Condoms and Chocolate Milk

Some random thoughts and observations on the absurdities of living under modern liberalism from past week's news:

The nutrition Nazis at various school districts are banning chocolate milk from our schools, citing its high sugar content. The ACLU has been successful in getting condom distribution programs in many school districts. So our kids cannot buy a carton of chocolate milk for lunch at school but they can get condoms.

I’m not sure why Eric Holder thought that bringing KSM to New York for a civilian trial was such a dandy idea. New Yorkers are concerned that it will highlight the city as a terrorist target. It provides KSM with a pulpit from which to spew his hateful view of the world, and will be a terrific recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Finally, this is a man whose life mission is to destroy the U.S. Why do we offer him the protections of our civilian legal system? Can Mr. Holder explain why this is the best possible option?

Last week, Obama implored us not to “rush to judgment” about Islamic fundamentalism’s role after Nidal Hasan brutally gunned down our soldier’s at Fort Hood. This is the same person that told us that he didn’t know what the facts were but that the Cambridge police acted stupidly when they arrested Henry Louis Gates. Again, Islamic terrorists get deferential treatment while the folks that are there to protect us are presumed guilty.

Months after General McChrystal asked for 40,000 more troops, we still don’t have an answer from our commander-in-chief on his troop request to prosecute the “necessary war.” In my business, not making a decision is making a decision. Is it me, or is there something inverted about an administration that is more decisive about limiting executive pay than winning a war?

Dick Durbin (D-IL) is tripping over himself trying to get the Gitmo detainees housed in Illinois because it will create jobs. That is about as crazy a rationale for exposing us to an increased security risk as I’ve ever heard.

The New York Times today carried the headline, “GM Shows Sign It Is Recovering Despite New Loss: White House is Pleased”. Doesn't the juxtaposition of those statements and the tone of them together sound weird to you? To my ear, it was eerily imperious. Perhaps the Times sees why the White House is pleased; we are ever closer to the Marxist utopia with the government owning the means of production.

Meanwhile, President Obama was caught on film bowing to Emporor Akihito in Japan. He was similarly seen bowing to the Saudi King last April. I’ve adjusted my expectations. At least he has not apologized for Hiroshima—yet.

The flu season is in full swing and we still don’t have enough H1N1 vaccine to go around. Just imagine the scathing editorials at the Times if this had been the case on George Bush’s watch.

Rocket Men

While it is true that liberty and limited government are values that are deeply ingrained in my being, there are problems that are appropriate for government to solve. Indeed, there are problems that only government can solve. The problem is that they are limited in scope and duration and there are so few models for success. In the current health care debate, for instance, an easy way to puncture the arguments of the left is simply to ask, “What is your model for success?” Amtrack? The US Postal Service? Public Housing? Public Education? The Department of Energy (founded by Jimmy Carter 30 years ago with the goal of getting us off oil)? If you use the terms and phrases “innovative, “creative,” “sense of urgency,” “results,” “dedicated professionals,” or “accountability” in connection with any of these endeavors, your friends will quietly sidle away from you at cocktail parties.

But one such resounding success was NASA’s Apollo project. I have just finished, the book “Rocket Men: The Epic Story of the First Men on the Moon” by Craig Nelson. It recounts the story of the first moonshot, one of the signature achievements of the United States and, really, of mankind in the 20th century. It represents one of the finest arguments against libertarians like me. The first moonwalk is perhaps the finest accomplishment of any government agency, ever, and will likely never be eclipsed.

The book takes us through the commitment of John F. Kennedy to land a man on the moon and safely return him by the end of the decade. This was a formidable goal, as the U.S. fell behind the Soviets as our Cold War adversaries successfully launched Sputnik and put the first man into space. Eventually, we scrambled to catch up and overcame numerous technological setbacks and the tragic fire of Apollo 1 to put Neil Armstrong on the moon in July of 1969. What struck me about the success of Apollo is that NASA behaved quite differently than most government bureaucracies—people worked with real passion and dedication, there was a real sense of urgency, problems were solved creatively, the entire program was fraught with risks. Yet, in many ways, NASA behaved more like a private, profit seeking enterprise than a lethargic leviathan that we see in most modern government agencies where risk taking and urgent problem solving and creativity give way to inflexible rules and procedures, indifferent staff, and the protection of certain select constituencies.

Take, for example, this quote from Rocket Men:

And that’s why they worked those sixteen hour days and eight day weeks…’those people were the reason that you could get almost anything done. There was never a paucity of ideas. Imagination was rampant, and most of it very good imagination on how to solve problems. And a group of people could get around the table, work together, and in a noncompetitive—it seemed noncompetitive, at least at the time—and the sum of the output of that table was far greater than just the individual parts that were there. It was really an exiting time to be involved. And that’s why Apollo 13 was saved. That’s why Apollo 11 landed at the time it did. It’s really why any of the in-flight emergencies were dealt with successfully, is because the people could get together and figure out how to solve the problem.’


When was the last time you heard those things said in connection with a government project? Sixteen hour days? Imagination? Ideas? Problem solving? The only time you typically see government workers or legislators working sixteen hour days is when they are attempting to jam through a big tax increase.

What made the Apollo program different and what lessons can be drawn from it?

First, there was a clear, measurable and unambiguous goal in mind-land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth. Goals such as ending poverty, advance the national, economic and energy security of the United States (DOE website) and other such goals are too broad, too quixotic, and, therefore, unachievable. Almost by definition, they perpetuate a bloated, aimless bureaucracy. Sometimes, it can be even worse. The Federal Reserve’s dual mission of creating maximum employment and stable prices is inherently conflictual. Apollo had a very discrete mission and it was easy to ascertain whether we had achieved it or not.

Second, the program involved technology and competition with an adversary that had at least some military aspects to it. The Apollo program had a sense of urgency to it because the Soviets were ahead of us in space exploration at the time. The Soviets launched a satellite first and put the first man in space. Our national pride was wounded, and indeed, some saw the Soviet conquest of space as the beginnings of an existential threat. We were powerfully motivated and directed to catch and surpass the Communist regime. In other words, as in the private sector, surpassing a competitor was an important aspect of the mission.

Third, and most importantly, the program did not involve a wealth transfer from one group to another. As a result, the program did not create a large constituency of entitlement holders and a large lobbying force. Sure, there were some direct and indirect financial beneficiaries, but it was not so large as to create an effort to grow an ever enlarging pool.

I highly recommend Rocket Men. It is a reminder of how rare it is that a government endeavor actually achieves what it sets out to accomplish.