Slashdot Mirror
President Bush To Call For Return To Moon?
Brian Stretch writes " According to the National Review: 'When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there. If he does, it will mean that he has decided the United States should once again become a space-faring nation.' Here's hoping. The article also includes talk of nuclear engines and using the moon as a testbed for going to Mars."
A moon base would be so much better than the ISS.
The article says nothing about the method, the cheapest way (just off the top of my head) would be to update the Saturn 5, but (I think) the best solution would be to leverage a Space Station (one in the "right" orbit) and use that as a way station. That way you could reuse a moon obiter lander repeatedly.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Finally, an opportunity to live somewhere that doesn't suck... not yet anyway...
Bush Phones Home
Must ... cover ... up ... economy problems ... iraq problems ... re-election soon ...
Earlier this year, the Space Exploration Act of 2003 was introduced into congress. It laid out a long-term, logical, realistic timeline for space exploration in a schedule that called for manufacturing facilities at the lagrange points and establishing permanent research bases on the moon and mars within 20 years. It was designed with an eye to what could best further the understanding and goals of science, and described oversight procedures to ensure that NASA actually kept to its schedule. It was about everything you could ask of a proposed revamping of the space program. The bill got almost no attention in the mainstream press, it was referred to a house subcommittee on 9/16/2003, and that was the last that was heard of it. I don't know if that means it's still alive or not, but either way, it's chances don't look good now.
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I suspect that by the time we actually figure out what this new plan is, it will turn out to be utterly unambitious, re-doing what we've already done (um.. let's go to the moon! yeah!) for the sole sake that we feel like we have to one-up the Chinese. I hope I'm wrong, but this appears it is going to be politics driving science, not the other way around, and I question its usefulness if it is going to be implemented in the same closed and uninclusive manner it's being planned.
I mean, the direction of these plans look like they're being guided directly by NASA. I want to say that's a good thing. But NASA lately has shown a distinct lack of vision. NASA as of late has almost been more about lip service than anything-- being able to say, "Yup! We can get into low earth orbit!" or "We've got a space station!", but then not not actually caring what interesting or forward-looking things we can do as a result. This leads me to worry that if NASA is deciding what we do next, it will be the same sort of lip service-- just going to the moon for the sake of going to the moon, and not exploring what revolutionary or groundbreaking things that we could do in the process.
On the other hand, this looks like it would involve an increase in NASA's budget. I've heard it charged the problem with NASA's lack of ambition of late is not the leadership, but just that they don't have enough money to do anything more than the bare minimum. An increase in funds might mean they would have breathing room to do great things again. And most of NASA's such problems-- the aimless floundering that's characterized the attempts to replace the Shuttle, for example-- have been due to a lack of direction. A clear set of direction and goals, any of them, no matter now small, could once again cause NASA to streamline and orient itself toward getting positive work done. Bush's plan would very likely provide that sort of orientation.
Anyway, I just don't know what to think here. Am I being too pessimistic?
There will never be a permanent settlement on the moon. It's pretty well known by now that there is not enough water there to sustain any kind of colony of any sort (that ice cap turned out to be way too thin).
As an Aerospace Engineering major at WVU let me be the first to say, YIPPIE!!!! That is all. We now return you to your regularly scheduled trolls.
"We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
1. There are weapons of mass destruction on the moon.
2. Saddam or Osama, or both, may be hiding in a moon crater.
3. The moon is made of oil.
4. Don't want those pinko commie Chinese taking over our moon.
5. Because the Mooninites are really funny and he wants to meet them.
We always knew Bush was looney... now he's just plain lunar.
Oh jesus. And how about some bread and circuses?
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Bush's government doesn't have the money to pay for his military enterprises.
It lacks the money to provide for basic infrastructure.
At a time when commercial space flight is being touted as the most logical course, Bush is now saying that he wants to send people back to the moon?
I'm all for the new frontier. It would be great if people were inspired about space again. But Bush does not deserve to be the one to get us there. He couldn't even manage the Houston Astros.
...is now really the right time to be doing this? There's a lot going on in the US right now (Iraq war, etc.) in the middle of a recession, and going to the moon just doesn't seem like the greatest idea for us right now.
I meta-mod all positive moderation Unfair, because it's abuse of the system.
If Dubby does push for us to get serious about space travel again it would be the fist time I ever agreed with him on something. :p
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
YAY! Republicans have finally left that stodgy old '50s stereotype and stepped into the 60s!
Do we have the money to fund this?
We need to do it but I don't know if we can afford it.
Huh. Looks like we geeks may get what we want. And president Bush will be the one giving it to us. Odd.
Stupid like a fox!
While I love the idea and think it'd be a great thing to do, I feel that it'd also be pretty much financially impossible to make happen as things stand right now. Going to the moon would cost billions upon billions of dollars when the government's already running a half-trillion dollars a year in the hole. This time, there isn't the pressing urge for dominance and brass-balls bragging rights that there was during the peak of the cold war, and without such a rivalry, I doubt the motivation exists within government to find funding for a project this massive in scope.
Going to Mars seems to be a popular idea. Before we try establishing a permanent base on Mars, even unmanned, I think we need to prove ourselves by going back to the moon AND staying there. I.e., establish a moon base, even a small one.
Obviously the moon is much closer. More importantly, we don't need to worry about the synchronization of our orbits. The moon is always roughly the same distance away from us no matter what day of the year it is. This makes it a much easier target to hit than Mars no matter what time it is.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
You know, the tinfoil hatters who will now claim that we never landed on the moon and this is an attempt by Bush to steal the next election and distract us from Iraq.
On to Europa!
IF Bush makes this statement during his speech, I will be completely in shock. As much as I dislike Bush, I think the United States definetely needs to reestablish a space presense, and on the moon, that would be great. The ISS is turning up to be more hype than anything else, anything more established.
By creating a real, strong, presence on the moon, we would research and develop much more technology, at a more distinguishable rate, and the rewards would be plentiful enough based on the technology that develops from increased space expenditure. Even if the moon is completely dead, and there are no resources, and no valuable information for us to gather on it, I think we would still come out ahead in this situation.
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
uhh... I still can't tell if dubya wants to send the moon to mars or not.
But still,
Cause, last I checked we didn't exactly have a surplus.
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
That's the best idea I've ever heard! Lets rocket Bush to the Moon! ;)
Coincidentally, I just rented a couple of the Space 1999 DVDs from Netflix and all I can say is this is a bad idea. Magnetic fields will hurt the lunarnauts' brains and make them attack the other colonists!
And need I mention the Terrible Space Secret? I think not...
I will say Space 1999 had the coolest looking ships of any series. They actually seemed to be well designed and functional.
I always thought he might be a bit looney, but this would sinch it.
... every day that goes by, it looks more and more like he might be right :)
I'm VERY curious to see what the next election will bring.
Someone claiming to be a time traveler once suggested that in 2004/2005, America would be hit with a civil war
The moon was an appealing target in the 1960s to show the USSR did not have superiority. No offense to other countries, but we just don't have that challenge anymore. Today's enemies are camel-fuckers living in tents in some 3rd world country.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Didn't Slashdot say Bush was going to announce Project Prometheus(go to Mars) in his last State of the Union? I think I'll just wait and see what he actually says in his speach before I get too excited.
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
It is time to liberate the people of the moon!
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Bush has done everything he can to give the U.S. a massive $6E12 deficit, and now he calls for this?
He knows there is no way the congress can, or would, appropriate the money for this, given the deficit, so he's just blowin' smoke for PR (read: election) purposes.
Sorry, George. Ain't fooled.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
I love the idea of expanding space exploration, and it has a good chance of bi-partisan support, but with the already grossly engorged nation budget, how in the hell are we going to fund something like this? Just plunge deeper into debt? Furthermore, I haven't seen much to address the management issues at NASA being done...this could wind up going very, very wrong.
hmm. smells like re-election politics to me. "keep me in office, and I will return us to the moon within my second regime... er, term as your president..."
Kip Hawley is an idiot.
Bush sure has his priorities straight - conquer the world, first Iraq, then the Moon and then maybe even Cuba. But seriously - can the States afford anything right now that has nothing to do with their social programs? I normally would never question the necessity for the space programs etc., I am all for the further development of science and progress of humans into the space, but I don't see how US can pay for this right now, whith the kind of spendings they have in Iraq....
One thing for sure: if there is any life on the Moon, they better pray that there is no oil there, or they will have to be 'liberated'.
You can't handle the truth.
When I look at his record for the promises he made about things I was in favor of... I'll believe him after he delivers. Even then I'll check to make sure he didn't sabotage the project, so that it will fold immediately after he leaves office.
OTOH, Texas has this big space center, so this might be a way to spread some cash around back home. So it's possible he doesn't have any motives other than the obvious ones. O, and he has this brother who's governor of Florida. They might be in for a cash infusion too. OK. He has "legitimate" reasons. But the first paragraph stands. (He's so far welched on most of the promises that I thought important.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Once again, America is following someone else's lead into space. I think it's an unfortunate artifact of our political system that no major scientific project can be planned more than 4 years ahead -- because the next president will start by cutting costs, and the first things to cut are always the nonessential niceties, like space travel and medicare. Only a major embarassment, such as a Communist nation (Russia in the past, China currently) waving at us from orbit, can prod America into doing something entirely new and daring. Well, I guess it's better than nothing...
>|<*:=
Booo hisss... Old joke...
Badda bimm...
That joke predates Clinton so you can't attribute it to him, even... My God! I heard that as a child (and I'm in my 50's). Benny Godman could have told that joke... (Ok... Anyone in this crowd even know who he WAS?)
Recycled bottled water.
No waste at all. Save the environment while quenching your thirst.
I have been pwned because my
Did you know that the blue print of Saturn V rocket where destroyed before the Shuttle progeam started?
So, what rocket can be used instead?
Atlas 4? Delta 4? Who knows!
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
Well, if you want to convince the world that you really are the superior force, an all-American vantage point in the (short-range) heavens says supremacy like nothing else. Not even invasion.
Returning to the moon in whatever form and for whatever reason fits the neocon/PNAC goals very well.
But I too hope that some good will come out of it and not just a single-minded, politicised NASA.
He's just figuring we might find WMD there.
America proposes to send just Bush to the Moon? I'm sure such a proposal would do much to re-establish cooperation with other countries.
water would be required not only for drinking, but for many fundemental functions of a colony (we would need to bring a lot of water).
back in march they thought there was lots of water on the moon, but new data shows that this is very unlikely.
He could be the first presidential astronaut!
Maybe we can get him to stay there and leave us alone...
"And that's one small step for us folks, and... hey guys, where are you going? Wait! What about my tortillaaaaaaaas!!!!"
why do we *need* to do it, at least at this point in time? Would we necessarily learn more about the moon , or anything else than we already do?
I understand getting the space shuttle program back on track, because tonnes of experiments carried out in zero (or near zero) gravity has substantial implications for us here on earth. Perhaps the first landing on moon was a test of technology (and the "human spirit" bullshit), but what good is it going to do to go to the moon again? It's not ever going to support life, nor
is there any real chance of "mining" the moon once we've wasted all resources here on earth.
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
Unsatisfied with merely pissing off most of Earth, the Bush Administration announced it's intention to start annoying the rest of the Solar System.
I think our country getting active in space exploration again is a great idea. HOWEVER -- Is it just my paranoia, or does this seem like one of many diversionary tactics of the current administration, designed solely to pull public attention away from the fact(s) that:
(1) bin Laden ('Old Salami BinBox' to me and some of my friends) is still at large.
(2) No matter how much spin has been put on it, the Iraqi war never had any solid justification that I can see. And Hussein ('Saddened HoseHead') is still at large as well.
(3) Our economy is still a shambles.
(4) The 'YOU-CAN-SPAM' bill is all but signed into law, thus (very possibly) bringing about the end of viable E-mail as we know it.
(5) The RIAA and MPAA continue to run roughshod over fair use rights.
I could go on, but I think we all get the idea. This is an election year coming up. The Shrub will pull out anything he or his advisors can think of to try and get himself reelected, and I really think that this is just one example.
Mod this down if you want. Heck, label it "Flamebait" if you want. I don't pretend to have even a hint of one answer, let alone all of them, but it certainly seems to me like there are other more pressing problems that need dealing with than making another trip to one very dead and airless rock.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
I *knew* I should have gone into fungineering...
Nothing but more lunacy from the Bush administration.
The cheapest way with current technology might well be to use Russian rockets. 'Course that puts a big ding in the presidential pride, right? A bit like the way the last series of American rockets using Russian engines only worse.
:v)
International organisations such as The Artemis Society know a lot more about this kind of thing than you realise. I work for TransOrbital, so I know what I'm on about. I speak here in an unofficial capacity, by the way.
Resurrecting Saturn V won't work. The teams are disbanded or dead of old age, the buildings re-used, the launchpads were demolished for the shuttles, and they don't make the tools to make the bits anymore.
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if it was an international effort. That way when the US Government gets cold feet again, or is unable to meet its end of the bargain again, the mission will continue and mankind as a whole gets something out of it.
Vik
Has this guy got a clue about budgets?
v e.com/4239a600.jpg)
Sorry, I'm sure to get modded as a troll for this, and I'm jazzed about our space programs getting money they need, but I'm also more terrified of the condition this country is going to be in under Dubya's rule.
I mean, if you haven't seen this chart, check out:
Bush's Budget Deficit (Google cache, an original is at http://dean-justinspoliticaljournal.cafeprogressi
$87 billion for Iraq, tax cuts aplenty, and now he wants space ships too? Oy.
In the Portland, Ore area and like card games? Check out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portlandgames/
What do you mean, "this time"? We really went there last time, you know. Or are you one of those "Capricorn One" clowns?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Where does that figure come from? US government programs are horribly inefficient. Like Corn ethanol that midwestern farmers insist is the next big thing... most of the money goes to ADM. For every $1 in revenue ADM has related to corn ethanol, the US gov't spends $30. It would be far cheaper to just pay the corn farmers to pick their pud than to pretend corn ethanol will ever be useful.
Anyhow, tax cuts are just as good for an economy as gov't spending. That tax cut money goes somewhere, maybe it goes into a bank account and the bank can lend the money out for someone to buy a house. Maybe it buys a yacht. Maybe it buys something else. That's better than being in the gov't coffers and ending up paying for a study on some senator's pet project with little or no redeemingvalue.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
He'll have to do more than say "let's go back" before I call his plan bold. Okay, so he might mention the idea of establishing a permanent Lunar base and of going to Mars. As the article said, his father already did that:
I'd like to see this Lunar base and Martian mission. But I don't have high hopes that it will be any time soon. And I don't believe that Dubya will have anything to do with it.
Right up until the Bush administration, I would have been the biggest cheerleader in the world. But this is coming from the guy who is running a single-year budget deficit of five hundred billion dollars, $500,000,000,000.00
I cringe at the thought of adding another couple of hundred billion to that particular pile.
This is a budget deficit. It matters. It will hurt.
Now, where did I put my deed and lunar map...
I've been hoping for years that a President will pronounce to the country, like John F. Kennedy did, that he has a serious challenge for our nation and our national security depends on it.
And no I'm not talking about wasting time or money going to the moon. I'm talking about a full mobilation of our nations resources to tackle the problem of alternative fuels. Like NASA was challenged, and the nation was captivated, we need a similar program for alternative fuel research, implementation, and production. I mean massive funding and resource allocation, not a few tax breaks that allows Detroit to say they are working the issue while draggint their feet for another decade.
Unfortunately, I think the true purpose for going to the moon again would be to rape her of her resources and commercialize her. No thanks.
Hopeuflly, Bush will try to unleash and provide a framework for America's creative genius. The big company / NASA / politics aproach is not working. The consolidate aero companies are currently wracked with scandal, though it's hard to think of ways to provide nuclear propulsion without heavy industry. The Wright Brothers were bicycle makers, but they beat out the whole world with it's huge companies, landed aristocrats and tyrants. We did it 100 years ago and many people are working to do it again today with cheap manned space flight. I don't know how Bush can encourage that kind of effort, but I know that it can and must be done. We shall see what Bush has to offer on the 100th aniversery of heavier than air flight. Simply paying attention to that day is a very good sign.
This is way better talk than the defeatist nonsense heard just a few years ago about ignoring the infinite resources waiting for us in space. Pro nuclear, pro space, great stuff.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Thank you, it's about time I found another person who thinks logically on this website. I thought slashdotters called themselves *scientists* - it never ceases to amaze me sometimes just how ignorant people on this site really are. You'd think pro-big government and scientist would be oxymorons. But there's plenty of that type of thinking on this site. And it's sad - if only they would truly think critically instead of being suckered in by the extremely biased media.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
Those Vegans might have some dirty nukes pointed at cow-eating infidels...
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
Realize that the nuclear of today is not the nuclear of yesterday.. our understanding of physics is better, the engineering is better and we are now aware of the importance of safety mesaures to protect the environment in the case of spacecraft failure.
-
It is a shame that your predecessors never thought about this, eh? Nothing like The Great Society or the Public Works Program.
Look, if we go to the moon, we will be investing money in research which will lead to new products that we can sell to everyone else. Remember all the cool things we recieved from the Space Race? Plus, being a geek was cool!
is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
Until Bush grants NASA a good chunk of cash (35 - 45 billion sounds about right) and somehow passes a law preventing the next administration from rolling back the grant, I won't be convinced. What if he just spouts rhetoric, then never funds it fully (remember fuel cell cars in the state of the union)? It's just a load of hyperbole until that time.
NASA needs to *know* that the cash will be available to fund crazy stuff, stuff that's way out there. We'll have to rebuild/repair quite a bit, launch facilities, bigger rockets, a massive hiring spree (NASA's hemorrhaged quite a few talented people in the last decade).
If this is for real, perhaps I'll switch my major (from cs, of course) to someone more related to space....
we might be getting back to von Braum's original vision. Back during America's first display of interest in the space program he called for a sensible program of exploration to establish a firm presence in space. First orbital missions, then moon missions, establishing a (hopefully productive) colony on the moon, and use that infrastructure to stage a Mars mission. However, due to the threat of a Communist outer space, we bypassed this plan and went straight to the moon. IMHO, we would have been better off in the long run if we had followed his plan. But then again, the public didn't know the whole picture of the Russian space program - they just saw a fleet of ballistic missiles dropping from Sputnik XIV. Anyway, I hope that this renewed initiative, whatever the timing, gets us off of this planet. I say it's about time.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjami
I don't really want to burst anybody's bubble here, but it ain't gonna happen.
We are not living the same political age as when Jack sent us to the moon, nor is Bush in the same position of political power that Jack was when he sent us to the moon.
Bush can say anything he wants, but it's going to go through the same political process as anything else he suggests at the moment.
Need I point out that his stock is a bit low at thet moment and this looks like an obvious ploy to to parlay patriotism into personal support?
The problem being that in 1957 we were blindsided by an outside "enemy" nation and clamored to regain a feeling of national supremecy.
Bush has blindsided himself.
This rocket ain't gonna fly.
KFG
OK, did any one else find it strange that the article didn't mention JFK? I mean it is sort of an obvious lazy thing to mention, so maybe since it was so obvious the author found it best to ignore it. Or maybe it is because mentioning a Kennedy in a positive way or implying that the president is taking hints from JFK would be very out of style for National Review.... just a random observation.
Just think for a second . . .
.) remain neglected.
.
We have just given a major tax break.
We have gotten into a "perpetual" war, with no end in site (LAST month was the bloodiest for us . . . exactly WHEN did major combat end!?). We have already committed $83 BILLION dollars, and we will have to commit more.
Domestic problems (healthcare, SS, etc . .
Our surplus budget has become a major deficit.
I have always thought space expoloration to be the most nobel activity any nation could invest in, but is this REALITY, folks? Seems to me that this is more about distracting us from the HUGE problems that exist, than anything else.
I thought the idea was to either go commericial or international with space exploration . . . I think our relationships with some MAJOR space fairing nations are still weak as a result of our unilateral military adventures, so I doubt we could do this internationally . .
So we are going to fight an expensive and costly war (this is starting to look more and more like Vietnam, thought I am too young to know that for certain), give MAJOR tax breaks, AND return to the moon.
Come on . . . some ideas are ambitious and some things are just political agendas to get you looking the other way.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Personally, I believe getting off this Earth is the single most important thing to us as a species. Currently, we have all of our "eggs" in one basket, and one single thing can take us all out - a bad asteroid, a nuclear war, etc. I really hate Bush in all other aspects, but if he has a vision for getting off this planet and none of the Democratic candidates do ... I will grudgingly vote for him.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Ha! Ha! Get it? M-O-o-N-e-y! $-h-o-w.
If Bush, Jr. turns out to be a one-termer like his dad, he needs to have a legacy besides completing the transformation of the US into a police state that started in 1947 and accelerated under Clinton.
Anyway, if Bush, Jr. really commits us to returning to the Moon and it's planned properly and funded generously, he'll get my vote in 2004. 2009 isn't that far away for the 40th anniversary of the first Moon landing. Wouldn't that be feather in his cap?
Let's see how long this comment will take to get modded down to Troll.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
If they want to go back to the moon, why the hell did the government cut science research funding to NASA and universities over the years? The government's approach has been to cripple NASA (everything must be cheaper, smaller, quicker).
You don't just "go" to the moon. It would be great to see the government offer more funding to science and NASA though. Could even kick-start the economy within a decade, or in the very least keep it from utter collapse.
Perhaps Bush could get some cheap Russian rockets and have some outsourced Indians fly them around for pennies on the dollar. USA! USA! USA!
Speak truth to power.
