‎"a small minority – might find the pervasive sexualisation of western culture deeply offensive, and might want to signal by their clothing their disengagement and alienation."- this argument confuses me, doesn't the veil objectify women as much as a mini-skirt would? They both encourage a fixation on image- wrapping yourself up from head to toe seems to be a rather strange reponse to the objectification of women.

We formed a small club called Les Hommes Revoltes, drank very dry sherry, and (as a protest against those shabby duffel-coated last years of the 'forties) wore dark-grey suits and black ties for our meetings. There we argued about being and nothingness and called a certain kind of inconsequential behaviour 'existentialist'. Less enlightened people would have called it capricious or just plain selfish; but we didn't understand that the heroes, or anti-heroes, of the French existentialist novels we read were not supposed to be realistic. We tried to imitate them, mistaking metaphorical descriptions of complex modes of feeling for straightforward prescriptions of behaviour.
John Fowles, The Magus

Though the Iranian threat is not military aggression, that does not mean that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with US global designs. Specifically, it threatens US control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II. As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding, control of these resources yields "substantial control of the world" (A. A. Berle).

But Iran's threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand its influence. Iran's "current five-year plan seeks to expand bilateral, regional, and international relations, strengthen Iran's ties with friendly states, and enhance its defense and deterrent capabilities. Commensurate with that plan, Iran is seeking to increase its stature by countering U.S. influence and expanding ties with regional actors while advocating Islamic solidarity." In short, Iran is seeking to "destabilize" the region, in the technical sense of the term used by General Petraeus. US invasion and military occupation of Iran's neighbors is "stabilization." Iran's efforts to extend its influence in neighboring countries is "destabilization," hence plainly illegitimate.

Al Qaeda is an organisation that formed in 1988, its a very sophisticated organisation and to say that it doesn't exists is mostly in the realm of social scientists who want to define the problem away rather than confront it.

Michael Scheuer

To support their argument, the anti-Israel faction in the White House pointed to two facts. First, the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state required at least a partial displacement and disenfranchisement of non-Jews. Second, though not free of bloodshed, relations between Jews and Arabs in the Palestine area were relatively peaceful before the establishment of Zionist settlements there in the early 20th century. The first acts of political violence against Jews in the region took place in 1920, when local Arabs responded to the influx of tens of thousands of Zionist settlers by attacking Jewish settlements in Galilee and rioting in the streets of Jerusalem.

However, the best moments of a very long day centred on why the Cabinet Committee chaired by Mr Clegg and charged with bringing forward a Bill would meet in camera, issue no minutes and include Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem members, but exclude the Crossbenchers.

Baroness D’Souza (Convenor of the Crossbenchers) revealed that Mr Clegg had told her: “I want a clear and explicit political consensus, which I would not get if you were on the committee.”

I think that provides the clearest insight into the thinking of the Coalition I have yet found. Consensus is becoming a precious Coalition objective, best achieved it seems by standing in front a mirror and talking to one’s self.