[NYPOST] Even as Shelly Silver was drawing a 12-year stint in the slammer for selling his office, Team de Blasio on Tuesday was all but admitting it did much the same -- and actually defending the practice.
Raising cash for a mayoral slush fund from "people who do business with the city" is perfectly OK, insisted Mayor Bill de Blasio’s counsel, Maya Wiley. She cited a 2014 Conflicts of Interest Board letter banning only funds from folks with matters "pending" before City Hall.
See the difference? Neither do we.
Wiley was trying to justify the boatloads of cash dumped on Hizzoner’s Campaign for One New York by folks who do business with the city or need special favors -- and the actions City Hall took to benefit them.
Tuesday, NY1 reported that CONY got "at least 60 donations" from parties "that had business with" or were "directly lobbying" the city or unions with city contracts.
A real estate developer won a variance for a building and handed over $10,000 three days later. SEIU Local 1199 came up with $250,000 and got a nice contract with the city just months later.
Stephen Nislick, Wendy Neu and NYCLASS (the forces behind de Blasio’s drive to ban horse carriages) were big givers, too.
No, de Blasio & Co. doesn’t admit it sold favors to donors. But it sure seems like it had a pay-to-play system in place -- whether technically in violation of the Conflict Board’s directive or not.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/06/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The thing about a toilet is, even after freshly scrubbed with strong toilet bowl cleaner, you'd probably not choose to live in it...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/06/2016 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
Somewhat lengthy post about the "Blob" of reporters. Story cut down for topic
Those readers who found Jeffrey Goldberg's picture of Obama in his March Atlantic profile refreshing for the president's willingness to insult American allies publicly will be similarly cheered here by Rhodes's boast of deceiving American citizens, lawmakers, and allies over the Iran deal. Conversely, those who believe Obama risked American interests to take a cheap shot at allies from the pedestal of the Oval Office will be appalled to see Rhodes dancing in the end zone to celebrate the well-packaged misdirections and even lies‐what Rhodes and others call a "narrative"‐that won Obama his signature foreign policy initiative.
"Like Obama," writes Samuels:
Rhodes is a storyteller who uses a writer's tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal. He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts and motivations supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials. He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama's foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the traditional press.
As Rhodes admits, it's not that hard to shape the narrative. "All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes said. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing." Yep. The news has gotten that stupid. They are asking the Minister of Truth for the story now.
As Rhodes admits, it's not that hard to shape the narrative. "All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes said. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing." And the NYT wonders why its readership is falling like the panties of a cheap whore
In Rhodes's "narrative" about the Iran deal, negotiations started when the ostensibly moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected president, providing an opening for the administration to reach out in friendship. In reality, as Samuels gets administration officials to admit, negotiations began when "hardliner" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still president. It was Rhodes who framed the Iran deal as a choice between peace and war, and it was Rhodes who set up a messaging unit to sell the deal that created an "echo chamber" in the press. "[Al Monitor reporter] Laura Rozen was my RSS feed," says Tanya Somanader, the 31-year-old who managed @TheIranDeal twitter feed. "She would just find everything and retweet it." Nothing like lazy millennials that don't want to put in the work to help spread the lie
legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. "We created an echo chamber," [Rhodes] admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. "They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say."
"In the spring of last year," Samuels writes:
When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America's future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. "In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this," he said. "We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked." He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. "We drove them crazy," he said of the deal's opponents.
If you can't dazzle them with facts, confuse them with a spew of bullshit
The press has given up any shred of objectivity, or even basic journalism, and need to be destroyed. Little wonder the public is so ignorant of the world and little wonder the US is completely falling into tyranny.
#1
The press lied and carried a lie for Obama? So what else is new. Our press unlike Pravda and Izvestiya willingly and enthusiastically put the shackles, manacles and blinders on themselves. And indirectly they put ignorance and slavery on the people as well by spewing propaganda and lies.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/06/2016 7:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Freedom of the Press was about the means of technology to distribute information as it existed in 1792. Freedom of the Press was not about an social institution which did not exist in 1792. The former was about the free flow of information. The latter is about the distortion, corruption, and fabrication of information.
#7
A few days ago we had a thread about White House press credentials and who should get them. Some of these outlets need to be delegitimized and denial of press credentials would be one way to begin that process. Media outlets that deliberately distort the news to mislead the public need to be called out for it and exposed just like Dan Rather was when he lied about Bush's National Guard service. Where is old Dan these days? Same place David Muir should be.
Secretary of State John Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz are investors in 12 companies in the People’s Republic of China, including a firm that operates in the most repressed part of Tibet, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.
The investments are from a Heinz family trust called “HFI Imperial,” according to Kerry’s official financial disclosure report, which was reviewed by TheDCNF. The fund invests exclusively in Asian-based companies throughout the Pacific Rim — from Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand to the People’s Republic of China.
“Secretary Kerry is not a beneficiary of these trusts, and Mrs. Heinz Kerry also exercises no control over the investment decisions made by the independent trustees,” State Department official spokesman Admiral John Kirby told TheDCNF.
Much, much more tawdry, seedy material at the link, with specifics as to how the company bottles Tibetan water and sells it in Europe. The Euros, of course, drink it up...
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/06/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh, the people Trump's new campaign guy donated to and helped in 2004?
#2
They sold the Iran deal with lies. They sold ACA with lies. We keep letting them. Though I suspect a driving force behind Trump's success is anger at being lied to (for that matter, Sanders' success as well.)
#3
If insurers do drop their bronze plans, it would have the effect of further destabilizing the marketplace...That's because [young and healthy] enrollees, which tend to be lower-risk and want the cheapest plans, will likely leave the marketplace altogether, further depleting the exchanges' share of healthier enrollees.
#4
In order to achieve solvency, the ObamaCare exchanges require 40% of their customers to be young and healthy enough to pay large sums over time into the markets without taking out much in benefits. However, currently only about 28% of ObamaCare customers are young and healthy enough to keep the system afloat.
Revenue neutral, eh? Anybody ask Champ or Queen Nancy why this isn't working the way they said it would? I wouldn't believe it, but I'd like to see if they squirm when they lie.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/06/2016 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#5
However, currently only about 28% of ObamaCare customers are young and healthy enough to keep the system afloat.
Even with as F-cked up as our educational system is, Some young people still can manage basic math.
Consider as well the requirement for the insured to pay for aspects of healthcare that the insured cannot, or may never, use. Any other industry who 'padded' a product would be sued.
#8
Pity they never tried Interstate Competition (oh, look, garlic and crosses)
Which significantly reduced the cost of every other type of insurance and delivered better products.
[WASHINGTONPOST] Trump, as the underdog, is not without some advantages. First, the selfish interest of the news media demands there be a close race. So for the next few months, the media will ensure the race stays competitive and will sustain wall-to-wall coverage of every insult and barb. Much of the media will do Trump’s work for him by simply repeating what he says. He knows how to effectively leverage the media.
Trump doesn’t do policy and poise very well, but policy and poise are boring. The media likes the bile and blood that spews from the Trump campaign, and they will help spread it around. The sooner the race becomes "Shouting Hillary" vs. "Insulting Trump," the more the media will like it. And, oh by the way, in elections where there are a lot of heat and venom, turnout goes up, not down.
Another "advantage" Trump has is that nothing is out of bounds for him, there’s no place he won’t go and nothing is too low. Most recently, Trump actually thought a good way to sully Ted Cruz before the Indiana primary would be to push the National Enquirer story that Cruz’s father had some proximity to the JFK liquidation. What will he not do? If it hadn’t happened, I would have told you it was impossible for a real candidate to stoop so low.
We can only imagine the outrageous insults and taunts Trump will lob at Clinton, her surrogates, her staff, her contributors, her family and her sympathizers. Nothing and nobody is off-limits, and everybody will tune in to hear the latest. Will Clinton and crew respond in kind? Respond at all? Wait? Wait until when? Before the convention? After the convention? October? Trump will dish it out, he can take it and none of his tactics have caught up with him so far. Trump has high negatives, but elections are relative. He needs only a 50 percent market share against one opponent on one day in November. Clinton’s brand is already sullied, and running against Trump will not be a flattering experience.
The Donald puts everyone on their back foot, especially anybody who thinks campaigns should be conducted with a set of rules and with a modicum of dignity. Trump has been selling and nurturing grievances and he will be eager to goad Clinton into a fight. When the polls tighten, she will face cries to "fight back" -- and when she does, she will be on Trump’s turf and anything could happen.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/06/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Republicans didn't know either. The press gave him $2bln in free exposure, and will continue to do so - they get ratings and ad dollars by the truckload. Wouldn't surprise me if they did the math and putsched pushed Trump into office for 4 years of big money just to see the fight between him and the Congress and courts.
#4
We will deal with Trump like any nominee. And as any other President we had. There have been much worse in Our history. Especially the one we have now.
But DO NOT let another communist take office under any circumstance.
Someone who actually fights? Someone who uses your own playbook? Someone who has his own army of zombies to match yours who won't care what you say about him? Someone who found the largest special interest group in the country? The one you have been disparaging and abusing for half a century? Well, you got their attention and he's got theirs.
#8
Trump doesn’t do policy and poise very well, but policy and poise are boring.
Nonsense. Trump's policies are why he is now the presumptive nominee. Just because WAPO doesn't like them doesn't mean Trump doesn't do them. If the media prefers to cover the "bile and blood" it's because they are lazy and stupid and because it fits their narrative that Trump is a vulgar bully compared to the oh so proper and correct Hildebeest.
No surprise. They will figure that out after they figure out how to run an economy and learn how to stop pandering to all their constituent splinter groups required to hold any kind of majority.
#14
Dems are going to get their army of thugs and low lifes and riot and try to create mahem to derail the election. Just wait. They will do ANYTHING to throw the election, especially when they are losing. Head on a swivel, folks, powder dry.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
05/06/2016 20:53 Comments ||
Top||
[CPR.ORG] A new political action committee has one question for straight white men with political aspirations.
"Dude, can you not?"
Democratic activists Jack Teter and Kyle Huelsman registered the organization last month. So far they've raised $120 from six donations.
It's a question embedded in the name of the organization. The Can You Not PAC plans to discourage straight white men from running for office in Colorado's diverse districts. The hope is that will clear the lane from female, minority and LGBTQ candidates.
Democratic activists Jack Teter and Kyle Huelsman registered the organization last month. So far they've raised $120 from six donations.
"It's the counterbalance to the classic intervention where people ask, 'Have you thought about ever running for office?', " says Huelsman. "We want to ask, 'Have you ever thought about not running for office?' "
In the short term, the pair plans to focus on Colorado districts that have large blocs of minority voters but tend to elect "traditional" candidates. That includes Aurora and parts of Denver.
Long term, they hope to tackle what they call a "crisis of overconfidence" among straight white men.
I may indeed be over-confident, but I'm not in crisis about it...
A 2004 study found that among professions that most generally produce candidates for elected office, more men than women feel they are qualified. Political scientists think that helps explain why U.S. legislatures are mostly male.
"We're pushing back against the notion that looking like a Ken doll makes you uniquely qualified to run for office," Huelsman said.
Teter added: "We know that men are more likely to look in the mirror in the morning and think, 'Wow, I'd be great at Congress.' Women need to be asked over and over by their communities."
Nothing is stopping them...
Teter said studies show that women and people of color tend to produce more progressive policies than liberal white males.
"So African American state legislatures are more likely to introduce measures that combat racial discrimination," he said. "That seems obvious. But they also produce measures improving education, healthcare, social welfare and the economy. If I support those policies, don't have an obligation to like the most-qualified person -- who evidence would suggest isn't a straight white man?"
Posted by: Fred ||
05/06/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Of course, to a bigot, skin color, gender and/or sexualitydetermines politics. Not rationality, not Science!, not even emotionality. You skin color gender and sexual attraction are your destiny, you are an animal driven by those things, your mind has nothing to do with it.
That's where their arguments always end up putting those who espouse such politics. And yet these idiots havent a clue that is what they are advocating.
Posted by: Jomong Spawn of the Welsh2769 ||
05/06/2016 0:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So only approved sexism and racism can be in the dhimocrat party.
Makes sense. It is the party of Jim Crow after all.
"So African American state legislatures are more likely to introduce measures that combat racial discrimination," he said. "That seems obvious.
Really? Who authored and passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments? Hint - it wasn't blacks or women of the time. I know its too hard - the answer white male Republicans.
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.
[NYPOST] Even as Shelly Silver was drawing a 12-year stint in the slammer for selling his office, Team de Blasio on Tuesday was all but admitting it did much the same -- and actually defending the practice.
[WASHINGTONPOST] Trump, as the underdog, is not without some advantages. First, the selfish interest of the news media demands there be a close race. So for the next few months, the media will ensure the race stays competitive and will sustain wall-to-wall coverage of every insult and barb. Much of the media will do Trump’s work for him by simply repeating what he says. He knows how to effectively leverage the media.
