Whitaker's Butler is a tortured soul (largely the creation of screenwriter Danny Strong, who also wrote the Sarah Palin hatefest Game Change) who has known all kinds of heartbreak, but the Washington Post article about a real long-serving White House butler that was the original basis for the movie is free of the anguish or anger with which the movie is loaded. In the first two or three minutes there are references to two lynchings, a rape (of the butler's mother) and a racist murder (of his father). Essential for setting the quintessential victimology, and tone of hate, anger, and fear.
None of these things happened to the actual butler, who also didn't have an activist son or another son who died in the Vietnam War. Not sure I could even eat my popcorn with all of that guilt building up.
#2
You mean it's not a movie about how Gerard Butler's character saves the White House? Color me disappointed. I was looking forward to hearing "Tonight we dine in hell the State Room!"
#5
The victorious write the history and, sometimes, the "history" writes the victorious.
I thought divisiveness was supposed to be something of a pre-2008 phenomenon but it seems, to steal a phrase from Maj. Frank Burns, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting it....
[Al Ahram] Supporters of the former president are not solely to blame; violence as well as excessive and disproportionate use of force also comes from the opposite side. Still, the strategy of the Brotherhood is to seek "the brawl" to move things forward, in order to better negotiate its political future and the fate of its leaders, many of whom risk imprisonment on various charges.
The leadership of the Brotherhood believe that strictly peaceful protests, already difficult to maintain, would change nothing about the new situation (the dismissal of Morsi and the lawsuits against the leaders of the group) and that provoking violence - which will seem unintentional - would be in favour of its supporters, since they would probably be the main victims, in face of police or military repression. It could then cry martyrdom (as was the case during the deadly festivities near the Rabaa Al-Adawiya sit-in as well as outside the headquarters of the Republican Guard) and attract both local and international support.
The link between this Brotherhood policy and the outbreak of violence is clearer and acquires a dangerous dimension in the Sinai Peninsula. The statements by officials of the Brotherhood leave no doubt about the relationship between the removal of Morsi and the increasing attacks, sometimes with heavy weapons, perpetrated by Death Eaters in connection with the Paleostinian Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason,, always the voice of sweet reason,, always the voice of sweet reason,, in this border province of Israel and the Gazoo Strip.
The reaction of the army was swift. The defence minister, Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, called the Egyptians on 24 July to protest, to give him a mandate to crack down on those responsible for "violence" and "terrorism."
The day after the protests, the army gave the Moslem Brüderbund a 48-hour ultimatum to join the "national dialogue" recently inaugurated by the acting president. The message was clear: the Brotherhood must choose between political action and military escalation. Upon its refusal to reconsider its policy, it is a dangerous escalation which will prevail, with predictable negative consequences on the national dialogue and the process of democratic transition, which are intended to be inclusive.
Unless a compromise is reached with the government, a possibility that is moving away, the escalation with the army will probably be fatal to the current leadership of the Moslem Brüderbund, who risk prison sentences for various charges, including incitement to violence and intelligence with foreign powers - Paleostinian Hamas.
Such convictions will only encourage and accelerate questioning of the doctrine and policy of the Brotherhood, whose leadership is challenged by some of its base. The movement of the "Brothers against violence", created after the overthrow of Morsi, opposes, as its name suggests, the politics of violence followed by the current leadership. It has drawn up petitions to withdraw confidence from the supreme guide, Mohamed Badie.
The Brotherhood -whose leadership is mainly composed of hardliners and dogmatic Qotbists, in reference to the famous radical ideologue of the group in the 50s and 60s, Sayed Qotb-- has already suffered a split by a group of young members in July 2011 who disagree with the closed doctrine of the Brotherhood and the undemocratic methods of its leadership.
They formed the Egyptian Current Party and movement, which call for a more modern and less conservative vision of Islam. With its support for a civil state and its programme free of mentions of sharia, the party is symptomatic of the generational conflict within the Brotherhood between an ageing leadership, attached to a traditional view of political Islam, opposed to evolution, and the middle officials and younger members more open to the world, who want to take over.
Such questioning seems inevitable given the obvious failure of the Moslem Brüderbund during their first experience in power. The first challenge should touch the siege mentality, born of decades of repression, the culture of secrecy and hunger for power that prevented the Brotherhood from becoming a party open to society, capable of initiating dialogue, of compromising, and of maintaining partnerships with other political forces.
