War Commentary

A River In Egypt

Tony Blankley writes about institutions in denial:

The media has pointed out that there is no evidence he was connected to Al Qaeda or another terrorist cell. But that is exactly the point. As I discussed in my book last year, the threat to the West is vastly more than bin Laden and Al Qaeda (although that would be bad enough.)

The greater danger is the ferment in Islam that is generating radical ideas in an unknown, but growing percentage of grass-roots Muslims around the world — very much including in Europe and, to a currently lesser extent, in the United States.

A nation cannot design (and maintain public support for) a rational response to the danger if the nature and extent of the danger is not identified, widely reported and comprehended.

What are we dealing with? A few maladjusted “youth”? Or a larger and growing number of perfectly well-adjusted men and women — who just happen to be adjusted to a different set of cultural, religious (or distorted religious) and political values. And does it matter that those values are inimical to western concepts of tolerance, democracy, equality and religious freedom?

The public has the right and vital need to have the events of our time fully and fairly described and reported. But a witch’s brew of psychological denial and political correctness is suppressing the institutional voices of government, police, schools, universities and the media when it comes to radical Islam.

Space

Come See The Show

…if you’re in the Salt Lake City area today. Scott Lowther writes:

If you’re in the Salt Lake area tomorrow, come see the RSRM firing at ATK-Thiokol., scheduled for 1 PM. I’ve seen two… impressive as all get-out. Plus, it brings in every bald eagle for forty miles.

Why the eagles?

The two theories that do make a measure of sense to me are:

1) Some form of curiousity at the *extremely* loud noise with the very low tones.

2) The ground vibrations that are set up *may* cause subsurface critters for miles around to come boiling out… rats, mice, voles, snakes, etc, and the eagles have learned there are easy meals to be had when that particular dinner bell rings.

[Update late morning[

Where in the heck did the phrase “all get-out” come from, anyway. What does that mean?

Political Commentary

The Dog That Didn’t Bark

So I was looking at the Amazon page for Kos’ and Armstrong’s book, Crashing The Gate, which is about how to use the net to take back America for progressive politics (or at least I’m surmising that’s the theme, based on reviews and who wrote it), and I noticed something about the reviews. When a so-called “right-wing” book goes up (like by Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter, or even non-bombthrowers), the review section quickly becomes flooded by “reviews” from people who have obviously neither purchased or read the book, and are usually ad hominem attacks on the authors. Such “reviews” generally get one star in terms of their utility to the other Amazon visitors.

But I saw none of that among the reviews for Crashing The Gate. Admittedly, most of the reviews were by fellow Democrats, but I suspect that if there are any negative reviews, they’ll at least be by people who’ve actually read the book, and have something intelligent to say about it.

I’m going to keep an eye on it, and see if my prediction is born out, over the next few days. And if it is, what does it say about the civility level of the two sides of the political spectrum?

[Update a few minutes later]

It’s not at Amazon, but here’s an example of a negative review by someone who has actually read the book. It’s certainly not laudatory (though Trevino does have some good things to say about it), but it’s also not the mindless feces flinging that often passes for many “progressive” reviews of “non-progressive” books at Amazon.

[Late evening update]

There’s one other interesting characteristic of these drive-by trolls. They not only haven’t read the book, but they aren’t prolific reviewers in general. For example, consider the reviewers for Glenn’s latest book. The majority of the reviews so far are one-star, never-read-the-book reviews. And when one clicks on “other reviews by this reviewer,” one comes up almost empty in all cases.

This seems like something that Amazon could do something about. It’s almost like spam, except it’s a lot more personal.

Ideas as to how Amazon could (fairly and objectively) do something about it are welcome.

Political Commentary

The Dog That Didn’t Bark

So I was looking at the Amazon page for Kos’ and Armstrong’s book, Crashing The Gate, which is about how to use the net to take back America for progressive politics (or at least I’m surmising that’s the theme, based on reviews and who wrote it), and I noticed something about the reviews. When a so-called “right-wing” book goes up (like by Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter, or even non-bombthrowers), the review section quickly becomes flooded by “reviews” from people who have obviously neither purchased or read the book, and are usually ad hominem attacks on the authors. Such “reviews” generally get one star in terms of their utility to the other Amazon visitors.

But I saw none of that among the reviews for Crashing The Gate. Admittedly, most of the reviews were by fellow Democrats, but I suspect that if there are any negative reviews, they’ll at least be by people who’ve actually read the book, and have something intelligent to say about it.

I’m going to keep an eye on it, and see if my prediction is born out, over the next few days. And if it is, what does it say about the civility level of the two sides of the political spectrum?

