text:
IN THE TUMULTUOUS history of postwar American conservatism, defeats have often contained the seeds of future victory. In 1954, the movement's first national tribune, Senator Joseph McCarthy, was checkmated by the Eisenhower administration and then "condemned" by his Senate colleagues. But the episode, and the passions it aroused, led to the founding of National Review, the movement's first serious political journal. Ten years later, the right's next leader, Barry Goldwater, suffered one of the most lopsided losses in election history. Yet the "draft Goldwater" campaign secured control of the GOP for movement conservatives. In 1976, the insurgent challenge by Goldwater's heir, Ronald Reagan, to incumbent president Gerald Ford was thwarted. But Reagan's crusade positioned him to win the presidency four years later and initiate the conservative "revolution" that remade our politics over the next quarter-century. In each instance, crushing defeat gave the movement new strength and pushed it further along the route to ultimate victory.
Today, the situation is much bleaker. After George W. Bush's two terms, conservatives must reckon with the consequences of a presidency that failed, in large part, because of its fervent commitment to movement ideology: the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy; the blind faith in a deregulated, Wall Street-centric market; the harshly punitive "culture war" waged against liberal "elites." That these precepts should have found their final, hapless defender in John McCain, who had resisted them for most of his long career, only confirms that movement doctrine retains an inflexible and suffocating grip on the GOP.
More telling than Barack Obama's victory is the consensus, steadily building since Election Day, that the nation has sunk—or been plunged—into its darkest economic passage since the Great Depression. And, as Obama pushes boldly ahead, apparently with public support, the right is struggling to reclaim its authority as the voice of opposition. The contrast with 1993, when the last Democratic president took office, is instructive. Like Obama, Bill Clinton was elected in hard economic times and, like him, promised a stimulus program, only to see his modest proposal ($19.5 billion) stripped almost bare by the Senate minority leader, Bob Dole, even though Democrats had handily won the White House and Senate Republicans formed nearly as small a minority as they do today. The difference was that the Republicans—disciplined, committed, self-assured—held the ideological advantage, which Dole leveraged through repeated use of the filibuster. Today, such a stratagem seems unthinkable. There is instead almost universal agreement—reinforced by the penitential testimony of Alan Greenspan and, more recently, by grudgingly conciliatory Republicans—that the most plausible economic rescue will involve massive government intervention, quite possibly on the scale of the New Deal/Fair Deal of the 1930s and '40s and perhaps even the New Frontier/Great Society of the 1960s. All this suggests that movement doctrine has not only been defeated but discredited.
Yet, even as the right begins to regroup, it is not clear that its leaders have absorbed the full implications of their defeat. They readily concede that the Democrats are in charge and, in Obama, have a leader of rare political skills. Many on the right also admit that the specific failures of the outgoing administration were legion. But what of the verdict issued on movement conservatism itself?
There, conservatives have offered little apart from self-justifications mixed with harsh appraisals of the Bush years. Some argue that the administration wasn't conservative at all, at least not in the "small government" sense. This is true, but then no president in modern times has seriously attempted to reduce the size of government, and for good reason: Voters don't want it reduced. What they want is government that's "big" for them—whether it's Democrats who call for job-training programs and universal health care or Republicans eager to see billions funneled into "much-needed and underfunded defense procurement," as William Kristol recommended shortly after Obama's victory.
Others on the right blame Bush's heterodoxy on interlopers, chief among them Kristol's band of neoconservative warriors at The Weekly Standard, who beguiled the administration into the Iraq war and an ill-starred Wilsonian crusade for global democracy. But here again the facts are complicated: Bush's foreign policy owes no more to the neoconservative vision of exportable democracy than to the hard-right "rollback" philosophy of the cold war years. Bush's preemptive war against jihadists, with its promise to "take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge," echoes Goldwater's assertion, in 1960, that "given the dynamic, revolutionary character of the enemy's challenge, we [must] ... always try to engage the enemy at times and places, and with weapons, of our own choosing." And it was Reagan, the hero of the movement's putative golden age, who, in 1982, called for a worldwide "crusade for freedom that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation."
Perhaps, then, the explanation lies not in the Republicans' ideas but in the defective marketing of them. This is the line taken by party strategists who think Karl Rove and his team of operatives grew complacent after their victories in 2002 and 2004 and failed to update "the brand" to suit changing demographics in Sunbelt states like Colorado and Nevada, with their socially liberal white professionals and economically liberal blue-collar Hispanics. But this thesis evades a big question: Does the movement have anything to offer such constituencies apart from a plea for their votes?
What conservatives have yet to do is confront the large but inescapable truth that movement conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead. And yet they should, because the death of movement politics can only be a boon to the right, since it has been clear for some time the movement is profoundly and defiantly un-conservative—in its ideas, arguments, strategies, and above all its vision.
WHAT PASSES FOR conservatism today would have been incomprehensible to its originator, Edmund Burke, who, in the late eighteenth century, set forth the principles by which governments might nurture the "organic" unity that bound a people together even in times of revolutionary upheaval. Burke's conservatism was based not on a particular set of ideological principles but rather on distrust of all ideologies. In his most celebrated writings, his denunciation of the French Revolution and its English champions, Burke did not seek to justify the ancien regime and its many inequities. Nor did he propose a counter-ideology. Instead he warned against the destabilizing perils of revolutionary politics, beginning with its totalizing nostrums. Robespierre and Danton, the movement ideologues of their day, were inflamed with the Enlightenment vision of the ideal civilization and sacrificed to its abstractions the established traditions and institutions of what Burke called "civil society." They placed an idea of the perfect society over and above the need to improve society as it really existed.
At the same time, Burke recognized that governments were obligated to use their powers to meliorate intolerable conditions. He had, for example, supported the American Revolution because its architects, unlike the French rebels, had not sought to destroy the English government; on the contrary, they petitioned for just representation within it. Had King George III complied, he would have strengthened, not weakened, the Crown and Parliament. Instead, he had inflexibly clung to the hard line and so shared responsibility for the Americans' revolt. "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation," Burke warned. The task of the statesman was to maintain equilibrium between "[t]he two principles of conservation and correction." Governance was a perpetual act of compromise—"sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes between evil and evil." In such a scheme there is no useful place for the either/or of ideological purism.
The story of postwar American conservatism is best understood as a continual replay of a single long-standing debate. On one side are those who have upheld the Burkean ideal of replenishing civil society by adjusting to changing conditions. On the other are those committed to a revanchist counterrevolution, the restoration of America's pre-welfare state ancien regime. And, time and again, the counterrevolutionaries have won. The result is that modern American conservatism has dedicated itself not to fortifying and replenishing civil society but rather to weakening it through a politics of civil warfare.
How did this happen? One reason is that the most intellectually sophisticated founders of postwar conservatism were in many instances ex-Marxists, who moved from left to right but remained persuaded that they were living in revolutionary times and so retained their absolutist fervor. In place of the Marxist dialectic they formulated a Manichaean politics of good and evil, still with us today, and their strategy was to build a movement based on organizing cultural antagonisms. Many have observed that movement politics most clearly defines itself not by what it yearns to conserve but by what it longs to destroy—"statist" social programs; "socialized medicine"; "big labor"; "activist" Supreme Court justices, the "media elite"; "tenured radicals" on university faculties; "experts" in and out of government.
But, if it's clear what the right is against, what exactly has it been for? This question has haunted the movement from its inception in the 1950s, when its principal objective was to undo the New Deal and reinstate the laissez-faire Republicanism of the 1920s. This backward-looking program mystified one leading conservative. Whittaker Chambers, a repentant ex-communist, had passed through a brief counterrevolutionary phase but then, in his last years, had gravitated toward a genuinely classic conservatism. He distilled his thinking in a remarkable sequence of letters written from the self-imposed exile of his Maryland farm, and sent to a young admirer, William F. Buckley Jr. When their relationship began, Buckley—a self-described "radical conservative"—was assembling the group of thinkers and writers who would form the core of National Review, a journal conceived to contest the "liberal monopolists of 'public opinion.'" Buckley was especially keen to recruit Chambers. But Chambers turned him down. He sympathized with the magazine's opposition to increasingly centralized government, but, in practical terms, he believed challenging it was futile. It was evident that New Deal economics had become the basis for governing in postwar America, and the right had no plausible choice but to accept this fact—not because liberals were all-powerful (as some on the right believed) but rather because what the right called "statism" looked very much like a Burkean "correction."
Chambers witnessed the popular demand for the New Deal firsthand. He raised milch cattle, and his neighbors were farmers. Most were archconservative, even reactionary. They had sent the segregationist Democrat Millard Tydings to the Senate, and then, when Tydings had opposed McCarthy's Red-hunting investigations, they had voted him out of office. They were also sworn enemies of programs like FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act, which tried to offset the volatility of markets by controlling crop yields and fixing prices. Some had even been indicted for refusing to allow farm officials to inspect their crops. Nonetheless, Chambers observed, his typical neighbor happily accepted federal subsidies. In other words, the farmers wanted it both ways. They wanted the freedom to grow as much as they could, even though it was against their best interests. But they also expected the government to bail them out in difficult times. In sum, "the farmers are signing for a socialist agriculture with their feet."
To Chambers, an avid student of history, this trend toward government reliance was a function of the unstoppable rise of industrial capitalism and the new technology it had brought forth. Chambers put the matter bluntly: "The machine has made the economy socialistic." And the right had better adjust. "A conservatism that will not accept this situation, he wrote, "is not a political force, or even a twitch: it has become a literary whimsy." It might well be "the duty of intellectuals ... to preach reaction," but only "from an absolute, an ideal standpoint. It is for books and posterity. It does not bear on tactics or daily life. ... Those who remain in the world, if they will not surrender on its terms, must maneuver within its terms. That is what conservatives must decide: how much to give in order to survive at all; how much to give in order not to give up the basic principles."
It sounded like Burke, though Chambers occupied what he called "the Beaconsfield position," a reference to the Earl of Beaconsfield—a.k.a. Benjamin Disraeli, after Burke the second great figure in classic conservatism. In his long career, which spanned most of the nineteenth century, Disraeli advocated "just, necessary, expedient" policies—that is, the policies the public demanded even when they contradicted his own ideological certitudes. Disraeli conceived this approach during the Industrial Revolution, which had caused a serious rupture in England's social structure and also in its politics, as a rising class of capitalists began to accumulate vast wealth and demanded more say, via voting reform, in a government still dominated by the Crown and landed aristocrats. At first, Disraeli favored the status quo because he believed that the monarchy bound different classes together and that centuries of feudal obligation had instilled in the nobility a deep sense of responsibility to the poor, who were most vulnerable to exploitation in the industrialists' factories and workhouses. But, ultimately, Disraeli realized the futility of this argument. As a statesman, he became an innovative reformer, partly to outflank the Liberals, partly to keep the Conservative party viable in a time of dynamic upheaval, but also because he came to see that, in the modern age, conservatism required an activist government that guarded the interests and needs of the entire population.
