What’s it like to run an art gallery in Roubaix, France’s poorest town? Bruno Gaudichon, director of La Piscine, a museum of art and industry set in an old bath-house, reveals all How did you get started? When I was a boy, I wanted to be an archaeologist – digging up all those hoards of hidden treasure. Then later, a
Continue reading …Hannity & Co Are Upset Because President Obama Isn’t American-Arrogant Enough
March 22, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Sean Hannity deserves today’s Sarah Palin Snark Award for his show. It was just jam-packed from beginning to end. He began by serving up some Ollie North on a platter, continued with Dick Morris, and wrapped the whole show in a bow with Monica Crowley and “Republican operative” Elise Jordan. This show actually gave me a migraine, which I understand may be the first symptom of one’s head exploding. We begin with Oliver North. You remember old Ollie from the Iran-Contra days? The guy who carried out the illegal and unconstitutional mission of selling arms to Iran in exchange for hostages? That guy? Yeah, well here’s his gem o’ the day: HANNITY: I’m amazed by this President’s inability, Colonel, to make a decision. Now, it took six months to give the troops that were requested by our leaders in Afghanistan He was dithering , that was the phrase we used and then he still didn’t give them the troops they wanted. He didn’t support the freedom fighters in Iran in 2009. He vacillated and took varying positions in Egypt and seems to be doing the same here today, more concerned about brackets, trips to Rio, and playing golf! NORTH: Look, he’s on his spring break. Give him — the poor boy — a break. Here’s the bottom line of this President. This is a man who tries to please everyone. He’s got factions in his own party, he’s got various factions around the world, he’s done nothing but apologize for America, literally since he’s been in office. And now he’s in a position where he has to be the Commander-in-Chief and it’s just beyond him. The bitterness in North’s voice is palpable. I suppose he’s still frustrated that he broke the law, went on trial, got away with it, and can’t get some of us to forget. That’s some real leadership there, Ollie. He should go worship Saint Reagan on a mountaintop and get off my TV screen. Now, if you haven’t figured it out yet, the Word Of The Day is “DITHERED”. Please memorize it, Hannity will test you on it at the end, if you haven’t been tested enough by his nonsensical rants to follow. Click here to view this media Next up, Dick Morris, who is pimping his new book “Revolt” while being revolting and full of unwarranted certitude. I take comfort in knowing he’s wrong about just about everything, as he is here when he asserts that the President has failed on all three prongs of the Powell doctrine. Perhaps Dick should go find some nice toes to suck. Finally, Hannity brings it all together with his girl panel — Elise Jordan and Monica Crowley. I’ll let the words speak for themselves, but it’s not hard to understand why so many people believe such nonsense about Barack Obama when they watch a full hour of this kind of crap. Click here to view this media HANNITY: Where is this coming from? And I think this is a really important question, getting into the mind of Barack Obama. Remember, when he was asked about American exceptionalism his answer was well, I’m sure the Germans believe in German exceptionalism and so-and-so believes in so-and-so exceptionalism and the Brits… and I’m thinking is it a belief system rooted in ya know, maybe what he learned from Jeremiah Wright, maybe his radicalism and his background. In other words, he doesn’t seem to think that it’s America’s responsibility to lead. And in that sense, he accepts America’s passive role. But Monica Crowley, now, she’s got to ratchet it up a notch: CROWLEY: But Sean, I think it’s even worse than what you describe. I think this is a man who comes out of the far left progressive tradition in America that buys totally into the doctrine of American guilt. That not only is he uncomfortable with projecting American power and influence in the world, but that he actually believes the United States is a force for bad, for evil in the world and that he intends to take the United States down a notch or two, to diminish American power and influence. HANNITY: I think you’re onto something. I wouldn’t say it quite the way you did, but when he went on the apology tour it was very revealing. When he said America’s arrogant, when he said at the United Nations “we don’t have the right to impose our values”, wait a minute. I thought our founding document believes that every human soul is endowed by their Creator, so..you agree with that? Finally, after Elise Jordan snarks her way through some banal criticism, we get Crowley’s really odious form of dog whistle: CROWLEY: There does seem to be a real disconnect between this President and the United States’ traditional role in the world. We are the lone superpower, and when the United States — and this is the lesson of history — when the United States is perceived as weak or the Commander-in-chief is perceived as weak and indecisive, the wheels come off the world. And that’s what we’re seeing now. How on earth does Crowley get this notion that Obama, or progressives for that matter, believe the United States is a force for evil? Is it wrong to object to playing cowboy games in Iraq, destroying entire nations, sacrificing thousands of our youth to a cause which is undefined and not for the common good? What is the matter with these people? (It’s rhetorical, you don’t have to answer) Tonight’s show was particularly disgusting. It was full of dog whistles, judgments, sanctimony, and gave credence to old and young idiots who are great at spewing nonsense but wouldn’t know what the term “analyst” actually meant, much less play one on TV. I know I should probably add some sort of valuable counter-commentary, but it’s really hard to counter irrational idiocy with logic. How does anyone answer someone who learned his style of commentary in elementary school when he was hanging with bullies? How many blondes and criminals will Fox News trot out to drive home their racist, agenda-driven, anti-American rants about this President?
