He was convicted of a lot more charges than perjury.
From Wikipedia's Scooter Libby entry:
Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after he was indicted on federal charges of obstruction and perjury resulting from the grand jury investigation into the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame.
So, if by "a lot more", you mean ONE more charge, then you are correct. However, I feel you are being dishonest by implying that there was "a lot more" when there was really only one more charge and it was related to the charge of perjury.
In other words, it is intellectually dishonest to say that two is "a lot more" than one. But, if suspending your common sense and believing that Libby was convicted of "a lot more" than one charge justifies your hatred, then go for it.
I am so happy that I don't know the level of raw hatred and paranoia to continue to blame someone for a crime AFTER someone else has confessed (Armitage), that confession has been confirmed (by Novak) and the case has been closed.
You have no curiosity as to why Libby did what he did and was subsequently convicted of?
Libby was convicted of perjury. He was asked about a conversation he had a year or two before and his recollection was different than the other person in the conversation. The prosecution needed a conviction to show for the money.
Remember that Patrick Fitzgerald said he could not complete his investigation because of the conspiracy to obstruct justice, and that there was "a cloud over the Office of the Vice-President"? Remember that Novak testified that Armitage leaked the information to him, but that in no way proved that Armitage was the only person who leaked information, or even that Armitage was the first to leak? Remember the notes in Libby's handwriting on the typed minutes of his meetings with Cheney?
I am so happy that I don't know the level of raw hatred and paranoia to continue to blame someone for a crime AFTER someone else has confessed (Armitage), that confession has been confirmed (by Novak) and the case has been closed.
No, because the Bush/Cheney administration are incredibly talented at pulling one of the biggest conspiracies in the history of the US while being inept, ignorant, uneducated, stupid, and a horrible public speaker. In other words, one of the smartest stupid educated ignorant uneducated charismatic foot-in-mouther guys in the world was just POTUS and deceived the entire world while completely ruining - in secret, mind you - the US economy.
Uh, yeah. Bush and Cheney were secretly planning to ruin the economy because.... well just because they are evil.
As for who ruined the economy, and whose holding it down, if you will take the time to read the Constitution, you will learn that it is not the executive branch at all that controls the economy, but the legislative branch. So blaming Bush/Cheney or Obama/Biden really just shows ignorance. Congress controls the purse strings. I don't know if you old enough to remember, but just a few years ago, the economy was going gang-busters. When Bush took over, there was a slight recession, 9-11 made it worse, then one hell of a boom. The economy was going so well that the US government took in record tax receipts even *after* Bush's"tax cuts to the rich" (I got a tax cut. I had no idea that 50k/yr made you rich!) Then the economy tanked. What changed? Here's another hint, it rhymes with congress. The same party that took over congress then is still in control, and what do you know... the economy is still in the tank.
So, please, don't blame Bush or even Obama. It's not their fault. They just sign bills, boss the military around, and appoint judges (that still need Senate approval).
I love the spin that is being put on this: "found", "technical problems", etc. - esp in the Washington Post. These e-mails just happened to have technical problems and get "lost" when 10 of the senior members of the Bush/Cheney Administration where under investigation concerning a conspiracy to violate foreign intelligence secrecy laws. Just happened to get "lost", yessirree.
sPh
If you talking about the Valerie Plame thing, it turns out that there was no cover up because it wasn't the administration that leaked the name. Remember Dick Armitage?
However, I will say that the administration didn't want an investigation into that leading to something else. I remember another president was being investigated for something he was cleared of (Whitewater) and ended up getting into trouble from something completely unrelated (Lewinski).
Vagina. And. Penis. Licking. Good heavens, it's as natural and delicious as apple pie.
I think if nature had intended for us to be licking around there, she would not have put the snack bar so close to the outhouse. (not that it's ever stopped me)
What makes you think senator Inhofe and his pals at the Heartland Institute are not "AGW skeptics"? - Is it the fact they are sock puppets for the coal industry?
I'm a "skeptic". I don't work for the energy sector.
Here's why I'm a "skeptic": If these politicians truly believed in AGW, would they be flying private jets to Copenhagen and riding around in Limo's (1200 of them)? Would you be wasting energy running your coal powered computer to read this message? Would Al Gore live in a mansion that belches more CO2 in a month than my neighborhood does all year? Of course not. But they would do all these things if they were using it to gain power, all while telling me that I have to cut back, obey their rules, and give them more money!
EPA and nine other federal agencies this week officially awarded $5.5 million dollars in climate change study grants to 27 developing countries. These nations will use the money to develop greenhouse gas inventories and action plans for reducing global warming emissions.