Chambers was not alone in seeing a divide between classic conservative thought and the polarizing politics of the movement. Indeed he seems to have been influenced by "The Politics of Nostalgia," an essay by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. published in June 1955, five months before the first issue ofNational Review appeared. Schlesinger's subject was the unexpected rise of "conservatism as a respectable social philosophy" in the postwar period. One book in particular, Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind, a sumptuously written survey of the classic Anglo-American tradition of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, had attracted much attention. But, Schlesinger noted, there was a strange disconnect. Kirk and others genuinely revered traditional conservatism. And yet, once "they leave the stately field of rhetoric and get down to actual issues of social policy, they tend quietly to forget about Burke and Disraeli and to adopt the views of the American business community." Kirk, for example, denounced federally sponsored school lunch programs as a "vehicle for totalitarianism" and Social Security as a form of "remorseless collectivism."
Where in this, Schlesinger asked, was even a hint of classic conservatism, with its concern for the social and moral costs of unchecked industrial capitalism?
Disraeli with his legislation on behalf of trade unions, his demand for government intervention to improve working conditions, his belief in due process and civil freedom, his support for the extension of suffrage, his insistence on the principle of compulsory education! If there is anything in contemporary America that might win the instant sympathy of men like Shaftesbury and Disraeli, it could well be the school lunch program. But for all his talk of mutual responsibility and the organic character of society, Professor Kirk, when he gets down to cases, tends to become a roaring Manchester liberal of the Herbert Hoover school.
For years to come, this paradox would roil the right, which remained split between the Burkean politics of realistic adjustment and the revanchist politics of counterrevolution. The realist Chambers, agreeing at last to write for National Review, clung to the Beaconsfield position. He supported the Eisenhower administration's negotiations with the Soviets, defended civil liberties, praised the writings of John Kenneth Galbraith. Another realist, Garry Wills, National Review's wunderkind in the 1950s and early '60s, urged a consensus conservatism that "can give the practical art of politics a combination of flexibility and stability" and also "seek 'the common good,' not as some ideal scheme of order, or quantitative accumulation of individual goods, but as the real life of the 'commonality,' of community in all its enriching forms." By contrast, the revanchist (and ex-Trotskyist) Willmoore Kendall—a mentor to both Buckley and Wills—advocated a contemporary politics waged in military terms, "a line of battle between two sets of combatants, each fighting to defeat the other ... there is a battle in progress, even a war in progress."
At first these debates were intellectual sideshows, with no overt connection to the actual politics of the time. The 1950s and early '60s were the apex of bipartisan consensus. No matter who was in office, whether it was the tightfisted Eisenhower or the free-spending Kennedy and Johnson, government inexorably expanded, driven by the twin engines of what Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex" and a booming post-industrial economy that made it possible to improve conditions for the mass of citizens. But, by the late '60s, the situation had changed. Social disruptions similar to the kinds Burke and Disraeli had experienced had come to America. A "communications revolution" created a culture of continual novelty. And the Vietnam quagmire, combined with a civil rights movement shifting from hope to frustration, undermined the authority of the Democratic Party and its current version of New Deal liberalism. The same policymakers who conceived and executed New Frontier and Great Society programs, from the Peace Corps and Vista to the War on Poverty, were helpless to manage a politics of countercultural protest—from the Berkeley Free Speech Movement to the March on the Pentagon to riots in Watts and Detroit. The most conspicuous energies flowed outside the bounds of organized government and normative society and, in many instances, against them both.
Conditions were ripe for a resurgent conservatism predicated on reasserting the values of institutional stability. One who saw this was Buckley, whose politics had steadily matured. In 1968, a cataclysmic year in which two political assassinations and a series of riots made it seem that the country might actually descend into anarchy, Buckley, writing in explicitly Burkean terms, affirmed the need to maintain social order, even if it meant preserving the welfare state. Weeks before the two national conventions were held (each eclipsed by a riot), Buckley wrote a column based on a remark Gerry Bush, a young operative in Hubert Humphrey's campaign, had made to a British journalist. "We can win the election in November," he had said, "but then can we govern the country?" Buckley interviewed Bush and reported that Bush's "stated worries were by no means confined to the difficulties that a Humphrey administration would have in governing the country. He meant that the serious question has arisen: Can anyone govern the country?"
Buckley had begun to give serious thought to Chambers's equation: "how much to give in order not to give up the basic principles." The reason was a rapid sequence of election campaigns—Goldwater's for president in 1964, Buckley's own for mayor of New York City in 1965, and Reagan's election as governor of California in 1966. Each episode had reinforced a political home truth: The right had a chance of prevailing, but only if it attracted the broad base of voters who were non-ideological and, in some cases, not even attached to either major party. To attract these voters in the middle, the GOP had to acknowledge that most were as dependent on big government as Chambers's Maryland neighbors had been. What was more, amid the upheavals of the '60s citizens wanted government—specifically the federal government—to exert the authority Burke and Disraeli had claimed for it. It made no sense for conservatives to attack "statism" when it was institutions of "the State" that formed the bedrock of civil society. In 1967, when Reagan, soon after his election, was being accused of having sold out his anti-government principles—not least because he had submitted the highest budget in state history—Buckley wondered what exactly critics expected Reagan to do, "padlock the state treasury and give speeches on the Liberty amendment?"
IT WAS THIS new sophistication that propelled modern American conservatism to the heights it reached in 1965-1975, its peak period as an intellectual force. In those years, The Public Interestcame into existence, with its rigorously nonpartisan policy analysis; Commentary published searching essays by writers left (Richard Goodwin), right (Jeane Kirkpatrick), and center (Daniel Patrick Moynihan); National Review published Wills and Joan Didion along with bracing columns by Buckley (who proposed, in 1969, that the country would benefit from the election of a black president), James Burnham, and Frank Meyer. The period's two most prescient political books—Wills's Nixon Agonistes and Kevin Phillips's The Emerging Republican Majority—were shaped in the crucible of the right, and drew on its vocabulary, but were exercises in analysis, not in polemics. Sifting through the 1968 election, Wills concluded: "The liberal Eastern Establishment found it was not needed on election day—which made its leaders take a second look at the Forgotten American, at an angry baffled middle class that, paying the bill for progress, found its values mocked by spokesmen for that progress. These voters felt cheated, disregarded, robbed of respect; and unless their support could be reenlisted, the Establishment's brand of liberalism would perish as a political force."
Phillips, meanwhile, was one of several thinkers who examined a crucial distinction between the New Deal and the Great Society. The first had been a response to an economic emergency. A fearful public had been clamoring for help, and the government had met it responsibly. But the Great Society was developed at a time of supreme confidence among the governing class, who were convinced they could preemptively cure ills invisible to others. Policy intellectuals had moved ahead of the public—perhaps too far ahead. The "war on poverty was not declared at the behest of the poor," Moynihan wrote in the first issue of The Public Interest in 1965. "Just the opposite. The poor were not only invisible .. . they were also silent." Coal miners in the Appalachians, the first targeted beneficiaries, "were desperately poor, shockingly unemployed, but neither radical nor in any significant way restive." The radicalism, such as it was, originated inside the Beltway. Once the program got under way, there was "little involvement from the workers themselves."
As liberals unwittingly squeezed themselves into the stereotypes conservatives had invented, conservative intellectuals began to look like prophets for identifying a self-appointed "managerial elite" (Burnham's term from 1941) that was leading a "liberal revolution" (Kendall's, from 1963). The poor—believers in the American dream, content to struggle upward on their own—had become "a project" for technocrats intoxicated with nostalgie de la boue. In his book Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, Moynihan—disillusioned with the programs he helped instate—ridiculed the pretensions of social scientists, "who love poor people [and] ... get along fine with rich people" but "do not have much time for the people in between." "In particular," he wrote, "they would appear to have but little sympathy with the desire for order, and anxiety about change, that are commonly encountered among working-class and lower middle-class persons. The privileged children of the upper middle classes more and more devoted themselves, in the name of helping the oppressed, to outraging the people in between." The absurdities of "social engineering" became sport for observers like Tom Wolfe, who satirized their excesses in Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers: "So the poverty professionals were always on the lookout for the bad-acting dudes who were the 'real leaders,' the 'natural leaders,' the 'charismatic figures,' in the ghetto jungle."
This liberal overreach combined with the right's new sophistication promised a new period in U.S. politics, one in which conservatives, fortified by Burkean principles, might emerge as the most articulate voices of "civil society," separating out the strands of true reform, which drew on inherited values, from "liberal-left" attempts to make those values extinct. Perhaps the Great Society could be retooled, tamed into a legitimate extension of the New Deal. But, to accomplish this, the right would have to deal honestly with capitalism and its many ambiguities.
In 1958, Chambers had declared (following Disraeli): "Conservatism is alien to the very nature of capitalism whose love of life and growth is perpetual change. We are living in one of its periods of breathless acceleration of change." This contradiction and others animated "Capitalism Today," a special issue of The Public Interest published in 1970. In an ambitious essay, Daniel Bell wrote that capitalism was transforming society and that "the corporate class," America's most powerful, had "abdicated" its obligation to reconcile its modernizing impulses with traditional values and so bore some responsibility for a contemporary culture in which "antinomianism and anti-institutionalism ruled." Writing in the same issue, Irving Kristol lauded two intellectuals of the industrial era, Matthew Arnold and Herbert Croly—both "liberal reformer[s] with essentially conservative goals." Arnold, Disraeli's contemporary, had deplored the philistinism of the business elite, its complacent indifference to humanism and the arts, while Croly, in his book The Promise of American Life, had exposed the emptiness of free-market liturgy and its corollary belief that moral and social benefits could be achieved "merely by liberating the enlightened self-enterprise of the American people." Kristol himself lamented "the ideological barrenness of the liberal and conservative creeds" and said that what America needed was a "combination of the reforming spirit with the conservative ideal."
In retrospect, two horrific events, Vietnam and Watergate, crowd out all other memories of the early 1970s. But the decade began with the promise of a mature conservatism. Richard Nixon, who took office as a credentialed anticommunist, had the authority to orchestrate a quick end to the Vietnam war, something voters clearly wanted. The civil disruptions that had plagued the late '60s also seemed soluble since the increasing militancy of the protest movements (the Weathermen, the Black Panthers) had tried the public's patience and created the demand for a return to civil society and respect for its governing institutions. Nixon, a protege of the moderate Eisenhower but also the prosecutor of Alger Hiss, seemed well equipped to combine "the reforming spirit with the conservative ideal." And his presidency initially seemed to pursue this objective. In 1969, Kevin Phillips, the most gifted strategist in Nixon's first campaign, recognized the need for Burkean compromise. Since "the emerging Republican majority," as Phillips called it, was sure to be built on the party's cooptation of Southern conservatives and on the frustrations of restive white ethnics, some of whom were attracted to the provocations of the segregationist George Wallace, it was all the more important that "Democratic liberalism" remain "a vital and creative force in modern politics ... injecting a needed leavening of humanism into the middle-class realpolitik of the new Republican coalition."