Continue reading …
Application for state department funding to combat censorship in countries such as China and Iran is greeted with derision • BBC World Service to sign funding deal with US An application by the BBC World Service Trust for US government funding to help combat censorship in countries such as China and Iran has met with a furious response in America. Some figures within rival US international broadcasters such as Voice of America are said to be “deeply angry” that, at a time when the Congress is embroiled in a delicate budgetary standoff with the Obama administration, the World Service Trust is hoping to receive US tax dollars. One Washington source said that the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the US government agency which distributes about $760m of public money annually to five US international broadcasters, should receive the funding and not the BBC World Service Trust. “We are deeply angry here in the States. The Voice of America is the US government’s international broadcaster and needs support,” the source added. “This is coming at a time when the US government is cutting funding for the BBG as well as National Public Radio and people are angry that money is going to the BBC World Service Trust. “The sums which the trust is now seeking are puny but it’s the symbolism that’s important. Americans are trying to conserve resources and our money is going to something which supports the work of a foreign broadcaster – it’s infuriating.” The US state department said no decision had yet been taken on the BBC World Service Trust’s proposal for funding – believed to be a low six figure sum – for anti-jamming technology. Courtney Austrian, office director, policy planning and public diplomacy at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, said: “To clarify the situation, earlier this month the BBC World Service Trust, along with many other organisations, was invited to submit a proposal for funding in the area of internet freedom to the state department. “This invitation was extended based upon a statement of interest the World Service Trust had previously submitted. We have not yet received a full proposal from any organisation and no funding decisions have yet been made.” A spokeswoman for the BBG, which funds America’s five international broadcasters – Voice of America, Radio & TV Marti, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe and Middle East Broadcasting Networks – declined to be drawn on the row. “Competition for funds from the state department is ongoing,” she said. News of the BBC’s application for the grant from the US state department to develop anti–jamming technology in repressive countries such as Iran and China, revealed by the Guardian , has also met with a critical response in America. Under the heading “Your tax dollars funding a second left wing radio network: the BBC”, Thomas Lifson wrote on the American Thinker blog : “The BBC has a problem with political bias at least as bad as that of NPR. But that is no obstacle to shipping money, borrowed from China, to yet another left wing network. Don’t worry: we’ll just let our children pay for it when the Chinese come to collect.” A diary item on the New York Magazine’s website added : “Just wait til the anti-NPR brigade gets wind that U.S. funds are going to foreigners.” However, BBC World Service sources insisted that American money will be going to the World Service Trust – which is the corporation’s international charity – and not to the World Service, the international broadcaster. “It is quite reasonable that project by project work by the trust could apply for state department and US funding,” said a BBC World Service Trust source. The BBC World Service Trust has previously received $4.5m in US international development funding for an ongoing media and development project in Nigeria and is bidding for another $293,000 for similar work in Burma. •
Continue reading …
Michael Gove’s remark that children should be reading 50 books a year is called into question by authors from Philip Pullman to children’s laureate Anthony Browne Education secretary Michael Gove has suggested that children as young as 11 should be reading 50 books a year – and that leading children’s authors should recommend them. Following a tour he made of America’s independently-run, state-funded charter schools – including the Infinity Charter School in Harlem, which set its pupils a “50-book challenge” over the course of a year – Gove said that schools in the UK needed to “raise the bar” on children’s reading: “Recently, I asked to see what students were reading at GCSE,” Gove said. “I discovered that something like 80-90% were just reading one or two novels – and overwhelmingly it was the case that it included Of Mice and Men. We should be saying that our children should be reading 50 books a year, not just one or two for GCSE.” The education secretary’s remarks follow a December report that showed British teenagers slumping from 17th to 25th place in an international league table for reading standards. But children’s laureate Anthony Browne has said Gove’s aims are at odds with the library closures happening under his government’s watch. He declared himself “surprised” at Gove’s comments, “given that the government is cutting library budgets, and that programmes giving free books to children, such as Bookstart, are also being cut.” “It’s always good to hear that the importance of children’s reading is recognised – but rather than setting an arbitrary number of books that children ought to read, I feel it’s the quality of children’s reading experiences that really matter,” Browne said. “Pleasure, engagement and enjoyment of books is what counts – not simply meeting targets.” Browne’s views were echoed by others’. Frank Cottrell Boyce , author of children’s novels Cosmic and Millions, said that while Gove’s instincts were right, the government’s wider actions were “militating against what Gove wants – like closing libraries, which is just a disaster.” Alan Garner, author of children’s classic The Weirdstone of Brisingamen, meanwhile, questioned the advisability of turning books into numbers. “Is any number a useful guide?” he asked. “The important aim should be a reading that is wide and deep rather than numerical. In my own primary school years I read everything I could find, which amounted to at least four books a week and as many comics as possible. The Beano and The Dandy were equal with Tarzan of the Apes, Enid Blyton, HG Wells, Kipling, wildlife books, fairy tales, encyclopaedias. This resulted, painlessly, in a large vocabulary, an awareness of differences of style, the absorption of grammar and syntax and an ability to spell.” Philip Pullman, author of the prizewinning His Dark Materials trilogy, agreed – and added a further caveat. “I’m all in favour of children reading books, of course, the more the merrier,” he said. “What I’m wary of is that people will start saying that quality is more important than quantity. When it comes to reading books, children should be allowed – and encouraged – to read as much rubbish as they want to. But that can only happen when there are plenty of good books as well as rubbish all around them. Where are they going to get these 50 books a year from?” Meanwhile, Miranda McKearney, chief executive of the Reading Agency, which runs an annual Summer Reading Challenge in which children are encouraged to read six library books over the holiday, expressed concern over the execution of Gove’s ambition. “So often the discussion about how to inspire children to read focuses just on schools, but libraries, and families, have a key role to play,” she said. “We won’t crack the problems unless we build a more systemic approach.” Michael Gove Young people Children Children and teenagers Children’s laureate Benedicte Page guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …NAVTEQ’s Destination Maps provide mobile guidance through malls, outer reaches of your mind
March 22, 2011 No Comment
For anyone that’s ever been hopelessly turned around within the Mall of America (or the Las Vegas Convention Center ), the promise provided by NAVTEQ’s newly announced Destination Maps is quite compelling. It allows for orientation, guidance and routing for indoor venues like those mentioned above, and serves up a useful map of entrances, exits, restrooms, stairwells and points of interest that would otherwise be undetectable. Neither IDG News nor NAVTEQ mentions exactly how this is accomplished, but we can only speculate that a Hybrid GPS antenna is used along side a layer of augmented reality — but then again, these could be static routes that require no positioning whatsoever to explore. It’s also uncertain which mobile platforms would support such an app (despite having been demoed on a Nokia N8 in the photo above), or if this will even make it past the beta stage. More info is expected at Where 2.0 in April, and it’s a pretty safe bet that Paul Blart will be on hand for its official debut. Continue reading NAVTEQ’s Destination Maps provide mobile guidance through malls, outer reaches of your mind NAVTEQ’s Destination Maps provide mobile guidance through malls, outer reaches of your mind originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:09:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …New York Times Claims ‘Muslims Have Grown Up in a Newly Hostile Country’: The United States?
March 22, 2011 No Comment
New York Times reporter Andrea Elliott won a Pulitzer Prize in 2007 for a series of articles about Sheik Reda Shata , an imam in Brooklyn. In a speech to the Times newsroom after her victory, her editor lauded the series for helping to tear down “the wall of hatred” against Muslims in America. Sunday’s similar, 8,400-word magazine cover profile, “ A Marked Man In America ,” featured Yale Ph.D. candidate Yasir Qadhi, a conservative Muslim trying to make the case for non-violence to resistant and radicalized younger Muslims. Even while Elliott engaged in soft-pedaling Islamic extremism, as she did in her 2007 piece, Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project commented that Elliott’s “exhaustive profile of an Islamic cleric….makes the depth and severity of radicalization among some young Muslim Americans very clear,” even if she didn’t necessarily set out to do so. But this paragraph by Elliott is wildly overstated. But alienation has many faces. America’s youngest Muslims have grown up in a newly hostile country, with mounting opposition to the construction of mosques, a national movement seeking to ban courts from consulting shariah, or Islamic law, and rising hate crimes against Muslims . While some young Muslims have sought distance, abandoning Islam and even changing their names, others have experienced a spiritual awakening. The most conservative have found a home in Salafiya. A “hostile country”? As stated here before, there was no violent backlash against Muslims after 9-11, and there certainly hasn’t been one recently. Far more “hate crimes” (an amorphous definition anyway) have been committed against Jews in America than against Muslims, with no outcry from the Times. And consulting Islamic law in American court should be offensive on its face to any self-respecting media outlet that has battled so fiercely in other contexts for the complete separation of church and state.
Continue reading …Ed Schultz on Libya: ‘Given That Americans Died on That 747 Over Lockerbie, I’m All for This Mission’
March 21, 2011 No Comment
The perpetually anti-war Ed Schultz took his seat behind the desk at MSNBC studios Monday with the expressed mission of selling Barack Obama's air assault on Libya to his viewers. So passionate was the “Ed Show” host in supporting the President he several times showed video footage of downed Pan Am flight 103 while claiming that Moammar Gaddafi was responsible thereby justifying an attack on him over 22 years later (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ: President Obama has decided on a more focused, realistic approach. He’s trying to give the rebels who want democracy a fighting chance at just that, and trying to stop Gaddafi, this is the human thing to do, from slaughtering his own people. Now aside from all the reasons for this mission, you will never convince me that Gaddafi didn’t have a hand in the Lockerbie bombing. You’ll never convince me that Gaddafi hasn’t supplied resources to terrorists. Given the fact that Americans died on that 747 over Lockerbie, I’m all for this mission. I think the President of the United States Barack Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt and our support. Interesting defense. Readers are reminded that Pan Am 103 was downed in December 1988. That's a reason for going after Gaddafi now? As for “slaughtering his own people” and supplying “resources to terrorists,” the same was trued of Saddam Hussein. That hasn't stopped Schultz from repeatedly claiming that wasn't enough of a reason to invade 18 months after 9/11. Why would these issues support attacks on Libya if they didn't support an Iraqi invasion eight years ago? Alas, when MSNBCers like Schultz are defending politicians they support, facts and reason are irrelevant: SCHULTZ: As a country we really don’t have much of a stomach for this right now, and a lot of us are torn because of what all of our needs are here at home. But remember, and this needs to be pointed out: there have been no lies told; no fear games have been played on the American people; intelligence hasn’t been cooked, and; there truly is a coalition of the willing. “There have been no lies told.” I guess Schultz missed this report from Time magazine Monday: As it turns out, Gaddafi hasn't done enough to justify humanitarian intervention—despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the administration and human rights organizations admit that reports of potential war crimes remain unconfirmed. Instead, interviews with senior administration officials show that the rehabilitators convinced Obama to go to war not just to prevent atrocities Gaddafi might (or might not) commit but also to bolster America's ability to intervene elsewhere in the future. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. The ability for the U.S. to muster international force to prevent thugs from killing innocent people is important. But the president and some of his advisers are so eager to rehabilitate the idea of preventive intervention that they're exaggerating the violence they say they are intervening to prevent in Libya. “The effort to shoe-horn this into an imminent genocide model is strained,” says one senior administration official. That's dangerous. Americans deserve an honest explanation when their leaders take them to war. Well, apart from not getting it from Obama, they're certainly not going to get it from a shill like Schultz. As for the “coalition of the willing,” this is another falsehood the media have been shoving down Americans' throats since Friday. As Fox reported Monday, President Bush had double the partners entering Iraq as Obama has on this Libya mission. But Schultz was on a roll, and he certainly wasn't going to let the truth interfere with his mission: SCHULTZ: I have always believed that Gaddafi was a terrorist. Let’s look at the tape again of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Do you need any more evidence? Has Gaddafi ever proven his innocence? […] I’m with the President on this one, and I think if it is defined the way he says it is, limited in scope, this actually could be a situation where we don’t hear from Gaddafi for a long, long time. Maybe so, but we haven't heard from Saddam Hussein for many years. I doubt Schultz sees that as a justification for that war. In fairness to Schultz, he did invite on guests Monday evening that were opposed to this move by Obama, in particular Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.) who reiterated his claim from earlier in the day that this could actually be an impeachable offense by the President. However, Schultz was resolute in his support even doing a segment later in the program wherein he rationalized the financial cost of the mission because it's a pittance of what we're spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. This of course assumed our roll ends as quickly as Obama and Schultz believe it will. Add it all up, and it sure was interesting watching this devout anti-war liberal sell this military action to his viewers. Appears to have worked, for his poll question Monday was, “Do you support military action against Libya?” At press time, almost 2/3 of respondents had said, “Yes.” Ed should be very proud of bringing that many anti-war liberals over to his way of thinking.
Continue reading …
Toronto’s Wine and Cheese Show 2011 CBC News: Montreal- CHEF CHUCK HUGHES Nadia G. and Chuck Hughes at South Beach Wine and Food Fest Chuck Hughes becomes the first Canadian chef to beat Bobby Flay on … Chuck Hughes , chef at Montreal restaurant Garde Manger, won Iron Chef America this past weekend, succeeding where few competitors have: Hughes beat culinary master Bobby Flay in the kitchen stadium battle, which featured a secret … Chuck Hughes becomes youngest Canadian chef to win Iron Chef title … Montreal-native and Food Network favourite Chef Chuck Hughes has been declared the youngest and second Canadian chef to win the title of Iron Chef, after an epic battle against Iron Chef Bobby Flay in an episode of Iron Chef America … CHUCK HUGHES BECOMES YOUNGEST CANADIAN CHEF TO WIN IRON CHEF TITLE … TORONTO, March 21 /CNW/ – Montreal-native and Food Network favourite Chef Chuck Hughes has been declared the youngest and second Canadian chef to win the title of Iron Chef, after an epic battle against Iron Chef Bobby Flay in an … Iron Chef America News: Chuck Hughes beats Bobby Flay on 'Iron Chef … CTV.ca Chuck Hughes beats Bobby Flay on ‘ Iron Chef America ‘ CTV.ca Montreal chef Chuck Hughes of TV’s ‘Chuck’s Day Off,’ left, and cooking superstar Bobby Flay on the set of ‘ Iron Chef America .’ TORONTO — Montreal chef Chuck Hughes … Montreal chef Chuck Hughes beats Bobby Flay on 'Iron Chef America … TORONTO – Montreal chef Chuck Hughes was torn when he saw Canadian lobster was the secret ingredient he had to use in his “Iron Chef America” battle against culinary superstar Bobby Flay. While lobster is a staple at his restaurant, … barhouma says: A new Iron Chef in our own backyard. Way to go @chucksdayoff http://bit.ly/e0jOGg
Continue reading …
