90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Climate Change, Public Prayer, Benghazi

The US joins the search for Nigerian schoolgirls.  Benghazi politics. Prayers at town meetings.

Nigeria President, Goodluck Jonathan, speaks during the World economic forum on Africa in Abuja, Nigeria, Thursday, May 8, 2014. (AP)

Nigeria President, Goodluck Jonathan, speaks during the World economic forum on Africa in Abuja, Nigeria, Thursday, May 8, 2014. (AP)

Nigeria’s schoolgirls all over the news this week – weeks after they were kidnapped.  Now, the US says, it will take a role.  Benghazi is back.  The House setting up a special committee to investigate.  It is not, says John Boehener, political.  In Russia, Vladimir Putin says his troops are not on Ukraine’s border.  Then unleashes huge military exercises, nukes included.  The Supreme Court says prayer before town meetings is fine, Jesus included.  We’ve got scandal at the VA.  And climate change happening all around us, we’re told.  This hour On Point:  Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Michael Hirsh, national editor for POLITICO Magazine. (@michaelphirsh)

Nancy Cordes, Congressional correspondent for CBS News. (@nancycordes)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

Reuters: Ukraine rebels ignore Putin call to delay self-rule vote — “Pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine ignored a public call by Russian President Vladimir Putin to postpone a referendum on self-rule, declaring they would go ahead on Sunday with a vote that could lead to war. The decision, which contradicted the conciliatory tone set by Putin just a day earlier, caused consternation in the West, which fears the referendum will tear Ukraine apart.”

POLITICO Magazine: The Benghazi-Industrial Complex – “There is as little evidence that Clinton or anyone else in the administration engaged in a cover-up of Benghazi as there is that Hillary ordered the whacking of her old friend Vince Foster. It is a fantastical notion that continues not just to survive but thrive, in defiance of any application of fact, among the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ Hillary decried so long ago.”

Vanity Fair: Shame and Survival 20– I, myself, deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened…I am determined to have a different ending to my story. I’ve decided, finally, to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past. (What this will cost me, I will soon find out.)”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Andrew elwood

    Looking at a map it seems like the Paracel Islands are just about
    equidistant from the Vietnamese and Chinese coastlines, and within both
    countries’ 200 mile exclusive economic zones. Can someone speak to just
    how sovereignty is established in these overlapping areas? Thank you

  • nj_v2

    Benhhaaaazi!!!!!

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true

    RONALD REAGAN’S BENGHAZI

    …Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative, “peace-keeping mission,” had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima.

    Six months earlier, militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, too, killing sixty-three more people, including seventeen Americans. Among the dead were seven C.I.A. officers, including the agency’s top analyst in the Middle East, an immensely valuable intelligence asset, and the Beirut station chief.…

    …In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report [recommending security improvements to protect US personnel in Lebanon], militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.’s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals.If you compare the costs of the Reagan administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.

    The story in Beirut wasn’t over. In September of 1984, for the third time in 18 months, a US government outpost in Beirut was bombed yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today.…

    (excerpts)

    • HonestDebate1

      Wow, if you are going to go back 30 years then you must be really outraged that Obama put politics over security and then lied to cover it up. That sad part is there are so many dupes who will believe anything.

      • jefe68

        It’s called historical context. Not very into using it are you… unless it supports your right wing agenda.

        • HonestDebate1

          It’s not related, it’s not even news. It’s a distraction.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      I’m with Jim Teacher, if the congressional panel is such a bad idea for the GOP then why are the #BenghaziDeniers so panicked?
      http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/08/benghazideniers-continue-to-panic/

      • TFRX

        Daily Caller?

        Hahaha. Boy, Friday night’s come early this week.

      • Don_B1

        Most of your so-called BenghaziDeniers are not “panicked.” More like disgusted with the raw politics of the Republicans but they recognize that letting them keep repeating their lies unanswered will let that false claim get established beyond the Republican base which Republican politicians have let go into their own fantasyland of false belief.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          If you are disgusted with “raw politics” then you would demand answers to who ordered Ms. Rice to lie to the American people. You are providing cover for that person or persons and enabling their partisanship.

          • Don_B1

            First, it was not a “Lie.” And even if it was, it was mainly the C.I.A. that was providing the words for the video being a big source of the crowds that appeared there, and it was the C.I.A.’s facility that was being covered up, though not successfully in the end. It is a time-honored action to lie about C.I.A. activity, except with the current crop of Republicans. Remember President Dwight Eisenhower’s lie about the U2 Spy plane.

            Rep. Darrell Issa has routinely released classified documents, at least one set which risked the lives of locals in an Arab country, without even notifying the administration. There has been pushback from the administration to Speaker Boehner about not honoring Rep. Issa’s requests for classified information because of his previous cavalier actions in not preserving its secrecy.

            I would like to get questions about the funding of security needs at all facilities in foreign nations, but those are not the questions that Republicans are asking, most likely because they would not like the answers.

            So I have no problem with Ms. Rice’s answers on that Sunday, as the more complete story came out from the administration without the pressure of Rep. Issa’s ridiculous committee actions.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            First it was a “Lie” and that is what I have a problem with. If President Obama’s administration did not lie and withhold documents and we were talking about this honestly in Sept 2013 then, this would be a very different matter.

            I applaud the impulse of the current crop of Republicans not to lie about the actions of the CIA. In fact we need more of that. Your assertion has been disproven in earlier hearing and by the revelations from the Ben Rhodes e-mail.

            The handling of government documents is a serious issue. Both the careless over classification of documents and the politically motivated release of private information of ones political opponents are a danger to our nation. But the issue here is that germane documents were withheld to prevent congressional investigators from finding the facts.

            Ms Lamb of the State Department answered those questions about the funding needs of facilities in foreign nations months ago.

            http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/the-security-failures-of-benghazi/

            The Republican members of the committee are: Susan Brooks of Indiana, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Mike Pompeo of Kansas, Martha Roby of Alabama, Peter Roskam of Illinois and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia will sit on the panel. Boehner announced earlier this week that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) will chair the panel.

            I do have problems with Ms. Rice’s lying to the American people for the political advancement of her boss. So I support further investigation.

    • pete18

      If all that is true then Reagan should certainly have criticized for his actions, however no where in that process is there any evidence of Regan lying or misleading on what happened. Nor is what happened with Reagan and Beirut an excuse to not hold Obama accountable for both his actions and his lies to the public, or for the mainstream press’s lack of interest in tracking down the details of this story. It is shameful.

      “It’s true that some Republicans have made the White House case easier by engaging in irresponsible public theorizing about Benghazi. If the goal is to understand what happened and why the administration offered such a misleading account of the attacks, it’s
      counterproductive as well as unwise for lawmakers to allow their conclusions to race ahead of the evidence.

      Even so, reporters should do their jobs. The White House would have us believe not only that those still interested in Benghazi are conspiracy nuts, but that the Benghazi attacks are old news, that
      all relevant questions have been answered, and that the White House offered cheerful and eager cooperation with various inquiries.

      That’s not true. Consider what we’ve seen just over the past two months:

      • After repeatedly suggesting that they’d released all
      documents related to the Benghazi talking points, the administration was forced by a court to release some previously withheld emails. The White
      House explanation for its stonewalling? That the documents released as part of a FOIA request for documents about Benghazi were not, in fact,
      about Benghazi. This isn’t a good-faith misunderstanding, it’s an obvious attempt to deceive.

      • Among the newly released documents were redacted
      versions of emails. Why the redactions? These originally unclassified emails were classified on February 5, 2014, long after they’d been requested under the Freedom of Information Act and separately subpoenaed
      by congressional oversight committees. Those newly classified emails are currently scheduled to be released without the redactions years after Obama has left the White House—some in 2019, others in 2027, and
      still others in 2037.

      • Obama administration officials have long claimed that
      Susan Rice was simply repeating intelligence community talking points in her September 16, 2012, television appearances. But those talking
      points didn’t once mention the anti-Islam video that Rice placed at the center of her narrative. Indeed, in the 100 pages of emails related to the talking points, released by the White House in May 2013, the video
      was mentioned just twice—once on a list of cables and again as the subject line on an email concerning a White House meeting. If the intelligence community had believed that the video was the proximate
      cause of the Benghazi attacks, one assumes intelligence officials might have discussed it in emails. When former deputy CIA director Michael
      Morell was asked last month about Rice’s reliance on the video, he testified: “When she talked about the video, my reaction was that was not something the analysts attributed this attack to.”

      • Jay Carney and others repeatedly claimed that
      intelligence officials were responsible for all of the substantive changes to the original Benghazi talking points. Carney insisted the White House had made just one “stylistic” mistake. Hillary Clinton
      testified that the intelligence community was the “principal decider” on the talking points. But an internal CIA email reported that the State Department had “major reservations” about the talking points and that
      “we revised the documents with their concerns in mind.” In all, objections from Obama officials resulted in all or part of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points being removed—148 of 248
      words.

      Now there are more questions about those edits. When Fox News’s Bret Baier asked former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor whether he had changed “attacks” to “demonstrations,” surely
      something that would qualify as a substantive change, Vietor allowed that it was possible he had. “Maybe. I don’t remember,” he said.

      • The top military intelligence official at U.S. Africa
      Command, whose job it was to determine responsibility for the attacks, concluded almost immediately that they were the work of al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. This view was included in a Defense Intelligence Agency assessment published two days after the attacks, on
      September 13, 2012.

      • Over the past six weeks, the Obama administration turned over some 3,200 pages of previously withheld Benghazi documents to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. These are documents
      that were subpoenaed in August 2013.

      Add these recent developments to the vast landscape of previously discredited claims from top administration officials—on al Qaeda involvement, on the talking points, on the video, on transparency—and you have an issue that demands further investigation.

      To claim otherwise is, well, crazy.”

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/who-s-crazy_791177.html?nopager=1#

      And just to keep you focused, HAH-HAH,WEEKLY STANDARD! There, with that ritual out of the way, you can now respond to the content.

    • OnPointComments

      “The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut was in response to an inflammatory film that insulted the Religion of Peace. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. The U. S. Government will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” –Secretary of State George P. Shultz

      Vice President Bush consoled the family of a Marine killed in the bombing by asking loudly “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

      President Reagan: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. It is too early to tell whether the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut was an act of terrorism.”

      See how stupid this story is?

  • HonestDebate1

    “The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html

    What would it have done to the “Al Qaeda is decimated” meme if Hillary had done more than tweet about it?

  • Ed75

    This week a hospital in Britain bragged that it saved money by burning the bodies of aborted fetuses in the furnaces for heat. They stopped this practice. (Reminds one of the concentration camps.) When Boko Haram kidnapped 300 girls (whom we now know were Christians) the world is rightfully outraged. Why aren’t we outraged at all these events? It’s interesting to see what people react to, and what they don’t.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Boko Haram delenda est

      • Ed75

        Had to look that one up, I agree, or at least stopped (‘Boko Haram must be destroyed’).

  • Ed75

    It turns out that Secretary of State Clinton blocked the move to declare Boko Haram a terrorist group, trying not to offend the Nigerian government, perhaps trying to say that terrorism was under control. (Another problem for her?)

    • JS

      Retracted, I had my dates wrong.

      • HonestDebate1

        In 2009 the Nigerian government upped their efforts with arms gathering. That is when Boka Harem reared their ugly head. There were hundreds (if not thousands) murdered by the Al Qaeda affiliate between 2009 and 2013. The link below tracks some of the requests. I’ve posted it elsewhere as well.

        Regarding the “leaders”, there were “three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.”

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html

      • Ed75

        No problem, I heard that Secretary Kerry had them put on the terrorist list. Some people feel our unwillingness to name the Islamic threat has been a problem in facing it.

        • JS

          And some people feel that placing small time radical thugs on the Terrorist List gives them an international spotlight and helps their cause.

          • Ed75

            Yes, that’s true too.

          • HonestDebate1

            That would be faulty thinking as the terrorist list provides more powerful tools to combat them.

          • JS

            Yes, and it gives them an international spotlight and helps their cause.

          • HonestDebate1

            You said “some people”, I didn’t realize you included yourself. I don’t agree with you that the international spotlight helps their cause. I don’t understand the logic at all, maybe I’m missing something. Do you think a higher profile attracts more radical jihadist as if there is a shortage? Or do you think the higher profile makes them madder at us than they should be? If anything the higher profile encourages other countries to put them on their lists and employ their resources more fully.

            The Patriot Act, like it or not, provides powerful intelligence tools not available if the group does not have the designation. It also makes has serious financial implication for the targeted group.

            Either we put them on the list or we don’t. There is no downside to putting them on the list but a huge downside if we don’t. Just ask the 300 girls.

          • JS

            “… would rather discuss the continuum of vacillation.” – isn’t that you telling me what I think, one of your pet peeves?

            “It provides more powerful tools to combat them, while also giving them an international profile and attention.” – so obviously, I do have an opinion on that, agreeing iwth you about the benefits of putting them on the list, but also sugesting that there are reasons for leaving them off, as I will explain below.

            There’s no guarantee that putting them on a list earlier would have stopped the abduction of the girls as you imply, and Abubakar Shekau has been on the list for a few years. And the girls were abducted when Boko was ON the list, so obviously just being on the list isn’t enough.

            Not just any terrorist group makes it to the State Department List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. A designation process must find that the group threatens US national security interests, economic interests, and US citizens.

            Boko Haram was not seen as a direct threat yet to the US and its interests – although some members of Congress pressing for the designation noted that other local or regional groups had evolved into threats to the US. That was especially true of groups that grew to become affiliates of Al Qaeda. Boko Haram was considered by some experts to be “linked” to Al Qaeda because of its known contacts with groups such as Al Qaeda in the Maghreb.

            Excert from a Christina Science Monitor article:
            But opposed (to listing) were two dozen Africa and terrorism experts who advocated for not listing Boko Haram, saying a designation by the US risked raising the group’s international profile and prestige.
            In a letter to Clinton, the 24 specialists – including a former US ambassador to Nigeria – argued that designating Boko Haram might encourage the group to redirect its focus and start targeting US and Western interests. Listing Boko Haram also entailed risks for the US, the scholars argued, because it would have the effect of associating the US more closely with the counterterrorism campaign of the Nigerian government, which international human rights groups had faulted for being carried out with summary executions and little regard for civilian rights.

            Complicating the question of the pros and cons of associating more closely with the Nigerian government was the fact that the government of Nigeria, a US partner in a sea of African instability and conflict, was strongly opposed to a US listing of Boko Haram.

            Why would Nigeria want to avoid such a spotlight on a brutal terrorist group? Such a designation would invite more outside intervention in Nigeria’s internal affairs, could suggest that Nigeria was losing control of the Muslim north, and would run against official Nigerian thinking that Boko Haram was a domestic problem that Nigeria was capable of handling on its own.

          • HonestDebate1

            My request really bugs people who cannot refute what I actually write and must leap a few degrees to “he said this so that must mean that which tells me something else, therefore he’s a racist…. or something”. But that’s the only time I use it. I just think it’s silly to try and debate something based on a false premise that is projected onto me. I would think you’d agree.

            I wrote:”Evidently you don’t have an opinion on that and would rather discuss the continuum of vacillation. That’s fine.” I qualified it enough and I also didn’t use it as a basis for a premise. So no, I wasn’t telling you what you think.

            IMO Nigeria has to do what they have to do and so do we. Nigeria should not dictate how we view terrorists or the tools we use to stop them. I am also not a fan of hoodwinking the people. If they are losing control of the Muslim North then pretending it is not so will not help. It’s like blaming a video to keep people from understanding Al Qaeda is not decimated.

            Finally to your little scolding. I’m familiar with the thread thank you very much. I am familiar with your comment before you retracted it. I am also familiar with your hyper-sensitivity when you think someone has attributed something to you. Would you rather me assume your positions and put words in your mouth? Here’s the thing, you work very hard to not take a position. Was it a mistake to keep Boko Harem off the list or not? I’m really not interested in debating the continuum of vacillation. If you just want to argue both sides against the middle then it’s a waste of time. Have a nice day.

          • JS

            Not sure why you keep mentioning the continuum of vacillation and why you don’t want to debate it, since I haven’t been going down that road. I just think it’s silly to try and debate something based on a false premise that is projected onto me. I would think you’d agree.

            I don’t think it was a mistake, because I don’t think things would have been any different with the designation. Therefore I don’t think labeling them would have been a mistake either. Except that going after Boko Harum at that point would have diverted resources from other groups, and if one of them attacked Americans somewhere, Clinton would be blamed for that, and would be asked why resources were sent to Nigeria instead of country X.

            It wouldn’t have prevented the girls from being kidnapped, and at the level Boko Harum was operating at the time of Clinton being Secretary, I don’t think to may US resources would have been devoted to them, since they didn’t threaten US interest directly.

            Remember that the abduction of the girls happened while they were on the Terrorist List, so it’s obviously didn’t prevent the attack. I don’t think adding them to it earlier would have made a difference.

            http://southsideartgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/High_Tim_Vacillation-Continuum_sm.jpg

          • HonestDebate1

            “I don’t think it was a mistake”

            I keep bringing it up because until now you have resisted saying the above.

            Obviously no one can say what would or wouldn’t have happened if…

            I don’t think it’s credible to conclude putting them on the list earlier would not have prevented it any more so than saying with certainty it would have. I tend to agree with those in the State Department who begged for years to have the resources needed to combat them. My view, again I can’t prove it, is this administration is more concerned with appearances than a comprehensive strategery to combat the worldwide threat of terrorism. This is just another example. If they are worth fighting now then they were worth fighting before the travesty.

          • JS

            I also said, “I don’t think labeling them would have been a mistake either.”

            Then were on the list, and they still abducted the girls, so the list didn’t stop it.

            Any resources sent to combat Boko would have to be diverted form other sources, with the risk of attacks from were those sources were diverted from.

  • HonestDebate1

    The Politico article is embarrassing. Vince Foster? Really? It’s like Obama’s obsession with Kenya. Those wascally wepublicans all think Obama was born in Kenya and Hillary killed poor Vince. There have been 500 filibusters and 50 votes to repeal Obamacare! Sarah Palin said she can see Russia from her deck and Paul Ryan hates old people. There is a vast right-wing conspiracy to deny health insurance to the sick and force people to work for peanuts.

    You guys are a hoot.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Ronald Reagan “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant: It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

      • olderworker

        Sounds exactly like the conservatives I know!

    • 1Brett1

      And when will the government come clean about that job-killing Benghazi scandal deliberately orchestrated to cover up Obama’s directed IRS thuggery?! …And, hey, what’s up with those deadbeat Obamacare insurance welchers putting the US economy in a death spiral?! …And that Putin, he has us right where he wants us; of course, all Obama can do is walk around wearing mom jeans! All this, while our Commander and Cheat stays in a drunken stupor in between golf rounds!

