Patterico's Pontifications

11/7/2009

NCAA Football, Week 10

Filed under: Sports — DRJ @ 10:36 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Some big wins in the Top 25 this week, but also some big losses: #4 Iowa, #7 Oregon, #9 LSU (lost to #3 Alabama), #11 Penn State (lost to #15 Ohio State), #19 Notre Dame, and #20 Oklahoma.

— DRJ

Health Care Vote (Updated with Final Vote)

Filed under: Government,Health Care — DRJ @ 7:23 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Stupak amendment (abortion) was adopted with the support of 64 Democrats. The House is considering a Motion to Recommit, and a vote on HB 3962 is expected shortly.

— DRJ

UPDATE — The final vote:

Democratic: Yea – 219; Nay – 39
Republican: Yea – 1; Nay – 176
Total: Yea – 220; Nay – 215

HB 3962 passed. One Republican, voted for it. C-SPAN says the Republican vote came from Anh “Joseph” Cao, a Vietnamese immigrant and freshman Lousiana Congressman who took over William Jefferson’s seat.

PelosiCare: Are The Votes There?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:45 pm

The Politico quotes Democrats saying yes:

At this moment, Democratic sources say their internal head counts have them breaking through the 218 mark this afternoon.

Consider this an open thread.

Fort Hood Suspect Has Ties to 9/11 Mosque (Updated x2)

Filed under: Crime,Terrorism — DRJ @ 4:44 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Telegraph reports Nidal Malik Hasan attended the same mosque where three of the 9/11 hijackers worshiped:

“Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.”

This doesn’t prove Hasan is a terrorist but, as Allahpundit says, it raises another giant red flag. Meanwhile, criminal justice experts like James Fox of Northeastern University [no link available but I saw it on Fox News earlier today] insist this has all the hallmarks of a classic workplace shooting.

If he survives, maybe Hasan can clear this up for us.

— DRJ

UPDATE — Co-workers knew Hasan had a problem but were reluctant to file a complaint:

“His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.

“The system is not doing what it’s supposed to do,” said Dr. Val Finnell, who studied with Hasan from 2007-2008 in the master’s program in public health at the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. “He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out.”

UPDATE 2: Who was the visitor in Islamic garb that was at Hasan’s apartment less than 48 hours before the shooting? And why aren’t American newspapers investigating and reporting this?

Glenn Greenwald Smears Allahpundit and Me . . . With Ellipses

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 2:13 pm

Glenn Greenwald yesterday once again resorted to his habit of smearing conservative bloggers by selectively quoting them, and omitting the parts that destroy Greenwald’s thesis. The giveaway is . . . the ellipses:

Last night, right-wing blogger (and law professor) Glenn Reynolds promoted this media analysis from right-wing blogger (and Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney) Patterico regarding coverage of the Fort Hood shootings. Patterico wrote: “Whenever there is breaking news, it’s good to keep a few things in mind: . . . Always follow Allahpundit” — referring to one of the two bloggers at Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air site.

Greenwald then spends much of his post quoting items from Allahpundit’s coverage (taken from Big Media) that later proved to be false. Greenwald claims that Allahpundit was “appropriately skeptical” only “at times” and claims that Allahpundit “pass[ed] along [] much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false.” (Actually, much of what Allahpundit reported from Twitter proved to be more accurate than official accounts — but never mind that for now.)

Greenwald’s implication is clear: right-wing blogger Patterico shouldn’t have recommended Allahpundit’s coverage — and right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds shouldn’t have linked Patterico’s recommendation of Allahpundit.

If only those right-wing bloggers had warned their readers to be skeptical and avoid jumping to conclusions . . .

But wait! What’s that little ellipsis in Greenwald’s quotation of my post? Why, I do believe that’s an indication that he left something out of my quote! Let’s just look at that whole quote to see what Greenwald chose to omit, shall we? I’ll put the part Greenwald omitted in bold type:

Whenever there is breaking news, it’s good to keep a few things in mind:

  • Don’t jump to conclusions.
  • Don’t be afraid to discuss relevant topics even if they seem politically incorrect.

  • Always follow Allahpundit.

Hmmm. So Greenwald omits the part of my quote where I explicitly warn readers, as the very first thing I say, that they should not jump to conclusions in breaking news situations. And then Greenwald implies that my recommendation of Allahpundit was a poor one because Allahpundit jumped to invalid conclusions.

But Greenwald’s treatment of me is nothing compared to his smear of Allahpundit’s coverage. Greenwald’s quotations from Allahpundit’s post are riddled with ellipses that omit all of Allahpundit’s repeated warnings to treat various reports with skepticism. Let’s look at some examples. Again, keep your eyes on the ellipses.

Greenwald’s quotation of Allahpundit:

Good lord — there’s a report from BNO News on Twitter that new shooting is being heard on the base. . . .

Allahpundit’s actual quote:

Good lord — there’s a report from BNO News on Twitter that new shooting is being heard on the base. Nothing on the wires yet. Big grain of salt.

Greenwald’s quotation of Allahpundit:

. . . Contra Brian Ross, the AP says it’s unclear what Hasan’s religion was or whether he was a convert.

Allahpundit’s actual quote:

Per the last update, here’s another reminder of why it’s always a bad idea to speculate too much: Contra Brian Ross, the AP says it’s unclear what Hasan’s religion was or whether he was a convert.

Greenwald’s quotation of Allahpundit:

I’m hearing on Twitter that Fox interviewed one of his neighbors within the last half-hour or so and that the neighbor claims Hasan was handing out Korans just this morning. Does anyone have video? . . . . “Brenda Price of KUSJ reported to Greta at 10:33: ‘also, the latest I am hearing, this morning, apparently according to his neighbors, he was walking around kind of giving out his possessions, giving away his furniture, handing out the Koran…'” . . .

Allahpundit’s actual quote:

I’m hearing on Twitter that Fox interviewed one of his neighbors within the last half-hour or so and that the neighbor claims Hasan was handing out Korans just this morning. Does anyone have video? Or is this a bad lead? Smells fishy to me but multiple people have mentioned it.

Update: Ryan Lewis offers this transcript: “Brenda Price of KUSJ reported to Greta at 10:33: ‘also, the latest I am hearing, this morning, apparently according to his neighbors, he was walking around kind of giving out his possessions, giving away his furniture, handing out the Koran…’” Sounds like her information is secondhand. Grain of salt.

Almost every caveat offered by Allahpundit is surgically removed to make his coverage sound gullible when it was continually skeptical.

Despite Greenwald’s history of dishonest sock-puppeting, there are times when I want to like him, because he sometimes shows an inclination to act on principle. Specifically, Greenwald has criticized Obama on many occasions when Obama has failed to live up to the standards Greenwald expects from him. Whatever else I think about the man, I admire that aspect of Greenwald’s writing.

That’s why it’s especially unfortunate that Greenwald continues to engage in this sort of slippery dishonesty.

Is the House GOP enabling PelosiCare?

Filed under: General — Karl @ 12:36 pm

[Posted by Karl]

It sort of looks like they are. At the close of Friday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lacked the votes for her version of ObamaCare. She was reportedly about 10 votes short. House Democratic leaders finally decided to allow a vote on the Stupak amendment, which purports to block money in ObamaCare from funding abortions, which made pro-life Dems and apparatchiks in the legislative office of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops happy.

The Stupak amendment — which was apparently needed to secure passage of PelosiCare — is expected to pass with assistance from the GOP. Indeed, the House GOP leadership reportedly intends to back the Stupak amendment and is putting the word out to members about it.

Left unmentioned is what the GOP hopes to get out of it. If 25-30 GOPers voted “present” on the Stupak amendment, there would be some trouble on the House floor. Pro-life Dems could try to blame the GOP for their votes for a pro-choice bill — but surely everyone already knows that the GOP intends to solidly oppose the final bill, even if the Stupak amendment passes. Or they could decide to follow their consciences, even if it meant killing the bill. However, unless Boehner, Cantor and Pence are being more devious than I would expect, the House GOP intends to enable pro-life Dems to provide the winning margin for ObamaCare in the House.

Update: Via NRO’s Critical Condition:

With the Stupak amendment set for a vote early this evening, GOP House staffers tell us that its passage is crucial in order to defeat Obamacare down the line. Their logic: Stupak came to an agreement last night with House Democratic leaders. If his amendment got a vote, he argued, then he and other pro-life Democrats could support Pelosi’s bill by final passage. It will be a close vote, they predict. Just now on the House floor, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) refused to commit to the Stupak amendment being included in the final bill post-conference. And there’s the rub, say the GOP staffers: Stupak should be supported because it preserves current abortion law and blocks federal funding, as well as dividing the Democratic caucus. This is the best way to defeat the bill at its next stage, one says. “The Democrats will battle it out.”

Except that if the Dems can roll their pro-choice members today, they will be able to do it again if the Stupak amendment is part of the final bill, won’t they?

Update x2: The HuffPo has this:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told reporters that regardless of the outcome of the vote on his amendment, which would severely restrict coverage of reproductive health issues, the House health care bill is headed for passage. He is whipping support for the amendment and estimates he has 225 votes. If he’s right, the amendment will pass, and he predicted enough pro-life Democrats will vote yes on the final bill to put it over the top. But if it fails, he said, enough pro-lifers — ten to 15, he said — will have been satisfied to have had their vote on the floor that they’ll turn around and support the final bill anyway. Picking up ten to 15 votes would give the bill a comfortable margin for passage.

Maybe that is true — or maybe it is what you say to try to discourage GOPers from voting “present.” With the GOP backing for Stupak, we will likely never know.

–Karl

More Fuzzy Math on Jobs Saved

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:54 am

This time, in California. The story is broken — by the Los Angeles Times? Uh, no. By the Sacramento Bee:

Up to one-fourth of the 110,000 jobs reported as saved by federal stimulus money in California probably never were in danger, a Bee review has found.

California State University officials reported late last week that they saved more jobs with stimulus money than the number of jobs saved in Texas – and in 44 other states.

In a required state report to the federal government, the university system said the $268.5 million it received in stimulus funding through October allowed it to retain 26,156 employees.

That total represents more than half of CSU’s statewide work force. However, university officials confirmed Thursday that half their workers were not going to be laid off without the stimulus dollars.

“This is not really a real number of people,” CSU spokeswoman Clara Potes-Fellow said. “It’s like a budget number.”

How did this happen? They followed federal guidelines given to them by the Obama administration:

In the case of the CSU system, spokeswoman Potes-Fellow said university officials followed federal reporting guidelines in calculating the numbers.

They determined that CSU’s stimulus funds equaled the pay of roughly 26,000 full-time employees for the two months following the allocation, May and June, and reported that as the number of jobs saved, Potes-Fellow said.

By now, this is a pattern. A pattern of deception.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1967 secs.