Post Scripts

Posted by Tina

I couldn’t let the year come to an end without mentioning the professor of climate science who set out to find evidence of global warming damage to ice structures that got stuck in the ice. The ordeal apparently began on Christmas day but according to NewsBusters only 25 in 26 stories about this incident included the professors purpose:

Antarctic ice trapped a ship full of scientists on a climate change expedition. Yet, 96 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers ignored climate change entirely. The ship has been stuck since Christmas morning.

The broadcast networks mostly ignored the reason the Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was on its way to Antarctica. Twenty-five out of 26 stories (96 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.

In fact, rather than point out the mission of the scientists to find evidence of climate change, the networks often referred to the stranded people as “passengers,” “trackers” and even “tourists,” with no mention of climate change or global warming. Chris Turney, the expedition’s leader, is a professor of climate change at the University of South Wales. According to Turney’s personal website, the purpose of the expedition is to “discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.”

So far, three rescue attempts have been thwarted by growing levels of sea ice and weather conditions. The passengers are now expected to be airlifted by helicopter, according to The Associated Press. ABC’s “Good Morning America” reported Dec. 30, that “the ice could be as thick as 13 feet.”

These expeditions always occur in summer in order to take advantage of the ship friendlier conditions…and still the growing ice was too much for the ship to navigate. Hmmm…if its this cold and icey in summer….

Before their ship got stuck in ice, the researchers were following the trail of the explorer Douglas Mawson, who was stranded in Anees his piectarctica for more than a year, beginning in December 1912, according to the website about the expedition.

That should have acted as a warning, not only that they might run into trouble, but also that their theory might be just a tad bit faulty and overblown.

This is what happens when you put your faith in worldly ideas.

Posted by Tina

The disastrous rail accident and explosion in North Dakota during the night sent plumes of smoke and gases into the air. A train carrying grain and a train carrying crude oil were involved in the incident. One of the trains derailed, causing the derailment of the other, but it hasn’t been determined yet which train left the tracks first. The residents of the nearby town reported hearing six explosions and were advised to evacuate. A shelter was set up to house those without means to find alternate quarters. it’s too early to establish cause in the incident.

As much as I hate the expression “We told you so,” this time the haughty taunt is well deserved. The Keystone pipeline is a project has been stonewalled and undermined for many years by radical environmentalists and the democrats in Congress. President Obama, backed by the weight of wealthy supporter Warren Buffet, has blocked the pipeline and denied the American people thousands of jobs the project would have created. It’s no accident that Warren Buffet has profited greatly from the political decision made by Obama; he owns the rail that carries that crude. The Bismark Tribune reports:

The state’s top oil regulator said earlier this month that he expected as much as 90 percent of North Dakota’s oil would be carried by train in 2014, up from the current 60 percent. … The number of crude oil carloads hauled by U.S. railroads surged from 10,840 in 2009 to a projected 400,000 this year.

Credit should be given where its due! The radical left, their wealthy donors and supporters, and the rabid environmental lobby are responsible not only for this unnecessary pollution but for the loss of jobs that the pipeline would have secured for contractors and their employees.

As our former President, George W. Bush, said in statements recently:

“I think the goal of the country ought to be, ‘How do we grow the private sector?’ ” Bush said at a Pittsburgh luncheon with energy executives, according to DeSmog Blog. … “If private-sector growth is the goal and Keystone pipeline creates 20,000 new private-sector jobs, build the damn thing!”

Indeed. The project makes sense unless you care more about green lobbyists and Warren Buffets money making prospect than you do about the well being of the American people. The President is supposed to lead…not pander…not favor wealthy contributors…and not conduct an endless campaign.

As we look back over the year’s horrendous scandals and failures is it not astounding that even on New years Eve we can addyet another failure to the stack?

Posted by Tina

Hillary Clinton wants to be president. Groups and persons of great wealth and influence will do whatever is needed to see that she is America’s next president. The New York Times is apparently one of those who will do or publish anything to help Hillary win her prize. Were they spinning a story for Hillary Clinton?

Over the weekend the NYT published a report based on research conducted by David D. Kirkpatrick who concluded that the deadly raid in Benghazi was not influenced by Al Qaeda and was the result of anger and the video. As is the case when a story is being spun, Kirkpatrick chose his title carefully. “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi” suggests a thoughtful assessment about terrible conditions that couldn’t be avoided and resulted, unfortunately, in human loss:

The cable was a last token of months of American misunderstandings and misperceptions about Libya and especially Benghazi, many fostered by shadows of the earlier Sept. 11 attack. The United States waded deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya, hoping to build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda. It believed it could draw a bright line between friends and enemies in Libya. But it ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the Americans had taken for allies.

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

The writer refers to “American misunderstandings and misperceptions” and speaks of the “United States” wading “deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya” to describe what went wrong. No mention of then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton or the President of the United States or the policies and decisions they made before, during, and after the raid. He also did not mention the information that caused others to conclude there was al Qaeda involvement.

The New York Times piece has been roundly criticized by others including “two members of the House intelligence committee, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Adam Schiff” and Elise Foley of the Huffington Post. The article stands in contrast to articles written in competing publications like the Wall Street Journal but also by previous articles in…The New York Times!

This is the kind of thing that voters should watch for in the coming election year. Big players backed by big money who are more dedicated to winning for their preferred candidate than to full disclosure of the facts. The NYT story no doubt contains some interesting information; some of it might even be helpful in discerning what went wrong. But Kirkpatrick completely ignored significant information in drawing his conclusions that anger about the video was the major driving force behind the deadly attack.

Are the NYT and Kirkpatrick spinning for Hillary? As a voter I have to ask myself if the writer, and his publisher, had its conclusion in mind before the investigation even began. I think they did and I think they asked questions of the locals in libya until they got the responses they wanted to hear. So yes, I do think they are spinning for Hillary.

Posted by Jack

CHICAGO — Chico’s Aaron Rodgers is back leading the Green Bay Packers and that could be bad news for every other playoff team.

He returned from a broken collarbone and is taking aim at a postseason run, even if it took one big pass to get there.

Rodgers fired a 48-yard touchdown to Randall Cobb in the final minute, and the Packers beat the Chicago Bears 33-28 to capture the NFC North championship on Sunday. What a turnaround!

Next weekend Greenbay will host 49’ers in a wildcard playoff. Football doesn’t get any better than this!

by Tina Grazier

Whenever politics comes up in a discussion the question of money in politics soon follows. Large sums of cash poured into campaigns seems to drive people crazy. It taints the process, according to those who believe there’s a need to control or regulate it. But does the past record of cash contribution reflect an advantage either by class (1% vs 99&) or party and group? And if money does impact elections does the amount matter or is it how the money is used?

When the Supreme Court ruled that “money is speech” in the Citizens United case the frustration about money in politics ratcheted up a few notches. The issue is a cause for concern for people of all political persuasions but as is almost always the case, the loudest most organized voices seem to come from the union left. They despise the fact that people in corporations are now able to contribute just as can people associated with unions, or religiously based groups, or environmental groups, or groups like Citizens United. The loudest voices want the Supreme Court ruling overturned because they say it has fowled the process (read advantage) for the little guys. The real reason is that it leveled a playing field and foweled the advantage unions once had over “powerful corporations”. But recent campaign contribution statistics don’t support these hyped claims. For instance, John Hinderocker of Powerline cites a Minneapolis Star article and notes the overwhelming cash advantage that unions and the Democrat Party have had in one state in the last three election cycles:

Since 2007, Democrats and their supporters consistently raised and distributed more money than their opponents. Even with the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed businesses to give money directly to political action committees, business interests and Republicans have not kept up. …

…In the last six years, union contributions dominated donations to state political action committees. State and national unions spent $17 million in ­Minnesota between 2007 and 2012. Businesses, newly empowered to spend after the Citizens United decision, directly donated about $3 million.

Open Secrets points out a profound change in contribution levels by outside groups for conservative vs. liberal candidates. This national shift follows the the 2010 Supreme Court decision (Scroll down for chart) but does it mean corporations and rich people now overwhelm unions and leftist organizations or does it simply mean the people of the United States have soured on liberal politics and policy?

According to Open Secrets, here, Liberal are surging in the 2014 campaign cycle so far with conservative spending at $9.3 million as opposed to $18.4 million by liberal groups. Some of this spending can be attributed to defensive efforts to overcome low approval ratings for the president and his (bombing) signature legislation and some of it to early efforts to boost Hillary to the prominent Democrat position.

It’s difficult to evaluate how Tea Party (conservative) contributions would have impacted the last election spending numbers since the efforts of several groups were successfully blunted by IRS targeting. Clearly they are being targeted in the 2014 election by the establishment Republicans as well as by liberal groups. Their case makes it clear that politics is a rough competitive game.

Money is the tool candidates and parties use to deliver their message and present candidates for consideration. It is also a tool used in unscrupulous ways to defeat or destroy the competition. There is little evidence to support the idea that the Citizens United decision has created an advantage for any group in the political spectrum. Voters would be wise to worry less about the amount of cash donated and instead focus attention on methods and messages. Fundamental transformation sounded wonderful to a lot of people in the 2008 election. The splashy presentation and rock star flash added to the appeal of the messengers. Five years of high unemployment, a health insurance fiasco, foreign policy disasters and a sluggish economy featuring rising prices have given fundamental transformation and it’s messengers a very bad name. Have voters learned anything about phony messaging? It’s hard to say. Clearly a lot of money can deliver a big fancy campaign. But the money didn’t buy or guarantee a good result even when it helped deliver a political win.

Voters donate money and in doing so they are taking a risk just as they are with any investment. The risk becomes greater the more we donate but large sums don’t come with guarantees. Money doesn’t always give the advantage to the group or person that spends the most. George Soros money could not stop the reelection of George Bush in 2004. More money, even from the unfairly maligned Koch Brothers, didn’t award the presidency to Mitt Romney. So is it the money that makes elections? Or is it the methods used by the parties and candidates…and is it the conditions in our everyday lives that make the biggest difference in elections?

 by Jack Lee

E-R’s David Little recently wrote an excellent editorial detailing the wage discrepancy between identical job titles in municipal agencies.     The arbitrary way the State, Counties and Cities assign salaries is a problem for taxpayers and it’s led to rediculous disparity in some salaries.   The temptation for bureaucrat’s to inflate their own salaries has led to serious problems, if not outright looting, as we saw in Bell, Ca.

Well, I have an idea!   Let’s get legislation passed that would bring some credible structure and more uniformity to administrative salaries.

I envision a three tier system that would break down salaries into categories of elected officials, merit system employees and professional employees. We start with the highest paid elected official, the Governor and all other elected positions are prorated based upon the population they serve. The next is the merit employee. The highest pay goes to the person who supervises the most employees and has the greatest responsibility. Next is the professional employee. This would include doctors, lawyers, architects and other positions requiring 6 years of college or more. Each top position in this category is established based on job responsibilities, employees supervised and lastly with respect to private sector salaries, less 20%. Each subordinate rung on the pay scale ladder is based off the highest salary within their particular sector.   A fair parity between the top paid and lowest paid is already in place, so we only have to deal with modifying the highest paid department heads and all other salaries will fall in line accordingly, we simply keep the old average parity spread because that part is good and it doesn’t need fixing.

If a uniform government salary guide were adopted by the California League of Cities we could then propose legislation mandating those salary structures.  My estimates predict an annual savings of about $25 billion dollars from the current $146 billion dollar budget for 2013. 

This savings of $25 billion more money to hire more people, but it would also mean the top-paid city officials in the state would take a big hit. For example, the city manager of Buena Park, who earned $545,394 last year, see that one fall by 40%! The fire chief in Milpitas would likely see his $461,212 salary cut by about 55%. City wages for Chico would also fall considerably too. We’re currently 44th highest for the [average] salary within the entire State.    We’re paying an average wage of $67.645 per employee and that’s higher than larger or more expensive cities such as Napa, Newport Beach, Oceanside, San Diego, Sausalito and Santa Barbara, as noted in Little’s editorial.   

This wide parity spread doesn’t make any sense, does it?    No, and my simple reform idea would absolutely fix this erratic salary spread, but here’s the big problem:  Getting it passed our State legislature to become law would be almost impossible.

Corrupt politics favors the status quo, not reform.

by Jack

 Two opposing stories appeared on the same page and I thought it was too ironic not bring to your attention.   The stories have one person poo-pooing the knockout game and the other, a victim, who was punched for no apparent reason and took a picture of her attacker. 

The first story starts out as debunking the Knockout Game as overblown hype:   ”According to the news of the last few weeks, it’s a brand new game, spreading all over the country, in which young, African-American teenagers — sometimes alone, sometimes in groups — come up to innocent, unsuspecting people and try to knock them out with one punch.

This has been happening all over the place — including dozens of times right here in Philly — and no one in safe. But Barack Obama won’t condemn it. Neither will Al Sharpton.

Right?

In fact, the prevailing media narrative of the Knockout Game is starting to look completely wrong.

(The media is saying) ….that it’s new, that it’s a widespread phenomenon, that it’s a major thing that’s happening everywhere, and that it is always black-on-white — are overhyped if not completely false.

Hmmm…okay, so the news media is hyping this story, but  then on the same page comes this story about a  young woman (white)-who works for one of Philadelphia’s largest corporations-was outside the Convention Center in Philadelphia taking photos when a man allegedly punched her in the face…     

“I was taking a photo when he punched me in the jaw,” she told me on Tuesday night. “I turned around and he turned around at the same time, and I took a series of photos. He was in a few photos I had taken a few minutes prior to the assault as well.”

UPDATE 11/20 4 p.m.: A second woman has come forward alleging that the same man in this photo attacked her at the Erie station on the Broad Street Subway last Friday at approximately 1 p.m.   The 25-year-old Temple Medical School student (white), who asks that we not use her name, says that he punched her in the face but did not take anything from her. He also allegedly jumped on her back.  (See picture of attacker on right.)

   2nd UPDATE Dec 5th, 2013:   Colt Younger, 26, was arrested on Tuesday and charged with two counts of simple assault and one count each of recklessly endangering another person and harassment. That’s his mugshot on the right. His capture occurred in no small part because of the photo that the victim managed to capture. Younger, who resides in Germantown, is locked up in lieu of $25,000 bail.

There was a lot of debate over whether these incidents were examples of the so-called knockout game in Philadelphia. Knockout game or no knockout game, we’re just happy to learn that the police have someone in custody.

“It makes me feel a bit like it’s more of a single crazy person and not like North Philadelphia is just a difficult place to be,” says the woman who was attacked at Broad and Erie. “Though obviously if it really is the knockout game, it’s something bigger and arresting this one person isn’t going to solve the problem.”