Daily news sites

An autumnal palette color I was wearing on my first day at NYFW and probably the only day when I wore a sweater jacket, after that the weather become hotter and hotter.
Secretly I'm waiting for regular  Fall days and also to wear sweaters and booties... Don't you?



                                                                                       Jacket: Zara/ option Here 
                                                                                       Dress: Zara/ similar style Here and Here 
                                                                                       Clutch: vintage/ option Here
                                                                                       Heels: Miu Miu/ different color Here 
                                                                                       Bracelets: c/o COOEE.se
                                                                                       Sunglasses: Foster Grant/ great option Here

Bodies Not Cold Yet -- Left Cries: "Take Their Guns!"
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
****************
 "One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." -- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
***************

Will it never end, indeed(?! ) ... I mean, the Left's relentless drive to violate the constitutional rights of the American citizen.

The bodies from the shooting at the Washington Navy Yard were not even cold yet, the smoke had not entirely cleared the air,  and there was Senator Diane Feinstein, a "progressive" (21st century code-word for Marxist)  from California, railing amid the metaphorical flow of verbal crocodile tears:  "When is enough, enough?" 

Oh woe, Oh woe, Senator.  When, indeed, is enough, enough?  Believe me when I proclaim to you, and your cohorts on the left, we have HAD far MORE than enough of your assault on our constitutional rights. 

On the other hand, it is close enough to the 2014 elections that it might serve a good purpose for you democrats to begin beating the drum AGAIN for gun control. 

Americans have had a belly-full of "you people" and we are currently on the cusp of driving you from power in Washington.  That little added "umph" of attempted gun control could do the trick for us and give us a real chance to fumigate the halls of Congress of the stench of Marxism without you leftists in it continually creating a veritable fog of noxious communist propaganda.

So, go ahead, Senator.  Give us more political ammo to use against you, and I assure you, madam,  WE SHALL! 

Why, oh why, after learning that the people committing these awful gun crimes are mentally ill, does the government insist on blaming perfectly sane law-abiding citizens for the erratic behavior of the mentally ill? 

You want to stop the gun massacres?  Get the mentally ill off the streets and into secure hospitals where they can be treated -- and the public can be safe from them.  It is that simple.

BUT --- The gun control advocates won't even discuss this simple solution. Very much like "profiling," somehow, the left sees treating the mentally ill as a violation of THEIR constitutional rights.  How convoluted is that?   
They're throwing around that phrase "common sense" again.  Have you noticed?  Commonsense gun control, restrictions/regulations, etc. 

Look, anytime the left tosses around the words "common sense" Americans had better grab their guns and trot quickly to the barricades.

Common sense?  Come on, folks!  At the same time that thirteen bleeding dead bodies are lying on the ground beneath a blue haze of gun smoke, our fearless(?)/feckless President goes on national TV to ... make another political speech ...  a POLITICAL SPEECH, while Americans lay dead and wounded just a mile and a half from the room in which he was speaking!  THAT'S common sense???

That's callousness. 

That's not caring. 

That's hard-hearted -- not to mention that it is politically DUMB!

"In the wake of the shooting at the Navy Yard, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the president is implementing executive actions and reiterated his commitment to strengthening gun laws, including expanding background checks to sales online and at gun shows."

“The president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common-sense measures to reduce gun violence,” Carney said.   SOURCE:  http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/17/carney-obama-implementing-executive-actions-following-navy-yard-shooting/

Two things I'd like you to notice from Mr. Carney's words above:  "Overwhelming Majority of Americans" and "Common-sense measures."   Now.  Ask yourself ... where is that overwhelming majority of Americans Carney speaks of -- and -- by whose definition are the intended gun control "measures" "common-sense?"
Think about this for a moment:  The Ship Yard Shooting took place in a city with arguably the strictest gun control laws of any city in the United States.  The Ship Yard, itself,  is another gun free zone within that city.  And yet, 13 people lie shot to death.  Remember, the shooting did not stop until GOOD MEN  WITH GUNS STOPPED IT!

