Good evening, Morons and Moronettes...

I'm tmi3rd, and I'll be filling in tonight as CDR M is off doing his actual, y'know, real job and stuff.

All sorts of goodies under the fold... let's begin!

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:28 PM | Comments (601)
Post contains 614 words, total size 5 kb.

Jake Tapper reporting; the "as soon as this weekend" is reported in the video at the top of the page.

Russia has formally accepted Crimea's request to join the Russian state. (Ahem.) They have troops on the Ukrainian border -- for purposes of "training exercises" -- and are furthermore infiltrating Spetsnaz commandos over the border in order to begin operations.

U.S. officials believe [that] Russia is invading Ukraine with its Spetsnaz—the special operations units and battalions attached to both the military and the country’s intelligence agencies.

An American intelligence report predicted that Russian provocateurs would look to instigate low-level street brawls or “skirmishes” in eastern and southern Ukraine.
U.S. intelligence officials now say Russia’s Spetsnaz are expanding into eastern and southern Ukraine, as well. The intelligence report from February assessed that Russian provocateurs would look to instigate low-level street brawls or “skirmishes” in eastern and southern Ukraine. The report also predicted that Russia’s shadow warriors would seek to pay off Ukrainians to attend pro-Russian rallies and in general fan the flames of separatism. And since then, eyewitnesses say, that’s exactly what’s happened.

...

Schindler said the GRU Spetznas were following a similar playbook of provocations or “active measures” taken in the Republic of Georgia following the country’s 2005 Rose Revolution. “This sort of Spetznas special operations, intel-driven exercise is the continuing Russian refinement of the same model used in Georgia,” he said.

Russia is reported to have troops along the entirety of the Ukrainian frontier, at least double the number they previously said would be taking part in this snap "training exercise."

Pro-Russian "crowds" meanwhile seized two Ukrainian warships in Crimea yesterday.

Posted by: Ace at 03:35 PM | Comments (530)
Post contains 305 words, total size 3 kb.

There is one good thing here: I would hit that. In fact I'd hit 80% of this panel.

Repeatedly the Headline News anchor claims that psychics are sometimes consulted in murder and missing persons investigations. Yes, but: They are consulted when a child has been missing for 50 days, and the parents are distraught and inconsolable, and the community is demanding that no stone, no matter how preposterous, remain unturned.

In other words, it's a PR sop to grieving parents and the Do Something!!!! brigade of any community.

But Headline News indulges in the stunt because a reader suggested it.

Why I always take serious heed of the random suggestions of illogical people!!!

The HLN anchor starts off by asking the psychic why she's saying she "sees" a crash when there's no hard evidence of this. The psychic says that psychics should never have hard evidence, because hard evidence may mislead them.

Yeah it's pretty dumb. Another day in the media.

Oh, and when the psychic says she just started looking at this because she's recently been doing readings for friends and family of the presumed victims, there's an audible gasp from one of the guests, I think. Like "Oh my God, we're enabling a charlatan to bilk the grieving and desperate."

Right. That's why you shouldn't have psychics on, you know.

And bravo for claiming you "don't know" if psychics are real or not.

Video (autoplay!) here.

And check the link for a funny Onion parody about the media's behavior in all this.

Posted by: Ace at 02:40 PM | Comments (282)
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

If Malaysian Flight MH370 is actually down in the southern part of the Indian Ocean, the environmentals there will make any detection or recovery difficult. "Roaring Forties" winds, gyrating ocean currents post Malaysian plane search nightmare. more...

Posted by: CDR M at 05:56 PM | Comments (928)
Post contains 323 words, total size 5 kb.

You can read their response here.

Here is what they claim. All emphases in the below quotes are added by me.

First, regarding the political leaning of the group that brought this story to our attention, our article makes clear its left-wing origins, the controversial nature of its earlier claims, and its political agenda.

Oh? They make it clear that the group was left-wing?

Here's what the original article says about the group:

The Koch Industries subsidiary holds leases on 1.1 million acres -- an area nearly the size of Delaware -- in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, according to an activist group that studied Alberta provincial records.

An "activist" group -- no political leaning specified. Note, of course, that the media tends to claim leftwing groups are nonpartisan subject-matter-area advocacy groups, with no political leaning, whereas right-leaning groups are always noted as partisan.

Like right here, in the original article:

The biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.

Why weren't they simply called "activist"? Further, why aren't they called "libertarian?" They self-identify as libertarian; in fact, everyone except these writers seems to identify them as libertarian.

But the left-wing group is merely termed "activist" and the Koch Brothers are incorrectly termed "conservative."

