Tuesday, December 18, 2007

First Jewish President of the US?

I was listening to talk radio the other day when the host made a comment about how George Allen could have been the Republican front runner for pres in '08 had he not made his "Makaka" comment so early. Apparently he was one of the first to come out against immigration but his timing was off since it had not gained the momentum in 2006 that it now has with American voters. And had he not gaffed maybe he could have been president thus making him the first Jewish president of the US. You see even though he didn't know it till last year but his mother was born Jewish and in the Jewish religion as the mother goes so goes the children. Lets take a trip down memory lane back to Sept 2006.

Allen's Mother Revealed Jewish Heritage to Him Last Month
By
Michael D. ShearWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, September 21, 2006; Page A01
RICHMOND, Sept. 20 -- Henrietta "Etty" Allen said Wednesday that she concealed her upbringing as a Jew in North Africa from her children, including Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), until a conversation across the dining room table in late August.
She said Allen asked her directly about his Jewish heritage when he was in Los Angeles for a fundraiser. "We sat across the table and he said, 'Mom, there's a rumor that Pop-pop and Mom-mom were Jewish and so were you,' " she recalled, a day after Allen issued a statement acknowledging and embracing his Jewish roots as he campaigns for a second term in the U.S. Senate.
At the table in Palos Verdes, Calif., Allen's mother, who is 83, said she told her son the truth: That she had been raised as a Jew in Tunisia before moving to the United States. She said that she and the senator's father, famed former Redskins coach George Allen, had wanted to protect their children from living with the fear that she had experienced during World War II. Her father, Felix Lumbroso, was imprisoned by the Nazis during the German occupation of Tunis.
"What they put my father through. I always was fearful," Etty Allen said in a telephone interview. "I didn't want my children to have to go through that fear all the time. When I told Georgie, I said, 'Now you don't love me anymore.' He said, 'Mom, I respect you more than ever.' "
Allen's heritage became an issue in the Virginia Senate campaign Monday, when television reporter Peggy Fox raised it at a televised debate in front of 600 business executives in Fairfax County. Allen repeated what he has said in the past: "My mother's French-Italian with a little Spanish blood in her. And I was raised as she was, as far as I know, raised as a Christian."
In fact, Allen had just recently learned about their Jewish roots when he made those comments. Allen declined to comment, but his mother said she had sworn him to secrecy.
"I said, well, I just didn't want anyone to know," she explained. "I had said, 'Please don't tell your brothers and sister and your wife.' The fact this is such an issue justifies my actions, and my behavior."
For Allen, the 2006 campaign was supposed to have been a coronation -- an easy reelection to a second term in the Senate and a springboard to national prominence and a possible presidential campaign in 2008. Instead, the last six weeks have become a nightmare for his political consultants and a source of material for late-night comedians.
And for the past three days, he has been forced to deal publicly with a very private matter.
Allen's Jewish heritage has been a subject of low-level political speculation for years, in part because the former governor and first-term senator often refers to his grandfather's incarceration by the Nazis in political speeches. But Allen has always said Lumbroso was a member of the Free French resistance movement and insisted that he and his mother were raised as Christians.
Fox has said her question was prompted by an article in a Jewish newspaper that had explored his heritage last month.
"You've been quoted as saying your mother's not Jewish, but it had been reported her father, your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish," Fox asked Allen. "Could you please tell us whether your forebearers include Jews, and if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?"

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Good Muslim News!

JEWS' SUBWAY HERO A MUSLIM

SAVES 'HANUKKAH' RIDERS FROM THUGS

By JENNIFER FERMINO, ERIKA MARTINEZ and PETER COX

GOOD FAITH: Bruised new friends (from left): rescuer Hassan Askari, beating victim Walter Adler, and Adler's gal pal, Maria Parsheva, in Brooklyn yesterday.
GOOD FAITH: Bruised new friends (from left): rescuer Hassan Askari, beating victim Walter Adler, and Adler's gal pal, Maria Parsheva, in Brooklyn yesterday.
PreviousPauseNext
Hanukkah Holy War
PrintEmailDigg ItRedditPermalinkStory Bottom

December 12, 2007 -- A Brooklyn man whose "Happy Hanukkah" greeting landed him in the hospital said he was saved from a gang of Jew-bashing goons aboard a packed Q train by a total stranger - a modest Muslim from Bangladesh.

