Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Kardashevian Aspirations: E-Cat Weekly -- January 26, 2012
Kardashevian Aspirations: E-Cat Weekly -- January 26, 2012: pesn.com Defkalion offers testing of cold fusion reactors Rossi told Ny Teknik that "the work of the University of Bologna has already st...
Why Constellation failed and why Romney is not the answer
Another long title for a short post. It is a thought, not fully fleshed out, but there are others who can do it better.
That would be Bill Whittle, here, describing what's wrong with how the government does space. To put it succinctly, it is a matter of incentives. The government's incentives are to get bigger, but not necessarily better. With respect to the space program, the government does cost plus contracts as opposed to fixed price contracts.
The result of cost plus contracts is what we have today. A government that spends 17 billion dollars a year and can't get anybody to a 100 billion dollar space station.
The result of fixed price contracts is real hardware that can do real things at a tiny fraction of the cost. Spacex's Falcon 9 is but one example, as discussed in Whittle's video
So Romney just announced his space team and it looks like a rehash of the failed Constellation program. Romney ridicules Gingrich's moonbase, but should that be so lightly dismissed? It shouldn't be lightly dismissed because Gingrich has his finger on the pulse of the problem, while Romney doesn't. For example, Gingrich wants to do prizes, although he may do better by just doing fixed price contracts. Yet, Gingrich is on the right track because he is incentivizing it better than Romney. The use of prizes may have its difficulties in getting implemented, but the commercial space initiatives have been implemented with successful results so far. The key point here is to build upon success, not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Romney likes to fire people, but he ought to look at himself a little closer in the mirror. Otherwise, he may be the one who gets fired. Rightly so, in my opinion.
Romney claimed in the most recent debate that a moon base would cost a trillion dollars. If he used the Constellation paradigm, which he appears to be favoring, that is what it could cost. So, it only demonstrates that he doesn't understand the nature of the problem, his finger is not on the pulse as Gingrich's is. On the other hand, if he used a fixed price contract model, which is closer to what Gingrich proposes, the cost would be only a tiny fraction, just as it has been in the commercial space program.
To put it short and sweet, the private sector does it better and cheaper.
If both candidates don't improve their messaging, neither will be able to beat Obama on this issue. Otherwise, Obama may take over this issue himself. Yet the original concept began during the Bush administration. They had better remind voters of that. Voters should also be reminded that cost plus contracts are why governments get too big and run up trillion dollar deficits.
As a high profile program, the space program can show the way to a better government as well as to new worlds.
That would be Bill Whittle, here, describing what's wrong with how the government does space. To put it succinctly, it is a matter of incentives. The government's incentives are to get bigger, but not necessarily better. With respect to the space program, the government does cost plus contracts as opposed to fixed price contracts.
The result of cost plus contracts is what we have today. A government that spends 17 billion dollars a year and can't get anybody to a 100 billion dollar space station.
The result of fixed price contracts is real hardware that can do real things at a tiny fraction of the cost. Spacex's Falcon 9 is but one example, as discussed in Whittle's video
So Romney just announced his space team and it looks like a rehash of the failed Constellation program. Romney ridicules Gingrich's moonbase, but should that be so lightly dismissed? It shouldn't be lightly dismissed because Gingrich has his finger on the pulse of the problem, while Romney doesn't. For example, Gingrich wants to do prizes, although he may do better by just doing fixed price contracts. Yet, Gingrich is on the right track because he is incentivizing it better than Romney. The use of prizes may have its difficulties in getting implemented, but the commercial space initiatives have been implemented with successful results so far. The key point here is to build upon success, not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Romney likes to fire people, but he ought to look at himself a little closer in the mirror. Otherwise, he may be the one who gets fired. Rightly so, in my opinion.
Romney claimed in the most recent debate that a moon base would cost a trillion dollars. If he used the Constellation paradigm, which he appears to be favoring, that is what it could cost. So, it only demonstrates that he doesn't understand the nature of the problem, his finger is not on the pulse as Gingrich's is. On the other hand, if he used a fixed price contract model, which is closer to what Gingrich proposes, the cost would be only a tiny fraction, just as it has been in the commercial space program.
To put it short and sweet, the private sector does it better and cheaper.
If both candidates don't improve their messaging, neither will be able to beat Obama on this issue. Otherwise, Obama may take over this issue himself. Yet the original concept began during the Bush administration. They had better remind voters of that. Voters should also be reminded that cost plus contracts are why governments get too big and run up trillion dollar deficits.
