In May 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, and re-imposed crippling economic sanctions against Tehran. Iran responded by restarting elements of its nuclear program and sponsoring militant attacks against US interests and allies in the Middle East. Trump claims he will keep the pressure on until Iran agrees to a better nuclear deal, while Iranian leaders insist they will not negotiate under duress. Colin Kahl, Steven C. Házy senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies' Center for International Security and Cooperation and former national security advisor to the vice president of the United States, speaks with WorldAffairs CEO Jane Wales about Trump's Iran strategy and how it risks igniting war with the country.
19 August 2019
Today in Focus: Meghan: why all the hate against the Duchess of Sussex?
The outpouring of bile against the Duchess of Sussex has been impossible to miss in recent weeks, whether it is stories of her contributing to human rights abuses through eating avocados, or opinion pieces criticising her for guest editing Vogue or being ‘snobbish’. But many commentators have noted another tone to some of the criticism, one of misogyny and racism.
Victoria Murphy has been covering the young royals for years and joins Anushka Asthana to discuss how Meghan has adapted to life in Britain and the royal family. She points to a rich history of intense tabloid criticism that most members of the monarchy have been through in recent years.
Also today: Malachi O’Doherty, the author of Fifty Years On, argues that despite the turmoil of the past half a century, Northern Ireland should not be defined by the Troubles.
Rare Earth: Zog: King of the Bloodfeud
Be you a Hatfield, a Black Donnelly, Alexander Hamilton or Zog, vendettas are an unfortunately common part of human existence. And while as an individual, our needs for vengeance are personal and deep, they're often at odds with society. Justice is not a universal concept.
Blood feuds end in blood. It's right there in the name.
FiveThirtyEight: The Movement To Skip The Electoral College May Take Its First Step Back
As we’ve written previously, states that join the National Popular Vote compact agree to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide — not necessarily the candidate who carries the state. And the compact only goes into effect once states worth 270 electoral votes (a majority in the Electoral College) have joined, thus ensuring that its signatories have enough electoral votes to guarantee that the national popular vote winner becomes president. Currently, 15 states plus the District of Columbia, together worth 196 electoral votes, have ratified the compact.
Four of those states, including Colorado, joined the National Popular Vote movement just this year, but it remains a controversial issue — for example, it recently failed to pass in Maine and was vetoed in Nevada. And opponents in Colorado were upset enough about its passage that they are now actively trying to repeal the law. Earlier this month, the organization Coloradans Vote said it submitted more than 227,198 signatures to the Colorado secretary of state in an effort to subject the law to voter referendum in the 2020 election. With that number of signatures, chances are very good it will make the ballot, making it the first time voters in any state will vote directly on the National Popular Vote compact. [...]
So the real question becomes whether voters will reject the legislature’s law and make Colorado the first state to exit the National Popular Vote compact. And polls suggest it would be a competitive election! Nationally, 53 percent of Americans said the popular vote should determine the president, and 43 percent said the Electoral College should, according to an April/May NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Unsurprisingly, given that almost every state government to pass the National Popular Vote compact was completely controlled by Democrats, there is a wide partisan gap on the question: 79 percent of Democrats preferred the popular vote, while 74 percent of Republicans favored the Electoral College.
Politico: ‘Using the Lord’s name in vain’: Evangelicals chafe at Trump’s blasphemy
To most of America, the comments went unnoticed. Instead, the nation was gripped by the moment a “send her back” chant broke out as Trump went after Somali-born Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, an American citizen. But some Trump supporters were more fixated on his casual use of the word “g--damn” — an off-limits term for many Christians — not to mention the numerous other profanities laced throughout the rest of his speech. [...]
Using coarse language is far from the president’s only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He’s been divorced twice and has faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs. He previously supported abortion rights, and he has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of his religious beliefs, once referring to a book in the Bible as “Two Corinthians” instead of Second Corinthians. Yet to this point, Trump has maintained broad support from evangelicals, including the unwavering backing of some prominent conservative Christian leaders. [...]
