I'm of the mind that some people -- people who claim to be progressive and anti-war -- hate the space program so much that they would prefer 100 years of war in Iraq to the PEACEFUL exploration of the moon and Mars. I, of course, prefer the peaceful exploration of the moon and Mars to 100 years of war in Iraq. But in today's modern dystopia, I'm definitley in the minority here since the space program is extemely unpopular. And as you may know, "society" general hates any and all ideas that are unpopular.
That brings me to Barak Obama's plans for NASA. In short I think these plans are abysmal. As I recall, he wants to take $10 billion out of NASA's budget and use that money to pay for some sort of preschool education program. This will create a delay or even a cancellation of the Constellation program. "But we don't need to return to the moon. We need to solve our problems on Earth first!" That's a very simple-minded and inaccurate view of the situation. Consider this: NASA's budget (at $17.3 billion a year) is LESS THAT ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET. Again I say that NASA's budget (at $17.3 billion a year) is LESS THAT ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET. If Obama claims that he opposes the U.S. occupation in Iraq, then he should get the withdrawl done immediately if he becomes president. The savings acquired from withdrawing American military forces from Iraq should be enough to pay for BOTH the preschool education program AND the Constellation program. And with the U.S. military budget being as inconceivably massive as it is (at least $500 billion a year), reducing the military budge to, say, half of what it is shouldn't have a negative effect on national security (espeically if the military is used for REAL national defense and NOT to fuel the military-industrial-congressional complex). Even cut in half, the U.S. military budget would still be the largest military budget on Earth.
So why would Obama ignore such an obviously simple way to keep NASA on track without effecting social programs? Could it be that he really supports a massive military? If that's the case, then he's not all that different from John McCain. I also believe this issue is connected with Obama's obsession with pleasing everyone (or more specifically, the majority). With the space program being as unpopular as it is, he knows how popular bashing NASA is and how most of the public would support such bashing.
One of the reasons why I support space exploration is because I believe it is a viable alternative to war. If the energy channeled toward warfare and the misery and suffering that it causes were channeled toward space exploration, life on Earth might be improved in many ways. Things like spin-off technologies and access to the unlimited natural reseources of outer space are some ways the space program could improve the lives of people oin Earth. But since space exploration is very unpopular, I suspect that most people will disagree with me on this. But they wouldn't disagree if the space program were popular. Ho ve!
That brings me to Barak Obama's plans for NASA. In short I think these plans are abysmal. As I recall, he wants to take $10 billion out of NASA's budget and use that money to pay for some sort of preschool education program. This will create a delay or even a cancellation of the Constellation program. "But we don't need to return to the moon. We need to solve our problems on Earth first!" That's a very simple-minded and inaccurate view of the situation. Consider this: NASA's budget (at $17.3 billion a year) is LESS THAT ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET. Again I say that NASA's budget (at $17.3 billion a year) is LESS THAT ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET. If Obama claims that he opposes the U.S. occupation in Iraq, then he should get the withdrawl done immediately if he becomes president. The savings acquired from withdrawing American military forces from Iraq should be enough to pay for BOTH the preschool education program AND the Constellation program. And with the U.S. military budget being as inconceivably massive as it is (at least $500 billion a year), reducing the military budge to, say, half of what it is shouldn't have a negative effect on national security (espeically if the military is used for REAL national defense and NOT to fuel the military-industrial-congressional complex). Even cut in half, the U.S. military budget would still be the largest military budget on Earth.
So why would Obama ignore such an obviously simple way to keep NASA on track without effecting social programs? Could it be that he really supports a massive military? If that's the case, then he's not all that different from John McCain. I also believe this issue is connected with Obama's obsession with pleasing everyone (or more specifically, the majority). With the space program being as unpopular as it is, he knows how popular bashing NASA is and how most of the public would support such bashing.
One of the reasons why I support space exploration is because I believe it is a viable alternative to war. If the energy channeled toward warfare and the misery and suffering that it causes were channeled toward space exploration, life on Earth might be improved in many ways. Things like spin-off technologies and access to the unlimited natural reseources of outer space are some ways the space program could improve the lives of people oin Earth. But since space exploration is very unpopular, I suspect that most people will disagree with me on this. But they wouldn't disagree if the space program were popular. Ho ve!
posted by:
|
Michigan
|
