Category Archives: Media Criticism

Education, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Academic Diversity

10 Comments

In everything but thought:

A professor who confronted me declared that he was “personally offended” by my column. He railed that his political viewpoints never affected his teaching and suggested that if I wanted a faculty with Republicans I should have attended a university in the South. “If you like conservatism you can certainly attend the University of Texas and you can walk past the statue of Jefferson Davis everyday on your way to class,” he wrote in an e-mail.

I was shocked by such a comment, which seemed an attempt to link Republicans with racist orthodoxy. When I wrote back expressing my offense, he neither apologized nor clarified his remarks.

Instead, he reiterated them on the record. Was such a brazen expression of partisanship representative of the faculty as a whole? I decided to speak with him in person in the hope of finding common ground.

He was eager to chat, and after five minutes our dialogue bloomed into a lively discussion. As we hammered away at the issue, one of his colleagues with whom he shared an office grew visibly agitated. Then, while I was in mid-sentence, she exploded.

“You think you’re so [expletive] cute with your little column,” she told me. “I read your piece and all you want is attention. You’re just like Bill O’Reilly. You just want to get up on your [expletive] soapbox and have people look at you.”

From the disgust with which she attacked me, you would have thought I had advocated Nazism. She quickly grew so emotional that she had to leave the room. But before she departed, she stood over me and screamed.

This is one of the reasons that the education bubble will eventually pop. Parents aren’t going to remain willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to send their kids to Indoctrinate U.

Media Criticism, Philosophy, Space

Mike And The Giant Carrot

4 Comments

There’s been quite a bit of discussion in the space blogosphere about the former administrator’s latest shot at the Augustine panel and the very notion of questioning his plans and judgement, chock full of straw men and non sequiturs.

Clark Lindsey commented on it over the weekend, and Doug Messier and “Rocketman” had further critiques today:

While the Eminent Scholar and Professor should be developing course outlines, pop quizzes, and final exams, he is instead complaining about the ongoing review of the debacle he left behind. What he fails to comprehend is that he didn’t do what he said he claimed he would do within the established boundaries of dollars and time. Incremental progress would have been recognized and treated fairly. Spending profusely and having nothing to show for it is another matter altogether.

The absurdity starts with the very title of the piece — “Griffin Says Fear Of Risk Hurting Space Program.”

Huh?

The title is apparently based on this quote:

“We are less willing to take risks of any kind, whether it be financial risk, technical risk or human risk, or the risk of just plain breaking hardware,” he said. “Being adverse [sic*] to risk is not what made this country what it is. I’ll just say that. The willingness to take measured risks is what made this country what it is.”

Hey, that all sounds great. Who could disagree? But why in the world is Mike Griffin complaining about it? Is his irony meter busted again?

This coming from a man whose proposed solution was “Simple, Safe, Soon.” From a man who proposed nothing bold, or innovative, but instead decided to engage in cargo-cult engineering, and look back to the way the great gods of Apollo did it forty years ago. Is he saying that he was forced to come up with that solution because of our supposed “fear of risk”?

Whose fear of risk is he talking about? Because the only risk aversion I see is coming from Mike Griffin himself. He feared to risk serious money on COTS. He feared to risk a new and innovative approach that could have not only fit within the budget, but actually satisfy the recommendations of the Aldridge Commission. He feared to risk reliance on a private sector that has been putting payloads reliably into space for decades. And now he’s accusing us of risk aversion?

We didn’t ask him for “Simple, Safe, Soon.” He was tasked to come up with a plan that would fit within the budget profile, and hit some basic capability milestones. Admiral Steidle was well underway toward coming up with one when Dr. Griffin gave him his walking papers and substituted his own plan, uninformed by previous trade studies or Aldridge recommendations. One of the reasons that he is no longer administrator is that he failed that assignment.

This sycophantic interview is rich:

“If we do a review every four or five years to see if NASA’s on the right path,” he said, “we’re never going to get a product. I mean, you can’t grow carrots by pulling them up out of the ground to see how they’re growing.”

Last time I grew some, carrots grew in a few weeks. It didn’t take them five years. And in fact, you do pull one occasionally to see how they’re doing. But then, I always grew lots of them, so one could spare a progress check occasionally. And I was never dumb enough to attempt to grow a single, giant carrot, large enough to feed an entire family for a decade, and wait five years for it.

And you know, even in China, and the old Soviet Union, they thought that it made sense to check every half decade or so to see how the Five-Year Plan was working out. But no, Dr. Griffin’s plans shouldn’t be questioned that often. We must simply be patient, and trust him, the Supreme Rocket Leader, and let the carrot grow, for decades if need be.

“The need for the (current space study commission headed by Norman Augustine) is motivated solely by the public controversy over whether NASA got it right, if you will, in the architectural choices being made following the (explosion of the shuttle Columbia in 2003),” he said.

“I happen to think that NASA got it right,” Griffin said, “but if it isn’t exactly right and isn’t exactly perfect, I would argue, ‘So what?’ The question is not is it perfect? Is it good enough? Will it work? Is it one of the acceptable choices … if so, shut up and move on.”

…Griffin clearly admires the days when America needed big projects and simply got them done.

“When the country desperately wanted an ICBM 50 years ago to counter the Russians, they didn’t ask … what it would cost.”

“Shut up and move on.” Who, after all, are we to question the great Michael Griffin?

Of course when we needed ICBMs, or even when we went to the moon the first time, we didn’t ask what it would cost. We were in an existential conflict with a totalitarian enemy that would destroy us and our way of life had it been able to. But that was then, this is now. If we are going to have a program that is not a race, but is (one more time) “affordable and sustainable,” it is insane to think that we can come up with one without asking what it costs.

And of course he thinks NASA (i.e., Mike Griffin) got it right. What else would he be expected to think? Particularly when he “got it right” even before coming into the agency, and hired his own OSC buddies to perform a brief perfunctory study to validate what was a fait accompli once he was named administrator? This is why we don’t have people review their own work, or at least we don’t have only them review their own work, particularly when the stakes in national capability and taxpayer dollars are so high. And even more particularly when the results of the work are a budget that has exploded far beyond plan, a schedule that continues to slip to the right, and a product that will be a failure by the standards of the Aldridge Commission, even if it’s a success by its own internal, drinking-its-own-bathwater criteria.

We aren’t seeking a “perfect” plan, Dr. Griffin. We are seeking one that meets the criteria that you were given. It is not “good enough.” It will not “work,” if by “work,” you mean provide an affordable and sustainable infrastructure that will allow us to go beyond earth orbit with more than a handful of astronauts per year at a cost of less than many billions per trip. You failed.

It’s time, long past time, to “look under the hood.” That the White House didn’t do so long ago is a failure of the Bush administration as well. It shouldn’t have had to take a change in administration to review the glorious Griffin Fifteen-Year Plan. The fact that it is finally happening is one of the very few reasons (for me, at least) to be happy that we got an administration change.

Oh, and as for “shut up and move on”? I think that at this point a lot of people wish that Dr. Griffin, physician, would heal thyself.

*This is one of my pet peeves, as I note over at Clark’s place. The article says risk “adverse.” It’s not clear if the former administrator actually used the word, or a reporter transcribed it incorrectly and the editor didn’t pick it up. There is no such thing as being “risk adverse,” despite the wide-spread usage of the phrase. It is an aversion, or a desire to avoid risk, not a risk undertaken in adversity.

[Afternoon update]

Related thoughts over at Vision Restoration:

I would suggest that the most pressing problems with the current architecture are not of the “Will it work?” variety. There are a number of technical problems with the current architecture, and it remains to be seen whether or not these technical problems will be resolved. These are of concern.

However, the crucial problem with the ESAS-derived approach is that even if it eventually works in the sense of getting astronauts to the Moon, it will not achieve the goals it was supposed to achieve. I have gone into more detail in other posts on the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration that were later emphasized by the Aldridge Commission, and how the current architecture completely misses the point of those goals. However, one only has to read the charter of the HSF Committee to see some of the flaws with the current architecture.

None so blind…

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Paul Krugman Acolytes

1 Comment

…versus reality:

…it should be clear that the Fed causing a housing bubble in order to bring about “soaring household spending” was Krugman’s optimal situation, whether or not he thought it was doable at the time. Given the consequences of the housing bubble that did ultimately happen, that alone should be enough cause for the public to stop listening to this fellow.

But…but…! He has a Nobel Prize! And he writes for the New York Times! The New. York. Times.

Not listen to Paul Krugman? Why, it would be madness!

Next, they’re going to tell me I should pay no attention to Maureen Dowd, or Frank Rich.

[Via Joe Katzman]

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Technology and Society

The Threat To Innovation

1 Comment

…from Obamacare.

[Update a few minutes later]

Opting out of Medicare:

…the truest answer as to why we do not accept Medicare is that the service does not focus on what we feel is paramount: practicing effective and efficient medicine in order to ultimately achieve and maintain the good health of our patients. The service’s paltry reimbursement structure coupled with its impossible to-adhere-to regulations doesn’t allow us to offer a complete service to our patients. This complete service includes wellness care as well as the ability to take the time to understand each patient’s unique medical needs and circumstances.

The crux of the issue is that Medicare worries about the forest, in other words, the internal process, money management, reimbursement and policing agreements, data mining, and organizing dozens of internal bureaucracies. These agendas and policing policies help the Medicare service to manage the forest, however these are often in direct conflict with what we feel is key to effective healthcare: taking care of the individual, or each tree.

OK, Dems, want us to have confidence in a “public option”? Fix Medicare first.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The President’s Economic Op-Ed

8 Comments

..and the devastating response:

It was, from the start, a two-year program, and it will steadily save and create jobs as it ramps up over this summer and fall.

Uh-oh. Why are the verbs now in the future tense? And what happened to the specific and oft-repeated prediction of 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year? Those are important language changes, along with the implicit admission that the stimulus has not yet “ramped up.”

This did not have to be a two-year program. Congress could have front-loaded the stimulus had they instead given the cash directly to the American people, as they did on a bipartisan basis in early 2008. We would have saved much of it, paying off our mortgages, student loans, and credit cards (which would not be a bad thing). We would have spent the rest much more quickly than the federal and state government bureaucracies now stumbling through their usual corrupt, slow and inefficient processes. Instead the President handed the money and program design over to a Congress of his own party, who saw it as a big honey pot rather than as an exercise in macroeconomic fiscal policy. The President’s primary macroeconomic policy mistake was allowing Congress to pervert a rapid Keynesian stimulus into a slow-spending interest-based binge.

The President is correct that the stimulus will increase economic growth, mostly next year. That is too late, and later than it could have been had they done it right.

I wonder who actually wrote the thing?

[Mid-afternoon update]

Stephen Spruiell takes it apart as well:

The swift and aggressive action we took in those first few months has helped pull our financial system and our economy back from the brink. We took steps to restart lending to families and businesses, stabilize our major financial institutions, and help homeowners stay in their homes and pay their mortgages.

Let’s examine that phrase, “swift and aggressive action.” For Treasury Secretary, Obama rammed a tax cheat through the confirmation process by claiming he was the only man who could do the job. Secretary Geithner then proceeded to unveil a plan to save the banking system that inspired so little confidence, the Dow fell 300 points upon its announcement. Geithner’s Public-Private Investment Partnership to buy troubled assets from banks has failed to launch, primarily because the Financial Accounting Standards Board loosened mark-to-market accounting rules, thus enabling banks to avoid write-downs on their toxic mortgage-backed securities. Now that banks can hold those assets without booking losses, they have little incentive to sell them at a discount to the P-PIP. With P-PIP looking increasingly like a dud, the adminitration’s only real plan to deal with crippled banks is to cross its fingers and hope the economy grows fast enough to enable them to recover on their own.

Nor has Obama’s Making Home Affordable plan been any great success, as Joe Nocera explained in Friday’s NYT (best summed up by the phrase “drop in the bucket”). As NRO’s editors pointed out when the plan was announced, “The relatively small group of in-deep but creditworthy homeowners who could be helped by Obama’s plan already are positioned to refinance at better rates, or to move from variable-rate loans to low-drama fixed-rate mortgages, without a $475 billion government intervention.” That’s $75 billion for the program and $400 billion to shore up Fannie and Freddie, the real beneficiaries of the deal.

On the other hand, Obama did move swiftly and aggressively to sign the Lilly Ledbetter act, exposing companies to spurious equal-pay lawsuits; to roll back Clinton-era welfare reforms; to use TARP funds to shield the UAW from the full fallout of the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, and so on. Maybe that’s what he meant.

It’s a barrel chock full of fish to shoot.

[Update late afternoon]

The war against the producers.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Popular Culture

The Growing Disconnect

24 Comments

…between the people and the politicians:

Some years after The Road to Serfdom, Hayek wrote an essay called “Why I Am Not a Conservative.” In it, he describes “as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism,” and he proceeds to argue that “the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists.” Of course, Hayek uses liberal in its classic sense, referring to someone whose aim is “to free the process of spontaneous growth from the obstacles and encumbrances that human folly has erected.” (John Galt couldn’t have put it better.)

Moreover, what Hayek says about conservatives applies equally well to many who today call themselves progressives:

“Conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate. . . . They lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment. . . . The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change ‘orderly.’ “

In this view, neither today’s “progressives” nor today’s “conservatives” are liberal, which is to say committed, in Hayek’s words, to the “set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power.”

Happily, a good many people in America remain committed to just those ideals, and what the burgeoning sales of books such as those by Hayek and Rand really suggest is that more and more of them are becoming aware that, precisely in regard to those ideals, there is a growing disconnect between the country’s political class and its citizens. It was manifestly on display last month when the House approved the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which in its final form was longer than Atlas Shrugged and which none of the members voting on it had read.

It’s a shame that the Atlas Shrugged movie won’t be out until after the 2010 elections. But it will be before the 2012 elections. Perhaps by then, having done it once, the people will have gotten the “how cool it is to vote for a black guy” thing out of their system.

[Early afternoon update]

A commenter expands on my thought above:

That will be a big problem for Obama’s reelection efforts. In 2008 it was a big deal to many people to take part in electing the first African American president, but that argument vanished on January 20. Taking part in assuring the first African American president gets an eight-year term doesn’t seem likely to pull as many voters, especially since his policies are now manifestly far to the left of the majority.

It’s ironic that the first black president got there via a form of affirmative action (as he did throughout his career). People who crow about his high approval ratings (which have nothing to do with his policies) forget that he only got 53% of the vote in a very Democratic year. Gerry Ferraro had it right–there’s no way someone with his thin resume would have been nominated if he’d been white.

I absolutely agree that this will be a big problem for his reelection (assuming he runs) in 2012. Of course, he might have a problem anyway, if he’s viewed as Jimmy Carter redux, on energy, fiscal policy and foreign policy. And that’s certainly the direction he’s headed.