A.M. Links: NATO Gets Drones , Obama Pans Maximizing Profits, Pepper Spray Lawsuit Settled

|

  • no fan of ferengi

    NATO closed the deal on purchasing five Global Hawk drones for its "Allied Ground Surveillance" system, signing a $1.7 billion contract with Northrop Grumman.

  • Iraq is buying drones, too, from the U.S. to patrol its oil fields and infrastructure. It may have even bought them already. "Iraq's navy has purchased U.S. drones to protect the country's oil platforms in the south, from where most of Iraq's oil is shipped," an unnamed Iraqi security official told Reuters.
  • New Jersey's Muslim leaders are returning to Trenton this week for a follow-up meeting with the state's Attorney General. They've demanded a formal investigation into what role New Jersey government agencies may have played in abetting the NYPD's Muslim surveillance program in the state.
  • Focus on "maximizing profits" is not always "good for communities or businesses or workers," according to Barack Obama, who doubled down on his campaign's Bain attacks at a press conference at the close of the NATO summit in Chicago yesterday, saying  the issue "is what this campaign is going to be about."
  • The Prince George's County Police Department settled a lawsuit filed by a mother and daughter for $400,000 after a traffic accident last year turned into a pepper spraying when the seventeen-year-old took a picture of the responding officer's patrol car. The teenager was booked on assault but the officer never showed up to court so the charges were dismissed. He is on desk duty and has been treated at least twice for mental health issues since the incident.
  • New research shows effects of a common crop chemical on pregnant rats lasting up to three generations. The researchers suggest a similar phenomenon could be occurring in humans.  "There is no doubt that we have been seeing real increases in mental disorders like autism and bipolar disorder," lead author David Crews of the University of Texas said.
  • SpaceX tries again.

Don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily AM/PM updates for more content!

New at Reason.TV: "DC Capitol Hemp Shutting Down: Obama's War on Drugs to Blame"

NEXT: Shikha Dalmia on Islamic Extremism and the Egyptian Presidential Election

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. SpaceX tries again.

    That SpaceX thing looked like a piece of space shite. A commercial endeavor and they can’t gussy up the packaging? It was called Dragon and it didn’t even have a huge dragon mural on it? At least the space shuttle tank, rockets and orbiter looked kickass going up. I’m embarrassed for the free market today.

    1. Hey, do you want it cheap or pretty?

      1. Pretty.
        Why doesn’t it look like Serenity?
        A few thousand for paint isn’t much if you can also tie a t-shirt and hat sales.

        1. Weight is weight, and paint adds weight.

          1. which is why the shuttle’s external fuel tank is so ugly.

          2. If they were concerned about weight they shouldn’t have included a Star Trek: TOS cast member onboard.

            1. Especially the fat one.

          3. And color matters too for heat reasons. There is a reason why space rockets are all white and it is not lack of imagination.

              1. Exactly. Heat is racist.

        2. Here we go! Today’s it quirky instead of sexy.

          1. (or course, quirky is sexy, so, you know…)

          2. He wears a silly cap just because his mom made it for him. You gotta like that in a man.

          3. Why are you posting pictures of men here?

            1. Someone hasn’t been paying attention.

              BTW, where’s Goldwater these days? He’s been trying so hard to please us wimmyns.

              1. Eh, had some late nights chatting on the online dating, honestly. But I will be here for the PM links today. See, it is really part of a longer term plan: HR becomes more wommeyns friendly, and then I pull off a sloopy.

          4. Well, it definitely ain’t sexy.

            1. Sez you!

    2. Who cares as long as it works?

    3. SpaceX has been surprisingly slow to merchandise. I got a SpaceX/Dragon shirt from KSC not too long ago, but that’s a new thing.

      At some point, they’ll start selling ad space on the side of the rocket.

    1. I don’t think so. The thing is, it has been almost 70 years now since World War II ended, and most of the Germans who were old enough to have remembered anything about it are dead. The lazy bums of Europe can call them Nazis all they want, but I kind of doubt it will engender too much sympathy any more.

      1. It was only 20 years ago that Germany finally got its peace treaty and became a sovereign state.

        1. True, but I still think it’s just wishful thinking to believe that the ill-conceived European Union is going to be saved by calling the Germans a bunch of greedy Nazis.

    2. The first rule of fight club….

    3. A German gets off the plane at Athens airport and is questioned by a customs official.

      The official asks: “Occupation?”

      The German replies: “Nein, vacation.”

  2. Focus on “maximizing profits” is not always “good for communities or businesses or workers,” according to Barack Obama…

    As opposed to whatever the fuck you’ve been focused on, Mr. President?

    1. I suppose if one believes profits are unethical and extracted from the sweat of labor, yada-yada, then you feel this way.

      If you think profits show that you are pleasing your customers and maximizing efficiency, not so much.

      1. and which of those options do you believe best describes Barack Hussein Obama? And most of his minions on the left?

      2. “I suppose if one believes profits are unethical and extracted from the sweat of labor, yada-yada, then you feel this way.”

        That captain zero feels this way is the only evidence one needs to conclude that he is a complete and total fuckwit. Many in washington *spit* use envy to appeal to fuckwit voters, but apparently captain zero actually believes that shit.

        1. “Profit” is a four-letter word to liberals. It’s right up there with the n-word and other epithets.

    2. Focus on “maximizing profits” is not always “good for communities or businesses or workers,” but his economic theories always are, according to Barack Obama.

    3. He’s right. We should strive to make all companies lose money instead of being profitable. That will make our economy really awesome.

    4. Actually Obama is right here, but not for the reasons he thinks.

      A company who focuses all of it’s energies on “maximizing profits” will end up cutting corners, hiring lower quality workers and nickle and diming their best employees until they leave for greener pastures. So while they will recieve a short term boost in profits in the longer term they will suffer and possibly even drive themselves out of business.

      However a company which focuses on providing the best product/service and exceeding their customers expectations while making their employees happy and motivated to come to work may not earn quite the same short term profit margins but they will guarantee themselves to remain a profitable company essentially forever.

      Very often a focus on maximizing profits is a variant of eating your seed corn, it looks good for a while, the CEO and executives get great bonuses, and when the problems start manifesting it is rarely obvious where they come from.

      Of course the problem is that Obama is highly unlikely to recognize the difference between a company which focuses on profit maximization and a company which earns large profits by meeting their customers expectations exceedingly well.

