Slashdot Mirror
NASA To Propose Commercial Space Initiative
MarkWhittington writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that starting with the FY2011 budget request for NASA, the Obama administration intends to propose a new program to encourage the development of a commercial space flight industry. 'The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget, would open a new chapter in the US space program. The goal is to set up a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying US astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system. Congress is likely to challenge the concept's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative. The White House's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky, according to these people, because the budget isn't expected to outline a clear, long-term funding plan.'"
This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...
how about you just let private enterprise go to space or not, and just get out of their way? government $ is the last thing we need to give the private sector at this point.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
you don't have enough cash in the till to run NASA now, and there's going to be more shrinkage to give to private contractors? that's not change, that's more of the same!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Gee - this is encouraging. Just a week ago, an expert panel warned NASA not to outsource manned space to commercial entities.
Clearly, this panel was stacked with government bureaucrats, obviously biased against upstanding American businesses. The fact that commercial space has been 90% vaporware for the past three decades had nothing to do with it. And God forbid anyone suggest that for-profit organizations would cut corners for the sake of making more money.
And certainly corporate capture of NASA had nothing to do with today's announcement. Perish the thought.
/sarcasm
I can see the fnords!
How many shuttle successors have come and gone? And the whole Aeres thing looks like it's fixing to be another clusterfuck.
It seems like the current government agency/government contractor model of development and procurement is broken. The same boondoggles we see in the military are repeated pretty much across the board. I know they say not to ascribe to malice what can best be described by incompetence but it seems like there's usually malice and greed at work here. The government will sign a very lucrative contract with a company that will then have massive cost overruns, fail to deliver on time and thus draw even more funds to eventually deliver a poorly-designed piece of shit that cannot do what was requested of it.
Sometimes you can blame the government for screwing things up. The shuttle was promised to do too many things for too many people and the engineers were left with trying to make the best compromise they could. That was the government's bad. And the whole Ares bit, that sounds like a government bad, too. NASA got all turned on by the idea of reusing shuttle tech and saving bundles on false economies and it was the contractor's fault for not disabusing them of this notion. Engineers both at NASA and the contractor probably knew better but management would have been unwilling to listen, obviously, or else we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.
The thing that really kills me is the contractor's motivation as a business is maximizing revenue from the contracts and thus maximizing profits. It's not in their interest to be on-time and on-budget. And it's also not in their own interest to offer cheaper, better solutions. So we get this perpetual game where they promise the moon for low prices and NASA pretends to believe them and the costs spiral and until projects are canceled. I would see that as a complete failure but the business would regard that failure as a profitable venture and thus a success. Therefore, there's no incentive for them to do things any differently!!! Argh.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Government programs don't "encourage" free enterprise. At best, they steal from some people who would not have spent it The Right Way and give the money to the wonderful people who will use it the way the Bureaucracy feels is Much Better.
The way to actually encourage free enterprise, is to stop threatening violence against the people who practice it.
Stop stealing their money. End the "license raj". Let the people do business with anyone who will freely trade with them -- whether or not they have a government-granted "permit". Let the people do whatever they want on and with their own private property, as long as they're not harming anybody else.
Of course, all that will never happen. Not unless people who feel the same way concentrate their efforts in one place. Fortunately... we already are. See my sig
Part of the Second American Revolution!
to go about it. Commercialising helps to drive costs down, as an goverment program, being the only one capable to do, without a drive to use commercial sector for it's operations, NASA is inherently flawed: No ultimate, inherent need to drive costs down. Businesses survive only by driving costs down, and down, further down. Businesses have to get their base cost down in order to be profitable, in order to survive.
Yes, definitely businesses will cut corners etc, but not at the expense of human lifes, as that would mean end of business for them. Space endeavours are really tight on safety, and despite a company being able to do way cheaper than anyone, if it's not safe, they will not gather good business.
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
I make this post with the caveat that I usually fall more toward the left on the political spectrum. To me this seems like an area where the private sector could greatly assist this government program and possibly help reduce cost to the taxpayer. This also seems to comport with my belief that our President is really more of a middle of the road politician, as opposed to the "leftist" that we consistently hear. Let's give it a chance and see what happens.
Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder. Expect to see the power and privileges of multi-national corporations skyrocket, while the little guys get the shaft. I expect that Disney will buy up all our national parks. Everything will be privatized, and the uber-corps will make sure all public services are illegal. Private police forces, fire departments, roads: everything. And if you can't pay, don't expect help. Those who can't pay will be expected to starve to death, like stray dogs in the streets.
The funny thing is that some people on the right still think Obama is a socialist. He's the opposite of that. He's going to make sure health care reform dies a messy and painful death, and he's going to sell off the government to the highest bidders. He showed his real colors when he kowtowed to Wall Street.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I would love to see the world through you eye just for a day.
This one is the biggest one you've never heard of, operates in all western democracies, everything from prisons to nuclear weapons handling.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...
This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...
Yes! I like that. I can run this for hundreds of billions of dollars less than what the current Government charges! Imagine you just paying hundreds of dollars a year in income taxes! That's right! For just a dollar a day, you will have a Federal Government! Act Now!
Some restrictions may apply.
National Defense, Homeland Security, Aid to poor people are extra. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, will be canceled. Basically we'll take the money and run.
I would love to see the world through you eye just for a day.
No, you probably wouldn't.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
wow..thats all in this bill?
This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...
Then start voting for politicians that are actually interested in funding it.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
what is otherwise be a government research function
Correction: what should otherwise be a government research function.
I can see the fnords!
Commercial Space Initiative abbreviates to CSI. Must... resist... urge to... make... a one-liner...
Okay. Urge suppressed. Well, back to topic. I think that when NASA goes commercial, average people will finally have enough... space.
Yeeeeeeeeeah!
Damn!
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I say let private companies explore space. Just make sure they get punished for leaving junk in earth orbit, or things will get messy(er) quick. Give them some approved launch lanes so their flops fall in the drink and not on some lawyer's condo.
And safety? Did the Wright brothers have a safety net? Screw safety. We sit around being "safe" way too much. With Earth rapidly turning into a big Easter Island we better get established in space. It's not going to be easy. People are going to die doing it. It needs to be done.
Actually I would be all for it, to have competing governments in a country. Instead of the monopoly that it is now.
Then again, a “free” market never stays free, because freedom includes the freedom to stop it from being free... or not a monopoly. (And because the “free market” is essentially the law of the jungle. As opposed to democracy.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
You know there are some things that Private Companies can do better then the government. Some things the government can do better. And then there are things that companies can do well with the correct regulations.
For some things the government does creates a lot of red-tape and a lot of trying to please the right person and a lot of compromises in order to get everyone happy or at least equally unhappy. Companies have a more direct approach to this, less politics and more getting the job done. So they can make a profit and complete the project under budget.
