World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mark Landler of the NYT looks at presidents TR, FDR, Reagan, Carter, and other presidents, and compares their moral leadership with the situation under president Trump after the Charlottesville car attack. Landler says of president Trump that his reluctance to pass moral judgement is a genuine part of president Trump's beliefs. This is also why Trump has not seen the actions of some world leaders in moral terms, including Putin in Syria. Yet as is seen from the time of Jefferson and Lincoln, U.S. presidents have adopted a moral tone. This has not changed since then. The presidency is seen as a place that puts forward the best ideals of the country. Even though leaders have not always lived up to these ideals-  Landler cites the internment of Japanese in World War II by FDR, the failure of Obama to set up humanitarian safe zones for refugees in Syria, Nixon's and Clinton's personal moral failures. Yet the idea always has remained that this was part of the president's moral role and duty- to set the tone for the whole country, not to reject the idea of moral judgement itself as immaterial and not relevant, as president Trump has done. It may be a time for the country as a whole to reflect and move back to where it was, recovering what it has lost by grasping the significance of this moral idea. To do this by building literacy, tolerance, and fairness into all its actions, making this a part of the foundation of national character.        ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Fomer Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says America needs to take up a vigorous foreign policy in his book "Worthy Fights." Both Panetta and Hillary Clinton, and Gen. Dempsey of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Petraeus of the CIA, supported U.S. taking a strong stand in Syria by supporting Syrian opposition forces in the summer of 2011 and were overruled by president Obama and his election advisers because of the approaching 2012 election. Here Mark Landler provides more insights into Hillary Clinton's deeply held belief shared with Panetta that the U.S. had to take strong action where necessary to deter foes, to get into the ring to use Panetta's expression. The U.S. support for action in Libya to support Britain and France comes from the efforts of Clinton, and any lack of followup one of president Obama's errors in foreign policy. In April 2016 president Obama said that he considered his failure to followup in Libya to help the new Libyan government his biggest mistake in his presidency. Here Mark Landler looks at Hillary Clinton's entire career as showing a conviction and belief on the need for action where necessary in the U.S. global engagement. Compared to the bluster of the candidates Trump, Cruz and Sanders, with little experience to back this up in their careers in real estate, law or the Senate , Landler says Clinton is the last remaining hawk. Here he describes Hillary Clinton's contact and empathy for the troops from her trip to the American base in Tuzla, Bosnia, in March 1996. In fact many have forgotten that Yugoslavia is what it is today after the Milosevic years and the ethnic wars with Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, members of the EU and Serbia negotiating to enter EU, because of the bombing campaign taken by Bill Clinton through NATO in 1999 to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and peacemaking following the Bosnian War using diplomat Holbrooke to negotiate the 1995 Dayton Accords. Here Landler describes the meetings with Gen. Keane who pushed for the troop surge that worked in Iraq under president George W. Bush. Clinton supported Keane's proposal made in April 2015, for a no-fly-zone in Syria that would help opposition forces till a settlement could be negotiated. Keane pointed out to Clinton that there was a flaw in Obama's policies- that negotiation would work only if the no-fly-zone was used to support opposition forces. By the end of 2015 Hillary Clinton publicly adopted this position. During a period when Americans are weary of foreign entanglements but understand the need to provide leadership where needed, Hillary Clinton, provides a balance between the pendulum swinging too sharply in one direction in the Bush years and in another direction in the Obama years, says Landler. A view also articulated by Leon Panetta, who was chief of staff for President Clinton during the Bosnian conflict and the Dayton Accords, where the U.S. showed strength of purpose in war and also in negotiating the peace without major entanglements....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Solomon and Lee of the WSJ describe the role played by Ayatollah Ali Khamanei in the talks, down to the final days- as late as July 14, U.S. Secretary of State Kerry is described as asking his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif, "do you have the mandate of the Supreme Leader?" Zarif replying that he was confident that he did. The media announcement of a deal came that same day July 14, 2015. The last weeks of the negotiations were conducted under the tension that if a deal was not reached quickly the Iranian military or some other factions could upset the deal. Even after the announcement of the deal in the media, Kerry was not certain, saying he never indicated he was confident, and it would all depend on its implementation. U.S. president Obama who initiated the contacts with Khamanei and his close advisors early in his presidency, said that the deal offered the U.S. and the world an opportunity to move in a new direction.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Henry Kissinger on the appointments that make for an extraordinary team in his words, of Gates, Hillary Clinton, and General Jones along with Biden for the Obama presidency.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
John Cochrane, professor at the Booth School of Business, University of Chicago points to the simple truths about U.S. healthcare- out of control pricing because of the pathologies created by previous laws and regulations. He points out that costs are high in healthcare because regulations keep them high. Supply of new doctors is controlled because Congress and the AMA made it that way with a cap on residency programs and AMA opposing the expansion of medical schools. In a system of open competition new hospitals and health care businesses would challenge old ones which is not happening in a regulated market with regulations working to limit competition for the firms already in the business and with the influence to limit competition. Insurance costs for major expenses in an open and deregulated competitive market without the regulations would be so much lower than todays costs that its likely we would not even need a mandate such as the one the Obama healthcare law imposes.
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mr. Trump's conflict with the Justice Department in the last weeks of his presidency to appoint a new Attorney General with intent to contest the results of the presidential election of 2020, is shown in this report in NYT. This created risks for American democracy. The cracks in social cohesion following four decades of foreign wars 1980-2021, irresponsible behavior of financial institutions leading to financial crises and impoverishment of America, incompetent elites, neglect of rural America, ceding of technology and competitive position to China, failure to fund education, healthcare and infrastructure, under presidents Reagan, elder Bush, Clinton,  Bush, Obama, led to a situation of revolt against the status quo by a maverick politician using a new and proven dangerous form of communication social media. Ultimately this put democracy at risk. Lessons from this are only now being learned as people in the Biden administration and outside of it reflect on what happened. In this WSJ report Mr. Trump is seen pressuring officials of the Justice Department to agree to appointment of a new Attorney General shortly after the election. This was seen as an effort to question the results of the 2020 presidential election. A leading senator on the Judiciary Committee says this would lead to "shredding the US Constitution to stay in power." Of this and also of four decades of neglect in America Washington has this to say in his first Inaugural Address on April 30, 1789- "The blessed religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those entrusted with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power and prompted by the supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution, and violate the inalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable- and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Steps taken by Secretary of State Tillerson are drawing criticism from Senator McCain and Democrats in Congress for weakening the diplomatic efforts of the U.S. Before taking office Tillerson, who believes the State Department has a bloated staff, announced a 31% cut in its budget. A year later  the cuts are leading to the departure of many senior diplomats. Some like Mr. Miller have received only a few minutes to talk to Tillerson, six top career diplomats were fired by Tillerson. Most hiring is stopped and a $25,000 buyout is being promoted to get 2000 career diplomats to leave by October 2018. This report describes a retirement class for diplomats with 26 senior employees, including two acting secretaries of statein early 50's who would normally wait many years before retiring. The top two position ranks at State are career ambassador and career minister. This is cut from 39 to 19. Political appointees are also missing to fill positions with only 10 of 44 political positions filled. Some experts see a loss also in diversity as this happens. Differences between the Nikki Haley, who is the next senior official in America's foreign service and a potential successor to Tillerson, and Mr Tillerson are also complicating the situation at the State Department. During the Obama and Bush administrations experts cited the weak role played by the institutions such as diplomatic services in promoting America's role in the world. This was not corrected in any significant way in the last decade. The position of the diplomatic service has weakened further, along with the abandonment of America's leadership role under the presidency of Mr. Trump. It will require a future president's concerted effort to restore the diplomatic service under new leadership and with a new generation of diplomats more in tune with the multipolar world of today.   ...
