June 18, 2012

Three Leading W. Va. Dems Not Attending Party Convention; Will the News Get Wide Coverage?

At the rate things are going, it may be that the list of leading West Virginia Democrats attending the party’s convention in Charlotte is going to be shorter than the list of those who aren’t.

The Associated Press reported the following in an unbylined item this evening in a terse three-paragraph squib with some pretty amusing attempts at impact-minimizing verbiage (bolds and numbered tags are mine):

Democratic W.Va. governor won’t attend convention

Democratic West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin says he won’t attend the party’s national convention, citing serious problems with President Barack Obama. [1]

A Tomblin spokesman, Chris Stadelman, said Monday that the governor has serious problems with Republican Mitt Romney, too.

Tomblin is an automatic superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention. He says his time is best spent working in West Virginia, not attending the four-day political rally in Charlotte, N.C.

In West Virginia’s presidential primary, Tomblin refused to say whether he voted for Obama.

Tomlbin isn’t alone in sitting this one out – West Virginia’s Sen. Joe Manchin and congressman Nick Rahall say they don’t plan to attend the convention, either.

Each of the three faces a Republican opponent in November.


[1] — Gosh AP, I bet you could identify at least one specific “serious problem” Tomblin has with President Obama. Hint: It’s a four-letter word which starts with “C,” ends in “L,” and rhymes with “hole” — as in the polling hole any politician in West Virginia who comes within a mile of the guy who promised to bankrupt the Mountain State’s arguably most important industry.

[2] — So the Democratic National Convention is now a mere “political rally”? Any AP reporter should know that these convention are where the party sets its rules for the next four years concerning the next presidential cycle’s primaries and the like. Oh, it also happens to be the place where the incumbent president is formally renominated. In theory at least, if most of the delegates do what West Virginia’s three leading politicians do and in essence boycott the event, the President won’t get renominated.

[3] — Geez, stop the presses. These Republican opponents wouldn’t possibly have names, would they?

If anyone can remember a time since the pre-civil rights era when prominent politicians, especially a sitting governor, effectively boycotted the Democratic National Convention, I’d like to know when it happened.

This should be major news. It’s not unreasonable to believe that the establishment press will try very hard to downplay this development. One clue will be how much the AP extends its currently posted item. You can bet the ranch that if any Republican governor were to decide not to come the party’s convention this fall, it would front-page and leading-the-broadcast news.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Rush Mentions Yours Truly’s Saturday Post on How Reporters Constantly Shouted at Reagan

This was quite cool. Rush Limbaugh brought up my post on Saturday about the 1987 Associated Press story where reporter wondered “Why Do Grown Men And Women Shout At President Reagan?” — though I didn’t get to hear it (Original posts: BizzyBlog; NewsBusters; Rush excerpt starts at sixth paragraph at link):


My only potential quibble of the day is that the Daily Caller didn’t “find this.” Yours truly did. But given that they’re the outfit having to defend their reporter and their publication from the Obama boot-lickers in the establishment press, my quibble is withdrawn.

However, Jeff Poor at the Daily Caller definitely owes me lunch. :–>

AP Report From Nigeria Waits Nine Paragraphs to Tag Boko Haram Responsibility for Murderous Church Bombings

So here’s how it appears to me and I suspect many other news readers, never mind the real motivations. At the Associated Press, when you’re covering situations like suicide bomber attacks on Christian churches in Nigeria yesterday, you hold out as long as you can in speculating about who is responsible, even though Islamist Boko Haram terrorists (and only Boko Haram terrorists) have claimed credit for previous attacks in that country, and even though no other religion on earth generates large numbers of people who claim to be its adherents who are willing to blow themselves up so they can kill as many infidels as possible.