      1. However a company which focuses on providing the best product/service and exceeding their customers expectations while making their employees happy and motivated to come to work may not earn quite the same short term profit margins but they will guarantee themselves to remain a profitable company essentially forever.

        And how is that not maximizing profits?

        1. Because if your goal is not to maximize profits you will not engage in activities solely for their profit maximizing benefits. It is possible you could earn slightly higher profits and not cost yourself in the long run, but you’ll never know because profit is not the driving motivation, yes you will make sure what you are doing is profitable but your focus is on the product, customers, and employees.

          Basically it *might* be profit maximizing, it might not but because you are not looking for ways to maximize profit explicitly you’ll never know.

          1. Because if your goal is not to maximize profits you will not engage in activities solely for their profit maximizing benefits.

            I ask again: How is behaving in the manner you described in the 2nd paragraph not maximizing profits, but yet the company that doesn’t, as in your 1st paragraph, and goes out business, is?

            Going out of business because of poor business practices is by definition, minimizing profits.

            Perhaps you should state your definition of that term.

            1. Rasilio doesn’t own a business.

              Paragraph 2 is maximizing profits. Paragraph 1 is running a company into the ground while trying to suck as much out of it as you can–standard leftist business practice, in other words.

              1. Maximizing profits means not going out of business, so this discussion is silly. The market decides which companies go out of business as well.

      2. That’s a different issue. Your hypothetical company is choosing easy, quick profits over long-term profits and stability. They don’t need to be stopped by anyone; they’ll fail in the market eventually.

        1. unless they are not allowed to fail…like aa bank…or an auto company 😉

      3. “….they will guarantee themselves to remain a profitable company essentially forever.”

        I think we need to clarify the meaning of the word ‘maximizing’.

        1. I think that’s where he’s pointing out the distinction. Obama’s pandering to base class warfare instincts because he knows that’s a trigger mechanism for his audience, which views any sort of high-profit venture as suspicious.

          The distinction is in maximizing profits, which implies a focus on short-term gains, with sustaining profits, which might not be as high due to continual investment in employee benefits and/or salaries, higher quality materials or services, or production facilities.

          1. Actually not quite, this is what I am talking about…

            http://www.dailyfinance.com/20…..ll-street/

            “But something else should finally be clear to Wall Street folks, if it isn’t already:

            Mark Zuckerberg really doesn’t give a damn about you.

            He said as much in his letter to prospective shareholders, which is included in the IPO prospectus.

            Specifically, he said:

            “Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission.”

            “We think it’s important that everyone who invests in Facebook understands what this mission means to us, how we make decisions and why we do the things we do.”

            “We don’t build services to make money; we make money to build better services.”

            “We don’t wake up in the morning with the primary goal of making money.”

            “We’re going public for our employees and our investors.””

            In otherwords Zuckerberg will never know if he maximized profits because he’ll never care, he wants to make Facebook the best possible product possible. Similarly Steve Jobs never knew if he was maximizing profits because his goal was to make the most beautifully designed products he could profitably make and yeah he made huge profits in the process but who knows, maybe he could have cut a corner here or there without harming any future profitability and earned even larger profits for the company.

            1. …and the stock is sliding….

              How much did he make, that first day?

              And how much have investors lost so far? But Zuckerberg told them that this stock is special. That it’s a ‘social mission’ stock.

              That they should pay no attention to the guy updating his FB while sitting on bales of cash.

        2. “….they will guarantee themselves to remain a profitable company essentially forever.”

          I think we need to clarify the meaning of the word ‘maximizing’.

          The words “guarantee” and “forever” also do not mean what he seems to think they mean.

          He seems to have nailed the meaning of “a”, though.

      4. “A company who focuses all of it’s energies on “maximizing profits” will end up cutting corners, hiring lower quality workers and nickle and diming their best employees until they leave for greener pastures.”

        That is some grade-A stupid right there. I take it you’re not a businessman.

        1. Well, his argument regarding hiring lower quality workers is questionable. But overall, his argument is correct. Companies should not focus on maximizing profits, but instead should focus maximizing shareholder value.

          Profits (as reported on 10-Q and 10-K) are easily manipulated through accounting practices. Often, this is done to “juice” the price of the stock. Executive bonuses are tied to stock price. So, there is a perverse incentive for executives to try to maximize profits. But these accounting practices, although effective in the short run, are not sustainable in the long run. So from quarter to quarter, a firm may be hiding its true operational and financial status. This has a cumulative effect, and can ultimately lead to financial ruin. See: Enron.

          1. Maximizing shareholder value, on the other hand, is the fiduciary duty of management to the firms owners: the shareholders. If this is the goal, then the perverse incentive to “juice” profits (and other agency costs) is minimized. It doesn’t mean that firms should not deliver the best product at the best price to satisfy customer demand. Instead, management has the duty to build intrinsic value in the firm over the long term. Hell, technically, a corporation could never “die”. Therefore management should make decisions that guarantee the perpetual life of the firm.

            It is a slight distinction, but a very important distinction in my book. Unfortunately, Obama is using it as an invective against all corporations, regardless of their business practices.

            1. Therefore management should make decisions that guarantee the perpetual life of the firm.

              Nah. If you’re a far-sighted buggy whip maker around 1920 you might manage to make profits selling your products while not investing any money back into the business, and downsizing the business out of existence and shifting your money into car building.

              1. Durr…. I never said firms should not innovate. Weak sauce, Prote.

    5. Focus on “maximizing profits” is not always “good for communities or businesses or workers,”

      If by that he means that a company maximizing profits might not be good for their competitors, or for deadwood workers laid off, or for people who want their “community” to remain unchanged forever, then he should say so. But then he’d sound ignorant.

    1. The question is whether or not the baby survived, because if not, then it worked.

    2. This is awesome:

      It is thought Mrs Chadwick took the bottle of vinegar out of a cupboard and passed it to Mrs Furey, who then took it into another room and drank it.

      Her sister-in-law was arrested seven months later in July 2011 and charged with unlawfully supplying a poisonous or noxious substance with the intent to cause the miscarriage of a woman.

      I know the charges were eventually dropped but WTF.

    3. War Against Women! Romney is to blame.

      On a side note, I didn’t think that 15% acetic acid would be lethal. Not that I was planning to drink any.

      1. Apparently the “industry” that used the vinegar was a chip shop. I suppose it was the amount she drank.

        1. They tell me dose determines toxicity.

          1. I’m having a hard time figuring out the LD50 for 15% vinegar. Anyone else want to take a crack?

            1. Apparently, for rat it’s 3.31 grams per kilogram of pure acetic acid. Brit is closer to rat than mouse, so that should work. Assuming 15%, you get roughly 150 grams in a liter of solution.

              Now how much did this munter weigh? If less than 50 kilos, we’re in the range for her to get whacked by a liter of vinegar.

              1. A British mother-of-five? Two liters, maybe three.

    4. Actually, IIANM, UK abortion law is more restrictive than anywhere in the US.

      While the NHS will pay it is still required that the life of the baby or the mother’s health or life is in danger or that the child will have serious birth defects.

      That, of course, is the theory. In practice, doctors will almost certainly certify that continuing the pregnancy will harm the mother’s health so almost any woman seeking an abortion will get one.

      Herein lies another of the problems of welfare states. It is one thing to have benefits available but it’s another for people to be aware of them. Here again we see that the intelligent and educated, and frequently well-off are able to game the system for benefits while the dumb and poor go along utterly unaware of what’s available.

      1. that is correct. It’s basically the same here in Australia. I did say “effectively” on demand, not “legally”.

        while the dumb and poor go along utterly unaware of what’s available.

        Hmmm, generally yeah, but really doubt that in the case of abortion

    5. I think a Darwin award is in deserved here.

    6. WTF is “industrial-strength vinegar”?

      1. whatever it is, it still isn’t enough for the rest of my family who enjoys *shudder* salt ‘n’ vinegar potato chips.

    1. Awesome. I think that calls for a reduced sentance.

      1. It raised *my* awareness.

    2. I like how they’re planning a ‘blitz of stunts’ over the next month. HR commenters will be paying more attention to the Ukraine than ever before.

      1. I think it’s just Ukraine. “The” Ukraine was from pre-independence days.

    3. The group says Euro 2012 will lead to a surge in prostitution in the former Soviet republic and entrench the country as a sex tourist destination in Europe

      They say that like it’s a bad thing.

    4. The Kiev-based Femen

      I read that as Kiev-based Fremen.

      Which would be entirely different.

      1. And far more entertaining.

    5. What must I do to ensure these protests at my event?

      1. The good news: American women will protest in this way
        The bad news: er…

        1. We will preemptively submit to your demands.

  3. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    He was counting his blessings when a young cop approached him and handed him two tickets. One was for failure to produce the insurance card, which was somewhere in the waterlogged cab. The other was for failing to use his emergency brake.

    “I couldn’t believe it,” Roder said. “He said, ‘If you would have taken the five seconds to apply the brake, this never would have happened!’

    “I say, ‘Really? And if I did and my boy stepped over the edge and fell instead of the Jeep, then were would I be?’ He says, ‘Jail, for child endangerment.'”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012…..latestnews

    1. The police hiring procedures obviously are working. That cop is an asshole.

  4. Miley Cyrus, come on. I mean, really? Please. Seriously?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..shirt.html

    1. I know. :/ Her parents must be so proud.

      1. But don’t tell my heart my achy breaky heart
        I just don’t think he’d understand…

        1. LOL. I know Billy Ray must beat his head against the wall on a daily basis. As a parent you always hope your kids don’t make the same stupid mistakes you did, but it doesn’t seem to work out that way.

          1. Tats are a bit more permanent than a mullet.

          2. Did you seen his hair in the 90s? Anyone could have figured out that his kids were going to be dipshits.

            If apples truly don’t fall far from the tree, Miley is hovering a few inches from the stem.

            1. Did you seen his hair in the 90s? Anyone could have figured out that his kids were going to be dipshits.

              With hair like that, how did he get laid?

              1. The 90s in America was a dark time, my fuzzy antipodean. For all it gave us, it took so much.

              1. “Give me back mah bellyfruit!”

          3. I’d venture to say Billy Ray is perfectly happy with his daughter’s life choices, given that he’s encouraged and abetted most of them.

            1. And being rich and successful probably helps too. I’d bet that they are all pretty pleased with how things have turned out.

      2. You can take the trash out of the trailer park…

        1. Hey! You cant talk that way about my st…oh wait, she was born in Nashville. Nevermind.

          What else would you expect from a Tennessean.

    2. She should have gone to Ukraine and raised awareness.

    3. You are aware she has gone full Lohan/Hilton/Spears and done the getting into a car with a short dress and no panties move already right?

      So you link to sideboob?

      1. Train wrecks are entertaining.

  5. Things just go from bad to worse for the BBC’s flagship talent show The Voice, as it turns out viewers would rather watch Jeremy Clarkson sift through owl poo than sit through another week of the singing contest.

    Well, who wouldn’t?

    http://www.entertainmentwise.c…..e-Voice-UK

  6. Bar Refaeli is still hot!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-list.html

    1. I think that second “pink” pic is probably one of, it not your best, morning link pic sarc. That is hot.

      1. I just play the cards that the Daily Mail deals to me.

  7. The good ‘ol days….

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-laws.html

    1. awww, aren’t they cute!

      1. Cuter than the little brats I see today.

    2. They still looking for work?

  8. who doubled down on his campaign’s Bain attacks at a press conference at the close of the NATO summit in Chicago yesterday, saying the issue “is what this campaign is going to be about.”

    When will people realize that this administration is not politically savvy on the national stage. How much messaging must they completely bungle?

    1. Obama’s basically making creative destruction a campaign issue–and he’s against it?

      He’s against the very thing that really will make our economy thrive again?

      Completely unsurprising. This is what average, everyday people are referring to when they call Obama a “socialist”. These average, everyday people may not be up on their terminology or the whys and hows, but their instincts are absolutely correct.

      1. of course, he is against it. Favoring it would imply some understanding about how business and innovation work. This president lacks that. In spades. Oops; that probably makes me racist.

        1. By posting on HR, you’ve already outed yourself as a racist/terrorist/capitalist.

  9. Focus on “maximizing profits” is not always “good for communities or businesses or workers,” according to Barack Obama, who doubled down on his campaign’s Bain attacks at a press conference at the close of the NATO summit in Chicago yesterday, saying the issue “is what this campaign is going to be about.”

    Obama supersucks.

    He’s an effing jackass.

    1. But he makes up for it by being stupid. Didn’t he get the memo that although nearly every Democratic pol believes this, you never come out and say it?

      1. Obama must think class warfare is a winner.

        The rest of the Democrats will take note–they’ll jump on board soon enough.

        I hope he fails miserably. I didn’t think there was anything that could make me want to vote for a Republican again, but if Obama keeps running against capitalism, and if Mittens actually gets up and defends creative destruction on its merits? I’ll be tempted to vote like I’ve never been tempted before.

        If Obama explicitly makes this a referendum on capitalism, I suspect he’ll suddenly have a ton of new opposition he never knew he had before.

        1. The Democratic party needs to suffer a soul destroying defeat. They need to realize that they have to at least be nominally capitalist and that the KOS kids have to go.

          1. Our inner cities are full of legal immigrants and their adult children, who are all about capitalism. If we could get that idiot, anti-immigrant voice within the GOP to STFU for a cycle, and Mittens went after them? They could easily deprive Obama of that support.

            There are tons of self-employed people in construction and other trades, who are all about capitalism. There’s no reason why Mittens shouldn’t dominate their support, all based on a pro-capitalist message.

            Own your own business and thrive! That’s the American dream. Obama’s against the American dream if it means you worked harder and smarter than someone else. Isn’t that what Obama’s saying here?

            I hope he loses so bad.

            1. set aside that it’s anti illegal immigrant and there remains this: by and large, Hispanics are a conservative lot, believing in many of the things Repubs preach. Yet, they are perceived as a Dem voting bloc.

              It makes no sense. Latinos are not against work, they are not against opportunity, they are not for the perpetual entitlement state. When does a conservative stand up and say that the public is being fooled with this canard that Hispanics are leftists in waiting? And when you factor in social issues, they tilt even further right.

              1. Because Ken is right, wareagle. Like or not, the perception among most Latinos is that anti-illegal-immigration sentiments are attacks on immigrants in general, and Hispanic immigrants in particular, and it comes off as racist.

                And the GOP, to court the egg-sac Southern base, does little to change this perception.

                1. Ken is right. Could he be right because nearly everyone in the media, and much of Reason’s staff deliberately conflates the two? Over and over again. And when anyone tries to point out that it’s the ‘illegal’ part that’s the problem the term ‘racist’ gets thrown around–even here.

              2. Hispanics are a conservative lot, believing in many of the things Repubs preach. Yet, they are perceived as a Dem voting bloc.

                It makes no sense. Latinos are not against work, they are not against opportunity, they are not for the perpetual entitlement state. When does a conservative stand up and say that the public is being fooled with this canard that Hispanics are leftists in waiting?

                There’s only one thing that makes them turn out for Democrats so predictably.

                And it’s because the Republicans are associated in their minds with immigrant bashing.

                If the Republicans don’t want to be associated with immigrant bashing that way, then they need to stop focusing on immigration so heavily.

                If you don’t like welfare, then go after welfare programs. If you don’t like having to pay for other people’s kids in schools, then argue for vouchers. All the problems anti-immigrant people have with immigrants–illegal or otherwise–wouldn’t be problems if our politicians weren’t handing out freebies.

                So, don’t attack the immigrants–legal or otherwise–attack the freebies.

                Jesus Christ, I’ve seen anti-immigrant people go after “anchor babies” like attacking people’s babies is gonna help them win a popularity contest!

                After you win people’s sympathy by attacking babies, what do you move to next? Are you gonna denounce their kittens and puppies, too?!

                1. just saying it’s not smart on the Repubs’ part, fellas. This is a voting group out of conservative central casting and these guys are determined to piss it away.

                  1. They’re not pissing it away. The Republicans can’t make nice to immigrants because a lot of their supporters are against the immigrants themselves.

                    Just like people were against the Irish, Poles, etc. They’re dirty foreigners and shouldn’t be here. The complaints about schooling, medicine, welfare, etc. are just added reasons to hate the disease ridden, pot-smoking, baby-having, Azatlan-restoring, job-stealing, brown Catholic menaces.

                2. If you think only in terms of “tribes”, it’s easy to dehumanize even babies.

                  1. If you think only in terms of “tribes”, it’s easy to dehumanize even babies.

                    When they dehumanize babies, it just tells you who their audience is.

                    They’re certainly not trying to appeal to Latinos! I lived in Mexico for more than a year–there ain’t nothin’ about Latin people that hates babies.

                    The anti-immigrant types are trying to tailor their appeal to other marginalized, native born Americans. That’s why the anti-immigrant types don’t go after the freebies specifically–because the same people they’re trying to appeal to, are the same native born Americans who are gorging themselves on all those freebies.

                    They know they’re trying to tailor their appeal to people who imagine they have a right to a free lunch–because they were born in the USA. …and that should be Obama’s constituency. Hell, that’s the OWS movement in a nutshell, isn’t it?

                    The line needs to be drawn between the people who are carrying the water and the people who are drinking the water for free.

                    People who identify with immigrants, mostly, came here to work their asses off–and they should definitely be easy pickings for a candidate who was all about making sure the people who work hard–are free to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

                    I sure hope Romney picks up that flag.

                    1. See this? Not a single one of you morons can bring yourself to include ‘illegal’. Not one. I’m the second generation in this country. I’ve got relatives who’ve just gotten here. I’ve got friends with green cards–and illegals living across the street. Illegals. People who could sneak in. My family can’t sneak in–they didn’t sneak in. They waited their turn. Some are still waiting. But people from south and central America should get a pass ‘cos they’re close? ‘Cos they’re brown?

                      The Internationale infection you’ve all got works fine when the world’s Libertopia–but when it’s not, when there’s no reciprocity, when there’s no comparative value, it just doesn’t work.

                      And I Know that a lot of ‘our’ social welfare programs are a big part of the problem–but until we get rid of those, we can’t just throw open the doors.

      2. He should have been ripped to shreds on his “ATMs have taken away bank teller jobs” comment. It’s amazing to me that someone who attended college – let alone law school – could say something so profoundly stupid. It was the literal equivalent of Hazlitt joking (in the 1950’s) that getting rid of railroads would provide lots of jobs for people to carry cargo on their backs.

        I said this previously, but maybe someone should suggest to Barry that he outlaw the Internet. Think of all of the bike courier jobs that could be created as people hand deliver emails.

        1. Why are they building hiways with bulldozers? Aren’t they supposed to be “shovel ready?” So use shovels!

        2. I’ve heard someone say “I think what we need is less competition and more cooperation” from three different people recently.

          I don’t know where that line’s coming from, but somebody must be feeding it to people as a talking point somewhere.

          1. A good anti-dog-eat-dog rule should be just what the doctor ordered.

          2. I think that that is a fairly natural way to see things if you don’t have much experience in how the world actually works. I even remember thinking basically along those lines in my youthful idealism. Until you realize that competition is the best (and perhaps only practical) way to keep people honest, keep prices down and promote innovation, it seems like more cooperation would help.

          3. It’s the “Make love not war!” of the new millennium.

          4. Yeah, I’ve heard that too. My response was “Cooperation, directed by whom?”

        3. He should have been ripped to shreds on his “ATMs have taken away bank teller jobs”

          Well, if his opponents was anyone but The Stupider Party, they might have.

          Alas, they’re counting on the same flagrant ignorance of economics for their candidate.

        4. It took a lot of college to get him to be able to say “ATM’s cost jobs” with a straight face.

      3. He’s dumber that Carter.

        1. Carter is far from dumb. He just never should have been a politician (at least not an executive). Obama, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have a clue.

          1. Obama’s not stupid, just malevolent. He says idiotic shit like this because that’s what his base wants to hear.

            1. I’m not entirely convinced that he is malevolent. It seems quite possible that he either doesn’t like his job or is really just clueless and mostly says shit that other people write for him. I really don’t see him as having any consistent goal in his policies.

    1. You can ingest it vaginally? Do you soak a tampon in it?

  10. Raptor training (no, not Battlestar Galactica).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..birds.html

    1. That’s really neat. I love seeing the falconers at Ren Faires and so on. I saw a video awhile back of deer that a bald eagle had dropped into either electric or telephone wires (which I can’t find now, of course). Those things are tremendously powerful. When the apocalypse comes, you could do worse than have a trained bird to help you hunt.

  11. My ancestry is mostly British and Polish, so this engenders ethnic pride and shame simultaneously:

    Influx of Polish children into schools has ‘helped improve British pupils’ grades’

    1. “What do you call a British kid who goes to school with Polish kids?

      “A social climber!”

  12. Iraq is buying drones, too, from the U.S. to patrol its oil fields and infrastructure.

    Secret remote override/detonate included at no extra cost.

  13. has been treated at least twice for mental health issues since the incident.

    Sounds like the beginnings of another case against that menacing 17 year old.

    1. I actually did think of John when I saw this. I think they look pretty good, actually.

      1. When I saw this

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..aphic.html

        All I could think of was too bad for Sarcasmic he can’t marry her.

        1. Joking aside, FUCK FACEBOOK. That sort of shit is enragining.

          1. The lowest common denominator for 900 million is pretty fucking low, HL.

            1. And when the whole point of the site is “Look at me, look at me” what would you really expect to see?

          2. Honestly. And we are supposed to believe that that turd is worth $100 billion? Ha.

            1. Is it still worth $100b? I thought it tanked like 20% from its open already. Which I have to admit is awesome. Zuckerberg is a cunt.

              1. $80 billion, $50 billion, still seems like a joke.

  14. http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/o…..-collapse/

    Obama bundler Corzine raised $8.4 million the year before MF Global collapse. I am sure that has nothing whatsoever to do with Corzine not being under indictment despite the fact he stole a billion dollars and lied to Congress about it.

  15. Obama’s Bain mutiny

    “It’s a big problem for the party because the Democrats’ fundraising base is shrinking,” said Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein, who advised Joe Lieberman’s Senate run as an independent in 2006. “Old sources are not as reliable, so they are scared to slaughter one of their most productive cash cows. It’s the reason why we had the Glass-Steagall repeal, the housing bubble and no oversight of Wall Street during the run-up to the collapse. But clutching onto that old lifeline is a major danger for Democrats.”

    1. “Old sources are not as reliable, so they are scared to slaughter one of their most productive cash cows.

      Since when has Hollywood been short on cash?

  16. Task force: PSA tests do more harm than good

    The United States Preventive Services Task Force issued their final recommendation on the PSA prostate cancer-screening test Monday, recommending against routine PSA exams for men of any age. The task force says the PSA exam and additional treatments that may follow, like radiation and surgery, result in far more harm than benefit.

    1. So prostate cancer is no longer deadly? Color me suspicious.

      1. You secretly enjoy having a gloved finger wormed up your asshole. Admit it!

        1. PSA is a blood test doofus.

          1. And if they stop performing the PSA, the finger starts going back in the ass. Relax and think of England, John.

            1. You get the finger whether or not they use the PSA.

              1. “One out of ten don’t seem to mind.”

                1. “One out of ten don’t seem to mind.”

                  Fingers, or anusi?

                    1. “Well, I don’t like to toot my own horn, but…”

            2. The day I turned 30, I started searching for a female GP with small hands. I don’t have to enjoy it, but I can minimize the suffering.

          2. I know that. But it doesn’t mean you don’t look forward to your prostate exams.

            1. And apparently you enjoy giving thought to what men enjoy having stuck up their ass. Whatever works for you.

            2. do you ask for the kiss beforehand or afterwards?

              1. do you ask for the kiss beforehand or afterwards?

                Both, it is the only way to be sure you get your money’s worth.

        2. Your doctor wears gloves?

      2. My uncle died of prostate cancer, so admittedly I have a dog in this fight, but this

        The task force says the PSA exam and additional treatments that may follow, like radiation and surgery, result in far more harm than benefit.

        strikes me as ridiculous on the face of it.

        1. Me too. They theory is that those treatments are worse than dying of prostate cancer. That makes no sense.

          1. Wrong.

            The theory is there many false positives and more people suffer the consequences of medical treatment they didn’t need than are actually saved by treating the cancers some men actually have.

            1. You can’t run another test after a positive? It would seem retesting would be a pretty simple way to eliminate false positives.

              1. I listened to a fairly long blurb on NPR about this on the drive home yesterday, and it seems that the moral of the story was that the United States Preventive Services Task Force needs to work on their communication skills.

