Tuesday night on ABC's farcical drama, Boston Legal, the firm represented a client suing the National Guard for failing to protect his pizza shop from a flood because the soldiers were deployed in Iraq, providing a chance for lawyer “Alan Shore,” played by James Spader, to launch into a courtroom rant about “what the $450 billion dollars we spent on Iraq could buy us.” He offered a litany of left-wing talking points, from “free health care” to ending hunger to -- seriously -- converting every car to run on ethanol:
How about free health insurance for every uninsured family, $124 billion. Convert every single car to run on ethanol, $68 billion. Primary education for every child on the planet -- all of them -- $30 billion. Hey, end hunger in America, $7 billion....We have to talk about the cost of this war in terms of human lives.
For this, Hollywood needs writers?
This is hardly the first time David Kelley, Executive Producer of the show, has used it to promote liberal causes and ridicule conservatives. An episode last season was packed full of political jabs at congressional Republicans and Vice President Cheney and in a show the season before that Shore railed against the bias on the Fox News Channel (“You need to change the channel. The awful things you speak of never happen on the 'fair and balanced' newscasts”) and the war on terrorism: “When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out not to be true, I expected the American people to rise up....And, now it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens -- you and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, FINALLY, the American people will have had enough. Evidently, we haven't.” Shore soon compared the current climate to that of the McCarthy era.
Last season ended on a bit of an embarrassing note: Nearly eight weeks before six medical doctors were arrested for their involvement in the late June terrorist attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow, ABC aired an episode which derided the idea a doctor could be a terrorist.
The September 25 MRC CyberAlert item, “ABC's Boston Legal Ridiculed Idea Doctor Could Be a Terrorist,” recounted:
Nearly eight weeks before six medical doctors were arrested for their involvement in the late June terrorist attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow, ABC's Boston Legal drama -- which has its 90-minute season premiere tonight (Tuesday) -- aired an episode which ridiculed the idea a doctor could be a terrorist. In the May 8 episode, titled "Guantanamo by the Bay," attorney "Alan Shore," played by James Spader, takes up the case of British citizen "Benyam Kallah" suing the government, oddly in state court, over Kallah's torture at the Guantanamo Bay facility after he was picked up in Afghanistan where he claims he was doing "humanitarian" work. On the witness stand, Kallah describes the torture and how a friend detained with him couldn't take the torture any longer and so committed suicide. Concluding the scene meant to show the silliness and incompetence of the military for detaining such obviously innocent men, Shore asked: "Was your friend a terrorist?" Kallah replied: "No, he was a doctor."
Pressed by the Massachusetts state court judge about jurisdictional questions, Shore launched into a political diatribe: "Okay. I realize the jurisdictional barriers are prohibitive but, your honor, we don't let the little things like the law stand in our way in this great country. The law, for example, recognizes the Geneva Convention but we say, 'the Hell with it.' The law has very strict regulations on domestic wiretapping and we say, 'the Hell with it.' The law says if you shoot somebody with a shotgun mistaking him for a quail you really should call the police."
The January 18 MRC CyberAlert posting, “ABC's 'Boston Legal' Takes Cheap Shots at GOP and Dick Cheney,” began:
Tuesday's Boston Legal prime time drama on ABC was packed full of political jabs at congressional Republicans and Vice President Cheney. Buffoonish conservative lawyer "Denny Crane" (played by William Shatner) was placed on the "No Fly List" and when liberal lawyer "Alan Shore" (played by James Spader) asked if Crane had called for help, he responded: "Well, I can't get anybody. I called Tom DeLay, his number's disconnected. Foley has got his hands full, Frist said, "Don't take it personally." I called Clarence Thomas; his office said he was indisposed." Shore then asked, "Have you tried going right to the top?" Crane replied: "Cheney?" Shore also linked being "red, white and blue" with not reading newspapers and got in a slap at Cheney in a quip about avoiding "the rich friend who will take you to his quail ranch and let you shoot him."