Then, once the inevitable claim of responsibility arrives, you treat it as old news (the bombings were a whole 24-36 hours ago, y’know), focus your headline and coverage on “Christian” reprisals instead (even though there is no element of Christian doctrine which sanctions random reprisals), and identify who carried out the attacks as late as you possibly, so it will end up not making most broadcast and many print reports. Here are excerpts:


Statists and Dictators Never Sleep: Another U.N. Attempt to Grab Internet Power Is in the Works

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:04 am

In a Sunday evening Wall Street Journal op-ed appearing in the print edition this morning (the referenced leaks came to a site called WCITLeaks.org, which deserves bookmark status for the foreseeable future (bolds are mine):

The U.N.’s Internet Power Grab
Leaked documents show a real threat to the international flow of information.

U.S. diplomats are letting authoritarian regimes hijack an obscure U.N. agency to undermine how the Internet works, including for Americans.

The failure by U.S. negotiators to stop attacks on the Internet became known only through documents leaked last week. They concern a U.N. agency known as the International Telecommunications Union. Founded in 1865 to regulate the telegraph, the body (now part of the U.N.) is planning a World Conference on International Telecommunications in December, when the 193 U.N. member countries, each of which has a single vote, could use the International Telecommunications Regulations to take control of the Internet. The U.N. process is mind-numbing, but as Vincent Cerf, one of the founders of the Web, recently told Congress, this U.N. involvement means “the open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now.”

The process is secret, so it was hard to know what authoritarian governments were plotting or how the U.S. was responding. This column last month detailed some of the proposals, but other commentators doubted that any changes would be material.

… Someone leaked the 212-page planning document being used by governments to prepare for the December conference. Mr. Dourado summarized: “These proposals show that many ITU member states want to use international agreements to regulate the Internet by crowding out bottom-up institutions, imposing charges for international communication, and controlling the content that consumers can access online.”

The broadest proposal in the draft materials is an initiative by China to give countries authority over “the information and communication infrastructure within their state” and require that online companies “operating in their territory” use the Internet “in a rational way”—in short, to legitimize full government control. The Internet Society, which represents the engineers around the world who keep the Internet functioning, says this proposal “would require member states to take on a very active and inappropriate role in patrolling” the Internet.

Several proposals would give the U.N. power to regulate online content for the first time, under the guise of protecting against computer malware or spam. Russia and some Arab countries want to be able to inspect private communications such as email. Russia and Iran propose new rules to measure Internet traffic along national borders and bill the originator of the traffic, as with international phone calls.

… Another proposal would give the U.N. authority over allocating Internet addresses. It would replace Icann, the self-regulating body that helped ensure the stability of the Internet, under a contract from the U.S. Commerce Department.

According to notes in the leaked document, the U.S. delegation filed some objections here and there—but politely.

Given who is in charge in Washington, I have little confidence in the sincerity of our government’s interest in making and keeping the Internet open to everyone worldwide.

The previous posts lists below demonstrate how unceasing the efforts by dictators and other statists have been. The most recent one listed, with reference to an underlying item at National Review’s the Corner, predicted that what is described above, which would have been impossible before the Obama administration 2009 decision to unilaterally cede the U.S. government’s control over Icann.


Selected Previous BizzyBlog Posts:
- Oct. 11, 2009 — ‘Honey, They Gave Away the Internet’
- July 5, 2009 — Tech’s Repressive Dark Side Threatens Us All
- Nov. 13, 2005 — About That Nov. 16-18 UN Internet Conference in Tunisia (UN-EU takeover attempt)
- July 5, 2005 — US Retains Control of Internet Directory: AP Has Hissy Fit
- Oct. 7, 2005 — This Had Better Not Be True (US to Give Up “Root Server Control” of the Internet?)
- Oct. 3, 2005 — The Whining About “Control” of the Internet Continues (Plus the “Gobbled Up” Internet Addresses Canard)

Monday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (061812)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 8:10 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.


Positivity: Man a Hero Twice in Two Days

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 8:00 am

From St. Petersburg, Florida:

Posted: Jun 18, 2012 7:17 AM EDT
Updated: Jun 18, 2012 7:19 AM EDT

In two days, Gus Hertz did what most people will never do in a lifetime. Hertz saved three lives in two separate crashes.

