Why, after the manifest failure of the North Korea negotiations, is the man in charge of them being assigned to Baghdad?
Category Archives: Political Commentary
Where Was The Rage?
Greg Gutfeld wonders why the media missed the real story of the tea parties.
A Rant About Libertarian Morons
Reason TV editor Nick Gillespie goes verbally medieval on the (supposedly) libertarian idiots who voted for Barack Obama:
Question to the folks, including some of the libertarian persuasion (you fools!), who were bullish on Obama back when the alternative was John McCain, the Terri Schiavo of presidential candidates: When are you going to admit that Barry O stinks on ice? That for all his high-flying and studiously empty rhetoric he’s got the biggest presidential vision deficit since George H.W. Bush puked on a Japanese prime minister (finally, revenge for that long run of Little League World Series losses in the ’70s!). If you’re the president of the United States and you’re talking about goddamn traffic jams and you’re proposing high-speed rail as anything other than an unapologetic boondoggle that will a) never get built and b) never get built to the gee-whiz specs it’s supposed and c) be ridden by fewer people than commuted by zeppelin last year, you’ve got real problems, bub. And by extension, so do we all.
There’s more.
Another Failed Federal Initiative
Despite the claims of MADD, the federally imposed minimum legal drinking age of 21 doesn’t save lives. But it does restrict the freedom of adults, and erodes federalism. In fact, that 1984 act (under Reagan) is one of the reasons that I don’t miss Elizabeth Dole.
More Idiocy In Austin
Two years after the worst school massacre in history, some students and faculty are walking out of class to demand to the Texas legislature that they remain helpless victims. And we have the usual stupidity from a law professor who, despite sensible comments from Eugene Volokh, gets the last moronic and historically ignorant word. From the conclusion:
Paul Finkelman, an Albany Law School professor and former UT history and law professor, said that from a constitutional standpoint, the Texas Legislature has the right to allow concealed carry on campus, but he questioned the logic of state legislators.
“I think no one ever accused the Texas Legislature of being smart,” Finkelman said. “It seems to be an inordinately stupid plan because it means any lunatic can come on campus with a gun.”
Yes, and of course, that couldn’t possibly happen unless the legislature makes it legal for permit holders to come on campus. I mean, we saw how effective Virginia Tech’s gun-free zone was. Apparently, the lunatic just hadn’t gotten the memo.
He said he was surprised that anyone in Texas would consider wanting to have guns on state campuses, particularly UT.
“Given the history of UT when someone climbed up a tower and started shooting people, … what are these people thinking?” Finkelman said.
Perhaps they’re thinking that it was a good thing that there were armed students on campus that day, who got their guns from their cars and lockers, and saved many lives by keeping the shooter pinned back in the tower until the police arrived.
He said the Supreme Court rulings have basically said they are free to regulate fire arms.
“The sociological evidence is clear that if guns are handy, people will use them,” Finkelman said. “Having such a rule is an encouragement of death and mayhem at the University of Texas. There is no other way to describe it.”
Yes, if guns are handy, and people are being shot at, they will use them. Guns don’t stop people from shooting people, people with guns do. In fact, if you really want to encourage death and mayhem at a university, put up a sign that effectively says: “hundreds of densely packed unarmed victims inside.” It worked a real treat in Blacksburg two years ago.
Red Dawn, Take Two
While I’m sure that some of my more deranged readers fantasize that I watch it over and over, I’ve actually never seen the movie “Red Dawn
NASA’s Budget Options
Jeff Foust has a link to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture. I have to agree with “Red” in comments:
…if you consider that the goal of the Vision for Space Exploration was contributions to science, security, and economics in the context of strong commercial and international participations, none of these options will carry that out. They all involve Constellation/Ares, which is more or less the opposite of those goals. One aspect of this opposition is that the options that don’t postpone Constellation involve reducing science and aeronautics missions that actually do contribute to science, security, and economics (eg: using similar launchers and satellites to those used by defense and intelligence agencies)…
…With Science and Aeronautics already having taken huge reductions due to Shuttle and Constellation in recent years, and Obama’s push for Earth observations, fuel-efficient planes, NASA education, etc, I doubt that the science/aeronautics cut scenarios will happen. With such huge Federal debt/deficits and many agencies enjoying tons of money and sure to want to keep it that way, I doubt NASA will get the big budget boost scenario, either.
Basically, the numbers don’t work without major commercial participation, and getting control of out-of-control NASA areas like Constellation, Shuttle, and some larger science mission plans.
Emphasis mine. Unfortunately, there’s no sign that any of that is happening. The Ares zombie continues to plod forward at the cost of billions, and commercial participation remains minimal. And it’s unlikely to happen as long as becoming spacefaring remains politically unimportant, and in an environment in which pork dominates progress.
[Evening update]
Clark has another comment:
NASA needed innovative hardware architectures and mission designs to make Constellation “sustainable and affordable” as instructed in the VSE. Instead it chose Ares I and Orion and now all the budget scenarios are bad.
Funny, that.
“Unsubstantial”
I know you’ll be as shocked as I was to hear that the White House (and US media) overhyped the success of the president’s trip to Europe.
Mr Sarkozy is pouring cold water on President Obama’s efforts to recast American leadership on the world stage, depicting them as unoriginal, unsubstantial and overrated. Behind leaks and briefings from the Elysée Palace lies Mr Sarkozy’s irritation at the rock-star welcome that Europe gave Mr Obama on his Europan tour earlier this month.
The American President’s call “to free the world of the menace of a nuclear nightmare” was hot air, Mr Sarkozy’s diplomatic staff told him in a report. “It was rhetoric – not a speech on American security policy but an export model aimed at improving the image of the United States,” they said. Most of Mr Obama’s proposals had already been made by the Bush administration and Washington was dragging its feet on disarmament and treaties against nuclear proliferation, the leaked report said.
“Unsubstantial.” Sarkozy is apparently more perceptive than 53% of the US electorate.
[Afternoon update]
But wait! There’s more!
On the US President, Mr Sarkozy said: “Obama has a subtle mind, very clever and very charismatic. But he was elected two months ago and had never run a ministry. There are a certain number of things on which he has no position. And he is not always up to standard on decision-making and efficiency,” he said.
The US President had underperformed on climate change, said Mr Sarkozy: “I told him: ‘I don’t think that you have quite understood what we are doing on carbon dioxide’.”
In another swipe at the American leader, Mr Sarkozy was quoted today making a dubious joke about the Obamania sweeping the European media. According to L’Express news magazine, Mr Sarkozy talked to another set of visitors about Mr Obama’s planned visit to the Normandy beaches in June, Mr Sarkozy said: “I am going to ask him to walk on the Channel and he’ll do it, you’ll see.”
He also implied that Spanish PM Zapatero isn’t the brightest bulb on the string (which wouldn’t surprise me). And you have to admit, he sure looks like Mr. Bean.
Anyway, I’m glad to see that The One has so restored respect for America and the presidency with our allies.
Low Self Esteem
Frank J. says that we should pity the pirates, and ask ourselves why they plunder us:
…for a change, let’s really look at pirates. You may just see how they are the victims in all of this. That may seem ridiculous to you. After all, aren’t they the ones taking hostages? But ransoming hostages is just how they make their living. Do you get angry at an IRS agent or a lawyer for just doing his job? The issue is why pirates find pillaging and plundering their only options.
It’s not going very far out on a limb to say that pirates suffer from low self-esteem. They often have inferior prosthetics, such as hooks and peg legs, and that alone makes them feel disconnected from “normal” people. Then there is the scurvy and the inevitable depression that comes with it. Throw in the addiction to rum, and it’s obvious to anyone that we have individuals in severe need of help. Just look at a pirate’s choice of a pet: the parrot. It’s an aloof animal that does nothing but repeat the pirate’s own words in a mocking tone. If that were not enough of a cry for help, there is also their habit of burying treasure. It’s like they don’t even feel they are worthy of the fruits of their plundering and murder and thus deny it for themselves.
We have to help them. Do it for the children. As one commenter notes, pirates are people, too.
“The Meeting Was Really Kind Of Creepy”
Nope, no fascism to see here. Move along, people, move along.:
One topic under the microscope, our insider said, was on-air CNBC editor Rick Santelli’s rant two months ago about staging a “Chicago Tea Party” to protest the president’s bailout programs — an idea that spawned tax protest tea parties in other big cities, infuriating the White House. Oddly, Santelli was not at the meeting, while Jim Cramer was, noted our source, who added that no edict was ultimately handed down by the network chieftains.
As he notes, that’s the same White House that pretended yesterday that it was unaware of any of the tea parties.