However... Private firms are focused a lot of keeping profits high and costs low, which could effect quality. For that case you will need government control or at least regulations/oversight to make sure that nothing critical is being cut or skimped on.
Then there are other tasks such as maintenance wich has a defined job this can run will with government control such as Trash,Water, Sewer etc...
So it is really the right organization for the right job. I personally hate the Politics of saying X is better then Y... It is about getting the right balance.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
First off, his actions speak louder than anything. He is a Marxist, in Moderartes clothing. Go look at the party platform of the United States Communist Party and compare it to what Obama is doing, they are one and the same. He likes to hide behind the people in Congress and let them take the heat but behind the scences via his advisors and even in person he fully supports what is happening. You can fool a lot of people once but you can't fool nearly as many twice.
If the market wants productst they'll buy it, we don't need Government "stimulus" to encourage them. Plus those "stimulus" contracts normally come with a lot of Government "red tape" which sucks 30-40% out for overhead. There is proof out there that the Government money is not vital as firms have done some great things with zero Government bucks (Spaceship 2).
Ferrying people to LEO or ISS is silly, by the time this stuff goes online ISS will be de-orbited. LEO hops to where, Space Dock?? Why should be go back to the Moon? Why, we've been there and know it pretty well, unless it's a long term presence it's wasted money. A better idea is funds to do some cool R&D like the Space Elevator or technology for a Misson to Mars. Warp Drive anyone? Or lets see if Quantam Entaglement might yield the equalivent of a Star Trek transporter.
Also consider that there are very few firms in the US who have the know-how to undertake such work, and they are the same ones who are working for NASA now. So the money goes to the same people, just from a different Government account.
It's been mentioned on /. before, but worth mentioning in this context:
A UK company called Reaction Engines Limited is developing a reusable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spacecraft. It is intended for exactly what NASA wants: Commercialized operations with rapid 2-3 day turnaround times and a high degree of reliability when compared to something like the STS space shuttle.
It uses a very interesting hybrid rocket engine that is capable of breathing air up to 26-ish kilometers and a speed of mach 5.5 before switching to an on-board O2 supply for the orbital insertion. Reaction Engines Limited has been working on the design for over 20 years, and the design is basically a modern rework of an older design called HOTOL from the 60's. If anyone has $10 Billion, I'd highly recommend giving it all to these friendly people:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_overview.html
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
National Defense, Homeland Security, Aid to poor people are extra. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, will be canceled.
Sounds good to me. National defense should be provided primarily by the second amendment (the unorganized militia), with the state national guard forces (the organized militia) providing the framework and the sorts of expensive, high-tech weaponry that the people can't afford. The feds should provide a navy, per the constitution. An air force is debatable; it could be provided at either the state or federal level. The federal government is not supposed to maintain a standing army, only to create one when needed -- and if we'd stop trying to impose our will all over the world, we wouldn't need one very often. National defense should be national defense, meaning defending against incursions by foreign forces, not running around invading other countries.
As for the rest, the federal government has no business being involved in any of them. There is no constitutional basis for any of them (yeah, yeah "General Welfare Clause" -- that's been stretched even worse than the Commerce Clause). Those issues should be handled at the state level.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You answered your own question: Obama is more fascist than socialist. You want to see real socialism? Look at most of Europe. The EU is the biggest economy in the world. Get that? The biggest economy in the world runs under democratic socialism. You want to see real socialism here? Look at Dennis Kucinich. Not Obama.
But Ron Paul? He's an unrealistic idealist. His brand of libertarian deregulation amounts to handing the keys to the henhouse to the fox.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No. That's all what I like to call 'encouraging a vigorous discussion,' but others usually refer to as 'trolling.'
Or, to put it another way, 'ha ha only serious.'
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Not many commenters here seem to realize this, but private firms already handle space launches for the DOD and NRO, as well as all of NASA's unmanned science missions. This has been working well. The only new thing about the recent proposals is to have these same private launchers place people in orbit as well.
I hope my American friends don't take this out of context but I really hope that one day the people of America regain control of their country from the vested interests that are controlling it.
What seems to be the state of the union at the moment is a parody of the original goals set down as the purpose of America for American people and indeed all freedom loving people. I don't mean a hippy commune where we all hold hands and sing kom-by-yah but real freedom as opposed to the image of freedom, real democracy instead of the lobbying for vested interests that occurs today and real capitalism instead of the propping up of the "Too big to fail"s. Somehow the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness has been converted to the pursuit of wealth because money must mean all those things, right?
I don't see it as a political issue anymore more but a series of structural issues designed to deceive and contrived to limit choices. Even Benjamin Franklin said the constitution, as it was framed, would not stop the U.S being a victim of despotism. Perhaps it's a day when Americans accept discomfort for things that are important and real. Noble pursuits.
I hope you don't think I'm a troll, because I'm sincere about missing the nice America who used to be a champion of freedom. It will be a truly awesome and frightening thing to watch a people finally regain control of their country.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
For far too long, the West (esp. America) starts projects and then does not finish them; Too expensive, when the simple truth is, the next party does not have the fortitude to follow the vision. Clinton killed the Super Collider as well as the IFR. Both were short times away from being done. He started the X-33 as test craft to replace the shuttle. When it was headed towards testing, W/neo-cons killed it. Worse, when DOD BEGGED for multiple years to have the X-33, W/neo-con had the craft destroyed. So then, W starts a new program (constellation), but severely underfunded. In fact, all of the real money was pushed to be done NOW (which we can not really afford).
HOWEVER, if Obama gives the push for MULTIPLE LVs, a private space station, and ideally a tug/fuel depot, then we will see private space take over. Once the corps are making money on the private space station, they will certainly push for the moon. In fact, if done right, we could be back on the moon by 2017. Of course, that depends on BA going back to their old schedule (starting space station by 2011), rather than the new schedule (2014).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually I would be all for it, to have competing governments in a country.
It's not impossible. I even have an idea for how it might be done. Divide the country into thirteen geographic regions. (That would be for small countries; larger ones could go to as many as 50 regions.) Give each region its own capital city and allow the people who live in the region to elect a smallish government, which would have power over that region only. Maybe even allow these governments to send specially chosen officials to advise the national government, but no more than two per region, to avoid crowding. Lay down rules for what the national government can and can't force the regional governments to do. And (here's the kicker) forbid the regional governments to impose their own controls on immigration or emigration, so that anyone who didn't like the government in their region could transfer to one where they did like the government.
Pretty soon, some regions would have larger populations and their governments would have more money. Kinda like businesses that have developed a better product or service. Nifty, eh?
Now for the bad news: this has beep-all to do with NASA, and I'm sure someone will explain why it has no chance of working in real life.
My company has had a lot of trouble convincing our government clients to go with fixed firm pricing. Ultimately, it comes down to control. They like cost plus because it keeps them in charge, they continually approve additional work and ask for things to be redone particular way, and if it costs more it costs more. With fixed firm, they can't really micro-manage us because we will come back and say that it's not what were planning on doing and we can't afford to change it under the fixed firm price.
There's also the perception that companies can make a lot more profit on fixed firm (which is true, but the risk of losing money is greater also).
I think fixed firm is a better way to go for everyone involved, so it will be neat to see if this works out. On the other hand, I am skeptical that it will pass congress for the reasons I've mentioned above.
A lot of people seem to think that this will lead to corporate profit-taking, or that it will lead to less accountability for government contractors. That is simply not true, since the companies operating under such a contract are required to deliver. Companies failing to perform are still legally required to meet their obligations, so poor decision making would lead to bankruptcy. Likewise, there is a huge incentive to try to lower costs, because any cost savings will be profit at the end of the contract.
Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder. Expect to see the power and privileges of multi-national corporations skyrocket, while the little guys get the shaft. I expect that Disney will buy up all our national parks. Everything will be privatized, and the uber-corps will make sure all public services are illegal. Private police forces, fire departments, roads: everything. And if you can't pay, don't expect help. Those who can't pay will be expected to starve to death, like stray dogs in the streets.
The funny thing is that some people on the right still think Obama is a socialist. He's the opposite of that. He's going to make sure health care reform dies a messy and painful death, and he's going to sell off the government to the highest bidders. He showed his real colors when he kowtowed to Wall Street.
Gawd I can't decide whether you missed out on the 60s or fully understand the separate but co-equal three branches of government where the US Congress just got told to get off it's collective ass and explicitly define language about Campaign reform if they truly want to be serious about it. They now have a shot at doing it correctly and not the bulls***, watered down crap called McCain/Feingold.
Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder.
If the government wasn't so darn powerful then there wouldn't be as many or as high bids and yet the Libertarians here on Slashdot are always modded down for having the temerity to suggest that bigger government is not the answer. One cannot have lots of individual choice and freedom in a big government country; the desire to use the power of big government to limit choices, "manage" freedoms and control outcomes is simply too much for some to resist. The high-minded left often forgets or ignores the fact that not everyone is as altruistic or benevolent as they claim to be and that human nature absolutely will misuse the levers of power given the opportunity; so why magnify the damage by increasing the size and reach of those levers?
There are excellent reasons to believe that having a correct foundational model of movement will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation. It will be an age where vehicles have no need of wheels, move silently at enormous speeds with no visible means of propulsion and negotiate right-angle turns without slowing down. An analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. Soon, we will develop technologies to tap into this energy for propulsion and energy production. Placing satellites in orbit will be a thing of the past because we'll build legions of self-propelling vehicles that can maintain a fixed (or changing) position relative to the surface of the earth without having to be in orbit. Floating sky cities, New York to Beijing in minutes, Earth to Mars in hours. That's the future of energy and travel.
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Rebel Science News
Yeah, well, after this, we will need a Constitutional amendment to keep money out of politics, and that's going to be a hard sell.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
As if government is the only source of power. Democratic government is a check on the power of powerful, nondemocratic groups. Just getting rid of government would allow the powerful to control everything. It would NOT magically balance a very unbalanced system. It would make things much worse.
Money is a VERY big lever of control. In fact, beyond a certain dollar amount, all money does is allow you to control others. The more money you have, the more power you have. The more power you have, the more money you can make. Money does not need to be funneled through government to be used to control others. If you are starving you aren't really free at all, and you can be controlled by anyone with a bite to eat. Without government, the powerless have NO recourse.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars.
And before you know it, we'll have private companies paving our roads, building our courthouses, driving our ambulances, uniforming our police, everything!
And they will be competing with each other to do this! It will be chaos!
“We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.” - Wernher von Braun
engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
The internet is, indeed, serious business.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
That's pretty much been tried already. It's this little country called the United States. The national government promptly forgot completely about that whole set of rules that tells them what they can and can't do. :(
Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere.
Robert A. Heinlein
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Please tell me, I mean whatthe? Dear sweet humanity, tell me that there isn't a single company with its hand monetarily so far up the govt's anus that they insinuate themselves at such crucial levels. This is some kind of joke, right? Have they slithered into the US system much? The level of profiteering on tax-payer dollars and the inherent feedback loop of control is staggering.
cat sig >
*WHOOSH*
cat sig >
And before you know it, we'll have private companies paving our roads, building our courthouses, driving our ambulances, uniforming our police, everything!
So you missed the bit about it being devil's advocate and such, interesting.
You may have also missed that paving our roads, building our courthouses and uniforming our police our not crucial tasks in servicing a community. Somewhat important in a voter way, but less than important in a real way. Bad roads, inadequate courthouse shacks and old uniforms are not the stuff of a crumbling government. On the other hand ambulances are very important and hence are usually contracted out to several companies within a municipality in order to spread the pain. Often contracted by the various hospitals and only licensed by the appropriate government agency. But then again that would be beneficent govt intrusion into civilian life, both by increasing customer service and ensuring that the private agencies have the necessary training, certification and infrastructure to handle public emergencies.
cat sig >
This isn't a new initiative... NASA has been working with about 20 private organizations to promote private spaceflight for years.
Yep. Hook, line, and sinker.
Money is a source of power in this world that is true, but it is not the only one. The ultimate power is the power to destroy (which is also a power of the government via the military). Governments reserve both of these powers, the power to destroy and the power of money (the money supplies of the world are ultimately controlled by governments) onto themselves. However, please note that I did not say no government, but rather limited government...there is an important difference. It is wrong to frame the choice as, "big government OR no government whatsoever". The left often sets up that strawman; if you disagree with them then your position is exactly the opposite (whether it actually is or not). For recent example, anyone who disagreed with the proposed health care reform in the US was said, by the left, to be in favor of "let them die in the street"; as if that was the only possible alternative position. Getting back to the issue of big government, it is my own personal opinion that here in the US we are going too far in that direction: the bailouts, the stimulus, the health care bill, etc...(and that is not I think a minority sentiment). Big concentrations of power, particularly government power, attract those seeking to corrupt and direct those powers to their own best advantage (whether it is good for the nation or not). There is a balance to be struck, but that won't happen with a government takeover of the economy or sweeping government regulation. So perhaps now you can better understand my position with regard to limited government.
I love it when people use words like "Marxist" without knowing what it means.
