Like most people, I’m mostly glad that Osama is dead. He directly caused the deaths of thousands of people, and indirectly led to the deaths, displacement and exile of millions more. Would Sparky have launched the grand $3 trillion and yet-to-be-paid-for invasion of Iraq if Osama hadn’t leveled the Towers? No, of course not. So Osama had a lot to answer for, and while I would have preferred to see a trial, this will do. What I’m having some trouble with are the responses from the right, the ones that question Obama’s timing of this exercise. Many of these have been neatly summarized over at Alicublog, where Edroso has his usual fun with the lunacy that emanates daily from the cognitively impaired (check out his Voice column too). Drudge seemed to think it was to do something bad to Donald Trump, that sort of thing.

What is being overlooked here is the obvious, as usual. Much has been made here of the failure of the Royal Wedding planners to invite Gordon Brown and Tony Blair to the wedding of the century, or the millennium, or something. Many commentators seem greatly troubled by this. If that’s true, imagine how Obama must feel. This is hugely embarrassing. So, clearly Obama went after Osama at the point that he did in order to distract attention from his grievous failure to receive an invitation to the Royal Wedding, and remove all that Royal Wedding coverage off the front pages of the world’s newspapers. And he’s been remarkably successful. Simple, really.

Osama Bin Laden is dead.

The first news reports gave me an eerie feeling to know he died with a bullet to his head. It seemed more like a hit than a battle at that time. My Christian sensibilities rebelled at the thought of assassination and murder even of such an evil person.  My human sensibilities applauded the death of a man who orchestrated the murders of so many others, a 21st Century Adolph Hitler.

Full story »

by Tom Shortell

I was scrawny, zit-faced sophomore sitting in Spanish 2 Honors when Principal Abatemarco informed my high school what had happened in Lower Manhattan the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The school is a 50-mile drive from where the towers stood, and everyone knew someone that never came home that day. My hometown of Middletown, NJ lost 37 people in the attacks, the highest amount of any city outside of New York. Full story »

At Wired‘s Danger Room, David Axe and Noah Shactman wrote of Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of U.S. Special Operations: “Depending on which version is true, Pakistan either had a direct role in the risky, bloody raid … or no role at all.”

More to the point:

The crash occurred near the Pakistani Military Academy in Abbottabad, according to the report, highlighting Bin Laden’s long-term proximity to Pakistan government forces — and thus the great extent of his local protection.

In other words, the size of the compound alone meant its inhabitants must have been known to the Pakistani authorities, yet they weren’t the source of the information leading to the attack on the compound. Full story »

I am not a warlike person. I served in the Peace Corps, not the Marine Corps. I am not violent. I am tough, in a stringy, phlegmatic Scots-Irish sort of way, but I am not vengeful.

I am glad Osama is dead. I am not exuberant as I expected I would be. But I am glad.

Ten years ago on September 11, I was at a company meeting on Long Island. The next day I was supposed to launch a book at the Journal, right across from the World Trade Towers. We watched the second plane hit on the TV in the bar. We tried to be professional and continue our meeting, but one of our team had an apartment within blocks of ground zero, and halfway through our next session she broke down into hysterics and starting shouting about her cat, which was locked in her apartment. We canceled the meeting and walked on the beach quietly for the rest of the day. Full story »

Ultraviolet image of Venus’ clouds as seen by the Pioneer
Venus Orbiter, Feb. 26, 1979 (NASA).

Scientists have known that the surface of Venus is extremely hot since the first probes flew by the planet in the 1960s. Venus’ hot surface is presently understood to be a direct result of the composition of the atmosphere – Venus’ atmosphere is nearly 97% carbon dioxide (CO₂). CO₂ is known to be a greenhouse gas, and the same optical properties that make it a greenhouse gas are what’s responsible for Venus’ high surface temperature.

But there are people who reject the idea that CO₂ could be the cause of greenhouse warming on the Earth. They have come up with a number of interesting hypotheses for how Venus’ surface could be so hot without CO₂-induced greenhouse warming.

Over the next few days, I will examine the most common claims about Venus’ surface temperature made by climate disruption deniers and look at whether or not their claims stand up to some basic physical tests. Full story »

Welcome to 30-Day Song Challenge, the Sequel. Over the last month I’ve been working through the 30-Day Song Challenge, and I liked the idea so much I created a follow-up around 30 of the questions I wished the original had posed.

You’re invited to track along, comment, offer your own entries, and by all means click the link above (or the icon at the bottom of the page) to Like the Facebook group and play for yourself. The rules are here (or click the INFO link on the FB page).

Now, let’s get started with Day 1: a song you love from a band you hate. Full story »

Americans who favor it claim that nuclear energy makes us less dependent on Middle-Eastern oil with its attendant price spikes (those that aren’t a product of speculation, that is). But nuclear-energy plants don’t do much to ease the national debt. As Jeff Goodell reports in his Rolling Stone piece America’s Nuclear Nightmare (emphasis added)

Since the Manhattan Project was created to develop the atomic bomb back in the 1940s, the dream of a nuclear future has been fueled almost entirely by Big Government. America’s current fleet of reactors exists only because Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, limiting the liability of nuclear plant operators in case of disaster. And even with taxpayers assuming most of the risk, Wall Street still won’t finance nuclear reactors without direct federal assistance, in part because construction costs are so high (up to $20 billion per plant) and in part because nukes are the only energy investment that can be rendered worthless in a matter of hours. “In a free market, where real risks and costs are accounted for, nuclear power doesn’t exist,” says Amory Lovins, a leading energy expert at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Nuclear plants “are a creation of government policy and intervention.” Full story »