Tag Archives: mma

Lauryn Hill Reminds Us Of 10 Other Artists We Miss

While anticipating L-Boogie’s triumphant return, we can’t help but reminisce on other artists who have dropped off the radar. Photo: Paul Hawthorne/ Getty Images Related Artists Lauryn Hill Xzibit Dilated Peoples Memphis Bleek D’Angelo

Go here to see the original:
Lauryn Hill Reminds Us Of 10 Other Artists We Miss

‘Nanny McPhee Returns’: The Reviews Are In!

Emma Thompson’s sequel charms many critics, but it’s way too saccharine for others. By Eric Ditzian Emma Thompson in “Nanny McPhee Returns” Photo: Universal Pictures This weekend is set to be a crowded one at the cinema, as five new flicks receive the wide-release treatment. None of them — from “Piranha 3D” to “Vampires Suck” — are likely to come out on top at the box office, as “The Expendables” looks to commandeer the top spot for a second straight week. Of all the fresh faces, though, Emma Thompson might well perform the best, as “Nanny McPhee Returns,” which the 51-year-old Brit both wrote and stars in, arrives on U.S. shores over four years after the original film. The latest installment has already grossed $62.6 million overseas. How will it fair domestically? Reviews are largely positive, though it remains to be seen if “Nanny McPhee” can overtake the “Twilight” parody, “Vampires Suck,” or the Bow Wow-starring, “Lottery Ticket.” Here’s what the critics have to say. The Story “Nanny McPhee is dispatched to help a family in desperate need of order. Isabel Green (Maggie Gyllenhaal) lives with her three children on a rundown family farm in the countryside. Her husband, Rory, is fighting overseas, and poor Isabel must cope with a shiftless brother-in-law (Rhys Ifans) determined to make her sell the farm, a part-time job with a comically absent-minded shopkeeper (Maggie Smith) and the arrival of two more children: posh cousins Cyril (Eros Vlahos) and Celia (Rosie Taylor-Ritson), sent from London for safety but creating havoc as soon as they arrive.” — Moira Macdonald, Seattle Times The Performances “Vlahos and Asa Butterfield, as Isabel’s eldest boy, have the movie’s most effective scene, in which they confront Ralph Fiennes, playing Vlahos’ stiff military dad, during the boys’ quick trip to London to learn the fate of Butterfield’s father. … Other roles call for too much mugging. This would include Maggie Smith’s turn as a forgetful old shopkeeper and Sam Kelly as an aging air-raid warden. The film suffers slightly from a curious sort of ageism, where the older you get the more ‘comic’ you become. In the title role, Thompson wisely lets her makeup artist do much of the initial work — the moles and hair do start to disappear as the children learn her lessons, leaving her more or less recognizable by movie’s end. Meanwhile, she uses her commanding voice to bring the movie’s energy to her character while standing aside to give the child protagonists plenty of room to romp.” — Kirk Honeycutt, The Hollywood Reporter The Jokes “The movie’s one other concession to modernity, besides the computer graphics, is the relentless poo-poo and flatulence jokes that have been inserted, ostensibly to make 11-year-olds scream with delight. Maggie Smith — that is, Dame Maggie Smith — playing a demented shopkeeper, plops down on a wet cow patty and announces that her seat is quite comfy. At another point, the movie leaves you with the impression that Nanny has apologized for flatulence. In retrospect, it’s actually remarkable that Julie Andrews got through all 139 minutes of ‘Mary Poppins’ without ever passing wind.” — Mick LaSalle, San Francisco The Dissenters “In the disappointing sequel from Thompson and director Susanna White (the BBC’s ‘Bleak House’), we get a gentler, more wink-inclined Nanny McPhee, not to mention kids whose rambunctiousness seems manufactured rather than entertainingly exaggerated. … The movie needn’t be so busy, or so sweet. … [The] plot demands and a general push for saccharinity have [McPhee] taking to the air on the bike, and being saluted by the Queen’s Guard, and cheerily rocketing down a country byway. So much for skipping the spoonful of sugar.” — Tom Russo, Boston Globe The Final Word “This sequel to 2006’s ‘Nanny McPhee’ is almost as charming as the first. There are problems, though, in its tone, segueing awkwardly from escapism to gritty reality. Some of that is mitigated by the endearing performances and the way the story imbues its young characters with intelligence, motivation and depth, qualities often lacking for children in family films.” — Claudia Puig, USA Today Check out everything we’ve got on “Nanny McPhee.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com .

