Arafat finally kicked the bucket. The BBC is breaking the news right now (as of about 11:10 PM EST); I'm listening online, while finishing up a late night at the office.
Now who? And where's the missing billion?
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
My anticipation builds...
I just received the following e-mail from NASA:
Oh. My. Gosh! My glee can hardly be contained! The fastener inspection test plan?? The new one is out?!!!
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:16:55 -0500 (EST)
From: GDMS Auto Mail <***@***.gsfc.nasa.gov>
To: ***
Subject: GDMS Document Release
A new revision to 547-PG-5330.1.1, FASTENER INSPECTION TEST PLAN has been released. You have received this notification because the document is on your GDMS Working Documents List.
Oh. My. Gosh! My glee can hardly be contained! The fastener inspection test plan?? The new one is out?!!!
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Kerry to speak at 1 PM
Concession speech, presumably. He's already called Bush to concede, according to Fox.
Kerry concedes
Fox News is just now reporting that Kerry has called Bush to concede. The Bush team is waiting to let Kerry's camp make the formal announcement.
Electoral Calculus
What happened? When I went to bed early morning November 3, 2004, Bush had gotten 269 votes, enough to at least tie. Now I wake up, and it's November 3, 2000. Ugh.
OK, I'm sitting down with Opinion Journal's Electoral College Calculator. I wonder--since Fox has Bush at 269 with Ohio (20 votes), is it likely we'll wind up with this election in the House? Hmmm...
First of all, let's see where we are, safely: With Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wisconsin undecided, Bush:Kerry is 249:242. I'm combining the undecided state list from Fox News (watching it right now) and Yahoo. If Bush really does take Ohio, its 20 electoral votes put Bush up to 269, which means Kerry can do no better than tie, which would send us to the House.
If Kerry got Ohio:
That would make the electoral ratio be 249:262 (I'll put all of these as Bush:Kerry from here on out). Kerry would still have to win either Wisconsin or at least two of NV, NM, and IA.
How might the election be thrown to the House?
1) Kerry takes Ohio and Iowa. Bush takes Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.
2) Bush takes Ohio. Kerry takes Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico.
Where are we, really? Looking just at two outlets, Fox and Yahoo, it seems that they agree on New Mexico and Iowa as still undecided. Yahoo has Nevada for Bush and Wisconsin for Kerry. Fox has Ohio for Bush. Combining those results, it's 274:252. Bush has won without a vote in the House.
I'm almost disappointed. I like seeing unusual Constitutional situations put into use. On the other hand, that would probably make the left cry "Illegitimate!" for another four years, but with Bush winning 51% of the national popular vote, this would be a hollow claim, by their own standards.
OK, I'm sitting down with Opinion Journal's Electoral College Calculator. I wonder--since Fox has Bush at 269 with Ohio (20 votes), is it likely we'll wind up with this election in the House? Hmmm...
First of all, let's see where we are, safely: With Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wisconsin undecided, Bush:Kerry is 249:242. I'm combining the undecided state list from Fox News (watching it right now) and Yahoo. If Bush really does take Ohio, its 20 electoral votes put Bush up to 269, which means Kerry can do no better than tie, which would send us to the House.
If Kerry got Ohio:
That would make the electoral ratio be 249:262 (I'll put all of these as Bush:Kerry from here on out). Kerry would still have to win either Wisconsin or at least two of NV, NM, and IA.
How might the election be thrown to the House?
1) Kerry takes Ohio and Iowa. Bush takes Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.
2) Bush takes Ohio. Kerry takes Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico.
Where are we, really? Looking just at two outlets, Fox and Yahoo, it seems that they agree on New Mexico and Iowa as still undecided. Yahoo has Nevada for Bush and Wisconsin for Kerry. Fox has Ohio for Bush. Combining those results, it's 274:252. Bush has won without a vote in the House.
I'm almost disappointed. I like seeing unusual Constitutional situations put into use. On the other hand, that would probably make the left cry "Illegitimate!" for another four years, but with Bush winning 51% of the national popular vote, this would be a hollow claim, by their own standards.
Ohio called for Bush!
Fox News has just called Ohio for Bush. This puts the electoral college at 266:211 for Bush, as FNC has it tabulated. With Alaska expected to be won, as well, that would put Bush at 269, just one vote shy of an outright win. As much as I'd be fascinated to see this election thrown to the House (just to watch details of the Constitution at work), I'll sleep better with him winning that magic 270 votes.
Return of the Solid South!
With Florida being called for Bush, we are securely back to the days of the Solid South, now flipped so that it's the Republicans who are the favored party. Heh, heh...my great-grandfather would enjoy the joke.
Was Maryland ever a solidly Democratic state in the days when the Dems were the conservatives? Maryland was (is? Hard to say, now.) Southern, Confederate. They had the votes to secede, but Lincoln sent the troops in to prevent the legislature from voting. These days, it's Democratic in the latte-sipping mould. I suspect it has a lot to do with the permanent camp-followers living around the Federal District, the same bunch that has changed the politics of Northern Virginia.
Of course, I enjoyed living as a Federal camp-follower in Maryland's D.C. suburbs, myself...
Anyway, it's interesting to see two elections in a row in which the Democrats have finally made the change into a regional, not a national, party. Hmmm...sounds like I'm quoting Zell Miller. Not that I mind.
But if the Democrats have turned into a regional party, wouldn't the Republicans be the same? Well, a fair question. The Democrats are a party of the borders; the margins. Large population areas on the (Atlantic & Pacific) coasts, plus states on or near the Canadian border. More or less. The Republicans technically fall into a region, as well. (The region of where the Democrats ain't!) But the Republican region is physically much larger. It's the South, the West (up to the Rockies), and much of the Mid-West (however that's defined).
So if we Southerners wanted to secede again, we're finally realigned, politically.
UPDATE:
I really should explain that line about my great-grandfather enjoying the joke. He was, of course, the son of a Confederate soldier and a Democrat like nearly every other Southerner of his generation. These were the days of the Solid South, in which no Southern state sent a single electoral vote for a Republican. But by the mid-20th century, the parties had pretty much finished their political realignment, with the Republicans becoming the conservative party and the Democrats the liberal one. We Southerners are naturally conservative, of course, but that also means we're also resistant to changing party affiliation when the parties change. That's why we've spent the second half of the 20th century with a lot of conservative Democrats who were nearly indistinguishable from the new generation of Republicans in their political beliefs.
My great-grandfather, interestingly, picked up on the trends fairly early on. Wasn't 1960 the first election in which cracks appeared in the Solid South? He started voting for Republicans before most of the rest of the South did. My dad, two generations below him, was younger and quicker to change, going for Republicans about the same time. But interestingly, my grandparents held on to the Democrats for a long, long time, up into my own lifetime.
Anyway, the man would have enjoyed today's results.
Was Maryland ever a solidly Democratic state in the days when the Dems were the conservatives? Maryland was (is? Hard to say, now.) Southern, Confederate. They had the votes to secede, but Lincoln sent the troops in to prevent the legislature from voting. These days, it's Democratic in the latte-sipping mould. I suspect it has a lot to do with the permanent camp-followers living around the Federal District, the same bunch that has changed the politics of Northern Virginia.
Of course, I enjoyed living as a Federal camp-follower in Maryland's D.C. suburbs, myself...
Anyway, it's interesting to see two elections in a row in which the Democrats have finally made the change into a regional, not a national, party. Hmmm...sounds like I'm quoting Zell Miller. Not that I mind.
But if the Democrats have turned into a regional party, wouldn't the Republicans be the same? Well, a fair question. The Democrats are a party of the borders; the margins. Large population areas on the (Atlantic & Pacific) coasts, plus states on or near the Canadian border. More or less. The Republicans technically fall into a region, as well. (The region of where the Democrats ain't!) But the Republican region is physically much larger. It's the South, the West (up to the Rockies), and much of the Mid-West (however that's defined).
So if we Southerners wanted to secede again, we're finally realigned, politically.
UPDATE:
I really should explain that line about my great-grandfather enjoying the joke. He was, of course, the son of a Confederate soldier and a Democrat like nearly every other Southerner of his generation. These were the days of the Solid South, in which no Southern state sent a single electoral vote for a Republican. But by the mid-20th century, the parties had pretty much finished their political realignment, with the Republicans becoming the conservative party and the Democrats the liberal one. We Southerners are naturally conservative, of course, but that also means we're also resistant to changing party affiliation when the parties change. That's why we've spent the second half of the 20th century with a lot of conservative Democrats who were nearly indistinguishable from the new generation of Republicans in their political beliefs.
My great-grandfather, interestingly, picked up on the trends fairly early on. Wasn't 1960 the first election in which cracks appeared in the Solid South? He started voting for Republicans before most of the rest of the South did. My dad, two generations below him, was younger and quicker to change, going for Republicans about the same time. But interestingly, my grandparents held on to the Democrats for a long, long time, up into my own lifetime.
Anyway, the man would have enjoyed today's results.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
European election observers
Go. Home.
The International Herald Tribune has a smirky little article entitled "Global monitors find faults." (Link via Drudge.) I've posted on this topic before, but this article has gotten me angry all over again at this insult to American sovereignty. And shame on the State Department for even inviting them.
Some of the pearls of wisdom from our Great White Fathers Across the Sea:
And a Democratic poll observer, of course, is quoted having some encouragement for this bunch of would-be colonialists. On the other hand, I am enthused to see this closing comment in the article:
Yes! Good for Mr. Miller! And to the OSCE, I say, "%&#*@@!!," "^&*!," and "Go home and oppress your own colonies!" :)
The International Herald Tribune has a smirky little article entitled "Global monitors find faults." (Link via Drudge.) I've posted on this topic before, but this article has gotten me angry all over again at this insult to American sovereignty. And shame on the State Department for even inviting them.
