Jihad Will Not Be Wished Away. By Andrew C. McCarthy. National Review Online, April 20, 2013.
Mr. President, these are Muslim terrorists. By Michael Goodwin. New York Post, April 21, 2013.
Yes, Of Course It Was Jihad. By Andrew Sullivan. The Dish, April 22, 2013.
Illusions About Why Muslim Brothers Kill. By Bruce Thornton. Real Clear Politics, April 22, 2013.
The Boston Bombing and its Aftermath. By Max Boot. Commentary, April 20, 2013.
GOP Congressman Peter King: “Increase Surveillance” of Muslim Community. By Katrina Trinko. National Review Online, April 19, 2013.
The insanity of blaming Islam. By Marc Ambinder. The Week, April 19, 2013.
The futility of blaming Islam. By Marc Ambinder. The Week, April 22, 2013.
Liberals in Denial Over Boston Terrorists. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, April 22, 2013.
Professor: Too Much Force Used on Boston Perps. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, April 22, 2013. Fox News.
Dead suspect broke angrily with Muslim speakers. Evidence mounts of radical turn. By Kevin Arsenault. The Boston Globe. Boston.com, April 21, 2013.
Killing from Qur’anic Piety: Tamerlane’s Living Legacy. By Andrew G. Bostom. American Thinker, October 1, 2005.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Resilience and Complacency. By Fareed Zakaria.
Resilience and Complacency. By Fareed Zakaria. Time, April 18, 2013.
The Horror. The Heroism. By Nancy Gibbs. Time, April 18, 2013.
The Horror. The Heroism. By Nancy Gibbs. Time, April 18, 2013.
Republicans Need to Get Over the Makers vs. Takers Mindset. By Scott Rasmussen.
Republicans Need to Get Over the Makers vs. Takers Mindset. By Scott Rasmussen. Real Clear Politics, April 21, 2013.
Rasmussen:
Mitt Romney’s secretly recorded comment that 47 percent of Americans are “dependent on the government” and “believe they are victims” isn’t the only reason he lost the presidential campaign. But the candidate himself acknowledged after the election that the comments were “very harmful.”
He added, “What I said is not what I believe.”
But many Republicans still believe it, and the “makers vs. takers” theme has a deep hold on the party. In private conversations, many in the GOP are whispering that Romney was right and that his only mistake was saying it out loud.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say something like, “Well, the half who favor government programs is the half who don’t pay any taxes.”
This is ridiculous — on many levels.
First, the overwhelming majority of those who don’t pay federal income taxes pay a whole variety of other taxes, including state and local taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes and more. They don’t feel excluded from sharing the tax burden just because they don’t pay one particular tax.
It’s also worth noting that these aren’t the people pushing for higher taxes. At Rasmussen Reports, our most recent polling shows that people who make $100,000 or more each year are more supportive of higher taxes than those who make less.
Second, the 47 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes include large chunks of the Republican base. Many senior citizens fall into this category because their primary income is from Social Security. They don’t consider themselves “takers.” They paid money into a Social Security system throughout their working lives and now simply expect the government to honor the promises it made.
Third, low-income Americans aren’t looking for a handout. Among those who are living in poverty, 81 percent agree that work is the best solution to poverty. Most would rather replace welfare programs with a guaranteed minimum-wage job. Sharing the mainstream view, 69 percent of the poor believe that too many Americans are dependent upon the government.
Sixty-five percent of low-income Americans consider it “very important” for an economy to provide everybody with an opportunity to succeed. Interestingly enough, low-income Americans consider that more important than those who earn more.
But if I had to pick just one number to highlight how bad the 47 percent remark was, it would be this. Just 11 percent of Americans today consider themselves dependent upon government. Sure, some receive a Social Security check or an unemployment check, but that’s not dependence upon government. That’s cash received in exchange for premiums paid.
If they want to seriously compete for middle-class votes, Republicans need to get over the makers vs. takers mentality. We live in a time when just 35 percent believe the economy is fair to the middle class. Only 41 percent believe it is fair to those who are willing to work hard. Those problems are not created by the poor.
GOP candidates would be well advised to shift their focus from attacking the poor to going after those who are really dependent upon government — the Political Class, the crony capitalists, the megabanks and other recipients of corporate welfare.
Rasmussen:
Mitt Romney’s secretly recorded comment that 47 percent of Americans are “dependent on the government” and “believe they are victims” isn’t the only reason he lost the presidential campaign. But the candidate himself acknowledged after the election that the comments were “very harmful.”
He added, “What I said is not what I believe.”
But many Republicans still believe it, and the “makers vs. takers” theme has a deep hold on the party. In private conversations, many in the GOP are whispering that Romney was right and that his only mistake was saying it out loud.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say something like, “Well, the half who favor government programs is the half who don’t pay any taxes.”
This is ridiculous — on many levels.
First, the overwhelming majority of those who don’t pay federal income taxes pay a whole variety of other taxes, including state and local taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes and more. They don’t feel excluded from sharing the tax burden just because they don’t pay one particular tax.
It’s also worth noting that these aren’t the people pushing for higher taxes. At Rasmussen Reports, our most recent polling shows that people who make $100,000 or more each year are more supportive of higher taxes than those who make less.
Second, the 47 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes include large chunks of the Republican base. Many senior citizens fall into this category because their primary income is from Social Security. They don’t consider themselves “takers.” They paid money into a Social Security system throughout their working lives and now simply expect the government to honor the promises it made.
Third, low-income Americans aren’t looking for a handout. Among those who are living in poverty, 81 percent agree that work is the best solution to poverty. Most would rather replace welfare programs with a guaranteed minimum-wage job. Sharing the mainstream view, 69 percent of the poor believe that too many Americans are dependent upon the government.
Sixty-five percent of low-income Americans consider it “very important” for an economy to provide everybody with an opportunity to succeed. Interestingly enough, low-income Americans consider that more important than those who earn more.
But if I had to pick just one number to highlight how bad the 47 percent remark was, it would be this. Just 11 percent of Americans today consider themselves dependent upon government. Sure, some receive a Social Security check or an unemployment check, but that’s not dependence upon government. That’s cash received in exchange for premiums paid.
If they want to seriously compete for middle-class votes, Republicans need to get over the makers vs. takers mentality. We live in a time when just 35 percent believe the economy is fair to the middle class. Only 41 percent believe it is fair to those who are willing to work hard. Those problems are not created by the poor.
GOP candidates would be well advised to shift their focus from attacking the poor to going after those who are really dependent upon government — the Political Class, the crony capitalists, the megabanks and other recipients of corporate welfare.
Two Cheers for Web U! By A.J. Jacobs.