      And how about Vanity Fair, that inoculating, indoctrinating, liberal-elite, monthly manifesto being mind-controlled, from Hillary Clinton’s secluded lair, and running the Monica Lewinski story just so it gets played out before Ms. Clinton seeks the White House for her final conquest, where she will –no doubt — complete Obama’s mission to systematically destroy the US, remaking it into a communist state as they all continue to mandate the murder of innocent pre-born children; what’s up with all of that?

      DISQUS amongst yourselves…

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        If you so clearly understand their plans then you must be one of THEM! Are you the keeper of the flying monkeys?

        http://youtu.be/ZE_jGNB0WFw

        • 1Brett1

          Yet another of your comments employing the best of your critical thinking. You’ve once again probed the depths of your intellect.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Did the flying monkeys make you say that? Are you chain to an iMac and forced to type out the words of your flying monkey masters?

            /sarcasm

  • HonestDebate1

    So far it’s the coldest year on record but we have to get global war…. er… climate change in the headline because Obama held it up to distract from the disaster that is his Presidency.

    • stephenreal

      Coldest year on record? Are you retarded?

      • HonestDebate1

        It’s only May, don’t worry there’s still time to cook.

        • stephenreal

          Leave this one alone.

          • HonestDebate1

            Tell that to On Point.

      • 1Brett1

        I believe the term now used for him is “intellectually disabled.”

        • HonestDebate1

          I prefer to be called intellectually handicapped.

          • AnneDH

            Would that matter to the ADA?

          • StilllHere

            Good enough, your SS disability check is in the mail.

          • J__o__h__n

            Not intellectually handicapable? You need to work on your euphemisms.

          • HonestDebate1

            No, it’s too late.

    • TFRX

      Matt Davies nails it.

    • northeaster17

      I belive what you are refering to is a story stating that for the U.S. it has been a chilly year. Climate change refers to the whole globe of which the U.S land mass represents about 1.9%. Also this year was very warm for AK and northern Canada. That air had to go somewhere and we got it. One needs to look at the big picture for this phenomenon.

      • 1Brett1

        Unfortunately, the “big picture” for him is playing “attack the liberals.”

        • HonestDebate1

          I’m mocking On Point. I’m not all that comfortable doing so but I am on record predicting it earlier this week. A couple of weeks before that, I wondered if the timing of the show on inequity and Obama’s recent focus was a coincidence.
          Hmmmmm.

          • 1Brett1

            Why, you’re a veritable clairvoyant!

            Your lack of comfort in mocking On Point is commendable; I mean, you had no choice, after all…what’s a Southern boy to do? (A.K.A. “how ya gonna act!?”). You see, that’s the difference between us; I’m comfortable with mocking and you’re not, but we both do it…I guess you’re just morally superior to me, after all.

          • HonestDebate1

            “I’m comfortable with mocking and you’re not”

            I try to avoid getting personal but your interpretations followed by Evel Kneivel leaps are always worth the price of admission. When you then kick it up a notch to fluff yourself…. well, it just doesn’t get any better. I don’t often laugh with you just because of the typical inanity but I often laugh at you. I have no problem with that or mocking.

            I do have a bit of problem coming into On Point’s home and implying they are taking marching orders from the DNC. It’s a serious charge and not something I undertake lightly. I’m sincere about that. On Point has been good to me, I think the moderators do a good job and I am a long time fan of the show. They can stand the heat and I’m all about honest debate. Your creepy Southern thing aside, there really is a sense in my soul that I need to voice what I’ve noticed. That doesn’t make me morally superior to anyone, it’s just the way I roll.

          • 1Brett1

            Yawn…you’re always saying others engage in personal stuff and wild opinion out of something small-minded, nefarious or ignorant but you do those things out of high-mindedness and a desire for honest debate, and also that you do so reluctantly, as if that makes your hypocrisy justified, yadda yadda.

            What makes you ridiculous is that you behave as if your funk doesn’t smell like a bad case of diarrhea.

            By the way, your “prediction” was about On Point doing a show on climate change. This is a news round-up day, of which the topic was actually in the news; it wasn’t a show on climate change. An example that you’ll make up some silly crap then take credit for your self-proclaimed astuteness. .

          • HonestDebate1

            No I don’t. I’m going to take the time and show you. I made a comment citing a fact and an implication directed at OP. It’s my thing, sue me.

            Northeaster replied with a rational rebuttal, you reply with a cheap personal shot at me. That’s fine, really. That’s why I replied to your nasty and explained myself in a civil manner. No need to get personal. Then you reply with more nasty, mocking condescension. It was all personal and about me. Heck you mention some form of me 8 or 10 times in the short comment.

            Dude, I’m a kind-hearted civil gentleman, I’m not your punching bag. If my efforts at honest debate devolve to futility with someone who I have no respect for, despite my attempts to be respectful, then I can play that game.

          • 1Brett1

            Your initial comment was deceptive and intended to rile and you know it. The issue with the sequester wasn’t that government jobs would be lost and you know that too. The article that you linked to was trying to put a spin on the GAO report, using it to intimate that the sequester not affecting government jobs is yet another example that Democrats were/are wrong and that government spending being reduced will not hurt jobs/the economy, and you know this as well.

            You have repeatedly in the past said the sequester was no big deal, whether or not there is any truth in that, or that there is any truth in the “fact” you reported, your comment had other intentions and you know that too.

            You go out of your way to attempt (and today’s comments by you are perfect examples) to try inciting some liberal on this forum into a nasty argument or set him/her up so that you can sling mud or bolster your own bloated sense of self-importance. There is nothing either civil, kind- hearted or gentlemanly about you on this forum. I don’t give a sh*t about what you might be like in person; you have a weaselly online persona here, though.

            (By the way, Northeaster did NOT reply with a “rebuttal” by asking you to support your statement. Go look up the word “rebuttal.” Apparently, by his tone, he was getting the exact idea you wanted him to get out of your initial comment, just so you could come back with “the GAO,” so you could play “liberal put down.” You may not think your punk tactics are transparent but they are.)

            As low as your opinion of me is, mine is much lower of you. So what? You act like your meanness/shenanigans, much of which being precisely what you criticize, are always justified. You are nothing if not a hypocrite.

          • HonestDebate1

            Please don’t tell me what I know.

          • jefe68

            That’s how he rolls, all the time. Makes a comment and when HD is called on it starts with the whining and victim act.

          • Don_B1

            Really!?!

            I have never noticed any “discomfort” from you, and this might be your first use of this “ploy.”

      • HonestDebate1
        • Don_B1

          He qualifies for “Liar, liar, pants on fire!”

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            You dispute the data? Hmmm.

  • stephenreal

    There is only one reason we are sending US Army soldiers, boots on the ground, in Nigeria and that is to target Boko Haram with drone strikes.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      I appreciate that you chosen an icon. I think that the act of doing so shows respect for the forum.

      Off topic, But I wanted to say it.

  • stephenreal

    The US military has soldiers now all over Africa. Looks like we are going to whack every punk bitch we can find starting with Kony. This here fellas is a classic fight of good over evil. God speed John Glen!

  • AnneDH

    According to Wikipedia, Russia is a ‘federal semi-presidential republic’.
    I have heard that the Russian people supports what Putin is up to in the Ukraine.

    My question: just how free is the Russian press?

    • jefe68

      Not very free.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        If you include Russia Today he (they?) have gotten very good at imitating the appearance of independent journalism without any of the troublesome truth telling.

        http://rt.com/news/157784-victory-day-celebrations-russia/

        • TFRX

          WHo’s their Steve Doocy and Bret Baier?

  • HonestDebate1

    Well the sequester number is in. One job was lost because of it.

    • stephenreal

      This one is special he was touched by the Lord.

      • HonestDebate1

        It wasn’t that special it was a position in the U.S. Parole Commission.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Wait a second. Harry Reid said the sequester has ALREADY caused 1.6M lost jobs. Looks like ole Harry was off by a ‘smidgeon’. Will anyone hold ole Harry accountable? Will the Dems hold him accountable?

      And who is the ONE guy who lost his job. I’m concerned for his mental state. Has anyone offered him counseling?

    • northeaster17

      Source?

      • HonestDebate1
        • Don_B1

          So the GAO report documented the loss of jobs within government.

          But sequestration cut some $85 million, which certainly cost multiple jobs in the private sector and the government spending, as the GAO documented in its report, cut grants and other purchases which would have paid many workers their salaries. Thus came Senator Reid’s job loss estimate.

          Aren’t you tired of having all your posts shown to be deceptive or outright lies?

          No, I guess not.

          • Don_B1

            From the GAO report:

            “For example, agencies reported that sequestration reduced assistance for education, housing, and nutrition, as well as health and science research and development grants. Agencies also reported delaying investments such as information technology and facilities projects. Some federal services also experienced backlogs and delays as a result of personnel actions including limiting hiring and furloughing employees.”

          • HonestDebate1

            And that was the biggest fear, the liberals worst nightmare: government jobs being lost.

          • Don_B1

            Just as you always say, stop telling liberals what they are thinking, or, in this case, afraid of. You have an agenda that gets in the way of making the correct call.

            Democrats are correctly against policies that cost jobs in a recession or depressed economy, unless there is a real imperative that cannot be achieved without the loss of those specific jobs, such as mitigating Climate Change.

            The Democrats were deploring the loss of private-sector jobs much more than the loss of a few private-sector jobs, and clearly the Obama administration worked hard to limit the damage to jobs that were structured to help grow the economy, but an $85 billion cut was going to hurt and have lasting effects.

            The pure ignorance and slavish action to an ignorant ideology that Tea/Republicans have displayed is mean-spirited and hurtful to the whole country, not just the immediate targets of their rage. There is a lot of cutting off noses to spite faces going on here.

          • HonestDebate1

            Democrats support Obamacare which cost jobs. Ditto a minimum wage hike. Ditto higher taxes. Ditto no pipeline. Ditto onerous regulations.

    • OnPointComments

      Who could have predicted that increasing spending by $110 billion dollars, when they wanted to increase spending by more, would result in the wanton devastation of 1 employee of the U. S. Parole Commission losing his job?

    • 1Brett1

      Were the concerns over the effects of the sequester about government jobs being lost? Or did they pertain more to interference in the delivery of government services and the general impact on the economy? Points you have left out in your attempt at humor (not your strong suit).

      Sorry, I misspoke; you were just building your typical strawman and using a flawed propaganda piece to support your tripe…you know, your usual leisure time activity.

      • HonestDebate1

        Yea you’re right. A quick perusal of archived shows from the day as well as a few time selected google searches yielded no results of anyone saying jobs would be lost from the sequester. It wasn’t even on the radar. Don’t bother verifying my comment, better to try and convince yourself on faith that this is the only time I’ve ever told the truth.

        • 1Brett1

          You’re still not adding the noun modifier, “government” to your use of jobs, aye?

          What is truly interesting about the article you linked to below from the Washington Times is that the writer is betting on that paper’s readership not employing any critical thinking or recognizing any bait and switch in the piece. In your case, anyway, they seem to have made a good bet…when you were “reading” the article, were you saying to yourself, “sounds like they are saying something bad about Obama and liberals; I’d better post it on the forum!”?

          To be fair, your initial comment about the sequester was not the result of stupidity or lack of critical thinking skills; it was an attempt to rile for the sake of riling and to deliberately spread a falsehood. I could be wrong, as you are only here for honest debate, so…

          • HonestDebate1

            One job was lost, that’s all. And yes, it was a government job. It was a parole officer or something. I’ve already said that. There’s nothing false about it according to the GAO.

          • Steve__T

            A Link?

          • HonestDebate1

            See reply to Northeaster 2 days ago.

          • Steve__T

            See tip of finger in middle of hand.
            I don’t play that.

    • Steve__T

      Link?

  • stephenreal

    Nobody in the history of the Republic ever considered foreign policy when they voted dumb dumbs They vote on the economy stupid.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Are you sure about that?

      http://youtu.be/dDTBnsqxZ3k

      • stephenreal

        Ohh you think that was the key factor in ’68? Really? A Madison avenue ad put together on the West side with the help of Bill Moyer’s? Are you OK? Bill Moyer fan club member bro?

    • HonestDebate1

      In 2012 people believed Al Qaeda was decimated, uprisings in Cairo and Benghazi were about a video and had nothing to do with the anniversary of 9/11, Boko Harem was a non-factor not even on the terrorist watch list, Sanctions would work in Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt wasn’t necessarily a bad thing and the Arab Spring wasn’t the Arab’s fall. Meanwhile 4 years of Obama’s policies, aided by the judicial branch, control of the Senate and even the House for the first two, put the economy in the toilet; absolutely septic tanked it.

      Yatzee! Obama is reelected but not on his crappy economy.

      • stephenreal

        The future lad is were the win is not in a lame duck.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    So.. no select committee?

  • stephenreal

    Hillary is going to ride her old man’s economic numbers to victory. That’s the easy gimme. Who wouldn’t take it?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    The Onpoint headline leads with WH “climate change” propaganda. “Climate change” is one of Tom’s biggest “blind spots” so it is no surprise.

    “When the president launched his Climate Action Plan last year, the National Climate Assessment was still being revised and reviewed. Yet somehow, the president already knew that it would help his environmental agenda and imminent executive actions on the issue. It seems the message was preordained — the mark of politics trumping science.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/knappenberger-ringing-a-climate-change-false-alarm/

    • stephenreal

      Washington Times? Isn’t that Reverend Sung Yon Moon’s rag? Are you a moony dude?

    • Don_B1

      There was plenty of strong evidence for the effects of climate change before President Obama launched his Climate Action Plan, and he included as much recent work as was available to document the effects of Climate Change here in all the 50 states in a way that shows graphically its effects on every citizen. This is a viewpoint that the IPCC does not go down to, though it does support that detailed look.

  • TFRX

    Amazing that Thom Tillis (R nominee-NC, US Senate) is what passes for a “mainstream” Republican nowadays.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8ewESI51s4

    • HonestDebate1

      ..

      • TFRX

        Tillis used to be “way out there”. Now he’s “mainstream”.

        That’s a GOP problem. And, as long as our press corps plays along with the idea, it’s a press corps problem.

        I’ll listen to whichever one of “you” comes out of the proverbial fight in the meeting room. Until then don’t try to have it both ways.

        • HonestDebate1

          Meh. I even voted for Hillary once to try and stop Obama and his dastardly agenda. It’s my vote, I’ll decide which way I want it.

          • Steve__T

            Please tell us when Mrs. Clinton’s name was on a ballot in North Carolina that you voted on.

          • HonestDebate1

            Super Tuesday May 6, 2008, “Operation Chaos”.

          • Steve__T

            Figures that the only way you would vote for a democrat is if Rush told you to do it.

            And republicans worry about voter fraud pfff.

          • HonestDebate1

            Nah, that wasn’t the only reason. The main reason was McCain had already won the Republican nomination. I don’t even think Republicans were allowed to vote. I’m unaffiliated so if I was going to vote at all (there were other local races) it would have to be on the Democrat ticket. I can’t remember the last time I actually got to vote in a primary by the time it gets NC. I truly thought and think Hillary would have been better than Obama.

            Operation Chaos was just gravy.

          • Steve__T

            Must have been the nastiest lumpy gravy ever. Since it didn’t work.

    • hennorama

      TFRX — well, it is the North Carolina Republicans who voted for the guy, after all.

      Just wait. In a month or two, some will call him a socialist liberal.

    • JONBOSTON

      Even more amazing that Barack Obama, the Great Divider, was once thought of as a uniter. Hard to believe….

  • JONBOSTON

    Tom Ashbrook:
    Glad you have Nancy Cordes of CBS News as a guest. You might ask her why CBS News had all but buried the Benghazi story ( and Sheryl Atkinson’s investigation) and if Ben Rhodes brother David ( president CBS News) had anything to do with it. You might also broaden the discussion to include the Washington Press Corps incestuous relationship with the Obama administration , including ABC News president and his sister Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall who is a top national security adviser to Obama ; the husband of CNN deputy Washington Bureau chief Virginia Mosely was Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State; wife of NBC political editor Mark Murray is FAA Chief of Staff ( and ex-CNN producer); Jay Carney’s wife works for ABC; and NPR’s Ari Shapiro , a harsh critic of Bush’s anti-terrorism policies when he was NPR’s justice corrsepondent is married to Michael Gottlieb who joined the White House counsel’s office , and NPR’s Michelle Norris is married to Broderick Johnson who worked on Obama’s re-election campaign .
    Any wonder then why we still don’t know today why the armed forces were never called -in , or who created the talking points idea, or where and what Obama was doing when the attacks were happening , or why the media has never expressed any outrage that a filmmaker rotted in jail for over a year in order to further the false narrative of a video as the cause of the attack in order to prop up this grossly incompetent failed president.

  • Coastghost

    If the Nigerian state is so dysfunctional it could not forestall the mass kidnapping or respond effectively in the immediate aftermath, how well do we do to get involved in a domestic police action?

  • J__o__h__n

    Doesn’t the House have more important things to do than the Benghazi hearing, like pass yet another repeal of Obamacare?

    • OnPointComments

      They were going to do another repeal, but the room was occupied by Democrats in an all night climate change plea to Tom Steyer for more money.

  • 1Brett1

    Looks like the right-wing clown show has been sharing each others’ steroid injections this morning…

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      another faceless one chimes in…

      • 1Brett1

        Are you riding the mini bicycle or squirting the plastic flower this morning?

        • AnneDH

          LOLOLOL

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          Bucket of glitter is my specialty.

          • 1Brett1

            Well, ya know what they say: “all that glitters isn’t gold!”

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            But it is…
            Comedy Gold!
            I don’t care who ya are, that’s funny right there.

          • 1Brett1

            They say that comedy containing an essential truth is funny, so maybe that’s why you are laughing?

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Maybe,

    • jefe68

      I like right wing coffee klatch, or the Friday morning right wing knitting and hang wringers club, as they do seem to knit a whole load of BS and whine a lot.

      • 1Brett1

        “right-wing coffee klatch” has nice alliteration, but “Friday morning knitting and hand wringing club” is so much more descriptive of how they spend their time.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Dems seem more interested in obfuscating and protecting Hillary than finding the truth on Benghazi.

    Obama could end it today by releasing his daily security briefings around 9/11/2011. Bush released his briefings on the 9/11/2001. Obama should do the same. #MostTransparentRegimeInHistory

    • TFRX

      “Obama could end (anything) today by releasing (any piece of paper)”.

      Yeah, that worked so well for the birthers.

    • HonestDebate1

      He has a problem because he skips more than half of them and has been to less than 44% of the vital ones.

      http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-skips-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/11/id/451438/

      Now, here’s the kicker (and I just stumbled into it), the article above was posted at 1:26 in the afternoon of September 11, 2012. Obama surely knew about this report and certainly knew in his heart the truth about the PDBs before that terrible night. The election was just around the corner. It didn’t fit the narrative. Then it happened.

  • TFRX

    “This doesn’t need to be, shouldn’t be, and will not be, a political process.”

    Thanks, Boehner. I needed a laugh.

    I can’t tell if he really believes what he’s mouthing. If so, watching him trying to make the restof the GOP House do some actual governing will be like watching Deputy Barney Fife try to stop a lynch mob.

  • stephenreal

    Who would be surprise to hear of more drone strikes in Africa

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Boko Haram

    State Dept. didn’t add it as a terrorist group until.. last year, wasn’t it? Even after urging by other folks in government including members of Congress. So.. who dropped THAT ball?

    Let’s add it to the agenda of the Select Committee that Dems don’t want anything to do with.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    So the USA engages in Don’t Hurt Me policies, now. Is that what you’re saying?

  • TFRX

    “They’ve not told the truth about (insert Foxflucker’s screed here)”.

    Half-hearted. Where’s the bloodlust, Boehner? You’re not going to keep your job as speaker with a performance like that.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Dems don’t want a select committee because they’re protecting HRH Hillary’s presidential bid. Not interested in anything other than that. So much for OUR country’s interests.

  • stephenreal

    Benghazi is to the right wingbase like keystone is to the left wing base. All political read meat to gin fundraising

    • Don_B1

      Everyone, left and right should see the building of the Keystone XL pipeline as enabling the extraction of tar bitumen that will end up putting gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere and exacerbating, not mitigating, the future destruction of the climate under which human civilization has prospered.

      One group of voters, millennials and other groups near in age, do recognize that it is their lives that will be greatly impacted and if Democrats are going to keep them in their tent, stopping Keystone is an important issue in their future lives. So it is voters, much more than campaign money, that is at stake for Democrats.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Harry Reid said this morning on the Chuck Todd show that Senate isn’t going to take up the Select Committee offer.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    That’s Her Royal Highness Hillary to you there, bud.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Susan Rice was picked for the talking points because the Deputy Agriculture Commissioner wasn’t available that morning.

  • Coastghost

    “There’s no evidence” concerning any Benghazi cover-up, Michael Hirsh assures us: how does Mr. Hirsh know this with the assurance he asserts? Does he in fact know this, based on all and any information that has not come to light? What informs his confidence that he knows what is or is not to be known?
    A startling claim to omniscience, on the face of it.

    • anamaria23

      What informed Mitt Romney that it was a terrorist attack in Benghazi 8 hours after it occurred and before the death of the Ambassador was known? Not much had come to light then, but somehow Romney got the word before anyone else. How?

      • StilllHere

        He saw a video on the internet.

        • anamaria23

          Oh. I missed that.

          • StilllHere

            This is how American foreign policy is determined.

      • OnPointComments

        The more relevant question is how did President Obama and Secretary Clinton not know it was a terrorist attack for days and days afterwards.

        • anamaria23

          that is the question, indeed.
          I still want to know how Romney knew. I think he should be called before the committee and questioned re: private sources he may have had in Benghazi.
          It is really strange and has been overlooked. why was such info fed straight to him and not the news media. He knew in a matter of hours while the fight still going on.

          • OnPointComments

            Many people, myself included and other commenters on the day after the attack, said it could not have been a spontaneous protest gone awry. People in the street getting upset about an Internet video don’t carry mortars.

          • Don_B1

            The mortars where not used in the first “attack,” but in the second, when those at the first attack went away and got their reinforcements and raised the level of violence.

  • Kathy

    Being honest that the Benghazi thing is a total farce? You’re slipping on the false equivalence!

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    So how long will HRH Hillary be able to duck and weave around Benghazi? Is the press even going to deign to ask her about it during the presidential debates? If you press types don’t mind.

  • stephenreal

    Monika Lewinski is sick of working at the car wash. Who would go for the easy money?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    “History repeats.. then as farce.” Then as the HRH Hillary campaign for president.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    So.. Jack Beatty. Do the NY Rangers get punched out tonight in Pittsburgh?

  • hennorama

    Business As Usual, or Business Unusual?

    As reported on WBUR.org on Wednesday May 7, 2014:

    “Mass. GOP: Tea Party Candidate For Governor Fisher Sought $1M”

    BOSTON — A Massachusetts Republican Party lawyer says a gubernatorial candidate who sued to get on the GOP primary ballot demanded $1 million in exchange for dropping the legal challenge.

    In a letter Tuesday to Republican State Committee members, a party attorney says he told a lawyer for tea party-affiliated candidate Mark Fisher that it is illegal to pay someone in exchange for dropping out of a political race.

    Fisher’s attorney, Thomas Harvey, confirmed to The Boston Globe that Fisher, who is suing for the right to face off against front-runner Charlie Baker in the primary, had asked for $1 million.

    Then on Thursday, also per WBUR.org:

    “Candidate Fisher: GOP Made ‘Illegal’ $1 Million Offer To Abandon Gov. Race”

    BOSTON — Republican candidate for governor Mark Fisher made an explosive accusation against the Massachusetts Republican Party Thursday, saying two people, including a state committeeman, called Fisher in December to offer him $1 million to get out of the race.

    “The GOP made the illegal offer to me,” Fisher said in a morning news conference.

    Fisher said the committeeman referred him “to someone higher up in the party.”

    AND

    Fisher also described an April meeting at the Worcester offices of the law firm of Bowditch & Dewey. Present at the meeting, but in two separate rooms, Fisher said, were Ed McGrath and Louis Ciavarra, attorneys for the Massachusetts Republican Party, Hughes, the party’s executive director Rob Cunningham, Fisher and his attorney, Tom Harvey. Fisher said McGrath, Hughes and Cunningham were in one room, Fisher and Harvey in another. Ciavarra, Fisher said, went back and forth between the two rooms.

    Fisher says Ciavarra offered two settlements of Fisher’s lawsuit against the party, one with Fisher on the ballot and another with him off the ballot.

    “And he said with me on the ballot would be certain amount of money,” Fisher said. “With me off the ballot would be a larger amount of money.”

    Fisher said Ciavarra said it might be illegal to pay someone to drop someone out of a race.

    “So the settlement would have to be structured in such a way to prevent to prevent the FBI from investigating,” Fisher said Ciavarra told him.

    “There was what I consider to be a confidential settlement meeting on April 22 in my office,” Ciavarra said when reached for comment Thursday. “We were not successful in reaching a settlement.”

    See:
    http://www.wbur.org/2014/05/07/mark-fisher-gop-ballot
    http://www.wbur.org/2014/05/08/massachusetts-governor-fisher

    ==========

    What is fascinating is that both sides openly acknowledge that some sort of quid pro quo was indeed discussed.

    That brings the well-worn old saw to mind:

    “Madam, we’ve already established what kind of woman I think you are. Now we are haggling about the price.”

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      The best source for coverage on this issue is,

      http://www.redmassgroup.com/frontPage.do

      (Full disclosure Rob is a friend of mine.)
      Hit the tip Jar

      • hennorama

        RWB — thank you for your response.

        Security software blocked 9 trackers on the linked site, so no thanks.

        • TFRX

          What security software do you use?

          People are always asking my advice, but when I say “Linux” they think I’m recommending Lucy Van Pelt’s brother..

          • hennorama

            TFRX — in this case, it was Do Not Track Me that blocked the trackers.

          • TFRX

            Hmm.

            I’ll look into it. Just as a thankyee for the advice, I’ll go ahead and suggest “NoScript”, which cleans up the screen and stops lots of blahblah video and audio which one may not need slurping up the bandwidth.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            With respect, what do you recommend for Google Chrome?

          • Steve__T

            Do Not Track Me is in the Google Chrome Settings- Advanced settings – Privacy. Click the check box.

  • stephenreal

    Hillary is going into the star chamber?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    The Select Committee on Benghazi calls as its first witness.. Ms. Monica Lewinsky. “Please rise and raise your hand.”

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Hirsh sounds like a member of the DNC not a journalist. No questions? No curiosity?

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      The Clarence Thomas of the journo community. Hoober Doober

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Are we ready for a war in the Pacific?

    FTA:
    Whether purposely timed or not, Beijing has escalated its rhetoric and backed up words with action ever since President Obama’s tour of East Asia. ”It is increasingly obvious that Washington is taking Beijing as an opponent,” warned one editorial in China Daily as soon as President Obama returned to the U.S. ”Ganging up with its troublemaking allies, the U.S. is presenting itself as a security threat to China.” The editorial also called U.S. actions in East Asia ”malicious.”

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/05/07/the-battle-for-the-south-china-sea-is-officially-on/

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    So why doesn’t Nigeria just buy their daughters back? At 12 bucks a head, that’s a bargain.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Do you have a conscience?

  • Cliff Casavant

    Did she really just say that because the judge was appointed by oboma she will not be charged omfg

  • nj_v2

    Selected, recent, regressiveness, power abuse, and other inane jacka**ery:

    http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/7-vilest-right-wingers-week-waterboarding-how-we-baptise-terrorists-edition?akid=11773.1084699.7eklNQ&rd=1&src=newsletter988709&t=5&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

    Vilest Right Wingers This Week: “Waterboarding is How We Baptise Terrorists” Edition

    1. Donald Trump has a little advice for Donald Sterling: Don’t go girlfriend hunting in hell.

    2. Sarah Palin: Baptize terrorists by waterboarding!

    3. Odious Sean Hannity having abandoned Bundy, defends vigilante killer instead.

    4. Glenn Beck: Hillary Clinton will have lesbian sex in White House.

    5. Denver radio host: “All racists are, at the end of the day, atheists.”

    6. Alabama’s chief justice: Buddha and Mohammed did not create us so First Amendment only applies to Christians.

    7. South Dakota GOP-er compares food stamp recipients to wild animals.

    (excerpts)

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sarah-palin-waterboarding

    Palin: ‘Waterboarding Is How We Baptize Terrorists’ (VIDEO)

    “C’mon! Enemies who would utterly annihilate America, they would obviously have information on plots. They carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them. Can’t make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen,” Palin said on Saturday during a speech at the National Rifle Association’s “Stand And Fight” rally. “Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”…

    (excerpt)

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/drone-civilian-casualties-senate-bill-feinstein-clapper

    US senators remove requirement for disclosure over drone strike victims

    “At the behest of the director of national intelligence, US senators have removed a provision from a major intelligence bill that would require the president to publicly disclose information about drone strikes and their victims.”

    (snipped)

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/29/limbaugh-builds-new-conspiracy-theory-around-cl/199068

    Limbaugh Builds New Conspiracy Theory Around Clippers Owner Donald Sterling

    Rush Limbaugh adopted and promoted the conspiracy theory that Clippers owner Donald Sterling was set up by people looking to purchase his franchise.

    On the April 29 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh latched on to a caller’s theory that the recordings of Donald Sterling’s racist remarks had been a set-up in order to take the team from him. After entertaining the theory, Limbaugh fully adopted it, later speculating that whoever “set this up” got rid of the team’s anthem singer:

    RUSH: Whoever set this up is really good. They covered every base. They’ve got the media wrapped around their little finger. I mean when you get rid of the anthem singer, I used to be in charge of anthem singers at the Kansas City Royals. When you can get rid of anthem singer, you’ve got power.…

    (snipped)

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/house-candidate-terrorist-attack-tsa

    GOPer: I Shouldn’t Have Said I Prefer Terrorist Attack Over TSA Screenings

    A Republican candidate for the U.S. House in Georgia said he’d rather see another terrorist attack than continue to submit to airport searches by the TSA, though he later backed away from those remarks.

    “Now this is going to sound outrageous, I’d rather see another terrorist attack, truly I would, than to give up my liberty as an American citizen,” Bob Johnson, a doctor and candidate in Georgia’s first district said, according to a video obtained by Politico. “Give me liberty or give me death. Isn’t that what Patrick Henry said at the founding of our republic?”

    (snipped)

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    The US didn’t lose any citizens in Nigeria.

  • Scott B

    The only person I’ve heard that makes any sense of the Beghazi attack, as to what actually happened, and why, is David Kirkpatrick. He seems to be the only one that actually went and found out what happened by speaking to people that were actually there.
    In the end, when it comes down to it, there’s plenty of blame to go around, but no conspiracy, and the anti-Islamic movie did play a part in it.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=282921143

    Dems should be on the panel, if for no other reason in that the Rebublicans couldn’t tailor their questions to get the answers they want (and already know) that will make nice sound bites on the news and in ads.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    HRH Hillary can’t be smeared if she didn’t do anything wrong or if she didn’t fail in her duties as SecState. The truth shall set ye free.

    • AnneDH

      All this ‘HRH’ – you really like Hillary, don’t you?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    I will give the world the most honest, the most transparent government in the history of humanity.
    –Barack Hussein Obama, Visionary for all Time

  • Coastghost

    The Affordable Care Tax Act yet lives: but Obama’s poll numbers constitute a political liability for Democrats.
    Is the ACTA being sold, or is its posited popularity being sold? (Are we hearing news here or editorial assessment of what the news consists of?)

    • StilllHere

      Everybody likes a freebie.

  • stephenreal

    Russia’s economy is tanking bad. How long can Putin ride this wave of nationalistic fevor?

    • Coastghost

      At least as long as the Russian domestic energy industry produces oil and natural gas plentifully for export.

      • Don_B1

        Which says that President Putin might run into trouble embargoing gas and oil from Europe for long if the Europeans actually stood up and put sanctions on some aspects of their commerce with Russia. The summer might be a period where this could be tried.

  • William

    Jack, you got to admit, Obama scandals are pretty much low hanging fruit.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Low hanging Durians. And what an aroma! Hoober Doober

    • TFRX

      In what world? It’s all fluff, no “money shot” with these “made for the base” “scandals”.

      It’s like watching a kid swings at a “pinata” for ten minutes, then have their dad pull off the blindfold, and they still can’t break it open.

      There’s less “candy” (less reward) in there than you’re dreaming.

      • jefe68

        Time to ignore the trolls. They only want to fill up space with inane arguments.

    • StilllHere

      The media does everything they can to look the other way.

  • hennorama

    The circus (House Select Committee) is back in town. Let the games begin!

    Now, who has the bread, the olive oil and the shaved Parmigiano-Reggiano?

    As Richard Wolffe said (spot on, in my view) on Wednesday May 7, 2014,

    “Even more unsatisfying, every member of Congress who really know this story really knows this very well; the even more unsatisfying piece of it, is this was an intelligence operation that went badly wrong. So, unless Republicans have forgotten everything they’ve been telling the American people since 9/11 at least, about sources, and methods, and national security, and the need to protect the intelligence services of the United States of America, if they’ve forgotten all of that, then Yes, they can pursue this story to their hearts’ content, and wonder ‘Why, oh why did the American Ambassador to the U.N. not tell the full story’ about an intelligence operation that went wrong. Just reveal sources and methods, and pull out everything the CIA doesn’t want to tell everyone about everything it does in North Africa, or every post-Arab Spring country. It’s a farce. They know it’s a farce. When Eric Cantor goes out and says ‘It’s about politics and policy’ – there is no policy here. It is purely about politics.”

    (Quote starts at about 5:45 of the linked clip below)

    http://on.msnbc.com/1s5nQFR

    • StilllHere

      “This is Week in the News” not Week in Opinion.

      • hennorama

        StilllHere — thank you for your response.

        The circus is news.

        Thanks again for your response.

        • StilllHere

          Sounds like an opinion as well as the quote, but, hey, your rules; you’re free to ignore them.

          • Steve__T

            You wouldn’t know a opinion if you had one.

          • Don_B1

            Actually, he has a mirror in his mind: when others state a fact (that contradicts his ideology), it is an opinion, but when he states an opinion, it is a fact in his world.

            Nice world that he lives in!

          • hennorama

            StilllHere — thank you again for your response.

            The circus is news, and Mr. Wolffe’s statement that Benghazi “was an intelligence operation that went badly wrong,” while not new, is likely news to many in this forum, based on the comments about “conspiracy” and “cover-up.”

            As I have said from very early on, the fact that the CIA operation in Benghazi was revealed means that the American public likely will never know all of what happened.

            This of course makes for a perfect “scandal,” as the Administration’s opponents can grandstand all they like in public hearings, and responsible parties have to keep their lips sealed.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • StilllHere

            Barnum and Bailey is a circus.
            Your post is opinion which was verboten last week according to you. But times change, just let us know when the rules do.

          • hennorama

            Stilllhere – thank you again for your response.

            Nope. Never happened.

            One supposes this is simply your opinion, masquerading as fact.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • StilllHere

            “OPC — you do realize that this is a Week in The News forum, not one about the Week in Opinions, right?”

          • hennorama

            Stilllhere — TYFYR.

            The quotation in your post suffers from a lack of bold on the word Opinions.

            The quotation in your post contains nothing in the way of “rules” or anything being “verboten.”

            FYI, one of the above sentences is opinionated, and the other is factual. Do you know which is which?

            TY again FYR.

          • StilllHere

            You’re the g-d of fonts, I bow to you.

            Got it, the rules have changed. Thanks.

          • hennorama

            Stilllhere — TYFY unresponsive response.

            Your submission and reverence are unneeded and inappropriate, but your implicit shame is noted.

            Again, the words you quoted, as well as my other remarks in that thread, contain nothing in the way of “rules,” nor do they mention anything being “verboten.”

            That’s not news, but it is factual.

          • StilllHere

            No shame, only reverence. If you sense shame, perhaps it is yours for inconsistencies.

          • hennorama

            Stilllhere — TYFYR.

            What I sense is your complete inability to support your argument.

            Thanks again, for your consistent failure.

          • jefe68

            Why bother with this guy?
            He’s only here to start arguments and troll.

          • hennorama

            jefe68 — TYFYR.

            Your point is well-taken. However, at times simple amusement and entertainment are motivating factors.

  • tncanoeguy

    Bush carried a big stick and look where that got us. Does the Bush debacle make us reticent to intervene with force?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Again, Hirsch sounds like a member of the DNC. Show your card.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Nah, he’s just got a cerebellum …

    • TFRX

      Funny, Hirsch sounds like someone who has given up half the idea of being about Politico (i.e. Poltitics) and is slipping into actual reportage of facts.

      Untilting the table looks crooked to you.

  • stephenreal

    Russia has a problem selling natural gas and oil in a flooded market

  • jefe68

    I guess it’s nice that BUR lets a little On Point to air in between the Mothers Day flower show.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Mom only comes around once a year. HD

    • J__o__h__n

      I don’t mind the fundraising between shows but it is awful when they cut content to remind you how much you like NPR and your mother and all the same blather that they think we need to hear every few months. They need to at least give members a way to listen on line without having the programs interrupted.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    So the president of Nigeria is aptly named or should the voters have picked Nothingeverworksout William?

    “Patience” is a virtue when your daughters are being kidnapped for the international sex trade.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Mrs. Sterling owns 50% of the Clippers. What are the chances a judge is going to strip her of her ownership? That’s right. No chance.

    • M S

      What are the chances of the players giving a 100% effort for her? That’s right. No chance.

      • TFRX

        Yeah, but at some point the players are not really thinking of the owner, but simply of playing basketball, their teammates, opponents, and coaches, and how tightly the officials are calling the game.

        As individuals, they didn’t climb to the pinnacle of their profession (about 400 total players) by not being able to shut out stuff which is off the court. That competitive instinct they’ve had since they were tiny kids drove them to make the most of talent, get onto teams, and work with coaches for achievement, and it’s not something one can just willingly shut off.

        • M S

          Wow, I guess you’ve never played competitive sports then.

  • nj_v2

    More refutation for one of the many lame, ignorant, climate-change-denial memes:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140507-crops-nutrition-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-science/

    High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious

    Climate change could increase deficiencies in zinc and iron, new study suggests.

    …The effect climate change might have on the nutritional value of crops, as opposed to their yield, has been even murkier. Previous studies have given conflicting results.

    In the largest study yet, Samuel Myers of Harvard University and colleagues report that the CO2 levels expected in the second half of this century will likely reduce the levels of zinc, iron, and protein in wheat, rice, peas, and soybeans. Some two billion people, the researchers note, live in countries where citizens receive more than 60 percent of their zinc or iron from these types of crops. Deficiencies of these nutrients already cause an estimated loss of 63 million life-years annually.…

    (excerpts)

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      I smell a lot of If in this study.

      • nj_v2

        I smell a lot of ignorance about science in this post.

        • StilllHere

          You live in an ignorance bubble, all you smell is yourself.

          • nj_v2

            ^ Troll

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            And we have a winner:

            Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

            Matthew 7:1-5

          • pete18

            Someday they will not only define what their standard of a “troll” is that deviates from their own behavior but also what these “legitimate” news sources are that they are always using. Seems like it could be a teachable moment for them.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I believe that I serve the truth. Because of that I welcome debate and argument. If I loose, I seek to refine my skills in support of what I believe. If I am proven wrong then I must change my opinion to continue to serve the truth. In that way I am like a scientist.

            It seems others don’t just disagree about what the truth is (ie: Coke is better than Pepsi) but that there is no such thing as truth (ie: Coke and Pepsi both suck and you are a Hater!). It makes for interesting conversations.

          • jefe68

            I don’t see much truth in what you post here. What I see here is right wing talking points that are repeated over and over again. I also think there is little or no debate going on here. It’s just back and forth comments. You might think you’re debating but it’s pontificating a view point. Neil deGrasse Tyson could be on here and my bet is you would not be convinced even thought he’s a renowned astrophysicist.

            You are not debating, nor are you posting truths. You do seem to be vested in the narrative that supports your right wing point of view.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            When you criticize me in such a way you are supporting my closing conclusion.

            If you see no value in what I post that is your right. You may respond to them as you see fit with my blessing. You can furthermore describe them in any manner of ways, just as you can choose to feel about me and my opinions however you wish. I may not like it. In fact I may think you very unfair. But I will fight to my last breath to secure your right to say what you wish.

            I would enjoy talking with Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, I have enjoyed much of his works. The Cosmos series is a worthy reprises of the original. But I would be interested in 100 other topics and not AGW.

          • jefe68

            Ah I see you like to dish it out but when it comes around back at you, not so much.

            I don’t respond much to your posts by the way. It’s clear to me that they represent your bias and that I do not detect any interest in a debate. Quite the contrary. Which is fine, I don’t have a problem with people posting opinions, even if they are based on falsehoods. That said, if you post on a somewhat open forum, one should expect some blow back.

            I’m sure Dr. deGrasse could help you with getting a better understanding about Climate Change.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Golly gee you found me out. Learning that you don’t relish my posts has really hurt my feelings.

            /sarcasm

            How disconnected from reality must one be to think that I do not expect responses such as yours when I post here? I understand that I challenge the world view of many here and that by doing such I will attract responses like the ones you made. Such responses are the price to be paid for posting on “a somewhat open forum” as you say. As such it is a bargain.

            So why do you hide your comment trail?

          • jefe68

            Troll alert.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          Its funny when people misunderstand correlation and causality.

          http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2014-05-09

          • nj_v2

            It’s funnier when people misunderstand the basis of science.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            When people misunderstand science it is tragic. In the same way that all ignorance is tragic. I lack the patience to be a good teacher.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    Caller Alan speaks my mind!

  • OnPointComments

    “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models.” –Hans von Storch, prominent climatologist

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Come back to reality …

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    When Florida is completely under water we can call the GOP to the beach: for sun and fun and bbq and boat races.

  • OnPointComments

    Why are we studying climate change? Don’t we already know the cause? Harry Reid told us that the Koch brothers are one of the main causes of climate change.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Humans are walking carbon sticks. You can sequester or capture them by throwing them into empty mine shafts. Unless drastic population reduction is on the agenda, you’re just fiddling along with Nero GOP.

  • William

    Didn’t the co-founder of Green Peace call global warming a hoax?

    • AnneDH

      When? Source?

  • Coastghost

    Plaintive and dire warnings ON AND ON AND ON about technogenic climate change are beginning to sound quite empty, given all the inaction our MSM demonstrate: the MSM count on keeping us all plugged in and burning just as much energy as ever so they can dependably tell us day after day, week after week, month after month, year upon year that the sky is burning.
    Technogenic climate change will not merit much belief until our beloved MSM begin cutting their own broadcast schedules and energy consumption (and their daily invitations that we all remain plugged in 24/7/365 to stay well informed) and begin to put their money where their mouth is not, and vice versa. (Nota bene: “On Point”, WBUR, NPR.)

  • AnneDH

    What each of us can start doing RIGHT NOW about climate change:

    Start recycling if you aren’t already.

    Every individual’s participation in recycling is as effective as every individual’s vote.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      2nd Law of Thermo says recycling doesn’t amount to much. HD

      • AnneDH

        Because not everyone is doing it.

        Also, other states need to take a look at what VT is doing with establishing solid waste management districts, which collect dead appliances, paints, books, fabrics, and a lot of items that normally are not picked up for mass recycling. Twice a week.

        • anamaria23

          Do you know anything about plasma arc incinerators? For a while it seemed promising at temperatures hot as the sun could vaporize whole landfills and the sterile ash could be used. Seems to have lost traction. Perhaps too expensive.

          • AnneDH

            Probably cost, yes.

          • AnneDH

            Hi again-

            I hadn’t heard about this technology until your post.

            I found this article this morning- sounds like this team is working on lowering the cost.

            http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/04/turning-trash-into-gas-the-future-of-plasma-gasification/

            I’m going to look into what Vermont might be doing along these lines. We don’t have much $ but we tend to be up on the latest when it comes to environmental issues.

          • anamaria23

            Thanks.

          • anamaria23

            Thanks. Good information in article.

      • TFRX

        You wanna go whole hog againt the idea of “reduce, reuse, recycle”? Really?

    • StilllHere

      Where does burning aborted fetuses fit in?

  • creaker

    Nothing important is happening in Washington because that’s how they want it. Those at the top are making more money faster than ever and until they decide to need to make money even faster, Washington’s work is complete. Everything else is just political circus for the masses.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      More truth than poetry.

    • StilllHere

      Everybody’s making more money. There’s peace in the world. No reason for Congress to muck it up.

      • northeaster17

        With Benghaqzi!!! still such a major issue how can there be peace? Al Qaeda is still a major threat, how can there be peace? With the IRS attacking all God fearing America, how can there be peace? With health care for all being advanced in this country, how can there be peace?

  • tncanoeguy

    The House represents a smaller and smaller slice of the populace. In theory they each represent the same number of people, but gerrymandering allows more extreme positions to come to the fore. How does someone like Michelle Bachmann get elected and re-elected without gerrymandering? She’s not running again – maybe that MN district is finally acknowledging her extreme nature. Of course nothing remotely progressive is going to get through this House.

    • TFRX

      That’s the pisser: No More Michelle Bachmann i nthe House is no guarantee that I’ll see less of her on the TV.

  • nj_v2

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/report-climate-change-clear-and-present-danger

    Report: The Effects of Climate Change Are Occurring in Real-Time All Over the United States
    “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” according to the National Climate Assessment.

    Climate change has moved from distant threat to present-day danger, and no American will be left unscathed, according to a landmark report due to be unveiled Tuesday.

    The National Climate Assessment, a 1,300-page report compiled by 300 leading scientists and experts, is meant to be the definitive account of the effects of climate change on the United States.…

    …”Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” a draft version of the report says. The evidence is visible everywhere from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, the report continues.

    “Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and periods of extreme heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours, though in many regions there are longer dry spells in between.”

    (excerpts)

    • pete18

      Gee, I thought it wasn’t allowed to use weather as a measure of climate change.

      • Don_B1

        Since climate is the average of the weather that occurs over time, the appearance of a lot of unexpected weather over the last decades is an indication that the climate has been changing.

        Certainly the changes in the weather were initially quite subtle and were missed by most casual observers. But the number of extreme events has been rising such that over the last few years to a decade and more, such that most people can perceive that big storms are occurring more frequently and many regions of the earth are experiencing droughts that are deeper and longer than have been experienced in the history of human’s presence in the area.

        • pete18

          Unless there’s a polar vortex, then we can ignore unexpected cold weather.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Growth is the enemy. And electricity is the Godzilla: the ecological damage is already done in the making of it.

    Consuming electricity quickly converts the energy to non-re-capturable heat. Entropy. Game over.

  • William

    There you have it! Taxes will fix it!

    • OnPointComments

      Taxes are always the solution.

    • StilllHere

      Democrats go-to plan: throw other-people’s money at it.

      • 1Brett1

        “You tell ‘em, William! Polly want a cracker, raugh!”

        • StilllHere

          The government’s giving “crackers” out for free.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    We are losing economic ‘growth’ because of climate change! If we begin to address it, we will pay ourselves back many times over.

    • northeaster17

      The below is from the folks who love spending Govt moneyt as long as it involves military conquest and all that goes with it. Never fails.

  • TFRX

    Jack breaks the first rule about Media Memory Hole Club: He talks the about media memory hole.

    The GOP actually wanted some action on climate change in ’04. Why is everyone else in our press corps blankslating the GOP’s charge to the right?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Back in the saddle again
    Where a clod is a friend.
    GO GOPers!

  • OnPointComments

    “To be precise, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a deeply flawed body whose non-scientist chairman is a committed climate alarmist, reckons that global warming has latterly been occurring at the rate of — wait for it — 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade, plus or minus 0.1 degrees Celsius. Their figures, not mine. In other words, the observed rate of warming is less than the margin of error.” -Nigel Lawson

    • nj_v2
      • TFRX

        Good catch.

        I keep thinking he was the fifth member of Spinal Tap or the third member of Oasis.

        • nj_v2

          Career, conservative politicians. That’s what the denialists use for credible sources.

          • notafeminista

            And still you refuse to offer what you might consider acceptable alternatives.

        • hennorama

          TFRX — he’s actually Baron Lawson of Blaby.

          Reminds one of the aptness of the nickname of the most recent former VP OTUS.

  • TFRX

    Tom, do you really think that Thom Tillis represents the “GOP establishment” candidate. Have you listened to him for the last few years?

  • creaker

    Climate change is a given – otherwise my house would be sitting under thousands of feet of ice. The fight over who or what is to blame is being used as a smoke screen to deny that regardless of the causes, we need to direct more resources to address the results of climate change.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      There is no question that we humans have largely caused climate change, this time.

      • OnPointComments

        What caused the Little Ice Age?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Ask a climate scientist.

        • northeaster17

          I would venture to say a volcanic eruption of some sort. Blocked out the sun. After a while things settled down.

        • Steve__T

          a little Ice

      • Alchemical Reaction

        It’s a matter of degree. There is simply no way to know (yet) exactly how much impact we are having on climate change.

        • Don_B1

          Because the orbital related forces are currently toward cooling, the sun’s radiation strength has been declining, the only other force that has the potential to overcome those and create the warming that has occurred is the added CO2 in the atmosphere, and that additional CO2 has been shown to originate from the burning of fossil fuels.

          Thus human activities are the prime cause of the current climate change, to a probability well over 95%.

          • Alchemical Reaction

            I feel sorry for people like you. Our modern scientific instruments are fifty years old, and our universe is BILLIONS of years old. There are exponentially more things science DOESN’T know than things it DOES know. How do you know there aren’t forces at work that haven’t even been discovered yet?
            You can rest assured there ARE.

            THIS is exactly the problem I have with scientists – one minute they say how happy and excited they are when they are proven wrong – because it means they have discovered something totally new and the next minute they are arrogantly claiming “human activities are the prime cause of the current climate change, to a probability well over 95%.”

            You LITERALLY seem developmentally disabled.

          • AnneDH

            Why all the debate about whether or not humans caused global warming? This really is a waste of time in my opinion.

            The point is: it’s here, and humans are the only organisms on the planet who can come up with ways to mitigate it, period.

          • Alchemical Reaction

            THAT’S MY WHOLE POINT.

            Only I have taken what you are saying one step further. I blame the scientists for always trying to prove humans caused the majority of current climate change. Because they CAN’T prove that. So, my point is, why are they alienating people by always making that claim, instead of focusing on what you have said, that we are the ones who can do something about it REGARDLESS of the cause(s)?

            THAT is why I am having this debate!

            If you feel the debate is a waste of time, why are you joining in??? lol.

          • AnneDH

            You’re right- I was talking to the wrong person! Misunderstood your post, sorry.
            lol, yes!

          • Alchemical Reaction

            WRONG! Our modern scientific instruments are fifty years old, and our universe is BILLIONS of years old. There are exponentially more things science DOESN’T know than things it DOES know. How do you know there aren’t forces at work that haven’t even been discovered yet?
            You can rest assured there ARE.

            THIS is exactly the problem I have with scientists – one minute they say how happy and excited they are when they are proven wrong – because it means they have discovered something totally new and the next minute they are arrogantly claiming “human activities are the prime cause of the current climate change, to a probability well over 95%.”

            Five percent is a HUGE margin in science, even 2% is. That means UNPROVEN. Yet, when a new force is discovered, and the whole currently dominant model turns out to be wrong, they will say, “This is so great that we are wrong! Isn’t the universe exciting! There are so many things we don’t understand! That’s the beauty of science!”

            That way, they always get to be “right” and never have to take responsibility for their arrogance or ignorance.

            And science is just latest new religion with its dogma and its priests.

            Next you will say… “But if we DON’T do everything we can, and it turns out humans ARE the prime cause of climate change, it will be too late!”

            But that is not a reason to LIE through your teeth. Telling the truth, by saying, “Look, we don’t know how this works, but we think it works like this and because the stakes are so high we have to act pre-emptively just in case.”

            THEN people would listen to you!
            Pretending you know what you are talking about when YOU CLEARLY DON’T is only making things worse!

            The REAL scientists of the world, the ones who would never equate probability with fact, should be outraged at you pseudo-scientists who get some kind of sick thrill out of needing to be “right” regardless of the facts.

            Just tell the truth and stop obfuscating it with propaganda.

  • TFRX

    “The right to freely speak,” per the quote.

    Is it true that the some of the court majority actually laughed at the idea of athiests having to bow to the tyranny of the majority to go to a goddamned town meeting?

    Time to get the Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims and Shintos’ prayers in there. That’s what these “Christianists” wanted–prayer. Rub their noses in it.

    • OnPointComments

      Perhaps you can take on the task of establishing houses of worship in Greece, NY, for the Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims and Shintos, since the clergy who open the meetings with a prayer are selected from the congregations listed in a local directory. Currently none of these religions are represented in the city.

      “So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to…promote ‘a diversity of views’…the town at no point excluded or denied an opportunity to a would-be prayer giver…”

      • TFRX

        Religious tyranny of the majority is bullshat, and you need to reborn, a la the Twilight Zone, as a member of a “losing” religion, to get it.

  • OnPointComments

    What we learned about the EPA this week:

    “I’m very concerned that vital information regarding suspected employee misconduct is being withheld from the OIG,” Patrick Sullivan, assistant inspector general, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

    • an employee was getting paid for one or two years after moving to a retirement home, where the employee allegedly did not work. When an investigation began, the worker was simply placed on sick leave.

    • an employee with multiple-sclerosis was allowed to work at home for the last 20 years. However, for the past five years, she allegedly produced no work — though she was paid roughly $600,000. She retired after an investigation.

    • an employee was accused of viewing pornography for two-to-six hours a day since 2010. An IG probe found the worker had 7,000 pornographic files on his EPA computer…Porn Guy actually got performance awards on top of his $120,000 salary

    • Remember the amazing story of John C. Beale, the “climate change expert” who spent years doing a Ferris Bueller routine, telling anyone
    who asked about his whereabouts that he was working as a spy for the CIA in Pakistan?
    http://www.humanevents.com/2014/05/08/the-shadowy-world-of-the-environmental-protection-agency/

    • nj_v2

      One can just stop reading after, “No sooner does the White House release its latest fear-mongering climate-change report – a last desperate bid to terrorize the American people out of lobbing tough questions at the purveyors of politically useful junk science …”

      Let us know when you find a credible news source.

      • TFRX

        “Terrorizing the American people?”

        Are you talking about the lawless West?

        Funny how terrorizing is one thing to rightwing media when on paper, and another when angry white men are doing it to federal employees.

        See the BLM guys who, “as a precaution”, have to remove the BLM stickers from their trucks.

      • notafeminista

        Provide a list of your idea of credible news sources any time you wish.

        • StilllHere

          whatever regurgitates his view.

        • TFRX

          Let’s start with “anyone you don’t trust”, Nota.

    • AnneDH

      So…. the EPA isn’t perfect, which of course means they are wrong about climate change.

      Pick, pick, pick all you want. Somewhere you missed out on learning about the concept of logic.

    • Steve__T

      If I ran a business as large as the EPA and only had 4 screw ups like this I would be ecstatic

      You have to be the only person I know of that, will blame 10 people for the personal decision of one…. no their are others :(

      • OnPointComments

        Any business in the private sector that had an employee getting paid for one or two years for not working, an employee getting paid $600,000 for five years for not working, an employee viewing pornography for two-to-six hours a day, would fire the employees, demand restitution, and would likely prosecute those employees. The supervisors who allowed it to happen would also be fired. In government, they’re given bonuses and allowed to keep their jobs.

        • Steve__T

          Not fired, can you say golden parachute.

  • TFRX

    Tom, I know that On Point is sorta urban and Northeaster (on the whole Bos-Wash metroplex), but can you get Wade Goodwin from Texas on soon to talk about Angry White Men in the West and their fantasies of open revolt against the rule of law?

    The men then reappeared in the pick-up truck a few minutes later wearing
    hoods and holding up a sign that read, “You need to die.” One of the
    men pointed a Glock handgun at the (BLM) wrangler.

    How do I get to harrass a goverment employee with a firearm, and not bring myself a world of hurt?

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/blm-wrangler-armed-confrontation-utah?utm_content=bufferdf48c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    • hennorama

      TFRX — prediction:

      Someone will posit a conspiracy theory based on the surname of “Eric Reid, the wrangler’s supervisor at the BLM Fillmore Field Office.”

    • jefe68

      Watch out, you might get called a racist by the right wing clown coffee klatch.

      • pete18

        “Clown coffee klatch,” much better.

        • jefe68

          I did it for you…

  • Michael J. Olson, EdD

    Going after carbon emissions by focusing on heavy hitters, like coal, energy production alternatives looks to me like an approach, however necessary in the long term (50 years), is also the most difficult, expensive, and slowest path possible. It has also proven to have the greatest resistance to date. Meanwhile, the permafrost is melting towards the tipping point 20 years, probably fewer, from now, and that problem is a ticking time bomb with a sensitive fuse.

    A CLASSIC capitalist enterprise problem-solving business strategy recommended to business leaders everywhere is to go for the short term “easy” fixes first, in other words the least cost highest payoff solution that can be achieved in the shortest time possible. In shorthand, slow down the momentum first.

    That means the most important question we have to ask, what can we do NOW to pull the emergency brake and get faster results?

    A promising technology that isn’t getting nearly the attention it deserves has to do with addressing changes to what is called the “permaculture.” In short, that means slowing down “dessertification” or getting grasslands to return or become more robust in areas where they used to thrive. Our former grasslands are a case in point, and the problem replicates across just about every continent on earth.

    There are techniques which have the capacity to restore grasslands, if approached aggressively, in as little as 4 years.
    See Geof Lawson’s activities in Jordan: http://permaculturenews.org/2014/02/01/desert-oasis-4-years-jordan/

    Even more remarkable is how quickly massive change can be introduced by turning the world’s livestock operations away from penned up inhumane stockades to pasture in wide open grasslands:
    1. Grasslands increase oxygen production and captures carbon.
    2. Grazing animals removes concentrated animal waste from water supplies and adds value to the grasslands and the carbon waste goes into the ground.
    3. Production and consumption of commercial feeds is a high energy consumption, carbon generating enterprise that relies on vulnerable mega crop plantations of corn and soy. So risk to food production systems is also reduced.
    4. Meat production as it is currently practiced has an enormous carbon footprint. Turning to restoring grasslands with livestock grazing reverses this contributor past carbon neutral in to significant net reduction in carbon production.

    For more on this, see Alan Savory’s short TED talk, an incredibly compelling, science based solution that brings what we need NOW, a fast, easy, and cheap application of brakes to CO2 generation. It will not precipitate a catastrophic short term global financial crisis that is at the root of corporate resistance to massive change to energy production infrastructure; it also does not take anything close to the associated mind-boggling financial cost of that change.
    http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change#t-138051

  • Coastghost

    The deafening silence audible this morning suggests that Michael Sam was NOT drafted last evening by any NFL franchise: nothing comes to the attention of Google’s algorithms that I can spot, that is.
    This story got plenty of hype and buzz, until today (shades of Gene Robinson, all the way up until his divorce proclamation last week): why are “bad news” stories about homosexuals getting spiked with such regularity?

    • northeaster17

      Why? Because most of America is over the Gay Stigma thing. That’s why.

      • Coastghost

        “where seldom is heard a discouraging word . . .”

        • northeaster17

          Really?

    • hennorama

      Coastghost – Your current pet peeve about “ ‘bad news’ stories about homosexuals getting spiked,” in regard to Michael Sam is silly and ignorant.

      The 2014 NFL Draft is a three-day event, and will not conclude until Saturday May 10, 2014.

      • Coastghost

        I’m not willing to impute overmuch credibility, hen, to “objective news reporting” that consists (or is permitted to consist) only of laudatory or congratulatory coverage.

        • hennorama

          Coastghost — thank you for your response.

          Your complaint about Michael Sam is premature. Any absence of coverage has no significance. If he is drafted, it is likely to be in the late rounds.

          Your “spike detector” is malfunctioning.

          Thanks again for your response.

          • Coastghost

            hen: American attention spans being what they are rumored to be these days, I am not averse to our media overlords informing us plainly and formally just when they are practicing “objective journalism” and when they’re merely indulging in “public relations”. (Apparently, it’s just not enough that American journalism is compromised thoroughly enough already by its “entertainment imperative”.)
            Advocacy journalism arguably poses risk to press credibility in the long run, across the board (for any number of pet peeves).

          • hennorama

            Coastghost — TYFYR.

            Perhaps you might wait until after the NFL draft is over, then determine if any “spiking” is evident.

          • HonestDebate1

            How ’bout that Kelvin Benjamin? He’s a beast!

          • Coastghost

            Consider me a victim of occupational hazard, hen: three years in a television newsroom left me with an acute sensitivity to whatever it is I am not hearing.

          • hennorama

            Coastghost — TYFYR.

            Your experience cuts both ways. Given such experience, a knowledge of the basic facts about the NFL draft, and projections about Mr. Sam’s likely draft position, would be expected.

            Best of luck with your “acute sensitivity,” and thanks again for your response.

          • Coastghost

            Alas, my assignments rarely entailed sports coverage specifically and I’m no NFL devotee myself.

          • hennorama

            Coastghost — TYFYR.

            I respect and appreciate your experience and erudition, and your “Hey! What about this?” perspective, which often is quite valuable.

            But you completely missed the mark this time.

            Knowing that you lack experience in this area, you decided to comment without checking the facts (other than “Google’s algorithms”). You missed the rather significant detail that the NFL draft is far from over.

            Perhaps you might simply declare that your “acute sensitivity” produced a false positive, then re-test at a more appropriate time.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • Coastghost

            So quick to criticize, hen.
            No, I glanced at the NFL homepage before posting, and according to their roster, Michael Sam was not picked in the first round last night.
            (I’ll await confirmation from you, if you like, obviously your sources are at least as dependable as mine: Michael Sam was NOT picked in the first-round NFL draft last evening, Thursday 8 May 2014, was he?)
            Having listened to NPR coverage in the days leading up to, I had also gleaned that Sam was not expected to be a first-round draft pick: but if your confirmation of the facts permits, it is the case that he was not in fact picked in the draft’s first-round. Reticence to treat the story today, even before the NFL draft concludes, suggests the story is being deemed “newsworthy” only if some kind of celebration can plausibly ensue.
            This holds explanatory power all by itself, and with the prior editorial judgments that the Sam story is relevant due to his self-professed homosexuality, his failure to be picked in the first round is itself eminently newsworthy.

          • J__o__h__n

            NPR is being heterophobic by not announcing all the non-gay players who weren’t drafted.

          • hennorama

            Coastghost — TYFYR.

            If anything, I was quick to praise, but no matter.

            If Mr. Sam had been drafted in the 1st round, it would have been newsworthy, as it would have been contrary to expert projections.

            I’ll leave it to you to explain how not covering Mr. Sam’s absence from the cohort of first round draft choices is somehow:

            A. one of the ” ‘bad news’ stories about homosexuals,” and

            B. a “spiked” story

            Thanks again for your response.

          • Coastghost

            A. the “novelty factor” of Sam’s draft eligibility yielded no positive immediate outcome: his being passed over in the first round already suggests that resistance in the locker rooms of most professional sports leagues can be anticipated, whether Sam gets a contract or no, whether a professed homosexual gets a pro contract in any league at any date. (The barely-noted Robinson divorce announcement of last weekend surely constitutes a notable repudiation of the amply celebrated marriage of barely six years ago, and as such the Robinson divorce undermines “the institution of homosexual marriage” before the institution has securely planted itself. Again, you’re entitled to claim I’m too early in my citation here, but homosexual divorce rates are already being established without being reported.)
            B. Sam’s failure to get a contract in the first round offers opportunity to question the success of homosexualism, the explicit ideological component for advancing homosexual political objectives, which could yet stall out.
            Resistance from the leagues was known before the draft began yesterday: Sam’s getting no contract in the first round only confirms the strength of the resistance to be anticipated.
            I cite again the phenomenon of press coverage from recent years that has been celebrating homosexual civil rights and the advent of homosexual marriage, et cetera: only the good news, the agreeable news, the congratulatory news, the laudatory news. This past week’s two opportunities to consider and investigate ongoing challenges to the (actual) success of homosexual political objectives could well have been addressed by any number of journalists of enterprise.

          • hennorama

            Coastghost – TYFYR.

            A. Mr. Sam “being passed over in the first round” suggests nothing at all about his sexuality, or “resistance in the locker rooms.” It is simply a reflection of the reality of his being perceived as a “tweener” – a bit too small for a defensive lineman, and a bit too slow for a linebacker. In case you missed it, this is from espn.go.com, from back in February:

            Most NFL draft projections see him as a likely mid-round pick, with some saying Sam could go as high as the third round, with a possible position switch to outside linebacker. He is rated as the 12th-best outside pass rusher in the draft by ESPN Scouts Inc.

            Unfortunately for Mr. Sam, his performance at the NFL combine was underwhelming, and his projected draft position dropped considerably as a result. Recently, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com put his chances of being drafted as “only about 50-50.”

            Sources:
            http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10429030/michael-sam-missouri-tigers-says-gay
            http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/michael-sam?id=2543734
            http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/michael-sam-gay-nfl-draft/

            In other words, the fact that Mr. Sam has not yet been drafted is not a story, at least not to anyone who has been paying attention.

            B. Again, Mr. Sam’s “failure to get a contract in the first round,” as you wrote, is not only not a “failure,” it is exactly as expected. Mr. Sam’s collegiate career was rather middling until his senior season, and his skills and measurable physical performance have been deemed to be a bit wanting for the NFL, right from the very start. This has nothing to do with his sexuality. If he was a more talented football player, he would already have been drafted.

            Remember, according to the NCAA,

            “Less than two in 100, or 1.6 percent, of NCAA senior football players will get drafted by a National
            Football League (NFL) team.”

            See:
            http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Probability-of-going-pro-methodology_Update20123.pdf

            Mr. Sam’s skills and performance on the field have increased his odds, of course, but he is still seen as a “tweener,” which has nothing to do with his sexuality.

            Your points about Mr. Robinson are far stronger, and more well-taken.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • HonestDebate1

            … or the second, or the third.

          • J__o__h__n

            That is as silly as waiting until after 10:00 am on Friday to complain that On Point is ignoring Benghazi.

          • hennorama

            J__o__h__n — thank you for your response.

            I know, using logic and all…

            My bad.

  • StilllHere

    Placating Russia on the one hand and handicapping domestic energy companies on the other, Obama’s foreign and energy policies make no sense and weaken America.

    • northeaster17

      Nothing to see here. Carry on as normal. Just a few less bugs in the world. No Prob.

      From The Dish:

      As we freak out about our collapsing colonies of honeybees, Brandon Keim shares the bad news that their wild cousins are also in trouble, along with other insects that plants depend on for pollination:

      According to a recent survey organized by the Xerces Society, an invertebrate conservation group, nearly one-third of North American bumblebee species are declining. Other studies have reported similar trends, documenting dramatic declines in once-common species such as the American bumblebee. If that’s happening to bumblebees, says Xerces Society executive director Scott Black, it’s quite possible, even likely, that others are hurting, too.

      “There’s very little information status on most of the bees other than bumblebees, but if you look at the life histories of these groups, many are likely even more sensitive to the disturbances leading to the declines, such as pesticides and habitat loss,” Black said. “Although we don’t know what’s going on with all bees, I think we could be seeing real problems.”

      Among other pollinators, iconic monarch butterfly declines are well documented: Their numbers are now at a small fraction of historical levels. And entomologist Art Shapiro of the University of California, Davis spent most of the last four decades counting butterflies across central California, and found declines in every region. These declines don’t just involve butterflies that require very specific habitats or food sources, and might be expected to be fragile, but so-called generalist species thought to be highly adaptable. Many other entomologists have told Black the same thing.

      • Steve__T

        STOP GMO’s

  • OnPointComments

    As I watched the Lois Lerner contempt debate on C-Span, Democrat after Democrat tried to justify the illegal actions of the IRS with the excuse that conservative groups didn’t have to ask to be certified by the IRS as 501(c)(4)s, the groups could have self-certified. This excuse is akin to saying that if the woman didn’t want sex she shouldn’t have dressed that way, or telling the person who gets shot that you shouldn’t have been in that neighborhood at night anyway.

    • hennorama

      OPC — is it factually accurate, that any and all “groups didn’t have to ask to be certified by the IRS as 501(c)(4)s, [and that] the groups could have self-certified”?

      • OnPointComments

        This is what they said during the debate about holding Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Judith Curry, climate scientist, on the WH Climate report:

    “While there is some useful analysis in the report, it is hidden behind a false premise that any change in the 20th century has been caused by AGW. Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama administration. The Washington Post asks the following question: Does National Climate Assessment lack necessary nuance? In a word, YES.”

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/06/u-s-national-climate-assessment-report/#more-15436

    • brettearle

      Politically, Are all Climatologists, Liberal Democrats–and therefore they are blinded by a Bias?

      And so, the only competent climatologists are the ones who are not influenced by a political agenda?

      And therefore Dr. Curry stands alone–because she ALONE is NOT biased–because she is virtually the ONLY climatologist who speaks out against the OVERWHELMING consensus.

      There is NO question that the majority of climatologists, who support AGW, don’t EVEN realize that they are putting their OWN BIASES over scientific data!

      No….Question!

      And of course, Ladies and Gentlemen, it could NEVER be that Dr. Judith Curry DOESN’T have BIASES OF HER OWN.

      Why don’t we ask MIT’s Dr. Kerry Emanuel–a friend to “On Point” about GW and who who is a STALWART Republican and one of the world’s MOST RENOWNED climatologists–who hasn’t even come close to condemning reports about Human Contribution to the DESTRUCTION of our Planet….?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Did Kerry Emanuel weigh in on the Obama propaganda? If so, I missed it.

        Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. did weigh in:

        “Hi Judy Excellent analysis of the NCA. Your text

        “The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change”

        “The failure to imagine future extreme events and climate scenarios, other than those that are driven by CO2 emissions and simulated by deficient climate models, has the potential to increase our vulnerability to future climate surprises”

        succinctly shows the major failure of their report.

        With respect to their equivalence of climate change to just that driven by CO2 emissions, this issue was clearly refuted in

        National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Oh, and Dr. Roy Spencer also weighed in on the WH propaganda w/ a point by point rebuttal:

        “Follow the money, folks. This glitzy, 840-page report took a lot of your tax dollars to generate, and involved only those “experts” who are willing to play the game. It is difficult to answer in its entirety because government has billions of dollars to invest in this, while most of us who try to bring some sanity to the issue must do it in our spare time, because we aren’t paid to do it. It is nowhere near balanced regarding science, costs-versus-benefits, or implied policy outcomes. Like the previous two National Assessment reports, it takes global climate models which cannot even hindcast what has happened before, which over-forecast global average warming, which are known to have essentially zero skill for regional (e.g. U.S.) predictions, and uses them anyway to instill fear into the masses, so that we might be led to safety by politicians.”

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/my-initial-comments-on-the-national-climate-assessment/

        • OnPointComments

          “Follow the money” is almost always excellent advice.

      • OnPointComments

        Instead of Dr. Kerry Emanuel, I’ll go with his colleague, Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospherics physicist and the Alford P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Fall 2013:

        “Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions.”

        “Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”

        “…the cracks in the scientific claims for catastrophic warming are, I think, becoming much harder for the supporters to defend…one can only hope that some path will emerge that will end the present irrational obsession with climate and carbon footprints.”

        “The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence” — “It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going”

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Uh oh.

        Kerry Emanuel: ” marriage is between a man and a woman.”
        Let’s hope MIT doesn’t go all Mozilla on him.

        http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-20110105

        btw — how do you know Judith Curry isn’t a liberal Democrat? It never occurred to associate political affiliation with the science except for those who use faux science for political ends.

        BTW — my primary attraction to Dr. Curry’s blog is her evangelizing for honest reporting of the science, open debate of the science and opening up the field of study beyond CO2.

    • nj_v2

      Judith Curry. Haha!

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry

      “…Examples of the unreliability of Curry’s blog publications are illustrated by Michael Tobis[16] and James Annan[17], who both showed basic flaws in her understanding of uncertainty and probability, or at least an irresponsible level of sloppiness in expressing herself. Arthur Smith pointed out an under-grad level misunderstanding[18] in her own field’s basic terminology,” said Coby Beck.[10]

      Climate scientist James Annan has provided examples (with rebuttals) of assertions made by Curry on topics like no-feedback climate sensitivity, aerosols, climate change detection&attribution, and the IPCC tolerance of challengers; he finds there’s a pattern of “throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong”,[19]

      Willingness to criticize based on second-hand info from contrarian, inexpert sources

      “In a 2010 comment[20] she called blogger Deep Climate’s detailed and well-documented investigation into the Wegman Report”one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen” even as she revealed in her incorrect synopsis of the charges that she had not even read it for herself. … [i.e.] she shows herself ready to publicly criticise someone else in the strongest terms based entirely on second hand information gleaned from places like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.”[10]

      (excerpts)

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Boy, you are really have difficulty staying ‘onpoint’ and invariably resort to “attack the messenger”. A refuge to those who bow to authority.

        Let’s play your game. James Annan was infamous for going against the consensus by continuing to defend MIchael Mann’s hockey stick AFTER it was exposed as flawed science.

        Also, your link is so 2010. Let’s look at James Annan more recent comments from 2013 about the IPCC overstating CO2 sensitivity:

        ““Since IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported ‘this is what we think, because we asked our pals’…having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing ‘la la la I can’t hear you’.”

        “…makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’”

        And this stunning claim that the IPCC LIES for political motivation:

        ” Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”

        http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html

  • OnPointComments

    When President Obama was in California glad-handing his 1% buds (actually the top 1% of the 1%), he told the likes of Barbra Streisand, Samuel L. Jackson, Kim Kardashian, Steven Spielberg, Conan O’Brien, Bruce Springsteen, and other .01%ers that “since 2007, they [Republicans] have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class…”

    4 PINOCCHIOS from the Washington Post

    “On just about every level, this claim is ridiculous.

    “We realize that Senate rules are complex and difficult to understand, but the president did serve in the Senate and should be familiar with its terms and procedures. Looking at the numbers, he might have been able to make a case that Republicans have blocked about 50 bills that he had wanted passed, such as an increase in the minimum wage. But instead, he inflated the numbers to such an extent that he even included votes in which he, as senator, supported a filibuster.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/09/four-pinocchios-for-obamas-claim-that-republicans-have-filibustered-about-500-pieces-of-legislation/

    • northeaster17

      Which votes did he as a Senator support a fillibuster?

    • ExcellentNews

      1% of the 1% actually care about the 99%. Obama was speaking to these people. I know it offends your “devil take the hindmost”, “I got mine, too bad for you” conservative sensibilities.

      • pete18

        How exactly do you measure that they care, as opposed to the other part of the 1%? What makes you draw that conclusion? They support Obama or something else?

      • OnPointComments

        You may have some super secret proof that these 1% of the 1% actually care about the 99%, but even if you do, what President Obama said was a lie.