And then they claim they made the report's left-wing genesis "clear."

Where? Later on the article says that "environmental groups" and Harry Reid are attacking Keystone, but that's not linked to this "activist" group.

This is what I think the writers are relying on when they say the original article made it "clear" this group had a political agenda:

“IFG’s intention is to demonstrate the Koch-Keystone connection,” says IFG’s Victor Menotti.

That doesn't confess the group's political agenda. If there really is a Koch-Keystone connection, that would not be a matter of politics, but of simple factual reportage. One can come away from reading that thinking "These IFG people are just trying to get at the hidden truth" -- like an unbiased investigative reporter might, or like an apolitical "activist" group might.

This is hardly the writers making IFG's leftwing political agenda "clear" -- especially because these writers, given the chance to specifically note IFG's leftwing politics, instead resorted to the euphemism "activist."

By the way, I see nothing in the original article stating that the "activist" group's report is "controversial" in any way, though the writers now claim the original article made it "clear" that the report was "controversial" (meaning, here, I think: contested).

The Washington Post writers seem to accept almost all of it as non-controversial and non-contested.

They did note one point of contestation:

Second, regarding whether Koch would benefit from the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, we make clear that many of KochÂ’s leases pre-date the pipeline plan, that Koch has not bid for space in the pipeline, and that Koch would not be a customer.

In fact, the original article does say some of this:

The link between Koch and Keystone XL is, however, indirect at best. Koch’s oil production in northern Alberta is “negligible,” according to industry sources and quarterly publications of the provincial government. Moreover, Koch has not reserved any space in the Keystone XL pipeline, a process that usually takes place before a pipeline is built. The pipeline also does not run anywhere near Koch’s refining facilities. And TransCanada, owner of the Keystone routes, says Koch is not expected to be one of the pipeline’s customers.

But then watch how they take that all away to re-assert the "activist" group's claims:

Still, the activist group that is publicizing the figures about Koch holdings in the oil sands – the International Forum on Globalization – is arguing that Koch will benefit indirectly.

Let me note that this same group has estimated a $120 billion loss to the Koch's economic forecasts over the long term (50 years). It takes an awful lot of "indirect benefits" to make up for $120 billion.

But the Washington Post writers suggest that the "activist" group's report still might be true anyway. Maybe those Koch's will reap >$120 billion in "indirect benefits," I guess.

Not to mention the article says this early on, telegraphing its belief in the "Koch-Keystone" connection by hinting at suspect motives and hidden agendas on the part of the Koch brothers:

What is Koch Industries doing there? The company wouldn't comment on its holdings or strategy, but it appears to be a long-term investment that could produce tens of thousands of barrels of the region's thick brand of crude oil in the next three years and perhaps hundreds of thousands of barrels a few years after that.

Sort of conspiratorial, isn't it? What is Koch Industries doing there?

Um, gee, what is an energy company doing leasing property in energy-extraction areas?

Next, they claim their original statement that the Koch's are the largest leaseholder in the province is close enough:

Third, if Koch’s lease holdings are 1.1 million acres, that would make it one of the region’s largest, rivaled only by Shell (1 million net acres through an Athabasca joint venture and perhaps 1.3 million net acres altogether), Cenovus Energy (1.5 million net acres), and perhaps Canadian Natural Resources (717,000 net undeveloped acres plus an undetermined number of developed acres). Shell declined to release its total acreage figures. If Koch's lease holdings are “closer to two million,” as has been said by industry sources we consider highly authoritative, then Koch is indeed the largest lease holder in the province.

Now Koch's holdings of 1.1 million acres are "one of the region's largest," not the largest, as previously claimed, and furthermore, the article resorts to claiming that who knows, maybe they've got 2 million acres.

So now the Post is going back to the earlier claim?

Note what the original article claimed:

The Post confirmed the groupÂ’s findings with Alberta Energy, the provincial governmentÂ’s ministry of energy. Separately, industry sources familiar with oil sands leases said KochÂ’s lease holdings could be closer to two million acres. The companies with the next biggest net acreage positions in oil sands leases are Conoco Phillips and Shell, both close behind.

The original article notes that even the "activist" group has retreated from the 2 million figure, but now the 2 million is conveniently back in play when these writers need it to be?

Last October, IFG said that Koch owned two million acres in the oil sands; now it says the true figure – based on the Alberta provincial government’s mineral lease records that it links to -- is smaller but still an impressive, industry-leading 1.1 million acres.

What exactly are they now claiming is "confirmed"? They claimed to have confirmed this earlier; they are implicitly retreating from that. They first stated that, as a confirmed factual matter, the Koch brothers were the largest leaseholders in the province; now they say they could be the largest leaseholders, if unconfirmed but claimed estimates (by outside parties) are true.