PHOTOS: See pictures of the alleged suspects.

Walter Adler was touched that Hassan Askari jumped to his aid while a group of thugs allegedly pummeled and taunted him and his three friends. So Adler has invited his new friend over to celebrate the Festival of Lights.

The two new pals - Adler, 23, with a broken nose and a fat lip, and Askari, 20, with two black eyes - broke bread together and laughed off the bruises the night after the fisticuffs.

"A random Muslim guy jumped in and helped a Jewish guy on Hanukkah - that's a miracle," said Adler, an honors student at Hunter College.

"He's basically a hero. Hassan jumped in to help us."

But Askari, who is studying to be an accountant, shrugged off the praise.

"I just did what I had to do," he recalled. "My parents raised me that way."

Ten people were arrested in the underground attack on Friday night - including two men who have been arrested for race crimes before.

None of the suspects had been charged with a hate crime in the Q train attack as of last night, but the Brooklyn DA's Civil Rights Bureau is handling the case.

It all began when Adler, his girlfriend, Maria Parsheva, and two other pals boarded the subway at Canal Street bound for Brooklyn and someone in another group wished them "Merry Christmas."

Adler and his pal Angelica Krischanovich responded: "Happy Hanukkah."

Apparently, those were fighting words.

"They just came at us so fast. The first thing that came into my mind was, 'Yeah, this is going to be violent,' " said Parsheva, 20.

One of the group immediately hiked up his sleeve to reveal a tattoo of Christ.

"He said, 'Happy Hanukkah, that's when the Jews killed Jesus,' " said Adler.

The group of about 14 men and women then allegedly began taunting Adler and his pals as "dirty Jews" and "Jew bitches."

Amid a huge scrum, Askari jumped in.

"I'm bleeding all over the place, there's lots of people, they're fighting with Hassan still, and I'm like, why isn't anyone else doing anything?" Adler said.

He pulled the emergency brake right before entering the DeKalb Avenue station.

Police came aboard and arrested 10 people, charging six with assault and four with unlawful assembly.

One of those collared straphangers yesterday denied making anti-Semitic taunts and said his mother is Jewish.

Joseph Jirovec, 19 - the son of a city firefighter who is currently serving in Iraq - has pleaded guilty to a 2005 bias crime against blacks.

"We are not racist against Jewish people. That whole hate-crime thing is ridiculous," the Brooklyn man said.

He claims Adler's group was drunk and taunted his group, and one yelled, "We killed Jesus."

Jirovec will soon begin serving six months for his role in the attack against four men in Gerritsen Beach.

"I'm trying to stay out of trouble," he said. "When I get out, I want to go into the military."

Additional reporting by Sandra Hurley and Tatiana Deligiannakis

jennifer.fermino@nypost.com

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Rabbi responds to my email


I posted this blog a few weeks back "Churchill was Jewish? or The Day the Rabbi Screwed Up" and sent an email to the Rabbi for comment. Here is what he said:

"Shalom
I posted that page without vetting every assertion in it. I looked up the three you mention.

Cary Grant – There is an entirely unsubstantiated rumor that Archibald Leach (Cary Grant’s real name) was born to a Jewish seamstress who worked in his father’s factory and that his mother, Elsie, raised him as her own.

David Bowie seems to have had a Jewish or half-Jewish mother but apparently there was nothing of Judaism in his upbringing. One article I looked at said he has an interest in Kabbalah as part of a general interest in mysticism.

Robert deNiro – His mother was not Jewish but may have had some Jewish ancestry.

I found these things out using Google (e.g., “Robert deniro Jewish mother”) There was a lot of conjecture, some Nazi conspiracy theories, and obvious repition of rumors. One site that looked more accurate is http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_jewish_catholics.html (with some good links).