            2. There is also the fact that many prostate cancers are slow to develop and even if you do have it, you are more likely to die of something else. I don’t know that that is a reason not to test for it, but ti is a reason not to treat it.
              This is yet another area where government involvement in healthcare fucks everything up. If it wasn’t likely to result in guidelines for what care people should be allowed to have, then this woudl be interesting and worthwhile research. Give the extremity of side effects of many cancer treatments, the possibility that the treatment causes more harm than the disease in some cases seems worth looking into.

          2. Likely they’re looking at it from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint. We are in the Obamacare Era now, after all. Radiation and surgery are pretty damn expensive. Do you realize how many Sandra Flukes could get birth control with the money spent saving one man’s life?

            Why do you people hate women?

            1. There is also a cost-benefit to be done for the patient. If you are 60 and you have a cancer that will kill you in 20 years, you might not want to bother with painful treatments. As I said above, it sucks that it has to be political, because it is of some use to patients as well.

      3. When you hit your mid-50s you’ll start to really care about this topic.

        Prostate cancer grows very, very slowly. It can take decades for the cancer to reach a point that it threatens the life of the patient.

        Prostate cancer treatment, like all medical treatments, have very serious side effects that are immediate, like dying right now.

        Dr. Virginia Moyer, who sits on the task force, cited that only one out of every 1,000 men who are screened would actually benefit from the exam. Instead, most will have to deal with side effects from treatment that can range from incontinence and impotence, to stroke and death.

        So when your 55, like me, there is a good chance that you’ll die of other causes before prostate cancer will kill you. And treatment can lead to impotence for the rest of you life or the treatment might actually end your life.

        This is just the latest, and most definitive, study that’s been in the press the last several years talking about doing away with the PSA test.

        1. According to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer is the second deadliest cancer among men, and occurs most often in African-American. But survival rates also are very high. The American Cancer Society finds that 91% of all men with prostate cancer will live for 15 years beyond diagnosis. According to the National Cancer Institute, 70% of prostate cancer deaths occur after age 75.

          1. That’s what happened to my wife’s grandfather. He really wasn’t having any complications, but they pressured him into surgery and he died on the table.

          2. all these uber smart folks telling us what we should and should not do. And yesterday, HR brought us the story of a 17-year old who came up with a disease detection system that makes all the experts look ridiculous.

            1. Apples != Oranges

          3. My grandfather turns 101 in a few weeks. He had radiation for his prostrate cancer 15-20 years ago as it was a fast growing one.

            He did not retire from his job until he was 88 and did not need a walker until he was 96 and still goes to Vegas or other places with his kids twice a year. So not everyone dies by 75. My Dad on the other hand had a small tumor found manually that did not show upon PSA. It was slow growing and maybe nowadays he would be counciled to wait and see but instead he had surgery. He does have impotence and incontinence issues but they don’t seem to bother him. My mom passed about 8 years after he had his surgery from her own cancer that did not respond to chemo. Need to treat each case individually, not Obama-care it.

      4. Eventually Doctor Groove Meister will stop by and clear this all up for us.

    2. DEATH PANELS!

      (It had to be done)

  17. Interesting pair of posts and comments at Haidt’s Righteous Mind blog showing how one can fall into belief traps even after writing a book on them. After writing a book trying to get people to understand the reasons for intense partisanship Haidt wrote a blog post entitled “Republicans are bad”. Spoiler: he decides he may have been biased.

    “I never said reason is impotent. I just said that we’re bad at using it by ourselves to find the truth.”
    Righteous Mind Blog

    1. That is true. All kinds of the most vile evil has been committed by people who thought they were acting not just reasonably but scientifically.

      1. Like libertarians pushing for open borders.

        [runs/hides]

        1. That’s not science, that’s principle and morality.

  18. Stop frisk facts
    It’s all about crime ? not race

    The demagoguery around the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices has reached a fevered pitch recently, culminating last week in federal Judge Shira Scheindlin’s grandstanding certification of a class-action lawsuit against the department for its stop-and-frisk policy – the next step toward putting the police under judicial control.

    1. Judge Shira Scheindlin

      One of Judge Judy’s brood?

      1. According to Above the Law via Drudge, they are not. Interesting… it isn’t as if that’s a common name, spelling differences aside. I bet there’s a connection a couple of generations back.

        http://abovethelaw.com/2007/01…..-justices/

        1. It isn’t spelled the same, you anti-Dentite.

    2. I’m surprised she had the time to write that article given her demanding schedule of cop fellating.

  19. Targeting John Roberts
    The left tries to intimidate the High Court on ObamaCare.

    Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy recently took the extraordinary step of publicly lobbying the Chief Justice after oral argument but before its ruling. “I trust that he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch,” the Democrat declared on the Senate floor. “The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.”

    1. The proper role of the judicial branch is apparently to do what the Democrats want them to do.

      1. But it’s not activism when they do it. Ever.

      2. Just like “bipartisanship” means caving on all principals and doing exactly what Democrats demand as well.

    2. Holy crap. This is one of the most disturbing things I have heard in awhile. Apparently the Senator doesn’t know the proper role of the Court either. Takes you back to the days of FDR , in a sleazy, sickening kind of way.

  20. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..loset.html

    Special for the comic book geeks. Major DC character to come out of the closet. Joy.

    1. Was it a character that normally runs around in public wearing tights?

      Technically, before he can come out of the closet, isn’t he supposed to go into the closet?

      I assumed all the superheros running around in tights were gay, and I was okay with that. In one fell swoop, now, it’s like they’re turning all the characters I thought were gay, not gay? Sounds like a step backwards for gay rights in the world of superheros. They seemed to be so…accepting!

      I guess it’s different in bizzaro world, where all the straight guys, presumably, run around in tights.

      1. I like how the reasoning behind making an existing character come out of the closet is Big O’s brave new stance on gay marriage. Is there nothing left that the culture war can’t touch?

        Ken, why would wearing tights automatically mean someone is gay? Tell that to the millions of athletes that wear Under Armor type stuff because loose fitting clothing negatively affects their performance.

        1. That really pisses me off. Perhaps there ought to be a few things that are off limits to politics.

          But haven’t comic books been over run with liberal douche bag writers for about 30+ years now?

          1. Possibly, I’m not really an expert on comics and the only character I have ever followed is Batman and I haven’t noticed any liberal doucheness.

          2. But haven’t comic books been over run with liberal douche bag writers for about 30+ years now?

            That’s why they hate Tony Stark.

        2. Tell that to the millions of athletes that wear Under Armor type stuff because loose fitting clothing negatively affects their performance.

          I actually own some Under Armor stuff–and it’s loose fitting.

          I guess I always figured, too, that if you’re wearing clothing like that for some reason other than aesthetic preferences, then there’s another explanation.

          Like I said, I guess my impressions were off! But it didn’t seem to me that all those guys needed to wear tights because of what they were doing. Quite frankly, I thought a lot of them like to show off their muscles.

          Oh, and just because it’s a functional uniform, like athletes wear, doesn’t mean it doesn’t make them look gay. Take the uniforms for the Cincinnati Bengals, for instance. I swear, those guys look like a bunch of gay superheroes to me!

          http://www.bengals.com/media-l…..779a71fbc9

          1. Ken, the Bengals have enough problems without you making fun of their uniforms.

          2. Ken, I think your reasoning leads to the artists being gay, not the characters. They are the ones who decided to put these big muscular heroes in revealing tights. NTTAWWT.

            1. Does this mean that before the Comic Code the artists were all highly sexually frustrated hetero males?

              1. Have you seen some of the old school Wonder Woman comic book?

                1. I didn’t say that they were all gay. And I was being very serious. And I’ve hardly ever read any comic books, so I’m just talking out my ass.

          3. RBS has a point. I mean, they have a ginger as their QB. I’m surprised God hasn’t smitten the whole city to Hell.

    2. A DC character that comes out becomes an AC ? DC character, right?

    3. It’s going to be Bruce Wayne, and it will turn out that him coming out to his parents are what killed them.

      1. LOL. But…. but… Catwoman!! But maybe he is bi?

        1. Could be. Have Catwoman and Robin ever been seen in the same comic?

          1. Or perhaps it should actually be Catranswoman?

      2. It’ll be the Joker, who then can sue Wayne for beating him up all these years.

        1. If the President can influence a character coming out of the closest then they might as well go full retard and throw in some hate crime.

          1. Oh man, I seriously hope they don’t go down that road. The movies flirted with the whole Foe-yay thing with Batman and Joker, but it was a battle of equals, matter and anti-matter. Joker (and the other Batman villains) are not a fricking victim.

      3. Of course its Bruce Wayne. He’s had a young “ward” living with him and his “butler” for half a century.

    4. Wonder Woman. Maybe Power Girl. Or both simultaneously if we’re really lucky.

      The whole superhero-comes-out-of-the-closet stunt lost its novelty years ago. There are very few gay villains, though, which seems rather patronizing to me.

      1. Villains can’t be gay because of the whole hate crime issue.

      2. Yes, WW. She was raised on an island with no men. Are we supposed to think that they are immortal and have no sex? Pfft.

        They make her gay for a year or so, reboot the universe again, and Steve Rogers will get back to tying her up in no time.

        1. Actually, WW would not surprise me. She has always struck me that way, for the reason you mention. And also because she is pretty butch.

          1. There was a program on the History Channel about the older comics. Supposedly, the creator of WW was a kinky SOB, who was very much into S and M and bondage.

            It’s The History Channel, so take that for what it’s worth.

            1. No, they are right. And he invented the polygraph.

              William Moulton Marston

              1. OK, you already linked to that. My excuse is that my hulking manservant distracted me. Damn it, Cooter! I’m doing something here!

  21. Ramesh Ponnuru:Romney Is About to Make Bush’s Health-Care Blunder

    He is on the verge of spelling out a plan to replace President Barack Obama’s health plan. Romney’s advisers, both inside and outside the formal campaign, want the main component of his alternative to be a change in the tax code’s treatment of health care. But there are two versions on the table, and Romney is leaning toward the one that would offer much less help to the uninsured.

    1. The good news is that nothing that is said in a campaign ever actually gets enacted.

    2. Romney is leaning toward the one that would offer much less help to the uninsured.

      Why is this a bad thing?

  22. Fuck you, that’s why.

    DEA proposes tracking all cars on Utah highway – is your street next?

    http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn…..xt-781011#

    1. So … I guess that means I’m not going to Utah then. Polygamy is overrated anyway. The pretty ones don’t like to share.

      1. Not to mention the manifold increase in nagging.

        1. The definition of Polygamy is one wife too many. It’s also the definition of monogamy.

  23. “It is not a crime to be poor, but it is a crime to be poorly dressed”

    Man cross-dresses as dead mother in Social Security scam

    1. Norman is that you?

  24. Obama has deported more illegals in four years than Bush did in eight. I expect a Reason post calling for him and the Democrats to be punished in this election for this betrayal any day now.

    http://freebeacon.com/democrats-latino-problem/

    1. so this isn’t enough?

      1. They are condemning the policy. But I don’t see anything in that post about elections.

        1. I could be wrong – haven’t looked at the stats lately – but I’m pretty sure the majority of the electorate approves of this.

          1. True. But Reason certainly doesn’t.

            1. So reason puts out page after page of how the current administration is terrible on immigration. But since they haven’t put out something that specifically says “Obama should lose the election because of immigration” they aren’t calling out Obama on his immigration stance.

              1. I never said they were not calling him out on the stance. You are missing the point.

                Clear through 2008, there were dozens of Reason stories of how the Republican needed to lose to punish them for totally abandoning any commitment to small government. Okay, that makes sense. So why are we not now seeing articles about how the Democrats need to lose for totally abandoning any commitment to civil liberties or open borders?

                1. I didn’t miss your point at all. You’re mad that they haven’t come out and specifically said “Barack Obama needs to lose the election.”

                  1. Why haven’t they?

                    1. How should I know, I don’t work for reason. I suspect though that they don’t feel particularly beholden to the demands of their commentariat.

            2. John’s complaining because he’s still mad that some of the employees supported Obama. Which makes them evil (because all who do not agree with John on this and other subjects are not merely mistaken, they’re actively evil).

              He’s complaining because he really wants Obama to lose.

              And he’s complaining because the employees aren’t actively campaigning against Obama.

              So according to John, because of these employees, Reason as an entity isn’t as anti-Obama as John would like and in the way that John would like. Thus they are objectively pro-Obama. And evil. QED.

              Drink!

              1. So according to John, because of these employees, Reason as an entity isn’t as anti-Obama as John would like and in the way that John would like. Thus they are objectively pro-Obama. And evil. QED.

                I know how John works, I’m just giving him a hard time for it. He always gets massively butthurt when someone calls him out.

                1. I too take a childish delight in pestering him.

                  Especially as he is a parasitical government employee who is wasting my tax dollars every time he posts during business hours.

                  Get back to work, John! Those reports aren’t going to write themselves and there must be some pointless meetings to attend as well.

  25. I can see how being on the hook for a 400k judgement could affect the cops mental health…oh wait, what? He isnt paying it?

  26. A lot of bad things are said about George Lucas. But Lucas gets a check plus for this.

    The liberals of Marin County blocked his expansion of his film studios, and he gave up and said he would sell the land to a developer to bring ‘low income housing’ to the area.

    1. because there is nothing the liberals of Marin County love more than low-income neighbors. Of course, low income out there could mean 400K.

      1. According to the NY Times:

        In a telling fact, a family of four with an annual income of $88,800 can qualify for housing assistance in Marin, which has about 6,500 income-restricted housing units, according to the county.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05…..hbors.html

  27. Lucas is a huge jerk overall, but that’s pretty funny.

    “I’ve been surprised to see some people characterize this as vindictive

    LOL.

    1. He’s nicer than me. I’d have turned it into a homeless shelter.

      1. Needle exchange.

    2. Now that I no longer live in Marin County I can find that pretty funny and pretty clever of Lucas. And, having been involved in fighting the egregiously code-violating conversion of a house in my neighborhood there into a drug-rehab halfway house, I can tell his neighbors that there is no way they can ever win a fight against Lucas’ manifestly vindictive housing plan, in a Marin County court. Welcome to the ‘hood, suckahs.

  28. Welcome to America. Run by the rich, FOR the rich.

    http://www.Privacy-Software.tk

    1. Anonbot is an Occupier?! D:

    2. Fuck off, slaver!

      1. Nicely played, KK.

  29. Focus on “maximizing profits” is not always “good for communities or businesses or workers,” according to Barack Obama,

    Shorter Obama: making money is bad for the economy.

    1. Unless you’re printing it! *rimshot*

  30. From the rats get sick link: “The amount of chemical exposure was ‘higher than what you would expect in the environment, but there is not a whole lot known about environmental levels of this particular compound,’ “

    Start the panic! Pouring fungicide in a rat’s water for their entire life fucks them up!

  31. News in briefs! Cheeky Cambridge University students’ website encourages users to rate their favourite ‘Rear of the Year’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-year.html

    1. Leila by a nose over Meredith.

      1. I put Meridith and Bella in a tie.

        1. Bella has no ass. So she is disqualified.

          1. You and your chubby lust.

        2. Meredith takes it cleanly. Dat’s very nice.

      2. I have to agree.

        1. Yup. ‘Leila’

    2. I see what you did there…

    3. Well they couldn’t have done a “pretty face of the year” for British women. This will have to do.

      And BTW, that last one has tranny written all over it.

      1. Well they couldn’t have done a “pretty face of the year” for British women.

        See my post downthread.

        1. I fail to see what low earth orbit has to do with the fact that all British women have long, sharp noses and mirror-shattering smiles.

          1. The first link goes to http://www.reuters.com/video/2…..nnel=2602, which is about the UK’s “most beautiful face”. You’ll need to an ampersand right before the “v” in videoChannel because Reason keeps removing it for some reason.

            1. Stupid filters at work block most things with video, so I had to do a google images search for “UK’s most beautiful face” to see it.
              Color me unimpressed. Kate Beckinsale makes that young lady look like a pug.

              1. Agree. That’s why I said her? in my other comment.

                Also because AD rocks.

              2. Takes all kinds, I guess. This contest was judged by science, though, and not just subjective judgments.

                Not only is the 18-year-old’s visage perfectly symmetrical, but she has the “optimum ratio” between her mouth, eyes, chin, and forehead.

                1. Symmetrically boring.

    4. Do they go by who’s is the pastiest and flattest?

      1. In John’s case whichever has the most jiggle.

  32. “[Romney’s] main calling card for why he thinks he should be president,” Obama declared, “is his business experience.”

    As opposed to Obama’s community-organization experience.

    Atlas Shrugged Part 2 is coming out in October 2012.

  33. Got here from the SpaceX link. Really, her? (Link won’t work because it doesn’t like the ampersand that is supposed to be right before “videoChannel”).

    Also, from A different SpaceX link:

    John Holdren, President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser:

    This expanded role for the private sector will free up more of NASA’s resources to do what NASA does best ? tackle the most demanding technological challenges in space, including those of human space flight beyond low Earth orbit.

    If NASA is so good at that, why haven’t they done it in 40 years?

    1. So no one can accuse NASA of resting on its laurels.

    2. Because they built that fucking albatross known as the ISS, which ate their budget for doing anything else by requiring 3 shuttle flights a year be devoted to it. If they could just convince the Hon. Sen. Douchebag (Shelby?) from Alabama that the private sector really can build rockets safer and cheaper, they might be able to do cool shit in space again with humans.

      1. That sounds like evidence that they aren’t good at it.

        Additionally, the whole shuttle concept limited things to LEO.

        1. LEO is for monkey boys too scared to leave the confines of their mother world.

          1. Solution to the Fermi paradox: We’re not worthy of their time.

        2. Oh, NASA was totally complicit. Being a government agency, they locked themselves into a 30 year hole by putting all their chips on the Shuttle.

    3. If NASA is so good at that, why haven’t they done it in 40 years?

      While it’s true they haven’t sent humans beyond LEO in 40 years, Mariner, Viking, Galileo, Casini, Voyager 1 2, Mars Odyssey, MRO, Pathfinder, Spirit Opportunity, MSL, Deep Space 1, Stardust, etc. aren’t exactly chopped liver.

      1. Which is why it’s odd that he brought up humans past LEO.

    4. Odd because right after O was elected either he or his newly appointed NASA head (I’ve slept since then) said that NASA’s main goal was to reach out and highlight the contributions of the Muslim community to math and science.

      Good to see they have a new mission.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.