I was out of town for the weekend, and had little time to check in. I’m going away again on Wednesday for a few days (fall colors in the upper Midwest and family visits) and have two columns to write, so I don’t know how much else you’ll see.
Just in case anyone thought I was hit by a beer truck.
Or cared…
Dr. Steve Harris has a much more detailed dissection (or vivisection?) of the Arizona article on cryonics regulation than mine.
Excerpt:
…When Thomas says the state has *no* regulatory authority
over Alcor, what he’s actually complaining about is that the Arizona Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers doesn’t wield state authority over Alcor, and the state therefore doesn’t have as much authority as Thomas WANTS it to have, because Alcor is regulated in another part of the law. But that’s not the same thing……What is done to bodies at medical schools also might be “mutilation” to Mr. Thomas also, but that’s irrelevant. The law in Arizona actually does not prohibit the mutilation of dead bodies it only becomes mutilation if done without force or coverage by law. The AAGA provides the law, and it specifically allows technicians to remove body parts, and so on, if the purpose is science or research. See the relevant law here. Funeral directors can’t do that, and perhaps this is what Mr. Thomas is complaining about. But scientific institutions can, and funeral directors cannot, BECAUSE the AAGA, which is the relevant 1996 Arizona State Law, **is written that way.** Otherwise you can be sure Mr. Thomas wouldn’t be complaining to the legislature about it, but rather would be going to the attorney general. Again, Mr. Thomas calls things “unregulated” when the state actually is explicitly authorizing an action that Mr. Thomas doesn’t *like* (cutting up bodies for science). Regulating an
action does not mean outlawing it, fortunately……If Thomas asked for cryonics be regulated by Board he represents, this would look like the naked power grab that it is. So what do we see, instead? Thomas deceptively asks for creation of a brand new state agency (which he knows will never happen), and then one of the legislators stands up right away to deliver the message that it’s better to put things into the hands of good old Mr. Thomas and his boys (who we all know and love). Modest though they may be…
…Alcor needs to spend time with the sponsoring legislator to see how he got into the pocket of the funeral industry. Then to remind some of the other legislators that the AAGA already is the state’s regulation intended to cover the
practice of cutting up bodies for research. Alcor is regulated, just not in the way the funeral industry wants.
That’s the meat of it, but the whole thing’s worth a read for those interested in the issues.
With the centennial approaching in December, Ralph Kinney Bennett has penned (or more likely keyboarded) a tribute to the brothers Wright.
Rocketman has an interview with John Carmack, with a lot of detail on the engine and vehicle design of his X-Prize entry, Black Armadillo.
Steven den Beste continues his space science (and engineering) blogging, with a disquisition on gravity assist maneuvers.
I came, I saw, I said “yuck.”
The classic Green Eggs and Ham has been translated into Latin.
Mark Steyn has a pretty good take on General Clark–the best so far:
For a year now, the Democratic nomination has been a battle between joke candidates, led by the Reverend Al Sharpton, and dull senators, led by John Kerry of Massachusetts. Vermont?s Howard Dean briefly caught the media?s fancy ? he?s anti-war and from the only state with legal gay sorta-marriage. But, after a while, they began to notice that the more they talked up Dean the more the folks in the White House seemed to be falling around splitting their sides. So eventually they figured he was this year?s George McGovern, and they needed a new ?None Of The Above?.
And here he is: General Wesley Clark. That?s what he is to the public at the moment: ?None Of The Above? in a General?s uniform. Once they get to know him and he joins the ranks of ?The Above?, Democrats will be back to Square One looking for a new ?None?. But for now no one knows a thing about him. In fact, he doesn?t seem to know much about him. One day, he?s pro-war. Next day, he?s anti-war. Then, just to clarify, he says he can go either way: ?I?ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position.?
And when a man has to put himself into a position, the best thing to do is call an aide to tell him which one it is. ?Mary, help!? Clark called to his press secretary in front of reporters, and Mary did indeed come to his rescue, explaining to the General what his position is.
He also has some cautionary words for Democrats about Mr. and Mrs. Clinton:
…whatever happens, the 44th President will not be Wesley Clark.
Why?s that? First and foremost, Wes is a Friend Of Bill, as in Clinton. Bill gets through FOBs at an enormous rate and even those who don?t wind up dead, in jail or drowning in legal bills rarely prosper. As has been noted in this space many times, the Clintons? Democratic party is great for the Clintons, disastrous for the Democratic party. From Arkansas, Bill went on to Washington; his successor as governor, Jim Guy Tucker, went on to jail. His party lost control of Congress, but Bill got re-elected. He survived the impeachment trial, but his vice-president lost the White House. He bequeathed a New York senate seat to his wife, but the Clinton flack he installed at the Democratic National Committee led the party to defeat in just about every competitive senate race last November.
Anyone spot the pattern here? If Bill and Hill were to demand a constitutional amendment to lower the age qualification so that Chelsea could run for President, I?d put better odds on that than Clark?s chances of success.
Mark Steyn has a pretty good take on General Clark–the best so far:
For a year now, the Democratic nomination has been a battle between joke candidates, led by the Reverend Al Sharpton, and dull senators, led by John Kerry of Massachusetts. Vermont?s Howard Dean briefly caught the media?s fancy ? he?s anti-war and from the only state with legal gay sorta-marriage. But, after a while, they began to notice that the more they talked up Dean the more the folks in the White House seemed to be falling around splitting their sides. So eventually they figured he was this year?s George McGovern, and they needed a new ?None Of The Above?.
And here he is: General Wesley Clark. That?s what he is to the public at the moment: ?None Of The Above? in a General?s uniform. Once they get to know him and he joins the ranks of ?The Above?, Democrats will be back to Square One looking for a new ?None?. But for now no one knows a thing about him. In fact, he doesn?t seem to know much about him. One day, he?s pro-war. Next day, he?s anti-war. Then, just to clarify, he says he can go either way: ?I?ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position.?
And when a man has to put himself into a position, the best thing to do is call an aide to tell him which one it is. ?Mary, help!? Clark called to his press secretary in front of reporters, and Mary did indeed come to his rescue, explaining to the General what his position is.
He also has some cautionary words for Democrats about Mr. and Mrs. Clinton:
…whatever happens, the 44th President will not be Wesley Clark.
Why?s that? First and foremost, Wes is a Friend Of Bill, as in Clinton. Bill gets through FOBs at an enormous rate and even those who don?t wind up dead, in jail or drowning in legal bills rarely prosper. As has been noted in this space many times, the Clintons? Democratic party is great for the Clintons, disastrous for the Democratic party. From Arkansas, Bill went on to Washington; his successor as governor, Jim Guy Tucker, went on to jail. His party lost control of Congress, but Bill got re-elected. He survived the impeachment trial, but his vice-president lost the White House. He bequeathed a New York senate seat to his wife, but the Clinton flack he installed at the Democratic National Committee led the party to defeat in just about every competitive senate race last November.
Anyone spot the pattern here? If Bill and Hill were to demand a constitutional amendment to lower the age qualification so that Chelsea could run for President, I?d put better odds on that than Clark?s chances of success.
Mark Steyn has a pretty good take on General Clark–the best so far:
For a year now, the Democratic nomination has been a battle between joke candidates, led by the Reverend Al Sharpton, and dull senators, led by John Kerry of Massachusetts. Vermont?s Howard Dean briefly caught the media?s fancy ? he?s anti-war and from the only state with legal gay sorta-marriage. But, after a while, they began to notice that the more they talked up Dean the more the folks in the White House seemed to be falling around splitting their sides. So eventually they figured he was this year?s George McGovern, and they needed a new ?None Of The Above?.
And here he is: General Wesley Clark. That?s what he is to the public at the moment: ?None Of The Above? in a General?s uniform. Once they get to know him and he joins the ranks of ?The Above?, Democrats will be back to Square One looking for a new ?None?. But for now no one knows a thing about him. In fact, he doesn?t seem to know much about him. One day, he?s pro-war. Next day, he?s anti-war. Then, just to clarify, he says he can go either way: ?I?ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position.?
And when a man has to put himself into a position, the best thing to do is call an aide to tell him which one it is. ?Mary, help!? Clark called to his press secretary in front of reporters, and Mary did indeed come to his rescue, explaining to the General what his position is.
He also has some cautionary words for Democrats about Mr. and Mrs. Clinton:
…whatever happens, the 44th President will not be Wesley Clark.
Why?s that? First and foremost, Wes is a Friend Of Bill, as in Clinton. Bill gets through FOBs at an enormous rate and even those who don?t wind up dead, in jail or drowning in legal bills rarely prosper. As has been noted in this space many times, the Clintons? Democratic party is great for the Clintons, disastrous for the Democratic party. From Arkansas, Bill went on to Washington; his successor as governor, Jim Guy Tucker, went on to jail. His party lost control of Congress, but Bill got re-elected. He survived the impeachment trial, but his vice-president lost the White House. He bequeathed a New York senate seat to his wife, but the Clinton flack he installed at the Democratic National Committee led the party to defeat in just about every competitive senate race last November.
Anyone spot the pattern here? If Bill and Hill were to demand a constitutional amendment to lower the age qualification so that Chelsea could run for President, I?d put better odds on that than Clark?s chances of success.