Here's how the defense ends:

The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothersÂ’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year. ThatÂ’s why we wrote the piece.

Oh, I see. You just meant to explore "the issues" surrounding "the Koch brothers' political and business interests."

Which is a recitation of the "activist" group's central thesis: That the Koch brothers' political interests are deeply intertwined with their business interests.

The claim that they were writing merely to illustrate that the leftwing gets all spazzy when you bring up the Koch brothers is risible.

You didn't already see "strong evidence' of this in the left-wing -- I mean, "activist" -- group's report, or in Harry Reid's daily Two Minute Hates against the Koch Brothers?

You didn't attempt to claim any of these facts to be independently true, but only that the Koch Brothers would continue to be controversial on the left?

If so, why didn't you call this "activist" group by its accurate descriptor, "leftwing?"

And why is it that only Powerline's tone and attitude suggests political agenda here, rather than the "activist" group's?

Or, frankly, your own tone and attitude?

Posted by: Ace at 01:14 PM | Comments (268)
Post contains 1392 words, total size 9 kb.

David Harsanyi, Senior Editor at The Federalist and author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy joins Ace, Gabe and John to thoroughly depress you about the future of the country, but in a fun way.

Presented, of course, in Chill Groove^® Infotainment Format.

Intro/Outro: Justin Timberlake - Mirrors / Notorious B.I.G. - Hypnotize (NSFW)

Chill Groove: Notorious B.I.G. - Hypnotize (Instrumental)

Questions & comments here: Ask the Blog

Listen: [Stitcher] | [MP3 Download] | Subscribe: [RSS] | [iTunes]

Follow on Twitter:
AoSHQ Podcast (@AoSHQPodcast)
Ace (@AceofSpadesHQ)
Drew M. (@DrewMTips)
Gabriel Malor (@GabrielMalor)
John E. (@JohnEkdahl)
Andy (@TheH2 and @AndyM1911)

Open thread in the comments.

BTW (ace): We got the time under control this episode. We're going to be better about sticking to a 1:15/1:20 running length.

Posted by: andy at 12:16 PM | Comments (197)
Post contains 135 words, total size 2 kb.

Guess which is which?

According to data released on Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Midland, Texas, has a 2.9 percent unemployment rate, the lowest in the country.

Midland sits above the Permian Basin Shale, a massive formation that constitutes a large chunk of TexasÂ’ booming shale oil industry.

The West Texas town is also one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country, which many attribute to its booming oil-fueled economy.

...

As a result of MidlandÂ’s fracking-induced oil glut, the townÂ’s increasing population is also enjoying a boost in personal incomes. Per capita income in the city increased by 25 percent between 2009 and 2011.

...

In contrast to the successes of those oil and gas boomtowns, Yuma, Ariz., is facing the highest unemployment rate of any U.S. metro area at a whopping 26.1 percent.

Yuma is the site of the Agua Caliente solar plant—the largest photovoltaic solar generation facility in the world.

Agua Caliente received a $967 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy (DOE) in 2011. According to DOE, federal financing helped create 10 permanent jobs.

Ten jobs for almost a billion dollars.

That's damned good.

Via @slublog.

Posted by: Ace at 11:36 AM | Comments (267)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

@johnekdahl sends this along, noting that it's one of my pet peeves. While, for example, that Pennsylvania AG case will be ignored by the national press (as the Gosnell case was ignored as a "local crime story"), all the left has to do is get one of its many house organs to type up a largely false and misleading report, send it over to one of the country's allegedly "mainstream" media outfits, and wait for its claims to be endlessly retransmitted throughout the country.

Powerline notes that a left-wing organization wrote up a report claiming that the Koch Brothers stood to benefit greatly from their operation of tar-sands operations in Alberta.

There are numerous problems with the claims made. The report claims, falsely, that the Koch Brothers are the largest leaseholders of Canada's tar sands. That's simply false. Apparently the article compares their holdings to Exxon and Conoco and Chevron but fails to check for other leaseholders -- other companies own more.

They then assume that companies with the most acreage of leaseholds must be producing the most oil -- which is false. The Koch Brothers' holdings are in fact largely non-productive. Despite their acreage of leaseholds, they're a "negligible" producer as far as actual extraction of oil.

