Category Archives: Nightly News

Laying it on the (non-binding) line

Posted on by
Reply

In keeping with the spirit of the times the Minneapolis City Council is the latest to offer a resolution that’s about as binding as a sackful of White Castles ingested after bar-closing — and even less meaningful. Their call for “an orderly, rapid and comprehensive withdrawal of United States military personnel from Iraq” garnered the headlines, but what was missed was what the Council did after hammering out that gripping piece of political theater.

Moving on to other important business, the Council passed resolutions calling for:

  • Great Britain to give the Falklands back to Argentina
  • The NFL to redistribute Bill Belichick to the Vikings
  • The Prairie Chicken be named the state bird of North Dakota.

These resolutions all passed unanimously. Another resolution, banning President Bush from attending the 2008 Republican Convention in Minneapolis, passed 11-0 with two abstentions. The abstentions came from members who said it wasn’t appropriate to vote on the measure because George Bush wasn’t really the president of the United States.

A final resolution, condemning the blast of Arctic air headed for Minnesota later this week, had to be tabled because of arguments arising over whether or not to call for a fence to be built at the Canadian border to keep the cold air out. In a compromise measure, the Council unanimously declared that “winter was mean” because it has a disproportionate impact on the poor and minorities.

By the time these resolutions were passed the Council was out of time and couldn’t act on an agenda item calling for withdrawing law-abiding citizens from the “quagmire” of North Minneapolis.

Pubs suffering in “Scotland the Smoke-free”

Posted on by
2

The countdown is on for state-wide smoking ban in Minnesota with competing prophecies of gloom and doom vs. fresh air and sunshine on what will happen. It is worth noting what actually has happened elsewhere.

A nationwide smoking ban in pubs and restaurants went into effect in Scotland in late March of 2006, with many of the same arguments on both sides that we’ve become familiar with here in Minnesota. Shortly after the ban went into affect the Cancer Research UK poll released results confidently predicting that Scottish pubs would benefit from the ban, citing poll results showing that 25% of those surveyed said they’d be more likely to visit a pub because of the ban. The poll also found that 10% said they’d be less likely to go to a pub.

That 10% figure is especially interesting when you read this article:

The smoking ban in Scotland has seen a 10% decrease in sales and a 14% fall in customers in pubs, according to a new study.

The study carried out by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association compared sales before and after the ban at 2724 pubs – 1590 in Scotland and 1134 in northern England – where smoking is still permitted.

The study’s authors say this is the first major look at the smoking ban outside of the US – where trade has remained fairly constant.

The report says: “These studies have mostly found no negative economic effects of such legislation on the hospitality sector in the long run.

“However, differences in the social use of public houses in Great Britain in comparison with the US may lead to different findings.”

“Our study suggests that the Scottish smoking ban had a negative economic impact on public houses … due in part to a drop in the number of customers.

“The short-term impact of the ban did not lead to more customers coming into pubs due to the smoke-free atmosphere, and presumably did not lead smokers to spend more money on drink or food instead of smoking.”

The study backs anecdotal evidence from licensees north of the border.

While the study makes a reference to similar bans in the U.S. having little affect on the bar and restaurant trade — an assertion that bears further scrutiny — it appears that the International Epidemiological Association must also acknowledge the statistics showing that harm has been done. In fact, if anyone is clearly benefitting from the ban it is the people hired — at tax-payer expense — to enforce the ban, as reported here:

A survey has found that some of Scotland’s smoke ban enforcers are seriously under-employed with some councils’ officers NEVER having issued a ticket.

An investigation by Scotland on Sunday found seven councils, between them employing at least 11 full-time enforcers, have failed to issue a single penalty ticket or warning since they began work in March.

It is estimated that the salary bill for these officers is around £220,000.

Councils say there is more to the job than handing out fines, however Stewart Maxwell, the MSP who brought the original bill before the Scottish parliament said: “I always thought it would be self-policing. From the start I didn’t think that it would be necessary to employ so many enforcement officers.

“A lot of them were certainly doing a lot of work when the ban was brought in, including distributing posters, but I don’t know whether this is still the case.”

Paul Waterson, chief executive of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, said the money could be better spent compensating badly hit rural pubs.

It appears that an addiction to bureaucracy is even harder to stamp out than a craving for nicotine. Actually, I know of many people who have been able to quit smoking, but I haven’t heard of any government jobs being reduced. Has anyone ever tried to develop a “Bureaucracy Patch”?

