Obama Outlines Bold Space Policy ... But No Moon
455
The Bad Astronomer writes "In front of a mostly enthusiastic audience at NASA's Kennedy Space Center today, President Obama outlined a bold, new space policy. It's a change from his previous policy; the Constellation rockets are still dead, but a new heavy-lift rocket system is funded. He specifically talked of manned asteroid and Mars missions, but also stated there would be no return to the Moon. This is a major step in the right direction, but still needs some tweaking."
Color me not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
$6B for five years? $1.2B a year. Less money than Microsoft is losing on Bing. Less than 5% of the annual revenues of Mars candy [wikipedia.org]. For humans to stretch the limits of the frontier, to go to Mars and the Asteroids this is all? This is bold? What deep commitment.
I honestly liked it better when he didn't care enough to pretend to try. Do it or don't do it. Don't go halfway into it and set everybody up for disappointment. This is important stuff.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
In a time when every other discretionary budget is being cut, any increase is a show of support.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
I still don't understand why we're building a new heavy lifter when we have a heavy lifter we've spent several billion already over the past 6 years. How close was Ares V to being done? was it really THAT mismanaged that it's cheaper and more efficient to start from scratch?
The purpose of government research (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he's probably right in terms of what a government research program should have as its goals. IMO, the purpose of government research on this scale is to drive forward technological development and give the private sector a kick in the pants.
We've already been to the Moon, that technology was developed during the 1960s. We could probably do it better now, but the advancements wouldn't be nearly as significant as what is required for a manned mission to Mars. Leave the moon to the private sector, we should expect to see a private company touching down there within a decade or maybe two. Mars is still a pie-in-the-sky target, let's point NASA at that.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
The military budget is not being cut (significantly). US military spending, regardless of how it is classified, is discretionary in reality.
You could fund a manned Mars mission (pessimistic estimated total cost: $100 billion) with a 3% cut in the US military budget for ten years.
Re:The purpose of government research (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really want private companies going to the Moon and commercializing it?
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
You could fund a manned Mars mission (pessimistic estimated total cost: $100 billion) with a 3% cut in the US military budget for ten years.
You could pay for massive upgrades to child protective services, social security, medicare, etc. with $100 billion. You could put a million pedophile priests in jail for $100 billion. You could reinvigorate Detroit and create tens of thousands of jobs for $100 billion.
The point is that you could do a LOT of things with "just a small cut in the military budget", but it wouldn't sit well with the electorate. Obama already takes enough shit for being "soft on terrorists" and "elitist". I doubt he'd want to completely botch his re-election with a snooty re-allocation of military funds ("purtecctt amurreriicaa") to the space program ("scieencee and la dee daa").
In 2 and a half years (Score:3, Insightful)
In 2 and a half years when Obama is replaced by the next guy we can recycle this whole thing over again. Each administration takes over and points NASA in yet another direction killing off whatever the current direction is. Next administration will probably kill the heavy lifter project and replace that with a direct shot to mars.
Re:"No Moon" (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree. The best way to "learn" how to do long duration deep-space flights is a moonbase, don't you think, not a first-try, no-exit-strategy, let's hope everything works shoot-'em-to-Demos one shot.
Bush was going to Mars too, so my concern is not alleviated that we're still talking fantasy appeasements while starving the program.
Re:The purpose of government research (Score:4, Insightful)
major step in the WRONG direction (Score:5, Insightful)
what is the point of going to Mars if we have no capability of setting up a base there? No capability of any rescue? The moon is our kindergarten - a place to learn about how to live for long periods of time in extremely harsh environments. It is close enough that rescue or other aid may be possible. It is close enough that there is greater flexibility in the mission. The sad thing is that what we did in a handful of years in the 1960s is going to take us a decade or more 50 years later.
Re:The purpose of government research (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Why not?
Chinese (Score:4, Insightful)
You can bet that when the Chinese land on the moon and start talking about setting up bases there'll be a renewed call for the US to end up on the moon again post haste. I can tell its going to be like toddlers and toys. One wont play with a toy until he sees someone else enjoying it and wants in on the action.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless he pulls a miracle from his ass, he's not going to get re-election. As of now, he and every congresscritter is in damage control mode saving themselves, their legacy, and the party.
