Tag Archives: fringe

An Apology to the Followers of Glenn Beck – Credit where credit is due

Where I apologize for thinking that the political right is religiously intolerant – They embrace Glenn Beck as a religious leader despite the fact that he is a Mormon, and therefore a “fringe” christian. I am sore amazed! added by: jmarkred

CBS Early Show Promotes Palin-Bashing Vanity Fair Article

On Thursday’s CBS Early Show, fill-in co-host Erica Hill interviewed Vanity Fair reporter Michael Joseph Gross about his article slamming Sarah Palin with outlandish accusations: “…we’ve watched Sarah Palin go from a small town hockey mom and the mayor to international celebrity….it certainly changed her, that’s according to a rather unflattering new article in Vanity Fair magazine. ” Talking to Gross, Hill noted how he “had a tough time…getting to people who are close to Sarah Palin,” but wondered: “…tell us about the people you did speak to who are around her….What kind of an impression did they give you of Sarah Palin?” Gross detailed some of the wild claims made by his questionable sources: “They’d tell stories about screaming fits, about throwing things….where Sarah and Todd will empty the pantry of canned goods, throwing them at each other until the front of the refrigerator looks like it’s been shot up by a shot gun.” Taken in by the story, Hill simply replied: “Wow.” Gross continued, alleging that Palin “tortured” former assistants, one of whom “had to quit the job, seek psychiatric counseling, and leave the state to escape Palin’s influence.” He asserted: “…[Palin] exacts retribution on people after they leave. They’re afraid that she’s going to get them fired from their job, try to ruin their reputations. That’s the modus operandi.” Earlier in the interview, he described Palin’s current political activity as an effort to exact “a kind of vengeance on the country for rejecting her” in the 2008 election. Hill seemed puzzled about Palin’s refusal to talk to Gross for the vicious hit piece: “These are all some pretty strong allegations. You tried to get in touch….with Sarah Palin, with her media people….Did they tell you why they wouldn’t speak with you?” Gross replied: “I tried everything. I tried sending messages through her father, through her hairdresser. I spent almost three weeks in Wasilla.” Hill wrapped up the segment by endorsing the smear: “It’s a fascinating article. It’s a fascinating read.” Prior to Hill’s interview with Gross, correspondent Nancy Cordes reported on the Vanity Fair attack: “The story portrays Palin as leading a life shrouded in secrecy, using fear to control those around her.” One accusation she highlighted: “The article gives new details about Palin’s heavily publicized campaign spending habits, saying she purchased over 400 items, including $3,000 on underwear and $20,000 on a new wardrobe for her husband, Todd.” A sound bite was featured from Politico’s Andrew Barr, who proclaimed: “…it seems like they’re [the Palins] going around, trying to, you know, bilk the RNC and others for as much money as they could get.” Cordes also noted: “Gross claims that before [Levi] Johnston issued a public apology to Palin, she met with him privately and demanded to know if he was wearing a wire.” She then touted how the Early Show provided a platform to Johnston yet again last week : “In an exclusive interview with the Early Show last Friday, Levi said he regretted making that statement [the apology].”    Here is a full transcript of the September 2 segment: 8:30AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Also ahead, we’ve watched Sarah Palin go from a small town hockey mom and the mayor to international celebrity. That kind of sudden fame can change anyone. And it certainly changed her, that’s according to a rather unflattering new article in Vanity Fair magazine. We’re going to speak with the author of that article, who followed Palin on the trail for months, spoke to dozens of people who know her. We’ll see the picture that he says emerged. 8:40AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: For two years now, Sarah Palin has been in the national spotlight. Making a political impact that’s felt from Washington to Hollywood and, of course, in Alaska. Her life has changed and so has her family’s. And as CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes tells us, those changes, according to a new report, aren’t always flattering. SARAH PALIN: We must restore America- [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Inside Palin’s World; New Revelations About Fmr. Alaska Governor] NANCY CORDES: She’s the Republican Party’s top draw. And Sarah Palin’s influence appears to be growing. She’s backed 20 winning candidates in this year’s primaries. But in an article published in this month’s Vanity Fair, author Michael Joseph Gross claims Palin is not who she appears to be. The story portrays Palin as leading a life shrouded in secrecy, using fear to control those around her. ANDREW BARR [REPORTER, POLITICO.COM]: Everyone who was leaking, who was talking to the press has been cut out of her circle. CORDES: The article gives new details about Palin’s heavily publicized campaign spending habits, saying she purchased over 400 items, including $3,000 on underwear and $20,000 on a new wardrobe for her husband, Todd. BARR: If you look through the campaign e-mails, if you look through disclosures, it seems like they’re going around, trying to, you know, bilk the RNC and others for as much money as they could get. CORDES: The article also sheds light on Palin’s public feud with her daughter’s former fiancee, Levi Johnston. Gross claims that before Johnston issued a public apology to Palin, she met with him privately and demanded to know if he was wearing a wire. In an exclusive interview with the Early Show last Friday, Levi said he regretted making that statement. LEVI JOHNSTON: The only thing I wish I wouldn’t have done is put out that apology, because it kind of makes me sound like a liar. CORDES: Palin has not commented on the article. In two weeks she will headline a GOP event in Iowa, adding to the speculation about her political plans for 2012. Nancy Cordes, CBS News, Washington. HILL: Joining us now is Vanity Fair writer Michael Joseph Gross. His article, ‘Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury,’ is in the magazine’s upcoming issue. Good to have you with us this morning. MICHAEL JOSEPH GROSS: Thanks for having me. HILL: You said the most important quote in this article is, ‘we weren’t good enough for America.’ Why do you feel that’s the most important quote that you have there? GROSS: When Sarah Palin got back to Wasilla after the election, she was in her house. The people from the Republican Party were trying to collect the clothing that had been purchased for return. She was talking to one of her children and she was crying and she said, ‘we weren’t good enough for America. We’ll never be good enough for America.’ I think she felt so rejected by this election that what we’re seeing subsequently has been a kind of vengeance on the country for rejecting her. I think what she’s doing is plugging into a similar sense of rejection among millions of people out there who feel like they’re not good enough. HILL: You had a tough time, you say, getting to people who are close to Sarah Palin, let alone Sarah Palin. First, tell us about the people you did speak to who are around her, who had been close in her camps. What kind of an impression did they give you of Sarah Palin? GROSS: The people who’ve been closest to her describe a temper that at first I couldn’t even believe could be true. They’d tell stories about screaming fits, about throwing things. We’re talking about everybody from friends who’ve stayed with the Palins, who’ve witnessed events where Sarah and Todd will empty the pantry of canned goods, throwing them at each other until the front of the refrigerator looks like it’s been shot up by a shot gun. HILL: Wow. GROSS: Everything from that to former assistants who’ve been so tortured by Palin that, in one case, one had to quit the job, seek psychiatric counseling, and leave the state to escape Palin’s influence. Because everybody who’s worked with her has seen the way that she exacts retribution on people after they leave. They’re afraid that she’s going to get them fired from their job, try to ruin their reputations. That’s the modus operandi. HILL: These are all some pretty strong allegations. You tried to get in touch with the Palin – with Sarah Palin, with her media people. A) Were you successful? And B) Did they tell you why they wouldn’t speak with you? Because they didn’t for this article. GROSS: The only responses that I received from them were that my request was under consideration. There was never any resolution to the conversation. That message was sent multiple times. And I tried everything. I tried sending messages through her father, through her hairdresser. I spent almost three weeks in Wasilla. So- HILL: Good to have you with us. It’s a fascinating article. It’s a fascinating read. GROSS: Thank you. HILL: Thanks for being with us. Michael Joseph Gross joining us from Vanity Fair.

See original here:
CBS Early Show Promotes Palin-Bashing Vanity Fair Article

CNN’s Sanchez Hesitant to Blame Left for Discovery Channel Terrorist, Says ‘Most’ Think He Went ‘Too Far’

CNN’s Rick Sanchez, who was quick to blame Fox News for the 2009 murders of three police officers in Pennsylvania , treaded much more carefully on Wednesday’s Rick’s List as he covered the eco-terrorist who brought guns, explosives, and took hostages at Discovery Channel’s headquarters. Sanchez stated that Lee may have been ” well-meaning ,” but ” most watching this would argue he may have taken [his cause] way too far on this day ” . Most? The breaking news about James Lee’s standoff at the educational channel’s Silver Spring, Maryland dominated Sanchez’s broadcast. Twenty-five minutes into the 3 pm Eastern hour, during an interview of former hostage negotiator Tom Fuentes, the anchor summarized Lee’s manifesto: “He apparently wants the Discovery Channel…[to] broadcast certain commitments to save the planet…He’s apparently anti-war….He’s concerned about global warming, talks about Malthusian sciences, continues to come back to saving the planet.” He then asked Fuentes, “So…if you get my drift, Tom, he’s very concerned. He’s an activist, may be very well-meaning, but he’s now put himself in a situation where he, the police officers and his hostages’ lives are endangered . What do you do?” Later that hour, Sanchez again described the eco-terrorist as a mere “activist” but also added that he was a ” very dangerous man .” He also asked correspondent Josh Levs, ” How can a man claim to be for saving the planet, apparently a peace activist, so to speak, while at the same time be threatening to blow himself and other people up and carrying a handgun? ” Nine minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour, the CNN anchor skirted giving a definitive statement on the criminality of Lee’s actions: “For those of you just now joining us, we’ve got a pretty good bead on who this guy is. We understand what his concerns have been for some time. He’s a bit of an activist, a guy who truly believes, seemingly, in his heart that he needs to do all he can to save the planet. Most watching this would argue he may have taken it way too far on this day by endangering the lives of people in this building, as he seems to be doing right now .” Eleven minutes later, Sanchez did go so far to give a negative label of the eco-terrorist’s views: SANCHEZ: You have a right to believe whatever it is you want to believe, no matter how strange. There’s people who still say that they believe that there’s all kinds of stuff going on out there that may not be true. That doesn’t lead one to believe that any- on any given day, they’re going to take a gun or explosives and walk into a building and threaten the lives of people- although, I guess you must admit that even back then, you must have been taken aback. I mean, those theories seem- I’ll just say it- weird . Just before the bottom of the hour, the anchor went even further about Lee’s manifesto: “Police are trying to talk the guy out of the building by negotiating with him, by trying to reach some conclusion with him- that he’s achieved his goal of letting the world know what his concerns are about saving the planet, which are his concerns – albeit extreme – but those are his concerns and he appears to want to make sure that those concerns are heard.” During the last ten minutes of his program, it seems that Sanchez couldn’t make up his mind about Lee. At one point, he gave the following statement: “You hear of a lot of people who have causes. This particular person’s cause is saving the planet. But it’s how he goes about it, in a very unique way – even beyond what he’s doing here today, by endangering the lives of people stuck in a building with explosives, waving a handgun with hostage s- but what he actually says in his writings, in his manifesto that have certainly perked our curiosity and yours as well.” After Levs gave more background on the eco-terrorist’s views, he replied that it was a ” paradoxical theory, while it may be, and certainly, on this night, a dangerous one as well .” Sanchez was much more definitive on April 8, 2009, after three Pittsburgh police officers were shot and killed by a crazed gunman: ” That weekend tragedy involves a man who allegedly shot and killed three police officers in cold blood. Why? Because he was convinced, after no doubt watching Fox News and listening to right-wing radio, that quote, ‘Our rights were being infringed upon .'” When several congressmen asked for extra security after threats were made against them around the time of the vote on ObamaCare in March 2010, the CNN anchor repeatedly insinuated that Republican leaders and conservative media were to blame : ” Is there a possibility that that message isn’t getting out to the American people because these crazy talk show hosts that are so right-wing are out there using the most heated language and the most heated rhetoric that does, in fact, incite people to hate? “

Originally posted here:
CNN’s Sanchez Hesitant to Blame Left for Discovery Channel Terrorist, Says ‘Most’ Think He Went ‘Too Far’

Olbermann Mocked Horowitz for Exposing Stoning of Women in Iran, Ignores Actual Stoning Threat

While MSNBC host Keith Olbermann was recently dismissive of conservatives for highlighting radical Islam’s persecution of homosexuals in some countries, the Countdown host also has a history of showing more interest in mocking conservatives who complain about the persecution of women by radical Muslims than of actually reporting on such mistreatment. Last July, Olbermann ignored a story about an Iranian woman accused of adultery who was sentenced to death by stoning – a story carried by the NBC Nightly News and ABC’s World News – but on September, 28, 2007, when conservative activist David Horowitz mistakenly cited an image from a movie as if it were taken from an actual stoning, the MSNBC host pounced to slam Horowitz, calling him a “right-wing fringer,” naming him “Worst Person in the World,” as he sarcastically mocked the conservative activist’s attempt to draw attention to such persecution. Olbermann: The image is actually from a 1994 film made in Holland… [The actress] has made at least three appearances on Dutch TV since. Evidently she’s okay. But keep plugging away, Mr. Horowitz. Let’s keep spending billions of dollars to stoke up religious hatred and send our kids to their deaths on the battlefield so we can prevent Dutch actresses from having to do scenes in which their characters are buried alive in a movie. Right-wing water carrier David, “I saw it in the movies, it must be real,” Horowitz, today’s “Worst Person in the World!” By contrast, on July 8, 2010, NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams set up a story about a woman who was awaiting the sentence of stoning to death in Iran, and treated the issue with the seriousness that it deserves: Fair warning, this next story is tough to watch. It’s about a tough subject that is not for any children who may be in the room. It’s about an international outcry tonight over an ancient and brutal form of punishment, one you might think had vanished from the modern world: a woman in Iran convicted of adultery scheduled to be stoned to death. And her own son is risking his life to save hers. It’s a story that’s captured attention around the world. Before informing viewers that the Iranian government had apparently backed down and chosen not to carry out the sentence, correspondent Dawna Friesen recounted: “Stoning in Iran is less common than it once was. Amnesty International knows of just six cases since 2006. When it does happen, men are buried up to their waists, women up to their breasts. If they manage to struggle free, the death sentence is commuted, but women, buried more deeply, rarely do.” On the July 9, 2010, World News, ABC anchor Diane Sawyer introduced a piece on the subject: “And all eyes are on Iran tonight, where a wave of international outrage may be causing the ayatollahs to stop an awful execution – a mother of two, the charge, adultery. She is scheduled to be stoned to death slowly.” Correspondent Jim Sciutto informed viewers: “Six Iranians have been put to death by stoning since 2006, a brutal punishment following a set of arcane rules. Men are buried up to their waists, women to their chests, and the stones, the penal code says, must not be large enough to kill instantly or too small not to be called a stone.”

Go here to see the original:
Olbermann Mocked Horowitz for Exposing Stoning of Women in Iran, Ignores Actual Stoning Threat

