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.


WSJ Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Based on this Washington Post sample of reader views on the presidential Debate, 4 of 5 readers in the sample are critical of the way the Post, NYT, WSJ are acting against the elected and popular transformative president of the US. What do Washington Post readers think of the way media magnates running Post, NYT, WSJ are trying to run the country in the face of a elected president who remains popular for the action he has taken on cost of living, climate change, manufacturing jobs, factories and supply chains, and is investing trillions of dollar in renewing America's manufacturing, Chips and science, and Infrastructure? Their campaigns are there for all to see against the president, even as the British election shows Keir Starmer of Labour saying "from 20 points behind to 20 points ahead," achieving a landslide even with only 2% increase in votes since 2019. Starmer too was written off just twelve months ago. The first letter is from Little Rock stating the Post, NYT, WSJ position. The second is from Linda Barnes of Ashland, New Hampshire, who faults the Post for not having the headline about "Disastrous debate performance by Trump who failed to answer most questions and lied relentlessly." Lauri Costello of Las Cruces, New Mexico, says every American would have benefitted from an in depth analysis of the debate rather than a focus on how each debater looked and spoke. Diana Hasuly of Ashburn, Virginia, says the debate was an opportunity to see two men's perspectives about the future of America, and the Post had done a great disservice to America, as have the NYT, WSJ and the Media in general, by not spelling what each man was offering America for the future. To take just three Climate change, manufacturing investment and jobs, infrastructure spending, Biden is getting so much done and has the plan for 2030, the former president has none, simply none and did not talk about this. Mark Parkhurst of Silver Spring, Maryland, says of the June 28 front page in the Post that the Post uses "falshoods" not "lies" when a lie needs to be called a lie from the former president. And says to be fair the Media needs to point out the actual achievements of president Biden not dwell on MAGA rhetoric. Is the Post or the Media in general overreaching, is it listening? What would Washington, Lincoln or FDR say?   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A WSJ/NBC poll of Sept 20, 2012 showing Obama with a eight percentage point lead in Iowa, and a five point lead in Colorado and Wisconsin.
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ines Pohl of the DW.com points out the failures in the media to fact check the assertions of U.S. presidential candidates. She points out that there is no institution in the media that acts as a check on what is said on social media. That  sphere of discourse remains in isolation from the rest with a self perpetuating effect- statements gaining credence because they are repeated again and again. This is the situation in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Other unusual factors remain the polarization of groups- why are white men on one side and white suburban women on the other, why are less educated voters on one side and college educated voters on the other side. This reflects deeper divisions. As Pohl points out in her concluding sentence this reflects also the view of people struggling for a living, and people much better off. In the U.S. this leaves people with fears of economic insecurity which are then extended to fears on the basis of race and immigration. In this case immigration becomes a proxy for other problems in society which have not been addressed. Pohl calls for elites to come out of their ivory towers and start talking in terms that relate to people's lives and real concerns, real fears.  There are puzzling signs. At a time when immigration has declined to the lowest levels in a decade  from Mexico, and with a tough deportation policy for 8 years under president Obama, how is it that it is the big issue in this U.S. election? At a time when  the number of people of other ethnic origins are a tiny fraction in eastern Germany why is this the big issue there in German elections and politics? Is this a proxy for fears of economic insecurity or lack of upward mobility, or uncertainty about the future?     ...
The New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The UK's Office of National Statistics said construction output fell by 3.7% in the first quarter of 2012, compared to prior year. Output fell 3%. The revised decline in GDP for the first quarter is 0.3%.
Washington Post Original article ›
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 ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In September 2015 Jeb Bush's support in a WSJ/NBC poll drops to 7%. Walker drops out of the race. Trump and Carson are tied, and Rubio is the only elected official in double digits for the Republicans. Hillary Clinton's popularity declines following the email controversy.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that a centrist solution is not the panacea it sounds. A lot depends on what it is and what is seen as centrist, if it really is centrist, and if it makes sense. A centrist proposal that leaves out tax expenditures but is different from the positions staked out by the factions on both sides of the political spectrum, and sounds moderate may not be the right solution.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
O'Malley, Sanders and Clinton agree that the media has spent much too much time on the Hillary Clinton email controversy. The first Democratic party debate also puts Sanders on the defensive on issues such as using force as commander in chief, gun control, and foreign policy including a no fly zone over Syria. Clinton defended her positions as consistent and having the same values throughout her political career, on the Patriot Act which she supported, and on other issues such as the Keystone pipeline, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership which she opposes because it does not do enough to protect U.S. jobs. Clinton emphasized her flexibility by saying that- "But like most human beings, including those of us who run for office, I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world." The debate was a win for Hillary Clinton because it helps to put the email controversy behind her, puts the focus back on her story and work as Senator and Secretary of State, and showed her ability to take on the many questions about her credibility....
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›

