Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, December 5, 2012


He may be a damned Lefty... (*GRIN*)... but one hell of a set of pipes!

Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20264712/detroit-councilwoman-to-obama-we-supported-you-now-support-us

The [dysfunctional Democrat run] city of Detroit faces a major financial crisis [of its own making] and [at least] one member of city council thinks President Barack Obama should step in and "help."

City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month's election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city.

* VOTES FOR CASH, BABY... THE DETROIT WAY... THE CHICAGO WAY... WE'LL SEE...

"Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that," said Watson. "Of course, not just that, but why not?"

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Nearly 75% of Wayne County voters pulled the lever for Obama in November.

* YEP... I'M SURE THEY DID...

(*SMIRK*)

"After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon," said Watson. "That's what you do."

(Young served as Detroit's mayor for 20 years and served as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1977 to 1981.)

The White House has expressed no plans to bailout the cash-crunched city that some experts say could run out of money by the end of the year.

* AGAIN... WE'LL SEE...

December 5, 2012 at 9:28 AM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/5/court-questions-obama-recess-appointments/

A federal appeals court on Wednesday questioned not only President Obama’s controversial January recess appointments but the entire system of such appointments, using oral arguments in a case to cast doubt on whether presidential powers can ever be exercised unless Congress has adjourned for good.

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... THOUGH I HATE TO SAY IT... OBAMA IS IN THE RIGHT ON THIS ONE.

The case involves a challenge to Mr. Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in early January — during a time when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days, specifically for the purposes of denying him the chance to make those appointments.

* "PRO-FORMA." IN OTHER WORDS... NOT REAL. (*SHRUG*)

Mr. Obama argued that since the full Senate wasn’t actually meeting regularly, lawmakers were technically in an intra-session “recess” and he could use his constitutional power to make appointments not needing the chamber’s consent.

* AND OBAMA'S RIGHT!

* FOLKS... (*DEEP BREATH*)... AS THE ARTICLE NOTES, THIS WAS "PRO-FORMA" POLITICAL THEATER "SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF" DENYING THE PRESIDENT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES.

(*SHRUG*)

* I STAND WITH THE CONSTITUTION... AS ALWAYS.

* HMM... BUT PERHAPS THERE IS A CASE TO BE MADE BY THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME. ALLOW ME TO CONTINUE NEWSBITING!

December 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

[T]wo judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit questioned not only [particular Obama recess appointments], but every recess appointment made other than during a traditional inter-session recesses that close out each year. “Once you remove yourself from the principles set forth in the Constitution — inter-session versus intra-session — you are adrift,” said Judge Thomas B. Griffith.

* AND AT THIS POINT IT GETS INTERESTING... (READ ON!)

Griffith was joined in his pointed questioning by Chief Judge David B. Sentelle, who said the clause in the Constitution giving presidents recess appointment powers refers to “the recess,” which he said suggests the one at the end of each year, not the breaks Congress regularly takes for holidays, weekends or other reasons.

* HMM... ADMITTEDLY I HADN'T CONSIDERED THIS... (AND IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING!)

If the court were to rule that way, it would upset the balance that has been maintained over decades, and would conflict with another appeals court’s precedent — though that didn’t bother Judge Sentelle. “Forget about a century of precedent — go back to the Constitution,” he told Beth Brinkmann, the Justice Department lawyer who argued the case for the Obama administration.

* YEP! THAT'S WHAT I ALWAYS SAY!

Brinkmann warned that going that route would change the system of checks and balances fundamentally. “There is a long, long history that would be disrupted, and also disrupt the balance of power,” she said. She said there have been nearly 300 recess intra-session appointments over the last century, and both the Senate and the president have accepted them as legitimate.

* HMM...

The Constitution uses the words “session” and “recess” to refer to several different types of business and breaks. One use of “recess” is for a break from normal legislative business, whether for an hour for lunch or for several days while lawmakers go home. The other is at the end of each year’s session, when Congress adjourns sine die, meaning it won’t meet again. That has produced two centuries of confusion.

Judge Griffith at one point questioned why the court should be involved at all in what amounts to a dispute between two other branches of government.

“Why drag us into it?” he said.

* BECAUSE THIS IS INDEED A PROPER ISSUE FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE!

Griffith also questioned the lawyers challenging the recess appointments, wondering why the Senate itself wasn’t contesting Mr. Obama’s moves. Instead, only Senate Republicans, who are the minority party, have sued.

