It’s a measure of how effective the Occupy Wall Street movement has become, that the right-wing feels compelled to attack them as having ties to Muslim extremists. More importantly, it’s a barometer of just how frightened they are of losing the spotlight to real populism: In a development that should surprise no one, some on the right-wing are accusing the Occupy Wall Street movement of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.“JIHAD ALERT,” the anti-“Shariah Islam” group “The United West” declares in a blog post. “‘OCCUPY ORLANDO’ or JIHAD ORLANDO?” Tom Trento, the group’s director, explains that Occupy Orlando is a “move by a Muslim activist to take over control of ‘Occupy Orlando,’ in the ‘spirit of the Arab Spring.’” An accompanying video shows Trento attending an Occupy Orlando protest last weekend, and warning about activist Shayan Elahi, who Trento says is “associated with CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.” Elahi is a local Democratic activist and a Muslim civil-rights attorney who is also legal counsel for Occupy Orlando, according to My Fox Orlando.Trento writes : Once we watched Shayan Elahi in action, running around, signing up speakers, providing direction, telling people what to do, we started to connect the dots to the stated Face Book Mission Statement of “Occupy Orlando,” which reads, “…we plan to use the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic of mass occupation to restore democracy in America.”
Continue reading …On Sunday, “60 Minutes” aired a 30-minute interview with Steve Jobs’ biographer Walter Isaacson, whose eagerly awaited biography “Steve Jobs” was released October 24. While the book itself is filled with Jobs’ intensely negative feelings toward Google, he did have some complimentary things to say about Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg. “60 Minutes” ran several clips of Isaacson’s taped interviews with the late Apple co-founder, who can be heard discussing his thoughts on Zuckerberg in an audio clip released as bonus footage alongside the full interview with Isaacson. Said Jobs of Facebook’s founder, “I admire Mark Zuckerberg. I only know him a little bit, but I admire him for not selling out, for wanting to make a company. I admire that a lot.” (Visit CBS News to view more bonus footage from the “60 Minutes” interview.) Jobs was notoriously critical of those he saw as sell-outs and always maintained that the business choices he made were in the service of creating a great product, not making the most money. He discussed this in another interview with Isaacson where he talks about longtime rival, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates: “Bill ended up the wealthiest guy around, and if that was his goal then he achieved it, but it’s never been my goal, and I even wonder in the end if it was really his goal.” Jobs’ respect for Zuckerberg may have hinged on his perception that they were similarly determined to do what they thought was right for their companies no matter the consequences. According to Forbes, “Where Zuckerberg most resembles Jobs is in the strength of conviction he places in his vision Zuckerberg has managed to court the masses without ever submitting to the so-called wisdom of the crowd.” There were also other, more superficial, similarities. Both men were college dropouts who founded their companies at a young age — Zuckerberg was 19 and Jobs was 21. Zuckerberg’s actions indicate that Jobs’ admiration for him was mutual. Zuckerberg reportedly modeled Facebook’s annual developers conference, F8, on Apple’s MacWorld. Although, at first, people doubted that the awkward Zuckerberg could step into Jobs’ shoes as the tech world’s “rock star,” Zuckerberg is apparently becoming more of a cult figure with each Facebook announcement . In March, M.I.C Gadget started selling a Mark Zuckerberg action figure until Facebook forced them to stop. Several months earlier, Apple had reacted the same way when M.I.C Gadget tried to distribute a an action figure in the likeness of Steve Jobs. When Jobs passed away on October 5, Zuckerberg posted a note to Facebook that read, “Steve, thank you for being a mentor and a friend. Thanks for showing that what you build can change the world. I will miss you.” To watch Walter Isaacson’s entire “60 Minutes interview, plus bonus footage, click here. To see what else Steve Jobs has to say about his fellow tech titans, according to Isaacson’s biography, check out the slideshow (below).
