We are the Liberal Blog From Hollywood
L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

Photographer in L.A.

Hot Pics & Gossip.

Archive for November 19th, 2010

Early Morning Swim: In Wake of IPO, Republicans Proven Wrong about GM, Reports Rachel Maddow

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 19th, 2010 5:48 am by HL

Early Morning Swim: In Wake of IPO, Republicans Proven Wrong about GM, Reports Rachel Maddow
Remember when wingnuts were calling for a boycott of GM?

Remember when wingnuts were calling for a boycott of GM?

A pair of right-wing radio hosts says there’s only one choice for conservatives angry about government involvement in the auto industry: Boycott GM.

“Nobody wants to support an Obama company,” Rush Limbaugh told his audience Friday, citing a poll showing that 17 percent of Americans backed a boycott of GM.

“Every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise,” conservative talker Hugh Hewitt wrote online last week.

The President made the right call and he deserves the credit today. And Republicans were wrong — again.

Late Late Night FDL: I’m A Good Girl
Christina AguileraI’m A Good Girl, from the movie Burlesque.

Christina AguileraI’m A Good Girl, from the movie Burlesque.

What’s on your mind?


Chasers

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 19th, 2010 5:47 am by HL

Chasers

By Mike Luckovich

Related Entries


New York Doesn’t Heart Body Scanners
The backlash against the new mandatory screening regime at airports continues. At least one New York City council member is trying to have body scanners banned from local airports. But does the city have the authority? Says councilman David Greenfield, “if the TSA disagrees with us they can sue us.” Wired: Federal law gives the TSA jurisdiction over airline security, but Greenfield says he believes the city has the authority to prohibit a particular type of screening. “The city owns the airports,” says Greenfield. “They’re operated by the Port Authority…. Hopefully we’ll get the law passed soon, and if the TSA disagrees with us they can sue us.” The TSA had no immediate comment Thursday. Read more

The backlash against the new mandatory screening regime at airports continues. At least one New York City council member is trying to have body scanners banned from local airports. But does the city have the authority? Says councilman David Greenfield, “if the TSA disagrees with us they can sue us.”

Wired:

Federal law gives the TSA jurisdiction over airline security, but Greenfield says he believes the city has the authority to prohibit a particular type of screening.

“The city owns the airports,” says Greenfield. “They’re operated by the Port Authority…. Hopefully we’ll get the law passed soon, and if the TSA disagrees with us they can sue us.”

The TSA had no immediate comment Thursday.

Read more

Related Entries



WATCH: George W. Bush Jokes With Leno About Exit Strategy, Drinking

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 19th, 2010 5:46 am by HL

WATCH: George W. Bush Jokes With Leno About Exit Strategy, Drinking
George W. Bush continued his book tour for “Decision Points” on Thursday night with an appearance on NBC’s “Tonight Show.” Jay Leno thanked him for…

Palin Keeps Tight Rein On Staff, Not Daughters
While elsewhere a prince and a well-educated commoner have captured the world’s attention, the Sarah Palin clan will not let the posh have their moment….

HuffPost TV: WATCH: HuffPost’s Roy Sekoff On George Soros’ ‘Man Up’ Message To White House
HuffPost editor Roy Sekoff appeared on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” Thursday night to discuss Democratic philanthropist George Soros’ recent downbeat statements regarding President Barack Obama’s…

Obama Helps Biden Cover Campaign Debts
WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden’s effort to pay off campaign debt is getting a hand from his boss and former rival, President Barack Obama….

Geoffrey Dunn: Sarah Palin Slams Michelle Obama in Racially Charged Passage From New Book
In passages leaked from her forthcoming book America by Heart, Sarah Palin has taken another cheap shot at First Lady Michelle Obama.


Fox hosts misinformation marathon to attack trial of Gitmo detainee

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 19th, 2010 5:44 am by HL

Fox hosts misinformation marathon to attack trial of Gitmo detainee

Fox & Friends declared the trial of terror suspect Ahmed Ghailani to be a “civilian trial failure,” dubiously asserting that a military commission would have convicted Ghailani on all charges because a “key witness’s” testimony would have been admissible, a claim disputed by legal experts. Fox & Friends also stated that Ghailani–who could be sentenced anywhere from 20 years to life in prison–was “almost a free man” and asked if the trial was a “victory for terrorists;” however, there’s no evidence that Ghailiani would have received a harsher sentence if tried by a military commission.

