Monday, February 4, 2013
Jackson Falls From Progressives’ Favor. By Salena Zito.
Jackson falls from progressives’ favor. By Salena Zito. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, February 2, 2013.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Happy Candlemas (or Brighid’s Day). By Adam Garfinkle.
Happy Candlemas (or Brighid’s Day). By Adam Garfinkle. The American Interest, February 1, 2013.
Groundhog Day: A Movie For All Time. By Jonah Goldberg. National Review, February 14, 2005.
Garfinkle:
Well, February 2 is a significant date in the Christian calendar. It’s Candlemas Day, which is also known, with slight variations according to religious tradition, as the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. But the Church calendar appears to be coincidental with or, more likely, an overlay on much, much older Celtic agricultural observances. It has to do with a very ancient, astronomically linked celebration called Imbolc, which later became Brighid’s Day and even later, after Christianization, Saint Brighid’s Day. There is a great deal of lore and legend associated with Imbolc, much of it involving Cailleach, the hag of Gaelic tradition. And yes, that lore and legend very much includes weather prognostication and careful observation of the emergence from hibernation of badgers and snakes. Imbolc is about halfway between the winter solstice and the spring equinox, and markings on ancient megaliths testify to its origins in astronomical observation. It was a time thought to be a harbinger of spring on account of the onset of ewe’s lactating in expectation of spring lambs, and the blossom-setting of certain plants, principally the blackthorn (itself associated with much lore).
Groundhog Day: A Movie For All Time. By Jonah Goldberg. National Review, February 14, 2005.
Garfinkle:
Well, February 2 is a significant date in the Christian calendar. It’s Candlemas Day, which is also known, with slight variations according to religious tradition, as the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. But the Church calendar appears to be coincidental with or, more likely, an overlay on much, much older Celtic agricultural observances. It has to do with a very ancient, astronomically linked celebration called Imbolc, which later became Brighid’s Day and even later, after Christianization, Saint Brighid’s Day. There is a great deal of lore and legend associated with Imbolc, much of it involving Cailleach, the hag of Gaelic tradition. And yes, that lore and legend very much includes weather prognostication and careful observation of the emergence from hibernation of badgers and snakes. Imbolc is about halfway between the winter solstice and the spring equinox, and markings on ancient megaliths testify to its origins in astronomical observation. It was a time thought to be a harbinger of spring on account of the onset of ewe’s lactating in expectation of spring lambs, and the blossom-setting of certain plants, principally the blackthorn (itself associated with much lore).
In Hard Economy for All Ages, Older Isn’t Better . . . It’s Brutal. By Catherine Rampell.
In Hard Economy for All Ages, Older Isn’t Better . . . It’s Brutal. By Catherine Rampell. New York Times, February 2, 2013.
Deadly Deserts. By Ralph Peters.
Deadly Deserts. By Ralph Peters. New York Post, February 2, 2013.
Peters:
Violence in Allah’s name in northern Africa won’t end in my lifetime — and probably not in yours. The core question is: To what extent can the savagery be contained?
From the Atlantic coastline to the Suez Canal, struggling governments, impoverished populations and frankly backward societies struggle to find paths to modernization and to compete in a ruthless global economy. Religious fanatics for whom progress is a betrayal of faith hope to block development.
Still, if the only conflict was between Islamist terrorists and those who want civilized lives, the situation could be managed over time. But that struggle forms only one level in a layer cake of clashing visions and outright civil wars bedeviling a vast region. Much larger than Europe, the zone of contention encompasses the Maghreb, the countries touching the Mediterranean, and the Sahel, the bitterly poor states stretching down across desert wastes to the African savannah.
The Sahel is the front line not only between the world of Islam and Christian-animist cultures in Africa’s heart, but between Arabs and light-skinned tribes in the north, and blacks to the south. No area in the world so explicitly illustrates the late, great Samuel Huntington’s concept of “the clash of civilizations.”
