Friday, July 17, 2009

Waxman-Markey: What Doesn't Kill You Will Only Make You Poorer

Americans for Tax Reform foresee death and fiscal devastation via Waxman-Markey. Some of their numbers:

•    Even with a 15% decrease in gas consumption – prices will still go up! A family of four will still pay $596 more in 2035 and $7,500 more in total from 2012 to 2035.

•    There are currently 14 states that produce less than 1% of their energy from governmental defined renewable sources. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandates that this number be 10% nationally by 2012, an unachievable number.

•    Under RPS the majority of American families will see at least a $150 increase (or roughly 10%) in their annual energy bill.  Families residing in southeastern states will see the largest increases.

•    The Corporate Average Fuel economy (CAFE) forces automakers to produce smaller and lighter cars. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), estimated that these lighter cars will increase American traffic fatalities by almost 40,000.

•    Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 26 percent by 2035. This represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four.
Such cost estimates about future legislation are always provisional and never to be believed completely, but see Ron Bailey at Reason Online on how cap-and-trade proponents at least need to stop pretending it will be costless.

 








Read More...

[Source: Reason Magazine - Hit & Run]

Anti-Tea Party Susan Roesgen out at CNN.

You may remember Susan Roesgen as the woman who rather notoriously played the role of Obama stimulus apologist while carrying a CNN microphone at the April 15th Chicago Tea Party (she was also the subject of some now-vanished Jon Stewart scorn over her coverage of a Fargo flood, but that’s a different story).� Well, it seems that she’s become an unemployment statistic:


Breaking: TVNewser has learned CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen’s contract will not be renewed and she will be leaving the network.


[snip]


When TVNewser asked whether Roesgen’s comments at the Chicago tea party rally had anything to do with her not being renewed, a CNN spokesperson said, “I can’t comment on personnel matters.”



In other words, Roesgen’s comments at the Chicago Tea Party had something to do with her not being renewed. See also Ed Driscoll, who revisited Ms. Roesgen’s adventures in advocacy in his report on the July Tea Parties; Founding Bloggers, who had the video that CNN rather badly wanted to go away; and Hot Air, which is openly wondering when MSNBC will offer her a job. Given the way that the two networks are hacking each other into bloody gobbets to claim the #2 spot in cable news, they may have already.


I don’t know who gets to keep this (metaphorical) scalp; but I think that the Tea Party movement can certainly claim it.


Moe Lane


Crossposted to Moe Lane.




Read More...

[Source: RedState]

Paulson: Still a Male Hysteric

Former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson is still testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. You can watch it live on the intertubes right here. I'll update this post as interesting things crop up, but for now, it's good to see the old boy is still the greatest Chicken Little our country has yet produced.

"Had the crisis been left to unfold," Paulson says in his opening statement, "many more Americans would now be without their homes their jobs, their businesses, their savings, their way of life."

More interesting was Paulson's response when Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Penn.) asked him to define the "meltdown" that would have happened if he had not handed out $700 billion of other people's money:

One of the issues we dealt with at the time was concern that it would terrify the American people and lead to an even bigger problem. We didn't want to make it worse...

I try not to use hyperbole. It's impossible to prove now since it didn't happen.

I looked at it: In a world where information can flow, money can move with the speed of light electronically, I looked at the ripple effect, and looked at when a financial system fails a whole country's economic system can fail. I believe we could have gone back to the sorts of situations we saw in the Depression. I remember asking Ben Bernanke what he thought the world would look like, and he said "Well just take a look at what happened in the Depression."

I didn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about that because I knew it was going to be very bad, and I didn't want to experience very bad. I didn't want to ever get to the point where we could really understand it.

More to come. The testimony is focused on the Bank of America conspiracy theory, which in my view is mostly a distraction. Paulson was certainly the kind of official who, during a zombie outbreak, alternates between putting out bland statements urging the public to remain calm and screaming that all hell is breaking loose. But the key to his character is that he's absolutely sincere in his panic. (Although it turns out he did get in a good Colorado ski vacation in the middle of the crisis, which is more than I've managed in the last few years.)

Update: Explanation for using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds for every purpose except relieving banks of troubled assets:

Our approach was to buy those illiquid assets; that was our primary approach. We learned, as the situation began to crumble all around the world, and we needed to move quickly, we needed to change gears. And I made the decision that when the facts change you need to move quickly and change. My point wasn't that we came to Congress and asked for illiquid assets, but that, thank goodness when we came to Congress we asked for flexibility and the Congress gave us the flexibility. The people I care about are the same ones you care about, the American people, the people that are going to lose their jobs. The tragedy is that they didn't create the problem. It's the big banks that created the problem, it's a whole lot of... they didn't create the problem but they have to pay the penalty.

