Just one group has stuck with Obama through it all. In ’08, he won 58 percent of people with graduate degrees. Now, he’s at 59 percent. It appears that academic types will be with Obama always, but they’re not enough.
They, of course, will claim that this is evidence of how uneducated and stupid the populace is, to no longer recognize the brilliance of The One. I see it as evidence of the worthlessness of most graduate degrees, and much of academia. Let’s pop that bubble, so they can experience the economic disaster that the rest of us have, as a result of their collectivist policies.
And here’s the recipe for my Thanksgiving dressing (probably too late for you to procure ingredients, though, sorry), which I’ll be making today. While watching the Lions embarrass themselves. Again.
Should we make college more expensive? I agree with Glenn’s reader. Ending subsidies would actually reduce costs, and focus academics on the people who should really be in college. But it’s going to be very hard to break the back of the politician/media/academia industrial complex. But if any time is one to do it, it’s one of fiscal austerity on the part of the government. If we can defund CPB/NPR, that would be an indication that it’s time to go after this.
…is losing air. Too bad this didn’t happen a couple years ago, when the Democrats got elected on that kind of economic lunacy. I hope that this will reduce their support in Silicon Valley. Unfortunately, the California electorate remains clueless, as demonstrated by the failure of Prop 23.
And I could never understand why if, as its opponents told us on commercials every five minutes, it was an evil plot by “Texas oil companies,” we never saw or heard any commercials supporting it, paid for by those evil Texas oil companies. But then, logic has never been a California voters’ strong suit, at least not in the past couple decades.
If Republicans fail to take action on ethanol, it will demonstrate the shallowness of their commitment to limiting government largesse and give credence to arguments that Republicans are only for less government when it’s good for special interests.
And once again confirming the reason that I’m always reluctant to vote for them, and always wish I had other, better choices. And they don’t even have to take action — inaction will suffice.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I would also note that Al Gore’s volte face on the issue is probably more indicative of the fact that he’s no longer seeking votes in Tennessee or Iowa, and a newfound allegiance to other biofuels, than any newfound allegiance to the market.
Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. This is the theme of my forthcoming book on the controlling, poisonously misanthropic and aggressively socialistic instincts of the modern environmental movement. So how very generous that two of that movement’s leading lights should have chosen the anniversary of Climategate to prove my point entirely.
I think he’s right. This nonsense is politically dead in the US.
This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests.
In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Brown’s own extremism on climate change policy–backed by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuels–virtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.
Wayne Hale thinks that he posted in haste. But the problem remains:
Now I have re-read it and have some additional thoughts. It is clear that this is a vast scaling down from the requirements that say, Ares-1 and Orion had. And many of the paragraphs say that the specifications and standards can be replaced with alternatives, or with other standards that “meet the intent of” spec such and such. That is good. And to the casual reader that sounds like a big change. Unfortunately, it is not. Having to prove that an alternative standard is just as good as the standard NASA listed is an uphill battle. The adjudicator will be some GS-13 who has lived with one standard his whole career, understands it thoroughly, probably sat on the technical committee that wrote it, and loves it. Proving that his baby is ugly is going to be time consuming, and probably fruitless. I speak from sad experience.
So, what is my recommendation? Simple. Do what the Launch Services Program does: require that providers HAVE standards and follow them – don’t make them pick particular processes or standards, let the flexible, nimble, [your adjective here] commercial firms pick what suits their business best. As long as they have standards and stick to them – that is what we should require.
I would note that this is the FAA’s approach for launch licensing of passenger flights, until the industry matures sufficiently to develop certification standards (a point in time that is many years off).
. For those of you who have any money left after years of disastrous government policies.