Palmer's done and so is Hastert

* the good folks at Reason are trying to find an answer to one of today's great mysteries - how should libertarians think about global warming climate change. my best guess is that they are trying to kick the can down the road. by saying 'ummmm - but we don't even know what the science is saying!' Here's a question for my libertarian friends: "what would you do if you ever agreed that the science was unambiguous?"
bonus question: given the potential cost of global warming climate change, what confidence level is the trigger point?

* nyt:

"Orhan Pamuk, the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Literature, is much better known in this country than many recent winners, because most of his books have actually been published and widely reviewed here. It also does not hurt that he recently got himself in political hot water in his native Turkey and then became a cause célèbre.

In a 2005 interview with a Swiss magazine, Mr. Pamuk talked about the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottomans in 1915, something Turkey still does not acknowledge, and soon found himself accused of “insulting Turkish identity.” The charges were eventually dropped, but only after the case attracted so much international protest and publicity that it proved embarrassing to the Turkish government."

the armenian genocide sure is in the news a lot these days.

* yorkshire-ranter says there will be no war with iran this year and that the Eisenhower's movement is routine. Lindorff has argued that the key is whether Enterprise actually sets sail for home.

* TomTom:

"As TBogg once said…… no one is going to get a blogging Pulitzer for being the fastest to post what they just saw and heard on the TV."

* josh:

"The weak link may be Palmer's oddly broad and ambiguous denial of Fordham's account. Last week he said simply: "What Kirk Fordham said did not happen."

If you want to get squirrelly about, that might simply mean that it didn't happen in precisely the way Fordham said it. Maybe Fordham says they spoke in person when Fordham remembers them speaking on the phone. In other words, it may really be a classic non-denial denial.

In the real world, though, if he's lying, he's done and so is Hastert. It's just a matter of who gets to them first, the investigators or the voters."

* ron:

"Trick Question?
Condoleezza Rice asks, "Does anybody really believe that somebody would have walked into my office and said, oh, by the way, there's a chance of a major attack against the United States and I would have said, well, I'm really not interested in that information?""