Instead, the group tended, during its short tenure in power, to marginalise and to eliminate actual or potential partners. It ended up making enemies everywhere, including among Islamists. The subordination of the Freedom and Justice Party to the guidance bureau of the Brotherhood denied it freedom of action and interfered with its ability to take necessary decisions. This reality was also, and above all, applied to the relationship between the Brotherhood and the deposed president Morsi.
Second, the experience of the Brotherhood in power showed their lack of vision to address the serious political, economic and social problems of Egypt. The slogan, constantly chanted by the Brotherhood, "Islam is the solution", proved to be hollow. It served its ambitions and strategy when it was in opposition. But once in power, it was unable to provide solutions to the problems of the country. In other words, Islam is a religion that can lead the way in clearly defined areas. But it is not a political ideology which can manage the whole of society and the state, and propose practical and contemporary solutions to their problems.
Finally, the attempts of the Moslem Brüderbund to impose their own vision of Islam and Islamic values have failed. These were attempts to impose a new hegemonic vision of society, a totalitarian regime with religious colours. In doing so, the Brotherhood ignored the fact that one of the main reasons for the uprising against the authoritarian regime of Mubarak was to create an open and democratic political system where citizens can freely exercise their fundamental rights. Instead, the group showed during its time in power that it sought to establish a rigid authoritarian regime, this time in the name of religion.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Muslim Brotherhood
h/t Instapundit
For my summer holidays I have been mostly reading Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand has her faults but, boy, was she prescient.
One of the things she foresaw was the current nonsensical, dishonest, canting campaign against shale gas. In Atlas Shrugged it takes the form of Rearden Metal, the miracle technology which is going to transform the US economy if only the progressives will let it. But of course, Rands fictional progressives dont want Reardon Metal to succeed any more than their modern, real-life equivalents want shale gas to succeed.
Why not? For the same rag-bag of made-up, disingenuous reasons which progressives have used to justify their war on progress since time immemorial:
#1
....the only thing missing are "scientific findings" that the negative side effects of fracking unfairly impact entitlement accomplices minorities....
Jonah Goldberg tears a new one for a lot of people. I'm not quite as far as he is, but I will say that I would really appreciate it if the 'moderate Muslims' would start stepping up to their responsibilities. Any day now. Really.
Absolutely worth the read.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/17/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Moderate Muslims would start stepping up to their responsibilities" ...
Whoa, "THE FIVE'S" BOB BECKEL STARTS A TREND???
Never underestimate a man in a bow tie + shoulder straps.
#2
JG may tear them an new one but he is right about people generally being tired of the ME's problems. At least three US generations after WWII have attempted to assist the ME in gaining peace but to no avail. F the Moderate or Radical Mohammedeans,its a stew of your making you eat it, I for one don't care about your problems, figure them out yourselves. And to the American Congress and President, I advise you leave them to their own devices and get the hell out while the going is good.
#3
"If real friends were threatened, the American people would support coming to their aid."
Why should American security guarantees dissuade anyone from attacking an American ally?
On 9/11 the US suffered a mass fatality attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor and yet the US did not retaliate(*). There was a military response that degenerated into a mission to provide the enemy with hostages and servants and to facility the transfer of danegeld.
The question isn't whether the US would extend any security umbrella to cover allies, it it whether the umbrella, i.e. deterrence exists at all.
When the last Superpower loses a war it really cannot afford to lose there are consequences.
(*) The designation "Infinite Justice" was scrapped in favor of "Enduring Freedom" because of the former's strong connotation of retribution, retaliation and punishment.
#5
NO Moslem is your friend. They don't even make good Americans.
Prejudiced bullshit. No group is all anything. You try telling that to this lot or their founder, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, USN, Ret'd., or the various parents and community leaders who named their radical offspring to the authorities to keep them from harming others (we've got a number of newspaper accounts of that kind of thing in the Rantburg archives), or the bodies buried in Normandy with crescents on their markers instead of crosses, to which I can personally attest.
If Globalization and prosperity and connectivity are the future, then the Moslem Vision of a World Wide Caliphate...the Paradise of the Sharia Koran for all is absolutely dirtnap doomed.
Well yes. But we won't know until afterward, because that's how it works, for those of us experiencing time linearly and directionally, at least. Those of you who can wander off into the mountains will have a different perspective, of course, but be careful not to get on a path going in the opposite direction -- that's a doozy, I'm told.
Moslems are a phony religion
All religions are real to their believers, even the one about the great spaghetti monster. Also, Moslems are the believers. Islam is the religion.
that never will reach its goal of putting a bag on your head and TELLING you to get your kuffir butt in the air.
