Obama Would Redirect NASA Funding to Education 357
QuantumG writes "In a recent article on The Space Review, Greg Zsidisin reveals that Barack Obama plans to delay Project Constellation for at least five years, using the redirected funds to nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond, if he is elected president. It is feared that if this happens the Vision for Space Exploration will flounder and that may be the end of human spaceflight altogether."
Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we mod article summaries?
-1 Drama Queen
So according to these doyens of space and associated fields, if a U.S. project is put off for 5 years (to educate children - how DARE they?) then this will quell humankind's desire to travel in space forever?
I think there's some space all right, but it's obviously not all out there beyond the stars...
That's disappointing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)
All of that with nukes. No thanks. Dealing with the strategic consequences of that in the long run may actually outweight current investment in the Iraq war.
The worst bit here is that if we did not topple Saddam we would have never had this problem on our hands. This is a swamp we drove into ourselves and for the time being there is no way out. There is only a way to continue piling gravel and sandbags and hope that they will stop sinking.
Anyone thinking that "we can pullout fast" is delusional.
Now Afganistan is another matter. Every single army to conquer Afganistan over the centuries went on to do better things and left it alone. It has no resources, no strategic value and pulling out of it makes sense. Chasing one wanker which is not in Afganistan anyway does not justify a war without end. It can be sealed and quarantined from the air for the next century for a fraction of the resources we use at present. Just shoot anything coming in or out and ask questions later.
No one needs pre-kindergarten education (Score:5, Insightful)
Open letter to the people having these children: Your genes are not special. Your kid will not cure cancer. Get over yourself. It's expensive to raise children--especially when you have to pay the people who are actually doing it. Why don't you just volunteer for one of those Big Brother programs on the weekends? You'll see those kids just as often as your own, with the added benefit of not causing all that emotional damage.
Rigors of kindergarten, pffft.
Re:That's disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's disappointing (Score:2, Insightful)
OTOH, anyone who thinks that Iraq will turn into the next Japan or Germany if we stay a few more years is completely insane.
It's going to be bad now or it's going to be bad later.
Re:That's disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the conversation themes that arised was the invasion of the USA on Iraq and the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein. I found very interesting the point of view of this people that come from the Middle East and some of them (having just started their PhDs) were in their respective countries when the USA invasion started.
So, the main consense was that the USA was unlawfuly invaded Iraq and fought his president. That they have been there illegaly all this time killing inoccent people trying to enforce the laws of their country in some other place. Some of them agreed that although Iraq had poltical problems, it was something that should had been fixed by themseleves or by means other than being invaded by a foreign militar force.
So basically, as someone other said, the Kool aid that a lot of people in the USA and other western countries is drinking is pretty dense. It is funny that what people know is what their government let them know (the same for a lot of issues in China, I have a chinnese friend who is active in politics and he has shown me how western media makes inadequate use of photos to present missinformation).
The truth is that, if the USA pulled out of Iraq there would be some issues, but these are some issues that the independent country of Iraq would have to resolve. No country (and that includes the USA) has any right to invade another country.
parents (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that the parents job??
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, the fear is somewhat unreasonable, but it is there. But there're also people who fear the takeover of the British monarchy by alien lizards (insert your own choice for ludicrous things to be afraid of). So saying someone is "afraid" of a potential future ie not a useful observation to make.
My take is that Obama is exchanging a program with concrete goals, even if they are expensive and perhaps poorly planned, for a feel-good measure. The money might be spent on "education", but what guarantee do we have that it'll actually result in better educated children? Instead, I see a better approach being to fix the problems with NASA (eg, use existing launchers rather than making a competitor, Ares I) and take the funds for the proposed education program (assuming it actually has some value) from known overfunded areas like the entitlement programs, particularly Social Security, government retirement programs, etc. There might even be some savings from reduced military activity, if Obama doesn't screw that up.
But when you arbitrarily take that kind of funds from a program with long lead times like NASA, you will generate large costs down the road. A five year delay in the Ares program, for example, means a near dead stop in current development, loss of workforce (I know the program will lose workforce anyway, but the current approach by the Bush adminstration does preserve part of the existing workforce), and loss of infrastructure and tooling (unless someone pays to maintain that infrastructure or tooling), and complicate future efforts (assuming the five year suspension doesn't become permanent). I've never seen a delay reduce overall costs. These programs don't start and stop like welfare or education programs. NASA projects take many years to develope. For many such projects a five year suspension in manpower and effort pretty much resets the program back to the start. This is a really poorly thought out idea.
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the only bad idea he has. Unfortunately, Obama supporters have already modded you to zero for stating the readily-apparent truth, and no doubt this too will be modded down as well. It's a similar phenomenon to how they've taken over digg and spammed the forum with pro-Obama and anti-Clinton media for the past several months.
The bottom line is that NASA and human spaceflight are going to suffer because (a) the most competent leader running for office is being systematically drummed out of the running by the "old boy" leadership of her own party, and (b) without extremely clever leadership to get us out of the hole Baby Bush has dug for us (and it may not be possible at all given how deep into the Abyss we already are), the United States simply cannot afford space travel any longer. We have squandered our wealth as a nation acting as a proxy for the Bush-Hussein pissing match. It's debatable whether anyone could save the space program from the Bush deficit, but I do agree that a leader that will take money from an already underfunded space program that spins off countless technical and ecomonic benefits, and may well be the key to our countries economic future (not to mention, as Stephen Hawking and others have repeatedly argued, the future of the human race) in order to finance pre-kindergarden education is pretty damn incompetent. It bodes ill for what other kinds of decisions a President Obama is likely to make.
We're already third world in terms of our (lack of) basic national healthcare, we aren't doing too well on any of the technology fronts (Asia, Europe, and Canada have better and cheaper broadband, most technical innovations are coming out of the far east, and the US government has systematically underfunded and defunded some of the most promising areas of scientific research--stem cell research and genetic science being just the tip of the iceberg).
It shouldn't be news that Obama wants to gut the space program to increase handouts to the poor. He's made no secret of his stance on that. Bad public policy? Yes. Short sighted? Yes. Surprising? Not at all.
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the pool of available and willing professional expertise is not static. I've already witnessed this at my current workplace, where, after less than 1 year of abandoning a relatively complicated process for a far more simple but grossly less efficient one due to temporarily relaxed requirements, the very same people who used to run the former process are unable to revive it as requirements swing back towards tighter schedules and resources--in fact their efforts to do so have made things even worse.
It is always harder to start (or revive) a program than to keep one running, and even highly skilled people who are capable of the latter may not be able to do the former if it is interrupted or temporarily disbanded for a significant period of time.
If you interrupt an extremely technically demanding program for 5 years, it will either or both take a long time or a director and team of a totally different caliber to bootstrap it again.
The principles described in the above also apply doubly to political will. At this point, NASA's funding is largely due to the legendary inertia of the government. If it were scrapped, it would take someone with an overwhelming mandate and clear, focused vision to build the political consensus and drive it through congress again.
Note that 5 years means that he is scheduling the program's revival in the next presidential term. He does not feel that it should be his responsibility to put humpty dumpty back together again after pushing him off a the wall.
It is hyperbole to say that this would kill manned space exploration, but it may well kill manned space exploration in the US until the next cold war/space race, which we are likely to lose if we try to revive gutted institutions to compete with a program with strong, decades-long unbroken momentum.
Also, speaking to the larger issue of education, 'more funding' is absolutely not a silver bullet that will guarantee better quality, and the education section in his 'blueprint' booklet is totally opaque. It identifies many issues (the easiest part), states proposals to address the issues (also easy), and then does nothing to explain why or how those proposals will work (the only part that really matters).
In all honesty, I think Obama is probably the candidate I dislike the least at this point, but--and I don't hold the following against him directly, per se--it really bothers me that his supporters seem to be under the influence of a Jobs-esque reality distortion field. That people on /. of all places are willing to trivialize the scrapping of a major program of NASA because a politician cries 'think of the children'--without even attempting a strong explanation of why this is necessary--is just sad.
Re:Not a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
The X-Prize was cool and all, but let's be realistic, they never came close to leaving Earth's orbit. Not exactly deep space exploration.
To be sure, we should relax some of the restrictions on private space flight, but that doesn't mean we should stop funding it publicly. Real deep space exploration is just not profitable, the private sector is not going to pick up the slack.
Re:That's disappointing (Score:1, Insightful)
Quickly pulling out of Iraq will create an Iran which is double the size of present.
Not really - half the Iraqis hate the Iranians on religious grounds, and the other half hate them because they lost a generation fighting a brutal war against them less than two decades ago. In fact an aggressive Iran might even unite the Iraqis (well, something has to ...)
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare it to other countries and US education's problem isn't even lack of money, the whole system's just fscked up.
Also, if Mister Universe would slash the DoD budget to more sane levels (i.e. less than the money spent by all other nations on earth combined when the majority of that money is spent by your allies), then instead a few billions he'd be able to distribute a few hundred billions and perhaps he could even give NASA another billion or two without anyone noticing.
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:2, Insightful)
Education is no good reason? Dear lord, the ignorant trolls I see these days...
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:5, Insightful)
Radical and disruptive is exactly what the US needs right now.
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I think I agree with Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
At first, I was like, "Oh no, not the space program". But then I realized, maybe just because I'm trying to rationalize a way to agree with Obama, that I think I do actually agree. Here is why.
Firstly, thanks to Bush, we really aren't going to be doing anything interesting in space anytime soon. Sure we could putter around and send some probes, but we aren't going to have the resources to do something really extraordinary for awhile.
In the meantime, the US is slipping. We aren't the smartest, we aren't the biggest economy and we slowly shifting away from the center of the world. Like Egypt, China and Europe before, it is possible that the world's reins may slip from our hands unless we do something. Now whether that is a bad thing or not, I don't know, but as a government, I'm assuming a main goal is to retain influence.
One of the best ways to maintain our influence is through education. If we really go all out on the next generation, then in 30 years, we'll still be the center of the modern world. If not, then in 30 years, China, Japan, Europe and India are going to stop sending us their smartest people and keep them for themselves, and then we'll just have the brain-deads over here watching American Idol.
The best, most surefire way to increase the overall effectiveness of our education system is early education. We can pour trillion into high schools and get microscopic results, but just a fraction of that going into getting education out there to pre-kindergardeners and we will probably see general competency double. No I don't have a source for that, it being pure speculation, but it is well known that early development is a critical stage.
Lately I've realized how little parent teach their kids. Some, I dare say most, do absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. Maybe the teach them to count to ten, but that is all. You're lucky if you get the ABC's as well. I find it shocking when I talk to people who didn't get taught anything as a child, and even more shocking when I see children not being taught.
I was reading fluently and doing basic algebra before I entered kindergarden, and that lead has stuck with me my whole life. (Quite frustrating actually.)
So yeah, those of you who are complaining that Obama isn't thinking long term, take a moment to consider whether you are thinking long term. Getting off of the planet, to a different solar system is going to take hundreds and hundreds of years of dedicated work and research. Furthermore, throughout those hundreds of years, society will have to be intelligent enough in general to realize the need for such a project and support it (which they aren't now). Possibly, before we dive straight for space flight, we need to raise the intellectual level of society high enough that they aren't looking at their own wallets so hard that we'll never get off the ground.
Early education sounds like the best way to do that to me.
P.S. I've only gotten one, count them, one bad mod (overrated), and I've got several (8 or 9) good ones, yet my karma has decided to become "bad". So now all my posts start at zero and no one ever reads them (let alone mods them up), meaning I can never get my karma to good, or at least normal. What is up with that. Should I just start a new account. Seriously, does one overrated mean I should be censored like this? Bah. Bah. I bet no one reads this either.
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:4, Insightful)
> more money always buys a better gun, but more money can't buy a better
> teacher.
Simple, lets start with guns. There are LOTS of guns, built for every possible use and you can pick the one best suited to your intended use. There are lots of good reviews to allow you to make an informed decision.
Now lets contrast this with teachers. Testing teachers for quality control is forbidden. Parents disagree over what 'teaching' even should be, but the State prescribes one doctrine for all. If one disagrees with WHAT is being taught it is hard to see how buying more of it will change anything. If we can't quantify quality other than waiting thirten years to see how many children out of each batch gets destroyed it is hard to get a grip on quality control, thus throwing more money at a broken design is contra indicated.
Now consider the original published design goals for mandatory public education:
1. Create obedient drones to man the dehumanizing factories of the industrial revolution. (Leader types were to be the children of the wealthy who would continue attending the best private academies.)
2. Ensure every drone (child) was properly instructed in socialism, including their palce in the new order. i.e. They follow, and the annointed elite lead.
3. Remove children from the labor force, thus removing a major competitive pressure on the trade unions.
Even if the schools were operating with 100% efficency I'd be arguing for burning the lot to the ground and starting over. But the reality is even more horrible. No. Sending a child to government schools is child abuse and pissing away the entire Federal budget on the current schools could only, in a perfect world, bring them back to the dystopia I outlined above because that is their stated DESIGN GOAL.
When you are ready to join me in abolishing the current system and privitizing education we can talk about whether and how much the various levels of government should subsidize education.
Re:Iraq should be mentioned. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need is a return to rationality, common sense and decency, real compassion for other beings, and respect for human rights.
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:2, Insightful)
And is hiring administrators without huge egos that won't run schools like their personal kingdoms also forbidden?
State
Ahh, a Libertarian. Right. Why are you even commenting? You're not in favor of fixing public education, you're probably partial to dismantling it. There's not much constructive you can contribute if your goal is destructive.
Now consider the original published design goals for mandatory public education:
No, let's not. You can continue to live in the 1800's, but it's the 21st century and those goals aren't applicable any longer. If you think they are, then I can't help you.
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:3, Insightful)
The time in US history when education was at it's best happens to be the same time when spending on the space program was it's highest.
Re:I call shenanigans (Score:3, Insightful)
But something else is important to remember everyone: the president cannot legislate, only Congress can. So everything requires the approval of Congress for funding, etc, and Obama would simply be initiating the discussion on these topics.
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:3, Insightful)
One, they won't want the loss of the war on their record. And regardless of if we are losing now, it would be the next president that lost the war when they take actions to, lose the war. If they could force Bush to lose the war first, it might be a different story. It doesn't look like that will happen though.
Two, we broke the eggs and scrambled them. It is our responsability to do something other then let them spoil. Like it or not, if we walk away and let Iraq explode, the rest of the world will be more pissed at us then they are now. This means the popular worry more about what France and Germany thinks of us then what's right or pertinent for the country will take a back seat and fuck their foreign policy agendas.
Three, if we walk away, Iraq will explode causing all sorts of problems in an already volatile area. Like it or not, we will be less safe and most likely screwed if the middle east exploded in inter-country war over control of Iraq. Iran will most likely step in seeing how they are backing Muqtada al-Sadr and is the supply for most of the weaponry that the insurgents are using. This will make Kuwait really nervous seeing how they paid Iraq to protect them before Iraq invaded them. Jordan, Syria and Saudi will not only have oil interest in Iraq, but will also contest Iran in the process which means Israel will be hit and all the middle east oil supply would be interrupted if not stopped completely. This would mean inflation not only all across the US, but the rest of the world too with shortages in oil causing 200 dollar per barrel or more prices and the possibilities of good old fashioned wars for resources that we sort of grew out of.
Anyways, that is the simplified version of an idiotic withdraw without taking certain steps first. It may be worse or not. The potential to fuck things up far worse then they are now exists if some lunatic actually withdraws the troops before Iraq is capable of supporting itself and defending itself. There are enough people "in the know" in the government that will warn whoever the next president is of these problems that a withdraw just won't happen. And as soon as it looks like it is going to happen, they will probably go public and warn everyone else in the country that their elected leader is worse then Bush was.
Re:So, I think I agree with Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
I was reading fluently and doing basic algebra before I entered kindergarden, and that lead has stuck with me my whole life. (Quite frustrating actually.)
Here's a tip: No, you weren't, unless you're a statistical aberration.
I have a four-year-old son who is in a voluntary pre-K program offered by Florida. Amongst his peer group he is (according to his teachers) one of the brightest, most attentive and well-behaved. We read to him as a child, and I did my best to encourage him to enjoy learning.
He can spell simple three and four letter words, though he cannot yet read, He's working on phonics and does basic calculation with non-numeric symbols.
And he's at or near the top of his class.
If you were a child prodigy and able to do basic algebra and read fluently at that age, then bully for you. Not every child can achieve such feats - and many may never actually achieve them. Tossing money at pre-K is not going to create a bunch of prodigies.
What it will create is a well-entrenched bureaucracy that is more involved with making money for itself under the pretense of doing it For The Children(TM).
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, within the last 20-30 years, the democrats have always given NASA a rough time on their budget. During the Clinton administration before the republicans took over congress, they slashed NASA's budget more then the total of the previous cut and the next three cuts combined. It was a whipping post issue when Reagan and the first Bush was in office too. They might not have slashed the budget but they railed against it and cut increased purposed by the then administrations. Everything seems more important then NASA to them which is a shame. Most of what said "we can do it", came from mobilizing NASA in the 50's and 60's. Their continued success and leadership is what I think started the US in being the leader in technology and engineering fields. I think it is sort of important to stay out in front of the ever increasing competition in those areas simply so we can show we are more then capable or leading the way.
Re:That's disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is stupid to think you can easily judge Bob's thoughts from something Ralph says and believes in.
I don't spend much of my free time listening to the opinions emanating from Fox news, so I can't say exactly what Obama believes according to them, but I can honestly say I have heard some very intelligent and promising things for the future come from Obama's public addresses. Oh, and he can speak English without mangling the words.
Judging from the past 8 years of double speak, double standards, scandal, incest, cannibalism, 2 draft dodging assholes, "If you don't vote for us the terrorists will strike again soon" bullshit, and outright lies from Snarly and Smirky, I'm ready for someone less corrupt to try to bring us out of the dark ages those two assholes have plunged us into.
You have been watching way too much Bill O'Reilly and that faggot Sean Hannity. You may have put the crack pipe down now, but you've still got your head up your butt. There is much work to do son...******* ...
If you mod me as troll, the terrorists will eat your brain
If you don't mod me up to Funny, Interesting, or Damn He's Funny, I will find out where you live and will send the terrorists to crap on your lawn
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:1, Insightful)
Paraphrasing a line I just heard a while ago, in war the innocent die along side the guilty, but if you do nothing only the innocent die.
Re:Iraq should be mentioned. (Score:3, Insightful)
As for your observations of people in college, that is expected. People in college are there to learn things but have no real world experience most of the time. This allows them to have abstract views on life and society in general. Some people grow out of it and into other areas, some stay firmly attached. A whole lot more go in between and support bits and pieces of opposing ideals. Don't hold your experiences in college as the tell all for everything.
Also, it isn't a situation of You will only find the uneducated illiterate bubbas and cooters of the back-woods holding their guns overhead and declaring we need to invade the "Rag Heads" to protect our borders. Protecting our borders and rags heads isn't a logical statement that has entered any conversation relating to the Iraq war. There are at least 5 other countries over there that you could call rag heads that we don't even bother with. This sort of shows that you either never invested the time and effort to learn what the problems where about or you bought into some fallacy of a conspiracy theory and are more impressionable then you are smart. Take a step back and think about all of it for a minute.
The country isn't run by the uneducated.
Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, to be fair, testing teachers for quality control isn't so much "Forbidden" as "questionably possible." After all, teaching is not actually a simply definable process with well understood inputs and outputs. It involves a minimum of two individuals (Something a Libertarian should be concerned with), and it depends on the interaction between them and a huge slice of external environment. You can have a bright kid, a great teacher, and oops, asshole parents, welcome to the quickie mart, son. You can have great parents, great teacher, and whoops, kid's got emotional problems unrelated to either. Fuck.
Reductionism looks great on paper. After all, who doesn't love things being simpler. But things aren't fucking simple. Things aren't always, or even often self-regulating. And the free market works great for things where the end goal is profit. The end goal of education is not profit, it is to educate individuals.
Honestly... are you just fishing for insults here? "When you are ready to get rid of government money for schools, we can talk about government money for schools" isn't a useful statement. You're not asking for debate or providing information, you're just posing yourself as so "obviously right" that only like opinions are valid.
My problem with Libertarianism in general is that it's just anarchy for people uncomfortable with admitting it, and who try to dismantle the protections built into our society for the bottom 90%, because they think they'll never be there.
Well, for 90% of everybody, that's not true. And frankly, too many of the libertarians I know have depended on those protections and services to make me believe that the majority of that 10% would be Libertarian.
Also: Anyone whose child is not currently chained to a desk in a sweatshop, who is not currently forced to work in a coal mine because the mine owners pay them in scrip, and who is being paid more than 3.50 and who gets vacation can shut up about "Oh my god, the evil unions." The U.S.A. has had a period with laissez-faire economic and regulatory policies for businesses. It was called the Gilded Age. It was HORRIBLE for almost everyone whose name wasn't Rockefeller or Astor. Unions were a big part of ending things like this [cornell.edu], for example.
Other examples of the horrors of excessive privatization: Look at 16th through 18th century England. Especially note that a system of privatized police basically turned England into one huge crime ghetto for multiple decades, until Henry Fielding stepped in and formed a centralized police force answerable to the magistrate's office.
I have been a teacher for several years, and attended both public and private schools as a student. Public schools have their problems: many of them caused by exactly the attempts to dismantle them that you talk about. But what, then, do you propose to replace them with? A system where, if you're poor (and or your parents decide they don't want to pay for school/homeschool), you just don't get taught? That certainly won't raise the crime and unemployment rates through the roof. Oh wait, it would. Well, fudge.