The Obama administration is set to announce that it will require new rules to cut emissions from airplanes, expanding a quest to tackle climate change that has included a string of significant regulations on cars, trucks and power plants.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to report as early as Friday its conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes endanger human health because they significantly contribute to global warming, although people familiar with the agency’s plans said the announcement could slip into next week.
That announcement, known in legal parlance as an endangerment finding, will prompt a requirement under the Clean Air Act for the agency to issue new regulations to reduce airplane emissions. The agency is expected to limit the rule to commercial aircraft, leaving out small craft and military planes.
Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, the federal government is required to regulate all pollutants that are found to endanger human health. The E.P.A. put forth similar endangerment findings on emissions from vehicles and power plants before issuing new regulations on them, and those findings have held up in court.
The new rules, which have been furiously opposed by regulated industries and Republicans, have emerged as a hallmark of President Obama’s environmental legacy. Republicans have called the new rules an example of government overreach that will cost jobs and stifle the economy.
These enviro-hippies are getting expensive. As with so many things leftists are fond of, this is another step towards some international regulatory kumbaya:
The E.P.A.’s finding would lay the groundwork for the United States to adopt the emissions standard being negotiated by the International Civil Aviation Organization. That group aims by next year to set new emissions standards for airlines, which have said that national rules would do little to curb emissions, given the industry’s global reach.
Expect Obama to get hyperactive about overreaching on climate hysteria and his anti-Second Amendment plans for the remainder of his term. Hopefully, much of it will eventually not withstand various legal challenges.
The Republicans certainly aren’t doing much to slow him down.
“When the only thing going up for you is your unfavorability rating, that’s not a good thing for somebody who so many people already know.”
Also note that Big Ed plays the Fauxcahontas card to kick it off.
Weakening ratings for Hillary Clinton present opportunities for her potential Republican opponents, even as their own contest morphs into an all-out free-for-all, with Jeb Bush surrendering his frontrunner status in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.
While still far ahead for her party’s nomination, Clinton faces challenges. She’s slipped underwater in personal favorability for the first time since her unsuccessful run for the presidency in 2008. She’s deeper in the hole for honesty and trustworthiness – down 5 points in just two months and 12 points in the last year. And Americans by 17- to 24-point margins disapprove of her handling of recent questions on her use of personal e-mail while secretary of state, her handling of the Benghazi attack in Libya and fundraising by her family’s foundation.
See PDF with full results, charts and tables here.
Indeed, while Bush has lost ground in the contest for the GOP nomination, Clinton does less well against him in a head-to-head matchup. The gap between them has closed from 12 points to three – 47-44 percent, Clinton-Bush, among registered voters, vs. 53-41 percent two months ago.
Bush, at the same time, has even greater difficulties with personal favorability than Clinton, and a far weaker home base. He’s lost 11 points in support for the nomination among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who are registered to vote, from a front-running 21 percent in March to 10 percent now
There are many qualities these candidates share, like a sense of entitlement when it comes to the presidency, or the imperious, condescending manner in which they deal with, well, anyone who isn’t them. It would be quite fitting to see them both sputter and fail at the same time, but I am getting way ahead of things.
One thing that I and many others have noticed is that neither of these people seems to really want to run for president right now, despite the fact that they have been presumptive front runners since last year (be sure to read Roger L. Simon’s “Do Jeb and Hillary Really Want to Be President?“). Both just want it handed to them and aren’t big fans of dealing with the public lately.
The public seems to be picking up on that.
This week’s CNN poll sheds a bright light on the fact that while most Americans seemed to like “Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator” and “Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State,” they really don’t seem to like “Hillary Clinton, Candidate.”
In the most recent national polling data from CNN, Secretary Clinton’s image has moved underwater, with 50% of Americans viewing her unfavorably and 46% saying they view her favorably. That’s a net 15 point shift AWAY from Clinton since March of this year.
Looking back over time, it’s pretty clear that when Clinton is a candidate, or even during her husband’s campaigns, her negatives have climbed significantly.
There is the story of Hillary Clinton, and the reality of Hillary Clinton. The former is a narrative that plays with some of the public as long as Mrs. Bill isn’t in front of them, which is why they are so tightly controlling her availability to the public. It is also why the Democrats are limiting the number of primary debates. Hillary Clinton is one of the few people who can seem more deranged than Bernie Sanders in front of a crowd.
Everyone around her knows that.
Her handlers have painful memories of her inevitability being thrown in the garbage as soon as a younger, less unpleasant candidate with little name recognition showed up in 2008. Now they’ve got another one in Martin O’Malley. There is talk that O’Malley’s less than stellar record in Maryland will not allow him to get any traction, but when have the Democrats ever cared about real achievement?
As we have seen in recent days, the older, crankier, and even more entitled Hillary Clinton can’t take even the briefest exposure to the public without letting her hideous nature pop to the surface. We’re getting to the part of the primary season where they won’t be able to let her rest in the vault while the friendlies in the media keep telling sweet grandma stories about her.
Tougher gun laws? CHECK.
Progressive mayor who won’t back police? CHECK.
Sharp rise in gun violence? CHECK.
Shootings in New York City have been rising for two straight years, the first time that has happened since the end of the 1990s, when the city was still in the early years of a remarkable downturn in crime.
Homicides by gunfire, seen as a key measure of preventable violence, are up steeply this year. Of the 135 killings through May, 98 involved a gun, up from 69 such killings at this point in 2013 and in 2014.
Taken together, the trends raise concern heading into the summer months, when street violence is often most pronounced. So far this year, there have been 439 shootings, 20 percent higher than the historic low in 2013, though well under the more than 2,000 logged two decades ago.
What happened after the “historic low” mentioned above? Gov. Andrew Cuomo capped the year by pressuring the passage of the SAFE Act, which he said would stop criminals from buying guns.
That was mixed with Mayor Bill de Blasio’s rollback of “stop and frisk,” which a recent victim’s family begged him to bring back.
Gosh, it seems that criminals don’t pay much attention to gun laws and are more likely to act if they know the cops are a bit hamstrung in identifying them. Who’d have seen that coming?!?!?
Like almost (I’m feeling generous today) all liberal pet issues, the logic they use for guns and crime is nonexistent. You and I know that. What America needs are the non-lunatics from the other side to be able to coherently pick apart the glaring weaknesses of the liberal positions. Is that too much to ask?
Check the current White House occupant and let me know.
While we should rightly be skeptical of polls (especially after 2012), it is fun to see where Jebster shows up in some of these early ones. It’s probably safe to say that a dead heat tie for fourth place with Huckabee isn’t where the little prince’s team wants him to be.
There is a lot to pick through in this poll but if this next bit is at all true I may not completely abandon hope:
There is one overwhelming goal for Republicans. The GOP has lost the last two presidential elections to Barack Obama, and that frustration is clear when they are asked whether they would rather their party nominate a person who agreed with them on every important issue, or a candidate who can win, even if they may not agree with the respondent on every issue that mattered. They overwhelmingly choose the latter.
CBS’ Bob Schieffer says that perhaps reporters in the media “were not skeptical enough” of President Barack Obama as a presidential candidate in 2008, telling Fox News’ Howard Kurtz that the whole political world was struck by the sudden rise of the senator from Illinois.
This isn’t some revelation that Schieffer just had. It’s certainly been kicking around in the heads of veteran media types since early ’09 when it became rather apparent that Barack Obama was more of a bumbler than the suave, professorial wunderkind the MSM droolers made him out to be.
Schieffer is leaving his post on Face the Nation so he can now speak freely. He’s trying to retroactively give himself some journalistic credibility by pretending this idea is just now coming to him. If he really wants to act like a journalist on his way out the door he could be exhorting the MSM to be more skeptical of Mrs. Bill.
It turns out that the harsh winter and a growing trade deficit made a bigger dent in the U.S. economy in the first three months of the year than previously thought — with revised first-quarter GDP actually shrinking by 0.7 percent, according to the Commerce Department.
Commerce had earlier estimated output growing by 0.2 percent. The contraction announced Friday is the first since the first quarter of 2014.
That’s right, this booming Obama recovery is such a house of cards that it can be undone by a white Christmas.
Of course, this “shocker” is part of a Friday news dump so it can get as little attention as possible. That’s been the m.o. for six years: a big happy dance if there is the slightest uptick in any economic indicator, then some subdued whispers about bad news being “unexpected”, if it is noticed at all.
The upside is that the next president is being set up even better than this one to keep saying, “…the failed policies of the previous administration.”
Sleep well tonight knowing that each little change for the worse in the weather gets us one step closer to our Chinese debt overlords foreclosing.
Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee will officially enter the presidential race on June 3, a source with knowledge of his plans told POLITICO.