Possibly. That's what we're fighting this war to find out.
Spiritually Islam is slavery, their entire history is rotten with it, abuse, oppression and Jizya. Islam is moral shit in the donkey ditch.
Would I be correct in assuming you don't like Islam?
WE, in the United States don't need their problems and we don't need them.
#6
I have finally sided with the 'Hell with them' but for different reasons. the many years of one sided PC rules of engagement and phony scandals ( abu grabi anyone?) resulted in either the death of ruination of many fine fighting men and women. The testicular atrophy of our 'leaders'(spit) of both parties is reprehensible. bombs on target to take out the bad guys, leave the place a ruin, then come home. if a baby milk actory or somebody's prize fluffy kitty got harmed, too bad, you supported those worms.
ok, back to my meds now.
Threater: "Too stupid to live" really should be a valid diagnosis. >:-(
"NO Moslem is your friend. They don't even make good Americans"?
What drivel. Maybe you have no Muslim friends - because they've got more sense than to come anywhere near you - but I personally know Muslims who are better Americans than you will ever hope to be.
Posted by: Barbara ||
08/17/2013 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I put toilet bowl cleaner in my toilet and use Rid-X for my septic tank. It works and it's very cheap. I don't expect my toilet bowl to be a dinner plate, and I just want my septic tank to be invisibly unremarkable.
John McCain can kiss my ass...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/17/2013 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
Even the high toned Friday Times sometimes gets lost in the special Pakistani paranoia weeds.
[FridayTimes] Since the execution of Afzal Guru in February this year, Kashmire has frequently boiled over into violent festivities between citizens/hard boyz and Indian security forces. In March, 5 coppers were killed by bad turbans. In May, 4 soldiers were rubbed out. In June, 8 soldiers perished in an ambush. In return, Hindu mobs, egged on by paramilitary forces, have attacked worshippers at Eid prayers; and India's paramilitary forces have desecrated the Koran, provoked outrage and killed protestors. Unprecedented Shia-Sunni conflict has also erupted in Kashmire, leaving scores maimed.
Parallel with Kashmire unrest, India and Pakistain have also heated up the Line of Control. On January 6, Indian forces killed one Pak soldier. On January 8, Pak forces killed two Indian soldiers. On February 15, one Pak soldier was killed. In July, another Pak soldier was killed. On August 5, five Indian soldiers were killed. Since then, both sides have been relentlessly shelling each other.
Across the western border with Afghanistan, on August 3, a title='suicide bomber'>jacket wallah attacked the Indian Consulate in Jalalabad and killed innocent bystanders. Similar attacks on Indian "assets" in Kabul occurred in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and India has always accused Pak "assets" like the Haqqani Group of attacking them.
Continued on Page 49
#2
Pak will want Taliban back in charge and send their jihadis in to make this action.
Once the West leave the bomb attacks in India will start again.
We need to realise that Pakistan IS the main troublemaker in the region.
We need to support India and Afghanistan going forward not Pakistan in future.
Posted by: Paul D ||
08/17/2013 7:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
We need to realise that Pakistan IS the main troublemaker in the region.
I don't think this is quite right. Pakistan is just a pile of dirt & rocks. It is the philosophy/religion prevalent among the inhabitants that is the troublemaker.
Islam in all its various varieties is a blood-thirsty roadmap to conquer and enslave everyone including other Islam loving fanatics (see MoBro v. Salafists in 'gypt).
This hate filled effluent needs to be purged from civilization.
Our one saving grace is that Islam also breeds and rewards incompetence on the grand scale.
#4
Pak is the symptom of the disease, but not the disease source. Follow the money. Who finances the thousands of madrassas? Who were the graduates of said institutions and what did they do?
How does such a backward country exist without help? Who finances their nukes?
We have seen the elephant in the room and we are ignoring it and dealing with cockroaches.
Is this by design or stupidity and ignorance, or both?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/17/2013 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Thank goodness that Obama, Kerry, and some she-Clinton hold-overs are the spokes-folks for our foreign policy...!/sarc
[FridayTimes] The recent killing of five Indian soldiers in an ambush along the Line of Control (LoC) has cast a shadow on the bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistain which was to resume after a hiatus of over six months, and a meeting between the prime ministers of the two countries on the sidelines of the United Nations ...a formerly good idea gone bad... General Assembly session later next month.
The reaction on both sides has been typical. Neither side seems to understand the intricacies of their very delicate relationship.