Hmmm... Maybe you would like to read my assumptions from the EPA:
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Recovery Act seeks in part to spur technological advances in science and health and to invest in environmental protection and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. EPA manages over $7 billion in projects and programs that will help achieve these goals, offers resources to help other agencies “green” a much larger set of Recovery investments, and administers environmental laws that will govern Recovery activities.
How much of this money do you think goes to AGW skeptics?
Yeah, I smell manure too. Maybe you should provide some sources... Hell, even some opinions of your own instead of just hurling insults. You need something more than, "you're wrong" to make a point.
I looked at the list. Thanx for providing it, BTW.
Now, in the list, the majority of the people I see there are deans, college presidents, a few professors and some people that I have no idea why they would be there. Some of the people on the list don't even have Ph.D.'s.
Mr. Arthur K. Reilly, for example, works for Cisco and has an MS in... well, it doesn't say.
Dr. John T. Bruer got his PhD in Philosophy.
Dr. Dan E. Arvizu is Director and Chief Executive of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Gee, I wonder where he comes down on AGW. Just think, if I, as a Dr. Venture style Super-Scientist could prove that AGW is a myth, this guy may be out of a job. I wonder how he would vote for my grant funding?
Dr. Steven C. Beering is a Dr... as in MD. His science degree was honorary. He is the president of Purdue.
Dr. Camilla P. Benbow's specialty is education.
Dr. Ray M. Bowen is the President of Texas A&M. He does have a PhD in in mechanical engineering, although his resume is mostly academia administration.
Now not all of these people are out of place. Kelvin K. Droegemeier is an excellent fit He has a PhD in a scientific field. He has worked in the real world and has actually done REAL stuff, not just research, not just academia. (And his name! He had me at Kelvin)...
Still, I don't trust many of these people to know beaker from microscope, much less decide where money is being spent. Besides, should this many people in academia be deciding where government grants go? Aren't they kinda voting for their own salaries?
Actually, I have taken part in the government grant process. However, I am in one country. Are you sure that the process you describe is universal? Who are these scientists that review and approve grant money? How did they get that job? Can any scientist do it? Can I can go to my wife, (who has a science degree) and have her approve me some government money? Is it really that easy?
Seriously. The Constitution spells out that Congress controls the purse strings. They allocate the money. If it requires the approval of other scientists, then congress chooses those scientists. It starts and ends with congress. And last time I checked, congress is a nothing more than a bunch of politicians who were able to make enough promises to get elected and will tell whatever it takes to gain more power and get reelected. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the power to scientists to tax citizens and spend the money on their behalf.
So, what about NASA's climate data? What about NOAA's climate data?
Oh, but those weren't "debunked" so we're just going to conveniently ignore it. You cannot pick and choose what datasets you're going to side with. You have to either accept them all or debunk them all.
I'm waiting...
The problem is the cherry picking and manipulation of that data. Personally, I don't know enough about the data to trust or distrust it. Even if I had access to the data and full faith in it, I am dependent on scientists to process that data and publish it through some "neutral" entity like the IPCC. Unfortunately, it turns out the IPCC had an agenda from the beginning and the scientist picked to process the data fudged the results. So until someone else who is fully qualified to process the data and proven to be unbiased publishes the results, I'm not about to hand over my lifestyle to a bunch of politicians who fly on private jets and ride in limo's to a climate conference to make laws restricting how much energy I use.
Seriously, if the politicians really believed it, wouldn't they have traveled to Copenhagen on sailboats and ridden around on bicycles? Sorry, but I'm going to let a bunch of fat cats tell me I'm consuming too much.
Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia.
I am thoroughly convinced that no amount of evidence at this point can convince the skeptics. They are traveling on faith. This is why they are ridiculed. They don't like it, but hey, neither do people who believe that they've been abducted by UFOs.
I see your Darwin and raise you one Houston. Houston Texas had the earliest snow this year in recorded history. You would think that someone with a PHD, claiming to be qualified to write articles on climate change would know the difference between climate and weather.
Here we have climate change skeptics, on the payroll of big oil getting the same weight as scientists with real, irrefutable data, thanks to this misguided "we are all entitled to an opinion and the right to promote it".
Of course, you should also point out that scientists at universities are funded by government grants. It's hard to get those grants if you say something that the politicians don't want you to say. While your position assumes that companies only have their own interests at heart, I contend that politicians are corrupt and wish to gain power. Global warming legislation aims to be the largest power grab since the civil war.
Bullshit. That was the invaders' mothership. Everyone will regret not scrambling their military forces when giant saucers appear over every major city. Quick, someone ready a Powerbook with a virus we'll upload to their computers!
Now that's just stupid. Only in Hollywood would that work. Everyone knows that viruses don't run on Powerbooks! Just ask Justin Long.
1) Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1, if not 2 generations ahead of its allies. Besides, its enemies still have WWII-level technologies.
2) Does it really need to spend so much billions on finding -yet- more advanced stealth technology? Isn't the U.S. already technology superior to everyone anyway?
#1 is the effect. #2 is the cause. #3 (below) is the reason.
Just because they are allies today doesn't mean they always will be.
Also remember that a F117 was shot down in Bosnia. Yeah, we have a ways to go in stealth tech.
Fox here - are you saying that their values differ or that they're presenting significant facts the other networks are neglecting?
(sorry, in a hurry)
Both. But I'm also saying that Fox will present both sides, or have a talking head from the other side (left or right) to say their piece. You never see an opposing view on Olbermann, for example.
That's not entirely true. Palin took office on December 4, 2006; Obama on January 4, 2005. So if you're looking at "more experience" on by comparing them on the same calendar day during the campaign, you're wrong. If you're looking at it at the respective times they entered the race, you're right.
More importantly, US Senator was only the last item in my Obama experience list; I wouldn't consider it sufficient by itself. I also neglected to mention the campaigning itself - I think there is a lot of value in being at the top of the ticket in a major campaign.
OK, so assuming that the jobs are equal in qualifying for the top executive job, you are saying that one month more experience makes Obama more qualified to be President than Palin to be VICE President?
I said "unqualified", and you jumped to the "executive experience" Republican talking point. I don't think Sarah Palin had particularly valuable executive experience (mayor of Wasilla doesn't count, and she was not governor for long),
She had more experience as Gov of AK than Obama did as Senator from IL. Also, let me add that being a governor, where you alone are seen as being responsible for a state is a whole hell of a lot different than being a senator, where you actions are blurred with those of 99 other senators. So I consider Palin's Gov experience much more highly than I consider Obama's legislative experience.
and I believe experience as a community organizer,
Really? Community Organizer? You consider handing out charity and tax payer money to more important than running and working for you own business? Seriously, has Obama ever held a blue collar job?
Here is your other post:
Here's some ideas. You might work on proving that they failed in some of the following ways and that those failures systematically favored Obama.
* the facts they presented were incorrect
* the facts they presented were irrelevant
* they omitted significant facts
* they masked editorial pieces as objective journalism
* the values described in their editorials are not shared by the majority of Americans
* the facts and values described in their editorials do not support their conclusions
Misrepresent facts? Don't know if I can point to any specific cases. However, there are plenty that were simply not reported/over reported. It's also important to as to HOW they present their stories. How many pictures of Obama have you seen with a aura around his head? How many sexist images have you seen of Palin?
Irrelevant facts? Sara Palin's reading list comes to mind. Did anyone ever ask Biden what he reads? How much coverage did Palin's wardrobe receive? How does that compare to Hillary's? For that matter, I heard more about how much money Palin's wardrobe cost than I heard about Obama's ties to.... well, ANYONE! (ACORN, Michelle's patient dumping scheme, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Blaggo...except to try to debunk any connections, of course) Of course, the is AFTER Obama said to judge him by the company he keeps.
Omitted significant facts? Have you ever seen THIS video? That's Joe Biden. I saw the main stream media show fake pics of Palin in a bikini holding a rifle than I saw them show this video. I think this is by far the best example of bias! They'll report crap that makes one side look bad and completely ignore crap from the other side. How many times have you seen anyone other than FoxNews report on "Climate-Gate"? Hell, even/. thought it was important enough to cover! Are/. contributors better journalists than than NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC and CNN combined?
they masked editorial pieces as objective journalism... Remember when Chris Matthews got a tingle up his leg. He was covering the convention as a journalist, not an editor.
the values described in their editorials are shared by the majority of target audience (Fixed that for you). But the main question here should be, do they present a side that differs from the majority of their viewers/target audience? Fox is the only network that does this on a regular basis.
McCain picked a totally unqualified person to be an old man's heartbeat away from the Presidency. I simply can not understand how an unbiased person could continue to support him after that moment, so I'm certainly not going to say the media was biased simply because the media supported Obama over McCain.
I hate to take this off topic here, but... I can not understand how an unbiased person can criticize the experience of the bottom of the Repub's ticket when she had more executive experience than the TOP of the Demo's ticket! Seriously?
It's understandable that you can't detect media bias that is slanted to the left. You voted for and gave money to Obama. Sorry, but that puts you on the left. When you see the media, they say things that you agree with. They are directly in front of you on the political scale. Everyone thinks they are in the middle of the road politically. You see the media where you are, therefor, you think the media is being fair. I am on the right. I try to take the blinders off when I consider media bias. I understand that Bill O'Reilly, for example is right leaning, but for every topic on his show, he has someone who disagrees with him and lets them have their say. Sometimes, that person who disagrees is from the right. Most of the time, they are from the left. In either case,the opposition is represented. You will never see that on any of the opinion shows on MSNBC and rarely see it on CNN.
