Elon’s Announcement

He’s going to say something about SpaceX at the National Press Club at 1 PM. Before I heard the venue, I was speculating on Twitter that it was about recovering the stage, but I don’t think he’d do that at the Press Club. Must be something big. Taking the company public? I thought he’d decided that he couldn’t risk losing control. Commenters are welcome to speculate here.

[Update during presser]

So far just announcing success of soft landing on the ocean. As I guessed last week, it was subsequently destroyed by the waves. Saying that it’s a very positive development for reusability. Next time he’ll get a bigger boat. In principle should be able to refly the same day.

[Update after the presser]

OK, the purpose of the press conference was to announce that SpaceX is filing suit to force the Air Force to compete the block buy for EELV that they just issued to ULA late last year. SpaceX didn’t find out about the contract until the day after last month’s hearing on the Hill. It will be interesting to hear what General Shelton has to say.

[Update a while later]

Oh, the other news: they are definitely planning to fly out of Brownsville, within a couple years. Bad news for Shiloh fans, I guess.

[Update a while later]

In response to the question in comments, yes they could probably launch in Texas and land in Florida with a good performance advantage, though it would slow down turnaround. But it just occurs to me that if they do that, they could probably just refuel there and self-ferry back, if the FAA lets them.

Red-Pill Economics

Welcome to the Paradise of the Real:

The Nation yesterday published a hilariously illiterate essay by Raúl Carrillo, who is a graduate student at Columbia, a Harvard graduate, and an organizer of something called the Modern Money Network, “an interdisciplinary educational initiative for understanding money, finance, law, and the economy.” All three of those institutions should be embarrassed. Mr. Carrillo is the sort of man who thinks that 40 pieces of candy can be divided and recombined in such a way as to arrive at a number greater than 40. His essay, “Your Government Owes You a Job,” argues that the federal government should create a guaranteed-job program, “becoming our employer of last resort.” Mr. Carrillo’s middle-school-quality prose must be read to be appreciated — “Would jobs for all skyrocket wages and prices, spurring inflation? Such unfounded belief holds the jobless hostage to hysteria” — but his thinking is positively elementary. It does, however, almost perfectly sum up the symbolism-over-literal-substance progressive worldview: “You need dollars to eat,” he writes, “and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.”

But you do not need dollars to eat. You need food to eat. Experiment: Spend six months locked in room with nothing other than a very large pile of dollars; measure subsequent weight loss.

Mr. Carrillo’s intellectual failure is catastrophic, but it is basic to the progressive approach. Mr. Carrillo argues that a guaranteed-job program would “pay for itself,” mitigate deficits, empower women, strengthen communities, liberate us from Walmart and McDonald’s — I half expected him to claim that it would turn a sandwich into a banquet. But the question he never quite gets his head around is: Jobs doing what? Americans in guaranteed government jobs “needn’t construct trains or solar panels,” he writes. Instead, they could be employed in “non-capital intensive” sectors such as “child-care, eldercare, and” — focus in here, kids — “community gardening.” Experiment: Offer for sale at a price of $250 a voucher entitling its bearer to one year’s worth of meals at McDonald’s, one year’s worth of groceries at Walmart, or one year’s worth of produce from your local community garden; compare sales figures.

Read the whole thing.

The Science Is Settled

It’s just not settled in the way that the warm mongers want you to believe.

[Update a few minutes later]

The latest on campaign laws, The Columbia “Journalism” Review, and freedom of speech, from Mark Steyn:

That “chill” is not just an incoming ice age but the chill of free speech and vigorous debate, too. My comment – on the “fraudulence” of Mann’s hockey stick – was not “deplorable”, but necessary. The stick is, indeed, fraudulent: It does not prove what it purports to, and Dr Mann well knows that, which is why in East Anglia, in Virginia, in British Columbia, and now in the District of Columbia he refuses and obstructs proper scientific disclosure. So my comment is truthful, as I will be happy to demonstrate at trial. And there is something very strange (and actually almost Pravda-like) about a “journalism review” that finds alternative viewpoints “deplorable”. It’s because so many others – from planet-saving narcissists like James Cameron and transnational opportunists like Rajendra Pachauri all the way down to the boobs and saps of The Columbia Journalism Review – insist that the cartoon alarmism of the hockey stick cannot be questioned that it becomes not just non-deplorable but highly necessary to question it.

And of course, questioning is what science is all about.

Mann Suit Analysis

Ken White has looked at the amicus briefs (I think), and explains, as entertainingly as possible, what the current status of the case is:

So: here we are. Mr. Mann has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the theory that the denial of an anti-SLAPP statute is not immediately appealable and on the theory that the defendants are all awful haterz who think Waterworld is a feel-good movie. That motion and the Court of Appeals’ order for the parties to brief the issue apparently crossed in the mail. If the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had a docket accessible online, or gave electronic notice of orders, that would not have happened, but since it is 1986 and the District of Columbia is an obscure jurisdiction, it is understandable they do not. National Review et al. has filed response to the order saying they are entitled to an immediate appeal and that, in so many words, Mann is a butthurt censorious twit. Defendants are supported by amicus briefs on the appealability issue from the ACLU, a conglomerate of media companies, and the District of Columbia itself, whose amicus ought to say “lol we suxxors at drafting statutes plz fx k thx bye,” but in fact does not.

Next up, unless it finds another procedural dodge, the Court of Appeals will decide whether the DC Anti-SLAPP statute allows an immediate appeal. If the answer is no, it goes back to trial court for discovery and motions and possibly trial; if the answer is yes, then the Court of Appeals addresses the merits of the anti-SLAPP motions — which, in my opinion, are meritorious.

Obviously, we think so as well.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!