Couldn’t Help But Notice (092707)
NPR has turned down an interview with President Bush (HT Instapundit), because they wanted one of their anchors to do the honors instead of Juan Williams, whom the Administration requested. Williams will do the interview on Fox instead. Tee hee.
_________________________________________
Ahmadinejad can speak at Columbia. Jim Gilchrist, whose previous appearance there was broken up before it could begin by disruptive protesters who stormed the stage and were never punished, can’t do the same next month. Two words: Distance Learning.
_________________________________________
It’s official: Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey has betrayed his father’s courageous prolife legacy — and deceived his state’s voters by posing as prolife last year.
_________________________________________
This is part of why a red state is in danger of turning blue.
_________________________________________
From Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, in a subscription-only editorial on the imminent expiration of the Internet tax moratorium:
For Internet users, the scariest night of this year may fall on the evening after Halloween. On November 1, the federal Internet tax moratorium is due to expire, and no committee in Congress has acted to make it permanent.
A permanent ban should be a political lay-up. But the clock is winding down and Congress needs to take a shot.
Permanent is better, but I’d settle for a four- or five-year extension of a 100%, no-exceptions moratorium. One thing states don’t need is more tax revenues. In most states, they have soared way beyond inflation and population growth during the past 5 years.
_______________________________________
The UAW has tentatively settled with GM, and is taking over retiree medical care. As I said back in January when the idea was first floated (”careful what you wish for”), it’s going to be interesting to see how the union contains the growth in costs — as it will have to — and remains on speaking terms with retirees.
_________________________________________
NASA’s James Hansen, globaloney-promoting hero of the globalarmists, is so busted (HT LGF; a related IBD editorial is here):
Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious — it’s a clear conflict of interest.
Note: The Daily Tech excerpt refers to “a large check” for a substantial amount, while the benefit IBD reports that Hansen’s enterprise received was likely either not in that form, or mostly not in that form. The Daily Tech excerpt also names an amount that could be interpreted to imply exactness, while the value of the benefit Mr. Hansen appears to have received is, according to the IBD editorial it referred to, likely not in the exact amount Daily Tech cited. Hansen’s “clear conflict of interest” appears to be supported by the evidence cited at the sources linked.
Oh, but Hansen’s motives are pure, because he’s trying to save the world. (/sarc) Update: More at this NewsBusters entry.
You wrote “for Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros…” is a clear conflict of interest
But nobody stated Soros received any money from Soros. The report quoted said Hansen was given “media and legal advice.”
How did “advice” somehow turn into “a large check”?
–Dave
Comment by Dave O. — September 27, 2007 @ 11:31 am
#, What about this ….. (from the Daily Tech link)
A report revealed just this week, shows the ‘Open Society Institute’ funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to “shape public policy,” is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry’s 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that “removing Bush from office was the “central focus” of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.
….. don’t you understand?
Comment by TBlumer — September 27, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
The “report†cited in your Little Green Footballs quote IS the IBD editorial, and it states that Soros’ Open Society Institute … gave him “legal and media advice.†Bizzy, your talk about a Hansen receiving a check has no basis in reality.
As for the dollar value of the advice, IBD says it’s “as much as $720,000.†Coincidentally, I’ve been so impressed with your blog that I plan to donate as much as $720,000 to you.
The Government Accountability Project likely provided these services, and I think they do receive grants from a Soro’s foundation. Government whistleblowers are a good thing. You will appreciate that again when your party no longer controls the executive branch.
….. don’t you understand?
Comment by A. Browning — September 27, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Desperate times on your part call for desperate arguments on your part.
I will be glad to accept a check, or a wire transfer, or gold, or postage stamps in whatever the exact amount of the benefit is that Hansen received, as I am confident it is a lot closer to $720,000 than it is to 0.
The bottom line is that Hansen is hopelessly conflicted, has not disclosed that he is conflicted, and acts like he is the only one in the universe as pure as the driven snow. As I said, he is so busted. I am sure you understand that.
Comment by TBlumer — September 27, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Concur that Casey is a shame. However, his betrayal of campaign positions is not at all surprising. The worst of it is his election removed one of the best senators. Santorum was one of the few who spoke clearly on issues of life and on the struggle with Islamo-fascists.
Comment by largebill — September 27, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
#5, agree.
Comment by TBlumer — September 27, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
Let’s talk about donations after you apologize to James Hansen for stating that he “secretly receive[d] a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims.â€
When you’re caught in a mistake, you really should acknowledge it. And when your mistake is libelous … well you do what you think is best.
Comment by A. Browning — September 27, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
#7, you’re a piece of work. In #3 you noted that IBD made the statement which was also carried by Daily Tech. I excerpted Daily Tech, which relied on the IBD statement.
If IBD retracts and it comes to my attention, I will note it. Your complaint is with them, not me.
I didn’t even make the statement and you want ME on libel. ROTFLMAO. I’m entitled to my opinion based on what I read and what I believe in good faith to be true, as is anyone else.
Comment by TBlumer — September 28, 2007 @ 12:19 am
IBD said nothing about a check. They can’t retract what they didn’t say.
IBD didn’t leave out “as much as.†They can’t correct your omission.
IBD never claimed that Hansen was paid first (or at all), and then talked. That was all you. Bizzy, get up off the floor and show us a little of that personal responsibility.
Comment by A. Browning — September 28, 2007 @ 8:19 am
#9, I never said any of the things you claim I myself said. I wrote an 11-word introduction to an excerpt from elsewhere.
A clarification for those, such as yourself, who can’t comprehend that simple concept, has been added.
Comment by TBlumer — September 28, 2007 @ 9:14 am
You’re correct, I can’t read, or at least couldn’t this time, and for that I apologize to you.
I knew you were out of synch with IBD’s original report, but I guess it was the DaillyTech blog that really embellished. Don’t trust the blogs, Bizzy. Always go to the source.
As it turns out, the IBD editorial was misleading. Check out the comment posted By ChrisGuest on 9/27/2007 6:13:51 PM:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9061#cmt190725
I think he has it figured out.
Comment by A. Browning — September 28, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
#11, apology accepted. I’m relieved I didn’t post a specific amount, because that appears to be in question. I don’t think there’s any reason to not believe that Hansen is very conflicted, but as to valuation, I’d say the ball is in IBD’s court.
Comment by TBlumer — September 28, 2007 @ 1:02 pm