(He also points out, correctly, that illiquid assets have proven a lot harder to price than originally advertised.)

Update: What's good for Bank of America is good for America.

Update: All wrapped up. Thank you for joining us.








Read More...

[Source: Reason Magazine - Hit & Run]

Sarah Palin: Drill, baby, drill

Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan threatens our economy and national security. We need to tap America's sources of energy

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognise that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the US economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialised, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2bn over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket". So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for US oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Read More...

[Source: World news: Obama administration | guardian.co.uk]

Thursday Evening Playlist

Some albums I bought recently at Amazon’s MP3 store, and highly recommend. Lots of different styles in this batch, from prog rock to African chants with banjo. The Amazon widget lets you listen to 30-second excerpts from any song on these albums, and if you click through and buy, the LGF weblog fund gets a small cut of the sales price through their Associates program.



[Video]





Read More...

[Source: Little Green Footballs]

Sarah Palin Gives John Kerry a Long Face


Sometimes you have to feel bad for John Kerry, the guy is such a loser. He lost out on the presidency he craved so much.  Being an early supporter of Barack Obama, he fully expected to be appointed to his number 2 dream job, Secretary of State, but he lost out to Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the reason he lost out was that the President could only afford to have one Joe Biden on the team as Kerry is also prone to saying very dumb things.

Stupid remarks such as "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." or ""Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle" or even his tribute to our heroes in Iraq "You know, education; if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don�t, you get stuck in Iraq." )

Kerry is not a fan of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and has shown a distinctive lack of class whenever he talks of her. For example when South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford went "missing" it was John Kerry who said to business and civic leaders he had invited to Washington, "Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn�t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin."

Kerry decided to try and match wits with Sarah Palin on the Cap and Trade Issue. Palin wrote an essay in the Washington Post slamming the program. Kerry decided that Palin needed to be answered so he wrote a post in the Huffington Post blasting the Governor. It was pure Kerry, which means he comes away looking like the loser he is:
Palin Vs. Kerry (And MoveOn.org)

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Politics: John Kerry, replying to an op-ed Sarah Palin wrote on cap-and-trade, suggests the Alaska governor "check the view from her front porch." What she sees from there, senator, is energy wealth going to waste.

The political death of Sarah Palin has been greatly exaggerated. In a devastating op-ed in the Washington Post, Alaska's governor exposes the cap-and-tax fraud that has nothing to do with earth's temperature and everything to do with government control of the economy.

She also exposes the stealth socialism ambitions of the Democratic left and once again points out the availability of abundant "shovel-ready" resources under America's soil, off America's shores and even in America's rocks.

Judging from the reaction from Sen. Kerry and the political arm of George Soros, one must ask: If Palin is spent as a political force, why is everyone on the left so worried and talking about her?

Kerry took to the ultraliberal Web site Huffington Post to object to Palin's description of "the president's cap-and-trade energy tax" as "an enormous threat to our economy." In Alaska, she wrote, "we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, energy and security."

Kerry, who opposed the Cape Wind project off breezy Cape Cod because a wind farm capturing energy from ocean breezes might spoil his view, went ballistic. In a thinly veiled reference to Tina Fey's "Saturday Night Live" skit, he repeated the warm-monger mantra that the "global climate change crisis threatens our economy and national security in profound ways" and that "Gov. Palin need look no further than the view from her front porch in Alaska to see how destructive this crisis can be."

What Palin sees is a cap-and-tax plan that will result in a "dried-up energy sector" that even the sponsors of the Waxman-Markey bill anticipate, or they wouldn't have included a provision providing $4.2 billion over eight years for newly unemployed energy workers.

It's not just the energy sector that will be devastated. Palin notes that "even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan." We have cited an analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation that found unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion.

Kerry responded that Palin failed to mention that "jobs in our emerging clean energy economy grew nearly 2 1/2 times faster than overall jobs since 1998." That's easy when you start from almost zero. Note that 1998 is also the year the earth started cooling, with not a warmer year since. There's even been snow in Malibu.

From Palin's front porch, senator, she can see "the largest private-sector energy project in history" � her "3,000-mile natural gas pipeline (that) will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America."

From Palin's front porch you can also see the 2,000-acre part of ANWR's frozen tundra that contains 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil (such estimates often underestimate actual yields) and that could supply all the oil needs of Kerry's Massachusetts for 75 years.

And from her front porch, Palin can see the Chukchi Sea northwest of Alaska's landmass. Awaiting development there, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, are 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or 30% of the world's supply, and 83 billion barrels of oil, 4% of global conventional resources.

MoveOn.org began e-mailing members Tuesday, asking them to fund a rapid response ad blasting Palin's op-ed. Soros' group said Palin was positioning herself as the face of conservative opposition to Obama's energy policy, telling supporters her op-ed was "a marvel of misinformation and outright lies."

What really hurts is Palin's truth. Kerry and MoveOn.org say Sarah Palin must be stopped. We say, drill, baby, drill.


Read More...

[Source: YID With LID]

Obama Broke Promise That He Wouldn't Use Signing Statements



TheHill.com:

The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.

The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.
Change that you can believe in. Man, that Bush guy was pretty clever.

Read More...

[Source: Politik Ditto]

American Medical Association supports Barack Obama's healthcare reform plan

Endorsement by the AMA speeds the way for the president to accomplish one of his signature campaign promises

America's largest and most powerful doctors group has endorsed Barack Obama's massive overhaul of the US healthcare system, removing a substantial hurdle to legislation that Democrats hope will extend health coverage to most of the estimated 46 million Americans who currently lack it.

The American Medical Association, which vigorously opposed Bill and Hillary Clinton's 1990s reform effort, today pledged to work with congressional leaders to ensure legislation is soon passed. The group endorsed the strongest legislation currently on the table, proposed this week by top Democrats in the House of Representatives. The group long opposed government intervention in the healthcare system for fear that its physician members would see their lucrative pay decline.

With no universal public programme akin to the National Health Service, Americans rely on a patchwork of employee-provided healthcare, government programmes for the poor, elderly and veterans, and costly private health insurance coverage. Americans spend one out of every six dollars on healthcare - roughly twice as much per capita as other industrialised nations - but lag behind in life expectancy, infant mortality and other health indicators.

The medical association's surprise turnaround may be an indication they see reform as inevitable and hope to influence the legislation at the margins. In its letter to Charles Rangel, a powerful New York Democrat, the group said it hoped for "constructive dialogue" during revision of the legislation.

"We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to high quality, affordable health care for all Americans," the group wrote in a letter signed by executive vice president Michael Maves. The letter was obtained by advocacy group Healthcare for Americans Now. The medical association was expected to issue a statement later today.

The endorsement from a heretofore chief opponent of healthcare reform speeds the way for Obama to accomplish one of his signature campaign promises. Wal-Mart, America's largest private employer, has also backed Obama's effort. The president has made reform a top priority in his nascent administration, and in recent weeks has pushed hard for legislation, dispatching lieutenants to rally support on Capitol Hill and making speeches.

Key to the bill is a health plan provided by the government that would be available to all Americans on a sliding fee scale. The insurance industry and many in Washington fear that would drive Americans out of the lucrative private insurance market.

It also includes a clearinghouse for private insurance plans, to make it easier for American to shop for coverage. Among other provisions, it bars insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, beefs up a public healthcare programme for the poor, and subsidises coverage for those who need help with costly insurance premiums.

The entire programme is expected to cost more than $1tn over ten years. Obama said he hopes to have legislation finalised by August. The bill endorsed by the association would be paid for in large part by a tax on the 2 million richest Americans.

Doctors and hospital groups and the insurance industry have long rallied against Obama's proposals, warning of rationed care, long waits for treatment, bureaucratic meddling in the doctor-patient relationship, and massive government borrowing to pay for the programmes.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Read More...

[Source: World news: Obama administration | guardian.co.uk]

Tuesday Night Music: Zawinul Syndicate, 'Zansa'

The late great Joe Zawinul with his band at the North Sea Jazz Festival in 1997. A slightly different version of this tune, “Zansa,” is on the excellent concert album 75: Joe Zawinul, recorded shortly before Joe’s death. RIP, Joe, we miss you.



[Video]





Read More...

[Source: Little Green Footballs]

Olbermann Permits Anti-Israel Libel to Run Uncorrected On His Program

There is no "Worst person in the world" award here on the Lid, but if there were today's winner would be MSNBC Moonbat Keith Olbermann and his bosses at MSNBC.

We all remember that horrible video of the Iranian woman, Neda Agha-Soltani, that shows her being shot by a sniper, collapsing mortally wounded, and literally life draining from her body as bystanders frantically tried to save her.

