions despite issuance mountains payment rules bureaucracy medicares costs continue rise rapidly ever end sight medicares price controls dont work control costs also undermine incentive true costreducing innovation new types organizations like integrated hospitalphysician efforts pricing approaches like single bundled payment full episode care ways taking care patient like internet phone simply accommodated programs inflexible payment rules doctors hospitals thus understandably reluctant invest new consumerfriendly costeffective approaches providing care pay unlikely event medicare officials accommodate change within reasonable time frame result todays costly system delivering services virtually frozen place users us health care medicare beneficiaries clinton succeeded creating new medicarelike insurance option workingage households reason believe results would differ fourdecade experience current medicare many workers would enroll new governmentrun insurance price control system rules would shield high costsharing prices artificially low demand services would high government would respond flawed clumsy attempts keep lid costs tighter payment rates regulation service providers would become resigned working payment regulator higher fees instead searching better less expensive ways providing care whats needed medicare reform deregulates consumption fosters competition costcutting innovation ensuring reliable insurance enrollees reformers look design new drug benefit get started drug coverage government relies price competition price controls keep overall costs check medicare program pays 65 percent weightedaverage bids submitted competing insurance plans beneficiary pays difference medicare payment actual premium charged insurance plan chosen competition drug benefit enrollees distorted presence governmentrun insurance regulated pricing drug plan sponsors private insurers competing exactly terms ability using privatesector tools innovation put together attractive combination covered drugs price per prescription beneficiary costsharing lowest possible premium results promising unheard health care beneficiary premiums fell 2006 2007 medicare officials announced august average monthly premium 2008 2 higher 2006 40percent original projections despite clearly favorable results clinton wants impose governmentdictated prices drugs yet insists longer supports governmentrun health care really meant would trying make rest medicare look like new drug benefit instead way around james c capretta fellow ethics public policy center also healthpolicy research consultant | 602 |
<p>The bicentennial of the Constitution of the United States affords us the opportunity to reflect on many things: the “miracle at Philadelphia” by which thirteen squabbling mini-states managed to forge agreement on an instrument of national governance; the fact that the instrument created during that muggy Philadelphia summer has stood the test of two centuries and is now the world’s oldest constitution; the ongoing, and often rancorous, debates over what the Framers intended and what that might mean in modern circumstances. The tone that has been set for the constitutional bicentennial is, properly, one of gratitude; the Framers indeed “built better than they knew,” as John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop of the United States, once put it.</p>
<p>For our purposes here, though, it is important to recognize that the Constitution has become more than an admirable framework for the national government. In its public meaning, ever-contested as that may be, it has become the embodiment of the American experiment. That phrase, “the American experiment,” is now emblazoned on two banners inviting visitors into the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The formulation “American experiment” suggests, as many wise observers have noted over the years, that this thing called the United States of America is a never-finished business. The governmental framework proposed two hundred years ago is the architecture, if you will, of a social, cultural, and civic (in the classic sense of the term) exploration of whether a free people under a limited government can, as Lincoln would have it, “long endure.” The United States is, in principle, never finished. The testing of the American experiment is an ongoing enterprise. In that sense all Americans, of whatever generation, are Founders and Framers.</p>
<p>Over the past ninety years or so the testing of the American experiment has involved the great question of the right role for the United States in world affairs. We are, by geography, history, and cultural inclination, a people perennially disposed toward isolationism. It is by no means a publicly settled issue whether the United States ought to take an active role in shaping world politics. Many of our deepest national instincts warn against such an effort. Traditional isolationism taught that entanglement in the affairs of the world would inevitably spoil our own experiment in democracy. Contemporary neo-isolationism teaches that a racist, sexist, imperialist United States is too dangerous for the world. But whether the appeal is to American virtue or American vice, the message is the same: beware foreign adventures, crusades, and imbroglios.</p>
<p>For good or for ill, and often for both, that counsel has been rendered less than persuasive by the facts of life in the contemporary world. One cannot, on the one hand, urge that this is an “interdependent” world and, on the other, urge the withdrawal of American power and influence from the contest for the world’s future. The voices of interdependence are correct about the basic structural fact of international life today: Economically, culturally, and strategically, the modern communications and transportation revolutions have created a world in which what happens on the tiny Pacific island of Vanuatu will, sooner or later, have something to do with what happens in Peoria.</p>
<p>Which suggests that the crucial question in the American third century is not whether, but how, the United States will act in the world. What ends shall we serve? By what means shall we seek to advance those ends? Under what constraints—physical, psychological, moral—does this “nation with the soul of a Church” (as Chesterton once said) go about its international business?</p>
<p>In this bicentennial season it occurs to us to ask what the experience of the Constitution, not simply as an instrument of national governance but precisely as an embodiment of the American experiment, has to say to this question of the right role for the United States in world affairs. For that reason we depart in this issue from our regular format and offer in its place a more extended reflection on American purpose and American interests in a persistently hostile and inextricably interconnected world. The bicentennial question to which we want to return here can be put thus: While the Father of the Constitution was not a theorist of international relations, is there a Madisonian sensibility that might shed light on the international strivings and doings of the United States?</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>1. The Peace Perplex</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>With all due regard for the very real dangers of chauvinism one can argue the case that the United States is a watershed community in world history. Pluralism, the basic cultural given of the world in which we now live, was the native condition of our experiment. The world has always been “plural,” of course. But that plurality takes on a distinctive political weight in a world of Boeing 747s, micro-chips, and fiber-optic telephone calls. The world has had to learn to do politics amidst pluralism over the past two or three generations. We’ve been doing it for centuries.</p>
<p>In that sense the American experiment is a microcosm, if you will, of the world problématique that presents itself, inexorably, in each day’s headlines. Can human beings build political community across the boundaries of race, language, ethnicity, and religion? Can there be community amidst the multiple conflicts that are endemic to pluralism?</p>
<p>There are, of course, hundreds of reasons, many of them weighty, for answering those questions in the negative. But the American experience and experiment caution against too easy a realism.</p>
<p>For the fact remains that, with one terrible break, the United States has formed and sustained political community amidst luxuriant plurality for over two centuries. We are a multi-racial people. On the street corner of any major city and most sizable towns one finds several churches, a synagogue, and, latterly, a mosque. We are conservatives and neo-conservatives, liberals and neo-liberals, radicals, and agrarian populists. We disagree, often passionately, on anything and everything from abortion to the funding of the local zoo. We live in, and wish to be accountable to, many communities: family, religious community, political party, voluntary association. Yet we are, in the midst of it all, a political community that has settled its arguments about the public ordering of our lives, loves, and loyalties without organized mass violence since 1865.</p>
<p>This is no mean accomplishment. One might almost say, again with all due caution, that the American experience and experiment have been a miracle in human history. Imagine a parallelogram three thousand miles wide and two thousand miles deep; then try to superimpose that box on a map of the world from which borders have been expunged. Where, save here, can one say that within that box, and amidst divers peoples, the problem of war-the use of organized mass violence to settle the fundamental public argument over who rules—has been solved for well over century? There is no other such place. And whether one deems this American experience of public peace a providential or accidental reality of history, a reality it remains.</p>
<p>The American experience under the Constitution thus teaches a first and crucial practical lesson to those who would work for peace: peace in this world is a matter of political community. The world will remain plural and conflicted. But that stark fact—the secular meaning, if you will, of the doctrine of original sin—does not necessarily imply the impossibility of political community. The American experiment is a living refutation of the notion that political community requires a numbing uniformity or is impossible amidst pluralism.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Work for peace, as that term is now understood in these United States, rarely takes account of this distinctively Madisonian experience. In church and synagogue basements, in union halls, in board rooms, and at meetings of physicians, educators, architects, and local government officials “for social responsibility,” one hears a different tune being sung. Or, rather, two different tunes.</p>
<p>In those communities which take work for peace as a religious imperative peace is sometimes defined simply as a right relationship between the individual and God—an important meaning of peace, to be sure, and perhaps the most important meaning, but an understanding that throughout history seems to have had little to do with resolving the problem of war. That “wars will cease when men refuse to fight” is a persistent theme in the religious community. But it is also a prescription for wars without end.</p>
<p>In the contemporary American peace movement peace is typically understood as a world free of conflict: a secularized version of the biblical condition of shalom, in which the lions lie with the lambs and swords are beaten into plowshares. Whether, in modern secular terms, this condition of blessedness is thought to be made possible by better communications, people-to-people contacts, or mass psychotherapy, the basic teaching is straightforward: wars will cease when conflict is expunged from the human family. Conflict, in other words, is not quite real: it is epiphenomenal, the result of an improperly adjusted psyche or a defective ideology or that greed which, it is supposed, is the dominant cultural characteristic of market-centered economies. The impacts of the American therapeutic culture, especially the third force or personalist psychology of Carl Rogers and his disciples, and the themes of the vulgarized Marxism that entered the American public square during the heydays of the New Left have been enormous here.</p>
<p>There are elements of truth embedded in this otherwise unpersuasive body of thought: it is surely true, for example, that an open communications process in the world would serve the cause of peace, as well as the cause of human decency. Those who do not believe this should consult the men and women who struggle to hear the Voice of America, Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe, the BBC World Service, or Deutsche Welle through the maddening scratchiness of jamming. But the basic concept here—that ours can be a world free of conflict—is Utopian in a damaging way.</p>
<p>Why? Because conflict and peace—the peace of free political community—are not antinomies. Conflict can be creative rather than destructive. Conflict can be conducted and resolved through orderly, democratic structures of law and politics without the use or threat of mass violence. Those are important lessons of the American experience and experiment. Those lessons are part of the Madisonian sensibility that ought to inform debate about peace. They rarely do today.</p>
<p>Therefore, we may hope that the bicentennial of the Constitution can be the occasion to re-politicize peace.</p>
<p>Once that conceptual move is made, other cautions must be immediately engaged. To recognize that peace is a matter of politics—a matter of political community—ought not lead one to imagine that the world can become “like us” in the twinkling of an eye by a great act of national will. Modernity’s two great attempts to build world order through political organization—the League of Nations and the United Nations—are, or ought to be, sobering in the extreme. One cannot create effective structures for the peaceful resolution of conflict without a base of community on which to build. That community did not exist in 1919 nor in 1945. At the macrocosmic level it does not exist today.</p>
<p>But elements of it do. The world’s democracies, for example, form a nascent political community, a zone of peace if you will, that now extends from the iron curtain west to Australia. Attempts at building international and/or transnational structures within that zone are themselves immensely difficult as the experience of the European Community has amply demonstrated. But the zone exists. Within it, it is difficult if not impossible to conceive of a war. That is surely something.</p>
<p>World order is thus more than a pious phrase to be invoked over cocktails at the Aspen Institute. It is a reality. The issue, one might reasonably argue, is not whether the world is going to be organized and ordered, but how: by what values, through what structures, answerable to what authorities? One might further argue that a truly Madisonian test of American purpose in the third century of the Constitution is the degree of wisdom we shall bring to this ongoing and unavoidable task of ordering the world. We know, or ought to know now, how it cannot be done. That does not absolve us from responsibility for answering the question of how it might be done better.</p>
<p>Thus the first constitutional lesson for the debate over the right role for the United States in world affairs: peace is a matter of politics. Peace is a matter of dynamic, rightly ordered political community.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>2. The Centrality of Freedom</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>That last cluster of adjectives and adverbs is important: dynamic, rightly ordered political community. Here is where we distinguish the American or Madisonian experience of peace from the pseudo-peace that prevails in a particularly efficient totalitarian state—Albania, let’s say. There, there is no dynamism, for there is no conflict—or no public conflict at any rate. And the order that prevails is hardly a right order, judged by any humane set of values. Peace is not, then, merely the absence of war: it is the absence of war because of the fact of rightly ordered and dynamic political community.</p>
<p>The American experience and experiment is based on a core moral claim—that “all men are created equal.” The Founders and Framers did not think of this as a particularistic claim. They thought it could be understood, and thus honored, by all people of good will because it was rooted, not in sectarian dogma but in human nature. And they further thought, which is to say Madison further thought, that making this claim real in public life was a matter of institutions, not assertions.</p>
<p>Peace, in other words and to continue the discussion above, is thus a matter of institutions of freedom.</p>
<p>Just as there has been a flight from the political meaning of peace in those circles most visibly identified as the peace movement, so has there been a parallel flight from the linkage between peace and freedom. The reasons for this are understandable, if not finally compelling. The terrible fact of nuclear weapons and the potential for world-historical damage that they represent weigh heavily on any sensitive soul. That the chief threat against which we maintain nuclear weapons is a military superpower guided by an ideology at fundamental cross-purposes with the values that undergird our own experiment further complicates the picture. That we find ourselves, surely without willing it, in a state of chronic, low-intensity conflict with that Leninist, nuclear-armed superpower is a nerve-wracking business. The temptation to denial can be irresistible. And the point of least resistance is often on the peace-and-freedom linkage.</p>
<p>Thus it is that Americans who genuinely think they are advancing the cause of peace put themselves in the anomalous position of denying a basic fact of their own political experience: that peace and freedom go together. They deny, as one prominent and publicly celebrated Seattle activist recently did, that psychiatry is politically abused in the Soviet Union. They conduct exchange programs that deliberately ignore human rights issues for the sake of “lowering the temperature” of U.S./Soviet relations and thereby, putatively, serving the cause of peace. They ignore the counsel of a man like Andrei Sakharov, who has persistently argued that the pursuit of a measure of human freedom in his unhappy country is an essential component of work for peace.</p>
<p>In the third century of the Constitution one may hope that this uncoupling of peace and freedom will be reversed. The insistence of dissident intellectuals like Czechoslovakia’s Vaclav Havel, Poland’s Adam Michnik, and Hungary’s Georg Konrad that working for human rights and for peace are inseparable (reported in our March 1987 issue) will have its impact. But so will history. Thus we should turn our focus for a moment from the sometimes distorting prism of U.S./Soviet relations and nuclear weaponry to the Third World.</p>
<p>Here the linkage between peace and freedom is being actively rebuilt.</p>
<p>That there is a democratic revolution in the Third World is one of the salient facts confronting those who would think about American purpose in this bicentennial season. In the Philippines, in South Korea, throughout Latin America and, even, in Eastern Europe men and women are working with courage and persistence to build structures of public life that are accountable to the people. In the hardest cases, such as the countries of the Warsaw Pact, this takes a minimalist form: rebuilding a measure of that civil society that can stand between the individual and the megastructures of the totalitarian state. The building blocks of that civil society can take different forms. There is the jazz musicians’ union in Czechoslovakia. There is Solidarity in Poland, a phenomenon that, after the Pope’s June visit, can no longer be dismissed as moribund. There is the Catholic Church in Lithuania. There are the Baptist Pentecostals in Siberia. There is the Moscow-based “Group to Establish Trust Between the USSR and the USA,” an independent peace movement, relentlessly harassed by the authorities. Support for all of these brave attempts to create some living space in the suffocating climate of the Leninist state serves not only the cause of freedom but the cause of peace. Or so insist the men and women who daily are putting their lives on the line in that struggle. They may never have heard of James Madison. But they are working on the same intuitions that guided the Father of the Constitution.</p>
<p>Then there is the revolution of truly democratic political structures in the Third World. These are fragile experiments to be sure. But it now seems clear that there is an option in the Third World between more or less benign forms of authoritarianism and the siren songs of Marxism-Leninism. Men and women like Raul Alfonsin in Argentina, Vinicio Cerezo in Guatemala, and Corazon Aquino in the Philippines have, in their own ways, taken to heart the Madisonian notion that freedom is not protected by “parchment barriers” but by living institutions of democratic governance. At this writing in the summer of 1987 it would seem that similar understandings have been let loose in the Republic of Korea. In the Philippine, Guatemalan, and South Korean cases the linkage between freedom and peace is being severely tested, not merely among democrats but between democrats and totalitarians. But would anyone argue now that a return to authoritarian rule would make it more likely for the Philippines and Guatemala to resist successfully Marxist-Leninist insurgencies? How much more likely will a democratic, as well as an economically thriving, South Korea be to stand fast in the long struggle against its Stalinist neighbor to the north?</p>
<p>The Latin American theologies of liberation have made a commonplace of the phrase, the “preferential option for the poor.” The stylistic inelegance of the formulation aside (Peter Berger once called it a bad English translation of a bad Spanish translation of a clumsy German neologism), there is a truth here that most reasonable people recognize. But the experience of the democratic revolution in the Third World suggests that there is a complementary option to be considered in the American third century: a “preferential option for freedom,” if you will.</p>
<p>The two options bear on each other. Successful economic development, as in the “four little dragons” of East Asia, creates pressures for democratization; South Korea is the most recent example. It is a safe bet that similar pressures will sooner or later change politics in Singapore and Taiwan. Conversely, the rule of law—one basic characteristic of democratic or even pre-democratic states—would seem a crucial component in the project of empowering the poor because the rule of law gives a country’s underclass, often its dominant class, institutional protections lacking under caudillos or generals in uniform or in three-piece suits.</p>
<p>This suggests that we ought to reconceive the relationship between peace and justice. The relationship is typically understood in grand, maximalist terms among contemporary American activists: there can be no peace without justice. In this view this usually means distributive justice, which usually means, in effect, that all quarrels over a just distribution of wealth have to be settled before there can be peace. So, of course, there will be no peace this side of the Kingdom of God or whatever secular equivalent thereof we might imagine.</p>
<p>The democratic revolution reminds us that there are many forms of justice, and some have more to do with building the peace of rightly ordered, dynamic political community than others. In the classic understanding there were three forms of justice: commutative justice, which has to do with contracts and what I owe you as an individual in a just personal relationship; distributive justice which, as noted above, has to do with the allocation of economic goods; and legal justice, which has to do with the structures of public life. Which of these forms of justice is most relevant to the pursuit of peace?</p>
<p>All are relevant; but the American experience and experiment and the democratic revolution in the Third World suggest that legal justice—the creation of just structures for determining who rules—is the most crucial of the three. In some cases, questions of distributive justice have to be settled, or at least vigorously addressed, so that just legal and political structures can be built. Think, for example, of the relationship between land reform and democracy in El Salvador and the Philippines or, in a longer time frame, in Japan.</p>
<p>But the key ingredient would seem to be the structural one: the question of legal or, as your editor prefers to call it, constitutional justice. Those structures having been established and confirmed by the consent of the governed, the perennial arguments over distributive justice can be engaged in ways that strengthen rather than fracture nascent democracies. The “preferential option for the poor” and the “preferential option for freedom” both dictate active American support for the building of democracies throughout the world. That is a task that will, undoubtedly, involve much of the American third century and, quite likely, beyond. But to take up that task, as is being so ably done, for example, by the National Endowment for Democracy, is to engage in a policy that is thoroughly in tune with the Madisonian sensibility and what it suggests about the right role for the United States in the world.</p>
<p>Such activity also advances the cause of peace. Owen Harries, an Australian who served as his country’s ambassador to UNESCO, is the editor of The National Interest and a man keenly attuned to the bitter realities of international public life. Yet in a recent issue of his journal, he refuted certain dogmas of the foreign policy realists about national interest, as follows:</p>
<p>“…For a free society freedom itself is an interest. It is so in the obvious sense that a free society wants to preserve the freedom that it enjoys. But it is so also in the sense that—other things being equal—its own freedom is made more secure insofar as freedom is established elsewhere. For the historical record shows that while free democratic societies have their differences, they go to war with each other very rarely. All the major wars of this century have been fought either among authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, or between democratic countries on the one hand and authoritarian or totalitarian ones on the other. As an illustration of the point, contrast the state of the long border between the United States and Canada with that between the Soviet Union and China. On one there are no military forces; on the other over a hundred divisions. Even more striking, consider the state of the” border between France and Germany now that they are both democracies.”</p>
<p>Thus the second, Madisonian lesson: peace and freedom are inseparable and both must be protected by just institutions and not merely by the “parchment barriers” of documents and treaties.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>3. Questions of IS and OUGHT</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Jefferson’s foundational claim was a moral claim. From its inception the American experiment has been a matter of ought as well as of is. This has had its impact on our great domestic controversies, of which the civil rights revolution of the 1960s is the most impressive contemporary example. But it has also affected the American approach to world politics. As the distinguished commentator Charles Krauthammer put it, “Our nationalism is unlike others, in that our very nationhood is bound up with and is meant to give expression to the idea of freedom.” The question of the U.S. role in world affairs is thus ethical as well as structural. We speak, quite naturally, of the right role for the United States in world politics and economics. This is not a formulation that occurs with equivalent ease in Whitehall or on the Quai d’Orsay, much less in the counsels of the International Department of the Soviet Communist party’s central committee.</p>
<p>The question of right role and the arguments that have swirled around it have often been a source of frustration and, it must be admitted, the occasion for inept policy. It has made a great difference, for example, that it was Woodrow Wilson who first articulated a moral case for an American assumption of the responsibilities of a great power in history. For Wilson was the living expression of a very particular and distinctive style of American moral enterprise, what we can call with justification American Protestant moralism.</p>
<p>That moral sensibility had a number of distinguishing characteristics, but for our purposes its most important features were its individualism and its subjectivism.</p>
<p>By individualism is meant its tendency to conceive social and political ethics as a function of the ethics of interpersonal relationships. To put it crudely but accurately, one thought morally about dealing with another country the way one thought morally about dealing with Aunt Tilly. “Open covenants, openly arrived at” would be one classically Wilsonian formulation of this tendency.</p>
<p>By subjectivism is meant the notion that intentions are what count, morally. A striking example of the effects of this morality of intentions can be found in the deliberations of the Carter administration during the last days of Anastasio Somoza, as chronicled by Pulitzer Prize-winner Shirley Christian in Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family. The administration had been asked, indeed begged, by the democratic members of the anti-Somoza coalition to get the dictator out of Nicaragua before he was brought down in a civil war, after which the Sandinistas would enjoy a monopoly of military power in Nicaragua. But, on the advice of National Security Council staffer Robert Pastor, President Carter finally decided not to cajole, bribe, or force Somoza out. Pastor’s winning argument was that, whatever the possibly damaging consequences of inaction, the United States could not be seen to intervene yet again in a Central American country. The administration clearly wanted an end to the Somoza dictatorship but was so single-mindedly focused on the purity of its intentions, which it feared would be sullied by even nonmilitary intervention, that it booted an extraordinary opportunity. The results of that decision are all too evident today.</p>
<p>In its third century the United States needs a new debate over morality and foreign policy. That debate would be enhanced by coupling a Madisonian sense of moral realism with Jeffersonian idealism. The United States needs a social ethic capable of providing policy wisdom in the pursuit of peace and freedom.</p>
<p>Such a social ethic would recognize the distinctiveness of moral reasoning in politics, not confusing social ethics with the ethics of interpersonal relationships. Allies and adversaries are not to be considered as the moral analogy of next-door neighbors or relatives. Social ethics has its own norms, methods, and integrity.</p>
<p>Such an ethic would recognize that national interest is a central policy consideration but would draw the line at Realpolitik’s raison d’état as a policy criterion. There are some things that we just would not do: selling police equipment that can be used for torture comes to mind as something that should be absolutely proscribed. If others wish to do so, let them.</p>
<p>The United States needs a social ethic that would not be squeamish about power—which is, after all, simply the ability to achieve common purposes—but would know the moral difference between power and sheer violence. This ethic would relate the limited and careful use of armed force to the pursuit of peace, security, and freedom.</p>
<p>A social ethic capable of guiding wise policy would reject the too-easy application of biblical texts to messy policy situations. It also would recognize that prudence—the virtue which teaches how to apply moral norms to complex public choices—is the key political virtue.</p>
<p>Moral reasoning on matters of peace and freedom is thus, as your editor put it in The Washington Quarterly, not “…a set of how-to-do-it instructions that might be followed by any dolt.” Rather, it is “…a matter of endless argument, research, reflection, more argument, and empirical testing.”</p>
<p>Such a reform of moral argument over the right role of the United States in world affairs would involve the revitalization of just-war theory and the transformation of American pacifism.</p>
<p>Just-war theory suffers from the defects of its name. It is not, as the Catholic bishop of Richmond put it in 1981, “…an excuse to go to war, mental gymnastics, casuistry of the worst sort.” On the contrary, just-war theory begins with a moral presumption in favor of peace. St. Thomas’s discussion of the theory began with the question, “Is it always wrong to go to war?” The theory then asks about the conditions under which the presumption for peace may be overridden. Moreover, the classic theory has also insisted that peace is the final end to be sought, even in the last-resort use of armed force. In short, a concept of peace-as rightly ordered political community—is implicit in the moral criteria contained in just war theory.</p>
<p>To be honest, the just-war theorists over the past generation have not made this clear. Therein lies part of the public relations problem of just-war theory. Virtually all scholars of the tradition know well that the theory is ordered to the peace of political community. But that crucial fact is largely unknown to the general, or even to the attentive public. Just-war theorists, especially in a nuclear age, stand under a heavy obligation to make clear that theirs is a peace ethic, not an anti-ethic blessing indiscriminate violence. Recent work by James Turner Johnson of Rutgers, discussed at a James Madison Foundation/Woodstock Theological Center seminar, bids fair to redirect the scholarly debate along these lines.</p>
<p>American pacifism has been, these past twenty years or so, an increasingly influential voice in the debate over the country’s right role in world affairs. It has also been, in the main, a voice for neo-isolationism, for Utopian schemes of human perfectibility, and for anti-anticommunism.</p>
<p>But it doesn’t have to be.</p>
<p>There is a truthful and publicly important role for a witness pacifism that stands, deliberately, outside politics and that lives as a reminder that all works of our hands are under judgment. This has been the traditional role of the historic peace churches: the Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren, for example. But many within those communions now chafe at what they consider—mistakenly, in our view—such a delimited role. They wish to enter politics; they want to make a public difference in the normally accepted sense of that term. Pacifists should be welcome participants in the debate over peace and freedom. But they will act according to their own best instincts and traditions when they act as nonviolent agents of democratic change within and among nations.</p>
<p>Pacifists ought, that is, to recognize and act on the fact that democratic law and politics are the world’s most successful examples of the nonviolent resolution of conflict. A pacifism ordered to democracy, at home and abroad, can thus contribute to the reconstitution of a Madisonian perspective on American world responsibilities.</p>
<p>And thus both pacifists and those committed to a just-war ethic can work together at the politics of peace and freedom if both recognize that these large goals of our action in the world are matters of institutions of freedom.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>4. Novus Ordo Seclorum: A Few Cautions</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>There are dangers in thinking about the multiple problems and prospects of U.S. foreign policy through the prism of the American experience and experiment. These have to be acknowledged, and the cautions they pose have to be brought into any policy calculus that seeks to advance peace and freedom.</p>
<p>The classic American temptation to an indiscriminate universalism has to be checked. There were particular conditions—cultural, historic, geographical—which gave rise to our experiment, to this “new order of the ages” (novus ordo seclorum), as the Great Seal of the United States puts it. Those conditions may not be, in fact are not, replicable in a world as culturally, religiously, and ideologically diverse as this one. The world won’t become Connecticut overnight, and furthermore much of the world doesn’t want to be Connecticut.</p>
<p>But a necessary realism about the distinctive historical and cultural character of the American experiment should not blind us to the possibilities that exist for advancing peace and freedom—or that can be created. Democratic forms of law and governance are not, on the available evidence, a North Atlantic cultural curiosity. There are Japanese, South Koreans, Czechs, Lithuanians, Zulus, Filipinos, Argentines, Chileans, Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, Poles, Hungarians, and many others who wish to live in free societies governed by consent rather than coercion. Their cause is, in the broadest sense, our cause. The structures they evolve to make freedom real may not be our structures. But the “preferential option for freedom” is being asserted in an impressively cross-cultural way in the modern world, and that fact ought to be a central consideration in the foreign policy of James Madison’s political heirs.</p>
<p>The American temptation to utopianism must also be acknowledged and checked. Wilsonian moralism taught that the United States had a mission in the world, which many understood to be divinely authorized. Such an assertion does seem an imposition on God, and in any event history teaches that it makes for wreckage in the policy process. To paraphrase that familiar line from Lord Acton, utopianism corrupts, and nationalistic utopianism based on a sense of divine mandate corrupts absolutely. And gets a lot of people killed in the process, be it added.</p>
<p>But to recognize that there is no divinely mandated American mission in the world is not to argue that there is no American purpose in world politics. If moralism leads to a sense of mission, then perhaps the kind of tempered moral reasoning suggested above can lead to a renewed sense of American purpose. Mission hints of a short fuse: now is the time of salvation; now is the time for decision; the day of the Lord (or the secular equivalent thereof) is at hand. Purpose, on the other hand, suggests a more measured sense of time. A purpose can be pursued in and out of season; it can suffer defeats and gather itself again for action at a latter date.</p>
<p>Moreover, the phrase American purpose does not, or should not, bespeak lassitude. Nicaragua would be a rather different place today, as would El Salvador, had American policymakers exhibited a bit more urgency in their approach to reform in Central America in the late 1960s and early 1970s. We seem to have learned something from this, as the early results in the Philippines and South Korea suggest. We shall see what we have learned, yet again, in Chile over the next several years. But be these discrete situations as they may, the welcome cautions that realists raise against a return to Wilsonian world evangelism ought not mitigate against the reconstruction of a publicly persuasive and politically sustainable concept of American purpose in the world.</p>
<p>That reconstruction is threatened, it must be admitted, by more than the facts of plurality in the world, compounded as they are by the world-historical impact of such universalisms as Leninism and the form of Islam propounded by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Gathering a sense of American purpose in the world that reflects in a sober and wise way our national experience over the past two centuries is made even more difficult by the civic condition of our foreign policy debate today—a condition that in the normal course of events will be exacerbated during the coming presidential campaign.</p>
<p>That condition, in brief, is one of deep division. James Rosenau of the University of Southern California has described it as “fragmegration”: the pre-Vietnam foreign policy consensus has not only fractured, but shards of it have been re-integrated into hard-and-fast positions at the poles of the contemporary debate. Thus the picture that presents itself in this bicentennial season is of a debate shaped like a barbell: two dense, thick clusters of opinion, passionately held at the poles of the argument, with very little by way of mediating argument in between.</p>
<p>The situation is further complicated in that the policy disagreements symbolized by Rosenau’s barbell involve other, deep cultural chasms. They reflect the post-Vietnam class conflict between the two American establishments: the older elite with its roots in the business community and the “new class” elite in the symbolic knowledge industries of the media, the universities, the entertainment world, and the leadership of much of the religious community. There are partisan divisions at work here, too; and as the great contest for power in a post-Reagan United States is engaged, one looks long and hard for the contemporary equivalents of Dean Acheson and Arthur Vandenberg: men who can agree on the broad contours of American purpose across partisan lines.</p>
<p>Twenty years of division and acrimony are not going to be resolved in a year, much less in an election. But there are some hopeful signs that there is movement in the debate, not so much creating middle ground between the poles as new ground ahead of today’s arguments.</p>
<p>The American Federation of Teachers’ Education for Democracy project represents such movement, challenging both establishments to a concern for transmitting the values of democracy to the next generation.</p>
<p>The National Association of Evangelicals’ Peace, Freedom, and Security Studies Program is working to create a new debate in the religious debate over the right role for the United States in world affairs. The degree of unease the program has raised among the guardians of the reigning orthodoxies at the poles of the present argument suggests a recognition that there is, indeed, a new game in town.</p>
<p>After considerable travail a broad bipartisanship now sustains the work of the National Endowment for Democracy, pointing to the possibility of agreement on an active American role in world politics, ahead of today’s polarizations. That the role undertaken by the Endowment is thoroughly Madisonian indicates how the perspective outlined in this essay can, in fact, gather rather than further divide. When liberal Democrats and movement conservative Republicans can work together in support of the world’s democrats—and when the argument for such bipartisanship can be, as it occasionally has been, put in terms of work for peace—then something worth not only preserving, but expanding, is at hand.</p>
<p>To note the good news here is not to deny the reality of the bad. No one familiar with the contemporary American whirlpool in which various isolationisms, rank partisanship, cultural warfare, and ideological confusions now interact can doubt that we are in for a long haul of it. But the good news, to alter Ben Wattenberg, is that the bad news isn’t all the news there is. No one is going to be elected president of the United States next year who does not, in one form or another, place himself or herself squarely on the side of peace and freedom. And even with all due discounting for the rhetorical sleights-of-hand that such affirmations will involve from the sundry supplicants for our votes, there is an important truth lurking beneath the surface here: our society has not become tone deaf to its heritage.</p>
<p>The United States could commit itself again, in this bicentennial season, to the great task of building peace and freedom in the world. And that is a cause to which “we the people” can pledge anew “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”</p>
<p>George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and holds EPPC’s William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.</p> | false | 1 | bicentennial constitution united states affords us opportunity reflect many things miracle philadelphia thirteen squabbling ministates managed forge agreement instrument national governance fact instrument created muggy philadelphia summer stood test two centuries worlds oldest constitution ongoing often rancorous debates framers intended might mean modern circumstances tone set constitutional bicentennial properly one gratitude framers indeed built better knew john carroll first catholic bishop united states put purposes though important recognize constitution become admirable framework national government public meaning evercontested may become embodiment american experiment phrase american experiment emblazoned two banners inviting visitors national archives washington dc formulation american experiment suggests many wise observers noted years thing called united states america neverfinished business governmental framework proposed two hundred years ago architecture social cultural civic classic sense term exploration whether free people limited government lincoln would long endure united states principle never finished testing american experiment ongoing enterprise sense americans whatever generation founders framers past ninety years testing american experiment involved great question right role united states world affairs geography history cultural inclination people perennially disposed toward isolationism means publicly settled issue whether united states ought take active role shaping world politics many deepest national instincts warn effort traditional isolationism taught entanglement affairs world would inevitably spoil experiment democracy contemporary neoisolationism teaches racist sexist imperialist united states dangerous world whether appeal american virtue american vice message beware foreign adventures crusades imbroglios good ill often counsel rendered less persuasive facts life contemporary world one one hand urge interdependent world urge withdrawal american power influence contest worlds future voices interdependence correct basic structural fact international life today economically culturally strategically modern communications transportation revolutions created world happens tiny pacific island vanuatu sooner later something happens peoria suggests crucial question american third century whether united states act world ends shall serve means shall seek advance ends constraintsphysical psychological moraldoes nation soul church chesterton said go international business bicentennial season occurs us ask experience constitution simply instrument national governance precisely embodiment american experiment say question right role united states world affairs reason depart issue regular format offer place extended reflection american purpose american interests persistently hostile inextricably interconnected world bicentennial question want return put thus father constitution theorist international relations madisonian sensibility might shed light international strivings doings united states 160 1 peace perplex 160 due regard real dangers chauvinism one argue case united states watershed community world history pluralism basic cultural given world live native condition experiment world always plural course plurality takes distinctive political weight world boeing 747s microchips fiberoptic telephone calls world learn politics amidst pluralism past two three generations weve centuries sense american experiment microcosm world problématique presents inexorably days headlines human beings build political community across boundaries race language ethnicity religion community amidst multiple conflicts endemic pluralism course hundreds reasons many weighty answering questions negative american experience experiment caution easy realism fact remains one terrible break united states formed sustained political community amidst luxuriant plurality two centuries multiracial people street corner major city sizable towns one finds several churches synagogue latterly mosque conservatives neoconservatives liberals neoliberals radicals agrarian populists disagree often passionately anything everything abortion funding local zoo live wish accountable many communities family religious community political party voluntary association yet midst political community settled arguments public ordering lives loves loyalties without organized mass violence since 1865 mean accomplishment one might almost say due caution american experience experiment miracle human history imagine parallelogram three thousand miles wide two thousand miles deep try superimpose box map world borders expunged save one say within box amidst divers peoples problem warthe use organized mass violence settle fundamental public argument ruleshas solved well century place whether one deems american experience public peace providential accidental reality history reality remains american experience constitution thus teaches first crucial practical lesson would work peace peace world matter political community world remain plural conflicted stark factthe secular meaning doctrine original sindoes necessarily imply impossibility political community american experiment living refutation notion political community requires numbing uniformity impossible amidst pluralism 160 work peace term understood united states rarely takes account distinctively madisonian experience church synagogue basements union halls board rooms meetings physicians educators architects local government officials social responsibility one hears different tune sung rather two different tunes communities take work peace religious imperative peace sometimes defined simply right relationship individual godan important meaning peace sure perhaps important meaning understanding throughout history seems little resolving problem war wars cease men refuse fight persistent theme religious community also prescription wars without end contemporary american peace movement peace typically understood world free conflict secularized version biblical condition shalom lions lie lambs swords beaten plowshares whether modern secular terms condition blessedness thought made possible better communications peopletopeople contacts mass psychotherapy basic teaching straightforward wars cease conflict expunged human family conflict words quite real epiphenomenal result improperly adjusted psyche defective ideology greed supposed dominant cultural characteristic marketcentered economies impacts american therapeutic culture especially third force personalist psychology carl rogers disciples themes vulgarized marxism entered american public square heydays new left enormous elements truth embedded otherwise unpersuasive body thought surely true example open communications process world would serve cause peace well cause human decency believe consult men women struggle hear voice america radio libertyradio free europe bbc world service deutsche welle maddening scratchiness jamming basic concept herethat world free conflictis utopian damaging way conflict peacethe peace free political communityare antinomies conflict creative rather destructive conflict conducted resolved orderly democratic structures law politics without use threat mass violence important lessons american experience experiment lessons part madisonian sensibility ought inform debate peace rarely today therefore may hope bicentennial constitution occasion repoliticize peace conceptual move made cautions must immediately engaged recognize peace matter politicsa matter political communityought lead one imagine world become like us twinkling eye great act national modernitys two great attempts build world order political organizationthe league nations united nationsare ought sobering extreme one create effective structures peaceful resolution conflict without base community build community exist 1919 1945 macrocosmic level exist today elements worlds democracies example form nascent political community zone peace extends iron curtain west australia attempts building international andor transnational structures within zone immensely difficult experience european community amply demonstrated zone exists within difficult impossible conceive war surely something world order thus pious phrase invoked cocktails aspen institute reality issue one might reasonably argue whether world going organized ordered values structures answerable authorities one might argue truly madisonian test american purpose third century constitution degree wisdom shall bring ongoing unavoidable task ordering world know ought know done absolve us responsibility answering question might done better thus first constitutional lesson debate right role united states world affairs peace matter politics peace matter dynamic rightly ordered political community 160 2 centrality freedom 160 last cluster adjectives adverbs important dynamic rightly ordered political community distinguish american madisonian experience peace pseudopeace prevails particularly efficient totalitarian statealbania lets say dynamism conflictor public conflict rate order prevails hardly right order judged humane set values peace merely absence war absence war fact rightly ordered dynamic political community american experience experiment based core moral claimthat men created equal founders framers think particularistic claim thought could understood thus honored people good rooted sectarian dogma human nature thought say madison thought making claim real public life matter institutions assertions peace words continue discussion thus matter institutions freedom flight political meaning peace circles visibly identified peace movement parallel flight linkage peace freedom reasons understandable finally compelling terrible fact nuclear weapons potential worldhistorical damage represent weigh heavily sensitive soul chief threat maintain nuclear weapons military superpower guided ideology fundamental crosspurposes values undergird experiment complicates picture find surely without willing state chronic lowintensity conflict leninist nucleararmed superpower nervewracking business temptation denial irresistible point least resistance often peaceandfreedom linkage thus americans genuinely think advancing cause peace put anomalous position denying basic fact political experience peace freedom go together deny one prominent publicly celebrated seattle activist recently psychiatry politically abused soviet union conduct exchange programs deliberately ignore human rights issues sake lowering temperature ussoviet relations thereby putatively serving cause peace ignore counsel man like andrei sakharov persistently argued pursuit measure human freedom unhappy country essential component work peace third century constitution one may hope uncoupling peace freedom reversed insistence dissident intellectuals like czechoslovakias vaclav havel polands adam michnik hungarys georg konrad working human rights peace inseparable reported march 1987 issue impact history thus turn focus moment sometimes distorting prism ussoviet relations nuclear weaponry third world linkage peace freedom actively rebuilt democratic revolution third world one salient facts confronting would think american purpose bicentennial season philippines south korea throughout latin america even eastern europe men women working courage persistence build structures public life accountable people hardest cases countries warsaw pact takes minimalist form rebuilding measure civil society stand individual megastructures totalitarian state building blocks civil society take different forms jazz musicians union czechoslovakia solidarity poland phenomenon popes june visit longer dismissed moribund catholic church lithuania baptist pentecostals siberia moscowbased group establish trust ussr usa independent peace movement relentlessly harassed authorities support brave attempts create living space suffocating climate leninist state serves cause freedom cause peace insist men women daily putting lives line struggle may never heard james madison working intuitions guided father constitution revolution truly democratic political structures third world fragile experiments sure seems clear option third world less benign forms authoritarianism siren songs marxismleninism men women like raul alfonsin argentina vinicio cerezo guatemala corazon aquino philippines ways taken heart madisonian notion freedom protected parchment barriers living institutions democratic governance writing summer 1987 would seem similar understandings let loose republic korea philippine guatemalan south korean cases linkage freedom peace severely tested merely among democrats democrats totalitarians would anyone argue return authoritarian rule would make likely philippines guatemala resist successfully marxistleninist insurgencies much likely democratic well economically thriving south korea stand fast long struggle stalinist neighbor north latin american theologies liberation made commonplace phrase preferential option poor stylistic inelegance formulation aside peter berger called bad english translation bad spanish translation clumsy german neologism truth reasonable people recognize experience democratic revolution third world suggests complementary option considered american third century preferential option freedom two options bear successful economic development four little dragons east asia creates pressures democratization south korea recent example safe bet similar pressures sooner later change politics singapore taiwan conversely rule lawone basic characteristic democratic even predemocratic stateswould seem crucial component project empowering poor rule law gives countrys underclass often dominant class institutional protections lacking caudillos generals uniform threepiece suits suggests ought reconceive relationship peace justice relationship typically understood grand maximalist terms among contemporary american activists peace without justice view usually means distributive justice usually means effect quarrels distribution wealth settled peace course peace side kingdom god whatever secular equivalent thereof might imagine democratic revolution reminds us many forms justice building peace rightly ordered dynamic political community others classic understanding three forms justice commutative justice contracts owe individual personal relationship distributive justice noted allocation economic goods legal justice structures public life forms justice relevant pursuit peace relevant american experience experiment democratic revolution third world suggest legal justicethe creation structures determining rulesis crucial three cases questions distributive justice settled least vigorously addressed legal political structures built think example relationship land reform democracy el salvador philippines longer time frame japan key ingredient would seem structural one question legal editor prefers call constitutional justice structures established confirmed consent governed perennial arguments distributive justice engaged ways strengthen rather fracture nascent democracies preferential option poor preferential option freedom dictate active american support building democracies throughout world task undoubtedly involve much american third century quite likely beyond take task ably done example national endowment democracy engage policy thoroughly tune madisonian sensibility suggests right role united states world activity also advances cause peace owen harries australian served countrys ambassador unesco editor national interest man keenly attuned bitter realities international public life yet recent issue journal refuted certain dogmas foreign policy realists national interest follows free society freedom interest obvious sense free society wants preserve freedom enjoys also sense thatother things equalits freedom made secure insofar freedom established elsewhere historical record shows free democratic societies differences go war rarely major wars century fought either among authoritarian totalitarian regimes democratic countries one hand authoritarian totalitarian ones illustration point contrast state long border united states canada soviet union china one military forces hundred divisions even striking consider state border france germany democracies thus second madisonian lesson peace freedom inseparable must protected institutions merely parchment barriers documents treaties 160 3 questions ought 160 jeffersons foundational claim moral claim inception american experiment matter ought well impact great domestic controversies civil rights revolution 1960s impressive contemporary example also affected american approach world politics distinguished commentator charles krauthammer put nationalism unlike others nationhood bound meant give expression idea freedom question us role world affairs thus ethical well structural speak quite naturally right role united states world politics economics formulation occurs equivalent ease whitehall quai dorsay much less counsels international department soviet communist partys central committee question right role arguments swirled around often source frustration must admitted occasion inept policy made great difference example woodrow wilson first articulated moral case american assumption responsibilities great power history wilson living expression particular distinctive style american moral enterprise call justification american protestant moralism moral sensibility number distinguishing characteristics purposes important features individualism subjectivism individualism meant tendency conceive social political ethics function ethics interpersonal relationships put crudely accurately one thought morally dealing another country way one thought morally dealing aunt tilly open covenants openly arrived would one classically wilsonian formulation tendency subjectivism meant notion intentions count morally striking example effects morality intentions found deliberations carter administration last days anastasio somoza chronicled pulitzer prizewinner shirley christian nicaragua revolution family administration asked indeed begged democratic members antisomoza coalition get dictator nicaragua brought civil war sandinistas would enjoy monopoly military power nicaragua advice national security council staffer robert pastor president carter finally decided cajole bribe force somoza pastors winning argument whatever possibly damaging consequences inaction united states could seen intervene yet central american country administration clearly wanted end somoza dictatorship singlemindedly focused purity intentions feared would sullied even nonmilitary intervention booted extraordinary opportunity results decision evident today third century united states needs new debate morality foreign policy debate would enhanced coupling madisonian sense moral realism jeffersonian idealism united states needs social ethic capable providing policy wisdom pursuit peace freedom social ethic would recognize distinctiveness moral reasoning politics confusing social ethics ethics interpersonal relationships allies adversaries considered moral analogy nextdoor neighbors relatives social ethics norms methods integrity ethic would recognize national interest central policy consideration would draw line realpolitiks raison détat policy criterion things would selling police equipment used torture comes mind something absolutely proscribed others wish let united states needs social ethic would squeamish powerwhich simply ability achieve common purposesbut would know moral difference power sheer violence ethic would relate limited careful use armed force pursuit peace security freedom social ethic capable guiding wise policy would reject tooeasy application biblical texts messy policy situations also would recognize prudencethe virtue teaches apply moral norms complex public choicesis key political virtue moral reasoning matters peace freedom thus editor put washington quarterly set howtodoit instructions might followed dolt rather matter endless argument research reflection argument empirical testing reform moral argument right role united states world affairs would involve revitalization justwar theory transformation american pacifism justwar theory suffers defects name catholic bishop richmond put 1981 excuse go war mental gymnastics casuistry worst sort contrary justwar theory begins moral presumption favor peace st thomass discussion theory began question always wrong go war theory asks conditions presumption peace may overridden moreover classic theory also insisted peace final end sought even lastresort use armed force short concept peaceas rightly ordered political communityis implicit moral criteria contained war theory honest justwar theorists past generation made clear therein lies part public relations problem justwar theory virtually scholars tradition know well theory ordered peace political community crucial fact largely unknown general even attentive public justwar theorists especially nuclear age stand heavy obligation make clear peace ethic antiethic blessing indiscriminate violence recent work james turner johnson rutgers discussed james madison foundationwoodstock theological center seminar bids fair redirect scholarly debate along lines american pacifism past twenty years increasingly influential voice debate countrys right role world affairs also main voice neoisolationism utopian schemes human perfectibility antianticommunism doesnt truthful publicly important role witness pacifism stands deliberately outside politics lives reminder works hands judgment traditional role historic peace churches mennonites quakers brethren example many within communions chafe considermistakenly viewsuch delimited role wish enter politics want make public difference normally accepted sense term pacifists welcome participants debate peace freedom act according best instincts traditions act nonviolent agents democratic change within among nations pacifists ought recognize act fact democratic law politics worlds successful examples nonviolent resolution conflict pacifism ordered democracy home abroad thus contribute reconstitution madisonian perspective american world responsibilities thus pacifists committed justwar ethic work together politics peace freedom recognize large goals action world matters institutions freedom 160 4 novus ordo seclorum cautions 160 dangers thinking multiple problems prospects us foreign policy prism american experience experiment acknowledged cautions pose brought policy calculus seeks advance peace freedom classic american temptation indiscriminate universalism checked particular conditionscultural historic geographicalwhich gave rise experiment new order ages novus ordo seclorum great seal united states puts conditions may fact replicable world culturally religiously ideologically diverse one world wont become connecticut overnight furthermore much world doesnt want connecticut necessary realism distinctive historical cultural character american experiment blind us possibilities exist advancing peace freedomor created democratic forms law governance available evidence north atlantic cultural curiosity japanese south koreans czechs lithuanians zulus filipinos argentines chileans salvadorans nicaraguans poles hungarians many others wish live free societies governed consent rather coercion cause broadest sense cause structures evolve make freedom real may structures preferential option freedom asserted impressively crosscultural way modern world fact ought central consideration foreign policy james madisons political heirs american temptation utopianism must also acknowledged checked wilsonian moralism taught united states mission world many understood divinely authorized assertion seem imposition god event history teaches makes wreckage policy process paraphrase familiar line lord acton utopianism corrupts nationalistic utopianism based sense divine mandate corrupts absolutely gets lot people killed process added recognize divinely mandated american mission world argue american purpose world politics moralism leads sense mission perhaps kind tempered moral reasoning suggested lead renewed sense american purpose mission hints short fuse time salvation time decision day lord secular equivalent thereof hand purpose hand suggests measured sense time purpose pursued season suffer defeats gather action latter date moreover phrase american purpose bespeak lassitude nicaragua would rather different place today would el salvador american policymakers exhibited bit urgency approach reform central america late 1960s early 1970s seem learned something early results philippines south korea suggest shall see learned yet chile next several years discrete situations may welcome cautions realists raise return wilsonian world evangelism ought mitigate reconstruction publicly persuasive politically sustainable concept american purpose world reconstruction threatened must admitted facts plurality world compounded worldhistorical impact universalisms leninism form islam propounded ayatollah khomeini gathering sense american purpose world reflects sober wise way national experience past two centuries made even difficult civic condition foreign policy debate todaya condition normal course events exacerbated coming presidential campaign condition brief one deep division james rosenau university southern california described fragmegration previetnam foreign policy consensus fractured shards reintegrated hardandfast positions poles contemporary debate thus picture presents bicentennial season debate shaped like barbell two dense thick clusters opinion passionately held poles argument little way mediating argument situation complicated policy disagreements symbolized rosenaus barbell involve deep cultural chasms reflect postvietnam class conflict two american establishments older elite roots business community new class elite symbolic knowledge industries media universities entertainment world leadership much religious community partisan divisions work great contest power postreagan united states engaged one looks long hard contemporary equivalents dean acheson arthur vandenberg men agree broad contours american purpose across partisan lines twenty years division acrimony going resolved year much less election hopeful signs movement debate much creating middle ground poles new ground ahead todays arguments american federation teachers education democracy project represents movement challenging establishments concern transmitting values democracy next generation national association evangelicals peace freedom security studies program working create new debate religious debate right role united states world affairs degree unease program raised among guardians reigning orthodoxies poles present argument suggests recognition indeed new game town considerable travail broad bipartisanship sustains work national endowment democracy pointing possibility agreement active american role world politics ahead todays polarizations role undertaken endowment thoroughly madisonian indicates perspective outlined essay fact gather rather divide liberal democrats movement conservative republicans work together support worlds democratsand argument bipartisanship occasionally put terms work peacethen something worth preserving expanding hand note good news deny reality bad one familiar contemporary american whirlpool various isolationisms rank partisanship cultural warfare ideological confusions interact doubt long haul good news alter ben wattenberg bad news isnt news one going elected president united states next year one form another place squarely side peace freedom even due discounting rhetorical sleightsofhand affirmations involve sundry supplicants votes important truth lurking beneath surface society become tone deaf heritage united states could commit bicentennial season great task building peace freedom world cause people pledge anew lives fortunes sacred honor george weigel distinguished senior fellow ethics public policy center washington dc holds eppcs william e simon chair catholic studies | 3,510 |
<p>As India celebrates the 70th anniversary of its independence from the British Empire, the nature of the two nations’ relationship today remains uncertain.</p>
<p>Tuesday marks seven decades since the UK Parliament passed the 1947 Indian Independence Act, transferring legislative power to the Indian Constituent Assembly and launching the south Asian nation towards full-fledged independence.</p>
<p>Read more</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/uk/388726-boris-johnson-insults-sikh/" type="external" /></p>
<p>British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson issued a formal statement on Tuesday morning, congratulating the citizens of Bharat and the 1.5 million-strong British Indian community. &#160;</p>
<p>“On behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I extend my warmest wishes to the people of India and the British Indian community in the United Kingdom on the occasion of India’s Independence Day.</p>
<p>“The United Kingdom and India share a deep and longstanding partnership, rooted in the 1.5 million British Indian diaspora in the UK who contribute so richly to our society.”</p>
<p>Johnson also highlighted the mutual interdependence between the two countries and voiced support for the continuation of British-Indian cooperation in a number of strategic fields.</p>
<p>“Our two countries are committed to working together to promote our people’s prosperity, improve global security and tackle the global challenges that we face today.</p>
<p>“Through the 2017 UK-India Year of Culture, we have celebrated the strength of UK-India ties, from our shared history, values, culture and language.</p>
<p>Read more</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/news/uk-debates-india-aid-393/" type="external" /></p>
<p>“Whilst today is an opportunity to reflect on India’s success over the past 70 years, it is also a chance to look ahead at a bright future for both our countries, supported by the flourishing ties between the people of India and the UK,” the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) statement read.</p>
<p>But just how “bright” is the future Johnson imagines? And what are the obstacles to a genuine post-colonial partnership between India and the UK?</p>
<p>For answers, the Conservative Party’s “India Policy” since 2010 could offer an indication, given that the Tories will now likely remain in power until 2022, barring another snap election.</p>
<p>When he came to power in 2010, then-Prime Minister David Cameron launched a charm offensive, aiming to facilitate further cooperation between the two countries in “business, energy security, climate change, education, research, security and defense, and international relations.”</p>
<p>For this purpose, members of the Tory top brass, including former Foreign Secretary William Hague, former Chancellor George Osborne and Cameron himself, made a number of official visits to India.</p>
<p>[embedded content]</p>
<p>Although these initial efforts often met with a chilly reception under the left-leaning United Progressive Alliance (UPA), the UK-India relationship shifted gear in 2014 when rightist Narendra Modi came to power.</p>
<p>That year, the Cameron government successfully accomplished a trade mission to India, which was followed by Modi’s official state visit to the UK in 2015.</p>
<p>During the visit, the new Indian PM and his British counterpart concluded £9 billion (now US$11.5 billion) worth of commercial deals in energy, finance, retail, logistics and IT sectors.</p>
<p>Cameron’s attempts to woo what could be the world’s second largest economy by 2050 were also sweetened by some symbolic gestures.</p>
<p>In 2015, a statue of Mahatma Gandhi was unveiled in London’s Parliament Square to commemorate the centenary of the civil rights leader’s return to India from South Africa and to “enrich the firm bond of friendship between the world’s oldest democracy and its largest.”</p>
<p>Moreover, Modi was also invited to address the British Parliament, becoming the first Indian prime minister to do so since the country’s independence.</p>
<p>The charm offensive continued under current PM Theresa May, who made her first non-European official visit to India in an effort to drum up post-Brexit alliances by strengthening the UK’s economic ties with New Delhi and perhaps even reaching a free trade agreement.</p>
<p>Read more</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/uk/370301-indian-defense-shrinking-britain/" type="external" /></p>
<p>The symbolic gestures also continued. In early 2017, the British government announced the UK India Year of Culture, which was launched by the Queen at Buckingham Palace.</p>
<p>However, despite their best efforts, British-Indian relations are far from what the Conservatives might have hoped for.</p>
<p>One of the major factors is history. Britain ruled over India for around 200 years. During these two centuries, the Indian peoples experienced discriminatory policies and outright atrocities at hands of their colonial masters.</p>
<p>Among them was the 1943 Bengali famine, the direct result of imperial policies, which led to the deaths of up to 3 million people.</p>
<p>When local officials begged then-wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill to redirect food supplies to India, he scoffed at the idea and said that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits.”</p>
<p>This complicated British-Indian history explains why former undersecretary general of the United Nations and now influential Indian MP, Shashi Tharoor, believes “Britain owes reparations to her former colonies.”</p>
<p>[embedded content]</p>
<p>It also explains why a 2014 BBC World Service poll revealed about a quarter of Indian respondents viewed the UK’s influence as highly negative.</p>
<p>This public sentiment is likely to limit Modi’s willingness to deal with the UK, particularly as the Indian PM rose to power on a platform of Hindu nationalism.</p>
<p>The relationship is also further undermined by a very limited understanding of the shared history among Brits.</p>
<p>A recent report by the British Council found that “young people in the UK have worryingly low understanding of India.”</p>
<p>The report revealed only 21 percent of young educated Britons know “a great deal” or “a fair amount” about India, while 74 percent of their Indian counterparts said the same of the UK.</p>
<p>[embedded content]</p>
<p>The lack of knowledge could account for the spike in xenophobic attacks on Indians, especially members of the Sikh community, in the wake of Islamist terrorist attacks, as they are often mistaken for Muslims.</p>
<p>Read more</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/uk/373948-empire-india-massacre-apology/" type="external" /></p>
<p>Combined, this could have significant consequences for the future of Indo-British relations. The number of Indian students in the UK has been steadily declining, and with it the cultural, intellectual and financial prospects.</p>
<p>Finally, with India destined to become a global power, the UK may find it difficult to dictate the terms of the relationship as it once could.</p>
<p>Britain’s recent attempts to establish better relations with China, India’s principal economic and strategic rival, may backfire by drawing the latter towards the EU, whose investment into the former Jewel in the Crown of Empire is expected to increase after Brexit.</p>
<p>In the end, it is highly likely that India will be the one setting the terms of its relationship with Britain, although much will depend on the UK’s ability to accommodate the interests of its former colony.</p>
<p>By Anton Kryvoshlykov, RT</p> | false | 1 | india celebrates 70th anniversary independence british empire nature two nations relationship today remains uncertain tuesday marks seven decades since uk parliament passed 1947 indian independence act transferring legislative power indian constituent assembly launching south asian nation towards fullfledged independence read british foreign secretary boris johnson issued formal statement tuesday morning congratulating citizens bharat 15 millionstrong british indian community 160 behalf united kingdom great britain northern ireland extend warmest wishes people india british indian community united kingdom occasion indias independence day united kingdom india share deep longstanding partnership rooted 15 million british indian diaspora uk contribute richly society johnson also highlighted mutual interdependence two countries voiced support continuation britishindian cooperation number strategic fields two countries committed working together promote peoples prosperity improve global security tackle global challenges face today 2017 ukindia year culture celebrated strength ukindia ties shared history values culture language read whilst today opportunity reflect indias success past 70 years also chance look ahead bright future countries supported flourishing ties people india uk foreign commonwealth office fco statement read bright future johnson imagines obstacles genuine postcolonial partnership india uk answers conservative partys india policy since 2010 could offer indication given tories likely remain power 2022 barring another snap election came power 2010 thenprime minister david cameron launched charm offensive aiming facilitate cooperation two countries business energy security climate change education research security defense international relations purpose members tory top brass including former foreign secretary william hague former chancellor george osborne cameron made number official visits india embedded content although initial efforts often met chilly reception leftleaning united progressive alliance upa ukindia relationship shifted gear 2014 rightist narendra modi came power year cameron government successfully accomplished trade mission india followed modis official state visit uk 2015 visit new indian pm british counterpart concluded 9 billion us115 billion worth commercial deals energy finance retail logistics sectors camerons attempts woo could worlds second largest economy 2050 also sweetened symbolic gestures 2015 statue mahatma gandhi unveiled londons parliament square commemorate centenary civil rights leaders return india south africa enrich firm bond friendship worlds oldest democracy largest moreover modi also invited address british parliament becoming first indian prime minister since countrys independence charm offensive continued current pm theresa may made first noneuropean official visit india effort drum postbrexit alliances strengthening uks economic ties new delhi perhaps even reaching free trade agreement read symbolic gestures also continued early 2017 british government announced uk india year culture launched queen buckingham palace however despite best efforts britishindian relations far conservatives might hoped one major factors history britain ruled india around 200 years two centuries indian peoples experienced discriminatory policies outright atrocities hands colonial masters among 1943 bengali famine direct result imperial policies led deaths 3 million people local officials begged thenwartime prime minister winston churchill redirect food supplies india scoffed idea said fault breeding like rabbits complicated britishindian history explains former undersecretary general united nations influential indian mp shashi tharoor believes britain owes reparations former colonies embedded content also explains 2014 bbc world service poll revealed quarter indian respondents viewed uks influence highly negative public sentiment likely limit modis willingness deal uk particularly indian pm rose power platform hindu nationalism relationship also undermined limited understanding shared history among brits recent report british council found young people uk worryingly low understanding india report revealed 21 percent young educated britons know great deal fair amount india 74 percent indian counterparts said uk embedded content lack knowledge could account spike xenophobic attacks indians especially members sikh community wake islamist terrorist attacks often mistaken muslims read combined could significant consequences future indobritish relations number indian students uk steadily declining cultural intellectual financial prospects finally india destined become global power uk may find difficult dictate terms relationship could britains recent attempts establish better relations china indias principal economic strategic rival may backfire drawing latter towards eu whose investment former jewel crown empire expected increase brexit end highly likely india one setting terms relationship britain although much depend uks ability accommodate interests former colony anton kryvoshlykov rt | 664 |
<p>One thing you can say for M. Night Shyamalan as a popular entertainer in a great tradition: he knows how to make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. In a ghost story like The Sixth Sense, that was pretty much all he had to do. But with Signs, he has taken on what — for Americans, anyway — is a much bigger subject: our national obsession with extraterrestrials and the promise of more new worlds that they represent. With a ghost story you only have to skirt the edge of the greatest mysteries; with aliens you have to have a whole theology, and that’s one of the two major problems with Signs: the theology is confused and obscure and at times almost ridiculous, as his aliens prove to have rather too much in common with the wicked witches of The Wizard of Oz.</p>
<p>To me, however, the more serious problem is the film’s disregard for Occam’s Razor, or the principle that entities must not be multiplied unnecessarily. And Occam might have added, if he’d thought of it, that alien entities in particular must not be multiplied unnecessarily. In other words there is way too much going on here. With his customary skill in plotting, Shyamalan makes use of all, or nearly all, the details he picks up along the way, but there are still far too many of them. In fact, by my count, there are an even dozen separate movies compacted into Signs, which makes for cramped quarters (to say the least) for what I take to be the main one, which has to do with the loss of faith by Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) a widowed priest, presumably of the Episcopal denomination, and farmer from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, after the death of his wife in an accident.</p>
<p>Along with number one, however comes,</p>
<p>2. The story of the crop circles that appear in Graham Hess’s cornfield and elsewhere throughout the world and which prove to herald an alien presence, mapping some kind of world takeover. Number two movie should stop with that, otherwise the “signs” of the title are merely incidental and not the central focus, and the hints and forebodings could generate quite enough fright by themselves. Instead, Shyamalan goes on to. . .</p>
<p>3. The story of the alien invasion itself, which is defeated (or at least postponed) by an unexpected vulnerability in the aliens. Again, the War of the Worlds element is more than enough for a movie, but this one is spoiled by the feebleness of the device of the alien vulnerability when it is revealed. Shyamalan himself recognizes this implicitly when he has a news report tell us (and the main characters) that “the battle turned around in the Middle East where three small cities there found a way to defeat them. We have no further details at this time.” Of course, this is even feebler.</p>
<p>4. The story of the tension between such world-shaking events, the stuff that gets on the breaking news bulletins that interrupt regular programming, and one family’s closeness, memories and personal attachments. This movie is hinted at in Graham’s putting, in some sense, the importance of his dead wife above that of the fate of humanity. There is a nice counterpoint to it in his respect for the determination of his young daughter, Bo (Abigail Breslin), to preserve the videotape of her ballet recital though the world might depend on a willingness to record over it.</p>
<p>5. The story of Graham’s brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix) and his curious approach to baseball. As a minor league slugger who never quite made it to the big leagues he was always striking out because “It felt wrong not to swing.” There’s certainly a whole movie in that one sentence.</p>
<p>6. The story of the daughter, Bo, who turns out to be clairvoyant and whose startling abilities to see into the future may or may not guide her troubled parent through the dangers either to the family or to the world.</p>
<p>7. The story of the curious book by someone called Dr Bimboo, of which Graham’s son Morgan (Rory Culkin) appears to possess the unique copy and which proves accurately to foretell the behavior of the aliens.</p>
<p>8. The story of the guilty veterinarian, played by Mr. Shyamalan himself, who accidently killed the late Mrs Hess with his SUV when he fell asleep at the wheel. His own crisis of conscience and overwhelming sense of guilt which must finally seek a reconciliation with the neighbor he has injured is plenty of material for a movie by itself.</p>
<p>9. Even more ample material is provided by the theme of the world’s return to faith in response to (presumably) an apocalyptic feeling excited by the supposed alien invasion. Former parishioners seek Graham out for spiritual advice even though he tries to disown his priestly past. Wouldn’t this by itself, even if there were no actual aliens, make a potentially interesting movie as Graham had come to terms with the fact that his own pain could not be the sole datum on which his faith or lack of it might rest?</p>
<p>10.The story of how a piece of luck, first bad, then good, may or may not be coincidence. In other words, even apart from Graham’s crisis of faith, the movie could be said to make its own statement of faith or unbelief on the basis of the randomness or otherwise of fortune. A conversation between Graham and Merrill about the two kinds of people, those who believe in luck and those inclined to favor some kind of design, sets the stage for this movie, but it gets lost among all the rest.</p>
<p>11. The story of the boy Morgan and his anger against his father. “I hate you. You let mom die,” he says at one point — which is rather too interestingly close to the way that Graham feels about himself. But this resentment turns out to be just a bit of grit in the machinery, to disappear when the occasion suits, instead of being given the attention it deserves.</p>
<p>12. The story of the relationship between the brothers, Graham and Merrill, as suggested by the taciturn and brooding Merrill when he finally bursts into something like articulate speech: “There’s things I can take and things I can’t,” he says. And “one thing I can’t take is when my older brother, who’s everything I want to be, starts losing faith in things.” As with Merrill’s idiosyncratic approach to batting, there is way too much in this for it to be just dropped into the conversation and then forgotten.</p>
<p>In addition to these twelve, we might even add a thirteenth in the story of Graham getting his faith back. This would have been better as a separate movie from number one, which invests too much narrative energy in his loss of faith for this account of his regaining it to seem other than contrived. It turns out, that is, that his wife’s babbling last words contained a significant warning that would save the survivors from, well, something less earth-shaking than an alien invasion. In any case, the story of Graham’s anger at God and its final deflection by a sense of His presence could have been dealt with and, I think, much more effectively dealt with, without recourse to an exotic threat posed by aliens in the backyard.</p>
<p>But then it is undeniable that it is the aliens in the backyard and not crises of faith, however adroitly handled, that get the kids to come out to the multiplex.</p> | false | 1 | one thing say night shyamalan popular entertainer great tradition knows make hairs stand back neck ghost story like sixth sense pretty much signs taken americans anyway much bigger subject national obsession extraterrestrials promise new worlds represent ghost story skirt edge greatest mysteries aliens whole theology thats one two major problems signs theology confused obscure times almost ridiculous aliens prove rather much common wicked witches wizard oz however serious problem films disregard occams razor principle entities must multiplied unnecessarily occam might added hed thought alien entities particular must multiplied unnecessarily words way much going customary skill plotting shyamalan makes use nearly details picks along way still far many fact count even dozen separate movies compacted signs makes cramped quarters say least take main one loss faith graham hess mel gibson widowed priest presumably episcopal denomination farmer bucks county pennsylvania death wife accident along number one however comes 2 story crop circles appear graham hesss cornfield elsewhere throughout world prove herald alien presence mapping kind world takeover number two movie stop otherwise signs title merely incidental central focus hints forebodings could generate quite enough fright instead shyamalan goes 3 story alien invasion defeated least postponed unexpected vulnerability aliens war worlds element enough movie one spoiled feebleness device alien vulnerability revealed shyamalan recognizes implicitly news report tell us main characters battle turned around middle east three small cities found way defeat details time course even feebler 4 story tension worldshaking events stuff gets breaking news bulletins interrupt regular programming one familys closeness memories personal attachments movie hinted grahams putting sense importance dead wife fate humanity nice counterpoint respect determination young daughter bo abigail breslin preserve videotape ballet recital though world might depend willingness record 5 story grahams brother merrill joaquin phoenix curious approach baseball minor league slugger never quite made big leagues always striking felt wrong swing theres certainly whole movie one sentence 6 story daughter bo turns clairvoyant whose startling abilities see future may may guide troubled parent dangers either family world 7 story curious book someone called dr bimboo grahams son morgan rory culkin appears possess unique copy proves accurately foretell behavior aliens 8 story guilty veterinarian played mr shyamalan accidently killed late mrs hess suv fell asleep wheel crisis conscience overwhelming sense guilt must finally seek reconciliation neighbor injured plenty material movie 9 even ample material provided theme worlds return faith response presumably apocalyptic feeling excited supposed alien invasion former parishioners seek graham spiritual advice even though tries disown priestly past wouldnt even actual aliens make potentially interesting movie graham come terms fact pain could sole datum faith lack might rest 10the story piece luck first bad good may may coincidence words even apart grahams crisis faith movie could said make statement faith unbelief basis randomness otherwise fortune conversation graham merrill two kinds people believe luck inclined favor kind design sets stage movie gets lost among rest 11 story boy morgan anger father hate let mom die says one point rather interestingly close way graham feels resentment turns bit grit machinery disappear occasion suits instead given attention deserves 12 story relationship brothers graham merrill suggested taciturn brooding merrill finally bursts something like articulate speech theres things take things cant says one thing cant take older brother whos everything want starts losing faith things merrills idiosyncratic approach batting way much dropped conversation forgotten addition twelve might even add thirteenth story graham getting faith back would better separate movie number one invests much narrative energy loss faith account regaining seem contrived turns wifes babbling last words contained significant warning would save survivors well something less earthshaking alien invasion case story grahams anger god final deflection sense presence could dealt think much effectively dealt without recourse exotic threat posed aliens backyard undeniable aliens backyard crises faith however adroitly handled get kids come multiplex | 630 |
<p>The owners of the Baltimore Ravens, the Super Bowl champion New England Patriots and other teams on Sunday joined a chorus of NFL executives criticizing President Donald Trump’s suggestion that they fire players who kneel for the national anthem.</p>
<p>The statements, including those from Patriots owner Robert Kraft and Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, contrasted a morning tweet from Trump and further escalated the political drama of the league’s game day, which was expected to be one of the most-watched for non-sporting reasons in years.</p>
<p>Bisciotti said he “100 percent” supports his players’ decision to kneel during the national anthem. At least seven of them did, joined by more than a dozen Jacksonville Jaguars, before the teams played at Wembley Stadium in London.</p>
<p>Other players linked arms — and Jaguars owner Shad Khan joined them, standing between tight end Marcedes Lewis and linebacker Telvin Smith. He called it a privilege to do so.</p>
<p>Kraft, who has been a strong backer of the president, expressed “deep disappointment” with Trump and said politicians could learn much from the unifying spirit of a competitive, team-oriented enterprise like football.</p>
<p>“Our players are intelligent, thoughtful, and care deeply about our community and I support their right to peacefully affect social change and raise awareness in a manner that they feel is most impactful,” Kraft said in a statement.</p>
<p>Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam wrote that they didn’t want to let “misguided, uninformed and divisive comments from the President or anyone else deter us from our efforts to unify,” and Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin told CBS his team wouldn’t be on the field when the anthem plays before the Steelers game in Chicago. He doesn’t want his players to be divided between those who kneel and those who stand, he said.</p>
<p>“We’re not going to be divided by anything said by anyone,” Tomlin said. “We’re not going to let divisive times or divisive individuals affect our agenda.”</p>
<p>Haslam’s brother, Bill, is the Republican governor of Tennessee.</p>
<p>Quarterback Colin Kaepernick started the kneeling movement last year when he played for the San Francisco 49ers, refusing to stand during “The Star-Spangled Banner” to protest the treatment of black people by police. Kaepernick became a free agent and has not been signed by a new team for this season.</p>
<p>Without identifying Kaepernick, Trump aimed a Friday talk at a Huntsville, Alabama, rally at those players who have knelt for the anthem.</p>
<p>“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, you’d say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired,'” he said to loud applause.</p>
<p>Again in a Sunday morning tweet, Trump urged his supporters to take action: “If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag &amp; Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!”</p>
<p>Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin followed up Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” defending Trump, saying the NFL has many rules governing what players can and cannot do.</p>
<p>“I think what the president is saying is that the owners should have a rule that players should have to stand in respect for the national anthem,” Mnuchin said. “They can do free speech on their own time.”</p>
<p>Trump’s remarks provoked team owners and the NFL to stridently defend the sport and its players. Commissioner Roger Goodell, who has taken heat for Kaepernick’s struggle to find a team, quickly condemned Trump’s comments.</p>
<p>“The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture. There is no better example than the amazing response from our clubs and players to the terrible natural disasters we’ve experienced over the last month,” Goodell said.</p>
<p>“Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.”</p>
<p>At least seven team owners donated $1 million each to Trump’s inaugural committee. But Los Angeles Chargers owner Dean Spanos , Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank , New York Giants owners John Mara and Steve Tisch, Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay, Tennessee Titans’ controlling owner Amy Adams Strunk, Detroit Lions owner Martha Firestone Ford and San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York were among the league power brokers who issued condemning statements through their clubs.</p>
<p>“The callous and offensive comments made by the president are contradictory to what this great country stands for,” York said.</p>
<p>“Our players have exercised their rights as United States citizens in order to spark conversation and action to address social injustice. We will continue to support them in their peaceful pursuit of positive change in our country and around the world.”</p>
<p>Added Green Bay Packers President and CEO Mark Murphy: “We believe it is important to support any of our players who choose to peacefully express themselves with the hope of change for good. As Americans, we are fortunate to be able to speak openly and freely.”</p>
<p>This weekend’s games were sure to bring more protests, with Tampa Bay receiver DeSean Jackson promising to make “a statement.”</p>
<p>“I know our players who kneeled for the anthem, and these are smart young men of character who want to make our world a better place for everyone,” Ross said.</p>
<p>“They wanted to start a conversation and are making a difference in our community, including working with law enforcement to bring people together. We all can benefit from learning, listening and respecting each other.”</p> | false | 1 | owners baltimore ravens super bowl champion new england patriots teams sunday joined chorus nfl executives criticizing president donald trumps suggestion fire players kneel national anthem statements including patriots owner robert kraft ravens owner steve bisciotti contrasted morning tweet trump escalated political drama leagues game day expected one mostwatched nonsporting reasons years bisciotti said 100 percent supports players decision kneel national anthem least seven joined dozen jacksonville jaguars teams played wembley stadium london players linked arms jaguars owner shad khan joined standing tight end marcedes lewis linebacker telvin smith called privilege kraft strong backer president expressed deep disappointment trump said politicians could learn much unifying spirit competitive teamoriented enterprise like football players intelligent thoughtful care deeply community support right peacefully affect social change raise awareness manner feel impactful kraft said statement cleveland browns owners jimmy dee haslam wrote didnt want let misguided uninformed divisive comments president anyone else deter us efforts unify pittsburgh steelers coach mike tomlin told cbs team wouldnt field anthem plays steelers game chicago doesnt want players divided kneel stand said going divided anything said anyone tomlin said going let divisive times divisive individuals affect agenda haslams brother bill republican governor tennessee quarterback colin kaepernick started kneeling movement last year played san francisco 49ers refusing stand starspangled banner protest treatment black people police kaepernick became free agent signed new team season without identifying kaepernick trump aimed friday talk huntsville alabama rally players knelt anthem wouldnt love see one nfl owners somebody disrespects flag youd say get son bitch field right hes fired said loud applause sunday morning tweet trump urged supporters take action nfl fans refuse go games players stop disrespecting flag amp country see change take place fast fire suspend treasury secretary steve mnuchin followed sunday abcs week defending trump saying nfl many rules governing players think president saying owners rule players stand respect national anthem mnuchin said free speech time trumps remarks provoked team owners nfl stridently defend sport players commissioner roger goodell taken heat kaepernicks struggle find team quickly condemned trumps comments nfl players best help create sense unity country culture better example amazing response clubs players terrible natural disasters weve experienced last month goodell said divisive comments like demonstrate unfortunate lack respect nfl great game players failure understand overwhelming force good clubs players represent communities least seven team owners donated 1 million trumps inaugural committee los angeles chargers owner dean spanos atlanta falcons owner arthur blank new york giants owners john mara steve tisch miami dolphins owner stephen ross indianapolis colts owner jim irsay tennessee titans controlling owner amy adams strunk detroit lions owner martha firestone ford san francisco 49ers owner jed york among league power brokers issued condemning statements clubs callous offensive comments made president contradictory great country stands york said players exercised rights united states citizens order spark conversation action address social injustice continue support peaceful pursuit positive change country around world added green bay packers president ceo mark murphy believe important support players choose peacefully express hope change good americans fortunate able speak openly freely weekends games sure bring protests tampa bay receiver desean jackson promising make statement know players kneeled anthem smart young men character want make world better place everyone ross said wanted start conversation making difference community including working law enforcement bring people together benefit learning listening respecting | 550 |
<p>On December 14 2012, 20 children and six staff members were shot dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School, spurring urgent calls for gun control. RT asks if anything has changed in the five years since the deadly mass shooting.</p>
<p>The small town of Newtown, Connecticut was left devastated when gunman Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary school and opened fire, causing the second deadliest mass shooting at the time by a lone gunman, before claiming his own life.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/369036-sandy-hook-gun-manufacturing-lawsuit/" type="external">READ MORE: Sandy Hook gun manufacturer lawsuit to proceed</a></p>
<p>The massacre gave massive impetus to calls for gun control with advocates pushing for fresh federal restrictions on assault weapons.</p>
<p>President Barack Obama announced an ambitious set of proposals to stem gun violence in the wake of Sandy Hook, <a href="http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/19/obama-takes-a-first-step-on-gun-control-after-sandy-hook/" type="external">pledging</a> to “use all the powers of this office” to tackle the scourge.</p>
<p>Five years on, however, Obama leaves a legacy of little progress on dealing with gun violence and a nation where federal gun laws are largely unchanged.</p>
<p>Attempts at gun control measures were blocked by Republican lawmakers and the all-powerful National Rifle Association lobby, while gun sales spiked in the aftermath of Sandy Hook and subsequent mass shootings during Obama’s presidency.</p>
<p>A report published in the journal <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6368/1324" type="external">Science</a> last week established a relationship between the spike in gun sales after Sandy Hook and accidental deaths from firearms.</p>
<p>Gun sales spiked by 3 million, on the basis of the increase in the number of background checks filed for firearm purchases, researchers at <a href="https://www.wellesley.edu/news/2017/stories/node/136656" type="external">Wellesley College</a> noted, while 60 deaths, including 20 children, resulted from unintentional shootings in the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, according to the analysis.</p>
<p>In contrast Bloomberg <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-gun-sales-in-america-stopped-spiking-after-mass-shootings/" type="external">reported</a> that firearm background checks did not rise following this year’s Las Vegas shooting – the deadliest in modern US history.</p>
<p>The Las Vegas mass shooting which left 59 people dead and more than 500 injured was among 331 mass shootings – defined by at least four deaths in a single incident – so far this year, according to <a href="http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/" type="external">Gun Violence Archive.</a></p>
<p>More than 1,500 mass shootings have taken place in the US since Sandy Hook, according to the not for profit corporation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/405321-las-vegas-shooting-panic/" type="external">READ MORE: Deadliest US shooting: 58 killed, and 527 injured at Las Vegas music fest</a></p>
<p>Despite the deadly incidents, the US House of Representatives passed a largely Republican-backed bill last week, allowing permitted gun owners to carry concealed handguns across state lines.</p>
<p>The legislation includes new accountability measures to ensure states and federal agencies are entering the proper records into the background check system. However, critics have called the reform ‘window dressing’ and say it’s simply enforcing current law.</p>
<p>The controversial bill is expected to face heavy opposition, however, from senate Democrats who oppose the concealed-carry measure.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/412219-gun-carry-permit-reciprocity/" type="external">READ MORE: House passes 50-state gun carry permit reciprocity, intensifies nat’l background checks</a></p>
<p>Democratic Senator for Connecticut Chris Murphy said ahead of Sandy Hook’s five-year anniversary that he was “embarrassed” by the political inaction since the mass shooting.</p>
<p>“I’m always a little embarrassed when I go back to Newtown. I still feel awful that we haven’t enacted bigger national change,” he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/13/sandy-hook-fifth-anniversary-gun-control-chris-murphy" type="external">said.</a></p>
<p />
<p>Tomorrow will mark 5 years since the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook. Frankly, I’m frustrated that we haven’t made more progress in fixing our nation’s gun laws. But I am never going to stop trying. <a href="https://t.co/OXJ3rJrpcI" type="external">https://t.co/OXJ3rJrpcI</a></p>
<p>— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/941015394848071681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" type="external">December 13, 2017</a></p>
<p />
<p>Gun Control advocates have changed tack in their fight against easy firearm access since Sandy Hook. Volunteers from groups including ‘Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’ now running for office themselves, instead of relying on lawmakers.</p>
<p />
<p>2) Tomorrow marks five years since the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SandyHook?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" type="external">#SandyHook</a> mass shooting that stole the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. Since then, including today’s shooting at Penn State Beaver, there have been 268 school shootings in the US – 62 of which took place just this year.</p>
<p>— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) <a href="https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/941104066721017857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" type="external">December 14, 2017</a></p>
<p />
<p>Moms Demand Action was launched by Shannon Watts the day after the Sandy Hook massacre. “This is a marathon, not a sprint,” Watts said. “It’s going to take several election cycles.”</p>
<p>Nine of 13 volunteers trained by the group ran for office this year and won seats, ranging from a New Hampshire state representative to a city council member in West University Place, Texas, reports <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-connecticut-shooting-anniversary/five-years-after-sandy-hook-u-s-gun-control-advocates-switch-strategy-idUSKBN1E617Q" type="external">Reuters.</a></p>
<p>Sandy Hook, meanwhile, ushered in an era of active shooter training and lockdowns as US schools responded to the threat and stepped up security measures.</p>
<p>Some of the parents of the young victims turned their focus to improving school safety. <a href="https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/" type="external">Sandy Hook Promise</a> was set up by 16 families whose children and spouses were killed at the school to advocate prevention of gun violence.</p>
<p>Vigils are taking place at several locations across the country to remember the 26 victims of the massacre.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/408929-mass-shootings-us-worst/" type="external">READ MORE: From Virginia to Vegas: America’s worst mass shootings of 2017</a></p> | false | 1 | december 14 2012 20 children six staff members shot dead sandy hook elementary school spurring urgent calls gun control rt asks anything changed five years since deadly mass shooting small town newtown connecticut left devastated gunman adam lanza walked sandy hook elementary school opened fire causing second deadliest mass shooting time lone gunman claiming life read sandy hook gun manufacturer lawsuit proceed massacre gave massive impetus calls gun control advocates pushing fresh federal restrictions assault weapons president barack obama announced ambitious set proposals stem gun violence wake sandy hook pledging use powers office tackle scourge five years however obama leaves legacy little progress dealing gun violence nation federal gun laws largely unchanged attempts gun control measures blocked republican lawmakers allpowerful national rifle association lobby gun sales spiked aftermath sandy hook subsequent mass shootings obamas presidency report published journal science last week established relationship spike gun sales sandy hook accidental deaths firearms gun sales spiked 3 million basis increase number background checks filed firearm purchases researchers wellesley college noted 60 deaths including 20 children resulted unintentional shootings immediate aftermath sandy hook according analysis contrast bloomberg reported firearm background checks rise following years las vegas shooting deadliest modern us history las vegas mass shooting left 59 people dead 500 injured among 331 mass shootings defined least four deaths single incident far year according gun violence archive 1500 mass shootings taken place us since sandy hook according profit corporation read deadliest us shooting 58 killed 527 injured las vegas music fest despite deadly incidents us house representatives passed largely republicanbacked bill last week allowing permitted gun owners carry concealed handguns across state lines legislation includes new accountability measures ensure states federal agencies entering proper records background check system however critics called reform window dressing say simply enforcing current law controversial bill expected face heavy opposition however senate democrats oppose concealedcarry measure read house passes 50state gun carry permit reciprocity intensifies natl background checks democratic senator connecticut chris murphy said ahead sandy hooks fiveyear anniversary embarrassed political inaction since mass shooting im always little embarrassed go back newtown still feel awful havent enacted bigger national change said tomorrow mark 5 years since tragic shooting sandy hook frankly im frustrated havent made progress fixing nations gun laws never going stop trying httpstcooxj3rjrpci chris murphy chrismurphyct december 13 2017 gun control advocates changed tack fight easy firearm access since sandy hook volunteers groups including moms demand action gun sense america running office instead relying lawmakers 2 tomorrow marks five years since sandyhook mass shooting stole lives 20 first graders six educators since including todays shooting penn state beaver 268 school shootings us 62 took place year shannon watts shannonrwatts december 14 2017 moms demand action launched shannon watts day sandy hook massacre marathon sprint watts said going take several election cycles nine 13 volunteers trained group ran office year seats ranging new hampshire state representative city council member west university place texas reports reuters sandy hook meanwhile ushered era active shooter training lockdowns us schools responded threat stepped security measures parents young victims turned focus improving school safety sandy hook promise set 16 families whose children spouses killed school advocate prevention gun violence vigils taking place several locations across country remember 26 victims massacre read virginia vegas americas worst mass shootings 2017 | 546 |
<p>NEW YORK — At this point, <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Todd-Frazier/" type="external">Todd Frazier</a> can laugh about his first home game for the <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/New-York-Yankees/" type="external">New York Yankees</a> on the drive home down the New Jersey shore.</p>
<p>It was not necessarily amusing at the time, but Frazier’s triple play accounted for the first run in the bottom of the second inning and the Yankees held on for a 4-2 victory over the <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Cincinnati-Reds/" type="external">Cincinnati Reds</a> on Tuesday.</p>
<p>After getting a warm ovation from a crowd that included several hundred people from his native <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Toms_River/" type="external">Toms River</a> N.J., roughly 90 miles south of Yankee Stadium, Frazier came up with the bases loaded following three straight singles.</p>
<p>“That has to be a record — first home at-bat with the Yankees hitting into a triple play. It’s funny to laugh now but I was upset at the time,” Frazier said. “But it was a great experience from start to finish, and we got the W.”</p>
<p>It was the big moment some have experienced in their home debuts for the Yankees but this was notable for another reason and it ended with center fielder <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Brett_Gardner/" type="external">Brett Gardner</a> teasing him and another teammate jokingly asking him for the ball.</p>
<p>“You can’t make that up,” Frazier said. “Gardy was laughing at me and someone asked for the ball I think, but it’s unbelievable; you get into a hitter’s count, and that’s the way it goes. We got a run in, but at the same time, hopefully that doesn’t ever happen again.”</p>
<p>Frazier hit a 3-1 pitch to shortstop Jose Peraza, who stepped on second for the force play for the first out before throwing the ball to first baseman <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Joey_Votto/" type="external">Joey Votto</a> for the second out.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Didi-Gregorius/" type="external">Didi Gregorius</a>, who began the play as the baserunner at second, initially held up and was late to advance to third. He was caught in a rundown when Votto threw the ball to third baseman <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Eugenio-Suarez/" type="external">Eugenio Suarez</a>.</p>
<p>Suarez continued the rundown, and Peraza was credited with the third out when Gregorius was ruled out for running out of the base line. By the time the outs were recorded, <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Matt_Holliday/" type="external">Matt Holliday</a> scored from third after opening the inning with a single.</p>
<p>Frazier was not credited with an RBI on the play that gave New York a 1-0 lead and prevented a big inning.</p>
<p>“I will never forget that,” Reds starting pitcher <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Luis_Castillo/" type="external">Luis Castillo</a> said through an interpreter. “Triple play, bases loaded, that’s amazing. If double plays are the best friend of a pitcher, what about a triple play?”</p>
<p>It was the first triple play hit into by the Yankees since Sept. 27, 2011, at Tampa Bay. New York hit into a triple play at home for the first time since Randy Velarde did so May 29, 2000.</p>
<p>Cincinnati turned a triple play for the first time since Sept. 12, 1995, against the Florida Marlins.</p>
<p>It also was the first triple play where a run scored since <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Seattle-Mariners/" type="external">Seattle Mariners</a> catcher <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kenji_Johjima/" type="external">Kenji Johjima</a> hit into one at Minnesota on May 27, 2006.</p>
<p>The Yankees scored their next three runs in more conventional ways. <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Aaron-Judge/" type="external">Aaron Judge</a> singled and scored on Gregorius’ sacrifice fly to right in the fourth, and Austin Romine lined an RBI double to right in the fifth. Gregorius’ 15th homer of the season accounted for the final margin.</p>
<p>The Reds scored on Arismendy Alcantra’s groundout in the sixth and Billy Hamilton’s double in the eighth.</p>
<p>For a while, Frazier’s triple play was not the only memorable event for the Yankees as Jordan Montgomery (7-5) faced the minimum and took a no-hitter into the sixth.</p>
<p>The rookie left-hander lost his no-hit bid two pitches into the inning when <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Scott-Schebler/" type="external">Scott Schebler</a> lined a double to center field. Before facing Schebler, Montgomery held the Reds hitless on 54 pitches, getting a double play to end the second and a sliding stop by shortstop Gregorius on Devin Mesoraco’s grounder to end the fifth.</p>
<p>Montgomery allowed one run and two hits in 6 2/3 innings. Montgomery was lifted after a single by Adam Duvall, and he exited to a standing ovation from the fans.</p>
<p>Tommy Kahnle recorded the final out of the seventh, and Dellin Betances heard boos after allowing Hamilton’s double off right fielder Judge’s glove in the eighth. Adam Warren recorded the final out of the eighth, and <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Aroldis-Chapman/" type="external">Aroldis Chapman</a> notched his 12th save with a scoreless ninth.</p>
<p>Castillo (1-4) allowed three runs and seven hits in five innings as the Reds lost for the 10th time in 12 games on a night when they turned the 30th triple play in team history.</p>
<p>“As unusual as the play was, if we would have won that game we could have gone back to that play and say that was a game saver because that was a huge inning waiting to happen, bases-loaded nobody out and they end up scoring one on that triple play,” Reds manager <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Bryan-Price/" type="external">Bryan Price</a> said. “So it could have been a spectacular, an even bigger event today than it was.”</p>
<p>NOTES: Reds SS Zack Cozart did not start as the team tries to rest his quadriceps but entered a pinch hitter in the eighth. He reached third on Billy Hamilton’s double but was removed for precautionary reasons. … A fan in the seats down the first base line was bloodied and received medical attention after getting hit in the head by a foul ball off Yankee RF Aaron Judge’s bat in the eighth inning. … Reds RHP <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Scott_Feldman/" type="external">Scott Feldman</a> (right knee) is making progress with his throwing program. Manager Bryan Price said Feldman would join the team this weekend in Miami to continue his rehab. … Yankees manager <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Joe_Girardi/" type="external">Joe Girardi</a> said OF <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Aaron-Hicks/" type="external">Aaron Hicks</a> (strained right oblique) and 1B Tyler Austin (strained right hamstring) began hitting off a tee and are progressing well, but there is no timetable for either player’s return.</p> | false | 1 | new york point todd frazier laugh first home game new york yankees drive home new jersey shore necessarily amusing time fraziers triple play accounted first run bottom second inning yankees held 42 victory cincinnati reds tuesday getting warm ovation crowd included several hundred people native toms river nj roughly 90 miles south yankee stadium frazier came bases loaded following three straight singles record first home atbat yankees hitting triple play funny laugh upset time frazier said great experience start finish got w big moment experienced home debuts yankees notable another reason ended center fielder brett gardner teasing another teammate jokingly asking ball cant make frazier said gardy laughing someone asked ball think unbelievable get hitters count thats way goes got run time hopefully doesnt ever happen frazier hit 31 pitch shortstop jose peraza stepped second force play first throwing ball first baseman joey votto second didi gregorius began play baserunner second initially held late advance third caught rundown votto threw ball third baseman eugenio suarez suarez continued rundown peraza credited third gregorius ruled running base line time outs recorded matt holliday scored third opening inning single frazier credited rbi play gave new york 10 lead prevented big inning never forget reds starting pitcher luis castillo said interpreter triple play bases loaded thats amazing double plays best friend pitcher triple play first triple play hit yankees since sept 27 2011 tampa bay new york hit triple play home first time since randy velarde may 29 2000 cincinnati turned triple play first time since sept 12 1995 florida marlins also first triple play run scored since seattle mariners catcher kenji johjima hit one minnesota may 27 2006 yankees scored next three runs conventional ways aaron judge singled scored gregorius sacrifice fly right fourth austin romine lined rbi double right fifth gregorius 15th homer season accounted final margin reds scored arismendy alcantras groundout sixth billy hamiltons double eighth fraziers triple play memorable event yankees jordan montgomery 75 faced minimum took nohitter sixth rookie lefthander lost nohit bid two pitches inning scott schebler lined double center field facing schebler montgomery held reds hitless 54 pitches getting double play end second sliding stop shortstop gregorius devin mesoracos grounder end fifth montgomery allowed one run two hits 6 23 innings montgomery lifted single adam duvall exited standing ovation fans tommy kahnle recorded final seventh dellin betances heard boos allowing hamiltons double right fielder judges glove eighth adam warren recorded final eighth aroldis chapman notched 12th save scoreless ninth castillo 14 allowed three runs seven hits five innings reds lost 10th time 12 games night turned 30th triple play team history unusual play would game could gone back play say game saver huge inning waiting happen basesloaded nobody end scoring one triple play reds manager bryan price said could spectacular even bigger event today notes reds ss zack cozart start team tries rest quadriceps entered pinch hitter eighth reached third billy hamiltons double removed precautionary reasons fan seats first base line bloodied received medical attention getting hit head foul ball yankee rf aaron judges bat eighth inning reds rhp scott feldman right knee making progress throwing program manager bryan price said feldman would join team weekend miami continue rehab yankees manager joe girardi said aaron hicks strained right oblique 1b tyler austin strained right hamstring began hitting tee progressing well timetable either players return | 557 |
<p>The Boston Marathon terror attack has pushed the problem of assimilation to the forefront of the debate over immigration reform. The younger bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, took his oath of citizenship on September 11, 2012, of all dates. Although his older brother and the mastermind of the plot, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had been investigated by the FBI in 2011, his citizenship application was still pending at the time of the bombing. These terrorists wanted to be Americans, yet they nursed a murderous hatred for the United States. Clearly the quest for citizenship is no guarantee of assimilation. Sad to say, the Tsarnaevs are but extreme examples of a far wider breakdown in America’s system of assimilation. We ought not to be mulling amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants before putting that system back in order.</p>
<p>One of the architects of this country’s ethos of assimilation, Teddy Roosevelt, delivered an 1894 address called “True Americanism,” which seems almost to have been written with the Tsarnaevs in mind: “We freely extend the hand of welcome and of good-fellowship to every man, no matter what his creed or birthplace, who comes here honestly intent on becoming a good United States citizen like the rest of us; but we have a right, and it is our duty, to demand that he shall indeed become so and shall not confuse the issues with which we are struggling by introducing among us Old World quarrels and prejudices.” It’s a message today’s immigrants are no longer hearing.</p>
<p>From the late 1960s on, a multiculturalism hostile to everything Teddy Roosevelt stood for has entrenched itself in our schools, our universities, large corporations, and the mainstream press. Pockets of traditional assimilationist thinking remain, yet the trend is clearly in the opposite direction. Federal and state governments reinforce the new multiculturalism by funding bilingual education, multilingual voting, diversity training, and the like.</p>
<p>The famous melting-pot metaphor notwithstanding, America has never required a total sacrifice of culture or creed from its immigrants. Instead we’ve called on prospective citizens to attach their personal heritage to American principles and identity. In a 1997 essay, the Manhattan Institute’s Peter Salins identifies three core components of what he calls “assimilation, American style”: acceptance of English as the national language, willingness to live by the Protestant work ethic (self-reliance, hard work, moral integrity), and pride in American identity and belief in our democratic principles. Knowing J. Lo from Jay-Z isn’t enough, in other words. That’s mere “acculturation.” Genuine assimilation — true Americanism, in Roosevelt’s words — is something more.</p>
<p>Many studies purporting to show that our assimilation system is flourishing do not adopt Roosevelt’s standard — that immigrants should embrace Americanism — as their own. A 2010 research report for the Center for American Progress by Dowell Myers and John Pitkin and a 2013 study for the Manhattan Institute by Jacob Vigdor, for example, use the rate at which immigrants become citizens as an index of civic assimilation. Yet citizenship itself in no way guarantees assimilation, as the Tsarnaevs show.</p>
<p>A newly published Hudson Institute study by John Fonte and Althea Nagai provides a more reliable assessment. In “America’s Patriotic Assimilation System Is Broken,” Fonte and Nagai found wide differences between native-born and naturalized citizens on a series of questions measuring patriotic attachment to the United States. For example, native-born citizens are, by large margins, more likely than immigrant citizens to believe that schools should focus on American citizenship rather than on ethnic pride, or that the U.S. Constitution ought to be a higher legal authority for Americans than international law. Republicans who believe that amnesty for illegal immigrants will be a political boon for the GOP, whether because they view Hispanics as “natural conservatives” or because they hope to win them over in time, may be taking for granted a pattern of assimilation that no longer exists.</p>
<p>America’s vaunted ability to forge a cohesive society out of many immigrant strands is now in doubt. The implications of this breakdown range well beyond terrorism, but the connection between terrorism and the weakening of assimilation cannot be dismissed as a side issue.</p>
<p>Salins, in his 1997 essay, presciently singled out several Arab-born perpetrators of the failed 1993 World Trade Center bombing as pure examples of “acculturation without assimilation.” These men were quite familiar with American society. The sister of one of the ringleaders said of her brother, “We always considered him a son of America. He was always saying, ‘I want to live in America forever.’” As observers on both left and right have pointed out since the Marathon bombings, post-9/11 terror attacks in Europe were likewise carried out by plotters conversant with the culture of their targets.</p>
<p>Many of those terrorists were children of poorly assimilated immigrants from Muslim countries. These second-generation European Muslims had an easy familiarity with the ways of their birthplace, yet they never felt quite at home in the adopted countries of their still unassimilated parents. Caught between two worlds, fully belonging to neither, these young men turned to radical Islam for certainty and identity when they felt the hard knocks of adulthood. The same thing happened to the Tsarnaevs. The collapse of cultural self-confidence in the West has left us with too little spiritual food to offer the children of Muslim immigrants, leaving some to turn to militant Islam in a search for lost roots. This suggests that opening our doors to new citizens without first paring back the excesses of multiculturalism and confidently reasserting traditional American principles of assimilation is asking for trouble.</p>
<p>Unlike immigration from regions wracked by violent ethnic and religious conflict, such as the Tsarnaevs’ homeland, Hispanic immigration raises no specter of terrorism. Yet the abandonment of Roosevelt-style assimilation has caused problems for the immigrants themselves. In 2000, Brookings Institution scholar Peter Skerry described a process by which the children of such immigrants undergo a sort of reverse assimilation. According to Skerry, many Mexican Americans who largely assimilate into majority-Anglo environments in their K–12 years, scarcely even thinking of themselves as members of a minority group, dramatically change when they reach college. The politicized multiculturalism that dominates America’s universities substantially deassimilates many of them, leading them to attribute virtually all of their discontent to race-based grievances. That process may not make for terrorism, but it won’t foster civil comity either, much less a raft of Republican recruits.</p>
<p>The reversal of assimilation at the university is by no means a worst-case scenario. Too often, says Skerry, high-school-aged Latinos born in the United States are “prone to adopt an adversarial stance toward school and a cynical anti-achievement ethic.” Even left-leaning assimilation researchers such as Marcelo and Carola Suárez-Orozco, who want more multiculturalism, not less, describe the tough urban schools that many immigrants attend as riven by racial and ethnic tensions. The Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald recently called the fast-growing split between America’s English-speaking and Spanish-speaking cultures “E pluribus duo.”</p>
<p>Fixing our broken system of assimilation won’t be easy, because the problem is deeply rooted. Fonte and Nagai propose doing away with the apparatus of state and federal supports for multiculturalism and bilingualism. That step would surely have positive consequences beyond the programs directly affected by the change, and Republican leaders should advocate it. They also ought to insist on guarantees of border security that far exceed those on offer in the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” immigration proposal before considering a path to citizenship. Should Democrats demur, it will show they were never truly serious about comprehensive immigration reform to begin with.</p>
<p>Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.</p> | false | 1 | boston marathon terror attack pushed problem assimilation forefront debate immigration reform younger bomber dzhokhar tsarnaev took oath citizenship september 11 2012 dates although older brother mastermind plot tamerlan tsarnaev investigated fbi 2011 citizenship application still pending time bombing terrorists wanted americans yet nursed murderous hatred united states clearly quest citizenship guarantee assimilation sad say tsarnaevs extreme examples far wider breakdown americas system assimilation ought mulling amnesty millions illegal immigrants putting system back order one architects countrys ethos assimilation teddy roosevelt delivered 1894 address called true americanism seems almost written tsarnaevs mind freely extend hand welcome goodfellowship every man matter creed birthplace comes honestly intent becoming good united states citizen like rest us right duty demand shall indeed become shall confuse issues struggling introducing among us old world quarrels prejudices message todays immigrants longer hearing late 1960s multiculturalism hostile everything teddy roosevelt stood entrenched schools universities large corporations mainstream press pockets traditional assimilationist thinking remain yet trend clearly opposite direction federal state governments reinforce new multiculturalism funding bilingual education multilingual voting diversity training like famous meltingpot metaphor notwithstanding america never required total sacrifice culture creed immigrants instead weve called prospective citizens attach personal heritage american principles identity 1997 essay manhattan institutes peter salins identifies three core components calls assimilation american style acceptance english national language willingness live protestant work ethic selfreliance hard work moral integrity pride american identity belief democratic principles knowing j lo jayz isnt enough words thats mere acculturation genuine assimilation true americanism roosevelts words something many studies purporting show assimilation system flourishing adopt roosevelts standard immigrants embrace americanism 2010 research report center american progress dowell myers john pitkin 2013 study manhattan institute jacob vigdor example use rate immigrants become citizens index civic assimilation yet citizenship way guarantees assimilation tsarnaevs show newly published hudson institute study john fonte althea nagai provides reliable assessment americas patriotic assimilation system broken fonte nagai found wide differences nativeborn naturalized citizens series questions measuring patriotic attachment united states example nativeborn citizens large margins likely immigrant citizens believe schools focus american citizenship rather ethnic pride us constitution ought higher legal authority americans international law republicans believe amnesty illegal immigrants political boon gop whether view hispanics natural conservatives hope win time may taking granted pattern assimilation longer exists americas vaunted ability forge cohesive society many immigrant strands doubt implications breakdown range well beyond terrorism connection terrorism weakening assimilation dismissed side issue salins 1997 essay presciently singled several arabborn perpetrators failed 1993 world trade center bombing pure examples acculturation without assimilation men quite familiar american society sister one ringleaders said brother always considered son america always saying want live america forever observers left right pointed since marathon bombings post911 terror attacks europe likewise carried plotters conversant culture targets many terrorists children poorly assimilated immigrants muslim countries secondgeneration european muslims easy familiarity ways birthplace yet never felt quite home adopted countries still unassimilated parents caught two worlds fully belonging neither young men turned radical islam certainty identity felt hard knocks adulthood thing happened tsarnaevs collapse cultural selfconfidence west left us little spiritual food offer children muslim immigrants leaving turn militant islam search lost roots suggests opening doors new citizens without first paring back excesses multiculturalism confidently reasserting traditional american principles assimilation asking trouble unlike immigration regions wracked violent ethnic religious conflict tsarnaevs homeland hispanic immigration raises specter terrorism yet abandonment rooseveltstyle assimilation caused problems immigrants 2000 brookings institution scholar peter skerry described process children immigrants undergo sort reverse assimilation according skerry many mexican americans largely assimilate majorityanglo environments k12 years scarcely even thinking members minority group dramatically change reach college politicized multiculturalism dominates americas universities substantially deassimilates many leading attribute virtually discontent racebased grievances process may make terrorism wont foster civil comity either much less raft republican recruits reversal assimilation university means worstcase scenario often says skerry highschoolaged latinos born united states prone adopt adversarial stance toward school cynical antiachievement ethic even leftleaning assimilation researchers marcelo carola suárezorozco want multiculturalism less describe tough urban schools many immigrants attend riven racial ethnic tensions manhattan institutes heather mac donald recently called fastgrowing split americas englishspeaking spanishspeaking cultures e pluribus duo fixing broken system assimilation wont easy problem deeply rooted fonte nagai propose away apparatus state federal supports multiculturalism bilingualism step would surely positive consequences beyond programs directly affected change republican leaders advocate also ought insist guarantees border security far exceed offer senates gang eight immigration proposal considering path citizenship democrats demur show never truly serious comprehensive immigration reform begin stanley kurtz senior fellow ethics public policy center | 747 |
<p>“ <a href="http://variety.com/t/get-out/" type="external">Get Out</a>,” “Girls Trip,” “Detroit” and “Mudbound” are among the top film nominees for the 49th annual <a href="http://variety.com/t/naacp-image-awards/" type="external">NAACP Image Awards</a>.</p>
<p>On the TV side, Netflix and OWN dominate the race with multiple noms for “Dear White People,” “Orange Is the New Black,” “Queen Sugar” and “Greenleaf.”</p>
<p>In music, Mary J. Blige and Jay-Z grabbed five nominations apiece. Filmmaker Ava DuVernay landed a nomination in the entertainer of the year category alongside Bruno Mars, Chadwick Boseman, Chance the Rapper, Issa Rae, and Jay-Z.</p>
<p>The motion picture nominations went to “Detroit,” “ <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/news/jordan-peele-get-out-stephen-colbert-1202616262/" type="external">Get Out</a>,” “Girls Trip,” “Marshall,” and “Roman J. Israel, Esq.” “Detroit” also landed a slot in the indie film category alongside “Last Flag Flying,” “Mudbound,” “Professor Marston and the Wonder Women,” and “Wind River.”</p>
<p>“Greenleaf” and “Queen Sugar” are nommed for drama series, vying with Starz’s “Power,” NBC’s “This Is Us,” and WGN’s now-canceled “Underground.” The bids for best comedy series went to HBO’s “Ballers,” ABC’s “Black-ish,” “Dear White People,” HBO’s “Insecure,” and Starz’s “Survivor’s Remorse.”</p>
<p>“Black-ish” star Anthony Anderson is set to host the Jan. 15 ceremony, to air live on TV One.</p>
<p>Here is a complete list of nominations:</p>
<p>ENTERTAINER OF THE YEAR• Ava DuVernay• Bruno Mars• Chadwick Boseman• Chance the Rapper• Issa Rae• JAY-Z</p>
<p>TELEVISIONOutstanding Comedy Series• “Ballers” (HBO)• “black-ish” (ABC)• “Dear White People” (Netflix)• “Insecure” (HBO)• “Survivor’s Remorse” (Starz)</p>
<p>Outstanding Actor in a Comedy Series• Anthony Anderson – “black-ish” (ABC)• Aziz Ansari – “Master of None” (Netflix)• Dwayne Johnson – “Ballers” (HBO)• Keegan-Michael Key – “Friends from College” (Netflix)• RonReaco Lee – “Survivor’s Remorse” (Starz)</p>
<p>Outstanding Actress in a Comedy Series• Danielle Brooks – “Orange is the New Black” (Netflix)• Issa Rae – “Insecure” (HBO)• Loretta Devine – “The Carmichael Show” (NBC)• Niecy Nash – “Claws” (TNT)• Tracee Ellis Ross – “black-ish ” (ABC)</p>
<p>Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series• Ernie Hudson – “Grace and Frankie” (Netflix)• Jay Ellis – “Insecure” (HBO)• John David Washington – “Ballers” (HBO)• Omar Miller – “Ballers” (HBO)• Tituss Burgess – “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” (Netflix)</p>
<p>Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series• Leslie Jones – “Saturday Night Live” (NBC)• Marsai Martin – “black-ish” (ABC)• Tichina Arnold – “Survivor’s Remorse” (Starz)• Uzo Aduba – “Orange is the New Black” (Netflix)• Yvonne Orji – “Insecure” (HBO)</p>
<p>Outstanding Drama Series• “Greenleaf” (OWN)• “Power” (Starz)• “Queen Sugar” (OWN)• “This Is Us” (NBC)• “Underground” (WGN America)</p>
<p>Outstanding Actor in a Drama Series• Kofi Siriboe – “Queen Sugar” (OWN)• Mike Colter – “Marvel’s The Defenders” (Netflix)• Omari Hardwick – “Power” (Starz)• Sterling K. Brown – “This Is Us ” (NBC)• Terrence Howard – “Empire” (FOX)</p>
<p>Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series• Jurnee Smollett-Bell – “Underground” (WGN America)• Kerry Washington – “Scandal” (ABC)• Rutina Wesley – “Queen Sugar” (OWN)• Taraji P. Henson – “Empire” (FOX)• Viola Davis – “How to Get Away with Murder” (ABC)</p>
<p>Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series• Bryshere Gray – “Empire” (FOX)• Dondre Whitfield – “Queen Sugar” (OWN)• Joe Morton – “Scandal” (ABC)• Jussie Smollett – “Empire” (FOX)• Trai Byers – “Empire” (FOX)</p>
<p>Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series• Lynn Whitfield – “Greenleaf” (OWN)• Naturi Naughton – “Power” (Starz)• Samira Wiley – “The Handmaid’s Tale” (Hulu)• Susan Kelechi Watson – “This Is Us” (NBC)• Tina Lifford – “Queen Sugar” (OWN)</p>
<p>Outstanding Television Movie, Limited – Series or Dramatic Special• “Flint” (Lifetime)• “Shots Fired” (FOX)• “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” (HBO)• “The New Edition Story” (BET)• “When Love Kills: The Falicia Blakely Story” (TV One)</p>
<p>Outstanding Actor in a Television Movie, Limited-Series or Dramatic Special• Bryshere Grey – “The New Edition Story” (BET)• Idris Elba – “Guerrilla” (Showtime)• Laurence Fishburne – “Madiba” (BET)• Mack Wilds – “Shots Fired” (FOX)• Woody McClain – “The New Edition Story” (BET)</p>
<p>Outstanding Actress in a Television Movie, Limited-Series or Dramatic Special• Jill Scott – “Flint” (Lifetime)• Oprah Winfrey – “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” (HBO)• Queen Latifah – “Flint” (Lifetime)• Regina King – “American Crime” (ABC)• Sanaa Lathan – “Shots Fired” (FOX)</p>
<p>Outstanding News/ Information – (Series or Special)• “News One Now” (TV One)• “Oprah’s Master Class” (OWN)• “The Story of Us with Morgan Freeman” (National Geographic)• “Through the Fire: The Legacy of Barack Obama” (BET)• “Unsung” (TV One)</p>
<p>Outstanding Talk Series• “Jimmy Kimmel Live” (ABC)• “Super Soul Sunday” (OWN)• “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah” (Comedy Central)• “The Real” (Syndicated)• “The View” (ABC)</p>
<p>Outstanding Reality Program/Reality Competition Series• “Iyanla: Fix My Life” (OWN)• “Martha &amp; Snoop’s Potluck Dinner Party” (VH1)• “Shark Tank” (ABC)• “The Manns” (TV One)• “United Shades of America with W. Kamau Bell” (CNN)</p>
<p>Outstanding Variety or Game Show – (Series or Special)• “Black Girls Rock! 2017” (BET)• “Dave Chappelle: The Age of Spin &amp; Deep in the Heart of Texas” (Netflix)• “Def Comedy Jam 25” (Netflix)• “Lip Sync Battle” (Spike)• “Saturday Night Live” (NBC)</p>
<p>Outstanding Children’s Program• “Doc McStuffins” (Disney Junior)• “Free Rein” (Netflix)• “Nella the Princess Knight” (Nickelodeon)• “Project Mc²” (Netflix)• “Raven’s Home” (Disney Channel)</p>
<p>Outstanding Performance by a Youth (Series, Special, Television Movie or Limited Series)• Caleb McLaughlin – “Stranger Things” (Netflix)• Ethan Hutchison – “Queen Sugar” (OWN)• Lonnie Chavis – “This Is Us” (NBC)• Marsai Martin – “black-ish” (ABC)• Michael Rainey – “Power” (Starz)</p>
<p>Outstanding Host in a Talk or News/Information (Series or Special) – Individual or Ensemble• Fredricka Whitfield – “Fredricka Whitfield” (CNN)• Morgan Freeman – “The Story of Us with Morgan Freeman” (National Geographic)• Neil deGrasse Tyson – “StarTalk with Neil deGrasse Tyson” (National Geographic)• Roland Martin – “News One Now” (TV One)• Trevor Noah – “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah” (Comedy Central)</p>
<p>Outstanding Host in a Reality/Reality Competition, Game Show or Variety (Series or Special) –Individual or Ensemble• Alfonso Ribeiro – “America’s Funniest Home Video” (ABC)• Iyanla Vanzant – “Iyanla: Fix My Life” (OWN)• Michael Smith and Jemele Hill – “SC6 with Michael and Jemele” (ESPN)• LL Cool J – “Lip Sync Battle” (Spike)• W. Kamau Bell – “United Shades of America with W. Kamau Bell” (CNN)</p>
<p>RECORDINGOutstanding New Artist• Demetria McKinney – “Officially Yours” (eOne Music)• Kevin Ross – “The Awakening” (Motown/Capitol Records)• Khalid – “American Teen” (RCA Records/Right Hand Music Group)• SZA – “Ctrl” (RCA Records/Top Dawg Entertainment)• Vic Mensa – “The Autobiography” (Roc Nation/Capitol Records)</p>
<p>Outstanding Male Artist• Brian McKnight – “Genesis” (SoNo Recording Group)• Bruno Mars – “Versace On the Floor” (Atlantic Records)• Charlie Wilson – “In It to Win It” (RCA Records/P Music Group)• JAY-Z – “4:44” (Roc Nation)• Kendrick Lamar – “DAMN.” (TDE/Aftermath/Interscope)</p>
<p>Outstanding Female Artist• Andra Day – “Stand Up For Something” (Warner Bros. Records)• Beyoncé – “Die With You” (Columbia Records/Parkwood Entertainment)• Ledisi – “Let Love Rule” (Verve Label Group)• Mary J. Blige – “Strength of a Woman” (Capitol Records)• SZA – “Ctrl” (RCA Records/Top Dawg Entertainment)</p>
<p>Outstanding Duo, Group or Collaboration• Andra Day feat. Common – “Stand Up For Something” (Warner Bros. Records)• Charlie Wilson feat. T.I. – “I’m Blessed” (RCA Records/P Music Group)• Kendrick Lamar feat. Rihanna – “LOYALTY.” (TDE/Aftermath/Interscope)• Mary J. Blige feat. Kanye West – “Love Yourself” (Capitol Records)• SZA feat. Travis Scott – “Love Galore” (RCA Records/Top Dawg Entertainment)</p>
<p>Outstanding Jazz Album• “Boundless” – Damien Escobar (Phoenix Lane Entertainment)• “Dreams and Daggers” – Cécile McLorin Salvant (Mack Avenue Records)• “Petite Afrique” – Somi (Sony Music/OKeh)• “Poetry In Motion” – Najee (Shanachie Entertainment)• “So It Is” – Preservation Hall Jazz Band (Legacy Recordings)</p>
<p>Outstanding Gospel/Christian Album (Traditional or Contemporary)• “Close” – Marvin Sapp (Verity Records)• “Crossover Live From Music City” – Travis Greene (RCA Inspiration)• “Greenleaf Soundtrack Volume 2” – Greenleaf Soundtrack (RCA Inspiration)• “Heart. Passion. Pursuit.” – Tasha Cobbs Leonard (Motown Gospel)• “Let Them Fall In Love” – CeCe Winans (Puresprings Gospel)</p>
<p>Outstanding Music Video/Visual Album• “4:44” – JAY-Z (Roc Nation)• “Gods” – Maxwell (Columbia Records)• “High” – Ledisi (Verve Label Group)• “Strength of A Woman” – Mary J. Blige (Capitol Records)• “That’s What I Like” – Bruno Mars (Atlantic Records)</p>
<p>Outstanding Song – Traditional• “High” – Ledisi (Verve Label Group)• “Honest” – MAJOR. (BOE/Empire)• “Surefire (Piano Version)” – John Legend (Columbia Records)• “That’s What I Like” – Bruno Mars (Atlantic Records)• “U + Me” – Mary J. Blige (Capitol Records)</p>
<p>Outstanding Song – Contemporary• “Gonna Be Alright” – Mali Music (RCA Records/ByStorm Entertainment)• “HUMBLE.” – Kendrick Lamar (TDE/Aftermath/Interscope)• “Insecure” – Jazmine Sullivan X Bryson Tiller (RCA Records)• “Love Galore” – SZA feat. Travis Scott (RCA Records/Top Dawg Entertainment)• “The Story of O.J.” – JAY-Z (Roc Nation)</p>
<p>Outstanding Album• “4:44” – JAY-Z (Roc Nation)• “DAMN.” – Kendrick Lamar (TDE/Aftermath/Interscope)• “Genesis” – Brian McKnight (SoNo Recording Group)• “In It To Win It” – Charlie Wilson (RCA Records/P Music Group)• “Strength of A Woman” – Mary J. Blige (Capitol Records)</p>
<p>LITERATUREOutstanding Literary Work – Fiction• “Little Fires Everywhere” – Celeste Ng (Penguin Random House)• “No One Is Coming to Save Us” – Stephanie Powell Watts (HarperCollins Publishers)• “Sing, Unburied, Sing” – Jesmyn Ward (Simon and Schuster)• “The Annotated African American Folktales” – Henry Louis Gates Jr. (Author), Maria Tatar(Author) (Liveright Publishing Corporation)• “The Wide Circumference of Love” – Marita Golden (Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.)</p>
<p>Outstanding Literary Work – Non-Fiction• “Black Detroit – A People’s History of Self-Determination” – Herb Boyd (HarperCollinsPublishers)• “Chokehold: Policing Black Men” – Paul Butler (The New Press)• “Defining Moments in Black History: Reading Between the Lies” – Dick Gregory (HarperCollinsPublishers)• “The President’s Kitchen Cabinet: The Story of the African Americans Who Have Fed Our FirstFamilies, from the Washingtons to the Obamas” – Adrian Miller (University of North CarolinaPress)• “We Were Eight Years In Power: An American Tragedy” – Ta-Nehisi Coates (Random House)</p>
<p>Outstanding Literary Work – Debut Author• “A Beautiful Ghetto” – Devin Allen (Haymarket Books)• “Chasing Spaces: An Astronaut’s Story of Grit, Grace &amp; Second Chances” – Leland Melvin(HarperCollins Publishers)• “No One Is Coming to Save Us” – Stephanie Powell Watts (HarperCollins Publishers)• “Rabbit: The Autobiography of Ms. Pat” – Patricia Williams (Author) Jeannine Amber (With)(HarperCollins Publishers)• “We’re Going to Need More Wine” – Gabrielle Union (HarperCollins Publishers)</p>
<p>Outstanding Literary Work – Biography / Auto Biography• “Ali: A Life” – Jonathan Eig (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)• “Becoming Ms. Burton – From Prison to Recovery to Leading the Fight for IncarceratedWomen” – Susan Burton (Author), Cari Lynn (Author), Michelle Alexander (Foreword By) (TheNew Press)• “Chester B. Himes” – Lawrence P. Jackson (W. W. Norton &amp; Company)• “Obama: The Call of History” – Peter Baker (New York Times/Callaway)• “We’re Going to Need More Wine” – Gabrielle Union (HarperCollins Publishers)</p>
<p>Outstanding Literary Work – Instructional• “Ballerina Body: Dancing and Eating Your Way to a Leaner, Stronger, and More Graceful You”– Misty Copeland (Grand Central Publishing)• “Exponential Living – Stop Spending 100% of Your Time on 10% of Who You Are” – Sheri Riley(Author), Usher (Foreword By) (Penguin Random House)• “Kristen Kish Cooking” – Kristen Kish (Author), Meredith Erickson (With) (Clarkson Potter)• “Notoriously Dapper – How to Be A Modern Gentleman with Manners, Style and BodyConfidence” – Kelvin Davis (Mango Media Inc.)• “The Awakened Woman: Remembering &amp; Reigniting Our Sacred Dreams” – Dr. Tererai Trent(Author), Oprah Winfrey (Foreword By) (Simon and Schuster)</p>
<p>Outstanding Literary Work – Poetry• “Incendiary Art: Poems” – Patricia Smith (TriQuarterly Books/Northwestern University Press)• “My Mother Was a Freedom Fighter” – Aja Monet (Haymarket Books)• “Silencer” – Marcus Wicker (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)• “The Drowning Boy’s Guide to Water” – Cameron Barnett (Autumn House Press)• “Wild Beauty: New and Selected Poems” – Ntozake Shange (Simon and Schuster)</p>
<p>Outstanding Literary Work – Children• “Becoming Kareem: Growing Up On and Off the Court” – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Author),Raymond Obstfeld (With) (Hachette Book Group)• “Before She Was Harriet” – Lesa Cline-Ransome (Author), James E. Ransome (Illustrator)(Holiday House)• “Little Leaders: Bold Women in Black History” – Vashti Harrison (Hachette Book Group)• “Take a Picture of Me, James VanDerZee!” – Andrea J. Loney (Author), Keith Mallett(Illustrator) (Lee &amp; Low Books)• “The Youngest Marcher: The Story of Audrey Faye Hendricks, A Young Civil Rights Activist” –Cynthia Levinson (Author), Vanessa Brantley-Newton (Illustrator) (S&amp;S Children’s Publishing)</p>
<p>Outstanding Literary Work – Youth / Teens• “Allegedly” – Tiffany D. Jackson (HarperCollins Publishers)• “Clayton Byrd Goes Underground” – Rita Williams-Garcia (Author), Frank Morrison (Illustrator)(Amistad/HarperCollins Publishers)• “Long Way Down” – Jason Reynolds (S&amp;S Children’s Publishing)• “Solo” – Kwame Alexander (Author), Mary Rand Hess (With) (Blink)• “The Hate U Give” – Angie Thomas (HarperCollins Publishers)</p>
<p>MOTION PICTUREOutstanding Motion Picture• “Detroit” (Annapurna Pictures)• “Get Out” (Universal Pictures)• “Girls Trip” (Universal Pictures)• “Marshall” (Open Road Films)• “Roman J. Israel, Esq.” (Sony Pictures Entertainment)</p>
<p>Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture• Algee Smith – “Detroit” (Annapurna Pictures)• Chadwick Boseman – “Marshall” (Open Road Films)• Daniel Kaluuya – “Get Out” (Universal Pictures)• Denzel Washington – “Roman J. Israel, Esq.” (Columbia Pictures)• Idris Elba – “The Mountain Between Us” (20th Century Fox)</p>
<p>Outstanding Actress in a Motion Picture• Amandla Stenberg – “Everything, Everything” (Warner Bros. Pictures / Metro-Goldwyn-MayerPictures)• Danai Gurira – “All Eyez on Me” (Summit Entertainment)• Halle Berry – “Kidnap” (Aviron Pictures)• Natalie Paul – “Crown Heights” (Amazon Studios)• Octavia Spencer – “Gifted” (Fox Searchlight Pictures)</p>
<p>Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture• Idris Elba – “THOR: Ragnarok” (Marvel Studios)• Laurence Fishburne – “Last Flag Flying” (Amazon Studios)• Lil Rel Howery – “Get Out” (Universal Pictures)• Nnamdi Asomugha – “Crown Heights” (Amazon Studios)• Sterling K. Brown – “Marshall” (Open Road Films)</p>
<p>Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture• Audra McDonald – “Beauty and the Beast” (Walt Disney Studio Motion Pictures)• Keesha Sharp – “Marshall” (Open Road Films)• Regina Hall – “Girls Trip” (Universal Pictures)• Tessa Thompson – “THOR: Ragnarok” (Marvel Studios)• Tiffany Haddish – “Girls Trip” (Universal Pictures)</p>
<p>Outstanding Independent Motion Picture• “Detroit” (Annapurna Pictures)• “Last Flag Flying” (Amazon Studios)• “Mudbound” (Netflix)• “Professor Marston and the Wonder Women” (Annapurna Pictures)• “Wind River” (Acacia Filmed Entertainment)</p>
<p>DOCUMENTARYOutstanding Documentary (Film)• “I Called Him Morgan” (Submarine Deluxe/Filmrise)• “STEP” (Fox Searchlight Pictures)• “Tell Them We Are Rising: The Story of Black Colleges and Universities” (Firelight Films)• “The Rape of Recy Taylor” (Augusta Films)• “Whose Streets?” (Magnolia Pictures)</p>
<p>Outstanding Documentary (Television)• “Birth of a Movement” (PBS)• “Black Love” (OWN)• “The 44th President: In His Own Words” (History)• “The Defiant Ones” (HBO)• “What the Health” (AUM Films and Media + First Spark Media)</p>
<p>WRITINGOutstanding Writing in a Comedy Series• Aziz Ansari – “Master of None” – Thanksgiving (Netflix)• Janine Barrois – “Claws” – Batsh*t (TNT)• Justin Simien – “Dear White People” – Chapter 1 (Netflix)• Issa Rae – “Insecure” – Hella Great (HBO)• Issa Rae – “Insecure” – Hella Perspective (HBO)</p>
<p>Outstanding Writing in a Dramatic Series• Anthony Sparks – “Queen Sugar” – What Do I Care for Morning (OWN)• Ava DuVernay – “Queen Sugar” – Dream Variations (OWN)• Erica Anderson – “Greenleaf” – The Bear (OWN)• Gina Prince-Bythewood – “Shots Fired” – Hour One: Pilot (FOX)• Vera Herbert – “This Is Us” – Still Here (NBC)</p>
<p>Outstanding Writing in a Television Movie or Special• Abdul Williams – “The New Edition Story” – Night Two (BET)• Alison McDonald – “An American Girl Story: Summer Camp, Friends for Life” (Amazon)• Cas Sigers-Beedles – “When Love Kills: The Falicia Blakely Story” (TV One)• May Chan – “An American Girl Story – Ivy &amp; Julie 1976: A Happy Balance” (Amazon)• Peter Landesman, Alexander Woo, George C. Wolfe – “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”(HBO)</p>
<p>Outstanding Writing in a Motion Picture• Dee Rees, Virgil Williams – “Mudbound” (Netflix)• Emily V. Gordon, Kumail Nanjiani – “The Big Sick” (Amazon Studios)• Jordan Peele – “Get Out” (Universal Pictures)• Kenya Barris, Tracy Oliver – “Girls Trip” (Universal Pictures)• Mark Boal – “Detroit” (Annapurna Pictures)</p>
<p>DIRECTINGOutstanding Directing in a Comedy Series• Anton Cropper – “black-ish” – Juneteenth (ABC)• Barry Jenkins – “Dear White People” – Chapter 5 (Netflix)• Justin Simien – “Dear White People” – Chapter 1 (Netflix)• Spike Lee – “She’s Gotta Have It” – #NolasChoice (Netflix)• Ken Whittingham – “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” – Kimmy Bites an Onion! (Netflix)</p>
<p>Outstanding Directing in a Dramatic Series• Carl Franklin – “13 Reasons Why” – Tape 5, Side B (Netflix)• Ernest R. Dickerson – “The Deuce” – Show and Prove (HBO)• Gina Prince-Bythewood – “Shots Fired” – Hour One: Pilot (FOX)• Jeffrey Byrd – “Switched at Birth” – Occupy Truth (Freeform)• Jonathan Demme – “Shots Fired” Hour Six: The Fire This Time (FOX)</p>
<p>Outstanding Directing in a Television Movie or Special• Allen Hughes – “The Defiant Ones” (HBO)• Chris Robinson – “The New Edition Story” – Night 1 (BET)• Codie Elaine Oliver – “Black Love” (OWN)• Kevin Hooks – “Madiba ” – Night 2 (BET)• Mark Ford – “Biggie: The Life of Notorious B.I.G.” (A&amp;E)</p>
<p>Outstanding Directing in a Motion Picture• Dee Rees – “Mudbound” (Netflix)• Jordan Peele – “Get Out” (Universal Pictures)• Malcolm D. Lee – “Girls Trip” (Universal Pictures)• Reginald Hudlin – “Marshall” (Open Road Films)• Stella Meghie – “Everything, Everything” (Warner Bros. Pictures / Metro-Goldwyn-MayerPictures)</p>
<p>ANIMATED/CGIOutstanding Character Voice-Over Performance• David Oyelowo – “The Lion Guard” (Disney Junior)• Kerry Washington – “Cars 3” (Disney/Pixar)• Loretta Devine – “Doc McStuffins” (Disney Channel)• Tiffany Haddish – “Legends of Chamberlain Heights” (Comedy Central)• Yvette Nicole Brown – “Elena of Avalor” (Disney Junior)</p> | false | 1 | get girls trip detroit mudbound among top film nominees 49th annual naacp image awards tv side netflix dominate race multiple noms dear white people orange new black queen sugar greenleaf music mary j blige jayz grabbed five nominations apiece filmmaker ava duvernay landed nomination entertainer year category alongside bruno mars chadwick boseman chance rapper issa rae jayz motion picture nominations went detroit get girls trip marshall roman j israel esq detroit also landed slot indie film category alongside last flag flying mudbound professor marston wonder women wind river greenleaf queen sugar nommed drama series vying starzs power nbcs us wgns nowcanceled underground bids best comedy series went hbos ballers abcs blackish dear white people hbos insecure starzs survivors remorse blackish star anthony anderson set host jan 15 ceremony air live tv one complete list nominations entertainer year ava duvernay bruno mars chadwick boseman chance rapper issa rae jayz televisionoutstanding comedy series ballers hbo blackish abc dear white people netflix insecure hbo survivors remorse starz outstanding actor comedy series anthony anderson blackish abc aziz ansari master none netflix dwayne johnson ballers hbo keeganmichael key friends college netflix ronreaco lee survivors remorse starz outstanding actress comedy series danielle brooks orange new black netflix issa rae insecure hbo loretta devine carmichael show nbc niecy nash claws tnt tracee ellis ross blackish abc outstanding supporting actor comedy series ernie hudson grace frankie netflix jay ellis insecure hbo john david washington ballers hbo omar miller ballers hbo tituss burgess unbreakable kimmy schmidt netflix outstanding supporting actress comedy series leslie jones saturday night live nbc marsai martin blackish abc tichina arnold survivors remorse starz uzo aduba orange new black netflix yvonne orji insecure hbo outstanding drama series greenleaf power starz queen sugar us nbc underground wgn america outstanding actor drama series kofi siriboe queen sugar mike colter marvels defenders netflix omari hardwick power starz sterling k brown us nbc terrence howard empire fox outstanding actress drama series jurnee smollettbell underground wgn america kerry washington scandal abc rutina wesley queen sugar taraji p henson empire fox viola davis get away murder abc outstanding supporting actor drama series bryshere gray empire fox dondre whitfield queen sugar joe morton scandal abc jussie smollett empire fox trai byers empire fox outstanding supporting actress drama series lynn whitfield greenleaf naturi naughton power starz samira wiley handmaids tale hulu susan kelechi watson us nbc tina lifford queen sugar outstanding television movie limited series dramatic special flint lifetime shots fired fox immortal life henrietta lacks hbo new edition story bet love kills falicia blakely story tv one outstanding actor television movie limitedseries dramatic special bryshere grey new edition story bet idris elba guerrilla showtime laurence fishburne madiba bet mack wilds shots fired fox woody mcclain new edition story bet outstanding actress television movie limitedseries dramatic special jill scott flint lifetime oprah winfrey immortal life henrietta lacks hbo queen latifah flint lifetime regina king american crime abc sanaa lathan shots fired fox outstanding news information series special news one tv one oprahs master class story us morgan freeman national geographic fire legacy barack obama bet unsung tv one outstanding talk series jimmy kimmel live abc super soul sunday daily show trevor noah comedy central real syndicated view abc outstanding reality programreality competition series iyanla fix life martha amp snoops potluck dinner party vh1 shark tank abc manns tv one united shades america w kamau bell cnn outstanding variety game show series special black girls rock 2017 bet dave chappelle age spin amp deep heart texas netflix def comedy jam 25 netflix lip sync battle spike saturday night live nbc outstanding childrens program doc mcstuffins disney junior free rein netflix nella princess knight nickelodeon project mc² netflix ravens home disney channel outstanding performance youth series special television movie limited series caleb mclaughlin stranger things netflix ethan hutchison queen sugar lonnie chavis us nbc marsai martin blackish abc michael rainey power starz outstanding host talk newsinformation series special individual ensemble fredricka whitfield fredricka whitfield cnn morgan freeman story us morgan freeman national geographic neil degrasse tyson startalk neil degrasse tyson national geographic roland martin news one tv one trevor noah daily show trevor noah comedy central outstanding host realityreality competition game show variety series special individual ensemble alfonso ribeiro americas funniest home video abc iyanla vanzant iyanla fix life michael smith jemele hill sc6 michael jemele espn cool j lip sync battle spike w kamau bell united shades america w kamau bell cnn recordingoutstanding new artist demetria mckinney officially eone music kevin ross awakening motowncapitol records khalid american teen rca recordsright hand music group sza ctrl rca recordstop dawg entertainment vic mensa autobiography roc nationcapitol records outstanding male artist brian mcknight genesis sono recording group bruno mars versace floor atlantic records charlie wilson win rca recordsp music group jayz 444 roc nation kendrick lamar damn tdeaftermathinterscope outstanding female artist andra day stand something warner bros records beyoncé die columbia recordsparkwood entertainment ledisi let love rule verve label group mary j blige strength woman capitol records sza ctrl rca recordstop dawg entertainment outstanding duo group collaboration andra day feat common stand something warner bros records charlie wilson feat ti im blessed rca recordsp music group kendrick lamar feat rihanna loyalty tdeaftermathinterscope mary j blige feat kanye west love capitol records sza feat travis scott love galore rca recordstop dawg entertainment outstanding jazz album boundless damien escobar phoenix lane entertainment dreams daggers cécile mclorin salvant mack avenue records petite afrique somi sony musicokeh poetry motion najee shanachie entertainment preservation hall jazz band legacy recordings outstanding gospelchristian album traditional contemporary close marvin sapp verity records crossover live music city travis greene rca inspiration greenleaf soundtrack volume 2 greenleaf soundtrack rca inspiration heart passion pursuit tasha cobbs leonard motown gospel let fall love cece winans puresprings gospel outstanding music videovisual album 444 jayz roc nation gods maxwell columbia records high ledisi verve label group strength woman mary j blige capitol records thats like bruno mars atlantic records outstanding song traditional high ledisi verve label group honest major boeempire surefire piano version john legend columbia records thats like bruno mars atlantic records u mary j blige capitol records outstanding song contemporary gon na alright mali music rca recordsbystorm entertainment humble kendrick lamar tdeaftermathinterscope insecure jazmine sullivan x bryson tiller rca records love galore sza feat travis scott rca recordstop dawg entertainment story oj jayz roc nation outstanding album 444 jayz roc nation damn kendrick lamar tdeaftermathinterscope genesis brian mcknight sono recording group win charlie wilson rca recordsp music group strength woman mary j blige capitol records literatureoutstanding literary work fiction little fires everywhere celeste ng penguin random house one coming save us stephanie powell watts harpercollins publishers sing unburied sing jesmyn ward simon schuster annotated african american folktales henry louis gates jr author maria tatarauthor liveright publishing corporation wide circumference love marita golden skyhorse publishing inc outstanding literary work nonfiction black detroit peoples history selfdetermination herb boyd harpercollinspublishers chokehold policing black men paul butler new press defining moments black history reading lies dick gregory harpercollinspublishers presidents kitchen cabinet story african americans fed firstfamilies washingtons obamas adrian miller university north carolinapress eight years power american tragedy tanehisi coates random house outstanding literary work debut author beautiful ghetto devin allen haymarket books chasing spaces astronauts story grit grace amp second chances leland melvinharpercollins publishers one coming save us stephanie powell watts harpercollins publishers rabbit autobiography ms pat patricia williams author jeannine amber withharpercollins publishers going need wine gabrielle union harpercollins publishers outstanding literary work biography auto biography ali life jonathan eig houghton mifflin harcourt becoming ms burton prison recovery leading fight incarceratedwomen susan burton author cari lynn author michelle alexander foreword thenew press chester b himes lawrence p jackson w w norton amp company obama call history peter baker new york timescallaway going need wine gabrielle union harpercollins publishers outstanding literary work instructional ballerina body dancing eating way leaner stronger graceful misty copeland grand central publishing exponential living stop spending 100 time 10 sheri rileyauthor usher foreword penguin random house kristen kish cooking kristen kish author meredith erickson clarkson potter notoriously dapper modern gentleman manners style bodyconfidence kelvin davis mango media inc awakened woman remembering amp reigniting sacred dreams dr tererai trentauthor oprah winfrey foreword simon schuster outstanding literary work poetry incendiary art poems patricia smith triquarterly booksnorthwestern university press mother freedom fighter aja monet haymarket books silencer marcus wicker houghton mifflin harcourt drowning boys guide water cameron barnett autumn house press wild beauty new selected poems ntozake shange simon schuster outstanding literary work children becoming kareem growing court kareem abduljabbar authorraymond obstfeld hachette book group harriet lesa clineransome author james e ransome illustratorholiday house little leaders bold women black history vashti harrison hachette book group take picture james vanderzee andrea j loney author keith mallettillustrator lee amp low books youngest marcher story audrey faye hendricks young civil rights activist cynthia levinson author vanessa brantleynewton illustrator samps childrens publishing outstanding literary work youth teens allegedly tiffany jackson harpercollins publishers clayton byrd goes underground rita williamsgarcia author frank morrison illustratoramistadharpercollins publishers long way jason reynolds samps childrens publishing solo kwame alexander author mary rand hess blink hate u give angie thomas harpercollins publishers motion pictureoutstanding motion picture detroit annapurna pictures get universal pictures girls trip universal pictures marshall open road films roman j israel esq sony pictures entertainment outstanding actor motion picture algee smith detroit annapurna pictures chadwick boseman marshall open road films daniel kaluuya get universal pictures denzel washington roman j israel esq columbia pictures idris elba mountain us 20th century fox outstanding actress motion picture amandla stenberg everything everything warner bros pictures metrogoldwynmayerpictures danai gurira eyez summit entertainment halle berry kidnap aviron pictures natalie paul crown heights amazon studios octavia spencer gifted fox searchlight pictures outstanding supporting actor motion picture idris elba thor ragnarok marvel studios laurence fishburne last flag flying amazon studios lil rel howery get universal pictures nnamdi asomugha crown heights amazon studios sterling k brown marshall open road films outstanding supporting actress motion picture audra mcdonald beauty beast walt disney studio motion pictures keesha sharp marshall open road films regina hall girls trip universal pictures tessa thompson thor ragnarok marvel studios tiffany haddish girls trip universal pictures outstanding independent motion picture detroit annapurna pictures last flag flying amazon studios mudbound netflix professor marston wonder women annapurna pictures wind river acacia filmed entertainment documentaryoutstanding documentary film called morgan submarine deluxefilmrise step fox searchlight pictures tell rising story black colleges universities firelight films rape recy taylor augusta films whose streets magnolia pictures outstanding documentary television birth movement pbs black love 44th president words history defiant ones hbo health aum films media first spark media writingoutstanding writing comedy series aziz ansari master none thanksgiving netflix janine barrois claws batsht tnt justin simien dear white people chapter 1 netflix issa rae insecure hella great hbo issa rae insecure hella perspective hbo outstanding writing dramatic series anthony sparks queen sugar care morning ava duvernay queen sugar dream variations erica anderson greenleaf bear gina princebythewood shots fired hour one pilot fox vera herbert us still nbc outstanding writing television movie special abdul williams new edition story night two bet alison mcdonald american girl story summer camp friends life amazon cas sigersbeedles love kills falicia blakely story tv one may chan american girl story ivy amp julie 1976 happy balance amazon peter landesman alexander woo george c wolfe immortal life henrietta lackshbo outstanding writing motion picture dee rees virgil williams mudbound netflix emily v gordon kumail nanjiani big sick amazon studios jordan peele get universal pictures kenya barris tracy oliver girls trip universal pictures mark boal detroit annapurna pictures directingoutstanding directing comedy series anton cropper blackish juneteenth abc barry jenkins dear white people chapter 5 netflix justin simien dear white people chapter 1 netflix spike lee shes got ta nolaschoice netflix ken whittingham unbreakable kimmy schmidt kimmy bites onion netflix outstanding directing dramatic series carl franklin 13 reasons tape 5 side b netflix ernest r dickerson deuce show prove hbo gina princebythewood shots fired hour one pilot fox jeffrey byrd switched birth occupy truth freeform jonathan demme shots fired hour six fire time fox outstanding directing television movie special allen hughes defiant ones hbo chris robinson new edition story night 1 bet codie elaine oliver black love kevin hooks madiba night 2 bet mark ford biggie life notorious big aampe outstanding directing motion picture dee rees mudbound netflix jordan peele get universal pictures malcolm lee girls trip universal pictures reginald hudlin marshall open road films stella meghie everything everything warner bros pictures metrogoldwynmayerpictures animatedcgioutstanding character voiceover performance david oyelowo lion guard disney junior kerry washington cars 3 disneypixar loretta devine doc mcstuffins disney channel tiffany haddish legends chamberlain heights comedy central yvette nicole brown elena avalor disney junior | 2,112 |
<p>MIAMI DOLPHINS (4-4) AT CAROLINA PANTHERS (6-3)</p>
<p>GAME SNAPSHOT</p>
<p>KICKOFF: Monday, 8:30 p.m. ET, Bank of America Stadium. TV: ESPN, <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Sean-McDonough/" type="external">Sean McDonough</a>, <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jon_Gruden/" type="external">Jon Gruden</a>, <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Lisa-Salters/" type="external">Lisa Salters</a> (field reporter).</p>
<p>SERIES HISTORY: 6th regular-season meeting. Dolphins lead series, 4-1. The Panthers won the last meeting, 20-16, as QB <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Cam_Newton/" type="external">Cam Newton</a> hit TE <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Greg_Olsen/" type="external">Greg Olsen</a> on a 1-yd TD pass with 43 seconds left. It was the Panthers’ seventh win in a row.</p>
<p>KEYS TO THE GAME: Miami will try to spread the field offensively, to get favorable matchups, and then strike from there. This is different than the power running game coach <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Adam-Gase/" type="external">Adam Gase</a> used with <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jay-Ajayi/" type="external">Jay Ajayi</a>, who was traded to Philadelphia last week.</p>
<p>Running backs Kenyan Drake and Damien Williams combined last week for 12 receptions for 82 yards. That’s almost half of what they got from Ajayi (27 receptions, 151 yards) last season.</p>
<p>Defensively, Miami must limit quarterback Cam Newton, which won’t be easy. It should help that hard-hitting veteran safety <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/TJ-McDonald/" type="external">T.J. McDonald</a> is expected to make his debut alongside strong safety Reshad Jones. But Miami, the NFL’s 10th-ranked defense, must watch the big plays, which has been an area of vulnerability.</p>
<p>The Panthers seem to realize that the defense is the most reliable part of the team. So look for them to dwell on that a little more. This could lead to an even higher priority placed on generating more out of the rushing attack on offense. The ground game has been largely stagnant this season, but it showed some life in the last game against Atlanta. Time of possession could become even more critical if the Panthers find themselves in a relatively low-scoring game.</p>
<p>The Panthers also could offer a few more wrinkles on offense. They showed glimpses of doing that in the Atlanta game. This will be the second game since the trade of WR Kelvin Benjamin, with the explanation for that partly due to the need to involve speedy young receivers more in the game plan.</p>
<p>MATCHUPS TO WATCH:</p>
<p>–Dolphins QB <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jay_Cutler/" type="external">Jay Cutler</a> vs. Panthers secondary. The Panthers are starting to gain some advantages in the secondary and have come up with three interceptions during the past two games. Cutler is prone to make mistakes, though he has 10 touchdown throws and five interceptions this season. But the Panthers might be able to apply a bigger pass rush than some opponents, so that could put the defensive backs in good spots. If something happens to Cutler, Miami’s backup QB is <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Matt_Moore/" type="external">Matt Moore</a>, a former Carolina player.</p>
<p>–Panthers RB Christian McCaffrey vs. Dolphins LB <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kiko-Alonso/" type="external">Kiko Alonso</a>. McCaffrey has a habit of finding openings in the passing attack, and that has made him the most frequent target for QB Cam Newton. As much as the Panthers go to McCaffrey with short passes, he’s bound to break one for a big gain. In part because of Alonso, the Dolphins might be equipped to keep better tabs on McCaffrey. Alonso is Miami’s second-leading tackler.</p>
<p>PLAYER SPOTLIGHT: Dolphins LG Ted Larsen. The veteran has been sidelined since training camp with a biceps injury. He was activated from injured reserve late last week but was inactive for the Oakland game. Larsen will be rusty, and QB Jay Cutler’s ribs will presumably still be sore, so Larsen’s pass protection is critical. Overall, this is viewed as a big upgrade for the line.</p>
<p>FAST FACTS: Miami QB Jay Cutler completed 34 of 42 passes for 311 yards and three TDs in Week 9. The 81 completion percent was the highest of his career. He completed 28 of 36 (77.8 percent) for 289 yards and two TDs in the last meeting. … WR <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jarvis-Landry/" type="external">Jarvis Landry</a> caught a TD pass last week. Since entering the NFL in 2014, he has 344 catches — most by a player in his first four seasons in NFL history. He ranks second in the NFL with 56 catches in 2017. … TE <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Julius-Thomas/" type="external">Julius Thomas</a> scored in Week 9, giving him 34 TD catches since 2013, third among NFL tight ends. … S Reshad Jones recorded an interception last week. He has an interception in two of the past three road games vs. NFC teams. He is the only NFL safety with 50 tackles (55) and two interceptions (2) in 2017. … DT <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Ndamukong-Suh/" type="external">Ndamukong Suh</a> had a sack last week. He has 3.5 sacks in his past five games. Since entering the NFL in 2010, he is one of two NFL DTs with 50 sacks (50.5). … In five Monday night games, Carolina QB Cam Newton has 1,369 passing yards (273.8 per game), 11 TDs and four interceptions, plus two rushing TDs. In his past four games this season, he has 251 rushing yards (62.8 per game) and two running TDs. … Rookie RB Christian McCaffrey had 94 scrimmage yards (66 rushing) and scored his first career rushing TD last week. He leads NFL RBs and rookies with 54 receptions. … WR Devin Funchess led the team with 86 receiving yards in Week 9. He leads Carolina with 443 yards and three TDs. … DE <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Julius_Peppers/" type="external">Julius Peppers</a> has 10 tackles and three sacks in his past two games vs. Miami. He also has three sacks and a forced fumble in his past four home games. … LB <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Luke-Kuechly/" type="external">Luke Kuechly</a> led Carolina with 11 tackles last week. He has 59 tackles (9.8 per game), three forced fumbles and an interception in his past six games vs. AFC teams. Since 2013, he is the only NFL player with 500 tackles (594) and 10 INTs (12).</p>
<p>PREDICTION: The Dolphins are still searching for offense, and the Panthers are pretty stingy at 17.7 ppg.</p>
<p>OUR PICK: Panthers, 21-13.</p>
<p>— <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Chris-Cluff/" type="external">Chris Cluff</a></p> | false | 1 | miami dolphins 44 carolina panthers 63 game snapshot kickoff monday 830 pm et bank america stadium tv espn sean mcdonough jon gruden lisa salters field reporter series history 6th regularseason meeting dolphins lead series 41 panthers last meeting 2016 qb cam newton hit te greg olsen 1yd td pass 43 seconds left panthers seventh win row keys game miami try spread field offensively get favorable matchups strike different power running game coach adam gase used jay ajayi traded philadelphia last week running backs kenyan drake damien williams combined last week 12 receptions 82 yards thats almost half got ajayi 27 receptions 151 yards last season defensively miami must limit quarterback cam newton wont easy help hardhitting veteran safety tj mcdonald expected make debut alongside strong safety reshad jones miami nfls 10thranked defense must watch big plays area vulnerability panthers seem realize defense reliable part team look dwell little could lead even higher priority placed generating rushing attack offense ground game largely stagnant season showed life last game atlanta time possession could become even critical panthers find relatively lowscoring game panthers also could offer wrinkles offense showed glimpses atlanta game second game since trade wr kelvin benjamin explanation partly due need involve speedy young receivers game plan matchups watch dolphins qb jay cutler vs panthers secondary panthers starting gain advantages secondary come three interceptions past two games cutler prone make mistakes though 10 touchdown throws five interceptions season panthers might able apply bigger pass rush opponents could put defensive backs good spots something happens cutler miamis backup qb matt moore former carolina player panthers rb christian mccaffrey vs dolphins lb kiko alonso mccaffrey habit finding openings passing attack made frequent target qb cam newton much panthers go mccaffrey short passes hes bound break one big gain part alonso dolphins might equipped keep better tabs mccaffrey alonso miamis secondleading tackler player spotlight dolphins lg ted larsen veteran sidelined since training camp biceps injury activated injured reserve late last week inactive oakland game larsen rusty qb jay cutlers ribs presumably still sore larsens pass protection critical overall viewed big upgrade line fast facts miami qb jay cutler completed 34 42 passes 311 yards three tds week 9 81 completion percent highest career completed 28 36 778 percent 289 yards two tds last meeting wr jarvis landry caught td pass last week since entering nfl 2014 344 catches player first four seasons nfl history ranks second nfl 56 catches 2017 te julius thomas scored week 9 giving 34 td catches since 2013 third among nfl tight ends reshad jones recorded interception last week interception two past three road games vs nfc teams nfl safety 50 tackles 55 two interceptions 2 2017 dt ndamukong suh sack last week 35 sacks past five games since entering nfl 2010 one two nfl dts 50 sacks 505 five monday night games carolina qb cam newton 1369 passing yards 2738 per game 11 tds four interceptions plus two rushing tds past four games season 251 rushing yards 628 per game two running tds rookie rb christian mccaffrey 94 scrimmage yards 66 rushing scored first career rushing td last week leads nfl rbs rookies 54 receptions wr devin funchess led team 86 receiving yards week 9 leads carolina 443 yards three tds de julius peppers 10 tackles three sacks past two games vs miami also three sacks forced fumble past four home games lb luke kuechly led carolina 11 tackles last week 59 tackles 98 per game three forced fumbles interception past six games vs afc teams since 2013 nfl player 500 tackles 594 10 ints 12 prediction dolphins still searching offense panthers pretty stingy 177 ppg pick panthers 2113 chris cluff | 612 |
<p>By Katya Golubkova</p>
<p>MOSCOW (Reuters) – The Kremlin wants good news.</p>
<p>The Russian leadership has told major companies to supply it with news stories that put its stewardship of the country in a positive light, according to documents seen by Reuters.</p>
<p>A seven-page document spelled out the kind of articles required, with a focus on new jobs, scientific achievements and new infrastructure, especially those involving state support. It also detailed how the stories should be presented, and gave a weekly deadline for submissions.</p>
<p>The instructions were sent last month by the energy ministry to 45 companies in Russia’s energy and utilities sector including Rosneft, Lukoil and Novatek, according to a second document, a list of recipients.</p>
<p>The drive coincides with the run-up to a presidential election in March next year when President Vladimir Putin needs a strong mandate with high turnout to maintain his firm grip on power after dominating Russian politics for two decades.</p>
<p>“Life for the majority of people has become calmer, more comfortable, more attractive. But many such examples often escape the media’s attention,” said the first document.</p>
<p>“Our task, through a creative and painstaking approach, is to select such topics and subjects and offer them to the media.”</p>
<p>That document, which did not mention the election, said the news items to be supplied were to feed a “positive news wire” and should correspond to two themes: “Life is getting better” and “How things were; how they are now”.</p>
<p>Both documents were attached to an invitation, dated Oct. 9, sent by the energy ministry to senior executives in the public relations and government relations departments of the firms, of which 17 are state-controlled and 28 privately-held. The invitation requested they send representatives to an Oct. 12 meeting at the ministry in Moscow to discuss how to help the government’s PR effort.</p>
<p>Reuters saw a copy of the invitation and spoke to three executives who received it. According to the invitation, the news initiative was requested by Sergei Kiriyenko, the first deputy chief of staff in the presidential administration.</p>
<p>A spokesman for Kiriyenko did not respond to a request for comment. The energy ministry also did not respond, nor did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.</p>
<p>Reuters sent requests for comment to the biggest five companies out of the 45, by market value – state-owned oil major Rosneft, state-owned gas giant Gazprom (MCX:), private oil companies Lukoil and Surgutneftegaz, and private gas firm Novatek. No responses were received.</p>
<p>NINE-POINT LIST</p>
<p>Oil and gas provide Russia’s biggest source of revenue and energy firms are among the most powerful companies and biggest employers. Reuters has not found evidence that similar instructions were sent to companies in other sectors.</p>
<p>The Oct. 12 meeting was chaired by Deputy Energy Minister Anton Inyutsyn, and an official from the presidential administration was also present, according to one of the sources who attended. The two officials went through and explained the instructions laid out in the seven-page document, said the source, who added that the election was not mentioned.</p>
<p>Reuters reported in February that the ministry had enlisted energy companies to give it advance notice about developments that could influence public opinion.</p>
<p>The meeting last month and the guidelines circulated in preparation for it show that, since then, the initiative has stepped up into a higher gear, with companies being handed highly specific instructions on how they are expected to help.</p>
<p>It was not clear if the companies had acted on the instructions.</p>
<p>The news guidelines document said the government wanted to highlight “victories and achievements”.</p>
<p>It included a nine-point list of the kind of news that companies should supply. It asked, for example, for stories about business units “where it’s possible to say that state support helped lift them out of crisis, restored modern production, and re-equipped them with new equipment and gave work to local residents”.</p>
<p>Examples given of the kind of events of interest to the government from elsewhere in the corporate world included state lender Sberbank hiring 700 people in the Volga river city of Togliatti, a festival funded by a company in Kaliningrad region for young people with hearing difficulties and a sports center being opened in Cherkessk, southern Russia.</p>
<p>The document also held up the case of Yevgeny Kosmin as an example of a positive news story, a miner in western Siberia whose team extracted 1.6 million tonnes of coal in July this year, a monthly record.</p>
<p>That carried echoes of Alexey Stakhanov, a miner who in 1935 extracted almost 15 times more coal during a shift than his quota required. Communist propaganda held Stakhanov up as a symbol of Soviet industrial prowess.</p>
<p>MONDAY DEADLINE</p>
<p>The instructions stipulated that companies should submit positive news stories every week – on the Monday, or Tuesday morning at the latest.</p>
<p>They said the companies should present their items in the format of a table, with new additions highlighted in a colored font, and accompanied by a press release that could be passed on to journalists with minimal editing from government officials.</p>
<p>The document also required each company to provide a contact person who could provide extra information to journalists, tell TV news crews how to reach the venue to report on an event, and organize access for news crews to the company’s sites.</p>
<p>Reuters was not able to establish if the Kremlin had made similarly specific demands of companies in the past.</p>
<p>Putin has not yet declared his intention to seek re-election. Most Kremlin observers say he will. Opinion polls show he will win comfortably, with many voters crediting him with restoring national pride.</p>
<p>The Kremlin’s biggest headache with the election, scheduled for next March, is ensuring a strong turnout, say many political analysts.</p>
<p>With the economy weak and many people viewing the result as a foregone conclusion, voters may be tempted to stay away from polling stations. A low turnout could undermine Putin’s legitimacy in his next term, the analysts say.</p> | false | 1 | katya golubkova moscow reuters kremlin wants good news russian leadership told major companies supply news stories put stewardship country positive light according documents seen reuters sevenpage document spelled kind articles required focus new jobs scientific achievements new infrastructure especially involving state support also detailed stories presented gave weekly deadline submissions instructions sent last month energy ministry 45 companies russias energy utilities sector including rosneft lukoil novatek according second document list recipients drive coincides runup presidential election march next year president vladimir putin needs strong mandate high turnout maintain firm grip power dominating russian politics two decades life majority people become calmer comfortable attractive many examples often escape medias attention said first document task creative painstaking approach select topics subjects offer media document mention election said news items supplied feed positive news wire correspond two themes life getting better things documents attached invitation dated oct 9 sent energy ministry senior executives public relations government relations departments firms 17 statecontrolled 28 privatelyheld invitation requested send representatives oct 12 meeting ministry moscow discuss help governments pr effort reuters saw copy invitation spoke three executives received according invitation news initiative requested sergei kiriyenko first deputy chief staff presidential administration spokesman kiriyenko respond request comment energy ministry also respond kremlin spokesman dmitry peskov reuters sent requests comment biggest five companies 45 market value stateowned oil major rosneft stateowned gas giant gazprom mcx private oil companies lukoil surgutneftegaz private gas firm novatek responses received ninepoint list oil gas provide russias biggest source revenue energy firms among powerful companies biggest employers reuters found evidence similar instructions sent companies sectors oct 12 meeting chaired deputy energy minister anton inyutsyn official presidential administration also present according one sources attended two officials went explained instructions laid sevenpage document said source added election mentioned reuters reported february ministry enlisted energy companies give advance notice developments could influence public opinion meeting last month guidelines circulated preparation show since initiative stepped higher gear companies handed highly specific instructions expected help clear companies acted instructions news guidelines document said government wanted highlight victories achievements included ninepoint list kind news companies supply asked example stories business units possible say state support helped lift crisis restored modern production reequipped new equipment gave work local residents examples given kind events interest government elsewhere corporate world included state lender sberbank hiring 700 people volga river city togliatti festival funded company kaliningrad region young people hearing difficulties sports center opened cherkessk southern russia document also held case yevgeny kosmin example positive news story miner western siberia whose team extracted 16 million tonnes coal july year monthly record carried echoes alexey stakhanov miner 1935 extracted almost 15 times coal shift quota required communist propaganda held stakhanov symbol soviet industrial prowess monday deadline instructions stipulated companies submit positive news stories every week monday tuesday morning latest said companies present items format table new additions highlighted colored font accompanied press release could passed journalists minimal editing government officials document also required company provide contact person could provide extra information journalists tell tv news crews reach venue report event organize access news crews companys sites reuters able establish kremlin made similarly specific demands companies past putin yet declared intention seek reelection kremlin observers say opinion polls show win comfortably many voters crediting restoring national pride kremlins biggest headache election scheduled next march ensuring strong turnout say many political analysts economy weak many people viewing result foregone conclusion voters may tempted stay away polling stations low turnout could undermine putins legitimacy next term analysts say | 581 |
<p>CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Cleveland-Cavaliers/" type="external">Cleveland Cavaliers</a> are still in the bonding phase of the 2017-18 season as they try to work in new additions around <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/LeBron_James/" type="external">LeBron James</a>.</p>
<p>The better they get to know each other, the better they are playing.</p>
<p>That was evident again on Wednesday night as the Cavs continued their mastery over the <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Charlotte-Hornets/" type="external">Charlotte Hornets</a> with a 115-107 victory at the Spectrum Center.</p>
<p>James led the way with 31 points, and the Cavs beat the Hornets for the seventh straight time and the 12th time in the last 13 meetings.</p>
<p>The performance concluded a four-game, seven-day road trip that both James and coach <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Tyronn_Lue/" type="external">Tyronn Lue</a> thought was extremely beneficial to the Cavs. The trip started with a loss at Houston before the Cavs reeled off wins at Dallas and New York before Wednesday night.</p>
<p>“This was a big win and this was a big trip for us overall,” James said. “Any time you’re on the road for more than two days, and this was a week for us, you have the opportunity to come together even more.</p>
<p>“We faced a little adversity throughout some of the games and you’ve got to be resilient. We lost the game to Houston, but we played extremely well. We just didn’t make enough plays down the stretch. But from Dallas to New York to today, we were very good.”</p>
<p>The Cavs (8-7) also got 22 points and 10 rebounds from <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kevin_Love/" type="external">Kevin Love</a>, 13 points from <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jeff_Green/" type="external">Jeff Green</a>, 11 points from <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kyle_Korver/" type="external">Kyle Korver</a>, 10 points from <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/JR-Smith/" type="external">J.R. Smith</a>, and nine points and eight rebounds from <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Channing_Frye/" type="external">Channing Frye</a>. Green, Korver and Frye were all on the floor in the stretch where the Cavs eventually pulled away.</p>
<p>Charlotte led 67-61 at halftime, but the Cavs outscored the Hornets 27-17 in the third quarter and then pushed the lead to as many as 10 in the fourth quarter.</p>
<p>James fought some foul trouble in the third quarter, but once he returned, he was again the dominant player on the floor. He finished 12 of 24 from the field and 4 of 7 from 3-point range. He also had eight assists and six rebounds.</p>
<p>“Our defense was phenomenal. We had a great game plan &amp; we were just in tune. We executed it. Our 4th quarter lineup, they started it &amp; they were getting stop after stop after stop and executing offensively. That was a big road win &amp; a big trip for us overall.” – <a href="https://twitter.com/KingJames?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" type="external">@KingJames</a> <a href="https://t.co/66VNPwlZa2" type="external">pic.twitter.com/66VNPwlZa2</a></p>
<p>— Cleveland Cavaliers (@cavs) <a href="https://twitter.com/cavs/status/931024217604272129?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" type="external">November 16, 2017</a></p>
<p>A James steal and dunk with 3:02 remaining put the Cavs up 111-102 and was probably the defining play of the game.</p>
<p>James is now 44-6 against teams from Charlotte (the Bobcats and the Hornets) during his 15-year career. He has scored 30 or more points 19 times against Charlotte teams.</p>
<p>“Our defense was the biggest difference in the game,” James said. “Our defense was phenomenal. We had a great game plan and we executed it well.</p>
<p>At the start of the fourth quarter, we were getting stop after stop and executing offensively, so that was big.”</p>
<p>Lue added, “The second half, holding a team like this to 40 points was a good job. I’m seeing some great strides the last five games or so.</p>
<p>“We’ve really been playing better defensively, playing better offensively, and just trying to figure it out playing without a point guard. The guys are doing a great job of putting in the extra work, and it’s coming.”</p>
<p>The Hornets (5-8) have now lost five in a row. They were returning home from a winless four-game road trip.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Michael-Kidd-Gilchrist/" type="external">Michael Kidd-Gilchrist</a> led the Hornets with 22 points. <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kemba_Walker/" type="external">Kemba Walker</a> scored 20 but was 7 of 17 from the field and scored only eight in the second half after the Cavs switched the 6-9 Green over to guard him.</p>
<p>The Hornets also got 16 points from Nicolas Batum, who played for the first time this season after missing the first 12 games following elbow surgery.</p>
<p>“Obviously, you play every game to win, but then there are some positives in having Mike back in there in game shape and you see what a difference he can make,” Hornets coach <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Steve-Clifford/" type="external">Steve Clifford</a> said. “Obviously Nic makes such a difference and as he gets more into rhythm I think you’ll start to see the potential that our group has.”</p>
<p>Charlotte’s <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Marvin_Williams/" type="external">Marvin Williams</a> said, “Throughout the course of a season you’re going to have times when you win three, four, five in a row, and unfortunately you’re going to have times when you lose two, three, four, five in a row whatever the case may be. We’ve been there before. We’re just going to have to keep working, try to get better and try to get a win next time.”</p>
<p>NOTES: This was the first of three meetings between the teams this season. They’ll meet Nov. 24 in Cleveland and then back in Charlotte again on March 28. … The Hornets wore throwback uniforms with pinstripes for the first time, from the original Hornets’ 1988 season. … The Cavs were without G <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Derrick_Rose/" type="external">Derrick Rose</a> (left ankle sprain), G <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Isaiah_Thomas/" type="external">Isaiah Thomas</a> (right hip) and C <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Tristan_Thompson/" type="external">Tristan Thompson</a> (left calf strain). … The Hornets were without F Treveon Graham (right quad contusion) and G Julyan Stone (strained left hamstring). … The Hornets were coming off a four-day break. Their last game was a 90-87 loss at Boston last Friday. … Cavs F LeBron James came into the game fifth in the NBA in scoring at 28.1 and fourth in assists at 8.8. … The Cavs will return home to host the <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Los-Angeles-Clippers/" type="external">Los Angeles Clippers</a> on Friday. The Hornets will play at Chicago on Friday.</p> | false | 1 | charlotte nc cleveland cavaliers still bonding phase 201718 season try work new additions around lebron james better get know better playing evident wednesday night cavs continued mastery charlotte hornets 115107 victory spectrum center james led way 31 points cavs beat hornets seventh straight time 12th time last 13 meetings performance concluded fourgame sevenday road trip james coach tyronn lue thought extremely beneficial cavs trip started loss houston cavs reeled wins dallas new york wednesday night big win big trip us overall james said time youre road two days week us opportunity come together even faced little adversity throughout games youve got resilient lost game houston played extremely well didnt make enough plays stretch dallas new york today good cavs 87 also got 22 points 10 rebounds kevin love 13 points jeff green 11 points kyle korver 10 points jr smith nine points eight rebounds channing frye green korver frye floor stretch cavs eventually pulled away charlotte led 6761 halftime cavs outscored hornets 2717 third quarter pushed lead many 10 fourth quarter james fought foul trouble third quarter returned dominant player floor finished 12 24 field 4 7 3point range also eight assists six rebounds defense phenomenal great game plan amp tune executed 4th quarter lineup started amp getting stop stop stop executing offensively big road win amp big trip us overall kingjames pictwittercom66vnpwlza2 cleveland cavaliers cavs november 16 2017 james steal dunk 302 remaining put cavs 111102 probably defining play game james 446 teams charlotte bobcats hornets 15year career scored 30 points 19 times charlotte teams defense biggest difference game james said defense phenomenal great game plan executed well start fourth quarter getting stop stop executing offensively big lue added second half holding team like 40 points good job im seeing great strides last five games weve really playing better defensively playing better offensively trying figure playing without point guard guys great job putting extra work coming hornets 58 lost five row returning home winless fourgame road trip michael kiddgilchrist led hornets 22 points kemba walker scored 20 7 17 field scored eight second half cavs switched 69 green guard hornets also got 16 points nicolas batum played first time season missing first 12 games following elbow surgery obviously play every game win positives mike back game shape see difference make hornets coach steve clifford said obviously nic makes difference gets rhythm think youll start see potential group charlottes marvin williams said throughout course season youre going times win three four five row unfortunately youre going times lose two three four five row whatever case may weve going keep working try get better try get win next time notes first three meetings teams season theyll meet nov 24 cleveland back charlotte march 28 hornets wore throwback uniforms pinstripes first time original hornets 1988 season cavs without g derrick rose left ankle sprain g isaiah thomas right hip c tristan thompson left calf strain hornets without f treveon graham right quad contusion g julyan stone strained left hamstring hornets coming fourday break last game 9087 loss boston last friday cavs f lebron james came game fifth nba scoring 281 fourth assists 88 cavs return home host los angeles clippers friday hornets play chicago friday | 533 |
<p>By Andrew Osborn and Jack Stubbs</p>
<p>MOSCOW (Reuters) – From Damascus to Doha, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu has been showing up in unexpected places, a sign of the military’s growing influence under Vladimir Putin.</p>
<p>In the past few months, at times wearing his desert military uniform, Shoigu has held talks with Syria’s president in Damascus, met Israel’s prime minister in Tel Aviv and been received by the Emir of Qatar in Doha.</p>
<p>The defense ministry’s forays into areas long regarded as the preserve of the foreign ministry are raising eyebrows in Russia, where strict protocol means ministers usually hold talks only with their direct foreign counterparts.</p>
<p>The military is reaping political dividends from what the Kremlin saw as its big successes in Crimea, annexed from Ukraine after Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms seized control of the peninsula in 2014, and Syria, where Russian forces helped turn the tide of war in President Bashar al-Assad’s favor.</p>
<p>“That has translated into more top-table influence,” said a long-serving Russian official who interacts with the defense ministry but declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.</p>
<p>The Kremlin and the defense and foreign ministries did not respond to detailed requests for comment for this article.</p>
<p>The growth of the military’s influence has caused discontent among some Russian diplomats and unease among Western officials about the harder edge it is giving Russia’s foreign policy.</p>
<p>Foreign policy-making has become more bellicose and more opaque, and this makes new Russian military adventures more likely, some Western officials say.</p>
<p>“If you allow the defense ministry a bigger say in foreign policy it’s going to be looking for trouble,” said one, who declined to be named because of the subject’s sensitivity.</p>
<p>Shoigu’s high profile has also revived talk of the long-time Putin loyalist as a possible presidential stand-in if Putin, who is seeking a fourth term in an election in March, had to step down suddenly and was unable to serve out a full six-year term.</p>
<p>Shoigu, 62, is not involved in party politics but opinion polls often put him among the top five most popular presidential possibles. His trust rating is also often second only to Putin, with whom he was pictured on a fishing trip this summer.</p>
<p>SYRIA ROLE</p>
<p>The military’s influence has ebbed and flowed in Russia and, before that, the Soviet Union.</p>
<p>It had huge clout at the end of World War Two and in the 1950s after the death of Soviet leader Josef Stalin when Georgy Zhukov, a commander credited with a crucial role in defeating Nazi Germany, was defense minister.</p>
<p>But the ignominious Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, completed in 1989, two wars Russia fought in Chechnya after the Soviet Union’s collapse, and the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine with the loss of all 118 people on board in 2000 left the military’s prestige in tatters.</p>
<p>Under Putin, a former KGB agent who as president is the armed forces’ commander-in-chief, its stock has risen. Defence spending has soared, the military has been deployed in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria and its actions are used to foster patriotism.</p>
<p>The military’s growing political and foreign policy muscle is most noticeable when it comes to Syria.</p>
<p>After going to Damascus twice earlier this year for talks with Assad, Shoigu was at Putin’s side this week when the president flew in to meet the Syrian leader. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has not visited Syria at all in 2017.</p>
<p>Unusually for a defence minister, Shoigu has been involved in diplomatic efforts to bring peace to Syria. In this role he has spoken about the importance of a new draft constitution for the country, met the U.N. special envoy on Syria and had talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani.</p>
<p>A Western official who has direct contact with the foreign and defence ministries said the Russian military had real heft in Damascus of a kind the foreign ministry did not.</p>
<p>There was “strong mutual trust” between the Russian military and senior people in Damascus, the official said, because “the Russians saved their asses and the Syrians respect that.”</p>
<p>The foreign ministry retains strong Middle East experts and continues to play an important Syria role, helping run peace talks taking place in Kazakhstan. But Lavrov’s own efforts to secure a U.S.-Russia deal on cooperating in Syria have shown how differently the foreign and defence ministries sometimes think.</p>
<p>Lavrov is still seen as a formidable diplomat whom Putin trusts and respects. But Western officials say he is not summoned to all important meetings and is not informed about major military operations in Syria.</p>
<p>POLICY INTERVENTIONS</p>
<p>The military’s other foreign policy interventions include a role in Russia’s alleged interference in last year’s U.S. presidential election, U.S. intelligence agencies say.</p>
<p>They say the GRU, Russia’s military foreign intelligence agency, hacked email accounts belonging to Democratic Party officials and politicians, and organized their leaking to the media to try to sway public opinion against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump’s main rival.</p>
<p>The Kremlin denies the allegations.</p>
<p>Other policy interventions included a news briefing in December 2015 at which the defence ministry said it had proof that Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and his family were benefiting from illegal smuggling of oil from Islamic State-held territory in Syria and Iraq.</p>
<p>Erdogan said the allegations, made at a briefing held a week after a Turkish air force jet shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian-Turkish border, amounted to slander.</p>
<p>The defence ministry’s response to the incident was much sharper than that of Russian diplomats, part of a wide-ranging communications policy that has included frequent criticism of the U.S. State Department and Washington’s foreign policy.</p>
<p>Other areas of interest for the defence ministry have included Egypt, Sudan and Libya.</p>
<p>Shoigu was involved in talks between Putin and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in Moscow last month and the ministry hosted Khalifa Haftar, Eastern Libya’s dominant military figure, aboard its sole aircraft carrier in January. During the visit, Haftar spoke to Shoigu via video link about fighting terrorism in the Middle East.</p>
<p>One Western official told Reuters such incidents were fuelling fears that Russia plans to expand its footprint beyond Syria, where it has an air base and a naval facility, to centers such as Yemen, Sudan or Afghanistan.</p>
<p>The military’s influence in domestic policy-making has expanded too, Russian analysts and Western officials say, with Putin seeking its views on everything from the digital economy to food security.</p>
<p>That is in part because Putin, since the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, has altered the way he takes decisions and widened the scope of what the Security Council, which he chairs, discusses to include many domestic policy questions.</p>
<p>“At a time when there’s a feeling that Russia is increasingly surrounded by enemies, Putin is consulting the intelligence services and the military more when he takes all decisions. He’s meeting them all the time,” said Tatyana Stanovaya, head of the analytical department at the Center for Political Technologies think tank.</p>
<p>Stanovaya said that did not mean the military was initiating ideas, but that its opinions were taken into account far more by Putin now than in the past and that it now had an important voice on domestic policy areas.</p> | false | 1 | andrew osborn jack stubbs moscow reuters damascus doha russian defence minister sergei shoigu showing unexpected places sign militarys growing influence vladimir putin past months times wearing desert military uniform shoigu held talks syrias president damascus met israels prime minister tel aviv received emir qatar doha defense ministrys forays areas long regarded preserve foreign ministry raising eyebrows russia strict protocol means ministers usually hold talks direct foreign counterparts military reaping political dividends kremlin saw big successes crimea annexed ukraine russian soldiers unmarked uniforms seized control peninsula 2014 syria russian forces helped turn tide war president bashar alassads favor translated toptable influence said longserving russian official interacts defense ministry declined named authorized speak media kremlin defense foreign ministries respond detailed requests comment article growth militarys influence caused discontent among russian diplomats unease among western officials harder edge giving russias foreign policy foreign policymaking become bellicose opaque makes new russian military adventures likely western officials say allow defense ministry bigger say foreign policy going looking trouble said one declined named subjects sensitivity shoigus high profile also revived talk longtime putin loyalist possible presidential standin putin seeking fourth term election march step suddenly unable serve full sixyear term shoigu 62 involved party politics opinion polls often put among top five popular presidential possibles trust rating also often second putin pictured fishing trip summer syria role militarys influence ebbed flowed russia soviet union huge clout end world war two 1950s death soviet leader josef stalin georgy zhukov commander credited crucial role defeating nazi germany defense minister ignominious soviet withdrawal afghanistan completed 1989 two wars russia fought chechnya soviet unions collapse sinking kursk nuclear submarine loss 118 people board 2000 left militarys prestige tatters putin former kgb agent president armed forces commanderinchief stock risen defence spending soared military deployed georgia ukraine syria actions used foster patriotism militarys growing political foreign policy muscle noticeable comes syria going damascus twice earlier year talks assad shoigu putins side week president flew meet syrian leader foreign minister sergei lavrov visited syria 2017 unusually defence minister shoigu involved diplomatic efforts bring peace syria role spoken importance new draft constitution country met un special envoy syria talks israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu emir qatar sheikh tamim bin hamad althani western official direct contact foreign defence ministries said russian military real heft damascus kind foreign ministry strong mutual trust russian military senior people damascus official said russians saved asses syrians respect foreign ministry retains strong middle east experts continues play important syria role helping run peace talks taking place kazakhstan lavrovs efforts secure usrussia deal cooperating syria shown differently foreign defence ministries sometimes think lavrov still seen formidable diplomat putin trusts respects western officials say summoned important meetings informed major military operations syria policy interventions militarys foreign policy interventions include role russias alleged interference last years us presidential election us intelligence agencies say say gru russias military foreign intelligence agency hacked email accounts belonging democratic party officials politicians organized leaking media try sway public opinion hillary clinton donald trumps main rival kremlin denies allegations policy interventions included news briefing december 2015 defence ministry said proof turkish president tayyip erdogan family benefiting illegal smuggling oil islamic stateheld territory syria iraq erdogan said allegations made briefing held week turkish air force jet shot russian warplane near syrianturkish border amounted slander defence ministrys response incident much sharper russian diplomats part wideranging communications policy included frequent criticism us state department washingtons foreign policy areas interest defence ministry included egypt sudan libya shoigu involved talks putin sudanese president omar albashir moscow last month ministry hosted khalifa haftar eastern libyas dominant military figure aboard sole aircraft carrier january visit haftar spoke shoigu via video link fighting terrorism middle east one western official told reuters incidents fuelling fears russia plans expand footprint beyond syria air base naval facility centers yemen sudan afghanistan militarys influence domestic policymaking expanded russian analysts western officials say putin seeking views everything digital economy food security part putin since annexation crimea ukraine altered way takes decisions widened scope security council chairs discusses include many domestic policy questions time theres feeling russia increasingly surrounded enemies putin consulting intelligence services military takes decisions hes meeting time said tatyana stanovaya head analytical department center political technologies think tank stanovaya said mean military initiating ideas opinions taken account far putin past important voice domestic policy areas | 716 |
<p>Abstract: Medicare is the government health insurance program on which the vast majority of America’s senior and disabled citizens rely. The program has no spending limits — despite its price controls and central planning — and, as currently designed, is simply unsustainable. All future taxpayers and retirees deserve to have good and reliable health insurance (federal employees already do). Medicare can be saved — but not by ever more burdensome government bureaucracy and micromanagement, such as prescribed by the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Patient choice and market competition, along with strong budget controls, are the keys to reforming Medicare so that it will be available to future generations. And for those looking for guarantees — this paper details five principles on which future Medicare enrollees should be able to count.</p>
<p>Medicare is an entitlement program intended to secure health care for senior and disabled citizens. But its current design, based on government central planning and price controls, falls far short of guaranteeing access to high-quality care for current and future retirees. With no budgetary limit, program costs have soared and will become unaffordable for future taxpayers. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) reinforces bureaucratic micromanagement and price regulation and makes the program’s current problems even worse.</p>
<p>In the 21st century, a renewed Medicare should be firmly based on patient choice and market competition. Such reform could be achieved through the creation of a new system of “premium support,” where the government makes a direct and generous contribution to the health plan of an enrollee’s choice, and health plans and providers compete directly for beneficiaries’ health care dollars. Premium support would give future Medicare patients control over the flow of Medicare dollars and decisions, guarantee personal choice of health plans, and let them secure the best value for the money. This is the kind of consumer choice model that federal workers and retirees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) enjoy. It is a popular and successful approach because it emphasizes personal choice among plans, and government oversight ensures consumer protection and transparency.</p>
<p>A reformed and sustainable Medicare program should be based on five key guarantees:</p>
<p>(1) Predictable and Stable Financing. Congress should guarantee definite and stable funding for Medicare that simultaneously assures solid coverage for beneficiaries while protecting future taxpayers from unaffordable obligations. A new Medicare program would be based on competition and consumer choice in every region of the nation, delivering high value for Medicare dollars, and replacing the inefficient central planning and price regulation that either overpays or underpays providers around the country. Building on policy initiatives already proposed by the Administration or adopted by Congress, the new Medicare premium support program would replace today’s program design during a transition of five or 10 years. The amount of premium support provided to beneficiaries would be determined with a three-step process.</p>
<p>First, building on President Barack Obama’s original proposal for Medicare Advantage competitive bidding, <a href="" type="internal">[1]</a> Congress would allow health insurance companies to offer the Medicare benefits package regionally, with premiums for the coverage set by the insurers themselves. Government-administered fee-for-service would also be one of the plans offering coverage in each region. Premiums would be set to cover expected costs. In each regional market, the government would determine the weighted average premium of all participating insurance plans, including government-administered fee-for-service. Under the premium support program, the government’s contribution to any of the competing health plans on behalf of a Medicare beneficiary would be set, on a default basis, at 90 percent of the weighted average premium in any given region.</p>
<p>Second, Congress would establish an overall long-term budget for Medicare premium support payments in a new budget process aimed at bolstering control of entitlement spending beyond the normal 10-year budget window. A budgeted amount for Medicare would be established over a long-term period, such as 30 years, after weighing this spending against other priorities, such as overall levels of taxation and spending for other entitlements like Social Security and Medicaid. Changes to this previously established Medicare budget would require additional congressional action.</p>
<p>In the PPACA, Congress capped the growth of per capita Medicare spending (in the years after 2018) at per capita GDP growth plus one percentage point, and established a board to enforce this limit with provider-payment reductions. <a href="" type="internal">[2]</a> Congress should move away from the PPACA model and instead apply a spending limit to the overall level of Medicare premium support payments, which would be allowed to grow from an initial target by a blend of the general consumer price index (CPI) and the Medical CPI, plus expected growth in the number of program enrollees. If Medicare premium-support payments, derived from the weighted average of submitted premiums from insurers, were to exceed the spending limit established for the program, the government contribution percentage would be adjusted downward from 90 percent as necessary, say to 88 percent, to bring spending in line with the Medicare budget. The combination of competitive bidding with a limit on the government’s contribution should provide powerful incentives for cost-cutting throughout the health sector.</p>
<p>Finally, the government contribution should be provided to beneficiaries on the basis of need. Medicare would remain valuable to all seniors because of the access it would provide to insurance plans that have a broad and stable risk pool. But those with earnings and savings sufficient to pay more of the premiums themselves should be asked to do so — thus lessening the burden on workers who pay Medicare taxes. This would move the Medicare program toward a genuine safety net role, even as all seniors would retain stable coverage.</p>
<p>(2) Broad Personal Choice of Plans and Options. The key feature of a functioning, competitive marketplace is informed consumer choice. Medicare beneficiaries would be given the opportunity to select coverage that best suits their needs. In the transition to the new Medicare program, certain options would automatically be grandfathered in as acceptable options for beneficiaries, including Medicare Advantage plans, FEHBP plans, state employee retiree plans, employer plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and plans licensed by the states, including small-employer group plans, Taft-Hartley plans for certain union employees, and individual, high-deductible plans or health savings accounts. In every case, however, the health plans offered to Medicare enrollees must provide protection from catastrophic illness.</p>
<p>(3) Standards that Meet or Exceed the FEHBP’s. A Medicare Patient Protection Commission, modeled on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, would enforce a common set of insurance and consumer protection rules. <a href="" type="internal">[3]</a> For insurance, the commission would certify that health plans offer the basic categories of health benefits modeled on the statutory requirements of the FEHBP. While the community rating and guaranteed-issue rules of the FEHBP would be retained, the reformed Medicare program would also provide premium discounts for enrollment in wellness or prevention programs. Medicare enrollees would be permitted to switch plans in an annual open season (as they do today in the FEHBP), and they would also have the option of signing up for two-year, three-year, and five-year health insurance contracts. Thus, health plans could offer wellness bonuses (either year by year or at the end of the contract) for those who participate in preventive health care programs. The program would also include a risk-adjustment or reinsurance mechanism to offset any adverse selection — a major improvement over the FEHBP. For consumer protection, the commission would enforce FEHBP-style rules, such as fair marketing, plain-English requirements for presentation of plan information, and fiscal-solvency requirements. <a href="" type="internal">[4]</a></p>
<p>(4) Freedom of Choice for Medicare Enrollees. Americans enrolled in Medicare would be able to buy the health plan that best suits their personal needs and is affordable to taxpayers now and in the future. The new Medicare program would only be available for new retirees during a transition period of perhaps five or 10 years; no current Medicare patients would be affected by this structural change. Unlike today, however, new retirees would be able to bring private health plans into retirement with them and secure a government contribution, in the form of premium support, to offset their costs. Once enrolled in the new Medicare program, they would be able to choose from a wide variety of health plans during an “open season,” just as federal workers and retirees do today.</p>
<p>(5) Medicare Savings for Medicare Alone. Congress should also pursue additional Medicare reforms, beyond the creation of a new premium-support program, that would result in savings that would be plowed back into the Medicare trust fund to enhance the program’s fiscal solvency. Such reforms could include adjustments to supplemental Medigap policies to ensure some level of cost-sharing by fee-for-service Medicare enrollees, raising or refining co-insurance or co-payments for certain Medicare services (such as home health care), increased premiums, or gradually raising the retirement age.</p>
<p>A Better Deal</p>
<p>A better Medicare program, with a range of personal choice and a system of governance broadly similar to the FEHBP, will give Medicare patients control over the flow of dollars and freedom to make decisions about how they access medical services. This will stimulate intense market competition among plans and providers, control costs, and promote rapid innovation and higher productivity through the efficient delivery of quality care, thus guaranteeing value in return for retiree premiums and taxpayer dollars. Strong budgetary controls will back up the competitive structure, ensuring that the Medicare program remains affordable. Most important, these reforms will promote personal freedom of choice as well as stable and reliable health insurance.</p>
<p>–Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow in the Center for Policy Innovation at The Heritage Foundation; James C. Capretta is a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.</p>
<p><a type="external" href="" />[1]The President’s original budget proposal for competitive bidding was based on market bids, separate from the Medicare payment benchmarks that govern Medicare Advantage today.</p>
<p><a type="external" href="" />[2]During the transition, the Medicare budget rules would apply to the entire Medicare program. Section 3403 of Title III of the PPACA states that, beginning in 2014, Congress initially limits Medicare per capita spending growth at a blend of CPI and Medical CPI. Beginning in 2018, Medicare spending growth is to match the growth of per capita GDP plus 1 percentage point.</p>
<p><a type="external" href="" />[3]Members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.</p>
<p><a type="external" href="" />[4]For an excellent account of the FEHBP’s clear superiority over traditional Medicare in controlling cost and delivering high-quality care within a light and rational regulatory framework, see Walton J. Francis, Putting Medicare Consumers in Charge: Lessons from the FEHBP (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 2009).</p> | false | 1 | abstract medicare government health insurance program vast majority americas senior disabled citizens rely program spending limits despite price controls central planning currently designed simply unsustainable future taxpayers retirees deserve good reliable health insurance federal employees already medicare saved ever burdensome government bureaucracy micromanagement prescribed misnamed patient protection affordable care act patient choice market competition along strong budget controls keys reforming medicare available future generations looking guarantees paper details five principles future medicare enrollees able count medicare entitlement program intended secure health care senior disabled citizens current design based government central planning price controls falls far short guaranteeing access highquality care current future retirees budgetary limit program costs soared become unaffordable future taxpayers patient protection affordable care act ppaca reinforces bureaucratic micromanagement price regulation makes programs current problems even worse 21st century renewed medicare firmly based patient choice market competition reform could achieved creation new system premium support government makes direct generous contribution health plan enrollees choice health plans providers compete directly beneficiaries health care dollars premium support would give future medicare patients control flow medicare dollars decisions guarantee personal choice health plans let secure best value money kind consumer choice model federal workers retirees federal employees health benefits program fehbp enjoy popular successful approach emphasizes personal choice among plans government oversight ensures consumer protection transparency reformed sustainable medicare program based five key guarantees 1 predictable stable financing congress guarantee definite stable funding medicare simultaneously assures solid coverage beneficiaries protecting future taxpayers unaffordable obligations new medicare program would based competition consumer choice every region nation delivering high value medicare dollars replacing inefficient central planning price regulation either overpays underpays providers around country building policy initiatives already proposed administration adopted congress new medicare premium support program would replace todays program design transition five 10 years amount premium support provided beneficiaries would determined threestep process first building president barack obamas original proposal medicare advantage competitive bidding 1 congress would allow health insurance companies offer medicare benefits package regionally premiums coverage set insurers governmentadministered feeforservice would also one plans offering coverage region premiums would set cover expected costs regional market government would determine weighted average premium participating insurance plans including governmentadministered feeforservice premium support program governments contribution competing health plans behalf medicare beneficiary would set default basis 90 percent weighted average premium given region second congress would establish overall longterm budget medicare premium support payments new budget process aimed bolstering control entitlement spending beyond normal 10year budget window budgeted amount medicare would established longterm period 30 years weighing spending priorities overall levels taxation spending entitlements like social security medicaid changes previously established medicare budget would require additional congressional action ppaca congress capped growth per capita medicare spending years 2018 per capita gdp growth plus one percentage point established board enforce limit providerpayment reductions 2 congress move away ppaca model instead apply spending limit overall level medicare premium support payments would allowed grow initial target blend general consumer price index cpi medical cpi plus expected growth number program enrollees medicare premiumsupport payments derived weighted average submitted premiums insurers exceed spending limit established program government contribution percentage would adjusted downward 90 percent necessary say 88 percent bring spending line medicare budget combination competitive bidding limit governments contribution provide powerful incentives costcutting throughout health sector finally government contribution provided beneficiaries basis need medicare would remain valuable seniors access would provide insurance plans broad stable risk pool earnings savings sufficient pay premiums asked thus lessening burden workers pay medicare taxes would move medicare program toward genuine safety net role even seniors would retain stable coverage 2 broad personal choice plans options key feature functioning competitive marketplace informed consumer choice medicare beneficiaries would given opportunity select coverage best suits needs transition new medicare program certain options would automatically grandfathered acceptable options beneficiaries including medicare advantage plans fehbp plans state employee retiree plans employer plans regulated employee retirement income security act erisa plans licensed states including smallemployer group plans tafthartley plans certain union employees individual highdeductible plans health savings accounts every case however health plans offered medicare enrollees must provide protection catastrophic illness 3 standards meet exceed fehbps medicare patient protection commission modeled consumer product safety commission would enforce common set insurance consumer protection rules 3 insurance commission would certify health plans offer basic categories health benefits modeled statutory requirements fehbp community rating guaranteedissue rules fehbp would retained reformed medicare program would also provide premium discounts enrollment wellness prevention programs medicare enrollees would permitted switch plans annual open season today fehbp would also option signing twoyear threeyear fiveyear health insurance contracts thus health plans could offer wellness bonuses either year year end contract participate preventive health care programs program would also include riskadjustment reinsurance mechanism offset adverse selection major improvement fehbp consumer protection commission would enforce fehbpstyle rules fair marketing plainenglish requirements presentation plan information fiscalsolvency requirements 4 4 freedom choice medicare enrollees americans enrolled medicare would able buy health plan best suits personal needs affordable taxpayers future new medicare program would available new retirees transition period perhaps five 10 years current medicare patients would affected structural change unlike today however new retirees would able bring private health plans retirement secure government contribution form premium support offset costs enrolled new medicare program would able choose wide variety health plans open season federal workers retirees today 5 medicare savings medicare alone congress also pursue additional medicare reforms beyond creation new premiumsupport program would result savings would plowed back medicare trust fund enhance programs fiscal solvency reforms could include adjustments supplemental medigap policies ensure level costsharing feeforservice medicare enrollees raising refining coinsurance copayments certain medicare services home health care increased premiums gradually raising retirement age better deal better medicare program range personal choice system governance broadly similar fehbp give medicare patients control flow dollars freedom make decisions access medical services stimulate intense market competition among plans providers control costs promote rapid innovation higher productivity efficient delivery quality care thus guaranteeing value return retiree premiums taxpayer dollars strong budgetary controls back competitive structure ensuring medicare program remains affordable important reforms promote personal freedom choice well stable reliable health insurance robert e moffit phd senior fellow center policy innovation heritage foundation james c capretta fellow ethics public policy center 1the presidents original budget proposal competitive bidding based market bids separate medicare payment benchmarks govern medicare advantage today 2during transition medicare budget rules would apply entire medicare program section 3403 title iii ppaca states beginning 2014 congress initially limits medicare per capita spending growth blend cpi medical cpi beginning 2018 medicare spending growth match growth per capita gdp plus 1 percentage point 3members consumer product safety commission nominated president confirmed senate 4for excellent account fehbps clear superiority traditional medicare controlling cost delivering highquality care within light rational regulatory framework see walton j francis putting medicare consumers charge lessons fehbp washington dc aei press 2009 | 1,129 |
<p>WASHINGTON — Senators — who needs them?</p>
<p>Most presidents try not to feud with members of Congress from their own party. But President Donald Trump is known for shredding the rule book, so why would congressional etiquette be any different?</p>
<p>The New York Times reported this week that Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are feuding bitterly, if privately, save for the occasional tweet. On Tuesday, the president took the act public <a href="" type="internal">when he traveled to Phoenix</a> and bashed Arizona’s two U.S. senators from his own party — on their home turf. Call it the anti-charm offensive.</p>
<p>Trump pretended he wasn’t quite doing that, because he did not criticize Republican Sens. John McCain or Jeff Flake by name. Instead Trump declared he would not single out any local politicians as he lamented that the Senate health bill failed because it was “one vote away” from passage — a reference to McCain’s vote against the “skinny repeal bill” to end Obamacare.</p>
<p>The bill needed 50 votes to pass but garnered support from only 49 of 52 GOP senators as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine joined McCain in opposing it. The Phoenix rally audience gleefully “booed” at the McCain reference — undeterred by the fact that the former Vietnam prisoner of war is recuperating from aggressive treatment of recently diagnosed brain cancer.</p>
<p>Trump then added, “Nobody wants me to talk about your other senator, who’s weak on borders, weak on crime, so I won’t talk about him.” It was a clear reference to Flake, who supported efforts to reform federal immigration law and the federal criminal justice system.</p>
<p>In case there was any doubt, Trump dropped his no-name directive in a Wednesday morning tweet: “Phoenix crowd last night was amazing — a packed house. I love the Great State of Arizona. Not a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime &amp; border!”</p>
<p />
<p />
<p />
<p>GOP majority jeopardized</p>
<p>“I think it’s a very risky strategy,” said John Tuman, chairman of the UNLV Department of Political Science. “They have such a razor-thin majority in the Senate.”</p>
<p>Trump cannot afford to lose any of the 52 Republican votes in the Senate on future legislation, as happened with health care. And Trump has jeopardized the GOP’s slim majority by targeting Flake, who is up for re-election in 2018.</p>
<p>Earlier this year Trump made Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., more vulnerable when he singled him out during a session with GOP senators. “Look, he wants to remain a senator, doesn’t he?” Trump asked — on camera. Heller voted for the skinny repeal bill; still, perennial candidate Danny Tarkanian chose to oppose him in a Republican primary.</p>
<p>Flake also voted for the skinny repeal bill — but Trump has praised Flake’s primary challenger Kelli Ward on Twitter.</p>
<p>“Why force people to use their resources fending off a primary challenge?” Tuman asked.</p>
<p>John Hart, a Republican strategist who was communications director for former Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sees Trump’s criticism of Flake as “an enormous mistake.”</p>
<p>Flake’s new book, “Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle,” was sure to set off Trump. Ditto Flake’s refusal to endorse Trump in 2016 after the New York businessman won the GOP nomination.</p>
<p>But as Hart sees it, Trump’s hits on Flake present a distraction from the president’s agenda. “And he’s handing the quote-unquote fake-news media a very real story about an intra-party battle,” Hart said.</p>
<p>If Trump’s moves take out Flake in the primary or general election, Hart warned, and later an obstruction-of-justice charge is brought against Trump, GOP senators “will be less sympathetic” toward the president if they see him as taking out one of their own “out of spite.”</p>
<p>Preserving outsider image</p>
<p>After multiple queries, the closest comment to a defense of Trump’s forays against GOP pols came from a Republican close to the White House, who did not want to be named. He saw the president “trying to preserve his image as an outsider by criticizing specific lawmakers for inaction by Congress” — in an effort that is counterproductive.</p>
<p>Tuman noted, “I’m continuously surprised at his inability to put things aside” to further his agenda. That’s a strike against Trump — the suspicion that there is no strategy, only emotion, behind his spats.</p>
<p>McConnell’s office highlighted Trump’s volatility when it downplayed reports of the McConnell-Trump feud. “There are a lot of things that we talk about, but what we don’t talk about is feelings,” said McConnell communications director David Popp.</p>
<p>Former California Gov. Pete Wilson, a Trump supporter, believes Trump and McConnell need to meet privately to air their grievances. They need to focus on winning the 2018 midterm election, Wilson said. “You don’t gratuitously inflict injury, and if you’ve got grievances, you air them in private.”</p>
<p>“It’s just not smart,” Wilson said, for Trump and GOP leaders to spar when all should be focused on tax reform and immigration enforcement. Otherwise, he said, “I could care less. They’re both big boys.”</p>
<p>After the Times story came out, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders issued a statement that said, “President Donald J. Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell remain united on many shared priorities, including middle class tax relief, strengthening the military, constructing a southern border wall, and other important issues.</p>
<p>“They will hold previously scheduled meetings following the August recess to discuss these critical items with members of the congressional leadership and the President’s Cabinet. White House and leadership staff are coordinating regarding the details of those meetings.”</p>
<p>Contact Debra J. Saunders at <a href="" type="internal">[email protected]</a> or 202-662-7391. Follow <a href="http://www.twitter.com/DebraJSaunders" type="external">@DebraJSaunders</a> on Twitter.</p> | false | 1 | washington senators needs presidents try feud members congress party president donald trump known shredding rule book would congressional etiquette different new york times reported week trump senate majority leader mitch mcconnell feuding bitterly privately save occasional tweet tuesday president took act public traveled phoenix bashed arizonas two us senators party home turf call anticharm offensive trump pretended wasnt quite criticize republican sens john mccain jeff flake name instead trump declared would single local politicians lamented senate health bill failed one vote away passage reference mccains vote skinny repeal bill end obamacare bill needed 50 votes pass garnered support 49 52 gop senators lisa murkowski alaska susan collins maine joined mccain opposing phoenix rally audience gleefully booed mccain reference undeterred fact former vietnam prisoner war recuperating aggressive treatment recently diagnosed brain cancer trump added nobody wants talk senator whos weak borders weak crime wont talk clear reference flake supported efforts reform federal immigration law federal criminal justice system case doubt trump dropped noname directive wednesday morning tweet phoenix crowd last night amazing packed house love great state arizona fan jeff flake weak crime amp border gop majority jeopardized think risky strategy said john tuman chairman unlv department political science razorthin majority senate trump afford lose 52 republican votes senate future legislation happened health care trump jeopardized gops slim majority targeting flake reelection 2018 earlier year trump made sen dean heller rnev vulnerable singled session gop senators look wants remain senator doesnt trump asked camera heller voted skinny repeal bill still perennial candidate danny tarkanian chose oppose republican primary flake also voted skinny repeal bill trump praised flakes primary challenger kelli ward twitter force people use resources fending primary challenge tuman asked john hart republican strategist communications director former sen tom coburn rokla sees trumps criticism flake enormous mistake flakes new book conscience conservative rejection destructive politics return principle sure set trump ditto flakes refusal endorse trump 2016 new york businessman gop nomination hart sees trumps hits flake present distraction presidents agenda hes handing quoteunquote fakenews media real story intraparty battle hart said trumps moves take flake primary general election hart warned later obstructionofjustice charge brought trump gop senators less sympathetic toward president see taking one spite preserving outsider image multiple queries closest comment defense trumps forays gop pols came republican close white house want named saw president trying preserve image outsider criticizing specific lawmakers inaction congress effort counterproductive tuman noted im continuously surprised inability put things aside agenda thats strike trump suspicion strategy emotion behind spats mcconnells office highlighted trumps volatility downplayed reports mcconnelltrump feud lot things talk dont talk feelings said mcconnell communications director david popp former california gov pete wilson trump supporter believes trump mcconnell need meet privately air grievances need focus winning 2018 midterm election wilson said dont gratuitously inflict injury youve got grievances air private smart wilson said trump gop leaders spar focused tax reform immigration enforcement otherwise said could care less theyre big boys times story came white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders issued statement said president donald j trump senator mitch mcconnell remain united many shared priorities including middle class tax relief strengthening military constructing southern border wall important issues hold previously scheduled meetings following august recess discuss critical items members congressional leadership presidents cabinet white house leadership staff coordinating regarding details meetings contact debra j saunders dsaundersreviewjournalcom 2026627391 follow debrajsaunders twitter | 558 |
<p>Cracow&#160;— Several years ago, a bright young Polish law student in the&#160;Tertio&#160;Millennio&#160;Seminar on the Free Society (the crash course in Catholic social doctrine I lead here every July) asked one of my faculty colleagues, “Who is this ‘Father&#160;Popieluszko’&#160;you and the other faculty keep talking about?” That a 25-year-old Pole, in 2010 or thereabouts, did not recognize the name of the martyr-priest of Solidarity, whose grave in the churchyard at St.&#160;Stanislaus&#160;Kostka&#160;in Warsaw had become a small piece of free Poland in the half-decade before the 1989 Communist crack-up, suggested that my colleagues and I were assuming far too much in terms of what our&#160;21st-century&#160;students knew about the drama of the&#160;20th&#160;century and the epic contest for the human future waged two generations ago between imperfect democracies and pluperfect tyrannies.</p>
<p>So, beginning the next year, and every year since, I’ve opened the three-week seminar with a 90-minute lecture on the Communist challenge to the civilization of the West, emphasizing the distortions in public and personal life that the Communist culture of the lie created, and stressing how dissident leaders like Vaclav Havel and Karol Wojtyla (who became Pope John Paul II) had proposed “living in the truth,” “living ‘as if’ one were free,” as the most effective strategic counter to the institutionalized mendacity of what was once pristinely called “late bureaucratic socialism.”</p>
<p>It was thus more than ironic that this year’s seminar concluded on July 17, just as word reached Cracow of the deaths of 295 innocent people in the shootdown over Ukraine of a Malaysia&#160;Airlines 777. We soon learned of the immediate response to this crime by Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin — the Big Lie: in this case, that the party responsible for this massacre was the Ukrainian government.</p>
<p>PREVARICATION ON&#160;STEROIDS The&#160;Big Lie has been an integral tactic in Putin’s grand strategy for years, but the lying has achieved a particular virulence in these past nine months on the matter of Ukraine. Putin regularly lies about the history of the eastern Slavs in his attempts to cobble together a historical, and even spiritual, rationale for his attempts to re-create something resembling the old Soviet Union, the demise of which he has more than once described as a great geopolitical disaster. Putin’s foreign minister, Sergei&#160;Lavrov, is a smoother, slicker version ofJoachim&#160;von&#160;Ribbentrop, the ex-Champagne salesman whose prevarications in 1938, prior to the Nazi absorption of the&#160;Sudetenland, had set the previous gold standard for shameless lying by the foreign minister of a major power. The current boldfaced and outrageous lying from the Kremlin is endlessly repeated by the Putin-controlled mass media in Russia, and even by senior officials of the Russian Orthodox Church.</p>
<p>And it has an effect. Here in Cracow, I met a very bright young Russian, with excellent language skills, obvious intelligence, and goodwill toward the United States, who nonetheless had swallowed the Kremlin line on Ukraine&#160;in toto&#160;and without reservation — a reminder, I remarked to others, of what things must have been like in the late 1930s when all those bright young people were marching at the Nuremberg rallies. Multiply that young Russian by a few tens of thousands, and you begin to understand the moral, cultural, and political wreckage that Putin will leave in his wake.</p>
<p>Grasping the reality of the Big Lie as an essential, not marginal, component of Putin’s strategy also helps clarify just who this man, now indisputably the greatest threat to peace and order in the post–Cold War world, is. One recent, learned&#160; <a href="http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2014/07/window-on-eurasia-putin-is-last-soldier.html" type="external">analysis</a>&#160;by an anti-Putin Russian intellectual, Vladimir Pastukhov, suggested that Putin is the last iteration of a classic pattern of Russian historical reinvention: a habit of creating an imagined past in order to buttress efforts to bludgeon one’s way toward an imagined future that would be the full flowering of that imagined past in the present. From what I know of Russian history, which is far less than Pastukhov knows, he has certainly identified a recurring bad habit among Russian tyrants of various sorts. But I do wonder if this doesn’t overanalyze Putin by a good stretch.</p>
<p>It’s true that Putin engages in historical revisionism in his quest to force a “New Russia” onto the world-historical stage. But this aspect of Putin’s rhetorical armamentarium strikes me as less a matter of developed ideology, of the Hitlerian or Leninist sort, than as something more analogous to a Mafia don’s appeal to putative loyalties embedded deep in Sicilian cultural memory when trying to get the other dons to do what he wants. In other words, think Don Corleone, not G. W. F. Hegel, when trying to understand Putin’s rhetorical m.o.</p>
<p>Peter the Great certainly had an “idea” of Russia, as, arguably, did Stalin. Putin’s “idea,” however, seems to me more a matter of intellectual superstructure (if you’ll permit the Marxist terminology), a carapace of faux-idealism over the actions of a man who deliberately sought employment in the KGB, who climbed the greasy pole within its slimy ranks, and who has now welded the persona of an amoral spook — to whom the Big Lie, especially when covering up murder, was a normal tactic of statecraft — to the persona of a kleptomaniacal Mafia don, who remains in power by helping his fellow&#160;kleptomaniacs (otherwise known as “oligarchs”) remain awash in wealth — even as the society he leads rots away under him.</p>
<p>NO SUBSTITUTE FOR REGIME CHANGE The Kremlin’s instinctive Big Lie in the wake of the Malaysia&#160;Airlines massacre reinforced the intuition (subsequently&#160; <a href="http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/avakov-irrefutable-evidence-shows-that-kremlin-backed-separatists-shot-down-malaysian-plane-356730.html" type="external">verified</a>&#160;by Ukrainian intelligence intercepts of conversation among “separatist” goons in the&#160;Donetsk&#160;region claiming credit for the&#160;shootdown) that these murders are ultimately to be laid to the account of a Russian government that has brazenly conducted a clandestine destabilization of Ukraine, using its own special forces, hired thugs and freelance murderers of various sorts, and local gangsters-for-hire. Now the ante has been raised, as the citizens of numerous countries have been killed, not in a crossfire for which “both sides” might reasonably be held to moral account, but by the instigating party to this lethal conflict, which is Russia.</p>
<p>Western leaders, if there are any these days, will note that the ante has been raised and will consider strengthening economic sanctions against Putin and his oligarchic Mafia, perhaps even ramping up Western military supplies to a hard-pressed Ukrainian government. The harder the sanctions bite, and the more Ukraine can be helped to defend itself, the better. But none of that will make strategic sense over the medium and long term if the West does not recognize that regime change in Moscow is the only serious answer to the threats to peace, security, freedom, and order in post–Cold War Europe posed by Vladimir Putin.</p>
<p>Containing Putin’s Russia is a first, necessary step. But it is a tactic, and the strategic goal must be to see Russia governed by leaders who are not KGB alumni sporting virtual-Mafia livery in the 21st century. That is the only change that will make Russia safe for the long-suffering (if now widely duped) Russian people. And that is the only change that will make Russia safe for the world.</p>
<p>The notion that the Russian war on Ukraine is, to borrow from Neville Chamberlain, “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing” was destroyed on July 17, as a civilian airliner carrying 295 innocent parties was blown out of the Ukrainian sky by a surface-to-air missile. We know all too well who is finally responsible or this — the man with whom Angela Merkel was yukking it up at the World Cup final in Brazil five days ago; the man who recently thumbed his nose at the U.S. from 90 miles away while underwriting the Castro brothers’ island prison; the man of the Big Lie. And the conflict is not “far away.” That Malaysia&#160;Airlines flight originated in Amsterdam and was heading for Kuala Lumpur. It carried citizens of different countries, likely including Americans, whose political leaders must now recognize that the Russian war on Ukraine is, de facto, a war in the neighborhood.</p>
<p>And the war is not a mere “quarrel.” The Big Lie, married to new methods of irregular warfare, has now metastasized into a new form of lethality, with the long-blurred distinction between combatants and noncombatants obliterated. There is no safety in hiding from Putin. There is only safety, and honor, and justice, and a chance for peace in a Western strategy that aims at nothing less than democratic regime change in Russia.</p>
<p>— George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.</p> | false | 1 | cracow160 several years ago bright young polish law student the160tertio160millennio160seminar free society crash course catholic social doctrine lead every july asked one faculty colleagues father160popieluszko160you faculty keep talking 25yearold pole 2010 thereabouts recognize name martyrpriest solidarity whose grave churchyard st160stanislaus160kostka160in warsaw become small piece free poland halfdecade 1989 communist crackup suggested colleagues assuming far much terms our16021stcentury160students knew drama the16020th160century epic contest human future waged two generations ago imperfect democracies pluperfect tyrannies beginning next year every year since ive opened threeweek seminar 90minute lecture communist challenge civilization west emphasizing distortions public personal life communist culture lie created stressing dissident leaders like vaclav havel karol wojtyla became pope john paul ii proposed living truth living one free effective strategic counter institutionalized mendacity pristinely called late bureaucratic socialism thus ironic years seminar concluded july 17 word reached cracow deaths 295 innocent people shootdown ukraine malaysia160airlines 777 soon learned immediate response crime vladimir putins kremlin big lie case party responsible massacre ukrainian government prevarication on160steroids the160big lie integral tactic putins grand strategy years lying achieved particular virulence past nine months matter ukraine putin regularly lies history eastern slavs attempts cobble together historical even spiritual rationale attempts recreate something resembling old soviet union demise described great geopolitical disaster putins foreign minister sergei160lavrov smoother slicker version ofjoachim160von160ribbentrop exchampagne salesman whose prevarications 1938 prior nazi absorption the160sudetenland set previous gold standard shameless lying foreign minister major power current boldfaced outrageous lying kremlin endlessly repeated putincontrolled mass media russia even senior officials russian orthodox church effect cracow met bright young russian excellent language skills obvious intelligence goodwill toward united states nonetheless swallowed kremlin line ukraine160in toto160and without reservation reminder remarked others things must like late 1930s bright young people marching nuremberg rallies multiply young russian tens thousands begin understand moral cultural political wreckage putin leave wake grasping reality big lie essential marginal component putins strategy also helps clarify man indisputably greatest threat peace order postcold war world one recent learned160 analysis160by antiputin russian intellectual vladimir pastukhov suggested putin last iteration classic pattern russian historical reinvention habit creating imagined past order buttress efforts bludgeon ones way toward imagined future would full flowering imagined past present know russian history far less pastukhov knows certainly identified recurring bad habit among russian tyrants various sorts wonder doesnt overanalyze putin good stretch true putin engages historical revisionism quest force new russia onto worldhistorical stage aspect putins rhetorical armamentarium strikes less matter developed ideology hitlerian leninist sort something analogous mafia dons appeal putative loyalties embedded deep sicilian cultural memory trying get dons wants words think corleone g w f hegel trying understand putins rhetorical mo peter great certainly idea russia arguably stalin putins idea however seems matter intellectual superstructure youll permit marxist terminology carapace fauxidealism actions man deliberately sought employment kgb climbed greasy pole within slimy ranks welded persona amoral spook big lie especially covering murder normal tactic statecraft persona kleptomaniacal mafia remains power helping fellow160kleptomaniacs otherwise known oligarchs remain awash wealth even society leads rots away substitute regime change kremlins instinctive big lie wake malaysia160airlines massacre reinforced intuition subsequently160 verified160by ukrainian intelligence intercepts conversation among separatist goons the160donetsk160region claiming credit the160shootdown murders ultimately laid account russian government brazenly conducted clandestine destabilization ukraine using special forces hired thugs freelance murderers various sorts local gangstersforhire ante raised citizens numerous countries killed crossfire sides might reasonably held moral account instigating party lethal conflict russia western leaders days note ante raised consider strengthening economic sanctions putin oligarchic mafia perhaps even ramping western military supplies hardpressed ukrainian government harder sanctions bite ukraine helped defend better none make strategic sense medium long term west recognize regime change moscow serious answer threats peace security freedom order postcold war europe posed vladimir putin containing putins russia first necessary step tactic strategic goal must see russia governed leaders kgb alumni sporting virtualmafia livery 21st century change make russia safe longsuffering widely duped russian people change make russia safe world notion russian war ukraine borrow neville chamberlain quarrel faraway country people know nothing destroyed july 17 civilian airliner carrying 295 innocent parties blown ukrainian sky surfacetoair missile know well finally responsible man angela merkel yukking world cup final brazil five days ago man recently thumbed nose us 90 miles away underwriting castro brothers island prison man big lie conflict far away malaysia160airlines flight originated amsterdam heading kuala lumpur carried citizens different countries likely including americans whose political leaders must recognize russian war ukraine de facto war neighborhood war mere quarrel big lie married new methods irregular warfare metastasized new form lethality longblurred distinction combatants noncombatants obliterated safety hiding putin safety honor justice chance peace western strategy aims nothing less democratic regime change russia george weigel distinguished senior fellow washingtons ethics public policy center holds william e simon chair catholic studies | 788 |
<p />
<p>Germany’s trade, financial, and investment policies towards Russia, notably on the issue of natural gas, have contributed to re-shaping the post-Soviet Eastern European geo-economic landscape. As a result, Ukraine could become a hostage of Berlin’s recent Ostpolitik in the possible case that the tensions between Moscow and Kyiv further increase.</p>
<p>How should Berlin behave towards Moscow in light of the increasingly authoritarian trends in Putin’s third presidential term? Germany’s policy towards Russia has been tested, over the last months, regarding its ethical and political implications. In contrast, the geostrategic intricacies of Germany’s close economic cooperation with this post-imperial autocracy have received less attention. What consequences for Eastern Europe, as an economic and political space, does Germany’s close cooperation with Russia have? Which security policy risks are involved in the participation of German companies and public figures in the geo-economy of Eastern Europe – especially the participation in Russia’s well-known gas pipeline mega projects?</p>
<p>On the surface, these joint ventures seem to be purely Western European-Russian undertakings. Their geopolitical effects are however, closely linked to the future integrity and sovereignty of some non-Russian former Soviet republics – most of all Ukraine. While this nexus remains mostly unknown to the German public, the close connection between German-Russian economic cooperation and the future of the Ukrainian state is an obvious issue for Ukrainians.</p>
<p>Clearly, the German politicians and managers involved in Moscow’s projects would strongly reject being associated with Russian neo-imperial schemes. Those who are familiar with the way present Kremlin domestic and foreign politics work will, however, know that the activities of the major Russian state-owned corporations do not strictly abide by economic principles. This is especially true of the current biggest player, the Gazprom corporation, which is involved in various politically as well as geo-economically important projects in and outside of Russia. In this connection – as the current dispute over the gas price for Ukraine illustrates – profit seeking and geopolitical calculus do not necessarily contradict each other.</p>
<p>Everybody with elementary knowledge of Russian affairs would also acknowledge that one of the Kremlin’s priorities in Russia’s so-called “near abroad” is Ukraine. In the Middle Ages, the Kyiv Rus was the cradle of all three major Eastern Slavic nations – the ‘Great, Small and White Russians’. As a result, Ukraine’s secession from the Russian empire has been creating considerable phantom pains, in the Russian people’s collective soul, during the last 20 years. Particularly difficult to digest, for many Russians, is the loss of the famous Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, which is today dominated by ethnic Russians, plays a significant role in Russian historical mythology, and has also special importance for Russia in military-strategic terms, as well as a touristic destination. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Crimea fell – by mere coincidence – to Ukraine and not to Russia. A main aim of the Kremlin’s foreign policies has thus been, especially under Putin, to forge a new, close relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Ideally, the Kremlin would like to establish a new union between the three Eastern Slavic republics (along with some other former Soviet states) – under, of course, Moscow’s leadership.</p>
<p>Against this background, the combination of the substantial – although mostly resource-based – economic potential of Russia with the commercial interests of certain German politicians and entrepreneurs has led to an unhealthy situation, in which German companies appear to assist Moscow in its reshaping of the East European geo-economic landscape. The Kremlin skilfully plays on Germany’s lack of knowledge, missing concern or purposeful self-delusion about the deeper motives of Russian foreign economic policies towards the other former Soviet republics.</p>
<p>The most prominent example is the Baltic Sea ‘Nord Stream’ – the world’s longest underwater gas pipeline and one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the history of Europe. It directly transports Russian gas to Germany at the bottom of the sea. This Russian gas would otherwise largely be flowing through Ukraine – and such a diversion is exactly the main purpose of the costly pipe, for the Kremlin. In this connection, it is convenient for Russia that, in the Soviet Union, the once significant Ukrainian gas fields were largely exhausted first, while many of the conventional Siberian deposits remained untouched, for a long time. Russia’s gas reserves are today the largest in the world, whereas Ukraine’s cannot satisfy domestic demand.</p>
<p>It is also possible that the even more expensive parallel plan for building ‘South Stream’ (or a similar additional project, for instance, again in the Baltic Sea) will be realized, during the next years. The creation of a second underwater pipeline at the bottom of the Black Sea would have even more far-reaching implications for the relations between Russia and Ukraine. In combination with ‘Nord Stream’ and ‘Beltransgaz’ (the Belorussian pipeline already controlled by Gazprom), ‘South Stream’ would turn Ukraine’s network of gas pipelines and biggest strategic asset, according to Gazprom’s CEO Alexej Miller, into “scrap”. This would result in a yet stronger power shift in Eastern Europe than the gradual deployment of the first two ‘Nord Stream’ segments in 2011-2012 has already caused. Taking place at the EU’s doorstep, such an important change in the constellation of economic might in Eastern Europe cannot be ignored.</p>
<p>A number of German companies and public figures have embarked in unusually close cooperation with the Russian state or firms close to the government. The prominent role of two veteran politicians of Germany’s Social Democratic Party in the Gazprom business empire is especially surprising: since 2005 Gerhard Schröder, the FRG’s former Chancellor, has been the chairman of the supervisory board of the management company of Nord Stream, while the former SPD mayor of Hamburg, Henning Voscherau, has exercised the same role in the South Stream Transport AG since April 2012. It is astonishing how blatantly high representatives of German social democracy support a state-owned company of Putin’s authoritarian regime and its dubious geo-economic projects. The Ukrainian national democratic opposition, moreover, associates this phenomenon with the peculiar relationship the social-democratic faction of the European Parliament maintains with the Party of the Regions – seen by many in Kyiv as having been selling out Ukraine to Russia, since Yanukovych became President of Ukraine in 2010.</p>
<p>The ominousness of the special political and economic relationship a part of Germany’s elite has with Russia is, of course, known and occasionally a topic of snappy journalistic commentary, in Berlin. However, because the political and ethical ambivalence of this relationship is so obvious, serious discussions about its potential collateral damage, geostrategic implications and long-term consequences occur – if at all – mostly in the quiet. In Ukraine, on the other hand, the seeming German-Russian political friendship and considerable economic links between the two former empires have become a consistent feature in the media. There is a Ukrainian perception that Germany is conducting its energy policies in Eastern Europe at the cost of Ukrainian sovereignty. To be sure, this accusation is, as such, misleading.</p>
<p>Yet, one has to take into account that the Ukrainian state is still young and therefore fragile. Whatever appears to jeopardize the recently gained independence is closely watched by the nervous Ukrainian intelligentsia. The impatience and occasional exaggerations in Ukrainian assessments of Germany’s Russian policy are due more to suspicion about the intentions of the Kremlin towards Ukraine, than to mistrust towards Berlin. After all, the economic justification for the elaborate underwater gas pipelines is awkward, given the various new – for instance, ecological – risks they entail, and Ukraine’s high transport infrastructures (although in need of renovation).</p>
<p>The total cost of Nord Stream and South Stream could account to up to 40 billion euro. There are alternative strategies to secure Europe’s gas supply, which would be cheaper than the expensive offshore projects. With the completion of Nord Stream at the end of 2012, the overall transport capacities for gas from Russia towards the EU were of ca. 250 billion cubic metres even though Russia’s actual gas exports to the West in 2011, for instance, amounted to merely 112 billion cubic metres.</p>
<p>The gas transport diversions via sea are sometimes justified by the fact that Russia has historically been Western Europe’s prioritised partner, because Moscow has never, even during the Cold War and despite repeated political escalations, cancelled the supply of energy to the West. It remains unclear, however, why the USSR’s reliability to deliver energy is today accredited only to Russia, but not to Ukraine and Belarus, which were also parts of the USSR. Another classical argument – the cynical comparison between Ukrainian pluralistic instability on the one hand and Russian authoritarian stability on the other – has lost some of its power since the start of mass protests in Moscow in December 2011. This argument also ignores the fact that Russia has been involved in various military actions in the country and abroad in the last 20 years, while Ukraine has developed, despite the occasional brawls in Ukraine’s parliament, surprisingly peacefully since 1991.</p>
<p />
<p /> | false | 1 | germanys trade financial investment policies towards russia notably issue natural gas contributed reshaping postsoviet eastern european geoeconomic landscape result ukraine could become hostage berlins recent ostpolitik possible case tensions moscow kyiv increase berlin behave towards moscow light increasingly authoritarian trends putins third presidential term germanys policy towards russia tested last months regarding ethical political implications contrast geostrategic intricacies germanys close economic cooperation postimperial autocracy received less attention consequences eastern europe economic political space germanys close cooperation russia security policy risks involved participation german companies public figures geoeconomy eastern europe especially participation russias wellknown gas pipeline mega projects surface joint ventures seem purely western europeanrussian undertakings geopolitical effects however closely linked future integrity sovereignty nonrussian former soviet republics ukraine nexus remains mostly unknown german public close connection germanrussian economic cooperation future ukrainian state obvious issue ukrainians clearly german politicians managers involved moscows projects would strongly reject associated russian neoimperial schemes familiar way present kremlin domestic foreign politics work however know activities major russian stateowned corporations strictly abide economic principles especially true current biggest player gazprom corporation involved various politically well geoeconomically important projects outside russia connection current dispute gas price ukraine illustrates profit seeking geopolitical calculus necessarily contradict everybody elementary knowledge russian affairs would also acknowledge one kremlins priorities russias socalled near abroad ukraine middle ages kyiv rus cradle three major eastern slavic nations great small white russians result ukraines secession russian empire creating considerable phantom pains russian peoples collective soul last 20 years particularly difficult digest many russians loss famous black sea peninsula crimea today dominated ethnic russians plays significant role russian historical mythology also special importance russia militarystrategic terms well touristic destination fall soviet union crimea fell mere coincidence ukraine russia main aim kremlins foreign policies thus especially putin forge new close relationship ukraine russia ideally kremlin would like establish new union three eastern slavic republics along former soviet states course moscows leadership background combination substantial although mostly resourcebased economic potential russia commercial interests certain german politicians entrepreneurs led unhealthy situation german companies appear assist moscow reshaping east european geoeconomic landscape kremlin skilfully plays germanys lack knowledge missing concern purposeful selfdelusion deeper motives russian foreign economic policies towards former soviet republics prominent example baltic sea nord stream worlds longest underwater gas pipeline one biggest infrastructure projects history europe directly transports russian gas germany bottom sea russian gas would otherwise largely flowing ukraine diversion exactly main purpose costly pipe kremlin connection convenient russia soviet union significant ukrainian gas fields largely exhausted first many conventional siberian deposits remained untouched long time russias gas reserves today largest world whereas ukraines satisfy domestic demand also possible even expensive parallel plan building south stream similar additional project instance baltic sea realized next years creation second underwater pipeline bottom black sea would even farreaching implications relations russia ukraine combination nord stream beltransgaz belorussian pipeline already controlled gazprom south stream would turn ukraines network gas pipelines biggest strategic asset according gazproms ceo alexej miller scrap would result yet stronger power shift eastern europe gradual deployment first two nord stream segments 20112012 already caused taking place eus doorstep important change constellation economic might eastern europe ignored number german companies public figures embarked unusually close cooperation russian state firms close government prominent role two veteran politicians germanys social democratic party gazprom business empire especially surprising since 2005 gerhard schröder frgs former chancellor chairman supervisory board management company nord stream former spd mayor hamburg henning voscherau exercised role south stream transport ag since april 2012 astonishing blatantly high representatives german social democracy support stateowned company putins authoritarian regime dubious geoeconomic projects ukrainian national democratic opposition moreover associates phenomenon peculiar relationship socialdemocratic faction european parliament maintains party regions seen many kyiv selling ukraine russia since yanukovych became president ukraine 2010 ominousness special political economic relationship part germanys elite russia course known occasionally topic snappy journalistic commentary berlin however political ethical ambivalence relationship obvious serious discussions potential collateral damage geostrategic implications longterm consequences occur mostly quiet ukraine hand seeming germanrussian political friendship considerable economic links two former empires become consistent feature media ukrainian perception germany conducting energy policies eastern europe cost ukrainian sovereignty sure accusation misleading yet one take account ukrainian state still young therefore fragile whatever appears jeopardize recently gained independence closely watched nervous ukrainian intelligentsia impatience occasional exaggerations ukrainian assessments germanys russian policy due suspicion intentions kremlin towards ukraine mistrust towards berlin economic justification elaborate underwater gas pipelines awkward given various new instance ecological risks entail ukraines high transport infrastructures although need renovation total cost nord stream south stream could account 40 billion euro alternative strategies secure europes gas supply would cheaper expensive offshore projects completion nord stream end 2012 overall transport capacities gas russia towards eu ca 250 billion cubic metres even though russias actual gas exports west 2011 instance amounted merely 112 billion cubic metres gas transport diversions via sea sometimes justified fact russia historically western europes prioritised partner moscow never even cold war despite repeated political escalations cancelled supply energy west remains unclear however ussrs reliability deliver energy today accredited russia ukraine belarus also parts ussr another classical argument cynical comparison ukrainian pluralistic instability one hand russian authoritarian stability lost power since start mass protests moscow december 2011 argument also ignores fact russia involved various military actions country abroad last 20 years ukraine developed despite occasional brawls ukraines parliament surprisingly peacefully since 1991 | 887 |
<p />
<p>It is misleading to describe ‘world order’ as consisting exclusively of sovereign territorial states. This misimpression is further encouraged by the structure of the United Nations, whose members are states, and only states.&#160;The UN was established in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II, reflecting a West-centric orientation that emerged at the time, quickly morphing into the&#160;Cold War rivalry between the two states that were geopolitically dominant and ideologically antagonistic: the United States and Soviet Union.</p>
<p>&lt;img class="alignleft wp-image-19651 size-medium" src="https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/richard-falk-300x162.jpg" alt="Richard Falk" width="300" height="162" /&gt; Even in the UN, however, this surface allegiance to statism is misleading. The geopolitical dimension was highlighted in the UN Charter by conferring a veto power on five winners in the recently concluded war, which amounted to the grant of a right of exception with respect to international law.</p>
<p>But there are differences in hard and soft power that make the interactions among states within the UN exhibit more inequality than is suggested by this still prevailing Westphalian myth of the equality among sovereign states. Some states contribute far more to the UN budget than others, and their views carry more weight; others are richer, bigger, more informed about some issues, are better at lobbying for support, and some play above their diplomatic weight by clever political maneuvers. And there are several kinds of non-states active behind the scenes that exert varying degrees of influence depending on the subject-matter.</p>
<p>Global policy is mainly shaped outside the UN by a bewildering array of formal and informal actors that participate in a bewildering variety of ways in international life. The world economy is substantially controlled by business oriented alignments such as the World Economic Forum that meets annually in Davos, Switzerland, or the gatherings of economically powerful states grouped together as the G-7, later becoming the G-8, and more recently the G-20 to accommodate shifts in trade and investment patterns, and give recognition to such new alignments as the BRICs.</p>
<p>As such, the shorthand designation of world order by reference to the 1648 Treaties of Westphalia that brought the Thirty Years War to an end serves as a convenient starting point for understanding the way authority and power are deployed in the world. Yet it must be supplemented by the recognition that the Westphalian framework has evolved through the years. Beyond this, it is not sufficient to rely on a statist logic to explain the main patterns of behavior that constitute world politics in the 21st century, which reflect the agendas of political extremist groups and transnational corporations and banks, as much as they do states. In fact, national governments are often subordinated to and instrumentalized by individuals and groups promoting the interests of business and finance.</p>
<p>Despite these qualifications, states do remain the main political actor on the global stage, and the principal agent of diplomacy. The doctrinal ideas of territorial sovereignty continue to provide the basic organizing principle for the conduct of ordinary transnational relations. It is further important to realize that most political leaders and their chief advisors are ‘realists’ who purport to act on the basis of maximizing national interests and accompanying values even when they are in actuality serving the interests of transnational capital to the detriment of their own citizenry.</p>
<p>The boundaries of the state shape the outer limits of political community for most persons living on the planet, but some states contain within their borders one or more specific ethnicity that deems itself a distinct people and nation, which if it perceives itself as the target of discrimination or even a victim of submerged identity, may regard itself as ‘a captive nation’ that seeks a separate political existence that ensures the preservation of cultural memory and national pride. In this sense, the ‘nation’ represented by such a phrase as ‘the national interest’ may be profoundly misleading if understood to refer to the interests of an entire population within its borders rather than that of the dominant ethnicity or religion. Throughout the world there are many internationally unrepresented peoples seeking to form their own state in accordance with the right of self-determination, which if carried to extremes, threatens the unity of almost all sovereign states.</p>
<p>Sometimes, this process is a forcible one as with the establishment of Kosovo with the help of NATO in 1999, sometimes it is a consensual separation, as with the establishment of Slovakia. Democratic states may offer restive minorities the opportunity to secede by referendum as in the recent case of Scotland, but some forms of secession are resisted as was the case with American Civil War or more recently, the PKK efforts to establish in eastern Turkey a separate state of Kurdistan, as well as Spain’s treatment of the main separatist movement of the Basque people as essentially a terrorist organization.</p>
<p>Many individuals depend on citizenship to avoid the acute vulnerability of ‘statelessness,’ which is a status without rights or protection, and suggests the primacy of states in the life of most people, whether consciously realized or not. The plight of economic migrants and refugees fleeing combat zones suggests the humanitarian ordeal experienced by many people who are not securely connected to a state capable of providing the fundamental ingredients of a sustainable lives. Refugees may be citizens with rights in the country they escaped from, but generally find themselves victimized anew by the country within which they sought sanctuary. Some governments adopt humane and generous approaches to refugees and stateless persons, but it is voluntary and the affected individuals are not the recipient of effective rights even if ‘human rights’ are based on being human, and not on citizenship or nationality.</p>
<p>As statist logic is premised on equality before the law and in formal diplomatic relations, geopolitical logic is premised on inequality and the right of exception with respect to that portion of international law concerning issues of war and peace, and what is called ‘national security,’ or more broadly, ‘vital interests.’ While statism is descriptive of the horizontal dimension of world order within the Westphalian framework, geopolitics constitutes the vertical dimension that has been present ever since the modern structure of world order emerged in Europe in the mid-seventeenth century. Various empires exhibited the formalization of this vertical dimension as did European colonialism, which at its height after World War I, dominated much of the world. The anti-colonial movements of the last half of the twentieth century produced many newly independent sovereign states, universalizing the horizontal development of world politics.</p>
<p>In the post-colonial global setting of the early twenty-first century the vertical dimension of world order is disguised to some degree because it was weakened and discredited in the past hundred years. These disguises make reference to certain normative justifications for the imposition of political will by the strong on the weak. Among the most prominent of these legal and moral arguments favoring otherwise prohibited uses of force are ‘self-defense,’ ‘humanitarian intervention,’ ‘responsibility to protect’ or ‘R2P,’ and ‘nonproliferation.’ In each situation, depending on the facts the rationalization may be more or less plausible as a cover for a strategically motivated geopolitical maneuver. It seemed somewhat plausible to liberate Kosovo from Serbia in 1999, given the threat of ethnic cleansing in the aftermath of the Srebrenica atrocity, but it was also clearly motivated by the interest in maintaining NATO as a useful instrument of coercion in a post-Cold War setting, a demonstration conveniently coinciding with the 50th anniversary of the alliance. Similarly, it seemed reasonable in 2011 to intervene in Libya to prevent a civilian massacre by Qaddafi forces in the city of Benghazi, although it was undoubtedly also true that the high quality oil reserves added a strategic incentive to the humanitarian impulse to protect threatened Libyan civilians. In contrast, without oil, the atrocities taking place in Syria produced a much weaker expression of international concern. Each of these situations is complex, opening the way for contradictory interpretations as to the humanitarian effects of action and non-action, as well as the assessment of the importance of the strategic interests at stake.</p>
<p>The geopolitical logic trumps statist logic in relation to international uses of force, and helps explain the marginalization of international law and the UN in the war/peace context. The constraints that are operative with respect to geopolitics derive from considerations of cost/benefit analysis, pressures exerted by group politics, prudential concerns about nuclear weaponry and avoiding casualties to its military personnel, and the sporadic anti-war restraints of public opinion (especially in liberal democracies). In the recent American-led coalition created as a response to threats posed by ISIS (‘Islamic State of Iraq &amp; Syria,’ also known by other names), President Obama did not even bother to justify recourse to force by reference to either international law or the UN, and seemed concerned only that he had a legal basis within the American constitutional framework to act as he did. Significantly, as well, most of the domestic controversy focused on this issue of authorizing warlike behavior without any participation by Congress, showing no worries about acting contrary to international law and without a UN mandate for recourse to non-defensive force.</p>
<p>Partly as a result of economic globalization and partly due to the impact of global challenges associated with nuclear weapons and climate change, there is an emerging appreciation that neither statism nor geopolitics can protect overall hman wellbeing and survival aspects of what might best be called the human or global interest. Despite decades of aspirational language, there seems to be no prospect in the immediate future of freeing humanity from the looming threat of nuclear catastrophe. The challenge of the weaponry has been geopolitically degraded in the form of creating a nonproliferation regime that distorts priorities by conceiving of the main danger deriving from countries that do not have nuclear weapons rather than those that do. The 2003 aggressive war undertaken by the United States and the United Kingdom against Iraq was mainly rationalized as a counter-proliferation undertaking, epitomizing the subordination of cosmopolitan interests in getting rid of nuclear weapons to the geopolitics of managing their control and dissemination.</p>
<p>A similar dynamic is present in relation to climate change, and the failed effort to contain the emission of greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide.The UN mechanisms for lawmaking treaties have been unable to agree upon an obligatory framework that takes account of the scientific consensus on the need for strict regulation of the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere, and the resultant harmful effects of global warming. As a result the situation worsens,&#160;and irresponsibly the growing burdens of adaptation are shifted to the future.</p>
<p>Without the formation of a political community of global scope it is unlikely that cosmopolitan logic will have any significant impact on behavior that reflects strong national interests and geopolitical priorities. The preconditions for such a development do not seem present as nationalist ideologies continues to maintain the dominance of statism and geopolitics&#160;despite their dysfunctional implications for the future of the human species. This persistence raises some deep questions about whether there exists a sufficient species will to survive. Until the advent of the Anthropocene Age such an imperative did not exist, and survival threats as they occurred were directed at particular societies or civilizations, that is, posing sub-species threats, but not endangering the species itself. What distinguishes the Anthropocene is the impact of human activities on the fundamental balances that have allowed life and social development to proceed.</p>
<p>There have been past cases where cosmopolitan concerns have been addressed because competing logics were not seriously engaged: public order of the oceans, prohibition of ozone depleting technologies, ecological preservation of Antarctica. Until the atomic attacks on Japanese cities in the closing days of World War II the cosmopolitan horizons of human activity were treated as matters of idealistic and spiritual concerns, but not relevant to issues of bio-political persistence. Even Woodrow Wilson’s dream that the League of Nations would cause the institution of war to fade away was never taken seriously by the political leaders of the day, especially in Europe, who well understood that their privileged position of vertical control (that is, colonial system) rested on an atmosphere of permanent war to ensure that ‘the natives’ would not get uppity.</p>
<p>The perspectives and activities of civil society occupy a broad and diverse spectrum of concerns, and contain elements of the other&#160;three logics that together compose world order. The normative motivations of transnational civil society actors do establish an existential constituency disposed toward the realization of human and global interests. These actors have been active in relation to the promotion of human rights, environmental protection, nuclear disarmament, and climate change. That is, civil society perspectives often merge in these venues with cosmopolitan perspectives, and present unified critical responses to statism and geopolitics. The counter-conferences at global policy events illustrate such encounters, and are likely to intensify as the awareness of global crises grow and the experience of the seriousness of unmet global challenges deepens. A distinctive feature of civil society logic is engagement with values and change, and a certain distrust of detached thought that presents itself as ‘neutral.’ The spirit of civil society was expressed unforgettably for me by a graffiti written on a wall in the city of Vancouver: “Thought Without Action Equals Zero.”</p>
<p>In a larger historical sense, the question before all of us is whether civil society can become an agent of historical transformation in relation to cosmopolitan logic, thereby joining thought with action. Only such a reconstituted political imagination has any chance of producing policy and behavioral adjustments that make the human future a brighter prospect than now appears to be the case.</p>
<p>Hope to balance despair depends on our according unrealistic confidence in the capacity of civil society movements to achieve transformative results, what I have called in the past ‘the realism of a politics of impossibility’ or ‘a necessary utopianism.’ Nothing less seems responsive to the magnitude of the civilizational challenges already negatively impacting on human wellbeing. I have little doubt that those ‘realists’ we rely upon as dutiful, taxpaying citizens are leading us down a path heading toward doomsday. It is time we shifted our allegiances and energies to the citizen pilgrims among us who are pointing us toward a humane and sustainable future for life on planet earth.</p> | false | 1 | misleading describe world order consisting exclusively sovereign territorial states misimpression encouraged structure united nations whose members states states160the un established 1945 aftermath world war ii reflecting westcentric orientation emerged time quickly morphing the160cold war rivalry two states geopolitically dominant ideologically antagonistic united states soviet union ltimg classalignleft wpimage19651 sizemedium srchttpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201402richardfalk300x162jpg altrichard falk width300 height162 gt even un however surface allegiance statism misleading geopolitical dimension highlighted un charter conferring veto power five winners recently concluded war amounted grant right exception respect international law differences hard soft power make interactions among states within un exhibit inequality suggested still prevailing westphalian myth equality among sovereign states states contribute far un budget others views carry weight others richer bigger informed issues better lobbying support play diplomatic weight clever political maneuvers several kinds nonstates active behind scenes exert varying degrees influence depending subjectmatter global policy mainly shaped outside un bewildering array formal informal actors participate bewildering variety ways international life world economy substantially controlled business oriented alignments world economic forum meets annually davos switzerland gatherings economically powerful states grouped together g7 later becoming g8 recently g20 accommodate shifts trade investment patterns give recognition new alignments brics shorthand designation world order reference 1648 treaties westphalia brought thirty years war end serves convenient starting point understanding way authority power deployed world yet must supplemented recognition westphalian framework evolved years beyond sufficient rely statist logic explain main patterns behavior constitute world politics 21st century reflect agendas political extremist groups transnational corporations banks much states fact national governments often subordinated instrumentalized individuals groups promoting interests business finance despite qualifications states remain main political actor global stage principal agent diplomacy doctrinal ideas territorial sovereignty continue provide basic organizing principle conduct ordinary transnational relations important realize political leaders chief advisors realists purport act basis maximizing national interests accompanying values even actuality serving interests transnational capital detriment citizenry boundaries state shape outer limits political community persons living planet states contain within borders one specific ethnicity deems distinct people nation perceives target discrimination even victim submerged identity may regard captive nation seeks separate political existence ensures preservation cultural memory national pride sense nation represented phrase national interest may profoundly misleading understood refer interests entire population within borders rather dominant ethnicity religion throughout world many internationally unrepresented peoples seeking form state accordance right selfdetermination carried extremes threatens unity almost sovereign states sometimes process forcible one establishment kosovo help nato 1999 sometimes consensual separation establishment slovakia democratic states may offer restive minorities opportunity secede referendum recent case scotland forms secession resisted case american civil war recently pkk efforts establish eastern turkey separate state kurdistan well spains treatment main separatist movement basque people essentially terrorist organization many individuals depend citizenship avoid acute vulnerability statelessness status without rights protection suggests primacy states life people whether consciously realized plight economic migrants refugees fleeing combat zones suggests humanitarian ordeal experienced many people securely connected state capable providing fundamental ingredients sustainable lives refugees may citizens rights country escaped generally find victimized anew country within sought sanctuary governments adopt humane generous approaches refugees stateless persons voluntary affected individuals recipient effective rights even human rights based human citizenship nationality statist logic premised equality law formal diplomatic relations geopolitical logic premised inequality right exception respect portion international law concerning issues war peace called national security broadly vital interests statism descriptive horizontal dimension world order within westphalian framework geopolitics constitutes vertical dimension present ever since modern structure world order emerged europe midseventeenth century various empires exhibited formalization vertical dimension european colonialism height world war dominated much world anticolonial movements last half twentieth century produced many newly independent sovereign states universalizing horizontal development world politics postcolonial global setting early twentyfirst century vertical dimension world order disguised degree weakened discredited past hundred years disguises make reference certain normative justifications imposition political strong weak among prominent legal moral arguments favoring otherwise prohibited uses force selfdefense humanitarian intervention responsibility protect r2p nonproliferation situation depending facts rationalization may less plausible cover strategically motivated geopolitical maneuver seemed somewhat plausible liberate kosovo serbia 1999 given threat ethnic cleansing aftermath srebrenica atrocity also clearly motivated interest maintaining nato useful instrument coercion postcold war setting demonstration conveniently coinciding 50th anniversary alliance similarly seemed reasonable 2011 intervene libya prevent civilian massacre qaddafi forces city benghazi although undoubtedly also true high quality oil reserves added strategic incentive humanitarian impulse protect threatened libyan civilians contrast without oil atrocities taking place syria produced much weaker expression international concern situations complex opening way contradictory interpretations humanitarian effects action nonaction well assessment importance strategic interests stake geopolitical logic trumps statist logic relation international uses force helps explain marginalization international law un warpeace context constraints operative respect geopolitics derive considerations costbenefit analysis pressures exerted group politics prudential concerns nuclear weaponry avoiding casualties military personnel sporadic antiwar restraints public opinion especially liberal democracies recent americanled coalition created response threats posed isis islamic state iraq amp syria also known names president obama even bother justify recourse force reference either international law un seemed concerned legal basis within american constitutional framework act significantly well domestic controversy focused issue authorizing warlike behavior without participation congress showing worries acting contrary international law without un mandate recourse nondefensive force partly result economic globalization partly due impact global challenges associated nuclear weapons climate change emerging appreciation neither statism geopolitics protect overall hman wellbeing survival aspects might best called human global interest despite decades aspirational language seems prospect immediate future freeing humanity looming threat nuclear catastrophe challenge weaponry geopolitically degraded form creating nonproliferation regime distorts priorities conceiving main danger deriving countries nuclear weapons rather 2003 aggressive war undertaken united states united kingdom iraq mainly rationalized counterproliferation undertaking epitomizing subordination cosmopolitan interests getting rid nuclear weapons geopolitics managing control dissemination similar dynamic present relation climate change failed effort contain emission greenhouse gasses especially carbon dioxidethe un mechanisms lawmaking treaties unable agree upon obligatory framework takes account scientific consensus need strict regulation buildup carbon atmosphere resultant harmful effects global warming result situation worsens160and irresponsibly growing burdens adaptation shifted future without formation political community global scope unlikely cosmopolitan logic significant impact behavior reflects strong national interests geopolitical priorities preconditions development seem present nationalist ideologies continues maintain dominance statism geopolitics160despite dysfunctional implications future human species persistence raises deep questions whether exists sufficient species survive advent anthropocene age imperative exist survival threats occurred directed particular societies civilizations posing subspecies threats endangering species distinguishes anthropocene impact human activities fundamental balances allowed life social development proceed past cases cosmopolitan concerns addressed competing logics seriously engaged public order oceans prohibition ozone depleting technologies ecological preservation antarctica atomic attacks japanese cities closing days world war ii cosmopolitan horizons human activity treated matters idealistic spiritual concerns relevant issues biopolitical persistence even woodrow wilsons dream league nations would cause institution war fade away never taken seriously political leaders day especially europe well understood privileged position vertical control colonial system rested atmosphere permanent war ensure natives would get uppity perspectives activities civil society occupy broad diverse spectrum concerns contain elements other160three logics together compose world order normative motivations transnational civil society actors establish existential constituency disposed toward realization human global interests actors active relation promotion human rights environmental protection nuclear disarmament climate change civil society perspectives often merge venues cosmopolitan perspectives present unified critical responses statism geopolitics counterconferences global policy events illustrate encounters likely intensify awareness global crises grow experience seriousness unmet global challenges deepens distinctive feature civil society logic engagement values change certain distrust detached thought presents neutral spirit civil society expressed unforgettably graffiti written wall city vancouver thought without action equals zero larger historical sense question us whether civil society become agent historical transformation relation cosmopolitan logic thereby joining thought action reconstituted political imagination chance producing policy behavioral adjustments make human future brighter prospect appears case hope balance despair depends according unrealistic confidence capacity civil society movements achieve transformative results called past realism politics impossibility necessary utopianism nothing less seems responsive magnitude civilizational challenges already negatively impacting human wellbeing little doubt realists rely upon dutiful taxpaying citizens leading us path heading toward doomsday time shifted allegiances energies citizen pilgrims among us pointing us toward humane sustainable future life planet earth | 1,342 |
<p>This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of John Courtney Murray’s We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition — arguably, the most important such reflection composed in our time. Its publication landed Fr. Murray, an urbane New York Jesuit, on the cover of Time, in the days when that distinction actually meant something. Three years later, New York’s Francis Cardinal Spellman brought Murray to the Second Vatican Council as a peritus, a theological adviser, so that the Jesuit Murray’s work on church–state theory could help shape the council’s deliberations on religious liberty, an issue of particular concern to the bishops of the United States.</p>
<p>For a man who was America’s most prominent Catholic public intellectual in 1965, the year in which Vatican II adopted the Declaration on Religious Freedom that his work had helped make possible, Murray went into strikingly rapid eclipse after his untimely death in 1967 from a longstanding heart ailment. The younger Jesuit generation jettisoned Murray as impossibly old hat, claiming, as one put it, that “we know so much more than Murray did.” In the mid-1980s, however, after twenty years of neglect, Murray was resurrected by Catholic thinkers seeking materials from which to build a religiously informed public philosophy for the American experiment in ordered liberty. This, in turn, led to an effort, perhaps not surprising, to reclaim Murray for progressive Catholicism—a project risible to anyone familiar with the stories of Murray’s contempt for some of the woollier-headed notions being circulated at Woodstock College in the years before his death.</p>
<p>We Hold These Truths was not without its critics, both in the 1960s and more recently. Some have argued that Murray’s account of the American Founding massively reduced the role of biblical religion, and especially Calvinism, in the national consensus that produced the new republic. Others have suggested that Murray’s theory of democracy was based on an excessively neoscholastic (meaning, specifically, Suarezian) reading of the relation between nature and grace, even as others have argued that Murray’s theory of democracy is too beholden to John Locke. Then there are the critics who find in Murray an opening for what might be called Cuomoism among Catholic public officials — a charge that does a disservice to Murray even as it gives an undeserved intellectual gloss to Mario Cuomo and those theologians and lawyers who helped turn Catholic politicians into advocates for “reproductive choice.”</p>
<p>My purpose here is not to sort out the arguments over Murray’s analysis of the Founding, and still less to judge the metaphysics and epistemology that buttressed his church–state theory. Rather, I want to review the “American Proposition” he sketched in We Hold These Truths as a template for measuring the health of the American republic and its public culture as we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century.</p>
<p>The opening paragraphs of Murray’s book summarize its argument and give the flavor of his cool, dry rhetorical style: “It is classic American doctrine, immortally asserted by Abraham Lincoln, that the new nation which our Fathers brought forth on this continent was dedicated to a ‘proposition.’”</p>
<p>In philosophy, a proposition is the statement of a truth to be demonstrated. In mathematics, a proposition is at times the statement of an operation to be performed. Our Fathers dedicated the nation to a proposition in both of those senses. The American proposition is at once both doctrinal and practical, a theorem and a problem. It is an affirmation and also an intention. It presents itself as a coherent structure of thought [even as] it also presents itself as an organized political project that aims at historical success. . . .</p>
<p>Neither as a doctrine nor as a project is the American Proposition a finished thing. Its demonstration is never done once for all; and the Proposition itself requires development on penalty of decadence. Its historical success is never to be taken for granted, nor can it come to some absolute term; and any given measure of success demands enlargement on penalty of instant decline. In a moment of national crisis Lincoln asserted the imperiled part of the theorem and gave impetus to the impeded part of the project in the noble utterance, at once declaratory and imperative, “All men are created equal.” Today, when civil war has become the basic fact of world society, there is no element of the theorem that is not menaced by active negation, and no thrust of the project that does not meet powerful opposition. Today therefore thoughtful men among us are saying that America must be more clearly conscious of what it proposes, more articulate in proposing, more purposeful in the realization of the project proposed.</p>
<p>The American Proposition, as Murray understood it, was a conservation by development of the political dimension of Western civilization’s project, as it emerged over the centuries from the interactions of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome — that is, the interaction of biblical religion, Greek rationality, and Roman law. As such, the Proposition rested on a realist epistemology: There are truths built into the world and into us; we can know those truths through the arts of reason; that knowledge lays certain obligations, both personal and civil, on us. To be sure, those truths had to be “held, assented to, worked into the texture of institutions” for there to be a “true City, in which men may dwell in dignity, peace, unity, justice, well-being, [and] freedom.” But that never-to-be-taken-for-granted quality of the truths of the American Proposition simply underscored the fact that the United States was an experiment: an experiment in ordered freedom.</p>
<p>That could be said, I suppose, of any democracy; Weimar Germany and the French Third Republic chillingly demonstrate the perils attending any democracy’s failure to order its public life by the moral truths we can know by reason. What is distinctive about American democracy, however, is that our very nationhood depended on the truths to which the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. The German nation remained Germany after the collapse of the Weimar Republic; France remained France under the Vichy regime. But, Murray argued, America’s native condition was plurality, and the American people—the American nation—had to be constructed, not out of the old materials of blood and ethnicity and language and soil and common religious conviction, but out of the new materials of adherence to truths in the civic order. The survival of America, as both theorem and project, rested on the American ability to create pluralism out of plurality: to transform the cacophony of ethnic and religious difference into an orderly conversation about public goods, based on a common allegiance to the elementary truths of the Proposition.</p>
<p>Murray’s theory of democracy, while seeming thin to some of his critics, was thus far thicker than that of today’s democratic functionalists, whose sole concern is to get the machinery of governance right. Murray, by contrast, thought of politics not as machinery but as deliberation—common deliberation among men and women who were citizens and not merely bundles of desires; common deliberation about public goods, using the arts of reason to apply agreed-on first principles of truth in the civic order to the exigencies of governance amidst the flux of history. In this conception of democracy, civility and tolerance are moral accomplishments, not poses, attitudes, or pragmatic accommodations. Tolerance means not differences ignored but differences engaged. Civility is the achievement of order (and thus a measure of clarity and perhaps even charity) in the public conversation.</p>
<p>“The distinctive bond” of civil society, Murray wrote, “is reason, or, more exactly, that exercise of reason which is argument.” Argument, in turn, gave form to a distinctive kind of association in the American democratic experiment. Jacques Maritain might have called it “civic friendship.” A generation after Murray, John Paul II called it “solidarity.” It is, Murray wrote, a “special kind of moral virtue, a thing of reason and intelligence, laboriously cultivated by the [disciplining] of passion, prejudice, and narrow self-interest.” This is not the friendship of David and Jonathan, or the fierce inclusiveness of the clan or tribe; it is not the bond of charity that binds disciples within the Church. It is a civic friendship and solidarity born of a common passion for justice, with the requirements of justice—what is owed by the city to the citizenry, and what citizens owe the city—understood according to the canons of public reason.</p>
<p>The bonds of this civic friendship in America reinforced the founding consensus that gave philosophical content to Murray’s American Proposition. This consensus was, in Murray’s words, “an ensemble of substantive truths, a structure of basic knowledge, an order of elementary affirmations” that reflect the truths we can and must know by reason about how we ought to live together. No political arrangement is possible if everything is in doubt. If there is to be genuine argument, Murray wrote, there must be “a core of agreement, accord, concurrence, acquiescence.”</p>
<p>This may sound daunting, but we need not discover these truths by our own labors alone. Rather, the truths that form the moral-cultural foundations of American democracy come to us, as an inheritance to be honored and cultivated, from the project of Western civilization — the gift that Leo XIII, founder of modern Catholic social doctrine, called the patrimony of humankind.</p>
<p>The first of these inherited truths that give content to the American Proposition is that we are a nation under judgment, because God is sovereign over nations as well as individuals — a fact that “lies beyond politics,” Murray insisted, and “imparts to politics a fundamental human meaning.” Here, like Edmund Burke, Murray distinguished the Anglo-American political tradition from the Jacobinism of Continental European political philosophy. The latter began its thinking about politics with autonomous human reason; the former looked “to the sovereignty of God as to the first principle of its organization.” The American experiment, in other words, was an experiment under transcendent judgment: the judgment of the God of the Bible; the judgment of those moral truths inscribed by nature’s God — in the world and in us — as a reflection of the divine creative purpose.</p>
<p>That “natural law,” which we can know by reason, gives government the authority to command, even as it limits the power of governors. The constitutional agreement by which the people, through their representatives, ratified the basic instruments of American governance and amended that agreement as circumstances required created a process, as Murray understood it, by which “the people define the areas where [public] authority is legitimate and the areas where liberty is lawful.”</p>
<p>The second foundational truth of the American Proposition also grew out of the Christian Middle Ages: the principle that all just governance exists by and with the consent of the governed. On this reading of Western history, royal absolutism and its parallel union of altar and throne are an aberration; the rich social pluralism of the Middle Ages and the assumed limits on princely authority reflect, in Murray’s view, “the premise . . . that there is a sense of justice inherent in the people.” This principle of consent, with its premise that the people can know the moral truths by which we ought to live together, stands in sharp contrast to the Jacobin tradition in Continental Europe and its twentieth-century manifestation in totalitarianism, which proposed governance by elite vanguards.</p>
<p>The principle of consent and the premise of the people’s sense of justice framed Murray’s understanding of human rights, which posed another challenge to an autonomy-based theory of democracy:</p>
<p>The proper premise of these freedoms lay in the fact that they were social necessities. . . . They were regarded as conditions essential to the conduct of free, representative, and responsible government. People who are called upon to obey have the right first to be heard. People who are to bear burdens and make sacrifices have the right first to pronounce on the purposes which their sacrifices serve. People who are summoned to contribute to the common good have the right first to pass their own judgment on the question, whether the good proposed be truly a good, the people’s good . . .</p>
<p>In the American Proposition, in other words, rights are not trumps recognized as such by the sheer fact of their assertion. Rather, rights are rooted in the dignity of the human person as capable of rational moral choice and considered political judgment. Thus, rights are acknowledged in law to facilitate the promotion and defense of human dignity and of the common good, not simply to innoculate individual “choice” from what someone may consider “interference.”</p>
<p>The third truth of the American Proposition is, as Murray put it, that “the state is distinct from society and limited in its offices toward society.” Society exists prior to the state, ontologically as well as historically, and the state exists to serve society, not the other way around. This retrieval of the medieval distinction between studium and imperium, the order of culture and the political order, would have large consequences for Murray’s church–state theory and indeed for the Second Vatican Council, but in the American Experiment, the salient point, as Murray put it, was that government, rightly understood, “submits itself to judgment by the truth of society; it is not itself a judge of the truth in society.” Neither is government the judge of the truths inscribed in nature. Rightly ordered government submits itself to the judgment of those truths built into the world and into us, and if it attempts to redefine those truths, it has acted unjustly and illegitimately.</p>
<p>The fourth component of the American Proposition is “the profound conviction that only a virtuous people can be free.” Murray knew that there are no guarantees about the success of freedom. Freedom can dissipate into license, private license into public decadence, decadence into chaos, and chaos into authoritarianism. “It is not an American belief,” Murray wrote, that “free government is inevitable, only that it is possible.” Moreover, “its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral law.” Freedom and moral truth, Murray wrote in anticipation of the teaching of John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, are inextricably bound together: Freedom must be tethered to truth and ordered to goodness if freedom is not to become its own undoing.</p>
<p>Murray applauded the ways in which the American cultural instinct for freedom had succeeded in placing limits on the sphere of government within a functioning democracy. But the American demand for freedom could “be made with the full resonance of moral authority only to the extent that it issues from an inner sense of responsibility to a higher law.” The American idea is ordered freedom: ordered to goodness because it is tethered to truth. “Men who would be free politically must discipline themselves,” Murray explained. “Political freedom is endangered in its foundations as soon as the universal moral values, upon whose shared possession the self-discipline of a free society depends, are no longer vigorous enough to restrain the passions and shatter the selfish inertia of men.” Democracy, in other words, is “a spiritual and moral enterprise.”</p>
<p>This was the inherited cultural consensus that, in John Courtney Murray’s view, had informed and shaped the American Proposition for centuries. But were these truths still held in Murray’s time, a half-century ago? Murray had his doubts.</p>
<p>He did not think the Proposition could be carried any longer by the primary institutions of its historical transmission, the Christian communities of the old Protestant mainline, already beset by theological and doctrinal chaos. Nor would the falling torch be picked up by an American academy then in thrall to pragmatism: an academy that had “long ago bade a quiet goodbye to the whole notion of an American consensus, as implying that there are truths that we hold in common, and a natural law that makes known to all of us the structure of the moral universe in such wise that all of us are bound by it to a common obedience.”</p>
<p>Murray’s suggestion — a striking one at its historical moment, given the anti-Catholic prejudice manifest during the 1960 presidential campaign — was that the originating and constituting consensus of America was still possessed by, and might be revived by, the Catholic community in the United States. That revitalization was not to happen, as American Catholicism lurched into the fever swamps of the 1960s and 1970s. The opportunity Murray saw in the late 1950s and early 1960s was a victim of the post–Vatican II silly season; although if we listen carefully, we can hear echoes today, and sometimes more than echoes, of the consensus ideas of the American Proposition in the pro-life advocacy of Catholics and their allies among the more thoughtful leadership of evangelical Protestants.</p>
<p>On the first page of We Hold These Truths, Murray wrote of the “civil war” that was the “basic fact of world society.” He was referring, of course, to the contest between the West and communist totalitarianism, a contest concluded some two decades ago. Yet the civil war — which is fundamentally anthropological in character, in that it is based on fundamentally opposed ideas of the human person — continues, in what is sometimes called the American “culture war” and its analogues in Europe. Murray didn’t use the term “culture war,” but he clearly anticipated its possibility when he penned one of the most striking passages in his book:</p>
<p>Perhaps one day the noble, many-storeyed mansion of democracy will be dismantled, leveled to the dimensions of a flat majoritarianism, which is no mansion but a barn, perhaps even a tool shed in which the weapons of tyranny may be forged. Perhaps there will one day be widespread dissent even from the political principles which emerge from natural law. . . . The possibility that widespread dissent from these principles should develop is not foreclosed.</p>
<p>Indeed not, for that possibility is now manifestly with us. But the foreclosure need not be complete, and the mansion need not be leveled or abandoned. Saving it, however, means facing squarely the ways in which the truths of Murray’s American Proposition are no longer held.</p>
<p>It might seem that the first truth of the Proposition — the sovereignty of God over nations as well as individuals, with its parallel conviction about the universal moral law inscribed in nature and accessible to reason — would be most gravely threatened by the so-called New Atheism. But as David Bentley Hart bracingly demonstrates in his recent book Atheist Delusions, the attacks of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, as well as their down-market cash-out in Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, do not get us to the true root of the problem, which is not the historically ill-informed and philosophically embarrassing New Atheism, but what Romano Guardini used to call the “interior disloyalty of modern times,” which is, Murray said, a betrayal of “the existential structure of reality itself.”</p>
<p>This betrayal is most powerfully embodied by postmodernism’s skepticism about the human capacity to know the truth of anything with certainty — a skepticism that yields, on the one hand, metaphysical nihilism, and, on the other hand, moral relativism. Indeed, according to a trenchant reading of modernity by the French philosopher Rémi Brague, nihilism may be the defining challenge of this cultural moment in the West. In Brague’s analysis, the twenty-first century will be the century of being and nothingness, as the twentieth century (defined by the contest with totalitarianism) was the century of true and false and the nineteenth (defined by the social question emerging from the industrial revolution) was the century of good and evil. The metaphysical question — the question of loyalty to being itself — is the cultural bottom line today, in a way not seen since metaphysics first emerged from Greek classical philosophy.</p>
<p>In 1955 Flannery O’Connor wrote that “if you live today you breathe in nihilism.” Those who once found that complaint a bit extravagant might ponder the reality of contemporary nihilism through one of its recent public manifestations — the claim that the natural moral law we can know by reason is, in truth, a form of irrational bigotry and extremism. That claim was adduced this past October 30 in the lead editorial of the Washington Post, written to cripple a candidate for attorney general of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, whose defense of natural law as an instrument for formulating public policy was decried by the sometimes-sensible editors of the nation’s leading political newspaper as a “retrofit” of “the old language of racism, bias, and intolerance.”</p>
<p>As we assay the health of our political culture through the template of Murray’s American Proposition, what was truly stunning about this editorial assault on natural law (launched in aid of the Post’s relentless campaign in favor of same-sex “marriage”) was its implicit willingness to throw out Jefferson’s claims in the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln’s claims in the Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s claims in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” all of which appealed to a natural moral law that was a reflection of the eternal and divine law. To deny that such a moral law exists, and to compound that intellectual error by the moral crime of labeling those who still adhere to the first truth of the American Proposition as bigots, brings to mind, in this golden anniversary year, Murray’s cautions about the barbarism that threatens us: “Barbarism is not . . . the forest primeval with all its relatively simple savageries. Barbarism . . . is the lack of reasonable conversation according to reasonable laws.”</p>
<p>One might think Murray’s second truth — the principle of consent, which reflects the conviction that the people have an inherent sense of justice, and which is allied to the principle of participation that provides an account of the nature of our civil and political rights — is in better shape. Elections in America take place regularly, however vulgarly. Public officials are rotated in and out of office, if not as often as some would like. Initiatives and referenda repair the damage that the people’s inherent sense of justice tells them has been done to the common good by legislatures or courts. Free speech and freedom of the press are robust, if too often shallow. But the barbarians are among us on this front, too.</p>
<p>The most obvious instance of an assault on the principle of consent is what a 1996 First Things symposium termed the “judicial usurpation of politics.” This violation of a constituting truth of the American Proposition was most egregious in Roe v. Wade; the degree to which the Supreme Court got it colossally wrong in Roe can be measured by the degree to which the effects of Roe have roiled our public life ever since. By the same token, of course, the people’s refusal to acquiesce to what their inherent sense of justice tells them is the fundamental injustice embodied in America’s nearly unfettered abortion license — a refusal that launched and sustains the pro-life movement — expresses the vitality of the second truth of the Proposition.</p>
<p>Yet it is not easy to see how the mistake that the Court made in Roe can be remedied until our public culture gains a firmer grip on the first truth of the Proposition. And there is a new assault on the second truth that bears careful watching and to which resistance must be mounted: the censorship of rationally defensible moral judgment in the name of laws banning what some deem “hate speech.” Such censorship, enforced by coercive state power, is already under way in Canada and in Europe. The degree of resistance that can be mounted to these efforts will be an important measure of the degree to which the truth of the principle of consent is still held in these United States.</p>
<p>Our grasp of the third truth of the American Proposition — that the state exists to serve society, which is ontologically and historically antecedent to the state — has also become attenuated, as two recent controversies illustrate.</p>
<p>Debates over the doctrinal and moral boundaries of communities of faith have been a staple of American life for centuries; the state of Rhode Island is the result of one of those arguments. Into none of these debates, however, has the president of the United States ever injected himself and his office — until this past May, when President Obama did precisely that in his commencement address at Notre Dame. There, the president leaped into the middle of a decades-long ecclesiological debate within American Catholicism by suggesting that the good Catholics, the real Catholics, were men like Fr. Theodore Hesburgh and the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin — indeed, like all those Catholics who supported the Obama candidacy in 2008 and agreed with the president on the nature of the common ground to be sought in American public life. President Obama, in other words, would be the arbiter of authentic Catholicism in America.</p>
<p>The Catholic Church can take care of herself and is doing so in the face of this challenge. What I wish to underscore here is the threat that the president’s Notre Dame address poses to religious freedom in America — which is one constitutional expression of the third truth of the American Proposition. The White House likely thought it was simply playing wedge politics, strengthening its grip on certain Catholic constituencies while widening the gap between those Catholics and their bishops. But the larger meaning of Obama’s commencement address cannot be obscured by such tactical maneuverings: Here was the state, embodied by the president, claiming a purchase in what had for centuries been understood to be the inviolable territory of society.</p>
<p>To be sure, President Obama is not the reincarnation of the Holy Roman emperor Henry IV, contesting with the pope for the legal authority to appoint bishops. But whether or not he knew what he was doing, the president was usurping the bishops’ right to define the doctrinal and moral boundaries of the Catholic community. That this astonishing act was not recognized for what it was is an important, and chilling, measure of the degree to which the third truth of the American Proposition is, at best, tenuously held these days.</p>
<p>Then there is the marriage debate. There is no need to rehearse this at length. Marriage is one of those societal institutions, like the parent–child bond, that antedate the state historically and are prior to the state ontologically and morally. It is not within the competence of the state to define marriage, and any state that does so has breached the border between society and state in a way that gravely endangers civil society and the common good. Any state that does so is engaging in what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger called, on April 18, 2005, the “dictatorship of relativism”: the use of coercive state power to compel a relativist concept of the good. Such dictatorships will, sooner or later, lead to what the late John Paul II described as “open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”</p>
<p>As to the fourth truth within Murray’s American Proposition — the truth that only a virtuous people can be free — the challenges from which it is under assault are obvious. Theories that reduce the democratic experiment to a matter of political mechanics chip away at the link between freedom and virtue by consigning virtue to the sphere of private life. The mantra of choice, the unassailable trump in our contemporary public discourse, deliberately avoids the question of the good: Choose what? The reduction of public virtue to an ill-defined tolerance erodes our sense that civil society is built on numerous virtues. The vulgarities of contemporary popular culture — the demeaning of women by a multibillion-dollar pornography industry, the casual brutality of some aspects of our sports, the eroticism of so much advertising — are challenges to virtue and also to freedom, rightly understood. Decadence and democracy cannot indefinitely coexist. If the American experiment constantly requires new births of freedom, the birth of freedom we need in the early twenty-first century is one in which freedom is once again tethered to both the true and the good.</p>
<p>If the Catholic community in the United States did not, in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council and the cultural whitewater of the 1960s, grasp the destiny that Murray envisioned for it fifty years ago, might it do so today?</p>
<p>Any such recovery of Catholic identity and Catholic nerve would have to address America’s loss of grip on the truths that constitute us as a unique and uniquely free people. The Church has been doing so for almost four decades now by insisting that the defense of the right to life of the unborn, and indeed of all innocent life from conception until natural death, is a first principle of justice that can be known by reason, regardless of one’s theological location or lack thereof. More recently, the Church has taken up the cudgels of public argument in defense of marriage rightly understood, in defense of its own integrity as a self-governing institution, and in defense of the conscience rights of the people of the Church. These efforts must continue, and they must be intensified.</p>
<p>In addition, however, the Catholic Church in America, if it is to help rebuild the foundations of the American democratic experience in ordered freedom, must remind America of the truths about the principle of consent, and the priority of society over the state, that are essential building blocks of American democracy. Those truths are embodied in what modern Catholic social doctrine has called the principle of subsidiarity. According to this principle, the Church lifts up and honors those mediating institutions or voluntary associations that stand between the individual and the state, and teaches that decision making should be left at the lowest possible level of society; that is, at the level of those most directly affected by the decision, commensurate with the common good.</p>
<p>These mediating institutions and that rich pluralism of societal deliberation and decision making constitute what John Paul II called the “subjectivity of society.” Both the institutions and the pluralism are threatened today by the seemingly inexorable thrust of the modern state into every crevice of life. Were the Church to take on this essential task of public moral education, some reconsideration of longstanding Catholic policy positions as articulated by the bishops of the United States might be required; how, for example, is it possible to achieve universal health care while honoring the principle of subsidiarity? If the principle of subsidiarity is true, then there must be answers to this question and to related questions in the fields of education and social welfare that do not involve a wholesale transfer of power to the national government. The search for those answers, which may well lie in a reconception of the roles of both government and mediating institutions, ought to help in the process of regrounding American public life in two of its foundational truths.</p>
<p>Over the past few months, there has been welcome electoral evidence that what the advocates of the dictatorship of relativism imagined to have been their Waterloo-like rout of the advocates of classical biblical morality and classical Western political philosophy in November 2008 was in fact no such thing. Yet John Courtney Murray’s template reminds us to be ever attentive to the deeper, long-term trends in our political culture. And over those same few months I have been struck by the number of thoughtful Americans who believe that we are living a defining moment in our national life: Roads are indeed diverging, and the choices taken will have much to do with whether the United States at its tercentenary, sixty-six years from now, will be a political community in recognizable moral and cultural continuity with its founding.</p>
<p>“What is at stake is America’s understanding of itself,” John Courtney Murray wrote fifty years ago in We Hold These Truths. “Self-understanding is the necessary condition of a sense of self-identity and self-confidence, whether in the case of an individual or in the case of a people. If the American people can no longer base this sense on naive assumptions of self-evidence, it is imperative that they find other more reasoned grounds for their essential affirmation that they are uniquely a people, uniquely a free people. Otherwise the peril is great. The complete loss of one’s identity is, with all propriety of theological definition, hell. In diminished forms it is insanity. And it would not be well for the American giant to go lumbering about the world today, lost and mad.”</p>
<p>George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.&#160;This essay is adapted from his ninth annual William E. Simon Lecture, delivered on January 28, and from a slightly emended version of the lecture presented at Ave Maria University on February 3, 2010.</p> | false | 1 | year marks fiftieth anniversary john courtney murrays hold truths catholic reflections american proposition arguably important reflection composed time publication landed fr murray urbane new york jesuit cover time days distinction actually meant something three years later new yorks francis cardinal spellman brought murray second vatican council peritus theological adviser jesuit murrays work churchstate theory could help shape councils deliberations religious liberty issue particular concern bishops united states man americas prominent catholic public intellectual 1965 year vatican ii adopted declaration religious freedom work helped make possible murray went strikingly rapid eclipse untimely death 1967 longstanding heart ailment younger jesuit generation jettisoned murray impossibly old hat claiming one put know much murray mid1980s however twenty years neglect murray resurrected catholic thinkers seeking materials build religiously informed public philosophy american experiment ordered liberty turn led effort perhaps surprising reclaim murray progressive catholicisma project risible anyone familiar stories murrays contempt woollierheaded notions circulated woodstock college years death hold truths without critics 1960s recently argued murrays account american founding massively reduced role biblical religion especially calvinism national consensus produced new republic others suggested murrays theory democracy based excessively neoscholastic meaning specifically suarezian reading relation nature grace even others argued murrays theory democracy beholden john locke critics find murray opening might called cuomoism among catholic public officials charge disservice murray even gives undeserved intellectual gloss mario cuomo theologians lawyers helped turn catholic politicians advocates reproductive choice purpose sort arguments murrays analysis founding still less judge metaphysics epistemology buttressed churchstate theory rather want review american proposition sketched hold truths template measuring health american republic public culture enter second decade twentyfirst century opening paragraphs murrays book summarize argument give flavor cool dry rhetorical style classic american doctrine immortally asserted abraham lincoln new nation fathers brought forth continent dedicated proposition philosophy proposition statement truth demonstrated mathematics proposition times statement operation performed fathers dedicated nation proposition senses american proposition doctrinal practical theorem problem affirmation also intention presents coherent structure thought even also presents organized political project aims historical success neither doctrine project american proposition finished thing demonstration never done proposition requires development penalty decadence historical success never taken granted come absolute term given measure success demands enlargement penalty instant decline moment national crisis lincoln asserted imperiled part theorem gave impetus impeded part project noble utterance declaratory imperative men created equal today civil war become basic fact world society element theorem menaced active negation thrust project meet powerful opposition today therefore thoughtful men among us saying america must clearly conscious proposes articulate proposing purposeful realization project proposed american proposition murray understood conservation development political dimension western civilizations project emerged centuries interactions jerusalem athens rome interaction biblical religion greek rationality roman law proposition rested realist epistemology truths built world us know truths arts reason knowledge lays certain obligations personal civil us sure truths held assented worked texture institutions true city men may dwell dignity peace unity justice wellbeing freedom nevertobetakenforgranted quality truths american proposition simply underscored fact united states experiment experiment ordered freedom could said suppose democracy weimar germany french third republic chillingly demonstrate perils attending democracys failure order public life moral truths know reason distinctive american democracy however nationhood depended truths founders pledged lives fortunes sacred honor german nation remained germany collapse weimar republic france remained france vichy regime murray argued americas native condition plurality american peoplethe american nationhad constructed old materials blood ethnicity language soil common religious conviction new materials adherence truths civic order survival america theorem project rested american ability create pluralism plurality transform cacophony ethnic religious difference orderly conversation public goods based common allegiance elementary truths proposition murrays theory democracy seeming thin critics thus far thicker todays democratic functionalists whose sole concern get machinery governance right murray contrast thought politics machinery deliberationcommon deliberation among men women citizens merely bundles desires common deliberation public goods using arts reason apply agreedon first principles truth civic order exigencies governance amidst flux history conception democracy civility tolerance moral accomplishments poses attitudes pragmatic accommodations tolerance means differences ignored differences engaged civility achievement order thus measure clarity perhaps even charity public conversation distinctive bond civil society murray wrote reason exactly exercise reason argument argument turn gave form distinctive kind association american democratic experiment jacques maritain might called civic friendship generation murray john paul ii called solidarity murray wrote special kind moral virtue thing reason intelligence laboriously cultivated disciplining passion prejudice narrow selfinterest friendship david jonathan fierce inclusiveness clan tribe bond charity binds disciples within church civic friendship solidarity born common passion justice requirements justicewhat owed city citizenry citizens owe cityunderstood according canons public reason bonds civic friendship america reinforced founding consensus gave philosophical content murrays american proposition consensus murrays words ensemble substantive truths structure basic knowledge order elementary affirmations reflect truths must know reason ought live together political arrangement possible everything doubt genuine argument murray wrote must core agreement accord concurrence acquiescence may sound daunting need discover truths labors alone rather truths form moralcultural foundations american democracy come us inheritance honored cultivated project western civilization gift leo xiii founder modern catholic social doctrine called patrimony humankind first inherited truths give content american proposition nation judgment god sovereign nations well individuals fact lies beyond politics murray insisted imparts politics fundamental human meaning like edmund burke murray distinguished angloamerican political tradition jacobinism continental european political philosophy latter began thinking politics autonomous human reason former looked sovereignty god first principle organization american experiment words experiment transcendent judgment judgment god bible judgment moral truths inscribed natures god world us reflection divine creative purpose natural law know reason gives government authority command even limits power governors constitutional agreement people representatives ratified basic instruments american governance amended agreement circumstances required created process murray understood people define areas public authority legitimate areas liberty lawful second foundational truth american proposition also grew christian middle ages principle governance exists consent governed reading western history royal absolutism parallel union altar throne aberration rich social pluralism middle ages assumed limits princely authority reflect murrays view premise sense justice inherent people principle consent premise people know moral truths ought live together stands sharp contrast jacobin tradition continental europe twentiethcentury manifestation totalitarianism proposed governance elite vanguards principle consent premise peoples sense justice framed murrays understanding human rights posed another challenge autonomybased theory democracy proper premise freedoms lay fact social necessities regarded conditions essential conduct free representative responsible government people called upon obey right first heard people bear burdens make sacrifices right first pronounce purposes sacrifices serve people summoned contribute common good right first pass judgment question whether good proposed truly good peoples good american proposition words rights trumps recognized sheer fact assertion rather rights rooted dignity human person capable rational moral choice considered political judgment thus rights acknowledged law facilitate promotion defense human dignity common good simply innoculate individual choice someone may consider interference third truth american proposition murray put state distinct society limited offices toward society society exists prior state ontologically well historically state exists serve society way around retrieval medieval distinction studium imperium order culture political order would large consequences murrays churchstate theory indeed second vatican council american experiment salient point murray put government rightly understood submits judgment truth society judge truth society neither government judge truths inscribed nature rightly ordered government submits judgment truths built world us attempts redefine truths acted unjustly illegitimately fourth component american proposition profound conviction virtuous people free murray knew guarantees success freedom freedom dissipate license private license public decadence decadence chaos chaos authoritarianism american belief murray wrote free government inevitable possible moreover possibility realized people whole inwardly governed recognized imperatives universal moral law freedom moral truth murray wrote anticipation teaching john paul ii centesimus annus inextricably bound together freedom must tethered truth ordered goodness freedom become undoing murray applauded ways american cultural instinct freedom succeeded placing limits sphere government within functioning democracy american demand freedom could made full resonance moral authority extent issues inner sense responsibility higher law american idea ordered freedom ordered goodness tethered truth men would free politically must discipline murray explained political freedom endangered foundations soon universal moral values upon whose shared possession selfdiscipline free society depends longer vigorous enough restrain passions shatter selfish inertia men democracy words spiritual moral enterprise inherited cultural consensus john courtney murrays view informed shaped american proposition centuries truths still held murrays time halfcentury ago murray doubts think proposition could carried longer primary institutions historical transmission christian communities old protestant mainline already beset theological doctrinal chaos would falling torch picked american academy thrall pragmatism academy long ago bade quiet goodbye whole notion american consensus implying truths hold common natural law makes known us structure moral universe wise us bound common obedience murrays suggestion striking one historical moment given anticatholic prejudice manifest 1960 presidential campaign originating constituting consensus america still possessed might revived catholic community united states revitalization happen american catholicism lurched fever swamps 1960s 1970s opportunity murray saw late 1950s early 1960s victim postvatican ii silly season although listen carefully hear echoes today sometimes echoes consensus ideas american proposition prolife advocacy catholics allies among thoughtful leadership evangelical protestants first page hold truths murray wrote civil war basic fact world society referring course contest west communist totalitarianism contest concluded two decades ago yet civil war fundamentally anthropological character based fundamentally opposed ideas human person continues sometimes called american culture war analogues europe murray didnt use term culture war clearly anticipated possibility penned one striking passages book perhaps one day noble manystoreyed mansion democracy dismantled leveled dimensions flat majoritarianism mansion barn perhaps even tool shed weapons tyranny may forged perhaps one day widespread dissent even political principles emerge natural law possibility widespread dissent principles develop foreclosed indeed possibility manifestly us foreclosure need complete mansion need leveled abandoned saving however means facing squarely ways truths murrays american proposition longer held might seem first truth proposition sovereignty god nations well individuals parallel conviction universal moral law inscribed nature accessible reason would gravely threatened socalled new atheism david bentley hart bracingly demonstrates recent book atheist delusions attacks richard dawkins christopher hitchens sam harris daniel dennett well downmarket cashout dan browns da vinci code get us true root problem historically illinformed philosophically embarrassing new atheism romano guardini used call interior disloyalty modern times murray said betrayal existential structure reality betrayal powerfully embodied postmodernisms skepticism human capacity know truth anything certainty skepticism yields one hand metaphysical nihilism hand moral relativism indeed according trenchant reading modernity french philosopher rémi brague nihilism may defining challenge cultural moment west bragues analysis twentyfirst century century nothingness twentieth century defined contest totalitarianism century true false nineteenth defined social question emerging industrial revolution century good evil metaphysical question question loyalty cultural bottom line today way seen since metaphysics first emerged greek classical philosophy 1955 flannery oconnor wrote live today breathe nihilism found complaint bit extravagant might ponder reality contemporary nihilism one recent public manifestations claim natural moral law know reason truth form irrational bigotry extremism claim adduced past october 30 lead editorial washington post written cripple candidate attorney general virginia ken cuccinelli whose defense natural law instrument formulating public policy decried sometimessensible editors nations leading political newspaper retrofit old language racism bias intolerance assay health political culture template murrays american proposition truly stunning editorial assault natural law launched aid posts relentless campaign favor samesex marriage implicit willingness throw jeffersons claims declaration independence lincolns claims gettysburg address martin luther king jrs claims letter birmingham jail appealed natural moral law reflection eternal divine law deny moral law exists compound intellectual error moral crime labeling still adhere first truth american proposition bigots brings mind golden anniversary year murrays cautions barbarism threatens us barbarism forest primeval relatively simple savageries barbarism lack reasonable conversation according reasonable laws one might think murrays second truth principle consent reflects conviction people inherent sense justice allied principle participation provides account nature civil political rights better shape elections america take place regularly however vulgarly public officials rotated office often would like initiatives referenda repair damage peoples inherent sense justice tells done common good legislatures courts free speech freedom press robust often shallow barbarians among us front obvious instance assault principle consent 1996 first things symposium termed judicial usurpation politics violation constituting truth american proposition egregious roe v wade degree supreme court got colossally wrong roe measured degree effects roe roiled public life ever since token course peoples refusal acquiesce inherent sense justice tells fundamental injustice embodied americas nearly unfettered abortion license refusal launched sustains prolife movement expresses vitality second truth proposition yet easy see mistake court made roe remedied public culture gains firmer grip first truth proposition new assault second truth bears careful watching resistance must mounted censorship rationally defensible moral judgment name laws banning deem hate speech censorship enforced coercive state power already way canada europe degree resistance mounted efforts important measure degree truth principle consent still held united states grasp third truth american proposition state exists serve society ontologically historically antecedent state also become attenuated two recent controversies illustrate debates doctrinal moral boundaries communities faith staple american life centuries state rhode island result one arguments none debates however president united states ever injected office past may president obama precisely commencement address notre dame president leaped middle decadeslong ecclesiological debate within american catholicism suggesting good catholics real catholics men like fr theodore hesburgh late joseph cardinal bernardin indeed like catholics supported obama candidacy 2008 agreed president nature common ground sought american public life president obama words would arbiter authentic catholicism america catholic church take care face challenge wish underscore threat presidents notre dame address poses religious freedom america one constitutional expression third truth american proposition white house likely thought simply playing wedge politics strengthening grip certain catholic constituencies widening gap catholics bishops larger meaning obamas commencement address obscured tactical maneuverings state embodied president claiming purchase centuries understood inviolable territory society sure president obama reincarnation holy roman emperor henry iv contesting pope legal authority appoint bishops whether knew president usurping bishops right define doctrinal moral boundaries catholic community astonishing act recognized important chilling measure degree third truth american proposition best tenuously held days marriage debate need rehearse length marriage one societal institutions like parentchild bond antedate state historically prior state ontologically morally within competence state define marriage state breached border society state way gravely endangers civil society common good state engaging cardinal joseph ratzinger called april 18 2005 dictatorship relativism use coercive state power compel relativist concept good dictatorships sooner later lead late john paul ii described open thinly disguised totalitarianism fourth truth within murrays american proposition truth virtuous people free challenges assault obvious theories reduce democratic experiment matter political mechanics chip away link freedom virtue consigning virtue sphere private life mantra choice unassailable trump contemporary public discourse deliberately avoids question good choose reduction public virtue illdefined tolerance erodes sense civil society built numerous virtues vulgarities contemporary popular culture demeaning women multibilliondollar pornography industry casual brutality aspects sports eroticism much advertising challenges virtue also freedom rightly understood decadence democracy indefinitely coexist american experiment constantly requires new births freedom birth freedom need early twentyfirst century one freedom tethered true good catholic community united states aftermath second vatican council cultural whitewater 1960s grasp destiny murray envisioned fifty years ago might today recovery catholic identity catholic nerve would address americas loss grip truths constitute us unique uniquely free people church almost four decades insisting defense right life unborn indeed innocent life conception natural death first principle justice known reason regardless ones theological location lack thereof recently church taken cudgels public argument defense marriage rightly understood defense integrity selfgoverning institution defense conscience rights people church efforts must continue must intensified addition however catholic church america help rebuild foundations american democratic experience ordered freedom must remind america truths principle consent priority society state essential building blocks american democracy truths embodied modern catholic social doctrine called principle subsidiarity according principle church lifts honors mediating institutions voluntary associations stand individual state teaches decision making left lowest possible level society level directly affected decision commensurate common good mediating institutions rich pluralism societal deliberation decision making constitute john paul ii called subjectivity society institutions pluralism threatened today seemingly inexorable thrust modern state every crevice life church take essential task public moral education reconsideration longstanding catholic policy positions articulated bishops united states might required example possible achieve universal health care honoring principle subsidiarity principle subsidiarity true must answers question related questions fields education social welfare involve wholesale transfer power national government search answers may well lie reconception roles government mediating institutions ought help process regrounding american public life two foundational truths past months welcome electoral evidence advocates dictatorship relativism imagined waterloolike rout advocates classical biblical morality classical western political philosophy november 2008 fact thing yet john courtney murrays template reminds us ever attentive deeper longterm trends political culture months struck number thoughtful americans believe living defining moment national life roads indeed diverging choices taken much whether united states tercentenary sixtysix years political community recognizable moral cultural continuity founding stake americas understanding john courtney murray wrote fifty years ago hold truths selfunderstanding necessary condition sense selfidentity selfconfidence whether case individual case people american people longer base sense naive assumptions selfevidence imperative find reasoned grounds essential affirmation uniquely people uniquely free people otherwise peril great complete loss ones identity propriety theological definition hell diminished forms insanity would well american giant go lumbering world today lost mad george weigel distinguished senior fellow washingtons ethics public policy center holds william e simon chair catholic studies160this essay adapted ninth annual william e simon lecture delivered january 28 slightly emended version lecture presented ave maria university february 3 2010 | 2,889 |
<p>TENNESSEE TITANS (0-1) AT JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS (1-0)</p>
<p>KICKOFF: Sunday, 1 p.m. ET, EverBank Field. TV: CBS, Spero Dedes, Adam Archuleta.</p>
<p>SERIES HISTORY: 45th regular-season meeting. Titans lead series, 24-20. Last time there was a series sweep was in 2008. Last year’s two games produced double-digit wins by both teams on their home fields. The previous six games were all decided by eight points or fewer. The biggest game between the two teams came on Jan. 23, 2000, when the Titans scored 23 unanswered points in the second half for a 33-14 win the AFC Championship Game before 75,206, the second largest home crowd in Jaguars history.</p>
<p>KEYS TO THE GAME: The Titans got away from their supposed identity Sunday in losing to Oakland, throwing the ball 41 times and running it only 21 times for 95 yards. The Titans have to be concerned about the Jaguars’ defense, which had 10 sacks and forced four turnovers in hammering the Texans. The Titans’ offensive line is better than Houston’s, but the Titans still need to run the ball more efficiently with <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/DeMarco_Murray/" type="external">DeMarco Murray</a> and <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Derrick-Henry/" type="external">Derrick Henry</a> and use play action to help neutralize the Jaguars’ pass rush.</p>
<p>No need for the Jaguars to change the game plan from a week ago. They went into the Houston game convinced they could run the ball right at defensive end <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/JJ-Watt/" type="external">J.J. Watt</a>, and they did. They churned out 155 yards on the ground and took the pressure off quarterback <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Blake-Bortles/" type="external">Blake Bortles</a>, who did not need the big play through the air to win. Look for another heavy dose of <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Leonard-Fournette/" type="external">Leonard Fournette</a> with adequate relief from <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Chris-Ivory/" type="external">Chris Ivory</a> as the Jaguars strive for a 160- to 180-yard rushing attack.</p>
<p>The Jags must contain talented Titans quarterback <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Marcus-Mariota/" type="external">Marcus Mariota</a>. They are not likely to match the team-record 10 sacks they had last week, but they will need to put enough pressure on Mariota to minimize his time to find open receivers.</p>
<p>MATCHUPS TO WATCH:</p>
<p>–Jaguars LT <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Cam-Robinson/" type="external">Cam Robinson</a> vs. Titans LB Brian Orakpo. Robinson may think he deserves a week off after passing the test with flying colors against Houston’s solid defensive front last week. Robinson and others helped hold J.J. Watt to just one tackle and very little pressure on Blake Bortles. While that was a successful debut for Robinson, there isn’t any time for a let-up as Orakpo will be a challenge. The outside linebacker likes to blitz and he’ll be coming right through Robinson. His ability to contain Orakpo and open holes on the left side for Leonard Fournette and Chris Ivory will go a long way toward determining whether the Jaguars can make it two wins in a row over divisional foes.</p>
<p>–Titans Pro Bowl LT Taylor Lewan vs. Jaguars DE <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Calais-Campbell/" type="external">Calais Campbell</a>. Lewan and the Titans’ offensive line did OK in pass protection last week, but they probably would prefer not to pass block 41 times a game like they did against Oakland. When the Titans do pass, they must account for Campbell, who had four sacks last week. He can line up inside, meaning OG Quinton Spain and C <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Ben_Jones/" type="external">Ben Jones</a> might be responsible for him in certain looks. Lewan, with his athleticism, is the Titans’ best pass blocker and, even if he needs help, the Titans need to keep Campbell off Mariota.</p>
<p>PLAYER SPOTLIGHT: Titans WR Rishard Matthews. While much of the attention was on the new weapons that Mariota has at the receiver position in <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Eric-Decker/" type="external">Eric Decker</a>, <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Corey-Davis/" type="external">Corey Davis</a> and Taywan Taylor, it was clear that Mariota still was plenty reliant on Matthews. The 2016 free-agent signee, who had 65 catches a year ago, caught five passes for 71 yards against Oakland. His 24-yard catch was Tennessee’s biggest gain of the day.</p>
<p>FAST FACTS: Titans QB Marcus Mariota passed for 256 yards and rushed for a TD last week. He has six passing TDs vs. one INT and 126 rushing yards in the past three meetings. He has not thrown an interception in four straight division games. … Titans RB DeMarco Murray has eclipsed 100 yards rushing in two of the past three meetings. Since 2013, he leads the NFL with 37 rushing TDs and ranks second with 4,999 yards rushing. … Titans LB Brian Orakpo has two forced fumbles and a sack in two games at Jacksonville. … In the last three meetings, Jaguars QB Blake Bortles has thrown for 984 yards (328 per game) with nine TDs and no interceptions. … Jaguars rookie RB Leonard Fournette rushed for 100 yards and a TD last week and is the first RB in franchise history with100 yards rushing in his NFL debut. … Titans CB <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jalen-Ramsey/" type="external">Jalen Ramsey</a> had a pick-six and four passes defensed in the last meeting. He has 16 passes defensed, two picks and a forced fumble in the past six games.</p>
<p>PREDICTION: This will be a game in which either Mariota or Fournette decides the outcome. They will both make the game watchable, but Mariota seems due to have a breakout year despite a slow start vs. Oakland.</p>
<p>OUR PICK: Titans, 24-17.</p>
<p>— <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Frank-Cooney/" type="external">Frank Cooney</a></p> | false | 1 | tennessee titans 01 jacksonville jaguars 10 kickoff sunday 1 pm et everbank field tv cbs spero dedes adam archuleta series history 45th regularseason meeting titans lead series 2420 last time series sweep 2008 last years two games produced doubledigit wins teams home fields previous six games decided eight points fewer biggest game two teams came jan 23 2000 titans scored 23 unanswered points second half 3314 win afc championship game 75206 second largest home crowd jaguars history keys game titans got away supposed identity sunday losing oakland throwing ball 41 times running 21 times 95 yards titans concerned jaguars defense 10 sacks forced four turnovers hammering texans titans offensive line better houstons titans still need run ball efficiently demarco murray derrick henry use play action help neutralize jaguars pass rush need jaguars change game plan week ago went houston game convinced could run ball right defensive end jj watt churned 155 yards ground took pressure quarterback blake bortles need big play air win look another heavy dose leonard fournette adequate relief chris ivory jaguars strive 160 180yard rushing attack jags must contain talented titans quarterback marcus mariota likely match teamrecord 10 sacks last week need put enough pressure mariota minimize time find open receivers matchups watch jaguars lt cam robinson vs titans lb brian orakpo robinson may think deserves week passing test flying colors houstons solid defensive front last week robinson others helped hold jj watt one tackle little pressure blake bortles successful debut robinson isnt time letup orakpo challenge outside linebacker likes blitz hell coming right robinson ability contain orakpo open holes left side leonard fournette chris ivory go long way toward determining whether jaguars make two wins row divisional foes titans pro bowl lt taylor lewan vs jaguars de calais campbell lewan titans offensive line ok pass protection last week probably would prefer pass block 41 times game like oakland titans pass must account campbell four sacks last week line inside meaning og quinton spain c ben jones might responsible certain looks lewan athleticism titans best pass blocker even needs help titans need keep campbell mariota player spotlight titans wr rishard matthews much attention new weapons mariota receiver position eric decker corey davis taywan taylor clear mariota still plenty reliant matthews 2016 freeagent signee 65 catches year ago caught five passes 71 yards oakland 24yard catch tennessees biggest gain day fast facts titans qb marcus mariota passed 256 yards rushed td last week six passing tds vs one int 126 rushing yards past three meetings thrown interception four straight division games titans rb demarco murray eclipsed 100 yards rushing two past three meetings since 2013 leads nfl 37 rushing tds ranks second 4999 yards rushing titans lb brian orakpo two forced fumbles sack two games jacksonville last three meetings jaguars qb blake bortles thrown 984 yards 328 per game nine tds interceptions jaguars rookie rb leonard fournette rushed 100 yards td last week first rb franchise history with100 yards rushing nfl debut titans cb jalen ramsey picksix four passes defensed last meeting 16 passes defensed two picks forced fumble past six games prediction game either mariota fournette decides outcome make game watchable mariota seems due breakout year despite slow start vs oakland pick titans 2417 frank cooney | 539 |
<p>WASHINGTON — A government shutdown loomed larger despite House approval of a stopgap spending bill late Thursday, as Senate Republicans acknowledged they lacked the votes needed to pass the measure before the Friday midnight deadline.</p>
<p>The House vote 230-170 to pass the continuing resolution that keeps the government funded until Feb. 16 at fiscal 2017 levels.</p>
<p>Nevada’s congressional delegation voted along party lines. Republican Rep. Mark Amodei voted for the measure while Democratic Reps. Dina Titus, Jacky Rosen and Ruben Kihuen voted nay.</p>
<p>The vote moved the measure to the Senate, where Democrats appeared to have a sufficient number of votes to block the bill.</p>
<p>Republican leaders attempted to lure Democrats to support the bill by including a six-year reauthorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides services for 9 million children nationwide, including roughly 40,000 in Nevada.</p>
<p>But Democratic leaders continued to demand a legislative remedy for undocumented immigrants who were illegally brought into this country as children as well as increased spending on domestic programs as the price for their support.</p>
<p>Maneuvering frustrates McConnell</p>
<p>A frustrated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Democrats do not oppose “a single thing in this bill,” but were buckling to demands of Democratic leaders. He planned a series of votes designed to politically pressure vulnerable Democrats in states that President Donald Trump won in 2016.</p>
<p>Politico also reported that McConnell was prepared to keep the Senate in session through the weekend if necessary.</p>
<p>House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said the spending bill was critical to fund the military and CHIP.</p>
<p>But Democrats said they were tired of passing short-term spending bills, and demanded more funds to battle the opioid epidemic, veterans health care and other domestic programs.</p>
<p>The stopgap bill would be the fourth short-term measure passed since the 2018 fiscal year began Oct.1, 2017.</p>
<p>“It’s really almost like an amateur hour,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said of Congress’ continued inability to agree on a longer-term spending plan.</p>
<p>Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., compared Trump and McConnell to the comedy duo “Abbott and Costello” for what he called the Republicans’ fumbling attempt to govern while controlling the White House, House and Senate.</p>
<p>In the Senate, Democrats have so far remained united in opposition. Republicans hold a razor-thin 51-49 majority in the Senate, and need 60 votes to overcome parliamentary maneuvers and stop a filibuster.</p>
<p>Democrats insist on DACA fix</p>
<p>Democrats are under pressure from immigration advocates to use their political leverage and get a legislative remedy for the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which shields children who arrived here illegally from deportation.</p>
<p>Trump ended the DACA program, initiated by the Obama administration, in September, but gave Congress six months to provide a legislative fix. A federal judge in California this month put Trump’s order on hold as various lawsuits over the move play out in the courts.</p>
<p>The DACA program protects about 800,000 undocumented immigrants nationwide, including more than 16,000 in Nevada.</p>
<p>Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., the first Latina to serve in the Senate, has argued that Democrats should use their leverage to get a deal on immigration reform. Despite her stance, her office was targeted by immigrant advocates protesting Congress’ failure to act.</p>
<p>Nevada’s Republican Sen. Dean Heller has embraced the GOP leadership position, seeking more funds for border security with any immigration reform bill that includes DACA provisions.</p>
<p>“Despite the Democrats’ political spectacle, I’m pleased that the House ultimately passed the continuing resolution,” he said Thursday.</p>
<p>Republicans, Democrats and the White House are separately negotiating an immigration package that includes DACA, border security funds, and end to the diversity visa lottery and reductions in chain migration.</p>
<p>But Trump cast those efforts into disarray earlier this week when he allegedly referred to Haiti and African nations as “s—-hole” countries.</p>
<p>Immigration talks continue</p>
<p>A senior administration adviser said Thursday that Trump is nevertheless working with lawmakers on both sides to find reach an agreement on immigration reform, and new two-year budget caps that would increase defense spending.</p>
<p>States also have been clamoring for Congress to act to reauthorize the CHIP program since funding expired on Sept. 30.</p>
<p>Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, Heller, Cortez Masto and the entire bipartisan congressional delegation have urged reauthorization of the program the serves low-income children.</p>
<p>Nevada has received a redistribution of unspent CHIP funds to keep its programs running until February.</p>
<p>A government shutdown would not impact military and Postal Service employees, and Social Security and Medicare benefits would continue to be paid, according to the administration officials.</p>
<p>Law enforcement and airport security would continue.</p>
<p>But non-essential service, that include national parks and monuments, and non-essential federal workers, would be furloughed until Congress passes legislation to resume spending.</p>
<p>Contact Gary Martin at [email protected] or 202-662-7390. Follow @garymartindc on Twitter.</p> | false | 1 | washington government shutdown loomed larger despite house approval stopgap spending bill late thursday senate republicans acknowledged lacked votes needed pass measure friday midnight deadline house vote 230170 pass continuing resolution keeps government funded feb 16 fiscal 2017 levels nevadas congressional delegation voted along party lines republican rep mark amodei voted measure democratic reps dina titus jacky rosen ruben kihuen voted nay vote moved measure senate democrats appeared sufficient number votes block bill republican leaders attempted lure democrats support bill including sixyear reauthorization childrens health insurance program provides services 9 million children nationwide including roughly 40000 nevada democratic leaders continued demand legislative remedy undocumented immigrants illegally brought country children well increased spending domestic programs price support maneuvering frustrates mcconnell frustrated senate majority leader mitch mcconnell rky said democrats oppose single thing bill buckling demands democratic leaders planned series votes designed politically pressure vulnerable democrats states president donald trump 2016 politico also reported mcconnell prepared keep senate session weekend necessary house speaker paul ryan rwis said spending bill critical fund military chip democrats said tired passing shortterm spending bills demanded funds battle opioid epidemic veterans health care domestic programs stopgap bill would fourth shortterm measure passed since 2018 fiscal year began oct1 2017 really almost like amateur hour house minority leader nancy pelosi dcalif said congress continued inability agree longerterm spending plan senate minority leader chuck schumer dny compared trump mcconnell comedy duo abbott costello called republicans fumbling attempt govern controlling white house house senate senate democrats far remained united opposition republicans hold razorthin 5149 majority senate need 60 votes overcome parliamentary maneuvers stop filibuster democrats insist daca fix democrats pressure immigration advocates use political leverage get legislative remedy deferred action childhood arrivals daca shields children arrived illegally deportation trump ended daca program initiated obama administration september gave congress six months provide legislative fix federal judge california month put trumps order hold various lawsuits move play courts daca program protects 800000 undocumented immigrants nationwide including 16000 nevada sen catherine cortez masto dnev first latina serve senate argued democrats use leverage get deal immigration reform despite stance office targeted immigrant advocates protesting congress failure act nevadas republican sen dean heller embraced gop leadership position seeking funds border security immigration reform bill includes daca provisions despite democrats political spectacle im pleased house ultimately passed continuing resolution said thursday republicans democrats white house separately negotiating immigration package includes daca border security funds end diversity visa lottery reductions chain migration trump cast efforts disarray earlier week allegedly referred haiti african nations shole countries immigration talks continue senior administration adviser said thursday trump nevertheless working lawmakers sides find reach agreement immigration reform new twoyear budget caps would increase defense spending states also clamoring congress act reauthorize chip program since funding expired sept 30 nevada gov brian sandoval republican heller cortez masto entire bipartisan congressional delegation urged reauthorization program serves lowincome children nevada received redistribution unspent chip funds keep programs running february government shutdown would impact military postal service employees social security medicare benefits would continue paid according administration officials law enforcement airport security would continue nonessential service include national parks monuments nonessential federal workers would furloughed congress passes legislation resume spending contact gary martin gmartinreviewjournalcom 2026627390 follow garymartindc twitter | 532 |
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Legalized abortion may lead to reduced crime through any of three channels. The first channel is simply a smaller cohort size. If abortion reduces the number of births, when that cohort reaches the late teens and twenties, there will be fewer young males, and thus less crime. Abortion may also lower per capita offending rates in affected cohorts. The children may on average be less criminal due to either a ‘selective-abortion effect or an ‘improved-environment’ effect. The selective-abortion channel will operate if the women who have abortions are the most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity. . . . The improved-environment effect may be present if women use abortion to optimize the timing of childbearing.</p>
<p>—John J. Donohue, III, and Steven D. Levitt</p>
<p />
