I just completed reading an article that reminded me of this
event. When the USS Nautilus reached the geographic North Pole.
The first vessel to do so. Does not seem like so much these days
but was a very big deal then.

You see this country was loosing it's technical advantage. While
corporate America was working hard to make vacuum tubes smaller,
the Japanese had figured out how make transistors quick and cheap.

And worst of all the Soviets had just launched a satellite into space
while our space program was literally blowing up in our faces.
This sent chills down the backs of the free (capitalistic) world.
Socialism and Communism worked and was accomplishing things
we were not.
That one feat totally destroyed nearly all the arguments about
how inefficient it was.

So we needed one success and the Nautilus was it.  As a child of ten
I though they both great, though I followed the space program more.
After all it had rockets which were way cooler than submarines.

C

Which should come as no big surprise. But this study sinks another of
their insane arguments against reform.

After adjusting for other factors, industries that provide
insurance had significantly less employment growth than
industries where health benefits were not common.
Industries with a larger percentage of workers receiving
employer-sponsored health insurance also showed lower
growth in their contribution to the GDP.

For example, the study estimated that a 10% increase in
excess health care costs would reduce employment by about
0.24 percent in the motor vehicles industry, where 80% of
workers are covered by employers. The retail industry,
however, where only one third of workers are covered, saw
only a 0.13% percent drop in employment. Economy-wide, a
10% increase in excess health care costs growth would
result in about 120,800 fewer jobs, $28 billion in lost
revenues, and $14 billion in lost GDP value.

Now here's the kicker.

To rule out the possibility that the economic effects were
caused by some other industry-wide factor, the researchers
compared U.S. industries with their counterparts in Canada,
which has publicly financed universal health care. They
found no similar percent change in employment in the
corresponding Canadian industries over the 19-year study
period.

The rate of growth in U.S. health care costs has outpaced
the growth rate in the gross domestic product (GDP) for
many years. In 1940, the share of GDP accounted for by
health care spending was just 4.5%. By 1990, it had reached
12.2%, and 16% in 2005, when health care spending totaled
nearly $2 trillion, or $6,697 per person, far more than any
other nation. This year health care spending is on track to
equal 18% of GDP.

[Emphasis mine]
$2 trillion ! And you wonder why when there is no "bubble"
the economy just sinks.

C

Or so says this piece on the BBC science site.  Of course well all know
that Currys has had one for years.

Second Zambesi: That one looks nice, what's that?

First Zambesi: That's a mudguard!

Second Zambesi: It's only eight bob.

First Zambesi: Aw, I think it's worth the extra five bob
for the brain. I'll give them a ring. (she goes to the
phone and dials one number) Hello, Curry's? I'd like to
try one of your thirteen-and-sixpenny brains please.
Yes... yes... yes, ye... um... (looks at her shoe)
five-and-a-half... yes... thank you. (replaces phone)
They're sending someone round. (there is a knock at the
door)

C

Department of Just plain Silly:
Yes you heard right. Apparently the Senator is concerned with
sacredness of human life.

Or maybe he's just afraid one of these creatures might run against
him......and win.

C