Obama’s Space “Policy”

Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.

As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.

I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.

From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.

There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:

I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.

Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).

Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.

Obama’s Space “Policy”

Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.

As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.

I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.

From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.

There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:

I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.

Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).

Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.

Coming Home

Iraqis are returning to Iraq from their exile.

What do they know that Harry Reid doesn’t? He must be very disappointed.

[Update a little later]

This isn’t exactly hot off the press (it was posted at the end of August) but David Kilcullen, one of General Petraeus’ advisors, provides a good (but long) description of what was going on in Iraq at that time, that explains much of what we’re seeing today.

[Update later morning]

Ralph Peters: What went right in Iraq.

Stop Building Houses? Huh?

In today’s Wall Street Journal I find this gem:

Maybe home builders should knock off work until spring.

Pillory OPEC for not raising oil production and pillory home builders for producing too much?! And another:

“If people stop cutting prices, that’s actually good [for builders],” says David Goldberg, an analyst with UBS Investment Bank. “If everybody does it, it works. If one builder does it, it doesn’t.”

If OPEC conspires to raise oil prices, it’s evil, but it’s OK to conspire to keep housing prices up? This is bad reporting.

It’s in each builder’s interest to keep building as long as their cost to build is lower than the expected sale price and the cost of capital for keeping the house on the market for longer than historical averages (and at higher interest rates than before the credit crisis). They will continue to build and prices will continue to fall. It probably won’t be a sellers’ market in housing in many parts of the country until 2009 or 2010. While builders continue to build, the 10-month supply of houses will only slowly drop and prices will also only drop slowly. If it made sense to build houses at 50% of current prices in some markets, there will be building for a while especially with labor and materials less scarce given that the peak of the housing boom is over.

Lower housing prices will make houses more affordable and stoke demand. That is what media should anticipate: a smoothly functioning market because the market price isn’t too high to sell anything. Not a way to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand.

Showdown On The Second Amendment

The SCOTUS is going to grant cert in DC v. Heller.

This is another huge story (two in one day, with the stem cell breakthrough). They are finally going to resolve, one way or the other, if the purpose clause can allow a government to deprive people of their civil rights. It will be a sad day for liberty if they overrule the appeals court, and essentially eviscerate the Bill of Rights of one of its most powerful one.

The pen is mightier than the sword, so they say, which may be why they made freedom of speech the first amendment, but the fact that the right to bear arms is number two is probably a good indication of the degree of importance attached to it by the Founders. Without that one, all the rest are ultimately at risk to a new tyranny.

“The Real Enemy”

Mark Steyn writes about Hollywood, and the war:

Which brings us back to those yelps of delight when the Americans clobbered the jihadists two hours into the test screening of The Kingdom. Pace Peter Berg, it’s not “bloodlust”: if you want that, you’re best to stick to the amoral fetishization of violence in the 3.10 remake. What the preview crowd were telling Berg is, hey, we’d love to see one film where our guys kick serious terrorist butt

“The Real Enemy”

Mark Steyn writes about Hollywood, and the war:

Which brings us back to those yelps of delight when the Americans clobbered the jihadists two hours into the test screening of The Kingdom. Pace Peter Berg, it’s not “bloodlust”: if you want that, you’re best to stick to the amoral fetishization of violence in the 3.10 remake. What the preview crowd were telling Berg is, hey, we’d love to see one film where our guys kick serious terrorist butt

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!