On Thursday, June14, Hertz saved the life of a man and woman after their ultralight plane crashed into the water in St. Petersburg, Florida.

On Wednesday, June 13, he helped save a driver who had driven off a bridge and the vehicle was submerged off the Pinellas Bayway.

Hertz, who was vacationing in St. Petersburg from Roanoke, VA called his heroic efforts “dumb luck.”

He said he was more concerned with the people’s safety than taking credit for his achievements.

Lt. Joel Granata, a St. Petersburg Fire and Rescue spokesman, called Hertz’s actions amazing.

The fire department plans to honor Hertz with a “Citizen’s Heroic Award” in November.

“Two days, two heroic saves,” Granata said. “That’s unbelievable.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Leading Language Indicator? Three Earth Summit-Related AP Reports Don’t Mention ‘Climate’ or ‘Warming’

It may be a fluke, but it seems too coincidental. What it may be is a leading indicator that the establishment press and international advocates of global wealth redistribution have figured out that “global warming” and “climate change,” its deceptive substitute term, have lost their luster thanks to a lack of scientific rigor, scandals, and deception.

What I’m referring to is the fact that in reviewing three Associated Press items which would appear to have been opportunities to bring up the topic of “warming” and “climate” in connection with the U.N.’s latest “earth summit,” none of them contained either word. It seems that “sustainable development,” a term which has been around for a while and which basically means “stopping most development regardless of merit,” is now the go-to term when one wishes to avoid the aforementioned W-word or C-word.

The earliest of the three is from Monday, and concerns the amount of money invested worldwide in “renewable” energy. Note how this week’s upcoming UN summit, which is all about using climate change and global warming as excuses for arresting development in the Third World, is described:

The U.N. is hoping that countries will use an environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, next week to commit to further investments in renewable energy, which covered just 16.7 percent of global energy consumption in 2010. Of this share, modern technologies such as solar and wind accounted for just 8.2 percent, less than the 8.5 percent contributed by biomass.

By comparison, more than 80 percent of electricity consumed worldwide still comes from fossil fuels that are blamed for a rise in carbon in the atmosphere.

AP reporter Frank Jordans never tells us why should we care about a rise in carbon, or even how he knows that fossil fuels really are to blame for the rise.

The next report was on June 15 and directly concerned the Rio summmit, and didn’t even contain the word “environment”:

A top United Nations official says the final statement for the organization’s largest-ever conference is far from ready.

The outcome document for the Rio+20 summit on sustainable development was supposed to be 90 percent completed ahead of the conference, but bickering between rich and poor nations has plagued negotiations.

Top U.N. officials say a successful Rio+20 is crucial for the earth’s future.

The item never tells us why the summit is supposedly such a big deal.

The final item (“Accounting for natural wealth gains world traction”) appeared on Sunday, and at least eventually gets into the neighborhood of the real point of the conference:

What is a sip of clean water worth? Is there economic value in the shade of a tree? And how much would you pay for a breath of fresh air?

Putting a price on a natural bounty long taken for granted as free may sound impossible, even ridiculous. But after three decades on the fringes of serious policymaking, the idea is gaining traction, from the vividly clear waters of the Maldives to the sober, suited reaches of the World Bank.

As traditional measures of economic progress like GDP are criticized for ignoring downsides including pollution or diminishment of resources such as fresh water or fossil fuels, there has been an increased urgency to arguments for a more balanced and accurate reckoning of costs. That is particularly so as fast-developing nations such as India and China jostle with rich nations for access to those resources and insist on their own right to pollute on a path toward growth.

Proponents of so-called “green accounting” – gathered in Rio de Janeiro this week for the Rio Earth Summit – hope that putting dollar values on resources will slam the brakes on unfettered development.

Pull the word “unfettered” from the final sentence, and you almost know what the conference is about. “Putting dollar values” on undeveloped resources is already done by those who buy and sell lands which contain them. But free-market aren’t satisfactory for insatiable statists, who at least want in on the action but would prefer to dictate it for their own wealth redistribution-driven purposes.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.