Blood libel. Glenn Reynolds couldn’t have picked a better term (incidentally, the day after someone else did). Conservative bloggers quickly latched on to the war cry while liberals, either oblivious or uninterested in the challenge, petulantly carried on about gun control and the Fairness Doctrine. That is until a certain someone got in front of a camera and drove the dumb bastards into an all too predictable frenzy.
But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
“That…that bitch! How dare she!” And within hours, we were inundated by:
- endless unsolicited history lessons on the origins of the term (seriously, in the age of Wikipedia we’re still doing this?),
- the ridiculous theory that her speech, which mentions not one attack hurled her way, was nevertheless all about her,
- the insistence that Palin somehow doesn’t get something, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Palin wasn’t the target.
Now that Palin’s called a spade a spade (she’s reloaded, as they’re putting it), we’re to pretend that this is nothing more than a little bit inside baseball between a “polarizing” politician and the media that makes bank on her ups and downs. But that’s a lie. Before Palin spoke, she wasn’t the target. The bastards whining in the aftermath of Palin’s speech spent a weekend smearing those “who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food, and run our factories, and fight our wars.“
The coastal pansies are afraid of Palin. She and a new crop of national conservatives have no interest in instructing the unwashed middle to forgive and forget. And that’s why Palin calling their “blood libel” for what it is has them running scared. Palin’s constituency is the one that drives the economy, that feeds the cities, and most importantly holds the lion share of of both privately owned and government issued firearms. Defiance and anger may not be enough to get to the White House, but it’s damned useful at drawing a line the Left dare not cross.
Looks like Rep. Pete King (RINO-NY), is going ahead with his bone-headed bill to ban firearms within 1,000 feet of federal officials. Question. If real Americans with real firearms have to vacate the ranges and hunting ground during your seasonal Congresscritter meet-and-greet, will they have to hire actors with replicas to fill in?
On 8 January 2010, a whackjob anarchist attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Gifford, D-AZ. He succeeded in killing six others, including a federal judge and a 9 year old girl. Before you could blink, the usual suspects had come up with a dubious theory–call it political “climate change“–with which to bludgeon in one go:
- conservatives, Tea Partiers and Republicans,
- white people,
- gun owners,
- TV and talk radio personalities and Sarah Palin,
- the plurality of Americans who oppose Obamacare, and
- the outright majority (including a plurality of Latinos) who decry illegal immigration and the pitiful state of American border security.
This broad cross-section of America has already been accused of racism, greed, bloodthirstiness and generally being uninformed by partisans in the blogosphere, a view only somewhat muted for play in the general media. And now, the American electorate as a whole must endure again the worst indignity the chattering class can conjure: blood libel.
We’ve seen this play out before. In 1995, Bill Clinton’s presidency was on the ropes. Americans concerned with federal overreach in the wake of Ruby Ridge, Waco, a federal ban on several classes of semi-automatic weapons, and tax increases showed the Democrats the door in the prior midterm elections. And then Oklahoma City was rocked by a car bomb placed by yet another anarchist nutcase. As soon as Timothy McVeigh’s involvement was clear, only two things mattered. He’d once claimed membership in the NRA, he was a registered Republican, he owned (and, less widely reported, notoriously disagreed with) Aryan supremacist literature, and he owned a handful firearms out of the 160 million circulating through the country. It didn’t take long for the Democrats and the media to elevate McVeigh to proxy for anyone who denounced an intrusive state, went to church regularly, owned a gun, or appreciated the Anglosphere heritage of the American body politic.
The conservative leadership in DC endured this insult, on the theory that “empathy” called for a whipping boy and the new Republican congressional majority should solemnly assume the role. But in scapegoating themselves, they scapegoated an entire movement. Bill Clinton got his second term. The image of conservatives as bigoted, hateful, and violent barbarians enabled by greedy opportunists permeated into the popular culture. There is no quiet dignity in blood libel, only self-emasculating humiliation. Conservatives have a right to get angry about this ongoing stain on our honor. Our so-called countrymen collude to:
- confiscate the land of a citizen to turn over illegal aliens stains the honor of all Americans,
- imprison law-abiding gun owners, and
- end the career of a widely respected naval aviator and commander of an American aircraft carrier
Will we now tolerate being accused of conspiracy to murder a sitting Congresswoman?
Reactions across the space blogosphere:
- Rand Simberg reminds us to take a breath, stop pretending every evil in the world can be foiled, and get on with the business of the country. Probably the most sane advice you’ll read for the next few days.
- Bob Zimmerman contrasts American and foreign Muslim reactions to assassinations.
