Michael Laprarie has an essay related to mine over at Wizbang.
[Via email from Paul Spudis, who must be thrilled that “Moon” was capitalized throughout my essay]
Michael Laprarie has an essay related to mine over at Wizbang.
[Via email from Paul Spudis, who must be thrilled that “Moon” was capitalized throughout my essay]
I was commenting over at NASA Watch, and in response to this comment: “I don’t understand why designing one big rocket to launch everything at once isn’t the better idea. Saturn V took the crew and the cargo to the moon…, I wrote something like “Because an approach taken in a race to the moon isn’t the best approach for building a program that is affordable and sustainable,” with a link to my piece at The New Atlantis. All comments are moderated over there. The post appeared, but like this:
Because an approach taken in a race to the moon isn’t the best approach for building a program that is
HTML DELETED
Apparently, Keith not only isn’t going to link to it himself, he’s not even going to allow links to it in comments. I wonder why he doesn’t think that his readers would find it of interest?
It’s even worse than you think:
The Democrats want to spend $1.5 trillion over a decade, impose an $800 billion tax increase in the midst of the worst recession in a generation, increase federal borrowing by $239 billion (on top of the $11 trillion the Obama budget already requires us to borrow through 2019), impose costly mandates on employers that will discourage hiring as unemployment nears 10 percent, force individuals to buy one-size-fits-all government defined insurance, and insert the government in countless new ways between doctors and patients. All of that would occur whether or not the plan includes a “public option,” which at this point it does include and which will exacerbate all of these problems.
As these facts have become clear, Obama’s standing has fallen and public opinion has grown decidedly less enthusiastic for the administration’s approach. The trend is likely to continue, because the details of the plan reveal that its two most serious drawbacks–its cost and the prospect of government rationing–are worse than even most of their critics have grasped.
Of course, that won’t stop them, in and of itself. We have to make our views known to our representatives next month when they’re back in their districts.
Though perhaps it’s not fair to call it Obamacare, since the president admits that he doesn’t even know what’s in the bill. And yet he continues to flail around attempting (and apparently failing) to defend it.
[Update late afternoon]
Why “health care” is not a right:
…imagine if the government had a body of experts charged with figuring out what your free-speech rights are, or your right to assemble, or worship. Mr. Jones, you can say X and Y, but not Z. Ms. Smith, you can freely assemble with Aleutians, Freemasons, and carpenters, but you may not meet in public with anyone from Cleveland or of Albanian descent. Mrs. Wilson, you may pray to Vishnu and Crom, but never to Allah or Buddha, and when you do pray, you cannot do so for longer than 20 minutes at a time, unless it is one of several designated holidays. Please see Extended Prayer Form 10–22B.
Of course, all of this would be ludicrous beyond words.
Actually, I can imagine this gang coming up with something exactly like that.
Fred Barnes says that it’s clear that the president is an utter economic illiterate:
Obama professes to believe in free market economics. But no one expects his policies to reflect the unfettered capitalism of a Milton Friedman. That’s too much to ask. Demonstrating a passing acquaintance with free market ideas and how they might be used to fight the recession–that’s not too much to ask.
But the president talks as if free market solutions are nonexistent, and in his mind they may be. Three weeks after taking office, he said only government “has the resources to jolt our economy back into life.” He hasn’t retreated, in words or policies, from that view.
…A good example of Obama’s economic shallowness is his unrelenting defense of the $787 billion “stimulus.” Enacted in February, it has had minimal impact on the economy. Yet Obama has no second thoughts. He says he wouldn’t change a thing about the stimulus. It has “already saved jobs and created new ones,” he said at the press conference, neglecting to note that 2 million jobs–a net 2 million–have been lost since it was passed.
That was clear even during the campaign, to those of us who are not. Unfortunately, most people (including most journalists) are in the same boat as the president.
The president seems to be incapable of admitting error. Just another of his endearing narcissistic traits. Fortunately, as Tom points out, he has the New York Times to cover for him.
[Update a few minutes later]
Like the commenter over at Patterico’s place, this incident has reinforced my prejudices about race-baiting Harvard law professors.
[Afternoon update]
Obama seems to be one of those “liberals” who is capable of apologizing for anything and everything except his own actions. So since he’s always quick to apologize for me, I’ll do it for him. I’m sorry, Sergeant Crowley, that our president is a racialist, classless ass. I bear no responsibility, not having voted for him, but I’ll apologize anyway, just as he is happy to apologize for things that others have done for which he bears no responsibility, even when the apologees’ crimes are far more egregious.
Victor Davis Hanson muses on how things might be if President Obama had lived up to the false campaign promises of candidate Obama.
A blue dog is shocked, shocked that his own party leadership is duplicitous:
The seven Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee stormed out of a Friday meeting with their committee chairman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), saying Waxman had been negotiating in bad faith over a number of provisions Blue Dogs demanded be changed in the stalled healthcare bill.
“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate negotiations.
I’d have some sympathy if I didn’t think that they were so naive as to finally notice this kind of behavior.
Anyway, it’s good news for the rest of us, if the latest radical attack on freedom and the Constitution is stopped in its tracks.
Andrew Klavan applies the probes to the president.
It’s not like it’s anything new. He’s been talking crap ever since he started running for president (if not his entire career). The only difference is that now, when people can compare his promises and rhetoric to his actual actions, they’re starting to really notice:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends).
Just 25% believe that the economic stimulus package has helped the economy.
…Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Today marks the first time his overall approval rating has ever fallen below 50% among Likely Voters nationwide. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.
I don’t see anything in sight to arrest the trend. He doesn’t seem to realize that people are starting to see through him. The only thing that has been propping him up (as it did during the campaign) is continued fawning from the media.
The more they remain the same:
…the masses are morons who respond only to simple messages repeated thousands of times (a perspective I discuss at length in my book).
Seventy-some years later, this belief is as popular with the powers that be as it was in 1933.
You know, like Hope! And Change! And we can spend our way out of bankruptcy. And that you’ll get to keep your private insurance.
From James Lileks:
As I’ve said before, nothing sums up the seventies, and the awful guttering of the national spirit, than a pop song about Skylab falling on people’s heads. “Skylab’s Falling,” a novelty hit in the summer of ’79. It tumbled down thirty years ago this month, and didn’t get much press, possibly because of the odd muted humiliation over the event. But it wasn’t end of Skylab that gave people a strange shameful dismay. It was the idea that we were done up there, and the only thing we’d done since the Moon trips did an ignominious Icarus instead of staying up for decades. So this wasn’t the first step toward the inevitable double-wheel with a Strauss waltz soundtrack, or something more prosaic. Wasn’t that the way it was supposed to work? Moon first, then space station, then moon colonization, then Mars.
If a kid could see that, why couldn’t they?
…Robot exploration is very cool; I’d like more. As someone noted elsewhere, we should have those rovers crawling all over the Moon, at the very least. It’s just down the street. But think how much grander we would feel if we knew that our first mission to Jupiter was coming back next month. (Without the giant space-fetus.) How we would imagine our solar system, how each planet would feel like a blank page in a passport waiting for a stamp. Perhaps that’s what annoys some: the aggrandizement that would come from great exploits. Human pride in something that isn’t specifically related to fixing the Great Problems we face now, or apologizing for the Bad Things we did before. Spending money to go to Mars before we’ve stopped climate turbulence would be like taking a trip to Europe while the house is on fire.
I had forgotten that Skylab fell a decade after the first landing. What a metaphorical fall, in only ten brief years (though they seemed longer at the time, I being much younger).
Oh, and the astronaut punching the guy in the face thing? As long-time blog readers know, it was a hoax. Never happened.