JFK Assassination Cover-Up Blown Sky High

It is a story the corporate media, with the notable exception of one lone Fox News affiliate, refuses to report. A former FBI agent, Don Adams, has compelling evidence Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate president John F. Kennedy. Adams was assigned to an FBI office in Thomasville, Georgia, on November 22, 1963. Adams was responsible for investigating Joseph Adams Milteer, described as a radical with connections to the States Rights Party and KKK. Milteer, according to Adams, was involved in Kennedy’s assassination. As revealed by the Church Committee in the mid-70s and according to internal FBI documents the agency controlled the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists beginning in the 1960s. More recently, it was revealed that racist radio talk show host Hal Turner operated as a “national security intelligence” asset for the FBI, thus demonstrating the agency still has its hooks in the lunatic fringe movement. The racist Milteer “was reportedly one of most violent men in the country,” Adams told Fox 8 News. Years later, Adams discovered that Milteer had threatened to kill Kennedy on November 9, 1963, and the FBI had lied about Milteer whereabouts. In order to make his case, Adams played an audio recording of Milteer for Fox News. In the recording, Milteer tells an informant the best way to get the president “is from an office building with a high powered rifle.” Asked if he was sincere about a plot of kill Kennedy, Milteer responded: “Oh yes. It’s in the works.” Despite the threat and possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the president, the FBI and Secret Service allowed Kennedy to travel to Dallas. “[They] should have stopped the President from traveling instantly,” said Adams. “You thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high powered rifle,” a “jubilant” Milteer” told the informant following the murder. Adams points out that Milteer was in Dallas on the day of the assassination and has a photograph to prove it. In the photo, Milteer stands near the presidential limousine prior to the shooting. Adams notes this fact was not mentioned in the Warren Commission report. Other, more well-known personages were also photographed in Dealy Plaza on that fateful day, in particular George Bush Senior. The future CIA director and president was photographed standing outside the Texas Book Depository building where it was said Oswald single-handedly shot the president from the sixth floor. Gerald Ford appointed Bush to head-up the agency when the House Select Committee on Assassinations was investigating CIA-FBI links to the murders of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. During Gerald Ford’s funeral in 2007, the elder Bush attacked theories straying from the official version. “After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness,” said Bush. “And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry Ford’s word was always good.” After Adams told the FBI he believed it was impossible for Oswald to have fired three shots with a bolt-action rifle in seven-and-a-half seconds while taking aim through a scope, he was warned by his superiors not to pursue his findings. “Don, be careful what you say and how you say it,” an agent told him. Mr. Adams’ assertions contribute to a huge body of evidence revealing that Kennedy was not murdered by Oswald in the fashion described by the government. In 2007, a study conducted by a former FBI scientist put to rest the Oswald-as-lone-gunman theory. William A. Tobin, a former FBI lab metallurgist, and colleagues published a study the Annals of Applied Statistics demonstrating that at least one other shooter was involved in the assassination. Also in 2007, former CIA agent and Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt admitted in an audio recording that he was approached to be part of a CIA assassination team to kill JFK. The tape was released by the late Hunt’s son, Saint John Hunt, and aired on the Coast to Coast radio show in April, 2007. “E. Howard Hunt names numerous individuals with both direct and indirect CIA connections as having played a role in the assassination of Kennedy, while describing himself as a ‘bench warmer’ in the plot. Saint John Hunt agreed that the use of this term indicates that Hunt was willing to play a larger role in the murder conspiracy had he been required,” writes Paul Joseph Watson. uite predictably, the corporate media all but ignored Hunt’s revelations and continues to peddle the ludicrous theory that Oswald was alone responsible for the assassination. Saint John Hunt said that his father indeed resembled one of three “bums” arrested and photographed in Dealy Plaza following the assassination. The elder Hunt told his son he was “deeply conflicted and deeply remorseful” that he didn’t blow the whistle on the plot at the time and prevent the assassination. At the time Kennedy was hated by many government officials, especially officials at the CIA. Following the disastrous Bay of Pigs operation and his failure to support military action in Cuba, Kennedy had promised to “shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter the remnants to the wind.” Kennedy’s enemies in the CIA and the FBI are well documented. He fired the Chief Executive of the CIA, Charles Cabell, and among his enemies were Richard Helms, former CIA director Allen Dulles, and Gerald Ford, who would later become the default president of the United States. Ford, who was a member of the Warren Commission, implicated the CIA in a cover-up of the assassination from his deathbed, according to a publisher of a book on the subject. In May of 2007, Saint John Hunt went on the Alex Jones Show and revealed that his father would have “finish[ed] the job” and killed Teddy Kennedy. “In the context that JFK had already been removed, RFK was gone and his motto was ‘let’s finish the job,’” Hunt told Jones. He said his father was pleased when Robert Kennedy was assassinated. In 2008, the BBC aired a documentary offering evidence that the CIA was responsible for Robert Kennedy’s assassination. Three men were positively identified as senior officers who worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA’s Miami base for its Secret War on Castro. “I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard,” David Sanchez Morales, aka “El Indio,” who was involved in CIA efforts against Castro and the CIA’s 1954 overthrow of the Guatemalan government, reportedly bragged after the RFK assassination. In his audio confession, the late E. Howard Hunt said Morales and Lyndon Johnson were involved in the plot to kill JFK. Hunt said the code name for the assassination operation was “The Big Event.” Johnson’s former mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown, told author Robert Gaylon Ross prior to her death in 2002 that Johnson was involved in the murder, a plot that had its origins in the 1960 Democratic Convention, where John F. Kennedy was elected as presidential candidate with Johnson as his running mate. Johnson, according to Brown, colluded with oil tycoon H. L. Hunt to have Kennedy eliminated. “It was a total political crime and H.L. Hunt really controlled what actually happened to John Kennedy — he and Lyndon Johnson,” said Brown. “It was a political crime for political power.” Johnson had allegedly said on the night before the assassination: “Those SOBs will never embarrass me again.” added by: im1mjrpain

Gates Foundation invests in Monsanto/ Both will profit at expense of small-scale African farmers

Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation’s 2008 990 Form). “The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. “First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.” Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet. Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue—and bankrupt—farmers for “patent infringement.” News of the Foundation’s recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, “We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto.” Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, “The Foundation’s ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa.” In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation’s grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)—considered by the Foundation to be its “African face”—work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program. Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA’s grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, “AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa.” A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report’s warning that “continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes—including transgenic crops—will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity.” Furthermore, PANNA explains, “The Assessment’s 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet.” The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its “holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices.” The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called “blind-eye investing,” with at least 41% of its assets invested in “companies that countered the foundation’s charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy.” cont. added by: JanforGore

Mika on ‘Morning Joe’: If Obama Can Run a Beer Summit, He Can Work to Unite Two Sides of Mosque Debate

