We've gone around on this before; in fact it seems that we must do it at least once a year.

Yes, space travel and moon bases and mars missions are cool. No, there's not a single reason the taxpayers should be paying for it simply because you think it's cool. You know what Liberals think is cool? On-demand abortion. No, there's no reason taxpayers should be paying for that either.

The idea that we must have some culturally significant and symbolic government project to spur the next generation to new heights of blah blah blah is utter crap. The moon race and the space agency incidentally aided other industries. And it eventually gave us Tang and that weird freeze-dried astronaut icecream stuff. Which is very cool and all, but I suggest to you that neither represents a GREAT WORK in the history of mankind that we would be worse off for not having.

I suppose the Baby Boomers and their parents would have just been demoralized all to hell if the Soviets had beaten them to the moon. Well, good for them, they beat those commie bastards. Now you're telling me that we have to go back to the moon and eventually Mars because if we don't we'll have lost the race against . . . who? Who are we racing? And why are we racing? And what are we racing for?

We've been to the Moon. There's nothing there. There was nothing there then and there's still nothing there except the garbage we left behind the first times we were there.

We've scoped and prodded and had our little mouse droids running all over Mars. There's nothing there either. Nothing that would justify spending taxpayer money, anyway, chasing a dream so that Newt Gingrich can call himself "visionary."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:15 PM | Comments (333)
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Since she won't say, this guy guesses up to $500,000.

Posted by: Ace at 03:23 PM | Comments (133)
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Photo: Here. Via @williamamos

Obama's butthurt about the unkind words Governor Brewer used about him in her book, Scorpions for Breakfast.

He stepped off Air Force One at 3:28 pm and was greeted by Gov. Jan Brewer. She handed him a handwritten letter in an envelope and they spoke intensely for a few minutes. At one point, she pointed her finger at him.

.,,

"He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast," Brewer said. "I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So."

Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Brewer said: "That he didn't feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn't get my sentence finished. Anyway, we're glad he's here. I'll regroup."

Old joke:

Your majesty, your majesty, the people are revolting!

-- They've always been revolting.

Yes, they've always been revolting, but now independents disfavor you by 20 points! more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:49 PM | Comments (163)
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

It's not as daffy as it sounds.

But given budget priorities, I think it is daffy. But it is harmless, as it falls under the heading "Things Which Won't Happen."

"By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American," Gingrich said to applause.

...

Gingrich also said he would push to develop propulsion technology that would get man to Mars.

He emphasized that it doesn't have to be expensive, exploration in partnership with private companies can lower the cost.

...

"Does that mean I'm visionary? You betcha," he said.

This is a dream of the space lobby. It's not even a new plan -- Bush talked it up in 2004.

For the first time since 1972, the United States is planning to fly to the moon, but instead of a quick, Apollo-like visit, astronauts intend to build a permanent base and live there while they prepare what may be the most ambitious undertaking in history -- putting human beings on Mars.

President Bush in 2004 announced to great fanfare plans to build a new spaceship, get back to the moon by 2020 and travel on to Mars after that. But, with NASA focused on designing a new spaceship and spending about 40 percent of its budget on the troubled space shuttle and international space station programs, that timetable may suffer.

The moon base is discussed as some kind of useful midway point here. I don't believe that. I think it's some kind of make-work deliverable which can be achieved before the longer-term goal, the manned flight to Mars. They talk about construction or mining for fuel or something or other on the Moon which seems like it would cost about 1000 times more than it would cost to build a Mars ship on earth.

It's probably not all that expensive, in relative terms, given the sick, crushing cost of the government that is strangling us all; but then, why spend it at all, given how deep in debt we already are?

There are two schools of thought on this sort of thing, among conservatives. The neoconservative argument is that government may be a necessary evil, but it can do great things, and we might as well direct this necessary evil to do some of those great things.

I used to buy into that. I still do, a little, depending on the day of the week.

The other school of thought is that government is a necessary evil, but mostly an evil, and we shouldn't go adding to the evil, or creating a public relations breakthrough for it.

That's sort of a paleoconservative argument that almost comes down to "We almost want government to suck and be hobbled by inefficiency and waste, because we don't want the people wanting more of it."

Well, I'm not sure too many people buy into that Ron Paul sort of idea. I don't know if I do.

However, the whole point of a space program, really, is to give our kids something to dream about. You can talk about spin-off technology but you can get that cheaper simply by pouring money directly into the R&D of the technology you seek, rather than hoping a Mars Shot will produce some for you incidentally.

So if we want to give our kids something to dream about -- should we be telling them to dream of a government that dares enough to do big things?

Or a private sector that dares enough to do big things?

I realize they're not mutually exclusive. And yet... The real dream of every kid isn't about a massive program to go to the moon a couple of times. The real dream is that this should be an everyday, ordinary sort of thing -- like a business. You just buy a ticket, and up you go.

I gotta tell you that I had liberal tendencies as a kid, and part of the reason for that was that I associated the government with Cool Stuff -- FBI agents. The Army. Submarines. The Space Shuttle and Moon program.

The government was doing the stuff that young minds dreamed of. While "business" was something for the workaday drudges.

I don't know. Space boosters may say dreams matter.

I think I'm at the point where I'd agree -- but question the dreams.

Going Back and Forth On This: Yeah I don't know where I'd come down here.

I do like the general idea. Of all the things to waste tax dollars on, this seems among the most productive and glorious of wastes.

And yet...

If you're really serious about cutting government spending, that's going to be all the more difficult a sale if you're simultaneously budgeting in a moon base which has no economic purpose, except the intangible (and debatable) economic value of adding some vitality to a diminished American spirit.

I suppose there would be some of that. How much? Who knows.

The sad part is that I can see it going the other direction, more likely -- that screw-ups, overruns, general incompetence, and graft and corrupt contracts would wind up diminishing the American spirit you're trying to build up.

I have to admit, though, that I look forward to putting the first man on the moon, rather than "The Moon."

The HAL Problem: Minor content warning for f-bombs in a parody clip.

Posted by: Ace at 01:58 PM | Comments (317)
Post contains 924 words, total size 6 kb.

Based on my own guestimations. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (471)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks for the confirmation. He clarifies that Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants is simply familiar with the publicly-available facts of the ethics case, and based on her keen intellect, she can therefore predict it's enough to sink him.

Rep. Nancy PelosiÂ’s office on Wednesday said the minority leader doesnÂ’t have any dirt on Newt Gingrich.

...

"The 'something' Leader Pelosi knows is that Newt Gingrich will not be President of the United States. She made that clear last night," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said in a statement.

"Leader Pelosi previously made a reference to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Hammill said.

That's too bad. I was hoping that Newt's "spit it out" was baiting her, and that her Big Secret was that she had given him a beejer.

In other Newt updates, he's withdrawing his "No Humanity" ad assailing Romney as "anti-immigrant," after Romney's Hispanic leadership team demanded he do so.

In the wake of Sen. Marco Rubio’s denunciation of Newt Gingrich’s ad calling Mitt Romney ‘anti-immigrant,’ the Romney campaign’s Hispanic leadership team — headlined by former Sen. Mel Martinez — is demanding that Gingrich pull down the radio spot.

But word's out there now-- Romney hates immigrants and has no humanity on the issue, or something.

No Concern for the Humanity of Illegal Immigrants

Dismantling the assumptions of the left and media one brick at a time.

First capitalism, now humanity.

Polls Are For Strippers and Bloggers Who Are All Tapped Out: Qunnipeepeeac, 36 Romney 34 Gingrich; PPP Gingrich 38, Romney 33; other polls show it close.

Posted by: Ace at 11:15 AM | Comments (187)
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Ed tackles this thoroughly.

I don't know what to say, except that Romney had better authentically repudiate this. And in fact he ought to disassociate himself from Coleman.

However, as far as context, bear in mind True Conservative Michele Bachmann spoke grimly, herself, about the actual likelihood of fully repealing ObamaCare: She said (and I never heard her contradicted) it will take 60 Senate votes to do it.

Although I had previously thought it would take 51 (through the "reconciliation" route that birthed this monstrosity), she consistently said it would need 60.

I don't know if she's right. I haven't heard anyone dispute her.

So this could be a matter of simply saying that, realistically, it's a difficult thing.

To this day I don't know if you need 51 or 60. I wish someone would explain why they can't do 51 + reconciliation.

Update: From John McCormack on Twitter - Paul Ryan is of the belief that most (why most?) of ObamaCare can be dispensed with via reconciliation.

He clarifies that the "most" applies to anything having to do with spending. Some non-spending aspects involving revenue-neutral regulation may not be touchable via reconciliation, depending on the ruling of the parliamentarian.

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 AM | Comments (261)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Gotta love a TV clown complaining someone else is overpaid and too rich.

“That’ses almost–that’s almost $57,000 a day!” Stewart exclaimed. “Here is the most amazing part: the guy doesn’t even have a job! That is f*cking interest! That is the kind of money that might lead a man to make stupidly extravagant out-of-touch impulse bets!”

Jon Stewart's annual salary is $15 million per year (and I assume he's also got interest income on top of that from previous banked salary), which is more than $41,000 per day.

Plus -- interest and investment income, which is not reflected in that figure.

But he's earned it. He was once on Remote Control or something.

$41,095 Per Day

At that level or below, you're Middle Class.

Above that, you're just taking too much damn money from The People.

Thanks to George.

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

I think I'll make a sandwich.

Posted by: Ace at 10:10 AM | Comments (94)
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Glad we're gambling on him, because he's definitely super-conservative 'n stuff.

You know -- he'll challenge the assumptions of the media and the left for us in his public declarations.

“You have to live to in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and automatic $20 million a year income for no work to have a fantasy this far from reality,” Mr. Gingrich said. “This is an Obama-level fantasy… He certainly shows no concern for the humanity of people who are already here.”

The Gingrich campaign is trying to make inroads with Miami’s large Cuban population as it tries to gain momentum in Florida. In a Spanish-language radio ad, the campaign refers to Mr. Romney as “anti-immigrant.”

Rubio's scolding Newt for... um, assuming the assumptions of the left in his attack on Romney.

“This kind of language is more than just unfortunate. It’s inaccurate, inflammatory, and doesn’t belong in this campaign,” Rubio told The Miami Herald when asked about the ad.

“The truth is that neither of these two men is anti-immigrant,” Rubio said. “Both are pro-legal immigration and both have positive messages that play well in the Hispanic community.”

I can't wait to see where this campaign of challenging the assumptions of the left evolves next.

So, to recap: Gingrich supports the individual mandate and he thinks other candidates don't show sufficient "concern" for the "humanity" of illegal immigrants, and we should get on board with this crazy train because he's the Hope of True Conservatism.

Cheap Date Conservatism

Moderation in policy.

Zealotry in defending American civilization from John King.

Posted by: Ace at 09:24 AM | Comments (363)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.