Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, February 2, 2016


Mornin', gang!

And a VERY good morning it is!

GO CRUZ!

(*WINK*)

Anyway... on to today's "newsbiting!"

"Newsbites" can be found in the Comments Section!

 

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

* FOLKS... YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP!

In a handful of Democratic caucus precincts Monday, a delegate was awarded with a coin toss.

It happened in precinct 2-4 in Ames, where supporters of candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton disputed the results after 60 caucus participants apparently disappeared from the proceedings.

As a result of the coin toss, Clinton was awarded an additional delegate, meaning she took five of the precinct’s eight, while Sanders received three.

* Hmm...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/02/hillary-clinton-has-the-most-statistically-improbable-coin-toss-luck-ever/

One of the most bizarre details to emerge from Monday’s Iowa caucuses was that in six Democratic counties, the ownership of six delegates was decided by a coin flip.

A single delegate remained unassigned at the end of caucusing in two precincts in Des Moines, one precinct in Ames, one in Newton, one in West Branch and one in Davenport, The Des Moines Register reported.

In all six instances, the coin toss was won by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

There may have been more coin tosses, but those are the ones we know about for now.

Now, get ready to do some math.

In a single coin toss, the probability of calling the toss correctly is 50 percent, or one in two. Heads or tails.

But the probably of winning every flip out of six flips is one in 64, or 1.56 percent.

The online study tool “Coin Toss Probability Calculator” has a really intense formula that explains why, but the bottom line is, the probabilities stack on each other.

You’re 50 percent likely to win one coin flip. But you’re only 25 percent likely to win two consecutive coin flips, because there are now twice as many possible outcomes. So bump that up to six coin flips, and your chances of winning them all are slim:

And the bottom line is, Clinton won the Iowa caucuses on a coin flip.

Here’s why: Each coin flip decided a delegate.

Clinton’s final delegate count was 699.57, according to the Iowa Democratic Party. Sanders’ was 695.49.

If Sanders had won half of the coin tosses and split the six delegates three and three with Clinton, he would have finished at 698.49 delegates to Clinton’s 696.57.

William R. Barker said...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/bernie-sanders-requests-vote-count-tight-finish-iowa-caucus-clinton

Bernie Sanders has called on the Democratic party to release a raw vote count in Iowa after a nail-biting finish left lingering doubts over the first, much tighter-than-expected, clash with Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination.

He threw little light on an unfolding controversy over certain Iowa precincts that did not have enough Democratic party volunteers to report delegate totals for each candidate but did call on officials to take the unusual step of revealing underlying voter totals. Delegates are awarded in the Iowa Democratic contest on a precinct-by-precinct basis, irrespective of the state-wide vote for each candidate.

“I honestly don’t know what happened. I know there are some precincts that have still not reported. I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest,” he said. “I have no idea. Did we win the popular vote? I don’t know, but as much information as possible should be made available.”

Sanders’ campaign director, Jeff Weaver, told reporters he did not “anticipate we are going to contest” specific results but hoped there would be an investigation into what happened.

William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/national-debt-hits-19-trillion/article/2582097

The national debt hit $19 trillion for the first time ever on Friday, and came in at $19.012 trillion.

* "REPUBLICAN HOUSE."

* "REPUBLICAN SENATE."

* 'NOUGH SAID.

William R. Barker said...

http://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/01/abbott-and-cuellar-question-dhs-over-cuts-border-s/

Gov. Greg Abbott and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat, pressed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Monday to explain why the agency plans to reduce its aerial surveillance on the Texas-Mexico border.

In a letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, the lawmakers said the cut to a requested 3,850 hours of aerial detection and monitoring in 2016 amounts to 50% less coverage than recent years.

“Given the recent surge of migrants from Central America and Cuba along the southern border, we believe DHS should request more surveillance and security resources, not fewer,” Abbott and Cuellar wrote in a letter.

The pair also reminded Johnson that in September, Abbott’s office asked the DHS for more aerial resources and U.S. Border Patrol agents but that the request was never acknowledged.

Monday’s request comes as CBP is reporting a new surge in the number of undocumented immigrants crossing the Rio Grande. From October to December of 2015, about 10,560 unaccompanied minors entered Texas illegally through the Rio Grande Valley sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. That marks a 115% increase over the same time frame in 2014. The amount of family units, defined as at least one child and adult guardian or parent, has increased by 170% to 14,336 in the Rio Grande Valley.

The El Paso sector also saw 1,030 unaccompanied minors, an increase of almost 300%.

During the 2015 fiscal year, about 28,400 Cubans entered Texas through U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Laredo field office, which extends from Del Rio to Brownsville. That’s compared to about 15,600 in 2014.

The surge came after the Obama administration announced in 2014 its plans to re-establish ties with Cuba, leaving many Cubans fearing they will lose a special designation that allows them to apply for legal residency status, or a “green card,” after living in the country for a year. Cuellar and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, have called for the repeal of that designation.

