« | »

Selected News For The Week Nov 5 – Nov 11

This thread is for the busy bees of S&L to post news articles that may not warrant their own thread.

Posting Guidelines

To make the articles as readable as possible, please:

  • Only post ‘hard news’ from establishment media outlets.
  • Avoid editorials and ‘thought pieces’ unless they are truly newsworthy.
  • Eschew major news items that most people will likely have seen elsewhere.
  • Post articles that fit under the topic of a recent thread as a comment there.
  • Always spell out the name of the source and post a link to it.
  • Always post less than one quarter of the original article.

Posts of articles that do not follow these guidelines may be edited or deleted.


This article was posted by Steve on Friday, November 4th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

24 Responses to “Selected News For The Week Nov 5 – Nov 11”

  1. Curiosity says:


    “European leaders warned this week that although they wanted Greece to stay in the euro, they considered saving the currency more important, amid fears that the Greek crisis could spread to other European countries and beyond.”

    Yikes, I guess printing more money is not a solution the rest of Europe is interested in.

    “The deal would wipe out 100 billion euros in Greek debt, half of what it owes. It comes with a promise of 30 billion euros from the public sector to help pay off some of the remaining debts, making the whole deal worth 130 billion euros (U.S. $178 billion).”

    Why be responsible with what you have when you can wait for someone else to bail you out?

    “But the package comes with strings that would require Greece to slash government jobs, privatize some businesses and reduce pensions.”

    I like Europe’s get-the-country-out-of-debt strategy. We should try it here.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Sadly, the European Central Bank is still printing money even as mass write-downs are now becoming the reality. The ECB has engaged in so much quantitative easing its practically toxic and on life support from the IMF and the bailout funds.

      They’re now in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation with Greece. Evict them from the Euro, leave them to their own devices where there’s a run on them and they collapse, and the contagion spreads to Italy and the rest. Germany and Britain are tied to the Mediterranean, and Britain’s weak. Behind them are Us and the ChiComs.

      Whatever privatizaion occurs, all signs from the socialist mob rioting across the country indicate that they are going to tax the hell out of producers to try and raise the revenues to pay off debts for the next decade, while simultaneously massively cutting services. That’s what extreme austerity looks like. Kicking the can right off the cliff, and everybody suffers.

  2. canary says:

    US General in Afghan fired in contrast to Sec Hillary Clinton & brass untruthful on Afghan’s President Karzai’s threat to attack the U.S. claiming Afghanistan is our friend.
    This would mean Obama’s statement Afghanistan is our friend was not a slip.

    General claim of solid friends and honourable[sic] Afghanistan is okay because recent “female” U.S. Infantry Soldier getting murdered was an honor killing.

    BBC: US General Peter Fuller fired as Afghan training chief

    Nov 4 2011

    Maj Gen Peter Fuller, deputy commander of Nato’s Afghan training mission, said in an interview with Politico the country’s leadership was “isolated from reality”.

    Gen John Allen described the two countries as “solid”, adding: “The Afghan people are an honourable[sic] people, and comments such as these will not keep us from accomplishing our most critical and shared mission – bringing about a stable, peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan.”

    Pentagon spokesman George Little said Defence[sic] Secretary Leon Panetta was aware of the remarks but said that Gen Fuller had been speaking for himself and not the Department of Defense.

    Politico have reported that the general appeared to be irritated when referring to a recent comment made by Mr Karzai – that Afghanistan would side with Pakistan if the country ever went to war with the US.

    “Why don’t you just poke me in the eye with a needle! You’ve got to be kidding me. I’m sorry, we just gave you $11.6bn (£7.2bn) and now you’re telling me, ‘I don’t really care?'” Gen Fuller said.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that the Afghan president’s statement has been misinterpreted.

    (more on the story and quoting)

    I’m guessing the Obama administration who make world public statements condemning Americans to burn in hell will appoint a new General who shares their sentiment to lead our troops.
    Karzai’s threat against the U.S. just got him more personal cash from Hillary’s recent visit. Karzai knows how to fish.

  3. BillK says:

    The Obama administration passed a new $.15 tax on live Christmas Trees to promote… Christmas Trees.

    You can’t make this stuff up:



    Agricultural Marketing Service

    7 CFR Part 1214

    [Doc. No. AMS-FV-10-0008-FR-1A]
    RIN 0581-AD00

    Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order

    AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION: Final rule.


