Friday, April 9, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, April 9, 2010


Slogging through the blogging... just another Friday!
Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/04/07/god_hates_judges?page=full&comments=true

A federal court of appeals recently threw out a jury verdict in favor of a father, Albert Snyder, who had sued protesters at his son Matthew's funeral for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

* I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL AWARE OF THIS, BUT ANN COULTER (YES... ANN COULTER; SHE IS AN ATTORNEY) HAS SOME INTERESTING LEGAL INSIGHTS WHICH ARE WORTH HIGHLIGHTING.

Solely because Matthew was a Marine, a Kansas-based cult, consisting mostly of members of a single family, traveled to Maryland in order to stand outside Matthew's funeral with placards saying things like, "God Loves Dead Soldiers," "God Hates You," "You're Going to Hell," "Semper Fi Fags," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Thank God for IEDs" and "God Hates Fags."

* I KNOW... I KNOW... YOU'RE THINKING "MARINES AREN'T A PROTECTED CLASS IN A LEGAL/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW SENSE." JUST WAIT...

The cult's leader/father is Fred Phelps, who calls America a "sodomite nation of flag-worshipping idolaters." Since you won't read it anyplace else, Phelps has run for public office five times - as a Democrat.

* A THROWAWAY JAB? SURE. BUT WHEN THE LADY IS RIGHT, THE LADY IS RIGHT! I'D NEVER READ/HEARD THIS ANYWHERE ELSE!

The Fred Phelps cult members travel around the country and hold vile signs outside military funerals because they believe that the reason American soldiers die in wars is that God hates the U.S.A. because it tolerates homosexuals.

Snyder has appealed his case to the Supreme Court, and now the court will have to decide whether the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) can ever exist in a country with a First Amendment.

* To be continued...

April 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

Unlike many legal concepts, the tort of IIED is not an obscure legal doctrine written in pig Latin. It means what it says: speech or conduct specifically intended to inflict emotional distress. The usual description of the tort of IIED is that a reasonable man viewing the conduct would react by saying, "That's outrageous!" The Second Restatement of Torts (1965) defines IIED as conduct "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

[I]f a group of lunatics standing outside the funeral of a fallen American serviceman with hateful signs about the deceased does not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, then there is no such tort recognizable in America anymore. The protesters weren't publishing their views in a magazine, announcing them on a "Morning Zoo" radio program, proclaiming them on some fringe outlet like "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" - or even standing on a random street corner. Their protest was held outside a funeral for the specific purpose of causing pain to the deceased's loved ones.

But the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals noticed that the cult's malicious signs contained words, and that words are "speech" ... which is protected by the First Amendment! (Or was it the Seventh?) Anyway, that was basically the end of the court's analysis.

The fact that "speech" was involved in the Fred Phelps cult's assault on Matthew Snyder's funeral is a mundane and irrelevant fact. The question is: Did that speech constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress? Hey, look! That reasonable man over there is nodding his head "yes." If so, the First Amendment is as irrelevant as it is to a copyright law violation.

The Supreme Court has upheld shockingly restrictive bans on speech outside of abortion clinics: content-based restrictions on the speech of pro-lifers singing, "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world." Is abortion more sacrosanct than a son's funeral? Is singing "Jesus loves the little children" deserving of less First Amendment protection than placards saying, "God Loves Dead Soldiers"? Hey, reasonable man over there - got a minute?

Even the Fred Phelps cult's "epic" posted online and accusing the Snyders of raising their son badly, which would seem to have the strongest claim to First Amendment protection, would not be protected in other contexts. Last week in Massachusetts, nine teenagers were criminally charged with cyberbullying, based in part on malicious postings about the victim on their Facebook pages.

Thanks to idiot lawyers, who think it makes them sound smart to say "Black is white" and "Up is down," one of the biggest problems in society today is the refusal to draw lines. Here's a nice bright line: Holding malevolent signs outside the funeral of an American serviceman who died defending his country constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.

April 9, 2010 at 10:21 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830104575172280848939898.html

Major banks have masked their risk levels in the past five quarters by temporarily lowering their debt just before reporting it to the public, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A group of 18 banks which includes Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. understated the debt levels used to fund securities trades by lowering them an average of 42% at the end of each of the past five quarterly periods, the data show. The banks, which publicly release debt data each quarter, then boosted the debt levels in the middle of successive quarters.

That practice, while legal, can give investors a skewed impression of the level of risk that financial firms are taking the vast majority of the time.

* ...WHILE LEGAL...?!?!

An official at the Federal Reserve Board noted that the Fed continuously monitors asset levels at the large bank holding companies, but the financing activities captured in the New York Fed's data fall under the purview of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates brokerage firms. The New York Fed declined to comment.

* OK. LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT... IS IT THAT THAT THE FED WAS AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON ALL ALONG AND IS NOW TRYING TO PASS THE BUCK TO THE SEC, OR, IS IT THAT THE FED WAS TOO INCOMPETENT TO NOTICE WHAT WAS GOING ON AND SO WAS THE SEC..???

* HEY... APPARENTLY THIS FRAUD (WHAT ELSE CAN YOU CALL IT...???) WAS LEGAL. THAT SAID, DID THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACTIVELY "CONSPIRE" WITH THE BIG BANK HOLDING COMPANIES IN AN ATTEMPT TO SWEEP THESE ACTIONS UNDER THE RUG WHERE YOUR AVERAGE CITIZEN WOULD BE UNAWARE OF THE TRUE STATUS OF LARGE BANK DEBT...???

Excessive borrowing by banks was one of the major causes of the financial crisis, leading to catastrophic bank runs in 2008 at firms including Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers.

The data highlight the banks' levels of short-term financing in the repurchase, or "repo," market. Financial firms use cash from the loans to buy securities, then use the purchased securities as collateral for other loans, and buy more securities. The loans boost the firms' trading power, or "leverage," allowing them to make big trades without putting up big money. This amplifies gains - and losses - which were disastrous in 2008.

* HMM... YOU'D THINK THAT OBAMA AND GEITHNER AND BERNANKE AND CHRIS DODD AND BARNEY FRANK WOULD BE OVER OVER THIS... UNLESS...

(*SHRUG*)

he SEC now is seeking detailed information from nearly two dozen large financial firms about repos, signaling that the agency is looking for accounting techniques that could hide a firm's risk-taking. The SEC's inquiry follows recent disclosures that Lehman used repos to mask some $50 billion in debt before it collapsed in 2008.

The practice of reducing quarter-end repo borrowings has occurred periodically for years, according to the data, which go back to 2001, but never as consistently as in 2009.

* HMM... AGAIN... ALL PARTISANSHIP ASIDE (TRULY!)... COULD ONE OF YOU OBAMA FANS EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO ME...???

* THIS IS A "BIG DEAL" FOLKS; I URGE YOU TO FOLLOW THE LINK AND READ THE FULL STORY.

April 9, 2010 at 11:27 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575172303998670976.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

* FILE UNDER: F--K THESE S--MBAGS!

* CLICK THE LINK AND READ THE ARTICLE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN WHAT I'M RANTING ABOUT...

April 9, 2010 at 12:23 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/business/09norris.html

* AND NOW... FOR TODAY'S "LAUGHTER IS THE BEST MEDICINE" SEGMENT...

The American economy appears to be in a cyclical recovery that is gaining strength.

YEP! THE ABOVE IS THE OPENING SENTENCE FROM A NEWS STORY (NEWS STORY - NOT OP-ED!) IN TODAY'S NEW YORK TIMES.

(*MIRTHLESS CHUCKLE*)

April 9, 2010 at 12:23 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/28f1e2a6-432e-11df-9046-00144feab49a.html

This week oil climbed to $87 a barrel, its highest level since October 2008 and prompted concerns that triple-digit crude was once again in the offing.

This was after a period of eight months when oil traded between $70 and $80, a narrow band that pleased oil producers...

* TO REITERATE A BIT OF "TRIVIA" I'VE NOTED IN THE PAST, "OPTIMUM" OIL PRICES (ENOUGH TO GENERATE FURTHER EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION WHILE DISCOURAGING "WASTEFUL" OVERUSE) WOULD BE FLUCTUATION BETWEEN $45-$60 A BARREL.

[T]he more bullish Wall Street banks see prices climbing further, with Barclays Capital forecasting $97, Goldman Sachs $110 and Morgan Stanley $100 next year.

* SO WE'RE TALKING 20%-35% OIL INFLATION (WITH A DOMINO EFFECT OF COURSE) IF THEY'RE RIGHT.

But the higher prices go, the deeper the concerns that they will stifle global growth.

* TO QUOTE MYSELF: "THE COMING STAGFLATION."

Pricier oil and other key commodities, notably iron ore and copper, could ripple through the economy and financial markets, potentially triggering inflation and forcing central banks to lift interest rates from ultra-low levels.

(*SNICKER*) (*SNORT*) "POTENTIALLY...???" (*MIRTHLESS LAUGHTER*)

This year crude and the dollar have risen together.

* WHICH INDICATES THAT THE OIL PRICE RISE IS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE (THOUGH NO LESS REAL IN TERMS OF IMPACT TO CONSUMERS) AND ALSO INFERS THAT NO ONE WITH HALF A BRAIN REALLY BELIEVES THE DOLLAR REPRESENTS A STABLE CURRENCY.

Policymakers seem untroubled.

* AND WHY NOT...?!?! THEY'RE RICH! THEY'RE POWERFUL! HEADS THEY WIN, TAILS THEY WIN!

Lawrence Summers, director of the US National Economic Council, in remarks this week bemoaned his country’s dependence on foreign oil supplies, but did not complain about prices.

* WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US... (*SMIRK*) SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... OBAMA AND THE DEMS ARE THRILLED BY RISING PRICES! NOT ONLY ARE RISING PRICES A "GOOD" THING - TO THEIR WAY OF THINKING - FROM AN ENVIRONMENT STANDPOINT, BUT IN A MACRO FINANCIAL SENSE... THESE FOLKS HOPE TO INFLATE THEIR WAY OUT OF DEBT. (OF COURSE INFLATION WILL RAVISH US "COMMON FOLK," BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY... "YOU CAN'T MAKE AN OMLET WITHOUT BREAKING A FEW EGGS!")

April 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://wcbstv.com/local/governor.christie.union.2.1621917.html

The Record of Bergen County [NJ] obtained the Bergen County Education Association memo that includes a closing prayer:

"Dear Lord this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."

April 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://wcbstv.com/local/asian.women.attacked.2.1621825.html

There's fear on the Lower East Side as police investigate an apparent series of hate crimes.

Five women were attacked, police say, and all the victims are Asian, but that's not the only coincidence.

Police say the five assaults on Asian women took place over the last ten days within a nine-block area right near the Williamsburg Bridge.

Police released a videotape showing five people they want to question in connection with the assaults.

* WHILE NO DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECTS WAS GIVEN, THE ARTICLE INCLUDES A PHOTO OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A BLACK MALE AND ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WHOSE RACE AND GENDER ARE NOT VISIBLE.

Two women and three men were captured by surveillance cameras at 1:20 a.m. at the location of the first attack in the Gompers Houses at 90 Pitt Street. The victim in that first assault on March 31 was a 50-year-old Asian woman.

Later the same day, at 9:20 p.m., police say a 60-year-old Asian woman was assaulted at the Baruch Houses, in the back of 577 FDR.

According to police, a 71-year-old Asian woman was then assaulted opposite 120 Baruch Drive, also at the Baruch Houses. And so was the next attack, on a 66-year-old Asian woman at 95 Baruch Drive.

The last attack, according to police, was on Monday in front of 247 Broadway at 11 p.m. The victim was a 68-year-old Asian woman.

* SUSPECTED GANG INITIATION...? (THE NEWS ARTICLE DOESN'T SPECULATE.)

* FOLKS... THE LOWER EAST SIDE AIN'T MIDTOWN, BUT... (*SHRUG*)

April 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Rodak said...

The Lower East Side is not Midtown. But, that said, the LES has always been the most obvious locale of America's "melting pot." Little Italy, Chinatown, Hester Street--all downtown and in close proximity for many decades.

April 11, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)