What news stories should we talk about today?
First up, a couple of stories on the economy.
From TheWashingtonPost “But anyone who thinks that the short-run battle is over should take a look at a new report by Daniel Alpert over at the Century Foundation. Alpert notes that while the headline unemployment number is well below its recession-era peak, that’s almost 100 percent due to declines in the labor force participation rate — that is, the share of the population that’s either employed or actively looking for work. Don’t believe him? Take a look at this chart:”
“Now, look at the blue dotted line. That’s the labor force participation rate. See how it nearly perfectly tracks the movements of the unemployment rate? That’s a pretty good sign that people leaving the labor force, rather than getting jobs, is what’s driving the latter down.
To drive the point home, Alpert calculates what the unemployment rate would be absent any decline in labor-force participation. Spoiler: it’d be right where it was during the worst of the recession.”
Next up, it’s always about what they leave out.
From CNSNews “Here’s what Mr. Carney didn’t say:Since February of 2009, the first full month of Obama’s presidency, 9.5 million Americans have dropped out of the labor force. Nearly 90 million Americans are not working today!
That means that 1.3 Americans have dropped out of the labor force for every one job the administration claims to have created.
“There are 15 million more Americans on food stamps today than when Obama assumed office.”
What shocks me is the number of people who buy the damaged goods that the White House is trying to sell.
____________________________________________________
Next up…. it was accidental I’m sure. 🙄
From TheWashingtonTimes “Delaware state officials have told Congress that they likely destroyed the computer records that would show when and how often they accessed Christine O’Donnell’s personal tax records and acknowledged that a newspaper article was used as the sole justification for snooping into the former GOP Senate candidate’s tax history.
The revelations to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office came Tuesday as the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration, the government’s chief watchdog for the Internal Revenue Service, formally reopened its investigation into the matter by re-interviewing Ms. O’Donnell.”
““So far, it appears the department destroys the access records after a short amount of time,” Mr. Grassley said. “That’s puzzling. Unless the IRS has a back-up, and I hope the IRS does, there’s no way to know how and when Delaware state employees accessed Christine O’Donnell’s federal tax records.””
Convenient no?
____________________________________________________
This one? Sure it’s unconstitutional, but when has that ever mattered to liberals?
From OneNewsNow “According to Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International, the city leaders want to add two categories to the policy: sexual orientation and gender identity. “
The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” he tells OneNewsNow. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”
Moreover, according to a draft of the revised policy, no one who has spoken out against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle can run for city council or be appointed to a board. Flowers says the Arizona-based legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom has taken a look at the ordinance.”
Christians need not apply I guess.
____________________________________________________
Next up, activist or judge? When you know the answer, you’ll see why they want to rush this thru during recess.
From LifeSiteNews “Why the rush? Ed Whalen of NRO’s Bench Memos suspects that Pillard (who’s been described to him as “less moderate” than the most activist liberal in appellate court history) wouldn’t survive intense scrutiny. The hurry, Whalen warns, “seems designed to prevent a careful review of their records. Obama himself has taken forever to make nominations to the D.C. Circuit, and that court remains underworked, so it is difficult to see the justification for the sudden rush.”
Unfortunately for Americans, the Senate won’t have to dig too deep to uncover some of Pillard’s shockers. Among some of her greatest hits, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General argues that abortion is necessary to help “free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.” As if her militant feminism wasn’t apparent enough, she takes the opportunity in some of her writings to slam anyone who opposes the abortion-contraception mandate as “reinforce[ing] broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.”
A mother of two, Nina wrote a 2011 paper, “Against the New Maternalism,” which argues that by celebrating motherhood, society is creating a “self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination.” Those ideas bleed into Pillard’s extreme pro-abortion views, which suggest that technology is somehow manipulating Americans to consider the personhood of the unborn. In one of her most jaw-dropping statements, the President’s nominee even criticizes the ultrasound. She believes it manufactures “deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being that the anti-choice movement has popularized since the advent of amniocentesis.””
____________________________________________________
And this last one is not at all shocking. Of course the media would love this guy.
From FoxNews “Reza Aslan, author of the new book, “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” has been interviewed on a host of media outlets in the last week. Riding a publicity wave, the book has surged to #2 on Amazon’s list.
