Rick: I agree with much that you say here, but the real problem, and this is also a problem for the entire Republican Party, or which I am a former member, is that we can call on conservatives to tone down the rhetoric, and perhaps we should, but who is willing to do the same on the other side. Principled politics with respectable debate must have people on both sides adhere to the respect each deserves. Unfortunatly as you note elsewhere, the Bush haters so dominate the Democrat Party that there is no possibility of a principled, civil debate. Further, the level of corruption among the current leadership of the Congress is quite distasteful. Only when we have a change in leadership, of both parties, is anything going to get done.Comment Posted By George On 3.09.2009 @ 08:11
My only concern is that if space exploration gets pushed to the back burner, we won't go at all. Procrastination leads to boredom. Self serving politicians (currently any member of Congress and all of the executive branch) are finding other ways to spend money and insure they remain in power. I have no problem with the private sector carrying the water on this project, but I suspect that if the private sector moves ahead the national leadership will attempt to regulate it out of existance. I much fear it will either be the federal (or perhaps the some form of international cooperative) to get it done, or it won't get done at all.Comment Posted By George On 22.07.2009 @ 11:53
I intended to send a really sarcastic comment, but decided instead to focus simply on the fact that if those of us who support space exploration pull back for any reason, our risk aversion oriented society will never move forward. I read a little of that in your comments Rick, and fear that we may never get where we belong (which is out there).
We are not only at a crossroads as a nation but also a species. Either we continue our climb up or we fall back in the muck from which we rose. Obama and his ilk are more than willing to have the entire world not take any risks so than can take care of us. If we are to have deficiet spending, lets at least do it where it will benefit mankind in the long run, not short term touchy-feely control-freak "see how good I am to you" crap that dooms us as society and a species.
Just curious but what have you got against the private sector? You're not the first on this thread to accuse me of being against manned space exploration. I'm not. NASA has carried the ball this far and now manned space goals should be in the hands of people who can do it much cheaper, more quickly, and actually do some good with it when they get there.
Space X just put the first satellite into orbit using a commercial liquid fueled rocket. They did it for $4 million. NASA would have charged $20 million. In the next few years, commercial spaceflight is going to explode with orbiters, space tourism, and probably space ferrying astronauts up to the space station. This is real. The companies are in business already, heavily capitalized, and already testing the rockets and other hardware that will accomplish these things.
My point stands. It's not that we shouldn't go to Mars. My question is asked in the title; what's the rush?
ed.Comment Posted By George On 21.07.2009 @ 07:32
Not so much lack of ideas as lack of leadership. They have it, we don't. That simple. I have left the Republican Party - have e-mail dissent to both of my senators for backing the move of Nicotine to the FDA and other matters. Send back the GOP's pathetic appeal for money advising them to get some functional leadership. The simple fact that it has taken this long for anyone with a snowball's chance of winning to step forward doesn't bode well. Oh well, NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER SURRENDER
I would have to agree. I would add that as a consequence, there is real disorganization in the GOP - no sense of direction. A good leader would fix that but in the meantime, we are lost.
ed.Comment Posted By George On 17.06.2009 @ 12:26
While I would like to think that the president would try to avoid drawing comparisons between Dresden and Buchenwald, but so far he seems to only think in terms of American "atrocities". As a vet, and the son, grandson and great-grandson of vets, I tremble in fear of what this clown will say at the D-Day ceremonies. I find his mere presence (not the office but the person) offensive. I much fear he will both deny America's Christian heritage (which even I as an atheist do not do) and military heritage as well.Comment Posted By George On 3.06.2009 @ 07:07
I am a conservative, and I have left the party, largely because of the lack of pragmatism within the party, but also because of the dire lack of leadership. What we truly need, as you allude to, is pragmatic a Conservative who is not afraid to confront the base. Right now, it seems any potential leaders are so afraid of offending Rush (who I love as an entertainer) that they will not step forward. A party of cowards will not attain power, but rather will hunker down in the dark and scramble for crumbs.Comment Posted By George On 20.05.2009 @ 08:47
I originally stumbled onto your blog because of 24. Now it is the first blogsite I check on a daily basis. I agree with the opinions of the show, and fear/hope this will be the last year. Further, the weekly "global warning" message is getting a little boring. Keep of the good work and I look forward to future posts.Comment Posted By George On 12.03.2009 @ 07:14
Did you mean to state that you could not care less?Comment Posted By George On 12.08.2007 @ 10:03
Liking Monty Python and not Benny Hill is not a case of being being a stick-in-the-mud; that is a case of being discerning. My first exposure to Benny Hill was on ITN in the UK. Most of the Brits I knew were unanimous: "Benny Hill is rude."Comment Posted By George On 3.05.2007 @ 09:52
Hinging an attack on the switch to DST???? How unhinged an analysis!
Anyone with a modicum of real knowledge knows that time zones make no difference in such an undertaking.Comment Posted By George On 25.03.2007 @ 10:54
Pages (2) :  2