Right now, people are worried about future employment, paying bills, and not losing their house. Baby Boomers are frightened as to how the new healthcare reform will pan out for them. Students are worried about being saddled with tuition loans and not being able to pay them off. Unless we have another 911, most people could give a shit about the war now. We are all in "save my ass" mode.
Re:why asteroids and not comets? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, "Asteroids" is easier for the public to understand.. barely. But whether it is an asteroid or a comet is a completely flexible decision. The NASA studies all refer to "Near Earth Objects" as you do.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
He'd be "soft and the terrorists" and "elitist" no matter WHAT he did. Those are talking points that are applied without regard to any facts.
Re:"No Moon" (Score:5, Insightful)
Bumper sticker, no. Speech, well, you need the right president.
Where Bush had a space program that made him look good but would never accomplish anything, Obama has one that has folks scratching their heads but which might just take space travel out of its 40-year coma.
And no, I'm not blaming W for the mess that is NASA. Every President since JFK has put politics over real accomplishments in this area, though Bush was just a little more cold-blooded about it.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama isn't truly American. He does not share the American dream. He doesn't see things eye to eye with his fellow Americans. He doesn't even care
Look up his life history - he is living the American dream. I don't know how anyone can claim he doesn't believe in it as that is what made him president. How many other self-made men have become president?
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Also what is a true American? I live in the United States and I don't even know what the definition of a true American is.
Is being a true American standing up for your rights when their trampled on? Is it serving in the military? Is it pushing yourself everyday all day to be a self made individual?
They called John McCain a true American hero during the 2008 election but all I saw was an old generation of ideas and values that didn't work in the modern world.
George W. Bush was called a real American because he defended us against terrorists at all costs. Does blowing billions of dollars on something that has no return on investment make someone a true American?
And whats this American Dream? I recall it being that if you worked hard and played by the rules you can do whatever you want. Well it feels like the only way to make money in this country is break all the rules and let others do the hard work while taking all the credit. Is this the new American Dream? Is this a true American?
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:1, Insightful)
How many other self-made men have become president?
He was created by the media and its obvious that he's in way over his head.
NASA is not discretionary budget (Score:2, Insightful)
Quite apart from the national security issues, there's a lot of science to learn out there or on the way. As Kennedy put it: "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
But no, what we need now is a President to look up into the evening sky and see bright Mars. To wonder what it might be like for men to walk on it, to explore and harvest the vast resources of space - and then shrug, crack a beer and catch the game on ESPN.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:5, Insightful)
...To be a true American one must feel proud every single time...America is the first (and so far) only country in the world ...Obama isn't truly American. ...
That pretty much sums it up I think. I am an American and I am NOT proud of everything my country does. The fact is, I'm an American, really and truly; Obama is a real, true American, and the fact that we can disagree with you (or that you are allowed to disagree with us) is one of the the few accomplishments Americans actually can be proud of.
The fact is, one doesn't have to feel an overwhelming sense of stunning self-satisfaction for simply having been born into this great nation; America -isn't- the only nation on earth and never has been, and like it or not you've got a lot more fellow Americans than you think you do.
It's crap like this that makes me sick of my fellow Americans and, in many cases, their smug, self-satisfied pride at being born into such a great heritage.
That said, I think Obama has bigger fish to fry (yes, bigger than another trip to the moon). For one thing, I'd like some form of profitable employment and so would thirty percent of other voting age Americans who are unemployed or working part time at Wal Mart (or whatever the number is this week). I'd like to see America claw its way back to the top of the world powers, a position nobody thinks it still has. And I'd like to see America stop bleeding its jobs to its enemies in China, India, and Mexico.
Once we do that, and we're in a position to afford such frills as a moon trip again, I'm all for it.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:5, Insightful)
You still need to go to the moon. (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a tiny bit of good thought in this: We will finally discuss space radiation and advanced propulsion systems.
