The House committee report said Berger was never given a polygraph test despite having agreed to it as part of his plea bargain with the Justice Department in 2005.
This seems like a weird case where a House committee did a better job of investigating than the Justice Department. Of course, I suspect that the Justice Department still has a lot of Clinton apparatchiks in it, despite six years of a Republican White House. That doesn’t explain the Attorney General’s behavior, though.
By “environmentalists.” Looks like an interesting documentary.
I scored a 31, but it’s really meaningless, because for many of the questions, in my mind, the answer was “neither of the above,” but that wasn’t an option. Of course, one knew right out of the box that it was a stupid test, because it assumes that people can be put on a one-dimensional scale of “liberal/conservative.” I’d like to know how Glenn answered differently from me to get a lower score.
I agree with him, in that I don’t consider myself anything on that scale, and certainly not a “moderate.” There’s a cretin over at sci.space.policy who, whenever I inform him that I’m neither a Republican or Democrat, or Conservative or “Liberal,” invariably says, “then you’re a moderate?”
No. As Glenn says, I’m an extremist, but an eclectic one.
[Saturday morning update]
Volokh has more. Note the commenter who has analyzed the Javascript, and found liberal bias:
You start out as fully liberal, and whenever you give the conservative response, it gives you a certain number of points. Therefore, not answering a question is equivalent to giving the liberal answer. All responses give you one point except the first, which gives you two. If a liberal would check a checkbox, its value is ignored, so even if you don’t check it, it doesn’t affect your score.
So, if I’d done what I wanted to do in many cases, and left the question blank, because it was so mindless, I’d have probably scored as a “liberal.” Note all the idiot stereotypes and false choices implied by the questions. As many noted, if I were teaching a political science (now there’s an oxymoron) class, I’d flunk whoever came up with this thing.
I scored a 31, but it’s really meaningless, because for many of the questions, in my mind, the answer was “neither of the above,” but that wasn’t an option. Of course, one knew right out of the box that it was a stupid test, because it assumes that people can be put on a one-dimensional scale of “liberal/conservative.” I’d like to know how Glenn answered differently from me to get a lower score.
I agree with him, in that I don’t consider myself anything on that scale, and certainly not a “moderate.” There’s a cretin over at sci.space.policy who, whenever I inform him that I’m neither a Republican or Democrat, or Conservative or “Liberal,” invariably says, “then you’re a moderate?”
No. As Glenn says, I’m an extremist, but an eclectic one.
[Saturday morning update]
Volokh has more. Note the commenter who has analyzed the Javascript, and found liberal bias:
You start out as fully liberal, and whenever you give the conservative response, it gives you a certain number of points. Therefore, not answering a question is equivalent to giving the liberal answer. All responses give you one point except the first, which gives you two. If a liberal would check a checkbox, its value is ignored, so even if you don’t check it, it doesn’t affect your score.
So, if I’d done what I wanted to do in many cases, and left the question blank, because it was so mindless, I’d have probably scored as a “liberal.” Note all the idiot stereotypes and false choices implied by the questions. As many noted, if I were teaching a political science (now there’s an oxymoron) class, I’d flunk whoever came up with this thing.
I scored a 31, but it’s really meaningless, because for many of the questions, in my mind, the answer was “neither of the above,” but that wasn’t an option. Of course, one knew right out of the box that it was a stupid test, because it assumes that people can be put on a one-dimensional scale of “liberal/conservative.” I’d like to know how Glenn answered differently from me to get a lower score.
I agree with him, in that I don’t consider myself anything on that scale, and certainly not a “moderate.” There’s a cretin over at sci.space.policy who, whenever I inform him that I’m neither a Republican or Democrat, or Conservative or “Liberal,” invariably says, “then you’re a moderate?”
No. As Glenn says, I’m an extremist, but an eclectic one.
[Saturday morning update]
Volokh has more. Note the commenter who has analyzed the Javascript, and found liberal bias:
You start out as fully liberal, and whenever you give the conservative response, it gives you a certain number of points. Therefore, not answering a question is equivalent to giving the liberal answer. All responses give you one point except the first, which gives you two. If a liberal would check a checkbox, its value is ignored, so even if you don’t check it, it doesn’t affect your score.
So, if I’d done what I wanted to do in many cases, and left the question blank, because it was so mindless, I’d have probably scored as a “liberal.” Note all the idiot stereotypes and false choices implied by the questions. As many noted, if I were teaching a political science (now there’s an oxymoron) class, I’d flunk whoever came up with this thing.
One more sign that that age of the British Empire is long past:
A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: “What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us.”
Defence sources said it would be unlikely that the Navy could now launch an armada of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands in 1982.
Steve Bush, editor of the monthly magazine Warship World, said the MoD was bankrupt following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“After 10 years of Labour government, the Royal Navy is on its knees without immediate and proper funding. I cannot see how it can recover
If this defection to the Conservatives happens tomorrow, you know that the Liberals in Canada are going to sound like this.
1) While McVeigh affirmed that the OKBOMB conspiracy began in September 1994, it remains a question if there was a meeting with Elohim radicals, including Strassmeir, on or after that date. What has been verified is that on that day McVeigh checked into a motel that day near Elohim City.
2) Did McVeigh receive funds from the Midwest Bank Robbers?
3) Did Kevin McCarthy ever see Strassmeir with McVeigh or did he know of a friendship between them? For a time, McCarthy was Strassmeir
Peter Wood, on the ongoing political theatrics of the left:
My account of how New Anger came bubbling up in Chait
President Bush claims that he’s concerned about spending.
Yeah, right.
The freepers aren’t impressed, either:
Gawd, that’s almost like Jeffrey Dahlmer pushing for a vegetarian diet.
…Bush control spending? Start with that prescription drug extravaganza?
…The biggest government spender since LBJ ask for spending limits? LOL
I’d like to think he’s serious, but if so, it’s too bad that it took a Democrat congress for him to get religion.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out if he is. If he vetoes appropriations bills, as Bill Clinton did in 1994 (when he didn’t get enough spending from a Republican congress), who will get the blame in the media for “shutting down the government”? I think we know. As it was then, it will be the political party that starts with an “R.”