Nova (PBS) Tuesday - EXCELLENT Program

JAS wrote:

Sounds like a typical Republican.

Atypical. I am opposed to any corporate subsidies that are not directly
concerned with national defense or supportive of the police and law
courts. Governments are established to protect the lives and property of
the citizens, not to make some people rich at the expense of others.

We live in a wicked world and we must pay to defend ourselves. That
means taxes. But at least it is to promote our lives and protect our
property. We also need police forces and law courts to deal with
domestic criminals. Again, this requires taxes. Think of these burdens
as necessary evils. I can tell you that any space program that does not
produce a commercial value (space communication sattelites, for example)
is an -unnecessary evil-. It is money taken from people who do not
receive a benefit. That sounds like theft to me.

Bob Kolker

JAS wrote:

Sounds like a typical Republican.

Atypical. I am opposed to any corporate subsidies that are not directly
concerned with national defense or supportive of the police and law
courts. Governments are established to protect the lives and property of
the citizens, not to make some people rich at the expense of others.

We live in a wicked world and we must pay to defend ourselves. That
means taxes. But at least it is to promote our lives and protect our
property. We also need police forces and law courts to deal with
domestic criminals. Again, this requires taxes. Think of these burdens
as necessary evils. I can tell you that any space program that does not
produce a commercial value (space communication sattelites, for example)
is an -unnecessary evil-. It is money taken from people who do not
receive a benefit. That sounds like theft to me.

Bob Kolker

JAS wrote:

Sounds like a typical Republican.

Atypical. I am opposed to any corporate subsidies that are not directly
concerned with national defense or supportive of the police and law
courts. Governments are established to protect the lives and property of
the citizens, not to make some people rich at the expense of others.

We live in a wicked world and we must pay to defend ourselves. That
means taxes. But at least it is to promote our lives and protect our
property. We also need police forces and law courts to deal with
domestic criminals. Again, this requires taxes. Think of these burdens
as necessary evils. I can tell you that any space program that does not
produce a commercial value (space communication sattelites, for example)
is an -unnecessary evil-. It is money taken from people who do not
receive a benefit. That sounds like theft to me.

Bob Kolker

lcopps wrote in message ink.net...
Robert J. Kolker wrote:

You neglect to say the buck forty was taken whether or not the person
gave a damn about landing on Mars. Unless this is somehow related to our
national defense or keeping order in our land, I would say this is flat
out theft.

I suppose you think paying people not to work, farmers not to grow
crops, or other pork spending to allow politicians to buy votes is a
better investment. Never hear of any complaints about that. But for
some reason furthering humanities push into space, and funding an effort
that may allow our civilization to obtain raw materials from sources
other than this pillaged planet, always draws criticism.
Imagine that.

Open the reading comprehension bay doors Hal.

Maybe you could actually read the part you quoted there lcopps. Bob
said only national defense and order. The police, the courts, the
military, and nothing else. That's not anything to do with paying
people not to work, farmers not to grow crops, or other pork spending.

Meantime, NASA spending is heavily influenced by pork. Just as an
example, the first shuttle disaster was a result of leakage through
joints that were only required because the contractor that built
them was not able to ship by river barge. The boosters had to be
in sections. Other bidders would have built bosters in one section,
no joints. But they were not in the district of the congress critter
who's vote was required for the NASA budget.

And in other news, space efforts are already paying for themselves.
As of about 1998 IIRC. Expenditures on space are now less than
revenue from space through such things as TV sats, weather sats,
and so on. The best thing NASA could now do to encourage space
activities would be to get out of the way.
Socks

lcopps wrote in message ink.net...
Robert J. Kolker wrote:

You neglect to say the buck forty was taken whether or not the person
gave a damn about landing on Mars. Unless this is somehow related to our
national defense or keeping order in our land, I would say this is flat
out theft.

I suppose you think paying people not to work, farmers not to grow
crops, or other pork spending to allow politicians to buy votes is a
better investment. Never hear of any complaints about that. But for
some reason furthering humanities push into space, and funding an effort
that may allow our civilization to obtain raw materials from sources
other than this pillaged planet, always draws criticism.
Imagine that.

Open the reading comprehension bay doors Hal.

Maybe you could actually read the part you quoted there lcopps. Bob
said only national defense and order. The police, the courts, the
military, and nothing else. That's not anything to do with paying
people not to work, farmers not to grow crops, or other pork spending.

Meantime, NASA spending is heavily influenced by pork. Just as an
example, the first shuttle disaster was a result of leakage through
joints that were only required because the contractor that built
them was not able to ship by river barge. The boosters had to be
in sections. Other bidders would have built bosters in one section,
no joints. But they were not in the district of the congress critter
who's vote was required for the NASA budget.

And in other news, space efforts are already paying for themselves.
As of about 1998 IIRC. Expenditures on space are now less than
revenue from space through such things as TV sats, weather sats,
and so on. The best thing NASA could now do to encourage space
activities would be to get out of the way.
Socks

lcopps wrote in message ink.net...
Robert J. Kolker wrote:

You neglect to say the buck forty was taken whether or not the person
gave a damn about landing on Mars. Unless this is somehow related to our
national defense or keeping order in our land, I would say this is flat
out theft.

I suppose you think paying people not to work, farmers not to grow
crops, or other pork spending to allow politicians to buy votes is a
better investment. Never hear of any complaints about that. But for
some reason furthering humanities push into space, and funding an effort
that may allow our civilization to obtain raw materials from sources
other than this pillaged planet, always draws criticism.
Imagine that.

Open the reading comprehension bay doors Hal.

Maybe you could actually read the part you quoted there lcopps. Bob
said only national defense and order. The police, the courts, the
military, and nothing else. That's not anything to do with paying
people not to work, farmers not to grow crops, or other pork spending.

Meantime, NASA spending is heavily influenced by pork. Just as an
example, the first shuttle disaster was a result of leakage through
joints that were only required because the contractor that built
them was not able to ship by river barge. The boosters had to be
in sections. Other bidders would have built bosters in one section,
no joints. But they were not in the district of the congress critter
who's vote was required for the NASA budget.

And in other news, space efforts are already paying for themselves.
As of about 1998 IIRC. Expenditures on space are now less than
revenue from space through such things as TV sats, weather sats,
and so on. The best thing NASA could now do to encourage space
activities would be to get out of the way.
Socks

Franz Heymann wrote:

Have you realised that if you were to switch off your space research, a
large industry would grind to a halt, thus driving your country even further
into bankruptcy than it already is?
That is interesting. You think that spending money we don't have will
save us from bankruptcy. That is curious to say the least.

You presume two facts not in evidence; one: that our space program
benefits the economy and two: there are no better uses for the money so
taken.

If the money spent had something to do with our defense or maintaining
order and justice in the land, I could abide the expenditure. But
sending golf carts to Mars does not fit that description.

If we want space exploration, I propose we all join the L5 Society and
fund it in a voluntary fashion.

Bob Kolker

Franz Heymann wrote:

Have you realised that if you were to switch off your space research, a
large industry would grind to a halt, thus driving your country even further
into bankruptcy than it already is?
That is interesting. You think that spending money we don't have will
save us from bankruptcy. That is curious to say the least.

You presume two facts not in evidence; one: that our space program
benefits the economy and two: there are no better uses for the money so
taken.

If the money spent had something to do with our defense or maintaining
order and justice in the land, I could abide the expenditure. But
sending golf carts to Mars does not fit that description.

If we want space exploration, I propose we all join the L5 Society and
fund it in a voluntary fashion.

Bob Kolker

Franz Heymann wrote:

Have you realised that if you were to switch off your space research, a
large industry would grind to a halt, thus driving your country even further
into bankruptcy than it already is?
That is interesting. You think that spending money we don't have will
save us from bankruptcy. That is curious to say the least.

You presume two facts not in evidence; one: that our space program
benefits the economy and two: there are no better uses for the money so
taken.

If the money spent had something to do with our defense or maintaining
order and justice in the land, I could abide the expenditure. But
sending golf carts to Mars does not fit that description.

If we want space exploration, I propose we all join the L5 Society and
fund it in a voluntary fashion.

Bob Kolker

In article ,
Bruce Scott TOK ] wrote:
Mati Meron wrote:

| 1) The president *was* elected.
| 2) 9/11 did happen.
| 3) Following 9/11 it takes a *moron* to believe that doing nothing, or
| a purely defensive response is going to resolve the problem.
| 4) Therefore, you're a moron.
| 5) Plonk.

Unfortunately, when you become what you think you are fighting, you've
already lost. Pity Americans can't realise this. If we had sincere
leadership, we would really be able to fight this danger without calling
it a war

How do you fight people who intend to kill you at all cost?

.. and without giving up what we are (or were).

Frankly, I'm glad we gave up being wimps. It makes the job
of mess prevention a lot easier.


Reference: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, by Gore Vidal

As long as there are people, there will be no such thing
as perpetual peace.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.