Thursday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, June 2. 2016

Pic from around W 14th St. last weekend, with the wonderful Chelsea Market, housed in an old Nabisco factory, in back

The ‘Other NRA’ and the Future of American Food - The
2016 annual meeting of the National Restaurant Association is all about
“local” food — with a very liberal definition of “local.”

Campbell Apartment to ask judge to block eviction

Against Historic Preservation

The Big Uneasy - What’s roiling the liberal-arts campus?

Adults take the kids too seriously. No serious adult wants to be schooled by kids

Roger L. Simon’s new book on moral narcissism

Climate change update: Stonehenge under threat from moles

ACLU leader quits after daughters encounter men in the women’s restroom

Michelle Obama Calls Out Military Racism – This Marine’s Answer Is DEVASTATING

State Dept. admits intentionally altering video of Iran press conference

Evil

How the Democratic Party Ruined Atlanta - Corruption, tax-&-spend, and racial demagoguery: The familiar Democratic trinity claims another city.

On Baltimore:

Talk to a cop that works the ghetto and he’ll be the most cynical guy you will meet. The reason is he spends his days working cases that have no rational explanation. Ray-Ray pops Darius one night not because of a business beef. No, Ray-Ray did not like the way Darius looked at him at a cookout so he walked up on him and started blasting. Sometimes, there’s simply no reason at all. Ray-Ray just decided to kill Darius “cause he got to go.”

Bill Clinton Profits from World’s Largest For-Profit University

That’s convenient! Clinton’s chief of staff is
quizzed about her secret email server – but can’t answer questions
because she is now Hillary’s lawyer

Is Hillary Clinton a better commodities trader than George Soros, or did she just get really, really lucky?

The Obama Navy as Farce

China: Seven empty Manhattans

Venezuela: Has The Word "Socialism" Been Banned From American Mainstream Press?

Brazil moves to shrink the state

Secret Deal With Saudis Made After '74 Oil Embargo Haunts The U.S. Today

The expulsion that backfired: When Iraq kicked out its Jews

Sweden’s double standard - a betrayal of the weakest

Obama's Ho Chi Minh Trail

In 2010, Qaddafi warned the Europeans of the growing threat of African illegal immigration.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:50 | Comments (52) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I joined the Marines in 1989. Easily the most non-racist, merit-based organization I have ever been associated with. They do not discriminate against - or in favor of anyone based on race. Your race is Green as soon as you join the Big Green Machine.

#1 NJSoldier on 2016-06-02 08:28 (Reply)

She is an over-privileged angry bitch. I almost feel sorry for her, but not quite.

#1.1 Bird Dog on 2016-06-02 08:34 (Reply)

Michelle Obama is Al Sharpton in a skirt. Her entire raison d'être is race baiting. She creates or magnifies problems that either don't exist or don't matter for the sole purpose of making herself appear useful. The only positions she has ever gotten were given to her (she didn't earn them) because she is black (PERIOD).

#1.1.1 Mike M on 2016-06-02 10:47 (Reply)

The letter is a rant, and has very little to do with Michelle Obama's quoted statements.

#1.2 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 09:14 (Reply)

OK, you've taken a breath. Now stick your head back up your arse.

#1.2.1 Mike M on 2016-06-02 10:42 (Reply)

Mike M: OK, you've taken a breath.

The point stands without refutation. It's a fact that there were racially-tinged expectation about both the Obamas. Minorities deal with this problem every day.

#1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 11:38 (Reply)

"...there were racially-tinged expectations by both the Obamas." There, fixed it for you.

And yes, that oppressed minority couple must deal with racism every day. Breaks your heart, doesn't it? Yet they never respond in kind, noble souls that they are. At least, not enough for you to notice. Because you never mention it.

#1.2.1.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-06-02 11:49 (Reply)

The only gender and race that is actively discriminated against by our government is white males. I told each of my three boys that they would be unlikely to get grants or other federal funding for college. I have also pointed out to them that in court they will be treated differently than females and minorities for the same legal issues. And of course that as a white male they can be fired for any reason including no cause at all without recourse.

That point stands without refutation. In our society white males deal with this problem every day.

#1.2.1.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-06-02 11:54 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Obama Navy as Farce ... There was never even a word condemning the Iranians for violating international law by seizing the American boats in international waters.