    SUMMARY: This rule establishes an industry-funded promotion, research,
    and information program for fresh cut Christmas trees. The Christmas
    Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) is authorized
    under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996
    (1996 Act). The Order will establish a national Christmas Tree
    Promotion Board (Board) comprised of 11 producers and one importer.
    Under the Order, producers and importers of fresh cut Christmas trees
    will pay an initial assessment of fifteen cents per Christmas tree.

    Producers and importers that produce or import less than 500 Christmas
    trees annually will be exempt from the assessment. A referendum will be
    conducted, among producers and importers, three years after the
    collection of assessments begin to determine if Christmas tree
    producers and importers favor the continuation of this program.

    DATES: Effective November 9, 2011.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Petrella, Marketing
    Specialist, Research and Promotion Division, Fruit and Vegetable
    Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406, Stop
    0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (301) 334-2891; or
    facsimile: (301) 334-2896; or email: Patricia.Petrella@ams.usda.gov.


  4. DW says:

    Here’s a followup (and bit of good news, for once) to that story I posted last week about Islamists planning to disrupt Remembrance Day services in the UK.
    From Canada’s CNEWS:

    Muslim group cancels Remembrance Day protest
    By QMI Agency

    A Muslim group known for burning poppies at Remembrance Day ceremonies in England last year has cancelled its ‘Hell for Heroes’ protest set for Friday.

    The group Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) announced Thursday it has been dissolved.

    The move comes after the British government banned the group. Home Secretary Theresa May announced Thursday after midnight anyone supporting the group, which has run under other names such as Islam4UK and The Saved Sect, could be charged.

    Full article:

    The article carries on with the usual gibberish and hate from the muzzies about how it shows the British government’s hatred for Islam, it’s a great victory for Islam, proves our point, yada yada yada …

    So the Brits actually did man up a bit. Maybe they’ve started reading S&L…

  5. BillK says:

    What better way to celebrate the sacrifices of our servicemen than to note that banning the American flag on a shirt is, apparently, just fine if it’s a holiday celebrating other cultures.

    From Fox News:

    Judge: School Can Ban American Flag Shirts

    By Todd Starnes

    A federal court has ruled that a California public school had the authority to prevent students from wearing clothing emblazoned with pro-American messages on the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo.

    U. S. District Court Judge James Ware was ruling in a case involving students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, CA, who were banned from wearing American flag t-shirts on the Mexican holiday in 2010.

    The judge determined that the Morgan Hill Unified School District did not violate the First Amendment and said that concerns by school officials over possible violence justified censoring the pro-American message.

    The school officials reasonable forecast that Plaintiff’s clothing could cause a substantial disruption with school activities, and therefore did not violate the standard set forth – by requiring that Plaintiff’s change,” the judge wrote. …


    So, for example, if school officials determined burning an American flag – an act courts have somehow found is “speech” – would disrupt school they could ban that, too? I wonder what the ACLU would have to say about that.

  6. proreason says:

    Gingrich has moved faster than anybody thought possible:


    “The breakdown of the poll:

    — Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, 23 percent;
    —Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, 19 percent;
    —Cain, the former restaurant executive, 17 percent;
    —Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 10 percent;
    —Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, 8 percent;
    —Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, 5 percent;
    —Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, 1 percent;
    —Former Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, 1 percent;
    —Undecided, 17 percent.”

    This is a national poll. Newt should gird his loins. Full frontal assault coming in just a few minutes.

    Assuming they can damage Newt as well, you have to wonder whether Palin will reconsider. I hope not because it will be even more brutal than before.

    Maybe Santorum will end up #2 by virtue of being behindest the longest.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Batters up.

      The establishment is cocky as hell right now. And vicious.

      They’re really out to depress the base. Morons. They’re going to be what makes this race closer than what it should, and very possibly lose it.

    • BillK says:

      Why do people like that idiot?

      Frankly I’d vote for Obama before I voted for Gingrich, or Romney, for that matter.

      Why would I ever vote a man who cheated on both his previous wives, and more importantly, left both of them when they were ill?

      As a conservative, I believe character counts, and Gingrich has shown time and time again (both of these, and his Pelosi ad) he has none.

    • Melly says:

      My mantra since day one is “Anyone but Obama.” I will vote for Kim Kardashian if she decides to throw her hair extensions into the ring. A second Obama term is cataclysmic.