Look, the U.S. needs to go to the moon starting tomorrow the way it needed to go pulverize Iraq on March 19. There's no hurry. In fact, a little bit of deliberation will make the U.S. a better space explorer, just as a little bit of patience might have made Bush a hero in Iraq instead of the biggest goof in world politics since Napoleon.
The United States budget will run almost a half trillion dollars in debt this year. Now, some of my fondest memories are of playing sick to watch moon landings in grade school, but I'd much rather spend money on educating kids and college students today who can do space exploration right ten and twenty years from now -- if we've dug out of the financial mess we're wallowing in now.
So no symbolic Republican missions to reproduce 1969 on the moon, thank you. If you're an American and want nonsymbolic space exploration in your lifetime, work to defeat George W. Bush and elect a president who will restore fiscal sanity to the United States. If we're lucky, the president after that, or the president after that, will have a chance to send human beings somewhere useful.
A Saturn 5 is a huge vehicle containing an small command module and a tiny lander. Because of this, the Apollo missions couldn't take that much equipment with them, or stay all that long. Which cut out most of the science. In order to get anything "real" done, a better way must be used than the "old" method. Otherwise it will just be (mostly) another publicity stunt. but...
As far a "the old Saturn 5 team being disbanded", NASA keeps everything and I am sure that the few remaining staff would jump at the chance to get the program running again.
So what's the answer, I don't know lets hash it out here, save NASA some trouble.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Why do you want to go to the moon so badly? I mean, besides for kicks, and there are plenty of places on earth I'm sure you haven't been that are just as wonderous and magnificent, there isn't much of a reason: it's devoid of natural resources that one would need to survive.
What happens if you're up on the moon and there's another space flight halt? What's the point of going back and forth?
The point is: We have no resources on the moon, and we have no cheap way of getting them there. Come up with THAT, and we'd be there in a heartbeat.
The US would be a lot better positioned to secure a return on Kennedy and Johnson's investment in space R&D, if we hadn't squandered Clinton's surplus on open-ended wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and handouts to the oil companies that are threatened by space mining. Instead, China, India and Japan can be "first to be second", standing on the shoulders of giants in America's space program, unencumbered by corporations with vested interests in 20th century scarcity economics. Moonbase Ishi?
--
make install -not war
i'm all for the space program, but given who we're talking about, i can't help but be pessimistic. how many billions of dollars are going to be spent on space 'defense'? spy sattelites, rockets, space-bourne bombers. how high up does a country's air space go anyway?
this could be great, but it could be another way that this government is trying to entrench it's self as the world's only super power.
man, i never sounded like such a radical left conspiracy nut before this guy took office
Unless you are actually AGAINST space exploration, why would you ever speak ill of someone trying to inspire people to become interested, especially at a time when the future of space exploration in America is in more doubt than ever.
Really lame.
While the National Review article might be news to most Slashdotters, this is not news for those who have been following the ongoing space policy review by the Bush Administration. In late October SpaceRef.com first reported that a likely outcome of the policy review would be a call for resuming human flights to the Moon, with a Presidential statement on the issue coming as early as the Wright Brothers centennial speech at Kitty Hawk. On Monday SpaceRef.com followed up that original report with a new one, stating that "the return to the Moon by U.S. astronauts possibly by the end of the next decade" had become the "default" position of those planning the new policy. The National Review article doesn't add anything these two SpaceRef reports already provided.
There is no guarantee, though, that these reports are accurate. On Sunday the Orlando Sentinel reported (alternate link) that any new national space policy would differ little from current plans. This report was based on an analysis of internal NASA documents obtained by the newspaper along with interviews with those in the know. This report is actually not necessarily contradictory with the new SpaceRef report: if you're not planning to send people back to the Moon until the end of the next decade, there's little you need to do differently in the near term.
If you're curious about the current interest (or obsession) some have with crafting a new "vision" for NASA, I recommend the articles "The vision thing" and "Vision revision" at The Space Review. (Disclaimer: I'm the author. :-) This should give you an idea that while many in Washington believe there needs to be a new national space policy or vision, there is little consensus about what that should be. Thus, don't expect any major changes soon.
We must reach the moon first and build a military base to prevent terrorists from using it against us!!!
Q: Which of the states are most closely associated with the space industry?
A: Texas (Houston, home of NASA) and Florida (site of the Kennedy Space Centre).
Q: Which of the states are most closely associated with the Bush family?
A: Texas (where George W. was Governor) and Florida (where Jeb Bush is Governor).
Wow. What an amazing coincidence!
Now Texas is a republican stronghold and real Bush country. So sending a few billion dollars Texas's way is a great way of saying thank you to the folks back home.
On the other hand, Florida is up for grabs. Remember, when the Supreme Court stopped the recount process after the last Presidential election, Al Gore was slightly ahead, and looked like he would have won the Florida vote. Of course, it wouldn't have been so close if all thousands of black voters (90 percent of whom voted for Gore) hadn't been illegally stripped of their votes by wrongly being labelled convicted felons, if the butterfly ballots hadn't have been used (at Pat Buchanon admitted himself, those Jewish voters weren't voting for him), if those chads hadn't been such an issue and if the Republicans hadn't got away with having hundreds of overseas ballots that were clearly not properly filled in time and/or authenticated count in their favour.
Either way, even if you say that Bush was the legitimate winner (which, as I illustrated is a highly contentious point), you have to concede that the Florida voting process was far from perfect and that the state is a key battleground for next year's election.
So, given that Florida's where the war was won/lost(/stolen) last time around, it's doesn't hurt Bush 2004 if Florida's got a big reason to feel good about the current administration.
It's a bit like the illegal steel import tarriffs. The Bush administration knew that they were illegal, the knew that eventually they would be forced by the WTO to abolish them or face severe consequences, but they did their job. While the tarriffs were in place, US steel manufacturers got a nice boost, despite being inefficient compared to their global counterparts, and lots of people in the steel industry had a good reason to vote Republican rather than Democrat when they last went to the ballot box.
Yep, if you want something in business or politics there's nothing like an old-fashioned bribe to grease the wheels and open the doors.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Hi it's embarrassing and i can't even blame it on being drunk, but if he puts people on the moon im (and this is big for me)thinking he might have some qualities. Before, i was thinking it was unwarranted to go in to iraq. But now it seems you guys really are going to need the oil. Go Go Go Im sorry if the english is off. Im from scandinavia (and yes the girls are tall and pretty)
No, it's just the NRO making shit up again. The guy has a book about the shuttle coming out soon, so he's using NRO (The book store that pretends it's a news site!) to try and attract some attention.
/. articles, could you at least have picked the one about making porn at NYU? That I would've been interested in.
And if you're gonna troll Drudge for
So now he wants to be JFK? Let's just hope he doesn't find a Nixon biography next.
...perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there.
for a second there i thought you meant he was volunteering.
### http://www.gunfinger.com ### greed / tec
I may be being a troll here, but I have one simple question for Bush:
.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR IT $HITHEAD?????
The U.S. government is completely broke. We are currently over $100,000,000,000 in the hole this year. We don't have any money. We doooooooooon't have any farking money? Do you not understand that even the United States government can't just print money to cover it's losses? What? Are you going to borrow it back from Haliburton? It's not like you are going to raise taxes this close to elections?
Mod me flamebait, but I'm just asking. .
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
Not if yoou just need it for human delivery.
IF a permenant station on the moon is truly the goal, then we need to send stuff there first. Large containers with supplies, communication satalite, GPS system. then deliver people there to work, then bring them home the old fashioned way, for now. Once a base with a regular population turnover has been established, then begin using new methoids for arrival. Methods that have been in planning and building while settlement takes place.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...they'll want to start storing nuclear waste on the dark side of the moon, and then it'll blow up, and hurl the moon out of orbit, and Martin Landau won't be around to know what to do.
On the bright side, Fox will have material for "When Moons Explode".
Much of the technology we use today can be directly traced back to our space program and the Apollo missions. Where would we be today? Does typewriter ring a bell? (BTW, I love my IBM Correcting Selectric II. Just trying to contrast.)
I read a post that said Bush was just doing this for Texas and his brother in Florida. Of course he is helping, we need it. What was left out was the thousands of jobs, especially in the Tech industry, that will be created. What we need are jobs and a vision for the future. The tech industry won't continue to expand and flurish without a push. A well formed space program will create new technologies that will affect us all. for the decades to come.
And, for all the naysayers who bemoan spending tax dollars in space, please get your facts straight. The tax dollars get spent in Texas, and Utah, and California, and Alabama, and Virginia, and Ohio, etc etc etc. - There is nowhere to spend the money IN space
He probably still thinks it's made out of cheese.
I'm going to be completely pessimistic here, and say that it won't happen.
We have no confirmation that Bush will announce any such plan, and while republicans love to spend money, especially on handouts for big business, this one may be a bit steep.
Additionally, should he announce this, NASA is in no shape to accomplish it. The agency is bloated, outmoded, and far to political. It's long since ceased to be a research and engineering agency, and is now a political animal, intent purely on justifying its budget to congress. It may still be capable of science, but only for political end, and no longer seems able to do science for science's sake.
The only hope, strangely, comes from the military. The recent JSF development program proved that project can still be done with efficiency and transparency, and any hope for space must rest on the same idea (and, if possible, the same team). Both Boeing and Lockheed-Martin both worked with the JSF Development committee, so it wouldn't be a radical change for them. It would be the end of NASA, though the name might survive.
I can see no other way to accomplishing this. Any furtherance of NASA as the entity it is today is doomed to bog down in a hell of bloated management and endless waste. I doubt such radical steps will be taken though, and I must therefore pronounce any American moon mission doomed.
Sorry.
About: Nuclear Powered Engines.
We have had incredible successes using nuclear engines in Navy submarines, wouldn't using a nuclear engine in a space shuttle be the next step? I'm a big fan of nuclear energy!
Hell, back in high school debate, I used to argue for nuclear power as an alternative energy source all the time!
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
This is all about the militarization of space. You can read their plans from the new american century website.
r ic asDefenses.pdf
i nc iples.htm
Quote: To increase their
effectiveness,
ground-based
interceptors like the
Armys Theater
High-Altitude Area
Defense System
must be networked
to space-based
systems. pg. 64
as will be discussed below, space dominance
may become so essential to the preservation
of American military preeminence that it
may require a separate service.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAme
If you've never heard of the NAC website, it's a think tank with all the leading NeoCons behind it. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfield...etc..
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofpr
The PDF was 2000 and if you read it, is become American policy.
If I remember correctly the original 60's moon missions made money. Yep, they were "cash positive". Not directly of course, but all of the spin off technology added more to the economy than the taxes it took to pay for it.
Perhaps it would have been a better investment to take that money and put it in the stock market. I don't have those numbers, and even if it was, who cares? It was a wonderful program because it advanced basic science, created high paying jobs, gave us something positive to look forward to, and "grew" the economy. For a government program, it was a hat trick and then some.
I have no idea if a modern moon or mars program could do that again, but wouldn't it be worth trying? Even if it only broke even economically, wouldn't we be ahead in science and national pride?
Personally I'd like to see more private investment in space, but I think that there is going to have to be a core of federal money to get the ball rolling.
- doug
The Russians are experts at getting and staying in Low Earth Attitude. I might be wrong, but I don't believe that they ever even tested a large booter like the Saturn 5.
Well, they did test one, it just blew up on the launch pad.
What the submitter meant to say way:
:)
President Bush to call for return to moonshine!
He is a Texan, after all
---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
Here's an interesting chart that plots approval ratings for many recent Presidents (Clinton, Reagan, Carter...). I don't know how accurate it is, but it is nice to have some visualization.
I'm sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but really, why is the moon such a temptation? While I realize that there have been several innovations related to space exploration, some of which can be tied to lunar landings, I just can't justify the exorbitant amounts of money needed to go to the moon. Now we're talking about setting up a permanent colony on the moon? I mean, it's great that people are responding to competition and all, but why do we need to play along with this colossal money pit? I realize that somebody will label me as some troll against humanity due to my lack of jumping aboard the moon wagon, but I just don't see the relevance of another lunar landing or, God help us, a Mars landing (manned). Please, enlighten me if there were significant technologies that were directly related to the lunar landings; technologies that completely compensated the enormous costs involved.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
They tested their moon rocket, the N-1, several times in the 60s and early 70s. Each one blew up, mostly due a combination of bad luck, design bureau infighting, and a design that used 30 engines on the first stage alone. (What are the odds of no problems with that?)
They had better luck in the 80s with the "Energia" core booster for their space shuttle clone, the Buran. It was designed so that it could be launched without the heavy shuttle and with extra booster units to achieve very impressive payloads. It successfully launched their shuttle for one unmanned orbital flight, but IIRC the project was canceled after that.
It would be far cheaper to just pay the corn farmers to pick their pud than to pretend corn ethanol will ever be useful.
Have you ever had a drink with Bourbon in it, or Bourbon itself? The mash to make Bourbon, according to some regulatory commission which I don't remember the name of, has to be made of at least 51% corn in order to call itself that name. I know you were talking about the denatured crap they put in gas, but still, good quality, smooth sippin' corn ethanol kicks ass.
/Alcoholic College Student
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
You can argue interpretation, but what I've seen of her work has been factually accurate.
Bunk. GPS uses atomic clocks and trilateration, not the earth's magnetic field. A GPS system would work just fine on the moon. You'd need a constellation of lunar GPS sats and a lunar-based GPS receiver, though, so I guess you would be more correct in stating "YOUR CURRENT GPS WON'T WORK"
There are some scientists etc, that say that a lot of asteroids deposited OIL to earth, because there are a lot of the major hydrocarbons in the rocks. Now also they have found a lot of oil is real real deep down in the earth near where large asteroid impacts have been found to be after disecting the earth with satelites/remote sensing. I doubt a lot of the oil thats real deep down got there by plants if those rocks themselves have been underground for billions of years. If those rocks never saw the surfaces then how did the oil get there?
l t h/ asteroid_oil_991213.htmlr chives/001857.php
So im not saying its the reason for going there, but imagine if deep test drilling did reveal 'solid' oil or oil mixed in the rock in the form of lots of hydrocarbons.
read some of these
http://earthsci.org/newsop/opinion/asteroid.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetear
http://unxmaal.com/mt/a
interesting though it is.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Woah, stop with the conspiracy theories. This actually all came about as a result of a coordinated effort by one particular blog. They decided to create the "Miserable Failure Project" and asked for their readers to stick in a link to this page to establish a link between Dubya and the term "miserable failure", which has worked out exactly as they hoped. There is more info at that link if you're interested in the juicy details.
The crack about Congressional Democrats would likely challenge a presidential declaration that the sky is blue.
In the interest of equal time I'd like to point out any such declaration would likely contain amendments authorizing Ashcroft to eat babies of suspected terrorists, promoting Justice Scalia to Pope of the One True Faith, and paying Halliburton $1 billion to stripmine Yellowstone and sell the tailings as a food additive.
> Bush was accused of it but Gore didnt call for a statewide recount, just recounts in democratic strongholds.
Which was dumb of him, since we later found out that a statewide recount would have given Gore the election. Not that it mattered, since the supreme court stepped into something that was none of their business and handed Bush the election..
>hey, name a SINGLE piece of legislation that Bush vetoed when teh DEMS where in control.
>You cant. he never vetoed ANY legislation to DATE.
Which is another reason he shouldn't be in office. The whole point of our system of government is checks and balances: each part is supposed to keep the others from getting out of hand. The opposing parties are supposed to keep bad bills from getting out of congress, and the executive is supposed to veto any that do.
Twenties Retirement
Just type in "weapons of mass destruction" and hit "im feeling lucky", a windows error screen pops up with a few funny Bush bashing statements.
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
I didn't know Halliburton built space rockets.
You're right about it not having any legs.
We've lost millions of jobs already.
Having a one quarter spike is NOT going to off-set the losses we've already seen.
We're $500 Billion short on the budget.
I'm waiting for someone to do a chart showing the past 20 years. That way people will see what this "big" recovery is.
Besides, NASA is too incompetent to bring this off. They haven't been able to build a new launch vehicle in over thirty years. But they've spent more money trying than they spent on Apollo.
NASA has been described as "the world's largest sheltered workshop". For good reasons.
The PERCENTAGE of people living at or below poverty (without re-defining the poverty level).
Whether this number is increasing or decreasing each year is what matters.
Just so you know.
...now, how about DEBTORS ANONYMOUS! Get that guy to rehab (again), before he ruins us all!
yes, the liberal media. do you mean the new york times which did the lead reporting on whitewater? or do you mean the network news programs that harped on gore's "lies" and yet failed to do things like look into bush's sealed records as governor (and don't be fooled, they're not unsealed now, they're "unsealed") or look into bush's record in the national guard (um, where was he that last year? hm?).
liberal media my ass. right wing media, pretty much. lazy-ass media, oh yeah.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
I think the best for everyone would be, if Bush announced that all barriers currently hindering private firms in their attempts to launch their vehicles into space (mainly licensing and other bureaucratic nonsense) would be immediately abolished.
Of course, he won't do that. Any government's worst nightmare is about people flying around the space freely, out of their control. After all, the colonization of North America occured due to high taxes (and their consequences) in Europe. Nowadays, the taxes are much higher than then, so there is even more incentive to flee from them. Travelling in space may be dangerous, but at the current level of technology, it is probably not more dangerous, than going from Europe to America on a ship was in the 17th century.
Bush didn't steal the election, for Christ's sake, the Supreme Court did. As was befitting the fact that elections are not fucking football games the Florida Supreme Court happilly ignored both Bush and Gore and did what they felt would satisfy them that the law was being upheld. Sadly, the Supreme Court was under the impression that elections are fucking football games in which it is the responsibility of the candidate to fight his side and tough shit for the voters if he doesn't.
Since then, of course, the numbers of conservatives in the country have exploded (I think we're down to 20-something% willing to call themselves "liberal" now) resulting in the 2002 election, and the Democratic party has splintered into Clinton vs. DLC vs. Dean vs. confused conservatives (as much to blame for 2k2 as anything else) while the Republicans have transformed into fucking Voltron or something under DeLay, crushing their enemies and seeing them driven before them to the lamenting of their women.
Ultimately, though, I think that'll be what fucks the Republicans. They aren't made for unity. It burns up all the talk-radio power just holding them together at this point. Sometime soon, sooner if Bush loses, maybe 6 months later if he doesn't, the Christan/neocons are going to have to break with the normal Republicans. Sadly, I think the real Republicans are going to get the shit end of that deal. I just hope somebody's around to slow down the flying monkeys once they shed all those damn rational people that've been holding them down.
How about if Bush announces a balanced budget, and sticks to it, that doesn't cut social security or education but does include enough funding for NASA to get to the moon?
People don't hate Bush because he's Bush.
People hate his "if you ain't with me, you're against me" policies.
The situation is a LOT more complicated than you believe.
We have states (OR) that do not have enough money to pay teachers.
We've lost millions of manufacturing jobs.
We have a HUGE deficit.
We're sending over $100 Billion to Iraq.
We're still sending money to Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, we still have things like the financial mess that is taking BILLIONS of dollars out of people's retirement funds.
Yeah, this is just because his name is Bush.
???
Oh I get it, hating someone because of his (lack of) ideas is worse than hating someone because of the color of their skin.
You got modded up for this????
So I say, let's spend the money and get off this rock once and for all. The potential benefits of making space travel/commerce easier will only make it easier to pay back whatever piddly sum they spend to go back to the moon. Even 20 billion dollars works out to what? Like $50 a person. Not to mention it'll be scaled based on income. Whatever. That's your cable bill for the month
While I'm at it I think i'm gonna go buy that Athlon64 I've been eyeing too.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
Am I the only one who thinks that going to the moon at this point in history is not a good investment? For our current state of technology and economy, it is simply an unsustainable endeavor. We're still using chemical rockets for propulsion, and haven't even perfected nuclear fusion yet, forchrysakes.
Yeah, we can get there, but just think for moment how much cost and effort setting up and maintaining a permanent moonbase will cost us. You thought it was expensive to resupply the ISS, well how many bank-breaking rocket trips per year will it take to support a few people living on the moon, much less Mars?
Wouldn't a wiser investment be to put that space exploration money into fusion research, and the superconducting supercollider, and whatever other "high science" research projects are waiting in the wings or are just a glint in a Caltech professor's eye? How about we first devise a more workable propulsion system and more efficient and transportable energy source, things that also have the fringe benefit of being applicable on Earth, before we spend umpty-five-gazillion on going back to the moon?
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Why do people who bash Bush, with arguments that are not even coherent, get modded up? For example all of the "Poor Economy" posts, does anyone on slashdot not read the news? (8+% gdp growth, highest in 20 years) I think people with ideological differences are mad because Bush is stealing their issues, and getting his accomplished. In other words things are getting done in Washington.
You can throw in the social security and medicare we already know we will owe for those alive right now through to 2040. Estimates for this period range from $40 TRILLION and UP. Tese are the government's own numbers!!
no, i hate bush because he's destroying america, his programs abuse society's most vulnerable, and he's letting his campaign contributors loot the public coffers.
call me weird, but i get a bit tetchy when someone tries to destroy the sweat and blood of millions of americans over 200+ years. pardon my bile if i see public officials pissing away our money to make people who already have more money then they need richer.
so yeah, i hate bush. and i hate what he stands for - greed, lies and indifference to most of his fellow citizens.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
As far as the perpetual war, you must have been asleep in history class. We have not stopped being "at war" for nearly the last 50 years. Try reading a few history books and get a clue. While you are at it look to see who has actually been starting them.
Suddenly the lack of free health care and SS is a problem. When exactly in our history has either been free, and please tell me why they should be? I whole heartedly support emergency care as well vacines and preventative medicine, but full medical coverage will put us in a hole that we will never be able to dig ourselves out of. If you want free health care go live in Europe, but don't whine about the 60% income tax.