Of course it didn't happen. Why not? A big reason was Nixon himself. Rather than reconciling the two strains of conservatism, he played them against each other, sometimes strategically, sometimes cynically, sometimes paranoically, always chaotically. He perpetuated civil rights initiatives in the North, but then tried to appease white Southerners with archconservative Supreme Court appointees. Even as Nixon's most inspired cabinet choice, Moynihan, proposed a dramatic program for transferring cash directly to the poor, Nixon planted Donald Rumsfeld in the Office of Economic Opportunity, with instructions to dismantle it. In foreign policy, Nixon sent equally mixed messages. His overtures to the Soviet Union and China angered the right; his secret bombing of Cambodia inflamed the left. His legacy would be "the politics of polarization."
The polarization climaxed with Watergate. That cluster of White House crimes, once uncovered and prosecuted, gave conservatives the ideal occasion to reassert their role as guardians of social order. It was, after all, conservatives—most notably Burnham in Congress and the American Tradition—who had been inveighing for years against the destabilizing dangers of overreaching "Caesarist" presidents. Burnham was incensed when Nixon invoked "executive privilege" to evade congressional inquiry into "[t]he shoddy little trail of this pipsqueak Watergate business."
But the new generation of movement intellectuals interpreted Watergate differently. Just as liberals suspicious of Bill Clinton rallied around him during his impeachment, so Nixon's critics on the right defended him during Watergate. The true culprit, they decided, wasn't Nixon. It was the dark liberal forces arrayed against him. A "long term change in the equation of political power," Jeffrey Hart theorized in National Review, had placed the president at the mercy of "the federal bureaucracy," which, "though nominally part of the 'executive branch,' actually operates with considerable autonomy." But this "long term" change appeared to have happened overnight, with the election of the first president who had ties to the right. Hart also identified a second culprit, the "liberal-left bias of the major media."
The argument that political power emanated from an alliance of liberal government bureaucrats and a sympathetic press became the favored theme in the movement's next phase, elaborated in neopopulist books like Phillips's Mediacracy, Patrick J. Buchanan's Conservative Votes, Liberal Victories, and William A. Rusher's The Making of a New Majority. In assessing the burgeoning literature of "New Right" ideology, Jeane Kirkpatrick detected a unifying set of beliefs she found delusional:
Among these are the idea that there exists in the electorate a hidden conservative majority; that the social division with the greatest potential political significance is not that between "haves" and "have-nots" but between the liberal elite and everybody else; that a realignment of the parties into two ideologically homogeneous groups is both desirable and likely; that the Republican party may not prove an effective institutional channel for the expression of truly conservative politics and should perhaps be abandoned; and that the principal obstacles to the conservative cause are the nation's media monopolies through whose "distorting lens" is filtered "almost every scrap of information Americans receive of their national government, its programs, policies, and personalities."
It was back to civil war, with some of the most intense skirmishes waged inside the GOP. Buchanan and Rusher, in particular, "were offended by the continuing presence in the Republican Party of a liberal minority which, ideologically speaking, belonged on the other side," Kirkpatrick noted. So preoccupied with doctrinal purity, however, New Right analysts missed the real meaning of the country's rightward drift, which had almost nothing to do with movement ideology. It was true that "a large majority of American adults are conservative," Kirkpatrick acknowledged, but in the classic, not movement sense, since "they are attached to the existing society and will support it against challenges to its legitimacy."
The Burkean moment was dissipating, and not only because of New Right populists. In 1975, the same year Phillips's, Buchanan's, and Rusher's manifestos all were published, Irving Kristol, the onetime elegist of the non-ideological "reforming spirit," identified a "new class" of liberal enemies. They were "not much interested in money but are keenly interested in power," Kristol wrote. "Power for what? Well, the power to shape our civilization—a power, which, in a capitalist system, is supposed to reside in the free market. The 'new class' wants to see much of this power redistributed to government, where they will then have a major say in how it is exercised." And who, exactly, populated this new class? "[S]cientists, teachers and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy."
This formulation mirrored "the antinomianism and anti-institutionalism" Bell had attributed to the countercultural left. The right, it appeared, was nursing its own version of anti-Americanism. In fact, it had been festering for many years. As Garry Wills, who broke with the movement in the 1970s but continued to call himself a conservative, observed: "The right wing in America is stuck with the paradox of holding a philosophy of 'conserving' an actual order it does not want to conserve."
The attack on the "new class," rooted in cultural hostility, dominated movement conservatism for the next 30 years, up through the administration of George W. Bush. On one side, as Rusher described it, were "businessmen, manufacturers, hard-hats, blue-collar workers, and farmers." On the other: "a liberal verbalist elite (the dominant media, the major foundations and research institutions, the educational establishment, the federal and state bureaucracies) and a semipermanent welfare constituency."
The great tribune of this new polarity was Ronald Reagan, with his denunciations of "big government" and the Cadillac-driving "welfare queens" it supported and his devotion (with urging from Kristol) to supply-side economics. The New Right was not only anti-Burkean. For all its populist enthusiasms, it reached back to the plutocratic Old Right of the Depression years, when businessmen had opposed federal assistance to the jobless because (as William E. Leuchtenburg summarized the argument in his book The Perils of Prosperity) "the suffering of the unemployed was not the product of an economic breakdown but was the direct result of their moral infirmity."
As Reagan's first term approached its end, it "has achieved as yet hardly anything in bringing the most rapidly growing domestic programs under control," Nathan Glazer concluded, after examining the available budget data. There was a reason nothing was done: The untouched programs benefited the "Reagan Democrats" who had been wooed in 1980 with the pledge that "insurance programs" like Social Security and Medicare would not be touched. The boom had been lowered in only one place: "The advocates of the poor play no role in this administration," Glazer found. "From this fact one can conclude that a certain blindness to their problems at best, and a positive malice at worst, animates the administration's policies." So much for the Beaconsfield position.
With Reagan, the argument between realism and revanchism all but ended. The revanchists had won. They consolidated their power during the 1990s when Republicans spent the better part of Bill Clinton's two terms trying to delegitimize him, even as he collaborated with them "to end welfare as we know it." The movement's new Danton, Newt Gingrich, who became speaker of the House in 1995, proposed "reforms"—"term limits" for representatives, the purging of moderates from committee chairmanships—that would have mystified conservative thinkers, such as Burnham and Kendall, who had contended that Congress's strength derived in large part from its institutional traditions.
The right, which for so long had deplored the politics of "class warfare," had become the most adept practitioners of that same politics. They had not only abandoned Burke. They had become inverse Marxists, placing loyalty to the movement—the Reagan Revolution—above their civic responsibilities. In 1995, the time of Gingrich's ascendancy, Kristol buoyantly spelled out the terms of revanchist strategy: "American conservatism is a movement, a popular movement, not a faction within any political party. Though, inevitably, most conservatives vote Republican, they are not party loyalists and the party has to woo them to win votes. This movement is issue oriented. It will happily meld with the Republican party if the party is 'right' on the issues; if not, it will walk away." By this calculus, all the obligations flow in only one direction. Parties are accountable to movement purists, while purists incur no reciprocal debt. They determine the "right" position, and the party's job is to advance it. Kristol does not consider whether purists might be expected to maneuver at all or even to modify their views—for the good not only of the party but also the larger polity.
Kristol went on, in this essay, to extol the contributions of two movement subgroups, the neoconservatives and the evangelicals. It was of course this alliance that most fervently supported George W. Bush during his two terms and remains most loyal to him today.
By their lights, they are right to do so. Bush, so often labeled a traitor to conservative principles, was in fact more steadfastly devoted to them than any of his Republican predecessors—including Ronald Reagan. Few on the right acknowledge this today, for obvious reasons. But not so long ago many did. At his peak, following September 11, Bush commanded the loyalties of every major faction of the Republican Party. The big central domestic proposal of his first term, the $1.3 trillion tax cut, extended Reagan's massive "tax reform" from the 1980s. Shortly before the Iraq invasion, Martin Anderson, Reagan's top domestic policy adviser, told Bill Keller (writing in The New York Times Magazine) that Bush was unmistakably Reagan's heir. "On taxes, on education, it was the same. On Social Security, Bush's position was exactly what Reagan always wanted and talked about in the '70s," Anderson said. "I just can't think of any major policy issue on which Bush was different." The prime initiative of Bush's second term, the attempt to privatize Social Security, drew directly on movement scripture: Milton Friedman denounced the "compulsory annuities" of Social Security inCapitalism and Freedom. Buckley noted the advantages of "voluntary" accounts in his early manifesto,Up From Liberalism. So did Barry Goldwater during his presidential campaign in 1964. Bush went further than Reagan, too, in the war he waged against the federal bureaucracy. And his attacks on the "liberal-left bias of the major media" were the most aggressive since Nixon's.
And then there was Iraq, the event that shaped Bush's presidency and, by most accounts, brought both him and the movement to ruin. It was also the event most at odds with classic conservative thinking. It is customary even now to say that the architects of the Iraq occupation failed because they naively placed too much faith in democracy. In fact, the problem was just the opposite. So contemptuous of the actual requirements of civil society at home, Bush's war planners gave no serious thought to how difficult it might be to create such a society in a distant land with a vastly different history. Those within the administration who tried to make this case were marginalized or removed from power.
In one of his prescient early writings, The Vindication of the English Constitution, a pamphlet published in 1835, the very young Disraeli reviewed the parallel democratizing experiments of his own time. In every nation where democracy had flourished, Disraeli observed, the rule of law was already embedded in social custom. This was why America had easily made the transition from a colonial protectorate to an independent constitutional society, while South American nations had not. Democracy was the fruit, not the precondition, of civil order. "Political institutions, founded on abstract rights and principles, are mere nullities," Disraeli wrote. Europe, too, had its pre-democratic places where "a comparative civilisation had been obtained under the influence of a despotic priesthood. And these are the regions to which it is thought fit suddenly to apply the institutions which regulate the civil life of Yorkshire and of Kent!"
In the end, movement conservatives got the war they wanted—both at home and abroad. It ended, at last, with the 2008 election, and the emergence of a president who seems more thoroughly steeped in the principles of Burkean conservatism than any significant thinker or political figure on the right.
What our politics has consistently demanded of its leaders, if they are to ascend to the status of disinterested statesmen, is not the assertion but rather the renunciation of ideology. And the only ideology one can meaningfully renounce is one's own. Liberals did this a generation ago when they shed the programmatic "New Politics" of the left and embraced instead a broad majoritarianism. Now it is time for conservatives to repudiate movement politics and recover their honorable intellectual and political tradition. At its best, conservatism has served the vital function of clarifying our shared connection to the past and of giving articulate voice to the normative beliefs Americans have striven to maintain even in the worst of times. There remains in our politics a place for an authentic conservatism—a conservatism that seeks not to destroy but to conserve.
Sam Tanenhaus is editor of The New York Times Book Review and Week in Review and is at work on a biography of William F. Buckley Jr.
This article appeared in the February 18, 2009 issue of the magazine.


