Thursday, August 30, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, August, 30, 2012


Since we've been on a roll with "love" songs, let's continue...

Posted by at

17 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57503016-503544/secret-service-gun-inadvertently-left-in-romney-plane-lavatory/

A gun belonging to a member of Mitt Romney's U.S. Secret Service detail was found unattended in the bathroom of the candidate's charter plane Wednesday afternoon. The Republican nominee was traveling from Tampa, Fla., site of his party's convention, to Indianapolis, Ind., for a speech.

The weapon, presumably left behind in the bathroom by accident, was discovered by a CBS News/National Journal reporter, who alerted a flight attendant about the gun. A member of the Secret Service on board the plane was informed and retrieved the gun.

Romney has traveled with Secret Service protection since early February and has an armed detail assigned to him at all times. His wife, Ann, was just assigned her own detail - albeit a smaller one - last Friday.

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told CBS News/National Journal in a statement: "We are aware of the incident. We take the care and custody of our equipment, especially firearms, very seriously. We will deal with this matter internally and in an appropriate manner."


* NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

* I DON'T KNOW IF THE PROFESSIONALISM OF THE SECRET SERVICE HAS BEEN IN FREEFALL SINCE JANUARY OF 2008 OR WHETHER THE PROBLEMS LONG PRE-DATE THE AGE OF OBAMA AND THEY WERE SIMPLY COVERED-UP MORE THOROUGHLY, BUT IN ANY CASE, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

* FOLKS... IT'S NOT JUST THIS LATEST INCIDENT. IT'S NOT JUST THE HOOKER DEBACLE. DO A BIT OF GOOGLING... CHECK OUT HOW MANY TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS SECRET SERVICE PERSONNEL HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN OVER THE PAST NEAR-FOUR YEARS.

* FOLKS. REMEMBER A TIME WHEN WE SIMPLY ASSUMED THAT MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SECRET SERVICE WERE THE BEST OF THE BEST? REMEMBER WHEN WE THOUGHT MEMBERS OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WERE "THE GOOD GUYS?" THE FBI's REPUTATION WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED DURING THE CLINTON YEARS... THAT WAS BAD ENOUGH... BUT NOW THE SECRET SERVICE?

August 30, 2012 at 8:36 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08/obama-honored-fallen-seals-by-sending-their-parents-a-form-letter-signed-by-electric-pen/

* I DON'T KNOW. IS IT TRUE? JEEZUS...

* LET'S WAIT AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME CORROBORATION ON THIS.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

August 30, 2012 at 9:02 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/29/new-nyc-doe-discipline-rules-aim-to-reduce-student-suspensions/

The rules surrounding suspensions in New York City schools are changing.

* UH-OH...

The changes to the discipline code should result in far fewer suspensions...

* AND THAT'S BECAUSE...???

What will be different? Well, for starters Walcott said cutting class and cursing will no longer be grounds for suspension.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Neither will smoking...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Education law specialist Nelson Mar said the adjustments are a great “first step” toward changing school culture.

* FOLKS... THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM.

Vandalism and physical altercations in middle and high school still warrant suspension.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

August 30, 2012 at 9:09 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443409904577619800234602824.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

On Tuesday, Standard & Poor's downgraded Illinois bonds to A from A-plus - with a continuing negative outlook.

(*SHRUG*)

The credit rating agency singled out five years of budget deficits ranging from bad to worse to way worse.

(*CLENCHED JAW*)

It now stands at $44 billion — another national record.

(*SIGH*)

S&P was also more troubled than the Springfield political class about $83 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. The legislature ended a special session on pension reform this week without, well, passing any reform.

* GUNS... AMMO... GUNS... AMMO...

S&P praised Democratic Governor Pat Quinn's "significant measures in the past two years to improve structural budget performance," meaning his 67% boost in personal income rates and raising the corporate tax to 9.5%. Credit raters never object to tax increases, even if they never solve the budget problem. But that's another story.

The tragedy is that Illinois is surrounded by states showing a better way.

For example, all three major raters have been upgrading Ohio's ratings after years of chronic fiscal problems.

Governor John Kasich hasn't imposed fearsome austerity — he simply streamlined the budget.

* COMMON SENSE, FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... UNFORTUNATELY... (*DEEPER SIGH*)... COMMON SENSE AIN'T ALL THAT COMMON.

August 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577609863412900388.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Only twice since World War II has the U.S. unemployment rate reached 10%: It was 10.8% in 1982 and 10% in 2009.

The different responses of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama — Reagan lowering taxes and lifting regulatory and other barriers to economic growth, Mr. Obama increasing the size and reach of the government — represent polar extremes in policy.

And in results.

(*NOD*)

Fifty-five months after the recession started in July 1981, the Reagan recovery had created 7.8 million more jobs than when the recession started, and real per capita gross domestic product was up by $3,091.

Fifty-five months after the recession that began in December 2007, there were four million fewer Americans working than when the recession started, and real per capita GDP was down $803.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The trajectory of household income is even more telling. According to Sentier Research analysis of monthly U.S. Census data, during the current "recovery" American households have lost more income than they lost during the recession.

In December 2007, real median household income was $54,916. It had fallen to $53,508 when the recession ended 18 months later.

* WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT... (*DRUM ROLL*)

But by June 2012, real median family income had fallen to $50,964.

* CHANT IT WITH ME, FOLKS... O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!

During the Reagan recovery from 1981 to 1986, real median household income on an annualized basis rose by $3,380 or 7.7%.

(*SHRUG*)

* I WAS THERE FOLKS. I WITNESSED THE SUCCESS OF REAGAN'S POLICIES. I'M ALSO WITNESSING THE FAILURE OF OBAMA'S POLICIES - AS ARE ALL OF YOU.

* FOLKS... YOU'VE GOTTA READ THE FULL COLUMN. PLEASE! FOLLOW THE LINK. IF YOU'RE LOCKED OUT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A PAID SUBSCRIBER JUST GOOGLE "PHIL GRAMM" + "WSJ" AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND A BACK DOOR TO READ THE OP-ED. (TITLED "Reagan and Obama: A Tale of Two Recoveries")

August 30, 2012 at 9:59 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082812-623833-national-health-service-britain-doctor-brain-drain.htm?p=full

Last week, the Financial Times reported that its own research revealed that the British "National Health Service is suffering a 'brain drain' of doctors as more medics trained at taxpayers' expense choose to pursue their careers overseas."

* I COVERED THIS IN A PAST NEWSBITE.

More than 8,000 doctors have left since 2008, said the Financial Times.

(And it's not Britain's problem alone. Nearly 10% of Canadian-trained doctors end up in the U.S.)

Several factors were mentioned for the losses in Britain. ... Yet it's obvious that Britain's socialized medicine is one of the chief reasons doctors are leaving, if not the top reason.

When a government declares that it will provide "free" health care, there is no escaping the fact that such a system will one day be overwhelmed by demand and the providers — the doctors and other professionals who are extensively and intensively trained — won't be able to keep up. They will be overworked, underpaid and frustrated with the difficulties in performing the task they feel called to, namely healing the sick.

Doctors can take only so much, though. Why stay in Britain where the waiting times to see a physician are often fatal, the denial of care sometimes deadly, the facilities often miserable and the pay is base when there is opportunity, and typically more appealing tax rates, in Australia and New Zealand, which are where many of the departing doctors are relocating?

Why remain in Britain, captive of a system that is running out of other people's money to operate off of?

Brain drain among British doctors isn't new. The 1964 study "British Doctors at Home and Abroad" found that as soon as the early 1950s, only a few years after NHS was established in 1948, physicians were leaving for countries where they could make more money and take on a "wider field of work."

Radio talk show host, columnist and author Larry Elder wrote earlier this year about a British anesthesiologist who told him that he was "a refugee" and part of the "British 'brain drain' of the late '60s."

"I left the U.K. to get away from the government telling me how to practice, what to charge," the doctor told Elder.

But the problem he thought he had escaped followed him.

"Now we are getting the same thing," he said. "ObamaCare stinks, and the people will regret it. What happened to the docs there will happen here."

The anesthesiologist doesn't claim to be a prophet, as far as we know. But his words are prophetic.

While ObamaCare might not drive America's doctors elsewhere — given that the U.S. is the world's last hope for freedom, opportunity and prosperity, there isn't any place to go — it will cause deep problems.

Rather than leave, today's U.S. physicians will simply retire early or change careers and tomorrow's will choose another profession, one less regulated and more remunerative.

Does that sound like an age of improved health care is coming? No, it doesn't.

August 30, 2012 at 11:47 AM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082912-624003-california-pension-reforms-wont-work.htm?p=full

California's Gov. Jerry Brown (D) finally got a deal to slow the growth of the Golden State's out-of-control public-employee pensions.

* SLOW THE GROWTH... (THINK ABOUT THAT LINE, FOLKS... JUST THINK ABOUT THE SICKNESS SUCH A LINE REFLECTS...)

Unfortunately, the deal he struck doesn't solve the problem.

* NOT IF THE PROBLEM IS STILL GROWING! WHICH IT IS! THUS... "SLOW" THE GROWTH. (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Perhaps there's a poetic irony here that Brown now must solve the very pension problem that he, as a youngish governor in the 1970s, largely was responsible for creating by allowing public employees to unionize.

[Brown's plan] caps public employee pensions at $110,000 a year for workers who have Social Security, and $130,000 for those — including teachers, firefighters and police — who don't.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

It also forces most workers to wait until they're 67 years old, rather than 62, to receive benefits.

* OK. THAT'S GOOD!

Though there are exceptions to this, including "safety officers" who can now retire at 57, rather than at 52.

(*SNORT*)

[Brown's plan] makes a handful of other wise moves, including not letting officials give retroactive pension increases to certain employees and ending the practice of "spiking" workers' pay in the last year to boost benefits.

* GOOD... (*NOD*)

All that said, California faces an unfunded pension liability of nearly $500 billion total.

* JEEZUS...

This deal, according to Brown, cuts that by [somewhere between] $18 billion to $30 billion.

* J*E*E*Z*U*S...!

In other words, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth sure to be heard from the public employee unions, the pain is virtually nonexistent — as are the savings. The crisis isn't over.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)



Why was such a bad deal struck? ... Brown dealt exclusively with the Democrats in doing a deal. He froze out the Republicans, who have repeatedly suggested the only real way to save the system is to institute 401(k)-style accounts in addition to the pensions — forcing coddled state workers to fork over more of their own resources to fund their retirements.

(*NOD*)

Brown seemed at first to be receptive to these reforms, but then was told by both his Democratic allies in the state legislature and the public employee unions that it was a non-starter.

(Nor would they accept any rules that would make Brown's changes permanent.)

That led Brown to do virtually all of his "negotiating" with only the Democrats.

We're not surprised at this. California, which even up to the 1990s had a tradition of conservative Republican governors, has turned into a one-party state — funded and abetted by the unions.

"If you look at the campaign reports from Gov. Brown's campaign, as well as those for just about every legislative Democrat," writes Jon Fleischman of the respected California political blog FlashReport, "you would have to look hard to find major contributions that are not from unions."

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Precisely.

Fed by millions of dollars in public-union contributions, Democrats basically have gerrymandered themselves into permanent power, treating any Republicans who dare to stand up to them — and there aren't many — like abused children.

The state's legislature leans so far to the Left that it's nearly impossible to accomplish anything of a fiscally responsible nature. Lawmakers always believe they're just one tech boom or turn in the business cycle away from having all the money they want to spend.

This doesn't bode well for the rest of Brown's term as governor.

Since 2002, the state's budget has been in surplus just twice — both times really a result of accounting tricks.

Deficits over that time have totaled more than $100 billion.

(It is against the state constitution to run deficits, but Democrats have blithely ignored the law, spending the state into insolvency.)

Over the next two years, the state's independent legislative analyst's office estimates $37 billion more in red ink, as the fiscal travesty continues.

This is the California of Jerry Brown and his fellow Democrats — offering faux reforms to solve a very real financial crisis, while successfully portraying business, the wealthy and powerless Republicans as the villains.

California is still a democracy. Voters have repeatedly voted for this craziness. So its citizens might not like what they get, but most voters will get what they deserve.

August 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082912-624019-blacks-stop-marching-in-lockstep-with-democrats.htm?p=full

The stars of the GOP curtain-raiser in Tampa weren't top-billed Gov. Chris Christie or even Ann Romney. They were two young black conservatives the Democrats don't want you to know.

They are also whom MSNBC - which cut away from their speeches - didn't want voters to see on a stage the pro-Obama network hoped would be filled with old white men.

Democrat defector Artur Davis, who seconded the official nomination of Barack Obama four years ago, stepped onto the Republican convention stage and blasted his former party for pushing rigid leftist nostrums that have failed to lift minorities out of the recession.

"We don't need a party that has led while poverty and hunger rose to record levels to give us lectures about suffering," said Davis, a Harvard Law grad. "Bill Clinton took on his base and made welfare a thing you had to work for," he added. "This current crowd guts the welfare requirement in the dead of the night."

Davis, 44, scolded Obama and Democrats for glorifying the Occupy Wall Street movement, demonizing business success and fomenting class envy. "When they tell you America is this unequal place where the powerful trample on the powerless," he said, "do you even recognize the America they are talking about?"

* ACTUALLY I DO... ONLY NOT IN THE WAY DAVIS MEANT. I THINK OF THE OLIGARCHS. BOTH PARTIES ARE TOTALLY CORRUPTED BY THEM. THAT SAID... VOTING REPUBLICAN - THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS - IS OUR ONLY CHANCE TO ESCAPE ACCELERATED DESTRUCTION UNDER A SECOND OBAMA TERM.

Then Davis explained why he was the only Congressional Black Caucus member to vote against ObamaCare: Democrats "rammed through a health care bill that took over one-sixth of our economy, without accepting a single Republican idea, without winning a single vote in either house from a party whose constituents make up about 50% of the country."

(*PENSIVE NOD*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 30, 2012 at 12:30 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING...

Davis followed on the dais 36-year-old Mia Love, who's battling to take a House seat from an incumbent Democrat in Utah.

The daughter of Haitian immigrants, Love gave a rousing speech rejecting Obama's collectivist vision of America. "The America I grew up knowing was centered on self-reliance," she asserted.

If she wins, Love would be the first black Republican woman in Congress.

Love said in a January interview with the Deseret News that she'd join the Black Caucus, but only to "try to take that thing apart from the inside out."

* GOOD FOR HER!

"They sit there and ignite racism when there isn't (any)," she explained. "They use their positions to instill fear" in minorities.

* AND DON'T FORGET TO PERSONALLY ENRICH THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES! CHARLIE RANGEL WAS JUST ONE AMONG MANY... (*SIGH*)

"One thing that's happening in the Republican Party that the Democratic Party can't say," noted Davis in a June interview with The Root, is that "African-Americans who don't live in African-American communities are having a chance to serve their country at the political level."

He cited Reps. Allen West and Tim Scott, who in 2010 won GOP seats in white districts in Florida and South Carolina, as well as Love, who would continue the trend if she wins her white Utah district. (And Davis himself may make a run at a white district in Virginia.)

Republicans have no skin test. What matters are ideas and ability.

Younger blacks are tired of Democrats taking their votes for granted.

* NO... (*SIGH*)... UNFORTUNATELY THEY'RE NOT.

And they're tired of having to march in lockstep with an increasingly Leftist ideology that has kept so many African-Americans trapped on, as West calls it, a "21st century plantation" run by big government overseers.

* BUT THERE THEY STAY NEVERTHELESS!

"In the next decade, as Republicans talk more about really shaking up our schools, making the way we pay for entitlements more fair and streamlining government to make it more efficient, then more younger African-Americans are going to say, 'I hear some sound arguments over there, and I see people like me over there succeeding and thriving regardless of race,'" Davis said. "That's going to be what pulls African-Americans into the (Republican) party over the next decade," he said.