The tsunami of calls for "common sense gun control measures" began, predictably, as if already planned and ready for dissemination. If one did not know better, one would think gun control advocates had really prepared, in advance,  this hyper reaction to the shooting at the Ship Yard.
 
It is all Bovine Scatology carefully designed to  make the weak-minded amongst us feel good about giving up their God-given rights to the government.

It is typical of the political left to play upon the emotions of the electorate.  Their entire platform depends upon manipulating the emotions of the people.   That's why, when the left is in power in America, the country is maintained on the very edge of one crisis, or another, every single day.  That continued assault on the human psyche weakens the ability to focus and think logically.  And, as we should all know by now, LOGICAL thinking will destroy the left's politics every time.

NOW you understand why America lurches from one near disaster to another during periods in which the Democratic Party is in control, marginally, or otherwise.  If those crises do not create themselves, well, the left is not above assisting in the creation of such situations.  A sort of "tail wagging the dog" kind of thing, don't you know.

Don B. Kates, writing on statistical patterns in gun crime said this:  "...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents."

So, for gun owners, it is back to the barricades once more.  It appears we are doomed to fighting the same battle over and over again.  We have no choice,  for the moment we let down our guard, we will no longer be citizens.  We will be unarmed subjects.

© J. D. Longstreet

Click to enlarge.




I'm experiencing a strange feeling of déjà vu.

September 18, 2013
Bernanke Is Terrified Of Higher Mortgage Rates And The Debt Ceiling Debate


See Also:
The Tapeworm Hungers!

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: 30-Year Conventional Mortgage Rate (YoY)

Click to enlarge.

That's a fairly impressive downdraft (in blue), especially if one considers just how much money is out there to earn interest.

1. ZIRP once helped borrowers, especially long-term borrowers with good credit who managed to refinance their homes at much lower interest rates. I'm not so sure it is helping many now though. Credit card interest rates have certainly not fallen much in the last 10 years.

2. ZIRP continues to hurt savers, especially short-term savers who patiently wait for the end of ZIRP.

“Patience – A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.” - Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary

Let me assure you that I generally have plenty of patience and despair, but not nearly enough to sit in treasury bills long-term. I've been a permabear since 2004. In hindsight, sitting in treasury bills would have been an awful plan.

From what I can see, the "average" American currently earns 5x more interest than he/she pays. As monetary economic stimulus goes, at some point ZIRP could easily hurt savers far more than it helps borrowers. We may have already reached that point, just like Japan before us.

As a side note, I really don't think the typical American is personally earning 5x more interest than what is paid. Toss a few billionaires into any party and the average starts looking pretty good. That's not enough to make the typical American rich though, unless streams of cash spill out of pockets as the billionaires wander around the room. You know, trickle-down economics and what not. Cash falling out of billionaire pockets is about as likely to happen as the end of ZIRP, at least in the near-term.

I will end here with 100% certainty. I am a long-term retired saver and the Fed's zero interest rate policy is forcing me to spend less than I otherwise would, lest my nest egg run dry before I die of old age. It's not a complaint. It's simply a fact. Spending less is a rational reaction to lower real yields. That's not what the Fed intended me to do of course. Call it an unintended consequence. This uncertain world is full of them.

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

In yet another display of lunacy the state of Michigan under Governor Rick Snyder is set to argue the state's constitutional amendment that defines marriage (between one man and one women) and it's ban on same sex joint adaptions are necessary. Apparently to preserve the state's interest to "regulate sexual relationships" and ensure population growth.

The brief filed by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette's office states that Michigan and other states that define marriage as the union of a man and a women have determined it appropriate for the state "to regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society."

The brief goes on to say that before Massachusetts 2004 State Supreme Court decision which enforced the right to same sex marriage in the Commonwealth "it was commonly understood that the institution of marriage owed its very existence to society’s vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing."