He’ll make the announcement in a speech he’s scheduled to deliver next Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. at the George Mason Center for Politics & Foreign Relations in Arlington, Virginia.
Following the announcement, Chafee will travel to New Hampshire on June 4 for a previously scheduled event with local Democrats in Grafton County.
Chafee, who became a Democrat in 2013, has made Hillary Clinton’s support for the invasion of Iraq the chief rationale for his primary challenge to her. As a senator and member of the Republican Party in 2002, Chafee voted against authorizing the war.
Good news for the Democrats: at sixty-two years of age, Chafee is practically a baby compared to Mrs. Bill and Che Sanders, so he can go after that coveted youth demographic that never really shows up to vote anyway.
You just read the one big accomplishment upon which Chafee will be running: he was a Republican who voted like a Democrat on the Iraq war and believes he can beat the Democrat who voted like a Republican on the same issue.
The working campaign slogan so far?
“Hey, It Worked For Obama”
The path toward passage of Los Angeles’ landmark minimum wage increase took a rocky detour Wednesday, as business and elected officials reacted harshly to a last-minute push by labor leaders to create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.
Union officials have been among the most ardent backers of the plan approved by the L.A. City Council last week to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. But some labor leaders who opposed loopholes for small businesses and restaurants now argue that unionized companies should have leeway to negotiate lower pay rates with their employees.
This is akin to the climate doomsayers flying all over the planet screaming about the dangers of fossil fuels. And it is most reminiscent of the great fight Big Labor fought for the passage of Obamacare, from which they immediately sought exemptions.
Why are they so eager to avoid having to participate in all the laws they champion?
A prominent labor fan on the L.A. City Council isn’t on board with the request:
Even some who fought side-by-side with union activists for the wage increase said they were uncomfortable adopting the proposed exemption without further study.
“For me, the point of the minimum wage in Los Angeles was to raise wages and lift people out of poverty,” said Councilman Mike Bonin, a champion of the ordinance and frequent labor ally on the council. The pay hike should apply for “everyone,” he said, including “employees of big businesses and small businesses, of nonprofits and for-profits, people who are members of unions and people who are not.”
As a resident of Los Angeles, I can wholehearted assure you that the only way $15 an hour will lift anyone out of poverty is if one of those dollars happens to buy a winning Powerball ticket. However, sticking with that line of reasoning, Labor leaders must be asked why they think it’s all right to doom their people to poverty.
If I were a political Dr. Frankenstein and plucking ideas from each GOP candidate to build my unstoppable presidency-winning monster, here’s one I would take from Senator Paul. This is an issue that Democrats obfuscate with their emotional tripe very effectively. There is so much evidence to support nuking the DoE that even a kid educated in an American public school in the last twenty years could easily understand it.
(VIDEO) ‘Morning Joe’ Panel Breathlessly Speculates About Hillary’s Coattails and 2016 Dem Landslide
It’s never out of the realm of possibility that Scarborough’s entire panel on any given day is concussed. The new theory: Mrs. Bill’s “historic” candidacy is helping to recruit top-notch candidates that will lead to a big election for Democrats next year. Side note: why do most MSNBC panelists look like creepers in an elevator?
Official Democratic Party Twitter Account Commemorates Memorial Day with Pic of Obama Eating Ice Cream
Happy Memorial Day weekend, everyone! pic.twitter.com/TMBSu187Pb
— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) May 22, 2015
Here are a couple of responses:
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) May 23, 2015
Your party commemorates Memorial Day with a guy who never served eating ice cream? What the hell is wrong with you? https://t.co/GYARQQ7Woo
— jon gabriel (@exjon) May 23, 2015
Top aides to former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fretted over how she would be portrayed after the 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, emails released on Friday showed.
The emails also showed Clinton received information on her personal email account about the Benghazi attacks that was classified “secret” by the FBI just prior to their release.
OK, it was her staff expressing concern in the emails, but after two decades of watching this woman in action, I think it is probably safe to infer that they were reflecting the boss’s angst.
The excuses du jour for the classified items are that it was “only a couple of sentences” and it wasn’t classified at the time, neither of which mean anything. The point is that she shouldn’t have been using a private server anyway.
The Clintons are so practiced at not getting caught when violating the law (think Al Capone with a better accountant) that I have no doubt that anything remotely incriminating was long ago removed from the emails by Mrs. Bill’s little “fixers”.