Media reports have introduced Aslan as a “religion scholar” but have failed to mention that he is a devout Muslim.
His book is not a historian’s report on Jesus. It is an educated Muslim’s opinion about Jesus — yet the book is being peddled as objective history on national TV and radio.”
““Zealot” is a fast-paced demolition of the core beliefs that Christianity has taught about Jesus for 2,000 years. Its conclusions are long-held Islamic claims—namely, that Jesus was a zealous prophet type who didn’t claim to be God, that Christians have misunderstood him, and that the Christian Gospels are not the actual words or life of Jesus but “myth.””
I’m sure they’d be just as happy to plug a book written by a Christian that was critical of Mohammed. And you just know they’d get plenty of airtime right? 🙄
____________________________________________________
Wandering Views 
Living overseas is looking like a good choice!
LikeLike
Jo, Islam is right next door to you. Nobody is safe nowhere.
LikeLike
Karen O gave me an interesting link to the Zimmerman case in yesterday’s thread. Still not enough to change my mind (and since mine is based on a more stringent concept of self defense nothing probably will). I found it interesting according to the article that the burden of proof was on the prosecutor to negate self defense. This immediately brings credibility into play — if the jury finds the defendant credible and sympathetic, it will be less likely to convict. The article also brought up the fact Martin in a phone conversation mentioned he thought he was being followed. Thus, could not Martin’s actions be portrayed as self-defense and Zimmerman as the aggressor? It seems the self defense bar is low enough to accept that claim.
LikeLike
The liberal mind is an fascinating thing to behold.
LikeLike
Interesting article on unemployment. Part of lower labor market participation is demographic more people have retired than entered the job market as the population ages and the article mentions this would account for 25% of the participation drop. At the end of every depression/recession, unemployment initially rises due to drop out — this isn’t unusual and remembering back in the Reagan era, one answer I heard was an increase in self employed and “under the table” and/or casual employment.
My other issue has to do with inherent bias in the construction of the graphs. The scale used is deliberate and is intended to exaggerate the differences. It may also be that unemployment is now structural and Obama is right to focus on the long term not the short term. And the long term focus will mean a less Keynesian approach for does who like neo-liberal economics.
O’DonnelL — here the issue is simple, does the IRS and its state counterparts search tax records on the basis of newspaper stories …. my guess any excuse for an audit.
San Antonio — I’d want a look at the actual proposal before rushing to judgments. My guess is the pastor has portrayed the policy in a bad light (without actually lying) just given his own bias. Our biases tend to color our judgment and how we read policy.
LikeLike
Zealot — I’ve requested the book from my library and waiting for it to arrive. From what I can tell, its not original research but rather a synthesis of previous ideas. His faith will likely have some impact but in reality most of what he has said has been said before.
I read his previous book “No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam” A sympathetic but enjoyable read on the history of Islam.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25307.No_god_but_God#other_reviews
Note many including myself gave him four stars mainly because he’s a good writer but most if not all reviews mentioned his less than critical approach.
LikeLike
I just noticed. According to wikipedia. Aslan, an Iranian-American, was previously an evangelical Christian before converting to Islam.
LikeLike
Figures. 😉 That actually explains a lot, I’d say …
LikeLike
Thus, could not Martin’s actions be portrayed as self-defense and Zimmerman as the aggressor?
Um, no. Just not even close to providing grounds for self-defense there. Just not even remotely close. Man, you’re ignorant of the facts on this Zimmerman thing! Kind of to the point of LOL.
LikeLike
I found it interesting according to the article that the burden of proof was on the prosecutor to negate self defense.
To which part of the article are you referring?
LikeLike
whether there was enough evidence to conclude that Zimmerman may have legitimately acted in self-defense. During the trial, it wasn’t necessary for the defense team to absolutely prove that Zimmerman acted in self-defense — just that there was enough evidence (or lack of contrary evidence) to believe it was reasonably possible.
I may have phrased it differently but a lack of contrary evidence and “reasonably possible” is a pretty low standard. with this criteria we are discussing “state of mind” which is pretty low and subject to hindsight.
22. Were you aware of the fact that Rachel Jeantel said she warned Trayvon Martin on the phone that the man following him might be a gay rapist and that Trayvon was freaked out by it just moments before his altercation with Zimmerman?
