On Sunday, April 29, 2012, under the headline "In Oakland, Officials Say Police Used Illegal Tactics," the New York Times reported that the Oakland Police Department would use changes recommended by the Frazier Group to cope with the May Day Occupy Oakland protests.
On May Day night, KCBS radio reporter Chris Filippi was describing the specifics of the new tactics that were being used to add approximately 20 new arrests to the OPD's total for the day.
In the East Bay Express edition published on Wednesday May 2, 2012, a story by Ali Winston, under the headline "OPD Takes More Steps Backward," on page 16, was accompanied by photo with a caption that informed readers the OPD faces the prospect of federal receivership.
While taking photographs Tuesday at an Occupy Oakland protest, this columnist noticed that there were police vehicles present from the Office of Homeland Security. (They have Homeland Security license plates.) Unsubstantiated rumors in the area suggest that if and when the OPD goes into receivership, Homeland Security will step in and take over.
On May Day night a reporter from CopWatch said he had taken videos earlier in the day of police using tasers.
When the World's Laziest Journalist makes political predictions, such as our contention that JEB Bush will be the winning candidate when Presidential Election is held in November of this year, the level of skepticism from Liberals is quite strong and they are adamant in their refusal to evaluate any information used to arrive at that conclusion.
If we write a column reporting the appearance of the Pirate Party on the political scene in Europe and post it on April 27, 2012, and if the AP runs a news story on the birth of the Pirate Party on April 28 and the New York Times runs a story about German's Pirate Party on May 2, 2012, friends and regular readers don't much care if we point out the coincidence.
Got a Tums tablet handy? Here's our next prediction: If JEB wins in November, the World's Laziest Journalist will write a column that will ask the question: Did Liberals ignore the JEB prediction because subconsciously they wanted that precise outcome to occur?
If Liberals don't secretly want a return of the Bush Dynasty wouldn't they look closely at the material used to make the prediction and evaluate it to see if they could possibly do anything (everything?) to prevent such a (hypothetical) result?
Until the November election results are
counted -- strike that word because the electronic voting machines do not leave any verifiable results -- until the November election results are being reported, we will use all the self-restraint we can muster to abstain from jumping to conclusions and/or making political predictions.
We were wrong in our Kentucky Derby prediction about Native Dancer, so for tomorrow's race, you're on your own, pal.
Didn't forecasts, predictions, and educated guesses about "the most likely outcome" provide the bulk of the Sunday morning talk shows' appeal until the Murdochization of Journalism occurred and American citizens were conditioned to watch and accept unexpected events without questions?
George Clayton Johnson, who wrote for "The Twilight Zone" TV series, advises young writers to be creative by rejecting the laws of logic and ask themselves "What if?" What would happen if political pundits rejected the Murdoch syndrome and began to ask "What if?" and (perhaps) achieve Twilight Zone levels of entertainment value in their evaluations of politics?
Here is an example: After a primary season where all Republicans enunciated radical policies for keeping the women folk under control, giving businesses unrestricted disregard for laws in an effort to provide more jobs, and asserting that the Social Security Program was about to go broke; what if a deadlocked convention turned and begged JEB to (in the name of family tradition and patriotic duty) accept the Republican Party nomination to be their Presidential Candidate?
If (hypothetically) the electronic voting machines with unverifiable results delivered a win to JEB, wouldn't he then be able to say he had a "mandate" to carry out the program formulated during the Primary process? If a deadlocked convention hands JEB the nomination, he won't be shackled by any campaign statements or promises.
1 | 2