Hillary!’s First Instinct

For those who weren’t paying attention during the 90s, Stuart Taylor has a reminder:

I will not excavate Clinton’s own kindergarten confessions. Nor will I compare the honesty quotient of her campaign-trail spin with the dreadful drivel dutifully uttered by Obama and other candidates to pander to their fevered primary electorates.

Instead, let’s take a trip down memory lane — from the tawdriness of the 1992 presidential campaign through the mendacity of the ensuing years — to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary’s first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie.

He doesn’t mention that she not only had the Travel Office employees fired, but had the FBI prosecute them, with such flimsy evidence that the jurors acquitted almost immediately.

Unfortunately, it’s not a permalink. But it’s a useful read right now for “Hillary Supporter” (and Hillary! supporters in general). And as Ann Althouse asks, “How smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?”

Gee, maybe she’s not the smartest woman in the world?

Hillary!’s First Instinct

For those who weren’t paying attention during the 90s, Stuart Taylor has a reminder:

I will not excavate Clinton’s own kindergarten confessions. Nor will I compare the honesty quotient of her campaign-trail spin with the dreadful drivel dutifully uttered by Obama and other candidates to pander to their fevered primary electorates.

Instead, let’s take a trip down memory lane — from the tawdriness of the 1992 presidential campaign through the mendacity of the ensuing years — to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary’s first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie.

He doesn’t mention that she not only had the Travel Office employees fired, but had the FBI prosecute them, with such flimsy evidence that the jurors acquitted almost immediately.

Unfortunately, it’s not a permalink. But it’s a useful read right now for “Hillary Supporter” (and Hillary! supporters in general). And as Ann Althouse asks, “How smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?”

Gee, maybe she’s not the smartest woman in the world?

Hillary!’s First Instinct

For those who weren’t paying attention during the 90s, Stuart Taylor has a reminder:

I will not excavate Clinton’s own kindergarten confessions. Nor will I compare the honesty quotient of her campaign-trail spin with the dreadful drivel dutifully uttered by Obama and other candidates to pander to their fevered primary electorates.

Instead, let’s take a trip down memory lane — from the tawdriness of the 1992 presidential campaign through the mendacity of the ensuing years — to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary’s first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie.

He doesn’t mention that she not only had the Travel Office employees fired, but had the FBI prosecute them, with such flimsy evidence that the jurors acquitted almost immediately.

Unfortunately, it’s not a permalink. But it’s a useful read right now for “Hillary Supporter” (and Hillary! supporters in general). And as Ann Althouse asks, “How smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?”

Gee, maybe she’s not the smartest woman in the world?

Is VSE Dying?

Dennis Wingo thinks so. So do I.

In over 30 years of reading space literature from NASA, congress, and the president, this is the first time that the presidential stamp has been placed on the development of extraterrestrial resources. This was not the only step in the development of this thought at the highest reaches of our government. In 2006 at the 44th Goddard Symposium the presidential theme was extended and amplified.

“As I see it, questions about the VSE boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, “The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.” So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.”

These two speeches, one by President Bush, and another by his science advisor, the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy laid the foundation and provided the ground rules, and gave very explicit policy direction to NASA regarding what we are to do in the return to the Moon and conduct exploration to Mars and beyond.

The problem is that NASA has not embraced this expansive goal for our national space program. Why is this? It seems to be just the kind of red meat goal that NASA has dreamed of forever. Even in the SEI era there was never this kind of clear cut, practical direction for a policy, as Marburger states, from the President and Congress. It boggles the mind that this has not been incorporated as a core value for the lunar exploration program–it is exactly this type of effort that has the potential to connect to the American people.

Just as was the case with SEI, VSE is being done in by NASA, though in a different way this time. In SEI, they did it by deliberately sabotaging the program with outrageous cost estimates, and actually lobbying against it in Congress. With VSE, it’s more a case of negligent manslaughter, rather than premeditation. ESAS, and NASA’s lack of vision, is killing the Vision. And the administration is too preoccupied with other things, and long in the tooth, to do anything about it.

New New Atlantis

I just got my fall issue of The New Atlantis–its focus is space, in keeping with the Sputnik anniversary in October. I just glanced at it, but it’s got lots of good stuff in it, by Oberg, Mike Griffin, and others, including a long review of Rocketeers by me (well, that one may not be so good). Unfortunately, no links, because it won’t be on line for a couple weeks or so, but when it is, I’ll remind folks. So if you’re not a subscriber, this is just a teaser.

Do We Need Death?

Ron Bailey doesn’t think so. Neither do I. And I sure hope we don’t.

I’ve noticed this kind of “argument” a lot with people who want to hold back true progress (as opposed to the “progress” proposed by many “progressives”):

So what about the social consequences of radically longer and healthier lives? In that regard, Diana Schaub in her reaction essay raises many questions for reflection about those consequences, but curiously she fails to actually reflect on them. Schaub isn

So Much For That

No launch today, either. Maybe tomorrow, but I don’t think I’ll hang around for it–Patricia has to work.

Anyway, I’m guessing that they’ll ultimately have to roll back, and launch in January. These sensors seem to be even more flaky than usual.

[Update about a minute after posting]

Yup. I just got a text message that they’ve decided to give up on it for the year.

[A couple minutes more]

Here’s confirmation on the web site. January 2nd at the earliest.

[11:20 update]

Here’s more info.

Sarkozy Is A Lot Better Than Chirac

…but he’s still idiotic on some issues:

Last year, Mr. Sarkozy told French radio: “Security is the responsibility of the state. I am against the private ownership of firearms. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he will use his weapon more effectively than you anyway, so you are risking your life.”

But of course, there is no risk to your life if you’re unarmed…

[Update on Monday morning]

As noted in comments, this thread got hijacked by the usual suspects, but here are some interesting thoughts on another Frenchman, Tocqueville, who was a lot smarter than Sarkozy on these issues. Also, on what happens when mass killers meet armed citizens, as was demonstrated over the weekend in Colorado.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!