MOVABLE TYPE : TEMPLATE

Pelosi Question

Is she (and Harry Reid) so stupid and partisan that she imagines that after that press conference last night, that she opened up by blaming George Bush and the Republicans for the mess, that she was going to get bi-partisan support for the bailout today?

That was a rhetorical question, of course.

[Update about 3:25 PM EDT]

Note that I didn't post this with the knowledge that the bill would fail, or that it would fail for exactly that reason. It was just a thought that I had last night while listening to her presser that I didn't get around to blogging until this afternoon. But only an idiot would have thought that this wouldn't have a negative effect on the proceedings. That's our Nancy, third in line for the presidency.

[Update late afternoon]

Roger Kimball explains how we got here, and who caused it. Don't expect to hear it from CBSNBCABCCNN. Or NYT.

[Evening update]

David Bernstein has further thoughts:

Speaker Pelosi's speech before the House today was remarkable, but not in a good way. She was trying to round up votes for a bailout package that shes claims to believe is essential for the stability of the American economy. She can't, and doesn't want to, pass the bill without a substantial number of Republican votes. So what does she do? You would think she would say, "let's pass this emergency measure now, in the best interests of the country, and talk about who is to blame later." Instead, Pelosi began her speech with a highly partisan tirade against "Bush" and "Republican" economic policies, which were allegedly to blame for this situation. She focused on an attack on the growth of federal deficits, which clearly are at best tangential to the current crisis. That, to me, is the sort of irresponsible thing you do when (a) you're not claiming there is a vast emergency; and (b) you are in the minority, and not claiming to exercise leadership. [Commenters point out that Republican Housemember were acting equally irresponsibly to the extent they rose to Pelosi's bait and voted against the bailout out of pique at Pelosi. True. But the Speaker of the House is a leader, not just a random member of the House, and her actions inevitably and justifiably get more scrutiny than those of her colleagues.]

That's right. Of course, the problem is that she doesn't see herself as the leader of the House, or a leader of the country. She sees herself as a leader of the Democrat Party, first and foremost, and it shows in her every action.

I sure wish that the historically low approval rating of Congress would translate into a new job title for her in a few weeks.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:58 AM

What Wasn't Discussed On Friday Night

Shubber Ali noticed an omission, that surprises neither of us.

As I continue to point out, space isn't important. Unless it somehow gets kids to study their math and science.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AM

"Slippery Slope To Socialism"

According to Congressmen Hensarling.

Yes, it's one that we started sliding down over seventy years ago. Unfortunately, though, many of his colleagues (including many in the media) see that as a feature, not a bug. As does at least one of the presidential candidates.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:56 AM

A Tale Of Two Candidates

Mark Hemingway notes the ongoing double standard of the press:

Not that these things are to be excused out of hand, but Palin bends zoning rules -- which I'm sure are stringent and a high stakes matter in Wasilla, Alaska -- and gets a free facial. Obama gets a freakin' house with help from someone indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, extortion and corrupt solicitation; has someone raising money for his campaign with well-publicized ties to organized crime; and the Illinois attorney general is currently looking into how Obama earmarked $100,000 for a former campaign volunteer who never spent the money for its intended purpose -- and yet, I don't see too many "investigations" decrying Obama's transparently false claims he practices a "new" kind of politics.

I guess that my thesis is going to be tested. We're seeing exactly the same behavior from the Fourth Estate regarding the Democrat candidate as we saw in 1992--completely ignoring the candidate's unsavory history, and hoping that no one else exposes it, while acting as an adjunct part of his campaign in maintaining the anti-Republican narrative. Will they get away with it again?

We'll see if the blogosphere can make a difference this time.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Well, now we know what a community organizer does. He strong arms banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.

And he has the audacity of hope that the media won't call him on his hypocrisy in blaming George Bush and the Republicans, and "deregulation" for the current crisis. Unfortunately, his audacity seems to be justified.

Someone should put together an ad, and ask which regulatory agency should have reined in organizer Obama.

[Update mid morning]

Victor Davis Hanson has more on the media double standards:

As I recall Raines was the one who, following the Enron scandals, gave public lectures about corporate responsibility and CEO honesty. And as one begins to read about Raines, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, and Leland Brendsel at Freddie Mac, one begins to understand their modus operandi. Freddie and Fannie were landing pads for former Democratic insiders, who milked the agencies for millions in bonuses as they covered their tracks by donations to Congressional candiates and pseudo-racial-populism of helping minorities buy homes with little down. Their careers are every bit as nauseating as anything at Enron -- and yet the press strangely does not go after them in the manner we learned of Ken Lay's deceit. God help us all.

It goes beyond nauseating. It makes me incandescently angry.

[Early afternoon update[

Geraghty has some related thoughts on the Missouri issue:

Think about it, the local television station summarized the story on their web site, "The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign," and it seems no one at the station blinked; there was nothing in the report that indicated that this might be controversial.

I hate to be glum heading into October, but to a certain extent, an electorate gets the leaders it deserves. If the journalism institutions in a given area nod and smile as they're given information like this -- if it never crosses their mind to object -- then the Fourth Estate, for all extents and purposes, ceases to exist. When Ben Franklin responded to the query about the government that would manage the young nation, "A Republic, if you can keep it," moments like this make you wonder if we're in the process of losing it.

These "reporters" are a product of their environment--public schools and (often) schools of journalism. Is the problem that they don't understand the Bill of Rights, or is it that they don't care about it, if it gets in the way of their preferred candidate? Do they not understand that it is precisely the right being potentially violated here that allows them the freedom to pursue their supposed profession? Either way, it is very dismaying.

"First, they came for the McCain supporters, and I did nothing, because I was not a McCain supporter."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 AM

More SpaceX Thoughts

Jeff Foust has a piece on yesterday's successful launch of the Falcon 1, and contrasts it with the successful landing of the first Chinese EVA mission:

SpaceX is moving on to launching real satellites, starting with RazakSAT, a Malaysian remote sensing satellite scheduled for launch on a Falcon 1 early next year; the first Falcon 9 launch is now planned for the second quarter of 2009. "We look forward to doing a lot of Falcon 1 launches and a lot of Falcon 9 launches and continuously improving until the point where we're the world's leading provider of space launch," Musk said.

Sunday's launch was not the only space milestone in the last week. On Thursday China launched its third manned mission, Shenzhou 7, on a 68-hour mission that featured the first Chinese spacewalk. The launch, EVA, and landing all captured headlines around the world, and has generated far more attention than the SpaceX launch likely will.

In the long run, though, it may be the SpaceX launch that is more influential. China is following the same path forged nearly five decades ago by the United States and the former Soviet Union: a government-run human spaceflight program that is as much for national prestige as for anything else. Several other countries, including India, Europe, and Japan, may follow in the next decade and beyond. It's a tried-and-true paradigm, but one that has done little to date to open space for new applications and new audiences.

SpaceX, and other NewSpace ventures like it, carry the promise of dramatically changing the space industry with low-cost orbital and suborbital launch options that open up new and potentially lucrative new markets. That promise, though, has remained just that--a promise, not a reality--since SpaceShipOne won the Ansari X Prize four years ago. Sunday's launch was perhaps the biggest milestone since then in demonstrating what NewSpace can offer.

Clark Lindsey has a lot of links to other commentary.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 AM

September 28, 2008
Here's The Kind Of Ad Campaign

...that John McCain should have kicked off on Friday by properly responding to Senator Obama's lies and demagoguery on the financial crisis. It's exactly what Fred Thompson would have done, but I fear that out of a misplaced sense of collegiality, McCain won't do it.

The problem is, that in his heart, McCain doesn't really believe in free markets, any more than his opponents do. He has an emotional stake in "honor" and "service" over profit, and it makes it tough for him (as Glenn said) to go for the jugular against the corrupt rent seekers and collectivists in Washington, of both parties. Instead, he placidly and pallidly aims for the capillary.

He really needs to read this. As he notes, the problem isn't capitalism. It's politicians.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 PM

The Latest In Libel Tourism

You don't have to go overseas any more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:31 PM

Congratulations To SpaceX

Apparently, the fourth time was the charm. More thoughts later.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:20 PM

Debate Thoughts

My brief take: Senator Obama won, because he didn't lose. Senator McCain had many, many missed opportunities to hammer him and show him for the fraud that he is.

I also think that Senator Obama did as well as he possibly could have, given his temperament, past actions and positions. But Senator McCain could (and should) have done much better, and if he had, it could have been a knockout, or at least a major blow. I'm glad that there are two more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AM

More Cost-Plus Contracting Thoughts

In comments at the previous post on this subject, Karl Hallowell comments:

It's not government's job to suck up risk for a contractor. As I see it, if contractors really were giving their best cost estimates, then they're regularly overestimate prices not consistently underestimate them.

The other commenters who seem to think that designing a brand new UAV, or the first successful hit to kill missile (SRHIT/ERINT/PAC-3, not the dead end HOE), or an autonomous helicopter (all things I've been heavily involved with) is something that can and should be done on a fixed-price contract (after all, one bridge is like any other, right?) . . . it can maybe be done, but only if you're willing to let system development take a lot longer.

I don't know who posted this, but it's unrealistic.

Let's give an example of how the real world works in salvaging ships on the high seas:

Salvage work has long been viewed as a form of legal piracy. The insurers of a disabled ship with valuable cargo will offer from 10 to 70 percent of the value of the ship and its cargo to anyone who can save it. If the salvage effort fails, they don't pay a dime. It's a risky business: As ships have gotten bigger and cargo more valuable, the expertise and resources required to mount a salvage effort have steadily increased. When a job went bad in 2004, Titan ended up with little more than the ship's bell as a souvenir. Around the company's headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, it's known as the $11.6 million bell.

Exactly the scenario where it is claimed that fixed price contracts can't work. Huge risk, lots of uncertainty, time pressure. A similar example is oil well firefighters. As I see it, there's almost no circumstances when government needs to help the contractor with risk. The money, paid when the job is done right, does that. If it's not enough, then nobody takes the contract. Simple as that.

Yes. The reason that cost-plus contracts are preferred by government is that government, by its nature, has an aversion to profit. It's the same sort of economic ignorance that drives things like idiotic "anti-gouging" laws, and it results in the same false economy for the citizens and taxpayers.

The problem isn't that companies are unwilling to bid fixed price on high-tech ventures. The problem is that, in order to do so, they have to build enough profit into the bid to make it worth the risk. But the government views any profit over the standard one in cost-plus contracts (generally less than ten percent) as "obscene," and to allow a company to make more profit than that from a taxpayer-funded project is a "ripoff." So instead, they cap the profit, and reimburse costs, while also having to put into place an onerous oversight process, in terms of cost accounting and periodic customer reviews, that dramatically increases cost to the taxpayer, probably far beyond what they would be if they simply let it out fixed price and ignored the profit. I would argue that instead of the current model of cost-plus, lowest bidder, an acceptance of bid based on the technical merits of the proposal, history and quality of the bidding team, even if the bid cost is higher, will ultimately result in lower costs to the government (and taxpayer).

As I understand it, this is the battle that XCOR (hardly a risk-averse company, at least from a business standpoint) has been waging with NASA for years. XCOR wants to bid fixed price, and accept the risk (and the profits if they can hit their internal cost targets), while NASA wants them to be a cost-plus contractor, with all of the attendant increases in costs, and changes in corporate culture implied by that status.

This is the debate that will have to occur if John McCain wants to make any headway in his stated desire Friday night to get rid of cost-plus contracts. Unfortunately, he's not in a very good philosophical position to argue his case, because he's one of those economic simpletons in Washington who think that making money is ignoble, and that profits are evil, particularly when they're so high as to be "obscene."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:34 AM

Probably Just Scurvy

So, what is the cargo of this Iranian ship headed for Somalia?

Somali pirates suffered skin burns, lost hair and fell gravely ill "within days" of boarding the MV Iran Deyanat. Some of them died...

...This was also confirmed by Hassan Allore Osman, minister of minerals and oil in Puntland, an autonomous region of Somalia.

He headed a delegation sent to Eyl when news of the toxic cargo and illnesses surfaced.

He told one news publication, The Long War Journal, that during the six days he had negotiated with the pirates, a number of them had become sick and died.

"That ship is unusual," he was quoted as saying. "It is not carrying a normal shipment."

The pirates did reveal that they had tried to inspect the ship's cargo containers when some of them fell sick -- but the containers were locked.

Osman's delegation spoke to the ship's captain and its engineer by cellphone, demanding to know more about the cargo.

Initially it was claimed the cargo contained "crude oil"; later it was said to be "minerals".

And Mwangura has added: "Our sources say it contains chemicals, dangerous chemicals."

The symptoms described could be possibly caused by chemical weapons, but the pirates claimed that they didn't open the locked holds (though the holds could have leaked as well). But the symptoms also match radiation poisoning.

But why would the Iranians be shipping WMD of any kind to Somalia? For transhipment elsewhere overland? And if it is radioactive, is it the material for a nuclear weapon, or a dirty bomb?

It will be ironic if it turns out that pirates caught what the CIA didn't (assuming, of course, that they haven't been tracking it).

[Late afternoon update]

Marlon McAvoy emails:

'm a Radiation Protection tech at ORNL. Was formerly a member of the DOE's RAP (Radiological Assistance Program) team, originally tasked and trained mostly for transport incidences, but which was reprioritized after 9-11. Just wanted to offer an observation, which might be old news to you two science geeks.
Skin burns were also reported in this incident. These are normally more associated with beta than the far more penetrating gamma radiation, but there's no way these guys could have gotten beta burns without close exposure to actual, unshielded radioactive material. Gamma can certainly burn the skin, but in which case the victim has sustained an enormous dose and will absolutely die from it, unless the exposure was tightly collimated over a small area.

So, my guess, this seems much more likely to be of chemical rather than radiological origin. But if multiple guys did receive 500+ rem (Roentgen equivalent man) of gamma radiation, our spooks will have no difficulty determining it. We have civilian instrument packages that can map minute fluctuations in background radiation levels; a poorly shielded gamma WMD would look like a magnesium flare to whatever is used by the intelligence community.

Whether they can or should let us civvies know is, of course, another question.

It is indeed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:18 AM

Fourth Time's The Charm?

There's another Falcon launch attempt scheduled tonight, 4-9 PM PDT. Here's hoping.

SpaceX will be webcasting, as usual. Spaceflight Now will be covering it as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:03 AM

September 27, 2008
What A Comeback

Wow.

I'd kind of given up on the Wolverines in the first half. Their defense was doing a great job, but they had to, because every time they stopped the Badgers, the offense gave it back to them.

But it looks like they're going to win a big comeback, from being down 19-0 at the half, to a 27-19 win. Four straight unanswered touchdowns, and they saved a score in the last three minutes with a fumble recovery inside their own red zone. It's going to be tough for Wisconsin to come back--they need eight points with less than two minutes remaining. Maybe there's some hope for the season after all.

[Update after the game]

They took it down to the wire. Wisconsin scored another touchdown, but missed the two-point conversion needed to tie, and then put the on-side kick out of bounds, so Michigan squeaked it out. Regardless, it's still the biggest comeback in school history I think (or at least in the top five) in the 500th game in the Big House, and a good way to kick off the Big Ten season with a new head coach.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:08 PM

If Only (Part Two)

Andrew Sullivan's dementia is now apparently affecting his hearing.

I wish that he actually had said "horsesh!t." There is never a shortage of worthy opportunities when The One speaks.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:10 AM

Death Of A Film Legend

RIP, Paul Newman.

You can't live a life much more full than he seemed to. And unlike many of his Hollywood colleagues, the one way that he didn't seem to fill it up was with promiscuity and infidelity. It's all too rare that an actor is faithful for decades. Of course, as he noted himself, it probably helps to be married to Joanne Woodward.

I hadn't realized that he was a flier in the Navy in the Pacific. It's always tempting to say that they don't make them like that any more, but I suspect that they still do. A lot of them probably served in Iraq in the last few years, and we'll be hearing from them in the future.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AM

September 26, 2008
Well, That's New

At least the first time I've heard it.

McCain just called for an end to cost-plus contracts in the debate.

I don't know if they can be eliminated, but they should sure be cut way back. But good luck with that.

I have to say that so far, McCain is not doing very well. He's letting Obama get away with a lot of lies and sophistry, calling him on very little of it.

[Update on Saturday afternoon]

I'm pretty sure that this is the first time that cost-plus contracting has come up in a presidential debate. It was really quite bizarre. I can't imagine that it's an issue on which the election will turn, and I suspect that 90%+ of the listeners had no idea what he was talking about. I'm not even sure that I know what he is talking about (in terms of what the basis of his objection is, and what specific examples in his experience prompted this strange utterance). I doubt that it had much to do with NASA, though--I'm sure that he was thinking of Pentagon contracts, where much larger budgets are at stake, and there have been some recent notable expensive procurement failures.

The good thing is that it's clearly something that he takes seriously, and may try to do something about as president. But I suspect that it would require either an overhaul of A109, or at least a major reinterpretation of it by whoever the new SecDef, NASA administrator, and OMB directors are (not to mention GAO). It would constitute an unimaginably major cultural change in the federal procurement community, in a culture that has developed over several decades.