CENTCOM said the small boats stopped in the Gulf because of a “mechanical issue in a diesel engine” in one of the vessels. “This stop occurred in Iranian territorial waters, although it’s not clear the crew was aware of their exact location,” the statement said.

#2 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 09:29 (Reply)

In other words, our guys were idiots. They couldn't maintain their equipment (though, they mysteriously started without problem when the sailors returned - maybe the brilliant Iranians fixed the engines for them) and they didn't know where they were.

What CENTCOM said has political ass-kissing written all over it.

#2.1 mudbug on 2016-06-02 10:09 (Reply)

mudbug: In other words, our guys were idiots.

"Mistakes have been made."

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 14:43 (Reply)

Something about this whole mess stinks. Having served in the Navy, I can not believe for a moment, that none of those sailors had any idea where they were. If one of the boats had a mechanical, the other boat can tow. They where armed. What happened to "Don't Give Up The Ship!" I know that message is still scrawled on the wall at Annapolis, I was just there. It was drilled into my head in boot camp (in the 80's, when we had a real Commander in Chief - someone who loved America). I guess we have a different sort of Navy now - if any of those people were indeed Navy.

#2.2 B. Hammer on 2016-06-02 10:48 (Reply)

B. Hammer: [i]"Don't Give Up The Ship!"[/b]

Shooting at the Iranians in their own waters would be an unjustified act of war.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 11:13 (Reply)

If they were actually in Iranian waters.

#2.2.1.1 mudbug on 2016-06-02 11:16 (Reply)

Maybe they were testing new unicorn-powered boats.

#2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 11:24 (Reply)

Maybe they were in international waters and Iran is lying.

#2.2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-06-02 11:27 (Reply)

Maybe the Wizard of Oz can turn water into liquorice.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 11:34 (Reply)

Of course, the Iranians would NEVER lie!

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-06-02 12:20 (Reply)

mudbug: Of course, the Iranians would NEVER lie!

CENTCOM said the small boats stopped in the Gulf because of a “mechanical issue in a diesel engine” in one of the vessels. “This stop occurred in Iranian territorial waters, although it’s not clear the crew was aware of their exact location,” the statement said.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 14:34 (Reply)

Answered. See comment #2.1.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-06-02 14:41 (Reply)

Oh Bullsh&*! Do you even read what you write? How about taking our boats and personal at gun point, was that not an act of war? How far into Iranian waters were they? No, this was a rigged game. If the Iranians are our peace loving friends, as Obumer tells us, wouldn't it have made better sense for them to come to our aid?

#2.2.1.2 B Hammer on 2016-06-02 11:25 (Reply)

B Hammer: How about taking our boats and personal at gun point, was that not an act of war?

It is not an act of war to detain a military vessel that has illegally entered your territory. It's standard operating procedure.

B Hammer: wouldn't it have made better sense for them to come to our aid?

They were released within hours.

#2.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 11:28 (Reply)

bullshit. military vessels have a right to pass through territorial waters under Article 18 of the UN convention on the law of the sea. this is not "standard operating procedure".

you've been burned, again. don't make up shit if you don't know what you're taking about.

#2.2.1.2.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2016-06-02 12:14 (Reply)

Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: military vessels have a right to pass through territorial waters under Article 18 of the UN convention on the law of the sea.

Iran never ratified the Convention. They did sign it, but added a declaration that states have the right "to take measures to safeguard their security interests including the adoption of laws and regulations regarding, inter alia, the requirements of prior authorization for warships willing to exercise the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea." There was a nearby Iranian military outpost, and the exclusion zone was well-known to the Americans.

#2.2.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 14:33 (Reply)

the UN Convention codifies existing and traditional law of the sea.

although you're capable of parroting the iranian point of view and can be expected to adopt anyone's anti-US posture, you lose again on the law.

go educate yourself.

#2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2016-06-02 14:45 (Reply)

Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: the UN Convention codifies existing and traditional law of the sea.

Traditional law generally prohibited warships in territorial waters. The Convention allows innocent passage, that is, "not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State", but the U.S. military vessels were not on a transit passage as required by the Convention, and were close to an Iranian military base.

In any case, the Convention is not binding on non-ratifying states, and the Iranians made clear that the area was an exclusion zone consistent within their understanding of the Convention.

Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: although you're capable of parroting the iranian point

The fact that Iran has not ratified the Convention, and that their signature was contingent on their explicit declaration, are a matter of record.

#2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 15:26 (Reply)

I remember when Hussein what's-his-name failed to ratify the no-fly zone over his fertile paradise. All confusion broke loose and eventually all discussion dissolved into meaningless noise as the direct result thereof. Entire fleets grounded themselves on Iraqi shores awaiting coherent orders. Eventually the UN got involved and raped some people but to no avail. To this day a state of supreme and utter chaos hangs over the subject while we await Saddam's final decision.

#2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-06-02 15:58 (Reply)

The sad thing is that Iran never signed the "Iran deal" either, yet claims that the U.S. is bound to follow it while Iran can ignore any part of it it doesn't like.

I am so looking forward to President Trump repudiating the illegal "Iran deal" his first day in office. Unfortunately, we're never going to get that $150 billion back we released to the Iranians so they could build nuclear weapons.

#2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2 Jim on 2016-06-02 23:38 (Reply)

Jim: The sad thing is that Iran never signed the "Iran deal" either, yet claims that the U.S. is bound to follow it while Iran can ignore any part of it it doesn't like.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan was signed by Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs, along with China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and the European Union. The Plan is not a treaty, but a memorandum of political commitment. It is not legally binding.

Jim: yet claims that the U.S. is bound to follow it while Iran can ignore any part of it it doesn't like.

If any party fails to abide by the Plan, the situation reverts to its previous state, meaning isolation for Iran. It's an agreed pathway forward.

#2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-03 09:04 (Reply)

if the iranians shot first because an american boat was passing through territorial waters, they'd violate international law, and shooting back would be justified. so would the huge retaliation that any other president would have ordered.

damn, you are one f'ed up apologist for america's enemies. you're ready willing and able to lick the ass of anyone, anytime. you do this shit reflexively and I'm wondering if you've ever had an original thought, ever.

#2.2.1.3 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2016-06-02 11:27 (Reply)

Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: if the iranians shot first because an american boat was passing through territorial waters, they'd violate international law, and shooting back would be justified.

They had a legal right to detain any military vessels that have incurred on their territory. When the facts were determined, that it was a mistake, releasing them immediately was exactly the right response.

This is contrary to taking the U.S. embassy in 1979, which was against international law — even if the embassy was harboring U.S. spies.

#2.2.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 11:32 (Reply)

you're as ignorant of international law and practices as you are naive and an iranian bootlick. naval vessels have the right to cross foreign territorial waters under Art. 18 of the UN convention on the law of the sea and that includes passage because of navigational errors.

as I've never once see you develop and defend a position of your own, is this is the official libertard spin? that the US sailors deserved what they got? amirite?

#2.2.1.3.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2016-06-02 11:50 (Reply)

Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: ootlick. naval vessels have the right to cross foreign territorial waters under Art. 18 of the UN convention on the law of the sea and that includes passage because of navigational errors.

Iran never ratified the Convention. They did sign it, however, but added a declaration that states have the right "to take measures to safeguard their security interests including the adoption of laws and regulations regarding, inter alia, the requirements of prior authorization for warships willing to exercise the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea." There was a nearby Iranian military outpost, and the exclusion zone was well-known to the Americans.

#2.2.1.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 14:31 (Reply)

The Fog of Zachriel is just like the Fog of War only different.

Working title: Sovereign interest is never a thing unless it's in Wikipedia under "third world rights". Then it's a thing.

#2.2.1.3.1.1.2 Ten on 2016-06-02 16:27 (Reply)

Ten: Sovereign interest is never a thing unless it's in Wikipedia under "third world rights".

Actually, first world countries have far more to gain from a stable international order than third world countries.

#2.2.1.3.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 17:13 (Reply)

"Actually", the inverse thereof being what people are trying without success to get you to realize.

People: 3rd world outfits behave erratically and without regard to global order, such as it is.

Zach: 3rd world outfits have vague rights only they define but which remain the supreme law of things. Here, I'll cite Wikipedia out of immediate context.

People: Right. So we hear you saying that 3rd world outfits have vague rights only they define which screws with recognized global order, that being our freaking point.

Zach: Actually, 3rd world outfits benefit more from disorder than 1st world countries.

People: Yup. And the inverse is true, if not truer: 3rd world outfits behave erratically and without regard to global order, such as it is. Wasn't that our first premise?

