Some thoughts from “Main Engine Cut Off.”
I’m glad to see that Congress isn’t pushing the AR1 as hard as it’s been. This looks, ultimately, like bad news for AJR. They’re going to have to become more competitive if they want to maintain their business. They’re trying to do it with printing engine parts, but I don’t know if it will be enough. They’re going to have to really slice overhead, I think.
The budget cuts don’t go deep enough:
The chart is brutally bipartisan. Debt increased under Republican presidents and Democratic presidents. It increased under Democratic congresses and Republican congresses. In war and in peace, in boom times and in busts, after tax hikes and tax cuts, the Potomac flowed ever deeper with red ink.
Our leaders like to talk about sustainability. Forget sustainable — how is this sane?
Yet when any politician hesitates before increasing spending, he’s portrayed as a madman. When Paul Ryan, R–Wis., offered a thoughtful plan to reduce the debt over decades, he was pushing grannies into the Grand Canyon and pantsing park rangers on the way out.
One of the many cons of Trump is that his budget cuts are going to solve the problem, when they don’t even scratch the surface. I’m not opposed to them, in general, mostly because I think they’re funding things that aren’t a federal responsibility, but it’s ludicrous to think they’ll have any significant fiscal effect. As long as he refuses to touch entitlements, we’re fiscally doomed.
We took the day off from our renovation projects (hopefully we’ll be through most of it by next week) to drive up to Mojave for the experimental fly-in (the “Plane Crazy” event held on the third Saturday of each month). It was beautiful weather, and a lot of interesting aircraft on display, including a Yak that someone had restored, and an old Chinese trainer based out of Santa Monica. After lunch with Doug and Ann Jones at the Voyager Cafe, we headed up to Tehachapi, because Patricia had never been on 58 between Mojave and Bakersfield. It was still pretty green up there from the winter rains.
I’ve driven by the sign for the Tehachapi Loop many times, but had never actually seen it. Neither had she, though she’s in the rail business. We actually took the old road from Tehachapi to Keene, and it was tightly winding and gorgeous. About three miles from the end, we found the overlook and marker for the loop. We didn’t see a train go through, but it turned out that if we’d waited a few minutes, we would have.
We had originally planned on going back from Mojave through Lancaster and over to the Poppy Preserve, to catch the tail end of the spring flower bloom. But since we were now quite a ways west, per Doug’s lunchtime suggestion, we continued west on 58 to 223, then down the hill to Arvin, where he said it had been very good. Unfortunately, though, we were too late. The mountain above us was still green from the rains, but the flowers were pretty much done along that route.
So we got to the 99, and headed back south to LA on the 5, but then cut back east over 138 to Lancaster, and took a road south to Lancaster Road, which goes right past the preserve. We saw quite a few poppies still in bloom approaching and departing the preserve, but a lot of the other flowers had faded, but there are a lot of cars parked along the road and in the (paid) preserve parking lot. It was about 4:30, and somewhat windy, so the poppies were mostly closed, though it was still sunny.
Rather than fight the crowds or pay, we decided to just head back to LA, via a new route. Normally, we go south to Elizabeth Lake, then out to Castaic via Lake Hughes Road, which is a beautiful drive, with great views of Lake Hughes and the Valencia/Santa Clarita area from above. But this time, we made a left on Elizabeth Lake road, and went down San Francisquito Canyon, then down Spunky Canyon, then Bouquet Canyon, and finally down Vasquez Canyon to Sierra Highway, all roads (other than the latter) we’d never been on before, and all beautiful, with many spectacular views, including a nicely full reservoir.
I never fail to be amazed at how much California there is to be explored, and this was an area that I’ve driven around for decades, but never through, and it’s right in our back yard.
We were wondering this morning why Good Friday was two days before Easter, when it was supposed to be three days until the resurrection. I figured they must have just wanted to make it a three-day weekend, like government holidays. Anyway, I did a search, and here’s the story.