<p>Donohue and Levitt’s contention that legal abortions in the 1970s explain half the fall in the crime rate during the 1990s is couched in what appears to be a scientific study. Yet a closer look at the data on both abortion and crime contradicts their conclusions. Equally important, their argument ignores the new social dynamics that emerged in the wake of the legalization of abortion. The “selective abortion” effect that stands at the center of their thesis is nullified by the fact that about two-thirds of the rise in teenage pregnancies following the legalization of abortion were the result of behavioral changes. In other words, legal abortion was a cause of the bad socioeconomic environment, not its cure. As documented in my feature essay, by sharply cutting the net marriage rate and increasing out-of-wedlock births, legal abortion caused a sharp fall in household living standards, especially among “teenagers, unmarried women, and African-Americans,” groups that Donohue and Levitt claim will have children most likely to engage in criminal activity.</p>
<p>Among the dynamics brought on by abortion and overlooked by Donohue and Levitt is what might be called the “worm-in-the-apple effect.” After doing away with an “unwanted” child through abortion, the parents belatedly discover-that they, too, are unwanted: the woman is unwanted as a wife or mother; the man is unwanted as a husband or father. When the child is unwanted by the father but wanted by the mother, it usually means the mother is also unwanted by the father. The typical result: an out-of-wedlock birth and a home that is “broken” from its conception. In either case, the less men are occupied with producing and economically supporting life, the more they are likely to injure life. Donohue and Levitt may coyly argue that “recent abortions will not have any direct impact on crime today since infants commit little crime,”1 but many fathers of aborted children do.</p>
<p>The age distribution of persons arrested (four-fifths of whom are men) matches almost exactly the age distribution of women seeking abortions, especially after allowing for the fact that young men are typically two years older than their female sexual partners.2 Among persons arrested in 1995, 18.3 percent were under the age of eighteen years; 26.1 percent between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four years; 47.4 percent between the ages of twenty-four and forty-four years; and 8.2 percent older than age forty-four.3 Among women undergoing abortions in 1995, 20.2 percent were nineteen years old or younger; 32.4 percent between the ages of twenty and twenty-four years; 47.4 percent between the ages of twenty-five and forty-four years; and a fraction of a percent older than forty-four.4 This means that convoluted speculations about what crimes African-American children might commit a couple of decades from now, if they are permitted to be born, are meaningless. The relation between abortion today and crime today is direct and brutal. Although yet to be statistically quantified, most crimes are committed by men the age of the fathers of aborted children; a man who has been party to either killing or abandoning his own child is more likely to harm other human beings.</p>
<p>To claim their results, Donohue and Levitt must torture a ridiculously short snippet of available data. Comprehensive annual data on crime begin in 1957; on homicide, in 1900. But the authors try to explain only the data from 1985 to 1997 by using abortion data fifteen to twenty years before, arbitrarily ruling out any contemporaneous effect of abortion on crime. They even concede:</p>
<p>It is impossible using the data alone to distinguish the impact or 1970’s abortions on current crime rates from the impact of 1990’s abortions on current crime rates. Put another way, we obtain similar results regardless of whether we include 1970’s abortion rates or 1990s abortion rates, but when both are included multicollinearity leads to enormous standard errors. Consequently, it must be recognized that our interpretation of the results relies on the assumption that there will be a 15–20 year lag before abortion materially affects crime.5</p>
<p>This assumption represents a fatal flaw in their analysis. A strongly positive contemporaneous relation between abortion and crime exists when the crime and abortion rates are measured against other social indicators. The total fertility rate strongly correlates inversely with the crime rate. Since at least 83 percent of past legal abortions reduced the total fertility rate, a strong positive relationship exists between the current abortion rate and the current crime rate. In addition, the share of the population on welfare (and general assistance, which was important before 1960) strongly correlates with the crime rate.</p>
<p>Donohue and Levitt ignore these factors, comparing the changes in abortion between 1973 and 1976 with the change in various crime rates between 1985 and 1997. Why did they compare a three-year change in abortion (starting when abortions had already reached about half their peak number) with a twelve-year change in crime? Perhaps they discovered that using comparable time periods–thus starting with zero abortions–would have yielded mathematically nonsensical results, revealing that the study is “improperly specified.” Even so, their “fit” of the data is underwhelming. The data consist essentially of a single pair of data points–the 1973-76 change in abortion and the 1985-97 change in the crime rate–for each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. While a 100 percent statistical correlation must always be found between any single pair of data points, the Donohue-Levitt study of fifty-one simultaneous pairs could find only a 31 percent correlation between lagged abortion and the violent crime rate, a 39 percent correlation with the property crime rate, and a miserable 14 percent correlation with the homicide rate. Even by adding seven extra variables, the study could still explain only 37 percent of the variation in the violent crime rate, 65 percent of the variation in the property crime rate, and 45 percent of the variation in the homicide rate.</p>
<p>Analysts looking for more satisfying explanations for changes in the crime rate ought to look at variables Donohue and Levitt ignore. One single explanatory variable, the total fertility rate, can account for 84 percent of the annual variation in the violent crime rate, 94 percent of the total crime rate between 1957 and 1997. Two explanatory variables, the total fertility rate and the share of the U.S. population on welfare, can explain 90 percent of the variation in the violent crime rate, 92 percent of the homicide rate, and 96 percent of the total crime rate since 1957. The regression results indicate that a 1 percent rise in the total fertility rate is associated with a 1.4 percent drop in the total crime rate and that a 1 percent fall in the population on welfare is associated with a 0.85 percent fall in the total crime rate.6 Therefore, the rise of the total fertility rate coupled with the sharp decline of the welfare population accounts far better empirically for the recent drop in the crime rate. Conversely, the sharp decline in the total fertility rate coupled with the sharp rise in the welfare population in the 1960s and 1970s explains the sharp rise in the crime rate during the same period.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>NOTES:</p>
<p>1. John J. Donohue, III, and Steven D. Levitt, “Legalized Abortion and Crime,” unpublished paper, p. 17.</p>
<p>2. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1998, p. 112.</p>
<p>3. Ibid., p. 220.</p>
<p>4. Ibid., p. 92.</p>
<p>5. Donohue and Levitt, “Legalized Abortion and Crime,” p. 22.</p>
<p>6. The standard errors were 0.33 percent for the total fertility rate and 0.25 percent for the welfare population, confirming that the statistical results are robust.</p> | false | 1 | 160 legalized abortion may lead reduced crime three channels first channel simply smaller cohort size abortion reduces number births cohort reaches late teens twenties fewer young males thus less crime abortion may also lower per capita offending rates affected cohorts children may average less criminal due either selectiveabortion effect improvedenvironment effect selectiveabortion channel operate women abortions risk give birth children would engage criminal activity improvedenvironment effect may present women use abortion optimize timing childbearing john j donohue iii steven levitt donohue levitts contention legal abortions 1970s explain half fall crime rate 1990s couched appears scientific study yet closer look data abortion crime contradicts conclusions equally important argument ignores new social dynamics emerged wake legalization abortion selective abortion effect stands center thesis nullified fact twothirds rise teenage pregnancies following legalization abortion result behavioral changes words legal abortion cause bad socioeconomic environment cure documented feature essay sharply cutting net marriage rate increasing outofwedlock births legal abortion caused sharp fall household living standards especially among teenagers unmarried women africanamericans groups donohue levitt claim children likely engage criminal activity among dynamics brought abortion overlooked donohue levitt might called wormintheapple effect away unwanted child abortion parents belatedly discoverthat unwanted woman unwanted wife mother man unwanted husband father child unwanted father wanted mother usually means mother also unwanted father typical result outofwedlock birth home broken conception either case less men occupied producing economically supporting life likely injure life donohue levitt may coyly argue recent abortions direct impact crime today since infants commit little crime1 many fathers aborted children age distribution persons arrested fourfifths men matches almost exactly age distribution women seeking abortions especially allowing fact young men typically two years older female sexual partners2 among persons arrested 1995 183 percent age eighteen years 261 percent ages eighteen twentyfour years 474 percent ages twentyfour fortyfour years 82 percent older age fortyfour3 among women undergoing abortions 1995 202 percent nineteen years old younger 324 percent ages twenty twentyfour years 474 percent ages twentyfive fortyfour years fraction percent older fortyfour4 means convoluted speculations crimes africanamerican children might commit couple decades permitted born meaningless relation abortion today crime today direct brutal although yet statistically quantified crimes committed men age fathers aborted children man party either killing abandoning child likely harm human beings claim results donohue levitt must torture ridiculously short snippet available data comprehensive annual data crime begin 1957 homicide 1900 authors try explain data 1985 1997 using abortion data fifteen twenty years arbitrarily ruling contemporaneous effect abortion crime even concede impossible using data alone distinguish impact 1970s abortions current crime rates impact 1990s abortions current crime rates put another way obtain similar results regardless whether include 1970s abortion rates 1990s abortion rates included multicollinearity leads enormous standard errors consequently must recognized interpretation results relies assumption 1520 year lag abortion materially affects crime5 assumption represents fatal flaw analysis strongly positive contemporaneous relation abortion crime exists crime abortion rates measured social indicators total fertility rate strongly correlates inversely crime rate since least 83 percent past legal abortions reduced total fertility rate strong positive relationship exists current abortion rate current crime rate addition share population welfare general assistance important 1960 strongly correlates crime rate donohue levitt ignore factors comparing changes abortion 1973 1976 change various crime rates 1985 1997 compare threeyear change abortion starting abortions already reached half peak number twelveyear change crime perhaps discovered using comparable time periodsthus starting zero abortionswould yielded mathematically nonsensical results revealing study improperly specified even fit data underwhelming data consist essentially single pair data pointsthe 197376 change abortion 198597 change crime ratefor fifty states district columbia 100 percent statistical correlation must always found single pair data points donohuelevitt study fiftyone simultaneous pairs could find 31 percent correlation lagged abortion violent crime rate 39 percent correlation property crime rate miserable 14 percent correlation homicide rate even adding seven extra variables study could still explain 37 percent variation violent crime rate 65 percent variation property crime rate 45 percent variation homicide rate analysts looking satisfying explanations changes crime rate ought look variables donohue levitt ignore one single explanatory variable total fertility rate account 84 percent annual variation violent crime rate 94 percent total crime rate 1957 1997 two explanatory variables total fertility rate share us population welfare explain 90 percent variation violent crime rate 92 percent homicide rate 96 percent total crime rate since 1957 regression results indicate 1 percent rise total fertility rate associated 14 percent drop total crime rate 1 percent fall population welfare associated 085 percent fall total crime rate6 therefore rise total fertility rate coupled sharp decline welfare population accounts far better empirically recent drop crime rate conversely sharp decline total fertility rate coupled sharp rise welfare population 1960s 1970s explains sharp rise crime rate period 160 notes 1 john j donohue iii steven levitt legalized abortion crime unpublished paper p 17 2 statistical abstract united states 1998 p 112 3 ibid p 220 4 ibid p 92 5 donohue levitt legalized abortion crime p 22 6 standard errors 033 percent total fertility rate 025 percent welfare population confirming statistical results robust | 838 |
<p>Amidst the clang and symbolism of the new Democratic Congress’s first month, between the hundred-hour marathon and the posturing about Iraq, a peculiar thing has happened. In a matter of a few weeks, with only minor controversy and little fanfare, a 2007 federal budget has taken shape that includes only modest increases over last year’s spending, some minor substantive adjustments to programs, and essentially no earmarks. The House passed it on January 31. The Senate followed suit last Wednesday. It happened for political convenience but, inadvertently, may point the way to a better appropriations process. If congressional conservatives are paying attention, they may just find in this ad hoc experiment an exceptional opportunity for budget reform.</p>
<p>The budget in question is technically not a budget at all, but a “continuing resolution” or CR. CRs are typically used to bridge the gap between the start of a new fiscal year and enactment of a regular, full-year appropriation. Continuing resolutions do not enumerate resources for every agency and program. Instead, they use formulas to “continue” funding at a previously established level, usually the amount provided in the prior year, plus or minus some percentage. The last CR was enacted in December by the previous Congress and expired February 15.</p>
<p>The CR just passed to replace it is not typical, however. For starters, it is not a temporary measure. It continues funding for all federal agencies and programs that have not yet gotten a full annual appropriation–that’s everything except Defense and Homeland Security–through September 30, the end of the fiscal year. In other words, for most federal agencies, this CR is the last word for 2007, and will stand as their budget for the year.</p>
<p>Further, CRs are usually brief documents, as it takes just a few pages to specify a funding formula and provide rules for special circumstances requiring exceptions. The House-passed CR is not brief, however; it runs 137 pages with some exceptions provided in just about every department and agency of government. Many of the exceptions are understandable and necessary, as there are some critical agencies that simply cannot function well at last year’s funding level. Of course, some exceptions also reflect the Democratic majority’s spending priorities.</p>
<p>The Bush administration has stated that the total funding provided in the bill is acceptable, but complained that the formulaic approach shortchanges certain new priorities and fails to seize “opportunities for savings.” Fair enough. But these criticisms have more to do with substantive disagreements with congressional leaders over spending priorities than the process used to get there.</p>
<p>And the process Congress has followed this winter has much to commend it, particularly when compared with what usually happens. Congress’s “regular order,” as it is called, involves 11 separate appropriations bills every year, each crafted through a lengthy and often incomprehensible process of committee and subcommittee action. The House and Senate appropriations committees draft, consider, and amend each of the 11 different bills and bring them separately to the floors of the respective chambers for debate and amendment. Each chamber passes its bills, and the two then work out their differences in conference before sending a final version to the president.</p>
<p>Under the best of circumstances, the process takes many months–starting in the spring and ending in September, before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1. But the best of circumstances almost never occur. Fundamental disagreements between the parties over budget priorities mean that, in a normal year, the minority party has little to gain from cooperation. The Senate often poses a particular challenge in this regard; without unanimous agreement on the terms of debate, any senator can bring the chamber to a halt for days on end, making progress on contentious spending measures nearly impossible.</p>
<p>In a typical year, Congress bravely embarks on the appropriations journey in late spring, with ritual expressions of determination to finish on time. Sometime in early fall, however, after one of the bills has gotten hopelessly bogged down in the Senate, the leaders are forced to admit defeat and pull the plug on the regular process. Whatever bill has managed to make its way through both chambers becomes the vehicle for an “omnibus” measure encompassing the entire rest of the budget. Weeks then pass as the appropriations committee chairmen work in secret to assemble a bill that stands a foot high on members’ desks. The 2005 omnibus appropriations bill ran more than 3,000 pages. Late in the year, the omnibus emerges from a closed-door conference committee and is presented as a “take it or leave it” proposition to rank and file House and Senate members, most of whom could never have the time to read it even if they wanted to.</p>
<p>This way of doing things is not only convoluted and inefficient, it also creates a natural breeding ground for earmarks and micromanagement. Members with a gift for manipulating the numerous (and often hidden) contortions of the process can tuck away a great number of spending requirements in the folds of the gargantuan bills. In the 2006 process, Congress passed more than 12,800 earmarks. Depending on who you ask, this year’s continuing resolution has either completely eliminated earmarks or buried a modest number in the fine print.</p>
<p>In the coming months, as the government lives under this new CR without the sky falling, perhaps the time will come to ask what is wrong with making something like this–a trimmed-down process by which Congress each year formally amends the previous year’s budget rather than starting from scratch–the new budgeting routine?</p>
<p>One potential disadvantage of a continuing resolution approach is a diminution of Congress’s much-vaunted “power of the purse.” But for too long, Congress has confused its power of the purse with the executive’s authority to manage the daily operations of the government. The federal budget has become a tool of micromanagement, which neither improves the functioning of government nor serves the interests of its constituents. Earmarks and comically specific mandates to the executive are not the power of the purse. Congress, through its power to appropriate, can set priorities for the federal government and require the executive to serve those causes, but a process that hides key priorities beneath mountains of minutiae does not serve that purpose. A budget process that involves necessary changes, rather than a set of massive and indecipherable ex nihilo bills each year, would not reduce the power of the Congress to legislate changes in the way public money is spent. It would merely rein in the capacity of Congress to do so in the dark, and beyond its proper bounds.</p>
<p>Executive branch supremacists, meanwhile, could argue that such an approach might actually limit the president’s sway, since his ability to use the veto would be constrained. Rather than confronting 11 separate bills, each of which he could threaten to veto for causes unique to that bill, he would now be confronted with a short list of amendments to the previous year’s budget, which he would have to take whole or reject entirely. But in fact, the current broken budget process often produces the same result–only with a massive omnibus budget bill rather than a brief and manageable continuing resolution.</p>
<p>A further objection may be that CR-type budgeting would limit the ability of government to respond to changing circumstances. But by enacting exceptions and revisions, Congress could direct its attention to key national needs, and, by giving the executive more leeway in execution (combined, ideally, with more stringent oversight), such a process could actually improve the responsiveness of the federal budget to changing priorities–recognizing that such changes are in fact few and rare, but important.</p>
<p>Finally, fiscal conservatives might argue that building each year’s budget on top of the previous year’s would set in stone programs that ought to be reconsidered each year. But the current budget process already works that way. As Ronald Reagan once remarked, “a government bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” The key difference in a refined CR approach would be to lessen the room in the process for fraud and abuse, and for earmarks and hidden new spending. If Congress wished to eliminate a program, it could do so through an exception or rescission.</p>
<p>True, if Congress were in the habit of routinely cutting spending, a refined CR approach would not make sense. But since novelty in the budget almost always means new and greater spending, an approach that highlights and constrains the new should be welcome to fiscal conservatives. It would act as a natural restraint on the appropriations process, and would trim fat from a system that has grown morbidly obese.</p>
<p>An annual continuing resolution may not be ideal, but it would be significantly better than the process we have now. It could evolve into the most significant budget reform in decades and an enormous, if unintended, gift from the new Democratic Congress to the cause of budget discipline.</p>
<p>— Yuval Levin and James C. Capretta are fellows at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.</p>
<p>&#160;</p> | false | 1 | amidst clang symbolism new democratic congresss first month hundredhour marathon posturing iraq peculiar thing happened matter weeks minor controversy little fanfare 2007 federal budget taken shape includes modest increases last years spending minor substantive adjustments programs essentially earmarks house passed january 31 senate followed suit last wednesday happened political convenience inadvertently may point way better appropriations process congressional conservatives paying attention may find ad hoc experiment exceptional opportunity budget reform budget question technically budget continuing resolution cr crs typically used bridge gap start new fiscal year enactment regular fullyear appropriation continuing resolutions enumerate resources every agency program instead use formulas continue funding previously established level usually amount provided prior year plus minus percentage last cr enacted december previous congress expired february 15 cr passed replace typical however starters temporary measure continues funding federal agencies programs yet gotten full annual appropriationthats everything except defense homeland securitythrough september 30 end fiscal year words federal agencies cr last word 2007 stand budget year crs usually brief documents takes pages specify funding formula provide rules special circumstances requiring exceptions housepassed cr brief however runs 137 pages exceptions provided every department agency government many exceptions understandable necessary critical agencies simply function well last years funding level course exceptions also reflect democratic majoritys spending priorities bush administration stated total funding provided bill acceptable complained formulaic approach shortchanges certain new priorities fails seize opportunities savings fair enough criticisms substantive disagreements congressional leaders spending priorities process used get process congress followed winter much commend particularly compared usually happens congresss regular order called involves 11 separate appropriations bills every year crafted lengthy often incomprehensible process committee subcommittee action house senate appropriations committees draft consider amend 11 different bills bring separately floors respective chambers debate amendment chamber passes bills two work differences conference sending final version president best circumstances process takes many monthsstarting spring ending september start new fiscal year october 1 best circumstances almost never occur fundamental disagreements parties budget priorities mean normal year minority party little gain cooperation senate often poses particular challenge regard without unanimous agreement terms debate senator bring chamber halt days end making progress contentious spending measures nearly impossible typical year congress bravely embarks appropriations journey late spring ritual expressions determination finish time sometime early fall however one bills gotten hopelessly bogged senate leaders forced admit defeat pull plug regular process whatever bill managed make way chambers becomes vehicle omnibus measure encompassing entire rest budget weeks pass appropriations committee chairmen work secret assemble bill stands foot high members desks 2005 omnibus appropriations bill ran 3000 pages late year omnibus emerges closeddoor conference committee presented take leave proposition rank file house senate members could never time read even wanted way things convoluted inefficient also creates natural breeding ground earmarks micromanagement members gift manipulating numerous often hidden contortions process tuck away great number spending requirements folds gargantuan bills 2006 process congress passed 12800 earmarks depending ask years continuing resolution either completely eliminated earmarks buried modest number fine print coming months government lives new cr without sky falling perhaps time come ask wrong making something like thisa trimmeddown process congress year formally amends previous years budget rather starting scratchthe new budgeting routine one potential disadvantage continuing resolution approach diminution congresss muchvaunted power purse long congress confused power purse executives authority manage daily operations government federal budget become tool micromanagement neither improves functioning government serves interests constituents earmarks comically specific mandates executive power purse congress power appropriate set priorities federal government require executive serve causes process hides key priorities beneath mountains minutiae serve purpose budget process involves necessary changes rather set massive indecipherable ex nihilo bills year would reduce power congress legislate changes way public money spent would merely rein capacity congress dark beyond proper bounds executive branch supremacists meanwhile could argue approach might actually limit presidents sway since ability use veto would constrained rather confronting 11 separate bills could threaten veto causes unique bill would confronted short list amendments previous years budget would take whole reject entirely fact current broken budget process often produces resultonly massive omnibus budget bill rather brief manageable continuing resolution objection may crtype budgeting would limit ability government respond changing circumstances enacting exceptions revisions congress could direct attention key national needs giving executive leeway execution combined ideally stringent oversight process could actually improve responsiveness federal budget changing prioritiesrecognizing changes fact rare important finally fiscal conservatives might argue building years budget top previous years would set stone programs ought reconsidered year current budget process already works way ronald reagan remarked government bureau closest thing eternal life well ever see earth key difference refined cr approach would lessen room process fraud abuse earmarks hidden new spending congress wished eliminate program could exception rescission true congress habit routinely cutting spending refined cr approach would make sense since novelty budget almost always means new greater spending approach highlights constrains new welcome fiscal conservatives would act natural restraint appropriations process would trim fat system grown morbidly obese annual continuing resolution may ideal would significantly better process could evolve significant budget reform decades enormous unintended gift new democratic congress cause budget discipline yuval levin james c capretta fellows ethics public policy center 160 | 853 |
<p>CHICAGO — Visa holders from seven majority-Muslim countries affected by <a href="" type="internal">President Donald Trump’s travel ban</a> hurried to board U.S.-bound flights Saturday, fearing they might have only a slim window through which to enter the country after a federal judge temporarily blocked the ban.</p>
<p>Those who could travel immediately were being urged to do so because of uncertainty over whether the Justice Department would be granted an emergency freeze of the order issued Friday by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle. The government on Saturday suspended enforcement of the week-old ban as it scurried to appeal Robart’s order.</p>
<p>The Justice Department on Saturday night asked a federal appeals court to set aside a judge’s order that temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s travel ban. The Justice Department has alerted a court in Washington state that it is appealing the judge’s ruling from a day earlier.</p>
<p>The appeal is to be filed Saturday night with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.</p>
<p>The ruling from U.S. District Judge James Robart temporarily halted a Trump administration executive order that suspended America’s refugee program and halted immigration to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.</p>
<p>President Donald Trump has lashed out at Robart on Twitter, calling him a “so-called judge.”</p>
<p>Rula Aoun, director of the Arab American Civil Rights League in Dearborn, Michigan, said her group is advising people to hurry.</p>
<p>“We’re telling them to get on the quickest flight ASAP,” said Aoun, whose group filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Detroit asking a judge to declare Trump’s immigration order unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Aoun said some people have had to make hard choices, including a Yemeni family expected to arrive at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Sunday from Egypt without two of their children. The father and two of the children are U.S. citizens, the mother has an immigrant visa, but the other two children did not yet have theirs and were left behind with relatives.</p>
<p>“They just don’t want to take a chance of waiting,” she said.</p>
<p>U.S. officials have said up to 60,000 foreigners had their visas “provisionally revoked” to comply with Trump’s order. Confusion during the rollout of the ban initially found green card holders caught in travel limbo, until the White House on Wednesday clarified that they would be allowed to enter and leave the U.S as they pleased.</p>
<p>Even so, green card holder Ammar Alnajjar, a 24-year-old Yemeni student at Southwest Tennessee Community College, cut short a planned three-month visit to his fiancee in Turkey, paying $1,000 to return immediately when the ban was lifted.</p>
<p>“I got to study. I got to do some work,” said Alnajjar, who arrived at JFK on Saturday. He said he fled civil war in Yemen and moved to the U.S. from Turkey in 2015. “I’m Muslim. I’m proud of it. Islam means peace.”</p>
<p>Although the government suspended enforcement of the travel ban while it sought an emergency stay of Robart’s order, some airlines reportedly still weren’t letting some people from the seven countries board their planes, at least initially.</p>
<p>Royal Jordanian Airlines, which operates direct flights from Amman to New York, Chicago and Detroit, said it would resume carrying nationals from the seven countries as long as they presented a valid U.S. visa or green card.</p>
<p>But in the African nation of Djibouti, immigration attorney Julie Goldberg said a Qatar Airways representative told her that immigrants from all seven countries affected by the ban — Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Iran and Somalia — were not allowed to fly Saturday afternoon. A Qatar Airways spokeswoman said the airline would begin boarding travelers from those countries.</p>
<p>Goldberg said she was trying to arrange flights for dozens of Yemeni citizens who have immigrant visas and were stranded there. She said a supervisor at Turkish Airlines told her that people holding immigrant and non-immigrant visas from the seven countries still were being banned unless they had a special email from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection with the person’s name and passport number.</p>
<p>A 12-year-old Yemeni girl whose parents and siblings are U.S. citizens living in California, was finally allowed to depart after “an hour-and-half of fighting” with officials, Goldberg said. It was unclear when she would arrive.</p>
<p>“Her mother is on pins and needles … her father is on the plane with her,” Stacey Gartland, a San Francisco attorney who represented the girl, said in an email.</p>
<p>Refugees also awaited word on their fates.</p>
<p>A Somali refugee said about 140 refugees whose resettlement in the U.S. was blocked by Trump’s executive order were sent back to their refugee camp and it was unclear if or when they could travel.</p>
<p>Nadir Hassan said the group of Somali refugees was relocated to Dadaab camp in eastern Kenya on Saturday. They had been expected to settle in the U.S. this week and had been staying at an International Organization for Migration transit center in Nairobi.</p>
<p>“I was hoping to start a new life in the U.S.” Hassan said. “We feel bad.”</p>
<p>The State Department has advised refugee aid agencies that refugees who had been scheduled to travel before the order was signed will now be allowed into the U.S. A State Department official said in an email obtained by The Associated Press that the government is “focusing on booking refugee travel through February 17,” and they were working to have arrivals resume as soon as Monday.</p>
<p>American businesses affected by the ban also were jumping into action. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, who quit Trump’s business advisory council this week following criticism of his initial response to Trump’s ban, said his company is buying plane tickets for some of its drivers who are stranded, tweeting Friday night that the head of litigation for the ride-hailing app is “buying a whole bunch of airline tickets ASAP!”</p>
<p>Protesters also took to the streets in several cities to protest the ban. Thousands gathered at Denver’s City Center Park Saturday, carrying signs, chanting and singing.</p>
<p>“I find it utterly cruel that Trump is depriving people of the same dreams my family and I had,” 17-year-old Zahra Abdulameer told the crowd. She said she came to the U.S. as a refugee from Iraq and is now a U.S. citizen. She said she was welcomed and treated with respect, but fears things could change amid fears over immigrants.</p>
<p>“No religion inflicts terror on people, but those who do so in the name of a faith have only twisted its value,” Abdulameer said.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, legal advocates waited at airports to offer assistance to new arrivals in case anything went wrong.</p>
<p>Volunteer attorney Renee Paradis was among 20-25 lawyers and interpreters who stationed themselves inside JFK’s Terminal 4 in case anyone arrived Saturday needing help. They were carrying handmade signs in Arabic and Farsi “that say we’re lawyers, we’re here to help. We’re not from the government,” Paradis said.</p>
<p>“We’re all just waiting to see what actually happens and who manages to get through,” she said.</p> | false | 1 | chicago visa holders seven majoritymuslim countries affected president donald trumps travel ban hurried board usbound flights saturday fearing might slim window enter country federal judge temporarily blocked ban could travel immediately urged uncertainty whether justice department would granted emergency freeze order issued friday us district judge james robart seattle government saturday suspended enforcement weekold ban scurried appeal robarts order justice department saturday night asked federal appeals court set aside judges order temporarily blocked trump administrations travel ban justice department alerted court washington state appealing judges ruling day earlier appeal filed saturday night 9th circuit court appeals ruling us district judge james robart temporarily halted trump administration executive order suspended americas refugee program halted immigration us seven muslimmajority countries president donald trump lashed robart twitter calling socalled judge rula aoun director arab american civil rights league dearborn michigan said group advising people hurry telling get quickest flight asap said aoun whose group filed lawsuit tuesday federal court detroit asking judge declare trumps immigration order unconstitutional aoun said people make hard choices including yemeni family expected arrive john f kennedy international airport sunday egypt without two children father two children us citizens mother immigrant visa two children yet left behind relatives dont want take chance waiting said us officials said 60000 foreigners visas provisionally revoked comply trumps order confusion rollout ban initially found green card holders caught travel limbo white house wednesday clarified would allowed enter leave us pleased even green card holder ammar alnajjar 24yearold yemeni student southwest tennessee community college cut short planned threemonth visit fiancee turkey paying 1000 return immediately ban lifted got study got work said alnajjar arrived jfk saturday said fled civil war yemen moved us turkey 2015 im muslim im proud islam means peace although government suspended enforcement travel ban sought emergency stay robarts order airlines reportedly still werent letting people seven countries board planes least initially royal jordanian airlines operates direct flights amman new york chicago detroit said would resume carrying nationals seven countries long presented valid us visa green card african nation djibouti immigration attorney julie goldberg said qatar airways representative told immigrants seven countries affected ban iraq syria sudan libya yemen iran somalia allowed fly saturday afternoon qatar airways spokeswoman said airline would begin boarding travelers countries goldberg said trying arrange flights dozens yemeni citizens immigrant visas stranded said supervisor turkish airlines told people holding immigrant nonimmigrant visas seven countries still banned unless special email us customs border protection persons name passport number 12yearold yemeni girl whose parents siblings us citizens living california finally allowed depart hourandhalf fighting officials goldberg said unclear would arrive mother pins needles father plane stacey gartland san francisco attorney represented girl said email refugees also awaited word fates somali refugee said 140 refugees whose resettlement us blocked trumps executive order sent back refugee camp unclear could travel nadir hassan said group somali refugees relocated dadaab camp eastern kenya saturday expected settle us week staying international organization migration transit center nairobi hoping start new life us hassan said feel bad state department advised refugee aid agencies refugees scheduled travel order signed allowed us state department official said email obtained associated press government focusing booking refugee travel february 17 working arrivals resume soon monday american businesses affected ban also jumping action uber ceo travis kalanick quit trumps business advisory council week following criticism initial response trumps ban said company buying plane tickets drivers stranded tweeting friday night head litigation ridehailing app buying whole bunch airline tickets asap protesters also took streets several cities protest ban thousands gathered denvers city center park saturday carrying signs chanting singing find utterly cruel trump depriving people dreams family 17yearold zahra abdulameer told crowd said came us refugee iraq us citizen said welcomed treated respect fears things could change amid fears immigrants religion inflicts terror people name faith twisted value abdulameer said meanwhile legal advocates waited airports offer assistance new arrivals case anything went wrong volunteer attorney renee paradis among 2025 lawyers interpreters stationed inside jfks terminal 4 case anyone arrived saturday needing help carrying handmade signs arabic farsi say lawyers help government paradis said waiting see actually happens manages get said | 687 |
<p>The creative lines between film and television are blurring ever more frequently these days, with many live-action directors, writers and other talent moving with increasing ease between the two media. But in the animation industry, only a handful of directors and writers have made the transition.</p>
<p>One of those is <a href="http://variety.com/t/rich-moore/" type="external">Rich Moore</a>, who is directing Disney’s “Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2” alongside Phil Johnston and who earlier this year won the animated feature Oscar for Disney’s 2016 hit “Zootopia” with director Byron Howard. Moore has an extensive background in TV animation, working on “The Simpsons,” “The Critic” and “Futurama” for many years before making his feature directing debut on the first “Wreck-It Ralph” film in 2012.</p>
<p>Moore himself realizes he’s part of a rare breed.</p>
<p>“I’ve noticed that, too, and it’s a shame because there are some amazing TV directors out there who should be making features,” says Moore. “If I were running a feature studio, I can think of 10 people who I’d hire immediately.”</p>
<p><a href="http://variety.com/t/genndy-tartakovsky/" type="external">Genndy Tartakovsky</a>, who has successfully made the TV-film transition himself with the hit “Hotel Transylvania” franchise, agrees that there’s a big talent pool in waiting to be tapped. “It seems like it would be obvious because you can really cut your teeth in TV, and then, when you get into features, you’re much better prepared.”</p>
<p>Tartakovsky, known for creating such shows as “Dexter’s Laboratory,” “Star Wars: Clone Wars” and “Samurai Jack,” recalls a time “say, seven or eight years ago, that television was kind of a dirty word in features. Nobody made that jump because we were kind of looked down upon.”</p>
<p>Moore noticed this as well. “It could be the stigma that’s been around forever that TV and feature animation are two separate mediums, but I don’t believe that. I tell people all the time that the job of a TV and feature animation director is the same — we create fantastic worlds that feel like our own, populated by well-rounded characters involved in stories that all ages can relate to on a deep level.”</p>
<p>Tartakovsky, currently in production on next year’s “Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation,” concurs: “It’s all storytelling.”</p>
<p>Another storyteller that’s made the transition from TV to film is <a href="http://variety.com/t/jared-bush/" type="external">Jared Bush</a>, co-creator of Disney Television Animation series “Penn Zero: Part-Time Hero” and a screenwriter on Disney’s 2016 features, “Zootopia” and “Moana.” Bush got his start writing for live-action TV (“Who Wants to Marry My Dad?” “All of Us”) while writing feature spec scripts. During this time, he found himself drawn toward animation. “I felt like the sensibility was very much my sensibility,” he recalls.</p>
<p>He tried for a long time to get a foot in the door at Disney Feature Animation.</p>
<p>“That was just a long process, but I came in to meet with a bunch of people at the same time I was starting to develop some ideas for television animation. I sold a pilot to Disney Television Animation within a couple of months of when I actually started working here at feature animation.”</p>
<p>That pilot turned out to be “Penn Zero: Part-Time Hero,” co-created with Sam Levine. The series aired for two seasons on Disney XD, wrapping last summer. The timing of everything meant that Bush got a crash course in TV animation right about the time he started work on “Zootopia,” which he co-directed. “I actually lucked into this,” he says. “I started on ‘Penn Zero’ about six months before I started working on ‘Zootopia.’ It just happened to be a perfect series of events that gave me this perfect education.”</p>
<p>Tartakovsky and Moore also think their time in TV helped prepare them for features.</p>
<p>“I had a decent body of work, so I came into it very experienced,” explains Tartakovsky. “Once they saw how fast I worked and they liked what I did, it started to open the door a little bit.”Moore credits two venerable shows for his education. “I was fortunate to work on both ‘The Simpsons’ and ‘Futurama’ very early in my career. The people involved — Matt Groening, Jim Brooks, Sam Simon — were heroes of mine. … They challenged everyone on the crew to make the best show possible, and on a personal level, they inspired me to reimagine what an animated television show could be.”</p>
<p>When it was time for Moore to move on, “I found myself wondering if I could apply that same spirit of reinvention to animated features. That’s about the time that the opportunity at Disney presented itself,” he says. “I found the studio to be a true partner in my ‘experiment’ of combining ‘Simpsons’-style comedy with the deep heart that the audience has come to expect from an animated feature. The result of our effort was ‘Wreck-It Ralph,’ a film that fused the types of movies that I loved as a child with the comedy I enjoy as an adult.”</p>
<p>While Moore, Tartakovsky and Bush have made the move from TV to feature animation, live-action auteur Guillermo del Toro has gone the opposite direction.Del Toro is behind Netflix’s hit animated series “DreamWorks Trollhunters,” which is about to begin its second season Dec. 15. It is now part of a trilogy of interconnected animated series recently greenlit by the streaming giant.</p>
<p>“We’re trying to, first of all, deliver feature-level animation and production values at a TV budget,” he says. “Second, what we’re trying to share with families is really sophisticated storytelling, dialogue and character with good-hearted values and beauty.”</p>
<p>He first pitched the idea in 2006 as a more young-adult live-action movie. “It had some gruesome moments. The kids were cursing. Very much that model, but I’m actually glad it didn’t happen because I think this is the perfect form for it.”</p>
<p>Time appears to be the biggest difference between working in TV animation and doing an animated feature.</p>
<p>“In TV, there’s never enough time. Even on the first day of a brand-new animated project, you’re behind schedule,” Moore says. “Plus in TV, there’s more room to experiment and fail. If a particular moment didn’t play exactly as planned, there’s always the next episode to try again. It’s as if you’re allowed to work out the kinks right before the audience’s eyes. That’s not the case in feature animation. We work and rework the same 90 minutes anywhere from three to five years until it plays as entertaining as it possibly can.”</p>
<p>His Disney colleague Bush agrees. “You have to write faster in television,” he says. “At Disney Features, we have this unbelievable opportunity to screen a movie several times over a few years, so you really get to hone it. That’s not exactly the case in television.”</p>
<p>For Tartakovsky, the main difference is the pressure to deliver. “In TV, you can make episode after episode, and if one doesn’t turn out as great, it’s OK; there’s another one,” he says. “But with features, the pressure is on, really, the opening weekend. You have this one shot, and that’s all. So we’re spending two or three years, sometimes four, building this one thing, with more money and more pressure, and you only have one weekend to make it work.”</p>
<p>Tartakovsky came full circle recently when he came back to shepherd a miniseries to resolve the story of “Samurai Jack” on Adult Swim.</p>
<p>“It was incredible,” he says. “I went back to TV under the best circumstances, where it was my own show, I was working with my old boss [Adult Swim’s] Mike Lazzo, who gives me, pretty much, 100% creative freedom, and a very decent budget. It was an amazing experience, a labor of love.”</p>
<p>And he was able to make the most of his feature experience.</p>
<p>“I realized that we had, maybe, more throwaway things in the earlier series, but [now after doing features] I’ve come to realize that I’ve got to take advantage of every frame,” he says. “With features, you get an appreciation that every minute is valuable, everything is precious. So coming into this, we planned better, and also I think we’ve all become better artists and better storytellers through the years.”</p> | false | 1 | creative lines film television blurring ever frequently days many liveaction directors writers talent moving increasing ease two media animation industry handful directors writers made transition one rich moore directing disneys ralph breaks internet wreckit ralph 2 alongside phil johnston earlier year animated feature oscar disneys 2016 hit zootopia director byron howard moore extensive background tv animation working simpsons critic futurama many years making feature directing debut first wreckit ralph film 2012 moore realizes hes part rare breed ive noticed shame amazing tv directors making features says moore running feature studio think 10 people id hire immediately genndy tartakovsky successfully made tvfilm transition hit hotel transylvania franchise agrees theres big talent pool waiting tapped seems like would obvious really cut teeth tv get features youre much better prepared tartakovsky known creating shows dexters laboratory star wars clone wars samurai jack recalls time say seven eight years ago television kind dirty word features nobody made jump kind looked upon moore noticed well could stigma thats around forever tv feature animation two separate mediums dont believe tell people time job tv feature animation director create fantastic worlds feel like populated wellrounded characters involved stories ages relate deep level tartakovsky currently production next years hotel transylvania 3 summer vacation concurs storytelling another storyteller thats made transition tv film jared bush cocreator disney television animation series penn zero parttime hero screenwriter disneys 2016 features zootopia moana bush got start writing liveaction tv wants marry dad us writing feature spec scripts time found drawn toward animation felt like sensibility much sensibility recalls tried long time get foot door disney feature animation long process came meet bunch people time starting develop ideas television animation sold pilot disney television animation within couple months actually started working feature animation pilot turned penn zero parttime hero cocreated sam levine series aired two seasons disney xd wrapping last summer timing everything meant bush got crash course tv animation right time started work zootopia codirected actually lucked says started penn zero six months started working zootopia happened perfect series events gave perfect education tartakovsky moore also think time tv helped prepare features decent body work came experienced explains tartakovsky saw fast worked liked started open door little bitmoore credits two venerable shows education fortunate work simpsons futurama early career people involved matt groening jim brooks sam simon heroes mine challenged everyone crew make best show possible personal level inspired reimagine animated television show could time moore move found wondering could apply spirit reinvention animated features thats time opportunity disney presented says found studio true partner experiment combining simpsonsstyle comedy deep heart audience come expect animated feature result effort wreckit ralph film fused types movies loved child comedy enjoy adult moore tartakovsky bush made move tv feature animation liveaction auteur guillermo del toro gone opposite directiondel toro behind netflixs hit animated series dreamworks trollhunters begin second season dec 15 part trilogy interconnected animated series recently greenlit streaming giant trying first deliver featurelevel animation production values tv budget says second trying share families really sophisticated storytelling dialogue character goodhearted values beauty first pitched idea 2006 youngadult liveaction movie gruesome moments kids cursing much model im actually glad didnt happen think perfect form time appears biggest difference working tv animation animated feature tv theres never enough time even first day brandnew animated project youre behind schedule moore says plus tv theres room experiment fail particular moment didnt play exactly planned theres always next episode try youre allowed work kinks right audiences eyes thats case feature animation work rework 90 minutes anywhere three five years plays entertaining possibly disney colleague bush agrees write faster television says disney features unbelievable opportunity screen movie several times years really get hone thats exactly case television tartakovsky main difference pressure deliver tv make episode episode one doesnt turn great ok theres another one says features pressure really opening weekend one shot thats spending two three years sometimes four building one thing money pressure one weekend make work tartakovsky came full circle recently came back shepherd miniseries resolve story samurai jack adult swim incredible says went back tv best circumstances show working old boss adult swims mike lazzo gives pretty much 100 creative freedom decent budget amazing experience labor love able make feature experience realized maybe throwaway things earlier series features ive come realize ive got take advantage every frame says features get appreciation every minute valuable everything precious coming planned better also think weve become better artists better storytellers years | 740 |
<p />
<p>As promised, the Sri Lankan government made the final report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) public last month. It has also <a href="http://www.news.lk/news/sri-lanka/977-sri-lanka-to-implement-national-action-plan-on-hr" type="external">recently released</a> its “National Action Plan for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights: 2011-2016.”</p>
<p>The Action Plan was developed in accordance with a commitment the government had made in 2008, the last time Sri Lanka participated in the UN’s Universal Periodic Review.</p>
<p><a href="" type="internal">&lt;img class="alignleft wp-image-14160" style="margin: 5px;" title="llrc_sri_lanka" src="https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/llrc_sri_lanka-300x225.jpg" alt="LLRC, Sri Lanka" width="270" height="203" srcset="https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/llrc_sri_lanka-300x225.jpg 300w, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/llrc_sri_lanka-150x113.jpg 150w, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/llrc_sri_lanka.jpg 410w" sizes="(max-width: 270px) 100vw, 270px" /&gt;</a>Both documents are part of the Sri Lankan government’s strategy to placate international observers and convince people that there is no need for any kind of international assistance because the country’s domestic institutions are working just fine.</p>
<p>Like the LLRC report, the National Action Plan contains some decent recommendations, but it is replete with missing and false information. For example, the section on the Prevention of Torture is laughable and worrisome.</p>
<p>The Sri Lankan government claims that it “maintains a zero-tolerance policy on torture.” This sweeping assertion directly contradicts loads of evidence, including the recent findings of the <a href="http://www.srilankamirror.com/english/features/9005-un-cat-report-on-sri-lanka" type="external">UN’s Committee Against Torture</a> (CAT).</p>
<p>The fact that the Ministry of Defense has been denoted as the “Key Responsible Agency” for ensuring the prevention of torture is perhaps more disconcerting.</p>
<p>The front-page story in this week’s Sunday Leader, which explains “that that some 500 people have been reported missing in the North and East alone over the past few years” should give people <a href="http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2012/01/15/sri-lankas-disappeared/" type="external">good reason to worry</a>.</p>
<p>The rule of law continues to deteriorate under President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s watch.</p>
<p>The government will present its National Action plan to the UN’s Human Rights Council’s (HRC) 19th session in March.</p>
<p>What Will Happen in Geneva?</p>
<p>In theory, Rajapaksa’s administration has plenty to worry about. Lobbying and debate surrounding the next session of the HRC has already begun.</p>
<p>Many foreign governments recently made strong statements that the LLRC’s final report does not touch on the question of accountability. The Sri Lankan government refuses to look into credible claims that violations of international humanitarian law occurred at the end of the war; government officials are unwilling to go into any detail about what actually happened during the last phase of the conflict.</p>
<p>Strident calls for an international mechanism will be made this spring in Geneva. If no resolution gets through either of the next two sessions of the HRC (another session will be held this summer), then Rajapaksa’s government can probably rest easy as long as they stay in power.</p>
<p>Diplomacy is not always a zero-sum game, but Rajapaksa’s government knows that the final report of the LLRC and the National Action Plan are its two most potent lobbying weapons, as long as government officials continue to bend the truth or promulgate outright lies.</p>
<p>This is ironic because both documents distort reality and should actually be used against the government. They reinforce the notion that Rajapaksa’s administration does not care about human rights.</p>
<p>The processes surrounding the drafting and the finalization of the LLRC and the National Action Plan were deeply flawed and not at all independent. The LLRC’s lack of independence is well-known. (President Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed the eight-member Commission himself). The true story about the National Action Plan appears to be less widely understood, especially outside of Sri Lanka.</p>
<p>The government’s drafting of the National Action Plan was quite devious.</p>
<p>A number of civil society leaders, academics and genuinely independent thinkers were included in the eight-committee body during the initial process and the composition of the first draft of the National Action Plan. Yet committee members were not involved in the process after that.</p>
<p>Now, the Sri Lankan government is falsely claiming that the National Action Plan was the result of a thoughtful, inclusive process. This is absurd.</p>
<p>As Rohan Edrisinha (a member of one of the drafting committees) has already <a href="http://transcurrents.com/news-views/archives/6920" type="external">indicated</a>, that was not what happened.</p>
<p>Drafting committee members never did approve the final document, only the first draft.</p>
<p>In another clever ploy, this “watered down” version is being heralded as a step in the right direction.</p>
<p>Few people are speaking out about this issue because they are afraid to do so.</p>
<p>Rajapaksa’s government has benefited from a fragmented political opposition for years.</p>
<p>Divisions within Sri Lankan civil society only make the government’s consolidation of power that much easier.</p>
<p>In addition to some lively debate at the Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka’s human rights record will also be examined under the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) this year.</p>
<p>The government’s propaganda machine is <a href="http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5747708" type="external">already</a> in full swing. Sri Lankan diplomats will welcome many foreign dignitaries in January and February.</p>
<p>President Rajapaksa and senior government officials will use these visits as a platform to prepare a more complete misinformation campaign for Geneva in late February and early March.</p>
<p>The Sri Lankan government will be touting both the LLRC and the National Action Plan as wonderful examples of how just and satisfactory things are in Sri Lanka.</p>
<p>The idea is farcical.</p>
<p>In January of 2010, the IMF declared Sri Lanka a Middle Income country. The war has been over for more than two years. International observers and NGOs are moving on to the next crisis: Libya, Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere. A new disaster or humanitarian catastrophe is always right around the corner.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, what happened in Sri Lanka in 2009 cannot be brushed aside. One does not sweep ethnic tension under the rug and wait idly by, hoping that it disappears.</p>
<p>Looking Ahead</p>
<p>Again, in spite of the LLRC’s complete exoneration of the military, the report does contain some good recommendations about devolution, land rights, compensation for victims/survivors and demilitarization.</p>
<p>There are some decent recommendations in the National Action Plan as well.</p>
<p>However, the chances that the Sri Lankan government will swiftly move to implement any of the solid recommendations are infinitesimal. Rajapaksa’s government has shown its unwillingness to follow through on almost all the agreements it made during the last session of the Universal Periodic Review in 2008.</p>
<p>It disregarded the LLRC’s interim recommendations as well.</p>
<p>The word “recommendation” in Sri Lankan political parlance is meaningless. Why should anyone be optimistic this time around?</p>
<p>Forget recommendations, the government continues to ignore its own constitution.</p>
<p>To take one example, President Rajapaksa’s intractable position on the devolution of power to the country’s Northern and Eastern provinces, something that is clearly articulated in the 13th Amendment of the country’s constitution, is not helping. Nor is the government’s current dialogue with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which is starting to look more like a scene from Waiting for Godot and less like any semblance of political negotiation with each passing day.</p>
<p>Despite some claims to the contrary, Mahinda Rajapaksa is not (yet) Robert Mugabe and Sri Lanka is not Zimbabwe. But this government has undoubtedly become more authoritarian since the end of the war. Just because the country has a history of “democracy” does not mean that continued democratic governance is a foregone conclusion. The erosion of checks and balances since 2009 has been significant. The passage of the 18th Amendment in 2010 <a href="http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2010/9/59990.html" type="external">reinforced this</a>, as that legislation pulled even more <a href="http://groundviews.org/2011/06/11/months-after-the-18th-amendment-is-the-executive-really-more-accountable-to-parliament/" type="external">power to the executive</a>.</p>
<p>Giving Rajapaksa’s government a free pass on human rights empowers aspiring autocrats everywhere. It sends a clear signal to semi-authoritarian governments: Go ahead, do whatever you want; you will face no consequences for your actions.</p>
<p>This article was originally published in the <a href="http://www.jofr.org/" type="external">Journal of Foreign Relations</a>.</p>
<p>&#160;</p> | false | 1 | promised sri lankan government made final report lessons learnt reconciliation commission llrc public last month also recently released national action plan protection promotion human rights 20112016 action plan developed accordance commitment government made 2008 last time sri lanka participated uns universal periodic review ltimg classalignleft wpimage14160 stylemargin 5px titlellrc_sri_lanka srchttpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201201llrc_sri_lanka300x225jpg altllrc sri lanka width270 height203 srcsethttpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201201llrc_sri_lanka300x225jpg 300w httpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201201llrc_sri_lanka150x113jpg 150w httpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201201llrc_sri_lankajpg 410w sizesmaxwidth 270px 100vw 270px gtboth documents part sri lankan governments strategy placate international observers convince people need kind international assistance countrys domestic institutions working fine like llrc report national action plan contains decent recommendations replete missing false information example section prevention torture laughable worrisome sri lankan government claims maintains zerotolerance policy torture sweeping assertion directly contradicts loads evidence including recent findings uns committee torture cat fact ministry defense denoted key responsible agency ensuring prevention torture perhaps disconcerting frontpage story weeks sunday leader explains 500 people reported missing north east alone past years give people good reason worry rule law continues deteriorate president mahinda rajapaksas watch government present national action plan uns human rights councils hrc 19th session march happen geneva theory rajapaksas administration plenty worry lobbying debate surrounding next session hrc already begun many foreign governments recently made strong statements llrcs final report touch question accountability sri lankan government refuses look credible claims violations international humanitarian law occurred end war government officials unwilling go detail actually happened last phase conflict strident calls international mechanism made spring geneva resolution gets either next two sessions hrc another session held summer rajapaksas government probably rest easy long stay power diplomacy always zerosum game rajapaksas government knows final report llrc national action plan two potent lobbying weapons long government officials continue bend truth promulgate outright lies ironic documents distort reality actually used government reinforce notion rajapaksas administration care human rights processes surrounding drafting finalization llrc national action plan deeply flawed independent llrcs lack independence wellknown president mahinda rajapaksa appointed eightmember commission true story national action plan appears less widely understood especially outside sri lanka governments drafting national action plan quite devious number civil society leaders academics genuinely independent thinkers included eightcommittee body initial process composition first draft national action plan yet committee members involved process sri lankan government falsely claiming national action plan result thoughtful inclusive process absurd rohan edrisinha member one drafting committees already indicated happened drafting committee members never approve final document first draft another clever ploy watered version heralded step right direction people speaking issue afraid rajapaksas government benefited fragmented political opposition years divisions within sri lankan civil society make governments consolidation power much easier addition lively debate human rights council sri lankas human rights record also examined uns universal periodic review upr year governments propaganda machine already full swing sri lankan diplomats welcome many foreign dignitaries january february president rajapaksa senior government officials use visits platform prepare complete misinformation campaign geneva late february early march sri lankan government touting llrc national action plan wonderful examples satisfactory things sri lanka idea farcical january 2010 imf declared sri lanka middle income country war two years international observers ngos moving next crisis libya egypt tunisia elsewhere new disaster humanitarian catastrophe always right around corner nonetheless happened sri lanka 2009 brushed aside one sweep ethnic tension rug wait idly hoping disappears looking ahead spite llrcs complete exoneration military report contain good recommendations devolution land rights compensation victimssurvivors demilitarization decent recommendations national action plan well however chances sri lankan government swiftly move implement solid recommendations infinitesimal rajapaksas government shown unwillingness follow almost agreements made last session universal periodic review 2008 disregarded llrcs interim recommendations well word recommendation sri lankan political parlance meaningless anyone optimistic time around forget recommendations government continues ignore constitution take one example president rajapaksas intractable position devolution power countrys northern eastern provinces something clearly articulated 13th amendment countrys constitution helping governments current dialogue tamil national alliance tna starting look like scene waiting godot less like semblance political negotiation passing day despite claims contrary mahinda rajapaksa yet robert mugabe sri lanka zimbabwe government undoubtedly become authoritarian since end war country history democracy mean continued democratic governance foregone conclusion erosion checks balances since 2009 significant passage 18th amendment 2010 reinforced legislation pulled even power executive giving rajapaksas government free pass human rights empowers aspiring autocrats everywhere sends clear signal semiauthoritarian governments go ahead whatever want face consequences actions article originally published journal foreign relations 160 | 722 |
<p>President Donald Trump wants lawmakers to give the Pentagon an additional $4 billion for “urgent” missile defense improvements against North Korea and nearly $2 billion more to increase troop levels in Afghanistan by 3,500 and repair damaged naval ships.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/11/06/text-letter-president-speaker-house-representatives" type="external">letter</a> sent to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) on Monday, Trump asked Congress to consider budget amendments to give the Department of Defense an extra $4 billion for “defense enhancements to counter the threat from North Korea.”</p>
<p>“This request supports additional efforts to detect, defeat, and defend against any North Korean use of ballistic missiles against the United States, its deployed forces, allies, or partners,” Trump wrote in a letter to Congress.</p>
<p>Read more</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/news/408921-japan-us-weapons-north-korea/" type="external" /></p>
<p>Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/363682437/2017-11-06request#from_embed" type="external">letter</a> to Trump on Friday, making a detailed request, which he said would be used to increase “critical capability and capacity” for the missile defense program.</p>
<p>The majority of the funds would be used to construct an additional ground-based interceptor (GBI) at Missile Field 4 in Fort Greely, Alaska and fund the initial procurement for the “eventual purchase” of 20 new GBIs.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-systems/u-s-deployed-intercept-systems/ground-based-midcourse-defense/" type="external">Ground-based Midcourse Defense</a> (GMD) has the capability of detecting, tracking and intercepting long-range ballistic missile threats as far as outer space, according to the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA).</p>
<p>Missile Field 4 is one of the two ground-based missile defense units housing interceptors on the west coast. The unit was created to protect the United States from an intercontinental ballistic missile threat, according to the <a href="http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=54585" type="external">Pentagon</a>.</p>
<p>There are currently 44 GBIs in Fort Greely, according to a declassified <a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/405088-pentagon-transfer-missile-defense/" type="external">reprogramming request</a> from the Pentagon. The additional 21 requested would bring the number of interceptors to 65.</p>
<p>The request would also go toward buying 16 new <a href="https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sm-3/" type="external">Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptors</a>, which are designed to intercept intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a kinetic warhead that intercepts threats with the force of a 10-ton truck traveling 600 mph.</p>
<p>Additionally, the funds would go toward purchasing 50 more interceptors for the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors, which provide the military with mobile systems to intercept intermediate-range ballistic missiles both inside and outside the atmosphere. THAAD interceptors have a range of about 200 kilometers and use “hit-to-kill” technology to destroy missiles in their terminal phase of flight.</p>
<p>Trump made the request while on a 13-day tour of Asia, just before he is set to arrive in South Korea on Tuesday.</p>
<p />
<p>Getting ready to leave for South Korea and meetings with President Moon, a fine gentleman. We will figure it all out!</p>
<p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/927648870796070912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" type="external">November 6, 2017</a></p>
<p />
<p>While en route to Tokyo, Trump told reporters on board Air Force One that the US makes “the best military equipment in the world” and the $700 billion military budget is “going up.”</p>
<p>“A shot was just taken by Iran, in my opinion, at Saudi Arabia. You know about that, right? You saw the missile that went out? And our system knocked the missile out of the air. That’s how good we are. Nobody makes what we make, and now we’re selling it all over the world,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One, according to <a href="https://www.axios.com/trump-the-reason-our-stock-market-is-so-successful-is-because-of-me-2506607758.html" type="external">Axios</a>.</p>
<p>Trump initially asked for $9.9 billion for missile defense for the fiscal year 2018, which was lower than the previous year. Then, in August, Trump said he would increase the missile defense program “by a substantial number of billions.”</p>
<p>“We’re going to be increasing our budget by many billions of dollars because of North Korea and other reasons having to do with the anti-missile [aspect],” Trump <a href="https://youtu.be/yI0T6TBQlOU" type="external">told</a> reporters, then speaking from his private golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey.</p>
<p>The supplemental budget request also includes a request for an additional $1.2 billion to deploy 3,500 troops to the country to support his Afghanistan and South Asia strategy.</p>
<p>In August, Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/21/remarks-president-trump-strategy-afghanistan-and-south-asia" type="external">announced</a> his administration’s new strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia, which he said would have “a clear definition.”</p>
<p>“Our troops will fight to win,” Trump said. “From now on, victory will have a clear definition: &#160;attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.”</p>
<p>Trump also requested $700 million to repair the USS John S McCain and the USS Fitzgerald, two Navy ships that were damaged in fatal collisions over the summer. In his request, Trump said that the ships “provide critical naval presence and additional ballistic missile defense capabilities in the Asia-Pacific theater.”</p>
<p>Additionally, Trump asked lawmakers to provide $1.6 billion to build a wall along the US’s southern border with Mexico, writing that “the safety and security of the American people is my top priority.”</p>
<p>Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, released a <a href="https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=press-releases&amp;id=833D6D93-C1BE-4853-A7E8-5AD47A414127" type="external">joint statement</a> on Monday, saying that they “welcome the President’s amendment to his initial defense budget request and look forward to giving it the serious consideration it deserves.”</p>
<p>“The timely submission of this budget amendment means that the NDAA conferees will be able to consider this request in time to incorporate the additional funding into the final agreement,” the lawmakers wrote.</p>
<p>[embedded content]</p> | false | 1 | president donald trump wants lawmakers give pentagon additional 4 billion urgent missile defense improvements north korea nearly 2 billion increase troop levels afghanistan 3500 repair damaged naval ships letter sent house speaker paul ryan rwisconsin monday trump asked congress consider budget amendments give department defense extra 4 billion defense enhancements counter threat north korea request supports additional efforts detect defeat defend north korean use ballistic missiles united states deployed forces allies partners trump wrote letter congress read mick mulvaney director office management budget sent letter trump friday making detailed request said would used increase critical capability capacity missile defense program majority funds would used construct additional groundbased interceptor gbi missile field 4 fort greely alaska fund initial procurement eventual purchase 20 new gbis groundbased midcourse defense gmd capability detecting tracking intercepting longrange ballistic missile threats far outer space according missile defense advocacy alliance mdaa missile field 4 one two groundbased missile defense units housing interceptors west coast unit created protect united states intercontinental ballistic missile threat according pentagon currently 44 gbis fort greely according declassified reprogramming request pentagon additional 21 requested would bring number interceptors 65 request would also go toward buying 16 new standard missile3 block iia interceptors designed intercept intermediaterange ballistic missiles kinetic warhead intercepts threats force 10ton truck traveling 600 mph additionally funds would go toward purchasing 50 interceptors terminal highaltitude area defense thaad interceptors provide military mobile systems intercept intermediaterange ballistic missiles inside outside atmosphere thaad interceptors range 200 kilometers use hittokill technology destroy missiles terminal phase flight trump made request 13day tour asia set arrive south korea tuesday getting ready leave south korea meetings president moon fine gentleman figure donald j trump realdonaldtrump november 6 2017 en route tokyo trump told reporters board air force one us makes best military equipment world 700 billion military budget going shot taken iran opinion saudi arabia know right saw missile went system knocked missile air thats good nobody makes make selling world trump told reporters air force one according axios trump initially asked 99 billion missile defense fiscal year 2018 lower previous year august trump said would increase missile defense program substantial number billions going increasing budget many billions dollars north korea reasons antimissile aspect trump told reporters speaking private golf course bedminster new jersey supplemental budget request also includes request additional 12 billion deploy 3500 troops country support afghanistan south asia strategy august trump announced administrations new strategy afghanistan south asia said would clear definition troops fight win trump said victory clear definition 160attacking enemies obliterating isis crushing al qaeda preventing taliban taking afghanistan stopping mass terror attacks america emerge trump also requested 700 million repair uss john mccain uss fitzgerald two navy ships damaged fatal collisions summer request trump said ships provide critical naval presence additional ballistic missile defense capabilities asiapacific theater additionally trump asked lawmakers provide 16 billion build wall along uss southern border mexico writing safety security american people top priority senator john mccain rarizona rep mac thornberry rtexas chairmen senate house armed services committees released joint statement monday saying welcome presidents amendment initial defense budget request look forward giving serious consideration deserves timely submission budget amendment means ndaa conferees able consider request time incorporate additional funding final agreement lawmakers wrote embedded content | 539 |
<p>SAN SEBASTIAN — Suggesting the pull of major documentaries on extreme sports legends, London-based <a href="http://variety.com/t/film-constellation/" type="external">Film Constellation</a> has rolled out Rory Kennedy’s weighty “ <a href="http://variety.com/t/take-every-wave/" type="external">Take Every Wave</a>: the Life of Laird Hamilton,” a portrait of legendary big wave surfer, to multiple major territories.</p>
<p>In banner international deals, Film Constellation has closed France (Groupe AB, Canal Plus), Germany/Austria, one of Europe’s biggest extreme sports movies markets (Universum), China (Jushi Films) and Latin America (Polar Star). Cai Chang has acquired Taiwanese rights, Captive those for airlines.</p>
<p>Previous sales were closed together with UTA Independent Film Group for Canada with Mongrel and for Australia with Madman.</p>
<p>In a deal announced this April, UTA brokered a U.S. sale to Sundance Selects/IFC Films, which will release “Take Every Wave” on Sept. 29. The U.K., Scandinavia, Spain and Japan are currently in negotiation, according to Film Constellation founder Fabien Westerhoff. The two-hour documentary feature world premiered at January’s Sundance Festival and had its European premiere this weekend at Spain’s San Sebastián Festival, playing in its Savage Cinema section. “Take Every Wave” will now segue for its U.K. premiere on Oct. 5 at an IMAX screening at the BFI London Film Festival.</p>
<p>Directed by the Academy Award-nominated Kennedy (“Last Days in Vietnam”), “Take Every Wave” is written by Mark Bailey and Jack Youngelson, produced by Kennedy, Paul Speaker, Bailey, Youngelson, and executive produced by Jonathan S. Marshall and William Cawley.</p>
<p>Mixing archive and new footage with interviews with Hamilton, multiple friends (and sometimes ex-friends), surf journalists, his step-father Bill Hamilton and wife Gabrielle Reece, “Take Every Wave” flashes back from a present where Hamilton is nervously listening to radio reports about El Niño creating historic sea swell. “Take Every Wave” records his early life growing up in on Pūpūkea beach on Hawaii’s Oahu North Shore, where, “100% disobedient,” as his half-brother puts it, he was beaten by his father and bullied at school, but found peace in the ocean.</p>
<p>As its trailer suggests, the bio-doc goes on to feature spectacular footage of Hamilton in the early ‘90s surfing big waves at what came to be known as the Jaws surf break off the north-central coast of Maui. There, with the rest of the Strapped crew, he invented tow-in surfing, the practice of a surfer being towed by a jet-ski into the ocean so as to catch big waves – which caused huge controversy. It also naturally takes in his historic feat in 2000 at Tahiti’s Teahupoʻo break when he surfed what is described as the heaviest wave ever, plus his present passion for foil boarding and fated decision to bring in cameras to shoot his Jaws exploits – which turned him into a celebrity and changed the face of surf forever,</p>
<p>But the real focus of “Take Every Wave” is as much psychological, and a question which Kennedy says she asked herself when a child whose family friends included tennis champion Billie Jean King: What drives an elite athlete to attempt such extraordinary feats?&#160; Variety talked to Kennedy just before “Take Every Wave” played San Sebastián:</p>
<p>“Take Every Wave’s” press notes talk about your films addressing some of the world’s most pressing issues: poverty, corruption, domestic abuse, human rights, mental illness. What is the most pressing issue addressed by “Take Every Wave?”</p>
<p>This is a different kind of films from most of the ones I’ve done. It’s part of the appeal, frankly, that it was so different. I was challenged in ways I hadn’t been in my other films. There’s the technical questions: How do you capture a guy on a wave? But what drew me is that I felt it had a great story, the character’s so rich, one of the great individualists, someone who’s forged his own path, who’s changed the sport in radical ways. If you look at other sports, you haven’t seen so many extreme changes.</p>
<p>You go beyond the what to the why: What drives Laird Hamilton? You seem to locate two important answers: One, his childhood and another the need to justify technology in general, in what it allows big wave surfers to achieve. I don’t know if you’d agree….</p>
<p>I think Laird is definitely driven by demons from his childhood, and we explore it in the film. And I think he has an internal drive, which, y’know, nature/nurture. He was driven, from a very young age had a love and passion for the water, he’d push the envelope at home and school, with people in positions of authority.&#160; But he managed to harness that part of himself, invest it into something that ultimately was quite satisfying for him. The surfing is a nice backdrop. But at the forefront what drove me was what it takes for a human to achieve greatness, push the envelope, do things nobody else has ever done, at the risk of great personal peril.</p>
<p>One important thing is chance. Just as big wave surfing was coming onto the media radar, he met Gabrielle Reece, who was working on TV, and was more clued into what the man she fell in love with could offer as a media brand.&#160;</p>
<p>I think it played a role. But it speaks to something bigger; when you are so singularly focused in your life there’s gonna be cost and consequences. Those [Strapped] friends were of great value to Laird at that time. But he has to move on and find some other people who’ll continue to help him achieve his goals. If you’re onboard with that, it works. If not, it doesn’t work so well. I think you can say with Gaby and other people in his life, it is the cost of greatness, to some degree.</p>
<p>Laird himself says that he “didn’t reject competition as much as judgment.” To what extent did he’d view you, as a director, in the interviews or finished film, as a possible source of judgment, and thus feel slightly uncomfortable.</p>
<p>That’s a brilliant question. I think he and Gabby are very open, he was incredibly generous, he put me in touch with family and friends that he has a strange relationship with. The interview was done over four days, three hours a day, we covered a lot of ground and I think he was largely open with me. But I think it was not always a comfortable place for him. It was a process of making him feel comfortable and not really forcing anything per se. Some things I did force in the beginning, I really wanted editorial control. There were some ground rules agreed to early on.</p> | false | 1 | san sebastian suggesting pull major documentaries extreme sports legends londonbased film constellation rolled rory kennedys weighty take every wave life laird hamilton portrait legendary big wave surfer multiple major territories banner international deals film constellation closed france groupe ab canal plus germanyaustria one europes biggest extreme sports movies markets universum china jushi films latin america polar star cai chang acquired taiwanese rights captive airlines previous sales closed together uta independent film group canada mongrel australia madman deal announced april uta brokered us sale sundance selectsifc films release take every wave sept 29 uk scandinavia spain japan currently negotiation according film constellation founder fabien westerhoff twohour documentary feature world premiered januarys sundance festival european premiere weekend spains san sebastián festival playing savage cinema section take every wave segue uk premiere oct 5 imax screening bfi london film festival directed academy awardnominated kennedy last days vietnam take every wave written mark bailey jack youngelson produced kennedy paul speaker bailey youngelson executive produced jonathan marshall william cawley mixing archive new footage interviews hamilton multiple friends sometimes exfriends surf journalists stepfather bill hamilton wife gabrielle reece take every wave flashes back present hamilton nervously listening radio reports el niño creating historic sea swell take every wave records early life growing pūpūkea beach hawaiis oahu north shore 100 disobedient halfbrother puts beaten father bullied school found peace ocean trailer suggests biodoc goes feature spectacular footage hamilton early 90s surfing big waves came known jaws surf break northcentral coast maui rest strapped crew invented towin surfing practice surfer towed jetski ocean catch big waves caused huge controversy also naturally takes historic feat 2000 tahitis teahupoʻo break surfed described heaviest wave ever plus present passion foil boarding fated decision bring cameras shoot jaws exploits turned celebrity changed face surf forever real focus take every wave much psychological question kennedy says asked child whose family friends included tennis champion billie jean king drives elite athlete attempt extraordinary feats160 variety talked kennedy take every wave played san sebastián take every waves press notes talk films addressing worlds pressing issues poverty corruption domestic abuse human rights mental illness pressing issue addressed take every wave different kind films ones ive done part appeal frankly different challenged ways hadnt films theres technical questions capture guy wave drew felt great story characters rich one great individualists someone whos forged path whos changed sport radical ways look sports havent seen many extreme changes go beyond drives laird hamilton seem locate two important answers one childhood another need justify technology general allows big wave surfers achieve dont know youd agree think laird definitely driven demons childhood explore film think internal drive yknow naturenurture driven young age love passion water hed push envelope home school people positions authority160 managed harness part invest something ultimately quite satisfying surfing nice backdrop forefront drove takes human achieve greatness push envelope things nobody else ever done risk great personal peril one important thing chance big wave surfing coming onto media radar met gabrielle reece working tv clued man fell love could offer media brand160 think played role speaks something bigger singularly focused life theres gon na cost consequences strapped friends great value laird time move find people wholl continue help achieve goals youre onboard works doesnt work well think say gaby people life cost greatness degree laird says didnt reject competition much judgment extent hed view director interviews finished film possible source judgment thus feel slightly uncomfortable thats brilliant question think gabby open incredibly generous put touch family friends strange relationship interview done four days three hours day covered lot ground think largely open think always comfortable place process making feel comfortable really forcing anything per se things force beginning really wanted editorial control ground rules agreed early | 618 |
<p>Luis Antonio Tagle, the boyish 55-year-old archbishop of Manila, was the media star of Pope Benedict XVI’s November 24 consistory, in which six new members of the College of Cardinals were created; the Italian press and American bloggers quickly broadcast, exclaimed, or whispered that Tagle might be the first Asian pope. His Beatitude, Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal — major-archbishop of Trivandrum and head of the Syro-Malankara Church, an eastern Catholic community with ancient roots in India — won the sartorial prize for 2012’s second consistory, with a conical-shaped ecclesiastical hat that outshone even the exuberant women’s headwear sported by festive Nigerian supporters of the newly created Cardinal John Onaiyekan of Abuja. Sober analysts of the Christian Church’s desperate situation in the Middle East hoped that the bestowal of the cardinal’s red hat would inspire Béchara Boutros Raï, the Maronite patriarch of Antioch, to a more assertive defense of civil society and elementary decency against Hezbollah aggressions in his native Lebanon; those same observers expect Bogotá’s new cardinal, Rubén Salazar Gómez, to help consolidate and deepen his country’s impressive democratization — an especially important task, what with Hugo Chávez next door.</p>
<p>For their part, the little people of the Vatican – the elevator operators, policemen, ushers, housekeepers, and minor office workers — probably got the greatest satisfaction from the elevation of the new cardinal who got the least media attention, James Michael Harvey, the Milwaukee native who, since 1998, had been prefect of the Papal Household: the manager of the pope’s public life and schedule. In February 1998, when Harvey was a mere monsignor (although a senior figure in the Secretariat of State), he and I were walking together through the splendidly frescoed halls of the Apostolic Palace, between visits to the just-created cardinal Francis George of Chicago and the freshly minted cardinal James Francis Stafford, former archbishop of Denver and newly named president of the Pontifical Council for the Laity. In the confusions that remind visitors to Rome that “system” and “Italian” do not readily co-exist, Monsignor Harvey and I got briefly separated, and one of the Vatican ushers, sensing an opportunity to do a bit of what my evangelical friends would call witnessing, pulled me aside and said, sotto voce, “Your friend — he is the best priest here.”</p>
<p>Cardinal Harvey is also one of the most knowledgeable and acute observers of Catholic affairs in the world. He admired and was deeply moved by the immense physical and moral courage (and indomitable humor) of Blessed John Paul II in his later years; and like many others, he wept as the great Polish pope’s triple casket was lowered into its first resting place in the grottoes beneath St. Peter’s. His insightful appreciation of Benedict XVI, as a man and as a Christian disciple, was eloquently captured in the omaggio, the greeting of gratitude, that Harvey, as the first in precedence among the new cardinals, offered the pope in the name of all the new members of the College at the beginning of the Mass for the Solemnity of Christ the King on November 25:</p>
<p>“Holy Father, when you accepted the burden of the Office of Peter in 2005, the Church and the world knew you as a towering intellect, as one of the great theologians of our time. Now, after more than seven and a half years, the Church and the world have come to know you better; they have understood that your unique command of the truths of Christian doctrine, and your singular ability to make those truths come alive catechetically and homiletically, find their roots in a profound faith: and that your conviction has been deepened by a lifetime of study and teaching, guided by the regula fidei [rule of faith] and inspired by the Church’s liturgy. Your scholarly life – as priest and professor, as diocesan bishop, as curial prefect, and finally as Bishop of Rome – has been a living lesson in the truth that the most profound theology is not theology articulated at a desk, but theology done on one’s knees.</p>
<p>“You have shown us, Holy Father, that theology must always return to the Word of God as its ‘permanent foundation.’ For it is by reference to the Word that the science of theology, as the Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, ‘is most firmly strengthened and constantly rejuvenated, as it searches out, under faith, the full truth stored up in the mystery of Christ.’ By exemplifying this teaching of the Second Vatican Council in your theological work, your preaching, and your magisterium, you have embodied the Council’s call to all bishops, priests, deacons, and catechists to ‘immerse themselves in the Scriptures’ — and in so doing, to meet the divine Word who speaks to us in the Word of God, so that we may offer to others friendship with him, with his Father, and with the Holy Spirit.</p>
<p>“That offer of friendship with the Lord Jesus is the heart of the New Evangelization to which you, like your predecessor, have called the Church in every corner of the world. The Church exists to respond to the great mission to preach the Gospel ad gentes [to the nations]. In this providential Year of Faith, we shall seek with even greater vigor to give the world the greatest gift we can give it: to share with all humanity the Way, the Truth, and the Life, who gently brings his brothers and sisters to the Throne of Grace, where they find the fullness of their human destiny.</p>
<p>“In accepting this honor of the cardinalate from your hands, we freely pledge ourselves, with the help of divine grace, to be persevering and responsible agents of the New Evangelization, by conforming our own lives more closely to the Gospel so that we may offer our neighbors friendship with the Lord Jesus Christ, King of the universe and the unique savior of the world, the supreme revelation of the truth about God and man.”</p>
<p>Cardinal Harvey’s insight and eloquence do not stop at the sacristy door, however. The day before receiving the red hat, he made brief but striking remarks at the residence of the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, where the chargé d’affaires hosted a reception for the Wisconsin native and his family:</p>
<p>“I’ve been raised to believe and appreciate the adage I learned in Catholic grade school: ‘Be a good Catholic and you can’t help being a good American.’ Our nation was founded on the belief in a Supreme Being to whom all honor is due, and from whom all authority and power descend. We know, of course, that the right to rule is not bound to any one form of government. We have had no divine revelation that the system of government under which we live in America is the only legitimate form of government. But we do know that the American experiment . . . in liberty and justice for all has borne the test of time and has proven to take a privileged place, if not the primary place, in the history of those forms of organizing social life which redound to the good of individuals, of the family, and of society as a whole.</p>
<p>“Foremost among the liberties we cherish as Americans is religious liberty; it is the first freedom, the first of human rights. James Madison, fourth President of the United States and an architect of the U.S. Constitution, explained why this is so [when] he wrote, ‘Before any man can be considered a member of civil society, he must be considered a subject of the Governor of the Universe.’ What he is saying in his 18th-century language is that religious freedom precedes and transcends the power of government.</p>
<p>“In welcoming Ambassador Lindy Boggs to the Holy See in 1997, Blessed Pope John Paul II reminded the new American representative at the Vatican, and indeed all Americans, that ‘the continuing success of American democracy depends on the degree to which each new generation, native-born and immigrant, make s its own the moral truths on which the founding fathers staked the future of your Republic.’ Obviously these words are as true today as they were 15 years ago. Each generation of Americans faces new challenges to test the endurance of the founding principles. Sometimes these challenges are unexpected; sometimes they are unnecessary, especially if our cherished principle of the separation of Church and state is properly understood [as] a relationship intended to bring a blessing to both.</p>
<p>“I take this occasion to join my voice to [those of] many concerned Americans, including and led by the American bishops, in recommitting ourselves to the defense of religious freedom, the first freedom, which surely includes the rights of conscience and the freedom to worship as conscience dictates, but must also include the right of the Church to be itself: to conduct its charitable and educational ministries according to its own self-understanding and according to the moral truths known by both reason and revelation.”</p>
<p>As the contest for religious freedom in full continues in the second Obama administration, all concerned might well keep in mind what America’s newest cardinal called “the right of the Church to be itself.” Government must respect that; bishops, pastors, and Catholics in all walks of life must never betray that, in their defense of the freedom of the Church and the religious freedom of believers. For in defending the conviction that the Church has “the right to be itself,” as do the people of the Church, Catholics are being the best Americans they can be — as a young boy was taught in a Milwaukee Catholic elementary school more than a half-century before he became a cardinal and a new voice in a debate with the most serious consequences for America.</p>
<p>– George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.</p> | false | 1 | luis antonio tagle boyish 55yearold archbishop manila media star pope benedict xvis november 24 consistory six new members college cardinals created italian press american bloggers quickly broadcast exclaimed whispered tagle might first asian pope beatitude baselios cleemis thottunkal majorarchbishop trivandrum head syromalankara church eastern catholic community ancient roots india sartorial prize 2012s second consistory conicalshaped ecclesiastical hat outshone even exuberant womens headwear sported festive nigerian supporters newly created cardinal john onaiyekan abuja sober analysts christian churchs desperate situation middle east hoped bestowal cardinals red hat would inspire béchara boutros raï maronite patriarch antioch assertive defense civil society elementary decency hezbollah aggressions native lebanon observers expect bogotás new cardinal rubén salazar gómez help consolidate deepen countrys impressive democratization especially important task hugo chávez next door part little people vatican elevator operators policemen ushers housekeepers minor office workers probably got greatest satisfaction elevation new cardinal got least media attention james michael harvey milwaukee native since 1998 prefect papal household manager popes public life schedule february 1998 harvey mere monsignor although senior figure secretariat state walking together splendidly frescoed halls apostolic palace visits justcreated cardinal francis george chicago freshly minted cardinal james francis stafford former archbishop denver newly named president pontifical council laity confusions remind visitors rome system italian readily coexist monsignor harvey got briefly separated one vatican ushers sensing opportunity bit evangelical friends would call witnessing pulled aside said sotto voce friend best priest cardinal harvey also one knowledgeable acute observers catholic affairs world admired deeply moved immense physical moral courage indomitable humor blessed john paul ii later years like many others wept great polish popes triple casket lowered first resting place grottoes beneath st peters insightful appreciation benedict xvi man christian disciple eloquently captured omaggio greeting gratitude harvey first precedence among new cardinals offered pope name new members college beginning mass solemnity christ king november 25 holy father accepted burden office peter 2005 church world knew towering intellect one great theologians time seven half years church world come know better understood unique command truths christian doctrine singular ability make truths come alive catechetically homiletically find roots profound faith conviction deepened lifetime study teaching guided regula fidei rule faith inspired churchs liturgy scholarly life priest professor diocesan bishop curial prefect finally bishop rome living lesson truth profound theology theology articulated desk theology done ones knees shown us holy father theology must always return word god permanent foundation reference word science theology second vatican council taught dogmatic constitution divine revelation firmly strengthened constantly rejuvenated searches faith full truth stored mystery christ exemplifying teaching second vatican council theological work preaching magisterium embodied councils call bishops priests deacons catechists immerse scriptures meet divine word speaks us word god may offer others friendship father holy spirit offer friendship lord jesus heart new evangelization like predecessor called church every corner world church exists respond great mission preach gospel ad gentes nations providential year faith shall seek even greater vigor give world greatest gift give share humanity way truth life gently brings brothers sisters throne grace find fullness human destiny accepting honor cardinalate hands freely pledge help divine grace persevering responsible agents new evangelization conforming lives closely gospel may offer neighbors friendship lord jesus christ king universe unique savior world supreme revelation truth god man cardinal harveys insight eloquence stop sacristy door however day receiving red hat made brief striking remarks residence us ambassador holy see chargé daffaires hosted reception wisconsin native family ive raised believe appreciate adage learned catholic grade school good catholic cant help good american nation founded belief supreme honor due authority power descend know course right rule bound one form government divine revelation system government live america legitimate form government know american experiment liberty justice borne test time proven take privileged place primary place history forms organizing social life redound good individuals family society whole foremost among liberties cherish americans religious liberty first freedom first human rights james madison fourth president united states architect us constitution explained wrote man considered member civil society must considered subject governor universe saying 18thcentury language religious freedom precedes transcends power government welcoming ambassador lindy boggs holy see 1997 blessed pope john paul ii reminded new american representative vatican indeed americans continuing success american democracy depends degree new generation nativeborn immigrant make moral truths founding fathers staked future republic obviously words true today 15 years ago generation americans faces new challenges test endurance founding principles sometimes challenges unexpected sometimes unnecessary especially cherished principle separation church state properly understood relationship intended bring blessing take occasion join voice many concerned americans including led american bishops recommitting defense religious freedom first freedom surely includes rights conscience freedom worship conscience dictates must also include right church conduct charitable educational ministries according selfunderstanding according moral truths known reason revelation contest religious freedom full continues second obama administration concerned might well keep mind americas newest cardinal called right church government must respect bishops pastors catholics walks life must never betray defense freedom church religious freedom believers defending conviction church right people church catholics best americans young boy taught milwaukee catholic elementary school halfcentury became cardinal new voice debate serious consequences america george weigel distinguished senior fellow washingtons ethics public policy center holds william e simon chair catholic studies | 863 |
<p>The US has been the world's principal mass killer since the end of WWII, but Americans support or are indifferent to its violence.</p>
<p>Forty years ago, on April 30, 1975, the Vietnamese people, led by their Communist Party, were finally victorious in the long just struggle for national independence and unification against the United States and its puppet regime in Saigon.</p>
<p>America experienced an earthshaking lesson in Vietnam — “Stop your unjust wars of aggression!” —but Washington learned nothing from its humiliating defeat except to shift its battlefields of choice from Southeast Asia to Southwest Asia (i.e., the Middle East).</p>
<p>The U.S. went on to fight in Iraq three times and impose long sanctions in 25 continuous years; in Afghanistan the Pentagon has been fighting for 14 years and has achieved nothing; in Libya the U.S. bombed for less than a year but managed to spark a civil war and open the door to the Islamic State in the process. &#160;Many smaller incursions have taken place since losing the Vietnam war. For instance, the Obama Administration for years took actions to overthrow Syrian President Assad, and all the White House has to show for it is a jihadi war led by the Islamic State and the al-Nusra Front (the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda).</p>
<p>Most Americans, except for families of the dead, veterans and war opponents, never think about the Vietnam War — one of history’s most unequal and vicious. Young Americans in general have received only a bowdlerized trace of information at school. At the same time, the lives of many Americans who protested this shameful war — civilians plus antiwar GIs and draft resisters — were largely radicalized and changed forever. Now in their sixties through eighties and older, they continue to this day to protest war and injustice. For some, myself included, details of this war remain indelibly etched in memory.</p>
<p>The day after the U.S. debacle the name of Saigon, the South Vietnamese capital where the American command was situated until being unceremoniously ousted, was changed to Ho Chi Minh City in honor of the great leader of the Indochinese people who died in 1969. Hanoi, to the north, remained the capital of reunified Vietnam.</p>
<p>Droves of Americans, including a substantial number of former soldiers, now visit both cities and other parts of the Vietnam every year. Many tour the war museums, the old battlefields and tunnels used by peasants and fighters to escape from or to attack American forces. The Vietnamese treat such visitors courteously, without a sign of enmity, which is quite remarkable considering the horrors perpetrated upon a country that survived more explosive tonnage than the U.S. deployed during World War II in Europe and Asia-Pacific — 15,500,000 tons of air and ground munitions during the Vietnam War; 6,000,000 tons in WW II.</p>
<p>Vietnam at the time had a population of about 52 million situated on both sides of the 17th parallel, temporarily dividing North and South Vietnam. Over four million were killed in Washington’s aggressive war upon a very poor largely peasant society, beginning in the mid-1950s when the U.S. took over from the defeated French colonialist armies. France had occupied and oppressed Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (Indochina) for over 100 years; then it became America’s turn. U.S. bombings killed at least a million more people in Laos and Cambodia.</p>
<p>For an American society fearfully fixated on a few domestic terrorist incidents such as the Boston Marathon killings or the so-called “underwear” bomber, the immensity of the deaths caused by their own government in Iraq, Vietnam and so many other countries, is evidently incomprehensible and thus unimportant.</p>
<p>U.S. combat deaths from 1955-1975 were 47,424, nearly all in the latter part of the war. Officially, Afghanistan is Washington’s longest war at 14 years, but unofficially Vietnam is six years longer. In time, Afghanistan may live up to its dubious designation since the U.S. government continues to delay full withdrawal of combat forces.</p>
<p>It may be of interest to learn that the total number of American combat deaths in 76 wars from 1775 to 2015 (including all the dead on both sides during the Civil War) amounts to 846,163. That’s less than the UN-verified total of a million Iraqis, half of whom were young children, who died from 1991 to 2003 due to killer sanctions. This was followed by another million dead Iraqis from the 2003-2011 war.</p>
<p>Compare the U.S. total of combat deaths in World War II (291,557) to the number of Russian combat and civilian deaths (27 million). There were no civilian deaths in the U.S, which has not suffered war damage from foreign invasions since the British War of 1812-15. Most of Russia was flattened west&#160;of the Ural Mountains in WWII. In Washington’s 1950-1953 war against North Korea, every city and most towns were destroyed by U.S. carpet bombings. Several millions were killed. The U.S. suffered 33,686 combat deaths.</p>
<p>Militarism, a principal element in U.S. society, thrives on unequal wars where the weapons, technology and communications of the “enemy” are far inferior and where it is impossible for an inch of U.S. territory to experience the footprint of a foreign soldier. Since the Civil War the American people, landscape and infrastructure has been untouched by war.</p>
<p>This is not as good as some think. America is the world’s principal mass killer since the end of WWII but its people are so accustomed to wars that cause them no pain and suffering that they easily support, or are indifferent to, unjust aggression in the name of protecting America. Ironically, there’s hardly any need to protect America, enclosed between two oceans in an impenetrable fortress. But government fear mongering about the nation’s vulnerability is a most useful lie intended to perpetuate Washington’s insistence upon functioning as global overlord and military superpower.</p>
<p>The overwhelming majority of Americans knew absolutely nothing about their own country’s involvement in Vietnam until around 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson began to vastly increase the U.S. troop component, which reached 549,500 mostly conscript personnel in 1968. By then, a vibrant antiwar movement was shaking the White House to the extent that Johnson announced he would not run for re-election. He retired in disgrace for what became a very unpopular war, despite authoring several important domestic achievements.</p>
<p>Richard Nixon, Johnson’s elected replacement, caused many more Vietnamese (and Cambodian) deaths in the name of seeking peace. But by 1973 the antiwar movement, the American people and rebellious U.S. soldiers in the field forced the White House to withdraw all American combat troops from Vietnam. Thousands of U.S. military advisers, CIA agents, and those Washington delegated to basically control the Saigon government and military, remained in the country for two more years. They were obliged to flee in extreme haste as liberation forces closed in and quickly declared victory.</p>
<p>The 1960s and early ’70s were great years of domestic uprisings in the United States against various ills and injustices, from the segregation of African Americans, to the subjugation of women, repressive cultural backwardness, the Vietnam War, the hatred and shunning of LGBT people and other causes.</p>
<p>As the war continued, the majority of the American people began demanding peace. The antiwar movement became extremely large and militant, ultimately contributing strongly to the withdrawal of U.S. troops. By the early 1970s the Hanoi government recognized there were three fronts in the war — the battlefield, the Paris peace talks, and the American people’s antiwar movement. I always bring this up when I’m told that peace demonstrations do no good. When antiwar movements become large, rambunctious, militant and long-lived they can stop a war or at least educate millions of people to oppose the next war.</p>
<p>A number of activists I knew or worked with during this exciting period of the uprising against a devastating imperialist war are still in opposition today. I’m 80 now and never served in the war (except for 1962-63 in prison for opposing the war machine), but the passionate hatred for colonialism and imperialism emanating from that ruthless conflict remains even stronger with me 40 years later, as I’m sure it does for many other opponents of that war who are still active.</p>
<p>As a quite young journalist for a major wire service in New York, I was aware of many details of the Vietnam conflict beginning in the 1950s, mainly after the historic French defeat in the battle of Diên Biên Phu in 1954. My years as writer and then the editor of the (U.S.) Guardian radical newsweekly (1963 to 1984) made me feel very much a part of the antiwar struggle because few if any other U.S. independent publications labored as long and hard against the war and for the victory of the Vietnamese people.</p>
<p>Our long-time foreign correspondent Wilfred Burchett wrote weekly articles from the battlefields and liberated areas of Vietnam with coverage that far excelled that of the reporters for major American newspapers, stationed in Saigon or with fighting U.S. units, often pegging their stories on official lies and fictitious body counts and on press conference propaganda from the government. It still happens today, of course, but Vietnam opened millions of eyes to Washington’s imperial perfidy, and the Internet has become a major source of antiwar news and radical analysis if you know where to look.</p>
<p>To the leftist Guardian, along with many on the U.S. left from progressives to communists, the Vietnam War was imperialist in nature. The Guardian wanted the war to end with the defeat of the American aggressor. Other sections of the broad and diverse peace movement objected strenuously to the term “imperialist” and were fearful of publicly supporting the defeat of their own country despite its having launched one of history’s most hideous wars of aggression.</p>
<p>Having been involved in opposing every U.S. war since Korea I have seen the “imperialist” question crop up repeatedly as though it is too radical or leftist instead of what it really is — the truth.</p>
<p>The issue of the Guardian reporting on the April 30 defeat of U.S.-South Vietnamese forces proclaimed in huge type on the front page: “VICTORY IN VIETNAM!” The lead article began: “Vietnam is completely liberated. After 35 years of continuous heroic struggle against Japanese, French and American imperialism, the Vietnamese people from north to south are free and independent.”</p>
<p>I was in Vietnam a few months before victory and was told by a government official of Hanoi’s “deep appreciation for the Guardian’s steadfast opposition to French colonialism and American imperialism, and for its years of efforts on behalf of peace, national liberation and the unification of Vietnam.” This was essentially repeated to me in different words by another official on the 30th anniversary celebration in Ho Chi Minh City.</p>
<p>What remained of the mass U.S. antiwar movement went home when the war ended in 1975. Likewise, most of what was left of the extraordinary period of radical and revolutionary upsurges known as the Sixties ended around that time as well. This was unfortunate because what largely replaced this people-driven epoch of advances in freedom and progressive militancy has been decades of conservatism and reactionary backlash against the people’s victories of the Sixties.</p>
<p>Today, far right pro-war Republican forces have taken over Congress and the Supreme Court, and they are swiftly gaining control of state governments and using their powers to wreck the union movement, take back the gains of the women’s movement and destroy programs that help the poor. Meanwhile, since there are only two “official” political parties, the only viable alternative within the ruling class-controlled electoral system is now the center-right pro-war Democratic Party, which has proven itself incapable of blocking the reactionary juggernaut, and all too often its conservative sector joins with the opposition, as many House and Senate Democrats are doing today in opposition to the U.S.-Iran talks. They’d rather follow screaming Warlord Bibi than their own president.</p>
<p>Once and all to briefly center left, today’s Democratic Party may be better than the right wing know-nothings, but it is definitely part of the problem, not the solution, and simply cannot be counted upon to function as a buffer against the Tea Party far right, the buffoons in Congress and the war-mongering neoconservatives of both parties who are making a comeback.</p>
<p>Economic and social gains — or any gains for working families — are hardly likely under present circumstances. There has to be a major change away from our imperialist capitalist system that presides over oligarch control of elections, rampant built-in inequality, wage stagnation, police violence, climate change, historic concentrations of wealth in the vaults of fewer than 1% of the people, continuing racism in America and endless imperialist wars. There are better systems, such as socialism, but after 100 years of anti-socialist and anti-communist propaganda the American people have a way to go before that becomes viable.</p>
<p>At this stage, it seems to me, America needs a new Sixties on steroids — a 21st century uprising of mass movements in the streets, meeting halls and cultural events making specific demands on the power structure using whatever tactics are appropriate, including mass civil disobedience, strikes and calculated disruption. And it is about time we realize the absolute need for collective, disciplined leadership. I know there is considerable anti-leadership sentiment in some oppositional movements, such as Occupy when it flourished too briefly, but this has to change before system change ever becomes a reality.</p>
<p>There are those who think significant social change in America is impossible or that the vehicle for change emanates from the ballot box alone. Is it impossible?</p>
<p>In the politically, socially and culturally repressive 1950s — when teachers were fired and writers, actors, unionists and others were blacklisted for harboring progressive ideas, when African Americans suffered under official and unofficial segregation, and when women were still kept “in their place,” who would believe that a “Sixties” was about to emerge?</p>
<p>Who would credit the idea that downtrodden blacks would stand up and risk their lives to confront racist Jim Crow in a couple of years? Who conceived of the possibility that women would stand up and demand their full rights? Who believed that millions of Americans would stand up for years to stop a criminal war? Was there anyone so naïve as to predict LGBT people would stand up, come out proudly, and demand respect? What parents or educators anticipated that many millions of students would stand up against repressive campus and outdated behavioral rules, and then bring the antiwar and radical struggle to the college green and even in some cases blockade their school president’s office. Judging by the 1950s crackdown on left to communist movements, it was not thought reasonable to proclaim that the left would soon stand up and experience a virtual renaissance, gaining members and playing an important role in the fight for peace and justice?”</p>
<p>If a Sixties can emerge from a backward Fifties, why can’t a Twenties emerge from a backward Tens? And if that doesn’t work, there’s always the Thirties and Forties. The key is to work hard now and persistently to bring it about, and to be patient if it takes a long time.</p>
<p>Obviously, social change does not drop from the sky, nor is it a gift from the bourgeoisie. It may not have been noticed by history but very many people and organizations were working hard for peace and social justice in the repressive 1950s. This helped bring about the social uprisings in the next decade. First, the oppressed blacks rebelled magnificently as the 1960s began, paving the way for other groups to rise up and express various pent-up demands for social change, compounded by an unjust criminal war that was draining the blood from America and its conscripted youth, not to mention the victim nation.</p>
<p>The U.S. government may not ever learn the lessons of the Vietnam War, compelled as it is by a socio-economic political system to create a better world first and foremost for the 1%, and empty rhetoric and wars for the rest of us. But I hope the lessons learned from the 1960-1975 era of uprisings for social change are not entirely forgotten but revived, improved and in time put into practice at a much higher and decisive level.</p>
<p>Thanks for listening, to speak. The anniversary of Vietnam’s victory brought all this out.</p>
<p>— The Guardian radical newsweekly attained a paid circulation of 26,000 readers and a pass along readership of at least 100,000 by the 1970s. The entire audience, aside from FBI readers seeking to know what’s happening on the left, opposed the Vietnam War. Several years after I left the paper it suddenly and inexplicably folded in 1992, but the Guardian was there when it was needed most — to tell the truth about the war, to identify it as imperialist, to unequivocally support Vietnam against the aggressor, and to report on and help build the peace movement.</p>
<p>— A 13-page article titled “The Guardian the Goes to War,” is collected in the 2011 book “Insiders Histories of the Vietnam Era Underground Press, part 1,” (Michigan State Univ. Press):</p>
<p>— If you haven’t done so, <a href="https://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/2013/10/0-0-1-1-11-hudson-valley-activist.html" type="external">read “Vo Nguyen Giap: Death of a Giant” in the 10-26-13 Newsletter</a>.</p> | false | 1 | us worlds principal mass killer since end wwii americans support indifferent violence forty years ago april 30 1975 vietnamese people led communist party finally victorious long struggle national independence unification united states puppet regime saigon america experienced earthshaking lesson vietnam stop unjust wars aggression washington learned nothing humiliating defeat except shift battlefields choice southeast asia southwest asia ie middle east us went fight iraq three times impose long sanctions 25 continuous years afghanistan pentagon fighting 14 years achieved nothing libya us bombed less year managed spark civil war open door islamic state process 160many smaller incursions taken place since losing vietnam war instance obama administration years took actions overthrow syrian president assad white house show jihadi war led islamic state alnusra front syrian branch alqaeda americans except families dead veterans war opponents never think vietnam war one historys unequal vicious young americans general received bowdlerized trace information school time lives many americans protested shameful war civilians plus antiwar gis draft resisters largely radicalized changed forever sixties eighties older continue day protest war injustice included details war remain indelibly etched memory day us debacle name saigon south vietnamese capital american command situated unceremoniously ousted changed ho chi minh city honor great leader indochinese people died 1969 hanoi north remained capital reunified vietnam droves americans including substantial number former soldiers visit cities parts vietnam every year many tour war museums old battlefields tunnels used peasants fighters escape attack american forces vietnamese treat visitors courteously without sign enmity quite remarkable considering horrors perpetrated upon country survived explosive tonnage us deployed world war ii europe asiapacific 15500000 tons air ground munitions vietnam war 6000000 tons ww ii vietnam time population 52 million situated sides 17th parallel temporarily dividing north south vietnam four million killed washingtons aggressive war upon poor largely peasant society beginning mid1950s us took defeated french colonialist armies france occupied oppressed vietnam laos cambodia indochina 100 years became americas turn us bombings killed least million people laos cambodia american society fearfully fixated domestic terrorist incidents boston marathon killings socalled underwear bomber immensity deaths caused government iraq vietnam many countries evidently incomprehensible thus unimportant us combat deaths 19551975 47424 nearly latter part war officially afghanistan washingtons longest war 14 years unofficially vietnam six years longer time afghanistan may live dubious designation since us government continues delay full withdrawal combat forces may interest learn total number american combat deaths 76 wars 1775 2015 including dead sides civil war amounts 846163 thats less unverified total million iraqis half young children died 1991 2003 due killer sanctions followed another million dead iraqis 20032011 war compare us total combat deaths world war ii 291557 number russian combat civilian deaths 27 million civilian deaths us suffered war damage foreign invasions since british war 181215 russia flattened west160of ural mountains wwii washingtons 19501953 war north korea every city towns destroyed us carpet bombings several millions killed us suffered 33686 combat deaths militarism principal element us society thrives unequal wars weapons technology communications enemy far inferior impossible inch us territory experience footprint foreign soldier since civil war american people landscape infrastructure untouched war good think america worlds principal mass killer since end wwii people accustomed wars cause pain suffering easily support indifferent unjust aggression name protecting america ironically theres hardly need protect america enclosed two oceans impenetrable fortress government fear mongering nations vulnerability useful lie intended perpetuate washingtons insistence upon functioning global overlord military superpower overwhelming majority americans knew absolutely nothing countrys involvement vietnam around 1965 president lyndon johnson began vastly increase us troop component reached 549500 mostly conscript personnel 1968 vibrant antiwar movement shaking white house extent johnson announced would run reelection retired disgrace became unpopular war despite authoring several important domestic achievements richard nixon johnsons elected replacement caused many vietnamese cambodian deaths name seeking peace 1973 antiwar movement american people rebellious us soldiers field forced white house withdraw american combat troops vietnam thousands us military advisers cia agents washington delegated basically control saigon government military remained country two years obliged flee extreme haste liberation forces closed quickly declared victory 1960s early 70s great years domestic uprisings united states various ills injustices segregation african americans subjugation women repressive cultural backwardness vietnam war hatred shunning lgbt people causes war continued majority american people began demanding peace antiwar movement became extremely large militant ultimately contributing strongly withdrawal us troops early 1970s hanoi government recognized three fronts war battlefield paris peace talks american peoples antiwar movement always bring im told peace demonstrations good antiwar movements become large rambunctious militant longlived stop war least educate millions people oppose next war number activists knew worked exciting period uprising devastating imperialist war still opposition today im 80 never served war except 196263 prison opposing war machine passionate hatred colonialism imperialism emanating ruthless conflict remains even stronger 40 years later im sure many opponents war still active quite young journalist major wire service new york aware many details vietnam conflict beginning 1950s mainly historic french defeat battle diên biên phu 1954 years writer editor us guardian radical newsweekly 1963 1984 made feel much part antiwar struggle us independent publications labored long hard war victory vietnamese people longtime foreign correspondent wilfred burchett wrote weekly articles battlefields liberated areas vietnam coverage far excelled reporters major american newspapers stationed saigon fighting us units often pegging stories official lies fictitious body counts press conference propaganda government still happens today course vietnam opened millions eyes washingtons imperial perfidy internet become major source antiwar news radical analysis know look leftist guardian along many us left progressives communists vietnam war imperialist nature guardian wanted war end defeat american aggressor sections broad diverse peace movement objected strenuously term imperialist fearful publicly supporting defeat country despite launched one historys hideous wars aggression involved opposing every us war since korea seen imperialist question crop repeatedly though radical leftist instead really truth issue guardian reporting april 30 defeat ussouth vietnamese forces proclaimed huge type front page victory vietnam lead article began vietnam completely liberated 35 years continuous heroic struggle japanese french american imperialism vietnamese people north south free independent vietnam months victory told government official hanois deep appreciation guardians steadfast opposition french colonialism american imperialism years efforts behalf peace national liberation unification vietnam essentially repeated different words another official 30th anniversary celebration ho chi minh city remained mass us antiwar movement went home war ended 1975 likewise left extraordinary period radical revolutionary upsurges known sixties ended around time well unfortunate largely replaced peopledriven epoch advances freedom progressive militancy decades conservatism reactionary backlash peoples victories sixties today far right prowar republican forces taken congress supreme court swiftly gaining control state governments using powers wreck union movement take back gains womens movement destroy programs help poor meanwhile since two official political parties viable alternative within ruling classcontrolled electoral system centerright prowar democratic party proven incapable blocking reactionary juggernaut often conservative sector joins opposition many house senate democrats today opposition usiran talks theyd rather follow screaming warlord bibi president briefly center left todays democratic party may better right wing knownothings definitely part problem solution simply counted upon function buffer tea party far right buffoons congress warmongering neoconservatives parties making comeback economic social gains gains working families hardly likely present circumstances major change away imperialist capitalist system presides oligarch control elections rampant builtin inequality wage stagnation police violence climate change historic concentrations wealth vaults fewer 1 people continuing racism america endless imperialist wars better systems socialism 100 years antisocialist anticommunist propaganda american people way go becomes viable stage seems america needs new sixties steroids 21st century uprising mass movements streets meeting halls cultural events making specific demands power structure using whatever tactics appropriate including mass civil disobedience strikes calculated disruption time realize absolute need collective disciplined leadership know considerable antileadership sentiment oppositional movements occupy flourished briefly change system change ever becomes reality think significant social change america impossible vehicle change emanates ballot box alone impossible politically socially culturally repressive 1950s teachers fired writers actors unionists others blacklisted harboring progressive ideas african americans suffered official unofficial segregation women still kept place would believe sixties emerge would credit idea downtrodden blacks would stand risk lives confront racist jim crow couple years conceived possibility women would stand demand full rights believed millions americans would stand years stop criminal war anyone naïve predict lgbt people would stand come proudly demand respect parents educators anticipated many millions students would stand repressive campus outdated behavioral rules bring antiwar radical struggle college green even cases blockade school presidents office judging 1950s crackdown left communist movements thought reasonable proclaim left would soon stand experience virtual renaissance gaining members playing important role fight peace justice sixties emerge backward fifties cant twenties emerge backward tens doesnt work theres always thirties forties key work hard persistently bring patient takes long time obviously social change drop sky gift bourgeoisie may noticed history many people organizations working hard peace social justice repressive 1950s helped bring social uprisings next decade first oppressed blacks rebelled magnificently 1960s began paving way groups rise express various pentup demands social change compounded unjust criminal war draining blood america conscripted youth mention victim nation us government may ever learn lessons vietnam war compelled socioeconomic political system create better world first foremost 1 empty rhetoric wars rest us hope lessons learned 19601975 era uprisings social change entirely forgotten revived improved time put practice much higher decisive level thanks listening speak anniversary vietnams victory brought guardian radical newsweekly attained paid circulation 26000 readers pass along readership least 100000 1970s entire audience aside fbi readers seeking know whats happening left opposed vietnam war several years left paper suddenly inexplicably folded 1992 guardian needed tell truth war identify imperialist unequivocally support vietnam aggressor report help build peace movement 13page article titled guardian goes war collected 2011 book insiders histories vietnam era underground press part 1 michigan state univ press havent done read vo nguyen giap death giant 102613 newsletter | 1,635 |
<p>INTERPOL has turned into an arena where Serbia and Kosovo exchange mutual accusations and the prosecution of war crimes has turned into a political weapon.</p>
<p>In early January 2017, Ramush Haradinaj, former Prime Minister of Kosovo and commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), was arrested by French authorities. The arrest was made based on an INTERPOL notice requested by Serbia in 2004. The District Court of Belgrade accuses Haradinaj of war crimes allegedly committed in Kosovo during the conflict in 1999.</p>
<p>This is not the first time that a high-ranking Kosovo politician and former KLA member is arrested on the basis of an international wanted notice issued by Serbia. Haradinaj was already arrested in 2015 in Slovenia, but the authorities released him immediately as they accorded him diplomatic immunity. Former Prime Minister and KLA commander Agim Ceku, as well as other senior figures of the KLA, were arrested on several occasions and released. Following Haradinaj’s recent arrest, Serbia’s Prime Minister Vucic immediately announced that Serbia would request his extradition to Serbia.</p>
<p>Haradinaj was already tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and he was acquitted. Serbia claims to have new evidence for war crimes allegedly committed by Haradinaj for which he should be tried in Serbia. The French infuriated the Serbs when a French court released Haradinaj on bail pending a final decision on his extradition.</p>
<p>Most European countries consider international wanted notices issued by Serbia against former KLA members for war crimes committed in Kosovo as politically motivated and refuse to implement them. The United Nations, which still runs the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), submitted several protests against Serbian international wanted notices for war crimes allegedly committed by Kosovars in Kosovo. The United Nations claims that under United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), which established UNMIK, Serbia’s jurisdiction over Kosovo is suspended.</p>
<p>The Kosovo government, which declared independence in 2008, claims to have sovereign jurisdiction over Kosovo and requested UNMIK on several occasions to protest against Serbia’s claim to exercise jurisdiction over Kosovo. Kosovo is not a member of INTERPOL and communicates with INTERPOL only through UNMIK, which has a formal arrangement in place which authorizes UNMIK as a point of contact for INTERPOL in respect of Kosovo.</p>
<p>Despite these protests, Serbia continues to assert jurisdiction over Kosovo by prosecuting war crimes committed in Kosovo as it rejects Kosovo’s independence and considers it to be part of the territory of Serbia.</p>
<p>So far, not a single high-ranking Kosovo politician has been extradited to Serbia for war crimes, and Serbia has certainly realized that it is unlikely that it will be able to get hold of former KLA commanders, now high-ranking Kosovo politicians, to try them before Serb courts. However, it is embarrassing for Kosovo politicians to be arrested for war crimes every time they travel abroad, and the possibility of arrest and eventual extradition to Serbia hangs like a Damocles sword over them. It is also the stigma of being internationally branded as a war criminal which makes such arrests a political issue.</p>
<p>INTERPOL has thus turned into an arena where Serbia and Kosovo exchange mutual accusations of unlawful exercise of territorial jurisdiction, and the prosecution of war crimes has turned into a political weapon.</p>
<p>This would not seem a big issue, as such incidents have happened already in the past without causing much political trouble, if the relations between Kosovo and Serbia had not further deteriorated in the past months.</p>
<p>Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008 was fraught with tensions as Serbia refuses to recognize Kosovo’s independence. The predominantly Serbian population of the four northern municipalities, including the northern part of the ethnically divided city of Mitrovica, refused to accept Kosovo rule and, with the support of Serbia, maintained parallel security and administrative structures. An attempt by the Kosovo government in 2011 to extend its authority into the northern part of Kosovo resulted in an armed confrontation between Kosovo Police and Serbian parallel security structures.</p>
<p>In order to gradually integrate the local Serbs into official Kosovo structures and to dismantle existing Serb parallel structures, the European Union (EU) initiated and facilitated a technical dialogue which resulted in 2013 in an agreement on principles on the normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia. Multiple subsequent agreements followed, such as on border management, telecommunication, recognition of diplomas, etc.</p>
<p>In spite of ongoing talks at technical level, both parties accuse each other of obstruction and failure to implement the agreements. Most of the agreements indeed lack implementation, which turns them effectively into dead letters. Kosovo considers that it is giving in too much, such as with the creation of an association of Serbian municipalities, which raises fears of developing into a structure like that of the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The Republika Srpksa is one of the two political entities that constitute BiH, and it openly advocates for secession from BiH and accession to Serbia. Its obstructive policies are perceived by Croats and Muslims, collectively the other entity that constitutes BiH, as the main source of BiH’s instability and dysfunctional government.</p>
<p>Kosovo’s dragging on with the creation of the association was used by the Kosovo Serb political faction in Parliament as a pretext to leave the government and to publicly demonstrate allegiance to the Belgrade government. A Serb minister, who was appointed by the Kosovo Prime Minister, was urged by Belgrade to resign, which shows the level of control that Belgrade exercises over Kosovo Serbs. It did not take long for Serbs to announce that they would unilaterally create the association in February 2017 if Kosovo continues to drag on.</p>
<p>Tensions started to increase when Serbs in Northern Mitrovica <a href="http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/kosovo-serbs-build-a-wall-in-northern-divided-city-12-08-2016" type="external">erected a wall</a> in December 2016. Although the wall is small and certainly not comparable to the Berlin wall, it is perceived by Kosovo Albanians as a symbol of ethnic division and partition. Threats to remove the wall followed suit and were met with Kosovo Serbs warning that any attempt in this direction would spark tensions.</p>
<p>An attempt by the Prime Minister of Kosovo to visit the northern municipalities in December 2016 was met with hostility by local Serbs who forced the Prime Minister to use the NATO force deployed in Kosovo to escort him to his destination. For Kosovo Albanians, this was an embarrassment and a sign of the weakness of the government to extent its sovereignty over the northern municipalities.</p>
<p>Haradinaj’s arrest in France has to be seen in this context. While he is seen by the Serbs as a war criminal, for Kosovo Albanians he is a war hero. He gained much sympathy, locally and internationally, when, as Prime Minister, he quit his post and voluntarily surrendered to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which eventually acquitted him. He has a strong political base in Western Kosovo and is one of the main opposition leaders which makes him a significant political factor which must be taken seriously. A possible extradition of Haradinaj to Serbia would very likely have implications for the security situation in Kosovo.</p>
<p>Immediately following Haradinaj’s arrest, Serbia’s President Nikolic declared that he would come to Kosovo on the occasion of the Orthodox Christmas celebration. This was seen by the Kosovo government as an outright provocation, and it declined permission for Nikolic to enter Kosovo.</p>
<p>The latest increase in tensions was on January 14, when a train left Belgrade for Kosovo. What should look normal and a sign of free movement, in the context of relations between Kosovo and Serbia, was almost a cause of war. The Russian-sponsored train displayed slogans like “Kosovo is Serbia” and was decorated with religious and Serb nationalist motives, a clear provocation for the Albanians. Kosovo special police forces were immediately dispatched to the north, and the Kosovo government ordered that the train be prevented from entering Kosovo.</p>
<p>And the train indeed returned without entering Kosovo, leaving Kosovo and Serb politicians to compete with each other as to who had actually ordered the return of the train. Serbian Prime Minister Aleksander Vucic’s public reaction was that Kosovo was <a href="http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serbian-pm-kosovo-tried-to-provoke-conflict--01-14-2017" type="external">provoking a conflict</a> of broad proportions and was preparing war games for some time. Serbia’s President Nikolic spoke publicly about sending the army to Kosovo and soon media were full of prognosis of a new conflict between Kosovo and Serbia.</p>
<p>Mutual accusations and provocations are now on the agenda and are likely to escalate in an atmosphere of growing mistrust and tensions between Kosovo and Serbia. The EU’s efforts to normalize relations through a technical dialogue have largely failed. The EU’s lukewarm reaction to the construction of the wall and the train incident do not contribute to an increase in the EU’s credibility and reliability as a facilitator of a dialogue which has lost meaning to Serbs and Albanians.</p>
<p>If escalation is to be prevented, the format of talks between Kosovo and Serbia must change. A technical dialogue, which tries to avoid sensitive political issues, including the core issue of Kosovo’s statehood, makes no further sense.</p>
<p>An attempt by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, to calm down tensions by <a href="http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/the-presidents-of-serbia-and-kosovo-to-meet-in-brussels-01-23-2017" type="external">hosting a high-level meeting</a> that included the Presidents and Prime Ministers of Serbia and Kosovo resulted in the usual diplomatic lip-service to continue dialogue. As soon as the Presidents were home, they resumed accusations against each other of inciting conflict.</p>
<p>If normalization between Kosovo and Serbia is to occur, the technical dialogue must be replaced by political negotiations which respect the political realities that have developed in Kosovo since 1999. Failure to elevate talks to this level as soon as possible will allow hard-liners on both sides to use war crimes prosecution, walls, and trains to escalate tensions.</p>
<p>In view of the <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/bosnia-herzegovina/2016-12-20/dysfunction-balkans" type="external">bleak prospects for stability</a> in the Western Balkans, it is important for the EU to show more leadership and determination. A success in Kosovo would be important for restoring confidence in the EU as an international political actor. The current path taken by the EU in Kosovo will certainly not lead to this.</p> | false | 1 | interpol turned arena serbia kosovo exchange mutual accusations prosecution war crimes turned political weapon early january 2017 ramush haradinaj former prime minister kosovo commander kosovo liberation army kla arrested french authorities arrest made based interpol notice requested serbia 2004 district court belgrade accuses haradinaj war crimes allegedly committed kosovo conflict 1999 first time highranking kosovo politician former kla member arrested basis international wanted notice issued serbia haradinaj already arrested 2015 slovenia authorities released immediately accorded diplomatic immunity former prime minister kla commander agim ceku well senior figures kla arrested several occasions released following haradinajs recent arrest serbias prime minister vucic immediately announced serbia would request extradition serbia haradinaj already tried international criminal tribunal former yugoslavia icty acquitted serbia claims new evidence war crimes allegedly committed haradinaj tried serbia french infuriated serbs french court released haradinaj bail pending final decision extradition european countries consider international wanted notices issued serbia former kla members war crimes committed kosovo politically motivated refuse implement united nations still runs united nations interim administration mission kosovo unmik submitted several protests serbian international wanted notices war crimes allegedly committed kosovars kosovo united nations claims united nations security council resolution 1244 1999 established unmik serbias jurisdiction kosovo suspended kosovo government declared independence 2008 claims sovereign jurisdiction kosovo requested unmik several occasions protest serbias claim exercise jurisdiction kosovo kosovo member interpol communicates interpol unmik formal arrangement place authorizes unmik point contact interpol respect kosovo despite protests serbia continues assert jurisdiction kosovo prosecuting war crimes committed kosovo rejects kosovos independence considers part territory serbia far single highranking kosovo politician extradited serbia war crimes serbia certainly realized unlikely able get hold former kla commanders highranking kosovo politicians try serb courts however embarrassing kosovo politicians arrested war crimes every time travel abroad possibility arrest eventual extradition serbia hangs like damocles sword also stigma internationally branded war criminal makes arrests political issue interpol thus turned arena serbia kosovo exchange mutual accusations unlawful exercise territorial jurisdiction prosecution war crimes turned political weapon would seem big issue incidents happened already past without causing much political trouble relations kosovo serbia deteriorated past months kosovos declaration independence 2008 fraught tensions serbia refuses recognize kosovos independence predominantly serbian population four northern municipalities including northern part ethnically divided city mitrovica refused accept kosovo rule support serbia maintained parallel security administrative structures attempt kosovo government 2011 extend authority northern part kosovo resulted armed confrontation kosovo police serbian parallel security structures order gradually integrate local serbs official kosovo structures dismantle existing serb parallel structures european union eu initiated facilitated technical dialogue resulted 2013 agreement principles normalization relations kosovo serbia multiple subsequent agreements followed border management telecommunication recognition diplomas etc spite ongoing talks technical level parties accuse obstruction failure implement agreements agreements indeed lack implementation turns effectively dead letters kosovo considers giving much creation association serbian municipalities raises fears developing structure like republika srpska bosnia herzegovina bih republika srpksa one two political entities constitute bih openly advocates secession bih accession serbia obstructive policies perceived croats muslims collectively entity constitutes bih main source bihs instability dysfunctional government kosovos dragging creation association used kosovo serb political faction parliament pretext leave government publicly demonstrate allegiance belgrade government serb minister appointed kosovo prime minister urged belgrade resign shows level control belgrade exercises kosovo serbs take long serbs announce would unilaterally create association february 2017 kosovo continues drag tensions started increase serbs northern mitrovica erected wall december 2016 although wall small certainly comparable berlin wall perceived kosovo albanians symbol ethnic division partition threats remove wall followed suit met kosovo serbs warning attempt direction would spark tensions attempt prime minister kosovo visit northern municipalities december 2016 met hostility local serbs forced prime minister use nato force deployed kosovo escort destination kosovo albanians embarrassment sign weakness government extent sovereignty northern municipalities haradinajs arrest france seen context seen serbs war criminal kosovo albanians war hero gained much sympathy locally internationally prime minister quit post voluntarily surrendered international criminal tribunal former yugoslavia icty eventually acquitted strong political base western kosovo one main opposition leaders makes significant political factor must taken seriously possible extradition haradinaj serbia would likely implications security situation kosovo immediately following haradinajs arrest serbias president nikolic declared would come kosovo occasion orthodox christmas celebration seen kosovo government outright provocation declined permission nikolic enter kosovo latest increase tensions january 14 train left belgrade kosovo look normal sign free movement context relations kosovo serbia almost cause war russiansponsored train displayed slogans like kosovo serbia decorated religious serb nationalist motives clear provocation albanians kosovo special police forces immediately dispatched north kosovo government ordered train prevented entering kosovo train indeed returned without entering kosovo leaving kosovo serb politicians compete actually ordered return train serbian prime minister aleksander vucics public reaction kosovo provoking conflict broad proportions preparing war games time serbias president nikolic spoke publicly sending army kosovo soon media full prognosis new conflict kosovo serbia mutual accusations provocations agenda likely escalate atmosphere growing mistrust tensions kosovo serbia eus efforts normalize relations technical dialogue largely failed eus lukewarm reaction construction wall train incident contribute increase eus credibility reliability facilitator dialogue lost meaning serbs albanians escalation prevented format talks kosovo serbia must change technical dialogue tries avoid sensitive political issues including core issue kosovos statehood makes sense attempt eu high representative foreign affairs security policy federica mogherini calm tensions hosting highlevel meeting included presidents prime ministers serbia kosovo resulted usual diplomatic lipservice continue dialogue soon presidents home resumed accusations inciting conflict normalization kosovo serbia occur technical dialogue must replaced political negotiations respect political realities developed kosovo since 1999 failure elevate talks level soon possible allow hardliners sides use war crimes prosecution walls trains escalate tensions view bleak prospects stability western balkans important eu show leadership determination success kosovo would important restoring confidence eu international political actor current path taken eu kosovo certainly lead | 957 |
<p>WASHINGTON — Minnesota Sen. Al Franken <a href="" type="internal">resigned Thursday</a> after Democratic colleagues called on him to step down over growing allegations of sexual harassment, shifting the spotlight to other politicians like Rep. Ruben Kihuen of Nevada who face similar accusations.</p>
<p>Franken, in a speech on the Senate floor, said “it’s become clear that I can’t both pursue the Ethics Committee process and at the same time remain an effective senator.”</p>
<p>A growing number of Democratic colleagues had called on Franken to step down as more women came forward with complaints of misconduct before he was elected to serve as a senator from Minnesota. Franken was a popular comic before his life in public service.</p>
<p>He is the latest in a growing list of politicians to face sexual misconduct and harassment accusations.</p>
<p>Hours after Franken made his announcement, Republican Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona said he is resigning Jan. 31 amid a House Ethics Committee investigation of possible sexual harassment.</p>
<p>Franks said he is resigning from the House because he discussed with two female staff aides whether they would consider being a surrogate mother.</p>
<p>Earlier this week, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the longest serving member of the House, announced his resignation but through a lawyer denied multiple allegations against him.</p>
<p>And last week, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, announced he would not seek re-election after a sexually illicit picture, taken during a consensual relationship, became public.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the House Ethics Committee said Thursday it is expanding its investigation into sexual harassment allegations against Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas.</p>
<p>The committee said it will investigate whether Farenthold sexually harassed a former member of his staff and retaliated against her for complaining. The committee also will review allegations that Farenthold made inappropriate statements to other members of his staff.</p>
<p>It was revealed last week that taxpayers footed the bill for an $87,000 settlement on behalf of Farenthold.</p>
<p>Kihuen allegations</p>
<p>It was also disclosed last week by BuzzFeed that Kihuen, a rising star in the Democratic Party, was <a href="" type="internal">accused of harassment</a>, making unwanted advances and touching a campaign finance aide in 2016. She said she quit the campaign because she felt uncomfortable.</p>
<p>Kihuen is not stepping down, despite <a href="" type="internal">calls to do so</a> by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.</p>
<p>The freshman Nevada lawmaker has charged that Pelosi and the DCCC knew about the allegations last year — a claim denied by a Pelosi spokesman and a DCCC spokeswoman.</p>
<p>“As soon as the DCCC chair was informed of these serious accusations through an extensive BuzzFeed investigation last week, (Lujan) called for Representative Kihuen to resign,” Meredith Kelly, DCCC communications director, said in a statement.</p>
<p>Although Kihuen said he plans to remain in office, he faces a groundswell of outrage and a growing number of prominent figures from politics, journalism and the arts forced to resign over allegations of sexual misconduct.</p>
<p>“Given the sexual harassment allegations that are rocking powerful men across several different vocations, and the Democratic Party’s particular sensitivity to such allegations, I think he will have a hard time being able to continue,” said Kyle Kondik, an expert on congressional races with the University of Virginia Center for Politics.</p>
<p>When the allegations against Kihuen were first made public, the congressman said he apologized if he made the aide feel uncomfortable, but he said he remembered the incidents differently.</p>
<p>Franken apologized for behavior alleged in early complaints, but in his speech he denied any wrongful conduct as a senator and said “some of the allegations against me are simply not true.” He said a Senate Ethics Committee investigation “would agree with me.”</p>
<p>Zero tolerance</p>
<p>In the House, Kihuen’s Democratic colleagues from Nevada, Reps. Dina Titus and Jacky Rosen, also have asked him to step down, citing a zero tolerance policy.</p>
<p>But members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have been divided over how to respond to the allegations against Kihuen. The caucus of 31 Democrats who advocate for Latino issues released a statement that called for an investigation of any claim of sexual misconduct.</p>
<p>“Every allegation of sexual harassment and misconduct is extremely disturbing and requires a thorough investigation,” the statement read.</p>
<p>It is unknown whether a complaint naming Kihuen has been made to the House Ethics Committee. A panel spokesman said “no comment” when asked. But a bipartisan decision by the committee to review a complaint could take 90 days.</p>
<p>Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., called for an ethics investigation into the allegations against Kihuen, as she did when accusations first surfaced against Franken.</p>
<p>A former U.S. prosecutor and Nevada attorney general, Cortez Masto also called for reform of the ethics investigation process to be more timely, transparent and provide protections to victims who come forward.</p>
<p>“I support a full, fair and expedient investigation against Congressman Kihuen and any other member of Congress who have women or men come forward with allegations of inappropriate behavior,” Cortez Masto said in a statement issued earlier.</p>
<p>Cortez Masto said Thursday she was extremely disappointed in Franken. “The experiences shared by the brave women who have come forward show a disturbing pattern of behavior.”</p>
<p>Franken, in his Senate speech, said that nothing he has done as a senator has “brought dishonor on this institution.”</p>
<p>And he used his resignation speech to point a finger at President Donald Trump, also accused of sexual misconduct before being elected, and Alabama Judge Roy Moore, accused of molesting teenage girls decades ago.</p>
<p>Moore has been endorsed by the president and backed by the Republican National Committee in his bid for the open Senate seat in Alabama.</p>
<p>“I, of all people, am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party,” Franken said.</p>
<p>White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, responding to Franken’s charge, said “the president addressed the comments back during the campaign. We feel strongly that the people of this country also addressed that when they elected Donald Trump to be president.”</p>
<p>Contact Gary Martin at <a href="" type="internal">[email protected]</a> or 202-662-7390. Follow <a href="https://twitter.com/garymartindc" type="external">@garymartindc</a> on Twitter. The Associated Press contributed to this report.</p>
<p>Cresent Hardy weighing options</p>
<p>Former Nevada Rep. Cresent Hardy said his phone has been “ringing off the hook” since the BuzzFeed story about Rep. Ruben Kihuen broke last week.</p>
<p>Hardy, who lost to Kihuen in 2016, had considered making another run at Congress in the more GOP-favorable 3rd Congressional District. Earlier this year, however, he decided against running for any office in 2018.</p>
<p>On Thursday, Hardy said he might rethink his options, but only if Kihuen were to resign.</p>
<p>“I made up my mind three or four months ago,” Hardy told the Review-Journal. “If he resigns, then I’ll consider reconsidering. But it doesn’t look like he’s going to resign.”</p>
<p>Hardy said he’s had people pushing him to run again. “But I would have to make sure I’m running for the right reasons,” he said.</p>
<p>Hardy’s friend and fellow Republican, Las Vegas City Councilman Stavros Anthony, is already an announced candidate for his old Congressional seat. Republican Jeff Miller also has said he’s running.</p>
<p>Staff Writer Colton Lochhead</p>
<p /> | false | 1 | washington minnesota sen al franken resigned thursday democratic colleagues called step growing allegations sexual harassment shifting spotlight politicians like rep ruben kihuen nevada face similar accusations franken speech senate floor said become clear cant pursue ethics committee process time remain effective senator growing number democratic colleagues called franken step women came forward complaints misconduct elected serve senator minnesota franken popular comic life public service latest growing list politicians face sexual misconduct harassment accusations hours franken made announcement republican rep trent franks arizona said resigning jan 31 amid house ethics committee investigation possible sexual harassment franks said resigning house discussed two female staff aides whether would consider surrogate mother earlier week rep john conyers dmich longest serving member house announced resignation lawyer denied multiple allegations last week rep joe barton rtexas announced would seek reelection sexually illicit picture taken consensual relationship became public meanwhile house ethics committee said thursday expanding investigation sexual harassment allegations republican rep blake farenthold texas committee said investigate whether farenthold sexually harassed former member staff retaliated complaining committee also review allegations farenthold made inappropriate statements members staff revealed last week taxpayers footed bill 87000 settlement behalf farenthold kihuen allegations also disclosed last week buzzfeed kihuen rising star democratic party accused harassment making unwanted advances touching campaign finance aide 2016 said quit campaign felt uncomfortable kihuen stepping despite calls house minority leader nancy pelosi dcalif rep ben ray lujan dnm chairman democratic congressional campaign committee freshman nevada lawmaker charged pelosi dccc knew allegations last year claim denied pelosi spokesman dccc spokeswoman soon dccc chair informed serious accusations extensive buzzfeed investigation last week lujan called representative kihuen resign meredith kelly dccc communications director said statement although kihuen said plans remain office faces groundswell outrage growing number prominent figures politics journalism arts forced resign allegations sexual misconduct given sexual harassment allegations rocking powerful men across several different vocations democratic partys particular sensitivity allegations think hard time able continue said kyle kondik expert congressional races university virginia center politics allegations kihuen first made public congressman said apologized made aide feel uncomfortable said remembered incidents differently franken apologized behavior alleged early complaints speech denied wrongful conduct senator said allegations simply true said senate ethics committee investigation would agree zero tolerance house kihuens democratic colleagues nevada reps dina titus jacky rosen also asked step citing zero tolerance policy members congressional hispanic caucus divided respond allegations kihuen caucus 31 democrats advocate latino issues released statement called investigation claim sexual misconduct every allegation sexual harassment misconduct extremely disturbing requires thorough investigation statement read unknown whether complaint naming kihuen made house ethics committee panel spokesman said comment asked bipartisan decision committee review complaint could take 90 days sen catherine cortez masto dnev called ethics investigation allegations kihuen accusations first surfaced franken former us prosecutor nevada attorney general cortez masto also called reform ethics investigation process timely transparent provide protections victims come forward support full fair expedient investigation congressman kihuen member congress women men come forward allegations inappropriate behavior cortez masto said statement issued earlier cortez masto said thursday extremely disappointed franken experiences shared brave women come forward show disturbing pattern behavior franken senate speech said nothing done senator brought dishonor institution used resignation speech point finger president donald trump also accused sexual misconduct elected alabama judge roy moore accused molesting teenage girls decades ago moore endorsed president backed republican national committee bid open senate seat alabama people aware irony fact leaving man bragged tape history sexual assault sits oval office man repeatedly preyed young girls campaigns senate full support party franken said white house spokeswoman sarah huckabee sanders responding frankens charge said president addressed comments back campaign feel strongly people country also addressed elected donald trump president contact gary martin gmartinreviewjournalcom 2026627390 follow garymartindc twitter associated press contributed report cresent hardy weighing options former nevada rep cresent hardy said phone ringing hook since buzzfeed story rep ruben kihuen broke last week hardy lost kihuen 2016 considered making another run congress gopfavorable 3rd congressional district earlier year however decided running office 2018 thursday hardy said might rethink options kihuen resign made mind three four months ago hardy told reviewjournal resigns ill consider reconsidering doesnt look like hes going resign hardy said hes people pushing run would make sure im running right reasons said hardys friend fellow republican las vegas city councilman stavros anthony already announced candidate old congressional seat republican jeff miller also said hes running staff writer colton lochhead | 733 |
<p />
<p>It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.</p>
<p>The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later <a href="http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d500" type="external">conveyed</a> to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.</p>
<p>In a meeting with Nasser, Johnson’s special envoy to the UAR, Robert B. Anderson, expressed U.S. puzzlement over why he had massed troops in the Sinai, to which Nasser replied, “Whether you believe it or not, we were in fear of an attack from Israel. We had been informed that the Israelis were massing troops on the Syrian border with the idea of first attacking Syria, there they did not expect to meet great resistance, and then commence their attack on the UAR.”</p>
<p>Anderson then told Nasser “that it was unfortunate the UAR had believed such reports, which were simply not in accordance with the facts”, to which Nasser responded that his information had come from reliable sources (presumably referring to intelligence information passed along by the USSR).</p>
<p>Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR.”</p>
<p>U.S. intelligence had indeed foreseen the coming war. “The CIA was right about the timing, duration, and outcome of the war”, notes David S. Robarge in an <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html" type="external">article</a> available on the CIA’s website.</p>
<p>On May 23, Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms presented Johnson with the CIA’s assessment that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts … or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth.”</p>
<p>In an document entitled “Military Capabilities of Israel and the Arab States”, the CIA assessed that “Israel could almost certainly attain air supremacy over the Sinai Peninsula in less than 24 hours after taking the initiative or in two or three days if the UAR struck first.”</p>
<p>Additionally, the CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive, stating that “Armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai in three to four days and drive the Egyptians west of the Suez Canal in seven to nine days. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period” (emphasis added).</p>
<p>Although the Arabs had numerical superiority in terms of military hardware, “Nonetheless, the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] maintain qualitative superiority over the Arab armed forces in almost all aspects of combat operations.”</p>
<p>Johnson himself told the Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them.”</p>
<p>Israel meanwhile claimed that it was “badly outgunned”, apparently presuming, Robarge writes, “that Washington accorded its analyses such special import that US leaders would listen to its judgments on Arab-Israeli issues over those of their own intelligence services.”</p>
<p>Yet “Helms had the Office of National Estimates (ONE) prepare an appraisal of the Mossad assessment”, which stated: “We do not believe” that the Israeli claim of being the underdog “was a serious estimate of the sort they would submit to their own high officials.”</p>
<p>Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack. On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Nasser might strike first as being extremely slim.</p>
<p>The current Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael B. Oren, acknowledged in his book “ <a href="https://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&amp;bc1=000000&amp;IS2=1&amp;bg1=FFFFFF&amp;fc1=000000&amp;lc1=0000FF&amp;t=forepolijour-20&amp;o=1&amp;p=8&amp;l=as1&amp;m=amazon&amp;f=ifr&amp;md=10FE9736YVPPT7A0FBG2&amp;asins=0345461924" type="external">Six Days of War</a>“, widely regarded as the definitive account of the war, that “By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”.</p>
<p>In the Israeli view, “Nasser would have to be deranged” to attack Israel first, and war “could only come about if Nasser felt he had complete military superiority over the IDF, if Israel were caught up in a domestic crisis, and, most crucially, was isolated internationally–a most unlikely confluence” (pp. 59-60).</p>
<p>Four days before Israel’s attack on Egypt, Helms met with a senior Israeli official who expressed Israel’s intent to go to war, and that the only reason it hadn’t already struck was because of efforts by the Johnson administration to restrain both sides to prevent a violent conflict.</p>
<p>“Helms interpreted the remarks as suggesting that Israel would attack very soon”, writes Robarge. He reported to Johnson “that Israel probably would start a war within a few days.”</p>
<p>“Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center”, which had received the report “that Israel had launched its attack” and that, contrary to Israel’s claims that Egypt had been the aggressor, Israel had fired first.</p>
<p>Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister, told&#160;Le Monde&#160;the year following the ’67 war, “I do not think Nasser wanted war.&#160;The two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”</p>
<p>Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a <a href="http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/55%20Address%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin%20at%20the%20National" type="external">speech</a> in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”</p>
<p>Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.</p>
<p>[Correction, August 26, 2014: as originally published, Yitzhak Rabin in this article was quoted as saying “The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war.” Rabin’s actual statement was: “The two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel.” The&#160;misquote has been corrected. This does not affect the substance of the article or the purpose for using the quote here. Rabin goes on in the interview to note that additional divisions were moved into the Sinai after closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Rabin’s explanation for this, however, is not that Nasser intended to attack Israel. On the contrary, he stated that, “judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli.” In other words, the reason additional forces were sent into the Sinai, in Rabin’s assessment, was because Nasser feared Israel might attack Egypt. A translation of the interview from the French&#160;original&#160;can be found&#160; <a href="https://ragout.blogspot.com/2004/08/i-do-not-think-nasser-wanted-war.html" type="external">here</a>.]</p> | false | 1 | often claimed israels attack egypt began june 1967 six day war preemptive one implicit description notion israel imminent threat attack egypt yet historical interpretation war sustained documentary record president egypt known united arab republic uar gamal abdel nasser later conveyed us president lyndon johnson troop buildup sinai peninsula prior war defend feared israeli attack meeting nasser johnsons special envoy uar robert b anderson expressed us puzzlement massed troops sinai nasser replied whether believe fear attack israel informed israelis massing troops syrian border idea first attacking syria expect meet great resistance commence attack uar anderson told nasser unfortunate uar believed reports simply accordance facts nasser responded information come reliable sources presumably referring intelligence information passed along ussr nasser added state department called ambassador us april may warned rumors might conflict israel uar us intelligence indeed foreseen coming war cia right timing duration outcome war notes david robarge article available cias website may 23 director central intelligence richard helms presented johnson cias assessment israel could defend successfully simultaneous arab attacks fronts hold three fronts mounting successfully major offensive fourth document entitled military capabilities israel arab states cia assessed israel could almost certainly attain air supremacy sinai peninsula less 24 hours taking initiative two three days uar struck first additionally cia assessed nassers military presence sinai defensive stating armored striking forces could breach uars double defense line sinai three four days drive egyptians west suez canal seven nine days israel could contain attacks syria jordan period emphasis added although arabs numerical superiority terms military hardware nonetheless idf israeli defense force maintain qualitative superiority arab armed forces almost aspects combat operations johnson told israeli foreign minister abba eban intelligence people unanimous uar attacks whip hell israel meanwhile claimed badly outgunned apparently presuming robarge writes washington accorded analyses special import us leaders would listen judgments arabisraeli issues intelligence services yet helms office national estimates one prepare appraisal mossad assessment stated believe israeli claim underdog serious estimate sort would submit high officials neither us israeli intelligence assessed kind serious threat egyptian attack contrary considered possibility nasser might strike first extremely slim current israeli ambassador us michael b oren acknowledged book six days war widely regarded definitive account war reports israel received americans according intelligence nasser interest bloodshed israeli view nasser would deranged attack israel first war could come nasser felt complete military superiority idf israel caught domestic crisis crucially isolated internationallya unlikely confluence pp 5960 four days israels attack egypt helms met senior israeli official expressed israels intent go war reason hadnt already struck efforts johnson administration restrain sides prevent violent conflict helms interpreted remarks suggesting israel would attack soon writes robarge reported johnson israel probably would start war within days helms awakened 300 morning 5 june call cia operations center received report israel launched attack contrary israels claims egypt aggressor israel fired first yitzhak rabin would later become prime minister told160le monde160the year following 67 war think nasser wanted war160the two divisions sent sinai may 14 would sufficient start offensive israel knew knew israeli prime minister menachem begin acknowledged speech 1982 war egypt 1956 war choice june 1967 choice egyptian army concentrations sinai approaches prove nasser really attack us must honest decided attack despite total lack sustainability documentary record despite admissions top israeli officials virtually obligatory commentators contemporary mainstream accounts 67 war describe israels attack egypt preemptive correction august 26 2014 originally published yitzhak rabin article quoted saying two divisions sent sinai would sufficient launch offensive war rabins actual statement two divisions sent sinai may 14 would sufficient start offensive israel the160misquote corrected affect substance article purpose using quote rabin goes interview note additional divisions moved sinai closing straits tiran israeli shipping rabins explanation however nasser intended attack israel contrary stated judging seven divisions sent sinai closure aqaba knew would consider gesture casus belli words reason additional forces sent sinai rabins assessment nasser feared israel might attack egypt translation interview french160original160can found160 | 647 |
<p>Never mind fifty shades of movie promotion for a moment. Now that the children have left the room, let’s take a look at something else going on out there, in the name of liberation and womankind, that requires explanation.</p>
<p>Slut-shaming, slut-bashing, slut culture, slut walks, slut pride, Slut: The Play, the StopSlut Movement, Sluts Across America, the UnSlut Project; “Slut Like You,” the song; books titled “Sluts,” “Slut!” “A History of Sluts,” “The Ethical Slut,” and “I Am Not a Slut” — the epithet hardly lacks publicity these days. What’s happening to make this one the new four-letter “it” word?</p>
<p>From the point of view of the feminists responsible, the public proliferation of “slut” is a good thing — an attempt to “take back” a pejorative used for centuries to denigrate and deride. Repurposing the word, it’s argued, will protect women from the damage done by “slut-shaming,” or criticizing women for their sexual conduct. By “women,” of course, is meant sexually active women of a certain type, the kind who in a different age were known as, well . . . you know.</p>
<p>Of course this approach takes for granted the sexual revolution’s first commandment, which is that any such act ever committed by any woman is by definition beyond reproach. That said, one can otherwise sympathize with the feminists’ intent here. Spurred in part by heartbreaking cases of teenage girls who suffered catcalling on social media and committed suicide, the sisters mean good. Trouble is, their initiative suffers mortally from the “Don’t think of an elephant” paradox. The more the word “slut” gets hurled around, the harder it is not to think about its meaning, and the more likely it is to stick somewhere unwanted.</p>
<p>Take, for instance, a recent Daily Beast article that managed not one but two uses of the word in its title alone (“‘Slut’ Author’s War on Slut Shaming”). The piece showcased author Leora Tanenbaum, a writer who has used the word “slut” in the titles of her books (Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation and I Am Not a Slut: Slut-Shaming in the Age of the Internet). She now campaigns to ban the word from the lexicon.</p>
<p>Again, is anyone seeing elephants?</p>
<p>In similar quixotic fashion, the New York Times also weighed in the other week on the question of what to do about the s-word — all the while deploying it not only in the title of the piece (“Should ‘Slut’ Be Retired?”) but also a whopping 34 times in the text. Tanenbaum also tells the paper of record, apparently with no humor intended, “I think it is too risky right now to use that word” — when, between them, feminists and feminist-friendly media are doing more to keep “that word” in circulation than all the fraternity houses and biker bars in America combined.</p>
<p>Even so, something deeper is at work here than ideological tussling over a word that no halfway-civilized person would use anyway. The promiscuous slinging of “slut” is only the beginning of the obscenity- and profanity-saturated woman-talk these days, from otherwise obscurantist academic feminism on down to popular magazines and blogs.</p>
<p>The b-word, for example, has also enjoyed a renascence, as Bitch magazine and Bitch Media and the books Bitch, Bitchfest, The Bitch in the House, and Bitches, Bimbos, and Ballbreakers go to show. Well-off and well-educated women, particularly those of progressive mien, have been aping the vernacular of sailors in port for quite a while now, as Ariel Levy mapped nine years ago in Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. In a turn that hasn’t gotten nearly the attention it demands, the language of contemporary woman has become a cacophony of rage punctuated by curses — especially when progressive-minded women are talking among and about themselves.</p>
<p>The interesting question is why. A cynic might say it’s just smart branding. After all, sex sells; women talking about sex sells; and even women talking about women talking about sex sells, too. Everyone knows that slapping a salacious word into a title will pull more eyeballs to the screen or page. Maybe it’s time the objects of exploitation got some of their own back. Why shouldn’t enterprising modern women perform some commercial jujitsu exploitation, via the promiscuous use of “slut” and other rough talk, to sell their stuff? A play called “The Private-Parts Monologues” would have folded on opening night.</p>
<p>Yet listening in on some of the conversation today suggests an explanation other than simple venality. Something else is up out there making female trash talk all the rage — something unexpected, poignant, and, at the same time, awful to behold. It’s the language of bondage and captivity, told by prisoners of the sexual revolution.</p>
<p>Understanding as much means first having to listen to some of it, which isn’t easy. First, there’s the problem of jargon. The Kirkus review of I Am Not a Slut, for instance, clarifies that “the term ‘slut’ has ‘metastasized’ outward throughout our culture, with girls often reclaiming the term to defuse it in mutual conversation” and praises the author for “optimistically promoting the incremental elimination of societal slut-shaming with education and the self-actualization of young women.” Where’s Google Translate for academic feminism?</p>
<p>Second, when today’s woman-talk is understandable, its tone is hard to take for a different reason: It is remarkably aggressive and angry. Fifty years ago, Susan Sontag wrote of what she called “camp sensibility”; this label quickly caught on, and signaled an ethos Sontag defined by artifice, stylization, “neutrality concerning content,” and overall “apoliticism.” Today’s feminism exhibits instead what might be called jailhouse sensibility — a purposefully tough, at times thuggish filtering of reality that is deliberately stripped of decoration or nicety; snarling, at times animalistic; instantaneous in taking offense; in all, a pose toward life more common in a prison yard than among relatively well-off beneficiaries of higher education.</p>
<p>Promiscuity is practically sacramental in this place. It’s all hook-up, all the time, as popular music by self-described “feminist” artists proves handily. In the aforementioned song “Slut Like You,” a quintessential anthem of the day, self-described feminist singer Pink mocks the idea of falling in love, adding, “I just wanna get some” and “Wham bam thank you ma’am / Boo-hoo / I’m a slut like you.” A 2010 video by singer Ciara, co-starring a mechanical bull, was so untoward that Black Entertainment Television declined to air it. Rihanna, who also professes to be a feminist standard-bearer, can make Miley Cyrus’s performance at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards look like Julie Andrews twirling in the Alps.</p>
<p>And on it goes. Many of today’s so-called feminist singers can’t warble without throwing in a pole dance or an homage to leather. Avril Lavigne, in addition to providing some of the soundtrack of Fifty Shades, has made a sexualized song and video about little-girl icon Hello Kitty. Kesha, Britney Spears, the defunct Pussycat Dolls, not to mention the queen cougar of them all, Madonna: The trick isn’t finding a female vocal artist whose work is enthusiastically pornographic; it’s locating any whose isn’t.</p>
<p>Jailhouse feminism’s unique level of anger is not exactly lost on feminists themselves. “Why Are Feminists So Angry?” asks Jessica Valenti in a recent piece in The Nation; her answer is that they are tired of fighting for the same things their mothers did. Feminist backlash ensues against any attempt, even the most anodyne, at rollback of the revolution. When the watchdog group Parents Television Council protested raunch at the 2013 VMAs, for example — which to many people might seem like shooting fish in a bucket — it was dutifully attacked by the blogger Amanda Marcotte as a “retro” and “reactionary” organization whose entire existence “is predicated on using children as a cover story for what they really want, which is an entertainment industry that treats grown adults like we are children.”</p>
<p>Some might say it was ever thus — that feminism has always been angry. But there’s a difference between the peevishness behind, say, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” and the potty-mouthed bile-o-rama now evident everywhere. Valenti’s piece, for example, is tellingly accompanied by a picture of an irate woman holding a poster that reads, “I cannot believe I still have to protest this sh**.” Measuring just by the yardstick of profanity, today’s is not your mom’s feminism after all.</p>
<p>Obscenity isn’t just a pressure valve. It’s a form of anger and aggression unto itself, typically spewed by people who feel threatened and want to act tough. Or, as Miley Cyrus, former Disney child star turned liberationist poster person, explained to V Magazine about her art: “Everything just kept sh**ting on me and sh**ting on me. So then I started taking all of those sh** things and making them good, and being like, I’m using it. . . . So, that’s how I started making art. I had a bunch of f***ing junk and sh**, and so instead of letting it be junk and sh**, I turned it into something that made me happy.”</p>
<p>And today’s feminist rage is often directed not at men but at women. Bell Hooks slams singer Beyoncé as a “terrorist” for “her impact on young girls.” Writing in The New Inquiry, Anna Breslaw takes down lefty Tina Fey, whose “‘nerdy’ on-screen persona and adamant faux feminism masks a Thatcherite morality and tendency to slut-shame.” Feminist blogs and magazines read similarly, like entries in Mean Girls Gone Wild. The New York Times even produces a dominatrix to report that “it pains and frustrates me to see this kind of judging and conflict within feminist communities.”</p>
<p>It is well known that animals, when they are under terrible pressure at close quarters, turn on one another. Prisoners, for related reasons, do the same. The frenzy among many supposedly enlightened women these days is likewise pitiable and hard to watch. And what everyone outside their frantic conversation needs to understand is that feminism is in fact getting a big thing right here: Today’s women should feel cornered.</p>
<p>Violence and implied violence are all over the popular culture — as exhibited by Fifty Shades, by Miley Cyrus’s new video “exploring” sadomasochism, and by plenty of other music videos that do the same, including those of many of the industry’s top names. Their commercial success implies a truly frightening appetite out there, sated only by watching women get hurt — and the stories that percolate from time to time about domestic violence in the entertainment industry suggest that not all bad apples fall far from artistic trees.</p>
<p>There’s also the trash-talking and purported tell-all adventuring that has become a genre unto itself — Lena Dunham’s Not That Kind of Girl: A Young Woman Tells You What She’s “Learned,” Michelle Tea’s The Passionate Mistakes and Intricate Corruption of One Girl in America, and related graphic autobiographical works grimly praised for their brutal honesty, i.e., their willingness to spare no one, including family members and former romantic partners. Fans of these kinds of confessionals are legion enough to suggest that the appetite for watching women debase themselves and one another may be insatiable, too.</p>
<p>All of which leads, finally, to a sad and monumental fact. Beneath the swagger and snarl of jailhouse feminism is something pathetic: a search for attention (including, obviously, male attention) on any terms at all.</p>
<p>If that means being trussed up like a turkey, so be it. If loping about on TV in your birthday suit does the trick, so be that, too. And if getting smacked around from time to time is part of the package — if violence is what it takes to keep an interested fellow in the room — that is a price that some desperate women today will pay.</p>
<p>Feminism has become something very different from what it understands itself to be, and indeed from what its adversaries understand it to be. It is not a juggernaut of defiant liberationists successfully playing offense. It is instead a terribly deformed but profoundly felt protective reaction to the sexual revolution itself. In a world where fewer women can rely on men, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity.</p>
