Spaced Out Government

There was a good Nova episode tonight about the Space Shuttle. I remember its gestation back in the early seventies. At first it sounded like a good idea -- a way to lower the cost of getting into orbit. But as they cut back on the size of the Space program after the moon landings, I remember getting into a discussion with a friend who was a physics teacher. I argued that it made no sense to spend a vast sum of money on an expensive new launch system when we were cutting back on the manned space program. It was fast becoming obvious that by the time the shuttle was operational, there would be no where for it to go and no money left to send it there. It seemed to me that we should just use the Saturn V "moon" rocket to put the heavy stuff up and a smaller rocket to put the manned element up.

Around that time NASA got rid of all the specialized jigs and equipment used in making the Saturn V. The conspiracy minded thought it was done so there would be no going back as the Shuttle ate up more and more of the space budget. Perhaps NASA needed to keep the rocket scientists and engineers busy. In any case, the imperative for the shuttle was no longer "space exploration." Apparently massive bureaucracies put in motion tend to keep going that way.


Well, after two space shuttle tragedies -- disasters designed into the system, as Nova pretty much put it -- and gazillions spent, guess what? To replace the Shuttle they'll build a heavy lift vehicle (even resurrecting much of the Saturn V design) as well as a smaller vehicle for putting humans into orbit.

Interestingly, they managed to blame private contractors who "turned the shuttle around" for part of the failure but never explained what it was they did wrong or forgot to do right. In fact, they failed to show any connection with the private contractors at all. This came from the folks who were hands on responsible. It's just a bureaucratic reflex, I guess -- just stupid blind prejudice at work: it's those cost cutting contractors, I tell you! Actually, complacent and sloppy inefficiencies were more likely the cause (and was that an "ozone friendly" insulating foam that fell of the shuttle in large junks during the launches?) .

In the near future our likely next President, Barack Obama, will launch many new and massive Federal Programs. But he does not appear to believe in The Doctrine of Unintended Consequences. Or perhaps he believes the bad consequences -- whether intended or not -- won't show up until he is gone. But the "bads" should be obvious to all non-journalists by 2016.

The Evils of Capitol-ism

The other day an old friend asked , "What are we going to do about that party they got going on down in Washington? It don't matter who you send there!"

Yup. What about affordable government?

What's clearly on Display in our financial crisis are the evils of Capitol-ism.

I've long thought that the Democrat Party, the National Media and the Federal Bureaucracy are knotted together by self interest and a shared belief in their own importance. Republicans, too, can join them in the knot and often do. Today they form their own political party, the Washington Party, that works to move ever more power to the capital and to the "national centers" -- be it information centers (New York, D.C.), financial centers (New York, Chicago), or entertainment (LA). Basically, for the Washington Party, all problems are national and all problems have a national solution -- and they use the media to bring you along. Your kids go to a lousy school? Look to Washington for the answer, not your local community. This is the platform of "The Washington Party."

The ideology of the Washington Party is Capitol-ism. For a Capitol-ist, both state power and economic power are centered on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, where the inhabitants of the corridors of power meet and bargain. Their preferred form of economic organization is the cartel, sometimes organized by government but always controlled by members of the Washington Party. These new Cartels function much like the old ones -- except they focus on shielding mediocrity (by emphasizing credentials over performance) as well as creating abnormally large benefits for the members.

Of course Cartels are illegal, but only when non-members of the Washington party try to organize them. As we "fight" global warming the Washington Party will organize Carbon Cartels that will dominate the entire economy. These will be promoted as life-saving "Cartels of Caring": it is not about screwing you and benefiting them, it is about saving the planet.

All the institutions at the Center of the Washington Party have scandals connected to them where the national "watchdog" media is late to the scene. When they arrive they start tampering with evidence, and then issue reports with mistakes and omissions that point to conclusions that lie in one direction -- a direction favorable to the Washington Party and the system of Cartels it creates.

If there is a problem with the free market the answer is regulation. If their is a problem with the regulations the answer is more regulation. Problems with the additional regulations require yet more additional regulations. It's a one way ratchet -- at least until the whole rickety structure is about to collapse. Then there is a half-assed deregulation, followed by a collapse which is then blamed on the Free Market. In California ten years ago they "deregulated" the electricity market but kept the price controls in place. This was not an example of deregulation. This was an example of stupidity -- or brilliant bureaucratic strategy. When the doo-doo fell into the wind tunnel and the lights went out in California there was someone else with poo-poo on their face.


The Federal Fannie and its spawn, Frantic Freddie are at the Center of the subprime mortgage mess. Congress constructed a Fun House at the corner of Broadway and Wall Street where low showmanship and high finance meet. Fannie and Freddie were the host, and they brought the good faith and credit of the American people in there to play. In those mirrors everyone looked fat and solvent. The Fat and Frantic Feds were the center of the "Cartel of Caring" which screwed the people it was alleged to help and greatly enriched members of the Cartel. Even now rule one is: protect the Washington Cartels.

So naturally it is reported as if the fault were in the private economy. The Mainstream Media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Washington Party. The Federal Fannie is already sitting on health care -- another Cartel of Caring. They want of feed it a much bigger slice of the pie -- in fact, the whole banana cream pie -- so if you think it is heavy now, just wait.

Belmont Club » Just so

Western civilization is dying a death by a thousand cuts. The quest for perfection has become such an obsession that it is sought even at the cost of basic functionality. A friend who works at big name consulting firm said that so much attention is focused on ensuring compliance — checking off boxes, making sure that everything is gender-friendly, green, non-racist and whatever else — that sound business is almost an afterthought. In this modern world it’s alright to have something that doesn’t work, as long as it’s perfect.

The Heart and Soul of Capitol-ism is "The Caring Cartel." The business of the Cartel is not the general welfare, but the welfare of the Cartel. In the Cartels of Caring the clerks who run them are king. Barney Frank is an alpha clerk. Clerks cut free of their middle class masters ( and resentful of them) now run government, finance and Eduction. They give Western Civilization the soul of a Clerk.

Check the box.

The Second Presidential Debate

Senators McCain and Obama must have agreed in advance that since they couldn't calm the volatile financial markets, they would try to put them to sleep.

I gave Obama a slight edge at the start and McCain a slight edge at the end. Of course Sen. Obama seems to change his position at will (on off shore oil drilling, for instance) but he is still right, both times! As usual, spending is called investing and tax increases become spending cuts and free money to folks who don't pay taxes is a tax cut. Sacrifice is accepting more from government while insisting someone else pays for it (this is also "living within our means"). The Usual hokum. Obama should win.

Biggest lie: Obama said he would cut more spending then he would add. Granted, he will call his tax increases "spending cuts" (we spent the government's money on tax cuts, remember). Even so, creative math and all, I don't think it is "true."

Goodnight.

Dreaded Secrets -- Revealed!

I often watch "Secrets of the Dead" on PBS. I like the program for what it reveals about Western Intellectuals. One show all but concluded that it really was the Christians who burned down ancient Rome (Christians who were at the same time Jews!).

I first saw the episode that will reprise on Wednesday (Aztec Massacre) in April. It deals with the encounter of the Aztec Empire with "Cortes and the Conquistadors." The program centered on some Spaniards (including women) who were captured -- along with some of the more unruly subjects of the Aztecs -- and sacrificed.

The ritual involved skillfully ripping the heart out of a living human; lifting said heart up to the sky while it is still beating; tossing the heartless (and maybe headless, I forgot to take notes) body down a steep flight of steps; butchering said heartless/headless/discarded body.

Well, I thought we could all come together on this behavior and say "that is just wrong." Liberal and Conservative could finally agree. Marxist intellectual and capitalist Robber Baron, finally, in agreement.

OK, maybe we all know that one special "exception" to the rule -- or two or three -- where ripping out the heart might be understandable (though never condoned). But to do this by the thousands? At what point do we say you've gone from a Civilization that has "a problem" to "A Problem" that has a civilization? I mean, talk about the church militant.

Gee, do I ever lack nuance. First, it was done to keep the sun in the sky and the sun is still up there so they must have done a pretty good job. Plus the Aztecs lacked beasts of burden and their subject people kinda filled that role. And what do you do with an ornery beast of burden? Well, you turn him into a much needed protein supplement. And in a way to encourage the others. So. Sun's in the sky. Maize's in the fields. Pyramid's gettin' built. Capital's kept clean. And all the Spaceships solar powered (sorry, that was Atlantis). Why, times were almost good.

Then Cortes shows up -- a combination entrepreneur and labor organizing thug who's gonna steal your retirement. If only he weren't an entrepreneur but, alas!

At this point the Aztec Priestly caste became the "resistance." The same hat trick performed by the Baathist Party (caste) in Iraq -- an idea promoted by pretty much the same people (read: BBC). What's the evidence the Aztec Priests turned into minutemen? There were Spanish heads on those skull racks. Along with the heads of them new fangled horses (I mean, folks, those equines want to take your jobs).

Well, I concluded that one priestly caste (tenured academia) identifies strongly with another priestly caste. Priest who no doubt bathed more frequently than the on-the-make Spaniards and were more respecting of books and knew the value of a good protein supplement. They knew how to get additional sacrifices from their populations to keep their Temples of Learning up and running. They did not beg for grants, they just took them!

