A discussion continues over Diana Wests's book American Betrayal, a the National Review's Andrew McCarthy provide another view of the controversy. You should read the comments as well as they provide additional context to West's book.
Five months after the fury over American Betrayal reached its highest pitch, Diana West has taken a look back over the process that Andrew McCarthy referred to as a "barroom brawl", but looks more like the "knockout game" to me.
Ms. West has hardly been knocked out. She's too tough to just lie down on the sidewalk and stay there, and has bounced back up to write a piece entitled "No Regrets".
Before excerpting from her essay, I include some quotes from the latest review of American Betrayal published in a major academic journal, this one from Down Under. A former leftist named Steve Kates had this to say about the book in Quadrant:
The shy, slightly overweight teenager, who has lived his entire life with his mother in central Illinois, seldom appears in public with the president, with whom he has reportedly shared a somewhat distant and occasionally strained relationship.
When I saw that kid with President Obama, I had no clue who he was, said Georgia delegate Kathy Tyson, stating that the teen appeared to have difficulty sustaining eye contact with others and stood uncomfortably alongside his father when he shook hands with voters Thursday. I guess he does kind of look like the president, though a bit shorter and stockier.
Luther was born in 1993 to Andrea Pletcher, then a 24-year-old diner cashier whom Obama, a young law professor at the time, met during a brief trip to the state capital of Springfield. While the presidents son is said to have faced numerous obstacles during his childhood, including academic troubles, repeated emotional outbursts, and his mothers bouts with alcoholism, family friends have stated that overall he was a good kid who genuinely meant well.
Fits well with Obama's recent remark about not letting Luther play football.
Look, an onion rolling on the floor !
Posted by: Black Charlie ||
01/21/2014 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
While we're at it, could someone tell Andrew Cuomo that he does NOT own the state of New York?
[DAWN] ONE could arguably posit that religious violence has been the defining characteristic of much conflict in the past few years. The after-effects of the Arab Spring, for instance, have unleashed ideological forces bent on drawing religious boundaries in blood to further their political agendas. A recent study conducted by the Pew Research Centre in 198 countries -- covering a reported 99.5pc of the global population -- looks at the issue of faith-based violence from various angles. The results show that religious hostilities increased across the world in 2012. While this may not be surprising because such conflicts cannot be seen in territorial isolation and usually depend on both external and internal triggers, the numbers are nevertheless disturbing. Of the countries included in the study, 33pc -- including Pakistain -- saw "high" or "very high" levels of internal religious strife, including sectarian violence, terrorism or bullying in 2012, compared to 29pc in 2011 and 20pc in 2010. As expected, the report shows that the Middle East and Africa have experienced the sharpest spike, while China is included in the "high" category for the first time. Among countries with "very high social hostilities based on religion", Pakistain tops the table, as it did in the previous year. This does not appear far off the mark. As we are all too aware, sectarian killings occur in this country with horrific regularity, mosques belonging to various sects are bombed, and blasphemy accusations trigger bloody reprisals.
While the percentage of countries with "high" or "very high" levels of government restrictions on religion remained about the same as in 2011, there are several very populous countries among these, with the result that 76pc of the world's population lives in countries with "high" or "very high" levels of restrictions on religion. Interestingly, in the report, the countries with the highest social hostilities involving religion (the number of these increased from 14 to 20 between 2011 and 2012) includes many categorised as having "very high" government restrictions on religion, suggesting that state-sanctioned discrimination of religious practice has a significant bearing on attitudes towards minorities that can take the form of violence. This causal link often finds expression in Pak society where religious affiliation can define the extent of one's vulnerability to violence.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/21/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
In other words: Islam is at war along all of its borders.
#5
Okay, can anyone think of an Islamic nation that shares a truly peaceful (long-term peace not just that the war is over) border with a non-islamic nation?
#6
can anyone think of an Islamic nation that shares a truly peaceful (long-term peace not just that the war is over) border with a non-islamic nation?
#8
The Malaysians don't seem to be overly concerned about their territory being used as a sanctuary for terrorists crossing the Thai border.
Though the Moroccans get along with the Spanish respectfully.
Remember CF, it's just not the borders. Seems Shia and Sunni do a good job on each other as well, not to mention other 'apostate' sects amongst themselves.
[DAWN] ANOTHER severe blow by the TTP against security forces has been delivered, then quickly followed up with a faux promise of entering into talks with the state. Meanwhile, ...back at the Hubba Hubba Club, Nunzio wondered: Where the hell was Chumbaloni? And where was his $600?... the government prepares to unveil its much-touted internal security policy while still insisting that talks are very much the preferred option. And sections of the national politicianship issue perfunctory condemnations of the TTP while insisting that dialogue isn't going anywhere because of the shortcomings and indecisiveness of the government. If that chain of events were offered up as the plot of a horror novel, it would be dismissed as too fantastical and unreal. Except, it is very much the reality of Pakistain today -- and profoundly depressing.
Even the new twists to the plot offer little real hope. Reports of military attacks in the Mirali region of North Wazoo yesterday appear to be part of an emerging pattern: the military will hit back when attacked. The military has denied that yesterday's events in the Mirali region are linked to the Bannu attack on its troops. However, there is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened... if true, it would suggest less a well-thought-out, meaningful policy to push back against the Death Eaters and more a reactionary move that will achieve little. Even the details of the Bannu attack are fairly unsettling: if there is some sense to ferrying troops to North Waziristan in private, unmarked vehicles, why were the vehicles not searched thoroughly before the troops were allowed to board them? If such patently obvious operational details are overlooked in such a high-risk environment -- it is difficult to imagine more at-risk troops than those headed to North Waziristan -- then what does that say about the overall preparedness of the army?
Still, the fundamental problem remains one of policy confusion. Specifically, the PML-N government has simply not been able to articulate a coherent strategy to tamp down the militancy threat and the security establishment is unwilling to embrace a zero-tolerance, no-to-militancy-of-any-stripe policy. Until those two fundamentals change, there will be nothing meaningful that can be done to combat the terrorism threat. A national consensus that the TTP cannot be adjusted within the structures of the Pak state and society is achievable. That does not mean the military option is the automatic and only option. But the talks-first mantra has ceded too much ground to the TTP and allowed them to manipulate the national narrative and the state's response to the TTP threat. Surely, the politicians pushing for dialogue must be aware of this by now and the PML-N's stuttering attempts to initiate talks must have made the government aware of why the present course is unwise. But do they have the courage to pick the right course?
Posted by: Fred ||
01/21/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Wazoo