The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the Economist magazine says views in the Trump base of support in rural areas and among white working class voters are likely to persist for some time. One reason given is that many of these people live in isolation and little contact with the more educated urban voters in America. Another factor cited here is that only a fifth of voters follow politics closely, and of these voters only a small fraction have a good grasp of the positions of the two major parties. Most people follow the instincts and thinking of the groups they are with. As a result many of the issues covered in the media such as climate change and U.S. withdrawal from the Paris agreement, the Comey firing and the Mueller investigation into Russian meddling in the election, president Trump's Twitter comments, are not having much impact on the president's ratings among his support base at this early stage of the Trump presidency. Yet it is too early to tell only 6 months into the Trump term in office. After 8 years of president Obama's two terms in office voters who feel left out are not likely to change their views in so short a time. Republican voters as distinct from the core Trump base voter are also unlikely to change their views after 8 years of Democratic party administration. By staying close to traditional Republican party positions president Trump is likely to continue to have the support of the lifelong Republican party voters unless things change. Can a centrist position emerge after voter fatigue with excessive partisan opinion, as voters seek to make America a more quieter place and a consensus on working together to lift all boats emerges. This could be expected as time passes.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Hubbard and Erdbrink report on U.S. president Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia to begin a new chapter in relations with the Gulf nations and the Saudis. Under president Obama the U.S. distanced itself from the Saudis and the Gulf nations, preferring to pursue a policy of closer relations with Iran and signing the Iran nuclear deal. This included a policy of staying out of Syria to the point of turning down a decision to deploy U.S. airpower to maintain no-fly zones to protect refugees. Syrian government forces fighting rebels were supported by Iran. The new policy is dictated by the new conditions in the Middle East. The U.S. has sought since the presidency of Reagan to balance the power relations in the region. With the nuclear deal signed and Iran respecting the deal according to independent reports, the U.S. allied with Iran in the battle against Islamic State in Iraq,  a shift was needed to balance the support provided to Iran by Russia which worsened the refugee crisis in Syria. The Republican party and Mr. Trump were critical of the Obama Iran policy during the nuclear deal negotiations. The safety of Israel is also a factor as non-state actors were supported by Iran threatening Israeli security. For these reasons the shift is an effort to rebalance the relations in the region. The arms deal in its size and president Trump's statement that Iran had "fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror," can be seen as this rebalancing. A business aspect of the large arms deal is that it will promote job growth in the defense industry in the U.S.. Other countries including Germany have seen growth in their defense industry. This is not the best way forward for the Middle East, yet it is a way the U.S. and nations in the region are adjusting to realities- the collapse of the Arab Spring from within and without the help from outside, the sectarian conflict arising from the Shiite pushback from Iran following the Baathist and Sunni control of Iraq which collapsed with the U.S.invasion, where the majority of people are Shiite yet with a strong Sunni presence. Elections brought Shiites in power, leading to a Sunni response in the form of Islami State caliphate move into Mosul, Iraq's second largest city after Baghdad. A decade of conflict and the efforts by the Bush administration ended in failure and sectarian conflict, resulting in the U.S. policy of rebalancing in favor of Iran to negotiate the nuclear deal. In this sense the arms deal does not solve anything. A similar rebalancing under Reagan by arming one side, followed by arming the other, led to involvement with ground forces under president Bush. It only leaves the region poor after years of sanctions against Iran to the point where a NYT reporter was not sure whether it was safe to fly from Tehran to Mashad with Iran Air because of the lack of spare parts for the airline. War torn, with millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq, the region remains broken in many ways, waiting for a sensible non sectarian view to prevail in the interest of the people in the region. The election of Rouhani in Iran by 57% of the vote is only a sign that young people in the region given a chance would opt for a different course in future. The rest of Asia has moved forward and shows a path that can be followed. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the New York Times is strongly critical of former president Barack Obama for accepting $400,000 in speaking fees from Wall Street for a single speech. It says the news is causing people to question the ideas and words presented by Obama in his books about the dangers of losing sight of the interests of ordinary people. It gives the impression says the NYT, that Obama is cashing in like everybody else, and that his talk was empty. The editorial says the millions raised by Hillary Clinton led to her defeat in the election. Obama is reported to plan a foundation with the work of training a new generation of political leaders. This NYT editorial says it would be better to stay true to vision and purpose, to walk the talk for president Obama, especially now that a recent poll shows two thirds of voters, including about half of Democrats say that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the interests of the American People. By associating this closely with wealthy donors leading Democrats contributed to this. During a period when some of the remarkable achievements of the last fifty years such as the European Union are being called into question, when ordinary working people, young people and older people are struggling, this is all the more a tone deaf approach by politicians. The idea of helping train a new generation of political leaders through a foundation sounds bizarre in this context, and seems to suggest politicians believe there is always a solution through marketing their audacity and money.   ...
