They called me mad at the academy, MAD I tell you...the villagers say that I am insane, but my monster will show them that I am really kind and benevolent.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Since everyone and his dog seems to have commented on Janet Jackson at the Superbowl, here's my two cents: For a woman her age she has pretty nice tits. We just don't see enough partial or full-frontal nudity on broadcast TV. And the FCC can suck my right tit.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Every story has a Who, What, Where, When, How, and Why. Thirty
years ago the Americans put men on the moon and brought them back,
through the use of technological wizardry and a lot of math, and to
repeat the feat without recognizing that the "Why" is now gone would
be bad storytelling. The US sent men to the moon for one reason: to
get there before the Russians did, thus proving the superiority of
the american Capitalist system over the soviet Socialist political
system. The moment Armstrong and Aldrin came back to earth,
the "why" dissolved into nothingness. One of the 20th century's
great ironies is the delusion that a socialist method - NASA itself -
"proves" that capitalism is superior to socialism.
And today, the "why" has become "maintaining NASA funding". The
politicians and bureaucrats in charge of NASA for the last three
decades have scrupulously avoided answering "why" for any of the
manned space endeavours in that time.
Instead they give us bafflegab like "it's for science", posturing
that the advancements of science over the last 30 years are largely
due to the manned spaceflight activities of that time period. In
reality, the science data acquired by the american shuttle
astronauts has been a very poor return on investment either in
scientific papers published or products developed or enhanced.
The millions of man-hours invested in Apollo was a monumental
effort, akin to the example of the Pyramids. NASA has also tried
very hard to paint space operations of any kind since then as being
akin to the building of the Pyramids - as massive operations that
involve tens of thousands of people working together for many
years. Apollo may have been like that, a Wonder of the World, but
that was then. People have been noticing the stagnation of the
space program, and seeing entrepreneurs like Rutan, Bezos and Musk having some successes for miniscule amounts of funding compared to NASA; Scaled Composites entire development program is costing something like 26 million dollars, what NASA spends in 15 hours.
The advancements in computer technology lie in stark contrast to
progress in space, with home computers now equivalent to NASA's
entire computing capacity in 1969. Computing cost has plummeted,
but cost to orbit has stagnated. The discrepancy is impossible to
ignore.
Slowly, the "space is hard and expensive, and only governments can
do it" meme is dying out. However, it doesn't help that NASA's past
business practices regarding competitors makes Microsoft look like
corporate angels. Just ask the guys at Rotary Rocket.
So why the avoidance, the bafflegab, the posturing, the presentation
of space as too difficult and expensive for private interests? NASA
walks a fine line; they must keep the public interested in space
enough to keep the money rolling in, but not offer the possibility
that the average person, or their children, might _themselves_ go
into space. After all, that is what really interests people about
space, the desire to go there for themselves. That's what keeps
NASA funded.
However, if NASA was to actually get the average person into space,
then NASA's manned spaceflight program could no longer exist in its
present form. They fought hard, unsuccessfully, against allowing
Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth onto the ISS; they were vociferous
about Lance Bass. These men are the thin edge of the wedge, and
NASA execs know it - if average guys who just happen to be wealthy
can go into space, then the public might get the idea that anybody
can do it, not just NASA-vetted übermenchen.
Consider what would happen if there was a vibrant commercial orbital
tourist launch market. NASA's structure would change radically.
Some Centers might be closed or moved; the affected Senators and
Congressmen would be none too pleased. Such a market would force a
reorganization that makes the current shuffling of the deck pale in
comparasin. NASA would even have its budget cut.
Here's hoping that XCOR, Spacex, Armadillo and the rest can bypass
the NASA monolith and establish that market sometime before NASA's
CEV comes on-line. That would bring about an abrupt stop to NASA's
so-far 30 year manned spaceflight death spiral.
years ago the Americans put men on the moon and brought them back,
through the use of technological wizardry and a lot of math, and to
repeat the feat without recognizing that the "Why" is now gone would
be bad storytelling. The US sent men to the moon for one reason: to
get there before the Russians did, thus proving the superiority of
the american Capitalist system over the soviet Socialist political
system. The moment Armstrong and Aldrin came back to earth,
the "why" dissolved into nothingness. One of the 20th century's
great ironies is the delusion that a socialist method - NASA itself -
"proves" that capitalism is superior to socialism.
And today, the "why" has become "maintaining NASA funding". The
politicians and bureaucrats in charge of NASA for the last three
decades have scrupulously avoided answering "why" for any of the
manned space endeavours in that time.
Instead they give us bafflegab like "it's for science", posturing
that the advancements of science over the last 30 years are largely
due to the manned spaceflight activities of that time period. In
reality, the science data acquired by the american shuttle
astronauts has been a very poor return on investment either in
scientific papers published or products developed or enhanced.
The millions of man-hours invested in Apollo was a monumental
effort, akin to the example of the Pyramids. NASA has also tried
very hard to paint space operations of any kind since then as being
akin to the building of the Pyramids - as massive operations that
involve tens of thousands of people working together for many
years. Apollo may have been like that, a Wonder of the World, but
that was then. People have been noticing the stagnation of the
space program, and seeing entrepreneurs like Rutan, Bezos and Musk having some successes for miniscule amounts of funding compared to NASA; Scaled Composites entire development program is costing something like 26 million dollars, what NASA spends in 15 hours.
The advancements in computer technology lie in stark contrast to
progress in space, with home computers now equivalent to NASA's
entire computing capacity in 1969. Computing cost has plummeted,
but cost to orbit has stagnated. The discrepancy is impossible to
ignore.
Slowly, the "space is hard and expensive, and only governments can
do it" meme is dying out. However, it doesn't help that NASA's past
business practices regarding competitors makes Microsoft look like
corporate angels. Just ask the guys at Rotary Rocket.
So why the avoidance, the bafflegab, the posturing, the presentation
of space as too difficult and expensive for private interests? NASA
walks a fine line; they must keep the public interested in space
enough to keep the money rolling in, but not offer the possibility
that the average person, or their children, might _themselves_ go
into space. After all, that is what really interests people about
space, the desire to go there for themselves. That's what keeps
NASA funded.
However, if NASA was to actually get the average person into space,
then NASA's manned spaceflight program could no longer exist in its
present form. They fought hard, unsuccessfully, against allowing
Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth onto the ISS; they were vociferous
about Lance Bass. These men are the thin edge of the wedge, and
NASA execs know it - if average guys who just happen to be wealthy
can go into space, then the public might get the idea that anybody
can do it, not just NASA-vetted übermenchen.
Consider what would happen if there was a vibrant commercial orbital
tourist launch market. NASA's structure would change radically.
Some Centers might be closed or moved; the affected Senators and
Congressmen would be none too pleased. Such a market would force a
reorganization that makes the current shuffling of the deck pale in
comparasin. NASA would even have its budget cut.
Here's hoping that XCOR, Spacex, Armadillo and the rest can bypass
the NASA monolith and establish that market sometime before NASA's
CEV comes on-line. That would bring about an abrupt stop to NASA's
so-far 30 year manned spaceflight death spiral.
Friday, February 20, 2004
The Laughing Wolf summarized a sizable chunk of moral law in one concise column. Just spreading the meme, folks.
Only in Canada, eh?
It looks like Ontario and Quebec are finally catching on to what Western Canadians have known for decades: that the Liberal government that Ontario and Quebec keeps forcing on the rest of us is corrupt to the core. Billions wasted on a gun registry, the spectre of Kyoto, billions wasted on "human resources" projects that don't create a single job... these things were simply not on the radar in Ontario and Quebec.
So PM Chretien pressures the president of the Bank of Canada, a federal employee, to authorise a loan to the owner of an inn next door to Chretien's golf course... swish! Right over their head. Prime Minister physically assaults protester and chokes him to the ground: not even a blip on the radar in Ontario and Quebec. Small wonder the Liberals got cocky.
You see, the Liberals had a formula down pat for most of the last century; occupy the political center, take planks from both the left and right platforms, divide the country along regional lines, and become the default position, allowing the other parties to take the fringes. That way you play the regions off against one another instead of facing real opponents in Parlaiment.
For most of the last 100 years, this strategy has worked. One of the most effective methods is to drain money from one prosperous region and redistribute it to the others. As long as the money was pretty much evenly balanced in Ontario and a net influx of cash for Quebec, neither had a reason to complain. The complaints of Albertans being drained of 200 billion dollars over thirty years could be dismissed as the slack-jawed ramblings of western hicks and rubes, hayseeds. After all, the money was being well-spent on things that benefitted the whole country, right?
Only now, we have Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's report on the Quebec ad sponsorship program, which has since become known as Adscam.
Some background: in 1995 Quebec held its second referendum on independence. However, the referendum was badly worded, and its purpose was not clear. It held forth such vague ideas as "asserting Quebec's unique character", without coming right out and saying that a "yes" vote meant a vote for independence. The referendum was nearly lost; the margin was less than one percent. Chretien had badly fumbled the ball. He had followed the strategy he used throughout his career: in a crisis, do nothing. It will all take care of itself; don't worry, be happy.
Shaken that he nearly entered the history books as the prime minister who broke up Canada, Chretien orchestrated through Alphonso Gagliano, then minister of Public Works, a series of ad campaigns in Quebec. Obstensibly the idea was if the federal government kicked in cash for cultural events, and the word "canada" was prominently displayed at these events, then Quebecers would be happier about being in Canada.
Hundreds of millions of dollars went into these sponsorship programs. But not all of the money got to the events themselves. The ad agencies involved were taking a percentage cut, in many cases for merely passing money from one department of government to another. Sometimes there weren't even contracts signed.
The majority of these contracts went to only a handful of firms, which were all heavy contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada. Due to the lack of a paper trail in many cases, the auditor-general has not been able to trace where all the money has gone. Seventy million dollars is sure a lot of loose change to lose in the seat cushions.
Scandal after scandal after scandal, and none of it stuck to "teflon" Jean Chretien. So why is the current A-G's report causing such a stir?
Chretien knew about the contents of the report back in November. More than a year before he had vowed to stay on as Prime Minister until this February. However, the week before the Auditor-general was due to release her report, Chretien called it quits and shut down the session of Parlaiment. Thus, the A-G's report had to be tabled until Parlaiment resumed this year, with Paul Martin now leader of the Liberal Party and thus the Prime Minister-designate.
This is the same Paul Martin who was the Finance Minister in the Liberal government for nine years, the guy who signs the budget for each government department. The guy who cuts the checks. That is, he did, until a faction within the party began moving to replace Chretien as leader and put Martin in the top spot. The petty Chretien fired Martin from Cabinet a year ago, and until this session sat in the backbenches. And now, with Chretien safely retired, Martin takes the heat.
And so we come to today, and Ontario and Quebec have finally wised up a little: not so much about the federal transfer payment program, but about the fact that so much of everyone's tax dollars are wasted - on an elaborate 5.3 million dollar circumpolar dinner trip for the Governer Genral and her cronies, on fountains in Chretien's riding of Shawinigan, on advertising to Quebecers that they are in Canada, and on elaborate kickback schemes in which millions of tax dollars are poured into Liberal Party coffers.
And now, finally, they're pissed off too. I'm in a dreaming mood today: I dream of the day they finally see that what we've been talking about in Alberta for so long is not the ranting of racist inbred redneck hillbillies - that there are far greater amounts of money that are simply utterly wasted. The day when they will see that a billion dollars spent tracking the personal information of millions of law-abiding gun owners will not make one single arrest and not be a good investment. The day when the realization dawns that if the Alberta economy is crippled by a carbon tax in order to meet arbitrary Kyoto targets, then people will be cutting down trees and burning wood in order to stay warm through the winter.
[rant]
Ontario and Quebec have a choice in the next election, expected this April or May (the Prime Minister gets to pick the date, it could theoretically be anytime in the next 21 months). They can continue to vote for the Liberal Party out of a prejudice against any western-based political movement (because we are - get this - intolerant), they can go even further to the land of make believe and vote for the socialist NDP or Bloc Quebecois, or they can hand a solid majority to the Conservative party.
It doesn't matter which way Alberta or BC votes, or if we vote at all. When the polling closes here at 8pm, they've already been counting the votes in Manitoba for an hour and Ontario and Quebec for two or three. We can turn on the TV at 8 o'clock, and before the first of our votes are even counted, the announcer tells us who our new government is. Gosh thanks, Peter Mansbridge. Thanks for showing me exactly how much my vote counts. Alberta and BC are only a quarter of the population of this country, not like we matter to the political system here.