In response to Olberman noting that major political upheavals such as the one in Iran often produce an identifiable martyr, Engel interrupted to tie the tragedy of Neda Soltani to Muhammad al-Dura. He characterized al-Dura as "a symbol of injustice" and termed Soltani's death "a similar moment."

KEITH OLBERMAN: To the point of Neda Soltani, I don't know that there has ever been a revolution or even a near revolution that did not have an identifiable face, a martyr. You think of everything from Tiananmen square to Lexington and Concord.


RICHARD ENGEL (Chief Foreign Correspondent) : (interrupting) I was thinking more ... you remember Muhammad al Dura, the boy who was shot in gaza?


OLBERMAN: Yes. Yes.


ENGEL: In his father's arms...


OBERMAN: Yes


ENGEL: And who became a symbol of injustice. I think this is a similar moment.
There is one major difference between the two, the al-Dura story has been proven to be a hoax many times over. Olbermann who fancies himself as a newsman, did not bother to correct Engel. That's when Andrea Levin of CAMERA got involved:
CAMERA contacted NBC to urge the network to set the record straight and clarify there is no similarity between Neda's death and the al-Dura story. On the contrary, they are oppposites, one being an undeniable killing and the other a media scandal of epic proportions and a libel against Israel. Although the NBC segment was a brief one, it offers a truly troubling insight into the network and its Chief Foreign Correspondent who has covered the Middle East extensively, but is seemingly unaware of the facts of the al-Dura case, including vast evidence showing Israeli soldiers could not have shot al-Dura and that on the same day in the same place Palestinians were continuously staging events and faking injuries.
NBC  responded to CAMERA saying the complaint submitted was "a cheap shot" that sought to "discredit" Mr. Engel. Below are the  CAMERA exchanges with NBC. In deference to the fact that NBC News President Steve Capus communicated privately via email with CAMERA, his letter is not reproduced in full but rather excerpted. CAMERA would be glad to publish it or any other response in full that NBC would provide to explain Engel's comparing Muhammad al-Dura to Neda Agha-Soltani.
CAMERA sent the following letter to Richard Engel and cc'd it to Steve Capus, head of NBC News, on June 25:


Dear Mr. Engel,


We're extremely troubled by your exchange three nights ago with Keith Olberman in which you compared the shooting death of Neda Agha Soltani � revealed in its tragic and bloody reality in spontaneous filming on the streets of Teheran � to the discredited Muhammad al Dura event of September 2000 in Gaza. Given your familiarity with the Arab-Israeli conflict, it was startling to hear you so energetically insert into the discussion the case of al Dura � especially without noting the scandal that surrounds the France 2 network in perpetrating what is widely believed to be a hoax.


Numerous independent analysts and ballistics experts have confirmed Israel could not have shot al Dura, including James Fallows in The Atlantic, Esther Shapira on German television ARD and others. Numerous analysts, including senior French journalists, have also noted the undeniable fact that Palestinians were staging events and filming them the same day in the same place.


An enormous body of research exists on the entire issue. Indeed, a French court concluded a year ago that the charges of fraudulence and staging in the case were credible on the basis of the vast evidence presented � and that Philippe Karsenty who had been sued for defamation for claiming the event was a hoax had a reasonable basis for leveling the charge. Given all this it seems inexplicable that you would interject the statement that al Dura "was shot in Gaza ... in his father's arms."


Moreover, he may, in your words, have become " a symbol of injustice"� but not at all for the reasons you imply. The great injustice is that Israel was blamed falsely for killing a child, an allegation that spawned a tidal wave of propaganda and enmity against the Jewish state. The further injustice is that France 2, its Jerusalem bureau chief and its camera man have not been held accountable for unleashing the calumny.


It's unclear why you consider Soltani's heart-rending death "a similar moment." Obviously you're not suggesting this was a staged propaganda event.


We'd ask that you follow up the June 22 segment with a clarification that the shooting of Neda Soltani may become an emblem of the current Iranian turmoil � but that it differs completely from al Dura � which is an example of the way false images are employed to promote political causes and incite hatred.


Thank you for your attention to this and we look forward to hearing from you with regard to setting the record straight as soon as possible.


Best regards,


Andrea Levin


Executive Director, CAMERA
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East
Reporting in America
� On June 30, Steve Capus, President of NBC News, responded claiming CAMERA had mischaracterized Richard Engel's statements and we were trying to "discredit" him. He said the reporter is "brave" and has won "every single major journalism award." Capus said "If you were truly dedicated to advancing journalism, you would be going out of your way to praise Richard for his work � rather than taking a cheap shot." He concluded saying, Mr. Engel is "a non-biased, dedicated journalist. NBC News considers itself lucky to have him."