“Dude, I was camping and forgot my spork — I almost starved!” “Oh, great. You opened the wine bottle but didn’t finish all the Grüner. How are we supposed to close it up again so the wine doesn’t spoil?” “I have a dining room full of brunch customers, dozens of eggs, and a pot of boiling water, but the egg poacher broke. Guess I have to send everybody home. Wait. You can poach eggs without an egg poacher? Shut up! Eggs Benedict for everyone!” Bet you hear stuff like that all the time, right? Yeah, sure. The fact is that as many essential inventions and discoveries as there have been in the world of food and drink throughout the eons (check out The Daily Meal’s picks for the 50 most important), there are just as many failed, pointless, and flat-out stupid culinary gadgets cluttering history’s kitchen drawers. You know them too well. You’ve seen these flimsy, plastic gadgets dice, splice, and not suffice on late-night television in between those infomercials for magic abs and sculpted thighs. In fact, you may have bought a few of the things before it dawned on you just how useless these one-trick phonies — uni-taskers, we call them — really were. Hey, we all make mistakes in the kitchen. As we took time to carefully identify and consider the 50 most important inventions (and discoveries) in food and drink, we couldn’t help but think about their opposites, too. We’re not necessarily talking about the dumbest kitchen inventions ever (though there are a few of those), but inventions that embody true mediocrity when it comes to culinary ingenuity — gadgets demonstrating, if nothing else, that it’s all about the art of the pitch, and that people will often happily purchase what they already own. Below, the 10 Food and Drink Inventions We Didn’t Need. – Arthur Bovino, The Daily Meal More from The Daily Meal: America’s Best Dive Bars 10 Best Apps for Hungry (and Thirsty) Travelers Kitchen Fantasies: High-End Equipment Late Night’s Culinary King: Jimmy Fallon’s Top 10 Culinary Moments The Best Ethnic Food Neighborhoods in America
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media I’m no fan of military intervention as you know, unless someone attacks us, and then it has to be deliberated intelligently. There are legitimate concerns surfacing from the left about this new action in Libya. James Fallows asks the important question: ‘What Happens Then?’ Indeed. Here’s part of Obama’s remarks on Libya during his Chile presser: “Our military actions are in support of an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Colonel Qadhafi on his people,” he says. (2:46 p.m.) Obama then says that the U.S. policy is that “Qadhafi needs to go.” He says, “We’ve got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy.” He then says the United States was “very rapid” in acting. “When it comes to military action, we are doing so in support of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973,” he says, “and we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate.” (2:47 p.m.) Stressing that other countries are involved in the attack on Libya, Obama says “there’s going to be a transition taking pace,” in which European countries and Arab League members will establish a no-fly zone. “We are one of the partners, among many, who are going to ensure that a no-fly zone is enforced,” he says. Obama then takes on the second part of the question — about being abroad while starting the attack. “Keep in mind that we are working on very short time frames,” he says. “We had done all the work. And it was just a matter of seeing how Qadhafi would respond to the warning on Friday.” “It was a matter of me directing Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen that the plan that had been developed in great detail prior to my departure was put in place,” he says. (2:50 p.m.) Answering the last part of the Libya question, President Obama says the Arab League’s involvement in the no-fly zone in Libya is “absolutely” part of the mission. “There are different phases to that campaign,” he says. “Keep in mind, we’ve only been in this process for two days now. … We are continuing to … evaluate the situation on the ground.” Obama repeats that Muammar Qadhafi “has lost his legitimacy.” President Obama is calling it a humanitarian effort. New polling is coming out, and surprisingly 70% of Americans support the “no-fly” zone, but there are other mixed signals being sent as well. There are several different questions in the poll. For instance, when CNN asked people about the establishment of a “no-fly zone”, and provided a fairly lengthy description of it, support registered 70 percent, up significantly from last week. But support dropped to 54 percent when CNN asked a more targeted question about about airborne attacks on Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. And there was strong opposition to any use of ground troops, which president Obama has pledged not to employ. My only hope is that there is a fairly quick resolution to the Libyan struggle. Do I realistically see that happening? No. Do I want to protect other people from genocide like Bosnia and Rwanda? Yes, I do, but we have to weigh events very carefully. On a political front, the president also needs a quick resolution because although there is support at this point; America likes winners. They’ve seen way too much incompetence and malfeasance in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by the Bush administration to be sympathetic for very long.
Continue reading …