As a high profile program, the space program can show the way to a better government as well as to new worlds.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Tactics and Strategy as applied to Political Campaigns
Phew! A rather long post for a rather short post. The post will be short because it is a recent thought with the respect to the kind of candidates in this presidential election.
Romney is better tactically. The most recent debate in Tampa Florida illustrated this. He gets an advantage because he prepares very well. Gingrich doesn't prepare at all, according to sources. He likes to "improvise like a jazz musician". This confers an advantage to anyone who prepares and evidently Romney prepares. According to some sources, Gingrich couldn't get the expected advantage that a good preparation could have given to him.
Gingrich, on the other hand, is better strategically. He sees the Big Picture very well. The nuts and bolts of the campaign is the problem. Romney can raise money, prepare better, and thus execute better. Gingrich, on the other hand, can write books and give lectures. He can debate better, but he loses opportunities because he doesn't prepare well enough against a lesser opponent. He can be supreme on the main points, but he falls down when he has to deal with the minutia.
Dick Morris, the pollster, said that Gingrich should have used his good poll numbers in the month before Iowa's caucuses, in order to raise money. When he failed to do this, Romney ran the attack ads that ruined his surge. Now that Gingrich has won S. Carolina, he has failed to exploit that victory because of Romney's response. He changed tactics and prepared better for his debates. He also went on the attack and forced Gingrich to get off message. Although this doesn't mean Romney has the better grasp of the main issues, it does mean that he has a better grasp of winning an election.
Morris also said that a Romney victory will pretty much wrap it up for him. That's two times that Gingrich had an opportunity to put Romney away and he failed. That failure may have cost him the nomination. According to Morris, the month of February favors Romney. If Morris is right, Gingrich may not recover this time. The
failure to exploit his victory in S. Carolina will be his downfall. Although he has a fine grasp of history, and a good understanding of where we are as a country, it won't result in a victory. The victory will go to the general who can win his battles. Those battles have to be fought on the battlefield, not in a lecture hall, or in a book.
This is not a pleasant thought, and it may be incorrect. But the indications at this writing do not appear to be good for Gingrich.
Romney is better tactically. The most recent debate in Tampa Florida illustrated this. He gets an advantage because he prepares very well. Gingrich doesn't prepare at all, according to sources. He likes to "improvise like a jazz musician". This confers an advantage to anyone who prepares and evidently Romney prepares. According to some sources, Gingrich couldn't get the expected advantage that a good preparation could have given to him.
Gingrich, on the other hand, is better strategically. He sees the Big Picture very well. The nuts and bolts of the campaign is the problem. Romney can raise money, prepare better, and thus execute better. Gingrich, on the other hand, can write books and give lectures. He can debate better, but he loses opportunities because he doesn't prepare well enough against a lesser opponent. He can be supreme on the main points, but he falls down when he has to deal with the minutia.
Dick Morris, the pollster, said that Gingrich should have used his good poll numbers in the month before Iowa's caucuses, in order to raise money. When he failed to do this, Romney ran the attack ads that ruined his surge. Now that Gingrich has won S. Carolina, he has failed to exploit that victory because of Romney's response. He changed tactics and prepared better for his debates. He also went on the attack and forced Gingrich to get off message. Although this doesn't mean Romney has the better grasp of the main issues, it does mean that he has a better grasp of winning an election.
Morris also said that a Romney victory will pretty much wrap it up for him. That's two times that Gingrich had an opportunity to put Romney away and he failed. That failure may have cost him the nomination. According to Morris, the month of February favors Romney. If Morris is right, Gingrich may not recover this time. The
failure to exploit his victory in S. Carolina will be his downfall. Although he has a fine grasp of history, and a good understanding of where we are as a country, it won't result in a victory. The victory will go to the general who can win his battles. Those battles have to be fought on the battlefield, not in a lecture hall, or in a book.
This is not a pleasant thought, and it may be incorrect. But the indications at this writing do not appear to be good for Gingrich.
Setting the record straight on Newt
Even one of Romney supporters says:
I think Romney is in trouble. But the polls indicate he has a lead. Ann Coulter is still defending him and attacking Newt. But if he has to lie, or be less than truthful, he is in trouble.
Update:
Gingrich questions Romney's truthfulness in new TV ad | Florida politics blog: The Buzz | Tampa Bay Times
Gingrich didn't hit on this too hard in the debate. Was that a mistake?
One thing is undeniable: Newt was in the vanguard of challenging the Democratic hegemony of Congress.
I think Romney is in trouble. But the polls indicate he has a lead. Ann Coulter is still defending him and attacking Newt. But if he has to lie, or be less than truthful, he is in trouble.
Update:
Gingrich questions Romney's truthfulness in new TV ad | Florida politics blog: The Buzz | Tampa Bay Times
Gingrich didn't hit on this too hard in the debate. Was that a mistake?
Lying about Reagan to get Romney elected
legalinsurrection.com
quote:
Comment:
There does appear to be a pattern of inaccuracy, if you want to use that word, or a stronger word. I don't think Romney is particularly comfortable with the truth.
quote:
I have warned you about the way Romney was running his campaign, and now that one of his operatives has been caught lying about Reagan and the heroes of the Reagan revolution in order to elect someone who was anti-Reagan and anti-conservative when we needed support most, I’m not letting it go.
Comment:
There does appear to be a pattern of inaccuracy, if you want to use that word, or a stronger word. I don't think Romney is particularly comfortable with the truth.
Final Florida GOP debate
H/T 2012 Election Central
The full debate below. Note: I haven't had time to watch it.
Update:
After watching this debate, I've got a bad feeling about this. Too much disinformation is out there and this could lead to a less than optimal outcome.
The problem is that Newt's space ideas are assumed to be expensive. The current system is what is expensive on a value basis. Even if spending is kept constant, but gets poor results, it is still expensive. If you aren't getting your money's worth, you are paying too much. The assumption that it take hundreds of billions of dollars to go to the moon and set up a base is just plain ridiculous.
Both Romney and Santorum hit Newt on this and it may be a bad thing. It doesn't help to have this bit of disinformation keep on getting reinforced by these two guys. As far as I'm concerned, both of them are part of the problem if this is an example of the way they think.
Newt is on the right track. He may not get it 100% right in all of its elements, but he closer to being on the right track with regards to space than the others were.
Update:
Here's Romney saying something that is clearly an exaggeration, to put it mildly. It won't cost "trillions" to go back to the moon. Project Apollo cost $170 billion in 2005 dollars, and had to start nearly from scratch.
If a President Gingrich got Congress to offer a $15 billion prize for Stone, or anybody else, in order to lead an expedition to the moon, and set up a refueling depot, somebody might finance the attempt.
The full debate below. Note: I haven't had time to watch it.
Update:
After watching this debate, I've got a bad feeling about this. Too much disinformation is out there and this could lead to a less than optimal outcome.
The problem is that Newt's space ideas are assumed to be expensive. The current system is what is expensive on a value basis. Even if spending is kept constant, but gets poor results, it is still expensive. If you aren't getting your money's worth, you are paying too much. The assumption that it take hundreds of billions of dollars to go to the moon and set up a base is just plain ridiculous.
Both Romney and Santorum hit Newt on this and it may be a bad thing. It doesn't help to have this bit of disinformation keep on getting reinforced by these two guys. As far as I'm concerned, both of them are part of the problem if this is an example of the way they think.
Newt is on the right track. He may not get it 100% right in all of its elements, but he closer to being on the right track with regards to space than the others were.
Update:
Here's Romney saying something that is clearly an exaggeration, to put it mildly. It won't cost "trillions" to go back to the moon. Project Apollo cost $170 billion in 2005 dollars, and had to start nearly from scratch.
 |
| Not trillions, but $15 billion according to Bill Stone of Shackleton Energy. |
Newt and his GOP critics
A few observations with respect to the GOP elections prospects in 2012 and Newt's impact on these:
Nothing that I've heard from Newt is as bad as what these guys are saying. Angry Newt? No. It looks like a bunch of losers slamming Newt out of jealousy.
- Newt had nothing to do with what happened in 2006 and 2008. If anything, he may have helped in 2008, or the loss would have been bigger.
- Newt was not invited to speak at the 2000 Republican convention. It was as if he was persona non grata. Thus, he cannot be connected to the Bush administration. That should be a plus.
- There are those who are blaming Newt for the sub par performance in 1998 elections while he was still Speaker. Dole seems to be blaming him for his loss in 1996. But the observations above show that those who were in charge afterwards were the ones responsible for the losses in 2006 and 2008.
- Inasmuch as he helped win in 1994 and did enough to mitigate 2008 losses, I think Gingrich at worst, is no worse than the rest of the GOP. The rest seem to know how to lose elections without Gingrich's help.
- It was the Tea Party movement who won the 2010 elections. Those who protest Newt aren't Tea Partiers. They are the old line party apparatchiks, unless I am missing something.
- The ones slamming Newt may be the same ones slamming the Tea Party. It also may be the same ones who lost in 2006 and 2008.
Nothing that I've heard from Newt is as bad as what these guys are saying. Angry Newt? No. It looks like a bunch of losers slamming Newt out of jealousy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)