On Thursday 2004-01-15 16:28, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > >spaceship is the Crew Exploration Vehicle? How inspiring! > > Less inspiring than, frex, "Lunar Module"? > > > The name doesn't even make sense. > > Who cares? > > >Will the task of the vehicle be to explore the crew? > > No. Its task will be to >>>>> LAND HUMAN BEINGS ON MARS <<<<<. > > _That's_ what's inspiring about it.
Who cares if its inspiring?
Me. And I know I am not alone in this.
Look I was raised to be a liberal.
WADR, I consider my stance on political and social issues to be a product of informed choice, not simply the way I was reared.
(I don't mean that as a slap at you or anyone. I'm not sure how to say it better without it sounding like I'm insulting anyone who disagrees with me or my views, and that is *not* what I am saying. I'm just saying that my opinions are uniquely my own . . . something which should be obvious by now to the members of this list. ;-) )
I feel that we should fund medicaide and take care of poor sick folk. (Heck, I am poor with chronic illnesses
As am I. *I* will not be going to Mars -- unless it's the same way Gene Shoemaker made it to the Moon, and I have absolutely no desire, much less plans, for that to happen -- unless they develop a method of getting there which is a whole lot faster and less stressful than what is currently available. That particular rocket launched long ago -- 27 years ago this past Monday, to be precise¹.
(¹That was the day I picked up the application package for the astronaut program. On the way to do so, something happened that led me to reconsider the course I should take. I went ahead and picked up the package, but I never completed it, and I'm quite sure that was the right decision.)
and would *benefit* from socialized medicine.)
I dunno if I would benefit or not, either medically² or financially -- assuming that "socialized medicine" were to be done right. I also have doubts about it being done right. (Though that is a discussion for another time.)
(²My problems are ones for which no one currently knows the cause -- though I could tell you the date of onset with almost as much precision as the date in the above paragraph -- much less a cure or any effective treatment.)
I feel that we should fund primary and secondary education till public schools
can flush money down toilets.
I think that if teachers can't or aren't allowed to teach (e.g., forced to use programs which don't work, like "whole language" instead of phonics, "bilingual education" which actually delays the students' learning of English, etc.), and especially if parents are not interested, involved, and responsible, there is little to be gained by giving money to "educators" -- especially when many of the highest-paid never enter a classroom -- over flushing it down a toilet³.
(³It may indeed be an American standard, but I'm not laughing.)
I feel that we should provide adequate housing for everyone.
By building "projects," or by helping people who need help to find a house and yard that they own and feel responsible for?
I feel ... well you get the picture.
"Right back atcha," hopefully.
I THINK all of this would be bad public policy.
And I think that, given the government's record on social issues (the "housing projects" of the Sixties, frex, or the education issues I mentioned), putting the government in charge of more of them would be really bad public policy. Most people feel better and do better when they are in control of their destiny, and most people are poor stewards of someone else's money, be they politicians spending tax money to get re-elected or people living in government-provided housing. Heck, people who rent (from private property owners) rather than own their homes are not exactly noted for keeping the property up. The attitude of far too many people seems to be "the heck with it: it's someone else's problem" rather than "it's someone else's property: I'm just renting it temporarily, so I should take care of it, as I would like someone who borrowed something of mine to take care of it."
When the administration announces grand plans for manned space programs i FEEL
proud, excited, and--yes--even inspired.
And that feeling immediately makes me suspicious. Is this fiscally responsible? Is it rational? I think, no, I *KNOW* that basing public policy on emotion IS irresponsible -- unpatriotic.
In brute, lowest common denominatior terms what is in this gold-plated fools' errand for me? When Isabella sent Columbus to look for a route to the Indies she wasn't investing in exploration. Exploration was a nice side effect. Isabella's primary motivation was making a LOT OF MONEY!
If we build a big new booster what will be the tangible return on investment? What about the crew vehicle? The moon colony? How the @#$% do you plan to get tangible ROI from a manned mission to Mars?
If you do get ROI will it make sense in terms of opportunity cost. We have underfunded schools, biomedical research, and ageing population and military obligations we need to see to, remember.
Money or national security only please. I believe that as a citizen I have a *responsibility* to resist temptation and make decisisons as a pure Philistine. As a citizen I dont care a whit about pure science, the human quest, or feel-good programs.
WADR, you sound pretty "emotional" here . . .
-- Ronn! :)
The contents of this message © 2004 by the author. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, reproduction, or transmission of the contents of this message in any form by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