If racial and religious differences were not challenge enough, in the Maghreb the factions and interest groups are still more complicated. We view Egypt as locked in a contest between Islamists and “our guys,” Egyptians seeking new freedoms. But Egypt’s identity struggle is far more complex, involving social liberals, moderate Muslims, stern conservative Muslims (such as the Muslim Brotherhood) and outright fanatics. The military forms another constituency, while the business community defends its selfish interests. Then there are the supporters of the old Mubarak regime, the masses of educated-but-unemployed youth and the bitterly poor peasants.
Atop all that there’s the question of whether the values cherished by Arab societies can adapt to a globalized world.
The path to Egypt’s future will not be smooth — yet Egypt’s chances are better than those of many of its neighbors.
. . . . . . . . . .
Two years after the revolution, angry masses crowd the streets again, this time to protest against the latest man-who-would-be-pharaoh, democratically elected President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi rushed to pack as many senior government positions as possible with fellow members of the Muslim Brotherhood without worrying about competence. Now he heads an inept government and resorts to heavy-handed means to quell unrest.
The Muslim Brotherhood made a strategic error in grasping power too quickly, instead of aping the creeping Islamization underway in Turkey. While the Brotherhood had the Chicago-style organization to turn out the illiterate masses, it utterly lacked the wherewithal to halt the economy’s downward spiral. And, in the end, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Even fundamentalists have to eat.
By overplaying their hand so eagerly, the Muslim Brothers have lost credibility. Will they be able to hang onto the power they’ve sought for almost a century? They won’t give it up easily, but Morsi has gone from confidence to fear in record time. The action (or inaction) of the military may be the crucial factor in determining Egypt’s future — which remains very much in question.
. . . . . . . . . .
The bottom line? Unified international action, as in Mali (or Somalia), can push back Islamist terrorists. But the fractured nature of local societies, low levels of development, corruption and, not least, traditional hatreds guarantee unrest for decades to come. We’ll be engaged, whether we like it or not. Instead of defaulting to idiotic slogans like “Lead from behind!” we need to think ahead.
Peters:
Violence in Allah’s name in northern Africa won’t end in my lifetime — and probably not in yours. The core question is: To what extent can the savagery be contained?
From the Atlantic coastline to the Suez Canal, struggling governments, impoverished populations and frankly backward societies struggle to find paths to modernization and to compete in a ruthless global economy. Religious fanatics for whom progress is a betrayal of faith hope to block development.
Still, if the only conflict was between Islamist terrorists and those who want civilized lives, the situation could be managed over time. But that struggle forms only one level in a layer cake of clashing visions and outright civil wars bedeviling a vast region. Much larger than Europe, the zone of contention encompasses the Maghreb, the countries touching the Mediterranean, and the Sahel, the bitterly poor states stretching down across desert wastes to the African savannah.
The Sahel is the front line not only between the world of Islam and Christian-animist cultures in Africa’s heart, but between Arabs and light-skinned tribes in the north, and blacks to the south. No area in the world so explicitly illustrates the late, great Samuel Huntington’s concept of “the clash of civilizations.”
If racial and religious differences were not challenge enough, in the Maghreb the factions and interest groups are still more complicated. We view Egypt as locked in a contest between Islamists and “our guys,” Egyptians seeking new freedoms. But Egypt’s identity struggle is far more complex, involving social liberals, moderate Muslims, stern conservative Muslims (such as the Muslim Brotherhood) and outright fanatics. The military forms another constituency, while the business community defends its selfish interests. Then there are the supporters of the old Mubarak regime, the masses of educated-but-unemployed youth and the bitterly poor peasants.
Atop all that there’s the question of whether the values cherished by Arab societies can adapt to a globalized world.
The path to Egypt’s future will not be smooth — yet Egypt’s chances are better than those of many of its neighbors.
. . . . . . . . . .
Two years after the revolution, angry masses crowd the streets again, this time to protest against the latest man-who-would-be-pharaoh, democratically elected President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi rushed to pack as many senior government positions as possible with fellow members of the Muslim Brotherhood without worrying about competence. Now he heads an inept government and resorts to heavy-handed means to quell unrest.
The Muslim Brotherhood made a strategic error in grasping power too quickly, instead of aping the creeping Islamization underway in Turkey. While the Brotherhood had the Chicago-style organization to turn out the illiterate masses, it utterly lacked the wherewithal to halt the economy’s downward spiral. And, in the end, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Even fundamentalists have to eat.
