Jeez, another fake photo. I see they’re just trying to maintain the fiction that humans walked on the moon. I mean, c’mon! You can’t even see stars in that picture. You’d think they’d at least try to photoshop them in.
[Update in the afternoon]
Wow, are my commenters gullible. They really believe this. Come on, people, just look at the lighting and the shadows! Obviously fake, just like the landing itself. And that story about the astronaut punching out that truth teller.
Some have said that the cost-effective solution to climate change is to adapt (I’m in this camp). But I think this may be going overboard:
Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.
What could go wrong?
And of course, it’s all about the liberty:
It’s been suggested that, given the seriousness of climate change, we ought to adopt something like China’s one child policy. There was a group of doctors in Britain who recently advocated a two-child maximum. But at the end of the day those are crude prescriptions—what we really care about is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions per family. If that’s the case, given certain fixed allocations of greenhouse gas emissions, human engineering could give families the choice between two medium sized children, or three small sized children. From our perspective that would be more liberty enhancing than a policy that says “you can only have one or two children.” A family might want a really good basketball player, and so they could use human engineering to have one really large child.
Yes, that’s what we really care about — a fixed allocation of greenhouse emissions per family.
More thoughts from Mark Wilson at Ricochet.
All the way to orbit. Now that’s the kind of high-speed train I could get behind. I wonder how they came up with the sixty-billion number? It would be a lot better deal than SLS.
Mark Steyn, on his upcoming excursion of danger into the wilds of the Great White North.
It’s a real foot tapper.
Reflections on modern rural life.
Elon is one of those rare people who started with a small fortune in space and turned it into a larger one. Historically, it’s been the opposite for most attempts. I guess they’ll have to update this list now.
Is it about to blow again? At least it’s unlikely to be as big as the event that wiped the Minoans.
Despite the hopes of the foolish, the Tea Party hasn’t gone away:
“When it comes to the presidential contest, I think the tea partiers will turn up in droves,” she told The Daily Caller.
“They aren’t rallying in the street anymore — I think they’ve been there, done that, so they appear to be quieter. But tea party chapters are still alive and vigorous, and they are just chomping at the bit to pull a lever in November.”
What’s more, says Foley, is that tea partiers will ultimately rally behind whomever the GOP nominee turns out to be.
“And frankly, I think many tea partiers are eager to pull the lever in favor of the Republican presidential nominee — whoever that turns out to be — simply because, from their perspective, that person’s policies will be clearly preferable to those of President Obama,” she said.
And then there’s this:
Foley is the rarest of species: a tea party supporter in liberal academia. A law professor at Florida International University and chair in constitutional litigation for the Institute of Justice, Foley says many of her liberal colleagues didn’t receive her pro-tea party book too well. (RELATED: Full coverage of the tea party movement)
“It’s more than a little ironic that some of the most close-minded folks I have ever met make their living as professors whose entire job is to engage in scholarly inquiry and convey that spirit of open-minded inquiry to their students,” she said. “It never ceases to amaze and disappoint me.”
I’m long past either amazement or disappointment. They can do neither any more.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s a review of Foley’s book, which explains the Tea Party to the idiots in the media.
…a 2005 study by scientists with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute with investigators supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, found that sodium nitrite infusions led to the production of nitric oxide which increased blood flow and protected the hearts and livers in mice undergoing experimental heart attacks and liver injuries, reducing heart muscle and liver tissue damage.
All of this experimental research is preliminary but does illustrate that in the past 15 years, “we’ve gone from considering all of these things to be toxic and carcinogenic to realizing that [nitrites are] playing a fundamental homeostatic role,” said Dr. Ferric Fang, M.D., professor of laboratory medicine and microbiology at the University of Washington in Seattle. They’re a normal, natural part of a healthy body and not chemicals to fear.
So, hotdogs and processed meats are condemned as junk food because they contain nitrates, which they don’t, while vegetables are declared health food because they’re free from the same chemicals, which they’re not. It may be awhile before people will get to the point of calling bacon and hotdogs health food.
Woody Allen’s notion in Sleeper is looking more and more prophetic.
[Update mid morning]
Some disgusting anti-bacon propaganda.