The Gaîté Lyrique, Paris’s newest theatre, is a marriage of past and future so bold it takes the breath away. Jonathan Glancey explores a temple of technology and art Everyone knows appearances can be deceptive, but the newly renovated Théâtre de la Gaîté Lyrique in central Paris takes the Bourbon biscuit. From the outside, it seems as conservative as any French arts institution. Built in 1862, its slightly pompous facade makes it every
Continue reading …
Speculation is rife about the design of the royal wedding dress, and for Kate Moss’s ‘big day’ too, but it’s all idle rumour There has been a lot of coverage of which designers Kate Moss and Kate Middleton have chosen to design their wedding dresses. But is any of this speculation reliable? Sonia, by email Truly, ’tis the summer of “the Wedding Dress of Kate M”. Let’s start with the Middleton, a young woman who is currently discovering that vitriol truly does abhor a vacuum. Thus, even if you dress as much like a middle-aged woman as a twentysomething can, and you lose so much weight that no one can take unflattering photos of your thighs, the Daily Wail will then spew cackling vitriol about how you are now, in fact, too thin (the line between being too thin and too fat for a woman in Daily Mail-land is so fine as to be nonexistent and may, in fact, be the Atlantis of body shapes.) At some unspecified point, in some secret location, a cabal of fashion editors decided that they would, as one, proclaim that Sarah Burton, the designer for Alexander McQueen, would create Middleton’s wedding dress, even though Kate has never been – shall we say – adventurous in her choice of fashion and Burton’s last
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Is anyone else as tired of this sort of bloviating from the likes of Lindsey Graham? He and his BFF’s McCain and Lieberman have been pushing for weeks now for us to get involved in Libya and now that they’ve gotten their wish, the carping continues. Heaven forbid we got an actual coalition together before going in there. We can’t have that or other countries might think we’re “weak.” Hey Lindsey, maybe it’s because our military is already overextended and that’s putting it mildly. Just how many tours of duty do you think those soldiers should be doing before they’re allowed to go home? God I’m so sick and tired of this cowboy, go it alone, war mongering chest beating out of neocons. And as I wrote in my other posts on this, of course there was not a single mention of how we’re going to pay for this when the Republicans keep saying the country is ‘broke.” Chris Wallace was terribly concerned about our budget not long ago but today that topic seemed to elude him. Amazing how that works isn’t it? The only jobs program our politicians seem to think we can afford is the one that keeps our military industrial complex going. Transcript via Fox News . WALLACE: Joining us now are two leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. From his home state of South Carolina, Republican Lindsey Graham, and here in the studio, Democrat Jack Reed. Senator Graham, let me start with you. What do you think of the military operation in Libya so far and the support role that the U.S. is going to be playing? GRAHAM: Well, I’m glad we are finally doing something. We — I don’t know how many people have died as we wait to do something. Thank God for strong women in the Obama administration. I don’t know what finally got the president to act, but I’m very worried that we’re taking the backseat rather than a leadership role. The British and the French have been great. Prime Minister Cameron said this action is necessary, legal and right. President Obama is talking about limited action of days. Qaddafi is not the legitimate leader of Libya. He is an international criminal. He should be investigated by Attorney General Holder for actions in Pan Am. We should isolate this regime. We should order all troops back to their garrison. We should knock out his radio and TV ability to communicate with his own people. We shouldn’t pay Qaddafi’s forces any money when it comes to Libyan oil. Isolate, strangle and replace this man — that should be our goal. WALLACE: So, I just want to make clear I understand — are you saying that the problem is the definition of the mission or the fact that we’re letting the French and the British take the lead? GRAHAM: The definition of the mission, we used to relish leading the free world. Now, it’s almost like leading the free leader is an inconvenience. I want to be a good partner. I want the Arab world, young Arabs and young Iranians, see us as a strong, effective partner for their hope and dreams of being free. And I think the president caveated this way too much, it’s almost like it’s a nuisance. This is a great opportunity to replace a tyrannical dictator who is not a legitimate leader, who is an international crook. And we should seize the moment and talk about replacing him, not talking about how limited we will be. WALLACE: We are running out of time and I want to talk about a couple of other things. But let me get to this, Senator Graham. Do you think you can negotiate Muammar Qaddafi out of power? GRAHAM: No, I think he should be branded for what he is. I think our government should investigate the role he played in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. I think he’s an international criminal. We should isolate his regime, as Jack said. We should knock off his radio and TV stations. Any military units in Libya that come to his aid should be destroyed. We should not pay him or anybody on his side of the ledger any oil money. And let me just put it simply; this is the best chance to