- Phil Plait descends into liberal demagoguery (as expected) while demanding we not jump to conclusions about the shooter (also as expected).
Update: Glenn Reynolds drags “blood libel” into the light.
Below is Ms. Giffords, in her own words, from the floor debate before final passage of S. 3729; the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to recognize Chairman Gordon for his outstanding leadership chairing our full committee. We are going to miss you, Mr. Chairman. It has been an outstanding experience for me the last couple of terms. And as well, to Ranking Member Hall and Ranking Member Olson for their leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S. 3729, the Senate’s NASA authorization bill.
As chair of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, and along with the other members of the subcommittee and full committee, we care deeply about the future of NASA and the future of our Nation’s civil space program. NASA defines us as a Nation, who we are–our defense, our innovation, our inspiration, our ability to explore. We care deeply about the role that Congress needs to play to ensure that NASA will embark on an executable and a sustainable path for the future.
In contrast to supporters of the Senate bill who will say that today they reluctantly support the Senate bill because it is better than doing nothing, I have no reluctance in telling you that this is a bad bill. It will do damage to NASA if enacted, and it should be voted down tonight.
Now, I know that Members have a lot of different issues on their minds today. Certainly most Members didn’t even know that a NASA authorization bill was coming up for a vote today. So for Members who are making up their minds on whether to support this bill today, I would like to offer a couple of reasons why you should oppose it.
If you are a member of the Blue Dog Coalition or a member of the Republican Study Committee, you should oppose this bill because it lacks serious budgetary discipline. To be specific, the bill contains an unfunded mandate to keep the shuttle program going through all of fiscal year 2011, even after the shuttle is retired, which, by NASA estimates, will cost NASA more than one-half billion dollars for 2011, and it doesn’t have that money. It will bust the budget for the shuttle and jeopardize NASA’s other important science, aeronautics, and technology programs.
It also contains a rocket designed not by our best engineers but by our colleagues over on the Senate side. By NASA’s own internal analysis, they estimate this rocket will cost billions more than the Senate provides.
And, finally, if you are a Blue Dog or a member of the Republican Study Committee, or any Member of Congress, you should strenuously oppose a $58 billion funding bill that is being brought up on the last day before adjourning with no House input on its creation and no opportunity for amendment by Members of the House. This is not the functioning bicameral legislature that our Founding Fathers fought to create.
Next, if you are a Member who cares deeply about STEM education or minority education programs, you need to know that this bill is written in a certain way that NASA’s STEM education programs and Minority University Research and Education programs will be cut in excess of 30 percent.
What does this mean? Well, it means if you represent a Historically Black College or University or Hispanic-serving institution, a tribal college, this sort of institution, you will be affected by these cuts.
In addition, if you care about the future of NASA’s human spaceflight program, you should oppose this bill. As I mentioned earlier, this bill contains provisions that will force NASA to build a rocket designed by Senators and not by engineers. Contrary to assertions that this bill’s supporters talk about, this rocket will be too large to economically serve as a backup commercial crew transport to the space station. It may also prove to be too small to effectively undertake human missions beyond low-Earth orbit. Not only do NASA’s own internal studies indicate that it will cost significantly more than the Senate is budgeting, but they also estimate that it will become operational years later than the Senate plan assumes.
So we are looking at this gap and, in short, the Senate bill forces NASA to build a rocket that doesn’t meet its needs, with a budget that is not adequate to do the job, and on a schedule that NASA’s own analyses says is unrealistic. That is not my idea of the executable and sustainable human spaceflight program that we all desire.
And, finally, if you care about corporate responsibility, if you care about safety, and if you want to prevent us[Page: H7359] GPO's PDF
from being in the position a few years down the road of having to choose between sending more money to Russia or bailing out the would-be commercial crew and cargo providers who fail to perform in budget and on schedule, you should oppose this Senate NASA bill. The Senate bill gives an additional $1.6 billion to would-be commercial cargo and crew transport companies who have yet to demonstrate that they can do either. There is no obligation that these commercial companies put any “skin in the game” of their own, and the safety requirements on their rockets are vague at best.Since the Senate bill provides no credible government backup capability to the would-be commercial providers, approving the Senate bill today would inevitably put NASA in the position of relying on these companies that will become too big to fail. The American taxpayers will then have to bear the responsibility and the burden of bad public policy if we vote on this bill tonight. I think that the public deserves better.
Now, I know that in the Senate there is a lot of debate, and some Members will fall back on the argument that they have to approve this tonight before the end of the fiscal year because the contractors are facing layoffs. And no one has more sympathy than members of our subcommittee about the workforce, but the reality is different. It is different than the rhetoric.
