It would be delightful to have a war on the Moon. It would be a good way to spark development and settle on a sensible property rights regime. I don’t see, however, the Chinese spending $80 billion on the Moon much less $10 trillion or so to plant a base with 5000 km anti-spacecraft range and the techs to operate it. Unless there is an alternative way to get to the Moon than big dumb government programs, I see the Chinese as less likely to lift a finger to take the Moon than Quimoy or Matsu off their coast.
One More Reprise
Norman Podhoretz completely dismantles the ongoing Democrat (and anti-war) big lie that Bush “lied us into war.”
As he says, it’s sad, indeed frightening that they continue to get away with this:
What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.
Joe Wilson’s ongoing duplicity is chronicled in detail, but everyone in the Democrat establishment is clearly shown to be the hypocritical political hacks that they are, to anyone who cares to examine the evidence, and the actual history, going back to the Clinton administration.
The Marketplace Of Bad Ideas
I wish that more people could be this honest.
(And yes, before you email or comment, I am aware that The Onion is satire, thanks.)
The Need For Regime Change
Helen Szamuely says that it’s come time to roll up our sleeves, and go liberate France again.
The country in question and its corrupt political leadership have an extensive track record of supporting tyrannical regimes and terrorists as well as terror masters. Remember who gave all possible help and support to Chairman Yasser Arafat, to the detriment of the peace process in the Middle East? Remember who had close and mutually beneficial relations with Saddam Hussein? I could go on.
It is not only political and financial support that anti-American dictators and various terror masters can hope for. The country in question has provided ideological training to an even greater extent than the Soviet Union had done in the past. Several of the world
Ahead Of Themselves
I know that it’s only today, but the Carnival of Tomorrow is up anyway.
Intelligent Design By Voters
Yesterday was kind of depressing, from an electoral standpoint, particularly in California, but there was one bright spot, for those who value science education.
Lileks Is…
…nuts.
And I mean that in the best (and funniest, perhaps beyond genius) possible way.
How Much Closer To Hell Can He Get?
I mean, he’s already in Zimbabwe.
One Quote Says It All
Mary Mapes is still whining, this time to Howie Kurtz (who seems to be largely humoring her). But what tickled me was the bottom line:
Despite her career implosion, Mapes hopes to stay in journalism.
“It’s what I’m good at,” she said. “I like making a difference.”
“Making a difference,” ever since Woodward and Bernstein, has become the cliche reason for people to go into the profession of journalism. But judging by the results, “making a difference” seems to be more important than “improving the situation,” or understanding logic or reality.
More Sinofantasies
Mark Whittington manages to conflate both a strawman and a feverish delusion in a single post:
Allow me to present a scenario. The United States follows the suggestions of Jon, Rand, and others and stops the NASA return to the Moon.
This should have been “Allow me to present a strawman,” (Mark’s debate tactic of first resort).
Neither Jon, nor I (I can’t speak for Mark’s favorite bogeymen, those “others”) have suggested that NASA not return to the moon. We have merely pointed out that the means by which they’ve chosen to do so will result in tears, just as it did the last time.
For the delusion, one can go read the rest of the post. It’s hilarious.
I’m busy, so I’ll leave it to the wolves in my comments section to tear it to pieces.