* AMERICA DOESN'T HAVE DECADES. (*SHRUG*) THAT'S THE SAD FACT.

August 30, 2012 at 12:30 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082912-624013-left-wing-haters-on-display.htm?p=full

Liberals love to label conservatives as bigots and haters. But the Republican National Convention has exposed where such miscreants find a comfortable home these days: Among the mainstream press and the liberal elite!

On NBC this week, Chris Matthews launched into an unhinged rant about how Mitt Romney was playing the "race card" by talking about work requirements in welfare.

(Never mind the racist assumption underlying Matthews' complaint...)

It's NBC — along with much of the rest of the mainstream press — that's been playing the race card.

Another case in point: NBC News black-listed all the minorities from its Web page highlighting "notable speeches" from the GOP convention Tuesday night.

* OH...! BUT IT GETS WORSE!

The network's hyper-partisan cable arm, MSNBC, refused to show them during its live coverage, cutting away each time to its lefty panel.

(*SNORT*)

* FOLKS... YA CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!

It's worth pointing out that one of the speakers — Rep. Artur Davis — is a Democratic Party defector who seconded Obama's nomination four years ago, making his appearance at the GOP convention highly newsworthy.

* ONE WOULD THINK... ONE WOULD THINK...

The Los Angeles Times, meanwhile, accused the GOP of trying to put "a brown face on a white party" by featuring minority speakers.

* NICE...

(*SMIRK*)

An ABC News webcast inadvertently caught Yahoo's (now former) Washington bureau chief, David Chalian, telling a colleague about how Republicans "are happy to have a party with black people drowning."

* AND GETTING PLENTY OF APPROVING LAUGHTER!

* FOLKS... WHAT KIND OF PROFESSIONAL "ENVIRONMENT" MUST EXIST FOR A WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF OF A MAJOR WEB NEWS ORGANIZATION TO HAVE FELT SAFE MAKING SUCH COMMENTS PUBLICLY IN THE MIDST OF WORK HOURS... ON THE JOB...?!?!

Then there's the religious bigotry the liberal press feels increasingly free to express against a minority religion, so long as one of its practitioners happens to be a Republican presidential candidate. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell charged earlier this year that "Mormonism was created by a guy in upstate New York in 1830 when he got caught having sex with the maid."

* WOW... JUST... WOW...

Chris Matthews called Mormons "cultists," and New York Times columnist Charles Blow tweeted that Mitt Romney should "stick that in your magic underwear" — a bigoted remark referring to a Mormon religious practice.

* NEW... YORK... TIMES... COLUMNIST...

Comedian Jon Lovitz reports getting death threats after he started openly criticizing Obama. "I know where you eat," one warned.

Tell us again how bigotry and hatred can only be found on the right?

"What I find bizarre is how the 'liberals' are bringing up race (and) saying shut the f--k up," Lovitz told Breitbart's Big Hollywood, "I thought you were liberal. You should be tolerant of everybody whether they agree with you or not."

Boy, that Lovitz guy sure is a hater.

August 30, 2012 at 12:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/29/what-is-it-about-a-stable-dollar-that-paul-krugman-doesnt-understand/

It’s not surprising that liberals are apoplectic over a provision in the draft Republican Party platform calling for the establishment of a commission to study “possible ways to set a fixed value for the dollar.” After all, this amounts to a “right to life” plank for the dollar...

(*CHUCKLE*) GOOD LINE!

We have now had the discretionary monetary system that the progressives advocate for 41 years.

* YEP. NIXON WAS A PROGRESSIVE. (*SIGH*)

We have seen the results. The numbers aren’t pretty. During the 180 years that we had one form or another of “a fixed value for the dollar” (1790 – 1970), the U.S. economy grew at an average annual real rate of 3.94%. During the past 41 years of fiat money (1970 – 2011), our real GDP grew at 2.81%.

The difference between these two growth rates is staggering.

(*NOD*)

Progressives don’t just want a fiat dollar, they want a weak dollar. Liberal economists believe that “a falling currency boosts exports.”

* AND IT CAN... AS A SHORT-TERM GIMMICK WITH SERIOUS LONG-TERM NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. (THINK DRUG EXPERIMENTATION TURNING INTO ADDICTION.)

Both Bush 43 and Obama bought into this notion, and ran “weak dollar” policies.

* YEP... THAT FUCKING BUSH...

(*GNASHING MY TEETH*)

During the first 11 years of the Bush 43 – Obama era, the dollar lost 81% of its value in terms of gold.

How has this been working for us?

* NOT VERY WELL! WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE WE'RE PAYING ALMOST $4 GALLON FOR GAS?!

Real economic growth during the 11 Bush 43/Obama years (2000 – 2011) averaged 1.57%.

* JEEZUS...

Progressives decry “rising inequality”, but the data shows that it was breaking the link between the dollar and gold that caused the rising income inequality that we have seen over the past 40 years.

From the end of WWII to 1973, “real GDP per worker” and the “real weekly wages of production and non-supervisory workers” rose in lockstep. If you graph the two lines, there is a sharp inflection point at 1973. From that point on, real GDP per worker continued to rise (albeit more slowly than before), but real wages declined.

What happened in 1973?

Having abrogated the Bretton Woods gold standard system in 1971, in 1973 President Nixon abandoned the pretext that the suspension of gold convertibility was “only temporary” and, at that point, nations went to fully floating exchange rates.

(*SAD NOD*)

During the Bush 43/Obama weak dollar era, workers have gotten...falling real wages combined with a true unemployment rate (adjusted for falling labor force participation) of 11.2% (July 2012).

(*NOD*)

* FURTHERMORE... (READ ON!)

[O]ur fiat dollar has spawned “the chaos industry.” The economy has tried to adapt to unstable money by creating a profusion of complex financial futures and derivatives, the deep purpose of which is to try to spread the pain caused by a fluctuating dollar. Collectively, these instruments provide a type of insurance.

* ONLY... IN THE END WHO BECAME THE "INSURER" OF LAST RESORT? YEP. US! "WE THE PEOPLE." THE OLIGARCHS RAIDED THE TREASURY AND BAILED THEMSELVES OUT USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO DO SO!

[T]he economy’s attempt to cope with an unstable, fiat dollar has had the side effect of transferring 4% of GDP, or about $600 billion a year, from workers (“the 99%”) to the chaos industry (“the 1%”). This phenomenon has been a huge contributor to rising income inequality over the past 40 years.

(*NOD*)

The truth is that it is not possible to have a stable economy and stable financial markets without a stable dollar. No amount of regulation can substitute for stable money.

(*NOD*)

Get a grip, liberal economists, and get out of the way. A "fixed value for the dollar” has become a matter of economic life and death for the American middle class.

August 30, 2012 at 2:46 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEXAS_VOTER_ID_?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-30-12-11-45

A federal court has ruled against a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November.

* THIS IS OF COURSE AN ILLEGITIMATE DECISION... A POLITICIZED DECISION... A W*R*O*N*G DECISION.

A three-judge panel in Washington...

* GOV. PERRY AND THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE SHOULD DENOUCE THE DECISION AND ORDER STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS TO ABIDE BY STATE LAW REGARDLESS OF THE WASHINGTON DECISION.

... ruled Thursday that the law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.

* THIS SORT OF INSANITY MUST BE CHALLENGED. TEXAS SHOULD STAND FIRM. THESE WASHINGTON JUDGES SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE - OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE UNFIT TO SIT ON THE BENCH.

The decision involves an increasingly contentious political issue: a push, largely by Republican-controlled legislatures and governor's offices, to impose strict identification requirements on voters.

* WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT - INDEED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY! IF ONLY THE DEMOCRATS WOULD COOPERATE INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING WHAT AMOUNTS TO "AN INVITATION TO ENGAGE IN VOTER FRAUD" IN OH SO MANY STATES.