So I leave it up to Ontario and Quebec. What kind of country do you want?
Do you want a corrupt third-world banana republic? then go ahead and vote Liberal, and line your pockets with carbon tax money for a while; the only ones you will hurt will be Alberta companies, as happened with the unconstitutional National Energy Plan. Remember the recession in the 80's? what do you think triggered that, hmmm?
Go ahead, vote Liberal, I dare you. I triple-double dog dare you. Even better, as you're doing so, assume that we Albertans will meekly submit, trusting in your ability to see injustice as we did with the NEP. That will be really funny.
Because I can tell you right now, it won't work again. We were fooled once with the NEP, believing that the Supreme court would see that the NEP was an unconstitutional tax grab. Well, we won't be fooled a second time. Go ahead, vote in the Liberals, let them get away with stealing all of Canadians' money and covering it up by diversion, by stealing more from Alberta to give to the rest. Let them bring in their carbon tax. And watch as the rumblings of western separatism become a full-blown eruption.
Vote Liberal and have a nice country without us.
[/rant]
It looks like Ontario and Quebec are finally catching on to what Western Canadians have known for decades: that the Liberal government that Ontario and Quebec keeps forcing on the rest of us is corrupt to the core. Billions wasted on a gun registry, the spectre of Kyoto, billions wasted on "human resources" projects that don't create a single job... these things were simply not on the radar in Ontario and Quebec.
So PM Chretien pressures the president of the Bank of Canada, a federal employee, to authorise a loan to the owner of an inn next door to Chretien's golf course... swish! Right over their head. Prime Minister physically assaults protester and chokes him to the ground: not even a blip on the radar in Ontario and Quebec. Small wonder the Liberals got cocky.
You see, the Liberals had a formula down pat for most of the last century; occupy the political center, take planks from both the left and right platforms, divide the country along regional lines, and become the default position, allowing the other parties to take the fringes. That way you play the regions off against one another instead of facing real opponents in Parlaiment.
For most of the last 100 years, this strategy has worked. One of the most effective methods is to drain money from one prosperous region and redistribute it to the others. As long as the money was pretty much evenly balanced in Ontario and a net influx of cash for Quebec, neither had a reason to complain. The complaints of Albertans being drained of 200 billion dollars over thirty years could be dismissed as the slack-jawed ramblings of western hicks and rubes, hayseeds. After all, the money was being well-spent on things that benefitted the whole country, right?
Only now, we have Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's report on the Quebec ad sponsorship program, which has since become known as Adscam.
Some background: in 1995 Quebec held its second referendum on independence. However, the referendum was badly worded, and its purpose was not clear. It held forth such vague ideas as "asserting Quebec's unique character", without coming right out and saying that a "yes" vote meant a vote for independence. The referendum was nearly lost; the margin was less than one percent. Chretien had badly fumbled the ball. He had followed the strategy he used throughout his career: in a crisis, do nothing. It will all take care of itself; don't worry, be happy.
Shaken that he nearly entered the history books as the prime minister who broke up Canada, Chretien orchestrated through Alphonso Gagliano, then minister of Public Works, a series of ad campaigns in Quebec. Obstensibly the idea was if the federal government kicked in cash for cultural events, and the word "canada" was prominently displayed at these events, then Quebecers would be happier about being in Canada.
Hundreds of millions of dollars went into these sponsorship programs. But not all of the money got to the events themselves. The ad agencies involved were taking a percentage cut, in many cases for merely passing money from one department of government to another. Sometimes there weren't even contracts signed.
The majority of these contracts went to only a handful of firms, which were all heavy contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada. Due to the lack of a paper trail in many cases, the auditor-general has not been able to trace where all the money has gone. Seventy million dollars is sure a lot of loose change to lose in the seat cushions.
Scandal after scandal after scandal, and none of it stuck to "teflon" Jean Chretien. So why is the current A-G's report causing such a stir?