Picking up where she left off last week, MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski on Tuesday and Wednesday cast opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as a “destructive” force, “demonizing” Muslims and “promoting ignorance.” Yet Brzezinski advocated Wednesday for a compromise between the two sides to be spearheaded by President Obama. When Joe Scarborough opined that President Obama, along with former presidents, needs to get involved in a compromise, Mika blurted out that “if [Obama] can have a summit in Boston between a professor and a cop, I think he can do this.” MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” panels largely supported the proposed Ground Zero mosque on both Tuesday and Wednesday, although they did show sympathy toward families of 9/11 victims. But the talking heads still would not give full credence to opponents of the mosque. Perhaps the climax of the struggle came toward the end of Tuesday’s 7 a.m. hour, where Mika faced off against the vice president of America’s 9/11 Foundation, Nick Leischen. After Leischen, speaking for the families of 9/11 victims whom he represents , said that the mosque within sight of Ground Zero would be an affront to grieving persons returning to the site, Mika unleashed her tirade. “When you talk about, every year, on the anniversary of 9/11, people going down there and then perhaps having to look at this center, and be so reminded – what are you talking about?” Mika asked in shock.  “What are they being reminded of? Are you kidding me? It’s an Islamic cultural center.” “You’re now – what you’re doing, and very politely and respectfully, but what you’re doing is, I think, promulgating ignorance about who these people are and what their center is, and demonizing them,” Mika tersely admonished the guest. Not to be left out of the fray, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin also questioned Leischen’s arguments. When the guest brought up Islamic history as a support for his argument, Halperin asked him to leave history out of the debate and consider the people who are involved in the mosque’s planning. “When you say looking at the building would be some sort of horror for them, try to enunciate what that means,” Halperin told Leischen, “because again, as Mika suggested, the only way that that should trouble people is if they’re making a connection between the Islamic faith and what happened on 9/11. Otherwise I don’t see where the pain comes from.” A transcript of selected quotes from Wednesday’s”Morning Joe,” as well as Tuesday’s debate between Mika Brzezinski’s and Nick Leischen, is as follows: MORNING JOE 8/24/10 7:44 a.m. EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And I guess what I see is potentially so different than what you see, and that is for the good of our society and for the good of our relationships between communities, I can’t imagine it being moved now. Why would you think it actually does need to be moved? NICK LEISCHEN: Well it hasn’t been too good for our country and our relationship so far, in fact, quite to the contrary. I’ve got to tell you, I’m not a vociferous opponent by any means, and I’m here representing America’s 9/11 foundation. We have an opinion, and that opinion is just that the location of the proposed mosque is extremely inappropriate. We’re well-based in our opinion, because we’re in contact with so many of the survivors of the World Trade Center, and with other 9/11 sites, and with their family members, the survivors, and with the first responders, especially. And I can tell you that the amount of anguish and pain, and the agonizing difficulty that this has created for them – it hasn’t been a good thing. And I don’t believe that it will continue to be a good thing. And we could have, you know, we could have taken the low road. We could have gone politically correct, and said, you know, “No comment.” Because we are not a political organization, and I am not here to join America’s 9/11 Foundation into the fray. We exist primarily to honor the memory and the sacrifices of the victims, and their families, and the survivors of 9/11, and not just the World Trade Center, but the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pa. BRZEZINSKI: And with due respect and sympathy to the families and family members of victims and survivors, I just, I do – LEISCHEN: But beyond that, our mission has gotten to be, to a great deal of support to first responders. BRZEZINSKI: And first responders, for sure. And I completely – look, my first reaction when I first heard the headline to the story was “Ooh, wow, is this the right thing?” But with further looking at it, knowing that there is a mosque at the Pentagon, knowing that there is another Islamic center 12 blocks away, knowing what else is around Ground Zero, hearing the conversation, and then listening to it being ratcheted up politically, and on the streets of New York – I just wonder now, though, if it would actually be detrimental to turn back. LEISCHEN: Well, the thing is is that, you know, life is full of compromises, and certainly corporations, religious foundations, charitable foundations – we make compromises all the time to, you know, reach our ultimate goals. So I guess the question is, what really is the goal of the mosque people? I mean, is the goal to create a tribute there to , you know, what happened? I hope not. Or is the goal to create a place of worship, and a community center, and to honor