But the last misleading claim made is that the Koch Brothers stand to make a windfall from the Keystone XL pipeline. This not only isn't true, but it's admitted as not being true in the left-wing organization's own report:

The astonishing thing about the IFG report is that it admitted that the Keystone Pipeline will damage KochÂ’s economic interests. Keystone would funnel Canadian oil to the Midwest, thereby driving down oil prices in that region. The original IFG report admitted that this would cost Koch $120 billion! Now, that is a stupid number based on a 50-year projection. But still, the basic point is correct: the Keystone Pipeline would hurt Koch Enterprises economically, which is why Koch has never come out in favor of the pipeline or lobbied on its behalf.

The IFG report hypothesized that despite this $120 billion hit, Koch would come out ahead in the long run–the very long run!–by selling two million acres worth of Alberta oil. Just one small problem: they forgot to consider the fact that the size of the Keystone Pipeline, 830,000 barrels per day, limits the speed with which Koch can recoup its $120 billion loss. As I calculated in my post, it would take 476 years for Koch to break even, using IFG’s own numbers.

So why make all these claims?

Because the Democratic Party has a lot invested in the proposition that the Koch Brothers are boogeymen and the Keystone Pipeline is their boogey-baby.

In the pages of the "mainstream" media press, the truth is whatever the Democratic Party needs it to be for this particular two-minute hate.

And there's some Democratic operative/media incestuousness here too, of course. Click over to Powerline for that.

Posted by: Ace at 10:12 AM | Comments (307)
Post contains 522 words, total size 3 kb.

It was always the plan.

Emanuel reveals this in a new book, as reports the New York Times.

Mr. Emanuel expects the law to produce an unadvertised but fundamental shift in where most working Americans get their health insurance — specifically, a sharp drop in the number of employers who offer coverage to their workers. That scale of change would dwarf what took place last fall, when a political firestorm erupted over President Obama’s “if you like your plan you can keep it” pledge.

His former colleagues in the Obama White House say there is no evidence the law will bring “the end of employer-sponsored insurance"...

But now Mr. Emanuel thinks that a number of well-known national companies will break the mold and begin a trend. By his estimation, the proportion of private-sector workers who receive health care from employers will fall below 20 percent by 2025. Currently, just under 60 percent of private-sector workers get health care from employers.

“It’ll be a matter of a few big employers, blue-chip companies,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview. “Then it’s going to be the norm.”

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 AM | Comments (435)
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.

First of all, the background:

The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office ran an undercover sting operation over three years that captured leading Philadelphia Democrats, including four members of the city's state House delegation, on tape accepting money, The Inquirer has learned.

Yet no one was charged with a crime.

Prosecutors began the sting in 2010 when Republican Tom Corbett was attorney general. After Democrat Kathleen G. Kane took office in 2013, she shut it down.

In a statement to The Inquirer on Friday, Kane called the investigation poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted by racism, saying it had targeted African Americans.

...

Before Kane ended the investigation, sources familiar with the inquiry said, prosecutors amassed 400 hours of audio and videotape that documented at least four city Democrats taking payments in cash or money orders, and in one case a $2,000 Tiffany bracelet.

Typically, the payments made at any one time were relatively modest - ranging from $500 to $2,000 - but most of those involved accepted multiple payments, people familiar with the investigation said. In some cases, the payments were offered in exchange for votes or contracts, they said.

Sources with knowledge of the sting said the investigation made financial pitches to both Republicans and Democrats, but only Democrats accepted the payments.

...

Sources with knowledge of the sting said Ali approached a wide range of officials, from both parties, black and white. In time, the sources said, Ali didn't even have to reach out to elected officials. They called him.

Tyron B. Ali was a lobbyist who'd been caught in a $430,000 fraud case. Apparently prosecutors recruited him to wear a wire for this investigation. He was connected to the political culture of west Philadelphia, because that's where he'd operated before. That, rather than race, accounts for who he did or didn't contact. (And, apparently, elected officials were calling him, anyway.)

Given this explosive slam-dunk corruption case, Kane chooses to disappear it, and issues a single quote when asked about it: that the case is "nothing more than the Good Ol' Boys club playing political games to discredit me in order to fulfill their own selfish and improper agenda."

And now, via the Ungrateful Loaf of Bread, she seems to be threatening the free press in an effort to cover up her cover up.

During the meeting, Sprague [Kane's new lawyer] suggested that The Inquirer may have been used by the sources of its stories – “wittingly or unwittingly” as a “weapon” to attack Kane to defend themselves from potential charges of wrongdoing in the management of the probe.

“I intend to look at the investigation from the very beginning to the conclusion of it, and in terms of what has been published, by this paper and others, to take appropriate action on behalf of the attorney general against those responsible for the defamatory and the false publications that have been made,” Sprague said.

Incredible. Incredible.

Posted by: Ace at 07:16 AM | Comments (473)
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.