Zach:

People:

Zach: This is my nose and this is my face.

People: We find you a crushing bore.

Zach: ...actually...

People: Still. Again.

#2.2.1.3.1.1.2.1.1 Ten on 2016-06-02 17:33 (Reply)

Correction: Zach: Actually, the 1st world benefits more from order than 3rd world outfits do.

The Fog of Zach. It's actually even contagious.

#2.2.1.3.1.1.2.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-06-02 17:37 (Reply)

Ten: 3rd world outfits behave erratically and without regard to global order, such as it is.

While 3rd world countries don't benefit from the international order as much as 1st world countries, they still benefit, and expect to benefit more as their integration into the global economy continues. Nearly all countries adhere to a large degree to international standards, though nearly all countries fall short some of the time.

The question concerned the legality of the Iranians stopping the U.S. boats in what they considered a secure zone. To repeat: The Convention is not binding on non-ratifying states, and the Iranians made explicit that the area was an exclusion zone consistent within their understanding of the Convention. Nore were the U.S. boats on a transit passage consistent with the Convention. Once it was determined that they had no hostile intent (such as spying), their release occurred within hours.

Ten: 3rd world outfits have vague rights only they define but which remain the supreme law of things.

That is incorrect. Iran and other 3rd world countries have specific international rights and obligations.

Ten: So we hear you saying that 3rd world outfits have vague rights only they define which screws with recognized global order, that being our freaking point.

That is incorrect. Iran and other 3rd world countries have specific international rights and obligations. We provided an example above: Iran's seizing of the U.S. embassy in 1979 was illegal under international law — even if the embassy was harboring spies.

#2.2.1.3.1.1.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-06-02 18:04 (Reply)

People: 3rd world outfits behave erratically and without regard to global order, such as it is.

Zachs: 3rd world countries don't benefit from international order except for when they do which is largely a situational affectation that as such doesn't really bear repeating in the context of the problem with Iran and the US Navy although I can and will make vague generalizations about other stuff as my programming calls for it.

People:

Zachs: 3rd world outfits play fast and loose with this so-called "ratification" I keep flogging. 3rd world outfits make great appeals to world order but then don't caret o grasp anything not in their immediate best interest, as they see it at least.

People: So basically you're yammering on about some stuff you can't really connect the dots within, right?

Zachs:

People:

Zachs: Please allow me to repeat that I repeat that this is my nose and this is my face.

People:

Zachs: 3rd world outfits also get to define the terms of engagement, such as taking hostages. Or not exactly hostages as the case may be after the fact of their finding it. It all depends.

People: Maybe you're a loon-.

Zachs: Just saying.

People: -as anticipated. So in other words, 3rd world outfits have vague rights only they define but which remain the supreme law of things.

Zachs: That is incorrect. Iran and other 3rd world countries do have specific international rights and obligations.

People: Right. Except for when they don't, as you labor to say while denying same.

Zachs:

People: So we do hear you saying that 3rd world outfits have vague rights only they define which screws with recognized global order, that being our freaking point.

Zachs:

Zachs: That is [also] incorrect. Iran and other 3rd world countries have specific international rights and obligations. We provided an example above: Iran's seizing of the U.S. embassy in 1979 was illegal under international law — even if the embassy was harboring spies.

Zachs:

Zachs:

People: Maybe you're not a loon. Maybe you're a program somebody's launched on the world to test cognitive patience.

#2.2.1.3.1.1.2.1.1.2.1 Ten on 2016-06-02 18:36 (Reply)

You seem to enjoy fighting straw. Let us know if you decide to engage our actual position.

#2.2.1.3.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-06-03 08:55 (Reply)

Zach: 3rd world outfits have vague rights they define but which remain the supreme law of things. Here, I'll cite Wikipedia outside of the immediate context. See?

People: Right. So we hear you saying that 3rd world outfits have vague rights only they define which screws with recognized global order, that being our freaking point.

Zach: Actually, the 1st world benefits more from order than 3rd world outfits do.

People: Right. So we hear you saying that 3rd world outfits do have vague rights only they define which screws with recognized global order, that being our freaking point. Cause you're ascribing them conditional authorities - i.e., interests - while denying conditions inherent to 1st world interests. Can't really have that cake and eat it too, right?

Zachs:

People: So basically you're yammering on about some stuff you can't really connect the dots within, right?

Zachs:

People:

Zachs: You seem to enjoy fighting straw. Let us [sic] know if you decide to engage our [sic] actual position.

People: [Again noting the GOTO START REPEAT DIVERSION routine running in the routine]

People:

People:

People: Who programs you, anyway, and can they be reached?

#2.2.1.3.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-06-03 10:51 (Reply)

"damn, you are one f'ed up apologist for america's enemies"

We finally agree on something!

#2.2.1.3.2 Mike M on 2016-06-02 11:39 (Reply)

what's funny is that I momentarily looked for an upvote button for one of your comments.

#2.2.1.3.2.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2016-06-02 11:52 (Reply)

The entire story of Michelle and Obama is one of lies, underhanded practices and cronyism. Mrs Obama worked part time in a non-job for almost $300k a year before 2008. Her job was directly connected to Obama's influence as a state legislator. Obama never really held a job in his life but somehow attended the best schools in this country. He was helped in all of this by shady, shifty people in the shadows, many of them anti-American and some of them foreign activists. Everything they have and acquire is being given to them by rich activists and one has to wonder what they get in return. Obama is the Manchurian candidate. I would expect that if someone actually tried to uncover his past and shady contacts that they would end up suicide'd like Vince Foster.

#3 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-06-02 10:22 (Reply)

re ACLU leader quits after daughters encounter men in the women’s restroom

LOL

Funny.

#4 feeblemind on 2016-06-02 10:35 (Reply)

As one comment noted, "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." These self-righteous leftists want to push their agenda on the rest of us, but when it affects them personally, they sing a different tune. It's perfectly in keeping with their attitude on tolerance - they think that everything should be tolerated except conservatives. Freakin' hypocrites.

#4.1 Mike M on 2016-06-02 10:52 (Reply)

Agreed, Mike M. I am familiar with the expression. In fact I recall that happening to the Chicago newspaper columnist Royko back in the 80s. He was a lib and moved decidedly to the right after having a gun waved in his face and his money taken.

I have speculated whether this will change her world view or just her stance on just this issue?

Changing her worldview may make her an outcast in her social circles. That's a steep price to pay. Only changing her tune on the bathroom issue may allow her to remain in the club if she keeps mum about it. Who knows what she will decide?

#4.1.1 feeblemind on 2016-06-02 11:04 (Reply)

if cross dressing perverts tried to follow my daughter into a restroom I'd tell them to stop and if they didn't, I'd hurt them bad. no shit.

#4.2 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2016-06-02 11:32 (Reply)

Damn! You're two for two.

#4.2.1 Mike m on 2016-06-02 17:13 (Reply)

Re: Hillary, the commodity trader

I doubt that Hillary really knows what a short position is, but then, maybe she does. The fact that she claims she was trading a bull market occasionally from the short side and those short trades were successful shows a lot more than luck. What the column doesn't mention is that her broker, Robert "Red" Bone, had already been disciplined by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Board for “serious and repeated violations of record-keeping functions, order-entry procedures, margin requirements and hedge procedures.”

Oh, she also claimed she was successful in part because she read the Wall Street Journal - which does not cover cattle futures to any depth.

So you have a complete novice who traded using a suspect broker and was wildly successful and then stopped never to trade anything again. Nothing to see here!

But then, it is old news - just like so many past episodes of potential impropriety that have been ignored.

#5 mudbug on 2016-06-02 11:11 (Reply)

Indeed mudbug. Back in the day I naively thought they would nail them on that because it was a blatant payoff.

No one could turn $1000 into a $100,000 in 6 mos in that cattle market. It just wasn't that volatile.

But as a thought exercise, suspend disbelief and imagine she could. If you could grow 1k to 100k in 6 months, why not do it again? In another 6 mos grow that 100k to 10,000k and in 6 mos grow that by another 100k, how much would you today? All the wealth in the world?

One wonders why 'the smartest woman in history' didn't do just that? She would have made the likes of Buffet and Soros look like pikers.

#5.1 feeblemind on 2016-06-02 12:43 (Reply)

Bad Link: Roger L. Simon’s new book on moral narcissism

Link corrected: Roger L. Simon’s new book on moral narcissism.

#6 Gringo on 2016-06-02 12:36 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, June 2. 2016

Thursday morning links