Read this article:
‘Nanny McPhee Returns’: The Reviews Are In!

Nearly Half of United States Considering Arizona-Style Immigration Legislation

Twenty-two states are now in the process of drafting or seeking to pass legislation similar to Arizona’s law against illegal immigration. This is occurring despite the fact that the Obama administration has filed a lawsuit against the Arizona law and a federal judge has ruled against portions of that law – a ruling that is now being appealed.   Next month, two Rhode Island state lawmakers, a Democrat and a Republican, will travel to Arizona to speak with Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, local sheriffs, and other officials about how to better craft their own bipartisan immigration bill for Rhode Island, which already has been enforcing some federal immigration laws.    Meanwhile, 11 Republican state lawmakers from Colorado traveled to Arizona this week to meet with officials there on how to craft legislation for the Mile High state.    In addition, Alabama House Republicans announced this week that they would seek to “push an illegal immigration bill similar to the recently approved Arizona law.” This law would “create a new criminal trespass statute that allows local law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants for simply setting foot in Alabama,” said Alabama’s House Minority Leader Mike Hubbard.    In Florida, proposed legislation against illegal immigration has been retooled to address some concerns raised by a federal judge who blocked the proposed bill, though it would still allow Florida state police to enforce immigration law.    In all, there are 22 states considering copycat legislation from the Arizona law against illegal immigration, according to the  Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee  (ALIPAC), a group that advocates for stricter immigration enforcement. These illegal immigrants, deported to Mexico on Wednesday, July 28, 2010, are shown near the Nogales Port of Entry in Sonora, Mexico. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)Arizona’s law mirrors federal law. It requires local law enforcement officers during a lawful stop to determine the immigration status of an individual by asking the person to show identification that residents are already required to carry by law; and it authorizes law enforcement to securely transfer verified illegal aliens to federal custody.    The law prohibits racial profiling and gives state residents the right to sue local agencies for not complying with the state law.   In the lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Obama administration said the United States should not have a “patchwork” of 50 different immigration laws. In late July, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled against most of the major elements of the Arizona law, halting their implementation.  That ruling is now in the appeals process.    “We do not expand on federal law,” Florida state Rep. William Snyder, the sponsor of the bill in his state, told CNSNews.com. “We do not change penalties. The goal is not to create a new immigration framework at the state level.”   Snyder, the chairman of the Florida House Criminal Justice Committee, said his staff attorneys have taken the decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton into consideration in re-crafting their bill for the next state legislative session.    Snyder said the office of state Attorney General Bill McCollum has reviewed the legislation, as have committee attorneys, and they believe it will withstand a potential legal challenge from the Obama administration.    McCollum, a GOP candidate for governor, supports the legislation. However, Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican-turned-Independent candidate for U.S. Senate, opposes the proposal.  Alfredo Salas, 28, shows his license Thursday shortly after being pulled over and let off with a warning for a cracked windshield by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office during a crime and immigration sweep. (AP Photo/Amanda Lee Myers)”We will continue to work with the language,” Snyder said.    In Rhode Island, a bill that was introduced late in the session last year, and thus never reached a vote, is expected to be reintroduced in the 2011 session. Its two lead co-sponsors hope to have a bipartisan bill that will withstand a legal challenge after they meet with Arizona officials.    “It exactly mirrors the Arizona law,” Rhode Island state Rep. Peter Palumbo, a Democrat, told CNSNews.com. “We will tweak the bill.”   Palumbo will be going to Arizona with Rhode Island state Rep. Joseph Trillo, a Republican.    Their legislation would essentially codify an existing executive order signed in 2008 by Gov. Donald Carcieri, a Republican, mandating immigration checks on all new state workers and ordering state police to assist federal immigration officials.   This is Carcieri’s final year in office, so Palumbo said it is important to put the force of law behind what has already been Rhode Island policy. State troopers report illegal immigrants they encounter for speeding and other offenses to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office.   Because of the executive order in 2008, corruption was discovered in the Department of Motor Vehicles, with drivers licenses being sold to illegal aliens,  Palumbo said.     In New Jersey, state Rep. Allison Little McHose, a Republican, introduced a series of proposals that focused primarily on requiring employers to verify the legality of workers, and preventing state benefits from going to illegal aliens.    “New Jersey continues to be a sanctuary state for illegals because they know they can come to the state and receive many free benefits, like medical care,” McHose said in a statement. “The benefits may be free for those receiving them, but not the rest of the public because these costs are borne by the taxpayers.”   Other states with proposals that mirror the Arizona law are Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.   “We are very pleased to announce 22 states are now following Arizona’s lead to pass versions of a law that has the support of 60 percent to 81 percent of Americans according to polls,” said ALIPAC President William Gheen in a statement. “State and federal candidates are rushing to display their support for Arizona’s law and immigration enforcement. We will not stop until all American states are protected from this invasion as mandated by the Constitution of the United States.” Crossposted at NB sister site CNS News