By overplaying their hand so eagerly, the Muslim Brothers have lost credibility. Will they be able to hang onto the power they’ve sought for almost a century? They won’t give it up easily, but Morsi has gone from confidence to fear in record time. The action (or inaction) of the military may be the crucial factor in determining Egypt’s future — which remains very much in question.
. . . . . . . . . .
The bottom line? Unified international action, as in Mali (or Somalia), can push back Islamist terrorists. But the fractured nature of local societies, low levels of development, corruption and, not least, traditional hatreds guarantee unrest for decades to come. We’ll be engaged, whether we like it or not. Instead of defaulting to idiotic slogans like “Lead from behind!” we need to think ahead.
The Real ‘60 Minutes’ Revelation. By Michael Tomasky.
The Real ‘60 Minutes’ Revelation. By Michael Tomasky. The Daily Beast, January 29, 2013.
Tomasky:
I can actually see, to some extent, the point of conservatives’ complaints about the Obama-Hillary 60 Minutes interview. It was softbally, and Steve Kroft’s one real question—to Clinton, about whether she felt any guilt or remorse over Benghazi—she totally didn’t answer. But here, conservatives, is what you are missing and what you need to reckon with. Americans—except you—like these two people. Most Americans look at the pair of them—this black man who is still remote in some ways and this so-familiar woman who is now aging before us and allowing herself to look just a little frumpy—and feel reassured. Most Americans are cheering for them, and hence, most Americans probably wanted a softball interview. We have thus passed an important portal in American politics: Democrats are now the regular guys. Conservatives are the weirdos.
. . . . . . . . . .
Obama and Clinton talked, in other words, like mature adults, and they sold it as genuine because it was genuine. And I’d contend that it made most people watching feel something like: Well, these are very smart and self-assured people, and they’re mostly pretty likable, too, and agree or disagree with this or that decision they make or action they take, I feel like my country is in pretty good hands with them. And yes, to invoke the hackneyed litmus-test question—I’d drink a beer, or a pinot, or in HRC’s case a shot of Crown Royal, with them. To everyone but right-wingers, that was the vibe Sunday night—a victory lap, and a victory lap that no one begrudged them.
They’re the real Americans now. It’s not that they have changed, but that America has. The measures for real Americanism are no longer clearing brush, hunting elk, hopping on top of various animals, dropping one’s g’s (in speech, I mean), and speaking in intentionally ungrammatical apothegmatic frontier “wisdom.” The new measures? Not completely sure yet. But we do have now the collective realization that those were fake measures—some Harvey Mansfield–inspired Potemkin Village of “real America.” Also, the collective realization that it’s probably on balance not at all a bad idea for the president not to be “just like us,” which was the folk wisdom of a decade ago, but in fact a little smarter than most of us.
The Republicans? It’s not just the extreme ideology. Of course it’s that, but it’s more. The whole shtick is old. Where once the Middle American ear may have been soothed by that low Cheney rumble belching out its grave assessments of the world situation, today it is accosted by all those caliginous Southern accents warning of socialism and collapse, and thinks: will these people ever shut up? Georgia Congressman Paul Broun told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week that Obama “upholds … the Soviet Constitution.” On any given week, I could fill a whole column, or two, with such nuggets. Enough already.
While Obama and Clinton were speaking, so was Paul Ryan, to a conservative gathering, where he said: “There are two ways to respond to defeat: Either you can deny it, or you can learn from it. I choose to learn from it. The way I see it, our defeat is all the more reason to lay out our vision with even more specifics—and with a broader appeal.”
What he’s saying there, and throughout the speech, is that the GOP isn’t going to change its stripes a bit. “Broader appeal” means I suppose better (read: more dishonest) packaging for a bunch of reactionary policies that Americans don’t want.
Conservatives, you can call me and others like me all the names you want, and you can whine about the evil CBS all you want. But Kroft and his network were actually in touch here with the pulse of the country, which wants Obama to succeed and Hillary to go have a nice long rest (and, maybe, get ready for 2016). Meanwhile, even Roger Ailes has gotten sick of Sarah Palin. Get the picture?
Obama and Clinton: The 60 Minutes Interview. 60 Minutes. CBS News, January 29, 2013. Also find video here, here, and here.
Tomasky:
I can actually see, to some extent, the point of conservatives’ complaints about the Obama-Hillary 60 Minutes interview. It was softbally, and Steve Kroft’s one real question—to Clinton, about whether she felt any guilt or remorse over Benghazi—she totally didn’t answer. But here, conservatives, is what you are missing and what you need to reckon with. Americans—except you—like these two people. Most Americans look at the pair of them—this black man who is still remote in some ways and this so-familiar woman who is now aging before us and allowing herself to look just a little frumpy—and feel reassured. Most Americans are cheering for them, and hence, most Americans probably wanted a softball interview. We have thus passed an important portal in American politics: Democrats are now the regular guys. Conservatives are the weirdos.
. . . . . . . . . .
Obama and Clinton talked, in other words, like mature adults, and they sold it as genuine because it was genuine. And I’d contend that it made most people watching feel something like: Well, these are very smart and self-assured people, and they’re mostly pretty likable, too, and agree or disagree with this or that decision they make or action they take, I feel like my country is in pretty good hands with them. And yes, to invoke the hackneyed litmus-test question—I’d drink a beer, or a pinot, or in HRC’s case a shot of Crown Royal, with them. To everyone but right-wingers, that was the vibe Sunday night—a victory lap, and a victory lap that no one begrudged them.
They’re the real Americans now. It’s not that they have changed, but that America has. The measures for real Americanism are no longer clearing brush, hunting elk, hopping on top of various animals, dropping one’s g’s (in speech, I mean), and speaking in intentionally ungrammatical apothegmatic frontier “wisdom.” The new measures? Not completely sure yet. But we do have now the collective realization that those were fake measures—some Harvey Mansfield–inspired Potemkin Village of “real America.” Also, the collective realization that it’s probably on balance not at all a bad idea for the president not to be “just like us,” which was the folk wisdom of a decade ago, but in fact a little smarter than most of us.
The Republicans? It’s not just the extreme ideology. Of course it’s that, but it’s more. The whole shtick is old. Where once the Middle American ear may have been soothed by that low Cheney rumble belching out its grave assessments of the world situation, today it is accosted by all those caliginous Southern accents warning of socialism and collapse, and thinks: will these people ever shut up? Georgia Congressman Paul Broun told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week that Obama “upholds … the Soviet Constitution.” On any given week, I could fill a whole column, or two, with such nuggets. Enough already.
While Obama and Clinton were speaking, so was Paul Ryan, to a conservative gathering, where he said: “There are two ways to respond to defeat: Either you can deny it, or you can learn from it. I choose to learn from it. The way I see it, our defeat is all the more reason to lay out our vision with even more specifics—and with a broader appeal.”
What he’s saying there, and throughout the speech, is that the GOP isn’t going to change its stripes a bit. “Broader appeal” means I suppose better (read: more dishonest) packaging for a bunch of reactionary policies that Americans don’t want.
Conservatives, you can call me and others like me all the names you want, and you can whine about the evil CBS all you want. But Kroft and his network were actually in touch here with the pulse of the country, which wants Obama to succeed and Hillary to go have a nice long rest (and, maybe, get ready for 2016). Meanwhile, even Roger Ailes has gotten sick of Sarah Palin. Get the picture?
Obama and Clinton: The 60 Minutes Interview. 60 Minutes. CBS News, January 29, 2013. Also find video here, here, and here.
Mark Kelly and Wayne LaPierre Defend Both Sides of the Gun Control Debate.
Mark Kelly and Wayne LaPierre Defend Both Sides of the Gun Control Debate. Video. Fox News Sunday, February 3, 2013. Also find it here and here. Transcript here.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Bill Maher: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck Are Unprincipled Con Men.
Bill Maher: Con Men Like Beck and Limbaugh Only Care About Separating Rubes From Their Money. By Jason Easley. PoliticusUSA, February 2, 2013.