Saving Public Ryan

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ryan's sunny disposition, willingness to engage in ideas and facts and his message convey a very different image than the one in Democratic party television ads of someone looking like him pushing an old granny off the cliff, says this Journal editorial. Which makes it all the more important that he should be given very opportunity to speak to the media and to the public, it says.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Economist Original article ›

The Duel of Despots

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Pierre Razoux, a French historian provides this account of the Iran-Iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988, at a cost of 680,000 people killed and $1.1 trillion in war destruction and money diverted from the economy. In 1980 Saddam Hussein of Iraq launched the war by attacking Iran which had just come under the Ayatollah Khomeini with the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. The war dragged on for 8 years with Khomeini persisting in the war. With U.S. and Saudi policy to increase production bringing the price of oil down from $30 to $10 designed to bring Iran and Iraq to the peace talks, as well as the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan, all three being major oil producers. The dollar also weakened by 37% during this period. The diplomatic isolation of the Khomeini regime made it more difficult for Iran to buy arms on credit than Iraq could, leading to the war ending with Iran finding it no longer possible to continue the human losses. The Carter administration, particularly with National Security Advisor Brzezinski, tilted towards Iraq to oppose Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Saudis also supported Iraq during the early period. Under president Reagan the U.S. began covert and direct assistance to Iraq to prevent an Iraqi defeat early in the war. Rumsfeld visited Baghdad in December 1983 and March 1984 to organize the U.S. effort to oppose Iran. This may have laid the seeds for future conflicts that lasted through the administrations of the elder and junior Bush. As Razoux points out the Revolutionary Guards became entrenched from this period in Iran's history, making it difficult for election process to work or elected governments to operate. 23 months following the end of that war in 1988 Saddam Hussein launched a war on Kuwait, leading to the U.S. led Gulf war and the entry of the U.S. into a ground combat role, which was followed by the invasion of Iraq under George Bush after 9/11 attacks. The twin wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to have cost the U.S. over 1 trillion dollars. The result today is largely the division on the ground into Shia regions under the Revolutionary Guards and the Shiite government in Baghdad, and Sunni regions led by Islamic State and autonomous Iraqi Sunni tribes, ignoring the Iran-Iraq boundaries set in the colonial period by the French and the British. In all the amount spent in the Khomeini-Saddam war of $ 1 trillion being about $2 trillion in today's money, and the $1 trillion spent by the U.S., means about $3 trillion has gone into the wars in this region. This comes at a time of deficits in government budgets in the U.S. and a deep recession in the U.S. and Europe. It also explains why the U.S. public is reluctant to take even the minor action such as giving a standoff "no-fly zone" protection to the rebels in Syria, and supported the Obama administration in its reluctance to keep even the basic military force in place to protect its diplomatic mission in Libya, where the cost would be small relative to earlier enlarged military missions under the two elder and junior Bush administrations. The result is that refugees are pouring into Europe from Syria and Libya, through Turkey. Turkey itself is host to millions of refugees in camps along its border. The vacuum and the withdrawal of the Obama administration from the region has led to the rise of Islamic State with covert assistance from Sunni regimes in the region to counteract the growing influence of Shiite Iran. It also may explain the Iranian people's support for the nuclear weapons effort through years of sanctions, leading finally to an agreement with the Obama administration that relaxes sanctions in exchange for a future possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. Lost in the conflict is the Arab Spring of 2012-2013, with the Tunisian democracy the only surviving result of that movement for democracy and awakening among Arab peoples. The Reagan administration in its aggressive anti-Soviet position made large errors- including ignoring human rights abuses and use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, by supporting Iraq and reversing position after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, having a disastrous effect on the entire region decades later. Much of the Obama administration's reluctance for any action may stem from the U.S. role in this period and its consequences of protracted conflict. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The opening to newly elected prime minister Rouhani in Iran began after an aide to Mrs. Clinton, Jake Sullivan met with Iranian representatives in Oman in July 2012. Deputy Secretary of State, William Burns, joined the talks conducted with the help of the Sultan of Oman, so that by the time Rouhani was elected in June 2013 the effort became frutiful. In the case of Cuba the opening was made using Benjamin Rhodes, a 37 year old speechwriter for Obama who worked with him since 2008. This enabled secrecy in the case of the Cuban initiative. Rhodes was helped by Cuba expert Zuniga in the U.S. Special Interests Section in Havana. Rhodes and Sullivan also worked on the opening to Burma's rulers.
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ in June 2016 points out the dangers in the U.S. president Obama not facing up to the threat in the Middle East since 2013 leading to the fall of Mosul,  and in not clearly focussing on the threat since then. This has created divisions inside Europe and the U.S. in internal politics, and is being exacerbated with the rise of far right groups in Europe and by Trump in the U.S. It points out that by not clearly identifying the threat president Obama has given "illiberal" policy a boost. It says Hillary Clinton should be careful to formulate her own position in line with policy that has been pursued since FDR.


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