Of course, why worry about livelihoods when lives are at stake? Scottish Health Minister Andy Kerr responded angrily to the survey results, saying “There’s a brutal answer to that. This is about public health, it’s about saving lives – it’s not about businesses.” I’ll bet newly unemployed Scottish pub and restaurant workers are already lining up to apply for jobs as government fat inspectors (fat in food, not government, of course) in anticipation of the next ban.

Give him a medal!

Posted on by
Reply

“We live in a heroic age. Not seldom are we thrilled by deeds of heroism where men or women are injured or lose their lives in attempting to preserve or rescue their fellows; such are the heroes of civilization. The heroes of barbarism maimed or killed theirs.”

– Andrew Carnegie
A 50-year-old New York man literally leapt to the rescue of a stranger on Tuesday in a way that would have made Andrew Carnegie proud:

NEW YORK — Wesley Autrey faced a harrowing choice as he tried to rescue a teenager who fell off a platform onto a subway track in front of an approaching train: Struggle to hoist him back up to the platform in time, or take a chance on finding safety under the train.

At first, he tried to pull the young man up, but he was afraid he wouldn’t make it in time and they would both be killed.

“So I just chose to dive on top of him and pin him down,” he said.

Autrey and the teen landed in the drainage trough between the rails Tuesday as a southbound No. 1 train entered the 137th Street/City College station.

The train’s operator saw them on the tracks and applied the emergency brakes.

Two cars passed over the men _ with about 2 inches to spare, Autrey said. The troughs are typically about 12 inches deep but can be as shallow as 8 or as deep as 24, New York City Transit officials said.

…

Autrey had been waiting for a train with his two young daughters. After the train stopped, he heard bystanders scream and yelled out: “We’re O.K. down here but I’ve got two daughters up there. Let them know their father’s O.K.,” The New York Times reported.

While spectators cheered Autrey, hugged him and hailed him as a hero, he didn’t see it that way.

“I don’t feel like I did something spectacular; I just saw someone who needed help,” he told the Times. “I did what I felt was right.”

Mr. Autry’s story has appropriately been featured on tv and in many news stories, and it reminded me of something I learned about several years ago: the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission, created by the well-known industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie created the fund, initially endowed with $5 million, in 1904 after being inspired by reading of the selfless rescue efforts of people responding to a coal-mine disaster.

The Carnegie Hero Fund Commission has given out more than 9,000 medals since its inception to individuals who risk their lives to save others, including 92 people in 2006. Each received a medal and grant ($5,000 in 2006). In addition, widows and orphans of rescuers receive Carnegie pensions and some children of deceased medal earners receive college scholarships. To date the fund has distributed more than $29 million in one-time grants, scholarship aid, death benefits, and continuing assistance.

The fund has some interesting requirements. People who save others in the line of duty – police, firemen, soldiers – don’t qualify, though several off-duty individuals have won. People who save family members qualify only if they are killed or severely injured in the rescue. Essentially, you can’t be a hero for doing what’s expected of you. Most of the awards go to people who risked their lives to save strangers. For the record, 7 recipients last year died in their attempts to save others; two medal winners were in their 70s and one was 81; three were 15 to 16 years old; five were women. Medal winners were recognized for rescuing others from burning (46), drowning (17), assault (15), animal attack (5), accidents (5) and falls (2). You can get the details concerning these and other heroes here.

I celebrate Mr. Autry and wish that the 92 heroes recognized with Carnegie medals last year could have received the same attention and celebration — not just because they deserve it, but because we need to hear about it. Just think, 92 people; that’s nearly two heroes a week we could be splashing on our video screens, tabloids, web pages and talking about over lunch. I’d much rather hear about these actions than some celebimbo who’s gone out without her underpants. And, much like Carnegie’s quote that opened this post, I’d much rather see the media focus its attention on those who preserve or rescue their fellows as opposed to those who take a bomb into a public place to maim or kill theirs.

144 years ago, or just the other day?

Posted on by
Reply

1. No end to the war in sight.

2. The purpose for the war has changed.

3. The President’s ratings at a low.

4. Democrats opposed to the President’s policies gain in Congress.

5. Willingness to “stay the course” in doubt.

6. Freedom the last, best hope on earth.



From the December 1 “The Writer’s Almanac”:



It was on this day in 1862 that Abraham Lincoln gave the State of the Union address at one of the lowest points of his presidency. An end to the Civil War was nowhere in sight. Just 10 weeks before, Lincoln had issued his Emancipation Proclamation, turning the war into a war about slavery rather than just states’ rights. But in the recent election, anti-Lincoln Democrats had made big gains in the Congress. Many people saw that as a sign that the North didn’t want to fight to free the slaves.