The best hope for the future of the Republic is that the press gets angry enough at being shut out that Team Hillary will give her a little more face time with the public, which rarely works out well for the Missus.
Trial campaign slogan: “Why Not?”
Former New York Governor George Pataki indicated on Wednesday that he would announce his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination next week in New Hampshire.
Last week, Pataki said he would be in Exeter, the New Hampshire town known as the birthplace of the Republican Party, on May 28 to announce whether he would be a candidate. In an interview on CNN on Wednesday he joked about his trip to the state, which plays a key role in determining presidential nominees.
“There are some things going on in New Hampshire,” he said. “I think it’s called a primary, something like that, first in the nation.”
While stopping short of announcing plans to run, Pataki said he thought conditions had gotten worse globally. “If you have an ability to lead and you sit it out, shame on you.”
As a long time political activist and observer, the “no-shot” candidates who enter big presidential primary fields have always amused me. These candidacies are usually propelled by a big ego and one or two long-time supporters who have deep pockets with some gambling money.
Many believe most fringe candidates are jockeying for Cabinet positions should their side win the White House. That seems plausible if Pataki does run. After all, it’s been almost a decade since he was last in office and he needs to refresh some memories.
Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, is simply a lunatic who thinks he can win.
One of the authors of a recent study which claimed that short conversations with gay people could change minds on same-sex marriage has retracted it.
The retraction this week of the popular article published in a December issue of the Science academic journal follows revelations that his co-author allegedly faked data for the study, “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support of gay marriage.”
According to academic watchdog Retraction Watch, Columbia University political science professor Donald Green published a retraction of the paper on Tuesday after confronting co-author Michael LaCour, a graduate assistant at UCLA.
The study received widespread media coverage from The New York Times, Vox, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and others, when it was released in December.
The news here isn’t that study data was fabricated to fit the pre-determined narrative’s conclusion, it’s that they were caught and are retracting it.
Progressives in academia don’t dismiss opposing points of view merely because they are generally intolerant people(they most definitely are), they also can’t believe any other conclusion but their own to be true. This is a condition that has gotten worse in recent years as the progressive hijacking of academia has taken firmer hold.
It would be at all surprising to me if younger academic wannabes make the “square peg/round hole” approach more commonplace and begin “adjusting” facts whenever they believe they can get away with it. Perhaps they already are and this story is an anomaly.
Maybe we should give them a “safe space” to talk about the abandonment of ethics.
With Hillary Clinton rapidly approaching a month since she answered a question from a reporter, her allies are working to push back on the idea that she is ducking the press.
“PUTTING THE VOTERS FIRST, HILLARY ASKS THE QUESTIONS THAT REALLY MATTER,” read the subject line of an e-mail — ALL CAPS in the original! — that arrived in my inbox this morning courtesy of Correct The Record, a pro-Clinton super PAC directly coordinating with the presidential campaign on rapid response.
The missive lays out the facts aimed at putting lie to the “she won’t answer questions” narrative.
First, Correct The Record notes that Clinton has answered 20 questions from “everyday Americans”: seven during her first trip to Iowa (she’s back in the state today), five during her New Hampshire excursion and a whopping eight when she visited Nevada.
Cillizza (with whom I often don’t agree) then proceeds to expose just how awfully lame this little story by Team Mrs. Bill is. A sampling:
It makes zero difference how many questions Clinton has asked average Americans. Like, none. If those people were running for president, then I would be super-interested to know how they responded to some (or maybe all) of Clinton’s 117 questions. But, they aren’t. She is. Citing the number of questions Clinton has asked of people to rebut the idea that she isn’t taking enough (or any) questions from reporters is sort of like saying you aced a job interview because you answered every question asked of you with another question. That wouldn’t make sense, would it?
It may not be anything that Hillary Clinton does that derails her inevitability parade, but what she doesn’t do. The same media types who are completely incurious about her various legally questionable activities are also upset that Grandma isn’t giving them any cookies.
This makes two things very clear:
1) Her staff knows she’s horrible when interacting with people and are keeping her distant and in controlled situations.
2) The Clintons haven’t entirely grasped the overwhelming changes in media since the 1990s or even since 2008.
When Hillary’s meal ticket was POTUS, the media were at the beginning of their evolutionary leap from journalists to ego-centric personalities. Yes, they are all leftists willing to play along for the agenda but the emotional little dears simply will not be ignored.
There is a growing feeling that the MSM is along for the ride because this is the only train running right now but they can’t wait for the next Barack Obama to show up out of practically nowhere so they can ditch the imperious Mrs. C. for someone who doesn’t scare the crap out of them.
Meanwhile, the Granny probably thinks she can get away with this for another year and a half.
What I meant by the headline is that this latest incident isn’t really anomalous for Rep. Sanchez, she’s just kind of like this. In the apology video here, the Sacramento CBS affiliate speculates that Sanchez not only nuked her Senate bid, but may have jeopardized her House seat as well.
She may not have come directly from a Democratic administration into a “news” job, but she came from the loins of someone in a Democratic administration, which is the second easiest way to get a media job. She should be careful — her entire career is built upon a lack of judgment by her employers.
Bobby Jindal announced Monday that he’s forming a presidential exploratory committee for a potential run for the 2016 Republican nomination, a major step toward launching a bid.
The Louisiana governor, a fierce social conservative who has been active in the early nominating states, will make a decision after the state’s legislative session ends on June 11.
Oddly, Jindal has probably been a likely 2016 candidate longer than almost anyone not named “Bush” but is getting what could be considered a later start.
What strikes me most about the GOP field (declared and undeclared) is that even without identity politics as its guide, it is putting together a rather diverse group. The Democrats, obsessed with identity politics and chasing the youth vote, have managed to cough up two white grandparents. Were the situation reversed, the media would be pointing this out 24/7 (the New York Times recently managed to focus on “aging” Republicans in an article about the youngest GOP candidate running).
So point this out I will. Over and over.
Another day, another misquote.
I hate to get into a public disagreement with a colleague here, but the outrage du jour seems to be based on a translation that may or may not be deliberately wrong. As the BBC and the Associated Press are at the root of it, I’m leaning towards the former.
A BBC reporter in the room claimed that Pope Francis said “you are an angel of peace” while presenting a gift (which is Vatican tradition) to Abbas.
The Vatican reporter for the Italian newspaper La Stampa has it differently:
As is tradition with heads of State or of government, Francis presented presented a gift to the Palestinian leader, commenting: “May the angel of peace destroy the evil spirit of war. I thought of you: may you be an angel of peace.”
Calling someone something and exhorting him to be that something are two entirely different things.
What has befuddled me and several of my conservative friends who are also devout Roman Catholics is the willingness of our conservative friends to take news about this pope at face value from MSM outlets that aren’t trusted for anything else.
I can tell you this: MSM reporting on the Vatican, the Church or whomever is pope at the time almost always needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The media has an obsession with Francis because they’ve convinced themselves that he’s the pope who will make the Church become a gay marriage, abortion loving free-for-all. This, even though barely six months into his tenure, Francis excommunicated a priest for supporting women priests and gay marriage.
As with any political agenda supported by the MSM, it is willing to bend facts to shoehorn stories into the narrative.
The Little Commie Network That Couldn’t hit a ten year low on Wednesday, to the chagrin of almost no one outside of New York, or Washington, D.C.
Desperate for any kind of attention now, its hosts are violating the Prime Directive about protecting Mrs. Bill from any unsavory interaction with the commoners and/or the media.
While other news organizations were busy deflecting from Hillary’s disdain for answering questions, Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd both hit the airwaves in desperate attempts to get Grandma’s attention. Here are the videos:
Here is some video of the press conference (complete with a classic Obama snippy reply to a reporter).
Here is a tweet from a reporter quoting him if you don’t want to watch the video:
— Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) May 14, 2015
It’s not just me who finds this odd, noted Right Wing Nutjob organization the United Nations says that, yes, chlorine kinda always has been a chemical weapon.
The modern use of chemical weapons began with World War I, when both sides to the conflict used poisonous gas to inflict agonizing suffering and to cause significant battlefield casualties. Such weapons basically consisted of well known commercial chemicals put into standard munitions such as grenades and artillery shells. Chlorine, phosgene (a choking agent) and mustard gas (which inflicts painful burns on the skin) were among the chemicals used. The results were indiscriminate and often devastating. Nearly 100,000 deaths resulted.
Since World War I, chemical weapons have caused more than one million casualties globally.
It’s more than likely that everyone around him is buying into his arbitrary classification. Remember, this is the guy who makes up job numbers and thinks the economy is booming along and doesn’t get asked a lot about any of it.
What I’m wondering here is if he has any plans in the near future to redefine what “nuclear weapon” means.
