For the life of me I cannot figure out why this would even be considered. According to KPRC Channel 2 Washington Mutual is outsourcing the storage of banking records, including account numbers, social security numbers, drivers license numbers, to a Juarez, Mexico storage facility. Copyrights won’t allow me to post the story but go here to read the whole thing.
Ciudad Juarez is probably the most crime-ridden city in Mexico. Why on earth a bank would do this is beyond me.
Wow. Good day for surprises. First, Mike Huckabee shoots up the polls and into the top tier. Then, when you least expect it, MSNBC puts two, count ‘em two, articles up about the Ron Paul phenomenon. Front page, highlighted.
Whatever you think about Ron Paul, his politics, his chances, his whatever, the truth is that he has not gotten coverage consistent with his financial or individual contributor support. From the mainstream media. I assure you that he has been covered by Lonestartimes.com.
What are they saying? In the first article linked:
Four college pals, John Lindley, Jeff Shipley, Brad Jahner, and Daniel Krauss, got a chance to whoop, holler and raise the roof Saturday. The four boisterous Iowan guys cheered on their hero, Republican presidential contender Ron Paul, as he addressed a rally in Des Moines.
“I think he’s probably the only candidate who can make big enough changes in our government to save us from economic breakdown,” said Lindley after hearing Paul.
“I was looking at Obama as somebody I was thinking about supporting,” Lindley recalled. Then his friend and roommate Krauss told him to look into Paul’s views.
“I looked at his policies and they made a lot more sense than anybody else’s.”
What did I tell you guys about a third party?
They include traditional Christian social conservatives and homeschoolers, and fresh-faced fervent college students such as Bofferding, who embrace his free market ideas and an anti-interventionist foreign policy.
Yep, who said that again?
What about the second article linked above?
Rip Van Winkle slept for 20 years and woke to find the world had passed him by. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, woke up one morning recently to find that perhaps America has caught up with him.
Paul, 72, has had a 32-year career in the House. But some voters have just now discovered Paul’s constitutionalist, individualist, “just bring all the troops home” creed.
“There is something rather amazing about the Internet,” he told his Ames supporters, about two-thirds of whom appeared to be under age 25. “I’ve been used to delivering a message very similar to what I’m delivering tonight for many, many years and not getting a whole lot of responses. And all of a sudden, there’s a whole generation of people now very excited about hearing about the message of freedom.”
Dr. Ron Paul, 72, Internet user. There’s a lesson there.
“If we don’t want the government running our lives and we get to run our lives, then we have to assume total responsibility for what we do,” he told the Ames crowd. “We have to suffer the consequences. But the great thing about this philosophy is that if you believe in life, liberty, and the right to pursue your happiness, you also believe you get to keep all of the fruits of your labor.”
Hence Paul would scrap the income tax.
“We don’t have to put anybody out in the streets,” he said. “We can just let young people —whoever wants to take care of themselves — get out of the (Social Security and Medicare) system,” he said.
Another lesson. That message is going to continue to resonate with a certain portion of the electorate. Could Little Mike be right about a November surprise?
In the wake of the Chronicle’s recent layoffs, editor Jeff Cohen sent a memo to his smoldering rubble remaining personnel. Here it is, courtesy of Banjo Jones:
Newsroom restructuring
I believe that journalism is a public service. But, also, it is a business. And as a business, this newspaper is not immune from market forces in a media world that has exploded with new voices and commercial options.
Market forces require the Chronicle to operate with reduced costs. All of you received this month’s memo from the publisher framing a downsizing. To achieve that, this week we begin to roll out a restructuring in the newsroom. This process has neither been easy or (sic) undertaken lightly.
We will go forward with fewer journalists and support staff. We need to thank those who are leaving. They have played a role in building the Houston Chronicle into a strong regional newspaper and superb Web site. Our reporting today is more aggressive, our writing is more engaging and our newspaper is more visually alluring because of them and you.
Thanks again, it’s been real, and please turn in your stapler and tape dispenser on the way out.
How are we going to do all these things with less staff? It is a logical question in light of the sheer volume of material we publish each day in print and online.
