« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

November 2007

Science stuff:

"Did a Comet Cause the Great Flood?"

Point-counterpoint on global warming. ("10 of the arguments most often made against the IPCC consensus, and some of the counter-arguments made by scientists who agree with the IPCC.")

Don't pee in the Amazon.

Impoverished "surfer dude"--albeit one with a Ph.D. in physics from UC San Diego--may have developed the long-sought "Theory of Everything". Sounds like a long-shot to me, but it would be very cool and I'm rooting for him.


Peter Gordon with another well-aimed slam at "smart growth"

Peter Gordon offers another superb post, "Not Smart, Not Sustainable".

Today's "progressives" who do not miss a chance to bemoan "inequality" have helped to create a group of housing "have-nots," who have no prospect of owning their own home. Unless, as Wendell Cox showed, they leave California, Florida, the northeast for the fly-over cities that are not yet in the sustainability planners' cross-hairs. Many have already left.

Many of the pricey cities are becoming gentrified with just enough run-down areas to house the immigrants who will work for the well-to-do. But many young middle class families have gone missing. The result is neither smart nor sustainable.

What cars the faculty in Arts and Sciences at Harvard drive.

The survey also found some correlation between departments and choice of car. Of 18 respondents in the economics department, eight said they owned luxury cars—one of the highest percentages. . . .

When it comes to intra-faculty vehicular stereotypes, the economics department is known as the one with the flashiest autos. . . .

“I think the economics department likes fairly expensive cars,” Stilgoe says. “They are interested in things that demonstrate financial value.”

Link via Harvard economist Greg Mankiw.

Actor Ron Silver (very good in Billionaire Boys Club, Reversal of Fortune, and Ali):

I count myself firmly in the tradition of Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy…and yes, Reagan and George W. Bush. “Go anywhere, bear any burden,” “try to do our best to make a world safe for democracy.” Our national mission, a worthy and ennobling one, is to expand freedom where we can. These are revolutionary goals very much in keeping with our Founders’ vision. They are hardly conservative, let alone neo-conservative goals. . . .

The President is challenging the world with a new order. There is always passionate opposition to change. Have grievous mistakes been made? Yes. But just as Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan laid the foundations for fighting and prevailing in the Cold War, Bush has responded to 9/11 with a foreign policy revolution of similar magnitude: a reorganization of government institutions and appropriate legislation to meet the emerging threats. Containment and deterrence are ineffective in this brave new world. There is no containment if you can’t see the enemy; there is no deterrence if the enemy desires death.

I believe the President’s critics are profoundly mistaken. I believe they misunderstand how he’s trying to protect us. I believe they misunderstand the nature of the threat. I believe they misunderstand history. If they succeed in dismantling what President Bush has set in motion, the results may well be catastrophic and history will never forgive them.