If you want to call it something other than bias, fine, but that will change neither the numbers nor the facts. The site showed that the coverage was incredibly tilted favorably toward Obama and negatively against McCain. It gets even worse when you consider the coverage of Palin. Ever stop to wonder why you think so negatively of McCain and Palin? Do you ever stop to consider, even for a second, that maybe, MAYBE, the reason you have such a negative opinion is that all you have heard are negative things about both of them?
I just threw jet engines as an example because I know GE makes them.
I'm sure GE makes a lot more than just those as well that would experience a growth under a right-wing chief executive, but I don't know enough (or care enough really to research) about GE's product line to start weighing what product would benefit more from which administration's ideology.
Mostly I wanted to point out that it's probably not so cut and dried.
Jet engines were a fine example of the fact that General Electric does a lot more than "Electric" as their name implies. Still, the bread and butter of the company are small consumer items like light bulbs to large consumer items like washing machines, dish washers, refrigerators and ovens. All of these GE divisions stand to benefit greatly if a government mandate suddenly obsoletes their entire installed base. This would mean that everyone would need to install new, more expensive, energy efficient GE appliances. California, for example is talking about banning incandescent light bulbs, if the have not already. This is a boom for companies like GE who can now sell a $5.00 light bulb to replace a $0.50 one.
Now what does this have to do with GE? Who do you think would give more for green programs, Obama or McCain? Obviously Obama. Who stands to make a fortune off green programs? GE! GE makes the wind generators for wind farms, CFL and LED light bulbs and are well invested in other "green" areas.
GE also makes jet engines, for example, which military aircraft use. I think they would have been fine with either candidate.
Very true. GE makes jet engines for the military. But they don't make the engines for the F-22. They tried, but Pratt & Whitney won out. That fighter was supposed to be replace our current F15's and F16's. I don't see that happening with Obama as president. GE has produced and engine for F-15 and F-16 to replace the current Pratt & Whitney. So, even a cut in military spending can benefit GE. I'm not saying that GE tried to get Obama elected so they could kill the F-22 and take over the maintenance of the F-15/16, but you can see that Obama's election would not hurt GE's Aviation Division.
AS for the moderation of the GP to this post.... Truth hurt much?
The little bit of journalistic integrity left will be destroyed if the government starts picking up the tab. Newspapers will have a vested interest in getting funding so support of one candidate or another will be rewarded with money, instead of just interviews, questions at press conferences, and leaked memos.
As much as I hate to say it, it's that way now. NBC and it's sister stations are all owned by GE (at least until they sell to Comcast soon). This includes MSNBC. MSNBC is a very left-of-center network. While it has been shown that all media was biased toward Obama in the last election (yes, even Fox News... numbers don't lie), MSNBC went above and beyond the call of duty and by far the biggest Obama supporter of all the major media networks.
Now what does this have to do with GE? Who do you think would give more for green programs, Obama or McCain? Obviously Obama. Who stands to make a fortune off green programs? GE! GE makes the wind generators for wind farms, CFL and LED light bulbs and are well invested in other "green" areas. While it's great that GE is taking such a stance to greenify our world, it's not so great that they use their media subsidiaries to shape public opinion toward favoring one political party over the other to help their bottom line.
However, you are correct that it would get much worse if the government were paying the bills. You could expect that whichever presidential candidate or political party that promised to increased funding to the press outlets would get the more favorable treatment.
With that said, there should be some kind of oversight to prevent the corporations that own the press from using it to drive agendas with the purpose of increasing profits. For that matter, the press shouldn't be driving agendas at all!
Wasn't there a movie about this guy that starred Adam Sandler? 50 First Dates. Or something like that.
From TFA:
After the surgery—which was successful in its primary goal of controlling his epilepsy—he suffered from severe anterograde amnesia: although his working memory and procedural memory were intact, he could not commit new events to long-term memory. According to some scientists (e.g., Schmolck, Kensinger, Corkin, & Squire, 2002), HM was impaired in his ability to form new semantic knowledge but researchers argue over the extent of this impairment. He also suffered moderate retrograde amnesia, and could not remember most events in the 3–4 -day period before surgery, and some events up to 11 years before, meaning that his amnesia was temporally graded. However, his ability to form long-term procedural memories was still intact; thus he could, as an example, learn new motor skills, despite not being able to remember learning them.
So, yeah, kinda. It's not like the guy would remember everything until he went to bed. The article was not specific about how long memories would stay in short term memory. I guess that as long as you reminded him of something all day, he might remember it... or at least until you forgot to remind him.
Slashdot Mirror
He was convicted of a lot more charges than perjury.
From Wikipedia's Scooter Libby entry:
Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after he was indicted on federal charges of obstruction and perjury resulting from the grand jury investigation into the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame.