These HUGE problems have always existed and always will exist, so when exactly is the right time to goto the moon? The last time we went was when we were on the verge of global nucluer war! Which for some odd reason causes todays issues to pale in comparison
A duh, there are no other MAJOR space fairing nations other than Russians and they cannot afford to pay the bills, so why should we wait around for the Dutch to start a space program?
This current conflict looks nothing like Vietnam, as sad as the casualties are, it's not even close. We are not currently fighting with one hand behind our back like in Vietnam, and our opponent isn't being backed by a major Cold War super power. If anything people are saying we are being too rough on the insurgents.
For example, the moon shot did nothing for computing that would not have appeared soon enough anyway.
Those sanctions are what prevented Saddam from building up his military again.
Which is why Bush jr. had such an easy time conquering Iraq.
Clinton didn't do a great job, and I believe he did launch those attacks to distract the press and public.
But he STILL did a better job than Bush.
actualy the washington post found that Bush would have won.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Name one specific technology that is profitably engaged in modern society that absolutely would not have appeared at all if not for the moon shot....
> so, now you want Bush to have vetoed DEM legislation? make up your mind pal.
I want him to have veto'd *ANY* bad legislation, reguardless of who passed it. The democrats are quite capable of making bad decisions, just like the republicans. (Both sides, for example, voted for the PATRIOT act)
> anytime the system works for your agenda you praise it
My only "agenda" is to have a president who can do the job properly. That doesn't neccesarily mean a democratic president - I would have been happy with McCain. It just means someone who actually knows what he's doing.
And if you're so sure of yourself, how come you're afraid to post with your real handle?
Twenties Retirement
I don't know which is more idiotic, what you wrote, or the half-wit who decided it was insightful.
The only person around here that's all about hate is you. Sounds like you never made it past high-school, so I'll let you in on this little thing called "projection," look it up sometime. No one is espousing or defending hatred, except you, mr. KKK.
Until now.
Congratulations, you are the one and only retard to make my foes list. You are worse than the trolls, the flamers, the retards and the general assholes that crawl around the fray of Slashdot with nothing better to do with their time than to post idiotic, meaningless, offensive posts. But at least they know what they are doing, at least they have the decency and intelligence to know what they are writing is offensive and meaningless; it's their purpose. You, on the other hand, you are stupid enough to write something essentially as trite and meaningless as, "everyone don't like prezitend bush just 'cuz he's cooler than they are" and then to go on to defend the KKK.
You are the posterboy for everything that makes the USA such a f***ed up place to live in. Only in the USA could someone with feces for brains, like yourself, say something and not only get away with it, but find some other crack baby that will moderate you up.
I served four years in the Army defending the freedoms retards like you. So you can take your hate and your "fellow citizen" bullshit and stuff it right back up your ass. What's the last thing you did, "for your country?"
Collect tax breaks? I thought so
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
No, this isn't because MSN is more objective, it's because MSN's page ranking algorythm isn't as good.
I know that sounds backwards, but it's not; Google takes into account the words used in a link to a page, and MSN does not. If enough teenie boppers link to current-pop-star's page using the words "sex god" in the anchor tag:
<a href='current-pop-star.com'>sex god</a>
Google figures that this guy must be a sex god, since everyone's saying he is. Search on sex god, find some loser who can't sing but sure looks good on a poster. On the other hand, MSN takes into account none of this, and therefore doesn't rank pages as accurately as does Google.
--- 11 meters/second, or 24 miles per hour - the airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow. Really.
College
-------
Dutied:
-- do problem set
-- clean room
Procrastination:
-- post on Slashdot
-- get drunk
-- pick a fun but impossible final project for the engineering class
-- pick fight with roommate
White House
-----------
Duties:
-- balance budget and trade
-- develop healthcare program
Procrastination:
-- have Condolezza put out a flaming press release
-- get drunk
-- announce new space program
-- pick a fight with Saddam
Not all that different.
The Florida SC invented election laws out of thin air that directly contradicted what was on the books. You can make a decent argument that SCOTUS shouldn't have interfered since it was a state matter, but don't hold the Florida judges up as paragons of integrity.
Sometime soon, sooner if Bush loses, maybe 6 months later if he doesn't, the Christan/neocons are going to have to break with the normal Republicans. Sadly, I think the real Republicans are going to get the shit end of that deal.
Yeah, there's a lot of us "South Park Republicans" who aren't happy with lots of Bush's policies, like huge spending increases, blatant pandering with steel tariffs, and corporate welfare in the energy bill. But as long as all the Democrats have to offer is "Bush is a Nazi", they're going to continue to get their asses kicked.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I think that might be algorythm actually. look at the rest of the page on that search and you'll see the recurring terms 'miserable failure' and 'bush' --- from an Atlantic Monthly article.
If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else.
"That's better than being in the gov't coffers and ending up paying for a study on some senator's pet project with little or no redeemingvalue."
like, say, arpanet?
schools?
national defense?
national health care - oh wait, it's us folks in europe with national health care systems who spend less money per capita on health care then the usa does on its private system, sorry, ignore that one.
taxes pay for maintaining a society. as with all things, you get what you pay for. i pay just a bit more taxes since moving to ireland and i get a national health care system (that i can supplement with private insurance), lower cost education, decent social programs, arts programs, etc. i don't seem to get snipers on highways, school shootings, and starving children.
so, you know, kinda think that's worth a few extra euro a month.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
The Denver Post (or maybe the Rocky Mountain News, I forgot which...read both of them) reported that Bush would have won a partial recount, but Gore would have won a full recount.
Although, it was so close there was gonna be doubt either way.
Twenties Retirement
BZZZZZT! Not according to the GAO and the House subcommittee that this summer basically determined the US was bankrupt. You see, the more debt you accumulate, the more interest you must pay (do you know why?). Its a vicious cycle that ends with default....and practically every fiat currency (do you even know what that is??) has defaulted.
Around the twenty trillion point on the debt the US will basically be on a irreversible course for default. Counting what we owe on Medicare and SS for people alive right now, we are in for FORTY TRILLION. Hence the GAO conclusion!
Not to mention, they will never default on it.
Quiz: how many times has the US repudiated the dollar? If you say zero, you are wrong! Read some history.
There have been, and still are, conspiracy theories about how NASA either didn't really go to the moon, or that they did go but didn't broadcast the real or full contents to the media. I guess from a military point of view I'd be inclined to believe that if I was the first organization to learn a dirty secret in a new place that's hard to get to, I too would come back and tell everyone "nothing to see here, don't waste your time".
Maybe there really is something on the moon that NASA didn't want to reveal to the other countries, like a lot more water than they claim. Or maybe they left a mess when they were there last.
So now that China says "we wanna see too", the U.S. is saying to themselves "we gotta go back there and clean up our 'stuff'. but if we do that everyone will wonder why we said theres nothing worth looking at on the moon. i know, lets say we have to do a mars practice run and we will use the moon as our place of practice". I mean, heaven forbid the U.S. save some money and practice here on earth....since they train the astronauts here.
You must be new around here...it seems no Slashbot's day is complete without posting something along the lines of "Bush is teh dumb." :-| I wonder how many of them showed up for yesterday's Two Minutes Hate.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Oh, the irony.
You castigate the grandparent poster for referring to the Houston Astros rather than the Texas Rangers and come back at him with a jibe about Canada having "a baseball team (for now)", an obvious reference to the soon to be relocated (or contracted) Montreal Expos but, somehow, in your haste to prove your encyclopaedic knowledge of MLB you've forgotten the Toronto Blue Jays.
Last time I checked, Toronto was in Canada too. Heck, just to help you remember the US Marines Corps screwed up during the Blue Jays 1992 World Series contest with Atlanta by flying the Canadian flag upside down! D'oh!
God, you don't even know Toronto has a MLB team and that Toronto is in Canada and you're laughing at someone else because he confused the two teams in Texas. Just how dumb do you look now, buddy?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
My policy: Never read anything titled with a question.
I mean, why waste my time? What if? What if? Don't tease me.
Remove the question mark and I'll freak'n read it.
--Richard
In John McCain's words, Bush is spending like a drunken sailor.
Conservatives are against runaway spending on principle, and because they figure libs won't give them any credit even if they do spend:
Federal spending soars under Bush's watch
According to one recent analysis, the government now spends $20,000 a year for every household in America, the most since World War II
Notice this isn't just on defense and homeland security (you know, the common defense that the Constitution actually calls for), but also for entitlements.
I'm still looking for AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, or job training expenditures mentioned in the Constitution.
Anyway, Bush is spending a lot. Why bother? He's being attacked by both sides. He might as well cut cut cut.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The old fashioned way...
Yeah, I was thinking about a large sling shot too. I mean, Wile E. Coyote used several of them and they worked just find. Not counting the several times he maimed himself, but I'm thinking all the bugs should be worked out.
Think about it...
Note, IANAALS (I am not an acme labs salesman)
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Seriously, is there anything Bush might leave as a (good) legacy for people to remember him by? Maybe he will re-initialize the space-race in an attempt to have something that puts his name in the annals of history in a positive way.
I mean, the best he's done so far is make a lot of ppl less worried about terrorists... but only because they're more worried about the government.
Good lord folks, did this story ever draw the Bush-haters out of the woodwork.
I am no Bush apologist nor am I enthralled at all with either major party. Jesse Ventura sounds better every time I see his show.
That said, what was done in Iraq is done. What would you have us do? Pull out? We cannot do that. We broke it, we now have to fix it. I hope for the best on that. Bush was likely wrong on his reasons, but that is pretty much a moot point now. I have yet to hear the Democrats say anything I was overly enthusiastic about...
When did Eric Robert Rudolf show up? How long were we looking for him? That loser stayed in North Carolina most if not ALL the time and he certianly did not have an army of fanatics defending him to the death ala Bin Ladin or Saddam. Those things take time, our military is powerful, not godlike - if it was, no soldiers would die and Osama would be chunky salsa now.
Last I heard, the economy was recovering - slowly, but it is coming back. What happend, in spite of what a lot of you were saying, was NOT the direct result of the politicians. Fact is a bunch of business owners, venture capitalists, and investors forgot what was important to make a business survive and prosper in the long term. That plus a number of accounting scandals, et al and you have what we had, an economic setback/correction - this happens.
On to space - yes, those things cost money. I want to see us go back to the stars. It is a resource we haven't even begun to tap in terms of science, minerals, and much more. Also, consider the beneficial side effects of putting companies to work to do those things - the science of the nation is advanced. How may of today's conveniences have come about due to the space program and the innovations it brought about?
The only way GB Jr. would really call for a return to the moon is if one of his "intelligence" advisors suspected terrorist activity originating from that location.
Soo... there's a chance... but only if their intel stays as bad as it's been in the past.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
At the dawn of the 15th century, China ruled the seas. An armada of Chinese ships explored Japan, Tiawan, and the islands of the Pacific. Turning west, they reached Arabia and sailed all the way to the east coast of Africa. The ships were much larger than anything that had sailed the seas before. The largest were 400 feet long and 150 wide and carried nine masts. They were larger than anything that would be seen in the west for centuries to come. The Chinese fleets were fabulously successful. They carried loads of Chinese silk and porcelain to western ports and returned with all the riches of Africa and Arabia. Between the turn of the century and 1433, the treasure fleets sailed seven times. These expeditions established a vast trade network for China. They also included military conquests that brought a huge amount of land under Chinese control. At the conclusion of the last expedition, the Chinese Empire reached the Persian Gulf. The next expedition might had rounded the horn of Africa. China might have "discovered" and even colonized Europe. The ships held unmatched technology and were easily capable of reaching the Americas. China stood at the brink of dominating the world. But there was no next expedition. Instead, there was a change in political control. The new Ming emperors pulled back the fleets. The treasure ships were allowed to rot or deliberately burned to prevent their use. China turned inward, became insular, abandoned its distant colonies. It would be the Europeans that went on to discover the New World. And Europeans who would reach, and dominate, much of China for centuries to come. In 1969, Neil Armstrong placed his foot in a slightly gritty powder and left the first human mark on the moon. The United States had conducted a series of expeditions into space, using successively more capable craft. The rocket that delivered men to the moon was 363' long, the largest ever made. They were the most technologically advanced devices of their time. Under Democratic leadership, they had reached another world. Seven times, from 1969 to 1972, craft from the United States reached the moon. They were fabulously successful. They delivered a bounty of knowledge, a peaceful explosion of technology, and a focus for the world. America stood at the brink of endless possibilities. Another push might have established colonies, it might have lead to clean and endless energy, it might have... There was no next time.
This chart doesn't give a realistic picture. What matters more than the total $ value of the debt/surplus is the debt/surplus as a percentage of GDP. You can find such a thing here. (warning! PDF)
The basic point is that, yes, the budget looks bad, but not orders of magnitude worse than ever before, as it appears in the graph linked by the parent post. That's statistics lying for you. In fact, the current budget deficit is only about 2/3 as bad as it was in 1983. Although it is still getting worse now, and that was the trough in '83.
For a rudimentary comparison to explain why this matters: if you borrow $10,000, that might be a big debt to take on if you only make $18,000 a year, but if you make $100,000 a year, it's no big deal. How much debt you should assume is relative to your income, or at least your expected income.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
so now you are smarter than the majority.
According to the Stanford-Binet scale, the average IQ is between 85-110. An 85 IQ is almost retarded (it's actually 75 or less to be considered mentally handicapped) and 110 isn't that brilliant.
So, if the average person is stupid, then half the population is dumber than that. Which means a democracy is lead by a bunch of idiots. I know I am smarter than the majority, and I'd wager you probably are too.
I am not the originally poster, but I had to point out that he is probably smarter than average, and thus the majority.
I know you have heard the saying "What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right"
Think about that the next time you decide to defend the majority. I, myself, am always suspicous of them.
ymmv
I think we all heard about social stability in Ireland. In Tom Clancy novels for example. And if you believe that, I have some beachfront Linux licenses from SCO to sell you.
Last time I checked Germany and France were running record deficits too. Are those Bush's fault too?
Great argument there, bud - "Hey, it's OK that the government is screwing our economy because Germany and France aren't in great shape either!". Nice thinking. By that rationale it's OK for the US to start chopping off the hands of thieves because it works fine in Saudi Arabia and to pass a law granting government officials permanent immunity from prosecution because Italy's done so. Yeah, right.
The US, Germany and France might be running record deficits but Britain isn't. So it is possible to practise sound financial management of an economy. It's just not being done in the US, France and Germany right now.
(Oh, and by the way, why not do some proper research? The reason why Germany is financially strapped is reunification - West Germany took on East Germany at the end of the Cold War and has basically been supporting, maintaining and rebuilding it ever since. Imagine the population of the US doubling overnight but the economy, budgets, etc staying the same and you'll have some idea about how hard a task Germany has faced over the last decade or so.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
If you want free health care go live in Europe, but don't whine about the 60% income tax.
Hey, bucko! That's 50% to you!!! Well... here in Canada, if you earn enough. But man, when you throw in the decriminalized pot, we're talking about a sweet deal! Just don't buy it from the government...
I am not a scientist, but...
Shouldn't the focus be more on engine technology than "missions?" I mean, sure it's great publicity to send a human out to space, particularly if they're going to walk on some celestial body, but wouldn't it be cool just to figure out how to launch probes with better propulsion systems to get further than probe currently in space? And maybe give them better power sources so they can use more powerful computers?
Humans are rather delicate objects and can't seem to adjust to large changes in velocity very well. Throw a human at a brick wall at a few hundred kilometers per hour and you'll see what I mean. Sure, a trained and well-conditioned human can withstand being shot out to space by a rocket, but for a high-power rail gun or another type of projectile cannon? I doubt it. If we really want to see what's out there, manned exploration is not the way to go until there's a feasible solution to counteract the effects of really high acceleration on the human body.
I think it would be great just to have a large magnetic launching platform on the moon with a dedicated power source (Fission? Solar?) to make it possible to send unmanned probes out at extremely high velocities.
Again, I'm not a scientist, so please correct me if what I'm suggesting sounds totally rediculous.
This is a repost of my comment from earlier today on K5. It would have been nice if the AC had credited me, but I don't mind, because hey, this way it's at Score:5, and it's much higher up chronologically in the discussion than it would have been if I'd posted it.
Anyway, I'm just posting this here now because I want to link to the slashdot story on H.R. 3057, which I would like to suggest you check out.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
We have UN inspectors saying that they cannot find any weapons.
We have have Iraqi exiles who would personally benefit from a US invasion.
Which group does Bush listen to and which group does he bash?
The US inspectors want to spend over $1 Billion looking for weapons that our "intelligence" claimed to have exact knowledge of.
What does this have to do with Clinton? Clinton didn't invade. Bush did.
And Bush sold his invasion on the LIE that he had "damn good" intelligence that Saddam had nukes or chemical/biological weapons.
Bush made a CHOICE to take biased sources over un-biased UN inspectors.
Which is better? Creating advancements that lead to the expansion of the economy and new inroads to human achievement or spending money on people whose greatest goal in life is to live off the govenment dole? If the government wants to spend on a health issue that would have the greatest impact on the quality of life for people in society it would be on mandatory birth control for those on welfare. Those are the people I assume everyone is agonizing over, when they want to "help society" There is little excuse in this day and age why anyone cannot get an education and move up out of that condition if they really wanted too. The hard reality of it is most people don't care and never will.
I say abandon them ...
Oh by the way, no point, I'm still ranting
I'd rather see all those billions (trillions?) in cash go to paying physicists to hang out in the lab all day and dream up a new engine -- and test it -- and perfect it. Ion power maybe. That could at least take a probe to a near star. Or how about playing with the double event horizon of a spinning black hole? Math that is decades old now shows that if you have a little rotating black hole (and huge brass ones to fly close to it) you can move across time, space and dimensions. Supposedly some folks at CERN (or someplace, I can remember) are making black holes to order now. The reason we aren't exploring our universe (and at this rate NEVER will) is because our current propulsion systems SUCK. Everything that can be done practically and reliably with a chemical rocket has been done. Moon? Been there done that. Mars, same, just without people. So what. Who cares!
I'd like to check out the rest of our galaxy.
Why can't we cut education?
Because we don't have enough money to pay teachers as it is.
Yes, the Social Security taxes are not saved for future generations. But that doesn't mean we should cut benefits.
Hey, you're entitled to your opinion on whether Oregon is spending their education money incorrectly. A big budget with big expenses is NOT an indication to money is not being spent wisely.
You might THINK that we don't need those manufacturing jobs. But if we don't PRODUCE something, we don't have anything to SELL.
We cannot survive by selling insurance to each other.
The deficit is over $500 Billion AND CLIMBING.
That is just THIS YEAR.
That means that we will have ANOTHER $1 TRILLION added to our national debt by the end of next year.
This is a BIG problem. It means that MORE MONEY will have to be paid in INTEREST on that debt.
There is a difference between losing money in the stock market and having those funds looted.
Why don't you check into Bush's recommendations for the SEC?
C'mon, be honest, you like Bush because you don't understand basic economics.
The space program of the 60's to the present has DIRECTLY contribiuted to, let's see advancements in advanced metals, plastics, medicine, aerospace, communications, computers, and chemistry. Yeah we managed to spend more money on all of that back in the 60's and never made any of that money back....Yeah rrrright..oh wait a minute what exactly are we the world leaders in these days? Advanced metals, plastics, medicine, aerospace, communications, computers, and chemistry...it would have been better spent on some poor trash that would have made the grand contribution of 5 more people who would have grown up to be poor trash, half of which would have ended up in prison....yes argueably a much better investment than a space program
you my friend are an idiot.
Paying farmers to pick and destroy their corn (which was done under FDR) would not reduce our reliance on foreign oil, which has habitually got us into scrapes like Iraq.
Gasoline with ethanol added does, while also being better for your car. And E85 -- 85% ethanol, not 10% -- uses less oil and costs about $0.10 less than regular gasoline where it's available.
(Off topic) Has anyone seen anywhere the accepted criteria for nations allowed to have WMD's versus those who should be threatened with serious consequences for their possession? Is China these days allowed WMD's? Are any nations with caucasian leaders disqualified? Do any nations with black leaders qualify? Note: I am white and not a left wing fringe radical.
In that link, replace Clinton with Bush, Kosovo with Afganhistan, Serbian with Taliban, and suddenly it's totally current. Everything else fits the same mold. History repeating itself?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Something very odd about this. Something tells me G.Dubya's not a reader of Stephen Baxter in any case.
He who fights with Monkeys must take it upon himself not to become a Monkey.
Reputable ones, not from NASA or anyone else who says we went to the moon in the late 60s
Wait. So you want sources that prove we went to the moon in the late '60s, but you disallow "anyone who says we went to the moon in the late '60s".
I think I need say no more.
Yeah, there's a lot of us "South Park Republicans" who aren't happy with lots of Bush's policies, like huge spending increases, blatant pandering with steel tariffs, and corporate welfare in the energy bill. But as long as all the Democrats have to offer is "Bush is a Nazi", they're going to continue to get their asses kicked.
Ever see that episode of the Sopranos, where the gambling addict owes money to the mob and can't pay? So they take over his business and run it into the ground, borrowing money they have no intention of repaying, so they can recoup the loss and leave him in the hole. That's what this is like. The deficit has reached a record level and they keep charging more and more extravagant purchases. They even started a war as a corporate welfare project. We have the mob answering the phone.
Yeah, there's a lot of us "South Park Republicans" who aren't happy with lots of Bush's policies, like huge spending increases, blatant pandering with steel tariffs, and corporate welfare in the energy bill. But as long as all the Democrats have to offer is "Bush is a Nazi", they're going to continue to get their asses kicked.