I guess the idea of same sex marriage and same sex couples raising children continue to be an abomination to many who feel these relationships pose a threat to the very fabric of society. What is ironic to me is the ones decrying the intrusion of government into lives of individuals the loudest seem all too ready and willing to use the government to enforce intrusion into the private lives and affairs of others.

Did I mention these government officials and most who support them are, Republicans/Conservatives.

The story from Michigan Live.com

LANSING -- Attorneys representing Gov. Rick Snyder and the state of Michigan in a case alleging the state's ban on same-sex joint adoptions violates the U.S. Constitution have argued the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage is necessary to "regulate sexual relationships" to encourage population growth.

The statement was made as part of a brief opposing a motion by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse asking a federal judge to grant a judgment in their favor.

DeBoer and Rowse, a Hazel Park couple who challenged the state's same-sex marriage ban as part of their challenge to state adoption laws, contend that the ban violates the federal guarantee of due process in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In the brief, attorneys from Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette's office say that Michigan and other states which define marriage as being "one man, one woman" have done so "to regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society."

The brief also says that prior to a 2004 Massachusetts court decision enforcing a right to same-sex marriage in that state, "it was commonly understood that the institution of marriage owed its very existence to society’s vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing."

The state also argues in the brief that the couple should be seeking to overturn the ban through a ballot initiative rather than through the courts. "If Michigan’s definition of marriage is to be changed, and if joint unmarried adoptions are to be authorized, both should be done by the people of the State of Michigan," the brief states.

A hearing is set for October 16 in U.S. District Court in Detroit to rule on the couple's motion as well as a motion filed by the state seeking judgment in its favor.

More commentary HERE.

Via: Memeorandum

The following chart shows the 10-year moving average of the natural log of M2 money stock times the 10-year treasury yield. I'm using the natural log so exponential growth is seen as a straight line.


Click to enlarge.

Note that there are two long-term trends in the chart and they are both straight lines. Technically speaking, the transition between the two represents an exponential trend failure. Here is a chart of the data before the natural log is applied to more clearly show that failed exponential growth trend.

As seen in the chart, this "new and improved" modern economy can apparently only tolerate a continually expanding money supply *and* a continually declining 10-year treasury yield.

On the one hand, it was a therefore a mistake to enter the no-fly zone during the last 10 years. The attempt was shot down in flames as we entered the Great Recession. On the other hand, it was also a mistake to let the price of oil rise so much. It helped us attain a Great Recession too. Can you say caught between Iraq and a hard place? Pun intended. Two mistakes can't make a right here, especially since both mistakes cannot be made at the same time! The Fed must choose one or the other.

M2 is currently $10,790 billion. It would therefore currently take a 10-year treasury yield of just 2.29% to hit the median of 5.51.

LN(10,790 x 2.29%) = 5.51

On that first hand again, any rate above 2.29% on the 10-year treasury risks making a similar mistake. And on the other hand, there goes oil again. Is it any wonder that the Fed is running scared today? Two mistakes! Must choose one!


I would suggest that the 10-year treasury could easily yield under 2.29% again in the not too distant future, or we'll die trying (recession). And if the price of oil rises more, we'll die trying anyway. It's only a matter of time.

The vast majority of "financial experts" felt that 3% and higher was a sure thing. In sharp contrast, I was and am a long-term believer in The Long-Term Death of Real Yields theory. It's just going to get harder and harder to make money off of money.

This economy continues to suffer under the illusion of prosperity. This is one of the weakest recoveries we've ever had and yet all I hear about on the TV is how resilient we are. It reminds me so much of the 2003 to 2007 era. Pardon my language, but three more years of Goldilocks my @$$.

What will the next recovery look like if/when we enter the next recession during ZIRP? I'd say the odds definitely favor it so perhaps it is best to think up answers now rather than when it is happening. As they say, if one must panic at least panic first. And when might hindsight show was a great time to panic? Hard to say. Nothing brings more illusionary confidence than a Fed running scared.