The March 21, 2006 MRC CyberAlert article, “ABC's Boston Legal Airs Anti-Bush Tirade that Raises McCarthy Era,” reported (with video):
Another episode of ABC's prime time drama Boston Legal will air tonight (Tuesday). Last week's episode featured a plot line with over-the-top lawyer "Alan Shore," played by James Spader, delivering a five-minute-long closing argument, in defense of a woman who wouldn't pay income taxes, railing against the war on terrorism. Earlier, explaining to Shore her reasoning, the woman, "Melissa Hughes," cited how her grandfather, who fought in World War I, would be "embarrassed" by "what's happening today."She listed "us torturing people, spying on our own people, squashing everybody's civil liberties. My grandfather would weep." To which Shore got in an obvious slap at FNC: "You need to change the channel. The awful things you speak of never happen on the 'fair and balanced' newscasts." In his closing, Shore cited a litany of misdeeds, including: "When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out not to be true, I expected the American people to rise up....And, now it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens -- you and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, FINALLY, the American people will have had enough. Evidently, we haven't."
Shore soon compared the current climate to that of the McCarthy era, recalling what he read in a book by Adlai Stevenson: "Too often, sinister threats to the bill of rights, to freedom of the mind, 'are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-communism.' Today, it's the cloak of anti-terrorism."
Now back to the December 11 episode, the exchange between “Shore,” an attorney at an imaginary Boston law firm full of quirky characters, and a judge irritated by Shore's ridiculous case against the National Guard, which somehow has made it into court:
ALAN SHORE: My point: We're not getting services at home. The people in New Orleans didn't after Katrina, my client didn't here. And by the way, I don't think I'm that much of a complainer given all there is to complain about: education, Social Security, inflation, unemployment, health care, homeland security, the war, the fact that Osama and Britney keep pumping out new videos, there's global warming. Nothing, nothing is going right, judge, and you simply cannot put a positive spin on it no matter how many times you say "General Petraeus."JUDGE: Thirty seconds from a jail cell.
SHORE: This war has cost us $450 billion dollars and still counting. Add to that the Afghanistan invasion, it goes up to $650 billion. Add all the indirect costs, it goes up to two trillion.
JUDGE: Twenty seconds!
SHORE: Let's just consider what the $450 billion dollars we spent on Iraq could buy us. How about free health insurance for every uninsured family, $124 billion. Convert every single car to run on ethanol, $68 billion. Primary education for every child on the planet -- all of them -- $30 billion. Hey, end hunger in America, $7 billion.
JUDGE: You are not an accountant!
SHORE: No, I'm a town crier, judge. We have to talk about the cost of this war in terms of human lives. It's in the thousands. And by that I mean American soldiers since the Pentagon doesn't seem to count Iraqis, but that's a small point. The actual cost is much, much more.
JUDGE: Suing our government, suing a branch of our military in a time of war cannot help but add to it. No, your case against the National Guard is dismissed...
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





Nearly eight weeks before six medical doctors were arrested for their involvement in the late June terrorist attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow, ABC's Boston Legal drama -- which has its 90-minute season premiere tonight (Tuesday) -- aired an episode which ridiculed the idea a doctor could be a terrorist. In the May 8 episode, titled "Guantanamo by the Bay," attorney "Alan Shore," played by James Spader, takes up the case of British citizen "Benyam Kallah" suing the government, oddly in state court, over Kallah's torture at the Guantanamo Bay facility after he was picked up in Afghanistan where he claims he was doing "humanitarian" work. On the witness stand, Kallah describes the torture and how a friend detained with him couldn't take the torture any longer and so committed suicide. Concluding the scene meant to show the silliness and incompetence of the military for detaining such obviously innocent men, Shore asked: "Was your friend a terrorist?" Kallah replied: "No, he was a doctor."
SHORE: Let's just consider what the $450 billion dollars we spent on Iraq could buy us. How about free health insurance for every uninsured family, $124 billion. Convert every single car to run on ethanol, $68 billion. Primary education for every child on the planet -- all of them -- $30 billion. Hey, end hunger in America, $7 billion.














Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Did the DNC have to declare
December 12, 2007 - 09:48 ET by Right2thePointDid the DNC have to declare the value of this production and air time as an in kind contribution?
Let me just say ...
December 12, 2007 - 09:54 ET by drillanwr<pwaaahaaahaaahaaaa!>
Typical utopian Lib
December 12, 2007 - 09:56 ET by BruzillaTypical utopian Lib thinking. Yes, you could convert every car to run on ethanol, but where are you going to get the ethanol to put in them? Renewable doesn't mean always available, so you could probably round up just about every bit of grain in the country and make enough to keep all those cars running for a few months, but only at a cost of starving your people and what happens between the time you harvest all those crops and the next harvest comes around?