Instead of expressing doubts in his speech, Lincoln argued that freeing the slaves was necessary to ensure that America live up to its own ideals. In his speech, on this day in 1862, Lincoln said, “The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. … We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of earth.”


Three reports shoot down “Flying Imams”

Posted on by
1



Given the prominence of this story I thought this latest development would be all over the media, but I didn’t see anything about this on the Fox, CNN or New York Times main web pages. From the Washingon Times:



Probes dismiss imams’ racism claim

By Audrey Hudson

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

December 6, 2006



Three parallel investigations into the removal of six imams from a US Airways flight last month have so far concluded that the airline acted properly, that the imams’ claims they were merely praying and their eviction was racially inspired are without foundation.



An internal investigation by the airline found that air and ground crews “acted correctly” when they requested that the Muslim men be removed from a Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight on Nov. 20.



“We believe the ground crew and employees acted correctly and did what they are supposed to do,” US Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader said.



(SNIP)



“We talked with crew members and passengers and those on the ground. We’ve done what we typically do in a situation where there is a removal or some kind of customer service at issue,” Miss Rader said. “We found out the facts are substantially the same, and the imams were detained because of the concerns crew members had based on the behavior they observed, and from reports by the customers.”



The Minneapolis airport police department’s report on the incident said the imams’ behavior warranted their removal. The imams were not accused of breaking any laws.



The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is reviewing the actions of department members who were involved in the incident.



Secret Service agents questioned the imams, who are accused of making negative comments about President Bush and the Iraq war. Officials of the Transportation Security Administration were involved in screening the imams and their baggage.



“There is no indication there is any inappropriate activity, at least no indication at this time,” DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said. “To my knowledge, we are only doing a review, and that is a fairly routine practice with incidents like this.”



The Air Carrier Security Committee of the Air Line Pilots Association investigated the incident and said, “The crew’s actions were strictly in compliance with procedures and demonstrated overall good judgment in the care and concern for their passengers, fellow crew members, and the company.”



“The decisions made by all the parties were made as a result of the behavior of the passengers and not as a result of their ethnicity,” the report concluded.



(SNIP)



Mr. Shahin told television reporters that he needed the seat-belt extension because he weighs 280 pounds. However, the police report lists his weight as 201 pounds. Weights listed for the other imams ranged from 170 pounds to 250 pounds.



I can’t wait for Imam Shahin’s diet book to come out.

All the news to rinse and spit

Posted on by
2

There was an interesting story in the Minneapolis StarTribune yesterday about an elderly man who heard someone breaking into his home and, when confronted in his bedroom by the intruder, shot and killed the burglar. The original story was pretty spare on details, though the police indicated that the homeowner was within his rights and was not likely to be prosecuted.

Considering that it’s the Strib, however, and its well-established anitpathy toward guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, I wasn’t suprised to see in today’s follow-up story that the paper, in its commitment to informing the public (as long as it can advance its own agenda, that is) solemnly informed us that the homeowner’s house was dilapidated and likely to be condemned, thereby suggesting that the intruder may have mistakenly thought the house was abandoned (which, of course, makes it all right to break and enter). At least the condition of the house had some connection to the story. The article finished by reporting that the homeowner was a former teacher and school principal who had been fired 25 years ago for being “unfit to teach” due a “list of deficiencies” including having a “rigid and stiff” classroom manner and for picking on and swearing at students. He’s evil!

No doubt tomorrow we’ll have another story focusing on the young “victim” who will turn out to be a troubled young man just on the verge of getting his life together before his fatal misadventure, which could have been prevented if only someone had “done something.”

Okay, that’s the news business. When you’ve got a story that gets a lot of attention you naturally want to follow up and include more details to keep the readers coming back. For example, let’s take one of the biggest stories of the past few days that has both a local and national following: the “flying Imams” who were cold-bloodedly persecuted for innocently scaring the bejeezus out of their fellow passengers and the flight crew:

The imams say they were removed from the Phoenix-bound flight because they were praying quietly in the concourse. They had been in Minnesota for a conference sponsored by the North American Imams Federation.

But other passengers told police and aviation security officials a different version of the incident. They said suspicious behavior of the imams led to their eviction from the flight…

…The passengers and flight crew said the imams prayed loudly before boarding; switched seating assignments to a configuration used by terrorists in previous incidents; asked for seat-belt extensions, which could be used as weapons; and shouted hostile slogans about al Qaeda and the war in Iraq.

Flight attendants said three of the six men, who did not appear to be overweight, asked for the seat-belt extensions, which include heavy metal buckles, and then threw them to the floor under their seats.

