Morning Reads: 2 June 2014

June 2, 2014 6:30 am

by Eric The Younger · 22 comments

Happy June! After a nice weekend, it’s back to the grind. Here’s the news that you may have missed. 

Look who made it as a surprise on the list of top Gubernatorial races for 2014.
Where does the Tea Party go in the Senate race?
Pink Pony v. Brookhaven starts at the Georgia Supreme Court today.
2500 Doctors in Georgia without malpractice insurance. Seems to me like a poor business choice.
Worth a read: Partisanship hurts progress.

Five Gitmo detainees swapped for American POW.
Shinseki and Carney have left the Obama Administration.
Lewis Katz died in a plane crash.
Can we avoid an active conflict with China, please?
Looks like Qatar may not get the 2022 World Cup.

Everything Else
Who doesn’t like a hammock?
A different  World Cup, this one in the Brazilian jungle.

Don’t forget next week is the Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict panel at the Carter Center, or that the morning reads is an open thread.

Harry June 2, 2014 at 6:57 am
notsplost June 2, 2014 at 7:52 am

It’s a strange time. If by some chance we end up negative on GDP for Q2 we’ll officially be in a recession. Shhhh – don’t tell the stock market.

The Fed has distorted everything so much with their billions of quantitative easing and money printing that traditional economic statistics don’t even work anymore.

John Konop June 2, 2014 at 8:28 am


From what I read this was mainly weather related…Most predict 3 to 4 percent growth 2nd qrt. via make up for first qrt. Which is about 1 to 2 percent growth…

Engineer June 2, 2014 at 8:47 am

In other news, the president of Liberia is visiting Albany today.

drjay June 2, 2014 at 9:38 am

there’s a president for library’s?

Engineer June 2, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Noway June 2, 2014 at 9:41 am

Are you all reading about the soldier who we did the prisoner swap for? Surely there are two sides to every story but if what’s being written about him is true, it sounds like the Taliban go the better of the trade.

Lea Thrace June 2, 2014 at 10:16 am

I heard this argument all weekend. In all honestly would we have felt good as a country to leave one of our own behind even if he went awol? At this point I’ve read reports that he walked off base. No reports say he went to join the opposition or to promote Taliban etc. Does that make him not worthy of rescue/release efforts?

(And I am asking this seriously so everyone please keep answers civil.)

saltycracker June 2, 2014 at 1:02 pm

There are numerous versions of how, why, where he was captured. The worst from fellow soldiers that he deserted and the Taliban version he was wandering around drunk.

We should have tried to get him back.
The controversy is how we went about it and a lot hinges on the circumstances of his capture. 5 terrorists for one deserter, a pissed off Afgan prez and congress angry over broken laws might fail the exigency test. The truth may be hard to get at as Obama wants him a hero.

gcp June 2, 2014 at 10:43 am

Good that we got the soldier back. Now there should be an Army inquiry to see if he went AWOL or deserted his post; if so he should be dishonorably discharged.

Noway June 3, 2014 at 12:03 am

And jailed.

xdog June 2, 2014 at 10:20 am

Whitewood and blues and the world of pallets.

The Last Democrat in Georgia June 2, 2014 at 3:03 pm

Thanks for the news, Mr. Eric The Younger.

Harry June 2, 2014 at 3:17 pm

We know that university administrators are knee-jerk-biased against campus carry by licensed individuals, and legislators are very sensitive to pressure from this group. It’s the contention of many gun owners that allowing campus CCW would, in fact, tend to act as a deterrent against the sporadic but too frequent acts of terror against helpless students and teachers. But, in order to overcome the institutional opposition some quality studies are needed by independent, peer-reviewed behavioral scientists and researchers. The dilemma is that such people are generally under the thumb of the academic establishment. Maybe the NRA can be persuaded to fund the research and pr needed to overcome this academic bias.

MattMD June 2, 2014 at 7:47 pm

I don’t see how it would be a deterrent, a crazy man is going to do what a crazy man does. You could argue that it could reduce some deaths during an incident but even that is highly questionable. How many VT students would have been eligible for CC and how many of them would even be packing?

The guy that did the UT shooting back in the 60’s was actually engaged by armed police and civilians and he was still taking people out.

Like I have said before, I have no issue with CCC but let’s either get it done or move on.

Harry June 2, 2014 at 8:10 pm

Let’s get solid research from both sides.

MattMD June 2, 2014 at 8:23 pm

You either research something or you do not. There are generally no “sides”. Yes, sometimes there is bias but by definition that would be bad research and would be quickly discredited and condemned.

Harry June 2, 2014 at 8:53 pm

There’s very little research that doesn’t have an agenda. Researchers attempt to prove an hypothesis which is a bias. The real test comes with peer review which generally settles the issue quickly with the research community and the public except in cases such as “global warming” which morped into “climate change”. The university administrators and academics are just as pre-disposed to their opinions as is the other side, but given time and open society the truth will be made apparent and accepted by all. Hopefully with minimal deaths.

Ellynn June 3, 2014 at 9:53 am

The NRA has lobbied to block all gun related studies and reseach by at least 6 major government agencies and at least 3 private research firms (that I have read ablout sofar…). Why would they back any forms now?

Harry June 3, 2014 at 10:30 am

Maybe they were worried about the selection bias.

The Last Democrat in Georgia June 3, 2014 at 12:23 pm

Exactly….Like you stated earlier, the NRA probably knew by the government agencies and private research firms that were selected that the research that would be done would be to further an agenda of restricting and rolling back Second Amendment rights.

Harry June 3, 2014 at 6:28 pm

Universities say no to the 2nd Amendment

Comments on this entry are closed.