Howard Fienberg says that Cynthia McKinney may run for president on the Green Party ticket.

I hope she does.

Bart Sibrel, a man who claims that man never set foot on the Moon, also claims that famous Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin punched him in the jaw on Tuesday in Beverly Hills.

There’s a small cottage industry of people who, like people who still believe that the earth is flat, or alternatively, that it’s round but hollow, live in an alternate reality–one in which NASA was not capable of sending men to our sister orb in the 1960s. Unfortunately, it’s not small enough. While just a few percent believe this, according to most polling, that still constitutes millions of people deluding themselves about what many consider the greatest achievement of the twentieth century, and perhaps in history to date.

Anyway, for most of them, it doesn’t matter to their everyday lives, but for a few, like Mr. Sibrel, it becomes an obsession.

The arguments made for his position are seductive, to the scientifically illiterate and innumerate, but they are equally fallacious. They usually hinge on lack of knowledge about the behavior of light, lenses and film, and a misunderstanding of orbital mechanics and the physics of particles in vacuum. But in addition they are always interlarded with conspiracy theories and suspicion about NASA’s veracity, necessary to sustain the belief. I don’t have time or page space to debunk them here, but they have been amply debunked.

Of course, the hardest part of the theory to buy is that NASA and its contractors, an organization of thousands of people in a position to know, all were paid off, or threatened to practice “omerta” and not talk about how the lunar landings were staged. If NASA could actually pull that off, it would be a greater achievement than landing people on the Moon. This would be one of the biggest stories of the century, but we’re asked to believe that in a government that leaks to the press like a shotgunned sieve, not only is no one talking, but also that all of the astronauts are lying as well–none of them will break ranks.

Which brings us to Tuesday’s reported incident.

Because Mr. Sibrel makes a living at promulgating this nonsense by filming one-sided “documentaries” about it, it’s not clear whether he actually believes it, or is just saying he does to get publicity and notoriety. What is clear is that he makes of himself a nuisance to the men who he should instead be honoring. Tuesday’s incident wasn’t the first time that he’s interacted with a former moon walker. According to Rob Pearlman at Collect Space, he was thrown out of the ceremony for induction of astronauts into the Astronaut Hall of Fame last year for similarly harassing John Young, Bill Anders, and Al Worden.

On Tuesday, in Sibrel’s own words, referring to Buzz, “I approached him and asked him again to swear on a Bible that he went to the moon, and told him he was a thief for taking money to give an interview for something he didn’t do…”

So, by his own admission, he walked up to a man who risked his life to help us win the Cold War, and called him a liar and a thief to his face. Is this sufficient provocation for an assault? I don’t know what the legal situation is in Beverly Hills, and I’m not generally in favor of fisticuffs, but next time I see Buzz, his beer will be on me.

Anyway, while socking Bart Sibrel in the jaw would be a magnificent accomplishment, worthy of recording in the historical annals of comeuppance, and the story of ?one small punch for a man, one giant blow for intelligent mankind? is truly inspiring, I just don’t believe it really happened.

Think about it. Buzz is no Ralph Kramden, capable of sending his wife to the Moon with a single blow (or so at least he perennially threatened).

By all reports, Mr. Sibrel is much larger than Buzz. Astronauts were always shorter than average in stature, because they had to fit first into fighter cockpits, and later into small cramped spacecraft. He’s also much younger. Buzz is into his eighth decade, while Sibrel is thirty seven, a little over half Buzz’s age. Yet we’re supposed to believe that Buzz, a PhD from MIT, would risk a fight with a younger, stronger man? It defies physics and common sense.

Sibrel has a sore, bruised jaw?

How hard is that to fake? He probably went home and hit himself in the face with a monkey wrench.

There were witnesses? It was reported on all the news services?

It doesn’t say what the lighting conditions were, but it’s possible that it could play tricks to make it look as though Buzz’s fist was propelled into Bart’s face. Or maybe Bart attacked Buzz’s helpless knuckles with his chin.

Or maybe nothing happened at all. We’re supposed to believe that Sibrel’s not capable of bribing people? All those Beverly Hills types on Rodeo Drive don’t think about anything except money. It would be easy to just pay them all off to lie for him, and to relay the story to Reuters and AP. After all, if NASA could get thousands of people to keep their mouths shut, it would be a piece of cake for him to get a few dozen to keep their story straight.

You say he has videotape?

What a shocker. A man who makes his living creating documentaries has a videotape. He also probably has an expensive production studio, or knows people who do. How hard is it these days, with fancy computer-generated imagery, to fake up a video showing the impossible–a seventy-two-year-old fist reaching up to strike a thirty-seven-year-old jaw?

This is clearly just an elaborate and diabolical hoax to gain sympathy, and to make us believe that he “won the moral high ground.” It’s ludicrous to believe that Buzz Aldrin actually punched Bart Sibrel in the jaw on Tuesday. Why, you might as well believe that he walked on the Moon…

Some of you perhaps noticed that I took yesterday off. As I said, I had little substantive to say on the occasion that I hadn’t been saying all along for the past year, and I figured I’d let you focus on all the folks who did. Some bloggers used it as an opportunity to take their best shots, and hope that the hyperfrenetic Instantman would offer them a cherished link. I chose to honor the day by doing nothing. Well, except paying work.

