Political Commentary

If They Take Away Our Guns

…how will we shoot the UN bureaucrats, who don’t believe in an individual right of self defense?

Will Franklin has some thoughts:

The report goes out of its way to clear up any silly confusion about self-defense for States, including totalitarian regimes, as somehow also applying to lowly individual human beings:

“Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to the States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of self-defence for individual persons.”

How ironic, that the preeminent human rights organization in the world, the UN, gives the full panoply of protections and immunities under international law to someone like Kim Jong-Il, whereas if you engage in self-defense you are ‘violating the rights of another.’ This goes to the heart of an entire belief system rampant in the world today that thinks that all violence is bad regardless of circumstances and context, and that the problems of violence are caused by weapons and not those that wield them.

War Commentary

Who Lost Britain?

Mark Steyn, on a nation that seems willing to fight Islamism everywhere except on its own soil:

But, in a world in which the prospects for the Anglosphere are better than almost anybody else’s, there is one bleak exception. At some point soon, we’re going to be asking: Who lost Britain? In the weeks after last year’s tube bombing, I doubted that the clarion call for a reassertion of “British identity” would last, and so it proved. By the first anniversary, Britain was back in its peculiarly resistant multiculti mush in which the proper reaction to such unfortunate events is to abase oneself ever more abjectly before the gods of cultural relativism. What matters after mass slaughter on the Underground is not the wound to the nation but the potential for hurt feelings of certain minorities. Had the latest disrupted terrorist plot to take down up to ten UK-US airplanes actually succeeded, I’m sure it would have gone much the same–BBC discussion panels on which representatives of Muslim lobby groups warn of outbreaks of Islamophobia. Even as Heathrow and all other British airports were shut down, Shahid Malik, MP for Dewsbury, the neighborhood that produced the July 7th bombers, explained the situation: “The action of Israel and the inaction of the West is contributing to the difficult task of tackling extremism.” Deconstruct that–because it’s the most artful extension of Jew-blaming in centuries: even Hitler never thought to complain that those bloody Jews were provoking Germans into blowing up their fellow Germans. Of course, it’s ludicrous. This plot was well advanced long before the first Israeli strike against Hezbollah–despite the truly contemptible way Reuters, the BBC and other British media outlets inserted reflexively a causal connection.

But suppose Mr. Malik’s words were true–that the actions of the Zionist Entity are so repellent they drive British subjects to plot mass murder against their fellow British subjects. What does that imply? That, well before push comes to shove, the primary identity of those nominal “Britons” is not British and never will be.

…On the broader cultural front, where this war in the end will be won, there’s little evidence of any kind of will. When one considers the impunity with which the country’s incendiary imams incite treason, it requires a perverse genius on the part of Tony Blair to have found the political courage to fight an unpopular war on a distant shore but not the political courage to wage it closer to home where it would have commanded far more support. That’s the sad lesson of the July 7th bombings: the British government has a strategy for southern Iraq but not southern England.

Political Commentary

Seeing The Light

The WaPo isn’t very impressed with the noble Joe Wilson:

…it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Indeed.

No doubt the fever swampers on the left will see this as more evidence of the right-wing agenda of the paper…

[Update in the afternoon]

To use an old phrase, I find the timing suspicious, as does a commenter over at Roger Simon’s place (and Roger’s post on the mental state of the left is worth reading, too):

I wish that the WaPo editorial would not have been published on a Friday before a long, holiday weekend. I hope it was not an intentional attempt to bury the message.

Intentional or otherwise, it could certainly have that effect.

Space

Dream On

Mark Whittington continues his delusion that private industry cannot get to LEO without NASA money. Elon has been planning to get to orbit all along, and funding the development of vehicles to do so. People would be planning and funding private orbital trips in the absence of ISS. COTS has the potential to accelerate the schedule, but it’s not necessary. It will happen with or without it.

Space

Ho Hum

I agree with Clark Lindsey:

I doubt that in the coming months and years I will be commenting much on Orion or the other shiny, precious projects in Mr. Griffin’s Constellation. Frankly, it all seems a bit boring. Maybe this program will successfully return the US to the Moon by 2020. There are lots of great engineers working in it and they are quite capable of making it a success. However, the price tag is far too high for far too little. I want spaceflight to become practical, useful and broadly available. That’s when it gets exciting. NASA will achieve none of these with the Constellation program. They are not even goals the agency recognizes.

I’ll miss the paycheck. I won’t miss the program (though I will miss some good people that I worked with).

Space

Irritating

I just did an interview with the BBC, along with John Pike (the embarrassing thing is that I suggested him, because they insisted on doing a “point-counterpoint” format), who continues to denigrate the notion of people doing what they want in space. I’ll let you know when it airs, when I find out. Hopefully there will be some sort of webcast available.

[Update at 6:30 PM EDT]

It will be broadcast in half an hour, at 7 PM Eastern. Unclear if there will be a download later. If anyone listens, and can record, it will be appreciated.

[Update a little after 7 PM Eastern]

OK, not right at seven, but it’s about to start.

[A minute later]

Sorry, false alarm. Not sure when it will start. I assume within the hour, but no way to pin it down better than that.

Space

It’s Lockheed

Just got the news, prior to the announcement. Congratulations to the Lockmart team.

And no, I have nothing profound to say about it. I only saw one proposal, so I don’t have any basis on which to judge whether or not this was a good decision. Of course, I’m on record as thinking the program itself misbegotten, regardless of who builds it.

[Update while listening to the NASA webcast]

I should add that I want to offer my condolences to the NGB team, many of whom I’ve worked with for the last year, and who put in a lot of long hours, for naught. Unfortunately, someone has to win, and someone has to lose. We’ll find out in due course what NASA thought the key weaknesses of the NGB offer were.

[Update about 4:30]

They just showed a model. It has circular solar panels.

A reporter is asking about human space experience vis a vis Lockmart. Horowitz makes the point (with which I agree) that no one has experience in developing manned spacecraft. We’re a new generation.

[Update about 4:40]

I find it interesting (and a little amusing) that everyone in comments seems to think that this was Boeing versus Lockmart. Northrop Grumman was the team lead.

[Update]

On further reflection, I should add that this is a bitter pill for Boeing (not legacy Boeing people, but the former McDonnell-Douglas and Rockwell folks), because they remember the X-33 program, when Lockmart conned NASA, and pissed away a billion dollars of taxpayer money, while devastating prospects for reusable vehicles for years (something from which the agency hasn’t recovered, given its current launcher development choices). I’m sure that a lot of them are thinking that this just happened again. The difference, of course, is that this isn’t a technology development program, but I can understand the bitterness, if it exists.

[Update at 5:45 PM EDT]

An emailer who wants to remains anonymous defends Lockmart:

…it’s worth noting that aside from the inherent problems with the concept, the execution was botched by Skunk Works, due to a combination of handing it to their “second string” team and lingering Lockheed/Martin Marietta rivalries. LMSW wouldn’t listen to Michoud when told that what they were doing on the LH2 tanks was wrong, for example, despite Michoud having the bulk of the corporation’s expertise in that area. For another, LMSW couldn’t *ever* seem to grasp the notion that they were designing a (suborbital) spacecraft rather than a plane, and indeed continued to call X-33 and VentureStar “the airplane” throughout the program.

Thankfully, LMSW has nothing to do with Orion, so the X-33 debacle doesn’t directly apply here (aside from the bitter lessons learned coming from the Michoud side). Denver and Michoud are the primary business units involved, so we at least have *some* clue what we’re doing on this project.

I’ll also add, per a comment, that Lockmart doesn’t share sole responsibility for the X-33 fiasco. I would assign at least as much, if not more blame to Marshall, for letting themselves be snookered. It does take two to tango, after all.

[Update a little after 6 PM EDT]

Boy, CNN is really bashing Lockmart, too. As my anonymous emailer notes, this really isn’t fair, but it’s also not ununderstandable (if that isn’t a word, it oughtta be. As should “oughtta”).

Space

It’s Lockheed

Just got the news, prior to the announcement. Congratulations to the Lockmart team.

And no, I have nothing profound to say about it. I only saw one proposal, so I don’t have any basis on which to judge whether or not this was a good decision. Of course, I’m on record as thinking the program itself misbegotten, regardless of who builds it.

[Update while listening to the NASA webcast]

I should add that I want to offer my condolences to the NGB team, many of whom I’ve worked with for the last year, and who put in a lot of long hours, for naught. Unfortunately, someone has to win, and someone has to lose. We’ll find out in due course what NASA thought the key weaknesses of the NGB offer were.

[Update about 4:30]

They just showed a model. It has circular solar panels.

A reporter is asking about human space experience vis a vis Lockmart. Horowitz makes the point (with which I agree) that no one has experience in developing manned spacecraft. We’re a new generation.

[Update about 4:40]

I find it interesting (and a little amusing) that everyone in comments seems to think that this was Boeing versus Lockmart. Northrop Grumman was the team lead.

[Update]

On further reflection, I should add that this is a bitter pill for Boeing (not legacy Boeing people, but the former McDonnell-Douglas and Rockwell folks), because they remember the X-33 program, when Lockmart conned NASA, and pissed away a billion dollars of taxpayer money, while devastating prospects for reusable vehicles for years (something from which the agency hasn’t recovered, given its current launcher development choices). I’m sure that a lot of them are thinking that this just happened again. The difference, of course, is that this isn’t a technology development program, but I can understand the bitterness, if it exists.

[Update at 5:45 PM EDT]

An emailer who wants to remains anonymous defends Lockmart:

…it’s worth noting that aside from the inherent problems with the concept, the execution was botched by Skunk Works, due to a combination of handing it to their “second string” team and lingering Lockheed/Martin Marietta rivalries. LMSW wouldn’t listen to Michoud when told that what they were doing on the LH2 tanks was wrong, for example, despite Michoud having the bulk of the corporation’s expertise in that area. For another, LMSW couldn’t *ever* seem to grasp the notion that they were designing a (suborbital) spacecraft rather than a plane, and indeed continued to call X-33 and VentureStar “the airplane” throughout the program.

Thankfully, LMSW has nothing to do with Orion, so the X-33 debacle doesn’t directly apply here (aside from the bitter lessons learned coming from the Michoud side). Denver and Michoud are the primary business units involved, so we at least have *some* clue what we’re doing on this project.

I’ll also add, per a comment, that Lockmart doesn’t share sole responsibility for the X-33 fiasco. I would assign at least as much, if not more blame to Marshall, for letting themselves be snookered. It does take two to tango, after all.

[Update a little after 6 PM EDT]

Boy, CNN is really bashing Lockmart, too. As my anonymous emailer notes, this really isn’t fair, but it’s also not ununderstandable (if that isn’t a word, it oughtta be. As should “oughtta”).

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!