 |
| Maybe the media using god-like halo photos like this doesn't instill the feeling of objectivity in the American people. Just sayin'. |
Fox News once again found itself at the very top of Public Policy Polling's annual survey of the most trusted news networks in America. A whopping 35% of those polled trust Fox News more than any other television news outlet. Fox even embarrassed second place. PBS earned that spot with only 14%.
Bringing up the rear are ABC (11%), CNN (9%), CBS (6%), and in dead last with a three-way tie at 3% are NBC, MSNBC, and Comedy Central.
While Fox News also ranks at the top of the "least trusted" television news networks, the "Fair and Balanced" network only earns that title by 33% of those surveyed. That is a stunning failure for the legions dedicated to marginalizing Fox --which includes Media Matters and all the rest of the mainstream media. MSNBC wins 19% of "least trusted," followed by Comedy Central (11%), CNN (5%), and the rest.
When asked about trusting or not trusting individual networks. Fox News came in second to PBS with 44/42. CNN stayed even at 40/40 -- proving once again that the "Most Trusted Name In News" is not.
 |
| "Listen up dumb folks, just love this law! Or else I may issue an executive order demanding that you all do! How do you like that, little people?" |
Uninsured Americans — the people that the Affordable Care Act was designed to most aid — are increasingly critical of the law as its key provisions kick in, a poll released Thursday finds.
This month’s tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 47 percent of the uninsured said they hold unfavorable views of the law while 24 percent said they liked it. These negative views have increased since December, when 43 percent of the uninsured panned the law and 36 percent liked it. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the Foundation.)
 |
| Americans are godless? Nonsense! |
At the height of the Cold War, it was common for American conservatives to label the officially atheist Soviet Union a “godless nation.”
More than two decades on, history has come full circle, as the Kremlin and its allies in the Russian Orthodox Church hurl the same allegation at the West.
Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a recent keynote speech. “Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”
[...]
Mr. Putin’s views of the West were echoed this month by Patriarch Kirill I of Moscow, the leader of the Orthodox Church, who accused Western countries of engaging in the “spiritual disarmament” of their people.
In particular, Patriarch Kirill criticized laws in several European countries that prevent believers from displaying religious symbols, including crosses on necklaces, at work.
“The general political direction of the [Western political] elite bears, without doubt, an anti-Christian and anti-religious character,” the patriarch said in comments aired on state-controlled television.
“We have been through an epoch of atheism, and we know what it is to live without God,” Patriarch Kirill said. “We want to shout to the whole world, ‘Stop!’”
Other figures within the Orthodox Church have gone further in criticizing the West. Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, a church spokesman, suggested that the modern-day West is no better for a Christian believer than the Soviet Union.
Soviet authorities executed some 200,000 clergy and believers from 1917 to 1937, according to a 1995 presidential committee report. Thousands of churches were destroyed, and those that survived were turned into warehouses, garages or museums of atheism.
“The separation of the secular and the religious is a fatal mistake by the West,” the Rev. Chaplin said. “It is a monstrous phenomenon that has occurred only in Western civilization and will kill the West, both politically and morally.”
 |
| Sen. Patty Murray says "ObamaCare is your new religion and the purveyor of rights. Your old religion and Constitution must not interfere, or else you shall not be permitted to own a business. Thus spaketh the Barack Obama and the will of ObamaCare." |
Democratic senators intervened Tuesday in the Supreme Court fight over whether ObamaCare can force the company Hobby Lobby to provide contraceptive coverage to workers, arguing that "secular" businesses should not be exempt from the mandate.
The 19 senators planned to file a brief before the court, which is still weeks away from considering the closely watched case. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who planned to make her case on the Senate floor, adamantly defended the Obama administration's side.
"What's at stake in this case before the Supreme Court is whether a CEO's personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act," she said in prepared remarks.
But Republican senators returned fire, jumping to Hobby Lobby's defense in a brief of their own.
"The ability to practice the faith we choose is one of our great constitutional rights. The Obama administration's contraceptive mandate stomps on that right," Sen. David Vitter said in a statement. He joined Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; John Cornyn, R-Texas; and Mike Lee, R-Utah in the brief.
The dueling arguments come as the Supreme Court prepares to consider the case. The justices said in November they would take up the issue, which has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.
The Obama administration promotes the law's provision of a range of preventive care, free of charge, as a key benefit of the health care overhaul. Contraception is included in the package of cost-free benefits, which opponents say is an attack on the religious freedom of employers.
 |
| "Dammit folks! I won the election. I rule over you. Do as I say and love ObamaCare more than yourselves!" |
A record high number of voters now oppose the 2010 Affordable Care Act and a record low number supports it, according to the latest Fox News poll.