Remember, we will continue to have the largest news operation on the Gulf Coast and probably twice as many journalists as all other Houston news media outlets combined. Remember also that our competitors today operate with lean, agile staffs. Competition, as we all know, comes from every direction - to see it you only have to walk by the racks of free publications on the street corner or do a Google search on any topic that we cover. We, however, will remain bigger, more talented and more creative than all comers.
Our reorganization will require a short period of adjustment to new ways of operating and new assignments. Some of the changes are addressed below; others will be announced in the coming days and weeks. John Wilburn and I also will try to attend department meetings in November.
Barring other important committments, of course.
For now, please be aware of these new assignments:
- City/State Desk: The state operation merges with the City Desk and State Editor Laura Tolley reports to Metro Editor Tony Freemantle. Alan Bernstein becomes the local political writer. Terri Langford becomes the social services reporter.
- Foreign/National: The Foreign and National staffs combine into one department under the leadership of Chris Shively.
- Sports: Carlton Thompson is promoted to Sports Editor.
- Business: Mark Babineck moves to the business desk as an assistant business editor leading a team of reporters and running the department’s online efforts.
With all of this change, our strategy remains the same:
- Focus on scoops and enterprise in the master narratives that drive our community;
- Think Web first every day with 24/7 breaking news;
- Expand our multimedia content with video and online database initiatives;
- Develop topical Web channels that extend the reach of our Web site beyond news;
- Aggressively engage our readers with interactive journalism and community Web sites;
- Improve community coverage in our Spanish language publications in paper and online;
- Develop niche publications, as we have done with Gloss and Health, in areas with potential for building new audiences.
This is the most interesting time I can remember in 30 years of working as a journalist. I certainly wish that the enterprise did not require rigid cost control in order to stay competitive. But, in the end, I still believe that journalism is a public service, that the commerce of ideas will prevail in the marketplace and that our work will make an indelible impression on the greater Houston area and Texas.
I’ll be interested to read your comments. In related news, the Audit Bureau of Circulations will release its most recent circulation data for U.S. newspapers, including Houston’s Bleeding Information Source. My guess is circulation will be down about 3 percent.
The Rasmussen Report’s daily presidential polls for the month of October show a clear winner, a clear loser, a maybe rebounder, a front runner’s hold on the position and the ho-hum reception to a big spender.
The biggest surprise has been the national surge for Mike Huckabee. He had a net gain for the month of 6 points nationally. This surge forced Rasmussen to add him to their daily postings. He has momentum, see the trend lines in the accompanying charts.
The clear loser for the month was Fred Thompson, with a net loss of 9 points.
John McCain showed some signs of a rebound, although he tailed off at the end, resulting in a net gain of 1 point.
Rudy Giuliani seems to be weathering the early attacks, regaining and increasing his overall lead, showing a net gain for the month of 1 point. The really amazing thing is his continued strong showing in Florida and South Carolina, key states in Thompson’s overall strategy.
Mitt Romney has spent a ton of money and has the lead in the early primary states, but nationally, he is getting no traction, with a net gain of 1 point.
What will November bring?
[Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church] offer a vivid demonstration of why belief in God is dangerous if it doesn’t include the belief that God’s foremost demand is that human beings act with kindness and decency.
… Phelps and his followers appear to believe fervently in God. Their literature is replete with quotations from the Bible. But the only passages that appear to interest them are those that warn of God’s punishment for wicked behavior. Glaringly absent from their signs, websites, and press releases is the central teaching of ethical monotheism - not just that there is a God, but that God wants men and women to be good to each other. God does not smile on those who taunt victims instead of helping them.
Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Yes - but not nearly as often as it condemns those who treat others with cruelty. To the Westboro fanatics, no calling is higher than hating homosexuals and anyone who doesn’t share their hatred. But the Bible they thump so intolerantly actually teaches something quite different:
“He has shown you, O man, what is good,” the prophet Micah said. “What does God require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” It is a shining mark in America’s favor that the Westboro Baptist Church is so small.
Amen.
