You don’t say. Actually, it was caused by greed, too. Greedy government officials.
Category Archives: Political Commentary
The Critical Texas Jewboy Vote
Kinky Friedman endorses Rick Perry:
These days, of course, I would support Charlie Sheen over Obama. Obama has done for the economy what pantyhose did for foreplay. Obama has been perpetually behind the curve. If the issue of the day is jobs and the economy, Rick Perry is certainly the nuts-and-bolts kind of guy you want in there. Even though my pal and fellow Texan Paul Begala has pointed out that no self-respecting Mexican would sneak across the border for one of Rick Perry’s low-level jobs, the stats don’t entirely lie. Compared with the rest of the country, Texas is kicking major ass in terms of jobs and the economy, and Rick should get credit for that, just as Obama should get credit for saying “No comment” to the young people of the Iranian revolution.
…So would I support Rick Perry for president? Hell, yes! As the last nail that hasn’t been hammered down in this country, I agree with Rick that there are already too damn many laws, taxes, regulations, panels, committees, and bureaucrats. While Obama is busy putting the hyphen between “anal” and “retentive” Rick will be rolling up his sleeves and getting to work.
I’m still ambivalent. I’m sure that there will be things he’ll do that infuriate me, but at least he’ll end the ongoing wreckage of the economy. Oh, and on the subject of science and politicians? Given a choice between a politician who understands how the economy works and one who believes in evolution, I’ll take a young earther. I need to write a longer essay about this.
[Update a few minutes later]
The rubes continue to come out of the closet:
It is no surprise that many have begun to doubt the president’s leadership qualities. J.P. Morgan calls it the “competency crisis.” The president is not seen fighting for his own concrete goals, nor finding the right allies, especially leaders of business big or small. Instead, his latent hostility to the business community has provoked a mutual response of disrespect. This is lamentable given the unique role that small business especially plays in creating jobs.
The president appears to consider himself immune from error and asserts the fault always lies elsewhere—be it in the opposition in Congress or the Japanese tsunami or in the failure of his audience to fully understand the wisdom and benefits of his proposals. But in politics, the failure of communication is invariably the fault of the communicator.
Many voters who supported him are no longer elated by the historic novelty of his candidacy and presidency. They hoped for a president who would be effective. Remember “Yes We Can”? Now many of his sharpest critics are his former supporters. Witness Bill Broyles, a one-time admirer who recently wrote in Newsweek that “Americans aren’t inspired by well-meaning weakness.” The president who first inspired with great speeches on red and blue America now seems to lack the ability to communicate any sense of resolve for a program, or any realization of the urgency of what might befall us. The teleprompter he almost always uses symbolizes and compounds his emotional distance from his audience.
We lack a coherent and muscular economic strategy, as Mr. Obama and his staff seem almost completely focused on his re-election. He should be spending most of his time on the nitty-gritty of the job instead of on fund raisers, bus tours and visits to diners, which essentially are in service of his political interests. Increasingly his solutions seem to boil down to Vote for Me.
That’s all they ever were.
Is it immature to say “I told you so”? OK, call me immature. You were fools to vote for him the first time and I said so at the time.
[Update a couple minutes later]
“Obama is no Steve Jobs.” You can say that again:
It’s dawning on many Americans that they made a bad hire. Obama was slick and seductive in the interview that stretched from early 2007 to November 2008; the competition was unexciting and, to be blunt, old. But it turned out he had no real job skills, didn’t get along with others, failed to translate rhetoric into action and became blinded by his own ego.
The lesson here is an existential one: Leaders are what they do. They become revered because they perform, understand their market, show creativity, deliver unexpected gains and beat the competition. The star quality follows accomplishments and performance.
Of course, it dawned on many long ago, and some of us (as noted above) predicted it.
[Update later morning]
Fox, meet chickens:
Shapiro goes on to list the things about Perry that most drive liberals nuts, including “anti-intellectualism,” the “God card,” the “living Constitution” (“Perry stands out for his creative cut-and-paste approach to the Constitution”), the “pistol-packing president,” and “daring to call it treason.”
His point, of course, is not only to whack Perry for his (by liberal standards) “extreme” positions, but to gore the Left as well for, among other things, its education fetish, its mortal fear of genuine religious belief, and its abject terror in the face of the inanimate objects we like to call firearms.
Of course, what most liberals don’t realize is, to us these things aren’t bugs — they’re features of a possible Perry presidency. Any prez who would pack heat while jogging with his dog and blow away a varmint or two is okay in our book. Sure beats cowering before a killer rabbit, Carter-style.
Walter obliquely makes an even more important point: that the coming election is likely to be a stark choice between Ivy League credentialism and a form of prairie populism. And that, of course, is precisely what the next election must be about.
Many of my lefty buddies simply cannot conceive of a world in which an Aggie can whup up on a Harvard lad, and merrily call global warming a crock (but . . . it’s settled science!). People like Perry and Palin and Bachmann — hillbillies from flyover country or Outer Slobbovia — send them into towering rages of wounded and unappreciated virtue; never mind that their “virtues” are generally invisible to those of us in the reality-based community. After nearly three years of their pet policy prescriptions, we’ve had a belly full.
I know I have.
The Love Is Gone
This sort of encapsulates the sort of insanity that swept the nation three years ago:
This week, with the jobless rate stuck above 9 percent and the president’s nationwide approval rating at its lowest level, the Vineyard’s broad allegiance shows cracks, leaving some islanders with a more textured, even tormented feeling about the president.
“I just have to say I feel really uncomfortable, because I love loving him,’’ said Leslie Pearlson, a real estate broker on the island.
Res ipsa loquitur.
The Wrath Of Allah
Some amusing thoughts.
He’s A Cruel Man, But Fair
Jon Goff tweets: “Hubble scientists think they’ve discovered a fact sufficiently distant that KBH won’t use it as a justification for starting SLS *right now*.”
Earlier ones: “Seen on spacepolitics.com: KBH says that USGS data about the east-coast earthquake proves that we need to build SLS right now,” and “In related news, KBH says that events unfolding in Tripoli prove that NASA needs to get going on SLS right now…”
[Update a few minutes later]
For a little background, read this post at Space Politics.
Color Me Shocked
The Communist Party USA sees no need to nominate its own guy or gal — it has Barack Obama.
Bad optics, guys.
The Marie Antoinette Of Her Day
Can anyone explain to me why Michelle Obama isn’t?
Besides, that is, the fact that she’ll not only be allowed to keep her head, but probably continue this lavish lifestyle not available to the peasants into a ripe old age?
Also, as a bonus, can anyone explain to me why I should worry about my carbon footprint, when they obviously don’t give a damn about theirs?
Our Space Policy Chickens
…have come home to roost. I’ve started blogging at Open Market.
[Evening update]
Can I call them, or what?
I wrote:
It will be interesting to see how those in Congress who have been demanding that NASA build a heavy-lift vehicle for which there is no mission with insufficient funding, while starving Commercial Crew, will respond. Judging by history, it will be with non sequiturs, and bashing of American enterprise by supposed conservatives and Republicans, such as Senator Shelby of Alabama (the senator from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center), Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas (the senator from Johnson Space Center), and Orrin Hatch of Utah (the senator from ATK, manufacturer of the giant Shuttle solid boosters that the Congress insists be used in the new launcher), or Science Committee Chairman (from Johnson Space Center) Ralph Hall.
Emphases mine. And Senator Hutchison responds on cue:
This failure underscores the importance of successful development of our own National capabilities and at the same time demonstrates the risks with having limited options for ISS supply and crew rotation. As we have already seen with the multi-year delay with commercial providers of cargo to the space station, the country would greatly benefit from the timely implementation of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and development of the Space Launch System (SLS) as a back-up system.”
She also dispatches this from Planet Hutchison:
“Last Friday NASA received the independent cost assessment for the SLS that was requested by OMB. OMB is expected to be briefed on the results of this assessment tomorrow. This additional independent cost assessment confirms what NASA officials have known for months: The NASA approach to human space flight is sound, achievable, and can be initiated within our currently constrained fiscal limitations.
Let me translate: “The independent cost assessment confirms that NASA’s own estimates are overoptimistic, and there is no way in this fiscal universe that Congress is going to provide enough funds to sustain this over the long haul, regardless of its merit (which is feebly little), but I’ll be out of here next year, so what do I care?”
That Was Fast
Congressman Dana Rohranbacher’s office has issued a press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 24, 2011Contact: Tara Setmayer
202-225-2415Rohrabacher Statement on Implications of Russian Soyuz Launch Failure
Calls for Emergency Funding of U.S. Commercial Crew Systems to End Dependency on Russian Launch Vehicles
Washington, DC- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) issued the following statement in reaction to today’s failure of the Russian Progress Soyuz cargo rocket:
“Today, Russia’s Soyuz launch vehicle failed to boost the Progress M-12M cargo ship into orbit to deliver needed supplies to the International Space Station. This failure should be a cause of grave concern, and a moment of reexamination of America’s space strategy,” said Rohrabacher.
“Today’s Russian rocket failure will interrupt ISS cargo deliveries, and could threaten crew transportation as well. NASA needs to conduct an investigation before another Soyuz spacecraft with new ISS crew members can be launched, and it is unknown how long such an investigation will take.”
“I hope this is a minor problem with a quick and simple fix,” said Rohrabacher. “But this episode underscores America’s need for reliable launch systems of its own to carry cargo and crew into space. The only way to achieve this goal is to place more emphasis on commercial cargo and crew systems currently being developed by American companies.
“We need to get on with the task of building affordable launch systems to meet our nation’s needs for access to low Earth orbit, instead of promoting grandiose concepts which keep us vulnerable in the short and medium terms. The most responsible course of action for the United States is to dramatically accelerate the commercial crew systems already under development.
“I am calling on General Bolden, the NASA Administrator, to propose an emergency transfer of funding from unobligated balances in other programs, including the Space Launch System, to NASA’s commercial crew initiative. Funding should be used to speed up the efforts of the four current industry partners to develop their systems and potentially expand the recent awards to include the best applicants for launch vehicle development.
“NASA could potentially transfer several hundred million dollars from this long term development concept, since the SLS project has not even started, to the more urgently needed systems that can launch astronauts to ISS, reliably and affordably. This transfer will boost the development of American controlled technology and greatly reduce our dependence on the Russians.”
Rep. Rohrabacher is a senior member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Tara Olivia Setmayer | Communications Director
Office of Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46)
2300 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
( 202.225.2415 (main)
tara.setmayer@mail.house.gov
Emphases in original. It hasn’t been put up on the office web site yet.
Expect the usual idiots to chime in and say that this is because SpaceX is in Rohrabacher’s district. Even though it’s in Maxine Waters’ district, and Rohrabacher’s district is mostly in another county.
It will be interesting to see the porkers’ response, particularly Chairman Hall’s.
[Update a while later]
Jeff Foust has a post up at Space Politics on this as well.
[Late evening update]
The press release is now at the congressional web site.
Biden’s Human-Rights Blunder
Kirsten Powers says that it’s even worse than it seems:
This was an appalling statement coming from an American leader. What’s next? Will he say he isn’t “second-guessing” and “fully understands” that women are stoned for adultery in Iran?
I wish I couldn’t imagine him doing exactly that.
When various Republican presidential candidates blasted Biden for the statement, NPR’s blog ran a story titled “Biden’s Comment on China’s One-Child Policy Spurs Anti-Abortion Ire.” This really misses the point. The media predictably frame this issue as “pro-choice vs. pro-life” when in fact it is a major human-rights issue. In particular, it’s a women’s-rights issue, which makes the silence from feminists and liberals about Biden’s comment particularly disturbing.
The left, and particularly the feminist left, view everything through the crazy prism of absolute abortion rights.