get rid of Qaddafi in my life. If we don’t get rid of him, we will pay a heavy price down the road. The Obama administration owns Libya with Qaddafi. Get rid of this man. Don’t be uncertain in your statements. Be bold. Be effective. Work with the international community. Replace this international outlaw sooner rather than later. WALLACE: Let me take you to a couple of other quick issues — and I’m going ask you both to be brief about it. Senator Graham, President Obama went to the U.N. Security Council to get approval, authorization for this use of force. Should he go to Congress? GRAHAM: I don’t believe he needs to come to Congress. I’d gladly vote on what he did. I think it’s inherent within the authority of the commander-in-chief to take such action. We have been overly cautious, unnervingly indecisive. This thing melted down. I wish we would have acted sooner. I don’t feel a need to bless this action before he took it. I’d be glad to vote on it afterwards. One word of caution; the U.N. Security Council has not been used every time we’ve had force. If you are going to take the freedom agenda and turn it over to the Russians and the Chinese, that would be a huge mistake. I’m glad we have international support but I don’t want the model to be that you have to go to the U.N. to deal with tyranny. Those Russians and China are going to be less than friendly to getting rid of dictators, because in many ways, there are countries run by dictators. WALLACE: Finally, we have a minute left. And we are taking this action ostensibly to prevent Qaddafi from brutally attacking — repressing and killing his civilians, protesters in his country. Meanwhile, our allies in Yemen and in Bahrain, they have been doing the same to protesters in their country. In fact, 47 were killed by the government in Yemen on Friday. Question — each of you have 30 seconds. Senator Graham, should we be intervening in those countries? They are all our allies. But should we be intervening? GRAHAM: We should stop the — we should push back against using live ammunition against people who are protesting. This whole deterioration in the Mideast is because of indecisive leadership. The people in Yemen and Bahrain do not believe there’s a downside of shooting their own people because we let Qaddafi come back and get stronger not weaker. So, if we deal with Qaddafi decisively, we’ll have better leverage in Bahrain and Yemen, and the Iranians will think twice. But if we don’t deal with him decisively, all hell is going to break loose in the Mideast because nobody is going to follow a weak America.
Continue reading …
Secularist organisations claim data is used to justify religious privilege in state policy on public services Humanists have attacked the religion question in the 2011 census for being “fatally flawed” because it is “highly misleading” and does not help with the planning of public services. In a British Humanist Association poll, 61% of 1,896 adults in England and Wales said they belonged to a religious denomination or body. When asked in a subsequent question if they were religious, only 29% of the same people said yes. It also showed that 48% of the people interviewed who said they were Christian believed that Jesus was a person. Asked how often they went to a place of worship for religious reasons, 63% of respondents said they had not done so in the past year, while 20% said they had never visited a place of worship for religious reasons. The BHA poll comes days ahead of the 2011 census on March 27, which has estimated costs of £480m and a workforce of 35,000. Secularists and humanists oppose the voluntary question on religion – featured for the first time in the 2001 census – because they claim the data is used to “justify” religious privilege in state policy on public services. Today BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said its poll was “further evidence” the census data was “highly misleading” because it gave an inaccurate representation of religiosity in the UK. “We urge people who do not want to give continuing or even greater importance to unshared religions in our public life to tick ‘No Religion’ in the census.” Earlier this month its census campaign posters were banned from railway stations because the slogan – “If you’re not religious, for God’s sake say so” – was deemed likely to cause serious and widespread offence. “We used to tick ‘Christian’ but we’re not really religious. We’ll tick ‘No Religion’ this time. We’re sick of hearing politicians say this is a religious country and giving millions to religious organisations and the pope’s state visit. Money like that should go where it is needed,” says one of the banned posters. The ban, initiated by companies that own advertising space in stations, followed advice from the Advertising Standards Authority. Religion Census Riazat Butt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Catalogue is designed to help reunite stolen art and precious objects with their rightful owners Spanish police have published a catalogue of recovered stolen art and precious objects in the hope of reuniting them with their rightful owners. Among the items retrieved during raids are six Picasso pieces from 1933 titled Cardinal Sins, each in its own silver frame. Other pieces featured in the catalogue include an Etruscan bronze sculpture estimated by police to be 2,000 years old, jewellery made of gold, diamonds and emeralds, Roman coins, and a 17th-century tapestry depicting the Battle of the Granicus, at which Alexander the Great defeated the Persian Empire. AP Madrid Spain Europe Art theft Art guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Commanders brace for backlash