Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 20, 2010


Another day of chronicling the decline and fall of the United States of America...

(*SIGH*)

Well... at least YouTube continues to provide us with great music!
Posted by at

4 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videotaping-cops-arrest/story?id=11179076

* ASK YOURSELF: IS THIS YOUR AMERICA...???

That Anthony Graber broke the law in early March is indisputable. He raced his Honda motorcycle down Interstate 95 in Maryland at 80 mph, popping a wheelie, roaring past cars and swerving across traffic lanes.

But it wasn't his daredevil stunt that has the 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard facing the possibility of 16 years in prison. For that, he was issued a speeding ticket. It was the video that Graber posted on YouTube one week later - taken with his helmet camera - of a plainclothes state trooper cutting him off and drawing a gun during the traffic stop near Baltimore.

* SIXTEEN YEARS IN PRISON FOR VIDEOTAPING SOMEONE A GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE WHO IS DEALING WITH YOU IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY...??? THIS SHOULDN'T EVEN BE A CRIME! FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW SUCH A LAW CAN EVEN PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER!

In early April, state police officers raided Graber's parents' home in Abingdon, Maryland. They confiscated his camera, computers and external hard drives. Graber was indicted for allegedly violating state wiretap laws by recording the trooper

* THIS IS THE KIND OF THING YOU'D EXPECT IN A TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE - NOT IN AMERICA... NOT IN MY AMERICA.

Arrests such as Graber's are becoming more common along with the proliferation of portable video cameras and cell-phone recorders. ... Across the country, arrests such as these highlight the growing role of witness video in law enforcement. A dozen states require all parties to consent before a recording is made if there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

* SORRY... BUT CITIZEN CONTACT WITH THE POLICE IS BY ITS VERY NATURE "PUBLIC" AS LONG AS THE CIVILIAN WANTS IT TO BE PUBLIC. AGAIN... HOW THESE LAWS PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER SHOULD BE OF INTEREST TO EVERYONE READING THIS.

In many jurisdictions, the police themselves record encounters with the public with dashboard cameras in their cars.

* AND I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

July 20, 2010 at 10:17 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Climategate-inquiry-glosses-over-the-facts-1001765-98788514.html

When the Climategate e-mails were released last year, the evidence of misconduct by the scientists involved was so strong that the climate establishment was forced to commission a series of tribunals.

The tone of the Climategate inquiries was set by Britain's parliamentary inquiry. With an election looming, the parliamentary committee could only hold one day of hearings, and found that the scientists involved had not attempted to mislead people.

[T]he hearings did not include testimony from the most severe critics of the hockey stick graphic, such as Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who could have explained exactly why the e-mails did suggest impropriety. The parliamentary inquiry was also assured by the UEA that the quality of the science would be reviewed by another inquiry to be headed by Lord Oxburgh. Yet Lord Oxburgh's panel handed down a short report which did not examine the quality of the science at all. The panel simply reviewed a selection of CRU papers - selected by the UEA itself - and pronounced itself satisfied that the scientific process was fair and proper.

The chairman of the parliamentary committee, Labor legislator Phil Willis, told the BBC he "could not believe" this "sleight of hand."

[T]his cursory review suggested deeper problems. In his review of the hockey stick itself, according to the Guardian newspaper, the panel's statistician David Hand said that the scientists had used inappropriate statistical methods. ... The final review, conducted by former bureaucrat Sir Muir Russell, was compromised from the start. Its chief scientist, while purporting to be independent, was a former staff member of the CRU. Once again, it failed to interview the chief critics. This panel did not examine the other e-mails on the CRU server, as it was supposed to do. It cleared the scientists of perverting the peer review process simply because their efforts did not succeed, thereby ignoring their clear intent as expressed in the e-mails.

Further, the inquiry failed to ask the most basic questions of the CRU scientists, such as whether Professor Phil Jones had actually deleted inconvenient e-mails.

Britain's freedom of information office said that the Cimategate e-mails provided the most cogent evidence imaginable that there had been efforts to avoid FOI requirements, yet the Muir Russell review did not investigate this appropriately. Even this inadequate investigation, however, found that the way the hockey stick graph was handled was misleading.

Imagine what it - and the parliamentary committee - would have found if there had been some witnesses for the prosecution.

Those who hope that these inquiries exonerate global warming science are engaging in wishful thinking. The Climategate e-mails are still there for all to read and the questions they raise remain unanswered.

July 20, 2010 at 5:47 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2010/07/is-that-what-th.html

In the Forest Service's news release about the recent string of marijuana busts, I discovered a term of art I'd never encountered before:

"During the raid, a U.S. Forest Service K-9 team located Gauldry Almonte-Hernandez, a displaced foreign traveler from Michoacán Mexico, who had tried to flee the area and hide while officers were performing entry into the marijuana garden."

"Displaced foreign traveler?"

Makes it sound like he meant to go to Disneyland, got lost, and ended up at a pot plantation in the woods south of Hayfork.

* THE NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE IN THE AGE OF OBAMA... (*SIGH*)

July 20, 2010 at 5:47 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39901.html

A group of Democratic lawmakers wants to use the immigration reform debate to "fix" one of the most hotly contested aspects of the health care law - provisions that bar immigrants from using new government programs to get coverage.

* "FIX," HUH...? HMM... HOW COME I'M SUDDENLY WORRIED...

The move by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus would add a contentious new element to an already monumental task - passing a bill that puts 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

* FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T WANT TO PUT ILLEGAL ALIENS ON A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP...

One of the main conservative talking points against the health care bill was that it would cover illegal immigrants - that’s what led to South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst to Obama, who said they were never covered under the bill.

Now Republicans say any attempt to ease immigrants into the system would prove the GOP was right.

* WELL... er... IT WOULD!

(*ROLLING MY EYES*) (*SNORT*)

“Earlier this year, the president reassured the American people that illegal immigrants would not be covered by his government takeover of health care,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

“Now we see what he means. He intends to give millions of illegal immigrants amnesty in order to give them access to America’s health care system. In other words, the president and congressional Democrats are trying to get illegal immigrants into the health care system through the back door.”

* YEP. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE!

Congress would have to come up with billions of dollars to cover newly legalized residents - a cost that could blow a hole in Obama’s projections that health reform would reduce the deficit in the long run, one of his main rationales for the law.

* WHICH WAS OF COURSE ANOTHER OBAMA LIE...

Arguing that immigrants shouldn’t be consigned to second-class legalization, proponents say they will try to relax other restrictions, including lifting the five-year waiting period for legal residents to sign up for Medicaid, which was vastly expanded under the health care law.

Some advocates also argue that since immigrants will most likely be mandated to buy coverage under a temporary legal status, they should be eligible for the tax credits immediately.

* "FUNNY" HOW THE POLITICO WRITER - CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN - FAILS TO NAME NAMES REGARDING THESE... er... "SOME."

(*SMIRK*)

Eighty-six percent of adult illegal immigrants fall under the income cutoff to receive "assistance," which is less than $88,000 annually for a family of four, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

July 20, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)