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Obama speaking of Russia as a regional power and ignoring Russia is now seen as a mistake, says this report in the Guardian. It showed a poor understanding of Russia after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The impoverishment of Russia that followed with the lack of foreign reserves and the collapse of the ruble currency, created a strong mistrust among Russians of a western model of development without modification to suit the country and its people. The decline in the lifespan of Russians was shown in a cover article in the WSJ around 2000 and shown in Lyrarc at the time. In some of the early articles on Putin and Russia during the first five years of the Putin presidency that were shown on Lyrarc, Putin expressed an intense desire for Russia not to be seen as a banana republic for concentrations of financial capital in the US. Such was the situation at that time, and the memory is still there for Russians and for Mr. Putin. Ukraine and NATO are just layers on top of what has happened earlier. One sees this in Germany with the rise of the Afd in East Germany after the unification left people in the eastern part around Leipzig nostalgic for the German Democratic Republic of Soviet days. Reunification meant the loss of most of the young people to the western part of Germany, and insecurity for the elderly, people on pensions, job insecurity, for people in the east under the capitalist model without any modifications. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Timothy Egan points to the huge gap between a T.R. in 1910 making the speech in Osawatomie, eastern Kansas, and Professor Obama making an election speech in 2011. T.R.'s was an election manifesto that brought up the issues of conservation, child labor, a plea for an income tax, call for worker protections, limits on corporate power and influence on the laws and direction of the country. The speech was made in 1910, after Taft had assumed the presidency with Roosevelt's backing, and would lead to T.R. running against Taft and Woodrow Wilson. Most of what T.R. advocated became part of the country's social and economic fabric, much of the work beginning with Theodore Roosevelt's two terms as president, and also pursued by Woodrow Wilson, the president elected in 1912. By contrast, in line with the timidity of today's politics, Obama's speech called for approving his nominee for consumer protection bureau chief, and continuance of tax cuts for the middle class. Egan calls it a curse of today's politics and national debate that no politician can set the course for revitalizing America the way T.R. did. Some of what T.R. said in Kansas that day is: "There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done." "The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted." Jackie Calmes covered the extensive ties of both candidates, Obama and McCain, to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in her report for the New York Times, on September 9, 2008- "For 08' Rivals a Skein of Ties to Loan Giants." Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, who with his reporters did some of the difficult reporting on Fannie and Freddie, wrote in one of his columns with a note of pessimism, that he wasn't sure that either of the presidential candidates were interested in what was happening. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders defend Medicare for All, a version of free healthcare for all, and free university, from attacks by moderates. So far in the campaign in the Democrats part the moderates have failed to gain traction. Warren and Sanders lead the field. The only other contender is from the old Obama presidency, Mr. Joe Biden. Warren and Sanders say now is the time for bold ideas. Sanders won the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries, by articulating this vision in the last campaign 4 years ago.

Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Elliott Abrams quotes former President George Bush from November 2003 when he asked the question: "Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?" Abrams, former deputy natonal security advisor for President Bush, says the autocratic regimes and dictators of the Middle East have offered a false choice to the US- its us or the Islamists. Roger Cohen also points this out in a recent article in the New York Times. For Tunisia he says this was never defensible. It is a largely secular nation with a literacy rate of 75% and per capita GDP of $9,500, and Ben Ali, the dictator of Tunisia, jailed moderates, human rights advocates, editors, anyone who represented hope and change. Abrams says Mubarak has done the same in Egypt. And he warns that if you make moderate politics impossible as Mubarak in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia have done, then you make extremism more likely. Ruling by emergency decree for decades creates a real emergency, as has happened in Egypt. Bush made that speech at the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, and he reminded Americans that "sixty years of Western nations excusing and accomodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." He admits that the Bush administration did not always conduct US diplomacy in this vein, but the President took the lead and the Obama administration's abandonment of that mindset is nothing short of a tragedy. Obama's policy of "engagement" actually endangers the US position as a supporter of liberty and freedom wherever it is stifled or muffled, because it turned a blind eye to the people themselves as it engaged with the dictatorial regimes in the Arab world and other countries. When the elections in Iran were stolen the Obama administration hesitated, waffled in its committment to liberty, fearing that it would affect nuclear negotiations. Obama did not -as of late Friday night Jan 28, 2011- call for free elections or clearly demand democracy. The law school analytical processes that Obama brings to the presidency and the demands of geopolitical diplomacy are impervious to the loud voices demanding freedom in countries denied liberty. Obama has forgotten the very same voices he passionately heard when he wrote in his first book that in the words "we hold these truths to be self-evident" he could hear the spirit of Douglas and Delaney, as well as Jefferson and Lincoln, the struggles of Martin and Malcolm and unheralded marchers to bring the words to life. He could hear the words of interned Japanese families, the voices of Russian Jews in lower East side sweatshops, of dust bowl farmers during the depression, all these voices clamoring for recognition and asking the question about what is community and how it can be reconciled with freedom. This failure to recognize these voices clamoring for freedom and economic opportunity is all the more striking because it was vision and a bold sense of purpose that energized the Obama campaign and both the vision and the bold sense have eluded the administration. Abrams calls for a clear unequivocal committment by the US government in favor of freedom and peaceful efforts to achieve it in the Middle East, because he says that as the demonstrators are telling the world outside supporting freedom is the best policy of all. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Blinken Wang Yi meeting at the G-2- in Indonesia is the first high level meeting between US and China since March when the Ukraine war started. In the press briefing after the meeting Blinken said "more than four months into this brutal invasion the PRC stands by Russia." He pointed to Beijing support of Russia at the United Nations, dissemination of Russian talking points through Chinese state media and joint military exercizes with Moscow. One aspect of the relations that is beyond the control or good intentions of the two countries top diplomats is the tit for tat response that began with the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump may have seen this as a way to talk to the voter base fed up with two decades of one sided trade with China with manufacturing shipped out to China and local communities of families and workers in regions across the US losing jobs and in decline. Much of this shift was done by US companies during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations over two decades. The strident tone adopted by Trump was met by tit for tat responses in Chinese media till the pandemic when it assumed a new aspect of Chinese origins of the coronavirus. The result is that Sinophobia in the US is met by a response in Chinese media and in the thinking of the Chinese leadership under Jinping that now sees the relationship as having already shifted during the pandemic. The paradox in this is that the US in its effort to get other countries on its side is only beginning to make an effort of get America's own companies and large business investors on its side. Most American companies are still continuing trade and business with China as before.  The same situation exists with the shift of manufacturing from Japan and the European Union to China, with the loss of jobs and decline of local communities that depended on manufacturing. Japanese and European companies are acting in ways that are similar to American companies. Having managed the shift of manufacturing from European Union and Japan to China these companies have done little to change this business situation in 2022 carrying on as before. This is the paradox of the current situation that business both in the US and EU, and Japan is not on the side of their governments, even as their governments attitude to China, particularly now after the pandemic and the Ukraine war has shifted drastically. Alongside this is the popular opinion that has shifted gradually over the last 10 years in the US and EU, first in these very local communities that lost manufacturing to China, and then across broader sections of the public, and now across whole regions of America, Britain, the EU and Japan. This shift in popular opinion has little interest in the way business conducts business overseas or governments conduct diplomacy in nuanced statements. As a result neither the governments of the US, EU and Japan or the business of the US, EU and Japan are in control of this shifting situation that has its momentum and pace operating quite independently of governments and business. And public opinion across America, Europe, Japan, and also in India is moving in an entirely new direction.     ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›