It’s gotten to the point that it’s worse than useless, and has become an active shield against actual scientific inquiry:
…according to you, the NAS committee was right to ignore these official documents because they were not “peer reviewed.” What does it even mean to “peer review” official EPA documents?
You have similarly dismissed the evidence presented of clear and present conflicts of interest between EPA and the NAS board (BEST) that sponsored and organized the review. What does it mean to have evidence of conflicts of interest “peer reviewed”?
Is it a “violation of [NAS] policy” to consider official EPA documents and other documented evidence of potential NAS/EPA wrongdoing in a review of a controversy borne out of acknowledged EPA wrongdoing?
The other chief witnesses (Drs. John Dunn & Stan Young) at the August 24, 2016 public hearing (which was held for the specific purpose of taking our testimony) cited specific EPA documents and peer-reviewed literature in their testimony.
The other two commenters at the hearing (Dr. James Enstrom and Albert Donnay) also cited peer-reviewed literature.
But the NAS committee inexplicably ignored everything we presented. And now you have as well.
Although the NAS has a conflict of interest policy, you have not even bothered to consider my request in the context of this policy. So why have the policy if it will not be applied?
The entire federally funded scientific establishment seems to be rotting at the core.
[Update late morning]
The saga continues.
[Friday morning update]
The obfuscation continues in round three.
[Bumped]
I haven’t been able to get all the way through this interview yet, but he sure is full of himself. I found this a little amazing:
Is there anything about Trump’s administration, and here I’m thinking specifically of Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, that leads you to believe the government will support the kind of innovation you’re hoping for?
I’m going to wait to see on Scott Pruitt. I want to engage you on this question, but I think maybe you’re politicizing something that doesn’t need to be politicized. I mean, the EPA was created by Richard Nixon. The EPA and the National Parks were set aside by conservatives. With respect to Scott Pruitt, I wouldn’t be surprised if the bureaucracy just sort shrugs its shoulders at his directives and says “we’re going to be here long after you’re gone. We’re going to carry on doing what we were doing.”
That reminds me of the saying, “The function of an institution is to perpetuate the institution.”
That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about laws.
No, you’re talking about a lawless agency that Pruitt was brought in to rein in and get under control. He seems to be as ignorant of how government works as he is about science and climate.
Rick Perry showed up at the Department of Energy and realized what’s involved, that he’s in over his head, and now he’s going to let the thing run the way it was being run. But in contrast, Mr. Scott Pruitt — it’s not that he’s unqualified, it’s that he thinks the EPA shouldn’t exist.
If he really believes that, he’s profoundly ignorant of Scott Pruitt. It’s frightening that so many young people pay so much attention to this ignoramus.
Why it’s “almost useless and misleading.”
No, actually, it’s worse than useless.
I’d never seen this photo before. It’s a little weird, because for all I know, my father could be in the waist of one of those planes manning the radio and a gun. I don’t know what missions he flew. I wonder if there’s a way to find out?
“Stop trying to get me fired for things I didn’t say and don’t believe“:
I thought that writing 5,000 words about what I think genes influence and don’t, how much variation is likely attributable to genetics, and discussing the predictive powers and limitations of IQ would be sufficient to prevent people from deliberately misreading my post as an endorsement of race science. Sadly, that is not the case, and so of course Twitter is accusing me of believing literally the opposite of what the very first lines of the first post said.
The vast majority of (violent) protestors against Charles Murray, who insanely believe he’s a “white nationalist,” have never read a word he’s written. I personally have no opinion about average IQ of various “races,” but I think the notion that something heritable won’t have an effect on a population is the kind of nutty thing that only a leftist could believe. I understand why some are uncomfortable with studying it, but I’ve never understood why the fact that a member of a group that has a certain characteristic must be treated as a member of that group, rather than as an individual. But since leftists hate treating people as individuals, believing only in the collective, I guess that would explain it.
Frank Morring and Lara Seligman have a long piece describing the coming exciting upheaval in the space industry.