Tag Archives: supreme-court

Weigel-gate: WaPo Editor Brauchli Huffs They Won’t Do ‘Supreme Court Justice’ Scrutiny on Blogger Hires

Posted on June 26, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In the Saturday Washington Post, media reporter Howard Kurtz wrote up the resignation of blogger David Weigel, whose disgust for conservatives was too much for the Post to defend for a man hired to cover conservatives. Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli  lamented “we can’t have any tolerance for the perception that people are conflicted or bring a bias to their work.” Everyone brings some bias to their work, and some Post reporters bring plenty. I’d guess he means that the Post couldn’t have the perception that a reporter/blogger viscerally hates the people he’s supposed to cover, and wants some of them dead. Brauchli bristled at the idea that the Post didn’t exactly take a hard look at Weigel’s writings before hiring:   Asked about Weigel’s strong views about some conservatives, Brauchli said: “We don’t have the resources or ability to do Supreme Court justice-type investigations into people’s backgrounds. We will have to be more careful in the future.” It didn’t require a committee of investigators to read through 40,000 documents. Two NPR interviews would have been a decent start. I’d think that anyone who’d read Weigel’s reports for The Washington Independent would have found a liberal vibe. For the Post, that’s not disqualifying, it’s a plus, just as it was for NPR. Media outlets don’t have to hire conservatives to cover conservatives, and they generally avoid “stooping” to that, perhaps for the sake of newsroom peace. But a reporter-slash-blogger can’t gain access to conservatives very successfully after suggesting you wished Rush Limbaugh would die, or especially that it’s unfair that the media has to offer “equal time” for moronic “real Americans.” Kurtz relayed:    The Daily Caller reported more inflammatory comments on Friday, with Weigel writing that conservatives were using the media to “violently, angrily divide America” and lamenting news organizations’ “need to give equal/extra time to ‘real American’ views, no matter how [expletive] moronic.” When Rush Limbaugh, who has called for President Obama to fail, was hospitalized with chest pains, Weigel wrote: “I hope he fails.” Post ombudsman Andy Alexander reported the Post will try, try again , but he suggested two hires:  “We will look for someone to replace Dave,” [managing editor Raju] Narisetti said. Instead of just a replacement, The Post might consider two: one conservative with a Klein-like ideological bent, and another who can cover the conservative movement in the role of a truly neutral reporter. In the meantime, Post managers would be wise to remind all staffers that personal opinions, expressed privately on listservs or through social media, can prove damaging if made public…. Alas, it took only one listserv participant to bundle up Weigel’s archived comments and start leaking them outside the group. The result is that Weigel lost his job. But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives.

See the article here:
Weigel-gate: WaPo Editor Brauchli Huffs They Won’t Do ‘Supreme Court Justice’ Scrutiny on Blogger Hires

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Baron Black of Crossharbour still federal inmate after U.S. Supreme Court "victory"

Posted on June 25, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In a stunning non-landmark ruling that is the legal equivalent of changing his name from “Joe Shit” to “John Shit”, ex-newspaper tycoon Conrad Black has had three of his four criminal convictions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a ruling that will likely have little or no impact on what remains of his 78-month sentence. Meanwhile the lordly inmate cools his heels on the cricket pitch at his minimum-security country club in Florida. http://looncanada.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/conrad-black-wins-empty-victory-in-u-… added by: foolforacigarette

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Stossel Argues Gun Control Increases Crime, ‘I Was Once as Clueless as Senator Schumer’