[...]
The new poll finds 59 percent of voters oppose the health care law, up from 55 percent who opposed it six months ago (June 2013). The increase in opposition comes from both independents and Democrats.
Nearly a third of Democrats -- 30 percent -- oppose the law, up from 22 percent in June.
Opposition among independents went from 53 percent to 64 percent today.
Overall, 36 percent of voters favor the new health care law. That’s down from 40 percent in June and marks a new low.
Sixty-four percent of Democrats, 29 percent of independents and 11 percent of Republicans like the law.
Enrollment in the Obama health care exchanges began October 1 and the requirement to have qualifying coverage started January 1.
Some apparent reasons for opposition to the law include the fact that majorities think the new law will increase their taxes (63 percent), increase their insurance costs (62 percent) and increase the federal deficit (56 percent).
Meanwhile, just one voter in five thinks Obamacare will increase the quality of their health care (19 percent). More than twice as many expect the quality of their care to get worse (39 percent) and another 37percent think it will stay the same.
 |
| George Tsunis: Ready to represent our country. Or at least ready to attend a bunch of banquets and meet that damned elusive "president" of Norway. PHOTO from The Local. |
The US's next ambassador to Norway has committed a jaw-dropping diplomatic blunder before he even begins, describing politicians from the Progress Party, which has seven ministers, as "fringe elements" that "spew their hatred" in a US Senate hearing.
Asked by Senator John McCain what he thought it was about the "anti-immigration" Progress Party that appealed to Norwegian voters, Greek American businessman George Tsunis seemed unaware of the party's role in the ruling coalition.
"You get some fringe elements that have a microphone and spew their hatred," he said in the pre-appointment hearing. "And I will tell you Norway has been very quick to denounce them."
McCain interrupted him, pointing out that as part of the coalition, the party was hardly being denounced.
"I stand corrected," Tsunis said after a pause. "I would like to leave my answer at... it's a very,very open society and the overwhelming amount of Norwegians and the overwhelming amount of people in parliament don't feel the same way."
The blunder came after a faltering, incoherent performance from Tsunis, in which he made a reference to Norway's "president", apparently under the impression that the country is a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy.
[...]
He [Tsunis] donated $267,244 to the Democratic party in the 2012 election cycle, and $278,531 in 2010, making him one of the party's top individual donors. [emphasis mine]
 |
| "Remember, if you don't like ObamaCare then you're a racist. And the IRS just hates racists. |
While the administration publicly expresses full confidence in its health care law, privately it fears one part of the system is so flawed it could bankrupt insurance companies and cripple ObamaCare itself.
"Week after week, month after month," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, "the Obama administration kept telling us everything's working fine, there's no problem and then they turn on a dime and fire their contractor."
To justify a no-bid contract with Accenture after firing CGI as the lead contractor, the administration released documents from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that offered a rare glimpse of its worst fears, saying the problems with the website puts "the entire health insurance industry at risk" ... "potentially leading to their default and disrupting continued services and coverage to consumers."
Then it went even further, saying if the problems were not fixed by mid-March, "they will result in financial harm to the government."
It even added that without the fixes "the entire health care reform program is jeopardized."
In spite of the "urgent" need officials cited to keep the system from collapsing, the White House spokesman said he knew nothing about it.
[...]
Shortly after the website went live,one official told Congress a critical part of the system – what is known as the “back end” -- had not even been built yet.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, says "the back end -- that information is supposed to be transmitted to an insurance company, the insurance company knows who you are, they know what policy you've picked."
But the back end still hasn't been built, so insurers are dealing with massive confusion, missing information on who's signed up and what subsidies they get.
Sebelius insisted once again Wednesday it would all come together and insurance companies will get their money.
"I mean we will get them paid,” she said. “There is no question about that, so we are on track."
For now, though, officials concede they're relying on estimates from the insurers.
"Here's who we think we have, and here's the subsidy we think they're owed," explains Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "Please send us a check from the treasury," he says chuckling. "The honor system again."
"There's no way to effectively match policies and people," says Holtz-Eakin.
"And on top of that, you can't match policies, people, to the federal subsidies and that's a big problem in terms of just the mechanics of making payments."
 |
| "I shall punish those who I see as weak, and who dare to defy my will." |
A Catholic Navy chaplain barred from practicing his religion during the recent government shutdown is now the target of retaliation by the federal government, according to an amended complaint filed by his attorneys.
Rev. Ray Leonard filed a lawsuit in October against the Department of Defense and the Navy after he was threatened with arrest if he performed mass, administered the sacraments, or entered the chapel at the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia during the shutdown.
