Monthly Archives: June 2009

Business, Economics, Space

X-Prize Foundation Overreach?

9 Comments

Clark Lindsey points out a potential issue with the Lunar Landing Challenge:

Section 4 of the document, especially subsection 4.2, seems overly aggressive to me with respect to the X PRIZE Foundation’s clams to media rights. Apparently, a team has to give up the right to any income generated from their own videos, photos, etc. even for preparatory activities away from the place and day they attempt the competition flights. In fact, sounds like even posting a video on YouTube requires permission from XPF.

I don’t understand why XPF should get all of these rights just for managing the contest for NASA. I don’t see such rights going to the Spaceward Foundation in the rules (pdf) for the Power Beaming Challenge.

I agree. Since the prize money is put up by NASA, how does XPF have sufficient “skin in the game” to justify this clause? I’ve already received an email from one potential participant that this is a “deal killer.”

As I asked him, though, what does that mean? It seems to me that if you enter into this agreement, you believe that the expected value of the prize (purse times estimated probability of win) exceeds the potential revenues from media use of the event. If you believe that the latter is the main value, and not the purse itself, then you wouldn’t enter, but would instead simply perform the feat independently, video it, and make a big deal that you had done what was needed except unofficially, thus embarrassing NASA and the XPF, taking away the value of the competition itself, while generating more publicity (and perhaps potential customers) than actually winning the prize (see Prejean, Carrie).

On the other hand, if you consider NASA a potential customer for your vehicles, you might not want to do that. It is something that, to quote the “Fat Man” from The Maltese Falcon, “calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides. ‘Cause as you know, sir, in the heat of action men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and let their emotions carry them away…”

Political Commentary

“A Poor Choice Of Words”

26 Comments

Over, and over and over again. As Ann Althouse notes, you’d think that a wise woman would know better than to continue to repeat such a “poor choice of words” (as the White House put it). Unless, you know, she actually thought it was a good choice of words, at least until some non-racialist actually liberal stick-in-the-muds started criticizing it, and she was up for a SCOTUS nomination.

Why, it’s almost enough to make one question her wisdom. Not to mention her probity.

[Update in the afternoon]

Explaining what a “liberal” is to Judge Sotomayor, who claims not to know what it is, even though she also claims she is one.

Political Commentary, War Commentary

The Irony

15 Comments

…of President Obama’s selective Koran quotations:

The translation is, “Anyone who destroys (kills) one soul of Israel is viewed as having annihilated an entire world. Anyone who saves or sustains one (soul) of Israel is viewed as sustaining an entire world.” It’s pretty culture-specific, but the possibility of extrapolating the larger notion about the meaning of murder to other tribes is there.

The Talmud was compiled in the late 2nd century, so we know it precedes the Koran, which was written half a millenium later. Not that there is anything wrong with borrowing wisdom, of course.

It is only a little ironic that, in this Reuters survey of reactions to Obama’s speech from Islamic leaders, that is the line that got the most positive response. And the matter of Israelis who putatively don’t want to negotiate with Palestinians remained the major grievance.

I found this passage of the speech quite troubling, and again, indicative of his apparent deep naivete of the history of the region:

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

He talks about the “legitimate aspirations” without describing them. The reality is that the Israelis have an aspiration to live in peace in their ancient homeland, and the “Palestinians” (there’s no such thing, really, they’re just Arabs who formerly were Jordanians, Lebanese or Egyptians) have an aspiration to destroy the state of Israel. Whether the latter is a legitimate aspiration or not, it’s completely incompatible with that of the Israelis, which is why they have never been able to come to an agreement.

A two-state solution may be in the “Palestinians” interest, but they don’t seem to think so, since every time they’ve been offered it, they’ve turned it down in favor of continuing the war against the hated Jews. Arafat turned it down in 2000, and Hamas and the “Palestinians” who voted for them turned it down when the Israelis gave them Gaza, and instead of creating a nation, they continued to bombard Israel with rockets. Why the president thinks that pressuring Israel for more concessions will change this is far beyond me. Perhaps one needs a Harvard education to understand it.

Education, Popular Culture

A Spelling Test

8 Comments

Via Derbyshire, who claims to have gotten eighteen right. My guesses (not open book, with Firefox spellcheck temporarily disabled) are over the fold. I haven’t checked to see what my score is, but someone else can, if they have the time.

1. ass-uh-9
2. brag-uh-doe—C-O
3. rare-uff-I
4. lick-wuff-i
5. puh-vill-yun
6. ver-mill-yun
7. im-pah-stir
8. mock-uh-sun
9. uh-komuh-date
10. kon-sen-sus
11. roe-ko-ko
12. tittle-8
13. sack-ruh-lijus
14. may-uh-naze
15. im-pray-sorry-O
16. in-ock-U-late
17. sooper-seed
18. obly-gahto
19. dessuh-Kate
20. re-sussuh-tate

If you want to try it yourself, do it before looking at mine.

Continue reading A Spelling Test →

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

So What’s It Done For Us Lately?

38 Comments

Obama, in Cairo:

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation.

So far, so good (though I’ve never seen much evidence that he’s really a “student of history”). But this next seems like a stretch:

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Note that he provides no examples of this, and the world abounds with counterexamples to the proposition. For example, I always find it either amusing or appalling that African-Americans who embrace the religion don’t understand that it was Arab traders (Muslims) who sold their ancestors into slavery to the Europeans.

This next bit is even more amazing, though:

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

Now, when I see the words “Islam has always been a part of America’s story,” and “Tripoli,” the Treaty of Tripoli is not the first thing that comes to mind. What comes to mind is the Marine Corps anthem, which talks about “the shores of Tripoli.” Because that was the first foreign war in which we engaged after gaining our independence and becoming a constitutional republic — a war against Muslims resulting from their continual piracy and kidnapping of American sailors. And of course, they didn’t restrict their kidnapping to ships at sea — many people (and many women and children) were plucked from the shores of Europe and the British Isles, and sold into slavery. By Muslims. They were equal-opportunity slavers, enslaving both blacks and whites. Perhaps this is what Obama meant by their promotion of “racial equality.”

Anyway, anyone familiar with the actual history of relations between the young United States and the Barbary Pirates would be astonished to read the above paragraph coming from a supposed “student of history.”

Now, I’m not saying that he should have peeled that particular scab off the old wound– just that it’s bizarre to talk about our early relations with Islam without mentioning it. It would have been better to simply avoid discussing that particular period in history at all.

I guess that this must be a result of studying history in the US public school system. Maybe he should have gotten vouchers.

And of course, there is nothing particularly Islamic about wearing a “hijab.” It’s a recent fashion (and part of the religion’s long-time subjugation of women). I hope that he doesn’t plan to have the US government defend the right to cover the face for driver’s license photos, or to not require Muslim nurses to wash their hands before and during surgery, as has occurred in the UK.

What is annoying about this speech (even ignoring the utter whitewashing of the history of Islam), is that he’s once again, or still (though more subtly this time) running against George Bush, with the implication that Bush was at war with Islam, regardless of the painstaking politically correct steps he took to avoid that impression, to the point of having the FBI coordinate and cooperate with the terrorist-sponsoring organization, CAIR. This speech was unnecessary, at least as far as healing our relations with Islam or the world. But it will help reinforce domestically the false history from this “student of history” that the war (when they’re willing to admit that we are at war) is all Bush’s fault.

I’ll probably talk about the section on Israel and the “Palestinians” in another post, when I find time.

[Update a while later]

It’s worth noting, as it is in comments, that the Treaty of Tripoli was one of several, and basically a negotiation of how much tribute should be paid by the US to the Barbary Coast for a guarantee of unhindered passage by American ships through the Mediterranean and near Atlantic, after the loss of protection by first the British and later the French navies. It was basically a formalized extortion racket, which eventually (and it didn’t take long) broke down and resulted in the young US raising a Navy and engaging in the Barbary Wars, to avoid further tribute. Again, it seems a tender issue to raise in a speech addressed to Muslims.

[Update early afternoon]

Andy McCarthy has similar thoughts.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Platitudes and naivete. Robert Spencer dissects. Of course “platitudes and naivete” is a pretty good description of any Obama speech, so it doesn’t really distinguish this one.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Obama Has Nominated A Puerto Rican Nationalist

25 Comments

…to the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, there’s nothing wrong with being a Puerto Rican nationalist per se — I find it a perfectly respectable political position albeit a minority one on the island, and the US would probably be better off without the commonwealth, since it is a net sink for taxpayer dollars. But do we really want someone who couldn’t bring herself to call the US Congress and US Supreme Court the US Congress and US Supreme Court to be an associate justice on the latter? At the very least, this deserves some serious questions at the confirmation hearings.

Political Commentary

Thoughts On Tiananmen Square

3 Comments

…on the twentieth anniversary:

George Orwell said, “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.” He’s all too right. Last century, an estimated 262 million people were murdered by their own government . That doesn’t include the hundreds of millions more killed by opposing governments during war.

Today ought to be a day to celebrate and promote human liberty, and to remember the abuses governments have heaped upon their subjects over the centuries.

So go find your own metaphor for the government tank pictured above.

Then put yourself in front of it.

You know, I can’t think of a single corporation that could claim even a tiny fraction of such a death toll.

[Update a few minutes later]

Sadly predictable behavior by the left — using the anniversary of Chinese government brutality against those seeking liberty, to smear Walmart.

Media Criticism, Space

“Hate” Speech

38 Comments

Mark Whittington seems to suffer from an almost autistic inability to properly gauge the emotions of others — the same malady as many self-described liberals seem to suffer, when they describe as “hate speech” or “racist” words with which they simply disagree. He often irrationally refers to my posts as “rants,” or “seething,” or “filled with rage,” though in each and every case I was perfectly calm when composing them, and no one else ever sees the supposed anger. And when called on it, he can never justify it, or point to the exact words that he finds so rage filled (and indeed, ignores requests to do so, usually simply repeating the slander).

Here’s an example (not of me, this time, fortunately):

Some interesting words of wisdom from Mike Griffin along with, sadly, words of hate in the comments section.

Well, I read those comments (only two of them at the time of this posting — I can’t speak for what might appear there in the future), and I saw nothing “hateful” about them. They simply pointed out inconsistencies in the former administrator’s words, and between words and deeds. One need not “hate” someone to point out flaws in their arguments. I wonder why Mark views the world in such emotional extremes?

[Thursday morning update]

Amazing. He’s still at it.

Mind, there are a few things about which one can criticize Dr. Griffin’s tenure at NASA, mainly by using 20 20 hindsight. But really, some of the posts I have read makes one wonder if he drinks the blood of virgins and eats the flesh of the young, so filled with rage they are.

Note that (as always) he can’t point to any particular “rage-filled” post or comment, and show us the “hateful” words. Just like his imaginary friends at the “Internet Rocketeers Club,” we are simply supposed to accept that such things exist in reality, and not just in Mark’s mind.

And of course, there, as he did here, he says that I accused him of being a liberal, once again indicating his apparent inability to comprehend written English. And no, Mark, there is nothing “hateful” about pointing out either that, or your apparent inability to properly gauge others’ emotional states. It is purely an unemotional, clinical observation.

[Bumped]