Slashdot Mirror
Gore Pushes for Private Investment in Space
dptalia writes "Al Gore said in a recent speech that more private enterprises need to invest in space. Gore pointed to the successful growth of the internet as proof that private investment is faster than government. Not surprisingly, Gore also lambasted President Bush's space policy."
I have to agree with him. Private investment in space is the only thing that will change it from a huge, shiny waste of tons of money to a useful endeavor.
Now that the Republicans have completed their transformation into the party of the religious socialists, somebody had to stand up for free enterprise.
I just never thought it would be Al Gore. Good for him.
But then again, at this point in time, we can't even solve our problems on earth... and running from earth is pretty expensive last time I checked. It makes me wonder... if all the cash that the current administration has invested in the war was put towards space, where we would be right now? Its very cool that we are getting all this info about Mars, but in reality, what else are we going to do? There isn't any sort of hope that we will be able to develop any sort of fast transport in space, so unless that happens, it will remain 'unmanned missions with cameras'.
Al Gore saw the business potential. He never claimed to actually have invented it. Vint Cert is a pretty good reference.
Quack, quack.
I also support private exploration of space.
My guess is that this post will be just as effective as Gore in promoting investment.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Ya, thats it. Cerf. Vint Cert.
Quack, quack.
... that the dangers we face from ManBearPig are only exacerbated by a lack of private investment in space. He concluded his speech by asserting that he was quite "serial".
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Ok, somewhere in there is a pitch for somebody to do something in space, but I'm damned if I can find it amongst the whinging about global warming and Bush Derangement Syndrome filling most of the wordcount.
The problem is Gore was speaking at an X-Prize function and the article is at space.com so they had to either spin some message about space out his drivel or write an article tearing him a new one for misuse of the speaking slot. Being good Democrats they opted for #1.
Yes space is good, private industry should, and is, working on the problems. Gore and government are no longer needed, and in fact only slow things down.
Democrat delenda est
Ok, I'm all for private money vs. public funding for projects.
The question I'm still wondering about is whether or not funding more projects that burn fuel and pollute our atmosphere are really worthwhile? I'm sure this would help all kinds of corporations, but will this really do anything to solve any of the problems we currently have? We still face problems of undereducation, unemployment, civil unrest, disease, starvation, and international strife. Can't we put money into private enterprise that might solve some of these issues and help people here?
Personally, I think space exploration is a worthwhile endeavor, but AFTER we make life a little better for the next generation.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Why not? He already did more to shrink the federal government as Clintons VP than any of these lip-service Republicans since they've been in power:
source: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/appen
Not that the mainstream "liberal" media covered this. sigh.
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Good thing we didn't elect him in 2000 then, or else he would run up record budget and trade deficits with his liberal spending.
Gas would be $3/gal under Gore due to his taxed on the oil companies, while cutting taxes for his liberal Hollywood buddies. He would cut student loans and military hazard pay (students and soldiers emit CO2). He would starve science, education, and research investment of this country.
There would be massive unemployment because all the jobs would be outsourced to non-Kyoto countries like India and China; our Big-Three automakers would lay off millions and post record losses under Gore!
What's more, somewhere around August 2001 he would go to his forest to clear some bear-traps, all the while ignoring a PDB titled "Bin laden determined to attack American ozone using planes", which would have led to a great tragedy perhaps a month later... Which Gore would exploit to roll back civil liberties, torture random people suspected of driving an SUV, and even rolling back Habeas Corpus (or else the Global Warmists would win!).
Finally, Al Gore would probably invade some crazy country because Gore they were hiding the Weapons of Mass Polution
Good thing Gore was not elected, eh?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
How much of the millions he made in the Google IPO will he invest in such ventures?
As stupid as it is to judge someone by what someone they know did, if you actually believe these kids or their political parents did something wrong, please don't play the "Clinton did it, too," game. The world will be a lot better off if that crap dies with W's presidency.
It didn't get covered because most of those were pushed through by a Republican congress.
Ooops. Truth bites again.
1) What is your opinion on net neutrality?
2) When you created the interwebs, did you think it would be used for boobies?
I read the article, but his comments make no sense. I'm pretty sure private companies are already spending billions of dollars on space ventures (like communications). He talks about using space to stop global warming. Somehow. Huh?
Considering that it has been basically the same republican congress that we have had over the last 6 years, but with a different whitehouse, is a joke. The reality is that Clinton cut the same deal with Greenspan that greenspan had with bush (I will lower the interest rate if you lower the deficit). Clinton, like poppa bush, complied and paid attention to gov. deficits.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Maybe I'm reading a different summary and article than you did, but I don't see a reference to that misquote anywhere other than in your comment. Might want to have a neurologist look at that knee-jerk you're developing...
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
--Winston Churchill
You know what this means. In years to come people will say that Al Gore invented commercial space travel. Of course we'll tell our kids that really all he did was use his position of power and influence as a means to assist in its growth. ;)
Government exploration of space can be a benefit to the whole world.
;)
How about sending G. W. Bush to space for instance.
Vote him off the planet!
Well, at least he would've done one thing right!
Legalize it.
if 40% of our income wasn't stolen by the gov't each year.
"The reality is..."
Well, as a fiscal conservative, I happend to like having a budget surplus, smaller government, negative national debt accumulation and a reduced deficit in addition enjoying record economic growth and the the largest real and relative redistribution of wealth in recorded U.S. history. Far from perfect, but the 90s had things headed in the right direction, economically speaking.
That it all happened under the watch of a democrat should tell you all you need to know about the utility of political labels, as well as the fact that by any measure, this is the LEAST conservative administration in decades.
which is exactly why I don't understand the liberal love fest for clinton. he signed welfare reform and balanced budgets and yes, cut government. sure it took divided goverment, but still, the current occupant the white house has been a huge disappointment. of course, he never claimed to be a reagan/goldwater disciple and he sure has been anything but. clinton was more a moderate republican than democrat. it's hell for libertarians like me. what the hell ever happened to Article 1, Section 8?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
This is old news. NASA Adminstrator Mike Griffin is using half a billion dollars to invest in private industry to spark this.
Um - hello? How exactly is spending tax money "private investment"?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
what the hell ever happened to Article 1, Section 8?
Totally! I've no idea how to go about applying for a Letter of Marque. Lazy bastards.
What exactly does a profit-driven private company get out of sending a probe/whatever to Jupiter/wherever to determine whether the air is purple/whatever?
For all the flaws in military/governement expenditure, it is not limited by profitability.
.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
First he paints a doomsday scenario if we don't cut our greenhouse emmissions, now he's encouraging fouling the air with lots of space launches. On a per-event basis, perhaps nothing fouls up the air (especially upper atmosphere) as fast as a space launch. The only mitigating factor is that there are so few. If there were a hundred times as many launches as we have today we'd probably see significant environmental impact.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
No, what you would see would be a private Mars homestead, with a corporation doing deep research with the hopes of making a profit of this big chunk of rock. It would be more chaotic and misdirected, but in a much higher volume so that overall the end result would likely be more research being done, self sustaining Mars industry, and a taxable revenue source instead of a tax funded revenue sink.
Remember that every industry not in the private sector is a double cost... first, you no longer get the taxes from it, second, you have to pay their costs out of taxes you recieve elsewhere.
There will be economic gain from space, that is for sure. Thousands of enterprising failures is how that gain will likely be found. Denying the right to the free enterprise failures keep you from finding that success.
His wording may have been unfortunate, but I think its fair to say he was not confused about the creation of the internet and just about anyone who was has pointed out his role (as advocate).
Its stupid that we still need to have this conversation.
Quack, quack.
We should begin private exploration of space-time, and not just space. The Space program is failing, but remarketing it as the Space-Time Program funded by private Kong Bucks should do the trick.
I've always found it annoying whenever someone goes on about how the exploitation of space should be shifted TO private industry, but doesn't mention who it is that it should be shifted FROM. NASA isn't the one exploiting space, NASA doesn't even design most of the hardware being used in space.
