0
quade

Who is writing Bush's speeches?

Recommended Posts

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030201-2.html

I'd like to think that maybe the President writes his own stuff, but then sometimes I read it and think -- GEEZE I hope he doesn't.

Here are just a couple of interesting lines;

Quote


In an age when space flight has come to seem almost routine, it is easy to overlook the dangers of travel by rocket, and the difficulties of navigating the fierce outer atmosphere of the Earth.



Really? It's easy to overlook the dangers of travel by ROCKET? Most of the average people I know (maybe even some skydivers) are at least a bit scared of travel by airplane. To most of these same people travel by rocket is nearly incomprehensible.

Quote

Yet farther than we can see there is comfort and hope.



Minor point, but farther is a distance, like miles. FURTHER is a concept. Again, I'm assuming a professional speech writer would know this.

Quote

The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.



Interesting turn of phrase whether you believe or not. Either way, it had always been my understanding that MAN named the stars.

And again, this is just interesting to me because I can't figure out if he has a professional speech writer or if he's doing this himself.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm about as apolitical as I can be, I can't resist an easy target. Besides, I thought that everyone knew Bush's speeches are written by the baboon with the shiniest, bluest ass in the whole zoo. Seriously, that's how he decides. It's really something to see the leader of the free world walking up and down a row of baboons comparing their asses to a color wheel he carries in his wallet.:)



Truman Sparks for President

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was put off by "travel by rocket" could'nt he at least say space shuttle or anything not so elementry. hearing that made me discount everything else as just background noise, completely lost interest.

Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, ya caught me!

In my defense, we have this really evil keystroke scanning software at work (where I am right this minute) that every once in a while will hold up the keyboard buffer and drop keystrokes. I ought to really proof read everything three times before posting from work. ;)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


In an age when space flight has come to seem almost routine, it is easy to overlook the dangers of travel by rocket, and the difficulties of navigating the fierce outer atmosphere of the Earth.



Really? It's easy to overlook the dangers of travel by ROCKET? Most of the average people I know (maybe even some skydivers) are at least a bit scared of travel by airplane. To most of these same people travel by rocket is nearly incomprehensible.


Look at it this way, how many people knew we had a shuttle launch on January 16th? Not many I suspect. That's becoming routine. Most people you and I know easily overlook the inherent dangers of travel by automobile too. [:/]

Quote

The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home.


So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't sound much like a defense, Bill. It sounds a bit more like a piss-poor attempt at being clever and witty while pointing out that the Prez is "no rocket scientist". Though I appreciate your willingness to share such tidbits of information with us all, I already read about it in last month's issue of "Duh" magazine. :P

FallRate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the country is in morning now, why was'nt in that state last week over the Black Hawk crash that killed 4 American soldiers?

I'd give my right and left arm for a shot to go into space... but I just think a "national state of morning" for 5 days was over kill. Anyone remember how long the flags were at half staff for Challenger? This was'nt the first time people were killed in the space program, and it won't be the last. In a day when CNN would'nt even cover the launch live it seems that the majority of the population was'nt even paying attention to the shuttle until something went wrong.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>That doesn't sound much like a defense, Bill. It sounds a bit more
> like a piss-poor attempt at being clever and witty while pointing out
> that the Prez is "no rocket scientist".'

You know, nowadays they make decaffeinated coffees that taste just as good as the regular kind . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He got it once during the debates, poor fella, it was like he was biting the heads off live chickens.

NUKE-LEEE-ERRRRR.

Who was that Nuke Admiral from the sub program in the 50's-60's? He would have opened fire had he heard that pronuciation.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Who was that Nuke Admiral from the sub program in the 50's-60's?

Rickover? He spearheaded some pretty impressive programs in the early nuclear navy. He led the development of the thorium-blanket proliferation proof reactor, if I recall. (If North Korea had one of _those_ we'd be a lot less worried about them right now.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah! That's the guy! He had the most brutal oral exam to let anybody command one of the nuclear boats, it is told.

I know interviewing, so that's where my knowledge of the man comes from. I don't know anything about baby-blanket population poof tractors, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't think this is a time to politicize or criticize. The country is in mourning right now. If you want to mock him or his speech writers, go after his State of the Union address or something that is political.



By definition, everything the President of the United States says is political.

I would not now, nor probably ever, mock the efforts of NASA, the astronauts or the families, but President Bush (or possibly his speech writers) are clearly fair game here. In times of strife the nation looks toward the White House for guidance and in this case I do not believe it delivered.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I don't know anything about baby-blanket population poof tractors,
>though.

I hate those population poofs!

A tidbit of information about naval reactors:

Modern commercial nuclear reactors are made with partially enriched uranium; usually the content of 'good' uranium (U-235) to 'bad' uranium (U-238 and other isotopes) is around 3-5%. That's good in terms of preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons, since you need 50%+ enriched uranium to make uranium-based weapons; 80% and above is ideal for simple terrorist weapons. It's also good in terms of the reactor not going off like a bomb. You could certainly screw up and have the core heat up enough to damage itself, but at 4% enrichment, it would be very hard to make the core go supercritical for long enough to cause a 'nuclear explosion'.

Naval reactors don't have either constraint. They have to be small and they have to run a long time, and they're pretty well guarded. They are also (supposedly) run by competent people who won't do foolish things. Both of these things mean that naval reactors can run at much higher enrichment levels, up to 97%. This gives them a small and long-lasting reactor, but also means that they really _can_ go off like bombs if you seriously mistreat them.

It also means that you can use the fuel directly to make a bomb. Taking a 97% enriched fuel rod and turning it into a gun-style bomb would be pretty easy even for non-nuclear-genius types. For the US it's not much of a problem, but there are a lot of nuclear submarines and nuclear icebreakers sitting tied up in Russian ports with minimal security, and many of them are still fueled. That's a lot of potential fissile material just sitting around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0