Tag Archives: united-states

New York Times Faults Gov. Candidate Rick Lazio for Mosque Opposition, Downplays Firefighter Protests

The front page of Monday’s New York Times featured a story on how Rick Lazio, the Republican candidate for governor of New York, is gaining voter appeal from his strong opposition to the building of a mosque two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks: ” Lazio Finds an Issue in Furor Over Islamic Center .” Reporter Michael Barbaro, while conceding the popular appeal of Lazio’s opposition, managed by tone to suggest Lazio was somehow engaged in inappropriate politicking, confirmed by the story’s text box: “Commercials that appeal to some may risk the alienation of moderates.” Mr. Lazio’s relentless opposition to the project — he again attacked the imam behind it during an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” — is, above all, aimed at Republican primary voters, analysts say. But it risks alienating moderates who could prove crucial in a general election. And it certainly is infuriating many Muslim leaders, who say he is preying on the worst fears of voters; and provoking a backlash from some influential voices in the community of Sept. 11 emergency workers, who say he is exploiting the tragedy. Nevertheless, Mr. Lazio is pushing ahead with the strategy, even breaking what has been, until now, something of an unwritten rule of politics in New York: never to use images of Sept. 11 in campaign advertisements. The Times drug up an incident from 10 years ago to make Lazio into some kind of anti-Muslim campaigner: This is not the first time that Mr. Lazio has thrust Islam into a political campaign. In his 2000 bid for the United States Senate, Mr. Lazio attacked his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for raising money from a Muslim group, some of whose members had defended the radical Islamic group Hamas. Mrs. Clinton eventually returned the donations. But in the waning days of the campaign, Mr. Lazio’s supporters in the State Republican Party made a telephone calls to voters that linked Mrs. Clinton’s donors to the terrorism attack on an American warship in Yemen, angering many voters, who considered the tactic over the top. Also on Monday, reporter Michael Grynbaum covered the fiery protest and counter-protest that took place Sunday near ground zero over the proposed mosque: ” Proposed Muslim Center Draws Protesters on Both Sides of the Issue .” Although a front-page photo featured firemen and hard-hat construction workers protesting the mosque, only one firefighter made it into the story, quoted three paragraphs from the end. The Times has been very supportive of the health needs of September 11 first responders like the firefighters and police and has attacked Republicans for allegedly short-changing them. Why would the Times downplay their concerns now? Instead, Grynbaum led with a flattering anecdote about a tolerance martyr attacked by an angry, red-cheeked mosque opponent. Around noon on Sunday, Michael Rose, a medical student from Brooklyn, approached some of the hundreds of protesters who had gathered near ground zero to rally against a mosque and Islamic center planned for the neighborhood. Mr. Rose, 27, carried a handwritten sign in favor of the mosque — “Religious tolerance is what makes America great,” it read — and his presence caused a stir. An argument broke out, punctuated by angry fingers pointed in the student’s face. One man, his cheeks red, leaned in and hissed that if the police were not present, Mr. Rose would be in danger. Before any threats could be carried out, the police intervened, dragged Mr. Rose away from the crowd and insisted that he return to the separate area, one block away, where supporters of the project had been asked to stand. Minutes later, as Mr. Rose was still shaking off the encounter, he turned to find the red-cheeked man back at his side. The man had followed the student up the street, and the two now stared at each other for a tense moment. Then the man stuck out a hand and, in a terse voice, said, “I’m sorry.” “You have a right,” he told Mr. Rose. (He would not give his name.) “I am sorry for what I said to you. I disagree with you completely, but you have a right.” Here’s a tidbit about firefighter opposition that was picked up by the New York Post but ignored in the Times on Monday: Opponents of the project began with a 9 a.m. motorcycle ride, led by several firefighters, to Ground Zero and then proceeded to an 11 a.m. rally around the corner from the Park Place site of the planned 13-story mosque and community center.

Read more:
New York Times Faults Gov. Candidate Rick Lazio for Mosque Opposition, Downplays Firefighter Protests

Super weeds put USDA on hotseat

“Farmers who expanded farm size are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to manage the larger operations now that additional time is required for weed management.” The U.S. Congress got an earful from farmers, university researchers and pro-food groups during the first round of hearings into the increase in super weeds, deemed so because some are becoming resistant to multiple modes of actions and families of chemistries used in popular herbicides. Eyes and ears for the U.S. House of Representatives in the case of super weeds is the Domestic Policy Oversight Subcommittee. The late July hearings were called to evaluate the impact of genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant crops on the environment and on the abundance and quality of the U.S. food supply. The Congressional Committee is chaired by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). The hearings are titled “Are Superweeds an Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy?” An Indiana farmer Troy Roush, who was the target of a 2000 suit brought forth by Monsanto, gave a scathing indictment of GM plants. The suit was dropped by Monsanto, but Roush says he and his family spent two years fighting it. In his testimony to the House sub-committee, Roush documented the development of glyphosate resistant weeds on his 5,500 acre family farm. “In 2005, we first began to encounter problems with glyphosate resistance in marestail and lambsquarters in both our soybean and corn crops. Since there had been considerable discussion in the agricultural press about weeds developing resistance or tolerance to Roundup, I contacted a Monsanto weed scientist to discuss the problems I was experiencing on the farm and what could be done to eradicate the problematic weeds. “Despite well documented proof that glyphosate tolerant weeds were becoming a significant problem, the Monsanto scientist denied that resistance existed and instructed me to increase my application rates,” the Indiana farmer reported. “The increase in application rates proved ineffectual, and I was forced to turn to alternative methods for weed management including the use of tillage and other chemistry. “In 2007, the weed problems had gotten so severe that we turned to an ALS inhibitor marketed as Canopy to alleviate the problem in our preplant, burndown herbicide application. “In 2008, we were forced to include the use of 2,4-D and an ALS residual, to our herbicide programs. Like most farmers, we are very sensitive to environmental issues and we were very reluctant to return to using tillage and more toxic herbicides for weed control. However, no other solutions were then or are now readily available to eradicate the weed problems caused by development of glyphosate resistance,” Roush said. There is little doubt the discovery of genetically altered, target herbicide tolerant plants has made billions of dollars for U.S. farmers. Few can argue the management decisions on farms across the U.S. being made easier by having this technology. In fact, the ease of operation has made good land out of marginal land and some contend, good farmers out of fair farmers. Again, there is little doubt that the introduction of Roundup Ready cotton and soybeans has allowed growers in the Southeast to expand their acreage — a reality that is coming back to bite some large farmers who are having problems managing weeds with resistance to multiple families of herbicides. Roush, who is also vice-president of the National Corn Growers Association, says bigger farms with multiple herbicide resistance problems are in great danger. “The increased ease of use and convenience of herbicide tolerant crops enabled many farmers to significantly increase crop acreage which helped to offset higher production costs and, in some cases, lower yields. Biotech companies encouraged farm expansion by offering discounts for buying seed in bulk. “The advent of glyphosate tolerant weeds necessitated the return to using tillage for weed control, eliminating the time savings that was initially afforded by using biotech crops. “Farmers who expanded farm size are now finding it difficult, if not impossible, to manage the larger operations now that additional time is required for weed management,” the Indiana farmer said. The driving force behind the congressional look into super weeds is the Center for Food Safety (CFS), which is a project of the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA). CFS is headed by Andrew Kimbrell, who was mentored by Jeremy Rifkin at the Foundation on Economic Trends. For sure there is plenty of ammunition to be fired by both sides: Corn (85 percent of U.S. production is GM), soy (91 percent GM), cotton (88 percent GM), canola (85 percent GM) and sugar beets (95 percent GM) are all genetically engineered to withstand large amounts of glyphosate herbicide. Since the introduction of Roundup Ready technology yields per acre have gone up and continue to increase, especially for corn and soybeans. Worldwide the adoption of GM products is astounding. The latest figures come from 2008, at which time herbicide tolerance deployed in soybeans, corn, canola, cotton and alfalfa occupied 63 percent, or roughly 200 million acres of the global biotech area of 325 million acres. HT soybeans are currently grown mostly in the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and other South American countries, accounting for 70 percent of worldwide soybean production. Insect resistance to GM products, primarily based on different genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, worldwide is estimated at 50 million acres. These Bt genes control the European corn borer, the corn rootworm, different stemborers, and of most importance to the Southeast, bollworm and budworm in cotton Kimbrell, an attorney and founder and head of the watchdog group Center for Food Safety, testifying before the House Subcommittee laid much of the blame on development and proliferation of super weeds at the feet of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “The history of USDA’s oversight of genetically engineered (GE) crops is littered with failures. The Government Accounting Office (GAO), the USDA’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the Federal Courts have repeatedly condemned USDA for oversight deficiencies and inadequate management,” Kimbrell testified. “Regulation of GE crops has in part been defined by judicial decisions in lawsuits brought by CFS and others on behalf of farmers, consumers, and environmental groups. American agriculture cannot afford such “regulation by litigation,” an approach that has become standard operating procedure at USDA,” Kimbrell said In response to the testimony from farmers, watchdog groups and university scientists, Rep. Kucinich said, “the Agriculture Department (USDA) has been too quick to approve new varieties of herbicide-tolerant crops and other biotech products. “Now, more than ever, farmers need to have a Department of Agriculture that takes care to preserve and protect the farming environment for generations to come,” Kucinich concluded. added by: JanforGore

20 Signs That America Is No Longer The Land Of The Free

The United States was able to defeat Nazi Germany and helped bring down the USSR, but is the U.S. government now quickly becoming just like them? Once upon a time, America was the land of the free and the home of the brave, but today the government has become an oppressive monster that is intrusively embedding itself in our lives in thousands of different ways. Today we are all viewed as potential threats to the “system” that the government has imposed, and therefore everything that we do must be watched, tracked, traced, recorded and controlled. Lip service is still given to ideals such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and freedom of movement, but all of those freedoms are rapidly dying a brutal death. To our forefathers, living the American Dream meant living as free men and women, but today it means living under deep socialist tyranny where the government takes care of us from the cradle to the grave and uses an increasingly oppressive Big Brother police state control system to guarantee our safety. added by: Revelation1217

Jay-Z To Join U2’s 360 Tour In Australia

Five-city outing will be first gig under Live Nation Australia affiliate. By James Dinh Jay-Z and Bono Photo: Dave M. Benett/ Getty Images With his co-headlining hometown stadium shows alongside Eminem and the Black Ball NY affair scheduled, Jay-Z is going to be one busy man this fall. But never underestimate Jay’s work ethic: Billboard is reporting that the rapper is planning to hit the stage as a special guest on U2’s 360 Tour in Australia. The five-city tour will be the first concert promoted by the new Live Nation Australia. The outing will begin in Auckland’s Mount Smart Stadium on November 25 and make its way to amphitheaters across the country, stopping in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. It will conclude at Perth’s Subiaco Oval on December 18. Tickets will be on sale to the general public September 3, while U2.com subscribers will have the opportunity for a pre-sale. U2’s summer leg of the tour was rescheduled after lead singer Bono suffered a back injury, pushing those dates to the spring and summer of 2011. This won’t be the first time Jay-Z and U2 have joined forces. Earlier this year, both acts, as well as Rihanna, performed their benefit song “Stranded (Haiti Mon Amour)” as part of the “Hope for Haiti Now” telethon. In addition to their charity song, Jay-Z and U2 also proved to be music heavyweights when they made the top 10 on Forbes magazine’s list of the world’s top-earning musicians . Are you hoping Jay-Z and U2 might perform together in the United States? Share your thoughts in the comments! Related Artists Jay-Z U2

Read this article:
Jay-Z To Join U2’s 360 Tour In Australia

Follow-Up: ‘Today’ Wedding Contest Features Only Straight Couples

After being pressured by gay advocacy groups in July to allow homosexual couples to enter the “Today” show’s wedding contest, NBC’s “Today’s Wedding: Modern Love” will feature … no gay couples. Co-host Ann Curry noted the contest received “hundreds of videos and applications,” but that the show had narrowed it down to four couples. After all the controversy surrounding the show’s decision to open the contest to gays and lesbians – even though New York State does not license same-sex marriage – all of the finalists are heterosexual couples. Viewers will decide which of the four couples will have their wedding and honeymoon planned by and broadcast on “Today.” NBC had originally announced the contest would only be opened to heterosexual couples, but the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) pressured the network into reversing its decision. The decision was seen as yet another move by NBC illustrating its bias in covering the gay lifestyle. In August 2008, NBC Universal told the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, “Your Victories are Our Victories.” In April 2010, the network announced a partnership with the gay magazine The Advocate. 

Read the rest here:
Follow-Up: ‘Today’ Wedding Contest Features Only Straight Couples

Time’s Mark Halperin: 9/11 Families Need to Be Led Through a Discussion About the Ground Zero Mosque

Time magazine’s Mark Halperin engaged in the ultimate condescension Monday morning, arguing that families of 9/11 victims need to be guided by others into the Ground Zero mosque debate. “For the families of the victims of 9/11, whatever emotions they want to have, I respect and I honor. But somebody needs to lead them through a discussion,” Time’s senior political analyst lectured on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He mentioned a meeting that reportedly took place between the mosque’s planners and the 9/11 families, which he insisted “needs to happen.” Halperin said the meeting “did not go well,” but added it was and is necessary. “As I said before, whether it moves or stays, that discussion must happen. This must be done with reconciliation. And it’s got to be led by leaders, not by people like Rick Lazio…and facts,” Halperin noted. The show picked up fresh from where it left off last week, bashing the supposedly inflammatory rhetoric from the right opposing the mosque and sympathizing – while disagreeing – with the families of 9/11 victims over the planned mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero. Host Joe Scarborough added that reconciliation doesn’t necessarily entail moving the mosque. “The leaders of this Islamic cultural center, Mark, have to show reconciliation towards the victims of 9/11,” Scarborough responded to Halperin. “That doesn’t necessarily mean moving the Islamic center.” “But what it may mean is asking them, say, ‘It’s not going to move. What can we do, though? What can we put inside of this center that, as a memorial to the memory of your father, or your son, or your daughter? What can we do to help you?'” Scarborough cried that the situation has already become an international problem, and Halperin warned it could escalate to greater proportions. “If the resolution is not handled well,” he remarked, “the signal it could send abroad could put us at war with a billion people forever.” Scarborough argued that moving the mosque now would constitute “giving into the hate speech of Newt Gingrich and people like him.” “To fear the building of this center down there at Ground Zero is to admit America is weak,” he asserted. “This is a chapter in our history that we’re going to – we as a country, the people associated with this – are going to be ashamed of,” he said of the heated debate over the mosque. A transcript of selected quotes from the show, which ran on August 23 from 6 a.m.-9 a.m. EDT, is as follows: JOE SCARBOROUGH: To fear the building of this center down there at Ground Zero is to admit America is weak, is to admit that we can’t handle the building of a community center which is – somebody said it yesterday, and this is what I thought was all along – it is basically a Muslim version of a 92nd Street ___. That’s what this place is going to be. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It’s not just fear, Joe. They’re demonizing the Imam. They’re demonizing the people who want to do it. They are creating lies to promulgate hatred in this country. This is where we are, all over again. (…) SCARBOROUGH: This is a chapter in our history that we’re going to – we as a country, the people associated with this – are going to be ashamed of. (…) SCARBOROUGH: This is an international situation. … This is sending a horrific message across the Muslim world. (…) MARK HALPERIN: As bad as this is for relations in the United States, the signal that it sends abroad – the debate now is sending a bad signal. If the resolution is not handled well, whether it moves or not, if it’s not handled well, the signal it could send abroad could put us at war with a billion people forever. (…) SCARBOROUGH: This would not be happening if George W. Bush were President, for two reasons. First of all, a lot of these people on the right wouldn’t be trying to sully his name, that’s what this is about for a lot of these freaks on the far right. They want to embarrass Barack Obama, because oh gosh, his middle name is Hussein. (…) HALPERIN: You gotta confront the people who find it bothersome. Why is it bothersome? Why is it bothersome? If it’s not a center that meant to celebrate the violence of 9/11, if it’s not a recruitment center, why is it bothersome to anybody?  (…) HALPERIN: For the families of the victims of 9/11, whatever emotions they want to have, I respect and I honor. But somebody needs to lead them through a discussion. … Discussion needs to happen, as I’ve said before. (…) SCARBOROUGH: The leaders of this Islamic cultural center, Mark, have to show reconciliation towards the victims of 9/11. HALPERIN: And confidence. SCARBOROUGH: That doesn’t necessarily mean moving the Islamic center. But what it may mean is asking them; say “It’s not going to move. What can we do, though? What can we put inside of this center that, as a memorial to the memory of your father, or your son, or your daughter? What can we do to help you? There has to be some reconciliation. They can’t stiff-arm the 9/11 families. (…) BRZEZINSKI: But there’s no basis in order to worry that this would be insensitive. There are other things near Ground Zero and at the Pentagon that are similar. … They have a mosque 12 blocks away from Ground Zero, isn’t there one at the Pentagon? Am I wrong? (…) SCARBOROUGH: But at this point, if you want to move it up to the Upper West side? … At this point, I don’t know that we can do that. I don’t know that we can do that as a country, because it’s giving in to the hate speech of Newt Gingrich, and people like him, Rick Lazio who’s stoking fear, people down yesterday, trying to beat somebody up because they thought they were a Muslim. We can’t give in to that as a country.

Read more:
Time’s Mark Halperin: 9/11 Families Need to Be Led Through a Discussion About the Ground Zero Mosque

ISRAEL’S PRE-ELECTION ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT A NEW 9/11 INVESTIGATION By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot. There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators. What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes. A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot. And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport by themselves are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11. For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers. In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft. The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit. But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues, and is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.) In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules. And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have! The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they ‘lost it’ while flying in IFR conditions. Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get. Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself. When professional airline pilots, the majority trained by the United States Air Force, were asked to recreate the New York 9/11 attack in a flight simulator, two thirds failed entirely. None could duplicate the Pentagon attack at all. This is what the pilots had to say: “Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.” .Much more at the link…… http://canadiansforpalestine.ning.com/profiles/blogs/israels-preelection-attempt… added by: treewolf39

In ‘Tillman Story,’ Anti-Bush Conspiracy Just Doesn’t Add Up

There are three important things going on in “The Tillman Story” (in selected theatres today), two of which almost make the conspiracy-mongering documentary worth your time. The first and best is the opportunity to get to know better the extraordinary and extraordinarily complicated and interesting Pat Tillman. In the best sense of the word, this was a fierce and fiercely passionate man – fierce on the football field, fierce on the battlefield, and fierce in his personal beliefs. This was also a man who only ever dated one woman, the woman he would marry the same week he enlisted; and my guess is that Tillman was the kind of man and husband who found leaving the fame of professional football much easier than leaving his young bride.  You also meet Tillman’s family; his parents, brother and wife – a decent, loving, inconsolable group dealing with the terrible loss of someone they obviously loved and miss very much. This is a family furious with a United States government who didn’t know all the facts before they told the story of Tillman’s death to them, and to the American people. And as far as that goes, they are right to be angry.  Unfortunately, you also witness a partisan filmmaker attempting to prop up the absurd anti-Bush conspiracy theory that it wasn’t the ever-reliable incompetence of government bureaucracy that caused what was probably the second worst day in this family’s life – the day they were told Tillman had been killed in a friendly fire incident, but rather a sinister plot hatched by the Administration and the Pentagon to use Tillman’s death as a flag-waving symbol to bolster military recruitment and support for the war. The Tillman family agrees wholeheartedly with this conspiracy, believes that the memory of their heroic son was maliciously abused in this way. But with all due respect to them (and they are due our respect), neither logic nor facts come close to making that case.    As far as addressing the specific details surrounding the film’s specific charges, using his military experience and keen mind, Kurt Schlichter has already taken much of the film’s case completely apart, piece by piece, and I urge you to  read his review . My review will remain focused solely within the context of the documentary itself, a documentary no intellectually honest person can respect, much less champion.    To director Amir Bar-Lev’s credit, the most important fact of this entire case is not left out of what basically plays like an overlong “60 Minutes” segment. But this important fact is glossed over and presented so early on that – probably by design – you might forget all about it during the third act as circumstantial evidence is laid out hot and heavy with the help of foreboding camera moves – such as the one that slowly rises though a mob chart of Administration “bad guys” until ominously arriving at the smiling face of one President George W. Bush. It’s just too bad for Bar-Lev that the melodramatic use of a camera crane doesn’t equal damning facts.  On May 3rd, 2004, a memorial for Pat Tillman took place in San Jose’s Municipal Rose Garden. Tillman was posthumously awarded the Silver Star and both his family and the whole world believed he had been killed in a Taliban ambush during a brave attempt to draw their fire in order to save his own men.  Just a few weeks later, the Army would come forward to acknowledge that this narrative was wrong and that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire.  At this point, the question that came to my mind was why would the Pentagon and the Bush Administration voluntarily come forward and uncover their own conspiracy? The film makes no mention of any outside pressure on the Pentagon from the Tillman family or even the media to get the bottom of anything. Meaning that at this point everyone believed the initial report and apparently all the Administration and military had to do to keep us all believing was to keep their mouths shut.  So the question is: If the idea was to use Tillman’s death for nefarious pro-war purposes, why just a few weeks after the memorial service would those with the most to lose from doing so, voluntarily kick over a political hornets’ nest by telling the truth? Why not milk the situation for as long as possible and for as much propaganda as possible, especially with a presidential election just five months off? At the very least, why not save all the political heartache and fallout this revelation was sure to bring (and did) and stall until after Bush is reelected?  A producer once told me that whenever you have a film character open a refrigerator door you either have to show them close it or include the sound effect of the door closing, or else the audience will get unsettled thinking the door has been left open. Bar-Lev’s refusal to address or explain why a supposed-group of conspirators would of their own volition blow the whistle on their own supposed conspiracy leaves that door open. And no fancy camera move or sinister scoring is going to close it.  As the film moves towards its climax, an August of 2007 Congressional hearing, the conspiracy becomes even less convincing. Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman brought together all the players, including Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, to testify under oath and before the television cameras about what they knew and when they knew it. You get the sense that Bar-Lev actually wants us to believe that Henry Waxman, one of the most extreme Bush haters in all of Congress, was – at best – less than enthused at this opportunity or maybe even in on the alleged cover up.  Bar-Lev’s sin of omission is not giving the audience any background on Waxman’s  investigative crusades to bring Bush down , which would go a long way towards giving this Congressional hearing looking into the Tillman case credibility. But that kind of knowledge would also work against the filmmaker’s obvious political agenda. No one wanted Bush’s scalp more than Henry Waxman. Instead, however, all we see are shots of the Congressman looking indifferent and bored.  To anyone who’s even a tenth the independent thinker Pat Tillman was, this documentary looking into his death never rises above the level of left-wing propaganda.  Pat Tillman was a patriot and an American hero, and the truth of what happened that terrible day changes none of that. As far as Pat Tillman’s family, there is nothing they deserve more than whatever emotional closure one can have in such a situation. I do hope they find it. But where they’re looking for it now, it simply doesn’t exist. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

View post:
In ‘Tillman Story,’ Anti-Bush Conspiracy Just Doesn’t Add Up

Who Has Open Fires When It’s 100 Degrees Outside? Olive Garden

Image credit: Olive Garden & Peter Baker (Creative Commons) When I wrote about drying clothes indoors , I was surprised to hear that some folks had considered opening the windows and cranking up the heat on the thermostat as a “green” method of clothes drying – even when you wouldn’t otherwise need to heat your house. But they’re not the only ones doing weird things out of season—tipster Ty tells us that his local… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Here is the original post:
Who Has Open Fires When It’s 100 Degrees Outside? Olive Garden

NBC’s Todd Frets Obama’s Effort to ‘Tackle’ Nation’s Problems Allowed Enemies to Defame Him as Muslim

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams cited a “stunning number” from “a reputable pollster” (Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press) – which discovered “just under 20 percent of the American people believe the President is a Muslim” when “he is not” – to justify a full explanation from Chuck Todd on the mischaracterization of Barack Obama. “Look, let’s be clear,” NBC’s chief White House correspondent declared, “President Barack Obama was born in the United States and he is a Christian.” Without pointing out how confusion and ignorance about Obama’s religious affiliation extends beyond just Republicans and conservatives (41 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of liberals “don’t know” Obama’s religion), Todd fretted: “Ever since Mr. Obama became a national political figure, some of his political enemies have fanned the flames of religious prejudice by trying to make people believe the President is a Muslim.” Todd despaired that Obama’s focus on his job had left him vulnerable to abuse: During the campaign, Team Obama repeatedly refuted these charges with a special Web site they created called FightTheSmears. Well, when he took office, the anti-Obama campaign continued, but the White House tackled a slew of other issues, and efforts to refute those other attacks took a backseat. Completing his delivery of White House talking points, Todd asserted: “Ironically, Brian, during the campaign, some of the President’s political enemies attacked him for the way he practiced Christianity in Chicago where his minister – the Reverend Jeremiah Wright – was a controversial figure.” Over on FNC, however, Major Garrett noted that “while Mr. Obama’s political opponents are more likely to believe he’s a Muslim, uncertainty has seeped in the President’s political base.” In his piece for Special Report with Bret Baier, Garrett featured a soundbite from Alan Cooperman, the Associate Director of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, who also appeared in Todd’s story. In the clip run on FNC, Cooperman observed: Less than half of Democrats say the President is a Christian [46%]. Less than half of African-Americans say the President is a Christian [43%]. Less than half of people who give Obama positive job approval ratings say he’s a Christian. Indeed, Pew’s report, “Growing Number of Americans Say Obama is a Muslim” ( Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life version; Pew Research Center for the People & the Press version) found: A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama’s religion is…. Among Democrats, for instance, 46% say Obama is a Christian, down from 55% in March 2009. The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009)…. But even among Democrats, fewer than half (46%) now identify his religion as Christian, down from 55% last year. On Thursday night, ABC’s World News skipped the poll numbers, but the CBS Evening News squeezed in a short item from Harry Smith in a newscast devoted almost entirely to Katie Couric in Afghanistan: The White House said today President Obama is a Christian and prays every day. A spokesman felt is necessary to make that clear after a poll came out showing a significant number of Americans believe the President is Muslim. 18 percent think so. That’s up from 11 percent last year. From the Thursday, August 19 NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: A new opinion poll from a reputable pollster in this country just out today is getting a lot of attention tonight because it contains a stunning number. Just under 20 percent of the American people believe the President is a Muslim – he is not – on top of a growing number of people who believe he’s foreign-born – and he is not. We go behind these numbers tonight with our chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd who’s in our Washington newsroom. Chuck, good evening. CHUCK TODD: Good evening, Brian. Look, let’s be clear. President Barack Obama was born in the United States and he is a Christian. But ever since Mr. Obama became a national political figure, some of his political enemies have fanned the flames of religious prejudice by trying to make people believe the President is a Muslim. In fact, with some of these same political enemies who helped ignite another phony claim that the President wasn’t born in the United States. Well, during the campaign, Team Obama repeatedly refuted these charges with a special Web site they created called FightTheSmears. Well, when he took office, the anti-Obama campaign continued, but the White House tackled a slew of other issues, and efforts to refute those other attacks took a backseat. In March 2009, according to Pew Research, about half the country – 48 percent – correctly identified the President as a Christian, 11 percent believed he was a Muslim, and about a third – 34 percent – had no idea of his faith. Now these results are even more striking. Only 34 percent correctly told Pew pollsters that Mr. Obama is a Christian, while a whopping 18 percent – or nearly one in five Americans – say he is a Muslim, and 43 percent have no idea of his faith at all. Well, earlier today, I asked Alan Cooperman at Pew Research to explain why, in the face of clear evidence that the President is not a Muslim, that a growing number of Americans believe he is. ALAN COOPERMAN, PEW FORUM ON RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE: In the absence of information from the White House and from the President himself about his faith, about his faith life, about him going to church, messages from others – innuendo and rumor included – are able to maybe gain currency. TODD: Ironically, Brian, during the campaign, some of the President’s political enemies attacked him for the way he practiced Christianity in Chicago where his minister – the Reverend Jeremiah Wright – was a controversial figure. Now, today the White House said the President is a, quote,  “committed Christian,” and prays every day. But aides said they were not surprised by the poll findings because, as one put it, quote, “The President doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve,” Brian.

Follow this link:
NBC’s Todd Frets Obama’s Effort to ‘Tackle’ Nation’s Problems Allowed Enemies to Defame Him as Muslim