Perfect football day, cold and rainy here.

Yeah, I know. Lately the Bengals are impressing me.
more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 08:44 AM | Comments (453)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

I have a confession to make: when it comes to reading, I have the attention-span of a five year old. Not so much with the reading itself; no, I can sit and read for hours on end. No, where my problem comes in is subject matter -- some other book or writer will catch my eye, and I'll leave the book I'm currently reading to chase some other rabbit down a hole. The end result is that I often have five or sometimes eight or ten books going at the same time.

As I work my way through the enormous expanse of Paul Rahe's Republics Ancient and Modern, I found my attention captured by the launch of NASA/JPL's new Mars probe, the Mars Science Laboratory. I am an inveterate space geek, and stuff like this really excites me. And as so often happens, I found my attention wandering back to previous robotic missions that NASA has launched.

I have done a fair bit of technical writing in my life, and perhaps it's as a result of that I have become fond of well-written technical histories. Too often these works are written by engineers for other engineers (or their bosses), and are dry as dust. But there are several excellent technical histories of certain NASA missions if you know where to look (though I still wouldn't call them "light reading" for people who aren't fairly technically inclined).

The first book I went back to was a history of Ames' Pioneer probes: The Depths of Space by Mark Wolverton. Pioneers 10 and 11* broke the path for the Voyager probes in the 1970's, and became the first human-made instruments to visit the outer planets of the solar system.

This of course led me to a technical history of the Voyager program. Now, the historical popularity of this mission means that there are hundreds of books full of pretty pictures and lofty philosophical pronouncements of What It All Means, but precious little on the technical development and launch of the probes. Luckily, a good technical history was finally published: Voyager's Grand Tour by Henry Dethloff and Ronald Schorn.

A favorite of mine that I've mentioned in the past is Eric Chaisson's The Hubble Wars, which is as good a history of Big Science as it is of the Space Telescope itself.

If you like these, and want to get really in-depth into not just our space missions but also those of Russia/USSR, you can try the following books:

• Jupiter Odyssey: The Story of NASA's Galileo Mission


• Mission Jupiter: The Spectacular Journey of the Galileo Spacecraft


• Mission to Saturn: Cassini and the Huygens Probe


• Robotic Exploration of the Solar System (vols 1, 2, and 3)

Histories like this are important, and not just to pasty bespectacled nerds who once dreamed of being steely-eyed rocket men. The scientists and engineers who designed those machines and sent them into the void deserve to be remembered as the explorers of our day, just as Coronado, Cortes, de Gama, de Soto, Columbus, and Sir Francis Drake are remembered from times past. Many centuries hence, when much else about our time will be forgotten, it may well be that we are remembered mainly for what we did Out There: sending complicated robots far out into the void just because we were curious about what they'd find.

We may remember this age as the Golden Age of discovery, and that the catastrophes and calamities that fill our daily lives really don't matter all that much over the long term.

*EDIT: MarkS in the comments reminds me that it was Pioneers 10 and 11 that went to Jupiter. Pioneers 6 and 7 went into orbit around the sun. That's what I get for not having the book nearby when I write these things....

Posted by: Monty at 06:02 AM | Comments (139)
Post contains 638 words, total size 5 kb.

“Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” -- G. K. Chesterton

Posted by: Monty at 05:34 AM | Comments (128)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Now, we all have pretty much been in fight right? And one of the first rules you learn is that there are NO rules in a street fight. You fight to win and all blows are legal, no matter where they land. Well, now we have the Boston Public School System trying to change the rules here and in a way that is over the top ridiculous. 1st Grader Faces Sexual Harassment Complaint for, get this, punching someone in the junk during a fight. Seriously.

Lynch says because her son punched the other boy in the groin, school officials say they consider it sexual assault. She counters that the other boy should be charged with attempted murder for choking her son.

Posted by: CDR M at 06:04 PM | Comments (723)
Post contains 660 words, total size 7 kb.

Damn I just realized this was on. It began a half hour ago. On Fox.

Streaming: Here.

Thanks to @williamamos.

Posted by: Ace at 04:28 PM | Comments (583)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

America's best-named college rivalry is back tonight. My beloved No. 3 Oklahoma State Cowboys face the line-jumpers from Norman---those degenerate ball-suckers---the No. 13 Oklahoma Sooners for the Big 12 conference title. A substantial enough win here could also send the Cowboys to the BCS championship game.

The story of Bedlam:

In the Year of our Lord 1900, Oklahoma A&M veterinary medicine professor Dr. L.L. Lewis brought together a group of students to participate in the first Oklahoma Territory Track and Field Meet. Held on May 4, 1900, the event included Alva Normal College, Central Normal of Edmond, Kingfisher College, and the Old Enemy, Oklahoma University.

The prize of the tournament was a silver cup donated by a local jeweler named Douglas. A&M won the meet and returned to Stillwater with the traveling trophy.

In 1901, A&M won again, and a third consecutive win would mean permanent retirement of the Douglas Cup in Stillwater. The third meet was held on May 23, 1902, with the Aggies winning the most points. Oklahoma, sore at their drubbing, filed a protest based on the pole vault competition not having been completed due to darkness. Nevertheless, A&M claimed the Douglas Cup and returned victorious to Stillwater.

The next day the Sooners held their own pole vault competition and declared themselves the victor of the tournament. Several weeks later, the Douglas Cup was stolen from its place in a glass case at the A&M chemistry lab. Suspecting that Sooners had taken the Cup, a group of A&M students made a daring raid to Norman. They retrieved the Cup and buried it under Old Central for safekeeping.

Ten years later, when excavation was being done for Gundersen Hall, the trophy was found. Today the Douglas Cup resides safely in OSU's Heritage Hall.

Bedlam football starts in Stillwater in an hour. You can get the game on ABC.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:00 PM | Comments (203)
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

Life is hard for the soft.

One speaker suggested that some of those arrested might need therapy. Several said they felt traumatized after witnessing police use nonlethal force and being forced to wait for hours in zip-tie handcuffs. Some displayed cuts on their wrists from the handcuffs. Others complained that they were forced to urinate in bags on the bus as they were transported to jails.

There's no crying in street theater. There's no crying in street theater!

Anyone imagine some cops might have some complaints of their own that could stand some publicity?

Notice the weakest, softest complaints of the Occupiers are publicized.

Compare this to the Tea Party, in which the alleged victims of the Tea Partiers -- one guy who had a brief spray-it-don't-say-it incident was promoted as a Spit Rape Survivor, another guy claims the world's tiniest voice, incapable of registering on audiotape, said a dirty word to him -- were publicized.

Notice an inconsistent pattern?

Oh! Just what I was saying. Occupiers spit on police, and not like that Congressman was "spat" on. (If you don't know the story, that Congressman admitted the guy hadn't spat on him at all; he was just so emotional he was spraying spit as he talked.)

I expect round the clock coverage on this.

Posted by: Ace at 02:23 PM | Comments (188)
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

The Climategate 2.0 emails continue to produce some really great examples of scientists, or maybe that should be "scientists", behaving badly. There's so much, in fact, that it's hard to pick ones to excerpt. "Target rich environment" is an understatement.

Anthony Watts has two excellent summary threads (here and here) that chronicle the discoveries coming out of this latest batch of over 5,000 email messages. And, as always, Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit is an indispensable resource. (Aside: If I were president, my first executive order would be to turn over to McIntyre every shred of climate research ever conducted on behalf of the taxpayer. Not sure we're going to get that from AGW believer-of-convenience Mitt or couch-sittin' Newt).

What strikes me as most interesting about the emails is how focused the coterie of warmist scientists are on keeping any dissenting papers from seeing the light of day. Other scientists and journal reviewers are fair game if it looks like they're not devoted to "the cause".

And of course this makes sense, given that the entire AGW scam relies on Consensus Science™. The declines have to be hidden and the data can't be questioned because shut up.

Here's just one example. Pat Michaels at Cato is a thorn in their side, so they tried to have his PhD stripped. Michaels turns the tables:

Everyone agrees that the tone and content of many of [the Climategate emails] is a bit shrill and occasionally intolerant (kind of like University faculty meetings), but there is one repeating thread, by one of your most prestigious employees, Dr. Tom Wigley, that is far beyond the pale of most academic backbiting.

The revoking of my doctorate, the clear objective of TomÂ’s email, is the professional equivalent of the death penalty. I think it needs to be brought to your attention, because the basic premise underlying his machinations is patently and completely false. Dr Wigley is known as a careful scientist, but he certainly was careless here.

Unconvinced scientists need not apply. There's a consensus to be manufactured, don't you know. more...

Posted by: andy at 12:37 PM | Comments (128)
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

Advantage: Um, yeah, ah....Ron Paul.

I had this in the last thread but it's probably worth discussing a bit more.

Here's Paul's statement.

“The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity. Mr. Trump’s participation as moderator will distract from questions and answers concerning important issues such as the national economy, crushing federal government debt, the role of the federal government, foreign policy, and the like. To be sure, Mr. Trump’s participation will contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere.

“Mr. Trump’s selection is also wildly inappropriate because of his record of toying with the serious decision of whether to compete for our nation’s highest office, a decision he appeared to make frivolously. The short-lived elevation of Mr. Trump’s stature as a candidate put him on the radar of many organizations and we recall that last spring he was invited to keynote the Republican Party of Iowa’s annual Lincoln Day Dinner, yet at the last minute he left RPI holding the bag by canceling. In turn, RPI canceled its biggest fundraising gala of the year and suffered embarrassment and in addition RPI was required to engage in refunding measures. Our candidate will not even consider participating in the late-December debate until Mr. Trump publicly apologizes to Iowa party leaders and rectifies in full the situation.

“Therefore our candidate Ron Paul, the champion of the Constitution, has advised he will not attend.”

Team Newt says,

Newt has accepted the invitation from Newsmax for a December 27 debate in Iowa.

As I wrote in the last post I think anyone who shows up to the Trump Show should be disqualified from serious contention. So that's....awkward.

I guess it makes sense since Newt is running as "I'll debate anyone, anywhere" guy but I think considering he's doing at least two 1 on 1 debates (Cain and Huntsman) and Mitt has chickened out on facing Gingrich, Newt might have gotten a pass on this one.

It'll be interesting to see who else accepts this. What if Newt is still the front runner, none of the other regulars accept (Huntsman already said no) and he's on stage with Trump and....Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer? That's going to be...pathetic.

With Newt it's always a matter of taking the good with the bad and more often than you'd like, the downright awful.

Added: Newt confirms.

Newt on Trump debate: "How could you turn down the Donald? ... I would want to go just for the entertainment value."

Well, as long as he's entertained!

Posted by: DrewM at 10:18 AM | Comments (540)
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

Above The Post Update:
Cain just arrived on stage...with his wife.

Say he reassessed the impact the allegations (which he repeatedly denied) have had on his family and this was best for them. He wouldn't be able to raise enough funds.

He says he won't be "silenced and won't be going away".

Now he's launching some new website or something.

Says he'll be making an endorsement soon. Not sure who wants it at this point.

And that's one less "not-Romney" Mitt has to help split the rest of the vote.

Original Post:
He's done his reassessment, now we wait for the answer. It was supposed to be noon eastern but it's slipped.

In other campaign news: Gingrich v. Huntsman in a one on one debate, December 12th in New Hampshire.

Gingrich vs. Romney? Team Mitt said no thanks.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul joins Huntsman in declining Trump's stupid debate.

“The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity. Mr. Trump’s participation as moderator will distract from questions and answers concerning important issues such as the national economy, crushing federal government debt, the role of the federal government, foreign policy, and the like. To be sure, Mr. Trump’s participation will contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere.

“Mr. Trump’s selection is also wildly inappropriate because of his record of toying with the serious decision of whether to compete for our nation’s highest office, a decision he appeared to make frivolously. The short-lived elevation of Mr. Trump’s stature as a candidate put him on the radar of many organizations and we recall that last spring he was invited to keynote the Republican Party of Iowa’s annual Lincoln Day Dinner, yet at the last minute he left RPI holding the bag by canceling. In turn, RPI canceled its biggest fundraising gala of the year and suffered embarrassment and in addition RPI was required to engage in refunding measures. Our candidate will not even consider participating in the late-December debate until Mr. Trump publicly apologizes to Iowa party leaders and rectifies in full the situation.

“Therefore our candidate Ron Paul, the champion of the Constitution, has advised he will not attend.”

If Ron Paul thinks you're a clownish buffoon, maybe it's time to stick to your day jobs. Anyone who agrees to this really needs to be disqualified from consideration. (Which apparently includes...Newt Gingrich)

I think this debate is going to come down to Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer and Fred Karger. Or maybe it will just be Trump debating his favorite person...Donald Trump.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:05 AM | Comments (368)
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.