Three DOJ attorneys contacted Erin Mersino, his attorney at the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), which is handling the case, a day after the suit was filed and indicated Leonard could resume all religious duties and the chapel would be reopened for Catholic services.
A week later, on Oct. 21, he was told his DOD contract would no longer be considered valid.
The government has withheld the priest’s pay ever since and it is also asking Leonard to sign another contract with additional pages that include “onerous terms,” according to the TMLC.
His original contract serving as Navy chaplain is valid from October 2013 through September 2014, and it was signed and agreed upon by both parties.
Mersino said his contract is “the only one being reviewed at this time.”
“No other military chaplain contracts were under review or subjected to the same scrutiny as Father Leonard’s,” Mersino said the Archdiocese for the Military Service confirmed.
Leonard was denied pay for the last two months and suffered financial hardship. After multiple requests by TMLC, he was paid on Dec. 23 for his work performed for November.
[...]
Leonard serves approximately 300 Catholics on the base who were also shut out from practicing their faith.
Services of other Christian denominations on the base were allowed to continue during the shutdown.
Leonard explained his situation in an affidavit.
“I am called to serve the military. Our brave servicemen and women face great stresses,” said Leonard. He cited higher rates of depression and suicide amongst the military and also higher rates of divorce compared with the general population.
“I wish to offer spiritual encouragement, prayer, help, and assistance to our military. There is a need to support the military with a religious and faithful community,” Leonard said.
Leonard offered to work without pay during the shutdown on a volunteer basis but was told he would face arrest if he attempted to enter the chapel.
[...]
Leonard could not be reached for comment as of press time, but his sworn statements detail his struggles with religious freedom while serving in China and now in the United States.
“I spent the last 10 years in China serving the Tibetans and the world’s most poor,” Leonard said. “I have tried to help those in poverty with my acts of kindness and by trying to do good deeds for others.”
“In China, I was disallowed from performing public religious services due to the lack of religious freedom in. I never imagined that when I returned home to the United States, that I would be forbidden from practicing my religious beliefs as I am called to do, and would be forbidden from helping and serving my faith community,” Leonard said.
 |
| "Let me tell you folks, I've got all sorts of government agencies to attack you with. It's like a dream come true!" |
Internal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emails show extensive collaboration between top agency officials and leading environmentalist groups, including overt efforts to coordinate messaging and pressure the fossil fuel industry.
The emails, obtained by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, could fuel an ongoing controversy over EPA policies that critics say are biased against traditional sources of energy.
Emails show EPA used official events to help environmentalist groups gather signatures for petitions on agency rulemaking, incorporated advance copies of letters drafted by those groups into official statements, and worked with environmentalists to publicly pressure executives of at least one energy company.
Nancy Grantham, director of public affairs for EPA Region 1, which covers New England, asked an organizer for the Sierra Club’s New Hampshire chapter to share the group’s agenda so EPA could adjust its messaging accordingly in an email dated March 12, 2012.
“If you could, it would great [sic] if you can send me an email describing what you would like to do in early April in NH–that way I can coordinate messaging with our air offices here and at HQ,” Grantham wrote.
Critics of the agency and its nonprofit allies were surprised by the cooperation.
“The level of coordination in these documents is shocking,” EELI said in a statement.
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said the emails suggest that the EPA is straying from its mission by working hand-in-hand with hardline green groups.
“It’s unfortunate that EPA has spent more of its resources promoting and coordinating a political agenda with environmentalists instead of doing its job,” Pompeo said in an emailed statement.
“In Kansas, we expect public officials to serve the public interest, not the interests of radical environmentalist groups.”
The documents also reveal some of the internal deliberations behind recent controversial EPA decisions, such as the locations of public hearings on an agency rule imposing stringent emissions limits for power plants.
The agency came under fire from legislators representing coal-producing states for holding those hearings far from regions where most of the nation’s coal is produced.
“Instead of the EPA holding a coal hearing in the heart of Coal Country, Kentucky, he has chosen locations such as San Francisco and Washington, D.C.,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said at the time.
McConnell accused EPA of “once again showing its contempt for Kentucky’s coal miners and their families.”
Emails released by EELI show that EPA decided on the locations for those hearings after consulting with leading environmentalist groups that advocate the complete phase-out of coal power.
 |
| PLEASE CLICK PIC TO ENLARGE |
Release of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) Benghazi timeline [pic above and linked here] comes as a new Senate report published Wednesday concluded that “the attacks were preventable.”
