text:
The attacks in Paris in November provoked greater imperial frenzy and added more questions to an already confusing narrative about Syria. The dynamics of the ensuing debate, shaped by media populism and ruling class opportunism, have been very frustrating. As such, there has been an increase in confusing positions and vague assessments in our own progressive circles.
In the current contradictory context, our political analyses need reassembling. Adjustment is a fairly normal process for progressive movements to undergo. Clear analyses with regard to increasing military operations in Syria are crucial because the Paris attacks created the condition for Britain to engage (or, rather, continue) in this endless, pitiless, warfare.
The vote on the war in Parliament brought the sense of an impasse regarding a political position around Syria to the surface. It is infuriating to see the debate about Syria being hi-jacked by Blairites and Tories in order to strike at Jeremy Corbyn. Moreover, the realignments of global imperialism – the simultaneous condition of a continuous US hegemony and a relative decline – have implications for radical analyses. So does the fact that much of the current devastating events are, in part, consequences of the massive Arab uprisings that have sent shockwaves through the region since 2011.
After 9/11 and the "War on Terror" our position as radical left groups was clear: all-out against war. And for that matter we did not really have any relations with groups in Iraq or Afghanistan. But revolutionary upheavals alter our positions. These revolutions and subsequent counter-revolutions, together with the larger political-economic conditions in which they emerged, greatly impact the socio-economic and political uprisings and the strategies and tactics of movements. This leads to at least two shifts: enforcing on activists in these regions an incredibly difficult task to manoeuvre between local and global dynamics and between survival and death, and it influences the political tactics of activists here and our politics of solidarity and anti-imperialism. At least they should have done so.
It has for that reason been striking to see a vast amount of articles full of analyses, theories and prognoses – and not shy about providing urgent 'advice' – made without citing activists from the region. And – and this is probably one of the causes – without engaging those active for/in the Syrian cause present here in the UK who have organic links to Syria. In fact, there has been a framing of groups like Syrian Solidarity Movement UK (SSM) and Planet Syria as pro-war (because some people in those groups have supported a no fly zone option) on the one hand, and, on the other, charging them as having a malicious agenda to destroy the Stop the War Coalition (StWC), i.e. seeking to take from us that which we have helped build –leaving us without an anti-war movement altogether. These groups have been artificially constructed in the leftist imaginary as part of the problem. In other words, it has been deemed not necessary to account for such groups. For some comrades they are even a liability. What does that say about the larger ideas and challenges they represent though?
On a meta-level, the Syrian "uprising", in the sense of those continuing to keep the small roots and legacies intact for the next round of uprisings, or just for the sake of dignity continuing to survive, seem to have disappeared from our discourse. And even the left accepts by now the full civil war narrative. The idea of a (civil) war is not untrue, but it is only part of the truth.
Syria in 2011 was not a society, like Iraq by 2003, paralyzed after years of sanctions on top of a brutal dictatorship: it has experienced one of the most extraordinary social uprisings in recent history. What is more, we know the people who are taking part in this uprising, some even directly because of our international activist networks in the region. In other words, there are agents to account for: there are comrades to extend solidarity and support to, and above all there is an abundance of knowledge to benefit from. Should these people not be the prime source of our knowledge?
The divisive narrative around Daesh – whether based on inadequate information or offered in a dichotomous format – has strongly shaped our debates. You are either with foreign intervention or against intervention. There is also the notion that Daesh is overpowering, a force that eclipses everything else: the greatest fascist threat of the new century.
Alternatively, because of its anti-Western propaganda, some don't see Daesh as counter-revolutionary. Some (due to the group's presence in a proxy imperial setting), see it as anti-imperialist. But none of this relates to real life. Today's reality is one gigantic paradox. Born from the carnage of the "War on Terror" and bred by the racism in Europe, Daesh is not only a threat to US (and its regional lackeys') imperialism, it is also (also, we don't dare to say "foremost") the executioner of our friends, our comrades. It has also come to represent the doom of thousands of working class families: fatalities of their severe sectarian ideology that has little to do with Bashar al Assad's regime or of Obama, Hollande or Cameron's geopolitical threat. To see it otherwise has astounded people involved in Middle East activism.
Firstly, the typical top-down assessments those perspective emanates from arouses indignity, produces a demoralising paralysis. For many the idea of solidarity is meaningless – it turns out that the archaic principle of internationalism is sacrificed for the monotone "the enemy is at home" focus. Hence, and secondly, what does "our real priority is Cameron" or "support for Syrians is fine but best done by their communities" as we often notice in commentaries, mean? This notion is occasionally even accompanied by the paternalistic complaint of 'identity politics'. Sometimes it seems as if our cities, movements here do not include people that have roots there. The idea of the domestic ruling class (enemy) is not (probably never was) a singularity: one cannot wave off criticism about the lack of solidarity or the disturbing pro-Assad sentiments emanating from some at StWC rallies, by saying that our focus should be first and foremost on the British Parliament. It is a false dichotomy.
It is no secret that the left has been confused about its stance in general and that this goes beyond a dogmatic anti-war/anti-imperialist analysis. Many of us simply feel unable to take a position because of the real complexities that Syria presents. And many of us exert caution because of the very real dilemma caused by a historic tension between our ruling class's imperialism, internationalism and solidarity in the context of uprisings against a dictatorship that is not the ally of the west.
We can learn from our comrades how to reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions. It is also clear that this confusion is due to the general lack of context and knowledge "from below" and "from within". In fact, what happened to our comrades and their voices that could inform us, and help us to disentangle all these confusing positions. Why not "shut up and listen" – to what our comrades from there have to say? Just for a moment – before we pick up again and redefine our positions based on our own objective conditions. What follows is a small, and probably inept, attempt to help us to do this.
We presented a set of questions to different people, from different backgrounds and cities in Lebanon and Syria [2] – all involved and struggling for, perhaps against all odds, a non-sectarian and progressive outlook. In a series of questions distilled from the on-going debates in the UK we asked the respondents about a variety of subject, including the role of Daesh, sectarianism, the Kurdish resistance, as well as the issue of military intervention and support abroad. Most interviewees picked a few questions. Some referred us to other important voices, while one aborted the interview due to the loss of a comrade who was kidnapped and executed by Daesh. Others were not sure how to think of solidarity at all any more after organising – often in vain – for five years. For example, Razzan replied: "How to support us? I really don't know what to say at this point."
Q1 Is Daesh part of the revolution, is it merely counter-revolutionary, does it have an anti-imperialist stance?
Shiar (Syrian)
Of course Daesh is not part of the revolution! It has been fighting, killing and kidnapping Syrian revolutionary forces from its very beginning, while avoiding, and even collaborating with, the regime until they were forced to fight each other (still only to some extent) because the international rules of the game changed. Neither is Daesh – and Jabhat al-Nusra for that matter – simply a counter-revolutionary force. The revolution and the subsequent war were merely the context or the opportunity that allowed them to emerge and rise. It is more accurate, in my opinion, to talk about multiple revolutions and counter-revolutions unleashed in Syria – and the whole region more broadly – some of which are of a progressive nature or potential and others reactionary. And I use the word "revolution" here in a broad sense, to mean fundamental changes in power structures and values that take place violently in a relatively short period of time. Revolutions are not necessarily progressive, neither are all counter-revolutions necessarily reactionary.
Daesh depends largely on foreign jihadists, who are fighting in Syria to impose a specific version of extremist Islamic rule that is alien to most locals. They have nothing to do with the revolution. If this is not a form of imperialism or colonialism, then I don't know what is. Moreover, Daesh has been secretly collaborating with various imperialist regimes (Syrian, Iranian, Turkish, Saudi, etc.) depending on their interests and the changing rules of engagement. So I really can't understand how anyone can call them "anti-imperialist" just because of their stated opposition to the West (which is largely rhetorical and does not go beyond terrorist acts).
Farah (Lebanese)
We definitely regard Daesh as a reactionary and an anti-revolutionary force. I was shocked reading the other day a statement issued by an Italian Maoist party explaining their position in support of Daesh as anti-imperial! It really shocks me that there are sections of the Left still discussing the nature of Daesh, with the same binary thinking that they have been employing to set their positions regarding the Assad regime! Is it anti-imperialist? Or is it anti-revolutionary? This binary thinking made a section of the Left support Assad while he was slaughtering the revolution under the pretext that he is fighting imperialism! Let's make it clear, Daesh is the result of Western imperialism and the reign of the authoritarian regimes in the Arab region. Daesh is the result of the state's rule of terror and the imperial so-called "War on Terror". The solution for us is of course to oppose reactionary forces such as Daesh.
But this is not enough. If we want to build a democratic alternative we have to condemn Western imperialism, and also and on an equal ground, the authoritarian regimes with their sectarian and repressive policies that have ruled us for so long. If these sections of the Left, want to build a position, regarding Syria, probably they need to listen, or in this case read, what people on the ground in Syria have been saying. This placard, for example [see image below], that was written in Aleppo in January 2014, represents my position: "Assad will not be overthrown if ISIS is not overthrown". For people who are directly hit by this bloody war, it's crystal clear: no defeat of Daesh is possible without the overthrow of Assad regime. If this Left will grant itself the authority to ask the Syrian people who they want to be their butcher then the project of this Left is doomed to be a big failure politically and ethically.
Ghassan (Lebanese)
I agree with Farah that Daesh is a counter-revolutionary force and I am not sure how it could be construed as "anti-imperialist", knowing its links to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. However, I am really concerned how parts of the left tend to ignore its positions regarding society in general (women, gays, etc.). Although it is an excuse used by many liberals to support bombings, it does not mean that there is no truth to it. We must, of course, oppose the bombings and the foreign interventions (from all sides as it seems right now). But the solution is not to support Daesh – rather, to look at other forces in the revolution, the revolutionary left and local committees, for example, which Joseph, Razzan, and others have written extensively about but have been ignored to a large extent.
