Is it any wonder that our children are growing up so ignorant, when this kind of thing isn’t a rarity, but probably typical? A history teacher who thinks that George Washington wrote the Bill of Rights?
I guess we should be thankful that he knows that George Washington even existed. This is why people home school.
I am also awed by Cam’s ability to maintain his civility and politeness with this ignoramus.
As Moneyrunner notes, there’s a very good question behind the latest Charlie Foxtrot by the administration.
Why in the world were they willing to create a huge carbon footprint for an ad campaign that consisted (apparently) of having Air Force One flying past the Statue of Liberty? Particularly when it could have been photoshopped for a tiny fraction of the cost? At least there was a hypocritical political excuse for that last carbon indulgence. It reminds one of the notion of saving a “Hundred Million Dollars” from a multi-trillion deficit.
But the bigger question, at least to me, is: why did whoever came up with this idiocy decide that the public shouldn’t be informed about it ahead of time, and why were instructions given to that effect to local officials? Why was it to be kept secret, particularly given that it’s hard to keep secret a 747 dressed as Air Force One flying down the Hudson, particularly being tailed by a military fighter?
If they had informed the public, some who hadn’t been informed would have still panicked, but it would have at least reduced the numbers of people running though the streets terrified and abandoning high rises in lower Manhattan. Why make it a secret? What was the rationale?
Most of the Obama administration screwups have an explanation, usually attributable to a grab for increased government power, but this one is a complete mystery. And it’s possible that it can simply be attributed to abject stupidity, but it’s hard to do so without at least an attempt of an explanation, in this case.
This is not the end of this story. Or at least I hope not.
[Update, late evening]
They knew it would cause panic, but did it anyway?
Is there an explanation for this insanity? I start to wonder…
[Evening update]
Commenter Stephen den Beste (who I would like to thank for his early contributions to the blogosphere, and apologize for any contributions of mine that may have helped drive him from it) has the only plausible explanation so far:
If people had been told, they might have objected and prevented it.
That fits with the overall theme of Obama wanting what he wants, and not accepting anything that gets in the way of his getting what he wants.
I’d sure like to think that there’s another and better explanation, but I’m still awaiting one.
Milner says the men demanded that he erase his recording, and one of them took his camera, while Cerbo claims, in the Post’s words, that he “offered to erase his tape because he hadn’t been invited to the event.” No one disputes that Milner was outnumbered, or that it was he who called 911.
If this is what happens to a man at a public event, what do you expect a woman to do when these guys show up at her house with a card to sign?
I’ll be curious to see whether Benedict Arlen flips on this issue.
She’s on a hunger strike against the monsters who run Iran.
Frank Glover has a depressing comment over at Space Transport News, on the latest news that the Orion capsule has been reduced from six to four crew, for only fifty billion in development costs:
In almost any other form of flight, descending on parachutes, landing in the water and waiting for a branch of the service to come get you, would mean something had gone very *wrong.*
That’s what you get when you decide to do “Apollo on Steroids.” Except it looks more like “Apollo on Vitamins.”
[Update a few minutes later]
A good comment:
More like “Apollo on Placebos”. At least vitamins are good for you.
Sigh…
[Really late update]
Another comment: “Geritol”
I laugh, so I don’t cry…
I just tried logging into one of my sites that I’ve password protected, and I stupidly used the wrong password multiple times. Now when I go to the site, I don’t get a username/password box. Instead, I just get a 403 error. Does the server somehow keep track of failed logins from a given IP and block it? If so, how do I fix it?
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, more clues. When I attempt to log in from my laptop, I get a username/password box, but when I correctly type in username/password, I get the same 403 error. This tells me there’s something going on with the server. Right?
One other bit of info. I can log in to other sites that use the same username/password, just not this one. Is it an Apache issue? If so, I’ll have to talk to support at my host. I don’t understand that, though, because it’s just for this one directory. It seems like a .htaccess problem, but I didn’t know that it would block an IP after a failed attempt, and I can’t find any info about how to unblock it.
[Wednesday morning update]
Well, it let me in this morning, so it must have had a time limit on the lock.
Some thoughts on the deification of nature.
Frankly, I’m with Iowahawk: Earth Day is the day on which we honor the ultimate MILF — Mother Earth. And people need to remember that we live not just on a planet, but in a solar system.
So “never again” means that we learn from others how to forgive and forget, and ultimately live happily with one another. But that is not what “never again” means, at least for the generation of the Holocaust and for most of those who followed. For them, “never again” means that we will destroy the next would-be Fuhrer. In his entire speech, Obama never once mentions that the United States led a coalition of free peoples against Germany, Italy and Japan, nor does he ever discuss the obligation of sacrifice to prevent a recurrence. Indeed, his examples suggest that he doesn’t grasp the full dimensions of the struggle against evil. Northern Ireland is a totally inappropriate example (nothing remotely approaching a Holocaust took place there), the relations between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda and Burundi are hardly characterized by forgiveness, even though the president of Burundi is striving mightily to achieve a peaceful modus vivendi, and as for Darfur, well, despite the tens of thousands who demonstrated on the Mall, nobody has done much of anything to stop the Khartoum regime from slaughtering the peoples of the south.
In the history of modern times, the United States has done more than anyone else, perhaps more than the rest of the world combined, to defeat evil, and we are still doing it. Yet Obama says that we must “learn from others” how to move on, forgive and forget, and live happily ever after. But these are just words, they are not policies, or even actions. And the meanings he gives to his words show that he has no real intention of doing anything to thwart evil, any more than he had any concrete actions to propose to punish North Korea.
Significantly, Barack Obama is a lot tougher on his domestic American opponents than on tyrants who threaten our values and America itself. He tells the Republicans that they’d better stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, but he doesn’t criticize Palestinians who raise their children to hate the Jews. He bows to the Saudi monarch, but humiliates the prime minister of Great Britain. He expresses astonishment that anyone can worry about a national security threat from Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela, even as Chavez solidifies an alliance with Iran that brings plane loads of terror masters, weapons and explosives into our hemisphere from Tehran via Damascus, fuels terrorists and narcotics traffic, and offers military facilities to Russian warships and aircraft. He is seemingly unconcerned by radical Islam and a resurgent Communism in Latin America, even as his Department of Homeland Security fires a warning shot at veterans–the best of America–returning from the Middle East. He seeks warm relations with Iran and Syria–who are up to their necks in American blood–while warning Israel of dire consequences if she should attempt to preempt a threatened Iranian nuclear attack.
Change!
Doug Messier has an analysis of the differences between Virgin Galactic and XCOR’s approach to commercial human spaceflight. A couple nits:
A year after the accident, Scaled brought in SpaceDev to assist with the engine development. The Powoy, Calif.-based company had built the propulsion system for SpaceShipOne, but Scaled subsequently decided to bring the engine development in-house. Bringing back SpaceDev was a tacit admission that this decision had not been a wise one.
It’s not quite that simple. There is some dispute as to who the actual engine provider for SS1 was, and SpaceDev certainly didn’t do it on its own. And one reason that they didn’t get the follow-on work was a rumored falling out between Burt Rutan and Jim Benson, founder and then-head of SpaceDev. In addition to the accident, I would assume that one of the reasons that SpaceDev and Scaled are working together again is a result of Jim’s departure from the company almost three years ago (subsequentprior to his recent death).
Also,
XCOR’s gradual approach – flying a small vehicle commercially, then building something larger – is what Scaled Composites might have done absent the involvement of Virgin Galactic. Branson’s company brought the customer experience to the forefront, which led to the development of a much larger – and more complicated – space plane.
It’s not at all clear what Scaled would have done (if anything) absent Virgin’s involvement. It’s unlikely they would have operated the vehicle on their own — that’s not the business they’re in, and they wouldn’t have developed it any further with their own money, because that’s not what they do. They build airplanes to other people’s specifications. Perhaps if Branson hadn’t stepped forward, Paul Allen might have started a passenger business, but we’ll never know now.
Arlen Specter is finally coming out of the closet:
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.
Specter’s decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken’s victory in the state Supreme Court.)
I wonder if Reid had to offer the turncoat much in the way of chairmanships, or if he’s just doing it to avoid a primary defeat?
[Update a few minutes later]
Heh.
I read that he was switching parties, but I was disappointed to learn he’s still a Democrat.
[Early evening update]
Man weasely politicians like Benedict Arlen must really hate the web and Google. Here’s what the hypocritical snake said when Jim Jeffords pulled the same stunt:
I take second place to no one on independence voting. But, it is my view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported the election of a particular Senator. I believe that is the expectation. And certainly it has been a very abrupt party change, although they have occurred in the past with only minor ripples, none have caused the major dislocation which this one has.
When I first ran in 1980, Congressman Bud Shuster sponsored a fundraiser for me in Altoona where Congressman Jack Kemp was the principal speaker. When some questions were raised as to my political philosophy, Congressman Shuster said my most important vote would be the organizational vote. From that day to this, I have believed that the organizational vote belonged to the party which supported my election.
When the Democrats urged me to switch parties some time ago, I gave them a flat “no.” I have been asked in the last several days if I intended to switch parties. I have said absolutely not.
Senator PHIL GRAMM faced this issue when he decided to switch parties. He resigned his seat, which he had won as a Democrat, and ran for reelection as a Republican. As he told me, his last vote in January 1983 was for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and he voted for Tip O’Neill with the view that he was elected as a Democrat and should vote that way on organizational control. Even though, he intended to become a Republican and would have preferred another person to be Speaker.
To repeat, I intend to propose a Senate rule which would preclude a change in control of the Senate when a Senator decides to vote with the opposing party for organizational purposes.
Sauce is only for the goose, I guess.
[Evening update]
A good point:
When Jeffords switched parties, it meant that Arlen Specter was going from the majority party to the minority, which meant that he lost power. This time, Arlen Specter is going from minority to majority, so he will be gaining power. Night and day, man.
Well, it’s not like he’s ever had anything regarding political principles. I really find him more loathsome than more long-time Democrats, and always have, because at least they pretend to have principles.