Wow, holy indignation, airline security and national attention! I can’t wait for the Strib to bring us more information about the backgrounds of these now frequent flyers, or to tell us more about this important Muslim conference held in our very own Twin Cities and attended by our very own first-ever Muslim congressman-elect, Keith Ellison!

Perhaps I’m expecting too much, given the Strib seemed to have a lot of trouble getting anything other than sketchiest of details about Ellison’s background such as his campus writings and long-time affiliation with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Finding out more background information on these humble holy men is probably even more difficult. Unless you’re Michelle Malkin, that is:

Will they mention Shahin’s admitted ties to Osama bin Laden and denial of the 9/11 al Qaeda plot?

Or his connection to a Hamas-linked terror charity front?

Will they mention Mahdi Bray’s terror-sympathizing statements and stances?

Or the Muslim American Society’s radical embrace of sharia and faux pose as the “moderate” front for the Muslim Brotherhood? (My debate on Laura Ingraham’s radio show with one of the double-talking MAS spokesmen here.)

Or will they mindlessly play along with the grievance-mongers, lazily echoing the cries of “Islamophobia” and joining in self-flagellation?

Oh well, see you in the funny papers.

The 655,000 fraud

Posted on by
Reply

An op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required) somewhat incredulously questions the credulity of the reporters and editors disseminating without question last week’s Washington Post article about the John Hopkins study (published in the Lancet) that attributes 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq as a result of the war (emphasis mine):

“We have no reason to question the findings,” the Post quoted a Human Rights Watch official as saying. The article was fairly typical of reporting on the Lancet study, which has also been all over television and radio, as well as Internet sites such as Google and Yahoo! news.

All of which leaves us wondering if reporters and editors have enough sense anymore to ask basic questions about such enormous numbers, or whether they are simply too biased against the Bush Administration and its Iraq policy to do so. The 655,000 figure is more than 10 times higher than previous estimates of violent deaths in Iraq since the U.S. invasion, and it is larger than the number of Germans killed by allied bombing during all of World War II and larger than the number of Americans who died during our own Civil War.

While it’s obvious that Iraq has a terrible problem with sectarian violence at the moment, we find it hard to believe killing on the scale of Antietam or Gettysburg has been going on without anybody having noticed until the statistical wizards from Johns Hopkins showed up.

The 655,000 figure turns out to be an extrapolation based on a very inadequate sampling process. Pollster Steven E. Moore, who has worked extensively in Iraq, pointed out in an op-ed on this page yesterday that the Lancet study is based on information from a mere 47 “cluster points” around Iraq and 1,849 total interviews.

By contrast, a 2004 U.N. survey of Iraq used 2,200 cluster points for more than 21,000 interviews. The Johns Hopkins researchers also appear to have collected no demographic data on their subjects, so the group cannot be compared to census data to check if it is representative. “I wouldn’t survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points,” Mr. Moore wrote.

Iraq Body Count — a nonpartisan outfit that keeps track of Iraqi mortality figures — has also issued a devastating critique of the Lancet/Johns Hopkins survey. It points out that the study implies that a thousand Iraqis died violently every day in the first half of 2006, with fewer than a tenth of them being noticed by “public surveillance mechanisms” and the press, as well as “incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries.”

Wow. Extrapolation like this makes even the people behind the Minnesota Poll look like pikers.

We’re an American Wisconsin Band!

Posted on by
Reply

Hazing, booze, sex led to Wisconsin band probation

Head-shaving, semi-nude dancing, girl-on-girl kissing required to use the bathroom … well, it is the Vikings bye-week.

Wait, this was a bus, not a boat? What would Wellstone do?

Are you ready for some …foolishness?

Posted on by
2

Monday Night Football returns to the New Orleans for the Superdome’s first appearance in primetime since Hurricane Katrina. You can expect a lot of talk about this being a symbolic victory for the city, and a lot of references to the things that occurred in the Dome in the days after the hurricane passed and the levees gave way. I think it will be interesting to see how many references will reflect the common perception of horrors that occurred versus the reality.

Will we hear about the supposed murders, rapes, atrocities and bodies stacked up in the facility’s freezer, presented as common knowledge, or will we hear about how outrageously the media hyped what they couldn’t see and couldn’t bother to verify yet presented as breathless fact? In case you’re scoring at home, here are some excerpts and interesting links (emphasis mine).

The LA Times: Rumors supplanted accurate information and media magnified the problem. Rapes, violence and estimates of the dead were wrong.

