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 ›
BBC News Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Jimmy Carter visited North Korea during a tense moment in US North Korea relations after US concerns about fuel rods being taken out of Yongbon nuclear development plant in 1994. Through his contacts in China and the US  Carter was encouraged to visit Pyongyang, North Korea to negotiate directly with North Korean leader Kim Il Sung. He did this during the Clinton Administration and negotiated with Kim who this report in the BBC says was keen on settling the dispute with the US that could lead to war in the Korean peninsula. 

Jimmy Carter is seen as a one term president. Yet he accomplished  a lot using his experience as a former president in improving relations with China, and in relations with other countries around the world. This is almost as effective as a second term even more so, and covered a span of 40 years from 1980 to 2020.

The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT report by Thrush, Shear and Sullivan, looks at retired Marine general John Kelly, the head of Homeland Security till he was made the new chief of staff at the White House. He replaces Vince Priebus, who was the Republican National Party chairman during the 2016 election, becoming the new White House chief of Staff in January 2017. Priebus lasted only 6 months. This report points out that presidential family members Kushner and Ivanka Trump now report to Kelly, as part of the new discipline imposed by Kelly in an effort to reverse the chaotic situation in the White House with different quarreling factions. Kelly made this a condition for his taking the position, which Trump accepted as he was keen on firing Vince Priebus and had asked Kelly to take the job since May. Kelly is shown here as monitoring the contacts of Cabinet secretaries with the president. Who sees the president and for how long is now determined by Kelly to impose rigorous discipline. Kelly supported McMaster in the dismissal of a National Security Council member supported by Bannon and Kushner, in an effort to bring discipline. There is one area Kelly does not get into- the tweeting and personal affairs of the president. His job as he sees it is to put some bureaucratic competence around the president. In doing this he takes a tough approach that so far is respected by president Trump, as the presidency suffered from repeated setbacks from infighting and leaks. Will Kelly last where others have failed is a question posed in this report. Two people who were superiors of Kelly give their opinions. Kelly reported to Leon Panetta, a former chief of staff under Bill Clinton who was Defense Secretary, and to Robert Gates,  a Republican who was Defense Secretary. Panetta may know him closely as Kelly was his chief military aide as Defense Secretary. Panetta says of Kelly, that Kelly never minced words, said what he thought looking at you in the eye- if he thought a proposal was nuts he would say it right out. The big question Panetta says is whether president Trump will give him the authority for long. Also stated in this report is that Kelly called Comey when he was fired as FBI Director, and that Kelly even considered resigning in protest.  Less noticed even in this report is the way in which a team of experienced politicians and the senior most officials in defense and national security are working together in August 2017. In an interview with Washington Post editor Ignatius broadcast on PBS, Republican Senator Corker described how he works closely with them, and how the key people in defense and national security work together before they see the president. The appointment of Kelly helps to create a core independent group of advisors around the president, which is positive in the event the U.S. has to respond to a crisis. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Galbraith explaining the true reason for his firing by Eide and the UN Secretary General Moon. The statement announcing his dismissal to be accurate would have said that this was over differences whether the UN was going to remain silent over evidence of electoral fraud in the Afghan elections, and the issue of ghost polling stations. There is another angle of this which risks endangering the US trrops in the north of the country. Karzai's opponent in the elction is half Tajik and half Pashtun, fraud in the elections may turn the Tajik north against US and coaltion troops, further complicating life for the US, and this is on top of the loss of credibility with the Afghan people of the Karzai government. See the separate article on General Jones telling McChrystal who commands US forces in Afghnistan to cooperate with the strategic review now underway, by not making statements to the press. The other questions arise about the manner in which this dismissal ocurred. A few days before this Hillary Clinton, Eide, and other representatives from the coalition told the press that they think Karzai would win. Had Obama authorized this and what would be the point of such a statement, and at the same time trying to conduct an unbiased assessment of the war in Afghanistan. Here Galbraith comes across as one who had the courage to decide according to what he believed would be right for America and the values it represents. His point is that he could not tolerate the last act of dishonesty in the dispute that went on for months, because of the loss of credibility for the UN itself among the many Afghans who do not support Karzai. This would destroy also the credibility of the US in the country. Can any number of troops make up for this? Wars in Asia have proven that popular support decides the eventual fate of the mission. Only by standing up for its values can the US not undermine the very principles that the troops are fighting for and the people support. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mexico sends 80% of its exports to the US, and China a significant $439 billion in additional exports to US, which makes it incredible that for so long it did not take effective action to stop fentanyl flows, and Mexico allowed migrant trafficking across it's borders through 2016-2024. Even in the face of this becoming an explosive issue in the US with DJT elected in 2016 and the Border Wall being built. A silent but still existing in plain sight idea that the US would tolerate such flows became part of the culture in media outlets in the US and Europe and China and other parts of the world, even when there was a storm of discontent building about manufacturing shipped overseas hurting communities in the US since 2010, with added burden of safety endangered in these neighborhoods from fentanyl, drugs and illegal migrants. What worsened this situation and pain in the US was the idea that somehow it was the US's fault, an incomprehensible disdain for the US, US that enabled the modernization of China, Mexico, and Canada's economies. China sends $439 billion in exports more than the US does to China (US exports $143 billion China $582 billion in 2024). It is only surface presentation of indignation of face saving that these trading partners are showing when the real facts point to an extraordinary and incomprehensible disdain for the US as a nation in decline. There is a feeling in parts of Europe of American disdain for  Europe, without mention of the disdain for the US in Europe, China, Mexico and Canada and other parts of the world. Particularly disdain for neglected communities in the US that have suffered for far too long under previous administrations of Clinton-Bush-Obama with shipping of manufacturing and jobs overseas and inaction on drugs and illegal migrant flows. The EU Canada retaliatory approach has not worked. When DJT proposed doubling the tariffs imposed by US in the face of Canada EU retaliatory steps, the EU and Canada pulled back. Part of the reason is that in the case of Canada it is an economy one tenth the size of the US. The other is that there are real concerns on the US side that Canada EU are not playing fairly in trade. And Canada, Mexico, China, have not stopped the flow of fentanyl into the US.  ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In a new first China's Chang'e-4 probe is about to touch down Jan 3rd on the dark side of the moon, and dispatch a rover in a vast crater to explore the moon. China is using this as the first step in setting up a planned lunar base by 2030. This happens as president Trump revives the U.S. space program after it languished under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations restricting to unmanned space exploration.

China National Space Administration is the best funded space agency in the world after U.S.'s NASA. Some experts say NASA has lost its focus falling victim to shifting political agendas. An earlier funded program to return astronauts to the moon by NASA was cancelled in 2010 during the Obama administration. This is now jolting the Trump administration into action to revive the programs whose goals are now harder to achieve for the moon program dates in 2023.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Daniel Henninger of the WSJ says the state of opinion that asks does it matter, about the terrorist attack on Benghazi, is misplaced. He watched the movie "13 Hours" on what happened at Benghazi, and says a terrorist group had made plans to attack the American consulate, the depiction in the movie fairly accurate, and the Obama White House version with the 2012 election in two months not accurate. Henninger cites the indictment by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia of Abu Khatallah. In June 2014 Khatalla was captured by Special Forces for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The indictment says Khatallah and militias "launched a violent attack on the U.S. mission on Sept. 11, at 11.15 pm.." following this up with an attack on the CIA annex.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Only 1.9 million hourly workers in manufacturing now earn more than $20 per hour, its down 60% since 1979, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of all hourly workers in every sector of the economy the percentage of people earning more than $20 per hour shrunk to 18% in 2008 from 23% in 1979, thus losing some of the gains the US made since World War II which helped build the American middle class. One can see this unwinding clearly in the auto industry as wages are being reduced to match nonunion Japanese plants, and the industry itself is going through a huge downsizing fast. The hourly work force totals 76 million or 52% of all workers ranging from managers and professionals to factory and construction workers to technicians, educators and sales people. The wages of salaried workers show a similiar trend but are not converted into hourly amounts. As the numbers for 2007 are at the point where the economy was still booming, the path ahead as things go through a steep downturn can only have serious implications such as a slow recovery for demand in 2010. If a number of trends converge, employers shift to part time employment, auto related workers downshift to lower wages and benefits, shift to nonunion plants in the south or the midwest, and work is offshored or outsourced, this could worsen effects on consumption for years ahead especially with the credit remaining tight and consumers paying off old debt. Frank Levy, a labor economist at MIT, says that all this is happening wihtout a political debate or discussion, as people are worried more about having a job, and only secondly about what it pays and whether they are losing ground. Even the Pennsylvania primary debate, says Levy, between Hillary Clinton and Obama was conducted without quantifying the decline, and no one mentioned the eroding of the $20 per hour wage. What happened to support the consumption and support imports, was to pay for consumption by going into debt or refinancing the home. This has implications that range from the future of export industries in China's booming coastal sector, to how long the recovery drags on, and to what the future would look like....