      • JONBOSTON

        If your aim is to persuade those that disagree with you , you fail miserably. Most of your comments are so shallow and lacking any fact , reason, or analysis that it feeds into my general opinion that those on the left are nothing but ideologues incapable of engaging in any meaningful debate of ideas. Or they’re stupid or ignorant.

    • Steve__T

      You really don’t know who the 0.1% are’

      “The real and critical issue remains the same… historically unprecedented obstructionism since our founding or at least since Antebellum America. While writers like Mr. Kessler fuss and fume over how many symbolic cartoon images to stamp on a comment, the GOP with its Tea Party faction and plutocratic backers try to steer our country back to 1890 or before.” ~bwf27

      • OnPointComments

        What President Obama said was a lie.

        • Steve__T

          So what you said was a lie.

      • Steve__T

        “When President Obama was in California glad-handing his 1% buds(actually the top 1% of the 1%) , he told the likes of Barbra Streisand, Samuel L. Jackson, Kim Kardashian, Steven Spielberg, Conan O’Brien, Bruce Springsteen, and other .01%ers ”

        You lie this is not even close to the 0.01% even Spielberg is 151 on Forbes 400 (where the real 0.01% live at the top 75.)

        The Richest 400 people in America.

        http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:spi_filter:All%20industries_filter:All%20states_filter:All%20categories

        • OnPointComments

          You’re an idiot. The phrase “top 1%” or “top .01%” refers to annual income, not accumulated wealth. According to Forbes, Spielberg earned $100 million between June 2012 and June 2013. The annual income threshold to get into the top .01%? A paltry $1.9 million a year.

          • Steve__T

            You have talked so much crap with out any backup your eyes are turning brown.

  • 1Brett1

    More law-breaking nonsense from Cliven Bundy’s followers:

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57917374-78/wrangler-blm-reid-pickup.html.csp

  • gyurika

    I am just listening to the Climate Change portion.
    Now here comes a criticism
    Any broadcaster, who moderates a program, or any person who speaks about Climate Change without mentioning the effects of Chemtrails is either disingenuous and an acomplice, or incompetent and doing a major disservice.
    According to the latest scientific standing Chemtrails that partially were supposed to deflect sun rays and slow warming, – due to the unexpected side effects (ozone killing) have a negative net effect. (Speeding warming)
    The earth temp. rising 6 centigrade would terminate human existence because of the crops inability to adopt to that. (Now we are at 0.89) This 6 degrees – looks like ceteris paribus – we would reach in 50 !!!!!!!!!!!!! years – and already some self reinforcing loops are in the works. The major component of this is methane 20 times more greenhouse than CO2, so when people are talking about CO2 reductions they are just clowning.
    (Cows in USA emit 49 million tons of methane annually).
    Argument against stopping Chemtrails is that it would immediately put us on the “critical warming path”. It is a self defeating logic, because continuing it only puts us into a sure slow critical but sure path…
    Therefor any program not focusing on Chemtrails is a farce. HAARP is there too.
    If you have trouble finding the quoted articles then it is my pleasure to share them.

    • JS

      When you say Chemtrails, do you mean airplanes dropping chemicals in their wake or something similar?

  • http://hammernews.com/ hammermann

    UPDATES FROM UKRAINE CIVIL WAR http://HAMMERNEWS.blogspot.com
    MAY 9 9:30pm Putin takes victory lap in Crimea- Putin celebrated Victory
    Day in Crimea, to the distress of Kyiv, but Sevastopol is the scene of
    Russias greatest literary military accomplishments, in the Crimean War
    and WW2 defense- it is natural for the Little Big Man to go there. And
    of course he wants to rub salt in the wounds- Crimea however is
    descending into poverty, shortages, and great fear as food is being
    rationed, supermarkets cleared out, and the tourist season simply not going to happen. They’re going to have an Olympian case of buyers remorse. Russian Dep PM Rogozin went to Trans-Dniester to stir up more trouble and put more pressure on Kyiv

    Mariupol Police Station -

    Mariupol Shootout Claims 21- the Gov Mariupol police station was retaken by Gov, then attacked by 60 Separatists
    in a violent battle-reinforcements were called- 21 killed (according to
    Avakov) including police- the station was burned down; the commander of
    Dneitropetrovsk Brigade was killed and mutilated by Seperatists,

    Nat
    Guard commander seriously wounded, Police Chief kidnapped in a trunk,
    says nationalist MP Liashko; Attacks on Interior Ministry bldg also,
    some reports artillery was used;

    Lughansk couple machine gunned at checkpoint
    killed on the way to the border in separate cars which were riddled
    with bullets. The couples 10 year old daughter in the back seat was
    wounded- so don’t sympathize too much with the poor villagers manning
    the checkpoints killed by the Gov – checkpoints are life and death affairs if you don’t pass some yahoo’s loyalty test.

    NO movement in Russian border troops

    So-called “Donetsk Republic” election commission, UNIAN and Interfax are reporting that an armed group of more than 100
    men surrounded and seized a sanatorium in Donetsk and captured some 120
    Ukrainian Interior Ministry police. The troops were said to have been
    using the sanatorium as a barracks when it was surrounded by gunmen from
    the “Donetsk People’s Republic.” Reports said shooting broke out and
    parts of the sanatorium caught fire, and that the troops eventually
    agreed to surrender their weapons and were put on buses and taken away
    from the area. It was unclear where they were taken. The armed group arrived at the sanatorium riding on
    Kamaz trucks.

  • ExcellentNews

    Burning news from Pox at 11 !!! Bombshell blonde Pox reporter discovers why Ambassador Stevens was attacked. Apparently, the Ambassador was carrying the long-sought Obama Kenyan birth certificate for safe-keeping in Mecca. Also, the Earth is getting colder because Obama made prayer illegal.

  • OnPointComments

    B-b-b-but all the scientists said so!

    SATURATED FAT AND SKEPTICISM
    The scientific community is not immune to politics, bias, and self-interest.

    The headline looks like a hoax — saturated fat does not cause heart disease — but it’s real. This news is more than just another example of changing health guidelines. It’s a cautionary tale about trusting the scientific consensus.

    How could the experts have been so wrong for so long?

    Nina Teicholz, writing in the Wall Street Journal, notes that “there has never been solid evidence for the idea that these fats cause disease. We only believe this to be the case because nutrition policy has been derailed over the past half-century by a mixture of personal ambition, bad science, politics, and bias.”

    The moral of this story is not to ignore science, but to stay skeptical. The scientific method remains the best way yet devised to ascertain truth. But the scientific establishment is hardly immune to politics, fads, bias, and self-interest. Bad science is endemic. As The Economist noted in October, “half of all published research cannot be replicated . . . and that may be optimistic.”

    • ExcellentNews

      A diet that is too rich in saturated fats leads to a host of medical problems in most people, including heart disease. What was previously unknown is that a diet that is too rich in sugar and low in saturated fats also leads to heart disease in most people. Moreover, science has advanced to the point of being able to explain WHY. Of course, such “details” are not the job of Murdoch-owned Wall St Journal.

      Yes people, be skeptical of posters like OnPointComments, who shill for the established corporate interests by discrediting science and the scientific community. After all, the oligarchy has identified independent science as an enemy that threatens profit margins and offshore accounts.

      • OnPointComments

        Experts question link between saturated fat and heart disease
        from Medical News Today
        http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/274166.php

        A new review of published evidence challenges current guidelines that suggest in order to reduce heart disease risk, people should generally restrict intake of saturated fats – like those found in butter and dairy foods – in favor of unsaturated fats – such as in margarine and sunflower oil.

        The analysis, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine by an international group led by a team at the UK’s University of Cambridge, included 72 separate studies on heart risk and intake of fatty acids.

        They found no evidence to support guidelines that say people should restrict saturated fat consumption to lower their risk of developing heart disease.

        “This analysis of existing data suggests there isn’t enough evidence to say that a diet rich in polyunsaturated fats but low in saturated fats reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease.”

        Yes people, be skeptical of posters like ExcellentNews, who ignores current developments if it conflicts with what he wants the answer to be.

        • Steve__T

          Some things have to take common sense into effect.

          So using common sense says that if you eat FAT, SUGAR,or STARCHES you will gain weight, if you are not exercising it away, it will stick with you, and the amounts of what you eat are a great factor. Individually we try for the mainstream but most find it doesn’t fit them.

          “This analysis of existing data suggests there isn’t enough evidence to say that a diet rich in polyunsaturated fats but low in saturated fats reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease.”

          Why did you leave this part out of your post from the article you posted?

          Individual unsaturated fats have different effects on heart risk

          However, when they looked in more detail at bloodstream levels of individual subtypes of polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as long-chain omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, the researchers found they linked to heart risk differently.

          For example, they found some evidence that bloodstream levels of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids (two main types of long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids), and arachidonic acid (an omega-6 fatty acid) are each linked to lower heart risk.

          They also looked in detail at saturated fatty acids. Here, they found some weak links between bloodstream levels of palmitic and stearic acids (predominantly found in palm oil and animal fats, respectively) and heart disease, but blood levels of the dairy fat margaric acid appeared to significantly reduce heart risk.

          But there is enough medical/surgical evidence to show that if you are over weight due to a high fat intake, YOU MAY HAVE A HEART ATTACK.

          Because more than 60% do.

          The food we eat today is not the non-processed food of yesteryear.

          GMOs, or “genetically modified organisms,” are plants or animals that have been genetically engineered with DNA from bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals. These experimental combinations of genes from different species cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding.

          Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.

          Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.

          http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/

          You should apologize to Excellent News and retract your last statement sense it
          really applies to you.

          • OnPointComments

            You’ve missed the point.

            For decades and decades, scientists have said saturated fat causes heart disease. Now a study says there is no evidence to support guidelines that say people should restrict saturated fat consumption to lower their risk of developing heart disease.

            Before this new report, the scientific community agreed that saturated fat caused heart disease; anyone who exhibited any degree of skepticism would have probably been called something like a ‘saturated fat denier,’ and would be mocked and ridiculed. Everyone said that saturated fat caused heart disease because everyone said it was true.

            Sound familiar? Can you think of another instance where anyone who goes against the prevailing sentiment, and insists that there be proof that can be replicated, is being silenced? Global warming, or global cooling, or climate change, or climate disruption, or whatever else they want to call today comes to mind.

          • Steve__T

            No I didn’t miss the point you did, and your omission of facts in evidence in your own link make you look like a lie.

        • ExcellentNews

          A more credible reference at last. And unlike the sensationalist article in WSJ (which is word-smithed to create general distrust of science) the study simply says that there is no statistical evidence that shifting your fat intake from saturated fats to polyunsaturated fats reduces heart disease risk. It does not say it’s ok to wash a pound of bacon down with half a gallon of Coke daily. It says that the circumstantial evidence that links high saturated fat intake with heart disease is circumstantial, and not causative. It settles what has been an open question in medical science since that link was found in epidemiological data.

          Anyway, you are well-known for being a shill for the Tea Party and extreme right views. And we know well that the motivation for your post is to cast distrust of science in general so that issues like coal-made climate change or the economic drag of inequality (which have a clear scientific basis) can be obfuscated for the benefit of a handful of global billionaires and despots, most of whom are not even American.

    • ExcellentNews

      Now that “OnPointComments” was forced to spit out a reference to the study (Medical News Today), that is closer to the source (Annals of Internal Medicine) you can see for yourself that the WSJ article is 95% devoted to science-hating rhetoric and 5% to the facts.

      Save your skepticism for reading corporate media like the WSJ, owned by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and King Abdullah. And do read the original study before you decide to eat a pound of bacon a day…

  • Potter

    Bengazi Bengazi Bengazi. Why don’t we have a committee to look into why we went to war in Iraq?

    • hennorama

      Potter — Why, was there some sort of problem with the virtually unprecedented, preemptive war and occupation?

      • StilllHere

        approved by Congress don’t forget. Just thought a fact should slip in there.

        • Potter

          The buck stops with G Bush. There was a fierce campaign going on to go to war. Remember Colin Powell at the UN? And then the administration was saying it had information that could not be shared. TRUST US!

        • hennorama

          Stilllhere — thank you for your response.

          Despite your implication, there’s nothing in my question that is not factual. The Second Iraq War and Occupation was preemptive, and as such was virtually unprecedented.

    • HonestDebate1

      Why do you guys want to talk about Iraq? It’s been looked at plenty. It’s history and has nothing to do with Benghazi.

      • Potter

        The comment is about INQUIRIES that should come before Bengazi if we are going to look into things. The Iraq War has does out country a lot more harm than the Bengazi affair. The Bengazi affair is under the category of trying to get Hillary and spending tax money and precious time that should be used to govern on much more important issues. Looking into why we went to war unnecessarily has to do with a much higher level of accountability than what happened in Bengazi. It’s amazing that you don’t understand this.

        • HonestDebate1

          “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

          It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

          This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.”

          • Potter

            You should identify the quote. There was a lot of hype from the administration leading us to war, including to the members of Congress. We were in a fever from 9/11 and our lawmakers lost it and did us a lot more harm in doing so. As well this quote ratifies the principle of preemptive war which is highly controversial, disastrous and against international law, civility amongst nations and the peace. What if every nation claimed such a right?

          • HonestDebate1

            i believe the war was just and unavoidable. I believe Hussein could no longer be tolerated in a post 9/11 world. We won’t agree.

            Obviously the above quote was from Hillary. I do not accuse her of lying any more than I accuse GWB.

  • Carla

    Regarding Benghazi, the conspiracy was the work to hide the truth in the name of politics.

    • hennorama

      Carla — I think you meant to write “Regarding Benghazi, the [non-disclosure and non-publication of information about CIA involvement] was the work to [protect Americans and others, in the aftermath] in the name of [their personal safety].

      • Carla

        You wish!

        • hennorama

          Carla — thank you for your response.

          You do know that early on, various news organizations withheld details of CIA involvement, upon request from the CIA, right?

          • Carla

            If that’s what you want to believe. Like I said, Obama and Clinton hid the truth to protect their political futures. There’s a lot at stake for Clinton, you do know that, right?

          • hennorama

            Carla — thank you for your response.

            Two questions:

            1. Why didn’t you answer my question about news organizations withholding info?

            2. What “truth” was hidden, in your view?

          • Carla

            What really happened! But what really happened isn’t the problem anymore, the problem is the cover-up. I’m glad we are still working on figuring out why there was a cover-up, although it’s clear it was out of concern for Clinton’s political future. Not pretty. Signing off

          • hennorama

            Carla — thank you again for your response, and for your continued ignorance of my question.

            Please, exactly what do you think could possibly be “covered up”?

            Besides the CIA details, of course, which indeed are not going to be revealed in public.

            Thanks again for your response, and your retreat.

          • Carla

            we don’t yet know! Thank goodness there is another enquiry. We haven’t learned the truth yet. The 2012 presidential election was weeks away and Clinton wanted to run next, that is all the administration cared about, and that’s why they lied and we still don’t know what really happened.
            from another comment:

            Guest • 14 hours ago

            “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide”. (President Obama)

            That explains why the White House is stonewalling on Benghazi.

          • hennorama

            Carla — thank you for your response.

            So, you have concluded that there is “a cover-up” without any idea as to what is supposed to have been “covered up,” and also that “they lied and we still don’t know what really happened,” and that “the White House is stonewalling on Benghazi.”

            OK then.

            Enjoy the circus.

          • HonestDebate1

            Is it that you still believe the video meme?
            Do you still believe they were giving us the best available info at the time? Do you still believe Al Qaeda is decimated? Or do you think it doesn’t matter if they lied?

          • pete18

            Here’s something that I posted earlier that helps explain:

            http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/who-s-crazy_791177.html

          • brettearle

            All those who don’t regard Benghazi to be a scandal blown far, far out of proportion, raise their hands….

            And all those who have raised their hands, please keep their hands raised–if they also feel the same way about the scandal of Abu Graib….

            What’s that?….

            You mean……there are no longer any hands raised??

          • Carla

            so you mean it’s all political. As I was saying.

          • brettearle

            No, it means the Blind Radical Right sees scandal when it wants to and needs to.

            Not where it belongs.

          • Carla

            Name-calling again. Angry Left again, it’s getting old.

          • brettearle

            Name calling is one thing.

            The Truth is another.

            Denial of the Right again.

            It’s getting old.

          • hennorama

            brettearle — TYFYR.

            Always good to read your rhetoric.

          • brettearle

            TY

    • ExcellentNews

      YES! As I explained below, Ambassador Stevens was killed because he was entrusted with taking Obama’s real Kenyan birth certificate to Mecca for safe-keeping by the Grand Imam. Keep up the good work spamming independent media on behalf of Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, the Sultan of Brunei and their oligarchy pals !!!

    • OnPointComments

      You are right. The primary concern was the election.

      • Carla

        That’s right, I forgot, the election was only weeks away. No wonder Obama was making up stories. Hiding th truth in the name if politics, it is indeed a scandal.

  • Don_B1

    The thing about the Republican’s “investigation” is that they are asking all the irrelevant questions and none of the important questions, but since the answers to those would reflect on their lack of sufficient funding for the State Department’s embassies, they don’t want to get that out to the public.

    Underfunding became endemic with the actions of Senator Jesse Helms (R, NC), which left so much of diplomatic relations to the military and the C.I.A., which were the only places that money could be found.

  • Cacimo

    Michael Hirsh should be identified as Democrat party spokesperson who also works at Politico.

  • HonestDebate1

    There were 3 questions Issa’s committee were charged with answering:

    1) Was the U.S. adequately prepared for possible trouble abroad on the anniversary of Sept. 11?

    2) Did the government do everything it could to try to rescue the Americans who were under attack for seven and a half hours?

    3) Did the Obama administration tell the straight story about what happened?

    It seems to me these are not only reasonable questions, they are the bare minimum we should be told. It is the least we can expect from a transparent administration. I wonder who would disagree?

    The second question fell mostly under the charge of the Pentagon to answer. The Pentagon complied promptly, adequately and transparently.

    The first and third questions relied mainly on the White House and the State Department. It’s been nothing but heartache and that is why we are here. These things matter. Byron York sums it up perfectly.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-benghazi-probe-didnt-have-to-come-to-this/article/2548264?custom_click=rss

    • OnPointComments

      President Obama promised that State Department personnel responsible for enhanced security in Benghazi would be held accountable. No one was.

      • OnPointComments

        “Four State Department officials have been ‘relieved from their duties’ after an internal investigation of the Benghazi consulate attack found “systemic failures and leadership deficiencies at senior levels in securing the compound,” prior to and during the assault, a State Department spokeswoman said.”
        http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/three-state-department-officials-resign-after-benghazi-report/
        The employees were placed on administrative leave, then after some time passed, all four were invited back to work.
        It was all politics.

    • Guest

      Did the previous 4 investigations ask these questions?

      • HonestDebate1

        The problem is not the questions, it’s getting the answers.

  • Cacimo

    Todays episode was especially disappointing. Can you not find ONE person to represent the Republican point of view???

    • Alchemical Reaction

      I agree with you on principle. but since I am the only one brave enough or foolish enough to be honest, I will say…

      The Republicans are the ones who always cut funding to public radio…

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        I will happy appear any time I am asked.

        http://youtu.be/d0AXsr1uUag

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        As well they should. If we have not enough money to fund hospitals for veterans than we have NO MONEY for NPR. If you value it increase your donation.

      • Carla

        Heard Jack Speer saying public radio doesn’t need more government funding, it needs more corporate sponsorship, which has dropped in the Obama economy. So blame the Dems, actually

        • JS

          Why should the Dems be blamed? Are all the Corporation who dropped funding run by Democrats? Or are you suggesting that anything that happens under the Obama administration is his fault?

          • jefe68

            Careful now, you’re asking this person to think.

          • Carla

            This idea that a good or bad economy just magically happens is common on NPR and with NPR listeners. They don’t understand the fundamentals of economics, or worse, they want to pretend they don’t exist. Obama’s policies have caused our economic crisis to worsen, and the companies are dealing with reality by cutting funding to NPR.

          • Alchemical Reaction

            Are you developmentally disabled? Seriously, your guardian should monitor your internet activity.

        • Alchemical Reaction

          Corporate sponsorship means it is corporate radio, not public radio.
          That is kindergarten-level knowledge.

          • HonestDebate1

            NPR is a corporation.

          • Alchemical Reaction

            Thanks, Captain Obvious! That’s why it’s not called National Public Radio anymore. The name was changed to NPR. It’s not an acronym.

            And KFC is NOT Kentucky Fried Chicken.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            KFC did it for international branding.

            Is NPR going international?

          • HonestDebate1

            According to NPR Executive Ron Schiller it stands for “National Palestinian Radio”. H e had to resign over that one.

            Whatever the name, they are still a corporation. They still depend on corporate sponsorship. There are a couple on this very page. I just think the word “corporation” is not an adjective.

          • Alchemical Reaction

            lol point taken

    • JONBOSTON

      I couldn’t agree with you more. This program would have been more honest and transparent if they had David Axelrod and David Plouffe as guests. Michael Hirsh was a joke and Jack Beatty was his typical Democrat hack “embarassment” (to use his words).

    • Carla

      It’s Off Center with Tom Leftbrook

      • jefe68

        You know you don’t have to listen.
        It’s that simple.

    • Steve__T

      I don’t think any ONE person is that cockeyed.

    • brettearle

      It’s terribly myopic–and, actually, ridiculous–to suggest that “On Point” is always one-sided.

      If any of `youze’ Repubs were to scroll through past “Week in the News” programs–aired on this program–you would see countless numbers of times, where Journalists arise from moderate or GOP points of view.

      To suggest otherwise, is to demonstrate, once again, the laughable, biased perceptions of the Right.

      Reasonable people will see through the stench of Bias–unloaded, here, by the Right.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        “It’s terribly myopic–and, actually, ridiculous–to suggest that “On Point” is always one-sided.”

        brettearle, try reading again.

        Cacimo: “Todays episode”

        Yes, today’s show — not “always”. Hirsh acted like he was a member of the DNC politburo. And as usual ole Jack Beatty is hard left.

  • davecm

    Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, wherefore is the truth on Benghazi???
    If up to the Dems. the truth, if any, will never get known. The Dems. are now starting their demonization tactics, blaming Repubs. for starting another investigation, calling names, even crazy Harry Reid is blaming the new attempt at the truth on the Koch brothers, poor Harry.
    The Dems. claim four previous committees did not find anything so why number five. Well, it took a lawsuit to finally produce “the memo”.
    A old saying should gives us reason, where there is smoke there is fire.
    There is so much smoke coming out of Washington these days there must be some fire somewhere?? Is Bill back at the White House smoking his cigars??
    As far as Nigeria, when the garbage stinks enough, maybe they will rid their country of the evil.
    Hey, for Obamacare effects on people, go to Obamacosts.
    f

    • Potter

      Bengazi Bengazi Bengazi. Why did we go to war in Iraq, kill and maim so many many people, theirs many more than ours, make more terrorists,foment civil war, unprepared for what would come after “shock and awe” spend enormous amounts of money doing it, lose credibility and respect in the world etc etc…what was known and not known? What were the ulterior motives for going to war, the non-urgent, non-essential reasons since any just reason for going to war was apparently absent? HUH? Will Republicans, you know that party that professes to be all about security and foreign affairs, allow such an inquiry? These questions will remain and fester.

      • davecm

        I was never a supporter of the Iraq war. Let those people kill themselves off as long as they do not bother us. But! there is an old saying, the only way for evil to win is for good people to stand back and do nothing. How many people did Saddam murder with a weapon of mass destruction, deadly gas.
        When will we the people, either Dems. or Repubs, hold our govt. responsible for ANY dumb move. Probably never, we are more concerned that our side or views comes out on top, we won over you. The only goal for those in Washington is to keep POWER and keep the masses dumb and scared to death so we will not remove any of them from power!!
        I am ready for a one term 5 yr. limit on all those jokers in Washington.

        • Potter

          everyone can consider him or herself one of the “good people”. That is why we have laws. There is a lot of murder and mayhem going on right now all over the world, including in Syria for a few years now. We can’t be the cops.

    • Steve__T

      Who needs a drummer when the beat just go’s Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama

      Who needs a drummer when the beat just go’s Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi, Benghazi

      James Brown James Brown
      James Brown James Brown

      Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama

  • U.S.S.A. critic

    “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide”. (President Obama)
    That explains why the White House is stonewalling on Benghazi.

  • JONBOSTON

    Since you believe it’s all a sham, can you answer the following questions for me?
    (1) who concocted the video narrative?
    (2) where was Obama during the attack on the consulate and , as commandeer in chief, what was he doing?
    ( 3) As Tyrone Woods flag draped coffin was being removed from the air transport, why did Hillary mention to Woods’ father that the video filmmaker will be held accountable?
    (4) are you troubled that the filmmaker rotted in jail for over a year to further the false narrative?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Nuclear power generation is responsible for 60% of all US power that doesn’t emit CO2.
    Planned nuclear plant closings (without replacements) will increase CO2 emissions.

    Wind and solar doesn’t cut it for base load power. Nuclear is available 24/7. Wind and solar — not even close.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/527116/reactor-retirements-will-hurt-us-emissions-cuts/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20140508

    • nj_v2

      Says the hack who doesn’t think the planet is warming.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Actually, so “says” MIT Technology Review.

        And why do you deny the “pause” shown by multiple global surface temperature records and the lower troposphere satellite temperature records? Climate scientists and the IPCC aren’t deniers. Why are you?

        • nj_v2

          Why does the hack care about a solution to a problem he thinks doesn’t exist? Note how quickly he changes the subject when called out.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “called out”?

            Is that what you were doing?

            Hilarious. I fully acknowledge that there has been warming of about .8C since 1880.

            I also believe safe, cheap nuclear should be part of our energy mix. Primarily for energy security. The fact that it doesn’t emit CO2 is a bonus. That is what we call a win-win. So why all the hate?

          • Steve__T

            Safe, cheep? we are running out of space for spent fuel rods, true cost are low now but you know the life cycle of waist for U-233, has a half-life of 160,000 years. Core rods are replaced every 18 Mo. Do the math.

            Worldwide, there are 436 operational nuclear power reactors in 32 countries and 122 permanently shut-down nuclear power reactors, including several in countries where SNF (spent nuclear fuel) continues to be stored after the reactor fleet has been shut down. No country, including the United States, has yet established an operating permanent disposal site for SNF or other forms of high-level nuclear waste. All nations rely—to varying degrees—on long-term SNF storage. Although the United States has not fully addressed its nuclear waste issues, DOE has, since 1999

            Here’s the other bite “Pay me now or pay me later, but you will pay”

            The federal government faces a significant and growing liability to pay claims resulting from its failure to begin accepting waste from commercial utilities under the 1987 NWPA. The
            U.S. government has paid approximately $1 billion to pay a series of claims by utilities that DOE had, at least partially, breached its contracts to accept SNF. So there go your cost savings.

            Win win not even close.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Did you know the entire volume of nuclear waste produced during the entire history of US commercial power generation can fit within an average sized Best Buy warehouse?

            Further, GEN IV reactors (like LFTR) are being developed that will use the “once-through” uranium “waste” as fuel and further reduce the volume by 90%. Even better, the resulting waste will only need to be stored for a few hundred years vs. the tens of thousands for the “once-through cycle” waste.

            In the mean time, dry cask waste storage is safe and cost effective.

            See how a little technical innovation can turn a perceived “problem” into a real solution if you change your mind-set.

          • Steve__T

            U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage

            James D. Werner

            Section Research Manager

            CRS Report for Congress

            As of December 2011, more than 67,000 metric tons of SNF, in more than 174,000 assemblies, is stored at 77 sites (including 4 Department of Energy (DOE) facilities) in the United States located in 35 states, and increases at a rate of roughly 2,000 metric tons per year.

            Will it get worse you bet cha’ and you can blame it on Obama.

            • The Obama Administration terminated work on the only planned permanent
            geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, which was intended to provide a
            destination for most of the stored SNF. Also, the Yucca Mountain project was not funded by Congress in FY2011 and FY2012, and not included in the administration’s budget request for FY2013.

            • Even if the planned repository had been completed, the quantity of SNF and other high-level waste in storage awaiting final disposal now exceeds the legal limit for the first repository under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).

            • The expected rate of shipment of SNF to the repository would require decades to remove existing SNF from interim storage. Accordingly, the U.S. Nuclear
            Regulatory Commission (NRC) and reactor operators are considering extended SNF storage lasting for more than 100 years.

            Here’s the whole thing
            http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42513.pdf

  • hennorama

    Along with his Missouri teammate E.J Gaines, who was selected one round earlier,

    Michael Sam drafted by St. Louis Rams at No. 249

    See:
    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000349371/article/michael-sam-drafted-by-st-louis-rams-at-no-249

    • HonestDebate1

      I was listening to sports radio most of today. It was amazing. Every update they would mention Sam was still available. Some of the commentary came out (no pun) and actually said it would be a black eye on the NFL if he didn’t get drafted. It’s crazy. Who cares? Can he play?

      • Steve__T

        He was a consensus All-American and the Southeastern Conference Defensive Player of the Year as a senior.

        • HonestDebate1

          Here’s the thing, the media already set the stage to label the NFL as bigoted if Sam wasn’t drafted. They dodged that bullet. Now a seventh round pick will be expected to excel and if he doesn’t his gayness will be the perceived reason. First round picks are often a bust in the NFL. I just think the sports media and the rest should chill. See what the kid does. Everyone seems to be setting him up to fail so they can blame homophobes in the NFL which is a meritocracy if there ever was one.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            ABC’s ThisWeek led with the Sam story. The local Boston ABC news affiliate had it as a “news” story (not sports) last night. Second coming of Jackie Robinson? I think not. #249

            Clearly political correctness run amok.

          • hennorama

            WftC — a hypothetical for you, if I may:

            Let’s say that there was a stigma against people who were born in Massachusetts, and that they had been persecuted and shunned, violently attacked and killed, fired from their jobs, not allowed to marry others who were born in MA, etc. for decades.

            Let’s also say that for decades, professional athletes routinely used the epithets “Massbandit”and “Maggot” during games, and told jokes using those terms.

            Let’s also say that due to the above, athletes who were born in MA hid their background, and lied about it, in order to participate in professional athletics, and to advance their professional careers.

            Let’s also say that no one who was known to have been born in MA, and who had publicly announced their birthplace, had ever been drafted by an NFL team.

            Would the fact of such a person being drafted by an NFL team still only be a sports story?

  • pete18

    For those of you who were buying the Obama and democratic party bunk and ridiculing its critics before the law was passed:

    9 Obamacare Predictions That Have Come True

    1. The individual mandate is an enforcement nightmare.

    As a candidate, President Obama worried that an individual mandate to buy insurance would be unenforceable. He changed his mind once he became president. This year—the first year that the mandate penalties are to be imposed—he has already started backtracking on the enforcement of the provision he signed into law.

    2. The law will create new disincentives to work.

    Between Obamacare’s higher taxes and its subsidies that drop off if you raise your income, there’s not a lot of incentive here to work harder and better your situation.

    3. The law, particularly the employer mandate, will impose new costs on businesses that undercut jobs and wages.

    The employer mandate has been delayed until 2015, but the uncertainty Obamacare has created—and its 18 new tax hikes—have put a huge dent in job creation.

    4. The law undermines competition and further consolidates health insurance markets.

    Heritage Foundation analysis of federal and state exchanges shows that the law has, in general, reduced competition and consolidated health insurance markets. Between 2013 and 2014, the number of insurers offering coverage on the individual markets in all 50 states has declined nationwide by 29 percent.

    5. The law guarantees major premium increases.

    As Heritage predicted, the average annual premiums for single and family coverage in 2014 are rising in the state and federal health insurance exchanges all around the country. In 11 states, premiums for 27-year-olds have more than doubled since 2013; in 13 states, premiums for 50-year-olds have increased more than 50 percent.

    6. The law discourages insurance enrollment among the young.

    The law’s insurance rules and new benefit mandates will make it cheaper for many younger Americans simply to remain uninsured and pay the penalty fine. It’s not surprising that young people have been staying away.

    7. The law’s Medicare savings would not financially strengthen Medicare.

    The law’s proponents originally promised that “savings” from Medicare changes would be spent simultaneously in two places: helping Medicare and expanding Obamacare. But money can be spent only once, so that didn’t work.

    8. The law’s Medicare changes will result in reduced benefits and threaten seniors’ access to care.

    The law’s impact is fairly straightforward: Fewer Medicare providers, reimbursed at rates progressively reduced over time, will create access problems for patients. Medicare cuts have been underway for several years now.

    9. The law compels taxpayers to fund abortion and weakens protections of the right of conscience.

    Obamacare mandates health plans that include coverage of abortion. It also spawned the Health and Human Services regulatory mandate that forces American employers to provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. It is safe to say that four years ago, millions of Americans did not expect that the national health care law would become a vehicle for an aggressive government infringement of personal liberty or coerce Americans to fund medical procedures and drugs in direct violation of their ethical and religious convictions.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2014/05/05/9-obamacare-predictions-come-true/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_term=headline&utm_content=1400510&utm_campaign=saturday

    • nj_v2

      The covservo-clown posse bus has pulled into the OP Garbage-time Station with the latest load of bunk.

      Let’s be clear, i don’t like Obamacare, but for entirely different reasons than the bogus ones proffered by the dull-witted, conservobot drones. Many of their claims are outright bullcrap. Many refuted here:

      http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/

      Obamacare Myths
      Falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act are still swirling — and the intensity of the claims is rising as the exchanges are set to launch.

      …and here:

      http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-myths.php

      ObamaCare Myths: Myths About the Affordable Care Act
      Separating the ObamaCare Facts from the ObamaCare Myths 2013 and Beyond

      And it’s hilarious that the forum hacks keep citing Heritage on Obamacare, given that some of the ideas for parts of the structure for the plan actually came from Heritage.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-fall-of-the-heritage-foundation-and-the-death-of-republican-ideas/279955/

      The Fall of the Heritage Foundation and the Death of Republican Ideas
      How the Heritage Foundation went from the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement to the GOP’s bane—and how it’s hurting the party’s hopes for a turnaround

      “The story of the conservative movement that has come to dominate the Republican Party over the last four decades is inextricably intertwined with the story of the Heritage Foundation. In that time, it became more than just another think tank. It came to occupy a place of special privilege—a quasi-official arm of GOP administrations and Congresses; a sponsor of scholarship and supplier of legislation; a policy base for the party when out of power. Heritage has shaped American public policy in major ways, from Reagan’s missile-defense initiative to Clinton’s welfare reform: Both originated as Heritage proposals. So, too, did the idea of a universal health-care system based on a mandate that individuals buy insurance. Though Heritage subsequently abandoned it, the individual mandate famously became the basis of health-care reforms proposed by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.
      Now a Kock-funded think-tank to protect private, monied, corporate interests, they pump disinfo on a prodigious scale.

    • hennorama

      pete18 — Dr. Robert E. Moffitt wrote the opinion piece you quoted. He is one of the architects of Romneycare, which Heritage supported, yet Heritage makes no mention of this in their bio of Dr. Moffitt.

      Why do you suppose that is?

      The following is from politico.com’s bio:

      He joined the Heritage Foundation in 1991. Dr. Moffit has worked closely with federal and state lawmakers in designing and drafting health care reform legislation including, most recently, certain features of the heath insurance market reforms enacted in 2006 in Massachusetts.

      Source:
      http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/robert_moffit.html

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Thank you for providing Dr. Moffit’s expert credentials.

        • hennorama

          WftC — TYFYR.

          Why do you suppose Heritage makes no mention of Dr. Moffit’s involvement with Romneycare, or any state heatlh care reforms, for that matter?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I have no idea. Perhaps he is having some major regrets now that he sees it in action.

          • hennorama

            WftC — TYFYR.

            I infer from it that you believe that Dr. Moffit controls the contents of his bio on Heritage.org.

            Please correct any misinference.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            You are the one obsessing over bios. If you are that curious — why don’t YOU ask them.

          • hennorama

            WftC — TYFYR.

            Your lack of responsiveness is interesting, as is your testiness.

          • pete18

            Much less interesting than your lack of response to the content in Moffit’s article.

          • hennorama

            pete18 — TYFYR.

            Glad to see the person to whom the question was posed actually respond, despite not responding to the actual question.

            Dr. Moffit’s opinions are interesting, but nothing more.

            I found the gap in his bio more interesting, so I pointed it out and asked about it.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • HonestDebate1

            It is far more than interesting opinions. It is a reasoned argument, backed up with evidence, of why the law is a disaster.

          • pete18

            “Glad to see the person to whom the question was posed actually respond, despite not responding to the actual question.”

            It’s Mother’s Day Henn, I’ve been out of the house enjoying the good weather with my family.

            i’m not sure why the bio interests you that much, it’s on the fringe of the peripheral. Knowing where someone is coming from is always important in terms of motivation but what Moffit says is either true or it’s not. If its true, it has profound impact and relevance to the effectiveness and impact of this monstrous law
            and people’s health care moving forward, as well as the integrity of past and future lawmaking.

            If bios concern you more than evaluating the truth or impact of his content…….

          • hennorama

            pete18 — TYFYR.

            Glad you’re enjoying the weather and your family.

            The quoted statement was directed at both you and the others who commented.

            As to Dr. Moffit’s opinions, it’s far too early to evaluate the PPACA, as the first open enrollment period has just recently closed.

            Looking at Dr. Moffit’s opinions, one notices a linguist trend:

            1. “nightmare”
            2. “disincentives”
            3. “undercut”
            4. “undermines”
            5. “guarantees … increases”
            6. “discourages”
            7. “would not”
            8. “reduced … threatened”
            9. “compels … abortion … weakens … conscience”

            Other than that, he was completely neutral and unbiased, and used the completely neutral and unbiased “Heritage Foundation analysis.

            Now you’ve add the completely neutral “monstrous.”

            Thanks again for your response.

          • pete18

            There are very few people or sources that are “neutral” on this. What did he have wrong?

          • hennorama

            pete18 — TYFYR.

            Let’s start with the title, about so-called “Predictions That Have Come True.”

            Given that virtually all nine points are predictive, exactly how “Have [they already] Come True”?

            Again, a linguist trend:

            1. “penalties are to be imposed” means they have not yet been imposed.

            2. “will create disincentives” and yet then indicating “there’s not a lot of incentive here,” which does not speak about so-called “disincentives.”

            3. “will impose,” followed by “delayed until 2015.” In other words, not yet imposed, or proven.

            4. speaks only about a small group: “the number of insurers offering coverage on the individual markets in all 50 states,” without discussing the new companies and organizations that have gotten involved in local and/or regional markets.

            5. “guarantees major premium increases” but Dr. Moffit cites only “11 states” and “13 states.”

            6. ” will make it cheaper”

            7. no comment, as I am not familiar with the claims made

            8. “reduced over time, will create access problems”

            9. “abortion-inducing drugs” is opinion.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • HonestDebate1

            Dude, you’re just clinging to some pre-conceived irrelevant notion to hijack the thread away from Pete’s point. Why don’t you address the charge? Can you argue the individual mandate is not a bureaucratic nightmare? Or that it doesn’t create disincentives to work?

      • OnPointComments

        Since you seem to be ascribing some nefarious motive to the content of Dr. Moffit’s bio, why don’t you share your suspicions with us?

        • hennorama

          OPC — TYFYR.

          I have no suspicions. I only have a question about what seems a major gap in Heritage’s bio of Dr. Moffit.

          Here are all of the date-specific or implied mentions in Dr. Moffit’s profile, on heritage.org :

          President Reagan’s appointee

          1991

          .
          1993 (newspapers around the country praised Heritage’s proposal for a consumer-driven approach. It would provide individual tax credits to help Americans keep existing health coverage or buy insurance and take it with them from job to job.)
          .

          .

          .

          .

          .

          .

          .
          2001
          .

          2003
          .

          .

          (April 12, 2006, the date that Romneycare was signed into law, is absent, as is the fact that then- Gov.

          Romney thanked the Bush administration for approving federal authorizations to fund the law and praised the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) for his “essential” work in shaping and advancing the bill through the state legislature. “Special thanks as well to the Heritage Foundation,”Romney continued. “Two of its leading scholars are the ones who helped design and craft what we now call the Connector, which is the centerpiece of the insurance reform portion.” Once Heritage’s Dr. Robert Emmet Moffit took the stage, he praised the law for establishing a new “patient centered” and “consumer-based” market where everyone can find affordable coverage:

          .

          .

          2009

          2010

          2011

          2012

          http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/m/robert-moffit

          http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/12/463097/romneycare-6/

          • HonestDebate1

            And still, nary a rebuttal.

    • anamaria23

      The ACA does not fund abortions beyond the Hyde Amendment which was in place long before the ACA.
      No federal funds can be used for abortion.
      Most of the rest has yet to play out.
      Not to worry. If, as projected, the Repubs take control of Congress, the President will be impeached and unable to veto repeal. And if the Repubs take control in 2016, the ACA will be repealed.
      Try to be more patient.

      • HonestDebate1

        The Hyde Amendment was not attached to Obamacare.

        • 1Brett1

          Obamacare does nothing to loosen the restrictions outlined by the Hyde Amendment. It does, however, better define the accounting of funds by any agency performing abortions to better ensure federal funds are not used for abortion, except in cases of rape and incest. It makes record keeping more stringent. This would be a more accurate, less deceptive statement.

          Planting more “rope-a-dope” seeds?

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s not the way amendments work. The Hyde Amendment has been attached, as a rider, to every HHS appropriations bill since 1976. Not Obamacare.

          • 1Brett1

            Yes, I know the Hyde Amendment is a rider. So, what’s your point? You are trying to make some point. Please enlighten us…on second thought, don’t. Your games are patently deceptive and distorted. You can’t distinguish facts from what you believe.

            The only reason the ACA specifically stipulated there be separate accounting practices for any agency performing abortions was to appease Stupak. That part added to the then bill was completely unnecessary.

            There’s no confusion about how amendments work; that’s just more of your trying to make mountains out of molehills/grandstanding over a non-issue.

            All of these predictions that supposedly have come true (pete18′s post) are not facts. Neither of you can prove a causation between the ACA and any of these things, much of which are out-and-out distortions. The only parts that are factual are things that were happening before the ACA was even debated. The rest are just a combination of scare tactics, distortions, straw men and completely made up stuff. More opinions that you guys feel are facts. His whole post is propaganda.

            You are entitled to your own opinions, but if you want to make them facts you will have to prove causal relationships, which you can’t. It’s much too early to draw any conclusions about the impact of the ACA; it’s just starting.

          • HonestDebate1

            Ananmaria cited the Hyde Amendment as the reason Obamacare cannot fund abortions. The Hyde Amendment does not apply. It doesn’t. That’s not an opinion. It is a disagreement on the facts with Anamaria, so I replied. I have no idea what kind up conspiratorial, sneaky tactic you are so sure I’m up to.

            I also have no idea what you are talking about with separate accounting and such. I’m not going to look it up. Regarding Stupek, he (and his crew) were given nothing but a signing statement. It was meaningless then and is meaningless now.

          • 1Brett1

            “Anamaria cited the Hyde Amendment as the reason Obamacare cannot fund abortions.”

            Not really. She stated that the ACA does not go beyond the Hyde Amendment. Which, the least you could have done was to ask her to clarify. All she was saying, it seems to me, is what I am saying: the ACA reiterates the Hyde Amendment in that no federal funds can be used for abortion except in cases of rape or incest.

            Stupak (not “Stupek”) was appeased, so in that sense nothing was changed and no extra meaning was added to the bill regarding abortion and federal funding. The law neither adds nor takes away from the Hyde Amendment, just adds procedurally to better ensure no federal funds are used for abortion.

            As far as the “separate accounting,” agencies providing services for women’s health issues have to keep two sets of books to ensure no federal money is used for abortions. This is new and the result of the stipulations in the ACA. Of course, you are aware of that; you’re just being obtuse again. It was readily discussed during the time Stupak was grandstanding.

          • anamaria23

            Thanks. I meant that the ACA does not provide funding for abortion except what is stated in the Hyde Amendment. The states have some say such as there must one plan that does not cover abortion at all (I need to research that more.) And there is provision for separating funds. Thanks again–I had trouble understanding HD’s point also,

          • 1Brett1

            HIs point is to attempt making your point (and mine) seem like we are typical liberals who don’t know what they are talking about — oh, and to throw in a few opinions disguised as facts. His comments are rarely anything else.

          • HonestDebate1

            Was that necessary? Please don’t tell me what I think. Anamaria can make up her own mind. You’re not in her league.

          • 1Brett1

            Yes, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You were putting words in both my mouth and Anamaria’s mouth, and I called you out. You are going around in circles and responding as if what I am saying (and what Anamaria was saying) is wrong and it is not.

            What is different about what is in the Hyde Amendment and what is in the ACA: NOTHING. You are saying…actually, you are saying nothing but being argumentative for the sake of it. You are wrong about it not prohibiting federal funding. You are just trolling.

          • HonestDebate1

            You are entitled to your misguided opinion. It is possible to exploit loopholes in Obamacare to publicly fund abortions. The only relevance of the Hyde amendment, which I did not bring up, is that it’s inclusion would have closed said loopholes. You don’t have to agree… or even comprehend the issue.

            It’s not about me.

          • 1Brett1

            It is irrelevant that you did not initiate talking about the Hyde Amendment, yet there you go making some excuse for inserting yourself into a person (Annamaria) replying to another person (pete18).

            How would the Hyde Amendment close these so-called loopholes you claim? The Hyde Amendment hasn’t been removed.

            The “it’s not about me” phrase is totally tired and meaningless. Your opinions are from you and formed based on your beliefs.

          • anamaria23

            Every statement that I have referenced re: ACA and abortion states clearly that no federal funds can be used for abortion except in cases of rape or incest. as always.

          • HonestDebate1

            It does not prohibit the funding of abortion. The Hyde Amendment would have but was not attached. That is different from providing funding. To be sure, it’s a tangled web.

            As I recall (I could be wrong) Stupak was okay with the House version that had his amendment but could not accept the Senate version that did not. Obama stepped in and gave him an EO saying he could ensure the separation. It meant nothing, it was a show. Beyond that the two versions were ratified with reconciliation instead of hammering out a compromise.

            If they had attached the Hyde Amendment it would have been much more meaningful.

    • brettearle

      Pete,

      If I am not mistaken, the Heritage Foundation was one of the earlier arbiters of alternative policy for Health Care reform.

      In your view, how does the Foundation’s mission statement on this matter,

      “America’s health care financing and insurance systems need major reform.
      Policymakers should take decisive steps to move today’s bureaucracy
      driven, heavily regulated third-party payment system to a new
      patient-centered system of consumer choice and real free-market
      competition. In such a system, individuals and families would make the
      key decisions and control the flow of dollars”,

      deviate from ACA policy?

      And, if you see major differences, why do you think the Heritage approach will work?

      I don’t expect you to come up with an answer, off the top of your head, necessarily. But I think it’s a fair question.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Market forces vs. central planning? Which do you trust?

        See Indiana’s innovative state program for actual results. Also, see Whole Foods. And this is all without systemic changes to improve transparency in both costs and outcomes. Transparency in costs and outcomes are prerequisites to efficiently unleash market forces do drive down costs (see Lasik, etc.).

      • OnPointComments

        OBAMA’S HEALTH REFORM ISN’T MODELED AFTER HERITAGE FOUNDATION IDEAS
        By Robert Moffit
        Monday, April 19, 2010

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802727.html

        Excerpt:

        “Think tank analysts usually brim with pride when the president of the United States goes around claiming that his policies are based on their work. But when President Obama tries to sell his health-care law as a moderate approach that borrows ideas developed by the Heritage Foundation, we get incensed.

        “…we at the Heritage Foundation respectfully ask President Obama and his acolytes to stop misrepresenting our research. We think this massive health law is abominable and should be repealed.

        “In the spring 2008 edition of the Harvard Health Policy Review, I advanced far better alternatives to the individual mandate to expand coverage, relying on positive tax incentives and other mechanisms to facilitate enrollment in private health insurance. This is what researchers and fact-based policymakers do when they discover new facts or conduct deeper analysis.

        “The president and his supporters invoke the Heritage Foundation to convince the American people that his health bill is somehow a middle-of-the-road approach. It isn’t. So please, Mr. President, stop it. “

  • incognito

    Repeal Obamacare, the sooner the better.

    • brettearle

      That is one of the most profound statements, yet to come across On Point’s desk.

      Look at how chock full the statement is of facts.

      That’s telling us!

      • HonestDebate1

        “The sooner the better” is as solid a fact as there is in the universe.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    “He’s a 42-year-old freshman senator, but when asked by Jonathan Karl on “This Week” if he’s ready to be president, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida answered without hesitation.”

    Jonathan Karl asked Senator Rubio a form of this question about 3 times: are you ready? do you have the experience? Of course, Rubio has double the Senate experience as Obama AND he was Speaker of the FL House — a leadership position. Did Jon Karl EVER ask Obama this question ONCE in 2007 or 2008?

    I have no problem with the question — however the juxtaposition with how the press treated Obama highlights the media bias.

    • TFRX

      That’s the right’s biggest beef with ABC, and/or Jonathan Karl?

      The same guy who swore up and down that by claiming he had Benghazi emails that implicated the Obama
      administration, when it turned out that he had actually relied upon
      notes taken by a Republican who misinformed him?

      I stopped listening to that hack after his parents ABC had to apologize for his Benghzai fixation. But that fixation of his still goes on.

  • TFRX

    Techtawk: Someone here (I forget who, sorry) asked me about Chrome and NoTracking / NoScript / privacy stuff re software / browser addons.

    Thanks for asking my advice, but I have no answer for your question.

    I use Firefox (and sometimes Opera). Sometimes I’m on a Linux flavor, and Chrome isn’t easy to get there, so I skip it.

    (And in one of my lives I have a Gmail address, and don’t know if I trust a Google browswer to not talk with it behind my proverbial back.)

    • tbphkm33

      Use several browsers – restrict the most sensitive browsing to one browser. On all the browsers, purge/delete the browsing data (cookies, etc.) on at least a weekly basis. Worse thing you can do is use one browser for everything, never purge the data websites save in your browser and then use simple passwords.

    • Steve__T

      I answered that question for you. It’s not an add on. its a selection in the privacy section.under settings.

      • TFRX

        Thanks. I’ll remember that when someone wants me to make their Chrome less snoopy!

  • Steve__T

    What if it is his job? Policing and protecting the environment of the internet making sure that its safe and everybody follow the rules. 18 and over!

    As much of this that you have posted, gives me the idea your jealous, somebody’s getting paid well to watch pornography.

  • HonestDebate1

    Obama care was:

    Not a tax
    Not to have a mandate like Hillary’s plan
    To lower premiums by $2500 per family
    To allow you to keep your plan
    To allow you to keep your doctor
    To be deficit neutral
    To lower healthcare costs

    Obamacare has certainly affected our workforce regarding part-time jobs. It has certainly been a major headache for business. It has certainly created debt which affects everything. I’m no longer interested in entertaining the notion Obamacare is not killing jobs, of course it is.

    We told you so. We told you all of this. It’s not rocket science. And we’re telling you again that when the other shoes drop the disaster will continue to grow more dire. I have seen a trend of defenders laughably making the argument that it’s prudent to just wait until the FOURTY-FOUR(!) delayed provisions stomp us like an ant into oblivion. The logic seems to be, “it’s not so bad…yet”.

    No, it is bad, its going to get worse and it cannot work.

    • 1Brett1

      You conservatives have made so much out of the “allow you to keep your doctor” thing. Before the ACA, insurance companies gave the customer a list of doctors in their area who accepted their insurance. You had to pick your primary care physician from that list, and also all referrals to specialists had to accept your insurance, as well, i.e., be also on that list. At any time doctors could decide to stop accepting your insurance, so, if that happened (and it happened a lot) you had to pick another doctor who did. The ACA didn’t change this; it is up to the doctors which insurance plans they are and are not going to accept. So, if someone loses his doctor, it is not the result of the ACA.

      Also, there had to be a minimum standard of coverage within the way this law works. Obviously those who had substandard plans had to find another one that complies. If all have to be insured, there has to be a standard.

      Mountains out of molehills.

      • HonestDebate1

        Obamacare was sold as something it’s not. That is the sum total of what my comment is trying to convey.

        You seem to be accepting that fact by trying to argue that it doesn’t matter if the promise was broken because you never could keep your doctor anyway. There is a disconnect even if we accept your premise. The President promised you could keep your plan and your doctor. Period. No matter what. But the premise is whacked before it gets that far because I used to be able to chose my insurance company and the coverage I wanted.

        The minimum standard talking point is just a pathetic display of brazen gall. For the administration to try and sell that crap sandwich they have to assume idiocy. The desperate attempt to convince the vast majority of people who liked and were satisfied with their plans that they were not up to snuff is embarrassing. It wasn’t for their own good that government came in and forced people to be covered for things they didn’t need or want.

        • 1Brett1

          Brazen gall? Whatever…

          Many people who had those plans where they paid $75 dollars a month, etc., for health insurance were ignorant of just how inadequate those plans were, that is until they went to the doctor/got sick and learned their plans didn’t cover anything.

          Those who were “satisfied” were satisfied with the cost. They only became dissatisfied when they sought treatment. You are spinning the idea of a standardization for minimum coverage as some sort of government overreach/dictatorial maneuver or something…

          • HonestDebate1

            Liberal dogma dictates bliss is ignorance.

            You can’t always get what you need but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you want.

          • 1Brett1

            ? That makes no sense. Again, you must have the last word really desperately to post such drivel.

            Hey, you may now have the last word, as I have to get going on a job. Enjoy.

          • Alchemical Reaction

            I’m not a Republican and Obamacare sucks!

      • jefe68

        He forgot to mention that Obama wants to turn the US into a socialist state.

        • 1Brett1

          I agree with you that there are a lot of problems with our current healthcare system (gross understatement) and that the ACA doesn’t really serve to ameliorate those problems.

          …You know there could be a genuinely productive conversation where liberals and conservatives on this forum could find common ground about problems with the ACA, but we both know that this is not what the conservatives on this forum are after, and much of what they say about the ACA is just distorted propaganda.

    • ExcellentNews

      I thought Obamacare was going to have Death Panels who would take your guns away and send them to Mecca to the terrorists. That’s at least what Fox News and the WSJ said…

  • 228929292AABBB

    It’s not really a mark of shame to be Obama-biased on NPR, but Michael Hirsh takes it to an indefensible extreme.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 28, 2014
This June 4, 2014 photo shows a Walgreens retail store in Boston. Walgreen Co. _ which bills itself as “America’s premier pharmacy” _ is among many companies considering combining operations with foreign businesses to trim their tax bills. (AP)

President Obama is pushing hard to close a loophole that allows companies to move their operations overseas and pay lower taxes. We’ll look at what’s at stake.

Jul 28, 2014
U.S. Secretary of War Newton D. Baker watches as wounded American soldiers arrive at an American hospital near the front during World War I. (AP Photo)

Marking the one hundredth anniversary of the start of World War One. We’ll look at lessons learned and lessons for now.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 25, 2014
Guest Renee McLeod of Somerville, MA's Petsi pies shows off her wares. (Robin Lubbock / WBUR)

There is nothing more American than a piece of pie. We taste and talk pies.

 
Jul 25, 2014
Pallbearers carry a coffin out of a military transport plane during a ceremony to mark the return of the first bodies, of passengers and crew killed in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, from Ukraine at Eindhoven military air base, Eindhoven, Netherlands, Wednesday, July 23, 2014. (AP)

Secretary of State Kerry to Israel. Obamacare back in the courts. Mourning as remains of Malaysia Flight 17 victims come home. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: July 25, 2014
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

Why the key to web victory is often taking a break and looking around, and more pie for your viewing (not eating) pleasure.

More »
Comment
 
The Art Of The American Pie: Recipes
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

In the odd chance that our pie hour this week made you hungry — how could it not, right? — we asked our piemaking guests for some of their favorite pie recipes. Enjoy!

More »
Comment
 
Hillary Clinton: ‘The [Russian] Reset Worked’
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took time out of her global book tour to talk to us about Russia, the press and the global crises shaking the administration she left two years ago.

More »
1 Comment