Chretien knew about the contents of the report back in November. More than a year before he had vowed to stay on as Prime Minister until this February. However, the week before the Auditor-general was due to release her report, Chretien called it quits and shut down the session of Parlaiment. Thus, the A-G's report had to be tabled until Parlaiment resumed this year, with Paul Martin now leader of the Liberal Party and thus the Prime Minister-designate.
This is the same Paul Martin who was the Finance Minister in the Liberal government for nine years, the guy who signs the budget for each government department. The guy who cuts the checks. That is, he did, until a faction within the party began moving to replace Chretien as leader and put Martin in the top spot. The petty Chretien fired Martin from Cabinet a year ago, and until this session sat in the backbenches. And now, with Chretien safely retired, Martin takes the heat.
And so we come to today, and Ontario and Quebec have finally wised up a little: not so much about the federal transfer payment program, but about the fact that so much of everyone's tax dollars are wasted - on an elaborate 5.3 million dollar circumpolar dinner trip for the Governer Genral and her cronies, on fountains in Chretien's riding of Shawinigan, on advertising to Quebecers that they are in Canada, and on elaborate kickback schemes in which millions of tax dollars are poured into Liberal Party coffers.
And now, finally, they're pissed off too. I'm in a dreaming mood today: I dream of the day they finally see that what we've been talking about in Alberta for so long is not the ranting of racist inbred redneck hillbillies - that there are far greater amounts of money that are simply utterly wasted. The day when they will see that a billion dollars spent tracking the personal information of millions of law-abiding gun owners will not make one single arrest and not be a good investment. The day when the realization dawns that if the Alberta economy is crippled by a carbon tax in order to meet arbitrary Kyoto targets, then people will be cutting down trees and burning wood in order to stay warm through the winter.
[rant]
Ontario and Quebec have a choice in the next election, expected this April or May (the Prime Minister gets to pick the date, it could theoretically be anytime in the next 21 months). They can continue to vote for the Liberal Party out of a prejudice against any western-based political movement (because we are - get this - intolerant), they can go even further to the land of make believe and vote for the socialist NDP or Bloc Quebecois, or they can hand a solid majority to the Conservative party.
It doesn't matter which way Alberta or BC votes, or if we vote at all. When the polling closes here at 8pm, they've already been counting the votes in Manitoba for an hour and Ontario and Quebec for two or three. We can turn on the TV at 8 o'clock, and before the first of our votes are even counted, the announcer tells us who our new government is. Gosh thanks, Peter Mansbridge. Thanks for showing me exactly how much my vote counts. Alberta and BC are only a quarter of the population of this country, not like we matter to the political system here.
So I leave it up to Ontario and Quebec. What kind of country do you want?
Do you want a corrupt third-world banana republic? then go ahead and vote Liberal, and line your pockets with carbon tax money for a while; the only ones you will hurt will be Alberta companies, as happened with the unconstitutional National Energy Plan. Remember the recession in the 80's? what do you think triggered that, hmmm?
Go ahead, vote Liberal, I dare you. I triple-double dog dare you. Even better, as you're doing so, assume that we Albertans will meekly submit, trusting in your ability to see injustice as we did with the NEP. That will be really funny.
Because I can tell you right now, it won't work again. We were fooled once with the NEP, believing that the Supreme court would see that the NEP was an unconstitutional tax grab. Well, we won't be fooled a second time. Go ahead, vote in the Liberals, let them get away with stealing all of Canadians' money and covering it up by diversion, by stealing more from Alberta to give to the rest. Let them bring in their carbon tax. And watch as the rumblings of western separatism become a full-blown eruption.
Vote Liberal and have a nice country without us.
[/rant]
On the SSI yahoogroup, Valens Agnitio wrote:
"I would like to see us with a firm commitment to doing something substantial that will engage the public in such a way as to gain strong support for farther reacing projects, and so on, and before the world becomes to bogged down or distracted..."
Why does anyone dream of space?
For those of us who think about space, is it with visions of all the
new gadgets the military will get as a result? or the other side
effects, like Tang and fetal heart rate monitors?
I doubt it. I think most people who think about space view such
things as the technological advances and scientific data and new
products as a secondary benefit. When we're thinking about space,
our prime motivator is not one of these secondary benefits.
We're thinking about space because we want to go there _ourselves_.