Doocy asserts that excluded testimony would have been included in military commission

Doocy asserts that military commission would have included witness’s testimony that criminal court judge excluded. On the November 18 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated that “there was a witness who was ready to testify – ‘yeah, I sold Mr. Ghailani all of these explosives that blew up the U.S. embassy in Tanzania. I was going to say that’ but the judge … threw that out.” Doocy then asserted: “Now, in a military tribunal, that particular evidence would still be admissible. So that guy would have been convicted on all of the conspiracy for murder charges and the murder charges as well.” Fox made no mention of why the witness was barred from testifying.

In fact, judge “strongly suggested” that military commission likely would have thrown out witness’s testimony

Salon.com: Key witness’s testimony banned because previous administration “learned of his identity not through legal means.” In a November 18 Salon.com op-ed, Glenn Greenwald noted that “[l]ast month, the federal judge presiding over the case, Lewis Kaplan, banned the testimony of a key witness because the Government under George Bush and Dick Cheney learned of his identity not through legal means but instead by torturing Ghailani (and also possibly coerced the testimony of that witness).”

Washington Post: “The reality is that the torture techniques employed by the Bush administration…are what’s hampering Ghailani’s prosecution.” In an October 15 post on The Washington Post‘s Plum Line blog, The American Prospect‘s Adam Serwer noted:

The reality is that the torture techniques employed by the Bush administration, not the law, are what’s hampering Ghailani’s prosecution. The case against Ghaliani is going forward, which suggests [former Bush official Marc] Thiessen’s breathless characterization of the affair as a “catastrophe” is absurd. The “catastrophe” is that the process by which terrorists can be brought to justice has been jeopardized by the torturous interrogations Thiessen is so fond of.

NY Times: “Judge Kaplan strongly suggested … that a military commission judge would have excluded that testimony, too.” As The New York Times reported on November 18, Kaplan “refused to allow prosecutors to introduce testimony from an important witness apparently because investigators discovered the man’s existence after interrogators used abusive and coercive techniques on Mr. Ghailani.” The Times further reported that “[i]n his order rejecting the witness, Judge Kaplan strongly suggested in a footnote that a military commission judge would have excluded that testimony, too, pointing to restrictions against the use of evidence obtained by torture in military trials.” From the Times:

Moreover, many observers attributed any weakness to the prosecution’s case to the fact that the Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court, who presided over the trial, refused to allow prosecutors to introduce testimony from an important witness apparently because investigators discovered the man’s existence after interrogators used abusive and coercive techniques on Mr. Ghailani.

Much of the criticism of the verdict was premised on the idea that such evidence would have been admissible in a commission trial. [Rep. Lamar] Smith [R-TX], for example, pointed to the exclusion of that evidence as undercutting the idea that foreign terrorists “can be adequately tried in civilian courts.”

“The judge in this case, applying constitutional and legal standards to which all U.S. citizens are entitled, threw out important evidence,” he said. “The result is that the jury acquitted on all but one conspiracy count.”

But opponents of civilian trials contended that such criticism was based on a faulty premise. In his order rejecting the witness, Judge Kaplan strongly suggested in a footnote that a military commission judge would have excluded that testimony, too, pointing to restrictions against the use of evidence obtained by torture in military trials.

Kaplan: “It is very far from clear that Abebe’s testimony would be admissible if Ghailani were being tried by military commission.” Indeed, as Kaplan wrote in his October 14 order to exclude witness Hussein Abebe’s testimony, “It is very far from clear that Abebe’s testimony would be admissible if Ghailani were being tried by military commission, even without regard to the question whether the Fifth Amendment would invalidate any more forgiving provisions of the rules of evidence otherwise applicable in such a proceeding.” From Kaplan’s ruling:

It is very far from clear that Abebe’s testimony would be admissible if Ghailani were being tried by military commission, even without regard to the question whether the Fifth Amendment would invalidate any more forgiving provisions of the rules of evidence otherwise applicable in such a proceeding.

Military commissions are governed by the Military Commissions Act, 10 USC 948a et seq. (the “MCA”). Evidence in such proceedings is governed by the Military Commission Rules of Evidence (“MCRE”). U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE, MANUAL FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS (2010 ed.).