Just days after kissing goodbye to the Lib Dem coalition and forming the first all-Tory government since 1992, David Cameron will today announce controversial plans to fast-track new powers to tackle radicalisation that were blocked by Nick Clegg’s party in the last government.
The Prime Minister is expected to set out his intention to include a new counter-extremism bill in his Queen’s Speech later this month as he chairs the first meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) since the Tories’ election victory.
Planned measures include introducing new orders to ban extremist organisations and restrict people who seek to radicalise youngsters.
The proposals will aim to crack down on preachers like Abu Hamza, as well as the sort of radicalisation which led Mohammed Emwazi (AKA ‘JIhadi John’) to join the Islamic State militant group, as well as the murder of Lee Rigby.
American conservatives may need a moment here, after all, we aren’t used to conservatives who have just had decisive electoral victories acting like it when they return to work. This is so fantastical for us that this story is almost like reading a Tolkien novel.
This is very good news because the UK has had a bad case of Creeping Sharia for years now (even worse than we do here). As the post mentions, Cameron’s efforts to push back have been-SHOCKER!-blocked by liberals. Little pockets of “tolerance” have allowed Sharia to usurp the law of the land. No more.
Providing a model that will hopefully one day be adopted here, Cameron is moving quickly while he has momentum.
This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation, and bring our country together.
Now if someone could please give Mitch McConnell’s phone number to the prime minister.
Republican Jeb Bush appears to have unintentionally announced his candidacy for president in 2016 in a conversation with reporters on Wednesday that was caught on video.
Speaking in Nevada, the former Florida governor seemed to acknowledge he was a candidate but right afterward indicated he had not made up his mind.
“I’m running for president in 2016, and the focus is going to be about how we, if I run, how do you create high sustained economic growth,” Jeb Bush said in the video posted on the NBC News website.
Bush announced in December that he would “actively explore” a run for the White House, but he has yet to formally declare he is running.
The difference between considering a run and actually jumping into the race affects what he can and cannot do under the law with regard to fundraising. Once candidates formally enter the presidential race they face tighter restrictions on raising money.
The republic, and the world, for that matter, don’t need entitled legacy candidates for the most powerful job on Earth. Since the Democrats are determined to unleash their version on us, the only way to make sure we don’t turn into England Lite is to not counter with the same.
Pollsters who keep coming up with Bush-favorable results must only be calling every octogenarian Republican in America, because I certainly haven’t met anyone who isn’t on a Hoveround who supports him.
Via the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Investigators of Tuesday’s deadly Amtrak derailment say they are focusing on reports that the train was traveling more than twice the 50-mile-an-hour speed limit when it entered a sharp curve in Frankford.
An automatic train control system designed to prevent speeding was not in place where Amtrak Train 188 crashed, killing seven people and injuring more than 200.
The train’s engineer, who has not been identified, declined to give a statement to police investigators and left the East Detectives Division with an attorney, police commissioner Charles H. Ramsey said Wednesday.
The fact that the engineer left with his attorneys may simply be a union precaution but the reports about the egregious speeding certainly make it seem otherwise.
In news that may or may not be related, a Philadelphia commuter train was struck by a projectile about twenty minutes before the Amtrak derailment and fairly close by.
Despite the presence of a declared candidate for the 2016 presidential race who isn’t taking questions, Politico really wants its readers to know that Scott Walker isn’t talking to them this week.
Want to know what Scott Walker thinks about the Obama administration’s preliminary deal with Iran on its nuclear program? Or the composition of Israel’s new government? This week, you’re out of luck.
The Wisconsin governor, the current Republican front-runner in some early voting state polls, is in Israel until Thursday, but he isn’t taking questions. Stung by his own past gaffes and those of other Republican presidential hopefuls abroad, Walker has locked the media out of his Israel trip, moving to burnish his foreign policy credentials without actually talking about foreign policy.
Oh good, a “gaffes” mention too!
The reason Mrs. Bill doesn’t take a lot of questions is because she’s so gaffetastic that she should be relegated to a YouTube channel rather than running for president of the United States again. Also, it’s sexist #WarOnWomen bullying to point out that she can’t campaign and chew gum at the same time or that she’s an imperious shrew who is disdainful of the very same media that constantly goes to bat for her.
But that Walker guy who isn’t even a candidate yet? HOW DARE HE?!?!?
Scott Walker scares the Democrats, hence the devotion to his lack of press interaction replete with digs at his foreign policy experience.
You know who else the MSM hardly ever says anything negative about?