Joseph (Syrian)
It's clear that Daesh is counter-revolutionary. In addition to what Ghassan and Farah said I think the problem of many sections of the left internationally is that they understand imperialism as a single actor (the West or the US) and not as a system with competing capitalist powers that we should all oppose. Therefore Russia is put outside of the picture. This is one thing. The other problem (which is linked to the first one) has been the analysis of actors, whether state or organisations, according to their foreign policies, leading some to speak of anti-imperialism in the case of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and even Daesh, and not analysing them, as Ghassan said, according to their policies regarding the society or country in which they exist. In addition to this there is a sort of reductionism in the analysis. For instance, "economism" shapes how we analyse the region, putting aside sectarianism, feminism, struggle against homophobia, secularism, etc… leading to a situation where liberals often appear to be the only ones speaking about such matters. This larger problem in my view is linked to economism and the way that Islamic fundamentalism groups are still perceived by many on the left as "reformists" or some sorts of "anti-imperialists?, or more generally as real authentic groups of the region representing Islam. They don't make the difference between a Muslim believer and an Islamist, many times mixing both, which is very essentialist and problematic.
Razzan (Syrian)
The approach to fighting ISIS has always been a Eurocentric one: dealing with ISIS on our own with no need of Syrians' feedback on, or expertise in, the mater. Without learning from the history. This has been evident from the very first days of the US bombing Syria – Nusra specifically – without coordination with Syrian brigades or activists on the ground, which has caused lots of anger from people living in areas that were bombed. Imagine if your organisation is being funded by a UK or US INGO [international non-governmental organisation], and these states bombed and killed a child or family. How do you imagine the people would react towards the employees of an NGO funded by Britain or America? Many civil society workers were threatened after the international bombings.
The result has been further hatred towards international military support. There is no regards given of Syrian lives that are already in danger due to ISIS and regime bombardments. The international military support is not to help Syrian lives, but to lessen the threat on their borders that are shut in the face of those who are fleeing Syria – from ISIS mostly. So it does make a negative difference. It makes things worse. It fuels terrorism, extremism.
A friend from Raqqa is on ISIS's list of wanted people. Raqqa partly consists of big families and it's a very communitarian society. So if one member of the family is anti-ISIS, the rest of the family would know and hence the word might go out. What I am certainly aware of is that since anti-ISIS sentiment is associated with any anti-ISIS military actions, the people in the face of Daesh pay the price. This is my own experience with people living in liberated Idleb in 2013.
Rima (Lebanese)
It is hard to say something comprehensive about Daesh at this moment. I was part of a group of activists who occasionally meet comrades from Syria. One of the comrades was captured by Daesh and killed during one of our workshops. He had contributed enormously with information and data on the living conditions under Daesh in Raqqa before he was captured.
Yasser (Syrian)
Daesh is the head of the counter-revolution and the worst nightmare that humanity could face. We have had as a movement (Citizens Movement) an office in the city of Raqqa after the fall of the regime. I was the Director, but we closed it after Daesh took control of the city. We continued our activity clandestinely within the city.
Ramz (Syrian)
ISIS is the vanguard of counter-revolution. I never had direct personal experience with ISIS but members of our group were arrested and imprisoned by them. Some of our comrades living in territories ruled by ISIS were forced to escape when ISIS discovered their political disobedience.
Q2 Is sectarianism a dominant factor? Is there a civil war? Can class still be a source of analysis for the dynamics of the uprising?
The problem with the term civil war is that it reduces complex socio-political dynamics to a savage "civil war" between religious sects. It stems largely from the Western obsession with Middle Eastern sectarianism. As I understand it, the MENA [Middle East and North Africa] uprisings were – broadly speaking – triggered by varying combinations of political repression, economic deprivation and social disintegration, which made people in those countries feel more and more marginalised, powerless, humiliated and undignified. Even if they are linked to the wider processes of global politics and economics – like everything else – these are specific local dynamics that cannot be simply seen as a direct result of imperialism and globalisation. Syria was perhaps the most acute manifestation of these dynamics, which is what distinguishes the Syrian revolution from the (first) Egyptian revolution, for example.
The mass protests in Syria started and remained, for quite a few months into the revolution, largely confined to marginalised, neglected regions and rural areas such as Dar'a, Idlib, Deir al-Zor, al-Raqqa, the poor suburbs and slums of Damascus, etc. Coupled with strong regional identities that made it easier for these people to break away from the regime's discourse, this meant the Syrian revolution was – at least in the beginning – an almost classic revolt by the marginalised rural poor.
Assad's economic liberalisation of the country, celebrated by the West as welcomed "reforms", was carried out through a Mafia-like network of high ranking military and security officers partnering with big businessmen, which was largely concentrated in and benefited the traditional bourgeois urban centres. Moreover, economic liberalisation was not accompanied by "political liberalisation" that could have made these "reforms" more acceptable by people – save for a brief period of political freedom, known as the "Damascus Spring" in 2000–1, which was soon heavily repressed as the regime feared too much freedom may destabilise its rule.
It is true that the subsequent, full-fledged internationalised war has changed these socio-economic-political revolutionary dynamics (for now) but that does not mean that we should abandon our analysis of the origins and beginning of the revolution. With the militarisation of the revolution in late 2011 and early 2012 – first by the regime forces and militias and the protesters' resorting to arms to defend themselves, then by the interference or regional and international powers in support of this militant faction or that – the above-mentioned socio-political conflicts gradually developed into full-fledged wars. Most military operations by opposition and Islamist armed groups were initially directed against the regime. As military advances were made and power bases consolidated, however, "infighting" over territory, weapons, spoils and influence started to surface, sometimes distracting from what was supposed to be the main battle.
By the end of 2013, there were at least four main poles or parties to the war, with various other smaller centres of (armed) power revolving around them because they shared similar worldviews and/or similar goals and backers with the main poles – though they should not be readily lumped into one basket. I have previously called this Syria's "multi-party conflict" that turned into a "multi-way war".
A dualistic view continues to dominate much of the debate and writing on the war in Syria, often painting what is happening in the country as one war between the regime and the opposition forces, or between government forces and Islamist terrorists, or between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and so on and so forth. This dualism may partly explain the West's prioritisation of the war on Daesh and ignoring, or postponing, an inevitable confrontation with the Syrian regime and its backers – as if a state can only have one "enemy" at a time.
Anthony (Lebanese)
Syria is going through a war on the class war that started with the Syrian revolution. Both Assad and Daesh are at the lead of this war on the working classes. The sectarianism we see in Syria is the main feature of that. Sectarianism is an ideological smokescreen, it hides the crisis of the Syrian bourgeoisie and the demands of the working people for social, political and economic freedom. This was the basis of the Syrian revolution, through the popular slogan "one, one, one, the Syrian people are one", and it continues to be so. Many Syrians I've met say that sectarianism was not a main feature of life in Syria before the crackdown of the Assad regime on the revolution. Everything has changed now, and the sectarianism we see today is "born out of the contradictions of Arab society and shows its ugliest forms in times of crisis" – it is another form of nationalism, and seeks, in the end, to accumulate capital and the means of production and power to an elite (whether for Assad or for Daesh's leadership) while exploiting the working people and the proletariat. We see one of the worst kinds of exploitation in Syria: exploitation of life, working class people recruited as soldiers to kill other soldiers. Bassem has started with this analysis, we need to build on it.
Since the first days of the revolution the regime and its loyalists tried to transform the uprising into a sectarian war. Today, sectarianism is among the main ideological orientations for the competing groups: the regime factions, its Iranian allies, as well as some opposition groups. I think it is appropriate to say that since approximately a year the situation has become like a civil war. At the same time, though, some factions are explicitly non-sectarian, cross-confessional initiatives, such as the Declaration of Damascus, the Movement for Citizenship, for example, as well as leftist groups such as the Democratic Left Party, the National Democratic Bloc and the Socialist Union. But I don't think the revolution emerged as a class struggle as some think, but as a political revolution during which economic factors played a major role in the indignation of Syrians. The reasons for the Syrian uprisings are the struggle for freedom and dignity and against repression.
Of course sectarianism is an important factor and it has increased since the beginning of the revolution importantly: first, because of the regime through various means (killing, media, releasing Islamists and jihadists, etc…) and then by the development of Islamic fundamentalist forces. In addition, the sectarian discourse, on a propaganda level, of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey and Iran, fuelling sectarianism, in addition to their actions.
This said, this does not mean that class analysis does not work, and sectarianism has to be understood as a tool to control and use the popular masses and for the bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie to take the lead and control of popular movements. Sectarianism is a way to redirect socio-political frustrations against other "enemies". This is strengthened by the lack of democratic and social forces on the ground.
This does not mean that cross-sectarian movements are not possible, and actually they still exist in various regions of Syria. Popular movements in Syria are still struggling for the initial objectives of the revolution and against sectarianism. In addition we have seen this summer in Iraq and Lebanon a cross-sectarian popular movement challenging all the sectarian bourgeois forces. This should be put forward much more, these are the ways to defeat authoritarian regimes and Islamic fundamentalism.
Sectarianism is one of the most significant elements of conflict in Syria. The revolution switched from a political revolution against a totalitarian regime to look more like a civil war when the armed conflict took over. But, yes, there are many democratic and secular opposition forces and cross-sectarian communities such as Citizen Movement, the Democratic Bloc, the National Bloc, etc. Although they are weak and isolated now.
