We’ve been in the final throes of getting bathroom cabinets installed this weekend (and frustrated at our inability to get one of the drawer fronts to align with the others) but if you want a good report on the self-regarding event sans the president, Byron York has it for you.
I was kind of amused at the relief of some of the participants that Hollywood also declined to show up.
Behold the leftist angst over having a barbecue in proximity to a fake hunger strike.
In which it is revealed that he “considered gayness.”
This doesn’t suprise me at all. There were a lot of rumors prior to the first election.
FWIW, I have never “considered gayness.” I’m simply not wired that way.
No, it’s not the birthplace of the free-speech movement. But as Jonah notes, it seems determined to be its tomb.
Most Americans don’t think they should be able to be purchased with food stamps.
I agree. I oppose food stamps (it’s a federal subsidy to farmers), but if you’re going to give them out, they should only be used for food.
I agree with Steve Milloy, it’s time to revisit it.
My neighbor of a few blocks away is whining about his victimhood:
I am also victimized for my unpaganhood, and I am constantly pressured to conform and accept weird weather religions and the theological musings of internet hipsters who think the idea of Christian grace is some sort of supernatural point system where you get into heaven for accomplishing a set number of good deeds. I reject these attempts to subjugate me to the dominant discourse, just as I reject the liberal Jesusplaining that seeks to steal my savior and turn him into some sort of socialist hippie, a Bernie Sanders in a robe who thinks the only sin is generating too big of a carbon footprint.
And then there is the systemic hate for my rigidly male monosexual identification and my pronounced pro-chick agenda. Too often those of you who are genderfluid deny the identity of those of us who are gendersolid.
Same.
It’s official; it’s slipped into 2019. Just put it out of its (and our) misery.
This is my shocked face. #NotReally https://t.co/iO6a1oNMOa
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) April 27, 2017
[Update a couple minutes later]
What's really infuriating is that Congress robbed funding from Commercial Crew to feed it to the monster rocket, and still a 3-year slip. https://t.co/66Q01ImBnk
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) April 27, 2017
[Update a few minutes later]
And in related news, the space-suit situation is as screwed up as ever. I was looking into thie problem 35 years ago for military man-in-space at the Aerospace Corporation, and we still don’t have a usable suit that doesn’t require pre-breathing.
[Update early afternoon]
A reminder, from the comments at the Berger piece:
This rocket is a colossal waste of NASA’s limited resources and valuable expertise. They are building it entirely at the micro-management of the Senate to make sure that certain districts get the jobs. Its going to end up costing around $2 billion per flight, has zero reuse built in, and this first model with the 70mt capacity and interim upper stage will only fly ONCE. Right now we have 3 US heavy/super heavy lift rockets in development: Falcon Heavy, Vulcan, and New Glenn. They are each a fraction of the cost per kg and they are all incorporating reusability and are all going to be ready to fly astronauts before this one does.
Yup. Well, maybe not Vulcan. That one’s funding constrained.
Bob Zimmerman has some observations after a recent visit to Israel.
He attempts to discredit Judith Curry, and you’ll never guess what happens next!
There is one wonderful thing about Gavin’s argument, and one even more wonderful thing.
The wonderful thing is that he is arguing that Dr. Curry is wrong about the models being tuned to the actual data during the period because the models are so wrong (!).
The models were not tuned to consistency with the period of interest as shown by the fact that – the models are not consistent with the period of interest. Gavin points out that the models range all over the map, when you look at the 5% – 95% range of trends. He’s right, the models do not cluster tightly around the observations, and they should, if they were modeling the climate well.
Here’s the even more wonderful thing. If you read the relevant portions of the IPCC reports, looking for the comparison of observations to model projections, each is a masterpiece of obfuscation on this same point. You never see a clean, clear, understandable presentation of the models-to-actuals comparison. But look at those histograms above, direct from the hand of Gavin. It’s the clearest presentation I’ve ever run across that the models run hot. Thank you, Gavin.
Yes, thank you.
[Update a while later]
Semi-related: Chelsea HubbellClinton tweets about science, and you’ll never guess what happened next!