So, if by "a lot more", you mean ONE more charge, then you are correct. However, I feel you are being dishonest by implying that there was "a lot more" when there was really only one more charge and it was related to the charge of perjury.
In other words, it is intellectually dishonest to say that two is "a lot more" than one. But, if suspending your common sense and believing that Libby was convicted of "a lot more" than one charge justifies your hatred, then go for it.
Who knew? Bad Analogy guy has kids!
I am so happy that I don't know the level of raw hatred and paranoia to continue to blame someone for a crime AFTER someone else has confessed (Armitage), that confession has been confirmed (by Novak) and the case has been closed.
You have no curiosity as to why Libby did what he did and was subsequently convicted of?
Libby was convicted of perjury. He was asked about a conversation he had a year or two before and his recollection was different than the other person in the conversation. The prosecution needed a conviction to show for the money.
Remember that Patrick Fitzgerald said he could not complete his investigation because of the conspiracy to obstruct justice, and that there was "a cloud over the Office of the Vice-President"? Remember that Novak testified that Armitage leaked the information to him, but that in no way proved that Armitage was the only person who leaked information, or even that Armitage was the first to leak? Remember the notes in Libby's handwriting on the typed minutes of his meetings with Cheney?
I am so happy that I don't know the level of raw hatred and paranoia to continue to blame someone for a crime AFTER someone else has confessed (Armitage), that confession has been confirmed (by Novak) and the case has been closed.
No, because the Bush/Cheney administration are incredibly talented at pulling one of the biggest conspiracies in the history of the US while being inept, ignorant, uneducated, stupid, and a horrible public speaker. In other words, one of the smartest stupid educated ignorant uneducated charismatic foot-in-mouther guys in the world was just POTUS and deceived the entire world while completely ruining - in secret, mind you - the US economy.
Uh, yeah. Bush and Cheney were secretly planning to ruin the economy because.... well just because they are evil.
As for who ruined the economy, and whose holding it down, if you will take the time to read the Constitution, you will learn that it is not the executive branch at all that controls the economy, but the legislative branch. So blaming Bush/Cheney or Obama/Biden really just shows ignorance. Congress controls the purse strings. I don't know if you old enough to remember, but just a few years ago, the economy was going gang-busters. When Bush took over, there was a slight recession, 9-11 made it worse, then one hell of a boom. The economy was going so well that the US government took in record tax receipts even *after* Bush's"tax cuts to the rich" (I got a tax cut. I had no idea that 50k/yr made you rich!) Then the economy tanked. What changed? Here's another hint, it rhymes with congress. The same party that took over congress then is still in control, and what do you know... the economy is still in the tank.
So, please, don't blame Bush or even Obama. It's not their fault. They just sign bills, boss the military around, and appoint judges (that still need Senate approval).
I love the spin that is being put on this: "found", "technical problems", etc. - esp in the Washington Post. These e-mails just happened to have technical problems and get "lost" when 10 of the senior members of the Bush/Cheney Administration where under investigation concerning a conspiracy to violate foreign intelligence secrecy laws. Just happened to get "lost", yessirree.
sPh
If you talking about the Valerie Plame thing, it turns out that there was no cover up because it wasn't the administration that leaked the name. Remember Dick Armitage?
However, I will say that the administration didn't want an investigation into that leading to something else. I remember another president was being investigated for something he was cleared of (Whitewater) and ended up getting into trouble from something completely unrelated (Lewinski).
Vagina. And. Penis. Licking. Good heavens, it's as natural and delicious as apple pie.
I think if nature had intended for us to be licking around there, she would not have put the snack bar so close to the outhouse. (not that it's ever stopped me)
What makes you think senator Inhofe and his pals at the Heartland Institute are not "AGW skeptics"? - Is it the fact they are sock puppets for the coal industry?
I'm a "skeptic". I don't work for the energy sector.
Here's why I'm a "skeptic": If these politicians truly believed in AGW, would they be flying private jets to Copenhagen and riding around in Limo's (1200 of them)? Would you be wasting energy running your coal powered computer to read this message? Would Al Gore live in a mansion that belches more CO2 in a month than my neighborhood does all year? Of course not. But they would do all these things if they were using it to gain power, all while telling me that I have to cut back, obey their rules, and give them more money!
You are so full of false assumptions you smell like manure.
B.S., and no I'm not saying you've got a bachelor's of science. lol.
Assumptions? How about THIS assumption:
EPA and nine other federal agencies this week officially awarded $5.5 million dollars in climate change study grants to 27 developing countries. These nations will use the money to develop greenhouse gas inventories and action plans for reducing global warming emissions.