I don't even care if Bush is a Nazi. Did the Nazis overspend this much? He is running this country into the hole and nobody cares! We have been in uncharted territory for a long time. The deficit has never been this high. How are we ever going to pay for all this shit? Doesn't anybody care about the future anymore? Do you need some sort of song and dance to convince you that the country can't survive four more years of looting on this scale?
OEM
6E8C 8721 B3D9 5269 5A9B 1122 00C3 C03D 99A7 1CFC
I doubt many people know the neocons agenda
6E8C 8721 B3D9 5269 5A9B 1122 00C3 C03D 99A7 1CFC
"The only reason we aren't conquered by some more unified people is because we have nuclear weapons"
Have a t-shirt
front side: "I Took on the Government and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt"
backside: "Property of Guantanimo Bay"
The reason we're not going to be attacked any time soon (even though reasons abound in many people's minds) is because the people who want us gone are people who refuse to use violence.
I can just imagine all the anti-war people starting a war against the US.
Clinton threw money at problems and failed to solve anything. Us giving the Taliban money prior to 9/11 was residue from Clinton. Bush's administration finally put that idiotic plan to rest.
Since diplomacy and money have failed now we're trying the tried and true method of control called an ass kicking.
All the democrates have done so far is bitch about what a terrible job Bush is doing. Unless they can come up with a brilliant idea to solve these problems they claim exist (especially in Iraq) I'll be voting for Bush.
I can deal with Bush for four more years if it means Iraq doesn't have to deal with another Saddam any time soon. I'd rather give Bush 4 more years to finish up his plan than bring in some new guy with no plan and no clue what to do.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Well if this is the case that's a good reason to try and improve American technology, that would be the whole frikin point of an announcement like this, definitely NOT to outsorce booster development to another country.
The USA has spent most of it's energies and funds on the shuttle and the space station and wasted a lot of effort on Shuttle replacement.
Both are romantic ideas but they're a complete frikin waste of literally billions of dollars. There are better faster cheaper safer ways of executing a space program but you need objectives, because the truth is there's really not a whole lot of practical stuff to do up there. Multi-billion dollar science labs of questionable value don't excite the public imagination and getting in bed with Russia to build it when you have to pay them & their bankrupt space program to do it was doubly stupid.
It was the latest disasterous lemon sold to congress by the bozos running NASA in a succession of disasterous lemons, the Space shuttle being the biggest disaster inflicted on US Space development.
And he thinks we can get there without spending Billions. All we need is Ralph to send Alice "to the moon!"
Remember that we are dealing with a hideously stupid president. He probably thinks that TV shows are real. He probably thinks we have warp drive. He knows we have nuke-ular weapons of mass destruction.. Or was that mass delusion?...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It's about time. lets use nanotechnology to get there faster, cheaper and better. It would also be good for those nasty times when solar flares could make life miserable on the moons surface and you need to get all your biologics put back together from all that radiation damage.
Why don't we tell him and a couple of his friends that there's a lot of bad guys up there and that they can have the honor get up there first, ehe?
Unfortunately this ISN'T OT at all! As much as we all want to go back to space...and all it's benifits, the MONEY has to come from somewhere. Realize that Apollo was essentially paid for in CASH! [time-adjusted to be 100X NASA's current funding!] AND Without adding to the deficit. When the current govt can't even balance the day-to-day operation of the country, how are we supposed to find 5-10% additional [moonshot cost in real $$] federal money to add to the budget? A real attempt to better Apollo will easily cost at least 5% of the current overall federal budget to pull off correctly! That's a lot of cash!!! But figure we're still reaping the technology rewards of the last shot 30 years later...pretty good value for the money spent.
It is not a surprising desire at all for a mooncalf.
Howdie,
Has anyone recently tried entering "miserable failure" in Google?
Can you tell me what happens?
Regards,
You don't need to see my
> A tax break is not a break after years of tax increases, it's an adjustment back to a more sane level.
Interpret it as you like: Both cost money, plain and simple.
>We have not stopped being "at war" for nearly the last 50 years.
How many 87 billion+ checks were written in that course? Its one thing to be at a cold war, developing nuclear weapons that were going to be developed anyway, and another to maintain a exensive occupation. Not to mention the daily bodybags that are killing morale for a war that failed to deliver the goods: WMD, AlQaeda conspiracies, etc. At least the Russians were a threat.
>Suddenly the lack of free health care and SS is a problem.
That's besides the point, but funny how universal healthcare for Iraq is seen as smart policy and "socialism" here.
>but don't whine about the 60% income tax.
European taxes are perhaps 10% more than US taxes and that includes healthcare and higher education. We also spend more money on healthcare per capita than any other nation. The universal healthcare people have an argument, saying "move to Europe" is a frank and rude dismissal. There are real arguments against universal healthcare, but I'm afraid you don't know what they are.
>This current conflict looks nothing like Vietnam
Agreed, its more like Palestine, which is even worse. We can't just up and leave like we did in Vietnam, we have to work (and pay) for this until everything is stable.
I noticed you ignored the biggest economic indicator: how much in the red we are. We can only borrow so much before we look and become discredited in front of international lenders. This means that if you want a moon mission you'll have to get, as you call it, less "sane" taxes.
It's "Nukular", the F is silent, Lois.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
This national pride thing strikes me as odd. It is archaic and a form of racism ("us" vs. "them"). We do not complain when a european car uses a Japanese engine, or a British government computer is built and programmed by Americans (well, maybe we do but that's another story) so why should we get all hot and bothered about space ships? Why should we not stand on the shoulders of giants and use what is already there? Imagine if each time a new car was developed, the whole thing was done from scratch,: each and every component, not just each system.
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if it was an international effort. That way when the US Government gets cold feet again, or is unable to meet its end of the bargain again, the mission will continue and mankind as a whole gets something out of it.I agree entirely.
Stick Men
Facts, please? Now, just think. The state education budget is $5 billion in Oregon. In an ideal world, we could take all of that money and give it to teachers. However, in the real world, there is overhead. So, let's assume that 50% of the money goes to administrative overhead. That leaves $2.5 billion for teachers. Assuming I haven't added a zero and an average salary of $60000 (which is high) that would pay for 41,666 teachers. Again, assuming a classroom size of 20 (which in CA is the law for 3rd grade and under if you want certain state funds) that would educate 833,320 children. I don't know ratio school-aged children are in the population, but let's assume 30%. That means we can support a population of 2,499,960 citizens (Oregon has a population of around 3.5 million. That's just with the state money funding education which is FAR less than the county money funding education via property taxes. You say "There isn't enough money in education". I say, "Bullshit!"; In California the average cost per student is around $7000 per year. You mean to tell me that it can't be done for less providing a damn good education? Please...; Just read this if you really want to get pissed off.
The deficit is over $500 Billion AND CLIMBING.
No, the defecit is almost $7 trillion. The budget defecit for 2003 is around $500 billion. I don't disagree that it's way too high. Where do you propose making cuts? I'll start with the federal Department of Education. States can fund their own education (and they do -- the federal money is a drop in the bucket (a little over $50 billion spread across 50 states.)) That saves $53 billion right there. The rest can easily be found in cuts in social programs which is 59% of all federal expenditure (granted Social Security is a huge part of that.) But why is the federal government doing welfare (personal and corporate)? Do you think it can be at all efficient at it. It should be a state/county issue so that monies could be spent more effectively. And those welfare programs should have a sunset date. BTW, the "War on Poverty" that was launched by LBJ, when is that war going to end? There was a 10% poverty rate in the US at that time and guess what, it's about 10% now. So can we declare that war as over and benefit from the "peace dividend" by giving back the monies that would have been spent on that "war" as more tax cuts? Or, hell, pay down the debt with it. I'd prefer the former, but would support that latter. I'd also like a constitutional balanced budget amendment but I don't think it will ever happen...
There is a difference between losing money in the stock market and having those funds looted.
Absolutely. I think all of the bastards that purposely over-valued their companies and hosed investors should live a life with just two pennies to rub together while being Bubba's prison bitch.
C'mon, be honest, you like Bush because you don't understand basic economics.
I don't particularly care for Bush. He's spending way too much money and growing the federal government at way too high a rate for my tastes. But there isn't a viable alternative out there that is going to do better and can win. BTW, I do understand basic economics. I also understand "government economics" where a 3% cut is only 7% growth vs. the 10% growth that was baselined in. I also know what I would do if I were king for a day (as I'm sure you do too.) But the reality of the situation is that congress sees no need to not spend money like it's going out of style (regardless of the party in control, but I do suspect that the current Republican spending binge is in large part to take away all of the Democrat issues -- education, healthcare, etc.)
BTW, you migh
Readers might want to take a look at the CAIB Report. Most of it is directly about the Columbia Accident - obviously. But the report itself covers a lot of territory. That includes gems about NASA's culture. And funding.
Of special interest would be Chapter 5: From Challenger to Columbia. There is a rather telling diagram (Figure 5.3-1 - pg. 102) graphing NASA's budget over the years. There's also a very interesting bit about "earmarking" - Congressional pork-barreling that ties up what little funding NASA gets.
Again - I can't recommend the CAIB Report enough. It offers a very insightful view of NASA. It is chillingly accurate. Anybody who has worked for NASA will find echos of their experience outlined in that report - whether their work directly involved the Manned Space Flight program or not. And any questions about NASA's history or future may very well be answered by this very frank document.
"it will mean he has decided" - who has decided? Who is supposed to decide these things? He's making an awful lot of decisions on his own lately.
you had me at #!
What do you mean, 'not real?'. Next you'll be telling me the Button Moon landing was faked.
The people were constantly whining about rising unemployment, so I just caused a microwave power plant "accident" to keep 'em in line. I mean, it's just a game, it's not like anything like *that* would ever happen in real life...
Oh shit.
And the more accurate usage is not :
"President Bush to Call for Return TO the moon";
its:
"President Bush to Call for Return OF the moon";
Whoever took the moon had better give it back, soon.
We NEED the moon. We need it for the children. This is a war - a war on terror. A war against whoever took the moon.
President Bush has called for a return of the moon - and with good reason!
How else are we going to govern the tides? I've done it by hand, and let me tell you, this "moon" thing they came up with is a lot better. I, for one, will be glad when it's were it belongs - back in the US, and out of the hands of terrorists.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
The only way another moon trip is worth the expense is if it's one way and Bush is a passenger.
Bush says How High?
I'd be happy with a new space race, but it's embarassing that our foreign policy is entirely dictated by what the Joneses are doing.
And it's a shame it was cancelled, the Buran flight was very impressive when you consider the whole thing was unmanned and automatic. The autopilot managed to land the craft with a stupidly high crosswind. But, as is often the case with the Russian Space Program, budget cuts killed it off before it ever got off the ground again, and IIRC, Yeltsin killed it.
TheHustler
http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
Did anyone see that Fox special on how the moon landing was a hoax. If it was true than next year Japan will have a lunar satellite capable of spotting the dune buggies and other Apollo gear NASA supposedly left behind in the 70's. Maybe if they go they'll drop a few off so their secret doesn't come out.
badastronomy.com has pretty good counter arguments to the ones presented in the show but the movies still look pretty fake. The moon has 1/6th earths gravity and those guys were hardly leaving the ground.
What's everyone's opinion on this?
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Nationalistic Sapce flight is too expensive and dangerous, if we did not learn that with the recent shuttle disaster then we are blind!
BUsh is an idiot
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Every president since JFK has promised new directions in the space program, but none has delivered the money. I'll believe GWB when he doubles NASA's budget (and the NSF's, for good measure). The sad thing is how little this would cost us.
In 1965 and 1966, the height of the build-up to Apollo, we spent about one-half of one percent of GDP on NASA - about $4.5billion in a $700B economy. How big would NASA's budget be today if we still spent 0.5% of GDP on it? $70B. What is it, actually? About $12B. NSF gets only a few billion a year for basic research in the physical sciences. We could double both for the cost of about two months worth of Iraq occupation. NASA is a rounding error in the DoD's budget. Unless that changes, grand plans for space are just hot air - ain't gonna make it to orbit.
Show me the money.
a) ireland, as part of the uk at that time, only supplied cannon fodder to wwi.
b) ireland was neutral in wwii.
c) ireland is neutral in general.
d) disagreement with israel's policies regarding the palestinians is not anti-semitism. and ireland, like various european nations, takes responsible steps to combat racism in all forms. we're not perfect but i don't remember any police force in america asking for cultural training to properly deal with immigrants like the police did here. and i wouldn't cast stones - a white supremacist group was arrested with a large number of cyanide bombs in texas in late november. authorities fear they haven't found them all and the people they captured aren't talking. in addition listen in on the rhetoric being spouted by limbaugh (either), hannity and coulter to name a few.
thanks for playing however.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
The US space program has been stagnating for far tloo long after Columbia. Get back on the bicycle and ride! There's only so far we can explore on Earth. Mars is a stepping stone to the outer planets, and probably to the stars.
"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day, set a man on fire, he's warm for life."
No offence, I am all for space programs and travelling to the stars and all that, but when is mankind gonna realize that the moon is just a broken down, worn out, airless lump of dirt that just happens to have come into existence under such accidental circumstances that it was caught in orbit?
I mean, it's nice to look at and all that, but why would anyone want to go there?
All interpreted languages are abstractions over Lisp
Man this is so obviously an attempt to get geek/scifi fan votes I can't believe it.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Did the Nazis overspend this much?
They did, mostly on military. Actually, in the late 1930's, the tolal war was the only option for them to avoid immediate economic collapse.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
The shuttle is simply ridiculously inneficient, and if the US space program keeps relying on it, you WILL be surpassed by the Chinese (and the Russians too, if they had been able to afford it) simply because they'll be able to justify a lot more launches.
And there is a fundamental difference between the ISS and a moon base: A moon base would at least have access to some material "locally", and sale of returned rock and minerals could at least offset some of the costs.
Are you saying the majority is above average?
Wouldn't that make it average then?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the IQ scale was dynamic. 100 would always be the average intelligance. It's not?
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Engineers design it in their spare time.
People put up the CPU time to model the designs and missions.
The community writes the control software.
Where do we start? I suggest we work on a cheap, re-usable sub-orbital shuttle (never did know what sub-orbital meant, I suppose I should look it up).
At least a builiding on the moon would be safe from an al Quaeda terror attack!
Theyve got the car bomb but need to get their own space program...
For too long, the moon and Mars have been a partnership of evil in today's solar system.
According to the Stanford-Binet scale, the average IQ is between 85-110. An 85 IQ is almost retarded (it's actually 75 or less to be considered mentally handicapped) and 110 isn't that brilliant.
85-110 probably contains several standard deviations from the norm in the real distribution. That's like saying, yes, there is this pot of gold, and its 3-5 miles from here and then expecting someone to find it.
100 was not arbitrarily picked, that was supposed to the average person's intelligence.
So, if the average person is stupid, then half the population is dumber than that. Its funny when Carlin says it, but its not true. If the population of some country is 2 million. And 55 people have 1 arm, that means the average person has less than one arm. So if you has a distribution 140, 110, 110, 100, 100, 100, 100, 105, 105, 75 , 75, 60 the average is much lower than he median or the mode. The median in this case would be 100. The modal value would be 100 - the most by number in the distribution would have this. On a large population size, you would see that the further you go from the largest distribution under the curve (this is not the average) the less likely these data points are do exist. The way of quantifying the next order of less-likelihood is a deviation from the center. How many deviations is the stratification of this curve. I would guess 85 is probably 1-2 deviations from the center. The numerical average [mean] of that number set I gave is 98 and change. Notice its lower than the modal value.
Which means a democracy is lead by a bunch of idiots. I know I am smarter than the majority, and I'd wager you probably are too. If you're so damn smart, and they are so damn dumb, don't fucking complain. Sell them shit. Rip them off. Scam them. Markup cheap things. Sell cigarettes and beer. A fool and his money shall soon part. You know, if Mister Brilliant Super Star that you are complains that the US is filled with "idiots" who "vote wrong" you would think he would be able to make major bucks!
I know you have heard the saying "What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right" This is a republic. The US and most advanced forms of government avoid voter referendums and administer society in an abstract manner. Consider the electoral college one of those abstractions (that directly reflects the number of Federal Senators (2)+ Number of Congressman (at least 1) per state.
Think about that the next time you decide to defend the majority. I, myself, am always suspicous[SIC suspicious ] of them.
You seem to think that smart people like you should only be allowed to vote. Typically genuinely intelligent people are never as presumptuous as this. Part of being smart and getting smarter is that you learn, the higher up the ladder you climb, the more rungs you become aware of. (The curve of ultimate knowledge / omniscience is effectively asymptotic.)
Why bother going to the moon or mars, when you cannot even keep your own country, or the earth, a nice place to live? Everybody knows prolonged lack of gravity during the trip to mars will cripple you, let alone the cosmic radiation (if it's bad for frequent flyers, how bad will it be for people really outside the protection of the orbit). The only reason to do this is to cover up the problems inside the USA, so people do not see the damage to the value of the dollar (alltime low against the Euro). After all, if a country spends all its money on senseless wars and space programs, what is the benefit for them? A few jobs? Start making the earth a nice place to live, and spend that money on peace and an environmentally friendly economy. If you want hightech, build a fast train network (like the french TGV) that get people out of airplanes. Not bad for a first post to /. don't you think?
...I can't see the American public being entirely enamoured with a President who asks them to reach into their pockets again for no guaranteed return.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
If the US had *stayed the fuck out* of World War 2 from 1939, instead of selling oil and machinery to the Germans right up until 1943, then yes, the world would have been a better place.
Blind hatred is no way to treat a fellow citizen. At least the KKK hated blacks because they were black.
are you really that stupid? I honestly don't know where to begin to damn this statement all to hell.
To quote L7, you just made my shitlist.
and who the hell modded you up as insightful? what a world.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
Sure, some parts of the program would be cheaper, but containing and steering 3000-degree gases is still just as hard as it was back then. We have no hardware that even comes close to being powerful enough to reach the moon, so everything has to be designed, built, and tested from scratch.
Where exactly are we going to come up with a few hundred billion bucks to pay for this? Apollo cost on the order of $70B, which inflates to over $350B now. Reduce that some for better CAD and cheaper control systems, and increase it for better reliability and doing something more than just sending 7 missions of less than a week duration. Assume we can do it in 10 years (compared to 8 years for Apollo), and we need $35B per year. Unevenly spread, of course, so the peak would be close to $100B for a couple years.
Maybe we could raise that with a bake sale or something.
Ya know...
It seems to me that there are certain people that would hate Bush even if he figured a way to eliminate 100% of poverty. Not that he will, but my point is that some of the posts I have been reading have the tone that "it doesn't matter what he does, I hate Bush".
I have the unprovable itch that some of these same people who are bashing his as-yet unanounced plans for moonbase 1 would have rooted and cheered if certain other presidents had made this same decision.
I have also seen numerous comments regarding Bushing fouling up the economy. I won't argue whether or not his plans to help the economy will work--that remains to be seen. Ask me again in 4 years, which is about how long it takes for a president's policies take to be felt (sometimes longer). If, even for a moment, you think that something Bush does today will affect the economy tommorrow, you are sadly mistaken.
Let me make this clear: I DON'T support everything Bush does. I don't like the Patriot act, and I certainly don't care for the way he has handled Iraq (if he wants to go around removing dictators, be up front about it, and be consistent). I do think Saddam needed to be removed. Yes I am aware that the US helped him gain power, but that was not GWB's decision (altough it may have been his dad's, which is NOT the same thing at all, no matter what anyone thinks).
I AM however, willing to let him try somthing different. So, what the hey, let's go to the moon. Just one thing. Before you blast Bush for this, think about whether or not you would have supported this idea if Clinton had been pushing it. If so, then don't rant and rave about how evil Bush is. Not that I expect everyone will be honest about this, but come on, give it a shot.
Now, having defended Bush, even a little bit, I am ready for the flame war. I expect that I have offended a good number of you, and that's okay--I expect to. But let's make one thing clear--I am not trolling, and this is not flame bait. I want to hear honest and considered opinions.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
the VICHY FRENCH were the puppet government of the NAZIS and the leaders of Vichy France were EXECUTED for WAR CRIMES. Jesus CHRIST.
On 14th June 1940, the German Army occupied Paris. Paul Reynaud, the French prime minister, now realized that the German Western Offensive could not be halted and suggested that the government should move to territories it owned in North Africa. This was opposed by his vice-premier, Henri-Philippe Petain, and the supreme commander of the armed forces, General Maxime Weygand. They insisted that the government should remain in France and seek an armistice.
Outvoted, Reynaud resigned and President Albert Lebrun, appointed Petain as France's new premier. He immediately began negotiations with Adolf Hitler and on 22nd June signed an armistice with Germany. The terms of the agreement divided France into occupied and unoccupied zones, with a rigid demarcation line between the two. The Germans would directly control three-fifths of the country, an area that included northern and western France and the entire Atlantic coast. The remaining section of the country would be administered by the French government at Vichy under Marshal Henri-Philippe Petain.
Other provisions of the armistice included the surrender of all Jews living in France to the Germans. The French Army was disbanded except for a force of 100,000 men to maintain domestic order. The 1.5 million French soldiers captured by the Germans were to remain prisoners of war. The French government also agreed to stop members of its armed forces from leaving the country and instructed its citizens not to fight against the Germans. Finally, France had to pay the occupation costs of the German troops.
Over the next four years Henri-Philippe Petain led the right-wing government of Vichy France. The famous revolutionary principles of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" were replaced by "Work, Family, Fatherland". Prominent figures in the Vichy government included Pierre Laval, Jean-Francois Darlan and Joseph Darnand.
