Glenn Greenwald: Joe Miller's private "guards" were active-duty military
One of the more disturbing election incidents took place in Alaska on Sunday night, when private "guards" working for GOP Senate nominee Joe Miller forcibly detained and handcuffed a journalist as he tried to ask the candidate questions which he did not want to answer. This photograph shows the journalist, Alaska Dispatch's Tony Hopfinger, handcuffed in a chair, surrounded by Miller's guards. This story became much worse yesterday when video was released that was taken by a reporter from the Anchorage Daily News showing that these guards thuggishly threatened at least two other reporters, from ADN, with physical detention as they tried to find out what happened, demanded that they leave or else "be handcuffed," and physically blocked them from filming the incident all while threatening to physically remove them from the event, which was advertised to the public (see video below).
But revelations today have made the story much, much worse still. ADN now reports that not only was Joe Miller's excuse for why he had hired private guards a lie, but two of the guards who handcuffed the journalist and threatened others are active-duty soldiers in the U.S. military
...
If it's not completely intolerable to have active-duty soldiers handcuffing American journalists on U.S. soil while acting as private "guards" for Senate candidates, what would be? This is the sort of thing that the U.S. State Department would readily condemn if it happened in Egypt or Iran or Venezuela or Cuba: active-duty soldiers detaining journalists while they're paid by politician candidates? The fact that Joe Miller has been defending the conduct of his private guards in handcuffing a journalist and threatening others with handcuffs should be disqualifying by itself. That reveals a deeply disturbed authoritarian mind. But the fact that these guards are active-duty U.S. soldiers makes this entire incident far more disturbing. Shouldn't American journalists of every stripe be vehemently protesting this incident?
Shouldn't American journalists of every stripe be vehemently protesting this incident?
I've been seeing quite a bit of coverage of the incident in the media. But then, my media reading/viewing skews more toward some stripes than others.
Also, I think the Healthcare bill is a BS reason.
You mean a BS reason for the university to give? I'm guessing that the health insurance company(ies) that your university uses raised their rates as soon as the first parts of the bill took effect (was it last month?). It was the parts about insurers being required to cover children with pre-existing conditions and allowing adult children under 25 (27?) to stay on their parents' insurance. There was a fair bit in the news about it when it happened, because pretty much all of the big insurers hiked their rates.
So if your university means "our insurers hiked their rates because of the healthcare bill, so we have to increase the premium that you pay," that's not total BS. (I mean, they didn't *have* to increase your premiums, but I'd guess their rates got jacked way up.)
So if your university means "our insurers hiked their rates because of the healthcare bill, so we have to increase the premium that you pay," that's not total BS. (I mean, they didn't *have* to increase your premiums, but I'd guess their rates got jacked way up.)
My university is self-insured, so it is actually them raising the rates. To themselves. Or us? It was touted as a cost-saving measure, but I used to pay $0.00 for coverage that gave me a $15 copay, and now I pay $10.00/week for coverage which has a $2500 deductible, and pays for half of approved things after that. My little adventure with my rash this summer was $500.
My university is self-insured, so it is actually them raising the rates.
So basically they raised the rates because of peer pressure. Or rather, because everyone else was doing it, they figured they could, too.
The other thing that seems crazy to me is that all my doctors work for the same place that I work for. So, basically I pay $20.00 a week. When I go to the doctor (where I work) I don't pay because they have to send the bill to my "insurance" (where I work) to have it be denied and then they send me a bill. It seems like they are employing a giant bureacracy when it might be simpler to just, like, set up an infirmary or something like when my mom worked here in the 50's.
This is a concept which I somehow doubt will reach production, but....
Retro rotary-dial cellphone concept hides a brilliant idea
I'd so like one of these, just to observe the wtf-looks people would give me.
Buffista lawyers, is this woman on crack?
If you're a woman, you pretty much run through the following routine every morning:
— splash some water on your face, followed by gentle exfoliating cleanser, toner and preventative spot treatment
— apply some combo of undereye serum, facial moisturizer, sunscreen, foundation primer, foundation, undereye concealer and a light dusting of powder
— curl your eyelashes with a cold metal squeegee prod, avoid puncturing eyelid in process, fail 40% of the time, attend to punctured eyelid
— apply basic eyeshadow, eyeliner, mascara and blush (remembering to blend, blend, blend) brush, highlight, tweeze, trim and fill in any spare patches in your eyebrows
— spritz your hair with volumizing root spray while using a round brush and blow dryer to remove stray kinks, bumps and frizz caused by sleeping
— heat up curling iron and/or flat iron and apply to one-inch sections of hair until entire head covered and apply anti-frizz shine serum to ends of hair (or, in the alternative: style hair into twist, ponytail or other simple updo)
— locate earrings in overnight jewelry-cleaner
— soak and place on ears, along with matching necklace, rings, bracelets or other trinkets
— apply perfume on pulse points
— run a deodorant stick under your arms
— get dressed in a work-appropriate business casual ensemble, making sure to avoid cleavage, hemlines, fabrics styles, cuts, colors or trends that could be inappropriately distracting, whorey, casual or generally offensive to anyone working in a 2-block radius of your office building
She claims it takes a female lawyer 45-75 minutes to groom on a weekday morning, and it's just not fair.
