Some thoughts on Arlen Specter’s foreign-policy legacy.
This should be a major theme for the Republicans in the fall.
Some clueless Canadian reporters think that James Hansen is the head of NASA. Probably wishful thinking on their part, but I find it a frightening thought.
Mickey Kaus, on Barbara Boxer’s pop gun:
“Fine,” he said today. “If I’m out of the mainstream, then Boxer has nothing to fear from debating. Let’s both present our views and see who is in what stream. Let the voters decide. That’s what democracy is supposed to be about.”
Kaus noted a debate would also give Boxer a valuable chance to respond to the L.A. Times editorial board’s observation that “she displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could.”
“If the Times is right, this is a chance for her to unleash the intellectual firepower she’s been holding in reserve,” Kaus said.
I may run out of popcorn.
I’m guessing there’s at least a forty-point difference in IQs. I’d pay quite a bit to see that debate.
How could anyone go to the Senate with a name like “Rand”?
[Wednesday morning update]
I’ve had to shut down comments on this post. It was hit with two hundred spams overnight, for some reason.
Isn’t this, kind of, you know, an act of war?
The navy ship Cheonan sank on March 26 after an explosion on the vessel as it sailed in the Yellow Sea off South Korea’s west coast.
The Post said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because South Korea had not yet disclosed the results of the investigation, said analyses showed the torpedo was identical to a North Korean torpedo previously obtained by South Korea.
The formal accusation is expected to be announced on Thursday and South Korea will ask the U.N. Security Council to take up the matter, Post sources said.
Do they seriously expect the Security Council to do anything about it? Especially with this White House?
Jim Treacher’s busted-up knee. Nice way to make material out of a hit’n’run. But if he sets up a Facebook page for any other body parts, I don’t want to hear about it.
Sorry, but we can’t afford to do both. I disagree with this OC Register Op-Ed by Peter Navarro, Stu Witt, and Greg Autry:
At least to date, the private space sector has demonstrated very limited capability to move either cargo or crews into orbit or to dock with anything. Moreover, none is human-rated for orbital space flight while there are very difficult challenges requiring large infrastructure and access to larger investment.
Really? Atlas and Delta have “very limited capability to move cargo into orbit”? I think that the military satellite community will be wondering where all those satellite went, if not into orbit. As for docking, SpaceX plans to demonstrate that this year. It’s not like it’s just a twinkle in their eye. Crew will be along shortly after that, with the development of launch abort systems, and long before Ares I is projected to be complete.
We believe all these limitations can be overcome if the private space industry is encouraged along the lines of Mr. Obama’s plan. However, pressing matters of national security also call for a continued U.S. government presence in space. That’s why we believe Mr. Obama was dead wrong in cancelling the Constellation program, the successor to the shuttle program developed after the shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003.
While we have been winding down our space program, other countries – China, in particular – have been working on (and, with China, even testing) capabilities to weaponize space and seize a strategic position on the moon. To prevent this, we must present a credible deterrent with ongoing robust and responsive manned and unmanned space programs. That’s why Constellation remains important, both as a concrete program now and as a bridge to a cooperative public-private space partnership.
Obviously, there are national security implications for a US government presence in space. But not for a manned presence. There have been no national security implications for that in forty years. And if it’s a national security issue to put humans in space, then the Pentagon should be responsible for and paying for it, not NASA, which is a civilian program. And how having a launcher that costs a couple billion per flight and can only fly a few times a year contributes to national security remains unexplained, even if one really believes that the Chinese are “working on seizing a strategic position on the moon” (what does that mean?).
They go on with the standard flawed and failed spinoff argument. And then this:
What we do not need is what President Obama is leaving us with: Showing up at the doors of countries like Russia and China, begging for a lift up to our space station. To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan: “Weakness invites aggression.”
Hey, I’m not a big fan of relying on the Russians either, but you know when the time was to complain about that? First, six years ago, when Bush baked it into the policy cake for at least three years, and then four years ago, when Mike Griffin increased the gap with his disastrous decision to build a whole new horrifically expensive and unnecessary launch system, instead of finishing Steidle’s plan for a CEV flyoff that would have resulted in something (and possibly two somethings) that could have flown on existing vehicles. The one person whose fault it isn’t is Barack Obama’s, and going back to the Program of Record doesn’t fix that problem.
There’s a lot of discussion about this over at Space Politics, where I found the link.
The Senate passed an amendment to the financial reform bill Monday night that keeps requirements for angel investors much as they are now, eliminating changes opposed by venture and technology lobbying organizations.
So at least that’s a few less million real jobs that will be prevented from creation by Washington.
[Via Clark Lindsey]
Have any of the critics of the Arizona law actually read it?
[Early afternoon update]
Arizona immigration law versus Honk Kong immigration law. Yeah, let’s just keep apologizing.