Tag Archives: architect

Guy Asks Girlfriend For World Cup Updates, Doesn’t Get What He Expected

View original post here:

My boyfriend asked me to text him updates from the #ENGTUN game as he's on his way home. You can't say it's not accurate. #WorldCup pic.twitter.com/fOIUKsMLus — lightningstarr (@lightningstarr) June 18, 2018 One young woman is going viral on Twitter after she shared messages she sent to her boyfriend. According to @lightningstarr bae asked for World Cup updates because he was traveling and couldn’t watch. What ensued was pure hilarity. “You can’t say it’s not accurate,” she captioned the photo that has since been retweeted nearly 3,000 times. Hit the flip for the reactions you need to see from social media.

Guy Asks Girlfriend For World Cup Updates, Doesn’t Get What He Expected

Ms. Lauryn Hill’s Anniversary Tour Is For Errbody, Featuring Errbody

Continued here:

Source: David Wolff – Patrick / Getty/David Wolff – Patrick Anyone who’s a fan of good, quality music was probably hype when they heard that Lauryn Hill was going on tour to celebrate the 20th anniversary of her ‘Miseducation’ album.   No matter you age, race, gender or creed, L, Boogie’s music has probably touched you in some way, form or fashion. Even the premise of the Miseducation of Lauryn HIll was dope. The skits in between that made it seem like she was absent on the one day at school when they taught you about love. We all missed that day too. — Craig's_VCR (@Craigs_VCR) March 9, 2018 Lauryn Hill taught me what reciprocity means — Erick the Architect (@erickarcelliott) July 14, 2014 Plus, it’s been a whole two decades since ‘Miseducation Of Lauryn Hill’ changed the way we view music and female artistry today. Lauryn Hill birthed, raised, & taught female rap everything it knows today. — Nayirah (@nayirvh) December 18, 2010 Lauryn Hill was the Tupac of Female Rappers — odd_beauty (@Extra_Pillz) June 15, 2018 When the news of Lauryn returnng to the stage this Summer was announced, folks had lots to say about the superstar’s history of chronic tardiness. This 20th Anniversary tour of The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill finna be lit af the only thing stopping me from getting tix is the fact Ms Hill be late to her own shows — Nαуѕiα☥Mαrie (@nmarie11x2) June 18, 2018 I’m mad at black people for tripping about Lauryn hill showing up late for work like they ain’t on they last write up. — durag daddy (@vbryant9) June 19, 2018 But luckily, Lauryn got some crazy dope show openers this time around, so we may not have to cancel her for being late.   SZA will be joining Lauryn Hill's 20th Anniversary 'Miseducation' Tour for one date in Mountain View, CA. pic.twitter.com/OFbMlMZEFJ — DAILY SZA (@CampSZA) June 18, 2018 Our girl Solana is one of them:   No matter how many times Lauryn and Nas perform together, we want to see it every time. Even Nas’ protege, Dave East gets a spot on tour with the Queen:   And it’s always a good time when Lauryn and Dave Chappelle link up! For a while, he was the only one able to get the Fugees to perform together.   Dave will be joining her on tour in September. Check out more big name openers in the list below:   No shade to the folks who spent their coins to see The Carter and dem babies on tour — but even Bey & Jay probably already have their tix to the all-encompassing experience that is the Lauryn Hill Concert.    Tickets go on sale this Friday, June 22nd. Check out the full list of dates t o see which city your fave artist will be performing in.

Ms. Lauryn Hill’s Anniversary Tour Is For Errbody, Featuring Errbody

Android Homme Shoes (Javier Laval) Was On Everyone’s (Jay-Z To Jay Cole) Feet At The VMA’s: Sit Down With Young Black Hetro Owner! [Video]

