Slashdot Mirror
State of Alabama Fighting NASA's New Plan
FleaPlus writes "Alabama politicians have formed a 'task force' dedicated to fighting NASA's new plans to cancel the costly Constellation/Ares program, which is largely based in Alabama. The chronically mismanaged Constellation project attempted to build new rockets in-house and replicate an Apollo-style lunar program with minimal investment in new technologies. NASA's new boosted budget revives formerly suppressed R&D efforts into critical technologies needed for a sustainable push towards Mars and intermediate waypoint destinations, works with (instead of trying to compete with) existing commercial rockets to transport cargo/crew to orbit, and funds a stream of robotic precursor missions to scout other worlds and demonstrate new technologies. The Alabama task force fighting the new plan includes former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin and former Ares project manager Steve Cook."
Two can play the racist game. In essence, the post is, "the NASA space program is something for white southern people", so therefor, we should all want to kill it.
I should be ok with that, except that, I'm white, and my spin on it is this:
The reality, is a bunch of homeboys and liberals don't want to have any possibility of people going into space ever. As long as there's some crack head out there to keep their aids infested homo bodies alive on the federal dole, no one else will ever be allowed to do anything visionary with the federal government. This is the essence of the chicago politics and pretty much what the current democratic leadership is all about.
The liberals have finally won. This country is ruined, utterly ruined, taken over by bunch of a fucking insects posing as people.
This is my sig.
Hey, this topic reminds me of a joke I came up with the other day:
Q: Why do white trash prefer to use MySpace instead of Facebook? :)
A: Because Facebook has the word 'book' in it!
Do they teach the concepts of irony and satire in schools in Alabama?
The way you see it the USA was a dictatorship.
That pretty much ends any connection you might have had with reality.
In the real world actual, you know, analysis and research showed that Republicans lost support of their base because they stopped governing by the principles that their voters expected of them. The Republicans stopped acting like Republicans, and they were punished.
In the real world Bush was actually reelected based on the Iraq war: the thing you think got the power taken away was actually the thing that preserved it! Easy evidence of this is that the president has much more to do with war strategy than congressmen, so if the war was such a negative then it would have hit Bush harder than the congress. We saw the opposite.
So no. I know it's fun to see the world in ways that jive with your own opinions and create fun drama in those you disagree with, but reality just doesn't bear your perspective out. Republicans lost largely because of things like profligate spending, and that was quite the opposite of a free pass.
Well, maybe they should, then (start teaching it).
Most economists today accept that the government programs after the beginning of the depression (not when they clamped down on the money, but all the spending programs after) prolonged recovery from the depression for as much as 10 years, when without government interference it might have been over in as little as 2.
Despite all the rhetoric, you can't spend yourself out of debt. It just doesn't work. The best you will manage is to inflate your currency.
"Not unfair?" Answer me this honest question: why should an employer pay a tax on employees? I mean fundamentally.
These taxes on small businesses ARE unfair, because they dramatically raise the bar for starting or operating a small business.
You might argue that even if that tax were placed square on the employee, then businesses would have to raise their wages so that employees could afford to pay. And that's valid. But at least then it wouldn't be a half-hidden cost. It would be direct, and people would have a much better idea of where the money is coming from, and where it is going. Which is ALWAYS better.
I do not disagree with you about "healthcare", by which you really mean insurance (they aren't the same things, despite what you hear out of Washington). That is something else that needs to be taken out of the hands of employers. Part of the whole health care problem we have today is that businesses get a break when they have an insurance program for their employees... but because the costs have been driven up so much, individuals and startups that aren't getting the breaks that larger businesses do cannot afford it.