For evangelicals, however, Trump’s indelicate language has frustrated religious fans who have otherwise been staunch supporters of his agenda. They agree with his social policies, praise his appointment of conservative judges and extol his commitment to Israel — often tolerating Trump’s character flaws for the continued advancement of all three. But when it comes to “using the Lord’s name in vain,” as Hardesty put it, “the president’s evangelical base might be far less forgiving.”
Politico: The One Thing Elizabeth Warren Needs to Do to Win
There are significant challenges to this strategy, not the least of which is winning over a reasonable share of the African American vote, where Biden dominates. In fact, the South Carolina primary in 2020 could be Iowa 2008, but in reverse. Back then, Barack Obama convinced African-Americans that he was more than a symbolic candidate when he won the caucuses in an overwhelmingly white state. This time around, if Warren were to win a respectable slice of the black vote in South Carolina, she would prove to white liberals skeptical of her electability that she has support among a constituency without which no Democrat can win a nomination, or the presidency. [...]
And African American Democrats are, as Tom Edsall pointed out in a much-discussed column in the New York Times, on average, more centrist than white Democrats. The party’s “more moderate wing, which is pressing bread-and-butter concerns like jobs, taxes and a less totalizing vision of health care reform, is majority nonwhite, with almost half of its support coming from African-American and Hispanic voters,” he wrote. [...]
So far, there is little sign that Warren has any interest in following the example of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. She is a candidate whose surge is in good part predicated on her deeply detailed policy proposals and her campaign skills, but evidence of the potential for broader reach to middle-of-the-road voters is difficult to find.
The Atlantic: Scientifically Proven Sources of Sex Appeal
Scads of studies suggest that those of us looking for Mr. or Ms. Right may actually be looking for Mr. Facial Symmetry or Ms. Ideal Waist-to-Hip Ratio (about 0.7 for women). [1, 2] But other research suggests that whether a trait is attractive depends on the type of connection you’re looking for. For example, women in one study found men with facial scars more appealing than other men for short-term relationships, but not for long-term ones. [3] In another study, men with beards had an edge among women seeking long-term relationships—a finding that might give clean-shaven guys with scars an idea about how to turn a one-night stand into something lasting. [4] (If all of this sounds heteronormative, it is: Almost all research on attraction involves straight people.)
Should two people seek lasting happiness, they may want to define the relationship, especially if they’re already friends. As any Harry or Sally can tell you, while women often mistake males’ indications of sexual interest for expressions of friendliness, men consistently mistake females’ expressions of friendliness for sexual interest. [5–7] This might help explain why men are more likely to report attraction toward opposite-sex friends than are women. [7] Further complicating matters, University of Virginia and Harvard researchers found that women were most attracted to men whose level of interest in them was ambiguous. [8] [...]
If two people can get it together to go out, they are likely to wear red or black, especially common choices on a first date. [12] No wonder: Red makes everyone seem more attractive, both to themselves and to others. [13] What they order matters, too. Researchers have found that a woman is more likely to find a man attractive if she’s eating something that’s spicy rather than sweet. [14] A drink may also help—but only one. In an experiment, people who had the equivalent of a glass of wine were rated more attractive than people who drank either no alcohol or more than a glass, perhaps because they seemed more relaxed, or maybe because they were attractively flushed. [15]
Global Citizen: 2 in 3 Afghan Men Think Women Have Too Many Rights: Report
The male generational gap may be explained by younger men seeking rigid gender roles as they struggle to find work and stability in a country ravaged by war and poverty, said gender equality group Promundo.
Religious teachings against women's rights under the Taliban regime had also played a role in hardening views among younger men, said Gary Barker, founder of Promundo-US, which works with men and boys to promote gender equality. [...]
And while nearly three-quarters of women said a married woman should have equal rights with their partner to work outside the home, only 15 percent of men agreed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)