It’s Halloween, and since they won’t let me go trick or treating any more, the kid in me can’t resist tossing out a Top 10 Horror Films list for you to accept, reject and add to! Remember, horror films are like clothes - everybody’s tastes are different. I tend toward older films and must confess I have not seen a lot of the new movies because I consider them, generally, to be gorefests unworthy of my time (yes, I know there are exceptions and I’m sure you will point them out).
It’s hard to rate one good horror film over another, so these rankings are very loose (i.e., 1 through 4 might as well be pulled out of a hat), and I could be argued out of a change in position very easily. That said, here are RickG’s Top 10 Horror Movies Ever:
1. Halloween (1978) - John Carpenter’s tribute to Hitchcock, it started the “modern” wave of horror films (most of them substandard, such as “Friday the 13th”). Lots of shadows, not too gory, but with plenty of nervous-giggly bumps in the night. (Besides, why did it take until 1976 for someone to use this title?)
2. Psycho (1960) - What can I say (besides “Hitchcock!”)? Obviously, a coin toss away from No. 1 on this list.
3. The Omen (1976) - Is there anything scarier than the anti-Christ?
4. The Exorcist (1973) - Is there anything scarier than demon possession (except the anti-Christ)?
5. Alien (1979) - I don’t know about in space, but in theaters they sure can hear you scream.
6. Night of the Living Dead (1968) - Low budget classic that kept me afraid of dead people for years.
7. The Thing (from Another World) (1951) - The aliens really are out to get us - and James Arness is the head carrot! (Carpenter’s 1982 remake with Kurt Russell is not bad either.)
8. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) - One of only two post-70s flicks in my top ten, it has a really creepy premise. Wes Craven should have stopped at one, though.
9. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) - Is there anything scarier than your Mom not being your Mom (except, well, you know. . .)? The 1978 Donald Sutherland/Jeff Goldblum remake was mediocre (though with a clever cameo appearance by Kevin McCarthy, star of the original), and I haven’t yet seen Nicole Kidman’s 2007 version, “The Invasion”.
10. The Shining (1980) - Insanity is very scary (see “Psycho”). And who plays crazy better than Jack Nicholson?
Honorable Mention (in reverse chronological order): Gothika (2003); The Others (2001); Phantasm (1979); When a Stranger Calls (1979); Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954); Dracula (1931); Nosferatu (1922).
You can find the rundown any of these movies (or their stars) by simply typing in the name at IMDB.
Okay, it’s your turn. What top films did I omit from my list, and which ones don’t belong there? And which are ranked too low or high?
And remember, there’s no such thing as the Boogeyman.
A judge in Michigan threw the book at a first time drunk driver, giving him the maximum sentence, 93 days in jail. The guy appealed to a higher court and that judge decided the sentence was too harsh. Why?
Luis Gonzalez-Mireles was punished more for being an illegal alien than for first-time drunken driving when he was sentenced to 93 days in jail, Circuit Judge Chad Schmucker ruled.
Schmucker found the sentence by District Judge Joseph Filip improper and disproportionate, and sent it back to District Court for an appropriate sentence.
In most cases, that means little or no jail time.
Basically, he’s saying that illegal aliens have the same rights citizens have.
Gonzalez-Mireles, 21, of Ann Arbor was charged with drunken driving in Jackson on Dec. 18. Filip, citing the Mexican native’s failure to seek citizenship here, issued a maximum sentence.
“I don’t know any reason why as an illegal alien that we should spend money and services for you,” Filip told Gonzalez-Mireles at his sentencing. “You’ve done nothing but violate the law here.”
When lawyers for Gonzalez-Mireles motioned for resentencing, Filip reiterated that he did not appreciate illegal aliens thumbing their noses at America’s immigration laws.
Looks like this judge is tired of the whole illegal issue. Guess who was there to defend the illegal drunk driver?
“We believe this was an extraordinary case, for a person to be sentenced to the maximum on a first offense based on immigration status,” American Civil Liberties Union attorney Michael Steinberg said Tuesday.
Isn’t past behavior an indicator of future behavior? Was the judge right to throw the book at a first timer?