<p>After all, the revolution reduced the number of men who could be counted on to serve as protectors from time to time, and in several ways. Broken homes put father figures at arm’s length, at times severing that parental bond for good. The ethos of recreational sex blurred the line between protector and predator, making it harder for many women to tell the difference. Meanwhile, the decline of the family has reduced the number of potentially protective men — fewer brothers, cousins, uncles, and others who could once have been counted on to push back against other men treating mothers or sisters or daughters badly. In some worse-off neighborhoods, the number of available men has been further reduced by dramatic rates of incarceration. And simultaneously, the overabundance of available sexual partners has made it harder to hold the attention of any one of them — as has the diminished social and moral cachet of what was once the ultimate male attention-getter, marriage.</p>
<p>The result is that many, many women have been left vulnerable and frustrated. That’s why a furious, swaggering, foul-mouthed ideology continues to exert its pull. Jailhouse feminism promises women protection. It promises to constrain men in a world that no longer constrains them in traditional ways — for example, via marriage or larger related moral codes. Into this vacuum, feminism speaks a message of ostensible hope: We will rein men in by other means.</p>
<p>This is the deeper meaning of draconian speech codes on campuses and elsewhere: They promise to limit what men can do and say, in a world in which the old limits on male behavior no longer apply. Women, for all their empowerment, are now more vulnerable than ever before, thanks to the changes wrought by the very revolution that feminism embraces: This is the unspoken, unacknowledged truth beneath today’s furious and ultimately tragic conversation.</p>
<p>It’s a predator’s market out there. The fact that there’s no cottage industry related to “stud-shaming,” or even such a word, says it all. Many women are now exactly what feminists say they are: victims — only not in the way that feminism understands. They are captives behind enemy lines, but the enemy is not patriarchy or gender-norming. It’s the sexual revolution itself. And like other people held hostage for too long by a hostile force, these women are suffering from a problem that has had a name for some time. It’s Stockholm syndrome.</p>
<p>– Mary Eberstadt is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and the author, most recently, of How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization. This article appears in the March 9, 2015, issue of NR.</p>
<p /> | false | 1 | never mind fifty shades movie promotion moment children left room lets take look something else going name liberation womankind requires explanation slutshaming slutbashing slut culture slut walks slut pride slut play stopslut movement sluts across america unslut project slut like song books titled sluts slut history sluts ethical slut slut epithet hardly lacks publicity days whats happening make one new fourletter word point view feminists responsible public proliferation slut good thing attempt take back pejorative used centuries denigrate deride repurposing word argued protect women damage done slutshaming criticizing women sexual conduct women course meant sexually active women certain type kind different age known well know course approach takes granted sexual revolutions first commandment act ever committed woman definition beyond reproach said one otherwise sympathize feminists intent spurred part heartbreaking cases teenage girls suffered catcalling social media committed suicide sisters mean good trouble initiative suffers mortally dont think elephant paradox word slut gets hurled around harder think meaning likely stick somewhere unwanted take instance recent daily beast article managed one two uses word title alone slut authors war slut shaming piece showcased author leora tanenbaum writer used word slut titles books slut growing female bad reputation slut slutshaming age internet campaigns ban word lexicon anyone seeing elephants similar quixotic fashion new york times also weighed week question sword deploying title piece slut retired also whopping 34 times text tanenbaum also tells paper record apparently humor intended think risky right use word feminists feministfriendly media keep word circulation fraternity houses biker bars america combined even something deeper work ideological tussling word halfwaycivilized person would use anyway promiscuous slinging slut beginning obscenity profanitysaturated womantalk days otherwise obscurantist academic feminism popular magazines blogs bword example also enjoyed renascence bitch magazine bitch media books bitch bitchfest bitch house bitches bimbos ballbreakers go show welloff welleducated women particularly progressive mien aping vernacular sailors port quite ariel levy mapped nine years ago female chauvinist pigs women rise raunch culture turn hasnt gotten nearly attention demands language contemporary woman become cacophony rage punctuated curses especially progressiveminded women talking among interesting question cynic might say smart branding sex sells women talking sex sells even women talking women talking sex sells everyone knows slapping salacious word title pull eyeballs screen page maybe time objects exploitation got back shouldnt enterprising modern women perform commercial jujitsu exploitation via promiscuous use slut rough talk sell stuff play called privateparts monologues would folded opening night yet listening conversation today suggests explanation simple venality something else making female trash talk rage something unexpected poignant time awful behold language bondage captivity told prisoners sexual revolution understanding much means first listen isnt easy first theres problem jargon kirkus review slut instance clarifies term slut metastasized outward throughout culture girls often reclaiming term defuse mutual conversation praises author optimistically promoting incremental elimination societal slutshaming education selfactualization young women wheres google translate academic feminism second todays womantalk understandable tone hard take different reason remarkably aggressive angry fifty years ago susan sontag wrote called camp sensibility label quickly caught signaled ethos sontag defined artifice stylization neutrality concerning content overall apoliticism todays feminism exhibits instead might called jailhouse sensibility purposefully tough times thuggish filtering reality deliberately stripped decoration nicety snarling times animalistic instantaneous taking offense pose toward life common prison yard among relatively welloff beneficiaries higher education promiscuity practically sacramental place hookup time popular music selfdescribed feminist artists proves handily aforementioned song slut like quintessential anthem day selfdescribed feminist singer pink mocks idea falling love adding wan na get wham bam thank maam boohoo im slut like 2010 video singer ciara costarring mechanical bull untoward black entertainment television declined air rihanna also professes feminist standardbearer make miley cyruss performance 2013 mtv video music awards look like julie andrews twirling alps goes many todays socalled feminist singers cant warble without throwing pole dance homage leather avril lavigne addition providing soundtrack fifty shades made sexualized song video littlegirl icon hello kitty kesha britney spears defunct pussycat dolls mention queen cougar madonna trick isnt finding female vocal artist whose work enthusiastically pornographic locating whose isnt jailhouse feminisms unique level anger exactly lost feminists feminists angry asks jessica valenti recent piece nation answer tired fighting things mothers feminist backlash ensues attempt even anodyne rollback revolution watchdog group parents television council protested raunch 2013 vmas example many people might seem like shooting fish bucket dutifully attacked blogger amanda marcotte retro reactionary organization whose entire existence predicated using children cover story really want entertainment industry treats grown adults like children might say ever thus feminism always angry theres difference peevishness behind say woman needs man like fish needs bicycle pottymouthed bileorama evident everywhere valentis piece example tellingly accompanied picture irate woman holding poster reads believe still protest sh measuring yardstick profanity todays moms feminism obscenity isnt pressure valve form anger aggression unto typically spewed people feel threatened want act tough miley cyrus former disney child star turned liberationist poster person explained v magazine art everything kept shting shting started taking sh things making good like im using thats started making art bunch fing junk sh instead letting junk sh turned something made happy todays feminist rage often directed men women bell hooks slams singer beyoncé terrorist impact young girls writing new inquiry anna breslaw takes lefty tina fey whose nerdy onscreen persona adamant faux feminism masks thatcherite morality tendency slutshame feminist blogs magazines read similarly like entries mean girls gone wild new york times even produces dominatrix report pains frustrates see kind judging conflict within feminist communities well known animals terrible pressure close quarters turn one another prisoners related reasons frenzy among many supposedly enlightened women days likewise pitiable hard watch everyone outside frantic conversation needs understand feminism fact getting big thing right todays women feel cornered violence implied violence popular culture exhibited fifty shades miley cyruss new video exploring sadomasochism plenty music videos including many industrys top names commercial success implies truly frightening appetite sated watching women get hurt stories percolate time time domestic violence entertainment industry suggest bad apples fall far artistic trees theres also trashtalking purported tellall adventuring become genre unto lena dunhams kind girl young woman tells shes learned michelle teas passionate mistakes intricate corruption one girl america related graphic autobiographical works grimly praised brutal honesty ie willingness spare one including family members former romantic partners fans kinds confessionals legion enough suggest appetite watching women debase one another may insatiable leads finally sad monumental fact beneath swagger snarl jailhouse feminism something pathetic search attention including obviously male attention terms means trussed like turkey loping tv birthday suit trick getting smacked around time time part package violence takes keep interested fellow room price desperate women today pay feminism become something different understands indeed adversaries understand juggernaut defiant liberationists successfully playing offense instead terribly deformed profoundly felt protective reaction sexual revolution world fewer women rely men take protective coloration exaggerated male characteristics blustering cursing belligerence defiance also needed promiscuity revolution reduced number men could counted serve protectors time time several ways broken homes put father figures arms length times severing parental bond good ethos recreational sex blurred line protector predator making harder many women tell difference meanwhile decline family reduced number potentially protective men fewer brothers cousins uncles others could counted push back men treating mothers sisters daughters badly worseoff neighborhoods number available men reduced dramatic rates incarceration simultaneously overabundance available sexual partners made harder hold attention one diminished social moral cachet ultimate male attentiongetter marriage result many many women left vulnerable frustrated thats furious swaggering foulmouthed ideology continues exert pull jailhouse feminism promises women protection promises constrain men world longer constrains traditional ways example via marriage larger related moral codes vacuum feminism speaks message ostensible hope rein men means deeper meaning draconian speech codes campuses elsewhere promise limit men say world old limits male behavior longer apply women empowerment vulnerable ever thanks changes wrought revolution feminism embraces unspoken unacknowledged truth beneath todays furious ultimately tragic conversation predators market fact theres cottage industry related studshaming even word says many women exactly feminists say victims way feminism understands captives behind enemy lines enemy patriarchy gendernorming sexual revolution like people held hostage long hostile force women suffering problem name time stockholm syndrome mary eberstadt senior fellow ethics public policy center washington dc author recently west really lost god new theory secularization article appears march 9 2015 issue nr | 1,381 |
<p>Getting into the weeds of full-blown “Oscar predictions” four months before the nominations are announced increasingly feels like a waste of time. The Academy demographic is changing rapidly and finding the pulse with any real authority is, more and more, a fool’s errand. But with the early festivals behind us and a handful more on the horizon, most of this year’s crop has already been seen. The best picture race has taken shape and <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/in-contention/are-you-ready-for-the-most-exciting-oscar-race-in-years-1202560228/" type="external">it promises to be an exciting one</a>, with no frontrunner in sight. Here are, at least in one observer’s estimation, the 10 strongest contenders for recognition in this year’s contest.</p>
<p>“Call Me By Your Name” (Luca Guadagnino; Sony Pictures Classics)PROS: It’s an important film and a landmark in queer cinema. As the Academy’s collective taste leans more international (and cinephile), movies like this will only benefit.CONS: Thrifty Sony Classics always has an Oscar presence, but the distributor’s best picture tally is fewer than you might think (seven nominees in two decades). Are the resources going to be there for a challenging push?</p>
<p>“Darkest Hour” (Joe Wright; Focus)PROS: Having the likely best actor winner chewing scenery front and center is helpful. And though a chamber piece driven by dialogue isn’t necessarily “traditional,” it might be the closest thing to it on offer this year.CONS: Then again, Academy tastes are shifting away from “traditional.” Will rolling out the carpet for Gary Oldman all season suffice?</p>
<p>“Dunkirk” (Christopher Nolan; Warner Bros.)PROS: It’s likely to be the box office success of the group, unless “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” manages to be a player. The “it’s time” Christopher Nolan narrative also writes itself.CONS: The film could be too fussy for some voters. And even though Mark Rylance is right there doing God’s work, there are complaints that no one on the cast pops enough to engage the emotions.</p>
<p>“The Florida Project” (Sean Baker; A24)PROS: It’s a scrappy contender right in A24’s wheelhouse coming off a banner year for the distributor, and those can make for darling campaigns. It’s also, ultimately, one of the most emotional films in the lineup.CONS: It’s probably the “smallest” film in the lineup, too. And outside of Willem Dafoe the cast is filled with unknowns. A24 also had a plateful of contenders, none of which would be a sure-thing even with all of the distributor’s focus.</p>
<p>“Lady Bird” (Greta Gerwig; A24)PROS: Of this year’s female-directed players, it’s probably the strongest. Crowdpleasers are a major commodity in the race and this one also finds its way to the heartstrings. Having producer Scott Rudin advocating behind the scenes is helpful, too.CONS: It doesn’t soar for everyone. Some feel like it’s too familiar, a story they’ve seen before, etc. There won’t be much below-the-line support, either.</p>
<p>“Last Flag Flying” (Richard Linklater; Amazon/Lionsgate)PROS: On the heels of Trump laying out his Afghanistan “strategy,” and with the threat of war looming every day, the human toll represented here is sure to resonate. Also, an Oscar season comeback for Linklater seems inevitable; the goodwill is there.CONS: It’s a talky drama that almost feels like a play. So, like “Lady Bird,” below-the-line support might be difficult to come by.</p>
<p>“Mudbound” (Dee Rees; Netflix)PROS: Another one for traditionalists, it tells an unfussy, emotional story with handsome production values and an impressive ensemble performance. There’s an epic scope to it that makes it feel like a fuller experience than much of the year’s slate.CONS: Netflix itself is the question mark: “Beasts of No Nation” seemed to suffer from the identity crisis of film vs. TV. Cannes put its foot down. Industry revolt could be simmering.</p>
<p>“The Post” (Steven Spielberg; Fox)PROS: The only film on the list that hasn’t screened, it could capture the zeitgeist. Themes of press freedom protections and a woman taking charge in a male-dominated industry give it a whiff of “importance.” Oh, and let’s not forget: Spielberg! Hanks! Streep! The cast is stacked.CONS: It may suffer somewhat in the shadow of “Spotlight.” Also, Oscar history is littered with on-paper sure-things that flamed out.</p>
<p>“The Shape of Water” (Guillermo del Toro; Fox Searchlight)PROS: Those who are passionate are really passionate. It’s the auteur-driven Hollywood film, with a robust crafts element and possibly the year’s frontrunning lead actress contender (Sally Hawkins).CONS: There’s some serious tonal whiplash on display. Del Toro’s more overt genre tendencies could make it difficult for some to love it.</p>
<p>“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” (Martin McDonagh; Fox Searchlight)PROS: The <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/news/toronto-film-festival-audience-award-three-billboards-1202561527/" type="external">People’s Choice victory in Toronto</a> proves it plays widely. Themes of forgiveness will resonate and — not just speaking personally, but anecdotally — it’s one of the most satisfying contenders of the year.CONS: Dark comedy isn’t easy in an Oscar race. And Fox Searchlight has a lot to handle.</p>
<p>Other possibilities: “All the Money in the World” (Ridley Scott; Sony); “Battle of the Sexes” (Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris; Fox Searchlight); “The Big Sick” (Michael Showalter; Amazon/Lionsgate); “Detroit” (Kathryn Bigelow; Annapurna); “The Disaster Artist” (James Franco; A24); “Get Out” (Jordan Peele; Universal); “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” (Rian Johnson; Disney); “Untitled Paul Thomas Anderson Film” (Paul Thomas Anderson; Focus)</p> | false | 1 | getting weeds fullblown oscar predictions four months nominations announced increasingly feels like waste time academy demographic changing rapidly finding pulse real authority fools errand early festivals behind us handful horizon years crop already seen best picture race taken shape promises exciting one frontrunner sight least one observers estimation 10 strongest contenders recognition years contest call name luca guadagnino sony pictures classicspros important film landmark queer cinema academys collective taste leans international cinephile movies like benefitcons thrifty sony classics always oscar presence distributors best picture tally fewer might think seven nominees two decades resources going challenging push darkest hour joe wright focuspros likely best actor winner chewing scenery front center helpful though chamber piece driven dialogue isnt necessarily traditional might closest thing offer yearcons academy tastes shifting away traditional rolling carpet gary oldman season suffice dunkirk christopher nolan warner brospros likely box office success group unless star wars last jedi manages player time christopher nolan narrative also writes itselfcons film could fussy voters even though mark rylance right gods work complaints one cast pops enough engage emotions florida project sean baker a24pros scrappy contender right a24s wheelhouse coming banner year distributor make darling campaigns also ultimately one emotional films lineupcons probably smallest film lineup outside willem dafoe cast filled unknowns a24 also plateful contenders none would surething even distributors focus lady bird greta gerwig a24pros years femaledirected players probably strongest crowdpleasers major commodity race one also finds way heartstrings producer scott rudin advocating behind scenes helpful toocons doesnt soar everyone feel like familiar story theyve seen etc wont much belowtheline support either last flag flying richard linklater amazonlionsgatepros heels trump laying afghanistan strategy threat war looming every day human toll represented sure resonate also oscar season comeback linklater seems inevitable goodwill therecons talky drama almost feels like play like lady bird belowtheline support might difficult come mudbound dee rees netflixpros another one traditionalists tells unfussy emotional story handsome production values impressive ensemble performance theres epic scope makes feel like fuller experience much years slatecons netflix question mark beasts nation seemed suffer identity crisis film vs tv cannes put foot industry revolt could simmering post steven spielberg foxpros film list hasnt screened could capture zeitgeist themes press freedom protections woman taking charge maledominated industry give whiff importance oh lets forget spielberg hanks streep cast stackedcons may suffer somewhat shadow spotlight also oscar history littered onpaper surethings flamed shape water guillermo del toro fox searchlightpros passionate really passionate auteurdriven hollywood film robust crafts element possibly years frontrunning lead actress contender sally hawkinscons theres serious tonal whiplash display del toros overt genre tendencies could make difficult love three billboards outside ebbing missouri martin mcdonagh fox searchlightpros peoples choice victory toronto proves plays widely themes forgiveness resonate speaking personally anecdotally one satisfying contenders yearcons dark comedy isnt easy oscar race fox searchlight lot handle possibilities money world ridley scott sony battle sexes jonathan dayton valerie faris fox searchlight big sick michael showalter amazonlionsgate detroit kathryn bigelow annapurna disaster artist james franco a24 get jordan peele universal star wars last jedi rian johnson disney untitled paul thomas anderson film paul thomas anderson focus | 517 |
<p>It's all coming together now.</p>
<p>On Wednesday, we learned, <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15213784" type="external">in the words of The Denver Post</a>, that:</p>
<p>U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff acknowledged tonight that he discussed three possible jobs with the deputy chief of staff of the Obama administration — all contingent upon a decision by Romanoff not to challenge U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet.</p>
<p>Romanoff said none of the jobs was formally offered, but said the only reason they were discussed with Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina was if Romanoff stayed out of the Senate race.</p>
<p>“Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race,” Romanoff wrote in a statement. “He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina's assistance in obtaining one.”</p>
<p>Romanoff released <a href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_messina.html" type="external">an e-mail from Messina</a> outlining two positions at the United States Agency for International Development and a third as director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency that could be available to him if he weren't running for Senate.</p>
<p>This confirmation by Romanoff comes in the context of a similar White House effort to get Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) to agree not to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, which Sestak won.</p>
<p>During the last week the White House released its version of events: Rep. Sestak, a retired three-star admiral, was offered, through former President Bill Clinton, an uncompensated advisory board post in order for Sestak to agree not to challenge Sen. Specter. We are supposed to accept this account despite the fact that Sestak, in a February interview, said he was offered a high-ranking federal job in order to get out of the race.</p>
<p>For months, it should be pointed out, the White House stonewalled on <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Robert-Gibbs-and-the-Sestak-Stonewall-87567892.html" type="external">this matter</a>. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Senior Adviser David Axelrod, when asked about the Sestak matter, have looked foolish and as if they had <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/25/axelrod-no-evidence-that-sestak-is-telling-the-truth/" type="external">a great deal to hide</a>.</p>
<p>Then, last Friday, White House counsel Bob Bauer, a former lawyer for Rahm Emanuel, released a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-white-house-counsel-regarding-review-discussions-relating-congressman-se" type="external">memorandum</a> that was supposed to exonerate the White House from any wrongdoing. In fact, by suggesting that the only quid pro quo Sestak received was an unpaid post on an unimportant advisory board raised many more questions than it answered. For example, Sestak says he received just one brief call from former President Clinton, yet the Bauer memo states, “Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board.” Which efforts? By whom? Obviously there is more to the Sestak story than what the White House is letting on.</p>
<p>Now comes the Romanoff revelation, adding more data points to a Denver Post story written last September. The <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13429758" type="external">story</a> reported this:</p>
<p>Not long after news leaked last month that Andrew Romanoff was determined to make a Democratic primary run against Sen. Michael Bennet, Romanoff received an unexpected communication from one of the most powerful men in Washington.</p>
<p>Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.</p>
<p>Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said.</p>
<p>Then, the day after Romanoff formally announced his Senate bid, Obama endorsed Bennet.</p>
<p>The Denver Post story went on to say this:</p>
<p>The White House said that no job was ever offered to Romanoff and that it would be wrong to suggest administration officials tried to buy him out of the contest.</p>
<p>“Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration,” said White House spokesman Adam Abrams.</p>
<p>This denial qualifies as Clintonian. No formal offer may have been made — but it was clear that Romanoff, if he dropped out of the race, would be able to choose from several of the jobs that were dangled before him. That seems a distinction without a difference.</p>
<p>We are now entering a new and dangerous phase in the Obama presidency. For one thing, it is possible that federal crimes were committed. Among the statutes that may have been violated is <a href="http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/600.html" type="external">this one</a>, which states:</p>
<p>Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.</p>
<p>Then there is <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/211" type="external">18 USC Sec. 211</a>— a section pertaining to Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office — which says this:</p>
<p>Whoever solicits or receives . . . any . . . thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.</p>
<p>Some legal experts, like President George W. Bush's ethics counselor <a href="http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2010/05/joe-sestaks-bribe-scandal-another-ethics-sideshow.html" type="external">Richard Painter</a>, believe that the statutes don't apply to situations like Sestak because it would be interpreting the statutes in an overly broad and even unprecedented manner. Without knowing the precise set of facts we're dealing with, it's difficult to know. But certainly what Romanoff is describing — receiving a highly paid appointment in return for pulling out of a race — violates the spirit of the statutes and is edging up to the legal line, if not outright crossing it.</p>
<p>Obviously, members of the Obama White House considered their actions troubling enough that they went to great lengths to conceal their actions. They have been engaging in a modified limited hangout. And it is reasonable to assume, I think, that Sestak and Romanoff are not isolated examples.</p>
<p>Senate and House Republicans, who were <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006072-503544.html" type="external">calling for a special prosecutor</a> to look into the Sestak matter, are in all likelihood going to insist on the same thing for the Romanoff deal.</p>
<p>I hope we don't get to that point. The one person who can keep this matter from spinning out of control is President Obama. He merely needs to live up to his pledge for transparency and integrity in government. More than any other candidate in our lifetime, he ran on the promise of “change,” including changing the culture of Washington politics, the culture of deception, the culture of the cover-up. Now is the time for the Obama White House to come clean — to tell us the whole truth as it relates to the Sestak and Romanoff affairs and any others that are similar in nature. Barack Obama can use this moment to change the trajectory of his presidency, which started out with so much hope but now looks nothing so much as Chicago-style politics writ large.</p>
<p>The late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in the immediate aftermath of the Iran-contra affair, counseled President Reagan to state the facts. “Let it all come out,” Moynihan said, “in the open, with greater than deliberate speed, immediately, regardless.” To his credit, Reagan more or less followed Moynihan's advice. So should Barack Obama.</p>
<p>Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. He served in the Bush White House as director of the office of strategic initiatives.</p> | false | 1 | coming together wednesday learned words denver post us senate candidate andrew romanoff acknowledged tonight discussed three possible jobs deputy chief staff obama administration contingent upon decision romanoff challenge us sen michael bennet romanoff said none jobs formally offered said reason discussed deputy chief staff jim messina romanoff stayed senate race mr messina also suggested three positions might available pursuing senate race romanoff wrote statement added could guarantee appointment positions time promised job request mr messinas assistance obtaining one romanoff released email messina outlining two positions united states agency international development third director us trade development agency could available werent running senate confirmation romanoff comes context similar white house effort get rep joe sestak dpa agree challenge sen arlen specter pennsylvania democratic primary sestak last week white house released version events rep sestak retired threestar admiral offered former president bill clinton uncompensated advisory board post order sestak agree challenge sen specter supposed accept account despite fact sestak february interview said offered highranking federal job order get race months pointed white house stonewalled matter white house press secretary robert gibbs senior adviser david axelrod asked sestak matter looked foolish great deal hide last friday white house counsel bob bauer former lawyer rahm emanuel released memorandum supposed exonerate white house wrongdoing fact suggesting quid pro quo sestak received unpaid post unimportant advisory board raised many questions answered example sestak says received one brief call former president clinton yet bauer memo states efforts made june july 2009 determine whether congressman sestak would interested service presidential senior executive branch advisory board efforts obviously sestak story white house letting comes romanoff revelation adding data points denver post story written last september story reported long news leaked last month andrew romanoff determined make democratic primary run sen michael bennet romanoff received unexpected communication one powerful men washington jim messina president barack obamas deputy chief staff storied fixer white house political shop suggested place romanoff might found administration offered specific suggestions according several sources described communication denver post romanoff turned overture included mention job usaid foreign aid agency sources said day romanoff formally announced senate bid obama endorsed bennet denver post story went say white house said job ever offered romanoff would wrong suggest administration officials tried buy contest mr romanoff never offered position within administration said white house spokesman adam abrams denial qualifies clintonian formal offer may made clear romanoff dropped race would able choose several jobs dangled seems distinction without difference entering new dangerous phase obama presidency one thing possible federal crimes committed among statutes may violated one states whoever directly indirectly promises employment position compensation contract appointment benefit provided made possible whole part act congress special consideration obtaining benefit person consideration favor reward political activity support opposition candidate political party connection general special election political office connection primary election political convention caucus held select candidates political office shall fined title imprisoned one year 18 usc sec 211 section pertaining bribery graft conflicts interest acceptance solicitation obtain appointive public office says whoever solicits receives thing value consideration promise support use influence obtaining person appointive office place united states shall fined title imprisoned one year legal experts like president george w bushs ethics counselor richard painter believe statutes dont apply situations like sestak would interpreting statutes overly broad even unprecedented manner without knowing precise set facts dealing difficult know certainly romanoff describing receiving highly paid appointment return pulling race violates spirit statutes edging legal line outright crossing obviously members obama white house considered actions troubling enough went great lengths conceal actions engaging modified limited hangout reasonable assume think sestak romanoff isolated examples senate house republicans calling special prosecutor look sestak matter likelihood going insist thing romanoff deal hope dont get point one person keep matter spinning control president obama merely needs live pledge transparency integrity government candidate lifetime ran promise change including changing culture washington politics culture deception culture coverup time obama white house come clean tell us whole truth relates sestak romanoff affairs others similar nature barack obama use moment change trajectory presidency started much hope looks nothing much chicagostyle politics writ large late great daniel patrick moynihan immediate aftermath irancontra affair counseled president reagan state facts let come moynihan said open greater deliberate speed immediately regardless credit reagan less followed moynihans advice barack obama peter wehner senior fellow ethics public policy center washington dc served bush white house director office strategic initiatives | 727 |
<p />
<p>The Russian government has been increasing pressure on Ukraine to join the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan and halt the process of negotiating the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) with the EU, expected to be completed by year’s end. While the Ukrainian delegation holds the talks on the EU-Ukraine association agreement in Brussels this week, expected Prime Minister Putin’s visit to Kyiv next week could offer both a “stick” and a “carrot” for Ukraine. A closer look reveals that the risk of a trade war with Russia is not critical, while the benefits of strategic flexibility and strong degree of economic sovereignty are more beneficial for Ukraine.</p>
<p>On 16 March, Vladimir Putin said that “Russia may proceed to tighten up its borders if the free trade zone between Ukraine and the EU goes ahead.”[1] Alongside the threat of trade sanctions, Russia may also present certain economic preferences encouraging Ukraine to suspend the process of EU trade agreement and join the Customs Union.</p>
<p>Ukrainian officials’ responses have emphasized the priority of reaching agreement on DCFTA with the EU and finding a plausible solution on cooperation with Russia and the Customs Union through entering the CIS Free Trade Area Agreement, which according to consensus estimates could be signed in May.</p>
<p>Russia’s most radical offering would be the reduction of the natural gas price and the levy of export duties for the exports of Russian oil and fuel products to Ukraine. The levy of oil export duty according to Ukrainian Ministry of Economy estimates could create $3-3.5 billion per year benefits for Ukraine and halving the Russian price would result in $4.5 billion benefit.[2] It is likely that Russia could take such costly steps, if at all, only demanding substantial commitments from Ukraine, which would decrease the degree of strategic flexibility and economic sovereignty that the country presently enjoys.</p>
<p>According to official statistics, Ukraine’s energy imports, including coal imports from Russia accounted for a 67% share of all imports 2010 from this country. Even though the energy dependency on Russia is very heavy, in the external oil supplies Ukraine reduced the share of Russian oil imports from 92% to 75% in 2010, with Azerbaijan accounting for the second largest 21% share in oil imports. Ukraine imported around 6 mln tons of crude oil from Russia, produced 2.3 mln tons domestically, and imported 1.6 mln tons of oil from Azerbaijan and 0.6 mln tons from Kazakhstan in 2010. The diversification of oil supplies could be even higher in 2011 and beyond, as the government is streamlining&#160; the management of state oil company, Ukrnafta, and plans to additionally produce more than 1 mln tons of oil from the projects in Egypt and on the Black Sea. It also seeks to upgrade oil deposits in Western Ukraine. Similarly, the diversification is proceeding in the natural gas sector through the options of building the LNG terminal on the Black Sea coast and developing shale gas and coal bed methane projects.</p>
<p>While Gazprom will continue to hold a grip on the supply of the largest share of Ukraine’s pipeline gas in the short-term, pricing tension was partially alleviated though gas-for-fleet Kharkiv deal.</p>
<p>The proposal of gas price reduction is valuable for Ukraine, but most likely incommensurate with the prospects of ceding national economic sovereignty to Russia through participation in the Customs Union’s supranational bodies, which would deprive Ukraine of the power to enter trading agreements with other countries. In fact, Ukraine’s geo-economic flexibility is perhaps its key asset and competitive advantage in today’s international affairs.</p>
<p>Widespread quantitative assessments of the economic benefits of the Customs Union are also questionable. Russian scholar Vladislav Inozemtsev wrote recently that to reach even a half of the highly acclaimed $400 billion increase in Russian exports to Kazakhstan and Belarus by 2015, the exports will have to surge 45-60% annually, which is highly unlikely.[3] Likewise, the World Bank Lúcio Vinhas de Souza’s January 2011 note “An Initial Estimation of the Economic Effects of the Creation of the EurAsEC Customs Union on Its Members” states that the Customs Union “would be a GDP-reducing framework in which the negative trade-diversion effects surpass positive trade-creation ones”[4]</p>
<p>As concerns the threat of trade sanctions, steel pipes, railroad car manufacturing, confectionery and cheese production are among the most vulnerable Ukrainian industries that may suffer from Russia’s trading sanctions. These products accounted for a combined 12% share of Ukraine’s $13.4 billion exports to Russia in 2010. In the case of railroad cars, Prime Minister Putin already threatened “antidumping” measures in February 2011, but it would be rather difficult in the short term to impose such measure against the key supplier as Ukrainian railroad cars account for some 40% share of the Russian market and technologically fit to the requirements of CIS railroads. Major Ukrainian confectionary producers Roshen and Konti have production facilities in the Russian market. Even the utterance of trade barriers’ possibility makes Ukrainian companies’ management look for ways to mitigate the negative impact through market diversification and productivity improvement.</p>
<p>Ukraine’s political and business elite seems to be largely united in their attitude towards strategic economic integration issues aiming to expand the EU trade and enjoy the benefits of increased investment, economic factor and reforms encouragement, while at the same time leverage existing and future potential of economic ties with the CIS countries. Reaching this goal will attest to Ukraine’s important economic and political role in today’s affairs.</p>
<p>Notes</p> | false | 1 | russian government increasing pressure ukraine join customs union russia belarus kazakhstan halt process negotiating deep comprehensive free trade area dcfta eu expected completed years end ukrainian delegation holds talks euukraine association agreement brussels week expected prime minister putins visit kyiv next week could offer stick carrot ukraine closer look reveals risk trade war russia critical benefits strategic flexibility strong degree economic sovereignty beneficial ukraine 16 march vladimir putin said russia may proceed tighten borders free trade zone ukraine eu goes ahead1 alongside threat trade sanctions russia may also present certain economic preferences encouraging ukraine suspend process eu trade agreement join customs union ukrainian officials responses emphasized priority reaching agreement dcfta eu finding plausible solution cooperation russia customs union entering cis free trade area agreement according consensus estimates could signed may russias radical offering would reduction natural gas price levy export duties exports russian oil fuel products ukraine levy oil export duty according ukrainian ministry economy estimates could create 335 billion per year benefits ukraine halving russian price would result 45 billion benefit2 likely russia could take costly steps demanding substantial commitments ukraine would decrease degree strategic flexibility economic sovereignty country presently enjoys according official statistics ukraines energy imports including coal imports russia accounted 67 share imports 2010 country even though energy dependency russia heavy external oil supplies ukraine reduced share russian oil imports 92 75 2010 azerbaijan accounting second largest 21 share oil imports ukraine imported around 6 mln tons crude oil russia produced 23 mln tons domestically imported 16 mln tons oil azerbaijan 06 mln tons kazakhstan 2010 diversification oil supplies could even higher 2011 beyond government streamlining160 management state oil company ukrnafta plans additionally produce 1 mln tons oil projects egypt black sea also seeks upgrade oil deposits western ukraine similarly diversification proceeding natural gas sector options building lng terminal black sea coast developing shale gas coal bed methane projects gazprom continue hold grip supply largest share ukraines pipeline gas shortterm pricing tension partially alleviated though gasforfleet kharkiv deal proposal gas price reduction valuable ukraine likely incommensurate prospects ceding national economic sovereignty russia participation customs unions supranational bodies would deprive ukraine power enter trading agreements countries fact ukraines geoeconomic flexibility perhaps key asset competitive advantage todays international affairs widespread quantitative assessments economic benefits customs union also questionable russian scholar vladislav inozemtsev wrote recently reach even half highly acclaimed 400 billion increase russian exports kazakhstan belarus 2015 exports surge 4560 annually highly unlikely3 likewise world bank lúcio vinhas de souzas january 2011 note initial estimation economic effects creation eurasec customs union members states customs union would gdpreducing framework negative tradediversion effects surpass positive tradecreation ones4 concerns threat trade sanctions steel pipes railroad car manufacturing confectionery cheese production among vulnerable ukrainian industries may suffer russias trading sanctions products accounted combined 12 share ukraines 134 billion exports russia 2010 case railroad cars prime minister putin already threatened antidumping measures february 2011 would rather difficult short term impose measure key supplier ukrainian railroad cars account 40 share russian market technologically fit requirements cis railroads major ukrainian confectionary producers roshen konti production facilities russian market even utterance trade barriers possibility makes ukrainian companies management look ways mitigate negative impact market diversification productivity improvement ukraines political business elite seems largely united attitude towards strategic economic integration issues aiming expand eu trade enjoy benefits increased investment economic factor reforms encouragement time leverage existing future potential economic ties cis countries reaching goal attest ukraines important economic political role todays affairs notes | 575 |
<p>Donald Trump’s persistent lead in the GOP presidential-preference polls has been a great source of confusion for the chattering classes. But Trump is actually just the latest manifestation of a more global trend: Data suggests the appeal of anti-immigrant policies to working-class voters is much deeper than most American elites want to believe. And because Trump draws the bulk of his support from less-educated, working- and middle-class voters, he may be positioned to do even better still—for now. Polling data from Europe shows that parties with similar voter profiles to Trump’s consistently do better in both online polls and at the ballot box than in live-interview polling. And currently Trump is far ahead online.</p>
<p>Why does this happen? It starts with working-class voters across developed countries being under severe economic pressure because of competition with foreigners at home (immigration) and abroad (EU/trade). They respond to people and parties who tell them this state of affairs isn’t inevitable, and they are often impervious to cries of racism. Their lives are just plain harder than they used to be and working-class voters don’t see elites doing much—or wanting to do much—to make them better. Donald Trump is simply the American version of Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, and many other European leaders of working-class, anti-immigrant parties who profit from stoking the flames of resentment because there is so much kindling available to light.</p>
<p>So what explains the chasm between these particular candidates’ online versus live polling data? It turns out that a nontrivial share of these same working-class, anti-immigrant voters won’t tell a live person who they support but will share their true feelings when their support is secret—like on Election Day. This is no surprise: Support for immigration and globalization are perhaps the only political sentiments that unite elites from both business and the academy, from right and left. Openly supporting an anti-immigration candidate can risk social opprobrium, ridicule, or worse. In other words, for every group of vocal Trump supporters, there are probably a lot more who just don’t advertise it.</p>
<p>One example comes from the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, which rose to prominence in the run-up to this May’s general election on a staunchly anti-immigrant and anti-EU platform. Polls there showed that at its height, online and automated polls gave UKIP a third higher level of support (16 percent) than did live-interview phone polls (12 percent). UKIP’s support dropped as Election Day neared, but this online/live-polling gap was evident even in the final polls before Election Day. The final polls from the country’s major online pollsters gave UKIP an average of 14 percent while the phone pollsters gave the party slightly over 11 percent. (The actual results split the difference between the two modes, as UKIP candidates received 12.7 percent of the vote.)</p>
<p>Anti-immigration, working-class parties elsewhere also do better in online polls. Current Swedish polls are divided by mode, too: Two prominent Internet pollsters show the virulently anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats leading with about 27 percent while other live pollsters show it in third place with about 19 percent. Plus, these anti-immigrant parties also typically outperform their final polling averages when the votes are counted. Both the Sweden Democrats and the Danish People’s Party outperformed their respective final-polling averages by about 3 percent in those countries’ most recent general elections, while the True Finns did about 1 percent better at the voting booth than in the polls.</p>
<p>Which is why Trump is <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-future-of-polling-may-depend-on-donald-trumps-fate/" type="external">on track</a> to do much better than many of his detractors think; he’ll likely be much closer to the Internet and automated polls, where his lead is in the double digits, than the live polls, where his lead is still in the single digits.</p>
<p>This doesn’t mean Trump is on his way to the nomination. Public Policy Polling, an automated robocall pollster, consistently poses hypothetical one-on-one matchups between Trump and other GOP candidates. Though Trump regularly trashes Jeb Bush, Trump loses or runs roughly even with Bush in the Public Policy Polling one-on-ones. And it’s the same with all the other Republican candidates. Even when poll respondents are assured anonymity, there is simply a hard ceiling of support an anti-immigrant candidate can receive. When the field is more limited, Trump loses his edge. (General-election polls also show Trump does worse against the likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton than other leading Republican contenders do.)</p>
<p>European election results confirm this observation as well. The anti-immigrant Swiss People’s Party, for example, received a record-high share of the votes in this October’s general election, nearly 30 percent. But that was in the Swiss lower house, the National Council, where seats are awarded via proportional representation. The Swiss Senate, the Council of States, awards two seats per canton, and winners must typically win runoff elections between two final candidates. The Swiss People’s Party gained no seats in the Council of States despite their rise in popularity, because voters from the left, right, and center ultimately coalesced to support candidates from more mainstream parties.</p>
<p>American elites must understand that Trump’s appeal is large and not going away. Working-class voters all over the world are legitimately upset about the turn their lives have taken in the last decade and a half. They are largely not racists, nor are they “fruitcakes and loonies,” as British Prime Minister David Cameron once called UKIP backers. And whether Trump’s support strengthens or fades, the real issue remains: Millions of working-class voters are angry, and their anger is not going to quickly disappear even if their current champion does.</p>
<p>Henry Olsen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the coauthor of The Four Faces of the Republican Party: The Fight for the 2016 Nomination.</p> | false | 1 | donald trumps persistent lead gop presidentialpreference polls great source confusion chattering classes trump actually latest manifestation global trend data suggests appeal antiimmigrant policies workingclass voters much deeper american elites want believe trump draws bulk support lesseducated working middleclass voters may positioned even better stillfor polling data europe shows parties similar voter profiles trumps consistently better online polls ballot box liveinterview polling currently trump far ahead online happen starts workingclass voters across developed countries severe economic pressure competition foreigners home immigration abroad eutrade respond people parties tell state affairs isnt inevitable often impervious cries racism lives plain harder used workingclass voters dont see elites muchor wanting muchto make better donald trump simply american version nigel farage geert wilders many european leaders workingclass antiimmigrant parties profit stoking flames resentment much kindling available light explains chasm particular candidates online versus live polling data turns nontrivial share workingclass antiimmigrant voters wont tell live person support share true feelings support secretlike election day surprise support immigration globalization perhaps political sentiments unite elites business academy right left openly supporting antiimmigration candidate risk social opprobrium ridicule worse words every group vocal trump supporters probably lot dont advertise one example comes united kingdom independence party ukip rose prominence runup mays general election staunchly antiimmigrant antieu platform polls showed height online automated polls gave ukip third higher level support 16 percent liveinterview phone polls 12 percent ukips support dropped election day neared onlinelivepolling gap evident even final polls election day final polls countrys major online pollsters gave ukip average 14 percent phone pollsters gave party slightly 11 percent actual results split difference two modes ukip candidates received 127 percent vote antiimmigration workingclass parties elsewhere also better online polls current swedish polls divided mode two prominent internet pollsters show virulently antiimmigrant sweden democrats leading 27 percent live pollsters show third place 19 percent plus antiimmigrant parties also typically outperform final polling averages votes counted sweden democrats danish peoples party outperformed respective finalpolling averages 3 percent countries recent general elections true finns 1 percent better voting booth polls trump track much better many detractors think hell likely much closer internet automated polls lead double digits live polls lead still single digits doesnt mean trump way nomination public policy polling automated robocall pollster consistently poses hypothetical oneonone matchups trump gop candidates though trump regularly trashes jeb bush trump loses runs roughly even bush public policy polling oneonones republican candidates even poll respondents assured anonymity simply hard ceiling support antiimmigrant candidate receive field limited trump loses edge generalelection polls also show trump worse likely democratic nominee hillary clinton leading republican contenders european election results confirm observation well antiimmigrant swiss peoples party example received recordhigh share votes octobers general election nearly 30 percent swiss lower house national council seats awarded via proportional representation swiss senate council states awards two seats per canton winners must typically win runoff elections two final candidates swiss peoples party gained seats council states despite rise popularity voters left right center ultimately coalesced support candidates mainstream parties american elites must understand trumps appeal large going away workingclass voters world legitimately upset turn lives taken last decade half largely racists fruitcakes loonies british prime minister david cameron called ukip backers whether trumps support strengthens fades real issue remains millions workingclass voters angry anger going quickly disappear even current champion henry olsen senior fellow ethics public policy center coauthor four faces republican party fight 2016 nomination | 564 |
<p />
<p>In recent months the idea of engaging the more “moderate Taliban elements” has grown in popularity as coalition recalibration in Afghanistan fails to yield the immediate dividends that some were hoping for. This notion however fails to account for the structural shifts ongoing amongst militant cadres and the rise of a new generation of militants, more radical, more violent and less amenable to any political dialogue than their predecessors.</p>
<p>In the face of this radicalization, old guard factions have begun to lose ground even as al-Qaeda re-orients its strategy to serve as an inspirational resource catering to these new jihadi elements. While this dissension may conceivably provide an opening for counterinsurgents, it will also result in a wider targeting scope leading militant outfits to support attacks beyond their traditional regional competencies. This is seen in the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP, or Pakistani Taliban) first attempted international strike on Times Square in May 2010. Furthermore with this generational shift gaining momentum, it is likely that any negotiations will be a poisoned chalice for any militant leader seeking compromise, regardless of his jihadi credentials.</p>
<p>Historically, the prevailing belief has been that militant groups in the tribal areas of Pakistan despite their diversity generally operate together in a “broad-based ideological movement,”[1] and despite the considerable autonomy afforded to local commanders, operate under the loose command structure headed by Mullah Omar. Others such as Steven Walt have theorized that the linkages between the various militant outfits are less an ideologically inspired alliance than “balance of power politics” incentivized by the advantages of working together to oppose the foreign presence in the region.[2]</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the general consensus has been that these organizations have coexisted in relative harmony, often sharing resources and expertise. It has also traditionally been believed that while most Af-Pak militant groups have paid lip service to jihad further afield, it has always been peripheral to their core focus. For some that focus was Afghanistan as with the Quetta Shura Taliban and Haqqanis, for others Pakistan as with the Tehrik-i-Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and for yet others India as with groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed.</p>
<p>The emerging generational divide among militants however has profound repercussions on these traditional beliefs. The ‘old guard’ of militants, such as Mullah Omar and the Kashmir-focused jihadi groups, came of age with the support of the ISI and have acted at least partly on behalf of the Pakistani state. However today after almost a decade of war in the Af-Pak region, a new guard has emerged, more often than not composed and led by brash, young and ultra-aggressive militants such as the 21 year old master suicide bomber trainer Qari Hussain[3] and the late 20s current leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakeemullah Mehsud.</p>
<p>These men have spent a large portion of their formative militant careers hunted by Pakistani and American forces. They have had little to no formal contact with the Pakistani establishment, both visible and invisible, and have shown little regard for traditional Pakistani structures, including mainstream political parties, intelligence agencies and tribal structures. Instead they have associated the Pakistani state as a puppet of the United States and actively sought its overthrow. This has had a ‘splintering’ effect on traditional militant structures where older, more established groups are rejected in favor of newer, more radical groups “each further removed from their original ISI puppet masters.” [4]</p>
<p>This trend has been noticed across the spectrum of jihadi groups. According to a senior Afghan Taliban commander, 80% of its fighters are in their late teens or early 20s and this composition has led to a recklessness and contempt for authority that is like “earth and sky” when compared to their predecessors who fought the Russians. A young fighter best explains their disdain for their leadership based out of Pakistan, commenting after the capture of Mullah Baradar, “We are here on the ground with our Kalashnikovs and RPGs and we live and die by our own quick judgments. We don’t need to listen to anyone who is not out here putting his life on the line.”[5]</p>
<p>This emerging divide is also reflected in the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, known to be Pakistan’s strategic asset of choice for a post-American Afghanistan. Jalaluddin, the Haqqani patriarch has explicitly stated that attacking Pakistan “is not our policy. Those who agree with us are our friends and those who do not agree and continue to wage an undeclared war against Pakistan are neither our friends nor shall we allow them in our ranks.”[6]</p>
<p>The group owes much of its strength to its relationship with the ISI, allowing it a sanctuary in North Waziristan and the ability to stay ahead of American drone strikes.[7] In return the Haqqanis have worked with the ISI to attack Indian targets in Afghanistan.[8] Despite this symbiotic relationship even the Haqqanis have not proven immune to the growing radicalization process. An interesting anecdote by New York Times journalist David Rohde who was captured and held by the Haqqanis describes how his young guards shattered his misconception that the Haqqanis were “Al-Qaeda lite” with little ambition outside their Afghan campaign. Instead he claims that their contact with other militants has led many of their young fighters to truly seek to “create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al-Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world.”[9]</p>
<p>This phenomenon can be traced back to the Army’s storming of Islamabad’s ultra-radical Red Mosque in 2007. Anger over the operation diverted the traditional focus on Western targets in Afghanistan, giving way to a new breed of militants equally interested in the overthrow of the “near enemy.” The most prominent proponents of this strategy were the Tehrik-i-Taliban, formed 5 months after the operation. Their relentless wave of attacks inside Pakistan heralded the birth of the new phase of the militancy that left no aspect of the Pakistani establishment safe.</p>
<p>The ISI came under direct attack with its headquarters bombed in both Peshawar and Lahore. The Pakistani Army witnessed a dramatic escalation when militants moved beyond attacking its outposts in the tribal provinces to attacking the seat of its power, the Army GHQ in Rawalpindi. The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), a key supporter of militant groups in the Afghan jihad period and traditionally seen as the political face of the Taliban, witnessed its leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman being targeted with rockets fired at his house and his name allegedly discovered on a Taliban hit list. [10] More recently another senior leader, Maulana Mirajuddin was killed by unknown gunmen.[11] He had helped broker peace deals between the government and the Pakistani Taliban in 2005 and was currently working with the government to help residents of South Waziristan return to their homes after the fighting.</p>
<p>But nowhere has this shift in targeting priority been more dramatically illuminated than by the April 2010 capture of former ISI alums Khalid Khawaja and Sultan Amir Tarar by a hitherto unknown group calling itself the Asian Tigers. The subsequent execution of Khawaja by the Tigers came as a surprise to many observers given the sterling jihadi credentials of both men. Tarar was widely known in Pakistan as Colonel Imam, an honorific title bestowed upon him by the Afghan Taliban for the training camps he established and ran as an ISI officer during the Soviet jihad. His students included Mullah Omar, withwhom he was reputedly very close.</p>
<p>Khawaja who was booted from the ISI for a critical letter he penned to President Zia ul-Haq in the 1980s was a braggart compared to Imam’s mujahid credentials but was known to many Western journalists for his extensive militant connections. Khawaja claimed to have set up meetings between Osama Bin Laden and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. His organization, the Defense of Human Rights, has been extremely active in supporting militant causes including filing a petition with the Lahore High Court blocking the extradition of Mullah Baradar and other top Quetta Shura members detained by Pakistani security services.[12] Khawaja also came under suspicion of involvement in the kidnapping and execution of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl[13] and was briefly detained after storming of the Red Mosque.</p> | false | 1 | recent months idea engaging moderate taliban elements grown popularity coalition recalibration afghanistan fails yield immediate dividends hoping notion however fails account structural shifts ongoing amongst militant cadres rise new generation militants radical violent less amenable political dialogue predecessors face radicalization old guard factions begun lose ground even alqaeda reorients strategy serve inspirational resource catering new jihadi elements dissension may conceivably provide opening counterinsurgents also result wider targeting scope leading militant outfits support attacks beyond traditional regional competencies seen tehrikitaliban pakistans ttp pakistani taliban first attempted international strike times square may 2010 furthermore generational shift gaining momentum likely negotiations poisoned chalice militant leader seeking compromise regardless jihadi credentials historically prevailing belief militant groups tribal areas pakistan despite diversity generally operate together broadbased ideological movement1 despite considerable autonomy afforded local commanders operate loose command structure headed mullah omar others steven walt theorized linkages various militant outfits less ideologically inspired alliance balance power politics incentivized advantages working together oppose foreign presence region2 nonetheless general consensus organizations coexisted relative harmony often sharing resources expertise also traditionally believed afpak militant groups paid lip service jihad afield always peripheral core focus focus afghanistan quetta shura taliban haqqanis others pakistan tehrikitaliban lashkarejhangvi yet others india groups lashkaretaiba jaishemohammed emerging generational divide among militants however profound repercussions traditional beliefs old guard militants mullah omar kashmirfocused jihadi groups came age support isi acted least partly behalf pakistani state however today almost decade war afpak region new guard emerged often composed led brash young ultraaggressive militants 21 year old master suicide bomber trainer qari hussain3 late 20s current leader pakistani taliban hakeemullah mehsud men spent large portion formative militant careers hunted pakistani american forces little formal contact pakistani establishment visible invisible shown little regard traditional pakistani structures including mainstream political parties intelligence agencies tribal structures instead associated pakistani state puppet united states actively sought overthrow splintering effect traditional militant structures older established groups rejected favor newer radical groups removed original isi puppet masters 4 trend noticed across spectrum jihadi groups according senior afghan taliban commander 80 fighters late teens early 20s composition led recklessness contempt authority like earth sky compared predecessors fought russians young fighter best explains disdain leadership based pakistan commenting capture mullah baradar ground kalashnikovs rpgs live die quick judgments dont need listen anyone putting life line5 emerging divide also reflected haqqani network north waziristan known pakistans strategic asset choice postamerican afghanistan jalaluddin haqqani patriarch explicitly stated attacking pakistan policy agree us friends agree continue wage undeclared war pakistan neither friends shall allow ranks6 group owes much strength relationship isi allowing sanctuary north waziristan ability stay ahead american drone strikes7 return haqqanis worked isi attack indian targets afghanistan8 despite symbiotic relationship even haqqanis proven immune growing radicalization process interesting anecdote new york times journalist david rohde captured held haqqanis describes young guards shattered misconception haqqanis alqaeda lite little ambition outside afghan campaign instead claims contact militants led many young fighters truly seek create fundamentalist islamic emirate alqaeda spanned muslim world9 phenomenon traced back armys storming islamabads ultraradical red mosque 2007 anger operation diverted traditional focus western targets afghanistan giving way new breed militants equally interested overthrow near enemy prominent proponents strategy tehrikitaliban formed 5 months operation relentless wave attacks inside pakistan heralded birth new phase militancy left aspect pakistani establishment safe isi came direct attack headquarters bombed peshawar lahore pakistani army witnessed dramatic escalation militants moved beyond attacking outposts tribal provinces attacking seat power army ghq rawalpindi jamiat ulemaeislam jui key supporter militant groups afghan jihad period traditionally seen political face taliban witnessed leader maulana fazlur rehman targeted rockets fired house name allegedly discovered taliban hit list 10 recently another senior leader maulana mirajuddin killed unknown gunmen11 helped broker peace deals government pakistani taliban 2005 currently working government help residents south waziristan return homes fighting nowhere shift targeting priority dramatically illuminated april 2010 capture former isi alums khalid khawaja sultan amir tarar hitherto unknown group calling asian tigers subsequent execution khawaja tigers came surprise many observers given sterling jihadi credentials men tarar widely known pakistan colonel imam honorific title bestowed upon afghan taliban training camps established ran isi officer soviet jihad students included mullah omar withwhom reputedly close khawaja booted isi critical letter penned president zia ulhaq 1980s braggart compared imams mujahid credentials known many western journalists extensive militant connections khawaja claimed set meetings osama bin laden former prime minister nawaz sharif organization defense human rights extremely active supporting militant causes including filing petition lahore high court blocking extradition mullah baradar top quetta shura members detained pakistani security services12 khawaja also came suspicion involvement kidnapping execution wall street journal reporter daniel pearl13 briefly detained storming red mosque | 769 |
<p>Two-time UFC heavyweight champion Frank Mir, who recently signed with Bellator, was in Russia again over the weekend to provide commentary for ACB 67 in Grozny, Chechnya, where he spoke exclusively to RT Sport.</p>
<p>Mir has been a part of the commentary crew for Russian promotion ACB for over a year now, and following the news of his release from UFC, the MMA world was curious as to which organization he would sign with.</p>
<p>ACB and Bellator seemed to be two of the most logical options, and as it turns out, the 38-year-old Mir could fight in both.&#160;Announcing the signing with Bellator on his podcast ‘Phonebooth Fighting’, Mir, who’s USADA suspension ends in April 2018, said he is also “keeping the door open for ACB.”</p>
<p>Talking to Mir in the ACB office a day after ACB 67, we spoke about the tournament itself as well as the fighter’s future plans.</p>
<p>[embedded content]</p>
<p>RT: You were commentating at ACB 67 in Grozny, Chechnya, at the Colosseum arena, which was built specifically for MMA events. How did you like the arena and atmosphere?</p>
<p>Frank Mir: Grozny is just such a Mecca for mixed martial arts. Because of the culture here, people are not at the bars, partying or drinking, their kids don’t have Play Stations. They live a clean life here. And training is an outlet to do something and focus. So you have all these young guys that are talented and tough because of the history here. You know it doesn’t take much to google the Chechen wars and know what has occurred here. And basically people that rose from those ashes are as tough as nails. And now with the exposure, especially with Mairbek Khasiev (ACB head) doing what he is doing to help build the Berkut training facility here, bringing some of the best trainers in the world. It is inevitable that these guys are going to be world champions. And the fact that Grozny has facilities built specifically for MMA doesn’t surprise me, cause that’s the sport here. We go to other places and kids want to be baseball players, they want to be football players, they maybe want to play soccer. You grew up here – you want to be a fighter. That’s why the quality of the athletes they are getting is just second to none.</p>
<p>RT: We recently learned that you signed a four-fight deal with Bellator. But you also said that you are not closing the door on ACB. With that in mind, under which banner will we most likely see your next fight?</p>
<p>FM: I told Bellator that I need to fight immediately. It’s been two years. And if I don’t start fighting again, my wife is probably gonna shoot me in the leg. I’m a fighter, I like to fight. That’s who I am, that’s what I do. That’s my focus, that’s my meaning, that’s my Buddha. Hopefully that can give me a fight first week of April. First month (after the end of Mir’s disqualification). And even if they give me the fight I have something to start work on for the ACB. Hopefully the end of May, possibly in Poland, hopefully against a very big name out there, that will bring a lot of attention. Possibly with (Mamed) Khalidov on the card. Obviously we are not fighting each other, we are two different weight classes. Not that I wouldn’t do it. Khalidov is a tough guy. Martial artist might be interesting. But that being said, KSW fill out arenas when Khalidov is on the card. He has already fought once before with ACB, against Luke (Barnett), who is my friend. I wasn’t so happy about that outcome. But I like Khalidov, I am a fan. I think he is one of the best middleweights in the world right now. He is just kind of a secret here in Europe, that guys over in the US might not be aware of. Or they are aware of and they are just glad that he is over here, on the other side of the pond. Hopefully that is something that is going to work out, cause I also want to help and be a part of ACB. In ACB I am a part of the commentary crew. Myself and Bryan Lacey, that’s the team.</p>
<p>I tried experimenting, and I looked over Fight Nights Global, they offered some money, I looked at it, and I wasn’t happy. I don’t like the show – I like ACB, the ‘More Fight, Less Show’ mentality, I like the mindset they have. Plus I like working with Bryan, he is my guy, I think he have a great chemistry together. And broadcasting is not a singular man thing. Joe Rogan and Goldberg together made what the UFC was. And now without Goldberg, the commentary crew they still have Joe, who is a great color commentator. But it’s diminished their broadcasting. It’s very obvious to everybody who watches. I think that Bryan and I are on the up and we’ll be doing that for the next 20-30 years, until he gets tired of me. So that’s where I am planning on staying. So I can also fight for the ACB, to bring recognition there. Obviously Bellator, as simple as they have a lot of money, and I am going to help them out, and fight for them. Scott Coker, I like now working with people that I like. And Coker is a very good person. I’ve never met a fighter that has anything bad to say about him. He is like a fighter’s guy as a promoter. So I am very happy to be a part of this organization. But on the same side I am very happy to be here with Mairbek. He is the kind of guy you can shake hands with, he’ll look you in the eyes, whether you are the valet or the president of the United States. And I respect that. The first time I sat down and had a lunch with Mairbek, I watched how he treated the waiter, and the waiter made a mistake, he had no problem with it, he just wanted to get the situation fixed, didn’t scold him. The guy was terrified because of Mairbek, and he made a mistake. But he didn’t hold him to that. And when I saw that interaction, I immediately thought that this is someone I have a lot of respect for, and I’d want to be a part of business-wise and friendship-wise.</p>
<p>Read more</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/sport/390097-mairbek-khasiev-acb-interview/" type="external" /></p>
<p>RT: When you announced the news of the signing with Bellator on your podcast, you mentioned that ACB is interested in going to the places you are also interested in going to. You’ve already mentioned Poland. Could you name other places?</p>
<p>FM: Poland is the huge one. I think that Poland loves MMA, I think that we can just bring it there. UFC is downsizing the amount of shows they are bringing (to Europe). The UFC guys just paid $4.2 billion (to purchase the company). They are looking to get back in the positive cash flow probably as quickly as possible. You can already see that they pulled back. While ACB, we are on the flip side of that. We are looking to grow. We are not worried about if we are going to make money today. We just want to put on a great show. We have some of the greatest fighters in the world, that go out there and compete and put out their greatest product. At the end of the day if it doesn’t make money, the guys here, this is not the way they feed their children. So this is their love and their passion. And this is why I think you gonna see the ACB will do so well, and grow in leaps and bounds. That’s what the UFC was when I first became a part of it. It was two brothers from Las Vegas, two Italian guys, it was their passion. They made money in the casinos, that was their passion, they loved fighting. That’s why they named it Zuffa. A word for ‘fight’ in Italian. That was their thing. They weren’t businessmen when it came to this. And Mairbek is the same way. This is not a business to him. This is the passion and the way of life.</p>
<p>RT: You have already mentioned some names, such as Fedor Emelianenko and Brock Lesnar. Was it something you spoke about with Bellator or ACB?</p>
<p>FM: Both. Bellator right now has very deep pockets. Viacom. So maybe they can pull out a Brock Lesnar fight. If not, I think Bobby Lashley will be someone very interesting to fight, setting up for a Brock Lesnar fight, who is a very physical specimen. Extremely strong. Stronger than I am. Has a college wrestling background. Extremely high-level. Did pro wrestling, so he has that fan base. I mean I have no issues with the guy, but he is a fighter, he is on the roster. And I am here to go ahead and start cleaning the house.</p>
<p>RT: Since you are not with UFC anymore you are now open to sponsorship deals, did any big name talk to you already? And was ACB one of them?</p>
<p>FM: Right now Venum is someone I am talking to. I am possibly opening some training facility under the Venum name. They have franchises and put out a complete package of how to train like a mixed martial artist, not necessarily the aspirations that you want to walk in and fight professionally. I think a lot of people love martial arts, you know people take karate classes, take Jiu-Jitsu. It doesn’t mean you want to be a pro fighter. I think MMA is a great form of martial arts. You might want to go to an amateur show, you just want to the gym and train with other guys, learn the skillset. That being said, because I am doing that aspect with them. As far an apparel thing, right now I am in conversation with them, I think it will be very cohesive if I can also wear the Venum brand. But if they don’t, I am gonna move out to others. I think now with the ability of the Bellator, because they are on free television and on top doing pay-per-views. There is just too much exposure that I could give to the brand for me to sit and not [do anything].</p> | false | 1 | twotime ufc heavyweight champion frank mir recently signed bellator russia weekend provide commentary acb 67 grozny chechnya spoke exclusively rt sport mir part commentary crew russian promotion acb year following news release ufc mma world curious organization would sign acb bellator seemed two logical options turns 38yearold mir could fight both160announcing signing bellator podcast phonebooth fighting mir whos usada suspension ends april 2018 said also keeping door open acb talking mir acb office day acb 67 spoke tournament well fighters future plans embedded content rt commentating acb 67 grozny chechnya colosseum arena built specifically mma events like arena atmosphere frank mir grozny mecca mixed martial arts culture people bars partying drinking kids dont play stations live clean life training outlet something focus young guys talented tough history know doesnt take much google chechen wars know occurred basically people rose ashes tough nails exposure especially mairbek khasiev acb head help build berkut training facility bringing best trainers world inevitable guys going world champions fact grozny facilities built specifically mma doesnt surprise cause thats sport go places kids want baseball players want football players maybe want play soccer grew want fighter thats quality athletes getting second none rt recently learned signed fourfight deal bellator also said closing door acb mind banner likely see next fight fm told bellator need fight immediately two years dont start fighting wife probably gon na shoot leg im fighter like fight thats thats thats focus thats meaning thats buddha hopefully give fight first week april first month end mirs disqualification even give fight something start work acb hopefully end may possibly poland hopefully big name bring lot attention possibly mamed khalidov card obviously fighting two different weight classes wouldnt khalidov tough guy martial artist might interesting said ksw fill arenas khalidov card already fought acb luke barnett friend wasnt happy outcome like khalidov fan think one best middleweights world right kind secret europe guys us might aware aware glad side pond hopefully something going work cause also want help part acb acb part commentary crew bryan lacey thats team tried experimenting looked fight nights global offered money looked wasnt happy dont like show like acb fight less show mentality like mindset plus like working bryan guy think great chemistry together broadcasting singular man thing joe rogan goldberg together made ufc without goldberg commentary crew still joe great color commentator diminished broadcasting obvious everybody watches think bryan well next 2030 years gets tired thats planning staying also fight acb bring recognition obviously bellator simple lot money going help fight scott coker like working people like coker good person ive never met fighter anything bad say like fighters guy promoter happy part organization side happy mairbek kind guy shake hands hell look eyes whether valet president united states respect first time sat lunch mairbek watched treated waiter waiter made mistake problem wanted get situation fixed didnt scold guy terrified mairbek made mistake didnt hold saw interaction immediately thought someone lot respect id want part businesswise friendshipwise read rt announced news signing bellator podcast mentioned acb interested going places also interested going youve already mentioned poland could name places fm poland huge one think poland loves mma think bring ufc downsizing amount shows bringing europe ufc guys paid 42 billion purchase company looking get back positive cash flow probably quickly possible already see pulled back acb flip side looking grow worried going make money today want put great show greatest fighters world go compete put greatest product end day doesnt make money guys way feed children love passion think gon na see acb well grow leaps bounds thats ufc first became part two brothers las vegas two italian guys passion made money casinos passion loved fighting thats named zuffa word fight italian thing werent businessmen came mairbek way business passion way life rt already mentioned names fedor emelianenko brock lesnar something spoke bellator acb fm bellator right deep pockets viacom maybe pull brock lesnar fight think bobby lashley someone interesting fight setting brock lesnar fight physical specimen extremely strong stronger college wrestling background extremely highlevel pro wrestling fan base mean issues guy fighter roster go ahead start cleaning house rt since ufc anymore open sponsorship deals big name talk already acb one fm right venum someone talking possibly opening training facility venum name franchises put complete package train like mixed martial artist necessarily aspirations want walk fight professionally think lot people love martial arts know people take karate classes take jiujitsu doesnt mean want pro fighter think mma great form martial arts might want go amateur show want gym train guys learn skillset said aspect far apparel thing right conversation think cohesive also wear venum brand dont gon na move others think ability bellator free television top payperviews much exposure could give brand sit anything | 795 |
<p>The only “solution” that mattered to Israel is its own, driven by blind American support, European uselessness and imposed on the Palestinians by force.</p>
<p>Empirical historical evidence combined with little common-sense are enough to tell us the type of future options that Israel has in store for the Palestinian people: perpetual Apartheid or ethnic cleansing, or a mix of both.</p>
<p>The passing of the ‘ <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/world/middleeast/israel-settlement-law-palestinians-west-bank.html?_r=0" type="external">Regularization Bill</a>‘ on February 6 is all we need to imagine the Israeli-envisaged future. The new law allows the Israeli government to retroactively recognize Jewish outposts built without official permission on privately-owned Palestinian land.</p>
<p>All settlements—officially recognized settlements and unauthorized outposts—are illegal under international law. The verdict has been passed numerous times by the United Nations and, more recently, pronounced with unmistakable clarity in <a href="http://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf" type="external">UN Security Council Resolution 2334</a>.</p>
<p>Israel’s response was the announcement of the construction of over 6,000 new housing units to be built throughout the Occupied Palestinian territories, the construction of a brand new settlement (the first in 20 years), and the new law that paves the way for the annexation of large swathes of the Occupied West Bank.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly, the law is the ‘ <a href="http://www.palestinechronicle.com/israels-settlers-clear-path-to-annexation-with-new-land-law/" type="external">last nail in the coffin of the two-state solution</a>’, but that is not important. It never mattered to Israel, anyway. The talk of a solution was mere smoke and mirrors as far as Israel was concerned. All the ‘peace talks’ and the entirety of ‘peace process’, even when it was in its zenith, rarely slowed down the Israeli bulldozers, slowed down the construction of more ‘Jewish homes’ or ended the unceasing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/israels-settlement-train-will-only-stop-one-station-hague-554554" type="external">Writing in Newsweek</a>, Diana Buttu described how the process of building settlements is always, always accompanied by the demolition of Palestinian homes. 1 <a href="http://www.palestinechronicle.com/ocha-record-number-of-demolitions-and-displacements-in-the-west-bank-during-2016/" type="external">40 Palestinian structures</a> were demolished since the beginning of 2017, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Territories.</p>
<p>Since Donald Trump was sworn in, Israel has felt liberated from its obligation to use doublespeak. For decades, Israeli officials spoke passionately about peace, and did everything in their power to hinder its attainment. Now, they simply do not care. Period.</p>
<p>They have perfected their balancing act simply because they had to, because Washington expected it, demanded it. But Trump had given them a blank check: do as you please; settlements are not obstacles to peace; Israel has been ‘ <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/29/trump-israel-treated-unfairly-ill-impress/" type="external">treated very, very unfairly</a>’ and I will correct that historical injustice, and so on.</p>
<p>Almost immediately after Trump was inaugurated President on January 20, all masks came off.</p>
<p>On January 25, the real Benjamin Netanyahu resurfaced, dropping his act altogether, and <a href="https://www.bridgesforpeace.com/2017/01/netanyahu-building-will-continue-build/" type="external">declaring in enviable brazenness</a>: “We are building, and we will continue to build” illegal settlements.</p>
<p>What more is there to talk about with Israel at this point? Nothing. The only solution that mattered to Israel is Israel’s own ‘solution’, always driven by blind American support, European uselessness and always imposed on the Palestinians and other Arab countries, by force if needed.</p>
<p>The guardians of the grand charade of the two-state solution, who shrewdly crafted the ‘peace process’ and danced to every Israeli tune are now bewildered. They have been outed by Israel’s dreadful plans that shot their ‘solution’ right between the eyes, leaving Palestinians to choose between subjugation, humiliation or imprisonment.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.palestinechronicle.com/israels-settlers-clear-path-to-annexation-with-new-land-law/" type="external">Jonathan Cook is right</a>. The new law is the first step towards the annexing of the West Bank or, at least, most of it. Once small outposts are legalized, they would need to be fortified, (‘naturally’) expanded and protected. The military occupation, in effect for 50 years, will no longer be temporary and reversible. Civil law will continue to apply to Jews in Occupied Palestinian Territories and military laws on occupied Palestinians.</p>
<p>It is the very definition of Apartheid, in case you are still wondering.</p>
<p>To meet the ‘security needs’ of the settlers, more ‘Jewish-only’ bypass roads will be constructed, more walls erected, more gates to keep Palestinians away from their land, schools and livelihood will be put up, more checkpoints, more suffering, more pain, more anger, and more violence.</p>
<p>That is Israel’s vision. Even Trump is growing frustrated by Israel’s shamelessness and audacity. He called on Israel in an <a href="http://www.salon.com/2017/02/10/president-trump-backtracks-on-israeli-settlements-jerusalem-embassy/" type="external">interview with Israel Hayom</a> newspaper to “be reasonable with respect to peace.”</p>
<p>“There is so much land left. And every time you take land for settlements, there is less land left,” Trump said. He is backtracking on promises he made with regard to moving the US embassy and the unchecked expansion of the settlements and more, as he is realizing that Netanyahu and his US supporters have led him to a cliff and are now asking him to jump.</p>
<p>But it matters little, anyway. Whether Trump holds on to his extremely pro-Israel position or reverts to a wishy-washy stance similar to that of his predecessor, Barack Obama, reality is unlikely to change—for only Israel is ultimately allowed to influence outcomes.</p>
<p>Israeli lawmakers’ approval of the bill is, indeed, an end of an era. We have reached the point where we can openly declare that the so-called ‘peace process’ was an illusion from the start, for Israel had no intentions of ever conceding the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.</p>
<p>The Palestinian leadership is hardly blameless in all of this.</p>
<p>The greatest mistake that the Palestinian leadership has committed (aside from its disgraceful disunity) was entrusting the US, Israel’s main enabler, with managing a ‘peace process’ that has allowed Israel time and resources to finish its colonial projects, while devastating Palestinian rights and political aspirations.</p>
<p>Returning to the same old channels, using the same language, seeking salvation at the altar of the same old ‘two state solution’ will achieve nothing but waste further time and energy.</p>
<p>But Israel’s humiliating options to the Palestinians can also be read in a different way. Indeed, it is Israel’s obstinacy that is now leaving Palestinians (and Israelis) with one option, and only one option: equal citizenship in one single state or a horrific apartheid and more ethnic cleansing.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2008/january/cartervisit.html" type="external">In the words of former President Jimmy Carter</a>, “Israel will never find peace until it permit(s) the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights.”</p>
<p>That Israeli ‘permission’ is yet to arrive, leaving the international community with the moral responsibility to exact it.</p> | false | 1 | solution mattered israel driven blind american support european uselessness imposed palestinians force empirical historical evidence combined little commonsense enough tell us type future options israel store palestinian people perpetual apartheid ethnic cleansing mix passing regularization bill february 6 need imagine israelienvisaged future new law allows israeli government retroactively recognize jewish outposts built without official permission privatelyowned palestinian land settlementsofficially recognized settlements unauthorized outpostsare illegal international law verdict passed numerous times united nations recently pronounced unmistakable clarity un security council resolution 2334 israels response announcement construction 6000 new housing units built throughout occupied palestinian territories construction brand new settlement first 20 years new law paves way annexation large swathes occupied west bank undoubtedly law last nail coffin twostate solution important never mattered israel anyway talk solution mere smoke mirrors far israel concerned peace talks entirety peace process even zenith rarely slowed israeli bulldozers slowed construction jewish homes ended unceasing ethnic cleansing palestinians writing newsweek diana buttu described process building settlements always always accompanied demolition palestinian homes 1 40 palestinian structures demolished since beginning 2017 according united nations office coordination humanitarian affairs occupied territories since donald trump sworn israel felt liberated obligation use doublespeak decades israeli officials spoke passionately peace everything power hinder attainment simply care period perfected balancing act simply washington expected demanded trump given blank check please settlements obstacles peace israel treated unfairly correct historical injustice almost immediately trump inaugurated president january 20 masks came january 25 real benjamin netanyahu resurfaced dropping act altogether declaring enviable brazenness building continue build illegal settlements talk israel point nothing solution mattered israel israels solution always driven blind american support european uselessness always imposed palestinians arab countries force needed guardians grand charade twostate solution shrewdly crafted peace process danced every israeli tune bewildered outed israels dreadful plans shot solution right eyes leaving palestinians choose subjugation humiliation imprisonment jonathan cook right new law first step towards annexing west bank least small outposts legalized would need fortified naturally expanded protected military occupation effect 50 years longer temporary reversible civil law continue apply jews occupied palestinian territories military laws occupied palestinians definition apartheid case still wondering meet security needs settlers jewishonly bypass roads constructed walls erected gates keep palestinians away land schools livelihood put checkpoints suffering pain anger violence israels vision even trump growing frustrated israels shamelessness audacity called israel interview israel hayom newspaper reasonable respect peace much land left every time take land settlements less land left trump said backtracking promises made regard moving us embassy unchecked expansion settlements realizing netanyahu us supporters led cliff asking jump matters little anyway whether trump holds extremely proisrael position reverts wishywashy stance similar predecessor barack obama reality unlikely changefor israel ultimately allowed influence outcomes israeli lawmakers approval bill indeed end era reached point openly declare socalled peace process illusion start israel intentions ever conceding occupied west bank east jerusalem palestinians palestinian leadership hardly blameless greatest mistake palestinian leadership committed aside disgraceful disunity entrusting us israels main enabler managing peace process allowed israel time resources finish colonial projects devastating palestinian rights political aspirations returning old channels using language seeking salvation altar old two state solution achieve nothing waste time energy israels humiliating options palestinians also read different way indeed israels obstinacy leaving palestinians israelis one option one option equal citizenship one single state horrific apartheid ethnic cleansing words former president jimmy carter israel never find peace permits palestinians exercise basic human political rights israeli permission yet arrive leaving international community moral responsibility exact | 573 |
<p />
<p>The recent actions of people from around the world in support of the Palestinian people in Gaza have arguably represented the closest manifestation of international solidarity since the International Brigades against fascism during the Spanish Civil War. A bold assertion?</p>
<p>Admittedly, I may not be as in tune with reality as I should be. Born and raised in a Gaza refugee camp where most refugees felt that no one cared about their plight, it was easy to believe that nothing could possibly break away from the ever tenuous and redundant stances by Arab and other countries — whose acts of solidarity went no further than hollow words of condemnation. The recent noble stances by activists from all over the world therefore seem like an unprecedented act of solidarity which, dare I believe, indicates the direct mass involvement of civil society as a real party in the ongoing Palestinian struggle for political and human rights.</p>
<p>During the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), when various European powers were turning blind eye to the atrocities committed in Spain, almost 40,000 men and women, representing 52 countries, made the decision to fight fascism. The global consciousness culminating in such a direct, unprecedented action was absolutely baffling considering the lack of powerful communication technology available at the time.</p>
<p>The 2,800 American volunteers included a black man — Canute Frankson — who was a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. He wrote to a friend from Madrid in 1937: “Why am I, a Negro who have fought through these years for the rights of my people, here in Spain today? Because we are no longer an isolated minority group fighting hopelessly against an immense giant. Because … we have joined with, and become an active part of, a great progressive force, on whose shoulders rest the responsibility of saving human civilization from the planned destruction of a small group of degenerates … Because if we crush fascism here we’ll save our people in America, and in other parts of the world from the vicious persecution, wholesale imprisonment, and slaughter which the Jewish people suffered and are suffering under Hitler’s fascist heels.”</p>
<p>How pertinent these words are, as one reads with anxiousness, pride and exhilaration the notes and messages that have come in from Cairo, El Arish and Gaza. They convey the support of countless people, who have demonstrated with blood and tears their commitment to humanity in Palestine, and indeed everywhere.</p>
<p>The Gaza Freedom March, a coalition of several groups, consisted of 1,362 activists from more than 40 countries who were on a mission to cross to Gaza and, along with Israeli, Palestinian and international peace activists, to march simultaneously to the Israeli Erez checkpoint. That border point, along with a few others, has completely cut off Palestinians in Gaza from the outside world, leaving 1.5 million people in a frightening state of siege. Gaza has been embroiled in the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe for years due to the Palestinian people’s exercise of their democratic rights. The people of Gaza have endured one-sided wars, and have been left to exist in a state of near starvation.</p>
<p>The valiant peace warriors of Viva Palestina have truly set new standards for how far a peace and justice activist is willing to go to back up his/her words with actions. Many millions around the world watched — despite the mainstream media’s shameless disregard of the unfolding drama — as nearly 500 activists and their 200 vehicles, laden with badly needed medical supplies for besieged Gaza, took off on a historic odyssey to break the siege. Just as they neared Gaza, they were forced by the Egyptian government to backtrack due to a technicality, and then began an arduous journey across the desert and sea and several countries. And as they approached Gaza again, in the Egyptian port of El Arish, they were blocked and dozens were left injured.</p>
<p>The Gaza Freedom March was similarly met with intimidation, assaults and violence.</p>
<p>These are not Palestinians, but internationals. From Malaysia to South Africa, from the UK to the U.S., men, women, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, people of different cultural and political backgrounds showed themselves as unified in their belief in justice and human rights. While Palestine has always enjoyed universal solidarity, with many fearless activists — who can forget Rachel Corrie? — a collective action of this magnitude and of this level of commitment is a new addition to a conflict that has been reduced over time to that of beleaguered Palestinians and a militarily powerful Israel.</p>
<p>The Gaza Freedom March, Viva Palestina, the Free Gaza Movement, and others are redefining the conventional discourse pertaining to the Middle East’s most intricate and protracted conflict. Civil society is not a group of NGOs to be strategically funded and manipulated by Western governments, but encompasses powerful, self-assured and truly representative communities from all over the world; people can be united beyond religion and ideology, and collectively cross continents, seas and deserts to put their beliefs into action.</p>
<p>The activists’ ability to overcome the shameful silence of the mainstream media also highlights the importance of alternative media as the single most important tool in achieving camaraderie. “Throughout the Gaza Freedom March presence in Cairo, our brothers and sisters from the South African delegation dynamically articulated the connections between injuries that indigenous Africans suffered under the white supremacist regime in Pretoria and the inequalities that Palestinians now face at the hands of the Israeli government,” wrote Joshua Brollier, a co-coordinator for Voices For Creative Non-Violence, in the Palestine Chronicle.</p>
<p>Many heroes and heroines emerged from the activists’ action-packed journey to Gaza. Hedy Epstein, an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor whose parents both perished in Auschwitz, deserves a special mention. She went on a hunger strike when she, along with many others were blocked from entering Gaza. Epstein didn’t stand in solidarity with the Palestinians despite the Holocaust, but because of the Holocaust. Similarly many activists drew their solidarity from their specific experiences and have fought for democracy and justice back at home.</p>
<p>Maybe I am in tune with reality after all. Maybe the words and actions of our African America hero Canute Frankson weren’t in vain. Maybe the quest for justice can in fact cross all physical and psychological boundaries. One thing is for sure, though. Gaza is not alone; in fact, it never was.</p> | false | 1 | recent actions people around world support palestinian people gaza arguably represented closest manifestation international solidarity since international brigades fascism spanish civil war bold assertion admittedly may tune reality born raised gaza refugee camp refugees felt one cared plight easy believe nothing could possibly break away ever tenuous redundant stances arab countries whose acts solidarity went hollow words condemnation recent noble stances activists world therefore seem like unprecedented act solidarity dare believe indicates direct mass involvement civil society real party ongoing palestinian struggle political human rights spanish civil war 193639 various european powers turning blind eye atrocities committed spain almost 40000 men women representing 52 countries made decision fight fascism global consciousness culminating direct unprecedented action absolutely baffling considering lack powerful communication technology available time 2800 american volunteers included black man canute frankson member abraham lincoln brigade wrote friend madrid 1937 negro fought years rights people spain today longer isolated minority group fighting hopelessly immense giant joined become active part great progressive force whose shoulders rest responsibility saving human civilization planned destruction small group degenerates crush fascism well save people america parts world vicious persecution wholesale imprisonment slaughter jewish people suffered suffering hitlers fascist heels pertinent words one reads anxiousness pride exhilaration notes messages come cairo el arish gaza convey support countless people demonstrated blood tears commitment humanity palestine indeed everywhere gaza freedom march coalition several groups consisted 1362 activists 40 countries mission cross gaza along israeli palestinian international peace activists march simultaneously israeli erez checkpoint border point along others completely cut palestinians gaza outside world leaving 15 million people frightening state siege gaza embroiled worlds worst humanitarian catastrophe years due palestinian peoples exercise democratic rights people gaza endured onesided wars left exist state near starvation valiant peace warriors viva palestina truly set new standards far peace justice activist willing go back hisher words actions many millions around world watched despite mainstream medias shameless disregard unfolding drama nearly 500 activists 200 vehicles laden badly needed medical supplies besieged gaza took historic odyssey break siege neared gaza forced egyptian government backtrack due technicality began arduous journey across desert sea several countries approached gaza egyptian port el arish blocked dozens left injured gaza freedom march similarly met intimidation assaults violence palestinians internationals malaysia south africa uk us men women christian jewish muslim people different cultural political backgrounds showed unified belief justice human rights palestine always enjoyed universal solidarity many fearless activists forget rachel corrie collective action magnitude level commitment new addition conflict reduced time beleaguered palestinians militarily powerful israel gaza freedom march viva palestina free gaza movement others redefining conventional discourse pertaining middle easts intricate protracted conflict civil society group ngos strategically funded manipulated western governments encompasses powerful selfassured truly representative communities world people united beyond religion ideology collectively cross continents seas deserts put beliefs action activists ability overcome shameful silence mainstream media also highlights importance alternative media single important tool achieving camaraderie throughout gaza freedom march presence cairo brothers sisters south african delegation dynamically articulated connections injuries indigenous africans suffered white supremacist regime pretoria inequalities palestinians face hands israeli government wrote joshua brollier cocoordinator voices creative nonviolence palestine chronicle many heroes heroines emerged activists actionpacked journey gaza hedy epstein 85yearold holocaust survivor whose parents perished auschwitz deserves special mention went hunger strike along many others blocked entering gaza epstein didnt stand solidarity palestinians despite holocaust holocaust similarly many activists drew solidarity specific experiences fought democracy justice back home maybe tune reality maybe words actions african america hero canute frankson werent vain maybe quest justice fact cross physical psychological boundaries one thing sure though gaza alone fact never | 595 |
<p>WASHINGTON — For Kevin Hassett, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the 1986 Reagan tax cut was a golden moment for economists and tax policy wonks, worthy of celebration.</p>
<p>Hassett wants to create another cause-for-joy experience with President Donald Trump’s tax-cut framework, which Hassett believes can boost the average American household’s wages by $4,000 a year.</p>
<p>And that’s a conservative estimate. According to a report released by the council this month, U.S. householders could see their wages rise as much as $9,000 annually.</p>
<p>On Tuesday, Trump has an opportunity to push lawmakers to produce legislation on his timeline when he dines at the Senate Republican Policy Lunch. Trump is in a hurry; he told Fox Business Networks’ Maria Bartiromo he wants Congress to get a measure on his desk before the end of the year.</p>
<p>“Trump has a really strong economic intuition,” Hassett told a group of reporters last week.</p>
<p>By cutting the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35 percent — the highest rate in the developed world — to 20 percent, Washington could eliminate a strong incentive for U.S. corporations to move operations abroad. The middle class would benefit, Hassett argued, because corporate expansion within U.S. borders would produce higher wages for American workers.</p>
<p>“We’re moving the demand for labor overseas, driving up overseas wages and holding down domestic wages,” said Hassett.</p>
<p>The president has prioritized tax reform as his top agenda item. He and other Republican leaders have crafted a proposal calling for steep tax cuts for corporations and potentially individuals, a doubling of the standard deduction used by most Americans, a reduction in the number of tax brackets from seven to three and a repeal of the inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates.</p>
<p>The White House is selling the tax plan foremost as a boon to the middle class. Last week press secretary Sarah Sanders said that, while wealthy earners will benefit from the package, “the priority again remains that middle-class Americans are the ones that are most impacted, and that’s where the priority and the focus lies.”</p>
<p>Hassett argued that, since cutting corporate taxes would raise household wages, the GOP tax reform also would serve to reduce income inequality.</p>
<p>Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Hassett’s Democratic predecessor, Jason Furman, both mocked the White House claim. Summers, who served under President Bill Clinton, wrote in the Washington Post that the $4,000 figure would mean that a $200 billion annual tax cut would produce $600 billion of extra cash for workers.</p>
<p>Furman wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the individual-income tax provisions present “a wash” for the middle class. He agreed that corporate income taxes take a bite out of wages, but he said recent research has found that labor’s share of the corporate tax burden ranges “from lower than 25 percent to as high as 50 percent.”</p>
<p>Economist Ben Harris, who advised former Vice President Joe Biden, called the question of how much corporate tax cuts filter through to workers a “contentious issue.” Referring to the $4,000 figure, Harris said, “Normal people should be skeptical of this claim.”</p>
<p>And UNLV economic professor Stephen Brown said, “I think the assumptions are unrealistic.” The $4,000 figure, he added, is “ridiculously large.”</p>
<p>But economic policy analyst Adam Michel of the right-leaning Heritage Foundation said, “I think that the $4,000 figure is reasonable. Obviously it’s not going to start tomorrow.”</p>
<p>Michel thinks even an annual wage increase of $9,000 is possible. “Ten years down the road,” if the tax code remains competitive and “the economy keeps humming, I don’t think that’s ridiculous,” he said. “But I wouldn’t gamble on it.”</p>
<p>“It’s hard to believe that the corporate tax is so destructive to the economy, but it is.”</p>
<p>The GOP tax framework also would collapse the number of tax brackets to three, with income taxed at 12 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent. GOP leaders have yet to release details, such as how much a worker would have to make to graduate from the 25 percent bracket to the 35 percent bracket.</p>
<p>It is not entirely clear if Republicans have the will to eliminate or reduce popular tax deductions — even after they’ve lowered tax rates.</p>
<p>In response to reports that the GOP plan would cap how much contributions to 401(k) retirement plans could be deducted, Trump tweeted Monday, “There will be NO change to your 401(k). This has always been a great and popular middle class tax break that works, and it stays!”</p>
<p>Contact Debra J. Saunders at <a href="" type="internal">[email protected]</a> or 202-662-7391. Follow <a href="http://www.twitter.com/@DebraJSaunders" type="external">@DebraJSaunders</a> on Twitter.</p>
<p>Ivanka Trump pushes plan</p>
<p>RICHBORO, Pa. — President Donald Trump’s eldest daughter on Monday channeled her roles as a working mother, entrepreneur and senior adviser to the president to help him sell his administration’s tax plan.</p>
<p>Ivanka Trump joined U.S. Treasurer Jovita Carranza and former U.S. Rep. Nan Hayworth of New York for an hourlong town hall-style meeting at a senior center outside Philadelphia. During the discussion, she called tax reform “critical” legislation and touted the proposed changes to the tax code as changes that will help everyday Americans.</p>
<p>“There are many elements of this tax plan that I think are squarely targeted at creating jobs and growth in this country and offering relief to our middle-income families,” she told the audience. “This is about the recognition that, as a country, we have to have policies that mirror our values. We have to encourage the next generation to be competitive and compassionate. For me, I think this couples together our core values as a country.”</p>
<p>The Associated Press</p>
<p /> | false | 1 | washington kevin hassett chairman white house council economic advisers 1986 reagan tax cut golden moment economists tax policy wonks worthy celebration hassett wants create another causeforjoy experience president donald trumps taxcut framework hassett believes boost average american households wages 4000 year thats conservative estimate according report released council month us householders could see wages rise much 9000 annually tuesday trump opportunity push lawmakers produce legislation timeline dines senate republican policy lunch trump hurry told fox business networks maria bartiromo wants congress get measure desk end year trump really strong economic intuition hassett told group reporters last week cutting us corporate tax rate 35 percent highest rate developed world 20 percent washington could eliminate strong incentive us corporations move operations abroad middle class would benefit hassett argued corporate expansion within us borders would produce higher wages american workers moving demand labor overseas driving overseas wages holding domestic wages said hassett president prioritized tax reform top agenda item republican leaders crafted proposal calling steep tax cuts corporations potentially individuals doubling standard deduction used americans reduction number tax brackets seven three repeal inheritance taxes multimilliondollar estates white house selling tax plan foremost boon middle class last week press secretary sarah sanders said wealthy earners benefit package priority remains middleclass americans ones impacted thats priority focus lies hassett argued since cutting corporate taxes would raise household wages gop tax reform also would serve reduce income inequality former treasury secretary larry summers hassetts democratic predecessor jason furman mocked white house claim summers served president bill clinton wrote washington post 4000 figure would mean 200 billion annual tax cut would produce 600 billion extra cash workers furman wrote wall street journal individualincome tax provisions present wash middle class agreed corporate income taxes take bite wages said recent research found labors share corporate tax burden ranges lower 25 percent high 50 percent economist ben harris advised former vice president joe biden called question much corporate tax cuts filter workers contentious issue referring 4000 figure harris said normal people skeptical claim unlv economic professor stephen brown said think assumptions unrealistic 4000 figure added ridiculously large economic policy analyst adam michel rightleaning heritage foundation said think 4000 figure reasonable obviously going start tomorrow michel thinks even annual wage increase 9000 possible ten years road tax code remains competitive economy keeps humming dont think thats ridiculous said wouldnt gamble hard believe corporate tax destructive economy gop tax framework also would collapse number tax brackets three income taxed 12 percent 25 percent 35 percent gop leaders yet release details much worker would make graduate 25 percent bracket 35 percent bracket entirely clear republicans eliminate reduce popular tax deductions even theyve lowered tax rates response reports gop plan would cap much contributions 401k retirement plans could deducted trump tweeted monday change 401k always great popular middle class tax break works stays contact debra j saunders dsaundersreviewjournalcom 2026627391 follow debrajsaunders twitter ivanka trump pushes plan richboro pa president donald trumps eldest daughter monday channeled roles working mother entrepreneur senior adviser president help sell administrations tax plan ivanka trump joined us treasurer jovita carranza former us rep nan hayworth new york hourlong town hallstyle meeting senior center outside philadelphia discussion called tax reform critical legislation touted proposed changes tax code changes help everyday americans many elements tax plan think squarely targeted creating jobs growth country offering relief middleincome families told audience recognition country policies mirror values encourage next generation competitive compassionate think couples together core values country associated press | 575 |
<p>The Anti-Empire Report</p>
<p>We’ve all heard about it of course, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) x-raying under people’s clothes or groping them like on a clumsy second date. Maybe the new security procedures will finally disturb enough people enough times so that they’ll start to raise the issue that dare not speak its name: What can we do to stop creating all the anti-American terrorists we’re now engaged full time in protecting ourselves from?</p>
<p>As despicable as their philosophy and actions are, anti-American terrorists are not just mindless, evil madmen from another planet. They are not motivated by hatred or envy of American freedom or democracy (as George W. liked to tell us), or of American wealth, secular government, or culture. They are instead motivated by decades of terrible things done to their homelands by US foreign policy. There should be no doubt of this, for there are numerous examples of terrorists explicitly citing American policies as the prime motivation behind their acts.[1] It works the same all over the world. In the period of the 1950s to the 1980s in Latin America, in response to a long string of hateful Washington policies, there were countless acts of terrorism against US diplomatic and military targets as well as the offices of US corporations. 9/11 was a globalized version of the Columbine High School disaster. When you bully people long enough they are going to strike back.</p>
<p>The US bombing, invasion, occupation and/or torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia in recent years, as well as the eternal Israeli-US genocide against the Palestinian people, have created countless new anti-American terrorists. We’ll be hearing from them for an awfully long time.</p>
<p>Following an act of terrorism, we rarely receive from our officials and media even a slightly serious discussion of the terrorists’ motivation. Was there any kind of deep-seated grievance or resentment with anything or anyone American being expressed? Any perceived wrong they wished to make right? Anything they sought to obtain revenge for? And why is the United States the most common target of terrorists?</p>
<p>But such questions are virtually forbidden in the mainstream world. At a White House press briefing in January concerning an attempt to blow up a US airliner on Christmas day 2009, conducted by Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan, veteran reporter Helen Thomas raised a question:</p>
<p>Osama bin Laden, in an audiotape, also commented about the Christmas Day would-be bomber: “The message we wanted you to receive through him is that America shall not dream about security until we witness it in Palestine.”[3]</p>
<p>We have as well the case of Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian doctor-turned-suicide bomber, who killed seven CIA employees at a base in Afghanistan last December 30. His widow later declared: “I am proud of him. … My husband did this against the U.S. invasion.” Balawi himself had written on the Internet: “I have never wished to be in Gaza, but now I wish to be a … car bomb that takes the lives of the biggest number of Jews to hell.”[4]</p>
<p>It should be noted that the CIA base attacked by Balawi was heavily involved in the selection of targets for the Agency’s remote-controlled aircraft along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, a program that killed more than 300 people in the previous year.[5]</p>
<p>So, feel-ups of our private parts and involuntary disrobing are the price we pay for waging war against the world. We get our cavities probed because our victims get predator drones up their asses.[6]</p>
<p>“Thank you for not putting a bomb in your luggage.”</p>
<p>Do you remember the “shoe bomber”? Richard Reid was his name and he was aboard an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001; he tried to detonate explosives hidden in his shoes, didn’t succeed, and was overpowered by attendants and passengers. It’s because of him that we have to take our shoes off at the airport.</p>
<p>There was also “the underwear bomber”, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, referred to above. On Christmas Day, 2009, he tried to set off plastic explosives sewn in his underwear while aboard a Northwest Airlines flight as the plane approached the Detroit airport. But he failed to detonate them properly, producing only some popping noises and a flame; another passenger jumped him and restrained him as others put out the fire. It’s because of him that we now have to, virtually, take our underwear off at airports.</p>
<p>Then there was Faisal Shahzad, the “Times Square bomber”, who on May 1 of this year parked his car in the heart of New York City, tried to detonate various explosive devices in the car, but succeeded in producing only smoke. He then walked away from the car, leaving it to lead to his arrest. It’s because of him that cars are no longer permitted in Times Square. (No, that’s a joke, but maybe not for long.)</p>
<p>The incompetence of these three men in being unable to detonate their explosives is remarkable. You’d think they could have easily gotten that critical and relatively simple part of the operation down pat beforehand. What I find even more remarkable is that neither of the two men aboard airplanes thought of going into the bathroom, closing the door, and then trying to detonate the explosives. An eight-year-old child would have thought of that. Are we supposed to take these guys and these incidents seriously? Are we supposed to take the “threat” posed by such men seriously? A month before the Christmas incident Abdulmutallab’s father had gone to the US embassy in Nigeria to express concern that his son was in Yemen and had fallen under the influence of religious extremists.[8] Moreover, the New York Times later reported: “In early November, American intelligence authorities say they learned from a communications intercept of Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named ‘Umar Farouk’ … had volunteered for a coming operation.”[9]</p>
<p>And yet Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had no problem getting on an American airplane in Amsterdam and flying to the United States.</p>
<p>The latest example of the terrible terrorist threat was in late October when we were told that two packages addressed to Chicago had been found aboard American cargo planes, one in Dubai, the other in England, containing what might, or might not, be an explosive device; which might, or might not, have exploded. Authorities said it was not known if the intent was to detonate the packages in flight or in Chicago.</p>
<p>Now get this. Terrorists, we are told, are shipping bombs in packages to the United States. They of course would want to make the packages as innocuous looking as can be, right? Nothing that would provoke any suspicion in the mind of an already very suspicious American security establishment, right? So what do we have? The packages were mailed from YEMEN … and addressed to JEWISH SYNAGOGUES in Chicago. … Well folks, nothing to see here, just keep moving.</p>
<p>Is it also perhaps of interest that L’Affaire Package Bombs took place less than a week before election day, perchance focusing the American public’s mind away from things economic?</p>
<p>__________</p>
<p>[1] William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, chapter 1, “Why do terrorists keep picking on the United States?”; this chapter ends in 2005; there are many more later examples, including the ones below in this report.</p>
<p>[2] White House press briefing, January 7, 2010</p>
<p>[3] ABC News, January 25, 2010</p>
<p>[4] Associated Press, January 7, 2010</p>
<p>[5] Washington Post, January 1, 2010</p>
<p>[6] Thanks to writer Gary Corseri for this last line.</p>
<p>[7] Vorin Whan, ed. “A Soldier Speaks: Public Papers and Speeches of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur” (1965)</p>
<p>[8] Associated Press, December 28, 2009</p>
<p>[9] New York Times, January 18, 2010</p> | false | 1 | antiempire report weve heard course transportation security administration tsa xraying peoples clothes groping like clumsy second date maybe new security procedures finally disturb enough people enough times theyll start raise issue dare speak name stop creating antiamerican terrorists engaged full time protecting despicable philosophy actions antiamerican terrorists mindless evil madmen another planet motivated hatred envy american freedom democracy george w liked tell us american wealth secular government culture instead motivated decades terrible things done homelands us foreign policy doubt numerous examples terrorists explicitly citing american policies prime motivation behind acts1 works world period 1950s 1980s latin america response long string hateful washington policies countless acts terrorism us diplomatic military targets well offices us corporations 911 globalized version columbine high school disaster bully people long enough going strike back us bombing invasion occupation andor torture iraq afghanistan pakistan yemen somalia recent years well eternal israelius genocide palestinian people created countless new antiamerican terrorists well hearing awfully long time following act terrorism rarely receive officials media even slightly serious discussion terrorists motivation kind deepseated grievance resentment anything anyone american expressed perceived wrong wished make right anything sought obtain revenge united states common target terrorists questions virtually forbidden mainstream world white house press briefing january concerning attempt blow us airliner christmas day 2009 conducted assistant president counterterrorism homeland security john brennan veteran reporter helen thomas raised question osama bin laden audiotape also commented christmas day wouldbe bomber message wanted receive america shall dream security witness palestine3 well case humam khalil abumulal albalawi jordanian doctorturnedsuicide bomber killed seven cia employees base afghanistan last december 30 widow later declared proud husband us invasion balawi written internet never wished gaza wish car bomb takes lives biggest number jews hell4 noted cia base attacked balawi heavily involved selection targets agencys remotecontrolled aircraft along afghanistanpakistan border program killed 300 people previous year5 feelups private parts involuntary disrobing price pay waging war world get cavities probed victims get predator drones asses6 thank putting bomb luggage remember shoe bomber richard reid name aboard american airlines flight paris miami december 22 2001 tried detonate explosives hidden shoes didnt succeed overpowered attendants passengers take shoes airport also underwear bomber umar farouk abdulmutallab nigerian referred christmas day 2009 tried set plastic explosives sewn underwear aboard northwest airlines flight plane approached detroit airport failed detonate properly producing popping noises flame another passenger jumped restrained others put fire virtually take underwear airports faisal shahzad times square bomber may 1 year parked car heart new york city tried detonate various explosive devices car succeeded producing smoke walked away car leaving lead arrest cars longer permitted times square thats joke maybe long incompetence three men unable detonate explosives remarkable youd think could easily gotten critical relatively simple part operation pat beforehand find even remarkable neither two men aboard airplanes thought going bathroom closing door trying detonate explosives eightyearold child would thought supposed take guys incidents seriously supposed take threat posed men seriously month christmas incident abdulmutallabs father gone us embassy nigeria express concern son yemen fallen influence religious extremists8 moreover new york times later reported early november american intelligence authorities say learned communications intercept qaeda followers yemen man named umar farouk volunteered coming operation9 yet umar farouk abdulmutallab problem getting american airplane amsterdam flying united states latest example terrible terrorist threat late october told two packages addressed chicago found aboard american cargo planes one dubai england containing might might explosive device might might exploded authorities said known intent detonate packages flight chicago get terrorists told shipping bombs packages united states course would want make packages innocuous looking right nothing would provoke suspicion mind already suspicious american security establishment right packages mailed yemen addressed jewish synagogues chicago well folks nothing see keep moving also perhaps interest laffaire package bombs took place less week election day perchance focusing american publics mind away things economic __________ 1 william blum rogue state guide worlds superpower chapter 1 terrorists keep picking united states chapter ends 2005 many later examples including ones report 2 white house press briefing january 7 2010 3 abc news january 25 2010 4 associated press january 7 2010 5 washington post january 1 2010 6 thanks writer gary corseri last line 7 vorin whan ed soldier speaks public papers speeches general army douglas macarthur 1965 8 associated press december 28 2009 9 new york times january 18 2010 | 720 |
<p>WARNING: This story and video contain themes and content that may be viewed as offensive by some. Discretion is advised.</p>
<p>If you ask Frank Meeink how he went from being one of the most influential skinhead recruiters to becoming an author, mentor and youth hockey coach, he'll tell you, "It's like I died and went to heaven."</p>
<p>In a series of interviews, Meeink told us how he once used his words to spread a message of hate and recruit high school kids to his skinhead gang, and how just one person treating him with kindness changed his life.</p>
<p>Since then, he's spent the last 20 years traveling around the world speaking at conferences against hate and his story became the inspiration for the 1998 film "American History X."</p>
<p>Meeink said every turn of the road he's traveled in life was marked by a major "what if?" but he says, the biggest "what if" of all is, "what if I had better parents?"</p>
<p>Growing up in Philadelphia</p>
<p>Meeink spent much of his childhood living with his mother in South Philadelphia, in a neighborhood he describes as tough, but safe.</p>
<p>"It was like this Irish-Catholic neighborhood where we all stuck together," Meeink said, adding that everyone was family in some way.</p>
<p>But his home suddenly felt much more unsafe when his mother remarried when Meeink was nine years old.</p>
<p>For the next four years, Meeink said his step-father beat and humiliated him constantly, making him feel vulnerable, insecure and weak.</p>
<p>"Every day when I was coming home from school, I'd plan on getting hit by a car," Meeink said, explaining that cars regularly ran down pedestrians on the narrow streets of his neighborhood.</p>
<p>Meeink said he would stand in the road and wait for the car to come but said he would jump out of the way at the last second every time.</p>
<p>"I'd feel like a loser because I can't even get hit by a f---ing car. I felt like that big a loser, and then I'd go home," Meeink said.</p>
<p>Meeink's stepfather kicked him out of the house when he was 13 years old, and with nowhere else to go, Meeink went to live with his biological father in southwest Philadelphia.</p>
<p>"Fresh Prince moved his ass out," Meeink joked about his old neighborhood.</p>
<p>"I was a white kid, and it was the middle of the school year, and I go to an all black school," Meeink said.</p>
<p>He started to lash out violently against his classmates at Pepper Middle School, and it was there that Meeink says he started to feel animosity toward black people.</p>
<p>Meeink dropped out of middle school 40 days before the end of the school year and never ended up finishing his education.</p>
<p>Getting out of Philly and into the skinhead movement</p>
<p>That summer, when Meeink was 14 years old, his father gave him a chance to escape.</p>
<p>"My dad said I could do whatever I want for the summer to get out of that neighborhood," Meeink said.</p>
<p>He headed to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in the heart of Amish country, to visit his older cousin. Meeink described his cousin, who was also from South Philadelphia originally, as a real punk rocker. He was good at skateboarding, he was in a punk rock band, and he was someone Meeink said he looked up to.</p>
<p>"When I went up that summer I couldn't wait to get punk rocked out with him," Meeink said, but when he got to his cousin's house and walked in to his room he found posters of punk rock bands had been replaced with swastikas and Confederate flags, and even a picture of Adolf Hitler.</p>
<p>Skinheads weren't always associated with white supremacy. In fact, they started out as a punk rock subculture in England. What started out as a movement among London's working class youths spread to the U.S., and by the 1980s the movement had fractured into dozens of different subgroups. Although most skinheads described themselves as being apolitical, other groups saw an uptick in white supremacists in their ranks.</p>
<p>To Meeink, his cousin and his skinhead friends were the epitome of cool.</p>
<p>However, Meeink said it quickly became obvious that his new skinhead friends had a very skewed view of black people -- one that Meeink attributes to their rural perspective.</p>
<p>"It's the same reason why almost everyone joins militias and these type of groups," Meeink explained. "It's because they get the local media from Philadelphia and they see it and think 'That's all these people do, is shoot each other.' They don't see any human factor in there."</p>
<p>For the first time, Meeink said, in that group of skinheads in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, he felt like he mattered. To Meeink, when the skinheads invited him to parties, brought him out to clubs, and asked him about his life in Philadelphia, that was the closest thing he ever had to a family asking "How was your day?"</p>
<p>So, he became a skinhead.</p>
<p>Recruiting and fame</p>
<p>Meeink quickly became one of the top recruiters for the skinheads. He had several warrants out for his arrest and so, on the run from the cops, he traveled the country picking up new recruits along the way.</p>
<p>From Georgia and Alabama to New Jersey and Delaware, Meeink would crash with other skinheads and recruit new members along the way. All the while his commitment to the movement through grew through violence and hateful rhetoric.</p>
<p>"Our job was to cause terror," Meeink said of his skinhead crew. "We even called ourselves the terror squad. We were a group of guys who went out and did violent things to people who we thought were our enemies."</p>
<p>Meeink said he came to believe that he would one day be a part of a race war between whites and the federal government and he took an oath to do whatever it took to defend his brothers. Part of that was recruiting for the army -- an area where Meeink excelled.</p>
<p>"I would say, 'Why do they get BET and we don't get white entertainment television? Affirmative action -- they steal jobs from white people to give them to black people.'"</p>
<p>Meeink would tell new recruits that they could join the skinheads and celebrate their heritage, but the irony of it all was that at skinhead meetings, no one ever talked about white heritage.</p>
<p>"It was always about 'Look at what they're doing. Look at what the Jews are doing, look at what the blacks are doing,'" Meeink said, adding "It's the biggest bait-and-switch in the world."</p>
<p>One day, Meeink was invited to appear on an ABC News program to talk about his beliefs. His TV show appearance catapulted him to fame and a leadership position in the movement.</p>
<p>Meeink used that power and fame to launch his own cable access TV show called "The Reich," which he described as a "Wayne's World" for racists.</p>
<p>"The Reich" ended after three episodes when Meeink was arrested at the studio after torturing a fellow skinhead whom he held hostage on Christmas Eve in 1992.</p>
<p>Meeink, then 17 years old, was tried and convicted as an adult and sentenced to three years in federal prison.</p>
<p>Prison</p>
<p>While he was incarcerated, Meeink formed relationships with other inmates who were people of color. Those relationships helped Meeink begin to think about changing his neo-Nazi views, but he said it didn't happen overnight.</p>
<p>In fact, Meeink's fame in the neo-Nazi movement catapulted him to leadership in the Aryan prison gang.</p>
<p>"Some people would say, 'Aren't the black dudes going to get you for being racist?' Everybody's racist in there," Meeink explained.</p>
<p>Over time, Meeink found that his relationships with black inmates, with whom he played sports in the prison yard, were in some ways better than his friendships with other white supremacists.</p>
<p>"When I found out my daughter was born, I didn't tell my Aryans, because all the older inmates and the Aryans were always like, 'Oh shit, now your girl's going to lose that baby weight, now she's going to look good again, you better get out there quick, she's going to hit everything,'" Meeink recalled.</p>
<p>"I hated hearing that s---," he said, "They thought they could joke with me like that, but it sat inside me when they would say s--- like that. I would think, maybe she is going to be hitting everything."</p>
<p>While his Aryans brothers teased him, Meeink said his black football teammates congratulated him and encouraged him after his daughter was born.</p>
<p>Getting out of prison and the neo-Nazi movement</p>
<p>When Meeink was released from prison, he returned to his skinhead crew in Philadelphia but found he didn't feel the same camaraderie when he came back.</p>
<p>"When they started saying racist bulls--- sometimes, and they would say stuff, stupid stuff, all black people are like this, and I would think, that's not true," Meeink said.</p>
<p>"I wouldn't say that at the meeting out loud, I would say it in my head, 'That's f---ing stupid. Why would you even say that? I can't believe I'm friends with you.'"</p>
<p>By this time, Meeink said he had decided that he "was cool" with people of color, but in order to keep his seniority in the neo-Nazi movement, he continued to hate Jewish people.</p>
<p>He needed a job, but no one would hire a neo-Nazi felon. Then, one of Meeink's skinhead friends told him he could get him a job moving furniture at an antique show for three days at $100 a day.</p>
<p>Meeink's friend, who also worked at the furniture store, said he had told his boss, a Jewish man, about Meeink already.</p>
<p>"I said, 'Well, what's he say? He's a Jew, what's he say?'" Meeink recalled.</p>
<p>"He goes, 'He doesn't give a s--- what you believe, just don't break his f---ing furniture.'"</p>
<p>Meeink helped Keith Brookstein, the furniture store owner, that weekend at the show and went on to work in his store.</p>
<p>Meeink said he had held on to stereotypical ideas about Jewish people, but he found Brookstein continued to prove him wrong.</p>
<p>It was Brookstein's encouragement and mentoring that finally led Meeink to give up his neo-Nazi beliefs.</p>
<p>"I was beating my head against a wall there at the end to believe it," Meeink said. "Every racist, especially in America, we all make exceptions. We all fall for that bait-and-switch, but we also all make exceptions. You all know racist people in your life, and they all say 'Yeah, I hate black people except for John, John's cool.' So, because you know him, you like him. The other ones you don't know, those ones are horrible... I just got tired of saying that."</p>
<p>Defection to activism</p>
<p>Not long after Meeink left the neo-Nazi movement, Meeink watched on the news as 168 people died in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Overcome with guilt after witnessing the domestic terror attack, Meeink contacted the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish non-government organization dedicated to civil rights activism, to offer help in any way.</p>
<p>Since then, Meeink has been traveling the world giving lectures on racial diversity and acceptance. He's written an autobiography and he and other former neo-Nazi's formed a non-profit called Life After Hate, which aims to help individuals who want to get out of extremist movements.</p>
<p>Over the last two decades, Meeink said he's learned to use his power of speech, which he once used to recruit new neo-Nazis, to teach people about empathy and humility.</p>
<p>"What I think I learned is that there's this great weapon that has been handed to me and to others and you really have to use it in the right way," Meeink said.</p>
<p>Now, Meeink said he still uses those same lessons he learned to help coach and mentor kids on his youth ice hockey team.</p>
<p>"Be kind and gentle," Meeink said "Make sure if you have kids who look up to you show them love and show them respect an don't wave them off. You do like I do with them. You have to coach in life. That's it."</p>
<p /> | false | 1 | warning story video contain themes content may viewed offensive discretion advised ask frank meeink went one influential skinhead recruiters becoming author mentor youth hockey coach hell tell like died went heaven series interviews meeink told us used words spread message hate recruit high school kids skinhead gang one person treating kindness changed life since hes spent last 20 years traveling around world speaking conferences hate story became inspiration 1998 film american history x meeink said every turn road hes traveled life marked major says biggest better parents growing philadelphia meeink spent much childhood living mother south philadelphia neighborhood describes tough safe like irishcatholic neighborhood stuck together meeink said adding everyone family way home suddenly felt much unsafe mother remarried meeink nine years old next four years meeink said stepfather beat humiliated constantly making feel vulnerable insecure weak every day coming home school id plan getting hit car meeink said explaining cars regularly ran pedestrians narrow streets neighborhood meeink said would stand road wait car come said would jump way last second every time id feel like loser cant even get hit fing car felt like big loser id go home meeink said meeinks stepfather kicked house 13 years old nowhere else go meeink went live biological father southwest philadelphia fresh prince moved ass meeink joked old neighborhood white kid middle school year go black school meeink said started lash violently classmates pepper middle school meeink says started feel animosity toward black people meeink dropped middle school 40 days end school year never ended finishing education getting philly skinhead movement summer meeink 14 years old father gave chance escape dad said could whatever want summer get neighborhood meeink said headed lancaster pennsylvania heart amish country visit older cousin meeink described cousin also south philadelphia originally real punk rocker good skateboarding punk rock band someone meeink said looked went summer couldnt wait get punk rocked meeink said got cousins house walked room found posters punk rock bands replaced swastikas confederate flags even picture adolf hitler skinheads werent always associated white supremacy fact started punk rock subculture england started movement among londons working class youths spread us 1980s movement fractured dozens different subgroups although skinheads described apolitical groups saw uptick white supremacists ranks meeink cousin skinhead friends epitome cool however meeink said quickly became obvious new skinhead friends skewed view black people one meeink attributes rural perspective reason almost everyone joins militias type groups meeink explained get local media philadelphia see think thats people shoot dont see human factor first time meeink said group skinheads lancaster pennsylvania felt like mattered meeink skinheads invited parties brought clubs asked life philadelphia closest thing ever family asking day became skinhead recruiting fame meeink quickly became one top recruiters skinheads several warrants arrest run cops traveled country picking new recruits along way georgia alabama new jersey delaware meeink would crash skinheads recruit new members along way commitment movement grew violence hateful rhetoric job cause terror meeink said skinhead crew even called terror squad group guys went violent things people thought enemies meeink said came believe would one day part race war whites federal government took oath whatever took defend brothers part recruiting army area meeink excelled would say get bet dont get white entertainment television affirmative action steal jobs white people give black people meeink would tell new recruits could join skinheads celebrate heritage irony skinhead meetings one ever talked white heritage always look theyre look jews look blacks meeink said adding biggest baitandswitch world one day meeink invited appear abc news program talk beliefs tv show appearance catapulted fame leadership position movement meeink used power fame launch cable access tv show called reich described waynes world racists reich ended three episodes meeink arrested studio torturing fellow skinhead held hostage christmas eve 1992 meeink 17 years old tried convicted adult sentenced three years federal prison prison incarcerated meeink formed relationships inmates people color relationships helped meeink begin think changing neonazi views said didnt happen overnight fact meeinks fame neonazi movement catapulted leadership aryan prison gang people would say arent black dudes going get racist everybodys racist meeink explained time meeink found relationships black inmates played sports prison yard ways better friendships white supremacists found daughter born didnt tell aryans older inmates aryans always like oh shit girls going lose baby weight shes going look good better get quick shes going hit everything meeink recalled hated hearing said thought could joke like sat inside would say like would think maybe going hitting everything aryans brothers teased meeink said black football teammates congratulated encouraged daughter born getting prison neonazi movement meeink released prison returned skinhead crew philadelphia found didnt feel camaraderie came back started saying racist bulls sometimes would say stuff stupid stuff black people like would think thats true meeink said wouldnt say meeting loud would say head thats fing stupid would even say cant believe im friends time meeink said decided cool people color order keep seniority neonazi movement continued hate jewish people needed job one would hire neonazi felon one meeinks skinhead friends told could get job moving furniture antique show three days 100 day meeinks friend also worked furniture store said told boss jewish man meeink already said well whats say hes jew whats say meeink recalled goes doesnt give believe dont break fing furniture meeink helped keith brookstein furniture store owner weekend show went work store meeink said held stereotypical ideas jewish people found brookstein continued prove wrong brooksteins encouragement mentoring finally led meeink give neonazi beliefs beating head wall end believe meeink said every racist especially america make exceptions fall baitandswitch also make exceptions know racist people life say yeah hate black people except john johns cool know like ones dont know ones horrible got tired saying defection activism long meeink left neonazi movement meeink watched news 168 people died 1995 oklahoma city bombing overcome guilt witnessing domestic terror attack meeink contacted antidefamation league jewish nongovernment organization dedicated civil rights activism offer help way since meeink traveling world giving lectures racial diversity acceptance hes written autobiography former neonazis formed nonprofit called life hate aims help individuals want get extremist movements last two decades meeink said hes learned use power speech used recruit new neonazis teach people empathy humility think learned theres great weapon handed others really use right way meeink said meeink said still uses lessons learned help coach mentor kids youth ice hockey team kind gentle meeink said make sure kids look show love show respect dont wave like coach life thats | 1,080 |
<p>Some of what Havel had to say in his Foreign Affairs article struck me as a bit overwrought. His forebodings about global “ecological catastrophe” and his criticisms of an “anthropocentric” view of the earth are unhappily reminiscent of the circles of Western self-deprecation that Havel quite rightly criticized once for their incomprehension of what was at stake along the Yalta fault line.</p>
<p>And while I certainly share President Havel’s conviction that democracy is metaphysically and morally grounded, I cannot say that I find the path between the metaphysics of morals and U.S. foreign policy quite so straight as he seems to do. At the level of metaphysics and morals, it is certainly true that freedom threatened anywhere threatens freedom everywhere. But we, meaning the United States, or even “the West,” cannot be “everywhere” at once, which means that we cannot unilaterally and universally enforce adherence to basic human rights and freedoms.</p>
<p>Moreover, certain threats to freedom pose a far more serious challenge to the future of liberty than others. This suggests that the virtue of prudence—a cardinal virtue, in classic Christian moral theology— has to guide our address to the problems of freedom in the specific locales where it is threatened. And prudence will dictate different responses in differing political, cultural, and strategic circumstances. Take the examples of Burma, Haiti, China, and east central Europe.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>ڤ The government of Myanmar/Burma is odious and cruel, and U.S. foreign policy towards the thuggish generals ruling the country should reflect that fact: through diplomatic pressure on site and in international forums, and through whatever modest economic pressure we can muster. But I do not think that the state of affairs in Burma gravely affects the national interests of the United States, or that it has serious consequences for peace and freedom beyond Burma’s boundaries. And so it does not seem to me that the threat to freedom in Burma must weigh as heavily on U.S. or other Western policymakers as would a threat to freedom in, say, Poland, or Ukraine, or the Czech Republic. (Havel might reply that we haven’t done very much to demonstrate our concern about the threat to freedom in those countries, either, and here he would have a formidable case.)</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>ڤ President Havel’s moral-metaphysical formula also fails to shed much light on the dilemmas of the world’s underclass: countries like Somalia and, much closer to home, Haiti. What are we to do in situations like these, where the rudiments of civil society necessary to provide a foundation for institutionalized human rights and for the basic instruments of self-governance are simply missing?</p>
<p>Haiti poses very difficult choices for the United States indeed, not least because it is in our backyard. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected to his office by what everyone admits was the fairest election in the country’s history and then was illegally ejected by the Haitian military. The U.S.-led embargo on Haiti is supposed to put such pressure on the Haitian generals that they will agree to Aristide’s restoration to the presidency; but, to date, the embargo has served principally to demolish what was left of the Haitian economy and to starve large numbers of Haitian men, women, and children, while failing to make much of an impression on the generals. More over, even if the embargo were to succeed there seems little chance that Aristide’s return would do anything other than set loose another round of murderous violence. Haitian “civil society” doesn’t exist; Aristide’s followers are eager for revenge, and the military and paramilitary forces are armed to the teeth; and the ousted president’s commitment to reconciliation and a genuine democratic process in his country is not altogether clear.</p>
<p>There is no political consensus, in the United States or anywhere else in the hemisphere, in favor of imposing and enforcing a settlement in Haiti through the presence of a large armed force under U.N. or OAS auspices. On the other hand, what does it do to the cause of freedom and democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean if a free and fair election in Haiti is summarily overturned? On the other, other hand, does any iron law of history or politics dictate that the tragedy of Haiti will inevitably spill over to, say, Brazil, or even the Dominican Republic?</p>
<p>Preparing Haiti for democracy would require a long-term commitment on the part of the OAS, and that would require serious U.S. leadership—which is not about to be invested, these days, on an issue such as Haiti. So the embargo is maintained (in part, to placate the Congressional Black Caucus) and the children go blind, or starve to death. This is not serious policy-making, in moral or diplomatic/strategic terms. But neither does Haiti’s travail constitute a real and present danger to freedom and democracy elsewhere.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>ڤ Then there is China. Its human-rights policies have not significantly improved in recent years, and its “most favored nation” trading status with the United States is now up for grabs. One faction claims that the best way to “open up” Chinese politics is to accelerate the country’s already rapid transformation to a market economy. The pro-MFN party also worries that any delay in achieving an open U.S. trading relationship with China will redound to the benefit of the Japanese. (Indeed, fear over lost markets is the driving force behind the business community’s pro-MFN lobbying.) Others insist that abandoning our usual MFN standards in China would cripple U.S. human-rights policy throughout the world.</p>
<p>China is one of the great geopolitical facts of world politics: a country of over a billion people, with both the world’s fastest growing economy and an alarming rate of growth in military spending and arms exporting. It is a prime interest of the United States and “the West” to do whatever is in our power to support the pluralization of political power in China, and its eventual democratization.</p>
<p>At this stage of the game, I am not persuaded that our ability to influence freedom’s future in China stands or falls with the MFN question. For there are many other ways that we could help support the forces of pluralization, whether the People’s Republic enjoys MFN trading status or not. We could initiate twenty-four-hour-a-day broadcasting into China on Radio Free Asia (and move rapidly toward TV Free Asia). A designated “China Account” could be established and generously funded at the National Endowment for Democracy (as was done for South Africa). Multilateral aid programs from the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank, which go straight to the Communist state (rather than to entrepreneurs), could be cut off. Exchange programs for Chinese intellectuals, business leaders, and government officials could be run according to criteria that would foster pluralism. American corporations doing business in China could be required to meet certain standards regarding Chinese workers’ rights. The American religious community could mobilize itself to defend freedom of faith in the PRC. And the U.S. government, in cooperation with democratic allies, could make it plain privately (or, if necessary, publicly) that China’s integration into the community of advanced industrial (and post-industrial) nations will require restraint in China’s military expansion and arms exports.</p>
<p>Beijing’s recalcitrance on human rights is not encouraging. But we have to think long-term in dealing with the PRC: which means that we ought to be thinking beyond the polarities of the MFN debate. To deny MFN to the PRC and then, absent a comprehensive human-rights strategy, congratulate ourselves for doing something important for the people of China would be self-delusion. Renewing MFN for the PRC could, given will, imagination, and staying-power, open up numerous other opportunities to press ahead on the human-rights agenda. The agenda should not be negotiable; but the means we use to advance it can and should be flexible and multifaceted.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>ڤ Finally, to return to President Havel’s part of the world: the centrality of European stability to the cause of freedom and to the security of the United States, the imperative of securing the gains of the Revolution of 1989, and a healthy dose of prudence all dictate that the Clinton administration’s “Partnerships for Peace” program be accelerated so that the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and perhaps Slovenia can be admitted to NATO in short order, perhaps with a first step being active associate membership in 1995. U.S. policy-makers should also work closely with east central European democratic governments to bring pressure to bear on western European governments whose protectionism is the most serious immediate threat to the consolidation of free societies in the new democracies east of the Elbe River.</p>
<p>In sum: Václav Havel is quite right to remind us that there are “moral imperatives” embedded in democracy, and that those imperatives bear on the formulation of a democracy’s foreign policy. But a morally grounded approach to American and Western responsibilities in the world does not yield a uniform response to the “threats to freedom” that exist all over the world. Calibration is in order, so that our reach does not exceed our grasp: for if it did, we would be frittering away the assets of freedom.</p>
<p>George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and holds EPPC’s William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.</p> | false | 1 | havel say foreign affairs article struck bit overwrought forebodings global ecological catastrophe criticisms anthropocentric view earth unhappily reminiscent circles western selfdeprecation havel quite rightly criticized incomprehension stake along yalta fault line certainly share president havels conviction democracy metaphysically morally grounded say find path metaphysics morals us foreign policy quite straight seems level metaphysics morals certainly true freedom threatened anywhere threatens freedom everywhere meaning united states even west everywhere means unilaterally universally enforce adherence basic human rights freedoms moreover certain threats freedom pose far serious challenge future liberty others suggests virtue prudencea cardinal virtue classic christian moral theology guide address problems freedom specific locales threatened prudence dictate different responses differing political cultural strategic circumstances take examples burma haiti china east central europe 160 ڤ government myanmarburma odious cruel us foreign policy towards thuggish generals ruling country reflect fact diplomatic pressure site international forums whatever modest economic pressure muster think state affairs burma gravely affects national interests united states serious consequences peace freedom beyond burmas boundaries seem threat freedom burma must weigh heavily us western policymakers would threat freedom say poland ukraine czech republic havel might reply havent done much demonstrate concern threat freedom countries either would formidable case 160 ڤ president havels moralmetaphysical formula also fails shed much light dilemmas worlds underclass countries like somalia much closer home haiti situations like rudiments civil society necessary provide foundation institutionalized human rights basic instruments selfgovernance simply missing haiti poses difficult choices united states indeed least backyard president jeanbertrand aristide elected office everyone admits fairest election countrys history illegally ejected haitian military usled embargo haiti supposed put pressure haitian generals agree aristides restoration presidency date embargo served principally demolish left haitian economy starve large numbers haitian men women children failing make much impression generals even embargo succeed seems little chance aristides return would anything set loose another round murderous violence haitian civil society doesnt exist aristides followers eager revenge military paramilitary forces armed teeth ousted presidents commitment reconciliation genuine democratic process country altogether clear political consensus united states anywhere else hemisphere favor imposing enforcing settlement haiti presence large armed force un oas auspices hand cause freedom democracy latin america caribbean free fair election haiti summarily overturned hand iron law history politics dictate tragedy haiti inevitably spill say brazil even dominican republic preparing haiti democracy would require longterm commitment part oas would require serious us leadershipwhich invested days issue haiti embargo maintained part placate congressional black caucus children go blind starve death serious policymaking moral diplomaticstrategic terms neither haitis travail constitute real present danger freedom democracy elsewhere 160 ڤ china humanrights policies significantly improved recent years favored nation trading status united states grabs one faction claims best way open chinese politics accelerate countrys already rapid transformation market economy promfn party also worries delay achieving open us trading relationship china redound benefit japanese indeed fear lost markets driving force behind business communitys promfn lobbying others insist abandoning usual mfn standards china would cripple us humanrights policy throughout world china one great geopolitical facts world politics country billion people worlds fastest growing economy alarming rate growth military spending arms exporting prime interest united states west whatever power support pluralization political power china eventual democratization stage game persuaded ability influence freedoms future china stands falls mfn question many ways could help support forces pluralization whether peoples republic enjoys mfn trading status could initiate twentyfourhouraday broadcasting china radio free asia move rapidly toward tv free asia designated china account could established generously funded national endowment democracy done south africa multilateral aid programs asian development bank world bank go straight communist state rather entrepreneurs could cut exchange programs chinese intellectuals business leaders government officials could run according criteria would foster pluralism american corporations business china could required meet certain standards regarding chinese workers rights american religious community could mobilize defend freedom faith prc us government cooperation democratic allies could make plain privately necessary publicly chinas integration community advanced industrial postindustrial nations require restraint chinas military expansion arms exports beijings recalcitrance human rights encouraging think longterm dealing prc means ought thinking beyond polarities mfn debate deny mfn prc absent comprehensive humanrights strategy congratulate something important people china would selfdelusion renewing mfn prc could given imagination stayingpower open numerous opportunities press ahead humanrights agenda agenda negotiable means use advance flexible multifaceted 160 ڤ finally return president havels part world centrality european stability cause freedom security united states imperative securing gains revolution 1989 healthy dose prudence dictate clinton administrations partnerships peace program accelerated czech republic hungary poland slovakia perhaps slovenia admitted nato short order perhaps first step active associate membership 1995 us policymakers also work closely east central european democratic governments bring pressure bear western european governments whose protectionism serious immediate threat consolidation free societies new democracies east elbe river sum václav havel quite right remind us moral imperatives embedded democracy imperatives bear formulation democracys foreign policy morally grounded approach american western responsibilities world yield uniform response threats freedom exist world calibration order reach exceed grasp would frittering away assets freedom george weigel distinguished senior fellow ethics public policy center washington dc holds eppcs william e simon chair catholic studies | 847 |
<p>Jan. 20 (UPI) — Hours after the government shut down because a stop-gap spending bill failed, Congress was figuring out how to end the stalemate Saturday.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-shutdown-2018-01-20-live-updates-live-stream/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&amp;linkId=47185183" type="external">On Saturday night</a>, Senate Majority Leader <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Mitch_McConnell/" type="external">Mitch McConnell</a> scheduled a vote for 1 a.m. Monday to fund the government through Feb. 8 unless Democrats agree to move up the vote. The Republican leader adjourned the Senate for the night but it will reconvene Sunday “as long as it takes.”</p>
<p>One day earlier, <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&amp;session=2&amp;vote=00014#top" type="external">U.S. Senate</a> didn’t get the necessary 60 votes to approve a temporary spending bill through Feb. 16 that, like the vote Monday, doesn’t protect nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children. Fifty Senators approved the measure and 49 were opposed less than an hour before the midnight deadline as a <a href="https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/01/19/Government-shuts-down-as-Senate-fails-to-reach-deal/1961516377683/?utm_source=fp&amp;utm_campaign=ls&amp;utm_medium=1" type="external">five members from from both parties</a> voted with the other side. That included McConnell who voted no so he could reconsider the motion.</p>
<p>The House, which also met Saturday, passed its <a href="https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/01/18/House-approves-short-term-spending-bill-Senate-Democrats-vow-to-block-it/4571516326016/" type="external">measure Thursday by a 230-197 vote</a>. On a majority vote is needed in the House.</p>
<p>President <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Donald_Trump/" type="external">Donald Trump</a> remained in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, canceling a weekend trip to Palm Beach, Fla., where he had scheduled a fundraising party at his Mar-a-Lago oceanside club to celebrate the anniversary of his inauguration. The party still went on.</p>
<p>Both sides are blaming each other, with Senate Minority Leader <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Chuck_Schumer/" type="external">Chuck Schumer</a> of New York calling it the Trump shutdown and Republicans and Trump calling it the Schumer shutdown.</p>
<p>“This is the One Year Anniversary of my Presidency and the Democrats wanted to give me a nice present,” Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/954678287820902401" type="external">posted on Twitter</a>.</p>
<p>His first post of the day <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/954674157144477696" type="external">came minutes earlier at 6:17 a.m.</a>: “Democrats are far more concerned with Illegal Immigrants than they are with our great Military or Safety at our dangerous Southern Border. They could have easily made a deal but decided to play Shutdown politics instead.”</p>
<p>The government was shut down, except for essential services, for the first time in four years. In 2013, the government shut down for 16 days when more than 850,000, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/20/us/five-things-january-20-trnd/index.html" type="external">“non-essential” federal workers</a> had to stay home, though they ultimately were paid for their time off.</p>
<p>Essential services will continue to function, including the U.S. mail, issuance of Social Security checks, air traffic control and screening, and the military. The National Zoo and the Smithsonian museums will close starting Monday. Others parks will remain open but trash won’t be picked up or bathrooms serviced, Office of Management and Budget Director <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Mick-Mulvaney/" type="external">Mick Mulvaney</a> said Saturday.</p>
<p>Those furloughed get paid later.</p>
<p>On Friday, Mulvaney said the impact could be limited before government offices open Monday.</p>
<p>The two sides don’t differ on spending, but whether to include a fix for the <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/daca/" type="external">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</a> program, which provides a pathway for young undocumented immigrations brought to the United States by their parents. The bill defeated includes funding for six years for Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, whose funding expired Friday.</p>
<p>The Democrats and a few Republican allies refused to vote for the bill in an attempt to force Republicans to negotiate.</p>
<p>Outgoing Republican Sen. <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jeff_Flake/" type="external">Jeff Flake</a> of Arizona, who voted against the spending bill, predicted the Senate will agree on a spending bill that would restore government functions through Feb. 8, a date backed by McConnell. Before that deadline, he hoped McConnell would revisit a bipartisan bill from <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Lindsey_Graham/" type="external">Lindsey Graham</a>, R-S.C., and <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Dick_Durbin/" type="external">Dick Durbin</a>, D-Ill.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.upi.com/Trump-rejects-bipartisan-immigration-deal-denies-controversial-remark/9221515760001/" type="external">Trump voiced his displeasure</a> with that bill last week in a rant targeted at African nations, Haiti and El Salvador.</p>
<p>Democratic Sen. <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Tim_Kaine/" type="external">Tim Kaine</a> of Virginia <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/20/politics/government-shutdown-latest/index.html" type="external">told CNN</a> on Saturday “we’re getting close. We should have just kept the government open.”</p>
<p>But he said Republicans, including Trump, don’t want to deal with DACA.</p>
<p>“Look, it’s their mess. The president created it.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/09/05/Trump-DACA-wind-down-gives-Congress-chance-to-act-on-immigration/2041504623483/" type="external">On Sept. 6</a>, the Trump administration announced former President <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Barack_Obama/" type="external">Barack Obama</a>‘s executive order protecting the Dreamers in 2012 was being rescinded. He gave Congress six months — until March — to “legalize DACA.”</p>
<p>The White House said after the shutdown the administration would not negotiate over immigration until Congress restores government funding.</p>
<p>“We will not negotiate the status of unlawful immigrants while Democrats hold our lawful citizens hostage over their reckless demands,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders <a href="https://twitter.com/presssec?lang=en" type="external">said in a statement</a> after the vote. “This is the behavior of obstructionist losers, not legislators. When Democrats start paying our armed forces and first responders we will reopen negotiations on <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Immigration_Reform/" type="external">immigration reform</a>.”</p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/954680914998648833" type="external">In another tweet</a>, Trump said more Republicans are needed in the Senate: “For those asking, the Republicans only have 51 votes in the Senate, and they need 60. That is why we need to win more Republicans in 2018 Election! We can then be even tougher on Crime (and Border), and even better to our Military &amp; Veterans!”</p>
<p>In the meantime, Republicans need help from Democrats to pass legislation in the Senate.</p>
<p>Schumer called for a <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/369892-congress-looks-for-way-out-of-government-shutdown" type="external">White House summit</a> between congressional leaders and Trump to hash out a broad deal that also deals with immigration, spending caps and disaster relief.</p>
<p>“The president and the four leaders should immediately sit down and finish this deal so the entire government can get back to work on Monday,” Schumer said.</p>
<p>Like the president, McConnell blamed the Democrats.</p>
<p>“A government shutdown was 100 percent avoidable,” McConnell said on the floor Friday night. “Completely avoidable. Now it is imminent. Perhaps across the aisle some of our Democratic colleagues are feeling proud of themselves, but what has their filibuster accomplished? . . . The answer is simple: Their very own government shutdown.”</p>
<p>On Saturday, McConnell said “the solution to this manufactured crisis was inches away.”</p>
<p>Schumer said Trump walked away from a deal on immigration during a meeting at the White House Friday afternoon.</p>
<p>“He walked away from two bipartisan deals, including one today in which I even put the border wall on the table. What will it take for President Trump to say yes and learn how to execute the rudiments of government?” Schumer said on the floor.</p>
<p>On Saturday, Schumer said “what’s even more frustrating than President Trump’s intransigence is the way he seems amenable to these compromises before switching positions and backing off. Negotiating with President Trump is like negotiating with Jell-O.”</p>
<p>Mulvaney said Schumer only agreed to one year of funding for the wall instead of the total $33 billion, including $18 billion for the actual wall and $15 billion for technology, personnel and roads.</p>
<p>White House legislative affairs director Marc Short compared the Democrats’ actions to a “2 year-old temper tantrum.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/more-blame-republicans-than-democrats-for-potential-government-shutdown-post-abc-poll-finds/2018/01/19/c4fce2f6-fd32-11e7-ad8c-ecbb62019393_story.html?utm_term=.704a5536f47e" type="external">In a Washington Post poll</a> released Friday, 48 percent of respondents said Trump and congressional Republicans would be mainly responsible for the shutdown while 28 percent faulted Democrats.</p>
<p>But a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/politics/cnn-poll-shutdown-trump-immigration-daca/index.html" type="external">CNN survey</a> released Friday that found 56 percent of polled voters believed that passing a budget to avoid a shutdown is more important than an agreement to help Dreamers.</p> | false | 1 | jan 20 upi hours government shut stopgap spending bill failed congress figuring end stalemate saturday saturday night senate majority leader mitch mcconnell scheduled vote 1 monday fund government feb 8 unless democrats agree move vote republican leader adjourned senate night reconvene sunday long takes one day earlier us senate didnt get necessary 60 votes approve temporary spending bill feb 16 like vote monday doesnt protect nearly 800000 undocumented immigrants arrived united states children fifty senators approved measure 49 opposed less hour midnight deadline five members parties voted side included mcconnell voted could reconsider motion house also met saturday passed measure thursday 230197 vote majority vote needed house president donald trump remained washington dc saturday canceling weekend trip palm beach fla scheduled fundraising party maralago oceanside club celebrate anniversary inauguration party still went sides blaming senate minority leader chuck schumer new york calling trump shutdown republicans trump calling schumer shutdown one year anniversary presidency democrats wanted give nice present trump posted twitter first post day came minutes earlier 617 democrats far concerned illegal immigrants great military safety dangerous southern border could easily made deal decided play shutdown politics instead government shut except essential services first time four years 2013 government shut 16 days 850000 nonessential federal workers stay home though ultimately paid time essential services continue function including us mail issuance social security checks air traffic control screening military national zoo smithsonian museums close starting monday others parks remain open trash wont picked bathrooms serviced office management budget director mick mulvaney said saturday furloughed get paid later friday mulvaney said impact could limited government offices open monday two sides dont differ spending whether include fix deferred action childhood arrivals program provides pathway young undocumented immigrations brought united states parents bill defeated includes funding six years childrens health insurance program chip whose funding expired friday democrats republican allies refused vote bill attempt force republicans negotiate outgoing republican sen jeff flake arizona voted spending bill predicted senate agree spending bill would restore government functions feb 8 date backed mcconnell deadline hoped mcconnell would revisit bipartisan bill lindsey graham rsc dick durbin dill trump voiced displeasure bill last week rant targeted african nations haiti el salvador democratic sen tim kaine virginia told cnn saturday getting close kept government open said republicans including trump dont want deal daca look mess president created sept 6 trump administration announced former president barack obamas executive order protecting dreamers 2012 rescinded gave congress six months march legalize daca white house said shutdown administration would negotiate immigration congress restores government funding negotiate status unlawful immigrants democrats hold lawful citizens hostage reckless demands white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders said statement vote behavior obstructionist losers legislators democrats start paying armed forces first responders reopen negotiations immigration reform another tweet trump said republicans needed senate asking republicans 51 votes senate need 60 need win republicans 2018 election even tougher crime border even better military amp veterans meantime republicans need help democrats pass legislation senate schumer called white house summit congressional leaders trump hash broad deal also deals immigration spending caps disaster relief president four leaders immediately sit finish deal entire government get back work monday schumer said like president mcconnell blamed democrats government shutdown 100 percent avoidable mcconnell said floor friday night completely avoidable imminent perhaps across aisle democratic colleagues feeling proud filibuster accomplished answer simple government shutdown saturday mcconnell said solution manufactured crisis inches away schumer said trump walked away deal immigration meeting white house friday afternoon walked away two bipartisan deals including one today even put border wall table take president trump say yes learn execute rudiments government schumer said floor saturday schumer said whats even frustrating president trumps intransigence way seems amenable compromises switching positions backing negotiating president trump like negotiating jello mulvaney said schumer agreed one year funding wall instead total 33 billion including 18 billion actual wall 15 billion technology personnel roads white house legislative affairs director marc short compared democrats actions 2 yearold temper tantrum washington post poll released friday 48 percent respondents said trump congressional republicans would mainly responsible shutdown 28 percent faulted democrats cnn survey released friday found 56 percent polled voters believed passing budget avoid shutdown important agreement help dreamers | 698 |
<p>By Katharine Houreld and Maggie Fick</p>
<p>NAIROBI (Reuters) – Kenya’s Supreme Court ruling to scrap last month’s presidential election was shaped by a new chief justice who proved a staunch defender of judicial independence on a continent where judges are often seen as being under the thumb of executive powers.</p>
<p>David Maraga’s declaration that the Aug. 8 election was void and demand for a new poll with 60 days shocked many in the East African nation and abroad.</p>
<p>But his announcement, after a 4-2 vote by a court panel to annul the vote, didn’t surprise those who know the chief justice.</p>
<p>“We knew this case was coming and he was the man to hear it,” Professor Tom Ojienda, who worked with Maraga and sits on the Judicial Service Commission that appointed him chief justice, told Reuters. “He is a stickler for the rules.”</p>
<p>President Uhuru Kenyatta, who was expected to be sworn in for a second term until Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, said he respected the decision. But he took a swipe at Maraga’s colleagues, calling them “crooks” and saying the judiciary needed fixing.</p>
<p>Kenya, a U.S. ally in the fight against Islamists and a trade gateway to East Africa, has a history of disputed votes. A row after the 2007 vote led to ethnic bloodshed that killed more than 1,200 people. In 2013, a bid veteran opponent Raila Odinga to secure an election rerun was rejected by the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>This time, the opposition changed tack in their petition. Instead of seeking to prove enough votes were fake to undermine the vote – an almost impossible task in the two weeks the court had to give its judgment – Odinga’s supporters sought to demonstrate that the online tallying process lacked integrity.</p>
<p>The new approach may have been a key factor in securing a decision that had the backing of four of the panel’s six judges, who have three weeks from the ruling to publish details of their decision.</p>
<p>But the opposition also found in the chief justice a man ready to defend judicial powers against the highest office and unswayed by a tendency in Kenya, a nation of more than 40 ethnic groups, for voters to back fellow clans people.</p>
<p>Within months of his appointment in October, Maraga called out Kenyatta for telling voters on a campaign stop in Maraga’s home region of Nyamira County in April that “their son” had a job. Maraga responded that his appointment had nothing to do with the president.</p>
<p>Both men are also Kikuyus, Kenya’s biggest ethnic group but still a minority. Odinga is a Luo, another big grouping.</p>
<p>Maraga also sent a clear message to national leaders on Aug. 2 that the judiciary was above the political fray.</p>
<p>“A LITTLE SOMETHING”</p>
<p>“The emerging culture of public lynching of judges and judicial officers by the political class is a vile affront to the rule of law and must be fiercely resisted,” he said in a statement.</p>
<p>Maraga did not immediately issue a response to Kenyatta’s latest comments. Reuters could not reach him for comment.</p>
<p>Kenyans have long complained that getting any official business done requires a “kitu kidogo”, Swahili for “a little something” or bribe, a frustration that is echoed across Africa.</p>
<p>But Kenya has slowly rebuilt confidence in its judiciary after the post-2007 vote violence. A new constitution in 2010 demanded reforms of the judiciary and other public institutions.</p>
<p>Maraga, who has risen the ranks as those reforms have been implement, was known by colleagues for his strict adherence to the rules even as a young lawyer.</p>
<p>A devout Christian of the Seventh Day Adventist tradition, he built his practice in the Rift Valley city of Nakuru rather than to Nairobi where he where he could have secured more high profile cases and would have more easily rubbed shoulders with the rich and powerful, his colleagues said.</p>
<p>“If a client gave you any problem, or asked for anything that was wrong, or refused to pay, (Maraga) would just say, ‘Let him go. Other ones will come’,” said Professor Ojienda said.</p>
<p>Maraga’s integrity and record of strictly interpreting election procedures in past polls swayed the commission to appoint him last October, Ojienda said.</p>
<p>The opposition’s high hopes in 2013 that it could overturn that election result were dashed. Supreme Court judges, then led by Maraga’s predecessor Willy Mutunga, rejected their petition.</p>
<p>This time, even Odinga – a former prime minister who has fought and lost three presidential races including this one – seemed surprised. After listening to Friday’s ruling in court, he broke out into a broad grin and pumped his fist in the air.</p>
<p>Since 2013, several new judges were appointed to the Supreme Court’s seven-strong panel. Friday’s decision was backed by Maraga and two others appointed after 2013. Another, who had been on the panel in 2013, also backed the ruling. Two judges dissented, while one was ill and did not vote.</p>
<p>“An election is not an event, it is a process from the beginning to the end,” Maraga said before reading the ruling.</p>
<p>Four years earlier, the opposition had some of their arguments thrown out as they were lodged too late, while their complaints about the widespread failure of the electronic voting systems failed to convince the judges.</p>
<p>This time, the opposition case hinged on the election board’s failure to post online tally forms from each of the 40,883 polling stations before announcing results.</p>
<p>The forms were supposed to be signed by each party’s agent, as a hard-copy backup to the electronic transmission. But thousands of forms were missing from the board’s website when it announced results. A report by independent court-appointed experts found many forms lacked official stamps, signatures or serial numbers.</p>
<p>That was enough to convince a majority in Maraga’s panel.</p> | false | 1 | katharine houreld maggie fick nairobi reuters kenyas supreme court ruling scrap last months presidential election shaped new chief justice proved staunch defender judicial independence continent judges often seen thumb executive powers david maragas declaration aug 8 election void demand new poll 60 days shocked many east african nation abroad announcement 42 vote court panel annul vote didnt surprise know chief justice knew case coming man hear professor tom ojienda worked maraga sits judicial service commission appointed chief justice told reuters stickler rules president uhuru kenyatta expected sworn second term fridays supreme court ruling said respected decision took swipe maragas colleagues calling crooks saying judiciary needed fixing kenya us ally fight islamists trade gateway east africa history disputed votes row 2007 vote led ethnic bloodshed killed 1200 people 2013 bid veteran opponent raila odinga secure election rerun rejected supreme court time opposition changed tack petition instead seeking prove enough votes fake undermine vote almost impossible task two weeks court give judgment odingas supporters sought demonstrate online tallying process lacked integrity new approach may key factor securing decision backing four panels six judges three weeks ruling publish details decision opposition also found chief justice man ready defend judicial powers highest office unswayed tendency kenya nation 40 ethnic groups voters back fellow clans people within months appointment october maraga called kenyatta telling voters campaign stop maragas home region nyamira county april son job maraga responded appointment nothing president men also kikuyus kenyas biggest ethnic group still minority odinga luo another big grouping maraga also sent clear message national leaders aug 2 judiciary political fray little something emerging culture public lynching judges judicial officers political class vile affront rule law must fiercely resisted said statement maraga immediately issue response kenyattas latest comments reuters could reach comment kenyans long complained getting official business done requires kitu kidogo swahili little something bribe frustration echoed across africa kenya slowly rebuilt confidence judiciary post2007 vote violence new constitution 2010 demanded reforms judiciary public institutions maraga risen ranks reforms implement known colleagues strict adherence rules even young lawyer devout christian seventh day adventist tradition built practice rift valley city nakuru rather nairobi could secured high profile cases would easily rubbed shoulders rich powerful colleagues said client gave problem asked anything wrong refused pay maraga would say let go ones come said professor ojienda said maragas integrity record strictly interpreting election procedures past polls swayed commission appoint last october ojienda said oppositions high hopes 2013 could overturn election result dashed supreme court judges led maragas predecessor willy mutunga rejected petition time even odinga former prime minister fought lost three presidential races including one seemed surprised listening fridays ruling court broke broad grin pumped fist air since 2013 several new judges appointed supreme courts sevenstrong panel fridays decision backed maraga two others appointed 2013 another panel 2013 also backed ruling two judges dissented one ill vote election event process beginning end maraga said reading ruling four years earlier opposition arguments thrown lodged late complaints widespread failure electronic voting systems failed convince judges time opposition case hinged election boards failure post online tally forms 40883 polling stations announcing results forms supposed signed partys agent hardcopy backup electronic transmission thousands forms missing boards website announced results report independent courtappointed experts found many forms lacked official stamps signatures serial numbers enough convince majority maragas panel | 551 |
<p>It is fascinating how, although Hollywood has implicitly believed in every crackpot conspiracy theory for decades and has been willing to attribute to the democratically elected government of the United States any and all perfidies, it retains a sentimental attachment to the idea of the presidency. The image of the good king dies hard in the Great American Republic. Look at The American President, My Fellow Americans, Dave etc etc. True, there are occasional exceptions such as Wag the Dog, but in that movie the President himself never actually appears. It is as if the filmmakers are ashamed of themselves for attributing such behavior to Our Leader, even though they and everyone else in Hollywood take it (and far worse) for granted in the government he presides over.</p>
<p>Now we have Deterrence, written and directed by Rod Lurie, which gives us what is perhaps the weirdest combination yet of conspiracy theory and presidentolotry. Its ludicrous premiss is no crazier than that of dozens of other political movies, but it is worth retelling in some detail here as an indication of what realpolitik means today to the popular culture which is not, after all, unrelated to the election of presidents. Kevin Pollak plays President Walter Emerson, an appointed vice president in the near future who unexpectedly succeeds to the presidency on the death of the president who appointed him. He is now campaigning for election in his own right in an improbably important Colorado primary.</p>
