Media Criticism

Idiot Television Writers

I’m watching “Back To You,” a new sitcom with Kelsey Grammar and Patricia Heaton, while getting ready to brine the turkey for tomorrow.

He is overfeeding the goldfish, and she warns him not to do this (it’s a metaphor about what a lousy absentee dad he is, to put it in context of the ongoing plot).

The goldfish, of course, because this is television, dies immediately from overeating.

The only problem is that no goldfish ever died from overeating. Or at least, that’s not why you shouldn’t overfeed a goldfish (nor is the related Dr. Seuss story worth worrying about either).

It’s bad to overfeed fish because they won’t eat all the food, and the uneaten food will rot and pollute their bowl. It happens over a period of many hours or days, not instantaneously. But the dumb writers think that the fish gorge themselves and die (otherwise, they’d have no story line).

Political Commentary

Arbiters Of Morality?

Jonah Goldberg writes:

It is, for example, absurd that we’ve decided the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of morality in this country and it is even more cockeyed that, having arrived at this absurd place, we continue to appoint lawyers to the court on the assumption they are the experts best qualified to adjudicate not merely the law (which is fine, of course) but right and wrong and all of the mysteries of metaphysics and meaning. Why lawyers? Why not priests, doctors and philosophers too

Space

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.

Space

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.

Space

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.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!