Bill Maher Explains Why Sarah Palin Leaving Fox News is Actually Bad News for the Left. The Huffington Post, February 2, 2013.
Maher: Conservative “Con Men” Beck & Limbaugh Are “Separating Rubes From Their Money.” Real Clear Politics, February 2, 2013.
Bill Maher: New Rules, Episode 270, February 1, 2013. Video. Real Time with Bill Maher. DailyMotion. Also find it here.
Episode 270 by BillMaher1956
Bill Maher Explains Why Sarah Palin Leaving Fox News is Actually Bad News for the Left. The Huffington Post, February 2, 2013.
Maher: Conservative “Con Men” Beck & Limbaugh Are “Separating Rubes From Their Money.” Real Clear Politics, February 2, 2013.
Bill Maher: New Rules, Episode 270, February 1, 2013. Video. Real Time with Bill Maher. DailyMotion. Also find it here.
Episode 270 by BillMaher1956
America’s Religious Divide. By Walter Russell Mead.
America’s Religious Divide. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, February 2, 2013.
Mead:
These days, the deep fissures in America don’t so much run between Catholics and Protestants as within each community. Conservative evangelical Southern Baptists feel they have more in common with conservative Catholics than they do with liberal Protestants — and many conservative Catholics feel the same way.
What draws conservative Protestants and Catholics together is a concern that liberals and secularists would like to drive religion out of the public square; as AI blogger Peter Berger puts it, to make religion something that consenting adults do together in private. Former religious enemies are drawing closely together at least partly out of fear of what they see as a common foe. The great divide in American religion today is no longer between Protestant and Catholic or even between Christian and Jew; it is between the liberal and the conservative versions of these great historic faiths.
Mead:
These days, the deep fissures in America don’t so much run between Catholics and Protestants as within each community. Conservative evangelical Southern Baptists feel they have more in common with conservative Catholics than they do with liberal Protestants — and many conservative Catholics feel the same way.
What draws conservative Protestants and Catholics together is a concern that liberals and secularists would like to drive religion out of the public square; as AI blogger Peter Berger puts it, to make religion something that consenting adults do together in private. Former religious enemies are drawing closely together at least partly out of fear of what they see as a common foe. The great divide in American religion today is no longer between Protestant and Catholic or even between Christian and Jew; it is between the liberal and the conservative versions of these great historic faiths.
Sen. Rand Paul on Failure to Ban Transfer of F-16s From US to Egypt.
Sen. Rand Paul on Failure to Ban Transfer of F-16s From US to Egypt. Real Clear Politics, February 1, 2013. Also find it here.
Dick Morris: Andrew Jackson Creates a Democracy.
Andrew Jackson Creates a Democracy. Video. By Dick Morris. DickMorris.com, February 2, 2013. Also find it here.
Aliaa Magda Elmahdy and Femen Protest Against Morsi in Stockholm.
Nude Egyptian Protests Morsi. The Red Eye Portal, December 20, 2012.
Free to Act. By Aliaa Magda Elmahdy. A Rebel’s Diary, December 16, 2012.
Protest Against Constitution in Front of Egyptian Embassy in Stockholm. By Aliaa Magda Elmahdy. A Rebel’s Diary, December 21, 2012.
Apocalypse of Muhammad. Femen.org, December 20, 2012.
Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, Egypt Activist, Poses Naked, Sparks Outrage. By Maggie Michael. AP. The Huffington Post, November 17, 2011.
Nude Blogger Riles Egyptians of All Stripes. By Liam Stack and David D. Kirkpatrick. New York Times, November 17, 2011.
Egyptian Blogger Aliaa Elmahdy: Why I Posed Naked. By Mohamed Fadel Fahmy. CNN, November 19, 2011.
Egyptian nudist in new secularism stunt. Gulf News, December 20, 2012.
Egypt activist who protested nude says she wants to make change, differently. By Mustapha Ajbaili. Al Arabiya, December 21, 2012.
Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, Egypt’s Naked Blogger, Joins Femen Protest against Mursi Constitution. By Gianlucca Mezzofiore. International Business Times, December 20, 2012.