MCA 948r(a) and MCRE 304 preclude or restrict the use of “statements obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment,” and evidence derived threrefrom, and could require exclusion of Abebe’s testimony. Even if they did not, the Constitution might do so, even in a military commission proceeding.

Greenwald: It is “simply untrue” that “the key witness would not have been excluded had Ghailani had been put before a military commission at Guantanamo.” In November 18 post, Greenwald wrote: “[T]here is the false premise — found at the center of every attack on the Obama DOJ’s conduct here — that the key witness would not have been excluded had Ghailani had been put before a military commission at Guantanamo.  That is simply untrue.” Greenwald continued (emphasis in original):

The current rules governing those military tribunals bar the use of torture-obtained evidence to roughly the same extent as real courts do.  Anyone who doubts that should simply read Rule 304(a)(1) and (5) of the Military Commissions Manual, found on page 205 of the document:

[304(a)(1)]  No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. . . . whether or not under color of law, shall be admissible in a trial by military commission . . . .

[304(a)(5)] Evidence derived from a statement that would be excluded under section (a)(1) of this rule may not be received in evidence against an accused who made the statement if the accused makes a timely motion to suppress or an objection . . . .

The only exceptions to those exclusionary rules are essentially identical to those used in the judicial system, which were applied by Judge Kaplan but found to be inapplicable (“the evidence would have been obtained even if the statement had not been made; or [] use of such evidence would otherwise be consistent with the interests of justice”).

U.S. Military Code states, “No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment…shall be admissible.” According to the Manual for Military Commissions, 2010 edition: “No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment…shall be admissible in a trial by military commission, except against a person accused of torture or such treatment as evidence that the statement was made.” From the Manual for Military Commissions:

Rule 304. Confessions, admissions, and other statements

(a) General Rules

(1) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment. No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (as defined by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd)), whether or not under color of law, shall be admissible in a trial by military commission, except against a person accused of torture or such treatment as evidence that the statement was made.

[…]

(5) Derivative Evidence.

(A) Evidence Derived from Statements Obtained by Torture or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment. Evidence derived from a statement that would be excluded under section (a)(1) of this rule may not be received in evidence against an accused who made the statement if the accused makes a timely motion to suppress or an objection, unless the military judge determines by a preponderance of the evidence that–

(i) the evidence would have been obtained even if the statement had not been made; or

(ii) use of such evidence would otherwise be consistent with the interests of justice.

Fox & Friends declares that Ghailani was “almost a free man” and asks if trial is a “victory for terrorists”

Kilmeade: “He looks like he’s still going to get 20 years, but what message is that sending to future terrorists?” On the November 18 Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade stated that Ghailani “looks like he’s still going to get 20 years, but what message is that sending to future terrorists?” Kilmeade also called the verdict an “embarrassment.” On-screen text stated that Ghailani was “almost a free man” and that the case was a “civilian trial failure.”

Almost a Free Man

Civilian Trial Failure

A Victory for Terrorists?

But 20 years is only the minimum sentence, and prosecutors intend to seek life in prison

Prosecutors reportedly will seek life sentence for Ghailani. As The Washington Post reported on November 18, “Ghailani could be sentenced to life in prison and faces a minimum of 20 years, according to the Justice Department,” and “Ghailani’s sentence will be imposed by Kaplan, and prosecutors in New York said they would seek life in prison.”

Obama administration official: Ghailani “will very likely be sentenced to something closer to life.” On November 18, ABC News’ Jake Tapper quoted a senior Obama administration official as saying that Ghailani “will very likely be sentenced to something closer to life. (The judge can, and very likely will, take into account things that the jury did not, and he can and will consider conduct that the jury found him not guilty of — e.g., murder). He will never be paroled (there is no parole in the federal system). There are very few federal crimes that carry a mandatory MINIMUM of 20 years. What that means is that he was convicted of a crime that is a very big deal.” From Tapper’s report:

Though some critics and observers are suggesting the Ghailani verdict — he was acquited [sic] of all but one of more than 280 charges — weakens the president’s call for civilian criminal trials for Guantanamo detainees, a senior administration official pushes back:

“He was convicted by a jury of a count which carries a 20-year minimum sentence,” the official says. “He will very likely be sentenced to something closer to life. (The judge can, and very likely will, take into account things that the jury did not, and he can and will consider conduct that the jury found him not guilty of — e.g., murder). He will never be paroled (there is no parole in the federal system). There are very few federal crimes that carry a mandatory MINIMUM of 20 years. What that means is that he was convicted of a crime that is a very big deal.”

