Matt posts his State of the Union speech. I'm thinking... Presidential run in 2008 or 2012.

Posted by: Teresa in Current Affairs at 09:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Blogless friend Chuck sends along an interesting link. What is the cost of delaying Social Security Reform? The Heritage Foundation has a counter and has this to say...

The NOdometer display shows the outstanding debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. Congress will have to raise taxes, reduce Social Security benefits, reduce other spending, or borrow more when it comes time to repay the Trust Fund--starting in 2017, according to the Social Security Administration.

Without reform, future taxpayers will be paying down the Trust Fund debt until 2041. But things don't just get better then. When the trust fund is finally paid off in full, Social Security will face annual deficits just under $400 billion (in 2004 dollars), relative to the benefits that it has promised. Under present law, Social Security would have to cut benefits across the board by about 25 percent. The only alternatives are raising taxes, cutting away entire government departments, or borrowing more money.

Something to consider when the Democrats start screaming about how Social Security reform is going to bring about a total collapse. Looks like we are well on our way to that point now - just by the stalling tactics being used to keep us from investing a miniscule amount of our own hard earned money for our own retirement. Heaven forbid we actually try to help ourselves - especially when we can see the coming train wreck of the current system.

Guess it all adds up.

Posted by: Teresa in Current Affairs at 07:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

There is an editorial in the WSJ today, that I found very confusing indeed. [sorry link may be for subscribers only --ed] It is very seldom that I read a WSJ editorial and come away with no idea what the author was trying to convey - therefore I find it noteworthy.

For the most part the editorial is about the prosecution of Lawrence Franklin - a former defense department analyst who leaked classified information... and the sentence of 12 years handed down on Friday for this offense. This part was straightforward. It was the end of the editorial that became a convoluted mess.

...the Franklin verdict doesn't bode well for the NSA wiretap leakers, if they are ever found out. If the Justice Department goes after them with the same determination that Patrick Fitzgerald went about the Valerie Plame leakers, prosecutors will subpoena reporters and ask them to reveal their sources. As reporters ourselves, we don't relish that prospect, which is one reason we opposed the Fitzgerald probe from the very start. But once again liberals promoting a prosecution on partisan political grounds might end up hurting the cause of press freedom.

As for Mr. Franklin, it's possible that his sentence will be reduced after he testifies against the two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The damage he did to U.S. security seems to have been relatively small, which is more than can be said of the NSA leakers.

Does this mean that it's okay to go after leakers of highly classified information, as long as it's not a reporter you ask to identify the criminal? They seem to find the information leakage in the NSA case to be a very bad thing... but it's even worse that reporters might have to tell us who let the cat out of the bag?

If classified material was leaked, and this is illegal, then it doesn't matter WHO got the information. Lobbyists, spies, the press... so far as I am concerned the person who leaked it committed a crime. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If that means reporters will have to testify - then so be it. To dance around the issue by saying the Valerie Plame affair made things "worse" in some way is ridiculous. Do they think that a huge security issue like this wouldn't be investigated if the Valerie Plame affair hadn't happened?

Sorry, but I think this editorial is about the worst I've seen come out of the WSJ. While there have been many that I don't agree with in substance - at least the end result was their own logical progression. This editorial has no logic to it whatsoever.

Posted by: Teresa in Current Affairs at 07:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

Journalist Jill Carroll, a free lance reporter who has been submitting stories to the Christian Science Monitor from Iraq, was kidnapped on January 7th. Yesterday her captors issued a statement...

Jill Carroll's captors have issued a statement asking that the United States free all Iraqi women prisoners within 72 hours – and are threatening to kill Carroll if this demand is not met.

We all know that there won't be any prisoners released. So, unless the kidnappers can be persuaded to change their minds without their demands being met, there isn't much hope.

Now I realize that the CSM will certainly release statements asking for Ms. Carroll's safe return. But his particular part I find amusing in a rather backward way...

"Jill Carroll's colleagues at The Christian Science Monitor and journalists around the world appeal to her captors to release her immediately and without harm. They have seized an innocent person who is a great admirer of the Iraqi people. She is a professional journalist whose only goal has been to report truthfully about Iraq and to promote understanding. As an intelligent, dedicated, open-minded reporter, she has earned the respect of her Arab and Western peers. Since arriving in Iraq in 2003, Jill has always been treated as a guest by Iraqis and has sought to reflect their views and their hearts to the world. She has doggedly pursued stories for a variety of news organizations from several different countries. She began to file stories to The Monitor early last year.

Are they simply making a plea, or do they really not "get it" at all? The people who kidnapped her are NOT the Iraqi people she has been meeting in such a friendly fashion. The people who kidnapped her do NOT consider her to be an "innocent person". The people who kidnapped her do NOT want to see cooperation between the US and the Arab world. They are terrorists!

For that matter, if they are Islamic fundamentalists they would consider her to be in flagrant violation of all their behavioral rules regarding women. Just the fact that she is a woman with a job is enough to incur painful punishment and even death from these cretins. Not having seen how she dresses, but assuming that being an American she dresses in an American fashion, that is enough for her to be buried to her neck and stoned to death.

Do they not know that there is a war going on?

It will be interesting to see if this has any effect though...

Muthanna Harith al-Dhari, a leader of Iraq’s Muslim Scholars Association, an umbrella group for a number of leading Sunni clerics, today condemned the Jan. 7 kidnapping of freelance journalist Jill Carroll.

If anything will have an effect, it will be the clerics. If the kidnappers are religious and not only terrorists in it for the money, they may actually listen. Guess we'll have to wait just a little longer.

Posted by: Teresa in Current Affairs at 02:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

It seems that Al Jazeera wanted to bring Ted Kopel into the fold once he retired from ABC.