Almost all of the design and so forth are done not by NASA, but by NASA's private contractors. NASA acts as a funnel, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes into the high-tech research departments of thousands of corporations.
Think of it this way: Did NASA design or build the space shuttle? No; it was mostly Lockheed-Martin-Marietta, Boeing and Rockwell. What about Hubble, did NASA design or build it? No; Lockheed, Perkin-Elmer and Ball did most of the work, and the same goes for nearly every other "governmental" space project. While NASA personnel are often crucial, most of what NASA provides is inspiration and funding.
If any of NASA's thousands of contractors and subcontractors wanted to exploit space, nothing would stop them. Funding? They have trillions of dollars altogether. Intellectual property? They already have working designs, and all of NASA's work is in the public domain. Laws? Aside from military/warlike projects and a few environmental restrictions, you can launch anything you want into space.
In other words, NASA already IS (and always has been) little more than the sort of "collaboration with private industry" that the media and thinktanks are supposedly pushing for it to become.
Since all this is so, where DID this B.S. push for "private" space exploitation and a scaling down of NASA come from? The only logical conclusion is a hit job, not just on NASA, but on space science as a whole. An attempt to cut down on one of the last few big government endowments that actually accomplishes anything more than producing pork (not to mention creating dangerously disruptive new technologies like the microcomputer you're reading this on.) I would imagine the most likely sources of this garbage to be some (unrelated) combination of the "defense" industry -probably NASA's biggest enemy- and anti-government neanderthal libertarians.
Note that I wouldn't put Gore in this category, as he probably only bought into it due to its buzzwordyness.
Eric,
We have to nuke the moon from orbit! It's the only way to be Serial!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
that is soo messedup... capitalizing on what is not ours... unfortunately it's the American way... but not the EARTH's way!
Um... What is the Earth's way, and how do you know it? And what's "gross?"
"capitalizing on space" means trying to do something useful with it, as opposed to taking some photos and going home. I see the first option as a good thing.
Revive the Constitution.
Peace out, ya'll. (Blasts into space)
Like most of us did last time!
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
He's so dreamy :)
And check who the major stockholders are in the UAC corporation.
Is this Gore's insurance policy in case global warming happens? Remember, we have only ten years left.
Reference: Historical Budget Data
..wasn't that what your president said just the other week?
If somebody invest in space, they better be on the same side as the ones that "protect the lives of American people" against terrorists, otherwise they will have a very bad investment.
Me? I would be damn sure that my Moonbase / automatic rock miner / zero G chemical plant / space station could protect / hide itself from anything.
Accelerating a large chunk of metal to its escape velocity releases a massive volume of greenhouse gas.
HAL
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
This man in one breath will call for private industry to invest in space because you get more for your money with private business. But in the very next breath this same man will tell you that the government should take care of your health care and future security. So lets get this straight Al, its better for private industy to take us into space because you get more boom for your buck, but when it comes to health care, we're gonna get a FAR, FAR better deal with government.
I love how liberals speak out of both sides of their mouths like this, its funny and pathetic at the same time. To think inserting government into our health system is gonna make things better is just stupid, but this man would tell you that its a good idea. I guess the government can't do rocket ships properly but they can certainly manage to efficently take care of the health of 400 million people. Can't keep the potholes filled, but government can efficently see to the future security of people as well. I swear, they just make it up as they go along.
As a fiscal conservative, apparently you're a liberal!
Barry Goldwater said the same thing of himself.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Ahem... Mods: parent isn't flamebait, it's a subtle jab at the national tragedy we call the Bush administration.
Ask me about my sig!
Poppa Bush was handed an out of control deficit. He turned it and started heading it downwards (with a democrat congress). Clinton kept it heading in the right direction. Poppa Bush and Clinton both deserve credit for stopping the irresponsible budget of Reagan's. Sadly, the president that W. elects to copy is Reagan and not his father.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How is that not flamebait?