John Ellis Bush.
Sen. Marco Rubio now has another billionaire in his corner: Oracle founder Larry Ellison.
Ellison will host a fundraiser for the Florida Republican’s White House bid at his mansion in Woodside, Calif., on June 9, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO.
A VIP reception and photo opportunity with Rubio will cost attendees $2,700 per person. The fundraiser will also include a host committee dinner for couples who have raised $27,000.
This is some nice early money for Rubio. Ellison has been a Republican donor in the past and is a major Silicon Valley get for the campaign given that Rand Paul has been the most open about going after donor dollars there.
This will also give the Rubio campaign extra time for their candidate to prepare for an appearance on Mark Halperin’s “How Cuban Are You?” show.
Here’s Politico editor Blake Hounshell’s tweet that he posted even before mentioning the casualties:
Amtrak crash comes on the eve of … markup session to cut Amtrak budget http://t.co/aWta0t8tx1
— Blake Hounshell (@blakehounshell) May 13, 2015
This is why it’s difficult to see the political landscape getting any better in America any time soon, if ever. The agenda and the narrative trump all for liberals.
Fatalities in a tragedy?
“Yeah, yeah, we’ll get to those in a minute, gotta remind everyone that the Republicans want to cut the budget first.”
There is no discussion with people who think it’s appropriate to launch into an infrastructure spending tirade even as first responders are just arriving on the scene of a tragedy. They truly believe this happened because evil Republicans kept just the magic amount of money away from Amtrak to make it safe.
They are all from the Krugman school of thought that says any federal spending that didn’t do the trick failed simply because enough wasn’t spent.
And then you’re on an infinity loop of tax dollar demands that isn’t even slowed down by the presence of dead bodies.
Tomorrow morning, in what marks a tectonic shift in the publishing industry, the New York Times is expected to officially begin a long-awaited partnership with Facebook to publish articles directly to the social media giant, a source with direct knowledge of the talks told me. According to people familiar with the negotiations, the Times will begin publishing select articles directly into Facebook’s news feed. Buzzfeed, NBC News and NatGeo are said to be also joining the roll out, among others.
The deal raises all sorts of knotty questions for the Times. How many articles will Facebook get to publish per day? What is the revenue sharing breakdown? How does the Times protect the independence of its journalism, say, if the paper runs a hard-hitting investigation on Facebook? And what happens when the Times allows Facebook to insert itself between its journalism and its readers?
Not surprisingly, the prospect of a Facebook partnership is generating palpable anxiety inside the Times newsroom, with some Times journalists casting it as an end-of-the-Times-as-we-know-it inflection point. When rumors of a deal surfaced last October, the Times’ late media columnist David Carr articulated this view, writing “the wholesale transfer of content sends a cold, dark chill down the collective spine of publishers, both traditional and digital insurgents alike.”
Many will say that this is the final nail in the coffin of what we used to call journalism. Just as many will probably posit that leftist bias buried it so long ago the coffin has already begun rotting.
Whatever the actual case may be, one thing is for certain, that air of exclusivity and swagger is gone now. Every displaced New Yorker’s favorite Sunday affection in Los Angeles is now slumming it alongside BuzzFeed and sponsored ads for a Mr. Clean Magic Eraser. It’s just now adopting a distribution channel that drunk college girls made famous ten years ago.
While this may very well breathe new financial life into the Times, it certainly can’t be a good sign for newspapers or journalism in general. What was once a news destination is now arm-wrestling NatGeo for the attention of people who just want to see if they’re missing any friends’ birthdays.
The Times‘ management wants to keep its digital subscriber base and somehow thinks it will protect the content that lures them all the while throwing Facebook enough “news” to keep Zuckerberg and company happy.
Good luck with that.
This is too rich. The house monkey shared by George Soros and David Brock isn’t known for his intellectual prowess, but now he’s gone full Alex Jones with the conspiracy stuff. If you happen to find someone outside of the MMFA offices who believes the MSM is doing the bidding of the Republicans, get them to neurologist immediately.
GOP theme this week: HIllary won’t talk to press DC media theme this week: HIllary won’t talk to press. #coincidence
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) May 12, 2015
A University of Virginia associate dean of students filed a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone on Tuesday, alleging that the magazine portrayed her as callous and indifferent to allegations of sexual assault on campus and made her the university’s “chief villain” in a now-debunked story about a fraternity gang rape.