I don't want to rely on the words "magnificent desolation". I want
to see the moon for myself, up close and personal.
People all over the world got a vicarious thrill when Niel Armstrong
set foot on the moon. They got that thrill because Man had finally
accomplished this feat, and because of that it opened up the
possibility that they themselves, or their children, may one day go
into space.
Why are titles to plots of land on the moon being sold today? Why
are people parting with their money for a piece of pie in the sky?
Either they are all gullible, or they believe that one day these
land titles will actually be worth something - and they will only be
worth something if either the resources are exploited by machine or
if people can go there as a matter of course.
Want to get people fired up and investing in the space stocks?
Offer them the possibility of going there for themselves. That is
what will engage the public, not the promise of new military
applications or New Improved Tang.
The world has been creeping incrementally towards a permanent manned
presence in space for nearly 50 years. That incremental creep has
ground to a halt, an indication that the paradigm is about to shift. The path chosen over the next few years will in large part be determined by some key enabling technology, but space travel as a whole will change radically within the next ten years from a government-only/huge pricetag venture to more widespread commercial and even private use of space.
Under NASA's plans for the last thirty years, if Joe Sixpack out in
Middle America ever thought about space at all, would probably not
really think of it as a place that he could go; that was for NASA's
elite group of astronauts, not a cement-mixer like Joe.
Plant the idea in Joe Sixpack's head that guys who know how to make
cement using very little water (or guys who know lots about growing plants, or guys who know lots about chickens, or... you get the picture) are extremely useful in space - to a private company - and that he might get to go himself... well Joe just might decide to invest some of his retirement money in one of those space stocks...
Now multiply Joe by a few tens of millions of people, and have lots
of companies finding niches: that's how you establish a market.
That's how you get infrastructure built: hundreds or thousands of
companies all making profits (or going under) by adding a small piece to the infrastructure, wherever they can find a niche. Not by taking hundreds of billions of dollars over several decades from the
wallets of customers (and their retirement funds), and blowing your
wad on a megaproject. The latter strategy has had us going around
in circles for three decades.
If I were advising Bush on space, and he asked me for an example of
"something substantial that would engage the public's interest and
gain support for farther reaching projects"... I would suggest
disbanding NASA and giving every American an immediate "NASA Refund"
check, along with a corresponding permanent tax cut the following
year. The president could give the press the reason that "private
enterprise is about to take over in the very near future anyway, so
we're just getting outa the way".
I would suggest the same type of refund check for reductions to any
department's funding along with a permanent tax cut the following
year reflecting the percentage of red ink cut from the budget. Make
it one of many refunds... this year the CIA gets a 50% budget cut,
amercians each get a check for 73 dollars and lower tax income bill
of that same 73 every year thereafter... same with the BATF...and the IRS... hey, I can dream, can't I? And wouldn't it be a nice way of finding out that 15 different departments had their budgets cut?
"I would like to see us with a firm commitment to doing something substantial that will engage the public in such a way as to gain strong support for farther reacing projects, and so on, and before the world becomes to bogged down or distracted..."
Why does anyone dream of space?
For those of us who think about space, is it with visions of all the
new gadgets the military will get as a result? or the other side
effects, like Tang and fetal heart rate monitors?
I doubt it. I think most people who think about space view such
things as the technological advances and scientific data and new
products as a secondary benefit. When we're thinking about space,
our prime motivator is not one of these secondary benefits.
We're thinking about space because we want to go there _ourselves_.
I don't want to rely on the words "magnificent desolation". I want
to see the moon for myself, up close and personal.
People all over the world got a vicarious thrill when Niel Armstrong
set foot on the moon. They got that thrill because Man had finally
accomplished this feat, and because of that it opened up the
possibility that they themselves, or their children, may one day go
into space.
Why are titles to plots of land on the moon being sold today? Why
are people parting with their money for a piece of pie in the sky?
Either they are all gullible, or they believe that one day these
land titles will actually be worth something - and they will only be
worth something if either the resources are exploited by machine or
if people can go there as a matter of course.
Want to get people fired up and investing in the space stocks?
Offer them the possibility of going there for themselves. That is
what will engage the public, not the promise of new military
applications or New Improved Tang.
The world has been creeping incrementally towards a permanent manned
presence in space for nearly 50 years. That incremental creep has
ground to a halt, an indication that the paradigm is about to shift. The path chosen over the next few years will in large part be determined by some key enabling technology, but space travel as a whole will change radically within the next ten years from a government-only/huge pricetag venture to more widespread commercial and even private use of space.
Under NASA's plans for the last thirty years, if Joe Sixpack out in
Middle America ever thought about space at all, would probably not
really think of it as a place that he could go; that was for NASA's
elite group of astronauts, not a cement-mixer like Joe.
Plant the idea in Joe Sixpack's head that guys who know how to make
cement using very little water (or guys who know lots about growing plants, or guys who know lots about chickens, or... you get the picture) are extremely useful in space - to a private company - and that he might get to go himself... well Joe just might decide to invest some of his retirement money in one of those space stocks...
Now multiply Joe by a few tens of millions of people, and have lots
of companies finding niches: that's how you establish a market.
That's how you get infrastructure built: hundreds or thousands of
companies all making profits (or going under) by adding a small piece to the infrastructure, wherever they can find a niche. Not by taking hundreds of billions of dollars over several decades from the
wallets of customers (and their retirement funds), and blowing your
wad on a megaproject. The latter strategy has had us going around
in circles for three decades.
If I were advising Bush on space, and he asked me for an example of
"something substantial that would engage the public's interest and
gain support for farther reaching projects"... I would suggest
disbanding NASA and giving every American an immediate "NASA Refund"
check, along with a corresponding permanent tax cut the following
year. The president could give the press the reason that "private
enterprise is about to take over in the very near future anyway, so
we're just getting outa the way".
I would suggest the same type of refund check for reductions to any
department's funding along with a permanent tax cut the following
year reflecting the percentage of red ink cut from the budget. Make
it one of many refunds... this year the CIA gets a 50% budget cut,
amercians each get a check for 73 dollars and lower tax income bill
of that same 73 every year thereafter... same with the BATF...and the IRS... hey, I can dream, can't I? And wouldn't it be a nice way of finding out that 15 different departments had their budgets cut?
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Dudley Hiibel is a rancher in Nevada. In May of 2000, he was arrested for refusing to produce ID. His case will be heard by the US Supreme Court on March 22. The SCOTUS decision will determine whether America has become a police state, whether anyone with a badge can walk up to you and demand "your papers", and arrest you if you refuse.
The incident took place before 9/11, but will of course be colored by that act of terrorism. At the heart of the case is the question: is the refusal to show ID considered probable cause? Probable cause is what gives an officer the power to arrest (as opposed to reasonable suspicion, which merely gives him the authority to question someone or frisk them for weapons).
I hope he wins. However, win or lose, it highlights how willing the authorities have been to exert and even overstep their authority, even prior to the "war on terror".
I've said it before but it bears repeating: legally, a country cannot declare war upon any entity other than another country. A country can not declare war upon an abstract idea like "terror" or "drugs" or "obesity". It may declare war upon another country which is practicing certain abstract ideas like "terror", but not the abstract idea itself.
So we get these faux wars like the war on drugs and the war on terror - but they are not really wars at all. There is no enemy nation. "You're with us or you're against us" is a good way of separating friend from foe when a nation is engaged in a real war, but becomes a meaningless phrase when there isn't really a war going on.
These faux wars are not that which they label themselves. Just as peanut butter contains neither peas nor nuts nor butter, the "war on terror" and "war on drugs" have nothing to do with war, or terror, or drugs.
What they are about is increasing State powers over citizens: making their assets subject to forfeiture without following due process and with no recourse, forcing citizens to submit to authority everywhere they go ("your papers...", stripsearching random citizens at airports), to submit your personal information to them (ask yourself how on earth NASA got the raw census data of thousands of American citizens? NASA?... and just what did you think the Form 1040 was really used for?).
These are wars not of America against another nation, but America against America itself. And if Hiibel loses in SCOTUS, then Americans will have already lost most of their vaunted freedom.
America is at a crossroads. 9/11 probably accelerated the process of reaching this crossroads, but the crossroads was bound to be reached anyway. Does America decide that it can handle the real meaning of freedom? Does America remember what liberty is? Or will it follow the present path: will it increase police powers, stifle freedom, increase taxation, increase state programs, increase intrusion into citizens private data and their lives, coddle Americans from cradle to grave, protecting Joe Sixpack from boogeymen like "drugs" and "terror"?