Hmmm... Maybe you would like to read my assumptions from the EPA:
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Recovery Act seeks in part to spur technological advances in science and health and to invest in environmental protection and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. EPA manages over $7 billion in projects and programs that will help achieve these goals, offers resources to help other agencies “green” a much larger set of Recovery investments, and administers environmental laws that will govern Recovery activities.
How much of this money do you think goes to AGW skeptics?
Yeah, I smell manure too. Maybe you should provide some sources... Hell, even some opinions of your own instead of just hurling insults. You need something more than, "you're wrong" to make a point.
I looked at the list. Thanx for providing it, BTW.
Now, in the list, the majority of the people I see there are deans, college presidents, a few professors and some people that I have no idea why they would be there. Some of the people on the list don't even have Ph.D.'s.
Mr. Arthur K. Reilly, for example, works for Cisco and has an MS in... well, it doesn't say.
Dr. John T. Bruer got his PhD in Philosophy.
Dr. Dan E. Arvizu is Director and Chief Executive of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Gee, I wonder where he comes down on AGW. Just think, if I, as a Dr. Venture style Super-Scientist could prove that AGW is a myth, this guy may be out of a job. I wonder how he would vote for my grant funding?
Dr. Steven C. Beering is a Dr... as in MD. His science degree was honorary. He is the president of Purdue.
Dr. Camilla P. Benbow's specialty is education.
Dr. Ray M. Bowen is the President of Texas A&M. He does have a PhD in in mechanical engineering, although his resume is mostly academia administration.
Now not all of these people are out of place. Kelvin K. Droegemeier is an excellent fit He has a PhD in a scientific field. He has worked in the real world and has actually done REAL stuff, not just research, not just academia. (And his name! He had me at Kelvin)...
Still, I don't trust many of these people to know beaker from microscope, much less decide where money is being spent. Besides, should this many people in academia be deciding where government grants go? Aren't they kinda voting for their own salaries?
Actually, I have taken part in the government grant process. However, I am in one country. Are you sure that the process you describe is universal? Who are these scientists that review and approve grant money? How did they get that job? Can any scientist do it? Can I can go to my wife, (who has a science degree) and have her approve me some government money? Is it really that easy?
Seriously. The Constitution spells out that Congress controls the purse strings. They allocate the money. If it requires the approval of other scientists, then congress chooses those scientists. It starts and ends with congress. And last time I checked, congress is a nothing more than a bunch of politicians who were able to make enough promises to get elected and will tell whatever it takes to gain more power and get reelected. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the power to scientists to tax citizens and spend the money on their behalf.
So, what about NASA's climate data? What about NOAA's climate data?
Oh, but those weren't "debunked" so we're just going to conveniently ignore it. You cannot pick and choose what datasets you're going to side with. You have to either accept them all or debunk them all.
I'm waiting...
The problem is the cherry picking and manipulation of that data. Personally, I don't know enough about the data to trust or distrust it. Even if I had access to the data and full faith in it, I am dependent on scientists to process that data and publish it through some "neutral" entity like the IPCC. Unfortunately, it turns out the IPCC had an agenda from the beginning and the scientist picked to process the data fudged the results. So until someone else who is fully qualified to process the data and proven to be unbiased publishes the results, I'm not about to hand over my lifestyle to a bunch of politicians who fly on private jets and ride in limo's to a climate conference to make laws restricting how much energy I use.
Seriously, if the politicians really believed it, wouldn't they have traveled to Copenhagen on sailboats and ridden around on bicycles? Sorry, but I'm going to let a bunch of fat cats tell me I'm consuming too much.
Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia.
I am thoroughly convinced that no amount of evidence at this point can convince the skeptics. They are traveling on faith. This is why they are ridiculed. They don't like it, but hey, neither do people who believe that they've been abducted by UFOs.
I see your Darwin and raise you one Houston. Houston Texas had the earliest snow this year in recorded history. You would think that someone with a PHD, claiming to be qualified to write articles on climate change would know the difference between climate and weather.
Here we have climate change skeptics, on the payroll of big oil getting the same weight as scientists with real, irrefutable data, thanks to this misguided "we are all entitled to an opinion and the right to promote it".
Of course, you should also point out that scientists at universities are funded by government grants. It's hard to get those grants if you say something that the politicians don't want you to say. While your position assumes that companies only have their own interests at heart, I contend that politicians are corrupt and wish to gain power. Global warming legislation aims to be the largest power grab since the civil war.
sam couldn't wait to get on camera, laura looks like a bobbit copycat (nasty) - i wouldn't want to be living and having children around these people.
I'd do Laura.
Bullshit. That was the invaders' mothership. Everyone will regret not scrambling their military forces when giant saucers appear over every major city. Quick, someone ready a Powerbook with a virus we'll upload to their computers!
Now that's just stupid. Only in Hollywood would that work. Everyone knows that viruses don't run on Powerbooks! Just ask Justin Long.
1) Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1, if not 2 generations ahead of its allies.
Besides, its enemies still have WWII-level technologies.
2) Does it really need to spend so much billions on finding -yet- more advanced stealth technology?
Isn't the U.S. already technology superior to everyone anyway?
#1 is the effect. #2 is the cause. #3 (below) is the reason.
Just because they are allies today doesn't mean they always will be.
Also remember that a F117 was shot down in Bosnia. Yeah, we have a ways to go in stealth tech.
Fox here - are you saying that their values differ or that they're presenting significant facts the other networks are neglecting?
(sorry, in a hurry)
Both. But I'm also saying that Fox will present both sides, or have a talking head from the other side (left or right) to say their piece. You never see an opposing view on Olbermann, for example.
That's not entirely true. Palin took office on December 4, 2006; Obama on January 4, 2005. So if you're looking at "more experience" on by comparing them on the same calendar day during the campaign, you're wrong. If you're looking at it at the respective times they entered the race, you're right.
More importantly, US Senator was only the last item in my Obama experience list; I wouldn't consider it sufficient by itself. I also neglected to mention the campaigning itself - I think there is a lot of value in being at the top of the ticket in a major campaign.
OK, so assuming that the jobs are equal in qualifying for the top executive job, you are saying that one month more experience makes Obama more qualified to be President than Palin to be VICE President?
I think you just proved my point.
Have a good weekend.
I said "unqualified", and you jumped to the "executive experience" Republican talking point. I don't think Sarah Palin had particularly valuable executive experience (mayor of Wasilla doesn't count, and she was not governor for long),
She had more experience as Gov of AK than Obama did as Senator from IL. Also, let me add that being a governor, where you alone are seen as being responsible for a state is a whole hell of a lot different than being a senator, where you actions are blurred with those of 99 other senators. So I consider Palin's Gov experience much more highly than I consider Obama's legislative experience.
and I believe experience as a community organizer,
Really? Community Organizer? You consider handing out charity and tax payer money to more important than running and working for you own business? Seriously, has Obama ever held a blue collar job?
Here is your other post:
Here's some ideas. You might work on proving that they failed in some of the following ways and that those failures systematically favored Obama.
* the facts they presented were incorrect
* the facts they presented were irrelevant
* they omitted significant facts
* they masked editorial pieces as objective journalism
* the values described in their editorials are not shared by the majority of Americans
* the facts and values described in their editorials do not support their conclusions
Misrepresent facts? Don't know if I can point to any specific cases. However, there are plenty that were simply not reported/over reported. It's also important to as to HOW they present their stories. How many pictures of Obama have you seen with a aura around his head? How many sexist images have you seen of Palin?
Irrelevant facts? Sara Palin's reading list comes to mind. Did anyone ever ask Biden what he reads? How much coverage did Palin's wardrobe receive? How does that compare to Hillary's? For that matter, I heard more about how much money Palin's wardrobe cost than I heard about Obama's ties to .... well, ANYONE! (ACORN, Michelle's patient dumping scheme, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Blaggo...except to try to debunk any connections, of course) Of course, the is AFTER Obama said to judge him by the company he keeps.
Omitted significant facts? Have you ever seen THIS video? That's Joe Biden. I saw the main stream media show fake pics of Palin in a bikini holding a rifle than I saw them show this video. I think this is by far the best example of bias! They'll report crap that makes one side look bad and completely ignore crap from the other side. How many times have you seen anyone other than FoxNews report on "Climate-Gate"? Hell, even /. thought it was important enough to cover! Are /. contributors better journalists than than NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC and CNN combined?
they masked editorial pieces as objective journalism... Remember when Chris Matthews got a tingle up his leg. He was covering the convention as a journalist, not an editor.
the values described in their editorials are shared by the majority of target audience (Fixed that for you). But the main question here should be, do they present a side that differs from the majority of their viewers/target audience? Fox is the only network that does this on a regular basis.
McCain picked a totally unqualified person to be an old man's heartbeat away from the Presidency. I simply can not understand how an unbiased person could continue to support him after that moment, so I'm certainly not going to say the media was biased simply because the media supported Obama over McCain.
I hate to take this off topic here, but...
I can not understand how an unbiased person can criticize the experience of the bottom of the Repub's ticket when she had more executive experience than the TOP of the Demo's ticket! Seriously?
It's understandable that you can't detect media bias that is slanted to the left. You voted for and gave money to Obama. Sorry, but that puts you on the left. When you see the media, they say things that you agree with. They are directly in front of you on the political scale. Everyone thinks they are in the middle of the road politically. You see the media where you are, therefor, you think the media is being fair. I am on the right. I try to take the blinders off when I consider media bias. I understand that Bill O'Reilly, for example is right leaning, but for every topic on his show, he has someone who disagrees with him and lets them have their say. Sometimes, that person who disagrees is from the right. Most of the time, they are from the left. In either case,the opposition is represented. You will never see that on any of the opinion shows on MSNBC and rarely see it on CNN.