The Vichy government kept troops in Syria during the Second World War. Its position on the Eastern Mediterranean coast made it strategically important for both Britain and Nazi Germany. The Allies also feared that Henri-Philippe Petain would allow the Luftwaffe to establish air bases in the country.
On 8th June 1941 the British Army and Free French forces entered Syria from Iraq and Palestine. After facing tough resistance from the Vichy forces the Allies captured Damascus on 17th June. The armistice was signed on 12th July and pro-British regimes were maintained in Syria for the rest of the war.
In January 1943 Darnand became head of Milice the secret police in Vichy. Darnand was given the Waffen SS rank of Sturmbannfuehrer and took a personal oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler.
Joseph Darnand expanded the Milice and by 1944 it had over 35,000 members. The organization played an important role in investigating the French Resistance. Like the Gestapo, the miliciens were willing to use torture to gain information.
After the D-day landings took place the Maquis and other resistance groups emerged to help in the liberation of their country. Henri-Philippe Petain and his ministers fled to Germany where they established an exiled government at Sigmaringen.
In 1945 the leaders of the Vichy government were arrested and some, including Pierre Laval and Joseph Darnand, were executed for war crimes.
White House Shelved 44 Trillion Deficit Report?
By Peronet Despeignes of the Financial Times
May 30, 2003, 10:21
Thursday 29 May 2003
Study commissioned by O'Neill sees $44 trillion in red ink
The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the U.S. currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totaling at least $44 trillion in current U.S. dollars.
The study, the most comprehensive assessment of how the U.S. government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the "baby boom" generation's future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.
But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.
The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase.
The study was being circulated as an independent working paper among Washington think-tanks as President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed into law a 10-year, $350 billion tax-cut package he welcomed as a victory for hard-working Americans and the economy.
The analysis was spearheaded by Kent Smetters, then-Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy, and Jagdessh Gokhale, then a consultant to the Treasury. Mr. Gokhale, now an economist for the Cleveland Federal Reserve, said: "When we were conducting the study, my impression was that it was slated to appear [in the Budget]. At some point, the momentum builds and you think everything is a go, and then the decision came down that we weren't part of the prospective budget."
Mr. O'Neill, who was fired last December, refused to comment.
The study's analysis of future deficits dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington. It is roughly equivalent to 10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of U.S. economic output or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets. Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman, last week bemoaned what he called Washington's "deafening" silence about the future crunch.
President Bush signed into law a $350 billion tax-cut package on Wednesday saying:' 'We can say loud and clear to the American people: You got more of your own money to spend so that this economy can get a good wind behind it."
The estimates reflect the extent to which the annual deficit, the national debt and other widely reported, backward-looking data are becoming archaic and misleading as measures of the government's solvency. Mr. Smetters, now a University of Pennsylvania finance professor, said tax cuts were only a fraction of the imbalance, and that the bigger problem "is the whole [budget] language we're using."
Laurence Kotlikoff, an expert on long-term budget accounting, alleged in a recent Boston Globe editorial that the Bush administration suppressed the research to ease passage of the tax-cut plan.
An administration official said the study was designed as a thought-piece for internal discussion -- one among many left every year on the cutting-room floor -- and noted the budget's extensive discussion of projected, 75-year Social Security and Medicare shortfalls.
C'mon, be honest, you hate Bush because all the other "cool" liberals do.
You have landed on the Moon. You are surrounded by dusty craters, all alike. What do you want to do? # get weapons of mass distruction I'm sorry George, I see no weapons of mass destruction here. What do you want to do? # look osama I'm sorry George, I cannot see a osama. You are surrounded by dusty craters, all alike. What do you want to do? # kill saddam George, I cannot kill saddam. What do you want to do? # GODDAMITT!!! I don't understand "GODDAMMIT!!!"
So Mr. Bush is going to announce that he's going to the Moon? I'm very happy for him, and us. I can only hope he'll invite Ascroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others of his cabal to join him. After all, I wouldn't want him to be lonely...
Could he should take the Democratic presidential candidates with him, too? Then, maybe, someone of quality would run for office, instead of the numbnuts who greedily crawl their way into the Oval Office, like Gollum slinking his way to the ring.
Ahhhh, perchance to dream... if nothing else, maybe *I* can get a ride to the moon, where I can find a quiet place to work on my books.
All about me
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can blame the Nazis for a lot of things, but the world-wide economic collapse after the 1929 stock market crash was not their fault.
Please read the post before you reply. Where did I say anything about stock market, or 1920's for that matter?
In late 30's, Nazi militarty expendentures were way out of proportion creating huge internal debt, and it was recognized by the reichsbank manager, who warned Hitler on this issue. By 1939, it began to show up for an average Fritz, in form of controlled distribution of some goods.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
"They're the war-mongering jew killers"
Well, when you kill 6 million of them for no apparent reason other than "you don't like them", you sorta get (deservingly) a reputation like that.
OK, we get it. You hate George Bush. When I click on "Read More..." I had hoped to see discussion about returning to the moon. However, 90% of the posts are off topic (arguably) and redundant (definitely) about politics. The topic was not about the effect on the national budget of going to the moon, or the job Bush is doing in office. How about a compromise where you post on-topic and just end with something like BTWIRRRHGWBFMOVSR (BTW I really really really hate GWB for my own very specific reasons). Or go start your own Demdot ~Politics for Nerds. Democrats that matter. Have a nice day.
'Which was dumb of him, since we later found out that a statewide recount would have given Gore the election. Not that it mattered, since the supreme court stepped into something that was none of their business and handed Bush the election..'
Don't know what time-space continuium you live in, but a couple liberal Fla. newspapers paid for a recount of all COUNTABLE BALLOTS ( note this different than democrats who considered any ballot with conflicting votes cast to be obviously in favor of GORE) showed that Bush still would've won by a thousand or so votes.
I don't really care for Bush or GOP, I view both parties as badly flawed, but the truth is the truth. For whatever it's worth Bush's tax cuts seem to be fueling the economy and I have a job now because of that, I don't know that Gore would've done any better.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Newsflash genius, both SDI and the NAP resulted in technologies which now make life cheaper for consumers. You can thank SDI for improved CD-ROM drives, for one thing.
Fuggin reagan bashing luddites.
Interesting, but just what kind of minerals are on the moon? I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the moon is mainly a lot of rock with few valuable natural resources.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
When questioned, 85% think they are smarter than average. They can't all be right.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
It's just speculation at this point if he'll be announcing it...
If he does, they'll call it the "Space Technology Revitalization Act" and bush will get his Kennedy-esque photo-op for the election.
Large amounts of money will be lavished on aerospace campaign contributers.
NASA assets will be given away to these companies to plunder.
Massive layoffs will ensue from these companies, while large bonuses will be given to the top execs.
And we'll never even get off the ground.
We will announce however, that great progress is being made, but we're still unable to find the Moon.
That's no Moon, it's a campaign ploy!
Going to the moon the first time was a ridiculous waste or money. Something like a trillion dollars in today's money. And what did we get from it? a warm fuzzy feeling by beating the Soviets and some moon rocks. Now Bush wants to throw away countless billions more to go there again? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. It's just another way for Bush to shovel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to favored companies. Let's invest a trillion in developing solar power or perhaps rebuilding the crumbling parts of the US. This is a complete waste of money and effort.
President Bush To Call For Return To Moon
I agree, he should really return to the moon ... and stay there for gods sake.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
The cheapest way with current technology might well be to use Russian rockets. 'Course that puts a big ding in the presidential pride, right? A bit like the way the last series of American rockets using Russian engines only worse.
The successful Atlas V rocket uses a Russian design RD-180 engine. The Russian's have accelled at developing high efficiency Kerosene/Oxygen lower stage engines. Lockheed Martin was smart enough to realise this when they developed the Atlas III/V series. But the key to success of American rockets which, sets them apart from Russia and Europe, is the use of LH2 in the upper stages. The Pratt and Whitney RL-10 engine, the J2, Rocketdyne SSME and RS-68 are all spectacularly successful designs.
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if it was an international effort. That way when the US Government gets cold feet again, or is unable to meet its end of the bargain again, the mission will continue and mankind as a whole gets something out of it.
One has only to look at the International Space Station as an example to see how an "international effort" might work. The U.S. should go it alone and send back TV pictures for the rest of the world.
an ill wind that blows no good
The modern computer industry owes its existence to the space program. Nobody else needed a small computer. This alone has immeasureably improved the lives of a large portion of the population of the planet.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
- Hate Bush
- Love space travel
What to do? What to do?Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Which brings up a pet thought of mine...
What about a 'transfer station' in a highly elliptical orbit around both Earth and Moon? Agreed that a rendezvous with the transfer station would be every bit as energetic as getting to the Moon, but it could be done with something minimal like a Soyuz capsule, in terms of crew space. Once docked, the crew space of the transfer station could be much more spacious, maybe even with some equipment for science. Consumables would have been carried aboard the rendezvous capsule, with the crew. Upon return from the Moon, the lower mass capsule could again be used to get to more Earthly speeds.
Of course the same orbital mismatch would occur at the Moon, perhaps solved in a similar fashion. The transfer station would keep some sort of reusable LEM docked, except when being used on the Moon. That LEM would have the additional requirement of reaching lunar escape velocity in order to rendezvous with the transfer station.
Take the idea a little further - space stations in orbit around both Earth and Moon, and a transfer station orbiting both. Get from Earth to the Earth station, go from there to the transfer station, from transfer station to the Moon station, from there to the Moon. The essence is to get things down to minimal, efficient, single-purpose vehicles, and accelerate as little mass as possible at any given step.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Puppets or not, Morocco and Algeria were defended by French forces not German. You can google for Operation Torch or read a description on the DTIC site: Joint Power Projection: Operation Torch
Yeh! Flush it down the toilet!
Woo-Ho!
-- IANAL, BIPOOTV
Hey! us right wing nuts bash Bush also!
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Right. I'm thinking he's more likely to put missiles on the moon. Besides, doesn't the US have to go to the moon to prove it was there the first time? ;)
I could have...and think I did make damn near this same speech about Clinton.
Yes, some people hate Bush. Some people hate Clinton. That's okay, get over it.
The idea of going to the moon again and eventually going to Mars and beyond is an idea of value, regardless of who says it.
I always point to the fact that Gore did not win his home state. if he had, Florida would not have mattered and Gore would have won the election.
not even McGovern lost his home state.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Who taught Baby such bad words?
Yeah, the desire to pull a huge asshole (Bush) apart.
"If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
It's not hate-filled to say that George Bush does not seem intelligent. Watch David Letterman. (For those of you not in the U.S., he is a talk show host who is on TV every weekday night.) Letterman has been regularly showing video clips, taken from that day's news, of our President, George Bush, doing something stupid.
For example, in one David Letterman clip George Bush read a speech and when he was finished gave a cough and a jerky movement that David Letterman characterized as, "That was boring. Now I'm out of here."
I'm tired of having a president that other foreign leaders characterize as an "idiot". That reference is just one example.
There is a part of the Republican party composed of people who will do anything to sell the U.S. government to those, mostly their friends, who have money. They are truly not a political party; they can rightly be characterized as criminals. George Bush is their figurehead. For example, look at this CNN article, "Vice President Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton." Quoting David Letterman, "When you write the check for your part of the $83 billion to rebuild Iraq, remember that there are two Ls in Halliburton."
According to someone I know who was in Vice President Dick Cheney's social circle while he was at Halliburton, Cheney was (is) an alcoholic with a history of boozing and womanizing. This was not different from George Bush, of course.
I'm not the only person who is looking for an alternative to President Bush. I think that maybe Howard Dean is the best alternative.
Also, note that this post is on-topic. We are talking about the politics of the U.S. government spending billions of money it doesn't have to send people to the moon. Others have characterized this as intended to be a distraction from the serious problems the present U.S. government administration has caused.
They even started a war as a corporate welfare project.
I will quote Neal Boortz who lays into this lame argument quite nicely:
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Ever see that episode of the Sopranos, where the gambling addict owes money to the mob and can't pay? So they take over his business and run it into the ground, borrowing money they have no intention of repaying, so they can recoup the loss and leave him in the hole. That's what this is like. The deficit has reached a record level and they keep charging more and more extravagant purchases. They even started a war as a corporate welfare project. We have the mob answering the phone.
How does this address the deficiencies of the opposition? The poster has already pointed out that he doesn't care for the Bush policies, but at least has the intellectual honestly to acknowledge that his opposition party doesn't bring any alternatives to the table. All you do is switch "Bush = Hitler" with "Bush = Mob". Go educate yourself in Macroeconomics already.
While I expect to see this degree of stupidity in Slashdot, it distrubs me that it got moderated so high.
The moon! Forget the moon. The cheese commercial is only half joking. Why go back if there's nothing there. There's no water. There's no atmosphere. There's no cheese. Forget the moon. I say head for the asteroid belt or Mars or Alpha Centauri. We've got to get off the planet and out of the solar system before the sun explodes!
-- Stuart Denny, stuartdenny@hofo.com "Everything is everything"
Yeah, right, sure... Would the star trek geeks in the audience please quit smoking pot and posting these articles. Somehow I don't see a moon trip when we cannot even find the funding to replace the shuttle. And has everyone forgotten that we did this already roughly 30 years ago, and all we found were some useless rocks.
-Cnik
With technology now they can run the whole craft from that sinclair Z80. I remember watching the first moon landing, I would love to see another, even being 5, I still got a thrill of being able to look up and see then man on the moon.
knock, knock.... does anyone in the class remember what this discussion topic was about?
Going back to the Moon.
The first Moon program, begun by JFK, was an absolute boon to the economy, returning about 7 times to the economy what was spent on the program. Most tech jobs today, and their subsidiary jobs, are a direct spin-off of the Moon program... transistors, plastics, ceramics, biology, medicine, miniturization of computers, software technology (and perhaps Slashdot itself)
If a return to the Moon has the same effect this time as it did last time the gains will create employement for a LOT of people and be a boon to the economy.
However, there is one thing we should do first: move our energy base from Carbon to Hydrogen. A Hydrogen Project similar to the "Manhatten Project", sans the secrecy, should be initiated to complete the necessary research, if it needs completion, and begin the transfer of our power generation and transportation industries. Solar Power Tower II is a very good start. Forward thinking communities could divert resources from dead-end Windmill plans to SPT2 sites and get a better return on their investment.
There is less than two decades of Carbon reserves remaining. We've got to get moving...
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
When its so easy to read between the line, we can say that these guys are sick.... All that they do is nothing but propaganda. And now, a return to the moon... how can they call it a return ? The first time was a lie...
I say that they want us to look at the sky as they ravage some third world countries.
Know this tale ?
The rogue and the merchant
The Rogue: (pointing his finger) Hey look behind you ! thats is a very weird thing...
The Merchant: (looking behind) Huh ? I see nothing....
The Rogue: (running away with all the merchant stuff)
THE END
"Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche
Can we just blast his *ss to the moon? It might save money and the enviornment here on good 'ol earth. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."
"This technology stuff is just plum crazy!"
"South Park Republicans"
Then please, please vote for the Libertarians.
Now, as my sig probably shows, Im a Green and a Social Democrat. A Liberal. From my mighty perch up here in Canada, I can tell you -- with 100% authority -- that the #1 Failure in America is Republican/Democrat collusion. They have decided that as long as the other stays relatively calm, and doesn't interfere with any of the other's sacred-cows, that they can pass the power back and forth (sorta) while giving the impression that there A) Is value in American Democracy and B) Voting Matters.
Their two parties are so entrenched, in the the three arms of your government, right down through politics in the bureaucracy (FBI/CIA/ARMY/NAVY are all parts of partisan politics), there is a stale-mate. And really, a Stale Democracy.
My 100% guaranteed solution? My 100% guaranteed path to a more virtuous and prosperous USA? My 100% guaranteed method of satisfying MOST Americans. Is to move to a more consensus based Democracy by REMOVING the stranglehold of the Democrats/Republicans.
Because Neither of those parties * REALLY * stand on any of their perceived principles (witness Bush's defecit/clintons' warmongering as two recent examples).... my 100% guaranteed plan:
Wait for it
If you normally vote Democrat: Vote Green
If you normally vote Republican: Vote Libertarian
Commit to this. Do not falter. Do not decide "oh, its a close race, Im going to vote strategically". Do not buy the "we have to make sure %other-guy% doesnt win -- its too close, vote %party%", DO NOT CAVE! Continue to Vote AGAINST these two parties.... if you Vote for Republicrats, dont bother, just stay home, because the rest of the USA's sheep are going to be pretty much 50-50. Democracy as entertainment, as empty ideological rhetoric clashing, BS is going to doom you.
Cargo costs will be exhorbitant no matter what theory you ascribe to.
On the one hand, they may have to bring all that gear that they used to fake the original moon landings and plant it appropriately. Heck, with China going up and threatening to definitively blow the lid off the whole scam, there's a lot of work to be done to simulate that many supposed landings.
Of course if they didn't fake the landings, then there will be all sorts of fencing and concession stands required to establish a park around the historic sites. Which of course means Disney will be a major investor so it won't actually cost the government as much. Parking won't be a problem though.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Ummmm.... aren't many of the innovations that you talk about a by-product of an increased space presence? I know that the shuttle hasn't advanced general sience for a while, but the initial push to put one together did move technology along.
Hopefully this "program" will have similiar effects.
--WooooHoooo--
....be it Clinton, Bush or Barney.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
I'm old enough to remember the Johnson administration, and the phrase "guns and butter" to describe gov't spending back then. You know: guns for the Cold War (and the hot war in Vietnam) and butter for the domestic spending.
It seems today that "compassionate conservatism" is increasing spending, but not for the masses as in days of yore. (That Medicare reform bill that was passed a few weeks ago? The only winner was Big Pharma; it was an early Xmas present to Glaxo et. al.)
So, average Americans get fake benefits from the outrageous spending, while we funnel money into Iraq. (Iraq won't be another Vietnam, by the way. It will be worse: the US now has its own version of the Gaza Strip, only one about the size of California.)
Folks, this is "guns and margarine": real defense spending; tax breaks, patronage, and corporate gifts masquerading as domestic spending; and a lot of red ink that our grandchildren will never be able to mop up.
Don't get excited about the plans for NASA. The only thing you should consider is that somebody is trying to buy you.. with your grandchildren's money.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
The word "loony" actually comes from "lunar," because it was once believed that people went crazy from exposure to moonlight.
and diverse and intelligent cabinet ("better team") is what Bush had over Gore... Bush isn't as bright as Gore, but he has "people skills" he picked a team of people smarter than he was and who he trusted to advise him accurately.. Gore picked a team who would agree with his genius, right or wrong.
Bush also knows when to go against his team for the greater good... eg Thanksgiving in Bagdad.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Can Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Hannity & Roberstson be convinced to be the pioneers (like Bugs Bunny giving Yosemite Sam the bum's rush out the door) or maybe they'll be able to do that to Gore, Hillary, Colmes, Sharpton & Dean?
Either way it'll end up a reality series on Fox.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
bottom of the page
ALWAYS REMEMBER
Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove it's accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework.
The "Bread and Circus" line has the connotation of Subterfuge; please ignore our major problems. Look! An Elephant!
Romans or not, the idea is to dazzle people with an almost literal free lunch and gigantic spectacle. This is a conscious decision on the part of the leaders to trade short term hapiness in exchange for a blind eye towards our long term problems.
So I challenge you: What exactly are the benefits to going to the moon, again? I understand that the trickle down benefits of the first moon shot were an increased focus on math and science education (always a plus) and a number of lucrative academic research and industrial contracts to further the state of theoretical and commercial science, engineering, and manufacturing (hey, we got Tang and Space Ice cream out of the deal!). And being a gov't contractor, I completely see the value in the Gov't "bolstering" industry with said contracts (call it communism, call it whatever you want, I call it keeping Americans employed).
But going to the moon again?! Why? What new things will this uncover? There are so many better (read: different) goals that would lead to new progress instead of retreading the same old ground. So in this case, I have to call Bullshit. This is a lame-ass political attempt to change focus from the PLANET.
P.S.- the Roman empire FELL TO PIECES. That's a GREAT model to emulate! SPQR!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
This was a great troll! My hats off to you!
SPQR!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
First he goes to Iraq long enough for a photo op, now he is going thru NATO for military support (something his opponents have said he should have done in the first place), now we have a JFK-esque drive to space.
One good thing about Bush: you can always count on him to distract people while he plunders the USA!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
"Come Armageddon, you will all fold like the paper tigers you are and come home cryin to mommy."
There won't be any Armageddon unless Bush and his moronic supporters manage to create it. That's the scariest thing about the War on Arabs, it seems like a very blatant attempt to Immanentize the Eschaton.
False
ABCNEWS Poll Finds Country Evenly Split Between Dems, GOP
"The year's averages -- 31 percent for each group -- mark an uneven but long-term rise among Republicans, to a new high, and the fewest Democrats in annual averages since 1981. All else being equal, the trends suggest continued Republican competitiveness in election politics, albeit far from the Democrats' onetime dominance in sub-presidential races."
He may get re-elected but like the last time it will be by the skin of his teeth.
True
- sigs are for wimps.
That was supposed to say:
sigs, as if you care.
Doesn't quite work that way... 28% was your *marginal* tax rate, which is now 25%. A lot of people seem to miss that point entirely. The income tax rates you see given for various ranges of income are the marginal rates. If you make $100k and I make $50k, and we have otherwise equal dependant and deduction conditions, I pay just as much tax on my whole $50k as you do on your first $50k. It's the $50k after it that you're taxed more on (and that doesn't kick in until Dollar #70k or so)
Using an annual income of $50k, and assuming no dependants:
There was a new 10% bracket introduced; I'm not sure where the cut-off is, but let's be really generous and say $20k. Remember that you do get a personal exemption (I believe around $5-7k, let's use $5k).