Endless wars over whether Bush sux or not sux are getting kinda tiring.
hmmmm. Sorry. I can see where the problem is. W. and Clinton had basically the same congress. One ran deficits and the other balanced the budget that Reagan ran up. What I was trying to say was that Clinton continued the good works of Poppa Bush. After all, it was Poppa Bush who raised taxes in an effort to focus on balancing the budget. Clinton continued with the same focus and we had roughly a balanced budget. Hopefully, the next admin will push an amendment that requires a balanced budget except when 3/4 of the congress votes to allow it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If a private company can get up there and make the Sun actually turn a profit --by converting solar energy into microwave energy, which in turn becomes electricity once it gets down here-- Space would be hella profitable. (if oil/gas/etc extraction costs go too much higher from it's all-time records, that wouldn't be too hard to justify).
Sure, the initial outlay would be ungodly expensive, but the profits from feeding the grid with 24/7 solar power on a massive scale, plus the "we got all the room you need up here" factor will be plenty enough to keep it going once it gets started.
Sounds like really big picture stuff, but then, so was the US Transcontinental Railroad back in the 19th century (or the Australian version, or the Canadian version, or things like the Louisiana Purchase, sailing to North America in the first place, etc etc etc).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It's typical of wing-nuts to throw out stupid little rants like this and have the yahoos on their side guffawing. If someone tries to present facts in a logical manner, you right-wing nuts call him "robotic" and "boring". If someone is passionate about what they are saying, you go with the epithet "crazy" or "angry" or "having a breakdown". It's much easier to insult people than actually address the issues.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
At least he doesn't claim to use maps from 'the google' on the 'internets'.
Actually,when I think of Al Gore I don't think of the typical rants. I think of the PMRC. If you recall, Tipper (Al's wife) was a founding member. From wikipedia, "The mothers claimed that popular music, especially rock music, was partially responsible for the (at the time) recent increase in rape, teenage pregnancy, and teen suicide.". Umm...considering how many slashdotters are gung ho about private rights not being revoked I'm surprised more people don't mention this.
Now, these people also testified before the Senate...in which Al was a member of at the time. You can't tell me he did not use some of his political clout to give his wife's new special interest group...which sought to label, categorize lyrics as harmful and make it difficult to purchase (Bully,Grand Theft Auto anyone?).
source: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/append ixf.html [unt.edu]
.edu is too liberal in my book!
pfff... any URL that ends in
The Good Life
Gore is wrong again, of course.
'Those who purvey the doctrine that the Chinese word for "crisis" is composed of elements meaning "danger" and "opportunity" are engaging in a type of muddled thinking that is a danger to society [....]' -Victor H. Mair [emphasis added]
- the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs false
- Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits false
- The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe false
- There's no such thing as an implied contract false
- It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema false
- The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent false
- Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the constitution was written false
- Middle eastern terrorists were behind the Oklahoma City bombing (I heard this one myself back when I used to listen to Rush in the car) false
There are, I'm sure, hundreds more examples of Rush stating fiction as fact, and yet you continue to believe him. Do you also believe that Saddam was behind 9/11?Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
So I conclude that gridlock in DC is a good thing.
When eather side has control they go off like drunken sailors on their pet projects.
The only way things get better is when they gridlock AND the non-government part of the economy booms (the nintys).
You also have to note W enherited the Clinton recesssion. Just as we note Clinton enherited the end of the Reagan boom. Which has a lot to do with deficits.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Everyone knew that Osama was connected to 9/11, so when Bush connected Osama to Saddam, he was able to just let the public believe what he wanted them to believe. Do I need to find the statements where Bush made those connections, or do you remember them yourself?
Furthermore, it was fairly strongly implied in his March 18th, 2003 letter to Congress:
Any guesses which country he was referring to? I'll give you a hint, the letter started with: "Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"As for Rush Limbaugh, it was actually a little less subtle. Funny, until you challenged me, I has assumed it was only implied and not out-right stated! Granted, this is by another author, but it's on a web-site apparently run by loyal fans. Ironically, a few months later he claimed that nobody ever said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11.
