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."

3 of 941 comments (clear)

  1. However... by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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
  2. Re:Oh noes! by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but it's almost always advantageous to change from a wrong conclusion to a correct one

    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 ... 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.

    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.
  3. Re:Let's end the ruse by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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