The Baseball Hall of Fame was going to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of the movie “Bull Durham” this month, with invitations to its stars, but has decided to cancel the ceremony because of lead actors Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins’ outspoken anti-war statements.
More “McCarthyism” and “censorship,” I guess.
Cheer up, guys–after all, there’d be nothing “brave” about your idiotic antics if you suffered no consequences for them.
If, as Lileks notes, the BBC seems to broadcast with a continual sneer, Bob “Eeyore” Fisk manages to write with one. One can imagine that he fills his inkwell with darkened lemon juice.
His very first sentence puts scare quotes around the word “liberated.” Yes, just like that.
He’s not totally upset that Saddam is no longer in power, but all the credit goes to the Iraqi people, and the prospects for the peace are, of course, dismal.
If, as Lileks notes, the BBC seems to broadcast with a continual sneer, Bob “Eeyore” Fisk manages to write with one. One can imagine that he fills his inkwell with darkened lemon juice.
His very first sentence puts scare quotes around the word “liberated.” Yes, just like that.
He’s not totally upset that Saddam is no longer in power, but all the credit goes to the Iraqi people, and the prospects for the peace are, of course, dismal.
If, as Lileks notes, the BBC seems to broadcast with a continual sneer, Bob “Eeyore” Fisk manages to write with one. One can imagine that he fills his inkwell with darkened lemon juice.
His very first sentence puts scare quotes around the word “liberated.” Yes, just like that.
He’s not totally upset that Saddam is no longer in power, but all the credit goes to the Iraqi people, and the prospects for the peace are, of course, dismal.
This deserves an instant Von Hoffman Award from Andrew Sullivan. That’s the one that he gives out for being egregiously wrong in a prognostication.
The group of Arab nations that have been agitating for a UN meeting on the Iraq situation have decided to drop it.
To quote Nelson Muntz.
Fox is reporting that the Iraqis aren’t just mad at the Saddamites. They’re chasing some Al Jazeera reporters out of Basra for being such Saddam keester smoochers.
Bruce Lewis sends an email, which prompts me to put up a post on, of all things, space policy. Yes, I know, it’s a shocker.
His email title is the same as the post title, except it’s in French, a language I’m at least temporarily boycotting.
1963
Need: Reliable access to space via reusable spacecraft.
Proposal: Bell-Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar, a small reusable winged spacecraft launched by conventional booster.
***
Dyna-Soar cancelled on December 10, 1963, in favor of MOL/Gemini system (cancelled), Saturn/Apollo system (abandoned), and, later, Space Transportation
System/Shuttle (12 years service, 14 astronauts killed, deemed by many as too dangerous to continue in manned use.)***
2003
Need: Reliable access to space via reusable spacecraft.
Proposal: Orbital Space Plane, a small reusable winged spacecraft launched by conventional booster.
***
Forty years, fourteen lives, and zillions spent, and what do we end up with? The vehicle we had in 1963–and still no reliable access to space via reusable
spacecraft.We should have built Dyna-Soar in the first place.
Assuming that we’re really going ahead with OSP, yes.
The problem is, of course, that our nation’s space policy remains profoundly unserious, even (or especially) in the wake of the Columbia loss. Our options remain myopic, focused on NASA’s “needs” with no consideration of what the American people might actually want from a space program.
Consider this recent depressing Congressional testimony from Marcia Smith. It repeats the same stale conventional wisdom about why we do human space flight, with nary a mention of making it possible for the masses to go.
She has five options for the future, none of which do anything to significantly change the status quo.
1. Terminate the U.S. human space flight program, including the space shuttle, U.S. participation in the International Space Station (ISS) program, and plans to develop an Orbital Space Plane.
2. Terminate the shuttle and Orbital Space Plane programs, but continue participation in the ISS program, relying on Russian vehicles for taking U.S. astronauts to and from space when possible.
3. Terminate the shuttle program, but continue participation in the ISS program and continue to develop the Orbital Space Plane or another replacement for the shuttle.
4. Continue the shuttle program, but with fewer missions-perhaps limiting it to space station visits-and as few crew as possible.
5. Resume shuttle flights as planned.
Without even specifying what it is, my preference is 6) None of the above. If I can’t get that, I’m inclined to go with option 1. At least we’ll be honest, and stop pretending that we’re interested in space.
As I’ve said many times, space policy is always framed in an assumption set. Her assumption set is that NASA, and only NASA will continue to do manned space, human spaceflight will always be expensive and rare, and that there’s nothing to be done with it except to “explore.”
As long as only the usual suspects like Marcia keep getting thawed out and propped up before Congressional committees, don’t expect to see anything resembling real progress.
Remember how we were “starving the Iraqi people” with the UN sanctions?
They’ve discovered warehouses full of food that Saddam was withholding from his people. He used it, as he used everything and everyone, as a weapon against them.
Remember how we were “starving the Iraqi people” with the UN sanctions?
They’ve discovered warehouses full of food that Saddam was withholding from his people. He used it, as he used everything and everyone, as a weapon against them.