Dozens of rockets have been fired in the past several hours alone by Hamas from Gaza. Israel responds with airstrikes against those responsible and the BBC turns the situation around by putting the Israeli reprisal before the initiating act - the rocket fire.
But for the Hamas terror attacks, Israel would have no need to respond with force.
As it is, the Hamas terrorists responsible think little of their fellow Palestinians as most of the rockets fired at Israel didn't actually make it into Israel; they landed within Gaza.
Hamas targets included a school and public spaces in Israel and one Israeli was injured and two others were treated for shock. Because this is Saturday, the school was closed. That's the only saving grace from that particular attack. Yet, the ongoing attacks mean that Israelis within range of Gaza have to be under constant watch for sirens and rocket/missile alerts so that they can duck for cover at a moment's notice. The ranges mean that someone would have less than a minute from the time the rockets, missiles, or mortars are fired.
The Iron Dome system intercepted five of the incoming rockets.
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
New York Times Misses Reason Why NJ Transit Is Buying Double Decker Trains
Leave it to the New York Times to ignore the main reason why NJ Transit is committing to purchasing 100 additional double-decker railcars. While the Times focuses on seat width, it's all about maximizing capacity.
The Times focuses on the seat-width and notes that the behinds of passengers has grown and this is in response to the growing backsides of its passengers.
The Bombardier bilevel cars can seat 142 comfortably, while the Comet V single level cars can sit a maximum of 117. The new cars sit 25 people more than the old ones, though some of the older Comet II, III, and IV cars can sit more than the 117 on the Comet V (due to the center door configuration, additional space at the end of each cars for disability seating, and lavatories.
The bilevel cars can functionally carry more people because hate sitting in the middle seat of the 3-2 seat combination found on the single level cars. Commuters would rather stand and block the aisles than make their way into the middle seats. At the same time, passengers look to spill over their belongings on to the middle seat so as to garner additional space to prevent anyone from using the middle seat. During rush hour, that means additional time to board and disembark from the trains.
The double deckers are designed to slightly increase the number of seats compared to the existing single level cars, and to do so in a manner that maximizes the number of people who will sit. There are no 3-seat rows, which means no one gets stuck in a middle seat, and it also makes the aisles wider, easing access. That the seats are slightly wider is almost an afterthought when the purpose is to maximize the number of seats on the cars.
The new double deck cars have a greater capacity than the older cars, and have two additional high level exits to facilitate stops at high level platforms to reduce dwell time. The single level cars often have a third door in the center of the railcar at high level, but those doors are susceptible to problems in cold/snow/ice conditions, and they reduce the number of seats per car. The new cars would solve these problems, and they further reduce the amount of equipment exposed to the elements that may cause problems in extreme weather events.
More people per train means that the trains are more efficient and can get more people through the Hudson River tunnels - a necessity since there's no way to build in additional capacity at this time.
Had the Times sought to focus on the rationale for buying the cars instead of imposing its view that obesity is the impetus for the purchase, they would be doing their readers a service. Instead, the Times put an ideological agenda ahead of the facts.
The Times focuses on the seat-width and notes that the behinds of passengers has grown and this is in response to the growing backsides of its passengers.
Each time an agency decides to purchase new trains or buses, it must consider whether to make its seats wider, knowing that a decision to do so could come at the expense of passenger capacity.Seat width isn't the main reason that these double deckers are being ordered. It's capacity; both per car and per train; you can get more people through the Hudson River tunnels on the bilevel cars than the single level cars, and they are more efficient at handling the crowds.
New Jersey Transit has a five-year plan to add 100 double-decker train cars that have seats 2.2 inches wider than the 17.55-inch seats found in its single-deck trains; the seating configuration has been changed to two seats on either side of the aisle, rather than three on one side and two on the other.
Amtrak intends to introduce “designs that will be able to accommodate the larger-sized passengers” on 25 new dining cars starting next year, said a spokesman, Cliff Cole.
But while transit agencies consider the needs of heavier passengers, they do not always yield to them.
Over the past half-century, the width of New York City subway seats has not changed much, said Marcia Ely, assistant director of the New York Transit Museum. If anything, the seats have occasionally gotten smaller — and immediately encountered resistance.
Joseph Smith, who retired in 2010 as a New York City Transit senior vice president who also oversaw bus operations in the city and on Long Island, said that the agency once had to abandon plans to introduce Mercedes-Benz Citaro buses, which are popular in Europe, after riders complained about too-narrow seats.
The Bombardier bilevel cars can seat 142 comfortably, while the Comet V single level cars can sit a maximum of 117. The new cars sit 25 people more than the old ones, though some of the older Comet II, III, and IV cars can sit more than the 117 on the Comet V (due to the center door configuration, additional space at the end of each cars for disability seating, and lavatories.
The bilevel cars can functionally carry more people because hate sitting in the middle seat of the 3-2 seat combination found on the single level cars. Commuters would rather stand and block the aisles than make their way into the middle seats. At the same time, passengers look to spill over their belongings on to the middle seat so as to garner additional space to prevent anyone from using the middle seat. During rush hour, that means additional time to board and disembark from the trains.
The double deckers are designed to slightly increase the number of seats compared to the existing single level cars, and to do so in a manner that maximizes the number of people who will sit. There are no 3-seat rows, which means no one gets stuck in a middle seat, and it also makes the aisles wider, easing access. That the seats are slightly wider is almost an afterthought when the purpose is to maximize the number of seats on the cars.
The new double deck cars have a greater capacity than the older cars, and have two additional high level exits to facilitate stops at high level platforms to reduce dwell time. The single level cars often have a third door in the center of the railcar at high level, but those doors are susceptible to problems in cold/snow/ice conditions, and they reduce the number of seats per car. The new cars would solve these problems, and they further reduce the amount of equipment exposed to the elements that may cause problems in extreme weather events.
More people per train means that the trains are more efficient and can get more people through the Hudson River tunnels - a necessity since there's no way to build in additional capacity at this time.
Had the Times sought to focus on the rationale for buying the cars instead of imposing its view that obesity is the impetus for the purchase, they would be doing their readers a service. Instead, the Times put an ideological agenda ahead of the facts.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Calls Come In To Can Credit For Plug In Electrics Like Chevy Volt
The Chevy Volt has gotten some real bad press lately. General Motors has had to essentially recall its entire production run of Volts to fix a problem that arose during testing by the NHSTA and IIHS that haven't been found on the street - the potential for a fire hazard due to certain kinds of side impacts. GM rightfully takes a hit over the flaw, and will cost the company an undetermined amount of money.
However, some, including the Washington Post, are using that as an excuse to support killing a tax credit for purchasing plug-in and full electric vehicles. The tax credits amount to $7,500. While that might be a giveaway to the rich for someone looking to purchase a $100,000+ Karma or a Tesla Roadster, the Volt is in the same price range as many fully loaded SUVs.
The Washington Post op-ed misleads about the nature of the power pack problem and the fire hazard. They're playing fast and loose with the fact, and while I have no love lost for GM and its product lines, that's unfair to GM.
The op-ed also fails to understand that once a person installs a charging station, that's a piece of infrastructure that can be used by future occupants and others down the line. That's a durable good that enhances power distribution and makes electric vehicles more feasible down the line. It's the kind of action that should be encouraged, though one can question just how much such encouragement should take.
The $7,500 credit for cars like the Volt or the Nissan Leaf bring the car price down to within the same range as hybrid cars like the Prius Plug In (the Prius is no longer eligible for the credit since the 2007 model year when it exceeded the program limits for cars manufactured). The thinking behind the credit is that by giving a tax credit, more people will be encouraged to buy the product at early stages (early adopters) and manufacturers will accelerate development of new and better models that get better mileage.
However, some, including the Washington Post, are using that as an excuse to support killing a tax credit for purchasing plug-in and full electric vehicles. The tax credits amount to $7,500. While that might be a giveaway to the rich for someone looking to purchase a $100,000+ Karma or a Tesla Roadster, the Volt is in the same price range as many fully loaded SUVs.
The Washington Post op-ed misleads about the nature of the power pack problem and the fire hazard. They're playing fast and loose with the fact, and while I have no love lost for GM and its product lines, that's unfair to GM.
The op-ed also fails to understand that once a person installs a charging station, that's a piece of infrastructure that can be used by future occupants and others down the line. That's a durable good that enhances power distribution and makes electric vehicles more feasible down the line. It's the kind of action that should be encouraged, though one can question just how much such encouragement should take.
The $7,500 credit for cars like the Volt or the Nissan Leaf bring the car price down to within the same range as hybrid cars like the Prius Plug In (the Prius is no longer eligible for the credit since the 2007 model year when it exceeded the program limits for cars manufactured). The thinking behind the credit is that by giving a tax credit, more people will be encouraged to buy the product at early stages (early adopters) and manufacturers will accelerate development of new and better models that get better mileage.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
President Obama's Speech On Middle East Relations
Some reports prior to the President addressing the issue today claimed that this would be some form of a reset but the speech was actually a rehash of longstanding US positions, with a few caveats. I don't think this broke new ground, although there are more than a few people claiming that the US has changed position on Palestinian-Israeli relations.