Koppel, who recently joined cable television's Discovery Channel, said he and longtime producing partner Tom Bettag had lunch with an Al Jazeera executive, but it "didn't take long for us to decide that that's not what we were going to do."

Let's see, either Ted wanted a free lunch... or he seriously considered working for Al Jazeera. Since I'm quite sure that he can buy his own lunch, I have to believe this was an interview lunch, to see if they could work together.

"I know it's fashionable to look at Al Jazeera as just a propaganda outlet for al Qaeda," Koppel said. "I can tell you that al Jazeera is a huge step up from where the Arab world's journalism has been over the last 40 years."

Ah, let's be fashionable shall we - Yes Ted, Al Jazeera is a propaganda outlet for al Qaeda. And since you entertained - even momentarily - the thought of working for an enemy propaganda outlet, this must call into question any "reporting" you've provided to your Nightline viewers for the last few years.

If Nightline had been some sort of news reel during WW2, this would be the equivalent of Kopel retiring in 1942 (the middle of the War for those who don't remember dates) and having lunch with Leni Riefenstahl (Hitler's noted propaganda film maker) about going to work for her.

Ted believes that Al Jazeera is a huge step up for the Arab world reporting. Would that be because they want our President dead and our country in a complete downward tailspin? I'm just wondering what is considered a "huge step up".

If you ever took Nightline seriously, this would seem to indicate a need to reconsider any information attained through Nightline with the understanding that Ted is in sympathy with those who would like to bring about the downfall of America.

Posted by: Teresa in Current Affairs at 07:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Fortunately, I never took Nightline seriously within memory.

Posted by: Sissy Willis at January 16, 2006 08:24 AM (FU1id)

2 I'm with Sissy. Me either!

Posted by: Bou at January 17, 2006 02:11 AM (iHxT3)

3 I'm trying to imagine what kind swirling is happening in Ted's head. There must be some sort of awful storm taking place to come up that rationalization for Al Jazeera.

Posted by: toni at January 17, 2006 03:55 AM (FsRoq)

4 Wow... Koppel's completely lost his sense of perspective... such as he had, anyway.

Posted by: Harvey at January 17, 2006 05:00 AM (ubhj8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As I was reading over at Sissy's this morning about the extremely sad and distressing reversal of the story on the miners, I started thinking of all the other times the news media has done exactly the same thing - yet it hasn't really "bitten" them because the outcomes were the reverse of this tragic event.

"You wanna believe good news," comments the local Channel 7 Boston news anchor this morning, catching the conscience of the king just before all hell breaks loose as the national media and cable news get set for a day of spinning out of control over the "rollercoaster ride" of late-evening, wee-hour developments in the West Virginia mine-explosion story.

I disagree with the news anchor... what the media wants is a sensation - any kind of sensation that will rivet the eyes of the world to their broadcasts. In the case of the miners - either outcome produces the wanted results. If the miners are alive or dead - they have the attention of the world. The problem is, to keep the watchers, there must be continual build up of the story - throwing out all kinds of thoughts, rumors, innuendo, and every once in a while they may get an actual fact in there.

How often have we seen this happen? The answer... with virtually every notable "disaster type" scenario.

Remember Columbine? The news media grab the local sheriff and ask how many kids he thinks have been killed... He says, "I don't know but it looks like a lot, may even be up to 50 kids". Within an hour - the number 50 was being reported as fact on WGN radio - one of the biggest radio outfits in the Midwest (multi-state reach in broadcasting). I know... I was listening to them (and I must admit screaming at the radio every time they said the number 50!)

Remember 9/11? The media had the number of dead topping 30,000. Granted it was a horrendous day and probably the worst thing to ever hit us in the gut on American soil... but once again the numbers rolled off the tongues of news reporters in such a way as to make us all think that the death toll would be extremely high. (As it is, nearly 3,000 is bad enough - but my point is the numbers game the media plays )

Remember Katrina? There were predictions of 10,000 people being killed by the flooding in New Orleans... didn't happen. There were stories prominently being circulated about bodies in a freezer in the Super Dome - not true...

As you can see - big stories attract wild speculation by people who are supposed to be presenting us with facts. Even people at the scene in an official capacity can provide grist for this mill.

I have decided to work under the following assumption - anything said by the news media before the wrap up of a disaster scene is a complete fabrication on their part to keep people coming back for more news. Listen at your own risk.

Posted by: Teresa in Current Affairs at 11:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 516 words, total size 3 kb.

If so, do you know where YOUR dues money is going? Has the NEA ever given you a breakdown of the money you send them and where it's spent? I bet they haven't up until now - now when it is mandatory that they release the information... and what information it is indeed!

Sissy Willis has outdone herself this time with an excellent post on the new revelations and loaded with links. Thank you Sissy!

All I can say is, if I were a teacher, making the average salary of $48,000 per year and found out that...

And something called the Fund to Protect Social Security got $400,000, presumably to defeat personal investment accounts.

I'd be thinking "why am I paying these people my hard earned money?"... after all - what do the social security laws have to do with improving teaching situations or getting better salaries for teachers... or even getting better facilities for teachers! NOTHING. No matter how you feel about the Social Security issue, this is not something that the NEA should be spending even one dime on - period!

And there were over $65 million spent on such non-education related politics. When there is no disclosure, that's when money is spent in such a manner. Unions are supposed to help their employees, NOT feed a political agenda. If it were their own money, that would be a totally different matter, but to take the money under the guise of improving education, then using it to further political goals... it will be interesting to see if any of the teachers in this country get angry enough to overthrow these parasites and get the union back on track.

Last of all - major kudos to Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor, who pushed these new disclosure laws past all of the obstacles set up by the unions. She deserves a medal!

Posted by: Teresa in Current Affairs at 05:22 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.