Posted on June 25, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Thursday’s Stossel show on FBN, host John Stossel devoted the program to making the case that gun control can increase crime rates and that higher rates of gun ownership tend to decrease crime. Stossel admitted that, even as a libertarian, it took time for him to come around to this truth as he and most in the mainstream media live in the New York City liberal bubble, not cognizant of all the states that have passed concealed carry laws and seen crime decrease. During a segment with Dennis Hannigan of the Brady Campaign, the FBN host observed: “Over the years, more and more states changed their laws to allow concealed carry. The mainstream media and my neighbors are so isolated here in New York City and in Washington, D.C., most of us had no clue that carrying a concealed weapon is already legal in the rest of the country. More places all the time, legal guns, and yet crime does keep dropping.” Stossel concluded the show by recounting Britain’s failed experiment with gun bans, and revealed that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, known for advocating gun control, had declined an invitation to appear on the show to argue his case as the FBN host took a self-deprecating jab at the New York Senator: I was once as clueless as Senator Schumer. Now I admit I was wrong about guns laws. Fewer guns don’t necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true. About 10 years ago, a mass shooting in the United Kingdom led Britain to pass one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. … This did not decrease crime. In fact, gun-related crime merely doubled after the ban passed. Crime increased in Britain while it decreased in America. … Britain just took guns away from the good guys, the people who obey the law. Doing that makes crime easier for the bad guys. The truth is gun control is not crime control. During a segment with University of Chicago Professor John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime – a segment which also included the Brady Campaign’s Hannigan – Stossel recounted: “We have this chart from your book that shows violent crime rates after concealed carry laws passed. Here it is for murder. It’s impressive. After the law passed, crime went down.” Another segment explored the issue of concealed carry on college campuses, and included advocates on both sides of the issue. David Burnett of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus notably contended: “I would point you to two colleges in Colorado. One of them banned guns in 2003. The other one decided they would allow guns. On the campus that allowed guns, the crime dropped like a rock. And on the campus that banned guns, the crime went up.” Stossel then hosted a segment which included Suzanna Hupp, who has lobbied against gun control in response to losing her parents in a mass shooting at a time when it was illegal to carry guns into restaurants in Texas. Also included was Nikki Goeser, whose husband was shot to death in front of her in a Tennessee bar where she was not legally allowed to bring her own gun for self-defense. And Mark Walters of Armed America Radio recounted the time he defended himself from being carjacked by brandishing a weapon to scare off his attacker. The FBN host then moved to a segment focusing on the effort to overturn Chicago’s handgun ban, featuring Chicago resident and plaintiff Otis McDonald. Stossel recounted the case of D.C.’s gun ban that was overturned by the Supreme Court two years ago, and how changes in the law affected crime in the city: “Murder and other gun violence have dropped in D.C. since the Supreme Court overturned the handgun ban. And let’s now go back 35 years to when Washington passed its gun ban. In the years that followed, crime went up compared to other big cities and compared to the rest of America. Fewer guns, more crime.” Stossel concluded the show by recounting Britain’s failed experiment with gun bans, and noted revealed that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, known for advocating gun control, had declined an invitation to appear on the show to argue his case as the FBN host took a self-deprecating jab at the New York Senator: As he concluded the show, Stossel showed a clip of Senator Schumer arguing in favor of gun locks, comparing the concept to put child safety locks on medicine bottles, as the FBN host pointed out the flaw in Schumer’s logic: “Well, Senator Schumer, you don’t suddenly need to open an aspirin bottle for self-defense.” Stossel recounted his show’s unsuccessful offer to allow Schumer to appear on the show, and informed viewers of the effects of strict gun laws in Britain. Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Thursday, June 24, Stossel show on FBN: JOHN STOSSEL: Concealed carry terrifies a lot of people, and many people would be shocked to how many states already allow it. And here, I think, is a really cool map that shows which states already have it. States that have concealed carry laws are colored yellow. This is the law in 1986 – that’s 25 years ago. Over the years, more and more states changed their laws to allow concealed carry. The mainstream media and my neighbors are so isolated here in New York City and in Washington, D.C., most of us had no clue that carrying a concealed weapon is already legal in the rest of the country. More places all the time, legal guns, and yet crime does keep dropping. … STOSSEL: We have this chart from your book that shows violent crime rates after concealed carry laws passed. Here it is for murder. It’s impressive. After the law passed, crime went down. … DAVID BURNETT, STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS: I would point you to two colleges in Colorado. One of them banned guns in 2003. The other one decided they would allow guns. On the campus that allowed guns, the crime dropped like a rock. And on the campus that banned guns, the crime went up. … The college in Colorado, there’s not very many colleges that allow them. The college at Colorado, the sheriff there is a big fan of it, and he went to the college, and he said, “No, do not ban this. This works. Nobody is irresponsible. Everything is good.” … STOSSEL: If you’re an adult in America, do you have the right to own a gun? Thirty-five years ago Washington, D.C. said no. They passed a law that banned handguns. That law was challenged in court, and, two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled the ban was unconstitutional. The mayor was upset. MAYOR ADRIAN FENTY (D-WASHINGTON, D.C.): More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence. STOSSEL: But that didn’t happen. In fact, murder and other gun violence have dropped in D.C. since the Supreme Court overturned the handgun ban. And let’s now go back 35 years to when Washington passed its gun ban. In the years that followed, crime went up compared to other big cities and compared to the rest of America. Fewer guns, more crime. It’s counterintuitive, but it does seem to be true. Gun rights’ supporters were excited when the Supreme Court overturned the Washington law, but that case was not the big one because it just applies to D.C., the federal property. The big case that’s being debated now by the Supreme Court, and next week or maybe even tomorrow the court is expected to announce its decision. The case is called McDonald versus Chicago. If the court sides with McDonald, it would apply the right to bear arms to people in all cities. The lead plaintiff in that lawsuit is Otis McDonald. Here’s an interview done with him by Fox’s Chicago affiliate. UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: In the 38 years that you’ve lived here, how many times have you been burglarized? OTIS MCDONALD, CHICAGO RESIDENT: The house three times, the garage twice. STOSSEL: McDonald lives in a Chicago neighborhood that he says has been taken over by gangs and drug dealers. REPORTER: He says he’d feel safer if he had a handgun by his bed, but then he’d be breaking Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban. Why is owning a gun important? MCDONALD: When my life is threatened, I’d like to be able to at least feel that I can protect myself. STOSSEL: Chicago’s lawyer who opposes giving McDonald a gun wouldn’t come on to defend the ban, so, Dennis Hannigan from the Brady Campaign is back to give Chicago’s side. Also with us is the lawyer who argued McDonald’s case before the Supreme Court. But before we go to the lawyers, let’s go to the plaintiffs, 76-year-old Otis McDonald. So, Mr. McDonald, you own a shotgun. Isn’t that enough? You want a handgun, too? MCDONALD: Yes. I own a shotgun for hunting game. STOSSEL: Isn’t that enough? MCDONALD: No. STOSSEL: Why? MCDONALD: I don’t think it would be efficient enough for me to handle in close quarters with a would-be killer or something like that. … STOSSEL: I once wrote a book about myths with the subtitle, “Everything You Know is Wrong.” And that applied to me. It turned out so much of what I and my colleagues in the liberal media thought was true was just wrong. But, of course, I live here in New York City. We have all kinds of silly beliefs. We also have silly politicians who say things like this: SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Let me ask a simple question: If an aspirin bottle can have a safety lock, why not a gun? STOSSEL: Well, Senator Schumer, you don’t suddenly need to open an aspirin bottle for self-defense. There is a difference. We asked the Senator to join us on this program. His office said they’d call us back, but they didn’t. I was once as clueless as Senator Schumer. Now I admit I was wrong about guns laws. Fewer guns don’t necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true. About 10 years ago, a mass shooting in the United Kingdom led Britain to pass one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. When the law passed, Britain seemed to get safer by the minute if you watched as officials made sure cameras were there as 160,000 newly illegal firearms were forked over by law-abiding citizens and sent to be melted down in an incinerator. But the real result? This did not decrease crime. In fact, gun-related crime merely doubled after the ban passed. Crime increased in Britain while it decreased in America. This shouldn’t come as a surprise if you consider just two things. Criminals usually don’t obey laws. That’s why we call them criminals. And gun laws never totally get rid of guns. England’s ban didn’t magically eliminate all British handguns. Officials estimate a quarter million illegal weapons are still in circulation. Britain just took guns away from the good guys, the people who obey the law. Doing that makes crime easier for the bad guys. The truth is gun control is not crime control.