For one thing, the President admitted that the US hasn't exactly held countries like Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to the same standards that it should have when those regimes cracked down against protesters. This part is particularly good - because he admits that his own Administration's policies towards Bahrain, Yemen, and even the Saudis has been flawed:
Heck, we can't even get the Palestinian Authority to adhere to their obligations under Oslo to stop inciting Palestinians to violence and otherwise de-legitimizing Israel's right to exist.
The President briefly mentioned Jerusalem in the speech, but the key was that the resolution would involve land swaps and as agreed upon by the parties.
On this point, the President's speech regarding Israel and the Palestinians isn't breaking ground. It rehashes the American positions since at least the George H.W. Bush Administration (Madrid Conference). It doesn't break any new ground.
Yet, there are some media outlets that clearly get the reporting on this wrong, including the AP.
Where Obama clearly gets it wrong is in his statements to cajole Bashar Assad into leading a transition of how Syria is governed. Assad hasn't remained a dictator by getting out the way or transitioning his regime into something else. The Hama Rules rule for a reason in the ME (and Assad's father stayed in power using them to the hilt). Assad's only error is that he didn't use enough power to crush the opposition weeks ago.
So unless the US is going to get involved in Syria to the same extent that the US/NATO is in Libya, Assad isn't going anywhere unless the Syrian people rise up and are joined by the military in that uprising. That isn't likely to happen as the military has pretty much remained solidly behind the Assad regime. There were some reports that some units refused to fire on protesters, but they were dealt with by Assad's loyalists.
Sanctions aren't going to get Assad to change tactics.
UPDATE:
With the growing brouhaha over Obama's speech as it relates to Israel and its borders, this is perhaps the most important part of his speech, as per the transcript:
This is the strongest wording on this point and it supersedes all talk about Israel's borders. After all, if the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist, talk about borders is moot.
Moreover, if Obama was truly talking about 1967 borders as the media keeps shilling, then in reality he'd be talking about the post 1948 border (aka the Green Line), but that's not the terminology he used.
There was a specific reason he used 1967 line - with agreed upon land swaps, because it is a reference back to UN SCR 242 and 338 and Oslo, all of which involve land for peace and do not require Israel to return to the pre 1967 Green Line border.
For one thing, the President admitted that the US hasn't exactly held countries like Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to the same standards that it should have when those regimes cracked down against protesters. This part is particularly good - because he admits that his own Administration's policies towards Bahrain, Yemen, and even the Saudis has been flawed:
Our opposition to Iran's intolerance - as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror - is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.As for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the President said that there cannot be a resolution when the Palestinians deny Israel's right to exist. Yet with that in mind, how exactly can he turn around and restart the peace process when that's precisely the situation Israel faces? With Hamas involved in the Palestinian Authority, the amount of pretzel logic need to claim that the Palestinians accept a 2-state solution is mind-boggling, especially when both Hamas and Fatah refuse to accept Israel (Fatah being part of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority).
Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain's citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.
Heck, we can't even get the Palestinian Authority to adhere to their obligations under Oslo to stop inciting Palestinians to violence and otherwise de-legitimizing Israel's right to exist.
The President briefly mentioned Jerusalem in the speech, but the key was that the resolution would involve land swaps and as agreed upon by the parties.
The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.Also, I'm curious how he intends to have a contiguous Palestinian state when Gaza and the West Bank are separated as they are now. Previous discussions have suggested building land bridges or tunnels, but none of these issues can be acted upon until the Palestinians get over the threshold issue of accepting a 2-state solution, which is something that was originally included in Oslo.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself - by itself - against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
On this point, the President's speech regarding Israel and the Palestinians isn't breaking ground. It rehashes the American positions since at least the George H.W. Bush Administration (Madrid Conference). It doesn't break any new ground.
Yet, there are some media outlets that clearly get the reporting on this wrong, including the AP.
President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians' demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.This is inaccurate reporting at its finest. Obama hasn't changed US position on resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, and is still committed to final status talks to resolve final borders.
In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama on Thursday sided with the Palestinians' opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.
Where Obama clearly gets it wrong is in his statements to cajole Bashar Assad into leading a transition of how Syria is governed. Assad hasn't remained a dictator by getting out the way or transitioning his regime into something else. The Hama Rules rule for a reason in the ME (and Assad's father stayed in power using them to the hilt). Assad's only error is that he didn't use enough power to crush the opposition weeks ago.
So unless the US is going to get involved in Syria to the same extent that the US/NATO is in Libya, Assad isn't going anywhere unless the Syrian people rise up and are joined by the military in that uprising. That isn't likely to happen as the military has pretty much remained solidly behind the Assad regime. There were some reports that some units refused to fire on protesters, but they were dealt with by Assad's loyalists.
Sanctions aren't going to get Assad to change tactics.
UPDATE:
With the growing brouhaha over Obama's speech as it relates to Israel and its borders, this is perhaps the most important part of his speech, as per the transcript:
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.Everything else is moot unless the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist. That includes any talk of final status borders.
This is the strongest wording on this point and it supersedes all talk about Israel's borders. After all, if the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist, talk about borders is moot.
Moreover, if Obama was truly talking about 1967 borders as the media keeps shilling, then in reality he'd be talking about the post 1948 border (aka the Green Line), but that's not the terminology he used.
There was a specific reason he used 1967 line - with agreed upon land swaps, because it is a reference back to UN SCR 242 and 338 and Oslo, all of which involve land for peace and do not require Israel to return to the pre 1967 Green Line border.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Israelis Do Care About Peace; But Wish Palestinians Were As Concerned As They Were
Time Magazine stepped into it when they released their latest edition, claiming that Israelis no longer care about peace.
That can't be further from the truth.
Israelis are sick and tired of being at a perpetual state of war. They are going to live hard and fight hard, because they have been under the gun for so long because of Palestinian terror and genocidal threats of annihilation from Israel's myriad enemies both near and distant (Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, Syria, etc.)
Israel has become more pragmatic and realistic about the chances for peace with the Palestinians and neighboring Arab states following the Israel disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and the Lebanese withdrawal in 2000. Israel has seen a rise in terror attacks from Gaza since the 2005 disengagement - thousands of kassam attacks each of which is designed to kill or maim Israelis or destroy Israeli property within range of the missiles. Far from being an opportunity for peace, Gazans turned to Hamas and the terror group has maintained an iron grip on Gaza expelling Fatah in a bloody civil war.
Those actions have convinced Israel's polity that peace cannot come through more concessions, let alone land for peace. Israel has precious little land as compared to its neighbors, and Israel's so-called partners in peace at the Palestinian Authority have offered up nothing but empty platitudes and maintained the status quo on indoctrination of another generation of Palestinians to see Israel as illegitimate and refuse to recognize its right to exist alongside a Palestinian state.
Time is in the business of selling papers, and couldn't be bothered with reporting on facts or employing even the slightest bit of critical thinking and logic. It glosses over the reasons why Israelis have hardened in their belief that peace is not forthcoming - namely they lack a true partner for peace.
Instead of focusing on Israel, attention should truly be focused on the Palestinians and their double-speak - how they say one thing to their followers and empty statements to the diplomats who continue to think that they can substitute their own reality for the facts on the ground.
Settlements are not the impediment to peace - Palestinian intransigence to Israel's existence is the impediment to peace.
Moreover, how can peace with the Palestinians come when Fatah doesn't speak for at least half the Palestinian people and can't even address the issue of Gaza, which is fully in the hands of Hamas, the Palestinian terror group dedicated to Israel's destruction. Indeed, even the current Fatah charter references back to its original charter, which also calls for Israel's destruction and obligation to fight Israeli oppression.
With "partners" such as this, it is not Israel who no longer cares about peace, but the Palestinians who never did - unless it included a future without Israel's very existence.
That can't be further from the truth.
Israelis are sick and tired of being at a perpetual state of war. They are going to live hard and fight hard, because they have been under the gun for so long because of Palestinian terror and genocidal threats of annihilation from Israel's myriad enemies both near and distant (Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, Syria, etc.)
Israel has become more pragmatic and realistic about the chances for peace with the Palestinians and neighboring Arab states following the Israel disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and the Lebanese withdrawal in 2000. Israel has seen a rise in terror attacks from Gaza since the 2005 disengagement - thousands of kassam attacks each of which is designed to kill or maim Israelis or destroy Israeli property within range of the missiles. Far from being an opportunity for peace, Gazans turned to Hamas and the terror group has maintained an iron grip on Gaza expelling Fatah in a bloody civil war.
Those actions have convinced Israel's polity that peace cannot come through more concessions, let alone land for peace. Israel has precious little land as compared to its neighbors, and Israel's so-called partners in peace at the Palestinian Authority have offered up nothing but empty platitudes and maintained the status quo on indoctrination of another generation of Palestinians to see Israel as illegitimate and refuse to recognize its right to exist alongside a Palestinian state.
Time is in the business of selling papers, and couldn't be bothered with reporting on facts or employing even the slightest bit of critical thinking and logic. It glosses over the reasons why Israelis have hardened in their belief that peace is not forthcoming - namely they lack a true partner for peace.
Instead of focusing on Israel, attention should truly be focused on the Palestinians and their double-speak - how they say one thing to their followers and empty statements to the diplomats who continue to think that they can substitute their own reality for the facts on the ground.
Settlements are not the impediment to peace - Palestinian intransigence to Israel's existence is the impediment to peace.