Without a nuclear propulsion system that works, a mars mission or a mission to anything but a close flying asteroid is foolhardy.
We have built them before (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA [wikipedia.org]).
This is how engineering works:
1. Find elephant
2. Take SMALL bite.
3. Chew bite.
4. Spit out bones (of dead mars crew in slow rocket)
5. Continue until elephant is gone
It is rare that we get a huge leap in technology where physics is involved.
We have been working on the fusion reactor for 60 years. No breath holding or life betting on this one. Trust me. You don't want to build the next Tokamak and try and power Chicago with it.
Stated otherwise: You don't build a boat and test it by taking a transatlantic voyage.
Additionally, the moon part of these missions isn't really about "going" to the moon. It's about *building* on it. What we did before was the equivalent of a day trip in the woods.
Going to mars with chemical rockets is like taking a backpack into the woods across an ocean with only a Columbus style sailing ship back across that ocean to call on for help.
The moon is close, relatively speaking. The moon can be landed on, and then escaped from, with 40 year old technology as it sits. If you build an Apollo era lunar module as an escape capsule, you're done. You only have to live in it for a couple of days.
Mars CANNOT be escaped from with ANY technology currently available. Period. And building a habitation on mars makes the job significantly more difficult. Everything about Mars is harder and will require more time and money with much larger potential for failure and longer lead times.
If you build a habitation (read beginnings of colonization) on the moon, you may be able to build some things which can be tested in a "real" environment prior to getting to a place where you have no help.
There is almost no possibility of resurrection of your (scientific/monetary/personnel) outlay on mars. This is less true with the moon.
And the moon is still a huge challenge. Did I say huge? I meant *HUGE*.
We haven't been to the moon. We touched it, for a brief moment. Do we need to make it to Mars, HELL YES.
But we need to be smart about it.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:1, Insightful)
McCain could have been a fucking Gandhi -- which he wasn't, by a long shot -- but as soon as he chose the dumbest person on planet Earth as his VP, I would sooner have chosen a random 12 year-old child as candidate, or even that pornstar who elected herself. Hell, I would have picked you, and I think you're a pretty dumb dude.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:1, Insightful)
787 billion in stimulus money didn't create any jobs. I prefer to spend it on space.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:0, Insightful)
Something must have gone very very very wrong, somewhere.
Well, that much is obvious - the Bush presidency.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
Ares was not going to create new technology. It would use rehashed technologies from Saturn and the Space Shuttle. This was expected to create a better program because the technology would be flight-tested and well-known. However, it would also obviously stop innovation into new motors and technologies. Ares fell behind schedule and went over-budget almost immediately. The escape mechanism was shown not to be effective. Ares I-X severely damaged the launch pad, didn't separate cleanly, and had a problem with the parachutes. You can argue that these problems would get fixed in due time, but if you weren't getting the benefit of a faster program, then there is less reason to abandon the development of new technologies.
Furthermore, the problems associated with the use of solid fuel propellants with manned flights has been pretty clear. They do not give as much performance as liquid-fueled rockets. This has lead to ARES V being so big that the launch infrastructure would have to be upgraded to deal with its girth. Solid fuels cannot be shut off in case of emergency. And when they explode, they explode. Liquid-fueled rockets may come apart, but cryogenic fuels such as LOx and LH2 do not explode when combined; it needs to be heated or otherwise ignited. For proof, look at the Challenger disaster. When the SRBs ran away and the fuel tank came apart, there was no explosion; the huge cloud was cryogenic fuel being mixed together. In fact, the crew cabin survived the separation even when detached from the rest of the Shuttle; a few astronauts survived until they hit the water.
Also, Ares was going to develop the Ares I for manned vehicles and Ares V heavy lift for cargo. Ares V never really got developed because Ares I fell behind schedule and ate up all the money. A better way would be to develop two medium-lift vehicles to simplify the development. Cargo heavy lift can be provided by industry or by scaling up a medium-lift design with SRBs like other designs.