text:
This is the cake I made for my MIL's birthday; I'd already set up my mind to bake a chocolate cake, but when I called her to ask which flavor she wanted she told me I was being kind enough to bake her the cake, so she would not choose the flavor – I should do that, instead; just what I needed to try a different cake from my favorite layer cake book. :D
I could not find canned pineapple in juice, so I bought it in syrup and adapted the filling. I thought the pineapple jam was delicious and the coconut buttercream almost addictive – but wasn't all that happy about the cake layers. They tasted good, because of the massive amounts of brown sugar, but the texture was a bit heavy in my opinion. If you're interested in making the piña colada cake, I suggest the cake layers from this recipe.
Piña Colada cake
adapted from Sky High: Irresistible Triple-Layer Cakes
Brown sugar cake:
3¾ cups (525g) cake flour*
1¾ teaspoons baking soda
1 teaspoon baking powder
½ teaspoon salt
2¼ cups (393g) packed light brown sugar
1 cup (226g/2 sticks) unsalted butter, at room temperature
1¾ cups (420ml) buttermilk
5 eggs
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
2/3 cups (160ml) rum (light, amber or dark), to assemble the cake
Pineapple filling:
1 can (560g/20oz) sliced pineapple in syrup
1 cup (200g) caster sugar
1/3 cup (80ml) freshly squeezed lime juice
3 tablespoons water
½ vanilla bean, split and seeds scraped with the back of a knife
Coconut buttercream:
3 eggs whites
pinch of salt
1 cup (200g) caster sugar
¼ cup (60ml) water
2½ sticks (280g/10oz) unsalted butter, at room temperature
2/3 cup (160ml) unsweetened coconut milk
½ cup (50g) sweetened shredded coconut, lightly toasted (if desired)
pineapple slice
Start by making the cakes: preheat the oven to 180°C/350°F. Butter three 22cm (9in) cake pans, line the base with baking paper and butter the paper as well.
Sift together the flour, baking soda, baking powder and salt into the large bowl of a stand mixer. Whisk gently to combine. Add the brown sugar, butter and 1½ cups of the buttermilk to the dry ingredients. With the mixer on low blend to incorporate. Raise the speed to medium and beat until light and fluffy, 2 to 3 minutes.
Whisk the eggs with the remaining ¼ cup buttermilk and the vanilla and add to the batter in 3 additions, scraping down the sides of the bowl well and beating only long enough to incorporate between additions. Divide the batter between the 3 pans.
Bake for 25-28 minutes or until a cake tester or wooden toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean. Let the layers cool in the pans for 10 minutes, then turn out onto wire racks, carefully peel off the paper and allow to cool completely.
Now, the pineapple filling: drain the pineapple and discard the syrup. Set aside 1 slice of pineapple (for decoration) and finely chop the other slices. Place in a medium saucepan with the sugar, lime juice and water. Add the vanilla seeds you scraped from the vanilla bean. Warm over a medium-low heat, stirring to dissolve the sugar, 2 to 3 minutes. Raise the heat to medium and simmer, stirring occasionally, until the juices have almost completely evaporated and turned jam-like in consistency. Let the filling cool completely before using. Can be made a day in advance and refrigerated.
Make the buttercream: put the eggs whites and salt in the bowl of an electric mixer fitted with a whip attachment so they are ready to go.
Combine the sugar and water in a small saucepan and place over a medium heat, stirring to dissolve the sugar. Bring to the boil and cook without stirring until the syrup reaches the sold boil stage, 114°C/238°F on a candy thermometer.
Beat the egg whites briefly at medium speed. Slowly add the hot syrup in a thin stream, being careful to avoid the beaters. Continue to whip until the meringue has cooled to body temperature.
With the mixer on low speed, gradually add the butter, several tablespoons at a time and continue to beat until a smooth fluffy frosting forms.
Add the coconut milk in several additions, scraping down the sides of the bowl well after each addition. Measure 1 cup of the buttercream and mix with the pineapple filling.
Assembling the cake: place one layer flat side up on a cake stand. Sprinkle a generous 3 tablespoons** rum over the cake. Spread half of the filling over the layer, leaving a small gap around the edge. Add the second layer, sprinkle with more rum and cover with the remaining filling. Top with the third layer and sprinkle with the remaining rum.
Frost the top and sides of the cake with the coconut buttercream. Decorate the sides of the cake with
the shredded coconut and top with the reserved pineapple slice.
* homemade cake flour: 1 cup (140g) all purpose flour minus 2 tablespoons + 2 tablespoons corn starch
** I used only 1 tablespoon of rum per cake layer
Serves 14-16 – I made 2/3 of the recipe above and used 20cm (8in) cake pans
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Piña Colada cake
27 comments:
- Suelle said...
It looks absolutely stunning; it's a shame you felt the cake layers were a bit of a let down.
- September 29, 2010
- Sylvia F. said...
Pina colada <3
Cake looks amazing!
www.kuchcikowo.wordpress.com - September 29, 2010
- RecipeGirl said...
Well, it certainly looks beautiful! Was MIL happy, at least?
- September 29, 2010
- Xiaolu @ 6 Bittersweets said...
This is so cute! How fun :).
- September 29, 2010
The pineapple and lime juice combi sounds so refreshingly good!
- September 29, 2010
- The Urban Baker said...
you are amazing, Patricia! Your creations are gorgeous and your finished product are nothing less than perfect! You are a good DIL! x
- September 29, 2010
- Satya said...
- September 29, 2010
- Rach said...
I love the texture of the coconut on the side. Gorgeous cake and photos :]
- September 29, 2010
- Patty said...
Hello beautiful cake! Thank you for sharing your baking notes - I'm sure it was still very delicious - but we all know you have excellent taste so it's helpful to hear your synopsis. :)
- September 29, 2010
- Jennifer said...
Lucky MIL! I love the sounds of this cake, with the yummy filling and coconut buttercream! Great job :)
- September 29, 2010
- Priya Suresh said...
Such a beautiful looking cake..looks sooo gorgeous..
- September 29, 2010
- Abby said...
All my complementary words are taken above! Stunning, gorgeous, beautiful. I hate that the layers didn't work out as you planned; I've had that happen. Good to know you can switch them out!
- September 29, 2010
- Heidi - Apples Under My Bed said...
"If you like pina coladas, and gettin' caught in the rain" - sorry, sorry! I just had to :) How sweet are you to bake this for your MIL. Great choice. Very creative. Im alwasy impressed, Patricia :)
Heidi xo - September 29, 2010
- Brilynn said...
That cake looks awesome and now I'm craving a pina colada, love that flavour combo!
- September 29, 2010
- Frankie said...
this looks scrumptious!
- September 30, 2010
- Bakericious said...
beautiful cake.
- September 30, 2010
- Caroline said...
My MIL's birthday is tomorrow and thought of making this for her but she asked for bolo de coco instead. Your cake is so beautiful!
- September 30, 2010
- LyB said...
That is such an impressive looking cake, Patricia! The flavor combination sounds wonderful too.
- September 30, 2010
- diseño web said...
The picture is making me hungry!
- September 30, 2010
I love the combination pineapple and coconut. And the cake looks amazing. Btw, your pictures make everything look great!!!! I'm a big fan of your blog. Congratulations.
- September 30, 2010
- Torviewtoronto said...
lovely picture
- October 01, 2010
- Katie said...
I love how you've decorated it - stunning. I've made this exact recipe and my dad said it was his favourite one ever. I'm sure your friend was delighted with it
- October 01, 2010
- ChichaJo said...
It looks beautiful! I'm sure your MIL loved it!
- October 01, 2010
- Emily said...
What a gorgeous cake!!! I love the idea of pina colada + cake, it definitely has the wow factor. :D
- October 01, 2010
- Patricia Scarpin said...
Suelle, thank you!
Fiolunka, thank you for stopping by!
RecipeGirl, she was! :D
Thank you!
Xiaolu, thank you, sweetie!
Crustabakes, they are wonderful together!
Susan, thank you, my dear! I have a good MIL, too! :D
Satya, thank you!
Rach, thank you! I'm a sucker for all things coconut, like many Brazilians. :D
Patty, thank you, my dear! I try to be helpful so others can make birthday cakes at home, too!
Jen, thank you! That buttercream is delicious!
Pryia, thank you!
Abby, you are far too kind, darling! Thank you! The layers from the other recipe are really good, I thought you all should know!
Heiki, I'm glad you did - I did not know that song! :D
You are just too sweet. thank you!
Bri, how about piña colada ice cream? ;)
Frankie, thank you!
Jess, thank you!
Caroline, thank you for stopping by! Hey, bolo de coco is great, too! :D
Lynne, thank you, my dear!
Tati, thank you! I'm glad you're enjoying the blog!
Torview..., thank you!
Katie, she was very pleased - thank you! I'm sure the cake you baked for your dad was amazing.
Joey, thank you! She did! :D
Emily, thank you! I was really happy about choosing something different from the traditional flavors. - October 01, 2010
- Sweet Angel Baby Cakes said...
I made these in cupcake form for a recent shower, and they were a HUGE hit. Thanks for the recipe. I will be making it in cake for my book club ladies this week. :)
- May 06, 2013
- Patricia Scarpin said...
Hey, there - I'm so glad to hear the recipe was a hit! Thank YOU for letting me know how it turned out!
- May 07, 2013