William R. Barker said...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/01/chicago-records-51-homicides-january-highest-toll-since-2000/79632136/

CHICAGO — The nation's third largest city recorded 51 homicides in January, the highest toll for the month since at least 2000.

* DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CITY. ONE OF MANY. PAY ATTENTION, FOLKS...

(*SIGH*)

Chicago routinely records more homicides annually than any other American city, but the grim January violence toll marks a shocking spike in violence in a city that recorded 29 murders for the month of January last year and 20 murders for the month in 2014. In addition to the jump in killings, police department said that it recorded 241 shooting incidents for the month, more than double the 119 incidents recorded last January.

The rise in violence comes after the Chicago Police Department reported 468 murders in 2015, a 12.5% increase from the year before. There were also 2,900 shootings, 13% more than the year prior, according to police department records.

* A CITY RUN BY BARACK OBAMA'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

William R. Barker said...

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/02/top-german-journalist-admits-live-on-air-national-news-agenda-set-by-government/

A retired media boss at a major German state broadcaster has admitted his network and others take orders from the government on what — and what not — to report.

National public service broadcaster Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF), which was recently forced into a humiliating apology for their silence on migrant violence and sex assault is being drawn into a fresh scandal after one of their former bureau chiefs admitted the company takes orders from the government on what it reports.

He said journalists received instructions to write news that would be “to Ms. Merkel’s liking.”

Former head of ZDF Bonn Dr. Wolfgang Herles make the remarks during a radio event (from minute 27) in Berlin where journalists discussed the media landscape. Moving on to the freedom of the press, the panel chair asked Dr. Herles whether things in Germany had got “seriously out of whack.” With an honesty perhaps unusual in Germany, Dr. Herles replied that ordinary Germans were totally losing faith in the media, something he called a “scandal.”

“We have the problem that – now I’m mainly talking about the public [state] media – we have a closeness to the government. Not only because commentary is mainly in line with the grand coalition (CSU, CDU, and SPD), with the spectrum of opinion, but also because we are completely taken in by the agenda laid down by the political class.”

Worse than the mainstream, government controlled and poll-tax funded media in Germany just agreeing with the ruling coalition, the stations actually took orders on what was and was not to be reported on.

Fernsehen continued, “…the topics about which are reported are laid down by the government. There are many topics that would be more important than what the government wants. But they, of course, want to deflect attention away from what doesn’t happen. Yet what doesn’t happen is often more important than what does happen – more important than gesture politics.”

While these orders are sent to media companies from unspecified places in the government, they are communicated to individual journalists by news executives using a new-speak jargon. Dr. Herles explains that while “there are, in fact, instructions from above.” when the editor in chief of ZDF communicated these instructions to his juniors he would merely say reporting should be framed in a way that “serves Europe and the public good.” There would be no need to add in brackets that this actually means it should be reported “to Ms. Merkel’s liking”, as they would be understood as the true meaning.

“Today, one is not allowed to say anything negative about the refugees” said Dr. Herles, concluding, “This is government journalism and that leads to a situation in which people no longer trust us. This is a scandal.”

There has been very little reporting of the comments in the German media, and what there was has been critical of the remarks. Focus reported the comments of one centre-left media figure, Der Freitag newspaper editor Jakob Augstein, who when asked whether there had ever been such “instructions from above,” said: “No, I deny vehemently there has ever been commands from the top.”

That the German mainstream media is not free and routinely obscures or bends the truth has been a key criticism by the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of Europe (PEGIDA) movement, which has coined phrases like L├╝genpresse — the liar press — to express their frustration.

William R. Barker said...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/02/01/comment-isnt-free-anymore-guardian-to-close-comments-on-articles-about-race-immigration-and-islam/

“A new strategy is aiming to counter an unacceptable level of toxic commentary on our website,” an opinion piece began in yesterday’s Observer – the Sunday edition of the (UK) Guardian newspaper.

The article, written by the Observer’s “reader’s editor,” Stephen Pritchard, outlines how the paper – which recently announced a massive cost cutting exercise – is going to start censoring its readers on articles about race, immigration, and Islam.

“We are living in an age of rage,” the piece begins, going on to explain that because “People are angry with government, with media, with religion, with migration, with Europe, [and] with big business”, the paper will no longer tolerate its readers expressing these views “below the line” on its website - ironically named “Comment is Free.”

The name comes from Charles Prestwich Scott, once editor of what was once called the Manchester Guardian – now just the Guardian. The late Liberal Member of Parliament apparently always said that “comment is free, but facts are sacred.”

Now it appears that comment is sacred too. In the words of Pritchard, the Guardian has long sought to “curate a reasoned debate” instead of allowing for free speech (barring threats, etc). He bemoans the use of the comments section for “propaganda posting,” although the Guardian is notorious for allowing this behavior above the line, even promoting anti-Israel material written by the leader of the terrorist outfit Hamas. (They had to close the comments on that op-ed too.)

The paper has accused other news outlets of “propagandizing” for causes that don’t fit its worldview – as they did with Breitbart News last year. (They closed the comments on that article too.)