On the Indian side, the electronic media, especially a couple of television channels, stopped short of calling for a war with Pakistain. All debates on ties with Pakistain during times of tension have a very typical pattern. Anchors call for ending relations with Islamabad and it is fashionable to adopt a rather simplistic George Bush like 'either you are with us or against us' attitude. Anyone who has a balanced perspective and speaks in favour of dialogue and engagement with Pakistain is seen as anti-national. Aspersions are cast on individuals working for better ties between the two countries, and references are made to their 'cocktail circuits' and their cottage industries. It is conveniently forgotten that the cottage industry of conflict is far more lucrative than that of peace.
What strengthened war mongers on the Indian side was a statement made by Defence Minister AK Antony in Indian parliament, in which he did not directly implicate Pakistain Army but said that men in Mighty Pak Army uniforms were behind the attack. This enraged the opposition and the media. The defence minister had to revise his statement and also spoke about giving a befitting reply to Pakistain if such incidents occurred again. This satisfied the opposition BJP.
Panelists from Pakistain with liberal leanings and the right intentions also make arguments that further strengthened the hawks in India. They either delve into the past, or put forth the argument that Pakistain itself is a victim of terror - which is true, but does not justify terrorist acts in India which emanate from Pakistain. In the midst of this polarized discourse, it is imperative that Pak liberals and elements within the civil society realize that it is virtually impossible for the Indian government to carry on the dialogue as if nothing happened, more so in the aftermath of 26/11.
If one were to look ahead, the newly elected Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... government in Pakistain would do well to at least take some tangible steps to bring some of the perpetrators of 26/11 to book, and order an inquiry into the recent killing of Indian soldiers. It is indeed worrisome that the Pak prime minister speaks of both countries reducing their defence budgets one day, and on the next day such a misadventure takes place. Either the PML-N government is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, or Sharif, a pragmatic politician, is still not in control of his army. Pak liberals and the civilian government should realize that by speaking about engagement without any forward movement on the above issues, hard-line elements within and outside the Pak establishment are let of the hook, and the relationship between the two countries does not benefit in any way.
On the Indian side, it is important for leaders of the opposition and the media to come up with constructive suggestions rather than criticizing the government for talks with Pakistain. Senior opposition leaders, analysts and sections of the media trivialize the debate by repeatedly referring to what is served to Pak dignitaries when they visit India, or by continuously taking a dig at peaceniks, who are referred to as mombattiwallahs.
It is important to realize that mere dialogue with Pakistain is no favor to Islamabad. If talks are carried out on Islamabad's terms and 26/11 and other events are ignored, only then can it be said that the dialogue is of no use to India. Apart from this, basic diplomatic courtesies have to be maintained. So if External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid extended courtesies to the erstwhile Pak prime minister or if the Indian premier has a one-on-one meeting with Nawaz Sharif on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session, it does not necessarily imply that the national interests are being compromised. Instead, it would make more sense for the Indian prime minister to actually broach the issue of LoC violations, as was done in the case of China. The broader dialogue can also be on issues which are of mutual interest to New Delhi and Islamabad, such as trade and people-to-people contact.
Despite a number of dastardly acts over the past few years and the dominant voice of hawks in both countries, some rational voices have emerged. An example of that is the appetite in Pakistain for closer trade ties with India. It is vital that these sane voices begin to find their rightful space in the discourse in both the countries. This can only happen if there is more interaction, not less.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
08/17/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
What does Pakistan get out of attacking India?
Money from the West to stop?
Posted by: Paul D ||
08/17/2013 12:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I would imagine that part of the reason is the Chinese govt, using Pak as a knife to make a thousand cuts on India. Hey, China's money is good in Pak.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/17/2013 15:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A thousand cuts on India, and a thousand cuts on the US.
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.
Whitaker's Butler is a tortured soul (largely the creation of screenwriter Danny Strong, who also wrote the Sarah Palin hatefest Game Change) who has known all kinds of heartbreak, but the Washington Post article about a real long-serving White House butler that was the original basis for the movie is free of the anguish or anger with which the movie is loaded. In the first two or three minutes there are references to two lynchings, a rape (of the butler's mother) and a racist murder (of his father).
[FridayTimes] The recent killing of five Indian soldiers in an ambush along the Line of Control (LoC) has cast a shadow on the bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistain which was to resume after a hiatus of over six months, and a meeting between the prime ministers of the two countries on the sidelines of the 
Nawaz Sharif