subset: commoncrawl


text:
2Pc Solid Stitched Suit
2Pc Solid Stitched Suit
Just 1 left. Order soon.
Order today, and you'll receive your package between and
Drop shoulder shirt with culottes.
Note: Actual product color may vary slightly from the image.
Delivery Days & Charges
Within Pakistan :
-Approx. 5 working days.
-Rs.150 Delivery Charges up to 2 Dresses , FREE Delivery on 3 Dresses or above.
Outside Pakistan :
Approx 10-15 Days.
-Delivery charges are different for each country and weight of the parcel.
Please check our International rates here.
Return & Exchanges
-We will gladly accept any unworn, unwashed merchandise with original tags within 30 Days of purchase for a Refund or an Exchange.
-Goods sold on Sale will not be Return or Exchange, how ever if the product is defected we will surely consider for Refund and Exchange.
-Please return goods with a copy of the invoice and mention the reason for returning the items.
-Goods bought from outlet will be retuned at outlet only and orders bought from website will be returned at our head office. Online orders returns will not be entertained at our outlets.
-Customer needs to return the merchandise via traceable delivery i.e. courier or registered post on his own expense to our HEADOFFICE address.
-All returns should be sent to 31e , sector 15 , korangi industrial area , Karachi , Pakistan.
-To complete your return, we require a receipt or proof of purchase.
-Any item not in its original condition, is damaged or missing parts for reasons not due to our error will not be refunded or exchanged.
-Any item that is returned more than 30 days after delivery will not be refunded or exchanged.
-Refund requests will be processed within 10-12 Business days after receiving the returned products.
Refunds & Exchange
-Once your return is received and inspected, we will send you an email / sms OR call you to notify you that we have received your returned items. We will also notify you of the approval or rejection of your refund or exchange.
-Delivery Charges will not be refunded.
-If your refund request is approved, then your refund will be processed and you will get the refund through Easy Paisa , Bank Transfer or Western Union. Please note that it might take up to 10-12 Business days for refund completion because of approvals from accounts departments , banks and other formalities.
-Incase of exchange we will send you fresh product and we will make sure it is as per your requirements.You will have to pay delivery charges.
-Only regular priced items may be refunded, unfortunately sale items cannot be refunded.
Contact Details :-
-For further queries about exchanges and returns, Please whatsapp us at 0333-6161284 or email us at email@example.com.
-Our Address : 31e , Sector 15 , Korangi Industrial Area , Karachi , Pakistan.


text:
Let's move on from pretzels to potato chips with our last word in business. Why not - as in - why not make potato chips that taste like chicken and waffles or cheesy garlic bread?
Or hot sauce? Why not? We imagine that's what someone at Lays Potato Chips said because these chip flavors are apparently real.
MONTAGNE: That's according to the Associated Press, L.A. Times, and a number of folks who say they've already seen the new products in stores and posted photos online - this part of a contest in which customers offer their suggestions for new chip varieties.
INSKEEP: The company is expected to make an official announcement about the winning flavors tomorrow. One must only wonder what some of the rejected ideas were.
And that's the business news on MORNING EDITION, from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep.
MONTAGNE: And I'm Renee Montagne. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
Many airline passengers saw only moderate flight delays stemming from the first full day of furloughs for nearly 15,000 flight controllers and other Federal Aviation Administration workers, as industry analysts' worst fears did not materialize. But the reduced staffing was blamed for some slowdowns, and observers say it also increased the length of unrelated delays.
We'll be keeping an eye on possible delays today, and updating this post with new information.
Update at 6:45 p.m. ET. Delays Build, Tied To Weather And Furloughs:
The FAA's furloughs didn't bring the massive cascading delays some analysts had feared as of early evening on the East Coast Monday. But many travelers' plans were hampered by delays and cancellations, as rain and windy conditions around New York City forced delays at airports and the rescheduling of flights.
Denver International also had problems, stemming from snow and ice. And Charlotte's Douglas International had intermittent delays throughout the day, which worsened in the afternoon.
The worst furlough-related delays may have been at Los Angeles International Airport, which reported delays of nearly two hours for arriving flights. The sole reason provided by the FAA was "staffing."
The FAA says that the furloughs will likely force controllers to put more space between planes, so they can be safely managed, as USA Today reports.
The furloughs may continue through September, which could complicate the summer travel season. For more background on the furloughs — including a court motion to stop them — see this story by NPR's Marylyn Geewax.
Update at 3:21 p.m. ET. Few Furlough Delays Seen:
Impact from the furloughs has been neither extreme nor widespread, with busy airports in Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles reporting no or few delays. New York's three big airports experienced delays, but the longest holdups were blamed on high winds and maintenance work, in addition to staffing issues.
Baltimore-Washington International Airports in Charlotte and Orlando also reported moderate to heavy delays during the mid-day hours, but they've been sporadic. Our original post continues:
As of 11:45 a.m. Monday, the FAA's U.S. flight-tracking map showed delays of more than an hour at New York's LaGuardia, due to high volume and winds. The FlightAware site reported delays of more than an hour for some inbound flights at John F. Kennedy International Airport, due to runway work. Most other large airports were deemed free of trouble, with some experiencing slight delays.
"The cuts required by the sequester have forced us to slash contract expenses and furlough 47,000 of our employees," FAA Administrator Michael Huerta told a Senate committee Thursday. He predicted that the agency's handling of air traffic operations would be less efficient, and that there would be less time for safety inspections of new aircraft.
Any delays that stem from the FAA furloughs are expected to be the most extreme at the nation's busiest airports, especially those that routinely handle international flights. The FAA recommends getting to the airport two hours before a domestic flight, and three hours before an international trip.
If significant delays develop, airlines say they plan to reroute flights and use shuttle buses to get passengers to their destinations or connecting flights.
The FAA's furlough plan has drawn criticism from members of Congress, who accuse the agency of mismanaging the budget cuts and hyping their impact.
"Given that the FAA's budget increased more than 100 percent over the last 15 years, finding five percent in savings shouldn't need to significantly impact our nation's aviation operations," said Rep. Bill Shuster, chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Airlines, unhappy that the furloughs might cause them to experience cascading delays — and to endure frustrated customers' ire — have to help the public complain to the FAA.
The FAA furloughs, which require employees to stay home from work without pay for one or two days per pay period, are expected to continue until the financial year ends on Sept. 31. The agency says that on any given day, as much as 10 percent of its employees will be off work.
The Global Business Travel Association, which bills itself as the voice of the business travel industry, sent a letter to the FAA's Huerta Monday, saying that its nearly 6,000 members "are very much alarmed by the list of airports and the expected delays. With Hartsfield-Jackson expected to see maximum delays of 210 minutes and Chicago O'Hare close behind, the impacted airports is a veritable hit list on the business travel industry."
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
5 First-Person Tornado Videos From Joplin, MO [GRAPHIC LANGUAGE]
The tornado that slammed Joplin, MO on May 22, like the others around the country recently, has resulted in stunning first-person video accounts. With the popularity of video capability on smartphones (not to mention digital cameras) we are now not only seeing the damage closer than ever, but we are also seeing what it's like to wait for the storm, then experience it.
Below are some videos that show the intensity of the storms (during and after).
WARNING: Some videos contain graphic language.
Chopper arrives at the scene soon after the storms hit.
Terrifying audio shows the anxious wait for the storm, and the inevitable impact. [GRAPHIC LANGUAGE]
Resident records video of his unrecognizable neighborhood, while survivors wander the streets unsure what to do. [GRAPHIC LANGUAGE]
Eerily quiet footage shows the ruins of a gas station.
Weather Channel reporter Mike Bettes arrives on the scene an hour after the storms, and frantically searches for survivors in cars.
[Sources: Super Hits 105.3; New York Times; Buzzfeed]


text:
Thank you for your interest.
Disability insurance helps replace income lost because of an accident or illness. One survey found that 43% of people aged 40 will suffer a disability of at least 90 days before they reach age 65.1
After completing the form, please click on the "Submit" button. Your information will be emailed to our offices and we will process your request. All information will be kept confidential.
1. 2000 Field Guide, National Underwriter
» Required Fields
Newman Insurance Services Inc. |
211 W. Wacker Drive
Phone: 847-945-0475 | | Fax: 847-945-0915 |
www.newmaninsurance.org | | email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com |


text:
Walkinstown Auto Services Limited was set up on Friday the 18th of June 2004. Their current partial address is Dublin, and the company status is Normal. The company's current director has been the director of 5 other Irish companies. According to our records, Walkinstown Auto Services Limited has had a judgment registered against it. Walkinstown Auto Services Limited has 1 shareholder.
Company Name: | Walkinstown Auto Services Limited |
Company Status: | NORMAL |
Company Address: | Greenhills Road, Walkinstown, Dublin 12, Dublin, Ireland |
Website: | www.recoveryworld.co.uk |
Key Executive: | Mr Lyons |
Company Size: | Log-In To View |
Disclaimer | Other Details |
Please note the contact details displayed above are collected from a variety of public sources and are appended to this report for your convenience. As they are non-CRO data, we can not vouch for their accuracy or timeliness. To update contact details on this company simply email us. |
Mr Lyons is a Company Director of Walkinstown Auto Services Limited since 2004 and a listed Director of 5 other companies.
Generate a B2B Marketing List with ease and grow your business. Identify key decision makers and pre-qualified new prospects for your sales and business development teams.
Similar Companies - Create a marketing list of similar companies
The latest documents filed with the Companies Registration Office for Walkinstown Auto Services Limited (which can include the Account Details) are listed below.
CRO Document | Effective Date | Received By CRO | View Now | |
Form B1C - Annual Return General | 28/02/2024 | 24/04/2024 | Join Up | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENT | 28/02/2024 | 24/04/2024 | Join Up | |
Financial Statement Certificate | 28/02/2024 | 24/04/2024 | Join Up | |
Form B1C - Annual Return General | 28/02/2023 | 24/04/2023 | Join Up | |
FINANCIAL STATEMENT | 28/02/2023 | 24/04/2023 | Join Up | |
View CRO company documents and company reports any Irish company or business with ease.
View the Latest Credit Report and Credit Limit on Walkinstown Auto Services Limited.
Company Status: | Normal |
Latest Credit Movement: | |
Date of Last Movement: | 30/05/2024 |
Latest Accounts Filed: | 24/04/2024 |
Report Based on Accounts: | 31/05/2023 |
Next Set of Accounts Due: | 28/02/2025 |
Overdue: | No |
Credit Score: | Join-Up to View |
To View the latest Credit Rating or Credit Limit on Walkinstown Auto Services Limited simply click 'Log-In' or 'Join-Up' below.
Vision-net Credit Scores save your business the time and cost of chasing slow payers. Evaluate risk at client application stage or run continuous credit checks on your full customer base.
Satisfy due diligence requirements on Walkinstown Auto Services Limited in one single 'time-saving' search. Run full background checks for Fitness and Probity on the directors of Walkinstown Auto Services Limited and Anti-Money Laundering checks (AML checks) on Walkinstown Auto Services Limited
Company Type: | LTD - Private Company Limited By Shares |
Number of Shareholders: | 1 |
Log-in now to run Due Diligence checks and Compliance checks on Walkinstown Auto Services Limited or click Join-up to get started.
Background check Companies, Sole Traders or Individuals and minimise your spend with more efficient Anti-Money Laundering checks and reports.
How well do you know the geography of Ireland's businesses?
In Quarter 1 of 2024, we have seen the most company closures when compared with the same period to the 3 years prior
The ability to benchmark a company against an industry with regards to ESG was once a far off idea...
April 30th, at the 2024 ESG Summit in Croke Park, we are excited to announce that CRIF Vision-net will be launching our new service!


text:
Mid Back Pain
The fast-paced lifestyles of today have taken their toll on the backs of America. Currently, back pain is the number one cause of disability in those aged 19-45 and is the second leading cause of missed work days. Total annual costs for back pain in the US alone are estimated to be in excess of $60 billion.
A number of factors contributing to these statistics, including:
- overall increases in work demands
- overall decreases in physical activity
- increases in prolonged sitting (at the desk, in the car, in front of the television)
- lack of periodic spinal checkups and preventative care
- failure to seek immediate care following injury
- failure to receive adequate treatment for back injuries (i.e. medications only without proper rehabilitation of tissues)
- poor postural habits and lifting techniques
Our treatments primarily focus on the cause of your problems, which not only results in rapid and effective pain-relief, but most importantly, minimizes the chance of future back problems.
To learn more about mid back anatomy, causes of mid back pain, treatments for mid back pain and related articles, choose from the menu links.