Two Cheers for Web U! By A.J. Jacobs. New York Times, April 20, 2013.
Should You Get a Ph.D. By Daniel Drezner. NJBR, April 18, 2013.
Are MOOCs Really Destroying Higher Education. By Walter Russell Mead. NJBR, April 2, 2013.
Professors Grade MOOCs. By Walter Russell Mead. NJBR, March 19, 2013.
MOOCs and Historical Research. By John McNeill. NJBR, March 15, 2013.
The Professors’ Big Stage. By Thomas L. Friedman. NJBR, March 6, 2013.
Ph.D. Problems: Wannabe Professors Need Not Apply. By Walter Russell Mead. NJBR, February 23, 2013.
The End of the University as We Know It. By Nathan Harden. NJBR, January 1, 2013.
Should You Get a Ph.D. By Daniel Drezner. NJBR, April 18, 2013.
Are MOOCs Really Destroying Higher Education. By Walter Russell Mead. NJBR, April 2, 2013.
Professors Grade MOOCs. By Walter Russell Mead. NJBR, March 19, 2013.
MOOCs and Historical Research. By John McNeill. NJBR, March 15, 2013.
The Professors’ Big Stage. By Thomas L. Friedman. NJBR, March 6, 2013.
Ph.D. Problems: Wannabe Professors Need Not Apply. By Walter Russell Mead. NJBR, February 23, 2013.
The End of the University as We Know It. By Nathan Harden. NJBR, January 1, 2013.
Did Tamerlan Tsarnaev Meet With Gadzhimurad Dolgatov, a Known Jihadist Terrorist?
Did Boston bomber meet with known jihadist terrorist? Speculation grows as it emerges Russia asked FBI to investigate Boston bomber just six months ago after his trip to Dagestan. By Leslie Larson and Lydia Warren. Daily Mail, April 21, 2013.
Dead Boston bomb suspect posted video of jihadist, analysis shows. By Tim Lister and Paul Cruickshank. CNN, April 21, 2013. Video.
Dead Boston bomb suspect posted video of jihadist, analysis shows. By Tim Lister and Paul Cruickshank. CNN, April 21, 2013. Video.
Tatyana McFadden: I’m Racing for Boston.
 |
| Tatyana McFadden |
I’m racing for Boston: McFadden dedicates London bid to victims of bombing. By Mick Collins. Daily Mail, April 20, 2013.
Tatyana McFadden website.
Boston wheelchair champ racing in London. Video. CNN, April 20, 2013.
Boston Massacre Reenactment Video.
Boston Massacre Reenactment 2007. Video. Northern Platoon, March 19, 2007. YouTube. Also at Boston Massacre Historical Society.
Reenactment of the Boston Massacre in the HBO series John Adams. YouTube.
John Adams at the Boston Massacre Trial from the HBO miniseries. YouTube. Also find another clip here.
Reenactment of the Boston Massacre in the HBO series John Adams. YouTube.
John Adams at the Boston Massacre Trial from the HBO miniseries. YouTube. Also find another clip here.
Why Grad Schools Should Require Students to Blog. By Maria Konnikova.
Why grad schools should require students to blog. By Maria Konnikova. Literally Psyched. Scientific American, April 12, 2013.
Konnikova:
Whether I’m trying to come up with a new blog post for “Literally Psyched” or a pitch for a magazine or a section in a longer piece of writing, I have to read widely, in multiple areas and multiple sub-disciplines. In popular writing (I don’t love the term, but I’m going to use it here for the sake of clarity, to contrast with academic writing—even though I realize that the two can overlap), there are no rules about what is and is not relevant. I don’t care if something is in “my” area, if it’s truly academic or applied or whatnot. I don’t care about its politics. The only thing I care about when I consider a source is its credibility and the quality of its arguments.
I have
to distill multiple sources from multiple areas into a compelling, clear
narrative. I have to build a case quickly and persuasively and learn to
incorporate disparate voices into a coherent argument or conversation. I have
to learn to get the gist of an argument quickly and be able to distill papers
in a way that will be understandable even to someone who is totally unfamiliar
with a topic. Most importantly, I need to create a quality end product: a piece
of writing that someone will want to read. Otherwise, not only do I not get
paid, but I will have failed at my job. And I have to do this over and over and
over again, week after week and piece after piece.
What am
I doing but honing my ability to think, research, analyze, and write—the core
skills required to complete a dissertation? And I’m doing so, I would argue, in
a far more effective fashion than I would ever be able to do were I to keep to
a more traditional academia-only route.
If I
just stay in a narrowly-defined academic niche, my writing will be confined to
papers for scholarly publication and grants. Those take time and, at least in
areas like psychology, research results. You can’t just run one off every few
days. Absent those specific outlets, there’s no regular mechanism for
developing your thoughts, working out new ideas, thinking about interesting
questions that may not be directly related to your field of research, taking
the time to wonder about other areas, or having the flexibility to pursue other
interests just because they stimulate your imagination. It’s papers for
publication, grants for submission, or bust.
If, on
the other hand, I turn to blogging or other forms of popular writing, not only
must I write quickly, coherently, and—and this is really the
kicker—consistently, but the way in which I do it forces me to learn to work
faster, come up with new ideas more frequently, be less afraid of “foreign”
fields, and be comfortable asking constant questions about everything I read.
I’m more aware of other disciplines and other literatures than I ever have
been. I’m able to digest the academia-speak of disciplines that are not my own
far more effectively. Over and over, I use these skills to help me tell a
better story—the end game of both a piece of popular writing and an academic
one. And because I am forced to write (and think) often, I improve. Constantly.
. . . .
To me, as a blogger, cross-citation is standard practice. I have to do it every day when I research a new blog topic or look at the background for a new piece. It’s natural to include anything that may potentially be helpful—and to put areas in dialogue even if they don’t normally cross over. I don’t feel compelled to stay within any arbitrary academic boundaries; I just use what seems most, well, useful.
I’ve
been lucky in my academic career. I have a graduate adviser who fully supports
my non-academic pursuits—indeed, who encourages them and has, for the last five
years, consistently and enthusiastically encouraged me to cultivate outside
interests and maintain my intellectual curiosity, wherever it may lead. I had
an undergraduate adviser who felt the same way, and encouraged me to continue
my studies—and continue my writing, whether or not it had anything to do with
academia or psychology.
But
that sort of attitude is increasingly rare. My advisers are among the select
few who maintain that line of thinking (one of the reasons I chose to work with
them to begin with). On the whole, academia is quite anti-popular writing—or
anything that is not, strictly speaking, in the academic job description. And
though I’ve been quite fortunate personally, I’ve experienced this attitude
indirectly in multiple ways.
I’ve
always been open about my external pursuits and interests—and over the last few
years, six fellow graduate students have, at various points, reached out to me
for advice. They have mostly said the same thing: I’m unhappy. I think I may not want to stay in academia. What can I do?
How did you decide that you could work on non-academic writing—and get away
with it? Is it something you think I might be able to try, too?
Each
one had the same story. Each one asked me in advance to maintain his anonymity,
to promise that I wouldn’t mention this to any advisers or anyone in the
department, or, really, anyone at all. Each one looked frightened lest someone
less receptive find them spouting such sacrilege. The whole thing made me
incredibly sad. These were exceptional students, and they didn’t have anyone
with whom to discuss important life decisions. They felt trapped, like they
couldn’t say what they really wanted or express how they really felt. And
because of that, they had lost their appetite for research that had before been
stimulating. They had gone from incredibly excited to ready-to-quit.
It made
me sad—but believe me, I know exactly why they did it. It’s the same reason why
we have so many anonymous bloggers, who would rather publish under a pseudonym
than risk the wrath of the establishment – or make even more tenuous the
already tenuous possibility of ever getting considered for a tenure-track job.
Academia
as a whole is still quite skeptical of popular writing and anything that takes
time from serious academic pursuits. These include reading articles in your
discipline, reading publications and books by your field leaders and
co-workers, working on writing up your own studies for publication (the more
and the faster, the better), and networking and presenting your work at
academic conferences. Having a blog? Freelancing on the side? Working on pieces
for the non-academic, a.k.a, popular, press? Not very high on the list. In
fact, in direct opposition to the list, as each of these pursuits takes time
away from what you should be doing.
It’s a
shame—and it’s counterproductive. Instead of frowning upon blogging, popular
writing, any intellectual pursuits that don’t seem immediately and narrowly
academic, wouldn’t it make sense for academia to embrace it all – and embrace
it enthusiastically?
I would
argue that the best thing academia can do for its students is to encourage such
pursuits to the greatest extent possible. In fact, I’d go a step further:
incentivize students to blog and to write for a popular audience on topics that
go beyond their immediate area of interest. At Columbia, for instance, we can
write a grant for one of our comprehensive exams. Why not let a series of
published blog posts count as well? It gets the student thinking and
writing–and gets him a byline in the process.
In
following this strategy, you will be teaching your students skills that will
make the process of dissertation writing—the point where many students drop out
of their programs (according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of students will
quit their doctoral programs; Chris Golde, the research director of the
Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate at the Carnegie Foundation, estimates that
1/3 of that attrition will happen at the dissertation-writing stage—although
the numbers vary by discipline, demographics, and other factors)—seem far less
daunting and stressful, far more manageable and approachable, than it otherwise
would. What’s more, it will make not only that dissertation but any piece of
academic writing that much better, clearer, and more solid. Clear writing is
the product of clear thought. When you write for the purpose of explaining,
when clarity is your goal, you learn to hone your thinking and work through the
complexities of arguments in a way that you wouldn’t otherwise be forced to do.
When you write every day, you improve, and you keep improving.
People
with good writing and research skills are rare. People who cross disciplines
and read widely are rare. But don’t we need these people for academia to
thrive? After all, many times, the greatest innovators are those who bring in
fresh eyes and the perspectives of fresh disciplines: they are less likely to
be myopic and be constrained by lines of thinking that are area-specific—and
more likely to see patterns and connections that are invisible to the insiders.
The
single best training and preparation I could have possibly had for writing my
dissertation was the exact training and preparation I received in my career as
a blogger and a writer. I just hope that others can have that same experience,
and that in the future, my path will be the rule rather than the exception.
Humanities aren’t a science. Stop treating them like one. By Maria Konnikova. Literally Psyched. Scientific American, August 10, 2012.
The Humanities and Common Sense. By Roger Berkowitz. NJBR, February 20, 2013.
Konnikova:
Whether I’m trying to come up with a new blog post for “Literally Psyched” or a pitch for a magazine or a section in a longer piece of writing, I have to read widely, in multiple areas and multiple sub-disciplines. In popular writing (I don’t love the term, but I’m going to use it here for the sake of clarity, to contrast with academic writing—even though I realize that the two can overlap), there are no rules about what is and is not relevant. I don’t care if something is in “my” area, if it’s truly academic or applied or whatnot. I don’t care about its politics. The only thing I care about when I consider a source is its credibility and the quality of its arguments.
. . . .
To me, as a blogger, cross-citation is standard practice. I have to do it every day when I research a new blog topic or look at the background for a new piece. It’s natural to include anything that may potentially be helpful—and to put areas in dialogue even if they don’t normally cross over. I don’t feel compelled to stay within any arbitrary academic boundaries; I just use what seems most, well, useful.
Humanities aren’t a science. Stop treating them like one. By Maria Konnikova. Literally Psyched. Scientific American, August 10, 2012.
The Humanities and Common Sense. By Roger Berkowitz. NJBR, February 20, 2013.
 |
| Maria Konnikova |
Blue Civil War Goes National. By Walter Russell Mead.
Blue Civil War Goes National. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, April 20, 2013.
Fault Lines Loom for “Dominant” Dem Majority. By Sean Trende. Real Clear Politics, April 19, 2013.
Fault Lines Loom for “Dominant” Dem Majority. By Sean Trende. Real Clear Politics, April 19, 2013.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
An Answer to Liberals’ Prayers. By Kevin D. Williamson.
An Answer to Liberals’ Prayers. By Kevin D. Williamson. National Review Online, April 19, 2013.
NPR Journalist: Boston Terrorist Attack Likely Right-Wingers Celebrating Columbine or Hitler’s Birthday. By Rusty Weiss. The Mental Recession, April 18, 2013.
NPR commentator implies Boston bombing was domestic terrorism from “right-wing individuals.” By Katie LaPotin. Red Alert Politics, April 18, 2013. YouTube.
Hunt for the elusive Tea Party murderer continues. By John Hayward. RedState, April 20, 2013.
NPR Journalist: Boston Terrorist Attack Likely Right-Wingers Celebrating Columbine or Hitler’s Birthday. By Rusty Weiss. The Mental Recession, April 18, 2013.
NPR commentator implies Boston bombing was domestic terrorism from “right-wing individuals.” By Katie LaPotin. Red Alert Politics, April 18, 2013. YouTube.
Hunt for the elusive Tea Party murderer continues. By John Hayward. RedState, April 20, 2013.
We Are All Bostonians Now. By Maria Konnikova.
We are all Bostonians now. By Maria Konnikova. The Boston Globe, April 21, 2013.
Boston: A Place in History. By George Packer. The New Yorker, April 29, 2013.
Maria Konnikova website and blog.