It’s really nice to know someone actually reads my blog. Maybe I should pay more attention to it. "


L'shalom,
Rabbi Philip J. Bentley
Agudas Israel Synagogue
Hendersonville NC

Chinese Food on Christmas

Monday, December 10, 2007

Please Draft Gore..He sold out Lieberman and will sell you out as well











Gore used Lieberman when he thought it would get him the Jewish vote

but as soon as Lieberman wanted to run for Pres Gore showed him the same support as Europe showed the Jews thru history. Use them and lose them. Gore did not support Lieberman's Presidential run, and in December 2003 endorsed Howard Dean's candidacy, saying "This is about all of us and all of us need to get behind the strongest candidate."

Nothing would make the democratic race more interesting than to put Gore back where now he doesn't want to be.
You see Gore makes more money not being President than he would sitting in the Oval office. He is on the boards of companies like Microsoft and Google and has several tens of millions of dollars worth of stock for that honor but if he were to run for President he could no longer be on those boards as that would be a conflict of interest. He would not be able to do his speaking tours or book tours. It is much better for him to sit on the sidelines and criticize the Government than it would be to be running it. I have been weary of how "Green" he really is ever since his 2 terms as VP where he only passed one environmental bill and that was to prohibit the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.

This article below is taken from the blog: Nixon is in Hell (this is just a small portion of it but I took the part that focuses on his hypocrisy about his being an environmental crusader.
After reviewing the actions, and inaction, of the Clinton-Gore administration, it is hard to believe that it is the same Al Gore featured in the documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”.
Al Gore’s estate in Nashville, Tennessee
Critics of Gore’s personal lifestyle point out the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 10,000 square foot mansion in suburban Nashville, Tennessee. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research revealed that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house used nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
Gore also owns homes in Arlington, Virginia, and Carthage, Tennessee. To be fair, he subscribes to utility company programs offering alternatives, paying more for wind power per kilowatt-hour than energy derived from traditional sources. Gore has also installed solar panels where possible on his estates and does his utmost to make his lifestyle “carbon-neutral”.
In the final analysis, how do we reconcile Al Gore’s abysmal record as a politician with his personal convictions, (which I have no doubt are sincere)?
I think that The Independent, (London), journalist Johann Hari provides the explanation quite clearly in his article of June 1, 2006:
“The temptation for journalists is to blame it on personal moral failure. Clinton and Gore are hypocrites, liars, the old story. If only we could find a morally pure politician, everything would be okay.
The reality is less glib and more disturbing. Every American politician has to pay for their massive election campaigns, and there is one group waiting with open wallets and a few polite requests: the fossil fuel industry. Democrat or Republican, if you don’t lick the boots of the oil and gas companies, you never get the key to the White House.
This legalised bribery is often so naked that many corporations give to both parties, to ensure whoever wins is in their debt. Anybody with environmental leanings is quickly tamed - 28 gas and oil companies gave to Al Gore’s election campaign, from BP Amoco to Enron, from Exxon to Chevron. Occidental Petroleum paid for the Clinton-Gore inauguration, and stumped up an extra pounds 50,000 after Gore personally made a begging call to their CEO.
These companies own the American political process, and they are violently opposed to any moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They can keep US politicians on a short leash, since presidents and senators are forced to spend around half their time fundraising. According to Bob Woodward, Clinton was so exasperated by this corporate-cash treadmill he once snapped: ‘We spend so much time raising money, when do we get to govern?’
Some politicians deal with this double-bind by rote-learning an ideology - neoliberalism - that says there is no conflict between the public welfare and corporate welfare. As Eisenhower’s secretary of defence, Charles Wilson, put it: ‘What’s good for General Motors is good for America.’
Al Gore is far too smart to fall for this, but he was powerless to act. When Clinton arrived in the White House in 1992, Gore lobbied him hard for the only environmentally sane solution: a broad- based energy tax that would hit the dirtiest fuel, coal, hardest, and have a knock-on effect on natural gas and petrol. Clinton agreed, with a nervous nod in the direction of his campaign contributors - but it was impossible to get it past a (Democratic) Congress also drenched in petrol.
Yet in Al Gore’s inspirational lectures on the danger we face, there is only the most fleeting of references to ‘the special interests that want us to ignore global warming’, and silence about Gore’s own dependence on them. Why doesn’t Gore mention this, the biggest brake on dealing with global warming? Because if he wants to run for President in 2008, he will have to plunge back into the petrol tank to grab some campaign funds. He cannot afford to alienate potential donors, so he cannot give a full and honest account of the problem.”
It’s not just the petroleum industry on which Al Gore would rely for funds, but a myriad of corporations dependent on cheap energy to guarantee their massive profits – businesses that hold stocks in oil companies, or are owned by them outright, including all of America’s mass media networks.