* FAIR POINT... BUT I TEND TO BELIEVE THAT THE MINORITY HAS STANDING... THAT EVEN IF IT WERE JUST ONE SENATOR OR ONE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OR EVEN JUST ONE AMERICAN CITIZEN... STANDING WOULD EXIST.

* THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE FOLLOWED! PRECEDENT IS IMPORTANT... (*PAUSE*)... BUT IF PRECEDENT IS WRONG... CONFLICTS WITH WHAT THE SUPREME COURT CAN LEGITIMATELY AND SINCERELY DECIDE WAS THE FOUNDERS INTENT BASED UPON HISTORICAL RESEARCH...

(*SHRUG*)

December 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443854204578058660248073962.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[O]verstaffing is a serious problem in government, and the best evidence is a simple empirical fact: Government employees don't work as much as private employees.

How do we know that?

* KEEP READING... YOU'LL FIND OUT!

In the past, researchers have measured work time with what are called "contract hours," meaning the time that employers require their employees to work. But many people routinely take work home with them, or skip lunch breaks, or pass up vacation days, or go to the office on weekends. Others may regularly come to the office late and duck out early. Little of this variation is captured by contract hours.

Alternatively, researchers have used surveys that ask individuals how many hours they usually work each week. But answers are susceptible to exaggeration and subjectivity regarding what each respondent defines as "work."

To address these problems, we turned to the American Time Use Survey, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics administers to a large and representative sample of American households each year. Interviewers construct a comprehensive "time diary" for each respondent that describes activities that occurred during the entire 24-hour day before the interview. Survey administrators then place each respondent's raw answers into a detailed set of activity categories, one of which is work for a primary job.

The time-use survey's data on work time are far more comprehensive and objective than any other available data source. The survey doesn't undercount working at home versus working at an office, or working evenings rather than working regular business hours. If, for example, an individual was working at 2 a.m. on the weekend, the American Time Use Survey will account for it.

The data allow us to analyze both the number of hours individuals work during a typical workweek and the total number of hours they work during the year. Thus, we can capture differences in both weekly work hours and the amount of time off that employees enjoy throughout the year.

What we found was that during a typical workweek, private-sector employees work about 41.4 hours.

Federal workers, by contrast, put in 38.7 hours...

...and state and local government employees work 38.1 hours.

(*SHRUG*)

In a calendar year, private-sector employees work the equivalent of 3.8 more 40-hour workweeks than federal employees and 4.7 more weeks than state and local government workers.

(Put another way, private employees spend around an extra month working each year compared with public employees.)

If the public sector worked that additional month, governments could theoretically save around $130 billion in annual labor costs without reducing services.

We've excluded teachers from the full-year comparison because of their naturally shorter work year.

* WHAT'S "NATURAL" ABOUT IT? NOTHING - THAT'S WHAT! THE SCHOOL YEAR IS AN ANACHRONISM DATING BACK TO AN OVERWHELMINGLY AGRICULTURAL AMERICA WHERE DURING KEY TIMES OF THE YEAR THE CHILDREN WERE NEEDED AT HOME... ON THE FARM!

* ANYWAY... PUTTING THAT ASIDE... ONE MORE TIDBIT...

Large differences in work hours actually persist even when comparing workers with similar jobs and similar skills in each sector.

(*SHRUG*)

Before we ask private-sector employees to work more to support government, government itself should work as much as the private sector.

December 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/12/05/church-calls-off-charlie-brown-christmas-show-amid-controversy/

A church caught at the center of a controversy regarding a school trip to see their production of “Merry Christmas Charlie Brown” has decided to cancel the show.

* CANCEL THE SPECIAL DAYTIME PERFORMANCE THEY HAD PLANNED TO PERFORM FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN.

The Agape Church in Little Rock, which had initially intended to present the show to school children on Dec. 14, released a statement to KATV regarding their decision, signed by Pastor Happy Caldwell. “Because of what this issue has become, as a church, it is not our desire to put hard-working, sacrificial teachers and cast members in harm’s way,” the release stated.

Instead of matinees for school children, a public performance will be offered at the church on Dec. 15.