We wrote about this brand when they first started , years ago. This time, we talk to Javier about his Android Homme’s success, Air Yeezy’s, and more. As a matter of fact, it was one of our first Saturday Styles ever back in 2008… ANDROID HOMME YOUR FAVORITE ARTISTS FAVORITE BRAND! Bossip : What’s your name and whats your relation to the Android Homme brand? JL: Javier Laval . Founder . Creative Director . Brand Architect of Android Homme. @javierlaval Bossip : How has your business been since we last talked? JL: Truthfully our business has seen some explosive growth since we last connected.  When we spoke last you were one of the first to cover Android Homme during our debut season.  We have since expanded our distribution to include global retail accounts all over the world, we have been featured in numerous publications, blogs and of course on the feet of many of our favorite artists.  We have also tiered our brand to include a “Made In Italy” collection that is shipping to the finest retailers in the world, as well as created our very successful diffusion line AH by ANDROID HOMME which can be found in more mass market retailers around the country.  AH by Android Homme is different than Android Homme because of the technology we used on the outsole as well as the premium synthetic materials we used make the shoe super light without compromising the look.  We are also opening up our own retail shop Downtown Los Angeles by the end of August, we already have the space and have just been building it out.  Thats major progress and we love those that have supported us since DAY ONE like  Bossip.com ! Bossip : How do you like it being a young minority controlling and thwarting the men’s shoe game in your direction? JL: Its a challenge because im pretty much the only young black/latino designer having success in the footwear business that i know of.  I had a vision and i stuck to it no matter the “trends” or the resistance from retailers and consumers.  We are a forward thinking brand so some of the trends that people jump on is not where we are coming from.  I do believe that we are still young as a brand and have so much more room to grow so i don’t believe im controlling the game but im definitely playing it really well. Bossip : Do you receive credit for being one of if not thee first shoe designer to embrace and build on the high-high top styled kicks? JL: Im not sure actually, i know i didn’t invent the hi-top so i wouldn’t expect much credit for building upon that.  I do think that to a certain degree im credited with bringing a consistent quality luxury sneaker to a street/fashion consumer using some of the same suppliers, and vendors as the larger brands but at a reasonable price point.

Follow this link:
Android Homme Shoes (Javier Laval) Was On Everyone’s (Jay-Z To Jay Cole) Feet At The VMA’s: Sit Down With Young Black Hetro Owner! [Video]

Expendables 2 Comic-Con Poster: Testosterone Tsunami

I’m hugely fond of the headline accompanying this Expendables 2 “Comic-Con poster” (just what the movie needed, seriously, because surely none of the thousands of culture obsessives in San Diego will know anything about it ) on Ain’t it Cool News: “This EXPENDABLES 2 Comic-Con Poster Has Enough Booms, Badasses, Barrels To Humble Even The Most Uppity Of Geeks!!” Yes, it certainly does. You know what else it has? Hilarity. Somehow this all makes me envision Sylvester Stallone wolfing down a testosterone taco a few years past its sell-by date and then racing to the nearest Kinko’s and evacuating every last granule of his meal inside a color copier whose lid comes crashing down and short circuits and sputters and churns out a boomtastic accident likely intended for an imminent Chinatown bootleg DVD sleeve yet is just tasteless enough to qualify for Comic-Con signage. The man is good! Or at least he will be once his stomach settles. Better, anyway. [ Ain’t it Cool News ]

Link:
Expendables 2 Comic-Con Poster: Testosterone Tsunami

Star Trek Gets Dueling Docs at Comic-Con

This iconic image from Star Trek ‘s “Amok Time” (Season 2, Episode 1) represents a moment of great internal conflict. When two of our heroes are battling to the death, for whom do we cheer? Luckily, in this case, Bones was on hand with a neuroparalyzer, allowing Kirk to feign death until the mind-altering effect of pon farr drained away from Spock, thus ending the koon-ut-kal-if-fee ritual. But who will be on hand with the hydrospray this week in San Diego? Whoooooo? The 2012 edition of nerd prom brings not one but two feature length documentaries that ought to be of interest to convention-going, costume-wearin’, social anxiety-havin’ fans – specifically, two documentaries about Star Trek enthusiasts. From Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry’s son, Rod Roddenberry, comes the long-in-development Trek Nation . The film is a mixture of talking head interviews from Trek notables (and others like George Lucas), behind-the-scenes footage and gawking at fans who create their own Andorian antennae. Its hook is the “son in search of his father” schtick, making it something of an interplanetary My Architect . Trek Nation will have a fan screening Thursday night, and “Roddenberry Presents” has a panel on Saturday. There is also an official Roddenberry booth on the showroom floor. Trek Nation trailer: In the other corner is Captain Kirk himself. William Shatner, whose directorial skill is very much of a piece with his Elton John covers, is presenting his latest work, Get A Life . Whereas poor Rod Roddenberry has been schlepping bits of footage of Trek Nation to Cons for years, Shatner’s first person film about “encountering the fans” is another of his dashed-off productions made with the EPIX cable network. (Note: EPIX isn’t really a network, it’s more like Hulu except you watch it on your TV and not your laptop. I don’t really know how to describe EPIX and it isn’t available in New York, which is why no one I know watches EPIX.) Get a Life trailer: Last year Shatner delivered an EPIX production called The Captains . While ostensibly a string of interviews with all who sat in Star Trek ‘s center seat, it ended up being a remarkable piece of outsider art. The sequence of Shatner and Avery Brooks scat-singing about death and “listening to the Universe” just a few months before the Deep Space Nine star got hit with a DUI is like something from Cassavetes’ Love Streams . But, you know, awful. Avery Brooks/William Shatner mash-up: Get A Life will show footage at a panel on Saturday. Mr. Shatner will share the stage with Roger Corman and Kevin Smith. Of the two films, I’m sure Trek Nation is the more polished and the more positive. Get A Life (whose title is a riff of Shatner’s old Saturday Night Live sketch admonishing obsessed fans) is no doubt the more entertaining. The joke is, of course, that both of these films are far too late. Obsessed fandom is hardly news anymore. (I mean, there was a documentary ABOUT Comic-Con that came out this year.) While one could argue that Star Trek fans dwarf all other fans, we shouldn’t forget that there was a theatrically released film in 1997 called Trekkies . It was successful enough that in 2003 there was a Trekkies 2 . What this means, of course, is that it is only a matter of time until a documentary is made about people obsessed with Star Trek documentaries. I’ll be furiously refreshing Kickstarter and will inform you as soon as I hear anything. Saturday Night Live “Get a Life” sketch:

Read the original here:
Star Trek Gets Dueling Docs at Comic-Con

Congress Won’t Shut Down During The Government Shutdown 2011, But Will Have To Live Without The Special Perks

SMH: Senators would have to push their own elevator buttons. House members would go without their free gym. Food on Capitol Hill would be sparse. And the lawmakers’ restrooms? Perhaps not as fresh. Congress would feel the pinch of a government shutdown, but nowhere near the pain that would be inflicted on the massive federal work force it is supposed to govern. Unlike the roughly 800,000 federal workers who would be affected, lawmakers get wide latitude deciding who is essential and who’s not in the fiefdoms of their own offices and committees. They also get to choose whether to give up their own pay during a shutdown — an option not afforded the furloughed. “How does that make any sense?” said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who added that he will forgo a paycheck for the length of a budget impasse. More than two dozen senators of both parties took the same pledge as the clocked Friday toward the midnight shutdown deadline. House Speaker John Boehner on Friday told other lawmakers that he planned to return the pay he would be entitled to during a shutdown, In a message to House members, he noted that the Constitution forbids lawmakers from changing their compensation or the president’s in mid-term, but there is no prohibition on lawmakers refusing their pay when a shutdown occurs. Rank-and-file House members and senators make $174,000 a year, with the leaders of each party making more. Boehner receives $223,500. President Barack Obama’s annual salary is $400,000. Many members of Congress already donate all or some of their pay to charity, but those swept into office last year by the populist, tea party-tinged wave of the midterm elections are especially sensitive to the inconsistency of getting paid — more than most Americans — for a job not done. “I’ll find a way to give it back,” said Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner, a member of the Republican class of freshman that handed control of the House to the GOP. Gardner said he gave up his pay in the state Legislature under similar circumstances. “We aren’t different than anybody else.” The Capitol Hill workforce is the size of a small city, tens of thousands of people who protect, feed, shuttle, schedule, advise, clean up after and otherwise support the 535 members of Congress. During a shutdown, deciding who and what services are essential generally falls to the lawmakers, with advice from Congress’ experts on the subject. The House Administration Committee, for example, recommended that lawmakers use three criteria when deciding staffing. Employees whose jobs “are associated with constitutional responsibilities, the protection of human life or the protection of property” should be considered essential, the committee said. Three-fourths of the Architect of the Capitol’s 2,600-person workforce would stay home, severely curtailing the many services it provides, according to spokeswoman Eva Malecki. That includes limited food service and even restroom cleaning — both the public facilities and those in the lawmakers’ offices. It also means limited response to emergency service calls for help on plumbing, electrical, elevator or other problems, she said. Expect a police force big enough to keep the campus secure but severely scaled back, said Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance Gainer. That means one door open per building both for lawmakers, their staffs and the tourists Congress is obligated to admit when the legislature is in session. But since the Capitol Visitor Center would be closed, tour guidance would be mostly up to the lawmakers themselves. And if they feel like escaping to the comfort of, say, the members-only balcony just off the House floor? Lawmakers might have to find an officer with a key to unlock the door, according to knowledgeable officials who demanded anonymity to be candid. Members would have to line up for everything from elevators to news conferences, since there would only be one act of televised grandstanding allowed at a time, Gainer said. And food? Sparse enough to constitute “a mandatory diet,” he quipped. Source

Read the original:
Congress Won’t Shut Down During The Government Shutdown 2011, But Will Have To Live Without The Special Perks

Andrew Maynard’s Mash House Lands In Backyard

Images by Kevin Hui via Andrew Maynard Architects TreeHugger Best of Green Young Architect Andrew Maynard is building a body of interesting work in Australia; the latest is the Mash House, an addition and renovation. With its curved base and top, it looks like it was just dropped there, but in fact was very carefully knitted into the existing building…. Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the rest here:
Andrew Maynard’s Mash House Lands In Backyard

ABC’s David Muir: Could Gay White House Staffer Have Dissuaded Bush on Marriage Amendment?

Good Morning America’s David Muir on Thursday used the announcement that Republican operative Ken Mehlman is gay to push the GOP towards rethinking its stance on marriage. Talking to former George Bush staffer Ed Gillespie, the ABC host speculated, “…Had Ken come to terms with this…when he was influential in the White House with the President, do you think that he could have influenced the President differently, in looking back?” (An odd suggestion, considering that Bush’s own Vice President disagreed with him.) After reading from the Republican Party’s platform on the issue of gay marriage, the GMA guest anchor pressed, “Do you think the Republican Party should take a second look at this?” During a previous segment, reporter Jake Tapper featured a clip from Mike Rogers, a gay activist who outs closeted Republicans: ” [Mehlman] was really the architect of all the homophobia we saw in 2004 out of the Bush re-election campaign, which he was the general manager of.” To be fair, Tapper also quoted from Mehlman’s call for tolerance towards those in the Republican Party who oppose gay marriage. The other two morning shows, unlike GMA, mostly ignored the story. NBC’s Today gave it a brief mention at the end of a political round-up segment. Ann Curry responded to the news that Mehlman would now lobby for gay marriage by asserting, ” Well it’s a pretty brave move on his part .” On CBS’s Early Show, Jeff Glor just read a news brief and noted, “It’s making news because Mehlman was a key GOP operative at the same time some Republicans were pushing anti-same sex marriage initiatives.” A transcript of the Ed Gillespie interview, which aired at 7:10am EDT on August 26, follows: DAVID MUIR: And want to bring in Ed Gillespie, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee to talk about the changing face of the Republican Party. And he joins us from Long Beach Island, New Jersey, this morning. Ed, as always, good morning. ED GILLESPIE: Thanks for having me on, David. MUIR: I know you’re good friends with Ken. You go way back in your work with the Republican Party with him. And he shared this with you a couple of weeks back. I’m just curious what you said back to him. GILLESPIE: Ken was my friend ten years ago. He’s my friend today. And if I’m lucky, he’ll be my friend ten years from now. And I accepted his decision. And we agreed to disagree on the issue of same-sex marriage. But, you know, proponents of same-sex marriage in the Republican Party have gained an effective advocate. I don’t think the party should abandon its position that marriage remain between one man and one woman. But Ken and I can respectfully disagree on that. MUIR: So, you’ll be one of the friends who agrees to disagree, as he alluded to there. But, I wanted to point out a quote here. One thing he says he regrets is the fact that “I can’t change the fact that I wasn’t in this place personally when I was in politics. And I genuinely regret that. So, I could have worked against it.” And he’s talking about the constitutional amendment pushed by President Bush. But, we did check the Republican Party platform. And let’s put this up on the screen. It still says, “We call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.” When you take what we’ve now heard from Ken Mehlman, and even Vice President Dick Cheney, who has changed his view in recent weeks, saying that he still believes it should be up to the states but that gays should have a shot at marriage. Do you think the Republican Party should take a second look at this? GILLESPIE: Well, as I said, I believe, it’s a tenet of my faith, and I believe it, that we’re best suited to have in our society, marriage being one man and one woman. But, look, there’s advocates inside the party. You mentioned Vice President Cheney, now, Ken, and others who will advocate that it be reconsidered. There are Democrats, obviously, beginning with President Obama, who share my perspective on this issue. So, there is a debate going on in the country, andtates, where states are sanctioning gay marriage. And, you know, inside the party, as well. That debate’s ongoing. And people have views. I think Ken’s point is a good one. I accept Ken. He’s my friend. I accept his point of view on this, you know, very heartfelt issue in a lot of ways. And he accepts mine. And I think that civil discourse is very important. MUIR: Ed, you know the inner workings better than anyone. And I’m sort of curious, had Ken come to terms with this, as he puts it, at an earlier time, when he was influential in the White House with the President, do you think that he could have influenced the President differently in looking back? GILLESPIE: Well, there’s no doubt, I mean, Ken’s an influential person and effective advocate for policies and positions that he believes. But I don’t believe that, at that time, or this time, the Republican Party platform would change on the issue. We’ve had courts injecting themselves into this decision making process, into the political process, in a way I think is generally unhealthy for unelected judges to make decisions about whether or not government should sanction gay marriage or not. I think it’s best left to the political and policy debate. And I think the President, in 2004, in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, made the right decision, to call for constitutional amendment because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. A same-sex couple married in Massachusetts and moves to my home state of Virginia, could conceivably, Virginians could be compelled to recognize that. So, I think there is a constitutional issue here. And I think President Bush was right to adopt that position. I think the Republican Party is right to keep it as part of the platform. MUIR: All right. Ken Mehlman’s friend, Ed Gillespie, who says he plans to continue, obviously, being his friend. Thanks for weighing in honestly on the debate. We sure do appreciate it.

