I thought I would let all of you be the first to know I have won my election bid to the National Space Society Board of Directors.
The last time I served on the board it was still called the L5 Society 🙂
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I thought I would let all of you be the first to know I have won my election bid to the National Space Society Board of Directors. The last time I served on the board it was still called the L5 Society 🙂 What women, if any, have been part of a US Presidential team garnering a least one vote in the Electoral College? Tony Suruda got it: It was the LP ticket of John Hospers and Toni Nathan in 1972. She took one electoral vote, making her (as far as we know) the first woman to ever do so. Ed King has added the second: The Democrat’s ticket of Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 with 13 electoral votes. They came from Minnesota and DC. Now some more LP triivia: What state was the vote from? Sam Duncan got it. It was indeed Virginia. Now, What was the back story behind the vote? (I will admit that even my memory is a bit hazy on the details). For extra credit, since I do not know the answer: Are we correct that she was the first? This is perhaps more a James Taranto type question since he is an expert on US Presidential elections. Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root have offered the LP Vice-Presidential slot to Ron Paul. The question is: “Will he take it?” If I were a betting man, I’d give it 1 in 4, but the very thought of bringing all those Paul supporters over to our side is enough to set a Libertarian’s heart a flutter!
Overwhelmingly carried by the TUC. Coming not very long after the British Air Transport Association (the association of airlines and airports) expressed its “joint and determined opposition to the proposal” [pdf], this suggests the current scheduling of the UK National Identity Scheme may have some problems. Expect yet another repositioning shortly. (My guess: it’ll be about “immigration control”.) Over at the Cato Institute blog, contributor Daniel Griswold argues that the US, the world’s biggest user of energy, is not quite as dependent on energy from only a few nations as one might think. I agree. Energy “independence” sounds like a smart strategy if you fear that a handful of nations, run by thugs, have a heavy armlock on energy supplies. Fortunately, Mr Griswold argues, it is a bit more varied than that. Of course, part of what bugs me about the constant demand for energy independence is the concern that this might be a form of protectionism in drag, much akin to calls by western farmers for “food independence”, often just a thin excuse for tariffs on imports. Last night I was on my weekly international phone call to my ‘boss’ to discuss progress on various agreements, proposals and such of our small Wyoming aerospace company. Before signing off we got into a discussion on Sarah Palin’s background and future prospects. Jim suggested I read his article in the Telegraph. I might add we both agree that ‘win.lose or draw’, she is now a force to be reckoned with in the GOP and will probably make her own Presidential run in the next decade. I expect many of you will find it of interest also. Although of course it is a joke, see the posting immediately below. As Jonathan has already noted, Guido Fawkes has had a lot of fun over the last few months noting that every time Gordon Brown comes out in support of anything, it immediately tanks. Andy Murray was Mr Brown’s latest victim, apparently. So when I read on the Coffee House blog this morning that Gordon Brown now supports Barack Obama, I knew that Guido would be crowing with laughter, if not now then very soon, and sure enough, he is. Obama, says a delighted Guido, is now officially doomed. Luckily, before posting this, I also checked out Samizdata to see if anyone else here was having a laugh about this, and of course, they are. Apologies if you think I am duplicating here, but behind the hilarity of all this is to be observed an interesting re-arrangement of the political conventions, which is why I still put this thought up as a separate posting. More and more mere people, especially political people, like the ones who read Samizdata for example, have their particular preferences not just in their own countries and constituencies and districts and states and towns, but in ‘foreign’ parts also. The logic of the internet – even of instant electronic communication itself, which got started getting on for two hundred years ago – has always, to me, suggested global political affiliations, and in due course, global political parties. Certainly the Communist movement thought so. Maybe language remains a big barrier, but geography now matters less and less. Remember that counter-productive attempt by the Guardian to swing the last (was it?) Presidential election against Bush? Many concluded that this proved the wisdom of political people staying out of foreign elections. To me it merely proved that if you want to help this or that side in foreign parts, make sure that you really are helping. Because attempts to help like this are absolutely not going to stop. As the very existence of Samizdata now nicely illustrates, this is all now one big Anglospherical conversation. Obama’s idiotic campaign trip to Germany was, you might say, a self-inflicted version of that same Guardian blunder. But nor does that folly prove, to me, that campaigners should never go abroad and seek foreign support when campaigning, merely that they should choose their foreign supporters with more care than Obama did. Having the right sort of foreigners waving and cheering next to him can do a politician all kinds of good, now that the pictures can be flashed around the world in seconds. Under pressure from the McCain camp, the Brown regime is