 On July 7, CAMERA responded to the NBC letter as follows:


Dear Mr. Capus,


I appreciate your responding to my note about Richard Engel's June 22 statements. Unfortunately, you've not addressed the substantive issues raised. I objected to a factually false analogy made by Mr. Engel and you've answered by praising him generally and asking why I'm not grateful for your correspondent's reporting on other matters. I'd ask again that you consider the specifics of the concerns presented. They are not, in your words, a "cheap shot" or an effort to "discredit Mr. Engel."


They are an attempt to set the record straight on a serious matter.


Whether intentional or not, NBC has helped spread misinformation on a highly controversial subject, Muhammad al Dura, and has wrongly equated the discredited account of the Palestinian boy's killing to the actual murder of Neda Agha Soltani in Teheran. Contrary to the NBC report, the two events are not "similar." One was bogus -- as underscored by extensive documentation -- and the other was true. One was an exploitation and manipulation of imagery to incite hatred and violence while the other was an unstaged image of an actual event.


As journalists, you are surely not arguing there is no difference between an event that actually occurred and one that was staged.


Moreover, to say Al Dura became a "symbol of injustice" is to further mislead viewers. As noted previously, the injustice was Israel being libeled and millions of people being deceived into believing al Dura had been shot by Israeli soldiers. (Again, as noted, ballistics experts and others have concluded it would have been impossible for Israeli soldiers who had an obstructed view of al Dura to have shot him.) The harm done by the al Dura case in distorting world opinion, in inciting violence against Israelis and in thwarting peaceful relations is incalculable.


Rather than furthering public confusion and misunderstanding on the matter, NBC would better serve its viewers by airing a program on the full story of al Dura and its tragic consequences. Such a program would dispel any misconceptions purveyed. We again urge you take measures to correct the record, whether in a statement of clarification or in a corrective story.


Thank you once more for your consideration of these matters,
Andrea Levin


As of this writing, NBC has not responded to the July 7 communication. CAMERA did not, of course, raise questions about Mr. Engel's bravery or his stature as a journalist and recipient of awards, but rather challenged a specific, serious, erroneous statement he made on an important issue. In response, Mr. Capus ignored entirely the content of the concerns.


The tendency of some media institutions to view substantive complaint by members of the public as an affront � an outrage even � rather than as a normal and needed process that makes coverage more accurate and complete, is symptomatic of institutions unaccustomed to accountability. But just as NBC and other media outlets devote much of their energies to challenging the conduct of virtually every other institution in our society, American viewers are entitled to challenge NBC for its performance.
The Full Camera Piece appears here NBC Defends False Comparison of Muhammad Al-Dura to Iranian Victim



J


Read More...

[Source: YID With LID]

Sotomayor Transcripts and Live Updates

Andrew Malcolm and associates have been doing a great job of live-blogging the Sotomayor hearing at Top of the Ticket, including posting transcripts of Sen. Jon Kyl’s rambling, digressing, endless questions, which is above and beyond the call of duty: Sotomayor hearings: Graham comes out swinging.



Here’s the live video stream from Senate.gov, moved from the earlier thread:



[Live video finished for the day...]



UPDATE at 7/14/09 2:28:02 pm:



They've adjourned for the day, so the video is no more.






Read More...

[Source: Little Green Footballs]

Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings: Live Stream

Here’s a live stream of the Sotomayor confirmation hearing; so far I still haven’t seen the evidence that she’s a sekrit radical judicial activist...



[Live video moved to most recent post...]






Read More...

[Source: Little Green Footballs]

Sotomayor's First Big Case May Deal With the Right To Confront Expert Witnesses

A few weeks ago, I posted on the Supreme Court's decision in the Melendez-Diaz case, in which the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause gives criminal defendants the right to cross examine forensic experts who issue lab reports that the state admits into evidence.

The Washington Post reports this week that the decision will have broad-reaching ramifications:

The predictions are dire. In New York, murderers could walk free. In Fairfax County, drunken driving cases could be dismissed. And nationwide, thousands of drug cases might have to be thrown out of court annually.

Legal experts and prosecutors are concerned about the results of last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that requires lab analysts to be in court to testify about their tests. Lab sheets that identify a substance as a narcotic or breath-test printouts describing a suspect's blood-alcohol level are no longer sufficient evidence, the court ruled. A person must be in court to talk about the test results...