Back to his film that made him a Nobel Prize winner (right up there with Arafat and Carter) here is some of the incovenient truths about An "Inconvenient Truth"

Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Not all of the inaccuracies in the film were fully considered by the court as the judge requested a sample on which to consider the case. Professor Carter's witness statement (reproduced below) lists 20 inaccuracies in the film.
http://www.newparty.co.uk/UserFiles/File/dimmocktranscript.pdf

Just added this article on 12/12/07:


MIT Professor Declares Gore’s
Global Warming Crusade a
‘Bait-and-Switch Scam’

By Noel Sheppard July 2, 2006 - 12:51 ET
Pardon the pun, but the concept of global warming came under some more heat today from the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen. Some of you might be familiar with the name Lindzen. He has been a strong antagonist to global warmingists – especially Al Gore – and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal back in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles, but avowed that exactly the opposite is the case: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.”
Well, Lindzen wrote another WSJ op-ed published on Sunday entitled “Don't Believe the Hype,” with a subheading – “Al Gore is wrong. There's no ‘consensus’ on global warming.” This one further attacked the junk science involved in this theory, as well as the preposterous claim being made by Al Gore that there is actually a consensus in the scientific community about the issue:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
“Mr. Gore assures us that ‘the debate in the scientific community is over.’
“That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this ‘debate’ actually is in the first place.”
Lindzen then went through a meticulous examination of just how little consensus actually exists, and that any suggestion to the contrary is just a gaseous emission:
“When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists ‘don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence’ one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists ‘don't know. . . . They just don't know.’
“So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the ‘consensus.’"
Lindzen offered several examples of how preposterous these assertions of a consensus are, including:
“More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words ‘global climate change’ produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”
Thus, it appears quite simple to identify a consensus with data about those whose views are falsely depicted as part of such consensus.
Lindzen marvelously concluded his piece (emphasis mine):
“So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
“First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a ‘moral’ crusade.
“Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.”
I guess it’s safe to say that Professor Lindzen is not part of the consensus that people like Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and the overwhelming majority of the drive-by media are continually telling the citizenry – despite all the evidence to the contrary – exists.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

"Gather Us Together: The Ethiopian Jews Come Home"

The Educational Resource Center
In conjunction with
The Consulate General of Israel
Present:
“Gather Us Together: The Ethiopian Jews Come Home”
An Interactive Program


Interactive program description
ABOUT THE WORKSHOP
Gather Us Together: The Ethiopian Jews Come Home is an interactive program that teaches the culture, history and experience of Ethiopian Jews through scripted learning activities, images, music, authentic clothing, artifacts, original DVD, oral histories and more.

How it works:
Gather Us Together is designed to move from station to station. In approximately 90 minutes, groups of 15 participants visit each station encountering a different chapter of the story through a variety of hands-on experiences. Advanced copies of the exhibit script and learning activities enable staff to prepare for the event.

HOW TO BORROW THIS PROGRAM
To reserve this program and for more information contact:
Debbie Seiden at (646) 472-5362 or seidend@bjeny.org
Fee: This program is available free of charge. (Shipping costs apply)

BJE is offering a workshop on using this program. Participants will learn how to implement this program in their educational settings.