Moreover, how can peace with the Palestinians come when Fatah doesn't speak for at least half the Palestinian people and can't even address the issue of Gaza, which is fully in the hands of Hamas, the Palestinian terror group dedicated to Israel's destruction. Indeed, even the current Fatah charter references back to its original charter, which also calls for Israel's destruction and obligation to fight Israeli oppression.
With "partners" such as this, it is not Israel who no longer cares about peace, but the Palestinians who never did - unless it included a future without Israel's very existence.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Reuters Cropping Photos From Israeli Flotilla Raid
Media outlets are slowly releasing photos that were taken at various stages during the Israeli raid on the Mavi Marmara that led to nine activists on board being killed by Israeli commandos trying to recover the Israeli troops that had been severely beaten and seriously wounded by "activists" on board.
Yet, it seems that Reuters opted not to release one particular photo in its original form. It cropped key details.
The image shows a wounded Israeli soldier that had been dragged below decks. By itself, you have no idea what happened to the soldier.
That's the uncropped photo, and you see someone holding a knife at the bottom right corner.
Reuters opted to crop the photo, and by doing so it appears to have violated its
code of principals. Moreover, it may be a violation of the Reuters Guide to Standards and Photoshop.
While cropping is permitted by Reuters, this particular instance fundamentally changes the nature of the photo and the story being conveyed and I think it would violate those terms. The guide does permit cropping, but does not permit adding or removing details. Here, the cropped photo does just that - it removes details.
Reuters officials need to explain how and why they opted to crop the photo in this fashion - and why they did not follow their own guidelines.
UPDATE:
And this isn't the only photo either - there is another photo sequence that shows someone on board brandishing a military style knife, but Reuters opted to edit out that detail.
Yet, it seems that Reuters opted not to release one particular photo in its original form. It cropped key details.
Reuters opted to crop the photo, and by doing so it appears to have violated its
code of principals. Moreover, it may be a violation of the Reuters Guide to Standards and Photoshop.
While cropping is permitted by Reuters, this particular instance fundamentally changes the nature of the photo and the story being conveyed and I think it would violate those terms. The guide does permit cropping, but does not permit adding or removing details. Here, the cropped photo does just that - it removes details.
Reuters officials need to explain how and why they opted to crop the photo in this fashion - and why they did not follow their own guidelines.
UPDATE:
And this isn't the only photo either - there is another photo sequence that shows someone on board brandishing a military style knife, but Reuters opted to edit out that detail.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Critics Complaining Israel Using Protesters Own Video As Proof
Cry me a river for the Foreign Press Association which is busy complaining that Israel is using the activists' own videos against them.
The Israeli military boarded four other ships in the flotilla without incident. Only those on board the Mavi Marmara engaged in violence - attacking the Israelis who attempted to stop the ship without violence and with nonlethal paintball guns. When the Israelis were attacked with deadly force and with deadly intent did the Israelis resort to using deadly force.
Apparently the activists dislike the fact that their own propaganda is being used against them. The Foreign Press Association is busy providing cover, where none should exist.
Too bad.
Had the activists on board not engaged in violence, this situation would have ended without the loss of life, but that was never the intention of those on board the Mavi Marmara. They wanted a violent encounter to further their propaganda.
They thought they could win a propaganda coup, but now find that Israel is releasing all manner of video showing just what those activists were up to- and it was evil.
Meanwhile, Turks continue holding rallies in support of Hamas.
UPDATE:
Even some newscasters are wondering why their media outlets are running stories that are clearly biased in favor of terror groups:
Israel's army has been using confiscated videos to justify its deadly raid against a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, and the Foreign Press Association wants it to stop.The activists were busy preparing for a violent encounter with the Israelis on board the Mavi Marmara and made numerous videos in preparation for the flotilla of ships attempting to run the Israeli blockade.
The organization, which represents hundreds of journalists in Israel and the Palestinian territories, says the military seized video and equipment from dozens of reporters on board the main ship.
The FPA demanded Thursday that the military stop using the captured material without permission and identify the source of the video already released. The material appeared Wednesday on the army's YouTube site labeled as "captured."
The Israeli military boarded four other ships in the flotilla without incident. Only those on board the Mavi Marmara engaged in violence - attacking the Israelis who attempted to stop the ship without violence and with nonlethal paintball guns. When the Israelis were attacked with deadly force and with deadly intent did the Israelis resort to using deadly force.
Apparently the activists dislike the fact that their own propaganda is being used against them. The Foreign Press Association is busy providing cover, where none should exist.
Too bad.
Had the activists on board not engaged in violence, this situation would have ended without the loss of life, but that was never the intention of those on board the Mavi Marmara. They wanted a violent encounter to further their propaganda.
They thought they could win a propaganda coup, but now find that Israel is releasing all manner of video showing just what those activists were up to- and it was evil.
Meanwhile, Turks continue holding rallies in support of Hamas.
Tens of thousands gathered in Istanbul Thursday for prayers for activists killed in Israel's raid on aid ships bound for Gaza, condemning the Jewish state and shouting support for Hamas.The Turkish government sanctioned the flotilla that was intercepted by Israel and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan is moving squarely into the Iranian camp and Turkey is sliding towards Islamization after decades of pursuing a secularist agenda. Erdogan is content to move towards a cozier relationship with Iran because he sees Iran having greater longevity than US or Israeli commitments. Turkey isn't about challenging Israel's hegemony as commentator David Ignatius claims, it's about picking sides and choosing the Iranians over Israel and the West. Erdogan is busy spreading the Islamist agenda, and feeding the anti-Israel sentiment is a way to stay in power in the Middle East, particularly when Iran is leading the way on anti-Israel sentiment.
"Damn Israel! Israel is the angel of death!" chanted the crowd which overflowed the sprawling courtyard of the Fatih Mosque, waving Turkish and Palestinian flags.
UPDATE:
Even some newscasters are wondering why their media outlets are running stories that are clearly biased in favor of terror groups:
I’m writing for some clarification about how we are supposed to cover the Gaza flotilla story. If we, as a news organization, are supposed to be acting as a public relations arm of Hamas, or Hezbollah, both internationally recognized terrorist organizations, or if we are supposed to be jumping on the bandwagon of 1930’s style anti-Semitism that’s presently sweeping much of the world, then we are doing a fine job. If we are supposed to be acting as a news organization that covers the story objectively, then our coverage is a travesty and an embarrassment.
I just finished watching XXXX’s piece on yesterday’s 5pm newscast, so I could better understand the grotesquely distorted and biased voice-over that ran on this morning’s show. XXXX interviewed former diplomat Edward Peck, who was onboard the “Gaza Flotilla,” without describing his views on the Middle East. Some perspective would have helped. Among other things, Peck spoke these words, later famously used by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright:”We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye…and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards.”
Thursday, April 22, 2010
AP Corrects Disingenous Attack Piece on Gov. Christie's Administration
Right before the key vote on state budgets, the Associated Press ran a highly suspect article claiming that Gov. Chris Christie's administration was nearly twice the size of Gov. Corzine's administration and had twice the number of people making more than $100,000. Here's a typical news report:
Well, the reality is quite a bit different. In fact, the size of the executive staff is pretty much identical. Moreover, any difference in salaries is due entirely to the fact that Gov. Christie draws a salary while Gov. Corzine opted not to take a salary because of his wealth.
Well, the reality is quite a bit different. In fact, the size of the executive staff is pretty much identical. Moreover, any difference in salaries is due entirely to the fact that Gov. Christie draws a salary while Gov. Corzine opted not to take a salary because of his wealth.
In an April 19 story about Gov. Chris Christie's payroll, The Associated Press reported erroneously that he is spending nearly $2 million more on salaries a year than did his predecessor, former Gov. Jon Corzine.
Treasury Department figures show the correct higher amount is about $440,000.
Because the AP had incomplete figures for all those on Corzine's payroll — some were paid by other departments but still worked for the governor — the AP also erroneously reported that twice as many people in Christie's office earn $100,000 or more than they did in Corzine's.
Treasury figures show 34 people making $100,000 or more in Christie's office, compared with 24 for Corzine in April 2009.
Corzine had a payroll of $8.43 million for 118 people, not $7 million, according to Treasury figures. Christie has 117 employees, including himself, with a payroll of $8.86 million per year. Unlike his multimillionaire predecessor, Christie collects the $175,000 salary allowed under the law.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Rather's Suit Against CBS Terminated By NY Court of Appeals
Dan Rather will not pass go and he will not get a chance to collect $70 million from CBS on his lawsuit against CBS claiming that CBS violated his employment contract. The Court of Appeals (New York's top court) upheld the Appellate Division's ruling in dismissing the case, meaning that Rather's out of luck.
The motion to appeal was denied in a one sentence summation here.
The decision by the Court of Appeals upholds a September Appellate Division ruling that threw out the suit in which Rather disputed his removal as anchor of the "CBS Evening News."Rather had proffered a bogus story just days before the 2004 election using bogus documents claiming that President Bush had avoided his military service obligations in the Texas Air National Guard. The documents were shown to be bogus and created using modern computers and could not have been produced by the typewriters at the time but Rather continued to claim that they were fake, but accurate.
The folksy Rather filed suit in 2007, saying he was bounced as an anchor and sidelined as a "60 Minutes" correspondent over a disputed 2004 report about President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era military service.
Rather claimed CBS suits were trying to make nice with the Republicans by taking him off the air.
A CBS spokeswoman said the network is pleased with the decision, while a lawyer for Rather did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The motion to appeal was denied in a one sentence summation here.
Motion for leave to appeal denied with
one hundred dollars costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Investigation Continues Into Deadly Fort Hood Shootings
Amid all the confusion and contradictory reports about yesterday's carnage and savage deaths of 13 US soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, some facts are finally coming to the forefront. Army psychiatrist Major Malik Nadal Hasan is believed to be the shooter. He is still alive after being shot four times.
MSNBC reports Hasan was "mortified" about a deployment overseas. He began having doubts about his military service beginning a few years ago. So he went and murdered 13 soldiers and wounded 31 others? If he was having doubts, why accept the promotion and not separate from service through an honorable discharge after completing the terms of his service?
Then, there are several online postings attributed to him that suggest that he was going down the path of a jihadi:
Video footage shows Hasan the morning of the attack at a convenience store wearing a Muslim cap and robe, which runs counter to Army records which say that he had no religious preference.
Moreover he had once been disciplined for proselytizing, and a report this morning says that he shouted Allahu Akbar as he began his shooting rampage. If that's confirmed, this was not some weird case of post traumatic stress disorder (which could be remotely possible based on his close contact with soldiers who were relating their war experiences to him in the course of their treatment and Hasan couldn't deal with it), but rather another instance of an individual Muslim engaging in jihad.
The NY Post reports that Hasan had hired an attorney to help him get out of a deployment.
UPDATE:
What is going on with the Los Angeles Times? Patterico notes that the LAT is suppressing any mention of Hasan's religious views, actions, and statements alleged to have been made by him that would contradict the meme that Hasan was a PTSD victim despite never having been in combat. The LAT also is in the habit of simply overlaying reports on each other using the same URL, rather than providing separate reports to show updates. Earlier reports simply go down the memory hole.
UPDATE:
Based on the video showing Hasan wearing traditional garb, and a report that Hasan sold off his possessions in the past few weeks, I wonder whether Hasan underwent wudu (ritual purification) ahead of the attack yesterday. It definitely seems that he had prepared himself for some action. There's also an update on the number injured and no confirmation as yet to whether Hasan had indeed said Allahu Akbar:
The FBI has seized Hasan's computer and are continuing their investigation in to Hasan's motives.
UPDATE:
According to this NPR report, Hasan was giving off all kinds of warning signs to his coworkers at Walter Reed, which is where he was based before heading to Fort Hood, which again makes me wonder why he was promoted in light of his behavior/attitude.
Instapundit has more on the NPR segment, and how the story is being edited and adjusted as the day goes on. However, the takeaway paragraphs are as follows:
This further adds to my thesis that this wasn't a sudden inspiration to kill, but a premeditated act. I am awaiting to see if the reports indicate whether Hasan picked the time and place for the attack so as to maximize casualties - in conjunction with the intake for soldiers as well as the graduation ceremony, etc. all in the hall?
The gunman, who was still alive after being shot four times, was identified by law enforcement authorities as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, who had been in the service since 1995. Major Hasan was about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas.There were apparently no others involved in the shooting, although there were two people who were taken into custody and released several hours later.
Clad in a military uniform and firing an automatic pistol and another weapon, Major Hasan, a balding, chubby-faced man with heavy eyebrows, sprayed bullets inside a crowded medical processing center for soldiers returning from or about to be sent overseas, military officials said.
The victims, nearly all military personnel but including two civilians, were cut down in clusters, the officials said. Witnesses told military investigators that medics working at the center tore open the clothing of the dead and wounded to get at the wounds and administer first aid.
As the shooting unfolded, military police and civilian officers of the Department of the Army responded and returned the gunman’s fire, officials said, adding that Major Hasan was shot by a first-responder, who was herself wounded in the exchange.
In the confusion of a day of wild and misleading reports, the major and the officer who shot him were both reported killed in the gun battle, but both reports were erroneous.
Eight hours after the shootings, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, a base spokesmen, said Major Hasan, whom he described as the sole gunman, had been shot four times, but was hospitalized off the base, under around-the-clock guard, in stable condition and was not in imminent danger of dying.
MSNBC reports Hasan was "mortified" about a deployment overseas. He began having doubts about his military service beginning a few years ago. So he went and murdered 13 soldiers and wounded 31 others? If he was having doubts, why accept the promotion and not separate from service through an honorable discharge after completing the terms of his service?
Then, there are several online postings attributed to him that suggest that he was going down the path of a jihadi:
There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best. [emphasis added]
Video footage shows Hasan the morning of the attack at a convenience store wearing a Muslim cap and robe, which runs counter to Army records which say that he had no religious preference.
A co-worker at Walter Reed said Hasan would not allow his photo to be taken with female co-workers, which became an issue during Christmas season when employees often took group photos. Co-workers would find a solo photo of Hasan and post it on the bulletin board without his permission.It appears that he did have a preference for being a devout Muslim but didn't want the Army to know, although his actions showed something quite different?
Lee told Fox News that Hasan "was hoping that President Obama would pull troops out. . . . When things weren't going that way, he became more agitated, more frustrated with the conflicts over there. . . . He made his views well known about how he felt about the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."
And when he talked about fighting "the aggressor," he said that his fellow soldiers "should stand up and help the armed forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan," Lee said.
Moreover he had once been disciplined for proselytizing, and a report this morning says that he shouted Allahu Akbar as he began his shooting rampage. If that's confirmed, this was not some weird case of post traumatic stress disorder (which could be remotely possible based on his close contact with soldiers who were relating their war experiences to him in the course of their treatment and Hasan couldn't deal with it), but rather another instance of an individual Muslim engaging in jihad.
The NY Post reports that Hasan had hired an attorney to help him get out of a deployment.
In recent years, he expressed his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had become angry that President Obama hadn't withdrawn troops from the region.There is something seriously amiss here as the various disjointed facts come together as to how Hasan was promoted in May despite concerns about his Internet postings, and the fact he was placed in close proximity to soldiers ready to embark to one of the theaters of operation - Iraq and Afghanistan, where Hasan thought they were going to kill Muslims. Did the Army fail to heed the warning signs here? Did he fall through the cracks.
"He would make comments to other individuals about how we should not be in the war in the first place," Lee told Fox.
He said Hasan would often make "outlandish" comments.
"He said maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor," Lee said.
"At first, we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently, that wasn't the case."
Nader Hasan told Fox his cousin, a disaster and trauma specialist, had hired a military lawyer to help him get out of deployment.
UPDATE:
What is going on with the Los Angeles Times? Patterico notes that the LAT is suppressing any mention of Hasan's religious views, actions, and statements alleged to have been made by him that would contradict the meme that Hasan was a PTSD victim despite never having been in combat. The LAT also is in the habit of simply overlaying reports on each other using the same URL, rather than providing separate reports to show updates. Earlier reports simply go down the memory hole.
UPDATE:
Based on the video showing Hasan wearing traditional garb, and a report that Hasan sold off his possessions in the past few weeks, I wonder whether Hasan underwent wudu (ritual purification) ahead of the attack yesterday. It definitely seems that he had prepared himself for some action. There's also an update on the number injured and no confirmation as yet to whether Hasan had indeed said Allahu Akbar:
Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said officials had not yet confirmed that the suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, made the comment before the rampage Thursday. Hasan was among 30 people wounded in the shooting spree and remained hospitalized on a ventilator.UPDATE:
All but two of the injured were still hospitalized, and all were in stable condition.
The FBI has seized Hasan's computer and are continuing their investigation in to Hasan's motives.
UPDATE:
According to this NPR report, Hasan was giving off all kinds of warning signs to his coworkers at Walter Reed, which is where he was based before heading to Fort Hood, which again makes me wonder why he was promoted in light of his behavior/attitude.
Instapundit has more on the NPR segment, and how the story is being edited and adjusted as the day goes on. However, the takeaway paragraphs are as follows:
He gave a Grand Rounds presentation. . . You take turns giving a lecture on, you know, the correct treatment of schizophrenia, the right drugs to prescribe for personality disorder, you know, that sort of thing. But instead of giving an academic paper, he gave a lecture on the Koran, and they said it didn’t seem to be just an informational lecture, but it seemed to be his own beliefs. That’s what a lot of people thought.In other words, his coworkers and associates were wondering if this guy was a ticking time bomb, and yet it didn't raise flags come promotion time? It would appear that someone may have dropped the ball here, and perhaps someone may not have wanted to come forward to address this issue because of the religious issues involved?
He talked about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire. And I said well couldn’t this just be his educating you? And the psychiatrist said yes, but one of the Muslims in the audience, another psychiatrist, raised his hand and was quite disturbed and he said you know, a lot of us don’t believe these things you’re saying, and that there was no place where Hasan couched it as this is what the Koran teaches but you know I don’t believe it. And people actually talked in the hallway afterwards about ‘is he one of these people that’s going to freak out and shoot people someday?’
This further adds to my thesis that this wasn't a sudden inspiration to kill, but a premeditated act. I am awaiting to see if the reports indicate whether Hasan picked the time and place for the attack so as to maximize casualties - in conjunction with the intake for soldiers as well as the graduation ceremony, etc. all in the hall?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Journalistic Malpractice From the First Word
The AP engaged in a stunning piece of journalistic malpractice today in the course of reporting on a situation in Jerusalem. The headline screams that Israeli police storm Jerusalem's holiest shrine.