Crime labs that test drug and DNA samples face huge backlogs even when scientists and analysts do not have to testify. If the workers are taken out of the labs to appear in court, those backlogs will grow.

In drug cases, more than 1.5 million samples are analyzed by state and local labs each year, resulting in more than 350,000 felony convictions, national statistics show. "Even if only 5 percent of drug cases culminate in trials, the burden on the states is oppressive," a group of state attorneys general wrote in a brief for the case.

The percentage of cases going to trial could well go up if defense lawyers think that bringing lab analysts to court will help their cases. Lawyers also could go to trial with the hope of a dismissal if the analyst cannot be there.

Note that the objections here are logistical, not legal. Justice Anthony Kennedy's sharply-worded dissent in the case took a similar line, arguing that the decision "threatens to disrupt forensic investigations across the country and to put prosecutions nationwide at risk of dismissal . . . when a particular laboratory technician . . . simply does not or cannot appear."

These objections seem awfully utilitarian. We're supposed to ignore a fundamental component of a fair trial that's explicitly protected in the Constitution—the right to confront one's accusers—because doing so would prove inconvenient to the state? (Note too that the main reason for the backlog at state crime labs is the drug war.)

Just given my own reporting on forensics over the last few years, I find it mind-boggling that there are people who feel a court should be able to deny a defendant the opportunity to cross-examine, for example, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy in a murder case, or the lab technician who claims to have made a fingerprint match.

Unfortunately, the decision my already be in peril. Before its most recent recess, the Court agreed to hear Briscoe, et al., v. Virginia (PDF) a case that raises many of the same issues as Melendez-Diaz. Justice Souter voted with the unconventional majority in the 5-4 decision. His likely replacement, Sonia Sotomayor, is a former prosecutor whose record suggests she'll be quite a bit more law-and-order than Souter. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog speculates that the minority in Melendez-Diaz may have agreed to hear the Virginia case knowing that they'd have an ally in Sotomayor, suggesting a limitation or even reversal of the decision.

Surprisingly, the case did come up yesterday while Sotomayor was questioned by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), also a former prosecutor. Klobuchar was critical of Melendez-Diaz, and invited Sotomayor to respond. Not surprisingly, Sotomayor's response was vague:

It's always difficult to deal with people's disappointments about cases, particularly when they have personal experiences and have their own sense of the impact of a case.

I was a former prosecutor. And it's difficult proving cases as it is. Calling more witnesses adds some burdens to the process.

But, at the end, that case is a decided case. And so its holding now is its holding, and that's what guides the court in the future on similar issues to the extent there can be some.

As I said, I do recognize that there can be problems, as a former prosecutor, but that also can't compel a result. And all of those issues have to be looked at in the context of the court's evaluation of the case and the judge's view of what the law permits and doesn't permit.

The American Spectator's John Tabin suggests Sotomayor's answer hints that she would not use the Virginia case to overturn Melendez-Diaz. I agree, although I don't think an outright reversal was in the cards in the first place. A reversal of a decision issued in the preceding term would be unseemly. The more likely possibility is that the Virginia case will limit the scope of Melendez-Diaz. Given how far apart the majority and minority were in the case, and that without Souter the Court stands 4-4 on this issue, the severity of that limitation may be entirely up to Sotomayor.








Read More...

[Source: Reason Magazine - Hit & Run]

The War on a Fat Surgeon General

Regina BenjaminEarlier this week, President Barack Obama nominated Alabama physician Regina Benjamin as the next Surgeon General. In that capacity, Dr. Benjamin will oversee the 6,000 member public health corps and function as America's chief health nanny, ah, health educator. Past Surgeons General included the luxuriantly-bearded Dr. C. Everett Koop who campaigned relentlessly against smoking and Dr. Jocelyn Elders who, in response to a question, suggested that teaching masturbation might be a way to prevent young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity.

Despite Dr. Benjamin's distinguished record as a physician, some blogospherean health nannies are objecting to her appointment on the grounds that she is fat. In a nice column on this "controversy," University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan quotes a couple of self-appointed anti-fat crusaders: 

“I refuse to let fat be socially acceptable …  The President should have known better and picked a doctor who could kick start the debate on fat not perpetuate it,” commented one reader on a national news site.

Another has some mighty specific requirements for the post:  “Rather than select a fat Black woman Obama should have chose a Black woman with a body mass index of 25 or less.”

Caplan goes on to ask:

And who said the surgeon general or doctors in general or anyone working in health care must be paragons of health and risk avoidance?

A better question is why does anyone have to be a paragon of health and risk avoidance, but we'll leave that one for now. 

Caplan does suggest that Dr. Benjamin might serve as an example for us all (especially those of us with BMI's over 25): 

But people need to relate to the surgeon general, and if she can battle her weight on the job, she will do more to curb obesity then all the salads added to the menus of burger joints everywhere.

This is very unlikely. If Oprah Winfrey's gigantic audience is unaffected by the daytime star's very public efforts to keep her weight down, I doubt that whatever the new Surgeon General does or does not do about her avoirdupois will have much effect. 

Ultimately, the right question is the one my colleauge Jacob Sullum asked in his splendid article "The War On Fat" -- Is the size of your butt the government's business?  The answer is, no. Here's hoping that the new Surgeon General thinks so too. 


 








Read More...

[Source: Reason Magazine - Hit & Run]

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Obama's Mid East Policy is a Major Failure

President Obama is facing a major crisis in the Middle East, a crisis of his own doing. Every element of his Middle East plan has gone to hell in a hand-basket. Obama's overall philosophy has been  the only way to bring peace to the area (and win the War on Islamic Fascism) is to have all of the complicated solutions to all the complicated issues worked out all at once.

To that end he tried to

  • Outreach to the government of Iran
  • Outreach to the government of Syria
  • Force Israel into what he perceives is a minor concession so he can appear "neutral" in the conflict.
  • Force the Arab nations (not the PA) to make a minor concession to Israel to appear serious in wanting to normalize relations with the Jewish State
  • If all of the above works, the Arab States will pressure the PA toward an agreement and the US will pressure Israel toward an agreement.
Let's take a look at what happened:
  • Outreach to Iran: Even before the Iranian election  Ahmadinejad was slapping away the outstreached hand of the US. In May the Iranian Tyrant said: 
"Alongside the resistance and steadfastness, we must also strive to create a new world order; otherwise new oppressive regimes will emerge." He called the West's fundamental values "inhuman and belonging to past decades," adding: "They [i.e. the Westerners] are trying to open new doors with the keys to old locks, without noticing that, today, it is the humane and divine path that is the code to opening the locks of humanity. They are decades behind, and can be described, in two words, as politically retarded... The philosophy and order that emerged after World War II have come to the end of their road, and [the West] is unable to offer solutions for the world's problems, since its thinking is based on discrimination and on [undermining] security." Source MEMRI
With the post-election violence, Iran's position has hardened. 
  •  Outreach To Syria: The relationship between Iran is unbreakable right now. Until Iran acts "Friendly" neither will Syria. Just today Sky News aired an interview with President Obama where he said that he will continue to try and engage Syria but "There are aspects of Syrian behavior that trouble us and we think that there is a way that Syria can be much more constructive on a whole host of these issues."
  •  Force Israel into a minor concession: What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession, a settlement freeze, was not perceived by Israel as a minor concession. This was a major error by the administration. Their insistence for a freeze and the constant public berating of the Jewish State has turned the Israeli population against Obama, and strengthened the hand of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
His public blasting of Israel has weakened his support among American Jews who initially "bought into" his pledge that he was a "friend" of Israel. Especially when the news came out that Obama was breaking a pledge made to Israel by the Bush administration.
At the same time the administration miscalculation has given ammunition to the Palestinians, who prefer the status quo to any peace negotiations. President Abbas has declared that he would not resume negotiations until there was a settlement freeze:
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas says he will not resume peace talks with Israel until there is "a complete halt to settlement activities." In an interview published Sunday with the Egyptian weekly October, the PA president insisted that a halt to construction in West Bank settlements was not a Palestinian condition, but rather a condition set by US President Barack Obama.
  • Force the Arab nations (not the PA) to make a minor concession to Israel: The President assumed that the "moderate" Arab nations would help him out by making a minor gesture of peace to Israel. But the Arab states are unwilling to make a gesture. From their point of view the Saudi peace plan, which will result in the end of Israel as a Jewish State, is the only concession they are willing to make until everything else is decided.
So where does all this leave Obama's Middle East policy? In ruins. While the US continues to press Israel for a settlement freeze, the administration is impotent because every element is falling apart. Syria and Iran aren't looking for engagement. He has turned the Israeli populace against him and strengthened the hand of Prime Minister Netanyahu. At the same time he as eroded his own support among American Jews and other US friends of Israel. He cannot count on support of the Arab League nations and has given the President of the Palestinian Authority and "out" from re-entering negotiations.

