Total Pageviews

Monday, 10 September 2012

WATCH: Former Navy SEAL Speaks To '60 Minutes' About Bin Laden Raid

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

WASHINGTON -- Former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette says SEALs raiding Osama bin Laden's Pakistan hideout last year shot him dead instead of capturing him because his arms were hidden and may have been holding weapons.

Appearing Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Bissonnette says one SEAL fired after seeing a man's head poking into a hallway. Bissonnette says he and another SEAL shot bin Laden again after finding him on his bedroom floor with a bullet in his skull, because bin Laden's hands were hidden.

That's more detail than was included in "No Easy Day," the newly released book Bissonnette wrote under the pseudonym Mark Owen.

Pentagon officials say bin Laden was only shot after fleeing into his bedroom, and have threatened legal action against Bissonnette for possible releases of classified information.


View the original article here

Peter S. Goodman: Who Gets To Decide The American Future?

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/">

From the remove of television, the most enlightening way to soak up the now-completed political conventions was to simply mute the sound, absorb the pictures and merely look at who was there.

This is not to slight the speeches, which were by turns stirring and clarifying. There was Paul Ryan articulating the modern-day Republican philosophy: Dismantle government and hand the spoils to people who own tennis courts! There was Bill Clinton offering a full-throated defense of collective action to address shared problems while laying out a crucial question: "What kind of country do you want to live in?"

But on your screen, in image alone, the two party gatherings delivered their own sharply contrasting answers to that question.

In Tampa, the Republicans looked like what they have become: a men's group for angry middle-aged white guys enraged by demographic change and inclined toward the politics of blame. Here was a besieged slice of America desperately seeking to maintain the privileges of a bygone era.

In Charlotte, the Democrats looked like what America has become: an often-disorganized, internally contradictory and above all racially diverse collection of people grappling with common troubles, like not enough paychecks, too many worries about bills to pay, and no reliable hold on middle-class basics like housing, health care, education and retirement. We saw military veterans in uniforms and professionals in suits; white, black, Hispanic and Asian Americans; gays and straights; Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus.

This contrast in optics was stark and meaningful, because this election confronts us with more than the question of what sort of country we want. At stake is no less than who gets the right to decide.

The circumstances of these times make this an election fraught with importance. The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression has been followed by a wholly unsatisfying "recovery" that has beggared the meaning of that academic jargon -- a reality only enhanced by Friday's crummy employment report. People without jobs have lost homes and are living in their cars. People with jobs often earn so little that they need food stamps and donated groceries to feed their families. Talk of middle-class decline may have become a cliché, yet the truth of this conversation seems to deepen by the day.

And yet, at a time when we should be debating how to reverse this decline and restore the traditional middle class bargain -- decent living standards in exchange for hard work -- we are instead having what feels like a referendum on the essential nature of American democracy and what sort of people should be entitled to participate.

The Republicans continue to deploy thinly veiled racial code to denigrate the nation's first African-American president as "not one of us," with "us" being the sort of people in abundance in Tampa: white, male and inclined to view those who require help from the government as morally degenerate parasites. This is the essential message of both the relentless questioning of Obama's American citizenship and the factually baseless claims that he wants to undo welfare reform.

All of which makes the mere spectacle of the conventions rich with pertinent information: To whom are these two competing parties speaking? What does their encapsulation of America look like?

Who was there matters, because the Republicans are trying to keep so many people away from the polls. They have a candidate who is widely and legitimately viewed as an aloof creature of privilege, a man who got rich by dismantling other people's creations, trading businesses and jobs like chips at a Monte Carlo casino table. His strategists understand keenly that if too many voices are heard on Election Day, if the balloting reflects the sentiments of a genuinely representative cross-section of the nation, their guy loses. He doesn't speak for a broad enough range of communities -- unless your version of diversity means owning both beach houses and ski chalets.

With this limitation in mind, the Republicans are doing everything in their power to limit turnout, and particularly among people who are not white and not relatively affluent. They are carpet-bombing battleground states with negative, racially divisive political advertisements that seem engineered to disgust large numbers of would-be voters, making people so beleaguered and turned off that they stay home.