Its “reasonably possible” given the “state of mind” of a 17 year old boy that the person following him meant him some harm and thus he needed to defend himself. Now according to Zimmerman’s story he was leaving but again that’s his version. Martin may have decided at that point it was better to confront and stand his ground rather than run. And if he ran, would not Zimmerman think his suspicions were confirmed? So Martin in his “state of mind” had two choices run and confirm Zimmerman’s suspicions or confront Zimmerman. Now we don’t know Zimmerman’s state of mind because he’s dead but it is “reasonably possible”
LikeLike
“San Antonio — I’d want a look at the actual proposal before rushing to judgments.”
You ask, I deliver. 😉 Starts around page 3.
Click to access An+Ordinance.pdf
“(b) Prior Discriminatory Acts.
No person shall be appointed to a position if the City Council finds that such person
has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or handicapdisability.
(c) Discrimination by Appointed Officials – Malfeasance.
(1) No appointed official or member of a board or commission shall engage in
discrimination or demonstrate a bias, by word or deed, against any person,
group of persons, or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or
handicapdisability, while serving in such public position.”
“(2) Violation of this standard shall be considered malfeasance in office, and the
City Council shall be authorized to take action as provided by law to remove the
offending person from office.”
It’s a draft, so it contains some edits. Have fun. 🙂
LikeLike
So yeah,
Christians who believe and speak what the Bible says about homosexuality would be violating this ordinance, and subject to section (2).
LikeLike
My evidence is anecdotal on the economic situation, but I know too many people over 50 who have dropped out of the job market because they could not find work. Many are living on government programs.
I also know far too many 20-something men who are spending their days and nights playing computer games and living off their parents or odd jobs. This is not a good recipe for the future for them.
I know a number of young people thankful to have taken their degrees and gotten jobs at Starbucks or Costco–jobs that did not require the expensive degrees now being paid back on a $10 an hour income.
I don’t know many people in their 20s who can afford to buy homes.
I see a lot of discouraged workers, a lot of destructive behavior by people who are underemployed and a great deal of frustrated unhappiness. The people I do know who have jobs are working very long hours–or several jobs. I see divisions being cut in half and more work piled on the employees left.
Workers in the medical field are stressed and under intense pressure. Teachers are frustrated by conditions. Even the accountants aren’t particularly happy counting pennies.
My own job is continually challenging because of technology issues and the desperation of people to be published–people who think that will solve their financial problems–while publishing houses fire editors and outsource marketing to the same authors.
And for those who do have some pennies to rub together, the interest rates are at .0015% at the glorious Bank of America.
Help me out here. Where’s the silver lining?
Well, at least in California, we’ve got fracking!
LikeLike
In the article you cite; it says people can’t run for office (elected I assume). The draft policy only mentions appointed.
The phrase or demonstrate a bias, by word or deed might be withdrawn and simply left at discrimination against a person.
On the bottom of page 15 you will find exemptions for religious institutions.
The policy is vague about where the discrimination “in word or deed” occurs. If its outside the job site, can an employee volunteer and write for a racist organization?? I would argue he should be allowed if he can prevent himself form acting upon it at work. There’s a delicate line here. The employer should only have the ability to limit speech and actions at the job site and nowhere else. However, an employer is also free not to do business with or hire persons who don’t exemplify the values they want to represent (hence both the city policy and the religious exemption)
LikeLike
You’re right, hwesseli, you did phrase it differently and incompletely. In the sense you used the phrase, there is no *single* “burden of proof” in any trial. A defendant can’t just say he acted in self-defense and leave it at that. He, too, must make a case. You make a straw man when you suggest “reasonably possible” is a low standard. And in Zimmerman’s case, certainly his argument that he acted in self-defense is more than a toss off, and based more than on just his ‘version’ of events. Do you think the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is a good and useful one?
Not that it’s relevant to anything, but there hasn’t been anything to show that Zimmerman posed enough of a threat to Martin such that Martin’s attacking Z was *legally* self-defense. He would never have gotten away with claiming self-defense in court for initiating an attack merely because he was being followed. Not how it works.