Literally Psyched blog. By Maria Konnikova at Scientific American.
Boston: A Place in History. By George Packer. The New Yorker, April 29, 2013.
Maria Konnikova website and blog.
Literally Psyched blog. By Maria Konnikova at Scientific American.
 |
| Maria Konnikova |
Who Are the Tsarnaev Brothers?
The Culprits. By David Remnick. The New Yorker, April 29, 2013.
Boston’s Terror and the Children of the Fault Lines. By Fouad Ajami. Bloomberg, April 19, 2013.
In Boston, Echoes of the Home Grown Terror That Struck Madrid and London. By Sebastian Rotella. Real Clear World, April 20, 2013. Also at ProPublica.
Are the Tsarnaev Brothers Russian? By Michael Idov. The New Yorker, April 19, 2013.
Were the Tsarnaev Brothers Like Columbine Killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? By Dave Cullen. Slate, April 19, 2013.
Please, Listen to Ruslan. By William Saletan. Slate, April 19, 2013.
Second Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect in Custody. By Jay Lindsay and Eileen Sullivan. AP. Real Clear Politics, April 20, 2013.
Gunfire in Watertown: Bob Glatz’s eyewitness account. By Scott Farmer. Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2013. Video, Fox News. YouTube.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were refugees from brutal Chechen conflict. By Peter Finn, Carol D. Leonning, and Will Englund. Washington Post, April 19, 2013. Also find it here.
Brothers in Marathon bombings too two paths into infamy. By Jenna Russell, Jenn Abelson, Patricia Wen, Michael Rezendes, and David Filipov. The Boston Globe, April 19, 2013. Also find it here.
Suspects With Foot in 2 Worlds, Perhaps Echoing Plots of Past. By Scott Shane. New York Times, April 20, 2013.
Boston suspects: Immigrant dream to American nightmare. By Wayne Drash, Moni Drasu, and Tom Watkins. CNN, April 21, 2013.
Bombing Inquiry Shifts to Motive and Russian Trip. By Eric Schmitt, Michael S. Schmidt, and Ellen Barry. New York Times, April 20, 2013.
The Mystery Of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Trip To Dagestan. By Adam Taylor. Business Insider, April 20, 2013.
Cheers and jubilation follow apprehension of second suspect. By Zachary T. Sampson and Jaclyn Reiss. The Boston Globe, April 20, 2013. Also find it here.
As Boston reeled, younger bombing suspect partied. By Ann O’Neill and Melissa Gray. CNN, April 21, 2013.
How The Media Chose Its Boston “Suspects.” By Maysoon Zayid. The Daily Beast, April 22, 2013.
Boston Commons Celebration. Video, 8 parts. BigbysHand, April 20, 2013. YouTube.
Boston Commons Celebrations. Video. Christopher Barnett, April 20, 2013. YouTube.
Boston’s Terror and the Children of the Fault Lines. By Fouad Ajami. Bloomberg, April 19, 2013.
In Boston, Echoes of the Home Grown Terror That Struck Madrid and London. By Sebastian Rotella. Real Clear World, April 20, 2013. Also at ProPublica.
Are the Tsarnaev Brothers Russian? By Michael Idov. The New Yorker, April 19, 2013.
Were the Tsarnaev Brothers Like Columbine Killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? By Dave Cullen. Slate, April 19, 2013.
Please, Listen to Ruslan. By William Saletan. Slate, April 19, 2013.
Second Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect in Custody. By Jay Lindsay and Eileen Sullivan. AP. Real Clear Politics, April 20, 2013.
Gunfire in Watertown: Bob Glatz’s eyewitness account. By Scott Farmer. Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2013. Video, Fox News. YouTube.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were refugees from brutal Chechen conflict. By Peter Finn, Carol D. Leonning, and Will Englund. Washington Post, April 19, 2013. Also find it here.
Brothers in Marathon bombings too two paths into infamy. By Jenna Russell, Jenn Abelson, Patricia Wen, Michael Rezendes, and David Filipov. The Boston Globe, April 19, 2013. Also find it here.
Suspects With Foot in 2 Worlds, Perhaps Echoing Plots of Past. By Scott Shane. New York Times, April 20, 2013.
Boston suspects: Immigrant dream to American nightmare. By Wayne Drash, Moni Drasu, and Tom Watkins. CNN, April 21, 2013.
Bombing Inquiry Shifts to Motive and Russian Trip. By Eric Schmitt, Michael S. Schmidt, and Ellen Barry. New York Times, April 20, 2013.
The Mystery Of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Trip To Dagestan. By Adam Taylor. Business Insider, April 20, 2013.
Cheers and jubilation follow apprehension of second suspect. By Zachary T. Sampson and Jaclyn Reiss. The Boston Globe, April 20, 2013. Also find it here.
As Boston reeled, younger bombing suspect partied. By Ann O’Neill and Melissa Gray. CNN, April 21, 2013.
How The Media Chose Its Boston “Suspects.” By Maysoon Zayid. The Daily Beast, April 22, 2013.
Boston Commons Celebration. Video, 8 parts. BigbysHand, April 20, 2013. YouTube.
Boston Commons Celebrations. Video. Christopher Barnett, April 20, 2013. YouTube.
Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict. By Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges.
Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict. By Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges. Science, Vol. 336, May 18, 2012.
Abstract:
Religion, in promoting outlandish beliefs and costly rituals, increases ingroup trust but also may increase mistrust and conflict with outgroups. Moralizing gods emerged over the last few millennia, enabling large-scale cooperation, and sociopolitical conquest even without war. Whether for cooperation or conflict, sacred values, like devotion to God or a collective cause, signal group identity and operate as moral imperatives that inspire nonrational exertions independent of likely outcomes. In conflict situations, otherwise mundane sociopolitical preferences may become sacred values, acquiring immunity to material incentives. Sacred values sustain intractable conflicts that defy “business-like” negotiation, but also provide surprising opportunities for resolution.
Social Warfare. By Scott Atran. Foreign Policy, March 15, 2013.
Psychology Out of the Laboratory. By Jeremy Ginges, Scott Atran, Sonya Sachdeva, and Douglas Medin. American Psychologist, Vol. 66, No. 6 (September 2011).
Scott Atran: “US foreign policy is set by people who’ve almost no insight into human welfare, education, labour, desires or hopes” – video. Posted by David Shariatmadari and Christian Bennett. The Guardian, October 31, 2011.
Talking to the Enemy. By Scott Atran. Video. theRSAorg, November 18, 2010. YouTube.
Scott Atran: Reacting to Terror. Video. AgendaStevePaikin, April 27, 2010. YouTube.
