A beautiful map of the field, courtesy of the late GRAIL satellites.
Did it really end, or are we just entering a new phase?
Poland’s top diplomat thinks it’s worthless.
But to be fair, that’s only because, under Barack Obama, it is.
It’s the face of government as it actually exists.
Between ObamaCare, the IRS, the VA, and now the EPA, it’s been a bad year for cheerleaders of big government. Which means a good year for liberty. We’ll see what it means in November.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Note Glenn’s quoting of Pournelle’s law of bureaucracies:
…the strongest priority of most bureaucracies is the welfare of the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats it employs, not whatever the bureaucracy is actually supposed to be doing.
I often say that there are a lot of good people at NASA, and there are. But they are trapped in a similar system.
We need to abolish the Department of Education.
Stewart Money has a book out on the history of SpaceX.
Jeff Foust has a report.
[Update a few minutes later]
Frank Morring on why we explore space.
This all misses the real point, which is that exploration is a means to an end. As long as we imagine it’s just a search for knowledge, we can’t possibly justify the insane amount of money (for so little activity) that NASA spends on human spaceflight.
That these events represent an unconnected string of unfortunate events — all of which just so happen to benefit the Left and its IRS allies while hurting conservatives and IRS critics — beggars belief. Add to that mix the willful dishonesty, the staged press rollout, complete with planted questions, intended to preempt questions about the internal investigation and its results, the naked lie that the wrongdoing was limited to a few nobodies in Cincinnati — the only way to believe that story is to desire very deeply to believe it.
The alternative and much more likely — undeniable, to my mind — explanation is that the Internal Revenue Service is engaged in an active and ongoing criminal conspiracy to misappropriate federal resources for political purposes, to use its investigatory powers, including the threat of criminal prosecution, for purposes of political repression, and to actively mislead Congress and the public about the issue; that the Justice Department is turning a blind eye to these very serious crimes for political purposes and is therefore complicit in the cover-up; that these crimes were encouraged if not outright suborned by Senate Democrats; and that the White House is at the very least passively complicit, refusing to lift so much as a presidential pinkie as the IRS runs amok.
It will continue until Congress grows a pair.
The Nook version is now available. The last frontier is iTunes, which is a PITA for me because Apple insists on my having an Apple device to set up an account and upload it to their store. I think I can set up an iTunes account if I fire up my Windows laptop, but not sure how to do the book upload.
Andy McCarthy says it lacks feck.
That’s a trait of Boehner generally.
Since we were discussing philosophy the other day, Lileks has some thoughts:
The article concerns the anti-Semitism of Heidegger, and how the publication of recent texts the philosopher intended to be the capstone of his output reveals that he didn’t have the easy, lazy cultural anti-Semitism of the era, but really, really thought hard on how the Jews were putting the stick to the decent noble Volk. Not just any kind of Jews, though: worldwide jewry! It’s the richest kind.
..Anything that starts out with “Russia and America are the same” is the product of a mind so high in the clouds it cannot tell the different between red and black ants. But while Russia did indeed have “unrestricted organization of the average man,” an inevitable consequence of the state’s politicization of the entire society, you could say Germany under Hitler had a smattering as well. Or a gerschmatturung, to use Heidegger’s word. Just kidding; he doesn’t. But the article is full of German words intended to set off a Concept, as though expressing a concept in a train-wreck of consonants makes it important. I suppose the point is to be accurate, use the terms the author uses so there can be no misunderstanding. But for my part that would require anything close to comprehension, and I cannot grasp a lot of what Heidegger is talking about, perhaps because there seems to be no point in understanding what he’s saying.
Philosophy isn’t useless, but some philosophers are. Or worse than.
This proposal doesn’t go far enough. We need to do it to the entire federal government. Roosevelt recognized the dangers of public-employee unions. They’ve been destroying the country for decades, though.
It’s not just the War on (Some) Drugs. It’s also all the free goodies that police departments have been getting from the military as surplus.
First the left went after George Will, and now they’ve chosen a really bad target: a smart law professor:
But really, all that vitriol because Dean is “not sure” that an imprecise reading of what I wrote is correct? Even if she had recounted what I wrote precisely correctly, all that vitriol because she’s “not sure” I’m right?
Nor, for that matter, does Dean ever address my point about a proposed California law providing for judging sexual assault complaints by an “affirmative consent” consent standard, but only for college students in college-run hearings; if this is a good idea, why only for this limited category of people in limited circumstances? Why not make it the legal standard for sexual assault in California? A particular scenario can’t logically change from sexual assault to non-sexual assault because it happens the day after graduation instead of the day before.
As for my broader point, that the extremely broad explicit consent standard incorrectly provided on DOJ’s website means that the vast majority of men and women in the U.S. are guilty of sexual assault, Dean doesn’t bother to disagree. Instead, the best she can muster is “I do not think we are looking at any real danger of people being marched off to death camps for kissing each other.”
That’s obviously not really the question. The question is whether you want to create a sexual assault standard that is so broad that a prosecutor (or other authority, if for example it’s a university matter) can basically punish anyone they want to, so long as someone is willing to file a complaint. And so broad, as well, that it trivializes sexual assault, in that it conflates sexual assault with things like reaching out to hold your date’s hand under the dinner table.
We need to push back against these little fascists, hard.
[Update a few minutes later[
More thoughts from Ann Althouse on “chilling” debate.
It’s hard to do, though. Many just can’t imagine any other way to do human spaceflight. And of course, those in Congress don’t want to lose all their opportunities for graft.
There is no end of examples.
Sadly, it’s dumb because we’ve dumbed down the electorate.
Jeff Foust has an up-to-date status on the industry, ten years after SpaceShipOne’s first flight. Note also Doug Messier’s status on Virgin Galactic in comments, which sounds about right to me.
Did their diet prevent dental caries?
Has NASA/NOAA been fiddling with it to match expectations rather than reality?
Michael Lopez-Alegria weighs in at the Huffpo:
Flying our astronauts should be a national strategic priority, and NASA should be free to continue expanding its use of public-private partnerships and building on its successes. NASA will always lead our nation’s exploration of space, but it must empower all the members of the team that makes that happen, including commercial companies. If Congress can ensure that NASA is cutting bureaucracy and getting the most value for its money, our nation will have a bright future of space exploration ahead of it. If not, our human spaceflight program may be a disappointment for years to come.
Instead, “safety is the highest priority.”
I may have missed it, but I’ve seen no support in the media for the Shelby shenanigans.
…didn’t follow the law after it “lost” Lerner’s emails.
Laws are for the serfs, not the enforcers:
Here’s the bottom line. The IRS has been accused of targeting the political opponents of the Obama administration. The response, in rough order of emission, has been:
- No they didn’t. It was all (quoth the president of the United States) a “phony scandal.”
- They targeted liberal groups too (except the IRS inspector general disagrees).
- It was all the fault of two “rogue agents” in Cincinnati (that was Jay Carney’s little piece of drollery)
- Then we had Barack Obama’s personal assurance that there was not even a “smidgeon of corruption” at the IRS. “Smidgeon, noun. Informal: a small amount of something.” There wasn’t even a small amount of corruption at the IRS—which is why, of course, a senior agency employee like Lois Lerner decided to take the Fith Amendment to avoid self-incrimination.
Mr. Koskinen’s testimony over the last several days has been greeted with what might politely be called skepticism, not to to say naked disbelief and contempt, by Congress. “You promised to produce documents,” Darrell Issa reminded Mr. Koskinen. “You did not. . . .
You worked to cover up the fact they were missing and only came forward to fess up on a Friday afternoon after you had been caught red-handed.”
Some might say that John Koskinen was guilty of obstruction of justice. Currently, the Wikipedia entry for “Obstruction of Justice” lists four “notable examples” of the crime. Leading the list is Richard Nixon’s efforts to silence people involved in the Watergate scandal. I wonder whether there will soon be a fifth notable example. If so, it is likely to include the names of John Koskinen, Lois Lerner, and who knows how many people at the White House.
Not if the media has anything to say about it.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of the media, now Woodward and Bernstein are wondering where they are?
Apparently, being a Democrat operative with a byline trumps the chance for a Pulitzer.
Mark Levin goes ballistic after last night’s hearing:
Levin also pointed out that Democrats wouldn’t be obstructing so hard if it weren’t for White House involvement, which tells him that this IRS targeting scandal goes all the way to the top.
That would be the way to bet, yes.
Ten myths about it.
[Early afternoon update]
In case you don’t understand the importance of this charity, you need to read about the struggles of Hillary.
Hey, guys, please stop saying dumb things about it.
A review, including a review of the reviews.
No, you can’t just rewrite the law to justify your junk science, EPA.
This is a good victory, but it doesn’t completely undo the damage from the court’s previous decision, which was also based on junk science.
This seems like a pretty clear explanation to me.