I don’t know if this has gotten much national attention, but it’s an interesting story. New Orleans D.A. Eddie Jordan has resigned, the impetus for his resignation being a racial bias suit. Basically, Jordan was a creation of the Clinton administration. He was promoted (some say over-promoted) to U.S. Attorney in 1994 in what was widely regarded as a racial choice — Clinton wanted a black U.S. Attorney, and Jordan is black.
Later, Jordan ran for D.A. and won. One of his first actions upon entering office was to fire 44 white employees from the office staff, retaining 96% of blacks on the office staff while firing over two-thirds of the whites. These employees were replaced almost entirely with blacks (98% of them, I believe).
Obviously, Jordan was immediately sued for racial discrimination and lost. He and his supporters later began arguing that the jury was wrong, and that there was no evidence of racial bias — he was only clearing out old employees to replace them with political supporters, who were overwhelmingly black. His corrupt political ally, William Jefferson, recently argued thusly:
As the first African American District Attorney, Mr. Jordan was overwhelmingly supported by the African American community. The staff of the out-going D.A. was overwhelmingly white. Mr. Jordan’s effort to hire qualified people whom he knew or who were supportive of his campaign naturally meant that the pool of such applicants would overwhelmingly be African Americans.
Every D.A. has been accorded the right to let go the prior D.A.’s personnel and hire his own. It is unfortunate that in this case Mr. Jordan’s effort to follow this well-established practice ended with the appearance that he was discriminating against a segment of the population. I did not believe then, and I do not believe now that this was ever his intention.”
The problem is that Jordan’s own attorney argued that he had a racial motive — that it was more than just patronage. Yes friends, he relied on the “diversity” rationale:
“This is not discrimination, this is a political effort to create diversity,” [Jordan’s] lawyer Philip Schuler told the jury of eight whites and two blacks. “This case is about politics, not about race discrimination.”
In New Orleans, the workforce is overwhelmingly black, the lawyer noted - nearly 70 percent. Jordan merely wanted to “have a workforce more reflective of the community,” he said. “If Eddie Jordan is racist, how is it that Eddie Jordan retained 57 white assistant district attorneys,” Schuler asked. “These were his key positions.”
Jordan didn’t fire the white ADA’s because he couldn’t replace them. However, racism was irrelevant anyway. The point is that while you can *hire* people based upon race thanks to affirmative action, you cannot *fire* people based upon race, even if your motives don’t arise from racial animus but rather out of an affinity for racial diversity. Everybody has a right not to be fired because of the color of their skin.
In any case, the bill recently came due and the D.A.’s office faced a shutdown if it attempted to pay the now $3.7 million verdict (it was originally $1.9 million, but legal interest has now almost doubled it). Accordingly, Mayor Nagin and others worked behind the scenes to reach an agreement whereby if Jordan would resign, the city would handle the judgment.
Not the best outcome, eh?
It’s easy to tell that the primary season is almost upon us. The candidates are fighting in the press daily, trying to get their message out. This AP report features Rudy, Mitt and Fred sparring on illegal immigration.
Responsibility for stopping illegal immigration belongs to the federal government and not to cities, states or businesses, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Tuesday.
Giuliani told small-business owners he would not punish them for unwittingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Hard to argue with that. It doesn’t help, however, when cities actively oppose federal law. And you shouldn’t punish unwitting employers, true. But you must take on those employers that systematically hire illegal labor to keep their costs down.
“And if you elect one of my (Republican) opponents, they want to crack down on cities and states, and they want to crack down on businesses, but they don’t want to solve the problem,” he said. “If I become president, in a very short while, you will not be able to walk into the United States without identifying yourselves.”
I hope that’s correct because at this point, Rudy is still leading in all national polls and is still the only candidate that, according to the polls, can defeat Mrs. Clinton in the general election.
But let’s hear from the other candidates.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has criticized Giuliani for defending New York’s “sanctuary” policy, which barred city workers from reporting suspected illegal immigrants who enrolled their children in school or sought hospital treatment.
“If the mayor is just looking to place blame, all he needs to do is look in a mirror,” Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said Tuesday. “Stopping illegal immigration is about actually enforcing existing immigration laws.”