The way ahead

The Economist Original article ›
The Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The firing of John Bolton as National Security Adviser opens up the possibility of a meeting of Trump with President Rouhani of Iran. There is a need for both sides to begin talks on a nuclear deal that would replace the one Iran signed with president Obama to address issues raised by Mr. Trump and Republicans. Iran and countries that buy oil from Iran such as India, China and Japan have an interest in relief from sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on imports of Iranian oil. The European Union is keen to preserve aspects of the nuclear deal. Relief from sanctions is critical for Iran to develop its economy. The last two decades have seen Iran struggle to develop its economy with the sanctions imposed by  different U.S. administrations.   President Trump expressed flexibility on sanctions saying "we will see what happens. I think Iran has potential. They are incredible people." President Rouhani urged Mr. Trump "to put warmongers aside." Mr. Trump told reporters that he had resisted Mr. Bolton's opinions on issues and realized he had moderate views when compared to someone like Bolton.  Trump told Iran "We are not looking for regime change. We hope we can make a deal and if we can't make a deal thats fine too. But I think they have to make a deal." Helping the U.S. and Iran come to talks is president Macron of France who hopes to setup a meeting at the UN General Assembly which meets next week following his efforts at the G-7 meeting in France last month. In the past when tensions were high in the Straits of Hormuz President Trump refrained from aggravating this by saying actions that are "disproportionate" should not be taken and respected Iranian intentions. The tone of the conversation between the two sides has moderated to the point where both sides realize the need for coming to some compromise. This is in sharp contrast to the period a few months ago with rising tensions in the Straits of Hormuz and the seizure of an Iranian ship. Bolton's opinions were not the only issue for president Trump. He was also seen as the source of leaks including one that said Mike Pence, the Vice President, had opposed Mr. Trump's plan to bring the Taliban to Camp David. Also contributing to the new climate for talks is Mike Pompeo the Secretary of State, who has promoted the idea of talks with Iran. He told the media about such a meeting at the UN General Assembly in New York- "Sure. The president has made it very clear that he is prepared to meet with no pre-conditions." The willingness to try new ideas even contrary ones to policy pursued only a short while ago as long as the desired goal is reached is a feature of this presidency and key advisers. From the beginning of the Trump administration there is a firm sense of the need to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. and reduce foreign entanglements that have dragged on wasting resources and destroying priorities. With a willingness to try all sorts of approaches even ones that appear to be contradictory always keeping the end goal in sight. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Brooks says President Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, was about incremental improvement, about continuity and defensive in nature, and lacked creativity to tackle the many hurdles and lacked most of all the audacity needed to set the country on the right track.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›

Why Mandela Was Unique

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman says Mandela's moral authority comes from the way he trusted the people with the truth, not just what they wantd to hear, and from his humility. Friedman cites a scene in the movie Invictus on the 1995 Springboks effort to win the world rugby championship. Mandela played by Morgan Freeman tells the sports committee he won't go along with the idea of changing the name and colors of the Springboks. By attending the final rugby game and cheering for the team, Botha, a white Afrikaaner minister in Mandela's government, says Mandela forever won the hearts of white South Africans.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Daily Show host, Jon Stewart, interviews US President Obama. Obama told Stewart that "it was fair" to say that Obama had done his work, in Stewart's words, in "a political manner that has papered over a foundation that is corrupt." Obama says "we got 90% of what we wanted," which reflects a huge gap between how he is seen by people in the U.S., and how he sees his first 2 years in office. Obama's defensive responses, and no efforts to connect with the youthful audience on the Daily Show. Stewart points to the gap between the "audacity" in the rhetoric of Obama, and the "timid" nature of his administration. Stewart made particular reference to the hiring of Larry Summers, a former Clinton administration official, to guide the President on economic policy and the dealings with the banks.

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us