To quote someone else, heh.
Seriously, though, it is kind of amazing that there are still Japanese soldiers coming home from WW II after all these years. It was always a big story back in the sixties whenever one of these guys was found hiding out on some remote island (there was even a Gilligan’s Island episode based on one–see number fifteen in the link), and that was only twenty years after the war. Now it’s sixty.
Here’s a pretty good take on NASA’s current situation by the Economist.
My main complaint comes toward the end, when it seems to lament that this isn’t about science. Who says it should be?
KLo is upset by this apparent meddling by the New York City Council in the number of male/female restrooms required in public facilities.
I fail to see the cause for umbrage. Given that there are going to be ordinances specifying that there be restrooms at all (and there are much more serious depredations on liberty than such ordinances to be concerned with), why not respond to clear demand, and establish a sufficient number of each type? It’s blindingly obvious that (mostly male) architects seem clueless as to the disparity between male/female toiletry issues. When there are consistently long lines for something, it’s an indication of a shortage of supply, and one to which the market seems impervious, given the captive-audience nature of the situation in, say, a sports stadium. I remember when the Getty first opened, it had a serious shortage of bathrooms for both sexes, and as an engineer was appalled at Meier’s apparent lack of common sense, focusing instead on pure aesthetics. It would be nice if the designers would get a clue, but given that they continue not to, I’ve got a lot bigger things to worry about than this.
I don’t think so. This is just a poll of “Americans,” not “likely” or even “registered” voters. It mainly reflects name recognition.
Besides, the Slick Grope Vets, including Juanita Broaddrick, will have plenty to say if she actually runs.
I’ve previously speculated that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have survived the blogosphere, had it existed in the early nineties. I don’t think that Hillary will either.
[Update at 11:15 AM EDT]
In response to some snark in the comments section, I decided to pull this up into the main post:
I’d just like to point out, for the benefit of the visitors here who didn’t buy the Clinton Chronicles Criterion Edition DVD, that the 3rd of your links itself includes links that suggest the Clintons murdered both Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and at least 34 other innocent people.
Ahhh, six degrees of separation of links. Pardon me while my eyes roll.
Rand, would you care to state, for the record, whether you believe either of those scenarios are true?
With regard to Vince Foster, I have no idea who killed him, but I think that, based on the publicly available evidence, it is extremely unlikely that he died in Fort Marcy Park, and there is little evidence to prove that he died by his own hand, and quite a bit the other way. The case was so badly botched that we’ll probably never know what happened, absent a confession on someone’s part. I do think it likely that the Clintons know who is responsible, but certainly can’t prove that. I also find it amusing that those who would otherwise demonize Ken Starr accept his word unquestioningly when it comes to the Foster report.
The Ron Brown death was extremely suspicious, and convenient to the Clintons in its timing, but again, I’m not going make any direct accusations. As in the Foster case, I lack sufficient data.
Anyways, for all the whining about how Democrats have no ideas, I’m thrilled to hear the GOP plans on leading with Bill’s character issues in their effort to tear Hillary down.
I said nothing about GOP plans. Not being a member of the GOP, I’ve no idea what their plans are (hint: not everyone who thinks that Bill Clinton was corrupt is a “right winger” or a Republican). I was describing the potential response of the blogosphere and the women he (and his wife) molested, slandered and libeled. Thanks for playing, though.
And if you think none of the potential GOP nominees have exploitable character issues, well, whatever. IOKIYAR and all.
Those are theoretical. Hillary’s are real.
[One more update at 2 PM]
Many of the objections in comments are beside the point, because this isn’t about Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior–it’s about his and Hillary’s (often successful) attempts at character assassination of his accusers.
I don’t think so. This is just a poll of “Americans,” not “likely” or even “registered” voters. It mainly reflects name recognition.
Besides, the Slick Grope Vets, including Juanita Broaddrick, will have plenty to say if she actually runs.
I’ve previously speculated that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have survived the blogosphere, had it existed in the early nineties. I don’t think that Hillary will either.
[Update at 11:15 AM EDT]
In response to some snark in the comments section, I decided to pull this up into the main post:
I’d just like to point out, for the benefit of the visitors here who didn’t buy the Clinton Chronicles Criterion Edition DVD, that the 3rd of your links itself includes links that suggest the Clintons murdered both Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and at least 34 other innocent people.
Ahhh, six degrees of separation of links. Pardon me while my eyes roll.
Rand, would you care to state, for the record, whether you believe either of those scenarios are true?
With regard to Vince Foster, I have no idea who killed him, but I think that, based on the publicly available evidence, it is extremely unlikely that he died in Fort Marcy Park, and there is little evidence to prove that he died by his own hand, and quite a bit the other way. The case was so badly botched that we’ll probably never know what happened, absent a confession on someone’s part. I do think it likely that the Clintons know who is responsible, but certainly can’t prove that. I also find it amusing that those who would otherwise demonize Ken Starr accept his word unquestioningly when it comes to the Foster report.
The Ron Brown death was extremely suspicious, and convenient to the Clintons in its timing, but again, I’m not going make any direct accusations. As in the Foster case, I lack sufficient data.
Anyways, for all the whining about how Democrats have no ideas, I’m thrilled to hear the GOP plans on leading with Bill’s character issues in their effort to tear Hillary down.
I said nothing about GOP plans. Not being a member of the GOP, I’ve no idea what their plans are (hint: not everyone who thinks that Bill Clinton was corrupt is a “right winger” or a Republican). I was describing the potential response of the blogosphere and the women he (and his wife) molested, slandered and libeled. Thanks for playing, though.
And if you think none of the potential GOP nominees have exploitable character issues, well, whatever. IOKIYAR and all.
Those are theoretical. Hillary’s are real.
[One more update at 2 PM]
Many of the objections in comments are beside the point, because this isn’t about Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior–it’s about his and Hillary’s (often successful) attempts at character assassination of his accusers.
I don’t think so. This is just a poll of “Americans,” not “likely” or even “registered” voters. It mainly reflects name recognition.
Besides, the Slick Grope Vets, including Juanita Broaddrick, will have plenty to say if she actually runs.
I’ve previously speculated that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have survived the blogosphere, had it existed in the early nineties. I don’t think that Hillary will either.
[Update at 11:15 AM EDT]
In response to some snark in the comments section, I decided to pull this up into the main post:
I’d just like to point out, for the benefit of the visitors here who didn’t buy the Clinton Chronicles Criterion Edition DVD, that the 3rd of your links itself includes links that suggest the Clintons murdered both Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and at least 34 other innocent people.
Ahhh, six degrees of separation of links. Pardon me while my eyes roll.
Rand, would you care to state, for the record, whether you believe either of those scenarios are true?
With regard to Vince Foster, I have no idea who killed him, but I think that, based on the publicly available evidence, it is extremely unlikely that he died in Fort Marcy Park, and there is little evidence to prove that he died by his own hand, and quite a bit the other way. The case was so badly botched that we’ll probably never know what happened, absent a confession on someone’s part. I do think it likely that the Clintons know who is responsible, but certainly can’t prove that. I also find it amusing that those who would otherwise demonize Ken Starr accept his word unquestioningly when it comes to the Foster report.
The Ron Brown death was extremely suspicious, and convenient to the Clintons in its timing, but again, I’m not going make any direct accusations. As in the Foster case, I lack sufficient data.
Anyways, for all the whining about how Democrats have no ideas, I’m thrilled to hear the GOP plans on leading with Bill’s character issues in their effort to tear Hillary down.
I said nothing about GOP plans. Not being a member of the GOP, I’ve no idea what their plans are (hint: not everyone who thinks that Bill Clinton was corrupt is a “right winger” or a Republican). I was describing the potential response of the blogosphere and the women he (and his wife) molested, slandered and libeled. Thanks for playing, though.
And if you think none of the potential GOP nominees have exploitable character issues, well, whatever. IOKIYAR and all.
Those are theoretical. Hillary’s are real.
[One more update at 2 PM]
Many of the objections in comments are beside the point, because this isn’t about Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior–it’s about his and Hillary’s (often successful) attempts at character assassination of his accusers.
It’s the Carnival of Tomorrow. Today!
Florida Today makes a rampant speculation, unsupported by anything, apparently, other than the fevered imaginations of its editors:
In case you missed it, NASA’s former chief Sean O’Keefe killed the [Hubble] mission in 2004, citing post-Columbia safety concerns. More likely, that was just a cover story to start redirecting money for the agency’s moon-Mars plans.
No, more likely it was exactly what O’Keefe said, and no evidence has ever been produced to indicate otherwise. It was a dumb decision, and O’Keefe should have stepped down much sooner, because it was quite clear that he no longer had the stomach for the job post-Columbia, but it had nothing to do with the VSE. As Keith Cowing says, if they don’t have any actual basis for this statement, they shouldn’t be making it.
Robert Zimmerman says that we’re on the verge of a new renaissance in space exploration, with an explosion of creativity partly fueled by the new media.
That’s the kind of armband I’d like to wear, particularly around these clueless celebrities, whose well-meaning nostrums, as Stephen Pollard points out, would only further entrench poverty.
[Via David Carr]