Really? Which would that be? The Kotel/Western Wall, which is the holiest spot on the planet to Jews? The Church of the Holy Sepulchur, holy to Christians? Or the Dome of the Rock or al Aqsa Mosque holy to Muslims built atop and adjacent to the Western Wall?
Well, it turns out that the police went into the al Aqsa Mosque because Palestinian thugs were busy throwing stones from the vicinity of the mosque.
The report makes no mention that those who were rioting were Muslim, only that Palestinians were involved.
And the police never actually stormed the mosque.
They have no plans to do so - as the report actually indicates.
I am reprinted this crap in full so that there's a record of the malpractice and overt lies.
So, what do we have here if we want to count the mistakes?
1) Palestinian thugs were busy engaging in riots, throwing rocks and firebombs.
2) Israeli police came to the vicinity of the Temple Mount to break up the rioters and never entered the mosque or Dome of the Rock.
3) Israeli police did not storm a shrine holy to Muslims. That directly contradicts the headline.
4) Israeli authorities have repeatedly prevented Jews from visiting the Temple Mount, which is holy to all Jews, for fears that a Jewish presence on the Temple Mount would cause rioting by Palestinians.
5) Palestinians, Islamists and Arab revisionists repeatedly try to disavow Jewish claims to historical ties to the Temple Mount, attempting to write out 3,000+ years of Jewish ties to Jerusalem in the process.
6) No where in the report do we read that Palestinian leaders condemn the attacks by Palestinians on Israelis or the use of violence. Instead, we read of the Palestinian leadership support for the rioters. That's a partner in peace?
This report, full of lies and omissions is propaganda that aids and abets Palestinian terrorism and efforts to initiate another intifada.
In fact, the Jerusalem Post reports that among those arrested by police were senior Fatah imams exhorting the thugs to violence who had been previously banned from Jerusalem for previously calling for Muslims to engage in violence against Israel.
And what precipitated this latest violence in Jerusalem? Well, it was a video showing Palestinian kids preparing for the violence:
Really? Which would that be? The Kotel/Western Wall, which is the holiest spot on the planet to Jews? The Church of the Holy Sepulchur, holy to Christians? Or the Dome of the Rock or al Aqsa Mosque holy to Muslims built atop and adjacent to the Western Wall?
Well, it turns out that the police went into the al Aqsa Mosque because Palestinian thugs were busy throwing stones from the vicinity of the mosque.
The report makes no mention that those who were rioting were Muslim, only that Palestinians were involved.
And the police never actually stormed the mosque.
They have no plans to do so - as the report actually indicates.
I am reprinted this crap in full so that there's a record of the malpractice and overt lies.
By RAWHI RAZIM, Associated Press Writer Rawhi Razim, Associated Press Writer – 25 mins ago
JERUSALEM – Israeli forces stormed Jerusalem's holiest shrine Sunday, firing stun grenades to disperse hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinian protesters in a fresh eruption of violence at the most volatile spot in the country.
A wall of Israeli riot police behind plexiglass shields closed in on the crowd, sending many protesters — overwhelmingly young men — running for cover into the black-domed Al-Aqsa mosque. The mosque is one part of the compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary.
After several rounds of clashes, dozens of protesters were still holed up inside the mosque at midafternoon, occasionally opening shuttered doors to throw objects at police. The Israeli forces did not enter the building and police said they had no plans to do so. There were no serious injuries.
Israel's national police chief, David Cohen, accused a small group of Muslim extremists of trying to foment violence — echoing a charge made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu two weeks ago.
"The police will act with a strong hand against anyone who disrupts order on the Temple Mount and against those incite to riot," Cohen said.
Religious and nationalist sentiment connected with the site have made it a flashpoint for violence in the past. A visit in 2000 by Ariel Sharon, then an Israeli opposition leader, helped ignite deadly clashes that escalated into violence that engulfed Israel and the Palestinian territories for several years.
The clashes were the most intense in the past month of unrest around the compound. Frictions in recent weeks have stemmed largely from rumors among Palestinians about Israeli plans to allows Jews to pray at the site or to dig under the compound and harm the Muslim buildings there. Israel has carried out numerous archaeological digs in nearby areas, but there has been no evidence to support the Palestinian claims.
In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority condemned the Israeli police action.
"Jerusalem is a red line that Israel should not cross," said Nabil Abu Rdeneh, spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas.
Muslim leaders had urged their followers to gather at the compound early Sunday in response to what they said was a planned "Jewish conquest."
Israeli police said the protesters hurled a fire bomb and poured oil on the ground to make the forces slip. Around midday, small groups of youths were seen darting in and out of nearby alleyways in Jerusalem's Old City, throwing stones and bottles at police, who responded with more stun grenades. Many protesters masked their faces with black-and-white checkered keffiyeh headdresses.
Three police officers were lightly wounded and 15 protesters were detained. The Palestinian president's adviser on Jerusalem affairs, was arrested for alleged incitement, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. At least two Palestinians were lightly wounded.
The disputing claims to the hilltop compound in Jerusalem's Old City lie at the heart of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It is revered as the holiest site in Judaism, home to the biblical Temples.
It also is the third-holiest site in Islam, after the Saudi cities of Mecca and Medina, and believed to be the place where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. At the center of the compound is the famous golden cap of the Dome of the Rock.
The site has been under Israeli control since 1967, but it is administered by a Muslim religious body known as the Waqf. The compound is opened for several hours a day to allow tourists and Jews to visit, though only Muslims are allowed to pray there.
The Palestinians seek to make east Jerusalem — including the holy compound — the capital of a future independent state, while Netanyahu says he will never share control of the holy city.
The Gaza Strip's rival rulers, the Islamic militant group Hamas, called on Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims to rise up against Israel. "The real battle begins again," spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said.
So, what do we have here if we want to count the mistakes?
1) Palestinian thugs were busy engaging in riots, throwing rocks and firebombs.
2) Israeli police came to the vicinity of the Temple Mount to break up the rioters and never entered the mosque or Dome of the Rock.
3) Israeli police did not storm a shrine holy to Muslims. That directly contradicts the headline.
4) Israeli authorities have repeatedly prevented Jews from visiting the Temple Mount, which is holy to all Jews, for fears that a Jewish presence on the Temple Mount would cause rioting by Palestinians.
5) Palestinians, Islamists and Arab revisionists repeatedly try to disavow Jewish claims to historical ties to the Temple Mount, attempting to write out 3,000+ years of Jewish ties to Jerusalem in the process.
6) No where in the report do we read that Palestinian leaders condemn the attacks by Palestinians on Israelis or the use of violence. Instead, we read of the Palestinian leadership support for the rioters. That's a partner in peace?
This report, full of lies and omissions is propaganda that aids and abets Palestinian terrorism and efforts to initiate another intifada.
In fact, the Jerusalem Post reports that among those arrested by police were senior Fatah imams exhorting the thugs to violence who had been previously banned from Jerusalem for previously calling for Muslims to engage in violence against Israel.
And what precipitated this latest violence in Jerusalem? Well, it was a video showing Palestinian kids preparing for the violence:
Police said that the disturbances began when officers were accompanying a group of tourists up to the mount, and several Muslim youngsters were caught on video camera preparing to cause trouble, including gathering rocks to throw and pouring oil onto the ground to hinder the access of security forces and the visitors.
Following the discovery, police reinforcements stormed the mount and were pelted with stones and a fire bomb by the young rioters. The forces dispersed the riots using stun grenades, among other means at their disposal, and a tense calm was briefly restored to the area.
Security forces stormed the mount for the second time when Arab youths began hurling rocks just as police officers were talking to the Waqf in a bid to convince some 100 Muslim youths involved in the earlier violence to come out of the Aksa Mosque where they had holed themselves up. Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said that the officers had promised not to arrest them if they descended from the mount.
Forces didn't enter the mosque, but throughout the day, protesters inside occasionally opened the shuttered doors to throw various objects, such as chairs, at security forces. At one point, protesters shot water and a fire extinguisher toward the door.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Memo to Reuters: Hamas Does Not Shun Israel
Reuters reported today that Israeli forces repelled a Palestinian attack, killing two Palestinian terrorists. It's the first major incident between Israelis and Hamas since a truce was brokered in January, ending Operation Cast Lead. The problem is that Reuters characterizes Hamas' position regarding Israel as merely shunning:
Hamas seeks Israel's destruction. Its leaders call for the annihilation of Israel on a regular basis. Its leaders indoctrinate fellow Gazans into hating Israel's very existence. They treat Israel's independence day as a day of mourning and the Naqba - because Israel exists. Their maps do not show Israel alongside a Palestinian state. In Hamas (and Fatah's view), Israel doesn't exist except as a map for coordinating attacks against civilian targets. These groups will not accept any mention even remotely mentioning Israel and Jewish claims to the region, on grounds that it would "Judaize" the education of the Palestinians. Moreover, any territory evacuated by Israel in favor of Palestinians will become Jewish-free - ethnic cleansing of a sort that the world seems to have no problem with, even though there has been a Jewish presence for thousands of years in the land between the Jordan River and the Med - a fact that Palestinian and Arab commentators repeatedly try to disavow at every opportunity.
Meanwhile, Hamas maintains and operates smuggling tunnels through which it gains access to weapons shipments, including one such shipment that was caught by the Egyptians in Sinai. Hamas gets a piece of the action on everything that goes on in Gaza. The terrorists also don't like it when other terror groups encroach on their iron grip in Gaza, and target them for attack, just as they did with al Qaeda affiliated Jund Ansar Allah three weeks ago.
But media mendacity isn't solely confined to Reuters.
UPDATE:
Dave at Israellycool notes that the Hamas terrorists killed along the Gaza fence were killed when the explosives they were placing along the security fence went off. Israeli forces had nothing to do with the incident.
Moreover, he notes that Reuters didn't seem to notice that Hamas and the Gazans had been busy violating the ceasefire several times in the past month, but Israeli reprisal counts as a violation. Curious.
Hamas shuns Israel but has signaled interest in a long-term truce. Egypt and Germany are trying to broker Hamas's release of an Israeli soldier seized in a 2006 border raid, in exchange for hundreds of Palestinians held in Israel's jails.Sorry to break it to Reuters, but Hamas does not shun Israel.
The gunmen killed Tuesday had been deployed in night-lookout positions east of the town of Jabalya, close to the Israeli border, Hamas said. Medical officials said their bodies bore injuries from heavy ordnance.
Hamas seeks Israel's destruction. Its leaders call for the annihilation of Israel on a regular basis. Its leaders indoctrinate fellow Gazans into hating Israel's very existence. They treat Israel's independence day as a day of mourning and the Naqba - because Israel exists. Their maps do not show Israel alongside a Palestinian state. In Hamas (and Fatah's view), Israel doesn't exist except as a map for coordinating attacks against civilian targets. These groups will not accept any mention even remotely mentioning Israel and Jewish claims to the region, on grounds that it would "Judaize" the education of the Palestinians. Moreover, any territory evacuated by Israel in favor of Palestinians will become Jewish-free - ethnic cleansing of a sort that the world seems to have no problem with, even though there has been a Jewish presence for thousands of years in the land between the Jordan River and the Med - a fact that Palestinian and Arab commentators repeatedly try to disavow at every opportunity.
Meanwhile, Hamas maintains and operates smuggling tunnels through which it gains access to weapons shipments, including one such shipment that was caught by the Egyptians in Sinai. Hamas gets a piece of the action on everything that goes on in Gaza. The terrorists also don't like it when other terror groups encroach on their iron grip in Gaza, and target them for attack, just as they did with al Qaeda affiliated Jund Ansar Allah three weeks ago.
But media mendacity isn't solely confined to Reuters.
UPDATE:
Dave at Israellycool notes that the Hamas terrorists killed along the Gaza fence were killed when the explosives they were placing along the security fence went off. Israeli forces had nothing to do with the incident.
Moreover, he notes that Reuters didn't seem to notice that Hamas and the Gazans had been busy violating the ceasefire several times in the past month, but Israeli reprisal counts as a violation. Curious.
Friday, August 21, 2009
It's All About the Emphasis
I'm copying the entire AP article because I need it to prove my point about how the media picks and chooses what and how it reports critical information regarding the state of the US economy:
Does anyone think that the AP would have been so kind when Republicans were in the White House? I don't. This is just another example of how the media subtly (and not so subtly) influence decision making and public opinion.
July unemployment slips in 17 states, rises in 26Why was the emphasis on the fact that 17 states saw declines in their unemployment rates, while 26 states saw increases in their unemployment rate?
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Record
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The unemployment rate fell in 17 states and the District of Columbia last month, a positive sign even as the pain of joblessness remains widespread.
The Labor Department says the jobless rate fell in July in New York, Oregon, Minnesota and Virginia, among other states. It increased in 26 states.
Only 5 states registered declines in June, when the rate rose in 38 states.
The department also says 21 states added jobs in July, compared with only 10 in the previous month.
Still, 15 states and the District of Columbia have jobless rates above 10 percent.
Nationwide, the unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent in July from 9.5 percent in June.
Does anyone think that the AP would have been so kind when Republicans were in the White House? I don't. This is just another example of how the media subtly (and not so subtly) influence decision making and public opinion.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The Myth of Cheaper Government Health Care
Forget for a moment about the quality of such care. Instead, let's focus on the actual cost of government health care versus that of private health care.
We've got 40 years of data to pore over, and the results aren't pretty. In fact, it's devastating. Government health care costs have risen far faster and higher than private care, and the difference in care is in the hundreds of billions. Had Medicare and Medicaid simply risen at the same rate as private health care, taxpayers would have saved nearly $200 billion.
It's no wonder that President Obama is running around in perpetual campaign mode to try and convince Democrats that his health care plans aren't going to bankrupt the nation and will do the impossible - create a government program that saves money over the private sector.
The New York Times is doing its part to cover for the Administration. After the CBO came out with that devastating news about the Democrats' health care plan, they buried those details, while the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post highlighted the nonpartisan report.
It's disingenuous for media outlets to downplay the CBO report, particularly when the news undermines every argument being made by the Administration in support of this health care monstrosity. If you were attempting to be objective about the health care proposal, you couldn't run a report without citing the CBO objections.
But, if you're in the game of trying to save the Administration's bacon, you will do anything and everything to obscure the fact that the numbers simply don't work. They never did.
We've got 40 years of data to pore over, and the results aren't pretty. In fact, it's devastating. Government health care costs have risen far faster and higher than private care, and the difference in care is in the hundreds of billions. Had Medicare and Medicaid simply risen at the same rate as private health care, taxpayers would have saved nearly $200 billion.
My new study, published by the Pacific Research Institute, shows that -- across four decades -- the costs of government-run health care have risen far more than the costs of private care.The CBO came out this past week with a similar finding; that the Democrats' plans for health care would never see any cost savings and would end up costing far more than the nation can afford.
My study compares the cost increases of Medicare and Medicaid with those of all other health care in the United States. The key finding: Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid's costs have risen one-third more, per patient, than the combined costs of all other health care in America -- the vast majority of which is purchased privately.
Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid's combined per-patient costs have risen from $344 to $8,955, while the combined per-patient costs of all other US health care have risen from $364 to $7,119.
Medicare and Medicaid used to cost $20 less per patient than other care. Now they cost $1,836 more. (And that's even without the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.)
In fact, if the costs of Medicare and Medicaid had risen only as much as the costs of all other health care in America, then, instead of costing a combined $807 billion last year, they would've cost a combined $606 billion. That savings of $201 billion would have amounted to more than $1,750 per American household last year alone.
It's no wonder that President Obama is running around in perpetual campaign mode to try and convince Democrats that his health care plans aren't going to bankrupt the nation and will do the impossible - create a government program that saves money over the private sector.
The New York Times is doing its part to cover for the Administration. After the CBO came out with that devastating news about the Democrats' health care plan, they buried those details, while the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post highlighted the nonpartisan report.
It's disingenuous for media outlets to downplay the CBO report, particularly when the news undermines every argument being made by the Administration in support of this health care monstrosity. If you were attempting to be objective about the health care proposal, you couldn't run a report without citing the CBO objections.
But, if you're in the game of trying to save the Administration's bacon, you will do anything and everything to obscure the fact that the numbers simply don't work. They never did.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Krugman: Conservative Media Caused Holocaust Museum Shooting
Hey Paul Krugman.
Let me do the research that Krugman clearly refuses to do since it would severely undermine his thesis. Brunn was previously imprisoned for attempting to take over the Federal Reserve. He's a convicted felon who spent six years in prison and who needed a psych evaluation as well. He believes in more conspiracy theories than one can possibly imagine. He's anti government, anti Semitic, anti Christian, and a conspiracy kook that thinks that the Jews run the government, were somehow responsible for 9/11 (which was also a government conspiracy), Christianity is a hoax, and most recently believed that Obama was hiding his true background.
That doesn't quite fit with Krugman's narrative about conservative media. After all, he's been espousing anti Semitic claptrap for decades. He's been anti government for decades. The one overriding issue with Brunn is his hatred of Jews.
That has nothing to do with the conservative media. It has nothing to do with the media at all. He's an anti-Semite to the core, and that's been his driving force for decades.
And that core belief was there well before the so-called conservative media even existed.
As to the whole nonsense about the DHS report, Krugman again hasn't been reading his own paper. The leaked DHS report on right wing extremism (and it was entitled as much so left wing terrorist groups were not included) was ambiguous and vague and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano expressed regret at its publication, but on the aspect of former military somehow linking up with right wing extremists, the concern was that former Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan veterans would be ones to profile for, not veterans from World War II. After all, who could see an 89 year old geezer as the profile of a terrorist?
Instead, Krugman is basically attacking individuals like Glenn Beck. I can't say that I've ever watched or listened to Beck, but various clips of him show that he's unhinged, but no more so than someone like Keith Olbermann, who is a leftist who gets a fraction of Beck's audience.
As to the Washington Times, might I remind Krugman that the New York Times has repeatedly been kissing the ass of President Obama, and did everything possible to see that Obama was elected, including running nonsensical stories about GOP candidate John McCain and a supposed liason with a lobbyist that existed nowhere except in the demented minds of the reporters who got the editors at the Times to run with the story.
I might even remind Krugman that CBS once tried to throw the 2004 election for John Kerry with the bogus Rathergate documents. It took bloggers to not only uncover the deception, but those media outlets did all they could to push the fake but accurate meme, despite the overwhelming evidence that they were concocted and Dan Rather and his producer Mary Mapes purposefully overlooked the questionable circumstances of the documents and ran with the incendiary story because of overwhelming Bush-hatred.
