SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (43647)6/4/2010 7:42:18 PM
From: TimF1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
'To Be Fair'

When does the statute of limitation run out on blaming George W. Bush for all the world's problems?

When does the statute of limitations run out on blaming George W. Bush for all of the country's troubles? Not yet, apparently, judging by his successor's remarkable speech in Pittsburgh on Wednesday.

In the course of defending the stimulus, the health-care bill and his handling of the Gulf oil spill, President Obama drifted toward an explanation of his own current political troubles. Some people oppose his agenda, he allowed, simply because they're Republicans and opposing is what partisans do. "But to be fair, a good deal of the other party's opposition to our agenda has also been rooted in their sincere and fundamental belief about the role of government," Mr. Obama said. "It's a belief that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges."

That "to be fair" is a classic Obama touch.

...Mr. Obama thought he could get away with tracing the lineage of this "idea" to Mr. Bush's concept of the "ownership society." But for Mr. Obama, it explains everything. "If you're a Wall Street bank or an insurance company or an oil company," he said, "you pretty much get to play by your own rules, regardless of the consequences for everybody else."

The claim that the financial, energy and health-care industries were somehow unregulated until Mr. Obama descended from the heavens is simply dishonest. Those are likely the three most regulated businesses in America, though the competition is stiff. But if the President is going to blame his problems on philosophies no one believes and deregulation that didn't exist, he shouldn't be surprised if voters come to believe that his super-regulatory government should be able to perform miracles like quickly plugging oil blowouts a mile under the sea.

online.wsj.com

stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (43647)6/5/2010 4:57:28 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The New Space Movement: Privatize! (Unless you are a politician who needs to keep government spending flowing to your district, that is. <g>)

SpaceX fans and foes speak out

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com
</b<

Photographers focus on today's ascent of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

The reactions to today's successful maiden flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, a potential successor to the space shuttle, started streaming in long before the celebratory margaritas were poured. "My e-mail box has gone bonkers, and my phone has been ringing off the hook," SpaceX millionaire founder Elon Musk said. The eight-year-old company's fans were effusive in their praise, while others were in the "damn with faint praise" category. Here's a sampling of reactions from both sides, with an extra twist at the end:

STRONG PRAISE

• NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, who once said he would do everything in his power to make sure SpaceX and other commercial launch companies were successful:

"Congratulations to Space X on today's launch of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Space X's accomplishment is an important milestone in the commercial transportation effort and puts the company a step closer to providing cargo services to the International Space Station. Preparations are proceeding for the first NASA-sponsored test launch under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services project later this year. COTS is a vital development and demonstration partnership to create a commercial space transportation system capable of providing cargo to the station. This launch of the Falcon 9 gives us even more confidence that a resupply vehicle will be available after the space shuttle fleet is retired."

• The Planetary Society, which has championed the "flexible path" space exploration strategy now favored by the White House:

"It's hard not to launch into hyperbole at the success of the first Falcon 9 test flight. It is a tremendous achievement. Hats off to our Planetary Society Board member, Elon Musk, and his SpaceX team. In advancing commercial spaceflight, today's flight of Falcon 9 could be the first small step towards relieving NASA launchers of the burden of low-Earth orbit, thus freeing the U.S. space agency to reach new worlds. ..."

• The Commercial Spaceflight Federation passed along praise from an assortment of space heavyweights, including former NASA astronauts Rusty Schweickart (Apollo 9) and Byron Lichtenberg (STS-9, STS-45):

Schweickart: “As a former Apollo astronaut, I think it’s safe to say that SpaceX and the other commercial developers embody the 21st-century version of the Apollo frontier spirit. It’s enormously gratifying to see them succeed today.”

Lichtenberg: “I expect that there will be a lot more astronauts in the future because of today’s success. Lower cost launches means more flights, which means more astronauts. We’ve only had 500 astronauts in the history of the Space Age, but I hope to see thousands more in the decades to come.”

• Space consultant Charles Lurio, a tireless campaigner for the New Space movement and a tireless critic of the way NASA operates:

"Today’s flight should go a long way toward countering the hoary, 'magical negative thinking' of the past that led many to deride commercial spaceflight efforts. Of course, some will attempt to keep purveying those old myths, but their squawking should now be seen clearly than ever as the pitiful gasps of another era. The Falcon 9 flight, like that of SpaceShipOne, and like many others quietly being marked at pioneering venues around the country, shows that the path to practical spaceflight and commercial innovation driving a 'space PC revolution' is wide open."

