Thursday, May 6, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, May 6, 2010


So let's sink another drink...

Yeah, baby... yeah, baby... yeah, baby...!!!
Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html

On any other day at Live Oak [California] High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.

Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal's office.

* OK. OBVIOUSLY ASKING THE KIDS TO TURN THEIR AMERICAN FLAT T-SHIRTS INSIDE OUT WAS FLAT OUT LUDICROUS... BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BANDANNAS? WELL... IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF BANDANNAS ARE NORMALLY ALLOWED TO BE WORN IN SCHOOL THAN ASKING THE BOYS TO REMOVE THEM WAS RIDICULOUS. IF - ON THE OTHER HAND - BANDANNAS ARE NORMALLY BANNED IN SCHOOL... THEN FINE. (*SHRUG*)

"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."

* "THEIR" HOLIDAY...??? (TALK ABOUT DIVISIVE...!) IF THEY'RE AMERICANS THEN THE FORTH OF JULY IS "THEIR" HOLIDAY; NOT CINCO DE MAYO. AND IF THEY'RE NOT AMERICANS... WELL... THEN FINE... LET THEM CELEBRATE "THEIR" HOLIDAY. HECK... I'LL GLADLY CELEBRATE CINCO DE MAYO! (ANY EXCUSE FOR A CELEBRATION, RIGHT...?!) BUT WHAT THE HECK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE MATTER AT HAND - THE OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOR OF SCHOOL OFFICIALS...???

The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts "incendiary" that would lead to fights on campus.

* HEY... I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF "PRIOR RESTRAINT" AS A LEGAL DOCTRINE, BUT THIS ISN'T "SHOUTING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATRE." AS LONG AS THE BOYS WEREN'T VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS (VIA TAUNTING, BULLYING, "HATE SPEECH") THE ADMINISTRATORS HAD NO "CAUSE" TO ACT AS THEY DID.

* BOTTOM LINE... POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RUN AMOK. ENOUGH SAID.

May 6, 2010 at 10:56 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-school-district-investigating-legality-and-principals-actions-in-black-only-field-trip/

The Ann Arbor school district is investigating the actions - and legality - surrounding a field trip organized exclusively for black students at Dicken Elementary School last week.

* IS IT ME...??? IS IT FRIGG'N ME...?!?!

(*SIGH*)

* WELL... I GUESS IT'S BETTER THAN "EDUCATORS" SLEEPING WITH THE KIDS...

(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

* JUST... JUST... JUST READ THE ARTICLE...

(*SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)

May 6, 2010 at 11:12 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=114605#

The American capital maneuvers within the confines of what is politically achievable. Whether you’re for or against Barack Obama, you engage him through the agenda set by his administration. That’s why one idea remains a blip on Washington’s radar screen, precisely because it would represent a radical overhaul of American thinking in the Middle East. The idea is simple: The United States must build a strategic partnership with Iraq, the Arab world’s Germany.

Why Germany? Because Iraq sits at the heart of the region, its borders touching three major states that, in one way or another, have caused the US grief in recent years: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia (albeit for different reasons in Riyadh’s case).

If you want to contain Iran and retain leverage over Syria, you need to control the Iraqi space. The Gulf states are too weak to stand up to Tehran, too vulnerable to its manipulation. It is pointless for the US to place the burden of an alliance to constrain Iran on their shoulders. Iraq is what American influence in the Gulf is about, but few in Washington will agree.

The Iranians certainly grasped that logic. They have spent years building up networks of relations in Iraq, under the very eyes of the Americans. But there are limits. Ultimately, Iraq’s Arab anchor will regain the upper hand, and the recent elections showed this. The Sunnis voted en masse, indicating that they sought to reintegrate into the Iraqi state, while Iran’s closest allies did relatively poorly.

[Unfortunately,] Tehran has reversed the situation thanks to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s desire to stay in office at all costs, pushing him to fall back on Shiite sectarian solidarity. But all that really tells us is that the US missed an opportunity to press ahead with its own agenda in Iraq.

When Obama looks at Iraq, he sees George W. Bush’s war, then calculates domestically. That narrow, parochial assessment is astonishingly petty. Had the president stuck to Bush’s 2011 deadline for an Iraqi pullout, he would not have lost much support at home, where Iraq is not an issue anymore. And by avoiding an interim departure this year, Obama would have earned the US more flexibility to shape Iraq’s post-election environment in its favor. Instead, US officials took great pride in saying that they had not interfered in the election process.

What, precisely, was the thinking here? That America would be rewarded by some cosmic moral supreme court? That Iran and Syria would gasp at American uprightness and refrain from exploiting Iraq for their own purposes? Does the administration imagine that international politics unfolds like a Frank Capra film, so that like Mr. Smith in Washington the world would dissolve into tears of affection for Mr. Obama in Iraq?

Once the Iraqi elections ended, it was plain what the US should have done, or tried to do. A coalition government between Maliki and the front-runner Ayad Allawi was the right way to go. It would have helped return the Sunnis to Iraqi political life, while profiting from the Shiite split, to Iran’s disadvantage. The priority should have been to keep Maliki away from the Iranians, whom the prime minister was never very close to anyway. A shotgun wedding between Maliki and Allawi might have failed, their conflicting ambitions making this difficult. Yet both could have eventually seen an interest in following through, since they would have thus marginalized their communal rivals. Here was a moment when Barack Obama’s personal involvement was essential. But what did the US do? Nothing.

* RATHER THAN MAKE THIS A TWO PARTER, I'M SIMPLY GOING TO END HERE AND SUGGEST READING THE FULL PIECE WELL WORTH THE TIME AND EFFORT. IT'S NOT THAT IT'S THAT MUCH LONGER... IT'S SIMPLY THAT IT'S WORTH READING IN FULL. (*SHRUG*)

May 6, 2010 at 12:25 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20004263-10391695.html

Sources tell CBS News that would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad appeared on a Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list - Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS) - between 1999 and 2008 because he brought approximately $80,000 cash or cash instruments into the United States.

* AND AFTER 9/11 NO ONE - NO DEPARTMENT - WAS TASKED WITH INTEGRATING TECS INTO THE NO FLY LIST... OR AT LEAST REEVALUATING THE TECS LIST...??? IF THIS IS THE CASE THEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION F--KED UP.

May 6, 2010 at 12:26 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/06/us_not_accepting_foreign_help_on_oil_spill

When State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley refused to tell reporters which countries have offered assistance to help respond to the BP oil spill, the State Department press corps was flabbergasted.

* AS AM I READING THIS! AS SHOULD YOU BE TOO!

"As a policy matter, we're not going to identify those offers of assistance until we are able to see, you know, what we need, assess the ongoing situation. And as we accept those offers of assistance, we will inform you," Crowley said.

* WE SHOULD BE HAPPY TO HUMBLY AND GRATEFULLY ACCEPT ANY AND ALL SINCERE OFFERS OF ASSISTANCE; WHAT ARE THESE MORONS IN WASHINGTON DOING...?!?!

Reporters pointed out that the Bush administration identified assistance offers after the Katrina disaster, so what is this, a new policy? They pressed Crowley, but he refused to budge.

(*SMIRK*)

Then they mentioned Iran's offer of assistance, through its National Iranian Drilling Company. Crowley said there was no Iranian offer of assistance, at least in any official capacity.

SEE: http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-48183420100503 (In short, according to authoritative news sources a STATE-OWNED Iranian oil drilling company offered its help several days ago.)

The reporters kept on it, asking why it was taking so long to figure out what was needed in the first place? That's the Coast Guard's decision, Crowley explained.

* SERIOUSLY... I DON'T KNOW HOW EVEN THE MOST PARTISAN OBAMA SUPPORTER CAN STOMACH THIS... (*SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Late Wednesday evening, the State Department emailed reporters identifying the 13 entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

"These offers include experts in various aspects of oil spill impacts, research and technical expertise, booms, chemical oil dispersants, oil pumps, skimmers, and wildlife treatment," the email read.

"While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future."

The Obama administration has been relentless in its messaging that it is doing everything possible to aggressively respond to the oil spill. But for the record, the current message to foreign governments is: Thanks but no thanks, we've got it covered.

A State Department official, speaking on background, said that the decision not to initially release the names of offering countries came directly from the State Department leadership.

May 6, 2010 at 2:38 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100505/tts-us-economy-property-finance-972e412.html

Troubled US government-backed mortgage firm Freddie Mac on Wednesday asked for an additional $10.6 billion from the Treasury Department to cover losses.

* OH, YEAH... THE "RECOVERY" IS PROCEEDING APACE! (*SMIRK*)

* HEY... I'VE GOT AN IDEA; TELL 'EM "NO!"

Announcing a $6.7 billion loss in the first quarter, Freddie Mac said it would need the new funding by June 30 this year.

* PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE WHEN...???

* NANCY PELOSI WAS SWORN IN AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE IN JANUARY OF WHICH YEAR...??? (SAME FOR HARRY REID...)

* AT WHAT POINT (IF ANY) DO DEMOCRATS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ONGOING INSANITY OF CONTINUOUS BAILOUTS...?!?!

The Washington-area company has already received more than $50 billion in taxpayers cash to cover losses from toxic assets.

* HEY... LET'S CROSS REFERENCE FOR A MOMENT -- SEE: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10355867

The chief executive of Freddie Mac earned nearly $800,000 last year after being hired in late summer to run the government controlled mortgage finance company.

* RUN IT...? RUN IT INTO THE GROUND IT SOUNDS LIKE! (OH... AND BTW... GET A LOAD OF WHAT FOLLOWS...)

That does not include more than $1.3 million in deferred salary that will be paid out over this year.

(*SNORT*)

Freddie Mac had three chief executives in 2009. Former CEO David Moffett, who resigned last March, received compensation worth $512,864. He was replaced on an interim basis by the company's chairman John Koskinen, 70, who received compensation valued at $550,713.

* HELL...! I'LL BE HAPPY TO INCOMPETENTLY "RUN" THE COMPANY FOR HALF THAT - A THIRD OF THAT - A TENTH OF THAT!

* HEY... CAN YOU IMAGINE THE PERKS THESE GUYS GET...???

Freddie Mac lost almost $26 billion last year and has racked up almost $80 billion in losses since the housing crisis started.

As the housing bubble burst, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were unable to raise enough money to stay afloat, and the government effectively nationalized them in September 2008. That has cost taxpayers about $126 billion so far.

May 6, 2010 at 2:56 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://biggovernment.com/sright/2010/05/06/rep-andre-carson-tea-party-protesters-are-one-of-the-largest-threats-to-our-internal-security/

* DISGUSTING. CONTEMPTIBLE. UNETHICAL.

* AND DO YOU THINK THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WILL HIGHLIGHT THIS DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN'S ACTIONS FOR WHAT THEY ARE...???

(*SIGH*) (*SNORT*)

May 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)