Abstract:
Religion, in promoting outlandish beliefs and costly rituals, increases ingroup trust but also may increase mistrust and conflict with outgroups. Moralizing gods emerged over the last few millennia, enabling large-scale cooperation, and sociopolitical conquest even without war. Whether for cooperation or conflict, sacred values, like devotion to God or a collective cause, signal group identity and operate as moral imperatives that inspire nonrational exertions independent of likely outcomes. In conflict situations, otherwise mundane sociopolitical preferences may become sacred values, acquiring immunity to material incentives. Sacred values sustain intractable conflicts that defy “business-like” negotiation, but also provide surprising opportunities for resolution.
Social Warfare. By Scott Atran. Foreign Policy, March 15, 2013.
Psychology Out of the Laboratory. By Jeremy Ginges, Scott Atran, Sonya Sachdeva, and Douglas Medin. American Psychologist, Vol. 66, No. 6 (September 2011).
Scott Atran: “US foreign policy is set by people who’ve almost no insight into human welfare, education, labour, desires or hopes” – video. Posted by David Shariatmadari and Christian Bennett. The Guardian, October 31, 2011.
Talking to the Enemy. By Scott Atran. Video. theRSAorg, November 18, 2010. YouTube.
Scott Atran: Reacting to Terror. Video. AgendaStevePaikin, April 27, 2010. YouTube.
Why China Is Paranoid About America. By Ely Ratner.
China’s Victim Complex. By Ely Ratner. Foreign Policy, April 19, 2013.
Why are Chinese leaders so paranoid about the United States?
Why are Chinese leaders so paranoid about the United States?
Why We Should Be P.C. After An Attack. By Isaac Chotiner.
Why We Should Be P.C. After An Attack. By Isaac Chotiner. The New Republic, April 20, 2013.
After the Boston Attack: The Terrible Truth About Terrorism. By Carlo Strenger.
After the Boston Attack: The Terrible Truth about Terrorism. By Carlo Strenger. The Huffington Post, April 17, 2013.
Strenger:
The Boston attack should remind us that terrorism is there to stay. If we don’t keep a cool mind, we let the terrorists win.
First my heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims of the Boston marathon terror attack, and my best wishes for convalescence to the wounded. As many commentators have written already, unfortunately in Israel we have had so much experience with terror attacks that we have developed many ways to cope with it psychologically, practically, in terms of security measures and medically. But the US has already shown its resilience in the face of terror, and I am sure that Boston, a city I cherish, will recover its spirits quickly.
For the time being, nobody knows whether international (presumably jihadist) or domestic (presumably white supremacist) individuals or group perpetrated the Boston attack, even though first indications seem to favor the hypothesis of a domestic attack.
Whatever the final truth will turn out to be, it is time to realize a simple, and terrible truth about terrorism: it is there to stay.
This statement is neither meant to be defeatist, nor to argue that we should not do everything in our power to prevent it. It is to say that in the era of global communication networks there will always be individuals or groups who have some grievance they try to address by dramatic acts of destruction that sow fear, confusion, or, in brief: terror. Legal scholar and strategist Philip Bobbit has argued convincingly that terrorism is the form of war that will be prevalent in the twenty first century. If we do not realize that terrorism will never be eradicated completely, we are bound to make terrible mistakes in fighting it; mistakes that undermine the freedom of our societies, and will do little to actually lower the danger of further terrorism.
Let me summarize a few lessons I have learned in almost a decade of cooperating with leading terrorism researchers in the World Federation of Scientists. First and foremost I learned that terrorism comes in many shapes and variations. Some forms of terrorism are asymmetrical warfare trying to achieve specific goals like self-determination for the Basques, Chechnya or Palestine.
Others have much less clearly defined goals, and are governed by what historian and psychoanalyst Charles Strozier has called the apocalyptic mindset: the Baader-Meinhoff group in Germany wanted nothing less but to destabilize the German state. White supremacists in the US want nothing less but to turn the US into a “pure,” white society. Some Islamists want nothing but less but the revival of the caliphate and Islamic Domination of either the whole Middle East or the world as a whole. And some Jewish Messianic groups want nothing less than building the Third Temple in Jerusalem, and an Israel ruled by Biblical Law.
Because terrorism is motivated and generated by very different factors, there is no such thing as a “war on terror” any more than there is such a thing as “the war on illnesses.” AIDS needs very different cures and preventions than Cancer or flu-pandemics. Similarly each form of terrorism needs to be studied and fought on its own terms.
The second thing I learned is that there are two basic knee-jerk reactions to terrorism, and that both are wrong in their exclusive emphasis on one element.
Conservatives say, “Terrorists are evil. Never talk to them, only punishment and superior force will defeat terrorism.” Liberals say, “Terrorists are human beings. You need to understand their motivations, mostly born out of frustration, perceived injustice and humiliation, and to address their grievances.”
Both these knee-jerk reactions have very partial truth and effectiveness. The conservative reaction embodied in George W. Bush's conception of the War on Terror does not realize that most of today’s global terror networks cannot as such be defeated, because, unlike armies, they are often not organized as hierarchical chains of commands. Al Qaeda is an organization; but most of all it is a state of mind that pulsates through the Islamic world, primarily in the Internet. The groups that perpetrated 9/11, 7/7 in London and the Madrid bombings were not recruited and trained by a central organization, but organized spontaneously without connection to a central command. This is why killing terrorist leaders will always have limited effectiveness: as long as the jihadist state of mind is growing in the Islamic world, new terror groups will emerge time and again, as former CIA officer and psychiatrist Marc Sageman has shown.
The liberal reaction assumes that the source of all terrorism is to be found in wrongdoings by the West ranging from Colonialism to US interference in many areas of the world. But it does not take into account that, in many cases, the grievances, perceived humiliations and injustices cannot be addressed directly. Many of the youngsters who gravitate towards terror networks are incensed by the humiliating fact that much of the Islamic world is way behind the developed world economically, militarily and culturally. Their frustration is aggravated by an enormous youth-bulge in much of the Islamic world. Without any viable hope for a fruitful life, they try to regain dignity and the sense of living a meaningful life by committing to the jihadist cause – a process documented in detail by anthropologist Scott Atran.
The problem with the liberal response is that no form of global social work can address all of these grievances. Islamic societies often experience well-meaning interventions trying to help them to modernize as just another humiliation, and these attempts often cannot cope with these societies’ enormous internal complexities. The colossal failures of the US in promoting state building in Afghanistan and Iraq show that the West. And the liberal position does not take into account that certain grievances cannot be addressed by any realistic policies: America will not become purely white; the Caliphate will not be reinstated; and the Third Temple will not come from heaven in the Messianic age.