    • proreason says:

      Newt and Kim could be a landslide.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Melly, according to the conventional wisdom wizards like Krauthamma’, yours and my mindset is now the exception not the rule, and losing on Question 2 in Ohio apparently proves it overhwlmingly: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47458

      So all us wingnuts need to shut up and get in line behind Mittens, y’hear?! We’re scarin’ the Indies who rebelled against the regime in 2010 right back into his grip apparently.

    • proreason says:

      We live in the real world…the one where choices are not infinite.

      I catch a couple of hours of Mark Levin a week. Heard an inspiring monologue this week on why the most conservative candidate is the only acceptable choice and why everything is just fine, since the race is far from over.

      The problem is that he said nothing about the candidates the we actually have: Paul, Huntsman, Romney, Perry, Newt, Cain, Bachman and Santorum. Only 8. Only 8 to choose from. The idealized theory of voting for the most conservative candidate somehow has to fit into that framework, at least in the world I live in.

      Ron Paul has some good ideas, particularly on the economy (I love the cut spending immediately by 1 Trillion declaration). All but his groupies reject his foreign policy. He isn’t a contender. There are really 7 candidates. And Mark Levin hates him anyway.

      Huntsman has not been able to get traction and is widely perceived to be too liberal. Frankly, I doubt many people know enough about him to make that judgement, myself included. Nevertheless, he remains effectively out of the picture. Unless a minor miracle occurs for him, there are really 6 candidates. And Mark Levin hates him anyway.

      Romney is currently talking a good conservative line, but 75-85% of Republican voters distrust him because of his flip-flops…which, btw, seem to be consistently in the direction of conservatism. He gets no credit for that. He also gets no credit for being about as close to a moral saint as is likely to appear in the second decade of the 21st century. And Mark Levin hates him anyway.

      Perry is a very conservative man from a conservative state, but apparently not enough, because he has fallen from over 30% to 6% in a couple of months. Conservative perfection must be required, or perhaps real people actually evaluate candidates from a perspective other than pure conservatism.

      Gingrich was once considered the most conservative and smartest politician in the country, and is now considered “an idiot” because of a handful out of hundreds of issues for which his views have been more centrist than conservative orthodoxy allows. In addition, his checkered marital history is considered a strong negative by many, and the hatred heaped on him by the liberal media in the 90’s is accepted as gospel by many. I suspect that Mark Levin hates him.

      Cain is close to a blank slate, but one who always meanders his way to the most accepted conservative position. Having only been in the public eye for a couple of months, and never having cast a vote when he was under pressure from conflicted constituencies, nobody really knows what he would do, which allows people to project their own hopes and views on him. Many project that he is Ronald Reagen reborn, an actual rocket scientist and a moral paragon.

      Bachman and Santorum are rigorously conservative, by all measures, but somehow have not caught fire with conservatives who are, we are told, seeking the most conservative candidate. Somewhat like the situation with Perry, it appears that the most conservative candidate isn’t actually the one people prefer. Despite Mr. Levin’s absolute certainty about the single criteria, the vast majority of people seem to think otherwise.

      If people voted on pure conservatism, Mark Levin would be the landslide write-in choice for President. He wouldn’t even need to campaign. Only he is perfectly conservative by the criteria he has set.

      The rest of us struggle with the fact that there are only 8 or 7 or 6, or maybe now just 3 choices, and for some strange reason, they all have imperfections, many of which are apparantly 100% disqualifications to large numbers of people.

      Meanwhile a manchurian marxist true-believer sneers at us from his perches in the white house and the golf course. He has set in motion the processes that in a few short years will “transform” the US as we know it from the land of freedom to a centrally planned paradise of commisars and serfs.

      We are the stupid party.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Strawman. Everyone understands that having a good resume on the ideological front isn’t solely what’s going to win the election. I define the strongest Conservative in the race as he or she who is the most effective at arguing for the Conservative worldview. Effectiveness is judged on a much broader scale than merely holding the right positions and views. It factors in a candidate’s negatives too. You can be the next Reagan, but if you can’t figure out how to persuade people to believe in you, end of story.