text:
To have full access join the Reliant Sabre and Scimitar Owners Club.
Forgotten your login details? You can reset your password below. If you have forgotten your user name, please contact a forum administrator.
More information is available on the ScimitarWeb Homepage.
For more information the guide for the Coupe/GTE/GTC can be purchased from our online Shop
Buying a GTE or GTC or Middlebridge Scimitar
First of all, buy the Club's 'Buying Secondhand' guide and read it carefully. It will cost you 4.50 pounds and will be money well spent. If you want to buy a Scimitar, you'll be ready then! Buy the best you can afford. There are quite a few cars out there in good condition.
Secondly, you should always make a thorough check of the car you are buying, just as you would when buying any (older) car. The youngest GTE/GTC are over 25 years old, the oldest are over 40!
The Chassis Is Really Strong, But:
both the SE5 and SE6 can rust badly after long periods of inattention or neglect. Galvanised chassis: Only the last few GTC and SE6b cars have a galvanised chassis. In numbers, the last 70-80 cars of each model, so the majority (360 cars of each model) do NOT have galvanised chassis. Roughly, any car from late 1983 on should have a galvanised chassis. A galvanised chassis should be better protected against rust, butsome rust can appear after 25 years!
Middlebridge Scimitars all have a galvanised chassis. These seem pretty OK. But some standard grade steel was used for some parts be bolted on the chassis, like seatbelt anchors, or spare wheel tray. These will rust at double rate! MB spare wheel trays are not available.
Chassis Front End
Rust can occur around the radiator and towards the front end. Also the front suspension mounting brackets can crack. Check under the car and under the spare wheel. Don't forget the bolted on spare wheel tray and bumper mountings.
Central Chassis
Front chassis outriggers may collect mud and debris. Check under the car and in the wheel arches. But worse is rust between the upper chassis and the body. Not visible with the body on. Usually when outriggers are rusting, you'll notice.
The Centre Outrigger
Check under the car, inspection of the upper side is almost impossible with the body on the chassis. Special attention needed at the 'B' pillar, where the roll bar is fitted to the chassis. This is a rust prone spot. All outer seat belts mounting points are on the roll bar, so if the roll bar is no longer attached to the chassis, seat belts are not able to absorb impact energy in an accident.
Rear End
Rear Suspension mounts are important as they hold the rear suspension on to the body. They should be rust free. Like the front outriggers, rear outriggers also collect mud so check both under the car and in the wheel arches (wheels preferably removed). The chassis rear end rust is hard to detect with the body on, so check around the fuel tank.
Rear Suspension:
Not likely to cause problems, other than sagging springs, failed shock absorbers and worn bushes. There is a grease nipple to be attended to regularly!
Front Suspension:
Based on the Triumph TR series. In fact, early SE5 (and only these!) have the same suspension. Double wishbone mounted in rubber. These rubbers wear. They need to be replaced on a regular basis. The trunnion and the trunnion bolt need regular greasing. When neglected the bold will weld itself into the trunnion and destroy both. There are four points (on both sides!) that need regular greasing: the trunnion (lower nipple); the trunnion bolt; ball joint (upper nipple); and the wheel bearing. Check in the wheel arches, best with wheel removed. If no signs of grease are visible, expect an overhaul. The front springs can also sag. The distance between the wheel arch and the ground should be 25" to 27"/ 63,5 cm to 68,5 cm. Check the tyres, they should wear equal and not on the inside. Also check the rear ones please, to exclude front-back swap. Complete overhaul is not very expensive, and are readily available through the Club's Trading Partners in the UK and Europe.
Ford Essex 3 Litre V6
If well maintained good for > 200.000 km (SE4/5/5a/6/6a). Oil pressure should at least 40 lb psi, 50 is better (> 2000 rpm) but it should never exceed 75 lb psi. At idling speed (engine hot) pressure should read about 25 lb psi. Two weak spots after high mileage: Worn oil pump drive shaft and worn cam timing gear. Standard engine in the se5 (early 'Zodiac' version), se5a, se6/6a.
Ford Cologne 2.8 V6
If well maintained also good for > 200.000 km (SE6b/8). Oil pressure should at least 25lb psi (> 2000 rpm) but it should never exceed 75 lb psi. At idling speed (engine hot) pressure should read about 10 lb psi.
Scimitars used the carburated version of the Cologne. Standard was a Pierburg Solex carburettor. This is a hard to keep in tune carburettor, with electric components. Lots of owners had it retrofitted with a Weber 38 DGAS (or DGMS for manual choke), the same carburettor as on the se6a. Standard engine in the se6b and GTC.
Ford Cologne 2.9 V6
The ultimate version of the original Cologne in Europe. Fully EFI controlled injection. This is a more modern engine, an improved 2.8. Standard engine for the Middlebridge Scimitar GTE.
3 Litres may last longer than 2.8's, but both last well. Always look for oil and other leaks. A good engine doesn't have to leak. Blue smoke from the exhausts tell that the engine needs overhaul (worn bore). Check the level of oil and coolant. If the owner starts the car and revs it up (when cold), keep away from it. High revving kills both types of engines.
The engine tends to overheat in factory original SE6/6a. Not any of the other versions! Several mods are available, so no Scimitar has to overheat. On cars used for towing extra cooling capacity is a must. Not just for coolant, but gearbox (automatics!) or engine oil cooling too.
The engine will be damaged after serious overheating. Check for signs of coolant leaks and boiled over coolant. If an engine doesn't warm up or warms up very slowly, check if the thermostat is fitted. If no thermostat is fitted, the car is likely to be maintained by someone without the right qualifications. The electric cooling fan should work less than 1 minute and then stop. Keep away from cars with cooling fans that don't work. Remember that overheating can cause warped or cracked cylinder heads, expensive to repair.
Again - A Scimitar can keep its cool! Maintenance and a few mods are the keywords. Any of the club traders can provide you with all the info and parts needed.
On early Scimitars (SE5 models) the fuel inlet pipe to the carburettor can get loose and cause a fire hazard, but it can be easily fixed.
Many different types of transmissions have been used throughout the Scimitars life.
Manual; With or Without Overdrive
Two types of overdrives are used and at least four types of gearboxes are used. SE6/6a have all the same type gearbox and overdrive. The gearboxes are all Ford products. Always be sure the overdrive works properly. It should engage and disengage without trouble. Reversing with an engaged overdrive kills the OD unit.
Two types: Borg Warner Type 35 and Ford C3 (some cars could be equipped with a Ford C4). The C3 is most common and better. All gears should engage easily and kickdown should work. Some cars will have the mod to a A4LD box. Standard item on a Middlebrigde auto.
Check for oil leaks. No gearbox or overdrive should leak, but automatics have a habit of leaking severely without other problems. Always be alert to freshly cleaned gearboxes.
No specific problems. Almost all Scimitars have a hydraulic operated clutch. Just a few se5a's may have a cable operated clutch (combined with a specific Ford 4 sp. non OD box). Do mind Reliant used a different bearing on the clutch release than Ford. Check for signs of wear, like rattles and slip. On manual se6b and GTC - standard hydraulic line is a plastic tube. It runs behind the engine from the RH side (on RHD cars) to the LH side. This is heat resistant, but not absolute. A braided hose is much better.
Propshafts and Backaxles
These items only need regular maintenance for a trouble free life. The backaxle has a small air hole on the right hand back side. This must be open, it is the only way for moisture to get out. Check behind/under the car. The differential oil should have been changed on a regular basis. It is common to get a lot of noise (heavy clonking) from the propshaft/backaxle. This is annoying but rather harmless. If the noise gets louder with the speed the differential could be worn.
Two models used on the Reliants: Salisbury 7HA on the SE5 (and coupe too) and all later models use the 4HA. Several ratios used on the se5a. All se6/a use the same ratio. And all se6b/GTC too, though it is different from the se6a.
First: The main supplier of electrical stuff is/was Lucas. One thing about most Lucas products is: THEY WILL FAIL. My car is a lot more reliable since I changed Lucas products for Bosch/Hella products. What I want to say is, Factory specifications are not sacred, reliability is.
Second: The design of the electrical circuitry is not perfect. Mods made to the car usually make it better.
Beware of wiring looms with cracked coatings. It can cause massive short circuits and fire! Renewal is a rather difficult and time-consuming job.
The earthing can be a problem. Check if everything works properly.
Check, if possible, for corroded contacts. These create high resistance, causing more heat than the wires can handle. They could melt with a risk of short circuits or worse. Check if everything works properly.
Never rule out a car when it has sensible, professional looking and documented mods on the electrics. Beware of dodgy repairs and mods.
The Bodywork
Beware of cracks and crazing. A complete professional respray will cost at least the price of a small second-hand car! Check the body for all irregularities. Recent resprays can cover horror tracks. To be optimistic, everything on a bad coachwork can be repaired easily, it just takes (a lot of) time and money. Middlebrigdes suffer from top coat problems. It can peel off very easy suddenly from 10 years on. It seems the top coat and the underlaying colour coat do not mix. Only a repray can fix this problem.
SE5 models have metal reinforcements in the bodyshell. It is possible that the metal rusts and cracks the body locally. Difficult job!
Buying an (accident) damaged car? Check the condition of the metal parts of the bumpers. These are rare parts and hard to find.
Standard size is 14". Wolfrace wheels were a factory option on the SE6a/6b/8 models They were expensive then and still are. Earlier cars can have Dunlop wheels (SE5/5a/6/6a). These Dunlop wheels are composites, with alloy centres. The metals used can corrode each other and are hard to restore. An early option are the 'Princess Anne' alloys. These are optionals for the se5 and se5a. All these wheels are no longer available new. The 15" Oz wheels as used on the Middlebridge are still available, as the dreaded centre caps. These are prone to 'disappear', they drop of, when cracked and those crack easily.
All wheels are interchangeable, from the earliest Scimitar to the Middlebridge.
The seats in the SE5 models can break. The leather seats of later cars can be bad.
SE5a interior panels are made of ABS, a plastic that degrades under the influence of sunlight. The panels can be cracked severely, but polyester replacements are available. SE6 panels are better but they won't last forever.
Check if dials and switches are tightly fixed, as sometimes the panels are so bad they will fall out!
Check all interior trim, some parts are hard to find. Bad on a GTE, a nightmare on a GTC as some parts are GTC only.
Check for water leaks. Any window can and will leak. Fixing is possible: new rubbers and/or a lot of window sealant.
Carpets sometimes rot away, growing mushrooms in a Scimitar is always a possibility! Carpets get soaked due to the water leaks described above.
Tailgate hinges can rust and stop working.
That's it. Still convinced you want a Scimitar GTE? Why not, the list above is a lot smaller than many other cars. If the car you are interested in is (proven) well maintained, you can delete all neglect-items and have a very short list.


text:
Carl Crossgrove
San Francisco designer Carl Crossgrove became fascinated by calligraphy and type at an early age and taught himself all he could about both. He studied printmaking and painting and then worked as a signmaker and graphic designer. He attended the Rochester Institute of Technology to study graphic arts and printing, concentrating on typography. Carl designed the Reliq® family for the Adobe® Originals program, Minska™ for ITC, and Origami™ for Monotype. Since 2001 he has been a type designer with Monotype in their California office. His other typefaces include Mundo Sans™, Biome™, and Beorcana™.


text:
If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!
Stefan Stenudd is a 6 dan Aikikai aikido instructor, member of the International Aikido Federation Directing Committee, the Swedish Aikikai Grading Committee, and the Swedish Budo Federation Board. He has practiced aikido since 1972. Presently he teaches aikido and iaido at his dojo Enighet in Malmo, Sweden, and at seminars in Sweden and abroad. He is also an author, artist, and historian of ideas. He has published a number of books in Swedish and English, both fiction and non-fiction. Among the latter are books about aikido and aikibatto, also a guide to the lifeforce qi, and a Life Energy Encyclopedia. He has written a Swedish interpretation of the Chinese classic Tao Te Ching, and of the Japanese samurai classic Book of Five Rings. In the history of ideas he studies the thought patterns of creation myths, as well as Aristotle's Poetics. He has his own extensive aikido website: http://www.stenudd.com/aikido


text:
Style # 069.1800.D29
Ring width: 4.5 mm
Ring Thickness: 1.7mm
Thin Steel Ring with 2 polished lines going all the way around.
TeNo jewelry is made of the finest stainless steel that is free of nickel. In terms of allergic safety and high durability this material is superior to most precious metals.
Experienced master goldsmiths combine the steel with diamonds, 18 ct. gold, ceramic inlays or rubber. This is how individual pieces of jewelry with an exclusive quality are made.
Every single piece becomes genuinely unique.


text:
Reproducible Science Needs Open Source Software
Editorial from Nature magazine, By Kyle Niemeyer:
"Modern scientific and engineering research relies heavily on computer programs, which analyze experimental data and run simulations. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a scientific paper (outside of pure theory) that didn't involve code in some way. Unfortunately, most code written for research remains closed, even if the code itself is the subject of a published scientific paper. According to an editorial in Nature, this hinders reproducibility, a fundamental principle of the scientific method.
Reproducibility refers to the ability to repeat some work and obtain similar results. It is especially important when the results are unexpected or appear to defy accepted theories (for example, the recent faster-than-light neutrinos). Scientific papers include detailed descriptions of experimental methods—sometimes down to the specific equipment used—so that others can independently verify results and build upon the work.
Reproducibility becomes more difficult when results rely on software. The authors of the editorial argue that, unless research code is open sourced, reproducing results on different software/hardware configurations is impossible. The lack of access to the code also keeps independent researchers from checking minor portions of programs (such as sets of equations) against their own work. Reproduce THIS!
Some journals take this issue seriously. Science includes code on its list of things that should be supplied by an author when submitting a paper. Biostatistics actually created an "Associate Editor for Reproducibility" dedicated to reproducing the results of a paper based on the data and code it receives.
Nature, on the other hand, only asks for a written description of code with sufficient details to allow interested readers to create their own version. This is currently the common practice for most journals. Typically, when a computer program is written for a paper, the authors will supply an executable version upon request.
However, the authors describe two reasons why these common practices (written descriptions of code and executables) are not sufficient to reproduce results: ambiguity in the descriptions and errors in the code.
When it comes down to it, code is the only thing that can unambiguously describe code—that's why we use programming languages instead of natural language. Even if the authors of a paper accurately describe a program, using precise mathematical equations when necessary, independent implementations (and results) would differ.
Releasing executable versions of programs instead of code may not be sufficient due to underlying errors. This doesn't just mean actual mistakes in the code, although some studies estimate one to ten errors for every thousand lines of code. Rounding and floating point errors, as well as ambiguities in programming languages like the order-of-evaluation problem, can all affect results.
Without the ability to examine code, independent researchers won't know if potential uncertainties or errors (or even the results) described in a paper can be traced to ambiguity in a description or numerical implementation. Why not open source?
The authors acknowledge there are some barriers to the ubiquitous release of scientific code. Many researchers don't recognize the importance of the issues described above, and others may see commercial potential in their code. Jeffrey Benner pointed out in 2002 that, even when researchers want to release their code openly, universities and national labs can block them in an effort to license and monetize software.
The editorial also mentions a shortage of central scientific repositories or indexes for research code, and suggest funding agencies should investigate solutions similar to SourceForge. This might not be necessary, though, since many researchers (particularly in computer science) already post their code to SourceForge and Google Code.
Another justification for keeping code closed is selfish: to slow down the competition by keeping the results of hard work to yourself. Daniel Lemire, a computer scientist and professor, responded to this argument elsewhere by pointing out that open sourcing his code not only makes his work repeatable, but spreads the ideas faster and makes the code better in the long run, since other users can help debug it.
In the end, simple embarrassment over ugly code may also be a factor, according to Matt Might, another computer science professor. (As someone who writes code for my research, I can vouch for this. [Editor's note: as can his editor.]) He also believes academics should release code openly, and created the Community Research and Academic Programming License (yes, that's CRAPL) to help "absolve authors of shame, embarrassment, and ridicule for ugly code." What needs to change?
The authors of the paper suggest a few steps that could help correct the problem. First, more journals should adopt standards for source code accessibility (such as full source code, partial source code, executable, or no code) and ensure researchers provide a sufficient description of software used.
They also suggest that funding bodies could look into tools to integrate code with other elements of the paper. For example, the data and code used to generate a figure could be bundled with the figure itself.
The most important step, and probably the easiest and cheapest to accomplish, is for science and engineering departments to emphasize the concept of reproducibility in courses on statistics and programming." (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/science-code-should-be-open-source-according-to-editorial.ars)


text:
Target Body Part: Equipment Needed:
Abs, Back, Butt/Hips No Equipment
Step 1
Starting Position: Come to a hands and knees position on an exercise mat positioning your knees underneath your hips and the crease of your wrists directly underneath your shoulders. Your fingers should be pointing forward.
Step 2
Engage your core and abdominal muscles. Imagine you are tightening a corset
around your waistline. Keep your spine in a neutral position, avoid any excessive sagging or arching. Pull the shoulder blades toward your hips.
Step 3
Upward Phase: In this exercise you are attempting to move the opposite arm and leg simultaneously. It is very helpful to use a mirror to help you with form adjustments. Begin by slowly lengthening the left leg until it is long and strong. Lift the leg off the floor until it is at or near parallel to the floor. The leg should not be lifted above hip height. This will help to avoid upward rotation at the hip.
Step 4
Slowly raise and straighten right arm. Attempt to raise the arm until it is at, or near parallel, to the floor. Do not allow the shoulders to tilt upward. Keep both shoulders parallel to the floor. Your head is an extension of your spine and should remain aligned with the spine throughout the movement. Do not lift the head or let it sag downward.
NOTE: The leg and arm should only be raised as to heights that allow you to maintain the shoulders and pelvis in parallel to one another, the core engaged and the spine in neutral position.
Step 5
Downward Phase: Gently lower yourself back to your starting position, maintaining balance and stability in the shoulders, pelvis and torso.
Step 6
Alternating Sides: During this phase of changing sides, work very hard to keep the abdominals engaged. Imagine knitting your ribs together as though you were lacing up a tennis shoe. When you change sides, try to do so with minimal weight shift. Do not flop from one side to the next. Maintain balance and control.
The bird-dog is an excellent exercise to train the body how to stabilize the lumbar spine (low back) during upper and lower extremity movement. Never exceed your ability to control movement in the low back.


text:
As Syria's revolt enters a third year, Syria's political opposition is meeting in Istanbul this week to choose a rebel government, despite opposition from the Obama administration.
Twelve candidates are in the running to lead the efforts, including an economist, a former agriculture minister and an IT specialist who is overseeing the Syrian National Coalition's aid operation on the Turkish border.
With this list of technocrats, the opposition hopes to show it can administer large areas in northern Syria captured by rebels.
The vote has been postponed twice because of internal tensions over naming a rival government to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.
The international community is also divided. The opposition's main backers, Qatar and Turkey, are urging a vote, according to sources within the coalition.
The Obama administration has advised against naming an interim government because it could close the door on negotiating an end to the conflict with the Assad regime. Coalition sources say Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria, has been lobbying hard against such a vote by the opposition.
"The situation on the ground is urgent," says Kamal Labwani, a coalition member, assessing the strength of the vote. "The majority wants a government to take authority on the ground ... without negotiating with the regime. If any deal is made with this regime, we will face violence everywhere."
The meeting in Istanbul this week is a rebuke to coalition leader Mouaz Khatib. He provoked a backlash within the coalition last month when he proposed talks with the regime if it would stop the bloodshed. His move appeared to be a personal initiative.
"The U.S. is pressuring Khatib to wait" on the vote, says Labwani.
The pressure is also coming from the U.N. negotiator, Lakhdar Brahimi, who is promoting the Geneva Agreement, a blueprint for a negotiated settlement.
The international community, including the U.S., endorsed the plan last year. It proposes a transitional government with Assad supporters and the political opposition. Both sides would propose representatives, and each side could veto candidates. But the plan is vague on the role of Assad, who has insisted that he remain in office until an election in 2014.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed his support for the plan last week when he said the U.S. wanted to see "Assad and the Syrian opposition come to the table for the creation of a transitional government."
The State Department later clarified his remarks, issuing a statement that Kerry meant to say the Assad regime, but the damage was done and Kerry's statement appears to have hardened the resolve of those who are pushing for a vote on an interim government.
"The Americans are losing credibility," says Mulhem Droubi, spokesman for Syria's Muslim Brotherhood, a key group in the opposition. "Geneva is good if Bashar agrees to step down and the international community is ready to kick him out. But we don't see him stepping down."
Droubi and others with the coalition say the vote on an interim government reflects the position of Syrians on the ground. It's time to name the government, says Droubi, "because our people on the ground need a government that will take care of them."
But taking care of the people on the ground is far from certain. There is no guarantee that an interim government can assert authority over extreme Islamist militias who have led the military campaign to push out the Syrian army. In some areas in northern Syria, ultraconservative militias have set up courts and police units, and administer aid — winning support by offering services.
Activists and fighters who back the exiled opposition are eager for an end to the chaos in the northern provinces but are also wary of unmet promises from an opposition that is often focused on power grabs and internal wrangling.
Naming an interim government is a risk, says Amr Azm, a professor of Middle East history at Ohio's Shawnee State University who is close to the opposition in his native Syria. It is the last card the opposition has to play.
"After you create a government, you have to win the game with that," he says. "Once used, what else do you have?"
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text: What are you doing down here? Don't you have something better to do? Like Go Back To The Top of the page, or even see who created this site? This site is © 2001 - 2024 by the Utterly Boring folks at UtterlyBoring.com. Steal my content, as I probably did, too, just link to my site or the original site. Batteries not included. One size fits all. Not for off-road use. Not for internal use. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.


text:
Part Number | FSP400-70PFL |
Board Number(s) | FSP400-70PFL |
Part Type | Power Supply Unit |
Brand | FSP |
Notes, Comments & Additional Information | BuyQual recommends ordering by part number whenever possible. Often times there are TV models that use more than one set of parts and/or panels. |
CMS tab
Competitive pricing is available.
If you are looking for wholesale prices.Please Tell us how many quantity do you need.
Please feel free to contact us.
shipping cost


text:
This take on Minted was made by undefined from , a member of Minted's community of independent artists.
Ends Today | $50 off save the dates $200+. Code: SAVETHEDATE25. View all offers
Become a member to unlock exclusive perks. Join Minted More
Optimized for the highest photo print qu... more
The thick, luxurious heritage stock that... more
Add a subtle shimmer to your cards and a... more
An extra-thick, luxurious recycled paper... more
Our thickest paper—now recycled from 100... more