Jim McCormick dissects the latest Roman-bashing revisionism, over at Albion’s Seedlings.
Barking Sea Spiders
I’m taking Patricia out to dinner tonight, then putting her on a red eye back to Florida, and I’m going up to Mojave tomorrow, so probably light posting for the next day or so. To hold you over, though, read about the latest ground-breaking research in fish f@rts. Let the japery in the comments section commence!
Us And Them
Arnold Kling reminds those who have forgotten of the asymmetric difference between us and the real enemy (i.e., not the Bush administration, which seems to be the real enemy to much of the left, and too much of the Democrat Party):
- Many people have fled radical Muslim regimes to live in the U.S. Hardly anyone has fled the U.S. to live under radical Muslim regimes.
- In the United States, women are allowed to choose whether or not to wear modest clothing. Radical Muslims deny them that right, as well as others.
- Americans who abuse enemy prisoners cower in shame and are prosecuted. Radical Muslims celebrate war crimes, proudly display photos and videos of war crimes, and honor the criminals.
- More Iraqis would like to see the terrorists give up tomorrow than see the Americans leave tomorrow. (If there is any doubt about that, we can put the issue up for a vote in Iraq.)
- Americans see negotiations as a way to resolve differences. Radical Muslims see negotiations as a sign of weakness.
- When Muslims come to live in America, we provide them with safety, tolerance, and equal rights. Jews and Christians do not enjoy equal rights — or even safety — inside countries run by radical Muslim regimes.
- The American military is trained to try to minimize civilian casualties. For radical Muslims, civilian casualties are a measure of success.
- Americans go to war reluctantly, when other means fail. Radical Muslims accept cease-fires reluctantly, when other means fail.
- Americans desire the approval and support of the European people. Radical Muslims desire the intimidation and submission of the European people.
- If radical Muslims would renounce violence, then we would not disturb them. If we renounce violence, then we will be conquered and brutalized.
A Boom In Spaceports?
What I found interesting was this, though:
The FAA also is considering two proposed spaceports in Texas, including a private spaceport on 165,000 acres of desolate ranch land about 120 miles east of El Paso bought by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos. Bezos had said his space tourism firm, Blue Origin, would first build basic structures, then begin flight tests in six to seven years.
Six to seven years? I thought that they wanted to do suborbital tourism, at least initially. Why would it take six to seven years, given that they’ve been working on it for a number of years already? It makes me wonder how serious Mr. Bezos is about this business, because that would put him way behind the competition (though perhaps he thinks that his design will be so superior that it won’t matter).
One of the dangers of having too much money is that you’re sometimes willing to spend it with no expectations of getting it back, so it’s treated more as a hobby. John Carmack has noted this explicitly in the past with respect to Armadillo (though he may be evolving it into a business), but is Blue Origin similar?
Prizes And Privates
Over at today’s issue of The Space Review, Robin Snelson writes about NASA’s latest (and very interesting) Centennial Challenge, to demonstrate lunar landing technology. Also Jeff Foust writes about Elon Musk and SpaceX’s status, and there’s an interview with Newt Gingrich, on space prizes, private enterprise, and NASA.
[Update a few minutes later]
I just got around to reading the Gingrich interview myself, and clearly, under a (hypothetical, and unlikely) Gingrich administration, space policy would look much different:
I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration.
And he’s just warming up. I’m sure that Mark Whittington will now attack Newt as an “Internet rocketeer.”
[Update at 1 PM PDT]
I had been unaware of the schedule controversy described in the comments. It would be interesting to see a response from Ken Davidian or Brant Sponberg.
The Okinawa Quagmire
I haven’t had time or inspiration to write one of these lately (and I’m actually still working on compiling previous efforts in a book in my non-copious free time), but Victor Davis Hanson (who actually started this and originally inspired me with his Pearl Harbor piece back in ought one) wonders anew how today’s media would cover WW II.
It is not out of
Busy Weekend
I had a niece graduate from USC on Friday, and most of the weekend was consumed in consumption, at places like this, this and this, the latter for a Mother’s Day brunch. Family (in-law) barbecues in Cerritos were involved as well.
The commencement was a little deja vuish, because her sister graduated from there a year ago. The commencement speaker was much more impressive last year though. This year’s speech was a trite bit of hackery from Antonio Villaraigosa (current LA mayor), with too much veiled politics in it.
NYT and WSJ Agree
Kid You Not
Epstein in WSJ and Satel in NYT both say something needs to be done about kidneys (reversing the Ethicist’s stand). They both look to big payments to kidney sellers as a way to stop “6,500 excess deaths” due to lack of kidneys.
It is against the law to offer “valuable consideration”. Kidney buyers can take the matter into their own hands and not wait for a law change. Instead of a “valuable” consideration for a sold kidney, consider the following proposal:
- Small payments to lots of prospective sellers upon death
- A contract that pays a buyers organization a large sum of money from the estate if the organ sale is obstructed by family
It would work like life insurance in reverse. Kidney buyers would pay lots of people a consideration that doesn’t trigger the “valuable” language. In the absense of a kidney being delivered on death if one is available, the estate of the deceased would owe a payment. Some donors might sign the commitment without a consideration just to create a strong incentive for their family to honor their wishes with regard to donation.
The proposal is not sensitive to the needs of the grieving family, but I would rather have 3250 irate families than 6500 extra prematurely grieving ones due to a lack of kidneys.
It Makes Me Feel Old
…when people start talking about 80s nostalgia.
Late seventies, early eighties, was when I pretty much quit listening to pop music, so this is a conversation in which I can’t participate. The vast majority of the songs being discussed I wouldn’t recognize if I heard them. I have no idea what any of Prince’s songs sounded like (though I do know Cyndi Lauper and I remember Kim Carnes “Bette Davis Eyes”). But for those of my readers who are interested, it’s probably an interesting post.
Oh, and yes, I was also surprised that Callimarchus could write that with a straight face. I wonder what his wife thinks?
One Of The Many Reasons I’d Like A New Administration
Appointments like this.
Unfortunately, there’s nothing better on offer. Any Dem that could win the nomination would be far worse.
[sorry, link’s fixed]
[Update at 5 PM Pacific]
Here’s another reason. The administration doesn’t even seem to be trying to win its ongoing war with the CIA. The agency needs to be abolished and rebuilt from scratch.