Pentagon Can't Explain "Missile" off California
Military Investigating Video that Shows Mystery Object Shooting into Sky
Font size PrintE-mailShare141 Comments .Like this Story? Share it:
Mystery Missile Caught on Tape
Officials from both the U.S. Navy and Air Force have been unable to explain an incident concerning a mysterious missile launch just off the coast of Southern California. KFMB's Marcella Lee reports.
Mystery Missile Launched Off Calif. Coast
A mysterious missile launch off the coast of Calif. was caught on tape. Erica Hill reports.
This image captured by a KCBS News helicopter shows an unidentified projectile launched from an unknown point in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Los Angeles, Nov. 8, 2010. (KCBS)
Mystery Missile Launch Seen off Calif. Coast
In Indonesia, Obama Touts Outreach to Muslims
(CBS/AP) The Pentagon Tuesday said it was trying to determine if a missile was launched Monday off the coast of Southern California and who might have launched it.
Spokesmen for the Navy, Air Force, Defense Department and North American Aerospace Defense Command said they were looking into a video posted on the CBS News website that appears to show a rocket or some other object shooting up into the sky and leaving a large contrail over the Pacific Ocean.
The video was shot by a CBS affiliate KCBS' helicopter, the station said Tuesday.
"Nobody within the Department of Defense that we've reached out to has been able to explain what this contrail is, where it came from," Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said. "So far, we've come up empty with any explanation."
Missile Mystery and More: Strange Sky Sightings
Lapan said officials are talking to the Air Force, Navy and NORAD as well as civilian authorities who control and monitor air space.
"Right now, all indications are that there was not (Department of Defense) involvement in this," Lapan said, adding that some object might have been launched by a private company.
Scroll down to watch video showing the launch.
The FAA told CBS News that they ran radar replays of a large area west of Los Angeles based on media reports of the location of a possible missile launch, but they did not reveal any fast moving unidentified targets in that area. The FAA also did not receive any reports of any unusual sightings from pilots in the area.
Missile tests are common off Southern California. Launches are conducted from vessels and platforms on an ocean range west of Point Mugu.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, issued a statement jointly with the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, saying that the contrail was not the result of a foreign military launching a missile. It provided no further details.
"We can confirm that there is no threat to our nation, and from all indications this was not a launch by a foreign military," the statement said. "We will provide more information as it becomes available."
NORTHCOM is the U.S. defense command and NORAD is a U.S.-Canadian organization charged with protecting the U.S. from the threat of missiles or hostile aircraft.
CBS station KFMB showed video of the apparent missile to former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Robert Ellsworth, who is also a former Deputy Secretary of Defense, to get his thoughts.
"It's spectacular… It takes people's breath away," said Ellsworth, calling the projectile, "a big missile".
Officials had no information to make them suspect that the action was taken by any U.S. adversary.
"At this point, until we know more information about what it may have been, there is not alarm," Lapan said. "But that could change depending on what we find out."
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
'Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate'
GOP Rep. Bachus: 'Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate'
Alabama Rep. Spencer Bachus (R) told members of the South Shelby Chamber of Commerce that former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was probably the reason for the GOP's failure to take control in the U.S. Senate in last week's election.
"The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware," Bachus said. "Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate."
According to the Shelby County Reporter, Bachus made the remarks Nov. 4, at the local chamber's monthly luncheon meeting. But Bachus didn't stop with Palin, he also weighed in on Democrats continued accountability when it came to the power balance in Washington. "If you think Republicans are not in charge in Washington...," Bachus said. "Democrats are in control of the presidency and the Senate. It would take 67 votes to override any veto."
Bachus went on to say the real winner of the Nov. 2 election was independent voters, "We are getting more and more partisan. There seems to be no middle ground," he said. "Thank goodness for independents." Bachus went on to say that the American people lacked trust in either party and that while health care reform was necessary, the reform measure signed by president Obama was the wrong way to go, "We must do something about health insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions. People no longer work their entire lives at one job."
(via Shelby County Reporter)
Alabama Rep. Spencer Bachus (R) told members of the South Shelby Chamber of Commerce that former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was probably the reason for the GOP's failure to take control in the U.S. Senate in last week's election.
"The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware," Bachus said. "Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate."
According to the Shelby County Reporter, Bachus made the remarks Nov. 4, at the local chamber's monthly luncheon meeting. But Bachus didn't stop with Palin, he also weighed in on Democrats continued accountability when it came to the power balance in Washington. "If you think Republicans are not in charge in Washington...," Bachus said. "Democrats are in control of the presidency and the Senate. It would take 67 votes to override any veto."
Bachus went on to say the real winner of the Nov. 2 election was independent voters, "We are getting more and more partisan. There seems to be no middle ground," he said. "Thank goodness for independents." Bachus went on to say that the American people lacked trust in either party and that while health care reform was necessary, the reform measure signed by president Obama was the wrong way to go, "We must do something about health insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions. People no longer work their entire lives at one job."
(via Shelby County Reporter)
Our Banana Republic NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
In my reporting, I regularly travel to banana republics notorious for their inequality. In some of these plutocracies, the richest 1 percent of the population gobbles up 20 percent of the national pie.
But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse.
The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.
C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.
That’s the backdrop for one of the first big postelection fights in Washington — how far to extend the Bush tax cuts to the most affluent 2 percent of Americans. Both parties agree on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of incomes, even for billionaires. Republicans would also cut taxes above that.
The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get $370,000 from Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings.
At a time of 9.6 percent unemployment, wouldn’t it make more sense to finance a jobs program? For example, the money could be used to avoid laying off teachers and undermining American schools.
Likewise, an obvious priority in the worst economic downturn in 70 years should be to extend unemployment insurance benefits, some of which will be curtailed soon unless Congress renews them. Or there’s the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which helps train and support workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign trade. It will no longer apply to service workers after Jan. 1, unless Congress intervenes.
So we face a choice. Is our economic priority the jobless, or is it zillionaires?
And if Republicans are worried about long-term budget deficits, a reasonable concern, why are they insistent on two steps that nonpartisan economists say would worsen the deficits by more than $800 billion over a decade — cutting taxes for the most opulent, and repealing health care reform? What other programs would they cut to make up the lost $800 billion in revenue?
In weighing these issues, let’s remember that backdrop of America’s rising inequality.
In the past, many of us acquiesced in discomfiting levels of inequality because we perceived a tradeoff between equity and economic growth. But there’s evidence that the levels of inequality we’ve now reached may actually suppress growth. A drop of inequality lubricates economic growth, but too much may gum it up.
Robert H. Frank of Cornell University, Adam Seth Levine of Vanderbilt University, and Oege Dijk of the European University Institute recently wrote a fascinating paper suggesting that inequality leads to more financial distress. They looked at census data for the 50 states and the 100 most populous counties in America, and found that places where inequality increased the most also endured the greatest surges in bankruptcies.
Here’s their explanation: When inequality rises, the richest rake in their winnings and buy even bigger mansions and fancier cars. Those a notch below then try to catch up, and end up depleting their savings or taking on more debt, making a financial crisis more likely.
Another consequence the scholars found: Rising inequality also led to more divorces, presumably a byproduct of the strains of financial distress. Maybe I’m overly sentimental or romantic, but that pierces me. It’s a reminder that inequality isn’t just an economic issue but also a question of human dignity and happiness.
Mounting evidence suggests that losing a job or a home can rock our identity and savage our self-esteem. Forced moves wrench families from their schools and support networks.
In short, inequality leaves people on the lower rungs feeling like hamsters on a wheel spinning ever faster, without hope or escape.
Economic polarization also shatters our sense of national union and common purpose, fostering political polarization as well.
So in this postelection landscape, let’s not aggravate income gaps that already would make a Latin American caudillo proud. To me, we’ve reached a banana republic point where our inequality has become both economically unhealthy and morally repugnant.
I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.
But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse.
The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.
C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.
That’s the backdrop for one of the first big postelection fights in Washington — how far to extend the Bush tax cuts to the most affluent 2 percent of Americans. Both parties agree on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of incomes, even for billionaires. Republicans would also cut taxes above that.
The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get $370,000 from Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings.
At a time of 9.6 percent unemployment, wouldn’t it make more sense to finance a jobs program? For example, the money could be used to avoid laying off teachers and undermining American schools.
Likewise, an obvious priority in the worst economic downturn in 70 years should be to extend unemployment insurance benefits, some of which will be curtailed soon unless Congress renews them. Or there’s the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which helps train and support workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign trade. It will no longer apply to service workers after Jan. 1, unless Congress intervenes.
So we face a choice. Is our economic priority the jobless, or is it zillionaires?
And if Republicans are worried about long-term budget deficits, a reasonable concern, why are they insistent on two steps that nonpartisan economists say would worsen the deficits by more than $800 billion over a decade — cutting taxes for the most opulent, and repealing health care reform? What other programs would they cut to make up the lost $800 billion in revenue?
In weighing these issues, let’s remember that backdrop of America’s rising inequality.
In the past, many of us acquiesced in discomfiting levels of inequality because we perceived a tradeoff between equity and economic growth. But there’s evidence that the levels of inequality we’ve now reached may actually suppress growth. A drop of inequality lubricates economic growth, but too much may gum it up.