Washington Post Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama repeatedly compared the Iran nuclear deal vote in Congress to the 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq under president George W. Bush, in a speech at American University. President John Kennedy made a speech on a strategy for peace at American University in Washington D.C. on June 10, 1963, offering negotiations as away to a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. Obama said the "choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war." The nuclear deal faces bipartisan opposition in Congress on grounds of weak verification, doubts about Iran's intentions, lifting of a weapons embargo including ballistic missiles, and lifting of economic sanctions with snapback seen as unrealistic, and support limited to Democrats in Congress. Compared to the speech by Kennedy which was hopeful- " in the final analysis, our most common link is that we all inhabit this same planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future's. And we are all mortal." It was also a response to Soviet Union's head Nikita Krushchev's letter to Kennedy of Dec. 1962 following the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, saying "the time has come now to put an end once and for all to all nuclear tests." Compared to the enthusiasm with which the Kennedy speech was received, the Obama speech brought up the divisions of the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, in which many Democrats including Senator Hillary Clinton voted to support the Iraq war, and missed the power of president Kennedy's (and Krushchev's) words of 1962. The last minute inclusion of a lifting of an arms embargo including ballistic missiles," created doubts about Iran's intentions in the U.S. Congress, unlike Kruschev and Kennedy's decisive response on the nuclear issue which led to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The condition agreed to that the Iran nuclear deal of July could pass with only one third of Congess supporting it- based on a presidential veto if Congress did not approve it with a two thirds majority- created the prospect of the U.S. moving ahead on a major foreign policy issue with only limited support....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Belgium's justice and interior ministers acknowledge the error in not taking action after being alerted by Turkish authorites of Islamic radicals suspected to be a serious terrorist threat. Turkey's president raised this issue in the media about the Belgian officials failure to act on a Turkish request to take into custody a radical arrested in Turkey for trying to enter Syria. The individual was one of two brothers who were suicide bombers in the attack at the Brussels airport and subway in March 2016.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
William Hurt plays Treasury secretary Hank Paulson in the HBO movie "Too Big to Fail," on the financial crisis of 2008. The approach HBO producers took to get the details of the story right included having actors talk to the real life figures like Hank Paulson. Hurt did a lot of questioning. Paulson was aware that his legacy would be shaped by how this story was told. Hurt came out of the discussions, including a three day visit to Paulson's home on a coastal Georgia island, saying that he did not feel manipulated. Hurt would continue to look at Paulson's actions from his own notions of value.
Washington Post Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Rosa Ines Rivera, a cook at the cafeteria for the Y.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, with 2 small children, describes the protests over the increase by Harvard administration of the premiums charged on health insurance that now take up over 10% of the income. She says she lives in public housing with her parents as she lost her apartment because she is behind on the rent, and now cannot afford to pay the increase in premiums. About 750 workers at Harvard are on strike on this issue. She says dining hall workers want the current pay of $31,193  a year increased to $35,000 to provide a living wage that helps them afford medical care, because of the high cost of living in Boston.  To get some idea of the plight of workers who provide the kind of nutritious meals that a lot of students depend on for healthy living- Rivera says she takes in about $450 a week after taxes, or about $1800, rent is $1150, which leaves $650 for herself and two children for all food, and expenses in Boston. The $4000 in premiums for health insurance would be about 330 per month, leaving her about $320 for food and living expenses with 2 children. Why the need to bring up children in poverty in America, for generation after generation, after putting in a full day of work? ...
The Guardian Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Allan Meltzer, a former economic adviser to President Reagan, and an expert on monetary policy at Carnegie Mellon School of Business says that "this is scare tactics to try to do something that is in the private but not the public interest, its terrible." Vincent Reinhart a former Fed economist says Paulson has lost credibility, people don't believe him anymore. And Elmendorf of the Brookings institution says that taxpayers should get more out of this deal with ownership stakes in the companies that use government money. Others like Bruce Bartlett, a former White House economist under president Reagan say the problem is nobody knows what the hell is going on and there are some naive assumptions about how this would function. Martin Bailly, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Clinton says for financial institutions to take the funds Treasury has to pay a premium because otherwise they would have sold already. While Bernanke told the Banking Committe that the government would pay more than the distressed prices to get broad participation which is a goal of Treasury and the Fed, neither he nor Paulson could reassure the committee about how taxpayers would be protected. Most of the economists surveyed here by the NYT are skeptical about a Wall Streeter from Goldman Sachs credibility on this as they see him paying financial institutions a premium price. The sore point in all this for the taxpayers and the public would be that the Bush administration has done nothing to help homeowners with foreclosures that are also at the root of the problem when you look beyond the immediate clogging up of the financial system and present a threat via declining home prices. And Paulson now offers a plan that also is very hazy about protecting taxpayers with equity ownership or some other protections, and has nothing to assuage the public's outrage about ceo compensation in the midst of distress. Not just the Banking Committee but experts from all sides of the political spectrum are raising concerns stressing one or other of these points, and find the lack of details in the Paulson Bernanke plan a sign of a hastily put together plan with little research even considering the lack of time, and the lack of any details a strain on people's intelligence for a proposal of such magnitude....
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›

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