I find it curious that there's so much European angst being generated over the murders of the satirists at the magazine offices, and nothing much being said about the murders of the Jews at the delicatessen. Our French friends don't seem all that bent ‘bout the latter.
Lee, I believe that's a case of jouralists being outraged over the death of journalists, which drowns out the other story.
We've seen the sae in Sweden when swedes are captured by extremists abroad and held hostage. If they are journalists it's non stop from coverage. If they are mere mortals it's soon forgotten.
I decided to check the winefalcon for the conspiracy nutjob take on the Islamist attacks in France. He did not disappoint. Turns out that he's pegged it as a conspiracy by the French ‘deep state’ and the ‘AngloZionist Empire’ to make Muslims look bad. Saker (This is the same guy runnin’ the drivel about the Ukrainians runnin’ the show in Kiev being Nazis.)
Hmmm...from the Saker's recent post it appears that the difficult financial times that Russia is having have filtered down. He is appealing for financial help.
Lee: "I decided to check the winefalcon for the conspiracy nutjob take on the Islamist attacks in France. He did not disappoint. Turns out that he's pegged it as a conspiracy by the French ‘deep state’ and the ‘AngloZionist Empire’ to make Muslims look bad."
There's a whole bunch of things in his latest posts that had me shaking my head. Perhaps the most obvious one is his suggestion that those "Imperial" powers he speak of are using their media to try to bring about a civil war between muslims ad non muslims in Europe. What?
From what I can tell most politicians and most media, certanly the well established ones, are pointing out over, over and over again that the terrorism we've just seen has nothing to do with Islam and muslims. Even to the extent that you ask yourself: well isn't it relevant at all that it was carried out in the name of Islam?
That the establishment is trying to increase hatred is something I have seen zero examples of. Yet Saker seems to think this is the real agenda here.
I don't give much credence to Saker's opinions on various topics. They are colored by an agenda.
In the case of Charlie Hebdo, as far as I can tell they were an equal opportunity satirical publication. It was not just the prophet Mohammed and Islam that were targets.
I firmly believe that this is a fight between the extremists and the moderates of the world. It is just that at this point in time it is being wrapped in religion.
What is new is that there are people who are taking advantage of weaknesses within our societies that have not been properly addressed by our governments. In the case of Europe they are using immigrant communities that have not assimilated well enough to feel a part of the country they are living in.
I am watching the marches in Paris on CNN. I think someone seriously miscalculated in this attack. It was directed at a value that so many hold dear, freedom of speech. They have attacked something that both the right and the left in civil society support. It is truly France's 9/11.
It is sounding like the Charlie Hebdo attack and the attack on the Jewish grocery were coordinated before hand. That is, the grocery was not a target of opportunity. So then we would have to add an attack on religious freedom as well.
Amazing crowds. I stand in admiration of the French people.
"…most politicians and most media…[etc]…the terrorism we've just seen has nothing to do with Islam and muslims."
Most of the Glenn Hannibaugh crowd, a good portion of the teabagger zealots, and a sizable portion of FoxNews on-air personalities, would beg to differ. They rather object to people dismissing their right to categorically hate Muslims and Islam across the board, they often object rather loudly in fact. Happily, they haven't managed to make a real dent in the general public perception that most Muslims aren't gone jihadi just yet. This is good, ‘cause we start treating all Muslims like they're all terrorists, we're likely to get more terrorists. In fact, right now, what a jihadi bent American Muslim has to fear most is that he'll get turned in by another Muslim, pointed out as somebody who should be watched. But, they've gotta talk some or they can't recruit nor organize. Talk too much and another Muslim will turn ‘em in as a potential danger.
It would appear that the Obama administration sorta fumbled the ball on getting a representative to the the march in Paris. The Europeans noticed. Our Secretary of State is supposed to have a special affinity for the French, be something of a Francophil; he seems to have not managed to carry the ball there where one might suspect he'd be on top of the play. Gotta figure the White House is not happy. Got an entire Cabinet Department just for that diplomacy stuff, and nobody picked up on it.
And, the jihadi have struck back on the cyber front, hacking into a twitter-type page belonging to the U.S. military's CENTCOM (Central Command). All in all, not the best day Obama's had even just this year.
Yeah, there was a lot of press about the US not having a high ranking official at the march. You would think that would have been a no brainer once they heard it was going to take place. However, it might be just as well, especially if Obama himself had considered going. The security for a presidential visit just makes it more difficult for the locals to get around. And it was actually rather nice to see other people getting out there at the forefront of this thing. We've been talking about it since 9/11. It's really a worldwide issue, not just a US or French one. Others need to take the lead now and then.
What would have been an ever nicer picture is Abbas and Netanyahu arm in arm. ;)
I hadn't heard that about Centcom's twitter being hacked. I suppose they chose us because Anonymous would be kind of hard to find...
French President Francois Hollande sent a message to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and specifically told Netanyahu that he was not welcome to attend the ‘Je suis Charlie’ in Paris yesterday. No anti-Semitism there says Marcus. Netanyahu came anyway. Israeli sources claim that Hollande later told Netanyahu that he will not be forgiven for this.
No doubt you would. However, I don't recall any suggestion being made that Hollande had also asked Abbas not to come (although he supposedly did specifically extend an invitation to Abbas once he discovered that Netanyahu had decided to attend after all; I rather doubt that Abbas' proposed attendance would have prompted Hollande to go out of his way to specifically ask for Netanyahu to come).
PBS Frontline tonight: "Putin's Way" (corruption and criminality in Putin's government). Sometimes their stuff is worth a look. I'm gonna look in on that one.
Usually PBS runs the good stuff at 9:00. I'll see if I can stay awake. :) That does sound interesting. Or, if I miss it, I may be able to find it on YouTube later.
I suspect the winefalcon may very well disapprove of that program. He may have some things to say regarding our .0001% and the relative sizes of the two economies, and who's the bigger thieves in the larger scheme of things. Mostly though, he's liable to be apoplectic whatever else he may be.
In the meantime… I notice that al-Qaeda in Yemen is proudly taking credit for the recent attacks in France, and the Pakistani are holding memorial ceremonies and parades honoring the dead attackers.
Scientists have discovered what's been causing the ‘browning’ of the Taj Mahal in recent decades. Extensive study reveals that it's a ‘light absorbing particulate matter’, a/k/a ‘dust’.
David Ignatias can generally be counted on to talk sense. Here's some sense from him, from yesterday's Washington Post, on the subject of what's the Wrong Response to Islamic terrorism.
While I am not an expert, I think I would agree with all of what David Ignatias had to say, except for the messenger in this statement:
A good example of what’s needed was Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi’s recent call for a “religious revolution” against violent extremism.
He's right, but a respected religious leader, such as an Imam, or a former jihadist, who has first hand knowledge, should be the messengers of first choice. Sissi is simply not well respected enough, and in fact may suffer from some of the same failings as the religious extremists in some people's views.
He may have some things to say regarding our .0001% and the relative sizes of the two economies, and who's the bigger thieves in the larger scheme of things.
I suppose if you are looking purely at amount of wealth, yes, he may have a point. However, if you are looking at the effects on the population, then I may quibble on whose theft has caused the most damage to people's lives. Considering that the other point made by the Russian historian on that program pertained to average per capita income, I mean. Her example being that India was doing better than Russia. Wasn't it something like an average of $871?
Duke University is going to start playing the Muslim call to prayer over the campus loudspeakers every Friday. Won't that be nice? Duke University is going to start playing the Muslim call to prayer over the campus loudspeakers every Friday. Won't that be nice?
Hmmm...is Duke a religious school? I wouldn't think it necessary if it isn't. Just like I wouldn't think a focus on any other religion would be necessary.
Yes. While logically it is understood that the majority of Muslims would not participate in something like what took place in France, there are still raw feelings.
Meanwhile, it appears that Saudia Arabia is in the process of building a wall in an effort to deal with ISIL.
House Republicans at their retreat/confab with the Senate Republicans in Hershey, Pennsylvania are pushing for a vote on a bill designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. (Michele Bachmann is the sponsor--she's not gonna be there much longer, but she's got an ax to grind on the way out.)