Will the real America please stand up?
The incident took place before 9/11, but will of course be colored by that act of terrorism. At the heart of the case is the question: is the refusal to show ID considered probable cause? Probable cause is what gives an officer the power to arrest (as opposed to reasonable suspicion, which merely gives him the authority to question someone or frisk them for weapons).
I hope he wins. However, win or lose, it highlights how willing the authorities have been to exert and even overstep their authority, even prior to the "war on terror".
I've said it before but it bears repeating: legally, a country cannot declare war upon any entity other than another country. A country can not declare war upon an abstract idea like "terror" or "drugs" or "obesity". It may declare war upon another country which is practicing certain abstract ideas like "terror", but not the abstract idea itself.
So we get these faux wars like the war on drugs and the war on terror - but they are not really wars at all. There is no enemy nation. "You're with us or you're against us" is a good way of separating friend from foe when a nation is engaged in a real war, but becomes a meaningless phrase when there isn't really a war going on.
These faux wars are not that which they label themselves. Just as peanut butter contains neither peas nor nuts nor butter, the "war on terror" and "war on drugs" have nothing to do with war, or terror, or drugs.
What they are about is increasing State powers over citizens: making their assets subject to forfeiture without following due process and with no recourse, forcing citizens to submit to authority everywhere they go ("your papers...", stripsearching random citizens at airports), to submit your personal information to them (ask yourself how on earth NASA got the raw census data of thousands of American citizens? NASA?... and just what did you think the Form 1040 was really used for?).
These are wars not of America against another nation, but America against America itself. And if Hiibel loses in SCOTUS, then Americans will have already lost most of their vaunted freedom.
America is at a crossroads. 9/11 probably accelerated the process of reaching this crossroads, but the crossroads was bound to be reached anyway. Does America decide that it can handle the real meaning of freedom? Does America remember what liberty is? Or will it follow the present path: will it increase police powers, stifle freedom, increase taxation, increase state programs, increase intrusion into citizens private data and their lives, coddle Americans from cradle to grave, protecting Joe Sixpack from boogeymen like "drugs" and "terror"?
Will the real America please stand up?
Monday, February 16, 2004
Laughing Wolf has an eloquent defence of dueling as a means of enforcing the social contract. He makes some excellent points; Robert Heinlein would be proud.
I checked back in at the blog I mentioned last July, a guy who is paying no taxes by keeping his income below the taxpayer threshold. He seems to still be going strong. Here is his guide to how to avoid paying federal income taxes, legally.
Atlantic Blog makes the case that one "cannot have a proclamation of universal human rights and protect state sovereignty." Worth a read.
Friday, February 13, 2004
I'm back.
I took this test before but unfortunately didn't bookmark it. This is what I was talking about back on January 21/04 about NASA being above the line.
So, I took the Political Compass test again. If I recall correctly, the last time I took this test a few months ago my results were pretty much similar to this time around:
Economic Left/Right: 7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59
This puts me firmly in the lower right quadrant of the political spectrum: very right wing/free economics and pretty far towards the libertarian social part of the spectrum, or anarchocapitalist. Interestingly, no major world leaders occupy this quadrant; they instead cover an arc from the lower left to upper left to upper right.
I think the term "Libertarian Party" is an oxymoron. A better, more accurate label would be "The Libertarian Political Corporation Inc."
I took this test before but unfortunately didn't bookmark it. This is what I was talking about back on January 21/04 about NASA being above the line.
So, I took the Political Compass test again. If I recall correctly, the last time I took this test a few months ago my results were pretty much similar to this time around:
Economic Left/Right: 7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59
This puts me firmly in the lower right quadrant of the political spectrum: very right wing/free economics and pretty far towards the libertarian social part of the spectrum, or anarchocapitalist. Interestingly, no major world leaders occupy this quadrant; they instead cover an arc from the lower left to upper left to upper right.
I think the term "Libertarian Party" is an oxymoron. A better, more accurate label would be "The Libertarian Political Corporation Inc."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)