As the GAI timeline reveals, Obama failed to attend his daily intelligence briefing for the five consecutive days leading up to the September 11, 2012 attack of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
The Benghazi timeline catalogues Obama’s continuous campaigning even as terrorist forces vowed Libyan attacks and State Department officials were warned of security threats.
The day following the deadly attacks, Obama departed for a Las Vegas campaign rally.
 |
| "Hey, let's all remember that the real roadblock to peace is Israeli obstructionism!" |
The Iron Dome rocket defense system intercepted five rockets fired by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza at Ashkelon early Thursday morning. An additional rocket may have landed in an open, uninhabited area.
There were no injuries in the Palestinian attack.
The IAF responded to the rocket fire on Wednesday by attacking four targets in the northern Gaza Strip: a terror site, an underground rocket launcher, a weapons storage facility and a weapons manufacturing site, the IDF Spokesperson said. The spokesperson confirmed "direct hits" for all the targets.
On Monday, the Israel Air Force struck two targets in Gaza evening in response to rocket fire on southern Israel earlier in the day. The rockets, which landed in fields in the Sha’ar Hanegev Regional Council, came shortly after the completion of the funeral service for former prime minister Ariel Sharon in the nearby Sycamore Ranch.
 |
| "Hey, it's only against the law if someone is there to enforce the law." |
According to a leak to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Bureau of Investigation "didn't find the kind of political bias or 'enemy hunting' that would amount to a violation of criminal law." And so, nobody was likely to be prosecuted for the most blatant politicization of a federal agency within memory.
All the Bureau found was a "mismanaged" agency that enforced rules "it didn't understand." In other words, nothing to see here, move along.
That's strange stuff for an agency whose most implicated regulator, Lois Lerner, invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination in congressional testimony last year. That she came to congressional attention was only because of her calculated announcement that the IRS had in fact targeted Tea Party groups for special scrutiny — that's right, admitted to breaking the law — in a preemptive attempt to paint her abuse of power as a customer service problem.
Her minions lied that it was only the work of low-level bureaucratic bumblers in Cincinnati. And after that sleazy string of favors that coincidentally benefited her president, she was permitted to retire on a full pension.
The reality is, the acts reeked of political targeting, the most illegal of acts, a corrupt use of government power, and a worthy target of checks and balances provided by the FBI in the name of law and order.
But for some reason, the FBI has neither interviewed the Tea Party activists targeted for intrusive scrutiny, nor has it noticed anything amiss in light of the White House's rabid attacks on Tea Party activists. It hasn't noticed the Tea Party's demonstrable political strength in its large gatherings during the most intense period of its political targeting, nor noted the president's record of "joking" about investigating political opponents.
And it hasn't picked up the clue from the Center for Responsive Politics showing that IRS employees donated to Obama's campaign by more than 2 to 1 over Tea Party-tied Republicans — let alone that the prosecutor chosen by the president to look into this case is a fat-cat donor to Obama.
[...]
It's interesting to note that Rep. Darrell Issa of California announced Tuesday that a top FBI official suddenly won't cooperate with the House Oversight Committee after meeting with a top Justice Department political appointee. Issa says the FBI is stonewalling.
Back in 1974, the IRS was fulsomely praised for resisting President Nixon's orders to investigate his political foes. Today, it's held some 100 White House meetings over the course of the Tea Party's political ascent and been caught red-handed persecuting them.
As for the FBI, its fall is even more disturbing. It was once was known for its squeaky clean image and willingness to enforce the law without fear or favor.
Today, it's slid so far into the Washington morass it no longer considers law enforcement its prime mission. About a week ago, it quite questionably declared its top mission "national security" — an abrogation of its congressionally mandated mission.
As such, can the public now trust the FBI or the IRS?
"The growth of government has been accompanied by increasing cronyism that has undermined the rule of law and perceptions of fairness," wrote the Heritage Foundation in its latest ranking of global economic freedom, in which the U.S. fell out the top 10.
If the FBI won't enforce the law anymore, who will?The IRS scandal stinks all along the line. Obama's victory will always have an asterisk behind it. Using the IRS, EPA, and other alphabet soup federal organizations to intimidate donors and organizers, in an attempt to disrupt a rival's campaign is some of the most thuggish tactics used my modern American presidents. Obama is a disgrace.
 |
| "Okay. So, I lied repeatedly about dozens of ObamaCare issues. Just remember, that without my presidency we'd all be going to bloodletters. Also it's eventually going to be totally free. Trust me." |
The persistent misrepresentations and outright lies were in fact integral to the law's passage, to its implementation, and to the damage-control phase that began with the botched launch of the online insurance exchanges in October. Judging by how badly the rollout has been managed thus far, it is possible that the president's apology tour has only just begun.