Some of the pearls of wisdom from our Great White Fathers Across the Sea:
"To be honest, monitoring elections in Serbia a few months ago was much simpler"..."They have one national election law and use the paper ballots I really prefer over any other system." --Konrad Olszewski, Poland
"Our presence is not meant as a criticism."
"Unlike almost every other country in the world, there is not one national election today."..."The decentralized system means that rules vary widely county by county, so there are actually more than 13,000 elections today."
[Good. We're not a centralized Leviathan state. We have popular sovereignty and local rule. Dictatorships are so much easier, aren't they, Mr. Gould? --Ed.]
The United States is also nearly unique in lacking a unified voter registration system or national identity card, Gould said... [Again. Good. --Ed.]
--Ron Gould, Canada
...voting procedures being used in the extremely close contest fell short in many ways of the best global practices.
...no other country had such a complex national election system.
--Article
And a Democratic poll observer, of course, is quoted having some encouragement for this bunch of would-be colonialists. On the other hand, I am enthused to see this closing comment in the article:
Not everyone agrees. Jeff Miller, a Republican congressman from Florida, considers the monitors an insult and has publicly urged them to leave. "Get on the next plane out of the United States to go monitor an election somewhere else, like Afghanistan," he said.
Yes! Good for Mr. Miller! And to the OSCE, I say, "%&#*@@!!," "^&*!," and "Go home and oppress your own colonies!" :)
Hawai'i and missile defense
I'm not going to place any bets on Bush winning Hawaii tonight, even though I'm encouraged by those recent polls showing him slightly ahead of Kerry there. But the fact that Bush is even close is intriguing to me, and I've been trying to figure out why he is doing even this well in such a liberal state.
The one thing that comes to my mind is North Korea. The last I remember, Hawaii and Alaska are the only two states that can already by struck by North Korean nuclear missiles. Bush has been promoting the National Missile Defense program, while I think Kerry's against it. (Maybe I'm assuming, here, but I really suspect Kerry's against NMD.) So with Bush having put together the beginnings of a defense system, Hawaii knows that it has some protection it wouldn't have under Kerry. Of course, once the North Koreans get longer-range missiles, we might all be in the same boat as Hawaii and Alaska. The future can't come quickly enough on the missile defense program.
I haven't heard anybody else talk about NMD and Hawaii this election. Any thoughts?
The one thing that comes to my mind is North Korea. The last I remember, Hawaii and Alaska are the only two states that can already by struck by North Korean nuclear missiles. Bush has been promoting the National Missile Defense program, while I think Kerry's against it. (Maybe I'm assuming, here, but I really suspect Kerry's against NMD.) So with Bush having put together the beginnings of a defense system, Hawaii knows that it has some protection it wouldn't have under Kerry. Of course, once the North Koreans get longer-range missiles, we might all be in the same boat as Hawaii and Alaska. The future can't come quickly enough on the missile defense program.
I haven't heard anybody else talk about NMD and Hawaii this election. Any thoughts?
Cautiously optimistic
I wonder who coined that phrase. It gets sooooo used these days. But I like it. Fox News has Bush:Kerry at 207:144 electors now. Drudge has it at 196:133.
Penna. called for Kerry, Michigan trending Kerry. But Ohio and Florida trending Bush...
I like that line.
Interestingly, the heavily unionized-Democratic county where I am in Ohio is split almost evenly: Kerry leads Bush 50.0% to 49.7%. Interesting. Maybe it was that whole weather thing...nah.
Penna. called for Kerry, Michigan trending Kerry. But Ohio and Florida trending Bush...
Gravity normal, air returning, terror replaced by cautious optimism!
--Futurama
I like that line.
Interestingly, the heavily unionized-Democratic county where I am in Ohio is split almost evenly: Kerry leads Bush 50.0% to 49.7%. Interesting. Maybe it was that whole weather thing...nah.
Car commercials
A quick break from politics tonight. I just saw a Jeep commercial. A volcano erupts. A few seconds later, among the falling "bombs" (I think I've got that term right), a Jeep Cherokee lands in front of the camera, a mile from the volcanic cone. Covered in dust, but undamaged. It flips on its windshield wipers and drives safely off. I got a nice laugh out of it.
Then you see in small print, "Do not attempt." Good grief! Are the lawyers so eager to scare up suits that Jeep feels it has to explain that this scenario is a joke? Do they really believe that some idiot is otherwise going to drive his Jeep up an erupting vocano and ride the explosion back down?! To quote Lucy, "Arrggghhhhh!"
Maybe this is related to politics tonight, after all. After my joking about the air drop of lawyers to Ohio, my dad had to look up that Shakespeare quote: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." (Henry IV, ii, 6) (With apologies to Instapundit, Southern Appeal, and Volokh. We'll consider them off-limits.)
Then you see in small print, "Do not attempt." Good grief! Are the lawyers so eager to scare up suits that Jeep feels it has to explain that this scenario is a joke? Do they really believe that some idiot is otherwise going to drive his Jeep up an erupting vocano and ride the explosion back down?! To quote Lucy, "Arrggghhhhh!"
Maybe this is related to politics tonight, after all. After my joking about the air drop of lawyers to Ohio, my dad had to look up that Shakespeare quote: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." (Henry IV, ii, 6) (With apologies to Instapundit, Southern Appeal, and Volokh. We'll consider them off-limits.)
Low cloud cover hurts Democratic post-election strategy
Here in my section of Ohio, the rain appears to have stopped, but we're left with low cloud cover. I'm not sure what the ceiling is tonight, but I think it's too low for the massive air drop of lawyers the Democrats have been planning for this state. I do not think they can fly high enough to safely open the parachutes, nor can they fly above the weather and still see the drop zones.
If I look closely...yes, I think I can make out the search-lights starting up. Is that an air-raid siren I hear?
If I look closely...yes, I think I can make out the search-lights starting up. Is that an air-raid siren I hear?
And as for here...
We've got rain here in Southern Ohio. My conservative but heavily union-Democratic, strongly-partisan section of Southern Ohio. We'll see how it affects the results in this swing state.
Voting and the weather--a critique of the logic
I always hear that rain helps Republicans on election day. Supposedly Democrats are less enthusiastic about voting and are more likely to be discouraged by bad weather. Now, I don't know if this is really true at all, but even supposing it is, I've got a criticism of the conclusions some people draw from it.
I've often heard people turn this around and say that if bad weather helps Republicans, then good weather helps Democrats. Assuming the scenario we put out above, this would not be the case.
Example 1:
In a given state, let's say that you have a population of 100 citizens that has 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. Without considering the weather, you would expect a pretty evenly split vote.
If it rains on election day, then our "toy model" (a simplified description of how the system works) would say that maybe...40 Democrats go to vote, and 45 Republicans vote. The Republicans win.
On the other hand, if there is clear weather, then 50 Democrats vote and 50 Republicans vote, and you're evenly split. It's not that the Democrats have been helped by the weather, but they simply weren't hurt this time. You're back to the situation you expected without factoring for the weather.
Example 2:
Now, let's suppose that you have another state with 100 citizens, broken down as 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Ignoring the weather, you'd expect the Democrats to win the elections.
Now let's throw in a thunderstorm. A larger percentage of Democrats stay home than Republicans, but by how much? Depends on how strong the weather effect is. Republicans normally expect to lose elections, but if Democrats are preferentially discouraged from voting, Republicans might have a chance to win some.
If the weather is good, everybody votes, and the Democrats win. Again, though, it's not that the Democrats are helped by the weather. They're simply left in the situation they would naively expect (that is, without accounting for weather).
Example 3:
And finally, if we have a state of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats, then the Republicans would expect to win, whether it rains or not. If it rains, the Republicans win by a larger margin. If it's clear and sunny, they win, 55% to 45%.
Conclusion
So even if the weather affects voter turnout the way people assume, it can't be claimed that "good weather helps Democrats." Good weather simply removes a factor from consideration.
Additional points:
And I suspect that it is also untrue that "when election day is sunny, Democrats win elections," which I think I've heard a liberal bragging once. As I've pointed out above, that would only be the case if the Democrats would win the election anyway. Say, if they have more citizens than the Republicans do. Although I've heard it claimed that a slightly higher percentage of the population identifies itself as "Democrat" than "Republican," I don't think this means the same thing.
For one thing, people often vote for the other party. When Reagan won his lanslide 1984 election, you don't think all of his votes came from Republicans, do you? There's a reason we still refer to "Reagan Democrats." In the South, we still have a lot of (mostly older) citizens who are Democrats but who are as conservative as we Southern Republicans are. The Democratic Party used to be the conservative party, after all. Of course, that was a century and a half ago...but some attitudes die hard, especially if you still regard the GOP as the party of invasion and Reconstruction. My great-grandfather was the son of a Confederate States soldier and was, as nearly all of his generation were, a Democrat. But by the time my dad was in college and getting interested in politics, my great-grandfather had started to realize the parties had essentially switched places, and he began voting for Republicans. As did my dad. My grandfather, on the other hand, took a while longer to catch on. Well, maybe these things can skip a generation.
Most of us in the South have decided that the GOP is closer (now) to our beliefs than the modern Democratic Party is, and we vote accordingly. But there are still plenty left who are conservative Democrats and don't show any immediate signs of officially jumping ship, even if they'll vote for Bush in the election.
Think of Zell Miller if you want a good example.
The Republicans control the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Presidency, most state governorships, and I think most state legislatures (these last two from vague memory...I could be wrong). This can not be all a result of the weather! It's because Republicans attract more people than Democrats do, at least at this period in history.
I've often heard people turn this around and say that if bad weather helps Republicans, then good weather helps Democrats. Assuming the scenario we put out above, this would not be the case.
Example 1:
In a given state, let's say that you have a population of 100 citizens that has 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. Without considering the weather, you would expect a pretty evenly split vote.
If it rains on election day, then our "toy model" (a simplified description of how the system works) would say that maybe...40 Democrats go to vote, and 45 Republicans vote. The Republicans win.
On the other hand, if there is clear weather, then 50 Democrats vote and 50 Republicans vote, and you're evenly split. It's not that the Democrats have been helped by the weather, but they simply weren't hurt this time. You're back to the situation you expected without factoring for the weather.
Example 2:
Now, let's suppose that you have another state with 100 citizens, broken down as 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Ignoring the weather, you'd expect the Democrats to win the elections.
Now let's throw in a thunderstorm. A larger percentage of Democrats stay home than Republicans, but by how much? Depends on how strong the weather effect is. Republicans normally expect to lose elections, but if Democrats are preferentially discouraged from voting, Republicans might have a chance to win some.
If the weather is good, everybody votes, and the Democrats win. Again, though, it's not that the Democrats are helped by the weather. They're simply left in the situation they would naively expect (that is, without accounting for weather).
Example 3:
And finally, if we have a state of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats, then the Republicans would expect to win, whether it rains or not. If it rains, the Republicans win by a larger margin. If it's clear and sunny, they win, 55% to 45%.
Conclusion
So even if the weather affects voter turnout the way people assume, it can't be claimed that "good weather helps Democrats." Good weather simply removes a factor from consideration.
Additional points:
And I suspect that it is also untrue that "when election day is sunny, Democrats win elections," which I think I've heard a liberal bragging once. As I've pointed out above, that would only be the case if the Democrats would win the election anyway. Say, if they have more citizens than the Republicans do. Although I've heard it claimed that a slightly higher percentage of the population identifies itself as "Democrat" than "Republican," I don't think this means the same thing.
For one thing, people often vote for the other party. When Reagan won his lanslide 1984 election, you don't think all of his votes came from Republicans, do you? There's a reason we still refer to "Reagan Democrats." In the South, we still have a lot of (mostly older) citizens who are Democrats but who are as conservative as we Southern Republicans are. The Democratic Party used to be the conservative party, after all. Of course, that was a century and a half ago...but some attitudes die hard, especially if you still regard the GOP as the party of invasion and Reconstruction. My great-grandfather was the son of a Confederate States soldier and was, as nearly all of his generation were, a Democrat. But by the time my dad was in college and getting interested in politics, my great-grandfather had started to realize the parties had essentially switched places, and he began voting for Republicans. As did my dad. My grandfather, on the other hand, took a while longer to catch on. Well, maybe these things can skip a generation.
Most of us in the South have decided that the GOP is closer (now) to our beliefs than the modern Democratic Party is, and we vote accordingly. But there are still plenty left who are conservative Democrats and don't show any immediate signs of officially jumping ship, even if they'll vote for Bush in the election.
Think of Zell Miller if you want a good example.
The Republicans control the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Presidency, most state governorships, and I think most state legislatures (these last two from vague memory...I could be wrong). This can not be all a result of the weather! It's because Republicans attract more people than Democrats do, at least at this period in history.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Our third member posts!
Welcome in, Figulus! I was just reviewing the blog today when I saw your Latin post from the other day.
That got me thinking about etymology (not uncommon). A school district in Washington state has banned Halloween parties at school, claiming that depictions of witches (warts, black hats, broomsticks, etc.) are offensive to real "witches."
First of all, these people are only "witches" in the sense that they have tried to revive a pagan British Isles religion called "wicca," which is the origin of the English word for a witch. Now, of course, every society has had the concept of a witch. Prohibitions on witchcraft are in the Old Testament, a thousand years and more before the Middle East had contact with the British Isles. King David wasn't going to see a British "wiccan" but a homegrown Hebrew witch. Hebrew has a different word for the practice (have to look that up), but it all means the same thing.
I say this only to note that "witch" is not synonymous with "wiccan," as many would like to believe.
Now, I just looked up another word on a hunch. It turns out that "wicked" is also derived from "wicca"! So wouldn't any use of the word "wicked" be offensive to so-called "real witches"? Isn't "wicked" inherently politically incorrect?!
I don't actually think there's any problem with "wicked," obviously, but I point this out to try to irritate the PC crowd, who have now gone beyond what I thought rational adults would believe.
To go dutch or welsh on a bet would really be a wicked thing and would definitely get my Irish up. There. I had to use all of those in one sentence.
Figulus: I'll be in town this weekend.
That got me thinking about etymology (not uncommon). A school district in Washington state has banned Halloween parties at school, claiming that depictions of witches (warts, black hats, broomsticks, etc.) are offensive to real "witches."
First of all, these people are only "witches" in the sense that they have tried to revive a pagan British Isles religion called "wicca," which is the origin of the English word for a witch. Now, of course, every society has had the concept of a witch. Prohibitions on witchcraft are in the Old Testament, a thousand years and more before the Middle East had contact with the British Isles. King David wasn't going to see a British "wiccan" but a homegrown Hebrew witch. Hebrew has a different word for the practice (have to look that up), but it all means the same thing.
I say this only to note that "witch" is not synonymous with "wiccan," as many would like to believe.
Now, I just looked up another word on a hunch. It turns out that "wicked" is also derived from "wicca"! So wouldn't any use of the word "wicked" be offensive to so-called "real witches"? Isn't "wicked" inherently politically incorrect?!
I don't actually think there's any problem with "wicked," obviously, but I point this out to try to irritate the PC crowd, who have now gone beyond what I thought rational adults would believe.
To go dutch or welsh on a bet would really be a wicked thing and would definitely get my Irish up. There. I had to use all of those in one sentence.
Figulus: I'll be in town this weekend.
Foreign Poll-Watchers
Saw a cable news story on the foreign poll-watchers being sent over here from the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, I think). The OSCE lady they interviewed was very calm, pleasant, and condescending. She explained how their presence will make Americans feel confident that their votes will be properly handled, etc., etc. The reporter filing the story concluded by noting how there are, however, X million voters in this country, but sadly, only 54(?) OSCE poll-watchers to try to cover all of this.
My response to the OSCE "observers"? Get out of my country!!
I am so absolutely furious at them, and I can't use the language I'd like to, considering this is a blog with standards. I'm also angry at the State Department, who invited them in the first place. This is reportedly the first time foreign poll-watchers have been invited in for a Presidential election.
For all of the people out there who think this is a good or even necessary thing for our elections, I would like you to remember that we have American poll watchers at every election. Both parties send their representatives all the time to make sure everything goes fairly. Even in my county, which has almost no liberals, the Democrats manage to scrounge up somebody.
If I saw an OSCE poll watcher where I was voting, I would be so tempted to give him a firm but calm piece of my mind, but I'm a Southerner, and it would probably be outside the bounds of politeness I was reared with. That, and you're not allowed to create a disturbance at a poll. Maybe a quiet remark to please leave. If enough voters expressed their opinions to them, would they get the hint next time? If I were a local election official of either party, I would be doing so in much stronger terms.
William Watkins, over at Southern Appeal, briefly reviews James Webb's Born Fighting about the Scotch-Irish. Dad's just read that, and I'm thinking it must be a genetic reason that I'm so outraged right now. This OSCE action is a blatant violation of American sovereignty (and it's all the worse that the State Department is encouraging it!). We have no voting problems that their presence will avoid, and our American poll watchers are better able to handle things.
We are not some third-world country that doesn't know how to run a democracy, nor a bananna republic with sham elections. And we don't need (and, I presume, don't want) other countries condescendingly "observing" our elections, which the US Consitution places solely under the sovereignty of American citizens.
OSCE, go back to Europe!
My response to the OSCE "observers"? Get out of my country!!
I am so absolutely furious at them, and I can't use the language I'd like to, considering this is a blog with standards. I'm also angry at the State Department, who invited them in the first place. This is reportedly the first time foreign poll-watchers have been invited in for a Presidential election.
For all of the people out there who think this is a good or even necessary thing for our elections, I would like you to remember that we have American poll watchers at every election. Both parties send their representatives all the time to make sure everything goes fairly. Even in my county, which has almost no liberals, the Democrats manage to scrounge up somebody.
If I saw an OSCE poll watcher where I was voting, I would be so tempted to give him a firm but calm piece of my mind, but I'm a Southerner, and it would probably be outside the bounds of politeness I was reared with. That, and you're not allowed to create a disturbance at a poll. Maybe a quiet remark to please leave. If enough voters expressed their opinions to them, would they get the hint next time? If I were a local election official of either party, I would be doing so in much stronger terms.
William Watkins, over at Southern Appeal, briefly reviews James Webb's Born Fighting about the Scotch-Irish. Dad's just read that, and I'm thinking it must be a genetic reason that I'm so outraged right now. This OSCE action is a blatant violation of American sovereignty (and it's all the worse that the State Department is encouraging it!). We have no voting problems that their presence will avoid, and our American poll watchers are better able to handle things.
We are not some third-world country that doesn't know how to run a democracy, nor a bananna republic with sham elections. And we don't need (and, I presume, don't want) other countries condescendingly "observing" our elections, which the US Consitution places solely under the sovereignty of American citizens.
OSCE, go back to Europe!
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Cliff May nails the Iraqi explosives story
Cliff May's column on the Iraqi explosives story is finally up. He has quotes from people in the right places on this one.
Hypotheses sine fictione
During the matins for today, I ran across the following reading from Wisdom 7:13-14, which made me think of this blog:
[Sapietiam] sine fictione didici, et sine invidia communico, et honestatem illius non abscondo. Infinitus enim thesaurus est hominibus; quo qui usi sunt, participes facti sunt amicitiae Dei...
Which I partially translate as "Without *fictio* I have learnt [wisdom], and without envy do I share, and her diginity I do not hide. For she is to men an unlimited treasure; which those who have enjoyed have taken a share in the friendship of God..."
What reminded me of this blog is simply the word "fictione", which I have left untranslated above. It is the ablative of "Fictio", an abstract noun from the verb whose principle parts are fingo, fingere, finxi, and fictus, which means, literally, to mold something out of clay, to "do pottery". But this verb has also figurative meanings: to feign, to fake, to use guile, to cover up. Its English cognates are indeed "fiction", "feign", and "figure". This is the verb that Newton used when he said, "Hypotheses non fingo." It is this verb he saw when he read chapter 7 of the Wisdom of Solomom, and I have to wonder whether this verse from the Vulgate affected, whether consciously or not, his choice of verb.
If so, he was making a profound theological statement about the making of science, whose wisdom is so different from our everyday wisdom, which is indeed a "Sapientia cum fictione", a wisdom we make up for our own convenience, a wisdom of dullishly painted clay masks, fashioned to cover the truth. We often think of the wisdom of science, the wisdom of Newton, as being very different from the wisdom of revelation, the Wisdom of Solomon. But I doubt Newton would have thought so. To him science, indeed all wisdom without *fictio*, was true participation in the friendship of God.
[Sapietiam] sine fictione didici, et sine invidia communico, et honestatem illius non abscondo. Infinitus enim thesaurus est hominibus; quo qui usi sunt, participes facti sunt amicitiae Dei...
Which I partially translate as "Without *fictio* I have learnt [wisdom], and without envy do I share, and her diginity I do not hide. For she is to men an unlimited treasure; which those who have enjoyed have taken a share in the friendship of God..."
What reminded me of this blog is simply the word "fictione", which I have left untranslated above. It is the ablative of "Fictio", an abstract noun from the verb whose principle parts are fingo, fingere, finxi, and fictus, which means, literally, to mold something out of clay, to "do pottery". But this verb has also figurative meanings: to feign, to fake, to use guile, to cover up. Its English cognates are indeed "fiction", "feign", and "figure". This is the verb that Newton used when he said, "Hypotheses non fingo." It is this verb he saw when he read chapter 7 of the Wisdom of Solomom, and I have to wonder whether this verse from the Vulgate affected, whether consciously or not, his choice of verb.
If so, he was making a profound theological statement about the making of science, whose wisdom is so different from our everyday wisdom, which is indeed a "Sapientia cum fictione", a wisdom we make up for our own convenience, a wisdom of dullishly painted clay masks, fashioned to cover the truth. We often think of the wisdom of science, the wisdom of Newton, as being very different from the wisdom of revelation, the Wisdom of Solomon. But I doubt Newton would have thought so. To him science, indeed all wisdom without *fictio*, was true participation in the friendship of God.
Who's the Source?
OK, so CBS and the NY Times run with a recycled story that was known a year and a half ago and is being misreported now. (Yes, I mean the Iraqi explosives story.) NBC had a reporter on the scene back in April, 2003, who provides evidence (not proof, but evidence) that the whole thrust of the story is false. The thrust of the story is not that the weapons are missing (that much is clear to everybody) but that it's Bush's fault.
Specifically, so the story goes, it's Bush's fault that he didn't send in enough troops to secure all such weapons sites, to keep them from falling into the wrong hands. That he ignored a direct UN warning to secure this one, specifically.
Except there is evidence the weapons were gone before the end of the war. US troops stopped at the site twice on their way to Baghdad and saw no UN-sealed weapons. Now, it's a big place, and they weren't specifically looking for them, but it's suggestive. Inspectors arrived on the scene a month later (May, 2003, I think), and they were certainly gone by then.
The story has, apparently, been known since that time. Why resurrect it now? Why, it's a week 'til the election, of course. And who placed this story with CBS and the NY Times? Hmmmm...
Cliff May at National Review Online suggests it is somebody close to Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the IAEA, and whom the US is trying to replace with somebody who would take the job seriously. El Baradei is apparently pretty anti-American and doesn't feel much pressure to go after Iran's nuclear program. Undoubtedly a Kerry administration would be much more favorable to El Baradei.
Read Cliff May's posts to The Corner on this, which I've linked to above. He's working on a full column on this topic, which I'm looking forward to.
Specifically, so the story goes, it's Bush's fault that he didn't send in enough troops to secure all such weapons sites, to keep them from falling into the wrong hands. That he ignored a direct UN warning to secure this one, specifically.
Except there is evidence the weapons were gone before the end of the war. US troops stopped at the site twice on their way to Baghdad and saw no UN-sealed weapons. Now, it's a big place, and they weren't specifically looking for them, but it's suggestive. Inspectors arrived on the scene a month later (May, 2003, I think), and they were certainly gone by then.
The story has, apparently, been known since that time. Why resurrect it now? Why, it's a week 'til the election, of course. And who placed this story with CBS and the NY Times? Hmmmm...
Cliff May at National Review Online suggests it is somebody close to Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the IAEA, and whom the US is trying to replace with somebody who would take the job seriously. El Baradei is apparently pretty anti-American and doesn't feel much pressure to go after Iran's nuclear program. Undoubtedly a Kerry administration would be much more favorable to El Baradei.
Read Cliff May's posts to The Corner on this, which I've linked to above. He's working on a full column on this topic, which I'm looking forward to.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Reuters on the Guardian flap
This is almost as much fun as the CBS forgeries. Reuters has a full story on the Guardian's harrass-an-Ohio-voter campaign, including quotes from Kerry campaigners and other liberals in the US to please stop it before it backfires even worse!
Global Warming Panic Caused by Obscure Mathematical Error?
Well, I don't know that we can conclude that yet, but a friend at NASA passed along this article yesterday that seems to show that the so-called "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures could be artificially created. A flat-out error.
The so-called "hockey stick" graph is a plot of global temperature versus year, stretching back to the Middle Ages. It supposedly shows some slow variations from century to century in the distant past, followed by an alarmingly steep and sudden rise in temperature in the 20th century.
However, we don't have direct temperature records for the world much before this past century, so the temperatures shown for the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Enlightenment periods, etc., are calculated indirectly, using some other method. Tree rings, for instance. Ice cores. Things like that. Now, these might work well or they might not, and you have to account for the different accuracy they give (as well as any systematic effects), compared with what you get when you look at a thermometer and write down the temperature.
Well, the method that was used to fit the data together when the "hockey stick" graph was made is now suspect. Actually, it's more than just suspect; it creates false trends. If you were to put in random data, with no temperature trend in it, the old method would still show a hockey-stick shape--a sharp rise in 20th century temperatures. Even when you give it fake data that has no such trend!
The MIT Technology Review article gives a simplified discussion of it, but there is a link to the original article. Now, the detailed, scientific article revealing this was submitted to the journal Nature and was refereed but eventually rejected. However, the authors include the referee reports on their website, which apparently show that it was not rejected for any reasons of bad science, but merely because the referee thought it was too technical for Nature and was of limited interest.
I would strongly argue against the "limited interest" reason, but that's Nature's call. I haven't read the referee reports myself, but I'll check them out to make sure this is true.
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that there has been no temperature rise over the 20th century, only that we can't tell, based on the earlier studies that claim there was.
It's also a cautionary tale to people using the "Principal Components Analysis" method of analyzing multi-variable data. My current paper is heavy with PCA results, which can be tricky to interpret, so I'd better watch myself.
The so-called "hockey stick" graph is a plot of global temperature versus year, stretching back to the Middle Ages. It supposedly shows some slow variations from century to century in the distant past, followed by an alarmingly steep and sudden rise in temperature in the 20th century.
However, we don't have direct temperature records for the world much before this past century, so the temperatures shown for the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Enlightenment periods, etc., are calculated indirectly, using some other method. Tree rings, for instance. Ice cores. Things like that. Now, these might work well or they might not, and you have to account for the different accuracy they give (as well as any systematic effects), compared with what you get when you look at a thermometer and write down the temperature.
Well, the method that was used to fit the data together when the "hockey stick" graph was made is now suspect. Actually, it's more than just suspect; it creates false trends. If you were to put in random data, with no temperature trend in it, the old method would still show a hockey-stick shape--a sharp rise in 20th century temperatures. Even when you give it fake data that has no such trend!
The MIT Technology Review article gives a simplified discussion of it, but there is a link to the original article. Now, the detailed, scientific article revealing this was submitted to the journal Nature and was refereed but eventually rejected. However, the authors include the referee reports on their website, which apparently show that it was not rejected for any reasons of bad science, but merely because the referee thought it was too technical for Nature and was of limited interest.
I would strongly argue against the "limited interest" reason, but that's Nature's call. I haven't read the referee reports myself, but I'll check them out to make sure this is true.
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that there has been no temperature rise over the 20th century, only that we can't tell, based on the earlier studies that claim there was.
It's also a cautionary tale to people using the "Principal Components Analysis" method of analyzing multi-variable data. My current paper is heavy with PCA results, which can be tricky to interpret, so I'd better watch myself.
Americans' Opinions on Foreign Meddling in American Elections
Great bunch of letters on the (UK) Guardian's website concerning the Guardian's call for British subjects to write letters to Ohio voters to advise them how to vote in our presidential election.
I can't repeat many of the choice phrases used in them, out of a respect for decency, but it makes me smile to see it, nonetheless. And I've got to give credit to the Guardian for having the fortitude to print letters critical of their efforts. Yeah, and that "critical of their efforts" phrasing is a severe understatement!