and respect people – BRZEZINSKI: Well that’s the goal. I mean, that’s – from everything we’ve heard, sir, with all due respect, that – that is the goal. The goal is not – LEISCHEN: Why is it so critical to place it virtually right on top of the World Trade Center site? BRZEZINSKI: I honestly, from talking and listening to the people who planning this, and knowing the Imam and having interviewed him – I truly believe, and I could be wrong – but I believe that they were blindsided by the response, because they have another center 12 blocks away, the Pentagon has a – LEISCHEN: I think 12 blocks away would make all the difference in the world. I think that having it within the site of the World Trade Center – imagine every year, on the anniversary, when the family members and the survivors who narrowly escaped with their lives come back to the World Trade Center for the annual memorial, and they’re looking at this 13-story grand monument. How would that feel, how painful would that be? How painful is it now? The people who were at the protest – many of them were family members of the victims. The pain that they were suffering was so great, so extreme, it was very difficult to witness or to speak with them. And by the way, I want to to set the record straight about something. I am not a protester. Certainly, America’s 9/11 Foundation is not protesting. We were down there, but we were down there for an event that is an annual event for us that had been planned more than a year in advance, and we had, oh, I don’t know, 5-600 American patriot motorcyclists that came down there and we did put on an event over by the Pass station, and we very carefully and skillfully, using these wonderful motorcycle police escorts from around the country, and we moved our people around the protest so that we would not draw any media attention, or draw attention to ourselves, or that we would be misconstrued to be protesters. But then I heard media outlets that were building us up to be protesters. We polled our riders, and they are definitely opposed to the location. BRZEZINSKI: Nick, though, the question I have, and I’ll let Mark Halperin in in just a second. When you talk about, every year, on the anniversary of 9/11, people going down there and then perhaps having to look at this center, and be so reminded – what are you talking about? What are they being reminded of? Are you kidding me? It’s an Islamic cultural center. You’re now – what you’re doing, and very politely and respectfully, but what you’re doing is, I think, promulgating ignorance about who these people are and what their center is, and demonizing them. LEISCHEN: Well, it sounds like you’re trying to draw me into the controversy. The only thing I can say in response is this. Let’s look to Cordoba, Spain. When people look at the mosque there, what does it symbolize? BRZEZINSKI: It’s not what we’re looking at down near the site of 9/11, not even close. LEISCHEN: It very clearly symbolizes, you know, an Islamic victory that was held in great esteem for a very long time, and that was marked and monumented by the building of a large mosque on the site that used to be a church, where a massacre occurred. I think there’s a very unhealthy parallel there, and it frightens me. BRZEZINSKI: Whoa. LEISCHEN: I think that if they really wanted to be moderate, and if they were considerate about what’s most important here, it is the respect for the people that are most directly impacted by 9/11. I think that’s what’s important. I’m not talking about a Constitutional right. (…) MARK HALPERIN: When you say looking at the building would be some sort of horror for them, try to enunciate what that means, because again, as Mika suggested, the only way that that should trouble people is if they’re making a connection between the Islamic faith and what happened on 9/11. Otherwise I don’t see where the pain comes from.   MORNING JOE 7/25/10 6:49 a.m.-6:52 a.m. EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: This is why the President needs to get involved. And I do believe that with the President involved, George W. Bush involved, George H. W. Bush involved – BRZEZINSKI: If he can have a summit in Boston between a professor and a cop, I think he can do this. JOE SCARBOROUGH: This can be resolved. I’m going to say also – and Pat, a week ago – I would have said that compromise needs to include the possibility of moving the mosque north. I’ve got to say at this point, I don’t see how that can happen when you’ve got African-Americans being threatened down at a protest because they quote, “look Muslim.” When you have the nation listening to Newt Gingrich, comparing a house of worship to a swastika. We’ll be seen around the globe as the United States bowing to the pressure of an extreme fringe element. (…) BUCHANAN: In the Islamic world, there are Islamic leaders who are saying “What are these guys thinking of putting it there? There are people over there who are saying “America is anti-Islam,” at the same time (unintelligible). Joe, you won’t find Saudis, in my judgment, or anybody of the Gulf Arabs funding this thing when they realize the sensitivity it has for Americans, and the division that’s associated with it, they’re going to back off. I don’t think it’s ever going to be built. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. We shall see. I am always – I am Pollyanna, I believe there’s a way to bring people together and make this thing happen in a way that makes –

Go here to see the original:
Mika on ‘Morning Joe’: If Obama Can Run a Beer Summit, He Can Work to Unite Two Sides of Mosque Debate

Here Are the Ten Funniest Jokes in All of Britain, Explained [Humour]

The ten funniest jokes of the famous Edinburgh Fringe—a huge performing arts festival held in Scotland—have been named! And they are hilarious . But will you “get” them? No worries! We’ve provided helpful explanations right here. More

‘Bhang’ to trigger new patent war?

An ancient Indian high could soon get 'bhang-alored' to the United States if the efforts of an American confectioner prove successful. Scott J Van Rixel, a New Mexico chocalatier, has applied to trademark a product called “Bhang: The Original Cannabis Chocolate.” Rixel's highly-anticipated confection, coming amid a rousing debate about legalizing marijuana in the US, is laced with a form of cannabis. If he gets his first creation through the system, Rixel says he plans to start selling at least two more types of 'Bhang' chocolates in the US and may even consider expanding the line to India. He has already incorporated a company named 'Bhang Chocolate Company Inc' for this new venture, according to the Wall Street Journal. While “Bangalored” has become part of the new-age tech lexicon to describe flight of American jobs to Bangalore, Bhang is the latest Indian product that is coming up for a patent and trademark spat between India and the west, following items such as neem, turmeric and basmati rice. Pundits believe Rixel's chances of getting his application through are low because the Indian government has moved quickly in recent years to build a database of traditional Indian biological and medical practices. The now 250,000-strong database, available to international patent offices for reference to stymie trademark infringement, lists “Bhang.” In fact, long before the US debate over medical marijuana erupted, India has a history of recognizing flower power, with the cannabis-based bhang renowned for its medicinal properties and even religious significance. Marijuana-based drinks such as “bhang ki thandai” and confections such as bhang burfi are commonly consumed during festivals such as Holi in north India. Read more: 'Bhang' to trigger new patent war? – US – World – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Bhang-to-trigger-new-patent-war/arti… added by: JackHerer

Selena Gomez, Lucy Hale Are Fashion Winners At Teen Choice Awards

Neutral hues dominate the blue carpet at awards show, which airs Monday night on Fox. By Amy Wilkinson Selena Gomez at the 2010 Teen Choice Awards Photo: Jason Merritt/ Getty Images Fans curious about which stars took home surfboards from the Teen Choice Awards will have to wait until Monday (August 9), when the event is broadcast on Fox. But we’ve already selected the winners and losers from the show’s blue carpet, where the night’s invited guests parade their fashion choices for the evening. For the ladies, the evening’s preferred color palette was anything neutral, including midnight blacks and pearly whites. “Ramona and Beezus” star Selena Gomez was among the style standouts, wearing a white dress with flowy sleeves that were complemented by soft waves in her hair. “Eclipse” star Ashley Greene also shifted into neutral for the evening, wearing a light pink dress that had lace detailing. (There was also a ring on her left ring finger — wonder what that’s all about?) Also putting a spin on the trend was “Pretty Little Liars” actress Lucy Hale, whose little black dress was accented by a sparkly blue mosaic on the bust and gold buckles on the straps and at the waist. Though many fashion experts would argue that you can’t go wrong with an LBD, a couple of actresses’ outfits provided a counterpoint to that theory. “The Secret Life of the American Teenager” star Shailene Woodley looked downright dowdy in her shredded-sleeve black dress and upswept bun; the button-festooned black frock worn by Katerina Graham from “The Vampire Diaries” was also a head-scratcher. The starlets who did eschew the night’s black and white theme opted for rich, jewel-toned hues. “Victorious” actress Victoria Justice matched the blue carpet in her cute strapless dress. Fivel Stewart, the sister of “Eclipse” actor Booboo Stewart, sported a sheer-sleeved frock with a colorful, doily-type embroidery around the neckline. Several “Glee” gals were harmonious in their choice for rich shades; Amber Riley grabbed attention in a belted fuchsia number, while Lea Michele opted for a sparkly ensemble in forest green and nude. Green wasn’t such a friend to Emma Roberts, however, as she looked rather washed out in her strapless olive-colored mini dress. For the guys, it was all about channeling James Dean, with many sporting variations on the theme of leather jackets and slicked-back ‘dos. “The Vampire Diaries” star Ian Somerhalder smoldered in his leather (though he sadly kept his hair covered with a fedora), while “Glee” actor Kevin McHale complemented his hair-raising style with a striped purple shirt and black tie. Though many men chose to keep it casual in button-downs and V-neck tees, a few of the men took advantage of below-average temperatores in Los Angeles and classed it up with variations on the suit. “Glee” star Cory Monteith’s black suit and tie were given an extra edge by a pair of black sneaks, while “Fringe” star Joshua Jackson looked quite dapper in his blue suit jacket, which he paired with skinny jeans. What were your favorite outfits from the Teen Choice Awards blue carpet? Let us know in the comments! Related Photos 2010 Teen Choice Awards Red Carpet Related Artists Selena Gomez

Go here to read the rest:
Selena Gomez, Lucy Hale Are Fashion Winners At Teen Choice Awards