Once again, just opinions. This is not investment advice.

See Also:
The Inflationary No-Fly Zone

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle




The Obama Regime's policy of Appeasement is coming along nicely with the latest pronouncements to the Iranians.

From Debka

The moderate mien of Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani has had its intended effect – even before nuclear dialogue began. President Barack Obama had only one demand of Tehran: “Iran would have to demonstrate its own seriousness by agreement not to weaponise nuclear power,” he said Wednesday, Sept. 18. He thus took at his word Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared the day before: “We are against nuclear weapons. And when we say no one should have nuclear weapons, we definitely do not pursue it ourselves either.”

The symmetry between the words from Washington and Tehran was perfect in content and timing – and not by chance.

debkafile’s Washington and Iranian sources disclose that it was choreographed in advance.

Obama and Khamenei have been exchanging secret messages through Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, who visited Tehran in the last week of August and conferred with both Khameini and Rouhani.

In the last message, carried to Tehran by Oman’s Defense Minister Sayyid Badr bin Saud Al Busaidiat, the US president said that Rouhani’s conciliatory gestures towards Washington needed to be backed up by an explicit pledge not to weaponise Iran’s nuclear program.

That pledge must come from the supreme leader in person and delivered publicly to Iran’s most hawkish audience, Revolutionary Guards chiefs.

And indeed, Khamenei acted out his part Tuesday under TV cameras.

Full details of the exchanges going back and both between Washington and Tehran will appear in the coming DEBKA Weekly 603 out Friday, Sept. 20.

They will confirm that the US president has come to terms with a nuclear-capable Iran and will be satisfied with Ayatollah Khamenei’s word that Tehran will not take the last step to actually assemble a bomb.

Our sources note that in his direct secret dialogue with Tehran, Obama is pursuing the same tactics he used for the Syrian chemical issue with Russian President Vladmir Putin: Moving fast forward on the secret track while pretending that the process is still at an early stage and then a sudden leap to target – a particular form of diplomacy consisting of verbal calisthenics.

This pretense was played out at the G20, when the two presidents acted as though they were irreconcilably divided on the Syrian question, while secretly tying up the ends of the chemical accord.

Obama’s willingness to accept Khamenei’s oft-repeated assurance that his country’s nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes – while letting its military program advance to the brink – leaves Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lagging far behind and his Iranian policy with nowhere to go.

At the Israeli cabinet meeting Tuesday, the prime minister said his White House talks with President Obama on Sept. 30 would focus on Iran and his four demands:

1. Complete halt of uranium enrichment;
2. Removal of enriched materials from Iran;
3. Closure of the Fordo enrichment plant;
4. Termination of plutonium production at Arak.

Notwithstanding the briefing offered by Secretary of State John Kerry when he visited Jerusalem on Sunday, Sept. 15, it looks as though Obama is keeping the Israeli prime minister in the dark on his moves towards Iran.

Who but an idiot would actually believe that Iran would not weaponize any nuclear components that they have in their possession?  Once again Obama is trying to throw Israel under the bus.  But will Netanyahu let him do this to Israel?  Members of the Obama Regime have quietly told Netanyahu that if Israel attacks Iran the US will NOT block any sanctions and/or boycotts done to Israel by the UN Security Council.  Blackmail is the Obama way.

Israel will soon be standing alone in the world without a friend.  The perfect solution for his Muslim Brotherhood Masters.  Isolate Israel, destroy Israel then finish the job started in 1933.  Problem solved and World Peace reigns.

I for one do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu would believe anything Obama or Kerry is saying to him.  I do believe he is buying time, but will it be time enough to prevent a nuclear bomb being exploded over Tel Aviv?  I pray it is.

I've got vessel sinks on the brain.

Pinterest via Passion Decor

Pinterest via South Shore Decorating Blog

Mark D Sikes

Andrea May

via Pinterest

via

Sarah Richardson

What do you think?  Do you have one? Are they messy/hard to keep water contained? Any you recommend?