The internal/national factors were relegated in the conflict while the regional factors, elements and interests became the determining factor. However, you cannot find a solution to the conflict without resolving the question of political power and without the departure of Al-Assad and his gang.
Q3 Can we regard the Kurdish resistance as the alternative? Are they non-sectarian, for instance?
I suppose by "Kurdish resistance" you mean the Kurdish armed forces affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and its Syrian offshoot, the PYD [Democratic Union Party], which are often described as the "third way". I personally don't agree and don't believe that they really represent a third way. If anything, they seem to follow their own separate way, parts of which intersect with the events in Syria, while others follow their own specific Kurdish dynamics. As far as the Syrian revolution is concerned, these forces are still oscillating between the regime and the opposition (and now between the US and Russia), flirting or conflicting with this side or that depending on the situation on the ground. They are yet to settle on a clear, consistent position, or to be forced to do so by changing geopolitical equations (the battle in Kobanê, the US-led war on Daesh and so on).
The PYD's political pragmatism and its thirst for power are two important factors to understand the party's dealings with the regime, the revolution, the FSA [Free Syrian Army], and even the Kurds themselves. Moreover, the PKK is a highly ideological, nationalist party based on a strict military regime and blind loyalty. It still thrives on the apotheosis of the leader and the notion of one party leading the state and society. In this sense, it is not very different to so many leftist parties that have been riddled with these Stalinist-Leninist plagues.
I would like to believe that the party is changing and is rethinking its ideology and practices (the PKK and PYD have been rebranding and promoting themselves in the West as an "anarchist" movement). But until they really change, I cannot understand how anyone can call it an anarchist movement, or even a legitimate representative of people's struggle for freedom and justice. But the reality is, so many of their repressive practices remain the same – e.g. the PYD forces recently shot live ammunition at peaceful demonstrations because the protest was organised by a rival Kurdish faction.
In fact, I do not doubt for a moment that the PYD – if things carried on like this – will re-produce an oppressive, totalitarian regime, just like what the Ba'ath party or the two ruling parties in Iraqi Kurdistan did – bearing in mind the differences in their experiences, of course. The same applies to many of the other Syrian opposition factions, from the radical Islamist forces to the nationalist leftist parties that lean towards fascism. The hope is that the revolutionary movement will continue and give birth to different forms of organisation and self-organisation, and to new structures that are more consistent with the original values and goals of the revolution.
As for the Kurdish resistance, while there are secular forces involved that we must support, it has also become entangled in the civil war in Syria and there are some instances where anti-Arab sentiments have led to unfortunate incidents and positions. However, based on the same reasoning above, it is important to discern between the various forces.
Regarding the Kurds, I agree with Ghassan: contradictions exist with PYD (the Syrian PKK), which acts often as an authoritarian organisation that has not hesitated to repress popular demonstrations and pro-revolution activists. And some anti-Arab sentiments do exist in certain regions (for historic reasons of oppressions and colonisation by the Ba'ath regime) – see the last reports of Amnesty on this region. One thing: the criticism against the PKK can only be made constructively if someone has a clear position regarding the Kurdish issue, meaning support for self determination. The problem is some people criticise them without criticising the Arab chauvinism of the majority of the Syrian opposition regarding the Kurdish issue.
The experience of the Kurdish areas is special and a positive experience in many features. However, the issue is that the PYD is a non-Syrian political project (decided in Mount Kendal) and does not fall within the objectives of the Syrian revolution and the project of state citizenship. It is correct that the PYD is beyond sectarianism; nevertheless, it has nurtured and helped create contradictions and conflicts of another type, with a dimension of nationalism.
Elia (Lebanese)
The Kurdish question is indeed a complicated one, especially that the forces that represent them (YPG, PYD) have, for the most part, an opportunistic relationship with the Syrian revolution, trying to navigate through the current war with the fewest enemies possible and the most gains on the ground as possible. This "real politik" of the revolution has seen them ally with Assad on some fronts, coordinate with US air-force at some times, cleanse villages, and sometimes ally themselves with the FSA (Free Syrian Army) to fight with Daesh. I highly recommend the piece by Leila Al Shami on the selective solidarity around the world with Kobane.
The Kurdish experience will probably be what will prevent the establishment of an Islamic State [authority] in the whole of Syria. The Kurdish people do not have a tendency to religious extremism but their political factions don't accept the Islamist ideology in essence because Daesh opposes the Kurdish identity. Nevertheless, due to their own opportunism Kurdish forces do not really help setting up a national, overall, Syrian programme. Some of their chauvinist attitudes even lead to tensions between Arabs and Kurds.
Q4 Is the issue of military intervention relevant: does receiving weapons from or granting help to Western powers make a difference?
As much as I am (theoretically) against foreign (state) intervention and militarisation, I think this question is academic and we're way past that point. When talking about wars and armed struggles, we have to be realistic. If there were other, less dodgy sources of arms and other material support available, I can assure you that many Syrians fighting today would not have had to seek help from the US and the Gulf countries and to forge alliances with "Islamist fundamentalists" actually fighting on the ground.
We cannot defend the rebels' right to defend themselves, then condemn them for their reliance on the West or the Gulf without identifying a realistic alternative of support (there is none at the moment, it seems). Asking the rebels to demand arms with no strings attached is not going to get us anywhere because there are no such arms (with no strings attached) in the real world.
I cannot speak for the Syrian revolutionaries regarding intervention. My position is against Western military support, but it is not my livelihood that is destroyed, my community that's killed and displaced, or my own life that's on the line. What I can say is that the weaponising of the Syrian revolution, from the US, from the Gulf, from western Europe, from Iran, have turned it into a bloody massacre, and the military forces operating in Syria today (whether armed groups on the ground or bombings from the air) have caused nothing more than non-discriminating murder.
We stand firmly against military support to Assad or Daesh, or the reactionary counter-revolutionary forces, and for the full and unconditional support of the Syrian socialist revolutionaries and their demands on the ground. The socialist parties in the West need to turn their ears to the ground, to put in the great effort of steering their statements, slogans, positions and actions away from their own political benefits at home and towards a daring answer to one question: what do the Syrian revolutionaries need? The phrase "shut up and listen to what they have to say" puts it well. This is a process that needs to start now.
Our position, ever since the war on Iraq has been to oppose imperialist wars in the region, but also to oppose all types of dictatorships, regardless of their pseudo-anti-imperialist positions. The Assad regime, for example, although against "the West" is working hand in hand with Russian imperialism. The same could be applied to Daesh, Hezbollah, and other forces entangled in the Syrian situation. The question of sectarianism is also extremely important, since it has been detrimental to the revolutionary process in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, etc. and cannot be ignored by the left.
Tammam (Syrian)
In truth, it is difficult to find a reason for the position of the international community on the Syrian issue, without coming up against so-called "conspiracy theory". Nearly five years have passed since the start of the Syrian tragedy; for five years the Syrians have been exposed, daily, to planned death, in front of the whole world. Is it really convincing that the world still does not know what is happening in Syria?! Is knowing that difficult?! The Syrians are suffering – and have been for five years – not just from death, for death in one of its senses is not suffering; they are suffering from life! Yes, the Syrians have reached a stage beyond death, beyond fear of death. Now they are afraid of their life! A young man from Homs told me that the people of his village, on their way fleeing to Lebanon, felt comfort every time one of them who was injured died, because he would lighten their burdens!
Does the international community, and do the states that are bombing or preparing to bomb the Syrians, truly believe in the pretext of putting an end to terrorism, which was carried out and is carried out, in the end, by European citizens, from France, Belgium, Sweden, Holland, etc. Does this community and do these states believe that the Syrians have reached the point where they fear living more than dying?!
Well, the Syrians know that they face a fascist regime, the likes of which were extirpated from the world decades ago, but they also know that they face, along with it, a global decision to be silent about their liquidation; they face states on whose territory extremism receives support, and sometimes receives direct or indirect finance from them; and the extremists move from these lands to the regions of struggle, especially the Middle East, coming and going with the greatest of ease, and killing the local inhabitants of these areas, taking part, along with the dictatorial regimes, in forcing those inhabitants to flee; and then they return to their countries as European citizens, while Europe's borders are closed in the face of refugees fleeing, essentially, from their citizens.
What I say in this context will seem exaggerated, it will seem biased, and will seem like a conspiracy theory. But the Syrians, and I among them, have reached a point where we are incapable of knowing the reason for our death. Have you seen it? We no longer want life… we now want to know the reason for our death… that is cheaper than our life.
Military support can change the balance, which is now clearly in favour of the regime after the Russian intervention. The Syrian opposition was asking for support from the beginning, but as it never arrived it meant some opposition groups accepted any offer, also coming from Qatar and others [with an agenda]. That help is representing the voice of Islamists in the region and is reinforcing them in Syria. For instance, since 2012 Al Qaida and its Syrian section Al-Nusra received crucial support which allowed them to gain ground in the battlefields against Assad forces. But the military support was conditioned by the integration into an Islamist programme. This is the reason why the moderate Syrian opposition has become so weak. One last point, we understand that "fighting terrorism" is an issue but we should not forget that the basis of terrorism in Syria is the regime. Its practices and its propaganda favoured the emergence of extremism and encouraged terrorism against the revolt of ordinary Syrian people that started with legitimate claims.
Q5 What can we here do to support your cause?
On a state policy level, a more nuanced approach to armed conflicts may succeed in persuading the US and its allies to seriously support the moderate Syrian opposition in its multiple wars, rather than insisting that such support should be solely directed, for now, at fighting Daesh, which is what the US administration has been doing. And to be effective, such support should be provided through one unified channel, rather than leaving it to regional powers with conflicting agendas.
