The Death of a Pioneer

Today, the Shuttle Enterprise flew over NYC as part of a salute to the now-ended Shuttle program.  Upon landing, the Shuttle is due to be placed on a barge and floated over to the U.S.S. Intrepid Museum, where it will be put on exhibition.

I remember as a kid coming home from school and watching the Enterprise in its test flights.  My mom was glued to the screen in wonder, and I couldn’t help but feel the same way.  This was a plane that could go into space and come back and be used again?  Who would’ve imagined that?

The wonder that I felt, along with many Americans, was about what this meant for the future.  The Space Shuttle was the means to populate space itself.  First space stations, and then the Moon, and then beyond.  The success of the Shuttle program kept us all waiting for the “next big step into space.”

But that step never really came.  NASA’s budget never matched the ambitious spirit, and after the Challenger exploded, America started wondering if we were ready to send people into space in reusable spacecraft.  Certainly the political will to continue to fund NASA at high levels withered.

As the years went by, Shuttle launches and landings went from front-page news to the humdrum.  With lack of media interest, the popular interest began to wane.  It seemed like all the Shuttle did was fly up to the Russian Space Station and come home.  Big deal.

And so finally, in a moment of political opportunism, the Shuttle program was scrapped.  No announcement or intention to replace the program was mentioned.  And even if one is thought-up, I doubt very much that Americans are interested in funding space flight again.

The end of the Shuttle program is a metaphor for the death of America’s pioneering spirit.  The ambition showed so strongly by past generations is all but replaced with apathy today.  As a nation we have lost the drive to see past the next hill, to dream of what lies beyond.  Our appetite for knowledge is gone.

And so, as we look at the Shuttles flying overhead and wave goodbye, ask yourself what it is you’re saying goodbye to.  The Shuttle?  Or the dream?

Negative Campaigns and the Descent into Madness

Looking at the last few weeks of news, it’s easy to see what the campaign strategies are going to be this year.  Both sides are going to use fierce negative ads to make the other guy look bad to potential voters.  It’s a tried-and-true approach, but only when there’s a large batch of undecided voters.  That’s not the case this year.  This year less than 10% of likely voters are undecided.

I mean, think about it.  If you support Obama, there’s nothing Romney can say to convince you that he’s a better choice than Obama.  And if you oppose Obama, there’s nothing Obama can say to convince you he’s better than Romney, right?  You have known how you were going to vote and are simply waiting for November to come around.

The truth is that most people made up their mind back in 2009-2010.  Take a look at the chart to the right.   It shows party affiliation (that is, how do people identify themselves along party lines), based upon polling by Rasmussen Reports.  Despite the slight variations, what’s striking is that both parties enjoy roughly the same percentage of support among adults.  Both right around 35%.  A very polarized set.

Now, under normal circumstances, a campaign would look at this chart, and speak about what’s not on the chart.  That is, those who don’t identify with either party.  These are the so-called “Independents,” and they usually determine the outcome of national elections because of their broad-spectrum composition.  All that would be needed is to convince more Independents to your side and you’d win.

But not this year.  This year, Independents have similarly been polarized within their own ranks.  Normally Independents split roughly 40% conservative / 40% moderate / 20% liberal (+/- about 3%).  But polling is suggesting that even the Independents have already made up their minds.

So what’s left?  Why spend time with negative ads?  How can either candidate hope to change people’s minds?  The answer is, they don’t.  What they are now trying is a desperate attempt to get you so disgusted with your candidate that you choose to stay home rather than vote.  It’s a most distasteful tactic.  Both campaigns know that turnout will be high due to the polarization of the country and the strong negative sentiment about the “other side.”  That means their only hope of success is to deflate the passion for their opponent.

Which brings us to where we are now.  Both campaigns dredging-up the silly and the bizarre about their opponent.  They talk about dogs on roofs and adolescent drug use and try to scare people about religious cultism.  They try to paint each other as hypocrites and “flip-floppers” as well as being in the back-pocket of special interests.  And the stories keep coming and coming.  All in an attempt to suppress voter turnout even by a sliver.

Whether they succeed or not is hard to know until after the fact, but one thing’s for sure — it’s going to be a long summer….

 

Lightning Round — Quick thoughts on the past few weeks

Every now and then I find myself starting posts and then deleting the drafts, just because (a) I can’t find a way to be concise, or (b) other issues come up and I can’t figure out which topic to focus on.

I think the way I’ll handle that is just to make some quick comments and let it go at that.  Hopefully the format works well!

Ann Romney — You’ve got to be kidding.  Mere days after the Democrats accused Republicans of waging a “war on women,” they go after stay-at-home mothers?  Seems like the 60s feminist retreads are at it again.  Just because a woman chooses to raise children instead of working doesn’t make her a “traitor to the cause,” and it doesn’t disqualify her from speaking about women’s issues.  Regardless, some Democrats suddenly look quite hypocritical….

The Buffett Rule — How many times does this have to be said before it sticks?  There is a difference between Capital Gains Tax and Income Tax.  This is done intentionally.  Investors need to be encouraged to take risks on ventures and deserve a break for taking that chance.  By increasing the Capital Gains Tax you’ll discourage investment and the whole economy will slow down even further.  Besides, estimates that the Buffett Rule will yield a mere $6B in extra tax revenue debunk the notion that taxing the rich will address the deficit, which is easily 250 times larger than that…

Wisconsin Recall — I think union members need to take a long look at themselves and ask if they are really in favor of the hard-left mantra that their leadership continues to sponsor.  Like many mid-western states, Wisconsin was suffering from severe budget overruns because past politicians made promises to unions that they knew they’d never keep.  And now that Walker has the courage to say “look, we can’t do it.  Sorry, but we need to re-work this” the whole state goes into an uproar.  This is what happens when you trust government and depend on it for your existence.  They will happily make you promises they can’t keep.  Rather than crying about what you’re “entitled to,” why don’t you act like a grown-up and say “let’s work together to figure this out?”

Obama and The Court — keep antagonizing them, Einstein.  You’re really thinking they forgot about how you embarrassed them in 2010?  If they are susceptible to political influence, as your advisers suggest, then not only are you using the wrong argument, you’re employing the opposite tactic.  But that’s because you already know it’s a lost cause, don’t you?  You could have been on 90210 with that “stand on your principles, even if it means you’re unpopular” stuff.  Chuckle….

That’s it for this week’s installment!

Have a rebuttal?  Rantism is looking for a passionate (but respectful) blogger to represent opinions from the Left.  We had someone lined up but they never got around to starting so our “Rants from the Left” section lies waiting.  If you’re interested, and you can keep the vitriol out of your message, then contact me via Twitter at @rantism!

Are we really at war with each other?

Seems like every day I hear the media insisting that there’s a “war” of some kind going on.  They insist that Conservatives hate everyone who isn’t like them and wants to force everyone to live their way.  Not only is this a fallacious statement, but it’s damaging to our ability to function with national unity.

I have all five “strikes” against me in this dialog — I am a white, conservative, christian, heterosexual male.  As a result, the media would try to portray me as a sexist, racist, creationist, homophobic misogynist.

Any single one of these “charges” leveled against a person is serious in American society.  And yet, as a person in “the majority,” I’m expected to sit and shut up when all five are implied against me.  When I debate, my motives are immediately seen as sinister.  I am painted as being driven by hate and greed.

What’s even more disturbing to me is how many people will accept that caricature without thinking about it.  As you sit there, do you really believe that I and folks like me hate you just because you’re a woman?  or gay?  or black?  Do you really believe that my way of dealing with the poor or the elderly is to let them die?

Let’s be honest — I don’t know much about you and you don’t know much about me.  But I’ll tell you this — I’m not who the media portrays me to be.  Just as I know you’re not who the media portrays you to be.  The media wants us to fight each other.  They try to stir the pot of racism and sexism and so on in the hopes that such “societal angst” can help them foster their political views.

I say to you let’s not give them the satisfaction.  Let’s try to understand each other on our own.  Let’s stop making assumptions about one another before we’ve even met.  I think once we do, we’ll understand that we’re not really “at war” with each other.

How about we at least give it a try?

Obama’s overt war with the Supreme Court

Think back with me to 2010.  The Supreme Court has handed-down its ruling on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  Within a week’s time, the President uses the bully pulpit of the State of the Union Address to publicly reprimand them for the decision.  For some reason he thought that embarrassing them in front of Congress and the Nation would cause them to be more timid in the future.

Jump ahead to the present-day.  After a unprecedented week of activity in the Court, the word on the Hill is that his signature legislation is on life support.  Ever the imperial president, what does he decide to do?  Press harder.  He dares the Court to not overturn his law for fear of being labelled judicial activists.  He figures he can intimidate them into avoiding another embarrassing public opinion.

After the 2010 State of the Union, I found myself asking aloud “what can he possibly hope to gain by trying to humiliate the Court?”  And today’s display just reinforces my belief that he doesn’t understand the Court, and how they see their role in our government.  They are not public figures, and their lifetime appointments shield them from political temptations.  They are free to pursue their vision of the law, and politicians be damned.

But that doesn’t mean they aren’t human.  And as humans, how would you expect them to react to this constant beating they’re taking from the President?  I think it’s reasonable to assume that such animosity leads to a less-sympathetic Court, which can’t serve the President well.

Many a president has gotten burned by politicizing the Court.  A very few presidents have succeeded in calling-out the Court to shape their decisions.  So why risk it?  In a case like the ACA you need the Court to be as creative as possible in order for all or part of the law to stand.  If you demotivate the Justices from wanting to be creative, then the law gets struck down.

So why make war with the Court?  What can possibly be gained?  We’ll find out in a few months….