Nicole Eramo is seeking more than $7.5 million in damages from Rolling Stone, its parent company Wenner Media and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the investigative journalist who wrote the explosive account of sexual assault on the campus in Charlottesville, Va. The magazine retracted the story after news organizations and the Columbia University journalism school found serious flaws in it.
Yes, WaPo, there usually are “serious flaws” in a hoax, but kudos to you for keeping the false narrative limping along well after it’s been blown out of the water.
There is quite a laundry list of people who should be suing the magazine (those still exist?) over this deliberate targeting of innocent people. Let’s hope they all get their day in court.
Via the Boston Globe:
Motherhood is a cultural invention. It reflects a belief adopted by society that is passed down from one generation to the next. In US culture, we hold to the idea that young children are better off when cared for exclusively by their mothers. Mothers are bombarded by this message in the media, especially in programming directed to them. Only after five seasons does Claire Dunphy, the iconic mother of “Modern Family,” return to the workplace.
I could respond with single mother/career mother roles from media to counter Ms. McCartney’s critical “Modern Family” example, but I’m writing a blog post, not a book.
Part of this is rooted in the leftist pitch to get your kids into daycare as early as possible for the beginning of the indoctrination that will make them believe things like “motherhood is a cultural invention” without questioning.
Most of it is rooted in the fact that radical feminists are insane.
They are, however, well placed in academia.
That is why the author can write things like “Our cultural construction of motherhood is rooted in a particularly strong American bias toward personal responsibility, reflected across our social policies” (if only that were true!) and “Mother’s Day is a good day to double down on the work required to reconstruct our conception of motherhood” and remain in charge of an institution that charges more than $60,000 a year to “teach” young minds.
Feminists want to play fast and loose with gender roles and societal norms as needed but still be able to say all men are rapists waiting to happen. They have no middle ground here — it’s all fluid or rigid, which makes most (I’m being generous) of their claims childish and easy to dismiss.
“Motherhood” and “child-rearing responsibilities” are different concepts that are being conflated here for the purpose of this whimsically illogical thought journey of Ms. McCartney’s. I take that back, motherhood is actually being reduced to a set of chores here, completely exorcising the gestation period that, according my latest level of understanding, is still done by human females.
My intention here isn’t to spend time picking apart what Ms. McCartney is writing, her intellectual bubble (and bubble head) status is pretty clear. It’s just important to keep pointing out just how badly radicalized the upper levels of academia are.
And hopefully to inspire people to start doing something about it.
The off-field hits just keep on coming for America’s most ethically troubled sports league.
The Patriots will begin their Super Bowl title defense without the services of the franchise’s greatest all-time player.
The NFL announced Monday that Tom Brady has been suspended without pay for four games for violating the NFL policy on the integrity of the game. This news comes less than a week after independent investigator Ted Wells found that it was “more probable than not” that Brady was “at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities” regarding the deflation of Patriots game balls used in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts.
The team will also be fined $1 million and will forfeit a 2016 first rounder and 2017 fourth-round selection in the NFL Draft.
Brady has played the wide-eyed innocent throughout all of this, but the reality is that nothing happens to the game balls in the NFL without the starting quarterback’s knowledge and approval.
The 2013 NFL season began under the cloud of Aaron Hernandez’s murder arrest. In 2014, the Ray Rice domestic abuse fiasco was just unraveling at the beginning of the season. Now America’s favorite sports league (still) will begin this year with the franchise quarterback for the defending Super Bowl champs suspended for cheating.
It remains to be seen whether these constant problems will eventually have an effect, or if fans are just really good at compartmentalization.
UPDATE: HALPERIN SORT OF APOLOGIZES
Many were upset after Mark Halperin plumbed the depths of hack partisan journalism while interviewing Ted Cruz.
It turns out he was so awful that even Think Progress couldn’t stomach it.
Here’s the headline:
The Prize For The Most Racist Interview Of A 2016 Candidate Goes To Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin
Ouch. It’s gotta hurt when someone like Halperin, who is so deep in the tank for leftists he long ago grew gills, gets called the “R” word.
Does this mean there are going to be some new ground rules for covering minority candidates who are Republican? Probably not. It’s more likely that Halperin is so awful that he’s going to get eaten by his own. Imagine Chris Hayes with even less personality or on-camera skill and you’ve got Halperin.
It was a strange couple of days, however, as Salon posted something sort of sensible about Islam, free speech and how the Left doesn’t get it.
Maybe the Apocalypse really is upon us.