… Nagin and Police Chief Eddie Compass appeared on “Oprah” a few days after trouble at the Superdome had peaked.

Compass told of “the little babies getting raped” at the Superdome. And Nagin made his claim about hooligans raping and killing.

State officials this week said their counts of the dead at the city’s two largest evacuation points fell far short of early rumors and news reports. Ten bodies were recovered from the Superdome and four from the Convention Center, said Bob Johannessen, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

(National Guard officials put the body count at the Superdome at six, saying the other four bodies came from the area around the stadium.)

Of the 841 recorded hurricane-related deaths in Louisiana, four are identified as gunshot victims, Johannessen said. One victim was found in the Superdome but was believed to have been brought there, and one was found at the Convention Center, he added …

From Real Clear Politics, “What the Media Missed” (for one thing, no babies raped, but seven delivered!):

… Do you remember the dramatic TV footage of National Guard helicopters landing at the Superdome as soon as Katrina passed, dropping off tens of thousands saved from certain death? The corpsmen running with stretchers, in an echo of M*A*S*H, carrying the survivors to ambulances and the medical center? About how the operation, which also included the Coast Guard, regular military units, and local first responders, continued for more than a week?

Me neither. Except that it did happen, and got at best an occasional, parenthetical mention in the national media. The National Guard had its headquarters for Katrina, not just a few peacekeeping troops, in what the media portrayed as the pit of Hell. Hell was one of the safest places to be in New Orleans, smelly as it was. The situation was always under control, not surprisingly because the people in control were always there.

From the Dome, the Louisiana Guard’s main command ran at least 2,500 troops who rode out the storm inside the city, a dozen emergency shelters, 200-plus boats, dozens of high-water vehicles, 150 helicopters, and a triage and medical center that handled up to 5,000 patients (and delivered 7 babies). The Guard command headquarters also coordinated efforts of the police, firefighters and scores of volunteers after the storm knocked out local radio, as well as other regular military and other state Guard units.

Jack Harrison, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia, cited “10,244 sorties flown, 88,181 passengers moved, 18,834 cargo tons hauled, 17,411 saves” by air. Unlike the politicians, they had a working chain of command that commandeered more relief aid from other Guard units outside the state. From day one.

There were problems, true: FEMA melted down. Political leaders, from the Mayor to Governor to the White House, showed “A Failure of Initiative”, as a recent House report put it. That report, along with sharply critical studies by the White House and the Senate, delve into the myriad of breakdowns, shortages and miscommunications that hampered relief efforts.

Still, by focusing on the part of the glass that was half-empty, the national media imposed a near total blackout on the nerve center of what may have been the largest, most successful aerial search and rescue operation in history…

Pencils ready? Hit it, Hank!

Everybody SHOUT!

Posted on by
1

by Minfidel

The Minfidel is now back from hiatus, if that’s what you call being locked in a trunk for over a year. Anyway, I’ve been trying to get caught up on current events, and it’s nice to see that nothing’s really changed. The big news this week is that a bunch of murdering jihadists have been murdering – or threatening to murder – people because someone called them, well, a bunch of murdering jihadists. This all sounded strangely familiar; I know I’ve seen this somewhere before. I’ve got it! It was a scene from one of my all-time favorite movies, “Animal Mosque.”

Pope Wormer: Greg, what is the worst religious sect in this world?

Cardinal Greg Marmalard: Well that would be hard to say, sir. They’re each outstanding in their own way.

Pope Wormer: Cut the horse***, son. I’ve got their disciplinary files right here. Who dropped a whole truckload of fizzies into the swim meet? Who delivered the medical school cadavers to the alumni dinner? Every Halloween, the trees are filled with underwear. Every spring, the toilets explode.

Cardinal Marmalard: You’re talking about radical islamofascists, sir.

Pope Wormer: Of course I’m talking about radical islamofascists, you TWERP!

Later…inside Animal Mosque:

Al D-Day: War’s over, man. Wormer’s dropped the big one.

bin-Bluto: Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Saddam Otter: Germans?

bin-Boon: Forget it, he’s rolling.

bin-Bluto: And it ain’t over now. ‘Cause when the goin’ gets tough… [thinks hard] … the tough get goin’! Who’s with me? Let’s go! [runs out, alone; then returns]

bin-Bluto: What happened to the jihadis I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh? “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you bin-Bluto, we might get in trouble.” Well just kiss my *** from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this. Wormer, he’s a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer…

Saddam Otter: Dead! bin-Bluto’s right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.

bin-Bluto: We’re just the guys to do it.

Al D-Day: Let’s do it.

bin-Bluto: LET’S DO IT!