The conclusion from all this is that none of us will ever have a final solution for terrorism. Conservatives are right in saying that we must be vigilant and that, in many cases, there is no way around using violence in combating terrorism. But they are wrong if they think that if you just use enough power, you’ll get rid of it. Liberals are right that if we don’t try to understand and address the root-causes of terrorism, the War on Terror is bound to generate even more terrorist organizations and acts. But they are wrong in thinking that if we just show enough empathy for terrorists’ motivations, they will all become law-abiding citizens.
We would all like terrorism to disappear, but this is wishful thinking. There is no alternative to keeping a clear and cool mind, even in the face of the horror perpetrated by terrorist acts. If we lose our minds, terrorism wins.
Strenger:
The Boston attack should remind us that terrorism is there to stay. If we don’t keep a cool mind, we let the terrorists win.
First my heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims of the Boston marathon terror attack, and my best wishes for convalescence to the wounded. As many commentators have written already, unfortunately in Israel we have had so much experience with terror attacks that we have developed many ways to cope with it psychologically, practically, in terms of security measures and medically. But the US has already shown its resilience in the face of terror, and I am sure that Boston, a city I cherish, will recover its spirits quickly.
For the time being, nobody knows whether international (presumably jihadist) or domestic (presumably white supremacist) individuals or group perpetrated the Boston attack, even though first indications seem to favor the hypothesis of a domestic attack.
Whatever the final truth will turn out to be, it is time to realize a simple, and terrible truth about terrorism: it is there to stay.
This statement is neither meant to be defeatist, nor to argue that we should not do everything in our power to prevent it. It is to say that in the era of global communication networks there will always be individuals or groups who have some grievance they try to address by dramatic acts of destruction that sow fear, confusion, or, in brief: terror. Legal scholar and strategist Philip Bobbit has argued convincingly that terrorism is the form of war that will be prevalent in the twenty first century. If we do not realize that terrorism will never be eradicated completely, we are bound to make terrible mistakes in fighting it; mistakes that undermine the freedom of our societies, and will do little to actually lower the danger of further terrorism.
Let me summarize a few lessons I have learned in almost a decade of cooperating with leading terrorism researchers in the World Federation of Scientists. First and foremost I learned that terrorism comes in many shapes and variations. Some forms of terrorism are asymmetrical warfare trying to achieve specific goals like self-determination for the Basques, Chechnya or Palestine.
Others have much less clearly defined goals, and are governed by what historian and psychoanalyst Charles Strozier has called the apocalyptic mindset: the Baader-Meinhoff group in Germany wanted nothing less but to destabilize the German state. White supremacists in the US want nothing less but to turn the US into a “pure,” white society. Some Islamists want nothing but less but the revival of the caliphate and Islamic Domination of either the whole Middle East or the world as a whole. And some Jewish Messianic groups want nothing less than building the Third Temple in Jerusalem, and an Israel ruled by Biblical Law.
Because terrorism is motivated and generated by very different factors, there is no such thing as a “war on terror” any more than there is such a thing as “the war on illnesses.” AIDS needs very different cures and preventions than Cancer or flu-pandemics. Similarly each form of terrorism needs to be studied and fought on its own terms.
The second thing I learned is that there are two basic knee-jerk reactions to terrorism, and that both are wrong in their exclusive emphasis on one element.
Conservatives say, “Terrorists are evil. Never talk to them, only punishment and superior force will defeat terrorism.” Liberals say, “Terrorists are human beings. You need to understand their motivations, mostly born out of frustration, perceived injustice and humiliation, and to address their grievances.”
Both these knee-jerk reactions have very partial truth and effectiveness. The conservative reaction embodied in George W. Bush's conception of the War on Terror does not realize that most of today’s global terror networks cannot as such be defeated, because, unlike armies, they are often not organized as hierarchical chains of commands. Al Qaeda is an organization; but most of all it is a state of mind that pulsates through the Islamic world, primarily in the Internet. The groups that perpetrated 9/11, 7/7 in London and the Madrid bombings were not recruited and trained by a central organization, but organized spontaneously without connection to a central command. This is why killing terrorist leaders will always have limited effectiveness: as long as the jihadist state of mind is growing in the Islamic world, new terror groups will emerge time and again, as former CIA officer and psychiatrist Marc Sageman has shown.
The liberal reaction assumes that the source of all terrorism is to be found in wrongdoings by the West ranging from Colonialism to US interference in many areas of the world. But it does not take into account that, in many cases, the grievances, perceived humiliations and injustices cannot be addressed directly. Many of the youngsters who gravitate towards terror networks are incensed by the humiliating fact that much of the Islamic world is way behind the developed world economically, militarily and culturally. Their frustration is aggravated by an enormous youth-bulge in much of the Islamic world. Without any viable hope for a fruitful life, they try to regain dignity and the sense of living a meaningful life by committing to the jihadist cause – a process documented in detail by anthropologist Scott Atran.
The problem with the liberal response is that no form of global social work can address all of these grievances. Islamic societies often experience well-meaning interventions trying to help them to modernize as just another humiliation, and these attempts often cannot cope with these societies’ enormous internal complexities. The colossal failures of the US in promoting state building in Afghanistan and Iraq show that the West. And the liberal position does not take into account that certain grievances cannot be addressed by any realistic policies: America will not become purely white; the Caliphate will not be reinstated; and the Third Temple will not come from heaven in the Messianic age.
The conclusion from all this is that none of us will ever have a final solution for terrorism. Conservatives are right in saying that we must be vigilant and that, in many cases, there is no way around using violence in combating terrorism. But they are wrong if they think that if you just use enough power, you’ll get rid of it. Liberals are right that if we don’t try to understand and address the root-causes of terrorism, the War on Terror is bound to generate even more terrorist organizations and acts. But they are wrong in thinking that if we just show enough empathy for terrorists’ motivations, they will all become law-abiding citizens.
We would all like terrorism to disappear, but this is wishful thinking. There is no alternative to keeping a clear and cool mind, even in the face of the horror perpetrated by terrorist acts. If we lose our minds, terrorism wins.
Why Are the Israelis So Damn Happy. By Tiffanie Wen.
Why are the Israelis so Damn Happy. By Tiffanie Wen. The Daily Beast, April 14, 2013.
Syria’s Six Simultaneous Conflicts. By Rami G. Khouri.
Syria’s six simultaneous conflicts. By Rami G. Khouri. The Daily Star (Lebanon), April 17, 2013.
Global Jihad in Syria: Disputes Amidst a Common Goal. By Yoram Schweitzer and Gal Toren. INSS. Insight No. 419, April 18, 2013.
Global Jihad in Syria: Disputes Amidst a Common Goal. By Yoram Schweitzer and Gal Toren. INSS. Insight No. 419, April 18, 2013.