More:
Stossel Argues Gun Control Increases Crime, ‘I Was Once as Clueless as Senator Schumer’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MRC Study: Media Blackout of Supreme Court ‘Battle’

Posted on June 24, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

When President Obama picked Elena Kagan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the broadcast networks referred to the upcoming Senate confirmation process as “contentious” a “meat grinder” and a “battle,” warning Kagan was “in for a fight.” But a Media Research Center analysis of the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in the six weeks since Kagan was nominated shows the broadcast networks have failed to cover the “fight,” and have ignored most of the controversies that could lead to suspenseful hearings next week. MRC analysts found that the broadcast network evening newscasts aired just eleven stories about Kagan since her May 10 nomination (six on CBS, three on ABC and two on NBC), plus another three brief items read by the anchor. All but one of those stories appeared during the first week after Kagan’s selection; only the CBS Evening News , in a June 3 report, has bothered to cover any of the thousands of pages of Kagan documents released in recent weeks. Both CNN and FNC provided substantially more coverage of Kagan during their 6pm ET news programs (10 full stories on CNN’s The Situation Room , 11 on FNC’s Special Report ) and offered in-depth coverage of Kagan controversies that the broadcast networks glossed over. The NBC Nightly News hasn’t mentioned Kagan since she met with senators on May 12; ABC’s World News hasn’t said a word about Kagan since May 16. For its part, the CBS Evening News aired one item on Kagan on June 3 aimed at bolstering the nominee against complaints from the Left that she isn’t liberal enough: CBS’s JAN CRAWFORD: Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that some on the left have worried she’s too moderate….But documents buried in Thurgood Marshall’s papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion. Crawford did acknowledge Kagan’s overt liberalism might wind up hurting her nomination: “While that may encourage liberals, it’s going to give Republicans a lot more ammunition to fight against her.” But neither CBS nor the other broadcast networks offered a follow-up, even as thousands of documents from Kagan’s stint in the Clinton White House were revealed. Networks Trumpeted Opposition to Roberts and Alito The networks’ disinterested approach to this year’s Supreme Court “battle” is at odds with how they covered the run-up to the hearings of the last two Republican nominees, when ABC, CBS and NBC all ran multiple stories in the weeks before each set of hearings began. On the July 26, 2005 World News Tonight , one week after President Bush picked John Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor, ABC correspondent (and future Obama spokeswoman) Linda Douglass highlighted Democratic demands for additional documents: “Democrats want Roberts’ more recent memos when he was crafting legal opinions for the first Bush administration. Republicans complain the Democrats are simply searching for reasons to oppose him.” The August 4, 2005 CBS Evening News amplified the Left’s criticisms of Roberts, including a soundbite from “Alliance for Justice” chief Nan Aron, who hysterically claimed material released up to that point “raises red flags about his commitment to civil rights, women’s rights, laws that have been in place for decades.” On November 14, 2005, nearly two weeks after Sam Alito’s selection, all three networks jumped on the release of a memo on abortion Alito had written twenty years earlier. NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams breathlessly wondered, “Is it a bombshell?” Reporter Williams conveyed liberal activists’ ire: “Women’s rights groups today pounced on the document, calling it proof that Judge Alito would restrict access to abortion” This time around, these same networks have failed to grant as much as a soundbite to any representative of a conservative group to talk about Kagan over the past six weeks. And the networks have aired no stories conveying GOP complaints about the need for additional Kagan documents from the National Archives or Clinton library. As for controversies, both CNN and the Fox News Channel have offered detailed reports about topics that the broadcast networks have either ignored or downplayed: ■ Kagan’s Princeton papers: CNN and FNC discussed Kagan’s senior thesis on the demise of the Socialist Party in the early 1900s, which she labeled “sad.” FNC’s Shannon Bream and CNN’s Lisa Sylvester both included soundbites from experts suggesting, in the words of Sylvester, that “it’s hard to conclude she herself is a socialist, more of a historian documenting a political movement.” But only FNC’s Bream noted Kagan’s op-ed for The Daily Princetonian , where she openly described herself a “liberal” and wailed about the “anonymous but moral majority-backed avengers of innocent life.” Bream added how “Kagan also said she looked forward to a time when a, quote, ‘more leftist left will once again come to the fore.’” ABC, CBS and NBC coverage of Kagan’s Princeton writings? Zero. ■ Openness to Regulating Political Speech: Both CNN and FNC explored Kagan’s handling of the Citizens United case as Solicitor General. Even though Kagan lost the 5-4 decision, the President had cited that case as an example of her commitment to fighting “special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections.” On Special Report , Fox correspondent Major Garrett included a quote from Citizen United’s David Bossie saying Kagan offered “a fundamentally flawed view of the First Amendment, and I think it disqualifies her from the high court.” But CNN’s Kate Bolduan stuck to a positive recounting of Kagan’s style, saying her oral argument showed “she is light on her feet,” “clearly an intellectual” with “quick wit and personality.” As for the networks, ABC’s Jake Tapper and CBS’s Jan Crawford on May 10 made passing references to the case, but none of the broadcast networks explored the details of that case or suggested Kagan’s legal arguments showed a hostility to free speech. ■ Kagan’s ban on military recruitment. As Dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan blocked the U.S. military from using the school’s Office of Career Services because of the ban on open homosexuals serving in the armed forces, a policy Kagan said she “abhorred.” CNN’s Lisa Sylvester offered an in-depth story on May 11, followed by a debate between Lawrence Korb from the liberal Center for American Progress and conservative Frank Gaffney. FNC offered its own story on May 11, quoting two conservative critics of Kagan vs. White House chief of staff David Axelrod and a gay veteran who supported Kagan’s stance. As for the broadcast networks, ABC and NBC limited themselves to a couple of sentences referencing the controversy on the day Kagan was picked. CBS also mentioned the matter on  May 10, with additional coverage on the May 16 Evening News . Reporter Jan Crawford’s tone was sympathetic: “Kagan, like many law school officials, opposed having military recruiters on campus….” In the past, when liberal organizations chose to do “battle” with a Republican appointee to the Court, the networks chronicled the effort and showcased the complaints of left-wing groups. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, these same networks seem decidedly uncurious about the confirmation “fight” over Elena Kagan.

See the article here:
MRC Study: Media Blackout of Supreme Court ‘Battle’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Frustrated Locals Not Waiting for Official "OK" to Try to Stop Oil and Save Oiled Animals and Birds

