April 19, 2008

Whatever happened to Rep. Waxman's April 17 AEY hearing?

Back in March, energetic Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform committee, announced he would be holding hearings on Efraim Diveroli's Albanian Afghan Ammo scandal at 10am on April 17, which was last Thursday.

Yet, I can't find any mention on Google News of anything happening this past week. Does anybody what happened? (If anything happened, which is a big if.)

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

15 comments:

rightsaidfred said...

The boyfriend question was a little short on details, but it looks like he is changing his name so he can refinance the house at a lower price.

Let's say he now has a $400,000 interest only loan. The current market price for the house is $300,000. He approached the lender about refinancing at the lower price, but the lender said no. So what he does is quit paying on the current loan. The lender is now looking at foreclosure, which is pretty expensive (typically would lose %40 of the original value) so they sell to "Mr. Straw" and only lose %25 of the original value.

Anonymous said...

maybe diveroli chose not to attend. 5th ammendment. that didn't sound mandatory.

W Baker said...

So Uncle Hammo calls Cousin Shlomo who then calls Cousin Adi in the Diamond District who's really great friends with this bruiser Ari who used to date this chick Alona who works for Waxman....

Anonymous said...

Waxman's belief in "global warming" is sufficient evidence of his stupidity, no?

Anonymous said...

Waxman's avowed belief in and hysteria over "global warming" is sufficient evidence that The Bald, Ugly Mustache Man ain't got no working brain.

Anonymous said...

Most of the comments in Steve's blog are pretty intelligent so I'm always surprised by the number of global warming sceptics I read here. (I mean it just seems logical that if you pump a bunch of crap into the atmosphere for 150 years its got to have some effect?). But I want to be educated. Can someone post links to serious discussions as to why its a hoax?

Anonymous said...

Waxman hasn't held public hearings on the FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmonds either even though he said he would after hearing her private testimony. But I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that she fingers neocons on both sides of the congressional aisle.

Anonymous said...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/hearing_on_twentysomething_con.php

Anonymous said...

"Most of the comments in Steve's blog are pretty intelligent so I'm always surprised by the number of global warming sceptics I read here. (I mean it just seems logical that if you pump a bunch of crap into the atmosphere for 150 years its got to have some effect?). But I want to be educated. Can someone post links to serious discussions as to why its a hoax?"

Most of the comments here ARE posted by those more intelligent than found working at McDonalds, HENCE the number of comments belittling those taken in by the AGW hoax.

This is a great book. Enjoy:

http://tinyurl.com/4ka9e7

(Steve---review the book!)

BTW--CO2 is about as far from "crap" or "air pollution" as you are likely to find.

assetmgmt said...

>>(I mean it just seems logical that if you pump a bunch of crap into the atmosphere for 150 years its got to have some effect?). But I want to be educated.

i don't need to know whether CO2 is harmful. it's just common sense. the planet is huge. three-quarters of it is ocean. humans live only on a fraction of the land mass. there's even one continent that's uninhabited, Antarctica. there aren't enough humans on the planet for anything we do to amount to anything more than pissing in a lake.

One of the stats that global warmists want you to get excited about is the change in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. According to the alarmists, CO2 was 379 parts per million in 2005, vs. a pre-industrial level of 278 ppm (from commondreams.org).
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0203-03.htm

Wow, sounds big, huh? Up 36%! In reality, these numbers are exceedingly small -- remember, parts per *million*. So the concentration went from 0.0003% to 0.0004%. I'm not going to get excited about that. I mean, is that even outside the margin of error of their instruments?

Anonymous said...

Steve said once that global warming is an extremely complex subject, and he doesn't comment on it because he probably couldn't add meaningfully to the sum of knowledge. I am a reasonably intelligent person, with SAT scores about 160 points higher than the president of the United States. I can understand the basic model--all things being equal, an addition of x amount of CO2 to the atmosphere would lead to Y increase in global temperature. But the statistics, and the feedback equations are over my head. Anyone who is not a genius with many, many hours to devote to this can only retain a modest amount of skepticism of the claims on both sides.
So where is Diveroli? That's what I wanted to find out.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so climate change is a hoax. So what is the motivation/end game of those perpetrating the hoax?

noam said...

The glaciers are melting. The permafrost in Siberia and Canada is melting. It looks like global warming is happening. It is only a question of timing.

Is it due to human activity or simply part of a larger natural cycle? No matter, we won't do anything to really stop it. Whiterpeople can recycle their bottles of mountain spring water (melted glaciers) to pet their own egos. But it won't accomplish diddly squat.

Nature doesn't care one whit for human political ideologies of "Left" and "Right." Human ideas are all stupid except insofar as they internalize and master the natural world.

Anonymous said...

"Ok, so climate change is a hoax. So what is the motivation/end game of those perpetrating the hoax?"

Isn't that obvious? Look at the political leanings of 99% of them, and then look AT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO TO "STOP" IT.

What LAWS they wish to pass, that is.

(That what they want to do _won't_ have a significant effect on AGW is of course quite beside the point for most of them)

Anonymous said...

"Anyone who is not a genius with many, many hours to devote to this can only retain a modest amount of skepticism of the claims on both sides."

Not true. You don't need to understand all of nuances of the science involved to be able to discern those who are telling the truth from those who are lying.