And as Jonah says, NARAL.
Babies smile and suck their thumbs in the womb. Guess they don’t learn if from their mothers after all…
And as Jonah says, NARAL.
Babies smile and suck their thumbs in the womb. Guess they don’t learn if from their mothers after all…
Boy, talk about egregious overuse and abuse of a metaphor (Michigan football fans only).
I love this headline at the New York Post. A paper that’s not afraid to tell it like it is.
It’s a shame for the Iraqi people, but I suspect that most would think that it’s still better to be on the front line of the war against Islamofascism than to be under Saddam’s thumb.
Joe Pelton has an editorial over at space.com about space policy. It contains the usual justifications (we need to save ourselves from the asteroids, etc.), but while I agree that there are questions that have to be asked, I’m underwhelmed by his:
Why explore space and why send humans into space?
Why does NASA spend the money it does?
Why does NASA use the resources it has the way it does?
What is NASA?s role in terms of education, health care, energy and job creation?
Why is there not more international cooperation in space activities?
Should the U.S. government, at all levels, not realize it needs to do a better job telling us why space and space research, exploration and applications are key?
Why the focus on NASA? This needs to be framed much broader–what is the role of the government, and of the private sector?
And what’s the big deal about international cooperation? Why is this apparently a desirable goal, in and of itself? There’s no good reason for it to be. We should cooperate if it makes sense, not just for cooperation’s sake.
Gregg Easterbrook gives a little history of the Biosphere venture, and how Columbia University has finally ended its affiliation with it. But in the process, he makes a glib comment about the affordability of a Mars mission:
It seems certain that as the space shuttle debate continues, some prominent person will advocate the bold new adventure of a trip to Mars. When someone advocates that, this blog will demolish the idea in detail. Here’s a quick preview. Last week the Wall Street Journal ran a letter to the editor blithely asserting that colonization of Mars could be accomplished “easily and cheaply.” The Russian rocket manufacturer Energia recently estimated that the hardware for a stripped-down manned mission to Mars would weigh a minimum of 600 tons in low-earth orbit. At current space shuttle prices, it costs $15 billion to place 600 tons in low-earth orbit. That’s just the initial launch cost for a stripped-down high-risk flight with a couple of people–spaceship and supplies are extra.
Sorry, Gregg, this does not compute. Why would you take the word of Energia for the mass of a Mars mission, and then make the insane assumption that it would be delivered with a Shuttle (probably the most expensive launch system on the planet, and one to soon go out of business, one way or another)?
If you’re going to go with Russian quotes, use Russian launch prices. Of course, any rational person, contemplating fifteen billion dollars in launch costs, might consider spending that money instead on reducing launch costs…
Go read Lileks.
Go read Lileks.
Go read Lileks.
As expected, it looks like the only thing “sexed up” about the British government’s dossier was the BBC story about it…
[Update on Friday morning]
Via Instapundit, Brendan O’Neill says that Blair’s critics were the real spinners. I’d actually be embarrassed to claim that I was “duped” by such a supposedly incompetent government, just as the Dems should be ashamed to be continually outwitted by the retarded monkey in the White House, but I guess when you hunger for power, you have no shame…
…by getting on an airplane.
I’m flying from SFO down to LAX this morning. I expect that I’ll cheat death and whatever perverse form of Allah our enemies worship once again. More posting later.
[Update at 11 AM PDT]
Landed safely and am back home, as expected.
Up yours, Islamonazis…