? Learn what most schools don’t teach – YouTube

Barney’s & Macy’s just following Mayor and NYPD’s lead: they paid with valid debit cards. were handcuffed and detained by Police. Walked through the prison. questioned on how they could afford it. No rationale given for why they were detained.

NYC Street Lights all LEDs by 2017
also excuse to post this street life by Randy Crawford:

You are taught to be polite and say hello to people as a youngster. It’s a matter of manners. ? When a police harasses you for saying hello, what are you supposed to do?

I just saw a “No Labels” commercial on Liberal TV aka MSNBC, with a message from two guys who literally had labels before and after their names. Jon Huntsman and Evan Bayh were on the TV telling me about how “No Labels” pushes for common sense solutions that don’t make sense on paper or in reality and assembling self-righteous bi-partisan rudderless “gangs of some number less than 12 but more than 4” to play at solving problems. Which means they are really vague about what they are going to do and really wrong about what to do and really wrong how to do it. The “No Labels” mantra: “Both Sides Do It” so if we don’t act like we are from “Both Sides” and got elected to represent that side…”No Labels” wins! The “It” in “Both Sides Do it” being something the Republicans have done to stop President Obama from winning anything. Then the people without Labels tell us how Washington should work: everyone make a deal, screw your base and judge against the labeless razor: if no one is happy and a deal is made that deal is the best!

Get it? Elections don’t have consequences, Labels do! And only bad consequences come from Labels!

I didn’t vote for “No Labels” and neither did anyone else. I voted for people with some sort of party affiliation (or non-affiliation), platform promises and promised attempts at initiatives. Those things are all labelled. I don’t know when labels got to be such a bad thing. But now they are because Huntsman and Bayh said so. Huntsman’s the guy who didn’t get that Republican nomination because he didn’t understand that the label: “black President’s ambassador to China” wouldn’t help him out in the primary. Bayh’s the guy who quit because of partisanship (things looked bleak for Dems and he thought he would lose) just as the craziest Republicans running for the US Senate added “forcible rape = no preggers” to their 2012 platform.

So I figure, some of us bloggers need to get into this biz. Let’s just start “Both Sides Do it PAC”. We can get on Sunday Shows, Morning Shows, evening shows and all we have to say is: “Both Sides Do it!”. There are so many people I can recruit to this new PAC, and I can be ambassador to blacks, we can sprinkle some other people of colo…oh wait, “No labels” amiright? I’m a real flag pin I mean real American! I can feel America getting less label-y and more one sides-y already.

You think I am being snarky? You just labelled me! See “Both Sides do it!”®©™.

 

Yep, Coker & Stratton and my homie Carl Foreman pretty much nailed it…

Without comment.

Charlie Rose previews interview w/ Syrian President Bashar Assad:

 

I’ve had three surgeries in my life. At no time did surgeons reasonably expect catastrophic collateral permanent damage to adjacent organs.

Bombings by drone or fighter jet or submarine or battleship do create collateral damage. Especially when cruise missiles equipped with a cluster bomb warhead are launched.

This isn’t GI Joe. More than just the baddies will die.

President Obama will seek congressional approval to begin military action against the Syrian government.

This is how President Obama arrived at the decision to undergo the correct process of going to war:

In a two-hour meeting of passionate, sharp debate in the Oval Office, he told them that after a frantic week in which he seemed to be rushing toward a military attack on Syria, he wanted to pull back and seek Congressional approval first.

He had several reasons, he told them, including a sense of isolation after the terrible setback in the British Parliament. But the most compelling one may have been that acting alone would undercut him if in the next three years he needed Congressional authority for his next military confrontation in the Middle East, perhaps with Iran.

If he made the decision to strike Syria without Congress now, he said, would he get Congress when he really needed it?

“He can’t make these decisions divorced from the American public and from Congress,” said a senior aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. “Who knows what we’re going to face in the next three and a half years in the Middle East?”
[…] Even as he steeled himself for an attack this past week, two advisers said, he nurtured doubts about the political and legal justification for action, given that the United Nations Security Council had refused to bless a military strike that he had not put before Congress. A drumbeat of lawmakers demanding a vote added to the sense that he could be out on a limb.

“I know well we are weary of war,” Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden on Saturday. “We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.”

[…] Mr. Obama’s backing of a NATO air campaign against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011 had left a sour taste among many in Congress, particularly rank-and-file members. More than 140 lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, had signed a letter demanding a vote on Syria.

Moving swiftly in Libya, aides said, was necessary to avert a slaughter of rebels in the eastern city of Benghazi. But that urgency did not exist in this case.

Indeed, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Mr. Obama that the limited strike he had in mind would be just as effective “in three weeks as in three days,” one official said.

Thanks to UK Parliament and the 140 Democratic and Republican representatives that signed a letter demanding a vote, many of them recently elected or non-leadership voiced opposition to the President engaging Syria without congressional debate and vote.

The most disconcerting thing is this reaction from his foreign policy team:

Beyond the questions of political legitimacy, aides said, Mr. Obama told them on Friday that he was troubled that authorizing another military action over the heads of Congress would contradict the spirit of his speech last spring in which he attempted to chart a shift in the United States from the perennial war footing of the post-Sept. 11 era.

[…]

The resistance from the group was immediate. The political team worried that Mr. Obama could lose the vote, as Mr. Cameron did, and that it could complicate the White House’s other legislative priorities. The national security team argued that international support for an operation was unlikely to improve.

This surprises me and probably a lot of the American public, but this is inside the beltway conventional wisdom for “both sides”:

Punishing #Syria for using chemical weapons isn’t declaring war. Shouldn’t require Congressional approval. POTUS is our CEO.

— Steven Rattner (@SteveRattner) August 31, 2013

That’s the liberal opinion. Waging any sort of war is not an administrative action. It is always a cost proposition. When the US wages war, we will lose money, create destruction, lose American soldiers and foreign innocents and will assume responsibility for post-war stability.

Rep. Peter King says Obama’s decision to go to Congress “undermining the authority of future presidents.” Means it as a bad thing.

— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) August 31, 2013

The precedent for going to war in this case is the constitution. Peter King has to know that and is arguing really that it’s better for a President to pretend the executive branch has no checks and balances.

Either way, we were too close to waging another war without congressional approval.