Corrections

Unfortunately, I often only have a short time in the early morning each day to post stories on this blog. Given the pressures of classes, litigation, and traveling, I will often miss typos or automatically “corrected” words that are errors. I apologize for those errors, but we have no staff or copy editors on this blog. We welcome any suggested corrections. Thanks again for your help and your understanding.

271 thoughts on “Corrections”

  1. In the State Department Emails post occured the words below.

    “……. three are so many relevant emails…….”

    Three sb There

  2. Title misspelled: MIT Study Finds That Curving Carbon Emissions Will Reduce Droughts And Save Billions

    Curving should be Curbing

  3. Interment should be internment 🙂 in the Wesley Clark posting.

  6. She resigned btw. She was not fired.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/30/zandria-robinson-univ-of-memphis-professor-whitene/

    University of Memphis professor: ‘Whiteness is most certainly and inevitably terror’

    Zandria Robinson, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Memphis, has parted ways with the university after she came under fire for a number of tweets in which she blasts “whiteness” and even equates it with terrorism.

    By Tuesday evening, Ms. Robinson’s Twitter account was set to private and her faculty page was deleted from the

  7. Where is that item about “Is the SEC a toothless tiger” from last week describing how the false certifications of financial statements on mortgage portfolios signed by a head Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac official, his secretary, and an assistant were ended by the SEC’s decision to “terminate the litigation;” an issuance banning the three from signing off on any more mortgage-backed financial statements for one year, six months, and six months respectively; and by telling the defendants to make “donations” to some educational charity of $100k, $50k, and $20k, respectively, with NO entry of a consent decree, no criminal charge, no fine, no jail time, no finding of fault, malpractice, forgery, fraud, or malfeasance, no bar from federal, bank, financial institution, brokerage, mortgage lender, university, insurance, or any fidoldfox@gmail.comuciary employment, and certainly no way to compel a “donation?”

    I was telling someone about this item, and now no matter how I search full text, your archives, your weekend columnists, I cannot bring it up! Please help. I need this story to prove my assertion and support my letter to the editor. It was quoting from an article by a Dorsey & Whitney lawyer.

  9. From today’s posting about Clapper:

    “The National Security Agency is still struggling to explain what (missing word/s) denounced as the uncharged act…”

    is? has been?

  10. Professor please watch this and see if you can help her or find her someone who can

  11. Houses are very far apart.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3041908/Disgruntled-couple-awarded-240-000-neighbor-DOG-BARKING-lawsuit-claiming-Tibetan-mastiffs-caused-decade-unrest.html

    Disgruntled couple awarded $240,000 from neighbor in DOG BARKING lawsuit after claiming the Tibetan mastiffs caused them a decade of unrest

    Dale and Debra Krein sued their neighbors in Oregon over the noise
    They claim the Tibetan mastiffs have barked unnecessarily since 2002
    A jury has ruled in their favor, ordered the dogs to be debarked

  12. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/16/tpp-revolving-door/

    Agency Overseeing Obama Trade Deals Filled With Former Trade Lobbyists

    The Office of the United States Trade Representative, the agency responsible for negotiating two massive upcoming trade deals, is being led by former lobbyists for corporations that stand to benefit from the deals, according to disclosure forms obtained by The Intercept.

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed free trade accord between the U.S. and 11 Pacific Rim countries; the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a similar agreement between the U.S. and the E.U.

    The Obama administration is pushing hard to complete both deals, which it says will increase U.S. trade opportunities. Critics say the deals will provide corporate interests with sweeping powers to challenge banking and environmental regulations.

    Here is information on three major figures in the Trade Representative’s office, gleaned from their disclosure forms:

  14. I’ve been watching some of what’s been happening on Mainstream Media, Alternative Media, and Via Government websites and I’ve been taking notes. I read on a normal day about 100 to 500 articles a day and I have to say your spot on.
    I’m on disability so I got the time.. thank you for your honesty and hard work!

  15. From today’s post: “In addition, the court imposed attorney fees against Martin for the litigation.” I believe you listed the wrong party against whom attorney fees were imposed. The court imposed attorney fees against Welch. Your statement wrongly makes it appear Martin lost the case.

  16. Actually the phrase was “since to be wading” obviously my subconscious was suggesting a correction to “seems to be waning”.

  17. On the Private Detective Arrested Post:-

    “Seems to be wading”?????? I won’t even try to work out what you really meant.

  18. In the Air Pollution Deaths Underestimated post, 2.5mm should be 2.5 microns.

  20. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brianne-j-gorod/the-governments-loss-at-the-supreme-court_b_6753286.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

    With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral argument in King v. Burwell next week, those looking for clues as to what the Court will decide later this year when it rules in King need look no further than a very different case the Court decided Wednesday. In Yates v. United States, the Court held, in a fractured 4-1-4 decision, that a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that bars the destruction of “tangible object[s]” does not apply to the destruction of fish (specifically, red grouper). In their opinions in Yates, the plurality and the dissent didn’t agree about much, but there’s one thing they did agree on, and that principle is key to why the government should win in King: when you’re interpreting a law, context matters.

    In King, the Court has been asked to decide whether the tax credits that put the “affordable” in the Affordable Care Act are available to all Americans who meet the income criteria, or only to those who purchase their insurance on state-run exchanges. When one looks at the whole statute in King, the answer is clear: tax credits are available to all Americans who qualify based on income, regardless of whether they purchase insurance on a state-run or a federally-facilitated exchange. The argument made by the law’s challengers rests on a facile reading of four words — “established by the State” — that appear in the formula for calculating the amount of the tax credit (not eligibility for it), as well as the argument that one need not look any further than those four words when trying to understand what the statute means. The recent opinion in Yates makes clear how wrong those arguments are.

    In Yates, the Court made clear that when judges or other government officials are interpreting a statute, they can’t just look a

Comments are closed.