AdamSmith

The top 9,486 ways Jay Carney won’t answer your questions (interactive)Jay Carney doesn’t have an answer for that. He hasn’t discussed that subject with the president. He will refer you to the Department of [insert agency here]. He refuses to speculate on that. He’ll have to get back to you. But he appreciates the question. A Yahoo News analysis of the 444 briefings through June 18 that Carney has held since becoming White House press secretary has identified 13 distinct strains in the way he dodges reporters' question. Since Carney held his first daily briefing with reporters in the White House Brady Press Briefing Room on Feb. 16, 2011, for example, he’s used some variation of "I don’t have the answer" more than 1,900 times. In 1,383 cases he referred a question to someone else. But will he at least speculate on hypotheticals? No. In fact, he has refused to do so 525 times. In the following interactive, you can browse all 9,486 of Carney’s most-used responses and verbal crutches. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/top-9-486-ways-jay-carney-won-t-104907191.html The main function of a White House press secretary is to shape messaging for the administration, which often requires stymieing questions as a form of damage control. Reporters got several doses of that at Friday's briefing, including a rather repetitive back-and-forth over what kind of aid (arms? weapons? U.S. troops?) America is sending to Syrian rebels. "We have stepped up our assistance, but I cannot inventory for you the elements of that assistance. And as the president said, I cannot and will not get into some specifics about the assistance that we provide," Carney said. When pressed further? "We can't comment on specifics around our program." And further? "I'm simply saying that given the nature of the assistance that we provide, the way in which we implement our assistance ... I can't give you an itemized list or be specific about every single aspect," he said. "I think I've given the answer that I can give." Reporters also heard many "as you know's," some "I'm not going to's" and several referrals. The referral to another agency or person is one of Carney's favorite evasive maneuvers. During the 43-minute briefing on Jan. 25 alone, for example, Carney referred reporters to the Justice Department four times, the National Labor Relations Board twice, the State Department twice, once to the historic precedent of recess appointments, once to a New York Times article, once to a speech that President Barack Obama delivered earlier in the week, and once to the Defense Department. As should be abundantly clear, Carney doesn't have all the answers. As he recently reminded the gathered reporters at his briefing, he and his team are mere mortals battling an army of professionals bent on stumping him. "We have a team here that works really hard trying to anticipate the questions you're going to ask. The problem is, there's a lot of you and you're good at your jobs and you're smart. And we almost invariably do not anticipate every question that you ask. So sometimes we don’t have the answers, and sometimes we need to go back and get them," Carney said during the May 22 briefing. That was a rare moment of effusive praise for the press. It followed what had been a rough series of briefings for Carney amid controversy over the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, the Internal Revenue Service scandal and the Justice Department's secret seizure of journalists' phone records. Those stories put Carney in a tougher-than-usual spot to speak for Obama and the White House, share information and shape the president's message, all without creating new controversy as he stood behind the podium. More often than not, the imperative to do no harm prompts a total nonanswer from Carney. This results in the "I have no personnel announcements" for you today, referrals to other individuals and other gems that the press readily anticipates and often mocks. Carney's recent predilection for saying "I appreciate the question," upon hearing a question he very likely did not appreciate, even prompted Politico to release a video montage May 14 of all those responses. With good humor, Carney acknowledged it the next day. "You know it’s a personal question, but a great question," Carney told CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, who asked whether Carney personally dreaded the briefings amid the controversies. "Do you appreciate it?" Knoller added, prompting laughter in the room. "You beat me to my punch line," Carney said. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/top-9-486-ways-jay-carney-won-t-104907191.html

I was surprised to see a fair amount of this in NYC: casual heroin use among the white middle class (other races too). More often snorted or smoked than shot up, as the article notes.

Slew of court challenges threaten NSA's relationship with tech firmsUnlikely coalition takes NSA – and the telecoms firms who own much of the web's infrastructure – to court over bulk surveillance Spencer Ackerman guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 July 2013 08.37 EDT An avalanche of legal challenges to the National Security Agency threaten to upend one of the most delicate balances the surveillance agency labors to strike: its critical relationship with telecommunications and internet companies. An unlikely coalition of advocacy groups are taking the NSA to court, claiming the bulk surveillance it conducts on Americans phone records and their online habits is unconstitutional. One of them is aiming beyond the NSA itself, and at the companies the NSA partners with for much of that data. The NSA's relationship with those companies is critical, since much of the telecommunications infrastructure of the United States is owned and operated by private firms. While the lawsuits face significant obstacles, they stand a chance of splitting the financial and legal interests of the telecoms firms and and Internet Service Providers from those of the NSA – something that could restrict the surveillance efforts more than any legislation Congress is likely to pass. "Without the companies' participation," said former NSA codebreaker William Binney, "it would reduce the collection capability of the NSA significantly." The lawsuits, which take several different paths to blocking the bulk surveillance, are proliferating quickly. One filed on Tuesday in a California federal court united a coalition of 19 gun owners, human-rights groups, Muslim organizations, environmentalists and marijuana legalization advocates seeking a "preliminary and permanent injunction" against NSA surveillance. Their claims about the surveillance violating their speech and privacy rights echoed another suit filed last month in a New York federal court by the ACLU challenging the programs' constitutionality. Similarly, a suit first filed in California five years ago was resurrected last week after a judge ruled that revelations about bulk surveillance published by the Guardian and the Washington Post and confirmed by the government prevent the Justice Department from quashing the suit as a state secret. The Electronic Privacy Information Center petitioned the supreme court last week to "vacate an unlawful order" by the secretive Fisa court for mass phone records from Americans. Those cases still face the considerable challenges of fighting and defeating what are sure to be vigorous Justice Department challenges to their viability. Thus far, the courts have most often ruled for the government in NSA surveillance suits. Unlike in the past, however, the NSA documents published by the Guardian and the Post revealed for the first time that telecoms and Internet Service Providers were directly providing NSA with bulk customer information, allowing those customers – including the ACLU, a Verizon customer – standing to sue. But even if all those cases fail, there's another legal avenue to contest the surveillance, albeit a difficult one: lawsuits against the companies themselves. That's what the conservative group Judicial Watch is attempting. The organization filed a class-action suit last month against the internet companies named as participating in the NSA's Prism program, including Microsoft, AOL, Facebook, Google and Apple. Cases like that have long frightened the NSA. The NSA and its allies in Congress have gone to great lengths to legally shield the private-sector telephone and internet companies it works with. A 2008 law that broadened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as the Fisa Amendments Act, retroactively immunized any participating telecom firm from legal liability. According to an internal NSA history of the program, several firms specifically requested NSA compel them to comply through Fisa court orders, fearing an eventual court case. Underscoring how delicately the NSA treats the sanctity of its private-sector partners, the NSA would only refer to them even in a classified internal document as "Company A" and similar pseudonyms. That sensitivity exists because the telecommunications firms largely own and operate the infrastructure used to make phone calls, send emails and conduct web searches, unlike in authoritarian countries like China, North Korea and the former East Germany. Without the companies' participation, the NSA could still perform so-called "upstream" collection, such as accessing data as it transmits, for instance, across fiberoptic cables before the companies process them. "But they can't get a complete copy of everything without going to the companies," Binney said. Lawsuits against the companies place tensions, both legal and financial, on their partnership with NSA. Even the threat of spending money in court to quash customer lawsuits carries the potential for the companies to reassess the scope of their longstanding relationships with the surveillance agency. The lawsuits are a more direct challenge to the NSA than the convoluted and uncertain legislative or political processes. While several senators and members of Congress are talking about revising the Patriot Act to restrict bulk telephone records collection, support in Congress for the NSA runs deep, and it is difficult to forecast what reforms, if any, might pass. Similarly, the secret Fisa Court bristles at accusations that it's a rubber stamp, but it approves almost all surveillance requests. That leaves citizens upset with the surveillance to pursue their rights as customers of the companies participating with the NSA. "If you want to raise costs to the companies participating with NSA, you raise the time and effort they spend defending themselves from allegations that their participation in NSA surveillance programs is unlawful," said Amie Stepanovich, a lawyer with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "But the downfall of suing the companies are the companies' inevitable filings that they were just complying with the law." Yet the obstacles to suing the companies are significant. The 2008 law explicitly says: "No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance." Alex Abdo, a lawyer with the ACLU working on the civil liberties group's challenge to the NSA, said the immunization provisions are not necessarily insurmountable for suing the companies. "You could still sue Verizon and ask them to stop, even if you're not asking for damages," Abdo said. "I don't think the immunity provision applies to that." Even as the scope of the companies' liability is set to be litigated, some of the NSA's partners are attempting to limit their customers' discontent. On Tuesday, Microsoft publicly asked Attorney General Eric Holder to lift the veil of secrecy over its cooperation with NSA so it can "publish the volume of national security requests we have received." That followed a Monday ruling by the Fisa court for the Justice Department to release information showing Yahoo at times resisted cooperation even when compelled by the court. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/17/nsa-court-challenges-tech-firms

Dershowitz's contentious views on the case, the bringing of which he has always been critical. Interesting his comments why federal civil-rights charges won't be brought.

The Onion nails it. Zimmerman Found Not Guilty, Technically, But C’mon News • race • News • ISSUE 49•29 • Jul 15, 2013 A jury of his peers finds George Zimmerman not guilty—legally speaking, that is—of second-degree murder. SANFORD, FL—More than 16 months after he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in an altercation at a Florida condominium development, neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was found, technically speaking, not guilty of murder Saturday, but c’mon. Following two days of intense deliberations, a six-member jury determined that Zimmerman had, from a purely legal standpoint, not murdered Martin, a black teenager, in February 2012. According to jurors, Zimmerman lawfully acted in self-defense—but let’s be serious here, shall we?—when he shot Martin at point-blank range in the chest, leaving him dead within minutes. “The jury acted within the letter of the law, I guess, if you want to be official about it, and acquitted Mr. Zimmerman of both second-degree murder and manslaughter charges,” said legal scholar Jeffrey Frazier about Zimmerman’s culpability in the events of February 26, 2012, which, trial or no trial, have been pretty clear all along, right? “Mr. Zimmerman did not violate any Florida state laws—although, please, give me a break—and is an innocent man, I suppose, if you’re sticking to the strict legal definition of that word.” “And thus, this trial was properly conducted in full accordance with the U.S. justice system,” Frazier added. “For whatever that’s worth.” The highly anticipated verdict was announced late Saturday evening, when the jury’s foreman informed the dozens gathered in the packed courtroom that, in purely technical terms, mind you, Zimmerman had been cleared of wrongdoing, using her middle and forefingers on both hands to pantomime quotation marks while stating the words “not guilty.” “Is George Zimmerman, juridically speaking, guilty of a crime? Under the precise stipulations of this particular law, no, he wasn’t,” said the foreman, adding, “Although, I think we all know what happened here, don’t we? Seriously, don’t we? And so we the jury find the defendant, George Zimmerman, you know, Christ, I guess I have to say not guilty? Do I really have to say that?” The trial, which gripped the nation for three weeks, was particularly notable for Judge Debra B. Nelson’s order barring any discussion of race, which she stated had no bearing on the case, but, again, let’s be serious here for a second, as the victim was a black teenager. In the wake of the verdict, large protests are confirmed to have erupted in cities throughout the country, which, frankly, is pretty understandable because, Christ, did you watch this fucking trial? In response to the nationwide outrage over Zimmerman’s innocence, and, boy, we’re using the term “innocence” pretty goddamned loosely here, President Barack Obama urged calm. “I ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son,” said Obama in an address Sunday, sighing. “We are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken.” “But c’mon,” added Obama. http://www.theonion.com/articles/zimmerman-found-not-guilty-technically-but-cmon,33124/

Furthermore...

Here we are... ...much obliged!

I have to concur with marcanthony that this remark reflects an extraordinarily reductive view of addiction and the routes out of it which the clinical data do not support.

More from around the world (first 2 from N.C.)...

Hereabouts one recalls Durham county prosecutor Mike Nifong going after the Duke lacrosse team in an overreach driven by what he believed would bolster his popularity with the community and help his chances at reelection.

Pervert knitting for the whole family http://fugknitter.blogspot.com/2011/01/pervert-knitting-for-whole-family.html?m=1

Interesting thoughts. Zimmerman trial: Time to reconsider six-member jury BY SHARI SEIDMAN DIAMOND s-diamond@law.northwestern.edu. Small juries, like all small samples, carry big costs. Doesn’t a jury in a serious criminal case have 12 members? Not in Florida. Florida is one of only two states where a jury as small as six can decide a serious felony case. It is the only state where a murder case goes to a six-member jury. And second-degree murder in Florida is serious indeed, carrying a sentence of 25 years to life. The circumstances of the shooting that killed an unarmed teenager, moreover, are sharply disputed, implicating the use of guns, the limits of self-defense and race relations. As we often do, we have given the jury in this case a challenging task. Why should we care if the jury has six or 12 members? The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury, but it does not specify jury size. When the Sixth Amendment was written, was the number simply assumed? James Madison thought it was: He thought the number was 12. For almost 200 years, the U.S. Supreme Court consistently accepted this view, defining “jury” to mean the 12-member jury. For instance, in 1930, the court said that “it is not open to question” whether juries may consist of fewer than 12. In 1970, however, the court reversed its position in Williams v. Florida and found no constitutional objection to Florida’s six-member jury. The court labeled the general use of 12 throughout history as an “historical accident.” The court’s characterization of the historical record has been widely disputed, but even more egregiously, the court joined its new historical assessment with a strikingly inaccurate behavioral claim. It proclaimed that the behavior of six- and 12-member juries were “functionally” equivalent, and therefore the six-member jury was unobjectionable. In fact, the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence shows that juries of six do not perform as well as juries of 12. How do six- and 12-member juries differ? Two differences are particularly relevant in the trial of George Zimmerman. First, numerous studies of all kinds show that cutting jury size in half decreases the likelihood that the jury will reflect a representative sample of the community. The lone non-white juror on the George Zimmerman jury is just one instance of that effect. The all-female jury is another. The gender make-up of the jury cannot be explained merely by the majority female jury pool or attorney use of challenges. A total of 10 jurors was selected, the jury of six and four alternates. Two of the alternates were male. A larger jury that included the additional four would not have been homogeneous on gender. Ethnicity and gender are not the only dimensions of difference shortchanged by a smaller jury. Any background or set of beliefs or life experiences that may affect reactions to the evidence is substantially less likely to be represented on a six-member jury than on a 12-member jury. Simply due to chance, unrepresentativeness is more likely when only six jurors are needed to constitute the jury. That loss is particularly troubling when the jurors are evaluating crucial and disputed evidence, like the identity of the voice in the background on the 911 tape in the Zimmerman case. Second, jury research finds that larger juries spend more time deliberating and their discussions of testimony are more thorough than smaller juries. More vigorous debate reflects the expanded pool of abilities and perspectives provided by the larger jury. Similarly, the ability of dissenters to resist majority pressure is promoted by the increased likelihood that a dissenter whose position is not simply idiosyncratic will have one or more other jurors who share that view. The dissenters might not carry the day, but their views will be more seriously considered. There is no evidence that jury size is associated with more pro-prosecution or more pro-defense verdicts. Thus, the key here is not that the six-member jury systematically advantages one side or the other. Rather, the point is that a serious charge demands serious procedural consideration. Even Florida, like every other state with the death penalty, uses a 12-member jury for capital offenses. Second-degree murder does not carry the death penalty in Florida, but it does call for thorough deliberation from a variety of perspectives. The six-member jury is unnecessarily handicapped. What should be done? Ample empirical evidence on the jury demonstrates the need to reverse course. Perhaps in the wake of the Zimmerman case, Florida will reconsider its unique position on jury size. Even better: In recent years, the Supreme Court has turned down several opportunities to revisit the question of jury size. Perhaps it should accept the next one. Shari Seidman Diamond is the Howard J. Trienens Professor of Law at Northwestern University and a research professor at the American Bar Foundation. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/14/3497719_zimmerman-trial-time-to-reconsider.html#storylink=cpy

Another one for you-know-who...

Bit of an update to this thread: http://www.boytoy.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2449-zany-brits/ Scratchy Bottom beats Brokenwind, but Shitterton takes the prize...for unfortunate place names London Evening Standard Published: 15 August 2012 It is an idyllic hamlet based around a single street of picturesque thatched cottages in rural Dorset. But however lovely Shitterton is, the tiny collection of homes on the edge of the village of Bere Regis has been named as Britain's most unfortunate place name in a new survey. The tiny settlement between Dorchester and Poole beat the nearby valley of Scratchy Bottom, near Durdle Door in Dorset and Brokenwind in Aberdeenshire in the survey by www.findmypast.co.uk. Crapstone, on the edge of Dartmoor, Devon, came fourth, while Golden Balls, which is five miles south of Oxford, is fifth, in the survey. Shitterton is a very literal English translation of the village name recorded in Norman French in the 11th century Domesday Book as Scatera or Scetra which means a little town that is on the stream of a midden or sewer. But Ian Ventham, chairman of Bere Regis Parish Council and proud Shitterton resident, said he does not find the name of the hamlet, with its long history, embarrassing. "Shit is shit. Let's not beat around the bush, that is where the name comes from," the retired RNLI director said. "But it isn't a midden or shitheap now. It is a perfect rural hamlet with thatched cottages and idyllic Dorset countryside. "Those of us who live here are not the least bit embarrassed by it." Shitterton hit the headlines in 2010 when residents got so fed up with pranksters stealing the standard road signs displaying the name that they clubbed together and bought a £680 one-and-a-half-tonne Purbeck stone version set in concrete. According to the website, the valley of Scratchy Bottom is thought to take its name from the fact that it is a rough and rugged hollow. Brokenwind was known as "Broken Wynd" in the 19th century, with wynd, the website said, a Scots word for a narrow path that snakes or winds between two larger roads. Crapstone, a picturesque village on the western edge of Dartmoor in Devon, came fourth in the survey of 1,773 people, ahead of Golden Balls in Oxfordshire, Ugley in Essex, Crackpot in North Yorkshire, Backside in Aberdeenshire, Great Snoring in Norfolk and Happy Bottom in Dorset. "If there were an Olympics for unlikely place names, Britain would surely be good for a medal, if not the gold", said Debra Chatfield, a family historian at findmypast.co.uk. "In the course of researching their family history, people can discover that their ancestors came from somewhere with an unlikely, unfortunate or downright embarrassing name. "Some people are unsettled to discover that their forebears came from somewhere called, say, Crackpot, Ugley or Happy Bottom." http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/scratchy-bottom-beats-brokenwind-but-shitterton-takes-the-prize-for-unfortunate-place-names-8049392.html Welcome to the hilariously-named villages locals insist are lovelier than they soundBy Daily Mail Reporter PUBLISHED: 18:16 EST, 14 August 2012 | UPDATED: 10:44 EST, 15 August 2012 Britain's worst place name: Shitterton in Dorset has been voted the UK's most embarrassing place name Fighting for the top spot: Shitterton even beat off competition from Crapstone in Devon Picturesque: Sandy Balls, situated in the New Forest, was named after the dome-shaped gravel and known as Sandyballas during the reign of Henry VII Shitterton came above the nearby valley of Scratchy Bottom, named after the rugged and rough hollow, which was used as a location for the 1967 film Rude place names: Slag Lane in Haydock , Merseyside, was also on the list. The name simply refers to the slag heaps that were formerly a characteristic of the area A small village in Kent called Pratts Bottom - Pratt coming from the Latin word Pratum meaning Meadow- was also in list Ancient names: The name of the Gloucestershire village of Old Sodbury comes from corrupted Old English that would have meant ' The fortified village of Soppa' referring to a Roman fort Back Passage in the city of London, close to Smithfield market and the Barbican, derives its name from the fact that it is a passageway running around the back row of a number of buildings allowing access to their rear entrances All in the saying: Ugley, in Essex, is commonly pronounced as 'Usley ' The town of North Piddle, in rural Worcestershire, got its name from the old English word piddle referring to a marsh or fen, which, overtime lent its name to the nearby stream Piddle Brook Hooker Road in Norwich was named after William Jackson Hooker - a Botanist whose career eventually led him becoming Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew - who was born in Norwich in 1785 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188441/Shitterton-comes-list-Britains-worst-place-names-including-Pratts-Bottom-Crapstone-Slag-Lane--live-insist-lovely-place-live.html#ixzz2Z7EDRElx And the most embarrassing place to live in Britain is... ShittertonDaily Mirror 15 Aug 2012 00:00 Residents of the Dorset village are braced for more toilet humour after it topped a poll of places with the most embarrassing names They have been the butt of jokes for years. Now the residents of Shitterton in Dorset are braced for more toilet humour after it topped a poll of places with the most embarrassing names in Britain. The village beat Scratchy Bottom, also in Dorset, and Brokenwind in Aberdeenshire to top the list of places with the most unfortunate names in the UK. Dorset can boast three of the top ten, with Happy Snoring coming in tenth in the table which came as a result of polling 1,773 people. Crapstone, on the edge of Dartmoor, Devon, is fourth while Golden Balls, which is five miles south of Oxford, is fifth, in the survey carried out by family history website, findmypast.co.uk. Shitterton, which lies in Dorset’s Piddle Valley, has been called ‘the village that dare not speak its name’. However, residents recently clubbed together to pay for a 1.5 ton slab of local marble, carved with the Shitterton name, to be placed by the roadside at the hamlet’s entrance. This replaced a more conventional Shitterton road sign, which kept getting stolen by souvenir hunters. The origins of the name Shitterton are uncertain but one theory has it that it means simply ‘the village on the stream that is used as an open sewer’. Local blacksmith Eddie Butterfield, 50, has proudly lived in Shitterton for 20 years. He said: “I am well used to all the comments you get from people you speak on the phone and the interest from visitors. “I suppose it is titillating to people from outside the area but to me Shitterton is home. “People come here and have their picture taken by the sign. If coming first in this survey brings more people to the village then that is a good thing.” Ian Ventham, chairman of the parish council, said: “The name doesn’t bother us in the slightest. "Shitterton also lies in the Piddle Valley, but so what?” Scratchy Bottom is a cliff-top valley in rural Dorset, near the village of Chaldon Herring. The valley’s name is thought to refer to the fact it is a rough and rugged hollow. Debra Chatfield, of findmypast, said: “Dorset is definitely the top county for unfortunate place-names, with three in the top 10. “You can perhaps judge the strength of the short-list from the quality of the names that failed to make it.” These included Sandy Balls (Hampshire), Pratts Bottom (Kent) and North Piddle (Worcestershire). Mrs Chatfield, a family historian, added: “If there were an Olympics for unlikely place-names, Britain would surely be good for a medal, if not the gold. “It would face some strong competition, from U.S. place-names such as Toad Suck (Arkansas), Climax (Georgia) and Boring (Oregon). “In the course of researching their family history, people can discover their ancestors came from somewhere with an unlikely, unfortunate or downright embarrassing name. “It’s not the worst thing you might unearth when tracing your ancestry but some people are unsettled to discover their forebears came from somewhere called, say, Crackpot, Ugley or Happy Bottom. “It can puncture the magic of making a genealogical discovery.” Top 10 ‘most embarrassing or unfortunate’ UK place names1 Shitterton (Dorset) 2 Scratchy Bottom (Dorset) 3 Brokenwind (Aberdeenshire) 4 Crapstone (Devon) 5 Golden Balls (Oxfordshire) 6 Ugley (Essex) 7 Crackpot (North Yorkshire) 8 Backside (Aberdeenshire) 9 Great Snoring (Norfolk) 10 Happy Bottom (Dorset) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shitterton-most-embarrassing-place-name-1261430#ixzz2Z7FrHzn3

Yum! Want some.

OK, administration via a central line would do.

Market value of olive oil vs. the other kind, I guess. And that crack that the Jews would of course manage to find the one patch of land in the Middle East without any oil under it.

He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart. Psalms 104:14-15

No joke here.

Oh boy -- ANOTHER drinking phrase!