of anti-US sentiment that could be more damaging than after the Abu Ghraib scandal Commanders in Afghanistan are bracing themselves for possible riots and public fury triggered by the publication of “trophy” photographs of US soldiers posing with the dead bodies of defenceless Afghan civilians they killed. Senior officials at Nato’s International Security Assistance Force in Kabul have compared the pictures published by the German news weekly Der Spiegel to the images of US soldiers abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib in Iraq which sparked waves of anti-US protests around the world. They fear that the pictures could be even more damaging as they show the aftermath of the deliberate murders of Afghan civilians by a rogue US Stryker tank unit that operated in the southern province of Kandahar last year. Some of the activities of the self-styled “kill team” are already public, with 12 men currently on trial in Seattle for their role in the killing of three civilians. Five of the soldiers are on trial for pre-meditated murder, after they staged killings to make it look like they were defending themselves from Taliban attacks. Other charges include the mutilation of corpses, the possession of images of human casualties and drug abuse. All of the soldiers have denied the charges. They face the death penalty or life in prison if convicted. The case has already created shock around the world, particularly with the revelations that the men cut “trophies” from the bodies of the people they killed. An investigation by Der Spiegel has unearthed approximately 4,000 photos and videos taken by the men. The magazine, which is planning to publish only three images, said that in addition to the crimes the men were on trial for there are “also entire collections of pictures of other victims that some of the defendants were keeping”. The US military has strived to keep the pictures out of the public domain fearing it could inflame feelings at a time when anti-Americanism in Afghanistan is already running high. In a statement, the army said it apologised for the distress caused by photographs “depicting actions repugnant to us as human beings and contrary to the standards and values of the United States”. The lengthy Spiegel article that accompanies the photographs contains new details about the sadistic behaviour of the men. In one incident in May last year, the article says, during a patrol, the team apprehended a mullah who was standing by the road and took him into a ditch where they made him kneel down. The group’s leader, Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, then allegedly threw a grenade at the man while an order was given for him to be shot. Afterwards, Gibbs is described cutting off one of the man’s little fingers and removing a tooth. The patrol team later claimed to their superiors that the mullah had tried to threaten them with a grenade and that they had no choice but to shoot. Last night many organisations employing foreign staff, including the United Nations, ordered their staff into a “lockdown”, banning all movements around Kabul and requiring people to remain in their compounds. In addition to the threat from the publication of the photographs, security has been heightened amid fears the Taliban may try to attack Persian new year celebrations. Tomorrow could also attract attacks because Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, is due to make a speech declaring which areas of the country should be transferred from international to Afghan control in the coming months. One security manager for the US company DynCorp sent an email to clients warning that publication of the photos was likely “to incite the local population” as the “severity of the incidents to be revealed are graphic and extreme”. Afghanistan Nato US foreign policy United States Jon Boone guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Don’t Let Nuclear Explosions Dissuade You, America NEEDS "Clean" Nuclear Power
March 20, 2011 No CommentWhat’s a little irradiation amongst the little people ? Democrats and Republicans agree: the explosions at the Japanese nuclear power plants should not dissuade us from developing “clean” nuclear power. How reassuring. In fact, Republican Jeff Sessions is so eager for energy independence that he blames the Obama administration for not authorizing more of those deep water drilling permits for the Gulf. Because, you know, that’s worked so well for us before . And since when is drilling for petroleum in a fragile eco-system somehow pursuing “clean” energy? I do not think it means what he thinks it means. It’s a long way from Carl Levin calling for a moratorium on nuclear power plant development as a freshman Senator because of the accident at Three Mile Island to assuring us that it’s important to pursue nuclear energy as a clean energy. I’m sorry, but I know that nuclear plants don’t create the emissions of coal plants, but can we call a moratorium on calling nuclear power “clean”? There are no “safe” power plants–no matter what Levin or Kerry say. One accident, one natural disaster and suddenly, safety and “clean” energy take on MUCH different definitions. I have an idea: how about each of these politicians willing to put all their eggs in a nuclear power basket (“Europe” may look to nuclear power, but Denmark–which I believe is still very much a part of Europe–is on the forefront of green energy development ), rather than advocating for truly sustainable energy and innovation be given lovely waterfront homes right next to the power plants? If they’re so confident in the ability of the companies to keep the plants safe, let’s see them be in the zone.