Did Boston Bombing Suspect Post Al Qaeda Prophecy on YouTube? By Adam Serwer.
Did Boston Bombing Suspect Post Al Qaeda Prophecy on YouTube? By Adam Serwer. Mother Jones, April 19, 2013.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s YouTube Page Focused On Islam. By Scott Lamb. BuzzFeed, April 19, 2013.
A guide to Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s favorite YouTube videos. By Christian Caryl. Foreign Policy, April 19, 2013.
On social media, Tsarnaevs mixed religious fervor and youthful whimsy. By Robert Windrem and Konrad Jankowski. NBC News, April 19, 2013.
Who is Tamerlan Tsarnaev? By David Kenner. Foreign Policy, April 19, 2013.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev: Fighter with a hidden hatred. By Jennifer Bain, M.L. Nestel, Jennifer Gould Keil, and Kate Sheehy. New York Post, April 20, 2013.
Nothing tough about this boxer’s character. By Kevin Cullen. Boston Globe, April 20, 2013. Also find it here.
Boston bombs: Obama lulled America into false confidence over terror threat. By Peter Foster. The Telegraph, April 19, 2013.
The Radical Preacher Who May Have Influenced the Boston Marathon Bombers. By Noam Scheiber. The New Republic, April 20, 2013.
Feiz Mohammad: Radical Muslim Preacher Who Inspired Boston Marathon Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. By Gareth Platt. International Business Times, April 19, 2013.
The Sheikh Who May Have Influenced Boston’s Tsarnaev Brothers. By Eli Lake. The Daily Beast, April 19, 2013.
Boston Marathon terrorism: The toxic brew of Islam and politics. By Eric Golub. Washington Times, April 19, 2013.
Fury at Australia cleric comments. BBC News, January 18, 2007.
Excerpt: “Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda.” By Ali H. Soufan and Daniel Freedman. The Soufan Group, September 13, 2011.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s YouTube Page.
Harry Potter (In For A Surprise): Sheikh Feiz. Video. quran sunnah, August 31, 2012. YouTube.
And They Say It’s Only Sunnah: Shaykh Feiz Mohammed. Video. QuranandSunnahYT, May 28, 2012. YouTube.
The Emergence of Prophecy: The Black Flags From Khorasan. Video. sam232690, July 4, 2012. YouTube.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s YouTube Page Focused On Islam. By Scott Lamb. BuzzFeed, April 19, 2013.
A guide to Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s favorite YouTube videos. By Christian Caryl. Foreign Policy, April 19, 2013.
On social media, Tsarnaevs mixed religious fervor and youthful whimsy. By Robert Windrem and Konrad Jankowski. NBC News, April 19, 2013.
Who is Tamerlan Tsarnaev? By David Kenner. Foreign Policy, April 19, 2013.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev: Fighter with a hidden hatred. By Jennifer Bain, M.L. Nestel, Jennifer Gould Keil, and Kate Sheehy. New York Post, April 20, 2013.
Nothing tough about this boxer’s character. By Kevin Cullen. Boston Globe, April 20, 2013. Also find it here.
Boston bombs: Obama lulled America into false confidence over terror threat. By Peter Foster. The Telegraph, April 19, 2013.
The Radical Preacher Who May Have Influenced the Boston Marathon Bombers. By Noam Scheiber. The New Republic, April 20, 2013.
Feiz Mohammad: Radical Muslim Preacher Who Inspired Boston Marathon Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. By Gareth Platt. International Business Times, April 19, 2013.
The Sheikh Who May Have Influenced Boston’s Tsarnaev Brothers. By Eli Lake. The Daily Beast, April 19, 2013.
Boston Marathon terrorism: The toxic brew of Islam and politics. By Eric Golub. Washington Times, April 19, 2013.
Fury at Australia cleric comments. BBC News, January 18, 2007.
Excerpt: “Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda.” By Ali H. Soufan and Daniel Freedman. The Soufan Group, September 13, 2011.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s YouTube Page.
Harry Potter (In For A Surprise): Sheikh Feiz. Video. quran sunnah, August 31, 2012. YouTube.
And They Say It’s Only Sunnah: Shaykh Feiz Mohammed. Video. QuranandSunnahYT, May 28, 2012. YouTube.
The Emergence of Prophecy: The Black Flags From Khorasan. Video. sam232690, July 4, 2012. YouTube.
Chechen Terrorism and the Vindication of Vladimir Putin. By Jacob Heilbrunn.
Chechen Terrorism and the Vindication of Vladimir Putin. By Jacob Heilbrunn. The National Interest, April 19, 2013.
How Vladimir Putin Could Help Boston. By Fred Kaplan. Slate, April 19, 2013.
Russia, US may face a shared threat. By Simon Saradzhyan. Boston Globe, April 20, 2013. Also find it here.
Jihad in Russia: the Caucasus Emirate. IISS, December 2012.
Investigators explore possible link between Boston bombing suspect and extremist group. By Catherine Herridge. FoxNews.com, April 20, 2013.
Northern Caucasus is an epicenter of Islamism. Interview with Uwe Halbach. Deutsche Welle, April 20, 2013.
Chechnya Casts a Long Shadow Over the Boston Marathon Bombings. By Cerwyn Moore. The Telegraph, April 20, 2013.
Chechnya and the Bombs in Boston. The Economist, April 20, 2013.
War-torn Caucasus may be at root of the brothers’ rage. By Dan Peleschuk. USA Today, April 20, 2013.
The Boston Bombing Suspects Were Reared by Both Chechnya and America. By Julia Ioffe. The New Republic, April 19, 2013.
Chechnya’s centuries-long bloody strife goes global. By Stephen Kinzer. The Guardian, April 19, 2013.
Chechens: Legendary tough guys. By Laura Miller. Salon, April 20, 2013.
Chechen war expert: “This is a big deal.” By Christopher Swift. Foreign Policy, April 19, 2013.
Boston Attacks Turn Spotlight on Troubled Region of Chechnya. By Peter Baker and C.J. Chivers. New York Times, April 21, 2013.
Russians, Chechens Worry About Boston Fallout. By Leonid Bershidsky. Bloomberg, April 19, 2013.
The Roots of Chechen Rage. By Oliver Bullough. Foreign Policy, April 21, 2013.
The Chechen Connection. By Anne Applebaum. Slate, April 19, 2013. Also at the Washington Post.
Applebaum:
One or both of the brothers might well have been in touch with Chechen separatists, whose websites they were reportedly reading. They could even have been in touch with al-Qaida. But I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion. Chechen terrorists have in the past been more anti-Russian than pro-Islam. They were never anti-American.
