Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I wonder if Mel Gibson could beat her in a politicial race...

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at August 2, 2006 09:49 PM

"I'll actually miss the loon. On the other hand, if the Democrat party is ever going to become sane, it has to purge these creatures."

Rand,
For a moment I thought you were talking about Lieberman, but then I remembered to turn on my Newspeak Translator. Nobody can deny McKinney is bats, but so far as I can tell, her mental issues haven't resulted in anyone being shot in the face, tortured, or their country invaded. And with a group in power who filters scientific decisions through the Christian Coalition, your focus on this peculiar woman with no influence in the party or Congress might strike some as bizarre, not to mention delusional. Considering that you leap on the most obscure tidbits that might afford an excuse for lashing out at Democrats, I was curious to notice that (unlike the rest of America) you had nothing to say about the stem cell veto. I guess you just weren't buying what that particular news item was selling: a reality check.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 3, 2006 12:28 AM

Brian, would you consider confining yourself to only one j'accuse per paragraph, or at least per sentence? My brain hurts when I try to figure out your point(s).

Posted by Carl Pham at August 3, 2006 01:49 AM

Carl,
it ALL boils down to two little words in Brians world,

Bush Sucks.

Posted by Steve at August 3, 2006 04:04 AM

It did seem a remarkable non sequitur, even for him.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 3, 2006 05:03 AM

Brian says: Nobody can deny McKinney is bats, but so far as I can tell, her mental issues haven't resulted in anyone being shot in the face, tortured, or their country invaded.

Good thing too, otherwise the media would be reporting these things in a good way. Then again, its hard to be a leader for the left when they keep throwing you under the bus for a slightly different idea set.

Posted by Mac at August 3, 2006 06:29 AM

Considering that you leap on the most obscure tidbits that might afford an excuse for lashing out at Democrats

I believe psychologist call this Freudian Projection.

Posted by Leland at August 3, 2006 07:41 AM

> Considering that you leap on the most obscure tidbits that might afford an excuse for lashing out at Democrats

Perhaps Swiderski will tell us when it's acceptable to lash out at Democrats.

Posted by at August 3, 2006 07:58 AM

He can't right now, he is on another board defending the indefensble with his tapdance of hyperbole, obfuscation and moral relativism.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 3, 2006 08:23 AM

"For a moment I thought you were talking about Lieberman, but then I remembered to turn on my Newspeak Translator."

Why do you need a Newspeak Translator? Your diatribe was fluent, flawless Newspeak. It is clearly your native tounge.

Now go back to watching CNN. When they show Goldstien's...er...Bush's picture, you can have your two minute hate for today.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 3, 2006 08:41 AM

Why do you need a Newspeak Translator? Your diatribe was fluent, flawless Newspeak. It is clearly your native tounge.

Obviously he needs it to translate to, not from.

Posted by McGehee at August 3, 2006 09:21 AM

You are no doubt 100% correct sir!

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 3, 2006 10:44 AM

A fine litany of spineless dodges, gentlemen. You are all a credit to the dittoverse.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 3, 2006 10:32 PM

I note that DS still hasn't told us what we can complain about.

ps - What's a dittoverse?

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 4, 2006 10:53 AM

What's a dittoverse?

I wonder if its like a musical round, such as "row, row, row your boat..."

Posted by Leland at August 4, 2006 08:42 PM

Dittoverse: The region of the blogosphere populated by intellectually moribund right-wing troglodytes known as "dittoheads." Favorite passtimes of the dittoverse: Verbally licking the boots of the Glorious Leader, blaming his predecessor for current troubles, and generally copying White House press releases verbatim without a single intervening brain cell. Pet peeves of the dittoverse: Facts, laws, and anyone associated with either (e.g., scientists, teachers, and lawyers).

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 5, 2006 05:07 AM

Pet peeves of the dittoverse: Facts, laws, and anyone associated with either (e.g., scientists, teachers, and lawyers)

Gee, Brian, you expect to find folks who dislike facts and scientists hanging out on an aerospace blog? Did you really think this thought all the way through?

I feel your pain, man. Sucks to find yourself in the new minority, and increasing numbers of your fellow citizens rejecting the comfortable social myths you all grew up believing.

But life is like that. History is kind of cyclical. Fifty -- well, maybe a hundred -- years ago, the left had the new ideas and the energy and entrepreneurship. A hundred years ago Marxist theories of how the world works, or should work, were new and worth reading (if not, as it turned out, implementing). Civil rights defended by a powerful court system were a novel concept (and as it turned out very useful, in moderation). It was sensible to be suspicious of money and big business, and try to empower those crushed under their wheels. In a society that mordantly insisted on sorting everyone into manifold heirarchical classes, it made sense to routinely challenge the notion that A was a better man than B, e.g. by mere birth or skin color.

Not any more. In 2006 it's the right that has the new ideas, the energy, and the innovative can-do spirit. The Davids of the age are challenging the Goliaths of big government, the Stalinist and crypto-Stalinist academy, the well-paid professional 'helper' class, and those self-appointed custodians of the poor and downtrodden who turned out to be, well, just a wee bit more interested in preserving and extending their own power and prestige than in serving the true needs of their wards (the UN, NAACP and teacher's unions come to mind). In a society that now blindly refuses to draw any serious distinction between people and cultures, it makes sense to start routinely asking whether A might be a better man than B, e.g. because while both have killed an innocent bystander, A did it by accident while B did it on purpose.

It's the left that's become reactionary, paranoid, afraid of the future, wanting to hide behind authority and tradition (there's your veneration of scientists, lawyers and the law), timid and despairing in the face of big challenges, and reduced to angry caricature and name-calling (cf. your first and last post supra).

I suggest two good choices for the man of spirit remain: (1) Adapt, think for yourself, reject the tired Marxist tropes and slogans you were fed in your youth, and really check out the new ideas on the other side. Find out why they're so attractive to so many people. No doubt there's much of the old garbage, but nothing so attractive to so many fails to have nuggets of true value. Find 'em. You don't have to become a true believer -- you can remain skeptical, balance in the middle; (2) Put yourself in the deep freeze for half a century, until the right has predictably overplayed its hand and the new ideas are once again coming from the left.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 5, 2006 11:28 AM

"Gee, Brian, you expect to find folks who dislike facts and scientists hanging out on an aerospace blog?"

This is a very unusual aerospace blog. Scientists are overwhelmingly liberal, and space advocates tend to reflect that with the addition of economic libertarianism. Some conservatives do occasionally look up from their guns, Bibles, and bank statements long enough to notice there are stars in the sky, but on average I'd say their concern is mainly nationalistic and military. And on questions of terrestrial politics, conservatives are the same bunch of Flat Earth clowns they've always been--form an opinion based on visceral knee-jerk reactions, then defend it to the death.

"It's the left that's become reactionary, paranoid, afraid of the future, wanting to hide behind authority and tradition"

As usual, the conservative prefers to argue with his own delusions rather than actual opponents. And while your comrades at the Discovery Institute are claiming Earth is 7,000 years old, flat, and the center of the universe, and your Glorious Leader in Crawford asserts the "inherent authority" to ignore the Constitution as he pleases, mankind progresses regardless and America is still free despite your best efforts to the contrary. "And still it moves," the fellow once said; misanthropic right-wing psychos of the world despair.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 6, 2006 05:11 PM

This is a very unusual aerospace blog. Scientists are overwhelmingly liberal

Even if that were actually true, what does science have to do with aerospace?

...and space advocates tend to reflect that with the addition of economic libertarianism.

You must not know very many space advocates. They tend to be libertarian in general (as is this blog).

You seem to be under the delusion that I am a conservative and/or a "right winger" and/or a Christian. You are clueless in this, as apparently most things.

And why would any sane person support Cynthia McKinney?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 6, 2006 05:17 PM

"Even if that were actually true, what does science have to do with aerospace?"

The same relationship science has with all industries, only more so given the unknowns and attractive experimental environment. That is, unless you draw the boundary of "aerospace" at the paltry lot of telecom and spy satellites populating LEO and GEO, which shouldn't be the case if your blog is truly "transterrestrial." After all, you do discuss less germane topics like space fashion, so you can't very well claim this is some kind of Jane's knockoff.

"You must not know very many space advocates. They tend to be libertarian in general (as is this blog)."

I'm active in the Planetary Society and the National Space Society, and they tend to be liberal, moderate, or apolitical with libertarianism as a mere tendency among the commercially-oriented. The ones who support space exploration as a scientific endeavor, survival strategy, and potential-multiplier are generally liberal; those who are just gee-whiz about the whole thing run the gamut; and the entrepreneurs have a vague libertarian orientation, but rarely ideological. There is a conservative contingent, but they tend to be more interested in military applications, and are usually very boring and unimaginative.

And BTW, this blog doesn't seem very libertarian when it comes to foreign policy; more fascism-oriented, "might makes right," etc. You advocate treating other countries in ways you'd never accept the US being treated, so what you support seems more like guarding your own privileges rather than principled arguments for universal rights like actual libertarians make. There's so much more political material than space stuff here, it just seems like you regard the former as spice for the latter rather than the overarching issue. Most dedicated space advocates I know (myself included) consider it far, far more important.

"You seem to be under the delusion that I am a conservative and/or a "right winger" and/or a Christian."

I don't think you're a fundie, but it's amusing to remind you of the political company you keep. As for exact labels, I address that elsewhere.

"And why would any sane person support Cynthia McKinney?"

Because voting Republican would be utterly insane.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 07:28 AM

you do discuss less germane topics like space fashion, so you can't very well claim this is some kind of Jane's knockoff.

I discuss whatever I want to discuss. If you want to arbitrarily decide what a blog should discuss, go start your own. And the Planetary Society has little interest in sending people into space, so it's a different strain of space activists (as is NSS, which is a mix of big-government space supporters, planetary science types, and a few frontier types).

Most people who actively want to get large numbers of people into space aren't modern liberals.

And libertarians believe in national defense. It's possible to disagree about whether or not our Middle East activities contribute to that goal, but it doesn't make it unlibertarian to support them.

As for your stupid comment that it's more insane to vote for a Republican than for a nutball like Cynthia McKinney, even if it were true, it's irrelevant, since there's no chance that a Republican will be elected in that district. The only issue is which Democrat will represent it. That McKinney gets as much support as she does is a sad commentary on the Democrat Party.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 7, 2006 08:25 AM

"I discuss whatever I want to discuss. If you want to arbitrarily decide what a blog should discuss, go start your own."

Getting a mite snippy, are we?

"And the Planetary Society has little interest in sending people into space, so it's a different strain of space activists"

Not so. They've strongly endorsed the Moon/Mars initiative, but argue (as do I) that there's absolutely no reason it should be mutually exclusive to a rigorous robotic science program. The Society's main motivation is scientific and exploratory, so its emphasis is slightly different, but it tangentially supports enabling technologies. We even sunk over a million dollars into the North Pacific trying to send a solar sail into space, as I'm sure you probably covered on this blog, and are committed to trying again. It might be a feeble effort compared to Bigelow and Elon, but the participatory atmosphere was quite invigorating. TPS isn't about hardware, engineering, thrills, or even grandiose strategies for human expansion, it's about exploring the wonders of the solar system, and probably most of the members would love to see them in person.

"(as is NSS, which is a mix of big-government space supporters, planetary science types, and a few frontier types)."

What's your point? "Big-government" is the only way to blaze trails into space and create the technology for further expansion, because venture capitalists will not sink billions into something as nebulous and risky as an "enabling technology" or with a very substantial risk their money would go up in smoke. And "frontier types," which I assume refers (at best) to the Mars Society, could never field even a fraction of the capital as the entrepreneurs now struggling just to launch manned suborbital businesses, let alone the scale of operations they talk about.

So yes, I am a big fan of NASA at its best, when it's exploring and pushing the envelope, testing radically new and expensive hardware, and inspiring all mankind, because it's painfully obvious the laws of economics just don't allow that to happen in the private sector. I consider myself a "frontier type," and would gladly accept the challenge of living in and exploiting space, the moon, Mars, or elsewhere; but at the same time I have no illusions that it will happen in any vehicle that isn't based on thoroughly tested NASA designs, and on a body or region of space not at least partly explored by NASA astronauts.

"Most people who actively want to get large numbers of people into space aren't modern liberals."

One would never know by reading space-themed hard SF. The overwhelming majority of writers in the genre I've ever read are socialist utopians in some way or another, with maybe Larry Niven and Robert Heinlein comprising the libertarian contingent. How is it such work continues to inspire generation after generation of space advocates if they're all libertarians? Why do Arthur C. Clarke's visions of huge government installations and gigantic NASA missions still inspire as many, if not more people than Heinlein's disjointed tales of privateering? Why does Kim Stanley Robinson's operatic, utopian socialist Mars trilogy command far more attention and respect than Gregory Benford's entrepreneurial Martian Race, which the Mars Society all but fawns over because it mentions Zubrin? I submit that liberals dream bigger dreams than libertarians, are more imaginative and more curious, more creative, and ultimately more productive as a result. So this is what I think will happen: "big government" will get us there, mainly libertarians will figure out how to survive, and then liberals will grow the knowledge into gleaming cities the likes of which have never been seen.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 03:26 PM

Post a comment