If I'm allowed to bring the Veep into it, there's also this:
So, we have a letter from Bush to Congress directly stating that Iraq is connected to 9/11. Cheney saying the same thing. Rush supporters claiming the same, but Rush denying that anyone's made that claim. Well, to Rush's credit, at least it appears that he never made that claim.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I love how this is marked insightful. There's precisely one class of people with a good reason to drive SUVs, and that's people who need to transport a lot of people off-road. Everyone else driving them is a schmuck, and I stand by that statement, period. If you're off-roading with four or less people, then your best vehicle is a Jeep. If you're on the road transporting a lot of people, then your best bet is a van or minivan. If you're driving by yourself, you're best off in a small but safe car (read: Not a Dodge Neon, the most unsafe car sold in America today.) With up to four other people, you're best off in a mid-size sedan.
People like to talk about how they're safer in an SUV, but they aren't actually. SUVs are safer in a multiple-car collision, but they're more likely to be in an accident (single or multiple car), and more likely to roll in any given situation than anything but a Jeep. On top of all that, they guzzle gas like there's no tomorrow. You get extra idiot points if you drive a Hummer H2, which is a Chevy Tahoe with upgraded suspension and 4WD, but with literally about half the fuel economy of the Tahoe.
Now, I know there's those who are saying "who the fuck are you to tell me what to drive" and "what about individuality" and blah blah blah. Well, fuck you. My right to clean air is more important than your right to not be seen driving a minivan.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Right, this administration is best described as "fascist, expansionist, populist" and I believe in that order, but you might juggle the first two terms because the fascism is really there to support the expansionism.
I mean we've really seen it all from this administration... telling reporters in no uncertain terms that they need to "watch what they say" when reporting on the administration, stealing two elections, continual lying to the people to cover up the fact that the president is breaking the law in some new way practically every day - he's issued more presidential writs explaining why he blew off the law than all prior presidents combined. What's next, soylent green?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Somehow, he became a hero to many.
I mean, Algore Junior was bested intellectually by Dee Snider, truly humiliated. Somehow, Algore Junior is regarded as intelligent.
IOW, Algore Junior is a piece of shit.
In the old, old days of the republican party they were honest to god conservatives but they were also honest to god republicans. They were proponents of a minimal federal government and of states' rights, and they favored keeping the government's hands out of business. Today, neither Democrats nor Republicans are actually conservatives or liberals, they are both populists. Both want to control both government involvement in business and in your lives. The republicans, whose party has been hijacked by the religious "right", want to legislate religion and morality, hence the battles over school prayer and whatnot. The democrats also want to regulate what you can and cannot do, of course; they want to make people "politically correct" and instead of legislating morality they're trying to legislate sensitivity.
Meanwhile both parties want to extend government-mandated monopolies for their buddies in business. A conservative by definition feels that government interference in the market is a negative force - but you'll notice that your modern republicans are not campaigning against patents, the monopolies on things like the phone system whose wiring was originally paid for largely with tax money...
So when people say that both parties are essentially the same, they are 100% correct. Both are populist institutions. The only reason that I feel the Democratic party is superior is that they do not have the added overbearing religious influence and I do not think that religion is a reasonable justification for any action taken in the name of governance. I fear (and rightly so) what happens when government and religion work together.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Every politician rides on the space exploration bandwagon, some people that's all they care about, most people simply don't pay attention to it, so it's a win for them to mention it every now and then. Nothing new to hear Al Gore playing the self proclaimed Grand Wizard.
I wouldn't give anybody a *shred* of credit unless they dumped a few million of their own into it, like John Carmack, Elon Musk, the Ansari family, Blue Origin, Bigelow Aerospace... Those are the only people who deserve credit.
but the 90s had things headed in the right direction
Don't forget, tthe 90s also had a lot of things headed in the wrong direction. I mean, yeah, when the nasdaq was floating in the 4000's, of course everyone was quick to praise whatever government was in place and whatever policies were in place at the time.
But that's just the shell of it. The 90s were full of bad and risky investments, (domestic and international) that saw massive returns because everyone was buying up stock and the prices were going up (because everyone was buying up stock). But many of these companies had no real assets, no management, and no, uh.... business models.
Keep in mind these were also the critical last few years of the (successful/unnoticed) corruption of Enron and Worldcom. In the 90s (on paper), they certainly appeared to be headed in the right direction. They weren't.
Generally speaking, I call into question the praise explicitly to the government/president, etc, for the booming economy of the 90s. Many people attribute it to Clinton's relatively conservative atmosphere, or Al Gore inventing the internet. But let's not forget what was really important. The 1990s saw unprecedented growth in computers. This was the first time that the average PC had a GUI that the average user could both understand/use (ie, Windows 95), and afford (ie, not Apple). The number of people that could now use spreadsheets to do useful work went up exponentially. And let's not forget email. Credit to the government for those things? I wouldn't go that far.
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
True, it is stupid to make fun of the way Bush talks, and I don't. Besides, his manner of speach is simply an affectation to make people think he is an ordinary Joe, which is something his father failed to do and which most likely was enough to cost him a second term. My objections to Bush are based more on things like running up a massive deficit to give defence contractors and his corporate buddies even *bigger* welfare checks (you think gov't jobs are easy, try being a gov't contractor), starting a war based on what he knew were lies, and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. And that's just off the top of my head.
But you are right. Making fun of how Bush talks or looks is a stupid thing to do and not at all constructive.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I've heard it said that liberals favor unity and conservatives favor division.
yes, because it's only the right that plays the race game. I mean, Ray "chocolate city" Nagin is an archetypal republican. I'm a school teacher, and racial identity politics is one of the seven sacrments of the church or the left. Or is multi-culturalism the brianchild of the right? How does John Kerry's "million disenfranchised blacks" without any evidence supporting it and even evidence to the contrary promote unity?
Yes, maybe I wasn't paying too much attention in 2000, but then again, I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. Didn't vote for Gore either. I didn't mistake "compassionate conservatism" for anything other than just cloaked big government. I only became more supportive of Bush as he decided to fight an agressive war on terror. I am disappointed that we're not fighitng it agressively enough. We can disagree (and probably will) but my feeling is that Truman or FDR would not have had any qualms about offending anyone's sensitivities regarding threats to this country. You'd be surprised to know that I don't fault Clinton for the failure to address islamicism in the 1990's. Hell, who was really concerned about it?
As for Bush, let's just say I am pissed at the republicans for violating a basic principle of their party: small government. damn hypocrites. or liars. hell, like there's a difference.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
1. Go to 'Preferences', then 'Homepage',
2. Uncheck the "Willing to Moderate" box,
3. No more mod-points for you.
Then you should also be pissed at Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, Nixon, all the way back to Lincoln, who was as big-government as they come. You don't think that Nixon's thought police was in pursuit of a small government, do you? Or Reagan's stockpiling of nukes and making shady deals behind our backs? No, it's been perfectly clear to me what the Republican party does and does not stand for.
Now, it's fair to say that there are a lot of dirty racial politics going on. What's not clear is that this is an attempt to divide the nation against itself. No one is saying that any one race is superior to any other. No one is saying that it is morally wrong to be of a certain race. Contrast this with the issue of sexual orientation and the abortion issue.
As for FDR and his successor, you'll have to explain what you mean about not "offending anyone's sensitivities". It sounds like code for something, maybe the torture issue. If that's the case, then you should recall that Truman did approve of the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, it is not clear that torture has actually reduced terrorism. Torture sounds to me like a political maneuver to expand the powers of the president under the guise of security.
What do you expect from a divinity school flunk-out? If algor junior wasn't the son of a racist democrat senator, didn't fit the leftist model and didn't look like a graduate of the Troy McNamara school of plastic surgery, he'd be a hair stylist at the local strip mall in Chatahoochi. (assuming he hadn't joined Jim Jones in Guyana).
There will be successful investments and opportunities in space. Probably far fewer will succeed than will fail. Figuring out which will be which is not something algor is capable of doing. Of course, mining operations on the moon investments apparently existed long before the possibility of getting there included a real approach.
As usual, some of the posts above show an absence of knowledge and understanding about even the most fundamental basics of economics. For those posters - I suggest quickly go invest in air-america.