I’m going to be posting some of the email response to last week’s Fox column here tonight or tomorrow, but wanted to leave a placeholder for it so I have a permalink to put in this week’s column (which I’m just finishing up).
[Update on Thursday morning]
The new Fox column is up. It’s a slightly different version of this post from yesterday. Actually, it was displayed on the front page of the Views page, and in the archive yesterday afternoon, but the link was broken until this morning, but you can go read it now.
Unfortunately, I still haven’t gotten around to putting up the email responses I promised–check back in a couple hours. But the most entertaining (or at least the most vehement and hostile) ones are in the column itself.
I’m going to be posting some of the email response to last week’s Fox column here tonight or tomorrow, but wanted to leave a placeholder for it so I have a permalink to put in this week’s column (which I’m just finishing up).
[Update on Thursday morning]
The new Fox column is up. It’s a slightly different version of this post from yesterday. Actually, it was displayed on the front page of the Views page, and in the archive yesterday afternoon, but the link was broken until this morning, but you can go read it now.
Unfortunately, I still haven’t gotten around to putting up the email responses I promised–check back in a couple hours. But the most entertaining (or at least the most vehement and hostile) ones are in the column itself.
I’m going to be posting some of the email response to last week’s Fox column here tonight or tomorrow, but wanted to leave a placeholder for it so I have a permalink to put in this week’s column (which I’m just finishing up).
[Update on Thursday morning]
The new Fox column is up. It’s a slightly different version of this post from yesterday. Actually, it was displayed on the front page of the Views page, and in the archive yesterday afternoon, but the link was broken until this morning, but you can go read it now.
Unfortunately, I still haven’t gotten around to putting up the email responses I promised–check back in a couple hours. But the most entertaining (or at least the most vehement and hostile) ones are in the column itself.
Robert Zimmerman (no, not that one, the one who’s written a book or two about space) suggests, of all things, that perhaps the government should look to the private sector for space transportation. Imagine that!
Arnold Kling points out a very real danger for the Democrats next year (and one that they seem obtusely unable to recognize)–becoming, or at least being perceived as, the UN party, as opposed to the US party.
The single question that I think will determine my vote in the 2004 Presidential election might be phrased as follows:
Do you believe that the rifts within the United Nations indicate moral obtuseness on the part of (a) the United States or (b) other members of the UN?
I would answer emphatically with (b). I fervently believe that it is the United States that holds the moral high ground. We absolutely must not treat the UN as if it holds the moral trump cards.
My sense is that the activist wing of the Democratic Party passionately believes the opposite. If the Democratic nominee reflects the views of the activists, then as far as I am concerned, it’s game over. I cannot vote for anyone who sees the UN as morally superior. If you take the pro-UN position, then you can just sit down and relax — you do not need to answer any of my other questions.