Iowahawk has the scoop on the vice president’s plan to jump the Grand Canyon with Amtrak. Speaking of which, Ray LaHood showed up at the Commercial Space Transportation Conference on Thursday. The topic of his speech? High-speed rail.
The country’s in the very best of hands.
I’ve been pointing for a year now that NASA needs private providers a lot more than they need NASA. Jeff Foust has a report from the plenary session of the conference yesterday, in which Charlie Bolden confirmed it. This will, of course, cause exploding of heads in the moronosphere.
[Update a few minutes later]
And as predicted, here is the latest insanity from Mark Whittington:
Charles Bolden was reported to have told Apollo astronaut Gene Cernan that he would provide a bailout for commercial space firms “equal to that given the auto industry” if the private sector faltered in providing space transportation services. Bolden later issued a non denial denial of Cernan’s account.
This raises the question of in what sense is the Obama program “commercial.” Under the Bush era COTS program, the consequences for failure were that a commercial company would be out of the program. Originally a company called Rocket Plane/Kistler was part of COTS. But because RP/Kistler could not meet milestones, it was replaced by another company called Orbital Systems.
But under the Obama plan, the only consequences for failure would be more money pumped into the commercial companies that are developing private space craft. With the demise of Constellation, companies competing for ISS servicing contracts have become too important to fail.
So far this virtual guarantee of money has not had much of an effect on the performance of companies in the commercial space program. Recently, SpaceX successfully orbited, reentered, and landed on the ocean a prototype of its Dragon space craft.
I don’t have time to dissect it right now, so I toss it as chum to the comment sharks. I will note though, that there is no logical connection between the first and second sentences in that last paragraph. Which is not atypical of a Whittington piece.
They still don’t get it:
“I have seen the future of Obamabusiness and its regulations (my primary responsibility as a business is to provide jobs, not make a profit) and have responded by not hiring in the traditional manner at all – ever. I will now use temp agencies. Almost no paperwork, no disputes, no benefit costs, no HR department, no lawsuits, no commitments. Welcome to the future of being an employee.”
Emphasis mine. The notion that the business of a business is to create jobs is a Marxist one. As the president remains, despite his shellacking.
…and replace. Some good ideas for the Republicans on health care.
Thoughts from (law professor) Glenn Reynolds on America’s laws and lawyers, and why we probably have too many of both. It’s part of the ratchet effect I discussed a couple of days ago.
Thoughts on the incremental nature of the destruction of liberty. Unfortunately, it’s like a ratchet, and it’s a lot harder to get rid of bad laws than to create new ones.
..has begun.
It’s a longer-term project, but definitely doable. And it would be a great victory for freedom, with the biggest rollback of the state in almost a century, since The New Deal.
Thoughts from Michael Barone:
If you put together Obama’s resistance to just about any serious changes in entitlement spending with his antique vision of technological progress, what you see is an America where the public sector permanently consumes a larger part of the economy than in the past and squanders the proceeds on white elephants like faux high-speed rail lines and political payoffs to the teacher and other public-sector unions. Private-sector innovation gets squeezed out by regulations like the Obama FCC’s net neutrality rules. It’s a plan for a static rather than dynamic economy.
Leftists only like change when they are in control of it.
[Update a few minutes later]
Sorry, link is fixed now.
[Update a while later]
This seems related somehow: Network news anchors struggle to understand the Internet in 1994.
I had been using email for over ten years prior to this.
A judge has ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional in its entirety. Praise be to the morons on the Hill who decided there was no room in a bill of over 2000 pages for a severability clause.
I haven’t had time to read the ruling obviously, but I’m sure that others are doing so, and will have thoughts. It isn’t clear whether or not the ruling enjoins the government from enforcing the law, but I’m pretty sure that this will accelerate SCOTUS review.
Oh, and Queen Nancy? Remember when someone asked you about the constitutionality of this atrocity, and you asked if they were serious? I think this answers that question.
[Update a few minutes later]
Professor Jacobson weighs in:
Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient. In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived. By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect).
In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.
In a sensible world of course, in which the Democrats had any political integrity, this would accelerate the momentum toward repeal. I mean, if I had already delegated my oath of office to the courts, and got such a devastating rebuke, I’d certainly reconsider if my vote had been wise. And a president who wasn’t power mad would be willing to acknowledge his mistake as well, and willingly rectify it with his signature on a repeal bill.
But that’s not the world we live in.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Americans for Limited Government has a release:
For Immediate Release Contact: Rick Manning (press); Rebekah Rast (TV & radio)
January 31, 2011
Phone: (703) 383-0880
Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional, ALG RespondsJanuary 31st, 2011, Fairfax, VA—Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government, released the following statement after Florida Judge Vinson ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional.
“For the second time, the federal courts have ruled that the federal government’s takeover of the health care system is unconstitutional. Congress needs to act now to defund the regulation writing on this unconstitutional law to prevent further damage from being done to our nation’s health care system. It is clear with a majority of states suing to stop the law, that it is unpopular, unconstitutional and unenforceable. Congress needs to act now to correct this mistake.”
With all Americans increasingly concerned about the unsustainable debt Obama and his cohorts have imposed on taxpayers, stopping any further advance of ObamaCare is vital to getting our fiscal house in order. First, stop any further regulation or dictates to the states. Second, repeal the law outright. And finally, move with common sense, market-based proposals to make the necessary repairs. Judge Vinson, following the ruling by Judge Hudson, has done a great service to the American people by beginning this crucial process.”
Indeed he has.
[Update a couple minutes later]
You know, it’s no surprise that unconstitutional bills get passed by a congress that contains members of a brain trust like Chuck Schumer:
“We have three branches of the government: we have a House, we have a Senate and we have a President…”
Hey, knowing basic civics is for the little people.
[Update a while later]
A summary of the decision by Dave Kopel.
I should note that it is becoming more clear now that the judge’s order was in effect a de facto stay against the law, so any enforcement of it by the administration will be in violation of that order. This should go to appellate like a rocket, if it doesn’t go straight to SCOTUS (as a result of the conflicting rulings from other districts).
[Update a while later]
Well, that didn’t take very long. According to the totalitarians, it is an act of judicial overreach and activism to point out that the Constitution places limits on the powers of the federal government.