Link:
Nearly Half of United States Considering Arizona-Style Immigration Legislation

Opinions: The Ground Zero Mosque

The Media Research Center interviewed New Yorkers about their thoughts on the proposed Ground Zero Mosque located just two blocks away from the World Trade Center site. Overall, 63% of Americans oppose the mosque– here is what local residents have to say.

Follow this link:
Opinions: The Ground Zero Mosque

George Stephanopoulos Actually Grills Dem Politician on Ethics Violations

George Stephanopoulos on Friday showed that it is possible to force a Democratic politician to answer tough questions. The Good Morning America host grilled Representative Maxine Waters over allegations that she misused her office for personal gain. Every single one of Stephanopoulos’ questions was hard hitting, including this query: ” The ethics committee is bipartisan. Five Democrats and five Republicans. If these charges are so groundless, how did this happen to you?” Waters is charged with assisting in obtaining TARP money for a bank that her husband had $175,000 worth of investments. Stephanopoulos never bullied Waters, but methodically laid out the case against the Congresswoman: STEPHANOPOULOS: But, let’s look at the evidence compiled by the House Ethics Committee. They say that you did benefit, that your husband had a $175,000 investment in a bank called One United. And that the bank received $12 million in government bailout money from the TARP. And it goes on to say, “If One United had not received the money, your husband’s financial interests would have been worthless. Therefore, you did personally benefit.” Your response? After Waters asserted that the bank, One United, obtained private investments before getting TARP money, Stephanopoulos retorted, ” Well, wouldn’t they have failed if the money didn’t come through?” A transcript of the August 20 segment, which aired at 7:15am EDT, follows: STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to turn now to a GMA exclusive. Representative Maxine Waters of California speaking out in her first television interview since the bipartisan House Ethics Committee charged her with misusing her office for personal gain. The charges involve her husband’s investment in a bank that was granted millions in government bailout money. Specifically, the committee found that Waters chief of staff, who was also her grandson, worked to get that government help for the bank. The trial’s set for this fall. And Congresswoman Waters says she’s going to fight, not settle. She joins us this Morning from Los Angeles. Thanks for getting up so early, Congresswoman. MAXINE WATERS: You’re welcome. Nice to be with you. STEPHANOPOULOS: As I said, You said you’re going to fight the charges hard. And you summarized your defense very succinctly in a powerpoint presentation last week. We’re going to point it up now. It said, “No benefit. No improper action. No failure to disclose. No one influenced. No case.” But, let’s look at the evidence compiled by the House Ethics Committee. They say that you did benefit, that your husband had a $175,000 investment in a bank called One United. And that the bank received $12 million in government bailout money from the TARP. And it goes on to say, “If One United had not received the money, your husband’s financial interests would have been worthless. Therefore, you did personally benefit.” Your response? WATERS: That’s not absolutely not true. First thing you’ll find is the decisions about who to fund were made by the FDIC and by the Treasury Department. And Representatives from both of those agencies have said publicly nobody influenced them. Nobody called them. Nobody wrote to them. Nobody did anything that interfered with their decision making. One United was vetted properly. They met the criteria. And they received TARP funding. And you have to know, George, that the meeting that is referred to that I set up, was at a time when there was not any TARP program. program at that time. There was no TARP program at the time. So, I could not have influenced anybody about TARP. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you there. Because, that is true. WATERS: Yes. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, then , after that, and the ethics committee goes through this. Your chief in staff, they say he was actively involved in helping the bank request money from the Treasury Department and crafting legislation, authorizing the Treasury to set up this TARP fund. WATERS: That is absolutely not true. If you take a look at the allegations, you will see that they cannot identify anything that he actually did. Did he call somebody? Did he write a letter? Did he ask me to do anything? They have not been able to verify what it is he supposedly did. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, let me- They did have at least one e-mail that I want to put up. It was from September 19th, 2008. WATERS: Sure. STEPHANOPOULOS: From your chief of staff, Mikael Moore, to a staffer for Congressman Frank, who was the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. It says, “OU,” which stands for One United, the bank, “is in trouble.” That does seem to be a kind of action alerting the chairman of the committee. WATERS: So, what does that mean? Is that the kind of e-mails that are sent between staff? It’s more staff chatter than anything else. It does not identify that he took any action. He responded to any e-mail. And we did not receive, and my husband did not receive, any benefit from any of this. As a matter of fact, it’s kind of a complicated case and a little bit hard to understand all of the details of it. But as you know, One United qualified because they were adequately capital and they were CDFI institution. Their capital came from the private market. They received private capital to secure that bank before they got TARP. money. So, that any investment that any of the investors had was secured by the private capital. And not by the TARP. funding. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, wouldn’t they have failed if the money didn’t come through? WATERS: I beg your pardon? STEPHANOPOULOS: Wouldn’t they have failed if money didn’t come through? WATERS: That has nothing to do with my case. The fact of the matter is, if you’re accusing me of influence to get them TARP money, when in fact, there was no TARP money involved when I arranged access for the trade association, the MBA, to meet with the Treasurer, that’s not a question that deals with this case at all. Maybe they would have failed, I don’t know. But the fact of the matter is, they had private capital. And they would not have failed if they had not gotten any TARP money because they got the money from the private market to make them adequately capitalized. STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the things the ethics committee points out, you realize you shouldn’t be involved in this. I want to show an e-mail from you. It says, “I realize that I, perhaps, should take a distance from that. I should not be involved in that.” Yet, after you said that, and I think it was said to the chairman of the committee, you, your chief of staff did ha these various e-mails. Various contacts with these other staffers. WATERS: No. STEPHANOPOULOS: And they’re saying you should have stopped him from taking any kind of action. WATERS: No. George, that’s misinformation. As a matter of fact, the meeting that I arranged with the Treasury was about the loss of preferred stock investment by the banks in the trade association when we took over and placed Fannie and Freddie in conservativeship. That took place early September. And the conversation that you’re referring to, took place in early October, long after that meeting had taken place. And only when United- One United was interested in TARP. That’s when I said to Barney Frank, they’re your constituents. It’s your district. So, you should take a look at this. I was out of there. STEPHANOPOULOS: We only have a few seconds left. The ethics committee is bipartisan. Five Democrats and five Republicans. If these charges are so groundless, how did this happen to you? WATERS: Well, as a matter of fact, we have the OCE. That is the initial committee that takes up concerns or criticism or complaints from the public. They can take a telephone call, a newspaper report, anything. It is recently established. It’s not very tight. They don’t do very good work. Rather sloppy work. And a lot of complaints from members about the OCE. And, of course, when they referred it on to the subcommittee of the standards committee or the ethics committee, the ethics committee basically said- STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m going to interrupt you. We only have five seconds left. Thank you for your time. It is clear you’re going to fight. And thanks for sharing your story with us this morning.

Read the original here:
George Stephanopoulos Actually Grills Dem Politician on Ethics Violations

Tim Burton Reuniting With ‘Ed Wood’ Writers For ‘Addams Family’

Team is also developing ‘Big Eyes,’ based on artist Margaret Keane and her portraits of big-eyed children. By Adam Rosenberg Tim Burton Photo: Tony Barson/ WireImage One of filmmaker Tim Burton’s strongest efforts of the past 30 years is, ironically, “Ed Wood,” a biopic charting the life of the famed director of 1959’s “Plan 9 From Outer Space,” a work widely regarded as the worst film of all time. It’s great then to see that Burton is reuniting with the writing team behind the 1994 release. Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski will join Burton in developing a script for the planned stop-motion adaptation of Charles Addams’ famed comic strip, “The Addams Family,” Deadline reports . Burton will also produce with Chris Meledandri for Illumination Entertainment and Universal Pictures. The same article reveals that Burton will also produce the writing duo’s fact-based drama “Big Eyes,” which is “based on artist Margaret Keane’s struggle to get credit for the line of paintings of big-eyed children that became wildly popular in the ’60s.” Alexander and Karaszewski wrote the script with the intent of directing themselves. The “Addams Family” news comes several months after reports surfaced that Burton would direct a 3-D stop-motion adaptation of the famed comic strip. In a statement made to MTV News at the time, Burton’s reps stated, “There is no truth to the story. Tim has not lined up any of his upcoming projects.” It was clear even then that Burton could settle on “Addams Family” next. He still could direct, too. Deadline reports that he will “direct a film that is one of the plum projects on Meledandri’s slate for Illumination,” which of course now includes “Addams Family.” “Big Eyes” came up while Burton was in discussions with Alexander and Karaszewski about the comic strip adaptation. “It turns out he’s a big fan of Margaret and has commissioned artwork from her,” Alexander told Deadline. It doesn’t hurt that the actual story is a remarkable truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tale. Walter Keane, Margaret’s husband, became a celebrity in the 1950s, riding a wave of success from his mass-produced prints of big-eyed children. Though the images bore his signature, Margaret was the one with an aptitude for making art. When the two eventually divorced and Margaret tried to make it known that she was the artist, Walter sued. The case that followed culminated in a dramatic showdown in which the judge ordered that two easels be set up in the courtroom, staging what essentially amounted to a paint-off. No release window is listed for either project, though IMDb’s listing for “Big Eyes” is labeled 2011. With the script already written, a budget that is reportedly “in the teens” and Burton producing, it is certainly possible that the Keane pic will be ready for next year. For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com .

Continued here:
Tim Burton Reuniting With ‘Ed Wood’ Writers For ‘Addams Family’

MTV And Get Schooled Host ‘Waiting for ‘Superman’ ‘ Screening

MTV News’ Sway Calloway talks to students from Chicago youth groups about failing public schools, upcoming doc from ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ director. By Nick Neofitdis “Waiting For Superman” Photo: Paramount CHICAGO — The American education system is failing a large segment of the population. Need proof? The current generation of students will be less literate than the one before it, according to a new documentary. MTV teamed up with the Get Schooled campaign to host a screening this week in Chicago of “Waiting for ‘Superman.’ ” The upcoming doc from award-winning director Davis Guggenheim (“An Inconvenient Truth”) explores the flaws crippling some of America’s schools. Members of various Chicago youth groups were invited to the private screening and MTV News’ Sway Calloway moderated a post-screening talk. In the film, Davis gets into the reasons why many students face not only illiteracy issues but grim futures. Get Schooled is a national organization dedicated to promoting the importance of education and achieving goals like working with schools to increase high school and college graduation rates. The groupmembers in attendance, all of whom said they could relate to the troubling educational experiences depicted in the doc, expressed gratitude that someone was finally tackling the topic onscreen. “I thought the film was really great. It showed the problems in education are big but there are little steps that we can take to start addressing it,” said Royal, a student from the City Year organization. Many of the students echoed that sentiment, saying starting small could make a difference. “Right now, I have to start out small,” Jasmine said. “Helping my little sister and brother … by being a positive mentor for them and getting them in the proper mindset, like, ‘She came from [public schools], she’s doing it, we can do it too.’ ” A public high school dropout, Jasmine fought through the system and now attends college. She insisted that helping her younger siblings is her first step toward helping in a small-scale way. Another startling statistic revealed in the film is that a child who doesn’t finish high school will earn less and be eight times more likely to go to prison. It’s a claim that will no doubt spark more discussion, even heated debate, when the film gets its limited release on Sept 24. Whether you’re a student, graduate, sibling or parent, “Waiting for ‘Superman,’ ” will probably strike a nerve. For filmmaker Davis, the best outcome would be to get the country moving toward a solution, even if it is only one small step at a time. Do you think the American education system needs fixing? Share your thoughts with us in the comments.

See the rest here:
MTV And Get Schooled Host ‘Waiting for ‘Superman’ ‘ Screening

CNN and Time Promote Accusation That ‘Bigotry’ is Driving Mosque Debate

CNN’s American Morning and Newsroom programs on Thursday brought on Time magazine’s Bobby Ghosh to highlight his “Is America Islamophobic?” article and help promote his accusation that ” hate speech ” and ” bigotry ” have ” come out into the mainstream ” during the course of the debate over the proposed New York City mosque near Ground Zero. During his American Morning appearance, anchor Kiran Chetry hailed Ghosh’s article, which is the cover story of the upcoming August 30th issue of Time, as ” a very thoughtful piece .” Anchor Ali Velshi, who conducted the second interview of the Time deputy international editor, went further than his colleague: ” Okay, you’re American- Time magazine is required reading ….Bobby Ghosh… wrote the Islamophobia piece that I think everybody is going to have to read because if you are in this country, it’s part of the dialogue that we are involved in at this point .” But only days earlier, in an August 3 Time.com article about the imam behind the mosque, Ghosh stated that the “last legal hurdle to the proposed Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center has been removed, but ignorance, bigotry and politics are more formidable obstacles …. Criticism [of the mosque] spans the gamut, from the ill-informed anguish of those who mistakenly view Islam as the malevolent force that brought down the towers to the ill-considered opportunism of right-wing politicians who see Islam as an easy target .” So the “thoughtful” Time editor whose latest is “required reading” even had the gall to criticize the families and the friends of those who died on 9/11, or who are generally emotionally-touched by the carnage of the attack. Ghosh didn’t speak so sharply during his two CNN appearance on Thursday, but he still went after what he labeled as “hate speech” in the controversy over the planned mosque. During the American Morning segment 15 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour, Chetry first asked the editor, “Do you believe that this debate…typifies how people feel on larger scale about Muslims in America?” Ghosh seemed to walk back what he said on August 3: GHOSH: Well, let me clarify. You don’t have to be an Islamophobe to have reservations about this particular project. You don’t have to be prejudiced to have very genuine concerns about it . But what we have seen in the process of this debate and about mosques- not just here in New York, but all over this country- is that there has been a vicious- some very vicious hate speech has entered the mainstream of discussion in this country, and that is- certainly, we are seeing some Islamophobic views being expressed by people who we wouldn’t have expected it from – when you have legitimate political figures comparing the religion of Islam to Naziism. That is something on a scale that we have never seen before. The Time deputy editor pushed this point throughout this first interview: GHOSH: There are lots of people who feel- not unreasonably, they feel emotionally attached to that particular space. There are people who are concerned genuinely for the feelings of the families of the victims at the World Trade Center. There are people who have- as I said, perfectly legitimate reasons to have concerns. But what this debate has done is that has brought out- from previously, what was in the fringes into the mainstream, along with reasonable people- a lot of hate speech and a lot of very vicious hate speech that we haven’t heard before . CHETRY: And not just the mosque debate- the controversy over this one- but we’ve seen a bit of a change, many say, over the past few years. Any of it linked to the fact that we’ve seen more instances of either attempted or homegrown terror that we thought- I mean after 9/11, a lot of people said this is a problem the United States doesn’t have- what Europe has, problem with radicalization within our borders- and we have the Times Square bomber and a few other thwarted attempts or plots- has that added to this fear and feeling that Islam in America, perhaps, is radical in some way? GHOSH: Absolutely. There is certainly alarm that has grown in concern and suspicion. But there are also people who are taking advantage of this for political reasons- who are taking advantage of this concern- who are take advantage of the fact that a lot of Americans don’t know very much about Islam. It is a very small religion in this country, compared with some other places in the world. So many Americans- and we have a poll that shows this- we don’t really know that much about it. So- and now you have people, who for political reasons, are taking advantage of the combination of fear and lack of knowledge, and adding to this- this toxic language, and are spreading- sometimes, knowing full well- spreading lies and misrepresentations about the faith, and are tarring an entire community- an entire religion with the brush- that they are all from- that they’re all potentially terrorists . That your neighbor, who is an American citizen, and- by all polling, who’s proud to be an American citizen- happens to be a Muslim- may potentially be someone who’s plotting against us. Five and a half hours later, at the bottom of the 1 pm Eastern hour of CNN’s Newsroom, Ghosh repeated his main points, and even added an accusation of “racism” against the opponents of the mosque and other Islamic projects in the country: GHOSH: There’s a lot of Islamophobia growing in this country . It’s not as bad as some parts of Europe. There are no neo-Nazi thugs going around beating up American Muslims. But there is a lot of hate speech, and it’s getting louder and more vicious . And in these mosque protests, not just the one here in the New York, but all over the country- in these mosque protests, we’ve seen that hate speech take on a new and more venomous tinge to it. And here’s the worst part: it’s now come out into the mainstream and we’re listening to figures- not fringe lunatics, if you pardon the expression- but we’re listening to people who are held in wide respect in this country, say things that, in other contexts, would be considered completely inappropriate . VELSHI: Have you been able to come up with contexts to give examples of where it would be appropriate- inappropriate? Where we wouldn’t use this kind of language to talk about another identifiable group? GHOSH: I don’t think any identifiable group but the Muslims in this country. I don’t think Newt Gingrich could say that- could compare them with Nazis. I think that would be considered- he- it would never occur to him. But as somebody who I spoke to during the story told me, Islamophobia is now the accepted form of racism in this country. Muslims feel that people are allowed in the public sphere to say whatever they want to say about Islam, and they can get away with it. The editor then gave an example of what he saw was “hate speech” against Islam and/or Muslims: GHOSH: Things did get quite a lot worse after 9/11. We weren’t paying that much attention because there was a war coming. There was enormous human tragedy in the city. And so, we didn’t pay that much attention when someone like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell compared the prophet Muhammed to a terrorist, and somebody else said he was a pervert. But if you were a Muslim-American, you were paying attention . Then things did quiet down, and to a substantial degree, the credit goes to President Bush, who made it clear right from the get-go, from the 12th of September- VELSHI: Our war is not with Muslims- GHOSH: It’s not with Muslims. It’s a religion of peace. It’s just a small band of extremists that we are fighting. But then more terrorist acts took place- more recently, there have been acts committed by Muslim-Americans. America went to war in two Muslim countries. You started hearing about suicide bombings on television every day. So, a certain fear and sense of alarm crept in, which is all right- which is permissible. But then you have people who have made it their business to capitalize on that sense of alarm for political gains- who have stoked up this thing and sort of deliberately spread very poisonous lies about the religion and about the people who practice that religion, and put it out there into the public theater . So Robertson and Falwell’s historically-accurate assertion that Mohammed was a 7th century-version of a terrorist, particularly in his treatment towards the Jews of the Arabian peninsula , is “hate speech” in Ghosh’s book. Furthermore, it is completely legitimate to point out that Muhammad was a pervert according to many culture’s standards, as his wife Aisha was betrothed to him when she was six or seven years old, and their marriage was consummated when she was nine or ten, according to the very hadith writings held up by Islam . One might guess it’s “hate speech” to point that out as well. Velshi, who worried on Wednesday’s Newsroom that if a government helped moved the site of the planned mosque, other governments  would ” entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site ,” since Timothy McVeigh was baptized Catholic, actually helped forward some of the editor’s talking points later in the interview: GHOSH: Four in ten Americans have a negative view of Islam, and that’s a very dangerous proportion . And so, some of the challenge for the Muslim community is to communicate better, is to give a better sense of what Islam really is, is to persuade people that they’re not all to be tarred with one brush. And ironically, that is what the people behind Park 51, the cultural center here in New York- that’s what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to communicate that Islam is not what many Americans perceive . That it is a- VELSHI: Right-right. But every part of their message has been lost? GHOSH: At the moment, yes. VELSHI: The name Cordoba- some people are associating it with Muslim rule and bloody battles, when, in fact, Cordoba was one of the finest times in relations between the major religions . GHOSH: Exactly right- in interfaith discourse- VELSHI: Yeah- GHOSH: And the great mosque of Cordoba that people are talking about and that Newt Gingrich was talking about- the man who built it, the Muslim prince who built it, bought it from a Christian group- paid money for it and bought it from a Christian group. And there was not a lot of alarm and anger raised then. It’s- as I said, we- I’m afraid, at this point, no rational discussion seems possible- VELSHI: Right- it’s just too hot. GHOSH: It will take us a little while, and temperatures have to cool down. Maybe we have to wait for this election to get over (unintelligible)- VELSHI: What’s difficult- and I was going to say- what’s difficult is that it’s been difficult for people who would like to have a reasonable discussion about this to do so, because they are then lumped with being politically correct or things like- in fact, it’s hard. We’ve heard politicians who have come out in defense of letting this mosque be built sound like they are apologists or some sort. Now, everybody now is backing away from the positions that defend free speech. GHOSH: No less a person than the president of the United States, which, for many Muslims, is quite disappointing. It will take an act of statesmanship. Statesmanship is when you can rise above the public sentiment and bring people along with you. If we went with the majority, there would still be segregation in this country. If we went with the majority- VELSHI: Women wouldn’t vote in this country . GHOSH: Exactly- American Jews would still be- still not have all their rights. So, it’s time for leadership. It’s time for our politicians- and if it doesn’t come from politics, it may have to come from somewhere else- it’s time for Americans to step up and say, this will not be allowed in this country. This country was built on finer principles than this, and we are going- we’re not going to tolerate this kind of prejudice, this kind of bigotry, and this kind of Islamophobia.

More here:
CNN and Time Promote Accusation That ‘Bigotry’ is Driving Mosque Debate

What’s On: Mad Hatting on Project Runway

Tonight’s Project Runway is perfect for the haughty niece in your family who never leaves the house without a nicely canted chapeau. It’ll at least get her to shut up about gluten for 90 minutes.

See the original post here:
What’s On: Mad Hatting on Project Runway

Spider-Man Pulls a Girl with the Dragon Tattoo While Looking for Female Lead

Marc Webb’s Spider-Man reboot has taken a page out of David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo talent search by pairing one American with four foreign-born actresses in an attempt to cast Peter Parker’s love interest (who, FYI, isn’t Mary Jane). The current shortlist : Teresa Palmer, Imogen Poots, Lily Collins, Ophelia Lovibond and Emma Roberts. ( Mary Elizabeth Winstead was on the list, too, but unfortunately didn’t make the cut.) Based on previous experience , expect the role to go to Roberts. [ THR /Heat Vision ]

More:
Spider-Man Pulls a Girl with the Dragon Tattoo While Looking for Female Lead