Originally posted here:
ABC’s David Muir: Could Gay White House Staffer Have Dissuaded Bush on Marriage Amendment?

Amanpour on One-Sided This Week: ‘Profound Questions About Religious Tolerance and Prejudice in the U.S.’

Not even feigning the pretense of balance, a week after her roundtable hailed President Obama’s initial endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque (GZM), on this Sunday’s This Week host Christiane Amanpour featured an “exclusive” with two GZM proponents as she declared “the controversy has raised profound questions about religious tolerance and prejudice in the United States. And the backlash against Islam has been seen across the country…” Holding up the current Time magazine with its “Is America Islamophobic?” cover, she forwarded the contention: “Is America Islamophobic? Are you concerned about the long-term relationship between American Muslims and the rest of society here?” Amanpour’s guests, to “cut through the heated rhetoric” on the only Sunday interview show with a guest segment on the GZM (Fox News Sunday took it up in its panel time): Daisy Khan, wife of imam behind the project, and Rabbi Joy Levitt, from the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, “who’s an adviser on the project.” Amanpour began by undermining the idea the community center with a prayer room inside is all that close to Ground Zero: “Opponents say that it’s just too close to the site of the 9/11 attacks, though it cannot be seen from there. It took an ABC News producer two minutes and 45 seconds to walk from Ground Zero to the site of the proposed center.” Amanpour posed a series of fairly friendly questions about their reaction to the backlash, what services would be provided by the center, if they had made any “missteps” and if they would take up Governor Paterson on his offer to find another location, before she cued them up to denounce Newt Gingrich:  There’s been a lot of heated rhetoric as we’ve been saying. I want to play you something that the former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, said about the plans to build this center near Ground Zero….Let me ask you directly because he did bring up Nazi imagery there. What do you make of that? She raised the funding , but only to portray Khan as an innocent: “Are you prepared to discuss the issue of foreign funding? Let’s say there was foreign funding, how would you be able to know exactly where that money was coming from?” Amanpour did play a soundbite of Khan’s husband claiming in 2001 that “the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” But after Khan answered he just meant it was “blowback” for “CIA support specifically to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban,” Amanpor dropped the subject so she could move to American prejudice and hate, cuing up Khan: This Time magazine cover is being talked about a lot right now. Basically, “Is America Islamophobic?” Is America Islamophobic? Are you concerned about the long-term relationship between American Muslims and the rest of society here? Khan’s reply likely echoed Amanpour’s unsaid view: “Yes, I think we are deeply concerned because this is like a metastasized anti-Semitism. That’s what we feel right now. It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.” During the subsequent roundtable, Robert Reich made clear his disgust with the “intolerance” of Americans on this and immigration and Gingrich’s “outrageous” criticism, PBS’s Judy Woodruff, ex of CNN and NBC, lamented (“it was just six days after 9/11 that President George W. Bush went to an Islamic Center…and said we need to remember that the acts that were done to this country do not represent all of Islam”) and her husband, Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, offered his own sophomoric response to the argument the site should be moved: Is it three blocks instead of two blocks? Is it eight blocks? Is it another state, another country? That strikes me as a very sophomoric argument. This whole thing has been demagoged. My ongoing Amanpour Watch: Last week: “ Amanpour’s Panel Hails Obama’s ‘Courage,’ ‘Leadership’ and ‘Great Global Message’ on Mosque ” August 8: “ Amanpour Elevates British Journalist Who Sees ‘Culture of Hate’ in U.S., Time to Divide Up Our ‘Pie ’” August 1, reviewing Amanpour’s debut: “ Amanpour Slums to Take on U.S. Politics, Flummoxed Pelosi’s Victories Aren’t Better Appreciated ” All of Amanpour’s questions and prompts during the segment with Khan and Levitt, on the August 22 This Week: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: We turn now over the debate of the proposed Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero. Opponents say that it’s just too close to the site of the 9/11 attacks, though it cannot be seen from there. It took an ABC News producer two minutes and 45 seconds to walk from Ground Zero to the site of the proposed center. But the controversy has raised profound questions about religious tolerance and prejudice in the United States. And the backlash against Islam has been seen across the country with mosques facing protests in California, Wisconsin and Tennessee. And some intelligence