Note to ABC
December 12, 2007 - 09:57 ET by ricklailI quit watching this crap 2 seasons ago when you let Spader mouth off about the USA.
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.” General George S. Patton.
I'm with you! Watched it at
December 12, 2007 - 16:27 ET by Gary P JacksonI'm with you! Watched it at the beginning of the series, because I like some of the actors, and like David E Kelly's characters. But like his other shows, this deal went crazy left with it's stories. So, just like I basically beg off on NBC, I've not watched BL.
Too many channels out there with good entertainment to have to sit and watch our country trashed!
For this, Hollywood needs
December 12, 2007 - 10:00 ET by motherbeltFor this, Hollywood needs writers?
Uh, no. They could just let the actors ad-lib. In fact, it sounds like that's what they did.
You know, it's a shame, because I like "Boston Legal"..Spader's character is such a pig you have to laugh at him, and I think William Shatner is a hoot as "Denny Crain!" I just wish they would just go with entertaining story lines instead of preaching.
A few months ago I caught my
December 12, 2007 - 10:08 ET by TEA few months ago I caught my first (and last) ten minutes of this leftist freakshow calling itself "Boston Legal". The freakshow portrayed a "trial" involving a homosexual getting kicked out of the military because of the law (L-A-W) dealing with homosexuals in the military. Of course, the show was nothing but a hysterical plea parroting the homosexual lobby's and the Democrat party's boilerplate talking points.
Let's just consider what
December 12, 2007 - 10:08 ET by Free ThinkerLet's just consider what the $450 billion dollars we spent on Iraq could buy us.
If we are not using it to defend the freedom of our country, perhaps the government could even give it back to the people. At least the judge had common sense.
How much of that $450 billion
December 12, 2007 - 10:13 ET by Hero SquadHow much of that $450 billion went into: salaries for our soldiers and support personnel, U.S. manufacturing for equipment, etc.
And how much of that money eventually made its way back to the U.S. coffers in the way of taxes?
Sure, it's a lot of money; but it's not like this money is just being thrown into the wind, as some would suggest. And a fair portion of it would be spent anyway supporting a viable military during peacetime.
The way they describe it, America gets all this free stuff, and all we have to do is sacrifice a military to protect all the free stuff we just got. Well thought out, fellas.
*****
"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman
Caveat
December 12, 2007 - 10:21 ET by Dr_LibertyH.S.,
I hear your argument here and I think you have a very good point, so please don't take what I say next as a hard critique; view it just as a caveat as I am in general agreement with you.
I would be careful with arguments that the money spent on soldiers and equipment makes its way back to the economy. While that it true, there is a subtle assumption there that government spending can have beneficial ripple effects in the economy. This was essentially the argument used for the New Deal. If we use government money to pay people to dig holes and then fill those holes up, we will reduce unemployment, boost the shovel industry, and all that money to diggers and shovel builders will be used to buy shoes and clothes. This is a Keynesian based argument.
The best way to allocate resources in a society is through a free market where people can freely bid on the value of goods and services (including their own labor). There are a very few exceptions to that rule, including (I would argue) national defense.
Thus, I would alter your argument by saying that the government's primary job is to provide security to its citizens and that money spent wisely there is a good investment. This will ensure a flourishing economy that will allow people to decide on their own if they want cars that run on rotting pumpkins (biofuel).
<insert witty signature here>
I would be careful with
December 12, 2007 - 13:09 ET by motherbeltI would be careful with arguments that the money spent on soldiers and
equipment makes its way back to the economy. While that it true, there
is a subtle assumption there that government spending can have
beneficial ripple effects in the economy.
I would make the point that salaries shouldn't be considered a "cost of the war." Those salaries would be getting paid whether or not we are in Iraq. The soldiers were not just "hired" for this war. They get paid whether they are in Iraq or Texas.
And salaries get spent in the economy.
Dr. Liberty, I take your comments
December 12, 2007 - 13:49 ET by Hero Squad...in the spirit that they were intended, and I'm in agreement with your perspective.