“So, we tried a guy (who the Bush Admin tortured and then held at GTMO for 4-plus years with no end game whatsoever) in a federal court before a NY jury with full transparency and international legitimacy and — despite all of the legacy problems of the case (i.e., evidence getting thrown out because of Bush-Admin torture, etc,) we were STILL able to convict him and INCAPACITATE him for essentially the rest of his natural life, AND there was not one — not one — security problem associated with the trial.” 

“Would it have been better optically if he had been convicted of more counts? Sure. Would it have made any practical difference? No.”

Military commission would not have necessarily handed out harsher sentence

CAP: “Criminal courts hand out tougher sentences than military commissions.” According to a January study by the Center for American Progress, of the three terror suspects who had been tried and convicted by a military commission at the time, two have already been released from prison and one received a life sentence. Further, CAP studied cases tried in criminal courts similar to the military tribunal convictions and concluded, “Criminal courts hand out tougher sentences than military commissions.” From the CAP study:

The sample size of military commissions’ sentences is very small, but there are some analogous cases in the criminal justice system to compare the length of sentences in the two forums. The allegations against David Hicks in a military trial were quite similar to those leveled against John Walker Lindh–the so-called American Taliban–in a criminal court, while comparable charges to the material support for terrorism conviction for Salim Hadman can also be found in criminal courts.

Hicks pleaded guilty to the charge of material support for terrorism with the underlying allegations that he trained at an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and that he was an armed participant in numerous engagements with American and Northern Alliance forces. Lindh pleaded guilty to serving in the Taliban army and carrying weapons. Hicks received a nine-month sentence while Lindh got 20 years. Even if all of the time Hicks served prior to his plea bargain is counted, his total time in custody was only six years, less than one-third of the sentence Lindh received.

Hamdan was convicted of providing material support for terrorism for being Osama bin Laden’s chauffer. In 2006, Ali Asad Chandia was convicted in a criminal court of material support for terrorism for driving a member of Pakistani extremist group Lashkar-e-Taibi from Washington National Airport and helping him ship packages containing paintball equipment back to Pakistan. Hamdan received a five-month sentence while Chandia got 15 years. Even if all of the time Hamdan served prior to his conviction in a military commission is counted, his total time in custody would be only eight years.

At most, Osama bin Laden’s driver got a little more than half the sentence from a military commission that a criminal court doled out to someone for driving a low-level Pakistani extremist.

Fox’s Herridge: “Two terrorists convicted at Guantanamo in the last six months got a maximum of eight years in prison” while American tried in federal court for threatening South Park creators “is looking at up to 30 years.” On the November 11 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge reported that “[t]wo terrorists convicted at Guantanamo in the last six months got a maximum of eight years in prison.” Herridge reported that “a detainee who confessed to helping Osama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora was given just two years under a plea agreement with the military.” Herridge also contrasted the case of Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr, a 15-year-old who was sentenced to eight years for killing an American special-operations medic, with Zachary Chesser, an American who was prosecuted this year in a Virginia federal court. Herridge reported that “Chesser pleaded guilty to threatening the creators of the cartoon South Park because of its depiction of the prophet Mohammed. Chesser is looking at up to 30 years for the threats and supporting a Somali Al Qaeda group when he is sentenced in about a month’s time.” From America’s Newsroom:

HERRIDGE: [T]wo terrorists convicted at Guantanamo in the last six months got a maximum of eight years in prison. In one case, a detainee who confessed to helping Osama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora was given just two years under a plea agreement with the military. Now, the Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, who was picked up in Afghanistan at 15, admitted killing an American special-operations medic, Chris Speer. Khadr was sentenced to 40 years by a military jury, but it was only symbolic. Under a plea deal, Khadr will get eight years for the murder, and a former lawyer at Guantanamo believes Khadr could be out on the street much sooner.

EDWARD McMAHON (former Guantanamo lawyer): Well, the military jury sentenced him to 40 years in prison after he admitted to the murdering of an American soldier. And the secret deal, which was done without the jury knowing it, was that he would serve eight years, most of which would be in Canada, which essentially could mean he could be paroled next year.

HERRIDGE: Contrast Khadr’s cases with that of American Zachary Chesser, who was prosecuted this year in a Virginia federal court. Chesser pleaded guilty to threatening the creators of the cartoon South Park because of its depiction of the prophet Mohammed. Chesser is looking at up to 30 years for the threats and supporting a Somali Al Qaeda group when he is sentenced in about a month’s time. So there’s the contrast, Martha — 30 years, potentially, for an American, and just eight for a Canadian who killed an American soldier.


In Change Of Tone, Rangel Asks For Mercy

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 19th, 2010 5:43 am by HL

In Change Of Tone, Rangel Asks For Mercy
In a dramatic change of tone — compared to the bluster and indignation of the past week — Rep. Charlie Rangel today asked for mercy from the House ethics committee, invoking his time in the military and his 40 years in the House.

Presented By:


Lawmakers opposed to taxpayer-funded health care urged to forego theirs

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 19th, 2010 5:40 am by HL

Lawmakers opposed to taxpayer-funded health care urged to forego theirs
Author’s note: I am surprised “Bart” has not picked this up yet, so thought I’d post it here. I have not done political writing for the past few months, partly because I have been so disgusted with the shift to the right in this country recently, thanks to the Citizens United ruling that enables corporate fascists […]


Why the Deficit Is Simply Not an Economic Problem Now, or in Future Decades

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 19th, 2010 5:39 am by HL

Why the Deficit Is Simply Not an Economic Problem Now, or in Future Decades
There profound disconnect between what Americans expect to receive from the government in services, and what they expect to pay for it in taxes.

There profound disconnect between what Americans expect to receive from the government in services, and what they expect to pay for it in taxes.

8 Terrible Things "Nature Lover" Sarah Palin Has Done to Nature and the Environment
As Sarah Palin stays in the spotlight with her new nature show, we should keep in mind all the ways that the former Governor has added to environmental degradation.

As Sarah Palin stays in the spotlight with her new nature show, we should keep in mind all the ways that the former Governor has added to environmental degradation.

15 Dangerous Drugs Big Pharma Shoves Down Our Throats
In the pharmaceutical industry’s rush to get drugs to market, safety usually comes last. And the public suffers.

In the pharmaceutical industry’s rush to get drugs to market, safety usually comes last. And the public suffers.

Replacing Our Failed Economy Is Long Overdue and We Have the Power to Change It
An excerpt from David Korten’s Agenda for a New Economy, on what it’s going to take to repair our society.

An excerpt from David Korten's Agenda for a New Economy, on what it's going to take to repair our society.


Fun With Deficit Commissions

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 19th, 2010 5:38 am by HL

Fun With Deficit Commissions
Yes, today is Wednesday, so there must be another deficit commission report coming out. The United States may not be very good at producing very many things any more, but we really are the world leaders in producing deficit commission…

Rotwang Ruminates, Post 11/10
Dissociated observations . . . Tickle Me, TSA. I’ve seen the pictures of people being scanned by the TSA. They look like the ghost of the Michelin Man. I’ve heard the radiation in question is no worse than what you…



Republican Rep. Bob Inglis Blasts GOP For Denying Global Warming

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 19th, 2010 5:37 am by HL

Republican Rep. Bob Inglis Blasts GOP For Denying Global Warming
In June, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) became one of the first incumbent Republicans to be knocked off by a far-right insurgent Tea Party candidate. Since then, Inglis — who has maintained a very high 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union — has blasted the GOP for using “racism” to whip voters into […]

In June, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) became one of the first incumbent Republicans to be knocked off by a far-right insurgent Tea Party candidate. Since then, Inglis — who has maintained a very high 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union — has blasted the GOP for using “racism” to whip voters into a frenzy, for “following those personalities [such as Fox News host Glenn Beck] and not leading,” and for deceiving voters with conspiracy theories about death panels and “preying on their fears.”

Yesterday morning, at a House subcommittee hearing on climate change, Inglis mocked his Republican colleagues for refusing to acknowledge the truth and danger of global warming, saying, “They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they’re experts on climate change.” He also warned that while they posture to score political points, China will surpass the U.S. in clean technology:

INGLIS: Because 98 of the doctors say, “Do this thing,” two say, “Do the other.” So, it’s on the record. And we’re here with important decision to be made. And I would also suggest to my Free Enterprise colleagues — especially conservatives here — whether you think it’s all a bunch of hooey, what we’ve talked about in this committee, the Chinese don’t. And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century. So we may just press the pause button here for several years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button. And as a result, if we wake up in several years and we say, “geez, this didn’t work very well for us. The two doctors didn’t turn out to be so right. 98 might have been the ones to listen to.” […]

There are people who make a lot of money on talk radio and talk TV saying a lot of things. They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they’re experts on climate change. They substitute their judgment for people who have Ph.D.s and work tirelessly [on climate change].