In case mass-disseminated cynicism does not get the job done, the Republicans are also employing actual barriers to access, such as voter identification laws, crafted to bar minority and low-income people from voting. They are narrowing the window of early voting to limit turnout among students and people who work multiple jobs -- both core components of Obama's base.

The Republicans fear heavy minority and youth turnout because the party grasps that it is the real minority. It appeals to a narrow and aging slice of the electorate that seeks to preserve a bankrupt idea: the notion that government is for nanny state-loving losers, while free enterprise addresses all of life's problems.

It is a notion that serves two masters: wealthy people, for whom tax cuts amount to serious gobs of money, and corporations, which have exploited weak regulations to profit while harming the public.

The Democrats are hardly paragons of virtue. They are rife with corporate conflicts of interest themselves. Their rhetoric of concern for vulnerable people has often exceeded their action. (It was especially unpalatable to hear Clinton deliver such a cogent rebuke of the Republican plan to gut Medicaid by turning it into a program of limited block grants to the states: This is precisely what he did to welfare, and with predictably disastrous results.)

The Obama administration has failed to limit the foreclosure crisis by catering to the interests of giant banks, an area conspicuously absent from the president's speech at the convention.

But the president is at least speaking to the right people: virtually anyone who lives in America.
He is describing a nation governed by a spirit of inclusion. The people who gathered in Charlotte looked like that nation. In an election in which claims on American identity are themselves at issue, this is no small thing.


View the original article here

Nicholas Mirzoeff: Occupying Language: To Walk Asking Questions

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/">

This is the theme of a fascinating new book, Occupying Language, by Marina Sitrin and Dario Azzellini in the Occupied Media Pamphlet Series. The authors situate the present Occupy movement in the context of the insurgent movements in Latin America over the past quarter of a century. From this perspective, to occupy is to walk asking questions. And it's ok to get lost.

The authors develop their project in the colonial context suggested by the original meaning of occupation:

Language is not neutral, and words transport and express concepts and ways of thinking. They can consolidate and perpetuate hierarchies, domination and control just as they can underline equality and strengthen consciousness. Latin American struggles for dignity, freedom and liberation are rooted in more than five hundred years of resistance. Language derived from their struggles comes with historical antecedents.

The book goes on to describe concepts like Territory, Assembly and Rupture that translate easily, as well as more elusive and perhaps productive forms, such as política afectiva (˜affective politics), poder popular (˜popular power) and autogestión (˜collective democratic self management).

Each term is "openly defined" in a short sentence and then given living form in a piece of reportage of the authors own experience with the concept. The rest of the entry analyzes the use and meaning of the term.

Such fascination with language was a commonplace in the early days of Occupy. The word "occupy" was odds-on favorite to be chosen as the American Dialect Society's Word of the Year. And so it proved, with the citation arguing:

It's a very old word, but over the course of just a few months it took on another life and moved in new and unexpected directions, thanks to a national and global movement. The movement itself was powered by the word.

In this project I also undertook a decolonial genealogy of the word. So it's renewing to see how much energy can still be generated by an attention to the politics of language, now that everyone is "over" Occupy and wishes we would just go away.

Sitrin and Azzellini's book reinforces some of my own thoughts about our present direction. We know, for example, that many mainstream reporters will declare S17 a failure because there will not have been a new Occupation, even though we no longer intend to do so. Sitrin and Azzellini point out that the global movements have all gone through:

a process of reterritorialization... after a few months... Thus, around the world there has been a shift into neighborhoods and workplaces, to focus on local needs yet at the same time come together to co-ordinate.

Whether because of anxieties about the presidential election, or because people still harbored hopes for a more thorough-going transformation, we've not paid enough attention to this process and not given it a high enough value. For Sitrin and Azzellini, the project is one of:

Caminar Preguntando (To walk asking questions)... [M]ultiple histories that help create multiple open-ended paths.

This walk leads us into what Benjamin called "a secret rendezvous between past generations and our own." For Anglo readers, we might understand this as a decentering and decolonial vantage point on the history of the present as understood by those who have been colonized for five centuries.