Your previous total:
First $5k * 0% = $0
Next $25k * 15% = $3750
Final $20k * 28% = $5600
2002 Total: $9350
Net tax rate: $9350/$50k = 18.7% (excludes Soc. Sec. and Medicare, which are non-trivial for those of us pulling down less than $100k)
Your new total:
First $5k * 0% = $0
Next $15k * 10% = $1500
Next $10k * 15% = $1500
Final $20k * 25% = $5000
2003 Total: $8000
Net tax rate: $8k/$50k = 16%
If you're getting that $50k in semimonthly installments, your difference per paycheck would be about $56. Given that I didn't see that big a difference, the personal deduction I used was a serious underestimate and/or I extended the 10% bracket too high.
Note: the new 25% bracket ends around $60-70k for the single earner.
You can look up the specific numbers at www.irs.gov, if you're so inclined.
However, that I'm theoretically saving $1350 per year in federal income taxes doesn't make me feel that much better when my state has a yawning budget gap that's going to get filled somehow, and my state tax rates are NOT progressive; they're absolutely flat.
If I were making $25k (I have friends making about this who are first year teachers in a poor school district and journalists with smallish papers), my situation would be:
Old:
$5k * 0% = $0
$20k * 15% = $3000
Total = $3000
New:
$5k * 0% = $0
$20k * 10% = $2000
$5k * 15% = $750
Total = $2750
Savings = $250, which is less than $300, and this person is certainly not unusually poor.
Since I think I underestimated the personal deduction and overestimated where the 10% bracket ends, someone making $30k or more might only be saving $300.
And given that pretty much all the states have painful budget gaps and relatively flat tax structures, I'm going to get hit almost as hard per dollar as my friends making twice what I do, but I've gotten about half per dollar in federal tax savings.
And that is why some of us didn't think this was such a great idea... well, that and the whole business of ginormous budget deficits this year and for several to come.
Grüß Gott aus Bayern!
Just hope it is prize or incentive based, not another multi-billion dollar political/NASA debacle.
i lloaerospace.com
There's already an alternate space program underway that is more likely to provide affordable long term viable space capability, rather than yet another "disposable with no remaining infrastructure left after the fact" multi-billion dollar political/NASA one-shot space spectacular (Apollo, Shuttle, ISS).
See:
www.xprize.org
www.scaled.com
www.armad
etc
Of course, the politicians and big aerospace corporations are going to have absolutely no interest in anything so affordable and viable.
Do you need some sort of song and dance to convince you that the country can't survive four more years of looting on this scale?
Actually, that would probably be pretty funny.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
That's why were going..
"I drank what?" - Socrates
America will surive world war III, IV, the onslaught of Alien invaders, Asteroids larger than the moon, the second civil war, and The Thing That Should Not Be!! God Bless America!
;)
Actually, your post reminded me of a Stereolab song: "I thought IBM was born with the world, the US flag would float forever, the cold opponent did pack away, the capital will have to follow..."
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Anyone that knows anything about the solar system knows the Moon has been given a bad rap, being a rather tempering influence on Mars and Venus, which have historically been at odds.
What's worse, if the president is ignorant about this, or if his advisors do not advise him properly, the disequilibrium may allow Saturn to put its plans in motion against Mercury!
As above, so below: an ignorant leader, listening to martial influence will always lead to ruin.
</Nostradamus channelling>
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
No doubt, a renewed space program - such as the one envisioned in this article - would be a big boon for my hometown. (Huntsville, Alabama is home to the Marshall Space Flight Center, a major NASA center primarily responsible for the development of propulsion systems and launch vehicles.) However, I really doubt if any of this will happen. President Bush may propose, but the Congress will (quickly) dispose ...
...)
The primary reason? As mentioned in the article, personal relationships between members of Congress and high-level NASA officials are abysmal. There is a feeling (a strong belief) in Congress that NASA has lied to the Congress. There is deep mistrust and suspicion, and these feelings are longstanding. (A lot of this came out during the investigation of the space shuttle Columbia accident.) Also, NASA doesn't have a PAC and is not generally known for contributing to political parties. (Most of the time, when NASA goes up to Capitol Hill, it's with their hand out.) For politicians, (most politicians), the unspoken question is: "OK NASA, what's in this for me?"
As an example of what I'm talking about, consider the following. Going back to the moon (and beyond) will cost a LOT of money - at least in the tens (if not the hundreds) of BILLIONs of dollars. How would Donna's Congressman, Representative Howard Koble, explain a vote for that kind of expenditure to his constituents? I suspect his answer would be "I voted against it." (If there were a major NASA center, or a major NASA contractor, in Donna's district; Representative Koble might vote differently. All politics is local
For the majority of elected public officials, there is no political payoff in supporting the space program. The 1960's (and the race to the moon) was a fluke based totally on geopolitical considerations. My prediction is that this proposal will go nowhere.
He just wants to see if there really is a man in the moon...
I do everything the voices in my head tell me to...
... at Bagdad airport just minutes before he ran back home.
Of course leave it up to the president to pick the one fake piece of food off of the table.
With all these cost-cutting measures available, we could have an American moonbase for a quarter the price!
Make 'em all look up and point at the sky and hopefully they won't notice they're standing in a river of shite.
America: "Blah blah economy blah blah lies blah blah phoney enemies etc etc"
Dubya: "Look! Up in the sky! A bit shiny rocket!"
America "Oooooooooh, isn't it pretty?"
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Afghanistan was bombed because they were harbouring the bulk of the organization that orchestrated the attack. In other words Doh! to you.
As for Iraq, it is a completely different matter since this country has never ever threatened the US.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Does anyone else think that this could just be more hype from the Bush administration? Another program that won't get any support a few months after it is announced? Because that's what I'm hearing. It's like "No Child Left Behind," Bush stands up, talks a lot, distracts people from his horrible leadership, passes a few bills, and then won't fund it later.
Maybe this is more like the reconstruction of Afghanistan-you remember, that country that where we bombed the hell out of infrastructure until the government collapsed, and then, after he promised to help them rebuild, Bush all but abandoned the Afghani people so that he could focus on starting a war in Iraq?
And don't forget the war in Iraq, where reconstruction efforts are stuck in a quagmire of political games and beauracracy because Bush still hasn't put together any credible strategy for rebuilding the country and ending the US occupation.
Worst of all, how the hell are we going to pay for this? Public schools are going broke, class sizes are exploding, and our educational system is going down the toilet. Public college tuition is skyrocketing. States and munincipalities are suffering huge budget shortfalls, and can't afford to pay for disaster-preparation programs required after 9/11, because the feds refuse to fund them!
This is just more lies and hype from one of the worst leaders this nation has ever had-and anyone who gets excited about it needs to stop and think about all of the horrible problems this nation is facing before we start charging off toward the moon again.
right, MiniMe?
Free your ecomony and enact the FairTax
You're kidding right? NASA already gets allocated huge budget. The problem is that they just waste it on bloat. Properly directed, the current budget will be plenty for lots of stuff. Remember that during the good old Apollo days that the NASA budget was only 10% more in today's dollars and we got lots more done then than we have over the past 30 years.
It's all about direction.
I still think we should push for Mars first but that's another story.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Clinton was a statesman with uncontrolable libido.
Bush is Bush.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oh, yeah. That other President Bush announced in 1989 that the USA was going to Mars.
*looks around*
I don't see anybody on Mars. Do you?
the first decision bush makes that doesn't involve attacking another country?
nah! he prolly thinks the martians are after us.
-judging another only defines yourself
Halliburton is in the energy business. They do things like build oil rigs and such.
You do realize that you're quoting someone who wastes 4 paragraphs telling you how dumb people he doesn't like are, don't you?
"Did Bush or Cheney do something underhanded or illegal in handing some rather lucrative contracts to Halliburton for infrastructure and other work in Iraq?"
Yes. They did.
"We'll start with another question you can ask your bedwetting leftist friends."
He's continuing to insult people he doesn't even know.
"In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions."
So?
Is the point here that Bill Clinton is Jesus or something?
You are aware that Bill Clinton lied about sex with Monica, aren't you?
But if he says Halliburton is okay, then they're OKAY.
"You might also be interested in knowing that Al Gore was quite a fan of Halliburton."
So he thinks that Gore is Jesus, also?
"This means that at the time of the Iraq War Halliburton had the bid for providing logistical and other services to the U.S. government."
Yes, that is correct.
But that does not mean what you think it does.
There is nothing ruling out a competitive bid process. And it would seem to be more sensible to have a company in that region doing the work.
"To the left this is all the proof you needed to show that this whole war was about oil and enriching Bush pals."
No, the war was about the nukes that Saddam was building with that yellow cake from Niger.
Oops. Sorry, that was shown to be faked, and our government knew it was faked when Bush said it.
The war was really about those huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that Saddam had.
Oops. It seems that Saddam was telling the truth when he said he didn't have any. It also looks like the UN inspectors were not idiots the way the Right kept saying they were.
What we REALLY went to war with Iraq for was to STOP TERRORISM.
Except that now Bush admits that there weren't any links between Iraq and anti-US terrorism. And now we're seeing a whole lot of terrorist attacks on US troops and Iraqis that support the US. So terrorism has INCREASED. That's quite the achievement.
No, the REALLY REAL reason we went to war was to liberate the Iraqi people.
Except we're now talking about cutting our losses and leaving before they have established a democratic government. Not to mention that any DEMOCRATIC vote will probably result in a RELIGIOUS leader and a move toward Iranian-style theocracy.
Some people will never admit that the US was trying to control the Iraqi oil fields. No matter how many lies are revealed.
"Then ask them if Bush went to Iraq to enrich Halliburton."
No. Bush declared war to gain control of the oil fields.
Halliburton was the company chosen to provide the means of exploiting that oil.
Getting money for Halliburton was just a nice way for Bush to show his appreciation for his friends.
Given the fact that the economy could possibly have slid into deflation, deficit spending is not the evil you make it out to be.
Even many fiscal hawks admit that we can afford current spending levels given the GDP, and when the tax cuts are successful at reviving the economy, the resulting prosperity will more than pay for the current spending strategy.
It worked for Reagan, after all....
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I'm all for sending Bush back to the moon. Where do I sign?
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
to give credit where's it's do, I'm linking to this.
The above post is taken largely from Bob Zubrin's excelent book Entering Space.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Really, that's not the shocker it's made out to be by most people. Tennessee is a rather conservative state, and Gore didn't fit the profile the people of the state wanted. It'd be like a bunch of liberals voting Jerry Fallwell into office just because he's from their home state (extreme example, but same basic thinking).
Distance to get to anywhere useful.
Time to get there at 80% of the speed of light.
Cosmic rays.
Effect of weightlessness on human bones and tissue.
If you need help, find a high school student.
eoc
Haha... funny reply. However, lacking in logic.
No, Boortz doesn't think Clinton/Gore are great, quite the opposite. His point was those guys chose Halliburton when they didn't even need to, they chose the company that had previously LOST the *competitive bidding process* with LOGCAP. You don't hear the left complaining about that. Why not? Don't you think Halliburton had lobbyists then just like they do now? They were chosen OVER the company that won the LOGCAP contract at the time. Interesting.
Then this administration went with the company the ARMY recommended, Halliburton, who won the competitive bidding process and holds the LOGCAP agreement with the government.
But that does not mean what you think it does.
There is nothing ruling out a competitive bid process.
Can you not read? There WAS a competitive bidding process, and Halliburton won it! They do this on a regular basis, not when a war is in progress or being planned. One reason is to avoid the bias of the current administration.
And it would seem to be more sensible to have a company in that region doing the work.
Why is this "more sensible?" It would seem more sensible for America to pay an American company that has won the LOGCAP, which is what happened.
Bush declared war to gain control of the oil fields.
Man, he failed miserably then since the oil fields there still belong to Iraq. However, once the U.S (Halliburton) fixes the oil pipelines so that the oil can be sold, the money will actually go to help the people of Iraq instead of into Saddam Hussein's coffers.
Do you honestly think the Iraqi's that currently are waiting for us to finish up and leave, are actually going to allow the U.S. to "control" the oil fields of Iraq?
We don't need to control them, even if we could. Iraq will sell us oil at a reasonable price because we liberated them from a cruel dictator and rebuilt the parts of the oil field that were destroyed by Saddam's army and the guerrillas.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Just as government isn't the answer for everything because it doesn't have to care about efficiency, business isn't the answer to everything be cause its first and last priority is making money. The problem with space exploration is that safety requirements are astronomically higher than anything else that only governments can do it. If its "left up to private enterprise", its a question of when, not if, corners will be cut and we'll have a Challenger or Columbia disaster on a regular basis rather than once every 20 years.
The lovely thing about the PATRIOT Act is the fact that if you're put in a position where it's being abused against you, you're in zero position to challenge it in court. Which is exactly why it's a dangerous piece of legislation.
I happen to agree with the GP that McCain likely would've made a good president precisely because he had his own value set and would've been willing to veto legislation that he felt was bad from either side, not just green light it because it came from his side of the aisle.
Either way, you might find people will take you more seriously if you actually log in. There are mods on both sides of the spectrum, and the idea of you being 'persecuted' on slashdot for speaking your mind is a joke. At worst, you lose some karma, big deal. Better that than act like an asshat hiding behind the AC moniker.
Boortz's commentary does not disprove the statement.
... which is what all liberals complain about: that Halliburton is in bed with the white house and that is why they got the contract, and that is why Bush invaded Iraq.
That is true, however it disproves what that statement implies
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Bush is just trying to get the Slashdot vote! He knows that us nerds will be all a twitter with the release of Return of the King that day! He's going to try to win us all over. I also know for a fact that he's going to give the moon speech while dressed like Gandolf.
Parent should be modded down; I've been made aware (very effectively, too) that this was a PageRank exploit. Not Google's fault, move along, nothing to see. Sorry for the alarmism.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
...specifies that the president shall submit a budget to the Congress and that the Congress shall appropriate the funds (with all such legislation originating in the House of Representatives). It also specifies that the president has a veto which can be overridden by a supermajority in both houses of Congress. So it is very clear that this is a shared responsibility.
At various times in U.S. history, this balance of powers has played out in different ways: Sometimes a strong president has pretty much dictated the budget to the Congress; sometimes an assertive Congress has micromanaged everything; and sometimes there has been a constant battle over who would decide what.
During the years after Andrew Johnson's impeachment, very aggressive Republican Congresses pretty much decided everything and told presidents they'd like it. That changed with Teddy Roosevelt, when a strong personality turned the White House into his own "bully pulpit." Woodrow Wilson's executive branch also had a lot of influence. And the second President Roosevelt's power was largely unchecked by the Congress (although the courts did provide some checks on his power). After congressional leaders were embarrassed by their first attempt to rewrite a Reagan budget, the Democratic Congresses of the 1980s had little influence over the budget. Clinton usually got his way, but he had to fight for it every inch of the way.
Given this backdrop, it is difficult to say what the status of Bush's budget proposals have been. They have been passed, largely intact. But it's hard to say whether Congress has been cowed or is just going along because he's submitting budgets they like. It's even possible he's been cowed into submitting budgets he knows they'll like.
Whatever the case, it's clearly fair to say "Bush cut this program" or "Bush cut that program" when he submitted a budget proposal which included cuts which Congress enacted and he later signed into law. It is also fair to say "Bush tried to cut..." or "Bush cut such-and-such a program from his budget proposal" even if the money was later re-instated by Congress. It has been fairly common practice by this White House to make a promise, work hard to get the legislation passed, and then submit a budget which includes no funds for implementation.
Pointing out this proclivity is nothing more than honesty. And making snide comments about such honesty is a particularly insidious form of dishonesty.
There has been another historical trend which seems to be gaining popularity in the last 30 years: Dishonest politicians (and I am not saying Bush is one of them) have gotten into the habit of quoting small portions of part of the U.S. Constitution which delegate some part of the budgetary process to someone else (or to some other body) and pretending they don't have any responsibility for some particular budgetary problem (even though another part of the Constitution may well assign just such a responsibility to them).
The gullible fanboys of these dishonest politicians then pick up the meme, saying things like "And I thought congress held the purse" in discussions where any truth which may be contained in the statement has no relevance to the topic.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
OK, this is bad. Really Bad(tm).
;) ) and can be repaired w/o needing more supplies from Earth, several months away.
First, let's deal with some realities.
Mars is cheaper.
WHAT?
No seriously, Mars is cheaper. It takes less Delta V, and has far more economic opportunities than the moon does.
No, you can not use the moon as a bounce point for getting to deeper exploration.
First a moon base will not be self sufficient in our life times. That means a lot of money being poured into a black hole (pun intended). It is also cheaper to lunch a direct big booster rocket than to stage to Earth orbit. Even w/o the costs and uncertainties surrounding the whole space station thing.
Second, no you can not use it as a testbed for a Mars mission. The two environments are so vastly different that the equipment is not comparable. The moon has zero atmosphere, large extremes in temerature, and dust that somehow manages to find it's way into vacuum tubes.
Mars has none of those. Mars has an atmosphere that helps protect the pioneers from the cosmic rays (which are much less than we are led to believe, but still present).
Further, Mars has resources that alter the economics and safety in dramatic ways.
For example, for lunar trips, tou have to take *ALL* your resources with you. Enough to get there, stay there, and get back. You will expend large amounts of fuel to slow down to enter orbit and land.
A Mars trip on the other hand, is different. First, you can send an advance craft to manufacture oxygen, water, and fuel for the return trip in situ. By the time your people head out, you can have a return craft, fully fueled, with enough oxygen and water to last for a couple years. The means to do this is mostly solid state, and can be built in your garage. It is a proven technology that is inexpensive to make.
The moon does not offer that.
Further, a direct mission to Mars has an advantage in that it can use a technique called aerobraking. This means you use the atmosphere of Mars to slow the craft down, as opposed to buring fuel to do it.
The combination of a resource filled atmosphere and permafrost allows pioneers to build houses, making bricks from the land. The less you have to take and can make in situ, the less costly and more long term the whole #! is. It also means it is likely to be more stable (bricks are a proven technology, btw
Indeed, plastics, ceramics, and glass can all be manufactured in situ quite inexpensively and simply on Mars. No so with the moon. Aluminim, steel, copper, and silicon are also not complicated givent he resources available.
The martian soil is quite good for plants, the moon's is not. This means that a greenhouse can be built to provide fresh greens (and oxygen) for those pioneers on Mars. That means less cost in support. Water is heavy, and plants contain a lot of water. Thus, not needing to ship them is a damned good thing. Morale is improved dramatically by the presence of plants, so another plus is to be had.
The moon offers none of these advantages and comes with a more difficult set of technology to develop and deploy.
Space stations should only come into play for earth-related observation and study, not as jumping points for interplanetary exploration. At least not until we have them a Mars base. It takes more to go to orbit and then launch then it does to launch directly.
Much of this can be discovered reading, among other things, Zubrin's Mars Direct plan. Go to Mars Society webpage to find out more.
In particular, the book "Why Mars" details the plan in amazing simplicity and common sense. (BTW, no click-through or affiliate stuff; just a direct link to the book )
The moon push, especially when done by NASA, is a bad trip that should be avoided. For the amount NASA is spending (or wanting to) on th
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
the anti-God secular humanist agenda being a prime one
Oh, what "the anti-God secular humanist agenda" are you talking about, exactly? The United States is probably the most religious country in the western world, likely because we never had a state-sponsored religion shoved down our throats to create a backlash (i.e. Ireland and Italy). A politician who regularly mixed their religion and their politics together would be an oddity in Europe, as opposed to most Republicans and a few Democrats here. Its a wonder its taken almost 50 years to challenged that little addition made to the Pledge of Allegiance back in the mid-fifties.
We pulled troops out of Afghanistan and we aren't spending enough to setup a stable democracy.
So the Afghan farmers are planting drugs.
The local warlords get a nice cut of these profits and a chunk goes to various terrorist organizations.
These terrorists use that money to buy weapons and such for people in Iraq who want to kill US troops.
What goes around comes around.
In 2001, the terrorists managed one BIG attack on US citizens.
In 2003, the terrorists have managed THOUSANDS of small attacks on US troops. Sometimes they kill, many times they just cripple.
The world is LESS SAFE today than it was on 11 Sept 2001.
The US has MORE DEBT today than on 11 Sept 2001.
This just sucks all over the place.
No doubt he will pay for it with more tax cuts for the wealthy.
Pre-emptive note to supply siders: I understand the nature of your voodoo self serving theories. I just know they're a bunch of bullshit.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
I'd rather have my tax money back so I can spend it as I see fit (on my poor mother). After all, I earned it thru my work. I didn't know it was government's role to explore space. I thought that would be a good thing left to the market. Oh, you say it's too expensive to be left to the market! Exactly. It's too expensive for anyone to really be interested in, unless you have a gun to hold-up tax payers for billions in funding. Bush is proving worse than Al Gore. Gore just wanted a trillion in healthcare funding. Bush wants a couple trillion in healthcare, war, space, etc... Please, at least question the sanity of this B.S. space exploration funded by taxpayers. Maybe we can just build some expensive monuments instead. Signed--a Libertarian
You are not likely to get much support for nuclear fusion, as in cheap, environmentally friendly, nearly infinite energy from this administration or any other. It would risk putting some very powerful corporations out of business, as in big oil and big coal. Maybe the Bush administration could arrange for them to get a monopoly on the new fusion power plants so they could continue making money uninterrupted but I dont think they would want to risk the corporate upheaval that would follow a break through in fusion. Obviously the economic benefits would be huge but most politicians and executives lack the kind of vision necessary to see that.