Continue reading …Andrew Sullivan: ‘I Don’t Know Why Anybody Voted for Obama in the Primaries – It’s a Clintonian Mess’
March 20, 2011 No Comment
The far-left in America are having a collective conniption fit over President Obama's decision to attack Libya. Included in the wolf pack is the Atlantic magazine's Andrew Sullivan who despite his preposterous claims of being a conservative appeared on “The Chris Matthews Show” this weekend and said, “I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries…[now] we have this politicized Clintonian mess” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Was the President wrong initially to say Gaddafi must go, getting in so far ahead of everybody? ANDREW SULLIVAN, THE ATLANTIC: Well, I don’t think it’s wrong for a President of the United States to issue an opinion about some madman like Gaddafi. I do think that the American public might have been consulted before the United States goes to war. I mean, we now got, you know, the President tells people after the fact? I mean, you know, we go into a Middle Eastern country, we don’t know the consequences, it’s been hatched by Hillary and McCain. I mean, what could go wrong? [Laughter] SULLIVAN: I mean, when you think about it. And I think it, I’m just, I’m just, I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries. I mean this is a, this, this initiative, this, this, this no-fly zone, this war essentially, is, is a Hillary-McCain concept. A few minutes later, when the discussion changed to whether or not Obama will push for Social Security reform, Sullivan said he didn’t think so, and continued with this same theme: SULLIVAN: Look, we, people who voted for this guy wanted him to let the old politics go. MATTHEWS: Transformational president. SULLIVAN: Wanted him to actually tell us the truth about this stuff and to do the right thing. And that was the appeal of Obama. And two years later, we have this politicized Clintonian mess. Actually, that wasn't the appeal of Obama. That was the lie that he and his media minions including Sullivan dishonestly sold to the American people. If there had been any truth in reporting after the junior senator from Illinois tossed his name into the ring in February 2007, he wouldn't have had a prayer against Hillary. But people like Sullivan bought into the hope and change dream the Obama campaign created and assisted him in pulling the wool over the eyes of enough registered Democrats to beat someone with far more qualifications. Now that the curtain is being pulled back to expose who and what the wizard is, people like Sullivan are so disappointed they feel they need to point fingers at him. However, if they had acted like journalists rather than sycophantic teenyboppers, maybe we'd have someone in the White House right now better suited to handle the many crises facing the nation.
Continue reading …David Gregory Asks About Humanitarian Double Standard Justifying Libyan Attacks but Not How We Can Afford it
March 20, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media David Gregory did actually ask Admiral Mike Mullen about the double standard we have when it comes to justifying our military getting involved in Libya’s civil war, but ignoring what’s going on in Bahrain. What he failed to ask him about is how we can afford to be starting another war when as John Boehner says, “We’re broke.” If we can’t afford to pay our teachers and trash collectors and firefighters, where are we getting the money to drop more bombs on people’s heads? True to form, Gregory didn’t mention it. GREGORY: Is this in our vital interest as a country? MULLEN: It’s– I think the President’s made it very clear that– our national interests– are tied to a country that is so close– to us– in the Mediterranean, that borders Egypt– and Tunisia, two countries that are also undergoing significant change as we speak. And– and clearly the focus on the humanitarian piece– in terms of– someone who has massacred his people in the past and preventing that. In that regard it is. GREGORY: But there are also questions about the double standard here. Why do we make a move on Libya and yet in Bahrain where Saudis send troops in to help a monarchy we stand back? MULLEN: Well, again, this mission is very focused– on– on Libya. And we’re payin’ a lot of attention to what’s goin’ on in Bahrain and– and in the Persian Gulf as well. And the other thing is each one of these countries– I think is different. We’ve tried to focus on it in a different way. We’ve had a great friendship with Bahrain for– for many, many decades so– we’ve got– one of our main Naval base– bases are there. And– we’re workin’ hard to– to support that in a way. To certainly– see a peaceful outcome there in terms of how it evolves when– the Bahraini people are asking for change as well.
Continue reading …David Gregory Asks About Humanitarian Double Standard Justifying Libyan Attacks but Not How We Can Afford it
March 20, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media David Gregory did actually ask Admiral Mike Mullen about the double standard we have when it comes to justifying our military getting involved in Libya’s civil war, but ignoring what’s going on in Bahrain. What he failed to ask him about is how we can afford to be starting another war when as John Boehner says, “We’re broke.” If we can’t afford to pay our teachers and trash collectors and firefighters, where are we getting the money to drop more bombs on people’s heads? True to form, Gregory didn’t mention it. GREGORY: Is this in our vital interest as a country? MULLEN: It’s– I think the President’s made it very clear that– our national interests– are tied to a country that is so close– to us– in the Mediterranean, that borders Egypt– and Tunisia, two countries that are also undergoing significant change as we speak. And– and clearly the focus on the humanitarian piece– in terms of– someone who has massacred his people in the past and preventing that. In that regard it is. GREGORY: But there are also questions about the double standard here. Why do we make a move on Libya and yet in Bahrain where Saudis send troops in to help a monarchy we stand back? MULLEN: Well, again, this mission is very focused– on– on Libya. And we’re payin’ a lot of attention to what’s goin’ on in Bahrain and– and in the Persian Gulf as well. And the other thing is each one of these countries– I think is different. We’ve tried to focus on it in a different way. We’ve had a great friendship with Bahrain for– for many, many decades so– we’ve got– one of our main Naval base– bases are there. And– we’re workin’ hard to– to support that in a way. To certainly– see a peaceful outcome there in terms of how it evolves when– the Bahraini people are asking for change as well.
Continue reading …