      The premise we refuse to accept is that Conservative ideology is explicitly what loses because not every Conservative wins by just being Conservative. We think that when politicians can make ideological points well, it can transcend conventional politics to unite and inspire people. Barry was all about the ideological platitudes: the lofty rhetoric with absolutely no basis in the reality of the actions he was pursuing. Conservatism when articulated is both pragmatic and compassionate. And based in reality.

      Policy positions, character history, public experience, all of this matters, but none of it more to me than if they can bring a clear and optimistic message about America’s greatness, empowerment of the individual, and freedom from an overbearing, micro-managing nanny state, and actually get people to listen.

      Mittens has no interest in conveying that message. He isn’t ideological. Like Pro said, he can talk a good Conservative line, and he’ll embrace some milder Conservative policies when he has to, but he doesn’t really want to. Nor do the people with whom he’s allied and whom I have a much bigger problem than Romney himself, who seems like a decent guy personally and I sincerely hope is clean for when the Left comes at him. Their’s is a much different perspective that is going to lead to a much different power dynamic if victorious. And these Republican Establishmentarians in his camp are the people that don’t just annoy the base until they stop voting and turn the country over to Liberals, but they are also the people that bring public corruption scandals to the Republican brand.

      When Mitt doesn’t have to drop the Conservative line anymore, he won’t. Not only will it be ignored, it will be actively under assault by the Establishment when we try and push Mitt back in our direction. That’s what the base instinctively knows they’re getting with him underneath the well-rehearsed lines of his 3rd Presidential Campaign. It’s why he hasn’t been able to breakout from his support plateau while we all vett the rest in search for a suitable alternative.

      Maybe one of the Conservatives can do it, maybe it’ll be Mitt. Maybe I’ve lost touch with the “real world” but in mine there hasn’t been a final vote yet. No matter on what I particularly disagree with each candidate individually, I believe they ALL have ADDED to this process and added to the overall effort to oust Obama. Even Mitt.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Also would like to reiterate yet again that I, an idealist, will support and vote for Romney in the general. As will Levin. There will be no such pragmatism from the establishment should the circumstances be reversed (think Hoffman NY-23 & Angle/O’donnell/Rubio).

    • proreason says:

      “When Mitt doesn’t have to drop the Conservative line anymore, he won’t.”

      If you like vdh, give a look at the video interview by Roger Simon currently on the front page.

      My view about Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman is that they all tend to think that government is the answer…in other words, they are all statists to a certain extent. Government has been central to the greatest successes of their lives. So I don’t think any one of them can be as conservative as the right wing sites are currently defining it.

      Bachman, Santorum and Cain are closer to the vision of conservatism currently in vogue, but I believe it is a misconception about Cain.

      So the problem organically arises; you have a set of people who are qualifed by experience but by that experience are tempermentally oriented toward government being the solution, vs a set of candidates who are more distrustful of government, but who for almost that very reason, aren’t really qualified to lead. (note: I assume the federal government is not going to be dismantled. Reagan didn’t do it. If it is going to be done, it will be led by Congress, not this group of people.)

      That may be the underlying dynamic of the election. The love for Cain is precisely because he has not been Romney, or Gingrich or Perry, all of whom have long records that can and are picked apart by legions of enemies.

      But I don’t doubt for a second that the four statist-experienced candidates will temper their urges (even Gingrich who is probably the least controllable). I want a president who is on pins and needles to satisfy his voters. Bachman, Santorum, Cain (and Paul) are all more likely to get into conflicts with Congress which could derail the reversal of Obamunism.

      (note; vdh’s point about Romney is somewhat different. He says that Romney hasn’t flipped or flopped since 2008, so why should we worry that he is going back. I think it is a good point. If Romney had reversed himself in random directions or went back and forth, it would be a clear indication that he has no principles. But a consistent movement in the direction of conservatism could be just that, a change in life view or an emergence of a view that was always there. Of course, if he had insisted on it in Massachusetts, he would never have been governmor of that state. Cain, of course, with no experience in politics, has no such problem to explain away. Personally, I think Cain is in a middle group of conservatives with Perry and Gingrich. Romney, Huntsman and Paul are to his left. Bachman, and Santorum are to his right. I base that on the fact that he has several times started with a more liberal position and shifted it as he realized that it was a mistake. Anybody who is insistent on conservative purity should back Bachman or Santorum.)

    • tranquil.night says:

      All very reasonable points. You’re incredibly perceptive Pro, thank you as always for the discussion (as to all). I wish some of these candidates had you on their team as an advisor.