experts now say that the backlash could also bolster extremists abroad who wish to portray the United States as anti-Islam. And so this morning, we cut through the heated rhetoric and hear directly from one of the leading organizers behind the center, Daisy Khan, wife of imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and also Rabbi Joy Levitt, Executive Director of the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, who’s an adviser on the project. Thank you both very much for joining me on This Week. > Can I ask you first, Daisy, what has been your reaction – you haven’t spoken publicly – what has been your reaction – to the last several weeks of this? > Well you say you started to meet them, did you not meet with families as you began to propose this Islamic center? > Rabbi Joy Levitt, how did it come about that the two of you were working together on this? > [To Khan] What was is mean to be, the Islamic center? Is it a mosque with a dome and minaret, some loud calls to prayer five times a day? Or what is it? > And what about it will be the community center? > Let me ask you both now, because obviously it has taken off on a whole different dimension over the last several weeks. And there’s a huge amount of anxiety amongst many in the United States about the sensitivity of putting it where it is, particularly amongst some of the 9/11 families. So I want to play for you something that the Governor of New York said, in fact on CNN a week ago about the potential of a compromise. Let’s listen to what he says. [DAVID PATERSON: If people put their heads together, maybe we can find a site that’s away from the site now, but still serves the area that would be a noble gesture to those who live in the area who suffered after the attack on this country and at the same time, it would probably in many ways, change a lot of people’s minds about Islam.] So, Daisy, are you prepared — do you have any plans to meet with him? Does imam Feisal? Do you plan to try to seek a compromise and move it? > Do you have a plan to specifically meet with the Governor who’s offered state land for this? And do you think you’ll decide to move it? > So is moving on the table still? [KHAN: We, right now, it’s not, until we consult with all our stake holders.] > Can I ask you, Rabbi Levitt, were there missteps at the beginning, in terms of, let’s some people have suggested there should have been a town hall meeting-style, more outreach, more sophisticated public relations. Not talking just to the people who agreed with you but the people that might have the kind of issues that are being shown right how to. Should there have been a different way of approaching this? > Reaching out to people, should there have been a more organized debate in the community, in the wider area to talk about how this was going to be seen? [LEVITT: …this whole controversy has unleashed is a tremendous amount of misinformation, lack of knowledge about Islam that we need to address.] > Let me take a few of those, sort of, in order. There’s been a lot of heated rhetoric as we’ve been saying. I want to play you something that the former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, said about the plans to build this center near Ground Zero. [GINGRICH, ON FNC, AUGUST 16: Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.] [To Levitt] Let me ask you directly because he did bring up Nazi imagery there. What do you make of that? > Do you have the plans for it, do you have the architect, do you have the funding? Is it something that could happen anytime? Or is it still a long time off? > How much money has been raised? And, are you prepared to discuss the issue of foreign funding? Let’s say there was foreign funding, how would you be able to know exactly where that money was coming from? What other projects elsewhere they may have given money to? > Let me ask you, because there have been also a lot of questions raised about your husband’s political ideas and political views, specifically because of something that he said on 60 Minutes shortly after 9/11. Let me play that. [FEISAL, ON 60 MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 30, 2001: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.] What do you think he meant by that? [KHAN: It was a longer interview. And in the longer interview, he talked about CIA support specifically to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.] > You mean back, against the Soviet Union? [KHAN: And how this was, in CIA terms, a blowback of that. That’s what he meant.] > You’ve talked about the state of Islam in the United States. I mean, look, this Time magazine cover is being talked about a lot right now. Basically, “Is America Islamophobic?” Is America Islamophobic? Are you concerned about the long-term relationship between American Muslims and the rest of society here? [KHAN: Yes, I think we are deeply concerned because this is like a metastasized anti-Semitism. That’s what we feel right now. It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims…] > [To Levitt] Do you agree with what she just said and how she described it? > The last word. Do you think it will go ahead?