• X Prize Chairman/CEO Peter Diamandis, who helped put together the $10 million Ansari X Prize to reward private-sector spaceflight and counts Musk as a member of his board of trustees:

"The maiden voyage of the Falcon 9 marks an important milestone in commercial spaceflight, proving what is achievable by privately-owned companies that are dedicated to pioneering new technologies and making space more accessible. Overcoming the high cost of launching to orbit continues to be a challenge faced by space-related ventures, and the emergence of launch vehicles such as the Falcon 9 contributes to an increasingly competitive environment in the launch vehicle market – a condition which has the potential to drive costs down and open the space frontier to the rest of us. In the not-too-distant future, we hope to see SpaceX and other commercial launch providers transporting crew and cargo to orbiting outposts, the moon, asteroids, and even Mars."

• The Space Frontier Foundation issued a news release that ended with this quote from one of its always-quotable founders, Rick Tumlinson:

“Some have decried the new American space program and harkened back to the good old elitist days of Apollo, and what they see as the end of the 'right stuff' mindset that took us to the moon. Well, they are dead wrong. You want to see excitement and drive of the early days of Apollo? You want to see the Right Stuff right now? Go visit SpaceX or any of the other NewSpace firms and teams out there reaching for the stars. It is alive and well!"

• Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who has been pushing for an extension of the space shuttle program and the restoration of funding for NASA's internal rocket development project, was "very excited" about the Falcon 9 launch during a congratulatory phone call, Musk said. The Politico website quoted Nelson as saying SpaceX's successful test suggests that the Falcon will be in "full operation delivering cargo to the International Space Station a year from now." It's unusual for Nelson, who has seemed a bit doubtful about NASA's moves toward commercialization, to be so positive about SpaceX's prospects. Other members of Congress have voiced sharp concerns about what NASA's shift will mean for traditional aerospace jobs. They've also voiced sharp doubts about the capabilities of commercial launch companies (which, by the way, happen to include traditional aerospace companies). And that brings us to ...

FAINT PRAISE

• Sen. Richard Shelby, the Alabama Republican who once said commercial launch providers "cannot even carry the trash back from the space station," was quoted by Politico as saying that today's launch merely replicated what "NASA accomplished in 1964":

"Belated progress for one so-called commercial provider must not be confused with progress for our nation's human spaceflight program. As a nation, we cannot place our future spaceflight on one fledgling company's definition of success."

• Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, a Florida Democrat whose district includes NASA's Kennedy Space Center, sounded ambivalent about one of the Space Coast's up-and-coming employers:

"The successful test launch of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is a significant step in the development of the commercial space industry. There is no doubt that commercial spaceflight will play an important role in the future of our efforts in space, and I believe private companies can bring new job opportunities for the Space Coast's highly skilled workforce. But we must both support the emerging commercial space industry and ensure a robust, NASA-led human spaceflight program in order to maintain our international leadership in space and keep our economy strong. I will continue fighting at every opportunity to minimize the human spaceflight gap, protect jobs, and ensure a bright future for the Space Coast."

• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, set a new standard for faint praise:

"This first successful test flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is a belated sign that efforts to develop modest commercial space cargo capabilities are showing some promising signs. While this test flight was important, the program to demonstrate commercial cargo and crew transport capabilities, which I support, was intended to enhance not replace NASA's own proven abilities to deliver critical cargo and humans to low Earth orbit. Make no mistake, even this modest success is more than a year behind schedule, and the project deadlines of other private space companies continue to slip as well. This test does not change the fact that commercial space programs are not ready to close the gap in human spaceflight if the space shuttle is retired this year with no proven replacement capability and the Constellation program is simultaneously canceled as the president proposes."

Hutchison's faint praise was particularly irksome to Musk, who has about 100 of SpaceX's 1,000 employees working at a test facility in McGregor, Texas.

"We do all of our engine testing and development in Texas," he told reporters. "We're one of the fastest-growing employers in Texas. Why is she trying to hurt a Texas company? That's wrong. And the people of Texas ought to be aware of that. The people of Texas ought to be electing politicians that are going to be working to help their state, not hurt their state."

It sounds as if the Falcon 9 launch wasn't the only fireworks display going on around SpaceX today. What do you think? Should politicians be judged based on where they stand on spaceflight issues, or do other issues (such as the oil spill aftermath) loom larger on the political landscape? Feel free to leave your comments below.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (43647)6/5/2010 4:58:18 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
How Obama's Enemies May Give Him a Boost

Tuesday, Jun. 01, 2010
By Mark Halperin
time.com

The late, longtime New Yorker critic Pauline Kael was said to have expressed confusion over Richard Nixon's landslide re-election in 1972 — because no one she knew had voted for him. To borrow that notion, conservatives today imagine that everyone views the current occupant of the White House as they do: Barack Obama is the worst President ever. Conventional wisdom posits that this potent right-wing, anti-Obama sentiment will diminish the President's power — enough for Republicans to vanquish Democrats in November, regain control of Congress and weaken the incumbent for 2012.

But this myopia has been created within an electronic cocoon of Fox News, talk radio, conservative websites and rhetoric from Republican leaders, all passionately reinforcing the message that the Obama Administration is disastrous on a historic scale. It's a message that is being transported as gamely by rank-and-file Republicans as it is by erudite conservative columnists with national readerships. (See 10 elections that changed America.)

Of course, in this modern age of extreme polarization, only one President these past 30 years (George H.W. Bush, the père) has escaped the regular damning hyperbole of "worst ever." But the condemnation of Obama seems somewhat more extreme.

The blue-red divide, by almost every measure, has gotten worse, and the ubiquity of electronic media spreads intense political and cultural disdain in the blink of an eye. The always enlightening Google reveals that typing in "Obama worst president ever" yields 3.4 million results, vs. 1.8 million for "Bush worst president ever" and 1.2 million for Clinton. That stat seems representative of where we have arrived as a nation and illustrative of the relationship between the incumbent President and his critics. (See the top 10 political defections.)

Conservatives from the upper echelons of elected officials in Washington and state capitals, presidential-candidates-in-waiting such as Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, 2010 stars such as Rand Paul, and testy Tea Party activists all believe they have an objective case to rank Obama as 44th out of 44 Presidents. Not only do they think his policies are misguided and out of step with America's greatest traditions of individual liberty and free enterprise, but they are convinced that his relative lack of experience and youth confirm the pre-election suspicions that he is not up to the job. (Comment on this story.)

The times of crisis in which Obama has governed only exacerbate the situation. It doesn't take a degree in psychology to recognize the explanatory formula "economic/environmental/international crises + search for a scapegoat = widespread Obama hatred." And it is evidence of how much matters have deteriorated that it's impossible to imagine conservatives rallying around Obama in the face of a new disaster, like the left did (albeit briefly) after Sept. 11 for President George W. Bush. Even if the President were to repel a Martian invasion, the right's reaction would likely be the same as it was after the Christmas Day bombing attempt, or the failed Times Square attack, or the current oil spill: denigration of Obama's competence, suspicion of his motives and implicit (or explicit) hope for his failure.

The experiences of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are instructive. Like Obama, they accomplished a fairly high percentage of their campaign promises, even as their enemies deemed them failures from those Presidents' first days in office. Both Presidents benefited by staying focused and on course, sidestepping the increasingly hostile rhetoric thrown at them by their foes. Clinton at times would explode, letting such verbiage get his goat, but Reagan did not, and in that sense, he is Obama's closer analogue. Obama has become prickly at times during these past 16 months, but he is more apt to brush off the barbs as proof positive that the opposition is losing — and losing it.

In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, we have already seen that the anti-Obama forces are expressing their disagreements with the Administration in terms far more personal than political, tinged with an apocalyptic irrationality. The centrifugal force exerted on conservative leaders toward the extreme wing of their party is bound to lead to even more magnified rhetoric in the next few years. The contrast between those excessive attacks and Obama's famous cool will serve him, and the Democrats, well.

Within the overheated conservative bubble there is little room for discussions of serious policy alternatives to deal with America's problems, reminders that the country is typically drawn to optimistic candidates (like Reagan and Obama) and weighty appeals to the center of the electorate. If Obama is the worst President ever, as conservatives seem to believe, why do they need to say anything more than that to take control of Congress and then get rid of him? But while the conservatives' ultimate condemnation rallies their core supporters and resonates with some centrist voters, over time it is unlikely to produce a majority against the Administration.

It can't be pleasant for Obama to be the subject of such attacks. And solving the country's major problems in a bipartisan fashion will be difficult under these rancorous circumstances. But as long as those trying to beat him are blind to the fact that tens of millions of voting Americans think Obama is doing a fine job, this President has a great ally in his enemies.

* Find this article at:
* time.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (43647)6/5/2010 4:30:29 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 71588
 
Just himself first!



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (43647)6/5/2010 11:37:17 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
He seems to be devoted to his family



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (43647)6/5/2010 11:41:05 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
That is the most "right" thing about him.