Had you noticed the right-wingers in the House have come up with the genius plan to de-fund the Department of Homeland Security in retaliation for Obama deciding to not waste resources rounding up illegal immigrants who've not actually broken the law? (This is what passes for genius among our right-wingers.)
I'm not surprised. Somehow, though, I can't get as bent out of shape over the Muslim Brotherhood when we have something like ISIL and AQ roaming the world.
The Republicans are apparently still stuck in stupid mode. Very, very unfortunate for them...and for us.
"…still stuck in stupid mode. Very, very unfortunate for them. "
Short-term, it's not such a bad thing for them. They've managed to keep their ‘base’ in a constant state of high anxiety, which translates into higher than average political participation, both rate and intensity. This has, for the last decade or so, compensated for their dwindling numbers overall.
Long-term, well, long-term everybody's plans will go to shit eventually anyway. If nothing else, a fool will eventually get lucky, a shot in the dark will connect, and ya'll have to adjust for that.¹ Meantime, they're compensating for their diminished numbers with frenzy and fervor.
Might want to fill that metaphor in a bit… It was fear, frenzy, and fervor that keeps ‘em runnin’ still even. Fear also works real good at concentrating one's attention. In order to maintain the necessary level of fear, they need to do more than get merely ‘stuck’ on stupid. They have to seize it with some enthusiasm; grasp it tightly; clutch it closely, never let it go.
I think we're entitled to a wander even further down this weekend side-trip into the sometimes arcane world of American electoral politics (as the Republicans did a couple of significant things towards the end of this week).
I've been wondering what exactly the Republicans are going to do about accommodating their nominating process to the realities of the 2016 presidential elections. Last time they had eight or nine or so campaigning for the nomination. (I seem to recall something being said about ‘Mitt Romney and the Seven Dwarves’.) They took six months and a couple dozen televised "debates". This time they've trimmed the campaign season down to where they think they can wrap it up in just a couple of months and nine debates total, but they've got a couple dozen candidates competing for the nomination. I'm not entirely sure the losing candidates will know they've lost by the time the ‘winning’ candidate and the national committee, the RNC, are ready to wind it up and start the race against the Democrats. And that could prove disconcerting for the nominal ‘winner’ of the Republican nomination. It seems to me the Republicans may have finally successfully scheduled their last presidential nomination process, but I don't know that they've successfully addressed this one comin’ up.
Well, if the money starts to run out then they usually throw in the towel pretty quickly. There's more than one way to winnow down the field. :)
It looks like it's going to be a beautiful day, so I'm off to run errands. I might even live dangerously and get my car washed. Usually when I do that it snows. lol!
It appears that once and probably future Republican presidential wanna-be Bobby Jindal is gonna give a hard-ass speech on the problems with Islam, in London, England, on Monday. (For our foreign readers… Bobby Jindal, current governor of Louisiana, qualifies as a ‘brown person’. He's American-born, but of Indian descent (Asia India--not native American aboriginal), and he's a Roman-Catholic, although he looks like he could easily be a Muslim or of Muslim descent.)
First thing is: I am not familiar with the author, Matthew Levitt, nor his ‘Program’ nor ‘Institute’. But, he writes like he knows his subject, and it looks to be worth a read. And it's not even all that long, so it won't be much of a waste of time if it's a waste of time:
I think perhaps we read too much into the split between ISIL and AQ. People who follow that path are going to do what they will regardless of who their leaders are. It is really only the leadership that is at odds, and that seems to me to be more to do with the rivalry between leaders themselves.
For instance, if al-Baghdadi were to be killed, there is nothing to say that ISIL and AQ wouldn't then just melt together. I suppose that could depend upon who has the best organizational skills.
At the moment ISIL seems to have the stronger organization. That may be because of their recent successes in Iraq and Syria. But if they run into difficulties maintaining their momentum that may change.
Here is an op-ed article I found rather interesting.
She makes a good point, although maybe not in the way she intended. She wonders why there was no gathering of world leaders in Pakistan to decry the killing of over 100 students there. Her point seems to have been that the West didn't care. However, as I see it the point was that the leaders of Pakistan didn't care enough to invite anyone.
*sigh* She also makes clear that many Muslims don't seem to get the point of why people were so upset about what happened at Charlie Hebdo. It wasn't that we necessarily agree with what they said, but that we believe they have a fundamental right to express it. For us the attack was on more than people.
"However, as I see it the point was that the leaders of Pakistan didn't care enough to invite anyone."
As I see it, the Pakis bred their own vipers. It would have been different if the Western, Catholic, Knights of Columbus had been the ones to arrange the attacks on the Paki school, or if they'd been hailed in the West as a strike against Muslims on behalf of civilization. But they bred those bastards themselves. Snake handlers gonna get bit now and again. It's gonna happen. We'll not be crying in the streets for them when it happens.
But, you are correct about how the two cultures are looking at this entirely differently. I'd go on at length on my theory on that, but it's late and I'm tired. Here's an article I saw earlier that I didn't bother to link up here, but that you might want to also consider. Muslims angered by the West's objections to being killed in the streets of Paris. I have some problems with some of the author's premises, but it's worth noting how the cultural differences make a difference in what one sees.
Duke University has cancelled their plans to broadcast the Muslim "Call to Prayer" (a/k/a ‘the adhan’) the from their university tower after receiving some flack from just ‘bout everybody. Broadminded persons (or, at least, persons intending to be perceived as broadminded) gathered at the base of the tower Friday and played a recording of the prayer call anyway, and passed out transcripts in English.
"The Duke University Chapel with its Gothic spires is for many the symbol of Duke, which has historic and symbolic ties with the United Methodist Church. The university is non-sectarian today."
…which sort of answers Lynnette's earlier question on that subject.
All sorts of things in that first article that I would like to comment on. Let's start with this:
Even Pope Francis has weighed in, oddly enough, on the side of offended Muslims and against the lionization of Charlie Hebdo. “You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others,” the pope said on Thursday, giving voice to seething Muslim resentment.
He finds this odd? No, it is entirely logical from the Pope's standing as a religious leader. Faith is something that is very important to people. To have others mock it is hurtful. And while I am not overly religious I would not go out of my way to make fun of those who are, which is why I probably never would have bought Charlie Hebdo, had I lived in France. It's also why I'm not overly interested in listening to Bill Maher. However, they have a right to their opinions and to express them, as long as they are not advocating violence against anyone.
I understand the author's concern that Europe's reaction may empower recruitment for AQ or ISIL. But not because of the rally, that was an emotional outpouring of grief that they were certainly entitled to feel. If something similar had happened in Pakistan after the slaughter of those 134 schoolchildren I would have respected that too. What does concern me is the show of force on the streets. Raiding possible terrorist cells is one thing, but having armed military on the streets is a little extreme. And if you feel their presence is directed at you, that can certainly exacerbate feelings of alienation.
Rats! I'm running short of time. I'm going to a play today, which I had totally forgotten about until my friend called me yesterday to remind me. So....gotta run...
And poorly organized I thought, which led to it not wrapping up particularly coherently. I didn't link to it originally, but it wandered all around your subject, so I re-thought that decision, and I thought you might like to look it over, so I threw it in there at the last after all. In defense of that later decision, it did have a lot of points it at least touched on.
"…but having armed military on the streets is a little extreme."
They don't have the special American resistance to the notion of using the military for civilian crowd control that we have. The ‘posse comitatus’ creation is a peculiarly American artifact. (On the other hand, they don't expect every cop to be carryin’ a gun 24/7 either.)
And, now that I think about it… They're liable to tell ya that the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department looked, to European eyes, suspiciously like a ‘armed military on the streets’ back in August of ‘14 when the troubles there first broke out.
I might agree that the police presence in Ferguson was also overdone, except that there you had looting and the setting of fires. Actions that were inappropriate, illegal and harmful to businesses and residents of the city.
I somehow don't think that you were going to see gangs of terrorists assaulting businesses and people in Europe, necessitating that large of a military presence. It just seemed to feed the fear, which really was what Al Qaeda was looking for.
"…except that there you had looting and the setting of fires…"
My point was that European policing methods differ. They don't necessarily have military grade police riot squads ready to go in all their major cities, virtually on call. So, they use the actual military. It's not that big a leap beyond what we've got available but under police command.
I suppose the next time they'll pick a colour and do one of 'em "color revolutions". That would be the height of irony to see that sort of subversion tactics used against the US itself.
They don't necessarily have military grade police riot squads ready to go in all their major cities, virtually on call. So, they use the actual military.
Yes, I understand. My question was, was it necessary? I mean beyond reacting to the attacks themselves and providing security for some specific possible targets? It just seemed to me that they were overreacting. The same question was raised for some of the police presence in Ferguson, I believe. But there outside agitators made sure that there was something to have to react to.
The widely distributed photos and film clips purporting to show European leaders ‘leading’ the recent protests in Paris were faked. It was a staged photo op on a side street with French government workers and staff from the foreign delegations posing as ‘crowd’; with a tight shot and controlled camera angles used to obscure the fact that the rest of the street was empty.
Obama may have just gotten a bit of a bit of a reprieve on that one. Our European friends won't want to talk ‘bout it quite so much as before.
The widely distributed photos and film clips purporting to show European leaders ‘leading’ the recent protests in Paris were faked.
lol! Oh, that sounds like something straight out of Photo-Op 101! Yup, I'm starting to agree that it was probably just as well that Obama wasn't there.
"But there outside agitators made sure that there was something to have to react to."
The Ferguson cops showed up in full battle gear immediately upon the first crowd collecting. (Apparently they were eager to use their new toys.) There was some discussion of that as an overreaction that may have helped incite the crowd. The ‘outside agitators’ didn't start arriving until a couple of nights into the protests. So, you may want to re-examine your cause and effect conclusions there.
In any case, I wasn't so much commenting on whether or not the crowd required that level of control, but rather noting that the Europeans tend to use real military where we rely on militarized state and local forces. (It's a ‘separation of powers’ thing over here, where most law enforcement is the responsibility of the sovereign states, and federal intervention is an admission that they've already totally failed to manage the problem. That doesn't come up in most European countries, and so they're not so offended by the ‘real’ military showing up and standing by instead of police riot squads. As to whether or not those military forces overreacted, or were even used extensively, I have no opinion; I haven't the facts to form an opinion.)
There was some discussion of that as an overreaction that may have helped incite the crowd.
It could have been, yes. My point with the military presence in Europe, as opposed to the rally, being the thorn in the side of those willing to cause trouble.
The ‘outside agitators’ didn't start arriving until a couple of nights into the protests.
I suppose it would be necessary to look at arrests to find out who was actually participating in looting, setting fires and causing damage to property. I do recall black owned businesses were also targets, so it might be more of a case of general civil disobedience to gain attention, just as Marcus' article mentions.
It's a ‘separation of powers’ thing over here, where most law enforcement is the responsibility of the sovereign states, and federal intervention is an admission that they've already totally failed to manage the problem.
Yes, I believe that was the reason that the military response to Hurricane Katrina was so slow. They needed the state's permission to deploy.
That doesn't come up in most European countries, and so they're not so offended by the ‘real’ military showing up and standing by instead of police riot squads.
I was thinking in terms of quantity.
As to whether or not those military forces overreacted, or were even used extensively, I have no opinion; I haven't the facts to form an opinion
My reaction is purely based on television coverage, and given the tricks the camera can play, the impression I have gotten may be in error. I suppose the final judgement on that will be made in the coming days and weeks, if there are increased tensions in Europe between various groups.
"Good timing for the President's State of the Union address."
I'm thinking the Republicans are going to have trouble this next presidential election. (I almost couldn't believe Romney came into his debute 2016 speach trying to sell himself specifically and Republicans generally as the answer to rising ‘income inequality’ in the United States--that was a little over-the-top. They're in serious trouble if they think they can pull that off.)
"Interesting that you use the term subversive tactics…"
I was more intrigued by the theory that George Soros began ‘funding’ the Ferguson protests clear back into the early 1990's. And, Marcus wonders sometimes why some people think he's a sucker for weird and even outright hairbrained conspiracy theories.
"I wasn't so much commenting on whether or not the crowd required that level of control, but rather noting that the Europeans tend to use real military where we rely on militarized state and local forces."
Again - Europe is very different from coutry to country.
In some southern European countries paramilitary police is something completely normal. Like the Carabinieri in Italy or the Guardia Civil in Spain. In those countries the regular military can be called in much more easily than in some other countries.
In, for instance, Sweden or Germany it would take a hell of a lot more to let the military perform policing tasks.
Germany has a fairly strong and well equipped riot police potential, and Sweden's got, what? 8-9 million people? You probably got more cops in Stockholm and Malmö than you could find actual army troops to send in.
I find the Republicans have latched onto a new theme in the last couple of days. There are repeated references to how Obama is ‘trolling’ them, supposedly hoping to induce rage and rants. I wonder if this is supposed to warn us of a new round of Republican rage and rants to be coming out after tonight's State of the Union address?
I'm not sure who's the ‘they’ who should have been vetting Jindal. As far as I know he's out on his own over there, looking to be able to claim some foreign policy credentials for his appearances on FoxNews. (Other networks might ask embarrassing questions about how vacationing in Europe for a couple of weeks qualifies as foreign policy chops, but Jindal can pretty much count on FoxNews asking no such questions.) On the other hand, his speech apparently is having the effect he hoped for on the audience he was shooting for. The conservative publication National Review has pronounced it ‘brilliant’, although there are some indications they wrote that before he left, but after receiving a faxed copy of his speech and of his itinerary. (I think they still use faxes over there.)
However, FoxNews is hedging on their reporting there, I think they've even gone so far as to apologize (in France and in French, but not in English and not back here--reminds me of Arafat denying in English what he was saying back home in Arabic).
Jindal was (last report) trying to stand by his statements. Of course, he had the disadvantage of being queried in English.
Word is coming out of Yemen that the Shia rebels, who'd begun their activities in the northeast of Yemen, have taken control of the Presidential Palace. This'll scramble things. We were supporting a fairly ineffective, muddling-type mostly secular, largely Sunni dominated government. Al-Qaeda is in there too, but they're no friends to the Shai rebels any more than they are to the now-prior government.
I've been listening to about three hours worth of Radio Right-Wing, and the evening news, and about 30 minutes of the PBS News opening tonight.
I can say with some considerable confidence that the Republicans, as a group, are pissed off already, and they haven't even had to sit through Obama's speech yet.
The actual experience is unlikely to cure them of the grumps they've developed in the anticipation.
I listened to Obama's speech. It was good. I also listened to the Republican response. It also was good, better than it has been in the past. I don't know how much agreement they will find, however.
Lynnette: "it appears Fox News is getting flak from that "no-go zone" story they have been peddling."
Fact is though, I'm pretty sure that some areas of Paris ARE in fact no-go zones for non-immigrant non-muslims, at least if you count the suburbs. Remember the riots a few years back? What was it, 5000 cars burnt over a few days?
And parts of Birmingham DO have sharia "police" on the streets, even if of course it's not an islamic city as a whole. There are plenty of youtube vids with self-proclaimed islamic "morality police" harassing people over public drinking or their clothing.
FOX has been exaggerating the problems with no-go zones in european cities, but it's not like the problems are non-existant. And the problems we do have are not diminishing but are growing.
"I don't know how much agreement they will find, however."
I presume you mean agreement ‘with one another’? I don't think either of them moved the needle on that one. I found Obama's speech to be interesting, kinda unusual for a State of the Union, but then he's in an unusual position. Ayotte's speech was a decent modification of a generic Republican campaign stump speech, but well delivered, which is hard thing to do with the generic Republican campaign stump speech. I give her points for that over the boys who've tried that job over the last couple of years.
I'm not gonna guess on what's happening in the edges of suburban Paris, nor am I gonna try to figure out what's ‘plenty’ of youtube vids of Birmingham's more radical Muslim elements taken behind the back of law enforcement. But, I will make this guess… The Muslims' ‘no-go’ zones in Birmingham last just so long as there's no Bobbies' around to be told off. Tryin’ to make that one fly in face of the real police would last a grand total of exactly once in a row before they'd have cops crawlin’ all over the block.
And I see that was Ernst gave the official Republican response, not Ayotte. (I didn't actually know what either of them looked like up until now; I caught the speech, but had missed the introduction.)
I think what Jindal was implying goes a little further than what you mean. His take was more in line with Fox News. For an elected official of the US to get his facts so stretched isn't exactly confidence building. *sigh*
Yes, I can see where there are still serious problems. I'm not sure Jindal's opinions are of help, though. There are so many facets to this issue that need to be addressed: feelings of alienation from the native culture, jobs, young people's need to rebel, events taking place back in immigrant's home countries, recruiters for extremist groups who take advantage of any weakness they may find. Some of these are internal social issues to be sure but some will take cooperation from other countries to help solve.
I give her points for that over the boys who've tried that job over the last couple of years.
Yes, I think her delivery had shades of Michele Bachmann to it, with a tad more sincerity thrown in.
What I always find so irritating at the State of the Union speech is the "background" behind the President. In this case it was Biden with the supportive face, while Boehner wore the hang dog disapproving one. I realize opposition is necessary to help evaluate policy and examine other ideas, but couldn't they at least both look awake and somewhat respectful?
A priest and a pastor are standing at the side of a road holding up a sign that reads "The end is near! Turn around now before it's too late!" A passing driver yells, "You guys are nuts!" and speeds past them. From around the curve, they hear screeching tires-then a big splash. The priest turns to the pastor and says, " Do you think we should just put up a sign that says 'Bridge Out' instead?"
FoxNews has, by the way, apologized in English. I'm not sure when that came out, but Glenn Beck is highly outraged; I'm not sure why, but it has something to do with FoxNews apologizing in English.
There's another thing I noticed… There were a bunch of ‘distractions’ available for the crowd in the seats--cell phones going off, people texting (presumably tweeting live-time to keep up their numbers on Twitter), folks actually walking around. I don't know it it's a function of the distain the Republicans hold for this president, or if it's a new dynamic brought in by the teabaggers, who're distainful of all federal government, or mayb a combination of both. But, congressional respect for the President has gone out the window. Started out, or at least was most conspicuously displayed, with that guy who shouted out ‘You Lie!’ at Obama during an earlier State of the Union speech, and it's gotten worse every time since. I wonder if it'll persist beyond this Presidency and into the next one?
Consensus opinion developing among Republican legislators is that the thing to do about Obama's SoTU speech is to ignore it; act like it never happened; they didn't hear a thing.
There were a bunch of ‘distractions’ available for the crowd in the seats--cell phones going off, people texting (presumably tweeting live-time to keep up their numbers on Twitter),
Cell phones are rather ubiquitous now. Turning them off should have been required. They do in movie theaters and during plays, why not during the State of the Union Speech?
...folks actually walking around...
And they could save the strolling for their own time. Why bother coming at all if you can't sit still?
It has occurred to me to wonder… The right-wingers (even Republicans in general) have vested so much of their political energy and focus on despising all things Obama… I wonder what they're gonna do for an encore when he's no longer Prez?
Can they raise that same level of animosity towards Hillary? Won't that risk their already tenuous standing with female voters in general (blacks make up only 12% of the American population and generally vote in lower numbers than 12%, and they weren't gonna get many of those anyway, so it didn't much matter with hating on Obama, but start pullin’ that crap on a woman… Liable to be a whole ‘nother ball game with a voting block they can't afford to lose by five to one or better).
Lee: "Can they raise that same level of animosity towards Hillary?"
Don't they really loathe Hillary though? OK, I get your point whether they would dare to be as hostile towards her given the female vote, but will they be diciplined enough not to act on feelings?
On that topic, do you take for granted that Hillary will be the candidate for the Democrats? Is that more or less a given?
The Republicans, or any opposition party for that matter, will always find something to pick on. It's the nature of the game.
No doubt they will drag out the pantsuits again.
I haven't really heard of anyone else, Marcus, besides Hilary for the Democratic nomination. But, obviously, there will be others in the race. It's still early yet.
Last I heard today Hilary beats all of the possible Republican candidates currently in the spotlight by double digits. That may change, of course, it's a long way until election day, but it doesn't really bode well for the Republicans.
It would appear that most of the Arabian peninsula is, or will soon be, in a general uproar. There'll have to be a new government of some sort or other in Yemen (no real guarantees there that Yemen will continue as a single, unified country; it's been divided into little Yemens before, and recently). Saudi Arabia will likely hold together for the foreseeable future, but there's gonna be some serious maneuvering going on for who takes his seat on the throne after the current King--who's in his eighties already I hear.
I am thinking that much of the Middle East is one crisis away from violent change.
King Abdullah was in his 90's, so the age of his successor may not really be an issue. I suppose it would depend on his supporters, their strength and numbers. I don't know much about any of the leadership there.
Yemen looks like a complete muddle. And I doubt we have any inclination to intervene in any way, even if they have been an ally in the war on terror. I fear it may turn out to be a terrorist safe haven, such as Afghanistan was.
Change needs to come from within, but unfortunately everyone over there is so focused on blaming the West, specifically the US, for their problems that they are letting the fox into the henhouse. Getting him out again will be an extremely arduous task.
"King Abdullah was in his 90's, so the age of his successor may not really be an issue."
It's not an issue per se, but it is relevant to what comes next. King Salman is the last of that line, last living male member of the House of Saud. There will be a new dynasty taking over next time, and that's gonna come ‘round fairly soon as these things are reckoned; which means there'll be a bunch of scheming going on, starting yesterday.
Not really. He's one of the last of the brothers who were children of Ibn Saud, the founder of KSA. There's a 10 year younger brother as well. But the succession after Salman will probably go to the next generation, the male grandchildren of Ibn Saud, with Salmans nephew named as crown prince. So it's not really a new dynasty, rather a generation shift within the same dynasty.
But, of course, there are lots of grand children to Ibn Saud, so it's not inconceivable that there will be some more struggle for positions going forward.
"Salman stands to be succeeded in turn by Prince Muqrin, 69, [the half-brother Marcus mentions] the deputy crown prince, an RAF- trained fighter pilot and former intelligence chief whose prospects are often questioned because he was born to a Yemeni rather than a Saudi mother of ‘approved’ tribal lineage." Guardian
116 comments:
I find it curious that there's so much European angst being generated over the murders of the satirists at the magazine offices, and nothing much being said about the murders of the Jews at the delicatessen. Our French friends don't seem all that bent ‘bout the latter.
Lee, I believe that's a case of jouralists being outraged over the death of journalists, which drowns out the other story.
We've seen the sae in Sweden when swedes are captured by extremists abroad and held hostage. If they are journalists it's non stop from coverage. If they are mere mortals it's soon forgotten.
I wouldn't read any anti-semitism into this.
front coverage
I'm seeing public demonstrations in the streets of Paris--more than just journos and their cameramen showing up for those.
Now this is a rather depressing assessment.
It's gonna be a long war.
I decided to check the winefalcon for the conspiracy nutjob take on the Islamist attacks in France. He did not disappoint. Turns out that he's pegged it as a conspiracy by the French ‘deep state’ and the ‘AngloZionist Empire’ to make Muslims look bad. Saker
(This is the same guy runnin’ the drivel about the Ukrainians runnin’ the show in Kiev being Nazis.)
Hmmm...from the Saker's recent post it appears that the difficult financial times that Russia is having have filtered down. He is appealing for financial help.
It seems that ISIS is trying to become more active in KSA.
Apparently Nigeria is incapable of or unwilling to deal with Boko Haram.
Jihadi just been makin’ a big week of it, ain't they?
Lee: "I decided to check the winefalcon for the conspiracy nutjob take on the Islamist attacks in France. He did not disappoint. Turns out that he's pegged it as a conspiracy by the French ‘deep state’ and the ‘AngloZionist Empire’ to make Muslims look bad."
There's a whole bunch of things in his latest posts that had me shaking my head. Perhaps the most obvious one is his suggestion that those "Imperial" powers he speak of are using their media to try to bring about a civil war between muslims ad non muslims in Europe. What?
From what I can tell most politicians and most media, certanly the well established ones, are pointing out over, over and over again that the terrorism we've just seen has nothing to do with Islam and muslims. Even to the extent that you ask yourself: well isn't it relevant at all that it was carried out in the name of Islam?
That the establishment is trying to increase hatred is something I have seen zero examples of. Yet Saker seems to think this is the real agenda here.
I don't give much credence to Saker's opinions on various topics. They are colored by an agenda.
In the case of Charlie Hebdo, as far as I can tell they were an equal opportunity satirical publication. It was not just the prophet Mohammed and Islam that were targets.
I firmly believe that this is a fight between the extremists and the moderates of the world. It is just that at this point in time it is being wrapped in religion.
What is new is that there are people who are taking advantage of weaknesses within our societies that have not been properly addressed by our governments. In the case of Europe they are using immigrant communities that have not assimilated well enough to feel a part of the country they are living in.
I am watching the marches in Paris on CNN. I think someone seriously miscalculated in this attack. It was directed at a value that so many hold dear, freedom of speech. They have attacked something that both the right and the left in civil society support. It is truly France's 9/11.
It is sounding like the Charlie Hebdo attack and the attack on the Jewish grocery were coordinated before hand. That is, the grocery was not a target of opportunity. So then we would have to add an attack on religious freedom as well.
Amazing crowds. I stand in admiration of the French people.
"…most politicians and most media…[etc]…the terrorism
we've just seen has nothing to do with Islam and muslims."
Most of the Glenn Hannibaugh crowd, a good portion of the teabagger zealots, and a sizable portion of FoxNews on-air personalities, would beg to differ. They rather object to people dismissing their right to categorically hate Muslims and Islam across the board, they often object rather loudly in fact. Happily, they haven't managed to make a real dent in the general public perception that most Muslims aren't gone jihadi just yet. This is good, ‘cause we start treating all Muslims like they're all terrorists, we're likely to get more terrorists. In fact, right now, what a jihadi bent American Muslim has to fear most is that he'll get turned in by another Muslim, pointed out as somebody who should be watched. But, they've gotta talk some or they can't recruit nor organize. Talk too much and another Muslim will turn ‘em in as a potential danger.
Looks like Anonymous made good on it's threat.
It would appear that the Obama administration sorta fumbled the ball on getting a representative to the the march in Paris. The Europeans noticed. Our Secretary of State is supposed to have a special affinity for the French, be something of a Francophil; he seems to have not managed to carry the ball there where one might suspect he'd be on top of the play. Gotta figure the White House is not happy. Got an entire Cabinet Department just for that diplomacy stuff, and nobody picked up on it.
And, the jihadi have struck back on the cyber front, hacking into a twitter-type page belonging to the U.S. military's CENTCOM (Central Command).
All in all, not the best day Obama's had even just this year.
Yeah, there was a lot of press about the US not having a high ranking official at the march. You would think that would have been a no brainer once they heard it was going to take place. However, it might be just as well, especially if Obama himself had considered going. The security for a presidential visit just makes it more difficult for the locals to get around. And it was actually rather nice to see other people getting out there at the forefront of this thing. We've been talking about it since 9/11. It's really a worldwide issue, not just a US or French one. Others need to take the lead now and then.
What would have been an ever nicer picture is Abbas and Netanyahu arm in arm. ;)
I hadn't heard that about Centcom's twitter being hacked. I suppose they chose us because Anonymous would be kind of hard to find...
French President Francois Hollande sent a message to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and specifically told Netanyahu that he was not welcome to attend the ‘Je suis Charlie’ in Paris yesterday. No anti-Semitism there says Marcus. Netanyahu came anyway. Israeli sources claim that Hollande later told Netanyahu that he will not be forgiven for this.
Anti-semitism? I'd call it political bickering. Here's Haaretz take on it, posted on Reddit because Haaretz has a pay-wall:
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/2s54v9/hollande_asked_netanyahu_not_to_attend_paris/
"I'd call it political bickering."
No doubt you would. However, I don't recall any suggestion being made that Hollande had also asked Abbas not to come (although he supposedly did specifically extend an invitation to Abbas once he discovered that Netanyahu had decided to attend after all; I rather doubt that Abbas' proposed attendance would have prompted Hollande to go out of his way to specifically ask for Netanyahu to come).
@ Lynnette,
PBS Frontline tonight: "Putin's Way" (corruption and criminality in Putin's government). Sometimes their stuff is worth a look. I'm gonna look in on that one.
Marcus,
Did you read a little farther in that comments section?
I loved this exchange:
It's possible that Israel has been funding ISIS.
permalinkparent
[–]flying87 3 points 19 hours ago
Its also possible Hollande is a lizard person and part of the Illuminati
ROFL!
Whatever...anyway, some attended that weren't expected to and some were no shows. It sounds like all the weddings I've ever attended. ;)
Usually PBS runs the good stuff at 9:00. I'll see if I can stay awake. :) That does sound interesting. Or, if I miss it, I may be able to find it on YouTube later.
110 people own 35% of the wealth in Russia.
Nothing has changed in that country.
"10 people own 35% of the wealth in Russia."
I suspect the winefalcon may very well disapprove of that program. He may have some things to say regarding our .0001% and the relative sizes of the two economies, and who's the bigger thieves in the larger scheme of things. Mostly though, he's liable to be apoplectic whatever else he may be.
In the meantime… I notice that al-Qaeda in Yemen is proudly taking credit for the recent attacks in France, and the Pakistani are holding memorial ceremonies and parades honoring the dead attackers.
Scientists have discovered what's been causing the ‘browning’ of the Taj Mahal in recent decades. Extensive study reveals that it's a ‘light absorbing particulate matter’, a/k/a ‘dust’.
David Ignatias can generally be counted on to talk sense. Here's some sense from him, from yesterday's Washington Post, on the subject of what's the Wrong Response to Islamic terrorism.
While I am not an expert, I think I would agree with all of what David Ignatias had to say, except for the messenger in this statement:
A good example of what’s needed was Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi’s recent call for a “religious revolution” against violent extremism.
He's right, but a respected religious leader, such as an Imam, or a former jihadist, who has first hand knowledge, should be the messengers of first choice. Sissi is simply not well respected enough, and in fact may suffer from some of the same failings as the religious extremists in some people's views.
He may have some things to say regarding our .0001% and the relative sizes of the two economies, and who's the bigger thieves in the larger scheme of things.
I suppose if you are looking purely at amount of wealth, yes, he may have a point. However, if you are looking at the effects on the population, then I may quibble on whose theft has caused the most damage to people's lives. Considering that the other point made by the Russian historian on that program pertained to average per capita income, I mean. Her example being that India was doing better than Russia. Wasn't it something like an average of $871?
I don't know if this is true, but I didn't realize that Russia even had anyone in Syria gathering intelligence on ISIL.
"Sissi is simply not well respected enough…"
He's nevertheless gonna get a better hearing within the Islamic world than is Obama or Hollande or any other of our folks.
It's a start.
Duke University is going to start playing the Muslim call to prayer over the campus loudspeakers every Friday. Won't that be nice?
Duke University is going to start playing the Muslim call to prayer over the campus loudspeakers every Friday. Won't that be nice?
Hmmm...is Duke a religious school? I wouldn't think it necessary if it isn't. Just like I wouldn't think a focus on any other religion would be necessary.
Do they ring church bells on Sunday?
Duke started out as a religious school; I don't know how tightly they adhere to the original mission, but they do ring their church bells on Sundays.
Still, if they're gonna do this, I think the timing could be better…
Yes. While logically it is understood that the majority of Muslims would not participate in something like what took place in France, there are still raw feelings.
Meanwhile, it appears that Saudia Arabia is in the process of building a wall in an effort to deal with ISIL.
One wonders if the Saudi wall will be denounced in Europe with the same fervor they have for the Israeli walling back Hamas?
Will anyone even notice?
House Republicans at their retreat/confab with the Senate Republicans in Hershey, Pennsylvania are pushing for a vote on a bill designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. (Michele Bachmann is the sponsor--she's not gonna be there much longer, but she's got an ax to grind on the way out.)
Lee: "One wonders if the Saudi wall will be denounced in Europe with the same fervor they have for the Israeli walling back Hamas?"
Lots of europeans and european political parties have little to say about that wall other than it's regrettable that it's needed.
Then there are also lots who, just as you point out, denounce it. But they are far from ALL europeans.
"Then there are also lots who, just as you point out,
denounce it…"
Reckon they'll have the same outlook on the Saudi's wall, do ya?
@ Lynnette,
Had you noticed the right-wingers in the House have come up with the genius plan to de-fund the Department of Homeland Security in retaliation for Obama deciding to not waste resources rounding up illegal immigrants who've not actually broken the law? (This is what passes for genius among our right-wingers.)
Michele Bachmann is the sponsor
I'm not surprised. Somehow, though, I can't get as bent out of shape over the Muslim Brotherhood when we have something like ISIL and AQ roaming the world.
The Republicans are apparently still stuck in stupid mode. Very, very unfortunate for them...and for us.
"Reckon they'll have the same outlook on the Saudi's wall, do ya?"
Nope. I reckon, like Lynnette was guessing, that that wall will likely not get mentioned much at all.
"…still stuck in stupid mode. Very, very unfortunate for them. "
Short-term, it's not such a bad thing for them. They've managed to keep their ‘base’ in a constant state of high anxiety, which translates into higher than average political participation, both rate and intensity. This has, for the last decade or so, compensated for their dwindling numbers overall.
Long-term, well, long-term everybody's plans will go to shit eventually anyway. If nothing else, a fool will eventually get lucky, a shot in the dark will connect, and ya'll have to adjust for that.¹ Meantime, they're compensating for their diminished numbers with frenzy and fervor.
―――――――――――――――――――
¹ (Petes will win an argument eventually.)
Meantime, they're compensating for their diminished numbers with frenzy and fervor.
When someone wants attention frenzy and fervor are key components of attracting it. :)
Might want to fill that metaphor in a bit… It was fear, frenzy, and fervor that keeps ‘em runnin’ still even.
Fear also works real good at concentrating one's attention.
In order to maintain the necessary level of fear, they need to do more than get merely ‘stuck’ on stupid. They have to seize it with some enthusiasm; grasp it tightly; clutch it closely, never let it go.
I think we're entitled to a wander even further down this weekend side-trip into the sometimes arcane world of American electoral politics (as the Republicans did a couple of significant things towards the end of this week).
I've been wondering what exactly the Republicans are going to do about accommodating their nominating process to the realities of the 2016 presidential elections. Last time they had eight or nine or so campaigning for the nomination. (I seem to recall something being said about ‘Mitt Romney and the Seven Dwarves’.) They took six months and a couple dozen televised "debates".
This time they've trimmed the campaign season down to where they think they can wrap it up in just a couple of months and nine debates total, but they've got a couple dozen candidates competing for the nomination. I'm not entirely sure the losing candidates will know they've lost by the time the ‘winning’ candidate and the national committee, the RNC, are ready to wind it up and start the race against the Democrats. And that could prove disconcerting for the nominal ‘winner’ of the Republican nomination. It seems to me the Republicans may have finally successfully scheduled their last presidential nomination process, but I don't know that they've successfully addressed this one comin’ up.
Well, if the money starts to run out then they usually throw in the towel pretty quickly. There's more than one way to winnow down the field. :)
It looks like it's going to be a beautiful day, so I'm off to run errands. I might even live dangerously and get my car washed. Usually when I do that it snows. lol!
It appears that once and probably future Republican presidential wanna-be Bobby Jindal is gonna give a hard-ass speech on the problems with Islam, in London, England, on Monday. (For our foreign readers… Bobby Jindal, current governor of Louisiana, qualifies as a ‘brown person’. He's American-born, but of Indian descent (Asia India--not native American aboriginal), and he's a Roman-Catholic, although he looks like he could easily be a Muslim or of Muslim descent.)
First thing is: I am not familiar with the author, Matthew Levitt, nor his ‘Program’ nor ‘Institute’. But, he writes like he knows his subject, and it looks to be worth a read. And it's not even all that long, so it won't be much of a waste of time if it's a waste of time:
ISIL and al-Qaeda: "Frenemies"
That was an interesting article, Lee.
I think perhaps we read too much into the split between ISIL and AQ. People who follow that path are going to do what they will regardless of who their leaders are. It is really only the leadership that is at odds, and that seems to me to be more to do with the rivalry between leaders themselves.
For instance, if al-Baghdadi were to be killed, there is nothing to say that ISIL and AQ wouldn't then just melt together. I suppose that could depend upon who has the best organizational skills.
At the moment ISIL seems to have the stronger organization. That may be because of their recent successes in Iraq and Syria. But if they run into difficulties maintaining their momentum that may change.
Here is an op-ed article I found rather interesting.
She makes a good point, although maybe not in the way she intended. She wonders why there was no gathering of world leaders in Pakistan to decry the killing of over 100 students there. Her point seems to have been that the West didn't care. However, as I see it the point was that the leaders of Pakistan didn't care enough to invite anyone.
*sigh* She also makes clear that many Muslims don't seem to get the point of why people were so upset about what happened at Charlie Hebdo. It wasn't that we necessarily agree with what they said, but that we believe they have a fundamental right to express it. For us the attack was on more than people.
"However, as I see it the point was that the leaders of Pakistan didn't care
enough to invite anyone."
As I see it, the Pakis bred their own vipers. It would have been different if the Western, Catholic, Knights of Columbus had been the ones to arrange the attacks on the Paki school, or if they'd been hailed in the West as a strike against Muslims on behalf of civilization. But they bred those bastards themselves. Snake handlers gonna get bit now and again. It's gonna happen. We'll not be crying in the streets for them when it happens.
But, you are correct about how the two cultures are looking at this entirely differently. I'd go on at length on my theory on that, but it's late and I'm tired.
Here's an article I saw earlier that I didn't bother to link up here, but that you might want to also consider. Muslims angered by the West's objections to being killed in the streets of Paris. I have some problems with some of the author's premises, but it's worth noting how the cultural differences make a difference in what one sees.
Duke University has cancelled their plans to broadcast the Muslim "Call to Prayer" (a/k/a ‘the adhan’) the from their university tower after receiving some flack from just ‘bout everybody. Broadminded persons (or, at least, persons intending to be perceived as broadminded) gathered at the base of the tower Friday and played a recording of the prayer call anyway, and passed out transcripts in English.
"The Duke University Chapel with its Gothic spires is for many the symbol of
Duke, which has historic and symbolic ties with the United Methodist
Church. The university is non-sectarian today."
…which sort of answers Lynnette's earlier question on that subject.
All sorts of things in that first article that I would like to comment on. Let's start with this:
Even Pope Francis has weighed in, oddly enough, on the side of offended Muslims and against the lionization of Charlie Hebdo. “You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others,” the pope said on Thursday, giving voice to seething Muslim resentment.
He finds this odd? No, it is entirely logical from the Pope's standing as a religious leader. Faith is something that is very important to people. To have others mock it is hurtful. And while I am not overly religious I would not go out of my way to make fun of those who are, which is why I probably never would have bought Charlie Hebdo, had I lived in France. It's also why I'm not overly interested in listening to Bill Maher. However, they have a right to their opinions and to express them, as long as they are not advocating violence against anyone.
I understand the author's concern that Europe's reaction may empower recruitment for AQ or ISIL. But not because of the rally, that was an emotional outpouring of grief that they were certainly entitled to feel. If something similar had happened in Pakistan after the slaughter of those 134 schoolchildren I would have respected that too. What does concern me is the show of force on the streets. Raiding possible terrorist cells is one thing, but having armed military on the streets is a little extreme. And if you feel their presence is directed at you, that can certainly exacerbate feelings of alienation.
Rats! I'm running short of time. I'm going to a play today, which I had totally forgotten about until my friend called me yesterday to remind me. So....gotta run...
"All sorts of things in that first article…"
And poorly organized I thought, which led to it not wrapping up particularly coherently. I didn't link to it originally, but it wandered all around your subject, so I re-thought that decision, and I thought you might like to look it over, so I threw it in there at the last after all.
In defense of that later decision, it did have a lot of points it at least touched on.
"…but having armed military on the streets is a little extreme."
They don't have the special American resistance to the notion of using the military for civilian crowd control that we have. The ‘posse comitatus’ creation is a peculiarly American artifact. (On the other hand, they don't expect every cop to be carryin’ a gun 24/7 either.)
And, now that I think about it… They're liable to tell ya that the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department looked, to European eyes, suspiciously like a ‘armed military on the streets’ back in August of ‘14 when the troubles there first broke out.
I might agree that the police presence in Ferguson was also overdone, except that there you had looting and the setting of fires. Actions that were inappropriate, illegal and harmful to businesses and residents of the city.
I somehow don't think that you were going to see gangs of terrorists assaulting businesses and people in Europe, necessitating that large of a military presence. It just seemed to feed the fear, which really was what Al Qaeda was looking for.
I see there was some kind of anti-Islam rally planned, which has now been cancelled due to opposition.
"…except that there you had looting and the setting of fires…"
My point was that European policing methods differ. They don't necessarily have military grade police riot squads ready to go in all their major cities, virtually on call. So, they use the actual military. It's not that big a leap beyond what we've got available but under police command.
Speaking of Ferguson:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all#pagebreak
I suppose the next time they'll pick a colour and do one of 'em "color revolutions". That would be the height of irony to see that sort of subversion tactics used against the US itself.
They don't necessarily have military grade police riot squads ready to go in all their major cities, virtually on call. So, they use the actual military.
Yes, I understand. My question was, was it necessary? I mean beyond reacting to the attacks themselves and providing security for some specific possible targets? It just seemed to me that they were overreacting. The same question was raised for some of the police presence in Ferguson, I believe. But there outside agitators made sure that there was something to have to react to.
The widely distributed photos and film clips purporting to show European leaders ‘leading’ the recent protests in Paris were faked. It was a staged photo op on a side street with French government workers and staff from the foreign delegations posing as ‘crowd’; with a tight shot and controlled camera angles used to obscure the fact that the rest of the street was empty.
Obama may have just gotten a bit of a bit of a reprieve on that one. Our European friends won't want to talk ‘bout it quite so much as before.
That would be the height of irony to see that sort of subversion tactics used against the US itself.
Interesting that you use the term subversive tactics in reference to George Soros and the various organizations he has funded, such as MoveOn.Org. :)
The widely distributed photos and film clips purporting to show European leaders ‘leading’ the recent protests in Paris were faked.
lol! Oh, that sounds like something straight out of Photo-Op 101! Yup, I'm starting to agree that it was probably just as well that Obama wasn't there.
Wealth inequality
Good timing for the President's State of the Union address.
"But there outside agitators made sure that there was something
to have to react to."
The Ferguson cops showed up in full battle gear immediately upon the first crowd collecting. (Apparently they were eager to use their new toys.) There was some discussion of that as an overreaction that may have helped incite the crowd. The ‘outside agitators’ didn't start arriving until a couple of nights into the protests. So, you may want to re-examine your cause and effect conclusions there.
In any case, I wasn't so much commenting on whether or not the crowd required that level of control, but rather noting that the Europeans tend to use real military where we rely on militarized state and local forces. (It's a ‘separation of powers’ thing over here, where most law enforcement is the responsibility of the sovereign states, and federal intervention is an admission that they've already totally failed to manage the problem. That doesn't come up in most European countries, and so they're not so offended by the ‘real’ military showing up and standing by instead of police riot squads. As to whether or not those military forces overreacted, or were even used extensively, I have no opinion; I haven't the facts to form an opinion.)
There was some discussion of that as an overreaction that may have helped incite the crowd.
It could have been, yes. My point with the military presence in Europe, as opposed to the rally, being the thorn in the side of those willing to cause trouble.
The ‘outside agitators’ didn't start arriving until a couple of nights into the protests.
I suppose it would be necessary to look at arrests to find out who was actually participating in looting, setting fires and causing damage to property. I do recall black owned businesses were also targets, so it might be more of a case of general civil disobedience to gain attention, just as Marcus' article mentions.
It's a ‘separation of powers’ thing over here, where most law enforcement is the responsibility of the sovereign states, and federal intervention is an admission that they've already totally failed to manage the problem.
Yes, I believe that was the reason that the military response to Hurricane Katrina was so slow. They needed the state's permission to deploy.
That doesn't come up in most European countries, and so they're not so offended by the ‘real’ military showing up and standing by instead of police riot squads.
I was thinking in terms of quantity.
As to whether or not those military forces overreacted, or were even used extensively, I have no opinion; I haven't the facts to form an opinion
My reaction is purely based on television coverage, and given the tricks the camera can play, the impression I have gotten may be in error. I suppose the final judgement on that will be made in the coming days and weeks, if there are increased tensions in Europe between various groups.
"Good timing for the President's State of the Union address."
I'm thinking the Republicans are going to have trouble this next presidential election. (I almost couldn't believe Romney came into his debute 2016 speach trying to sell himself specifically and Republicans generally as the answer to rising ‘income inequality’ in the United States--that was a little over-the-top. They're in serious trouble if they think they can pull that off.)
"Interesting that you use the term subversive tactics…"
I was more intrigued by the theory that George Soros began ‘funding’ the Ferguson protests clear back into the early 1990's. And, Marcus wonders sometimes why some people think he's a sucker for weird and even outright hairbrained conspiracy theories.
"I wasn't so much commenting on whether or not the crowd required that level of control, but rather noting that the Europeans tend to use real military where we rely on militarized state and local forces."
Again - Europe is very different from coutry to country.
In some southern European countries paramilitary police is something completely normal. Like the Carabinieri in Italy or the Guardia Civil in Spain. In those countries the regular military can be called in much more easily than in some other countries.
In, for instance, Sweden or Germany it would take a hell of a lot more to let the military perform policing tasks.
Germany has a fairly strong and well equipped riot police potential, and Sweden's got, what? 8-9 million people? You probably got more cops in Stockholm and Malmö than you could find actual army troops to send in.
I'm not sure if this guy had a really, really, bad day, or a really, really good day.
Perhaps an inquiry about his deductible would help clear that up?
I find the Republicans have latched onto a new theme in the last couple of days. There are repeated references to how Obama is ‘trolling’ them, supposedly hoping to induce rage and rants.
I wonder if this is supposed to warn us of a new round of Republican rage and rants to be coming out after tonight's State of the Union address?
Perhaps they would be better served if they spent their time vetting who they send to foreign countries.
*sigh*
I does sound as if Bobby Jindal made a rather poor showing when it came to facts on his recent trip.
I'm not sure who's the ‘they’ who should have been vetting Jindal. As far as I know he's out on his own over there, looking to be able to claim some foreign policy credentials for his appearances on FoxNews. (Other networks might ask embarrassing questions about how vacationing in Europe for a couple of weeks qualifies as foreign policy chops, but Jindal can pretty much count on FoxNews asking no such questions.)
On the other hand, his speech apparently is having the effect he hoped for on the audience he was shooting for. The conservative publication National Review has pronounced it ‘brilliant’, although there are some indications they wrote that before he left, but after receiving a faxed copy of his speech and of his itinerary. (I think they still use faxes over there.)
Aaaah, the plot thickens...it appears Fox News is getting flak from that "no-go zone" story they have been peddling.
I'm not sure who's the ‘they’ who should have been vetting Jindal.
Anyone who would actually like the Republican party to retain some shred of respect for their positions.
However, FoxNews is hedging on their reporting there, I think they've even gone so far as to apologize (in France and in French, but not in English and not back here--reminds me of Arafat denying in English what he was saying back home in Arabic).
Jindal was (last report) trying to stand by his statements. Of course, he had the disadvantage of being queried in English.
Word is coming out of Yemen that the Shia rebels, who'd begun their activities in the northeast of Yemen, have taken control of the Presidential Palace. This'll scramble things. We were supporting a fairly ineffective, muddling-type mostly secular, largely Sunni dominated government. Al-Qaeda is in there too, but they're no friends to the Shai rebels any more than they are to the now-prior government.
Yeah, a fine kettle of fish that is. Another state that could very easily go the way of Syria.
I've been listening to about three hours worth of Radio Right-Wing, and the evening news, and about 30 minutes of the PBS News opening tonight.
I can say with some considerable confidence that the Republicans, as a group, are pissed off already, and they haven't even had to sit through Obama's speech yet.
The actual experience is unlikely to cure them of the grumps they've developed in the anticipation.
I listened to Obama's speech. It was good. I also listened to the Republican response. It also was good, better than it has been in the past. I don't know how much agreement they will find, however.
Lynnette: "it appears Fox News is getting flak from that "no-go zone" story they have been peddling."
