Short answer: no. David Boaz has a longer one.
Category Archives: Political Commentary
“We’ve Been There”
While in general I think that the new space policy is a vast improvement over the previous one, it is marred by the disdain that the administration displays toward the moon as a useful goal. Paul Spudis (who else) defends the moon against the foolish arguments opposed to it. There may be good reasons not to go back to the moon, but I haven’t heard any, and “we’ve been there” certainly isn’t one. I know for sure that that I haven’t been there.
Paul also asks, why wait for heavy lift?
This new document indicates that work will proceed on development of a heavy lift launch vehicle, with a decision on what vehicle to build coming in 2015 (note well: not building a vehicle, but making a decision on what vehicle to build). How will our decision on heavy lift be more informed in five years than it is now?
If there’s anyone who doesn’t speak for this administration, it’s me, but my answer is: if we start doing the necessary tech demos for autonomous docking/mating, propellant storage and transfer, we may be informed enough to finally convince everyone except the die-hard Apollo cargo cultists and giant penis enviasts that we don’t need a heavy lift vehicle, at least any larger than natural growth versions of what currently exists.
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.
Is Elena Kagan Gay?
The New Puritans
Jim Geraghty has some thoughts about organic milk:
I like living where I live, but I remarked to Mrs. Campaign Spot that the D.C. area can be a very “pious” place sometimes. Oh, it’s not the traditional definition of devotion to religion, but instead the need to showcase one’s loyalty to all the “right” causes and decisions and proper behavior. It seems that for some of these parents, sending organic milk to school with their kids is insufficient; they need everyone else to know they they only want organic milk for their kids, and that we really ought to be following the same dietary practices.
It’s not just DC, it’s any place with a high concentration of “progressives.” Ever wonder why Massachusetts is such a “blue” state? It goes all the way back to the people who founded it. They’ve merely swapped out their religion for a more secular piety. And sanctimony.
“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.
Why A Lifeboat?
Eric Berger is scratching his head.
I can think of several reasons, though I consider the lifeboat requirements absurd. I’m working on a piece long those lines right now.
“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.