Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary, Space, Space History

Just How Important Is Space Policy?

24 Comments

Traditionally, though it’s not a written rule, vice presidents have been in charge of space policy, though some are more so than others. Johnson was very much so, Agnew was somewhat, Ford and Rockefeller not much, Mondale tried to kill the Shuttle and succeeded in reducing the fleet size, GHW Bush wasn’t particularly involved as far as I recall, but Quayle was considerably, as was Gore. Sean O’Keefe was supposedly a friend of Dick Cheney’s, being groomed for bigger things when he was tapped as NASA administrator.

So I was over at Barnes & Noble, and picked up a copy of Cheney’s new book, and turned to the index. Mentions of O’Keefe? None. Mentions of the moon? None. Mentions of the Vision for Space Exploration? None. Mentions of NASA? None.

Come to think of it, I didn’t do a search for “Shuttle” or “Columbia,” but it’s hard to see how they would have been mentioned without mentioning NASA or O’Keefe. Basically, it wasn’t important enough to him to discuss it in a several-hundred-page book.

I would also note that, thankfully, Joe Biden doesn’t seem to be involved with space policy.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

An Early Obama Letter

12 Comments

…confirms his inability to write:

Although a paragraph from this letter was excerpted in David Remnick’s biography of Obama, The Bridge, I had not seen the letter in its entirety before this week. Not surprisingly, it confirms everything I know about Barack Obama, the writer and thinker.

Obama was prompted to write by an earlier letter from a Mr. Jim Chen that criticized Harvard Law Review’s affirmative action policies. Specifically, Chen had argued that affirmative action stigmatized its presumed beneficiaries.

The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged. In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.

I am completely unsurprised by this. I think it at least partially explains why we aren’t allowed to see his transcripts.

Political Commentary

One In Four Democrats

3 Comments

…are racists:

In response to the question, “Do you think the Democratic party should renominate Barack Obama as the party’s candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the Democratic party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?” — 72 percent said they wanted to see Obama renominated. But 27 percent, slightly more than one in every four, said they wanted to see Democrats nominate a different candidate. One percent had no opinion.

Only one in four?

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

But I Thought He Was A Dumb Uncle Tom

3 Comments

Revising history?

There are few articles of faith as firmly fixed in the liberal canon as the belief that Clarence Thomas is, to put it as bluntly as many liberals do, a dunce and a worm. Twenty years of married life have not erased the conventional liberal view of his character etched by Anita Hill’s testimony at his confirmation hearings. Not only does the liberal mind perceive him as a disgusting lump of ungoverned sexual impulse; he is seen as an intellectual cipher. Thomas’ silence during oral argument before the Supreme Court is taken as obvious evidence that he has nothing to say and is perhaps a bit intimidated by the verbal fireworks exchanged by the high profile lawyers and his more, ahem, ‘qualified’ colleagues.

At most liberals have long seen Thomas as the Sancho Panza to Justice Antonio Scalia’s Don Quixote, Tonto to his Lone Ranger. No, says Toobin: the intellectual influence runs the other way. Thomas is the consistently clear and purposeful theorist that history will remember as an intellectual pioneer; Scalia the less clear-minded colleague who is gradually following in Thomas’ tracks.

If Toobin’s revionist take is correct, (and I defer to his knowledge of the direction of modern constitutional thought) it means that liberal America has spent a generation mocking a Black man as an ignorant fool, even as constitutional scholars stand in growing amazement at the intellectual audacity, philosophical coherence and historical reflection embedded in his judicial work.

Kind of surprising that this would come from Toobin. I hope he’s right. I recall reading an interview with Thomas at Reason back in the eighties, and being pretty impressed with him at the time.

Hmmmm…[searching]…here it is.

[Update a few minutes later]

Now that I’m reading the whole thing, I’d urge everyone to read the whole thing. Really.

The prospect of a serious judicial rehabilitation of the Tenth Amendment is real, though perhaps not immediate. And change this sweeping is unlikely to come simply because a relative handful of judges and lawyers change their minds on an issue of constitutional interpretation. A broader change would need to take place in society so that the idea of transferring more activities from Washington to the states appeals to public opinion to the point where presidents appoint judges who share this philosophy, the Senate confirms them, and the new majority begins to set a new direction for the law.

Arguably, we are nearing a zone where something like that could happen. The apparent Republican front-runner Governor Rick Perry has strong views on the Constitution. His book Fed Up! Our Fight To Save America From Washington is essentially an essay calling for a return to the concept of a federal government limited to its enumerated powers. Let unemployment stay above 8 percent through November of 2012 and President Perry could be sending the names of judicial nominees to a Republican Senate. With a couple more allies on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas could get pretty close to the lava pits of Mount Doom.

I have to confess, I like the LOTR analogy.