LikeLike
Hopefully some of the 50+ had early retirement, severage packages etc. It will be hard enough for the 20 somethings to get a job in their field let alone 50+. The unfortunate reality for those who graduated in the last 4 or 5 years is employers will soon ignore them as outdated and look at new graduates. Thus they will need to work $10 hr jobs plus continue to go to school or intern for free just to maintain credibility.
Since Congress has decided against the Keynesian approach there really isn’t much Obama and the Congress can do. Corporations are already sitting on a pile of cash both in America and abroad so tax credits are fairly useless. I don’t blame corporations, there’s no point in investing in a dead economy. However, I would employ the Keynesian approach in short I would hire Krugman. Due to the lack of public spending, private investment will be slow and unemployment will lower gradually …. more gradually than necessary.
The stress Michelle points to is the continued trend publicly and privately to employ less but expect the same results. In the short run, it may lower the deficit or turn a profit but in the long run it creates more problems. Wal mart according to a Forbes article I linked yesterday is a prime example.
LikeLike
So you can’t initiate an attack to protect yourself?? A man follows you to your car… can you pepper spray him before you reach for your keys. A man enters your home …. do you have to wait until you own life is in jeopardy or can’t you initiate the attack? A man follows you in his car and then follows you down the sidewalk, you can’t turn around and confront him or do you have to wait until he jumps you?
Zimmerman killed someone ….. he needs to prove its self-defense or its murder. There’s no dispute Zimmerman pulled the trigger. Did he have any other recourse? If yes than its murder. He had options: he could stay in the car, he could turn back sooner, he could’ve turtled, he could have fought back with non-lethal force.
LikeLike
“A man follows you in his car and then follows you down the sidewalk, you can’t turn around and confront him or do you have to wait until he jumps you?”
There is no evidence that this happen. As a matter of fact the evidence points to Zimmerman telling the truth. The timeline of the phone calls shows that Martin was almost home and apparently went back to confront Zimmerman. And the law says that it is the prosecution’s job to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt not the other way around.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is any doubt someone was killed, the question is was it self defense and thats up to the defense to prove.
LikeLike
HRW, in the US, It’s up to the prosecution to prove that it wasn’t.
LikeLike
So you can’t initiate an attack to protect yourself??
Again, you seem unfamiliar with the facts of the case. What’s making you take this view? It’s weird. What did Zimmerman do–and in what location and posture was he–that would have made Martin think he would be legally justified to initiate an attack?
Home defense is a different ball of legal wax that doesn’t translate to *this case.*
What makes you suspect Zimmerman wasn’t responding in self-defense? Do you think the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is a good and useful one? Do you suggest that, in light of all the facts presented in the case–many of which were referenced in the link Karen O provided–Zimmerman still should be convicted of something? Which law do you allege he broke?
LikeLike
I don’t think there is any doubt someone was killed
Like anyone thinks that.
the question is was it self defense and thats up to the defense to prove.
That’s not THE question. That’s not how trials work. There are MANY questions and criteria and concepts at work. That’s a good thing. A guy is being tried for murder. And the defense doesn’t need to “prove” it was self-defense, only that it was “reasonably possible.” You should know that. You pasted that in this thread. In my view, it’s quite clear there was a reasonable possibility Zimmerman was acting in self defense. I even think there’s some weird bias at play to insist otherwise.
LikeLike
I did and I suggested that it was a weak criteria so weak in fact that just about anyone could use it including Martin.
LikeLike
Michelle’s description of her impressions of the economy are similar to my own. I live in one of the strongest economic areas in the country, but many people are still struggling.
LikeLike
HRW, For there to be a question of whether Trayvon acted in self-defense or “stood his ground”, there would have to be some evidence that Zimmerman assaulted him. There was no such evidence.
LikeLike
hwesseli: So you’re saying you would convict Zimmerman? You don’t even believe he met your lofty criteria of self-defense? I’d be interested in your answers to those questions, and also this one, which I’ve asked you a number of times already: Do you believe “innocent until proven guilty” is a good and useful legal concept?
LikeLike
And what law, specifically, hwesseli, do you allege Zimmerman broke?
LikeLike
Olasky on “Zealot”:
http://www.worldmag.com/2013/07/fawning_over_falsehood_ii_zealot
LikeLike