Continue reading …Like most girls born circa 1960, my sister and I were raised to want two things in life: a husband and a house, in that order. So pervasive was this expectation among the members of our middle-class, third-generation-American cohort that it did not even have to be spoken. The message was everywhere — in TV shows, in magazine ads … not to mention in the hushed conversations of great-aunts anxious lest a beloved niece suffer the indignity of never marrying. Throughout childhood, my future husband and house were ever-present, if only in the faintest of outlines. Oddly, the house made a stronger impression than the man. Long before I fantasized about kissing or even conversing with a man, I had pictured the house, a cottage surrounded by garden. There, I knew, I would be able to be myself, without answering to others. (That I would have associated “home” with not having to answer to others, or at least an other, is ironic, especially in retrospect; presumably this persistent quirk in my understanding of home can be implicated in the failure of my two marriages. “Don’t touch anything while I’m away,” the men in my life have learned to stammer as they depart on business or vacation, scarred by previous returns to the hell of a kitchen or bathroom remodel-in-progress.) Only in my late 30s, when I found myself in a small Indiana town, exhausted after years of chasing the greener grass on the other side of a degree/marriage/relocation/[insert your own key to reinvention] and miffed at the ending of yet another relationship, did I finally begin to understand that having a home of my own could itself be a kind of relationship. Unable to find a job directly related to my degrees, I had returned to self-employment as a cabinetmaker, the occupation I’d trained for as a Cambridge dropout responding to her stepfather’s routine insults: “What are you, Nance? Useless.” I fell in love with my 1925 bungalow the first time I saw it — not because of its location (across the street from my city’s soup kitchen and homeless shelter, and midway between a factory and a hospital, which ensured a constant flow of noisy traffic) or especially impressive architectural features, but because it was perfectly modest and had clearly been loved. The tidy front lawn, white clapboard siding, and aluminum storm door, its central panel fashioned around a letter — for Pope, the family that had lived there since its construction — melted my heart. The pristine interior, suffused with the presence of the widow who had loved it her entire adult life, confirmed the thrilling realization: This was my house. It wasn’t long before the boyfriend who’d moved there with me found his own place. Utterly exasperated, I devoted all my spare time to the house: pulling up carpet, stripping wallpaper, painting rooms, installing ’20s-style cabinets I built in the basement. I started a riotous cottage garden that would eventually surround the house and spill down the front slope to the street. Sometimes I took in paying renters. Other times, I took a break from human companions and indulged in the deep pleasure of having the house to myself. Not that it was ever easy. I worried about finances and often wondered whether I would ever again enjoy a relationship with a man. Still, it gradually hit me: My house itself had become a kind of partner. I spent my nights embraced by its sloping eaves. When I gave to the house, whether by painting a room or planting a flowering vine; it delighted me with beauty. Equally important, the house provided irrefutable evidence of my abilities. My stepfather had been wrong. Just as the house offered me shelter and protection, I felt a growing obligation to care for it — not just its structure and systems, but its history. It had been the lifelong home of a family before me, and I wanted to steward it for them. The house was filled with that family, from marbles the children had lost in the garden to old newspapers with which their parents had lined the attic. And then there were the hooks-and-eyes mysteriously screwed to the exterior doors — “Chicken latches,” Mrs. Pope’s son had called them when showing me around the house just after the closing. He’d used the latches to keep his own son, nicknamed Chicken, from leaving grandma’s house without being noticed. The more I learned about the Popes, the deeper grew my appreciation of my larger home, the town of Bloomington, which deepened my sense of belonging to a community. Though more diffuse, this, too, was a dimension of my relationship with my house. In the end, my home allowed me to be myself in a far truer sense than that of merely not having to answer to others. My relationship with my house, characterized as it was by the typical variety of rewards and challenges — holiday parties and plumbing disasters, paying renters and transient boyfriends, professional crises and successes — allowed me to become the person I’d always sensed I could be.
Continue reading …Like most girls born circa 1960, my sister and I were raised to want two things in life: a husband and a house, in that order. So pervasive was this expectation among the members of our middle-class, third-generation-American cohort that it did not even have to be spoken. The message was everywhere — in TV shows, in magazine ads … not to mention in the hushed conversations of great-aunts anxious lest a beloved niece suffer the indignity of never marrying. Throughout childhood, my future husband and house were ever-present, if only in the faintest of outlines. Oddly, the house made a stronger impression than the man. Long before I fantasized about kissing or even conversing with a man, I had pictured the house, a cottage surrounded by garden. There, I knew, I would be able to be myself, without answering to others. (That I would have associated “home” with not having to answer to others, or at least an other, is ironic, especially in retrospect; presumably this persistent quirk in my understanding of home can be implicated in the failure of my two marriages. “Don’t touch anything while I’m away,” the men in my life have learned to stammer as they depart on business or vacation, scarred by previous returns to the hell of a kitchen or bathroom remodel-in-progress.) Only in my late 30s, when I found myself in a small Indiana town, exhausted after years of chasing the greener grass on the other side of a degree/marriage/relocation/[insert your own key to reinvention] and miffed at the ending of yet another relationship, did I finally begin to understand that having a home of my own could itself be a kind of relationship. Unable to find a job directly related to my degrees, I had returned to self-employment as a cabinetmaker, the occupation I’d trained for as a Cambridge dropout responding to her stepfather’s routine insults: “What are you, Nance? Useless.” I fell in love with my 1925 bungalow the first time I saw it — not because of its location (across the street from my city’s soup kitchen and homeless shelter, and midway between a factory and a hospital, which ensured a constant flow of noisy traffic) or especially impressive architectural features, but because it was perfectly modest and had clearly been loved. The tidy front lawn, white clapboard siding, and