Category Archives: Political Commentary

General Science, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Et Tu, Alan?

6 Comments

Alan Boyle has a long review of the movie Expelled. While I largely agree with it (and it has reduced my estimation of Ben Stein, who seems to have gone completely off the deep end, tremendously), it is marred, severely in my opinion, by the use of the politically loaded word, “swiftboating,” not just in the text, but in the title itself.

He seems, from context, to be using the word in its popular, but grossly mistaken and (Democrat) partisan sense, as in “spreading malicious lies about something or someone.” But for those of us actually paying attention at the time, and using more enlightened sources than Lawrence O’Donnell screaming “Liar! Liar! Liar!” at John O’Neill, the word means “revealing inconvenient truths about a political candidate who is a Democrat.” Most of the charges of the Swift Boaters were in fact validated–on the subject of Christmas in Cambodia, despite it being “seared, seared into his memory,” John Kerry was either lying or fantasizing, and his campaign essentially was forced to admit that. And the video of his Senate testimony in which he slandered his fellow sailors, airmen, marines and soldiers, calling them war criminals, was indisputable.

So it would be far better to simply avoid the word, given the fact that it has almost exactly the opposite meaning to two different sets of readerships, and is bound to raise hackles, regardless of the context. I expect it from political polemicists, but I expect (and almost always get) much better from Alan.

I’ll have more thoughts on the movie itself (which I haven’t seen, and have no plans to), but will save them for another post.

[Thursday morning update]

Alan responds, but seems to miss the point that I was making. Apparently, to him, the term “swiftboat” as a verb simply means “negative campaigning,” something that he doesn’t like. But I don’t think that’s what it means to most people, on either side of the partisan divide. As I describe above, Democrat partisans have come to use it to mean not just negative campaigning, but lying about their candidate, whereas those of us who were opposed to John Kerry (for reasons that the Swift Boat Vets stated, and many others) view it as telling inconvenient truths that didn’t reflect well on him. Both of those fall under the rubric of “negative campaigning,” if by that one means saying things about a candidate (or a concept) with the intent of making people think less of them.

Now, in light of what I think is my understanding of Alan’s point, I disagree. I actually have no problem at all with negative campaigning per se, if the campaign is truthful. I think that in order to make a judgment about a candidate or an issue, the more information the better, both pro and con. If a candidate happens to be an ax murderer, would there be something reprehensible about pointing this out? I think that it would be information that the voting public would have a right to know, despite the fact that it’s (sigh) “negative.”

Likewise, I have no problem with movies that oppose evolution, per se, as long as they’re honest, and I would not characterize such movies as “Swift Boating” (particularly since I think that the Swift Boat Vets, in pointing out facts about John Kerry of which the voting public was largely unaware, performed a public service). From what I’ve heard about Expelled, however, it’s scurrilous, and to associate the tactics used there with John O’Neill and his cohorts is slanderous, if not libelous, to them. There’s been a lot of discussion about the movie in the last couple days, and the war on science in general (a war that, by the way, contra Chris Mooney’s flawed, or at least limited, thesis, is thoroughly bi-partisan). I hope to provide a link roundup and some thoughts of my own shortly, if I can find the time.

In any event, I continue to find Alan’s usage of the new (and ambiguous) verb “swiftboating” problematic, for reasons stated above. As I already noted, I expect to hear that word from “political consultants” on partisan talkfests on the cable news channels, but not in a reasoned discussion about science and society.

Political Commentary

“Nonsense And Betrayal”

Something tells me that we haven’t seen or heard the last of Reverend Wright:

“After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn’t know about Jeremiah’s views during those years, that he wasn’t familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn’t hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal,” said the source, who has deep roots in Wright’s Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

Up until now, the defense has been that these remarks of Wrights were atypical and taken out of context, and sufficiently rare that Obama never happened to have heard them, despite having been a church member for two decades and sitting regularly in the pews. Not that I’ve ever bought it, but that was the story.

Now Wright himself is saying (and made pretty clear on Monday) that these are not just sporadic and infrequent flights of fancy, but things that he fervently believes and is happy to tell anyone on any occasion, including Sunday sermons. And furthermore, he knows that his protege was well aware of his views (and may even have thought that he agreed with them, though that’s less clear).

I have a pretty low opinion of the pastor, for a lot of reasons, but I haven’t yet seen any evidence that he’s a liar. But either he is prevaricating, or Obama is. I know where I’d put my money at this point. This will be a ticking time bomb going into the fall. I hope that the Democrats continue to let it tick.

[Update at 2:45 PM EDT]

Ramesh Ponnuru defends Wright (err…sort of):

One theme I’ve seen in the commentary about Wright, especially the liberal commentary, is how terrible it is, how selfish, for Wright to get in the way of Obama’s presidential campaign. There are a lot of grounds for criticizing Wright–that he is an anti-American and racist buffoon, example–but I don’t see why he should keep quiet just to keep from inconveniencing a political candidate. He takes these. . . ideas of his very seriously, and he has the opportunity of a lifetime to disseminate them. Why wouldn’t he take it?

Beyond that, there seems to be this implicit assumption among the liberal media and Obama supporters (but I repeat myself) that Wright does (and should) want to see his congregant become president. Hence the anguished cries of “betrayal!, and “selfishness!”

But if Obama is elected president, doesn’t that knock the legs out from under his race- and class-war theories? Doesn’t it show that perhaps AmeKKKa isn’t the racist monster of his sermons?

On the other hand, if Obama loses, doesn’t it validate his (and Michelle’s) hatred of this racist country, as bad as (or worse than!) Al Qaeda? And then doesn’t he get to continue hawking his paranoia and lunacy to the chumps, and continue to get their adulation? And moolah from the DVD sales? Gotta keep up the payments on the mansion, you know.

Political Commentary

“Nonsense And Betrayal”

Something tells me that we haven’t seen or heard the last of Reverend Wright:

“After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn’t know about Jeremiah’s views during those years, that he wasn’t familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn’t hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal,” said the source, who has deep roots in Wright’s Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

Up until now, the defense has been that these remarks of Wrights were atypical and taken out of context, and sufficiently rare that Obama never happened to have heard them, despite having been a church member for two decades and sitting regularly in the pews. Not that I’ve ever bought it, but that was the story.

Now Wright himself is saying (and made pretty clear on Monday) that these are not just sporadic and infrequent flights of fancy, but things that he fervently believes and is happy to tell anyone on any occasion, including Sunday sermons. And furthermore, he knows that his protege was well aware of his views (and may even have thought that he agreed with them, though that’s less clear).

I have a pretty low opinion of the pastor, for a lot of reasons, but I haven’t yet seen any evidence that he’s a liar. But either he is prevaricating, or Obama is. I know where I’d put my money at this point. This will be a ticking time bomb going into the fall. I hope that the Democrats continue to let it tick.

[Update at 2:45 PM EDT]

Ramesh Ponnuru defends Wright (err…sort of):

One theme I’ve seen in the commentary about Wright, especially the liberal commentary, is how terrible it is, how selfish, for Wright to get in the way of Obama’s presidential campaign. There are a lot of grounds for criticizing Wright–that he is an anti-American and racist buffoon, example–but I don’t see why he should keep quiet just to keep from inconveniencing a political candidate. He takes these. . . ideas of his very seriously, and he has the opportunity of a lifetime to disseminate them. Why wouldn’t he take it?

Beyond that, there seems to be this implicit assumption among the liberal media and Obama supporters (but I repeat myself) that Wright does (and should) want to see his congregant become president. Hence the anguished cries of “betrayal!, and “selfishness!”

But if Obama is elected president, doesn’t that knock the legs out from under his race- and class-war theories? Doesn’t it show that perhaps AmeKKKa isn’t the racist monster of his sermons?

On the other hand, if Obama loses, doesn’t it validate his (and Michelle’s) hatred of this racist country, as bad as (or worse than!) Al Qaeda? And then doesn’t he get to continue hawking his paranoia and lunacy to the chumps, and continue to get their adulation? And moolah from the DVD sales? Gotta keep up the payments on the mansion, you know.

Political Commentary

“Nonsense And Betrayal”

6 Comments

Something tells me that we haven’t seen or heard the last of Reverend Wright:

“After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn’t know about Jeremiah’s views during those years, that he wasn’t familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn’t hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal,” said the source, who has deep roots in Wright’s Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

Up until now, the defense has been that these remarks of Wrights were atypical and taken out of context, and sufficiently rare that Obama never happened to have heard them, despite having been a church member for two decades and sitting regularly in the pews. Not that I’ve ever bought it, but that was the story.

Now Wright himself is saying (and made pretty clear on Monday) that these are not just sporadic and infrequent flights of fancy, but things that he fervently believes and is happy to tell anyone on any occasion, including Sunday sermons. And furthermore, he knows that his protege was well aware of his views (and may even have thought that he agreed with them, though that’s less clear).

I have a pretty low opinion of the pastor, for a lot of reasons, but I haven’t yet seen any evidence that he’s a liar. But either he is prevaricating, or Obama is. I know where I’d put my money at this point. This will be a ticking time bomb going into the fall. I hope that the Democrats continue to let it tick.

[Update at 2:45 PM EDT]

Ramesh Ponnuru defends Wright (err…sort of):

One theme I’ve seen in the commentary about Wright, especially the liberal commentary, is how terrible it is, how selfish, for Wright to get in the way of Obama’s presidential campaign. There are a lot of grounds for criticizing Wright–that he is an anti-American and racist buffoon, example–but I don’t see why he should keep quiet just to keep from inconveniencing a political candidate. He takes these. . . ideas of his very seriously, and he has the opportunity of a lifetime to disseminate them. Why wouldn’t he take it?

Beyond that, there seems to be this implicit assumption among the liberal media and Obama supporters (but I repeat myself) that Wright does (and should) want to see his congregant become president. Hence the anguished cries of “betrayal!, and “selfishness!”

But if Obama is elected president, doesn’t that knock the legs out from under his race- and class-war theories? Doesn’t it show that perhaps AmeKKKa isn’t the racist monster of his sermons?

On the other hand, if Obama loses, doesn’t it validate his (and Michelle’s) hatred of this racist country, as bad as (or worse than!) Al Qaeda? And then doesn’t he get to continue hawking his paranoia and lunacy to the chumps, and continue to get their adulation? And moolah from the DVD sales? Gotta keep up the payments on the mansion, you know.

Political Commentary, Space

Naked Emperor?

12 Comments

An interesting comment from someone who claims to work on the program, over at Space Politics (it’s the sixteenth one), in response to the usual idiocy that everything is fine with ESAS, and that we all have to get behind it, and there are no other choices:

Your interpretation of published Ares I status is overly optimistic to an extreme. For instance, the J-2X ignition tests to which you refer has been done at the igniter level, a far cry from an actual engine test. The J-2X exists only on paper, and still very much at the powerpoint level.

The Ares I-X is also merely a stunt and represents no true progress to an actual flight configuration. It’s what we in the business refer to as an “Admiral’s Test,” looks impressive to the uninformed, but adds no value to the final product.

You’ll find that many of us Ares I naysayers actually work on or have involvement with the project. Ask the troops at MSFC and you’ll get a completely different story than what you’re getting through the NASA propaganda machine.

A lot of us are concerned with what kind of reputation we’ll be left with when Griffin leaves and this whole Ares I/ESAS debacle is exposed.

That certainly rings true to me, based on other emails I get from program insiders.

Meanwhile, over at NASA Space Flight, there’s a description of proposed solutions to the Ares vibration issue. The first one is the most interesting kludgesolution:

The anti-Thrust Oscillation RCS would be a totally new system, located on the aft skirt of the Ares I booster. Known as Active Pulse Thrusters (APT), documentation shows this system to hold the potential of reducing Thrust Oscillation by around 10 times that which is currently expected.

‘Active Pulse Thrusters (RCS TO Damper): First Stage carries most of the design changes (Orion Service Module tanks change required),’ noted associated documentation on this concept. ‘Could provide 10X reduction in TO. Relatively mature thruster design. Self contained. Relatively mature control system.’

However, it would – as with most of the mitigation options – hold a mass impact on the vehicle, something Ares I has been struggling with since its early design cycles.

‘Performance and aft skirt design challenge: (around) 500 lbm (pounds mass) payload impact. Trade required for separation and booster deceleration. Add failure modes. Must survive aft skirt environments.’

The system consists of four pods, located around the aft skirt on the Ares I First Stage. Early graphics of a system – that are bound to mature if accepted as the way forward – show each pod will have a fuel tank, an oxidizer tank, a pressurant tank, and seven thrusters.

The downside of this concept – which is a completely separate system than the roll control system on the interstage – is the addition of failure modes, which would hit Ares I’s LOC/M (Loss of Crew/Mission) numbers.

Also on the downside, the concept is a retro thrusting system (negative thrusting) – which would impact on Ares I’s performance figures.

OK, if I understand this correctly, this is what I would call the “Bose headphone” approach. Apparently, the plan is to actually fire thrusters in a direction opposite to the main thrust, at a frequency and phase to actually cancel out the vibration of the SRM. The description of the downside of this solution is a little dry, to me. They are introducing a new, complicated, expensive-to-develop-and-test system into the vehicle, which will add weight and (probably weird) potential failure modes, and reduce the net thrust of the vehicle, thus reducing its payload performance, which already has essentially no margin.

Great.

Next? Isolation mounts:

‘May reduce payload by 1000 lbm. Reduces lateral stiffness unless mitigated in the design. Adds failure modes. Changes system modes for loads and control.’

“…unless mitigated in the design.” There is an implicit assumption in that statement that such a mitigation is possible, but it may not be. I suspect that it doesn’t just reduce lateral stiffness, but may also reduce stiffness in bending, which means more potential problems as the upper stage wiggles back and forth on top of the SRB, adding to the joy of the ride for the crew, and further complicating the control system’s job, in all three axes.

They’re right–this one is unlikely to survive the trade study.

Even the third, favored option is a kludge, which “consists of rails and springs under the top plate of the parachute platform on the First Stage. The active system would require a control system and associated battery power supply – all located under the aeroshell that houses the drogue parachute.”

“The passive system has a rail attachment on the forward skirt extension of the First Stage providing lateral support. Damping would be provided by springs attached through the ancillary ring.”

Rube Goldberg, call your office.

I’ve probably used this Einstein quote already recently, but it continues to apply: a clever man solves a problem–a wise man avoids it. This is all the result of the strange decision to use a Shuttle SRB as a first stage. That was not a necessary choice, and a good trade study (as opposed to the sixty-day exercise) would have identified these problems up front, and considered them in the trade. Anyone want to bet that it did?

Education, Political Commentary

Campus Idiocy

1 Comment

There were some shots fired at Florida Atlantic University (two or three miles from my house) at a party last night. In what’s obviously a ridiculous and gross overreaction to the Virginia Tech massacre, classes have been cancelled, the entire campus has been locked down, and twenty-five hundred students are now essentially prisoners in their dorms.

How long will this go on? Who knows? It could be days before they find the perp (no one was killed, and one person was wounded, and it’s not even clear that the wound was from the gun), and they may never do so.

Florida is a shall-issue state, but I suspect that the school (like most) foolishly bans guns on campus (which obviously worked so well last night). Unfortunately, despite the fact that all the students are adults, and there’s no reason to think that the shooter has any intention to shoot people on campus, they are being treated like children, deprived of the means to defend themselves, and locked away in their rooms. It’s a continuation of the infantilization of society, and the growth of the nanny state. Obviously, the authorities are worried about being accused of not being sufficiently solicitous of the safety of the students, but apparently they don’t believe that their liberty has any value. They need to understand that they have to have some balance. If I were one of those students, I’d bring suit for false imprisonment.

[Update an hour or so later]

I just heard that the police are “searching Boca Raton” for the gunman. So they’re not restricting their search to campus? I’m only three miles or so from campus. Why haven’t they come down my street and locked us in our houses? He could be anywhere. Why restrict it to campus?