Any US pressure on Israel will remain only on a "verbal" level; there will be no sanctions or loss of aid. The administration has come to the realization that it cannot punish Israel because even if there was a compromise on settlements, the other side is not going to embrace peace. President Obama's misjudgment of Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab States will soon lead to the President putting the Middle East on the back burner so he can concentrate on efforts that have a chance to succeed.

Read More...

[Source: YID With LID]

Obama Using Dick Cheney To Cover For His Own Failings


Mary Matalin hits Barry head-on:

A one-time aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested Sunday that recent reports about Cheney and the CIA are a distraction designed to avert attention away from the policy struggles of the Obama administration.

�This is very suspect timing,� Republican strategist and former Cheney adviser Mary Matalin said Sunday on CNN�s State of the Union. �The president�s agenda is almost in shambles. His [poll] numbers are dropping. Isn�t it coincidental; they gin up a Cheney story.�

Matalin also said that the Executive branch has some authority under the nation�s intelligence laws to not disclose information to Congress under certain circumstances. �The more people that know, the more it leaks . . . and then the enemy knows what it is,� Matalin said of details about other intelligence programs that were leaked to the media.

�Every time they get in trouble . . . they dredge up a Darth Vader story,� Matalin also said, making a reference to past comparisons between Cheney and the villain in the �Stars Wars� movies.


Read More...

[Source: Politik Ditto]

Obama driving the debt car

Awesome video illustration on the federal budget deficit and the shrieks about Bush and the shrugs over Obama. Who says math can’t be fun?



*cross posted @ OPO Button




Read More...

[Source: RedState]

Democrats unveil US healthcare reform plan

Democrats, backed by Obama, propose plan to tax the wealthy to pay for expansion of government-run healthcare

Democrats in the US congress plan to sting wealthy Americans with a massive tax increase in order to fund a broad expansion of government-provided healthcare, facing powerful opposition from Republicans and the healthcare industry who warn of a costly government takeover of the health system.

Leading Democrats, backed by Barack Obama, have unveiled a plan that would tax the richest 2 million Americans to fund a $1tn effort to provide healthcare to most of the 46 million Americans who now lack health insurance.

The plan would impose a surtax of as much as 5.4% on families earning $350,000 (�213,000) a year and individuals making more than $280,000. The plan's backers hope it will extend coverage to 37 million through subsidies and government health insurance coverage.

"The status quo on health care is not an option for the United States of America," Obama told a group of nurses today. "It is threatening the financial stability of our families, our businesses, and government itself. It is unsustainable."

Broad agreement exists across the political spectrum that the US healthcare system is in a wretched state. With no universal public programme akin to Britain's National Health Service, Americans rely on a patchwork of employee-provided healthcare, government programmes for the poor, elderly and veterans, and costly private health insurance coverage. Americans spend one out of every six dollars on healthcare - roughly twice as much per capita as other industrialised nations - but lag behind in life expectancy, infant mortality and other health indicators.

"There's not anybody in America that's an adult that doesn't have some horror story about somebody that lost their lives, lost their home, lost their jobs, lost their insurance," New York congressman Charles Rangel, a senior Democrat, said.

An overhaul of the US healthcare system was one of Obama's top campaign promises. US presidents since Harry Truman following the second world war have attempted to revamp the system but have faced entrenched opposition from powerful hospital and doctors' groups and insurance companies.

Bill and Hillary Clinton's effort in the early 1990s failed amid an insurance industry advert campaign that warned the government would take over health decisions from doctors and patients.

Key to Obama's proposed reform is a health plan provided by the government that would be available to all Americans on a sliding fee scale.

Opponents, including some within Obama's own Democratic party, say that would harm the lucrative market for private health insurance. Another provision would reshape the private market by creating a clearinghouse for health insurance products. The entire programme is expected to cost more than $1tn over ten years. Obama hopes to have legislation finalised by August.

"If you lose your job, change your job, or start a new business, you'll still be able to find quality health insurance you can afford," Obama said. "If you have a pre-existing medical condition, no insurance company will be able to deny you coverage. You won't have to worry about being priced out of the market. You won't have to worry about one illness leading your family into financial ruin."

Opponents have rallied against Obama's proposals, warning of rationed care, long waits for treatment, bureaucratic meddling in the doctor-patient relationship, and massive government borrowing to pay for it all.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Read More...

[Source: World news: Obama administration | guardian.co.uk]

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



Visa Prepaid Card

mypaydayloan.com

PayCheckToday.com - Apply Now! - get up to $1000

Click Here


Get paid for your opinion.

Click Here