I can't repeat many of the choice phrases used in them, out of a respect for decency, but it makes me smile to see it, nonetheless. And I've got to give credit to the Guardian for having the fortitude to print letters critical of their efforts. Yeah, and that "critical of their efforts" phrasing is a severe understatement!
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
John Edwards' father
And have you heard about the full story on Edwards' mill-worker father? Edwards keeps invoking his father in his own supposedly poor upbringing. Turns out that his father eventually (I don't know if it was after Edwards had already grown up and left home or not) left that job and owned his *own* mill!
You know, if I had a father with that story, I would be repeating it over and over in the campaign as an example of how people can raise themselves up from (supposed) poverty to wealth in a country this free. Why the heck isn't Edwards doing the same? Maybe it's that Edwards' whole message is that this is a poor, miserable, oppressive country in which nobody can make it, because the evil mill owners across the land keep the people
down.
Why point out that your father put the lie to that image himself?
You know, if I had a father with that story, I would be repeating it over and over in the campaign as an example of how people can raise themselves up from (supposed) poverty to wealth in a country this free. Why the heck isn't Edwards doing the same? Maybe it's that Edwards' whole message is that this is a poor, miserable, oppressive country in which nobody can make it, because the evil mill owners across the land keep the people
down.
Why point out that your father put the lie to that image himself?
Edwards' vision of America
By the way, did you catch Edwards' whole assessment of how Americans are doing? He addressed us all in the second person, saying how we know just how poor and miserable we are, bareley eking by in our existences.
Boy, what a sour, depressing attempt at condescension.
Boy, what a sour, depressing attempt at condescension.
VP Debate After-Action Report
I'm changing the subject line from that of the Presidential debate ("Debate Post-Mortem") for good reason: Cheney wiped the floor with Edwards!
Actually, I think Edwards did a decent job, stylistically. I don't think there was as much substance there as Cheney had, but who knows what a liberal would say. Cheney was clear, coherent, in control of the facts, and concise, not throwing in extraneous words that weren't necessary.
So I can imagine the other side thinking that Edwards won, but I'm excited with Cheney's performance.
Now, I didn't get to hear the second half of the debate, which I'm told was more on domestic issues, and in which Edwards did better than the first half. So my opinion is limited by what I saw.
Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton: Three mentions that I picked up on, and I was out for half of it, remember.
Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam: Also three mentions of Kerry having served in Vietnam that I picked up on. Did you know Kerry was in Vietnam? I'd never heard...!
On the casuality numbers in Iraq: Oh my goodness--I about thought Cheney was going to walk over and slap Edwards in the face for that "America bears 90%" line. Cheney pointed out that our Iraqi allies(!) bear 40 or 50% of the casualties (I forget which), and Edwards repeatedly refused to acknowledge this. Cheney got righteously indignant on the
Iraqis' behalf! Good for him.
Conclusion: Good job for Cheney, not bad for Edwards (style, at least). Won't matter too many hills of beans on the election, but it might help Bush amongst those who are real political junkies. On the other hand, fewer political junkies are undecided at this point.
Actually, I think Edwards did a decent job, stylistically. I don't think there was as much substance there as Cheney had, but who knows what a liberal would say. Cheney was clear, coherent, in control of the facts, and concise, not throwing in extraneous words that weren't necessary.
So I can imagine the other side thinking that Edwards won, but I'm excited with Cheney's performance.
Now, I didn't get to hear the second half of the debate, which I'm told was more on domestic issues, and in which Edwards did better than the first half. So my opinion is limited by what I saw.
Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton: Three mentions that I picked up on, and I was out for half of it, remember.
Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam: Also three mentions of Kerry having served in Vietnam that I picked up on. Did you know Kerry was in Vietnam? I'd never heard...!
On the casuality numbers in Iraq: Oh my goodness--I about thought Cheney was going to walk over and slap Edwards in the face for that "America bears 90%" line. Cheney pointed out that our Iraqi allies(!) bear 40 or 50% of the casualties (I forget which), and Edwards repeatedly refused to acknowledge this. Cheney got righteously indignant on the
Iraqis' behalf! Good for him.
Conclusion: Good job for Cheney, not bad for Edwards (style, at least). Won't matter too many hills of beans on the election, but it might help Bush amongst those who are real political junkies. On the other hand, fewer political junkies are undecided at this point.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Debate Post-Mortem
Actually, that subject line sounds worse than I meant it. I think Kerry
won on style, certainly after the first few questions were out of the way.
At the beginning, Bush was in command of the facts and stuck to them,
while Kerry wandered off into the woods with his irrelevant, rambling
answers.
Then they apparently decided to switch styles. Well, not precisely, but
Kerry expressed himself more articulately, if not necessarily logically,
while Bush sounded too plaintive (I was listening on the radio), stumbled
over his words (not unexpected, and I didn't mind too much), and kept
repeating the same phrases over and over. I didn't like him saying
(again, plaintively), "It's hard work," repeatedly. That's not a
justification on any issue, although you can employ that once or twice in
the context of explaining why our efforts must continue, despite setbacks.
Several times I thought he (Bush) should have ended his statement or rebuttal early, after he'd made his solid points, rather than fill up the rest of his time with words that didn't contribute to the meaning and just distracted from a good answer. If he'd done that, he would have looked a lot better on style, as well.
Just saw this on NRO's Corner:
MY DRINKING GAME [Michael Graham]
I have a fifth of Bushmill's Irish Whiskey that I will down the moment
Bush looks at Kerry and says "Nice tan."
Posted at 10:02 PM
I almost spit out my Coke when I read that just now.
Personally, I was itching for Bush to respond to one of Kerry's Vietnam
references with, "Did you serve in a war somewhere? Was it Vietnam?
Really?! Wow--I'd never known that before!"
I counted FIVE references by Kerry to his Vietnam service, if you don't
count a sixth that was brought up after Lehrer mentioned it first. Five
invocations of Vietnam that had absolutely no relevance, other than to
stick them into the discussion--"I know what it's like to be in a tough
situation. I was in Vietnam..." or something like that.
Conclusion (for now)? I give it to Kerry on style. It's been a long time since I'd had academic debating, and I don't remember how these things were scored. Does the logic of your answer matter? I think Bush had the better answers to the questions, but then, I already agree with him on most of these things.
won on style, certainly after the first few questions were out of the way.
At the beginning, Bush was in command of the facts and stuck to them,
while Kerry wandered off into the woods with his irrelevant, rambling
answers.
Then they apparently decided to switch styles. Well, not precisely, but
Kerry expressed himself more articulately, if not necessarily logically,
while Bush sounded too plaintive (I was listening on the radio), stumbled
over his words (not unexpected, and I didn't mind too much), and kept
repeating the same phrases over and over. I didn't like him saying
(again, plaintively), "It's hard work," repeatedly. That's not a
justification on any issue, although you can employ that once or twice in
the context of explaining why our efforts must continue, despite setbacks.
Several times I thought he (Bush) should have ended his statement or rebuttal early, after he'd made his solid points, rather than fill up the rest of his time with words that didn't contribute to the meaning and just distracted from a good answer. If he'd done that, he would have looked a lot better on style, as well.
Just saw this on NRO's Corner:
MY DRINKING GAME [Michael Graham]
I have a fifth of Bushmill's Irish Whiskey that I will down the moment
Bush looks at Kerry and says "Nice tan."
Posted at 10:02 PM
I almost spit out my Coke when I read that just now.
Personally, I was itching for Bush to respond to one of Kerry's Vietnam
references with, "Did you serve in a war somewhere? Was it Vietnam?
Really?! Wow--I'd never known that before!"
I counted FIVE references by Kerry to his Vietnam service, if you don't
count a sixth that was brought up after Lehrer mentioned it first. Five
invocations of Vietnam that had absolutely no relevance, other than to
stick them into the discussion--"I know what it's like to be in a tough
situation. I was in Vietnam..." or something like that.
Conclusion (for now)? I give it to Kerry on style. It's been a long time since I'd had academic debating, and I don't remember how these things were scored. Does the logic of your answer matter? I think Bush had the better answers to the questions, but then, I already agree with him on most of these things.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Da Vinci team next?
Fox News just had John Pike (of Global Security) on, saying that a Canadian team, "Da Vinci," is planning to make their first X-prize flight within a couple of days, I think. I'm not familiar with them, and I'm excited for an American team to win the X-prize, but I'm excited that there's going to be some real competition.
The private manned space industry can only be helped by having active competition within its ranks.
The private manned space industry can only be helped by having active competition within its ranks.
Ansari Cup?
Fox News' William Lajeuness is interviewing Rick ...Somebodyoranother about the X-Prize. The reporter just asked him about suggestions that the group that put up the X-Prize might come up with a regular event--the "Ansari (sp?) Cup," perhaps. Give annual awards for speed and altitude.
This strikes me as an excellent idea. I'm reminded of the early 20th century aviation competitions, which of course are in the minds of the entrepeneurs involved with the X-Prize, as well.
There are some objections that this is all a bad idea, because at some point, somebody's going to die. This strikes me as a frustratingly risk-averse mindset. Of *course* somebody's going to die someday. In the early days of aviation, a *lot* of people died. The early deaths did not prevent people from continuing to work in this field, nor did they destroy the industry. Here we are in the 21st century, taking planes regularly. The industry survived and thrived.
This strikes me as an excellent idea. I'm reminded of the early 20th century aviation competitions, which of course are in the minds of the entrepeneurs involved with the X-Prize, as well.
There are some objections that this is all a bad idea, because at some point, somebody's going to die. This strikes me as a frustratingly risk-averse mindset. Of *course* somebody's going to die someday. In the early days of aviation, a *lot* of people died. The early deaths did not prevent people from continuing to work in this field, nor did they destroy the industry. Here we are in the 21st century, taking planes regularly. The industry survived and thrived.
Apogee!
SpaceShipOne is now at the apogee of its flight! I'm watching the Fox camera, which is able to follow it all the way to the top of its flight. Very weird to be able to see a resolved spacecraft while it's actually in space.
It's coming down pretty fast now, getting bigger and bigger in the TV. Wow--the fins are really maneouverable. He's tilting them up by 45 deg., easily, now moving them back to horizontal.
It's coming down pretty fast now, getting bigger and bigger in the TV. Wow--the fins are really maneouverable. He's tilting them up by 45 deg., easily, now moving them back to horizontal.
Drop lauch at about 11:15 AM EDT
Fox News is reporting that SpaceShipOne will separate from its mothership, White Knight, at about 11:15 AM EDT.
SpaceShipOne: First X-Prize Launch
Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne has just taken off in the Mojave Desert for the first *qualification* flight for the Ansari X-Prize. His first space flight the other month was just with a one-man crew, while the X-Prize flights require either a three-man crew, or carrying the equivalent weight.
The carrier plane, White Knight, just took off a few minutes ago, and it will do the drop launch about 35-40 minutes from now.
If this is successful, Rutan will need to do repeat this within two weeks to win the prize.
I'll be blogging this to the extent that I can, today.
The carrier plane, White Knight, just took off a few minutes ago, and it will do the drop launch about 35-40 minutes from now.
If this is successful, Rutan will need to do repeat this within two weeks to win the prize.
I'll be blogging this to the extent that I can, today.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Ron Silver at GOP Convention
I missed the actor Ron Silver's speech at the Republican National Convention, but Drudge has a link to the whole text. Boy, that's a good speech. Fiesty, and he's not mincing words on the terrorist war.
Ron Silver's had a reputation as a liberal, but some weeks ago, I heard him on John Bachelor's show on WABC out of New York (AM 770, 10 PM - 1 AM, weeknights) discussing his support for President Bush on the war (terrorism in general and Iraq in particular, I think). I was really surprised, and he might have made some mildly conservative arguments on other topics as well. Tonight, Tony Snow on Fox asked Silver about his politics after the speech, expressing the same surprise I had. Silver said that he still is a liberal on some things, but not on others. I'm trying to remember--did the Democrats have any conservatives speak at their convention? Or Republicans? They had Ron Reagan, but I'm pretty sure he's no Republican. He's certainly not a conservative; that's been known for a long time. The Republicans have so far had former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat who is voting for Bush, Ron Silver, a formerly liberal actor, and they'll be getting Sen. Zell Miller, another Democrat voting for Bush. Interesting.
And the whole thing about the moderates being front & center in this convention? Well, as long as they don't compromise on policy in the speeches, I'm happy with them. John McCain did a good job tonight. A mostly serious speech, and it had some rousing moments.
But wow! Rudy Giuliani! I came in just after he started, and it was mesmerizing. This was the best speech I've seen in a long, long time. It was funny, his criticisms of Kerry were lighthearted, and he had the enthusiasm, the passion that I really like to see in a rousing political speech. Wow!
Ron Silver's had a reputation as a liberal, but some weeks ago, I heard him on John Bachelor's show on WABC out of New York (AM 770, 10 PM - 1 AM, weeknights) discussing his support for President Bush on the war (terrorism in general and Iraq in particular, I think). I was really surprised, and he might have made some mildly conservative arguments on other topics as well. Tonight, Tony Snow on Fox asked Silver about his politics after the speech, expressing the same surprise I had. Silver said that he still is a liberal on some things, but not on others. I'm trying to remember--did the Democrats have any conservatives speak at their convention? Or Republicans? They had Ron Reagan, but I'm pretty sure he's no Republican. He's certainly not a conservative; that's been known for a long time. The Republicans have so far had former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat who is voting for Bush, Ron Silver, a formerly liberal actor, and they'll be getting Sen. Zell Miller, another Democrat voting for Bush. Interesting.
And the whole thing about the moderates being front & center in this convention? Well, as long as they don't compromise on policy in the speeches, I'm happy with them. John McCain did a good job tonight. A mostly serious speech, and it had some rousing moments.
But wow! Rudy Giuliani! I came in just after he started, and it was mesmerizing. This was the best speech I've seen in a long, long time. It was funny, his criticisms of Kerry were lighthearted, and he had the enthusiasm, the passion that I really like to see in a rousing political speech. Wow!
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Critique of the 9/11 Commission Report
David Rivkin and Lee Casey have a very long, detailed critique of the 9/11 Commission's report on National Review Online today. I haven't had the chance to read it, but at first glance it seems worthy of printing out for a careful read later.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Not that we're surprised
I watched part of that PBS series, "Wide Angle," last night. They had on a documentary about North Korea, filmed within the country. The film crew got to see a lot of things that no outside film crew had been allowed to before, although they certainly didn't have free rein and were constrained in whom they were allowed to interview.
One thing jumped out at me--in Pyongyang, all of the apartments have the state's radio station (of course, there is only the state's radio station) piped into the kitchen. The residents can turn the volume up or down...but not off.
Does everybody remember their 1984? Everybody had the (2-way) TV in their apartments that they could turn down but never turn off.
Was this also true in the Soviet Union of the late 1940s (when Orwell wrote his book)? I don't mean a 2-way TV, but any TV or radio. Did Soviet subjects have a TV or radio that they couldn't turn off? If not, then either Orwell was frighteningly prophetic, or the Dear Leader actually got some of his ideas from an anti-Communist novel.
One thing jumped out at me--in Pyongyang, all of the apartments have the state's radio station (of course, there is only the state's radio station) piped into the kitchen. The residents can turn the volume up or down...but not off.
Does everybody remember their 1984? Everybody had the (2-way) TV in their apartments that they could turn down but never turn off.
Was this also true in the Soviet Union of the late 1940s (when Orwell wrote his book)? I don't mean a 2-way TV, but any TV or radio. Did Soviet subjects have a TV or radio that they couldn't turn off? If not, then either Orwell was frighteningly prophetic, or the Dear Leader actually got some of his ideas from an anti-Communist novel.
Send the Elgin Marbles to Tennessee?
The Social Affairs Unit is a British blog I was just introduced to, through the New Criterion. An intriguing post by Prof. Christie Davies is on there from earlier this week, suggesting that the famed Elgin marbles might be bought from the British Museum and sent to Nashville!
Now, this isn't an agreed-upon plan, but it's been suggested by "Greek-American multi-billionaire Evyenios Papadakis" as a compromise to the fight over possession of the marbles. (For historical background, Elgin took the marbles from the Parthenon in the early 1800s, while Greece was under Ottoman rule. The Greeks want them back, while the British Museum argues they were taken legally and does not want to give them up.) The Greeks want to place the marbles back in the open air Parthenon, and part of the British Museum's argument is that they will quickly degrade in the smoggy Athenian air (although there has been an offer to put them in a sealed room).
Mr. Papadakis toured the American South last year, particularly Alabama and Tennessee, and he was impressed both by the "sophisticated charm of the South" (Social Affair's words, but I appreciate them!)...and Nashville's full-scale replica of the Parthenon (the only such in the world). Ahah! thought he. A relatively smog-free city with a replica of the Parthenon.
I'll let you read the rest. It's a very interesting idea, and the Social Affairs Unit seems to think there's a chance the British Museum would accept the sale. I can't judge for myself, but it would be an exciting opportunity for my state.
On a related tangent, the Parthenon and Centennial Park in Nashville sits on some old family land. Cockrill Springs, where the paddle boats splash around next to the Parthenon, still bears the name of that branch of the family. A family friend is a sculptor and helped her nephew to build the two-storey-tall statue of Athena within the Parthenon, only completed a few years ago (the Parthenon has been there for over a century). I can't remember if the Elgin marbles are recreated within its walls as well, but I'm sure the city would be more than happy to have the originals.
Now, this isn't an agreed-upon plan, but it's been suggested by "Greek-American multi-billionaire Evyenios Papadakis" as a compromise to the fight over possession of the marbles. (For historical background, Elgin took the marbles from the Parthenon in the early 1800s, while Greece was under Ottoman rule. The Greeks want them back, while the British Museum argues they were taken legally and does not want to give them up.) The Greeks want to place the marbles back in the open air Parthenon, and part of the British Museum's argument is that they will quickly degrade in the smoggy Athenian air (although there has been an offer to put them in a sealed room).
Mr. Papadakis toured the American South last year, particularly Alabama and Tennessee, and he was impressed both by the "sophisticated charm of the South" (Social Affair's words, but I appreciate them!)...and Nashville's full-scale replica of the Parthenon (the only such in the world). Ahah! thought he. A relatively smog-free city with a replica of the Parthenon.
I'll let you read the rest. It's a very interesting idea, and the Social Affairs Unit seems to think there's a chance the British Museum would accept the sale. I can't judge for myself, but it would be an exciting opportunity for my state.
On a related tangent, the Parthenon and Centennial Park in Nashville sits on some old family land. Cockrill Springs, where the paddle boats splash around next to the Parthenon, still bears the name of that branch of the family. A family friend is a sculptor and helped her nephew to build the two-storey-tall statue of Athena within the Parthenon, only completed a few years ago (the Parthenon has been there for over a century). I can't remember if the Elgin marbles are recreated within its walls as well, but I'm sure the city would be more than happy to have the originals.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Wars of necessity; honesty
Kerry said, and has said in several speeches lately, that he would never send troops into a war just because we wanted to but only because we needed to.
Well, it sounds good, but I believe there are many cases in which one should not let a strategic situation go so far that it becomes necessary to go to war. In some cases, if you can go to war on your own schedule, rather than on your enemy's, you have the advantage. But if you leave war as only an option of last resort, then you could find yourself in a far more dangerous situation.
Now, let's see... I presume from what Kerry said, that he has opposed all of those recent wars the United States has fought, that we did not have to fight: Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf War.
He might have opposed the Gulf War (I can't remember, but it was a republican in office, after all), but the others were favorites of many liberals. I'd like to look up his voting record on these. We had to fight none of these wars. Let's see if his actions have matched his words...
By the way, he said that as President, he would restore honesty and integrity to the office. Tell the truth. Ugh!--the nerve of that comment, and I don't like the implication that Bush is dishonest in the least (especially coming out of a Clinton defender). But we'll worry about that slam later. The critical thing is his claim of his own honesty.
Let's see: Kerry had, as a young sailor-turned-activist, taken part in this so-called "Winter Soldier Investigation." That's the scheme in which the activists claimed to have interviewed soldiers and recorded incidents of atrocities they perpetrated. Kerry then promulgated these accusations in his testimony before Congress.
Well, some (I don't know the percentage) of these accusations have since been shown to be false. Made up.
OK, now when Kerry testified before Congress, did he know that some of this was false? Was he lying? Was he misleading Congress?
Maybe he thought it was all real. After all, Kerry said he committed atrocities himself. So if he thought it was real, and he believed it when he testified before Congress, should we give him a pass?
After all, Kerry says Bush "mislead us into war!" Hmmm...if Bush believed the evidence of Iraqi WMD, should Bush get the same pass on that that Kerry wants for himself? Hmmm, indeed.
Well, it sounds good, but I believe there are many cases in which one should not let a strategic situation go so far that it becomes necessary to go to war. In some cases, if you can go to war on your own schedule, rather than on your enemy's, you have the advantage. But if you leave war as only an option of last resort, then you could find yourself in a far more dangerous situation.
Now, let's see... I presume from what Kerry said, that he has opposed all of those recent wars the United States has fought, that we did not have to fight: Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf War.
He might have opposed the Gulf War (I can't remember, but it was a republican in office, after all), but the others were favorites of many liberals. I'd like to look up his voting record on these. We had to fight none of these wars. Let's see if his actions have matched his words...
By the way, he said that as President, he would restore honesty and integrity to the office. Tell the truth. Ugh!--the nerve of that comment, and I don't like the implication that Bush is dishonest in the least (especially coming out of a Clinton defender). But we'll worry about that slam later. The critical thing is his claim of his own honesty.
Let's see: Kerry had, as a young sailor-turned-activist, taken part in this so-called "Winter Soldier Investigation." That's the scheme in which the activists claimed to have interviewed soldiers and recorded incidents of atrocities they perpetrated. Kerry then promulgated these accusations in his testimony before Congress.
Well, some (I don't know the percentage) of these accusations have since been shown to be false. Made up.
OK, now when Kerry testified before Congress, did he know that some of this was false? Was he lying? Was he misleading Congress?
Maybe he thought it was all real. After all, Kerry said he committed atrocities himself. So if he thought it was real, and he believed it when he testified before Congress, should we give him a pass?
After all, Kerry says Bush "mislead us into war!" Hmmm...if Bush believed the evidence of Iraqi WMD, should Bush get the same pass on that that Kerry wants for himself? Hmmm, indeed.
More on criticism=patriotism
I thought of another analogy on this patriotism redefinition. Patriotism is a love of your country. Criticism could be constructive and come from love, but it could also come from hatred.
Think of when one person criticizes another. One could criticize out of a love for the other (mother for child, for instance). You'd probably be able to tell that by the tone of voice.
One could also criticize out of hatred. Enemies criticize each other all of the time. You can tell that by the tone of voice, too.
So criticism by itself is no indication of love, or of patriotism. The motive, often evidenced by the tone of voice and the style of delivery, is what is key.
Think of when one person criticizes another. One could criticize out of a love for the other (mother for child, for instance). You'd probably be able to tell that by the tone of voice.
One could also criticize out of hatred. Enemies criticize each other all of the time. You can tell that by the tone of voice, too.
So criticism by itself is no indication of love, or of patriotism. The motive, often evidenced by the tone of voice and the style of delivery, is what is key.
He should have stopped halfway through
I thought the first half of Kerry's speech was pretty good in its message. Optimistic, vaguely hawkish, undivisive. Encouraging!
But then he realized he was speaking to a crowd of liberals. The second half of the speech got me riled up and yelling at the TV. Didn't do me much good, since he went right on in the same tack. [Oop--here he goes back to Vietnam, somehow on a tangent about race. But the line "all in the same boat" works pretty well.]
Snide. Negative. Divisive.
What in the heck was that crack about not using the Constitution for political purposes?! Just now, I am thinking he might have been trying to refer to the Federal Marriage Amendment, but it's taken me a good 20 minutes to puzzle that one out. If that's what he meant, then I've got to ask him how many of our 27 Amendments have no political ramifications? The only one I can think of offhand might be the 27th itself (Congressional pay-raises), and that's mostly because it took what? 200 years to be ratified?
The very end was pretty bad. Some attempt to redefine "patriotism" to mean any anti-American attitude. Now I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize the government, the President, the Congress, the courts, or any of it, wartime or peacetime. I'm a good anti-government conservative and think we have no obligation to support what the government does, even if it is in wartime.
But it is not true that criticism is necessarily patriotic. Criticism of your government is patriotism neutral. It will in many cases be unpatriotic.
Patriotism is a love of your country, and there are some on the radical left (probably some on the right, too, although I can't think of an example offhand) who are unpatriotic. This whole criticism=patriotism formula is illogical. One does not imply the other. It's like saying "beach towels = patriotism". It's a non-sequitur.
But then he realized he was speaking to a crowd of liberals. The second half of the speech got me riled up and yelling at the TV. Didn't do me much good, since he went right on in the same tack. [Oop--here he goes back to Vietnam, somehow on a tangent about race. But the line "all in the same boat" works pretty well.]
Snide. Negative. Divisive.
What in the heck was that crack about not using the Constitution for political purposes?! Just now, I am thinking he might have been trying to refer to the Federal Marriage Amendment, but it's taken me a good 20 minutes to puzzle that one out. If that's what he meant, then I've got to ask him how many of our 27 Amendments have no political ramifications? The only one I can think of offhand might be the 27th itself (Congressional pay-raises), and that's mostly because it took what? 200 years to be ratified?
The very end was pretty bad. Some attempt to redefine "patriotism" to mean any anti-American attitude. Now I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize the government, the President, the Congress, the courts, or any of it, wartime or peacetime. I'm a good anti-government conservative and think we have no obligation to support what the government does, even if it is in wartime.
But it is not true that criticism is necessarily patriotic. Criticism of your government is patriotism neutral. It will in many cases be unpatriotic.
Patriotism is a love of your country, and there are some on the radical left (probably some on the right, too, although I can't think of an example offhand) who are unpatriotic. This whole criticism=patriotism formula is illogical. One does not imply the other. It's like saying "beach towels = patriotism". It's a non-sequitur.
Kerry served where?!
In the first half of Kerry's speech, I was astonished at the number of times he referred to his military service. Did Bob Dole refer to his this often? I remember him being teased about it in the press in '96. I've got to admire Kerry for volunteering for combat duty, really. I hope I'd have the guts to do the same. I think I would.
It's refreshing to hear how the other Democrats have suddenly gotten such a profound respect for the military and Vietnam veterans especially. Never saw it in the left before now. Let's hope it stays with them from now on, but I really doubt it. Too many on the far Left hate the military with a passion, and they seem to be gaining influence within the Democratic party.
It's refreshing to hear how the other Democrats have suddenly gotten such a profound respect for the military and Vietnam veterans especially. Never saw it in the left before now. Let's hope it stays with them from now on, but I really doubt it. Too many on the far Left hate the military with a passion, and they seem to be gaining influence within the Democratic party.
America can do better! Help is on the way!
Kerry's been repeating these two lines in a pretty effective mantra in this section of the speech. Interestingly, the camera (FNC) has cut over to a section of the crowd where they're obligingly holding up pairs of prefab signs with these phrases printed on them. Nicely scripted, but having the signs ready beforehand is too slick for my tastes. No doubt the GOP will have too much slickness in places, too.
USA! USA!
Wow--a chant of "USA! USA! USA!" has just risen up from the Democratic conventioneers. I'm truly surprised. Or would that be questioning their patriotism? And we all know that's what those mean, evil conservatives do to liberals. John Kerry just said so. Or implied so.
Come to think of it, this chant just rose up after Kerry played the patriotism card. Could the Democrats be a touch sensitive about this? Maybe they think there might be something to it, and they'd better cover, quickly? Nah.
Come to think of it, this chant just rose up after Kerry played the patriotism card. Could the Democrats be a touch sensitive about this? Maybe they think there might be something to it, and they'd better cover, quickly? Nah.
Kerry's troop plan
Watching Kerry's acceptance speech. He's finally laying out some tiny bits of what he means by his "smart" plan for winning the war on terrorism. One thing caught my ear: he would add "40,000" troops to the armed forces, "not in Iraq" [emphasis in original]. Really? I thought he'd been harping on the concept (a not unreasonable one) that we were stretched too thinly in Iraq and needed a lot more soldiers there. And he's not going to add troops to Iraq?
Found it!
Here's who armed Iraq (1973-1990):
USSR: 57% (value of weapons transfers in 1990 dollars)
France: 13
China: 12
Czechoslovakia: 7
Poland: 4
Brazil: 2
Egypt: 1
Romania: 1
Denmark: 1
Lybia: 1
USA: 1
[Many other countries follow, at <1% each.]
Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Chart by the Dissident Frogman
It's awful how the United States created Saddam in our own twisted, evil image. Us and those darned warmongering Danes.
USSR: 57% (value of weapons transfers in 1990 dollars)
France: 13
China: 12
Czechoslovakia: 7
Poland: 4
Brazil: 2
Egypt: 1
Romania: 1
Denmark: 1
Lybia: 1
USA: 1
[Many other countries follow, at <1% each.]
Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Chart by the Dissident Frogman
It's awful how the United States created Saddam in our own twisted, evil image. Us and those darned warmongering Danes.
Who armed Iraq?
I'm linking this for my own reference at the moment. I'm trying to find an excellent graphic I saw a year ago that had a breakdown of foreign aid to Iraq, by country, over the past few decades. I seem to recall that, contrary to the claims of the Left that "we" created/armed/built/are-responsible-for Hussein's Iraq, American aid was in fact down at the level of Denmark's. And was dwarfed by, I think, France's, China's, and the Soviets'.
Does anybody know where that bar chart was? Saw it somewhere on the internet...
In the meantime, let me post this link to Iraq Watch, which has some relevant material.
Incidentally, this whole train of thought came from Lilek's recent argument with a French magazine reporter.
Does anybody know where that bar chart was? Saw it somewhere on the internet...
In the meantime, let me post this link to Iraq Watch, which has some relevant material.
Incidentally, this whole train of thought came from Lilek's recent argument with a French magazine reporter.
More on Dan Okrent and the [gasp!] liberal New York Times
Donald Luskin has an interesting column on Dan Okrent and his NYT column admitting the Times has a liberal bias. He's both critical of Okrent for not going far enough and defensive of him, recognizing the potentially precarious position he is in. Okrent has to field reader complaints, but the Times has a pretty liberal readership, and Okrent is said to get even more letters complaining the Times is not liberal enough.
I think Okrent punted in his column the other day, not laying out the problem quite right. Luskin points out some of the other issues that should have been taken into account. But I'm willing to cut Okrent some slack after reading this.
I think Okrent punted in his column the other day, not laying out the problem quite right. Luskin points out some of the other issues that should have been taken into account. But I'm willing to cut Okrent some slack after reading this.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
The New York Times is a liberal paper?! I don't believe it...
Daniel Okrent, the New York Times' "Public Editor," has written a column admitting that the Times is liberal. "Of course it is," he begins his article.
Few of us on the Right are surprised, of course. And I say that with my characteristic understatement.
I'm debating whether or not to send this article off to a colleague here at State. This fellow professor told me straight-out last night, "The New York Times is not liberal." Funny how Okrent's first line is the perfect rejoinder.
This came up in the context of a debate on the Iraqi War. He had insisted that the American media had been pro-war, ex ante, including the Times. I think he later backed off of this a little and said that the Times was "vaguely centrist," but I've forgotten some of the discussion now.
Stupid, stupid, stupid... I'm scolding myself, now. When you're at a party of ten college professors, don't get into a discussion on politics! You're one of only two conservatives there, and you're going to be outnumbered. Besides, when was the last time you managed to change a professor's opinions about anything?
I avoided jumping in when the crowd started cooing about how wonderful Farenheit 911 is [insert eye-roll], but what dragged me in was one of them saying in very serious tones how dishonest it was of "the Right" to talk about military casualty rates in Iraq that separated combat casualties from other deaths.
I explained that there is a peacetime casualty rate from things ranging from training accidents to traffic deaths, and that it is proper to separate the causes of death when discussing this. I don't think I got through. By the end of it, he was coming up with very specific scenarios involving bent cotter pins on live grenades that somehow only go off accidentally in war zones. Weird. And then the segue into the solidly Right-wing media...
In case any of you were wondering, this is one of the reasons I don't put my full name out in public on this blog. I figure, why let a tenure committee do a Google search and get into a political debate where it doesn't belong?
Of course, since last night, some of them have at least an inkling that I'm not a Fellow Traveller...
Few of us on the Right are surprised, of course. And I say that with my characteristic understatement.
I'm debating whether or not to send this article off to a colleague here at State. This fellow professor told me straight-out last night, "The New York Times is not liberal." Funny how Okrent's first line is the perfect rejoinder.
This came up in the context of a debate on the Iraqi War. He had insisted that the American media had been pro-war, ex ante, including the Times. I think he later backed off of this a little and said that the Times was "vaguely centrist," but I've forgotten some of the discussion now.
Stupid, stupid, stupid... I'm scolding myself, now. When you're at a party of ten college professors, don't get into a discussion on politics! You're one of only two conservatives there, and you're going to be outnumbered. Besides, when was the last time you managed to change a professor's opinions about anything?
I avoided jumping in when the crowd started cooing about how wonderful Farenheit 911 is [insert eye-roll], but what dragged me in was one of them saying in very serious tones how dishonest it was of "the Right" to talk about military casualty rates in Iraq that separated combat casualties from other deaths.
I explained that there is a peacetime casualty rate from things ranging from training accidents to traffic deaths, and that it is proper to separate the causes of death when discussing this. I don't think I got through. By the end of it, he was coming up with very specific scenarios involving bent cotter pins on live grenades that somehow only go off accidentally in war zones. Weird. And then the segue into the solidly Right-wing media...
In case any of you were wondering, this is one of the reasons I don't put my full name out in public on this blog. I figure, why let a tenure committee do a Google search and get into a political debate where it doesn't belong?
Of course, since last night, some of them have at least an inkling that I'm not a Fellow Traveller...
Monday, July 19, 2004
Space Telescope Director not to try for another term
The Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates the Hubble Space Telescope, had an all-hands meeting on Friday. Director Steve Beckwith announced some results from the National Academies advisory report on the Hubble Servicing Mission ideas (don't rule out a manned shuttle mission) and then dropped a bombshell--he's not going to seek a renewal of his term as director.
Nobody asked any questions after this--there was something of a stunned silence, I'm told--and the rest of the day involved a lot of office gossip about the reasons for this. The weekly "Director's sherry" that afternoon was interesting...
I see that the Baltimore Sun has beaten me to putting this report in print. I'll look up the link later.
Nobody asked any questions after this--there was something of a stunned silence, I'm told--and the rest of the day involved a lot of office gossip about the reasons for this. The weekly "Director's sherry" that afternoon was interesting...
I see that the Baltimore Sun has beaten me to putting this report in print. I'll look up the link later.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
New report on Hubble repair project
The American Astronomical Society just sent out this e-mail to its members. The National Academies (formerly the National Academy of Sciences--I worked for them, but I still haven't gotten used to the name change) has issued a report on the proposed Hubble robotic servicing mission. Apparently, they think that important decisions on the feasability are probably at least a year in the waiting. I'm hopeful, but we'll see how this all goes.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
Subject: AAS Informational Email 2004-11
National Academy Releases HST Servicing Interim Report
Summary: The Committee on the Assessment of Options for
Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope delivered
an interim report, allowed under the charter of the
committee, to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe on
July 13, 2004.
The interim report 1) recognizes the importance of the
Hubble Space Telescope scientifically and that a servicing
mission will enable significant scientific returns, 2) the
proposed robotic servicing mission will be challenging and
requires significant effort to accomplish and 3) key
decisions on whether such a robotic servicing mission is
possible or not cannot currently be made and will likely
not be able to be made for at least a year.
The full report is available online at the AAS web pages:
http://www.aas.org/policy/InterimHSTReport.pdf
Impact: This interim report is likely to have two major
impacts and could have a secondary, but important third
impact. The first is that a robotic servicing mission can
now be officially viewed as valuable for the science
results that a serviced Hubble can provide. The second is
that whether to undertake such a mission cannot be decided
due to technical issues for at least a year. A secondary
impact that the report may have is that significant
investments in the technical aspects of a servicing mission
can now be made by NASA, in addition to the current level
of effort being pursued.
AAS members are encouraged to share the report with their
Representatives and Senators so they can remain fully
informed on this important issue.
___________________________________________________________
Mailed to US members from aas.org at 4:00pm
14 July 2004
New report on Hubble repair project
The American Astronomical Society just sent out this e-mail to its members. The National Academies (formerly the National Academy of Sciences--I worked for them, but I still haven't gotten used to the name change) has issued a report on the proposed Hubble robotic servicing mission. Apparently, they think that important decisions on the feasability are probably at least a year in the waiting. I'm hopeful, but we'll see how this all goes.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
Subject: AAS Informational Email 2004-11
National Academy Releases HST Servicing Interim Report
Summary: The Committee on the Assessment of Options for
Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope delivered
an interim report, allowed under the charter of the
committee, to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe on
July 13, 2004.
The interim report 1) recognizes the importance of the
Hubble Space Telescope scientifically and that a servicing
mission will enable significant scientific returns, 2) the
proposed robotic servicing mission will be challenging and
requires significant effort to accomplish and 3) key
decisions on whether such a robotic servicing mission is
possible or not cannot currently be made and will likely
not be able to be made for at least a year.
The full report is available online at the AAS web pages:
http://www.aas.org/policy/InterimHSTReport.pdf
Impact: This interim report is likely to have two major
impacts and could have a secondary, but important third
impact. The first is that a robotic servicing mission can
now be officially viewed as valuable for the science
results that a serviced Hubble can provide. The second is
that whether to undertake such a mission cannot be decided
due to technical issues for at least a year. A secondary
impact that the report may have is that significant
investments in the technical aspects of a servicing mission
can now be made by NASA, in addition to the current level
of effort being pursued.
AAS members are encouraged to share the report with their
Representatives and Senators so they can remain fully
informed on this important issue.
___________________________________________________________
Mailed to US members from aas.org at 4:00pm
14 July 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