Naked Blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy Was Kidnapped in Egypt in 2011, Claims Femen. By Gianluca Mezzofiore. International Business Times, December 21, 2012.
Aliaa Elmahdy and Femen Protesting Against Egyptian Constitution by Morsi. Video. YouTube, December 20, 2012. Also find it here.
Free to Act. By Aliaa Magda Elmahdy. A Rebel’s Diary, December 16, 2012.
Protest Against Constitution in Front of Egyptian Embassy in Stockholm. By Aliaa Magda Elmahdy. A Rebel’s Diary, December 21, 2012.
Apocalypse of Muhammad. Femen.org, December 20, 2012.
 |
| Aliaa Magda Elmahdy (center) with Inna Shevchenko (right) in Femen protest outside the Egyptian embassy in Stockholm, Sweden. |
Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, Egypt Activist, Poses Naked, Sparks Outrage. By Maggie Michael. AP. The Huffington Post, November 17, 2011.
Nude Blogger Riles Egyptians of All Stripes. By Liam Stack and David D. Kirkpatrick. New York Times, November 17, 2011.
Egyptian Blogger Aliaa Elmahdy: Why I Posed Naked. By Mohamed Fadel Fahmy. CNN, November 19, 2011.
Egyptian nudist in new secularism stunt. Gulf News, December 20, 2012.
Egypt activist who protested nude says she wants to make change, differently. By Mustapha Ajbaili. Al Arabiya, December 21, 2012.
Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, Egypt’s Naked Blogger, Joins Femen Protest against Mursi Constitution. By Gianlucca Mezzofiore. International Business Times, December 20, 2012.
Naked Blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy Was Kidnapped in Egypt in 2011, Claims Femen. By Gianluca Mezzofiore. International Business Times, December 21, 2012.
Aliaa Elmahdy and Femen Protesting Against Egyptian Constitution by Morsi. Video. YouTube, December 20, 2012. Also find it here.
Femen: Ukraine’s Topless Warriors. By Jeffrey Tayler.
Femen, Ukraine’s Topless Warriors. By Jeffrey Tayler. The Atlantic, November 28, 2012.
Why the group that inspired Pussy Riot’s infamous “punk prayer” could be tough to stop.
Femen.org website.
Femen in Paris: Ukraine’s Topless Warriors Move West. By Jeffrey Tayler. The Atlantic, January 2, 2013.
Femen Topless Protest In Davos: Feminist Activists Demonstrate Outside World Economic Forum. By Sara Gates. The Huffington Post, January 28, 2013.
Davos took the shirt off Femen’s back (VIDEO, PHOTOS). Russia Today, January 28, 2012.
Meet Femen’s Topless Feminist Activists. Video. The Atlantic, January 2, 2013.
Femen “Topless Warriors” Documentary w/English subtitles. Video. YouTube, December 10, 2011.
Femen Topless Protest Video: “Gangsta Party in Davos.” Russia Today, January 28, 2013. YouTube. Also find it here.
Why the group that inspired Pussy Riot’s infamous “punk prayer” could be tough to stop.
Femen.org website.
Femen in Paris: Ukraine’s Topless Warriors Move West. By Jeffrey Tayler. The Atlantic, January 2, 2013.
 |
| Inna Shevchenko, leader of Femen, makes a statement in Paris, September 18, 2012. Reuters. |
Femen Topless Protest In Davos: Feminist Activists Demonstrate Outside World Economic Forum. By Sara Gates. The Huffington Post, January 28, 2013.
Davos took the shirt off Femen’s back (VIDEO, PHOTOS). Russia Today, January 28, 2012.
Meet Femen’s Topless Feminist Activists. Video. The Atlantic, January 2, 2013.
Femen “Topless Warriors” Documentary w/English subtitles. Video. YouTube, December 10, 2011.
Femen Topless Protest Video: “Gangsta Party in Davos.” Russia Today, January 28, 2013. YouTube. Also find it here.
 |
|
Police detain activist Inna Shevchenko from women’s
rights group Femen as she protests in front of the Olympic stadium in Kiev on
July 1st, 2012. (Gleb Garanich/Reuters)
|
The Sexual Healers Next Door. By Tracy Clark-Flory.
The Sexual Healers Next Door. By Tracy Clark-Flory. Salon, January 27, 2013.
Is the Russia Prison System Working Pussy Riot Member to Death? By Steven Hsieh.
Is the Russia Prison System Working Pussy Riot Member to Death? By Steven Hsieh. AlterNet, February 1, 2013.
Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Imprisoned Pussy Riot Member, Hospitalized. By Vladimir Isachenkov. AP. The Huffington Post, February 1, 2013.
Interview with Pussy Riot Leader: “I Love Russia, But I Hate Putin.” Spiegel Online, September 3, 2012.
In a SPIEGEL interview, Pussy Riot leader Nadezhda Tolokonnikova discusses her feminist punk group’s political aims, why she believes there are limits to Vladimir Putin’s power and how the “fight for our ideas and values will continue.” She says it’s “not me, but the authorities who must be afraid.”
What Pussy Riot’s “Punk Prayer” Really Said. By Jeffrey Tayler. The Atlantic, November 8, 2012.
Russia’s Culture Wars, or Россия диве дается. By Eliot Borenstein. Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia at New York University, December 13, 2012.
Pussy Riot Member Talks About Detention Conditions. Video. Ria Novosti, April 24, 2012. YouTube.
Pussy Riot Has Orgy in a Museum. Video. RT. YouTube, August 7, 2012.
Pussy Riot, “Punk Prayer.” Video. YouTube, March 10, 2012.
The Closing Statemment from Nadezhda Tolokonnikova in Trial, August 8, 2012. Free Pussy Riot English. YouTube.
Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Imprisoned Pussy Riot Member, Hospitalized. By Vladimir Isachenkov. AP. The Huffington Post, February 1, 2013.
Interview with Pussy Riot Leader: “I Love Russia, But I Hate Putin.” Spiegel Online, September 3, 2012.
In a SPIEGEL interview, Pussy Riot leader Nadezhda Tolokonnikova discusses her feminist punk group’s political aims, why she believes there are limits to Vladimir Putin’s power and how the “fight for our ideas and values will continue.” She says it’s “not me, but the authorities who must be afraid.”
What Pussy Riot’s “Punk Prayer” Really Said. By Jeffrey Tayler. The Atlantic, November 8, 2012.
Russia’s Culture Wars, or Россия диве дается. By Eliot Borenstein. Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia at New York University, December 13, 2012.
Pussy Riot Member Talks About Detention Conditions. Video. Ria Novosti, April 24, 2012. YouTube.
Pussy Riot Has Orgy in a Museum. Video. RT. YouTube, August 7, 2012.
Pussy Riot, “Punk Prayer.” Video. YouTube, March 10, 2012.
The Closing Statemment from Nadezhda Tolokonnikova in Trial, August 8, 2012. Free Pussy Riot English. YouTube.
 |
| Nadezhda Tolokonnikova |
Friday, February 1, 2013
The Riddle of the Gun. By Sam Harris.
The Riddle of the Gun. By Sam Harris. SamHarris.org, January 2, 2013.
Harris:
Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?
FAQ on Violence. By Sam Harris. SamHarris.org, January 7, 2013.
Why does anyone take Sam Harris seriously? By Ian Murphy. Salon, January 10, 2013. Also find it here.
Harris:
Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?
FAQ on Violence. By Sam Harris. SamHarris.org, January 7, 2013.
Why does anyone take Sam Harris seriously? By Ian Murphy. Salon, January 10, 2013. Also find it here.
Head-in-the-Sand Liberals. By Sam Harris.
Head-in-the-Sand Liberals. By Sam Harris. SamHarris.org, September 18, 2006.
Harris:
TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, “The End of Faith.” In it, I argued that the world’s major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.
This
has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and
political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report
that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that
religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.
This
difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.
Perhaps
I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I’d like to see taxes
raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also
think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has
received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the
war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.
But my
correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown
dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with
what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about
the ultimate ascendance of their faith.
On
questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am
of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.
This
may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that “liberals are soft on
terrorism.” It is, and they are.