If you want to call it something other than bias, fine, but that will change neither the numbers nor the facts. The site showed that the coverage was incredibly tilted favorably toward Obama and negatively against McCain. It gets even worse when you consider the coverage of Palin. Ever stop to wonder why you think so negatively of McCain and Palin? Do you ever stop to consider, even for a second, that maybe, MAYBE, the reason you have such a negative opinion is that all you have heard are negative things about both of them?
I just threw jet engines as an example because I know GE makes them.
I'm sure GE makes a lot more than just those as well that would experience a growth under a right-wing chief executive, but I don't know enough (or care enough really to research) about GE's product line to start weighing what product would benefit more from which administration's ideology.
Mostly I wanted to point out that it's probably not so cut and dried.
Jet engines were a fine example of the fact that General Electric does a lot more than "Electric" as their name implies. Still, the bread and butter of the company are small consumer items like light bulbs to large consumer items like washing machines, dish washers, refrigerators and ovens. All of these GE divisions stand to benefit greatly if a government mandate suddenly obsoletes their entire installed base. This would mean that everyone would need to install new, more expensive, energy efficient GE appliances. California, for example is talking about banning incandescent light bulbs, if the have not already. This is a boom for companies like GE who can now sell a $5.00 light bulb to replace a $0.50 one.
Now what does this have to do with GE? Who do you think would give more for green programs, Obama or McCain? Obviously Obama. Who stands to make a fortune off green programs? GE! GE makes the wind generators for wind farms, CFL and LED light bulbs and are well invested in other "green" areas.
GE also makes jet engines, for example, which military aircraft use. I think they would have been fine with either candidate.
Very true. GE makes jet engines for the military. But they don't make the engines for the F-22. They tried, but Pratt & Whitney won out. That fighter was supposed to be replace our current F15's and F16's. I don't see that happening with Obama as president. GE has produced and engine for F-15 and F-16 to replace the current Pratt & Whitney. So, even a cut in military spending can benefit GE. I'm not saying that GE tried to get Obama elected so they could kill the F-22 and take over the maintenance of the F-15/16, but you can see that Obama's election would not hurt GE's Aviation Division.
AS for the moderation of the GP to this post.... Truth hurt much?
The little bit of journalistic integrity left will be destroyed if the government starts picking up the tab. Newspapers will have a vested interest in getting funding so support of one candidate or another will be rewarded with money, instead of just interviews, questions at press conferences, and leaked memos.
As much as I hate to say it, it's that way now. NBC and it's sister stations are all owned by GE (at least until they sell to Comcast soon). This includes MSNBC. MSNBC is a very left-of-center network. While it has been shown that all media was biased toward Obama in the last election (yes, even Fox News... numbers don't lie), MSNBC went above and beyond the call of duty and by far the biggest Obama supporter of all the major media networks.
Now what does this have to do with GE? Who do you think would give more for green programs, Obama or McCain? Obviously Obama. Who stands to make a fortune off green programs? GE! GE makes the wind generators for wind farms, CFL and LED light bulbs and are well invested in other "green" areas. While it's great that GE is taking such a stance to greenify our world, it's not so great that they use their media subsidiaries to shape public opinion toward favoring one political party over the other to help their bottom line.
However, you are correct that it would get much worse if the government were paying the bills. You could expect that whichever presidential candidate or political party that promised to increased funding to the press outlets would get the more favorable treatment.
With that said, there should be some kind of oversight to prevent the corporations that own the press from using it to drive agendas with the purpose of increasing profits. For that matter, the press shouldn't be driving agendas at all!
Wasn't there a movie about this guy that starred Adam Sandler? 50 First Dates. Or something like that.
From TFA:
After the surgery—which was successful in its primary goal of controlling his epilepsy—he suffered from severe anterograde amnesia: although his working memory and procedural memory were intact, he could not commit new events to long-term memory. According to some scientists (e.g., Schmolck, Kensinger, Corkin, & Squire, 2002), HM was impaired in his ability to form new semantic knowledge but researchers argue over the extent of this impairment. He also suffered moderate retrograde amnesia, and could not remember most events in the 3–4 -day period before surgery, and some events up to 11 years before, meaning that his amnesia was temporally graded. However, his ability to form long-term procedural memories was still intact; thus he could, as an example, learn new motor skills, despite not being able to remember learning them.
So, yeah, kinda. It's not like the guy would remember everything until he went to bed. The article was not specific about how long memories would stay in short term memory. I guess that as long as you reminded him of something all day, he might remember it... or at least until you forgot to remind him.