I’d say that’s a fair rebuttal. What about Fred?
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, has accused both Giuliani and Romney of being weak on immigration.
“As mayor, Rudy Giuliani told city employees to ignore federal law and barred them from assisting federal immigration agents, and yet he now expects voters to believe he’d be tough on our borders?” said Thompson spokesman Jeff Sadosky.
Another factual rebuttal.
The race is definitely heating up. Each candidate has a different strategy, makes for fun reading and good arguing!
I had an opportunity to observe about a half hour of the two hour Democratic presidential debate last night. A pleasant half hour it wasn’t but hey, someone has to do it.
It’s popular in conservative circles to say that you should skip the presidential box if your guy doesn’t get the nomination. After watching last nights debacle, I’ve only got one thing to say - I’m not skipping the box, no matter which Republican candidate gets the nod. Even…well, you know.
In the short time I watched it, I heard this:
Sen. Clinton says that we should follow New York Gov. Spitzer’s plan to give illegal aliens drivers licenses. Then she said we shouldn’t. The other candidates called her on it, saying they didn’t understand her answer. No kidding.
Obama says yes, we should give illegals drivers licenses. For safety.
Edwards was trying to give away the farm again. Everyone needs. Everyone wants. Should be “everyone takes”.
Biden actually said that he’s been in Congress so long, people have forgotten all the wonderful things he’s done. Does he know that Congress’ approval ratings are almost in single digits?
Dodd said, yes, he did, that when oil prices go above $40/barrel, all of that money should be “reinvested”. Who better than the government to do that through taxes, right, Christopher?
Richardson didn’t say much while I watched. One after debate report said he answered the lowest number of questions on the panel.
Kucinich? Well, he confirmed that he did see a UFO. But he restored some of his credibility by noting that Democrat favorite Jimmy Carter did too.
Skip the box? Nope, no way, no how, not gonna happen.
Zombie Baby courtesy of Fasternu426
A Halloween Story
A young man was walking home from a club. It was a cold, wet, windy evening, and he was tired and freezing. Most of the streetlights in the area were broken, and the silence was only broken by the occasional sound of a stray cat, sifting through a dumpster. Then suddenly he heard a strange noise…
BUMP …
BUMP …
BUMP …
Startled by this, he turned, and to his amazement, through the driving rain, he saw the faint outline of a large box turning into his path.
BUMP …
BUMP …
BUMP …
——————–
Job Wanted–Prepress production operator seeking day shift position with opportunity to eventually advance into supervisory role. Candidate has over seventeen years experience in the printing industry working in diverse fields from newspaper to high-end clients including Pepsi, Mary Kay Cosmetics, R. J. Reynolds, Donruss Sports Trading Cards, etc.
Applicant has a B.A. in Communication Arts and has a wide range of experiences from graphic design and ad building to preflight and prepress service. Project experience is also widely diverse including packaging, multi-page layout and trading cards. Interested parties should contact candidate with resume request via email at “cchd AT houston DOT rr DOT com”.
——————–
Get paid to tell us what you think– Register to participate in one of our focus groups; earn money telling us what you think about politics, your community and consumer goods. Click here to learn more and sign-up!
——————–
——————–
Dawn Wolf Design– LST’s full-service graphic designer of choice. Talented, professional, competitively priced; a generous LST volunteer, we could not recommend her more highly. | 713-984-9200 | website
——————–
Just moments ago, I spoke by phone with Ron Paul press spokesman Jesse Benton regarding a $500 contribution made to the campaign by notorious neo-Nazi Don Black (first exposed here on LST).
The conversation was friendly and professional, and I thank Mr. Benton for getting back in touch with me and being willing to go on the record.
What follows is a paraphrased summary of the questions asked and Benton’s responses (questions were not asked verbatim, but basic thrust was communicated; answers were read back to Benton to assure accuracy and allow him an opportunity to clarify or expand).
————————-
Can Paul confirm that the donation widgets appearing on Stormfront are the result of the site owner’s actions, not the campaign’s?