Watch it:

Indeed, a ThinkProgress analysis found that 50 percent of the incoming freshman GOP class deny the existence of manmade climate change, while a shocking 86 percent are opposed to any legislation to address climate change that increases government revenue. Meanwhile, all of the Republicans vying to chair the House Energy Committee — which handles climate and energy issues — in the new Congress are climate change deniers. They include Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who infamously apologized to BP shortly after the company’s catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico this summer.

Transcript:

INGLIS: I’m very excited to be here Mr. Chairman, because this is on the record. And it’s a wonderful thing about Congressional hearings — they’re on the record. Kim Beasley (SP?) who’s Australia’s ambassador to the United States tells me that when he runs into a climate skeptic, he says to them, “Make sure to say that very publicly, because I want our grandchildren to read what you said and what I said. And so, we’re on the record, and our grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, are going to read. And so some are here suggesting to those children that here’s a deal: Your child is sick — this is what Tom Friedman gave me this great analogy yesterday — Your child is sic. 98 doctors say treat him this way. Two say no, this other way is the way to go. I’ll go with the two. You’re taking a big risk with those kids. Because 98 of the doctors say, “Do this thing,” two say, “Do the other.” So, it’s on the record.

And we’re here with important decision to be made. And I would also suggest to my Free Enterprise colleagues — especially conservatives here — whether you think it’s all a bunch of hooey, what we’ve talked about in this committee, the Chinese don’t. And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century. So we may just press the pause button here for several years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button. And as a result, if we wake up in several years and we say, “geez, this didn’t work very well for us. The two doctors didn’t turn out to be so right. 98 might have been the ones to listen to.” then what we’ll find is we’re way behind those Chinese folks. ‘Cuz you know, if you got a certain number of geniuses in the population — if you’re one in a million in China, there’s 1300 of you. And you know what?

They plan on leading the future. So whether you — if you’re a free enterprise conservative here — just think: it’s a bunch of hooey, this science is a bunch of hooey. But if you miss the commercial opportunity, you’ve really missed something. And so, I think it’s great to be here on the record. I think it’s great to see the opportunity we’ve got ahead of us. And, I also — since this is sort of a swan song for me and Mr. Barrett I’d encourage scientists who are listening out there to get ready for the hearings that are coming up in the next Congress. Those will be difficult hearings for climate scientists. But, I would encourage you to welcome those as fabulous opportunities to teach.


Government Made $125 Billion in Improper Payments

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 19th, 2010 5:31 am by HL

Government Made $125 Billion in Improper Payments

Silence of the CEOs
Charles Gasparino, New York Post
CEOs are a pretty close- mouthed bunch these days; the government just has too many carrots — and sticks — to allow them to do much else.Consider GE's Jeff Immelt. At a meeting this summer, the chief executive let it slip that President Obama's economic policies were bad for business and hurting the economy. Within minutes of the remarks being reported, his own p.r. people were throwing him under the bus — and Immelt himself was backpedaling.

Popular and Pricey Bills Will Test GOP Promises

Could Dems Lose the Senate Next?
Samuel Jacobs, The Daily Beast
by Samuel P. Jacobs Info Samuel P. Jacobs is a staff reporter at The Daily Beast. He has also written for The Boston Globe, The New York Observer, and The New Republic Online.Enter your email address:Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:Enter your email address:Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas: The Democrats’ most unorthodox senators are up for reelection in two years—and all of them could go down to defeat. Samuel P. Jacobs on what would be lost, and the…

It’s Time for Eric Holder to Go
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
Let's face it.  Barack Obama and Eric Holder gambled their entire national-security credibility on the Ahmed "Foopie" Ghailani trial, arguing that they could get convictions of detainees captured abroad by military and intelligence assets while using federal courts as a venue rather than the military commissions that Congress repeatedly authorized for that purpose.  Holder scolded critics who pointed out all of the reasons that such a strategy was much more likely to fail for "politicizing" the process, especially in regard to the trial of Khalid…