A really great essay by Keith Cowing

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:

: I think, given the small sample size, that the trend isn't
: statistically significant. All five politicians above were shot by
: amateur assassins, but one (Oswald) happened to be a trained shooter,
: and another (Sirhan) managed to get within point-blank range of his
: target in a crowded room.

Oswald was in the marines but wasn't a very good shot I understand.

It's all relative. He wasn't very good by USMC standards but was better
than Squeaky Fromme or John Hinckley.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Chris Jones wrote in :

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

[...]

All kinds of politicians get shot at, but liberals seem to have a
higher mortality rate. Compare Wallace, Ford, and Reagan to JFK and
RFK, frex...

What a weird claim to make.

What "claim" am I making here?

Luckily the sample size is small, so such
claims are bogus.

Yup, like I said myself in a followup, it's not statistically significant.

FDR, BTW, was shot at (the mayor of Chicago was
killed by the attempt), and he his, by many people's thinking, the
liberal plus ultra. George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the US Nazi
Party, may be considered a politician, was murdered, and was certainly
nearly as far from liberal as you could want. Presidents Garfield and
McKinley were business-friendly Republicans, certainly not liberals,
and were killed in office. While Lincoln (killed) and Theodore
Roosevelt (shot at but lived) were Republicans, they were arguably
liberals, certainly not through-and-through conservatives. Truman was
shot at in the Blair House but not wounded, and is hard to classify
either way, though I suspect today's conservatives would hate him.
And so on....

As you and others have noted, political labels like "liberal" and
"conservative" have shifted in meaning over the years. I restricted my
sample to assassination attempts starting with JFK to minimize that effect
- it wasn't arbitrary at all. Even then, the effect is considerable:
someone with JFK's 1960 platform (Cold War hawk, tax rate cuts) would have
been too far to the right for the Democratic party to nominate in 1972.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Chris Jones wrote in :

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

[...]

Only on this issue of race; he remained a populist-conservative on most
other issues.

Populist-conservative is an interesting term, oxymoronic I would say

Maybe in the north; such politicians were common in the south.

(though I wouldn't disagree that it is pretty accurate applied to
Wallace, which is to say his political beiefs and/or practices (and
there is evidence that his personal beliefs often differed from his
practices) are not easily characterized by a simple label).

He was far from unique in that regard.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: :

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:51:37 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: : : I'll tend to take private conversations over public,
: :
: : ...out of context? One DOES wonder...
:
: : What out of context? The context is there.
:
: Yes, JFK stated that going to the moon was important, possibly the
: most important program in the govt., but he himself was that
: interested in space. Interested but not THAT interested.

: Nope, you just deleted the context. He said *beating the Russians* to the
: moon was the most important program in govt - and *that* only because the
: Russians had used Sputnik and Gagarin to challenge the perception of US
: technological supremacy. Had Khrushchev chosen a different challenge - say,
: the Russians built a bridge over the Black Sea - JFK would have stated that
: building a bridge over the Gulf of Mexico was the most important program in
: the govt. It was never about "space".

Interesting that he chose space rather than support the South Vietnamese
government as the most important program in government from this
conservation.

Again, I wish we had a recording of recently declassified conservations of
that subject like we do on space.

Eric

: --
: JRF

: Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
: check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
: think one step ahead of IBM.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:33:55 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : Yet we still managed to implement Apollo.
:
: : Everything had been pretty much built and paid for by then.
:
: You still must support and run the missions.

: Yes, but that was paid for out of current overhead (which was
: supporting everything that NASA was doing). The "space program"
: continued, but Apollo was over.

So Apollo-Soyuz was a figment of my imagination?

No, that was simply using up more of the hardware that had already
been paid for prior to cancellation.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:59:24 -0500, in a place far, far away, Chris
Jones made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

[...]

All kinds of politicians get shot at, but liberals seem to have a higher
mortality rate. Compare Wallace, Ford, and Reagan to JFK and RFK, frex...

What a weird claim to make. Luckily the sample size is small, so such
claims are bogus. FDR, BTW, was shot at (the mayor of Chicago was
killed by the attempt), and he his, by many people's thinking, the
liberal plus ultra. George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the US Nazi Party,
may be considered a politician, was murdered, and was certainly nearly
as far from liberal as you could want. Presidents Garfield and McKinley
were business-friendly Republicans, certainly not liberals,

Actually, in the nineteenth century, that's what a liberal was...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:56:22 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Are you convinced that had he lived we would NOT have gone to the moon?

Of course not. Going to the moon was his goal. Expanding humanity
into space was not.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:45:10 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:51:37 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : I'll tend to take private conversations over public,
:
: ...out of context? One DOES wonder...

: What out of context? The context is there.

Yes, JFK stated that going to the moon was important, possibly the most
important program in the govt., but he himself was that interested in
space. Interested but not THAT interested.

No, he didn't say he was interested in space. He said "I think it's
good. I think we ought to know about it."

That doesn't necessarily indicate any personal interest.

I listened to the whole thing. Granted he is no scientist and clearly a
politician. Despite that, it is clear he set a high priority on going to
the moon.

Yes, because it was important to beat the Russians, not because he
gave a damn about the moon.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:00:09 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Science is interesting, but not "big
: and exciting." There's more to life than science (something that NASA
: never seems to learn).

Of course there is but are they not in the business of science?

They think they are.

You ought to question how well the DOD, NOAA and NASA are going to get
along on NPOES, follow on to EOS.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:03:14 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:14:59 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:24:56 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
: : David made the phosphor
: : on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: : It's not taxing ever less. Tax revenues will increase now that the
: : economy's growing strongly.
: :
: : I haven't seen any recent mentions on Smoot-Hawley Bush's steel tariffs.
: : Are the ECU et al still threatening a trade war?
:
: : Yes, and last week the International Court ruled against the
: : administration. Hopefully they'll come to their senses, but I fear
: : not. When it comes to domestic policy, Carl Rove rules the roost.
:
: Is outting CIA agents part of his job description or is that damn
: journalist simply lying?

: What journalist are you talking about? No one has accused Carl Rove
: of that. And she wasn't a CIA agent.

Robert Novak of the Washington Post.

Cite me where he said it was Carl Rove.

: Or are you simply lying?

Then what was she?

A CIA employee. They have many who aren't agents.

Just the wife of a US ambassador that wouldn't go
along with the lie that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from
Niger?

No one ever claimed that.

Where do you get this nonsense? Democratic Underground?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: