The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.
Atticus Finch
The End of An Era: Space Shuttle Atlantis Retired
STS- 135 Mission Ends 7/31/11
The 135 missions during the 30-year shuttle era particularly focused on one of the most significant construction jobs in human history: the first international space station. As I have mentioned in past posts, I've served two short stints as a NASA contractor during this era, the first as a programmer/analyst while I lived in Houston during the early to mid 1980's and a few years back at Goddard Space Flight Center as a DBA.
I have some mixed feelings over this. In concept, I like the idea of privatizing certain government functionality, and certainly we need to question government spending across the board including NASA. I think manned space travel is very expensive, given expensive redundant layers of life support systems. (I remember mentioning that to a co-worker back in Clear Lake City (Houston), and he hushed suggesting those opinions are politically imprudent.) The basic issue I wanted addressed at that time was, given a fixed budget, more substantive, less costly unmanned missions get short shrift, i.e., get crowded out in favor of popular, largely symbolic manned missions
There needs to be more thought given than merely some predictable permutation of jingoistic or symbolic goals, the US or some other country being the Magellan of the solar system, i.e., the first flag on Mars, Venus, etc., the first wedding in space, the first baby born in space, the first baby conceived in space, etc. What price are we prepared to spend in Trivial Space Pursuit? The point is, I want to see some hardheaded rationale, of the type like there are certain manufacturing processes which are more feasible in space, there are abundant commodity sources on the moon which can be harvested more cheaply, after taking into account travel costs.
This obviously raises the more challenging question of issue of where we draw the line between the public and private sector in space initiatives. Have public policy and regulations impeded development of private sector initiatives?
I would like to see a more comprehensive national policy on space with more emphasis on things like economic interests (e.g., launching, operation, maintenance and security of satellites) and preventive global alert/defense against space events (e.g., a rogue asteroid on a collision course with earth). I want to see less emphasis on trying to sell space-based initiatives on multi-use purposes of ancillary products, technology or services, e.g., the urban legend underlying development of Tang as a breakfast drink. (Tang, in fact, was a preexisting, poorly-selling powdered drink first sold in 1959; it was chosen by NASA as a product which would mask the bad taste of safe drinking water being consumed by astronauts.)
 |
| Courtesy of NASA |
As if we didn't have enough things to dislike about ObamaCare, one of the chief selling points was "free" preventive care mandated to health care insurers. The basic idea is that if we can detect a catastrophic condition at an earlier stage when the condition can be managed more economically and perhaps contain lifelong costs, we can better manage overall costs. The megalomaniac delusion of ObamaCare that the progressive federal government, which can't even manage its own budget, could add onto its already unmanageable portfolio of ineptly managed, unresponsive goods and services is obvious to the majority of the American people. Not to ignore the fact that we are on the slippery source of seeing traditional individual liberties under a constant assault by condescending bureaucrats. For example, will the progressives mandate lab tests which could detect, say, early stage kidney disease?
Of course, we saw the Democrats co-opt the concept of federal-regulated and mandated "free" preventive care, and politicize it in accordance with their special interest political supporters. One of the 8 recommendations for "free" preventive care for women is the idea of "free" contraception. From the jump I have a problem with this, because I would argue that a healthy society is self-sustaining and should promote its continuation. We have an intrinsically perverse concept here: pregnancy is being treated as a disease.
There are a number of reasons that we pro-lifers object to this concept, including the funding of abortifacients (e.g., the "morning after" pill) and related questions whether religious-affiliated providers or pharmacists, as a matter of conscience, can be forced to subsidize and/or participate in something we believe is the killing of unborn human life.
Certainly family planning is a liberty issue; the federal government has no right to infringe on our rights to have a family and to dictate its size (like, say, China does). Pro-lifers (and certainly not libertarian conservatives) do not suggest that the government should demand a quota of at least 2 children by each female citizen, which really would be government interference in so-called reproduction rights.
But we don't expect the government to take responsibility for our individual actions, including sexual activities. We are expected to accept our own responsibility. There are a number of risks associated with sexual activities, including the fidelity and sexual history of one's partner, pregnancy and STD's. A man who has sexual intercourse with a woman of child-bearing age runs the risk of impregnating her and being responsible for his share of the time and expense in rearing a child. If he and/or his partner want to control for the risk of pregnancy or sexual diseases of the partner, they should both use relevant birth control techniques, including but not restricted to condoms, the pill, vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc. It is up to the sexual partners to weigh the costs and benefits of intimate activities and relevant technologies.
I've long pointed out there's no such thing as a free ride. The pill has been around for decades. My high school had condom machines available to guys. Since when has it become a federal responsibility to subsidize contraception? Clearly a woman doesn't have to engage in intimate behavior. The costs of condoms and pills are not excessive for almost any budget, especially when you compare that to the cost of raising a child.
It's one thing to talk about subsidizing catastrophic illnesses and conditions, but I don't think we should be subsidizing ordinary expenses period. Never mind the fact that women do not have to engage in sexual behavior resulting in pregnancy. We are essentially engaging in morally hazardous policies by lowering the costs for immoral or irresponsible sexual behavior.
Political Humor
"Texas Gov. Rick Perry says God is calling on him to run for president, and Michele Bachmann says God is calling on her to run for president. If God is so indecisive, he’s probably for Mitt Romney." - Jay Leno
[You would have figured by now Michele Bachmann would recognize Barack Obama's voice over the phone.]
"While testifying in parliament, Rupert Murdoch was attacked by a man who threw a pie and yelled insulting names. Murdoch immediately gave the man a show on Fox News." - Conan O'Brien
[I see former Cincinnati Democrat mayor Jerry Springer is taking his show on the road...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO (featuring Olivia Newton-John), "Xanadu"