There are many moments that resonate in this slim volume. One that caught my eye was the discussion of política afectiva. The term came out of the post-2000 autonomous movements in Argentina, meaning "a movement based in love." This was no easy sell in a place like Buenos Aires, as Toty Flores from the Unemployed Workers Movement recalls:

Imagine being in a neighborhood like La Matanza, which is full of really tough men, men who have lived, and still live, a violent macho life, and we're talking about new loving relationships. No, it isn't easy, not even to talk about, let alone practice. This is part of our changing culture, and as we change, we notice how much we really need to.

I was reminded of a visit I had the chance to make to FOMMA, a performance space and center in San Cristobal, Chiapas, where Maya women have used performance to educate their community about domestic violence. Such spaces are amazingly empowering and inspiring, however local their project.

Sitrin and Azzellini remind us that too often such transformative projects are written off as being "identity" or "gender" issues, unlike the "real" economic or class issues. They riposte:

Responsibility for the other and solidarity are basic conditions of a future society not grounded in capitalist principles.

OWS once knew that very well. There are days where I worry that the focus on confrontational direct action, arrests and civil disobedience seemingly for its own sake rather than as an articulation of a wider idea, has allowed us to forget it somewhat.

When we talk of Democracia Real Ya! that is what we mean. Anti-capitalism, this book reminds us, is a politics of walking and of love.

Sometimes, as Rebecca Solnit has taught us, when you walk you get lost. And she suggests that's a good thing, a way to let go of our hyper-disciplined OCD selves and wandering to wonder. That might be where we are now.


2012-09-10-OccupyingLanguage.jpeg

Originally posted on NicholasMirzoeff.com.


View the original article here

Fired Up Obama Fundraising Tops Romney In August

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

WASHINGTON -- The reelection campaign of Barack Obama is back in the lead on the fundraising front after raising $114 million in August. The total, which is a combination of funds raised by the campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Obama's victory committee, exceeds the $111.6 million the Romney campaign said that they raised in combination with the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Romney Victory for the same time period. This marks the first time since the Romney campaign and the RNC started raising money together that the Obama team has beaten them in monthly fundraising.

"The key to fighting back against the special interests writing limitless checks to support Mitt Romney is growing our donor base, and we did substantially in the month of August," Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement. "Fueled by contributions from more than 1.1 million Americans donating an average of $58 -- more than 317,000 who had never contributed to the campaign before -- we raised a total of more than $114 million. That is a critical downpayment on the organization we are building across the country -- the largest grassroots campaign in history."

The fundraising jump could help to put to rest a discussion that has occurred throughout the campaign about how the president is falling short in his fundraising, with the Romney camp's recent heavy fundraising seen as the latest evidence. The stated concern is that Obama is not meeting the fundraising record set in his first run for office in 2008 -- or the $1 billion campaign that officials in, or close to, his campaign allegedly once predicted.

The problem with these assertions -- which have circulated through blogs and news sites -- is that they've been wrong throughout the entire campaign. There is a chance that Obama will match the record $750 million that he raised for his campaign committee in 2008. That depends on the amounts the campaign raises in September and October. (It also depends on the breakdown of the $114 million raised in August and how much is for the campaign itself.)

One thing that is certain, Romney's campaign committee will not come close to reaching $750 in campaign receipts -- assuring that he will not be the "best-funded candidate ever." (Romney would have to raise $500 million for his campaign from August through October, or $200 million more than Obama raised during the same time in 2008.)

In fact, no matter how you slice the funds raised by the two candidates, Obama remains the leader, although Romney made up a lot of ground over the summer. Obama is way ahead when we just consider funds raised by the candidate's campaign committees and significantly leads when including the party committees. The most generous comparison, and the one that includes the just released, although not officially reported, August numbers shows that Obama, the DNC and his two victory committees have raised $689 million since April 2011, while Romney, the RNC and his victory committee have raised $613 million.

While each fundraising month is important, September will be the key month to watch in the post-public financing world. In 2008, Obama raised a record $150 million, for his campaign alone, and $192 million, when including funds raised by the DNC. Can either Obama or Romney match that amount?