Robert H. Frank of Cornell University, Adam Seth Levine of Vanderbilt University, and Oege Dijk of the European University Institute recently wrote a fascinating paper suggesting that inequality leads to more financial distress. They looked at census data for the 50 states and the 100 most populous counties in America, and found that places where inequality increased the most also endured the greatest surges in bankruptcies.
Here’s their explanation: When inequality rises, the richest rake in their winnings and buy even bigger mansions and fancier cars. Those a notch below then try to catch up, and end up depleting their savings or taking on more debt, making a financial crisis more likely.
Another consequence the scholars found: Rising inequality also led to more divorces, presumably a byproduct of the strains of financial distress. Maybe I’m overly sentimental or romantic, but that pierces me. It’s a reminder that inequality isn’t just an economic issue but also a question of human dignity and happiness.
Mounting evidence suggests that losing a job or a home can rock our identity and savage our self-esteem. Forced moves wrench families from their schools and support networks.
In short, inequality leaves people on the lower rungs feeling like hamsters on a wheel spinning ever faster, without hope or escape.
Economic polarization also shatters our sense of national union and common purpose, fostering political polarization as well.
So in this postelection landscape, let’s not aggravate income gaps that already would make a Latin American caudillo proud. To me, we’ve reached a banana republic point where our inequality has become both economically unhealthy and morally repugnant.
I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.
REMEMBER: Keith - Liberals are held to a higher standard ONLY the RIGHT can be hypocritical
KEITH OLBERMANN "STATEMENT TO THE VIEWERS OF COUNTDOWN":
"I ... wish to apologize to you viewers for having precipitated such anxiety and unnecessary drama. You should know that I mistakenly violated an inconsistently applied rule - which I previously knew nothing about ...
Certainly this mistake merited a form of public acknowledgment and/or internal warning ... Instead, after my representative was assured that no suspension was contemplated, I was suspended without a hearing, and learned of that suspension through the media. ...
When a website [POLITICO] contacted NBC about one of the donations, I immediately volunteered that there were in fact three of them."
"I ... wish to apologize to you viewers for having precipitated such anxiety and unnecessary drama. You should know that I mistakenly violated an inconsistently applied rule - which I previously knew nothing about ...
Certainly this mistake merited a form of public acknowledgment and/or internal warning ... Instead, after my representative was assured that no suspension was contemplated, I was suspended without a hearing, and learned of that suspension through the media. ...
When a website [POLITICO] contacted NBC about one of the donations, I immediately volunteered that there were in fact three of them."
TWOweird news bits
Shrinks Analyze the Bush Family's Bizarre Miscarriage Secret
George W. Bush reveals his mother showed him a fetus in a jar after her miscarriage. The Daily Beast's Casey Schwartz talks to shrinks about Barbara's disturbing behavior. "You don't save a fetus in a jar—you just don't do that," says Justin Frank, a psychoanalyst based in Washington D.C. "I would consider that to be the behavior of an extremely depressed person. Probably also extremely angry… because I think she's saying—essentially—that she has had to suffer."
Read it at The Daily Beast
Inside the Child Prostitution Sting
Somali gangs in Minnesota, Tennessee and Ohio recruited girls as young as 13, nabbing them on their way to school, and luring them with promises of manicures, haircuts and clothing. The Daily Beast's Christine Pelisek reports on a vast sex trafficking ring just uncovered. Some girls were runaways, given a place to stay and money in exchange for prostitution. But other girls were recruited at home—or on their way to school—by the gang members' girlfriends, Dahir Jibreel, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, told The Daily Beast.
Read it at The Daily Beast
George W. Bush reveals his mother showed him a fetus in a jar after her miscarriage. The Daily Beast's Casey Schwartz talks to shrinks about Barbara's disturbing behavior. "You don't save a fetus in a jar—you just don't do that," says Justin Frank, a psychoanalyst based in Washington D.C. "I would consider that to be the behavior of an extremely depressed person. Probably also extremely angry… because I think she's saying—essentially—that she has had to suffer."
Read it at The Daily Beast
Inside the Child Prostitution Sting
Somali gangs in Minnesota, Tennessee and Ohio recruited girls as young as 13, nabbing them on their way to school, and luring them with promises of manicures, haircuts and clothing. The Daily Beast's Christine Pelisek reports on a vast sex trafficking ring just uncovered. Some girls were runaways, given a place to stay and money in exchange for prostitution. But other girls were recruited at home—or on their way to school—by the gang members' girlfriends, Dahir Jibreel, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, told The Daily Beast.
Read it at The Daily Beast
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)