I, on the other hand, saw them as bitter men clinging to their religion and their razor sharp obsidian ceremonial blades and blaming foreigners with their "new ideas" while fearing change.

Meanwhile the Spaniards slip into the role of the Aztecs. And those who rule now can have a certain regard for the problems the Aztecs faced then. I mean, keeping the sun in the sky is thirsty work. And as the sun gets closer, the globe gets hotter. That means more sacrifices to push it back up. And how do you get folks to willingly make them (or unwillingly, if Al Gore's ad campaign don't work)?

Am I being unfair here? Let me think. Nah.

Fear Mongering by the Media does not count.

Dean Baker: The state of the US economy is a direct result of Bush's policies | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

This is the first time in the history of the United States that the president has sought to provoke a financial panic to get legislation passed through Congress. While this has proven to be a successful political strategy - after the House of Representatives finally passed the bank bail-out plan today - it marks yet another low point in American politics.

It was incredibly irresponsible for George Bush to tell the American people on national television that the country could be facing another Great Depression. By contrast, when we actually were in the Great Depression, President Roosevelt said: "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."

The Media has been telling us we are already in "the second great depression." They need to absolve the Democrat "Fannie enablers" in Congress so the cause of the crisis is "Bush said boo!" and terrified Wall Street. Of course a lot of them Wall Street Fat Cats are Democrats and they do scare easy. Redeploy into T-bills!

But don't listen to Bush. The fundamentals of the economy are actually great. Until tomorrow, when they will want to blame GWB for the rise in unemployment.

That Washington "thing."

The Democrats in Congress organize “Cartels of Caring.” A “Caring” Cartel is at the very center of the Subprime mortgage mess. Its most visible members came in the form of a “big fat Fannie” and its spawn, an adrenalin addled Freddie. This Federal Grendel and his Ma effectively turned the mortgage industry into a government run cartel. Except in this story, Grendel didn’t lose his arm, home buyers and taxpayers lost theirs. It took advantage of home buyers at one end and mortgage instrument buyers at the other — and the entire US in between once the “implicit” guarantee of Freddie and Fannie finally became explicit. They socialized the risk and let speculators hugely profit.

Citizens struggling to make their mortgage payments don’t give money to politicians. Real Estate speculators do.

Cartels are always sold as being good for the public. Their purpose is to steer power and money to their members. The Democrats (but not just the Democrats) combine these two principles to produce “Cartels of Caring.” In the last few weeks we have found out how much “affordable housing” really cost. Ten years from now we will learn the cost of affordable health care — your life, perhaps, but only after your money.

Do you want them to stick their fat Fannies into your health care? In this respect, the “McCain plan” is better since it does give the patients some control. Sen. Obama constructs another “Cartel of Caring,” only this time he invites the insurance companies to join and removes power from the patients. They will construct a system of incentives to over treat the well and hasten the death of the severely ill. This system will not require a Dr. House — a brief bit of grief “consoling” will do. Twelve stages in two minutes. Because we care.

The Main stream Media is another “Cartel of Caring.” They sell themselves as the watch dogs of the American People when they are actually the Guard Dogs of the Washington establishment — and all the Cartels of Caring they create. Hence their Howling at the Moon when Sarah Palin arrived on the scene.

After the election they will want their own position shored up. They are owed that much (and self interest does dictate…)

If you want a movie that most effectively mirrors the current set up in Washington, watch Goodfellows. “Hey, Congressman, I’d like you to meet a friend of mine. Grendel’s a Good Fellow.”

It makes you want to Howl like a Beowulf.

The Vice Presidential Debate

I think Gov. Palin won the debate because the network commentators on NBC were calling it a tie.

I thought her using the word "blunder" in connection with George Bush was a bit extreme, but hey, it seems to work for everyone else. I thought she should have hit more on the failures of Congress in regards to the subprime meltdown and the lax oversight of Fannie and Freddie.

On several occasions Joe Biden said we spent more in three and one half weeks in Iraq than we have in six and a half years in Afghanistan. My guess is he was a bit off in his math (or it is really fuzzy). Three and a half months might be closer. On Health Care: Sen. Biden wants to stick the heavy Fannie of government in our Health Care while Sen. McCain prefers a defter touch.

I thought the best part of the debate was when the families got up on stage. I think I was as relieved as they were that it was over. I'm off to bed.

Update: Western Standard ran the numbers on Sen. Biden's claim.

According to the Congressional Research Service, spending on the war in Afghanistan since 2001 has been $172 Billion. Spending in Iraq is, as the Democrats repeatedly mention, a little under $10 Billion a month.

In other words, Biden's number is off by, oh, something like 2000%. Perhaps Obama's Sub-Committee ought to have held some hearings on Afghanistan after all.