August 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Armed-bystander-stops-stabbing-outside-school/6zTYMpy8pUOeyrbElEBOTQ.cspx

A woman is in critical condition after she was stabbed outside her child's school Tuesday morning.

The attack happened around 10:00 a.m. Tuesday outside the Bonham Academy on St. Mary's Street in San Antonio, TX.

Teresa Barron, 38, had just dropped off her child at the school when the child's father showed up, and the two got into an argument. The child's father, 38-year-old Roberto Barron allegedly then stabbed the woman several times in the upper body and neck area.

Police say a bystander who happened to be a concealed handgun license holder pulled his weapon and ordered Barron to drop the knife. Barron surrendered and was taken into custody by the bystander and a school district officer.

The woman was taken to San Antonio Military Medical Center.

Barron was arrested for aggravated assault, and is in jail on a $150,000 bond.

(*STANDING OVATION FOR THE BYSTANDER*)

August 30, 2012 at 3:04 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia

Judicial Watch released Tuesday a new batch of documents showing how eagerly the Obama administration shoveled information to Hollywood film-makers about the Bin Laden raid.

Obama officials did so to enable the production of a politically beneficial pre-election film about that "heroic" killing, even as administration lawyers insisted to federal courts and media outlets that no disclosure was permissible because the raid was classified.

That's what the Obama administration chronically does: it manipulates secrecy powers to prevent accountability in a court of law, while leaking at will about the same programs in order to glorify the president.

Thanks to prior disclosures from Judicial Watch of documents it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, this is old news.

But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf.

The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them.

On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word?", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter. A mere two minutes after the CIA spokeswoman sent this Friday night inquiry, Mazzetti responded. He promised her that he was "going to see a version before it gets filed", and assured her that there was likely nothing to worry about: "My sense is there a very brief mention at bottom of column about CIA ceremony, but that [screenwriter Mark] Boal also got high level access at Pentagon." Harf then replied with this instruction to Mazzetti: "Keep me posted", adding that she "really appreciated it".

* WOW... HARF WAS DOING HER JOB... BUT MAZZETTI SHOULD BE FIRED!

Moments later, Mazzetti forwarded the draft of Dowd's [as yet] unpublished column to the CIA spokeswoman (it was published the following night online by the Times, and two days later in the print edition).

At the top of that email, Mazzetti wrote: "This didn't come from me … please delete after you read."

He then proudly told her that his assurances turned out to be true: "See, nothing to worry about."

* FOLKS... YA CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 30, 2012 at 9:42 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

This exchange, by itself, is remarkably revealing of the standard role played by establishment journalists and the corruption that pervades it.

* WELL... I'D HESITATE TO GENERALIZE (THOUGH I'D GUESS THE AUTHOR IS CORRECT)... CERTAINLY, THOUGH, ONCE AGAIN SOMEONE AT THE NYT HAS BEEN OUTED AS A POLITICAL PARTISAN FIRST, A JOURNALIST SECOND.

Here we have a New York Times reporter who covers the CIA colluding with [the CIA] spokesperson to plan for the fallout from the reporting by his own newspaper ("nothing to worry about")[!]

Beyond this, that a New York Times journalist – ostensibly devoted to bringing transparency to government institutions – is pleading with the CIA spokesperson - of all people - to conceal his actions and to delete the evidence of collusion is so richly symbolic.

* AGAIN... YA CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP, FOLKS!

The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these emails read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis.

Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers: "New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter. "'I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that's going on, you'd know it's much ado about nothing,' Baquet said. 'I can't go into in detail. But I'm confident after talking to Mark that it's much ado about nothing.' "'The optics aren't what they look like,' he went on. 'I've talked to Mark, I know the circumstance, and given what I know, it's much ado about nothing.'"

* AMAZING... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* IT'S NOT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE...? ARE THESE PEOPLE INSANE...? THIS GUY IS THE MANAGING EDITOR OF THE NYT!

Isn't the function of a newspaper supposed to be to tell us "everything that's going on", not to boast that it knows the circumstances and you do not?

