A rabbi and a Nazi duked it out at the Kansas City Airport.
[Update at 3:40 PM]
Maybe this was just a little replay of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which today is also the anniversary of (sixty two years ago). An interesting coincidence that we have two anniversaries today demonstrating that gun confiscation is a flawed policy. Well, three, actually, if you count Waco.
[Wednesday AM update]
LGF has more details about the airport incident.
In addition to being the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and the Oklahoma City bombing, it’s also the twelth anniversary of Waco (which was probably one of the precipitating events for Oklahoma City).
For a(nother) white pope. So much for my prognostication.
On the tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Laura Mansfield has a very disturbing story–Jihad comes to Small Town, USA:
Khaled and three of his companions had gone to New York for several days in January. He told of how uncomfortable his trip up to NYC had been. He felt like he was being watched, and thought he was the victim of racial profiling.
Khaled and his friends were pretty unhappy about it, and while in New York, they came up with a plan to “teach a lesson” to the passengers and crew. You can imagine the story Khaled told. He described how he and his friends whispered to each other on the flight, made simultaneous visits to the restroom, and generally tried to “spook” the other passengers. He laughed when he described how several women were in tears, and one man sitting near him was praying.
The others in the room thought the story was quite amusing, judging from the laughter. The imam stood up and told the group that this was a kind of peaceful civil disobedience that should be encouraged, and commended Khaled and his friends for their efforts.
This part of the meeting was all spoken in Arabic.
In Israel, Yasser Arafat was well known (at least to the non-naive) for making conciliatory speeches in English and inflammatory ones in Arabic. Apparently, he’s not alone in this practice.
Mike Griffin seems to agree with me about Shuttle upgrades:
Asked at his first news conference if he would allow Discovery to fly despite some reservations by the independent Stafford-Covey Commission, which monitors NASA progress on safety recommendations after the Columbia disaster, Griffin replied, “In concept, yes I would.”
…”Advisory groups advise. We need to take our advice very seriously …,” Griffin said. “But at the end of the day, the people wearing government and contractor badges charged with launching the vehicle will be the ones who are responsible and accountable for their actions.”
Byron York describes the ongoing absurdity of campaign finance “reform.”
…after years of campaign-finance reform, we are entering an era in which a donor can give an unlimited amount of money to an unaccountable group without any public disclosure. Before McCain-Feingold, big donors gave fully-disclosed money to the political parties, which, because they represented the entire coalition that made up the Democratic or Republican parties, were far more accountable to the public than the new, outside, groups became. Now, new C4s like protectyourcheck.org do not even have to reveal where they get their money
Two hundred and thirty years ago, the first American revolution started, when British troops attempted to enforce gun-control laws in Massachussetts. This incident was doubtless fresh in the memories of the Founders when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Jon Berndt has an article in the current issue of the Houston AIAA newsletter on the subject of heavy lift, citing yours truly, among others. (Warning, it’s a three meg PDF). My only quibble is that he misses one of the other problems with a heavy lifter–lack of resiliency. If we develop an exploration architecture that’s dependent on heavy lift, then we should have multiple means of providing it, which means two development programs with inadequate flight rate to amortize the costs.
Along similar lines, Bob Zubrin has a long essay on space policy in The New Atlantis that’s now available on line, with a harsh critique of NASA, including the Bush-era NASA and Sean O’Keefe. Surprisingly, I agree with much of the early part of it (though as always, the tone is a little problematic). I don’t agree with this:
The ESMD plan requires a plethora of additional recurring costs and mission risks for the sole purpose of avoiding the development cost of a big new rocket
Jon Berndt has an article in the current issue of the Houston AIAA newsletter on the subject of heavy lift, citing yours truly, among others. (Warning, it’s a three meg PDF). My only quibble is that he misses one of the other problems with a heavy lifter–lack of resiliency. If we develop an exploration architecture that’s dependent on heavy lift, then we should have multiple means of providing it, which means two development programs with inadequate flight rate to amortize the costs.
Along similar lines, Bob Zubrin has a long essay on space policy in The New Atlantis that’s now available on line, with a harsh critique of NASA, including the Bush-era NASA and Sean O’Keefe. Surprisingly, I agree with much of the early part of it (though as always, the tone is a little problematic). I don’t agree with this:
The ESMD plan requires a plethora of additional recurring costs and mission risks for the sole purpose of avoiding the development cost of a big new rocket
Jon Berndt has an article in the current issue of the Houston AIAA newsletter on the subject of heavy lift, citing yours truly, among others. (Warning, it’s a three meg PDF). My only quibble is that he misses one of the other problems with a heavy lifter–lack of resiliency. If we develop an exploration architecture that’s dependent on heavy lift, then we should have multiple means of providing it, which means two development programs with inadequate flight rate to amortize the costs.
Along similar lines, Bob Zubrin has a long essay on space policy in The New Atlantis that’s now available on line, with a harsh critique of NASA, including the Bush-era NASA and Sean O’Keefe. Surprisingly, I agree with much of the early part of it (though as always, the tone is a little problematic). I don’t agree with this:
The ESMD plan requires a plethora of additional recurring costs and mission risks for the sole purpose of avoiding the development cost of a big new rocket