The historical slander against classical liberals (as opposed to “progressives) continues.
See, he was just trying to save the Nile delta. I’m even more amused at the leftist outrage in the comments. But then, leftists, and particularly watermelons, don’t have much of a sense of humor.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I love this comment from Bernstein:
Jon Stewart is funny because of the ways he bugs his eyes out, and otherwise makes funny faces. Can’t get that effect on a blog, I’m afraid.
It’s funny ‘cuz it’s true.
The Navy has developed a submarine escape trainer. Presumably, it assumes that your sub isn’t too deep.
But while I assume that it’s part of the training, I see no mention of the need to allow the air to flow out of your lungs as you ascend. The pressure in them at depth is going to be several times that at sea level, and if you hold it in, you’re guaranteed a pulmonary embolism, likely fatal.
Also, surface rescuers would have to have a hyperbaric chamber handy, otherwise those rescued are almost certainly gong to get badly bent (again, possible fatal, certainly injurious), unless the accident from which they are escaping occurred shortly after submerging. But if you’re going to float around for awhile before being rescue, bends seem almost certain. On the other hand, I guess it still beats drowning or asphyxiation at depth. Sounds sort of like an ejection seat for an aircraft — attempted suicide to avoid certain death.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I don’t know what current training requirements are, but I think it would be worthwhile to give scuba training to all submariners, to reduce the chances that they’ll hold their breath while ascending. Rule number one of diving training is to never hold your breath underwater. Of course, it’s an easier rule to obey when you have an air supply…
[Update a few minutes later]
Yes, as corrected in comments, bends isn’t (aren’t?) an issue. I’d forgotten that subs are maintained at one atmosphere.
…and you may not be able to keep your plan. But what would the head of Aetna know?
And I’m sure that this is completely unrelated:
Americans have a pragmatic sort of optimism in adversity, and after ObamaCare’s passage, I figured that would take the form of a “wait and see” attitude. Democrats made a lot of promises about this legislation, and there would be some impulse to wait to see how this bill fulfills or fails them.
Certainly, Democrats in office had hoped for that kind of response, but thus far, they’re not getting it. That may be due to some of the unpleasant details that the media have finally reported. Businesses are having to take big charges on lost tax credits, and promises over pre-existing condition treatment raised expectations to unrealistic heights. Instead of making lives easier, the bill has already made lives more complicated.
The real test will come in Rasmussen and other polling around September. If 54% of people still want it repealed — and that opposition has remained relatively unchanged for the last several months — then Democrats won’t have anywhere to hide.
Wind sowing now. Whirlwind reaping in November.
[Update a while later]
Congressional (dis)approval ratings have approached the levels last seen in late October, 1994. Remember what happened a few days later? And it’s only March…
An extensive list of Barack Obama’s statements and their associated expiration dates.
Here’ is the first report I’ve seen on the conference this past week on geoengineering. I would have like to attend, but didn’t have either time or money right now. I was a little disturbed by what seemed to be an absence:
Participants…split into groups representing the two broad kinds of geoengineering: methods which block solar radiation from the sun, like spreading aerosols in the stratosphere, and techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere, like growing algae blooms at sea.
…A vexing question for participants was the role of commercial companies in this controversial field. A breakout group devoted to the idea of blocking sunlight—by whitening clouds or the ocean surface, for example—couldn’t agree on whether it should propose barring for-profit companies from the enterprise.
Ignoring the issue of the role of private enterprise, what I’m reading seems very terracentric (which isn’t uncommon among the scientific community — I think it was one of the reasons that it there was so much skepticism about Alverez’ dinosaur-extinction theory). After all, if the goal is to block sunlight, the closer to the source you are, the easier the job might be. Maybe there were some space-based solutions discussed, but you can’t figure it out from this report. One of the reasons that I wanted to attend was to provide a perspective that might not otherwise be there, and it looks like my fears were born out.
I’d bet that if you proposed (say) Ehricke-type solettas, or sunshades, you’d be laughed out of the room, largely out of ignorance of space transportation economics. I would have provided a tutorial to explain why it’s foolish to extrapolate costs of current launch systems to future large-scale space access, because I’ll bet that’s exactly what most of them would do (because it’s what most people do now). I’ll look forward to a more detailed report on the conference, though, including a full list of presentations.
[Monday afternoon update]
It should be noted that I’m not advocating geoengineering. I’m just pointing out that for those who do, they shouldn’t exclude space-based solutions because of false preconceptions. It’s sort of like my attitude toward NASA. I wouldn’t weep much if the agency was defunded (other than the personal impacts on my friends who are employees and contractors). But seeing as how that’s unlikely to happen, I’ll continue to lobby to at least have the funds spent sensibly, in terms of actually advancing us in space.
Gee, I’m not the only one who thinks that the White House is nuts on the Middle East and Israel.
The letter’s lead signatories were Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD). The letter had only circulated for three days last week before garnering 327 signatures, probably the most bipartisan effort seen on Capitol Hill in this session of Congress. It provides a measure of just how far out of the mainstream the Obama administration has gotten on relations with Israel.
Moreover, they’re entirely correct. Thanks to what amounts to a reversal of 20 years of American policy on settlements in Jerusalem, Obama has given the Palestinians a reason to refuse to come to the table that Israel simply can’t address. Obama has made peace a lot less likely than it was fifteen months ago by throwing his tantrum in such a public manner. Weakening Israel won’t bring peace — it will bring more attacks on Israel as Palestinians begin to believe that the US won’t back its ally any longer.
Jennifer Rubin believes Obama’s fumble was by design, or at least by instinctual hostility towards Israel. With advisers like Samantha Power at the White House, that hostility was known long before Obama got elected. Accidental, latent, or overt, Obama’s hostility towards a key democracy in the most strategic part of the world has raised eyebrows of both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill — perhaps belatedly, but not too late to put some serious pressure for this administration to grow the hell up.
They seem to be particularly impervious to that. As do their defenders, including some commenters here.
Hey, AP. Searchlight is south of Las Vegas, not north. It’s almost like they want people to not find the place.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I’m saving the screenshot to see if they go back and fix it. Of course, our elite journalists can’t be expected to know the geography of flyover country.
[Update a few minutes later]
The Tea Party express is reporting that their buses are being egged in Searchlight:
Supporters of Senator Harry Reid have just thrown eggs at the Tea Party Express bus caravan – striking at least one of the three buses (the red Tea Party Express bus) with multiple eggs.
About 35 Reid supporters had lined Highway 95 in front of the Nugget Casino in Searchlight where they were attempting a counter-demonstration the tens of thousands of tea party supporters who are gathering for the “Showdown in Searchlight.”
But don’t accuse them of hate or anger! I’m kind of amused that there are only thirty-five Harry Reid supporters in his home town. Not surprised, though.
[Sunday morning update]
“At least dozens” attended. Well, I guess it’s technically true. So would “At least one…”
And as Glenn notes, “at least dozens” watch CNN. And this kind of biased stupidity is one of the reasons.
Fascists like Henry Waxman are upset that companies are following SEC regulations:
People’s Commissar Henry Waxman is now planning to haul the companies before his committee because their disclosures fail to play along with the our Leftist rulers’ script that Obamacare “will expand coverage and bring down costs.”
As Andy notes:
If we are now under a system where disclosure gets you a public whipping and other threats by the Powers That Be while nondisclosure promises the ruinous expenses of defending against criminal investigations and civil enforcement, this is no longer anything but a thugocracy.
It’s the Chicago (and West LA) way.
Unlike the entitlements we’re saddled with until death, being angry is free and actually works! But we need to define why we’re angry – instead of letting our adversaries do it for us.
We are angry not because we lost, but that we lost to losers. I’m not talking about Obama, or the Dems. They’re winners, sadly. I’m talking about progressivism. The reason why I’m angry, my friends are angry, and my imaginary unicorn Captain Sparkles is angry – is because the greatest, most winningest country in the history of the world, just embraced the loser’s doctrine.
For two hundred plus years we’ve kicked ass, and we’re now choosing the belief system of the idiots whose asses we’ve kicked.
Let’s hope for not much longer.