1. "If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it."
The most notorious of Obama's promises was arguably the most critical for Obamacare's passage. Here is how he put it a week after signing the ACA into law: "If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn't happened yet. It won't happen in the future."
Obama offered some variation on this promise dozens of times even after the summer 2010 release of rules governing which pre-existing insurance plans would be "grandfathered" into legal acceptability despite not otherwise complying with the new law. Those regulations prompted bureaucrats at the time to quietly estimate that between 40 and 67 percent of individual market health insurance plans would not be covered by the grandfather clause. Indeed, the rules were crafted narrowly to guarantee this result, so that healthy people on low-cost plans would end up switching to more expensive insurance, in effect subsidizing sicker people covered by the policies sold on the exchanges.
Obama's advisers knew full well that his original promise could not be kept. As The Wall Street Journal reported on November 13, the White House policy team pushed for more nuanced language than its political staff wanted. The wonks lost out to the hacks.
[...]
2. "What we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed."
[...]
Reality: President Obama promised repeatedly, with no caveats or qualifications, that people who liked their plans could keep them, and that no one would ever take them away, period. Versions of the promise were captured on video at least 36 times.
3. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period."
[...]
Reality: People who can't keep their plans often can't keep their doctors, because doctors are affiliated with particular networks and insurers. Many of the new plans offered through the law's insurance exchanges were built with narrow networks to keep costs down. Top hospitals are available under relatively few of the exchange plans, generally those with relatively high premiums.
4. "We'll start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family."
[...]
Reality: The average annual premium for an employer-provided health plan rose from $13,375 to $16,351 between 2009 and 2013, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Prices for individual market plans like those found on the exchanges are also up, with the average state facing premium increases of 41 percent, according to a November 2013 analysis by Manhattan Institute health policy analyst Avik Roy.
[...]
10. "Take away the volume, and it works."
As the launch of the exchange system continued, top members of the administration began to admit they had a problem. But it was, in the words of HHS Secretary Sebelius, "a good problem to have." The failure, they claimed, was due to higher-than-expected traffic, meaning there was even more initial interest in the exchanges than the administration had anticipated. It would therefore be an easy problem to solve. "These bugs were functions of volume," White House Chief Technology Officer Todd Park told USAToday on October 5. "Take away the volume, and it works."
Reality: Volume dropped, but malfunctions continued. Outside experts contacted by multiple news organizations found many shortcuts, messy construction, and unnecessary functions in the visible portions of the code. And insurers reported that the enrollment information they were receiving from the system was frequently flawed. The system was not just overwhelmed; it was poorly designed.
[...]
12. "[We] follow high standards regarding the privacy and security of personal information."
Beyond the issue of whether the exchanges would work at all, many had questions about whether they would be secure. The exchanges were designed to judge eligibility for Obamacare's insurance subsidies, which would require applicants to submit Social Security numbers, addresses, income numbers, and other sensitive personal information.
The administration insisted that Web security would be tight. "The final Marketplace rule," Gary Cohen, the top exchange official, told the Senate Finance Committee in February 2013, "ensures Marketplaces develop and follow high standards regarding the privacy and security of personal information while following Affordable Care Act requirements regarding the use of data."
Reality: By launch day, the deadline-driven operational demands outweighed security concerns. The exchange went live under a last-minute temporary security authorization signed by Marilyn Tavenner, the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It said "aspects of the system that were not tested due to the ongoing development exposed a level of uncertainty that can be deemed as a high risk."
 |
| "The Light-bringer of Dreams gives orders, and the Justice Department obeys. So it is now, and it shall always be," |
The FBI is not planning to file criminal charges involving the Internal Revenue Service's extra scrutiny of the Tea Party and other conservative groups, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing law enforcement officials.
The newspaper quoted officials as saying that investigators probing the IRS actions, which unleashed a political furor in Washington, did not uncover the type of political bias or "enemy hunting" that would constitute a criminal violation. The evidence showed a mismanaged agency enforcing rules it did not understand on applications for tax exemptions, the Journal reported.
[...]
In May, a senior IRS executive made an unexpected public apology at a legal conference for what she described as improper scrutiny by the agency of conservative political groups.
The apology set off weeks of investigation and controversy, culminating in findings that Tea Party-linked political groups applying for tax-exempt status had been subjected to extra review and delay by employees at an IRS Cincinnati field office.
Vice magazine visited the groups in Beijing, often called "ant" or "rat" tribes because of the hours of labor they work and their lives underground. They found a ravaging and severely unhealthy economic situation below the already dismal lifestyles that the communist country's economy has yielded millions. The "ant" tribe tends to be composed of young professionals who are forced to take unskilled labor jobs because of the closing job market. They can only afford to live in these tight spaces. The "rat" tribe is far less wealthy and typically composed of migrant unskilled workers. They occupy former bomb shelters and other underground lairs in a much less orderly way as they toil dawn-to-dusk trying to make ends meet.
The "ants," who are described in the report as "highly-educated working poor," pay rent to the owners of these underground areas, owners who have established a system of living spaces where up to six people could be paying rent to live in the same room. The rooms are makeshift creations in places like parking lots that were never meant for permanent dwelling, particularly of so many people at once.
The rent for living in a small room in one of these colonies is inexpensive enough for a young professional working in private industry to afford, as the largest salaries in China are reserved for high-ranking members of the government or employees working for the government. While they are above ground, though impoverished, they are sometimes in suburban areas further away from work or school. Private industry pays 70% less than government work but constitutes a great number of the white collar jobs in urban areas. This is especially important in a smog-filled city where young workers find themselves with no health care aid and are forced to take unskilled or low-skill jobs after receiving liberal arts or professional degrees. "Even minor symptoms will cost you a lot of money," says one of the dwellers in Vice's documentary, noting that he does not see the possibility of ever saving money to move out of the space he currently rents, especially if he gets even mildly sick.
Those living in air-raid shelters face a host of different problems even more dangerous than those who find spaces slightly higher underground. These shelters were never meant for dwelling, so they lack a number of amenities, including fire escape paths, kitchens, and bathrooms. They cook by lighting a fire on the floor and make amends to fix other living situations, but with no windows or means of ventilation, most create dangerous fire hazards and pollute the already smoggy Beijing air.
The following report is a translation from Chinese media. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily Mail.
Relying on US support, the Philippines is so arrogant as to announce in the New Year that it will increase its navy and air force deployment at Zhongye Island, a Chinese island that it has illegally occupied for years.
It will be an intolerable insult to China
According to experts, the Chinese navy has drawn a detailed combat plan to seize the island and the battle will be restricted within the South China Sea.
The battle is aimed at recovery of the island stolen by the Philippines from China.
There will be no invasion into Filipino territories.
A report in the Philippines Star confirmed the Philippines military buildup on the island.
The government has allotted P479.75 million in upgrading Navy and Air Force facilities at the Pagasa Island, one of the nine areas occupied by Filipino troops in the Spratly Islands.
The Department of National Defense said the project, which is at the Defense Acquisition of System level, aims to boost the implementation of the AFP modernization program.
The project, which will go through public bidding, is funded by Republic Act 7898 or the AFP Modernization Law of 1995.
On December 2012, President Aquino signed into law RA 10349 or the Revised AFP Modernization Law extending the program for another 15 years.
A security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the project seeks to upgrade the airstrip and improve Navy facilities at Pagasa Island, which serves as the seat of government of Kalayaan town, Palawan.
The eight other areas in the Spratly Islands occupied by troops include Lawak Island, Panatag Shoal, Likas Island, Parola Island, Panata Island, Kota Island, Rizal Reef and Ayungin Shoal. These areas also form part of Kalayaan town.
A military official said it was very important to improve the facilities “because that is our complete station in the Kalayaan Island Group.” He said upgrading facilities in the island will mean “better monitoring.”
“Our awareness will be improved,” the source said, adding that the facilities in the island are only “basic requirements” to sustain the needs of troops in the island.
The Spratly Islands or the Kalayaan Island Group is situated at the South China Sea or West Philippine Sea. It is a chain of islands and islets believed to be rich in oil and mineral deposits.
It is being claimed in part or in whole by the Philippines, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam.
The strongest in terms of military might, China, has turned aggressive in its claims over the past years.
Despite rough sea conditions in the South China Sea, at least two Chinese maritime surveillance ships (MSS) were monitored near Ayungin Shoal where Philippine Navy personnel are stationed.
Kalayaan Mayor Eugenio Bito-onon said based on the latest information given to him by local fishermen who sought shelter in Ayungin Shoal around noontime last Monday, two Chinese MSS were spotted in the area.
“Local fishermen sought shelter in Ayungin due to bad weather conditions and spotted two Chinese ships stationary about 200 meters from the shoal,” he added.
But there was no aggressive move against the local fishermen, Bito-onon said.
According to him, three other unidentified “huge ships” were seen approximately five kilometers from Pagasa Island, the seat of Kalayaan local government.