* SAD. THE KIDS WOULD HAVE LOVED THE TRIP. THINK OF YOURSELF IN FIRST GRADE... SECOND GRADE...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The trouble reportedly stemmed from an invitation to first and second grade students at Terry Elementary School to see the Christmas production. “Merry Christmas Charlie Brown” is the stage adaptation of the classic 1965 Peanuts cartoon, “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” The source material includes a retelling of the Nativity story from the Gospel of Luke, which is told by the character Linus in an iconic scene from the movie.

A parent who felt the trip was inappropriate reached out to the ASF to voice her concern with the show’s religious connotations, which reportedly differed from her own, the station learned.

* JEEZUS...

* PATHETIC...

From there, a campaign was launched to cancel the class trip.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

“We’re not waging a war,” LeeWood Thomas, a spokesman for the group, told KATV. “We’re basically calling a foul against the separation of church and state.”

* TWO WORDS: 1) FUCK; 2) YOU!

The organization took offense to both a planned field trip to a church with religious affiliation, and to a school-sanctioned presentation of religious material, the station additionally reported.

* JEEZUS FRIGGIN' CHRIST... KIDS SHOULD BE EXPOSED TO ALL DIFFERENT RELIGIONS! I WOULDN'T OBJECT TO THE KIDS SEEING A PLAY ABOUT CHUNAKAH PUT ON BY THE LOCAL TEMPLE... SAME WITH ANY RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY CONCERNING ANY RELIGIOUS TRADITION.

Representatives of the Little Rock School District had planned to go ahead with the trip before news of the show’s cancellation broke.

* GOOD FOR THEM!

“The teachers wanted to provide a cultural opportunity through a holiday production and are supported by the superintendent and the principal,” said school district spokesperson Pamela Smith was quoted as saying to KATV.

In their release regarding the termination of the Friday showing, the church thanked the school for its intentions.

“In the wake of some controversy over our Christmas production offered to schools, Agape Church wishes to salute the courageous stand that the Terry Elementary Principal made in not succumbing to the pressure of one complaint voiced to the Arkansas Society of Free Thinkers and media,” Caldwell said in the release, according to the station. ”We applaud the support that the Little Rock School District has shown … and agree with their position that attending the matinees was not a constitutional issue.”

* ARKANSAS SOCIETY OF "FREE THINKERS...?" METHINKS NOT!

December 5, 2012 at 11:09 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/20262865/lawsuit-threat-cancels-christmas-concert

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - A threatened lawsuit had put a halt to what's become a Christmas tradition for members of the Moanalua High School orchestra.

For the past six years, the award-winning group and volunteers from the New Hope Church have raised more than $200,000 for a charity that treats poor people in Africa. But that all came to a halt on Monday when the Department of Education decided to cancel the concert just four days before the event.

In a letter to the Department of Education, Mitch Kahle, founder of the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, took issue with the involvement of New Hope Church, which handles ticket sales and sells those tickets at its services.

"The issue here is an entanglement between a public school and a Christian church," said Kahle. "And one of the things about the constitution is that it prohibits the involvement of public schools and churches."

* ACTUALLY... THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS NO SUCH THING.

Concert volunteer Chad Brownstein said that this year's event has sold more than 600 tickets and would have generated about $30,000 in sales and donations. "(The students) could have done something that they're good at it and benefit others instead of themselves," Brownstein said. "So I'm very disappointed that they won't be getting that lesson through that concert anymore."

Concert organizers are still looking at other locations but chances of finding a new place before Christmas that are very slim.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

December 5, 2012 at 11:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?hp&_r=0

The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

* OLD NEWS; WHAT'S THE POINT...???

No evidence has [yet] emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

* AH... NOW I SEE WHERE THE TIMES IS GOING...

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

* AGAIN... OLD NEWS... BUT YEAH... THANKS I SUPPOSE FOR REITERING HOW INCOMPETENT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN POLICY.

The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries.

* SHOULDN'T CONGRESS BE THE ONE CONSIDERING WHETHER THE U.S. SHOULD TAKE ON THIS ROLE OR NOT...???

The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam” than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The administration has never determined where all of the weapons, paid for by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, went inside Libya, officials said. Qatar is believed to have shipped by air and sea small arms, including machine guns, automatic rifles, and ammunition, for which it has demanded reimbursement from Libya’s new government. Some of the arms since have been moved from Libya to militants with ties to Al Qaeda in Mali, where radical jihadi factions have imposed Shariah law in the northern part of the country, the former Defense Department official said. Others have gone to Syria, according to several American and foreign officials and arms traders.

December 5, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)