* FOLKS... THERE'S MORE TO THE COLUMN, BUT I'LL LEAVE YOU TO AVAIL YOURSELVES OF THE LINK IF YOU CARE TO. IN THE MEANTIME... CHECK OUT THE NEXT NEWSBITE!

August 30, 2012 at 9:43 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/pre-publication-disclosure-of-dowd-column-a-breach-of-two-boundaries/

* BY THE OMBUDSMAN OF THE NYT

My final column as public editor was published in print on Sunday. However, I remain on duty through Friday and want to offer my take on the controversy this week over the pre-publication disclosure of a Maureen Dowd column. I see this as a problem of boundaries – the failure to maintain them.

The facts, in brief: a year ago Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd asked Mark Mazzetti, a Washington-based national security reporter for The Times, to help her fact-check one item in a column she was preparing for publication in print on Sunday, Aug. 7, 2011.

Mr. Mazzetti did this for her but then emailed the entire column text to Marie E. Harf, then a public affairs official at the C.I.A., writing: “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about.”

The e-mail came to light through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group.

The Mazzetti e-mail was just a piece of a larger picture Judicial Watch was interested in filling in – which centered on the claim that the Obama administration has tried to exploit the killing of Osama Bin Laden for political gain.

The Dowd column reported that filmmakers Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal were accorded special national security access to assist them in the making of a film about the Bin Laden operation. Ms. Dowd’s column said...

* FOLKS. YOU CAN READ THE COLUMN FOR YOURSELVES IF YOU WISH. OR, YOU CAN USE THE LINK PROVIDED ABOVE TO READ THE EXCERPTS PROVIDED IN THE OMBUDSMAN'S COLUMN. FOR OUR PURPOSES... IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT DOWD WROTE.

(*SHRUG*)

[I]t is clear that Mr. Mazzetti went beyond fact-checking a single item when he passed the column in its entirety to Ms. Harf. His message – “see, nothing to worry about” – seems to suggest that he thought the full text would allay concerns about what Ms. Dowd was planning to say.

The Times’s public statement on the matter from spokeswoman Eileen Murphy was minimal: “Last August, Maureen Dowd asked Mark Mazzetti to help check a fact for her column. In the course of doing so, he sent the entire column to a C.I.A. spokeswoman shortly before her deadline. He did this without the knowledge of Ms. Dowd. This action was a mistake that is not consistent with New York Times standards.”

* AS WE KNOW, FOLKS, MAZZETTI'S ACTION WAS NO "MISTAKE." IT WAS DELIBERATE POLITICAL COLLUSION WITH AN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC RELATIONS FLACK!

I asked Jill Abramson, the executive editor, whether Mr. Mazzetti was doing a source a favor by providing the text of the column and she replied, “I can’t provide further detail on why the entire column was sent. I can assure you that Mark was not doing the C.I.A. a favor. He is an experienced, terrific reporter. Your suggestion is flat wrong.”

(*SNORT*)

* FOLKS... THESE PEOPLE AT THE NYT PUT THE NIXON ADMINSTRATION TO SHAME! THEY'RE OUT-OBAMAING OBAMA!

Mr. Mazzetti was also circumspect, saying: “I did make a bunch of calls and was doing this on deadline. As part of the process, I also did send the column. It was definitely a mistake to do. I have never done it before and I will never do it again.”

* JEEZUS... FOLKS...

Whatever Mr. Mazzetti’s motivation, it is a clear boundary violation to disclose a potentially sensitive article pre-publication under such circumstances. This goes well beyond the normal give-and-take that characterizes the handling of sources and suggests the absence of an arm’s-length relationship between a reporter and those he is dealing with.

* FOLKS... MAZZETTI WAS WORKING AS AN "AGENT" OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES!

Mr. Mazzetti told me: “I absolutely believe we should have an arm’s-length with sources and my only priority in this case was to help a colleague and help The Times.”

* AGAIN... MAZZETTI SHOULD BE FIRED.

* FOLKS... JILL ABRAMSON SHOULD BE FIRED AS WELL!

August 30, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)