All posts by Rand Simberg

Economics, Political Commentary

The Missing Word

21 Comments

With a computer mouse, you can precisely position the cursor wherever you want. The motion of the cursor exactly mimics the motion of the mouse in your hand. It is a positional controller.

But in many computer games, you have no direct control over position. The joystick controller only controls the rate of motion. You have to provide a direction, and speed, and hope that it will get to the desired location at the desired time. As anyone who has played such games knows, position control using a rate controller is much less precise, and often not even accurate if you’re not a good judge of such things.

In last night’s political debate (as in almost all discussions of this topic), there was a lot of talk about “cutting taxes,” and “raising taxes.” Not to pick on him in particular, but as an example, here’s the reporting by Jim Geraghty:

Hillary laughs heartily at McCain’s comment about “they’re going to raise your taxes, and they have the aud-ic-i-ty, the audacity, to hope you don’t mind!”

With her laugh, she triggered a thousand primal screams on liberal blogs.

Steph asks if she’ll make a pledge to never raise taxes for those making under $200,000 per year. She says she’s “absolutely committed to not raising taxes on those making less than $200,000.”

Obama echoes the pledge, and says he’ll cut taxes for those folks.

I don’t trust either, but I’m rather surprised that they both were willing to be pinned down in the equivalent of “read my lips, no new taxes.”

Wow. Charlie Gibson notes that when the capital gains taxes were cut under both Clinton and Bush, revenues went up.

These are the GREATEST DEBATE QUESTIONS EVER.

Wow. Hillary: “I would not raise the capital gains tax above 20 percent, if I would raise it at all… I don’t want to raise taxes on everyone.” She rips Obama’s plan to raise payroll taxes.

Emphasis mine, in all cases. Every one of these statements is absurd. No one, not the mighty Hillary, not the saintly Obama, has the power to raise or cut taxes. They don’t have a tax revenue controller. All they can do is increase or decrease tax rates. And they can’t predict with certainty whether or not this will increase, or decrease “taxes” (that is, tax revenues). The absurdity of leaving out this key word is demonstrated starkly in Charlie Gibson’s statement: “when the capital gains taxes were cut, revenues went up.” How can that be? If taxes are cut, by definition, revenues have to go down. But if he had said that when capital gains tax rates are cut, revenues go up, this is perfectly sensible (though counterintuitive to people who don’t understand that tax rates modify behavior).

I expect Democrats (and journalists, who are generally Democrats) to play such word games, but I’m always disappointed when Republicans and so-called conservatives go along with it. People who want lower tax rates (and a more vibrant economy) have to demand them, and stop talking about lower taxes. Yes, it would be nice to cut off funding to the federal government (at least if we could get spending under control), but that’s a separate issue. By conflating tax revenues with tax rates, we grant far too much power to the big government types, when we should instead be pointing out their powerlessness. There are many unintended consequences of government action, and it is always useful to point out that this is just one more–that the federal government cannot directly control how much it taxes people (that is, how much money it actually confiscates)–it can only control the the rate at which it does so.

This is just one more example of how we small-government types have to start taking back the language.

General, History, Popular Culture

Remembering Slim Chipley

4 Comments

Most of my readers will find this of no interest at all, but I just ran across a new blog dedicated to remembering the good old days in Flint, Michigan. Nostalgic memories abound.

The population trend in the sidebar is depressing. When I was a kid it had a population of almost two hundred thousand, and there was an ongoing feud with Grand Rapids over whether it or Flint was the second largest city in the state (after Detroit, of course, which had its own hemorrhage of people). Now it’s down to just a little over half that.

[Update in the evening]

OK, again, unless you’re from southeast Michigan, this will be meaningless, but via the blog above, I found a coney blog. That actually understands the difference between Flint and Detroit style.

And there are those who say that it’s a lost art. For many, Angelo’s defined the Flint coney island, and once he died (my father was in the hospital with him at the same time, as they both had heart attacks in the late sixties), it became franchised, and lost the magic. But my mother used to tell me (and we even went there when I was young) that the original Flint Coney Island, on Saginaw, north of downtown, was the best. But it went under decades ago.

Anyway, I’m glad to hear that it’s a hit in Phoenix. Maybe we can keep the brand alive.

My darling Patricia doesn’t understand the appeal. But then, she’s not a fan of raw onions. Nor is she a fan of me after I ingest them. But once in a while, I have to indulge, consequences be damned…

Space

OK, What Am I Missing Here?

12 Comments

NASA apparently plans its first Ares flight test a year from today.

The April 2009 flight will be the first of four test fights for the rocket’s first stage, derived from the current space shuttle’s solid-rocket boosters. In particular, NASA hopes the flight will validate measures it is now undertaking to quell an anticipated vibration issue in the booster system, which could pose problems down the line for the survivability of later variants of the rocket.

The flight will also demonstrate the abilities of the first-stage flight control systems to keep the “single stick” rocket on course, without the benefit of control fin surfaces.

For the first test flight, NASA will use a four-segment booster, topped with an empty fifth segment. Replicas of an Ares 1 second stage, Orion space capsule and launch abort system rocket will ride up top. The dummy segments will feature correct exterior detailing for aerodynamics testing, and will weigh about the same as their real-life counterparts.

“It’s made to look a lot like the Ares 1 vehicle, but it’s a very different animal,” said NASA lead ground operations engineer Tassos Abadiotakis. “We’re also going to get some aerodynamics data, some thermal data — just the basic rocketry laws to make sure what we’re proposing to go fly for Ares 1 actually is going to perform as advertised.”

OK, so, if it’s “a very different animal,” how is it going to validate the real animal? I thought that the concern with the vibration was the fact that they’ve never flown a five-segment booster, and don’t know what its resonant modes will be. I don’t see how flying an four-segment booster with an empty casing on top resolves those concerns in any way. Why can’t they fly a five-segment booster? Presumably because it won’t be far enough along in development to allow a test flight a year from now.

And will the upper stage be just a dummy mass, or will it be active? I thought that the Ares was supposed to get roll control from the upper stage, since it has no way of doing it with the booster (as the article points out, it has no fins, and even if it did, they’d be useless once it left the atmosphere). The first stage can control pitch and yaw through gimbaling, but absent some kind of control jets on the circumference, there’s no way for it to control roll on its own.

So, just what is it that this test is supposed to accomplish? Other, of course, than getting something on the pad and flying it to maintain program momentum at a time that a new administration is coming in and considering what to do with it?

[Update on Thursday morning]

I’ve gotten more than one private email from program insiders that this is a political stunt, not a useful engineering test.

Political Commentary

“I Don’t Recall”

9 Comments

It seems like Barack Obama shares a problem with Hillary!–a faulty memory when it comes to shady dealings and associates:

Dem presidential contender Barack Obama’s handlers may be telling the press Obama has NO “recollection” of a 2004 party at influence peddler Tony Rezko’s Wilmette house, but a top Sneed source claims Obama not only gave Rezko’s guest of honor, Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, a big welcome . . . but he made a few toasts!

Hey, maybe he just drank so many toasts that he blacked out the memory. Maybe in addition to giving up smoking, he should join AA?

Must be that “new politics” I’ve heard so much about.

And Victor Davis Hanson says that Obama (and Michelle, and Jeremiah) just keep on digging:

The American people will forgive slips, even condescension IF they are followed by genuine apology and not repeated ad infinitum. But in this case, there will be a growing weariness, followed by anger, at the notion that a Presidential candidate thinks he can say whatever he wishes, associate with whomever he wants, and feel it’s the electorate’s, not his own, ensuing problem. So the rub for the Obama campaign is not simply that he has no experience outside the Ivy League and Chicago, or even that he made a Faustian bargain with the Trinity church to jump-start his career, but rather his hubris this spring — which as we speak is bringing on a summer nemesis.

I’m hoping for a fall nemesis, myself.

Political Commentary

“I Don’t Recall”

It seems like Barack Obama shares a problem with Hillary!–a faulty memory when it comes to shady dealings and associates:

Dem presidential contender Barack Obama’s handlers may be telling the press Obama has NO “recollection” of a 2004 party at influence peddler Tony Rezko’s Wilmette house, but a top Sneed source claims Obama not only gave Rezko’s guest of honor, Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, a big welcome . . . but he made a few toasts!

Hey, maybe he just drank so many toasts that he blacked out the memory. Maybe in addition to giving up smoking, he should join AA?

Must be that “new politics” I’ve heard so much about.

And Victor Davis Hanson says that Obama (and Michelle, and Jeremiah) just keep on digging:

The American people will forgive slips, even condescension IF they are followed by genuine apology and not repeated ad infinitum. But in this case, there will be a growing weariness, followed by anger, at the notion that a Presidential candidate thinks he can say whatever he wishes, associate with whomever he wants, and feel it’s the electorate’s, not his own, ensuing problem. So the rub for the Obama campaign is not simply that he has no experience outside the Ivy League and Chicago, or even that he made a Faustian bargain with the Trinity church to jump-start his career, but rather his hubris this spring — which as we speak is bringing on a summer nemesis.

I’m hoping for a fall nemesis, myself.

Political Commentary

“I Don’t Recall”

It seems like Barack Obama shares a problem with Hillary!–a faulty memory when it comes to shady dealings and associates:

Dem presidential contender Barack Obama’s handlers may be telling the press Obama has NO “recollection” of a 2004 party at influence peddler Tony Rezko’s Wilmette house, but a top Sneed source claims Obama not only gave Rezko’s guest of honor, Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, a big welcome . . . but he made a few toasts!

Hey, maybe he just drank so many toasts that he blacked out the memory. Maybe in addition to giving up smoking, he should join AA?

Must be that “new politics” I’ve heard so much about.

And Victor Davis Hanson says that Obama (and Michelle, and Jeremiah) just keep on digging:

The American people will forgive slips, even condescension IF they are followed by genuine apology and not repeated ad infinitum. But in this case, there will be a growing weariness, followed by anger, at the notion that a Presidential candidate thinks he can say whatever he wishes, associate with whomever he wants, and feel it’s the electorate’s, not his own, ensuing problem. So the rub for the Obama campaign is not simply that he has no experience outside the Ivy League and Chicago, or even that he made a Faustian bargain with the Trinity church to jump-start his career, but rather his hubris this spring — which as we speak is bringing on a summer nemesis.

I’m hoping for a fall nemesis, myself.

Political Commentary

In Defense Of Elitism

13 Comments

Jonah Goldberg defends Obama. Well, OK, not really. But he does defend elitism:

In his telling Pennsylvania was once Belgium on the Susquehanna — cheese parties, Sam Harris book clubs etc — and it can be again if only these people get good enough jobs to lay down their guns and bibles. As just about everyone has observed by now, this is a fundamentally Marxist way of looking at the world and Obama deserves to be called on it.

But it’s not elitist, not really. It’s clearly snobbish. It’s certainly myopic and arrogant. And it’s absolutely wrong. But I don’t think it’s elitist. Maybe I’m biased because I don’t have any pressing problem with elitism, rightly understood. Elite derives from the Latin for elect and in our elections we decide who will be our (political) elite. Jefferson believed in a democratic elite which rose up on merit. I do too. We’re all elitists in one way or another (Show of hands: Who wants an elite surgeon to perform their heart-lung transplant and who wants a really average surgeon to do it? If you answer that you want the surgeon from the really meaty part of the bell curve, I will concede you are no elitist).

What’s offensive about Obama’s comment isn’t its elitism per se, but the arrogance of assuming that those who see the world through a different prism or who are relatively immune to his charms are somehow embittered and confused and therefore less equipped to decide who should be our elected elite.

I don’t think that I’ve complained about “elitism” in my numerous posts on Obama (though I could be wrong), because I agree. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being elite, and being elite is something to which we should in fact aspire, though it should be a goal reached through hard work, and not simply the luck of birth (other than perhaps genetically endowed talent).

“Elitism” is one of those words, like “judgmental” and “discriminating,” that have gotten an unfairly bad wrap. During the Wright imbroglio, one of my anonymous Obamamaniacal commenters amusingly (and idiotically) told me to stop being so judgmental, as though there’s something wrong with having, and exercising, judgment. And what is selecting a better job candidate over a worse one, if not “discrimination”? There is nothing wrong with judging or discriminating. What becomes a problem is when the judging and discriminating occur on an irrational basis (e.g., skin color alone–though even there there could sometimes be a reasonable basis).

As an example, I was recently discussing the possibility of doing some consulting for a firm to help with some regulatory issues in the UK. The person I was speaking with thought that I (and my business associates) had excellent credentials for the task, except for one problem–we (due, no doubt to a misspent youth spent largely in the US) had American accents. He didn’t think that we could be as effective with Whitehall and Parliament as someone who spoke like most in The City, and we couldn’t disagree with him. This was discrimination, but it was hardly unreasonable. He was, in fact, exercising good judgment, and perhaps even being justifiably elitist, in that he wanted the best people for the job.

In any event, I tend to discriminate against people who view the world through a Marxist lens, and can be very judgmental about them, particularly when they are vying for the most powerful position in the world. So sue me.

[Evening update]

Obama keeps digging deeper:

What happened to the people clinging to their guns?

Were they “mangled” by insertion? Or have they now been mangled out of existence, now to be discarded? Why is there not a word about them?

(Sorry, but “hunting” is not the same. Don’t call me a “hunter,” because I don’t hunt.)

Has the Second Amendment become a secondary wedge issue now that Obama has thought it over? Or has gun-clinging behavior been subsumed into anti-gay, and anti-immigrant “sentiments” which people don’t really feel honestly, but only imagine they do because of exploitative prodding by their leaders?

The disturbing implication, of course, is that under the right, uh, leadership, uh, the negative thinking (all that gun-clinging, and all that bigotry) will be made to disappear.

I’m feeling plenty marginalized by this. It’s bad enough to be told that as a gun owner I don’t really think what I think, but I have been led into it by others.

But now I’m told that my guns are not the issue because they might as well be bigoted sentiments against gays and immigrants! But that if I harbor these sentiments (which I don’t), they are no more mine than my gun-clinging behavior was.

I think that this is more evidence that he does a lot better with a teleprompter than impromptu. It also continues to be a window into what he really thinks about us.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Heh. I like this comment:

Obama’s antics remind me of Barry Goldwater’s comments about Richard Nixon during Watergate.

“Well, first he shot himself in the foot, and then he shot himself in the other foot, and then he shot himself in the ass.”

Given Obama’s great propensity to shoot himself in various places, I can understand why he might not like guns.

Political Commentary

Extinct?

12 Comments

Well, at least in Italy:

The big news is that the Communists are gone, for the first time since the end of the Second World War. Really gone. They didn’t win a single seat in either chamber. A lot of famous faces will vanish from Parliament, and it is even possible, although unlikely, that some of the comrades will be forced to join the working class. The Greens are also gone. In fact, there are only six parties in the new Parliament, suggesting that Italy’s well on the road to a two-party political system instead of the dreadful proportional electoral model that has destroyed virtually every country where it’s been applied. If that happens, a lot of the credit goes to Veltroni, who created a real center-left party and refused to admit the old Left.

Not just big news, but great news, worthy of a celebration. I look forward to the day when one will find them only in museums of bad ideas of the last millennium, and college campuses. Unfortunately, they never really disappear. The toxic ideas will just resurface under another name (as has in fact happened in the guise of environmentalism, though the demise of the Italian Green Party is encouraging as well in that regard).