WHEN: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
TIME: 9:30-12:00 (9:30 registration and
breakfast)
WHERE: BJENY
520 Eighth Avenue, 15th floor
New York, NY 10018
(b/w 36th and 37th)
FEE FOR WORKSHOP: $25.00
CONTACT:
Debbie Seiden at (646) 472-5362
or seidend@bjeny.org

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Is Madonna (sorry I mean Esther) good for the Jews?


Madonna Visits Israel.
Posted September 15, 2007

Clapping and singing, Madonna joined in a Kabbalah conference Friday in Tel Aviv to celebrate the Jewish New Year.
Madonna was singing Jewish songs with the crowd of hundreds at the David Intercontinental Hotel, site of the conference on Jewish mysticism. At one point she pressed another participant _ apparently a friend of hers _ up to the front where he danced excitedly, making the singer and the crowd giggle and clap enthusiastically.
The 49-year-old pop star wore a black jacket with elbow-length sleeves that was held at the waist with a belt with a large buckle. She also donned a baseball-type, red-and-black plaid hat with her hair in a ponytail.
Madonna, who is on a private visit to the Holy Land, arrived Wednesday night. She didn’t speak to the media, and the conference was closed to TV cameras.
Demi Moore and her husband, Ashton Kutcher, were also attending the conference in Tel Aviv, and were seen out on the city streets Thursday night.
Madonna was raised a Roman Catholic but has become a follower of Jewish mysticism in recent years.
She has taken the Hebrew name Esther and has been seen wearing a red thread on her wrist to ward off the evil eye.
Madonna made her first trip to Israel in 2004.

Jew Takes Down American Gangster

“A lot of people are drawn to the idea that a black man was able to rise to that height over a white man — the Mafia — because of his brains,” Mr. Roberts said. “That’s fine. I’m Jewish, and part of me thinks that Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky were pretty cool guys because at a time when everybody thought that Jews were wimps, these guys rose to the heights of the Mafia. Part of me does feel that." Richie Roberts

I just finished watching American Gangster and it wasn't till the last 30 mins that I realized Crowe's character Richie Roberts was supposed to be Jewish when he was called a "Kike". D0esn't Crowe just scream Jew to you? I mean his first major role was as the leader of a bunch of Australian skin head neo Nazis in "Romper Stomper" then he played the anti-Semitic schizophrenic professor in "Beautiful Mind". But what the heck we will take what we can get. Here is a review that backed up that he was a Jewish charactor. Damm I just noticed as well that Crowe was wearing a Star of David in the film. See picture below with the real Richie Roberts (who now on 2nd thought doesn't look that far from an older Crowe and he was a Marine).
'American Gangster' has it
By Kenneth Turan,
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer November 2, 2007
IT takes nerve to call a film "American Gangster": It's more than a movie title, it's the name of a venerable genre that dates to cinema's beginnings. But once you see this finely made and richly satisfying film, you understand it's the only title possible.In part that's because "American Gangster" is conscious of its place in that tough guy continuum. Visual and thematic references to classics such as "The Godfather," "Once Upon a Time in America" and "The Asphalt Jungle" show that director Ridley Scott and screenwriter Steven Zaillian are quite aware of their film's place in history.
More than that, with Oscar-winning costars Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe joining forces with Scott and Zaillian, two of the best at what they do, "American Gangster" is mindful of continuing another tradition, that of sweeping, old-school epic filmmaking that artfully heightens reality even if it's based on the gritty facts of the Harlem drug trade of the 1970s.Making this point even stronger is the presence of a pair of documentaries that cover roughly the same territory as "American Gangster." Frank Lucas, the drug lord Denzel Washington plays, is profiled in a BET Networks hour, while Nicky Barnes, Lucas' rival, gets a documentary of his own called "Mr. Untouchable."But it is a tribute to the complexity and drama of Zaillian's character-driven script and to Scott's commanding grasp of large-scale visuals and sweeping storytelling that the truth is puny and uninvolving compared with the bravura moviemaking webs these men can weave. Scott is the third director (after Antoine Fuqua and Terry George) who signed on for this project, and he brings to it cinematic gifts no one else has.It is Zaillian and Scott's notion that the gangster story is another version of the classic American success story, a theme that echoes "Asphalt Jungle's" famous description of crime as "a left-handed form of human endeavor." In the same way, the entrepreneurial Harlem drug dealers who wreak havoc in the streets took as gospel the line that starts "The Godfather:" "I believe in America.""American Gangster's" two adversaries, drug kingpin Lucas (Washington) and Richie Roberts, the cop who becomes his "Les Misérables"-type nemesis (Crowe), can also be seen as two sides of the same scary coin, each of them fearless and driven by interior forces that make them terrors to be around.Yet, unexpectedly, "American Gangster" has not only kept the face-to-face meetings between these two men to a minimum, it has also relegated them to the last hour of this 2-hour-and-40-minute film. In fact, Zaillian told Script magazine that he ended up "writing two separate scripts," one from Lucas' point of view, the other from Roberts', and then combining them to compelling effect.As the title indicates, this is Lucas' story more than anyone else's, and it is no disrespect to the charismatic, magnetic work Crowe does to say that Washington's is the performance to savor here. The actor is always at his best, as he was in his Oscar-winning "Training Day," as the magnetic bad guy, the man with a malleable code who can say things like "If you weren't my brother I'd blow your brains out" and make you believe it.Certainly the first glimpse we have of Lucas, being the good gangland soldier and unemotionally setting someone on fire, leaves us with few illusions about the man who was for 15 years the factotum to Harlem crime czar Bumpy Johnson. Yet Washington's performance makes it possible for us to see nuances in the man's character without shortchanging the malevolence of his actions, makes us see how in his own mind Lucas was a believer in family, integrity and character.Washington is also expert at conveying the watchful waiting in Lucas, the man who took his time after Bumpy Johnson's death in 1968 to understand the power structure in criminal Harlem and figure out how to work the area's heroin traffic to his advantage. Bumpy, he notes, was rich, but "he wasn't white-man wealthy," and this becomes Lucas' goal.To achieve this, as related in the Mark Jacobson article in New York magazine that started the project, Lucas went to Thailand and made his own deals with growers for the purest dope, which he called Blue Magic and had shipped back to the U.S. in the coffins of Americans who died fighting in Vietnam. A left-handed form of human endeavor indeed.Back in America, Lucas cuts deals with the Mafia and bumptious Harlem rival Nicky Barnes (Cuba Gooding Jr.), brings his brothers (including Chiwetel Ejiofor's Huey) up from North Carolina to help him run the business and acquires a stunning Miss Puerto Rico (Lymari Nadal) as a girlfriend. "I sell product better than the competition at prices lower than the competition," Lucas boasts. "I am my own company."Smoothly intercut by editor Pietro Scalia with these events is the story of Crowe's Richie Roberts, a tough Jewish cop at home with both a swagger and a sledgehammer. Possessed of a volcanic temper and a disinclination to wait for warrants if there's crime fighting to be done, the fearless, streetwise Roberts, like Lucas, has his own stern code of behavior.So when he comes across a huge cache of money he could have walked off with, no questions asked, Roberts instead turns it in, and, like Frank Serpico before him, earns the enmity of those of his co-workers who are deeply suspicious of honest cops.Being Richie also means royally irritating his wife, Laurie (Carla Gugino, far from "Spy Kids"), and getting into conflicts with connected crooked cops like Det. Trupo (the protean Josh Brolin). His worth is finally recognized, however, as part of a special antidrug task force, and the stage is set for his epochal face-off with Lucas.Watching "American Gangster" in tandem with those Harlem drug documentaries underlines that this impressive film is less based on actual fact than on movie fiction.Authorities and eyewitnesses may argue about who did what to whom in real life, but where the big screen is concerned, it matters not. What "American Gangster" is doing is re-creating myths, and it's good to see that the movies haven't lost their touch where that kind of work is concerned.