That the Bush Administration sought a solitary mouthpiece to get its own opinion out there in the face of an overwhelming liberal media doesn't show malfeasance on their part, only that the media isn't doing its job.
Krugman is merely playing his own part - one hit wonder.
Perhaps he should stick to the economics, because his grasp of the facts, particularly in this instance is sorely lacking.
UPDATE:
Here's a copy of Brunn's criminal complaint, which notes that Brunn was charged under 18 USC 1111 (first degree murder) and 18 USC 930 (murder at federal facility), both of which are punishable by the death penalty. The crime was also videotaped, which means that the incident will be available for the jury to view.
But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.What exactly has Krugman been smoking over there at the New York Times building? Have you not been paying attention to the news, as reported by your own paper? Heck, have you even bothered to do a Google search of James Von Brunn. You'd be disabused of the notion that somehow conservative media is to blame for the murder of security guard Stephen T. Johns.
There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.
Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.
And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.
Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News’s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news — and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s “totalitarian” agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).
But let’s not neglect the print news media. In the Bush years, The Washington Times became an important media player because it was widely regarded as the Bush administration’s house organ. Earlier this week, the newspaper saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama “not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,” and that in any case he has “aligned himself” with the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
Let me do the research that Krugman clearly refuses to do since it would severely undermine his thesis. Brunn was previously imprisoned for attempting to take over the Federal Reserve. He's a convicted felon who spent six years in prison and who needed a psych evaluation as well. He believes in more conspiracy theories than one can possibly imagine. He's anti government, anti Semitic, anti Christian, and a conspiracy kook that thinks that the Jews run the government, were somehow responsible for 9/11 (which was also a government conspiracy), Christianity is a hoax, and most recently believed that Obama was hiding his true background.
That doesn't quite fit with Krugman's narrative about conservative media. After all, he's been espousing anti Semitic claptrap for decades. He's been anti government for decades. The one overriding issue with Brunn is his hatred of Jews.
That has nothing to do with the conservative media. It has nothing to do with the media at all. He's an anti-Semite to the core, and that's been his driving force for decades.
And that core belief was there well before the so-called conservative media even existed.
As to the whole nonsense about the DHS report, Krugman again hasn't been reading his own paper. The leaked DHS report on right wing extremism (and it was entitled as much so left wing terrorist groups were not included) was ambiguous and vague and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano expressed regret at its publication, but on the aspect of former military somehow linking up with right wing extremists, the concern was that former Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan veterans would be ones to profile for, not veterans from World War II. After all, who could see an 89 year old geezer as the profile of a terrorist?
Instead, Krugman is basically attacking individuals like Glenn Beck. I can't say that I've ever watched or listened to Beck, but various clips of him show that he's unhinged, but no more so than someone like Keith Olbermann, who is a leftist who gets a fraction of Beck's audience.
As to the Washington Times, might I remind Krugman that the New York Times has repeatedly been kissing the ass of President Obama, and did everything possible to see that Obama was elected, including running nonsensical stories about GOP candidate John McCain and a supposed liason with a lobbyist that existed nowhere except in the demented minds of the reporters who got the editors at the Times to run with the story.
I might even remind Krugman that CBS once tried to throw the 2004 election for John Kerry with the bogus Rathergate documents. It took bloggers to not only uncover the deception, but those media outlets did all they could to push the fake but accurate meme, despite the overwhelming evidence that they were concocted and Dan Rather and his producer Mary Mapes purposefully overlooked the questionable circumstances of the documents and ran with the incendiary story because of overwhelming Bush-hatred.
That the Bush Administration sought a solitary mouthpiece to get its own opinion out there in the face of an overwhelming liberal media doesn't show malfeasance on their part, only that the media isn't doing its job.
Krugman is merely playing his own part - one hit wonder.
Perhaps he should stick to the economics, because his grasp of the facts, particularly in this instance is sorely lacking.
UPDATE:
Here's a copy of Brunn's criminal complaint, which notes that Brunn was charged under 18 USC 1111 (first degree murder) and 18 USC 930 (murder at federal facility), both of which are punishable by the death penalty. The crime was also videotaped, which means that the incident will be available for the jury to view.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Who Blocked This Nomination?
The Albany Times Union, picking up on the AP report by Dina Cappiello, claims that Republicans blocked the nomination of David Hayes to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
The final vote was 57-39, which means three members were not present and didn't vote. Those three members were Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, and Sen. John Kerry. All are Democrats. Had two of the three been present to cast their votes, Hayes's name would have gone up for a confirmation vote.
Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, also voted against the measure as a procedural point to enable him to bring Hayes' nomination before the floor at a later date.
That's four Democrats who did not vote for Hayes' nomination, and yet it is the minority party that are obstructionists?
The AP should be ashamed of itself for this baseless accusation and the Times Union should take down that headline because it is baseless and wrong. The measure was put up to a vote because it was expected that it wouldn't pass - and the Democrats were hoping to embarrass the Republicans.
UPDATE:
To be absolutely clear, the only reason that this measure didn't pass was because Sen. Harry Reid chose to move this nomination even though he lacked the votes. He either couldn't count, or expected that the failure to garner enough votes would be blamed on the GOP. Well, on that score, Reid won.
The facts, however, are what they are and they show that it was Democrats who failed to vote for Hayes. After all, Republicans John Kyl and Olympia Snowe voted for the measure. That makes Reid's math mistake all the more egregious - to say nothing of the misleading AP headlines.
Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's pick for the No. 2 job at the Interior Department Wednesday in a dispute over oil and gas leases, but Democrats signaled they would soon make a second attempt to win confirmation.The problem is that the facts don't bear this out. Democrats failed to get the votes because three of its members were not present.
The 57-39 vote was three short of the 60 needed to advance David Hayes past Republican objections, and made him the first of Obama's top-level nominees to be sidetracked on the Senate floor.
Hayes, an environmental lawyer picked by Obama to serve as deputy secretary of the Interior Department, held the same post during the last three years of the Clinton administration. He also led Obama's natural resources transition team, responsible for naming a new Interior Department head.
Republican opposition to Hayes' nomination was led by Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, who expressed anger over Secretary Ken Salazar's recent decision to revoke 77 oil and gas leases in his state. He was joined by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who raised questions about the administration's plans for oil and gas development and objected to recent reversals of several Bush-era rules on endangered species and mountaintop mining.
The final vote was 57-39, which means three members were not present and didn't vote. Those three members were Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, and Sen. John Kerry. All are Democrats. Had two of the three been present to cast their votes, Hayes's name would have gone up for a confirmation vote.
Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, also voted against the measure as a procedural point to enable him to bring Hayes' nomination before the floor at a later date.
That's four Democrats who did not vote for Hayes' nomination, and yet it is the minority party that are obstructionists?
The AP should be ashamed of itself for this baseless accusation and the Times Union should take down that headline because it is baseless and wrong. The measure was put up to a vote because it was expected that it wouldn't pass - and the Democrats were hoping to embarrass the Republicans.
UPDATE:
To be absolutely clear, the only reason that this measure didn't pass was because Sen. Harry Reid chose to move this nomination even though he lacked the votes. He either couldn't count, or expected that the failure to garner enough votes would be blamed on the GOP. Well, on that score, Reid won.
The facts, however, are what they are and they show that it was Democrats who failed to vote for Hayes. After all, Republicans John Kyl and Olympia Snowe voted for the measure. That makes Reid's math mistake all the more egregious - to say nothing of the misleading AP headlines.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Where's the Outrage?
Brazil is in the process of building miles of concrete barriers to prevent slums from expanding in and around Rio de Janeiro. The local government there is building concrete walls to prevent sprawling slums from spreading farther into the picturesque hills of this world-famous tourist destination.
Ace helpfully puts together a list of what qualifies as a good wall versus the ones that are bad. Israel's border fences to prevent terrorists from infiltrating Israel to kill Israelis gets all the press these days, except when the media focuses on the US attempts to control its border to prevent Mexican drug gangs from crossing the border and causing mayhem in US cities and communities up and down the border there.
Yet, there's barely a ripple in the media's interest about Brazil's actions to contain the slums of Rio with massive fences. Where's the world's outrage? Where's the shreiks from the human rights groups about the Brazilian regime's move to curtail the movement of its own citizens?
Ace helpfully puts together a list of what qualifies as a good wall versus the ones that are bad. Israel's border fences to prevent terrorists from infiltrating Israel to kill Israelis gets all the press these days, except when the media focuses on the US attempts to control its border to prevent Mexican drug gangs from crossing the border and causing mayhem in US cities and communities up and down the border there.
Yet, there's barely a ripple in the media's interest about Brazil's actions to contain the slums of Rio with massive fences. Where's the world's outrage? Where's the shreiks from the human rights groups about the Brazilian regime's move to curtail the movement of its own citizens?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Down the Memory Hole
Media reports highlight the arrival of new school trailers from Dubai in Gaza. They were meant to replace classrooms blown up during Operation Cast Lead. The reports on the new classrooms omit one key detail.
There's a reason that Israel bombed the Gaza school.
It was a launching pad for dozens of rockets against Israel. It's curious why the media reports on the new trailers omits the reason for why the school was targeted in the first place.