Look, instead, at another possibility—one that is in some ways more disturbing than the convenient “foreigners who hate us” explanation. Although very little has been confirmed, the behavior of the Tsarnaev brothers looks less like that of hardened, trained terrorists and far more closely resembles the second-generation European Muslims who have staged bombings in Madrid, London, and other European cities. Educated and brought up in Europe, these young men nevertheless felt out of place in Europe. Unable to integrate, some turned toward a half-remembered, half-mythological homeland in search of a firmer, fiercer identity. Often they did so with the help of a radical cleric like the one the Tsarnaev brothers may have known. “I do not have a single American friend,” Tamerlan Tsarnaev reportedly said of himself. That’s the kind of statement that might have been made by a young Pakistani living in Coventry or a young Algerian living in Paris.
We don’t expect to hear it from someone who grew up in Boston, a city that has taught generations of foreigners to become Americans in a country that likes to think of itself as a melting pot. But now it might be time to change our expectations. These terrorists are a lot less like the 9/11 attackers and a lot more like the men known as the Tube bombers of London or the train bombers of Spain. Our response is going to have to be different—very different—as well.
How Vladimir Putin Could Help Boston. By Fred Kaplan. Slate, April 19, 2013.
Russia, US may face a shared threat. By Simon Saradzhyan. Boston Globe, April 20, 2013. Also find it here.
Jihad in Russia: the Caucasus Emirate. IISS, December 2012.
Investigators explore possible link between Boston bombing suspect and extremist group. By Catherine Herridge. FoxNews.com, April 20, 2013.
Northern Caucasus is an epicenter of Islamism. Interview with Uwe Halbach. Deutsche Welle, April 20, 2013.
Chechnya Casts a Long Shadow Over the Boston Marathon Bombings. By Cerwyn Moore. The Telegraph, April 20, 2013.
Chechnya and the Bombs in Boston. The Economist, April 20, 2013.
War-torn Caucasus may be at root of the brothers’ rage. By Dan Peleschuk. USA Today, April 20, 2013.
The Boston Bombing Suspects Were Reared by Both Chechnya and America. By Julia Ioffe. The New Republic, April 19, 2013.
Chechnya’s centuries-long bloody strife goes global. By Stephen Kinzer. The Guardian, April 19, 2013.
Chechens: Legendary tough guys. By Laura Miller. Salon, April 20, 2013.
Chechen war expert: “This is a big deal.” By Christopher Swift. Foreign Policy, April 19, 2013.
Boston Attacks Turn Spotlight on Troubled Region of Chechnya. By Peter Baker and C.J. Chivers. New York Times, April 21, 2013.
Russians, Chechens Worry About Boston Fallout. By Leonid Bershidsky. Bloomberg, April 19, 2013.
The Roots of Chechen Rage. By Oliver Bullough. Foreign Policy, April 21, 2013.
The Chechen Connection. By Anne Applebaum. Slate, April 19, 2013. Also at the Washington Post.
Applebaum:
One or both of the brothers might well have been in touch with Chechen separatists, whose websites they were reportedly reading. They could even have been in touch with al-Qaida. But I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion. Chechen terrorists have in the past been more anti-Russian than pro-Islam. They were never anti-American.
Look, instead, at another possibility—one that is in some ways more disturbing than the convenient “foreigners who hate us” explanation. Although very little has been confirmed, the behavior of the Tsarnaev brothers looks less like that of hardened, trained terrorists and far more closely resembles the second-generation European Muslims who have staged bombings in Madrid, London, and other European cities. Educated and brought up in Europe, these young men nevertheless felt out of place in Europe. Unable to integrate, some turned toward a half-remembered, half-mythological homeland in search of a firmer, fiercer identity. Often they did so with the help of a radical cleric like the one the Tsarnaev brothers may have known. “I do not have a single American friend,” Tamerlan Tsarnaev reportedly said of himself. That’s the kind of statement that might have been made by a young Pakistani living in Coventry or a young Algerian living in Paris.
We don’t expect to hear it from someone who grew up in Boston, a city that has taught generations of foreigners to become Americans in a country that likes to think of itself as a melting pot. But now it might be time to change our expectations. These terrorists are a lot less like the 9/11 attackers and a lot more like the men known as the Tube bombers of London or the train bombers of Spain. Our response is going to have to be different—very different—as well.
Civilization and Barbarism. By William Kristol.
Civilization and Barbarism. By William Kristol. The Weekly Standard, April 29, 2013. Also find it here.
Irresponsible Speculation About Right-Wing Violence. By Philip Klein.
Why coverage of “right-wing” violence irritates conservatives. By Philip Klein. Washington Examiner, April 19, 2013.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Amanda Thatcher, the Texan Who Stole the Show at Margaret Thatcher’s Funeral. By Elias Groll.
 |
| Amanda Thatcher |
The Texan who stole the show at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. By Elias Groll. Foreign Policy, April 17, 2013.
Margaret Thatcher’s grandchildren: “modest, humble, kind.” By Esther Addley. The Guardian, April 16, 2013.
Amanda Thatcher emerges centre-stage at Lady Thatcher’s funeral. By Esther Addley. The Guardian, April 17, 2013.
Jonathan Freedland: “Bet somewhere a Texas Republican operative is watching Amanda Thatcher thinking ‘Wonder if she has political ambitions . . .’” Twitter, April 17, 2013.
Amanda Thatcher reading at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral ceremony. Channel4News, April 17, 2013. YouTube.
Dragnet Paralyzes Boston as One Suspect Eludes Capture. By Katharine Q. Seelye and Michael Cooper.
Dragnet Paralyzes Boston as One Suspect Eludes Capture. By Katharine Q. Seelye and Michael Cooper. New York Times, April 19, 2013.
Tsarnaev Brothers Seen as Good Students and Avid Athletes. By Erica Goode, Serge F. Kovaleski, and Andrew E. Kramer. New York Times, April 19, 2013.
Tsarnaev Brothers Seen as Good Students and Avid Athletes. By Erica Goode, Serge F. Kovaleski, and Andrew E. Kramer. New York Times, April 19, 2013.
Marek Edelman, The Jewish Hero History Forgot. By Marci Shore.
 |
|
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Photo from Jürgen Stroop’s report to Heinrich Himmler from May
1943 and one of the best-known pictures of World War II. The original German
caption reads: “Forcibly pulled out of dug-outs.” Wikipedia.
|
The Jewish Hero History Forgot. By Marci Shore. New York Times, April 18, 2013.
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising: A Polish-Jewish Hero. The Economist, April 19, 2013.
Pondering a 70th Anniversary. By Adam Garfinkle. The American Interest, April 19, 2013.
I Know the Plans I Have For You, Says the Lord. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, April 19, 2013.
 |
| Marek Edelman in 2005 |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)