To put it another way there is a really good reason, or a really bad reason, why fusion research spending is held down to levels that tends to discourage a breakthrough. Fusion research and Bush's Hydrogen program tends to be jobs program and coporate welfare like ISS, spend a billion now and again to keep it going but dont really try to do anything meaningful.
@de_machina
If we cannot build a better, more powerful and cheaper rocket today than 30 years ago, then we should drop the bomb on ourselves. We lost the plans...what kind of shit is that? Fuck the plans...make new ones...
talk is cheap. Hey, his dad was going to mars!
To routinely traffic with the moon, it would be nice to have a base outside the gravity well that means business. A _real_ space station, not the decaying cans we currently have glomped together.
To _build_ that space station, we need a reliable launch vehicle.
What _decade_ will he be talking about "getting around to this?" Unilaterally without UN participation, I assume?
This will be the first time for mankind going to the moon. What everyone thinks is the first time was just a movie. Couldn't you see the strings? I am glad GWB is ready to embark on this NEW adventure to the moon.
The general welfare reference is mentioned within the taxation power, not the spending power. Just because some revisionists have created spending authority which was never intended, don't pin that on the framers. The framers intended "general welfare" as running the government and satisfying the ends of the preamble (justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty). Why would the Constitution spell out specific spending powers (and every other power) but grant some broad, nebulous spending authority - within the taxation power?
Keep in mind that the income tax was banned by amenedment until 1920...
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I'm sure there are loads of French, Russian, Chinese and German taxpayers who would help fund a one-way ticket for Dubya to get to the moon. But I'm not sure how much oxygen would be in the budget, or if they'd pay for the return journey.
OK, well I don't think it was one of my better posts, but if I knew it would float up to "5, Insightful" I would have spent more time on it.
This rate of borrowing might be sustainable until the next election, but it cannot go on forever. Do you know something about macroeconomics that makes huge structural deficits OK?
> I would have been happy with McCain
FYI, he's the ONLY one I would have been happy about on either side.
For some reason, this sort of Triumph of the Will spiel makes me a little... uncomfortable.
Er... ever heard of slaves? Spartacus' lot decided they didn't want to live in the Roman Empire anymore, and they weren't allowed to 'just leave'.
Appealing to the plebs applied back in the days of the Republic, and all through the time of the empire. Free grain distribution didn't start at the end of the empire, and the Flavian Ampitheatre was built in the first century AD, a period in which you couldn't exactly describe the empire as being on the point of collapse.
Why do we have to suddenly go to the moon now?Are there Terrorists with Weapons Of Mass Destruction and Drugs or Communists up there?
I think the pResident should stop trying to misdirect the American public from his attempts at tyranny.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for space exploration. One of my first, and favorite memories is of watching men land on the moon, and I have always had a love for space exploration.
I'm just not happy that Bush and Co. seem to be trying to pull the wool over our eyes all the time.
--Fac Iustum Nec Time-- --Veritas Prevalibit--
I bet he's going to announce a $50 billion program and then it will get $50.00 in funding, like the AIDS initiative and No Child Left Behind. He'll claim a big win in November, knowing that it will never actually happen.
No,
The advances in printed circuitry were a simple evolution of making things cheaper. Printing circuits via lithography is cheaper than manual intensive wiring of transistors. It's also cheaper.
From that standpoint, we should thank television before with thank the Space Program.
Finally, the people we owe the most homage to is the folks at the Home Brew computer club. These folks really kick-started the move towards personal computers. They built them and shared their innovations.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
You say it lacks logic. Where?
You say people didn't complain about Halliburton back with Clinton.
So, Bush would still be wrong for giving Halliburton that contract.
"There WAS a competitive bidding process, and Halliburton won it!"
No, there wasn't. Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid process.
The LOGCAP bid process was NOT for re-building of Iraq.
All that means is that Bush had the OPTION of assigning the contract for Iraq to Halliburton without going through a bidding process.
"Why is this "more sensible?" It would seem more sensible for America to pay an American company that has won the LOGCAP, which is what happened."
And that kind of "logic" is why we have Bush blaming the sailors for that "Mission Accomplished" banner.
No, it would be more sensible to hire a mid-east company. A company with ties to other companies and people over there so that we can point out how THEY are the ones in control of THEIR future now.
"Man, he failed miserably then since the oil fields there still belong to Iraq."
Now you're starting to get the picture. He failed in finding "WMD's", he failed in catching Saddam, he failed in stopping terrorist attacks, he failed in just about everything.
Now he's talking about cutting his losses right before the election and letting Iraq vote in democracy.
Instead, we'll see another Iranian-style theocracy.
"However, once the U.S (Halliburton) fixes the oil pipelines so that the oil can be sold, the money will actually go to help the people of Iraq instead of into Saddam Hussein's coffers."
The US doesn't care who gets the money, as long as it isn't the enemy of the week. The Taliban were being catered to in Texas while Bush was in charge there.
The way this is going, the oil money will be going to the clerics.
"Do you honestly think the Iraqi's that currently are waiting for us to finish up and leave, are actually going to allow the U.S. to "control" the oil fields of Iraq?"
Do you mean the ones that are shooting at our troops over there?
The ORIGINAL plan was to have the US's puppets be elected by a grateful populace.
That failed. Those same puppets are the ones that gave the US the bogus info on the "WMD's" that Saddam had.
"Iraq will sell us oil at a reasonable price because we liberated them from a cruel dictator and rebuilt the parts of the oil field that were destroyed by Saddam's army and the guerrillas."
They're still shooting at our troops. That doesn't look like gratitude to me.
They dance around the wrecks after their guerrillas bomb our convoys. That doesn't look like gratitude to me.
An Iraqi man can shoot a US troop in the head and then run into a crowd that will cover his trail. That doesn't sound like gratitude to me.
You have the same blindness that Bush and company did.
The Iraqis do NOT like us. They still blame US for those sanctions all those years.
They blame US for the civilians killed during our invasion.
If we had a popular vote, you'd see a theocracy like Iran has.
Check out what the mid-east media says.
http://www.moontruth.com What else do you need?
Moonhoax
I agree with you that Mars is a better location than the moon for a "base" or "research station", but I still think that the creation of a moonbase should come first. Let me explain my reasons for that statment.
The distance between the earth and the mars is far, far, greater than the distance between the earth and the moon. There is a lot more time for something to go wrong during a trip to mars, than there is for a trip to the moon. Additionally, the amount of food, fuel, and supplies would need to be greater for a ship that would ferry people to mars, than for a ship that would ferry people to the moon.
The moon would be an excellent chance to test new technologies prior to sending them to Mars. It would be an excellent chance to iron out issues with Nuclear propulsion technologies as well as nuclear power systems for use at the base. Hardware and engineering for the creation of a base could be prototyped on the moon as well. Much more quickly and cheaply than could be done on Mars.
The most popular proposals for a Mars base require a robotic advance probe be sent to mars that will prepare the return fuel for a manned mars mission. While we have demonstrated we can land a probe on mars, we have not demostrated that we can extract useable minerals from a body other than the earth. We definitely haven't demonstrated that we can refine minerals to a useable form on a body other than the earth. We don't process those minerals without human supervision her on earth anyways (even though the technology probably is at a level that would support no supervision).
There are other technologies we need to demonstrate before I would feel comfortable taking a trip to mars. Make no mistake though, I am 100% for a manned mars mission. Just, not before we can demonstrate that we have the capability to undertake such a mission.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
I am not going to go point by point because I don't have the time or desire to argue with someone who can't read between the lines.
No, there wasn't [a competitive bidding process]. Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid process.
Those two statements are contradictory. LOGCAP is a competitive bidding process for projects that the military requires be done. Halliburton is de facto choice for this work since they won the competitive bidding process.
The LOGCAP bid process was NOT for re-building of Iraq.
Correct, it was for anything the military needs contractors to take care of, in different fields. Rebuilding IRAQ just happens to fall into that.
They're still shooting at our troops.
Who is "they"? Yes, there are people in Iraq shooting at our troops. They are also blowing up diplomats from other countries and Iraqi citizens, including police officers. They are killing red cross workers. They are killing UN diplomats.
No doubt, some of them are disgruntled Iraqi's. But many are foreign terrorists taking advantage of this opportunity. Look at the population of Iraq in total. The terrorists over there are but a tiny fraction of the population of Iraq.
These are insurgents controlled by terrorist groups and possibly even Saddam Hussein in hiding. They are not representative of the Iraqi population.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Nice cut-n-paste from the front page of the RNC website. It's really good to know that you actually dug all that up yourself... (yawn; btw, that is all just an attempt to smear the Democrats by creating some illusion of fealty to Howard Dean...)
So.. you have a couple of quotes from 1998 concerning "regime change". Did you forget who was in office at the time? Regime change in Iraq has been on the US Government's mind since 1991. The trick is exactly *how best to do it* without creating the disarray and power vacuum which exists now. Perhaps (and don't hurt yourself thinking about this) that's why Bush Sr. didn't allow Schwartzkopf to drive all the way to Baghdad back in Gulf-I... Bush Sr. was smart enough to know that without a concrete game plan in place to deal with the after-effects of toppling Saddam, the situation would become many times worse than the status-quo of containment (which had been working quite well, all Saddam press-ops aside).
Apparently Bush Jr. isn't as smart as his daddy...
Regarding your out-of-context snippet from Bob Graham, let's look at what then occurred...
Graham voted against authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq. (H.J.Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Adopted 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Graham Voted Nay) Sen. Graham Supported President George H.W. Bush In 1991 And Clinton In 1995 In Efforts Against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Regime, But Voted Against Support Of President George W. Bush In 2002.
So.. actually, it appears that Graham is consistent with his message, in spite of that single sentence you offered as "proof" of his waffling.
The rest of your post follows the same lines. I've put my karma where my mouth is.. how about you?
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
I don't agree with Libertarians on a lot of issues. But I do have a profound amount of respect for them because they practice what they preach.
...and "gun" control though it doesn't make sense as the amendment specifically cites militias, they are also against unlimited distribution of arms (the literal word) like missle launchers, tanks, cannons, and biowarfare agents.
Republicans claim to be Libertarians in nature, but they simply want liberal policies in certain areas where Democrats want them in another. Both sides are VERY strong on regulation. They simply wish to apply it to different things.
Same goes for true advocates of strict constructionism. That is, you should read the constitution very literally and not interpret. Although I disagree with it, I respect their position.
I do NOT respect the folks in the James Madison society. They pretend to be strict constructionist when it comes to abortion*On all other issues they will twist the constitution to their hearts content.
*
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
You may be the only person who believes that Ann Coulter uses FACTS.
... yes they are a train wreck. The reason is that they aren't Democrats anymore. They have become seduced by corporate money and are little different than Republicans.
Personally, I love Ann Coulter. For me she is the poster child of all ultra-conservative thinking. A hysteric blonde bitch. You guys just keep putting Ann right up front.
As far as your assesment of the Democratic party
The big problem for progressives is that the Democrats have been reduced to a party advocating gay marriage and fringier social issues AND supporting free trade and job destruction. There sole remaining GOOD issue is progressive taxation policies.
A shift in the economic spectrum is coming soon. NAFTA and WTO HAVE to go. The party that embraces it first will win over the people. If the Democratic leadership had any sense, THEY would universally call for ending NAFTA and WTO.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
We're currently doing great things in space. This month and next, a flotilla of space craft will approach Mars. These are projects that are objective driven. They cost a minor fraction of what ISS or the space shuttle cost.
What is the mission of ISS? One answer has been that it is a necessary step in going to Mars. However, it does not solve problems of weighlessness during the trip, or address radiation shielding, or food growth or recycling.
Much of the science or technology that can be gained from low Earth orbit is better accomplished with untended platforms. For example, crystal growth, and space telescopes require vibration free environments, in addition to microgravity.
And ISS is expensive. The last estimate I heard was $97e9. For what?
The Space Shuttle is a marvel, but also quite expensive. It's primary unique capability - bringing large things back from space - is mostly unusued. It's pretty heavy lift, but despite reuse, it's more expensive than disposable rockets on a per-pound to orbit, even if you ignore original construction costs.
The main problem with the Shuttle and ISS is that they are goals unto themselves, rather than the means to some end. And, the programs are structured so that it seems to make sense to keep spending to keep the project alive.
I don't want to hear that we're going to create a permanant station on the moon. I want to hear about what we're going to do once we're there.
It seems to me that it should be cheaper to go to an asteroid like Eros than to the moon. Eros has little gravity, so launching from it does not require as much fuel. It still costs $10,000 a pound to get to low Earth orbit. The fuel has to get there somehow.
-- Stephen.
There won't be any Armageddon unless Bush and his moronic supporters manage to create it. That's the scariest thing about the War on Arabs, it seems like a very blatant attempt to Immanentize the Eschaton. Once I saw a really cool (and in-depth, this thing ran in five or 6 episodes IIRC) documentary about Bush Jr. and his team. Lots of ex-CIA / FBI agents were interviewed, all basically saying "Bush is under *heavy* influence of Christian extremists". Which led me to think, verbatim, "awww, shit". Some Economist (.uk) articles tended to confirm the stuff, and some very serious folks (and facts) are there to backup the theory. Now I can't possibly believe myself that the war in Iraq (for instance) was done on religious grounds (" i.e. immanentize the Eschaton") but still, this shit is damn creepy & it does scare the crap out of me! He can't be *that* stupid, or can he?
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=miserable+failure
Just because the president says so, doesn't mean that we're going. JFK said so, and we went. Bush isn't JFK.
We choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard. -JFK
I'd like to hear, We choose to go to the moon, not because it is hard, but to achieve the following goals...
-- Stephen.
What about the Alien bases that are already there?
Look here, here, and here.
A reading assignment for you.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"I am not going to go point by point because I don't have the time or desire to argue with someone who can't read between the lines."
Then why don't you save yourself some time and just EXPLAIN it instead of coming out with crap like "read between the lines"?
"Those two statements are contradictory."
No they are not. As you yourself say later.
"Correct, it was for anything the military needs contractors to take care of, in different fields. Rebuilding IRAQ just happens to fall into that."
But the contract does not HAVE to go to Halliburton. It COULD have been put up for a COMPETITIVE bid that included mid-eastern companies.
And that is what SHOULD have happened.
"Who is "they"? "
The people shooting at our troops. Don't you watch CNN?
"But many are foreign terrorists taking advantage of this opportunity."
Yet Bush claims he made the world safer.
more attacks == safer?
Only to people like you.
"The terrorists over there are but a tiny fraction of the population of Iraq."
2% is a "tiny fraction". Yet that would still result in 100,000 "terrorists".
Did you miss the items where a "terrorist" shoots a US troop and then hides in a crowd?
That sounds like popular support to me.
"These are insurgents controlled by terrorist groups and possibly even Saddam Hussein in hiding. They are not representative of the Iraqi population."
Look up the phrase "Sunni Triangle". There is a LARGE portion of the population that would support Saddam or some other Baathist.
There is also a LARGE portion that would vote for Iran-style theocracy if given the choice.
Neither of which would be particularly US-friendly.
Which is why we're STILL seeing between 10 - 20 attacks EACH DAY.
Did you miss the item where two people were shot and then the crowd danced on their car, looted the bodies and smashed their skulls with bricks?
And these are the people that will be selling the US oil because they are happy that we liberated them from Saddam?
You have some serious blinders on.
Michigan had a republican govoner and Legislature for 12 years, anything the republicans wanted they got.....guess what, we voted for Gore.
the Politics of a state has very little to do with how the electorate decides to vote in a presidential election.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
"I suppose you would have said to leave Hitler in power back in WWII if you don't think we should have taken Saddam out."
Suppose all you want.
Hitler was invading other countries. Saddam wasn't.
Saddam had already been kicked out of Kuwait.
Saddam was not a threat to the US nor could the US afford the expense of nation-building when we already had Afghanistan to fix.
"So I'm saying is don't put on Bush or the Republicans what Bill Clinton should have done a long time ago."
But Clinton did NOT do it. You keep missing that point.
Why are you trying to blame Clinton for something he did not do?
Is it just because you don't have any other support for Bush?
Too bad.
"Just from the fack that Saddam Hussein murdered millions of his own people was justification enough to remove him from power."
Had murdered. We didn't prevent any NEW killings.
Meanwhile, we were ignoring certain events in Africa where the killings were HAPPENING AT THAT VERY MOMENT.
So, you think it is better to let someone kill hundreds of thousands of people just so we can "get" someone who kill a lot of people YEARS EARLIER?
That's some seriously messed up priorities you got there.
I'd say, keep the sanctions on Iraq and give the UN inspectors the time and info they need while we go and help people who we still have a chance of saving.
It would have cost us less AND we'd have a better chance of establishing another democracy.
Instead, we'll see a theocracy in Iraq.
I encourage "President" Bush to participate personally in this audacious venture.
In space, no one can hear you lie.
There's a reasonable chance that Bush may just be trying to look good compared to Hu Jintao who (if you believe anyone other than the U.S. media) has been looking alot better than Bush has recently.
[o]_O
It would also be a great place for a spa or medical recouperation clinic. Lighter g would certainly place less stress on stressed-out and healing bodies and the view of the stars and moonscape is absolutely amazing.
If you can get rich people to the moon to take part in these kinds of activities at a price they are willing to pay (say, sever hundred grand/trip)or to produce entertainment for the masses, the masses won't be far behind. After all, 5-star exclusive resorts aren't just populated be rich people; they need support staff to cater to their every whim too.
Think about it.
science is a religion
I don't like almost anything that President Bush has done - that probably colors my (and others) opinion of this idea. That being said, the merits of the idea are determined by more than just a speech.
1) What is the plan for getting this done? Is the plan technically feasible?
2) Will there be enough money to fund it? Will the money go to the right people? Will the right people have authority to make decisions on the execution?
3) What is the long-term purpose?
The problem with this is President Bush's execution of some of his other plans hasn't been so hot. It would have been hard to find OBL anyway, but committing Afghanistan-based troops to it probably doesn't help to find him. The war in Iraq was an effective military move (except that it strained the military significantly - while the state of unpreparedness isn't due to GWB, he planned extensive military missions knowing that state) but less effective at stabilizing Iraq. It doesn't seem that he (or his staff) had an effective plan for the aftermath of the Iraq war - while whatever good that has been achieved in Iraq has been ill-publicized, the disorder currently in force makes it difficult for that good to endure long, and the disorder doesn't seem to have been anticipated by the GWB administration. The furor over the Halliburton deals to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure also seems relevant here. Running a deficit in times of recession wouldn't be so bad, but the current deficit is rather large, and the amount of actual spending in the budget has probably been helped further by low interest rates (lowering the interest payments on the debt accrued). Neither Reagan or Bush Sr. were able to effectively take steps to decrease the size of the federal gov't, one of the reasons for lowering taxes in the first place. From the way things have gone, I don't see GWB decreasing the size of the federal gov't either - thus the "fiscally responsible" Republicans are spending money without an idea of how it will be repaid.
Given the poor execution or thought in the plans GWB has put into play, there are some reasons to distrust this plan. I would also have mistrusted this plan under Clinton - Clinton seemed great at coming up with things but not so good at executing them. Bad execution of a plan of this sort will make it more difficult to achieve those goals later, and so it is a good idea to make sure it is done right. Since I don't trust GWB to do so, an attempt to go to the moon now (IMO) might be counterproductive.
This Bush sucks at literally everything we can think of. http://www.q2112.com/what_does_this_bush_suck_at_b est_.htm
Faith: (noun): That quality which enables us to believe what we know to be untrue.
It wasn't a bluff. It w as a serious research effort with lofty goals which were never achieved because their necessity disappated. Calling SDI a bluff is about as honest as calling the moon race a bluff.
And FYI, I have an acquaintance who worked on an SDI programme in the 80's which resulted in - here it comes - the Patriot II Anti Missile System.
I really, really, truely, honestly hate to be a party pooper, but I gotta wonder where the U.S.A. will get the money to pay for this. Pres. Bush is already bankrupting the nation by living off of credit from over seas lenders.
When one is as far in debt as the U.S.A. is, creditors get REALLY picky when you ask for more money, even if it is to pay for something really COOL.
I'm all for going to the moon and beyond, but only if we are willing pay for it up front.
Bush thinks a Super Collider is what Clinton did with Monica...
Now point for point to counter your raving. Fuck the National Debt, every organization has debt and assets. National debt should be adjusted to average national wage per citizen (Higher then the $26,000 we each owe) National Debt is being dragged out of the closet again after 10 years. Last time it was Perot's pet this time the Democrats are scarmongering. Republicans know better and are attempting to recover the economy after the "e-commerce" decade run by the inventor of the internet (Gores) boss (Clinton) went bust. Don't blaim poor a poor ecomony now on Bush. Manufacturing jobs are on the rise according to articles in the Wall Street Journal and the NYTimes (w0rthle$$ rag).
The recovery is on it's way...
Wait it out or teach an employer the true meaning of employee productivity; BUT DO NOT IDEALIZE THE "GLORY YEARS" OF THE CLINTON/GORE ECONOMIC YEARS. THEY GOT US HERE.
Now before you stop reading Bush has screwed the U.S. on every foriegn policy issue to date (other then the Fact that he just as I type has lifted the Imported Steal Tarriffs) He had supported and encouraged the use of sanctions, has demoralized international organizations at every turn, and used poor logic / bad intelligence in his international decision making. I support our troops and the nation rebuilding in Iraq. I did not like the use of "security concerns" as a reason for war.
Most of the money is actually going to Halliburton. Most people knew that they would inevitably get the reconstruction contract because they were the only company with the resources and the Know how to do the job, I myself have yet to pay a bribe to have anything done in the US, what makes you think US companies abroad are going to work like that. US business ethics are not that bad many other countries have worse and the Federal Trade Commission just catchs more of it... By the way you notice that the entire Enron Fiasco blew up in the first days of the Bush administrations control?? Thank goodness that the Reupblicans like fighting white collar crime, or are just more familiar with it.
The Tax Cut is what most people want to here they are getting. The rich couldn't give a shit less they just maximize benefits from sale of stock. The masses get a small check and use it to pay down debt (or help purchase new TV). It is a pointless jesture either way, but he kept his promise to those that elected him (No bitching about the Electoral College vs. the people please; if I hear about chads of any kind again I'll puke, still find all those elederly democrats voting Buchanean funny as hell though.)
National Spending on Science research is currently going to do the nation more good then bad. With the current budget we can innitiate a number of these large scale Science programs as the higher costs will take a number of years to affect us. This "from the tone of your post" I believe that you would agree with. However your reaction to a Moon outpost as pointless and a super collider is essentially like argueing Applied technology vs. Pure Science. Both are needed an earlier article on slashdot called (I am not going back and reformating now) Big Science has 20 Year plan ( http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/1 5/0419207&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=134&tid= 99 )
Great Idea Fully fund everything on the list!! However I believe that devoping outposts in space, on the moon, and under the ocean will put scientists/inventors/businesspeople in a position to to develope new applied technology, develope useful applications for current technology that will funnel into the commerial, industrial, and residential (remember Tang and velcro) markets. Things like material sciences, medical/biological sciences, robotic/remote manufacturing, and nuclear sciences could make huge leaps from people living and working in these formidable environments.
As for the IQ of the current president, after the legalese of the l
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
I know this isn't a political website, but all the George Bush bashing is getting a little old. For months on slashdot I read about people begging to go to the moon/mars. Now, once it is reported that the *president of the united states* is actually considering action, I see a flood of comments about how terrible G Bush is for even contemplating such a commitment. How about a little consistency here fellas? Of course, there are similar patterns with other topics, but this whole thread of comments really annoyed me.
True. However, they would also catch me doing many very intelligent things. I've never known President George Bush to do anything especially intelligent.
And put Bush on the first one-way rocket headed up there! Finally, a practical use for space technology.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
"For example, when I say something like "read between the lines," and then I follow that up with more information about what I mean."
S ol dierDeaths02-ON.html
. sh tml
No, "read between the lines" means that there is a meaning there in addition to the information confered by the statement.
"Yes, they are. Since LOGCAP is a competitive bidding process, you can interpolate it in your sentences to read: They should have used a competitive bidding process, not a competitive bidding process [i.e. LOGCAP]. That is why it is contradictory."
Okay, once again, really slowly for you. Because Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid that does NOT mean that they HAD to be given the contract for Iraq.
You have a problem with that fact and there is no amount of explaining that will get that through your head.
The government was NOT in any way required to award that contract to Halliburton.
Despite your claims to the contrary, they were not.
You even posted a previous instance where Clinton awarded a contract to Halliburton despite Halliburton losing the LOGCAP bid.
But then you claim that the winner of the LOGCAP bid has to get those contracts.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
"Bush never claimed a war zone would be safe, did he?"
He said he made the world safer. Yet now we have more attacks than before. You don't understand a thing.
"Do you think these attacks would have decreased if we let Saddam continue to control Iraq?"
How many attacks were there on US citizens in 1999? Now we have 10 - 20 a day.
Leaving Saddam in Iraq would have resulted in a few thousand fewer attacks, given historical data available from 1990 - 2000.
"I heard you say that, however you provided no details, no facts."
Damn, you read all those news sources and you need ME to provide you with references?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1202Iraq
http://charleston.net/stories/070703/ter_07iraq
How did you manage to miss things like that in your widespread readings?
1. Yes.
2. Yes, yes, yes.
3. No.
4. Yes.
With your "read between the lines", you're trying to imply that the majority of Iraqis would rather have the US occupation.
Yet the facts don't seem to support that. Rather we have reports of groups of Iraqis celebrating that US troops are being killed.
"What is your solution to the mess of terrorism and Iraq, by the way? The war in the middle east is not perfect, but the goals are noble -- to make the world more free, to destroy terrorists, to help the people that need it the most."
No, we went in to control the oil.
That's why Bush had to lie about the yellow cake and nukes.
That's why Bush had to lie about the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
That's why Bush had to imply that there was a connection between Saddam and al Queda.
That's why Bush had to lie about the "darn good" intelligence that he had from Iraqi exiles.
That's why our people are being killed over there, 6 months after the "Mission Accomplished" banner that Bush is now blaming on sailors.
If the war is to make the world more free, then why aren't we spending more money and troops helping Afghanistan?
If the war is to destroy terrorists, then why aren't we spending more money and troops helping Afghanistan (we KNOW they had al Queda there)?
If the war is to help the people that need it the most, then why aren't we spending more money and time in Afghanistan where warloards control everything except Kabul?
Why didn't we move into Africa when they were STILL KILLING PEOPLE?
Those are the facts. I'm not surprise that someone like you can claim to read so much, yet miss so much reporting.
If you don't understand that "get out of Iraq" means "giving up and letting Hussein have his way" then there there's probably a reason you think Dean's got a chance.
"Well lets see, I never said that I wouldn't support helping the people in Africa."
So you don't support Bush because he didn't go into Africa. Is that what you're saying?
"If you disagree then fine...he would still be in power today then killing more people (he didn't just do that in the past)."
The US killed more Iraqis during our Invasion than Saddam had killed in the past year. Sad, but true. So, from a pure body count, the Iraqi people would have been better off with Saddam than with Bush.
"Yes diplomacy was a good idea and in hindsight it probably would have been best to keep going...but given the circumstances Bush had to deal with - after 911 and the threat of terrorism."
Bullshit. There were enough peace marches with enough people that there is no "hindsight" on this issue. Just like there is no "threat of terrorism" because there wasn't any evidence that Saddam was linked to al Queda.
In fact, al Queda has a completely different viewpoint than Saddam. Saddam is very secular.
"How did he know whether Saddam wouldn't be a threat to the US?"
Simple, Saddam didn't have any weapons that could reach the US. The US still had a military presence in Kuwait.
"Looking back is such a convenience...but you don't know these things until after it's already happened!"
Again, bullshit. Bush claimed to have "darn good" intelligence that Saddam had "WMD's" but he would NOT provide that to the UN inspectors to verify. Now it looks like Bush did not have ANY information. Just fantasies.
"I for one don't want to see anymore U.S. citizens killed."
Then stop reading the paper because US citizens are dieing in Iraq.
"I don't want to see anyone killed for that matter including Iraqi soldiers, but we at the time of *war* (in stars because we didn't official declare it constitutionally) must unfortunately kill some soldiers...that's what war is."
The US invaded another country, without any IMMEDIATE threat from that country. I don't care what you WANT to see. It happened and closing your eyes will not make it go away.
"I'm not just trying to defend Bush but moreso trying to get YOU to see that your arguments use the convenience of hindsight like I mentioned before."
And suppose I were to provide you with an example of me saying that there would not be any "WMD's" found PRIOR to our invasion?
What would that do to your "hindsight" arguement?
Think about it. Because I can prove it.
"Try being the President for one day and I think you'd have a whole new respect for the job. I for one would never want that job...too much pressure."
Cool. I'll take your challenge. Get Bush out and I'll take over for a day.
You have severe reading comprehension skills, and therefore it is no fun arguing with you.
I wasn't trying to explain what "reading between the lines" means, I was giving you an example of how to form an argument. You make a statement, and then you provide more information to back up your point. I only gave you an example because you seemed confused.
Despite your claims to the contrary, they were not.
Nowhere did I state they HAD to go with Halliburton. Please find out what 'de facto' means. If you had read my original message, you would notice where I pointed out that Bill Clinton did not go with the de facto choice (the current LOGCAP holder), they went instead with Halliburton, supposedly because they thought they were the right company for the particular job. No one complained about that. This was the crux of my entire argument, and Neal's.
I'm sorry, I can't go on arguing with you because you continue to misrepresent what I said and then you attack this strawman. This is a common tactic of someone who is arguing an illogical point.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
afaik, you troll someone who is off topic, posting pitcures of deranged anuses, etc. when i moderate, i try to do it with a sense of humour and keeping in mind that just because i disagree with someone's view doesn't mean they are a troll.
"Other bands play, but Manowar KILLS"
"de facto"
From www.m-w.com
Main Entry: de facto
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1689
1 : ACTUAL; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized
2 : exercising power as if legally constituted
They won a formal bidding process. The were formally recognized and legal.
There was nothing "de facto" about it.
"Nowhere did I state they HAD to go with Halliburton."
Yet you kept arguing that they did have to go with Halliburton because Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid.
I was the one pointing out that winning the LOGCAP bid did NOT mean that they had to use them. I said that in multiple posts. Don't try to get out of that now. I said that while they could LEGALLY issue the contract to Halliburton, without bids, that was not what they SHOULD have done.
I said they SHOULD have started a bidding process that INCLUDED companies from the mid-east.
"I'm sorry, I can't go on arguing with you because you continue to misrepresent what I said and then you attack this strawman. This is a common tactic of someone who is arguing an illogical point."
You're just unhappy that with all the stuff you claimed to have read, I'm the one that had to provide you with links to actual events.
Where's the strawman? I'm saying that Bush didn't finish Afghanistan before he got us into Iraq. I'm saying that he lied to get us into Iraq. I'm saying that he did everything wrong in Iraq. I'm saying that the Iraqi people are NOT happy with us and will end up with a theocracy when Bush finally cuts his losses and runs before the next election.
I've said that I can PROVE that I said that Iraq did not have any "WMD's" PRIOR to our invasion so there's none of this "hindsight" bullshit your tried to pull.
Not to mention that you tried to blame this on Clinton.
Well, toddle along. I've given you enough of an education today. Maybe SOME of it will sink in.
Environmentalists don't like wind farms because they kill birds.
Try again.
+++ATH0
"we have money to spend on education and a bunch extra............ ok, now let's go to the moon"
This condition will never be met - CANNOT be met. We have money to spend on education?! When?! And we've had "extra" exactly once in recent history - when the budget was balanced under the Clinton administration. We will never have billions upon billions of "extra" money in the federal budget. The project will have to be allocated first and paid for later like everything else.
The question is whether or not it can be justified politically. That's what we have to focus on rather than even thinking about paying for it up front - it's just not possible.
+++ATH0
Much like you don't know the meaning of "de facto", you don't know the meaning of the word "strawman".
h ol d=1&commentsort=0&tid=160&mode=thread&cid=7629 390
I said that they could have put the contract up for bid.
You said that they did and that Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid.
I said that Halliburton won the LOGCAP, but that didn't mean that they had to use Halliburton. I said they could put the Iraq contract up for bid.
You said they did and that Haliburton won the LOGCAP bid.
Do you want me to post links to your posts where you said that?
Once again, the government did NOT have to use Halliburton. The government SHOULD have put the contract up for open bids and SHOULD have included mid-east companies.
Now is when you come back and say that it WAS up for open bid and that Halliburton won it.
Just like you said here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88026&thres
"Can you not read? There WAS a competitive bidding process, and Halliburton won it! They do this on a regular basis, not when a war is in progress or being planned. One reason is to avoid the bias of the current administration."
Well, your own words, quoted, in context, with reference link.
Go ahead and say that you didn't say that.
He said the US will go back to Vietnam! Not the moon! Silly rabbits...
-psy
Nah, I just do modelling & design for TransOrbital. The tricky language bits (such as remembering to write "English" with a capital 'E') I do for IDG and other publishing houses.
:v)
Vik
Ironically the Russians launched my previous satellite.
:v)
Vik
What's funny to me is that if you google for "deficit" it all comes back "attention deficit". What irony.
Exactly; I may not always agree with McCain, but I respect the man and I'd trust him to try to do what's right, because he's shown a willingness to do what the right thing reguardless of the party line.
Bush, on the other hand, I neither trust nor respect.
(And since I'm sure someone will ask...no, I wouldn't trust Clinton either, at least not about his sex life...but then, I didn't vote for him)
As to the AC bit: ACs have no credibility. If you're not willing to defend your views publically, why should we believe they're worth anything? There are valid reasons to post AC, but in this discussion it seems to be mainly used for anonymous flames.
Twenties Retirement
You've missed my point entirely.
I have no problem with AC's. In fact, I wouldn't have read the AC post in the first place if I didn't intentionally browse at 0 threshold a lot of the time specifically so I CAN read AC posts. The problem I have is when people hide behind the AC simply because they just want to start a flame war or they're not willing to stand up for their beliefs.
The only reason I launched a flame back is because the original AC poster (if it's not you) bitched about not logging in because he "didn't want to be persecuted," which is bullshit.
Obviously, other people disagree. Perhaps even the founders. If not, why didn't they simply write ...
...
...
"The peopele have the right to carry firearms."
And leave it at that.
For example
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't say
The speech of the people, being necessary for pursuit of political discourse, and further being a necessity to reason, shall not be abridged. The press, being a natural forum for speech, printed or spoken, shall neither be restricted. etc...
The second amendment seems to have a curious format and it is ABSOLUETLY a matter of debate. It was so fucking obvious there would be no debate.
My personal take is that it is intentionally ambiguous. That is, people disagreed about the nature of that amendement. The existence of citizen militias was a HUGE bone of contention leading up to the Revolution. Some others likely believed that the right to bear ANY type of weaponry should not be infringed in any way.
We are left to reason to interpret the meaning of these phrases intertwined. Given the hideous nature of the text, a literal interpretation simply isn't possible.
The idea that this amendment deals specifically with guns is also ludicrous. It doesn't say guns. It says arms. Armaments at the time ranged from cannon, rifle, pistol and swords.
Arms of this day consist of shoulder fired missles, flame-throwers, land-mines, tanks, nuclear weaponry, biological agents, etc... A literal interpretation would require one to protect all the above as a protected right of a citizen.
Finally, go back to Mr. Brocki and ask him how HE would have written the sentence. Ask him if one of his students had written a sentence like that he would have corrected it. Watch him shut down.
The second amendment is a contrived ambiguity. The notion that these brilliant men of learning would write such a crappy sentence because of sloppines is naive.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Ohhhhhh awesome flame man. My compliments. Laff.
I've said it before, unless you get the porn, er, "adult entertainment" industries interested, you won't get anywhere.
Sex sells, like it or not.
Next is gambling, then sports.
The ideal moneymaker would be betting on lunar sex athletic events, of course...
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Anyhow, tax cuts are just as good for an economy as gov't spending. That tax cut money goes somewhere, maybe it goes into a bank account and the bank can lend the money out for someone to buy a house. Maybe it buys a yacht. Maybe it buys something else. That's better than being in the gov't coffers and ending up paying for a study on some senator's pet project with little or no redeemingvalue.
Nothing personal, but people in capitalist countries have a fundamental problem grasping these ideas. The economic growth basically depends on how much of GDP is spent on new means of production as opposed to consumption goods. Of course, there are efficiency issues, but these are related to the quality of management in the government, not to some inherent inefficiency of the government. And quality of management can be improved if you build accountability and transparency into the government.
If the government would spend 15% of GDP per year on fundamental science, R&D and new industrial/infrastructure projects, the economy will grow faster than if these money were spent on houses, cars, yachts and tourism. There are fundamental flaws with democracy and liberal market economy and lack of investment (a result of rampant consumerism) is one of them. A good planned economy run as a well-managed corporation can potentially be much more efficient. Basically, technocracy would be a perfect answer, if only it was feasible to establish through political reform...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
>is a pen name author any less valid than non-anonymous one?
Not at all. If a pen name is used by only one person, then you can tell if that person is being internally consistant or not.
Heck, most handles on slashdot could be considered pen names. I certainly don't read based on who posted what; I have no idea which handles go with which people.
With AC, on the other hand, you can't tell if contradictory posts are coming from the same person or different people.
As I said, there are valid reasons to post AC, but most of the AC posts in this thread have been just anonymous flames. And I say again, if you believe in your opinions, you should be willing to be associated with them.
Twenties Retirement
Oh good. Another thing the government can spend untold billions of dollars on instead of job-creating economic investment.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Maybe you just misspoke, but I'll call you on it anyways:
However all businesses have a RIGHT to PROFIT even if it means higher costs for the citizen.
So if I start up my own business and I don't profit, who do I sue, since my RIGHT to PROFIT is obviously being trampled by someone?
Food, medicine, and humanitarian supplies were never restricted by sanctions.
I know of at least one aide worker who went into Iraq during the period when sanctions were in effect who had children's crayons, which she was taking into Iraq as a personal gift, confiscated at the border as they were deemed to be in violation of the sanctions.
Children's crayons. Just what threat did they pose to international security? If you mix the blue and the orange can you make a nuke? Pathetic.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
If you could build a small generator (or "battery") that is ~20% efficient, you'd only need about 100-300 grams of SR-90 for power.
Err... that should read ~10% efficient. We need 10-30 Watts, ergo 100-300. Damn slippery fingers.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I urge EVERYONE in favor of continued moon missions to email the president (president@whitehouse.gov) and tell him that you are in favor of this. Not many people realize the power of influence that we would have if only half of the Slashdot readers were to write and tell the president that it's a great idea. Obviously the thought has been suggested to him, now we need to stand behind him and tell him that we believe in this goal.
We never had extra. We had projected extra.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
"Even many fiscal hawks admit that we can afford current spending levels given the GDP"
Only while they are so baked they completely forget the meaning of the word "afford".
"when the tax cuts are successful at reviving the economy, the resulting prosperity will more than pay for the current spending strategy"
Theres no particularly good evidence that the tax cuts will help revive the economy (The spending will certainly help in the short term). But to actually pay for the current spending, the economy would have to not just recover, but start growing by an order of magnitude faster than it ever has. Nobody really thinks that is going to happen.
"It worked for Reagan, after all.... "
No, it didn't. Every penny of Reagans debt is still with us, we haven't paid any of it back. And Bush is making Reagan look thrifty.
Please do not reply to eggtroll, that is MY task. It only "eggs" him on further if anyone but me replies. eggtroll is my current interest. I will follow him as he posts and post this exact response every time. HAND
Un-news
Well actually, no, you are wrong.
Television's greatest problem in the 60s wasn't circuitry size. It was heat/electrical current. Eventually, TV would have required a certain degree of the advances that the space program brought in minituarizing circuitry, but it didn't do so first.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
... is nuclear fission so horrible?
After 3 years or so you have radioactive waste. Yes. Fine. Refine it, and take the unusable portion and dump it in a tectonic subduction zone. Problem solved.
+++ATH0
Point.
+++ATH0
You just encountered a fairly moderate, considered, non-US viewpoint. You don't have to agree with it, but an intelligent response would be to at least consider the points raised.
Instead you respond with anger and insults. Is it your intention to reinforce nascent ill feeling toward America? If so, you are going the right way about it.
America is currenly burning up decades of accumulated good will at a terrifying rate. Have you already decided that this is something you want for the nation in which you live?
Or perhaps you're just trolling. I really rather hope it's the latter.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
[ Insert text of grandfather post here. Repeat as necessary should replies be needed to subsequent responses of this nature ]
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Many Irish fought in WWII. Indeed, the UK to this day still maintains at least two Irish regiments (The Royal Irish Regiment and the Irish Guards) today, composed of both northern and southern Irish. Lt Col. Tim Collins, who was accused of war crimes (by an american major i think, after Tim made some critical remarks about american conduct (something along lines of 'trigger happy')), is Irish. One of the UK forces soldiers killed in Iraq was in fact from Dublin. For his funeral, iirc, the Irish government gave permission for soldiers from his regiment to attend (ie in their capacities as british soldiers - dress uniform). Indeed, from the telegraph story below, this funeral made history: first time british soldiers have walked the streets of Dublin in uniform since 1922.
h ttp://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0424/iraq01.html: //www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2F news%2F2003%2F04%2F25%2Fnfune25.xml
Ireland being neutral: Ireland made Shannon Airport available to the US military for stop-overs and refuelling for the planes which ferried troops and supplies over to Iraq.
More info from googling:
http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/iriraq.html
http
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Err... the charges against Lt Col Tim Collins were of course found to be baseless (the irony was he was accused of mistreating POWs - by an american!). He's also the guy who made some stirring speech to his troops (irish) the eve of the war whose words impressed Bush so much he had them framed and hung on his wall (in the oval office?).
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Clinton's speech about the Vietnam war in Vietnam. Amazingly honest. Amazingly perceptive. (Remember, the U.S. government killed more than 2,000,000 Vietnamese. None of them threatened the U.S.)
Clinton's handling of the abortion rights issue. There is no reason for a person to get strongly involved in one side or the other; the president does not decide abortion rights law. The issue is a moral one that cannot at present be resolved; nature itself aborts 93% of conceptions.
Clinton did stupid things, also. Obviously, the Lewinsky affair was one of them. Bombing Afghanistan and Sudan were two others.
The issue with President Bush's intelligence is that he has never shown any ability to do analysis. Yes, there is analysis done by the 5,500 person White House staff. But I have never seen George Bush come to an unusual conclusion by thinking carefully. Clinton, however, often did.
The thinking of both is heavily affected by alcohol. Bush is a dry alcoholic. Clinton is the child of alcoholics. Clinton's abuse of sexuality is common among ACOAs, as they call themselves, Adult Children of Alcoholics.
But there is a big difference between Clinton and George W. Bush. Clinton is a self-made man who has a huge intellectual interest in government policy. Clinton has a demonstrated ability to analyze.
Bush showed very little interest in anything; now that he is president, his handlers try to conceal that. Bush is the son of someone who pushed him to pretend that he was succeeding.
Gore also is such a person. Gore has surprisingly little interest in or understanding of politics. Gore is the son of a famous politician. His father had a serious interest in government leadership, Gore the son did not.