In which Rachel Maddow calls Barack Obama a liar. And as it continues to “fizzle out,” we learn that the IRS also targeted existing conservative organizations.
The XCOR/ULA Engine Development
An interesting story at Space News about the progress on a piston-pumped cryogenic RL-10 replacement.
The Indianapolis Anniversary
Some thoughts. As a commenter points out, many of the men died of many awful things — drowning, dehydration, loss of blood — the sharks were just one way for a relative few of them, but somehow I guess it’s human nature to attach some special horror to being eaten by wild animals. Anyway, as they said, they delivered the bomb, and we should be in awe at the sacrifice that generation made for us. It’s a shame that many today seem to want to squander the freedom that was won then.
Exploration Is Highly Overrated
Ben Wright McGee has a long essay on old space versus new, which I think misses the point, because he seems to think that space is about exploration, and then gets bogged down in the pointless argument of whether or not suborbital flight constitutes such:
In almost back-to-back recent events, what to me is an example of the true nature of the conflict between the many colliding conceptions of astronauts, space explorers, and space exploration was brought into sharp relief:
On the one hand, a NASA historian who I greatly respect alleged to me that private suborbital spaceflight and even new, commercial orbital space modules and transportation systems (which have recently received NASA funding to enhance the U.S. space infrastructure and give scientists more platforms and opportunities to conduct research), were patently unworthy of NASA dollars.
Existing Russian and U.S. systems should be relied upon, and the already pinched NASA budget, he implied, should be saved and consolidated for the more worthy endeavor of exploring truly uncharted planetary territory.
To me, this is all beside the point. There is an implicit assumption that the purpose of human spaceflight is to explore space, but that has never, ever been the case. In the sixties, its purpose was to beat the Soviets in a peaceful contest in the Cold War, and since then it’s been largely a jobs program — “exploration” was just the excuse, despite the fact that we haven’t left LEO. To me, exploration is a means, not an end. The goal of human spaceflight should be to develop the resources of and settle space, and if we’re not doing that (which we currently are not, at least NASA isn’t), then we should quit wasting money on it. But we remain stuck in this “exploration” mindset because we’ve never had a real national debate on why we’re spending this money, instead talking with hidden assumption that we all assume are shared by others, even though they clearly are not.
The Problem With The Mann Judge’s Ruling
I noticed this at the time as well:
Interestingly, it appears that Judge Combs Greene has mixed-up the defendants in the court’s ruling, attributing actions taken by the Consumer Enterprise Institution to Mark Steyn and National Review.
I have no comment. I also have no comment on these comments.
[Wednesday-morning update]
In fairness to the judge, the people most likely to comment at a site like that are going to be people unhappy with her rulings — it’s less likely that someone should show up to laud her, regardless of the quality of her work.
Also, Phil Plait has more, with several links. He’s very happy, of course.
It’s very frustrating to not be able to make any substantive comments on this.
[Update a couple minutes later]
This at the always misnamed ThinkProgress is hilarious: “Mann has been vindicated yet again!”
Yes. Right.
[Bumped]
First Detroit
…and Chicago may be next. How’s that Democrat governance and corruption working out, again?
“No-Government Conservatives”
No, Jon Favreau, despite your disgusting misogynistic concern trolling and straw men, there is no such thing.
McDonalds Math
This sort of thing is why we don’t want economic illiterates in charge of the economy. Hey, morons. Don’t you think that if McDonalds could just raise their prices (and hence revenues) by 17% (actually 26%), they’d have already done that?
[Update a while later]
Let’s say McDonald’s decided to double all its salaries, so that the entry-level wage became $16 an hour instead of $8 an hour. Why would McDonald’s continue to employ their $8 an hour workers when instead they could hire “better” workers who are worth more? (And those of you who think that the skills, linguistic abilities, experience, intelligence, etc. of fast-food workers makes no difference in service don’t eat in McDonald’s much.)
Again, this is why you don’t want people making policy who don’t understand how business works. And this administration (and sadly, Congress, of both parties, but much more so among the Democrats) is full of such people.
Climate Skeptics
…and the scientific method:
…how can criticisms of sceptics as politically motivated be squared with science’s commitment to findings always being provisional and open to challenge? At what point can we judge that a scientific question moves from a position of “doubt” to being “settled”?
Both climate change sceptics and advocates of climate policy see this question as important; sharing a faith that scientific evidence is the basis for public policy. However, such a faith omits the possibility that science is not suited to such a role, and that “solving” climate change does not flow linearly from agreement on the science. The attentions of sceptics may or may not be improving the practice and knowledge of climate science. However, if sceptics’ never-ending audit is really damaging policy, that may be more a reflection of an overly scientised policy process than a basis for denying them a voice in debate.
Yup.
Normal Weather
How it became “extreme.”