Yes, absolutely. The donation widgets are freely available to the general public, and anyone can put them on their website without the knowledge of the campaign. We are not advertising on Stormfront.
————————-
Will Paul take measures to block Stormfront as a referring URL to his own website, so that no future donations can possibly flow into his campaign from a site that serves as the on-line nexus of neo-Nazism?
Will Paul ask his own web-staff to trace past donations that were made by anyone arriving at his campaign’s webpage from Stormfront, so that these contributions can be rejected?
Will Paul explore if there are any legal actions available to try to remove his donation widget from Stormfront, and if so pursue them?
We hadn’t thought of these options, but I’ll bring up these ideas with the campaign director.
Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken.
I doubt there is anything we can do legally.
Tracking donations that came from Stormfront’s site sounds more complicated. I’m concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation.
It is important to keep in mind is that we didn’t solicit this support, and we aren’t interested in spending all of our time and resources focused on this issue. We want to focus on Dr. Paul’s positive agenda for freedom.
————————-
At the very least, will Paul personally state publicly, vigorously and unmistakably that he rejects the support of white supremacists, and that he will not knowingly tolerate their involvement with his campaign in any form or to any degree?
Until three days ago, neither Dr. Paul nor anyone else in the campaign had any idea who Don Black was or is. We’ve never met or communicated with him. We did not solicit his support.
It is certainly unfortunate that the campaign’s donation banner is on his site. We’re not rushing to spend a lot of time reading what’s over there, but what you’ve described is certainly repugnant, and completely anathema to everything Dr. Paul stands for.
————————-
Bottom line– Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?
At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black’s contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days.
————————-
There you go America–what say you?
Oh, no! The Halloween Party on Castro Street has been canceled!
This Halloween, the Glindas, gladiators and harem boys of the Castro — along with untold numbers who plan to dress up as Senator Larry E. Craig, this year’s camp celebrity — will be celebrating behind closed doors. The city’s most popular Halloween party, in America’s largest gay neighborhood, is canceled.
I guess Rudy will have to find another place to wear his latest dress. But why is the party being canceled?
The once-exuberant street party, a symbol of sexual liberation since 1979 has in recent years become a Nightmare on Castro Street, drawing as many as 200,000 people, many of them costumeless outsiders, and there has been talk of moving it outside the district because of increasing violence. Last year, nine people were wounded when a gunman opened fire at the celebration.
Because it is no better than any other drunk fest where people let their inhibitions get completely out of control.
More interesting to me, the whole concept of having special gay sections of cities, termed gayborhoods, is going out of fashion as homosexuals seek acceptance in the general community.
At the same time, cities not widely considered gay meccas have seen a sharp increase in same-sex couples. Among them: Fort Worth; El Paso; Albuquerque; Louisville, Ky.; and Virginia Beach, according to census figures and extrapolations by Dr. Gates for The New York Times. “Twenty years ago, if you were gay and lived in rural Kansas, you went to San Francisco or New York,” he said. “Now you can just go to Kansas City.”
In the Castro, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Historical Society held public meetings earlier this year to grapple with such questions as “Are Gay Neighborhoods Worth Saving?”
I’ll answer that last question - NO. People are tired of in your face activism on the part of homosexuals. What you do in the privacy of your home is your business, I just don’t need it in my face if I want to watch a movie or catch some live music in Houston’s Montrose area.
Amanda Rankin, a 40-year-old tourist from Hamilton, Ontario, was taking a “Cruisin’ the Castro” walking tour with three lesbian friends the other day.
“In America there still seems to be a lot of sexual repression left over from Puritanism and the pilgrims,” Ms. Rankin said. “Then there’s San Francisco.”
Yeah, sure, I’m repressing your sexuality if I don’t support the Folsom Street Fair. Got it.
Some people are blaming the demise of gayborhoods on the Internet.
Doug Sebesta, the group’s executive director and a medical sociologist at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, said, “I’ve had therapists who have told me they are asking their clients to go back to bars as a way of social interaction.”
The Internet is not a replacement for a neighborhood where people are involved in issues beyond themselves, said John Newsome, an African-American who co-founded the group And Castro For All after the Badlands incident. “There are a lot of really lonely gay people sitting in front of a computer,” he said.