[Update a few minutes later]

It’s not at Amazon, but here’s an example of a negative review by someone who has actually read the book. It’s certainly not laudatory (though Trevino does have some good things to say about it), but it’s also not the mindless feces flinging that often passes for many “progressive” reviews of “non-progressive” books at Amazon.

[Late evening update]

There’s one other interesting characteristic of these drive-by trolls. They not only haven’t read the book, but they aren’t prolific reviewers in general. For example, consider the reviewers for Glenn’s latest book. The majority of the reviews so far are one-star, never-read-the-book reviews. And when one clicks on “other reviews by this reviewer,” one comes up almost empty in all cases.

This seems like something that Amazon could do something about. It’s almost like spam, except it’s a lot more personal.

Ideas as to how Amazon could (fairly and objectively) do something about it are welcome.

Political Commentary

The Dog That Didn’t Bark

So I was looking at the Amazon page for Kos’ and Armstrong’s book, Crashing The Gate, which is about how to use the net to take back America for progressive politics (or at least I’m surmising that’s the theme, based on reviews and who wrote it), and I noticed something about the reviews. When a so-called “right-wing” book goes up (like by Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter, or even non-bombthrowers), the review section quickly becomes flooded by “reviews” from people who have obviously neither purchased or read the book, and are usually ad hominem attacks on the authors. Such “reviews” generally get one star in terms of their utility to the other Amazon visitors.

But I saw none of that among the reviews for Crashing The Gate. Admittedly, most of the reviews were by fellow Democrats, but I suspect that if there are any negative reviews, they’ll at least be by people who’ve actually read the book, and have something intelligent to say about it.

I’m going to keep an eye on it, and see if my prediction is born out, over the next few days. And if it is, what does it say about the civility level of the two sides of the political spectrum?

[Update a few minutes later]

It’s not at Amazon, but here’s an example of a negative review by someone who has actually read the book. It’s certainly not laudatory (though Trevino does have some good things to say about it), but it’s also not the mindless feces flinging that often passes for many “progressive” reviews of “non-progressive” books at Amazon.

[Late evening update]

There’s one other interesting characteristic of these drive-by trolls. They not only haven’t read the book, but they aren’t prolific reviewers in general. For example, consider the reviewers for Glenn’s latest book. The majority of the reviews so far are one-star, never-read-the-book reviews. And when one clicks on “other reviews by this reviewer,” one comes up almost empty in all cases.

This seems like something that Amazon could do something about. It’s almost like spam, except it’s a lot more personal.

Ideas as to how Amazon could (fairly and objectively) do something about it are welcome.

Space

Way Too Late For That

Fred Kiesche asks if we can keep politics out of the CEV program.

Sorry, but politics intruded as soon as Dr. Griffin decided to build Shuttle-derived hardware as the launch vehicles, in order to assuage the politicians in Alabama, Utah and Florida who were worried about the loss of Shuttle jobs. Politics intruded with the decision to complete the useless (or at least, very poor value for the money) ISS, to maintain the international commitments.

It’s completely unrealistic to expect a massive taxpayer-funded space bureaucracy to be unencumbered by politics.

General Science

Welcome To The Family

Well, actually, it’s a whole new family. Of crustacean:

The animal is white and 15 centimeters (5.9 inches) long — about the size of a salad plate.

In what Segonzac described as a “surprising characteristic,” the animal’s pincers are covered with sinuous, hair-like strands.

Wonder what it tastes like?

Political Commentary

Why Free Stuff Costs So Much

Economist Vernon Smith, 2002 Nobel Laureate (and my thesis advisor) said in “Trust the Consumer!” in today’s WSJ:

Health-care costs doubled over the decade ending in 2004, in fact reaching an all-time high measured as the share — 16% — of GDP; and they continue to greatly outpace inflation. Similarly, education costs from primary levels up through college continue to grow faster than other categories of national spending. Why?

Here is a bare-bones way to think about this situation: A is the customer, B is the service provider. B informs A what A should buy from B, and a third entity, C, pays for it from a common pool of funds. Stated this way, the problem has no known economic solution because there is no equilibrium. There is no automatic balance between willingness to pay by the consumer and willingness to accept by the producer that constrains and limits the choices of each.

I am not sure that an education subsidy is a bad idea. The nation’s take from higher tax revenues from graduates may well cover the cost at the margin. Graduates earn $25k/yr more than non-graduates mid career. If we can get the health industry to extend work life, a subsidy might be justified there too. But paying 60% of what the service costs instead of a 20% co-pay or a politically-set tuition would surely create a higher quality, lower cost product.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!