Aerospace jobs are tied to funding, and funding for NASA for the balance of this calendar year will be set by the continuing resolution that we will be voting on tonight, not this authorization bill. Funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 will be determined by the appropriations bill that we enact after we return for a lame duck session, not by this authorization.
The bill before us today cannot change the fact that the funding level for NASA’s workforce, and any layoff that will result from that funding level, will be the result of the continuing resolution and subsequent appropriation bills and not this authorization. So Members should not be fooled by this red herring argument. The truth is that you will not be doing anything to stop layoffs tonight by voting for the Senate bill today.
Does the aerospace industry need certainty? Absolutely. But they need certainty in an executable and affordable program that the Senate bill does not provide.
Could the problems with the Senate bill be fixed? Of course they could. But that is what the legislative process is about, not under suspension of the rules with no amendments allowed.
The fact of the matter is that there was a compromise NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon proposed and is the direct result of lengthy discussions with the Senate and the House Members. Of course, that isn’t perfect, and no bill is, but flaws can be fixed by discussion between the Chambers. But if you vote tonight positively on this Senate bill, the democratic process that has been the cornerstone of our democracy will be undermined and that will not occur.
So let’s take the time to get this job done, and done the right way. Let’s vote down the Senate bill tonight so we can work with Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and the Senate on a compromise bill so that we can have a responsible NASA bill that can be acted upon when we return for the lame duck session.
In closing, if you care about budgetary discipline, protecting STEM education, minority education programs, if you care about NASA’s human spaceflight program, you should vote “no” on the Senate authorization bill.
As of this post, she’s still in surgery according to CNN and Fox. Ms. Giffords is wife to STS-134 commander Captain Mark E. Kelly, USN. Twelve others are reported to have been shot, though it’s unclear as to whether there are any fatalities.
Update: Giffords is in critical condition. At least one victim reported as a fatality is Judge John Roll, appointed by President George H. W. Bush. Early reports identify Jared Loughner, 22 years old, as the shooter. Hot Air is keeping up with the noise.
This so-titled, 1992 break down of America’s fumbling of national space policy should be required reading amongst advocates in all corners. S. Pete Worden, former Deputy for Technology at the old SDI Organization takes a belt to every player involved in NASA’s budget process, detailing each step of the way from formulating the budget request to expending the funds. Main points to take away:
- NASA’s primary mission is to continue its bureaucratic existence.
- Appropriators–not the President nor the authorizing committees–are the key determinants in formulating national space policy.
- Appropriators don’t give a crap about science or space.
- Appropriators do care deeply about pork.
- There is great synergy between NASA’s instinct to survive and appropriator’s instinct to earmark.
No President has ever vetoed a NASA appropriation. Appropriations frequently pass under suspension of the rules in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate, meaning the underlying authorizations generally don’t matter a whit. The authorizations themselves are generally rubber stamps of NASA’s budgetary aspirations, often more generous than the Executive’s requests. The President, who is nominally tasked for setting the direction of space policy, is reduced to contributing little more than unenforceable mission statements.
Worden blames the budget process for the woes befallen American space policy. I disagree. The process surely exposes and picks at the scab, but it’s not the underlying wound. What NASA, the President and Congress lack is a detailed understanding of our interests in space. Americans clearly understand space is worth something; we keep throwing tens of billions at NASA annually. But beyond that the public is largely indifferent to what we do in space. With a political safe stream of revenue but no pressure to actually achieve something, NASA and the appropriators set themselves to the serious business of scratching each others back.
That is how we ended up with a 50-state supply chain for a spacecraft that cost $1 billion and change to launch and had a nasty tendency of exploding. That’s how we ended up with $100 billion space station that exists solely to justify the existence of its supporting launcher. That’s how we ended up in the business of Muslim outreach, 15 ton Earth Observing Satellites, and billion dollar telescopes for cosmic navel gazers. And that is how we ended up with a space policy that can’t put more than a handful of people in space and returns nothing of value for our trouble.
The Onion: NASA Announces Plan To Launch $700 Million Into Space | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source
That about sums up our entire space program to date.
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) injects some much needed reality into the recent unpleasantness in his Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.
Go here for the latest. Obvious topic of discussion, House Science Committee’s latest blow to commercial space. Which leads us naturally to…
Congress to America’s future in space: Go fuck yourself
Here’s some news to shove down the throat of the next idiot who suggests there’s any difference between Democrats and Republicans where it concerns the sanctity of science.