aluminum storm door, its central panel fashioned around a letter — for Pope, the family that had lived there since its construction — melted my heart. The pristine interior, suffused with the presence of the widow who had loved it her entire adult life, confirmed the thrilling realization: This was my house. It wasn’t long before the boyfriend who’d moved there with me found his own place. Utterly exasperated, I devoted all my spare time to the house: pulling up carpet, stripping wallpaper, painting rooms, installing ’20s-style cabinets I built in the basement. I started a riotous cottage garden that would eventually surround the house and spill down the front slope to the street. Sometimes I took in paying renters. Other times, I took a break from human companions and indulged in the deep pleasure of having the house to myself. Not that it was ever easy. I worried about finances and often wondered whether I would ever again enjoy a relationship with a man. Still, it gradually hit me: My house itself had become a kind of partner. I spent my nights embraced by its sloping eaves. When I gave to the house, whether by painting a room or planting a flowering vine; it delighted me with beauty. Equally important, the house provided irrefutable evidence of my abilities. My stepfather had been wrong. Just as the house offered me shelter and protection, I felt a growing obligation to care for it — not just its structure and systems, but its history. It had been the lifelong home of a family before me, and I wanted to steward it for them. The house was filled with that family, from marbles the children had lost in the garden to old newspapers with which their parents had lined the attic. And then there were the hooks-and-eyes mysteriously screwed to the exterior doors — “Chicken latches,” Mrs. Pope’s son had called them when showing me around the house just after the closing. He’d used the latches to keep his own son, nicknamed Chicken, from leaving grandma’s house without being noticed. The more I learned about the Popes, the deeper grew my appreciation of my larger home, the town of Bloomington, which deepened my sense of belonging to a community. Though more diffuse, this, too, was a dimension of my relationship with my house. In the end, my home allowed me to be myself in a far truer sense than that of merely not having to answer to others. My relationship with my house, characterized as it was by the typical variety of rewards and challenges — holiday parties and plumbing disasters, paying renters and transient boyfriends, professional crises and successes — allowed me to become the person I’d always sensed I could be.
Continue reading …After
Continue reading …After
Continue reading …Bangkok is slowly being flooded by waters seeping into the Thai capital from the waterlogged center of the country on their way to the Gulf of Thailand. The flooding, the worst the city has seen in at least 70 years, has severed road and rail links and forced the government…
Continue reading …Moammar Gadhafi’s final journey was from a meat locker in Misrata to a grave in a secret desert location. A National Transitional Council spokesman says the bodies of the dictator, his son Mutassim, and his former defense minister “were buried at dawn in a secret place with proper respects paid,…
Continue reading …One campaigner said the announcement was a public relations exercise akin to ‘putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank’ Alleged victims of sexual abuse have reacted coolly to the news of a Vatican investigation into a London abbey, and have called for inquiries into other Roman Catholic institutions where children are claimed to have been mistreated. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome has ordered an “apostolic visitation” to uncover the scale of abuse at Ealing abbey, where monks and lay teachers have been accused of mistreating children at a neighbouring school, St Benedict’s, over decades. It is the first inquiry of its kind into sexual abuse in Britain. Father David Pearce, a priest at Ealing abbey, was jailed in 2009. Groups supporting alleged victims have questioned the effectiveness and integrity of an internal inquiry, especially given that its findings will remain secret. The abuse is alleged to have dated from the 1960s to 2009. Pete Saunders, of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said it was a public relations exercise and akin to “putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank”. Anne Lawrence of Ministry and Clerical Sexual Abuse Survivors , said although the Ealing inquiry showed the Catholic hierarchy was beginning to understand the concept of institutional responsibility, there were other schools and other places that warranted investigation. There were, she alleged, “more than 20 schools where there was systematic abuse and we would like to see inquiries into all of them”. Relations between the church and survivor groups are already under strain. Earlier this month the Guardian revealed that victim support groups had pulled out of discussions led by the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission (NCSC) and the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service (CSAS). They described them as shambolic, toothless and unlikely to achieve anything by May 2012, when the pope’s deadline for a progress report expires. The talks were intended to come up with a care package for survivors of clerical sexual abuse. Graham Wilmer, who heads the Lantern Project and says he was abused by a Catholic priest as a teenager, said: “We were prepared to talk to [the institution] that had harmed us, even though it was uncomfortable … [But] we can’t trust them. What has effectively has happened is nothing.” The Catholic church in England and Wales has not suffered the same fate as those in Ireland and the US, which have been left reeling by abuse allegations. It has defended its child protection procedures, describing them as robust, and has apologised for past behaviour. But there is evidence to suggest that for all its commitment to healing and contrition, old attitudes prevail. Two civil cases show the church continuing to engage in a war of attrition with victims who were abused as children. It has denied responsibility for the alleged sexual abuse of a Portsmouth woman by one of its priests, saying the cleric was not an employee. Should the church win, it will avoid having to pay compensation to victims in the future. In another case, involving more than 150 former pupils suing for an estimated £8m for sexual and physical abuse they claim to have suffered at St William’s boys home in Market Weighton, Yorkshire, the diocese of Middlesbrough is contesting a court ruling that it is jointly liable with the De La Salle Brotherhood, a Catholic order of lay teachers, for the alleged abuse. St William’s was owned by the diocese but many of the staff were members of the Brotherhood. Claims were first launched in 2004 when the home’s former principal, Brother James Carragher, was jailed for 14 years for abusing boys. The appeal will be heard next July in the supreme court. Catholicism Religion Christianity Vatican Child protection London Riazat Butt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …