My return flight went much better than the trip to Detroit. Lines reasonable, seat reclined, took off and landed on time. And about a third the price (since Spirit sells each leg separately). I may take another chance on them.
Of course, I’m back just in time to watch upcoming Hurricane Dean bearing down on us sometime next week.
Christopher Hitchens, on the nuttiness of people who cannot bring themselves to believe that we are fighting Al Qaeda. In Iraq.
Here’s an essay from Tad Daley describing why so-called “progressives” should be interested in the expansion of humanity into the cosmos.
[via Keith Cowing]
I think that this is supposed to be a news story about Karl Rove’s resignation. But this belongs on the editorial page (and it’s unlikely that one would find it on the editorial page of the newspaper in which it appears):
Mr. Rove established himself as the political genius behind the rise of George W. Bush and the brief period of united Republican rule. But he did it largely through highly divisive policies and campaign tactics, such as the attacks on Democratic rival John Kerry [in] the 2004 campaign. That strategy appears finally to have backfired, as seen in the Republican loss of Congress in 2006, and Mr. Bush’s low poll numbers.
This is not facts. It’s extremely biased opinion. And in fact not just biased, but politically clueless. It is not just a viewing of recent history through a fun-house mirror–it is a rewriting of it.
Karl Rove “attacked” John Kerry? This is written as though Kerry ran a high-minded campaign, above the fray, ignoring the supposed mud slinging coming from the Bush campaign, putting forth reasoned, coherent policy positions that were drowned out in the public debate by the Bush noise and slander machine. As always, it was only George Bush and Karl Rove who were “divisive,” not the gentle, noble Democrats.
This is, of course, a description of the 2004 campaign that could come only from someone living on Bizarro World. It ignores all of the incessant Bush bashing from the Democrats, and Kerry, whose only message, and claim to the presidency (other than that he was a Vietnam war hero), was that he wouldn’t be George Bush. Every campaign speech, every policy paper emitting from the campaign was “Bush policies have been disastrous. If it’s a Bush policy, I’ll do the opposite.” There was rarely an actual specific policy proposal, and when there was, it was never without reference to Bush.
I also suspect that the reporter is conflating the actions of the Swift Boat Vets with Karl Rove’s campaign, though there was never any evidence of coordination, and the former had plenty of their own reasons to not want to see a President Kerry, which they stated many times. They may have “attacked” him, but they were up front about why they did so.
But no, in the minds of the MSM, it is George Bush who is the “divider,” not the Democrats and the left who have been vilifying him for over six years now as an election stealer, a warmonger, a chimpanzee, a torturer, a war criminal–despite his acquiescing to (in partnership with Ted Kennedy) much of the liberal political agenda, with an expansion of Medicare, federal control over education, a new amnesty for illegal immigrants, and a general expansion of government on almost all fronts. All of which was pushed by the evil mastermind, Karl Rove.
And the notion that it was Rove’s “divisive” campaign tactics that were the cause of the Republican loss of the Congress last year is an analysis so simplistic (and wrong) that it would be embarrassing to see it in a college newspaper, let alone the new crown jewel of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
To the degree that Karl Rove was responsible for the loss of Congress, it was because of the degree to which Bush had lost his base due to the (Rove-initiated) big-government and big-spending initiatives described above, and the frustration of the country with the poorly managed war in Iraq (which is not to say, of course, that the country wanted us to surrender, despite the Democrats’ fantasies).
If George Bush was the right-wing maniac of popular myth, he would never have hired Karl Rove, because Rove’s philosophy was to gain political power for Republicans by co-opting what he perceived to be the Democrats’ superficially appealing issues (taking some lessons from Bill Clinton and Dick Morris in “triangulation”). He thought that by making conservatism “compassionate,” he could repackage it to sell to the independents. But he underestimated the degree to which it would alienate the core base, particularly when he and Bush called them “bigots” and xenophobes because they simply wanted to see the law enforced fairly.
But no. In the mind of a liberal Democrat reporter (and no other type could have possibly written the quoted paragraph), only Republicans are “divisive.” And that “divisiveness” is the source of all evil in the country. If only the Republicans had been more bi-partisan (perhaps by embracing Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich in addition to Ted Kennedy?), they wouldn’t have lost the election last year.
Of course, the truly sad thing is that the Journal apparently has no editors who can catch such things, either. You’d think they’d have at least caught the missing preposition in the second sentence. Another demonstration of superiority of the vaunted layers of editors and fact checkers of the MSM over us lowly bloggers, I guess.
[Update in the afternoon]
Rove has a higher approval rating than Congress. But then, who doesn’t?
I think that this is supposed to be a news story about Karl Rove’s resignation. But this belongs on the editorial page (and it’s unlikely that one would find it on the editorial page of the newspaper in which it appears):
Mr. Rove established himself as the political genius behind the rise of George W. Bush and the brief period of united Republican rule. But he did it largely through highly divisive policies and campaign tactics, such as the attacks on Democratic rival John Kerry [in] the 2004 campaign. That strategy appears finally to have backfired, as seen in the Republican loss of Congress in 2006, and Mr. Bush’s low poll numbers.
This is not facts. It’s extremely biased opinion. And in fact not just biased, but politically clueless. It is not just a viewing of recent history through a fun-house mirror–it is a rewriting of it.
Karl Rove “attacked” John Kerry? This is written as though Kerry ran a high-minded campaign, above the fray, ignoring the supposed mud slinging coming from the Bush campaign, putting forth reasoned, coherent policy positions that were drowned out in the public debate by the Bush noise and slander machine. As always, it was only George Bush and Karl Rove who were “divisive,” not the gentle, noble Democrats.
This is, of course, a description of the 2004 campaign that could come only from someone living on Bizarro World. It ignores all of the incessant Bush bashing from the Democrats, and Kerry, whose only message, and claim to the presidency (other than that he was a Vietnam war hero), was that he wouldn’t be George Bush. Every campaign speech, every policy paper emitting from the campaign was “Bush policies have been disastrous. If it’s a Bush policy, I’ll do the opposite.” There was rarely an actual specific policy proposal, and when there was, it was never without reference to Bush.
I also suspect that the reporter is conflating the actions of the Swift Boat Vets with Karl Rove’s campaign, though there was never any evidence of coordination, and the former had plenty of their own reasons to not want to see a President Kerry, which they stated many times. They may have “attacked” him, but they were up front about why they did so.
But no, in the minds of the MSM, it is George Bush who is the “divider,” not the Democrats and the left who have been vilifying him for over six years now as an election stealer, a warmonger, a chimpanzee, a torturer, a war criminal–despite his acquiescing to (in partnership with Ted Kennedy) much of the liberal political agenda, with an expansion of Medicare, federal control over education, a new amnesty for illegal immigrants, and a general expansion of government on almost all fronts. All of which was pushed by the evil mastermind, Karl Rove.
And the notion that it was Rove’s “divisive” campaign tactics that were the cause of the Republican loss of the Congress last year is an analysis so simplistic (and wrong) that it would be embarrassing to see it in a college newspaper, let alone the new crown jewel of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
To the degree that Karl Rove was responsible for the loss of Congress, it was because of the degree to which Bush had lost his base due to the (Rove-initiated) big-government and big-spending initiatives described above, and the frustration of the country with the poorly managed war in Iraq (which is not to say, of course, that the country wanted us to surrender, despite the Democrats’ fantasies).
If George Bush was the right-wing maniac of popular myth, he would never have hired Karl Rove, because Rove’s philosophy was to gain political power for Republicans by co-opting what he perceived to be the Democrats’ superficially appealing issues (taking some lessons from Bill Clinton and Dick Morris in “triangulation”). He thought that by making conservatism “compassionate,” he could repackage it to sell to the independents. But he underestimated the degree to which it would alienate the core base, particularly when he and Bush called them “bigots” and xenophobes because they simply wanted to see the law enforced fairly.
But no. In the mind of a liberal Democrat reporter (and no other type could have possibly written the quoted paragraph), only Republicans are “divisive.” And that “divisiveness” is the source of all evil in the country. If only the Republicans had been more bi-partisan (perhaps by embracing Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich in addition to Ted Kennedy?), they wouldn’t have lost the election last year.
Of course, the truly sad thing is that the Journal apparently has no editors who can catch such things, either. You’d think they’d have at least caught the missing preposition in the second sentence. Another demonstration of superiority of the vaunted layers of editors and fact checkers of the MSM over us lowly bloggers, I guess.
[Update in the afternoon]
Rove has a higher approval rating than Congress. But then, who doesn’t?
I think that this is supposed to be a news story about Karl Rove’s resignation. But this belongs on the editorial page (and it’s unlikely that one would find it on the editorial page of the newspaper in which it appears):
Mr. Rove established himself as the political genius behind the rise of George W. Bush and the brief period of united Republican rule. But he did it largely through highly divisive policies and campaign tactics, such as the attacks on Democratic rival John Kerry [in] the 2004 campaign. That strategy appears finally to have backfired, as seen in the Republican loss of Congress in 2006, and Mr. Bush’s low poll numbers.
This is not facts. It’s extremely biased opinion. And in fact not just biased, but politically clueless. It is not just a viewing of recent history through a fun-house mirror–it is a rewriting of it.
Karl Rove “attacked” John Kerry? This is written as though Kerry ran a high-minded campaign, above the fray, ignoring the supposed mud slinging coming from the Bush campaign, putting forth reasoned, coherent policy positions that were drowned out in the public debate by the Bush noise and slander machine. As always, it was only George Bush and Karl Rove who were “divisive,” not the gentle, noble Democrats.
This is, of course, a description of the 2004 campaign that could come only from someone living on Bizarro World. It ignores all of the incessant Bush bashing from the Democrats, and Kerry, whose only message, and claim to the presidency (other than that he was a Vietnam war hero), was that he wouldn’t be George Bush. Every campaign speech, every policy paper emitting from the campaign was “Bush policies have been disastrous. If it’s a Bush policy, I’ll do the opposite.” There was rarely an actual specific policy proposal, and when there was, it was never without reference to Bush.
I also suspect that the reporter is conflating the actions of the Swift Boat Vets with Karl Rove’s campaign, though there was never any evidence of coordination, and the former had plenty of their own reasons to not want to see a President Kerry, which they stated many times. They may have “attacked” him, but they were up front about why they did so.
But no, in the minds of the MSM, it is George Bush who is the “divider,” not the Democrats and the left who have been vilifying him for over six years now as an election stealer, a warmonger, a chimpanzee, a torturer, a war criminal–despite his acquiescing to (in partnership with Ted Kennedy) much of the liberal political agenda, with an expansion of Medicare, federal control over education, a new amnesty for illegal immigrants, and a general expansion of government on almost all fronts. All of which was pushed by the evil mastermind, Karl Rove.
And the notion that it was Rove’s “divisive” campaign tactics that were the cause of the Republican loss of the Congress last year is an analysis so simplistic (and wrong) that it would be embarrassing to see it in a college newspaper, let alone the new crown jewel of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
To the degree that Karl Rove was responsible for the loss of Congress, it was because of the degree to which Bush had lost his base due to the (Rove-initiated) big-government and big-spending initiatives described above, and the frustration of the country with the poorly managed war in Iraq (which is not to say, of course, that the country wanted us to surrender, despite the Democrats’ fantasies).
If George Bush was the right-wing maniac of popular myth, he would never have hired Karl Rove, because Rove’s philosophy was to gain political power for Republicans by co-opting what he perceived to be the Democrats’ superficially appealing issues (taking some lessons from Bill Clinton and Dick Morris in “triangulation”). He thought that by making conservatism “compassionate,” he could repackage it to sell to the independents. But he underestimated the degree to which it would alienate the core base, particularly when he and Bush called them “bigots” and xenophobes because they simply wanted to see the law enforced fairly.
But no. In the mind of a liberal Democrat reporter (and no other type could have possibly written the quoted paragraph), only Republicans are “divisive.” And that “divisiveness” is the source of all evil in the country. If only the Republicans had been more bi-partisan (perhaps by embracing Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich in addition to Ted Kennedy?), they wouldn’t have lost the election last year.
Of course, the truly sad thing is that the Journal apparently has no editors who can catch such things, either. You’d think they’d have at least caught the missing preposition in the second sentence. Another demonstration of superiority of the vaunted layers of editors and fact checkers of the MSM over us lowly bloggers, I guess.
[Update in the afternoon]
Rove has a higher approval rating than Congress. But then, who doesn’t?
On science, society, and climate change. From Freeman Dyson.
[Update a few minutes later]
It slipped down the page, but I have an explanation as to why I think that Jim Hansen should have egg on his face, since there seems to be some confusion in the comments section there.
[Sunday morning update]
On this Robert Samuelson piece, I agree with Glenn:
Personally, as I’ve noted before, the whole debate seems to me to be a religious sideshow. Regardless of what you think about global warming, there are lots of good reasons to avoid burning fossil fuels. But the global-warming discussion in the media is a consensus identity narrative designed to achieve political ends, not an effort to find facts or protect the environment. And this also accounts for the backlash.
No, not the one with David Livingston.
I’m up in northern Michigan, away from the city lights, and it should be good viewing of the Perseids, which peak tomorrow night. There was no moon, to first order, so it should be good viewing this year. I actually saw a couple last night driving, up, one of which was a fireball over the northwestern Detroit suburbs.
An interesting discussion over at Space Politics about public awareness of, ignorance about, and interest in: NASA, space, space science, and the vision. And I agree with “anonymous” that this is not a (completely) unfair characterization of the human spaceflight program:
ISS: 22 years, 100 billion. Science return: minimal. NASA has no money to use it once it
See you later.
[Saturday morning update]
That was my first experience flying Spirit airlines. Also likely my last, other than my planned return on Tuesday. Got to the airport, had a hell of a time finding parking, and it took a lot longer to get to the terminal than planned. We had a very crowded line both for check-in and security, got to the gate just in time to board. It turned out that it didn’t matter since, when we got there, the board said “Delayed.” No estimated time of departure, no explanation. There was a plane sitting a few hundred feet off the gate in an obvious state of being repaired. About an hour or so later, they announced a new gate. We go over to the new gate, which is on the opposite side of the concourse.
This is an international concourse (Concourse H in Terminal 4 at Fort Lauderdale), and it was designed by a madman. On the west side runs a glassed-in hallway, through which deplaning passengers pass on their way to immigration and customs. In order to board the aircraft, one must cross this hallway. Obviously, since one cannot mix domestic passenger still in the US, and newly-arrived passengers somewhere in international limbo, no one can board until the hallway is clear. But there is apparently little reservoir for people at I&C, so they back up into the hallway. All the way to the end of the concourse. And then all the way back to the beginning of the hallway, doubling around. We are told that we can’t board until these hundreds of passengers have cleared the hallway.
Now, each gate has dual doors in the hallway, so that the hallway can be cut off to let passengers board. But this would, of course, cut off the people in the hallway trying to advance up the line. The obvious solution is traffic control, in which the hallway is temporarily closed, board some passengers, reopen the hallway to clear the backup, board some more passengers, etc. but it takes them a maddeningly long time to actually do this.
But finally, we get on the plane. We taxi out, at which point the pilot announces that they just have to do one final balance check, and then they can take off. I have never heard of a balance check on an aircraft the size of a Boeing 737 before. They must be running very tight margins on packing passengers and cargo into this aircraft if they have to worry about this. But apparently, things turned out to be all right, as I didn’t notice them shifting passengers around. And only two and three quarters hours after the original scheduled departure, we are in the air.
I wasn’t aware of this but everything on Spirit, other than the seat and bottled water, is a la carte, and overpriced (two bucks for a box of pretzels, a dollar for a soft drink, no protein of any kind on offer). But at least they take (in fact insist on) credit cards. Also, checking luggage is ten bucks per bag (unless you purchase in advance on line, in which case it’s only five). I actually like this, as I’ve long advocated the end of subsidizing checked luggage by those traveling light. The seats don’t recline, though they tantalize you with a button, anyway.
The flight was also quite noisy, with numerous crying babies and loud (semi)adults. I’ve never understood why some people feel the need to spout their inanities to each other at a volume that can be heard halfway down the length of the aircraft. I don’t know whether they imagine that the rest of us will be fascinated by their lives, and are rapt at every word, or that simply have no sense whatsoever of self consciousness.
In any event, we finally got into Detroit about three hours later than planned (about ten thirty, once I got the rental). We had originally expected to be in around seven thirty, with time for dinner, and then a three-hour drive up to the lake. Instead, we grabbed some deli sandwiches at a twenty-four hour supermarket in Fenton, and drove straight up from there, arriving around two AM.
Hopefully, the rest of the weekend will go more smoothly. But I’m not looking forward to a 6:45 AM return on Tuesday morning via Spirit.