      Will watch the VDH discussion when I get a chance. I had the fortune of studying the classics under a VDH pupil who always gushed about him for obvious reasons.

    • canary says:

      Mitt Romeny: ….“Smart growth, or purposeful planning, is a concept that will be in the governor’s office if I’m elected,” he said.

      After winning, he created a new “Office for Commonwealth Development” to oversee the transportation, environment, and housing departments—and named as its chief Douglas Foy. It was a brash decision for a business-oriented politician: Foy was the head of the state’s Conservation Law Foundation and an ardent environmentalist…


      As governor Mitt ordered private citizen’s pools be counted. Not sure if it meant the little 2 layered blow up pools for toddlers.

  7. BillK says:

    Why? At least with Obama you know what he’s going to do.

    With Newt or Romney you get men who are pretending to be conservatives but have shown in the past that they’re actually not.

    Per usual you can tell those who have a real shot at success by the ferocity of the attack against them: Palin, Cain and Bachman.

    They were successful with Palin and Bachmann and seem to be gaining ground against Cain, meanwhile conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot again just as they did with McCain by considering Romney or Gingrich as at all conservative candidates.

    All Newt or Mitt would serve to do is to make people think “See, Republicans do it too” when they abandon conservatism for things like Romneycare or Global Warming legislation.

  8. DoctorRock says:

    Rick Perry.
    Our position is deteriorating around the world (by design), while our economy slides down the tubes (likewise).
    Come November of next year, things will only be more so – trust me. So we’re talking about electing our next
    Commander-in-Chief. Who out of the eight are you ready to follow thought shot and shell? And who out of the
    eight has the balls (for want of a better word – my apologies) to fight back in what will easily be the lowest, most
    disgusting campaign in our nation’s history? I’ve been down with the Perry campaign for months now – so I’m
    reaching out here! They want us to run Romney – so let’s do them up good!

    • tranquil.night says:

      Perry had some great points this last go around on Foreign Policy. He was tough on the ChiComs even though he kinda miffed a great line by saying they need to “change their virtues.” Still, he was probably the leader in that discussion in saying we need to get back supporting the march of freedom abroad and stop wheelin’ and dealin’ with our enemies. I’m not fully in agreement with his foreign aid aporoach because zeroing out everybody and starting from scratch muddles some glaring issues on that front – like that we send hundreds of millions to Abbas and the PLO who are openly funding terrorists. Instead the political discussion is going to center around Israel, which is inevitable anyway. I also believe some of our foreign assistance in terms of feeding the world is in the spirit of this country and of slight economic benefit, probably against the grain of some fiscal hawks.

      Perry’s problem is he blew his first, second, third, and fourth chance to make an impression on the national stage. But he’s got a great plan and is obviously a very capable executive and this is politics where the past can fade into the memory hole very quickly. My sense is that there’s a lot of voters who aren’t 100% decided, they have an open mind, and they’re going to decide as individuals.

      Best of luck to the Perry camp. Play clean :) Our real opponent is in the White House. Also, you might want to direct posts like this to the Hive, our weekly open thread.

    • proreason says:

      not Ron Paul.

      The toughest one would probably be Bachman, but she won’t be the candidate. She appears to be an iron lady and not one driven to compromise.

      There aren’t a lot of data points to base an opinion on. Based on the bits we know about how the candidates grew up, Perry would probably be the least likely to back away from a fight. However, some would argue that he is squishy on illegal immigration, which the arguers might claim is an indication of weakness.

  9. tranquil.night says:

    ‘Conservative’ Sen. Coburn: Tax breaks ‘Welfare for Millionaires’

    Up Twinkles News from The Hill:

    His staff found that millionaires received $74 million worth of unemployment checks from 2005 to 2009; $316 million in farm subsidies from 2003 to 2009; $89 million for the preservation of lands on ranches and estates in 2009 and 2010; and $7.5 million to compensate for property damages caused by disaster.

    The horror!

    Coburn’s milquetoast asshattery infamously reared itself at the Debt Ceiling battle when he explicitly and intentionally rolled out his irrelevant Group of Six proposal to usurp momentum on the wildly popular cut, cap, and balance bill.

    He’s no Conservative, he’s an agent of the Republican Statists who parrots Conservative ideology when he needs to fool voters. Watch his actions, not his words.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »