Away we go.
« One More For The Memory Hole | Main | Having Buried The War Powers Resolution... »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e201538f6d9f13970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Saturday Morning:
The comments to this entry are closed.
First?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 25, 2011 at 10:49 AM
Last?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 25, 2011 at 10:57 AM
Oh, no. You're not last . . .
Posted by: Minimalist Poster | June 25, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Reading a WSJ review of books about Nazi war criminals who escaped, I didn't realize that the chief justice at the time, Harlan Fiske Stone, was so opposed to putting them on trial, calling it a "high grade lynching party", that he refused to swear in American members of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 25, 2011 at 11:12 AM
When Mel gets in I need an opinion (all are free to post it) about this documentary "Inside Job"
I have a very right-thinking friend who insists I see it. But the trailer seems to indicate it is a left-wing propaganda piece simply because they use Soros, Spitzer and Bawney Frank as their prominent sources. That and the fact that Roger Ebert gave it a thumb's up doesn't give much confindence in its neutral credibility.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM
What did Stone prefer to do with them?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 25, 2011 at 11:17 AM
More agw fraud?http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029318.php
Posted by: Clarice | June 25, 2011 at 11:19 AM
Not sure about that, DoT; all the review states is that he felt very strongly that there was no legal basis for the victors conducting trials. Whether or not he was correct, history regards the proceedings favorably and having been necessary.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 25, 2011 at 11:23 AM
That and the fact that Roger Ebert gave it a thumb's up doesn't give much confindence in its neutral credibility.
I found it jaw-droppingly good.
Posted by: Fat Egbert | June 25, 2011 at 11:43 AM
More agw fraud?
Do you think ManBearPig is aware that his house of cards is tumbling down around him? Or is the seminary school dropout too dumb for even that?
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM
More agw fraud?
There's plenty of room for fraud in science funding if someone is sufficiently intent on fraud; science really does operate on a "social contract" to a great extent.
That said, the argument here seems to be "there was fraud and I don't like climate science hint hint nudge nudge".
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 25, 2011 at 12:00 PM
"the argument here seems to be ..."
I'd go further. A possible difference in our opinions on climate science is the degree of consensus bullying in the field. Consensus bullying that makes the field ripe for fraud and abuse of all kinds.
Posted by: boris | June 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM
That doesn't look like agw fraud. The Nature story mentions "the EC's Information Society and Media Directorate General, which oversaw the terminated projects", which I suppose could include climate modeling in its purview, but would include lots of other subject areas as well.
Posted by: bgates | June 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM
If the flick doesn't focus heavily on Fannie and Freddie it's a waste of time.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 25, 2011 at 12:22 PM
What did Stone prefer to do with them?
As I recall, the opposing theory was "hang them as malefactors, don't screw things up with a trial." But I think that was Churchill.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 25, 2011 at 12:26 PM
bgates, that's right: there's nothing in the story to connect it to AGW. The wink-and-nudge strikes me as pretty slimy.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 25, 2011 at 12:28 PM
If someone steals $72 million from you does it really matter whether the vehicle they used to get the funds was AGW or one of the thousands of other fraud schemes?
Whatever scheme is being used to steal money the numbers are just overwhelming and very few seem to care. Here is just one example.
"According to O’Brien, the Essex South Registry of Deeds has found
25,187 fraudulent documents that contain the signatures of more than
30 known robo-signers."
How many would be found if every county in the US was checked?
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/recording-office-refuses-robo-signed-documents/
"These documents effect 1,282 homeowners in the
City of Salem, 1,246 in the City of Beverly, 1,404 in the City of
Peabody and 795 in the Town of Danvers."
Instead of arresting the fraudists, The banks are being allowed to redo the fraud.
This is insane.
Posted by: pagar | June 25, 2011 at 12:35 PM
I'd be interested in "Inside Job" reviews as well. I have it on hold at the library, but I'm still 138th in the queue -- although this being Madison, the library system does have 44 copies.
Posted by: PD | June 25, 2011 at 12:38 PM
The headline of the Powerline store is "What's misssing?"
It is not uncommon to comment on political sex scandal stories that leave out the party affiliation of the suspect. Given past experience that's usually an indication it's the D party.
As long as the story is in the context of speculation about withheld details ... "slimey" doesn't apply IMO.
Posted by: boris | June 25, 2011 at 12:43 PM
On a related topic while people were absorbed with the Weiner scandal -- Obama was busy setting up Agenda 21-Related Executive Order-
Our local Tea Party is all over this one.
Posted by: glasater | June 25, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Zombie had a piece on Pajamas Media, months ago, pointing out that the fireman in the film, from the Greenlining institute, name
escapes (honestly) was the arsonist, who helped set the fire. Ferguson was wrong about the Iraq War,in 'NoExit'
'unexpectedly' so it stands to figure, that he would be wrong about this.
Now this isn't always true, Davis Guggenheim
recovered most of his self respect, squandered in 'An Inconvenient Truth' with
Waiting for Superman,' but that seems to be exception.
Posted by: narciso | June 25, 2011 at 01:02 PM
Re the Powerline story, it might well be that the fraud involved so many different studies it could't be specified, but raise your hand if you think Nature would have said climate studies if that were the case.
Posted by: Clarice | June 25, 2011 at 01:06 PM
An open thread with "fraud" as a main theme? Oh boy!
As a courtesy to Rob Crawford I will only post, and not comment on, the latest link to the most definitive interpretation of "NBC".
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Off to work on a solar inverter. I need to fix it before I start drinking (at least that is what the manual says).
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 25, 2011 at 01:22 PM
I certainly don't think Nature would have mentioned if the subject were climate studies, given that they didn't mention the subject and I don't think it's climate studies.
Plenty to worry about here anyway, since the research interests of the gigantically defrauded Directorate include e-cash and e-voting. One hopes the researchers (the legitimate ones) are more security-conscious than the grant dispensers.
Posted by: bgates | June 25, 2011 at 01:25 PM
Robert Gznaida, kind of the Jamie Gorelick of this matter.
Posted by: narciso | June 25, 2011 at 01:26 PM
Just looked at that Agenda 21 link.
The need for "innovation" is the constantly asserted rationale these days for government and its designees butting into another area. Remember only the government has the proper incentives to innovate.
When you see "innovation", think people's democracy and respond accordingly. Perversion of language to cover opposite agenda.
"Green energy technician"-one of the STEM-related career jobs of tomorrow just as long as the govt remains a primary dictator of the use of resources.
Posted by: rse | June 25, 2011 at 01:32 PM
Since this is an open thread, I have an idea. Obviously the Congress and the President are going to have to come to some kind of agreement involving spending cuts and tax increases. I think our side ought to make a good faith effort to show we're open to tax increases of some kind. My suggestion is that the Republicans propose an end to a tax break for fat cats that reduces federal revenue by millions of dollars a year. I am speaking of the deductibility of state income tax. I think this would be a very popular proposal, because it would show the Democrats how committed we are to bipartisanship, it would give the patriotic citizens of places like New York and California and Massachusetts the opportunity to send more money to the government without just doing so voluntarily, and it sure wouldn't bother anybody in places like Texas or Florida.
Posted by: bgates | June 25, 2011 at 01:33 PM
Glasater, I wonder if, in DoT and Clarice's opinion, the latest Tenth Amendment ruling applies to Executive Orders? I would think the Tenth would have always applied, but now we have the wording to give it teeth.
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 25, 2011 at 01:37 PM
AGW topics are introduced by the Powerline author in *his* last full paragraph.
Posted by: Frau Klimawechsel | June 25, 2011 at 01:38 PM
It's a good thing, you're on our side, bgates, as to the Phillip Kerr review of Taylor and Steinacher fairly iluminating,
although the latter's contention that there
was no ODESSA, seems contrarian, Captain,
Posted by: narciso | June 25, 2011 at 01:40 PM
IANAL TK-
I think the WH legal scholar in chief would ignore "the latest Tenth Amendment ruling".
Posted by: glasater | June 25, 2011 at 01:46 PM
Don't worry, MarkO made me a "Google" lawyer!
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 25, 2011 at 01:50 PM
When you see "innovation", think people's democracy and respond accordingly. Perversion of language to cover opposite agenda.
Scary isn't it rse?
Posted by: glasater | June 25, 2011 at 01:52 PM
the latter's contention that there
was no ODESSA, seems contrarian, Captain
Yeah I scratched my head a bit on that one.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 25, 2011 at 01:54 PM
TK-
I thank the Good Lord every day for the humor you and bgates provide!
Posted by: glasater | June 25, 2011 at 01:54 PM
Me, too, glasater.
Posted by: Clarice | June 25, 2011 at 02:26 PM
Ugh, that Henninger interview with Huntsman, was cringeworthy
Posted by: narciso | June 25, 2011 at 02:43 PM
So 'we'll always have Wisconsin' another anonymously sourced attack on Judge Prosser,
witnessed by Harvey, the Easter Bunny and
Wilfred, the talking Australian dog man,
Posted by: narciso | June 25, 2011 at 02:50 PM
Well, well, TK, now a self-confessed shyster?
Posted by: Frau Klimawechsel | June 25, 2011 at 02:59 PM
Re Illinois govt scams. For the past two years Illinois has not paid tax refunds due corporations, and is increasing estimated tax payments (unpaid refunds cannot offset current year estimated taxes). At some point it will make sense to stop servicing private sector customers in Illinois.
Posted by: henry | June 25, 2011 at 03:04 PM
Ha! Algore has the Midas touch in reverse. LUN via Insty.
Posted by: Frau Klimawechsel | June 25, 2011 at 03:04 PM
I thought Mead was too charitable, by half, it must be that Groton and Yale tie, that
still leaves a residue.
Posted by: narciso | June 25, 2011 at 03:13 PM
henry-
If you made a campaign contribution to a Democratic candidate in the last election cycle, you got a refund.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | June 25, 2011 at 03:22 PM
And I know nothing about the content of "Inside Job".
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | June 25, 2011 at 03:23 PM
The film, is what it purports to describe,
Melinda, it paints those like Gznaida, who got us into this mess, as an unsung hero,
Posted by: narciso | June 25, 2011 at 03:28 PM
Michele Admits Propaganda Bureaus Are a Great Help
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 25, 2011 at 03:32 PM
I just wish John V. Lindsay had lived to see this is print.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 25, 2011 at 03:43 PM
Those of you, who are New Yorkers, what was
the deal with Lindsay, was he just the Bloomberg of the day, or imminently more clueless.
Posted by: narciso | June 25, 2011 at 03:50 PM
The Tenth Amendment applies to the Executive Branch every bit as much as it does to the Congress. However, the Bond ruling doesn't do much except grant standing to individuals to sue in the circumstances of that case.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 25, 2011 at 03:53 PM
I have tried 3 times to post a link to Gateway Pundit regarding Boca Raton charging the Tea Party $6000 for services, while not charging Move-On.org a dime just a couple days earlier. And an update to the post that tells us that Donald Trump stepped in a paid the bill for the Tea Party.
I cannot get the two links to post, so I'm going to try "hiding" it here. Scroll to the end of that link to find the Update link on Trump.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 25, 2011 at 03:58 PM
--"Our children, you know, could care less about what we’re doing."--
Not quite "proud" yet.
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 25, 2011 at 04:03 PM
what was the deal with Lindsay
Narciso: Back when I was a young and nubile 20 year old, Lindsey was Mayor and I remember sitting with my boss at a Denny's-like restaurant at about 1 AM (we were on our way back from a work-related day trip) and he and another person with us going on and on about how smart Lindsey was and how they hoped he'd run for President.
We were about 2/3rds of the way back to Buffalo from Syracuse and I was so clueless, I had no idea who they were talking about. I remember sitting there thinking I had the smartest boss in the world for knowing so much about everything. I shudder in looking back at how completely naive I was at that age and how vulnerable I was at that age to the opinions of those I admired or even who I thought of as adults.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 25, 2011 at 04:06 PM
It was also at that quickie meal that my boss said to me, "You are still drinking milk with your meals, aren't you alittle old for that?" I remember wanting to crawl under the table.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 25, 2011 at 04:09 PM
I am humbled by the comments above. I am blessed that I found this site. I could have no better family. Thank you.
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 25, 2011 at 04:09 PM
Seems Romney has appropriated Maggie Thatcher's campaign poster. Good one:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 25, 2011 at 04:13 PM
Pet peeve:
"could care less" vs. "couldn't care less"
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 25, 2011 at 04:15 PM
Heh, DoT. Though I do think people who kiss and tell deserve to be shot. (Consider that fair warning,) Smooooch
Posted by: Clarice | June 25, 2011 at 04:25 PM
Look who's buying up flood ravaged farm land.
Posted by: Janet | June 25, 2011 at 04:26 PM
File that under TMI, and Eww, as to the latest news out of Wisconsin:
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers last week, according to at least three knowledgeable sources.
Details of the incident, investigated jointly by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, remain sketchy. The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.
Posted by: narciso | June 25, 2011 at 04:28 PM
Each of the Rep hopeful's should read Claire Berlinski's excellent bio of Thatcher's rise and years of power- There is No Alternative.
Esp important to come up with current American and foreign policy versions of why there is no alternative to escaping this spiral downward.
Posted by: rse | June 25, 2011 at 04:32 PM
And here is a video on Agenda 21 from TrevorLoudon's blog.
The comment by Dennis Cleveland is good (at 9:47)...my town, Arlington Virginia is a member of ICLEI (International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives)
Posted by: Janet | June 25, 2011 at 04:34 PM
...according to at least three knowledgeable sources.
The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.
I love those knowledgeable anonymous sources. They are so reliable.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | June 25, 2011 at 04:36 PM
Agenda 21 equals national suicide.
"smart growth" & "sustainable management of open spaces" are 2 of their buzz phrases.
Posted by: Janet | June 25, 2011 at 04:42 PM
And isn't it just ducky that they want to "preserve professional relationships" while trashing the guy.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 25, 2011 at 04:47 PM
Well, who wouldn't want to grab her around the neck?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 25, 2011 at 04:49 PM
That's just the 'cherry on top' Danube.
Posted by: narciso | June 25, 2011 at 04:49 PM
I suppose it is possible they have him dead to rights but are looking for some way to arrange something other than a Scott Walker appointed replacement.
Posted by: boris | June 25, 2011 at 04:51 PM
Anything's possible, Boris , but I find the entire story exceedingly fishy. Ay reason why the supposed victim hasn't been interviewed?
Posted by: Clarice | June 25, 2011 at 05:00 PM
According to the article, this is being investigated by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, so the "they" in question doesn't sound like anyone other than leftist journoweenies.
What are the odds that there were any witnesses? Why did it take a week for it to leak?
This sets off my spidey sense exactly like the *uke *acrosse *ase did when it broke.
*trying to stay under hit and run's BFF's radar
Posted by: Porchlight | June 25, 2011 at 05:02 PM
--"Our children, you know, could care less about what we’re doing."--
Is she calling her husband a liar? According to Barry, Malia "Daddy, have you plugged the hole yet?" Obama cares very much about what they're doing.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 25, 2011 at 05:05 PM
the fireman in the film, from the Greenlining institute, name escapes (honestly) was the arsonist
I saw "Inside Job", and Narciso has it about right. While about 50% of it is valid, and it does criticize both Democrats and Republicans in Washington (in addition to Wall Street), having to sit through the pontificating Bawney Fwank, the guy from the Greenlining Institute, and Soros was almost more than I could bear. Also, the "60 Minutes"-style "gotcha" clips of some of the academics made even Michael Moore look even-handed. Still, if you can get past all that, there's about 30 minutes worth of value.
Posted by: jimmyk | June 25, 2011 at 05:23 PM
Thanks Janet for the Agenda 21 links.
I'll pass them along to our local Tea Party leader who's in the Tea Party Patriots group.
Posted by: glasater | June 25, 2011 at 05:30 PM
Porchlight:
*trying to stay under hit and run's BFF's radar
Awww,I miss her.
Posted by: hit and run | June 25, 2011 at 05:38 PM
That makes one of us, hit. :)
Posted by: Porchlight | June 25, 2011 at 05:46 PM
I am speaking of the deductibility of state income tax.
What a diabolically interesting idea, bgates.
As for whether Lindsay was "unattractive," as Florance Henderson contends, my mother would have begged to differ. I remember my father being outraged that she voted for Lindsay for mayor, which she claimed was due to his handsomeness, although I'm quite certain she avoided a one-night stand with the late mayor. Unlike my late aunt, who was quite hot in her day, and who I suspect had at least one romp with John Gotti, judging by the euphemisms that were being thrown around at the time.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 25, 2011 at 05:49 PM
If someone steals $72 million from you does it really matter whether the vehicle they used to get the funds was AGW or one of the thousands of other fraud schemes?
It does if you're trying to blame it on AGW.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 25, 2011 at 05:53 PM
As long as the story is in the context of speculation about withheld details ... "slimey" doesn't apply IMO.
Sounds good, Boris. Then clearly it won't bother you if I suggest that the withheld details might show you were the recipient of the $72 million.
The logic is just as strong, after all.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 25, 2011 at 05:55 PM
No accounting for taste.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 25, 2011 at 05:57 PM
"The logic is just as strong, after all"
Perhaps in a cosmic abstraction sort of way. Still I have not been the subject of any coverups nor would Nature be inclined to cover for me. On the other hand should I expect super-pedant to come to my defense?
Posted by: boris | June 25, 2011 at 06:03 PM
it would show the Democrats how committed we are to bipartisanship, it would give the patriotic citizens of places like New York and California and Massachusetts the opportunity to send more money to the government without just doing so voluntarily, and it sure wouldn't bother anybody in places like Texas or Florida.
I like that idea so much I'm gonna pitch it on Tatler.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 25, 2011 at 06:05 PM
Well it would bother me.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 25, 2011 at 06:09 PM
Almost forgot, in addition to Soros et al, the horrid Christine Lagarde is also cast as a heroine despite her corrupt doings.
Posted by: jimmyk | June 25, 2011 at 06:09 PM
Perhaps in a cosmic abstraction sort of way.
Yeah, that's why logic is so unpopular: its the sort of nasty cosmic abstraction, like Truth, that keeps getting in the way of what people wish was true.
Still I have not been the subject of any coverups nor would Nature be inclined to cover for me.
Hmmm. So was it actually Anthony Weiner's fault? he's been the subject of coverups, and the editorial board at Nature might well want to cover for him.
On the other hand should I expect super-pedant to come to my defense?
Should someone actually accuse you of being responsible for a $72 million fraud, using as evidence the fact that there's no actual statement accusing someone else, yes, you can expect me to come to your defense.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 25, 2011 at 06:13 PM
Hey guys, what about those of us who carry the torch in the hardest places to do so?
Contributions?
Posted by: Jane | June 25, 2011 at 06:13 PM
Well it would bother me.
I think you'd really like Texas.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 25, 2011 at 06:14 PM
Hey guys, what about those of us who carry the torch in the hardest places to do so?
That image makes me very uncomfortable.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 25, 2011 at 06:14 PM
As a society and republic under significant stress (i.e. economy, debt, jihadis, drug wars, education, etc.), it is welcome that here in Florida only the weather and Casey Anthony are available to keep our mind without worry. Every major network local station - CBS, ABC, FOX, & NBC have wall to wall coverage and got mighty PO'd today when the judge adjourned until Monday. The only exception is when there is an imminent threat of rain which we follow on radar as if it was a sqaudron of Russian bombers headed our way. And this is the country who put man on the moon but still elected. fool as President. At least we don't have an income tax and let women only marry men.
Posted by: JackisBack! | June 25, 2011 at 06:15 PM
I like that idea so much I'm gonna pitch it on Tatler.
It's an idea that's been kicked around before. For example, it was one of the recommendations of Bush's tax reform panel.
I'm opposed to anything that increases government revenues, except by economic growth. If this were coupled with tax rate cuts that made it revenue neutral I'd go along with it (even though I'm in NY).
Posted by: jimmyk | June 25, 2011 at 06:18 PM
Me too, and didn't you say it would only take $5K to get yourself there? Maybe we could take up a collection, and you could post the totals as they get closer and closer. (Sara has a PayPal link at her site, btw.)
Posted by: Extraneus | June 25, 2011 at 06:19 PM
Is this actually an accusation? ...
Or just casual speculation framed as a question.IIRC Willie Sutton chose banks to rob because that's where the money is.
Posted by: boris | June 25, 2011 at 06:20 PM
Let us not forget that in his early iteration, John Lindsay was a Republican. I used to love the way Mike Quill called him Lindsley.
Posted by: peter | June 25, 2011 at 06:29 PM
--Pet peeve:
"could care less" vs. "couldn't care less"--
Likewise, TK.
Posted by: Ignatz | June 25, 2011 at 06:29 PM
Ah Ext, you are so sweet.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 25, 2011 at 06:53 PM
"Begs the question" vs. "raises the question."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 25, 2011 at 06:56 PM
Elogiag RT @WikileaksAR: URGENT! Hugo Chavez died of heart attack today in Cuba. 06/25/11 08:43AM
Twitter - 3 seconds ago
Posted by: Clarice | June 25, 2011 at 07:23 PM
I can't get confirmation of the Chavez report yet.
Posted by: Clarice | June 25, 2011 at 07:24 PM
This little video is just something:
GoPro Camera Keeps on Filming as Seagull Flies Away with It
Posted by: glasater | June 25, 2011 at 07:25 PM
I did read this morning that he had been hospitalized in Cuba, so maybe it is true.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 25, 2011 at 07:28 PM
There are credible reports from yesterday that he was in critical condition post-surgery in Cuba.
Posted by: Clarice | June 25, 2011 at 07:30 PM
I remember thinking, who, with his kind of access to money, would pick Cuba for his medical care.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 25, 2011 at 07:34 PM