The only indicator currently available is a push by the Obama campaign to get 600,000 grassroots donations during the Democratic National Convention week. By the end of Friday, at midnight, the campaign had received 700,000 donations. If those donations come in at the average $58 amount that the campaign has consistently raised then, in one week, they would have raised $40 million, solely from contributions received online.

On Romney's side, the August numbers could be seen as a let down. Raising $111.6 million is impressive, but it isn't much higher than his previous two months despite August including big events like his choice of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate and the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. These events should help with fundraising, but they appear to have had minimal impact in August.


View the original article here

Why Christina Hendricks Is Going To A Fetish Club For Ryan Gosling

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

Hey girl: According to Christina Hendricks, Ryan Gosling did not say "hey girl" to the "Mad Men" star when pitching his new movie.

"I don't think he said 'Hey girl,'" Hendricks told Vulture when asked about her involvement in "How to Catch a Monster."

The film, which is set to start shooting next spring, marks Gosling's directorial debut. He wrote the script as well and hired Hendricks to play the lead after working with her in "Drive."

"There's no one really like her. She's very meticulous about every detail," he said last year during the production of "Drive."

As previously reported, "How to Catch a Monster" is a "modern-day fairytale," with Hendricks playing a single mother who gets "swept into a macabre and dark fantasy underworld while her teenage son discovers a secret road leading to an underwater town." In the film, Hendricks' character works at a club -- but not a strip club.

"Fetish club," she told Vulture. "Fetish club."

For more on Hendricks' involvement with Gosling's "How to Catch a Monster," head over to Vulture.

[via Vulture]


View the original article here

A Tale Of Two Jennifer Lawrences

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

Jennifer Lawrence had plenty of costume changes in The Hunger Games book and movie -- who could forget the infamous 'flaming' outfits that her character Katniss and co-tribute Peeta wore to make their public debut? Hard to top in real life, perhaps, but these days, the actress's star is burning pretty brightly.

So it's little wonder so many eyes are on Lawrence at this year's Toronto International Film Festival. The actress is in the city promoting two films, 'Silver Lining Playbook' alongside powerhouse actor Robert De Niro, and 'The Place Beyond The Pines,' featuring powerhouse-in-training Ryan Gosling, among others. What does one wear alongside such A-listers?

The young star has opted for two markedly different red-carpet looks so far: On Friday, she wore a short, patterned blue lace dress with a short, layered skirt, looking every inch the ingenue with her hair in a casual, wavy updo.

On Saturday, the star went for a much more dramatic strapless floor-length gown, with a tie-dyed multicoloured pattern. Her formerly carefree hair was straightened and worn long and unadorned.

Which look do you think Cinna would approve of?

Lawrence's Friday look:

jennifer lawrence tiff 2012 blue

Lawrence's Saturday look:

jennifer lawrence tiff 2012 red

More celeb style from TIFF 2012:


View the original article here

Emma Watson Reps A Kate Middleton Fave!

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

Don't you love when a star visits your home turf wearing a local designer? We do -- it hints that the star (or her stylist) is paying attention to and cares about supporting local names.

So if Canadians didn't love Emma Watson enough for her Harry Potter pedigree or her transition from child star to young ingenue via mod pixie cut, they can feel warm and fuzzy about the fact she landed on the Toronto Film Festival red carpet wearing a creation by a Canadian-born designer.

Watson, 22, attended the premiere of her new film, 'The Perks Of Being A Wallflower,' in a boldly patterned dress from Erdem's pre-spring 2013 collection. She had all kinds of current trends happening, with lace and floral patterns in her ensemble, and a braided updo (no more pixie cut!).

Royal watchers may remember that the Duchess formerly known as Kate Middleton started her first royal visit to Canada in a blue and white lace dress that won raves from Canadians and fashionistas alike. Erdem Moralioglu is a Montreal-born designer who studied fashion in Toronto. His brand is based in London, and Watson has been spotted in his designs before.

We're digging this fresh look on the actress formerly known as Hermione -- check it out below: what do you think?

emma watson tiff 2012

Check out all the stars' style at TIFF!


View the original article here