conducting another of its hasty and shambolic retreats. All sorts of stuff gets read out by Mr Brown, or appears under his name in printed articles. But you don’t suppose that he actually reads it all beforehand, do you? Mr Brown’s people are now assuring us that it was one of them who inadvertently revealed this sentiment, rather than Mr Brown himself who actually said it. All Mr Brown did was allow his name to be attached to the bottom of a newspaper article. So once again, there is this pattern, of the political leader trying, but failing, to observe the old and obsolete conventions, against his natural instincts, but his mere people not being so inhibited about saying what they think. Sooner or later the world’s leaders will all follow their mere supporters, and stop pretending to be neutral in foreign elections. Their line should be, because this will be the truth: of course I’ll work with whoever wins, I’m a politician. But meanwhile, yes, I do most definitely have my preferences. The particular awfulness and embarrassingness of Mr Brown’s particular expression of a preference in the US Presidential election should not detract from the more general interestingness of this little event. Inevitably, most of the commentary will be about how the Obama campaign may now have peaked (the comments on Jonathan’s previous posting are already saying yes it has), and about how the Brown regime is unravelling, definitely, again, some more. But I find the more general global political party angle at least as interesting. After all, this is not now only Brown preferring Obama, which we all know he does despite any denials (does anybody at all in what is left of the Labour Party not prefer Obama to McCain?). This is also now the McCain team opposing Brown, and not caring who knows it. And by extension, and whatever Mr McCain may personally feel or even know about the man, helping David Cameron. After all, the heading at Coffee House says: “The McCain campaign mocks Gordon Brown”. So now Mr McCain is doing it too, whatever denials he may subsequently issue. I see that Gordon Brown has come out in favour of Mr Obama winning the White House. For Mr McCain, this must be a hopeful sign. As Guido Fawkes likes to point out, Gordon “Profiles in Courage” Brown has a track record of cursing any cause he attaches himself to. Of course, I can see why Brown might relate to The One. Both of them have never done a stroke of work outside of politics in their lives. I am sure there are some strong Republican supporters who read us who do not understand how we could even compare the two candidates and say they are not all that different. Over the last few days I have been tossing around in my mind what exactly I want out of a President. This is not meant to be entirely a Libertarian view although it obviously is mostly that.
As you can see, both candidates come out dismally on pretty much everything I am interested in. About the only exception to the overall grimness is that I know personally one of the key space policy folk on the Obama team so I know that area at least would be dealt with competently. More important, would a U.S. government default indeed be “the end of the world”? …..One could plausibly argue just the opposite. In fact, a firm refusal to bail out the mortgage agencies would establish a strong barrier between U.S. Treasuries and the fortunes of not only the mortgage agencies themselves but also the myriad other institutions that we can imagine receiving similar treatment. Wouldn’t that in fact help maintain confidence in U.S. government securities? Similar arguments, of course, apply to state bailouts of other institutions, such as UK mortgage lender Northern Rock, for instance. Thanks to Reason’s Hit & Run blog for the pointer. London mayor Boris Johnson chides the United Nations for urging the planet to go vegetarian as a way to conserve resources. Instead, says Mr Johnson, the UN should, as it used to do, focus on the problem of “over-population”. I have written quite a lot about how fears about a population “explosion” have often proved wide of the mark. Suffice to say that in western Europe, for example, birthrates have been falling; the problem if anything is the reverse. Of course, as a father of four children, Mr Johnson does not think that concerns about too many people should be a reason for making changes to his own personal sexual behaviour. No siree (as he would no doubt put it), that’s for other people, old bean. Meanwhile, here is an old and wonderfully acerbic review of a book touting Malthusianism by Ronald Bailey. The other night I dined with Michael Jennings, and the question arose between us about how the political atmosphere of Britain now compared with the atmosphere of Britain in slightly earlier times, the most obvious comparison being between now and the time just before – and at the start of – the Thatcher era. Whether Michael himself asked about how 1979 and thenabouts compared to now I cannot recall. Probably not, because in 1979 he was a young boy living in Australia. But I found myself trying to answer this question, because I believe that the comparison is rather intriguing. Economically, Britain then and Britain now are in a rather similar mess, created by similar policies. The government was then, and is now, spending more than it can comfortably raise from us in taxes. Then as now, international conditions had reduced what the government could comfortably spend, but the government found it hard to react rationally. So much, briefly, for the similarities. But the differences are huge. These differences are in the party politics of it all. → Continue reading: 1979 and now – similar economics but different politics |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]()
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recent Comments