#1
They'll go full forward once the new president is installed. Questioning the President's every gesture, phrase or implication. If they start now, durign the drive-by voters who put Obama in office previously might even notice they don't challenge him.
#2
Sounds like the NY Slimes can't tell the difference between a rag and legitimate press. Or maybe they don't trust their readers are familiar with the concept. Says a lot either way. At least the founding fathers got it. So maybe that means we are endowed with an understanding of the concept through our genes or something.
#3
Essentially they're asking for a return to 200 years ago, when newspapers were openly partisan. Or if you want a contemporary example, the papers in the U.K. The only thing NYT would do would be to add a layer of polyurethaned 'sophistication'.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/12/2012 15:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Gonna corner the snotty lecturer market huh. Sounds better than taking on a load of debt and asking for government money.
The Kansas City Star sucked in the '90s, blatently ingnoring major stories. In fact, I wonder if it would have stayed in business if it were not for the Chiefs, Weather, and waiting rooms.
Some are asking, "why aren't you doing this already and sticking it to those evil Rethuglicans?"
Some are pointing out that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
And a few are asking whether the 'pretense' would be dropped if the object of the exercise was Barack Obama instead of Sarah Palin.
The public editor, of course, does not respond.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/12/2012 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Wgaddya mean "Were".
If you ever get a chance to look at newspapers between 1800-1875, you'd be surprised at the open partisanship and downright rudeness. It makes certain and unnamed Rantburgers look positively unbiased. The diference now is that it's discreet and covered by a veneer of 'professionalism'.
"For journalists fretting about the media's plummeting reputation, a new survey on support for the First Amendment in high schools brings more bad tidings.
More than a third of the nation's high school students think First Amendment rights go too far. Almost three-quarters take the First Amendment for granted or don't know how they feel about it. And more students than adults believe the government should approve news stories, according to a study commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation."
The US Constitution guarantees freedom of press. The main responsibility of that press is to bring out facts and put them before the people. Objectivity in reporting is essential. The failure of the mainstream media to meet its obligations has consequences. If judges could be bought and sold, would high school students hold them in any higher regard than the main stream media?
BTW, the purpose of including the right to freedom of the press in the constitution was to remove the fear of the common law doctrine of seditious libel, the intentional publication, without lawful excuse or justification, of written blame of any public man, or of the law, or of any institution established by law. (Stephen, History of the Criminal Law)
Alexander Hamilton argues in Federalist No. 84
"Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government."
And we have a department of education; where is that in the constitution?
Posted by: Mike Ramsey ||
01/12/2012 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
Anti-gun rights Sheriffs in Washington and Jackson County, Oregon, in their infinite wisdom, denied Concealed Handgun Permits to their county residents who possessed state medical marijuana cards.
These residents had complied with all of the legal requirements for a permit, but admitted to being regular users of medical marijuana. When the people who were denied permits sued the Sheriffs, the determined Sheriffs answered that the states concealed permit laws were preempted by federal law against possession of firearms by people who are unlawful users of controlled substances.
The Sheriffs believed that the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 applied in this circumstance and that Oregon law was preempted by the Federal Gun Control Statute. The state courts, including the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the Sheriffs got it wrong, and that permits should have been issued. But the anti-firearms rights sheriffs took their case to the United States Supreme Court, hoping that the countrys highest court would overturn the Oregon Courts decisions.
After a long legal battle went through 3 different levels of Oregons state courts, each a successively higher Court, the anti-gun rights Sheriffs lost. The Oregon Supreme Court used "common sense" that Anti -Gun rights groups often refer to in shutting down the Sheriffs' arguments against gun rights.
It ruled that the Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically renounced any intent of Congress to preempt state law unless the law is in direct and positive conflict with the Act. The GCA of 1968 makes it illegal for anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance to possess a firearm received in interstate commerce. However, Oregon's highest Court said that Federal Gun Control law does not apply the issuance of permits to medical marijuana users.
The Oregon State Courts reasoning was since the Sheriffs wanted to enforce the Federal policy of keeping guns out of the hands of users of medical marijuana by using the state licensing system, that they had problems they could not overcome.
First, up to this time, there is the fact that Congress has not enacted any law that requires denial of a Concealed Pistol Permit as a way to enforce federal policy underlying the GCA of 1968.
And, secondly, under the Oregon law, the state concealed permit statute itself shows an underlying policy of not using the states Concealed Handgun Permit licensing mechanism to keep firearms out of the hands of medical marijuana users.
However, in the end the Sheriffs lost because the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the Sheriffs appeal. That has the effect of agreeing that the Oregon Courts got it right, and that the Sheriffs should have issued the carry permits. All Oregon Sheriffs now have to either issue or renew permits to all who comply with legal concealed carry requirements in Oregon.
#1
I'm not particularly afraid of a marijuana user with a gun. What worries me is a steroid user with a gun. You could encounter one of those any time you encounter law enforcement in this land...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
01/12/2012 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Is it illegal to own a gun if you are legally able to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels? Nope. Is it illegal to own a gun if you are being treated for cancer? Nope.
If you are going to make pot legal, you have to deal with stuff like this, like it or not.
#4
I gotta believe the last thing your average pot smoker wants is a gun fight. That'd tend to harsh his mellow, y'know what I mean? A real bummer, man.
h/t Instapundit
In one of the stranger pieces of news to come our way here at Via Meadia lately, Prince Orhan Aal Othman, a descendant of the former ruling dynasty of the Ottoman Empire, is quoted in an interview blaming Theodor Herzl, the founding father of modern Zionism, for the collapse of his family firm. As the Prince expresses himself,
"The Ottoman state did not collapse in a year or two, or even ten or twenty years. It began when Sultan Abdulhamid made his decision in his meeting with Dr. Herzl. Herzl made several requests to meet Sultan Abdulhamid, and he was refused -- once, twice, and three times. The fourth time, he met him, and [Herzl] prepared the ground... he asked him for land in Palestine, to serve as a place for settlement of the Jews. When the Sultan rejected this request -- that was the beginning of the fall of the Ottoman state. A decision was made that there should no longer be an Ottoman state, a caliphate, or a sultanate."
To quote Instapundit "Hey, if the Jews were that powerful back then, maybe you guys ought to think about staying on their right side now."
#1
Herzl met the Sultan in 1901. By then the Ottoman Empire had been falling apart for a century and had already begun the Armenian genocide.
At their meeting Herzl offered the Sultan financial assistance and financial management assistance in return for settlement rights. The Sultan didn't accept the offer.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
01/12/2012 4:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm thinking joining in ww1 might have done it.
#5
If the Turks showed any damned sense they'd work with the Kurds and the Jews to reestablish the Ottoman Empire (at least over the section East of the Suez). If they kept a lid on things and kept the oil flowing the world would look the other way on anything else they did to the trouble-makers in their midst.
Posted by: Barbara ||
01/12/2012 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The Ottoman Empire began to collapse when the Turks began to systematically exclude non-Turkish Muslims from positions of authority. The Arabs then began demanding independence.
The Armenian protests originally began as demands to gain full Ottoman citizenship. The problem was that the Ottomans could not grant a bunch of non-muslims citizenship without giving up the idea that the Ottoman Empire was the Caliphate. It was easier to kill them.
Where were the Jews in all of this? Nowhere. The Jews during this time were spectators while different groups of Muslims battled it out.
Once again Jews are blamed for other people's failures.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
01/12/2012 14:56 Comments ||
Top||
...It is a cliché in journalism to declare metaphorical wars at the drop of a news release. In this case, it looks like war is exactly what Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver launched Monday in an unprecedented open letter warning that Canada will not allow environmental and other radical groups to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.
Joe Olivers opening line in the letter gets straight to the point. Canada is on the edge of a historic choice: to diversify our energy markets away from our traditional trading partner in the United States or to continue with the status quo. The translation is simple. If Canadian oil isnt good enough for Barack Obama, then Canada will sell it to China.
#1
Meanwhile, there is a quiet movement in the US senate to, with minimal mess and fluff, take the decision away from Barry and give it the all ahead full. Quiet bipartisanship.
#2
The people wanting to stop the Canadian pipeline to its west coast (the alternative pipeline. if Keystone isn't built) are the usual suspects: liberals, progressive, and greenies. Many are non-Canadians, and the greenies orchestrating the opposition are up to their usual tricks to let these foreigners gum up Canadian politics.
If I were a Canadian I'd be mad as hell.
The foreigners include not just greenies, but (you guessed it) certain investors with an interest in seeing that the pipeline isn't built. They're working behind the scenes with their usual NGO allies being used as cats-paws.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/12/2012 12:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Looks like problems "THE world leader in the wind turbine industry, Danish company Vestas, says it would cut 2335 jobs by the end of the year as part of a previously announced savings package"
Then 1600 jobs extra in USA. Problem- Production Tax Credit (PTC) not extended. Canada is spot on.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