The House Science and Technology Committee marked up its $19 billion Fiscal 2011 NASA authorization draft July 22, setting the stage for a House-Senate conference to reconcile differences in their two versions of the bill.
Building on work kicked off with the Senate Commerce Committee’s draft of a three-year NASA authorization bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted its $19 billion NASA spending measure for Fiscal 2011 on July 21 (Aerospace DAILY, July 22).
The long logjam over U.S. space policy is breaking up, as the impasse between the White House and Congress evolves into serious negotiations over details of a compromise approach that would accelerate a heavy-lift launch vehicle and preserve the Orion crew exploration vehicle. But it remains to be seen if all of the work can be done in time to avoid a continuing resolution when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.
Both authorization measures also pay for their changes from the original NASA budget request by backpedaling the administration’s centerpiece commercial human spaceflight plan.
Bottom line, Congress sets national science and engineering priorities by one metric only–jobs per district. FY2011 already showed the gap between the Augustine Commission’s pie-in-the-sky dreams and the Administration’s seriousness concerning space policy. Congress apparently couldn’t suffer the idea of being outdone in rank foolishness. Here’s to another decade of dicking around in LEO with nothing to show for it.
If government contracting would quit worrying so much about how much profit a company makes, and start worrying about what is being delivered for the dollar, more companies would try for the contracts. A possible contract with 25-50% profit potential will attract more players. As more players enter a field, some will have better people or ideas which translates to lower costs, which becomes lower bids. When faced with real competition, Lockheed and Boeing can both find cost saving options when it is in their best interest to do so and they can make higher profit margins doing it.
Dr. Paul D. Spudis is a smart guy, pretty apolitical and keeps up a damn good blog for Air & Space Smithsonian on issues relating to space exploration and its future settlement. His latest uncharacteristically tears into “Flexible Path,” or as I like to call it–”Vision for Space Exploration minus the Vision and the Space Exploration.”
Here are the highlights:
The space community has fractured since the disastrous roll out of NASA’s “new direction.” Preceding the administration’s budget announcement, endless delays and rampant speculation about administrators, rockets, and program design and direction kept people guessing. The current trench warfare is not a pretty sight, but it is not unexpected given the lack of a clear direction. Word has it that more detail will come out early next week…
Word to the wise…it didn’t.
…adding yet another layer to this growing space onion. The undirected, unfocused, unproductive spin cycle NASA (and the entire space community) has twirled around in for the last 18 months is instructive. It is real time, 20/20 insight on how the new direction will play out during the proposed five-year study hall being scheduled for NASA to find their “right stuff.”
The latest attempt to explain NASA’s new direction is an article published in Space.com by Clara Moskowitz. She tries to “correct” some alleged “misunderstandings” about the Obama administration’s new direction and budget for NASA. Her article quotes several space luminaries, who opine that the new path is simply “not understood” by a few petulant detractors who stubbornly refuse to accept Flexible Path as advertised. Responding to the criticism that the new path was conceived in secret by a small cabal without detailed thought, Moskowitz quotes my friend Jim Oberg as saying that the administration’s space proposal is “extremely similar” to a report issued by the International Astronautical Academy (IAA) and so (in effect) the new direction has been studied extensively by an “international astronautical group.”
Here’re the money shots:
A glaring difference between the IAA report and the administration’s budget proposal is that the IAA report specifically recognizes the Moon’s surface as a valid objective (as does the VSE).
Civilizations thrive and advance when not in retreat. The administration’s chaotic proposal for NASA retreats from human space exploration. Many in the space community have serious doubts and concerns about this new direction. Labeling these doubts and concerns as “misconceptions” does not make the new direction valid nor change the reality that we are in danger of losing our capability as a space faring nation.
There’s a not so marginal deal to be said in praise of Flexible Path. Killing Constellation–which would (by the grace of God) only produce an LEO vehicle in this decade–saves up to $7 billion a year going forward. There’s supposedly a new look at EELV launchers for trans-lunar missions. And of course commercial space aid is going up north of a billion.
But that’s literally it. FY2011 reveals at the Administration’s aimlessness. ISS, cosmic navel gazing and climate change advocacy are the big winners, space technology gets as low as a third of the Constellation savings per year. Constellation may have been a huge, expensive mistake in execution, but the expenditure alone fit was the clearest articulation of the only mission worthy of NASA–the opening of space for American benefit. FY2011 reads like the budget for a university whose principle mission is to make Greens and internationals feel good about themselves.
The good news is even with this budget, in five to seven years some President will have the tools to proceed with a Vision for Space Exploration that’s roughly back on track. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like this President is all that interested in picking up the torch.