A genral view shows trailers donated by the Dubai-based organization "Dubai Cares" for Palestinian students whose school was damaged during Israel's 22-day offensive that ended in January, in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Lahiya on March 12, 2009. Students of the Sakhnin School restarted classes on March 12 in the trailers donated by the Emirati group.Ignore the typo in the caption as well (lots of layers of editorial review and all that).
There's a reason that Israel bombed the Gaza school.
It was a launching pad for dozens of rockets against Israel. It's curious why the media reports on the new trailers omits the reason for why the school was targeted in the first place. A Palestinian youth walk amidst debris following an Israeli air strike targeting the American International school of Gaza in Beit Lahia on January 3, 2009. Israeli missiles demolished the school in northern Gaza, killing a guard in a strike the army said targeted a college used as a base for firing a large number of rockets.By ignoring the reason for the school being targeted, the media acts as a propaganda outlet for Hamas and the terrorists who use all those kinds of locations from which to carry out attacks against Israel. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have repeatedly made use of civilian areas for their preparations, mortar and rocket attacks, including schools, zoos, hospitals, and apartment buildings. This is yet more evidence that the media is willingly covering up those atrocities and finding reason to blame Israel for the damage done.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Another Obama Scandal Brewing
Alolpho Carrion, the former Bronx borough president, who was chosen by President Obama to be Obama's urban policy czar, is under increasing fire for having an architect do work for him personally after approving that same architect's big project. The kicker is that Carrion hasn't paid the architect for the work. Gothamist notes that after initially not telling the NY Daily News how much he paid for the project or responding to the paper's request for cancelled checks, the Daily News now reports that Carrion says he hadn't paid the architect, Hugo Subotovsky, to design a porch and balcony for his City Island home for his work, which totaled $3,627.50.
This is a significant conflict of interest issue for Carrion and once again brings into question Obama's vetting process for not picking up on this significant issue. Similar issues have brought down politicians in the past, including former Connecticut Governor John Rowland, a Republican.
It is curious that most of the media is oblivious to this latest in a string of nomination troubles for the Obama Administration. MSNBC simply notes that the Daily News is doggedly pursuing the story, and not without a sense of irony notes that this is indeed a string of nomination woes for the Administration. The NY Post doens't have anything, and the last story about Carrion in the Times was from before news of this latest mess.
Why is the media treating the Administration with kid gloves when it comes to its problems with filling its positions within the Administration?
UPDATE:
Jules Crittenden links. Thanks!
UPDATE:
Here's a few more details about the Bourica College/Village project. Boricua Village includes affordable housing, and is expected to be completed at the end of 2009.
UPDATE:
Aldolfo Carrion, come on down. You’re the next contestant on the Obama nomination train wreck. Don Surber links with the Vice is Wrong. Thanks!
UPDATE:
This is an even bigger scandal. The fact that the Obama Administration has yet to even name 18 deputies and top officials at the Treasury Department other than tax cheat Tim Geithner. What is he waiting for? Why the delay? Who stands to benefit from further delays in nominations and confirmations at Treasury? Why is Obama slow to name people to those positions? Why isn't the media demanding those answers?
President Obama's new urban czar, Adolfo Carrión, admitted Tuesday he has not paid an architect who designed a renovation of his Bronx home two years ago.Typically, when an architect does work, they like to get paid. That Subotovsky hasn't demanded or received payment on the work from 2007 and before is highly suggestive that something isn't quite right here.
That presents conflict-of-interest issues because at the time the architect was a key player in a Bronx development that needed approval from Carrión, then the Bronx borough president.
In a statement to the Daily News, Carrión admitted he hadn't paid architect Hugo Subotovsky to design a porch and balcony for his City Island home.
The renovation occurred more than two years ago. The last document filed with the city Buildings Department is dated Feb. 2, 2007. The work permit on the job expired that same month.
Most documents stamped by Subotovsky on Carrión's house renovation date even further back, to October and November 2006, including a blueprint for the extensive work done on the front of Carrión's house.
This is a significant conflict of interest issue for Carrion and once again brings into question Obama's vetting process for not picking up on this significant issue. Similar issues have brought down politicians in the past, including former Connecticut Governor John Rowland, a Republican.
It is curious that most of the media is oblivious to this latest in a string of nomination troubles for the Obama Administration. MSNBC simply notes that the Daily News is doggedly pursuing the story, and not without a sense of irony notes that this is indeed a string of nomination woes for the Administration. The NY Post doens't have anything, and the last story about Carrion in the Times was from before news of this latest mess.
Why is the media treating the Administration with kid gloves when it comes to its problems with filling its positions within the Administration?
UPDATE:
Jules Crittenden links. Thanks!
UPDATE:
Here's a few more details about the Bourica College/Village project. Boricua Village includes affordable housing, and is expected to be completed at the end of 2009.
Boricua Village is one of the largest real estate development projects to be built in the Bronx. Located on 4.5 acres of land bordered by Third Avenue on the east, Washington Avenue on the west, 161 Street on the south and 163 Street on the north, the state-of-the-art project includes a 120,000-square-foot, 14-story-high "vertical campus" for Boricua College. The building will be surrounded by a plaza and amphitheatre, 50,000 square feet of retail space, 60,000 square feet of underground parking and seven residential buildings with approximately 700 units of affordable and middle-income housing.I don't see a cost associated with the project, but will keep looking.
UPDATE:
Aldolfo Carrion, come on down. You’re the next contestant on the Obama nomination train wreck. Don Surber links with the Vice is Wrong. Thanks!
UPDATE:
This is an even bigger scandal. The fact that the Obama Administration has yet to even name 18 deputies and top officials at the Treasury Department other than tax cheat Tim Geithner. What is he waiting for? Why the delay? Who stands to benefit from further delays in nominations and confirmations at Treasury? Why is Obama slow to name people to those positions? Why isn't the media demanding those answers?
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Attacking Rush Limbaugh By Attacking His Audience Size?
First the Obama Administration attacked Rush Limbaugh directly, which shows just how petty and thin-skinned the Administration can be when critics hone in on major problems with the Administration. On the one hand it's the opposite tact to what the Bush Administration did, which was refuse to defend the Administration against all manner of sordid attacks, but the manner in which the Obama Administration is responding borders on the petty. It's also indicative that the Administration will not tolerate criticism. It will attempt to destroy those who oppose its policies and practices.
Now, the media is picking up where the Administration leaves off. They're now trying to undermine Rush by attacking his audience size.
Never mind that Rush is an entertainer first and foremost. Yes, he's conservative, and reaches deep into the conservative movement, but his show is about entertainment. That's why he's been so successful.
They complain that no one knows his audience size and that it's all guesswork. Some of that is true. You can figure out what the audience size is in major markets. You can then take those figures and combine them to give an approximate reach. Consider that even if you take a figure of 12 million people per week, it's still more than most of the cable television shows like Larry King or Keith Olbermann or even Bill O'Reilly and most prime time television shows other than say American Idol or Lost.
Meanwhile, Democrats are also busy trying to attack Rush today for claiming that he is somehow attacking Sen. Ted Kennedy by naming the looming health care legislation after him. Never mind that the Democrats themselves were contemplating doing just that only back in January. Kennedy has been deeply involved in health care issues, and some in Congress wanted to honor him with naming the legislation after him. However, apparently when Rush says virtually the same thing, it becomes grounds for an empty attack. Classy.
Now, the media is picking up where the Administration leaves off. They're now trying to undermine Rush by attacking his audience size.
According to what Limbaugh delights in calling "the drive-by media," the number varies wildly. Is it 30 million (Pat Buchanan on MSNBC), 20 million (Time magazine, ABC News), 19 million (Fox News), 14 million (CNN), or "14.2 million to about 25 million" (The Washington Post)?The media is attacking Rush - a private citizen who is freely engaging in freedom of speech on his radio show. They're attacking him, they're attacking his audience size. They'll say and do anything to undermine his credibility such as it is.
Answer: Maybe.
Limbaugh is widely acknowledged to be the most popular talk-radio host, as evidenced by the record $400 million, eight-year contract he signed with his syndicator last July. But estimates of Limbaugh's nationwide (and overseas) audience are exercises in guesswork, slippery methodology and suspect data. Limbaugh himself has muddied the water with the claim that he reaches 20 million people a week, although there's no independent support for that figure.
Arbitron, the radio industry's dominant audience-measurement company, has never publicly released a national estimate for Limbaugh, and it says, in effect, that the job is too complicated, expensive and time-consuming to bother with.
Never mind that Rush is an entertainer first and foremost. Yes, he's conservative, and reaches deep into the conservative movement, but his show is about entertainment. That's why he's been so successful.
They complain that no one knows his audience size and that it's all guesswork. Some of that is true. You can figure out what the audience size is in major markets. You can then take those figures and combine them to give an approximate reach. Consider that even if you take a figure of 12 million people per week, it's still more than most of the cable television shows like Larry King or Keith Olbermann or even Bill O'Reilly and most prime time television shows other than say American Idol or Lost.
Meanwhile, Democrats are also busy trying to attack Rush today for claiming that he is somehow attacking Sen. Ted Kennedy by naming the looming health care legislation after him. Never mind that the Democrats themselves were contemplating doing just that only back in January. Kennedy has been deeply involved in health care issues, and some in Congress wanted to honor him with naming the legislation after him. However, apparently when Rush says virtually the same thing, it becomes grounds for an empty attack. Classy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)