Not sure why all the negative responses. A great deal of space research is already private or semi private. University groups send up small satellites on refitted ICBMs, european rockets, whatever. SpaceX has a decent program, spaceship 2 is on the way. Given the way Ares is shaping up, I'd rather fly on something built by private industry. I know we're all space fans, but beyond the Air Force space program, which is clearly for defense, there is no reason for spaceflight to be a federal program. There is absolutely no reason for it to be a monopoly. Another side of this is that competition essentially multiplies investment. If I want to develop a rocket, I have to spend X dollars. If I say everyone who develops a rocket that does this gets Y dollars, I get a number of people Z each spending X dollars. As long as Z*X > Y, I got some free research. That's how the X-prize worked, and it turned out well. You all fly on EADS (Airbus) and Boeing products, Boeing and Lockheed martin are private and develop our military aircraft, private industry is really good at this stuff.
It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.
Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere.
I'm guessing that GP's point is that our current space technologies are so awfully expensive that though technically we, as a society, can once in a lifetime do a stunt like trip to the Moon (or now Mars,) it has near-zero practical use.
It is my personal belief that we won't be flying to planets until we design a propulsion technology that is good enough for SSTO. Then it will be also good enough to move between orbits and land on planets and take off again. The current chemical rockets are not even close. Getting to the LEO is pointless if we have nowhere to go from there.
To offer an analogy, it is possible to cross the Atlantic ocean on a raft, or in a rubber boat - it had been done - but if Europeans were limited to those technologies we'd never see Americas.
IMO, the money should be spent primarily on fundamental science, and a smaller part of it - on good, complex robots that can be launched from time to time to other planets. We need to know how this Universe works. An antigravity-based propulsion would solve all our problems, for example. Teleportation or FTL would also come (or definitively not come) from the same pool of knowledge. I'd even settle on a Space Elevator that we will be able to put together out of new materials. We need to stop paddling our reed canoe across the Atlantic for a moment and instead think if there is a better way.
Why do Americans (most? I don't know, that's my impression anyway) when they throw up socialism, communism, marxism and even with nazism, they usually seem to have absolutely no clue what they're talking about. Didn't they get this topic at school? (Horrible teachers?) Or is this is because of decades of anti-soviet propaganda? Not intended as flame bait, just honestly wondering why. disclaimer: I do not belong to any of the above political groups ;o)
If you saw the world through our eyes you'd probably commit suicide. It takes a special nerdy nutcase to see what we see and not off ourselves.
And I've been unfortunate enough to see some of it from the inside. Not pretty at all.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I'm not sure how far into the US system they are but this documentary might give you some idea.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You are fooling yourself. Or maybe you just don't know much about Ron Paul.
First, in case you didn't realize it, the foxes already have the keys to the henhouse. Paul could hardly make that worse.
Second, yes, Paul is for deregulation... of some things. But he would force the Fed to stand up and fly straight for a change, which in turn has a lot of effect on the banks and financial industry. It's pretty hard to make the kinds of deals they were making when you can't just inflationarily pull money out of thin air.
I agree that the "financial industries", including banks, need regulation. But Paul is a Constitutionalist. He understands that banks are Constitutionally under control of the Federal Government... unlike other businesses. Today, the Federal government has been letting banks and other financial players get away with murder while instead they have been trying to regulate small business... exactly the opposite of their Constitutional mandate.
Again... Paul could hardly make things worse than they are now. We have been on a solid downhill slide for 10 years. I think it's time to give something else a try.
By the way: my comment was modded "troll" and yours was modded "flamebait". I don't think either really applies. I certainly didn't think yours was flamebait. In any case, I really wish that modders would understand that there is no mod for "disagree", and that "troll" and "flamebait" are not acceptable substitutes.
There are a few people on Slashdot that really do not like me, and like to mod me "troll" at the drop of a hat. I am rather used to it. But the vast majority of the time it isn't justified.
If the government wasn't so powerful there would be no need to bribe it before doing some grievously evil corporate sheningan. Libertarians get modded down because they refuse to see that, in the absence of government, some other powerful group would take over and become new rulers; and in all likelihood, that group would be a lot more tyrannical than the current government. Nature abhors vacuum, and that goes for power vacuum too.
Oh, and some libertarians get modded down because they post rants about how people should starve to death so they wouldn't need to pay taxes to fund social security, but I'm assuming you meant the non-sociopathic variety.
However, you still have far more choice and freedom than under a feudal lord. That's the alternative to a big government: local strongmen running everything to their liking.
Because the levers will exist, whether they're manned by the government or by individuals. If they're controlled by the government, we at least can have some accountability or rules on how they're used, while if they're held by individuals, I'm at their mercy.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Having competing governments in a single country is not fun. If you want competing goverments, you need multiple countries. And we already have those.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Not only do they think he is a socialist, but they think he's a muslim agent who wasn't born in the US and hangs out with terrorists (remember the Ayers nonsense)? But then most of these people also think that the government should keep its grubby hands off their Medicare, that there's a part of America that is "the other unpatriotic America", that the USA was founded as a Christian nation, and such assorted bilge.
But to get back to NASA and privatization, how long would we have had to wait for private companies to take up the initiative and put us on the moon?
There's no money in that, so, forever?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
We've both got our detractors here. Sorry little cuntflaps with the debating skills God gave a marmoset. However, I get modded up when it isn't justified too, so, that crap evens out.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Your fantasy world sounds like fun. Do you sell tickets online?
No sig? Sigh...
Governments do not 'reserve' anything. In a pure free market capitalist economy, if someone is unable to feed themselves (say because a powerful group has decreed 'no one give him any work if you want to do business with us.') then that person will starve to death. Destroyed, and not by a government. Corporations destroy people's lives all the time, and what do you think this financial mess was about? Corporations making money up out of thin air.
The bailouts: bad. The stimulus: meh, not done right. Health care? It's a moral issue. We're the only first world nation without socialized medicine. And we have the least effective yet most expensive system. Look at some figures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-i/
Most recent polls show a supermajority of the population supports radical health care reform and socialized medicine. Despite big pharma spending billions to change public opinion.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Most recent polls show a supermajority of the population supports radical health care reform and socialized medicine.
No way. That's completely bull. The Massachusetts election is only the most recent proof that Americans absolutely don't want socialized medicine ala single-payer or individual mandates. It was a mistake on the part of the left to assume that because many Americans favor some sort of health care reform, they also favor socialized medicine ala single-payer; THAT WAS IN ERROR! There is no way that so many Americans, from such diverse and varied backgrounds, could all be so clearly against the Democratic bill if it was simply astroturfing by big pharma and the insurance companies. Incidentally how do you explain Coakley's attendance of a big-money fund raiser in Washington DC, on the eve of the election, jammed packed with pharma and insurance lobbyists? She took her thirty pieces of silver from the very people you claim to detest. Ask yourself this: If a supermajority of Americans favor radical health care reform then why are Obama and Pelosi back-peddling like crazy after the Massachusetts election? Americans favor radical health reform and socialized medicine...yeah right.
No, that's bullshit. They polled MA voters, and they still want socialized medicine. Coakley is a shill, she ran a craptastic campaign, and people are pissed that Dems haven't done enough.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/20/poll-majority-of-massachusetts-health-voters-wanted-to-save-ref/
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
people are pissed that Dems haven't done enough.
Perhaps the people on the left are, but they are NOT the mainstream. Your answer to the mainstream backlash is, "they are angry because we weren't radical/revolutionary enough"? That's just brilliant; it completely absolves the left of having to explain why it is that they failed. While it does have a certain sort of Nihilistic appeal, it is flawed none the less. Think about it, that excuse could be used anytime by anybody and cannot be tested or refuted; it ads nothing to anyone's understanding, it is like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "la, la, la...I'm not listening!" after the other side has won the argument.
As far the poll, they didn't explain their methodology, they didn't state the margin of error, and they didn't ask enough people (or the blogger chose not to include this information). Although I did like this observation:
"Health reform is extremely important to their base and appeared to drive up turnout for Coakley -- yet reform also drives turnout on the other side and is unpopular in national polls. People think it's going to raise costs and lower the quality of care, [emphasis added] Rasmussen said, and don't like the raw deal-making they've seen in the legislative process."
and this
The sooner the Democrats can get the legislative process behind them, the better off they're going to be," he said. "One, because of the ugliness of it. And two, they've got to focus on other issues that are more pressing to voters.
they should get it behind them by passing a smaller bill and sending it back to the Senate so that Scott Brown has an opportunity to vote on it (thus honoring the will of the Massachusetts voters). Any attempt at skulduggery by the Democrats (i.e. the "nuclear option" of budget reconciliation on the previous senate bill, passed before the Massachusetts election, plus revisions) at this point are likely to backfire even more forcefully than they did in Massachusetts.
Finally, the insurance mandate is likely to be among the biggest sticking points (it has arguably been the most controversial part of the Democratic bill). It raises serious Constitutional questions on the power of Congress to issue arbitrary orders to citizens under penalty of taxation. The Supreme Court has granted wide latitude to Congress with regard to taxation but the power to tax cannot be permitted to extend into the power to compel any citizen to do anything that Congress mandates; which is effectively where the "individual mandate" takes us. It is the first step down the road to capricious government power over the lives (and bodies) of individual citizens.
Keep telling yourself that you are 'mainstream.' I'll believe the polls I've read. Of which this is just one. Sorry to piss on your parade.
Single payer is the only real way to go. Simply look at countries that have it. Look at health care outcomes. Look at costs. You DO realize that our current system is, quite literally, the worst per dollar spent. The. Absolute. Worst.
But that's the free market for you: when it comes to things like health care, it fails. You can't 'shop around' for health care.
Personally, I hope the Dems make the Republicans filibuster. And if the Republicans filibuster, the Dems should nuke them with reconciliation. The Constitution never meant for 41 votes to be able to stop 59 votes, sorry.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Single payer is the only real way to go. Simply look at countries that have it. Look at health care outcomes. Look at costs.
You're opinion. Different people want different things. My problem comes when you say that I have to surrender a portion of my property to pay for whatever it is you want. You want it? Buy it for yourself and do it with your own money. One should not, IMHO, force people to be charitable through taxes, giving is by definition voluntary, otherwise it is taking. If you think that single payer is so great then why not consider a move to Sweden, Norway, or any number of other places where single payer is the system? All I hear from the left is how great European living is, so why not just move there and have what you want? We have something unique and special here in the United States that exists nowhere else on this planet. If you want more government and less individual freedom then there are any number of other places which provide that Faustian bargain.
You DO realize that our current system is, quite literally, the worst per dollar spent. The. Absolute. Worst.
Again the mistake. Please listen very carefully this time: JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DOES NOT FAVOR SINGLE PAYER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY LOVE THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND WANT NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER. Single-payer is not the only alternative. You might think that is the best alternative, but darn it quit setting up the strawman argument that any opponent of single-payer must be in favor of doing nothing, as if it was a binary choice between single-payer and doing nothing.
The Constitution never meant for 41 votes to be able to stop 59 votes, sorry.
Excuse me, but that is exactly what the Constitution is designed to do: protect the minority position. If the United States was simply about majority rule (i.e. rule of the mob) then no Constitution would be needed. Why do you suppose that they bothered with the Constitution? Precisely to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Sheesh, didn't you pay attention in civics class?
You have to surrender a potion of your property to pay for a public good. Know what that is? Something that benefits everyone. Sick people spread disease. Desperate people do desperate things. I'm not going to let selfish free riders like you force me to pay the whole cost. You are basically refusing to help pay your share, so why should you get the benefits? If you don't like it, you can leave.
You don't understand the Constitution. Do you really think filibusters should be a matter of course, or do you think that, as is stated in the damn thing, 51 percent is enough? Why would it say, except for constitutional amendments, 51% is enough, if that weren't the case?
Show me where in the constitution the word 'filibuster' is mentioned. Go ahead, try to find it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You might find this article a helpful starting place in learning the truth about the so-called 'nuclear option,' rather than the Faux News tripe you've been feeding on. Look at who used it, and when. Hmm, funny, it was okay when Republicans used it. Hypocrite.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
A primary purpose of the Senate, as outlined in the Constitution, is to protect the minority interest; any Constitutional Scholar will tell you as much. That is why large states and small states have equal representation (2 senators). If protection of the minority was not an issue then why have two chambers in the legislature? Of course, the Constitution is not going to have every last detail; it is a statement of basic principles and a mostly brilliant achievement in concise language and clear meaning. Thus, the US Senate has the power to set its own rules of procedure, in so far as those rules do not somehow contradict the Constitution. The filibuster, as a tool of general procedure in Senate debates, has been both praised and denounced by just about everyone at different times in the history of the US Senate and yet it remains as a valid procedural and IMHO important option. Notice that even the Democrats, who have the upper hand right now, are reluctant to debauch this time honored Senate rule of procedure; to do so is to "cross the Rubicon" as it were and forever cheapen the US Senate along the lines of "no Roman general shall enter Rome at the head of his armed legions without the invitation of the Senate and the people".
Is budget reconciliation also valid? Yes it is, but I am of the opinion that using a procedure that was clearly intended for routine budgetary matters (hence the restrictions on its use in the Senate's procedural language) to pass new social policy would be extremely damaging to the US Senate in its role as "upper" house of the US Congress. Indeed, the very word Senate derives from the ancient Roman "senex" meaning "old man" (i.e. some additional amount of experience, judgment and wisdom deriving from advanced age) implying some additional level of judgment and discernment. Is acting rashly or quickly the sign of discernment or good judgment? I wouldn't say so, but then again that is just me.
