Bipartisianship? Not without genuine liberals

Gerard Alexander: Why are liberals so condescending?

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

[...]

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

[...]

Indeed, when the president met with House Republicans in Baltimore recently, he assured them that he considers their ideas, but he then rejected their motives in virtually the same breath.

"There may be other ideas that you guys have," Obama said. "I am happy to look at them, and I'm happy to embrace them. . . . But the question I think we're going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what's good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November, we're able to say, 'The other party, it's their fault'?" [...]

I'm tired of this grandstanding. The article goes into great detail, with many examples, of how the left refuses to listen to anything the right has to say. Yet it also acknowleges some similar resistance on the right, though it claims it's less prevelant.

Liberal isn't a dirty word to me, so I hate the way the word is used in this article. But it gets used like this, because so many people who are calling themselves liberal are really anything but.

A genuine liberal is easygoing, open-minded, and is flexible; not rigidly ideological. I think that description fits a lot of independents and people near the political center: conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Their voices need to be heard more, because it is they who can bring about genuine bipartisan consensus where it's desperately needed.

All the rest of it is too much fiddling, while Rome burns. Enough already.
     

House GOP responds to Obama's Heath Care Summit Invite: The sad truth about it all

From NRO's The Corner:

Monday, February 08, 2010

House GOP Responds to Summit Invite [Robert Costa]

House GOP Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) and Whip Eric Cantor (R., Va.) just sent White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel a letter regarding the upcoming health-care summit:

Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care.

If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill. Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?

As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills. The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions.

Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such "experts?" Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate? Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March.

Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of transparency and openness?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May.

The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

I'm tired of the repeated lies that Republicans have no alternatives to the Democrats plans, and most of the Media going along with it. I sincerely hope that game is now over. Enough is enough:

Obama’s Kabuki summit invitation: Just say no

Please.

The White House spends a full year trashing Republicans for having no ideas on health care reform.

The White House spend a full year promising transparency while subverting it.

And now, after a year’s worth of closed backroom meetings and midnight holiday weekend legislative sessions in which Republicans had severely curtailed ability to offer amendments, President Obama wants to invite them to a televised health care summit to talk about the GOP alternatives he said didn’t exist?

[...]

Unlike the question-time session with Republicans, the White House political machine will be in full control of the staging.

Republicans should feel zero obligation to participate in yet another White House health care dog-and-pony show:

Just say no.

If Obama really wants to learn about GOP health care reform plans, he can look them up online, where they have been for months.

Here is Sen. Jim Demint’s Health Care Freedom Plan.

And here is the here is the Patients’ Choice Act of Sens. Coburn and Burr and Reps. Ryan and Nunes.

And here is House GOP leader Boehner’s health care reform page.

Obama has enough human stage props to feed his ego and advance his agenda.

Republicans should not be a party to it.

***

Here’s an idea: Republicans can tell Obama they’ll participate in his health care summit after he provides transcripts of his s backroom meetings with Big Labor/SEIU. [...]

The MSM clearly doesn't want to talk about Republican ideas, but I think most Americans would welcome a genuinely bi-partisan approach, and a completely transparent process.

Are the Democrats going to try to ram their bills through anyway? I think they might. It's hard to believe that things have gotten this bad already.
     

Will literacy become a thing of the past, to be replaced by a new VIVOlutionary "oral" culture?

I came across this book, which seems to predict the end of written language as being not only inevitable, but also as a good thing! Listening replaces reading:


VIVO [Voice-In/Voice-Out]: The Coming Age of Talking Computers

Review
"A welcome addition to the discussion about voice-recognition technology and the social implications of talking computers." -- Edward Cornish, President, World Future Society, Bethesda, Maryland

"Audacious and mind-stretching. Crossman sees our reliance on the printed word coming rapidly to an honorable end." -- Arthur B. Shostak, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

"If you are an educator, you need to read this book." -- Les Gottesman, Golden Gate University, San Francisco, California

Product Description
A positive look at how talking computers, VIVOs, will make text/written langauge obsolete, replace all writing and reading with speech and graphics, democratize information flow worldwide, and recreate an oral culture by 2050.

Text is an ancient technology for storing and retrieving information; VIVOs will do the same job more quickly, efficiently, and universally. Among VIVO's potential benefits: 80% of the world's people are functionally nonliterate; they will be able to use VIVOs to access all information without having to learn to read and write.

VIVO's instantaneous translation function will let people speak with other people around the world using their own native languages. People whose disabilities prevent them from reading and/or writing will be able to access all information.

Four "engines" are driving us irreversibly into the VIVO Age and oral culture: human evolution, technological breakthroughs, young people's rejection of text, and people's demand for text-less, universal access to information.

Future generations, using eight key VIVOlutionary learning skills, will radically change education, human relations, politics, the arts, business, our relation to the environment, and even human consciousness itself. Worldwide access to VIVO technology looms as a key human rights issue of the 21st century.

Clearly the trend exists. I've seen in my lifetime, people reading less and less; getting their information from TV, radio, videos and movies, more than reading. But will it go so far as to actually make text and reading obsolete?

Imagine if there is a blackout or prolonged power outage. Nobody can read, because they get all their information from electronic devices that talk to them. Suddenly, everyone is a dumb-ass moron, until the power comes on again? Are we just becoming too dependent on electronic devices? If power goes out for an extended time, due to either natural or man-made causes, an illiterate population with no books would be in double trouble.

Oh Brave New World, with such (illiterate) people in it...
     

National Debt, Deficits and our National Security

Deficit Balloons Into National-Security Threat

[...] The U.S. government this year will borrow one of every three dollars it spends, with many of those funds coming from foreign countries. That weakens America's standing and its freedom to act; strengthens China and other world powers including cash-rich oil producers; puts long-term defense spending at risk; undermines the power of the American system as a model for developing countries; and reduces the aura of power that has been a great intangible asset for presidents for more than a century.

"We've reached a point now where there's an intimate link between our solvency and our national security," says Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior national-security adviser in both the first and second Bush presidencies. "What's so discouraging is that our domestic politics don't seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole world is watching."

In the 21st-century world order, the classic, narrow definition of national-security threats already has expanded in ways that make traditional foreign-policy thinking antiquated. The list of American security concerns now includes dependence on foreign oil and global warming, for example.

Consider just four of the ways that budget deficits also threaten American's national security:

• They make America vulnerable to foreign pressures.

The U.S. has about $7.5 trillion in accumulated debt held by the public, about half of that in the hands of investors abroad.

Aside from the fact that each American next year will chip in more than $800 just to pay interest on this debt, that situation means America's government is dependent on the largesse of foreign creditors and subject to the whims of international financial markets. A foreign government, through the actions of its central bank, could put pressure on the U.S. in a way its military never could. Even under a more benign scenario, a debt-ridden U.S. is vulnerable to a run on the American dollar that begins abroad.

Either way, Mr. Haass says, "it reduces our independence."

• Chinese power is growing as a result.

A lot of the deficit is being financed by China, which is selling the U.S. many billions of dollars of manufactured goods, then lending the accumulated dollars back to the U.S. The IOUs are stacking up in Beijing.

So far this has been a mutually beneficial arrangement, but it is slowly increasing Chinese leverage over American consumers and the American government. At some point, the U.S. may have to bend its policies before either an implicit or explicit Chinese threat to stop the merry-go-round. [...]

It goes on to give many more examples of the threats this is creating to our sovereignty and our national security. Yikes. What ARE we doing? And what should we be doing differently, to stop or reverse this trend?

More on that theme follows, in this interview with David Walker, author of the book "Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility." Here is an excerpt of the interview:

What Every American Should Know About the National Debt

[...]

Q. Who do we owe the money to?

A. Fifty percent is owed to foreign lenders. China is number one, Japan is number two, a block of oil producing nations comes next.

Q. Do you think that affects our foreign policy toward China?

A. Yes, it does. It's already been manifested because one of the reasons American tax payers now guarantee $5 trillion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt is because the Japanese and the Chinese demanded it.

Q. Is there a point at which China could say, 'We've decided to stop lending you money?'

A. What's more likely is that China will say, 'We're not going to lend you money unless you pay us higher interest rates.'"

Q. What should people expect their elected officials to do if they're acting responsibly and taking care of the country?

A. In the short term the deficits are going to be high because of the recession, because of two wars, because of unemployment, but what we need to deal with is the structural imbalance. Once the economy recovers, once unemployment gets down, and the wars are over, we still have large and looming deficits. That's what threatens the ship of state.

President Obama says he wants to freeze a part of discretionary spending for three years. That's a good first step, but we're going to have to do a lot more than that. He supports pay-as-you-go rules, but there are big loopholes in the pay-as-you-go-rules. Thirdly, he talks about creating a fiscal commission that would make recommendations on tougher budget controls, Social Security, Medicare and tax reforms. We clearly need to do that to engage the American people and to get a vote in Congress in 2011. That's very, very important to maintain the confidence of our foreign lenders...if we lose the confidence of our foreign lenders, we're in deep trouble.

Q. What does trouble look like?

A. That means the dollar will drop dramatically, interest rates will go up, unemployment would go up dramatically and you'll have something much worse than a recession. It would be ugly. The important thing is we can avoid that and that's what the book's about. [...]

More and more this is becoming obvious. When will the the politicians in D.C. "get it?" Walker has written a book about solutions, it's not as if there aren't any. We need to start applying those solutions NOW.
     

Government Bureaucracy and Unions versus Us

Class War: How public servants became our masters

[...] There was a time when government work offered lower salaries than comparable jobs in the private sector but more security and somewhat better benefits. These days, government workers fare better than private-sector workers in almost every area—pay, benefits, time off, and job security. And not just in California.

According to a 2007 analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Asbury Park Press, “the average federal worker made $59,864 in 2005, compared with the average salary of $40,505 in the private sector.” Across comparable jobs, the federal government paid higher salaries than the private sector three times out of four, the paper found. As Heritage Foundation legal analyst James Sherk explained to the Press, “The government doesn’t have to worry about going bankrupt, and there isn’t much competition.”

In February 2008, before the recession made the disparity much worse, The New York Times reported that “George W. Bush is in line to be the first president since World War II to preside over an economy in which federal government employment rose more rapidly than employment in the private sector.” The Obama administration has extended the hiring binge, with executive branch employment (excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department) slated to grow by 2 percent in 2010—and more than 15 percent if you count temporary Census workers.

The average federal salary (including benefits) is set to grow from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 in 2010, CBS reported. But the real action isn’t in what government employees are being paid today; it’s in what they’re being promised for tomorrow. Public pensions have swollen to unrecognizable proportions during the last decade. In June 2005, BusinessWeek reported that “more than 14 million public servants and 6 million retirees are owed $2.37 trillion by more than 2,000 different states, cities and agencies,” numbers that have risen since then. State and local pension payouts, the magazine found, had increased 50 percent in just five years.

These huge pension increases have eaten away at public finances, most spectacularly in California, where a bipartisan bill that passed virtually without debate unleashed the odious “3 percent at 50” retirement plan in 1999. Under this plan, at age 50 many categories of public employees are eligible for 3 percent of their final year’s pay multiplied by the number of years they’ve worked. So if a police officer starts working at age 20, he can retire at 50 with 90 percent of his final salary until he dies, and then his spouse receives that money for the rest of her life. Even during the economic crisis, “3 percent at 50” and the forces behind it have only become more entrenched.

In the midst of California’s 2008–09 fiscal meltdown, with the impact of deluxe public pensions making daily headlines, the city of Fullerton nevertheless sought to retroactively increase the defined-benefit retirement plan for its city employees by a jaw-dropping 25 percent. What’s more, the Fullerton City Council negotiated the increase in closed session, outside public view. [...]

The article is long, but identifies the rot with many specifics. Government bureaucracies and unions are milking us all dry, killing the goose that lays the golden eggs; our productivity and job and wealth creation. So more and more taxes have to be collected from a continually shrinking tax base.

Here is a link to seven charts, that show us where all this is leading:

7 Charts Worth How Many Trillion Dollars?

This is unsustainable. Government Bureaucracies and unions have become parasites that are killing the host who pays them. Somethings gotta give.

     

Is the Sex Industry Advancing Robotics?

Some of the biggest advances in internet website technology were developed by the on-line porn industry. Will that industry also advance robotics?




Inventor unveils $7,000 talking sex robot

Las Vegas, Nevada (CNN) -- To some men, she might seem like the perfect woman: She's a willowy 5 feet 7 and 120 pounds. She'll chat with you endlessly about your interests. And she'll have sex whenever you please -- as long as her battery doesn't run out.

Meet Roxxxy, who may be the world's most sophisticated talking female sex robot. For $7,000, she's all yours.

"She doesn't vacuum or cook, but she does almost everything else," said her inventor, Douglas Hines, who unveiled Roxxxy last month at the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Lifelike dolls, artificial sex organs and sex-chat phone lines have been keeping the lonely company for decades. But Roxxxy takes virtual companionship to a new level.

Powered by a computer under her soft silicone "skin," she employs voice-recognition and speech-synthesis software to answer questions and carry on conversations. She even comes loaded with five distinct "personalities," from Frigid Farrah to Wild Wendy, that can be programmed to suit customers' preferences.

"There's a tremendous need for this kind of product," said Hines, a computer scientist and former Bell Labs engineer.

Roxxxy won't be available for delivery for several months, but Hines is taking pre-orders through his Web site, TrueCompanion.com, where thousands of men have signed up.

"They're like, 'I can't wait to meet her,' " Hines said. "It's almost like the anticipation of a first date."

[...]

Hines, a self-professed happily married man from Lincoln Park, New Jersey, says he spent more than three years developing the robot after trying to find a marketable application for his artificial-intelligence technology.

Roxxxy's body is made from hypoallergenic silicone -- the kind of stuff in prosthetic limbs -- molded over a rigid skeleton. She cannot move on her own but can be contorted into almost any natural position. To create her shape, a female model spent a week posing for a series of molds.

The robot runs on a self-contained battery that lasts about three hours on one charge, Hines says. Customers can recharge Roxxxy with an electrical cord that plugs into her back.

A motor in her chest pumps heated air through a tube that winds through the robot's body, which Hines says keeps her warm to the touch. Roxxxy also has sensors in her hands and genital areas -- yes, she is anatomically correct -- that will trigger vocal responses from her when touched. She even shudders to simulate orgasm.

When someone speaks to Roxxxy, her computer converts the words to text and then uses pattern-recognition software to match them against a database containing hundreds of appropriate responses. The robot then answers aloud -- her prerecorded "voice" is supplied by an unnamed radio host -- through a loudspeaker hidden under her wig.

"Everything you say to her is processed. It's very near real time, almost without delay," Hines said of the dynamics of human-Roxxxy conversation. "To make it as realistic as possible, she has different dialogue at different times. She talks in her sleep. She even snores." (The snoring feature can be turned off, he says.)

Roxxxy understands and speaks only English for now, but Hines' True Companion company is developing Japanese and Spanish versions. For an extra fee, he'll also record customizable dialogue and phrases for each client, which means Roxxxy could talk to you about NASCAR, say, or the intricacies of politics in the Middle East. [...]

I had to snort when I read that. Just what every man wants: a sex robot that can converse about the intricacies of politics in the Middle East!

And yet, the article goes on to say that he already has 4,000 orders for the robot. At $7,000.00 apiece, that's already $28,000,000.00. Maybe Mr. Hines is a really smart guy. He's figured out a way to market his AI technology by combining it with something that will sell; sex.

Robots have come a long way. Here is an enlightening video from youtube, showing a history of Robotics, right up until the present. The Japanese especially, have really done a lot to advance this science.



Now add some sex to sell it, and what do you get? Oh Brave New World...


Also see:

Ultra HAL, your personal computer assistant

[...] Remember that Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, The 6th Day? There is one scene where the Arnold character is at the home of a divorced friend. The friend has a female talk-bot on the screen, and they flirt with each other. The Ulta Hal program can work with a variety of 3rd party "characters" that function in much the same way. Check out this on-line, interactive, talking People Putty Demo by Haptek. There are even various plug-ins for Ultra Hal, including alternate voices, brains, speech engines, and animated faces and characters, even flirty sex-bot characters, precursors to the one in the movie. The future is closer than you think. [...]

     

Is internet security approaching a crisis?

According to this, yes:

Intel Chief: U.S. at Risk of Crippling Cyber Attack

The United States is at risk of a crippling cyber attack that could "wreak havoc" on the country because the "technological balance" makes it much easier to launch a cyber strike than defend against it, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said Tuesday.

Blair, speaking to the House Intelligence Committee, said U.S. tools are not yet up to the task to fully protect against such an attack.

"What we don't quite understand as seriously as we should is the extent of malicious cyberactivity that grows, that is growing now at unprecedented rates, extraordinary sophistication," Blair said. "And the dynamic of cyberspace, when you look at the technological balance, right now it favors those who want to use the Internet for malicious purposes over those who want to use it for legal and lawful purposes."

Blair said the United States must "deal with that reality," and warned of the catastrophic consequences of a major attack.

"Attacks against networks that control the critical infrastructure in this country ... could wreak havoc," Blair said. "Cyber defenders right now, it's simply the facts of the matter, have to spend more and work harder than the attackers do, and our efforts frankly are not strong enough to recognize, deal with that reality."

He said one critical "factor" is that more and more foreign companies are supplying software and hardware for government and private sector networks.

"This increases the potential for subversion of the information in ... those systems," Blair said.

Blair also told Congress Tuesday that the Internet is providing the fuel for the growing problem of "homegrown radicalization." [...]

It goes on to talk about how the internet is also being used organize attacks and communicate instructions and arrange financing, by the very people who would destroy it. It also reports that senior intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday that Al Qaeda could try to carry out an attack in the United States in the next three to six months. Read the rest for details of what that could mean.

Our business, government and utilities have become increasingly dependent on the internet, for day to day functioning. I doubt people are going to realize how much so, until a major attack occurs, and things we all take for granted no longer work, and we see how many functions of things and systems are affected, directly and indirectly.

I've posted about this before. I would much rather post about solutions to these problems, but I've not seen any. I'm really hoping that some great minds are working on solutions for this situation, and that we see some real defenses created, to halt this growing imbalance. Right now it's looking bleak.

This is one of the reasons I'm learning about Ham Radio. It's not dependent on 3rd party networks or infrastructure, and may be one of the few things that works when nothing else does.
     

Zen Driving, Hypermiling, from WikiHow

How to Practice Zen Driving

Driving can be stressful, since people can become very impatient, selfish and discourteous when behind the wheel. By applying the principles of Zen, however, you can make driving an enjoyable, relaxing experience, no matter how everyone else is driving. [...]

How to Hypermile

Hypermiling refers to a collection of driving techniques aimed at improving your car's fuel efficiency by reducing the demands placed on the engine. Since it's possible to improve fuel economy by 37% just by changing the way you drive[1] hypermiling is gaining interest in light of high fuel costs. While some hypermiling methods are controversial and potentially dangerous, this article will focus on safer techniques that can still save you gas and money. [...]

     

NASA's Planned Return to the Moon - Cancelled?

There's been talk about this since Obama won the election, and now it looks like it's about to happen:

Orion Spacecraft; to launch in 2013 2014? Or... Never?

Obama budget would cut NASA moon plan
Companies to take over space taxi flights
NASA to focus on future technologies for Mars, beyond

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. Feb 1 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's proposed budget gives NASA a $6 billion 5-year boost but aborts early attempts to return to the moon and turns over space transportation to commercial companies.

The space agency's budget would grow to $19 billion in 2011 under the proposed budget released on Monday, with an emphasis on science and less spent on space exploration.

It "adds $6 billion to NASA's budget over five years and draws upon American ingenuity to enable us to embark on an ambitious 21st Century program of human space exploration," the budget proposal reads.

But the plan ends the Constellation program "which was planning to use an approach similar to the Apollo program to return astronauts back to the Moon 50 years after that program's triumphs."

The budget notes that an independent panel found the moon program was years behind schedule.

"Instead, we are launching a bold new effort that invests in American ingenuity for developing more capable and innovative technologies for future space exploration," it reads.

The new budget, which is subject to change by Congress, also extends operations at the International Space Station past its planned retirement date of 2016, suggesting such potential additions as inflatable space habitats.

Obama's proposal hands over more space operations to the commercial sector, saying it will create thousands of new jobs and hold costs down.

NASA already has spent $9 billion on Constellation and likely would owe millions more to cancel existing contracts. Prime contractors on the Ares rocket program include ATK Launch Systems, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and Boeing Co. [...]

The Constellation program fell behind, because George Bush failed to deliver the funding that he promised for it.

I actually like the idea that they are talking about involving the private sector more in the space program, to create more jobs. They should have done it long ago. But talking about skipping the moon and going on to Mars in nonsense.

Any astronauts sent to Mars would best be trained on lunar missions first, where they would gain experience. Also, the moon is much closer, useful, and doable; Mars is very far away, and I believe manned missions to Mars are even farther away still. Pie in the Sky, at this point. And if we can't even make it back to the moon, then we have no business even trying to go to Mars. The moon is the stepping stone to the rest of the solar system. It would be foolish to skip it.

Besides, if the Constellation program is canceled now, the billions that have already been spent will be wasted. Why not revise the program to include more private sector involvement and investment?

I know some people think manned space exploration is wasteful, yet look at how small NASA's budget is, compared to other government spending:



Unlike entitlement spending, the space program creates jobs, and new technologies that can be adapted to other uses to improve our lives here on Earth.

Opening up our space program to more private sector involvement IS change I could believe in. I just want to see the Constellation program continue, under those changes. Let the seed money the government has already spent on it be invested, not wasted. Let it be used instead to jump start a new partnership with NASA and private sector companies, to streamline the Constellation program and keep it on track, on time, and within it's budget.


Also see:

Will Obama cancel NASA's Moon Mission?

     

Is it a GOP comeback? Or lesser of two evils?

It's an interesting trend, but if people are merely voting against the Democrats by voting Republican, then the GOP had best not get over-confident, by trying to count their chickens before they've hatched:


G.O.P. Envisions Northeast Comeback

[...] The independents who swing New England elections abandoned the party as the Bush era drew to a close. They were in revolt over the war in Iraq, the struggling economy and the strong strain of Southern social conservatism that was dominating national Republican politics. It was crushing for the remaining Republicans in a section of the country that once saw itself as the foundation of the party.

But Republicans see Mr. Brown’s win — and an earlier victory in the New Jersey governor’s race — as evidence that independents are moving back their way, a possible harbinger of good things to come.

[...]

But they should not get too far ahead of themselves. They still face difficult challenges in most of those states, given Democratic demographic advantages. And off-year and special election Republican victories in Democratic territory offer no certainty of winning in the more heavily contested midterm elections, with their accompanying greater turnout. Also, ideological divisions being exhibited in primaries in Connecticut and New Hampshire in particular could ultimately cost Republicans.

Still, they have reason to be optimistic after being nearly wiped off New England’s political map. One reason is that the current national political fight is centering more on the economic issues that are part of the fabric of New England political ideology, rather than the divisive social issues that can drive less conservative Republicans away from the party.

“What’s fueling the resurgence of Northern Republicans is public anger over the economy and an impression among New England voters that ‘big government’ is back with a vengeance,” said Bob Stevenson, a former senior Senate Republican aide who has long worked in New England politics. “New Englanders tend to believe in fiscal restraint, self-rule and self-sufficiency.”

The addition of even a few moderate Republicans to the Senate could change the dynamic in that institution. Conservatives are so dominant now that Ms. Collins and Ms. Snowe face intense pressure to vote with their party, particularly after they broke ranks to provide the crucial votes to pass the economic stimulus measure early in 2009. Mr. Castle, should he prevail, would add another strong and experienced moderate voice.

The philosophical direction Mr. Brown intends to take remains to be seen, but even his fellow Republicans said he could not compile a heavily conservative voting record and expect to be re-elected in Massachusetts in 2012 when his partial term ends.

Ms. Snowe, typically a favorite target of Democrats as they try to build a 60-vote bloc to break filibusters, said that Republicans representing Democratic states — or vice versa — tend to push the debate toward the middle to appease their diverse political constituencies.

“Having those countervailing voices really creates the inclination and propensity for drafting centrist-based positions,” Ms. Snowe said. [...]

Maybe what we are seeing is a victory for centrists.

The Republicans have an opportunity here, but they could easily blow it, if they insist on making the Republican party a purist ideology, instead of using it as a political vehicle to be cooperatively used by a large diverse base, to achieve goals the members all have in common.

This means not kicking people out when they are not ideologically rigid, being flexible, letting states make their own choices about how they want their Republicans to be.

We don't need a GOP dominated by the South, or the North either. What good would it do to gain the North, but then lose the South? If we emphasize fiscal issues as our spearhead, and keep social issues, the culture wars, primarily fought in our culture more than our legislature, I think we have a good chance of a comeback. But if the Republicans continue to support big government, and continue to push legislation to control controversial social issues, then I doubt we stand a chance.

I've posted before in detail about the Death of Republicanism in New England. There are lessons to be learned from that. This potential Republican Revival we are seeing now will only succeed if the voters of each state can use the party as a political vehicle, instead of having to join an inflexible ideology.

There has been a lot of criticism by GOP Uber-conservatives of Republican Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine. I visited with family in Maine last year. I read in the newspaper there, in a political article, a comment by a voter addressing that criticism, who said: "We sent Snowe and Collins to Washington to represent the State of Maine, not the GOP". I think that is very true of the voters in Maine; they tend to not be rigidly partisan, and like their politicians to reflect that.

I think it's largely true for New England as whole; they expect their senators to be loyal to their state first, their party second. They are expected to compromise when necessary, to please the voters of their state.

Brown of Massachusetts knows this. If he turns into a GOP Uber-conservative, he will be toast. He won by listening to his constituents, not the GOP ideologues.

Here in Oregon, we had a wonderful GOP senator, Gordon Smith. But then the GOP ideologues began to complain he was a RINO, and undermined him, just enough to help the Democrats defeat him. Now we have two Democrat senators, and some of the highest income taxes in the nation, second only to NYC. Way to go... NOT!!!

I already am hearing the GOP Uber-conservatives complaining that Brown is a RINO, not good enough, not pure enough. Are we as a party going to shoot ourselves in the foot AGAIN, ending the Republican revival before it's begun?

If Democrats and Republicans keep sticking to ideological extremes, then perhaps a third party will have a good chance of forming. One that could attract independents, and both Republican and Democrat moderates might actually succeed, especially if WE continue to flail and fail.
     

Oregon nears highest income tax in the nation

Taxpayer Ambush in Oregon
The public unions win in Portland.

It's not often that citizens vote for higher taxes, but 54% of Oregonians have done precisely that. In a rolling month-long referendum by mail that ended Tuesday, they approved some $700 million in tax hikes on business and wealthy residents.

The highest income tax rate in the state moves to 11% from 9%, which will give Oregon close to the highest rate in the nation. (New York City residents pay 12.6%.) This ballot outcome runs contrary to the current public mood about spending and taxes, so it's worth exploring how it happened.

First, a deluge of money. Local and national public employee unions bankrolled the "yes" campaign, with a $6.5 million blitz in TV and radio ads. That was $2 million more than the business community and taxpayer advocates raised. The cash helped the tax increase roll up a 71% margin in the liberal precincts in and around Portland, even as it lost in most of the rest of the state.

The union message was also as clever as it was disingenuous: All of these taxes will be paid by someone else, such as Wall Street bankers, out-of-state credit card companies, CEOs. Only the richest 2.5% will pay a little more in taxes, the unions also claimed.

The reality is that these taxes will be absorbed by employers who sign worker paychecks—from Nike Inc. to the corner grocer. Two-thirds of those hit with the new 11% tax rate are small and medium-sized business owners. Phil Knight of Nike dubbed the tax initiatives Oregon's "assisted suicide" for business. The real victims of these taxes won't be wealthy business owners, who can always move away or shelter income, but less mobile Oregonians who will find it harder to get or keep a job. [...]

The south coast voted against the taxes, but as usual, the densely populated Portland metropolitan area carried the state. This won't create jobs any more than the White House's "stimulus" plan did. It will do quite the opposite, in fact:

Oregon; following California's example?

Will Oregon voters learn to connect the dots, before it's too late?