Hasta La Gadget!

Today’s question before the court (of public opinion) involves network news anchors Brian Williams and George Stephanopoulos.

Is one’s crime against media credibility and public trust worse than the other’s?

Williams embellished (many would say lied about) the extent of his personal involvement in the coverage of major news events, most notably combat in Iraq. For these sins, Williams was suspended by NBC for six months without pay, and his future cast in doubt.

His actions seriously damaged media credibility at a time when the decline of daily newspapers adds greatly to the importance of network and cable television serving the public reliably. It’s about trust.

Now comes Stephanopoulos, his unreported support of the Clinton Foundation (and participation in numerous Clinton Global Initiative programs), and his partisan grilling of Peter Schweizer, author of the book Clinton Cash. Stephanopoulos so far has been allowed to apologize but remain on the air at ABC.

Is his damage to media credibility at this critical time somehow less? Is trust any less an issue here?

The focus in the Stephanopoulos case has been on his $75,000 in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. While a mistake, as he has conceded in his apologies, that’s not the real issue.

His blatantly partisan questioning when he interviewed Schweizer on ABC’s Sunday morning news program bore a striking resemblance to the content of the attack on Schweizer and his book launched by John Podesta, chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton for President Campaign, a few weeks earlier.

With the looming presidential race and the subject of the interview relating so directly to a declared candidate, it was incumbent upon Stephanopoulos to conduct an objective interview. Instead, he chose to carry water for his close friend.

Anyone who reads Clinton Cash will see – in the first seven pages – that Schweizer acknowledges that he cannot offer hard evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Placing this book’s investigative effort in the context of two previous books he has written detailing apparent Congressional insider trading and actions by members of Congress that seemed to amount to extortion of campaign contributions (Throw Them All Out , 2011 and Extortion, 2013), Schweizer writes:

“In a legal sense I could not prove that insider trading had taken place . . . .

“Was I able to prove intent or know why politicians were doing what they were doing (in reference to the premise of Extortion)? Of course not. . . .

“Using publicly available sources, including financial records, tax records, government documents and more, my research team and I have uncovered a repeated pattern of financial transactions coinciding with official actions favorable to Clinton contributors that is troubling enough to warrant (in my opinion) further investigation by law enforcement officers.

“Just as I couldn’t prove that members of Congress were guilty of trading on inside information, I cannot say exactly why these financial tr5ansactions are taking place . . . .”

For Stephanopolous to hammer away at the question of evidence as Podesta and other Clinton apologists had been doing since pre-publication promotion began – without even acknowledging Schweizer’s disclaimer in the beginning of his book – is transparently disingenuous.

He would have viewers believe that his questions were those of a hard-hitting investigative journalist. But Schweizer’s disclaimers at the outset of his book expose that as a shallow façade.

A metro daily newspaper journalist myself for 43 years, I refused to sign even neighborhood petitions because I didn’t want to compromise my appearance of objectivity and impartiality. If Stephanopoulos didn’t learn that journalistic principle as he transitioned from Clinton confidant to newsman, I can excuse his contributions.

But there’s no way I can forgive him for using his position at ABC to echo the defense points that have constituted the response from Hillary Clinton loyalists. Not when a reading of the book provides so much material for a serious, probing interview.

If Brian Williams gets a six-month sentence for misrepresenting his reporting role over and over, George Stephanopoulos deserves nothing less for masquerading as an objective journalist asking ostensibly tough questions.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

North Korea on Wednesday made a new bold claim about advanced military technology that could threaten its many adversaries, including the United States. A spokesman for the country’s National Defense Commission stated that the DPRK is capable of miniaturizing nuclear weapons, a crucial step in attaching warheads to missiles.

“Our means of nuclear strikes have been already miniaturized and diversified a long time ago,” said the statement carried by North Korea’s state-run KCNA media, according to South Korea’s Yonhap News agency.

North Korean soldiers stand guard as U.S. Vice President Joe Biden visits at Panmunjom on Dec. 7, 2013, in South Korea. (Photo by Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images)

If true, the technological development would mark a significant advancement in North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and put leader Kim Jong Un closer to developing a nuclear missile that could reach the United States. Given the nation’s bombastic threats to use force against the U.S. and turn South Korea’s presidential house into a “sea of fire,” anything that brings the government in Pyongyang closer to that capability poses security concerns.

But as with any information coming out of the secretive Hermit Kingdom, there is debate over the veracity of the National Defense Commission’s claims. The United States’ National Security Council spokesman Patrick Ventrell on Wednesday denied that North Korea made the advancement, saying in a statement to Yonhap that “our assessment of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities has not changed.”

North Korea has also made dubious boasts in the past, including on May 9 when the country claimed that it successfully tested a submarine-launched ballistic missile. Experts and U.S. military officials subsequently cast doubt on those claims, saying that North Korea was years away from such technology and that the photos accompanying the launch appeared to be doctored.

South Korean men pass by a TV news program showing images published in North Korea’s Rodong Sinmun newspaper. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-oon)

There are some analysts that support the DPRK’s statement, however. Daniel Pinkston of the International Crisis Group told North Korea watchdog NK News that he believed “for some time” that the country had the capability for miniaturization.

The commander of U.S. forces in Korea, Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, said in October that he thought the North could produce a miniaturized device, and Chinese experts stated in late April that the nation’s nuclear production abilities were more advanced than previously believed.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Watch bees hatch right before your eyes in this stunningly clear time lapse that tracks the growth from larva to pupa to the full grown bee. You can see the entire transformation from nearly transparent organisms that swim around in fluid to hairy bees with lots of color. It’s really stunning.

Read more…

Flames. Burgers. Maybe some veggies, too. Memorial Day weekend is coming up, and as we grill away our three-day weekend, let’s take some photos of it.

Read more…

A unique edition of the Xbox One arrives this week just in time for Halo: The Master Chief Collection. This version works with a “Cirrus White” body and controller, and includes the game Halo: The Master Chief Collection. Imagine that! With this game you get four Halo games including Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary, Halo 2: Anniversary, Halo 3 and Halo … Continue reading