Which is why I first said, "good luck with that."

[Sunday afternoon update]

Based on some comments, I have a follow-up post to this one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 PM

Obama And Gun Rights

Jonathan Gewirtz has some thoughts:

If Obama supported gun rights, many pro-gun people, even Republicans, would support him, because many pro-gun people are single-issue voters on this topic and Obama's opponent has a spotty record on gun rights. (The NRA and pro-gun rights voters have supported pro-gun Democrats in many elections.) Also, if Obama really supported the right to arms, it's likely that many additional Republican, libertarian and independent voters would support him because conservatives and libertarians often interpret a politician's support for the right to arms as a reliable proxy for that politician's support of other individual rights. This point seems especially strong now, since many Republican voters distrust Obama's opponent on free speech, business regulation and other big-govt-vs-individual-rights issues.

So on the one hand we have single-issue pro-gun people opposing Obama on guns, and on the other hand we have people who are primarily Obama partisans, not gun people, arguing that pro-gun people should trust Obama on guns. Who should we believe?

I know who I believe.

I'd also point out that this is one more area (like being post racial, and moderate) where the real Obama is being airbrushed by his supporters to appear to be something he is not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:21 PM

A History Of Thuggery

Patterico has the story:

...the DNC threatened Sinclair Broadcasting's broadcast license over an anti-Kerry documentary called 'Stolen Honor.' Kerry spokesthug Chad Clanton was quoted as saying: 'I think they're going to regret doing this, and they better hope we don't win.' He hastened to add that it wasn't a threat."

Do you Obamaphiles really want these people in charge of the Justice Department? That doesn't scare you just a little bit?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:03 PM

Gas Lines

I keep hearing about shortages and lines in the south. The last time we had gas lines on any major scale was in the seventies, when oil prices were kept artificially low by federal fiat. Is that what's happening here? Are the "anti-gouging" laws keeping prices too low, and discouraging new supply? For instance, if you can't get any more for it in North Carolina than you can in Ohio, where's the incentive to spend the money to ship it in from there?

Can anyone in the areas where the lines are tell me?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:26 PM

Pain

Bill Whittle has some recent experience with it, and resulting thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:44 PM

What Is China Doing In Space?

Who knows?

Judging by this, we can't rely on anything they tell us about their progress.

China's state news agency published a despatch from the country's three latest astronauts describing their first night in space before they had even left Earth.

Including a fauxtograph.

We didn't fake the moon landings, but given this, it wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese attempt it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:11 AM

Anything Is Possible, I Guess

Is Bill Clinton actually concerned about the country?

...we must remember that Clinton is a centrist (like Bush and, even more, McCain). No one knows, perhaps even Obama himself, what Obama is. Maybe, like many of us, Bill Clinton is genuinely worried. He would know, wouldn't he?

People will look back on this year as they did 1972, and wonder how Obama got the nomination, and why the superdelegates didn't do their jobs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AM

So What's Stopping Her?

Nancy Pelosi says that the bailout bill has to pass.

OK, Madame Speaker, if you believe that, if it's such a great idea, then why not pass it? Your party controls the House. There is no filibuster as there is in the Senate. There's nothing the House Republicans can do to stop you. So where is the bill?

Obviously, she just wants keister upholstery in case it doesn't work. She wants to get buy-in from the Republicans so that they can share the blame for the taxpayer ripoff. I don't see why they should give it to her. And I also don't see why this isn't pointed out in news stories like this.

Oh, right.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AM

Voter Fraud?

In Ohio.

You'll be as shocked as I was to learn that ACORN is involved.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:35 AM

September 25, 2008
Beavers (Finally) Defeat Trojans

Sorry, couldn't resist the headline. But it's true.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:51 PM

Barack, Constitution Defender

Not.

Glenn Reynolds has a link roundup.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:35 PM

Haven't We All, At One Time Or Another?

Robert Wagner considered killing Warren Beatty.

Too bad he couldn't work up the nerve. It would have spared humanity from both Ishtar and Bulworth.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:33 PM

You Wouldn't Know It From His Approach

Mike Griffin says that space exploration is crucial to the survival of humanity.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:20 PM

Suing A Scumbag

Jack Murtha is going to be sued for slander. Here's hoping that he loses big. It would be great if he'd actually lose his seat in a few weeks, but that's probably too much to hope for.

And I guess my title libels actual bags of scum. Hope they don't sue.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:18 AM

Assault On Entrepreneurs

Obama's plans would be pretty hard on us.

It's not surprising. He's never displayed any knowledge of, or interest in business. If anything, his attitude (and unfortunately, John McCain's as well) is that there is something ignoble about profits (hence his self-righteous preening about his choice of becoming a community organizer instead of "going to Wall Street").

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:46 AM

Defining Rape Down

Jeeeeez. Hint, ladies. Persuasion is not force.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:41 AM

Say It Ain't So, "O"

Corruption in Chicago? Who could imagine such a thing?

Madigan's office has notified Obama's presidential campaign of the probe, which was launched this week. But Obama's actions in awarding the money are not a focus of the investigation, Smith said.

Questions about the grant, though, come as spending on local pet projects has become an issue in Obama's campaign against John McCain.

Obama and Kenny Smith announced the "Englewood Botanic Garden Project" at a January 2000 news conference at Englewood High School. Obama was in the midst of a failed bid to oust South Side Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress. The garden -- planned near and under L tracks between 59th Place and 62nd Place -- fell outside of Obama's Illinois Senate district but within the congressional district's borders.

Obama vowed to "work tirelessly" to raise $1.1 million to help Smith's organization turn the City of Chicago-owned lot into an oasis of trees and paths. But Obama lost the congressional race, no more money was raised, and today the garden site is a mess of weeds, chunks of concrete and garbage. The only noticeable improvement is a gazebo.

Guess he got too busy running for the next office.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:34 AM

Baikonur

I've never been there, but here are some spectacular pics.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AM

Make Mine Chartreuse

Judging by the comments here, the natives are growing ever more restless at NASA, over the sham PDR they just held:

Is NASA trying to put lipstick on a pig? This one, highly-visible decision on how to report status says more than enough. It is a political gimmick if ever we have seen one. And being an election year, I guess it is de rigeur. How terribly sad...

...I think NASA should get rid of the red category all together, because if anything gets put in that category, it doesn't look good. They might want to get rid of orange also, because that's too close to red. Here is how I think the categories should be arranged.

GREEN
GREEN/GREEN
GREEN/LIGHT GREEN
GREEN/TEAL
GREEN/EMERALD

Now, don't these colors make you feel good?

It kind of reminds me of Tom Ridge's terror alerts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AM

The Continuing Coverup

Clarice Feldman notes that Bill Ayers was a lot more than a "guy in Barack's neighborhood."

How is it possible that Obama in writing two autobiographies could ignore his 13 year-long association with Ayers if he were not purposely trying to hide or downplay it? How is it possible that the media could continue to ignore the CAC story? How is it possible that American voters, who regularly indicate such enormous concern over educational issues, could be so long kept in the dark by the Fourth Estate about the educational project Obama ran into the ground while he aided his revolutionary pals in recruiting Chicago kids to their extreme left wing mission?

It's clear that Obama and his friends, including those in the press, are trying to keep this all bottled up at least until after the election.

Then, I suppose, like the Clinton peccadilloes in Arkansas, this story will be free to unfold, too late to inform the voters.

Except unlike 1992, we have alternate media today.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:55 AM

Joe Biden's Memory

It's so good, that he remembers things that didn't happen:

...I think Joe Biden's constant flights of fancy indicate he's not a terribly precise thinker or speaker, and he's certainly not used to being called out on these, or being corrected. He takes in data and remembers what he wants to remember, not the facts as they actually are.

(More on this list - he keeps insisting that his wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver when the driver in question was sober; he keeps saying he was a coal miner when his grandfather was; he says the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said we're losing the war in Iraq (he said we were "not winning" in Afghanistan)... )

I know we're supposed to be worried about whether Sarah Palin is ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, but I really wonder what kind of diplomatic crises could be triggered by a globetrotting vice president who kept talking about events that didn't happen...

I don't think that Biden's IQ is as high as he thinks it is.

And I agree that this is one gaffe that's really going to hurt him. I expect it will be featured in a lot of McCain ads in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

[Update a few minutes later]

Victor Davis Hanson makes a good point:

In short, the problem is not whether we think the affable Biden's latest slip/goof/outrage is important, but whether we think anything he says any more is important. The next time he tries to offer something serious, from the AIG matter and coal power to campaign ads and Sarah Palin, I think we are at the point where most will smile, ignore him, and think 'That's just Biden being Biden.' He could give the Gettyburg Address tomorrow, and the public wouldn't know whether he wrote it, whether he was going to retract it, whether it was true, or whether he was serious.

I haven't taken Joe Biden seriously in years. Actually, I can't recall a time that I ever did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AM

Let McCain Be McCain

Jen Rubin applies Occam's Razor:

I think those postulating a "McCain panic" theory to explain his campaign suspension don't understand, or they pretend not to understand, John McCain. This is what he does. He elevates matters he considers higher national priorities above politics, which he finds at some level disasteful. Lots of people differ with his priorities, but that's not at issue. If you look back over McCain's career, he does this again and again: campaign finance reform, immigration reform, the surge and now this. He junks his party and the immediate short term political consequences when he thinks there's something else at play. That in large part is what drive his GOP base nuts. And they likely won't be thrilled here.

One can attribute nefarious motive ( "Ah! He's just feigning love of country and putting his political career at risk!") or you can take the more mundane explanation : this is how he operates and what he honestly believes. This performance with Katie Couric is plainly him at his best.

As for Barack Obama, I agree with this take that his initial effort to avoid involvement with brokering a deal didn't come off all that well. ("It's shocking that someone who believes himself ready to lead the free world would so brazenly try to dodge any participation in what could be a defining moment in our history.') What was striking about Obama's comment was his remark that if "the Congressional leadership" needed him, he'd be available. It's an odd way to put it -- he is the leader of his party now and he seemed utterly disinterested in doing anything that involved active problem-solving/deal-making. He does after all have a current job -- in the Senate.

And this time, he's not even voting "present."

It's a sterling example of his general career path--accomplishing little in his current job because he always views it as little more than a rung on the ladder to the next one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:32 AM

September 24, 2008
Well, I'll Bet That Caught Them By Surprise

The McCain campaign just announced that it's suspending the campaign to go back to DC and work on the bailout, and calling for a postponement of Friday night's debate.

That puts the Obama campaign in a tough position. He can't show up on Friday and debate an empty chair, and McCain has just once again demonstrated that there are things more important to him than winning elections. It also demonstrates his record of working on bi-partisan efforts.

It's hard for Obama to do anything but a "me too," which will burnish McCain's leadership credentials as well. This could end up being a very good move, politically, for the McCain camp, which has been off its game ever since the Wall Street panic started. In terms of the polls, though, while it's true that Obama has opened up a gap, interestingly, he didn't seem to take any away from McCain. The gap seems to be a result of recent new McCain supporters going undecided again (probably because of the response of the campaign to the panic). Obama still can't close the deal and get a majority of support.

[Update a while later]

Apparently Senator Obama is willing to go to Oxford and debate an empty chair. If I were the McCain campaign, I'd send Sarah as a replacement.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:36 PM

Getting To The Real Bailout Issues

Iowahawk has an interview with some of the key players.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:12 PM

The Age Of Obamalot

Jeff Goldstein muses on just how deeply the MSM is in the tank for the Dems this year:

This is not hyperbole: a free society relies on a free press to inform. That the mainstream press leans demonstrably left is not the problem in and of itself; the problem arises when that demonstrable bias is given cover as "objective," and when those who believe they are basing their support for a candidate or platform on objective reporting are in effect doing no such thing, but are rather being coaxed, prodded, directed, and manipulated -- in everything from what comes to count as newsworthy to, in cases like these, shoddy reporting (which may or may not be intentional), the effect of which is to leave those who rely on the media literally less informed than had the media reported nothing at all.

A free society cannot run this way. If information is power, those who control the information and its mainstream dissemination are in a position to act as the most important swing vote in any election. That the press has given up, at this late stage (and despite declines in readership and public trust), any serious attempt to report objectively suggests that we are now quite immersed in a battle for the very principles of a democratic republic. Progressives have decided that the ends justify the means -- that lies in the service of greater truths (as defined by their own ideology) are both pragmatic and utilitarian measures to be adopted so that "we" can finally get things "right," and accept government from a permanent political class, a new aristocracy, that will expand the federal government in ways that will protect us from ourselves, in the process, assuring that ever new generations will be reliable upon the good graces of the federal government for their survival.

The new media held promise for fighting back. But the left recognized this immediately and built a counter balance to the MSM fact-checkers -- and, in a perverse expansion of their role as foils, these progressive "netroots" are now responsible for feeding stories to the mainstream press, a further assault on the Enlightenment mandate for the free exchange of ideas, and further proof that progressives are every bit the totalitarians and would be fascists that I have long suggested they must necessarily be, given the philosophical imperatives that underwrite their political philosophy.

As he says, the problem is not the bias per se, but the ongoing denial of it, to us and (perhaps) themselves.

[Update a while later]

Tony Blankley writes about The Man Who Never Was:

...worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."

We'll just have to bypass them. I'm counting on the 527s to do it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:33 AM

September 23, 2008
Another Thing About Biden's Roosevelt Gaffe

Katie Couric didn't call him on it.

So, was she a) being polite, b) in the tank for the Dems and didn't want to point it out or c) didn't even see a problem with anything he said, being as historically ignorant as he is?

I think it's either (b) or (c), which are pretty much mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure which is worse. And I think that (c) is the most likely.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:17 PM

Some (Bad) Space Policy Advice

From Carolyn Porco.

No, we don't need "big" rockets. We need affordable rockets.

[Update a couple minutes later]

The perennial question: why do reporters (even science and technology reporters) think that scientists are a good source for technology policy advice?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:52 PM

We Knew This Was Coming

There are more and more stories appearing in the media with the template that we're a racist nation. This is preparing the groundwork to blame Obama's upcoming loss on the evil right-wing bigots, of both parties. And of course, poor Michelle won't be able to feel proud of America any more.

No, it won't have anything to do with the fact that he's Michael Dukakis with more melanin. It will have nothing to do with the fact that he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and his running mate comes in third, that one needs a scanning tunneling microscope to measure the thickness of his resume, that he sat in the pew of an America-hating bigot for twenty years and had his children baptized by him, that he partnered with an unrepentent domestic terrorist to radicalize Chicago schoolchildren. No, it will be our fault, because we are racist, and don't deserve the blessings of having The One preside over our unworthy nation.

Anyway, here's the latest example, from US News.

[Wednesday morning update]

Jonah Goldberg has related thoughts today:

This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people -- and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.

Similarly, McCain's experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing.

Nope. It's got to be the racism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:33 PM

Tell Them What You Really Think

Christopher Hitchens wonders why Barack Obama is so vapid, hesitant, and gutless:

By the end of that grueling campaign season, a lot of us had got the idea that Dukakis actually wanted to lose--or was at the very least scared of winning. Why do I sometimes get the same idea about Obama? To put it a touch more precisely, what I suspect in his case is that he had no idea of winning this time around. He was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008, and then the enthusiasm of his supporters (and the weird coincidence of a strong John Edwards showing in Iowa) put him at the front of the pack. Yet, having suddenly got the leadership position, he hadn't the faintest idea what to do with it or what to do about it.

I've noted this in the past. Obama wasn't prepared, either mentally or in terms of experience, to be a candidate this time around, and had no expectations of it happening--it was just for practice and name recognition. To repeat, he's like the dog that chases cars, but doesn't know what to do with when when he catches it.

And calling him a "dusky Dukakis" has to sting. Particularly because it's true.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:13 PM

No Launch Tonight

Just got an email from Elon:

The static fire took place on Saturday [20 Sep 2008, CA time], as expected, and no major issues came up. However, after a detailed analysis of data, we decided to replace a component in the 2nd stage engine LOX supply line. There is a good chance we would be ok flying as is, but we are being extremely cautious.

This adds a few extra days to the schedule, so the updated launch window estimate is now Sept 28th through Oct 1st [CA time].

So if they hold to that schedule, the fourth Falcon 1 launch attempt could be early next week.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:34 PM

Send In The Clowns

Have to agree with this:

...reader Stan Brown emails: "I'm watching the Senate hearing and listening to the senators question Paulson, Cox and Bernanke. The markets continue to fall as investors also listen. Clearly, if experience in the Senate leads to the performance we are watching today, experience is seriously overrated. These senators are frightening." I feel that way every time I watch a Senate hearing. Where do we get these people?

The last time a Senator was elected president was almost fifty years ago. There's a reason for that. The only time it will happen this year is that both parties were foolish enough to make one the nominee. It's almost like the process of becoming a senator selects for mediocrity.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:13 AM

Separated At Birth?