Hmm, funny, it was okay when Republicans used it. Hypocrite.
Please don't put words in my mouth. IMHO the filibuster is a valid and necessary rule of Senate procedure and attempting to skirt those rules, for whatever reason, is a particularly odious act no matter who is doing it or for what purpose . Again, why does everyone around here take these binary positions? What ever happened to nuance and its appreciation?
Way to dodge the issue. Please show me in the Constitution where it says that EVERY issue needs sixty votes. Show me where it says the word 'filibuster' at all.Look at my other post. Republicans have used reconciliation to stop filibustering Dems before, and you know what? Turnabout is fair play.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Filibuster is a procedure. It is not enshrined in the Constitution. The founding fathers didn't even think of it. It's a way for the minority to dictate terms to the majority, which is even less fair than the tyranny of the majority. It's the tyranny of the minority.
So, it was okay when the Dems filibustered, and the Republicans shouldn't have used reconciliation? That has to be your position, or you are a hypocrite. Your position amounts to 'it takes sixty votes to pass anything in the Senate.' Which is not what the Constitution says, by the way.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
From the reply (you do read right?): "Thus, the US Senate has the power to set its own rules of procedure"
The Constitution allows the Senate to work out the details of its own procedures (in that it does not explicitly prohibit them from doing so and having some form of formal procedure is necessary as a practical matter). If those procedures need to be changed, then the Senate should debate that separately outside the context of any particular issue and then make whatever changes they deem necessary. The point is this: the Constitution outlined the basic structure of the Senate in such a way as to protect minority interests. The details of precisely how this is to be done were left up to the Senate itself. THE SENATE MAKES ITS OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE. If you don't like those rules then run for the office of United States Senator and, if you are elected, propose that the Senate change its rules of procedure (good luck with that).
Republicans have used reconciliation to stop filibustering Dems before
Reconciliation is a valid procedure if and only if it is strictly limited to matters of purely budgetary significance. I cannot recall a single instance of anyone, Republican or Democrat, using it for something completely outside this purpose (i.e. creating a new entitlement program), but if it has been abused in that way (and I am not saying that it has) it doesn't make it right; two wrongs don't make a right.
Reconciliation is a procedure. Like the filibuster, it isn't in the Constitution. People use both to the letter of the law, not the spirit. The spirit of the law is, simple majority to pass a law. That is what is in the Constitution. So, reconciliation is more in the spirit of the actual constitution, which is simple majority to pass a law. You may not like this, but as you mentioned, you have the option of running for the Senate and changing the procedures if you think they are worded too loosely. I just ask you to consider the actual constitution, and what is written therein: simple majority to pass a law.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, it was okay when the Dems filibustered, and the Republicans shouldn't have used reconciliation?
If the matter was not strictly budgetary, then yes it is was okay for the Dems to filibuster and the Republicans should not have used reconciliation to halt that procedure.
Which is not what the Constitution says, by the way.
Please, the Constitution was NOT designed to spell out in exacting detail the complete rules of Senate procedure. It was and is a statement of our principles and highest law; hence the need for a legislature to pass laws to cover the details. The rules of Senate procedure are a matter of practical necessity (as they are in any other parliamentary body anywhere else in this world). It is not, practically speaking, possible to have a formal legislative body without procedural rules. The Constitution demands that there exist a Senate and a Senate requires rules so it is up to the Senate to decide upon its own rules so that it can fulfill its primary purpose as defined in the Constitution. As I have already said, if you don't like the rules then run for Senate and, if elected, propose to change them (good luck with that).
which is simple majority to pass a law
Which has always been the case; cutting off debate and voting on the actual bill are two different things.
but as you mentioned, you have the option of running for the Senate and changing the procedures if you think they are worded too loosely.
Actually, I have a few more years yet for eligibility (the Senate requires minimum age of 35 years) and moreover, I don't have a problem with the Senate rules as they stand. I would however prefer to see Senators and parties play by them rather than attempting to subvert them. IMHO the language of reconciliation pretty clearly limits it use to budgetary matters. It takes some pretty extraordinary mental gymnastics to come up with an alternative interpretation of the reconciliation rules (they were pretty carefully worded on purpose to prevent people from doing that).
Well, I'm sorry then, but if Senators did not want people using reconciliation, they should have worded it differently, don't you agree? That's the pro-filibuster argument that you used. It's a procedure, and if Senators didn't want it that way, they should have worded it differently.
I just love the way Shakespeare could turn a phrase, don't you? Like 'hoist on his own petard.' That's just brilliant, don't you think?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
the Senate requires minimum age of 35 years
correction...30 years (still a bit short); 35 for president.
But obviously, not carefully worded enough. Personally, the idea that a minority of senators can hold up every non-budgetary decision indefinitely is simply ludicrous.
What that means is, the minority wins. How is that fair? It does not sound like any version of democracy I've ever heard of. And don't try the 'protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority' bullshit, either. We have that, it's called the constitution, and you need to jump through some serious hoops to change it. You shouldn't have to jump through the same hoops for normal legislative matters just because a minority can't stand to lose.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
but if Senators did not want people using reconciliation, they should have worded it differently, don't you agree?
I was under the impression that the reconciliation language was pretty carefully worded precisely to prevent its use in non-budgetary matters. This is the most commonly accepted reading as far as I am aware.
Well, I hope the Democrats make the Republicans filibuster on the issues that matter, and I hope they go ahead with reconciliation, too. I'd rather not have a minority party blocking all progress in this country. So, hopefully we'll get a chance to see how carefully worded it is, hmmm?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Spun claimed he was the New Mexico Child, youth and Family Development Department Senior systems administrator, but I called and spoke the the REAL New Mexico Child, youth and Family Development Department Senior systems administrator, and it's not this lying loser.
505-841-6695, try it for yourself, so you too can see this guy will lie to make himself look better.
I have to wonder how pathetic and worthless your life is that you will openly lie about something so easily checked on. It speaks to a level of stupidity and lack of sophistication that is right in line with the tone and quality of spun's posts.
Your post is content-free.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Yes, it sounds so controversial to compare Obama to the USCP. However, the USCP isn't even communist, they're socialist. Even with that notion, you're going to have a hard time calling Obama a socialist since as far as I've heard he's never said poo about nationalizing anything. The closest he's come to that is with failing banks where FDIC comes in and takes over a bank. However, this is not new FDIC behavior and has been done since its inception. In any event, FDIC immediately sells off any banks it takes over. The only other thing was potentially with the car companies but again, this would have been a temporary measure. The fact that Obama wants de-emphasize NASA and encourage private investment pretty much puts your whole argument in the trash.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
"That number is disconnected, idiot. "
NO, actually, it isn't. It redirects (automatically for me, get a better phone company loser) to the 479 area code, which gets right through to you, except it's not you, it's the guy who ACTUALLY DOES THE JOB YOU'RE LYING ABOUT HAVING.
Owned.
How fucking stupid are you?
"You could have at least picked my bosses number or something. Or shit, a working number at least."
And you could have actually tried it, or attempted to refute the proof instead if lying more and avoiding the fact that I proved you were lying.
LOL. Where is the 479 area code? I'll give you a hint. It's not in New Mexico, and state agencies don't forward numbers out of state. Now who is proved to be lying?
You just wanted me to call a number you had forwarded to you, so you could call me and harass me. But you admitted what area code the forwarded number is in, how dumb is that? Fucking pathetic, sociopath.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You know the best part of this? You're not even TRYING to pretend your previous lie is true anymore, you're trying to lie about "disconnected numbers" which I ALSO proved was a lie, and "don't forward numbers"
SO, first you lied and claimed it was disconnected WHEN YOU CALLED IT, then you lied and said YOU WEREN'T GOING TO CALL IT.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA so red handed you pathetic lying douche.
God damn you can't STOP LYING can you.
You're so far gone you can't even remember what you lied about anymore.
An air force is debatable; it could be provided at either the state or federal level.
Let me guess, because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
You know, you will hate me for pointing this out, but you live in the twenty-first century and not the eighteenth. It would behove you to notice that.
An air force is debatable; it could be provided at either the state or federal level. Let me guess, because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Clearly. The constitution describes how two categories of military force should be managed: navy and army. Obviously, air forces weren't considered because they didn't exist. Therefore, unless we're going to amend the constitution to address the air force, we have to figure out which of those two categories it fits in. I think solid arguments can be made for either, but I tend towards classifying it with the navy. If you're interested, I can explain why.
You know, you will hate me for pointing this out, but you live in the twenty-first century and not the eighteenth. It would behoove you to notice that.
Because in the 21st century we no longer care about the Rule of Law? Sorry, but if that's where we're headed, I don't want to go there.
The constitution is the fundamental basis of all legal authority in the United States. If we think it's outdated, there's a mechanism in the document for updating it. What doesn't make any sense at all, though, is to simply ignore the supreme law of the land because it doesn't allow what we want to do. If the government can ignore the supreme law of the land, of course it can ignore its own lesser laws, right?
And we have, in fact, seen an ever-increasing amount of scofflaw behavior by our own government. The Bush administration contains examples too numerous to mention, but we can find plenty of examples in every period going clear back to FDR.
If you care about freedom, the Rule of Law is critical. And given that the constitution is the highest law in our nation, it seems like it would be a good idea to start by paying rigorous attention to it. If it's outmoded, amend it! If we can't muster the political will for an amendment, well, perhaps we should consider what that means.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Because in the 21st century we no longer care about the Rule of Law?
Nice try, but no. Because in the 21st century, an "on-demand" army or a volunteer militia doesn't work. In fact, it hasn't worked since the 19th century. Wars now involve much greater degrees of technology, distance and speed. Therefore if you have the remotest plans to be in a war, whether defensive or offensive, you must have a standing, well-trained army, established command, technological parity with or superiority over your possible opponents, and stockpiles of weapons. In most cases you also need nuclear weapons.
I'm not arguing with you how the change to the Constitution must be implemented, whether by silently ignoring it or trying an amendment each time (a very laborious and politically difficult task -- one of the reasons the US constitution is so brittle). But the fact is, if you took the current text and all its amendments at face value, you could not run a modern country -- you could run something at the level of Somalia. Times change and circumstances change.
If we can't muster the political will for an amendment, well, perhaps we should consider what that means.
It means that it was ill-designed. I don't know how long the US will survive with the constitution at its nominal core, but the "Constitution" is now only a small part of and often in contradiction with its real constitution, i.e. the body of written law, common law and political precedent that really determine how it is run. The fact that this is so is really a reflection on the fact that it was designed to be too brittle. This was intended as a precaution against its modification, but of course paper cannot stand against human will. If the people want a liberal system, they will keep one; if they don't, they won't, and the authority of the Constitution is merely a fiction, as powerful as the amount of belief in it. Today, belief in some parts of it is strong because it agrees with what we think should be right -- freedom of association, for instance. Belief in other parts of it is nonexistent -- the parts about a standing army, the separation of church and state. Free press/speech is in the middle -- some people believe in it and some don't -- and that's why the state of free speech and press is pretty murky in this country today.
I don't mean to cruelly burst any bubbles, but you know perfectly well that that's reality -- words on paper are only as strong as the amount of belief in them.
Nice try, but no. Because in the 21st century, an "on-demand" army or a volunteer militia doesn't work. In fact, it hasn't worked since the 19th century. Wars now involve much greater degrees of technology, distance and speed. Therefore if you have the remotest plans to be in a war, whether defensive or offensive, you must have a standing, well-trained army, established command, technological parity with or superiority over your possible opponents, and stockpiles of weapons. In most cases you also need nuclear weapons.
For offensive operations, I'd agree with you. I completely disagree that national defense cannot be accomplished with a small cadre of national ground troops (perhaps 50K), plus a good navy and air force, a strong national guard and a well-armed and civilian population.
During WWII, Admiral Yamamoto is supposed to have said "You cannot invade the mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Whether he actually said it or not, it was true, and it is true. Add to that a navy and an air force (with nukes) to make delivering significant bodies of troops to our shores difficult, and a million-strong reserve force equipped with and trained on modern weapons (the national guard), and there's simply no question -- that's not just a viable national defense, it's a match for anything in the world.
And it doesn't require nearly the expense of what we have now, doesn't tempt presidents to play world policeman, doesn't pose the same risk to our civil liberties and doesn't ignore the constitution.
It means that it was ill-designed. I don't know how long the US will survive with the constitution at its nominal core, but the "Constitution" is now only a small part of and often in contradiction with its real constitution, i.e. the body of written law, common law and political precedent that really determine how it is run.
The problem with this view is that we no longer feel the need to abide by what you call the "real constitution", either. It's all malleable, changeable at almost the whim of the current leadership. We hardly even pay lip service to it. One administration flouts the law and the next presidential candidate decries the actions until he's in power, when he embraces and expands them. Congress does nothing but bluster, and not even that for long.
The federal government continues to accumulate power to the point that states are effectively just administrative regions and, even worse, the executive continues to tighten its hold on the central government. The famed system of checks and balances has eroded almost beyond recognition.
Perhaps the constitution is brittle. I suppose republics are brittle, as perhaps are democracies of any form. Oligarchies are robust and flexible, and dictatorships supremely efficient (even if you rotate dictators every eight years).
Personally, I'll take brittle and hard to maintain over what we're heading towards.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
A lot of cliches but not much original or accurate thinking. Let's see.
For offensive operations, I'd agree with you. I completely disagree that national defense cannot be accomplished with a small cadre of national ground troops (perhaps 50K), plus a good navy and air force, a strong national guard and a well-armed and civilian population. During WWII, Admiral Yamamoto is supposed to have said "You cannot invade the mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Whether he actually said it or not, it was true, and it is true.
Rubbish. No amount of enthusiasts with Springfields will hold off a few tanks and helicopters.
You also mention the National Guard, or at any rate a million-strong reserve force trained with modern weaponry. I don't know if it's escaped your notice, but that is a standing army.
The problem with this view is that we no longer feel the need to abide by what you call the "real constitution", either. It's all malleable, changeable at almost the whim of the current leadership. We hardly even pay lip service to it. One administration flouts the law and the next presidential candidate decries the actions until he's in power, when he embraces and expands them. Congress does nothing but bluster, and not even that for long.
No, what I call the real constitution of a country is simply how it's run, not some ideal. Therefore there is no question of adhering to it. Yes, it is malleable, changeable; it can change from one day to the next. That's just life. The British constitution is unwritten, and yet Britain has historically been a more liberal country because it has strong traditions of liberty, as compared to the US, which was founded by Puritans and businessmen, groups not famous for their ideas on liberty.
The federal government continues to accumulate power to the point that states are effectively just administrative regions and, even worse, the executive continues to tighten its hold on the central government. The famed system of checks and balances has eroded almost beyond recognition.
Yes. These changes all took place between two centuries to a century ago. There's nothing particularly wrong with them as long as the man in the street fares better, and he certainly has more freedoms today than in the oligarchic phase of the US, when there were no laws regulating workers and union protesters were liable to get shot. Which brings me to your next assertion...
Perhaps the constitution is brittle. I suppose republics are brittle, as perhaps are democracies of any form. Oligarchies are robust and flexible, and dictatorships supremely efficient (even if you rotate dictators every eight years). Personally, I'll take brittle and hard to maintain over what we're heading towards.
Again rubbish. Oligarchies and dictatorships are far more brittle than democracies. In the First World War, Britain began rationing immediately; Germany never. In the Second, Germany only got onto a full war footing in 1944 -- Britain in 1938. Centrally planned economies are generally inefficient, more free economies generally efficient. America, for most of the nineteenth century, was an oligarchy, and it is only becoming less so very recently; in the half-century, except for the 80s.
You say you'll take brittle and hard to maintain -- the trouble is, it won't. If some system is brittle or hard, people won't maintain it. They never have and never will -- not for any amount of time that matters. They'll just move on, silently, as America did a couple of decades after its founding, with all the federalist arguments, imperial expeditions, warmongering and rampant corruption. But that's a good thing; America as laid out in the constitution isn't a democracy or real republic. I'd hate to be still living in times where no women had the vote, slaves only counted for three-fifths of a vote, etc. Sometimes (but only twenty-odd times) the changes happened via formal amendments. Most often, by working around the documents or just by making entirely new rules up as people went along. That's life. What America is or was on paper has never been what it is in reality (incidentally this misleads the optimistic immigrants, but that's good for it).
What that means is, the minority wins.
Not necessarily; the records of the US Senate, with the exception of classified briefings and other such proceedings, are open to the public and the voters can ultimately decide for themselves who is being obstructionist. It is also important to remember that some voters, namely those who work on Wall Street, actually prefer to have gridlock because historically that has been good for business. The difficulty of getting major new legislation through the US Senate encourages vigorous debate, like what we are having now over health care, and long reflection before potentially sweeping changes are made to American society and government. However, this means that both sides must listen to each other and state their positions honestly; when that doesn't occur there is a price to be paid on election day (as we have seen with health care reform).
The reason health care reform is on life support right now (pardon the pun) is because the left did not "win" the debate over health care reform in the public forum. They pursued the wrong strategy, attempting to take advantage of a tenuous gain after President Obama's election, to ram through sweeping changes quickly before they lost their advantage and cooler heads prevailed. Obviously, this risky gamble did not pay off at the ballot box (evidence: Massachusetts). I can understand why the left is impatient; some of those Senators have been around long enough to remember the heady days of the 1960s and wanted a second bite at the apple after 40 years of disappointment, but they moved too quickly and on the wrong issues without the support of the American people.
Why do the Democrats refuse to openly and formally debate their positions in public? Are they afraid that their positions are too weak to withstand public scrutiny? Whatever happened to "having the debate on C-Span"? It does not suffice to simply call your opponents "morons" and proceed to ignore them, as if the superior intellect and enlightenment of the left excuses them from the burden of having to debate their "small-minded" opponents.
You shouldn't have to jump through the same hoops for normal legislative matters just because a minority can't stand to lose.
The Constitution allows the US Senate to choose its rules of procedure within the bounds set by that document. The US Senate decided long ago that "unlimited debate" is a necessary feature of their chamber. They placed that rule upon themselves. If at any time 60 Senators decided that filibusters were no longer needed or wanted, they could change the rules...but they don't. It is your opinion that they shouldn't have to jump through those hoops, but it is my opinion that a higher burden in the US Senate serves to promote the necessary introspection that is so often absent from the US House of Representatives which moves quickly (and sometimes rashly) to votes even on major issues. It is true that the rules of the US Senate relies more heavily upon collegiality and the wisdom that comes with advanced age, but shouldn't we expect these things from our Senators? I am really disappointed by the recent actions of the Harry Reid and other Senate democrats. They sold their high offices in return for a votes on a bill that smelled worse than 3 day old fish; not very Senatorial if you ask me.
Here is some information on the recent incredible rise in filibusters:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/11/25/the-staggering-rise-of-the-filibuster.html
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/01/25/how-the-filibuster-changed-and-brought-tyranny-of-the-minority.html
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1933802,00.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016901.php
This is NOT business as usual. This is obstructionism, plain and simple. The Democrats are more than willing to debate, but what the Republicans are doing is not debate. The voters are desperate for change, though, and the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.
Thankfully, Obama is spearheading a reform of the filibuster. Hopefully, the Democrats will force the Republicans to play their filibuster card over and over again, to demonstrate to the people that the Republican party is the party of NO. That is the answer the Republicans are providing to this country's problems: don't let the Democrats 'score points' by doing anything useful.
However, the Republicans will find that people do not look kindly on people who, though they have no answers or plans of their own, nonetheless obstruct anyone who does.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton