…versus the Tea Partiers’ culture of independence. It’s not (just) about the taxes. It’s about the spending, and the perverse incentives built into the system. And as Michael Barone points out, the Susan Roesgens of the world don’t understand that.
Category Archives: Media Criticism
Thoughts On Oklahoma City
And the vile demagoguery of the Democrats in the wake of it, from Glenn Reynolds:
Lies and smears aimed at their fellow Americans, for short-term political gain. This is who they are, and this is what they do. It worked better, however, when there were fewer alternative channels of communication, and when their character was less well-known.
And as he notes, they’re busy going after imaginary “right wing” “terrorists,” while pretending that the real ones, who really do want to destroy our civilization, don’t exist. And they are being ignored to the point that we can’t even describe their motivations. In fact, they were doing it then — the White House and Janet Reno’s justice department shut down any investigation that might have led to the revelation of offshore help for McVeigh. Once they had their white “right-wing” “Christian” (he was an agnostic) terrorist, no need to confuse the American people with John Doe Number Two. Besides, if (say) Iraq had been shown to be involved, they might have had to do something about it.
Are Libertarians Anti-Government?
Short answer: no. David Boaz has a longer one.
Who Needs Apartheid
Mark Steyn, on the ugly elephant in the “Palestinian” living room:
If Muslims are so revolted by Jews that they cannot tolerate any living among them, well, they’re free to believe what they want. What is less understandable is the present position of the United States government. The President and his Secretary of State have made it very clear that they regard a few dozen housing units in Jerusalem as a far greater threat to Middle East peace than the Iranian nuclear program. Why is it in the interest of the United States to validate, enthusiastically, the most explicit and crudest bigotry of the Palestinian “cause”?
It’s not bigotry if it’s directed at the Jews, of course.
IBD Weighs In On Space
Cluelessly, as with many:
Some would argue that in times of budget problems a robust space program is an unnecessary expense and that if we can’t cut there, where can we cut?
We aren’t cutting. The budget is increasing, and in particular it is increasing for things that we actually need to get beyond low earth orbit, which Mike Griffin’s NASA had eliminated funding for to pay for his expensive and unneeded new rocket.
“We’ve got to do it in a smart way,” Obama said, apparently preferring to pay the Russians $56 million a pop to send Americans to fix toilets on the International Space Station.
No, that’s not what he was referring to. That was the George Bush plan, in case you’ve been asleep for the past six years. It’s too late to fix that in the near term, but at least we now have hope of fixing it a lot sooner, for a lot less money, than Ares would have provided.
Why do all of these supposed free marketeers bash private enterprise when it comes to space?
[Update a couple minutes later]
Speaking of which, Falcon 9 is almost ready to launch.
Exposing The Racism Inherent At The Teaparties
How’s that working out for you, leftist morons?
Not so well, apparently.
“A Smaller Tomorrow”
Robert Costa has a piece over at National Review Online, with the usual conventional “conservative” wisdom on the new space policy, complete with the Kennedy mythology. I may ask Kathryn (or Rich, who I guess is the editor there now) for space for a rebuttal.
[Update late afternoon]
The Corner has the transcript from the panel on Bret Baier’s show yesterday, with Krauthammer’s comments. It leads with the usual ridiculous hyperbole:
We are seeing the abolition of the manned space program.
That’s right, the extension of ISS, the development of a viable commercial human spaceflight industry, the development of needed technologies (neglected in the past administration) to affordably get beyond low earth orbit is the “abolition of the manned space program.” What is in the water that DC conservatives have been drinking?
And what it does is it ends our human dominance in space, which we had for 50 years. We have no way to get into earth orbit. We’re going to have to hitch a ride on the Russians who are charging us extraordinary rates and are only going to increase that.…
And that was the plan laid out by the Bush administration. But now that Obama is president, it’s terrible. As I told Rich Lowry and KLo via email, this is an important debate, and it has to be debated, but not in such a logic-free and fact-free environment. I’m very disappointed in Dr. K., who is usually quite perceptive on other issues.
“Thank You, Mr. President”
Praise for the new space policy from Buzz Aldrin.
You know, everyone has been saying how noteworthy it is that Neil Armstrong has spoken out against it, because he’s been such a relative hermit for forty years. I have a different take. Buzz has spent the past four decades fighting to get better space policy, and one that opens up space for all of us, and has earned his space-policy chops, while Neil has been a reclusive professor in Ohio, and not engaged at all. While he’s an admirable man for his life accomplishments, I’m not really interested in the opinions of a Neil-come-lately on this issue. Either way, I don’t find argument from astronaut authority particularly persuasive when the arguments themselves aren’t.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here is Scott Pace’s response on C-Span. I haven’t listened to it but I’m assuming that he’s just expanding on what he said on To The Point yesterday.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Actually, I shouldn’t necessarily assume that. His discussion on To The Point was occurring as, or right after, the president was speaking. He may have revised his thoughts after he saw the speech.
The Wisdom Of Astronauts
MSNBC actually has a pretty well-balanced story on the new policy, and some (but not all) of the old-guard astronauts’ opposition to it (more here — I’m disappointed to see my old boss Glynn Lunney on the list — I need to call him and straighten him out). That’s probably because Alan Boyle was involved. Unfortunately, so was Jay Barbree, who still thinks that SpaceX is the only potential commercial provider for human spaceflight.
Clark Lindsey is appropriately unimpressed with the opponents’ arguments (such as they are). I agree with him that they denote a lack of seriousness, and attention to what’s been going on. I’m working on an op-ed for AOL News along the same lines to coincide with tomorrow’s festivities at KSC.
Space On PRI
Marketplace has a brief story this morning on the new policy, with sound bites from Jim Bennett of Anglosphere Challenge