On a popular level, there is today more need than ever for "critical solidarity" with the Syrian revolution; a solidarity that does not fall into false binary polarisations and is not, at the same time, "conditional solidarity". Critical solidarity means you support a struggle as a matter of principle, with real, material support, but maintain an active, critical stance toward a particular version or force that claims to represent people's aspirations or capitalises on them for political ends. Without such solidarity, it is likely that we will keep being presented with the false choices of Assad vs. Daesh, or Iran vs. Saudi Arabia and so on.
Political solidarity is more important than ever yet political opposition groups do not receive consistent support. There is an intense political struggle between the opposition and the regime, which obliged many since 2012 to flee from the country or simply stop fighting. You have to know that: the regime targets essentially political and civil activist. No-one from the "democratic side" supported the National-Democratic opposition; international support currently creates or reinforces political power relations. Regional powers started creating oppositions aligned to their political vision: e.g. support mainly goes to military Islamist forces, sometimes aid is distributed to those close to the supporting countries. We can even say that political decisions migrated outside of the country.
What we request from all the progressive forces in Europe and elsewhere in the world is to show direct, non-hesitant, and courageous support for the Syrian people's revolution and demands for democracy and social justice. I have never seen in the world similar revolutions that were isolated and deserted such as the Syrian people's revolution. What we also request is for people to oppose the imperial wars on Syria. The bombings are only aggravating the situation on the ground, giving more power for the regime and Daesh and killing every hope for the rebirth of a popular movement with a progressive horizon. In the Arab region and in Lebanon in particular in 2003 during the war on Iraq we held the slogan "no to war, no to dictatorship". This slogan continues today to retain its full veracity.
In Europe I think the best way to help people struggling in the Middle East is notably as follows:
– Daesh has continuously attacked and killed democratic activists in Raqqa and even elsewhere (in Turkey for example), notably activists from the group Raqqa is Being Slaughtered.
– Speaking and supporting, as Ghassan said, the people still struggling on the ground against the regime and Islamic fundamentalist forces. We have seen in Syria the highest level or self-organisation by the people because the state disappeared. Helping them in all their kind of activities on the ground.
– Rebuilding an anti-war movement based on what Farah spoke about – the "Lebanese experience" of no to interventions and no to dictatorships and actually real solidarity with people in struggle in the region. Today, anti-war movements in the UK and I think the USA are based only on no to foreign interventions and denial of internationalist solidarity and we have seen the results. It's completely a shame, and Syrians who are pro-revolution are not joining, others as well. I would personally never go any more or participate in the construction of the current Stop the War. I would seek an alternative, and I think space exists to do it, on the principles I spoke about above.
– Welcoming and opening borders to refugees and giving them the conditions in which they can live and not just survive – in other words be able to work, have housing, etc… In Switzerland many joint-experiences with refugees that were very successful.
– Fighting against new laws limiting democratic rights, struggling against Islamophobia.
The most important assistance which could be provided to the Syrian people is to pressure governments to find an acceptable political solution by all parties, not just managing the crisis and extending the conflict. In addition to support for secular and democratic movements.
Many initiatives in support of the Syrian uprising and against Assad's regime have surged in the past years. Some of us in the radical left were initially a part of these initiatives. It is probably a reflection of our internal disarray and leftist regroupments that our collaborations in these initiatives have been forsaken. But the fact that groups such as SSM had less "leftist" engagement meant that their content became less and less "leftist" in the sense of for instance a clear position about foreign (western) intervention.
After losing momentum, some of these groups have started to call for – or rather not to resist – a no fly zone. This is being refashioned by StWC as "pro-intervention" with obvious reactionary connotations. However, rather than focusing on support vs. rejection of (western) intervention we should consider the political forces inside these networks and try to understand the desperate context that lead to their positions. They have repeatedly said that for it to be principled, 'military intervention' cannot only an issue of US/UK politics and must includes Russia, Iran, etc., and that Assad's barrel bombs must be stopped. Yes, these arguments might be exploited to promote war, but we also know that an anti-war movement, which has been taking a de-facto pro-Assad position, has lost the legitimacy to make this argument.
Hence, others on the left should make sure that we lose neither side of the argument. But we have learned the hard way that this can only be done from a clear position of solidarity. Syrians are undergoing a tragedy of unimaginable proportions: their cry for help to stop the Assad barrel bombs, the Russian fighter jets, and Daesh's slaughtering are not less valid than their cries against US or British bombs. The possible negative implications of those cries should never be the starting point for a socialist. Internationalism and its pillars – solidarity, empathy, brother/sisterhood – is what drives our struggle. [3]


text:
"The School Innovation Grant allows you to take an idea about what you 'could only do' and gives you the money to actually do it." – Sara Martens, AIC, Northwest Academy of Law
"One of the strengths of the School Innovation Grants program is the interaction and support we have received from our colleagues. Ideas are always great and the Foundation funding is giving us the opportunity to make the ideas a reality."– Principal Deborah Leto, Mason Elementary School
For the second year in a row, the SLPS Foundation has the opportunity to work with school leaders and classroom teachers to implement creative solutions to some of the hardest-to-move problems in their schools. This program, called the St. Louis Public Schools Foundation School Innovation Grants, is designed to recognize school leadership teams' creativity and vision, and to serve as a retention tool for inspiring and keeping highly effective school leaders in the district. The grants are supported by Emerson Electric, Boeing, Enterprise Holdings, and Wells Fargo Advisors, and through partnerships with Cortex and CIC St. Louis.
The School Innovation Grants are sourced in the idea that innovative solutions often come from those working on-the-ground and who have direct relationships with the challenges facing their colleagues and students – and, that those innovators often don't have the resources to pilot an idea that might make a big difference.
The 2015-16 School Innovators implemented projects ranging from outreach to immigrant parents, to journalism programs, to the creation of design labs in unused classrooms, and more, yielding results such as:
- Students who regularly attended Adams Elementary's Saturday School grew their reading skills an average of 1.62 grade levels over the course of the program.
- Students at Northwest High School analyzed the Ferguson Commission report, applied restorative justice practices instead of traditional disciplinary measures, and held a "Peace Retreat" featuring workshops from key players in the St. Louis social justice movement.
- The school-based leadership development program for teachers at Carver Elementary helped increase retention of effective teachers – 80% of teachers who participated in the first cohort committed to returning to Carver the following year, after having been approached with other offers for employment.
- Students participated regularly in Gateway STEM's coding club, practiced "design thinking" in a new 'makerspace' converted from unused classrooms, and used design thinking to help influence school policies (e.g. cellphone policies, school discipline).
- Through a variety of programs at Patrick Henry Elementary, the number of positive parent-school interactions increased by over 50%. Programs include recognition ceremonies, teacher home-visits, and family science nights.
For 2016-17, ten school teams were awarded funds to implement their innovative projects; like the winners last year, the awarded schools will meet regularly throughout the year to trouble-shoot, share their learning, and build community among educators who value innovation. The funded projects include before-school fitness clubs to increase attendance and decrease behavioral incidents, training school staff in trauma informed practices to increase wellbeing and decrease disciplinary incidents, healthy cooking classes to support positive coping skills, partnerships with private schools to implement a nature-based curriculum, and others. School innovators have access to the CIC co-working spaces @4240, and @CET for the duration of the grant period, to promote potential partnerships with the broader innovation community in St. Louis.
For more information, contact Jane Donahue at email@example.com.
To make a tax-deductible contribution to the SLPS Foundation, click here.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Dell XPS M1730 Mobile Gaming Notebook
Specifications & Options
It wasn't too long ago that a desktop was the only form factor that could deliver on high-end gaming. While desktop replacement laptops have been around for ages, they always lagged behind desktops in terms of technology, performance and price. The situation today is quite different. While a laptop still cannot compete with a desktop in terms of price and performance, the technology and performance gaps have closed considerably. The XPS M1730 is an excellent case in point.
On offer are Intel Core 2 processors, plenty of RAM, surround sound, DirectX 10 graphics processing in SLI configurations, and hardware accelerated physics. All of this performance can be enjoyed on a wide screen monitor with a resolution of 1920x1200 and a full keyboard with a numpad. While none of that would sound particularly noteworthy had we been talking about a desktop, we are actually referring to the XPS M1730. Perhaps most surprising is that everything we just listed comes as standard equipment.
Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor X7900 (2.80GHz,4M L2 Cache,800MHz FSB)
Operating System
Genuine Windows Vista Ultimate
2GB Samsung Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM @ 667MHz - two 1 GB modules
17" UltraSharp Wide Screen WUXGA (1920x1200) display with TrueLife
Graphics Card
2 X 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT - SLI Enabled
Support NVIDIA SLI graphics cards
AGEIA PhysX 100M Physics Accelerator
Gigabit LAN Controller
Consumer IR
Intel 4965 Next-Gen Wireless-N
Integrated 2.0 MP camera
2.0 Speakers with two 18mm transducers per speaker - 10 Watt Total Output Power
Sigmatel 9228 Audio Controller
Support for 5.1 channel audio output
Premium Digital Array microphones
Hard Drive
2 x 200GB 7200 RPM SATAII hard drives (RAID0)
Optical Drive
Toshiba TS-L632 8x DVD±RW Notebook Drive
9-cell 85WHr Li-Ion Battery
230 Watt AC Adapter
Color Option
Smoke Grey with White LED Backlights
|Weight & Dimensions
Width: 16.0" (406 mm)
Height: <2.00" (50.7 mm)
Depth: 11.9" (302.6 mm)
Weight: 10.6 lbs (4.81 kg) - includes 9-cell battery
External Ports
1 x IEEE 1394a port
4 x USB 2.0 ports
1 x DVI-I port
1 x S-video Port
1 x RJ45 Ethernet (10/100/1000) port
1 x S/P DIF out (optical)
1 x 8-in-1 card reader
1 x ExpressCard 54mm slot
2 x headphone ports
1 x stereo line-in (microphone) port
Included Accessories and Extras
DVI to VGA Adapter
DVI to HDMI Adapter
Norton Internet Security 2006 Edition (15-months)
Microsoft Works 8.0
DataSafe Online Backup 10GB for 1 year
FREE Creative EP-630 Noise-Isolation Earbuds
FREE Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 game
FREE Leather XPS branded binder
Warranty And Support
1 Year Return to Depot Service, Complete Care, Technical Support with Lojack (standard)
3-4 year warranty and service options available
Price: $3,824.00 USD (as configured here)
The XPS M1730 is the first laptop to incorporate a physics accelerator. Dell is offering an AGEIA PhysX 100M Physics Accelerator as standard equipment on all XPS M1730 laptops. We received this news with mixed feelings. On one hand, hardware accelerated physics is pretty neat and we've seen that it can have positive effects in games that support it. On the other hand, very few games support hardware accelerated physics and not everyone will be too thrilled that a physics accelerator with questionable benefits is mandatory. After all, "standard equipment" is not a synonym for "free equipment". We explore this subject a bit more in later pages.
Physics accelerator aside, the components available for the XPS M1730 cover just about everything you would want on a high performance gaming laptop. The base model often doesn't buy you much, but we were pleasantly surprised with how well equipped the base model M1730 is. At the very least, a M1730 will have a Core 2 Duo T7500 (2.2GHz) processor, 2GB of memory, a 120GB hard drive, DVD burner, the aforementioned physics accelerator and dual GeForce 8700M GTs in SLI. That is plenty of power for most of your mobile gaming needs.
As with any Dell system, there is a plethora of hardware options available via the online configurator if the base configuration doesn't strike your fancy. There are four color options, three processor options, three optical drive options (including Blu-ray), mobile broadband, countless hard drive configurations and plenty of accessories. Our review system priced out to $3,824 but the base model can be yours for $2,699. While not cheap, we think the price is reasonable for what you get.
Since the M1730 is billed as a gaming laptop, possibly the most important component is the video card. The XPS M1730 has that covered since they are all equipped with two GeForce 8700M GTs in SLI. The GeForce 8700M GT is a decent graphics card and it should provide sufficient power to drive the latest games, especially when paired in SLI, it's a bit disappointing that the current fastest mobile graphics card, the GeForce 8800M GTX, is not an option currently. However, we have it straight from Dell that a GeForce 8800M GTX option will be made available at some point and existing M1730 owners will be offered the option to upgrade for a fee.
Included with every XPS M1730 is Dell's standard one year warranty with in-home service, upgradeable up to four years. Also standard with every M1730 is a one year subscription to LoJack Laptop Theft Protection and a one year subscription to Dell's DataSafe Online Backup with 10GB of online storage space. Other standard Dell options like accidental damage coverage and home installation are also available, for a price. An additional benefit is exclusively offered to XPS customers in the form of access to the XPS support team. The XPS Team is made up of a group of Dell support personnel who are experienced gamers, that were hand-picked by managers and specifically trained to support XPS systems.


text:
- Every time you sin you are lost until you ask forgiveness.
See here and here for examples of this teaching.
"For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace." –Romans 6:14. Paul teaches that we live under forgiveness.
"12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he hasmade perfect forever those who are being made holy." –Hebrews 10
"23The words "it was credited to him [Abraham]" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness–for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." –Romans 4
For more on this click here.
Having looked at the links (to Gospel Advocate and Truth Magazine), I noticed the links did not open to the desired location. Perhaps this is why there was some additional words within the thematic website (http://ex-churchofchrist.com/PhariseesCoc.htm) that addressed it. I find, however, since I have come to see how they handle the Bible to mistrust what they say in citing the writings of another. Be that as it may, let me address what was said and the reply to follow.
In an article in the Fulton County Gospel News, Mammoth Springs, AR (Nov. 2004) a writer states,
"If a person is to receive the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ, and if that person is to remain in a saved condition, he must 'sin not.' 'But,' many might interject, 'don't we all sin from time to time?' To be sure…The remedy for individual, momentary acts of sin, of which every Christian who is blessed with life is guilty from time to time, is found in I John 1:9–penitent confession to God."
Note the minimizing: "individual, momentary acts of sin". The apostle Paul stated that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). I don't know about you, but I believe I fall short of the glory of God, and the example of Jesus' life on earth, 100% of the time. I am convinced that sin is a much more pervasive and insidious issue in our lives than the Fulton County Gospel writer believes.
RT – The only critical remark made is that the critic believes sin is more pervasive than the lifted words of the Fulton County Gospel News. The critic did not say the writer was biblically wrong, only that sin is more insidious that the original post. The author of the original post did not deny Romans 3:23 (at least as far as the lifted-from-the-context remarks are concerned).
How did Paul use his remarks in Romans 3:23? In the larger context of his address to the church in Rome, Paul addressed his words to both Jews and Gentiles, declaring that all have sinned and fall short of God's glory. The point of those words was (and is) in relation to the need for salvation, that is, the need for Jesus. It is later (in the same chapter) that Paul speaks to this precisely in relationship of faith contrasted by the purpose of the Law of Moses (3:20).
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one–who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. (Romans 3:21-30, ESV)
Sin is pervasive and it is insidious, but Jesus is the remedy for sin. If one is to apply the teachings of the Lord to the behaviors of one's personal life, is it not the case that the insidious nature of sin can be (and is) overcome? Certainly it is, otherwise, there is no power in the word (Romans 1:16-17).
I find it interesting that the web-article author cites Romans 6, Hebrews 10 and Romans 4 to make his case. Romans 6 speaks directly to the need of baptism, something the author makes no mention of; Hebrews 10 speaks to the Law of Moses and the role of the priest, not the obedience of one who fears and loves the Lord under the authority of the New Covenant; and Romans 4 makes the greater point that Abraham was saved by the Lord without obeying the Law of Moses because it had yet been brought to the people of Israel.
See what you can do when there is no regard to the context!


text:
Rocking and rolling...August 23rd, 2011 at 10:24 pm
... isn't supposed to happen inside your own house. Yowza. What a day to telework! This afternoon I thought for a few seconds the house was going to come down on me. I decided heading outside would be a safer bet.
FYI, I live probably ~50 miles from the epicenter, and the house sure sounded like the 50 years old that it is.


text:
It's here at last! Best Erotic Comics 2008 has arrived at the Last Gasp warehouse. It's available for sale at Last Gasp, and is already available at many locations and online stores, including Powell's and Amazon.
A literary and artistic exploration of human sexuality -- and a fun dirty book, featuring today's smartest, raunchiest, funniest, filthiest, most beautiful, and most arousing adult comics! Best Erotic Comics 2008 smashes the divide between literary/art comics and adult comics by including both the hottest work from the literary/art comics world -- and the highest-quality work from the adult comics world. Artists include Daniel Clowes, Phoebe Gloeckner, Gilbert Hernandez, Michael Manning, Toshio Saeki, Colleen Coover, Ellen Forney, and many others. The wide variety includes work that's kinky and vanilla, sweet and perverse, and straight, lesbian, and gay. Features recent comics, a handful of vintage Hall of Fame gems -- and some works never published before! 200 pages. Color and b&w.
Work by: Belasco, Marzia Borino & Mauro Balloni, Susannah Breslin, Katie Carmen, Cephalopod Products, Daniel Clowes, Vince Coleman, Colleen Coover, John Cuneo, Dave Davenport, El Bute, Jessica Fink, Ellen Forney, Phoebe Gloeckner, Daphne Gottlieb and Diane DiMassa, Justin Hall, Gilbert Hernandez, Molly Kiely, Ralf Konig, Dale Lazarov & Steve MacIsaac, Michael Manning, Erika Moen, Quinn, Sandez Rey, Trina Robbins, Toshio Saeki, and Dori Seda. Cover art by Ellen Forney.
I'm immensely proud of this book, and am delighted with how it turned out. I think I really did do what I set out to accomplish: make an adult comics collection that's both arty and dirty, with comics that will make you think, make you grin, and make you want to whack off. And everyone who's seen the book has commented on its tremendous variety: not just a variety of sexual preferences and practices, but a variety of moods and stories and artistic styles.
I'll be blogging about this book a lot in the coming weeks, with artist interviews and links to reviews. But for right now, I just wanted to let y'all know: It's here.


text:
Round 7 - GHSFL TOURNAMENT
Welcome to the South Forsyth High School GHSFL Tournament - Round 7.
When: January 16, 2016
Where: South Forsyth High School Cafeteria - 585 Peachtree Parkway, Cumming GA 30041
The following schools will be participating in this tournament: B.E.S.T, Cambridge, Fellowship, Johns Creek, Lambert, North Springs, Pinecrest and Pope.
Check in times:
Doors open at 7:30 am
Referee meeting at 8:00 am
Mens' check in CLOSES at 8:15 am
Women's check in CLOSES at 9:30 am
Please enter the building through the main West Hall entrance. Our campus is under construction, but there should be plenty of parking in the front lot next to Peachtree Parkway/Hwy 141. Check in and mask/glove check will be inside the West Hall lobby entrance. Greeters will direct you to the bag check room. The tournament will be held in the Aux gym and the West Hall cafeteria. The aux gym will be the main location and source of information, so have fencers listen in there for announcements, strip assignments, etc. before heading to the strips in the cafeteria.
Concessions Stand:
We will have concessions for both breakfast and lunch. Breakfast will be bagels, cream cheese, doughnuts, fresh fruit. We'll have pizza and BBQ pulled pork sandwiches, plus baked goods, candy and chips. There will also be complementary refreshments for referees, scorekeepers and coaches. We ask that all food is kept outside the gym. There will be tables outside the gym and in the cafeteria to eat. Please tell your directors that we'll give them a badge to wear to get food at the hospitality table, which will be located at the end of the hallway to the right of the West Hall atrium. If you don't plan to buy anything from the concession stand please bring plenty of water and food!


text:
Critical error in SNMPv3 implementations from a number of vendors
Multiple implementations of the SNMPv3 management protocol contain a vulnerability which can be used to circumvent the authentication process. In contrast to SNMPv2, in which the only access protection is plain text community strings, SNMPv3 uses Hash Message Authentication Codes (HMAC), for which, according to RFC3414, HMAC-MD5-96 or HMAC-SHA-96 can be used. As well as the normal hash, a secret key also flows into the HMAC.
According to a security advisory in the open source implementations Net-SNMP and UCD-SNMP, sending a one byte HMAC to the recipient is sufficient to successfully authenticate an SNMP request. The only obstacle is selecting the correct byte from the 256 possibilities – not much of a problem for an attacker. As a result devices can be reconfigured or data queried.
Net-SNMP versions 5.4.1, 5.3.2 and earlier, and 5.2.4 and earlier are affected. All versions of UCD-SNMP are vulnerable; likewise the eCos project which is based upon it. Updates are available for Net-SNMP, but are not yet available for UCD-SNMP and eCos.
Cisco has published a report on the problem and has indicated that the problem exists with both HMAC-MD5-96 and HMAC-SHA-96. IOS and CatOS as well as ACE and Nexus products are all affected. The SNMP server in these products is, however, by default deactivated. Cisco has released updates.
US-CERT also includes Juniper, Network Appliance, Red Hat, Sun and Ubuntu in its list of affected vendors. A number of the affected vendors have yet to release security advisories. For most of the remaining vendors in the US-CERT list, the status of the problem remains unknown. In particular, many router manufacturers are likely to be using NET-SNMP or UCD-SNMP in their embedded systems.
US-CERT recommends activating SNMPv3 encryption until a patch is available. This leaves the HMAC unencrypted, but encrypts the actual request. Without the correct key, however, the device will discard the SNMP packet, even with correct authentication.
See also:
- SNMPv3 improper HMAC validation allows authentication bypass, security advisory from US-CERT
- multiple SNMP implementations HMAC authentication spoofing, security advisory from oCERT
- SNMP Version 3 Authentication Vulnerabilities, security advisory from Cisco


text:
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming.
The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned. 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 (NRSV)
The law of inertia states that an object that is at rest tends to stay at rest, until a force is acted upon it to make it move. An object that is in motion tends to stay in motion, until a counter force acts upon it to stop its motion.
In our paradoxical lives in which we have one foot in the earthly kingdom and one foot in the heavenly kingdom, can we ask ourselves, in what direction are we allowing ourselves to be pulled?
Are we sitting on the fence, not moving one way or another? The church in Laodicea received the harshest criticism of all the churches who were addressed in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 3:14-22) simply because they were neither hot nor cold. They weren't really terrible, but they weren't doing anything good either. They were lethargic, apathetic and stagnant. Nothing got accomplished through them. Human beings were created to grow and move- or they will decay and wither away. Indifference does not remain an option for long. God's message to us and love for us demands a response.
If we are set in motion to move toward the side of the heavenly kingdom and the things of God, then that inertia- and the Holy Spirit- keeps pulling us to desire God more and to concern ourselves with material gain and earthly power, pleasure and influence less. We respond to God's grace and love and mercy, and the more we respond to Him the more we are pulled toward Him.
If we are headed toward all the power and things and influence that the world sets in high esteem here in the earthly kingdom, the inertia is set in the opposite direction, opening the door for the tempter – whether you see Satan as a spiritual entity or as a fallen angel, or simply as a personification of evil, the fact remains that evil in the world is real. Addiction is a good example of one of the worst temptations of the world. It holds empty promises, and hollow euphoria that only lead to destruction and death.
The good news in this is that good and evil are not evenly matched. Dualism is not supported in Scripture, because we know how the story ends. Evil is powerful and today it is most pervasive, but it is not going to last forever. Evil is not going to win. God and good prevail over evil, even though we might not be seeing that victory lived out right now. We are still in the "right now," but "not yet."
God has already chosen us. In Baptism we were named and claimed and marked with the Cross of Christ forever.
How do we live in response to that knowledge? How do we reflect the truth of "God Wins!" in our daily lives?


text:
"There wasn't any great profit in it," shrugs Grellner, 66, glasses down around the tip of his nose, "but it sure was fun messing with that grain."
The grain elevator has always been a stanchion of rural economy, linking the grain farmer to the market. Built for capacity, the elevators may store soybeans in Illinois, corn in Iowa, rice in Arkansas or wheat in Missouri. For many towns, these windowless, monolithic structures are the defining landmark, eclipsing even the church spire. A rural Midwestern town without a grain elevator is like a marching band without a bass drum.
In a more rustic time, when the plow on the county seal meant something, four grain elevators operated in St. Louis County in Eureka, Chesterfield, Florissant and Valley Park. The first three are extinct, victims of urban sprawl. The Valley Park elevator, however, still holds its ground, looming over the Missouri Pacific tracks as it has for more than a century. The railroad was once the lifeline to the old elevator, bringing in coal for local distribution and carrying out grain by the carload. In its heyday, the 1920s, the elevator handled 500,000 bushels of grain a year. According to Osdieck, now 94 and living in Shrewsbury, during the various harvests so much wheat and corn and soybeans came in, it was beyond their capacity to handle. The surfeit lay on the ground in golden, tawny and ochre-colored mounds, covered with tarps.
Toward the end, in the 1970s, the elevator was moving a mere 20,000 bushels per year, all of it from the dwindling base of local small farms.
As early as 1874, the site was a mill, making Meramec Flour and Red Rose Flour. But the mill burned in 1883, and the grain elevator rose in 1895. For decades, the Valley Park elevator also did a brisk trade in coal. There are still square metal signs near the door touting Orient Coal and Christopher Coal, back in a time when the elevator's telephone number was "Valley Park 76."
"They sold stoker coal, 3-by-6-inch lump coal and briquettes," says Grellner. "They had a John Deere tractor with a scoop; two scoops was a ton. You ordered 2 tons or 15 tons, whatever would get you through the winter. It was delivered to the home by dump truck. Everybody had a coal shed in those days." But the coal operation stopped when Laclede Gas eventually made its way to Valley Park, around 1960.
Today, in stark incongruity, Valley Park Elevator & Hardware, with its saloonlike wooden-column porch crammed with sacks of animal feed, stands across the street from a modern strip mall of restaurants and offices, facades adorned with backlit signs bearing uniform Helvetica lettering: The Stepford wives meet Lee Marvin.
From the time Grellner took the deed, the cards seemed to be stacked against the place's continuing as a working grain elevator. The times, it seemed, had just caught up with them. Sitting in the back of the store on stacks of 50-pound dog-food bags, Steve says the problems began when that Georgia peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter, placed an embargo on the sale of grain to Russia: "Because of Afghanistan, remember? But, see, there was a bull market in grain that year and we were buying soybeans, holding them in our bins, playing the grain and futures market. So when Carter slapped that embargo on the sale of so many million metric tons of beans and wheat to Russia fighting their own Vietnam in Afghanistan that's when the grain market fell. We had all these beans in storage, earmarked for Russia, that we couldn't legally sell, so we had to eat it, and that hurt."
Marie Winkoe, the bookkeeper there since 1955, overhears the discussion and chimes in: "Actually, the decline started even further back, when the Chrysler plant came to Fenton, back in '59. The workers needed homes, and the farmland started being gobbled up by developers."
"There must be 20 locations around here that used to be farms and are now subdivisions," puts in Jeff.
"You bet," says the judge, tilting his hard-of-hearing head toward the conversation, "so it was goodbye crops and farm animals and hello pets and lawn care."
Already the bigger-volume farmers were hauling their grain to St. Louis or East St. Louis and the elevators of Continental, ADM and Peavey. Still, the local elevator took care of the small-timers, the gentlemen farmers of sorts, working 40, maybe 100 acres as a pastime.
But it was the Missouri Highway Department that handed the Grellners the proverbial last straw. "I think it was 1986," says the judge. "They decided to expand 141 out front here that took out my frontage, blocked the trucks from getting in."
"If you don't have the grain anyway, it doesn't matter," notes Steve.
"It's still a shame," counters his father. "This was the last elevator in St. Louis County that I know of. It was part of our heritage. I tried to tell the highway department that. People don't realize this is what this country was built on small elevators like this."
The Grellners thought it over that year, between late fall and early spring. You had to change with the times or throw in the towel. They'd already been moving toward hardware, but now the Valley Park elevator would diversify even more, selling bulk seed, more tools, more feed, paint, propane, bedding plants, live bait and anything else there seemed to be a demand for. As for grain buying, the small independents such as Walter Schmidt "It was not uncommon to see him at my door at 5 a.m.," says the judge. "We'd unload and have a cup of coffee." well, they would just have to take their business to the elevators in Labadie or Washington.
There is one entrance to the elevator proper from the store side, and it's in the back, near where they fix the busted windows folks bring in. The door has about two dozen windowpanes leaning against it, and Jeff carefully moves them aside. He opens the door to another time. The space resembles an old farmhouse basement, except the beams are gargantuan they have to be, because they support eight capacious grain bins, 90 feet tall, each capable of housing 25,000 bushels.
"The bins are oak," explains Jeff, glancing upward, "2-inch-by-8-inch boards enough wood there to build an entire subdivision."
Everything is hung with cobwebs, and the earthy smell of grain lingers in the air. Grain shovels, the kind with the wide scoop, lean against the wall, wheat still stuck to them by the filament of time. Pulleys the size of manhole covers depend from the ceiling, idle for some 13 years. On the floorboards lies the clean skeleton of a rat, flesh reduced to granulated, organic dust.
If those old floorboards could talk, they would tell of farmers bringing their wheat harvest to the grain elevator: It is late August, hot as blazes, and the air is thick with grain dust. Some of the men cover their mouths with kerchiefs. One by one, the farmers pull up to the scales. The scale master tests the grain for purity and moisture content. Eight cents a bushel is the going price, a little less than market. Whether the farmer had a good crop or a poor crop that year is of no consequence in the transaction. He can either take it and be glad or he can drive that team another 20 miles into St. Louis and get maybe 12 cents a bushel at Continental or Peavey. Given the OK, the farmers dump the contents of their cloth sacks into a pit. The scale master notes the volume in a ledger. From there it runs by conveyor belt to a main chute to be transferred by a series of augers (or vertical elevators, called "legs," attached to belts and pulleys). The grain is carried to the top of the bins, where it is cleaned, blown by fans and passed over various screens. Dirt and impurities are collected in conical containers on the outside of the elevator. Then the grain just sits until the market is right or the owner gets impatient.
Standing there in the bowels of the old elevator, if you switch on your imagination, you can hear conveyor belts moving, augers turning, men cursing or laughing, grain flowing through chutes like lifeblood, a steam engine chugging along, powering the whole operation. The scale master calls the next wagon in line.
"This elevator would run right now," Jeff says. "All we'd have to do is grease up all the pulleys and bearings, hook the power back up. It'd run in a heartbeat."
"Maybe we will someday," says the judge, hefting a bag of dog food, "just for the hell of it. It sure was fun messing with that grain."


text:
2022-23 Theme: Together We Can!
Math Team consists of two levels- 5th/6th grade and 7th/8th grade teams.
Math Team members are selected through a process including test score review, class performance, and teacher recommendation. Math team students represent North Lake School at the Arrowhead Area Math Meet held in April each year. Students compete as a team and individually. Events include; problem solving without a calculator, consumer problem solving, geometry and measurements, mental math and team problem solving. Participation as a mathlete requires commitment to practices and training sessions.
The 5th/6th grade Math Team is coached by Mr. Ray.
The 7th/8th grade Math Team is coached by Ms. Northard.


text:
It was the summer of 2016, and the Republican Party was about to nominate Donald J. Trump for president. Until then, many party members had aggressively opposed his candidacy. "I think he's crazy," Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said earlier that year. "I think he's unfit for office."
But faced with the inevitable reality of Mr. Trump, the party was forced to perform what the British tabloids call a "reverse-ferret" — a messaging U-turn in which you abruptly take the opposite position of the one you espoused a moment earlier.
Contrary to what they said before, the Republicans announced, Mr. Trump was totally suited for the presidency. He would rise to the occasion. Being president would render him, tautologically, presidential. In any case, at least he would be surrounded by adults who would steer him in the right direction.
"It began to dawn on me," Anthony Scaramucci, who went on to (briefly) work in the Trump White House, wrote of hearing about the then-candidate's tax proposals. "Donald J. Trump wasn't the extreme, unhinged, unserious candidate that I thought he was."
Mr. Scaramucci spent just 11 days as the White House communications director in 2017 before being unceremoniously removed, a victim of his own operatic ineptitude as well as the dysfunction of the White House. He now regrets the error, as he sees it, of ever having admired Mr. Trump. "The guy stinks," he said recently.
As it happens, Mr. Scaramucci wrote a book about his brief, unhappy White House experience, joining a large club of Trump administration evictees who have turned their bracingly bad experiences into a new genre of political revenge literature. These include James Comey, former F.B.I. director; Omarosa Manigault Newman, former assistant to the president; Andrew McCabe, former deputy F.B.I. director; John Bolton, former national security adviser; Cliff Sims, former White House communications aide; and Anonymous, current senior figure, at least by his or her own account, in the Trump administration.
(There's also Sean Spicer, former press secretary, who wrote a mostly complimentary book about his fleeting White House tenure; and Mary Trump, not an ex-staffer but the president's niece, whose scathing portrait of Trump family pathology came out in July and sold 1.35 million copies across all formats in its first week. That book is currently No. 1 on hardback nonfiction best-seller lists in the United States, Britain, Canada and Ireland, and No. 2 in Australia.)
Taken en masse, the books paint a damning portrait of the 45th president of the United States. But the sheer volume of unflattering material they contain can have the paradoxical danger of blunting their collective impact. After the 10th time you read about Mr. Trump's short attention span, your own attention is in danger of wandering.
"There is only so much the public can absorb," Anonymous writes in "A Warning."
There are even more memoirs scheduled for the fall: one by Michael Cohen, the president's disgraced ex-personal lawyer, which federal officials tried to block but then said could proceed, and another by H.R. McMaster, who was Mr. Trump's second national security adviser and is no fan of the president.
But at this point, nearly four years in, is there anything left to say about Mr. Trump that might surprise us? Or, as Mr. McCabe writes in "The Threat": "What more could a person do to erode the credibility of the presidency?"
Reading all these books, one after the other, is like swimming for days in a greasy, brackish canal whose bottom is teeming with shards of broken-down old industrial equipment. The experience is not pleasant, you might hurt yourself, and it leaves you covered in grime. The picture they paint of their protagonist — Mr. Trump — is so outrageous that if they were fiction they would be dismissed as too broad, too much of a caricature.
As different as the authors are, the books share a number of common observations about the president. And so, with the Republican Party set to renominate him this month, here is a reminder of what sort of leader Mr. Trump has turned out to be, according to his growing band of disgruntled former employees.
Trump vs. his employees
Mr. Trump is universally presented in the memoirs as a flamboyantly mean and intemperately indiscreet boss, wrong-footing and humiliating cabinet members and aides with constant criticism, sometimes to their faces, sometimes behind their backs.
The president dismisses Jim Mattis, his first secretary of defense as "a liberal Democrat," yells at him in meetings and notes that "I never really liked him." ("I felt sorry for Mattis, not to mention the country as a whole," Mr. Bolton writes.)
He derides Kirstjen Nielsen, his second secretary of homeland security as ineffectual and "not mentally able" to handle her job and then, in a fit of pique, futilely attempts to reassign her responsibilities first to Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, and then to Mr. Bolton.
He muses aloud on multiple occasions about dumping Vice President Mike Pence from the ticket in 2020 and replacing him with Nikki Haley, the UN ambassador. "Did we make a mistake with Gina?" he asks, referring to his decision to make Gina Haspel director of the C.I.A.
"Rex was terrible," he says about Rex Tillerson, his original secretary of state. "What good is he?" he asks rhetorically about Steven Mnuchin, his treasury secretary. "I thought we had the right guy at Treasury. But now I don't know."
He yells at his trade adviser, Peter Navarro, when Mr. Navarro attempts to show him a complicated chart outlining a policy point. ("I have no idea what I'm even looking at," the president snaps.) He tells Mr. Kushner in meetings: "Jared, you don't know what you're talking about." He mocks his original chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, as a "globalist," elongating the "O" in a sneering tone, as if the word were akin to "Antifa member."
Just as the president uses derisive nicknames for his political enemies, so he does for his own subordinates. He mocks Jeff Sessions his first attorney general, as "Benjamin Button." He calls Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, "Ditzy DeVos." "This place is really taking a toll on Kellyanne," he says of Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, implying that she looks tired and worn out.
The president and the truth
The Trump administration surged into life with a whomping great Trumpian untruth: that Mr. Trump's inauguration crowd was the largest in history. Even Mr. Spicer did not believe it, though he had to pretend otherwise.
"It was hard to keep a straight face as Sean proceeded to lie to the American people," Ms. Manigault Newman writes.
All the memoirists present Mr. Trump as supremely untrustworthy. He is "a deliberate liar, someone who will say whatever he pleased to get whatever he wishes," Mr. McCabe writes. "People who've known him for years accept it as common knowledge," Anonymous writes.
Sometimes Mr. Trump asserts one thing and then, a few minutes later, just the opposite.
On other occasions, he conjures pieces of misinformation designed to bolster his thesis, as when he insisted that "three to five million people" voted illegally in the 2016 election. He has a habit of plucking figures from thin air — first $20 billion, for instance, then $38 billion, to drive home his point about trade deficits in a meeting with President Moon Jae-in of South Korea — regardless of the numbers' relationship to fact.
The memoirists have different ways of dealing with all this presidential slipperiness. Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe start keeping detailed logs of their encounters with the president, the way you would if you had an unstable spouse and wanted to catalog his erratic behavior for use in future divorce proceedings.
Too bad, is the apparent view of Reince Priebus, the original chief of staff.
"The directive came down from Reince," Ms. Manigault Newman writes, "that our default position was to back up whatever the president said or tweeted, regardless of its accuracy."
How to describe the experience
Striving for new ways to characterize the head-spinning unreality of the Trump White House, the authors of the memoirs turn to a variety of vivid figures of speech.
Mr. Spicer: "I sometimes felt like a scuba diver, abandoned in the middle of the ocean, treading water."
