Category Archives: Political Commentary

History, Political Commentary, Space

The Folly Of Apollo

11 Comments

Some thoughts from Jerry Pournelle, in response to the Derbyshire piece a few weeks ago:

Years after Apollo I had a conversation with John R. Pierce, Chief Technologist at Jet Propulsion Laboratory. John said that we’d made a mistake. In Heinlein’s future history, we go to the moon in stages first developing sub-orbital capabilities, then satellites, and finally went to the Moon; and we should have done it that way this time.

At the time I get somewhat angry in my disagreement with him, but it’s pretty clear John was right. He really meant that we should have learned to build space ships, real reusable ships that could fly suborbital, then orbital, then be refueled in orbit — rather than developing a bit disintegrating totem pole that could only be used once. I think he was right, and we may have to do it all over again before we can become a space-faring nation.

This will be one of the themes of my upcoming piece at The New Atlantis.

[Monday afternoon update]

Paul Dietz notes in comments that the Pournelle response was actually to a different Derbyshire post, that I hadn’t seen. He says that Apollo wasn’t a mere folly, but a magnificent one.

[Bumped]

Political Commentary

Questions For Judge Sotomayor

1 Comment

From several legal experts, and Senator Cornyn.

[Update early afternoon]

The Seinfeld hearings:

Today we live in a legal world in which many progressives and conservatives share the legal realists’ preoccupation with results. So justices must be chosen who will reach the politically correct results or opposed because they will reach the wrong results. Judicial confirmation hearings are thereby turned into a game of gotcha, with questioners trying to trip up the other side’s nominees, and nominees quite properly refusing to reveal the only thing their inquisitors truly care about: how they would rule in particular cases that are likely to come before the Court.

But postures must be assumed and questions must be asked. So senators and nominees opine about two empty concepts. The first is “stare decisis” or precedent: Will the nominee follow the hallowed case of U.S. v. Whatchamacallit or not?

Of course, the legal realists detested precedent, which in their time stood in the way of their progressive agenda. Nothing has really changed. Both sides only want to respect the precedents that lead to the results they like. No one thinks justices should follow every precedent, so the crucial issue is picking and choosing which to follow and which to ignore. But how? Well, by the results, of course.

I’ve posted on this often in the past. One of the hardest concepts for many people to understand is that the Constitution is not designed to suit their preferences, and it is not the job of a judge to construe or misconstrue it to the preferences of themselves or others. Roe was a judicial atrocity not because it legalized abortion, per se, but because it found a non-existent right in the Constitution, and extended it to all fifty states, part of the obliteration of federalism that occurred in the twentieth century. One can think that abortion should be legal and still think Roe deeply flawed (the position of Judge Ginsburg, if I am not mistaken).

Accordingly, one shouldn’t choose a judge because one thinks that they will agree on the desired outcome, but for their willingness to follow the law (including the fundamental law expressed in the Constitution). This should be an argument not about results, but about process. But it never is.

He has a recommendation as to how to do it right, which, unfortunately, most Senators would be incapable of doing, even if they wanted to:Don’t ask how the meaning of these clauses should be applied in particular circumstances. Just ask about the meaning itself and how it should be ascertained. Do nominees think they are bound by the original public meaning of the text? Even those who deny this still typically claim that original meaning is a “factor” or starting point. If so, what other factors do they think a justice should rely on to “interpret” the meaning of the text? Even asking whether “We the People” in the U.S. Constitution originally included blacks and slaves — as abolitionists like Lysander Spooner and Frederick Douglass contended, or not as Chief Justice Roger Taney claimed in Dred Scott v. Sandford — will tell us much about a nominee’s approach to constitutional interpretation. Given that this is hardly a case that will come before them, on what grounds could nominees refuse to answer such questions?

Of course, inquiring into clauses not cases would require senators to know something about the original meaning of the Constitution. Do they? It would be interesting to hear what Sen. Al Franken thinks about such matters, but no more so than any other member of the Judiciary Committee. Such a hearing would not only be entertaining, it would be informative and educational. After all, it would be about the meaning of the Constitution, which is to say it would be about something.

Couldn’t have that.

[Bumped]

Political Commentary

The Jobs Surge

14 Comments

…that Obama can’t ideologically deliver:

Liberals are clearly getting nervous. Their Keynesian religious-like faith rests on the notion that government spending “creates” economic activity and wealth. So the answer must be: more stimulus!

Meanwhile, there is chaos on the Hill:

Commerce committee Chairman Henry Waxman has delayed the health care markup he had planned for this week, giving the administration and House leaders a chance to win over balky Blue Dog Democrats. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel is also stymied, and says all he knows about agreements that the White House has struck with various health groups (pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, health maintenance organizations) is what he reads in the papers.

All this sounds like muddling by incompetents, but in fact these Democratic legislators are (mostly) highly competent and they are trying to do very hard things: restructure government regulation of — or establish government control over — one-sixth (health care) and one-tenth (energy) of the economy. And they’re dealing with a president who has shown a striking lack of interest in details and whose single legislative achievement so far — the $787 billion stimulus package passed in February — has visibly failed in its asserted goal of holding unemployment down to 8 percent.

This is all good news, of course, since most or all of what they want to do would be ruinous for the nation.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary

More Munchausen By Proxie

2 Comments

Thoughts on the economy:

When I think about the economy I think about a plump man who has just been hit by a truck while crossing a street and is in severely critical condition with internal bleeding. Instead of just stabilizing his hemorrhaging, the doctor decides that while the patient is unconscious, he might as well also do a face lift, some coronary bypasses and a stomach-stapling to keep him from gaining weight while he is recovering (if he does recover). After all, a crisis is not to be wasted.

The problem is that all these ambitious operations create too much of a burden for the human body to bear.

Similarly, we have an administration that is simultaneously seeking to end the recession, discussing drastic changes to laws on foreclosures and energy use and completely changing the health care system. I respectfully question whether all of this makes sense.

It’s a good question. And I’m pretty sure of the answer.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Paul Krugman Acolytes

1 Comment

…versus reality:

…it should be clear that the Fed causing a housing bubble in order to bring about “soaring household spending” was Krugman’s optimal situation, whether or not he thought it was doable at the time. Given the consequences of the housing bubble that did ultimately happen, that alone should be enough cause for the public to stop listening to this fellow.

But…but…! He has a Nobel Prize! And he writes for the New York Times! The New. York. Times.

Not listen to Paul Krugman? Why, it would be madness!

Next, they’re going to tell me I should pay no attention to Maureen Dowd, or Frank Rich.

[Via Joe Katzman]

Political Commentary

If The Bill Is Too Long To Read

13 Comments

…it’s too long to pass:

This sort of behavior — passing bills that no one has read — or, that in the case of the healthcare “bill” haven’t even actually been written — represents political corruption of the first order. If representation is the basis on which laws bind the citizen, then why should citizens regard themselves as bound by laws that their representatives haven’t read, or, sometimes, even written yet?

To quote someone else, indeed. As I’ve noted before, this issue is ripe for a new Contract with America. I think that it would find a lot of resonance with the voters.

Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Social Commentary

Who Knew I Was A Racist?

14 Comments

…because I hate (and always hated) disco?

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound. I hate rap, too. But as a commenter over there says, if I’m intolerant, it’s intolerance of sh***y music. And non-music (which I consider much of rap to be). In the case of both disco and rap, I’ve little interest in a repetitive form of music in which the percussion carries the melody.

And if I supposedly base my musical preferences on the melanin content of the musician, please explain my long-time love of Delta blues. In fact it never really occurred to me at the time that disco was black, or gay music. The Bee Gees were black? Or gay? Who knew? I only knew that it was really, really bad, musically speaking, and of appeal to no one except people for whom the only purpose of music is to grind around on a dance floor, and most of whom are probably tone deaf.

This is one of those things so stupid that only an academic could come up with it.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Technology and Society

The Threat To Innovation

1 Comment

…from Obamacare.

[Update a few minutes later]

Opting out of Medicare:

…the truest answer as to why we do not accept Medicare is that the service does not focus on what we feel is paramount: practicing effective and efficient medicine in order to ultimately achieve and maintain the good health of our patients. The service’s paltry reimbursement structure coupled with its impossible to-adhere-to regulations doesn’t allow us to offer a complete service to our patients. This complete service includes wellness care as well as the ability to take the time to understand each patient’s unique medical needs and circumstances.

The crux of the issue is that Medicare worries about the forest, in other words, the internal process, money management, reimbursement and policing agreements, data mining, and organizing dozens of internal bureaucracies. These agendas and policing policies help the Medicare service to manage the forest, however these are often in direct conflict with what we feel is key to effective healthcare: taking care of the individual, or each tree.

OK, Dems, want us to have confidence in a “public option”? Fix Medicare first.