Posted on June 22, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

PART ONE… http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/21/oil.spill.okaloosa.county/index.html?hpt=C1 By Jamie Gumbrecht, CNN June 21 2010 4:30pm EDT Photo: Stephanie Neumann holds a Northern Gannet Okaloosa Island, Florida – Vacationers were the first to notice the bird fumbling in the water near this popular tourist beach last week. He bobbed and swayed differently than other birds, and didn't react when humans came dangerously close. Once he was ashore, they could see why: a light sheen of oil covered his feathers. Animal health technician Stephanie Neumann tried to rescue the Northern Gannet, but beach safety officers stopped her. Her coworkers at the Emerald Coast Wildlife Refuge already had stabilized birds and a sea turtle affected by the Gulf oil disaster, but officials wanted to know: Did she have a contract with BP? Could she – and the bird – wait while they verified her organization's status? “They're trying to do their job,” Neumann said as she crouched over the motionless bird, wrapped in a white sheet and barely hidden from the stares of kids and parents. “They have to make sure protocol is followed.” When brown clumps of tar began to wash up on the snow-white beaches around Destin last week, the mood in this sunny beach community shifted from optimistic denial to furious worry. Local ideas about how to protect the area clashed with plans from BP, state and federal agencies. Community volunteers struggling to cut through protocol cheered a decision by Okaloosa County to defy BP and the feds. They were done waiting. They'd use their own plans. “This is ridiculous. We'll take the heat. We would do whatever it took to stop the oil,” said the county commission chairman, Wayne Harris. After months of wrangling with agencies responding to the spill, Harris wasn't willing to stake the county's ecology and economy only on boom that captures or absorbs oil. The commission authorized emergency management teams to add skimmers, barges and extra boom, and an air wall they hope will push the oil away. They plan to layer prevention measures in the pass that connects the Gulf to Choctawhatchee Bay, where fresh and salt water mix and dolphins play. Harris said the plan could cost up to $6 million per month, which he hopes will be covered by money from BP. The county developed its oil plan in the days after the disaster began to unfold, but it was plagued by miscommunications, disagreements and bureaucracy once it left local hands, Harris said. Communities along the Gulf Coast have made similar complaints. Mayors grilled a BP official about the response during a press conference earlier this month. In Magnolia Springs, Alabama, locals went outside the federal plan and risked incarceration by adding boom and barges to protect Weeks Bay. In Pointe Aux Chenes, Louisiana, Native Americans pitched in to string boom near an island where many of their ancestors are buried. Harris said some of his county's efforts may work; others may not. “Doing something is better than doing nothing,” he said. On the Okaloosa Island beach, local response to the oiled Gannet was quicker, but the federal response had less red tape to work through. U.S. Fish and Wildlife workers arrived before Neumann's status was verified, so she left their bird in their care. “Time is essential with these guys,” she said. “Every minute counts.” For the rest of Okaloosa County, more boom and barges were starting to appear in the water. The county commission vote was “smart,” and sped up the state and federal response, said public safety director Dino Villani, who was quickly invited to an “olive branch” meeting in Mobile. Most of the county's preferred plans are moving forward, Villani said, and they'll continue to adapt as the oil moves throughout their waters. Harris said the plans would have gone forward even without approval from BP or other government agencies. “I'm sure they're cussing. I'm sure they're cussing us bad,” Harris said. “If we had waited, we'd still be waiting. Why did it take us giving an ultimatum?” Charles Diorio, a Coast Guard commander in Mobile, said some communities decided to implement their own plans once they saw they didn't top the list of state and federal priorities, if they were on the list at all. Some just wanted to act before the mess – and response agencies' attention – began to move their way. Now that oil is reaching Florida's shores, resources are shifting there, Diorio said, and there's a plan to meet with Okaloosa commissioners this week. “Now is the time to make sure these relationships are still working and strong and the lines of communication are open,” he said. CONTINUED… added by: EthicalVegan

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BP Oil Spill Kills its Largest Victim Yet

Posted on June 22, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Tuesday, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship spotted the 25-foot animal due south of the Deepwater Horizon site. The water the whale was floating in was not oiled. The fate of the whales, which have frequently been spotted swimming in the oil by planes overhead, has been of intense concern to wildlife biologists. Blair Mase, the Southeast marine mammal stranding coordinator for the oceanic agency, said that scientists were “very concerned” that oil was the cause of the whale’s death, but that the whale’s body was so decomposed and scavenged by sharks that it would be impossible to say for certain. There are an estimated 1,700 sperm whales that live in gulf waters and they are known to congregate particularly at the mouth of the Mississippi River, a rich feeding ground. Unlike other whales, which travel long distances, these live full-time in the Gulf and do not usually mingle with sperm whale pods in the neighboring Caribbean and Sargasso Sea. Ms. Mase said that the dead whale was almost certainly a gulf whale. Scientists will try to determine whether the whale had been swimming through oil by using a method known as hindcasting, which looks at how bloated an animal’s body is to calculate how long it has been dead, then retraces patterns in water currents to tell where the body might have drifted from. The whale’s condition suggests it has been dead for at least several days, Ms. Mase said. Scientists are also taking skin samples from the whale, which will be tested for petroleum. The results of those tests, as well as tests on its skin and blubber to determine its gender, may take weeks to process, the oceanic agency said. Government workers are also trying to rule out other possible causes of death, like a ship strike or net entanglement. “It is a relatively rare occurrence,” said Ms. Mase, who added that there have been only five or six whale deaths in the gulf in five years, “so we are studying this very carefully.” NOAA sent a research ship to the area around the Deepwater Horizon a few days ago specifically to learn whether the oil spill was changing whales’ behavior and if so, in what ways. Because whales are large and very mobile, they are relatively less vulnerable to oil spills than other sea life. However, the whales are classified as endangered and the crude oil is toxic to them. Moreover, they prefer to dive and fish right off the continental shelf, where the Deepwater Horizon wellhead is located, and their sensitivity to the large plumes of oil droplets and the enormous amount of dispersants being used to combat this disaster is unknown. Hal Whitehead, a biologist who studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said sperm whales are highly social animals that live in matriarchal groups like elephants. They communicate through noises that sound like clicks, which researchers refer to as a dialect. They have also shown behaviors that resemble mourning. In one case, Dr. Whitehead said, when a young sperm whale died, its mother carried its carcass around in her mouth. Sperm whales live anywhere from 60 to 100 years, scientists estimate. But they reproduce on average only every five years, which is why even a few whale deaths can be significant, Dr. Whitehead said. Check out this blog about the death of sperm whales in the Gulf — “Tony and the Whale,” written by a Greenpeace Oceans Campaigner, John Hocevar: http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2010/06/21/tony-and-the-wh… “The whale's death puts the population of sperm whales that live in the Gulf at risk of extinction. US government scientists have estimated that the loss of as few as three adult whales due to the spill might be enough to cause them to die out in the Gulf of Mexico. Sperm whales produce only one calf every five years. Their slow rate of maturity and their low birth rate make them particularly vulnerable to things like oil spills – or commercial whaling, which nearly wiped out the entire species before the moratorium took effect in 1986.” (More at link) added by: captainplanet71

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

12 Things Cops Don’t Want YOU to Know

Posted on June 22, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

More and more everyday you see on the news out of control cops abusing citizens. Cops think that everyone on the street is guilty until proven innocent, and their ways of proving you innocent; include stomping on your constitutional rights. Police officers often like to grab a hold of a situation by exerting dominance in every aspect; speech, tone of voice, body language, and overall appearance. For the average citizen this is very off-putting, their line of questioning is quick and intense and often leads to messing you up and making you look guilty of often times nothing. Once you are perceived to be guilty they will make you step out of the car and you know how it goes from there. The beat cop is the first step at putting an innocent man in jail, and often the nail in the coffin as his word trumps yours. How is it we live in a society where an obese under educated and under trained cop can tell anyone what is right and what is wrong? That is just how they treat the innocent, and all you have to do is watch cops to see how they treat the guilty. Often times it ends up with 18 obese cops piling on top of 1 relatively thin male. Then of course them telling him to stop resisting so they can add another charge, how many people do you know can move their arm with 18 people on their back? If you ask the regular Joe what rights you have when it comes with dealing with the police, you often times will hear just comply. The average Joe is not informed by really anyone that you can in essence just tell the police to fuck off. Why don’t you know? Simply because then they’d actually have to investigate instead of treating everyone like they are guilty and bending/breaking rules. I have compiled the following list of rights that you have when dealing with a police officer, state trooper, sheriff, or constable in the United States, list is subject to changes and is not meant to be taken as legal advice. 1. Miranda rights – According to the new supreme court ruling these are not required to be read to you, so if they are not you may still be in handcuffs later. However it is important to note that if you're arrested you may still remain silent as you have that right, you also may ask for your attorney. JUST SHUT UP 2. Right to search and seizure No cop has the right to search your car without asking first or probable cause has been determined. If he asks to search your car say no. If they have a warrant check it, SSN mistakes and name mistakes are common. If you last name is Johnson, a warrant for Johnsfield is bogus 3. You do not have to answer any questions a cop asks you; other than Name, Date of Birth, and Social Security Number. After that you can say I'd like to remain silent. 4. If you are truly innocent of a ticket or another violation; fight it often times they are just paid and never fought, if you fight it you can bring in all of your evidence against the officer to include his own lack of report filing and dash cam videos. 5. If you are arrested you have a right to know what for and how serious the charge. Remember this is by a street cop, if you are detained by a detective it can be up to 24 hours until they charge you. 6. Once you invoke your right to an attorney they cannot question you any further, if they do it is a 5th amendment right violation. 7. Some states take away state troopers power when they are off duty, they cannot detain you, cannot question you and cannot arrest you, be sure to check your local laws. The key to this is state troopers as legally they are only allowed to enforce laws on interstate highways. 8. If a cop asks you to step out of the car, ask why, you have a right to know why he wants you out of YOUR car. 9. If you feel he was improper with procedure file a complaint all you need is his last name and badge number. Cops do have to be friendly and courteous at all times as they represent your state/city. 10. If you have a concealed carry license and the cop asks you if you have any weapons, let him know you have a CCL and a CCW, for him to take it away from you he has to feel in danger, so be sure to hand him your license before your gun. Let him know what you are reaching for unless you like the taste of concrete. 11. Freedom of speech, you can tell a cop to go fuck himself or anything else as long as you are not threatening the officer. So saying I'm going to fucking kill you is what would land you in jail. The constitution trumps local laws. 12. Lastly remember that you are the person paying his salary, if you don’t like what he is doing no matter what it is, complain. The system never changes if you do not speak up. Cops get away with crimes and violations every day because of the lack of people speaking up and the unions. Don’t get into a fist fight with a cop as you will never win, you may beat him into a bloody lump on the concrete, but 30 of his pals are going to drop you. It is much more effective to battle him or her in court. The more strikes against that officer the harder it is for them to stay on the force. What you should take away from this is to use what you have; your brain. If you don’t like his/her questions don’t answer, if your innocent and arrested complain. Don’t lie down and take it because he has Police over his name and badge. source: http://flexyourrights.org/faq added by: Colin_McCabe

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , ,

USA Today Frets Obama Unable to ‘Infuse Courts with Women and Minorities’ – i.e. Liberals

Posted on June 17, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The “deeply polarized confirmation process in the Senate” has “undercut Obama’s effort to significantly infuse the federal courts with more women and minorities,” USA Today’s Joan Biskupic fretted in a Wednesday front page article in which she refused to identify Obama’s nominees as liberals as she attached the positive “diversity” patina to Obama’s agenda without any regard for the irony such “diversity” is ideologically uniform. She led her June 16 story, “ Push for court diversity hits snag: Partisan rancor ties up action on Obama nominees ,” however, by noting the ideology supposedly pushed by President George W. Bush: “President Obama came into office determined to stop the rightward shift of the federal courts — after eight years of appointments by President Bush — and to add more diversity to the bench.” She then outlined Obama’s achievement: So far he is setting records for the number of women and minorities nominated to lifetime appointments. Nearly half of the 73 candidates he has tapped for the bench have been women. In all, 25% have been African Americans, 10% Hispanics and 11% Asian Americans. But, his noble quest has been thwarted: Yet as Obama tries to make gains in diversity among judges, he faces a deeply polarized confirmation process in the Senate. During his first 18 months in office, his administration has been thwarted by unprecedented delays. The situation, which has received little notice against the backdrop of a pending Supreme Court nomination and the administration’s complex legislative agenda, could undercut Obama’s effort to significantly infuse the federal courts with more women and minorities. Deep in her article, Biskupic at least acknowledged how Democrats had blocked a “diverse” nominee who happened to be conservative: This is a long-building situation. Senators on both sides recall old grievances and try to settle scores. The senior Judiciary Committee Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, often invokes President George W. Bush’s nominee Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the influential Washington, D.C.-based appeals court was filibustered by Democrats. Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic on that court, withdrew in 2003, after two years of delays. From April: “ USA Today’s Biskupic Sees SCOTUS of ‘Ideological…Conservatives’ and ‘Pragmatic Liberals ‘”

Go here to see the original:
USA Today Frets Obama Unable to ‘Infuse Courts with Women and Minorities’ – i.e. Liberals

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

CNN Airs Gushing Two-Part Report on ‘Powerhouse’ Anti-Prop 8 Lawyers

Posted on June 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger returned to her roots as a slanted journalist on Wednesday’s Newsroom with a glowing two-part report on Ted Olson and David Boies, the former rivals in Bush v. Gore who are now fighting to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex “marriage.” Borger portrayed their coalition as ” a script that could have been written in Hollywood .” Anchor T. J. Holmes introduced the first part of the analyst’s report just before the bottom of the 1 pm Eastern hour. After noting that closing arguments had begun in the lawsuit against Proposition 8, Holmes stated that the challenge was “the story of two powerhouse lawyers who have turned the partisan divide on its head. Ted Olson, a Republican, and David Boies, a Democrat, famous arch rivals in Bush v. Gore, have now joined together in this fight. It reads like a novel , which may explain why Hollywood had a lot to do with it .” Borger, who, before joining CNN as an analyst in 2007, served as a political correspondent for CBS News , continued on the Hollywood theme: ” It’s a script that could have been written in Hollywood . The opening shot? A lunch in the Polo Lounge at the Beverly Hills Hotel, and it starts where you might expect, with a Hollywood heavy hitter: director and actor, Rob Reiner.” She featured Reiner, a well-known liberal, throughout the first part of her report, as well as Chad Griffin, a former Clinton administration staffer turned activist for same-sex “marriage.” Later, the analyst did her best to establish Olson’s apparent conservative credentials, all the way emphasizing his service to the anti-Proposition 8 cause: OLSON: I’m a lawyer. I represent cases involving the Constitution. This is an important constitutional question. Yes, I think that when we hurt people, when we tell them they’re no good. We tell them that they’re not equal to us, and we say, your loving relationship doesn’t count? The words in the California Constitution are that your relationship is not recognized. What harm do we do? What harm do we do to those individuals every single day, to their family, to their friends? We’re putting a badge on them that says unequal, and that’s contrary to everything we believe in this country. BORGER (voice-over): So Ted Olson took the meeting with Griffin. They kept it a secret, though. BORGER (on-camera) Here you are with Donald Rumsfeld. BORGER (voice-over) After all, Olson is a conservative legal icon. BORGER (on-camera) Of course, one of the first things you see when you walk through your door in this office is a picture of Ronald Reagan. OLSON: He was a wonderful, wonderful man to know and to work for. And, of course, President Bush is here, too. BORGER (voice-over): That would be Bush 43. FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: And I will to the best of my ability- BORGER: The President whose election Olson successfully defended before the Supreme Court in 2000, a memory that wasn’t lost on Chad Griffin. GRIFFIN: I knew I was in foreign territory. But I saw enough in that office to know just how Republican- you know, of a world that Ted Olson comes from, and my world could not be more different than that. Near the end of the first part of her report, Borger revisited her show business theme as she noted the former solicitor general’s partnership with his former adversary in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, David Boies: BORGER: … Olson made another move right out of central casting . He wanted to hire a co-counsel. Of all people, the liberal David Boies, his former Supreme Court rival, the man he beat in Bush versus Gore. The director [Reiner] loved it. REINER: And then when he suggested that we get David Boies to be his co-counsel, I thought- wow. To get the two guys who opposed each other on Bush v. Gore, to team up was saying that this is a nonpartisan issue. GRIFFIN: They share an abiding belief- BORGER: Not to mention, irresistible public relations. WHALEN: I think Ted recognized that this odd bedfellows combination, so to speak, would get a lot of attention. BORGER (on-camera): So people call them the odd couple. WHALEN: Well, it’s- it is a very odd couple, isn’t it? BORGER( voice-over): Or is it? judge for yourself. OLSON: As we were getting ready to argue Bush versus Gore, did we have this conversation? BOIES: Yes- exactly- in the chamber, in the chamber. OLSON: We said, someday, someone is going to come to us who will want to get married, and they’ll be gay. And we’ll do this together. We actually talked about that. BOIES: That second part I don’t remember. More than forty-five minutes later, Borger aired the second part of her report, but instead of interviewing Olson and Boies’s opponents in the lawsuit, she decided to continue her beyond sympathetic profile of the anti-Proposition 8 lawyers, focusing on how the two are “now friends- really good friends” and how the two discuss their tastes in movies and wine: BORGER (voice-over): It was the historic case that decided the presidency and divided the nation. Olson and Boies were the ones on the steps of the Supreme Court battling it out. That was then. This is now. On the streets of New York, they’re talking anything but the law. TED OLSON: It’s called ‘Crazy Heart.’ DAVID BOIES: Oh, I know. OLSON: Jeff Bridges. BOIES: I know. I know. I haven’t seen that. OLSON: Have you seen it? BOIES: I haven’t seen that. I want to see that though and ‘Avatar.’ OLSON: Yes. BORGER: They’ve come a long way….The adversaries are now friends, really good friends. And when we asked to meet with them, they suggested a personal spot, David Boies’ apartment in New York City. BORGER (on-camera): If anybody had said to me nine years ago that I would be about to be interviewing the two men who fought each other tooth and nail in Bush versus Gore on the same side of a constitutional fight, I would have said, are you crazy?… BORGER (voice-over): Politics aside, their wives joke that they’re like an old married couple . They go biking together and both enjoy the finer things. BORGER (on-camera): But what do you like about each other? BOIES: Where shall we start? Shall we start with the wine or the bike trips? BORGER: Yes, let’s start with the wine. After a long day, a glass of- BOIES: A glass, definitely. OLSON: Chardonnay. BOIES: Yes, Chardonnay. CNN, who earlier this year, touted itself as the only “non-partisan” cable news network , has all but made it clear that it is out to promote same-sex “marriage.” On June 9, correspondent Soledad O’Brien previewed her upcoming one-sided documentary , “Gary and Tony Have A Baby,” for the left-wing Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. O’Brien also filed a sympathetic report about a lesbian teenager in Mississippi on Tuesday. After Borger’s report, Holmes himself promoted his colleague’s documentary: “And also, reminder to our viewers, coming up here on CNN, just a few days, the concept of family can mean one thing to you, can mean something else to another . And our Soledad O’Brien, following a same-sex couple in their struggle against the legal and personal obstacles to becoming parents. C an these men achieve a life as mainstream as their parents? Watch ‘Gary and Tony Have a Baby.'”

View original post here:
CNN Airs Gushing Two-Part Report on ‘Powerhouse’ Anti-Prop 8 Lawyers

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

“Jihad, Crips, extreme animal-rights activists, it’s all the same,” Says Homeland Security Official

Posted on June 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Last week a Philadelphia appellate court announced (after months of silence) that it would not revisit the conviction of animal rights activists on terrorism charges. The SHAC 7 were convicted of conspiring to commit animal enterprise terrorism by running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions, along with personal information of people connected to the notorious animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. Their campaign had brought the multinational corporation near bankruptcy. A three-judge panel of the court had previously upheld the conviction, and the defendants had asked that the full court review it. Now, the only option is to request that the Supreme Court of the United States review the case. There has been no official word about this yet, but multiple defendants have expressed their interest and having this landmark First Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the lead prosecutor who helped secure this “victory in the War on Terrorism” has– surprise, surprise– been promoted. Charles McKenna is now the head of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness. He was quoted a few days ago about his hopes for using new “anti-terrorism technology” in his new job. “We are particularly interested in computer profiling, which is much more sophisticated, and quicker, than traditional racial profiling,” he said. The targets of this new profiling technology? “Jihad, Crips, extreme animal-rights activists, it’s all the same: people trying damage the system,” added McKenna.“We need every trick in the book to avert disaster.” As you can see in this photo, the SHAC 7 are quite gangsta. But no reasonable person could argue that they are the “same” as violent street gangs and Islamic terrorists. Such absurd scare-mongering rhetoric has become normal for corporations, industry groups, and the politicians who represent them. When it is adopted by government officials who are in charge of keeping us safe, though, it has frightening implications. There are limited anti-terrorism and law enforcement resources. When people like McKenna let shameless political opportunism shape security priorities (and make no mistake, this is nothing but political opportunism–he has already been rewarded for defending the “system” from activists), it puts everyone at risk. added by: animalia_libero

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,