Category Archives: Political Commentary

Why Does The Administration

…insist on violating the Laws of War?

Before citing the 1949 Geneva POW Convention, critics should be aware what they actually say. Article 84 states: “A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court.” And Article 97 says: “Prisoners of war shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.).” [Emphasis added in both cases.]

It is only because terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed & Co. don’t qualify for full Geneva protection that we have the legal option of trying them in domestic courts.

I think that Eric Holder should be charged with war crimes.

[Update a while later]

Yes, I occasionally do troll my own site — one of the privileges of being the host. As you can see, it didn’t take long to reel the first one in.

Meanwhile, here is a useful discussion on the question concerning with whom we are at war, which could clarify who we do, and do not, Mirandize.

What Do Dietary Supplements…?

…have to do with finance regulation?

One of the Dems I’d love to see get booted out this November is Henry Waxman. Unfortunately, some of the most destructive politicians (e.g., Waxman, Frank) are in the safest seats. That’s not a coincidence, of course. The safer your seat (or at least the perception of safety), the more outrageous the behavior.

More Nostalgia

…from Gene Kranz:

In an interview on the balcony of the U.S Space & Rocket Center near a life-sized model of the Saturn V rockets he launched four times, Kranz said he’s worried about losing unique NASA expertise.

“I believe that our nation cannot afford this kind of an impact,” the 76-year-old Kranz said. “We have the most talented team of people – scientists, engineers, mathematicians, technicians.

“I was there when we started and had to build this kind of a team,” Kranz said. “It took three to five years to get the people in place and get them trained, and we had a very healthy aircraft industry at that time that we could get people from.

“Once you send this team away,” Kranz said, “I think they have totally underestimated the difficulty they’re going to have getting a team capable of designing, building and testing a spacecraft.”

“This team” hasn’t successfully designed, built or tested a spacecraft since the seventies. All it’s done is operate one, at humungous costs. In particular Marshall’s history over the past three decades is a litany of failure. As Mike Griffin said, part of the purpose of Ares was to actually create such a team at Marshall, via on-the-job training. So if you’re worried about a “team” being broken up, that horse was out of the barn long ago.

The Huntsville-designed Saturn V “was a darn well-designed spacecraft,” Kranz said. “I wish we had it today.”

I’ll bet you do. Unfortunately, it too was horrifically expensive. The only reason that we built as many as we did was that it was important to beat the Soviets to the moon. It had little to do with space, per se. And Marshall has done little since to justify its existence, because NASA has become unimportant (space was never important, even during Apollo), and instead merely a jobs program. But ironically, as the Space Frontier Foundation points out to the hypocritical Senator Shelby, it has apparently become too big to fail.

[Update a while later]

An emailer who wishes to remain anonymous writes:

The team Gene remembers was destroyed in 1969-1970, in the first space draw-down. (As I recall ABC made a movie about it called “An American Tragedy.”) The competent technical people left the agency and the incompetent bureaucrats remained behind because it was the only job they could do. Add to that the destruction of US’s industrial base by the EPA and safety-firsters, and the Communist take-over of the educational system, and that explains the rotten mess visible today. I’m surprised we manage to launch anything at all.

Back in the mid eighties, someone at JSC told me that the reason that the space station was such a mess was that it had become a make-work project for deadwood from the Shuttle development program as it wound down. I won’t mention the name, but it was someone high in the organization at that time, and now retired.

The New Oligarchs

Thoughts on the Wall Street Democrats:

…every time the president accuses Republicans of trying to “block progress” or of defying “common sense,” as he did that night, he is executing a dangerous tightrope walk. His party’s electoral fortunes depend on his making forceful calls for reform of our banking laws. His party’s fundraising fortunes depend on his ensuring that no serious reform—of the kind that endangers the big banks’ size and power—ever happens. That may be why the Democrats’ strategy of painting the Republicans as obstructionists on finance reform has gained little traction. By the same token, if Republicans ever did get serious about reforming the banks—and even about breaking up an industry that has turned into a Democratic war chest—they would put Democrats in mortal peril. There seems no chance of this. Obama’s taunts show a confidence, verging on certitude, that Republicans’ hypocrisy is as deep as his own.

Sounds like the Republicans suffer from false consciousness. I still think that low marginal rates are a good idea, though.

Note To Kevin Drum

I am not a conservative, though I do speak fluent conservative, which is why I’m trying to sell conservatives and Republicans (and the intersection of those two sets, which is smaller than any imagine) on the new program.

And yes, we did have dinner the other night, with Marc Danziger and Michael Totten, and others, in Manhattan Beach, and a good time was had by all (as far as I know).

[Update a few minutes later]

Clark Lindsey responds to the Charles Homan piece at the Washington Monthly.