Mr. Comey: "The demand was like Sammy the Bull's Cosa Nostra induction ceremony — with Trump, in the role of the family boss, asking me if I have what it takes to be a 'made man.'"
Ms. Manigault Newman: "The selection process for his cabinet was like an episode of 'The Bachelor.'"
Mr. Bolton: "It was like making and executing policy inside a pinball machine."
Anonymous: Working for Mr. Trump was like "showing up at the nursing home at daybreak to find your elderly uncle running pantsless across the courtyard and cursing loudly about the cafeteria food."
Trump as instigator
To read these books is to read of a chaotic, paranoiac workplace, where the boss delights in fomenting discord and instability among the employees.
He encourages them to keep tabs on one another. "Give me their names," he tells Mr. Sims, wielding a Sharpie and a White House note card, vowing to rid the White House of nonloyalists.
He praises their rivals. "Keith Kellogg knows all about NATO," the president says airily to Mr. Bolton, speaking with ominous intent of Mr. Pence's national security adviser. "He never offers his opinions unless I ask."
(This causes some merriment between Mr. Bolton and Mike Pompeo, the current secretary of state, who plays dual roles in Mr. Bolton's drama: as a rival he suspects of conspiring and leaking against him, and as his partner in anti-Trump incredulity and black-humored job insecurity.
"As Pompeo and I reflected later, this statement told us exactly who my likely replacement would be if I resigned soon," Mr. Bolton writes. "I said, 'Of course, if you resign, maybe Keith would be Secretary of State.'" To which Mr. Pompeo responds: "Or, if we both resign, Keith could become Henry Kissinger and have both jobs.'")
The president's verbal style
Mr. Trump likes to talk, the memoirists agree, and he does not like to listen.
He meanders from topic to topic, loops back around, adds new topics, repeats himself, boasts, mixes facts with fake facts, throws in his latest obsession, continuing on and on according to some labyrinthine stream-of-consciousness impulse in which whatever is on his mind is worthy of public utterance. He does this in rallies and at campaign events; he also does it in briefings, in one-on-one conversations and at policy meetings.
"I don't use the word 'conversation' because the term doesn't apply when one person speaks nearly the entire time," Mr. Comey writes of the experience.
The presidential attention span
It is true that Mr. Trump successfully repeated the words "person, woman, man, camera, TV" on television in an effort to demonstrate the superiority of his mental acuity, but it is also true, the books argue, that he rarely reads, gets bored easily, is irritable and distracted, has trouble remembering complicated things, has no intellectual curiosity and is ignorant not just about his job but about things generally considered common knowledge.
With his short attention span, he is averse to learning anything at briefings if he finds the information difficult to follow, boring, or in contravention of what he already thinks. Staff members are told to to stick to a single point and repeat it often, and to boil complex proposals down to a single page — or, better, a single paragraph. They are told not to present Mr. Trump with too-long briefing papers, lest he shout at them, or with too many slides, lest his eyes glaze over.
"Any time somebody new came in to brief him, he'd get angry and say, "Who's that guy? What's he want?" Ms. Manigault Newman writes.
The presidential schedule
The president keeps unconventional office hours, is often late to meetings and events and watches a lot of TV.
"At 9:35 I called Trump, who was as usual still in the residence," Mr. Bolton writes.
"He often doesn't start the day in the Oval Office until 10 or 11 a.m.," Anonymous writes. He is "channel-surfing his way through the presidency."
"His official schedule was more of a loose outline than a strict regimen," Mr. Sims writes.
The presidential ego
In "Too Much and Never Enough," Mary Trump describes her uncle as "a savant of self-promotion" with a "delusional belief in his own brilliance and superiority" stemming from a bottomless insecurity that needs to be assuaged with a constant stream of ego-boosting compliments.
That is why the president often asserts that he is the best at everything.
"It was the most presidential act in decades," he says, after he directs the Pentagon to bomb Iran and then calls it off at the last minute. (Mr. Bolton has a different take: "In my government experience, this was the most irrational thing I ever witnessed any president do." )
"They say I might be the world's greatest brander," he says to Mr. Sims, before unveiling his marketing idea for his tax-cut plan: calling the legislation the "Cutting Cutting Cutting Bill" (it ended up being called something else).
Several memoirists describe how Mr. Trump, to soothe a wounded psyche bruised by his failure to win the popular vote in 2016, continually invited visitors to admire posters illustrating how he had won the election anyway.
"Trump kept big charts in his private dining room, in his den, in his study, that showed the electoral map color coded in red and blue," Ms. Manigault Newman writes. "When anyone walked in, he'd point to the chart and talk about the election results."
Anonymous was familiar with the maps, as well. "Trump carried around maps outlining his electoral victory, which he would pull out at odd times," he writes. "He would beckon guests, as well as aides, advisers and incoming cabinet officers, to gaze at the sea of red on the map."
Does Mr. Trump use a tanning bed?
"His face appeared slightly orange, with bright white half-moons under his eyes where I assumed he placed small tanning goggles," Mr. Comey writes.
Ms. Manigault Newman mentions the tanning-adjacent chatter around the abrupt firing of Angella Reid, chief usher of the White House, several months into Mr. Trump's administration.
"Allegedly, Trump didn't approve of her handling of his tanning bed," she says. "I'd heard he was unhappy with her efforts to procure the bed, to bring it into the East Wing securely, to find a discreet place for it, and to set it up properly."
Aides on the president's conduct
The memoirs paint a picture of the West Wing as a place of baroque workplace dysfunction, where workers gather to trade "Guess what he did now" stories about their boss and to save him (and themselves, and the country) from his worst impulses.
And so, in "A Warning," Anonymous writes that cabinet-level administration officials contemplated "a midnight self-massacre," which would entail "resigning en masse to call attention to Trump's misconduct and erratic leadership."
Many staffers are perpetually on the brink of quitting, keeping resignation letters on hand should the time come. And if his colleagues hate working for the Trump administration, John Kelly, the president's second chief of staff, apparently hates it the most.
"This is the worst" (insert expletive here) "job I've ever had," Mr. Kelly tells Mr. Sims.
"You can't imagine how desperate I am to get out of here," he tells Mr. Bolton. "This is a very bad place to work."
Things John Bolton claims people said to him
A striking aspect of "The Room Where it Happened" is how frequently cabinet-level officials confide incredulously in Mr. Bolton about the president's irrationality and narcissism, as if they and the former national security adviser formed a gang of rebellious high-school students, quietly plotting resistance against the incompetent autocrats running the school.
"As McGahn often whispered to me," Mr. Bolton writes, speaking of Donald McGahn, who served for a while as White House counsel, "This is not the Bush Administration."
"Has there ever been a presidency like this?" Mr. Kelly asks Mr. Bolton, mentioning that the president has just said, apropos of nothing, that it would be "cool" to invade Venezuela. ("I assured him there had not," Mr. Bolton responds.)
"This is getting pretty silly," Mr. Mattis says to Mr. Bolton as the men listen to Mr. Trump rail at Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO, about how America's allies mock it behind its back because it pays too much in annual dues.
As for Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Bolton describes how the secretary of state passed him a snarky anti-Trump note in the middle of the president's summit with Kim Jong-un of North Korea in 2018. And he describes how, after listening to the president yell at Ms. Nielsen about border security in a particularly fruitless meeting, Mr. Pompeo whispers to Mr. Bolton: "Why are we still here?"
Leaving Trump's orbit
"What Donald can do in order to offset the powerlessness and rage he feels is punish the rest of us," Mary Trump writes.
This is clear by the way he behaves when he has fired someone or they have quit, frequent occurrences in an administration with such a high turnover. After he fires Mr. Comey, the FBI director, while he is in California, for instance, Mr. Trump is incensed to learn that Mr. Comey has returned to Washington on the same government plane that he traveled out on.
"That's not right! I didn't approve of that!" he rants to Mr. McCabe. Then he decrees that Mr. Comey should never be allowed to enter the F.B.I. headquarters again, not even to clean out his desk. "I'm banning him from the building," the president says.
After Mr. Mattis resigns as defense secretary, Anonymous writes, the wounded president throws "a temper tantrum," insists that Mr. Mattis leave the job immediately, before his successor has been named, and then falsely claims that in fact he fired Mr. Mattis, rather than the other way around.
How the Trump administration said 'you're fired'
Mr. Comey: Saw the news reported on TV in the back of the auditorium while he was in the middle of making a speech in California.
Mr. McCabe: Saw the news on TV, followed by a presidential tweet: "Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI."
Ms. Manigault Newman: Called into the Situation Room before the 2017 White House Christmas Party, was informed by Mr. Kelly that "there are significant integrity violations related to you," and was not allowed to leave until the stress of the encounter triggered an asthma attack and she went home.
Mr. Sims: Was fired by Mr. Kelly, who said: "In the past 40 years, I don't think I've ever had a subordinate whose reputation is worse than yours."
Mr. Priebus: Idling in the presidential motorcade after a trip to New York on the day after he had submitted his resignation, learned that his removal was effective immediately when he read on Twitter that Mr. Kelly was replacing him. The motorcade went on to the White House; his car peeled away and drove off into oblivion.
Trump on the authors
Mr. Comey: "A weak and untruthful slime ball"
Mr. McCabe: "A major sleazebag."
Ms. Manigault Newman: "Vicious, but not smart."
Mary Trump: "A seldom seen niece who knows little about me, says untruthful things about my wonderful parents (who couldn't stand her!) and me, and violated her NDA. … She's a mess!"
Mr. Sims: "A low level staffer that I hardly knew. … He is a mess!"
Mr. Bolton: A "sick puppy."
The post In Trumpworld, the Grown-Ups in the Room All Left, and Got Book Deals appeared first on New York Times.