The Freeport question of our time.
Republicans need to be asking the Democrats that question in every debate this year.
The Freeport question of our time.
Republicans need to be asking the Democrats that question in every debate this year.
People in business and academia are fighting back.
I find it amazing that the Democrats have managed to get themselves on the wrong side of almost every issue. And they can’t fix it unless they stop catering to their nutty base, and they can’t stop being condescending because it’s almost at the core of their current identity.
Don’t get cocky; we want this victory to be as bloody as possible, but it’s hard to see how they keep Congress at this point.
…is real.
Thoughts on “transgenderism” from Michael Walsh.
The women should have all refused to swim against him. I hope that the next time this happens, they’ll have more courage.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Sorry, link added…
That could be stiff competition, but I’m not going to argue with Newt about it. She’s certainly the dumbest one in my own memory.
But here’s my question: Why does a vice president have a national security advisor? In fact, why does she have a portfolio at all? There is nothing in the Constitution about this. Her only duties are to be president of the Senate, break ties with her vote, and to be available if the president leaves office. How did we get to the point at which the media are so ignorant of the Constitution?
Jonathan Chait (!) says that it has to be ended, or it will destroy the Democrat Party:
He’s not wrong. But he says that like it would be a bad thing.
I’m kind of amazed at all the adoration in the replies. I think it’s a butt-ugly thing, myself, separately from my opinion about what a waste of money it is.
[Saturday-afternoon update]
Thoughts from Eric Berger.
[Bumped]
[Update a while later]
This comment from Lee Hutchinson is interesting:
I volunteer as a docent at Space Center Houston and spend most of my time giving tours of the Saturn V on display there. There are a huge variety of questions that get asked by folks as they walk through the exhibit, but there’s one that comes up very consistently, whether the guest is from the US or from Europe or Asia or anywhere else: “How did something this big land after it was used?!”
When I explain that the Saturn Vs (and most rockets, in fact!) are single-use items and are destroyed as they’re used, people are gobsmacked.
It’s hard to overestimate the effect SpaceX’s launch-n-return routine has had on the general public’s perception of space travel. The default assumption by like 95% of folks who I interact with the Saturn V exhibit is that rocketry has always been reusable, and that it’s the only sane way to get to space. After all, how the hell could anyone think spending billions of dollars on these magnificent machines and then throwing them away after a single use is a good idea?
For all of SLS’ majesty and capability, it’s going to be a pretty significant PR challenge for NASA to explain its way out from under that one. SpaceX and reusability dominate the public’s mindshare.
It’s hard to see how SLS ultimately survives the advent of Starship.