I just noted something amusing when I was reading this post about how maybe George Bush really is a fascist (they make a good case), though not Hitler reincarnate.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 AM

The Real History Of America

A very interesting essay by Roderick Long:

There's a popular historical legend that goes like this: Once upon a time (for this is how stories of this kind should begin), back in the 19th century, the United States economy was almost completely unregulated and laissez-faire. But then there arose a movement to subject business to regulatory restraint in the interests of workers and consumers, a movement that culminated in the presidencies of Wilson and the two Roosevelts.

This story comes in both left-wing and right-wing versions, depending on whether the government is seen as heroically rescuing the poor and weak from the rapacious clutches of unrestrained corporate power, or as unfairly imposing burdensome socialistic fetters on peaceful and productive enterprise. But both versions agree on the central narrative: a century of laissez-faire, followed by a flurry of anti-business legislation.

Every part of this story is false.

Observant libertarians have long noted that in general, captains of industry are not capitalists (or to use Jonah Goldberg's (via whom I found his link) more accurate phrase, "free-market economists"--"capitalism" is a Marxist term), and never have been.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AM

This Made Me Laff

Geraghty:

We have been hearing, and will hear, a great deal about Palin's approval/disapproval rating, questions about whether voters think she has the right experience, etc. I wonder if the right question about the Democratic vice presidential candidate -- "Do you think Joe Biden knows what he is saying when he speaks, or does his mouth operate completely independently of any central nervous system?" -- would generate some interesting results.

Joe Biden is the gift that's going to keep giving right up until election day. Thank you, Senator Obama, thank you.

[Update early afternoon]

As I said, the gift that keeps on giving. Senator Biden was for coal, before he was against it. He likes (on odd days of the week, anyway) coal gasification. But with gasbags like him around, we won't have to mine any coal at all.

[Another update]

Man, the hits just keep on coming:

When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, "look, here's what happened."

It was probably one of those steam-powered televisions. And as Jesse Walker notes, "...if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, "Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?"

Maybe he was helping Barack's uncle liberate Auschwitz.

[Mid-afternoon update]

I did not know that. Felix the Cat was the very first television star. As Ed Driscoll notes, they wouldn't have been asking what happened to President Hoover; they would have been asking what happened to Felix.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 AM

The Obama-Ayers Connection

It's finally starting to get some play in the MSM, but only at the Wall Street Journal:

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.

In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Gray Lady to cover it. And unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to a ten-second explanation or sound bite, other than "Barack Obama worked to radicalize Chicago school children." But someone should ask him just what there was to show for the hundred million, since it's the only thing that he's ever actually run (other than, as the Reverend Jesse Jackson amusingly noted, his mouth).

More thoughts over at Hot Air.

[Update a while later]

Dr. Kurtz has more over at NRO:

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama's most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure. And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise. The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama's competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers's continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama. Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers's personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers's profoundly radical efforts. Ayers's terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.

"Most important"? More like "only," unless one counts running his campaign (which is really done by Axelrod).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AM

September 22, 2008
J-Vator? Probably Not

Leo Lewis notes that boosters at the Japan Space Elevator Association are psyched. Unfortunately, material science problems are still a challenge, albeit one that has potential to be solved quickly (say in the next 10-30 years) and economically--but it's still only potential at this point. Kevlar is still king of industrial cabling, body armor, etc. so super strong materials will be a laboratory curiosity for some years before they will be available for Earthbound uses, much less space uses.

One oddity: electric power delivered by the elevator. That would be an electric line that would stretch around the world. Probably better to stick with power beaming by laser. With solar energy very popular, that should not have any laugh test to pass. Another oddity. They stick with the far counterweight popularized by Edwards; this may be OK for initial deployment, but once mass is coming up the cable, the counterweight should be closer and heavier and the cable shorter.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 10:47 AM

Time To Leave The Guy

I noted the other day that the Democrat Party and American Jews are like a wife beater and the wife. Roger Simon says it's time to take the kids and move out.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:15 AM

Who Smeared Sarah Palin?

Rusty Shackleford has been doing a lot of research. If this can be traced to the Obama campaign, the FEC should be interested. But they probably won't be. And neither will the MSM.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Dan Riehl has more. And like roaches fleeing when the lights come on, the perps have pulled down the sites. Not in time, though--they've been cached.

You know, this could be a really big story for an enterprising investigative reporter at someplace like the New York Times. Unfortunately, when it comes to Barack Obama, such creatures don't seem to exist.

[Update mid morning]

Ace has more:

Tomorrow they will claim this was all inadvertent, etc. They'll say they did produce the ad, and sent it to Winner and Associates to, um, focus-group or something, then decided not to run it, but that dirty Winner family and its employees attempted to get it to go viral without their authorization.

Whatever.

If this is all so innocent, why are the videos being yanked even as we speak?

Just about one hour after the post went up, "cnwinner," "eswinner" and the rest of the winner gang are yanking their videos.

Almost as if... I don't know, some kind of major campaign organization was patrolling the internet 24/7.

Can we believe "cnwinner," "eswinner," and etc. just all suddenly were monitoring the internet and decided to take their videos down simultaneously?

No, we cannot.

Can we believe Winner & Associates scours the internet 24 hours a day for derogatory stories about them?

No, we cannot.

But -- can we believe the Obama campaign has people watching the internet 24/7 and just sent out the call to Winner & Associates to bury the evidence?

Yes we can, friends.

Yes we can, even if the Gray Lady can't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:44 AM

Andrew Cuomo?

Andrew Cuomo?!

Let's hope that this is just an empty campaign promise to get into the White House, and that he'll come to his senses once he's actually elected.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:23 AM

September 21, 2008
The Vivisection Of A Lunatic

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

For those in the know, it's Mark Morford...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:18 PM

Thoughts On Wisdom

And whether Sarah Palin or Barack Obama have it, from Victor Davis Hanson:

For most of you readers, all this is trite and self-evident. But apparently not for hundreds in politics, the media, the universities, Hollywood, and the foundations who seem to think that a fumbling nervous Obama in interviews, who grasps for a word and utters vacuous platitudes is "really" contemplative, like his Harvard Law professors; but when a Sarah Palin seems nervous under scrutiny from a pseudo-professorial, glasses-on-the-lower-nose Charlie Gibson, she is clearly an empty head with an Idaho BA.

A Ronald Reagan knew more about human nature, and thus what drives the Soviet Union than did all the Ivy-League Soviet specialists that surrounded Jimmy Carter-much less the Sally Quins and Maureen Dowds of that age. We in America, unlike the Europeans, know this intuitively, grasp that a Harry Truman figured out the Russian communists far better than did the Harvard-educated aristocrat FDR.

And the inevitable comparisons between the top of the Democrat ticket and bottom of the Republican one continue, which is part of the genius in picking her on McCain's part.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:16 PM

I Did Not Know That

I just discovered, via the latest Carnival of Space, that Bruce Cordell and some other folks have started a web-site/blog devoted to space and space colonization, called Twenty-First Century Waves.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:56 PM

Four Questions

Newt Gingrich says not so fast to Paulson's bailout plan. I particularly agree with this:

Four reform steps will have capital flowing with no government bureaucracy and no taxpayer burden.

First, suspend the mark-to-market rule which is insanely driving companies to unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks (an arbitrary number and a warning of the rule by bureaucrats which is coming under the Paulson plan), the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market.

Second, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy Mac. It failed with Fannie Mae. It failed with Bear Stearns. It failed with Lehman Brothers. It failed with AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. I spent three days this week in Silicon Valley. Everyone agreed Sarbanes-Oxley was crippling the economy. One firm told me they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. Its Sarbanes-Oxley's $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.

Third, match our competitors in China and Singapore by going to a zero capital gains tax. Private capital will flood into Wall Street with zero capital gains and it will come at no cost to the taxpayer. Even if you believe in a static analytical model in which lower capital gains taxes mean lower revenues for the Treasury, a zero capital gains tax costs much less than the Paulson plan. And if you believe in a historic model (as I do), a zero capital gains tax would lead to a dramatic increase in federal revenue through a larger, more competitive and more prosperous economy.

Fourth, immediately pass an "all of the above" energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income the American economy would boom and government revenues would grow.

Also, SOX was the disastrous result of the last time Congress decided that it had to "do something."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:28 PM

If Only

The latest lie from the Obama campaign:

He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.

The amusing thing is that he says it as though it would be a bad thing. I'd a lot rather have my retirement funds in the market (which is where most of them are) than in a demographically collapsing Ponzi scheme.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PM

The Last Of The Neanderthals

Here's an interesting piece on the latest research, at National Geographic:

"Most Neanderthals and modern humans probably lived most of their lives without seeing each other," he said, carefully choosing his words. "The way I imagine it is that occasionally in these border areas, some of these guys would see each other at a distance...but I think the most likely thing is that they excluded each other from the landscape. Not just avoided, but excluded. We know from recent research on hunter-gatherers that they are much less peaceful than generally believed."

"Sometimes I just turn out the lights in here and think what it must have been like for them."

Nasty, brutish, short.

And many people have no idea how close we are to returning to those days, should things take a wrong turn.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:07 PM

Try, Try Again

There's a new Falcon on the launch pad (not a permalink). Here's hoping for a successful flight this week.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:55 AM

You Say You Want A Revolution?

Well, you know...

I love the pith of Gerard van der Leun's comment at Connecticut Yankee:

Given the Huffpos lack of training, weapons, ammunition, and general knowledge of when to duck, I say bring it on.

It will be a short revolution but a merry one for those left standing.

Yes, the idiot leftists always forget that (at least for now) we still have most of the guns. Which is why they hate the Second Amendment so much.

Well, there is at least one exception. But if Joe Biden shoots off his Beretta with the same uncontrolled abandon with which he shoots off his mouth, we don't have much to worry about.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:39 AM

A Blast From The Past

Ben Bova has a piece in the Naples News that could have been written thirty years ago. In fact, it's exactly like stuff that he (and I) wrote thirty years ago. The only difference is that I have experienced the past thirty years, whereas he seems to be stuck in a seventies time warp, and I've gotten a lot more sober about the prospects for a lot of the orbital activities that were always just around the corner, and probably always will be:

An orbital habitat needn't be a retirement center, though. Space offers some interesting advantages for manufacturing metal alloys, pharmaceuticals, electronics components and other products. For example, in zero-gravity it's much easier to mix liquids.

Think of mixing a salad dressing. On Earth, no matter how hard you stir, the heavier elements sink to the bottom of the bowl. In zero G there are no heavier elements: they're all weightless. And you don't even need a bowl! Liquids form spherical shapes, whether they're droplets of water or industrial-sized balls of molten metals.

Metallurgists have predicted that it should be possible in orbit to produce steel alloys that are much stronger, yet much lighter, than any alloys produced on Earth. This is because the molten elements can mix much more thoroughly, and gaseous impurities in the mix can percolate out and into space.

Imagine automobiles built of orbital steel. They'd be much stronger than ordinary cars, yet lighter and more fuel-efficient. There's a market to aim for.

Moreover, in space you get energy practically for free. Sunlight can be focused with mirrors to produce furnace-hot temperatures. Or electricity, from solarvoltaic cells. Without spending a penny for fuel.

The clean, "containerless" environment of orbital space could allow production of ultrapure pharmaceuticals and electronics components, among other things.

Orbital facilities, then, would probably consist of zero-G sections where manufacturing work is done, and low-G areas where people live.

There would also be a good deal of scientific research done in orbital facilities. For one thing, an orbiting habitat would be an ideal place to conduct long-term studies of how the human body reacts to prolonged living in low gravity. Industrial researchers will seek new ways to utilize the low gravity, clean environment and free energy to produce new products, preferably products that cannot be manufactured on Earth, with its heavy gravity, germ-laden environment and high energy costs.

Cars made of "orbital steel"?

Please.

But I guess there's always a fresh market for this kind of overhyped boosterism. I think that it actively hurts the cause of space activism, because people in the know know how unrealistic a lot of it is, and it just hurts the credibility of proponents like Ben Bova.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:29 AM

Good Old Reliable

As is often the case, I agree with Glenn. They can have my land line when they pull the phone from my cold dead fingers.

Cells are simply not reliable enough for me to use them for everything, though I put up with it on a trip (when we were with T-Mobile, my cell phone didn't even work in the house). I wonder how many kids who have grown up with cell phones for voice and texting take their idiosyncrasies and unreliability for granted, because they don't have that much experience with a reliable and clean line? Plus, during the hurricanes, when all else failed, including power, cell service was out, but I always had phone service plus DSL on my land line. It allowed me to stay on line, by using a laptop and a voltage inverter plugged into the car.

The technology may continue to improve to the point at which I no longer feel the need for a land line, but we're nowhere near it yet, in my opinion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:36 AM

An Interesting Theory

Is the ISS itself causing the Soyuz entry failures?

...the Soyuz used to fly long duration missions to the space station flawlessly for years. So what changed in the last two flights? Some bad parts out of the same lot?

A unique confluence of circumstances being investigated appears to be at fault. The space station has grown in size considerably since those first early long duration flights that the Soyuz so flawlessly serviced. It is a bit larger now with all the new modules the Emperor has sent aloft for our friends. As such it makes quite a target for training gangly military officers on ground based radars around the world. It has also become quite a source of electromagnetic energy itself, with all the radios and such from all the international partners blasting their messages back to the homelands.

Did you hear the recent news about cell phones in your pocket causing your little reproductive agents to slow down or become ineffective? The same thing may be at work when the cacophony of EMI on the space station envelops the Soyuz separation pyros and causes them to become inert.

If true, it raises some interesting issues. Is there something intrinsic in the Soyuz design, or pyro design, that causes this effect? Or is it a problem for pyros on any lifeboat that we put up there? Do they need to make it possible to change them out on orbit (if this capability isn't already there), and keep them in a shielded box until they have to go home? Of course, this would slow things down in an emergency, if they had to get away immediately.

The problem of a space station lifeboat is a much tougher one than people realize (which is why I've always opposed it, at least if such a thing is defined as a device that gets you all the way to earth if there's a problem on the station). You simply can't trust hardware that has been sitting dormant for months in the space environment to work reliably when you need it to (at least not at our current level of experience with space operations).

This is also the reason that we couldn't use an Orbiter for a lifeboat, even if we had enough of them that taking one out of the processing flow wouldn't have a severe impact on turnaround times. We can't know for sure if it can survive six months on orbit, even with power and support from the ISS, and have the reliability needed to safely come home.

That's why I've always advocated a robust space transportation infrastructure that is always being exercised (e.g., multiple co-orbiting facilities with different purposes, and space tugs/crew modules for transit from one to the other). It provides redundancy, and reliability, and obviates the need to abandon a single space station to take people all the way back to earth in the event of a problem.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:32 AM

Bigotry

What is it with the left and its hatred of cowboys?

And they wonder why they can't pull a majority of the vote.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AM

September 20, 2008
The New Hollywood Blacklist

Here's an interesting extended look at the secret lives of conservatives in tinsel town:

Zucker gave Farley the script and, concerned that Farley's agent would advise him against accepting the role because of the film's politics, told the actor not to show it to anyone. Farley, best known for his recurring role in a series of Hertz commercials, read the script and called back the next day to accept.

When he met Zucker and Sokoloff on the set as shooting on the film began, he told them that he, too, had long considered himself a conservative. "I couldn't believe it," says Sokoloff. "We were afraid that he would not want to be involved in something that was so directly taking on the left and that he would not want to play the Michael Moore character."

Farley told me this story during a break in filming at the Daniel Webster Elementary School in Pasadena, last April, with Steve McEveety, the film's producer, listening in.

"I thought that the minute we started talking about politics that would be the end," Farley recalls. "There was this dance that we did--a dance familiar to conservative actors in Hollywood. Lots of actors have done it."

"All three of you," said McEveety.

"Yeah, all three of us."

...On one of the days I was on set, McEveety had invited Vivendi Entertainment president Tom O'Malley to meet Zucker. Vivendi had just agreed to distribute the film and had promised wide release--news that had the cast and crew of An American Carol in particularly good spirits.

O'Malley and Zucker chatted about the fact that O'Malley is the nephew of Candid Camera's Tom O'Malley and that they are both from the Midwest, among other things. Zucker thanked him for picking up the movie, which will be one of the first for Vivendi's new distribution arm. O'Malley told Zucker that he was particularly interested in this film in part because he, too, leans right.

Such revelations are common occurrences at the periodic meetings of the secret society of Hollywood conservatives known as the "Friends of Abe." The group, with no official membership list and no formal mission, has been meeting under the leadership of Gary Sinise (CSI New York, Forrest Gump) for four years. Zucker had spent a year working on a film with Christopher McDonald without learning anything about his politics. Shortly after the film wrapped, he ran into McDonald, best known as Shooter McGavin from Adam Sandler's Happy Gilmore, at one of these informal meetings.

"It's almost like people who are gay, show up at the baths and say, 'Oh, I didn't know you were gay!' " Zucker says...

Let's hope that they can come out of the closet some day.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AM

Thuggery

Here's the full story of how Sarah Palin was forced out of the anti-Ahmadinejad rally:

Make no mistake that this was an Obama op and that it was Obama operatives directing the screenplay. Upon news of Palin's invitation, it was assured that the event would garner a higher level of attention than it already commanded. And the images and footage of Palin speaking in protest (popular protest, it should be added) of Iran and the messianic Ahmadinejad upon the backdrop of the common perception of Obama's weakness in foreign policy and national security simply could not stand. Furthermore, it would have provided endless campaign fodder with Palin shown standing against the world's foremost state sponsor of international terrorism amid the audio-visual bites of Obama stating he would hold talks with Iran without preconditions. The effects would potentially be more than just stinging.

It had to be derailed at all costs. And the first step in the mission was to characterize it as a politicized event. Getting Clinton to step away from the invitation was easy enough - her own vanity played against her as noted above. Having her spokesmen give a 'politicizing' reason for withdrawing from the rally planted the seed. And the trap was laid expertly.

All that remained was Palin and the media hyper-focus on her. If she remained, the meme of a 'politicization' of an otherwise honorable event would be hung around her neck - and Malcolm Hoenlein's - like an albatross. Yet she refused to rescind her acceptance as Hillary Clinton had.

Here's where it gets a bit dirty. The Obama campaign could not publicly cajole her to stay away, yet they needed her away. Desperately. So the pressure was then applied to Malcolm Hoenlein and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.

Meryl Yourish is appropriately disgusted:

The thing that I hate the most about this? It won't stop my liberal Jewish friends from voting Democrat in any way. It won't even make them think twice about the tactics used by the Democrats. And it's far, far worse than Soccer Dad wrote about the other day. CBS didn't have the story about Jewish organizations having their tax-exempt status revoked for having Palin speak at the rally.

That's not a political party pressuring groups to do something. That's outright break-your-kneecap, Mafia-style blackmail threats.

In fact, those are precisely the kinds of tactics that the Jewish groups will be protesting on Monday. We just never expected them from the Democrats.

You should have. They've been doing it for decades. Many American Jews seem to have the same relationship with the Democrats as a woman with a wife beater that she keeps going back to.

And I wonder why the media lets them continue to promulgate the absurd notion that if Hillary! had attended by herself, it would have been non-partisan, but that if she shared the stage with Sarah, that would make it partisan.

Well, actually I don't.

[Late morning update]

Speaking of thuggery, Iowahawk has the latest on the Obama voter outreach program.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AM

John McCain's Secret Weapon

Lefty trolls.

And the amusing thing is that even when you tell them this, they don't believe it, and keep doing it anyway.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:26 AM

September 19, 2008
"Welcome To History"

Jim Manzi has a good, albeit depressing, description of the financial crisis and its likely outcomes.

[Saturday morning update]

One bit in the piece that I found amusing (and a little depressing):

[They] Promulgated a temporary ban on naked shortselling for about 800 financial stocks (in related news, the new recommended medical practice when you discover that you have a fever is to smash the thermometer against the wall, since this makes the problem go away).

Yes, I don't think this was necessary, and it will probably have bad consequences.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:30 PM

The Undefended City

This NRO thing seems to be becoming a regular thing for Bill Whittle. He has some thoughts on confidence in our own culture and nation in the face of those who think it unworthy of defense or preservation:

...most of what I learned about Vietnam I learned from men like Oliver Stone. This self-loathing narcissist has repeatedly tried to inculcate in me a sense of despair and outrage at my own government, my own culture, my own people and ultimately myself. He tried to convince me -- and he is a skillfull man -- that my own government murdered my own President for political gain. I am told daily in those darkened temples that rogue CIA elements run a puppet government, that the real threat to the nation comes from the generals that defend it, or from the businessmen that provide the prosperity we take for granted.

I sit with others in darkened rooms, watching films like Redacted, Stop-Loss, and In the Valley of Elah, and see our brave young soldiers depicted as murderers, rapists, broken psychotics or ignorant dupes -visions foisted upon me by bitter and isolated millionaires such as Brian de Palma and Paul Haggis and all the rest.

I've been told this story in some form or another, every day of every week of the past 30 years of my life. It wasn't always so.

But it is certainly so today. And standing against all this hypnotic power -- the power of the mythmakers in Hollywood, the power of the information peddlers in the media, the corrosive power of America-hating professors on every campus in America... against all that we find an old warrior -- a paladin if ever there was one -- an old, beat-up warhorse standing up in defense of his city one last time. And beside him: a wonder. A common person... just a regular mom who goes to work, does a difficult job with intelligence and energy and grace and every-day competence and then puts it away to go home and have dinner with the family.

Against all of that stand these two.

No wonder they must be destroyed. Because -- Sarah Palin especially -- presents a mortal threat to these people who have determined over cocktails who the next President should be and who now clearly mean to grind into metal shards the transaxle of their credibility in order to get the result they must have. Truly, they are before our eyes destroying the machine they have built in order to get their victory.

We'll see.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:18 PM

Getting Better

The latest installment of "Better All The Time" is up at The Speculist. It's all pretty good (I found sensation in a bionic arm without sensors fascinating), but I liked this:

Hey, did you notice? The world didn't end! We get so used to the world not ending that sometimes we take it for granted. But in honor of our not being sucked into a giant black hole or blasted back in time to when our entire universe was nothing but diffuse particles, the Times Online has compiled a list of 30 other time the world didn't end.

If you like that sort of list, keep this in mind: those thirty days are just a tiny, tiny subset of the total number of days in which the world has not ended. In fact, we are (and I hope I don't jinx it or anything by pointing this out) batting a perfect 1000 on that score.

Yeah, every day, they tell us the world won't end, and it doesn't until one day it does. Which sucks. And there's no one around to say "I told you so."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AM

"Could Have Been Better Documented"

The NASA OIG says that NASA hasn't provided a good basis of estimate for its costs for its Constellation budget requests.

I'm sure that this is nothing new, given what a perennial mess the agency's books are always in, with incompatible accounting systems, different and arcane ways of bookkeeping at different centers/directorates, etc.

But here's what's interesting to me. This story is about justifying the costs of building Ares/Orion et al so that they can get their requested budget from OMB and Congress. But that's not the only reason that we need to have a good basis of estimate.

Ever since Mike Griffin came in, he, Steve Cook and others have told us that they (meaning Doug Stanley) did a trade study, comparing EELVs and other options to developing Ares in order to accomplish the Vision for Space Exploration. A key, in fact crucial element of any such trade would have to include...estimated costs.

We have been told over and over again that they did the trade, but as far as I know, we've never been provided with the actual study--only its "results." We have no information on the basis of estimate, the assumptions that went into it, etc. If NASA can't come up with them now that's it's an ongoing program, why should we trust the results of the earlier study that determined the direction of that program when it was much less mature, with its implications for many billions of dollars in the future, and the effectiveness in carrying out the national goals? Why haven't we been allowed to see the numbers?

I think that the new resident of the White House, regardless of party, should set up an independent assessment of the situation, complete with a demand for the data.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AM

Full-Blown PDS

Man, do these "women" (assuming they really are women--obviously, since the advent of Sarah Palin, apparently gender has become a lifestyle choice) have "issues". This almost reads like something out of The Onion. These people are becoming parodies of themselves:

"When I see people crowing about her 'acceptable' speech last Wednesday ... I literally want to vomit with rage," a comment from Anibundel said.

"I am shocked by the depths of my hatred for this woman," another commenter, CJWeimar, wrote.

"It is impossible for me not to read about her in the newspaper in the subway every morning on my way to work and not come into the office angry and wanting to kick things," a commenter using the name ChampagneofBeers wrote. "My boxing class definitely helps."

Even some prominent figures admitted to being overcome by anti-Palin feelings. "I am having Sarah Palin nightmares," an acclaimed playwright and writer, Eve Ensler, wrote on the Huffington Post. She said she was disturbed by the chants about oil and gas drilling during Mrs. Palin's speech to the Republican convention. "I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination," Ms. Ensler wrote.

And people (OK, well, not people, trolls) accuse me of "hating" Barack Obama.

I'm always amused by the stereotype of the "hateful," "angry" white man. From where I sit, I see more, and a lot more hatred and rage on the left. I can understand, though. They thought that the Messiah would arise by universal acclamation, and now they're having panic attacks that he might actually lose. Which also explains all the angry anonymous moron trolls that I get here.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Jeez...here's a Sandra who really hates Sarah:

When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra's big black brothers, she's being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let's allow, disgusting.

Yes, please. Let's allow.

Somehow, I fail to see the humor in a woman being gang raped, but then, I've never been a big Bernhard fan.

Between Sandra Bernhard and Michael Moore, it makes one ashamed to be from the Flint area.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AM

Race Baiting

Limbaugh has had enough, and calls out Obama on it.

The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.

I'm sickened by the self righteousness and hypocrisy of the so-called compassionate left.

How long will it take for the rest of the country to see what a fraud this notion of Jerome Wright's most famous long-time parishioner being a "post-racial" candidate is?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:15 AM

September 18, 2008
Alaska

Jim Albrecht is tired of having his home state slandered.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 PM

Not Getting It

No, Michelle, if I vote for Sarah Palin, it won't be "because she's cute."

That's just a bonus.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:31 PM

Yeah, I'm Busy Today

Working on a deadline, so posting will probably continue to be light through tomorrow.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:59 PM

Changing The Rules

Jim Treacher: We are the vermin we've been waiting for.

As far as I know, the only precedent in presidential politics is the buffoonish antics of Lyndon LaRouche followers. And I don't think even he ever put out a "LaRouche Action Wire." Probably because he didn't think of it first. Not to mention that he's never had a chance in hell of winning.

Where is the outrage?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AM

September 17, 2008
The Pixel Race

I've long thought that the resolution of most digital cameras has reached the point at which it's overkill, and there are a lot of other improvements that the camera needs. Unfortunately, the marketing people at Canon don't agree:

Canon engineers are being held back from developing new sensor technology by marketing departments in a "race for megapixels", claims an employee of the Japanese photography company.

The employee told Tech Digest that Canon have the technology to "blow the competition away" in terms of image sensors, but are instead being asked to focus on headline figures like the number of megapixels a camera has. When asked for his opinion on the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, which we covered this morning, the employee said:

"I am hugely disappointed because once again Canon engineers are dictated by their marketing department and had to keep up with the megapixel race. They have the technology to blow the competition away by adapting the new 50D sensor tech in a full frame format and just easing off a little on the megapixels. Although no formal testing has been done on the new model yet, judging by the spec and technology used, it just seems to be as good or as bad as the competition - not beating them by a mile (which we used to)."

I'd rather have more speed and better S/N ratio myself.

There's an amusing discussion of this, and the perennial war between marketing and engineering, including examples from Dilbert, over at Free Republic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:01 PM

Is There Anything They Can't Do?

Joe Biden says that the financial crisis was caused by the Bush tax (rate) cuts.

Does someone besides Joe Biden want to explain that one to me?

At least he didn't blame Global Warming.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:13 PM

Hockey Moms For Truth

This is great. I love the accents, but I think they're Minnesota, not Alaska (though they're closely related).

Of course, the anonymous wanker in comments who is always crying "Pants On Fire" will take it seriously.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:10 PM

Turnabout Is Fair Play, Part Two

The McCain campaign should get with some of the Abe's List folks in Hollywood (like Dennis Miller) and work up some material. Then get SNL to have Palin as a guest where she can do impressions of Tina Fey.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:39 AM

Extending Shuttle Study

NASA Spaceflight has an interesting report on the status of the study.

It sounds about right to me. Retire Atlantis and make it a parts queen or a launch-on-need vehicle, and fly the other two vehicles once each per year. But at that low a flight rate, I wonder if the processing teams lose their "edge" and start to screw up? There's an optimal flight rate for both cost and safety. Too fast and you make mistakes because of the rush, but too slow, and you get out of practice. And of course each flight would cost over two billion bucks, assuming that it costs four billion a year to keep the program going.

And as noted numerous times in the past, this doesn't solve the problem of leaving US crew on the station. They still need a lifeboat of some sort. They discuss this as a "COTS-D Minus":

...several companies have noted the ability to make available a lifeboat vehicle from 2012 (names and details currently embargoed due to ongoing discussions).

Clearly, one of those companies has to be SpaceX.

But this idea seems to never die:

'There is some interest now in developing this (RCO) into a full mission capability, thus enabling unmanned shuttles to launch, dock to ISS, undock and land in 2011 and beyond.'
'While that's an interesting idea and would be a fun development project, we are working to understand the level of effort the program desires for this study.'

It's not an "interesting idea." It's a monumentally dumb idea. There is little point in flying Shuttle without crew. The ability to fly crew is its primary feature. It's far too expensive to operate to act as a cargo vehicle. If the point of the idea is to not risk crew, then we have no business in space.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:41 AM

Don't Hate Him Because He's An Intellectual

That was the essence of an inadvertently hilarious (anonymous, natch) comment about Obama in this post.

To me, that's like Helen Thomas saying "don't hate me because I'm beautiful."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AM

Unsustainable

Crude has fallen below $90/barrel. That's from a peak of almost a hundred fifty.

Of course, this will be no surprise to regular readers.

[Afternoon update]

Apropo some of the comments, here's a promising new technology for getting oil from shale and tar sands. I don't see a price per barrel, though.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:03 AM

No Free Marketeer

That's what John McCain is. One of the reasons it's hard to get enthused about him. I suspect that Palin might be a little better.

[Update a while later]

Both presidential candidates are completely economically incoherent.

No surprise, since they're both economic ignorami. Though in Obama's case it's worse, because he thinks that he understands economics, and much of what he knows for damned sure is wrong.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 AM

Compare And Contrast

Two energy proposals.

This is the Beltway/MSM definition of a "compromise": giving the Dems everything they want.

I hope that John McCain (or even Sarah Palin) urge Bush to veto the sham energy bill, and explain why.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:54 AM

The Latest In Medical Transplants

Eeeeuuuuwwww...:

... Patients who come into the hospital with suspected pneumonia now get an antibiotic within six hours, instead of four hours previously, to allow more time to assess the need for drugs.
One controversial strategy: fecal transplants. For one patient with recurrent C. diff, Kettering suggested a stool transplant from a relative, to help restore good bacteria in the gut. But Jeffrey Weinstein, an infectious-disease specialist at the hospital, says the patient "refused to consider it because it was so aesthetically displeasing."

To say the least. Though some kinky folks might get off on it. It's certainly a simple procedure compared to a heart or a kidney.

Some might argue that a lot of folks in Congress have already had the procedure done, except it was transplanted to the wrong location, considerably north of where it was supposed to go.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:42 AM

Can We All At Least Agree?

That Nancy Pelosi is an ignorant, arrogant moron?

She's going to let the anchor that is Charlie Rangell drag her party to defeat this fall, and she'll lose her job.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:39 AM

Why Obama Will Lose Pennsylvania

Ads like this.

There are actually a lot of reasons. The only thing that could save him will be ACORN vote fraud in Philly. And that will depend on who Ed Rendell really wants to win. He is a Hillary! supporter, after all...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AM

Devastation

Here are some before and after pictures of the Bolivar Peninsula.

I wonder what was different about the houses that remained standing?

Our house in Boca is just a few houses from the Intracoastal, on the mainland side, but the barrier island that separates us from the sea is a lot narrower than the Bolivar. I don't know what kind of surge it would take to cross it and fill the Intracoastal and neighborhood canals, but I'll bet a lot of the multi-million-dollar mansions on the ocean would get wiped out, or at least badly damaged in a similar situation. But they might help blunt the blow of the water and keep it from getting to us. A worst-case for us would probably be a similar west-bound storm hitting north Broward, around Deerfield Beach or Hillsboro, which would maximize surge up here.

[Update a while later]

Jeff Masters has more, on the almost total destruction of Gilchrist.

I don't see any description of the type of construction. Our house is cement block on concrete slab. I can see a wood frame getting stripped off its foundation, but it's pretty scary to think what kind of force it would take to empty our lot.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:34 AM

A New McCain Demographic

Gays for Palin? Why not? As the article notes, Alaska is a pretty libertarian, live-and-let-live place. I wonder if a lot of lesbians think that she's hot?

And of course, this goes against the hysterical stereotype of her in the minds of the left as an extreme "right-wing" social conservative.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AM

We're Unworthy

Donna Brazile says that if The One doesn't win, it will be because we didn't deserve him:

"He has had some moments where he seems unsure of his own voice," Brazile said, "but I still think he can pull this off."

And if he doesn't?

"If he doesn't, then Obama didn't lose," she said. "The country just wasn't ready."

Well, she's right, in a way. And we should be thankful that we haven't deteriorated as a nation to the point at which we were.

I'd put it a little differently, though. It won't be Obama losing so much as the nation winning.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AM

September 16, 2008
How Is Mark Doing?

Frequent commenter Mike Puckett is wondering (via email) how Mark Whittington is doing in Houston, because he hasn't posted in over four days (at the time of this posting, the link is Mark's most recent post).

I'm a little concerned as well, but for now I assume that he's just lost power and can't post. Fortunately, the storm was not as bad as feared, and we haven't heard of massive casualties.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:57 PM

More On The Space Civil War

It's not just between Mike Griffin and OMB (and the White House?). Now (not that it's anything new) there is a lot of infighting between JSC and Marshall over Orion and Ares:

Design issues for any new vehicle are to be expected, and correctly represented by the often-used comment of 'if there weren't problems, we wouldn't need engineers.' However, Orion's short life on the drawing board has been an unhappy childhood.

The vast majority of Orion's design changes have been driven by Ares I's shortcomings - via performance and mass issues - to ably inject the vehicle into orbit. The fact that the Ares I now has several thousand pounds of reserve mass properties negates the suffering it has brought on the vehicle it is designed to serve.

Those penalties Orion had to endure could be seen at the very start of its design process, when the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) reduced in size by 0.5 meters in diameter, soon followed by Orion having its Service Module stripped down in size and mass by around 50 percent.

'Mass savings' would become one of the most repeated terms surrounding the Orion project.

One of the problems that the program had (like many) were caused by the intrinsic concept of the Shaft itself. If you're designing an all-new rocket, it is a "rubber" vehicle in that one can size stages to whatever is necessary to optimize it. But in their determination to use an SRB as a first stage, they put an artificial constraint on vehicle performance. When it was discovered that the four-segment motor wouldn't work, they went to a different upper stage engine. When this didn't work, they went to five segments (which meant that it was a whole new engine).

During Apollo, von Braun took requirements from the people designing the mission hardware, and then added a huge margin to it (fifty percent, IIRC), because he didn't believe them. As it turned out, they ended up needing almost all of the vehicle performance to get to the moon.

This program never had anything like that kind of margin, and now, at PDR 0.5, it's already almost gone. So now they're rolling the requirements back on to the Orion, demanding that the payload make up for performance loss by cutting weight, while also (probably, next year) requiring that it add systems to mitigate the fact that the vehicle is going to shake them like a Sherwin Williams machine. This will result in further loss of margin, redundancy and safety.

This is not a typical development path of a successful program. It is emblematic of one about to augur in.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:04 PM

There Are Lies

...damned lies, and campaign hyperbole:

...we've all heard the self-serving myth that pits helpless, meek, high-minded, issue-oriented Democrats against mendacious and mean Republicans, who not only detest America -- especially children and small vulnerable creatures -- but will lie and cheat to keep all oppressed.

The facts betray a more equitable story. And it starts with Sarah Palin's assertion that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and opposed earmarks. This is an elastic political truth.

Technically, she did stop the project after initially supporting it. She has taken earmarks -- even lobbied for them while mayor of Wasilla. As governor, though, Palin also vetoed over 300 wasteful projects and made an attempt to reform the process. Her record on earmarks is mixed, but by any measure, it's far superior to either Democratic candidate.

Moreover, if this Palin claim can be classified as an untruth, Obama can be called a "liar" just as easily.

Take, if you will, the foundational assertion of Obama's entire campaign that he is the candidate of post-partisan change. Obama, meanwhile, voted with fellow Democrats 96 percent of the time in Washington. And the bipartisan achievement he most often cites, an ethics reform bill, was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.

Unanimous: ". . . being in complete harmony or accord."

So, then, "Unity" should be referred to as a poetic truth.

And when much of the media acts as if it is personally offended by a questionable McCain ad accusing Obama of voting for a bill that would have provided sex education to kindergartners, you feel the pain. It was, indeed, a massive stretch.

It reminds me of the Obama ad that accuses McCain of having "voted to cut education funding" and "proposed" the abolishment of the Department of Education despite neither being true. Not much anger at that one. Just a lot of talk about the media's responsibility to keep candidates honest. And absolutely, journalists have a responsibility to put every single candidate through the wringer.

Every candidate.

Something for the latest desperate anonymous moron that continues to drive by in comments with its pathetic shrieks of "Liar, liar!" to keep in mind.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AM

Why I Have A Blog

To get past the gatekeepers.

I put up a(n admittedly semi-snarky) comment at Keith Cowing's place yesterday, and he chose not to publish it (his comments section is moderated) for whatever reason. His blog, his call.

It was in response to "NASAAstronomer's" comment that:

...if McCain and Palin win, we'll be teaching creationism in our science classes, so how likely is it that space science will get funded?

My (unpublished until now) response:

Yes.

Right. I'm sure that will be one of their first acts, to mandate the teaching of creationism in science classes.

Can you explain to me how that works exactly? Will it be an executive order, or what?

This kind of Palin derangement is amazing. Lileks noticed it, too:

Here's your Sarah Palin overreaction of the day. Presumably she took out the entrails, dried them, and used them to lynch librarians. It's really obvious, isn't it? She wants to kill Lady Liberty and all she represents. The plane is included in the picture because she personally shoots polar bears from above, like she's GOD OR SOMETHING. The comments have the usual reasoned evaluations - she's a PSYCHO, a LUNATIC. That picture is so sad and so true.

I don't know if anyone's stated the obvious yet, but this might be the first time people have become unhinged in advance over a vice-presidential candidate. Not to say some aren't painting McCain as something the devil blurted out in a distracted moment during his daily conference call with Cheney, but a Veep? It took a while for people to believe that Cheney commissioned private snuff films with runaways dressed up to resemble a portion of the Bill of Rights, but Palin is She-Wolf of the Tundra right off the bat. And god help us she can use email, which means she will control the government. The most Spy ever did with Quayle was stick him in a dunce hat. By the time we reach the election Oliphant will probably draw Palin sodomizing by an oil derrick with guns for arms. I have to confess: I think Palin is an interesting politician, but the people she's driving batty are much more fascinating.

Imagine twelve years of this.

Yes.

Well, we've survived eight years of BDS. I suspect that we'll pull through a swamp of PDS.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 AM

September 15, 2008
More Media Bias

The press refuses to cover Biden's potential gaffes:

...as Air Joe flew from Wilmington to Charlotte Sunday, the only reporters onboard were off-air reporters from the five television networks and correspondents from NBC and Politico. There was only one camera crew. The back of the plane, reserved for press, sat totally deserted.

Heh. As Geraghty notes, the McCain campaign should complain.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:17 AM

Not That The Analogy Isn't Still Stupid

But I'm reminded that Jesus was a preacher. Barabbas was the community organizer. And a freedom fighter, like Bill Ayers. Also like Ayers, he got off on a technicality.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:29 AM

The Sky Isn't Falling

So says First Trust, about the current financial problems on the Street. For what it's worth.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:40 AM

Bureaucratic War?

Is NASA fighting with OMB?

Lots of great comments here, including the fact that Mike Griffin's fear mongering about China is at odds with administration policy. Including this great comment from "red""

it would be a good idea for Griffin to consider what kind of response by NASA would be useful to the U.S. in countering the real military and economic space threats from China. It seems to me that ESAS doesn't help counter these real threats at all.
The kinds of capabilities that NASA could encourage, invent, or improve to counter China's ASATs, launchers, and satellites are things like:

- operationally responsive space
- small satellites
- Earth observation satellites
- telecommunications satellites
- economical commercial launch vehicles
- commercial suborbital rockets
- improved education in space-related fields
- space infrastructure (e.g.: commercial space stations, tugs, refueling)

It's possible that, if NASA were contributing more in areas like these (through incentives to U.S. commercial space, research, demos, etc), it would find the budget battles easier to win.

No kidding. Especially the last. And Apollo On Steroids makes no contributions to any of these things.

[Update a few minutes later]

Speaking of comments, "anonymous.space" has a description of what NASA's "pat on the back" PDR really means:

This past week, Constellation patted itself on the back for getting Ares I through its first preliminary design review (PDR) but glossed over the fact that Ares I still has to conduct a second PDR next summer to address the unresolved mitigation systems for the first stage thrust oscillation issue, with unknown consequences for the rest of the design. See the asterisk on the pre-board recommendation at the bottom of the last page of this presentation.

The Constellation press release and briefing also made no mention of the recent year-long slip in the Orion PDR to next summer. See NASA Watch, NASA Spaceflight, and Flight Global.

So neither the Ares I nor the Orion preliminary design is complete, and one could argue that the Constellation program has been held back a year more than it's been allowed to pass to the next grade.

More worrisome than the PDR slips are the grades that Ares I received in this partial PDR. The pre-board used a green, yellow/green, yellow, yellow/red, and red grading scheme, which can also be depicted as the more familiar A (4.0), B (3.0), C (2.0), D (1.0), and F (0.0) grading scheme. The pre-board provided ten grades against ten different success criteria from NASA's program management handbook. The ten grades had the following distribution:

One "Green" (A, 4.0) grade
Two "Yellow/Green" (B, 3.0) grades
Four "Yellow" (C, 2.0) grades
Three "Yellow/Red" (D, 1.0) grades
No "Red" (F, 0.0) grades

So seven of Ares I's ten grades were a C or a D. Ares I is NASA's planned primary means of crew launch over the next couple of decades and should define technical excellence. But instead, the project earned a grade point average of 2.1, barely a "gentleman's C" (or a "gentleman's yellow"). See the pre-board grades on pages 3-7 of this presentation.

And even more worrisome than the PDR slips and grades are the areas in which the project is earning its lowest grades. Among areas in which Ares I earned a yellow/red (or D) grade and the accompanying technical problems were:

The preliminary design meets the requirements at an acceptable level of risk:
- Induced environments are high and cause challenges, including pyro shock to avionics and acoustic environments on reaction and roll control systems.

- No formal process for control of models and analysis.

- Areas of known failure still need to be worked, including liftoff clearances.

Definition of the technical interfaces is consistent with the overall level of technical maturity and provides an acceptable level of risk:

- Process for producing and resolving issues between Level 2 and Level 3 interface requirement documents and interface control documents is unclear, including the roles and responsibilities of managers and integrators and the approval process for identifying the baseline and making changes to it.

- Numerous known disconnects and "TBDs" in the interface requirement documents, including an eight inch difference between the first stage and ground system and assumption of extended nozzle performance not incorporated in actual first and ground system designs.

See the pre-board grades on pages 4-5 of this presentation.

So, in addition to the unknowns associated with the unresolved thrust oscillation system for Ares I:

- the vehicle's electronics can't survive the shocks induced during stage separation;

- the vehicle's control systems will be shaken apart and unable to keep the rocket flying straight;

- the vehicle is going to hit the ground support structure on liftoff;

- the project is assuming performance from advanced rocket nozzles that don't fit within the vehicle's dimensions;

- the project can't even get the height of the rocket and its ground support to match; and

- there's no good modeling, analytical, or requirements control necessary to resolve any of these issues.

And the real kicker from the press conference was the revelation that Constellation manager Jeff Hanley only has 2,000-3,000 pounds of performance reserve left at the program level and that Ares I manager Steve Cook has no margin left to contribute to unresolved future problems like thrust oscillation impacts to Orion. See, again, NASA Watch.

We know from prior presentations that Orion's mass margin is down to practically zero (286 kilograms or 572 pounds) for ISS missions and is negative (-859 kilograms or -1,718 pounds) for lunar missions. See p. 25, 33, and 37 in this presentation.

When added to Hanley's margins, that means that the entire Ares I/Orion system is down to ~2,500-3,500 pounds of mass margin for the ISS mission and ~300-1,300 pounds of mass margin for the lunar mission. That's between seven and less than one percent mass margin against Orion's 48,000 pound total mass. Typical mass margin at the PDR stage should be on the order of 20-25 percent, about triple the best-case assessment here. Ares I/Orion still has seven years of design and development to go and at best has only one-third of the mass margin it should have at this stage.

Even worse, those Orion mass margins don't account for the mass threats still to be allocated in next year's Orion PDR. In the presentation above, the 90th percentile mass threats for the ISS and lunar missions are separately about 900 kilograms or 2,000 pounds. That reduces the total Ares I/Orion mass margin to between -1,700 and 1,500 pounds. That's a negative (negative!) three percent mass margin on the lunar mission and only a positive three percent mass margin on the ISS mission, at least seven times less margin than what the program needs at this point in time.

Instead of worrying about $60 million Soyuz purchases and extending existing Shuttle jobs, Weldon and his staff need to be worrying about the $20 billion Ares I/Orion program and whether it can ever technically close and replace some of those Shuttle jobs.

Some have attempted to excuse this by saying, "well, every big space program has teething issues." True. Two responses.

First, many of them die from them (e.g., X-33).

Second, I don't know of any comparable program that had essentially zero margin at PDR (and I'm not aware of any that required multiple PDRs or "PDR do-overs") that survived them. Perhaps someone more familiar with history can enlighten me.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:00 AM

September 14, 2008
Where Is The Pencil Czar?

George Will has more on economic ignorance:

The indignant student, who had first gone to Home Depot for a flashlight, says it "didn't try to rip us off." It was, however, out of flashlights. Ruth suggests that the reason Big Box had flashlights was that its prices were high. If prices were left at regular levels, the people who would have got the flashlights would have been those who got to the store first. With the higher prices, "someone who had candles at home decided to do without the flashlight and left it there for you on the shelf." Neither Home Depot nor the student who was angry at Big Box had benefited from Home Depot's price restraint.

Capitalism, Ruth reminds him, is a profit and loss system.Corfam--Du Pont's fake leather that made awful shoes in the 1960s--and the Edsel quickly vanished. But, Ruth notes, "the post office and ethanol subsidies and agricultural price supports and mediocre public schools live forever." They are insulated from market forces; they are created, in defiance of those forces, by government, which can disregard prices, which means disregarding the rational allocation of resources. To disrupt markets is to tamper with the unseen source of the harmony that is all around us.

The spontaneous emergence of social cooperation--the emergence of a system vastly more complex, responsive and efficient than any government could organize--is not universally acknowledged or appreciated. It discomforts a certain political sensibility, the one that exaggerates the importance of government and the competence of the political class.

Yes, an exaggeration that is reinforced by the propaganda inculcated into people by government schools.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:08 PM

Meet The New Change

...same as the old change.

I've been amused, or at least bemused, for many months that Barack Obama has gotten away with pretending that his stale, failed collectivist policies represent something "new." So has Michael Ledeen:

Once upon a time, Obama's vision of "change"-which is based on class structure and top-down collective enterprises-was not only contemporary but exciting. It inspired a generation of Americans to create the welfare state. But then the welfare state aged, and now, in the wild-west world of globalization, instant communication, the blogosphere and so forth, it is very old hat. The ideas are still hanging around, however.

Bill Clinton understood that, and since he wasn't really committed to any particular political agenda aside from his own success, he was able to grab many of his opponents' ideas and use them. I remember poor Bob Dole complaining that Clinton was stealing his ideas, and he was right.

Obama doesn't get that, I suspect because he really believes those old, now-failed ideas. He can't bring himself to say that the collectivist projects of the sort he promoted in Chicago are bad for the poor, although when pressed he ootches toward more sensible positions (as when, in Saddleback, he confessed that he had probably been a bit too negative about welfare reform). We've all noticed that Obama keeps moving toward McCain's positions on many issues, even on the basic one: the war.

If you hold ideas that no longer work (and indeed don't even explain anything contemporary), it's hard to conduct an inspirational political campaign, and Obama, like almost all the other Democrats, is stuck with the knowledge that he's going to lose most of the policy debates. But he still wants to win. And the only way he CAN win is to destroy his opponents, which is the strategy the left is pursuing, ever more frantically.

Of course, I would be more amused if so many people didn't seem to fall for the schtick. But fortunately, it looks like a sufficient number are on to him that he won't get to implement his "change." As Bill Whittle wrote, Sarah took away his glamour, and now John McCain is purloining his "change" mantra, which was never much, but it was all that he had left.

[Update a few minutes later]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons that young people are susceptible to Barack Obama's "change" hokum is that they have no sense of history. To them, all is new, and only George Bush's policies are old.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:43 AM

A New Vote For Palin/McCain

You know that Tina Fey has to be hoping for a Republican victory. It's a guaranteed gig for at least four, and maybe a dozen years.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 AM

September 13, 2008
How Screwed Up Is Milspace?

This screwed up:

After trying unsuccessfully for years to build its own radar satellite, the Pentagon is now turning to its allies for help and has been presented with a plan that would see it buy a clone of Canada's highly successful Radarsat-2 spacecraft.
The U.S. Defence Department asked for and received information this week from a number of foreign satellite consortiums on how they could help the Pentagon meet its surveillance needs for the future.

Isn't there anybody here who knows how to play this game?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PM

Where's The Smart Money?

Michigan, or Notre Dame? The real season starts today.

Also, interestingly, my current home-town university Florida Atlantic, is playing the Spartans today.

[Update late in the first quarter]

Well, so far, it looks like the smart money was on the Irish. They're up 21-zip in the first quarter, on two Wolverine turnovers. It'll be a blowout if Michigan doesn't get their act together.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:51 AM

Turnabout Is Fair Play

Heh. Instant Godwin:

"Hitler was a community organizer, FDR was a governor." Makes as much sense as the Jeebus/Pilate meme.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AM

What A Mess

I'm looking at reporting from what looks like the Sheraton in Clear Lake, and there are reports of furniture with NASA logos floating in the bay. Gotta think that some of the JSC facilities were flooded.

If space were important, we wouldn't have mission control in an area susceptible to floods and hurricanes. The Cape has some geographical reasons for its location, but the only reason that JSC is in Houston is because Johnson wanted it there, and the land was free.

[Update in the afternoon]

Here's more on NASA's fragile infrastructure. The agency's ground facilities are just as non-robust as its space transportation system.

Here is how it seems to work: a hurricane threatens JSC - so NASA shuts off email and other services to a large chunk of the agency. Why? Because NASA deliberately set the system up such that other NASA centers - some of which are thousands of miles away and poised to offer assistance and keep the rest of the agency operating - have their email and other services routed out of JSC - and only JSC (or so it would seem). A few critical users have some service, but everyone else is out of luck for at least 48 hours. Would any self-respecting, profitable, commercial communications company do something as silly as this? No. They'd never stay in business. Only NASA would come up with such a flawed and stupid plan.

That's too harsh. I can imagine the FAA, or DHS doing exactly the same thing.

It's just more of that wise, foresightful government thing.

[Update about 1:30 PM EDT]

Jeff Masters says that Galveston lucked out:

Although Ike caused heavy damage by flooding Galveston with a 12-foot storm surge, the city escaped destruction thanks to its 15.6-foot sea wall (the wall was built 17 feet high, but has since subsided about 2 feet). The surge was able to flow into Galveston Bay and flood the city from behind, but the wall prevented a head-on battering by the surge from the ocean side. Galveston was fortunate that Ike hit the city head-on, rather than just to the south. Ike's highest storm surge occurred about 50 miles to the northeast of Galveston, over a lightly-populated stretch of coast. Galveston was also lucky that Ike did not have another 12-24 hours over water. In the 12 hours prior to landfall, Ike's central pressure dropped 6 mb, and the storm began to rapidly organize and form a new eyewall. If Ike had had another 12-24 hours to complete this process, it would have been a Category 4 hurricane with 135-145 mph winds that likely would have destroyed Galveston. The GFDL model was consistently advertising this possibility, and it wasn't far off the mark. It was not clear to me until late last night that Ike would not destroy Galveston and kill thousands of people. Other hurricane scientists I conversed with yesterday were of the same opinion.

And of course, the lesson that the people who stayed behind will take is not that they were lucky and foolhardy, but that the weather forecasters overhyped the storm, and they'll be even less likely to evacuate the next time. And one of these times their luck will run out, as it did for their ancestors a few generations ago, when thousands were killed by a hurricane in Galveston.

[Update mid afternoon]

Sounds like things could have been a lot worse at NASA, too.

NASA had feared that a storm surge from Galveston Bay would flood some buildings on the 1,600-acre Space Center. Its southeast boundary is near Clear Lake, which is connected to Galveston Bay. However, the water did not rise that high.

Apparently the Guppy hangar at Ellington was destroyed, but it was never much of a hangar--more like a big tent.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AM

Economic Ignorami

George Bush's announcement this morning that the administration was concerned about "gouging" reminded me of why I wish that we'd had better options in the last two elections (and still do). I expect that kind of nonsense from Democrats, but you'd think that someone who was supposedly a businessman would know better. Or perhaps he does, and is just pandering. I'm not sure which is worse.

Every time we have a natural disaster like this, this idiotic topic comes up, and we once again have to explain Econ 101 to the products of our public school system, probably in futility. This time, it's Rich Hailey's turn.

Here's what I wrote about it a three years ago, in the wake of Katrina.

[Update late morning]

Jeez, I thought that David Asman was smarter than that. Now he's telling Fox viewers to take pictures of stations with high gas prices so that they can be reported to authorities. It's hard for me to believe that Neal Cavuto would do that.

[Another update a minute or so later]

You know, I think that this is an explanation for socialism and collectivism's continuing grip on the public mind, despite its long history of unending failure. There's just something in human psychology to which it naturally appeals, and rationality just can't break through. It just "feels" unfair for prices to go up in an emergency, regardless of the demonstrably bad consequences of attempting to legislate them.

[Late afternoon update]

Shannon Love explains how the gas station business works:

I'll say it one more time for those who can't be bothered to actually ask someone who owns a gas station. Gas stations set prices for the gas they sell today based on the wholesale price of the gas they will have to buy to replace it. Get it? The price you pay for a gallon today is the cost of the gallon the station will have buy to replace the one you just bought.

Gas stations sell gas at or near cost, so if they did not use replacement pricing any sudden spike in gas prices would shut them down and you couldn't get any gas. I simply do not know why our public and private talking heads cannot understand and communicate this simple fact.

Because either they don't know it, or they think that people don't want to hear it. They operate on razor-thin margins, and can't afford to hand out subsidized gas as charity, even if that wouldn't screw up the market. And note, for those who say it's "big oil" that is "maximizing profits" in the face of a national emergency, even if that were true (it's not) "big oil" isn't threatened with jail for "gouging." It's the gas station owner, who has no control over his wholesale gas costs. So people who demand that we crack down on gougers are essentially demanding that the station operators either operate at a loss, or pay fines, or go to jail. I don't know why anyone would want to be in that business in the face of so much public ignorance about it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AM

September 12, 2008
Wile E. Obama

Supergenius?

OK, so you're running against a guy who for recreation (though not his) used to have his arms tied together at the wrists behind his back, and hang from them for hours, a result of which is that he can no longer raise them above his head. Or other things:

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes.

And the Obama campaign is making fun of him for not knowing how to email?

When these guys lose, there will be many reasons why.

[Update late Friday evening]

Glenn has a more. A lot more, with lots of links. This one may have legs.

[Late night update]

One more update from Jonah.

As he says, bogus as it gets.

[Late evening update]

Iowahawk (who else!) picks up on the theme. Hilarity ensues.

[Saturday morning update]

Roger Kimball wonders who is sabotaging the Obama campaign?

Hey, as I say in comments, the guy has problems finding good help. Just who we want for president.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:59 PM

NASA Infighting

An interview with Tom Jones on the subject, over at Popular Mechanics. Note that he doesn't point out that no one ordered Mike Griffin to develop Ares, which is the biggest reason that Orion is delayed and that NASA doesn't have enough funding. He also has too much faith in Orion flying before something else (particularly given the Ares problems). I'm sure we could put up a capsule on an Atlas long before 2014, whether Dragon or something else, if we made it a priority.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:11 AM

It's No Ike

At least not yet. I hope that low east of the Bahamas doesn't develop much, because all the models have it aimed right at me in southeast Florida. In fact, BAMD has it coming ashore in Boca, crossing the peninsula and exiting over Tampa into the Gulf. Fortunately, it's struggling under shear right now.

My concern is that it may intensify suddenly right off shore early next week, with little time to prepare. At least we still have most of our shutters up from Hannah.

[Update a few minutes later]

Weather Underground is calling it an "Invest" (I wonder why they call them that), but it actually seems to be the remnants of Josephine. If it becomes a storm again, will they call it that, or Kyle?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AM

Accountability

Glenn has some good advice for presidential candidates:

Take your own camera to every interview, and post the raw video online. The news folks won't like that, but, really, what principled basis is there for objection?

I think that a "principled" basis would be too much to expect from them. It would be amusing to see what their response is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:18 AM

Staying Together For The Kids

As I've noted in the past, we're going to have to decide how much ISS is worth to us. Chair Force Engineer thinks that we're going to bite the bullet and buy more Soyuzs from the Russians:

Besides the reliance on Soyuz, there are myriad other ways in which ISS cannot survive unless the US and Russia cooperate. The various modules are too interconnected, and neither country can operate their contributions to the station without the other country playing along. It's conceivable that Russia could afford to build Soyuz without American money, by selling the American slots to space tourists. But a Russian-led ISS would still require use of American space modules.

America and Russia are left in a situation where it's unlikely that either will abandon the ISS, even though both nations are mired in growing mistrust. If I had to make a bet, I would say that the US and Russia will learn to grin and bear it, operating ISS jointly until 2017. When Congress looks rationally at its options, it will realize that it will have to begrudgingly buy more Soyuz if it still wants to participate in ISS.

Sometimes, I think that expecting Congress to "look rationally at its options" is asking too much. Particularly when it's robbing money from the NASA budget to provide foreign aid to Ethiopia. Sure, why not? It's not like NASA's spending the money very usefully, anyway. It just proves my oft-made point that space isn't politically important.

Anyway, as I said in my Pajamas piece, this is a policy disaster long in the making, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost. It was naive in the extreme at the end of the Cold War to assume that we and Russia would be BFFs and enter into such an inextricable long-term relationship. Now it's like a very dysfunctional marriage that is being held together only out of concern for the children. Without ISS, the divorce would be swift, I suspect.

[Update a while later]

Speaking of apt metaphors, Clark Lindsey has one for the Ares program:

Yellow and red grades notwithstanding, it has always seemed extremely unlikely to me that Ares I would fail to fly when NASA has so many billions of dollars available to spend on it. However, since I believe the whole Ares I/V program to be a stupendous waste, if technical problems did arise that led to its cancellation, I'd consider it a boon for US space development. If the brakes fail and a huge truck starts to careen down a hill, it's a blessing if the thing blows a tire instead and flops over into a ditch with relatively little damage to people and property. Unfortunately, it appears that Ares will keep rolling no matter what.

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily bet on that. There may be "change" coming to NASA next year, regardless of who wins the election.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AM

The Media Meltdown

Mark Steyn comments:

Howie [Kurtz] feels the press is being "manipulated" by the McCain campaign.

Maybe it is. A conventional launch strategy for a little-known vice-presidential nominee might have involved "manipulating" the media into running umpteen front-pagers on Sarah Palin's amazing primary challenge of a sitting governor and getting the sob-sisters to slough off a ton of heartwarming stories about her son shipping out to Iraq.

But, if you were really savvy, you'd "manipulate" the media into a stampede of lurid drivel deriding her as a Stepford wife and a dominatrix, comparing her to Islamic fundamentalists, Pontius Pilate and porn stars, and dismissing her as a dysfunctional brood mare who can't possibly be the biological mother of the kid she was too dumb to abort. Who knows? It's a long shot, but if you could pull it off, a really cunning media manipulator might succeed in manipulating Howie's buddies into spending the month after Labor Day outbidding each other in some insane Who Wants To Be An Effete Condescending Media Snob? death-match. You'd not only make the press look like bozos, but that in turn might tarnish just a little the fellow these geniuses have chosen to anoint.

I suspect that it's just going to get worse for them, particularly when they see the generic poll for Congress.

[Update a few minutes later]

John Hinderaker has more on Howie's anger:

I'm not sure what Obama had in mind, but I find it odd that in pages of outrage devoted to the supposed excesses of the McCain campaign, Kurtz finds no room to mention the fact that prominent Democrats (not anonymous emailers, who are much worse) have said that Governor Palin is Pontius Pilate and that her primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion.

The truth is that Sarah Palin has been the object of the most vicious and concerted smear campaign in modern American history. But that fact doesn't cause the media (or Howard Kurtz) to get mad.

It's not too hard to diagnose why, as Kurtz correctly says, "the media are getting mad." They're getting mad because their candidate is losing. They've spent years building him up and covering for his mistakes and shortcomings, and he is such a stiff that he can't coast across the finish line. I'd be mad too, I guess, but I think I'd have the decency not to take it out on Sarah Palin.

Not just the decency. Also the intelligence, given how badly it continues to backfire on them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 AM

Good Luck To The Gulf Coast

My best wishes to Lou Minatti and Mark Whittington and other Houston-area residents (this thing could really be a disaster for JSC and its contractor community). Stay safe there, and if you're in a flood plain, please get the hell out.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:40 AM

Who Would Have Imagined?

Just a month ago, many Republicans were resigned to hoping at best for the possibility of John McCain eking out a win against Obama, and not losing too much ground on the Hill. Now it looks like regaining Congress is within the realm of possibility:

The issues raised by today's low approval ratings of Congress are reinforced by recent Gallup Poll findings that relatively few voters generally believe "most members" of Congress deserve re-election. That figure was only 36% in July, much lower than the 51% or better reading found in recent election years when the party of the sitting majority in Congress maintained power.

When the generic preference is only 3% among registered voters (not likely voters), the Donkeys are in big trouble, because registered voters almost always overstate actual support for Democrats at the polls.

McCain needs to start running hard against Pelosi and Reid. With all the nasty things that Reid has been saying about him lately, he shouldn't have to work hard to motivate himself to do so.

It would help, of course, if Boehner and McConnell could make some noises to demonstrate that they learned their lesson from two years ago, and that they're no longer going to be the party of pork and privilege. It's a real shame that it looks like Stephens is going to win his primary in Alaska.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:25 AM

Palin Turnaround

My father, Dr. Dinkin Sr. author of Election Day: a Documentary History says that there has never been a VP who had this big an effect on the election--the most is about 5%. Further, that the last time a Party won that was behind in the polls after the second convention is 1964. Pressed he said 60-40 McCain. At intrade, McCain is trading at $0.52 for a security that pays $1 if he wins. Here's what he's trading at now (GMT):

If you smear lipstick on a pig, perhaps you have too much on.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 04:05 AM

September 11, 2008
Poor Word Choice

Did Mark Murray think about what he was writing?

Palin could be heard nearly squealing with delight in the front of the plane at the sight of three of her children at the foot of the stairs, and according to several aides, refused to stay inside the plane.

Emphasis mine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AM

Not Just The White House

These numbers over at Gallup should have the donkeys very worried.

Democrats have held a large advantage on party identification for much of 2007 and 2008. But the GOP convention -- and the exposure it gave to John McCain and Sarah Palin as the Republican ticket -- has encouraged a greater number of Americans to identify as Republicans, thus narrowing the Democratic advantage for the moment.

Republicans saw an even larger increase in "leaned" party identification, which is computed by adding the percentage of Americans who initially identify themselves as independents but then say they "lean" to a party to the percentage who identify with that party. Before the GOP convention, 39% of Americans said they identified with or leaned to the Republican Party, but that number has increased to 47%. Forty-eight percent now identify with or lean to the Democratic Party, down from 53% prior to the GOP convention.

This is the Palin effect, and I think that it's undone a lot of the damage that was done to the Republican brand that resulted in the 2006 losses. I wonder if a lot of the Republican legislators who decided to retire this year are having second thoughts?

These numbers also explain why Gallup has McCain leading, while Rasmussen has the race tied. Rasmussen hasn't adjusted his mix yet--I think that it's based on a three-month rolling average, and the recent shift in the political tide isn't showing up yet, and won't until just before the election.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:41 AM

Pigs

Pork maven Iowahawk has some fun facts. Be sure to follow the links.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:35 AM

Good Advice

From one Democrat to others: lay off Palin.

They won't take it, though. They can't help themselves. They're too arrogant, and think that they're smarter than their political opponents. They also think that they understand conservatives and Republicans, when they're completely clueless, as Mr. Sapp points out. So they'll continue to dig themselves a deeper hole.

[Update a few minutes later]

See? They can't stop: they're equating Sarah Palin with Osama bin Laden.

[Update a while later]

Jeeeez. Now Sarah Palin isn't a woman.

Who knew? Sure fooled me.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:58 AM

September 10, 2008
Has Obama's Bubble Popped?

James Pethokoukis thinks so. So do I.

And as he notes, if there's a Palin bubble, it's unlikely to pop before the election, given that it took a year and a half for Obama's to do so...

This is why I've never thought Obama electable, though I hadn't accounted for Sarah. But she just means that there will be ~~coat~~skirt-tails...

Which will be a good thing in the Senate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:31 PM

Scopes of Evolution

Republicans are stereotyped for not endorsing evolution, endangering children.

Democrats are stereotyped for not endorsing evolution of endangered species.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 02:33 PM

The Top Six Heroes

...of Neal Stephenson.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:43 PM

Reagan Versus McCain

Jim Manzi isn't impressed with John McCain's energy policy. The best that can be said of it is that it's slightly better than Obama's.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:27 PM

SpaceX To The Rescue?

Can they close the gap? It's possible (though it seems unlikely) that they could have a successful Falcon 9 launch before a successful Falcon 1 launch. They don't seem to be letting Falcon 1 problems slow down the Falcon 9 schedule.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:09 PM

Moose Killer, Maverick

Moose Killer...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:40 AM

A Hot House Plant

That's what I called Barack Obama yesterday. Here are more thoughts on that subject.

He's not that savvy. He's lucky -- which, as they say, ain't nothin'. But he's like a guy who got called up for the World Series after winning the high school championship: now, suddenly, the fields are bigger, the crowds are enormous and more discerning, and the other team is accomplished, professional and comes to beat your brains in -- not to provide an exhibition in good sportsmanship.

Obama must react to this drastic change, but he is not as smooth as advertised, he simply does not have a well of experience to draw on, and, importantly, the Democrat nomination campaign did not prepare him. He has always had very obvious weaknesses, but the Democrat candidates could not exploit them because their nomination cannot be won without appealing to a hard-Left base which is night-and-day different from the vast majority of the country. They play a hardcore identity politics and they would crucify anyone who so much as hinted that a young, black community organizer with movement-activist (i.e., terrorist) friends and a record of protecting a woman's right to choose even into the 4th trimester was not an ideal candidate.

Hillary, who would otherwise have been acceptable to the base, could not exploit Obama's biggest vulnerabilities. She couldn't go after him on terrorism because of the Clinton record of feckless counterterrorism and the pardons of Weather Underground and FALN terrorists (FWIW, that was my point in this piece). And she couldn't go after him on his rise from the seamy world of Chicago politics because of, well, see 1992-2000. But realize that, even with her hands tied behind her back in this way, Hillary would still have beaten him had the race gone on another month or so.

The Dems have been in denial for months about how weak their candidate is. The only thing propping him up has been the favorable environment for their party. But I think a new wind blew in from Alaska a week and a half ago.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:52 AM

We've All Been Wondering

Well, I have, anyway. What does Camille think about Sarah (both women for whom no last name is necessary, at least now)? Here it is. I think she sort of has the hots for her.

[Update a few minutes later]

For contrast, here's what a Hollywood nitwit thinks. If that's the right word...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:29 AM

What Does It Really Take?

...to be fired from the Obama campaign?

A lot, apparently.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:52 AM

Organize This

(Democrat) Sandra Tsing Lo writes that the Obamas should have been more supportive of their local school system:

it is with huge grief-filled disappointment that I discovered that the Obamas send their children to the University of Chicago Laboratory School (by 5th grade, tuition equals $20,286 a year). The school's Web site quotes all that ridiculous John Dewey nonsense about developing character while, of course, isolating your children from the poor. A pox on them and, while we're at it, a pox on John Dewey! I'm sick to death of those inspirational Dewey quotes littering the Web sites of $20,000-plus-a-year private schools, all those gentle duo-tone-photographed murmurings about "building critical thinking and fostering democratic citizenship" in their cherished students, living large on their $20,000-a-year island.

Meanwhile, Joseph Biden, the Amtrak senator, standing up boldly for the right to be a Roman Catholic, appears to have sent all three children to the lovely looking Archmere Academy in Delaware. Archmere's Web site notes some public school districts allow Archmere students to use public school buses. Well, isn't that great -- your tax dollars at work in the great state of Delaware because with $18,000 a year in tuition, they can't afford their own buses.

Public schools are for the little people, to be run as the teachers' unions desire, and according to John Dewey's toxic design.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:30 AM

I Have Not Been Dreaming About Sarah Palin

Just for the record. These folks have, though, which would indicate that she's really gotten into their heads. I think that there's going to be a huge therapy bill come mid-November.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Has The Atlantic finally leashed its rabid pit bull? I've often wondered the last few years if the HIV has finally caught up with Andrew's mind. Dementia, sadly, is one of the potential consequences.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AM

A Dime's Worth Of Difference?

Dale Amon explains why (at least pre-Palin) it was hard to be very enthusiastic about John McCain. But he leaves out a couple key areas: taxes and spending. And of course, the war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AM

Hammering Heather

It's been a few years since I last heard from Heather Mallick, but not enough. I could have waited several more with no regrets, but it was not to be.

Fortunately, Lileks has the antidote:

I don't think that Obama meant to call Sarah Palin a pig. Many in the audience may have been heartened by the stray implication, since they already regard her as a hootenanny mama who drinks corn likker from a jug with 3 Xs and smokes a corn-cob pipe after the media leaves, but Obama was just being Folksy and Colloquial in that um-you-know style he reverts to when he's in Authentic Mode. In short, I don't believe a line that stupid was delivered with full knowledge of its implications. I'm in a generous mood.

Or was, until I read this piece by a Canadian writer; it sums up with such delightful perfection what so many believe. So. Let's have a look.

...At least she's honest about the idea of female solidarity - it matters only if the ideological stars have aligned - no, if the ideological cycles have synced, to use terms she'd probably employ. Or has already. It's not about whether Sarah Palin is a woman, it's whether she's the right kind. She's supposed to restrict snow machines, not ride them or for God's sake get knocked up by some slopey-brow dullard who rides them. (Competitively! Gawd) Nationalize oil companies, don't make deals. Have one or two children, not five - Good Gaia, woman, are you trying to make overstuffed congested Alaska top the one-million-citizen mark all by yourself?

As for guys being irresponsible with their precious bodily essences, who cares? Aren't you using protection? Or are they using vagina-confusing Man-Beams to cloud your mind? As for putting off home repairs, here's a hint: either learn how to do it yourself, or admit there might be yet in this enlightened age a strange vague hangover that divides labor based on innate gender-influenced personality traits. If you expect him to fix things, and you roll your eyes when he tries, and you accuse him of using spit and matches, his motivation will be diminished - and even then he'll probably wait until you're out of earshot before he mutters "what a fishwife." If your man can't fix anything it but whines that he can make a really good white sauce, don't blame him when you have an affair with the electrician.

I know this: Mr. Palin probably doesn't postpone household repairs, or use glue, or old matches. He can probably change the oil in the car, too. There are guys like that. Not every wife has to sit in a cold Jiffy Lube waiting room leafing through Field and Stream, wishing the weirdo in the other chair would stop looking at her legs.

As usual, read all. I really should add a "Sarcasm" post category to complement my "Humor" and "Satire" ones.

Further fisking over at Tizona.

[Update a few minutes later]

OK, can't resist. I have to provide one more snippet:

It's a joy to see someone who flung around "white trash" noting that she finds racism "so appalling." All is forgiven; BFF? I don't know what "violently rich" means, except that it certain sounds bad - like you walked up to Tony Rezco and punched him until a nice house deal fell out of his pockets - but yes, most Americans want to be rich, at least as rich as Obama, and there is nothing wrong with this. Most don't have the book-deal / Chicago machine option, so they either play the lottery and plug away at their jobs, or they try to improve their station by the usual means. It is a dearly held American notion that you can do better than you're doing. Even in broken Kansas.

As I said, hie thyself over there. It's all delicious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AM

The Wrong Split

It's not very often that I have a new thought about space, but when I do, I should post it here, rather than debuting it at Space Politics, as I did yesterday. Here's a repeat.

In response to a comment by Stephen Metschan that "According to Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson, 80% of the life cycle cost of space is in the spacecraft and mission not the launch system," I wrote:

"That's because we haven't been doing human exploration to the moon and Mars for the time period over which he gathered that data. The vast amount of payload delivered to orbit for a spacefaring civilization (at least initially, until we are getting it from extraterrestrial sources) is propellant, which costs almost nothing on earth, but is very expensive in space when it's put up on an expensive launch system. And propellant is almost infinitely divisible, and something that can go up on large vehicles, small vehicles, high-reliability vehicles and low-reliability vehicles. But the important thing about it is that it go up on low-cost vehicles.

I'm always amused by the absurd notion that the mistake we made in the past was mixing crew and cargo.

No.

The real mistake that we made was mixing cargo (which is high value, at least if it's space systems, as opposed to logistics, regardless of whether people are being delivered) and propellant. Once you stop doing that, the rationale for large vehicles goes away completely. It can be done with existing vehicles, or new lower-cost vehicles. But it doesn't need expensive new and large expendable vehicles. And in fact they are counterproductive."

I should expand on this sometime. I think that there's an interesting economic argument for "impedance matching" vehicle costs to payload costs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:00 AM

September 09, 2008
The Gaffe Machine Continues To Churn

Will this be the the gaffe of the campaign?

Given the gaffe potential for both sides of the Donkey ticket, it seem unlikely, but maybe...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 PM

The New Season

An interview with the creator of the Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:27 PM

Obama's Executive Experience

Is this really someone you want in charge of the federal budget?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:30 PM

No Small-Town Girl

Jim Bennett writes that Sarah Palin is a much more savvy political operator than people are giving her credit for:

Far from being a reprise of Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Palin was a clear-eyed politician who, from the day she took office, knew exactly what she had to do and whose toes she would step on to do it.

The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska's energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes - the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having "no international experience" particularly absurd.

In short, far from being a small-town mayor concerned with little more than traffic signs, she has been a major player in state politics for a decade, one who formulated an ambitious agenda and deftly implemented it against great odds.

Her sudden elevation to the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket shocked no one more than her enemies in Alaska, who have broken out into a cold sweat at the thought of Palin in Washington, guiding the Justice Department's anti-corruption teams through the labyrinths of Alaska's old-boy network.

It is no surprise that many of the charges laid against her have come from Alaska, as her enemies become more and more desperate to bring her down. John McCain was familiar with this track record and it is no doubt the principal reason that he chose her.

"In office for such a short time, but succeeded in each of her objectives." Sound like Barack Obama? Not really, unless you consider "attaining the next office" his "objective." Here's hoping that he fails in the current one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:10 PM

Look In The Mirror

That's Jennifer Rubin's advice to Obama if he wants to know how he's losing the election. I disagree with this bit of (what is now) conventional wisdom, though:

The obvious blunder was in bypassing Hillary Clinton as VP. With Clinton, the frenzy of excitement would have been for the Democrats and Sarah Palin would be back in Alaska.

Admittedly, having Hillary! on the ticket would have made the Palin pick more difficult--it would have looked too much like "me too." But Obama had good (as well as no doubt bad) reasons to not want to share the ticket with her. The Dems might have thought it was a "dream ticket," but not everyone would agree. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have high negatives, and they're not necessarily with the same group of voters. That ticket would lose votes to both the voters who won't vote for Barack Obama and those would would never vote for Hillary!, and that conjoined set would very likely been more than half the electorate. Her choice would also have fired up the Republican base against her.

And that's ignoring having to share the stage and power with her, and the Bill problem (not to mention having to hire a food taster and have someone else start his car for him every morning). No, I don't think that failing to put her on the ticket was a mistake.

What was a mistake, though was dissing her and her supporters by making it clear that he had never even considered doing so. If he'd been smarter, he'd have at least gone through the motions of vetting her and making it looks as though she was on the list. As it was, it was just one more finger in their collective face.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AM

Obama's Biggest Problem

Pointed out by VDH:

...don't count on a Palin implosion: if one examines Obama's failed House race, and the weird pull-outs of both his primary and general election Illinois Senatorial opponents, then we sense that he has never really waged a knock-out campaign fight until this past year--and that may not be true of Palin's past scrappy and contested rise to the top.

Barack Obama is a hot house plant. He only beat Hillary! because of his early success in caucuses, and because of the Clinton campaign's early complacency and overconfidence. He lost the last half of the primary seasons.

He wasn't supposed to win the nomination this year--it was just a practice run. But now he's like a dog who chases cars, and has finally caught one. He doesn't know what to do with it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:58 AM

Of Course It Does

Restricting the top speed on automobiles "seems reasonably sensible" to Matthew Yglesias:

...of course the reason you're not allowed to go super-fast is that it isn't safe. A large proportion of car accidents are related to people driving too quickly. Thus, via Ezra Klein comes Kent Sepkowitz's suggestion that we design cars so as to make it impossible for them to drive over, say, 75 miles per hour.

Clearly spoken as someone woefully ignorant of the cause of accidents, and who probably doesn't drive much, at least outside a city, or in the west, or in mountains, or on curvy roads where rapid passing is occasionally necessary. Or someone to whom time (at least other peoples' time) has no value. I suspect that he agrees with Al Gore that cars are intrinsically evil, and wishes that everyone would ride a train, like those enlightened Europeans. It's similar to the idiocy (and yes, there's no other word for it) of a double nickel speed limit (something to which even Charles Krauthammer, who doesn't drive at all) has fallen prey.

Fortunately, most of his commenters take him to school.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:20 AM

Who Is Overpaid?

Not engineers.

Engineer's salaries, taking into consideration education and responsibilities, the stress of accelerated delivery schedules and their direct impact on corporate profits and overall success of the company, seem absolutely inadequate.

Well, I've known a few who were. But no, not in general.

In many of these overpaid professions, there's some kind of government-induced market failure going on (e.g., longshoremen), but in a lot of cases, it's just the occasional irrationality of the market place.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:10 AM

Mike Griffin's Frustration

I was going to have some comments about the administrator's leaked email, but haven't had the time. Fortunately, over in comments at Space politics, "anonymous.space" picks up my slack:

He didn't mean for it to be shown to the outside world, but the revisionism, hypocrisy, and self-adulation in Griffin's email is pretty shocking, even this late into the ESAS/Constellation debacle. It's either that, or he's been lying about his real positions for a long time. Griffin wrote:

"Exactly as I predicted, events have unfolded in a way that makes it clear how unwise it was for the US to adopt a policy of deliberate dependence on another power for access to the ISS."

Griffin never predicted this. Instead, Griffin repeatedly stated that the VSE -- including its 2010 date for Shuttle retirement -- and the accompanying NASA Authorization Act of 2005 provide the nation with its best civil space policy in decades. In fact, Griffin said so as recently as January 2008 in an STA speech:

"I consider this to be the best civil space policy to be enunciated by a president, and the best Authorization Act to be approved by the Congress, since the 1960s."

See here.

In fact, just before becoming NASA Administrator, Griffin even _led_ a study that argued as one of its central conclusions/recommendations that the Space Shuttle could and should be retired after ISS assembly reached the stage of "U.S. Core Complete", certainly no later than 2010.

See here.

If Griffin was really so prescient as to predict the situation that NASA's human space flight programs are in now, then he should have spoken up years ago instead of repeatedly signing onto studies and policies that are flawed according to the argument in his email. In fact, it would have been wrong for him to have lobbied for the job of NASA Administrator to begin with if he really thought that the President's policy was so compromised.

Griffin should resign immediately and apologize if his email reflects what he's actually believed all these years. If not, and his email represents how Griffin has recently changed his views, then Griffin should admit that he was wrong to sign onto the policy, argue that the policy needs to be revised, and resign if it is not revised in a manner that he can support.

Griffin also wrote:

"In a rational world, we would have been allowed to pick a Shuttle retirement date to be consistent with Ares/Orion availability"

Griffin is confused about both chronology and causality in this statement. The Shuttle retirement date came first -- as a recommendation about Shuttle operability and certification in the CAIB report and then as policy in the VSE. The replacement for Shuttle (originally CEV in the VSE and then Ares/Orion in ESAS) came second and was supposed to have a schedule that was responsive to that Shuttle retirement date.

In a rational world, a rational NASA Administrator would have picked a rational Shuttle replacement that could be developed rapidly and fielded soon after the 2010 deadline for Shuttle retirement using the available budgetary and technical resources. Instead, Griffin chose an Ares/Orion system that is so technically compromised that it can't complete even its preliminary design review before the end of the Bush II Administration and is so costly that it can't be flown operationally within the available budget until 2015 (and even that date has only a limited chance of being met).

Gemini took less than four years to develop and fly. In the same amount of time, Ares I/Orion will not complete its preliminary design review. That is not rational.

Apollo took seven years to develop and fly (to the Moon). In the same amount of time, Ares I/Orion will still be (at least) three years from flying (to the ISS). That is not rational.

Griffin also wrote:

"We would have been asked to deploy Ares/Orion as early as possible (rather than "not later than 2014″) and we would have been provided the necessary budget to make it so."

Griffin is just making up history with this statement. NASA was never asked to "deploy Ares/Orion" at all. Rather, the VSE directed NASA to develop a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV, which eventually becameOrion), and provided a budget that supported CEV development. The VSE never directed NASA to develop a new launch vehicle that duplicated the nation's military and commercial capabilities with yet another medium- to intermediate-lift launcher (Ares), and the budget never supported such a development. Ares I needlessly busted the VSE budget box from day one, requiring the termination of billions of dollars of ISS research and exploration technology development just to start its design activities.

And why does anyone have to ask Griffin to deploy a Shuttle replacement as early as possible when the VSE gives him the flexibility to develop a replacement anytime before 2014? Is the NASA Administrator really so unambitious and lacking in initiative that, instead of being given a deadline (which he's blown by a year anyway), he also has to be told by the White House to execute a critical replacement program as rapidly as possible?

And then Griffin wrote:

"... for OSTP and OMB, retiring the Shuttle is a jihad rather than an engineering and program management decision."

First, for the head of any federal agency to use the term "jihad" in written reference to the White House offices that set policy for and fund their agency - especially when the same White House has been leading a seven-year war against Islamic extremism - demonstrates such extremely poor judgement that it brings into question whether that agency head is still fit to serve.

Second, the 2010 date for Shuttle retirement was effectively set by the CAIB's expert judgment about and extensive investigation into the vehicle's operational and certification issues. OSTP and OMB (and NASA under the prior Administrator) simply reiterated the 2010 date in the VSE. If Griffin wants to challenge the 2010 Shuttle retirement date, then he needs to challenge the engineering and program management analysis and expertise of the 13-member CAIB and its 32 staff, not OSTP and OMB. OSTP and OMB read and followed the CAIB report on this issue. Apparently Griffin did not and has not.

The only things OSTP and OMB are guilty of is not fulfilling all of the White House's funding commitments to the VSE and not stopping Ares I/Orion at the outset when those projects busted the budget, or later when they ran into insurmountable technical issues and schedule delays that made them programmatically and politically useless.

Griffin also wrote:

"Further, they [OSTP and OMB] actively do not want the ISS to be sustained, and have done everything possible to ensure that it would not be."

For the same NASA Administrator who wiped out billions of dollars of ISS research and who referred to the ISS as a "mistake" in the press to criticize White House offices about their lack of support for the ISS is the height of hypocrisy. See (add http://www):

.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-27-nasa-griffin-interview_x.htm):

Griffin needs to stop flailing in the political winds, make up his mind, and stick with a consistent position on the value (or lack thereof) of the ISS.

Finally, and this is a technical nit compared to the issues above, but towards the end, Griffin also wrote:

"The argument that we need to get Shuttle out of the way so that conversion of the VAB/MAF for Constellation can proceed is similarly specious."

This totally misses the point. The VAB and MAF are just really huge shells that NASA can build anything in. It's the launch and rocket test infrastructure (the pads, the mobile launcher platform, and test stands) that the Shuttle and Constellation system share, and which Constellation has to make modifications to, that will interminably slow Constellation development if Shuttle continues to make use of those facilities.

My kingdom for a rational NASA Administrator who reads and follows policy direction, develops programs within their allotted budgets, encourages and listens to independent technical advice, and has the capacity to admit when the current plan is fubar and adjust course in a timely manner.

Maybe in the next administration, regardless of who wins. But don't bet on it. The only area in which I disagree with these comments concerns the Shuttle retirement date. As I noted in a later comment over there:

"...why did they pick 2010? What is magic about that date (particularly when no one really knows what 'certification' means)?

I had always assumed that the CAIB thought that the Shuttle should be retired ASAP, and that if it wasn't, it would have to be 'recertified' for longer life (ignoring the issue that the term was undefined). But ASAP meant no sooner than ISS completion, which (I think even then) was scheduled for 2010 (at least after the Columbia loss and standown). Hence the date (it doesn't hurt that it's a round number).

The Shuttle doesn't suddenly become less safe to fly in 2011, or even 2012. If there is a degradation, it is a gradual one, not a binary condition, and there is no obvious 'knee in the curve.' The date was driven by non-Shuttle considerations, IMO. If someone on the CAIB (e.g., Dr. Day) knows otherwise, I'd be interested to know that."

And if Mike Griffin is now frustrated, and wants to know who to blame, he'll see him the next time he shaves.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AM

Nomenclature

Ann Althouse writes that Bill O'Reilly "spouts right-wing economic theories."

What does that mean?

I've heard Bill O'Reilly rant against free trade, complain about "fat cats," whine about "obscene" profits from oil companies, price gougers, etc., but in that, he seems to be more attuned to Democrats than "right wingers." Say what you want about O'Reilly, but he's no "right winger" (at least if, by that, one means a classical liberal who believes in free markets). He's a populist, who is just "looking out for the folks" (at least to hear him tell it--never mind the actual effects of his anti-market nostrums). Just another example of the meaninglessness (and uselessness) of the labels (e.g., "neocon," "conservative," "fascist") that get pointlessly thrown around the arena.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 AM

Don't Give Up Your Day Job

The day job, that is, which seems to primarily consist of running for the next office. Senator Obama tries to bring the funny.

"I mean, mother, governor, moose shooter?! I mean I think that's cool, that's cool stuff," Obama said about Palin's biography.

When discussing McCain's energy plan, Obama poked fun at his line on drilling. "What were the Republicans hollerin', 'drill baby drill'? What kind of slogan is that?! They were getting all excited about drilling!"

Maybe you had to be there.

And how politically stupid is it to make fun of hunters in Michigan (which in fact does have moose in the western UP)?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 AM

September 08, 2008
More Community Organizer Thoughts

Byron York has an actual history of what Obama did. Jim Geraghty has some related thoughts:

...note that Obama and his supporters speak a great deal about Obama's choice to be a community organizer, and not so much on what he actually did. We're continually expected to applaud the decision to try instead of asking about the results. We never hear, "because of his work, Factory X reopened," or "because of Obama's creation of job retraining program Y, the community's unemployment rate reduced from A to B."
Yes, with so-called "liberals," it's always about the good intentions, and we're not supposed to pay any attention to actual results.

Lileks has some thoughts as well:

We're having a block party tonight - yes, another block party; damned community can't stop organizing itself (if I may repeat something I said over at Tim Blair's place - successful communities, or those on track to becoming successful, organize themselves; if you need someone to come in and do your organizing for you, he might as well call himself Mollusk Wrangler or Sloth Herder. I say this as a former community organizer myself, but that's another story) so we'll all stand outside and chat and eat pot luck.

If your community needs an "organizer" it's probably not much of a community. It's just a lot of people living in close proximity.

And just a hint for some in comments: given Obama's image problem with his messiah complex, it's probably not politically helpful to compare him to Jesus...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:43 AM

Building Character

Jessica Gavora, native Alaskan (and aka better half of Jonah Goldberg) has some thoughts on basketball and Sarah Palin:

We didn't play basketball to pad our college applications or fulfill some bureaucrat's notion of "gender equity." We played because the winters were long and cold and dark. There was nothing else to do. Maybe as a result, basketball was deadly serious business. Away games were played at the end of eight-hour bus rides or harrowing plane landings in frozen, remote villages. Our opponents were tough, and the fans were unforgiving. And even though the law that feminists like to credit with all female athletic success, Title IX, was then unenforced in high school sports, we girls wouldn't have dreamed of taking second place to the boys--nor did we.

Palin earned her now-famous nickname on the hardcourt--"Sarah Barracuda." Her enemies have tried to belittle her by pointing to her stint as a beauty queen, but it is clear that Palin's background in sports, more than any other experience, is what has made her the existential threat to liberal feminism (and possibly the Democratic ticket) that she is today.

I wonder how she'd do one on one with Senator Obama? Did he ever win a state championship for his team? Perhaps it's another comparison that his campaign should avoid.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 AM

That's Not A Man, Baby

The latest in frightening fashion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:45 AM

Fact From Fiction

Charlie Martin sorts through all the Palin rumors.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AM

Well, That's Reassuring

Senator Obama says he's not going to take our guns away, because he doesn't have the votes in Congress. What a politically brilliant thing to say in Pennsylvania. And he says that he's not going to take them out of our house. What he doesn't say is that he doesn't want us to take them out of our house, either.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:25 AM

September 06, 2008
Defending "Community Organizers"

Iowahawk is on the job.

By the way, I'm about to get on an airplane to go back to get blown away by a hurricane, so no posting until this evening, if then.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 AM

September 05, 2008
Another Electoral Concern

Obama's supporters don't seem to believe in the Constitution:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama's supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge's sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

This by itself is reason to vote for McCain.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:19 PM

Fool's Paradise

People who go to work for the government with the expectation that it will provide them with retirement security are kidding themselves.

Getting local politicians *and* local unions to think more than a year or two is all but impossible. Do you realize that practically no local jurisdictions even have a Liabilities Budget?

It's just part of that visionary and long-range thinking on the part of governments.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:47 PM

Alphabetical

Irene Klotz is hosting the latest carnival of space, with a different theme.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:44 PM

Off Guard

Here's a Time article on how the Obama campaign plans to deal with Sarah. I was struck by the very first graf.

Nobody was more surprised by John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate than the people who run Barack Obama's campaign. "I can honestly say that we weren't prepared for that," says David Axelrod, Obama's top strategist. "I mean, her name wasn't on anybody's list. It was a surprise to a lot of Republicans as well."

Well, why weren't they prepared for it? A lot of the non-left blogs have been speculating about her for months. Rush reportedly was talking her up months ago, and there have been threads at Free Republic about her. She had come to Arizona to visit McCain's house there. It was no big intellectual challenge to figure out that she was on the list, if not the short one.

Is this kind of intelligence cluelessness the way they plan to run the country?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:01 PM

Administrative Note

If your comment is held for moderation, the most likely reason is that it has multiple links in it. I generally publish them as soon as I notice. It's not because I'm censoring people, or moderating comments in general.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:09 PM

Won Over

Bill Whittle is now sold on John McCain:

I had heard before that John McCain had been beaten in prison, and I admired him for it. But when he said he had been broken . . . I gasped. When this sometimes cocky, arrogant old man told me he had once been a cocky, arrogant young man until he was "blessed by hardship," until he had been broken and remade -- and in that remaking discovered a love of country so fierce and pure that even as a patriot myself I will never approach it -- well, in that moment John McCain won my heart, to add to the respect and admiration he had already had.

When John McCain told me what I and untold millions of Americans have always believed, what others tell me to be ashamed of and mock me for -- that I live in the greatest country in the world, a force of goodness and justice in dark places, a land of heroism and sacrifice and opportunity and joy -- to me that went right to the mystic chords of memory that ultimately binds this country together. Some people don't know what it is, but there is such a thing as patriotism -- pure, unrefined, unapologetic, unconditional, non-nuanced, non-cosmopolitan, white-hot-burning patriotism. John McCain loves this country. I love it too. Not what it might be made into someday -- not its promise, always and only its promise -- but what it was and what it is, a nation and an idea worth fighting and dying for.

He also points out that Sarah has stolen Barack's mojo. Read the whole thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:00 PM

Just How Stupid

...do all the people who were predicting that Sarah Palin would drop out within a couple days look now?

[Update a few minutes later]

More thoughts from Ann Althouse, on foolish Eagleton comparisons.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:23 PM

News You Can Use

You (or at least they) can tell a woman's v@ginal org@smic potential by watching the way she walks.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:25 AM

September 04, 2008
Can't Wait

I just love Florida.

I'm in LA right now, but going home to Boca on Saturday. And right now, the models have a Cat 4 hurricane directly hitting my current home town on Tuesday night.

Patricia put up the shutters on the windows earlier this week in anticipation of Hannah, which is now a tropical storm and missing Florida. But at least we'll be mostly ready for Ike. But I'll still have to put up plywood on the patio doors, and a hurricane that strong could have a flooding surge. We may decide to head up to Orlando, but this weekend will give us a much better sense of where it's really heading early next week.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 PM

An Interesting Interview

...with Mike Griffin.

Not a lot new here for people who have been following it. And I would have a lot bolder vision for a "perfect world" than simply enough money to fly Shuttle while developing the Paintshaker. And he seems to be ignoring the issue that they share facilities and that mods have to occur (unless he was asking for enough money for new facilities for the new launcher).

And this is a useful point:

Q: When I tell non space people about the gap, the response is almost universally "you're kidding." Why is that?

Griffin: The 'you're kidding' part and the lack of notice, for several years it was something fairly far off in the future. The actual circumstance doesn't even occur in the next president's administration unless that president gets two terms. It certainly wasn't occurring in this president's administration and it doesn't occur in any of the next couple of Congresses, right? Nobody around today was certain to be on scene when the actual consequence occurs. Moreover, I don't think anybody reading about it in the papers ... thought really that it was going to be allowed to come to pass.

A lot of people argue that we need governments to fund things like this because private industry is too short sighted.

Give me a break.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:52 PM

Tied?

This is just one poll, but it indicates that either Obama didn't get a convention bounce, or it was negated by events since (and the Republican convention didn't really get going until last night). If it's valid, it's hard to see anything other than the Palin selection as the cause. And note the difference between this poll and the one on the weekend (eight points). As I noted previously, weekend polls are notorious for favoring Democrats.

Also, if valid, it's bad news for Obama. If McCain gets a convention bounce, he'll be well in the lead.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:12 PM

A Roundup Of Palin Reax

From Iowahawk.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:03 PM

How We Know Some People Have Too Much Money

Testicular implants for pets.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:11 PM

Worth Its Weight In Gold

A list of items that have a higher value density than gold. This is a characteristic of any viable product of space manufacturing, at least one that will have a market on earth, because transportation costs are so high.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:34 AM

Oh, By The Way

You just know the Obama campaign is going to try to scare you out of voting for her. They're gonna say she can't manage her family. And that she kills innocent helpless animals. And did we mention that she's a woman?

If you don't vote for McCain/Palin, you're a sexist. And probably a secret misogynist.

What a delicious trap for the identity politics crowd.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:10 AM

Senator Obama's Legislative Accomplishments

Alex Knapp points out that he gets a bad rap, at least in his Senate career. I think that a lot of people tend to focus on all his "present" votes in the IL legislature.

But I don't necessarily judge a legislator by the quantity of laws generated. The quality matters much more to me. In fact, I'd prefer an effective legislator who did nothing other than preventing bad legislation, even if (s)he never originated any. I don't think that the country suffers from a shortage of laws, particularly federal ones. And I'd really go for someone who would work to overturn much of the bad law currently on the books.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:34 AM

Saracuda

I should state up front that I'm not easily influenced by speechifying. I never got what people thought was so great about Bill Clinton's speeches--I had trouble stomaching them myself, because they always seemed so fake and disingenuous. And I never understood why Reagan was called "the Great Communicator." Most of his speeches left me pretty cold as well. I mean, I was fine with the content, but I just never got the all the adulation.

Same thing with Governor Palin. She gave a good speech, had a lot of nice swipes at The One, and I liked most of what she said, as far as it goes. It's probably too much to expect a lot of policy, given that she'd just come through several days of one of the most vicious media assaults in history, and had to just get the audience to know her. Her voice doesn't seem as strong as I'd like, but I think that for most people, it must increase her likability factor. It's also impressive that she managed to give it with teleprompter problems, with no obvious flubs. She either had good notes as a backup, or she really knew that speech. Had Obama been in a similar situation it could have been disastrous (which makes one think of the potential for a very dirty campaign trick if one could breach the security and get control of his prompter during a big speech).

I think that she's going to be a very good debater, and show people that she's much more knowledgable than the stereotype so far.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AM

September 03, 2008
Sarah Shrugged

Irene Klotz has been won over by Sarah Palin and Ayn Rand. And the former Democrat is going to be following the campaign from a space perspective. Not sure how much she's going to have to report. I doubt that it will be a big issue outside of Florida.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:44 PM

A Suggestion For Sarah

She should slip this line into her speech:

"Being a mayor is kind of like being a community organizer, except mayors have to get results and are held accountable if they don't."

Please.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:11 PM

Palinizing

Victor Davis Hanson defines a new word, sure to go down with "borking." Or "swiftboating," except that what that means depends on who you ask.

The liberal left buys into the Gore notion of offsets--that by backing ever more entitlements, and public assistance, the caring liberal is allowed to feel a little tsk, tsk about Alaska moose-hunters, teenage white girls getting pregnant, and small-town mayorships, without incurring the charge of elitism. Writing a story about a struggling family or an illegal alien wrongly deported, introducing a bill to help working moms, announcing that an Obama speech is the equivalent of the Gettysburg Address, all that lets you unload on the Palin's teenage daughter or Palin herself in ways that any unbiased observer would consider sexist, snobbish, and condescendingly cruel.

Being a mother of a Down syndrome child, raising five children, rising, without money or family influence, to the governorship on an anti-corruption and commonsense platform, in addition to trying to run the largest-sized state in the union, critical to both the energy and defense security of the nation, all that should have made liberals and feminists, if reluctantly, nevertheless appreciative of her success in a mostly male political world.

Not this week, perhaps--but soon there will be a backlash against all this creepiness. Just watch...

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a charismatic senator, with Obama's resume, except that it's a woman (even make it a black woman if you want, but it shouldn't really matter that much). Imagine also an equally charismatic governor of Alaska, a rugged outdoorsman who hunts moose and plays hockey with a philosophy of individualism and self reliance, who has started and run successful businesses, risen through politics and vanquished corrupt politicians in his own party. Make him a Democrat if you want.

Which of them would be perceived to be more ready to lead the nation?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:31 PM

Where Did That Number Come From?

I hadn't seen this before. Mike Griffin is claiming that extending Shuttle will dramatically reduce its reliability:

In April this year, he told a Senate panel: "If one were to do as some have suggested and fly the shuttle for an additional five years -- say, two missions a year -- the risk would be about one in 12 that we would lose another crew. That's a high risk ..... [one] I would not choose to accept on behalf of our astronauts."

So he's saying that each of those flights has a probability of success of 99.1% (about one in a hundred chance of losing the vehicle). That's the number that, when taken to the tenth power (the number of flights) comes out to a 92% probability of not losing a vehicle. 99% is slightly better than historical record, based on the two losses of Challenger and Columbia, but I would expect after all the money they spent on resolving foam and other issues that they should have a much safer vehicle now (probably the safest it's ever been). Is he assuming some kind of reduction in reliability as the system ages or we can't replace parts over that fiveyear period? I'm curious to know how they came up with it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:13 PM

Which debate would you most like to see?
	McCain versus Obama
	Palin Versus Biden
	McCain Versus Biden
	Palin Versus Obama

pollcode.com free polls