Tropical storms Ingrid and Manuel hit Mexico from the Atlantic and the Pacific causing major flooding in 20 states, including Guerrero.

Gill Roberto Morales, Miguel A. Mercado and Jordan Henderson

Many people who have influence with President Barack Obama have gotten relief from the terrors of the Affordable Care Act we now know as Obamacare, but the great majority of the American people are still expected to follow the dictates of the healthcare “reform” law next month.

The administration’s announcement July 2 delaying the employer mandate was the first in a series of goodies provided to favored constituencies. And, about 20 percent of waivers went to gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, and fancy hotels in Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Cal.) district.

But as maddening as this discrimination is to us common folk, exempting Members of Congress and their staffs is far worse.

Under heavy pressure from Democrat leaders, Mr. Obama agreed to ignore the terms of the law that he pushed so hard for and now requires taxpayers to subsidize coverage for representatives, senators, and their employees to lessen the financial burden of Obamacare.

What a hardship these taxpayer-supported elected officials and employees suffer: The Office of Personnel Management reported that as of September 2012, the average salary for a full-time, permanent, non-seasonal government position was $78,467, and rank and file members of Congress make $174,000. The average American in the private sector makes less than $50,000.

It is possible for others to receive subsidies, too, and the key is income level. But, typical of this law’s rampant failures, there is no mandate to verify eligibility for a subsidy, virtually guaranteeing extensive fraud, and an additional expense burden on taxpayers.

Only about 36 percent of Americans have a positive opinion of the law, and now even Mr. Obama’s strong union supporters are calling for repeal or major repair of this debacle because it is decimating the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of unionized labor.

Throughout the debate over Obamacare, a major claim was that it would cover the 30 million people that at the time did not have some sort of health insurance, ignoring the fact that a significant number chose not to have insurance. However, the Congressional Budget Office says that over the next decade there will never be a point where the number of Americans who remain uninsured will drop below 30 million. In other words, the main reason for ramming Obamacare down the throats of 270 million people who were happy with their health insurance is a falsehood.

Other of the President’s promises also have been broken:

Promise: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”
Truth: As many as 30 percent of employers will stop providing their existing health care coverage, while many are reducing employee hours below the 30-hour/week full-time level, or are trimming total employees to fewer than 50 to escape the crushing costs imposed by Obamacare.

Promise: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.”
Truth: We now know that health care “reform” will cost a trillion dollars.

Promise: “I will protect Medicare.”
Truth: Obamacare ends Medicare as we know it by imposing, among other things, severe reimbursement cuts that threaten access to care for seniors.

Promise: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”
Truth: There are at least 12 ways that Obamacare will increase premiums instead of reducing health care costs.

Promise: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”
Truth: Obamacare includes tons of new taxes and tax hikes. One that began this year is the 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices that will raise $20 billion by 2019.

It’s not that Barack Obama deliberately misleads; it’s just that so much of what he says isn’t true.

Few people now defend Obamacare besides the Congressional Democrats who participated in the dishonorable process of throwing it together, voting for a 2,700-page bill they had never read, and which had zero bi-partisan support.

Many believe that Barack Obama never really cared what was in the Affordable Care Act or if it ever makes it to implementation, and in fact wants it to fail miserably. And that’s because once it becomes law, replaces the prior system, and causes mass chaos, the stage would be set to move to a single payer, government healthcare system as the only way to fix the resulting mess.

In his worldview, socialistic/communistic systems are the solution to all the country’s problems, and that is how he wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

The best thing for the country is to repeal Obamacare and begin again to make the several relatively minor adjustments to the current system that should have been done several years ago. Short of that, delay implementation for everyone until the numerous problems can be addressed and repaired.

Neither is likely to happen, of course, because too many people can’t admit they made a mistake, or they truly want government controlled health care.

After spending more than a week mostly in heels, here is an outfit in flats! This is what I wore on my last day in New York, while I was doing some last minute shopping.
P.S. right after we did this photo shoot in Soho, the extraordinary American Photographer Mark Fisher approached us and we spend a few good minutes speaking about fashion and photography... You never know who you will see next time on these streets...

So Much For The 1st Amendment!
Feds To Determine Definition of Journalist
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
*****************
"A long life in journalism convinced me many presidents ago that there should be a large air space between a journalist and the head of a state." ... Walter Lippmann
*****************
I was a member of "the press" for a number of decades.  I carried press credentials in my wallet at all times. Even after retirement I carried that press card for many years, reluctant to part with it. Once a "news hound" always a news hound as the expression goes.  (If you have not heard THAT one, you were never a reporter.)

Even in retirement, it was many, MANY,  years before I could comfortably allow a flashing red or blue light, or the sound of a wailing siren, pass me by without acquiescing to the overwhelming urge to grab the closest form of transportation and give chase like a bat from the lower climes. 

Even today, some thirty years after I hung up my pencil and pad, my recorder, my
microphone, I still get a jolt of adrenalin at the sight and sound of emergency vehicles racing toward the scene of human catastrophe and misery.

As I write these few lines, a police scanner sits flashing and alternately burping out -- or spewing out -- info from the various first responders from the sparkling Atlantic ocean -- to my east -- to the picturesque rolling hills of the piedmont -- to my west.

My inbox is filled, most all the time, with breaking news from uncounted news sources, based all over the globe,  and available on the Internet.

In retirement, I chose to spend my time commenting on current events and politics.  It is something I did as a part of my "job" when I was "active" as a reporter, or a journalist. 

Yes, I have a blog (INSIGHT on Freedom at:  http://www.insightonfreedom.blogspot.com/) But, I don't particularly consider myself a "blogger" so much as a "commentator" who happens to have a blog.

Each day, in the wee hours, I post -- and I send by e-mail -- my latest rant, or commentary, to multiple news and commentary sites on the web and to private subscribers who have asked to receive it.

So.  Am I a journalist?  I have a journal ... a blog.  Was I a journalist back when folks actually PAID me for doing what I did/do?

What's the difference between what I, and thousands of others, do today and what Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams did back in the 1700's? 

... And why the dickens am I even asking?

As you might have suspected, it's the federal government ... again!

The claim, up front, anyway, is that this is the government's way of defining who, exactly, IS a journalist and who, exactly, IS NOT a journalist.

We see it a tad differently, however. From our perspective, they (the government) detects a chink through which they believe they can curb the press in America and bring it to heel -- and in doing so -- virtually crush the 1st Amendment.

It's called a "Shield Law."  And, in our estimation it is extremely dangerous to a free press.  A free press is absolutely necessary for the survival of this constitutional, representative, republic.   I am convinced a federal shield law would endanger a free press in America.

Consider this: "On its face, the proposed shield law doesn’t affect the First Amendment, which at any rate doesn’t guarantee anybody’s right to publish whatever they want. The bill simply adds extra protections against being forced to testify about sources for established reporters and freelancers with a “considerable” amount of publishing experience. It also allows a judge to make a declaration as to who’s a journalist and who’s not in an attempt to build the shield as wide as possible."  SOURCE:  http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0914/Drudge-hates-new-shield-bill-but-is-defining-journalist-really-fascist

Here in North Carolina,we already have a press shield law, thank you very much. North Carolina's "reporter's privilege" or "shield law" is codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.11. 

Under NC law a journalist is defined as: 

(1) Journalist. - Any person, company, or entity, or the employees, independent contractors, or agents of that person, company, or entity, engaged in the business of gathering, compiling, writing, editing, photographing, recording, or processing information for dissemination via any news medium. - SOURCE: http://www.rcfp.org/north-carolina-privilege-compendium/shield-law-statute#sthash.TU2rPAlX.dpuf 
   
"The shield law became effective October 1, 1999, and applies only to information or documents prepared while acting as a journalist on or after that date.

In summary, the shield law grants journalists a broad but qualified privilege against disclosure of newsgathering information. The protection extends to virtually everyone connected with the publication or distribution of news information, including, but not limited to, reporters, photographers, stringers, and freelance reporters. All newsgathering activity is protected, so long as the activity is related to the business of publication or distribution of news via print, broadcast, or other electronic means. In addition, the statute protects all newsgathering information, regardless of whether the information is confidential or non-confidential. Finally, the protection extends to all legal proceedings, including criminal, civil, grand jury and quasi-judicial (i.e., administrative) proceedings."  SOURCE: http://www.rcfp.org/north-carolina-privilege-compendium/shield-law-statute#sthash.TU2rPAlX.dpuf
     
So what's wrong with having a federally codified definition of who, exactly, is a journalist? (I mean, of course, other than the troubling fact that once there is a federal definition of journalist, most states with shield laws will move to change their individual state laws to align with the federal code.)

Think about it for a moment.

The first amendment says the government cannot abridge the freedom of the press.  BUT -- if the government defines who IS a journalist -- and who ISN'T -- then they have just abridged that freedom.

In an article entitled:  "Don’t let the government define who’s a journalist,"  Mark B. Evans, writing for http://tucsoncitizen.com  says the following:  "The First Amendment says the Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. But if the government defines who’s a journalist, all those outside that definition are having their free press rights abridged." SOURCE: http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/865  

See the problem?

Mr. Evans goes on to say: "Democracy requires a free press. A bill – no matter how valuable to news gathering – that opens the door to the government defining who gets to be a journalist is a bill that appears to protect a free press but in fact endangers it."  SOURCE:  http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/865

In his excellent article Mr. Evans explains:  " ... If journalists give in to government definition of journalist in order get the federal shield law they’ve long sought, they may soon get government regulation of the press they never thought possible."  SOURCE:  http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/865
 
And what of Bloggers?  Want to bet which side of the definition of "journalist" bloggers will be assigned by a new federal shield law? 

Pardon my paranoia, but this shield law business doesn't pass the smell test.  I am convinced it is contrived (as so much is these days) by the government as a means to by-pass the 1st Amendment and effectively gag conservative bloggers who have proven to be thorns in the side of big Marxist government in the US.

I expect such a law will pass the democrat controlled US Senate.  It has a much less chance of survival in the US House of Representatives where the people still have SOME say in their government. 

I will, however, be contacting my Representative and insisting that he vote against any such bill should it reach the House floor for a vote.

© J. D. Longstreet

Click to enlarge.

It's an exponential trend failure two-fer.

No-fly zone


No matter how hard we try (and we have made so many attempts), we cannot seem to punch through the record high set in July of 2008. Seriously. So close and yet so far!

I find it very hard to believe that the PPI will permanently hug the border of the no-fly zone. Then again, I could be wrong. Perhaps there is a relationship between hugging and ZIRPing. Japan faced 20+ years of flat consumer inflation. We've seen roughly 2 straight years of flat PPI inflation.

The Fed's ZIRP is the largest monetary operation ever mounted. Quite frankly, this kind of thing's never been attempted before in the United States.




The operation will continue until all the bridges can be secured. I have no doubts about that. Sigh.

This is not investment advice.

Update:

I wasn't happy with the ending point I chose on the second exponential trend in red. It's been updated to end at the short-term peak set in July of 2011.

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Producer Price Index: All Commodities

Federal agents have taken over the investiagtion of a massive killing spree by a gunman near the White House.

Congratulations to Stefanie Gladden for winning the AO at Home giveaway!


Stefanie, check your mailbox. You've got a $200 Target gift card on the way.

Happy Monday y'all!

Click to enlarge.

Perhaps I should have asked a different question.

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Capacity Utilization: Total Industry