Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Evolving Stance On NASA
mknewman writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting a change in Obama's stance on NASA, saying his position on space exploration continued to evolve Sunday as the Illinois Democrat endorsed a congressional plan to add $2 billion to NASA's budget and agreed to back at least one more space shuttle mission."
"Obama is no more serious about NASA's lofty aspirations that Bush or Clinton. It's just political pandering for Florida. And I am tired of hearing promises from politicians that they know damn well they can never deliver on."
Usually, I'd agree with that, however, I think you're ignoring the "new cold war" aspect here. China is developing an aggressive space program, and if they say they're going to the moon, they mean it.
Frankly, I think McCain is a little more inclined to beef up NASA precisely because of that aspect, and Obama will say damn near anything to win Florida. But it's also possible that he's reconsidered his positions on space because if he becomes President, he knows people aren't going to let him slide on the space race.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Reading the article, it really just comes across as Obama trying to push the shuttle layoffs to the right so they don't take place during his first term in office.
It's unfortunate, but I would really like to see him and McCain come up with a strong vision for space to spur international and private sector investments with a corresponding push in maths, sciences and engineering.
As trite as they may be, I could get excited about a candidate that pushed:
Note that I don't say "NASA". I think NASA has a very important role to play in the development of space technology but at some point they have to be out of the business of LEO (Low Earth Orbit) operations.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
HA! Upwards of $464 BILLION in debt is just fine for Bushie, but 2 BIL for funding for NASA, that's crossing the line. Thanks for the laugh early on monday morning.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
but it's almost always advantageous to change from a wrong conclusion to a correct one
... science-wise, value-wise, and in all other ways before you should be talking about how you think that issue should be handled legislatively and judicially? For the record, I agree with him on being pro-choice, but I'm hugely annoyed with him (though hardly surprised) that it turns out he's been pandering on that issue for votes, rather than having a solid sense - personally - on how to think and communicate on that issue. Or worse (and this seems more typical of him), he DOES have such, and he's trying to continue to dance around answering so that he doesn't risk annoying the people who are supporting him only because he hasn't offended their sensibilities yet.
It's not about changing your mind. It's about evaluating why someone held their previous position.
Did they simply have bad information?
Have they suddenly had a fundamental philosophical change that alters how you should look at their entire world view, and every policy pronouncement of theirs that is built on that platform?
Is their value system still only half baked, and this is just a sign of them slowly getting their act together?
Remember, Obama is the guy that just the other night (in that quasi-debate-format thing he attended with McCain in Colorado) who, when asked about when "human" life begins in the womb (as it relates, of course, to the abortion issue) said "that's above my pay grade." Wow. Never mind WHERE you are on that issue, isn't that - right there - THE most fundamental thing you have to wrestle with
Why wonder about his real thoughts on space/science when one of the signature hot-button science/philosphy issues of modern times seems to be beyond his much-lauded intellect and communications skills to talk about? That was a VERY telling moment, if you ask me.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The problem isn't the lack of term limits, it's the seniority system in committees. The way the game is set up, the longer a congress-human has held their position, the more senior they are in committees, which is where the real power is. If you vote against the incumbent, you are voting for less power in Washington to be exercised on your behalf, while districts that vote for the incumbent get more power.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
but it's difficult to say what a good answer would have been in that particular circumstance
How about a little honesty, instead of Clintonian slipperyness and weasle-wording it? How about, "There's no point trying to pin down a day on the calender when the nervous system of a fetus is not, and then - an hour later - is sophisticated and functional enough that we'd all call it a baby human. But likewise, I'm very comfortable saying that everyone in this room has swatted a mosquito with a nervous system vastly more advanced than that of the dozen cells in an early embryo. This issue isn't about pinning down a date, it's about erring widely on one side or the other of a long period of time, and using reason." Well, perhaps a little more soft-sell than that... but isn't that supposed to be - in the absence of any other real experience - his actual main selling point?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You can't just wish away regulations that are impairing. It requires both legislative and executive power to do so, and the chances are that environmental lobbyists will oppose removing the regulations that make it pointless to drill on these lands.
What's kind of silly is that we look at the problem as a dependence on oil. This isn't the real issue. America has a dependence on hydrocarbons, once you get past that perception hurdle, you'll realize how easy it would be to significantly reduce our dependence on oil. There is one hydrocarbon that America has extremely huge reserves of, that's cheap, and isn't too problematic to get to.
Coal.
Did you know that South America has a gallon of gas priced under $1 USD? They're not losing money on it, and it's not subsidized. How are they doing it? Simple, they're turning coal into oil products. South Africa also buys most of their coal from the US. How long do you think it would take to get a couple coal gasification plants?
Think about it.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork