Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Moderation in the Middle East?

For John, BLUFSomething we can't fix.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

In The International New York Times, Dr Hussein Ibish writes about "Jordan’s Divided Brotherhood".
A dramatic split in the Muslim Brotherhood of Jordan could be one of the most important developments in the recent evolution of Islamist movements.  And a crucial experiment in developing a new modus vivendi between Arab states and moderate Islamist groups may well be unfolding in the process.
Yes, this would be an important step forward, a step along the path to reduced conflict.

Here is the end of the OpEd.

Arab societies have Islamist constituencies, and therefore will have Islamist parties and organizations.  Ultimately, even those states most opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood must think about how to accommodate those supporters.

Much now depends on the outcome of the Jordanian Brotherhood’s split.  It seems almost certain that one faction will come out on top and the party will reunify.  If the moderates prevail, this could provide a new model — alongside Ennahda — for other Arab societies seeking to integrate Islamist constituencies into stable political systems.

A new model would be good.  What the world doesn't need is internecine war in the Middle East for the next 30, 40 or 100 years.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Hussein Ibish is a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.

Happy Holiday

For John, BLUFBe especially careful of Brit newspapers.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

It is April Fool's Day, so be careful out there.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Democrat Party History

For John, BLUFSome think the tiger never changes its stripes.  I think that might be unfair.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

"The Reasons Why Democrats Are the Party of Slavery and Victimization | ZoNation".  That would be Commentator Alfonzo Rachel.  From PJ Media. With Presidents like Andy Jackson, James Buchanan, Jeff David and Woodrow Wilson, what would you expect?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Administration and Iran

For John, BLUFBetter to talk than fight.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From the Instapundit we have this post:
IT’S COME TO THIS:  Michael Tomasky:  “And so what I hope is that Obama administration officials are, well, lying.  That is, I hope they’re just saying this stuff about a new and improved Iran because they think it might help build public support for a deal.  That’s not very appealing, but it’s better than the other possibility, which is that they actually believe this stuff.”
Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Headlight Use

For John, BLUFYou do this already, no?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

It appears that, effective 7 April, it will now be Massachusetts law that you must have headlights on when running windshield wipers.  I guess I was a little surprised when I read this.  Decades ago I lived in a state where this was already the law.  While it may seem a bit of over-legislating, legislation is a way of convening common sense.

Regards  —  Cliff

Banks vs Democrats

For John, BLUFOn its face it just sounds wrong.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Is this some kind of conflict of interest, "Warren fires back at banks halting donations to Democrats"?

Put another way, is the Democrat Party the party of Wall Street?

Regards  —  Cliff

Talking About Human Rights

For John, BLUFAre human rights universal?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Originally in the Spectator magazine and now in the blog of Journalist Nick Cohen, we have "Sweden’s feminist foreign minister hammered for confronting Saudi Arabia".

This is about Ms Margot Wallström, Sweden's Foreign Minister.  She was seen as being undiplomatic in mentioning that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a terrible civil rights record—by Western standards.  There was a reaction by KSA and it appeared that economic factors forced the Foreign Minister to back off, to include an apology.  As the writer points out, the Western media didn't support Ms Wallström in her accusations.  Apparently suppression of Women is not a big deal if it happens outside the collection of nations known as the West.

Yet there is no ‘Wallström affair’.  Outside Sweden, the western media has barely covered the story, and Sweden’s EU allies have shown no inclination whatsoever to support her.  A small Scandinavian nation faces sanctions, accusations of Islamophobia and maybe worse to come, and everyone stays silent.  As so often, the scandal is that there isn’t a scandal.

It is a sign of how upside-down modern politics has become that one assumes that a politician who defends freedom of speech and women’s rights in the Arab world must be some kind of muscular liberal, or neocon, or perhaps a supporter of one of Scandinavia’s new populist right-wing parties whose commitment to human rights is merely a cover for anti-Muslim hatred.  But Margot Wallström is that modern rarity: a left-wing politician who goes where her principles take her.

Here is the final, depressing paragraph:
Finally, and most revealingly in my opinion, the non-affair shows us that the rights of women always come last.  To be sure, there are Twitter storms about sexist men and media feeding frenzies whenever a public figure uses ‘inappropriate language’.  But when a politician tries to campaign for the rights of women suffering under a brutally misogynistic clerical culture she isn’t cheered on but met with an embarrassed and hugely revealing silence.
Regards  —  Cliff

  So, it is Islamophobic to say that women's rights are being suppressed in this or that Muslim nation?