The three unidentified ships are suspected to be harvesting corals within the country’s territorial waters.
Meanwhile, Bito-onon reiterated calls for the national government to fast-track the planned dock in Pagasa Island to boost local fishing industry in the area.
A better fishing facility in Pagasa Island, Bito-onon said, will surely attract investment in the area, which is known to be a rich fishing ground.
Chinese vessels have maintained presence in Ayungin Shoal since last May despite the presence of Philippine Navy personnel there.These two articles certainly do not mean that the Chinese plan to invade the Philippines, but it is enough for me to not completely dismiss the idea. We'll have to pay attention to the Chinese propaganda and see if they start ramping up the anti-Philippine rhetoric. If they do, then I'd start to give this Chinese threat some serious thought.
 |
| "Ignore these numbers. They were all made by racists." |
Yes, the unemployment rate has fallen significantly from its high of 10 percent in October of 2009. But it turns out the unemployment rate has been falling for a pretty depressing reason: people dropping out of the labor force. Last month, 347,000 workers dropped out, effectively sending the message that it wasn’t even worth looking for work anymore.
Here’s what the unemployment rate would look like if the labor force participation rate — basically the number of people in the economy working or looking for work — had remained constant since June of 2009:
[...]
To understand how the labor force numbers affect the unemployment rate, it helps to understand how the unemployment rate is calculated. First, BLS determines who is a member of the civilian non-institutional population: people who are 16 years of age or older who are not inhabitants of institutions (prisons, mental institutions, etc.) and not active duty members of the U.S. military. Next, BLS determines what percentage of those individuals are members of the labor force: that roughly consists of people who are either working or are looking for work. Then, BLS determines how many individuals within the labor force are employed. Subtracting the number of employed persons from the labor force gives you the number of unemployed, and dividing the number of unemployed by the total labor force gives you the unemployment rate.
If you hold total employment constant and increase the size of the labor force, the number of unemployed persons will increase, as will the unemployment rate. A shrinking labor force, however, can completely mask a serious job shortage by excluding those who stop looking for work altogether from the calculation of unemployed persons.
In June of 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7 percent (by way of comparison, the average over the last decade is 65.1 percent, while the peak was 66.5 percent in June of 2003). Since the end of the recession, that number has nose-dived. At the end of last month, it hit 62.8 percent — on par with what the U.S. experienced in the late 1970′s (although at the time, the number was on the upswing).
What does this all mean? Rather than being the sign of a vibrant economy, the falling unemployment rate is actually an arithmetic artifact of the BLS head-counting process. If the labor force participation rate had held steady since 2009, the number of people in the labor force today would total nearly 162 million people. Instead, BLS reports the official number to be just shy of 155 million.
And thanks to how BLS calculates and reports the official unemployment rate, those 7 million people are not included among the ranks of the unemployed. Add them back in and you have an unemployment rate that averages a very stubborn 10.8 percent since the end of the recession.
Some recovery, huh?
 |
| "Listen folks, the law is the law! It is as permanent and constant as the North Star! And it wil never, never be relegated to the dustbin of history!" |
Support for the Affordable Care Act [aka ObamaCare] has fallen to its lowest point in more than a year, according to a Gallup poll released on Friday
The survey found that 54 percent disapprove of the healthcare law, against only 38 percent who approve.
The 16-point unfavorable spread is near an all-time high for ObamaCare, and a considerable difference from last month’s 10-point differential, when 51 percent said they disapproved of the law, against 41 who said they approved.
[...]
In addition, 48 percent said they expect ObamaCare will make their lives worse, 35 percent said it would make no difference, and only 12 percent said it would make their lives better.Now let's wait until 50,000,000+ lose their insurance after ObamaCare forces employers to comply with their regulation. What do you think the numbers will be like then?
 |
| "Look, trying to micro-manage the economy and punish my enemies is really hard. I need another vacation..." |
So much for the recovery. Moments ago December nonfarms were revealed at just 74,000 a huge miss to expectations of 197,000 - the biggest miss Since December 2009. The drop from last month's revised 226K was the largest since December 2010. Other notables: the change in private payrolls was a tiny 87K vs expectations of 200K. Mfg payrolls added just 9K vs 15K expected and down from 31K. Average hourly earnings for all employees rose 0.1% vs. Expected 0.2%. The good news: the unemployment rate plunged to 6.7% from 7.0%... For all the wrong reasons - the number of people not in the labor force rose to a record 91,808,000. As a reason for the plunge the BLS says there was a major weather effect seen on the forced part-time series, and notes the decline in healthcare which is rare and part of the sector slowing. Thank you Obamacare. And now bring on the Untaper.
[...]
Some of the highlights from the report:
[...]
Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs decreased by 365,000 in December to 5.4 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 3.9 million, showed little change; these individuals accounted for 37.7 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 894,000 over the year. (See tables A-11 and A-12.)
The civilian labor force participation rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 62.8 percent in December, offsetting a change of the same magnitude in November. In December, the employment-population ratio was unchanged at 58.6 percent. The labor force participation rate declined by 0.8 percentage point over the year, while the employment-population ratio was unchanged. (See table A-1.) [emphasis mine]
 |
| Chart from Gallup's article |
Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008.
The results are based on more than 18,000 interviews with Americans from 13 separate Gallup multiple-day polls conducted in 2013.
In each of the last three years, at least 40% of Americans have identified as independents. These are also the only years in Gallup's records that the percentage of independents has reached that level.
Americans' increasing shift to independent status has come more at the expense of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Republican identification peaked at 34% in 2004, the year George W. Bush won a second term in office. Since then, it has fallen nine percentage points, with most of that decline coming during Bush's troubled second term. When he left office, Republican identification was down to 28%. It has declined or stagnated since then, improving only slightly to 29% in 2010, the year Republicans "shellacked" Democrats in the midterm elections.
 |
| "Okay. So I lied. What are you racist, little folks going to do about it?" |
It has not simply been that time has vindicated many of the conservative complaints. On the contrary: The Left has started to admit that much of what Obamacare’s critics said was true all along — even going so far as to unashamedly incorporate the grievances into their apologies. Earlier in the year, Jonathan Chait, Jonathan Cohn, and Ezra Klein — the administration’s golden trio — all of a sudden switched tactics and came clean. As reports of increased premiums started to flood in from across the country, the group tutted impatiently, rolled its eyes, and, with a how-stupid-are-you tone, explained that obviously one couldn’t cover a whole host of new people without some premiums’ being raised. In other words, once Obamacare’s launch was imminent, the Left admitted that conservatives’ key critique — which the president and Nancy Pelosi had promised over and over and over again was but a lie — had been correct all along.
So habitually has the administration insisted that the troubles with Obamacare are the fault of wreckers and traitors that it has occasionally lost touch with reality. As Mediaite’s Noah Rothman noted, on the last day of last year a White House health-care adviser named Phil Schiliro took to MSNBC to claim that that the CBO enrollment projections that the White House and HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius had been touting as a target all year had nothing to do with the administration. George Orwell’s name is rather overused in modern political journalism, but this really was a deception worthy of IngSoc, and its shifting, mutating truths the sign of deep dysfunction. Over and over, Sebelius had made it abundantly clear that the government wanted 3 million sign-ups by January, and 7 million by the end of March. But when the government only got 2 by the New Year, it simply pretended that the target had never existed. Have we always been at war with Eastasia?
Nonsense on both sides has been rife from the outset. That’s politics. And around the edges, some conservatives did indeed scream bloody murder — weakening their case with frivolous allegations and careless language. But where it really mattered, the Right’s barbs hit their target. Whether Obamacare was a stalking horse for something much worse, and whether it will succeed in metastasizing into a nightmare for liberty, remains to be seen. Still, at this early stage, one thing seems certain: By the time we find out what happens in Chapter 2, an awful lot more of the “lies” that were told about the law will — as quietly as possible, without an apology in sight, and only when it is safe for them to do so — have somehow, magically come true.
 |
| "You'll love ObamaCare, or I shall smite you!" |
1. Many won’t pay: A sizeable share of the 2 million people who selected a private insurance plan before the 2013 deadline will not pay their share of the premiums and therefore won’t be covered by the plans in which the White House says they “enrolled.” Enrolling, by the White House definition, is actually just selecting a plan — the same as putting an item in the shopping basket at Amazon. Until you pay, you don’t own it. Early reports from Washington State and Nevada show that only half of those selecting a plan had paid their first month’s premium before the deadline.
2. Others will stop paying: Even if people do pay their premiums for the first few months, we’ll wait to see how many people are still paying them later in the year and maintaining their insurance. Remember, the law requires people to pay premiums for health insurance every month, year after year, to comply with the mandate; if they go more than three months in a year without government-approved health insurance, they have to pay a penalty tax.
3. Many enrollees will be the newly-uninsured: Obama-administration officials are not releasing data on how many of the people who have picked plans are from the ranks of the uninsured. One reason: It is likely that many if not most of those enrolling in private insurance are people who have been kicked out of their existing private plans because their policies didn’t comply with the mountain of Obamacare rules, mandates, and requirements.
