Today would have been his eighty-fifth birthday. Many of his dreams may have been unrealistic, in retrospect (they were based on the assumption that the Shuttle really would reduce the cost of space access, among other things), but he inspired, and reinspired a generation jaded by the letdown of Apollo.
On a related note, Alexis Madrigal has an interesting bit of space (and California) history, over at the Atlantic.
I just got this one: “I am Special Agent,Fred Jones and am in Nigeria as an FBI delegate that has been delegated to investigate this fraudsters who are in the business of swindling Foreigners that came for transaction in Nigeria . Please be informed that during my investigation I got to find out that there is a huge sum that has been assigned in your name.Regard FRED JONES”
This one is real for sure.
Still no flying cars, but this latest video from Corning is sure twenty-first century. Interesting that they have a British narrator for an American company.
…leads to skewed decisions. I think his ideology is part of the problem, too, but this cocoon doesn’t help.
History teaches us that we don’t learn from history.
What do you get? Man, those scientists in the WSJ sure stirred up an angry hornet’s nest of warm mongers.
Brian Preston rebuts Kathy Shaidle.
…of the Democrats. And they thought the Republicans had a lousy field.
Meet Jack Kemp. He really is politically tone deaf, in addition to being economically ignorant. Fortunately, Obama is even worse in both regards.
I’ve been having this bizarre email exchange with someone who will remain nameless to protect the guilty, as a result of this much-commented post:
Him: I read your article about “Getting Religion out of Science Classrooms” after following the link from Instapundit.com and would like to have an intelligent discussion with you about this. I find your views on what constitutes “scientific” vs. “religious” to be inconsistent. Hopefully we could both benefit from an exchange of emails – but I won’t bother if you would just consider me an know-nothing. Maybe both of us will learn something. If I am wrong in my beliefs, I would like to find out by intelligent correspondence. Something with a little more light, less heat, than occurs on the blogosphere.
Me: I certainly have no reason to think you a know nothing, but I don’t really want to waste my time on a private discussion. I’d be happy to have a public one.
Him: The problem I have with a public discussion is that rarely is something learned. I think you’re sharp enough that I can learn something from you.
Me: I don’t understand why a public discussion will not instruct, but a private one will.
Him: I think I have some really good arguments for intelligent design. I think I have convincing arguments that there must be a God. Such arguments can’t really make it in a public forum because they get too interrupted by chaff. Arguments get better only when tried before true devil’s advocates. I see by your regular contributions that Glenn flags that you have not fallen for the delusion of liberalism.
Me: I don’t know what you mean by “liberalism.” I am a classical liberal (that is, I am not a leftist).
Him: Yet you have a very simplistic, childish view of ID.
Me: Was this supposed to persuade me that I should waste my time engaging in an intelligent private discussion with you? If so, it failed. Completely.
Him: Rand, sorry I offended you. I did learn something.
Me: And if I had told you that your views about evolution were “childish,” you wouldn’t have been offended? Perhaps you need to learn something about yourself.
Him: I don’t know. I have always been one who is so confident about my views that I like debate. I consider when someone calls my views “childish” to be an invitation to debate, not an offense. Sorry, just the way I am. I think in general people who feel they have the minority viewpoint that has not been given a fair shake take any attention, even negative comments, as a positive thing.
Me: If you think that calling someone’s views “childish” is debating at all, let alone doing so “intelligently,” then I have to say that you’re overconfident in your debating ability.
I think now I understand why he prefers to debate privately, though.
[Update mid afternoon]
For those in comments worried that I’m beating up on a kid, if I am, he’s impersonating a professor of physics.