<p>Also improbably, he is still campaigning in that state when the returns begin coming in, showing him the victor. A sudden snowstorm forces him and his rather abbreviated entourage to seek shelter in a roadside eatery called Morty’s Home Style Diner. But no sooner is the presidential party ensconced in the diner amid a miscellaneous collection of locals—Harvey, the black cook and proprietor, Katy, the French-Canadian waitress, a couple of visiting New Yorkers and a local yahoo called Ralph—than the son of Saddam Hussein, now the man in charge in Iraq, invades Kuwait and massacres the tripwire force of American Marines still stationed in that country.</p>
<p>When the news is relayed to President Emerson in Morty’s Diner, he decides that it is time for an ultimatum: either Saddam Jr. pulls his forces out of Kuwait and presents himself at the American embassy where he will be placed under arrest, or our boys drop the big one (100 megatons) on Baghdad. But guess what? Surprise! Saddam Jr. has some nukes of his own and a delivery system of Superscuds—even a nuclear submarine or two—with which he can hit American and European cities. We call off our bomb or he orders his missiles into the air. Is he bluffing or are we? Does the president, so cool under pressure that he can take the time to advise (obviously with some knowledge) the New Yorkers on their chess match, submit to the mounting panic around him?</p>
<p>As they begin to realize what is going on, not only the civilians in the diner but also his two principal aides—chief of staff Marshall Thompson (Timothy Hutton) and national security adviser Gayle Redford (Sheryl Lee Ralph) grow more and more desperate to dissuade him from what looks to them like an act of literally world-shattering folly. Even the First Lady, by telephone, threatens to divorce him if he insists on blowing up the world. “I’m not going to be your Eva Braun,” she says. O ye of little faith! I’ll not reveal the details, but the president knows Something—rather a Big Thing—too that none of the others knows. It is something which makes it fairly easy for him to remain cool under fire.</p>
<p>You, like me, may think this is cheating a bit if the aim is to show off the president’s heroic qualities, but then they say that Kennedy was happy to take the credit for nerve and resolution after the Cuban missile crisis even though he knew, as the rest of us did not at that point, that the new Russian ICBMs had faulty guidance systems and were likely to be unable to hit their targets if they were fired. The really remarkable thing about this movie is that in the end (cover your ears and hum the “Star-Spangled Banner” if you don’t want to know this) the prez does incinerate Baghdad and with it, presumably, a few million towel heads, but this is obviously meant not to interfere with our admiration for him.</p>
<p>Well, comment is superfluous. But it is just worth noting one of the ways in which the film conveys this admiration. Like a certain president whose little foibles are not unknown to the readers of the American Spectator, this president is in the habit of carrying around with him an unlit cigar, which he occasionally rolls around in his mouth. When his own little international chess game has ended with its quaint, thermonuclear checkmate and he is leaving the diner at last, he pauses for a moment and lights the cigar. Boy, has this guy slipped the leash of political correctness! Not only has he Crispy-Crittered—as Ralph the Yahoo (Sean Astin) puts it—a few million A-rabs, he’s even dared to celebrate the occasion with a lighted cigar. What a man!</p>
<p>Just by the way, notice by how little—the flare of a match—Bill Clinton may lack the same touch of greatness.</p>
<p>The conspiracy in this film is a benign one (unless you happen to be Iraqi, of course), the presidential secret kept not only from the people but from his own closest advisers a nice surprise for once. But it is still a conspiracy movie and presents us with the standard Hollywood view that the world is governed by conspiracy. Now that world, the American world, and its oil supply is to be made safe for American power at no cost to you whatsoever! The sheer cleverness and American ingenuity of these good conspirators is enough to trick those dumb Iraqis out of their misguided challenge to the U.S. world-imperium. I hate to admit it after years of writing about Hollywood’s anti-Americanism, but I’m afraid that the crudest sort of jingoism is never far beneath the surface of Hollywood’s much vaunted cynicism.</p> | false | 1 | fascinating although hollywood implicitly believed every crackpot conspiracy theory decades willing attribute democratically elected government united states perfidies retains sentimental attachment idea presidency image good king dies hard great american republic look american president fellow americans dave etc etc true occasional exceptions wag dog movie president never actually appears filmmakers ashamed attributing behavior leader even though everyone else hollywood take far worse granted government presides deterrence written directed rod lurie gives us perhaps weirdest combination yet conspiracy theory presidentolotry ludicrous premiss crazier dozens political movies worth retelling detail indication realpolitik means today popular culture unrelated election presidents kevin pollak plays president walter emerson appointed vice president near future unexpectedly succeeds presidency death president appointed campaigning election right improbably important colorado primary also improbably still campaigning state returns begin coming showing victor sudden snowstorm forces rather abbreviated entourage seek shelter roadside eatery called mortys home style diner sooner presidential party ensconced diner amid miscellaneous collection localsharvey black cook proprietor katy frenchcanadian waitress couple visiting new yorkers local yahoo called ralphthan son saddam hussein man charge iraq invades kuwait massacres tripwire force american marines still stationed country news relayed president emerson mortys diner decides time ultimatum either saddam jr pulls forces kuwait presents american embassy placed arrest boys drop big one 100 megatons baghdad guess surprise saddam jr nukes delivery system superscudseven nuclear submarine twowith hit american european cities call bomb orders missiles air bluffing president cool pressure take time advise obviously knowledge new yorkers chess match submit mounting panic around begin realize going civilians diner also two principal aideschief staff marshall thompson timothy hutton national security adviser gayle redford sheryl lee ralph grow desperate dissuade looks like act literally worldshattering folly even first lady telephone threatens divorce insists blowing world im going eva braun says ye little faith ill reveal details president knows somethingrather big thingtoo none others knows something makes fairly easy remain cool fire like may think cheating bit aim show presidents heroic qualities say kennedy happy take credit nerve resolution cuban missile crisis even though knew rest us point new russian icbms faulty guidance systems likely unable hit targets fired really remarkable thing movie end cover ears hum starspangled banner dont want know prez incinerate baghdad presumably million towel heads obviously meant interfere admiration well comment superfluous worth noting one ways film conveys admiration like certain president whose little foibles unknown readers american spectator president habit carrying around unlit cigar occasionally rolls around mouth little international chess game ended quaint thermonuclear checkmate leaving diner last pauses moment lights cigar boy guy slipped leash political correctness crispycritteredas ralph yahoo sean astin puts ita million arabs hes even dared celebrate occasion lighted cigar man way notice littlethe flare matchbill clinton may lack touch greatness conspiracy film benign one unless happen iraqi course presidential secret kept people closest advisers nice surprise still conspiracy movie presents us standard hollywood view world governed conspiracy world american world oil supply made safe american power cost whatsoever sheer cleverness american ingenuity good conspirators enough trick dumb iraqis misguided challenge us worldimperium hate admit years writing hollywoods antiamericanism im afraid crudest sort jingoism never far beneath surface hollywoods much vaunted cynicism | 525 |
<p>EPPC President Ed Whelan testified at a Senate hearing on Thursday, June 23, 2005 on “The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.” His testimony explains why all Americans, no matter what their views on abortion, should support the restoration of the abortion issue to the democratic political processes.</p>
<p>Good afternoon, Chairman Brownback and Senator Feingold, and thank you very much for inviting me to testify before you and your subcommittee on this important subject.</p>
<p>Introduction</p>
<p>I am Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Ethics and Public Policy Center is a think tank that for three decades has been dedicated to exploring and explaining how the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and this country’s foundational principles ought to inform and shape public policy on critical issues.</p>
<p>The Ethics and Public Policy Center’s program on The Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture, which I direct, explores the competing conceptions of the role of the courts in our political system. This program focuses, in particular, on what is at stake for American culture writ large—for the ability of the American people to function fully as citizens, to engage in responsible self-government, and to maintain the “indispensable supports” of “political prosperity” that George Washington (and other Founders) understood “religion and morality” to be.</p>
<p>1. Why re-examine Roe v. Wade?</p>
<p>Why are we here today addressing a case that the Supreme Court decided 32 years ago, that it ratified 13 years ago, and that America’s cultural elites overwhelmingly embrace? The answer, I would submit, is twofold.</p>
<p>First, Roe v. Wade marks the second time in American history that the Supreme Court has invoked “substantive due process” to deny American citizens the authority to protect the basic rights of an entire class of human beings. The first time, of course, was the Court’s infamous 1857 decision in the Dred Scott case (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)). There, the Court held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in the northern portion of the Louisiana Territories, could not constitutionally be applied to persons who brought their slaves into free territory. Such a prohibition, the Court nakedly asserted, “could hardly be dignified with the name of due process.” Id. at 450. Thus were discarded the efforts of the people, through their representatives, to resolve politically and peacefully the greatest moral issue of their age. Chief Justice Taney and his concurring colleagues thought that they were conclusively resolving the issue of slavery. Instead, they only made all the more inevitable the Civil War that erupted four years later.</p>
<p>Roe is the Dred Scott of our age. Like few other Supreme Court cases in our nation’s history, Roe is not merely patently wrong but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people. Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states. Roe imposes on all Americans a radical regime of unrestricted abortion for any reason all the way up to viability—and, under the predominant reading of sloppy language in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, essentially unrestricted even in the period from viability until birth. Roe fuels endless litigation in which pro-abortion extremists challenge modest abortion-related measures that state legislators have enacted and that are overwhelmingly favored by the public—provisions, for example, seeking to ensure informed consent and parental involvement for minors and barring atrocities like partial-birth abortion. Roe disenfranchises the millions and millions of patriotic American citizens who believe that the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life—warrants significant governmental protection of the lives of unborn human beings.</p>
<p>So long as Americans remain Americans—so long, that is, as they remain faithful to the foundational principles of this country—I believe that the American body politic will never accept Roe.</p>
<p>The second reason to examine Roe is the ongoing confusion that somehow surrounds the decision. Leading political and media figures, deliberately or otherwise, routinely misrepresent and understate the radical nature of the abortion regime that the Court imposed in Roe. And, conversely, they distort and exaggerate the consequences of reversing Roe and of restoring to the American people the power to determine abortion policy in their respective States. The more that Americans understand Roe, the more they regard it as illegitimate.</p>
<p>Reasonable people of good will with differing values or with varying prudential assessments of the practical effect of protective abortion laws may come to a variety of conclusions on what abortion policy ought to be in the many diverse states of this great nation. But, I respectfully submit, it is well past time for all Americans, no matter what their views on abortion, to recognize that the Court-imposed abortion regime should be dismantled and the issue of abortion should be returned to its rightful place in the democratic political process.</p>
<p>2. Roe v. Wade</p>
<p>In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court addressed the constitutionality of a Texas statute, “typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century,” that made abortion a crime except where “procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Id. at 116, 118. The seven-Justice majority, in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, ruled that the Texas statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”). The Court ruled that the Due Process Clause requires an abortion regime that comports with these requirements that the Court composed:</p>
<p>“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.</p>
<p>“(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.</p>
<p>“(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Id. at 164-165.</p>
<p>Merely describing Roe virtually suffices to refute its legitimacy. One of the two dissenters, Justice Byron White—who was appointed by President Kennedy—accurately observed that Blackmun’s opinion was “an exercise of raw judicial power” and “an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review.” 410 U.S. at 222 (combined dissent from Roe and Doe v. Bolton).</p>
<p>Here are typical criticisms of Roe—from liberals who support a right to abortion:</p>
<p>The defects of Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe are manifest and legion. A brief review of lowlights is nonetheless warranted:</p>
<p>“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” 410 U.S. at 159.</p>
<p>But while feigning not to decide the question of when a human life begins—a question that is in fact rather simple as a matter of biology—the Court in essence ruled illegitimate any legislative determination that unborn human beings are deserving of protection from abortion.</p>
<p>“This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” 410 U.S. at 165.</p>
<p>This language openly reveals that Roe is a policymaker’s balancing of considerations, not an authentic judicial interpretation of the Constitution.</p>
<p>3. Doe v. Bolton</p>
<p>The same day that the Court decided Roe, it rendered its decision in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). As the Court said in Roe, Roe and Doe “are to be read together.” Roe, 410 U.S. at 165. Doe presented the question whether Georgia’s abortion legislation, patterned on the American Law Institute’s model legislation, was constitutional. 410 U.S. at 181-182. Among other things, the Georgia statute provided that an abortion shall not be criminal when performed by a physician “based upon his best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary because [a] continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the pregnant woman or would seriously and permanently injure her health.” Id. at 183. In the course of upholding this provision against a challenge that it was unconstitutionally vague, Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion determined that the</p>
<p>“medical judgment [as to health] may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.” Id. at 192.</p>
<p>It is not entirely clear what Blackmun’s garbled discussion is intended to mean. The predominant assumption appears to be that Blackmun was construing the Georgia statute’s health exception in accord with what he regarded as its natural legal meaning (or, alternatively, in a way that he thought necessary to salvage it from invalidation on vagueness grounds). Under this reading, the authority that Roe purports to confer on states to “regulate, and even proscribe, abortion” after viability is subject to the loophole of Doe’s health exception. See, e.g., Women’s Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 209 (6th Cir. 1997) (“Roe’s prohibition on state regulation when an abortion is necessary for the ‘preservation of the life or health of the mother’ must be read in the context of the concept of health discussed in Doe” (internal citation omitted)). Because the practical meaning of this loophole would appear to be entirely at the discretion of the abortionist, it would swallow any general post-viability prohibition against abortion.</p>
<p>Under an alternative reading, Blackmun’s language should be understood merely as construing the Georgia statute and not as speaking, directly or indirectly, to the meaning of the post-viability health exception in Roe. See, e.g., Voinovich v. Women’s Medical Professional Corp., 523 U.S. 1036, 1039 (1998) (opinion of Thomas, joined by Rehnquist and Scalia, dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (“Our conclusion that the statutory phrase in Doe was not vague because it included emotional and psychological considerations in no way supports the proposition that, after viability, a mental health exception is required as a matter of federal constitutional law. Doe simply did not address that question.” (emphasis in original)).</p>
<p>4. Myths about Roe</p>
<p>Myths about Roe abound, and I will not strive to dispel all of them here. One set of myths dramatically understates the radical nature of the abortion regime that Roe invented and imposed on the entire country. Roe is often said, for example, merely to have created a constitutional right to abortion during the first three months of pregnancy (or the first trimester). Nothing in Roe remotely supports such a characterization.</p>
<p>A more elementary confusion is reflected in the commonplace assertion that Roe “legalized” abortion. At one level, this proposition is true, but it completely obscures the fact that the Court did not merely legalize abortion—it constitutionalized abortion. In other words, the American people, acting through their state legislators, had the constitutional authority before Roe to make abortion policy. (Some States had legalized abortion, and others were in the process of liberalizing their abortion laws.) Roe deprived the American people of this authority.</p>
<p>The assertion that Roe “legalized” abortion also bears on a surprisingly widespread misunderstanding of the effect of a Supreme Court reversal of Roe. Many otherwise well-informed people seem to think that a reversal of Roe would mean that abortion would thereby be illegal nationwide. But of course a reversal of Roe would merely restore to the people of the States their constitutional authority to establish—and to revise over time—the abortion laws and policies for their respective States.</p>
<p>This confusion about what reversing Roe means is also closely related to confusion, or deliberate obfuscation, over what it means for a Supreme Court Justice to be opposed to Roe. In particular, such a Justice is often mislabeled “pro-life.” But Justices like Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas who have recognized that the Constitution does not speak to the question of abortion take a position that is entirely neutral on the substance of America’s abortion laws. Their modest point concerns process: abortion policy is to be made through the political processes, not by the courts. These Justices do not adopt a “pro-life” reading of the Due Process Clause under which permissive abortion laws would themselves be unconstitutional.</p>
<p>5. Planned Parenthood v. Casey</p>
<p>In 1992, the Supreme Court seemed ready to reverse Roe and to end its unconstitutional usurpation of the political processes on the abortion question. Instead, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter combined to produce a joint majority opinion so breathtaking in its grandiose misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s role that it makes one long for the sterile incoherence of Blackmun’s opinion in Roe.</p>
<p>In Casey, the Court relied on the combined force of (a) its “explication of individual liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause and (b) stare decisis to reaffirm what it described as (c) the “central holding” of Roe. 505 U.S. at 853. Each of these elements warrants scrutiny.</p>
<p>The core of the Court’s explanation of the liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause is its declaration, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” 505 U.S. at 851. This lofty New Age rhetoric should not conceal the shell game that the Court is playing. What the Court’s declaration really means is that the Court is claiming the unconstrained power to define for all Americans which particular interests it thinks should be beyond the bounds of citizens to address through legislation.</p>
<p>Even with this infinitely elastic standard, the authors of the joint opinion are not ready to assert that Roe was correctly decided. Instead, they rest their reaffirmation of Roe on an understanding of stare decisis, and of the role of the Court generally, that betrays a remarkably profound confusion. I cannot quote the full discussion, but these passages are all too typical:</p>
<p>It is probably not possible to improve on Justice Scalia’s devastating responses to the joint opinion’s bizarre assertions:</p>
<p>‘The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . .’ The Federalist No. 78.</p>
<p>“Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration … with the more democratic views of a more humble man:</p>
<p>‘[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’ A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861).” 505 U.S. at 996-997.</p>
<p>While abandoning Roe’s trimester framework, the Casey joint opinion then reaffirmed what it characterized as Roe’s central holding: “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” 505 U.S. at 879. It also stated that it reaffirmed Roe’s holding (which, as discussed above, apparently was to be read with Doe’s malleable definition of health) that even after viability abortion must be available “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Id. In addition, it adopted a subjective and amorphous “undue burden” standard for assessing incidential abortion regulations before viability. Id. at 878.</p>
<p>6. Stenberg v. Carhart</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s decision in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, provides special insight into the Court’s abortion regime. That case presented the question of the constitutionality of Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion.</p>
<p>This case crossed my mind five months ago as my daughter was being born and her head was first starting to emerge.</p>
<p>Pardon me as I briefly describe what partial-birth abortion is: It’s a method of late-term abortion in which the abortionist dilates the mother’s cervix, extracts the baby’s body by the feet until all but the head has emerged, stabs a pair of scissors into the head, sucks out the baby’s brains, collapses the skull, and delivers the dead baby.</p>
<p>According to estimates cited by the Court, up to 5000 partial-birth abortions are done every year in this much-blessed country.</p>
<p>In the face of a division of opinion among doctors over whether partial-birth abortion is sometimes safer than other methods of abortion, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, deferred to the view of those who maintained that it sometimes is and invalidated the Nebraska statute banning it.</p>
<p>I don’t have much else to say about this case. I don’t dispute at all that its result can reasonably be thought to be dictated by Roe and Casey. And I certainly don’t contend that what partial-birth abortion yields—a dead baby—is any different from what other methods of abortion yield.</p>
<p>I would instead merely submit that this case ought to make manifest to any but the most jaded conscience the sheer barbarity being done in the name of the Constitution in a country dedicated—at its founding, at least—to the self-evident truth that all human beings “are endowed by their Creator” with an unalienable right to life.&#160;</p>
<p>7. Conclusion</p>
<p>Despite the fact that the abortion issue was being worked out state-by-state, the Supreme Court purported to resolve the abortion issue, once and for all and on a nationwide basis, in its 1973 decision in Roe. Instead, as Justice Scalia has correctly observed, the Court “fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics” ever since. In 1992, the five-Justice majority in Casey “call[ed] the contending sides [on abortion] to end their national division by accepting” what it implausibly claimed was “a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” Thirteen years later, the abortion issue remains as contentious and divisive as ever.</p>
<p>As Justice Scalia suggested in his dissent in Casey, Chief Justice Taney surely believed that his Dred Scott opinion would resolve, once and for all, the slavery question. But, Scalia continued:</p>
<p>“It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved—an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation—can be ‘speedily and finally settled’ by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be.… Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.</p>
<p>“We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.” 505 U.S. at 1002.</p>
<p>As increasing numbers of observers across the political spectrum are coming to recognize, Justice Scalia’s prescription in Casey remains entirely sound, both as a matter of constitutional law and of judicial statesmanship. If the American people are going to be permitted to exercise their authority as citizens, then all Americans, whatever their views on abortion, should recognize that the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional power grab on this issue must end and that the political issue of whether and how to regulate abortions should be returned where it belongs—to the people and to the political processes in the states.</p> | false | 1 | eppc president ed whelan testified senate hearing thursday june 23 2005 consequences roe v wade doe v bolton testimony explains americans matter views abortion support restoration abortion issue democratic political processes good afternoon chairman brownback senator feingold thank much inviting testify subcommittee important subject introduction edward whelan president ethics public policy center ethics public policy center think tank three decades dedicated exploring explaining judeochristian moral tradition countrys foundational principles ought inform shape public policy critical issues ethics public policy centers program constitution courts culture direct explores competing conceptions role courts political system program focuses particular stake american culture writ largefor ability american people function fully citizens engage responsible selfgovernment maintain indispensable supports political prosperity george washington founders understood religion morality 1 reexamine roe v wade today addressing case supreme court decided 32 years ago ratified 13 years ago americas cultural elites overwhelmingly embrace answer would submit twofold first roe v wade marks second time american history supreme court invoked substantive due process deny american citizens authority protect basic rights entire class human beings first time course courts infamous 1857 decision dred scott case dred scott v sandford 60 us 393 1857 court held missouri compromise 1820 prohibited slavery northern portion louisiana territories could constitutionally applied persons brought slaves free territory prohibition court nakedly asserted could hardly dignified name due process id 450 thus discarded efforts people representatives resolve politically peacefully greatest moral issue age chief justice taney concurring colleagues thought conclusively resolving issue slavery instead made inevitable civil war erupted four years later roe dred scott age like supreme court cases nations history roe merely patently wrong also fundamentally hostile core precepts american government citizenship roe lawless power grab supreme court unconstitutional act aggression court political branches american people roe prevents americans working together ongoing process peaceful vigorous persuasion establish revise policies abortion governing respective states roe imposes americans radical regime unrestricted abortion reason way viabilityand predominant reading sloppy language roes companion case doe v bolton essentially unrestricted even period viability birth roe fuels endless litigation proabortion extremists challenge modest abortionrelated measures state legislators enacted overwhelmingly favored publicprovisions example seeking ensure informed consent parental involvement minors barring atrocities like partialbirth abortion roe disenfranchises millions millions patriotic american citizens believe selfevident truth proclaimed declaration independencethat men created equal endowed creator unalienable right lifewarrants significant governmental protection lives unborn human beings long americans remain americansso long remain faithful foundational principles countryi believe american body politic never accept roe second reason examine roe ongoing confusion somehow surrounds decision leading political media figures deliberately otherwise routinely misrepresent understate radical nature abortion regime court imposed roe conversely distort exaggerate consequences reversing roe restoring american people power determine abortion policy respective states americans understand roe regard illegitimate reasonable people good differing values varying prudential assessments practical effect protective abortion laws may come variety conclusions abortion policy ought many diverse states great nation respectfully submit well past time americans matter views abortion recognize courtimposed abortion regime dismantled issue abortion returned rightful place democratic political process 2 roe v wade roe v wade 410 us 113 1973 court addressed constitutionality texas statute typical effect many states approximately century made abortion crime except procured attempted medical advice purpose saving life mother id 116 118 sevenjustice majority opinion justice blackmun ruled texas statute violated due process clause fourteenth amendment provides state shall deprive person life liberty property without due process law court ruled due process clause requires abortion regime comports requirements court composed stage prior approximately end first trimester abortion decision effectuation must left medical judgment pregnant womans attending physician b stage subsequent approximately end first trimester state promoting interest health mother may chooses regulate abortion procedure ways reasonably related maternal health c stage subsequent viability state promoting interest potentiality human life may chooses regulate even proscribe abortion except necessary appropriate medical judgment preservation life health mother id 164165 merely describing roe virtually suffices refute legitimacy one two dissenters justice byron whitewho appointed president kennedyaccurately observed blackmuns opinion exercise raw judicial power improvident extravagant exercise power judicial review 410 us 222 combined dissent roe doe v bolton typical criticisms roefrom liberals support right abortion defects justice blackmuns majority opinion roe manifest legion brief review lowlights nonetheless warranted need resolve difficult question life begins trained respective disciplines medicine philosophy theology unable arrive consensus judiciary point development mans knowledge position speculate answer 410 us 159 feigning decide question human life beginsa question fact rather simple matter biologythe court essence ruled illegitimate legislative determination unborn human beings deserving protection abortion holding feel consistent relative weights respective interests involved lessons examples medical legal history lenity common law demands profound problems present day 410 us 165 language openly reveals roe policymakers balancing considerations authentic judicial interpretation constitution 3 doe v bolton day court decided roe rendered decision doe v bolton 410 us 179 1973 court said roe roe doe read together roe 410 us 165 doe presented question whether georgias abortion legislation patterned american law institutes model legislation constitutional 410 us 181182 among things georgia statute provided abortion shall criminal performed physician based upon best clinical judgment abortion necessary continuation pregnancy would endanger life pregnant woman would seriously permanently injure health id 183 course upholding provision challenge unconstitutionally vague justice blackmuns majority opinion determined medical judgment health may exercised light factorsphysical emotional psychological familial womans agerelevant wellbeing patient factors may relate health allows attending physician room needs make best medical judgment id 192 entirely clear blackmuns garbled discussion intended mean predominant assumption appears blackmun construing georgia statutes health exception accord regarded natural legal meaning alternatively way thought necessary salvage invalidation vagueness grounds reading authority roe purports confer states regulate even proscribe abortion viability subject loophole health exception see eg womens medical professional corp v voinovich 130 f3d 187 209 6th cir 1997 roes prohibition state regulation abortion necessary preservation life health mother must read context concept health discussed doe internal citation omitted practical meaning loophole would appear entirely discretion abortionist would swallow general postviability prohibition abortion alternative reading blackmuns language understood merely construing georgia statute speaking directly indirectly meaning postviability health exception roe see eg voinovich v womens medical professional corp 523 us 1036 1039 1998 opinion thomas joined rehnquist scalia dissenting denial certiorari conclusion statutory phrase doe vague included emotional psychological considerations way supports proposition viability mental health exception required matter federal constitutional law doe simply address question emphasis original 4 myths roe myths roe abound strive dispel one set myths dramatically understates radical nature abortion regime roe invented imposed entire country roe often said example merely created constitutional right abortion first three months pregnancy first trimester nothing roe remotely supports characterization elementary confusion reflected commonplace assertion roe legalized abortion one level proposition true completely obscures fact court merely legalize abortionit constitutionalized abortion words american people acting state legislators constitutional authority roe make abortion policy states legalized abortion others process liberalizing abortion laws roe deprived american people authority assertion roe legalized abortion also bears surprisingly widespread misunderstanding effect supreme court reversal roe many otherwise wellinformed people seem think reversal roe would mean abortion would thereby illegal nationwide course reversal roe would merely restore people states constitutional authority establishand revise timethe abortion laws policies respective states confusion reversing roe means also closely related confusion deliberate obfuscation means supreme court justice opposed roe particular justice often mislabeled prolife justices like rehnquist white scalia thomas recognized constitution speak question abortion take position entirely neutral substance americas abortion laws modest point concerns process abortion policy made political processes courts justices adopt prolife reading due process clause permissive abortion laws would unconstitutional 5 planned parenthood v casey 1992 supreme court seemed ready reverse roe end unconstitutional usurpation political processes abortion question instead planned parenthood v casey 505 us 833 1992 justices oconnor kennedy souter combined produce joint majority opinion breathtaking grandiose misunderstanding supreme courts role makes one long sterile incoherence blackmuns opinion roe casey court relied combined force explication individual liberty protected due process clause b stare decisis reaffirm described c central holding roe 505 us 853 elements warrants scrutiny core courts explanation liberty interests protected due process clause declaration heart liberty right define ones concept existence meaning universe mystery human life 505 us 851 lofty new age rhetoric conceal shell game court playing courts declaration really means court claiming unconstrained power define americans particular interests thinks beyond bounds citizens address legislation even infinitely elastic standard authors joint opinion ready assert roe correctly decided instead rest reaffirmation roe understanding stare decisis role court generally betrays remarkably profound confusion quote full discussion passages typical probably possible improve justice scalias devastating responses joint opinions bizarre assertions judiciary direction either strength wealth society take active resolution whatever may truly said neither force merely judgment federalist 78 compare ecstasy supreme court especially controversial matters shadow change hint alteration democratic views humble man candid citizen must confess policy government upon vital questions affecting whole people irrevocably fixed decisions supreme court people ceased rulers extent practically resigned government hands eminent tribunal lincoln first inaugural address mar 4 1861 505 us 996997 abandoning roes trimester framework casey joint opinion reaffirmed characterized roes central holding state may prohibit woman making ultimate decision terminate pregnancy viability 505 us 879 also stated reaffirmed roes holding discussed apparently read malleable definition health even viability abortion must available necessary appropriate medical judgment preservation life health mother id addition adopted subjective amorphous undue burden standard assessing incidential abortion regulations viability id 878 6 stenberg v carhart supreme courts decision 2000 stenberg v carhart 530 us 914 provides special insight courts abortion regime case presented question constitutionality nebraskas ban partialbirth abortion case crossed mind five months ago daughter born head first starting emerge pardon briefly describe partialbirth abortion method lateterm abortion abortionist dilates mothers cervix extracts babys body feet head emerged stabs pair scissors head sucks babys brains collapses skull delivers dead baby according estimates cited court 5000 partialbirth abortions done every year muchblessed country face division opinion among doctors whether partialbirth abortion sometimes safer methods abortion court 54 vote deferred view maintained sometimes invalidated nebraska statute banning dont much else say case dont dispute result reasonably thought dictated roe casey certainly dont contend partialbirth abortion yieldsa dead babyis different methods abortion yield would instead merely submit case ought make manifest jaded conscience sheer barbarity done name constitution country dedicatedat founding leastto selfevident truth human beings endowed creator unalienable right life160 7 conclusion despite fact abortion issue worked statebystate supreme court purported resolve abortion issue nationwide basis 1973 decision roe instead justice scalia correctly observed court fanned life issue inflamed national politics ever since 1992 fivejustice majority casey called contending sides abortion end national division accepting implausibly claimed common mandate rooted constitution thirteen years later abortion issue remains contentious divisive ever justice scalia suggested dissent casey chief justice taney surely believed dred scott opinion would resolve slavery question scalia continued realistic us case think issue sort involvedan issue involving life death freedom subjugationcan speedily finally settled supreme court president james buchanan inaugural address said issue slavery territories would quite contrary foreclosing democratic outlet deep passions issue arouses banishing issue political forum gives participants even losers satisfaction fair hearing honest fight continuing imposition rigid national rule instead allowing regional differences court merely prolongs intensifies anguish get area right neither country good remaining 505 us 1002 increasing numbers observers across political spectrum coming recognize justice scalias prescription casey remains entirely sound matter constitutional law judicial statesmanship american people going permitted exercise authority citizens americans whatever views abortion recognize supreme courts unconstitutional power grab issue must end political issue whether regulate abortions returned belongsto people political processes states | 1,922 |
<p>In response to my column last week about President Obama's complaints regarding the New Media and the “echo chamber” in Washington, I received a note from a journalist whom I respect and who posed these questions to me:</p>
<p>Couldn't it be that Obama genuinely wants to ratchet up the civility in our national conversation . . . and is merely pointing out that cable television news is mainly about politics, shallow arguments, bickering, and at times name-calling? Couldn't the president, in other words, be sincere?</p>
<p>He went on to ask about the New Media's role in “accelerat[ing] the polarization in our culture, which is not a good thing. Couldn't there also be a real concern about the state of political discourse in America these days?”</p>
<p>Those are fair questions and worth taking up, both as they relate to President Obama and to the New Media. On the matter of the president, it's probably worth noting that during the 2008 presidential campaign <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102663.html" type="external">I wrote favorably about Barack Obama</a> in part because unlike Hillary Clinton and especially John Edwards, Obama had a message that, at its core, was about unity and hope rather than division and resentment:</p>
<p>[Candidate Obama] comes across, in his person and manner, as nonpartisan. He has an unsurpassed ability to (seemingly) transcend politics. Even when he disagrees with people, he doesn't seem disagreeable.</p>
<p>What is disappointing about President Obama is that he has governed in a manner so at odds with his core campaign commitments. Mr. Obama <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/125345/obama-approval-polarized-first-year-president.aspx" type="external">has become the most polarizing first-year president in the history of Gallup</a>.</p>
<p>He has allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in particular to promote a deeply partisan agenda, shutting out Republicans at almost every conceivable point. Depending on your politics, you may think that is a wise thing or a disastrous thing. But it is not a unifying thing. And declaring war on Fox News and intentionally targeting and elevating Rush Limbaugh, in an effort to make him the “face” of the GOP, are hardly the actions of a man who has reconciliation on his mind. Neither is selecting Rahm Emanuel — one of the most relentlessly partisan figures in Washington — as your chief of staff.</p>
<p>These are not the actions of a man who said that he would “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” Nor has Obama specifically called to task anyone on the Democratic/liberal side for incivility — including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who accused those protesting President Obama's health-care proposals of being “evil mongers”; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who claimed that those attending town hall meetings in the summer were acting in “un-American” ways; the DNC for running ads describing those showing up at those town hall meetings as engaging in “mob activity;” Democratic Rep. Brian Baird declaring that opponents of ObamaCare reminded him of Timothy McVeigh; Rep. Alan Grayson telling former Vice President Cheney to “shut the f*** up” and declaring that the GOP health care plan consisted of telling people, “Don't get sick” — and if they do, to die quickly; and Obama himself referring to those who disagree with him <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-to-a-joint-session-of-congress-on-health-care" type="external">as liars during his speech to a joint session of Congress</a> in September 2009.</p>
<p>Just as troubling is that the Obama administration has repeatedly misrepresented the facts about his health care proposal (for more, see <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/76252" type="external">here</a>and <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/76531" type="external">here</a>) as well as the number of jobs his administration has allegedly “ <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/231341" type="external">saved and created</a>,” about banning lobbyists in his administration, and much more. Then there is the president's incessant willingness to blame his failures on his predecessor seemingly every day, an act that long ago became tiresome. All of which is to say that Mr. Obama's record undermines the claim that he wants to elevate civil and high-minded public discourse.</p>
<p>What he wants is to get his way, and when voices of dissent speak out against him, he gets irritated and prickly. In their book The Battle for America 2008, Haynes Johnson and the outstanding political reporter Dan Balz wrote this: “[Chief political aide David] Axelrod also warned that Obama's confessions of youthful drug use, described in his memoir, Dreams From My Father, would be used against him. “This is more than an unpleasant inconvenience,” he wrote. “It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don't know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don't relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,” he said of Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate opponent.</p>
<p>That is, I think, at the heart of Obama's complaints about the “echo chamber.”</p>
<p>As for the merits and de-merits of the New Media itself: of course there are downsides to it. It has, after all, given rise to the likes of Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, which is not a good thing. Many people do view news simply to reinforce their pre-existing views. The tone of the Internet can be ad hominem and even viscous. And the New Media undoubtedly does add to the polarization of our culture, though probably not as much as most people imagine.</p>
<p>It's worth bearing in mind, though, that American politics has always involved bickering and name-calling, often to a degree far beyond what we're witnessing now. For example, the campaign between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in 1800 is regarded by scholars as among the nastiest in American history. One pro-Adams newspaper predicted that if Jefferson were elected, “murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.” And despite the deep differences that exist between political figures today, we do not settle our differences the way Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr did, by duels at 10 paces with flintlock pistols.</p>
<p>Politics has always been a tough and rambunctious profession; we shouldn't romanticize the past in our effort to condemn the present state of affairs.</p>
<p>On the plus side, the New Media has broken a monopoly that existed for decades — and which, with very few exceptions, provided the public with essentially the same narrative and interpretation of events. Today there is an almost endless supply of different sources for the public to look to and consider. Some of those sources are irresponsible, but many of them are superb. We are far more informed than we were in the Age of Cronkite, Brokaw, and Jennings. And there is now a check on the mainstream press in a way that simply wasn't the case a quarter century ago. To name just one example: CBS anchor Dan Rather's use of forged documents in his 60 Minutes piece aimed at President Bush simply would not have been exposed in a previous era.</p>
<p>There are plenty of smart, thoughtful people on cable news and the Internet — voices that would have been silent a generation ago. Arguments and points of view are being aired and vigorously engaged, facts are being challenged, and lines of rea soning are being called into question to a degree we have never seen before.</p>
<p>Are there excesses? Of course. Few things in political life are unalloyed goods; that is true of the New Media as well. But in a self-governing nation like ours, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.</p>
<p>There is certainly room for improvement. But Mr. President, heal thyself. Barack Obama certainly has the capacity to positively shape the direction of public discourse. I hope he does. But based on the last year, it's fair to wonder if he ever will.</p>
<p>Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. He served in the Bush White House as director of the office of strategic initiatives.</p> | false | 1 | response column last week president obamas complaints regarding new media echo chamber washington received note journalist respect posed questions couldnt obama genuinely wants ratchet civility national conversation merely pointing cable television news mainly politics shallow arguments bickering times namecalling couldnt president words sincere went ask new medias role accelerating polarization culture good thing couldnt also real concern state political discourse america days fair questions worth taking relate president obama new media matter president probably worth noting 2008 presidential campaign wrote favorably barack obama part unlike hillary clinton especially john edwards obama message core unity hope rather division resentment candidate obama comes across person manner nonpartisan unsurpassed ability seemingly transcend politics even disagrees people doesnt seem disagreeable disappointing president obama governed manner odds core campaign commitments mr obama become polarizing firstyear president history gallup allowed nancy pelosi harry reid particular promote deeply partisan agenda shutting republicans almost every conceivable point depending politics may think wise thing disastrous thing unifying thing declaring war fox news intentionally targeting elevating rush limbaugh effort make face gop hardly actions man reconciliation mind neither selecting rahm emanuel one relentlessly partisan figures washington chief staff actions man said would resist temptation fall back partisanship pettiness immaturity poisoned politics long obama specifically called task anyone democraticliberal side incivility including senate majority leader harry reid accused protesting president obamas healthcare proposals evil mongers house speaker nancy pelosi claimed attending town hall meetings summer acting unamerican ways dnc running ads describing showing town hall meetings engaging mob activity democratic rep brian baird declaring opponents obamacare reminded timothy mcveigh rep alan grayson telling former vice president cheney shut f declaring gop health care plan consisted telling people dont get sick die quickly obama referring disagree liars speech joint session congress september 2009 troubling obama administration repeatedly misrepresented facts health care proposal see hereand well number jobs administration allegedly saved created banning lobbyists administration much presidents incessant willingness blame failures predecessor seemingly every day act long ago became tiresome say mr obamas record undermines claim wants elevate civil highminded public discourse wants get way voices dissent speak gets irritated prickly book battle america 2008 haynes johnson outstanding political reporter dan balz wrote chief political aide david axelrod also warned obamas confessions youthful drug use described memoir dreams father would used unpleasant inconvenience wrote goes willingness ability put something never experienced sustained basis criticism risk triggering reaction concerns dont know muhammad ali floyd patterson comes taking punch care far much written said dont relish combat becomes personal nasty largely irrelevant alan keyes attacked flinched said obamas 2004 us senate opponent think heart obamas complaints echo chamber merits demerits new media course downsides given rise likes keith olbermann glenn beck good thing many people view news simply reinforce preexisting views tone internet ad hominem even viscous new media undoubtedly add polarization culture though probably much people imagine worth bearing mind though american politics always involved bickering namecalling often degree far beyond witnessing example campaign thomas jefferson john adams 1800 regarded scholars among nastiest american history one proadams newspaper predicted jefferson elected murder robbery rape adultery incest openly taught practiced air rent cries distressed soil soaked blood nation black crimes despite deep differences exist political figures today settle differences way alexander hamilton aaron burr duels 10 paces flintlock pistols politics always tough rambunctious profession shouldnt romanticize past effort condemn present state affairs plus side new media broken monopoly existed decades exceptions provided public essentially narrative interpretation events today almost endless supply different sources public look consider sources irresponsible many superb far informed age cronkite brokaw jennings check mainstream press way simply wasnt case quarter century ago name one example cbs anchor dan rathers use forged documents 60 minutes piece aimed president bush simply would exposed previous era plenty smart thoughtful people cable news internet voices would silent generation ago arguments points view aired vigorously engaged facts challenged lines rea soning called question degree never seen excesses course things political life unalloyed goods true new media well selfgoverning nation like advantages far outweigh disadvantages certainly room improvement mr president heal thyself barack obama certainly capacity positively shape direction public discourse hope based last year fair wonder ever peter wehner senior fellow ethics public policy center washington dc served bush white house director office strategic initiatives | 709 |
<p>As readers of Politics Daily are aware, David Corn and I have gone back and forth with one another on whether President Bush lied us into the Iraq war. The whole exchange was triggered by something <a href="http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/13/the-iraq-war-suddenly-its-not-so-bad-after-all/" type="external">I wrote here</a>, which actually had nothing to do with the reasons we went to war. But my piece <a href="http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/15/iraq-war-triumphalism-ignores-a-key-matter-dead-civilians/" type="external">led to this</a> , <a href="http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/16/iraq-war-debate-surge-success-intelligence-mistakes-civilian/" type="external">this</a>, <a href="http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/17/can-the-bush-lied-deniers-handle-the-truth/" type="external">and this.</a></p>
<p>In his most recent column on the subject, Corn went after me, my former White House colleague Karl Rove, and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat for daring to challenge the “Bush lied” mantra. Corn lists what he thinks is the strongest evidence to prove Bush lied — and he issued this challenge: “I dare any of them to attempt a line-by-line response.”</p>
<p>Since both Karl and Ross are busy with far more important things, I'll gladly take up Corn's challenge — and add some further points of my own.</p>
<p>A careful analysis of several of these charges will reveal, I think, how remarkably weak and misleading is the case that supposedly “proves” George W. Bush took America to war based on a pack of lies. For more, read on. (Because of the unusual length of this response, I'm dealing with just five of Corn's main charges.)</p>
<p>1. David Corn claims this:</p>
<p>During an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Bush said that U.N. inspectors had “concluded” that Iraq in the 1990s had actually produced “two to four times” the 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents than it had acknowledged making. Bush continued: “This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.” But U.N. inspectors had concluded no such thing. They had reported destroying key facilities Iraq had used to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The inspectors had encountered discrepancies in the accounting of Iraq's weapons and WMD material and had noted that Iraq could have produced more weapons than the inspectors had uncovered. Bush was misstating the facts to turn a possible stockpile of WMD into an actual arsenal. [emphasis added]</p>
<p>Now let's see what <a href="http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html" type="external">President Bush really said:</a></p>
<p>In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and [is] capable of killing millions. [emphasis added]</p>
<p>Note what is being done here. Corn takes Bush's description of U.N. inspectors' conclusions that Iraq had “likely produced” biological weapons and warps it into a contention that Iraq in the 1990s had “actually produced” biological weapons. President Bush correctly reported an element of uncertainty in the U.N. inspectors' reports; David Corn dropped it. I wonder why.</p>
<p>Moreover, and in full context, it is clear that Bush was accurately reporting the U.N. inspectors' inability to verify Saddam's claims that he had destroyed his biological weapons (BW) stockpiles, after Saddam had been lying about them for years.</p>
<p>Here is what the UNSCOM inspectors concluded in <a href="http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/980415.htm" type="external">one of their final reports:</a></p>
<p>4.10.4 Iraq claims that the BW programme was obliterated in 1991 as demonstrated by the unilateral destruction of the weapons deployed, bulk agent and some documents associated with the BW programme. Iraq, however, retained the facilities, growth media, equipment and groupings of core technical personnel at Al Hakam, and continued to deny the BW programme's existence. In spite of Iraq's continued denial of the preservation of its BW programme, the Government of Iraq has yet to offer documentation of its formal renunciation. The head of the Iraqi delegation took the position that he could offer no defence to justify the concealment and deception prior to 1995. These positions and acts raise serious doubts about Iraq's assertion that the BW programme was truly obliterated in 1991. 5.2 Iraq's FFCD [UN mandated declaration] is judged to be incomplete and inadequate. The information presented by Iraq does not provide the basis for the formulation of a material balance or a determination of the structure and organisation of the BW programme. This is required for effective monitoring of Iraq's dual capable facilities. 5.3 The construction of a material balance, based primarily on recollection, provides no confidence that resources such as weapons, bulk agents, bulk media and seed stocks, have been eliminated. 5.4 The organisational aspects of the BW programme are not clear and there is little confidence that the full scope of the BW programme is revealed. Additional aspects, such as the existence of dormant or additional BW programmes, remain unresolved.</p>
<p>For those not familiar with U.N.-speak, the report could hardly be more damning. Saddam denied for years that he possessed a biological weapons program. Confronted with overwhelming evidence that he was lying, he grudgingly made incomplete, inadequate, and inaccurate declarations. Hence, much deadly material remained unaccounted for.</p>
<p>2. Corn makes this charge:</p>
<p>At a Sept. 7, 2002, joint news conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Bush declared that a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report had found that Iraq had been “six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.” One problem: There was no such IAEA report. In 1998, the IAEA actually had reported there were “no indications” that Iraq was producing nuclear weapons. Bush wasn't citing bad intelligence. He had concocted a nonexistent report to bolster the case for war.</p>
<p>Here is the relevant portion of the press conference <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/07/bn.01.html" type="external">transcript to which Corn is referring</a>:</p>
<p>Tony Blair, British Prime Minister: The point that I would emphasize to you, is that the threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons capability — that threat is real. We only need to look at the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning, showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapon sites to realize that.</p>
<p>And the policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to. So the purpose of our discussion today is to work out the right strategy for dealing with this. Because deal with it we must.</p>
<p>Q: Mr. President, can you tell us what conclusive evidence of any nuclear — new evidence you have of nuclear weapons capabilities of Saddam Hussein?</p>
<p>President Bush: We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access, a report came out of the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.</p>
<p>Blair: Absolutely right. And what we know from what has been going on there for a long period of time is not just the chemical, biological weapons capability. But we know that they were trying to develop nuclear weapons capability. And the importance of this morning's report, is that it yet again shows that there is a real issue that has to be tackled here. There are several things to note here. Contrary to Corn's claim, Bush did not “declare” that a “1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report” had found that Iraq had been six months away from developing a nuclear weapons. In fact, Bush never mentioned 1998; what happened is that some reporters (and Corn) wrongly jumped to the conclusion that he meant a 1998 report because that was the year that Saddam expelled IAEA inspectors. The White House press secretary later clarified that Bush was referring to earlier revelations about Iraq's “crash program” to build nuclear weapons that came to light after the first Gulf War. And that made some sense. The crash program was intended to produce a weapon within six months, but the United States unwittingly hampered the effort with its bombing campaign. Nonetheless, when the program was revealed after the war, IAEA inspectors were shocked by <a href="http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC39/Resolutions/gc3910a1.html" type="external">how close Iraq had come to acquiring a weapon.</a></p>
<p>Here is how PBS's Frontline web page <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html" type="external">described Saddam's progress</a>:</p>
<p>In summary, the IAEA report says that following the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq launched a “crash program” to develop a nuclear weapon quickly by extracting weapons grade material from safe-guarded research reactor fuel. This project, if it had continued uninterrupted by the war, might have succeeded in producing a deliverable weapon by the end of 1992.</p>
<p>David Albright, who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War and was an IAEA inspector, <a href="http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/isis-nucmat-100902.htm" type="external">put it this way:</a></p>
<p>The goal was to execute this plan and build a nuclear weapon within six months, although by the time of the Allied bombing campaign in mid-January 1991, which stopped the effort, Iraq had fallen several months behind and was unlikely to finish a nuclear explosive device until at least the following summer or the end of the year. A nuclear warhead for a ballistic missile would have taken significantly longer, according to Action Team assessments supported by member states.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/isis-nucmat-100902.htm" type="external">Richard Butler, the former head of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM),</a> <a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/4687/testimony_by_richard_butler_on_iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction.html:" type="external">said this</a>:</p>
<p>Saddam has sought nuclear weapons for some two decades. Ten years ago he intensified his efforts, instituting a “crash program.” The Gulf War put an end to this. Subsequent inspection and analysis by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and UNSCOM, showed that in spite of relatively deficient indigenous sources of the fissionable material needed to make a nuclear weapon, Saddam's program was as close as six months from yielding a bomb.</p>
<p>I could go on, but the point is clear: Bush did not “lie” and he did not fabricate the fact that in the early 1990s Saddam had been quite close to developing a nuclear weapon and that UN inspectors had reported this to the world. The case against Bush boils down to the fact that there was not an IAEA report that said Iraq was six months from a bomb the year the inspectors were expelled; Bush's statement was based instead on a series of statements by UNSCOM and IAEA officials who said Saddam might have been only six months away from developing a nuclear weapon, though it might have taken Iraq months longer. To David Corn, this qualifies as a “willful campaign of misrepresentation and hyperbole.” I will leave it to discerning readers to determine whether this description better fits Bush or Corn himself.</p>
<p>3. Corn asserts this:</p>
<p>Bush and his aides repeatedly asserted Iraq was loaded with chemical weapons. In a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 26, 2002, Bush insisted that “the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons.” Yet a September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which was widely distributed to government policymakers, said, “There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has — or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”</p>
<p>Here, <a href="http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html" type="external">Corn is quoting Bush correctly</a>. But Bush's assessment is not surprising, since it is very similar to what the National Intelligence Estimate <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm" type="external">(NIE) said on the matter</a>:</p>
<p>We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX [chemical weapons agents]; its capability is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.</p>
<p>We judge that all key aspects — R&amp;D, production, and weaponization — of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.</p>
<p>Nor is it surprising that Bush would have used language completely consistent with the conclusions of the NIE; after all, the Intelligence Community findings on Iraq had been remarkably consistent over the years (that ultimately was part of the problem), in administrations both Democratic and Republican.</p>
<p>Here is how George Tenet, who served both Presidents Clinton and Bush as CIA director, <a href="http://www.dni.gov/nic/speeches_DCIstatement.html" type="external">described the intelligence:</a></p>
<p>The [October 2002 Iraq WMD] NIE demonstrates consistency in our judgments over many years and are based on a decade's worth of work. Intelligence is an iterative process and as new evidence becomes available we constantly reevaluate.</p>
<p>Corn seems to believe that any intelligence report that reinforces his views and is different than, or later superseded by, the NIE — and if it is not mentioned by the president — is proof positive of a massive fabrication campaign. So, for instance, Corn points to a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report that he considers inconsistent with the NIE (and which pre-dated the NIE report) because it asserts, “There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has — or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”</p>
<p>Yet Corn omits the fact that <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd12.pdf" type="external">the DIA report</a> went on to say that Iraq “probably possesses bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent or stabilized VX.” It also says that Iraq seemed to be “distributing CW munitions” in mid-2002, that it “retains all the chemicals and equipment” to produce mustard gas (although not the more advanced G- and V-series nerve agents), and that it is “steadily establishing a dual-use industrial chemical infrastructure” that could be used to make more chemical weapons. And Corn ignores the DIA report's conclusions: “DIA stands solidly behind the Intelligence Community's assessment that [as of 2002] Iraq had an on-going chemical weapons program that was in violation of United Nations sanctions.”</p>
<p>Moreover, Corn never mentions that Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, then director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said his agency concurred with the intelligence community consensus that Iraq had a program for weapons of mass destruction. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/06/sprj.irq.wmd/index.html" type="external">Jacoby said that</a> even though DIA “could not specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part of the weapons of mass destruction programs, specifically the chemical warfare portion,” the agency believed nonetheless that such a program was “part of the Iraqi WMD infrastructure.”</p>
<p>No fair-minded person could read both the NIE and the DIA reports and conclude Bush was lying.</p>
<p>4. Corn raises the issue of Saddam's acquisition of aluminum tubes as evidence of Vice President Cheney telling a lie, when Cheney cited the matter as evidence of Saddam's nuclear intentions. While there is no doubt that this issue represents one of the most egregious failings of the intelligence community, the NIE is clear in articulating a majority view of the relevance of the aluminum tubes to <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html" type="external">Saddam's nuclear program</a>:</p>
<p>Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors — as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools — provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)</p>
<p>In addition, the <a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmd/pdf/full_wmd_report.pdf" type="external">Silberman-Robb Commission found:</a></p>
<p>The Intelligence Community's judgment about Iraq's nuclear program hinged chiefly on an assessment about Iraq's intended use for high-strength aluminum tubes it was seeking to procure. Most of the agencies in the Intelligence Community erroneously concluded these tubes were intended for use in centrifuges in a nuclear program rather than in conventional rockets. This error was, at the bottom, the result of poor analytical tradecraft – namely, the failure to do proper technical analysis informed by thorough knowledge of the relevant weapons technology and practices.</p>
<p>What we once again see is a persistent habit by Corn. It goes like this: President Bush and Vice President Cheney must side with dissenting views over the mainstream conclusions in an NIE report or risk being called a liar.</p>
<p>Here it's worth stepping back for a moment. The National Intelligence Estimates are the product of a rigorous deliberative process including all intelligence agencies. They are obviously fallible; the actual Iraqi stockpile was far smaller and the actual Iraqi programs far less advanced than the NIE judged them to be in 2002. Still, the NIEs are the U.S. Intelligence Community's most authoritative judgment about matters vital to national security and every president has to take their findings quite seriously.</p>
<p>Corn repeatedly rests his case on the argument that President Bush should have rejected the consensus view produced by the NIE process because of a dissenting view held by one or two offices. Whether or not this is a wise practice — and as a general matter, it's not; few intelligence reports represent a universal consensus, and the NIE (especially pre-Iraq war) was considered the gold standard of intelligence products — how is the failure to do so a lie?</p>
<p>One other remark on this item: Corn suggests that the dissenting voices Cheney should have heeded were those of “scientists at the Department of Energy” who disagreed with the NIE conclusions about the purpose of the aluminum tubes. But Corn doesn't note that the Department of Energy actually agreed that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program; the department simply argued that the tubes were probably not part of the program.</p>
<p>5. Corn asserts that Bush lied by saying that “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the <a href="http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html" type="external">most lethal weapons ever devised.”</a></p>
<p>By this, Bush meant chemical and biological weapons. And here again, <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html" type="external">the NIE was emphatic</a>: “We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs…Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons.”</p>
<p>The British government issued an unclassified white paper that was largely <a href="http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page271" type="external">consistent with those conclusions</a>. Other governments, too, supplied information to the United States regarding reportedly ongoing Iraqi WMD programs. There were, in fact, few doubters among governments or other experts (pro- or anti-Iraq war). In short, Bush's statement is unremarkable, given the intelligence reports he received and the prevailing wisdom.</p>
<p>* * * *</p>
<p>There are several additional points worth making in the context of this discussion.</p>
<p>Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, a Democratic member (and later chairman) of the Select Committee on Intelligence, declared in 2002 that Iraq posed an “imminent threat” to America. In June 2008, however, he issued a report asserting, Corn-like, that “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.”</p>
<p>Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor of The Washington Post (which endorsed both Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004), eviscerated the Rockefeller report, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html" type="external">saying:</a></p>
<p>But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.</p>
<p>On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”</p>
<p>On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”</p>
<p>On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”</p>
<p>On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”</p>
<p>As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment.</p>
<p>The Rockefeller indictment, like the Corn indictment, simply dissolves upon inspection.</p>
<p>Nor does Corn ever note that the NIE told policy makers that any gaps in information or uncertainty about it probably led to underestimating the WMD threat posed by Saddam. <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html" type="external">The NIE reported:</a></p>
<p>We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.</p>
<p>Corn — if his critique were intellectually honest — would, in addition to accusing Bush of lying, have to expand his list to include a boatload of Democrats whose pre-war comments were if anything less qualified than what Bush said. (Notice the number of times the locution “There is no doubt” and “We know” and “We have known” appear.)</p>
<p>For example, Sen. Bob Graham, who in the aftermath of 9/11 was cha irman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, organized a letter warning President Bush, “There is no doubt that… Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.” Similar comments were made by Sen. Rockefeller and Jane Harman, then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.</p>
<p>Former Vice President Al Gore claimed, “We know that [Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Gore added this: “Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”</p>
<p>Sen. Ted Kennedy, who opposed the Use of Force Resolution, still insisted, “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”</p>
<p>Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton put it this way:</p>
<p>In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members …. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>The list of emphatic statements by Democratic lawmakers about Saddam's WMD program goes on, and on, and on. But wait — there's more.</p>
<p>The list of those who claimed Saddam Hussein has WMD also includes leading political figures from around the world — the prime ministers of Britain, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain and the president of the Czech Republic, <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002994" type="external">for instance.</a> Even foreign governments that opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein from power believed that Iraq had and could readily produce WMD. For example, on February 5, 2003, <a href="http://www.un.int/france/documents_anglais/030205_cs_france_irak.htm" type="external">French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin said this :</a></p>
<p>Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant: regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and yperite; in the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and a possibility of a production capability.</p>
<p>For Corn's conspiracy theory to be true, then, it must not only be interRepublican, intergovernmental, and international in its reach and scope; it must very nearly be intergalactic.</p>
<p>One last point needs to be made on all of this: David Corn is strangely resistant to placing any of the blame for the Iraq war on Saddam Hussein, who after all was engaged in a massive, deliberate concealment effort, one that was in violation of agreements to which he was party, and mandates of the United Nations Security Council. Why the reluctance to place appropriate responsibility on one of the most sadistic rulers in modern times? Why does Saddam get a pass? Why do the words “Saddam Hussein lied” not pass the lips of David Corn more often (if at all)? And why the obsession with ascribing blame to President Bush — particularly when, as we have seen, the charges against Bush are discrediting to those who make them?</p>
<p>It is impossible to know the answer to these questions. But this whole “Bush lied” enterprise, in addition to damaging the reputation of those who have engaged in it, has done considerable harm to our country. Propagating fantastic conspiracy theories, sowing unnecessary seeds of distrust and division, and allowing ideology to fan a burning hatred for an American president, often does.</p>
<p>The truth is troubling enough. There were serious intelligence gaps that we failed to find before the war. Some claims — by Bush administration officials as well as by leading Democrats and leaders of other nations — were made with too much certainty. And as I have written multiple times in the past, there were serious mistakes in the conduct of the war prior to the new counterinsurgency strategy being announced in January 2007. I have no interest in whitewashing history. But it is long past time that critics of the Iraq war stop willfully and deceptively twisting history to serve their own partisan ends.</p>
<p>Corn ends his piece by saying, “Bush, Cheney, and other administration aides engaged in reckless disregard of the truth to sell a war.” That claim, as we have seen, is false. But it does raise a counter-question: What are we to make of those who engage in a reckless disregard of the truth because they opposed a war?</p>
<p>Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. He served in the Bush White House as director of the office of strategic initiatives.</p> | false | 1 | readers politics daily aware david corn gone back forth one another whether president bush lied us iraq war whole exchange triggered something wrote actually nothing reasons went war piece led recent column subject corn went former white house colleague karl rove new york times columnist ross douthat daring challenge bush lied mantra corn lists thinks strongest evidence prove bush lied issued challenge dare attempt linebyline response since karl ross busy far important things ill gladly take corns challenge add points careful analysis several charges reveal think remarkably weak misleading case supposedly proves george w bush took america war based pack lies read unusual length response im dealing five corns main charges 1 david corn claims oct 7 2002 speech cincinnati bush said un inspectors concluded iraq 1990s actually produced two four times 30000 liters anthrax deadly biological agents acknowledged making bush continued massive stockpile biological weapons never accounted capable killing millions un inspectors concluded thing reported destroying key facilities iraq used develop chemical biological nuclear weapons inspectors encountered discrepancies accounting iraqs weapons wmd material noted iraq could produced weapons inspectors uncovered bush misstating facts turn possible stockpile wmd actual arsenal emphasis added lets see president bush really said 1995 several years deceit iraqi regime head iraqs military industries defected regime forced admit produced 30000 liters anthrax deadly biological agents inspectors however concluded iraq likely produced two four times amount massive stockpile biological weapons never accounted capable killing millions emphasis added note done corn takes bushs description un inspectors conclusions iraq likely produced biological weapons warps contention iraq 1990s actually produced biological weapons president bush correctly reported element uncertainty un inspectors reports david corn dropped wonder moreover full context clear bush accurately reporting un inspectors inability verify saddams claims destroyed biological weapons bw stockpiles saddam lying years unscom inspectors concluded one final reports 4104 iraq claims bw programme obliterated 1991 demonstrated unilateral destruction weapons deployed bulk agent documents associated bw programme iraq however retained facilities growth media equipment groupings core technical personnel al hakam continued deny bw programmes existence spite iraqs continued denial preservation bw programme government iraq yet offer documentation formal renunciation head iraqi delegation took position could offer defence justify concealment deception prior 1995 positions acts raise serious doubts iraqs assertion bw programme truly obliterated 1991 52 iraqs ffcd un mandated declaration judged incomplete inadequate information presented iraq provide basis formulation material balance determination structure organisation bw programme required effective monitoring iraqs dual capable facilities 53 construction material balance based primarily recollection provides confidence resources weapons bulk agents bulk media seed stocks eliminated 54 organisational aspects bw programme clear little confidence full scope bw programme revealed additional aspects existence dormant additional bw programmes remain unresolved familiar unspeak report could hardly damning saddam denied years possessed biological weapons program confronted overwhelming evidence lying grudgingly made incomplete inadequate inaccurate declarations hence much deadly material remained unaccounted 2 corn makes charge sept 7 2002 joint news conference prime minister tony blair britain bush declared 1998 international atomic energy agency report found iraq six months away developing nuclear weapon dont know evidence need one problem iaea report 1998 iaea actually reported indications iraq producing nuclear weapons bush wasnt citing bad intelligence concocted nonexistent report bolster case war relevant portion press conference transcript corn referring tony blair british prime minister point would emphasize threat saddam hussein weapons mass destruction chemical biological potentially nuclear weapons capability threat real need look report international atomic energy agency morning showing going former nuclear weapon sites realize policy inaction policy responsibly subscribe purpose discussion today work right strategy dealing deal must q mr president tell us conclusive evidence nuclear new evidence nuclear weapons capabilities saddam hussein president bush heard prime minister talk new report would remind inspectors first went iraq denied finally denied access report came iaea six months away developing weapon dont know evidence need blair absolutely right know going long period time chemical biological weapons capability know trying develop nuclear weapons capability importance mornings report yet shows real issue tackled several things note contrary corns claim bush declare 1998 international atomic energy agency report found iraq six months away developing nuclear weapons fact bush never mentioned 1998 happened reporters corn wrongly jumped conclusion meant 1998 report year saddam expelled iaea inspectors white house press secretary later clarified bush referring earlier revelations iraqs crash program build nuclear weapons came light first gulf war made sense crash program intended produce weapon within six months united states unwittingly hampered effort bombing campaign nonetheless program revealed war iaea inspectors shocked close iraq come acquiring weapon pbss frontline web page described saddams progress summary iaea report says following august 1990 invasion kuwait iraq launched crash program develop nuclear weapon quickly extracting weapons grade material safeguarded research reactor fuel project continued uninterrupted war might succeeded producing deliverable weapon end 1992 david albright investigated iraqs nuclear weapons program first gulf war iaea inspector put way goal execute plan build nuclear weapon within six months although time allied bombing campaign midjanuary 1991 stopped effort iraq fallen several months behind unlikely finish nuclear explosive device least following summer end year nuclear warhead ballistic missile would taken significantly longer according action team assessments supported member states richard butler former head united nations special commission unscom said saddam sought nuclear weapons two decades ten years ago intensified efforts instituting crash program gulf war put end subsequent inspection analysis international atomic energy agency iaea unscom showed spite relatively deficient indigenous sources fissionable material needed make nuclear weapon saddams program close six months yielding bomb could go point clear bush lie fabricate fact early 1990s saddam quite close developing nuclear weapon un inspectors reported world case bush boils fact iaea report said iraq six months bomb year inspectors expelled bushs statement based instead series statements unscom iaea officials said saddam might six months away developing nuclear weapon though might taken iraq months longer david corn qualifies willful campaign misrepresentation hyperbole leave discerning readers determine whether description better fits bush corn 3 corn asserts bush aides repeatedly asserted iraq loaded chemical weapons rose garden speech sept 26 2002 bush insisted iraqi regime possesses biological chemical weapons iraqi regime building facilities necessary make biological chemical weapons yet september 2002 report defense intelligence agency widely distributed government policymakers said reliable information whether iraq producing stockpiling chemical weapons iraq establish chemical warfare agent production facilities corn quoting bush correctly bushs assessment surprising since similar national intelligence estimate nie said matter assess baghdad begun renewed production mustard sarin gf cyclosarin vx chemical weapons agents capability limited time gulf war although vx production agent storage life probably improved judge key aspects rampd production weaponization iraqs offensive bw program active elements larger advanced gulf war surprising bush would used language completely consistent conclusions nie intelligence community findings iraq remarkably consistent years ultimately part problem administrations democratic republican george tenet served presidents clinton bush cia director described intelligence october 2002 iraq wmd nie demonstrates consistency judgments many years based decades worth work intelligence iterative process new evidence becomes available constantly reevaluate corn seems believe intelligence report reinforces views different later superseded nie mentioned president proof positive massive fabrication campaign instance corn points defense intelligence agency dia report considers inconsistent nie predated nie report asserts reliable information whether iraq producing stockpiling chemical weapons whether iraq establish chemical warfare agent production facilities yet corn omits fact dia report went say iraq probably possesses bulk chemical stockpiles primarily containing precursors also could consist mustard agent stabilized vx also says iraq seemed distributing cw munitions mid2002 retains chemicals equipment produce mustard gas although advanced g vseries nerve agents steadily establishing dualuse industrial chemical infrastructure could used make chemical weapons corn ignores dia reports conclusions dia stands solidly behind intelligence communitys assessment 2002 iraq ongoing chemical weapons program violation united nations sanctions moreover corn never mentions vice admiral lowell jacoby director defense intelligence agency said agency concurred intelligence community consensus iraq program weapons mass destruction jacoby said even though dia could specifically pin individual facilities operating part weapons mass destruction programs specifically chemical warfare portion agency believed nonetheless program part iraqi wmd infrastructure fairminded person could read nie dia reports conclude bush lying 4 corn raises issue saddams acquisition aluminum tubes evidence vice president cheney telling lie cheney cited matter evidence saddams nuclear intentions doubt issue represents one egregious failings intelligence community nie clear articulating majority view relevance aluminum tubes saddams nuclear program agencies believe saddams personal interest iraqs aggressive attempts obtain highstrength aluminum tubes centrifuge rotors well iraqs attempts acquire magnets highspeed balancing machines machine tools provide compelling evidence saddam reconstituting uranium enrichment program doe agrees reconstitution nuclear program underway assesses tubes probably part program addition silbermanrobb commission found intelligence communitys judgment iraqs nuclear program hinged chiefly assessment iraqs intended use highstrength aluminum tubes seeking procure agencies intelligence community erroneously concluded tubes intended use centrifuges nuclear program rather conventional rockets error bottom result poor analytical tradecraft namely failure proper technical analysis informed thorough knowledge relevant weapons technology practices see persistent habit corn goes like president bush vice president cheney must side dissenting views mainstream conclusions nie report risk called liar worth stepping back moment national intelligence estimates product rigorous deliberative process including intelligence agencies obviously fallible actual iraqi stockpile far smaller actual iraqi programs far less advanced nie judged 2002 still nies us intelligence communitys authoritative judgment matters vital national security every president take findings quite seriously corn repeatedly rests case argument president bush rejected consensus view produced nie process dissenting view held one two offices whether wise practice general matter intelligence reports represent universal consensus nie especially preiraq war considered gold standard intelligence products failure lie one remark item corn suggests dissenting voices cheney heeded scientists department energy disagreed nie conclusions purpose aluminum tubes corn doesnt note department energy actually agreed iraq reconstituting nuclear program department simply argued tubes probably part program 5 corn asserts bush lied saying intelligence gathered governments leaves doubt iraq regime continues possess conceal lethal weapons ever devised bush meant chemical biological weapons nie emphatic judge iraq continued weapons mass destruction wmd programsbaghdad chemical biological weapons british government issued unclassified white paper largely consistent conclusions governments supplied information united states regarding reportedly ongoing iraqi wmd programs fact doubters among governments experts pro antiiraq war short bushs statement unremarkable given intelligence reports received prevailing wisdom several additional points worth making context discussion sen john rockefeller iv democratic member later chairman select committee intelligence declared 2002 iraq posed imminent threat america june 2008 however issued report asserting cornlike making case war administration repeatedly presented intelligence fact unsubstantiated contradicted even nonexistent fred hiatt editorial page editor washington post endorsed al gore 2000 john kerry 2004 eviscerated rockefeller report saying dive rockefellers report search exactly president bush lied intelligence agencies telling threat posed saddam hussein may surprised find iraqs nuclear weapons program presidents statements generally substantiated intelligence community estimates biological weapons production capability infamous mobile laboratories presidents statements substantiated intelligence information chemical weapons substantiated intelligence information weapons mass destruction overall separate section intelligence committee report generally substantiated intelligence information delivery vehicles ballistic missiles generally substantiated available intelligence unmanned aerial vehicles could used deliver wmds generally substantiated intelligence information read report begin think maybe youve mistakenly picked minority dissent rockefeller indictment rockefeller indictment like corn indictment simply dissolves upon inspection corn ever note nie told policy makers gaps information uncertainty probably led underestimating wmd threat posed saddam nie reported judge seeing portion iraqs wmd efforts owing baghdads vigorous denial deception efforts revelations gulf war starkly demonstrate extensive efforts undertaken iraq deny information lack specific information many key aspects iraqs wmd programs corn critique intellectually honest would addition accusing bush lying expand list include boatload democrats whose prewar comments anything less qualified bush said notice number times locution doubt know known appear example sen bob graham aftermath 911 cha irman senate select committee intelligence organized letter warning president bush doubt saddam hussein invigorated weapons programs reports indicate biological chemical nuclear programs continue apace may back pregulf war status similar comments made sen rockefeller jane harman top democrat house intelligence committee former vice president al gore claimed know saddam hussein stored secret supplies biological chemical weapons throughout country gore added iraqs search weapons mass destruction proven impossible deter assume continue long saddam power sen ted kennedy opposed use force resolution still insisted known many years saddam hussein seeking developing weapons mass destruction thensen hillary clinton put way four years since inspectors left intelligence reports show saddam hussein worked rebuild chemical biological weapons stock missile delivery capability nuclear program also given aid comfort sanctuary terrorists including al qaeda members clear however left unchecked saddam hussein continue increase capacity wage biological chemical warfare keep trying develop nuclear weapons list emphatic statements democratic lawmakers saddams wmd program goes wait theres list claimed saddam hussein wmd also includes leading political figures around world prime ministers britain denmark hungary italy poland portugal spain president czech republic instance even foreign governments opposed removal saddam hussein power believed iraq could readily produce wmd example february 5 2003 french foreign minister dominique de villepin said right attention focused priority biological chemical domains presumptions iraq significant regarding chemical domain evidence capacity produce vx yperite biological domain evidence suggests possible possession significant stocks anthrax botulism toxin possibility production capability corns conspiracy theory true must interrepublican intergovernmental international reach scope must nearly intergalactic one last point needs made david corn strangely resistant placing blame iraq war saddam hussein engaged massive deliberate concealment effort one violation agreements party mandates united nations security council reluctance place appropriate responsibility one sadistic rulers modern times saddam get pass words saddam hussein lied pass lips david corn often obsession ascribing blame president bush particularly seen charges bush discrediting make impossible know answer questions whole bush lied enterprise addition damaging reputation engaged done considerable harm country propagating fantastic conspiracy theories sowing unnecessary seeds distrust division allowing ideology fan burning hatred american president often truth troubling enough serious intelligence gaps failed find war claims bush administration officials well leading democrats leaders nations made much certainty written multiple times past serious mistakes conduct war prior new counterinsurgency strategy announced january 2007 interest whitewashing history long past time critics iraq war stop willfully deceptively twisting history serve partisan ends corn ends piece saying bush cheney administration aides engaged reckless disregard truth sell war claim seen false raise counterquestion make engage reckless disregard truth opposed war peter wehner senior fellow ethics public policy center washington dc served bush white house director office strategic initiatives | 2,399 |
<p>If the first season of “ <a href="http://variety.com/t/the-crown/" type="external">The Crown</a>” probed the sibling rivalry between Queen Elizabeth (Claire Foy) and her sister Princess Margaret ( <a href="http://variety.com/t/vanessa-kirby/" type="external">Vanessa Kirby</a>), the second season takes the gloves off. The two women are driven even further apart as the ever-more headstrong Margaret continues her ill-fated search for love.</p>
<p>Yet Kirby says the more she’s gotten to know about the Princess, the more she’s fallen “in love” with her. But that’s not to say she’s been able to watch it yet. “I think I might watch it over Christmas with my family and skip my episodes,” she says. “I think because I care so much about Margaret. It’s a bit overwhelming. it’s such a special thing to me that has a lot of meaning.”</p>
<p>Sadly, Kirby’s reign will end as the series gets recast for the third season, which will cover the next decade in the royal family’s life. (Olivia Colman <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/olivia-colman-the-crown-queen-elizabeth-season-3-1202600405/" type="external">has already been announced</a> as the new Queen.) “I just love her,” says Kirby. “I don’t think I’ll ever have a better part.”</p>
<p>This season is so much more about Margaret — we get to spend much more time with her.</p>
<p>It was exciting. And I think, God what a privilege to play somebody and got to know them quite intimately over that series one and two. I get to go deeper with her. I get to grow up with her and get to know her better. It was really exciting to travel through a little journey of life a little bit more. I felt so lucky. We always knew it was going to be two seasons [for the initial cast]. For me they are there own entities in a sense that it’s different for different versions of Margaret at a different time in her life. But I knew it would ever only be those two so I’m just going to try to make the most of every minute.</p>
<p>Were there things you wanted to accomplish this season for her?</p>
<p>I always felt like I had a responsibility, to set it up for [the next actress] and set up the real person in a sense because all the things I heard the most about her was she was this kind of tragic figure later on in life. I didn’t really know much but I knew that she was the Queen’s sister who wasn’t around anymore. So I felt quite ashamed actually when I learned lots about her and began to totally fall in love with her. I mean, utterly fall in love with her. Because I realized that I didn’t know the young woman behind this adult. And this older figure that had become tragic in the public eye. I felt like I had a responsibility to show who the girl was really and how somebody becomes hard or however everyone perceived her. Icy. Cold. Guarded. And a bit of a battle axe. How does somebody become that? The second season for me felt like a deeper exploration of that. Also felt like the beginning of a hardening process. Because it was tough. Tough losing her dad, tough being in that family, tough being innately inferior just because you’re born second and your sister is treated differently. I felt a definite responsibility to not play the end. I hope that the public sees her in a different way now and even if it’s just a handful of people, I would have felt proud of that. And also the actress that plays her next. I hope in some way I’ve done sort of justice to what she might do.</p>
<p>Do you have any idea who’s going to play her next?</p>
<p>I asked (showrunner) Peter (Morgan), “Can you tell me?” And he was like, “I would but you would tell everyone.” I said, “I know. That’s so true. Dammit. You know me too well!” I think they’re still in conversations. I don’t have the foggiest idea. I can’t wait. I think it’s so exciting for that person.</p>
<p>What do you think of Olivia Colman?</p>
<p>Amazing. I mean she’s a national treasure in her own right and so feels aligned in a way it feels right. That somebody that so loved and so talented and so respected like the queen really is taking over from someone as incredible as Claire. I mean, God, what a hard act to follow.</p>
<p>You’re a hard act to follow, too.</p>
<p>I’m just excited for the next person to do it because then we can talk about her. I only did my research up to 1964 and I had to stop because I just didn’t want to ever [play the end]. There are things beyond that I would have loved to have played, like she got morekind of sassy and even more outspoken and more demanding and aggressive in some ways. As well as probably more fragile and vulnerable. Drinking and arguments. And crazy rows with Tony. I would have loved that. But I really had to contain myself and not go past that point because that’s not my job.</p>
<p>What advice would you offer the woman who comes next?</p>
<p>Just have the best time. And get the lovely wonderful head of props, Mark, to light your cigarettes for you. Because then you save half the smoking. You share the load. I felt so terrible actually because by the end both of us were wheezing in the corner.</p>
<p>You were smoking real cigarettes?</p>
<p>They were herbal ones. But in the 1950s they don’t have a filter. And so it was very strong. And lots of herbs go in your mouth all the time. We tried all the different flavors to make it better. But it was so much a part of her behavior. Her way of being was a cigarette as her weapon. Both armor and weapon. There was one scene at the end of episode 10 where I had to not use it because she was pregnant. I didn’t know what to do with my hands. So I just poured myself a massive drink.</p>
<p>How did you get into character? Did the smoking help?</p>
<p>As soon I lit a cigarette I felt like her. It really helped. But what was harder was finding her anger and finding the pain. Which I think translated into anger and the anger always runs alongside. I think underneath fear and insecurity and pain that wound that she has. Many wounds, how to play that right. There were some times during season two that she became such a different person to season one. I worried that she would just seem so raging and very unlikable and that people wouldn’t be able to have empathy. That was a challenge and I felt conscious of that. Because I did feel like her pain translated into coldness or hostility. It was negotiating those.</p>
<p>What made her so angry?</p>
<p>It’s really hard! I bet the Queen and Margaret, wherever she is, are like, pfft, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I always felt that it was such a weird set of circumstance wasn’t it. Edward falling in love with Wallis Simpson meant that he gave it up. Such a heavy decision for him. Which means that then George takes over. When you are little girls this stroke of fate, this chance happens. And then because of that inherently your sister is treated differently by the public, by everybody they meet, by their parents. She’s literally groomed and looked at in a different way because she’s heir to the dynasty of your own family. And you’re not. Margaret was spoiled in a way because they tried to make up for it. But if you’re hearing at parties, your parents say to their friends, “the right one was born first.” She heard that all time. I mean, can you imagine? And then your dad suddenly dies and suddenly your life is totally different. And not of your own volition and choices. Their sister rivalry is an intensely interesting thing to examine. Endlessly fascinating. Because it’s just such an unusual position for two human beings to be in and only two people in the world have gone through exactly that.</p>
<p>That conversations are so fraught, so tense — there’s so much unspoken stuff that happens between the two of them.</p>
<p>It’s the total unspoken stuff that was really interesting. I think that began because Peter said this is a family that don’t talk about their problems. They don’t talk about what’s going on. There’s a really good example where Margaret is in her the darkest place and the mum comes in and goes, hello darling and opens the curtains, and says, what a mess you’ve made and doesn’t say, oh my goodness you’re in pain, what can I do to help. No one says that. Everyone just gets on with it and she’s already talking about who she can marry from the aristocratic circle, when Margaret has just been rejected and humiliated. And beginning the first episode Margaret was trying to break away from this establishment that she’s so essentially part of and is within her. And yet has caused her so much pain. In episode 7, the scene where the baby’s has been born and Margaret saying, can you please finally give your word to let to me marry Tony. I had this idea that I really wanted to play like Margaret’s finally found what she’s been looking for. She’s got this sense of reconciliation and forgiveness and peace. And it didn’t work at all because actually the truth of it is that at least in our imagined version of events,they’ve never had a conversation. Elizabeth’s never really said I’m so sorry, I’m with you, can I help heal us and can we to go to therapy. I don’t think the forgiveness has reached that point. Maybe it will in the future seasons. But my feeling is that Tony is not a salvation for her. I think she thinks it is. But he’s not the man that she needs him to be, that she wants him to be.</p>
<p>Do you think she was in love with him?</p>
<p>I just want her to be happy. I so long for it. Like the ending of a movie that you don’t want to happen, like “Titanic”? I just wanted it so much for her. And I loved reading the early pages, their little courtship. But I realized that Margaret&#160; has this wound. She’s incredibly raw. She said herself, I’m unhinged without Peter, I’m lost without Peter. So she’s drinking, she hasn’t found her place. Her sense of self is totally fractured. And she meets somebody in that state. So you get these two kind of wounded people. Is that going to be healthy, stable long term sustainable love? I don’t know. That other thing that really broke my heart&#160;was when she gets the letter from Peter Townsend (saying he’s gotten married). And I just said don’t show me what’s in the letter until we film it. And I read it and it just killed me. That was pretty much one of the hardest moments for me to film. Even now thinking about it makes me upset. That’s what motivated her (to marry Tony). It was a week after she had that news. It was factual that she then put out the announcement to marry Tony straightaway. It’s a mixture of don’t humiliate me first, I’m not going to have people find out. But also you know I’m going to do it myself. Lot of those little things gave us indications about what was happening inside.</p>
<p>Do you think Peter was the love of her life?</p>
<p>It’s hard to know isn’t it. I mean I read so many things that people said she would have got bored with him and he was too old for her. … But that’s the question if she were alive I would have loved to have asked her, do you still love Peter? Did you still love Peter? I just grew to love them both really. How mad it was that this old set of values and protocols and really defunct ways of belief systems stop two people (from getting married). Everyone’s asking us about Harry and Megan and that’s what’s so cool. She is divorced and no one has even mentioned it. Love whoever you want to love. We were just in Australia and they just passed their marriage equality law. You should choose who you love. And I hope that Margaret story only illuminates that.</p>
<p>Do you think the sisters every truly reconciled?</p>
<p>I had always heard that they were really close and that Margaret had lots of pictures of her sister in her toilet. So I don’t know. She obviously didn’t mind weeing with her! Our story is dramatized obviously. So it’s really hard to speak about them as real people when we actually have no idea about their thoughts and feelings. Your sister has got this job and hasn’t chosen this job. That’s a really conflicting thing, isn’t it. I would never not want to be a princess. I can’t give it up to be Mrs. Townsend and my father was the king of England. My sister is the queen. And yet I want to be me. How do I be me within&#160; a system which hasn’t allowed me to do the choices and the freedom to be me. I can’t imagine her abandoning it completely and not finding ways to still love her sister.</p>
<p>This season they both face romantic problems, yet they can’t confide in each other.</p>
<p>The only way they address it is Margaret being antagonistic and saying, oh I’ve heard about Philip and these ballerinas haven’t you. Or, look at him there on the newspaper, looks like him doesn’t it. Elizabeth had the freedom to marry who she wanted at 21. And Margaret watched her walk down the aisle with somebody that nobody approved of. And she did it anyway. He was like the rogue choice and she loved him so she got him. In episode 8 of the last season Margaret says, at least you have a role very clear set of rules. All you have to do is follow them. And the Queen says, at least you have freedom.</p>
<p>Did that photography scene with Tony really happen?</p>
<p>Yes, she said to him, can you take my photograph. And he said, yes, come to mine which is already, she’s not on neutral ground, she’s not in her comfort zone. We really felt that. We really thought about what she’d wear. I always imagined Margaret spending a long time choosing because she has the time and she has the natural flair for it, unlike her sister. And she expresses her internal life through it. I think it’s her kind of sexual awakening in a way. Suddenly she’s accepted an invitation to got to this man’s house. It’s incredibly exposing having you5 picture taken especially to somebody that you know is already wanting to slightly take down what you represent. So you know you’re going in there to be stripped. And so I chose this little blouse that was lacy — I wanted a suggestion of sensuality without dressing up too much or going over the top. She would have tried to look cool. But I also wanted to suggest that she was open to something with him. And that she was wanting it. Needing it. Craving it. A whole new energy in her life to awaken in her, and I think by the end of episode 4 she is kind of lit up in a way that she hasn’t been for a long time, maybe since before her father died.</p>
<p>What was it like filming the scene where she trashes her room?</p>
<p>In the script it was, Margaret does a melancholy dance. And that was it. Just one line. And I was like Margaret never just does melancholy. She doesn’t just do what everyone else does. She’s somebody that has such an extreme range of feelings whether it’s static highs where she’s flying or whether it’s the real crushing depths. I always imagined all the moments where we don’t see her, like what’s she like after Churchill’s told her off. She’s holding it together when he’s doing it and then what was she like when she was at home? Because her feelings are expressed so easily. And she doesn’t really have a filter. So I was like,she’s not just going to dance around the bedroom. She’s going to trash it. So we worked with this great director. And then we found this song. And on the day, it was six hours of just trying to go there. It gave me whiplash. It’s only like a 20 second sequence in the end but it was a long time doing it. It was a great expression. I was glad we get to see her Margaret behind closed doors, behind the facade, behind the mask, behind the guards and the armor. God, I love her!</p>
<p>Did you take anything from the set?</p>
<p>I took a little ring, which we imagined Peter Townsend gave to her before he left for Brussels. I have that at home. Apart from that we can’t really because all that stuff is now being used for exhibitions. I couldn’t steal a ballgown — I’d wear it out on Saturday night!</p> | false | 1 | first season crown probed sibling rivalry queen elizabeth claire foy sister princess margaret vanessa kirby second season takes gloves two women driven even apart evermore headstrong margaret continues illfated search love yet kirby says shes gotten know princess shes fallen love thats say shes able watch yet think might watch christmas family skip episodes says think care much margaret bit overwhelming special thing lot meaning sadly kirbys reign end series gets recast third season cover next decade royal familys life olivia colman already announced new queen love says kirby dont think ill ever better part season much margaret get spend much time exciting think god privilege play somebody got know quite intimately series one two get go deeper get grow get know better really exciting travel little journey life little bit felt lucky always knew going two seasons initial cast entities sense different different versions margaret different time life knew would ever two im going try make every minute things wanted accomplish season always felt like responsibility set next actress set real person sense things heard kind tragic figure later life didnt really know much knew queens sister wasnt around anymore felt quite ashamed actually learned lots began totally fall love mean utterly fall love realized didnt know young woman behind adult older figure become tragic public eye felt like responsibility show girl really somebody becomes hard however everyone perceived icy cold guarded bit battle axe somebody become second season felt like deeper exploration also felt like beginning hardening process tough tough losing dad tough family tough innately inferior youre born second sister treated differently felt definite responsibility play end hope public sees different way even handful people would felt proud also actress plays next hope way ive done sort justice might idea whos going play next asked showrunner peter morgan tell like would would tell everyone said know thats true dammit know well think theyre still conversations dont foggiest idea cant wait think exciting person think olivia colman amazing mean shes national treasure right feels aligned way feels right somebody loved talented respected like queen really taking someone incredible claire mean god hard act follow youre hard act follow im excited next person talk research 1964 stop didnt want ever play end things beyond would loved played like got morekind sassy even outspoken demanding aggressive ways well probably fragile vulnerable drinking arguments crazy rows tony would loved really contain go past point thats job advice would offer woman comes next best time get lovely wonderful head props mark light cigarettes save half smoking share load felt terrible actually end us wheezing corner smoking real cigarettes herbal ones 1950s dont filter strong lots herbs go mouth time tried different flavors make better much part behavior way cigarette weapon armor weapon one scene end episode 10 use pregnant didnt know hands poured massive drink get character smoking help soon lit cigarette felt like really helped harder finding anger finding pain think translated anger anger always runs alongside think underneath fear insecurity pain wound many wounds play right times season two became different person season one worried would seem raging unlikable people wouldnt able empathy challenge felt conscious feel like pain translated coldness hostility negotiating made angry really hard bet queen margaret wherever like pfft dont know youre talking always felt weird set circumstance wasnt edward falling love wallis simpson meant gave heavy decision means george takes little girls stroke fate chance happens inherently sister treated differently public everybody meet parents shes literally groomed looked different way shes heir dynasty family youre margaret spoiled way tried make youre hearing parties parents say friends right one born first heard time mean imagine dad suddenly dies suddenly life totally different volition choices sister rivalry intensely interesting thing examine endlessly fascinating unusual position two human beings two people world gone exactly conversations fraught tense theres much unspoken stuff happens two total unspoken stuff really interesting think began peter said family dont talk problems dont talk whats going theres really good example margaret darkest place mum comes goes hello darling opens curtains says mess youve made doesnt say oh goodness youre pain help one says everyone gets shes already talking marry aristocratic circle margaret rejected humiliated beginning first episode margaret trying break away establishment shes essentially part within yet caused much pain episode 7 scene babys born margaret saying please finally give word let marry tony idea really wanted play like margarets finally found shes looking shes got sense reconciliation forgiveness peace didnt work actually truth least imagined version eventstheyve never conversation elizabeths never really said im sorry im help heal us go therapy dont think forgiveness reached point maybe future seasons feeling tony salvation think thinks hes man needs wants think love want happy long like ending movie dont want happen like titanic wanted much loved reading early pages little courtship realized margaret160 wound shes incredibly raw said im unhinged without peter im lost without peter shes drinking hasnt found place sense self totally fractured meets somebody state get two kind wounded people going healthy stable long term sustainable love dont know thing really broke heart160was gets letter peter townsend saying hes gotten married said dont show whats letter film read killed pretty much one hardest moments film even thinking makes upset thats motivated marry tony week news factual put announcement marry tony straightaway mixture dont humiliate first im going people find also know im going lot little things gave us indications happening inside think peter love life hard know isnt mean read many things people said would got bored old thats question alive would loved asked still love peter still love peter grew love really mad old set values protocols really defunct ways belief systems stop two people getting married everyones asking us harry megan thats whats cool divorced one even mentioned love whoever want love australia passed marriage equality law choose love hope margaret story illuminates think sisters every truly reconciled always heard really close margaret lots pictures sister toilet dont know obviously didnt mind weeing story dramatized obviously really hard speak real people actually idea thoughts feelings sister got job hasnt chosen job thats really conflicting thing isnt would never want princess cant give mrs townsend father king england sister queen yet want within160 system hasnt allowed choices freedom cant imagine abandoning completely finding ways still love sister season face romantic problems yet cant confide way address margaret antagonistic saying oh ive heard philip ballerinas havent look newspaper looks like doesnt elizabeth freedom marry wanted 21 margaret watched walk aisle somebody nobody approved anyway like rogue choice loved got episode 8 last season margaret says least role clear set rules follow queen says least freedom photography scene tony really happen yes said take photograph said yes come mine already shes neutral ground shes comfort zone really felt really thought shed wear always imagined margaret spending long time choosing time natural flair unlike sister expresses internal life think kind sexual awakening way suddenly shes accepted invitation got mans house incredibly exposing you5 picture taken especially somebody know already wanting slightly take represent know youre going stripped chose little blouse lacy wanted suggestion sensuality without dressing much going top would tried look cool also wanted suggest open something wanting needing craving whole new energy life awaken think end episode 4 kind lit way hasnt long time maybe since father died like filming scene trashes room script margaret melancholy dance one line like margaret never melancholy doesnt everyone else shes somebody extreme range feelings whether static highs shes flying whether real crushing depths always imagined moments dont see like whats like churchills told shes holding together hes like home feelings expressed easily doesnt really filter likeshes going dance around bedroom shes going trash worked great director found song day six hours trying go gave whiplash like 20 second sequence end long time great expression glad get see margaret behind closed doors behind facade behind mask behind guards armor god love take anything set took little ring imagined peter townsend gave left brussels home apart cant really stuff used exhibitions couldnt steal ballgown id wear saturday night | 1,351 |
<p>FLOWERY BRANCH, Ga. — New <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Buffalo-Bills/" type="external">Buffalo Bills</a> head coach <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Sean-McDermott/" type="external">Sean McDermott</a> is no stranger to the <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Atlanta-Falcons/" type="external">Atlanta Falcons</a>.</p>
<p>He was Carolina’s defensive coordinator from 2011 to 2016 and directed the defense that helped the Panthers go 15-1 in 2015 and play in Super Bowl 50.</p>
<p>McDermott’s defenses were 5-7 when going up against quarterback <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Matt_Ryan/" type="external">Matt Ryan</a> and the Atlanta Falcons.</p>
<p>For some reason, McDermott elected to cover Falcons two-time All-Pro wide receiver <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Julio-Jones/" type="external">Julio Jones</a> with a single player last season. Jones ravaged the man-to-man coverage, catching 12 passes for a team-record 300 yards and a touchdown in the 48-33 plastering of the Panthers on Oct. 2.</p>
<p>Because of the Panthers’ overall body of work on defense and clearly not that game, McDermott was hired to lead the Bills, who will face the Falcons at 1 p.m. Sunday at Mercedes-Benz Stadium.</p>
<p>The Bills have some solid corners in rookie Tre’Davious White and E.J. Gaines, but he’s not likely to leave them alone with Jones, who’ll be limited in practice this week with a back injury, but is slated to play.</p>
<p>Safety <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Micah-Hyde/" type="external">Micah Hyde</a>, a former Green Bay Packer, will likely be nearby or free safety Jordan Poyer.</p>
<p>Ryan sees some of the traits of the Panthers in Buffalo’s defense.</p>
<p>“They are aggressive,” said Ryan, the league’s reigning most valuable player. “Very aggressive front four. The linebackers are very good against the run. That’s something that we’ve seen from Carolina. They have some of the best in the league.</p>
<p>“I think that carryover is the same. In the secondary, there’s a lot of quarters type of coverage, which they do a great job with. They have a ton of different pressures. They give you a lot of different looks.”</p>
<p>The Bills have 10 sacks this season.</p>
<p>“They put a lot of stress on your pass protections,” Ryan said. “It’s something that we’ll have to do a great job of. I think communication on our end, making sure that everybody is on the same page is going to be really important this week.”</p>
<p>McDermott and Falcons head coach <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Dan_Quinn/" type="external">Dan Quinn</a>‘s paths have crossed before.</p>
<p>“I’ve known Sean McDermott for years,” Quinn said. “He was a player at William &amp; Mary when I was coaching there.”</p>
<p>Quinn followed McDermott’s career as he served as a graduate assistant at William &amp; Mary (1998) before he went to Philadelphia (1999-2010) and then Carolina before landing the Buffalo job.</p>
<p>McDermott is running the same 4-3 defense in Buffalo minus having <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Luke-Kuechly/" type="external">Luke Kuechly</a> and <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Thomas_Davis/" type="external">Thomas Davis</a> at linebacker.</p>
<p>However, the Bills do have a strong front seven. Right defensive end <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Lorenzo-Alexander/" type="external">Lorenzo Alexander</a>, left defensive end Shaq Lawson and strong-side linebacker Jerry Hughes all have two sacks each. Also, tackle <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kyle_Williams/" type="external">Kyle Williams</a> is stout.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Marcell-Dareus/" type="external">Marcell Dareus</a> missed the Denver game with an ankle injury.</p>
<p>“He’s always had a hard-nosed approach,” Quinn said of McDermont. “They’ll be really good tacklers and they’ve got a talented front.”</p>
<p>Defensively, the Falcons will face their stiffest test of the season in the run game. Chicago’s second-year back <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jordan-Howard/" type="external">Jordan Howard</a> was coming off a strong year, but the Falcons haven’t seen a back as accomplished as <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/LeSean_McCoy/" type="external">LeSean McCoy</a> yet.</p>
<p>McCoy has rushed 48 times for 140 yards and has caught 18 passes for 131 yards.</p>
<p>McCoy, fullback Mike Tolbert and quarterback <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Tyrod_Taylor/" type="external">Tyrod Taylor</a> lead a rushing attack that averages 111.3 yards rushing per game (11th in the league). They also have former Falcons fullback Patrick DiMarco, who’s being used as a lead blocker. He played 15 of 65 offensive snaps (23 percent) in their 26-16 win over Denver on Sunday.</p>
<p>The Falcons are giving up 85 rushing yards per game, which ranks ninth in the league. The Falcons held the Lions to 71 rushing yards.</p>
<p>“The way they’re built, you can count on their run game being rock solid, and that starts with Shady, it goes through Mike Tolbert, and Patrick DiMarco is the lead blocker there,” Quinn said. “They’ve got a good offensive line, and their quarterback can really run and is athletic.”</p>
<p>Tyrod Taylor has rushed 24 times for 106 yards.</p>
<p>“I guess this will be about three weeks in a row that we see a guy that can extend plays and get outside the pocket,” Quinn said. “Three weeks ago, we saw it with Green Bay, last week with Detroit, and now this week with Buffalo.”</p>
<p>Taylor has been efficient in Buffalo’s short passing game. He’s completed 53 of 79 passes (67.1 percent) for 562 yards, four touchdowns and just one interception. He has a passer rating of 99.2.</p>
<p>“We know when the quarterback can extend plays, a second play just begins, receivers now have routes to go to different spots,” Quinn said.</p>
<p>SERIES HISTORY: 12th regular-season meeting. Falcons lead series, 7-4. The Falcons have won the last four games with the last being a 34-31 victory in Toronto in 2013.</p>
<p>—</p>
<p>The Falcons are off to a 3-0 start for the second time under head coach Dan Quinn. The Falcons started off 5-0 in 2014, his first season with the team. But then things went downhill as they finished 8-8.</p>
<p>So, they are not ready to throw a parade after jumping out to a 3-0 start again.</p>
<p>“We’ll go right back to the process every week to treat it the same,” Quinn said. “For us, we feel like we’re just getting rolling. It’s just three games into it, and there is a lot of work to be done.”</p>
<p>The Falcons needed goal-line stands against Chicago and Detroit to post wins on the road. The 10-second rule helped them escape against the Lions.</p>
<p>“It was definitely one of the most unusual endings to a game that I’ve been a part of, and as you went back through it, you just appreciate the strain of it,” Quinn said.</p>
<p>—</p>
<p>The Falcons beat the Lions while losing the turnover battle, 3-0.</p>
<p>“To get in the plus, you have to create some takeaways,” Quinn said. “We felt like we missed a few opportunities there.”</p>
<p>—</p>
<p>Starting right tackle Ryan Schraeder is in the concussion protocol. The Falcons are hopeful he’ll be able to return for the Buffalo game.</p>
<p>“First of all, I am optimistic that we’ll get him back this week,” Quinn said. “I am optimistic that we’ll get him back this week … He’s still in the protocol as we’re going through it.”</p>
<p>—</p>
<p>The Falcons acquired Ty Sambrailo from Denver for a fifth-round pick on Sept. 1. He’s played right tackle for Schraeder and while he gave up two sacks against the Lions, he was solid.</p>
<p>“I liked that there was urgency in the way that he would cut (block),” Quinn said. “I thought that he improved from the performance before.”</p>
<p>He didn’t anchor well on the two sacks he gave up.</p>
<p>“I think the issues that came up on the sacks are things that we can clean up on,” Quinn said. “Where we can get our hands tighter and get a better punch. But I thought in the run game, I really felt his presence.”</p>
<p>NOTES: WR <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Taylor-Gabriel/" type="external">Taylor Gabriel</a> had his first touchdown catch of the season against the Lions. The 40-yard touchdown catch was Gabriel’s sixth career touchdown of 30 yards or more and his seventh touchdown reception of 25 yards or more. … WR Julio Jones was hit in the back on the team’s last offensive play against Detroit. When he went to the sideline, he wouldn’t immediately let the doctors check on him. Later in the locker room, he said that he could have returned to the game. Jones was limited in practice, but is expected to play against the Bills. … DT Jack Crawford has a shoulder injury and was limited in practice. … DE <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Vic-Beasley/" type="external">Vic Beasley</a> Jr., who’s recovering from a hamstring strain/tear injury, was slated to start running with the trainers off to the side at practice. He was injured in the victory over the <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Green_Bay_Packers/" type="external">Green Bay Packers</a> on Sept. 17 and did not play against the <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Detroit-Lions/" type="external">Detroit Lions</a> on Sunday. … RB Terron Ward (neck/shoulder) was slated to return to running. He did not play against Detroit. … FS Ricardo Allen is in the concussion protocol and did not practice. … RT Ryan Schraeder remains in the NFL’s concussion protocol and did not practice. … DT Courtney Upshaw (ankle) did not practice and is not likely to return from injury for Sunday’s game against the Bills.</p> | false | 1 | flowery branch ga new buffalo bills head coach sean mcdermott stranger atlanta falcons carolinas defensive coordinator 2011 2016 directed defense helped panthers go 151 2015 play super bowl 50 mcdermotts defenses 57 going quarterback matt ryan atlanta falcons reason mcdermott elected cover falcons twotime allpro wide receiver julio jones single player last season jones ravaged mantoman coverage catching 12 passes teamrecord 300 yards touchdown 4833 plastering panthers oct 2 panthers overall body work defense clearly game mcdermott hired lead bills face falcons 1 pm sunday mercedesbenz stadium bills solid corners rookie tredavious white ej gaines hes likely leave alone jones wholl limited practice week back injury slated play safety micah hyde former green bay packer likely nearby free safety jordan poyer ryan sees traits panthers buffalos defense aggressive said ryan leagues reigning valuable player aggressive front four linebackers good run thats something weve seen carolina best league think carryover secondary theres lot quarters type coverage great job ton different pressures give lot different looks bills 10 sacks season put lot stress pass protections ryan said something well great job think communication end making sure everybody page going really important week mcdermott falcons head coach dan quinns paths crossed ive known sean mcdermott years quinn said player william amp mary coaching quinn followed mcdermotts career served graduate assistant william amp mary 1998 went philadelphia 19992010 carolina landing buffalo job mcdermott running 43 defense buffalo minus luke kuechly thomas davis linebacker however bills strong front seven right defensive end lorenzo alexander left defensive end shaq lawson strongside linebacker jerry hughes two sacks also tackle kyle williams stout marcell dareus missed denver game ankle injury hes always hardnosed approach quinn said mcdermont theyll really good tacklers theyve got talented front defensively falcons face stiffest test season run game chicagos secondyear back jordan howard coming strong year falcons havent seen back accomplished lesean mccoy yet mccoy rushed 48 times 140 yards caught 18 passes 131 yards mccoy fullback mike tolbert quarterback tyrod taylor lead rushing attack averages 1113 yards rushing per game 11th league also former falcons fullback patrick dimarco whos used lead blocker played 15 65 offensive snaps 23 percent 2616 win denver sunday falcons giving 85 rushing yards per game ranks ninth league falcons held lions 71 rushing yards way theyre built count run game rock solid starts shady goes mike tolbert patrick dimarco lead blocker quinn said theyve got good offensive line quarterback really run athletic tyrod taylor rushed 24 times 106 yards guess three weeks row see guy extend plays get outside pocket quinn said three weeks ago saw green bay last week detroit week buffalo taylor efficient buffalos short passing game hes completed 53 79 passes 671 percent 562 yards four touchdowns one interception passer rating 992 know quarterback extend plays second play begins receivers routes go different spots quinn said series history 12th regularseason meeting falcons lead series 74 falcons last four games last 3431 victory toronto 2013 falcons 30 start second time head coach dan quinn falcons started 50 2014 first season team things went downhill finished 88 ready throw parade jumping 30 start well go right back process every week treat quinn said us feel like getting rolling three games lot work done falcons needed goalline stands chicago detroit post wins road 10second rule helped escape lions definitely one unusual endings game ive part went back appreciate strain quinn said falcons beat lions losing turnover battle 30 get plus create takeaways quinn said felt like missed opportunities starting right tackle ryan schraeder concussion protocol falcons hopeful hell able return buffalo game first optimistic well get back week quinn said optimistic well get back week hes still protocol going falcons acquired ty sambrailo denver fifthround pick sept 1 hes played right tackle schraeder gave two sacks lions solid liked urgency way would cut block quinn said thought improved performance didnt anchor well two sacks gave think issues came sacks things clean quinn said get hands tighter get better punch thought run game really felt presence notes wr taylor gabriel first touchdown catch season lions 40yard touchdown catch gabriels sixth career touchdown 30 yards seventh touchdown reception 25 yards wr julio jones hit back teams last offensive play detroit went sideline wouldnt immediately let doctors check later locker room said could returned game jones limited practice expected play bills dt jack crawford shoulder injury limited practice de vic beasley jr whos recovering hamstring straintear injury slated start running trainers side practice injured victory green bay packers sept 17 play detroit lions sunday rb terron ward neckshoulder slated return running play detroit fs ricardo allen concussion protocol practice rt ryan schraeder remains nfls concussion protocol practice dt courtney upshaw ankle practice likely return injury sundays game bills | 788 |
<p>By Reid Spencer, NASCAR Wire Service</p>
<p>Distributed by The Sports Xchange</p>
<p>LOUDON, N.H. — If <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Denny_Hamlin/" type="external">Denny Hamlin</a> wins Sunday’s ISM Connect 300 at New Hampshire Motor Speedway (2 p.m. ET on NBCSN), he’ll have to face his fear.</p>
<p>Not on the race track, mind you. In Victory Lane.</p>
<p>As part of its post-race ceremony, the Magic Mile awards the winning driver a gigantic live lobster. When Hamlin won at New Hampshire in July, he recoiled when crew chief Mike Wheeler tried to hand him the 22-pound prize.</p>
<p>Understand that Hamlin hates lobsters. He can’t eat if someone is consuming a lobster at a nearby table. And though he finally posed for a few photos with the giant lobster after the summer race, it was not an experience the driver of the No. 11 <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Joe_Gibbs/" type="external">Joe Gibbs</a> Racing Toyota relished.</p>
<p>So even if Hamlin wins the second race in the Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series Playoffs and punches his ticket to the next round, he’ll visit Victory Lane with a distinct sense of dread, even though the lobster’s claws are held firmly shut by large rubber bands.</p>
<p>“Yeah, I’ve never really liked them to begin with,” Hamlin said. “I don’t like the taste of them. I don’t — I just don’t like looking at them. They have pincers, really, so I don’t like anything that’s ugly and has pincers.</p>
<p>“I don’t know — it’s just a big scorpion in my mind. I try to stay away from them and, yeah, I’ve had some interesting moments with them for sure that I don’t care to recall or bring back up.”</p>
<p>Of course, those who might want to play a practical joke on Hamlin know how to devise a prank that’s guaranteed to be effective.</p>
<p>A lobster once appeared mysteriously in the toilet in Hamlin’s motor coach.</p>
<p>“I’ve had one in my toilet before, yes,” Hamlin said. “It was disturbing.”</p>
<p>Coincidentally, Monday happens to be National Lobster Day.</p>
<p>Hamlin won’t be celebrating.</p>
<p>EARNHARDT JR. DOESN’T MIND FLYING COMMERCIAL — YET</p>
<p>One of the perks of NASCAR stardom is the ability to own and maintain a private jet.</p>
<p>But the use of a private plane isn’t about luxury. Given the scheduling demands of top drivers, getting from place to place as quickly and efficiently as possible is an essential aspect of the job.</p>
<p>As a consequence, a driver of the stature of <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Dale_Earnhardt/" type="external">Dale Earnhardt</a> Jr. doesn’t fly commercial aircraft too often, but when he does, Earnhardt can find reasons to enjoy the experience.</p>
<p>And after he puts his full-time driving career behind him at the end of the year, Earnhardt may see his frequency of commercial travel increase.</p>
<p>“I don’t fly commercial that often, to be honest and up front about it,” Earnhardt said. “So when I do, I’m like ‘Man, this is going to be neat.’ And (wife) Amy’s like, ‘Oh no, it ain’t. You’re not going to like it. Wait until this happens or that happens’ … and she’s just naming things that happened.</p>
<p>“But I don’t mind doing it. I like to do it. Especially flying in and out of Charlotte we get to go by Whisky River (one of his nightclub locations is in Charlotte Douglas Airport). I don’t really get a lot of time to go by there to see what’s going on. But sitting around and waiting on the gate to open and all that stuff, I’ve not done it enough to hate it.</p>
<p>“So that’s really where it is. And I guess I’m spoiled would be a good way to put it. Certainly, as I go into this new chapter in life, and get further down the road, I don’t know that owning a private plane is a long-term situation for me. So I’m understanding that there are going to be some more commercial flights in my future. So maybe one day I’ll grow to hate it. But, for now, I don’t mind it too bad.”</p>
<p>BLANEY HOPES TO KEEP UP WITH THE RACE TRACK</p>
<p>Playoff driver <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Ryan-Blaney/" type="external">Ryan Blaney</a> is looking for a single-digit finish this weekend, and he’s off to an excellent start.</p>
<p>In four previous races at New Hampshire Motor Speedway, Blaney has started a remarkably consistent 16th, 14th, 16th and 15th. His finishes are 23rd, 11th, 12th and 19th.</p>
<p>In this year’s July race, Blaney ran better than 19th throughout most of the afternoon, but as the traction compound applied to the asphalt began to wear off, the handling of his car deteriorated. That was an object lesson for the No. 21 Wood Brothers Racing team.</p>
<p>“The biggest thing I felt like we struggled with in the first race this year was when the grip strip went away, we didn’t have our car ready for when it finally faded away,” Blaney said after Saturday’s first practice at the Magic Mile.</p>
<p>“It’s going to fade away like the first race, and it’s just a matter of the second half of the race or the last 100 (laps) — whenever it does fade — is making sure your car is handling well so you don’t have to run in it, and you can migrate back to the normal lane.”</p>
<p>Blaney qualified fourth on Friday, and in Saturday morning’s first practice session he was second fastest behind <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kyle-Larson/" type="external">Kyle Larson</a>. In final practice, under conditions that will most closely resemble those for Sunday’s race, he was sixth on the speed chart behind series leader <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Martin_Truex/" type="external">Martin Truex</a> Jr., <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kevin_Harvick/" type="external">Kevin Harvick</a>, polesitter <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kyle_Busch/" type="external">Kyle Busch</a>, non-Playoff driver <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Daniel-Suarez/" type="external">Daniel Suarez</a> and Larson.</p>
<p>SHORT STROKES</p>
<p>Happy Hour was anything but happy for Joey Logano. While other drivers practiced during Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series final practice, Logano sat on pit road, serving the entire 55 minutes in NASCAR’s version of a penalty box. Logano’s No. 22 Team Penske Ford failed in repeated attempts to get through pre-qualifying inspection on Friday and did not make an attempt during time trials. He’ll start last in Sunday’s ISM Connect 300 with no practice during Happy Hour. …</p>
<p>Dale Earnhardt Jr., who qualified 15th on Friday, was eighth fastest in final practice at 131.112 mph, second best among non-Playoff drivers. Earnhardt is racing at New Hampshire for the last time in the No. 88 Hendrick Motorsports Chevrolet. …</p>
<p><a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Ty-Dillon/" type="external">Ty Dillon</a> scraped the wall with his No. 13 Chevrolet in Happy Hour and will start Sunday’s race from the rear in a backup car. <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jimmie_Johnson/" type="external">Jimmie Johnson</a> (seventh in final practice) and <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Chase-Elliott/" type="external">Chase Elliott</a> (13th) also are in backup cars because of accidents in Friday’s opening practice, but will start where they qualified (12th and 14th, respectively) because their wrecks occurred before time trials.</p> | false | 1 | reid spencer nascar wire service distributed sports xchange loudon nh denny hamlin wins sundays ism connect 300 new hampshire motor speedway 2 pm et nbcsn hell face fear race track mind victory lane part postrace ceremony magic mile awards winning driver gigantic live lobster hamlin new hampshire july recoiled crew chief mike wheeler tried hand 22pound prize understand hamlin hates lobsters cant eat someone consuming lobster nearby table though finally posed photos giant lobster summer race experience driver 11 joe gibbs racing toyota relished even hamlin wins second race monster energy nascar cup series playoffs punches ticket next round hell visit victory lane distinct sense dread even though lobsters claws held firmly shut large rubber bands yeah ive never really liked begin hamlin said dont like taste dont dont like looking pincers really dont like anything thats ugly pincers dont know big scorpion mind try stay away yeah ive interesting moments sure dont care recall bring back course might want play practical joke hamlin know devise prank thats guaranteed effective lobster appeared mysteriously toilet hamlins motor coach ive one toilet yes hamlin said disturbing coincidentally monday happens national lobster day hamlin wont celebrating earnhardt jr doesnt mind flying commercial yet one perks nascar stardom ability maintain private jet use private plane isnt luxury given scheduling demands top drivers getting place place quickly efficiently possible essential aspect job consequence driver stature dale earnhardt jr doesnt fly commercial aircraft often earnhardt find reasons enjoy experience puts fulltime driving career behind end year earnhardt may see frequency commercial travel increase dont fly commercial often honest front earnhardt said im like man going neat wife amys like oh aint youre going like wait happens happens shes naming things happened dont mind like especially flying charlotte get go whisky river one nightclub locations charlotte douglas airport dont really get lot time go see whats going sitting around waiting gate open stuff ive done enough hate thats really guess im spoiled would good way put certainly go new chapter life get road dont know owning private plane longterm situation im understanding going commercial flights future maybe one day ill grow hate dont mind bad blaney hopes keep race track playoff driver ryan blaney looking singledigit finish weekend hes excellent start four previous races new hampshire motor speedway blaney started remarkably consistent 16th 14th 16th 15th finishes 23rd 11th 12th 19th years july race blaney ran better 19th throughout afternoon traction compound applied asphalt began wear handling car deteriorated object lesson 21 wood brothers racing team biggest thing felt like struggled first race year grip strip went away didnt car ready finally faded away blaney said saturdays first practice magic mile going fade away like first race matter second half race last 100 laps whenever fade making sure car handling well dont run migrate back normal lane blaney qualified fourth friday saturday mornings first practice session second fastest behind kyle larson final practice conditions closely resemble sundays race sixth speed chart behind series leader martin truex jr kevin harvick polesitter kyle busch nonplayoff driver daniel suarez larson short strokes happy hour anything happy joey logano drivers practiced monster energy nascar cup series final practice logano sat pit road serving entire 55 minutes nascars version penalty box loganos 22 team penske ford failed repeated attempts get prequalifying inspection friday make attempt time trials hell start last sundays ism connect 300 practice happy hour dale earnhardt jr qualified 15th friday eighth fastest final practice 131112 mph second best among nonplayoff drivers earnhardt racing new hampshire last time 88 hendrick motorsports chevrolet ty dillon scraped wall 13 chevrolet happy hour start sundays race rear backup car jimmie johnson seventh final practice chase elliott 13th also backup cars accidents fridays opening practice start qualified 12th 14th respectively wrecks occurred time trials | 630 |
<p />
<p>The United States insists on throwing its formidable weight around and being recognized as world hegemon, but refuses to take any responsibility for the great number of negative results that emanate from its constant military and political interventions in the affairs of other states and regions.</p>
<p>At this time of great conflict in the world, U.S. foreign/military policy seems to be intimately connected to virtually everything that’s going wrong. Like the bull in a china shop, Uncle Sam’s blundering wreckage is left behind but the rich superpower emerges relatively unscathed to enter into yet another perceived trouble spot requiring its dubious interference.</p>
<p>Following is an assessment of current U.S. interventions, and failures, in the Middle East (Syria-Iraq, Gaza-Israel), Ukraine-Russia and other topics.</p>
<p>The Middle East is afire with ISIS — the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, now called the Islamic State (IS). This religo-fascist movement occupies portions of Iraq and Syria and is threatening much of the Middle East. This is the latest of the unintended but inevitable consequences of European and later primarily U.S. aggressive intervention in the region for well over 100 years, escalating rapidly when British and French imperialism enjoyed the spoils following the defeat the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I.</p>
<p>In modern times the U.S. has protected many regional dictatorships, launched wars and attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, western Pakistan, Libya and Yemen, and supported regime change in Syria. It not only sanctions Iran but keeps the possibility of war “on the table” should nuclear talks fail with Tehran.</p>
<p>In recent decades, Washington’s endless military and other interventions in the region may seem to have succeeded at first but they all blow up in Uncle Sam’s face sooner than later.</p>
<p>Iraq is the textbook example. All those years of war, resulting in death to up to a million people and four million displaced internal and external refugees cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and the embarrassment of a stalemate against a much weaker country. Now Washington is sinking into another quagmire by having to deal with the blowback from the 2003 Iraq misadventure—the Islamic State.</p>
<p>The U.S. has a unique relationship to Iraq. Four U.S. presidents in a row have bombed the country.</p>
<p>The invasion of Afghanistan, after 13 years, has become an utter fiasco. After the Pentagon pulls back, the country will largely be in the hands of various warlords and the Taliban, regardless of who becomes the elected president ruling from a virtual fortress in Kabul.</p>
<p>The Obama Administration’s three-year support for the overthrow of the Syrian government with the Free Syrian Army as its vehicle on the ground is a major failure. The secular FSA was largely backed by pro-U.S. exiles, not the Syrian people. Despite being armed by the Gulf States, Turkey and others, including the U.S. (which gave politically, financially, and militarily with basic weapons), the FSA could never compete with the Sunni Islamist groups that assumed command of the war.</p>
<p>The Islamists included IS, al-Qaeda, and several other jihadi fighting groups seeking the overthrow of the Damascus regime and the installation of a Sunni Islamist regime. All of them are identified with the ultra-conservative Salafi movement. The Islamist State is the most powerful and fights with the others to acquire control over the struggle.</p>
<p>U.S. intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria not only facilitated the creation of IS. In the 1970s-‘90s&#160;Washington’s extensive backing and financing of warlord and jihadist groups in Afghanistan against a left wing government in Kabul and its Soviet backers resulted in the birth of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the regime change brought about by U.S. military engagement in Libya, along with several members of the NATO foreign legion, has resulted in chaos leading to the possibility of civil war. Various militias are fighting each other in Tripoli, the capital, and the country can only be described as in the process of falling apart. Egypt is now facilitating air attacks on some Islamist groups in Libya by jet fighters from the United Arab Emirates. The U.S., which has supplied the tiny UAE with a world-class air force, said it was not told of the attacks. Egypt evidently allows the planes to take off from its own airfields. This is one more unanticipated result of U.S. intervention.</p>
<p>America’s strong support and financial backing for resource rich southern Sudan in northeast Africa to break away from Sudan proper in 2011 has backfired, causing extreme punishment for the nation’s people from mass killings in an unexpected and murderous civil war tearing apart the new state of South Sudan. Washington thought its intervention urging secession from Sudan would enlarge the U.S. footprint in Africa as well as provide a big economic payoff for U.S. corporations.</p>
<p>After the downfall of President Mubarak in Egypt — Washington’s favorite dictator in the Middle East — the U.S. hypocritically decided to intervene in the Arab Spring, welcoming to power the then Gen. Abdel el-Sisi, who subsequently led a popular coup against the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood government. The White House fawns even more upon Sisi now that he is president and governs like the dictator he is. The White House won’t call the overthrow of the Brotherhood a coup and continues subsidizing the Egyptian army despite the murder of over a thousand supporters of the previous government.</p>
<p>U.S. foreign policy strongly supports Israel financially and politically. Washington’s latest backing of the Gaza slaughter, as well as earlier wars in 2008-9 and 2012, is proof of its moral and political bankruptcy, not to mention support for the police state occupation of the West Bank. Had the U.S. years ago adopted a critical stance toward Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinian people, threatening to end its support, a resolution to the crisis could have been forthcoming. History cannot but judge Washington’s policies regarding the Israel-Palestine crisis as a failure.</p>
<p>Both U.S. ruling political parties compete to determine which will more deeply bend the knee to the far right colonial regime led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, overwhelmingly supporting economic subsidies, backing Israel regardless of its continual violence toward the Palestinians, and, most recently, financing the expensive Iron Dome semi-protection against homemade rockets. This includes Democrats from President Obama and Vice President Biden to liberal icons Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (independent but he blocs with the Dems), New York’s Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand and its pandering and opportunistic Gov. Cuomo, the Congressional Black Caucus and just about all progressives in the Senate and House.&#160; The Republicans are arguably a trifle more slavish in their veneration.</p>
<p>America’s leading politicians appear to take pleasure in cheering for Goliath because David dared retaliate with his slingshot against almost seven decades of colonial repression and pain. These powerful political paragons are so privileged they can even get away with judgments that omit the distinction between oppressed and oppressor and brush off the matter of disproportion in evaluating blame.</p>
<p>Armed to the teeth Israel, the world’s fourth largest military, has the right to “defend” itself; the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, without the semblance of an army or proper military equipage, do not.</p>
<p>It is a real insight into Washington, that neither President Obama nor Secretary of State John Kerry or any leading American politician has expressed criticism of the Israeli government for killing about 2,142 Palestinians—1,800 estimated to be babies, children, teenagers, women, and seniors—since its offensive began in July.&#160; Israel is said to have lost 72 people including four civilians.</p>
<p>Israel has committed serious war crimes in Gaza and West Bank for which it should be charged by the UN and other international jurisdictions. Only American veto power in the UN has prevented this, as it has often in the past. The Obama Administration, too, shares responsibility for these crimes. In just circumstances, such support for the settler state would be defined as a moral failure surpassing its years of backing for South African apartheid.</p>
<p>The Ukraine crisis erupted because Washington decided months earlier to encourage and support a coup that took place this February against the country’s democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovich, who was about to develop closer relations with the country’s long time Russian neighbor. The U.S. and EU wanted to minimize Russian influence and maximize their own by separating the two historic associates. The U.S. did the same 10 years ago with the so-called “Orange Revolution,” which ultimately failed.</p>
<p>Washington assumed it had Russia in its pocket back in the 1990s, applauding as the newly minted oligarchs looted the economic patrimony of the former socialist working class. Today, Washington is engaged in an effort to reduce Russia’s sphere of influence and undermine its economy enough to weaken Moscow geopolitically.[1]</p>
<p>Moscow’s main goals in supporting Russian separatists against the Kiev government are two-fold: (1) The U.S. and NATO must declare unambiguously that Ukraine will not be invited or permitted to join the Washington-dominated cold war military alliance, which now deploys its tentacles around the world. (2) The eastern Russian language sector of Ukraine should become federalized, i.e., to have its own fairly autonomous local government within Ukraine. These sectors strongly opposed the coup against Yanukovich, and deeply opposed the elevation of fascist organizations—the vanguard of the overthrow—to power within the state.</p>
<p>The U.S. and NATO, which supported the February putsch, have been gravitating ever closer geographically to the former USSR with evident ill intent since the Soviet implosion over two decades ago. Crimea’s decisive 97% vote to join Russia was exploited by Washington and its European Union allies to justify increasingly aggressive sanctions against Moscow, the military strengthening of former members of the Soviet Union now within NATO, and the formation of what the New York Times Sept. 4 referred to as “a rapid deployment force intended to respond to future Russian military threats.”</p>
<p>At present, the UN reports that some 2,600 civilians have been killed in fighting between Ukrainian troops and heavily armed separatists in the rebel redoubts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, as well as elsewhere. Russian President Vladimir Putin demands a humanitarian cease-fire and negotiations, but clearly intends to aid the rebels in the meanwhile. The U.S.-influenced Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko declines. Most of the civilian casualties died from heavy shelling of pro-Russian territory by the Ukrainian government. Kiev declared this week that Moscow has sent troops to “invade” southern Ukraine, but Moscow denied the charge.</p>
<p>Russia Direct reported Aug. 28: “What is the real evidence of any ‘invasion’ in Ukraine? All previous Ukrainian statements about the alleged invasion of Russian armored vehicles marching through Ukrainian territory turned out to be unproved. The OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) denies that there has been any military intervention and even U.S. officials have been careful not to call it an invasion.”</p>
<p>On Aug. 29 the Russian leader publicly sent a message of support to the pro-Russian fighters for their recent successful offensive, this time calling for a “humanitarian corridor” to be established to permit trapped Ukrainian soldiers to retreat. Two days later, Putin called on the Kiev government to begin immediate talks leading to a political solution of the crisis.</p>
<p>Just before an important NATO conference to sharply intensify its opposition to Russia began in Wales Sept. 4, President Putin issued an unexpected seven-point peace plan that caused pause if not a settlement. Obama continued with his increasing condemnation of Moscow but it was clear neither he nor the European Union wanted the situation to get completely out of hand.</p>
<p>Even though NATO is strengthening its military position throughout Eastern Europe, it is most unlikely the two sides will collide in a war. It is also unlikely at this point that President Obama will soon take serious action to resolve the crisis. At this stage Washington undoubtedly believes it has the stronger hand and that its incessant criticism of Russian action is isolating and weakening Moscow.</p>
<p>It is true that the economic sanctions are painful for Russia—but Moscow is clearly taking the initiative and calling the shots in this situation. Putin may end up with an agreement Moscow and the eastern Ukrainians can live with. After all, Ukraine is governed by an oligarchy influenced by the right wing and its U.S. advisers. Economic conditions are dreadful, its people are hardly anxious for an enlarged conflict with a powerful and determined Moscow, and a substantial minority of the population leans toward Russia in the first place.</p>
<p>Moscow prefers a restoration of old ties with the Kiev government, and it may well settle for a neutral Ukrainian buffer between itself and NATO Europe as long as the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine is protected with a large degree of autonomy. But it will not accept the post-February status quo, with Ukraine a dependency and puppet of the U.S./EU bloc that seeks to weaken Russia geopolitically.</p>
<p>The only good thing about the latest Mideast, Israeli and Ukrainian crises is that the Obama Administration has once again had to delay important non-military aspects of its pivot to Asia, which is intended to prevent China from exercising leadership within its own sphere of influence. The Imperium does not appreciate erosions of its regional management lest this dilute its global hegemony.</p>
<p>The military aspects continue, the latest being President Obama’s decision to send 2,500 U.S. Marines to their new base in western Australia, with proximity to the South China Sea, instead of the original 1,150. These forces complement much larger U.S. land, sea or air bases stationed in Japan, South Korea and Guam, Afghanistan, and soon the Philippines.</p>
<p>Lurking in the background, intimately associated with foreign/military policy, is a specter much of the world would prefer not to think about. Technology has created the possibility of generating a third world war worse than the combined World Wars I and II. At this stage the Pentagon would be derelict if it did not have dozens of detailed battle plans for every aspect of a third world war, and dozens more for any variety of wars on land, sea, air, space and cyberspace. How could it not? That’s the Pentagon’s job.</p>
<p>No one wants another global conflict, but who wanted the first two world wars as they ultimately turned out?&#160; Getting in was easy. It is folly to think this could not happen again. Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons continue to exist, many on a hair-trigger alert at U.S. and Russian bases primarily, but several other states possess such armaments as well. Any one of them could ignite a war.</p>
<p>Washington has been a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons for almost five decades, but it has totally ignored the treaty’s provision that genuine efforts must be taken by nuclear nations to attain the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament.</p>
<p>The Pentagon’s ability to wage devastating wars greatly improves every few years, based on new technology compounded by enormous expenditures. Einstein rightly said: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”</p>
<p>The next world war—unless it can be prevented by an entirely new U.S. foreign/military strategy would be far more deadly than past wars. In 1914, just before World War I, the global population was 1.8 billion. The war resulted in 18 million deaths of soldiers and civilians, and 20 million wounded. In 1939, just before WWII, global population was 2.3 billion and by the end of the war there were up to 85 million dead. By 2050 world population is expected to reach 9.6 billion—the big difference in addition to population, bigger wars, and more devastating weapons will be the existence of developed climate change.</p>
<p>Although the global ecological crisis is not often thought to be a foreign policy issue, it is in practice since what the big industrialized nations do and do not do about this impending calamity impacts every country on Earth. Right now, though it demands to lead the world, U.S. policy is moving at a turtle’s pace to take the steps required to inhibit the growth of global warming.</p>
<p>In terms of climate change, the capitalist economic system and the political leadership that caters to that system refuses to take the swift emergency measures necessary to curtail global climate change and stricter protection of natural resources. The reason is that it depends for survival on the expansion of consumption, profits and standing in the marketplace. Big corporations, the banking system, Wall Street and related interests are not convinced a major transformation from fossil fuel to solar, wind, and other renewable sources over a couple of decades will protect and expand their assets. The world’s assets always come in second.</p>
<p>Human well being and survival depend upon several crucial international transformations that are basically ignored by Washington as it functions as global hegemon and leader of all nations:</p>
<p>The United States, undoubtedly the most influential country on Earth as well as history’s deadliest martial juggernaut, is an arch offender in all these categories. Combined with Washington’s numerous counterproductive interventions in complex world affairs, creating more havoc than order, it is time for Washington to focus upon its own mounting tribulations in America and leave the governance of the globe to the countries and peoples of the world who look upon it as their home, too.</p>
<p>[1]&#160;See <a href="https://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/2014/03/03-28-14-activist-newsletter.html" type="external">03-28-14 Activist Newsletter</a> for our analysis of this situation.</p> | false | 1 | united states insists throwing formidable weight around recognized world hegemon refuses take responsibility great number negative results emanate constant military political interventions affairs states regions time great conflict world us foreignmilitary policy seems intimately connected virtually everything thats going wrong like bull china shop uncle sams blundering wreckage left behind rich superpower emerges relatively unscathed enter yet another perceived trouble spot requiring dubious interference following assessment current us interventions failures middle east syriairaq gazaisrael ukrainerussia topics middle east afire isis islamic state iraq greater syria called islamic state religofascist movement occupies portions iraq syria threatening much middle east latest unintended inevitable consequences european later primarily us aggressive intervention region well 100 years escalating rapidly british french imperialism enjoyed spoils following defeat ottoman empire end world war modern times us protected many regional dictatorships launched wars attacks afghanistan iraq western pakistan libya yemen supported regime change syria sanctions iran keeps possibility war table nuclear talks fail tehran recent decades washingtons endless military interventions region may seem succeeded first blow uncle sams face sooner later iraq textbook example years war resulting death million people four million displaced internal external refugees cost us trillions dollars embarrassment stalemate much weaker country washington sinking another quagmire deal blowback 2003 iraq misadventurethe islamic state us unique relationship iraq four us presidents row bombed country invasion afghanistan 13 years become utter fiasco pentagon pulls back country largely hands various warlords taliban regardless becomes elected president ruling virtual fortress kabul obama administrations threeyear support overthrow syrian government free syrian army vehicle ground major failure secular fsa largely backed prous exiles syrian people despite armed gulf states turkey others including us gave politically financially militarily basic weapons fsa could never compete sunni islamist groups assumed command war islamists included alqaeda several jihadi fighting groups seeking overthrow damascus regime installation sunni islamist regime identified ultraconservative salafi movement islamist state powerful fights others acquire control struggle us intervention iraq afghanistan syria facilitated creation 1970s90s160washingtons extensive backing financing warlord jihadist groups afghanistan left wing government kabul soviet backers resulted birth alqaeda taliban meanwhile regime change brought us military engagement libya along several members nato foreign legion resulted chaos leading possibility civil war various militias fighting tripoli capital country described process falling apart egypt facilitating air attacks islamist groups libya jet fighters united arab emirates us supplied tiny uae worldclass air force said told attacks egypt evidently allows planes take airfields one unanticipated result us intervention americas strong support financial backing resource rich southern sudan northeast africa break away sudan proper 2011 backfired causing extreme punishment nations people mass killings unexpected murderous civil war tearing apart new state south sudan washington thought intervention urging secession sudan would enlarge us footprint africa well provide big economic payoff us corporations downfall president mubarak egypt washingtons favorite dictator middle east us hypocritically decided intervene arab spring welcoming power gen abdel elsisi subsequently led popular coup democratically elected muslim brotherhood government white house fawns even upon sisi president governs like dictator white house wont call overthrow brotherhood coup continues subsidizing egyptian army despite murder thousand supporters previous government us foreign policy strongly supports israel financially politically washingtons latest backing gaza slaughter well earlier wars 20089 2012 proof moral political bankruptcy mention support police state occupation west bank us years ago adopted critical stance toward israels subjugation palestinian people threatening end support resolution crisis could forthcoming history judge washingtons policies regarding israelpalestine crisis failure us ruling political parties compete determine deeply bend knee far right colonial regime led prime minister netanyahu overwhelmingly supporting economic subsidies backing israel regardless continual violence toward palestinians recently financing expensive iron dome semiprotection homemade rockets includes democrats president obama vice president biden liberal icons sens elizabeth warren bernie sanders independent blocs dems new yorks sens schumer gillibrand pandering opportunistic gov cuomo congressional black caucus progressives senate house160 republicans arguably trifle slavish veneration americas leading politicians appear take pleasure cheering goliath david dared retaliate slingshot almost seven decades colonial repression pain powerful political paragons privileged even get away judgments omit distinction oppressed oppressor brush matter disproportion evaluating blame armed teeth israel worlds fourth largest military right defend palestinians gaza west bank without semblance army proper military equipage real insight washington neither president obama secretary state john kerry leading american politician expressed criticism israeli government killing 2142 palestinians1800 estimated babies children teenagers women seniorssince offensive began july160 israel said lost 72 people including four civilians israel committed serious war crimes gaza west bank charged un international jurisdictions american veto power un prevented often past obama administration shares responsibility crimes circumstances support settler state would defined moral failure surpassing years backing south african apartheid ukraine crisis erupted washington decided months earlier encourage support coup took place february countrys democratically elected president viktor yanukovich develop closer relations countrys long time russian neighbor us eu wanted minimize russian influence maximize separating two historic associates us 10 years ago socalled orange revolution ultimately failed washington assumed russia pocket back 1990s applauding newly minted oligarchs looted economic patrimony former socialist working class today washington engaged effort reduce russias sphere influence undermine economy enough weaken moscow geopolitically1 moscows main goals supporting russian separatists kiev government twofold 1 us nato must declare unambiguously ukraine invited permitted join washingtondominated cold war military alliance deploys tentacles around world 2 eastern russian language sector ukraine become federalized ie fairly autonomous local government within ukraine sectors strongly opposed coup yanukovich deeply opposed elevation fascist organizationsthe vanguard overthrowto power within state us nato supported february putsch gravitating ever closer geographically former ussr evident ill intent since soviet implosion two decades ago crimeas decisive 97 vote join russia exploited washington european union allies justify increasingly aggressive sanctions moscow military strengthening former members soviet union within nato formation new york times sept 4 referred rapid deployment force intended respond future russian military threats present un reports 2600 civilians killed fighting ukrainian troops heavily armed separatists rebel redoubts donetsk luhansk oblasts well elsewhere russian president vladimir putin demands humanitarian ceasefire negotiations clearly intends aid rebels meanwhile usinfluenced ukrainian government president petro poroshenko declines civilian casualties died heavy shelling prorussian territory ukrainian government kiev declared week moscow sent troops invade southern ukraine moscow denied charge russia direct reported aug 28 real evidence invasion ukraine previous ukrainian statements alleged invasion russian armored vehicles marching ukrainian territory turned unproved osce organization security cooperation europe denies military intervention even us officials careful call invasion aug 29 russian leader publicly sent message support prorussian fighters recent successful offensive time calling humanitarian corridor established permit trapped ukrainian soldiers retreat two days later putin called kiev government begin immediate talks leading political solution crisis important nato conference sharply intensify opposition russia began wales sept 4 president putin issued unexpected sevenpoint peace plan caused pause settlement obama continued increasing condemnation moscow clear neither european union wanted situation get completely hand even though nato strengthening military position throughout eastern europe unlikely two sides collide war also unlikely point president obama soon take serious action resolve crisis stage washington undoubtedly believes stronger hand incessant criticism russian action isolating weakening moscow true economic sanctions painful russiabut moscow clearly taking initiative calling shots situation putin may end agreement moscow eastern ukrainians live ukraine governed oligarchy influenced right wing us advisers economic conditions dreadful people hardly anxious enlarged conflict powerful determined moscow substantial minority population leans toward russia first place moscow prefers restoration old ties kiev government may well settle neutral ukrainian buffer nato europe long ethnic russian population ukraine protected large degree autonomy accept postfebruary status quo ukraine dependency puppet useu bloc seeks weaken russia geopolitically good thing latest mideast israeli ukrainian crises obama administration delay important nonmilitary aspects pivot asia intended prevent china exercising leadership within sphere influence imperium appreciate erosions regional management lest dilute global hegemony military aspects continue latest president obamas decision send 2500 us marines new base western australia proximity south china sea instead original 1150 forces complement much larger us land sea air bases stationed japan south korea guam afghanistan soon philippines lurking background intimately associated foreignmilitary policy specter much world would prefer think technology created possibility generating third world war worse combined world wars ii stage pentagon would derelict dozens detailed battle plans every aspect third world war dozens variety wars land sea air space cyberspace could thats pentagons job one wants another global conflict wanted first two world wars ultimately turned out160 getting easy folly think could happen tens thousands nuclear weapons continue exist many hairtrigger alert us russian bases primarily several states possess armaments well one could ignite war washington member treaty nonproliferation nuclear weapons almost five decades totally ignored treatys provision genuine efforts must taken nuclear nations attain goal achieving nuclear disarmament pentagons ability wage devastating wars greatly improves every years based new technology compounded enormous expenditures einstein rightly said know weapons world war iii fought world war iv fought sticks stones next world warunless prevented entirely new us foreignmilitary strategy would far deadly past wars 1914 world war global population 18 billion war resulted 18 million deaths soldiers civilians 20 million wounded 1939 wwii global population 23 billion end war 85 million dead 2050 world population expected reach 96 billionthe big difference addition population bigger wars devastating weapons existence developed climate change although global ecological crisis often thought foreign policy issue practice since big industrialized nations impending calamity impacts every country earth right though demands lead world us policy moving turtles pace take steps required inhibit growth global warming terms climate change capitalist economic system political leadership caters system refuses take swift emergency measures necessary curtail global climate change stricter protection natural resources reason depends survival expansion consumption profits standing marketplace big corporations banking system wall street related interests convinced major transformation fossil fuel solar wind renewable sources couple decades protect expand assets worlds assets always come second human well survival depend upon several crucial international transformations basically ignored washington functions global hegemon leader nations united states undoubtedly influential country earth well historys deadliest martial juggernaut arch offender categories combined washingtons numerous counterproductive interventions complex world affairs creating havoc order time washington focus upon mounting tribulations america leave governance globe countries peoples world look upon home 1160see 032814 activist newsletter analysis situation | 1,690 |
<p />
<p>During the 2011 Egyptian uprisings, the military was jeered for cracking down on protestors and for the infamous <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20074749.html" type="external">virginity tests</a> they conducted on detained female protestors.&#160; In June 2012, when Mohamed Morsi won the presidential race with 51% of the votes, crowds gathered in Tahrir Square to celebrate his victory, chanting : “ <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201262412445190400.html" type="external">God is great” and “down with military rule.</a>”&#160;&#160;&#160; Barely a year passed before the crowds were cheering the U.S.-backed military for ousting their first democratically elected president in a coup dubbed by various media outlets as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23210988" type="external">a democratic coup</a>.&#160;&#160; What transpired?</p>
<p>Mr. Morsi alienated both Egyptians and foreign states in his short term in office.&#160; No doubt many Egyptians were alarmed and opposed to what they perceived as his ‘power-grab’, as well as the new constitution which passed in a referendum with 64% of a measly 33% turnout; but inarguably, the economy was a huge factor in sending protestors to the streets.&#160; The lack of progress in dealing with the economy, the fuel shortages, and the IMF loan delay also contributed to the continuous unrest in Egypt.</p>
<p>It is worthwhile mentioning here that a significant percentage of Egypt’s economy is run by the military. Robert Springborg, an expert on Egypt’s military told the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/middleeast/18military.html?pagewanted=all" type="external">New York Times</a>: “Protecting its businesses from scrutiny and accountability is a red line the [Egyptian] military will draw”.&#160; Also of note is the fact that long lines formed at gasoline stations in Cairo amid an apparent fuel shortage disappeared quickly after the coup. &#160;This led to speculation that the fuel crisis had “been deliberately engineered to <a href="https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/warning-humanitarian-catastrophe-egypt-tightens-siege-gaza" type="external">feed unrest and dissatisfaction with the Morsi government</a> in the days before its overthrow.”</p>
<p>Gripped in social and economic crisis, it came as no surprise that on May 1st, a group opposed to Mr. Morsi which called itself “Rebel” organized a one million people march to be held on June 30th.&#160; &#160;&#160;The group also planned on delivering a signed petition to the Prosecutor General at the same time with the aim of collecting 15 million signatures by that date.&#160; “In one month, movement promoters travelled the length and breadth of the country, collecting signatures door to door, on buses, in restaurants and offices as well as on the internet.” They claimed that they had secured just over 7 million signatures, and four weeks later, on June 28th, the Washington Post reported that the group had secured <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-28/world/40255650_1_cairo-supporters-tahrir-square" type="external">22 million signatures</a>. &#160;&#160;(Given the timeframe and the challenges, surely this number has a place in the Guinness Book of World Records – if only it could be verifiable).</p>
<p>This number cited by “Rebel” became an accepted reality and was promoted by media outlets without verification. &#160;As anti-protestors marched on Tahrir as planned, military tanks and personnel blocked the pro-Morsi crowd from the onset; &#160;enabling the media lens to capture the sea of anti-Morsi demonstrators and marginalizing his supporters.&#160; These actions together with the unverified 22 million signatures claim played an essential role in calling a military coup a “democratic” coup. &#160;Washington was off the hook and funds could secure the Egyptian army’s cooperation and loyalty to Washington.</p>
<p>But one should ask why was it that Washington, which has a long standing relationship with the Moslem Brotherhood,[1] rejected Morsi?</p>
<p>There are many answers to this question – with the most basic being that he was not part of the plan.&#160; As early as 2007, speculation about Hosni Mubarak’s replacement appeared in the American mainstream media.&#160; Discussing his ailing health, in October 2007, Michael Stackman’s opinion piece in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/world/africa/31iht-journal.4.8131891.html?_r=1" type="external">New York Times</a> addressed the importance of a Mubark’s replacement to be someone who would continue the same policies towards Israel and Washington.</p>
<p>With this in mind, in 2008, young, ‘civil society’ Egyptians met with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who called the young Egyptian activists the “hope for the future of Egypt”.&#160; The “hope of Egypt” also met the US National Security Advisor and prominent Congressional member. These meetings were organized by Freedom House ( <a href="https://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=66&amp;program=84" type="external">see link here</a>).&#160; Freedom House, an outfit which calls itself “independent” but receives 80% of its funding from the US government, including the National Endowment for Democracy, claimed to provide “ <a href="https://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=66&amp;program=84" type="external">advanced training on civic mobilization, strategic thinking, new media, advocacy and outreach</a>“.</p>
<p>In 2010, Freedom House boasted of teaching new media tools to Egypt’s “hope”.</p>
<p>Freedom House had reason to boast.&#160; 2010 was a crucial year to decide and settle on Mubarak’s successor as time was of the essence given Mubarak’s health and terminal illness. In April 2010, the Jerusalem Post ventured that former IAEA Chief, Egyptian-born Mohammad ElBaradei would “ <a href="http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=172172" type="external">add excitement to Egyptian politics.”</a>&#160; He did.&#160; &#160;Mr. ElBaradei served on the Board of Trustees of the International Crisis Group funded by Carnegie, Soros, and Ford (Ford Foundation was a conduit for CIA funds during the Cold War[2]) where he rubbed shoulders with colleagues Shimon Peres, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki al-Faisal, &#160;Richard Armitage, &#160;Zbigniew Brzezinski, etc.</p>
<p>Morsi’s election not only interrupted Washington’s efforts to replace Mubarak in spite of his close cooperation with Washington (specifically in cutting ties with Syria).&#160; Morsi presented Washington with many challenges. Not only was he reported to have called “ <a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2013/January/Egypts-President-Calls-Jews-Apes-Pigs/" type="external">Jews descendants of pigs and apes</a>”,&#160; but his election into office was warmly welcomed not only by Hamas, but also by the U.S.-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who called Morsi “the choice of the great people of Egypt” while one of his senior aides, Saeb Erekat, said the democratic vote for Morsi “meant the Palestinian cause was the <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/hamas-morsi-victory-in-egypt-will-help-palestinian-cause-1.443621" type="external">Number One priority for all Egyptians</a>“. &#160;&#160;Washington was not in the business of making Palestinians jubilant, or contradicting Israel’s demands.</p>
<p>Regardless, Morsi dug in deeper. Soon after taking office, <a href="https://www.google.com/#output=search&amp;sclient=psy-ab&amp;q=Morsi+orders+NGOs+out+of+Egypt&amp;rlz=1W1SNNT_enUS355&amp;oq=Morsi+orders+NGOs+out+of+Egypt&amp;gs_l=hp.3...310.6636.0.7252.30.24.0.4.4.1.520.4793.0j17j6j5-1.24.0....0...1c.1.19.psy-ab.Q3u3-UsOp34&amp;pbx=1&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&amp;bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWM&amp;fp=ed9dc457b617ee1d&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=599" type="external">Morsi forced NGOs out of Egypt</a>, raising the ire of Freedom House (NGOs were referred to as <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/powell_brief31.asp" type="external">force-multipliers</a> by Colin Powell, and have been instrumental in executing US policies around the globe).&#160;&#160; Additionally, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/world/middleeast/egyptian-leader-ousts-military-chiefs.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0" type="external">Morsi forced out powerful military figures</a> in order to reclaim the military power the army had seized; as Juan Cole put it, ‘ <a href="http://www.juancole.com/2012/08/in-switch-egypts-civilian-president-makes-coup-against-generals.html" type="external">a coup against the generals</a>’.&#160; <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/egypt-president-orders-defence-chief-out/story-e6frfkui-1226448818186" type="external">Israel called the move</a> “Instability in Egypt to threaten Israel,” and “Muslim Brotherhood on our doorstep.” &#160;However, Morsi made the mistake of appointing <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19256730" type="external">Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi as military chief</a> – a man with close ties to the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>Perhaps his most serious offense was his opposition to a dam which both Israel and Saudi Arabia favored as they had plans to divert water from the Nile.&#160; In 2012, it was <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/12/121217-saudi-arabia-water-grabs-ethiopia/" type="external">reported</a> that Saudi Arabia had claimed a stake in the Nile.&#160; &#160;Israel’s ambitions went much further back.</p>
<p>First initiated by Theodore Herzl in 1903, the diversion plan was dropped due to British and Egyptian opposition to it only to be picked up again in the 1970s. &#160;At that time, Israeli’s idea was to convince Egypt to divert Nile water to Israel.&#160; In 1978, President Anwar Sadat “declared in Haifa to the Israeli public that he would transfer Nile water to the Negev. Shortly afterward, in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Sadat promised that Nile water would go to Jerusalem. During Mubarak’s presidency, published reports indicated that Israeli experts were helping Ethiopia to plan 40 dams along the Blue Nile.”[3]</p>
<p>On May 30, 2013, <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypts-water-war/" type="external">The Times of Israel</a> reported that the construction on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (on the Blue Nile) had sparked a major diplomatic crisis with Egypt. &#160;The article also reported (citing Al-Arabiya) that Major General Mohammed Ali Bilal, the deputy chief of staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces, had said Egypt was not in a position to confront the project (countries).&#160; “The only solution lies in the US intervening to convince Ethiopia to alleviate the impact of the dam on Egypt.”&#160; No such solutions from the U.S.</p>
<p>On June 3rd, <a href="http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/06/03/morsi-meeting-discusses-effects-of-dam/" type="external">Morsi met with his cabinet</a> to discuss the dam and its implications.&#160; Cabinet members were surprised to learn that the meeting was aired live.&#160;&#160; <a href="http://missingpeace.eu/en/2013/06/egyptian-cabinet-discuss-war-against-israel-over-nile-crisis/" type="external">During the meeting</a>, a cabinet member said: “Imagine what 80 million of us would do to Israel and America if our water was turned off”.&#160; Morsi contended that “We have very serious measures to protect every drop of Nile water.” The day prior to Morsi’s ouster, on July 2nd, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/02/in-ethiopia-massive-nile-river-dam-project-inspires-comparison-with-story/" type="external">Fox News</a> reported that work on the dam was “proceeding apace”, with plans to finish the project in 2017.</p>
<p>It seems the only “serious measure” undertaken was the ouster of Morsi.&#160; With him gone, the military engaged, and the pouring in of Saudi money, the dam project will proceed unhindered;&#160; blood-diluted Nile water will flow to the enemies of the Egyptian in sync with a current of jubilation by the crowds who ‘can’t see the forest for the trees’.</p>
<p>Notes</p> | false | 1 | 2011 egyptian uprisings military jeered cracking protestors infamous virginity tests conducted detained female protestors160 june 2012 mohamed morsi presidential race 51 votes crowds gathered tahrir square celebrate victory chanting god great military rule160160160 barely year passed crowds cheering usbacked military ousting first democratically elected president coup dubbed various media outlets democratic coup160160 transpired mr morsi alienated egyptians foreign states short term office160 doubt many egyptians alarmed opposed perceived powergrab well new constitution passed referendum 64 measly 33 turnout inarguably economy huge factor sending protestors streets160 lack progress dealing economy fuel shortages imf loan delay also contributed continuous unrest egypt worthwhile mentioning significant percentage egypts economy run military robert springborg expert egypts military told new york times protecting businesses scrutiny accountability red line egyptian military draw160 also note fact long lines formed gasoline stations cairo amid apparent fuel shortage disappeared quickly coup 160this led speculation fuel crisis deliberately engineered feed unrest dissatisfaction morsi government days overthrow gripped social economic crisis came surprise may 1st group opposed mr morsi called rebel organized one million people march held june 30th160 160160the group also planned delivering signed petition prosecutor general time aim collecting 15 million signatures date160 one month movement promoters travelled length breadth country collecting signatures door door buses restaurants offices well internet claimed secured 7 million signatures four weeks later june 28th washington post reported group secured 22 million signatures 160160given timeframe challenges surely number place guinness book world records could verifiable number cited rebel became accepted reality promoted media outlets without verification 160as antiprotestors marched tahrir planned military tanks personnel blocked promorsi crowd onset 160enabling media lens capture sea antimorsi demonstrators marginalizing supporters160 actions together unverified 22 million signatures claim played essential role calling military coup democratic coup 160washington hook funds could secure egyptian armys cooperation loyalty washington one ask washington long standing relationship moslem brotherhood1 rejected morsi many answers question basic part plan160 early 2007 speculation hosni mubaraks replacement appeared american mainstream media160 discussing ailing health october 2007 michael stackmans opinion piece new york times addressed importance mubarks replacement someone would continue policies towards israel washington mind 2008 young civil society egyptians met former secretary state condoleezza rice called young egyptian activists hope future egypt160 hope egypt also met us national security advisor prominent congressional member meetings organized freedom house see link here160 freedom house outfit calls independent receives 80 funding us government including national endowment democracy claimed provide advanced training civic mobilization strategic thinking new media advocacy outreach 2010 freedom house boasted teaching new media tools egypts hope freedom house reason boast160 2010 crucial year decide settle mubaraks successor time essence given mubaraks health terminal illness april 2010 jerusalem post ventured former iaea chief egyptianborn mohammad elbaradei would add excitement egyptian politics160 did160 160mr elbaradei served board trustees international crisis group funded carnegie soros ford ford foundation conduit cia funds cold war2 rubbed shoulders colleagues shimon peres saudi arabias prince turki alfaisal 160richard armitage 160zbigniew brzezinski etc morsis election interrupted washingtons efforts replace mubarak spite close cooperation washington specifically cutting ties syria160 morsi presented washington many challenges reported called jews descendants pigs apes160 election office warmly welcomed hamas also usbacked palestinian president mahmoud abbas called morsi choice great people egypt one senior aides saeb erekat said democratic vote morsi meant palestinian cause number one priority egyptians 160160washington business making palestinians jubilant contradicting israels demands regardless morsi dug deeper soon taking office morsi forced ngos egypt raising ire freedom house ngos referred forcemultipliers colin powell instrumental executing us policies around globe160160 additionally morsi forced powerful military figures order reclaim military power army seized juan cole put coup generals160 israel called move instability egypt threaten israel muslim brotherhood doorstep 160however morsi made mistake appointing abdelfattah elsissi military chief man close ties us saudi arabia perhaps serious offense opposition dam israel saudi arabia favored plans divert water nile160 2012 reported saudi arabia claimed stake nile160 160israels ambitions went much back first initiated theodore herzl 1903 diversion plan dropped due british egyptian opposition picked 1970s 160at time israelis idea convince egypt divert nile water israel160 1978 president anwar sadat declared haifa israeli public would transfer nile water negev shortly afterward letter israeli prime minister menachem begin sadat promised nile water would go jerusalem mubaraks presidency published reports indicated israeli experts helping ethiopia plan 40 dams along blue nile3 may 30 2013 times israel reported construction grand ethiopian renaissance dam blue nile sparked major diplomatic crisis egypt 160the article also reported citing alarabiya major general mohammed ali bilal deputy chief staff egyptian armed forces said egypt position confront project countries160 solution lies us intervening convince ethiopia alleviate impact dam egypt160 solutions us june 3rd morsi met cabinet discuss dam implications160 cabinet members surprised learn meeting aired live160160 meeting cabinet member said imagine 80 million us would israel america water turned off160 morsi contended serious measures protect every drop nile water day prior morsis ouster july 2nd fox news reported work dam proceeding apace plans finish project 2017 seems serious measure undertaken ouster morsi160 gone military engaged pouring saudi money dam project proceed unhindered160 blooddiluted nile water flow enemies egyptian sync current jubilation crowds cant see forest trees notes | 854 |
<p>The thought that most frequently pops into my head when I read diatribes by militant atheists is “Why won’t you read a book?”</p>
<p>Of course, put thus, the thought is implausible. The militant atheists who get interviewed in newspapers presumably have read books. Christopher Hitchens had certainly read a lot of books. But there are good books and there are bad books, and then there are necessary books. And, clearly, they haven’t read any of the books that should, in a cultured society, be presumed necessary for participation in public debate.</p>
<p>Take the theoretical physicist and public speaker Lawrence Krauss. Krauss is, in a way, a perfect example, because he doesn’t even pretend to be a philosopher — unlike, say, Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins. Krauss recently received the 2015 Humanist of the Year award and <a href="http://thehumanist.com/magazine/november-december-2015/features/humanism-doubt-and-optimism" type="external">delivered himself of a speech</a> attacking religion; before that, he wrote a piece for The New Yorker that went viral, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists" type="external">calling on scientists to attack religion</a>.</p>
<p>Krauss’s belief — and it is a belief — is that religion and science are competing ways of explaining the world. Religion is based on dogma, and science is based on doubt, and those two are, at the end of the day, incompatible. One must win. I’ll let you guess which side Krauss is on.</p>
<p>The problem, as always, with Krauss’s case isn’t that he’s on the wrong “side,” it’s that he doesn’t understand what he is talking about, and as a result ends up spouting nonsense.</p>
<p>So, in the interests of, well, reason and culture, let me point to some of the most egregious errors of typical militant atheist discourse, so that we can get past it.</p>
<p>There is no such thing as “religion.” Some words are fine to use in everyday discourse, but become completely useless if one is trying to be conceptually precise. “Religion” is one of them. Religion is probably the most complex, the most variegated, and arguably the most profound human phenomenon. It stretches into the realms of personal experience, dogma, myth, storytelling, social organization, belief, and practice. Militant atheists often use the term “religion” as a shorthand for “dogma,” but in reality many, if not most, religions do not have dogmas. Militant atheists deride the literalistic interpretation of sacred scriptures, but, putting aside the fact that “literalism” in this sense is itself a modern phenomenon and is sidelined by many great theistic scriptural traditions, many religions do not in fact have scriptures. Sometime in the 18th century, the British informed the Indians that they had a thing called a “religion” and that this “religion” was called Hinduism. Somehow, they had got by for thousands of years without this crucial piece of information.</p>
<p>Any generalization that begins with the word “religion” is ipso facto meaningless. What exists, instead, are identifiable traditions, worldviews, bodies of belief and practice, and so on.</p>
<p>Take the “religion” versus “reason” dichotomy. Is there a conflict between religion and reason? Well, that’s a meaningless question. Many faith traditions have struggled with this question and have come up with different answers. Within Christianity, the Roman Catholic tradition has spent literally 2,000 years wrestling with this very question and has produced a considerable body of thought harmonizing its, yes, dogmas with what it understood as the best of philosophy. In fact, Roman Catholic doctrine actually condemns as a heresy the proposition that reason and faith are incompatible (and, speaking personally, that is one of the chief reasons why I am a Roman Catholic). Maybe the Catholic synthesis fails, but to demonstrate that one would have to actually address its actual claims based on their merit and not just throw around meaningless platitudes. By contrast, also within Christianity, the fideistic tradition represented by writers like Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard affirm that faith is in some sense opposed to reason. They think of faith’s unreasonableness — the reckless universal love shown by Christ, say, or the profundity of spiritual experience — as part of its appeal. And, especially outside the West, some traditions simply have nothing to say about the question, because they do not work with those kinds of concepts.</p>
<p>The point here is that most militant atheists fail to say anything actually meaningful, fail to say things that are even wrong, out of ignorance. They would have to actually learn something about the things they want to talk about; they would have to make an effort to stop suspending their critical faculties. I get it: It’s hard.</p>
<p>Religion and science sometimes do, and sometimes don’t, conflict. Krauss is known for his opposition to the idea of “non-overlapping magisteria” — that is to say, the idea that science and religion are simply about two different things, and that therefore there is not, or should not be, competition between the claims of science and religion.</p>
<p>Well, again, the problem here is one of conceptual confusion. Since there is no such thing as “religion,” the idea is meaningless.</p>
<p>Some religions do make empirical claims, which can be investigated empirically. For example, as David Bentley Hart pointed out, we now know that the sun is not a god named Tonatiuh, at least not one who must be fed with human sacrifice every morning lest he stop shining, since we have withheld his meals for a few centuries now without being plunged in total darkness. <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/451321/defense-creationists" type="external">Creationists deserve all the abuse they get</a> (or almost, perhaps) from both scientists and serious biblical scholars.</p>
<p>Different religious traditions view things differently. The militant atheist philosopher A. C. Grayling often contrasts the supposed dogmatism of Christianity with the supposed open-mindedness of the ancient Greeks, but one of the counts of accusation against Socrates was investigating “the things beneath the earth” — that is to say, doing science, or proto-science. After all, if you went to the top of Mount Olympus, you might find out Zeus doesn’t live there. By contrast, the medieval schoolmen, on the basis of the ancient Christian belief <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14:6&amp;version=NRSVCE" type="external">that God is the Truth</a>, and also <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A1&amp;version=NRSVCE" type="external">the Logos, or the Word</a>, the rational principle indwelling all things, affirmed that all knowledge is in principle noble as an entry into the mind of God, and made “natural philosophy” — that is to say, science as the medievals understood it — a mandatory part of the university curriculum.</p>
<p>Here we have two radically opposed approaches, both motivated by “religion.” Platitudes won’t do. You have to actually know what you’re talking about, and face up to specific claims, specific data. One would think a scientist would like that sort of mandate.</p>
<p>For the record, the position of most of the great developed theistic traditions, at least in the West, is that if you see a conflict between science and religion, you’re dealing either with bad science or with bad religion (as I said, within Catholicism, this is treated as an axiom). For example, in the late 19th century, the theory of polygeny — that different human groups had evolved from different origins — an offshoot of Darwinism, was used to promote so-called “scientific racism.” Christians who objected on the grounds that the Bible describes all the human race as descending from Adam and Eve were dismissed as obscurantists. The problem in the conflict was bad science. By contrast, the post-Renaissance Biblical exegetes, mostly found within Protestantism, who objected to heliocentric theories on scriptural grounds were doing bad religion.</p>
<p>And some religions not only make empirical claims but are positively anxious that they be investigated. The claim that Jesus of Nazareth was bodily raised from the dead is an empirical claim, and nowhere in the New Testament do we find its authors arguing, say, that one should believe it because doing so produces an overwhelmingly pleasant feeling. Instead, they are all stubbornly insistent on the facticity of the event, and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15%3A3-8&amp;version=NRSVCE" type="external">argue for it</a> on the basis of <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/inebriateme/2014/09/book-review-richard-bauckham-jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses/" type="external">eyewitness testimony</a>. And many have looked at the evidence concerning the birth of the Christian Church and concluded, in the words of Sherlock Holmes, that “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”</p>
<p>Which brings us to one last point:</p>
<p>Evidence for a type of claim must be of the same kind as that for the claim being made. In debates about the existence of God, militant atheists inevitably bleat a demand for “evidence.” But “evidence,” like “religion,” is a slippery term. Theists frequently, and loudly, insist on putting forward their evidence for the existence of God.</p>
<p>Science, at least in the sense defined by the scientific revolution, is a process for formulating non-obvious, reliable predictive rules through controlled experiment. This means that not all claims are scientific claims and only a specific type of claim is scientific. Scientific claims are claims that can be validated or falsified through a scientific process — namely, controlled experiment. When the physicist Wolfgang Pauli famously dismissed a paper as “not even wrong,” that was what he meant: Because the claim made could not be adjudicated by scientific means, it did not even qualify as a scientific claim, and therefore could not even be proven wrong.</p>
<p>Some people claim that only scientific claims are meaningful, but this is clearly nonsense. Scientific claims are one specific type of empirical claim, but, for starters, there are plenty of other meaningful empirical claims one can make.</p>
<p>The claim “I had John over for dinner at my house last night” is clearly an empirical claim, clearly meaningful, and yet clearly not scientific. One cannot design a scientific experiment to prove the claim, but one can still produce evidence for (“Here’s a selfie we took over dessert”) or against (“But Sally said she saw you down at the pub last night”). But for the evidence to be meaningful, it has to be of the same kind as the claim being made.</p>
<p>Another type of empirical claim is “Julius Caesar invaded Gaul.” What type of empirical claim is this? It’s a historical claim. It’s not a scientific claim — even if you could reproduce the invasion of Gaul in a lab, it wouldn’t tell you anything about what actually went on over 2,000 years ago. But it’s clearly a meaningful claim, and one that can be empirically investigated — using evidence of the same kind as the claim itself, that is to say, historical evidence. Similarly, then, of the claim “Jesus of Nazareth was publicly executed, and found three days later alive, possessed of a body, with open wounds and yet uninconvenienced by them.” Christians do, in fact, provide voluminous evidence to support the claim. Maybe the evidence is not enough to prove the claim, but it is clearly admissible evidence — historical evidence.</p>
<p>Now, are there meaningful non-empirical claims?</p>
<p>Well, yes. There are claims of logic, for starters.</p>
<p>The claim (a + b)^2 = a^2 + b^2 + 2ab is not an empirical claim in any meaningful sense of the word. It is a logical claim, and a specific type of logical claim — a mathematical claim. The evidence for or against it must be of the same type: mathematical. You can’t design an experiment to prove it, and it wouldn’t make sense to say that it’s true because Caesar invaded Gaul. It wouldn’t make sense either to say that all the great mathematicians have believed it — you have to actually respond to the claim on its merits.</p>
<p>Are there non-mathematical claims of logic? Well, yes. There are the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction.</p>
<p>And then there are metaphysical claims. Metaphysical claims are claims based on a certain type of logic — metaphysical logic. For example, the claim that a universe of finite causes cannot explain its own existence and so must find its source in some infinite ground of existence, an uncaused cause, is a logical claim, which can be debated using a specific set of logical tools, just like mathematical claims. Maybe it’s wrong. But it’s a logical claim, not a scientific claim.</p>
<p>I point this out because, circling back to Krauss, this sort of confusion is endemic. Krauss in fact wrote a whole book-length non-sequitur about this: a book titled <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1451624468" type="external">A Universe from Nothing</a>, which became a New York Times best-seller and in which, as the title indicates, he tries to argue that physics supports the idea of a universe appearing out of nothing. He writes: “What would be the characteristics of a universe that was created from nothing, just with the laws of physics and without any supernatural shenanigans?” Well, “just the laws of physics” is not nothing. So, yes, if you define “nothing” as “not nothing,” you can account for the universe appearing from “nothing.”</p>
<p>And this is the basic error: Because science can only adjudicate empirical claims — and indeed only one specific type of empirical claim — it cannot, by definition, adjudicate non-empirical questions, such as why empirical claims are possible to begin with. Theistic claims about the creation of the universe are logical claims; these claims may be wrong, but they cannot be adjudicated with science. (And in this specific sense, certainly, the magisteria do not overlap.)</p>
<p>Here’s the problem with all these false dichotomies: At bottom, they come from, and reinforce, illiteracy. And while sophisticates can, and too often do, produce their own exquisite forms of barbarism, widespread illiteracy probably inexorably leads to barbarism. A scientist who doesn’t understand anything about epistemology, or religion, or philosophy, and gets on his soapbox is a joke. A scientist who does all these things and as a result is on best-seller lists and gets published in The New Yorker is a symptom of a serious social disease. Never mind the science-versus-religion “debate,” such as it is — widespread confusion about <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/443656/how-botched-understanding-science-ruins-everything)" type="external">science’s epistemological framework</a> is producing a lot of shoddy science, and that should have us all concerned.</p>
<p>In his New Yorker article against the presence of religion in public life, Krauss writes: “It’s clear that many of the people protesting Planned Parenthood are opposed to abortion on religious grounds and are, to varying degrees, anti-science.” But as pro-lifers, both religious and secular ( <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/" type="external">yes. they’re out there</a>) point out relentlessly, going blue in the face, it is a scientific fact that <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/" type="external">human life begins at conception</a>. Now, the belief that every human being has an intrinsic dignity that ought to be protected in law is not a scientific proposition, it is a metaphysical one, one that many militant atheists loudly insist can be sustained without belief in God. That debate can be resolved in a great many ways, but it actually exists.</p>
<p>That Krauss, while singing the praises of an epistemic of doubt, blithely evinces absolutely none about the nature or value of human life — he only needs to know what “religious” people oppose to know what he’s for — merely shows that he’s ignorant and intellectually lazy. That he can write this in the pages of a magazine that is supposed to be a beacon of American intellectualism without rebuke, or even throat-clearing, from his ideological fellow-travelers shows that the illiteracy is widespread and cultural. Such confusions stem from the false dichotomies I’ve been trying to destroy. If someone opposes abortion and is a Christian, the implicit worldview of most of the staff and readership of The New Yorker goes: He must do so on “religious grounds” — that is to say, not “rational grounds” or “scientific grounds.” But this is just nonsense on stilts. It is on scientific grounds that pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception; that this life ought to be protected in law can be justified on the basis of reason, or faith, or both.</p>
<p>Now, none of this is to say that there is a God (though there is) or that abortion is wrong and should be illegal (though it is, and it should be). But it is simply to demonstrate that we have arrived at a peculiar moment when our elite institutions and discourse seem to be utterly ignorant of their own philosophical and cultural legacy. The institutions we live in and through, whether the scientific revolution or liberal democracy or the concept of human rights, were built and explored by great thinkers, who in turn were grounded in great traditions of rational speculation (that is to say, of philosophy), and it is mystifying and, frankly, very scary that we have arrived at this moment of what can only be called cultural amnesia — an amnesia so profound that we have not only forgotten, we’ve forgotten that we’ve forgotten.</p>
<p>— Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, a writer based in Paris, is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a columnist at TheWeek.com.</p> | false | 1 | thought frequently pops head read diatribes militant atheists wont read book course put thus thought implausible militant atheists get interviewed newspapers presumably read books christopher hitchens certainly read lot books good books bad books necessary books clearly havent read books cultured society presumed necessary participation public debate take theoretical physicist public speaker lawrence krauss krauss way perfect example doesnt even pretend philosopher unlike say daniel dennett richard dawkins krauss recently received 2015 humanist year award delivered speech attacking religion wrote piece new yorker went viral calling scientists attack religion krausss belief belief religion science competing ways explaining world religion based dogma science based doubt two end day incompatible one must win ill let guess side krauss problem always krausss case isnt hes wrong side doesnt understand talking result ends spouting nonsense interests well reason culture let point egregious errors typical militant atheist discourse get past thing religion words fine use everyday discourse become completely useless one trying conceptually precise religion one religion probably complex variegated arguably profound human phenomenon stretches realms personal experience dogma myth storytelling social organization belief practice militant atheists often use term religion shorthand dogma reality many religions dogmas militant atheists deride literalistic interpretation sacred scriptures putting aside fact literalism sense modern phenomenon sidelined many great theistic scriptural traditions many religions fact scriptures sometime 18th century british informed indians thing called religion religion called hinduism somehow got thousands years without crucial piece information generalization begins word religion ipso facto meaningless exists instead identifiable traditions worldviews bodies belief practice take religion versus reason dichotomy conflict religion reason well thats meaningless question many faith traditions struggled question come different answers within christianity roman catholic tradition spent literally 2000 years wrestling question produced considerable body thought harmonizing yes dogmas understood best philosophy fact roman catholic doctrine actually condemns heresy proposition reason faith incompatible speaking personally one chief reasons roman catholic maybe catholic synthesis fails demonstrate one would actually address actual claims based merit throw around meaningless platitudes contrast also within christianity fideistic tradition represented writers like schleiermacher kierkegaard affirm faith sense opposed reason think faiths unreasonableness reckless universal love shown christ say profundity spiritual experience part appeal especially outside west traditions simply nothing say question work kinds concepts point militant atheists fail say anything actually meaningful fail say things even wrong ignorance would actually learn something things want talk would make effort stop suspending critical faculties get hard religion science sometimes sometimes dont conflict krauss known opposition idea nonoverlapping magisteria say idea science religion simply two different things therefore competition claims science religion well problem one conceptual confusion since thing religion idea meaningless religions make empirical claims investigated empirically example david bentley hart pointed know sun god named tonatiuh least one must fed human sacrifice every morning lest stop shining since withheld meals centuries without plunged total darkness creationists deserve abuse get almost perhaps scientists serious biblical scholars different religious traditions view things differently militant atheist philosopher c grayling often contrasts supposed dogmatism christianity supposed openmindedness ancient greeks one counts accusation socrates investigating things beneath earth say science protoscience went top mount olympus might find zeus doesnt live contrast medieval schoolmen basis ancient christian belief god truth also logos word rational principle indwelling things affirmed knowledge principle noble entry mind god made natural philosophy say science medievals understood mandatory part university curriculum two radically opposed approaches motivated religion platitudes wont actually know youre talking face specific claims specific data one would think scientist would like sort mandate record position great developed theistic traditions least west see conflict science religion youre dealing either bad science bad religion said within catholicism treated axiom example late 19th century theory polygeny different human groups evolved different origins offshoot darwinism used promote socalled scientific racism christians objected grounds bible describes human race descending adam eve dismissed obscurantists problem conflict bad science contrast postrenaissance biblical exegetes mostly found within protestantism objected heliocentric theories scriptural grounds bad religion religions make empirical claims positively anxious investigated claim jesus nazareth bodily raised dead empirical claim nowhere new testament find authors arguing say one believe produces overwhelmingly pleasant feeling instead stubbornly insistent facticity event argue basis eyewitness testimony many looked evidence concerning birth christian church concluded words sherlock holmes eliminated impossible whatever remains however improbable must truth brings us one last point evidence type claim must kind claim made debates existence god militant atheists inevitably bleat demand evidence evidence like religion slippery term theists frequently loudly insist putting forward evidence existence god science least sense defined scientific revolution process formulating nonobvious reliable predictive rules controlled experiment means claims scientific claims specific type claim scientific scientific claims claims validated falsified scientific process namely controlled experiment physicist wolfgang pauli famously dismissed paper even wrong meant claim made could adjudicated scientific means even qualify scientific claim therefore could even proven wrong people claim scientific claims meaningful clearly nonsense scientific claims one specific type empirical claim starters plenty meaningful empirical claims one make claim john dinner house last night clearly empirical claim clearly meaningful yet clearly scientific one design scientific experiment prove claim one still produce evidence heres selfie took dessert sally said saw pub last night evidence meaningful kind claim made another type empirical claim julius caesar invaded gaul type empirical claim historical claim scientific claim even could reproduce invasion gaul lab wouldnt tell anything actually went 2000 years ago clearly meaningful claim one empirically investigated using evidence kind claim say historical evidence similarly claim jesus nazareth publicly executed found three days later alive possessed body open wounds yet uninconvenienced christians fact provide voluminous evidence support claim maybe evidence enough prove claim clearly admissible evidence historical evidence meaningful nonempirical claims well yes claims logic starters claim b2 a2 b2 2ab empirical claim meaningful sense word logical claim specific type logical claim mathematical claim evidence must type mathematical cant design experiment prove wouldnt make sense say true caesar invaded gaul wouldnt make sense either say great mathematicians believed actually respond claim merits nonmathematical claims logic well yes laws logic law noncontradiction metaphysical claims metaphysical claims claims based certain type logic metaphysical logic example claim universe finite causes explain existence must find source infinite ground existence uncaused cause logical claim debated using specific set logical tools like mathematical claims maybe wrong logical claim scientific claim point circling back krauss sort confusion endemic krauss fact wrote whole booklength nonsequitur book titled universe nothing became new york times bestseller title indicates tries argue physics supports idea universe appearing nothing writes would characteristics universe created nothing laws physics without supernatural shenanigans well laws physics nothing yes define nothing nothing account universe appearing nothing basic error science adjudicate empirical claims indeed one specific type empirical claim definition adjudicate nonempirical questions empirical claims possible begin theistic claims creation universe logical claims claims may wrong adjudicated science specific sense certainly magisteria overlap heres problem false dichotomies bottom come reinforce illiteracy sophisticates often produce exquisite forms barbarism widespread illiteracy probably inexorably leads barbarism scientist doesnt understand anything epistemology religion philosophy gets soapbox joke scientist things result bestseller lists gets published new yorker symptom serious social disease never mind scienceversusreligion debate widespread confusion sciences epistemological framework producing lot shoddy science us concerned new yorker article presence religion public life krauss writes clear many people protesting planned parenthood opposed abortion religious grounds varying degrees antiscience prolifers religious secular yes theyre point relentlessly going blue face scientific fact human life begins conception belief every human intrinsic dignity ought protected law scientific proposition metaphysical one one many militant atheists loudly insist sustained without belief god debate resolved great many ways actually exists krauss singing praises epistemic doubt blithely evinces absolutely none nature value human life needs know religious people oppose know hes merely shows hes ignorant intellectually lazy write pages magazine supposed beacon american intellectualism without rebuke even throatclearing ideological fellowtravelers shows illiteracy widespread cultural confusions stem false dichotomies ive trying destroy someone opposes abortion christian implicit worldview staff readership new yorker goes must religious grounds say rational grounds scientific grounds nonsense stilts scientific grounds prolifers believe life begins conception life ought protected law justified basis reason faith none say god though abortion wrong illegal though simply demonstrate arrived peculiar moment elite institutions discourse seem utterly ignorant philosophical cultural legacy institutions live whether scientific revolution liberal democracy concept human rights built explored great thinkers turn grounded great traditions rational speculation say philosophy mystifying frankly scary arrived moment called cultural amnesia amnesia profound forgotten weve forgotten weve forgotten pascalemmanuel gobry writer based paris fellow ethics public policy center columnist theweekcom | 1,413 |
<p>TORONTO — <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/John_Gibbons/" type="external">John Gibbons</a> has seen <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Minnesota-Twins/" type="external">Minnesota Twins</a> center fielder <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Byron-Buxton/" type="external">Byron Buxton</a> many times on television highlight clips.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Toronto-Blue-Jays/" type="external">Toronto Blue Jays</a> manager had a chance to see him in person this weekend and came away even more impressed.</p>
<p>Gibbons watched Sunday as Buxton hit three home runs and had five RBIs in a four-hit game. They were career bests for the 23-year-old in each category and led the Twins to a 7-2 victory over the Blue Jays in the rubber match of the three-game series.</p>
<p>“I’ve seen him on TV enough on the highlight reels and he’s got as much talent as anybody out there in the game,” Gibbons said. “He’s a young kid just figuring it out. A huge day today, swinging the bat. A big play the other night in center field. He gets on the bases, you really have a tough time stopping him.”</p>
<p>Buxton also had an RBI single to go with his homers, which gave him a career-best 13 for the season.</p>
<p>“Some days you have like this where everything seems to be falling your way,” Buxton said. “Today was one of those days for me. I was seeing the ball good, being aggressive and not missing my pitches.”</p>
<p>Buxton has hit eight home runs in August.</p>
<p>“He’s just going to get better and better and they’re going to reap the rewards of it,” Gibbons said. “He plays the game the right way, he plays it hard. He’ll be around a long time playing great baseball I would think.”</p>
<p>With home runs in the fourth, seventh and ninth innings, Buxton became the eighth player in Twins history with a three-homer game.</p>
<p>“He’s got a lot of ways he can help you win games, his legs, bunting, home runs, defense, arm,” Twins manager <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Paul-Molitor/" type="external">Paul Molitor</a> said. “It’s fun to watch some of that talent start to flourish. …</p>
<p>“Everyone was kind of top-stepping it leading off that inning with the day that he was having. He didn’t make us wait very long. He jumped on the first pitch. All three were kind of the same vector. They all had a nice sound. You get a nice reverberation there where I stand. They were no-doubters.”</p>
<p>Norichika Aoki had a solo homer and an RBI single among his three hits for the Blue Jays (61-69).</p>
<p>Twins starter Kyle Gibson (8-10) allowed seven hits, one walk and two runs while striking out seven in 6 2/3 innings. He appreciates Buxton for his offense and defense.</p>
<p>“He’s a pretty spectacular player,” Gibson said. “He’s really coming into his own now. It’s cool, as his teammate, to watch him make plays in center field look easy.”</p>
<p>Toronto starter Joe Biagini (3-9) allowed nine hits, three walks and five runs in 3 2/3 innings.</p>
<p>“Bad pitches on a couple of occasions,” Biagini said. “I felt like early in the game I was doing a decent job of attacking and sometimes you can’t really control where the ball goes. … Obviously, there were things that I could have done better in those instances.”</p>
<p>The Twins (67-63) scored in the first inning on Buxton’s RBI single.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Joe_Mauer/" type="external">Joe Mauer</a> singled and Jorge Polanco doubled to start the rally. Mauer was thrown out at home by shortstop Ryan Goins on Eddie Rosario’s grounder.</p>
<p>The Blue Jays tied the score in the second on a double by <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Miguel_Montero/" type="external">Miguel Montero</a> and a single by Aoki.</p>
<p>The Twins took a 3-1 lead in the third on a two-run single by Kennys Vargas. Polanco led off the inning with a double and took third on Rosario’s single.</p>
<p>Polanco was out on a rundown between third and home on Buxton’s grounder to third. Max Kepler walked to load the bases for Vargas.</p>
<p>The Twins led 5-1 after Buxton homered with two outs in the fourth. It also scored Mauer, who led off with a triple.</p>
<p>Aoki hit his fifth homer of the season in the bottom of the fourth.</p>
<p>Buxton homered against Matt Dermody in the seventh and belted his 13th of the season against Tim Mayza in the ninth. It was Buxton’s first career multi-homer game.</p>
<p>Buxton said he was not thinking home run in the ninth.</p>
<p>“Not even close,” he said. “I had no intentions. I just went up there and was trying to have a quality at-bat. (Saturday), I took a few pitches that I could have handled, I felt like early in the game. Today I just said, ‘If they’re going to challenge me with pitches in the zone, be a little bit more aggressive.'”</p>
<p>Gibson was replaced by Trevor Hildenberger with two outs in the seventh. Taylor Rogers replaced Hildenberger with two outs in the eighth. <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Matt_Belisle/" type="external">Matt Belisle</a> pitched a perfect bottom of the ninth.</p>
<p>NOTES: Toronto designated LHP T.J. House for assignment to make room on the 25-man roster for RHP Joe Biagini. House appeared in two games for Toronto, allowing three hits and one run in two innings. … Blue Jays CF <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kevin-Pillar/" type="external">Kevin Pillar</a> and RF <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jose_Bautista/" type="external">Jose Bautista</a> did not play in the game. … Toronto RHP <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Marcus-Stroman/" type="external">Marcus Stroman</a> (11-6, 3.17 ERA) will face <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Boston-Red-Sox/" type="external">Boston Red Sox</a> LHP Drew Pomeranz (13-4, 3.18) on Monday to open a three-game series at Rogers Centre. … Minnesota RHP <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Ervin_Santana/" type="external">Ervin Santana</a> (13-7, 3.24) will face <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Chicago-White-Sox/" type="external">Chicago White Sox</a> RHP <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/James_Shields/" type="external">James Shields</a> (2-4, 5.63) on Tuesday in the opener of a three-game series at Target Field.</p> | false | 1 | toronto john gibbons seen minnesota twins center fielder byron buxton many times television highlight clips toronto blue jays manager chance see person weekend came away even impressed gibbons watched sunday buxton hit three home runs five rbis fourhit game career bests 23yearold category led twins 72 victory blue jays rubber match threegame series ive seen tv enough highlight reels hes got much talent anybody game gibbons said hes young kid figuring huge day today swinging bat big play night center field gets bases really tough time stopping buxton also rbi single go homers gave careerbest 13 season days like everything seems falling way buxton said today one days seeing ball good aggressive missing pitches buxton hit eight home runs august hes going get better better theyre going reap rewards gibbons said plays game right way plays hard hell around long time playing great baseball would think home runs fourth seventh ninth innings buxton became eighth player twins history threehomer game hes got lot ways help win games legs bunting home runs defense arm twins manager paul molitor said fun watch talent start flourish everyone kind topstepping leading inning day didnt make us wait long jumped first pitch three kind vector nice sound get nice reverberation stand nodoubters norichika aoki solo homer rbi single among three hits blue jays 6169 twins starter kyle gibson 810 allowed seven hits one walk two runs striking seven 6 23 innings appreciates buxton offense defense hes pretty spectacular player gibson said hes really coming cool teammate watch make plays center field look easy toronto starter joe biagini 39 allowed nine hits three walks five runs 3 23 innings bad pitches couple occasions biagini said felt like early game decent job attacking sometimes cant really control ball goes obviously things could done better instances twins 6763 scored first inning buxtons rbi single joe mauer singled jorge polanco doubled start rally mauer thrown home shortstop ryan goins eddie rosarios grounder blue jays tied score second double miguel montero single aoki twins took 31 lead third tworun single kennys vargas polanco led inning double took third rosarios single polanco rundown third home buxtons grounder third max kepler walked load bases vargas twins led 51 buxton homered two outs fourth also scored mauer led triple aoki hit fifth homer season bottom fourth buxton homered matt dermody seventh belted 13th season tim mayza ninth buxtons first career multihomer game buxton said thinking home run ninth even close said intentions went trying quality atbat saturday took pitches could handled felt like early game today said theyre going challenge pitches zone little bit aggressive gibson replaced trevor hildenberger two outs seventh taylor rogers replaced hildenberger two outs eighth matt belisle pitched perfect bottom ninth notes toronto designated lhp tj house assignment make room 25man roster rhp joe biagini house appeared two games toronto allowing three hits one run two innings blue jays cf kevin pillar rf jose bautista play game toronto rhp marcus stroman 116 317 era face boston red sox lhp drew pomeranz 134 318 monday open threegame series rogers centre minnesota rhp ervin santana 137 324 face chicago white sox rhp james shields 24 563 tuesday opener threegame series target field | 531 |
<p />
<p>We’ve got it for sure: Kim Jong Un, one of the official sons of Kim Jong Il, has been nominated to be the next leader of North Korea. Does it mean the North Korean nation will end suffering? The actual transition of power in North Korea and the last events between North and South Korea are also vulnerable times for North Korean elites. Authorities are increasing their grip on society to prevent potential riots. Meanwhile, the nomination of Kim Jong Un as the next North Korean leader and the presentation of the new elites may give a new impulse to relations between both Korea and China. Expectations are high and stakes are high. This is a crucial moment for North Korea: everything can happen and even a breakdown is possible. Furthermore, on the 23th November, one of the most important clashes between the North and the South occurred. Artillery fire was exchanged between these countries and two South Korean soldiers and two civilians were killed on the island Yeongjong, an island localized in the suburbs of Seoul.</p>
<p>Recently, South Korean President Lee Myung Bak has urged the North Korean elites to adopt China’s economic reforms, arguing that it can lead to eventual Korean reunification. Lee Myung Bak and his administration probably waited for the nomination of Kim Jong Un in order to pronounce these spectacular words. There are hopes everywhere, not only in South Korea, that the new leaders will make the perspective of unification more plausible. Does it mean, nevertheless, that North Korea has to exist?</p>
<p>In general, there are various possible scenarios for the Korean reunification. The first one would be a bloodless scenario like in Germany. The second one is a violent reunification as the one which occurred in Vietnam. The third is an intermediate scenario.</p>
<p>None of these scenarios may fit to the Korean scenario. Both Koreas are too different from Germany, Vietnam or Yemen.&#160; The North Korean economy is in collapse and being unified with this country will mean an economic catastrophe for the potential donator for the next 20 years. North Korean industries are operating at only half of their capacities due to insufficient electrical power and North Korea’s economy has been experiencing a negative growth for a few years.</p>
<p>Repairing the economy is not only a question of money but also, what is often forgotten, a question of time. Fixing the North Korean economy means also new infrastructure. The next weak point of North Korea is a lack of competencies among its workers. That’s why the best solution, and the most radical, would be to destroy North Korean production capacities, which are of course not normalized in terms of international norms. &#160;It will cost billions of dollars. &#160;But who will pay the bill? For sure, not Seoul – As things stand today, South Korea cannot take care of the 20 thousand defectors from North Korea residing in its borders. China is also against the unification of the country. &#160;Beijing is afraid of a potential strong United Korea. It could be a challenge for China’s status in Asia and may probably threaten the leading position of China in Asia and the political status quo in South-East Asia.</p>
<p>As a matter of fact, speaking about the unification of the Korean Peninsula is a never-ending story and most of the debate has now centered on China’s position in the Korean Peninsula.&#160; China invests in North Korea, but the Chinese authorities refuse the idea of the collapse of North Korea. That’s why both countries are already sharing the “North Korean cake” by creating various joint venture or investment groups. A Chinese-North Korean investment bank emerged last year, with at its head Pak Sol Chu, a Korean-Chinese businessman. As to South Korea, South Korean companies operating in the Kaesong Industrial Park receive certain incentives from South Korea.</p>
<p>In reality nobody wants the reunification, but everybody wants the collapse of North Korea. The ones who are interested are people whose families are on both sides of the peninsula. Only the families divided by the border between both countries desire unification. However, they are too few, and that’s why nothing is done in order to find a solution to their problem. Reunions occur sometimes, as the one in October 2010. Over 100 people from both countries, long-separated family members, saw each other on the Mount Kumgang tourist complex. They were brought there together after decades of separation, but will probably never see each other again.</p>
<p>Taking in account the new realities of North Korea and the impossibility of unification, what are the prospects for the country?</p>
<p>The first scenario is the satellization of North Korea, where the country becomes a Chinese province. It does not mean that North Koreans would trust the Chinese. Hostility is always there, interrupted by brief periods of détente. Cooldown periods take place only when one of the sides needs the other for whatever reasons.</p>
<p>The second scenario is the disappearance of North Korea. United Nations may attack North Korea, but that requires the permission of China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council.&#160; In case of victory, the North Korean territory will be occupied by United Nations Troops. If North Korea disappeared as a sovereign state, it could be still a country in a geographical sense, divided into various occupation zones. The situation might be similar to the one that happened within the Balkans, where peacekeepers were sent. In the case of North Korea, the United Nations would be going to maintain a presence, with the acceptance of China and South Korea. Chinese may accept such a deal if they could use the North Korean population as source of cheap labor and if the population of North Korea would have a limited access to China. China will also prohibit migration from North Korea people to access to China because China is afraid that these populations will commute with the Korean minority living already in China and together would have some whims on independence.&#160; What’s more, the North Korean population won’t have access to South Korea either, or the access will be strictly limited. It is due to the fact that South Korea cannot already manage its population of defectors, and surveys shows that their economic livehood is poor. Park Gab Dong, a former director of the Propaganda Department of the Korean Workers Party, a defector to South Korea, urges to use preemptive attacks against North Korea. Waiting is not a good solution, because it means condemning the next generation of North Koreans to live under the banner of one of the of the world’s most repressive regimes.</p>
<p>This situation also means that China can afford to lose its political partnership with North Korea without losing its leadership in the Northern part of Asia. After a period of adaptation, a new country may emerge with a new economic infrastructure. New persons will be also at the head of this country but who are they?</p>
<p>New North Korean elites should be found out of North Korea, because North Koreans who are living in the country haven’t any political education. The potential new elites are mainly in South Korea, which is a base for more than 20 thousand defectors. &#160;The problem is, nevertheless, that the majority of defectors are lower class people &#160;and they &#160;cannot be viewed as potential next leaders of the new North Korea. However there are also a group of people who created a movement for the democratization of North Korea: The National Salvation Front for the Democratic Reunification of Korea. It is an exile organization constituted of former North Korean government leaders. &#160;These people should complete their political education in countries supportive of the idea of new North Korea.&#160; All of this should help to a smooth the creation of a new state with the total, or at least partial, acceptance of its neighbors: China, South Korea and Russia.</p>
<p>Interestingly, it may be the case that new North Korean elites may also be found in North Korea at the new Pyongyang University of Science and Technology. This school is to boost the North Korean economic development. It is to be the place where business capacities and foreign languages are to be taught.</p>
<p>Actually dealing with North Korea doesn’t represent an easy thing. North Korea is not a dictatorship like any other; it is very unstable and secretive. When North Korea was in famine in the early 1990s, it was a weak but a stable country. It was the best time to put an end to the dictatorship. Now the rogue regime has nuclear weapons, and may use them against U.S. allies. &#160;North Korea’s attack on the South Korean island Yeongjong now also represents a dramatic diplomatic test for South Korea and its president Lee Myung Bak, who promised to punish North Korea for its artillery attacks. A new level of hostility was reached and it seems that prospects of unification are further away than ever.</p>
<p /> | false | 1 | weve got sure kim jong un one official sons kim jong il nominated next leader north korea mean north korean nation end suffering actual transition power north korea last events north south korea also vulnerable times north korean elites authorities increasing grip society prevent potential riots meanwhile nomination kim jong un next north korean leader presentation new elites may give new impulse relations korea china expectations high stakes high crucial moment north korea everything happen even breakdown possible furthermore 23th november one important clashes north south occurred artillery fire exchanged countries two south korean soldiers two civilians killed island yeongjong island localized suburbs seoul recently south korean president lee myung bak urged north korean elites adopt chinas economic reforms arguing lead eventual korean reunification lee myung bak administration probably waited nomination kim jong un order pronounce spectacular words hopes everywhere south korea new leaders make perspective unification plausible mean nevertheless north korea exist general various possible scenarios korean reunification first one would bloodless scenario like germany second one violent reunification one occurred vietnam third intermediate scenario none scenarios may fit korean scenario koreas different germany vietnam yemen160 north korean economy collapse unified country mean economic catastrophe potential donator next 20 years north korean industries operating half capacities due insufficient electrical power north koreas economy experiencing negative growth years repairing economy question money also often forgotten question time fixing north korean economy means also new infrastructure next weak point north korea lack competencies among workers thats best solution radical would destroy north korean production capacities course normalized terms international norms 160it cost billions dollars 160but pay bill sure seoul things stand today south korea take care 20 thousand defectors north korea residing borders china also unification country 160beijing afraid potential strong united korea could challenge chinas status asia may probably threaten leading position china asia political status quo southeast asia matter fact speaking unification korean peninsula neverending story debate centered chinas position korean peninsula160 china invests north korea chinese authorities refuse idea collapse north korea thats countries already sharing north korean cake creating various joint venture investment groups chinesenorth korean investment bank emerged last year head pak sol chu koreanchinese businessman south korea south korean companies operating kaesong industrial park receive certain incentives south korea reality nobody wants reunification everybody wants collapse north korea ones interested people whose families sides peninsula families divided border countries desire unification however thats nothing done order find solution problem reunions occur sometimes one october 2010 100 people countries longseparated family members saw mount kumgang tourist complex brought together decades separation probably never see taking account new realities north korea impossibility unification prospects country first scenario satellization north korea country becomes chinese province mean north koreans would trust chinese hostility always interrupted brief periods détente cooldown periods take place one sides needs whatever reasons second scenario disappearance north korea united nations may attack north korea requires permission china permanent member un security council160 case victory north korean territory occupied united nations troops north korea disappeared sovereign state could still country geographical sense divided various occupation zones situation might similar one happened within balkans peacekeepers sent case north korea united nations would going maintain presence acceptance china south korea chinese may accept deal could use north korean population source cheap labor population north korea would limited access china china also prohibit migration north korea people access china china afraid populations commute korean minority living already china together would whims independence160 whats north korean population wont access south korea either access strictly limited due fact south korea already manage population defectors surveys shows economic livehood poor park gab dong former director propaganda department korean workers party defector south korea urges use preemptive attacks north korea waiting good solution means condemning next generation north koreans live banner one worlds repressive regimes situation also means china afford lose political partnership north korea without losing leadership northern part asia period adaptation new country may emerge new economic infrastructure new persons also head country new north korean elites found north korea north koreans living country havent political education potential new elites mainly south korea base 20 thousand defectors 160the problem nevertheless majority defectors lower class people 160and 160cannot viewed potential next leaders new north korea however also group people created movement democratization north korea national salvation front democratic reunification korea exile organization constituted former north korean government leaders 160these people complete political education countries supportive idea new north korea160 help smooth creation new state total least partial acceptance neighbors china south korea russia interestingly may case new north korean elites may also found north korea new pyongyang university science technology school boost north korean economic development place business capacities foreign languages taught actually dealing north korea doesnt represent easy thing north korea dictatorship like unstable secretive north korea famine early 1990s weak stable country best time put end dictatorship rogue regime nuclear weapons may use us allies 160north koreas attack south korean island yeongjong also represents dramatic diplomatic test south korea president lee myung bak promised punish north korea artillery attacks new level hostility reached seems prospects unification away ever | 848 |
<p>**On December 1, EPPC Senior Fellow George Weigel delivered the keynote address at a Duquesne University conference exploring “The Phenomenology of John Paul II.” Weigel’s address follows.**</p>
<p>Karol Józef Wojtyla was a singular man: an intellectual with a deep respect for popular piety; a mystic who was an active sportsmen for decades; a celibate who wrote with great insight about human sexuality; a priest and bishop who marveled for decades at the gift of his priesthood and episcopate&#160;— and whose closest and oldest friends included lay men and women he had first met when they were university students. An orphan before he reached his majority, he nevertheless came to embody paternity for millions of people in a world bereft of fatherhood. John Paul II was the most visible man in human history, and some two billion people participated, in one way or another, in his funeral; yet he had a deeply ingrained sense of privacy and his most intense experiences were ones he couldn’t describe, for they took place in a dialogue with God that was, literally, beyond words.</p>
<p>His singularity extended to Karol Wojtyla’s life among the philosophers. He never took an undergraduate or graduate course in philosophy. He never taught as a full-time faculty member in a department of philosophy and never held a rank higher than docent, the lowest on the Polish academic ladder. His philosophical masterwork remained unfinished. Yet this autodidact philosopher, who liked (as he put it) to do philosophy from the standpoint of Adam, seeing the world afresh, drew the professional respect of Thomists and phenomenologists, Catholics and agnostics, classicists, medievalists, moderns, and perhaps even a few post-moderns. Wojtyla’s philosophical convictions also had a profound impact on the history of our times&#160;— “solidarity,” for Wojtyla, was a way of understanding authentic human being-in-the-world before it was a banner erected in the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk. Marx famously remarked that, while philosophers analyzed the world, he intended to change it; Karol Wojtyla did both, and the changes he helped advance were the embodiment in history of the understandings he had achieved&#160;— as those understandings reflected the Truth which had seized his life and his imagination.</p>
<p>As I am not a professional philosopher, I cannot bring a specialist’s perspective to the work of this conference. But perhaps I can bring something else of use&#160;— a biographer’s perspective that locates Karol Wojtyla’s philosophical work within the broader context of his singular life. Before he came to the world’s attention, Wojtyla had hammered out his philosophy on the anvil of his experience as a man, a priest, and a Pole&#160;— and did so at a time, and in a place, where the stakes were high indeed. Revisiting that time and place may help us understand something of Wojtyla’s earlier experiences among the philosophers, which will then help us understand his walk among the philosophers as the Bishop of Rome.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Things As They Are</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>In an extended interview with the French journalist André Frossard, John Paul II confessed, perhaps a littler sheepishly, that his first encounter with philosophy had been an unpleasant one. In 1942, Karol Wojtyla had been accepted into the clandestine seminary being run by Archbishop Adam Stefan Sapieha of Kraków. As part of its comprehensive assault on Polish intellectual and cultural life, the Nazi Occupation had shut down the archdiocesan seminary, which Sapieha then reconstituted on a clandestine basis. Seminarians like Wojtyla continued their jobs while coming to the archbishop’s residence to serve Mass, receive spiritual direction, and get academic assignments: books were assigned, with exams to follow on a future visit to Sapieha’s residence. Early in this process, Wojtyla was told to read and learn Kazimierz Wais’s text, Metaphysics, a 1926 tome written in the arid formulas of one style of early twentieth century neo-scholasticism. Wojtyla was flummoxed. He was a literary man, who had read widely and deeply in poetry, fiction, drama, and history, but he had never encountered anything like Wais. His later description of the experience to André Frossard is worth a quote:</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>“My literary training, centered around the humanities, had not prepared me at all for the scholastic theses and formulas with which the manual [Wais’s book] was filled. I had to cut a path through a thick undergrowth of concepts, analyses, and axioms without even being able to identity the ground over which I was moving. After two months of hacking through this vegetation I came to a clearing, to the discovery of the deep reasons for what until then I had only lived and felt. When I passed the examination I told my examiner that…the new vision of the world which I had acquired in my struggle with that metaphysics manual was more valuable than the mark which I had obtained. I was not exaggerating. What intuition and sensibility had until then taught me about the world found solid confirmation.”</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>It was an important moment in Wojtyla’s life among the philosophers. For all the suffering he inflicted, Wais gave Wojtyla an intellectual inoculation that lasted a lifetime: an inoculation against radical skepticism about the human capacity to know the truth of anything. In dungarees splattered by watery lime at the Solvay chemical factory where he worked, Wojtyla discovered what he would later call a “new world of existence” in the dusty propositions of Wais’s Metaphysics: an intellectual universe built around the central Aristotelian-Thomistic conviction that the world is, in fact, intelligible. That conviction stuck with him to the end, and it profoundly shaped his way of doing philosophy. The agonies of the war and a life already filled with suffering had given young Karol Wojtyla a sharp, even harsh, experience of reality. Those nights slogging through Wais’s Metaphysics gave the nascent philosopher the first building blocks for what would become a philosophical position that was proof against epistemological skepticism and its cousins, moral relativism and metaphysical boredom.</p>
<p>After priestly ordination in 1946, two years of graduate study in Rome, and a few months in a rural parish, Father Karol Wojtyla’s first extended assignment was at St. Florian’s Church, near Kraków’s Old Town. The parish was a traditional magnet for the Cracovian Catholic intelligentsia; Archbishop Sapieha sent Wojtyla there to launch a second chaplaincy to university students. At St. Florian’s, Wojtyla organized study groups that read Thomas Aquinas in the original and explored basic philosophical issues of apologetics&#160;— an urgent matter in a country choking intellectually on the cultural smog of late Stalinism. Ski trips and other outings became an occasion for the young priest to get his student-friends thinking philosophically. Almost a half-century later, Jerzy Janik, who later became a distinguished nuclear physicist but who had never studied metaphysics, remembered being fascinated in the late 1940s by Father Wojtyla’s “way of thinking, in which one could speak coherently and in a connected way about everything,” from their ski poles to God. (Others, perhaps not so speculatively inclined, remember young Father Wojtyla’s sermons as being rather philosophically dense, a trait from which he liberated himself after some useful criticism from his lay friends.) In an environment of communist mendacity in which truth was a function of power, Wojtyla’s fledgling efforts as a philosophical tutor, however dense and challenging, were received by his young parishioners and friends as an intellectual liberation.</p>
<p>That Wojtyla was not entirely satisfied with the neo-scholasticism in which he had been trained was evident, however, from the criticism his first doctoral dissertation had received from Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., his dissertation director at Rome’s “Angelicum.” Garrigou-Lagrange, the master of mid-century neo-scholasticism, was unhappy that Wojtyla, writing about the concept of faith in St. John of the Cross, did not refer to God as the “Divine Object” – and docked his grade accordingly. One assumes that this point had been discussed between director and student; and, judging from the result, the conversation didn’t persuade Wojtyla. He remained a Thomistic realist; but he seems to have been looking for a different method to get at the truth of things.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Encountering Max Scheler</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>His opportunity to do just that, in a more concentrated way, came when Cardinal Sapieha’s successor, Archbishop Eugeniusz Baziak, ordered him to leave the student chaplaincy at St. Florian’s in order to write his Habilitationsschrift, which would qualify him to teach at the university level. Wojtyla decided to write on the German phenomenologist Max Scheler, an associate of Edmund Husserl in the original phenomenological school that included Roman Ingarden, Edith Stein, and Dietrich von Hildebrand.</p>
<p>Why was Wojtyla attracted to Scheler, a mercurial character and difficult thinker, whose work he had to translate from German into Polish? Perhaps it was because of phenomenology’s intention to see the world whole and thus arrive at a realistic analysis of things-as-they-are. Specifically, Wojtyla wanted to see if Scheler could help Catholic philosophers provide a secure philosophical ground for Christian ethics. This attraction to a modern philosophical method like phenomenology was not, I should add, a matter of conducting a frontal assault against the neo-scholasticism he had been taught; Wojtyla had no interest in pursuing a war of attrition against the entrenched, semi-official Catholic philosophical method of the time. If certain forms of neo-scholasticism were a barrier to an encounter with modern philosophy, Wojtyla simply went around them, having gratefully absorbed what seemed to him enduring about the neo-scholastic approach: its conviction that philosophy could get to the truth of things-as-they-are. On the basis of that conviction, he was prepared to encounter other philosophical systems on their own terms, and would later recall that wrestling with the second categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant had been “particularly important” for his later thinking. (That this was, in fact, wrestling was neatly illustrated one night after dinner, when John Paul II rolled his eyes and groaned, “Kant! Mein Gott! Kant!”).</p>
<p>His experience as a pastor, a confessor, a teacher, and a writer had given Wojtyla what we might call a “natural phenomenologist’s” intuition, which certainly helped him in his analysis of Scheler. He appreciated Scheler’s personalism, which seemed to him to rescue ethics from Kantian abstraction and to restore the pathos, the tragedy, and indeed the ethos to the human condition. Wojtyla also appreciated Scheler’s defense of moral intuition and his analysis of moral sentiments like empathy and sympathy, which helped break philosophy out of the prison of epistemological solipsism. Above all, Wojtyla appreciated Scheler’s effort to analyze the realities of moral choosing, which struck him as a more satisfactory approach to the foundations of ethics than a formal, abstract system like Kant’s. But could Scheler do for contemporary Christian philosophy and theology what Aristotle had done for Aquinas?</p>
<p>Wojtyla’s basic answer was “No.” For Wojtyla, moral acts are real: the acts of real persons, which have real consequences. Scheler, in his view, had not grasped how moral choices actually shape a life. So Wojtyla judged that, in Scheler’s ethics, morality remained “outside” the human world. Wojtyla was also critical of Scheler’s tendency to overstress the emotional aspects of experience and knowing, which he thought led to a truncated view of the human person. Here, as in his critique of Scheler’s analysis of moral choices, Wojtyla-the-philosopher was influenced by his pastoral experience&#160;— he knew that the young men and women he had helped guide through their own moral difficulties were not simply composites of their various emotional states.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, Wojtyla came away fom the Scheler dissertation convinced that phenomenology was an important philosophical instrument for probing the human condition. Phenomenological inquiry had to be grounded, however, in a resolutely realistic general theory of things-as-they-are. That was the path he intended to explore in his own future philosophical work, and the result would be what Wojtyla would later call a way of doing philosophy that “synthesized both approaches:” the metaphysical realism of Aristole and Aquinas and the human sensitivity of Schelerian phenomenology. And for Wojtyla, this philosophical modus operandi was an intellectual conviction with consequences. If men and women could not know good and evil, if moral choices were only matters of personal preference, then all choices were, ultimately, indifferent. That, he believed, would empty human freedom of its drama and deprive men and women of their most distinctively human quality: the capacity to know the good and to choose it freely.</p>
<p>If Wojtyla’s habilitation was his first sustained effort to marry the realist objectivity he had learned from Thomism to the subjectivity of modern philosophy, it would not be his last such effort. Thus the Scheler dissertation previewed the philosopher and theologian who would later write about love and responsibility, freedom and self-denial, democracy and a vibrant public moral culture, the free economy and solidarity. Wojtyla’s instinct for synthesis was, to be sure, a sign of contradiction in the late modern and post-modern intellectual and philosophical worlds, and in North Atlantic high culture in general. One might see in that instinct, however, both a Christian sensibility and a reverence for the wisdom of the past. Jesus tells his disciples, after the multiplication of loaves and fish, “Gather up the fragments, that nothing may be lost” [John 6.12]. Karol Wojtyla’s pastoral experience had taught him that fragments of a life could be gathered into a whole; his philosophical instinct was to reconnect fragmented human understandings. That, he believed, was the best way to account for the complexities of the human drama while remaining in conversation with the great minds who had laid the intellectual foundations of western civilization. He was most intensely engaged in that conversation during his years of teaching at the Catholic University of Lublin, a school almost unknown outside Poland, where large ideas were being explored.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>The Lublin Philosophers and Their Project</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>The Catholic University of Lublin [KUL] was founded in 1918. Curiously, one of its midwives was Lenin, who allowed Father Idzi Radziszewski to take the library of Petrograd’s Polish Academy of Theology back to Poland when the priest was trying to get KUL launched. Chartered by the interwar Second Polish Republic, the university was shut down by the German Occupation, with numerous professors imprisoned, tortured, or killed outright. Its state charter permitted KUL to survive the imposition of Stalinism in Poland after the war, and KUL became the only Catholic university behind the iron curtain, a distinction it maintained throughout the Cold War. As one of its senior scholars put it, the Catholic University of Lublin during the Cold War was “the only place between Berlin and [South Korea] where philosophy was free.”</p>
<p>Its faculty and students pursued the academic life in a situation of constant confrontation with the communist regime. Between 1953 and 1956, the faculties of law, social science, and education were shut down. Even after the political thaw of 1956, the student population was kept artificially low, KUL graduates found it difficult to obtain academic positions elsewhere, and KUL faculty had trouble publishing their work. These pressures helped turn KUL into a university with a vocation. At a time when many influential figures in European intellectual life were flirting with Marxism (and sometimes more-than-flirting), KUL defended the unique dignity of the human person against an aggressive ideological opponent while demonstrating that Catholic faith and human reason were allies in the mission of reconstituting western humanism.</p>
<p>KUL’s Faculty of Philosophy was established in 1946 in response to the great hunger for philosophy evident throughout Polish intellectual life. The war and the Nazi attempt to decapitate Polish culture had created a distinctive intellectual situation in Poland. In the immediate post-war period, philosophy lectures at Kraków’s reopened Jagiellonian University were delivered to overflow audiences. In Lublin, lectures in metaphysics were standing-room-only, with students sitting on the floors, in the aisles, and on the window sills of the lecture hall. There, they heard different members of the KUL faculty explore the philosophical issues posed by the hard experiences of the immediate past and the present&#160;— life under Nazi occupation and in Stalinist Poland.</p>
<p>Everyone who had lived through the brutalities of the Occupation and the imposition of communism had confronted the ancient philosophical question, “What is a human being?” in urgent, unavoidable ways. Why had some people acted like beasts while others had shown remarkable heroism? Why were some people grotesquely self-serving, to the point of betraying their friends, while others were nobly self-sacrificing, laying down their lives for others they may have known only slightly? The only way to get at these problems, the KUL philosophers agreed, was through a deepening of philosophical anthropology. How is that curious blend of matter and spirit, the human person, constituted - How are we to explain the difference in kind between human beings and other sentient creatures? What, if anything, is the point or goal of life? These hardy perennials in the garden of philosophical inquiry took on an especially sharp edge at KUL in the late 1940s and the early 1950s.</p>
<p>Convinced that a crisis in modernity’s understanding of the human person lay at the root of the century’s distress, the KUL philosophers of that period began to sketch out an ambitious philosophical initiative, in which metaphysics and anthropology would meet in ethics. As a sub-discipline of philosophy, ethics may once have been a handmaiden to other, grander specialties, but the KUL philosophers believed that the problem of ethics posed itself in a particularly urgent way because of the political situation. Communism was not only a matter of bad metaphysics (with its reductionistic account of things-as-they-are) and bad anthropology (with its caricature of humanism); communism’s totalitarian politics stripped men and women of their power of choice, of responsibility, and thus of their humanity.</p>
<p>The counter to both communist materialism and communist politics, the KUL philosophers thought, was a more complete humanism that gave a more compelling account of human moral intuitions and human moral action. In proposing to do this without falling into the quicksand of thinking about thinking about thinking, the KUL philosophers set themselves no small task. Indeed, it involved nothing less than challenging the entire direction of philosophy since the Enlightenment. Moreover, it was a project with a distinctive edge, for the KUL philosophers proposed to fight the great political-philosophical battle on Marxism’s own ground&#160;— the question of the true liberation of the human person.</p>
<p>The KUL project was defined by a quartet of relatively young men who, in a nice piece of irony, had become professors at KUL because Poland’s Stalinist rulers had expelled the older teachers: Jerzy Kalinowski (a specialist in logic and the philosophy of law); Stefan Swiezawski (a historian of philosophy and follower of Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson); Father Mieczyslaw Albert Krapiec, O.P. (a Dominican specialist in metaphysics); and Father Karol Wojtyla. This quartet was subsequently amplified by Fathers Marian Kurdzialek (who specialized in ancient philosophy) and Stanislaw Kaminski (a specialist in epistemology). The Lublin philosophers were different personalities with divergent interests and academic specialities. They nonetheless achieved what Professor Swiezawski later called a “rare and exceptionally fruitful collaboration,” built around four agreements which were crucial to Karol Wojtyla’s philosophical project.</p>
<p>They began with an ancient conviction&#160;— they would be radically realistic about the world and about the human capacity to know it. If our thinking and choosing lacks a tether to reality, the KUL philosophers believed, raw force takes over the world and truth becomes a function of power, not an expression of things-as-they-are. A communist-era joke in Poland expressed this realist imperative in a way that everyone could grasp: “Party boss: ‘How much is 2+2?’ Polish worker: ‘How much would you like it to be?’” (The “political” meaning of the realist assumption of the KUL philosophers was later expressed in the famous Solidarity election poster that read, “For Poland to be Poland, 2+2 must always = 4.”) Human beings can only be free in the truth, and the measure of truth is reality.</p>
<p>The KUL philosophers also agreed on a modern starting-point for philosophical inquiry: they would begin with a disciplined reflection on the human person and on human experience rather than with cosmology. The stakes were high here. If philosophy could get to the truth of things-as-they-are through an analysis of human experience, then the path to a reconciliation between Catholic philosophy and the scientific method could be opened while, concurrently, modernity would be pulled loose from the quicksand pits of thinking-about-thinking-about-thinking. Adopting this starting-point was also important in the confrontation with Marxism. There, the serious questions did not involve who understood physics better, but certain very basic issues: What is the human vocation? How do we build history? Is history best understood in material and political terms, or does history have a transcendent dimension?</p>
<p>The KUL philosophers also shared a profound commitment to reason. Others may have had the cultural, economic, and political freedom to speculate about the alleged absurdity of life. The KUL philosophers, veterans of the cultural resistance against Nazism, had no such luxury. They had lived through a brutal Nazi occupation and thus knew what irrationalism could do if it got loose in history with sufficient material force. But the KUL philosophers’ commitment to the method of reason was coupled with a determination to illuminate the good, and the human capacity to know and choose the good, so that men and women might, in fact, choose the good.</p>
<p>Finally, the KUL philosophers agreed to practice an ecumenism of time. If they refused to be imprisoned inside their own consciousness, they also declined to be slaves to the contemporary. They believed that the history of philosophy had things to teach the present, that the past had not been made completely disposable by modernity.</p>
<p>These were men whose vocational conviction that ideas were not intellectuals’ toys had been amply confirmed by hard experience. Ideas had consequences, for good and for ill. Defective understandings of the human person, human community, and human destiny were responsible for mountains of corpses and oceans of blood in the first half of the twentieth century. If philosophy could help the world get a firmer purchase on the truth of the human condition, in a way that was both distinctively modern and grounded in the great philosophical tradition of the West, the future might be different.</p>
<p>The KUL philosophers were a community of personal and intellectual friendship and that great rarity in academic life, a genuine team. Once he had been granted a faculty position at KUL in 1954, Karol Wojtyla commuted from Kraków to Lublin every two weeks. And on virtually every one of those trips over the next seven years, Wojtyla and his colleagues met as a group to talk through the common project in which they were engaged, in a gathering of equals who, as John Paul II later recalled, found it a “great advantage” to learn from each other’s distinctive perspective and current work.</p>
<p>At the same time there were real arguments and intellectual differences among the KUL philosophers, some of whom (like Father Krapiec) had combative personalities. Karol Wojtyla’s continuing interest in phenomenology and his ongoing investigation of modern and contemporary philosophy raised eyebrows among some of his more traditional colleagues, as did his philosophical and professorial style. He had a generally “unfootnoted” way of doing philosophy:&#160;— he did philosophy “like a peasant,” his premier student later noted&#160;— and he was far more concerned with mapping the terrain of things-as-they-are than with providing an extensive academic apparatus of citations and cross-references for every proposal or assertion. Father Wojtyla was also singularly free of that professorial gravitas usually associated with senior academics in European universities.</p>
<p>To say that the KUL philosophy faculty had its disagreements and, in some respects, its rivalries is simply to say that it was a faculty of men, not angels. The important thing about the KUL philosophers was the boldness of their intention. They conceived their project in part as a response to the peculiar circumstances of their time and place, and in part as a response to the general cultural conditions of the mid-twentieth century. The range of its reach and its capacity to shed light on the human condition in very different situations would only come into focus when Professor Dr. Karol Wojtyla, by then working under a different name, took the most adventurous part of the Lublin project to an audience whose numbers vastly exceeded the readership of Polish philosophical journals.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>At the Foundations of Freedom</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Karol Wojtyla succeeded Fr. Feliks Bednarski, O.P., in the Chair of Ethics at Lublin in 1957 and remained an active faculty member of the university until his election to the papacy in 1978; during his first months as pope, he continued to serve as a reader of KUL doctoral dissertations, and he retained the Chair of Ethics at KUL for some years before ceding it to his protégé and friend, Fr. Tadeusz Styczen, S.D.S. Wojtyla’s most intense involvement at KUL took place between 1954 and 1961, after which his pastoral responsibilities in Kraków made it impossible for him to commute to Lublin any longer; for the next seventeen years, his doctoral seminar came to Kraków for two-day work periods at the archbishop’s residence. From 1954 to 1961, and in addition to teaching the basic undergraduate ethics course and directing his doctoral students, Wojtyla gave a series of graduate lectures. The 1954-55 lectures, on “Act and Experience,” explored the philosophical ethics of Scheler, Kant, and Aquinas. The 1955-56 lectures were on the subject “Goodness and Value,” and involved an extensive dialogue with Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, and Scheler. Perhaps anticipating a set of problems that would emerge in a post-communist world, Wojtyla dedicated his 1956-1957 lectures to Hume and Bentham under the rubric “Norm and Happiness.” His 1957-1958 and 1958-1959 lectures focused on sexual ethics, and eventually led to his first book, Love and Responsibility. In 1960-1961, Wojtyla gave his last graduate lectures at KUL on the “Theory and Methodology of Ethics.” One might hope that these “monographic lectures,” as they’re known in Poland, might some day be available in English; it would be fascinating to enter into Wojtyla’s dialogue with philosophical ethicists representing a wide range of methods and judgments.</p>
<p>From 1962, when he was elected Vicar Capitular of Kraków on the death of Archbishop Baziak, until his translation to Rome in 1978, Karol Wojtyla’s energies were increasingly absorbed by pastoral responsibilities in Kraków and by his expanding role in the world Church. He did what he could to continue his walk among the philosophers, directing his doctoral seminar from (and in) his residence at Franciszka_ska 3 in Krakow’s Old Town, where he also hosted evening philosophical seminars where a wide variety of philosophical schools were represented. As circumstances (rarely) permitted, he lectured abroad, including a well-received visit to the Harvard Summer School in 1969; his intervention at the international Thomistic Congress at Fossanuova in 1974 so impressed Josef Pieper that the venerable German philosopher immediately got in touch with Professor Joseph Ratzinger at Regensburg, urging him to read Wojtyla’s work. Moreover, it was during this period of intense pastoral activity that Wojtyla attempted his philosophical masterwork, Osoba y Czyn [Person and Act].</p>
<p>I say “attempted,” because Person and Act is part of the unfinished symphony of Karol Wojtyla’s philosophical project. He never produced a revised and completed version in Polish, although a third edition edited by his principal students and collaborators is available. The extant translations in other European languages are of varying quality. The currently available English translation is not trustworthy, for it bends the entire work in a direction that does not do justice to the author’s intent to maintain the tension between subjectivity (“person”) and objectivity (“act”) that was a hallmark of his thinking. All of that being said, however, Person and Act is the closest thing we have, and now ever will have, to a full statement of Wojty_a’s mature philosophical position. So a brief review of its origins and key themes may be helpful in filling out this biographical portrait.</p>
<p>The origins of Person and Act are unclear. In an unpublished memoir of his work as a philosopher which he gave me while I was preparing Witness to Hope, John Paul II remembered that a Cracovian priest, Msgr. Stanislaw Czartoryski, had told him, after the publication of Love and Responsibility, “Now you must write a book on the person.” Later in that same memoir, the Pope points us in a slightly different direction, writing that he wanted to work out in much greater detail the issues involved in marrying an Aristotelian-Thomistic “philosophy of being” to a Schelerian “philosophy of consciousness.” Wojtyla’s leading philosophical disciple, Father Styczen, gave me a third explanation of the origins of Person and Act: the book was intended, Styczen told me, to move philosophy from the Cartesian Cogito ergo sum, which had eventually led philosophy into the prison of solipsism, to Cognosco ergo sum [I understand, therefore I am a human person]&#160;— which move, Stycze_ believed, would re-connect thinking-about-thinking, or philosophy’s turn to the subject, to the things that were to be thought and understood. (Father Styczen, I should note, was a disciple with edge; when Wojtyla showed him the manuscript of Person and Act and asked for his comments, Styczen replied, “It’s an interesting first draft. Perhaps it could now be translated from Polish into Polish to make it easier for the reader&#160;— including me.”) Person and Act is also a product of the Second Vatican Council, and in two senses. The first sense is personal: not even so assiduous a listener as Karol Wojtyla could sit quietly in the Council aula listening to gusts of Latin rhetoric day after day, month after month, over four years. Thirty years after the Council, John Paul II would admit to me, a little sheepishly, “You know, I wrote many parts of books and poems during the sessions of the Council.” Thus Person and Act gave Wojtyla a connected piece of intellectual work to do amidst the fragmentation of conciliar debate; it also gave him the opportunity to pull together the threads of exploration in his monograpic lectures into a single philosophical tapestry.</p>
<p>There is another, deeper way in which Person and Act is connected to Vatican II, however. The Council had affirmed that the human person, precisely as a person, has a right to religious freedom, and that the right of religious freedom exists so that we may freely seek the truth, including the ultimate Truth who is God in his self-revelation. Wojtyla thought that this assertion had to be given a more secure philosophical demonstration, by showing that man’s search for meaning is directed toward the good and that the man who seeks the good wants to seek what is objectively good: the subjectivity of the person, which expresses itself in our freedom, is ordered by its own internal dynamics to the question of what is, in reality, good&#160;— which is also what is, in reality, true. Wojtyla also believed that the personalism of Gaudium et Spes [Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World] had to be put on a more secure philosophical foundation. For here, as he told Fr. Henri de Lubac, S.J., the great debate of late modernity was being played out: “The evil of our times consists in the first place in a kind of degradation, indeed in a pulverization, of the fundamental uniqueness of each human person. This evil is even much more of the metaphysical order than of the moral order. [Against] this disintegration…we must [propose] a kind of ‘recapitulation’ of the inviolable mystery of the person.” That is what Person and Act was intended to do.</p>
<p>The book begins with an introduction in which Wojtyla reflects on human experience and how human beings know the world and the truth of things. He then tries to show how our thinking about the world and ourselves helps us to understand ourselves precisely as persons. Some things simply “happen to me,” but I have other experiences in which I know that I am making a decision and acting out that decision. In those experiences, I come to know myself as a person, a subject, or, in the classical term, the “efficient cause” of my actions. Some things don’t simply “happen” to me. I am the subject, not merely the object, of actions. I make things happen, because I think through a decision and then freely act on it. Therefore, I am somebody, not simply something.</p>
<p>Wojtyla then shows how, in moral action, that somebody begins to experience his or her own transcendence. Our personhood, he argues, is constituted by the fact of our freedom, which we come to know through truly “human acts.” In choosing one act (to pay a debt I have freely contracted) rather than another (to cheat on my debt), I am not simply responding to external conditions (fear of jail) or internal pressures (guilt). I am freely choosing what is good. In that free choosing, I am also binding myself to what I know is good and true. We can discern the transcendence of the human person in this free choice of the good and the true, Wojtyla suggests. I go beyond myself, I grow as a person, by realizing my freedom and conforming it to the good and the true.</p>
<p>Freedom, on one modern reading of it, is radical autonomy&#160;— I am a self because my will is the primary reference point for my choosing. Wojtyla disagrees. Self-mastery, not self-assertion, is the index of a truly human freedom, he argues. And I achieve self-mastery, not by repressing or suppressing what is natural to me, but by thoughtfully and freely channeling those natural instincts of mind and body into actions that deepen my humanity because they conform to things-as-they-are. Empiricists try to find the human “center” in the body or its processes. Kantian idealists try to find it in structures of consciousness. Wojtyla leapfrogs the argument between empiricists and idealists by trying to demonstrate how moral action, not the psyche or the body, is where we find the center of the human person, the core of our humanity. For it is in moral action that the mind, the spirit, and the body come into the unity of a person.</p>
<p>That person lives in a world with many other persons. So Person and Act concludes with an analysis of moral action in conjunction with all those “others” who constitute the moral field in which our humanity realizes itself and transcends itself, or grows. Here, philosophical anthropology touches the border of social ethics&#160;— How should free persons live together? As might be expected, Wojtyla takes a position beyond individualism and collectivism. Radical individualism is an inadequate anthropology because we only grow into our humanity through interaction with others. Collectivism strips the person of freedom, and thus of his or her personhood. Once again, Wojtyla suggests, the issue is best posed in “both/and” terms, the individual and the common good.</p>
<p>In working out his theory of “participation,” Wojtyla analyzes four “attitudes” toward life in society. Two are incapable of nurturing a truly human society. “Conformism” is inauthentic because it means abandoning freedom. “Others” take me over so completely that my self is lost in the process. “Noninvolvement” is inauthentic, because it is solipsistic. Cutting myself off from others eventually results in the implosion of my self. “Opposition” (or what might be called “resistance”) can be an authentic approach to life in society, if it involves resistance to unjust customs or laws in order to liberate the full humanity of others. Then there is “solidarity,” the primary authentic attitude toward society, in which individual freedom is deployed to serve the common good, and the community sustains and supports individuals as they grow into a truly human maturity. “It is this attitude,” Wojtyla writes, “that allows man to find the fulfillment of himself in complementing others.”</p>
<p>He could not have known, when he first wrote about it in Person and Act, that “solidarity” would become the rallying cry which dramatically changed the history of the twentieth century.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>The Philosopher as Pope</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>As far as circumstances permitted, Karol Wojtyla continued to walk among the philosophers after his election as pope. He hosted biennial humanities seminars during the summers at Castel Gandolfo, at which distinguished philosophers were always present; the cast of characters and the themes were predominantly continental European, flavored on several occasions by the Canadian Charles Taylor. He kept himself informed of developments at Lublin, where his former philosophy department colleague Father Krapiec, now the rector, found a way around the communist regime’s academic regulations to name Wojtyla “Honorary Professor,” a title he held until his death. From a distance, he encouraged the work of a second successor generation of Polish philosophers including Fr. Andrzej Szostek, M.I.C., and Dr. Wojciech Chudy, whose habilitation thesis, “Philosophy in the Trap of Reflection” John Paul once called “the most important book in our ‘school'” in thirty years. What leisure time he allowed himself as pope was often filled by reading contemporary philosophy; he was particularly interested in the philosophers of dialogue, and was likely the only man in the world who read Emmanuel Levinas for fun.</p>
<p>As pope, Wojtyla signaled his ongoing concern about contemporary culture’s emphasis on instrumental reason in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis; he continued to develop that theme in the 1991 encyclical, Centesimus Annus, in his reflections on the foundational cultural requisites of the free and virtuous society. Seven years later, in September 1998, John Paul II issued Fides et Ratio, the highpoint of his magisterial reflection on the importance of philosophy in itself, for the Church and theology, and for human culture.</p>
<p>The encyclical was the first major papal statement on the relationship between faith and reason in almost one hundred twenty years. In 1870, the First Vatican Council had taught that human beings could know God’s existence through reason; Leo XIII’s 1879 encyclical, Aeterni Patris, had proposed the philosophy and theology of Thomas Aquinas as the model for a synthesis of faith and reason. But a lot had happened in the world since the penultimate decade of the nineteenth century&#160;— not least, philosophy’s drastically diminished confidence in its capacity to know the truth of anything with certainty.</p>
<p>In Fides et Ratio, John Paul called this philosophy’s “false modesty,” and suggested that it had prevented philosophy from probing the big questions&#160;— Why is there something rather than nothing? What is good and what is evil? What is happiness and what is delusion? What awaits me after this life? Philosophy’s true vocation was to be a servant of the truth; the contemporary discipline’s “false modesty” demeaned that vocation and helped open the door to a culture dominated by other forms of hubris&#160;— an instrumental view of other human beings, a false faith in technology, the triumph of the will-to-power&#160;— whose lethal effects had made the twentieth century into an abattoir. It was past time, John Paul argued, for philosophy to recover the sense of awe and wonder that directs it to transcendent truth. The alternative would be yet another century of tears.</p>
<p>Philosophy ordered to transcendent truth also remained crucial for religious believers, John Paul wrote. Ancient Greek philosophy had helped purge religion of superstition. The temptation to superstition is perennial, though, and sometimes takes the form of the claim that faith is not subject to rational analysis&#160;— which, in contemporary culture, means stressing faith as a matter of feeling and experience. Citing Augustine, John Paul flatly rejected such fideism: “Believing is nothing other than to think with assent….Believers are also thinkers: in believing, they think and in thinking, they believe….If faith does not think it is nothing.” In a twenty-first century destined to be heavily influenced by resurgent religious faith, this call to a reasonable faith, which found an important echo in Pope Benedict XVI’s September lecture at Regensburg and the recent response to it by thirty-eight senior Islamic leaders, looms large.</p>
<p>To postmodern theorists willing to allow religion a place at the table of intellectual life because religious truth is one possible truth among others, Fides et Ratio says, in effect, “No, thank you.” Unless thinking is open to what John Paul terms the “horizon of the ultimate,” it will inevitably turn in on itself and be locked in the prison of solipsism. The synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology in the patristic period taught a wiser lesson: human beings can know the true, the good, and the beautiful, even if we can never know them completely. Recovering that sense of confidence, John Paul asserted, is essential to creating a genuine humanism in the third millennium. The path to a wiser, nobler, more humane future thus runs through the wisdom of the first centuries of encounter between Jerusalem and Athens.</p>
<p>The separations of reason and faith, science and religion, philosophy and theology over the past several centuries have been caused by both philosophers and theologians, John Paul suggested. When theologians demean reason and philosophers deny the possibility of revelation, both are diminished, humanity is impoverished, and the development of a genuine humanism is frustrated. “Faith and reason,” John Paul wrote, “are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth,” and we can be sure that we will need to fly with both wings in the third millennium. The quest for truth is an instinct built into us. And the grandeur of the human person, the Pope concluded, is that we can choose “to enter the truth, to make a home under the shade of Wisdom and dwell there.”</p>
<p>That Fides et Ratio was issued amidst the celebrations of John Paul II’s twentieth anniversary as pope was entirely appropriate. In 1978, Karol Wojtyla had begun his pontificate with the clarion call, “Be not afraid!” Twenty years later, John Paul II continued to preach courage in Fides et Ratio. “Be not afraid of reason,” the encyclical proposed. Be not afraid of the truth. For the truth, dispelling delusions, will set humanity free in the deepest meaning of liberation. The pope of freedom, the pope of a new humanism, had remained faithful to a vision of human possibility and civilizational transformation which had been deepened by his fifty-year-long walk among the philosophers. Confounding the expectations of skeptics and enemies, he had made the Catholic Church the world’s premier institutional defender of human reason. Voltaire must have been spinning in his grave.</p>
<p>A Crisis and a Proposal</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Karol Wojtyla’s philosophical project will be assessed by professional philosophers for centuries. All those who admire intellectual courage will remain impressed by his effort to bridge the gap that had been opened in the seventeenth century between the world we want to grasp and the intellectual processes through which we think about that world. Yet it should be emphasized that philosophy, however seriously he took it (and he took it very seriously indeed), was never an end-in-itself for Wojtyla. Wojtyla’s walk among the philosophers was an integral part of his life as priest and bishop. Leaving the professional assessment of his philosophical accomplishment to his philosophical peers, perhaps I can close with a biographer’s appreciation of the large ideas that Wojtyla’s philosophical work put into play in early twenty-first century culture.</p>
<p>His first achievement was to demonstrate that a “Law of the Gift” is, as he wrote in 1974, “inscribed deep within the dynamic structure of the person.” Which is to say that the “threshold of hope” (as he styled his international bestseller) was not so much ahead of us as above us, in the dramatic struggle to surrender the persons we are to the persons we are called to be. That struggle can only be resolved by self-giving; it cannot be resolved by self-absorption or by radical personal autonomy. Wojtyla’s demonstration and explication of the Law of the Gift can be engaged by anyone willing to work through a philosophical argument. Those who take the time and trouble to do so will discover a concept of goodness with traction, one that does not collapse into a mere “social construct.”</p>
<p>Wojtyla’s second achievement was a function of his extraordinarily wide range of interests. Wojtyla took his literary training and theatrical experience and married them to rigorous philosophical analysis in order to produce a picture of human life as inherently, “structurally” dramatic. We are not adrift in a cosmos without meaning. We are not the accidents of galactic biochemistry, nor is human history a by-product of the exhaust fumes generated by the means of production. As moral actors, we can become the protagonists, not the objects (or victims), of the drama of life. Wojtyla’s demonstration of these truths of the human condition had immense appeal to those living under totalitarian repression and led to new forms of political resistance. His demonstration of those truths should also be attractive to those oppressed by a sense of powerlessness rooted in nihilism.</p>
<p>Then there was utilitarianism. It is instructive that Wojtyla was dissecting Bentham in 1956-57, when Bentham could hardly have been a major figure in Polish intellectual circles. Somehow, Wojtyla had intuited that the western humanistic project faced dangers beyond and after communism. So, over the years, Wojtyla’s walk among the philosophers gave rise to his deep-reaching critique of a modern culture in which others are too often measured by their financial, social, political, or sexual utility; and he took that critique in a positive direction by his exploration of the claim that our relationship to truth, goodness, and beauty is the true stuff of our humanity. In doing so, Wojtyla showed that accepting the moral truth involved in the Law of the Gift is not a limit on our freedom or our creativity. Rather, truth makes us free and enables us to live our freedom toward its goal, which is happiness.</p>
<p>Rocco Buttiglione, an insightful commentator on Karol Wojtyla’s walk among the philosophers, once suggested that there is a “hidden theological tendency” in Wojtyla’s personalism. In Person and Act, his method was strictly philosophical; but the inspiration was Christian. It is in God the Holy Trinity, a “community” of self-giving “persons” who lose nothing of their uniqueness in their radical self-giving, that we see confirmed the Law of the Gift and the truth about freedom as freedom-for-self-donation. Thus Wojtyla’s philosophy, like every other aspect of his life, was touched by his ongoing dialogue with God in prayer&#160;— and that, too, may have something to say to contemporary philosophers.</p>
<p>Writing in Die Welt in 1982, the Yugoslav dissident Milovan Djilas remembered that, even after the assassination attempt that came within a few millimeters of ending his life, John Paul II seemed a man utterly without fear. Why was that, Djilas asked? Father Tadeusz Styczen suggested an answer to me, recalling John Paul’s response to a question from André Frossard. The French journalist had asked the Pope what the most important word in the Gospel was. “Truth,” John Paul immediately said, for Christ had been born to bear witness to the truth, which was not a truth-for-Christians, but the truth of the world. Secure in that truth, and having deepened his understanding of the dynamics of the human apprehension of truth by his walk with the philosophers, Karol Wojtyla could be a man without fear&#160;— and could summon others to fearlessness. Here was a philosophical walk with consequences.</p>
<p>George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and holds EPPC’s William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.</p> | false | 1 | december 1 eppc senior fellow george weigel delivered keynote address duquesne university conference exploring phenomenology john paul ii weigels address follows karol józef wojtyla singular man intellectual deep respect popular piety mystic active sportsmen decades celibate wrote great insight human sexuality priest bishop marveled decades gift priesthood episcopate160 whose closest oldest friends included lay men women first met university students orphan reached majority nevertheless came embody paternity millions people world bereft fatherhood john paul ii visible man human history two billion people participated one way another funeral yet deeply ingrained sense privacy intense experiences ones couldnt describe took place dialogue god literally beyond words singularity extended karol wojtylas life among philosophers never took undergraduate graduate course philosophy never taught fulltime faculty member department philosophy never held rank higher docent lowest polish academic ladder philosophical masterwork remained unfinished yet autodidact philosopher liked put philosophy standpoint adam seeing world afresh drew professional respect thomists phenomenologists catholics agnostics classicists medievalists moderns perhaps even postmoderns wojtylas philosophical convictions also profound impact history times160 solidarity wojtyla way understanding authentic human beingintheworld banner erected lenin shipyard gdansk marx famously remarked philosophers analyzed world intended change karol wojtyla changes helped advance embodiment history understandings achieved160 understandings reflected truth seized life imagination professional philosopher bring specialists perspective work conference perhaps bring something else use160 biographers perspective locates karol wojtylas philosophical work within broader context singular life came worlds attention wojtyla hammered philosophy anvil experience man priest pole160 time place stakes high indeed revisiting time place may help us understand something wojtylas earlier experiences among philosophers help us understand walk among philosophers bishop rome 160 things 160 extended interview french journalist andré frossard john paul ii confessed perhaps littler sheepishly first encounter philosophy unpleasant one 1942 karol wojtyla accepted clandestine seminary run archbishop adam stefan sapieha kraków part comprehensive assault polish intellectual cultural life nazi occupation shut archdiocesan seminary sapieha reconstituted clandestine basis seminarians like wojtyla continued jobs coming archbishops residence serve mass receive spiritual direction get academic assignments books assigned exams follow future visit sapiehas residence early process wojtyla told read learn kazimierz waiss text metaphysics 1926 tome written arid formulas one style early twentieth century neoscholasticism wojtyla flummoxed literary man read widely deeply poetry fiction drama history never encountered anything like wais later description experience andré frossard worth quote 160 160 literary training centered around humanities prepared scholastic theses formulas manual waiss book filled cut path thick undergrowth concepts analyses axioms without even able identity ground moving two months hacking vegetation came clearing discovery deep reasons lived felt passed examination told examiner thatthe new vision world acquired struggle metaphysics manual valuable mark obtained exaggerating intuition sensibility taught world found solid confirmation 160 important moment wojtylas life among philosophers suffering inflicted wais gave wojtyla intellectual inoculation lasted lifetime inoculation radical skepticism human capacity know truth anything dungarees splattered watery lime solvay chemical factory worked wojtyla discovered would later call new world existence dusty propositions waiss metaphysics intellectual universe built around central aristotelianthomistic conviction world fact intelligible conviction stuck end profoundly shaped way philosophy agonies war life already filled suffering given young karol wojtyla sharp even harsh experience reality nights slogging waiss metaphysics gave nascent philosopher first building blocks would become philosophical position proof epistemological skepticism cousins moral relativism metaphysical boredom priestly ordination 1946 two years graduate study rome months rural parish father karol wojtylas first extended assignment st florians church near krakóws old town parish traditional magnet cracovian catholic intelligentsia archbishop sapieha sent wojtyla launch second chaplaincy university students st florians wojtyla organized study groups read thomas aquinas original explored basic philosophical issues apologetics160 urgent matter country choking intellectually cultural smog late stalinism ski trips outings became occasion young priest get studentfriends thinking philosophically almost halfcentury later jerzy janik later became distinguished nuclear physicist never studied metaphysics remembered fascinated late 1940s father wojtylas way thinking one could speak coherently connected way everything ski poles god others perhaps speculatively inclined remember young father wojtylas sermons rather philosophically dense trait liberated useful criticism lay friends environment communist mendacity truth function power wojtylas fledgling efforts philosophical tutor however dense challenging received young parishioners friends intellectual liberation wojtyla entirely satisfied neoscholasticism trained evident however criticism first doctoral dissertation received fr reginald garrigoulagrange op dissertation director romes angelicum garrigoulagrange master midcentury neoscholasticism unhappy wojtyla writing concept faith st john cross refer god divine object docked grade accordingly one assumes point discussed director student judging result conversation didnt persuade wojtyla remained thomistic realist seems looking different method get truth things 160 encountering max scheler 160 opportunity concentrated way came cardinal sapiehas successor archbishop eugeniusz baziak ordered leave student chaplaincy st florians order write habilitationsschrift would qualify teach university level wojtyla decided write german phenomenologist max scheler associate edmund husserl original phenomenological school included roman ingarden edith stein dietrich von hildebrand wojtyla attracted scheler mercurial character difficult thinker whose work translate german polish perhaps phenomenologys intention see world whole thus arrive realistic analysis thingsastheyare specifically wojtyla wanted see scheler could help catholic philosophers provide secure philosophical ground christian ethics attraction modern philosophical method like phenomenology add matter conducting frontal assault neoscholasticism taught wojtyla interest pursuing war attrition entrenched semiofficial catholic philosophical method time certain forms neoscholasticism barrier encounter modern philosophy wojtyla simply went around gratefully absorbed seemed enduring neoscholastic approach conviction philosophy could get truth thingsastheyare basis conviction prepared encounter philosophical systems terms would later recall wrestling second categorical imperative immanuel kant particularly important later thinking fact wrestling neatly illustrated one night dinner john paul ii rolled eyes groaned kant mein gott kant experience pastor confessor teacher writer given wojtyla might call natural phenomenologists intuition certainly helped analysis scheler appreciated schelers personalism seemed rescue ethics kantian abstraction restore pathos tragedy indeed ethos human condition wojtyla also appreciated schelers defense moral intuition analysis moral sentiments like empathy sympathy helped break philosophy prison epistemological solipsism wojtyla appreciated schelers effort analyze realities moral choosing struck satisfactory approach foundations ethics formal abstract system like kants could scheler contemporary christian philosophy theology aristotle done aquinas wojtylas basic answer wojtyla moral acts real acts real persons real consequences scheler view grasped moral choices actually shape life wojtyla judged schelers ethics morality remained outside human world wojtyla also critical schelers tendency overstress emotional aspects experience knowing thought led truncated view human person critique schelers analysis moral choices wojtylathephilosopher influenced pastoral experience160 knew young men women helped guide moral difficulties simply composites various emotional states nonetheless wojtyla came away fom scheler dissertation convinced phenomenology important philosophical instrument probing human condition phenomenological inquiry grounded however resolutely realistic general theory thingsastheyare path intended explore future philosophical work result would wojtyla would later call way philosophy synthesized approaches metaphysical realism aristole aquinas human sensitivity schelerian phenomenology wojtyla philosophical modus operandi intellectual conviction consequences men women could know good evil moral choices matters personal preference choices ultimately indifferent believed would empty human freedom drama deprive men women distinctively human quality capacity know good choose freely wojtylas habilitation first sustained effort marry realist objectivity learned thomism subjectivity modern philosophy would last effort thus scheler dissertation previewed philosopher theologian would later write love responsibility freedom selfdenial democracy vibrant public moral culture free economy solidarity wojtylas instinct synthesis sure sign contradiction late modern postmodern intellectual philosophical worlds north atlantic high culture general one might see instinct however christian sensibility reverence wisdom past jesus tells disciples multiplication loaves fish gather fragments nothing may lost john 612 karol wojtylas pastoral experience taught fragments life could gathered whole philosophical instinct reconnect fragmented human understandings believed best way account complexities human drama remaining conversation great minds laid intellectual foundations western civilization intensely engaged conversation years teaching catholic university lublin school almost unknown outside poland large ideas explored 160 lublin philosophers project 160 catholic university lublin kul founded 1918 curiously one midwives lenin allowed father idzi radziszewski take library petrograds polish academy theology back poland priest trying get kul launched chartered interwar second polish republic university shut german occupation numerous professors imprisoned tortured killed outright state charter permitted kul survive imposition stalinism poland war kul became catholic university behind iron curtain distinction maintained throughout cold war one senior scholars put catholic university lublin cold war place berlin south korea philosophy free faculty students pursued academic life situation constant confrontation communist regime 1953 1956 faculties law social science education shut even political thaw 1956 student population kept artificially low kul graduates found difficult obtain academic positions elsewhere kul faculty trouble publishing work pressures helped turn kul university vocation time many influential figures european intellectual life flirting marxism sometimes morethanflirting kul defended unique dignity human person aggressive ideological opponent demonstrating catholic faith human reason allies mission reconstituting western humanism kuls faculty philosophy established 1946 response great hunger philosophy evident throughout polish intellectual life war nazi attempt decapitate polish culture created distinctive intellectual situation poland immediate postwar period philosophy lectures krakóws reopened jagiellonian university delivered overflow audiences lublin lectures metaphysics standingroomonly students sitting floors aisles window sills lecture hall heard different members kul faculty explore philosophical issues posed hard experiences immediate past present160 life nazi occupation stalinist poland everyone lived brutalities occupation imposition communism confronted ancient philosophical question human urgent unavoidable ways people acted like beasts others shown remarkable heroism people grotesquely selfserving point betraying friends others nobly selfsacrificing laying lives others may known slightly way get problems kul philosophers agreed deepening philosophical anthropology curious blend matter spirit human person constituted explain difference kind human beings sentient creatures anything point goal life hardy perennials garden philosophical inquiry took especially sharp edge kul late 1940s early 1950s convinced crisis modernitys understanding human person lay root centurys distress kul philosophers period began sketch ambitious philosophical initiative metaphysics anthropology would meet ethics subdiscipline philosophy ethics may handmaiden grander specialties kul philosophers believed problem ethics posed particularly urgent way political situation communism matter bad metaphysics reductionistic account thingsastheyare bad anthropology caricature humanism communisms totalitarian politics stripped men women power choice responsibility thus humanity counter communist materialism communist politics kul philosophers thought complete humanism gave compelling account human moral intuitions human moral action proposing without falling quicksand thinking thinking thinking kul philosophers set small task indeed involved nothing less challenging entire direction philosophy since enlightenment moreover project distinctive edge kul philosophers proposed fight great politicalphilosophical battle marxisms ground160 question true liberation human person kul project defined quartet relatively young men nice piece irony become professors kul polands stalinist rulers expelled older teachers jerzy kalinowski specialist logic philosophy law stefan swiezawski historian philosophy follower jacques maritain etienne gilson father mieczyslaw albert krapiec op dominican specialist metaphysics father karol wojtyla quartet subsequently amplified fathers marian kurdzialek specialized ancient philosophy stanislaw kaminski specialist epistemology lublin philosophers different personalities divergent interests academic specialities nonetheless achieved professor swiezawski later called rare exceptionally fruitful collaboration built around four agreements crucial karol wojtylas philosophical project began ancient conviction160 would radically realistic world human capacity know thinking choosing lacks tether reality kul philosophers believed raw force takes world truth becomes function power expression thingsastheyare communistera joke poland expressed realist imperative way everyone could grasp party boss much 22 polish worker much would like political meaning realist assumption kul philosophers later expressed famous solidarity election poster read poland poland 22 must always 4 human beings free truth measure truth reality kul philosophers also agreed modern startingpoint philosophical inquiry would begin disciplined reflection human person human experience rather cosmology stakes high philosophy could get truth thingsastheyare analysis human experience path reconciliation catholic philosophy scientific method could opened concurrently modernity would pulled loose quicksand pits thinkingaboutthinkingaboutthinking adopting startingpoint also important confrontation marxism serious questions involve understood physics better certain basic issues human vocation build history history best understood material political terms history transcendent dimension kul philosophers also shared profound commitment reason others may cultural economic political freedom speculate alleged absurdity life kul philosophers veterans cultural resistance nazism luxury lived brutal nazi occupation thus knew irrationalism could got loose history sufficient material force kul philosophers commitment method reason coupled determination illuminate good human capacity know choose good men women might fact choose good finally kul philosophers agreed practice ecumenism time refused imprisoned inside consciousness also declined slaves contemporary believed history philosophy things teach present past made completely disposable modernity men whose vocational conviction ideas intellectuals toys amply confirmed hard experience ideas consequences good ill defective understandings human person human community human destiny responsible mountains corpses oceans blood first half twentieth century philosophy could help world get firmer purchase truth human condition way distinctively modern grounded great philosophical tradition west future might different kul philosophers community personal intellectual friendship great rarity academic life genuine team granted faculty position kul 1954 karol wojtyla commuted kraków lublin every two weeks virtually every one trips next seven years wojtyla colleagues met group talk common project engaged gathering equals john paul ii later recalled found great advantage learn others distinctive perspective current work time real arguments intellectual differences among kul philosophers like father krapiec combative personalities karol wojtylas continuing interest phenomenology ongoing investigation modern contemporary philosophy raised eyebrows among traditional colleagues philosophical professorial style generally unfootnoted way philosophy160 philosophy like peasant premier student later noted160 far concerned mapping terrain thingsastheyare providing extensive academic apparatus citations crossreferences every proposal assertion father wojtyla also singularly free professorial gravitas usually associated senior academics european universities say kul philosophy faculty disagreements respects rivalries simply say faculty men angels important thing kul philosophers boldness intention conceived project part response peculiar circumstances time place part response general cultural conditions midtwentieth century range reach capacity shed light human condition different situations would come focus professor dr karol wojtyla working different name took adventurous part lublin project audience whose numbers vastly exceeded readership polish philosophical journals 160 foundations freedom 160 karol wojtyla succeeded fr feliks bednarski op chair ethics lublin 1957 remained active faculty member university election papacy 1978 first months pope continued serve reader kul doctoral dissertations retained chair ethics kul years ceding protégé friend fr tadeusz styczen sds wojtylas intense involvement kul took place 1954 1961 pastoral responsibilities kraków made impossible commute lublin longer next seventeen years doctoral seminar came kraków twoday work periods archbishops residence 1954 1961 addition teaching basic undergraduate ethics course directing doctoral students wojtyla gave series graduate lectures 195455 lectures act experience explored philosophical ethics scheler kant aquinas 195556 lectures subject goodness value involved extensive dialogue plato aristotle augustine aquinas kant scheler perhaps anticipating set problems would emerge postcommunist world wojtyla dedicated 19561957 lectures hume bentham rubric norm happiness 19571958 19581959 lectures focused sexual ethics eventually led first book love responsibility 19601961 wojtyla gave last graduate lectures kul theory methodology ethics one might hope monographic lectures theyre known poland might day available english would fascinating enter wojtylas dialogue philosophical ethicists representing wide range methods judgments 1962 elected vicar capitular kraków death archbishop baziak translation rome 1978 karol wojtylas energies increasingly absorbed pastoral responsibilities kraków expanding role world church could continue walk among philosophers directing doctoral seminar residence franciszka_ska 3 krakows old town also hosted evening philosophical seminars wide variety philosophical schools represented circumstances rarely permitted lectured abroad including wellreceived visit harvard summer school 1969 intervention international thomistic congress fossanuova 1974 impressed josef pieper venerable german philosopher immediately got touch professor joseph ratzinger regensburg urging read wojtylas work moreover period intense pastoral activity wojtyla attempted philosophical masterwork osoba czyn person act say attempted person act part unfinished symphony karol wojtylas philosophical project never produced revised completed version polish although third edition edited principal students collaborators available extant translations european languages varying quality currently available english translation trustworthy bends entire work direction justice authors intent maintain tension subjectivity person objectivity act hallmark thinking said however person act closest thing ever full statement wojty_as mature philosophical position brief review origins key themes may helpful filling biographical portrait origins person act unclear unpublished memoir work philosopher gave preparing witness hope john paul ii remembered cracovian priest msgr stanislaw czartoryski told publication love responsibility must write book person later memoir pope points us slightly different direction writing wanted work much greater detail issues involved marrying aristotelianthomistic philosophy schelerian philosophy consciousness wojtylas leading philosophical disciple father styczen gave third explanation origins person act book intended styczen told move philosophy cartesian cogito ergo sum eventually led philosophy prison solipsism cognosco ergo sum understand therefore human person160 move stycze_ believed would reconnect thinkingaboutthinking philosophys turn subject things thought understood father styczen note disciple edge wojtyla showed manuscript person act asked comments styczen replied interesting first draft perhaps could translated polish polish make easier reader160 including person act also product second vatican council two senses first sense personal even assiduous listener karol wojtyla could sit quietly council aula listening gusts latin rhetoric day day month month four years thirty years council john paul ii would admit little sheepishly know wrote many parts books poems sessions council thus person act gave wojtyla connected piece intellectual work amidst fragmentation conciliar debate also gave opportunity pull together threads exploration monograpic lectures single philosophical tapestry another deeper way person act connected vatican ii however council affirmed human person precisely person right religious freedom right religious freedom exists may freely seek truth including ultimate truth god selfrevelation wojtyla thought assertion given secure philosophical demonstration showing mans search meaning directed toward good man seeks good wants seek objectively good subjectivity person expresses freedom ordered internal dynamics question reality good160 also reality true wojtyla also believed personalism gaudium et spes vatican iis pastoral constitution church modern world put secure philosophical foundation told fr henri de lubac sj great debate late modernity played evil times consists first place kind degradation indeed pulverization fundamental uniqueness human person evil even much metaphysical order moral order disintegrationwe must propose kind recapitulation inviolable mystery person person act intended book begins introduction wojtyla reflects human experience human beings know world truth things tries show thinking world helps us understand precisely persons things simply happen experiences know making decision acting decision experiences come know person subject classical term efficient cause actions things dont simply happen subject merely object actions make things happen think decision freely act therefore somebody simply something wojtyla shows moral action somebody begins experience transcendence personhood argues constituted fact freedom come know truly human acts choosing one act pay debt freely contracted rather another cheat debt simply responding external conditions fear jail internal pressures guilt freely choosing good free choosing also binding know good true discern transcendence human person free choice good true wojtyla suggests go beyond grow person realizing freedom conforming good true freedom one modern reading radical autonomy160 self primary reference point choosing wojtyla disagrees selfmastery selfassertion index truly human freedom argues achieve selfmastery repressing suppressing natural thoughtfully freely channeling natural instincts mind body actions deepen humanity conform thingsastheyare empiricists try find human center body processes kantian idealists try find structures consciousness wojtyla leapfrogs argument empiricists idealists trying demonstrate moral action psyche body find center human person core humanity moral action mind spirit body come unity person person lives world many persons person act concludes analysis moral action conjunction others constitute moral field humanity realizes transcends grows philosophical anthropology touches border social ethics160 free persons live together might expected wojtyla takes position beyond individualism collectivism radical individualism inadequate anthropology grow humanity interaction others collectivism strips person freedom thus personhood wojtyla suggests issue best posed bothand terms individual common good working theory participation wojtyla analyzes four attitudes toward life society two incapable nurturing truly human society conformism inauthentic means abandoning freedom others take completely self lost process noninvolvement inauthentic solipsistic cutting others eventually results implosion self opposition might called resistance authentic approach life society involves resistance unjust customs laws order liberate full humanity others solidarity primary authentic attitude toward society individual freedom deployed serve common good community sustains supports individuals grow truly human maturity attitude wojtyla writes allows man find fulfillment complementing others could known first wrote person act solidarity would become rallying cry dramatically changed history twentieth century 160 philosopher pope 160 far circumstances permitted karol wojtyla continued walk among philosophers election pope hosted biennial humanities seminars summers castel gandolfo distinguished philosophers always present cast characters themes predominantly continental european flavored several occasions canadian charles taylor kept informed developments lublin former philosophy department colleague father krapiec rector found way around communist regimes academic regulations name wojtyla honorary professor title held death distance encouraged work second successor generation polish philosophers including fr andrzej szostek mic dr wojciech chudy whose habilitation thesis philosophy trap reflection john paul called important book school thirty years leisure time allowed pope often filled reading contemporary philosophy particularly interested philosophers dialogue likely man world read emmanuel levinas fun pope wojtyla signaled ongoing concern contemporary cultures emphasis instrumental reason first encyclical redemptor hominis continued develop theme 1991 encyclical centesimus annus reflections foundational cultural requisites free virtuous society seven years later september 1998 john paul ii issued fides et ratio highpoint magisterial reflection importance philosophy church theology human culture encyclical first major papal statement relationship faith reason almost one hundred twenty years 1870 first vatican council taught human beings could know gods existence reason leo xiiis 1879 encyclical aeterni patris proposed philosophy theology thomas aquinas model synthesis faith reason lot happened world since penultimate decade nineteenth century160 least philosophys drastically diminished confidence capacity know truth anything certainty fides et ratio john paul called philosophys false modesty suggested prevented philosophy probing big questions160 something rather nothing good evil happiness delusion awaits life philosophys true vocation servant truth contemporary disciplines false modesty demeaned vocation helped open door culture dominated forms hubris160 instrumental view human beings false faith technology triumph willtopower160 whose lethal effects made twentieth century abattoir past time john paul argued philosophy recover sense awe wonder directs transcendent truth alternative would yet another century tears philosophy ordered transcendent truth also remained crucial religious believers john paul wrote ancient greek philosophy helped purge religion superstition temptation superstition perennial though sometimes takes form claim faith subject rational analysis160 contemporary culture means stressing faith matter feeling experience citing augustine john paul flatly rejected fideism believing nothing think assentbelievers also thinkers believing think thinking believeif faith think nothing twentyfirst century destined heavily influenced resurgent religious faith call reasonable faith found important echo pope benedict xvis september lecture regensburg recent response thirtyeight senior islamic leaders looms large postmodern theorists willing allow religion place table intellectual life religious truth one possible truth among others fides et ratio says effect thank unless thinking open john paul terms horizon ultimate inevitably turn locked prison solipsism synthesis greek philosophy christian theology patristic period taught wiser lesson human beings know true good beautiful even never know completely recovering sense confidence john paul asserted essential creating genuine humanism third millennium path wiser nobler humane future thus runs wisdom first centuries encounter jerusalem athens separations reason faith science religion philosophy theology past several centuries caused philosophers theologians john paul suggested theologians demean reason philosophers deny possibility revelation diminished humanity impoverished development genuine humanism frustrated faith reason john paul wrote like two wings human spirit rises contemplation truth sure need fly wings third millennium quest truth instinct built us grandeur human person pope concluded choose enter truth make home shade wisdom dwell fides et ratio issued amidst celebrations john paul iis twentieth anniversary pope entirely appropriate 1978 karol wojtyla begun pontificate clarion call afraid twenty years later john paul ii continued preach courage fides et ratio afraid reason encyclical proposed afraid truth truth dispelling delusions set humanity free deepest meaning liberation pope freedom pope new humanism remained faithful vision human possibility civilizational transformation deepened fiftyyearlong walk among philosophers confounding expectations skeptics enemies made catholic church worlds premier institutional defender human reason voltaire must spinning grave crisis proposal 160 karol wojtylas philosophical project assessed professional philosophers centuries admire intellectual courage remain impressed effort bridge gap opened seventeenth century world want grasp intellectual processes think world yet emphasized philosophy however seriously took took seriously indeed never endinitself wojtyla wojtylas walk among philosophers integral part life priest bishop leaving professional assessment philosophical accomplishment philosophical peers perhaps close biographers appreciation large ideas wojtylas philosophical work put play early twentyfirst century culture first achievement demonstrate law gift wrote 1974 inscribed deep within dynamic structure person say threshold hope styled international bestseller much ahead us us dramatic struggle surrender persons persons called struggle resolved selfgiving resolved selfabsorption radical personal autonomy wojtylas demonstration explication law gift engaged anyone willing work philosophical argument take time trouble discover concept goodness traction one collapse mere social construct wojtylas second achievement function extraordinarily wide range interests wojtyla took literary training theatrical experience married rigorous philosophical analysis order produce picture human life inherently structurally dramatic adrift cosmos without meaning accidents galactic biochemistry human history byproduct exhaust fumes generated means production moral actors become protagonists objects victims drama life wojtylas demonstration truths human condition immense appeal living totalitarian repression led new forms political resistance demonstration truths also attractive oppressed sense powerlessness rooted nihilism utilitarianism instructive wojtyla dissecting bentham 195657 bentham could hardly major figure polish intellectual circles somehow wojtyla intuited western humanistic project faced dangers beyond communism years wojtylas walk among philosophers gave rise deepreaching critique modern culture others often measured financial social political sexual utility took critique positive direction exploration claim relationship truth goodness beauty true stuff humanity wojtyla showed accepting moral truth involved law gift limit freedom creativity rather truth makes us free enables us live freedom toward goal happiness rocco buttiglione insightful commentator karol wojtylas walk among philosophers suggested hidden theological tendency wojtylas personalism person act method strictly philosophical inspiration christian god holy trinity community selfgiving persons lose nothing uniqueness radical selfgiving see confirmed law gift truth freedom freedomforselfdonation thus wojtylas philosophy like every aspect life touched ongoing dialogue god prayer160 may something say contemporary philosophers writing die welt 1982 yugoslav dissident milovan djilas remembered even assassination attempt came within millimeters ending life john paul ii seemed man utterly without fear djilas asked father tadeusz styczen suggested answer recalling john pauls response question andré frossard french journalist asked pope important word gospel truth john paul immediately said christ born bear witness truth truthforchristians truth world secure truth deepened understanding dynamics human apprehension truth walk philosophers karol wojtyla could man without fear160 could summon others fearlessness philosophical walk consequences george weigel distinguished senior fellow ethics public policy center washington dc holds eppcs william e simon chair catholic studies | 4,344 |
<p>The legend of Pearl Harbor, re-used on 9/11, is responsible for the permanent war mentality of the past 75 years.</p>
<p>Pearl Harbor Day today is like Columbus Day 50 years ago. That is to say: most people still believe the hype. The myths are still maintained in their blissful unquestioned state. “New Pearl Harbors” are longed for by war makers, claimed, and exploited. Yet the original Pearl Harbor remains the most popular U.S. argument for all things military, including the long-delayed remilitarization of Japan—not to mention the WWII internment of Japanese Americans as a model for targeting other groups today. Believers in Pearl Harbor imagine for their mythical event, in contrast to today, a greater U.S. innocence, a purer victimhood, a higher contrast of good and evil, and a total necessity of defensive war making.</p>
<p>The facts do not support the mythology. The United States government did not need to <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6QA/ni0YAA/t.22q/RykAMHH0SpiNdql1xc6SUw/h0/FoYQZ5NNSFcIh9e1dB3di0wray9iJ-2FjcmW-2Fe4rdgT86cgtvC-2BFS3uSo96fZJkDP6ejgk3HBaJu8b4K2YPbLLUHsb-2B72ny5NpLDfhAZHC4-2FdPTrkBmQmY4nvKG3eFQ8WHSN-2B-2BVr8s6YQoQFwcxjY0Lexuk3HSZvsmy0Pm9SSkwc4iVRxHTAK9mmeTpVibuVu5vIvAppQwiTIEUwzzwB3YwDgRoI-2FZtcWN1vZtyigseKln4dv4MfBxR-2FWTj61g8HDxjIwxiEnlTcHpW-2FIlkV7ySvHYd2zWJ9FC1LAJwPBfFIk8O8bCwqpd5K79XMK-2BIQy9g4eJg5Lx0YT8UieNO-2B4Php67a2MYVtyXWRh9qaRneZ9rgnw14notM3qwmJn9wDBMjSNmlv18Rj-2F-2FJquD93EORw-3D-3D" type="external">make</a> Japan a junior partner in imperialism, did not need to fuel an arms race, did not need to <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6QA/ni0YAA/t.22q/RykAMHH0SpiNdql1xc6SUw/h1/FoYQZ5NNSFcIh9e1dB3di4LHxDyhLkwJjvWdEEM9sG4u2Pa72XEqgyzEE-2BhhoCSexXDqZszAnue5KOR-2FkjIGXhoYJIg1wV11iGU-2BDg-2BFUbrzwMFbp9KnJd9D8tdJREOEhUevHVu4f4v8U8u-2BWqOErGjE8Odc2Yv6Hhtvo3Fd-2BbZ3UDn9l6yEDozJ-2BWWx8ZQbDZkDCeQlbejOzWEh-2ByVNxgePblZNPia1rA-2BqgotxPkFiIIqnqwm6NOveoizJa4N3rIPAQYE6CL5u7PmVrjlME-2FUHHt-2FpfB6F4ZhU0HwYFfQubFCDa8gZjOfPAkIKLo7TV3e6ioPpnUQOFgaz5ySOcUDfkzn9jb4pTwBubhUnynxnB8avfYIOYR7JhRwXDaloJ9ngo-2FhpV8Yr6kIZ8W8FyA-3D-3D" type="external">support</a> Nazism and fascism (as some of the biggest U.S. corporations did right through the war), did not need to provoke Japan, did not need to join the war in Asia or Europe, and was not surprised by the attack on Pearl Harbor. For support of each of these statements, keep reading.</p>
<p>This week I’m testifying at an <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6QA/ni0YAA/t.22q/RykAMHH0SpiNdql1xc6SUw/h2/qc2GtgQtv2-2BdaU3W6elNb3pmNa7enQqlBolm6OEvwsb-2BHpdzs9Z-2Fq0xhG13vtKw7Ip8OeL7YdsCCtVJldI1yhBh2U8Uu49k66jpQ7EHbFDy3Vf4Yk91tp-2Fssx8lFgqFRTkYkGZ9ORwhX2mn4ia3yTgDoadR9pJpYzimUhq5q3rwRsjK7xZyxLm1Mg7fL1GOlTVb3Ap-2F3EQXCpecWosfbF9iJBmHOlylYyK1P3STpIaE-3D" type="external">Iraq Tribunal</a> about the Downing Street Minutes. In U.S. thinking the 2003-2008 period of the decades-long war on Iraq is somehow worse than World War II. But when it comes to lies, bad decisions, and levels of death and destruction, there is just no comparison: World War II stands unchallenged as the worst thing humanity in general and the U.S. government in particular (as well as numerous other governments) have ever done. There’s even a parallel to the Downing Street Minutes.</p>
<p>On August 18, 1941, Prime Minister Winston Churchill met with his cabinet at 10 Downing Street. The meeting had some similarity to the July 23, 2002, meeting at the same address, the minutes of which became known as the Downing Street Minutes. Both meetings revealed secret U.S. intentions to go to war. In the 1941 meeting, Churchill told his cabinet, according to the minutes: “The President had said he would wage war but not declare it.” In addition, “Everything was to be done to force an incident.”</p>
<p>Indeed, everything was done to force an incident, and the incident was Pearl Harbor.</p>
<p>In May 2005 some friends and I launched <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6QA/ni0YAA/t.22q/RykAMHH0SpiNdql1xc6SUw/h3/cxB-2Bk8PS-2FM-2BOp4FEvS83wKDLVGdqUndSUBcGUSe2JBLRClAae4lKgKvuOcABjgO6ik9n8fXvHNHAGzCcMtb8Dp5d9wv0ZscWR-2F6UMYqQU1ZcuUCyMTkyGUkc7UfM3aBSQLT0v3BCpqi5k9VReA-2FDArhSgznl09SuZj7oG7SOoC0S5Ha3UhmN44Te5SHMP2HJpTAxlHYzmpD1aBdFLul67wUXAI-2BEWlD0UdAizF8YEg5wdCo-2FaCJtMJ-2FwMs3YEIe9" type="external">AfterDowningStreet.org</a> (now called <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6QA/ni0YAA/t.22q/RykAMHH0SpiNdql1xc6SUw/h4/QSgj3O0ZJ56-2FtV-2Bf4fX88sc0BxN4HbJBGuEloZux3umANaGI2Mg8-2BDrFgsswsT5pDwIRus7h0tJGr1b7Ey6R332QfHWHre4uA2vLlTaMhcI58D6eyoJP3n7lCiMbzcmm4mG2rayuJoShvWGVoqx8ip8kaJXqJFhVdbnPuI-2F-2F1q-2BQHoOty6ZZd02da-2FdieNLOgZm-2FVQEWFvkVituY-2FQ0gfxjvUjebJQPTsiPhaTucayI-3D" type="external">WarIsACrime.org</a>) to promote awareness of the <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6QA/ni0YAA/t.22q/RykAMHH0SpiNdql1xc6SUw/h5/OCyNDn9i98-2BOopV0K0WrPueczsVnD98wVSUfTp6-2BSVwLIOdpVZFVYa4palIKKKEozfPk0tKPraVv9gmUymgaj2vnb8QrbOizK25V46Lvaz5bhp1qmv46G5E5H0VPPUf8ngRFq7Ufj1OhYLOO7Re4IotnPR-2F-2B-2FeRhX-2FFSnT3WHOq-2FTfRUbzOXBvOA1njtO1y5jw-2Fo4TYnuUEmc0yJfNey2kvSw0I922UUl4w4jUc0PDg-2F5P0DMUL2Jft-2FyOQxFYuL" type="external">Downing Street Minutes</a> or Downing Street Memo and related documents.</p>
<p>This was a very useful document that was released in a moment when it could have an important impact.</p>
<p>Like every war ever launched by anyone before or since (at least up until the age of openly blurting out “steal their oil” and “kill their families”), the 2003 stage in the Iraq war had been launched on the basis of lies and had been and still is continued on the basis of other lies.</p>
<p>We ought not to have needed any evidence. It is illegal to attack another country under the UN Charter and under the Kellogg Briand Pact (and arguably under the Hague Convention of 1899). And in this case, as with Afghanistan two years earlier, the UN had specifically rejected war. Launching a war is illegal and immoral no matter what weapons may be in the nation attacked and no matter what crimes that nation has committed. Launching a total assault on civilians to supposedly shock and awe them is illegal even in the understanding of lawyers who ignore the illegality of war. Morally it is one of the worst things ever done. Practically it has never worked.</p>
<p>Even if we accepted that weapons in Iraq or Iraqi crimes could justify a war, the evidence was clear that these were lies. The Iraqi government was opposed to the group it had supposedly collaborated with. In 1995 Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law had informed the U.S. and the British that all biological, chemical, missile, and nuclear weapons had been destroyed under his direct supervision. After U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, the lead inspector said they’d come to the same conclusion. In 1999 at a primary debate in New Hampshire, Bush said he’d “take out” Saddam Hussein. “I’m surprised he’s still there,” he said. In 2001, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and others in the Bush Administration were telling the media that Saddam Hussein had no weapons. They transparently switched their views on command.</p>
<p>So, when the Downing Street Minutes came out on May 1, 2005, we jumped on it, not as new information but as evidence we could use, both to persuade others and to make a case in court or in Congress. These were the minutes of a meeting at Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office on July 23, 2002, at which his head of so-called intelligence, just back from Washington, reported (as summarized in the minutes):</p>
<p>“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”</p>
<p>And so they were, as has been documented in extensive detail. The White House war schemers and their collaborators forged documents, solicited desired claims rejected by their own experts, relied on non-credible witnesses, fed fake evidence to complicit so-called journalists, and tortured desired statements out of victims they’d kidnapped. Bush concocted harebrained schemes to start a war that he publicly claimed to be trying to avoid. See, for example, the <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6QA/ni0YAA/t.22q/RykAMHH0SpiNdql1xc6SUw/h6/OCyNDn9i98-2BOopV0K0WrPq1l7UGvnIRlBOph4uRme1yzHeG7Dv2CsyrgAhkOWUi6Wp7QvA-2F4WQmSoflGCB0LJV4NZpoCSx-2B0wPo0yiiGkbnp-2BQsp2fC8ZLP82E4Ey55qMcpyPvNZ8elnWkGQIZVLJ5Xr1o4EVPoHOM7wU2Q3g2TVYVQQc26ziXEgDEd4vOvpgRa101oZv5mwxkckGncGffipseFTk4xdc-2B-2F26-2BpQtLGqnVyIfez19RsiMguTyJBE" type="external">White House Memo</a>.</p>
<p>But just the fact that the British had been informed that war was inevitable by July 23, 2002, ought to have been a big story in May 2005. We worked hard to make it such, pressuring a resistant corporate media that claimed either that it couldn’t verify a memo that was clearly authentic and not even disputed, or arguing that what it revealed was “old news,” even though it was brand new to anyone informed by those media outlets.</p>
<p>We made it into big news through public protests, reenactments in the lobbies of media outlets, floods of letters to editors, and a wide variety of creative actions. But we had an advantage. Democrats in Congress were in the minority and many of them were claiming they would take actions to end the war if given the majority. Key Congress members were supporting our efforts. I believe that we turned many of their encouraging claims into lies by shrinking rather than enlarging and intensifying our movement in January 2007.</p>
<p>When Diane Sawyer asked Bush why he had made the claims he had about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, he replied: “What’s the difference?”</p>
<p>Perhaps very little now, as we’ve been through eight years with a president who launches wars without bothering to lie to Congress. Or perhaps very much now, as we showed our power to resist lies about Syria in 2013 as a decade of activism against a war on Iraq backed Congress away from supporting a new war.</p>
<p>We have to make the answer matter. We have to tell the story properly, as half the United States still doesn’t know it. The biggest lie now, believed by many Americans, is that Iraq benefitted and the U.S. suffered (that second part is true) from the war that destroyed Iraq.</p>
<p>Toward correcting that false belief I submit into evidence a paper I wrote three years ago called <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6QA/ni0YAA/t.22q/RykAMHH0SpiNdql1xc6SUw/h7/OCyNDn9i98-2BOopV0K0WrPi8XlHdMDax6H-2BCBeT1aFXKw259y7-2BnJWwV5sz1fzYeczqDLl22wG-2BZOZlaxsbe9eYopnowN41D6bgTp1x40NuvOlTqmWaL36I4Dt2JHI43VcAAYFsjSQga4pCGzi6BlJqXoUGEGHvqkBC8-2FdUsP8vZMV-2BjbfEvKoreOi7Ouetmd9tc703I6qnpzlxo-2F9aJ-2FEGfQBKQ9VFAojeLCFKhwYs0XucZSBEuvbMangbvm-2FFRJ" type="external">Iraq War Among World’s Worst Events</a>.</p>
<p>My biggest fear is that drone wars and proxy wars and secretive wars will continue to be launched without being preceded by public campaigns of lying. Or even worse: wars will be launched with honest proclamations that somebody’s oil needs to be stolen or some population needs to be slaughtered—and we won’t resist or succeed in stopping these crimes. One of the best tools we have in this struggle is awareness of every lie used to support every past war. We must increase that awareness at every opportunity.</p>
<p>Most importantly, we must dismantle the myths of Pearl Harbor.</p>
<p>Many Japanese are better able to recognize their government’s crimes, crimes before and after Pearl Harbor, as well as the crime of Pearl Harbor. The United States is almost entirely blind to its role. From the U.S. side, Pearl Harbor had roots in Germany.</p>
<p>Nazi Germany, we actually tend to overlook sometimes, could not have existed or waged war without the support for decades past and ongoing through the war of U.S. corporations like GM, Ford, IBM, and ITT. U.S. corporate interests preferred Nazi Germany to the communist Soviet Union, were happy to see those two nations’ peoples slaughter each other, and favored the United States entering the oh-so-good-and-necessary World War II on the side of England only once the U.S. government had made that very profitable. The U.S. delayed D-Day for years while Germany bled Russia dry, and within hours of Germany’s defeat, Churchill proposed a new war on Russia using German troops.</p>
<p>Churchill’s fervent hope for years before the U.S. entry into the war was that Japan would attack the United States. This would permit the United States (not legally, but politically) to fully enter World War II in Europe, as its president wanted to do, as opposed to merely providing weaponry and assisting in the targeting of submarines as it had been doing.</p>
<p>On December 7, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt drew up a declaration of war on both Japan and Germany, but decided it wouldn’t work and went with Japan alone. Germany quickly declared war on the United States, possibly in hopes that Japan would declare war on the Soviet Union.</p>
<p>Getting into the war was not a new idea in the Roosevelt White House. FDR had tried lying to the U.S. public about U.S. ships including the Greer and the Kerny, which had been helping British planes track German submarines, but which Roosevelt pretended had been innocently attacked. Roosevelt also lied that he had in his possession a secret Nazi map planning the conquest of South America, as well as a secret Nazi plan for replacing all religions with Nazism. The map was of the quality of Karl Rove’s “proof” that Iraq was buying uranium in Niger.</p>
<p>And yet, the people of the United States didn’t buy the idea of going into another war until Pearl Harbor, by which point Roosevelt had already instituted the draft, activated the National Guard, created a huge Navy in two oceans, traded old destroyers to England in exchange for the lease of its bases in the Caribbean and Bermuda, and — just 11 days before the “unexpected” attack, and five days before FDR expected it — he had secretly ordered the creation (by Henry Field) of a list of every Japanese and Japanese-American person in the United States.</p>
<p>On April 28, 1941, Churchill wrote a secret directive to his war cabinet:</p>
<p>“It may be taken as almost certain that the entry of Japan into the war would be followed by the immediate entry of the United States on our side.”</p>
<p>On May 11, 1941, Robert Menzies, the prime minister of Australia, met with Roosevelt and found him “a little jealous” of Churchill’s place in the center of the war. While Roosevelt’s cabinet all wanted the United States to enter the war, Menzies found that Roosevelt,</p>
<p>” . . . trained under Woodrow Wilson in the last war, waits for an incident, which would in one blow get the USA into war and get R. out of his foolish election pledges that ‘I will keep you out of war.'”</p>
<p>On August 18, 1941, Churchill held that meeting with his cabinet at 10 Downing Street.</p>
<p>An incident was forced.</p>
<p>Japan was certainly not averse to attacking others and had been busy creating an Asian empire. And the United States and Japan were certainly not living in harmonious friendship. But what could bring the Japanese to attack?</p>
<p>When President Franklin Roosevelt visited Pearl Harbor on July 28, 1934, seven years before the Japanese attack, the Japanese military expressed apprehension. General Kunishiga Tanaka wrote in the Japan Advertiser, objecting to the build-up of the American fleet and the creation of additional bases in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands:</p>
<p>“Such insolent behavior makes us most suspicious. It makes us think a major disturbance is purposely being encouraged in the Pacific. This is greatly regretted.”</p>
<p>Whether it was actually regretted or not is a separate question from whether this was a typical and predictable response to military expansionism, even when done in the name of “defense.” The great unembedded (as we would today call him) journalist George Seldes was suspicious as well. In October 1934 he wrote in Harper’s Magazine: “It is an axiom that nations do not arm for war but for a war.” Seldes asked an official at the Navy League:</p>
<p>“Do you accept the naval axiom that you prepare to fight a specific navy?”</p>
<p>The man replied “Yes.”</p>
<p>“Do you contemplate a fight with the British navy?”</p>
<p>“Absolutely, no.”</p>
<p>“Do you contemplate war with Japan?”</p>
<p>“Yes.”</p>
<p>In 1935 the most decorated U.S. Marine in history at the time, Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, published to enormous success a short book called War Is a Racket. He saw perfectly well what was coming and warned the nation:</p>
<p>“At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals don’t shout that ‘We need lots of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.’ Oh, no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate our 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.</p>
<p>“The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline in the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.</p>
<p>“The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern, through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.”</p>
<p>In March 1935, Roosevelt bestowed Wake Island on the U.S. Navy and gave Pan Am Airways a permit to build runways on Wake Island, Midway Island, and Guam. Japanese military commanders announced that they were disturbed and viewed these runways as a threat. So did peace activists in the United States. By the next month, Roosevelt had planned war games and maneuvers near the Aleutian Islands and Midway Island. By the following month, peace activists were marching in New York advocating friendship with Japan. Norman Thomas wrote in 1935:</p>
<p>“The Man from Mars who saw how men suffered in the last war and how frantically they are preparing for the next war, which they know will be worse, would come to the conclusion that he was looking at the denizens of a lunatic asylum.”</p>
<p>The U.S. Navy spent the next few years working up plans for war with Japan, the March 8, 1939, version of which described “an offensive war of long duration” that would destroy the military and disrupt the economic life of Japan. In January 1941, eleven months before the attack, the Japan Advertiser expressed its outrage over Pearl Harbor in an editorial, and the U.S. ambassador to Japan wrote in his diary:</p>
<p>“There is a lot of talk around town to the effect that the Japanese, in case of a break with the United States, are planning to go all out in a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor. Of course I informed my government.”</p>
<p>On February 5, 1941, Rear Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner wrote to Secretary of War Henry Stimson to warn of the possibility of a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor.</p>
<p>As early as 1932 the United States had been talking with China about providing airplanes, pilots, and training for its war with Japan. In November 1940, Roosevelt loaned China one hundred million dollars for war with Japan, and after consulting with the British, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau made plans to send the Chinese bombers with U.S. crews to use in bombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities. On December 21, 1940, two weeks shy of a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, China’s Minister of Finance T.V. Soong and Colonel Claire Chennault, a retired U.S. Army flier who was working for the Chinese and had been urging them to use American pilots to bomb Tokyo since at least 1937, met in Henry Morgenthau’s dining room to plan the firebombing of Japan. Morgenthau said he could get men released from duty in the U.S. Army Air Corps if the Chinese could pay them $1,000 per month. Soong agreed.</p>
<p>On May 24, 1941, the New York Times reported on U.S. training of the Chinese air force, and the provision of “numerous fighting and bombing planes” to China by the United States. “Bombing of Japanese Cities is Expected” read the subheadline. By July, the Joint Army-Navy Board had approved a plan called JB 355 to firebomb Japan. A front corporation would buy American planes to be flown by American volunteers trained by Chennault and paid by another front group. Roosevelt approved, and his China expert Lauchlin Currie, in the words of Nicholson Baker, “wired Madame Chaing Kai-Shek and Claire Chennault a letter that fairly begged for interception by Japanese spies.” Whether or not that was the entire point, this was the letter:</p>
<p>“I am very happy to be able to report today the President directed that sixty-six bombers be made available to China this year with twenty-four to be delivered immediately. He also approved a Chinese pilot training program here. Details through normal channels. Warm regards.”</p>
<p>The U.S. ambassador had said “in case of a break with the United States” the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor. I wonder if this qualified!</p>
<p>The 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Chinese Air Force, also known as the Flying Tigers, moved ahead with recruitment and training immediately, were provided to China prior to Pearl Harbor, and first saw combat on December 20, 1941, twelve days (local time) after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.</p>
<p>On May 31, 1941, at the Keep America Out of War Congress, William Henry Chamberlin gave a dire warning: “A total economic boycott of Japan, the stoppage of oil shipments for instance, would push Japan into the arms of the Axis. Economic war would be a prelude to naval and military war.” The worst thing about peace advocates is how many times they turn out to be right.</p>
<p>On July 24, 1941, President Roosevelt remarked, “If we cut the oil off, [the Japanese] probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had a war. It was very essential from our own selfish point of view of defense to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out there.”</p>
<p>Reporters noticed that Roosevelt said “was” rather than “is.” The next day, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japanese assets. The United States and Britain cut off oil and scrap metal to Japan. Radhabinod Pal, an Indian jurist who served on the war crimes tribunal after the war, called the embargoes a “clear and potent threat to Japan’s very existence,” and concluded the United States had provoked Japan.</p>
<p>On August 7th, four months before the attack, the Japan Times Advertiser wrote: “First there was the creation of a superbase at Singapore, heavily reinforced by British and Empire troops. From this hub a great wheel was built up and linked with American bases to form a great ring sweeping in a great area southwards and westwards from the Philippines through Malaya and Burma, with the link broken only in the Thailand peninsula. Now it is proposed to include the narrows in the encirclement, which proceeds to Rangoon.”</p>
<p>One cannot help being reminded here of Hillary Clinton’s <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6QA/ni0YAA/t.22q/RykAMHH0SpiNdql1xc6SUw/h8/oOrf4U-2FQJ-2Bbavx96gfibBuEPjGR4c2iQ7yjtndo3LIziabfrlpYN2gKfpMKLTTPGR2vhyEo83daGkET8fsiHHrH47OyRGbU1mvdQvV1bsOsZdm1KXGuUVi3cPTT5mOM8kaTvihF6tRxuPo50ltXqnXt9aku-2BYbNkp2Y2vQvvUYL1YncqFTS1te6S5B58NuzEe2anK0kVjn6C4mmqgETkXfaJTDk2wIla7lRNeqz0kiL4N4aVwHtwifrJhd-2BPMvle" type="external">comments</a> to Goldman Sachs bankers. Clinton claimed to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having “liberated it.” She went on to claim to have told them that “We discovered Japan for heaven’s sake.” And: “We have proof of having bought [Hawaii].”</p>
<p>By September 1941 the Japanese press was outraged that the United States had begun shipping oil right past Japan to reach Russia. Japan, its newspapers said, was dying a slow death from “economic war.”</p>
<p>What might the United States have been hoping to gain by shipping oil past a nation in desperate need of it?</p>
<p>In late October, U.S. spy Edgar Mower was doing work for Colonel William Donovan who spied for Roosevelt. Mower spoke with a man in Manila named Ernest Johnson, a member of the Maritime Commission, who said he expected “The Japs will take Manila before I can get out.” When Mower expressed surprise, Johnson replied “Didn’t you know the Jap fleet has moved eastward, presumably to attack our fleet at Pearl Harbor?”</p>
<p>On November 3, 1941, the U.S. ambassador tried again to get something through his government’s thick skull, sending a lengthy telegram to the State Department warning that the economic sanctions might force Japan to commit “national hara-kiri.” He wrote: “An armed conflict with the United States may come with dangerous and dramatic suddenness.”</p>
<p>Why do I keep recalling the headline of the memo given to President George W. Bush prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks? “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.” Apparently nobody in Washington wanted to hear it in 1941 either.</p>
<p>On November 15th, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as “the Marshall Plan.” In fact we don’t remember it at all. “We are preparing an offensive war against Japan,” Marshall said, asking the journalists to keep it a secret, which as far as I know they dutifully did.</p>
<p>Ten days later Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary that he’d met in the Oval Office with Marshall, President Roosevelt, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Admiral Harold Stark, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Roosevelt had told them the Japanese were likely to attack soon, possibly next Monday. It has been well documented that the United States had broken the Japanese’ codes and that Roosevelt had access to them. It was through intercept of a so-called Purple code message that Roosevelt had discovered Germany’s plans to invade Russia. It was Hull who leaked a Japanese intercept to the press, resulting in the November 30, 1941, headline “Japanese May Strike Over Weekend.”</p>
<p>That next Monday would have been December 1st, six days before the attack actually came. “The question,” Stimson wrote, “was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition.” Was it? One obvious answer was to keep the fleet in Pearl Harbor and keep the sailors stationed there in the dark while fretting about them from comfortable offices in Washington, D.C. In fact, that was the solution our suit-and-tied heroes went with.</p>
<p>The day after the attack, Congress voted for war. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin (R., Mont.), the first woman ever elected to Congress, and who had voted against World War I, stood alone in opposing World War II (just as Congresswoman Barbara Lee [D., Calif.] would stand alone against attacking Afghanistan 60 years later).</p>
<p>One year after the vote, on December 8, 1942, Rankin put extended remarks into the Congressional Record explaining her opposition. She cited the work of a British propagandist who had argued in 1938 for using Japan to bring the United States into the war. She cited Henry Luce’s reference in Life magazine on July 20, 1942, to “the Chinese for whom the U.S. had delivered the ultimatum that brought on Pearl Harbor.” She introduced evidence that at the Atlantic Conference on August 12, 1941, Roosevelt had assured Churchill that the United States would bring economic pressure to bear on Japan. “I cited,” Rankin later wrote, ” the State Department Bulletin of December 20, 1941, which revealed that on September 3 a communication had been sent to Japan demanding that it accept the principle of ‘nondisturbance of the status quo in the Pacific,’ which amounted to demanding guarantees of the inviolateness of the white empires in the Orient.”</p>
<p>Rankin found that the Economic Defense Board had gotten economic sanctions under way less than a week after the Atlantic Conference. On December 2, 1941, the New York Times had reported, in fact, that Japan had been “cut off from about 75 percent of her normal trade by the Allied blockade.” Rankin also cited the statement of Lieutenant Clarence E. Dickinson, U.S.N., in the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1942, that on November 28, 1941, nine days before the attack, Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., (he of the catchy slogan “Kill Japs! Kill Japs!”) had given instructions to him and others to “shoot down anything we saw in the sky and to bomb anything we saw on the sea.”</p>
<p>General George Marshall admitted as much to Congress in 1945: that the codes had been broken, that the United States had initiated Anglo-Dutch-American agreements for unified action against Japan and put them into effect before Pearl Harbor, and that the United States had provided officers of its military to China for combat duty before Pearl Harbor. It is hardly a secret that it takes two war powers to wage a war (unlike when one war power attacks an unarmed state) or that this case was no exception to that rule.</p>
<p>An October 1940 memorandum by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum was acted on by President Roosevelt and his chief subordinates. It called for eight actions that McCollum predicted would lead the Japanese to attack, including arranging for the use of British bases in Singapore and for the use of Dutch bases in what is now Indonesia, aiding the Chinese government, sending a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Philippines or Singapore, sending two divisions of submarines to “the Orient,” keeping the main strength of the fleet in Hawaii, insisting that the Dutch refuse the Japanese oil, and embargoing all trade with Japan in collaboration with the British Empire.</p>
<p>The day after McCollum’s memo, the State Department told Americans to evacuate far eastern nations, and Roosevelt ordered the fleet kept in Hawaii over the strenuous objection of Admiral James O. Richardson who quoted the President as saying “Sooner or later the Japanese would commit an overt act against the United States and the nation would be willing to enter the war.” The message that Admiral Harold Stark sent to Admiral Husband Kimmel on November 28, 1941, read, “IF HOSTILITIES CANNOT REPEAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED THE UNITED STATES DESIRES THAT JAPAN COMMIT THE FIRST OVERT ACT.” Joseph Rochefort, cofounder of the Navy’s communication intelligence section, who was instrumental in failing to communicate to Pearl Harbor what was coming, would later comment: “It was a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the country.”</p>
<p>The night after the attack, President Roosevelt had CBS News’s Edward R. Murrow and Roosevelt’s Coordinator of Information William Donovan over for dinner at the White House, and all the President wanted to know was whether the American people would now accept war. Donovan and Murrow assured him the people would indeed accept war now. Donovan later told his assistant that Roosevelt’s surprise was not that of others around him, and that he, Roosevelt, welcomed the attack. Murrow was unable to sleep that night and was plagued for the rest of his life by what he called “the biggest story of my life” which he never told, but which he did not need to. The next day, the President spoke of a day of infamy, the United States Congress declared the last Constitutional war in the history of the republic, and the President of the Federal Council of Churches, Dr. George A. Buttrick, became a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation committing to resist the war.</p>
<p>Why does it matter? Because the legend of Pearl Harbor, re-used on 9-11, is responsible not for the destructive pro-war policies of the 1920s and the 1930s that brought World War II into being, but responsible for the permanent war mentality of the past 75 years, as well as for how World War II was escalated, prolonged, and completed.</p>
<p>“Disturbed in 1942,” wrote Lawrence S. Wittner, “by rumors of Nazi extermination plans, Jessie Wallace Hughan worried that such a policy, which appeared ‘natural, from their pathological point of view,’ might be carried out if World War II continued. ‘It seems that the only way to save thousands and perhaps millions of European Jews from destruction,’ she wrote, ‘would be for our government to broadcast the promise’ of an ‘armistice on condition that the European minorities are not molested any further. . . . It would be very terrible if six months from now we should find that this threat has literally come to pass without our making even a gesture to prevent it.’ When her predictions were fulfilled only too well by 1943, she wrote to the State Department and the New York Times, decrying the fact that ‘two million [Jews] have already died’ and that ‘two million more will be killed by the end of the war.’ Once again she pleaded for the cessation of hostilities, arguing that German military defeats would in turn exact reprisals upon the Jewish scapegoat. ‘Victory will not save them,’ she insisted, ‘for dead men cannot be liberated.'”</p>
<p>Hitler killed millions of Germans, but the allies killed as many or more, Germans ordered into battle by Hitler or Germans in the wrong place when allied bombs fell. And, as Hughan pointed out at the time, the war drove the genocide, just as the vengeful settlement of the previous war a quarter century before had fueled the hostility, the scapegoating, and the rise of Hitlerism.</p>
<p>Out of the resistance to war by U.S. conscientious objectors would come, finally, the development of civil resistance to racial segregation in U.S. prisons that later spread to the nation outside the prisons as activists sought to duplicate their victories on a larger scale. But also out of that very worst thing our species has ever done to itself, World War II, would come the permanent military industrial complex. We would extend the power to vote to more and more Americans while, in the cruelest of jokes, transforming voting into an ever more meaningless enterprise. We would paint a fresh coat of glossy pretense on our democracy while hollowing it out from the inside, replacing it with a war machine the likes of which the planet had never seen and may not be able to survive.</p>
<p>The United States is indisputably the world’s most frequent and extensive wager of aggressive war, largest occupier of foreign lands, and biggest weapons dealer to the world. But when the United States peeps out from under the blankets where it lies shivering with fear, it sees itself as an innocent victim. It has no holiday to keep any victorious battle in everyone’s mind. It has a holiday to remember the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor—and now also one, perhaps holier still, to recall, not the “shock and awe” destruction of Baghdad, but the crimes of September 11, 2001, the “new Pearl Harbor.”</p>
<p>Similar to Israel, but with a variation, the United States is deeply obsessed with World War II, overlaid of course on a Southern obsession with the U.S. Civil War. The Southern U.S. love for the Civil War is love for a war lost, but also for victimhood and the righteousness of the vengeance wreaked on the world year after year by the U.S. military.</p>
<p>The U.S. love for World War II is also, fundamentally, love for a war lost. That may seem odd to say, because it is simultaneously very much love for a war won. World War II remains the U.S. model for potentially some day winning a war again, as it’s been losing them all over the world for the 71 years since World War II. But the U.S. view of WWII is also strangely similar to the Russian view.</p>
<p>Russia was brutally attacked by the Nazis, but persevered and won the war. The United States believes itself to have been “imminently” attacked by the Nazis. That, after all, was the propaganda that took the United States to war. There was not one word about rescuing Jews or anything half that noble. Rather, President Franklin Roosevelt claimed to have a map of the Nazis’ plans for carving up the Americas.</p>
<p>Hollywood has made relatively few movies and television shows about all other wars combined, in comparison with dramas about World War II, which may in fact be its most popular topic ever. We’re really not drowning in movies glorifying the theft of northern Mexico or the occupation of the Philippines. The Korean War gets little play. Even the Vietnam War and all the more recent wars fail to inspire U.S. storytellers like World War II, and some 90% of those stories relate to the war in Europe, not Asia.</p>
<p>The European story is much preferred because of the particular evils of the German enemy. That the U.S. prevented a peace without victor in World War I by crushing Germany, and then punished it viciously, and then aided the Nazis—all of that is far more easily forgotten than the nuclear bombs that the United States dropped on Japan. But it is the Japanese attack of December 7, 1941, together with the fantasized Nazi invasion, that persuades the U.S. public that waging war in Europe was defensive. So the history of the United States training Japan in imperialism and then antagonizing and provoking Japan must be forgotten as well.</p>
<p>Amazon.com, a corporation with a huge CIA contract, and whose owner also owns the Washington Post, has launched a television series called the Man in the High Castle. The story is set in the 1960s with the Nazis occupying three-quarters of the United States and the Japanese the rest. In this alternative universe, the ultimate redemption is found in Germany being the nation to have dropped nuclear bombs.</p>
<p>The Axis victors, and their aging leaders, have created and maintained an old-fashioned empire—not like U.S. bases in proxy states, but a full-blown occupation, like the United States in Iraq. It doesn’t really matter how implausible this sounds. It is the most plausible scenario that can embody the U.S. fantasy of someone else doing to it what it does to others. Thus U.S. crimes here in the real 2000s become “defensive,” as it is doing unto others before they can do unto it.</p>
<p>Nonviolent resistance does not exist in Season One Episode One of this soothing victim adventure, and apparently hasn’t for years at that point in the tale. But how could it? A force stoppable through nonviolence—even an imaginary one—cannot serve to justify the violence of the actual U.S. military. The German and Japanese occupiers have to be confrontable only through violence, even anachronistically in an age in which nonviolent techniques were known, in which the civil rights movement was resisting U.S. fascism to great effect.</p>
<p>“Before the war … every man was free,” says one of the attractive young white people who constitute all the heroes and some of the villains in this drama. Instead of race riots, McCarthyism, Vietnam, and the sterilizing and experimenting on the powerless that actually happened, this alternative United States includes the burning of Jews, the disabled, and the terminally ill. The contrast to the imagined pre-Nazi past in which “every man [but not woman?] was free” is stark. One almost wishes to make America great again.</p>
<p>Amazon also shows us Nazis behaving much like the actual United States behaves: torturing and murdering enemies. Rikers Island is a brutal prison in this TV show and in reality. In this fantasy, the symbols of U.S. and Nazi patriotism have been merged seamlessly. In reality, the U.S. military incorporated much Nazi thinking along with the many Nazis it recruited through Operation Paperclip—another way in which the U.S. actually lost WWII if we imagine victory as democracy defeating the sort of society in which someone like Donald Trump could thrive.</p>
<p>The United States today manages to view refugees from the wars it wages in distant lands as dangerous enemies, as new Nazis, just as leading U.S. politicians refer to foreign leaders as new Hitlers. With U.S. citizens shooting up public places on an almost daily basis, when one such killing is alleged to have been done by a Muslim, especially a Muslim with any sympathy for foreign fighters, well, then that’s not just a shooting. That means that the United States has been invaded. And that means that anything it does is “defensive.”</p>
<p>Does Venezuela elect leaders the U.S. disapproves of? That’s a threat to “national security”—a somewhat magical threat to invade and occupy the United States and compel it to torture and kill wearing a different flag. This paranoia doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes from programs like The Man in the High Castle.</p>
<p>Pearl Harbor mythologizing is not just a field for entertainment. Here’s a <a href="http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6QA/ni0YAA/t.22q/RykAMHH0SpiNdql1xc6SUw/h9/M4z3BhcYGaHOaEs3nD5QcSC6PqmKepQF4QWPc1S4G-2BPbEaeZpw37pvp-2Brf14MomUd5-2FwXs6XdkNY7IJ8fA0K8vRTm5YsY0jeTazxvDK3Xd-2BCXOtUOXfUvfGmvGIi-2FprA-2FHVqxoobJU-2BfT0Rny7HLD4dGNQdnEkAVpE6UW0DdaQM89zhCRBT9xtzKIRGldyGk41e3sLzRGVc-2BGr3sXvFfwr1DX7c0U-2B1BeSbDMMbtm3hfgCVPUXS0g-2BHpnWet-2BXkh5qGV7LlpLndhGb0MGHECNJ87zwHOHmNSJAifMKvSkwLhLIchDaYwn7aDv283ahTb" type="external">newspaper article</a>:</p>
<p>“Pearl Harbor and World War II brought us together as a nation. We believed we could not be beaten. And we prevailed. But why is Congress now so intent on destroying our feelings of patriotism and decimating our national defense? Many Congress members want to cut our national defense spending in an effort to compensate for their ineptness, for not fulfilling their responsibilities as our representatives and for catering to other groups and politicians for the sake of their pet (pork) projects and the next election. They forget (or don’t know) that their No. 1 priority is the defense of our country, and related to that, the protection of our veterans’ benefits. . . .</p>
<p>“Could the fact that America forgot about what happened at Pearl Harbor and let down its guard have helped allow the attacks of 9/11 to happen? And will this forgetfulness and ignorance stoke terrorists’ ambitions to expand their attacks? Because Congress’ ‘supercommittee’ failed to meet its deadline last month to identify $1.2 trillion in savings, spending cut triggers are now set to take effect in 2013, including $600 billion for defense. If Congress is allowed to cut the military budget, another attack becomes more likely.</p>
<p>“We must call the president, our congressional leaders, our two state senators and our representatives in the House to tell them to stop their foolishness, renew the military and Veterans Affairs budgets, and even increase them so that we may both strengthen our programs for research and development in order to remain the largest and best-equipped military in the world and to respect and honor our past veteran heroes.</p>
<p>“If we allow them to make defense cuts all in the name of getting out of Iraq, and eventually Afghanistan (which is probably a mistake, but that discussion will be for another day), there will be no more research funds to remain No. 1, no upgrades, no new tanks, planes, ships and drones, neither more nor better body armor and vehicles.”</p>
<p>Regardless of whether you believe the legend of Pearl Harbor, it is very difficult to deny that this is a different world. The United States does not just have the most expensive military in the world, but one the size of the rest of the world’s put together. The United States has bases or troops in most of the world’s other countries. The United States dominates the oceans and outer space. The United States has sliced the planet up into command zones. Congress is dumping over half of discretionary spending into the military. While they’ve roughly doubled this spending, both in real dollars and as a percentage of the federal budget since 9-11, the fact is that the nuclear arsenal and the empire of bases and all the endless spending had nothing to do with 9-11 other than serving to provoke it. Your newspaper is asking you to live in a dream world, and to destroy this one in the process.</p>
<p>No new tanks? No new planes? $600 billion sounds big, but over 10 years it’s $60 billion out of an annual “security” budget of a trillion—meaning 6%. All that’s required to turn that into an increase instead of a cut is to take it out of a “projected” budget that increases by more than 6%. If any actual cutting happens, you can rest assured our misrepresentatives will do everything in their power to take the money out of non-military areas, or at least to cut troop benefits rather than the sacred and profitable tanks and planes etc., almost none of which has anything to do with “defense.”</p>
<p>As we read Ulysses on Bloomsday every June 16th (or we should if we don’t) I think that every December 7th should not only commemorate the Great Law of 1682 that banned war in Pennsylvania but also mark Pearl Harbor, not by celebrating the state of permawar that has existed for 75 years, but by reading The Golden Age by Gore Vidal and marking with a certain Joycean irony the golden age of anti-isolationist imperial mass-killing that has encompassed the lives of every U.S. citizen under the age of 75.</p>
<p>Golden Age Day should include public readings of Vidal’s novel and the glowing endorsements of it by the Washington Post, New York Times Book Review, and every other corporate paper in the year 2000, also known as the year 1 BWT (before the war on terra). Not a single one of those newspapers has ever, to my knowledge, printed a serious straightforward analysis of how President Franklin D. Roosevelt maneuvered the United States into World War II. Yet Vidal’s novel—presented as fiction, yet resting entirely on documented facts—recounts the story with total honesty, and somehow the genre used or the author’s pedigree or his literary skill or the length of the book (too many pages for senior editors to be bothered with) grants him a license to tell the truth.</p>
<p>Sure, some people have read The Golden Age and protested its impropriety, but it remains a respectable high-brow volume. I may be hurting the cause by openly writing about its content. The trick, which I highly recommend to all, is to give or recommend the book to others without telling them what’s in it.</p>
<p>Despite a filmmaker being a main character in the book, it’s not been made into a film, as far as I know—but a widespread phenomenon of public readings could conceivably make that happen.</p>
<p>In The Golden Age, we follow along inside all the closed doors, as the British push for U.S. involvement in World War II, as President Roosevelt makes a commitment to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, as the warmongers manipulate the Republican convention to make sure that both parties nominate candidates in 1940 ready to campaign on peace while planning war, as FDR longs to run for an unprecedented third term as a wartime president but must content himself with beginning a draft and campaigning as a drafttime president in a time of supposed national danger, and as FDR works to provoke Japan into attacking on his desired schedule.</p>
<p>The echoes are eerie. Roosevelt campaigns on peace (“except in case of attack”), like Wilson, like Johnson, like Nixon, like Obama. Roosevelt, pre-election, puts in Henry Stimson as a war-eager Secretary of War not altogether unlike Donald Trump nominees.</p>
<p>World War II is often called “the good war,” and has been since the U.S. war on Vietnam to which it was then contrasted. World War II so dominates U.S. and therefore Western entertainment and education, that “good” often comes to mean something more than “just.”</p>
<p>The winner of the 2016 “Miss Italy” beauty pageant got herself into a bit of a scandal by declaring that she would have liked to live through World War II. While she was mocked, she was clearly not alone. Many would like to be part of something widely depicted as noble, heroic, and exciting. Should they actually find a time machine, I recommend they read the statements of some actual WWII veterans and survivors before they head back to join the fun.</p>
<p>No matter how many years one writes books, does interviews, publishes columns, and speaks at events, it remains virtually impossible to make it out the door of an event in the United States at which you’ve advocated abolishing war without somebody hitting you with the what-about-the-good-war question. This belief that there was a good war 75 years ago is a large part of what moves the U.S. public to tolerate dumping a trillion dollars a year into preparing in case there’s a good war next year, even in the face of so many dozens of wars during the past 71 years on which there’s general consensus that they were not good. Without rich, well-established myths about World War II, current propaganda about Russia or Syria or Iraq or China would sound as crazy to most people as it sounds to me. And of course the funding generated by the Good War legend leads to more bad wars, rather than preventing them. I’ve written on this topic at great length in many articles and books, especially War Is A Lie. But I’ll offer here a few key points that ought to at least place a few seeds of doubt in the minds of most U.S. supporters of WWII as a Just War.</p>
<p>World War II could not have happened without World War I, without the stupid manner of starting World War I and the even stupider manner of ending World War I which led numerous wise people to predict World War II on the spot, or without Wall Street’s funding of Nazi Germany for decades (as preferable to communists), or without the arms race and numerous bad decisions that do not need to be repeated in the future.</p>
<p>The war was not humanitarian and was not even marketed as such until after it was over. There was no poster asking you to help Uncle Sam save the Jews. A ship of Jewish refugees from Germany was chased away from Miami by the Coast Guard. The U.S. and other nations refused to accept Jewish refugees, and the majority of the U.S. public supported that position. Peace groups that questioned Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his foreign secretary about shipping Jews out of Germany to save them were told that, while Hitler might very well agree to the plan, it would be too much trouble and require too many ships. The U.S. engaged in no diplomatic or military effort to save the victims in the Nazi concentration camps. Anne Frank was denied a U.S. visa.</p>
<p>Although this point has nothing to do with a serious historian’s case for WWII as a Just War, it is so central to U.S. mythology that I’ll include here a key passage from Nicholson Baker:</p>
<p>“Anthony Eden, Britain’s foreign secretary, who’d been tasked by Churchill with handling queries about refugees, dealt coldly with one of many important delegations, saying that any diplomatic effort to obtain the release of the Jews from Hitler was ‘fantastically impossible.’ On a trip to the United States, Eden candidly told Cordell Hull, the secretary of state, that the real difficulty with asking Hitler for the Jews was that ‘Hitler might well take us up on any such offer, and there simply are not enough ships and means of transportation in the world to handle them.’ Churchill agreed. ‘Even were we to obtain permission to withdraw all the Jews,’ he wrote in reply to one pleading letter, ‘transport alone presents a problem which will be difficult of solution.’ Not enough shipping and transport? Two years earlier, the British had evacuated nearly 340,000 men from the beaches of Dunkirk in just nine days. The U.S. Air Force had many thousands of new planes. During even a brief armistice, the Allies could have airlifted and transported refugees in very large numbers out of the German sphere.”</p>
<p>The “good” side of the war simply did not give a damn about what would become the central example of the badness of the “bad” side of the war.</p>
<p>The war was not defensive. A case can be made that the U.S. needed to enter the war in Europe to defend other nations, which had entered to defend yet other nations, but a case could also be made that the U.S. escalated the targeting of civilians, extended the war, and inflicted more damage than might have occurred, had the U.S. done nothing, attempted diplomacy, or invested in nonviolence. To claim that a Nazi empire could have grown to someday include an occupation of the United States is wildly far-fetched and not borne out by any earlier or later examples from other wars.</p>
<p>We now know much more widely and with much more data that nonviolent resistance to occupation and injustice is more likely to succeed—and that success more likely to last—than violent resistance. With this knowledge, we can look back at the stunning successes of nonviolent actions against the Nazis that were not well organized or built on beyond their initial successes.</p>
<p>The Good War was not good for the troops. Lacking intense modern training and psychological conditioning to prepare soldiers to engage in the unnatural act of murder, some 80 percent of U.S. and other troops in World War II did not fire their weapons at “the enemy.” The fact that veterans of WWII were treated better after the war than other soldiers before or since, was the result of the pressure created by the Bonus Army after the previous war. That veterans were given free college, healthcare, and pensions was not due to the merits of the war or in some way a result of the war. Without the war, everyone could have been given free college for many years. If we provided free college to everyone today, it would then require much more than Hollywoodized World War II stories to get many people into military recruiting stations.</p>
<p>Several times the number of people killed in German camps were killed outside of them in the war. The majority of those people were civilians. The scale of the killing, wounding, and destroying made WWII the single worst thing humanity has ever done to itself in a short space of time. We imagine the allies were somehow “opposed” to the far lesser killing in the camps. But that can’t justify the cure that was worse than the disease.</p>
<p>Escalating the war to include the all-out destruction of civilians and cities, culminating in the completely indefensible nuking of cities took WWII out of the realm of defensible projects for many who had defended its initiation. Demanding unconditional surrender and seeking to maximize death and suffering did immense damage and left a grim and foreboding legacy.</p>
<p>Killing huge numbers of people is supposedly defensible for the “good” side in a war, but not for the “bad” side. The distinction between the two is never as stark as fantasized. The United States had a long history as an apartheid state. U.S. traditions of oppressing African Americans, practicing genocide against Native Americans, and now interning Japanese Americans also gave rise to specific programs that inspired Germany’s Nazis—these included camps for Native Americans, and programs of eugenics and human experimentation that existed before, during, and after the war.</p>
<p>One of these programs included giving syphilis to people in Guatemala at the same time the Nuremberg trials were taking place. The U.S. military hired hundreds of top Nazis at the end of the war; they fit right in. The U.S. aimed for a wider world empire, before the war, during it, and ever since. German neo- Nazis today, forbidden to wave the Nazi flag, sometimes wave the flag of the Confederate States of America instead.</p>
<p>The “good” side of the “good war,” the party that did most of the killing and dying for the winning side, was the communist Soviet Union. That doesn’t make the war a triumph for communism, but it does tarnish Washington’s and Hollywood’s tales of triumph for “democracy.”</p>
<p>World War II still hasn’t ended. Ordinary people in the United States didn’t have their incomes taxed until World War II and that’s never stopped. It was supposed to be temporary. WWII-era bases built around the world have never closed. U.S. troops have never left Germany or Japan. There are more than 100,000 U.S. and British bombs still in the ground in Germany, still killing.</p>
<p>Going back 75 years to a nuclear-free, colonial world of completely different structures, laws, and habits to justify what has been the greatest expense of the United States in each of the years since is a bizarre feat of self-deception that isn’t attempted in the justification of any lesser enterprise. Assume I’ve got everything else totally wrong, and you’ve still got to explain how an event from the early 1940s justifies dumping a trillion 2017 dollars into war funding that could have been spent to feed, clothe, cure, and shelter millions of people, and to environmentally protect the earth.</p>
<p>­This article was originally published at <a href="http://davidswanson.org/node/5367" type="external">DavidSwanson.org</a>.</p> | false | 1 | legend pearl harbor reused 911 responsible permanent war mentality past 75 years pearl harbor day today like columbus day 50 years ago say people still believe hype myths still maintained blissful unquestioned state new pearl harbors longed war makers claimed exploited yet original pearl harbor remains popular us argument things military including longdelayed remilitarization japannot mention wwii internment japanese americans model targeting groups today believers pearl harbor imagine mythical event contrast today greater us innocence purer victimhood higher contrast good evil total necessity defensive war making facts support mythology united states government need make japan junior partner imperialism need fuel arms race need support nazism fascism biggest us corporations right war need provoke japan need join war asia europe surprised attack pearl harbor support statements keep reading week im testifying iraq tribunal downing street minutes us thinking 20032008 period decadeslong war iraq somehow worse world war ii comes lies bad decisions levels death destruction comparison world war ii stands unchallenged worst thing humanity general us government particular well numerous governments ever done theres even parallel downing street minutes august 18 1941 prime minister winston churchill met cabinet 10 downing street meeting similarity july 23 2002 meeting address minutes became known downing street minutes meetings revealed secret us intentions go war 1941 meeting churchill told cabinet according minutes president said would wage war declare addition everything done force incident indeed everything done force incident incident pearl harbor may 2005 friends launched afterdowningstreetorg called warisacrimeorg promote awareness downing street minutes downing street memo related documents useful document released moment could important impact like every war ever launched anyone since least age openly blurting steal oil kill families 2003 stage iraq war launched basis lies still continued basis lies ought needed evidence illegal attack another country un charter kellogg briand pact arguably hague convention 1899 case afghanistan two years earlier un specifically rejected war launching war illegal immoral matter weapons may nation attacked matter crimes nation committed launching total assault civilians supposedly shock awe illegal even understanding lawyers ignore illegality war morally one worst things ever done practically never worked even accepted weapons iraq iraqi crimes could justify war evidence clear lies iraqi government opposed group supposedly collaborated 1995 saddam husseins soninlaw informed us british biological chemical missile nuclear weapons destroyed direct supervision un inspectors left iraq 1998 lead inspector said theyd come conclusion 1999 primary debate new hampshire bush said hed take saddam hussein im surprised hes still said 2001 condoleezza rice colin powell others bush administration telling media saddam hussein weapons transparently switched views command downing street minutes came may 1 2005 jumped new information evidence could use persuade others make case court congress minutes meeting prime minister tony blairs office july 23 2002 head socalled intelligence back washington reported summarized minutes military action seen inevitable bush wanted remove saddam military action justified conjunction terrorism wmd intelligence facts fixed around policy documented extensive detail white house war schemers collaborators forged documents solicited desired claims rejected experts relied noncredible witnesses fed fake evidence complicit socalled journalists tortured desired statements victims theyd kidnapped bush concocted harebrained schemes start war publicly claimed trying avoid see example white house memo fact british informed war inevitable july 23 2002 ought big story may 2005 worked hard make pressuring resistant corporate media claimed either couldnt verify memo clearly authentic even disputed arguing revealed old news even though brand new anyone informed media outlets made big news public protests reenactments lobbies media outlets floods letters editors wide variety creative actions advantage democrats congress minority many claiming would take actions end war given majority key congress members supporting efforts believe turned many encouraging claims lies shrinking rather enlarging intensifying movement january 2007 diane sawyer asked bush made claims iraqs supposed weapons mass destruction replied whats difference perhaps little weve eight years president launches wars without bothering lie congress perhaps much showed power resist lies syria 2013 decade activism war iraq backed congress away supporting new war make answer matter tell story properly half united states still doesnt know biggest lie believed many americans iraq benefitted us suffered second part true war destroyed iraq toward correcting false belief submit evidence paper wrote three years ago called iraq war among worlds worst events biggest fear drone wars proxy wars secretive wars continue launched without preceded public campaigns lying even worse wars launched honest proclamations somebodys oil needs stolen population needs slaughteredand wont resist succeed stopping crimes one best tools struggle awareness every lie used support every past war must increase awareness every opportunity importantly must dismantle myths pearl harbor many japanese better able recognize governments crimes crimes pearl harbor well crime pearl harbor united states almost entirely blind role us side pearl harbor roots germany nazi germany actually tend overlook sometimes could existed waged war without support decades past ongoing war us corporations like gm ford ibm itt us corporate interests preferred nazi germany communist soviet union happy see two nations peoples slaughter favored united states entering ohsogoodandnecessary world war ii side england us government made profitable us delayed dday years germany bled russia dry within hours germanys defeat churchill proposed new war russia using german troops churchills fervent hope years us entry war japan would attack united states would permit united states legally politically fully enter world war ii europe president wanted opposed merely providing weaponry assisting targeting submarines december 7 1941 president franklin delano roosevelt drew declaration war japan germany decided wouldnt work went japan alone germany quickly declared war united states possibly hopes japan would declare war soviet union getting war new idea roosevelt white house fdr tried lying us public us ships including greer kerny helping british planes track german submarines roosevelt pretended innocently attacked roosevelt also lied possession secret nazi map planning conquest south america well secret nazi plan replacing religions nazism map quality karl roves proof iraq buying uranium niger yet people united states didnt buy idea going another war pearl harbor point roosevelt already instituted draft activated national guard created huge navy two oceans traded old destroyers england exchange lease bases caribbean bermuda 11 days unexpected attack five days fdr expected secretly ordered creation henry field list every japanese japaneseamerican person united states april 28 1941 churchill wrote secret directive war cabinet may taken almost certain entry japan war would followed immediate entry united states side may 11 1941 robert menzies prime minister australia met roosevelt found little jealous churchills place center war roosevelts cabinet wanted united states enter war menzies found roosevelt trained woodrow wilson last war waits incident would one blow get usa war get r foolish election pledges keep war august 18 1941 churchill held meeting cabinet 10 downing street incident forced japan certainly averse attacking others busy creating asian empire united states japan certainly living harmonious friendship could bring japanese attack president franklin roosevelt visited pearl harbor july 28 1934 seven years japanese attack japanese military expressed apprehension general kunishiga tanaka wrote japan advertiser objecting buildup american fleet creation additional bases alaska aleutian islands insolent behavior makes us suspicious makes us think major disturbance purposely encouraged pacific greatly regretted whether actually regretted separate question whether typical predictable response military expansionism even done name defense great unembedded would today call journalist george seldes suspicious well october 1934 wrote harpers magazine axiom nations arm war war seldes asked official navy league accept naval axiom prepare fight specific navy man replied yes contemplate fight british navy absolutely contemplate war japan yes 1935 decorated us marine history time brigadier general smedley butler published enormous success short book called war racket saw perfectly well coming warned nation session congress question naval appropriations comes swivelchair admirals dont shout need lots battleships war nation nation oh first let known america menaced great naval power almost day admirals tell great fleet supposed enemy strike suddenly annihilate 125000000 people like begin cry larger navy fight enemy oh oh defense purposes incidentally announce maneuvers pacific defense uh huh pacific great big ocean tremendous coastline pacific maneuvers coast two three hundred miles oh maneuvers two thousand yes perhaps even thirtyfive hundred miles coast japanese proud people course pleased beyond expression see united states fleet close nippons shores even pleased would residents california dimly discern morning mist japanese fleet playing war games los angeles march 1935 roosevelt bestowed wake island us navy gave pan airways permit build runways wake island midway island guam japanese military commanders announced disturbed viewed runways threat peace activists united states next month roosevelt planned war games maneuvers near aleutian islands midway island following month peace activists marching new york advocating friendship japan norman thomas wrote 1935 man mars saw men suffered last war frantically preparing next war know worse would come conclusion looking denizens lunatic asylum us navy spent next years working plans war japan march 8 1939 version described offensive war long duration would destroy military disrupt economic life japan january 1941 eleven months attack japan advertiser expressed outrage pearl harbor editorial us ambassador japan wrote diary lot talk around town effect japanese case break united states planning go surprise mass attack pearl harbor course informed government february 5 1941 rear admiral richmond kelly turner wrote secretary war henry stimson warn possibility surprise attack pearl harbor early 1932 united states talking china providing airplanes pilots training war japan november 1940 roosevelt loaned china one hundred million dollars war japan consulting british us secretary treasury henry morgenthau made plans send chinese bombers us crews use bombing tokyo japanese cities december 21 1940 two weeks shy year japanese attack pearl harbor chinas minister finance tv soong colonel claire chennault retired us army flier working chinese urging use american pilots bomb tokyo since least 1937 met henry morgenthaus dining room plan firebombing japan morgenthau said could get men released duty us army air corps chinese could pay 1000 per month soong agreed may 24 1941 new york times reported us training chinese air force provision numerous fighting bombing planes china united states bombing japanese cities expected read subheadline july joint armynavy board approved plan called jb 355 firebomb japan front corporation would buy american planes flown american volunteers trained chennault paid another front group roosevelt approved china expert lauchlin currie words nicholson baker wired madame chaing kaishek claire chennault letter fairly begged interception japanese spies whether entire point letter happy able report today president directed sixtysix bombers made available china year twentyfour delivered immediately also approved chinese pilot training program details normal channels warm regards us ambassador said case break united states japanese would bomb pearl harbor wonder qualified 1st american volunteer group avg chinese air force also known flying tigers moved ahead recruitment training immediately provided china prior pearl harbor first saw combat december 20 1941 twelve days local time japanese attacked pearl harbor may 31 1941 keep america war congress william henry chamberlin gave dire warning total economic boycott japan stoppage oil shipments instance would push japan arms axis economic war would prelude naval military war worst thing peace advocates many times turn right july 24 1941 president roosevelt remarked cut oil japanese probably would gone dutch east indies year ago would war essential selfish point view defense prevent war starting south pacific foreign policy trying stop war breaking reporters noticed roosevelt said rather next day roosevelt issued executive order freezing japanese assets united states britain cut oil scrap metal japan radhabinod pal indian jurist served war crimes tribunal war called embargoes clear potent threat japans existence concluded united states provoked japan august 7th four months attack japan times advertiser wrote first creation superbase singapore heavily reinforced british empire troops hub great wheel built linked american bases form great ring sweeping great area southwards westwards philippines malaya burma link broken thailand peninsula proposed include narrows encirclement proceeds rangoon one help reminded hillary clintons comments goldman sachs bankers clinton claimed told chinese united states could claim ownership entire pacific result liberated went claim told discovered japan heavens sake proof bought hawaii september 1941 japanese press outraged united states begun shipping oil right past japan reach russia japan newspapers said dying slow death economic war might united states hoping gain shipping oil past nation desperate need late october us spy edgar mower work colonel william donovan spied roosevelt mower spoke man manila named ernest johnson member maritime commission said expected japs take manila get mower expressed surprise johnson replied didnt know jap fleet moved eastward presumably attack fleet pearl harbor november 3 1941 us ambassador tried get something governments thick skull sending lengthy telegram state department warning economic sanctions might force japan commit national harakiri wrote armed conflict united states may come dangerous dramatic suddenness keep recalling headline memo given president george w bush prior september 11 2001 attacks bin laden determined strike us apparently nobody washington wanted hear 1941 either november 15th army chief staff george marshall briefed media something remember marshall plan fact dont remember preparing offensive war japan marshall said asking journalists keep secret far know dutifully ten days later secretary war henry stimson wrote diary hed met oval office marshall president roosevelt secretary navy frank knox admiral harold stark secretary state cordell hull roosevelt told japanese likely attack soon possibly next monday well documented united states broken japanese codes roosevelt access intercept socalled purple code message roosevelt discovered germanys plans invade russia hull leaked japanese intercept press resulting november 30 1941 headline japanese may strike weekend next monday would december 1st six days attack actually came question stimson wrote maneuver position firing first shot without allowing much danger difficult proposition one obvious answer keep fleet pearl harbor keep sailors stationed dark fretting comfortable offices washington dc fact solution suitandtied heroes went day attack congress voted war congresswoman jeannette rankin r mont first woman ever elected congress voted world war stood alone opposing world war ii congresswoman barbara lee calif would stand alone attacking afghanistan 60 years later one year vote december 8 1942 rankin put extended remarks congressional record explaining opposition cited work british propagandist argued 1938 using japan bring united states war cited henry luces reference life magazine july 20 1942 chinese us delivered ultimatum brought pearl harbor introduced evidence atlantic conference august 12 1941 roosevelt assured churchill united states would bring economic pressure bear japan cited rankin later wrote state department bulletin december 20 1941 revealed september 3 communication sent japan demanding accept principle nondisturbance status quo pacific amounted demanding guarantees inviolateness white empires orient rankin found economic defense board gotten economic sanctions way less week atlantic conference december 2 1941 new york times reported fact japan cut 75 percent normal trade allied blockade rankin also cited statement lieutenant clarence e dickinson usn saturday evening post october 10 1942 november 28 1941 nine days attack vice admiral william f halsey jr catchy slogan kill japs kill japs given instructions others shoot anything saw sky bomb anything saw sea general george marshall admitted much congress 1945 codes broken united states initiated anglodutchamerican agreements unified action japan put effect pearl harbor united states provided officers military china combat duty pearl harbor hardly secret takes two war powers wage war unlike one war power attacks unarmed state case exception rule october 1940 memorandum lieutenant commander arthur h mccollum acted president roosevelt chief subordinates called eight actions mccollum predicted would lead japanese attack including arranging use british bases singapore use dutch bases indonesia aiding chinese government sending division longrange heavy cruisers philippines singapore sending two divisions submarines orient keeping main strength fleet hawaii insisting dutch refuse japanese oil embargoing trade japan collaboration british empire day mccollums memo state department told americans evacuate far eastern nations roosevelt ordered fleet kept hawaii strenuous objection admiral james richardson quoted president saying sooner later japanese would commit overt act united states nation would willing enter war message admiral harold stark sent admiral husband kimmel november 28 1941 read hostilities repeat avoided united states desires japan commit first overt act joseph rochefort cofounder navys communication intelligence section instrumental failing communicate pearl harbor coming would later comment pretty cheap price pay unifying country night attack president roosevelt cbs newss edward r murrow roosevelts coordinator information william donovan dinner white house president wanted know whether american people would accept war donovan murrow assured people would indeed accept war donovan later told assistant roosevelts surprise others around roosevelt welcomed attack murrow unable sleep night plagued rest life called biggest story life never told need next day president spoke day infamy united states congress declared last constitutional war history republic president federal council churches dr george buttrick became member fellowship reconciliation committing resist war matter legend pearl harbor reused 911 responsible destructive prowar policies 1920s 1930s brought world war ii responsible permanent war mentality past 75 years well world war ii escalated prolonged completed disturbed 1942 wrote lawrence wittner rumors nazi extermination plans jessie wallace hughan worried policy appeared natural pathological point view might carried world war ii continued seems way save thousands perhaps millions european jews destruction wrote would government broadcast promise armistice condition european minorities molested would terrible six months find threat literally come pass without making even gesture prevent predictions fulfilled well 1943 wrote state department new york times decrying fact two million jews already died two million killed end war pleaded cessation hostilities arguing german military defeats would turn exact reprisals upon jewish scapegoat victory save insisted dead men liberated hitler killed millions germans allies killed many germans ordered battle hitler germans wrong place allied bombs fell hughan pointed time war drove genocide vengeful settlement previous war quarter century fueled hostility scapegoating rise hitlerism resistance war us conscientious objectors would come finally development civil resistance racial segregation us prisons later spread nation outside prisons activists sought duplicate victories larger scale also worst thing species ever done world war ii would come permanent military industrial complex would extend power vote americans cruelest jokes transforming voting ever meaningless enterprise would paint fresh coat glossy pretense democracy hollowing inside replacing war machine likes planet never seen may able survive united states indisputably worlds frequent extensive wager aggressive war largest occupier foreign lands biggest weapons dealer world united states peeps blankets lies shivering fear sees innocent victim holiday keep victorious battle everyones mind holiday remember japanese attack pearl harborand also one perhaps holier still recall shock awe destruction baghdad crimes september 11 2001 new pearl harbor similar israel variation united states deeply obsessed world war ii overlaid course southern obsession us civil war southern us love civil war love war lost also victimhood righteousness vengeance wreaked world year year us military us love world war ii also fundamentally love war lost may seem odd say simultaneously much love war world war ii remains us model potentially day winning war losing world 71 years since world war ii us view wwii also strangely similar russian view russia brutally attacked nazis persevered war united states believes imminently attacked nazis propaganda took united states war one word rescuing jews anything half noble rather president franklin roosevelt claimed map nazis plans carving americas hollywood made relatively movies television shows wars combined comparison dramas world war ii may fact popular topic ever really drowning movies glorifying theft northern mexico occupation philippines korean war gets little play even vietnam war recent wars fail inspire us storytellers like world war ii 90 stories relate war europe asia european story much preferred particular evils german enemy us prevented peace without victor world war crushing germany punished viciously aided nazisall far easily forgotten nuclear bombs united states dropped japan japanese attack december 7 1941 together fantasized nazi invasion persuades us public waging war europe defensive history united states training japan imperialism antagonizing provoking japan must forgotten well amazoncom corporation huge cia contract whose owner also owns washington post launched television series called man high castle story set 1960s nazis occupying threequarters united states japanese rest alternative universe ultimate redemption found germany nation dropped nuclear bombs axis victors aging leaders created maintained oldfashioned empirenot like us bases proxy states fullblown occupation like united states iraq doesnt really matter implausible sounds plausible scenario embody us fantasy someone else others thus us crimes real 2000s become defensive unto others unto nonviolent resistance exist season one episode one soothing victim adventure apparently hasnt years point tale could force stoppable nonviolenceeven imaginary onecannot serve justify violence actual us military german japanese occupiers confrontable violence even anachronistically age nonviolent techniques known civil rights movement resisting us fascism great effect war every man free says one attractive young white people constitute heroes villains drama instead race riots mccarthyism vietnam sterilizing experimenting powerless actually happened alternative united states includes burning jews disabled terminally ill contrast imagined prenazi past every man woman free stark one almost wishes make america great amazon also shows us nazis behaving much like actual united states behaves torturing murdering enemies rikers island brutal prison tv show reality fantasy symbols us nazi patriotism merged seamlessly reality us military incorporated much nazi thinking along many nazis recruited operation paperclipanother way us actually lost wwii imagine victory democracy defeating sort society someone like donald trump could thrive united states today manages view refugees wars wages distant lands dangerous enemies new nazis leading us politicians refer foreign leaders new hitlers us citizens shooting public places almost daily basis one killing alleged done muslim especially muslim sympathy foreign fighters well thats shooting means united states invaded means anything defensive venezuela elect leaders us disapproves thats threat national securitya somewhat magical threat invade occupy united states compel torture kill wearing different flag paranoia doesnt come nowhere comes programs like man high castle pearl harbor mythologizing field entertainment heres newspaper article pearl harbor world war ii brought us together nation believed could beaten prevailed congress intent destroying feelings patriotism decimating national defense many congress members want cut national defense spending effort compensate ineptness fulfilling responsibilities representatives catering groups politicians sake pet pork projects next election forget dont know 1 priority defense country related protection veterans benefits could fact america forgot happened pearl harbor let guard helped allow attacks 911 happen forgetfulness ignorance stoke terrorists ambitions expand attacks congress supercommittee failed meet deadline last month identify 12 trillion savings spending cut triggers set take effect 2013 including 600 billion defense congress allowed cut military budget another attack becomes likely must call president congressional leaders two state senators representatives house tell stop foolishness renew military veterans affairs budgets even increase may strengthen programs research development order remain largest bestequipped military world respect honor past veteran heroes allow make defense cuts name getting iraq eventually afghanistan probably mistake discussion another day research funds remain 1 upgrades new tanks planes ships drones neither better body armor vehicles regardless whether believe legend pearl harbor difficult deny different world united states expensive military world one size rest worlds put together united states bases troops worlds countries united states dominates oceans outer space united states sliced planet command zones congress dumping half discretionary spending military theyve roughly doubled spending real dollars percentage federal budget since 911 fact nuclear arsenal empire bases endless spending nothing 911 serving provoke newspaper asking live dream world destroy one process new tanks new planes 600 billion sounds big 10 years 60 billion annual security budget trillionmeaning 6 thats required turn increase instead cut take projected budget increases 6 actual cutting happens rest assured misrepresentatives everything power take money nonmilitary areas least cut troop benefits rather sacred profitable tanks planes etc almost none anything defense read ulysses bloomsday every june 16th dont think every december 7th commemorate great law 1682 banned war pennsylvania also mark pearl harbor celebrating state permawar existed 75 years reading golden age gore vidal marking certain joycean irony golden age antiisolationist imperial masskilling encompassed lives every us citizen age 75 golden age day include public readings vidals novel glowing endorsements washington post new york times book review every corporate paper year 2000 also known year 1 bwt war terra single one newspapers ever knowledge printed serious straightforward analysis president franklin roosevelt maneuvered united states world war ii yet vidals novelpresented fiction yet resting entirely documented factsrecounts story total honesty somehow genre used authors pedigree literary skill length book many pages senior editors bothered grants license tell truth sure people read golden age protested impropriety remains respectable highbrow volume may hurting cause openly writing content trick highly recommend give recommend book others without telling whats despite filmmaker main character book made film far knowbut widespread phenomenon public readings could conceivably make happen golden age follow along inside closed doors british push us involvement world war ii president roosevelt makes commitment prime minister winston churchill warmongers manipulate republican convention make sure parties nominate candidates 1940 ready campaign peace planning war fdr longs run unprecedented third term wartime president must content beginning draft campaigning drafttime president time supposed national danger fdr works provoke japan attacking desired schedule echoes eerie roosevelt campaigns peace except case attack like wilson like johnson like nixon like obama roosevelt preelection puts henry stimson wareager secretary war altogether unlike donald trump nominees world war ii often called good war since us war vietnam contrasted world war ii dominates us therefore western entertainment education good often comes mean something winner 2016 miss italy beauty pageant got bit scandal declaring would liked live world war ii mocked clearly alone many would like part something widely depicted noble heroic exciting actually find time machine recommend read statements actual wwii veterans survivors head back join fun matter many years one writes books interviews publishes columns speaks events remains virtually impossible make door event united states youve advocated abolishing war without somebody hitting whataboutthegoodwar question belief good war 75 years ago large part moves us public tolerate dumping trillion dollars year preparing case theres good war next year even face many dozens wars past 71 years theres general consensus good without rich wellestablished myths world war ii current propaganda russia syria iraq china would sound crazy people sounds course funding generated good war legend leads bad wars rather preventing ive written topic great length many articles books especially war lie ill offer key points ought least place seeds doubt minds us supporters wwii war world war ii could happened without world war without stupid manner starting world war even stupider manner ending world war led numerous wise people predict world war ii spot without wall streets funding nazi germany decades preferable communists without arms race numerous bad decisions need repeated future war humanitarian even marketed poster asking help uncle sam save jews ship jewish refugees germany chased away miami coast guard us nations refused accept jewish refugees majority us public supported position peace groups questioned prime minister winston churchill foreign secretary shipping jews germany save told hitler might well agree plan would much trouble require many ships us engaged diplomatic military effort save victims nazi concentration camps anne frank denied us visa although point nothing serious historians case wwii war central us mythology ill include key passage nicholson baker anthony eden britains foreign secretary whod tasked churchill handling queries refugees dealt coldly one many important delegations saying diplomatic effort obtain release jews hitler fantastically impossible trip united states eden candidly told cordell hull secretary state real difficulty asking hitler jews hitler might well take us offer simply enough ships means transportation world handle churchill agreed even obtain permission withdraw jews wrote reply one pleading letter transport alone presents problem difficult solution enough shipping transport two years earlier british evacuated nearly 340000 men beaches dunkirk nine days us air force many thousands new planes even brief armistice allies could airlifted transported refugees large numbers german sphere good side war simply give damn would become central example badness bad side war war defensive case made us needed enter war europe defend nations entered defend yet nations case could also made us escalated targeting civilians extended war inflicted damage might occurred us done nothing attempted diplomacy invested nonviolence claim nazi empire could grown someday include occupation united states wildly farfetched borne earlier later examples wars know much widely much data nonviolent resistance occupation injustice likely succeedand success likely lastthan violent resistance knowledge look back stunning successes nonviolent actions nazis well organized built beyond initial successes good war good troops lacking intense modern training psychological conditioning prepare soldiers engage unnatural act murder 80 percent us troops world war ii fire weapons enemy fact veterans wwii treated better war soldiers since result pressure created bonus army previous war veterans given free college healthcare pensions due merits war way result war without war everyone could given free college many years provided free college everyone today would require much hollywoodized world war ii stories get many people military recruiting stations several times number people killed german camps killed outside war majority people civilians scale killing wounding destroying made wwii single worst thing humanity ever done short space time imagine allies somehow opposed far lesser killing camps cant justify cure worse disease escalating war include allout destruction civilians cities culminating completely indefensible nuking cities took wwii realm defensible projects many defended initiation demanding unconditional surrender seeking maximize death suffering immense damage left grim foreboding legacy killing huge numbers people supposedly defensible good side war bad side distinction two never stark fantasized united states long history apartheid state us traditions oppressing african americans practicing genocide native americans interning japanese americans also gave rise specific programs inspired germanys nazisthese included camps native americans programs eugenics human experimentation existed war one programs included giving syphilis people guatemala time nuremberg trials taking place us military hired hundreds top nazis end war fit right us aimed wider world empire war ever since german neo nazis today forbidden wave nazi flag sometimes wave flag confederate states america instead good side good war party killing dying winning side communist soviet union doesnt make war triumph communism tarnish washingtons hollywoods tales triumph democracy world war ii still hasnt ended ordinary people united states didnt incomes taxed world war ii thats never stopped supposed temporary wwiiera bases built around world never closed us troops never left germany japan 100000 us british bombs still ground germany still killing going back 75 years nuclearfree colonial world completely different structures laws habits justify greatest expense united states years since bizarre feat selfdeception isnt attempted justification lesser enterprise assume ive got everything else totally wrong youve still got explain event early 1940s justifies dumping trillion 2017 dollars war funding could spent feed clothe cure shelter millions people environmentally protect earth article originally published davidswansonorg | 5,054 |
<p>The Schengen agreement is based on a “utopian principle” of Europe without internal borders should be revisited, says Jacques Myard, the mayor of a Parisian suburb. He cites the migrant crisis and the increased threat of terrorism as reasons why it should be reconsidered.</p>
<p>“It is very true that today not only the Schengen but many [other] aspects of the European construction are not functioning properly,” Myard, the Mayor of Maisons-Laffitte, a suburb north west of Paris and Republican party politician told RT.</p>
<p>Read more</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/uk/400397-free-movement-terrorism-farage/" type="external" /></p>
<p>“Schengen is an opportunity to improve control of our frontiers. Unfortunately, we should restore the internal control at our borders to prevent people to smuggle in. This is why I do believe that the Schengen agreement should be revisited on a more realistic basis than this utopian principle of having a free zone without any control at the internal borders.”</p>
<p>“Even France because of the terrorist attacks has restored very quick control at our borders, especially in the airports and also at land borders,” he noted, adding that the “Schengen dream” of a Europe without borders is becoming a “thing of the past.”</p>
<p>The free movement across internal European borders has also been criticized by Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage. He argued that it allows terrorists to easily cross international borders and commit mass murder. “The free movement of people also means the free movement of terrorists,” he said last week.</p>
<p>Despite the work of agencies such as Interpol, which links police forces in 190 countries, and Europol, which combines EU police, terrorists are moving freely across the bloc, Farage said.</p>
<p>Terrorist atrocities over the last two years across Europe seem to prove that.</p>
<p>One of the Brussels suicide bombers, Ibrahi Bakraoui, traveled widely throughout Europe before detonating an explosive vest at Brussels Airport in Zaventem on March 22, 2016. The spate of bombings that day killed 32 civilians and injured more than 300 people.</p>
<p>Bakraoui was a Belgian national of Moroccan descent. He was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/23/belgium-awkward-questions-bombers-links-to-paris-terror-cell" type="external">flagged</a> and briefly detained in Turkey in June 2015 after Turkish security forces suspected him to be a potential foreign fighter who wanted to travel to Syria. Prior to Bakraoui’s release, Turkey contacted the Belgian authorities to warn Brussels of Bakraoui’s potential terrorist links.</p>
<p>The terrorist was then deported to the Netherlands, since Belgium did not request an extradition from Ankara. After failing to establish Bakraoui’s links to terrorist groups, the man was released and traveled freely through the EU’s borders before blowing himself up in March of 2016.</p>
<p>The perpetrators of the Brussel’s bombing attacks were directly linked to the well-coordinated 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, which killed 130 people and injured over 360 more. The main suspect in the attacks, Salah Abdeslam, drove cell members to target locations. Despite being questioned by police for possible terrorist links prior to the atrocities, Abdeslam was able to <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/salah-abdeslam-did-paris-terror-suspect-run-away-in-disgust-or-is-this-just-camouflage-a6780201.html" type="external">travel</a> to six countries just nine months prior to the attacks to ferry individuals who would take part in the subsequent atrocities.</p>
<p>Weak border control systems has also helped Anis Amri to stage the December 2016 Christmas market attack in Berlin which killed 12 people.German authorities classified the failed Tunisian asylum seeker as a potential threat to the public in February 2016. However, their failure to gather evidence against Amri resulted in him traveling freely. Amri, who rammed an industrial lorry into a festive market crowd, managed to escape Germany into France and then Italy, where he was eventually <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/371401-berlin-attacker-killed-italy/" type="external">killed</a> in a shootout with Italian police in Milan on December 23.</p>
<p>At least one of Catalonia terror cell members also found no difficulty crossing borders. Imam Abdelbaki Es Satty is alleged to have radicalized the group of men who carried out the attacks on 17-18 August, which killed 16 people and injured at least 130 others. He was sacked from a Belgian mosque for his radical beliefs in 2016, but <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/barcelona-attack-imam-who-helped-isis-cell-was-sacked-belgian-mosque-2016-653247" type="external">continued</a> to travel regularly to Belgium from Ripoll, Spain.</p>
<p>Read more</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/op-edge/400880-eu-migration-fbi-terrorism/" type="external" /></p>
<p>To tackle the problem, the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, recently suggested establishing a domestic intelligence service similar to America’s FBI to fight terrorism. The idea is for member states to boost cooperation.</p>
<p>Former British intelligence officer Annie Machon, told RT that a new “FBI for the EU” won’t solve the migrant problem, calling it nothing but “another EU vanity project.”</p>
<p>“It sounds like another step toward federalized Europe,” Machon said last week. “To create a European-wide FBI would have immense problems. To get the intelligence agencies of the 28 countries in the EU, to cooperate, to share fully, to work together would be incredibly difficult not because of history and not least because of trust issues in terms of which organization is going to keep your secrets, which might leak them… But also in terms of the legal infrastructures in each country.</p>
<p>We have a mishmash across Europe: the Napoleonic legal Code or common law or other various types of legal infrastructure. So, to try and get one organization that has police powers widely across Europe – I think it would be incredibly difficult to make realistic,” the former MI5 intelligence officer said.</p>
<p>“There is always distrust between intelligence agencies. They want to keep their sources close to their chest. There are different approaches to how intelligence agencies work, different powers within each country about what precisely those intelligence agencies can do legally within their own country,” she said.</p>
<p>“So, trying to find a common standard is going to be incredibly difficult across the EU. We are looking at countries going from Ireland right across to Poland and Hungary. It is a vast spread of territory. It is a vast spread of history, and it is a vast spread of different legal systems. I can’t see how this can work. It sounds like another EU vanity project,” she concluded.</p> | false | 1 | schengen agreement based utopian principle europe without internal borders revisited says jacques myard mayor parisian suburb cites migrant crisis increased threat terrorism reasons reconsidered true today schengen many aspects european construction functioning properly myard mayor maisonslaffitte suburb north west paris republican party politician told rt read schengen opportunity improve control frontiers unfortunately restore internal control borders prevent people smuggle believe schengen agreement revisited realistic basis utopian principle free zone without control internal borders even france terrorist attacks restored quick control borders especially airports also land borders noted adding schengen dream europe without borders becoming thing past free movement across internal european borders also criticized former ukip leader nigel farage argued allows terrorists easily cross international borders commit mass murder free movement people also means free movement terrorists said last week despite work agencies interpol links police forces 190 countries europol combines eu police terrorists moving freely across bloc farage said terrorist atrocities last two years across europe seem prove one brussels suicide bombers ibrahi bakraoui traveled widely throughout europe detonating explosive vest brussels airport zaventem march 22 2016 spate bombings day killed 32 civilians injured 300 people bakraoui belgian national moroccan descent flagged briefly detained turkey june 2015 turkish security forces suspected potential foreign fighter wanted travel syria prior bakraouis release turkey contacted belgian authorities warn brussels bakraouis potential terrorist links terrorist deported netherlands since belgium request extradition ankara failing establish bakraouis links terrorist groups man released traveled freely eus borders blowing march 2016 perpetrators brussels bombing attacks directly linked wellcoordinated 2015 paris terrorist attacks killed 130 people injured 360 main suspect attacks salah abdeslam drove cell members target locations despite questioned police possible terrorist links prior atrocities abdeslam able travel six countries nine months prior attacks ferry individuals would take part subsequent atrocities weak border control systems also helped anis amri stage december 2016 christmas market attack berlin killed 12 peoplegerman authorities classified failed tunisian asylum seeker potential threat public february 2016 however failure gather evidence amri resulted traveling freely amri rammed industrial lorry festive market crowd managed escape germany france italy eventually killed shootout italian police milan december 23 least one catalonia terror cell members also found difficulty crossing borders imam abdelbaki es satty alleged radicalized group men carried attacks 1718 august killed 16 people injured least 130 others sacked belgian mosque radical beliefs 2016 continued travel regularly belgium ripoll spain read tackle problem president european parliament antonio tajani recently suggested establishing domestic intelligence service similar americas fbi fight terrorism idea member states boost cooperation former british intelligence officer annie machon told rt new fbi eu wont solve migrant problem calling nothing another eu vanity project sounds like another step toward federalized europe machon said last week create europeanwide fbi would immense problems get intelligence agencies 28 countries eu cooperate share fully work together would incredibly difficult history least trust issues terms organization going keep secrets might leak also terms legal infrastructures country mishmash across europe napoleonic legal code common law various types legal infrastructure try get one organization police powers widely across europe think would incredibly difficult make realistic former mi5 intelligence officer said always distrust intelligence agencies want keep sources close chest different approaches intelligence agencies work different powers within country precisely intelligence agencies legally within country said trying find common standard going incredibly difficult across eu looking countries going ireland right across poland hungary vast spread territory vast spread history vast spread different legal systems cant see work sounds like another eu vanity project concluded | 580 |
<p>Having directed several episodes of his own long-running TV vehicle “The Mentalist,” Aussie actor <a href="http://variety.com/t/simon-baker/" type="external">Simon Baker</a> makes a confident transition behind the camera to feature filmmaking with “ <a href="http://variety.com/t/breath/" type="external">Breath</a>,” the tale&#160;of two teens’ introduction to surfing under an older man’s tutelage. Baker&#160;also plays the adult lead, and co-wrote the screenplay adapted from celebrated Oz scribe Tim Winton’s 2008 novel (his 20th). Though not without its flaws, the movie has authenticity and resonance; there have been plenty of good surfing documentaries, but very few good dramas about the sport — a short list on which “Breath” instantly earns a prominent spot.</p>
<p>Winton himself provides lyrical voiceover narration in this flashback account of our main protagonist’s early teens in a small town near the western Australian coast (its time period rendered somewhat vaguer than the mid-’70s of the book). Bruce, aka “Pikelet” (Samson Coulter), is a 13-year-old from a stable home who dutifully attends school. That’s not the case for 14-year-old bestie Ivan, aka “Loonie” (Ben Spence), a wild child who appears to run loose, save when he’s being beaten by his awful father. (Pikelet’s more tolerant pa is played with gentle strength by Richard Roxburgh.)</p>
<p>The two boys are agog at their first glimpse of surfing: “Never had I seen something so beautiful, so pointless and elegant, as if dancing on water was the best thing a man could do,” the adult Bruce recalls. They start their first copycat attempts with cheap styrofoam “boards,” then save enough money to get amply banged-up, second-hand fiberglass ones. Their dedication gets noticed by Sando (Baker), an initially mysterious presence who one day gives them a ride in his truck and offers to let them stash their boards at his place just down the road — a huge logistical improvement since they’ve been laboriously hauling their gear to the beach every day on bicycles. They take Sando for just another hippie “surfie.” A first glimpse of his ramshackle home and willowy, not particularly friendly girlfriend Eva (Elizabeth Debicki) does little to alter that judgment.</p>
<p>But as Sando takes the boys under his wing, teaching them about the sea, about surfing technique and philosophy, they begin to realize they’ve lucked onto an extraordinary teacher. (At least Pikelet does — Loonie can scarcely feel or express gratitude for anything.) That’s even before they discover that their mentor is in fact a famous former pro surfer. What’s more, expat Yank Eva was a hotdogging ski champ, until she was sidelined by the serious knee injury that explains her usually foul mood.</p>
<p>Though he continues to attend school, even acquiring an ersatz girlfriend (Miranda Frangou), Pikelet grows ever more obsessed by this “hobby.” But, unlike Loonie, who seems fearless almost to the point of self-destructiveness, he’s wary of the increasingly dangerous, secret coves Santo introduces them to. It’s that perceived failure of nerve that temporarily gains Looney preferred treatment, leaving Pikelet behind — but not alone, as he soon forms a “Summer of ’42”-type bond with Eva, who’s also been left behind.</p>
<p>These later developments are well-handled, but don’t play as organically as the first hour of “Breath,”&#160;which is straightforward and simple in the best, purest sense. Part of the problem is that newcomer Coulter isn’t quite actor enough yet to convey the more complex emotions the script demands of him. (Spence, also presumably chosen as a &#160;natural surfer — both young thesps conspicuously toe their own boards — has an easier time playing a character who’s all externalized id.) Plus, the sexual initiation feels a tad formulaic in narrative terms, even if Winton labors a bit too hard to avoid cliche, introducing a kinky aspect to Eva’s neediness that perhaps introduces more grown-up mess than this story really needs.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, “Breath” ultimately comes snugly into port as a multi-planed rite-of-passage tale that reaches a satisfyingly poignant and quiet conclusion. Unlike many surfing movies, this one isn’t big on spectacular wave-riding or underwater shots (though Rick Rifici’s handling of both is expert). The emphasis, instead, is on physical and psychological credibility in line with the juvenile protagonists’ inexperience. Baker does a lot as an actor to put the whole enterprise across, creating a mentor whose wisdom and faintly paternal instincts are palpable, yet who’s also peevish enough to slough off any St. Surfer Dude halo thrust upon him.</p>
<p>Assembly is unshowy but surefooted, with Harry Gregson-Williams contributing an attractive original score.</p>
<p>Reviewed at Toronto Film Festival (Contemporary World Cinema), Sept. 14, 2017. Running time: 115 MIN.</p>
<p>(Australia) A Screen Australia, Great Southern Development Commission and Screen West &amp; Lottery West presentation in association with Autumn Prods. and Deluxe Australia of a Gran Via Prods., Windalong Prods. and See Pictures production.&#160;(International sales: Embankment Films, London.) Producers: Mark Johnson, Simon Baker, Jamie Hilton. Executive producers: Tom Williams, Dave Hansen, Johnny Mac, Laura Rister.</p>
<p>Director: Simon Baker. Screenplay: Gerard Lee, Baker, Tim Winton, based on the novel by Winton. Camera (color, HD): Marden Dean, Rick Rifici. Editor, Dany Cooper. Music, Harry Gregson-Williams.</p>
<p>Simon Baker, Samson Coulter, Ben Spence, Elizabeth Debicki, Richard Roxburgh, Rachael Blake, Miranda Frangou, Jacek Koman.</p> | false | 1 | directed several episodes longrunning tv vehicle mentalist aussie actor simon baker makes confident transition behind camera feature filmmaking breath tale160of two teens introduction surfing older mans tutelage baker160also plays adult lead cowrote screenplay adapted celebrated oz scribe tim wintons 2008 novel 20th though without flaws movie authenticity resonance plenty good surfing documentaries good dramas sport short list breath instantly earns prominent spot winton provides lyrical voiceover narration flashback account main protagonists early teens small town near western australian coast time period rendered somewhat vaguer mid70s book bruce aka pikelet samson coulter 13yearold stable home dutifully attends school thats case 14yearold bestie ivan aka loonie ben spence wild child appears run loose save hes beaten awful father pikelets tolerant pa played gentle strength richard roxburgh two boys agog first glimpse surfing never seen something beautiful pointless elegant dancing water best thing man could adult bruce recalls start first copycat attempts cheap styrofoam boards save enough money get amply bangedup secondhand fiberglass ones dedication gets noticed sando baker initially mysterious presence one day gives ride truck offers let stash boards place road huge logistical improvement since theyve laboriously hauling gear beach every day bicycles take sando another hippie surfie first glimpse ramshackle home willowy particularly friendly girlfriend eva elizabeth debicki little alter judgment sando takes boys wing teaching sea surfing technique philosophy begin realize theyve lucked onto extraordinary teacher least pikelet loonie scarcely feel express gratitude anything thats even discover mentor fact famous former pro surfer whats expat yank eva hotdogging ski champ sidelined serious knee injury explains usually foul mood though continues attend school even acquiring ersatz girlfriend miranda frangou pikelet grows ever obsessed hobby unlike loonie seems fearless almost point selfdestructiveness hes wary increasingly dangerous secret coves santo introduces perceived failure nerve temporarily gains looney preferred treatment leaving pikelet behind alone soon forms summer 42type bond eva whos also left behind later developments wellhandled dont play organically first hour breath160which straightforward simple best purest sense part problem newcomer coulter isnt quite actor enough yet convey complex emotions script demands spence also presumably chosen 160natural surfer young thesps conspicuously toe boards easier time playing character whos externalized id plus sexual initiation feels tad formulaic narrative terms even winton labors bit hard avoid cliche introducing kinky aspect evas neediness perhaps introduces grownup mess story really needs nevertheless breath ultimately comes snugly port multiplaned riteofpassage tale reaches satisfyingly poignant quiet conclusion unlike many surfing movies one isnt big spectacular waveriding underwater shots though rick rificis handling expert emphasis instead physical psychological credibility line juvenile protagonists inexperience baker lot actor put whole enterprise across creating mentor whose wisdom faintly paternal instincts palpable yet whos also peevish enough slough st surfer dude halo thrust upon assembly unshowy surefooted harry gregsonwilliams contributing attractive original score reviewed toronto film festival contemporary world cinema sept 14 2017 running time 115 min australia screen australia great southern development commission screen west amp lottery west presentation association autumn prods deluxe australia gran via prods windalong prods see pictures production160international sales embankment films london producers mark johnson simon baker jamie hilton executive producers tom williams dave hansen johnny mac laura rister director simon baker screenplay gerard lee baker tim winton based novel winton camera color hd marden dean rick rifici editor dany cooper music harry gregsonwilliams simon baker samson coulter ben spence elizabeth debicki richard roxburgh rachael blake miranda frangou jacek koman | 561 |
<p>In the course of only five months, President Obama has reached into his bag and pulled out a dazzling number of misleading rhetorical tricks.</p>
<p>Let's begin with his much-touted claim that his Administration is responsible for having “saved or created” at least 150,000 American jobs, even though we have shed well over a million jobs since Obama took office. Jesus may have turned water into wine — but even He did not claim to have turned job losses into job gains. That is the picture Obama is trying to portray. Of course, to place an empirical figure on the number of jobs Obama has “saved” is risible; if Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush had tried to get away with such a stunt, they would have been ridiculed and criticized mercilessly. Among the largely supine and compliant Obama press corps, however, the claim is reported as if it were written on tablets of stone.</p>
<p>Obama's “saved and created” claim is cousin to the contention by Obama that his Administration — you know, the one which would put an end to “phony accounting” — had identified $2 trillion in savings in his budget. It turns out, though, that $1.6 trillion of this amount qualifies as “savings” under the assumption that the surge in Iraq would have continued for 10 more years. The problem is that Obama made this savings claim despite having already declared that our combat mission in Iraq will end by August 31, 2010 — and despite the fact that the Status of Forces Agreement calls for all U.S. forces to be out of Iraq by December 2011.</p>
<p>The President assures us that his budget moves America “from an era of borrow and spend” to one of “save and invest.” He speaks about our responsibility to our children “to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay.” Yet according to the Congressional Budget Office, on Obama's watch the national debt will double in six years and nearly triple it in 10 years. (This year alone federal spending will top $4 trillion, which equals more than 28 percent of the GDP, a level exceeded only at the height of World War II; the deficit for this fiscal year is projected to be more than $1.8 trillion; and the deficit as a percentage of the GDP, which was less than 1.2 percent in 2007, will be almost 13 percent this year.)</p>
<p>President Obama claims, “What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running GM.” But as <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060502835.html" type="external">George Will has written</a>, this is a “president who, when not firing GM's CEO, purging its board of directors and picking new members, is designing new products (imposing fuel economy requirements that will control size, weight, passenger capacity and safety).”</p>
<p>Obama also insists he wants to “disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy meddling in the private sector.” I'm sure he does. But he is overseeing the greatest intrusion of the federal government into the private sector in our lifetime — and Obama &amp; Company seem to enjoy it quite a lot. Not satisfied with the federal government's unprecedented involvement in our financial and mortgage institutions and the American automobile industry, the President is now turning his sights to executive compensation and health care, which constitutes one-sixth of the American economy. Speaking of which: Mr. Obama has spoken about the need to control the “crushing cost of health care” as justification for a massive expansion of the government's role into that arena. Yet Obama's health care plan would impose crushing new costs. As my colleague <a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/diagnosis/an-ugly-menu" type="external">James Capretta has written</a>, Democrats “have promised to extend insurance subsidies to tens of millions of households, which will cost at least $1 trillion over the next decade.”</p>
<p>When it comes to his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, Obama has said, “I hope the Senate acts in a bipartisan fashion, as it has in confirming Judge Sotomayor twice before, and as swiftly as possible, so that she can take her seat on the court.” He added, “What I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past.” Yet when he served in the Senate, Obama voted against two extraordinarily qualified nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. And Obama engaged in what could fairly be described as political posturing and ideological brinksmanship in not only saying he would join a filibuster of Alito, but then in voting against cloture.</p>
<p>In his <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/21/obama_guantanamo_speech_transcript_96610.html" type="external">recent speech on terrorism</a>, Obama spoke about his concern for a “legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal.” Yet in the very same speech, Obama went on to say, “even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.” Obama, in other words, endorsed the idea of indefinite detention without trial.</p>
<p>The President continues to focus most of his outrage on a technique, waterboarding, that was stopped when he was still a state senator from Illinois. He prides himself on wanting to shut down Guantanamo Bay — even though the Supreme Court has ruled that habeas corpus rights extend to detainees being held there, meaning they are unlikely to receive any more rights if held in America than if they are held in Cuba. Under his leadership, the U.S. is continuing renditions, military commissions, and targeted killings of suspected al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And as <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2" type="external">Jack Goldsmith has written</a>, the Obama Justice Department has “filed a legal brief arguing that the president can detain indefinitely, without charge or trial, members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, ‘associated forces,' and those who ‘substantially support' these groups, no matter where in the world they are captured.” All of this from a man who says he believes “with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values” — values which once upon a time he thought were undermined by these practices.</p>
<p>Barack Obama promised to make transparency a hallmark of his presidency — yet his Administration has resolutely refused to declassify documents requested by former Vice President Cheney that speak to the efficacy of enhanced interrogation techniques (Obama, it should be emphasized, was quite willing to release previously classified memoranda on the techniques themselves).</p>
<p>Then there are the things that have almost been forgotten by now. Obama, during the campaign, said, “[Lobbyists] will not work in my White House” — even though he immediately allowed waivers for lobbyists. Having pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when he became president, Obama signed an omnibus spending bill containing 8,500 of them. Having made bi-partisanship a pillar of his campaign, Obama has so far governed in a more partisan fashion than any president in generations. Having claimed the capacity to “see all sides of an argument,” the president routinely constructs strawmen he can set ablaze. And having said “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past,” Obama spends an inordinate amount of time and energy doing just that (in one speech alone, he included more than two dozen critical comments, direct or implied, against the Bush Administration).</p>
<p>It is hardly unprecedented for a politician to rely on contradictory, misleading, and intellectually dishonest s tatements. But in only five months, Barack Obama — the man who campaigned on a new kind of politics, who ran on hope and against cynicism, and who insisted “words mean something” — has set a pace that is going to be hard to match, and hopefully hard to sustain.</p>
<p>“I have always had a sort of mania about words,” Malcolm Muggeridge said in a speech he delivered more than three decades ago. “Words can be polluted even more dramatically and drastically than rivers and land and sea. There has been a terrible destruction of words in our time.” It is an irony that Barack Obama, a politician as gifted in both the written and spoken word as we have seen in decades, has contributed to the cheapening of them.</p>
<p>— Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in&#160; Washington, D.C. He served in the Bush White House as director of the office of strategic initiatives.</p> | false | 1 | course five months president obama reached bag pulled dazzling number misleading rhetorical tricks lets begin muchtouted claim administration responsible saved created least 150000 american jobs even though shed well million jobs since obama took office jesus may turned water wine even claim turned job losses job gains picture obama trying portray course place empirical figure number jobs obama saved risible ronald reagan george w bush tried get away stunt would ridiculed criticized mercilessly among largely supine compliant obama press corps however claim reported written tablets stone obamas saved created claim cousin contention obama administration know one would put end phony accounting identified 2 trillion savings budget turns though 16 trillion amount qualifies savings assumption surge iraq would continued 10 years problem obama made savings claim despite already declared combat mission iraq end august 31 2010 despite fact status forces agreement calls us forces iraq december 2011 president assures us budget moves america era borrow spend one save invest speaks responsibility children ensure pass debt pay yet according congressional budget office obamas watch national debt double six years nearly triple 10 years year alone federal spending top 4 trillion equals 28 percent gdp level exceeded height world war ii deficit fiscal year projected 18 trillion deficit percentage gdp less 12 percent 2007 almost 13 percent year president obama claims interest running gm george written president firing gms ceo purging board directors picking new members designing new products imposing fuel economy requirements control size weight passenger capacity safety obama also insists wants disabuse people notion somehow enjoy meddling private sector im sure overseeing greatest intrusion federal government private sector lifetime obama amp company seem enjoy quite lot satisfied federal governments unprecedented involvement financial mortgage institutions american automobile industry president turning sights executive compensation health care constitutes onesixth american economy speaking mr obama spoken need control crushing cost health care justification massive expansion governments role arena yet obamas health care plan would impose crushing new costs colleague james capretta written democrats promised extend insurance subsidies tens millions households cost least 1 trillion next decade comes supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor obama said hope senate acts bipartisan fashion confirming judge sotomayor twice swiftly possible take seat court added hope avoid political posturing ideological brinksmanship bogged process congress past yet served senate obama voted two extraordinarily qualified nominees john roberts samuel alito obama engaged could fairly described political posturing ideological brinksmanship saying would join filibuster alito voting cloture recent speech terrorism obama spoke concern legitimate legal framework kind meaningful due process rights accused could stand appeal yet speech obama went say even process complete may number people prosecuted past crimes nonetheless pose threat security united states obama words endorsed idea indefinite detention without trial president continues focus outrage technique waterboarding stopped still state senator illinois prides wanting shut guantanamo bay even though supreme court ruled habeas corpus rights extend detainees held meaning unlikely receive rights held america held cuba leadership us continuing renditions military commissions targeted killings suspected al qaeda targets afghanistan pakistan jack goldsmith written obama justice department filed legal brief arguing president detain indefinitely without charge trial members al qaeda taliban associated forces substantially support groups matter world captured man says believes every fiber long run also keep country safe unless enlist power fundamental values values upon time thought undermined practices barack obama promised make transparency hallmark presidency yet administration resolutely refused declassify documents requested former vice president cheney speak efficacy enhanced interrogation techniques obama emphasized quite willing release previously classified memoranda techniques things almost forgotten obama campaign said lobbyists work white house even though immediately allowed waivers lobbyists pledged slash earmarks half became president obama signed omnibus spending bill containing 8500 made bipartisanship pillar campaign obama far governed partisan fashion president generations claimed capacity see sides argument president routinely constructs strawmen set ablaze said nothing gained spending time energy laying blame past obama spends inordinate amount time energy one speech alone included two dozen critical comments direct implied bush administration hardly unprecedented politician rely contradictory misleading intellectually dishonest tatements five months barack obama man campaigned new kind politics ran hope cynicism insisted words mean something set pace going hard match hopefully hard sustain always sort mania words malcolm muggeridge said speech delivered three decades ago words polluted even dramatically drastically rivers land sea terrible destruction words time irony barack obama politician gifted written spoken word seen decades contributed cheapening peter wehner senior fellow ethics public policy center in160 washington dc served bush white house director office strategic initiatives | 746 |
<p>DARLINGTON, S.C. — <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Denny_Hamlin/" type="external">Denny Hamlin</a> claimed his second win of 2017 and his second career Darlington Raceway victory Sunday night in the Bojangles’ Southern 500.</p>
<p>“It means so much,” Hamlin said. “I mean, this is the Southern 500. It doesn’t get much bigger than this. This is the granddaddy of them all. This has so much history.</p>
<p>“I’m so happy to be in Victory Lane at Darlington. This is where I got my very first start in <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Joe_Gibbs/" type="external">Joe Gibbs</a> Racing, so this track, these fans, mean a lot to me.”</p>
<p>Hamlin’s teammate <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kyle_Busch/" type="external">Kyle Busch</a> finished second to give Joe Gibbs Racing a one-two finish.</p>
<p>Hamlin and Busch stayed out 20 laps longer than the rest of the race field when the final cycle of green-flag pit stops began around lap 300. As a result, they lost significant track position, especially Hamlin, since he overshot the entrance to pit road on his first attempt to pit and had to make another lap and another attempt to stop.</p>
<p>“Well, I got beat on the last green-flag sequence. (Martin) Truex came from a straightaway back and beat us out of the pits,” Hamlin said. “A little bit of that was pit road, and I think a little bit of that was my entry, and I tried to get all I could and just flat-out overshot it, and so I knew by — I looked at my dash, and I gave up about 10 to 12 seconds, and I was like, ‘I don’t know if I can,’ you know?</p>
<p>“Were we going to win this race by 10 or 12 seconds? I doubt it, and so, we just had to put on a heck of a drive. My crew chief Wheels (Mike Wheeler) was motivating me every lap to push, push, push, and that’s all I had.”</p>
<p>With newer tires, Hamlin and Busch quickly raced up through the field.</p>
<p>With just under 20 laps remaining, they took second and third in the running order, but Hamlin was over six seconds behind Truex.</p>
<p>Hamlin closed to within a car length of Truex and the lead in the closing laps and was in position to take the lead when Truex got into the wall with just over two laps remaining.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kurt_Busch/" type="external">Kurt Busch</a> finished third, <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Austin-Dillon/" type="external">Austin Dillon</a> was fourth, and <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Erik-Jones/" type="external">Erik Jones</a> rounded out the top five.</p>
<p>“I was hoping for one more yellow,” Kurt Busch said. “If there was a yellow with 30 to go, we were a really good car on short-run speed. That was the longest run at the end, and those guys caught us on their fresher tires, but just to be in position to win the Southern 500 is great. I didn’t quite get the job done, but third is really nice for a big, marquee race.”</p>
<p>Hamlin was up front at the beginning of the third stage for the final 167 laps of the race after getting off pit road first, and he led most of the laps until his final green-flag stop.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kyle-Larson/" type="external">Kyle Larson</a>, who led 124 laps in the first 200 of the race, had to make two stops during the yellow as the result of a tire rub. After running at or near the front throughout most of the race to that point, Larson wound up in the back of the top 20, and he finished in 14th place.</p>
<p>Truex won the first two stages in the 367-lap race. They were his series-leading 16th and 17th stage wins of the season.</p>
<p>With the stage victories, Truex tallied 20 regular-season points, the exact number he needed to clinch the regular-season bonus of 15 playoff points with one race remaining in the regular season.</p>
<p>Hamlin and <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Kevin_Harvick/" type="external">Kevin Harvick</a> ran second and third to Truex at lap 200 as the field made laps under yellow. The second stage ended under caution as the result of a Gray Gaulding incident on lap 197.</p>
<p>Truex took the win in stage one by inches over Larson, although Larson dominated the opening stage by leading 78 of the first 100 laps.</p>
<p>After starting on the pole, Harvick lost several positions on pit road during the first caution that came out on lap 16. As a result, he restarted 10th.</p>
<p>Harvick wasn’t the only Stewart-Haas Racing driver to have problems during the first pit stops. <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Clint_Bowyer/" type="external">Clint Bowyer</a>‘s car stalled on pit road before heading to the garage with a blown engine.</p>
<p>“It just blew up,” Bowyer said. “It’s a pretty inopportune time to have it happen, but it’s never a good time. Doug Yates and all the guys over at his shop do such a good job of bringing us reliable, good horsepower, and it was just my time. It was my turn, and there isn’t much you can do about it.”</p>
<p>Kyle Busch took the restart as the race leader, with Larson alongside in second. Truex pushed Larson out front to the lead and he continued to be in front until the final feet of the first stage.</p>
<p>Harvick got back inside the top five by the time the yellow flag waved for the second time on lap 41, and he eventually got back up to as high as second in the running order. A tire problem in the final 10 laps of the first stage, though, resulted in the loss of several positions. He was fourth by the end of the stage.</p>
<p>After pit stops to start stage two, Larson was back in the lead with Truex in second. Truex reclaimed the lead several laps later after Larson had run his laps-led tally up to 124 laps.</p>
<p>Truex lost his second lead to Hamlin on pit road, but he returned to the front on lap 179.</p>
<p>NOTES: <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Martin_Truex/" type="external">Martin Truex</a> Jr. won the 2016 Southern 500. … <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jimmie_Johnson/" type="external">Jimmie Johnson</a> is the only active driver with multiple wins at Darlington Raceway with three. <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Jeff_Gordon/" type="external">Jeff Gordon</a> is the all-time Southern 500 wins leader with six. … Hendrick Motorsports has 11 Southern 500 wins, including Johnson’s three and Gordon’s six. … Denny Hamlin, Joey Logano, Kevin Harvick and Erik Jones finished first through fourth in the NASCAR Xfinity Series race at Darlington on Saturday. Hamlin, Logano and Harvick combined to lead all 148 laps of the Xfinity race. … The 2017 Southern 500 was the third with a “throwback” theme in which cars carry retro paint schemes honoring cars/drivers of the past. … Toyota has won four of the past five Southern 500s, including the past three.</p> | false | 1 | darlington sc denny hamlin claimed second win 2017 second career darlington raceway victory sunday night bojangles southern 500 means much hamlin said mean southern 500 doesnt get much bigger granddaddy much history im happy victory lane darlington got first start joe gibbs racing track fans mean lot hamlins teammate kyle busch finished second give joe gibbs racing onetwo finish hamlin busch stayed 20 laps longer rest race field final cycle greenflag pit stops began around lap 300 result lost significant track position especially hamlin since overshot entrance pit road first attempt pit make another lap another attempt stop well got beat last greenflag sequence martin truex came straightaway back beat us pits hamlin said little bit pit road think little bit entry tried get could flatout overshot knew looked dash gave 10 12 seconds like dont know know going win race 10 12 seconds doubt put heck drive crew chief wheels mike wheeler motivating every lap push push push thats newer tires hamlin busch quickly raced field 20 laps remaining took second third running order hamlin six seconds behind truex hamlin closed within car length truex lead closing laps position take lead truex got wall two laps remaining kurt busch finished third austin dillon fourth erik jones rounded top five hoping one yellow kurt busch said yellow 30 go really good car shortrun speed longest run end guys caught us fresher tires position win southern 500 great didnt quite get job done third really nice big marquee race hamlin front beginning third stage final 167 laps race getting pit road first led laps final greenflag stop kyle larson led 124 laps first 200 race make two stops yellow result tire rub running near front throughout race point larson wound back top 20 finished 14th place truex first two stages 367lap race seriesleading 16th 17th stage wins season stage victories truex tallied 20 regularseason points exact number needed clinch regularseason bonus 15 playoff points one race remaining regular season hamlin kevin harvick ran second third truex lap 200 field made laps yellow second stage ended caution result gray gaulding incident lap 197 truex took win stage one inches larson although larson dominated opening stage leading 78 first 100 laps starting pole harvick lost several positions pit road first caution came lap 16 result restarted 10th harvick wasnt stewarthaas racing driver problems first pit stops clint bowyers car stalled pit road heading garage blown engine blew bowyer said pretty inopportune time happen never good time doug yates guys shop good job bringing us reliable good horsepower time turn isnt much kyle busch took restart race leader larson alongside second truex pushed larson front lead continued front final feet first stage harvick got back inside top five time yellow flag waved second time lap 41 eventually got back high second running order tire problem final 10 laps first stage though resulted loss several positions fourth end stage pit stops start stage two larson back lead truex second truex reclaimed lead several laps later larson run lapsled tally 124 laps truex lost second lead hamlin pit road returned front lap 179 notes martin truex jr 2016 southern 500 jimmie johnson active driver multiple wins darlington raceway three jeff gordon alltime southern 500 wins leader six hendrick motorsports 11 southern 500 wins including johnsons three gordons six denny hamlin joey logano kevin harvick erik jones finished first fourth nascar xfinity series race darlington saturday hamlin logano harvick combined lead 148 laps xfinity race 2017 southern 500 third throwback theme cars carry retro paint schemes honoring carsdrivers past toyota four past five southern 500s including past three | 601 |
<p>The U.S. has gamed out four or five different scenarios for how the crisis with North Korea will be resolved, and “some are uglier than others,” National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said as tensions remain high between the two countries.</p>
<p>While McMaster said the threat from Pyongyang is “much further advanced” than anticipated and the Pentagon said the president has a “deep arsenal” to draw upon if needed, U.S. officials dismissed North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho’s comment that President Donald Trump’s warnings to Pyongyang at the United Nations amounted to a declaration of war.</p>
<p>“We’ve not declared war on North Korea,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Hucakbee Sanders said Monday. “And frankly the suggestion of that is absurd.&#160;We continue to seek the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”</p>
<p>Both governments have said “all options” are on the table in dealing with the tensions. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, speaking in India on Tuesday, said the U.S. wants to keep engagement with North Korea in the diplomatic realm as long as possible.</p>
<p>But Ri escalated tensions with his remark on Monday in New York that North Korea would be within its rights to shoot down U.S. warplanes flying in international airspace. That startled markets, coming just days after the Pentagon sent planes near North Korea’s border.</p>
<p>“The UN Charter acknowledges member states’ right of self-defense,” Ri said. “As the United States has declared a war, even though its strategic bombers don’t cross our border, we will come to own all rights to respond for self-defense including shooting down its planes at any time.”</p>
<p>B-1B Lancer bombers, based in Guam, and F-15C Eagle fighter escorts from Okinawa, Japan, traveled the farthest north of the demilitarized zone any U.S. fighter or bomber aircraft have flown off North Korea’s coast this century, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said last week in an emailed statement.</p>
<p>North Korea raised security on its eastern coastline after being surprised by the bombers, which weren’t caught by its radar,&#160;Yonhap News reported, citing the head of the intelligence committee of South Korea’s parliament.</p>
<p>Military analysts say any conflict between the U.S. and North Korea would risk a devastating attack by Pyongyang on the South Korean capital, Seoul.</p>
<p>“There’s not a ‘precision strike’ that solves the problem,” McMaster, an Army lieutenant general, said at an event in Washington hosted by the Institute for the Study of War. “There’s not a military blockade that can solve the problem. What we hope to do is avoid war, but we cannot discount that possibility.”</p>
<p>McMaster declined to comment on the extent to which North Korea’s deeply-buried nuclear program was vulnerable to U.S. military strikes —&#160;an assessment made of Iran before the 2015 framework agreement designed to stop its nuclear program.</p>
<p>He acknowledged that every military option assumed a reaction from North Korea that endangered South Korean citizens, adding it’s “foremost in our minds.” That danger “is certainly taken into consideration in all our planning and war gaming, table-top exercise efforts,” McMaster said.</p>
<p>Kim Jong Un has accelerated his ballistic missile and nuclear weapons testing program. In response, the U.S. has led two recent rounds of UN sanctions on the regime, winning support from China, North Korea’s top trading partner, and Russia.</p>
<p>The U.S. is “just now” beginning to see initial results of those sanctions, McMaster said, adding it’s in China’s best interest to ensure compliance with the restrictions. China would face “the prospect of a re-arming” in the region and enhanced military activities in South Korea and Japan. “There’s a lot that’s changed,” he said.</p>
<p>In addition to the UN sanctions, Trump announced an executive order on Sept. 21 that allows the U.S. to impose a full trade and financial embargo on non-U.S. banks, companies and people who do business with North Korea.</p>
<p>The Pentagon said its most recent bomber and fighter exercises were meant to underscore “the seriousness with which we take DPRK’s reckless behavior,” White said last week, using the initials for North Korea’s formal name. “This mission is a demonstration of U.S. resolve and a clear message that the President has many military options.”</p>
<p>Lu Kang, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, said assertiveness from both sides would only increase the risk of confrontation.</p>
<p>“We have witnessed a lot of saber rattling recently on the Korean peninsula,” he said. “We hope the U.S. and DPRK politicians can realize that resorting to military means will never be a viable way out for this issue.”</p>
<p>U.S. stocks initially fell and bonds gained&#160;after Ri’s comments, while the yen strengthened and gold climbed.</p>
<p>North Korea has responded to each round of UN sanctions with additional weapons tests, including a nuclear explosion —&#160;its most powerful so far —&#160;in early September that caused an earthquake with a magnitude of about 6.3.</p>
<p>Trump, in his debut speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 19, threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea if it attacked the U.S. or its allies. He mocked Kim with a taunt he’d first used on Twitter days before, saying: “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and his regime.”</p>
<p>Ri, responding from the UN podium last week, said: “The very reason the DPRK had to possess nuclear weapons is because of the U.S.” North Korea’s state media also issued a statement Saturday from the National Peace Committee of Korea describing Trump as “wicked” and “a rabid dog.”</p>
<p>North Korea and South Korea, a key U.S. ally, have technically remained at war since the 1950s, with Kim’s regime saying an armistice agreement is invalid. On Sept. 22, Kim issued an unprecedented statement for a North Korean leader aimed at Trump, using the first person in several parts to attack the U.S. president.</p>
<p>“Now that Trump has denied the existence of and insulted me and my country in front of the eyes of the world and made the most ferocious declaration of a war in history that he would destroy the DPRK, we will consider with seriousness exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history,” Kim wrote in comments carried by state-run media.</p>
<p>In 1969, President&#160;Richard Nixon&#160;considered tactical nuclear strikes after North Korea shot down a U.S. reconnaissance plane, according to documents declassified in 2010 and published by the National Security Archive.</p> | false | 1 | us gamed four five different scenarios crisis north korea resolved uglier others national security adviser hr mcmaster said tensions remain high two countries mcmaster said threat pyongyang much advanced anticipated pentagon said president deep arsenal draw upon needed us officials dismissed north korean foreign minister ri yong hos comment president donald trumps warnings pyongyang united nations amounted declaration war weve declared war north korea white house spokeswoman sarah hucakbee sanders said monday frankly suggestion absurd160we continue seek peaceful denuclearization korean peninsula governments said options table dealing tensions defense secretary jim mattis speaking india tuesday said us wants keep engagement north korea diplomatic realm long possible ri escalated tensions remark monday new york north korea would within rights shoot us warplanes flying international airspace startled markets coming days pentagon sent planes near north koreas border un charter acknowledges member states right selfdefense ri said united states declared war even though strategic bombers dont cross border come rights respond selfdefense including shooting planes time b1b lancer bombers based guam f15c eagle fighter escorts okinawa japan traveled farthest north demilitarized zone us fighter bomber aircraft flown north koreas coast century pentagon spokeswoman dana white said last week emailed statement north korea raised security eastern coastline surprised bombers werent caught radar160yonhap news reported citing head intelligence committee south koreas parliament military analysts say conflict us north korea would risk devastating attack pyongyang south korean capital seoul theres precision strike solves problem mcmaster army lieutenant general said event washington hosted institute study war theres military blockade solve problem hope avoid war discount possibility mcmaster declined comment extent north koreas deeplyburied nuclear program vulnerable us military strikes 160an assessment made iran 2015 framework agreement designed stop nuclear program acknowledged every military option assumed reaction north korea endangered south korean citizens adding foremost minds danger certainly taken consideration planning war gaming tabletop exercise efforts mcmaster said kim jong un accelerated ballistic missile nuclear weapons testing program response us led two recent rounds un sanctions regime winning support china north koreas top trading partner russia us beginning see initial results sanctions mcmaster said adding chinas best interest ensure compliance restrictions china would face prospect rearming region enhanced military activities south korea japan theres lot thats changed said addition un sanctions trump announced executive order sept 21 allows us impose full trade financial embargo nonus banks companies people business north korea pentagon said recent bomber fighter exercises meant underscore seriousness take dprks reckless behavior white said last week using initials north koreas formal name mission demonstration us resolve clear message president many military options lu kang spokesman chinas foreign ministry said assertiveness sides would increase risk confrontation witnessed lot saber rattling recently korean peninsula said hope us dprk politicians realize resorting military means never viable way issue us stocks initially fell bonds gained160after ris comments yen strengthened gold climbed north korea responded round un sanctions additional weapons tests including nuclear explosion 160its powerful far 160in early september caused earthquake magnitude 63 trump debut speech un general assembly sept 19 threatened totally destroy north korea attacked us allies mocked kim taunt hed first used twitter days saying rocket man suicide mission regime ri responding un podium last week said reason dprk possess nuclear weapons us north koreas state media also issued statement saturday national peace committee korea describing trump wicked rabid dog north korea south korea key us ally technically remained war since 1950s kims regime saying armistice agreement invalid sept 22 kim issued unprecedented statement north korean leader aimed trump using first person several parts attack us president trump denied existence insulted country front eyes world made ferocious declaration war history would destroy dprk consider seriousness exercising corresponding highest level hardline countermeasure history kim wrote comments carried staterun media 1969 president160richard nixon160considered tactical nuclear strikes north korea shot us reconnaissance plane according documents declassified 2010 published national security archive | 640 |
<p>The November election has certainly shaken things up in Washington, even before most of the newly elected members to the House and Senate arrive in town and take their seats in Congress. That's because all parties havebegun recalibrating their positions in anticipation of the shifting balance of power that is coming in January.</p>
<p>Most notable, of course, is the president's recent deal with congressional Republicans on taxes. Once the voters had spoken, the president pivoted quickly and began direct negotiations with his adversaries on one of the campaign trail's most contested items: What should happen to the Bush-era tax rates scheduled to expire at the end of December. Democrats have spent the better part of the past decade decrying those rates as fiscally irresponsible. And yet the main result of the bipartisan tax deal is that those Bush-era rates on personal income, dividends and capital gains will all be left in place through the duration of the president's current term in office. Who would have expected such an outcome after the 2008 Democratic landslide? Moreover, the deal calls for a temporary reduction in the payroll tax, which is a far more acceptable approach to short-term stimulus for many Republicans than the spending programs adopted in early 2009.</p>
<p>Now all attention is beginning to shift to the nation's daunting short- and long-term budgetary challenges. Here, there is also a whiff of bipartisanship in the air.</p>
<p>The president's fiscal commission, chaired by former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., issued its recommendations earlier this month, with the support of 11 of the 18 commissioners. Among the supporters were all of the current Republican senators serving on the panel (Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Mike Crapo of Idaho). The budget framework they endorsed is based on the approach of the commission's co-chairs and thus commonly known as the Bowles-Simpson plan. It is far more ambitious in scope than was expected just two months ago, when many thought the commission wouldn't produce anything of consequence.</p>
<p>Bowles-Simpson starts with a plan to radically reform the nation's income tax laws by eliminating or scaling back many current tax expenditures while simultaneously instituting two much lower rates. The plan also calls for cutting the corporate income tax rate, capping discretionary spending, and reforming Social Security by raising retirement ages and limiting benefits for higher wage earners.</p>
<p>That's certainly a bold agenda, and it very definitely points in the right direction with its inclusion of some important entitlement and tax reforms.</p>
<p>But on the most important budget issue that the country still faces — rapidly rising health care costs — Bowles-Simpson is a major disappointment. Yes, the plan calls for long-overdue tort reform. But that's not nearly enough to overcome its downside — the plan's implicit embrace of the entirety of the health care law enacted in March. The $1 trillion entitlement expansion; the $700 billion ten-year tax increase; the complete lack of any meaningful Medicare and Medicaid reform; the heavy reliance on arbitrary Medicare payment rate reductions to cut costs on paper; the poorly structured long-term care entitlement program that almost certainly will need its own bailout in future years; and, the ceding of almost all health sector regulatory authority to the Department of Health and Human Services — all of those provisions and more would remain in place under the Bowles-Simpson framework.</p>
<p>Indeed, if anything, Bowles-Simpson would build upon the law by expanding the authority of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which was established to control Medicare costs with payment rate reductions, to oversee the health spending that occurs in the new state-sponsored insurance exchanges.</p>
<p>The fiscal commission members appointed by House Republican Leader John Boehner – Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas — all opposed the Bowles-Simpson plan when it came up for a final vote, thus preventing it from advancing to Congress for potential near-term consideration. And, to their credit, the main reason they cited for their opposition was the failure of Bowles-Simpson to change direction on health care from what was enacted in March.</p>
<p>The yearlong debate over health care was contentious and polarizing because the opposing sides have strongly held and difficult to reconcile views of what needs to be done. By and large, the Democrats believe that what is needed is much heavier governmental management of the health sector. By contrast, most Republicans believe that what is needed is a functioning marketplace and consumer control of the allocation of resources.</p>
<p>Ordinarily, difficult legislative initiatives require some degree of support from both major political parties to pass. That's particularly true with deficit reduction efforts. There's very little to gain politically from cutting spending programs or increasing taxes. As the president looks to bring future deficits down in coming years, he is almost certain to try to enlist Republican help in the effort, as bipartisan support would shield Democrats from some of the political risks associated with fiscal consolidation.</p>
<p>But it will be near impossible for the president to succeed in building a strong bipartisan coalition of support for a budget plan if he takes the same approach as Bowles-Simpson and builds a wall around health care. Health care is the largest line item in the federal budget, and it will only become more important in future years. Most Republicans will not agree to any short or long-term budget framework that essentially ignores their point of view on how to address such an important component of the budget equation. Rising federal debt is now widely recognized as a serious threat to the nation's long-term prosperity. It is essential that political leaders come together in a bipartisan fashion to put our government's finances on more stable footing. But that won't be done so long as the nation's approach to health care is supported by only one of the two major political parties. No, a bipartisan budget framework is going to require a bipartisan approach to health care too.</p>
<p>&#160;James C. Capretta is a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.</p> | false | 1 | november election certainly shaken things washington even newly elected members house senate arrive town take seats congress thats parties havebegun recalibrating positions anticipation shifting balance power coming january notable course presidents recent deal congressional republicans taxes voters spoken president pivoted quickly began direct negotiations adversaries one campaign trails contested items happen bushera tax rates scheduled expire end december democrats spent better part past decade decrying rates fiscally irresponsible yet main result bipartisan tax deal bushera rates personal income dividends capital gains left place duration presidents current term office would expected outcome 2008 democratic landslide moreover deal calls temporary reduction payroll tax far acceptable approach shortterm stimulus many republicans spending programs adopted early 2009 attention beginning shift nations daunting short longterm budgetary challenges also whiff bipartisanship air presidents fiscal commission chaired former clinton white house chief staff erskine bowles former sen alan simpson rwyo issued recommendations earlier month support 11 18 commissioners among supporters current republican senators serving panel tom coburn oklahoma judd gregg new hampshire mike crapo idaho budget framework endorsed based approach commissions cochairs thus commonly known bowlessimpson plan far ambitious scope expected two months ago many thought commission wouldnt produce anything consequence bowlessimpson starts plan radically reform nations income tax laws eliminating scaling back many current tax expenditures simultaneously instituting two much lower rates plan also calls cutting corporate income tax rate capping discretionary spending reforming social security raising retirement ages limiting benefits higher wage earners thats certainly bold agenda definitely points right direction inclusion important entitlement tax reforms important budget issue country still faces rapidly rising health care costs bowlessimpson major disappointment yes plan calls longoverdue tort reform thats nearly enough overcome downside plans implicit embrace entirety health care law enacted march 1 trillion entitlement expansion 700 billion tenyear tax increase complete lack meaningful medicare medicaid reform heavy reliance arbitrary medicare payment rate reductions cut costs paper poorly structured longterm care entitlement program almost certainly need bailout future years ceding almost health sector regulatory authority department health human services provisions would remain place bowlessimpson framework indeed anything bowlessimpson would build upon law expanding authority independent payment advisory board established control medicare costs payment rate reductions oversee health spending occurs new statesponsored insurance exchanges fiscal commission members appointed house republican leader john boehner rep paul ryan rwis rep dave camp rmich rep jeb hensarling rtexas opposed bowlessimpson plan came final vote thus preventing advancing congress potential nearterm consideration credit main reason cited opposition failure bowlessimpson change direction health care enacted march yearlong debate health care contentious polarizing opposing sides strongly held difficult reconcile views needs done large democrats believe needed much heavier governmental management health sector contrast republicans believe needed functioning marketplace consumer control allocation resources ordinarily difficult legislative initiatives require degree support major political parties pass thats particularly true deficit reduction efforts theres little gain politically cutting spending programs increasing taxes president looks bring future deficits coming years almost certain try enlist republican help effort bipartisan support would shield democrats political risks associated fiscal consolidation near impossible president succeed building strong bipartisan coalition support budget plan takes approach bowlessimpson builds wall around health care health care largest line item federal budget become important future years republicans agree short longterm budget framework essentially ignores point view address important component budget equation rising federal debt widely recognized serious threat nations longterm prosperity essential political leaders come together bipartisan fashion put governments finances stable footing wont done long nations approach health care supported one two major political parties bipartisan budget framework going require bipartisan approach health care 160james c capretta fellow ethics public policy center | 595 |
<p>The Danish ruling coalition parties have expressed their support for the full-face veil ban. As Denmark is set to ban the Muslim conservative garb, which EU countries will it join?</p>
<p>The liberal Venstre Party, the senior member of the ruling coalition, has announced its support for the ban on wearing full-face veils in public places following a party meeting dedicated to the issue Friday.</p>
<p>“The forthcoming ban on face covering will receive backing from Venstre,” the liberal party’s spokesman, Jakob Ellemann-Jensen, told the Danish broadcaster <a href="http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/regeringen-vil-forbyde-burka-og-niqab-med-maskeringsforbud" type="external">DR</a>, adding that it will be “not a religiously defined ban but it will still obviously cover burqa and niqab.”</p>
<p>Earlier, some high-ranking members of the party, including its deputy leader, Kristian Jensen, and the Higher Education and Science Minister Soren Pind, opposed the measures but now Ellemann-Jensen said the party is “united” in its support for the move.</p>
<p>The stance of another coalition member, the libertarian Liberal Alliance (LA), has also drastically changed. The party that opposed the ban just last month, arguing that it might isolate Muslim women and prevent them from leaving their homes altogether, now also said it would back such an initiative.</p>
<p>Read more</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/news/405067-burqa-ban-denmark-poll/" type="external" /></p>
<p>“Everyone agrees that the burqa is an expression of extreme oppression of women,” the party leader, Anders Samuelsen, wrote Friday in a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AndersSamuelsenLA/posts/10156454217557366" type="external">Facebook post</a>. He went on to say that his party is “in favor” of the ban, if the Danish authorities could impose it “without harming ourselves and our values.”</p>
<p>By expressing their support for the ban, the Liberals and the LA join the Conservatives and the right-wing populist Danish People’s Party who already back it, thus securing a parliamentary majority and opening the way for Denmark to become the latest European country to introduce such a ban.</p>
<p>A recent poll commissioned by DR in late September showed that 62 percent of the Danish population are in favor of such a ban, while fewer than one in four oppose it.</p>
<p>In the meantime, half a dozen EU states have already introduced similar nationwide bans, while in some other countries restrictions on wearing face-covering veils exist at a regional level.</p>
<p>Austria has so far become the latest European country to ban wearing full-face veils in public places as the law called the ‘Anti-Face-Veiling Act’ came into force in the Alpine country on October 1. Those found in violation of the legislation could face a fine of €150 ($175).</p>
<p>[embedded content]</p>
<p>The law defined by the authorities as “religiously neutral” and also banning people from wearing balaclavas, covering their faces with scarves or even wearing medical masks without sufficient reasons still provoked an angry reaction from the local Muslims.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/news/405214-austria-burqa-ban-law/" type="external">READ MORE:&#160;Austrian burqa ban takes effect ahead of general election</a></p>
<p>Read more</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/news/404146-french-millionaire-austria-burqa-ban/" type="external" /></p>
<p>The first country to introduce the ban, which is still often deemed to be controversial, was France that barred Muslim women from wearing full-face veils in public as early as in 2011. Belgium almost immediately followed suit and introduced a similar ban later the same year.</p>
<p>Both countries, however, eventually landed in court over the controversial move. In both cases, Muslim women challenged the bans in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). However, the judicial body upheld France’s burqa ban in 2014, ruling that the preservation of an idea of social cohesion was a “legitimate aim” of the French authorities.</p>
<p>In 2017, the court also <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/396021-belgium-niqab-ban-upheld-echr/" type="external">ruled in favor</a>&#160;of Belgian authorities in a similar case by saying that the ban “doesn’t violate European human rights law.” In the meantime, opponents of the ban also found more ingenious ways to express their discontent with it.&#160;</p>
<p>A French businessman of Algerian origin, Rachid Nekkaz, has long been calling on Muslim women to defy the face veil bans introduced in European countries. He also offered to pay their fines and even established a special fund to deal with the issue.</p>
<p>According to Nekkaz, he already pays fines for Muslim women wearing face veils in public places in defiance of the ban in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. In his latest move, he also vowed to do the same for women in Austria.</p>
<p>[embedded content]</p>
<p>Dutch lawmakers <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/368617-dutch-bill-burqa-ban/" type="external">approved</a> a ban on wearing face veils and other face-covering garments in certain public places such as schools, hospitals or government buildings in November 2016. The ban, however, does not cover such situations as wearing burqas on the street, but applies only to specific situations, in which face recognition and proper communication are “essential.”</p>
<p>[embedded content]</p>
<p>Bulgaria&#160; <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/361228-burqa-ban-parliament-bulgaria/" type="external">outlawed</a>“wearing in public clothing that partially or completely covers the face” in public places just months before the Netherlands, in September 2016, citing security concerns. Those found in defiance of the ban in Bulgaria could face fines of up to 1,500 leva (about $860) and be stripped of social benefits.</p>
<p>According to some reports, Latvia also failed to overcome temptation to ban the controversial peace of closing even though only three women reportedly wear the garment in the entire Baltic state. This fact, however, did not stop the Latvian lawmakers from claiming that burqa poses a “serious” security risk for Latvia and undermines its culture.&#160;</p>
<p>[embedded content]</p> | false | 1 | danish ruling coalition parties expressed support fullface veil ban denmark set ban muslim conservative garb eu countries join liberal venstre party senior member ruling coalition announced support ban wearing fullface veils public places following party meeting dedicated issue friday forthcoming ban face covering receive backing venstre liberal partys spokesman jakob ellemannjensen told danish broadcaster dr adding religiously defined ban still obviously cover burqa niqab earlier highranking members party including deputy leader kristian jensen higher education science minister soren pind opposed measures ellemannjensen said party united support move stance another coalition member libertarian liberal alliance la also drastically changed party opposed ban last month arguing might isolate muslim women prevent leaving homes altogether also said would back initiative read everyone agrees burqa expression extreme oppression women party leader anders samuelsen wrote friday facebook post went say party favor ban danish authorities could impose without harming values expressing support ban liberals la join conservatives rightwing populist danish peoples party already back thus securing parliamentary majority opening way denmark become latest european country introduce ban recent poll commissioned dr late september showed 62 percent danish population favor ban fewer one four oppose meantime half dozen eu states already introduced similar nationwide bans countries restrictions wearing facecovering veils exist regional level austria far become latest european country ban wearing fullface veils public places law called antifaceveiling act came force alpine country october 1 found violation legislation could face fine 150 175 embedded content law defined authorities religiously neutral also banning people wearing balaclavas covering faces scarves even wearing medical masks without sufficient reasons still provoked angry reaction local muslims read more160austrian burqa ban takes effect ahead general election read first country introduce ban still often deemed controversial france barred muslim women wearing fullface veils public early 2011 belgium almost immediately followed suit introduced similar ban later year countries however eventually landed court controversial move cases muslim women challenged bans european court human rights echr however judicial body upheld frances burqa ban 2014 ruling preservation idea social cohesion legitimate aim french authorities 2017 court also ruled favor160of belgian authorities similar case saying ban doesnt violate european human rights law meantime opponents ban also found ingenious ways express discontent it160 french businessman algerian origin rachid nekkaz long calling muslim women defy face veil bans introduced european countries also offered pay fines even established special fund deal issue according nekkaz already pays fines muslim women wearing face veils public places defiance ban france belgium netherlands latest move also vowed women austria embedded content dutch lawmakers approved ban wearing face veils facecovering garments certain public places schools hospitals government buildings november 2016 ban however cover situations wearing burqas street applies specific situations face recognition proper communication essential embedded content bulgaria160 outlawedwearing public clothing partially completely covers face public places months netherlands september 2016 citing security concerns found defiance ban bulgaria could face fines 1500 leva 860 stripped social benefits according reports latvia also failed overcome temptation ban controversial peace closing even though three women reportedly wear garment entire baltic state fact however stop latvian lawmakers claiming burqa poses serious security risk latvia undermines culture160 embedded content | 518 |
<p>Because of and&#160;in spite of Hollywood films like The African Queen and television shows like Tarzan, tropical Africa south of the Sahara and north of the Zambezi is terra incognito for most Americans. Some cling to fragments of the “noble savage” myth advanced by Jean Jacques Rousseau, who argued that in an idyllic “state of nature” uncorrupted by civilization, people are innocent, happy, and brave.</p>
<p>Others accept the opposing myth promulgated by Thomas Hobbes that in a “State of Nature,” there are “no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worse of all, persistent fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”</p>
<p>Neither myth reflects the real tropical Africa that I saw in the 1960s while there researching three books on U.S. policy. Almost everywhere I saw poverty, corruption, and a retreat from the rudimentary rule of law established by the British and French colonial powers.</p>
<p>As Kempton Makamure, a political opponent of President Mugabe, wrote recently in Zimbabwe’s Financial Gazette, “It is entirely possible that conflicts within independent states in Africa have caused more privation, deaths and stalled development than the colonial rule they have replaced.”</p>
<p>President Kennedy and some of his Africa hands were more optimistic. Naive might be a better word. They saw themselves as heralds of freedom. Unduly critical of the European colonists, they seemed unaware that the British, for example, had ended slavery 79 years before Lincoln signed the Emaciation Proclamation. Perhaps the greatest flaw in the official U.S. perception was the failure to recognize that long before the Europeans had arrived, Africa had seethed with tribal wars and indigenous slavery. The Western traffic in human beings would not have been possible without the active participation of African slavers eager to sell Africans of other tribes to their Western counterparts. As a poignant African proverb put it, “The tears of a stranger are only water.”</p>
<p>Back to Hobbes. If it took a thousand years for the barbarian tribes of Europe to become democratic and prosperous states, how long will it take African tribes that missed the Renaissance, Reformation, Magna Carta, and Industrial Revolution?</p>
<p>The British, French, and Portuguese colonialists–and Christian missionaries–introduced Western medicine, schools, and rudimentary institutions for governing by the rule of law. Despite these benefits and postcolonial aid efforts, economic development and democracy faced formidable obstacles.</p>
<p>When the colonial powers withdrew, tribal conflict again erupted and in some places indigenous slavery reappeared. Since 1955, bloody wars in Nigeria, Congo, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, and elsewhere killed as many as five million people and produced more than six million refugees. Indigenous slavery, stamped out by the colonial powers, had returned in some places, notably in Sudan.</p>
<p>And brutal demagogues like Mobutu in the Congo, Adi Amin in Uganda, and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe have ravaged their countries to enjoy the fruits of unbridled power.</p>
<p>From the onset of postcolonial Africa, Rhodesia showed greater promise than any other country. An exquisitely beautiful landlocked territory slightly larger than Montana, it was conquered by explorer-entrepreneur Cecil Rhodes in 1897 and eventually established as a self-governing British colony. Determined to make the country safe and prosperous, Rhoades established the world’s first national park there, insisting that it be open to all races.</p>
<p>Few Americans are aware that during the Second World War, Rhodesia, like other African colonies, provided troops to the Allied effort. Rhodesian units served in Europe, North Africa, and Burma.</p>
<p>Rhodesia was also misunderstood in the 1960s because Western perceptions were filtered through a prism of false comparisons with the American racial experience. Seen as a state struggling for independence, or as another stage for the conflict between white and black, it was neither.</p>
<p>On one of several visits to Rhodesia in the mid-1960s, I met with Prime Minister Ian Smith, a statesmen and a farmer, who argued that his country was already independent. He had a point, but with the Cold War raging, both Moscow and Washington pushed for “self-government,” though they differed on how to achieve it. Smith felt that Washington wanted him “to concede to the men with guns rather than negotiate with the men with votes,” as CBS reporter Morley Safer put it at the time.</p>
<p>After seven years of turbulence, Soviet-backed Mugabe emerged as president of a prosperous country, rich in arable land and other natural resources and with 85 percent of its adult population literate in English, far higher than in any other tropical African country.</p>
<p>Vowing to forge a one-party Marxist-Leninist state, in 2001 Mugabe finally became a virtual dictator. Citing nonexistent threats of neocolonialism, he rammed his Land Redistribution Act through a reluctant parliament, promising millions of acres of white-owned farms to poor blacks. Within a year, his party thugs had seized 2,900 out of 4,500 prosperous white-operated farms, killing at least ten white farmers and a hundred black workers. Among the recipients of the richest farms were his wife, two sisters, and his ambassador to Washington.</p>
<p>In the first century AD, Pliny the Elder wrote, “There is always something new out of Africa.” Indeed there is, but it is not always good.</p>
<p>— Ernest Lefever, a senior&#160;scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is author of Spear and Scepter: Army, Police, and Politics in Tropical Africa (1970).</p> | false | 1 | and160in spite hollywood films like african queen television shows like tarzan tropical africa south sahara north zambezi terra incognito americans cling fragments noble savage myth advanced jean jacques rousseau argued idyllic state nature uncorrupted civilization people innocent happy brave others accept opposing myth promulgated thomas hobbes state nature arts letters society worse persistent fear danger violent death life man solitary poor nasty brutish short neither myth reflects real tropical africa saw 1960s researching three books us policy almost everywhere saw poverty corruption retreat rudimentary rule law established british french colonial powers kempton makamure political opponent president mugabe wrote recently zimbabwes financial gazette entirely possible conflicts within independent states africa caused privation deaths stalled development colonial rule replaced president kennedy africa hands optimistic naive might better word saw heralds freedom unduly critical european colonists seemed unaware british example ended slavery 79 years lincoln signed emaciation proclamation perhaps greatest flaw official us perception failure recognize long europeans arrived africa seethed tribal wars indigenous slavery western traffic human beings would possible without active participation african slavers eager sell africans tribes western counterparts poignant african proverb put tears stranger water back hobbes took thousand years barbarian tribes europe become democratic prosperous states long take african tribes missed renaissance reformation magna carta industrial revolution british french portuguese colonialistsand christian missionariesintroduced western medicine schools rudimentary institutions governing rule law despite benefits postcolonial aid efforts economic development democracy faced formidable obstacles colonial powers withdrew tribal conflict erupted places indigenous slavery reappeared since 1955 bloody wars nigeria congo uganda burundi rwanda elsewhere killed many five million people produced six million refugees indigenous slavery stamped colonial powers returned places notably sudan brutal demagogues like mobutu congo adi amin uganda zimbabwes robert mugabe ravaged countries enjoy fruits unbridled power onset postcolonial africa rhodesia showed greater promise country exquisitely beautiful landlocked territory slightly larger montana conquered explorerentrepreneur cecil rhodes 1897 eventually established selfgoverning british colony determined make country safe prosperous rhoades established worlds first national park insisting open races americans aware second world war rhodesia like african colonies provided troops allied effort rhodesian units served europe north africa burma rhodesia also misunderstood 1960s western perceptions filtered prism false comparisons american racial experience seen state struggling independence another stage conflict white black neither one several visits rhodesia mid1960s met prime minister ian smith statesmen farmer argued country already independent point cold war raging moscow washington pushed selfgovernment though differed achieve smith felt washington wanted concede men guns rather negotiate men votes cbs reporter morley safer put time seven years turbulence sovietbacked mugabe emerged president prosperous country rich arable land natural resources 85 percent adult population literate english far higher tropical african country vowing forge oneparty marxistleninist state 2001 mugabe finally became virtual dictator citing nonexistent threats neocolonialism rammed land redistribution act reluctant parliament promising millions acres whiteowned farms poor blacks within year party thugs seized 2900 4500 prosperous whiteoperated farms killing least ten white farmers hundred black workers among recipients richest farms wife two sisters ambassador washington first century ad pliny elder wrote always something new africa indeed always good ernest lefever senior160scholar ethics public policy center author spear scepter army police politics tropical africa 1970 | 524 |
<p />
<p>Even those familiar with the long and shameful <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Passionate-Attachment-Americas-Involvement-Present/dp/0393029336" type="external">history</a> of America’s appeasement of Israel were <a href="http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/wait-we-are-giving-who-20-f-35-stealth-attack-jets-for-what.html" type="external">taken aback</a> by the Obama administration’s extraordinary offer to Netanyahu.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-offers-israel-warplanes-in-return-for-new-settlement-freeze-1.324496" type="external">exchange</a> for a paltry one-off 90 day freeze on illegal settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem), Israel will get 20 F-35 stealth fighter jets worth $3 billion and a slew of other goodies. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton <a href="http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article199066.ece" type="external">reportedly</a>gave up to eight hours with Netanyahu trying to persuade him to accept “one of the most generous bribes ever bestowed by the United States on any foreign power.” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/world/middleeast/15mideast.html?_r=1&amp;hp" type="external">Praising</a> the Israeli Prime Minister for eventually agreeing to put the offer to his security cabinet, President Obama took it as “a signal that he is serious.”</p>
<p><a href="" type="internal">&lt;img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-8199" style="margin: 5px;" title="obama-israel" src="https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/obama-israel-300x160.jpg" alt="Obama's Israel policy" width="300" height="160" srcset="https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/obama-israel-300x160.jpg 300w, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/obama-israel-150x80.jpg 150w, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/obama-israel.jpg 600w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /&gt;</a>But is there any reason to believe that Netanyahu is any more “serious” about consenting to the creation of <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/halper03312005.html" type="external">a viable Palestinian state</a> today than he was in 2001? In a <a href="http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/the-world-wont-say-a-thing-netanyahu-on-ongoing-israeli-expansion.html" type="external">video</a> aired on Israel’s Channel 10 this summer, Netanyahu was seen during the second intifada bragging to West Bank settlers about how he had sabotaged the Oslo Accords. “I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders,” he told them. In that secretly filmed conversation, Netanyahu also revealed his dismissive attitude toward the United States. “I know what America is,” he said. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.”</p>
<p>And there is good reason for the Israeli leader’s arrogance. In a pre-midterm election interview with the Jewish Daily Forward, Congressman Gary Ackerman <a href="http://www.forward.com/articles/132608/#ixzz16Hd89VRV" type="external">stressed</a> that “Israel’s best bet for addressing any concerns about Obama’s policy” was for the Democrats to retain power. As evidence of their pro-Israel influence, Ackerman and other Jewish Democrats cited “the forceful criticisms they conveyed to the White House when they thought that Obama was leaning too hard on Israel.” Ackerman, who chaired the subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said that if Israel wanted “positive influence on the White House” it needed what he called the “first-class team” of Howard Berman, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Sander Levin and himself to continue chairing key House committees, because “we are all pro-Israel and we all have major, major, major influence in the executive branch.”</p>
<p>The Republicans’ subsequent gains in those midterms, however, are only likely to boost Netanyahu’s confidence in his ability to move America “in the right direction.” On the eve of his November 11 meeting with Hillary Clinton, the Israeli Prime Minister had what has been <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1110/Before_Clinton_meeting_Cantors_oneonone_with_Bibi_.html?showall" type="external">described</a> as an “unusual, if not unheard of” (read: <a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26858.htm" type="external">illegal</a>) one-on-one meeting with incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. According to Cantor’s office, the Congressman assured Netanyahu that “the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration.” It wouldn’t be the first time that Cantor— set to become the highest ever ranking Jewish member of　Congress—has <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/06/cantor-israel-settlements/" type="external">attempted to undermine</a> official U.S. policy in Israel’s behalf. Last year, while leading a delegation of 25 Republican congressmen to Israel, Cantor publicly criticised the Obama administration for interfering in such internal Israeli matters as the eviction of Palestinian families from their East Jerusalem homes and the ongoing 43-year Jewish colonization of the West Bank.</p>
<p>Given who has been shaping Obama’s Middle East policy, his administration may not require that much checking though. Since 2002, he has been advised by Lee Rosenberg, a key member of “a close-knit network of Chicago Jews,” who, <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-12-12/news/0812110155_1_barack-obama-bettylu-saltzman-jewish-vote" type="external">in the words of the Chicago Tribune</a>, “nurtured and enabled” Obama’s political career. <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3513083,00.html" type="external">According to Rosenberg</a>, the then U.S. Senate hopeful “reached out” to the jazz recording industry entrepreneur and venture capitalist “to learn more about the issues affecting Israel and Middle East, and the U.S.–Israel relationship.” Later, when <a href="http://www.chicagojewishnews.com/story.htm?id=252218&amp;sid=212226" type="external">Obama’s Chicago backers</a> <a href="http://www.jpost.com/home/article.aspx?id=118057" type="external">made it clear to him</a> that Israel was an issue “he had to get educated on,” Rosenberg accompanied the then-senator on his first trip to Israel, where he learned “an appreciation of the security needs.” A longtime board member (and currently president) of AIPAC, Rosenberg also <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0zJtWLf1us" type="external">introduced</a> the presidential candidate at the pro-Israel lobby’s 2008 conference, when Obama, <a href="http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/" type="external">in contradiction of international law</a>, vowed that Jerusalem “will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”</p>
<p>Dennis Ross, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121358442119676435.html?mod=fpa_editors_picks" type="external">one of the principal authors</a> of that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw" type="external">speech</a>, is also the <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/amid-row-over-settlements-netanyahu-says-committed-to-mideast-peace-1.316628" type="external">originator</a> of the incentive package. Having convinced Obama of the need “to come off as friendlier” to Netanyahu, the president’s current top adviser on the Middle East <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100506225.html" type="external">worked closely</a> with Ehud Barak and Yitzak Molho, Netanyahu’s adviser, on preparing the <a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3256" type="external">original proposal</a> which Netanyahu subsequently rejected. Ross, dubbed “ <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200883.html" type="external">Israel’s lawyer</a>” for his over-solicitousness to Tel Aviv’s interests as President Clinton’s chief negotiator, was <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0310/Fierce_debate_on_Israel_underway_inside_Obama_administration.html" type="external">accused</a> by an American government official earlier this year of being “far more sensitive to Netanyahu’s coalition politics than to U.S. interests.” A fellow at the AIPAC-sponsored think tank, the <a href="http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Washington%20Institute%20for%20Near%20East%20Policy" type="external">Washington Institute for Near East Policy</a>, he also served, until his government appointment, as founding <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/policy-planning-institute-future-of-jewish-people-is-not-assured-1.224942" type="external">chairman</a> of the Jerusalem-based <a href="http://www.jppi.org.il/" type="external">Jewish People Policy Planning Institute</a>, which <a href="http://jppi.org.il/uploads/eizenshtat_onlybooklet.pdf" type="external">views</a> intermarriage with non-Jews as an “insidious” challenge. On hearing that Ross had joined Obama’s team, one Chicago-based pro-Israel activist <a href="http://www.chicagojewishnews.com/story.htm?id=252218&amp;sid=212226" type="external">commented</a>, “now … we have no concerns whatsoever.”</p>
<p>And yet there are <a href="" type="internal">some</a> who believe that Obama is anti-Israel…</p> | false | 1 | even familiar long shameful history americas appeasement israel taken aback obama administrations extraordinary offer netanyahu exchange paltry oneoff 90 day freeze illegal settlement expansion occupied west bank excluding east jerusalem israel get 20 f35 stealth fighter jets worth 3 billion slew goodies yet secretary state hillary clinton reportedlygave eight hours netanyahu trying persuade accept one generous bribes ever bestowed united states foreign power praising israeli prime minister eventually agreeing put offer security cabinet president obama took signal serious ltimg classalignleft sizemedium wpimage8199 stylemargin 5px titleobamaisrael srchttpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201012obamaisrael300x160jpg altobamas israel policy width300 height160 srcsethttpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201012obamaisrael300x160jpg 300w httpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201012obamaisrael150x80jpg 150w httpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201012obamaisraeljpg 600w sizesmaxwidth 300px 100vw 300px gtbut reason believe netanyahu serious consenting creation viable palestinian state today 2001 video aired israels channel 10 summer netanyahu seen second intifada bragging west bank settlers sabotaged oslo accords im going interpret accords way would allow put end galloping forward 67 borders told secretly filmed conversation netanyahu also revealed dismissive attitude toward united states know america said america thing move easily move right direction wont get way good reason israeli leaders arrogance premidterm election interview jewish daily forward congressman gary ackerman stressed israels best bet addressing concerns obamas policy democrats retain power evidence proisrael influence ackerman jewish democrats cited forceful criticisms conveyed white house thought obama leaning hard israel ackerman chaired subcommittee middle east south asia house committee foreign affairs said israel wanted positive influence white house needed called firstclass team howard berman barney frank henry waxman sander levin continue chairing key house committees proisrael major major major influence executive branch republicans subsequent gains midterms however likely boost netanyahus confidence ability move america right direction eve november 11 meeting hillary clinton israeli prime minister described unusual unheard read illegal oneonone meeting incoming house majority leader eric cantor according cantors office congressman assured netanyahu new republican majority serve check administration wouldnt first time cantor set become highest ever ranking jewish member congresshas attempted undermine official us policy israels behalf last year leading delegation 25 republican congressmen israel cantor publicly criticised obama administration interfering internal israeli matters eviction palestinian families east jerusalem homes ongoing 43year jewish colonization west bank given shaping obamas middle east policy administration may require much checking though since 2002 advised lee rosenberg key member closeknit network chicago jews words chicago tribune nurtured enabled obamas political career according rosenberg us senate hopeful reached jazz recording industry entrepreneur venture capitalist learn issues affecting israel middle east usisrael relationship later obamas chicago backers made clear israel issue get educated rosenberg accompanied thensenator first trip israel learned appreciation security needs longtime board member currently president aipac rosenberg also introduced presidential candidate proisrael lobbys 2008 conference obama contradiction international law vowed jerusalem remain capital israel must remain undivided dennis ross one principal authors speech also originator incentive package convinced obama need come friendlier netanyahu presidents current top adviser middle east worked closely ehud barak yitzak molho netanyahus adviser preparing original proposal netanyahu subsequently rejected ross dubbed israels lawyer oversolicitousness tel avivs interests president clintons chief negotiator accused american government official earlier year far sensitive netanyahus coalition politics us interests fellow aipacsponsored think tank washington institute near east policy also served government appointment founding chairman jerusalembased jewish people policy planning institute views intermarriage nonjews insidious challenge hearing ross joined obamas team one chicagobased proisrael activist commented concerns whatsoever yet believe obama antiisrael | 549 |
<p />
<p>“Now it is time to naturalize the flow of history,” wrote Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affairs (British Guardian, March 16).</p>
<p>The process of naturalization is now underway in the region Davutoglu refused to describe as the Middle East (arguing that the term is “orientalist”, and preferring to call the region “West Asia and the south Mediterranean”).</p>
<p>Davutoglu is one of the most articulate and passionate Turkish politicians of the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Along with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül, he has labored to naturalize the flow of history in Turkey, sidelining an incessantly intrusive military, and forging links between regions, cultures and competing political thoughts. While the mission was and remains arduous, it has successfully led to the emergence of a unique Turkish political thought – proud of its roots, yet receptive to progress and modernity.</p>
<p>When Hamas was elected as the majority party at the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006, the group was inspired by the objectives that propelled the AKP. Ahmed Yusuf, a top Hamas official in Gaza, has even been writing a book entitled, “Erdoğan and a New Strategic Vision”</p>
<p>“Erdoğan’s model is liberal. It is a model that dares to take responsibility and change things and establishes good relations between the religious and secular elements of society,” Yusuf said, according to Turkey’s Hurriyet (June 10, 2010). “It is a model that works for democracy and human rights, and supports an open society. That is what we want.”</p>
<p>In fact, this is precisely what most ordinary Palestinians want for themselves. It’s also the same desire that inspired several Arab revolutions. The same goals were ferociously defended and largely achieved in Tahrir Square in Cairo. Palestinians also wish to see their society free of narrow factional interests and limited political agendas.</p>
<p>Despite every attempt, whether through siege, wars or protracted bombardments, radicalization has not taken a hold in Palestinian political thought. Of course, there is much anger and a continued desire for justice, but political rhetoric in Gaza (and by other Hamas leaders in Diaspora) seems largely prudent and increasingly universal in its values and outreach.</p>
<p>Exiled senior Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, commenting on the Egyptian revolution, claimed: “Today we are witnessing Cairo returning to its natural state, after it disappeared from that state for a long time. The people in Egypt and Tunisia have given us back our lives.” (Khartoum, March 6)</p>
<p>The massive revolutionary undertaking by Arab peoples is allowing the Arabs to determine their own fate, to chart their own course for a better future, and on their own terms. Davutoglu has advised that this undertaking also comes with challenges; if Arabs fail to overcome these, they will “lose the momentum of history”.</p>
<p>Palestinians don’t need a regime change, per se, as in other Arab polities, for they are under siege and military occupation, and have no true political sovereignty on the ground. They need a roadmap, a new vision that is inspired by the rights and aspirations of Palestinian people everywhere, but also free from the conventional wisdoms that were either enforced by Oslo – which fragmented Palestinian society – or by those who offered alternatives based mainly on ideological, factional or religious rationale. This painful period of Palestinian history, marred by factionalism, disunity and civil strife, has diverted from the natural flow of Palestinian history. Now, we speak of Hamas and Fatah, of West Bank and Gaza, of individuals, of personal initiatives, of NGOs and funding, and of everything except one Palestine, one Palestinian people, one goal, one strategy, and one destiny.</p>
<p>What is happening in Palestine is anti-history. It cannot be sustained for long without exacting an even heavier price from Palestinian people and their internationally recognized rights. The very credibility of any Palestinian leadership, of course, has now been greatly eroded.</p>
<p>Hamas, since its official inception in 1987 – and even prior to that, when the Islamic movement was dedicated mainly to charity work and institution building – has proved capable of changing and growing. Its growth has not been based on the diktats of Israel or any outside power, but rather its own motivations. It is now a political body that has managed to evade numerous Israeli bombs and attempts at undermining it as a legitimate group. It is regarded highly among many segments of Palestinian society, and international public opinion is also now shifting in a similar direction. For example, “45% of Europeans believe Hamas should be included in the Peace Process (and) only 25% believe it should be excluded,” according to an ICM European poll conducted in January 2011.</p>
<p>This time of people marching for change, freedom and democracy in the region should provide the perfect opportunity for Palestinians to break away from political exclusivity and the localization of their struggle for freedom. Hamas should now re-think its charter of 1988, which was once an almost impulsive rally cry, and which will always be used in the interests of those seeking to discount Hamas’ credibility. The language of the charter might have served a purpose in the past, but it fails to live up to the of the expectations of a people who wish for unity and to see past the confines of Oslo, its ‘peace process’, and its wealth-amassing elites. Post-Oslo Palestinian leaderships require new language, new ideas, new approaches, and most certainly a brand new vision and strategy.</p>
<p>There must be a break with the past. All hurdles need to be removed in order for the natural flow of history to resume. This is the most opportune time for Hamas to revisit and amend its charter, and to resume the process of change and self-correction which it began many years ago. The political landscape in Palestine will certainly experience serious changes in coming months and years. Genuine Palestinian leaderships must anticipate and accommodate a new era. It is what the people want, and what history repeatedly shows.</p> | false | 1 | time naturalize flow history wrote ahmet davutoglu turkeys minister foreign affairs british guardian march 16 process naturalization underway region davutoglu refused describe middle east arguing term orientalist preferring call region west asia south mediterranean davutoglu one articulate passionate turkish politicians justice development party akp along recep tayyip erdoğan abdullah gül labored naturalize flow history turkey sidelining incessantly intrusive military forging links regions cultures competing political thoughts mission remains arduous successfully led emergence unique turkish political thought proud roots yet receptive progress modernity hamas elected majority party palestinian legislative council 2006 group inspired objectives propelled akp ahmed yusuf top hamas official gaza even writing book entitled erdoğan new strategic vision erdoğans model liberal model dares take responsibility change things establishes good relations religious secular elements society yusuf said according turkeys hurriyet june 10 2010 model works democracy human rights supports open society want fact precisely ordinary palestinians want also desire inspired several arab revolutions goals ferociously defended largely achieved tahrir square cairo palestinians also wish see society free narrow factional interests limited political agendas despite every attempt whether siege wars protracted bombardments radicalization taken hold palestinian political thought course much anger continued desire justice political rhetoric gaza hamas leaders diaspora seems largely prudent increasingly universal values outreach exiled senior hamas leader khaled meshal commenting egyptian revolution claimed today witnessing cairo returning natural state disappeared state long time people egypt tunisia given us back lives khartoum march 6 massive revolutionary undertaking arab peoples allowing arabs determine fate chart course better future terms davutoglu advised undertaking also comes challenges arabs fail overcome lose momentum history palestinians dont need regime change per se arab polities siege military occupation true political sovereignty ground need roadmap new vision inspired rights aspirations palestinian people everywhere also free conventional wisdoms either enforced oslo fragmented palestinian society offered alternatives based mainly ideological factional religious rationale painful period palestinian history marred factionalism disunity civil strife diverted natural flow palestinian history speak hamas fatah west bank gaza individuals personal initiatives ngos funding everything except one palestine one palestinian people one goal one strategy one destiny happening palestine antihistory sustained long without exacting even heavier price palestinian people internationally recognized rights credibility palestinian leadership course greatly eroded hamas since official inception 1987 even prior islamic movement dedicated mainly charity work institution building proved capable changing growing growth based diktats israel outside power rather motivations political body managed evade numerous israeli bombs attempts undermining legitimate group regarded highly among many segments palestinian society international public opinion also shifting similar direction example 45 europeans believe hamas included peace process 25 believe excluded according icm european poll conducted january 2011 time people marching change freedom democracy region provide perfect opportunity palestinians break away political exclusivity localization struggle freedom hamas rethink charter 1988 almost impulsive rally cry always used interests seeking discount hamas credibility language charter might served purpose past fails live expectations people wish unity see past confines oslo peace process wealthamassing elites postoslo palestinian leaderships require new language new ideas new approaches certainly brand new vision strategy must break past hurdles need removed order natural flow history resume opportune time hamas revisit amend charter resume process change selfcorrection began many years ago political landscape palestine certainly experience serious changes coming months years genuine palestinian leaderships must anticipate accommodate new era people want history repeatedly shows | 551 |
<p>A few weeks ago, 206 congressmen sent <a href="http://www-eshoo.house.gov/newsroom/stem_cell_april04_letter.pdf" type="external">a letter</a> to President Bush demanding increased federal funding for more embryonic-stem-cell lines, and all but accusing the president of single-handedly standing in the way of curing many terrible human diseases. A group of senators is apparently planning to send a similar missive making similar demands in the near future. These senators would be wise to check the facts before they sign, instead of getting dragged into a political campaign that seems to show little regard for the data.</p>
<p>Of course, the question of embryonic-stem-cell research is a puzzling and contentious one. There are many who honestly believe that the possibility of medical progress in the future outweighs any respect owed to nascent human life in the present, and that the federal government should override the moral objections of many citizens and publicly fund research that involves embryo destruction. This is a misguided view; it risks making us users of life in the very effort to be savers of life, and it undermines the ethical pluralism that presently exists, by making the nation as a whole support this practice. But it is an often heartfelt position — one that Congress and the country can debate.</p>
<p>The trouble is that many stem-cell advocates press for this view by distorting the facts about the policy as it now exists, the facts about the promise of embryonic-stem-cell research, and the facts about where the embryos for such research will come from. For senators on the fence — especially Republicans and pro-lifers — a sober review seems in order to clear away some of the confusion.</p>
<p>Origins of the Current Policy</p>
<p>In accordance with the “Dickey Amendment,” passed each year since 1995, research involving the destruction of human embryos cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars. This is not Bush’s policy; it is the law of the land, passed annually by Congress and signed by both Presidents Clinton and Bush. This law does not ban embryo research, and it does not fund embryo research. It is a policy of public silence.</p>
<p>In 2000, the Clinton administration discovered a loophole that would allow the NIH to provide some federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research without asking Congress to overturn the Dickey amendment. By law, the government could not fund research “in which” embryos were destroyed. But if the destruction itself were funded privately, the government could offer funds for subsequent research on embryonic-stem-cell lines derived from the destroyed embryos. In other words: A researcher could destroy endless numbers of embryos in his private lab, and then use the fruits of such destruction to get public funding. This would not violate the letter of the law, but surely the spirit.</p>
<p>When he took office in 2001, President Bush put implementation of the Clinton guidelines on hold. He wanted a way to support potentially promising research, but he also did not believe the federal government should create an ongoing incentive for the destruction of human embryos. On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced his new guidelines: federal funding for research using stem-cell lines that existed before the announcement, but not for those created after. In this way, federal money would not act as an incentive for destroying human embryos in the future, but stem cells derived from embryos already destroyed in the past could be used with federal money to explore the basic science.</p>
<p>This was the fundamental bargain of the policy: no limits on embryonic-stem-cell research in the private sector (unlike much of the world, which regulates this practice), but no public subsidies to encourage a limitless industry of embryo destruction.</p>
<p>The latest campaign by proponents of more federal funding rejects this basic bargain, and thus rejects the very pluralism that liberalism so often claims is its highest value. Although hundreds of millions of dollars in private funds support embryonic-stem-cell research, and tens of millions in public dollars are spent on it each year under the Bush policy, the scientists and their advocates in Congress want more public money with fewer ethical limits, even if it means forcing those who believe embryo research is wrong to pay for embryo destruction.</p>
<p>Confusion and Distortion</p>
<p>To get those subsidies, stem-cell advocates have pulled out all the stops: distorting the facts, exaggerating the promise of the research, and confusing the public debate. The letter sent by 206 House members to President Bush last month is just the latest example. It is worth dissecting in some detail, lest senators make a similar error.</p>
<p>First, the letter exaggerates the state of embryonic-stem-cell science. “As you know,” begins the House letter to President Bush, “embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.” But these claims are irresponsible given the preliminary nature of the research, offering false hope to whole classes of patients now suffering under the burden of these diseases. The promise of embryonic-stem-cell research is very real but wholly speculative. No human therapies of any kind have yet been developed or tested, and none are on the horizon. And the notion that embryonic stem cells will cure “cancer” and “heart disease,” broad categories of disease that encompass a complex array of particular ailments, is unsupported by even informed conjectures. The use of a hard number — 100 million — is pandering of a sort that no good scientist should tolerate.</p>
<p>At a May 11 hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Aging, for example, Johns Hopkins Alzheimer’s Disease expert Peter Rabins and Washington University Alzheimer’s researcher John Morris both told the senators that they do not expect embryonic stem cells to play a role in Alzheimer’s treatment. Experts on other diseases speak with similar restraint. In the end, the research may bear therapeutic fruit and it may not — we cannot know in advance. It may cure some diseases and not others. But by seeming to promise medical salvation without limits, stem-cell advocates risk blurring the difficult ethical questions that surround this new science.</p>
<p>Second, the letter distorts the facts surrounding the availability of human embryos for research. “The IVF process results in more embryos than are needed by the couple,” the House members wrote to the president. “There are estimated to be more than 400,000 IVF embryos, which are currently frozen and will likely be destroyed if not donated, with informed consent of the couple, for research.” This implies that while the Bush policy funds research on only a few dozen lines, hundreds of thousands of embryos are out there for scientific use. But this is simply false. The same 2003 study that arrived at the 400,000 number made it clear that only about three percent of these frozen embryos are actually available for research — the others remain in the custody of the parents who created them, and are specifically designated for future use in initiating a pregnancy. Whether the parents really plan to implant them or not — some parents simply cannot bear to let them go — these embryos are not public property. The study further did the math, and concluded that if all available frozen embryos were used only for embryonic-stem-cell research, they would yield about 275 lines of stem cells. Not thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands, but 275 is all scientists can expect to get from frozen IVF embryos.</p>
<p>This points to a serious question about the intentions of embryonic-stem-cell advocates. In the May issue of Scientific American, prominent embryonic-stem-cell researchers Robert Lanza and Nadia Rosenthal wrote that the actual therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells would be hampered by immune-rejection problems that could only be overcome by cell treatments compatible with the immune system of patients. “Hundreds of thousands of ES-cell lines might be needed to establish a bank of cells with immune matches for most potential patients,” they wrote, and “creating that many lines could require millions of discarded embryos from IVF clinics.”</p>
<p>We will likely never have “millions of discarded embryos,” and nothing the president can do could change that. Moreover, the article suggests how far we might be from any workable treatments using embryonic stem cells. Does the House letter mean to call for a national project whose end is millions of embryos created for research? How many of the 206 signers understood that this might be necessary? And while it is true that many scientists believe we can find cures with fewer embryos, what will they do if Lanza and Rosenthal are right? Will they declare that “left-over” embryos are likewise “not enough”? Will they demand, for example, that the federal government also support the creation of cloned embryos solely for research? What limits, if any, will they accept as absolute, even if it means forgoing promising areas of research?</p>
<p>When the letter turns to the Bush policy itself, the House members do no better. “While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research under the federal policy,” they wrote to the president, “now, more than two years after August 9, 2001, only 19 are available to researchers.” In fact, the number of available stem-cell lines has been increasing as more of the 78 eligible lines are developed to the point that they can be distributed to scientists. Just days before the congressional letter went out, the number of lines had been 18, three weeks earlier it had been 17, in January there were 15, and a year ago there were less than 10. The number of lines has been growing so quickly that an earlier version of the letter, stating that only 15 lines were available, <a href="http://www.house.gov/shays/news/2004/april/aprstem.htm" type="external">is still posted on the websites of some of the signers</a>. It is true that not all 78 existing stem-cell lines will develop successfully and become available. But the claim that only 19 can ever be expected to exist is disingenuous. At least for now, the number continues steadily to increase.</p>
<p>Next, the congressmen’s letter says that, “All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.” But the fact is that almost all currently available human-embryonic-stem-cell lines (including those that are not eligible for federal funding) were created with mouse feeder layers, and there is no clear evidence that this means they are “contaminated” in any way that would affect their usefulness. Perhaps more important, and unmentioned in the congressional letter, is the fact that a number of the Bush-approved stem-cell lines have not been developed with mouse feeder cells. These lines have so far not been developed at all — they are frozen in an undeveloped form, for use when techniques that do not rely on mouse cells are perfected. As NIH director Elias Zerhouni said last fall, “there are at least those, which is about 16 lines, I believe, that have not been exposed to either mouse or human cell — human feeder cells.” These lines are not included among the 19 currently available.</p>
<p>Finally, the letter offers no evidence that the number of available lines has already proven to be a barrier to any particular researcher’s specific work at this point. No other advocate or scientist has offered such evidence either. It is certainly true that more money for more lines could mean more work would get done. But that is not the same as saying that ongoing work has hit a wall because of the limited number of lines now available for federal funding, or that it will soon hit such a wall.</p>
<p>Stepping back, a pattern of facts emerges. Embryonic-stem-cell research is promising but so far purely speculative; the federal government in no way limits such research in the private sector; supporters of the research believe they can obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in private funding in the next few years, as the creation of new stem-cell institutes at Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Wisconsin demonstrates; and yet, despite the ethical objections of a very substantial portion of the public, stem-cell advocates insist that Congress should compel every American to support the research with tax dollars, and to make that happen they inflate the promise and distort the facts surrounding the research.</p>
<p>For those who believe advancing stem-cell research is the only human good at issue in this debate, the Bush policy obviously makes no sense. But for those who see the ethical and political complexity of the stem-cell question — involving the possibility of curing terrible diseases, the ethical perils of turning nascent human life into a resource, and the need to balance and respect the deeply held moral views of a diverse country — the Bush policy continues to make great sense. And whatever the nation decides to do about embryo research over the long term, we should do it with our eyes wide open — knowing the unavoidable ethical costs of proceeding, the potential human costs of not proceeding, and the great uncertainty that surrounds any new area of science. It is these hard questions that senators — and all Americans — should keep in mind before entering the stem-cell fray.</p>
<p>–Eric Cohen is editor of <a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/" type="external">The New Atlantis</a>, resident scholar at the <a href="" type="internal">Ethics and Public Policy Center</a>, and a consultant to the <a href="http://www.bioethics.gov/" type="external">President’s Council on Bioethics</a>. The views expressed here are his own.</p> | false | 1 | weeks ago 206 congressmen sent letter president bush demanding increased federal funding embryonicstemcell lines accusing president singlehandedly standing way curing many terrible human diseases group senators apparently planning send similar missive making similar demands near future senators would wise check facts sign instead getting dragged political campaign seems show little regard data course question embryonicstemcell research puzzling contentious one many honestly believe possibility medical progress future outweighs respect owed nascent human life present federal government override moral objections many citizens publicly fund research involves embryo destruction misguided view risks making us users life effort savers life undermines ethical pluralism presently exists making nation whole support practice often heartfelt position one congress country debate trouble many stemcell advocates press view distorting facts policy exists facts promise embryonicstemcell research facts embryos research come senators fence especially republicans prolifers sober review seems order clear away confusion origins current policy accordance dickey amendment passed year since 1995 research involving destruction human embryos funded taxpayer dollars bushs policy law land passed annually congress signed presidents clinton bush law ban embryo research fund embryo research policy public silence 2000 clinton administration discovered loophole would allow nih provide federal funding embryonicstemcell research without asking congress overturn dickey amendment law government could fund research embryos destroyed destruction funded privately government could offer funds subsequent research embryonicstemcell lines derived destroyed embryos words researcher could destroy endless numbers embryos private lab use fruits destruction get public funding would violate letter law surely spirit took office 2001 president bush put implementation clinton guidelines hold wanted way support potentially promising research also believe federal government create ongoing incentive destruction human embryos august 9 2001 president bush announced new guidelines federal funding research using stemcell lines existed announcement created way federal money would act incentive destroying human embryos future stem cells derived embryos already destroyed past could used federal money explore basic science fundamental bargain policy limits embryonicstemcell research private sector unlike much world regulates practice public subsidies encourage limitless industry embryo destruction latest campaign proponents federal funding rejects basic bargain thus rejects pluralism liberalism often claims highest value although hundreds millions dollars private funds support embryonicstemcell research tens millions public dollars spent year bush policy scientists advocates congress want public money fewer ethical limits even means forcing believe embryo research wrong pay embryo destruction confusion distortion get subsidies stemcell advocates pulled stops distorting facts exaggerating promise research confusing public debate letter sent 206 house members president bush last month latest example worth dissecting detail lest senators make similar error first letter exaggerates state embryonicstemcell science know begins house letter president bush embryonic stem cells potential used treat better understand deadly disabling diseases affect 100 million americans cancer heart disease diabetes parkinsons alzheimers multiple sclerosis spinal cord injury many others claims irresponsible given preliminary nature research offering false hope whole classes patients suffering burden diseases promise embryonicstemcell research real wholly speculative human therapies kind yet developed tested none horizon notion embryonic stem cells cure cancer heart disease broad categories disease encompass complex array particular ailments unsupported even informed conjectures use hard number 100 million pandering sort good scientist tolerate may 11 hearing senate health education labor pensions subcommittee aging example johns hopkins alzheimers disease expert peter rabins washington university alzheimers researcher john morris told senators expect embryonic stem cells play role alzheimers treatment experts diseases speak similar restraint end research may bear therapeutic fruit may know advance may cure diseases others seeming promise medical salvation without limits stemcell advocates risk blurring difficult ethical questions surround new science second letter distorts facts surrounding availability human embryos research ivf process results embryos needed couple house members wrote president estimated 400000 ivf embryos currently frozen likely destroyed donated informed consent couple research implies bush policy funds research dozen lines hundreds thousands embryos scientific use simply false 2003 study arrived 400000 number made clear three percent frozen embryos actually available research others remain custody parents created specifically designated future use initiating pregnancy whether parents really plan implant parents simply bear let go embryos public property study math concluded available frozen embryos used embryonicstemcell research would yield 275 lines stem cells thousands let alone hundreds thousands 275 scientists expect get frozen ivf embryos points serious question intentions embryonicstemcell advocates may issue scientific american prominent embryonicstemcell researchers robert lanza nadia rosenthal wrote actual therapeutic use embryonic stem cells would hampered immunerejection problems could overcome cell treatments compatible immune system patients hundreds thousands escell lines might needed establish bank cells immune matches potential patients wrote creating many lines could require millions discarded embryos ivf clinics likely never millions discarded embryos nothing president could change moreover article suggests far might workable treatments using embryonic stem cells house letter mean call national project whose end millions embryos created research many 206 signers understood might necessary true many scientists believe find cures fewer embryos lanza rosenthal right declare leftover embryos likewise enough demand example federal government also support creation cloned embryos solely research limits accept absolute even means forgoing promising areas research letter turns bush policy house members better originally appeared 78 embryonic stem cell lines would available research federal policy wrote president two years august 9 2001 19 available researchers fact number available stemcell lines increasing 78 eligible lines developed point distributed scientists days congressional letter went number lines 18 three weeks earlier 17 january 15 year ago less 10 number lines growing quickly earlier version letter stating 15 lines available still posted websites signers true 78 existing stemcell lines develop successfully become available claim 19 ever expected exist disingenuous least number continues steadily increase next congressmens letter says available stem cell lines contaminated mouse feeder cells making therapeutic use humans uncertain fact almost currently available humanembryonicstemcell lines including eligible federal funding created mouse feeder layers clear evidence means contaminated way would affect usefulness perhaps important unmentioned congressional letter fact number bushapproved stemcell lines developed mouse feeder cells lines far developed frozen undeveloped form use techniques rely mouse cells perfected nih director elias zerhouni said last fall least 16 lines believe exposed either mouse human cell human feeder cells lines included among 19 currently available finally letter offers evidence number available lines already proven barrier particular researchers specific work point advocate scientist offered evidence either certainly true money lines could mean work would get done saying ongoing work hit wall limited number lines available federal funding soon hit wall stepping back pattern facts emerges embryonicstemcell research promising far purely speculative federal government way limits research private sector supporters research believe obtain hundreds millions dollars private funding next years creation new stemcell institutes harvard stanford university wisconsin demonstrates yet despite ethical objections substantial portion public stemcell advocates insist congress compel every american support research tax dollars make happen inflate promise distort facts surrounding research believe advancing stemcell research human good issue debate bush policy obviously makes sense see ethical political complexity stemcell question involving possibility curing terrible diseases ethical perils turning nascent human life resource need balance respect deeply held moral views diverse country bush policy continues make great sense whatever nation decides embryo research long term eyes wide open knowing unavoidable ethical costs proceeding potential human costs proceeding great uncertainty surrounds new area science hard questions senators americans keep mind entering stemcell fray eric cohen editor new atlantis resident scholar ethics public policy center consultant presidents council bioethics views expressed | 1,218 |
<p>Aug. 23 (UPI) — <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Disney/" type="external">Disney</a>‘s Beauty and The Beast, Pulp Fiction, Gangs of New York and Dead Poet’s Society are just few of the blockbusters coming to Netflix in September. Also coming to the streaming giant are new seasons of Netflix Original Series Fuller House and Narcos and much more.</p>
<p>Here’s the full list of what’s being added to Netflix in September: September 1Amores Perros City of God Dead Poets Society Deep Blue Sea Disney’s Hercules Disney’s Mulan FINAL FANTASY XIV Dad of Light: Season 1 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Fracture Gangs of New York Gone Baby Gone High Risk Hoodwinked Hotel for Dogs Jaws Jaws 2 Jaws 3 Jaws: The Revenge LEGO Elves: Secrets of Elvendale: Season 1 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Little Evil — NETFLIX ORIGINAL FILM Maniac: Season 1 Narcos: Season 3 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL TEASER Outside Man: Volume 2 Pulp Fiction Requiem for a Dream Resurface — NETFLIX ORIGINAL TRAILER Shaq &amp; Cedric the Entertainer Present: All Star Comedy Jam <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Shaquille_O_Neal/" type="external">Shaquille O’Neal</a> Presents: All Star Comedy Jam: Live from Atlanta Shaquille O’Neal Presents: All Star Comedy Jam: Live from Dallas Shaquille O’Neal Presents: All Star Comedy Jam: Live from Las Vegas Shaquille O’Neal Presents: All Star Comedy Jam: Live from Orlando Shaquille O’Neal Presents: All Star Comedy Jam: Live from South Beach She’s Gotta Have It The B-Side: Elsa Dorfman’s Portrait Photography The Last Shaman The Lost Brother The Rugrats Movie The Secret Garden The Squid and the Whale West Coast Customs: Season 5 Who the F**K is that Guy</p>
<p>September 2 Vincent N Roxxy</p>
<p>September 4 Graduation</p>
<p>September 5 Carrie Pilby Facing Darkness Like Crazy Marc Maron: Too Real — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Newsies: The Broadway Musical</p>
<p>September 6A Good American Hard Tide</p>
<p>September 7The Blacklist: Season 4</p>
<p>September 8#realityhigh — NETFLIX ORIGINAL FILM Apaches: Season 1 BoJack Horseman: Season 4 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Fabrizio Copano: Solo Pienso En Mi — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Fire Chasers: Season 1 Greenhouse Academy: Season 1 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Joaquín Reyes: Una y no más — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Spirit: Riding Free: Season 2 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL The Confession Tapes: Season 1 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL The Walking Dead: Season 7</p>
<p>September 9 Portlandia: Season 7</p>
<p>September 11 The Forgotten</p>
<p>September 12 Jeff Dunham: Relative Disaster — NETFLIX ORIGINAL</p>
<p>September 13 Offspring: Season 7 Ghost of the Mountains</p>
<p>September 14 Disney’s Pocahontas</p>
<p>September 15 American Vandal: Season 1 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL First They Killed My Father — NETFLIX ORIGINAL FILM Foo Fighters: Back and Forth <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/George_Harrison/" type="external">George Harrison</a>: Living in the Material World Larceny Project Mc²: Part 5 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Rumble Strong Island — NETFLIX ORIGINAL VeggieTales in the City: Season 2 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL</p>
<p>September 18 Call the Midwife: Series 6 The Journey Is the Destination</p>
<p>September 19 Disney’s Beauty and the Beast Jerry Before Seinfeld — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Love, Sweat and Tears</p>
<p>September 20 Carol</p>
<p>September 21 Gotham: Season 3</p>
<p>September 22 Fuller House: New Episodes — NETFLIX ORIGINALJack Whitehall: Travels with My Father: Season 1 — NETFLIX ORIGINALThe Samaritan</p>
<p>September 23 Alien Arrival</p>
<p>September 25 Dark Matter: Season 3</p>
<p>September 26 BacheloretteNight School Restless Creature: Wendy Whelan Terrace House: Aloha State: Part 4 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL</p>
<p>September 27Absolutely Anything</p>
<p>September 29 Big Mouth: Season 1 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Club de Cuervos: Season 3 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Gerald’s Game — NETFLIX ORIGINAL FILM Real Rob: Season 2 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Paul Hollywood’s Big Continental Road Trip: Season 1 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL Our Souls at Night — NETFLIX ORIGINAL FILM The Magic School Bus Rides Again: Season 1 — NETFLIX ORIGINAL</p>
<p>September 30 Murder Maps: Season 3</p>
<p>Here’s the full list of what’s leaving Netflix in September: September 1 Better Off Ted: Season 2 Do Not Disturb Frailty Hope Floats Jackass: The Movie Julia LEGO Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu: King of Shadows LEGO Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu: Way of the Ninja RV The Batman: Season 1 – 5 The Deep End: Season 1 The Omen Wilfred : Season 1 – 2 Something’s Gotta Give <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Sweeney_Todd/" type="external">Sweeney Todd</a>: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street Tears of the Sun Scream A Nightmare on Elm Street</p>
<p>September 3 Drumline: A New Beat</p>
<p>September 4 The A-List</p>
<p>September 5 Lilo &amp; Stitch The Emperor’s New Groove</p>
<p>September 9 Teen Beach 2</p>
<p>September 10 Army Wives: Season 1 – 7</p>
<p>September 11 Terra Nova: Season 1</p>
<p>September 15 <a href="https://www.upi.com/topic/Katt_Williams/" type="external">Katt Williams</a>: Kattpacalypse</p>
<p>September 16 Jackass 3.5: The Unrated Movie One Day</p>
<p>September 19 Persons Unknown: Season 1</p>
<p>September 20 Bombay Velvet Finding Fanny Raising Hope: Season 1</p>
<p>September 22 Philomena</p>
<p>September 24 Déjà Vu</p>
<p>September 26 A Gifted Man: Season 1 Sons of Tucson: Season 1 CSI: Miami: Season 1 – 10</p>
<p>September 30 Last Man Standing: Season 1 – 5</p> | false | 1 | aug 23 upi disneys beauty beast pulp fiction gangs new york dead poets society blockbusters coming netflix september also coming streaming giant new seasons netflix original series fuller house narcos much heres full list whats added netflix september september 1amores perros city god dead poets society deep blue sea disneys hercules disneys mulan final fantasy xiv dad light season 1 netflix original fracture gangs new york gone baby gone high risk hoodwinked hotel dogs jaws jaws 2 jaws 3 jaws revenge lego elves secrets elvendale season 1 netflix original little evil netflix original film maniac season 1 narcos season 3 netflix original teaser outside man volume 2 pulp fiction requiem dream resurface netflix original trailer shaq amp cedric entertainer present star comedy jam shaquille oneal presents star comedy jam live atlanta shaquille oneal presents star comedy jam live dallas shaquille oneal presents star comedy jam live las vegas shaquille oneal presents star comedy jam live orlando shaquille oneal presents star comedy jam live south beach shes got ta bside elsa dorfmans portrait photography last shaman lost brother rugrats movie secret garden squid whale west coast customs season 5 fk guy september 2 vincent n roxxy september 4 graduation september 5 carrie pilby facing darkness like crazy marc maron real netflix original newsies broadway musical september 6a good american hard tide september 7the blacklist season 4 september 8realityhigh netflix original film apaches season 1 bojack horseman season 4 netflix original fabrizio copano solo pienso en mi netflix original fire chasers season 1 greenhouse academy season 1 netflix original joaquín reyes una más netflix original spirit riding free season 2 netflix original confession tapes season 1 netflix original walking dead season 7 september 9 portlandia season 7 september 11 forgotten september 12 jeff dunham relative disaster netflix original september 13 offspring season 7 ghost mountains september 14 disneys pocahontas september 15 american vandal season 1 netflix original first killed father netflix original film foo fighters back forth george harrison living material world larceny project mc² part 5 netflix original rumble strong island netflix original veggietales city season 2 netflix original september 18 call midwife series 6 journey destination september 19 disneys beauty beast jerry seinfeld netflix original love sweat tears september 20 carol september 21 gotham season 3 september 22 fuller house new episodes netflix originaljack whitehall travels father season 1 netflix originalthe samaritan september 23 alien arrival september 25 dark matter season 3 september 26 bachelorettenight school restless creature wendy whelan terrace house aloha state part 4 netflix original september 27absolutely anything september 29 big mouth season 1 netflix original club de cuervos season 3 netflix original geralds game netflix original film real rob season 2 netflix original paul hollywoods big continental road trip season 1 netflix original souls night netflix original film magic school bus rides season 1 netflix original september 30 murder maps season 3 heres full list whats leaving netflix september september 1 better ted season 2 disturb frailty hope floats jackass movie julia lego ninjago masters spinjitzu king shadows lego ninjago masters spinjitzu way ninja rv batman season 1 5 deep end season 1 omen wilfred season 1 2 somethings got ta give sweeney todd demon barber fleet street tears sun scream nightmare elm street september 3 drumline new beat september 4 alist september 5 lilo amp stitch emperors new groove september 9 teen beach 2 september 10 army wives season 1 7 september 11 terra nova season 1 september 15 katt williams kattpacalypse september 16 jackass 35 unrated movie one day september 19 persons unknown season 1 september 20 bombay velvet finding fanny raising hope season 1 september 22 philomena september 24 déjà vu september 26 gifted man season 1 sons tucson season 1 csi miami season 1 10 september 30 last man standing season 1 5 | 631 |
<p>Aug. 16 (UPI) — An estimated 220 million people will watch Monday’s eclipse. For a small percentage, the phenomenon will be more than a spectacle. It will be a chance to observe and record — for science’s sake.</p>
<p>Researchers at NASA are counting on the participation of thousands of citizen scientists to document next week’s solar eclipse and to gather usable data for additional research.</p>
<p>Scientists want to find out how the brief disappearance of the sun will alter clouds, weather, plants, animals and more. The event — and the data gathered before, during and after — is expected to inspire studies by biologists, astrophysicists, sociologists, meteorologists and scientists from many other fields.</p>
<p>Those who download the GLOBE Observer Eclipse app, register, and procure a thermometer will be able to log geolocated air temperature readings during the eclipse. The app will also help participants document cloud type and cover before, during and after the event.</p>
<p>“One of the special features of the GLOBE Observer app is the ability to match cloud observations from the ground with satellite observations, which also provides interesting and valuable comparisons,” Kristen Weaver, deputy coordinator for the GLOBE Observer program, told UPI.</p>
<p>Cloud and air temperature data collected using the app will be publicly available for students and researchers to use as they wish, but several NASA scientists will use the observations to better understand Earth’s energy budget, the balance between the solar energy absorbed and reflected by Earth.</p>
<p>Some observations are likely to end up on YouTube before they find their way into prestigious science journals.</p>
<p>More than 1,000 DSLR camera users have volunteered to share their eclipse photographs with scientists working on the <a href="https://eclipsemega.movie/" type="external">Eclipse Megamovie</a> project. Organizers are still looking for more citizen photographers to <a href="https://eclipsemega.movie/profile" type="external">sign up</a>.</p>
<p>Megamovie scientists will stitch together images to form a high-definition movie — a moving collage showcasing the eclipse as it was seen across the country.</p>
<p>Hugh Hudson, a research physicist at the University of California, Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory, dreamed up the project.</p>
<p>“My colleague Scott McIntosh and I listened to a presentation on eclipse science by Shadia Habbal, and we kind of simultaneously whispered ‘let’s make a movie!’ to each other,” Hudson said of the moment the idea hit them.</p>
<p>“The movie idea originally was just for outreach, and it has been and will be a powerful tool, but we also — being scientists — have figured out very good and novel science to do this way,” he added.</p>
<p>Those without a DSLR camera can participate using a smartphone. The Eclipse Megamovie Mobile app will walk users through the point and shoot process. Smartphone images of the eclipsed sun will be used to study how the corona changes over time.</p>
<p>One team of researchers is less interested in what the eclipse looks like and keener on learning what it sounds like.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://eclipsesoundscapes.org/" type="external">Eclipse Soundscapes</a> project was inspired by a deaf librarian who asked organizer Henry “Trae” Winter what a solar eclipse was like. After he realized nothing he was telling her was registering, he asked one of his colleagues for help. Winter’s colleague relayed a story of a quiet field becoming flooded, the sounds of chirping crickets, and the croaking of frogs as the moon passed in front of the sun.</p>
<p>Many eclipse viewers have experienced similar sonic transformations — birds going quiet, others erupting in song, ants stopping in their tracks.</p>
<p>“Not all species have as strong a circadian clock as humans do,” said Winter, a solar astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian CfA. “But these are just stories, these are just pieces of anecdotal evidence. We want to bring those stories into the scientific realm so we can test and measure them and see how much these soundscapes truly change.”</p>
<p>Winter and his colleagues have recruited thousands of citizen scientists to record soundscapes before during and after the eclipse.</p>
<p>For some of the participants, this won’t be the first recording session. It’s a serious pursuit, requiring serious — and expensive — equipment, including microphones that cost thousands of dollars. But would-be acoustic scientists can send in soundscapes recorded on cassette tapes.</p>
<p>Winters and his colleagues want all the data they can get.</p>
<p>“We hope to have thousands of actual sound recordings of different locations and different species all over the country,” he said.</p>
<p>Recordings from both inside and outside the path of totality — the coast-to-coast, 70-mile-wide path in which the sun will be entirely blocked by the moon — will allow scientists to determine how much of an eclipse is necessary to trigger “the dark-light, night-day confusion among crickets and frogs.”</p>
<p>The recordings of citizens will be supplemented by the work of highly trained acoustic scientists.</p>
<p>“The National Park Service is helping us out with this. They have an amazing team of researchers,” Winter said. “The Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division has teams working in 16 parks along the path of totality.”</p>
<p>NPS scientists are focused on preserving and recording the sounds of wildlife, but Winter hopes some citizen scientists will capture the sounds of city life.</p>
<p>How will city streets sound as the daytime sky grows dark?</p>
<p>“I’m hoping some anthropologists and sociologists look at human interactions and responses and make comparisons between the two,” he said.</p>
<p>While Winter has worked to organize related citizen science efforts, his main focus on the Eclipse Soundscapes project has been developing a way for blind and visually impaired people to experience the eclipse through sound and touch. Winter and his colleagues built an app that will offer real-time narrations of the phenomenon. The app also has a tactile component that the uses a smartphone’s vibration feature to relay the movement of the moon across the sun’s face.</p>
<p>Winter’s commitment to accessibility extends to the project’s citizen science components, too.</p>
<p>Almost of all the data collected through NASA’s litany of citizen science programs will be made publicly available in the weeks following Monday’s eclipse. But Winter and his colleagues are taking the extra steps to ensure their data will accessible to the visually impaired.</p>
<p>The blind and visually impaired use specific search techniques to navigate online sources and Internet databases.</p>
<p>“Adding lots of tags and metadata to your data is the best way to help them conduct efficient searches,” Winter said. “Adding that rich metadata is one of the key features we’re going to be doing and working on post-collection.”</p>
<p>NASA’s outreach and engagement efforts have the potential to inspire one of the largest citizen science efforts in history. And it could just be a precursor of what’s to come.</p>
<p>“Really, this is kind of a dry run for the next eclipse, which will happen in 2024,” Winter said.</p> | false | 1 | aug 16 upi estimated 220 million people watch mondays eclipse small percentage phenomenon spectacle chance observe record sciences sake researchers nasa counting participation thousands citizen scientists document next weeks solar eclipse gather usable data additional research scientists want find brief disappearance sun alter clouds weather plants animals event data gathered expected inspire studies biologists astrophysicists sociologists meteorologists scientists many fields download globe observer eclipse app register procure thermometer able log geolocated air temperature readings eclipse app also help participants document cloud type cover event one special features globe observer app ability match cloud observations ground satellite observations also provides interesting valuable comparisons kristen weaver deputy coordinator globe observer program told upi cloud air temperature data collected using app publicly available students researchers use wish several nasa scientists use observations better understand earths energy budget balance solar energy absorbed reflected earth observations likely end youtube find way prestigious science journals 1000 dslr camera users volunteered share eclipse photographs scientists working eclipse megamovie project organizers still looking citizen photographers sign megamovie scientists stitch together images form highdefinition movie moving collage showcasing eclipse seen across country hugh hudson research physicist university california berkeleys space sciences laboratory dreamed project colleague scott mcintosh listened presentation eclipse science shadia habbal kind simultaneously whispered lets make movie hudson said moment idea hit movie idea originally outreach powerful tool also scientists figured good novel science way added without dslr camera participate using smartphone eclipse megamovie mobile app walk users point shoot process smartphone images eclipsed sun used study corona changes time one team researchers less interested eclipse looks like keener learning sounds like eclipse soundscapes project inspired deaf librarian asked organizer henry trae winter solar eclipse like realized nothing telling registering asked one colleagues help winters colleague relayed story quiet field becoming flooded sounds chirping crickets croaking frogs moon passed front sun many eclipse viewers experienced similar sonic transformations birds going quiet others erupting song ants stopping tracks species strong circadian clock humans said winter solar astrophysicist harvardsmithsonian cfa stories pieces anecdotal evidence want bring stories scientific realm test measure see much soundscapes truly change winter colleagues recruited thousands citizen scientists record soundscapes eclipse participants wont first recording session serious pursuit requiring serious expensive equipment including microphones cost thousands dollars wouldbe acoustic scientists send soundscapes recorded cassette tapes winters colleagues want data get hope thousands actual sound recordings different locations different species country said recordings inside outside path totality coasttocoast 70milewide path sun entirely blocked moon allow scientists determine much eclipse necessary trigger darklight nightday confusion among crickets frogs recordings citizens supplemented work highly trained acoustic scientists national park service helping us amazing team researchers winter said natural sounds night skies division teams working 16 parks along path totality nps scientists focused preserving recording sounds wildlife winter hopes citizen scientists capture sounds city life city streets sound daytime sky grows dark im hoping anthropologists sociologists look human interactions responses make comparisons two said winter worked organize related citizen science efforts main focus eclipse soundscapes project developing way blind visually impaired people experience eclipse sound touch winter colleagues built app offer realtime narrations phenomenon app also tactile component uses smartphones vibration feature relay movement moon across suns face winters commitment accessibility extends projects citizen science components almost data collected nasas litany citizen science programs made publicly available weeks following mondays eclipse winter colleagues taking extra steps ensure data accessible visually impaired blind visually impaired use specific search techniques navigate online sources internet databases adding lots tags metadata data best way help conduct efficient searches winter said adding rich metadata one key features going working postcollection nasas outreach engagement efforts potential inspire one largest citizen science efforts history could precursor whats come really kind dry run next eclipse happen 2024 winter said | 622 |
<p>Ah, satire! Or perhaps “satire.” Either way — with a single dose of irony or a double — it’s back. What the show “That Was the Week That Was” was to the Sixties, “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central is to the Aughties.</p>
<p>But there is a difference. The consumers of TV satire 40 years ago were assumed by the satirists to be pretty well-informed people already. Now there are indications that a lot of people, especially young people, are skipping the regular news and going straight to the satire.</p>
<p>According to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press earlier this year, 21% of people aged 18-29 “regularly” got news about the election campaign from “The Daily Show” or the monologues of late-night comedians — about the same number as watched network news shows or got news from the Internet.</p>
<p>If this is true, it could explain a lot about the way that Jon Stewart, “The Daily Show’s” mock anchorman, chooses to handle his subject. He offers a combination of real stories from the “wacky” end of the news spectrum — like the one about the Iraqi tourism minister whose job is to prevent tourists from coming to Iraq — and mockery of mainstream news sources, especially the pomposity of the network anchors and correspondents. And of course it isn’t just the media that are mocked: It is also conservatives, Republicans, the Religious Right and, most of all, President Bush and his administration.</p>
<p>Now he seems to be branching out into a sermonizing mode, if hypocritically. Last week he went on CNN’s “Crossfire” to tell co-hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala that they were “partisan hacks” who were “hurting America.”</p>
<p />
<p>A serious charge, you might think. Certainly Mr. Carlson thought so. He might have made something of the muddled thinking that lay behind Mr. Stewart’s charge of partisanship — against a show specifically set up to confront one partisan with another. But instead Mr. Carlson counterattacked, pointing to the softball questions that Mr. Stewart had asked John Kerry during the presidential candidate’s appearance on “The Daily Show.”</p>
<p>“I didn’t realize — and maybe this explains quite a bit,” Mr. Stewart shot back, “that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.” He went on to compare what “Crossfire” does to “theater” and “pro wrestling.”</p>
<p>These comments led to more angry words, as each man insulted the other. But the anger generated by the exchange, and the insults that have continued since, only obscure what exactly was going on.</p>
<p>Mr. Stewart used his appearance on “Crossfire” to make a serious point, yet when it was taken up seriously he tried to retreat into his characteristic pose as a harmless comedian. “You are on CNN,” he said to Mr. Carlson when accused of sucking up to Mr. Kerry; “the show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.”</p>
<p>So then we shouldn’t pay any attention to him when he tries to be serious? I don’t think he quite meant to say that, and yet he is saying it, in effect, all the time. Under the cover of humor, his show routinely makes vicious points about, say, the Iraq war. Are we meant to think of the puppets when we hear such “Daily Show” bits or when Mr. Stewart endorses Mr. Kerry for president?</p>
<p>It’s a convenient double game. Mr. Stewart owes his success in no small measure to his irreverence toward the sanctimony with which the regular or “real” TV news conducts its business, yet there he is attacking one of the few news shows on television that has no room for the network “anchor” and his po-faced self-importance. Certainly Mr. Stewart’s criticism of “Crossfire” for its resemblance to pro-wrestling is odd coming from an avowed entertainer like himself. Could it be that he wants to corner the market in turning politics into entertainment?</p>
<p>Perhaps, but maybe it isn’t satirical competitors that Mr. Stewart fears from “Crossfire” so much as the threat it poses to the pomposity of his satirical subjects. That, after all, is Mr. Stewart’s bread and butter. More than anyone since Stan Freberg, whose radio skits about American history were also popular in the 1960s, Mr. Stewart has made his media fortune out of deflating the dignity of America’s politicians and statesmen, dead as well as alive.</p>
<p>Weighing in at No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list last week, for example, was his “America (The Book)” — a mock civics textbook complete with an authentic-looking school-board stamp inside the front cover and a cover-line proclaiming: “With a Foreword by Thomas Jefferson.”</p>
<p>Those familiar with the Stewart technique won’t be surprised to learn that in this foreword the third president shows his familiarity with the language of the 21st-century streets and recounts the doubts of a certain “Sally” about his taking on such work: “You are the author of the Declaration of Independence. A scholar. A statesman. This is beneath you. It’s not even network.” Then he has “T.J.” sign off with a postscript: “Oh, and is it true Halle Berry is once again single?”</p>
<p>If the only thing he knows about Jefferson besides his authorship of the Declaration is the allegation of his sexual liaison with his slave Sally Hemings, it doesn’t bother Jon Stewart — or his audience. Just as you don’t have to know the news to watch “The Daily Show,” you don’t have to know anything, really, about American history or government to enjoy “America (The Book).”</p>
<p>The mockery of “Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America” was affectionate and depended on the sort of knowledge about American history that could then have been taken for granted. Mr. Stewart sounds in his book as he does on his TV show — not affectionate but arrogant, as if he were way too cool to bother finding out the facts of the real history, or news, that he’s sending up. Who can take such stuff seriously?</p>
<p>Make no mistake: Mr. Stewart can be funny. His mock Larry King interview with Adolf Hitler in his earlier book, “Naked Pictures of Famous People” (1998), was hilarious, but it also made a serious point about how the media can be manipulated with the jargon of the therapeutic culture.</p>
<p>Lately when things have turned serious for a moment, Mr. Stewart has beaten a hasty retreat, as he did on “Crossfire.” Comedy without an underlying moral seriousness is a species of nihilism, as fatiguing as the Olympian posturings of the network news. Someone should tell Jon Stewart that partisan hacks are what made this country great. But he probably doesn’t care.</p>
<p>Mr. Bowman is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.</p>
<p /> | false | 1 | ah satire perhaps satire either way single dose irony double back show week sixties daily show comedy central aughties difference consumers tv satire 40 years ago assumed satirists pretty wellinformed people already indications lot people especially young people skipping regular news going straight satire according survey pew research center people press earlier year 21 people aged 1829 regularly got news election campaign daily show monologues latenight comedians number watched network news shows got news internet true could explain lot way jon stewart daily shows mock anchorman chooses handle subject offers combination real stories wacky end news spectrum like one iraqi tourism minister whose job prevent tourists coming iraq mockery mainstream news sources especially pomposity network anchors correspondents course isnt media mocked also conservatives republicans religious right president bush administration seems branching sermonizing mode hypocritically last week went cnns crossfire tell cohosts tucker carlson paul begala partisan hacks hurting america serious charge might think certainly mr carlson thought might made something muddled thinking lay behind mr stewarts charge partisanship show specifically set confront one partisan another instead mr carlson counterattacked pointing softball questions mr stewart asked john kerry presidential candidates appearance daily show didnt realize maybe explains quite bit mr stewart shot back news organizations look comedy central cues integrity went compare crossfire theater pro wrestling comments led angry words man insulted anger generated exchange insults continued since obscure exactly going mr stewart used appearance crossfire make serious point yet taken seriously tried retreat characteristic pose harmless comedian cnn said mr carlson accused sucking mr kerry show leads puppets making crank phone calls shouldnt pay attention tries serious dont think quite meant say yet saying effect time cover humor show routinely makes vicious points say iraq war meant think puppets hear daily show bits mr stewart endorses mr kerry president convenient double game mr stewart owes success small measure irreverence toward sanctimony regular real tv news conducts business yet attacking one news shows television room network anchor pofaced selfimportance certainly mr stewarts criticism crossfire resemblance prowrestling odd coming avowed entertainer like could wants corner market turning politics entertainment perhaps maybe isnt satirical competitors mr stewart fears crossfire much threat poses pomposity satirical subjects mr stewarts bread butter anyone since stan freberg whose radio skits american history also popular 1960s mr stewart made media fortune deflating dignity americas politicians statesmen dead well alive weighing 1 new york times bestseller list last week example america book mock civics textbook complete authenticlooking schoolboard stamp inside front cover coverline proclaiming foreword thomas jefferson familiar stewart technique wont surprised learn foreword third president shows familiarity language 21stcentury streets recounts doubts certain sally taking work author declaration independence scholar statesman beneath even network tj sign postscript oh true halle berry single thing knows jefferson besides authorship declaration allegation sexual liaison slave sally hemings doesnt bother jon stewart audience dont know news watch daily show dont know anything really american history government enjoy america book mockery stan freberg presents united states america affectionate depended sort knowledge american history could taken granted mr stewart sounds book tv show affectionate arrogant way cool bother finding facts real history news hes sending take stuff seriously make mistake mr stewart funny mock larry king interview adolf hitler earlier book naked pictures famous people 1998 hilarious also made serious point media manipulated jargon therapeutic culture lately things turned serious moment mr stewart beaten hasty retreat crossfire comedy without underlying moral seriousness species nihilism fatiguing olympian posturings network news someone tell jon stewart partisan hacks made country great probably doesnt care mr bowman resident scholar ethics public policy center washington | 596 |
<p />
<p><a href="" type="internal">&lt;img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-14956" title="redorbluepill" src="https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/redorbluepill.jpg" alt="Red or Blue Pill" width="450" height="196" srcset="https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/redorbluepill.jpg 450w, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/redorbluepill-150x65.jpg 150w, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/redorbluepill-300x131.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 450px) 100vw, 450px" /&gt;</a></p>
<p>Americans, the British, and Western Europeans are accustomed to thinking of themselves as the representatives of freedom, democracy, and morality in the world. The West passes judgment on the rest of the world as if the West is God and the rest of the world are barbarians in need of chastisement, invasion, and occupation. As readers know, from time to time I raise questions about the validity of the West’s extreme hubris. (See for example, the following articles:&#160; <a href="http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/02/15/washingtons-insouciance-has-no-rival/" type="external">Washington’s Insouciance Has No Rival</a>&#160;and&#160; <a href="http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/02/14/is-western-democracy-real-or-a-facade/" type="external">Is Western Democracy Real or a Facade?</a>&#160;)</p>
<p>China is often a country about which Washington’s moralists get on their high horse. However, China’s “authoritarian” government is actually more responsive to its people than America’s “elected democratic” government. Moreover, however incomplete on paper the civil liberties of China’s people, the Chinese government has not declared that it can violate with impunity whatever rights Chinese citizens have. And it is not China that is running torture prisons all over the globe.</p>
<p>For some time I have had in mind a realistic comparison of the two countries instead of the standard propagandistic comparison, but Ron Unz has beat me to the task (see,&#160; <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/chinas-rise-americas-fall/" type="external">China’s Rise, America’s Fall</a>&#160;and&#160; <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/chinese-melamine-and-american-vioxx-a-comparison/" type="external">Chinese Melamine and American Vioxx: A Comparison</a>&#160;). Unz provides a chance for an education. Don’t miss it.</p>
<p>Unz has done an excellent job. Moreover, he cleverly understates the case for China and overstates the case for America so as not to unduly arouse the flag-wavers. Nevertheless, the conclusion is clear: The Chinese are less threatened by their “extractive elites” than Americans are by their counterparts.</p>
<p>Moreover, it is America’s, not China’s, extractive elites who are bombing, occupying, and droning other countries. As the bumper sticker says, “Be nice to America or we will bring democracy to your country.”</p>
<p>As for economic management, there is no comparison. Unz reports that during the past three decades China has achieved the most rapid rate of economic development in human history. Moreover, most of the new income has flowed into the pockets of Chinese workers, not to the one percent. While American real median incomes have been stagnant for decades, incomes for Chinese workers have doubled every decade for three decades. A recent World Bank report attributes more than 100 percent of the drop in global poverty rates to China’s rise.</p>
<p>In the last decade China’s industrial output quadrupled. China now produces more automobiles than America and Japan combined and accounted for 85 percent of the increase in the world’s production of cars in the past decade.</p>
<p>In 1978 the American economy was 15 times larger than China’s. In the next few years China’s GDP is expected to exceed that of the US.</p>
<p>This is heady stuff providing astonishing details of how poorly Americans are served by their elites.</p>
<p>America has failed, because political elites represent only the powerful special interests that write the country’s laws in exchange for funding the political campaigns of “lawmakers.” To divert attention from their failures, American elites point fingers at external scapegoats. China, for example, is accused of manipulating its currency. As Unz says, the scapegoating is political theater designed for the ignorant and gullible.</p>
<p>America’s economists, or most of them, have so prostituted themselves that propaganda has become wisdom. Most Americans believe that if China would simply let the value of its currency rise more rapidly relative to the dollar, America’s economic woes would be at an end. It is beyond belief that any economist could think that Americans with stagnant and declining incomes would be made better off by a sharp rise in the prices of goods manufactured in China on which Americans are dependent, or that the US dollar’s role as reserve currency, the main source of American power, could survive such a manifestation of Chinese economic superiority.</p>
<p>Americans associate lawlessness with unaccountable governments and view China’s government as unaccountable. However, Unz points out that it is the Bush/Obama Regime that has declared itself to be unaccountable to both US and international law.</p>
<p>The demise of the War Powers Act and the Geneva Conventions, and the asserted power of the executive to imprison without trial or charges or to assassinate any American whom the executive thinks might be a “national-security threat” are indicative of a total police state masquerading as an accountable democracy. In America six-year old little girls who misbehave in school are handcuffed, jailed, and charged with felonies (see,&#160; <a href="https://lewrockwell.com/rep3/young-children-brutalized-by-police.html" type="external">10 Disgusting Examples of Very Young School Children Being Arrested, Handcuffed and Brutalized By Police</a>). Not even Hitler and Stalin went this far.</p>
<p>Americans have lost control of the government, and governments that are not controlled by the people are not democracies. In America today, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and the entire social safety net are threatened by the vociferous desire for war profits by armament plutocrats and by financial institutions determined that ordinary citizens bear the cost of the banksters incompetence and fraud.</p>
<p>Unz’s comparison of how the Chinese media and government handled the melamine or infant formula scandal and how the American media and government handled Merck’s Vioxx scandal is especially damning. It was China’s controlled media and unaccountable government that punished the infant formula wrongdoers, while America’s free press and accountable government allowed Merck to walk.</p>
<p>Unz’s conclusion is that it is in America, not China, where life is regarded as cheap.</p>
<p>Ron Unz is an American hero, and a very courageous one. As George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”</p>
<p>It is an even more courageous act when no one wants to hear the truth. As Frantz Fanon said, “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”</p>
<p>Or as it is explained to Neo in the film, “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”</p>
<p>Most of the people I know personally are not willing to be unplugged. I assume my readers are, so seize the opportunity to be further unplugged and read Ron Unz’s comparison of America and China.</p>
<p>Then do what you can to unplug others.</p>
<p>This article was originally published at <a href="http://www.paulcraigroberts.org" type="external">PaulCraigRoberts.org</a> and has been reproduced here with permission.</p> | false | 1 | ltimg classaligncenter sizefull wpimage14956 titleredorbluepill srchttpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201204redorbluepilljpg altred blue pill width450 height196 srcsethttpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201204redorbluepilljpg 450w httpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201204redorbluepill150x65jpg 150w httpswwwforeignpolicyjournalcomwpcontentuploads201204redorbluepill300x131jpg 300w sizesmaxwidth 450px 100vw 450px gt americans british western europeans accustomed thinking representatives freedom democracy morality world west passes judgment rest world west god rest world barbarians need chastisement invasion occupation readers know time time raise questions validity wests extreme hubris see example following articles160 washingtons insouciance rival160and160 western democracy real facade160 china often country washingtons moralists get high horse however chinas authoritarian government actually responsive people americas elected democratic government moreover however incomplete paper civil liberties chinas people chinese government declared violate impunity whatever rights chinese citizens china running torture prisons globe time mind realistic comparison two countries instead standard propagandistic comparison ron unz beat task see160 chinas rise americas fall160and160 chinese melamine american vioxx comparison160 unz provides chance education dont miss unz done excellent job moreover cleverly understates case china overstates case america unduly arouse flagwavers nevertheless conclusion clear chinese less threatened extractive elites americans counterparts moreover americas chinas extractive elites bombing occupying droning countries bumper sticker says nice america bring democracy country economic management comparison unz reports past three decades china achieved rapid rate economic development human history moreover new income flowed pockets chinese workers one percent american real median incomes stagnant decades incomes chinese workers doubled every decade three decades recent world bank report attributes 100 percent drop global poverty rates chinas rise last decade chinas industrial output quadrupled china produces automobiles america japan combined accounted 85 percent increase worlds production cars past decade 1978 american economy 15 times larger chinas next years chinas gdp expected exceed us heady stuff providing astonishing details poorly americans served elites america failed political elites represent powerful special interests write countrys laws exchange funding political campaigns lawmakers divert attention failures american elites point fingers external scapegoats china example accused manipulating currency unz says scapegoating political theater designed ignorant gullible americas economists prostituted propaganda become wisdom americans believe china would simply let value currency rise rapidly relative dollar americas economic woes would end beyond belief economist could think americans stagnant declining incomes would made better sharp rise prices goods manufactured china americans dependent us dollars role reserve currency main source american power could survive manifestation chinese economic superiority americans associate lawlessness unaccountable governments view chinas government unaccountable however unz points bushobama regime declared unaccountable us international law demise war powers act geneva conventions asserted power executive imprison without trial charges assassinate american executive thinks might nationalsecurity threat indicative total police state masquerading accountable democracy america sixyear old little girls misbehave school handcuffed jailed charged felonies see160 10 disgusting examples young school children arrested handcuffed brutalized police even hitler stalin went far americans lost control government governments controlled people democracies america today social security medicare food stamps entire social safety net threatened vociferous desire war profits armament plutocrats financial institutions determined ordinary citizens bear cost banksters incompetence fraud unzs comparison chinese media government handled melamine infant formula scandal american media government handled mercks vioxx scandal especially damning chinas controlled media unaccountable government punished infant formula wrongdoers americas free press accountable government allowed merck walk unzs conclusion america china life regarded cheap ron unz american hero courageous one george orwell said time universal deceit telling truth revolutionary act even courageous act one wants hear truth frantz fanon said sometimes people hold core belief strong presented evidence works belief new evidence accepted would create feeling extremely uncomfortable called cognitive dissonance important protect core belief rationalize ignore even deny anything doesnt fit core belief explained neo film matrix system neo system enemy youre inside look around see businessmen teachers lawyers carpenters minds people trying save people still part system makes enemy understand people ready unplugged many inured hopelessly dependent system fight protect people know personally willing unplugged assume readers seize opportunity unplugged read ron unzs comparison america china unplug others article originally published paulcraigrobertsorg reproduced permission | 647 |
<p />
<p>For decades, Turkey’s defense prowess has rested on continuous technological innovation and maintaining a well-calibrated web of relations in NATO and the neighboring regions.</p>
<p>Now, as the country faces an array of security threats, from domestic PKK terror to the outcome of Iran’s anger over Turkish agreement to house NATO facilities, instability in the Caucuses, and political turmoil in Iraq and Syria, the defense policymakers in Ankara are formulating their objectives to spearheading long-term plans, in a bid to lifting the country’s self-defense industry into a higher league.</p>
<p>A new five-year Defense Strategy, which was announced by the Under-Secretariat for Defense Industry (SSM) later last month, finalizes completion dates for key projects including Turkish-made tanks, aircraft, satellites, destroyers, and helicopters.</p>
<p>The plan envisages the country’s defense industry “entering the top 10 worldwide within five years”.</p>
<p>President Abdullah Gul, speaking before a group of ranking officers at the War Academy in Istanbul on April 5, revealed a new vision for the country’s Defense Strategy, saying Turkey must act as a “virtuous power” in the world and “keep moving forward this way”.</p>
<p>As part of the defense strategy, the military should focus on the inter-operational capacity of the Land, Sea, and Air Forces, increase combat troops, and develop the defense sector with particular emphasis on local procurement, Gul said.</p>
<p>“A number of serious reforms are made all over the world, which aims to provide the most efficient and optimal structure for the armed forces within the available economic possibilities and, according to the threat conditions”, he argued, evincing his pleasure that the Turkish General Staff carries out the necessary studies.</p>
<p>In the meantime, speculations around the new Defense Strategy have caused a debate among military analysts, as the new details of the plan are being leaked to the media.</p>
<p>The main question to the new Turkish military strategy is how it will keep the balance between lifting the defense industry and economic needs.</p>
<p>Some media reports claim that the AKP government gave a green light to build ballistic missiles with a range of 2,500 kilometers within the next two years.</p>
<p>Ozcan Yeniceri, an MP from the Nationalist Movement Party, who is also an analyst on national security issues at the 21st Century Turkey Institute think-tank, welcomes such news, arguing that the country “needs to urgently get ready to defend itself, following the Iranian leaders’ recent strike to Turkey should Ankara act on its commitment to support NATO’s missile defense project by placing radars on its territory”.Besides, &#160;he said in an interview, &#160;“the military buildup grows rapidly in Iran, Israel, even in Azerbaijan”</p>
<p>“We have to have our own long-range missiles”, Yeniceri insists. “This might be very obvious in our case”.</p>
<p>However, some high-ranking retired military officers, such as retired Major General Alaettin Parmaksiz, and retired General Kursat Atilgan are wary of new Defense Strategy and military buildup plans.</p>
<p>“Displaying a flag on the open seas is one thing, but showing a power something else. We’re not the USA. Does our economy let us do any of these?” Parmaksiz, also an advisor of the 21st Century Turkey Institute, questions.</p>
<p>“When we look at the NATO allies, he says, Turkey is the only country which spends less money per capita for its defense challenges. But national income in our country also remains very low”.</p>
<p>“Greece’s Defense Budget in general is a bit over 60 percent of Turkey’s Defense budget. But when you take a look at per capita spending, then Greece’’s Defense budget is 3 times more than Turkey’s. Britain and Germany have 6 times more spending that Turkey”, he argues. “That means you must have a limit when spending your money for the weapons. If you go over that limit you can push and of course buy some weapons, but you’ll remain right there as there’s no enough technology and resources to use it”.</p>
<p>Turkey spent $17.5 billion on military expenditure in 2010, equivalent to 2.4% of GDP and ranked 15 worldwide. Procurement expenditure rose 10% in 2011 to $4 billion. The Defense Ministry budget has been fixed at TL18.2 billion for the 2012 fiscal year, marking a 7.4 percent increase over 2011. It will also make up 1.3 percent of the GDP for 2012.</p>
<p>Atilgan adds he hopes there are no significant strategic changes in Turkish Defense Industry policy.</p>
<p>For Parmaksiz, Turkish Air Force needs its own missiles to protect the country’s interests.</p>
<p>“But, establishing these kinds of systems needs very essential researches, as well as, well-prepared cadre. This is a long way to go”, he said in an interview.</p>
<p>Efsun Kizmaz, author of the book “Turkish Defense Industry and Under-secretariat for Defense Industries”, who is conducting research on the Turkish defense industry at the University of Nottingham, is also suspicious of Ankara’s capability to reach the level of producing Long-Range Missiles by itself.</p>
<p>In the meanwhile, she believes that “these acquisitions or ‘production’ of missiles are not for deployment against any state just to have image that Turkey has that capability.</p>
<p>“Turkey does not want to risk its defense for the assistance from NATO, in case new regional tensions erupt”, she said in an interview.</p>
<p>She also mentioned that the government will establish an air cluster gathering all defense companies with related to aerial sectors in 2020 in Ankara. “Those defense industrialization aims in fact promising for developing an indigenous sector”, she says.</p>
<p>Kizmaz underscores that domestic defense industrialization has also become one of the major foreign policy tools for Ankara’s new foreign policy agenda, as Turkey aims to be a leader in its region.</p>
<p>Since the aerospace sector has been the locomotive of defense industry production, she says, Turkey devoted its attention to that sector to develop an indigenous weapons capability. “This situation is clearly logical when the US devotes much of its sources to the aerial sector and then other forces. As a result of this, the beginning of Turkey’s defense industrialization attempts is clearly in this sector. However, as mentioned earlier, in the naval sector, there are serious developments in that sector also”.</p>
<p>Despite some areas of improvement, she also underscores that, Turkey has a long way to go before it enters the first tier of defense producers.</p>
<p>“There is still significant lack over technology development,” she points out. “As the Turkish Armed Forces have always been in favor of acquisition of latest technology, it is clear that despite those developments, Turkey continues to devote much of its resources to imports,” she says.</p>
<p>For Alexander Jackson, Eurasian military analyst at the London-based Menas Associates, Turkey’s new Defense Strategy is ambitious, specifically the transition to a blue-water navy.</p>
<p>“The navy is unclear about its area of operations for such a strategy—would this be the Mediterranean? The Black Sea?” he asks.</p>
<p>However, he adds, Turkey has a number of potentially hostile neighbors so it is logical that the navy is given substantial resources.</p>
<p>The main challenge for an extensive naval program, he says, is to ensure it is threat-oriented: warships and their associated systems are extremely costly in time and money, and it makes no sense to develop expensive warships if they are not justified by Turkey’s current security environment and local threats.</p>
<p>Regarding technology transfer for ballistic missiles, Jackson says, foreign firms will probably be quite concerned about the implications.</p>
<p>In the meantime, Jackson adds, it is surprising that Turkey is looking to develop a ballistic missile program, as “it is more in line with the policies pursued by states such as Iran and North Korea”.</p>
<p>“The Turkish Air Force is large, highly sophisticated, well-funded, benefits from NATO interoperability, and is stocked with advanced combat aircraft. Turkey also benefits from the US nuclear umbrella thanks to the US nuclear missiles stored at Incirlik. At an operational level, there is almost no reason to spend taxpayers’ money on grand ballistic missile program with limited use, when the Turkish air force can deliver ample firepower against any conceivable target”, he said in an interview.</p>
<p>Ruhi Acikgoz, AKP Member of the Parliamentary National Defense Committee, agrees with this point.</p>
<p>However, he says that it’s understandable that Turkey devoted its attention to that sector to develop indigenous weapons capability. “But I must clearly mention here that we don’t see any threat from any country”, he said in an interview.</p>
<p>“When it comes to Iran”, he added, Turkey remains on its positions that all the countries have an equal right to a peaceful nuclear energy program. “Of course, it should still be proved that Iran has or intends to build nuclear weapons”.</p>
<p>Overall, both Jackson and Kizmaz believe that growing defense industry will not only strengthen Turkey’s own defense capabilities and reduce its reliance on other arms suppliers – it will also act as a bridge to connect Turkey with its neighbors and improve its standing as a regional political and military power.</p> | false | 1 | decades turkeys defense prowess rested continuous technological innovation maintaining wellcalibrated web relations nato neighboring regions country faces array security threats domestic pkk terror outcome irans anger turkish agreement house nato facilities instability caucuses political turmoil iraq syria defense policymakers ankara formulating objectives spearheading longterm plans bid lifting countrys selfdefense industry higher league new fiveyear defense strategy announced undersecretariat defense industry ssm later last month finalizes completion dates key projects including turkishmade tanks aircraft satellites destroyers helicopters plan envisages countrys defense industry entering top 10 worldwide within five years president abdullah gul speaking group ranking officers war academy istanbul april 5 revealed new vision countrys defense strategy saying turkey must act virtuous power world keep moving forward way part defense strategy military focus interoperational capacity land sea air forces increase combat troops develop defense sector particular emphasis local procurement gul said number serious reforms made world aims provide efficient optimal structure armed forces within available economic possibilities according threat conditions argued evincing pleasure turkish general staff carries necessary studies meantime speculations around new defense strategy caused debate among military analysts new details plan leaked media main question new turkish military strategy keep balance lifting defense industry economic needs media reports claim akp government gave green light build ballistic missiles range 2500 kilometers within next two years ozcan yeniceri mp nationalist movement party also analyst national security issues 21st century turkey institute thinktank welcomes news arguing country needs urgently get ready defend following iranian leaders recent strike turkey ankara act commitment support natos missile defense project placing radars territorybesides 160he said interview 160the military buildup grows rapidly iran israel even azerbaijan longrange missiles yeniceri insists might obvious case however highranking retired military officers retired major general alaettin parmaksiz retired general kursat atilgan wary new defense strategy military buildup plans displaying flag open seas one thing showing power something else usa economy let us parmaksiz also advisor 21st century turkey institute questions look nato allies says turkey country spends less money per capita defense challenges national income country also remains low greeces defense budget general bit 60 percent turkeys defense budget take look per capita spending greeces defense budget 3 times turkeys britain germany 6 times spending turkey argues means must limit spending money weapons go limit push course buy weapons youll remain right theres enough technology resources use turkey spent 175 billion military expenditure 2010 equivalent 24 gdp ranked 15 worldwide procurement expenditure rose 10 2011 4 billion defense ministry budget fixed tl182 billion 2012 fiscal year marking 74 percent increase 2011 also make 13 percent gdp 2012 atilgan adds hopes significant strategic changes turkish defense industry policy parmaksiz turkish air force needs missiles protect countrys interests establishing kinds systems needs essential researches well wellprepared cadre long way go said interview efsun kizmaz author book turkish defense industry undersecretariat defense industries conducting research turkish defense industry university nottingham also suspicious ankaras capability reach level producing longrange missiles meanwhile believes acquisitions production missiles deployment state image turkey capability turkey want risk defense assistance nato case new regional tensions erupt said interview also mentioned government establish air cluster gathering defense companies related aerial sectors 2020 ankara defense industrialization aims fact promising developing indigenous sector says kizmaz underscores domestic defense industrialization also become one major foreign policy tools ankaras new foreign policy agenda turkey aims leader region since aerospace sector locomotive defense industry production says turkey devoted attention sector develop indigenous weapons capability situation clearly logical us devotes much sources aerial sector forces result beginning turkeys defense industrialization attempts clearly sector however mentioned earlier naval sector serious developments sector also despite areas improvement also underscores turkey long way go enters first tier defense producers still significant lack technology development points turkish armed forces always favor acquisition latest technology clear despite developments turkey continues devote much resources imports says alexander jackson eurasian military analyst londonbased menas associates turkeys new defense strategy ambitious specifically transition bluewater navy navy unclear area operations strategywould mediterranean black sea asks however adds turkey number potentially hostile neighbors logical navy given substantial resources main challenge extensive naval program says ensure threatoriented warships associated systems extremely costly time money makes sense develop expensive warships justified turkeys current security environment local threats regarding technology transfer ballistic missiles jackson says foreign firms probably quite concerned implications meantime jackson adds surprising turkey looking develop ballistic missile program line policies pursued states iran north korea turkish air force large highly sophisticated wellfunded benefits nato interoperability stocked advanced combat aircraft turkey also benefits us nuclear umbrella thanks us nuclear missiles stored incirlik operational level almost reason spend taxpayers money grand ballistic missile program limited use turkish air force deliver ample firepower conceivable target said interview ruhi acikgoz akp member parliamentary national defense committee agrees point however says understandable turkey devoted attention sector develop indigenous weapons capability must clearly mention dont see threat country said interview comes iran added turkey remains positions countries equal right peaceful nuclear energy program course still proved iran intends build nuclear weapons overall jackson kizmaz believe growing defense industry strengthen turkeys defense capabilities reduce reliance arms suppliers also act bridge connect turkey neighbors improve standing regional political military power | 855 |
<p><a href="http://variety.com/t/sterling-k-brown/" type="external">Sterling K. Brown</a> can’t stop smiling.</p>
<p>SEE MORE: <a href="https://variety.com/access-digital/" type="external">From the September 20, 2017, issue of Variety</a></p>
<p>It’s the morning after his momentous win at the Emmy Awards, and Brown is still grinning from ear to ear. Even on just a few hours sleep, it would be hard to extinguish that famous blinding white beam, what with back-to-back trophies to his name. After winning last year for his work as Christopher Darden in “The People v. O.J. Simpson,” on Sunday night he took home the prize for best actor in a drama for “ <a href="http://variety.com/t/this-is-us/" type="external">This Is Us</a>,” as the anxiety-ridden but oh-so-lovable Randall Pearson on the NBC-20th Century Fox production.</p>
<p>It’s been nearly two decades since a black actor claimed the prize — a profound fact that was not lost on Brown. Andre Braugher, who starred in NBC’s “Homicide,” was one of the first people he thanked in his acceptance speech. “It is my supreme honor to follow in your footsteps,” he said —&#160;referencing not only the moment but also their shared paths as Stanford alums and as stars of dramas on NBC. “The 19 years since another African-American actor has won and been recognized in this category, that meant something to me,” says Brown, still a bit dazed from the events of the past 24 hours. He hasn’t heard yet from Braugher but admits he hasn’t quite caught up with the torrent of congratulations that poured in overnight.</p>
<p>Brown’s powerful speech was cut off by the producers — much to the chagrin of the audience (“I knew it was a little long,” he confesses) —&#160;but he got a chance to continue it in the press room, where he went on to thank showrunner Dan Fogelman, his wife — and especially his two sons. “Your daddy loves you with the strength of a thousand suns,” he said. “I’ll see you Monday after work.”</p>
<p>While the journeyman actor, whose IMDb page features a lengthy list of credits dating back to 2002, couldn’t be more committed to his now surging career, his family is just as important to him. His father died when he was 10, and he never got to say goodbye.</p>
<p>In fact, the only thing that can dim that high-wattage smile on this celebratory morning is reminiscing about his dad and namesake, Sterling Brown Jr. (Brown went by Kelby as a child but switched to “Sterling” when he was a teenager to honor his father.)</p>
<p>“My dad was a reactive kind of guy, similar to me; we let our emotions flow relatively easily,” he says. “So the fact that I had him as an example, I never was caught up with this idea that I have to be a strong, silent type. If you feel something, just feel it.”</p>
<p>The more he talks about his father, the more his eyes well up, and tears start to fall. “The fact that I’m an actor, I know he loves it,” he says, recalling how they’d watch TV together — shows like “Hill Street Blues” and “Barney Miller.” “And now to be a father and to have two boys, I know that makes him happy too.”</p>
<p>Brown’s father died at age 45 of complications from a heart attack — which isn’t lost on Brown, who’s 41. “I want to go for another 60 years,” he says. “I want to be that centenarian that walks up to you with a straight back and says, ‘How are you, young man?’”</p>
<p>He recounts completing a triathlon recently with an 82-year-old man. Brown beat him to the finish line by just 15 minutes. “It can be done, you know?” he says. “This idea of health is something that’s really important to me. Not in a vain way, but black men, we don’t have to be consigned to a death sentence at 65. We can live life to the fullest, and not just exist but really thrive for as long as we want to. You’ve just got to be able to see it.”</p>
<p>Brown wasn’t the only one to shatter a racial divide on Emmy night. Donald Glover brought home the first trophy for a black director, for “Atlanta”; Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) is the first black woman to win for writing a comedy; and Riz Ahmed (“The Night Of”) is the first man of Asian descent to win an Emmy for acting.</p>
<p>Brown and Ahmed talked after the show about what the wins meant. Ahmed told him he was “finally about to breathe.” Says Brown, “Color-blindness is one thing, and it has its own merit and virtue, but to be seen and appreciated for what you are, that’s the sweet spot.”</p>
<p>Following in Braugher’s footsteps is a path that began when Brown was a freshman at Stanford, and the dean recommended he check out the actor’s work. “ When you’re 19 or 20, you’re not even thinking about it,” he says. “You’re thinking about not flunking out of the rest of your courses when you’re trying to do this acting thing on the side,” he says. But Braugher’s shadow followed him to NYU, where he went on to study acting — and he spotted a billboard for the ABC drama “Gideon’s Crossing.”</p>
<p>“There’s a black dude on a billboard for a TV show!” says Brown. “You clock these things because you don’t see them. You have to see it first because then you can allow yourself to envision it.”</p>
<p>It took some time, admittedly. After years of patiently toiling away on series including “Third Watch,” “Supernatural” and “Army Wives,” it was his plucked-from-near-obscurity turn on FX’s recounting of the O.J. Simpson murder trial that ignited his career. And the way audiences have so fully embraced the multiracial Pearsons is not lost on him.</p>
<p>“I’m not trying to pat Hollywood on the back too much, but the power of a story well told moves the needle,” he says. “It changes the way in which we interact and see society. I think Randall Pearson coming into people’s houses may offer the opportunity to say, ‘That guy is more like me than I would have thought.’ The next time they come across another African-American male they may not cross the street. They may not pretend like they don’t see him. They may actually look him in the eye and say hello.”</p>
<p>Brown calls the 19-year diversity gap between his win and Braugher’s “absolutely insane,” and hopes his recognition opens the door for more black actors. “You have to have the roles and the opportunities, but you have to have the people in that writers’ room, the creative minds behind it, to make it worthy of the consideration,” he says. “To paraphrase Nate Dogg, ‘It ain’t no fun if the homies can’t have none.’ I look forward to seeing other brothers step up on that stage. And hopefully myself as well.”</p>
<p>Making the rounds on Emmy night, Brown ran into his “People v. O.J.” co-star Sarah Paulson. It was during the filming of “O.J.” that Brown first read the script for “This Is Us,” and sought her advice about whether to take the role.</p>
<p>“She was saying about my speech, ‘You seem so comfortable up there. You seem like you’d done this before.’ And she told me that I’d lapped her,” he says, laughing about Paulson’s 19 nominations and one win for “People v. O.J.” “And I was like, no. It just happens to be fortuitous for me in that particular regard.”</p>
<p>In the frenzied weeks of the Emmy campaign, buzz had been building that he would take the prize, amid competition that included his co-star Milo Ventimiglia. In the moments after his name was announced, he says he took stock of just how far he’s come now that he’s landed what he calls “the best job on TV.”</p>
<p>“I was thinking Keyser Söze and Hannibal Lecter are in the same category as me, and they actually called my name,” he says, referring to fellow nominees Kevin Spacey (“House of Cards”) and Anthony Hopkins (“Westworld”). “I was thinking about how much I love Milo and how incredibly cool and supportive he’s been throughout this whole process. Because we know the most important thing is the job and the story. I hope we get the chance to keep doing that for several years to come.”</p>
<p>With all the rigmarole that happens after a win at an awards show, the first face Brown saw backstage belonged to Elisabeth Moss, star of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The two shared a hug and then were awkwardly held in the wings by a producer to wait for the announcement of best drama, for which both their series were vying.</p>
<p>“The stage manager kept trying to push us toward the edge of the stage, and I was like, ‘No, I’m just going to stand back here,’” he says. “We got a chance to hug right before she stepped out onstage for her much-deserved victory.”</p>
<p>As the Emmy annals now reflect, the night’s top prize went to the Hulu series, but Brown doesn’t begrudge it the victory. “Nobody can hit on ‘The Handmaid’s Tale,’” he says. “The show is absolutely phenomenal.”</p>
<p>Had “This Is Us” won, however, Brown would have gotten a chance to return to the podium. The famously attention-shy Fogelman told him for once he wasn’t nervous —&#160;because he was prepared to turn the mic over to Brown to let him finish his cut-short speech. The actor especially wanted to give a shout-out to the shows’ writers — who went unrecognized in the Emmy nominations, although they did nab a coveted WGA Award. “We would be an improv troupe if we didn’t have the writers,” he says. “I’m sure we’d be OK, but we wouldn’t have gotten seven acting nominations for our show. We owe them everything.”</p>
<p>Since the show’s debut, he and Fogelman have forged a close bond. Notes the showrunner of the actor: “He’s at the top of his profession right now, and it’s happening at the same time as he is also displaying a complete mastery of his craft.” Fogelman says Brown brings “everything” to the character of Randall. “He’s paid his dues; he’s worked his ass off; he’s trained properly. It’s nice to see great things happen to any great person, but this feels really special and really big, and we just couldn’t, collectively, be happier for him.”</p>
<p>Brown credits Fogelman and his writing team for crafting a role that allows him to shine. “Randall Pearson is special. Not because of me but because of the journey,” he says. “It’s such a unique story being raised by this white family. Seeking out his adoptive father and making that connection only to lose him. We haven’t seen that before. When you have these craftsmen writing and telling these stories, you have this perfect synthesis in order for it to happen. I hope it happens for more people of color.”</p>
<p>Brown has been increasingly spending time in the writers’ room — even pitching a few things, he admits. “I have a pitch about how Randall and Beth came to know one another,” he says. “It’s a good pitch.”</p>
<p>He won’t reveal details —&#160;secrecy is paramount to the ever-twisty narrative. No rest for the Emmy-weary, Brown was en route to San Pedro to film an upcoming episode that features his character prominently. He took every available opportunity to learn his lines, even carrying the script around with him backstage during the awards show (not to mention our photo shoot). Reports Fogelman, “The poor guy must have been exhausted but he killed every scene, wrapped at 9 p.m., and I don’t know that a crew member went home without a picture.”</p>
<p>The pressure couldn’t be higher going into season two — delivering on the promise of last fall’s success story. Fogelman recently held a viewing party at his house for the cast, writers and producers, and all Brown will reveal is: “We were happy with what we saw. The relationships are there; the beautiful struggle of humanity is there. People just trying to make the best out of a crazy life is there. So folks who are fans, I don’t think we’re going to lose anybody.”</p>
<p>Brown admits he didn’t imagine the show might be awards material when he first signed on. But as the storytelling progressed, he started to get a sense it could be a contender —&#160;from the Thanksgiving episode, where Randall learned about his mother’s betrayal, through the journey to Memphis with his dying father, William (Ron Cephas Jones). “It felt like there was some heft behind it,” he says.</p>
<p>That episode — a risky creative move, given that it was a stand-alone that featured Brown and Jones — scored with viewers as well.</p>
<p>Brown has learned, too, from a year spent in Randall’s three-piece suits. He calls him a better man than he is —&#160;especially when it comes to marriage. Randall’s relationship with his wife, Beth (Susan Kelechi Watson), has reminded Brown to be a bit more attentive to his own. He’s realized, he says, “you need to tell your wife you love her.”</p>
<p>At the TCA Awards in August, Brown surprised the audience by performing a duet of “For Good” (from “Wicked”) with Kristin Chenoweth. He more than held his own opposite the Broadway star.</p>
<p>But here’s something else you should know about Brown: Not only does he have a pitch-perfect singing voice (unlike on-screen alter ego Randall), but he’s got a spot-on knack for voices. Throughout the conversation with Variety, he slips seamlessly into a British accent (when he’s recounting his chat with Riz Ahmed) or a pretentious snobbish twang (for fans surprised that they like a broadcast show).</p>
<p>“I told you, I have a thousand people living inside me,” he says. “I picked the right profession for me because every once in a while, one of them gets to come to the forefront and introduce themselves to the public. And hopefully I’ll get a chance to do that as time goes on.”</p>
<p>Even a musical, perhaps? “If I had some time, and somebody would teach me some things, I would be open to the possibility,” he says, pointing out that Braugher once sang on-screen, too, in “Duets.”</p>
<p>Ever the workhorse, Brown packed his summer hiatus from “This Is Us” with multiple movies —&#160;a varied lineup ranging from “Black Panther” and “Predator” to “Hotel Artemis” and “Marshall,” in which he plays Joseph Spell, who stood accused of the rape and attempted murder of a white woman, and is defended in court by Thurgood Marshall (Chadwick Boseman).</p>
<p>“Trusting people you’ve seen shape performances” is what leads him to choose a project. Simply put, he loves working: He’s already strategizing for his next hiatus. “I’m going to start trying to be a bit more intentional in terms of something that really speaks to my soul, a story that feels like it necessarily has to be told, and then trying to do something while I still have my girlish figure that gets me into some sort of costume that’s chic and sleek, and I get the chance to get lots of eyeballs,” he says. “Hopefully they will both resonate.”</p>
<p>One thing we won’t be seeing, though, is any nudity — an early cut of “Marshall” included a love scene between him and Kate Hudson featuring “a full moon.” “It took me aback,” he says with a laugh. “Kate and I both collectively were like, Woah. I clutched my pearls! But it’s going to be good, even without the booty shot.”</p>
<p>What he will always respond to ultimately, he says, are father-son stories. “It’s one of the first things I connect with,” he says, pointing to “In Good Company,” which stars Dennis Quaid and Topher Grace. “I remember the first time I saw this movie, bawling like a baby.”</p>
<p>It couldn’t have been more fitting, then, that it was Quaid who presented him with his award. What would he say to his own father if he could talk to him now? “I talk to him all the time,” he says. “His shell may have shuffled off this mortal coil, but he lives forever. We go hand in hand.”</p>
<p>[embedded content]</p> | false | 1 | sterling k brown cant stop smiling see september 20 2017 issue variety morning momentous win emmy awards brown still grinning ear ear even hours sleep would hard extinguish famous blinding white beam backtoback trophies name winning last year work christopher darden people v oj simpson sunday night took home prize best actor drama us anxietyridden ohsolovable randall pearson nbc20th century fox production nearly two decades since black actor claimed prize profound fact lost brown andre braugher starred nbcs homicide one first people thanked acceptance speech supreme honor follow footsteps said 160referencing moment also shared paths stanford alums stars dramas nbc 19 years since another africanamerican actor recognized category meant something says brown still bit dazed events past 24 hours hasnt heard yet braugher admits hasnt quite caught torrent congratulations poured overnight browns powerful speech cut producers much chagrin audience knew little long confesses 160but got chance continue press room went thank showrunner dan fogelman wife especially two sons daddy loves strength thousand suns said ill see monday work journeyman actor whose imdb page features lengthy list credits dating back 2002 couldnt committed surging career family important father died 10 never got say goodbye fact thing dim highwattage smile celebratory morning reminiscing dad namesake sterling brown jr brown went kelby child switched sterling teenager honor father dad reactive kind guy similar let emotions flow relatively easily says fact example never caught idea strong silent type feel something feel talks father eyes well tears start fall fact im actor know loves says recalling theyd watch tv together shows like hill street blues barney miller father two boys know makes happy browns father died age 45 complications heart attack isnt lost brown whos 41 want go another 60 years says want centenarian walks straight back says young man recounts completing triathlon recently 82yearold man brown beat finish line 15 minutes done know says idea health something thats really important vain way black men dont consigned death sentence 65 live life fullest exist really thrive long want youve got able see brown wasnt one shatter racial divide emmy night donald glover brought home first trophy black director atlanta lena waithe master none first black woman win writing comedy riz ahmed night first man asian descent win emmy acting brown ahmed talked show wins meant ahmed told finally breathe says brown colorblindness one thing merit virtue seen appreciated thats sweet spot following braughers footsteps path began brown freshman stanford dean recommended check actors work youre 19 20 youre even thinking says youre thinking flunking rest courses youre trying acting thing side says braughers shadow followed nyu went study acting spotted billboard abc drama gideons crossing theres black dude billboard tv show says brown clock things dont see see first allow envision took time admittedly years patiently toiling away series including third watch supernatural army wives pluckedfromnearobscurity turn fxs recounting oj simpson murder trial ignited career way audiences fully embraced multiracial pearsons lost im trying pat hollywood back much power story well told moves needle says changes way interact see society think randall pearson coming peoples houses may offer opportunity say guy like would thought next time come across another africanamerican male may cross street may pretend like dont see may actually look eye say hello brown calls 19year diversity gap win braughers absolutely insane hopes recognition opens door black actors roles opportunities people writers room creative minds behind make worthy consideration says paraphrase nate dogg aint fun homies cant none look forward seeing brothers step stage hopefully well making rounds emmy night brown ran people v oj costar sarah paulson filming oj brown first read script us sought advice whether take role saying speech seem comfortable seem like youd done told id lapped says laughing paulsons 19 nominations one win people v oj like happens fortuitous particular regard frenzied weeks emmy campaign buzz building would take prize amid competition included costar milo ventimiglia moments name announced says took stock far hes come hes landed calls best job tv thinking keyser söze hannibal lecter category actually called name says referring fellow nominees kevin spacey house cards anthony hopkins westworld thinking much love milo incredibly cool supportive hes throughout whole process know important thing job story hope get chance keep several years come rigmarole happens win awards show first face brown saw backstage belonged elisabeth moss star handmaids tale two shared hug awkwardly held wings producer wait announcement best drama series vying stage manager kept trying push us toward edge stage like im going stand back says got chance hug right stepped onstage muchdeserved victory emmy annals reflect nights top prize went hulu series brown doesnt begrudge victory nobody hit handmaids tale says show absolutely phenomenal us however brown would gotten chance return podium famously attentionshy fogelman told wasnt nervous 160because prepared turn mic brown let finish cutshort speech actor especially wanted give shoutout shows writers went unrecognized emmy nominations although nab coveted wga award would improv troupe didnt writers says im sure wed ok wouldnt gotten seven acting nominations show owe everything since shows debut fogelman forged close bond notes showrunner actor hes top profession right happening time also displaying complete mastery craft fogelman says brown brings everything character randall hes paid dues hes worked ass hes trained properly nice see great things happen great person feels really special really big couldnt collectively happier brown credits fogelman writing team crafting role allows shine randall pearson special journey says unique story raised white family seeking adoptive father making connection lose havent seen craftsmen writing telling stories perfect synthesis order happen hope happens people color brown increasingly spending time writers room even pitching things admits pitch randall beth came know one another says good pitch wont reveal details 160secrecy paramount evertwisty narrative rest emmyweary brown en route san pedro film upcoming episode features character prominently took every available opportunity learn lines even carrying script around backstage awards show mention photo shoot reports fogelman poor guy must exhausted killed every scene wrapped 9 pm dont know crew member went home without picture pressure couldnt higher going season two delivering promise last falls success story fogelman recently held viewing party house cast writers producers brown reveal happy saw relationships beautiful struggle humanity people trying make best crazy life folks fans dont think going lose anybody brown admits didnt imagine show might awards material first signed storytelling progressed started get sense could contender 160from thanksgiving episode randall learned mothers betrayal journey memphis dying father william ron cephas jones felt like heft behind says episode risky creative move given standalone featured brown jones scored viewers well brown learned year spent randalls threepiece suits calls better man 160especially comes marriage randalls relationship wife beth susan kelechi watson reminded brown bit attentive hes realized says need tell wife love tca awards august brown surprised audience performing duet good wicked kristin chenoweth held opposite broadway star heres something else know brown pitchperfect singing voice unlike onscreen alter ego randall hes got spoton knack voices throughout conversation variety slips seamlessly british accent hes recounting chat riz ahmed pretentious snobbish twang fans surprised like broadcast show told thousand people living inside says picked right profession every one gets come forefront introduce public hopefully ill get chance time goes even musical perhaps time somebody would teach things would open possibility says pointing braugher sang onscreen duets ever workhorse brown packed summer hiatus us multiple movies 160a varied lineup ranging black panther predator hotel artemis marshall plays joseph spell stood accused rape attempted murder white woman defended court thurgood marshall chadwick boseman trusting people youve seen shape performances leads choose project simply put loves working hes already strategizing next hiatus im going start trying bit intentional terms something really speaks soul story feels like necessarily told trying something still girlish figure gets sort costume thats chic sleek get chance get lots eyeballs says hopefully resonate one thing wont seeing though nudity early cut marshall included love scene kate hudson featuring full moon took aback says laugh kate collectively like woah clutched pearls going good even without booty shot always respond ultimately says fatherson stories one first things connect says pointing good company stars dennis quaid topher grace remember first time saw movie bawling like baby couldnt fitting quaid presented award would say father could talk talk time says shell may shuffled mortal coil lives forever go hand hand embedded content | 1,391 |
<p />
<p>DAMASCUS, Nov. 15, 2014 — With less than two weeks run-up to the ‘deadline’ for Iran and the P-5 + 1 to negotiate a final agreement, the ninth set of talks between the parties on the nuclear issue, Mossad has assassinated a team of five nuclear weapons specialists in Damascus, the leader of whom was Iranian.</p>
<p>This according to one of the authors of the just published Naame Shaam’s report: “Iran in Syria: From an Ally of the Regime to an Occupying Force”, which levels many accusations against Iran’s leadership and accuses the Islamic Republic of “occupying” Syria in order to fill in its “Shia Crescent” trajectory from Yemen to Lebanon.</p>
<p>The five engineers were reportedly being watched for weeks as they would arrive one at a time daily to their secured work quarters without guards and in plain clothes in order not to attract attention. Mossad is widely known to have many agents among the opponents of the regime across Syria as it watches Iranian projects. By its own admission, the Proverbs 24:6 “By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War” organization has watchers up close at other nuclear facilities outside Iran, where the Islamic Republic has sent specialized personnel in Syria and Iraq.</p>
<p>The US Intelligence Community, comprised of 16 intelligence agencies, nearly a year ago advised the White House that Iran is purposely stalling for time by issuing a series of ‘warm-cold’ assessments of the nuclear file talks while operating nuclear engineering facilities in both Iraq and Syria preparing to construct nuclear weapons. Offering his services for the effort to torpedo an agreement, enter one Matthew Levitt, a frequent “expert witness” at various US Congressional hearings, and the director Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Zionist Washington Institute.</p>
<p>This time appearing before the before the House Committee on Financial Services, formerly known as the House Banking Committee on November 13, Levitt scoffed at the November 12 denial by Iran to the Iranian public of a report that one of its nuclear scientists was killed. “There are no Iranian nuclear scientists in Syria,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Ghashghavi, quoted by state news agency IRNA.</p>
<p>Following his testimony, Levitt reportedly expanded his comments with Congressmen and staffers, not on the supposed subject of his testimony which was how to degrade ISIS finances, but rather on Israel’s effort to scuttle the P5 + 1 talks, which he and many in Washington and Tehran reportedly hope will fail again. “The US and their close Israeli allies knew exactly what Iran was doing and also what it continues to do in Iraq and Syria to advance its bomb-building obsession. So Israel sent them a message to the Mullahs and there will be more messages and there will be more sanctions.”</p>
<p>All members of Congress attending the hearing favored President Obama’s Extending the National Emergency Act regarding Iran, a move pushed by Vice President Joe Biden and his potential adversary in the 2016 Presidential race, Hillary Clinton. The extension keeps sanctions against the Islamic Republic in place for at least another year, the 36th annual extension since Jimmy Carter declared a state of emergency concerning Iran in response to the takeover of the former US embassy in Tehran.</p>
<p>When asked about Iranian Presidents Rouhani’s statement this week that the US sanctions are “The rusted weapon of sanctions are no longer effective” as both sides employ a variety of psychological tactics to explain to their constituencies why a deal has failed, one hearing attendee was told by an aide to Committee Chair Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex): “it’s true that the sanctions have had modest political effects on the regime but they are taking a big toll and Rohani’s claim of US sanctions being no longer effective is not reflected in the economic statistics which the Iranian public grasps even as the Mullahs still live high on the hog”.</p>
<p>It is true that Iranian officials generally tend to avoid blaming the sanctions or Iran’s foreign policy for economic hardship, as that might be interpreted as a victory for the West. Instead, they often focus on mismanagement, corruption and ‘unwise management’.</p>
<p>One of the handouts distributed after the hearing included recent statistics AIPAC sent to every Congressman backing up its assurances that the sanctions are doing a great job for America and her allies but need to be ratcheted up hard. Israel and its US Congressional partners want the US and its allies to intensify their strategy of not so slowly bleeding Iran and Hezbollah in Syria as to quickly advance the “Syria must become the Vietnam of Iran and Hezbollah” policy.</p>
<p>This action is urged even though the people of Syria, and to a much lesser extent, the people of Iran, will continue to pay the price.</p>
<p>But the White House is yet to publicly admit that it is actively involved in a proxy war against the Iranian regime, because Barack Obama wants to avoid Zionist lobby pressure to prematurely take concrete military steps to end the bloodshed.</p>
<p>The impact of US-led sanctions on the Iranian economy, which the Congressional committee estimates at well over 120 billion US dollars as of June 1, 2014, rather than being “rusty”, as Rohani claims, is enormous according to the US Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Assets Control (OFAC).</p>
<p>AIPAC photo handouts after the hearing included scenes of hundreds of Iranian citizens daily lining up for food supplies in Tehran.</p>
<p>According to AIPAC, as well as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and Naame Shaam, one key indicator of the economic burden is the inflation rate, which has more than tripled in the last five years (from 10 percent in 2009 to over 35 percent in 2014) and has increased by about 11 percent since the start of the war in Syria.</p>
<p>Official reports also indicate that Iranian household purchasing power has decreased by about 27 percent. BBC Persian in March 2014 published a list of basic food items claiming that consumer prices in Iran had at least tripled in the past four or five years. According to a July 2014 report of the Iranian Ministry of the Economy, 31 percent of all Iranians live below the poverty line. Three months before, in March 2014, Iranian MP Mousareza Servati declared that “15 million Iranians (about 20 percent of the population) are living below the national poverty line. Seven million of them are not receiving assistance of any kind.”</p>
<p>A hand-out document at the hearing also emphasized the following:</p>
<p>Consequently the sanctions will remain and be intensified according to the House Committee on Financial Services. Meanwhile the Mossad is watching closely Iran’s activities in Iraq, Syria and now Lebanon and has once more telegraphed its intentions to continue its serial violations of those countries’ sovereignty while implementing other projects in order to eliminate what it sees as Iran’s threat to its existence.</p> | false | 1 | damascus nov 15 2014 less two weeks runup deadline iran p5 1 negotiate final agreement ninth set talks parties nuclear issue mossad assassinated team five nuclear weapons specialists damascus leader iranian according one authors published naame shaams report iran syria ally regime occupying force levels many accusations irans leadership accuses islamic republic occupying syria order fill shia crescent trajectory yemen lebanon five engineers reportedly watched weeks would arrive one time daily secured work quarters without guards plain clothes order attract attention mossad widely known many agents among opponents regime across syria watches iranian projects admission proverbs 246 way deception thou shalt war organization watchers close nuclear facilities outside iran islamic republic sent specialized personnel syria iraq us intelligence community comprised 16 intelligence agencies nearly year ago advised white house iran purposely stalling time issuing series warmcold assessments nuclear file talks operating nuclear engineering facilities iraq syria preparing construct nuclear weapons offering services effort torpedo agreement enter one matthew levitt frequent expert witness various us congressional hearings director counterterrorism intelligence zionist washington institute time appearing house committee financial services formerly known house banking committee november 13 levitt scoffed november 12 denial iran iranian public report one nuclear scientists killed iranian nuclear scientists syria said deputy foreign minister hassan ghashghavi quoted state news agency irna following testimony levitt reportedly expanded comments congressmen staffers supposed subject testimony degrade isis finances rather israels effort scuttle p5 1 talks many washington tehran reportedly hope fail us close israeli allies knew exactly iran also continues iraq syria advance bombbuilding obsession israel sent message mullahs messages sanctions members congress attending hearing favored president obamas extending national emergency act regarding iran move pushed vice president joe biden potential adversary 2016 presidential race hillary clinton extension keeps sanctions islamic republic place least another year 36th annual extension since jimmy carter declared state emergency concerning iran response takeover former us embassy tehran asked iranian presidents rouhanis statement week us sanctions rusted weapon sanctions longer effective sides employ variety psychological tactics explain constituencies deal failed one hearing attendee told aide committee chair jeb hensarling rtex true sanctions modest political effects regime taking big toll rohanis claim us sanctions longer effective reflected economic statistics iranian public grasps even mullahs still live high hog true iranian officials generally tend avoid blaming sanctions irans foreign policy economic hardship might interpreted victory west instead often focus mismanagement corruption unwise management one handouts distributed hearing included recent statistics aipac sent every congressman backing assurances sanctions great job america allies need ratcheted hard israel us congressional partners want us allies intensify strategy slowly bleeding iran hezbollah syria quickly advance syria must become vietnam iran hezbollah policy action urged even though people syria much lesser extent people iran continue pay price white house yet publicly admit actively involved proxy war iranian regime barack obama wants avoid zionist lobby pressure prematurely take concrete military steps end bloodshed impact usled sanctions iranian economy congressional committee estimates well 120 billion us dollars june 1 2014 rather rusty rohani claims enormous according us treasury departments office financial assets control ofac aipac photo handouts hearing included scenes hundreds iranian citizens daily lining food supplies tehran according aipac well washington institute near east policy winep naame shaam one key indicator economic burden inflation rate tripled last five years 10 percent 2009 35 percent 2014 increased 11 percent since start war syria official reports also indicate iranian household purchasing power decreased 27 percent bbc persian march 2014 published list basic food items claiming consumer prices iran least tripled past four five years according july 2014 report iranian ministry economy 31 percent iranians live poverty line three months march 2014 iranian mp mousareza servati declared 15 million iranians 20 percent population living national poverty line seven million receiving assistance kind handout document hearing also emphasized following consequently sanctions remain intensified according house committee financial services meanwhile mossad watching closely irans activities iraq syria lebanon telegraphed intentions continue serial violations countries sovereignty implementing projects order eliminate sees irans threat existence | 663 |
<p>Foreigners are fascinated by French President Emmanuel Macron. And why shouldn’t they be? He’s the youngest-ever president of the French Republic, elected with no party and no previous electoral experience, a virtual nobody just two years before he leaped to the forefront of the French political scene. Of course people are curious.</p>
<p>But there’s another reason my non-French friends bombard me with questions about my president. Like myself, most of them have advanced degrees and upper-middle-class backgrounds. This sort of socioeconomic status correlates <a type="external" href="">&#160;</a>strongly with affection for Macron.</p>
<p>His views mirror those held by most of this “elite” class. He thinks the left-right divide should be transcended. He doesn’t care about outworn ideologies, but about solutions that work, wherever they come from. He thinks startups are cool and the economy should be generally entrepreneurship-friendly, but he also wants some sort of welfare state. He’s got no problem whatsoever with gay marriage. He believes immigration is desirable for both economic and moral reasons.</p>
<p>But he doesn’t just think like an elite. He embodies many elites’ idealized lifestyle. He did very well academically (but not too well, having failed the entrance exam to the ultra-prestigious ENS civil service school), in a way that suggests some depth of mind (master’s degree in philosophy), but also practical success (ENS’s graduates run the country’s public and private sectors), because come on, how many people actually want to be philosophers? He did very well in investment banking, but not too well. His marriage to a much older woman who was once his drama teacher is socially transgressive to just the right degree. He’s handsome, but not too handsome.</p>
<p>In other words, Emmanuel Macron is the Donald Trump of the elite class. He’s not just their representative—he’s their avatar. Trump’s die-hard followers love him with such devotion not just because they like what he says, but because his image is that of the guy they wish they were or could be. It’s the same thing with Macron and his own elite base. And this is the stuff out of which Messianic movements are made.</p>
<p>The comparison is not perfect—for one thing, I have no problem with the idea of Macron having his finger over my country’s nuke button, while the idea of Trump with his finger over the American nuke button gives me cold sweats. But it gets at what I wish every American understood about Macron: His brand of pragmatic centrist politics is really just class-interest-based politics.</p>
<p>As Christophe Guilluy, a sociologist and leading analyst of contemporary society, pointed out, Macron’s supporters can be boiled down to one word: They are the&#160; <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2017/04/26/christophe-guilluy-m-macron-est-le-candidat-des-metropoles-mondialisees_5117791_3232.html" type="external">“haves.”</a>&#160;They are the people who rode the waves of change that have inundated the West over the past few decades—globalization, technological transformation—to great success. Education is&#160; <a href="http://www.slate.fr/story/136919/francais-marchent-macron" type="external">the best predictor</a>&#160;of voting for Macron, which makes sense, since it correlates not just with financial capital but also with cultural capital. Another predictor&#160; <a href="http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/emmanuel-macron-candidat-renouveau-tel-que-se-imaginent-vieux-jerome-fourquet-2671018.html" type="external">is age</a>, although in a perhaps-unexpected way: Macron is highly popular with the elderly, whose pensions protect them from the liberalizing reforms Macron campaigned on, and very unpopular with the young, who&#160; <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/economy/europe-youth-unemployment-france/index.html" type="external">disproportionately</a> <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/economy/europe-youth-unemployment-france/index.html" type="external">&#160;come out</a> <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/economy/europe-youth-unemployment-france/index.html" type="external">&#160;the losers</a>&#160;in France’s contemporary economy.</p>
<p>This explains why, after having used the oddities of the French electoral system to get elected as an alternative to worse candidates,&#160; <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/emmanuel-macron-more-unpopular-in-france-than-trump-in-us/article/2633442" type="external">Macron is extremely unpopular</a>. Non-elite French people smell exactly what the elites smell, and their reaction is equally predictable. Now, Macron supporters don’t believe that they support him for the crass reason that he will benefit their class at the expense of the rest of the country; instead, they just believe that what’s good for them is good for the country. Call it “trickle-down economics.” But, of course, nobody believes they support a certain policy simply because it’s good for them. Building the U.S.-Mexico border wall is cast as being about American identity, something all Americans can identify with, not about a protectionist barrier for the wages of Trump supporters at the expense of the well-heeled beneficiaries of low-wage immigration.</p>
<p>There’s nothing uniquely bad about this: Groups defending their interests just&#160;is&#160;what politics is. Democratic politics endures because it’s the least-bad mechanism we’ve come up with for handling precisely that.</p>
<p>But there’s a flip-side to Macron’s class-based politics: If you decide to replace the old left-right divide with the divide between the haves and the have-nots, haven’t you created a monster of a different sort?</p>
<p>The Macron tsunami has hit, and the traditional parties of the French left and right are deeply wounded and struggling to survive. But two people are doing fine: Jean-Luc Mélenchon, France’s leading far-left firebrand, and the infamous Marine Le Pen, France’s hard-right populist leader. In fact, it’s in Macron’s political interest for them to do well, to squeeze the last pangs of breath out of the traditional parties that might supplant his new centrist party. The better Mélenchon and Le Pen do, the worse the traditional parties do, and the more Macron looks like&#160; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative" type="external">the only alternative</a>&#160;to candidates the majority of French people still reject.</p>
<p>This might work to get him re-elected. But here’s what many don’t understand about Macron’s attempt to steer French politics away from the left-right divide we invented: If it is successful, it will mean that the opposition party (whatever it looks like, whoever its leader is) will be the anti-elite party&#160;par excellence. Put Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and Marine Le Pen in a bottle, shake vigorously—and, in a Macronified politics, whatever comes out is almost guaranteed to run the country. Not today. Not tomorrow. But, if Macron’s bet is successful, at some point.</p>
<p>Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.</p> | false | 1 | foreigners fascinated french president emmanuel macron shouldnt hes youngestever president french republic elected party previous electoral experience virtual nobody two years leaped forefront french political scene course people curious theres another reason nonfrench friends bombard questions president like advanced degrees uppermiddleclass backgrounds sort socioeconomic status correlates 160strongly affection macron views mirror held elite class thinks leftright divide transcended doesnt care outworn ideologies solutions work wherever come thinks startups cool economy generally entrepreneurshipfriendly also wants sort welfare state hes got problem whatsoever gay marriage believes immigration desirable economic moral reasons doesnt think like elite embodies many elites idealized lifestyle well academically well failed entrance exam ultraprestigious ens civil service school way suggests depth mind masters degree philosophy also practical success enss graduates run countrys public private sectors come many people actually want philosophers well investment banking well marriage much older woman drama teacher socially transgressive right degree hes handsome handsome words emmanuel macron donald trump elite class hes representativehes avatar trumps diehard followers love devotion like says image guy wish could thing macron elite base stuff messianic movements made comparison perfectfor one thing problem idea macron finger countrys nuke button idea trump finger american nuke button gives cold sweats gets wish every american understood macron brand pragmatic centrist politics really classinterestbased politics christophe guilluy sociologist leading analyst contemporary society pointed macrons supporters boiled one word the160 haves160they people rode waves change inundated west past decadesglobalization technological transformationto great success education is160 best predictor160of voting macron makes sense since correlates financial capital also cultural capital another predictor160 age although perhapsunexpected way macron highly popular elderly whose pensions protect liberalizing reforms macron campaigned unpopular young who160 disproportionately 160come 160the losers160in frances contemporary economy explains used oddities french electoral system get elected alternative worse candidates160 macron extremely unpopular nonelite french people smell exactly elites smell reaction equally predictable macron supporters dont believe support crass reason benefit class expense rest country instead believe whats good good country call trickledown economics course nobody believes support certain policy simply good building usmexico border wall cast american identity something americans identify protectionist barrier wages trump supporters expense wellheeled beneficiaries lowwage immigration theres nothing uniquely bad groups defending interests just160is160what politics democratic politics endures leastbad mechanism weve come handling precisely theres flipside macrons classbased politics decide replace old leftright divide divide haves havenots havent created monster different sort macron tsunami hit traditional parties french left right deeply wounded struggling survive two people fine jeanluc mélenchon frances leading farleft firebrand infamous marine le pen frances hardright populist leader fact macrons political interest well squeeze last pangs breath traditional parties might supplant new centrist party better mélenchon le pen worse traditional parties macron looks like160 alternative160to candidates majority french people still reject might work get reelected heres many dont understand macrons attempt steer french politics away leftright divide invented successful mean opposition party whatever looks like whoever leader antielite party160par excellence put donald trump nigel farage jeremy corbyn jeanluc mélenchon marine le pen bottle shake vigorouslyand macronified politics whatever comes almost guaranteed run country today tomorrow macrons bet successful point pascalemmanuel gobry fellow ethics public policy center | 516 |
<p>When <a href="http://variety.com/t/fx/" type="external">FX</a> Networks <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/fx-to-offer-6-subscription-service-fx-for-ad-free-episodes-via-comcast-1202516833/" type="external">launched its new commercial-free offshoot</a>, FX+, earlier this month, 16 of its series past and present were offered only to Comcast subscribers for $5.99 per month.</p>
<p>Now the 21st Century Fox-owned cable group is announcing that when FX+ makes Cox Communications its second pay-TV partner in October, the available library will double in size to include many of the series that weren’t included in the Comcast launch, including “Atlanta,” “The Americans” and “Better Things.”</p>
<p>The quick expansion of the FX+ library reflects the importance of the new product to FX Networks CEO <a href="http://variety.com/t/john-landgraf/" type="external">John Landgraf</a>, who also oversees channels FXX and FXM. But getting as many series as possible under FX+ is requiring his taking a hard stance against the lucrative exclusive licensing pacts with streaming services that cover some of the network’s most prominent original programs of recent years.</p>
<p>Adding “Atlanta,” “Better Things” and 13 other series to FX+ required renegotiating a <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/atlanta-donald-glover-hulu-1202407669/" type="external">multi-year output deal</a> struck in 2014 with <a href="http://variety.com/t/hulu/" type="external">Hulu</a>, which 21st Century Fox shares ownership of with several other media conglomerates. Hulu will now share the series with FX+, which will also get a piece of the exclusivity Amazon Prime once had to itself for “The Americans.”</p>
<p>“I do not believe we should be selling FX-branded content to SVOD services anymore” on an exclusive basis, Landgraf told Variety.</p>
<p>He specifically lamented the 2016 deal FX’s sister studio, 20th Century Fox, struck to license to Netflix one of the few FX series that will not have its previous seasons available on FX+, “American Crime Story.” “Policy may be set at a higher level of the company than me,” said Landgraf. “For example, there are shows like ‘American Crime Story’ from 20th Century Fox TV, and they made the decision to sell prior seasons to Netflix, which has it now.”</p>
<p>Regardless, FX+ now has 1,300 episodes, or 85% of a library the company has built up over the past 15 years of critically acclaimed, award-winning original fare going back to the breakthrough police drama “The Shield.” But the reason FX+ isn’t able to get to 100% is because of other exclusive deals already struck with other outlets, including “Justified” at Amazon Prime and “Archer,” which is under a syndication deal with Comedy Central.</p>
<p>“I am hopeful therefore that ‘American Crime Story’ is the last deal of its kind in that regard,” said Landgraf.</p>
<p>FX’s emphasis on retaining stacking rights for as much of its content as possible is part of a broader strategic adjustment media companies began signaling as early as 2015 to pull back on licensing to SVOD in an effort to retain that content for its own direct-to-consumer initiatives, some in partnership with pay-TV distributors. Industry critics contended that while studios made a pretty penny on those licensing deals, that ended up empowering SVOD firms to cannibalize linear TV ratings, depressing ad revenues and driving up programming costs.</p>
<p>But foregoing exclusive licensing arrangements could be a tall order for studios who have seen streaming services eclipse cable networks and station groups as the source of the biggest licensing fees. 20th Century Fox saw that firsthand when Hulu ponied up in <a href="http://www.multichannel.com/production-profits-now-power-vod-leaders/413504" type="external">excess of $2 million</a> per episode for rights to the NBC hit series “This Is Us.”</p>
<p>Netflix in particular has proven it’s willing to fork over top dollar in paying handsomely for “Gotham” and “The Blacklist” in recent years. RBC Capital Markets estimated that streaming services will spend nearly $12 billion on syndication in 2017; while that’s less than half of what station groups and cable networks pay combined, their share of the pie isn’t growing as fast as the streaming services.</p>
<p>Landgraf envisions FX+ as nothing less than the evolution of what a TV brand must be today to survive the arms race with bigger tech companies getting into the content business. He has been outspoken in his criticism of <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/fx-john-landgraf-tca-1202520845/" type="external">Silicon Valley’s encroachment</a>.</p>
<p>While he sees Netflix and Amazon as beginning to occupy a separate tier of the competitive landscape by amassing a greater tonnage of content than an FX can match, Landgraf is staking out a place for the best of networks like his own with well-defined brands that can tout solid track records with smaller caches of high-quality content. But that means surviving a winnowing driven in the not-too-distant future by the algorithm-driven recommendation engines and voice-search capabilities of digital platforms, which could reduce the ranks of the dozens of channel brands that were once capable of coexisting in the linear-TV world.</p>
<p>“I tend to see the future in which there will be both platforms and brands,” said Landgraf. “Platforms will damage or destroy a lot of brands but not every brand.”</p>
<p>FX+ is also important because it’s an attempt to add a significant new revenue stream to the FX business at a time when existing streams are under pressure. Landgraf estimates that the percentage contribution of ad revenue to FX’s bottom line has plummeted from 55% when he arrived at the network nearly 14 years ago to 33% today. CPM growth can only do so much amid declining viewership on linear networks, which are seeing significant portions of their audience re-assemble on the non-linear distribution counterparts that have barely begun to fully monetize due to measurement shortcomings and other issues.</p>
<p>What’s more, the growth of affiliate revenues for most cable networks is slowing to single digits per annum. FX can’t just depend on its third stream, content ownership, to make up the difference.</p>
<p>So FX+ represents an attempt to open a fourth revenue spigot, what the company is calling incremental subscription revenue. The focus here is on super-serving a sub-segment of FX’s 85 million subscribers who are its super fans, viewers desirous of binge-ing deep into the network’s catalog and willing to pay to do so without commercial interruption.</p>
<p>Landgraf’s hope is that while FX has yet to succumb to the kind of subscriber declines that have gripped the likes of ESPN – the network is actually up 1-2% when digital MVPD subscribers are counted – he has no delusion of eluding the long-term downtrend that will claim all basic cablers. But if FX can add, say, 5-7 million FX+ subscribers over a 10-year period as FX’s linear footprint inevitably begins bleeding millions of subscribers over that span, he can compensate for that shortfall.</p>
<p>“Layer on monthly subscriptions of this product and it has a profound impact on our ability to maintain or grow our business in the face of a modest decline in MVPD systems,” said Landgraf.</p>
<p>But another long-term reality is that as long as FX+ is only available to pay-TV subscribers, there’s a sizeable, growing audience of cord-cutters and cord-nevers that can’t access it. Landgraf understands that but notes that for now, the kinds of market segments likeliest to lavish discretionary spending on an FX+ are still within the pay-TV universe, including multiple-individual and high-income households.</p>
<p>“While I’d like to get to those people who are FX super fans who don’t fall into those categories, if I am honest, the low-hanging fruit for the foreseeable future is inside the system,” said Landgraf. “It’s of concern, I agree, in the long run, but when I look at this year, next year and even the mid-term, I think it’s a de minimis number of potential consumers.”</p>
<p>FX isn’t the only cable network pursuing the incremental-subscription model; AMC announced a <a href="http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/amc-ad-free-streaming-comcast-1202482663/" type="external">somewhat similar venture</a> with Comcast in June.</p> | false | 1 | fx networks launched new commercialfree offshoot fx earlier month 16 series past present offered comcast subscribers 599 per month 21st century foxowned cable group announcing fx makes cox communications second paytv partner october available library double size include many series werent included comcast launch including atlanta americans better things quick expansion fx library reflects importance new product fx networks ceo john landgraf also oversees channels fxx fxm getting many series possible fx requiring taking hard stance lucrative exclusive licensing pacts streaming services cover networks prominent original programs recent years adding atlanta better things 13 series fx required renegotiating multiyear output deal struck 2014 hulu 21st century fox shares ownership several media conglomerates hulu share series fx also get piece exclusivity amazon prime americans believe selling fxbranded content svod services anymore exclusive basis landgraf told variety specifically lamented 2016 deal fxs sister studio 20th century fox struck license netflix one fx series previous seasons available fx american crime story policy may set higher level company said landgraf example shows like american crime story 20th century fox tv made decision sell prior seasons netflix regardless fx 1300 episodes 85 library company built past 15 years critically acclaimed awardwinning original fare going back breakthrough police drama shield reason fx isnt able get 100 exclusive deals already struck outlets including justified amazon prime archer syndication deal comedy central hopeful therefore american crime story last deal kind regard said landgraf fxs emphasis retaining stacking rights much content possible part broader strategic adjustment media companies began signaling early 2015 pull back licensing svod effort retain content directtoconsumer initiatives partnership paytv distributors industry critics contended studios made pretty penny licensing deals ended empowering svod firms cannibalize linear tv ratings depressing ad revenues driving programming costs foregoing exclusive licensing arrangements could tall order studios seen streaming services eclipse cable networks station groups source biggest licensing fees 20th century fox saw firsthand hulu ponied excess 2 million per episode rights nbc hit series us netflix particular proven willing fork top dollar paying handsomely gotham blacklist recent years rbc capital markets estimated streaming services spend nearly 12 billion syndication 2017 thats less half station groups cable networks pay combined share pie isnt growing fast streaming services landgraf envisions fx nothing less evolution tv brand must today survive arms race bigger tech companies getting content business outspoken criticism silicon valleys encroachment sees netflix amazon beginning occupy separate tier competitive landscape amassing greater tonnage content fx match landgraf staking place best networks like welldefined brands tout solid track records smaller caches highquality content means surviving winnowing driven nottoodistant future algorithmdriven recommendation engines voicesearch capabilities digital platforms could reduce ranks dozens channel brands capable coexisting lineartv world tend see future platforms brands said landgraf platforms damage destroy lot brands every brand fx also important attempt add significant new revenue stream fx business time existing streams pressure landgraf estimates percentage contribution ad revenue fxs bottom line plummeted 55 arrived network nearly 14 years ago 33 today cpm growth much amid declining viewership linear networks seeing significant portions audience reassemble nonlinear distribution counterparts barely begun fully monetize due measurement shortcomings issues whats growth affiliate revenues cable networks slowing single digits per annum fx cant depend third stream content ownership make difference fx represents attempt open fourth revenue spigot company calling incremental subscription revenue focus superserving subsegment fxs 85 million subscribers super fans viewers desirous bingeing deep networks catalog willing pay without commercial interruption landgrafs hope fx yet succumb kind subscriber declines gripped likes espn network actually 12 digital mvpd subscribers counted delusion eluding longterm downtrend claim basic cablers fx add say 57 million fx subscribers 10year period fxs linear footprint inevitably begins bleeding millions subscribers span compensate shortfall layer monthly subscriptions product profound impact ability maintain grow business face modest decline mvpd systems said landgraf another longterm reality long fx available paytv subscribers theres sizeable growing audience cordcutters cordnevers cant access landgraf understands notes kinds market segments likeliest lavish discretionary spending fx still within paytv universe including multipleindividual highincome households id like get people fx super fans dont fall categories honest lowhanging fruit foreseeable future inside system said landgraf concern agree long run look year next year even midterm think de minimis number potential consumers fx isnt cable network pursuing incrementalsubscription model amc announced somewhat similar venture comcast june | 714 |
<p>Virtual reality is the next great frontier for entertainment. And one of the companies at the forefront of the VR entertainment revolution is <a href="http://www.baobabstudios.com/" type="external">Baobab Studios</a>, which won a Daytime Emmy for interactive original earlier this year for its first VR short, “ <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ0fKW5PttM" type="external">INVASION!</a>”</p>
<p>Baobab co-founder and chief creative officer <a href="http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/wonder-woman-blade-runner-view-conference-1202488867/" type="external">Eric Darnell</a>, a longtime animation professional who wrote and directed all of <a href="http://variety.com/tag/dreamworks-animation/" type="external">DreamWorks Animation</a>’s “ <a href="http://variety.com/tag/madagascar/" type="external">Madagascar</a>” movies, talks to Variety about telling compelling stories through VR ahead of his keynote address <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/news/breadwinner-frozen-view-conference-1202570481/" type="external">VIEW Conference 2017</a> in Turin, Italy, on Oct. 24, some of the creative challenges VR presents and what’s next for the groundbreaking studio.</p>
<p>Your keynote address at VIEW is on immersive storytelling in virtual reality. Can you give us a brief overview of your talk?</p>
<p>Baobab Studios is focused on VR storytelling wherein the viewer is a character in the story. I’ll be talking about our goal of creating powerful connections between the viewer and the characters in the story and doing it in a way that makes the stories we are telling more powerful, emotional and immersive.</p>
<p>This is a key part of our creative vision for VR: Imagine a little girl crying on a park bench. If you saw this in a film, you’d feel bad for her but you wouldn’t get out of your theater seat to console her. In a game, you’d talk to her to be a hero, get to the next level. In real life, you’d talk to her because you want to help. I believe that VR has the potential to have the empathy of films, the agency of games, and the motivation of life. In VR, you can act upon your empathy, help the characters, and help them because you care, not because you’re trying to win.</p>
<p>You’ve had a long career in computer animation and you directed <a href="http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/time-warner-1202568901-1202568901/" type="external">DreamWorks Animation</a>’s “ <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/actor-shaun-brown-great-indoors-1202008093/" type="external">Madagascar</a>” films. What first attracted you to VR as a storytelling vehicle?</p>
<p>What first attracted me to VR was putting on a modern VR headset for the first time. It’s something so difficult to explain to those who have not tried it. Even if it’s understood intellectually, VR is really something that must be experienced to truly “feel.”</p>
<p>When done right, VR is remarkably immersive. When a VR character looks you in the eye, it’s not like when an actor in a movie looks into the camera lens and breaks the fourth wall. Instead, it feels like the VR character recognizes that you are in her world and can express that your presence matters to her. There no walls, no (obvious) screens, and you don’t necessarily even need a mouse, keyboard or game controller. It’s just you and this character, together in this “other” world, communicating the way you might in real life, with eye contact and body language. It makes it easy to suspend your disbelief. It feels real.</p>
<p>Fortunately, my eventual co-founders, Maureen Fan and Larry Cutler, were both interested in this new medium’s potential in narrative storytelling, which is what I’d been focused on for the past few decades, so we all held hands and dove in.</p>
<p>What are the biggest differences between regular animation and VR/Interactive animation?</p>
<p>When the VR experience is being generated in real time 3D inside a game engine, everything changes. Wherever you look, the leaves might be blowing in the breeze or the clouds are rolling by. Wherever you look, you are in that world. Because the imagery is being generated at a very high frame rate — as many as 90fps — it feels more like real life. But this is just the beginning. The viewer and the character(s) can communicate with each other because the content is being created on the fly. It can be variable. Imagery and sounds can change based on what the viewer does, while the world inside a traditional film cannot respond to the viewer in such a way.</p>
<p>For example, in our first VR piece, “INVASION!,” you find yourself standing on a frozen lake. Snow falls all around you. If you look down, you discover you have the body of a fluffy white bunny. If you move around on the ice your body comes with you. Then another white bunny appears on the shoreline, hops over to you and looks you right in the eye. If you move around while the bunny is looking at you she will follow you wherever you go. She “knows” you are in her world and when she starts to playfully hop around, you know that your presence in her world matters to her. This is the very first step in developing a “relationship” with the bunny that feels akin to real life. And it works because it is so easy to suspend your disbelief. It feels real. And, for a part of your brain, it is real.</p>
<p>However, what’s similar between traditional and VR animation is that you need good storytelling. Whatever the medium, we would rather create a great story using stick figures than to tell a mediocre one using all the bells and whistles. The new technology can be a lot of sizzle, but you still need the steak.</p>
<p>Baobab won a Daytime Emmy for its first interactive short, “Invasion!” How long did that project take to produce?</p>
<p>It took us three and a half months and a brand-new team from different disciplines simultaneously building a brand-new studio from scratch — all from different disciplines but sharing a lot of talent, vision and heart.</p>
<p>What were your biggest challenges?</p>
<p>The biggest challenge was coming to grips with how different VR is from filmmaking. I came into the VR game a bit too sure of myself; I’d been directing feature films for almost 20 years. I naively told myself, VR can’t be that different. Well, I learned very quickly that VR is not an extension of film. VR is its own very distinct medium. So I got humble really fast.</p>
<p>Did anything surprise you during production?</p>
<p>One surprising thing was that audiences reacted to “INVASION!” in sometimes completely unexpected ways.</p>
<p>Directing the viewer’s eyes, to start with. In the beginning, it was more about viewers missing the story because they were distracted by other things or they didn’t know where to look. We learned a great deal about what we needed to do to inspire viewers to make the completely free choice to look exactly where we want them to look when we want them to look there. This turned out to be no small feat.</p>
<p>Finally, after much trial and error, we started getting things to work. For example, we used Chloe, the bunny, to direct the audience’s gaze. When she looked in a direction, the audience looked that way to see what she was looking at. We also used art, sound and lighting to guide the viewers’ eyes, borrowing from theater, magic, real life.</p>
<p>You really believe the characters and world are real. Alvy Ray Smith, one of the <a href="http://variety.com/tag/pixar/" type="external">Pixar</a> founders and one of our advisers, visited the studio to see a demo of “Invasion!” There is a moment in the story when some nasty aliens arrive and prepare to obliterate both you and your bunny friend, Chloe. She then hides behind you for protection from the aliens. When the experience was over, Alvy told me how he watched Chloe hide behind him, but then he felt compelled to turn back around to see what the aliens were going to do. It was then, he told us, that he realized he could still feel the bunny’s presence behind him. He could almost feel her breath on the back of his neck. So, even though Chloe was not in his field of view, she was still very real to Alvy.</p>
<p>What adjustments did you make, if any, when Baobab made “ASTEROIDS!,” the follow up to “INVASION!”?</p>
<p>We are telling stories. To do this well, we believe we must maintain a level of control of the spine and pacing of the story. Yet, if we can get the audience to love the characters enough, they will want to interact with the characters. We wanted to give the audience the opportunity to act upon their caring. This interactivity is what we explored in “ASTEROIDS!”</p>
<p>The challenge became finding the right balance between storytelling and interactivity. For us, this meant that the viewer was not the main character. Instead, the viewer finds themself in a story that is bigger than them – a story that’s happening in real time all around them. Just like in real life, the viewer can make the decision about whether she wants to get involved. Whatever the viewer chooses to do, the story keeps plowing forward. Instead of passing control of the story to the viewer – something that could result in variable pacing and branching narratives – the viewer has the option, but not the requirement, to participate in the story.</p>
<p>For example, a character may ask for the viewer’s help. If the viewer steps in and assists, she might be rewarded by the character liking her more. If the viewer chooses to stay on the sidelines, the character might like her less, or even be angry with her. So instead of branching storylines, we are dealing with branching emotions – both in terms of how the character relates to the viewer emotionally as well as how the viewer might feel based on the choices she has made.</p>
<p>“INVASION!”&#160;is now being developed into a full-length feature, but it will be animated in a more traditional fashion without VR. How that project is progressing?</p>
<p>The idea is for “Invasion!” to be created into a traditional animated film, but inspired for the first time by a virtual reality experience. As you know, developing feature animation projects can take time, but the fact that Hollywood producers <a href="http://variety.com/tag/joe-roth/" type="external">Joe Roth</a> and Jeffrey Kirshenbaum recognized the big screen potential for our characters based upon a 6-minute adventure in a new medium is incredibly validating and a testament to VR’s storytelling abilities.</p>
<p>Do you think VR could ever lend itself to full-length projects?</p>
<p>I suppose the question is, “What is a full-length VR project?” Perhaps it will become similar in duration to a traditional feature, or perhaps it is something different. Right now, the world of VR is so dynamic it is hard to know. But as the headsets become more powerful and more comfortable, and the creators of VR content become more knowledgeable and experienced, the answer to that question may reveal itself.</p>
<p>For now, we are focused on creating shorter form content because it gives us the opportunity to learn quickly and iterate on what we learn.</p>
<p>Baobab’s latest project is “ <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTm1wPqF4YQ" type="external">The Legend of Crow</a>,” which debuted at Tribeca this year. What inspired this project?</p>
<p>The story of Crow is inspired by a stunningly beautiful Native American legend. On its surface, it’s an origin myth explaining how the Crow, who once had colorful feathers and a beautiful song, lost his colors and acquired the raspy voice we know crows have today. On a deeper level, it is about self-sacrifice and self-acceptance – a recognition that the things we may see in ourselves as flaws may actually be the things that make us unique and special. And it’s through this journey of self-discovery that Crow can appreciate the changes in himself as well as the differences of others.</p>
<p>We combined this narrative with the visual question, “What would it be like if you could walk into one of your favorite storybooks as a child?” We end up with a world that is not planted in photorealism, but instead is innocent, timeless and magical and brings out the viewer’s sense of wonder.</p>
<p>It was important that we stay true to the themes of the original story. We’re collaborating closely with Randy Edmonds, our narrator, a Native American tribal elder who has crusaded for Native American rights since the Relocation Acts of the 1950s and a founder of the National Urban Indian Council. We’re also continuing to learn so much from project adviser Sarah Eagleheart, who is the CEO of Native Americans in Philanthropy, an amazing organization giving a voice to indigenous peoples — it was an honor for us to discuss the project alongside speakers like the Obama Foundation at her Invisible No More Native Building Summit earlier this year. There are so many stories like this one that haven’t been a part of the rich tapestry of American cinema, and that’s part of what of what attracted <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/underground-john-legend-1202574289/" type="external">John Legend</a> to be the voice of our Crow. Another theme in the tale is one of diversity and so we’re proud to have Randy, John and others like <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/news/constance-wu-crazy-rich-asians-movie-1201989715/" type="external">Constance Wu</a> and <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/news/liev-schreiber-diego-luna-woody-allen-movie-1202554135/" type="external">Diego Luna</a> lend their talents to the project.</p>
<p>This is planned as a series. Why as a series?</p>
<p>Ultimately, rather than a series, a better way to describe it might be in terms of chapters, like in a book. And the reason for doing this is practical. Since it will end up being the longest piece we will have produced to date, we can give the audience the opportunity to take a break if they want to. It also gives us the option of releasing the piece in parts over time or release all at once, but no decision has been made on how we will release it yet.</p>
<p>“INVASION!” and “ASTEROIDS!” are available on the <a href="http://www.baobabstudios.com/download/" type="external">Baobab app</a>. Will “The Legend of Crow” be on the app as well?</p>
<p>You bet.</p>
<p>Can you give us a hint about other projects Baobab is working on?</p>
<p>I can’t say much about that. I can say that we have many projects in development. Whatever we choose to do next will be a project that allows us to experiment with this brand new medium and give us the best opportunities to discover more of the hidden language of VR as we focus on telling great stories, and telling them well, with characters the audience can fall in love with.</p>
<p>What attracted you to participate in the VIEW Conference?</p>
<p>I was first invited to the VIEW Conference in 2012, soon after my fourth animated film, “Madagascar 3,” was released. I love the sharp focus of the conference and the intimate tone that allows speakers and audiences to really connect with one another. When [VIEW Conference director] Maria Elena Gutierrez invited me back to talk about what we are doing at Baobab, I jumped at the chance.</p>
<p>The VIEW Conference curates the very top creative speakers in CG and we are honored to be a part of it.</p>
<p>Are there any other presentations at the conference you’re excited about seeing?</p>
<p>There are so many interesting speakers at the VIEW Conference, some of whom I know and others I’m excited to meet. One of the great things about the conference is that there’s time to see everything so I don’t have to prioritize – I can see them all. We are, of course, excited to hear some of our advisers speak, including the COO and co-founder of Twitch, Kevin Lin. Maureen, our CEO, also helped to bring in VR executives from Oculus and ILM.</p>
<p>Darnell’s keynote will take place on Oct. 24 at 10 a.m., Italian time. He will also participate in a Future of Storytelling panel later that day with Weta senior visual effects supervisor Joe Letteri (“The War for the Planet of the Apes”), ILMxLAB’s Vicki Dobbs Beck, “Bladerunner 2049” overall VFX supervisor John Nelson, “The Little Prince” director Mark Osborne and Kris Pearn, director of the upcoming animated film “The Willoughbys.”</p>
<p>Darnell’s colleagues and fellow Baobab co-founders, CEO Maureen Fan and CTO Larry Cutler, will host a talk at the conference on emotions in VR on Wednesday, Oct. 25, beginning at 3:30 p.m., Italian time.</p>
<p>For a complete list of VIEW Conference speakers, visit <a href="https://www.viewconference.it/pages/program/" type="external">viewconference.it/</a></p> | false | 1 | virtual reality next great frontier entertainment one companies forefront vr entertainment revolution baobab studios daytime emmy interactive original earlier year first vr short invasion baobab cofounder chief creative officer eric darnell longtime animation professional wrote directed dreamworks animations madagascar movies talks variety telling compelling stories vr ahead keynote address view conference 2017 turin italy oct 24 creative challenges vr presents whats next groundbreaking studio keynote address view immersive storytelling virtual reality give us brief overview talk baobab studios focused vr storytelling wherein viewer character story ill talking goal creating powerful connections viewer characters story way makes stories telling powerful emotional immersive key part creative vision vr imagine little girl crying park bench saw film youd feel bad wouldnt get theater seat console game youd talk hero get next level real life youd talk want help believe vr potential empathy films agency games motivation life vr act upon empathy help characters help care youre trying win youve long career computer animation directed dreamworks animations madagascar films first attracted vr storytelling vehicle first attracted vr putting modern vr headset first time something difficult explain tried even understood intellectually vr really something must experienced truly feel done right vr remarkably immersive vr character looks eye like actor movie looks camera lens breaks fourth wall instead feels like vr character recognizes world express presence matters walls obvious screens dont necessarily even need mouse keyboard game controller character together world communicating way might real life eye contact body language makes easy suspend disbelief feels real fortunately eventual cofounders maureen fan larry cutler interested new mediums potential narrative storytelling id focused past decades held hands dove biggest differences regular animation vrinteractive animation vr experience generated real time 3d inside game engine everything changes wherever look leaves might blowing breeze clouds rolling wherever look world imagery generated high frame rate many 90fps feels like real life beginning viewer characters communicate content created fly variable imagery sounds change based viewer world inside traditional film respond viewer way example first vr piece invasion find standing frozen lake snow falls around look discover body fluffy white bunny move around ice body comes another white bunny appears shoreline hops looks right eye move around bunny looking follow wherever go knows world starts playfully hop around know presence world matters first step developing relationship bunny feels akin real life works easy suspend disbelief feels real part brain real however whats similar traditional vr animation need good storytelling whatever medium would rather create great story using stick figures tell mediocre one using bells whistles new technology lot sizzle still need steak baobab daytime emmy first interactive short invasion long project take produce took us three half months brandnew team different disciplines simultaneously building brandnew studio scratch different disciplines sharing lot talent vision heart biggest challenges biggest challenge coming grips different vr filmmaking came vr game bit sure id directing feature films almost 20 years naively told vr cant different well learned quickly vr extension film vr distinct medium got humble really fast anything surprise production one surprising thing audiences reacted invasion sometimes completely unexpected ways directing viewers eyes start beginning viewers missing story distracted things didnt know look learned great deal needed inspire viewers make completely free choice look exactly want look want look turned small feat finally much trial error started getting things work example used chloe bunny direct audiences gaze looked direction audience looked way see looking also used art sound lighting guide viewers eyes borrowing theater magic real life really believe characters world real alvy ray smith one pixar founders one advisers visited studio see demo invasion moment story nasty aliens arrive prepare obliterate bunny friend chloe hides behind protection aliens experience alvy told watched chloe hide behind felt compelled turn back around see aliens going told us realized could still feel bunnys presence behind could almost feel breath back neck even though chloe field view still real alvy adjustments make baobab made asteroids follow invasion telling stories well believe must maintain level control spine pacing story yet get audience love characters enough want interact characters wanted give audience opportunity act upon caring interactivity explored asteroids challenge became finding right balance storytelling interactivity us meant viewer main character instead viewer finds themself story bigger story thats happening real time around like real life viewer make decision whether wants get involved whatever viewer chooses story keeps plowing forward instead passing control story viewer something could result variable pacing branching narratives viewer option requirement participate story example character may ask viewers help viewer steps assists might rewarded character liking viewer chooses stay sidelines character might like less even angry instead branching storylines dealing branching emotions terms character relates viewer emotionally well viewer might feel based choices made invasion160is developed fulllength feature animated traditional fashion without vr project progressing idea invasion created traditional animated film inspired first time virtual reality experience know developing feature animation projects take time fact hollywood producers joe roth jeffrey kirshenbaum recognized big screen potential characters based upon 6minute adventure new medium incredibly validating testament vrs storytelling abilities think vr could ever lend fulllength projects suppose question fulllength vr project perhaps become similar duration traditional feature perhaps something different right world vr dynamic hard know headsets become powerful comfortable creators vr content become knowledgeable experienced answer question may reveal focused creating shorter form content gives us opportunity learn quickly iterate learn baobabs latest project legend crow debuted tribeca year inspired project story crow inspired stunningly beautiful native american legend surface origin myth explaining crow colorful feathers beautiful song lost colors acquired raspy voice know crows today deeper level selfsacrifice selfacceptance recognition things may see flaws may actually things make us unique special journey selfdiscovery crow appreciate changes well differences others combined narrative visual question would like could walk one favorite storybooks child end world planted photorealism instead innocent timeless magical brings viewers sense wonder important stay true themes original story collaborating closely randy edmonds narrator native american tribal elder crusaded native american rights since relocation acts 1950s founder national urban indian council also continuing learn much project adviser sarah eagleheart ceo native americans philanthropy amazing organization giving voice indigenous peoples honor us discuss project alongside speakers like obama foundation invisible native building summit earlier year many stories like one havent part rich tapestry american cinema thats part attracted john legend voice crow another theme tale one diversity proud randy john others like constance wu diego luna lend talents project planned series series ultimately rather series better way describe might terms chapters like book reason practical since end longest piece produced date give audience opportunity take break want also gives us option releasing piece parts time release decision made release yet invasion asteroids available baobab app legend crow app well bet give us hint projects baobab working cant say much say many projects development whatever choose next project allows us experiment brand new medium give us best opportunities discover hidden language vr focus telling great stories telling well characters audience fall love attracted participate view conference first invited view conference 2012 soon fourth animated film madagascar 3 released love sharp focus conference intimate tone allows speakers audiences really connect one another view conference director maria elena gutierrez invited back talk baobab jumped chance view conference curates top creative speakers cg honored part presentations conference youre excited seeing many interesting speakers view conference know others im excited meet one great things conference theres time see everything dont prioritize see course excited hear advisers speak including coo cofounder twitch kevin lin maureen ceo also helped bring vr executives oculus ilm darnells keynote take place oct 24 10 italian time also participate future storytelling panel later day weta senior visual effects supervisor joe letteri war planet apes ilmxlabs vicki dobbs beck bladerunner 2049 overall vfx supervisor john nelson little prince director mark osborne kris pearn director upcoming animated film willoughbys darnells colleagues fellow baobab cofounders ceo maureen fan cto larry cutler host talk conference emotions vr wednesday oct 25 beginning 330 pm italian time complete list view conference speakers visit viewconferenceit | 1,338 |
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>GW: Let’s wind up with Cuba. Describe the best endgame and best outcome there, and what the United States could do to facilitate that.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>EA: I suppose the best endgame would be if Fidel Castro dropped dead this morning, before lunch. Castro is a man of very firm beliefs; in this respect, I’d put him in the camp of people like Mao. Castro isn’t an apparatchik, and he isn’t a second-generation communist. He’s a founding father, a true believer, and a deeply wicked man. There won’t be any serious political reform under Castro.</p>
<p>That there’s some economic reform today is the product of necessity: the Soviet crack-up ended the subsidies. So it seems to me that keeping the pressure on Castro will produce more economic change. We know, from a case like Saudi Arabia, that money can be used as a substitute for economic reform. You can buy off the need for reform. If Castro came into money, or if oil were discovered near Cuba, Castro would use the revenue in place of reform. Similarly, if the American embargo ended, he’d use the inflow of money to avoid reform.</p>
<p>And economic reform is very, very important, because, in Cuba as elsewhere, it has inevitable social and political impact. When people in Cuba can get money from their relatives in Miami, that helps the regime a bit, it’s true, because there’s more money flowing around. But it does something else: for the first time, your ability to get goods doesn’t depend on how you stand with the communist party; it depends on whether you have relatives who, in Cuban communist terms, are “worms living in Miami.” That’s a profound social change.</p>
<p>We know from places like Poland that the post-communist transition is easier if you’ve already had some economic reform. And that’s what’s just beginning in Cuba. If the embargo is maintained, you’ll see more and more farmers’ markets, more private agricultural production. All of that is very helpful.</p>
<p>The embargo is a tool, though; it’s not a matter of first principles. If we can use the embargo to buy political change, we ought to. If even a “partial” successor who assumes power when Castro becomes ill or starts to lose control is willing to negotiate real political change—release all political prisoners, legalize free trade unions, a free press, and freedom of speech—then I would make that negotiation; I’d trade parts of the embargo for some real political reforms. But until then, I’d maintain the embargo.</p>
<p>The best we can hope for is that that kind of political change will help prepare a softer landing for a post-Castro Cuba. But that will also depend on the strength of the Cuban opposition, as well as on Castro’s health. What really is a grave error is to abandon the cause of liberty in Cuba after thirty years, which is precisely what we’re doing by returning refugees to Cuba.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>GW: Are you concerned about Castro constructing a Wagnerian finish for himself?</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>EA: I think it’s less likely as time goes by. What senior Cuban military official, today, would carry out an order to do something drastic to Florida? In the last few years, the regime has been relying more and more on the secret police and less and less on the military, which tells us something. If Castro gave an order to attack Florida, I can readily imagine Cuban air force officers saying, “This guy is completely nuts, arrest him.” The Cuban military, like the military in other communist countries, wants to have a future. So I’m less concerned about a Wagnerian ending than I was five years ago.</p>
<p>What really worry me are the very real problems that Cuba faces even if Castro dies tomorrow. There will be a lot of vengeance issues: “You denounced my brother to the secret police in 1981, and I’m going to get you now.” The property issues are going to be terribly difficult: would a returnee be able to dispossess the widow who had been living in his house for thirty years? Then there are the tort issues: “What do I get for being in Castro’s prisons for thirty years? Don’t I get a pension or something?”</p>
<p>The race issue is also going to be tough. Cuba is less white, more black, than it was in 1960, because it was primarily middle-class whites who fled. The revolution really hasn’t done anything for Cuban blacks; the upper level of the communist party has always been all-white. But the regime has sown fear among Cuban blacks by telling them, “Look, if these Miami people come back, you’re going to be a busboy again.”</p>
<p>Then there’s the question of the security forces, the army and the Cuban equivalent of the KGB. A situation like Nicaragua, where there’s a new civilian government but the security forces remain in old communist hands, must be avoided. The military is perforce playing a larger role in the economy now, but Castro doesn’t seem to trust it fully. We saw this when he executed the very popular General Arnaldo Ochoa a few years ago for the crime of being just the kind of leader people might turn to instead of Fidel. In any event, who controls the guns is a critical issue today, as Castro seeks to remain in power, and it will also be a critical issue when—some day—a transition government tries to take over.</p>
<p>Finally there’s the question of the Cuban diaspora, not only in Miami but also in Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Spain. What is their place? How much influence and power will they have in a post-Castro Cuba?</p>
<p>These issues, plus some regional questions within Cuba, plus the lack of democratic experience, portend a harder rather than softer landing after Castro. I’m not expecting a kind of Velvet Revolution in which, after eight months, you slide easily into democracy and economic progress.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>GW: Didn’t you have a proposal for making creative use of Guantanamo?</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>EA: Guantanamo is a base we’re either going to have to rent from, or give back to, a free Cuba. Given the nationalist sentiments involved, they’re probably going to want it back. And I’m not so sure we need it; we’ve got Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico. So my suggestion is that, beginning now, we ought to turn Guantanamo into a free port and a free trade zone.</p>
<p>Now that would be something of real value we could give to a free Cuba: a wonderful international port, the beginnings of a Caribbean Hong Kong. It might be difficult to do, because our lease on Guantanamo specifies that it can be used only for military, not commercial, purposes. But that’s what you hire lawyers for: to figure out ways to do things you ought to do.</p>
<p>George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and holds EPPC’s William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.</p> | false | 1 | 160 gw lets wind cuba describe best endgame best outcome united states could facilitate 160 ea suppose best endgame would fidel castro dropped dead morning lunch castro man firm beliefs respect id put camp people like mao castro isnt apparatchik isnt secondgeneration communist hes founding father true believer deeply wicked man wont serious political reform castro theres economic reform today product necessity soviet crackup ended subsidies seems keeping pressure castro produce economic change know case like saudi arabia money used substitute economic reform buy need reform castro came money oil discovered near cuba castro would use revenue place reform similarly american embargo ended hed use inflow money avoid reform economic reform important cuba elsewhere inevitable social political impact people cuba get money relatives miami helps regime bit true theres money flowing around something else first time ability get goods doesnt depend stand communist party depends whether relatives cuban communist terms worms living miami thats profound social change know places like poland postcommunist transition easier youve already economic reform thats whats beginning cuba embargo maintained youll see farmers markets private agricultural production helpful embargo tool though matter first principles use embargo buy political change ought even partial successor assumes power castro becomes ill starts lose control willing negotiate real political changerelease political prisoners legalize free trade unions free press freedom speechthen would make negotiation id trade parts embargo real political reforms id maintain embargo best hope kind political change help prepare softer landing postcastro cuba also depend strength cuban opposition well castros health really grave error abandon cause liberty cuba thirty years precisely returning refugees cuba 160 gw concerned castro constructing wagnerian finish 160 ea think less likely time goes senior cuban military official today would carry order something drastic florida last years regime relying secret police less less military tells us something castro gave order attack florida readily imagine cuban air force officers saying guy completely nuts arrest cuban military like military communist countries wants future im less concerned wagnerian ending five years ago really worry real problems cuba faces even castro dies tomorrow lot vengeance issues denounced brother secret police 1981 im going get property issues going terribly difficult would returnee able dispossess widow living house thirty years tort issues get castros prisons thirty years dont get pension something race issue also going tough cuba less white black 1960 primarily middleclass whites fled revolution really hasnt done anything cuban blacks upper level communist party always allwhite regime sown fear among cuban blacks telling look miami people come back youre going busboy theres question security forces army cuban equivalent kgb situation like nicaragua theres new civilian government security forces remain old communist hands must avoided military perforce playing larger role economy castro doesnt seem trust fully saw executed popular general arnaldo ochoa years ago crime kind leader people might turn instead fidel event controls guns critical issue today castro seeks remain power also critical issue whensome daya transition government tries take finally theres question cuban diaspora miami also venezuela puerto rico spain place much influence power postcastro cuba issues plus regional questions within cuba plus lack democratic experience portend harder rather softer landing castro im expecting kind velvet revolution eight months slide easily democracy economic progress 160 gw didnt proposal making creative use guantanamo 160 ea guantanamo base either going rent give back free cuba given nationalist sentiments involved theyre probably going want back im sure need weve got roosevelt roads puerto rico suggestion beginning ought turn guantanamo free port free trade zone would something real value could give free cuba wonderful international port beginnings caribbean hong kong might difficult lease guantanamo specifies used military commercial purposes thats hire lawyers figure ways things ought george weigel distinguished senior fellow ethics public policy center washington dc holds eppcs william e simon chair catholic studies | 633 |
<p />
<p>DAMASCUS — Reports from across Syria—and increasingly coming in from many areas including Aleppo, Qalamoun, and Reqaa—lay bare massive crimes being perpetrated against the Syrian people in the name of Islam from areas under Salafist control.&#160;&#160;A recent German domestic intelligence service annual report described Salafism as the fastest growing Islamic movement in Syria.&#160;&#160;Based on interviews conducted by this observer recently in Damascus, it is evident that mainstream Salafism, with its emphasis on adherence to the Koran’s principles and standards for correct behavior towards humanity, is being deeply subverted in the Syrian Arab Republic by forces organized from outside this country.</p>
<p>The Salafi methodology or Salafist movement, historically respected among&#160;scholars of Islam, is a school of Islamic thought among Sunni Muslims named after the “Salaf”&#160;or&#160;“predecessors” among the earliest Muslims, who are widely considered examples of Islamic practice worthy of emulation. The Salafist movement is often described as related to, or even synonymous with Saudi Wahhabism or at least a hybrid.&#160;Salafism has become widely known among Muslims only since the 1960’s&#160;&#160;with some attributing this phenomenon is partly&#160;&#160;a result of the Zionist occupation of Palestine and other projects of Western hegemony which has led to revising some claimed interpretations of&#160;&#160;Islam more common during periods of history when Islam was threatened.&#160;&#160;Salafism presents to its followers a literalistic, strict, puritanical interpretation of the Koran. Particularly in the West, and increasingly in Syria, some Salsify Jihadis espouse violent jihad against the public, even Muslim civilians, as a legitimate expression of defending Islam.</p>
<p>Though Salafis&#160;&#160;claim to be Sunni Muslims, some scholars this observer interviewed in Damascus’s Omayyad&#160;&#160;Mosque and Sunni Sheiks&#160;&#160;based in Damascus are of the view that Salafis are a&#160;&#160;sui generis sect, and are thus apart from traditional&#160;&#160;Sunni Muslim Koranic interpretations and practice. One professor of Islamic studies expressed, perhaps a minority view, that Salafis and Wahhabis are essentially the same. The basis of this claim is that Salafis do not acknowledge or follow any of the four schools of thought to which other Sunni Muslims adhere.&#160;&#160;Rather, they have their own beliefs and laws, their own leaders and social systems, and practice religion with strict and widely rejected extremist practices as well as committing crimes targeting civilians, including fellow Muslims, for political and financial reasons.</p>
<p>One currently ascendant Salafist group in Syria, among more than 1,000 others competing for weapons and fighters, is “Daash”. The word is an acronym with its letters standing for “the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.”&#160;&#160;Daash appeared on the scene here recently, about a year ago, and some local observers believe it arrived via Iraq with large amounts of funding from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, the latter of which also facilitates its weapons, supplies, and access to the north of Syria via Turkish territory. Daash membership figures have recently inflated partly because it currently pays its recruits nearly four times the going gunman wage here, or approximately $500 per month, as it competes with Jabhat al Nusra and others to impose some of its frankly bizarre interpretations of Islam.</p>
<p>Damascus is awash in tales coming in from Daash controlled areas around Aleppo and elsewhere of a sheath full of recent Fatwa’s and orders posted on walls of what is expected of the local Salafist occupied areas.&#160;&#160;It operates—as recent reports indicate, many of which have been verified by Sunni Islamic scholars and Sheiks from Damascene mosques—with brutality to enforce its will on the civilian population. A Sunni law student from Damascus University Faculty of Law compiled over the past few weeks some research on the subject and she reports example of spreading Salafist edits which she labels, “An insane frontal assault on Islam by criminal acts against Muslim and others of the Book.”</p>
<p>On November 27, &#160;a young lady arriving at the Dama Rose hotel reported to this observer that currently in parts of Raqaa and Aleppo and other Daash&#160;&#160;controlled areas, if a man from Daash covets something such as someone’s new car or someone’s wife, he must now only say “Allah Akbar”&#160;&#160;three times and the personal property or the targeted women belongs to him and the man can&#160;&#160;beat the wife and rape her with impunity. This latest fatwa obviously causes serious problems within Daash and other affected militia, especially in Raqqa and Allepo.&#160;&#160;The young lady from a prominent Dasmascene Sunni family reported that Daash members are currently taking gas, oil, and bread at will from non-Daash villages for distribution to members of their cult of approximately 5,000 members and reportedly growing.&#160;&#160;Also according to recently televised reports it is now permissible for Daash members to rape any woman who is not Muslim as well as Muslim women who support the Assad government.</p>
<p>Some recently reported Salisfist practices spreading in Syria include, but are not limited to the following:</p>
<p>The Egyptian newspaper&#160;Al Masry Al Youm in its November 15 edition reported that Daash variety fatwas&#160;regard women as strange creatures created solely for sex. Daash considers the voices of women, their looks and presence outside of their homes an “offense” with some Salafists regarding women in general “offensive.”</p>
<p>Among the practices permitted by Daash is the widespread acceptance of wives lying to their husbands concerning politics. Daash believes that if the husband forbids her from being supportive of their agenda and control of Syrian villages in Aleppo and Raqaa for example, she may then, through dissimulation support them while pretending to be against them.</p>
<p>During interviews in Syria, one religious advisor to Daash opined to this observer that marriage to ten-year-old girls should be allowed in order to prevent girls from deviating from the correct path, while another prohibited girls from going to schools, even those located close to their homes and another fatwa states that a marriage is annulled if the husband and wife make love with no clothes on. Some Daash fatwas also sanction the use of women and children as human shields in violent demonstrations and protests, as these are by them as jihads to empower Islam.</p>
<p>Yet other fatwas accepted by Daash forbid Muslims from greeting Christians and even forbidding Muslim cab drivers from transporting Christian priests while criticizing Egypt’s Al Azhar, considered by many to be one of the oldest and most prestigious Islamic universities in the world for withdrawing its fatwa that instructed women to “breastfeed” male acquaintances, thereby making them relatives and justifying their mixed company.</p>
<p>Men are now being physically assaulted by Daash milita on the street if they are clean shaven or wear tight trousers. Men who suffer from erectile dysfunction can, however, watch pornographic movies, provided that the participants in the porno flicks are Islamists. It is being reported currently that in some Daash areas, it is now permissible to rape any woman who is not Muslim as well as Muslim women who support the Assad government.</p>
<p>Education is focused on boys and in Daash area schools in Syria, a country long acknowledged to have among the highest quality of education, both in elementary and secondary levels, are being&#160;run like the Pakistani madrasas, and education is limited to memorizing every word of the Koran while severely limiting any education in the sciences or secular subjects.</p>
<p>Last month, Daash issued another anti-Islamic “fatwa” that says that “all those who support Bashar al-Assad , even the word , or who are in favor of the National Coalition or agree to a dialogue with him&#160;&#160;must have his head separated from his body&#160;including&#160;the beheading of all members of the coalition favoring Geneva II or dialogue.”</p>
<p>One much respected Sunni Sheik from Tripoli, Lebanon currently residing in Damascus and with whom this observer has become friends over the course of many visits to Syria, is Sheikh Abdul Salam El Harrach, Symposium Coordinator of Muslim Scholars in Akkar, north Lebanon.&#160;&#160;Sheik Harrach has run afoul of Daash and&#160;is a strong supporter of the Hezbollah led Resistance to the Zionist occupation of Palestine and an advocate for the Syrian people. He favors dialogue and is hopeful about Geneva II while hoping that recent encouraging Iran-US efforts to settle some regional problems will bear fruit for Syria.</p>
<p>Sheikh Harrach argues that the Syrian people must decide in the coming Presidential election who will be their leaders, not other countries who are sending militia to create chaos while too often turning a blind eye to current Salafist un-Islamic criminal campaigns which include widespread thefts of Muslim property in areas they currently occupy in Syria. As a result of his political stances, the Sheikh&#160;&#160;has been targeted for assassination more than once by Daash/al Qaeda types and is rumored to have a large bounty on his head from&#160;&#160;Jabat al Nursa, Daash, and others in Tripoli who oppose Sunni-Shia rapprochement in the Levant and globally.</p>
<p>One assassination attempt, which wounded his son Wael, took place in the north Lebanon town of Aaat during a Ramadan Iftar event held in tents outside his home. Some&#160;blamed&#160;&#160;the March 14th&#160;coalition and extreme Islamic elements. Sheik Harrach explained that the assault on his son, and other armed attacks are perpetrated&#160;&#160;“against the background of incitement against Sunni Muslim from extremist elements who have the support of some of the security services, stressing that he is targeted because&#160;&#160;of his support for the reform and development in Syria under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad and because of the standing and support for the resistance and his outright rejection of the U.S. and Zionist project for Lebanon and the region. ”</p>
<p>To his credit and in solidarity with the people of Syria, Sheik Harrash vows to continue working with the growing Sunni and Shia joint resistance to Daash and like-minded Salafist militia until they are expelled from Syria.&#160;&#160;He insists that if someone wants to learn about Islam they need only come to Syria to study and not fall victim to “Islamic instruction” from foreign Islamists seeking establishment of a Levant or global Caliphate.</p> | false | 1 | damascus reports across syriaand increasingly coming many areas including aleppo qalamoun reqaalay bare massive crimes perpetrated syrian people name islam areas salafist control160160a recent german domestic intelligence service annual report described salafism fastest growing islamic movement syria160160based interviews conducted observer recently damascus evident mainstream salafism emphasis adherence korans principles standards correct behavior towards humanity deeply subverted syrian arab republic forces organized outside country salafi methodology salafist movement historically respected among160scholars islam school islamic thought among sunni muslims named salaf160or160predecessors among earliest muslims widely considered examples islamic practice worthy emulation salafist movement often described related even synonymous saudi wahhabism least hybrid160salafism become widely known among muslims since 1960s160160with attributing phenomenon partly160160a result zionist occupation palestine projects western hegemony led revising claimed interpretations of160160islam common periods history islam threatened160160salafism presents followers literalistic strict puritanical interpretation koran particularly west increasingly syria salsify jihadis espouse violent jihad public even muslim civilians legitimate expression defending islam though salafis160160claim sunni muslims scholars observer interviewed damascuss omayyad160160mosque sunni sheiks160160based damascus view salafis a160160sui generis sect thus apart traditional160160sunni muslim koranic interpretations practice one professor islamic studies expressed perhaps minority view salafis wahhabis essentially basis claim salafis acknowledge follow four schools thought sunni muslims adhere160160rather beliefs laws leaders social systems practice religion strict widely rejected extremist practices well committing crimes targeting civilians including fellow muslims political financial reasons one currently ascendant salafist group syria among 1000 others competing weapons fighters daash word acronym letters standing islamic state iraq levant160160daash appeared scene recently year ago local observers believe arrived via iraq large amounts funding saudi arabia qatar turkey latter also facilitates weapons supplies access north syria via turkish territory daash membership figures recently inflated partly currently pays recruits nearly four times going gunman wage approximately 500 per month competes jabhat al nusra others impose frankly bizarre interpretations islam damascus awash tales coming daash controlled areas around aleppo elsewhere sheath full recent fatwas orders posted walls expected local salafist occupied areas160160it operatesas recent reports indicate many verified sunni islamic scholars sheiks damascene mosqueswith brutality enforce civilian population sunni law student damascus university faculty law compiled past weeks research subject reports example spreading salafist edits labels insane frontal assault islam criminal acts muslim others book november 27 160a young lady arriving dama rose hotel reported observer currently parts raqaa aleppo daash160160controlled areas man daash covets something someones new car someones wife must say allah akbar160160three times personal property targeted women belongs man can160160beat wife rape impunity latest fatwa obviously causes serious problems within daash affected militia especially raqqa allepo160160the young lady prominent dasmascene sunni family reported daash members currently taking gas oil bread nondaash villages distribution members cult approximately 5000 members reportedly growing160160also according recently televised reports permissible daash members rape woman muslim well muslim women support assad government recently reported salisfist practices spreading syria include limited following egyptian newspaper160al masry al youm november 15 edition reported daash variety fatwas160regard women strange creatures created solely sex daash considers voices women looks presence outside homes offense salafists regarding women general offensive among practices permitted daash widespread acceptance wives lying husbands concerning politics daash believes husband forbids supportive agenda control syrian villages aleppo raqaa example may dissimulation support pretending interviews syria one religious advisor daash opined observer marriage tenyearold girls allowed order prevent girls deviating correct path another prohibited girls going schools even located close homes another fatwa states marriage annulled husband wife make love clothes daash fatwas also sanction use women children human shields violent demonstrations protests jihads empower islam yet fatwas accepted daash forbid muslims greeting christians even forbidding muslim cab drivers transporting christian priests criticizing egypts al azhar considered many one oldest prestigious islamic universities world withdrawing fatwa instructed women breastfeed male acquaintances thereby making relatives justifying mixed company men physically assaulted daash milita street clean shaven wear tight trousers men suffer erectile dysfunction however watch pornographic movies provided participants porno flicks islamists reported currently daash areas permissible rape woman muslim well muslim women support assad government education focused boys daash area schools syria country long acknowledged among highest quality education elementary secondary levels being160run like pakistani madrasas education limited memorizing every word koran severely limiting education sciences secular subjects last month daash issued another antiislamic fatwa says support bashar alassad even word favor national coalition agree dialogue him160160must head separated body160including160the beheading members coalition favoring geneva ii dialogue one much respected sunni sheik tripoli lebanon currently residing damascus observer become friends course many visits syria sheikh abdul salam el harrach symposium coordinator muslim scholars akkar north lebanon160160sheik harrach run afoul daash and160is strong supporter hezbollah led resistance zionist occupation palestine advocate syrian people favors dialogue hopeful geneva ii hoping recent encouraging iranus efforts settle regional problems bear fruit syria sheikh harrach argues syrian people must decide coming presidential election leaders countries sending militia create chaos often turning blind eye current salafist unislamic criminal campaigns include widespread thefts muslim property areas currently occupy syria result political stances sheikh160160has targeted assassination daashal qaeda types rumored large bounty head from160160jabat al nursa daash others tripoli oppose sunnishia rapprochement levant globally one assassination attempt wounded son wael took place north lebanon town aaat ramadan iftar event held tents outside home some160blamed160160the march 14th160coalition extreme islamic elements sheik harrach explained assault son armed attacks perpetrated160160against background incitement sunni muslim extremist elements support security services stressing targeted because160160of support reform development syria leadership president bashar alassad standing support resistance outright rejection us zionist project lebanon region credit solidarity people syria sheik harrash vows continue working growing sunni shia joint resistance daash likeminded salafist militia expelled syria160160he insists someone wants learn islam need come syria study fall victim islamic instruction foreign islamists seeking establishment levant global caliphate | 941 |
<p>This past weekend, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York—who recently finished his term as President of the USCCB—went on NBC’s “ <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53707062/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/dec-mike-rogers-chris-van-hollen-timothy-dolan-ezekiel-emanuel-david-brooks-stephanie-rawlings-blake-andrea-mitchell-chuck-todd-harry-smith/#.UpzEQcSsiSo" type="external">Meet the Press</a>” where he discussed, among other things, the Catholic bishops’ complicated relationship with the Affordable Care Act. His Eminence was very supportive of the law’s goals, pointing out that the Catholic bishops have supported health care reform since 1919. So he laments that the bishops’ initial excitement at the prospect of comprehensive health care reform was ultimately frustrated by the administration’s intransigence over abortion funding and the exclusion of immigrants. Then came the concerns over conscience protections:</p>
<p>So that’s when we began to worry and draw back and say, “Mr. President, please, you’re really kind of pushing aside some of your greatest supporters here. We want to be with you, we want to be strong. And if you keep doing this, we’re not going to be able to be one of your cheerleaders.” And that sadly is what happened.</p>
<p>In the end, it was with reluctance, perhaps great reluctance, that the bishops opposed the bill.</p>
<p>As the widening gulf between Obamacare as it was sold to the American people and the law’s real world consequences becomes more apparent, Catholics who were, shall we say, less than reluctant in their opposition to Obamacare might be asking themselves, “If the bishops’ concerns over abortion and conscience protections had been addressed, would the bishops really have thrown their support behind the law? And would Catholics be required to follow the bishops’ lead and support the law, too?”</p>
<p>The answer to the first question is quite possibly, Yes. The answer to the second is, with respect, No. There are many policy issues for which the Church has no “official position” regarding which means are most appropriate to a given end. Discerning the means appropriate to even an admittedly worthy end—in this, case expanding access to basic health care—requires the exercise of prudence.</p>
<p>But you don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s how the bishops themselves put it in&#160; <a href="http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm" type="external">Forming Consciences For Faithful Citizenship</a>:</p>
<p>Prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy choices in areas such as the war in Iraq, housing, health care, immigration, and others. This does not mean that all choices are equally valid, or that our guidance and that of other Church leaders is just another political opinion or policy preference among many others. Rather, we urge Catholics to listen carefully to the Church’s teachers when we apply Catholic social teaching to specific proposals and situations. The judgments and recommendations that we make as bishops on specific issues do not carry the same moral authority as statements of universal moral teachings.</p>
<p>Even in cases where the bishops collectively support a particular policy, such judgments are—with some important exceptions—not binding on the consciences of Catholics. (Though Catholics are still obliged to “listen carefully to the Church’s teachers.”)&#160; In such cases—and the uber-complex field of health care policy is one of them—a well-formed conscience and prudent judgment can lead to legitimate conclusions that diverge from the position of the bishops. Appeals to prudential judgment don’t absolve us from responsibility for our decisions. The final measure of our actions and decisions in the political realm remains, as always, the common good.</p>
<p>As the&#160;Catechism&#160;puts it, “Prudence&#160;is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance&#160;and to choose the right means of achieving it.” (My emphasis in bold.) In this regard, Catholics—including bishops—who urge their fellow citizens to alleviate the intolerable situation in which many lack access to basic, even life-saving care, are correct to do so. That end is clearly worthy, and lays a claim on our consciences.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, while the road to Obamacare was paved with good intentions, good intentions are no substitute for good policy. Justified opposition to Obamacare was, and remains, opposition to a bad law, not to the benevolent motives of the law’s supporters. And it would be hard to find an example in which major legislation was passed with less regard for prudent evaluation of means than in the case of Obamacare. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s infamous line—“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it”—is the very definition of imprudent approach to policy making.</p>
<p>The litany of Obamacare’s broken promises is by now familiar: We already know that, even if you like your old plan, you likely won’t be allowed to keep it. (It’s not just the individual market—tens of millions of employer-based plans&#160; <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-voters-are-finished-believing-obamas-health-care-promises/article/2539790" type="external">are likely to be cancelled</a>&#160;in the medium term.) Having lost your plan, you may well have to switch doctors, too. As for bending the cost curve downward and lowering average family premiums,&#160; <a href="" type="internal">that’s not happening either</a>. All of this, according to the&#160; <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf" type="external">Congressional Budget Office</a>, will leave 31 million uninsured by 2023, if everything goes according to plan. Of course, not everything has gone according to plan, and the law&#160; <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362450/obamacares-unlikely-coverage-goal-james-c-capretta" type="external">may well increase the number of uninsured</a>, at least in the near term.</p>
<p>Even if one assumes that each of these promises was made in good faith (an admittedly generous assumption), it doesn’t change the fact that by the President’s own metrics, Obamacare is failing. While it remains difficult to see how any Catholic could in good conscience oppose making healthcare more widely accessible (on what grounds?), it is increasingly easy to see why Catholics (or anyone else for that matter) would oppose Obamacare.&#160;To repeat: Good ends are ill-served by ineffectual and counterproductive means.</p>
<p>That said, it is incumbent upon those who oppose Obamacare—myself included—to rally around the cause of health care reform. Fortunately,&#160; <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304448204579182203093952642" type="external">promising alternatives do exist</a>. Whether any politicians—here’s looking at you, Speaker Boehner!—will pursue such alternatives, rather than contenting themselves to reap the political rewards of the President’s policy disasters, remains to be seen.</p>
<p>Which brings us to one last point: The problems with Obamacare extend beyond questions of administrative, bureaucratic, and technical competence.&#160; They extend beyond the architecture of the law itself, which supposes, for example, that more young, healthy Americans will buy insurance despite the fact that its cost (for them) has drastically increased while the incentive to have it has just gone down (since waiting until you’re already sick doesn’t increase the cost of insurance.)</p>
<p>The deepest problem with Obamacare touches on fundamental questions about the proper role of the state in the lives of citizens. The state bears responsibility for the common good; of this there should be no doubt. But neither should there be any doubt that entrusting the state with ever greater authority over ever greater swaths of civic life—however well intentioned—opens doors to unwanted, often unjust, intrusions upon the rights and consciences of citizens. To this, the Church’s ongoing battles over the HHS mandate all too vividly attest (to say nothing of the President’s manifest dedication to causes that directly and unequivocally contravene the common good.) Prudence would suggests this is a lesson we can’t afford not to have learned.</p>
<p>Stephen P. White&#160;is a fellow in the Catholic Studies Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and coordinator of the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society.</p> | false | 1 | past weekend cardinal timothy dolan new yorkwho recently finished term president usccbwent nbcs meet press discussed among things catholic bishops complicated relationship affordable care act eminence supportive laws goals pointing catholic bishops supported health care reform since 1919 laments bishops initial excitement prospect comprehensive health care reform ultimately frustrated administrations intransigence abortion funding exclusion immigrants came concerns conscience protections thats began worry draw back say mr president please youre really kind pushing aside greatest supporters want want strong keep going able one cheerleaders sadly happened end reluctance perhaps great reluctance bishops opposed bill widening gulf obamacare sold american people laws real world consequences becomes apparent catholics shall say less reluctant opposition obamacare might asking bishops concerns abortion conscience protections addressed would bishops really thrown support behind law would catholics required follow bishops lead support law answer first question quite possibly yes answer second respect many policy issues church official position regarding means appropriate given end discerning means appropriate even admittedly worthy endin case expanding access basic health carerequires exercise prudence dont take word heres bishops put in160 forming consciences faithful citizenship prudential judgment also needed applying moral principles specific policy choices areas war iraq housing health care immigration others mean choices equally valid guidance church leaders another political opinion policy preference among many others rather urge catholics listen carefully churchs teachers apply catholic social teaching specific proposals situations judgments recommendations make bishops specific issues carry moral authority statements universal moral teachings even cases bishops collectively support particular policy judgments arewith important exceptionsnot binding consciences catholics though catholics still obliged listen carefully churchs teachers160 casesand ubercomplex field health care policy one thema wellformed conscience prudent judgment lead legitimate conclusions diverge position bishops appeals prudential judgment dont absolve us responsibility decisions final measure actions decisions political realm remains always common good the160catechism160puts prudence160is virtue disposes practical reason discern true good every circumstance160and choose right means achieving emphasis bold regard catholicsincluding bishopswho urge fellow citizens alleviate intolerable situation many lack access basic even lifesaving care correct end clearly worthy lays claim consciences unfortunately road obamacare paved good intentions good intentions substitute good policy justified opposition obamacare remains opposition bad law benevolent motives laws supporters would hard find example major legislation passed less regard prudent evaluation means case obamacare thenspeaker nancy pelosis infamous linewe pass bill find whats itis definition imprudent approach policy making litany obamacares broken promises familiar already know even like old plan likely wont allowed keep individual markettens millions employerbased plans160 likely cancelled160in medium term lost plan may well switch doctors bending cost curve downward lowering average family premiums160 thats happening either according the160 congressional budget office leave 31 million uninsured 2023 everything goes according plan course everything gone according plan law160 may well increase number uninsured least near term even one assumes promises made good faith admittedly generous assumption doesnt change fact presidents metrics obamacare failing remains difficult see catholic could good conscience oppose making healthcare widely accessible grounds increasingly easy see catholics anyone else matter would oppose obamacare160to repeat good ends illserved ineffectual counterproductive means said incumbent upon oppose obamacaremyself includedto rally around cause health care reform fortunately160 promising alternatives exist whether politiciansheres looking speaker boehnerwill pursue alternatives rather contenting reap political rewards presidents policy disasters remains seen brings us one last point problems obamacare extend beyond questions administrative bureaucratic technical competence160 extend beyond architecture law supposes example young healthy americans buy insurance despite fact cost drastically increased incentive gone since waiting youre already sick doesnt increase cost insurance deepest problem obamacare touches fundamental questions proper role state lives citizens state bears responsibility common good doubt neither doubt entrusting state ever greater authority ever greater swaths civic lifehowever well intentionedopens doors unwanted often unjust intrusions upon rights consciences citizens churchs ongoing battles hhs mandate vividly attest say nothing presidents manifest dedication causes directly unequivocally contravene common good prudence would suggests lesson cant afford learned stephen p white160is fellow catholic studies program ethics public policy center washington dc coordinator tertio millennio seminar free society | 664 |
<p />
<p>A half century ago, William F. Buckley, Jr., created quite a stir when he published God and Man At Yale, bemoaning the junior status accorded the Almighty within its ivied walls. Today a new phenomenon is sweeping the Yale campus, especially at Yale Divinity School, where in the mid-1940s I studied theology and social ethics.</p>
<p>Yale has not escaped the many moods and causes dredged up by the countercultural zeitgeist. None has been more colorful, flamboyant, or intense than the current green revolution. This is dramatically manifest in the current issue of Reflections, the official quarterly of the Divinity School. It’s theme and title is “God’s Green Earth: Creation, Faith, Crisis.” The cover carries Giovanni di Paolo’s the Expulsion from Paradise (1445), a bright painting depicting a nude angel expelling an equally nude Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.</p>
<p>Thumbing through the 76 pages of 10.5 by 7.5 inch glossy paper, I was struck by the dramatic, indeed apocalyptic, tone of virtually all of its twenty articles. Among the titles:</p>
<p>“Daring to Dream: Religion and the Future of the Earth” “The Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship: Religion and Environmentalism” “Earthkeeping and the Bible” “Avoiding the Great Collision: ‘We Can Save What is Left'” “Environmental Justice and a New American Dream” “Everything that Breathes Praises God” “Eco-ethics and Global Citizenship: A View from Central America” “Green Discipleship”</p>
<p>One article calls for a “new species identity.” Another warns that “If Christians inadequately understand the ecology of God’s desire for humanity, then they stutter before the fullness of their gospel.” And an author wonders whether the “world economy can be tamed” to restore “the natural world.” Then there were the misty poems:</p>
<p>Owl in the black morning, mockingbird in the burning Slants of the sunny afternoon declare so simply. . . . Of the mockingbird and the owl, the waves, and the windAnd then, like peace after perfect speech, such stillness.</p>
<p />
<p>I could go on and on, but this may be sufficient to suggest that Yale Divinity School is promoting a new Pantheism, the belief that “nature is God,” a worldview popular in the eighteenth century and long held by many tribal peoples who are persuaded their god speaks to them through volcanoes, earthquakes, and lightening.</p>
<p>Reading this version of Yale’s new green creed, including it’s veneration of all living things large and small, recalls a limerick I wrote two years ago:</p>
<p>I love all trees and buzzing bees And great things like the Seven Seas. Everything global Makes me feel noble But I still have a problem with fleas.</p>
<p />
<p>Of course, this outburst at Yale was merely a reflection of a wider epidemic of greenism among American elites. Mind you, most Americans believe that we should use, conserve, and develop the natural bounty of the earth so we can bequeath its blessings to future generations. Everyone wants cleaner air and supports reasonable efforts to achieve it. But that is not enough for the new greens, who see catastrophe everywhere around us. Alarmists like Al Gore are right. However, they often exaggerate the danger and ignore verifiable evidence. One basic fact is that the earth has been undergoing dramatic climate changes for billions of years with no participation by humans. And it is by no means certain that air-born carbons produced by humans increase global warming.</p>
<p>Of course, every reasonable effort should be made to reduce harmful carbon emissions from fuel production and consumption. Along with the substantial efforts already underway to achieve this in the petroleum and coal industries, we should invest more in solar, wind, and water power. Don Quixote tilted at windmills, but we can use them to increase clean energy.</p>
<p>But for the extreme environmentalists, this is not enough. Recently, British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, with Al Gore at his side, offered a $25 million prize to anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global warming by “removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth’s atmosphere.” The Wall Street Journal noted that the judges chosen to determine the winner all “hail from the Apocalypse Now crowd.”</p>
<p>In their zeal, the extreme American environmentalists have overlooked, or even condemned, the best source of clean power–nuclear energy. The most efficient way for the United States to produce more clean energy is to build new nuclear power plants. We now operate 103 such plants that produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, all built before the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 that stuck such fear in professors, politicians, and the press. In fact, the accident produced only one casualty. Dr. Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, is fond of saying the he was that casualty–because the widespread apocalyptic assessment caused him to have a heart attack!</p>
<p>The false perception of Three Mile Island has virtually stopped America from building any new nuclear power plants for 25 years, while Britain, France, Germany, and India have forged ahead. Since their beginning, nuclear plants have caused no fatalities except for Chernobyl, the massive meltdown at the Soviet-built power reactor that in 1986 killed at least 56 persons.</p>
<p>And nuclear power plants are clean. They throw no pollutants into the air in contrast to coal plants that produce large quantities of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.</p>
<p>America’s demand for electricity will increase 50 percent by 2025. Since we cannot depend on foreign oil, we must embark on a vigorous effort to build new nuclear energy plants that are safe, efficient, clean, and whose fuel is not dependent on imports from abroad.</p>
<p>Two bits of good news. President George W. Bush gingerly mentioned the need for more nuclear energy in his recent State of the Union address. And more down to earth, the Tennessee Valley Authority has just requested permission to build two new nuclear power reactors and to restart the one at Browns Ferry, Alabama, which had been shut down for 22 years. When Browns Ferry first went on line in 1947 it was the largest nuclear power plant in the world.</p>
<p>Ernest W. Lefever is a senior fellow at the Ethics &amp; Public Policy Center and editor of The Apocalyptic Premise.</p>
<p /> | false | 1 | half century ago william f buckley jr created quite stir published god man yale bemoaning junior status accorded almighty within ivied walls today new phenomenon sweeping yale campus especially yale divinity school mid1940s studied theology social ethics yale escaped many moods causes dredged countercultural zeitgeist none colorful flamboyant intense current green revolution dramatically manifest current issue reflections official quarterly divinity school theme title gods green earth creation faith crisis cover carries giovanni di paolos expulsion paradise 1445 bright painting depicting nude angel expelling equally nude adam eve garden eden thumbing 76 pages 105 75 inch glossy paper struck dramatic indeed apocalyptic tone virtually twenty articles among titles daring dream religion future earth beginning beautiful friendship religion environmentalism earthkeeping bible avoiding great collision save left environmental justice new american dream everything breathes praises god ecoethics global citizenship view central america green discipleship one article calls new species identity another warns christians inadequately understand ecology gods desire humanity stutter fullness gospel author wonders whether world economy tamed restore natural world misty poems owl black morning mockingbird burning slants sunny afternoon declare simply mockingbird owl waves windand like peace perfect speech stillness could go may sufficient suggest yale divinity school promoting new pantheism belief nature god worldview popular eighteenth century long held many tribal peoples persuaded god speaks volcanoes earthquakes lightening reading version yales new green creed including veneration living things large small recalls limerick wrote two years ago love trees buzzing bees great things like seven seas everything global makes feel noble still problem fleas course outburst yale merely reflection wider epidemic greenism among american elites mind americans believe use conserve develop natural bounty earth bequeath blessings future generations everyone wants cleaner air supports reasonable efforts achieve enough new greens see catastrophe everywhere around us alarmists like al gore right however often exaggerate danger ignore verifiable evidence one basic fact earth undergoing dramatic climate changes billions years participation humans means certain airborn carbons produced humans increase global warming course every reasonable effort made reduce harmful carbon emissions fuel production consumption along substantial efforts already underway achieve petroleum coal industries invest solar wind water power quixote tilted windmills use increase clean energy extreme environmentalists enough recently british billionaire entrepreneur richard branson al gore side offered 25 million prize anyone come way blunt global warming removing least billion tons carbon dioxide year earths atmosphere wall street journal noted judges chosen determine winner hail apocalypse crowd zeal extreme american environmentalists overlooked even condemned best source clean powernuclear energy efficient way united states produce clean energy build new nuclear power plants operate 103 plants produce 20 percent nations electricity built three mile island accident 1979 stuck fear professors politicians press fact accident produced one casualty dr edward teller father hbomb fond saying casualtybecause widespread apocalyptic assessment caused heart attack false perception three mile island virtually stopped america building new nuclear power plants 25 years britain france germany india forged ahead since beginning nuclear plants caused fatalities except chernobyl massive meltdown sovietbuilt power reactor 1986 killed least 56 persons nuclear power plants clean throw pollutants air contrast coal plants produce large quantities sulfur dioxide nitrogen oxides americas demand electricity increase 50 percent 2025 since depend foreign oil must embark vigorous effort build new nuclear energy plants safe efficient clean whose fuel dependent imports abroad two bits good news president george w bush gingerly mentioned need nuclear energy recent state union address earth tennessee valley authority requested permission build two new nuclear power reactors restart one browns ferry alabama shut 22 years browns ferry first went line 1947 largest nuclear power plant world ernest w lefever senior fellow ethics amp public policy center editor apocalyptic premise | 608 |
<p>In 2008, Barack Obama won the presidency promising that he would heal our political divisions. Instead, Mr. Obama has been as polarizing as any president in the history of modern polling. The debate over the Syrian refugee crisis illustrates why.</p>
<p>The civil war in Syria has created one of the worst refugee crises since World War II, and the president has instructed his administration to admit at least 10,000 refugees in fiscal year 2016. Republicans in Congress, in the aftermath of the massacre in Paris on Nov. 13, called for a pause in this process, in part because of their fear that terrorists might pose as refugees. The president, rather than trying to persuade his critics, mocked them.</p>
<p>“Apparently they’re scared of widows and orphans coming in to the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion,” Mr. Obama said. “That doesn’t sound very tough to me.” According to the president, the most potent recruitment tool for the Islamic State isn’t jihadist social media or battlefield victories but Republican rhetoric. “They’ve been playing on fear in order to try to score political points or to advance their campaigns,” he said.</p>
<p>The president flippantly dismissed worries about the vetting process despite the fact that, as James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, said in September, the possibility that the Islamic State might infiltrate operatives among Syrian refugees is “a huge concern of ours.”</p>
<p>Administration officials also acknowledge that there are limitations on determining the history of Syrian refugees since we’re in no position to collect vital information from Syria. Even if the president believes the case for accepting refugees overrides those concerns (as I basically do), he should acknowledge their legitimacy.</p>
<p>What made Mr. Obama’s assault on Republicans particularly outrageous is his hypocrisy, by which I mean the president’s failure to act in any meaningful way to avert the humanitarian disaster now engulfing Syria. It’s not as if options weren’t available to him.</p>
<p>In 2012 Mr. Obama rebuffed plans to arm Syrian rebels despite the fact that his former secretaries of defense and state, his C.I.A. director and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supported them. He repeatedly insisted he would not put American soldiers in Syria or pursue a prolonged air campaign. He refused to declare safe havens or no-fly zones. And it was also in 2012 that Mr. Obama warned the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, that using chemical weapons would cross a “red line.” Yet when Mr. Assad did just that, Mr. Obama did nothing.</p>
<p>The president, perhaps fearful of offending the pro-Assad Iranian government with which he was trying to negotiate a nuclear arms deal, chose to sit by while a humanitarian catastrophe unfolded. As Walter Russell Mead wrote in The American Interest, “This crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama’s decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn.” Some of us find it a bit nervy for the president to lecture the opposition party for heartlessness because cleaning up after his failure raises security concerns.</p>
<p>A reasonable approach would take account of both the humanitarian crisis in Syria and the concerns of critics of the president’s proposal. Doing so might result in a pause in the process to reassess our security procedures, make improvements where necessary and then proceed. Under the leadership of the new speaker, Paul Ryan, the House has passed just such a proposal with a broad bipartisan majority — 47 Democrats sided with Republicans — but Mr. Obama has promised to veto it if it passes the Senate. In his Manichaean conception of politics, such balance has no place, it seems.</p>
<p>What we have seen and heard from Mr. Obama during the Syrian crisis — self-righteousness without self-reflection, taunting, exasperation that others don’t see the world just as he does, the inability to work constructively with his opponents — have been hallmarks of his presidency. The man who promised to strengthen our political culture has further disabled it.</p>
<p>The president doesn’t bear full responsibility for the fractured state of our politics. The causes are complicated. They predate the Obama presidency, and Republicans have certainly played a role. (For some on the right, compromise is in principle capitulation.)</p>
<p>Yet it was Barack Obama who in 2008 wanted us to “rediscover our bonds to each other” and put an end to the “constant petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.” He utterly failed in that and has to own his part in it. <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/7-views-of-the-political-parties-and-how-they-manage-government/" type="external">According to a new Pew Research Center study</a>, 79 percent of Americans view the country as more politically divided than in the past.</p>
<p>Today our political discourse barely allows us to think clearly about, let alone rise to meet, the enormous challenges we face at home and abroad. Trust in government has reached one of its lowest levels in the past half-century. Americans are deeply cynical about the entire political enterprise; they are losing faith in the normal democratic process.</p>
<p>This creates the conditions for the rise of demagogues, of people who excel at inflaming tensions. Enter Donald J. Trump, who delights in tearing down the last remaining guardrails in our political culture.</p>
<p>Mr. Obama is hardly responsible for Mr. Trump, and it’s up to my fellow Republican primary voters to repudiate his malignant candidacy. Not doing so would be a moral indictment of our party. But in amplifying some of the worst tendencies in our politics, Mr. Obama helped make the rise of Mr. Trump possible.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/peter_wehner.html" type="external">Peter Wehner,</a> a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the last three Republican administrations and is a contributing opinion writer.</p> | false | 1 | 2008 barack obama presidency promising would heal political divisions instead mr obama polarizing president history modern polling debate syrian refugee crisis illustrates civil war syria created one worst refugee crises since world war ii president instructed administration admit least 10000 refugees fiscal year 2016 republicans congress aftermath massacre paris nov 13 called pause process part fear terrorists might pose refugees president rather trying persuade critics mocked apparently theyre scared widows orphans coming united states america part tradition compassion mr obama said doesnt sound tough according president potent recruitment tool islamic state isnt jihadist social media battlefield victories republican rhetoric theyve playing fear order try score political points advance campaigns said president flippantly dismissed worries vetting process despite fact james r clapper jr director national intelligence said september possibility islamic state might infiltrate operatives among syrian refugees huge concern administration officials also acknowledge limitations determining history syrian refugees since position collect vital information syria even president believes case accepting refugees overrides concerns basically acknowledge legitimacy made mr obamas assault republicans particularly outrageous hypocrisy mean presidents failure act meaningful way avert humanitarian disaster engulfing syria options werent available 2012 mr obama rebuffed plans arm syrian rebels despite fact former secretaries defense state cia director chairman joint chiefs staff supported repeatedly insisted would put american soldiers syria pursue prolonged air campaign refused declare safe havens nofly zones also 2012 mr obama warned syrian president bashar alassad using chemical weapons would cross red line yet mr assad mr obama nothing president perhaps fearful offending proassad iranian government trying negotiate nuclear arms deal chose sit humanitarian catastrophe unfolded walter russell mead wrote american interest crisis large part direct consequence president obamas decision stand aside watch syria burn us find bit nervy president lecture opposition party heartlessness cleaning failure raises security concerns reasonable approach would take account humanitarian crisis syria concerns critics presidents proposal might result pause process reassess security procedures make improvements necessary proceed leadership new speaker paul ryan house passed proposal broad bipartisan majority 47 democrats sided republicans mr obama promised veto passes senate manichaean conception politics balance place seems seen heard mr obama syrian crisis selfrighteousness without selfreflection taunting exasperation others dont see world inability work constructively opponents hallmarks presidency man promised strengthen political culture disabled president doesnt bear full responsibility fractured state politics causes complicated predate obama presidency republicans certainly played role right compromise principle capitulation yet barack obama 2008 wanted us rediscover bonds put end constant petty bickering thats come characterize politics utterly failed part according new pew research center study 79 percent americans view country politically divided past today political discourse barely allows us think clearly let alone rise meet enormous challenges face home abroad trust government reached one lowest levels past halfcentury americans deeply cynical entire political enterprise losing faith normal democratic process creates conditions rise demagogues people excel inflaming tensions enter donald j trump delights tearing last remaining guardrails political culture mr obama hardly responsible mr trump fellow republican primary voters repudiate malignant candidacy would moral indictment party amplifying worst tendencies politics mr obama helped make rise mr trump possible peter wehner senior fellow ethics public policy center served last three republican administrations contributing opinion writer | 528 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.