Read the original post:
Amanpour on One-Sided This Week: ‘Profound Questions About Religious Tolerance and Prejudice in the U.S.’

George Stephanopoulos Fawns Over Obama’s Handling of McChrystal Controversy: A ‘Political Masterstroke’

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday hyped Barack Obama’s handling of the decision to fire General Stanley McChrystal and replace him with David Petraeus, lauding the action as a ” political masterstroke .” His comments built on extensive media praise on Wednesday, including many reporters who called the move “brilliant.” Stephanopoulos seemed particularly pleased. The former Democratic aide turned journalist extolled, “…That pick really seems to have been the political masterstroke that got President Obama out of the tight box he was in. It’s being welcomed both by Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.” Reporter Martha Raddatz agreed with Stephanopoulos, enthusing, “Sending Petraeus to Afghanistan is, by all accounts, a great save, for exactly the reasons the President described.” A transcript of the June 24 segment, which aired at 7:04am, follows: ROBIN ROBERTS: But, it, as you know, is a new day, under new leadership for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. After a high-stakes meeting with General Stanley McChrystal, President Obama announced his resignation, the general’s resignation. And named his replacement, the architect of the surge in Iraq, General David Petraeus. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Robin, that pick really seems to have been the political masterstroke that got President Obama out of the tight box he was in. It’s being welcomed both by Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Petraeus is expected to be confirmed quickly by the Senate and to be on the ground in Afghanistan next week. The big question, now, can General Petraeus fix a war effort that has been proceeding in fits and starts? President Obama said he was changing personnel, not policy. But, many wondering if a change in strategy is needed. We have Senator John McCain standing by live to talk about that. But, we’re going to begin with Martha Raddatz and the high drama in the high change of command. And, Martha, it was pretty stunning. 30 minutes with the President and a 30-year career is over. MARTHA RADDATZ: That’s exactly right, George. General McChrystal and his top aide will not be returning to Afghanistan and say good-bye. Their personal effects are being packed up right now for shipping back to the U.S. As an official in Kabul told me this morning, it feels like a death in the family. It all happened so fast. And in retrospect, was so obvious. Cameras trained on a White House entrance, caught Stanley McChrystal leaving his tense and final meeting with President Obama. And a short time later, David Petraeus arrived. He had come for a scheduled national security council meeting about Afghanistan. But we now know that just 45 minutes after McChrystal was ousted, the President called Petraeus to the oval office and asked him to take McChrystal’s job. BARACK OBAMA: He has worked closely with our forces in Afghanistan. He has worked closely with Congress. He has my full confidence. RADDATZ: Sending Petraeus to Afghanistan is, by all accounts, a great save, for exactly the reasons the President described. Petraeus is jokingly referred to by some in the military as a water walker, who seems to turn even the worst situations around. He received enormous credit for that in Iraq, where he served three, different tours, the last overseeing the surge. Ironically, he took over central command in 2008 because the man who was then holding the job, Admiral William Fallon, was ousted, after an Esquire magazine profile put him at odds with the Bush administration. The central command job, headquartered in Tampa, put Petraeus in charge of a swath of global hot spots, from Yemen, to Iran, to Pakistan. A senior administration official joked that sending Petraeus from Tampa to Kabul, was not exactly on the Better Homes tour. But clearly, the President is hoping that the magic touch Petraeus has had in the past, will help him in one of the toughest wars ever. And this may well be the hardest challenge Petraeus has faced. We also don’t know how long he will be in Afghanistan. He has already spent nearly half of the last ten years in a war zone. George?

See the original post:
George Stephanopoulos Fawns Over Obama’s Handling of McChrystal Controversy: A ‘Political Masterstroke’