I’ve not warned anyone about this previously, because I feared that, amidst the general emotional environment of this week’s anniversary, the news might set off panic in the streets, and send the Dow plunging once again, but I’m going to Maui next week, and will be posting lightly, or not at all. So yesterday was just a taste of transterrestrial withdrawal, as a way of easing my loyal readers into it.

Fortunately, there are many better sites out there, many of them listed to the left, so you won’t be bereft of commentary. And I’ll be back on the 23rd. I’ll be posting some for the next couple days, but I didn’t want to shock anyone with the news on Friday night.

I have little to say. I’m not big on anniversaries anyway, given that they’re actually just random contingent events, resulting from the distance of the earth from the Sun. And I’ve been talking about it, on and off, for much of the last year. And I have a lot of (non-blogging) work to do.

I grieve for those who lost loved ones a year ago, but, more importantly, I fear for those who may lose loved ones in the future. I fear that our government isn’t up to the task of preventing further atrocities, further outrages, because a year later, it appears to remain more concerned with bureaucratic empire-building, self-aggrandizement, and local pork than with preventing a repeat of what happened a year ago.

I hope that appearances are wrong, and that at some point, we clarify the nature of the war in which we are engaged. It isn’t a war against terrorism. It is a war against a radical belief system that is ideologically opposed to almost everything upon which our nation and civilization is based. Until it, and the governments that support it, are defeated decisively, the war will not be over, and we will not truly be able to feel safe again.

That is all.

David Galernter has some harsh but necessary words for the idiotarian academicians who think that we just need to “understand” why they hate us.

And along those lines, here’s how UC Santa Cruz is going to commemorate the occasion. Read the CVs of the professors at the teach-in, and then read this:

Participants will be invited to write thoughts and wishes on a strip of colored cloth and “weave” their comments into a large “loom” structure, creating a commemorative tapestry. UCSC firefighter Mike Quinton will preside over the tolling of a ceremonial Indonesian gong, and violinist Michelle Witt will perform during the weaving ceremony.

Let those of us who can, give thanks that our children are not enrolled there.

David Galernter has some harsh but necessary words for the idiotarian academicians who think that we just need to “understand” why they hate us.

And along those lines, here’s how UC Santa Cruz is going to commemorate the occasion. Read the CVs of the professors at the teach-in, and then read this:

Participants will be invited to write thoughts and wishes on a strip of colored cloth and “weave” their comments into a large “loom” structure, creating a commemorative tapestry. UCSC firefighter Mike Quinton will preside over the tolling of a ceremonial Indonesian gong, and violinist Michelle Witt will perform during the weaving ceremony.

Let those of us who can, give thanks that our children are not enrolled there.

David Galernter has some harsh but necessary words for the idiotarian academicians who think that we just need to “understand” why they hate us.

And along those lines, here’s how UC Santa Cruz is going to commemorate the occasion. Read the CVs of the professors at the teach-in, and then read this:

Participants will be invited to write thoughts and wishes on a strip of colored cloth and “weave” their comments into a large “loom” structure, creating a commemorative tapestry. UCSC firefighter Mike Quinton will preside over the tolling of a ceremonial Indonesian gong, and violinist Michelle Witt will perform during the weaving ceremony.

Let those of us who can, give thanks that our children are not enrolled there.

My friend (and drug warrior) Iain Murray has been impressed with UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman’s past takes on the dangers of the Evil Weed.

I suspect that he won’t be as thrilled with this post from his new blog. Or this one…

Billy McKinney is losing his election by a margin of two to one.

But sadly, Janet “Shake’n’Bake” Reno is losing to McBride. He’s got about half the vote so far.

[Update at 9:40 PM]

Well, both lost. It wasn’t clear if Ms. Reno was “shaken” by the news…

While I would have liked to see her win, because it would have been an entertaining campaign that she wouldn’t have had a snowball’s chance in Hades of winning, it is nice to see another Clinton crony repudiated at the polls. When Elian is older, he’ll be gratified to see this. I just hope that he lives in a Cuba in which it’s possible to learn about things like this.

[Update, after the Reno loss]

It’s deja vu all over again.

Now she’s going to challenge the election, due to problems with the voting machines.

Like I said, you couldn’t make it up…

William Saracino is still upbeat about Bill Simon’s chances against Grayout Davis:

Virtually every registered voter knows and has an opinion about Gray Davis, and all he can pull is 41 percent and 37 percent. Bill Simon is still a cipher to many voters, which is one reason Davis has spent so much trying to define him. Both the PPIC and Field polls indicate that, so far at least, Davis?s money has not been well spent: it has pulled the incumbent down as fast or faster than it did Simon.

To summarize: Simon has had a horrendous six-week run of negative coverage (perhaps the worst six-weeks of bad press in my memory, which goes back farther than I care to admit). Davis has spent $25 million and his share of the vote is lower than at the first of the year. He has spent more than $15 million attacking Simon and portraying himself as the lesser of two evils ? and can barely break 40 percent. Until a few days ago, Simon had spent virtually nothing in response ? and is within 11 or six points.

And in another Simon story, the Wapo is trying to spin the brilliant E-Gray web site as a Simon negative, because it says that Ebay is thinking about suing for trademark infringement.

I’m not a lawyer, but I doubt if they have a case. It’s clearly a parody, and should constitute fair use. I wonder if Gray’s offered them any favors, though…? The best part was this:

Simon’s campaign told the Associated Press that it has no plans to take down the site. A Davis spokesman, meanwhile, said he does not believe the site will win many converts.

Sounds like he might be whistling past the gra(y)ve yard…