A lot of chores to do around the house this weekend, including tiling the downstairs hallway.
Stephen Kruiser doesn’t give a damn about Chelsea’s wedding.
This thing is being treated like a royal wedding, but I don’t think that anyone other than Clintonophiles cares. Unfortunately, there remain a lot of Clintonophiles in the MSM, so the rest of us have to suffer through it.
…but it looks like HR5781 is mostly dead in its current form:
A controversial House NASA authorization bill that appeared headed for a floor vote July 30 has stalled, and it appears unlikely the measure will be taken up before lawmakers leave town for a six-week summer break that begins Aug. 2.
House leadership aides said just before midnight July 29 that the bill, a three-year authorization that recommends funding the U.S. space agency at roughly $19 billion a year through 2013, would not be taken up July 30, and that it is very unlikely the measure will come to a vote before lawmakers head home to campaign in their districts.
This at least buys some time to either fix it more in accordance with the Senate plan, or kill it altogether.
…or not to coast — that is the question.
From a safety (and brake wear) standpoint, I agree that it’s a bad idea to coast down a hill — you should use the engine to help brake the car. But I often coast pulling up to a stop sign or red light. I can whip it back into gear fast enough if I have to, and if I’m already in gear, it’s probably the wrong one for a rapid acceleration, unless I’ve been downshifting.
As for fuel economy, I’ll accept his argument for fuel injected cars, but I’ll bet that coasting saves gas over having the transmission engaged for a carburetted vehicle (do they even make them any more, though?).
[Update a few minutes later]
I guess not, if Wikipedia is to be trusted:
Carburetors were the usual fuel delivery method for most U.S. made gasoline-fueled engines up until the late 1980s, when fuel injection became the preferred method of automotive fuel delivery. In the U.S. market, the last carbureted cars were:
* 1990 (General public) : Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser, Buick Estate Wagon, and Subaru Justy
* 1991 (Police) : Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor with the 5.8 L (351 cu in) engine.
* 1991 (SUV) : Jeep Grand Wagoneer
* 1994 (Light truck) : Isuzu
Elsewhere, certain Lada cars used carburetors until 2006. A majority of motorcycles still use carburetors due to lower cost and throttle response problems with early injection setups, but as of 2005 many new models are now being introduced with fuel injection. Carburetors are still found in small engines and in older or specialized automobiles, such as those designed for stock car racing. In such applications, carburetors reliably supply very high volumes of fuel at full load and are easy to set restrictions on to give even, fair racing.
So there you go.
…but that doesn’t mean that he’s a Muslim. Thoughts on an illogical article at Human Events.
I don’t think that the president is either a Muslim or a Christian. In order to be either, you have to believe in something greater than yourself.
The latest, from Henry Vanderbilt and the Space Access Society:
NASA Exploration Funding: An URGENT Call To Action
We strongly support the new White House space exploration policy. We believe it can gives NASA a meaningful future, as opposed to the dead end the Constellation “Apollo on Steroids” program has become under any reasonably foreseeable budget. (See the Augustine Report.)
The core of the new White House space exploration policy is:
– Getting NASA out of the business of developing and operating its own (massively overpriced relative to both military and commercial vehicles) space transportation.
– Passing full responsibility for basic space access to the US commercial launch sector just as fast as the commercial operators can demonstrate they’re ready.
The several billion per year freed up by doing this, and by retiring Shuttle after this year (as planned since 2004) would be used to refocus NASA on developing new technologies for future space transportation and deep-space exploration (things that have been shorted at the agency for decades), to keeping Station (the nation’s sole and dearly-bought existing space outpost) operating beyond the former 2016 shutdown date, and (once the new more affordable deep-space capabilities are available) to conducting new exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.
The last few months have seen an organized Congressional effort to derail the proposed NASA reforms, largely for reasons of short-term local political self-interest. The Congressional regional coalition accustomed to seeing NASA exploration funds flow regardless of results is fighting the new policy with everything they’ve got.
Various Congressional committees have voted to reduce the new commercial and research programs by various amounts, giving the money instead to continued NASA booster and crew capsule developments. Briefly, the Senate committee NASA Authorization version diverts roughly half the commercial and research funding to a new in-house NASA heavy booster plus continued NASA crew capsule development. The House committee NASA Authorization version is far worse, diverting almost all the commercial and research funding to in-house NASA booster and capsule work, while also imposing onerous restrictions on commercial efforts both orbital and suborbital. (We have not covered these committee votes in detail because after the first it became obvious the decks were stacked in these committees and we had little chance of affecting those intermediate outcomes.)
Now, however, the House NASA Authorizers are attempting to get their version approved by the full House in a last-second maneuver before the Congress goes on August recess starting Monday the 2nd. An attempt will probably be made to bring HR 5781, the House committee version NASA Authorization bill, to a floor vote tomorrow, Friday July 30th. (Other unrelated Congressional business could prevent this, but that’s not something to count on.) The attempt if made will be under “suspension of the rules”, a streamlined procedure that limits debate and doesn’t allow any amendments. The only choice is, up or down, pass HR 5781 or reject it.
We and many others think HR 5781 should be rejected. “Suspension of the rules” also requires a 2/3rds majority to pass a bill, so there is a good chance that constituent pressure (that’s you!) on Congressmen in general can either delay this attempt till after August if the votes aren’t there, or defeat it outright.
If you are reading this before east coast close-of-business July 30th (the earlier in the day the better, before 9 am is best), please call your Congressman. If you know their name, you can call the House switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for their office. (If you don’t know who your Congressman is, go to here and enter your home zipcode.) Once through to their office, let the person who answers know you’re calling about HR 5781, the NASA Authorization. They may switch you to another staffer (or that staffer’s voicemail) or they may take the call themselves. (If you’re calling after-hours or they’re getting a lot of calls, you may go directly to a voicemail.)
Regardless, tell them you want your Congressman to oppose this version of the NASA Authorization. Give one or two reasons briefly (e.g., that you support full funding for NASA Commercial Crew and full funding for NASA space exploration technology, that you are very much against any new in-house NASA booster development as very likely being a massive waste of taxpayer dollars, to support the US commercial launch industry, to enhance our national technological competitiveness, to support the President’s NASA policy, to address the NASA problems pointed out by the Augustine Commission and restore NASA’s ability to usefully explore, etc). Answer any questions they may have as best you can, then politely sign off.
We will likely be seeing more action on this as the year goes on. Keep an eye out for further Updates. Thanks for helping!
If you haven’t called yet, you can still do it tomorrow.
Thoughts on the knee-jerk leftist/”progressive” impulse to shut people up:
It’s an interesting question: do liberals try to silence their opponents because of an inherent authoritarian tendency, or merely because they are losing the argument?
Like John Hinderaker, I think it’s both.
…from Alan Boyle.
What happens when sharks disappear?
I have some thoughts on the House authorization bill (which looks like it’s being voted perhaps tomorrow), over at PJM.