Fact is though, I'm pretty sure that some areas of Paris ARE in fact no-go zones for non-immigrant non-muslims, at least if you count the suburbs. Remember the riots a few years back? What was it, 5000 cars burnt over a few days?
And parts of Birmingham DO have sharia "police" on the streets, even if of course it's not an islamic city as a whole. There are plenty of youtube vids with self-proclaimed islamic "morality police" harassing people over public drinking or their clothing.
FOX has been exaggerating the problems with no-go zones in european cities, but it's not like the problems are non-existant. And the problems we do have are not diminishing but are growing.
"I don't know how much agreement they will find, however."
I presume you mean agreement ‘with one another’? I don't think either of them moved the needle on that one. I found Obama's speech to be interesting, kinda unusual for a State of the Union, but then he's in an unusual position. Ayotte's speech was a decent modification of a generic Republican campaign stump speech, but well delivered, which is hard thing to do with the generic Republican campaign stump speech. I give her points for that over the boys who've tried that job over the last couple of years.
I'm not gonna guess on what's happening in the edges of suburban Paris, nor am I gonna try to figure out what's ‘plenty’ of youtube vids of Birmingham's more radical Muslim elements taken behind the back of law enforcement. But, I will make this guess… The Muslims' ‘no-go’ zones in Birmingham last just so long as there's no Bobbies' around to be told off. Tryin’ to make that one fly in face of the real police would last a grand total of exactly once in a row before they'd have cops crawlin’ all over the block.
And I see that was Ernst gave the official Republican response, not Ayotte. (I didn't actually know what either of them looked like up until now; I caught the speech, but had missed the introduction.)
Marcus,
I think what Jindal was implying goes a little further than what you mean. His take was more in line with Fox News. For an elected official of the US to get his facts so stretched isn't exactly confidence building. *sigh*
Yes, I can see where there are still serious problems. I'm not sure Jindal's opinions are of help, though. There are so many facets to this issue that need to be addressed: feelings of alienation from the native culture, jobs, young people's need to rebel, events taking place back in immigrant's home countries, recruiters for extremist groups who take advantage of any weakness they may find. Some of these are internal social issues to be sure but some will take cooperation from other countries to help solve.
I give her points for that over the boys who've tried that job over the last couple of years.
Yes, I think her delivery had shades of Michele Bachmann to it, with a tad more sincerity thrown in.
What I always find so irritating at the State of the Union speech is the "background" behind the President. In this case it was Biden with the supportive face, while Boehner wore the hang dog disapproving one. I realize opposition is necessary to help evaluate policy and examine other ideas, but couldn't they at least both look awake and somewhat respectful?
Joke of the day:
A priest and a pastor are standing at the side of a road holding up a sign that reads "The end is near! Turn around now before it's too late!" A passing driver yells, "You guys are nuts!" and speeds past them. From around the curve, they hear screeching tires-then a big splash. The priest turns to the pastor and says, " Do you think we should just put up a sign that says 'Bridge Out' instead?"
FoxNews has, by the way, apologized in English. I'm not sure when that came out, but Glenn Beck is highly outraged; I'm not sure why, but it has something to do with FoxNews apologizing in English.
I'm not sure about Biden, but I thought Boehner was probably a bit drunk; one too many glasses of merlot; maybe more than one.
There's another thing I noticed… There were a bunch of ‘distractions’ available for the crowd in the seats--cell phones going off, people texting (presumably tweeting live-time to keep up their numbers on Twitter), folks actually walking around. I don't know it it's a function of the distain the Republicans hold for this president, or if it's a new dynamic brought in by the teabaggers, who're distainful of all federal government, or mayb a combination of both. But, congressional respect for the President has gone out the window. Started out, or at least was most conspicuously displayed, with that guy who shouted out ‘You Lie!’ at Obama during an earlier State of the Union speech, and it's gotten worse every time since.
I wonder if it'll persist beyond this Presidency and into the next one?
Consensus opinion developing among Republican legislators is that the thing to do about Obama's SoTU speech is to ignore it; act like it never happened; they didn't hear a thing.
There were a bunch of ‘distractions’ available for the crowd in the seats--cell phones going off, people texting (presumably tweeting live-time to keep up their numbers on Twitter),
Cell phones are rather ubiquitous now. Turning them off should have been required. They do in movie theaters and during plays, why not during the State of the Union Speech?
...folks actually walking around...
And they could save the strolling for their own time. Why bother coming at all if you can't sit still?
It has occurred to me to wonder… The right-wingers (even Republicans in general) have vested so much of their political energy and focus on despising all things Obama… I wonder what they're gonna do for an encore when he's no longer Prez?
Can they raise that same level of animosity towards Hillary? Won't that risk their already tenuous standing with female voters in general (blacks make up only 12% of the American population and generally vote in lower numbers than 12%, and they weren't gonna get many of those anyway, so it didn't much matter with hating on Obama, but start pullin’ that crap on a woman… Liable to be a whole ‘nother ball game with a voting block they can't afford to lose by five to one or better).
Lee: "Can they raise that same level of animosity towards Hillary?"
Don't they really loathe Hillary though? OK, I get your point whether they would dare to be as hostile towards her given the female vote, but will they be diciplined enough not to act on feelings?
On that topic, do you take for granted that Hillary will be the candidate for the Democrats? Is that more or less a given?
The Republicans, or any opposition party for that matter, will always find something to pick on. It's the nature of the game.
No doubt they will drag out the pantsuits again.
I haven't really heard of anyone else, Marcus, besides Hilary for the Democratic nomination. But, obviously, there will be others in the race. It's still early yet.
"I…do you take for granted that Hillary will be the candidate for the
Democrats? Is that more or less a given?"
Odds are. If somebody's gonna give her a good run for the money, they'd better be gettin’ started on it soon.
"No doubt they will drag out the pantsuits again."
Yeah, well, see, that's the sort of thing I think ain't gonna help. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that's gonna help ‘em.
lol!
Oh, no, you're not wrong!
Last I heard today Hilary beats all of the possible Republican candidates currently in the spotlight by double digits. That may change, of course, it's a long way until election day, but it doesn't really bode well for the Republicans.
It would appear that most of the Arabian peninsula is, or will soon be, in a general uproar. There'll have to be a new government of some sort or other in Yemen (no real guarantees there that Yemen will continue as a single, unified country; it's been divided into little Yemens before, and recently). Saudi Arabia will likely hold together for the foreseeable future, but there's gonna be some serious maneuvering going on for who takes his seat on the throne after the current King--who's in his eighties already I hear.
I am thinking that much of the Middle East is one crisis away from violent change.
King Abdullah was in his 90's, so the age of his successor may not really be an issue. I suppose it would depend on his supporters, their strength and numbers. I don't know much about any of the leadership there.
Yemen looks like a complete muddle. And I doubt we have any inclination to intervene in any way, even if they have been an ally in the war on terror. I fear it may turn out to be a terrorist safe haven, such as Afghanistan was.
Change needs to come from within, but unfortunately everyone over there is so focused on blaming the West, specifically the US, for their problems that they are letting the fox into the henhouse. Getting him out again will be an extremely arduous task.
"King Abdullah was in his 90's, so the age of his successor may not
really be an issue."
It's not an issue per se, but it is relevant to what comes next. King Salman is the last of that line, last living male member of the House of Saud. There will be a new dynasty taking over next time, and that's gonna come ‘round fairly soon as these things are reckoned; which means there'll be a bunch of scheming going on, starting yesterday.
Not really. He's one of the last of the brothers who were children of Ibn Saud, the founder of KSA. There's a 10 year younger brother as well. But the succession after Salman will probably go to the next generation, the male grandchildren of Ibn Saud, with Salmans nephew named as crown prince. So it's not really a new dynasty, rather a generation shift within the same dynasty.
But, of course, there are lots of grand children to Ibn Saud, so it's not inconceivable that there will be some more struggle for positions going forward.
"There's a 10 year younger brother as well."
I stand corrected.
"Salman stands to be succeeded in turn by Prince Muqrin, 69, [the
half-brother Marcus mentions] the deputy crown prince, an RAF-
trained fighter pilot and former intelligence chief whose prospects are
often questioned because he was born to a Yemeni rather than a
Saudi mother of ‘approved’ tribal lineage."
Guardian
Post a Comment