I would never wish to suggest that more government jobs are better for our economy; rather I was taking issue to the idea presented by the writers of "Boston Legal" that somehow this $450 billion was wasted and did absolutely zero good for our country, or that we could just simply repurpose that money and feel zero ramifications elsewhere. I'm sure our armed forces would not mind sacrificing their salaries to becoming literally a volunteer force so that we could get us some free healthcare. (sarc on) I mean, haven't we sacrificed enough? (sarc off)
*****
"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman
Ethanol
December 12, 2007 - 10:13 ET by Sick-n-TiredEthanol: the second largest, hood-wink, boon-doggle ever put forth by man. Numer 1 of course is global warming.
As you noted
December 12, 2007 - 10:13 ET by Dr_Libertythis is a farcical drama, emphasis on the adjective.
In my opinion, I think the more the MSM does outlandish stuff like this, the more it discredits the points they are trying to make. I know that even some of the more serious scientists who do argue that there is some anthropogenic effect to climate change are worried that over-the-top claims about NY under water or polar bears being eaten by hungry penguins are turning people away from a serious discussion of the issue.
(Please note that I am skeptical of the anthropogenic warming thesis, but am still open enough to give it a listen. I can see that some emissions do have some climate impact, but the direction -- warming or cooling -- is not in any way certain, there may be many offsetting effects, and the natural causes of climate change vastly outweigh the marginal impact of man... and my wife.)
<insert witty signature here>
Apparently the show's
December 12, 2007 - 10:18 ET by AJSHOPEApparently the show's writers didn't get the memo that ethanol produces more "pollutants" than good old fashion crude.
These people are truly ignorant.
Believers
December 12, 2007 - 10:24 ET by iveseenitallThe unfortunate part of this story is that the "writers" and actors are true believers in the drivel they spew. "Liberals" are such ignorant whimps. The very reason they are free to do what they do is that they are protected by our warriors. They are so dumb they actually think that if we hadn't stood up to tryanny, but rather isolated ourselves in selfishness, freedom would have survived this long. Idiot actors like this peacock Spader personify all that is wrong and dangerous in the world. He represents modern "liberalism" at its worst-- weak,unmanly, ignorant, illogical, cowardly. Sickening!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
"ignorant, co-dependent,
December 12, 2007 - 10:27 ET by Edhenry"ignorant, co-dependent, group think, whimps"
Right
December 12, 2007 - 10:46 ET by iveseenitallRight. I'll never forget what the Hollywood crowd did during 911. They hid themselves away like the cowards they are, and only stuck their heads out when the coast was clear. No one should ever forget that moment in time. Everything in this great county is "bad" to a "liberal". The lies about Katrina to the war on this show are at the very heart of what modern "liberalism" is about. Modern "liberalism" is communism in disguise. The Hollywood actors are like Dorian Grey-- pretty boys (and girls) on the outside, but rotten to the core.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
I'm starting to think there is a master plan here.
December 12, 2007 - 10:50 ET by AJSHOPEWhile I was taking out my laundry I started to think that maybe the libs know that nationalized healthcare will have more people die and that ethanol is more pollutant than regular oil. Maybe they want every car to be converted to ethanol so that it pollutes the U.S. and more and more people become sick so then that gives them even more reason to say "We need nationalized healthcare, the years and years of exposure to oil has taken a toll on the American people" and they get their precious healthcare, but because nationalized healthcare never works, people begin to die while they are waiting for a blood transfusion or whatever. As more and more people die, the libs rejoice because we are getting out of the way of nature (because we are the cause of everything that goes wrong on earth).
Then they can have their "nature-lib utopia." I mean they already think we should get sterilized so more people aren't born.
I only watch the show for
December 12, 2007 - 10:35 ET by robert108I only watch the show for the hot women; the leftie drivel I ignore.
I'd be interested to see how
December 12, 2007 - 10:35 ET by ur-conI'd be interested to see how shows like this fare in ratings after episodes like this. Even conservatives that like the show for other reasons must get tired of the nonsensical liberal rants over time. There are shows that fade in viewership over time because thier premise has run its course or the show just becomes boring. But there are shows like this one where I can no longer watch because of the overt liberal content. I'm sure the liberal producers and writers think that the viewers eat this up but it would be a nice reality check for them if someone could draw a correlation between declining viewers and liberal content. Maybe money out of their pockets would get their attention.
see, the DNC is mad because
December 12, 2007 - 10:52 ET by wiwfsee, the DNC is mad because they don't control talk radio anymore.
Let's see: Use billions of dollars to save a country or use billions of dollars to make the environment worse, while raising the price of a tortilla in mexico for our own selfish religion.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
I'd be interested
December 12, 2007 - 11:47 ET by billbI'm a musician and Jazz fan. Most Jazz musicians do the same thing. They are incredibley gifted....then they make the mistake of taking the horn out of their mouth! They are so liberal that they expect me to believe that clinton was a good sax player. Give me a break! Comedians are funny people until they pontificate. I enjoy Jazz without the rhetoric.
Another savings...
December 12, 2007 - 11:17 ET by azholmesIf we disbanded our military, arguably there would be many fewer Americans to provide all that free stuff to (after our enemies come over and "thin the herd").
Bonus! That $450 Bil would go much further!
Idiots!
Like in The West Wing, the
December 12, 2007 - 11:30 ET by Chris NormanLike in The West Wing, the writers on Boston Legal attempt to create an artificial environment where liberalism makes sense and works.
Anything with the name BOSTON!
December 12, 2007 - 11:36 ET by PawpawNLove the show, hate the rants, but I think it makes 'em look silly. Do you really think anything with the name BOSTON would be partial. I wonder how Curt Schilling survives there, since he supports Pres, etc.
a few quick pointers
December 12, 2007 - 11:41 ET by candance1) ethanol comes from a food source which takes more time to grow than pumping oil from the ground. The price of corn would skyrocket - and say hello to higher milk and beef costs - not to mention the starving in Africa asking us why we're literally burning extra food.
2) If not for the war, Democrats would have already found a hundred other programs to spend that money on anyway, so it's pretty stupid to assume it all would have gone to buying cars.
3) How convenient this comes up when a Republican is at war. Never during peace time, and never during a Democrat White House do they whine about wasted taxes.
" . . . National Guard for
December 12, 2007 - 12:03 ET by jdhawk" . . . National Guard for failing to protect his pizza shop from a flood because the soldiers were deployed in Iraq . . ."
I knew our soldiers were great, but I didn't know they were capable of twarting acts of nature!
On the other hand, their unhearald work during Katrina - while the media and the pols were decrying the federal lack of assistance - they were busy saving countless lives and restoring order over a multi state area.
Maybe that's what prompted the "lawsuit" . . .
Meanwhile, this "common" argument that National Guard/Reserve troops were not available for <fill in the blank> because they are deployed to Iraq has been proven ridiculous. The most recent case was concerning the fires in California. At that time, the liberals were trying to make the case that the fires could have been brought under control faster with additional soldiers' assistance. It was quickly pointed out that there were more than ample troops and equipment to lend assistance.
Hahahaha
December 12, 2007 - 12:57 ET by Ynot59OK, I'll be honest. I only watch the show to for this character's soap-box rant. He even said that other people do in this week's episode.
Aboslutely hillarious.
It is so obviously left-leaning that I personally don't worry about it. What I do worry about is the sneaky way in which the media put their twopenneth in and profess to be impartial.
BRITANNICUS SUM
More than this show
December 12, 2007 - 13:27 ET by DEVILDOCMOMI have written CBS over some of their shows...I enjoy Shark, but they had some woman judge having her picture taken saying something to the effect "don't make me look as bad as Laura Bush". This actress show be so lucky. I also saw a couple of minutes of a show I have not seen before, Women's Murder Club, where the homosexual hating mom and dad were defined as "Republican". Turned that show right off. I have written CBS, but feel it is pointless...
Comic entertainment
December 12, 2007 - 14:19 ET by the_red_stateYes, I know it is a liberal show...but I love to watch it purely for the comic entertainment that it is...particulary the closing scene each week with Alan and Denny on the balcony enjoying cigars and brandy.
This is just another example
December 12, 2007 - 15:13 ET by FlashmanThis is just another example of the propensity a liberal script writers to feel that they must insert the talking points from the latest left wing email that is doing the rounds amongst themselves and their friends.
Take a look at this one from the West Wing on October 18th, 2000 as a perfect example of what I mean.
http://www.mrc.org/P...
And with one tenth of the
December 12, 2007 - 16:45 ET by mattmAnd with one tenth of the money wasted on pork and earmarks maybe we could have bought every American driver a new SUV.
And with one tenth of the
December 12, 2007 - 16:48 ET byGoracles year carbon fart; most of us could double our output
"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff
Let's see. don't take away
December 12, 2007 - 17:59 ET by danboLet's see. don't take away a playhouse for terrorist. So we can use the money to convert all cars to ethanol. Thereby, causing a food scarcity and forcing people in the third world to starve.
Maybe there should be criminal charges against these folks for stupidity.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
7 billion to eliminate poverty!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????
December 12, 2007 - 18:22 ET by Interested and concerned CDNThe City of Toronto alone spends 350 million on the homeless and poverty initiatives each year!
I have to say that I enjoy this show as I am a Shatner/Denny Crane fan but damn the show is getting preachy from the left and more pointedly towards GW's admin.
At the end of the day though, isn't this what makes laywers what they are...
I don't know why I continue
December 12, 2007 - 18:58 ET by JaxSoloI don't know why I continue to watch this show. I used to think there was some sharp dialog, but now it's become nothing but an undisguised soapbox for David Kelley (and probably James Spader & Candace Bergen) to spout their nutball liberalism/Bush Derangment Syndrome. And it's so much bullsnot, anyway. I just wanted to reach into the TV last night and bitch-slap Spader.
The Ethanol Myth
December 12, 2007 - 21:10 ET by PopularTechEthanol costs more to produce than it is worth and gets less MPG than Gas. If ethanol was cost effective we would already be using it! This is what people do not understand, the market will determine what is the most cost effective by itself.
Give me a break - Oil Prices (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy (Science Daily)
"Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses
much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates,
according to a new Cornell University and University of
California-Berkeley study."
Ethanol - Brazil - The Myth of Brazil’s Ethanol Success (Energy Tribune)
Ethanol - Brazil - Brazil Ethanol Boom Belied by Diseased Lungs Among Cane Workers (Bloomberg)
Ethanol - Ethanol E85 fuel loses cost-benefit test to diesel (USA Today)
Ethanol - Cattle Fed Byproducts Of Ethanol Production Harbor Dangerous E. Coli Bacteria (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Clearing the air on ethanol (Environmental Science and Technology)
"New research predicts that E85 vehicle emissions could cause just as many deaths as gasoline, or more."
Ethanol - Ethanol Fuel From Corn Faulted As "Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning" In Analysis By Cornell Scientist (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Ethanol: Myths and Realities (BusinessWeek)
"Ethanol can't travel in pipelines along with gasoline, because it picks
up excess water and impurities. Also, ethanol contains less energy than
gas. That means drivers have to make more frequent trips to the pump."
Ethanol - Ethanol Production Threatens Plains States With Water Scarcity (Environmental News Service)
Ethanol - Fuel Comparison Chart (Community Fuels)
Diesel = 128,000-130,000 BTUs, Gasoline = 109,000-125,000 BTUs, Ethanol = 80,000 BTUs
Ethanol - Fuel Gauge Report: E85 BTU Adjusted Price (AAA)
Ethanol - Fuel Ethanol Cannot Alleviate U.S. Dependence On Petroleum (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Increase In Ethanol Production From Corn Could Significantly Harm Water Quality (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Study: Ethanol Won't Solve Energy Problems (USAToday)
Ethanol - Test results: E85 vs. gasoline (Consumer Reports)
Ethanol - The Environmental Costs of Ethanol (National Center For Policy Abalysis)
Ethanol - The ethanol myth (Consumer Reports)
Ethanol - The ethanol subsidy is worse than you can imagine (Slate Magazine)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
ABC's Boston Legal
December 13, 2007 - 08:41 ET by Steve SternI used to watch this program because it was quite amusing, and I especially liked the end of the show when Spader and Shatner would sit on the balconey and chat with a drink in one hand and a cigar in the other.
I have since stopped watching it. The show became more and more a vehicle for Spader to spew his liberal BS in the court room. Most of his numerical data can easily be regfuted. Much, if not all, of his diatribe would never be permitted in a court of law, unless Henry Gibson becomes a real judge.
Spot on, Steve Stern! The
December 13, 2007 - 08:52 ET by rimskySpot on, Steve Stern! The last time I watched this show ,Spader, in one of his court room spews, ripped off at least 3, maybe 4 zingers at Conservatives inside of 10 seconds! It's so blatant that it just ruins the show! Screw 'em! I won't watch it anymore, and it's too bad because Shatner is funny!