Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Morning News


Isn't Gates up for Defense Secretary, not Press? ;p

They did seem one in the same with Donnie, I'll give you that.

Posted by golob | December 5, 2006 8:35 AM

A plausible mistake. The boyfriend pours vodka in a water bottle the mother mistakenly uses it to make the formula. She wouldn't have smelt it unless she got down close. Still, she needs to stop shacking up with the creep and get her tubes tied.

Posted by Dilda | December 5, 2006 8:52 AM

Tastes like mommy's kisses.

Posted by monkey | December 5, 2006 9:55 AM

RE: homeless deaths ... that figure is only the number of homeless deaths that the Medical Examiner's office had to deal with. The actual total number can only be guessed at. But it's considered an accurate marker of whether those death tolls are up, and they are.

Posted by Peggy | December 5, 2006 10:28 AM

Ahh. With your correction, my post makes no sense. I know this-is-just-a-blog, but it would be nice to indicate corrections.

I'll live.

Posted by golob | December 5, 2006 10:34 AM

Let's see, no proposed change in NASA's budget, and a plan that takes advantage of solar power. I'm not clear here, are you pro-moon-bases-in-18-years, or anti-moon-bases-in-18-years, because you sure do a good job of presenting something that reads positive as a negative.

Posted by BC | December 5, 2006 10:56 AM

sorry, golob, I made a typo and then changed it. This clears your name: I'm an idiot, not you.

Posted by s.mirk | December 5, 2006 12:13 PM

Don't be dissin' on da' moon base.

$17B a year represents a measely 0.17% of the annual federal budget, not even comparable to the $350B we've already spent on the "War On Terror" (which, at the current burn rate of about $200M PER DAY means the Iraq/Afghan war and related expenditures eat up the equivalent of NASA's annual budget every three months!).

And for all that, we don't even get a frackin' moon base!

Posted by COMTE | December 5, 2006 12:35 PM

Isn't the problem with the Moon base to Mars is that it strips money away from NASA's other scientific missions?

Like, say, experiments on Climate change, right BC?

Posted by golob | December 5, 2006 2:29 PM

Technically, there may be some truth to that Golob, although the bulk of the funding is going to come from expense recovery as the shuttle fleet is mustered out starting in 2010, and the operational costs are transfered to development and production of the Orion CEV and lunar lander, then on to other hardware elements required to assemble and maintain a lunar base.

The real problem of course, is that the White House (surprise, surprise) hasn't requested any additional funding for NASA in the 2008 & beyond budget cycles, leaving them to rely on offsets from the drawdown of the shuttle program to fund the new initiatives, and as a result Director Golden has been forced to cannibalize several non-human space flight programs to ensure there's enough money available to fund shrub's "unfunded mandate".

Posted by COMTE | December 5, 2006 6:24 PM

Er sorry, that should be "Director Griffin" - wishful nostalgia on my part.

Posted by COMTE | December 5, 2006 6:26 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).