A cult
of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly
explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth
is that we are not fighting a “war on terror.” We are fighting a pestilential
theology and a longing for paradise.
This is
not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war
with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest
possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet
and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.
Unfortunately,
such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope.
Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have
better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.
Given
the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every
society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and
intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will
get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary,
liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic
despair, lack of education and American militarism.
At its
most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of
conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated
by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey
Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans
suspect that the federal government “assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or
took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle
East;” 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled
passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration
had secretly rigged them to explode.
Such an
astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of
liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films
and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an
unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of
liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of
the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given
sufficient economic opportunities.
Given
the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially
its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the
conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals
hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge
just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.
Recent
condemnations of the Bush administration’s use of the phrase “Islamic fascism”
are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise —
Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of
schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of
wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.
In
their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to
overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact
that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as
a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this
accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the
political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with
respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.
Given
these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral
high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the
United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.
We are
entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely,
nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs
will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of
millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney,
they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.
Increasingly,
Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight
the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the
West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral
clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian
right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the
ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the
board in a very dangerous game.
While
liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they
are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable
and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the
dangers of religious literalism. But they aren’t.
The
same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of
multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming
problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most
sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.
To say
that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not
bode well for the future of civilization.
Harris:
TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, “The End of Faith.” In it, I argued that the world’s major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.
I don’t
know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly
planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy
will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a
terrifying number of the world’s Muslims now view all political and moral
questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to
the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This
benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization
and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.
Learning the Wrong Lessons from Ike. By Alexander Joffe.
Learning the Wrong Lessons from Ike. By Alexander Joffe. The National Interest, February 1, 2013.
The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant. By Alexander H. Joffe. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 2002.
The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant. By Alexander H. Joffe. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 2002.
Welcome to the New Arab World — Where No One Really Cares Much About Israel. By Jonathan Kay.
Welcome to the new Arab world — where no one really cares much about Israel. By Jonathan Kay. National Post, January 29, 2013.
Is Mali Part of the Middle East? By Marc Lynch.
Is Mali part of the Middle East? By Marc Lynch. Foreign Policy, January 29, 2013.
The Jihad Will Be Televised. By Mitchell Prothero.
Live from Beirut . . .: Watching TV with Hezbollah. By Mitchell Prothero. Foreign Policy, January 31, 2013.
Slave States vs. Free States, 2012. By Michael Lind.
Slave states vs. free states, 2012. By Michael Lind. Salon, October 10, 2012.
A century and a half later, we’ve come full circle: The red-blue state divide falls along Confederate-Union lines.
The Economist’s phony “progressivism.” By Michael Lind. Salon, October 15, 2012.
E Pluribus Duo: Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala. By Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, October 25, 2012.
A century and a half later, we’ve come full circle: The red-blue state divide falls along Confederate-Union lines.
The Economist’s phony “progressivism.” By Michael Lind. Salon, October 15, 2012.
E Pluribus Duo: Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala. By Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, October 25, 2012.
Has the American Empire Struck Out? By Michael Young.
Has the American empire struck out? By Michael Young. The Daily Star [Lebanon], January 17, 2013.
How The South Will Rise To Power Again. By Joel Kotkin.
How The South Will Rise To Power Again. By Joel Kotkin. NewGeography, January 31, 2013. Also find it here and here.
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala: A theory of a divided nation. The New Republic, October 5, 2012. Also find it here.
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala: A theory of a divided nation. The New Republic, October 5, 2012. Also find it here.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Mark Levin: “The Muslim Brotherhood Has Infiltrated Our Government, It’s Called Barack Obama.”
Mark Levin: “The Muslim Brotherhood Has Infiltrated Our Government, It’s Called Barack Obama.” Real Clear Politics, January 31, 2013.
Mark Levin: “The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government – it’s called Barack Obama!” The Right Scoop, January 31, 2013.
Also find it at: Fox Nation; Mediaite; Breitbart; and YouTube.
Mark Levin: “The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government – it’s called Barack Obama!” The Right Scoop, January 31, 2013.
Also find it at: Fox Nation; Mediaite; Breitbart; and YouTube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)