Heh.
Last week, we reported on the Chronicle’s intent to lay off five percent of its workforce. Now, Houstoned tells us just who is getting the axe:
Among the familiar names taking the buyouts are Louis B. Parks of the features section and Salatheia Bryant and Melanie Markley of the news side.
Among those leaving in a less voluntary manner are Steve McVicker, the former Houston Press reporter who’s been bird-dogging the HPD crime-lab scandal, and Thomas Korosec, the former Dallas Observer reporter who has been the Chron’s Dallas bureau.
Banjo Jones has more names:
Andrew Guy (features), Judy Minshew (editorial), Valarie White (business secretary), Bruce Westbrook (features) and Patty Reinert in Washington, we’re told.
REDACTED PER CORRECTION FROM BANJO JONES; PLEASE SEE UPDATE BELOW
Layoffs have been a regular event at Houston’s Bleeding Information Source, with a 10 percent cut in 2004 and a 7 percent cut in 2005,
But hey, look at the bright side. Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen has his handicap down to a 9. Nice shooting, Jeff!
[Hat-tip: blogHOUSTON]
UPDATED– Banjo Jones has issued a correction to his earlier post, which we reproduce below in full:
Bruce Westbrook has contacted us to say we were wrong in reporting he’s gonna sue the Houston Chronicle for alleged age discrimination. We regret the error and at his request have edited any mention of him off the incorrect post that went out earlier today and which, unfortunately, was picked up by a Web site frequented by many, many journalists around the country, as well as a few other Web outlets.
We’re sorry.
All we can say is the person who relayed the erroneous information to us gave us some bum info.
Our apologies to Mr. Westbrook. Good luck to you, sir.
From us here at LST as well.
In what is becoming an all to familiar alliance, President Bush and Congressional Democrats are trying to shove the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) down our throats again. This beast has a history going back to the 1970s and seems to rear its ugly head every decade or so:
The Law of the Sea Treaty originated in the 1970s as part of the United Nations’ redistributionist agenda known as the “New International Economic Order.” The convention covers such issues as fishing and navigation, but the controversy arose mainly over seabed mining. In essence, the Law of the Sea Treaty was designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrialized states to the Third World.
Two decades ago, President Ronald Reagan ignored criticism of American unilateralism and refused to sign the treaty. U.S. leadership caused the Europeans and even the Soviet Union to stay out. Many Third World states eventually acknowledged the treaty’s many flaws.
But treaties attract diplomats as lights attract moths. The first Bush and Clinton administrations worked to “fix” the treaty, leading to a revised agreement in 1994. Washington signed, leading to a cascade of ratifications from other countries. GOP gains in Congress, however, dissuaded the Clinton administration from pushing for ratification. Now George W. Bush has stepped in where Bill Clinton feared to tread.
So what’s so bad about this treaty? Well, many things, but here’s a major one:
At its center is the International Seabed Authority. The Authority (as it calls itself) supervises a mining subsidiary called the Enterprise, ruled by an Assembly, Council, and various commissions and committees. Mining approval would be highly politicized and could discriminate against American operators. Companies that are allowed to mine would owe substantial fees to the Authority and be required to do surveys for the Enterprise, their government-subsidized competitor.
Anyone with half a brain should be able to look at the nest of vipers known as the United Nations and know that giving any “international authority” the right to control our commerce is insane. And we even have veto power of the UN! It gets worse. Not only can we be prevented from mining but, since we have the technology, the “Authority” can force us to provide the technology to nations that don’t have those capabilities:
However, “sponsoring states” — that is, governments of nations where mining companies are located-would have to facilitate such transfers if the Enterprise and Third World competitors are “unable to obtain” necessary equipment commercially. Depending on the whims of the Authority, ensuring the “cooperation” of private miners could look very much like mandatory transfers.
The best part is have to pay for our own rape!
The Authority, though so far of modest size, would suffer from the same perverse incentives that afflict the U.N., since the United States would be responsible for 25 percent of the budget but easily outmaneuvered.
In a FrontPage Magazine article today Frank Gaffney, Jr. wonders where the US media is on this, despite the Republican leadership in Congress in lockstep against it:
According to Senator Jon Kyl, the entire Senate Republican leadership is now opposed to a controversial treaty supported by the president and an implausible alliance of special interests – from the U.S. Navy to Greenpeace. At a joint press conference last Wednesday, he was one of several Senators to declare that, as a result, supporters would be unable to muster the necessary 67 votes for ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Yet, it seems not one of the “establishment” media organs felt moved to report these momentous political developments.
More extraordinary still is the apparent news-blackout concerning the fact that virtually every Republican presidential candidate (with the surprising, and hopefully ephemeral, exception of Rudy Giuliani) has announced either outright opposition to the Treaty or deep misgivings about its inevitable effect: conferring more power on international organizations at the expense of U.S. sovereignty. Apart from a front-page article in the Washington Times last Friday and postings by an array of on-line news outlets, bloggers and a couple of newsletters, the so-called “mainstream media” have denied the American people virtually any information about LOST’s growing difficulties.
Yet another reason (in a long line of reasons) why Rudy Tutti won’t get my vote. Another interesting thing is that the Democrat-controlled Senate is holding classified hearings with only “official” (read favorable) witnessess:
Then there is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It did manage to hold a hearing on LOST, but it was a classified session and only featured official witnesses. Unsurprisingly, all of them supported ratification. What is surprising, though, is Chairman Jay Rockefeller’s uncharacteristic acceptance at face value of representations by executive branch officials like Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. Based on such testimony, Sen. Rockefeller recently signed a letter with GOP Vice Chairman Kit Bond declaring that U.S. adherence to the Treaty would have no negative implications for U.S. intelligence. While there are strong arguments to the contrary, like Mr. Biden, Sen. Rockefeller has no time for a second opinion that might produce inconvenient truths.
As things stand now, the Foreign Relations Committee’s inaccurate and unbalanced record will be the only public one Senators have to go on. Formal requests made by Sen. Jim Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate’s Armed Services and Environment and Public Works committees, asking them to examine the Treaty’s myriad repercussions for matters within their jurisdiction are going unanswered.
So, in what seems to have become all too common, start contacting your Congressmen and kill this monstrosity. Here’s a handy dandy link to help out.
More facts are emerging surrounding the issue of Mexican owned and licensed trucks crossing the border.
But more than 1,000 south-of-the-border companies are already allowed to drive cargo beyond the border zone under a long-standing exemption to the U.S. moratorium on Mexican long-haul trucking.
And these Mexican drivers and trucks have had better driver and vehicle safety records than their U.S. counterparts in recent years, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation — although opponents say many violations never get recorded because of sloppy government record-keeping.
Isn’t it interesting how every time something comes to light that puts Mexican trucks on equal footing with American units, the facts are dismissed because of “sloppy government record-keeping”?
Opening the highways has long been a goal of both the United States and Mexico. Promoters say it will create new business opportunities on both sides of the border and make international trade more efficient. Trucks were supposed to begin rolling both ways in 2000 under the North American Free Trade Agreement, but interest groups in the U.S. blocked it. Meanwhile, Canadian truckers face no such restrictions.
Why is one country’s trucks free to roam our interstates but another country’s trucks aren’t? Safety? Not according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Of the exempted companies, 859 were active from 2003 to 2006, and their drivers and trucks were subject to U.S. inspections for violations that would put them out of service until corrected. The “out-of-service” rates for long-haul Mexican trucks was 21.3 percent, compared with 23.5 percent for U.S. trucks, and the rate for Mexican drivers was 1.2 percent compared with 7 percent for U.S. drivers, said FMCSA communications chief Melissa Mazzella DeLaney.
But like I said, facts are easily dismissed by opponents.
“We simply think they’re making stuff up as they go along,” said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the U.S.-based Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
Of course they’re making this up! Everyone knows that the FMCSA is nothing more than a puppet for the Bush administrations goal to form a North American Union! Oh, and fire doesn’t melt steel. Really.