The new program will focus on the development of lift technologies and boosters without a specific goal. The problem with specific goals and insufficient budgets is that you get rush jobs. If NASA had to put a man on the moon by 2020 but didn't have the money to do it, then we'd have an unwieldy mess that never gets anywhere. Moving the focus to getting the work done would be more productive. Then we can work on getting orbiters and interplanetary spacecraft together once all the heavy-lift has been done.
Is it controversial? Hell yes. Is it a good idea? I dunna; it's risky. But is an end to the US manned space program? No. It's a daring move that throws in all the marbles in the hopes that we trade a bad program to a better future.
Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Did he nearly die choking on a pretzel? Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus? Is he suspending basic rights like habeas corpus and performing searches and seizures without warrants? Is he staffing FEMA with idiots, and then doing nothing while they fuck up a hurricane response? Is he nominating some inexperienced random woman for the Supreme Court? Is he standing on an aircraft carrier during some publicity stunt, claiming mission accomplished and the end of combat operations WEEKS into a war that has now lasted seven years?
Give me a fucking break. I have my issues with Obama, but you're comparing the former editor of the Harvard Law review with a guy who would've flunked out of college if his father wasn't running the CIA.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:3, Insightful)
We have a two party system. There is no third option. The country had a choice of sticking with the party that ran the country for 8 years or going with the other party. There was nothing else. Sure there are third party candidates here and there but none of them have any real support of the population to put them as front runners or even on a ballet. That is why we have President Obama
That's also why we had President Bush. Twice. Well, three times actually.
So yeah, good luck with that.
Sure OhBlahBlah. Fly before you can crawl! (Score:1, Insightful)
No going back to The Moon.
Never mind that The Moon is our stepping stone to missions further out in our solar system.
What? He think's the ISS is an appropriate waypoint on our way out?
NOT
EVEN
CLOSE!
This is what happens when you put someone who understands nothing more than fundraisers and Chicago Cronyism (aka Chicago Politics) in a position to affect the financing of people several orders of magnitude more intelligent and important to our world than he is.
Re:major step in the WRONG direction (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, how can you study the moon by avoiding it? That is like saying you will study Africa by sailing to South America.
Plus I get the feeling this is ONLY about being able to say you did something f1rst.
I agree that manned missions are needed in the long run, but we should use the possibility of unmanned missions to collect as much data as possible before risking not only the massively more amount of money but also the lives of people.
Learn to walk before you can run. We are still crawling on mommy's lap.
Re:major step in the WRONG direction (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's why no moon: We've been there. Besides the 6 manned missions, we've sent lots of landers, satellites and probes. We know it's geography really well, have a decent understanding of the chemical composition of the regolith, and even know where the water-ice is hiding. In other words, we've explored the moon. Not completely, but it's mapped, cataloged and now it's time to move on to the next target for exploration. There's still plenty of science to be done on the moon, but that's best left to the probes and landers and rovers for the time being. I'd like to see the next moon missions be more about science and settlement and less about exploration and national pride, but with China and India ramping up for moon-shots something like that probably wouldn't happen until the mid-2020's at least. The point is, everyone wants to show that they can do it all by themselves. Then we'll work together to do something bigger.
But exploration is what is being brought to the front again. Asteroids. Deimos and Phobos. Then Mars. Then perhaps a trip around Venus or a shot out to Ceres. Then on to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Then Uranus and Neptune, and after stopping at every ice ball floating beyond Pluto. Go. Map. Look around. Discover. Name things. Then move on. That's what exploration is all about, and has been sorely lacking at NASA for some time now.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless he pulls a miracle from his ass, he's not going to get re-election. As of now, he and every congresscritter is in damage control mode saving themselves, their legacy, and the party. ....and yet his approval rating is still 50/50, pretty much exactly where its been holding steady since july of last year, and only 15 percentage points lower than when he was elected.
Despite disagreement over his policies it is widely known that he enjoys a lot of respect from both sides.
Oh, AND the economy is already showing signs of improvement.
My prediction: he'll be re-elected in a landslide.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a two party system. There is no third option.
No, you won't find any reference to a "two party system" in the constitution or anywhere in U.S. law. We have a defacto two party system only because too many Americans have been brainwashed to believe there is no third (or 4th-nth) option.
As for the moon; it's so close and so big that an unbiased observer might call our system a double planet. You won't find anything like this in the solar system and even though we're towards the small end of the planets, we have one of the biggest moons. There are some good things in Obama's plan, but the fact that his plan avoids the stepping stone God dropped in fron of us just because we've stepped there before is absolutely insane. Don't be surprised if India or China or Samsung gets man on Mars first by not avoiding the obvious. Yes we can explore space without using the moon but, did the polynesian's discover Hawaii without exploring neighboring Polynesian islands? Did the Europeans venture to the New World without exploring the Mediterranean?
Re:Whatever (Score:2, Insightful)
Did he nearly die choking on a pretzel?
Who cares?
Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus?
He's continuing it. not ending it, as promised.
Is he suspending basic rights like habeas corpus and performing searches and seizures without warrants?
he hasn't exactly reversed the trend. enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely. he left plenty of loopholes for torture. didn't reverse the patriot act. Ect.
is he staffing FEMA with idiots, and then doing nothing while they fuck up a hurricane response?
We'll find out if another katrina hits, personally i'd have no faith.
Is he standing on an aircraft carrier during some publicity stunt, claiming mission accomplished and the end of combat operations WEEKS into a war that has now lasted seven years?
Same as pretzel.
Is he nominating some inexperienced random woman for the Supreme Court?
we'll see what happens with that.
Give me a fucking break. I have my issues with Obama, but you're comparing the former editor of the Harvard Law review with a guy who would've flunked out of college if his father wasn't running the CIA.
well, the said harvard law review guy is continuing most all the policies of said guy who would have flunked college.
And onto your sig.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
I'll never understand why Chomsky is held in any sort of high regard. A corporation can't force anyone to do anything, without the government, or breaking the law.. Thus, as tyrannical, as it might like to be, it cannot. Government, on the other hand, can, and constantly tries to be. Even though, it's not an intentional thing.
Re:Sure OhBlahBlah. Fly before you can crawl! (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude you do not know what you are talking about.
The moon is not a stepping stone, it is a hole. More specifically, it is a gravity hole that will require more fuel to get out of. It would be much easier to completely bypass the moon.
If one could make fuel on the moon, then it would be a good idea to build a base over there and use it as a stepping stone. But although this has been researched to death, nobody has figured out a practical way to make fuel on the moon. So as things stand currently, there is nothing on the moon that is at all useful for a Mars mission.
So the logical thing is to go straight to mars. Or if assembly is required, to assemble everything in earth orbit and go straight to mars.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess people are a bit disappointed that Obama didn't turn out to be the reincarnation of Lincoln and FDR, as he was made out to be at some point, but he's by no means as awful as the previous guy.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
hehe americans are dumb.
Didnt you learn from history, rome died because of military spending.
Besides, if you spend $100b on nasa, immediately the fed gets 40% back in taxes, the rest of the 60% is spent on subcontractors and they get taxes 40% of that, those workers then buy stuff of pay rent / bills. In the end 90% of that 100b is spent locally. ie self feed back revenue.
And its either $80b going to boeing & corps buying stealth fighters, or $80b going to buy rockets / space ships.
And most of the military budget is wasted on the 200+ bases globally.
Re:"No Moon" (Score:4, Insightful)
You are calling 4 manned trips a year to LEO a "workaday" program? Where it takes 12 years to get a space station completed? The shuttle directly limited spaceflight development by being dangerous, expensive and overly complex - leading to the 4 trip per year limit. Keeping up our presence in LEO going is important, absolutely, but spending 1 billion per launch to do so is not.
Commercial companies are developing the tech for manned LEO, so we really shouldn't be designing our own. To do better missions further out, we need a heavy lifter - exactly what Obama is proposing. By requiring the design to be finalized by 2015, it gives a deadline so that it is not just "pork barrel funding" - but still enough time to include some new tech like on orbit refueling (could greatly expand our working distance from earth). It has timeframes, goals, and roadmaps - it just isn't based on old, already-used tech, so he can't say exactly what the booster will be like. I think it is significantly better than the Constellation program - less expensive, same goals, better tech, more likely to actually happen.
Re:Sure OhBlahBlah. Fly before you can crawl! (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it doesn't make sense to stop to refuel on the moon even if we could manufacture fuel there. It requires considerably more delta V to take off from Earth, land on the moon, take off again and fly to Mars than it does to just take off from Earth and fly to Mars. Even if the fuel was free (delivered by aliens or God) and just sitting in tanks on the moon ready to use, it would make no sense to land there to pick it up.
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, there's this theme that runs through some (I want to be very careful here) of the anti-Obama rhetoric that paints him as a creation of affirmative action, or the media or something like that. The common thread is that he does not have the ability to bring himself to where he is today, that somebody else must be orchestrating his career.
This, more than anything else I've seen in the last ten years, convinces me that racism is still alive in the US today. It's not that opposing Obama means you're a racist. It's the iron clad, unassailable assumption that he doesn't have the intelligence or talent to be in the political elite of this country by his own merits.
Listen to the guy in interviews and debates. He not only can think on his feet, he thinks on his feet *faster than the other guy*. Watch him. If someone is caught off guard it is almost never him. Part of that is self-composure, but he's usually a step ahead of the other guy. At the "health care summit" with the Republicans, a few of them may have scored some points, but he easily held his own against the entire Republican caucus. Part of that was his being the moderator, but a lot of it was an ability to command the details while shaping the thread of the debate. That takes an impressive working memory and fluid intelligence. I can't think of an recent president who could have done that.
Now if you're a racist, a brain like that wrapped in a black skin must be terrifying.
You might not agree with all of his positions -- I certainly don't. But you have to admit the guy is very, very smart. Intelligence doesn't always lead you to the right conclusion, but it sure helps you get ahead in life.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry you got troll rated, because "the American Dream" is what students of propaganda call a "glittering generality".
It's not so much *clever* as *unassailable*, because it means whatever the hearer choses to project on it, at least as far as specifics are concerned.
We associate certain broad values with the phrase, of course. Freedom of conscience and individual autonomy, for example. That makes the accusation that "so and so does not *share the American Dream*" ironic, because the implication is that the American Dream is *compulsory*. If the best you can do when attacking somebody is to say he "doesn't share the American dream",
I'd say that *you* don't *want him* to share the American dream. You don't think he's entitled to freedom. It amounts to calling him out for his lack of *conformity*.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Recently? There is only one: William Jefferson Clinton [wikipedia.org]. Read the early life section, his father was a traveling salesman who died when he was young, the mother left the kid with the grandparents to study nursing. In college, he worked as an intern, and received a Rhodes scholarship to study his graduate school.
I find it ironic that the conservatives in this country constantly bash the progressives as being elitist, when in actuality, both it's the Republican presidents that we've had who have grown up in a life of privilege and elitism and the Democratic presidents who grew up without the silver spoon in their mouth. It demonstrates just how clueless our society really is, when they believe a some asshole who is saying inflammatory things for the sake of ratings without trying to find out the truth of the matter.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it's Barack Hussein Obama (Hussein is his middle name). I don't know where you're from, but everywhere I've ever lived it's very unusual to refer to someone by their full name, unless you happen to be a parent scolding your child - "Barack Hussein Obama, you get in here this instant!"
And since the only Hussein that the average American has ever heard of is Saddam, the regular use of Obama's middle name is nothing more an attempt to use the ignorance and xenophobia of the American people to garner support for the GOP.
Re:In 2 and a half years (Score:1, Insightful)
The bottom line is it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum the President is on, Congress manipulates the actual spending. So POTUS lobbies Congress, gives a few speeches and tries not to look like he/she supports what the last guy supported, and then has his/her direction undone by the next POTUS.
Regardless of party affiliation, we need leaders, not politicians.
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:4, Insightful)
The two party system is defacto because of the rules of the election where winner takes it all. Different election mechanisms produce radically different outcomes. It's not the voters fault if they behave rationally.
Moon mission on the other hand is clear business decision where derailed project had to be killed and easiest way to justify the cancellation is to abandon that goal. Eventually when dust settles moon will be back on the agenda.
Re:Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
Did he nearly die choking on a pretzel?
Is choking a sign of missing intelligence? Are you saying that no one smart has ever choked on food? Sounds like you are trying to make a personal attack for political gain. That means you are a dick.
Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus?
A quick glance at the Constitution will show you that Congress controls funding.
Is he suspending basic rights like habeas corpus and performing searches and seizures without warrants?
Are you trying to compare Obama to Lincoln? Do you know anyone that has their habeas corpus rights violated? Have the Feds kicked in your door and searched your house? Has this happened to anyone you know? No? The STFU!
Is he staffing FEMA with idiots, and then doing nothing while they fuck up a hurricane response?
Don't know yet. We have yet to see how Obama responds. As for Katrina itself, that was a major failure of the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans. See, GW was a states' rights kinda guy. He extended the power of the federal government to the Governor and Mayor and they both refused help until the shit hit the fan. Then they were quick to blame the federal government for failing to take over Louisiana militarily. Wait, weren't you just bitching about GWB abusing power in your last question? Now you're bitching because he didn't abuse it enough? Make up your mind!
Is he nominating some inexperienced random woman for the Supreme Court?
Yes! Yes he did. Well, Sonia Sotomayor was not as experienced as she could have been. But she was nominated because evidently, people of a particular gender and race have life experiences that make them automatically qualified. Wait! I thought it was racist to claim that you were entitled because of your skin color? Oh, that's right. Only white people are racist (yes, I realize that saying so is actually racist. It was sarcasm that you wouldn't get because you agree with that statement.)
Is he standing on an aircraft carrier during some publicity stunt, claiming mission accomplished and the end of combat operations WEEKS into a war that has now lasted seven years?
Wait. Are you saying that mission=war? Really? You know, for the men and women on that aircraft carrier, the mission was accomplished. And it was them who hung that banner, not the president. As a veteran, I can tell you that there is a huge difference. I completed many missions and received medals for doing so, well before the war was actually over.
But, hey! Let's not let facts and definitions get in the way of your politically based rant. You don't want the truth to invalidate your hate, now do you?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream (Score:3, Insightful)
We have a two party system. There is no third option
There were six Presidential candidates on my ballot, and five of them were on the ballot in enough states for it to be possible for them to win; Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, and the Constitution Party.
You only think you have a two party system because the corporate media says so, and refuses to cover the other three big parties. The reason? It's legal to contribute to more than one candidate in any race, and for the corporates to bribe two candidates with campaign cash is a lot cheaper than bribing five.
Make no mistake about it, the mainstream media propagandize for their corporate masters.
Not brainwashing (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you won't find any reference to a "two party system" in the constitution or anywhere in U.S. law. We have a defacto two party system only because too many Americans have been brainwashed to believe there is no third (or 4th-nth) option.
In a sense, it is in the Constitution. It is the natural result of a winner-take-all voting system where voters' preferences are distributed like a bell curve.
Having three (or more) parties is inherently unstable. It will always be in the interest of any party to capture more of the moderate vote (the middle of the bell curve) since that's where most of the voters are. Therefore, the party will move towards the middle. This can quite easily be seen in the change the parties make from primary season to election season.
One party will position itself as slightly to one side of the middle, and the other will position itself slightly to the other side of the middle, each laying claim to that entire side of the bell curve.
If there is a third party, it will find itself either pinched between the two, or on the fringe. If the third party is successful, then one of the two original parties will be either pinched between or on the fringe. So you can have a third party, but since this configuration is unstable, one of the parties will be eliminated. This is exactly what we have seen in American history.
So it might not be directly required by the Constitution, but as long as we have the winner-takes-all voting system, it is the inevitable result.
Re:Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like how a local plumber embarrassed him and caused him political grief for years by making him admit things that were politically damaging?
I know. It damaged him so badly that he won the election.
Or are you talking about how he sends world leaders DVDs that they can't play in their home countries? Wait, you must mean the iPod gift of his speeches that he gives to dignitaries, right? Or does bringing any of this up make me a racist?
No, what makes you a racist is that you bring up what is literally gossip in comparison with Bush starting an unwinnable war, illegally suspending constitutional rights, and staffing the federal government with his cronies. Remember the the guy who ran FEMA? Who's job before that was judging ponies? A job from which he was fired?
Your basis of judgement has no correlation to reality, no clear value structure, but does a great job of providing transparency to your prejudices.
Re:Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
A quick glance at the Constitution will show you that Congress controls funding.
Yeah, the Bush White House had no involvement in requesting bad intelligence, leaking the stories to newspapers, and then going on Sunday talk shows holding up the newspapers as evidence. It was all the Republican controlled congress!
as this happened to anyone you know? No? The STFU!
Weee! Let's take a trip down anecdote lane, and throw the constitution out the window on the way there!
As for Katrina itself, that was a major failure of the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans
The head of FEMA was appointed by Bush. The guy he appointed - Mike Brown - judged horsies in preparation for running one of the largest and most critical federal agencies in existence. FEMA is responsible for responding to natural disasters. But it's nice that you're trying to pass the buck.
Well, Sonia Sotomayor was not as experienced as she could have been
Sotomayor was a Federal Judge from 1991 until her nomination. Let's see what the Wik has to say about Miers...
Miers's nomination was criticized from people all over the political spectrum based on her never having served as a judge, her perceived lack of intellectual rigor, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court Justice.
You know, for the men and women on that aircraft carrier, the mission was accomplished.
98% of the casualties from the Iraq war happened after he declared an end to major combat operations. He lives in a dreamworld which you seem to share.
Re:Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
"A quick glance at the Constitution will show you that Congress controls funding."
Except when the President line item vetoes the parts the were put there as part of a negotiation. It' also does nothing to counter the point about the war, but since you can't counter that you lumped it in with another point..and did so poorly.
"Are you trying to compare Obama to Lincoln? Do you know anyone that has their habeas corpus rights violated? Have the Feds kicked in your door and searched your house? Has this happened to anyone you know? No? The STFU!"
What a stupid argument. it does nothing to counter the points. However as an FYI:
"re you trying to compare Obama to Lincoln?"
Clearly he didn't.
"Do you know anyone that has their habeas corpus rights violated?"
I know one person, and am well aware of many others. The information is widely available.
" Have the Feds kicked in your door and searched your house?"
is your claim that federal officials never go into anyone's house?
Why the hell would you think something has to happen to you for it to be true?
" As for Katrina itself, that was a major failure of the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans"
No. G.W. Bush hamstrung FEMA with Homeland Security. He botched it.
"He extended the power of the federal government to the Governor and Mayor and they both refused help until the shit hit the fan."
yeah, that's what they claime, but if you look at the timeline of events, you will quickly see that isn't true.
Friday the 26th:
GOV. KATHLEEN BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA
the 27th:
GOV. HALEY BARBOUR DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN MISSISSIPPI
the 29th:
KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL
BUSH ADMINISTRATION NOTIFIED OF THE LEVEE BREACH
WHITE HOUSE CIRCULATES INTERNAL MEMO ABOUT LEVEE
BROWN WARNS BUSH ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DEVASTATION
about noon: MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY REQUESTS THAT DHS DISPATCH 1,000 EMPLOYEES TO REGION, GIVES THEM TWO DAYS TO ARRIVE
8PM:GOV. BLANCO AGAIN REQUESTS ASSISTANCE FROM BUSH:
BUSH GOES TO BED WITHOUT ACTING ON BLANCO’S REQUESTS
on the 31st:
PRESIDENT BUSH FINALLY ORGANIZES TASK FORCE TO COORDINATE FEDERAL RESPONSE:
It is interesting how you twisted a statement regarding inexperience into racism.
You are correct regarding mission, however it in know way was presented in that way. In Fact bush said all major combat was done. When in fact he know it wasn't.
"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." GWB. Clearly we hadn't.
"You don't want the truth to invalidate your hate, now do you?"
Irony, you haz it.