NASA Head Ignores Congress, Eyes Cooperation With China 271
eldavojohn writes "Congress and the president haven't been exactly kind to NASA recently as far as funding goes but NASA chief Charles Bolden is ruffling some feathers with his planned trip to Beijing to investigate cooperative human space flight as well as potential Chinese involvement with the International Space Station. Such news has caused Congressman Frank Wolf to warn Bolden that 'no such planning or coordination has been approved by the Congress ... In fact, several recent NASA authorization bills have explicitly sought to place strict limitations on coordination with China.' Wolf is an outspoken critic of China in space and further warned Bolden in a letter that 'It should go without saying that NASA has no business cooperating with the Chinese regime on human spaceflight. China is taking an increasingly aggressive posture globally, and their interests rarely intersect with ours.'"
Capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
Which (along with the story summary) is wrong; NASA's budget has not taken a hit [wikipedia.org] any time recently nor is it planned to do so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what does that mean? In the US, it is Congress that has federal budget authority. Congress decides how tax money is spent and how much budget authority to delegate downwards, e.g. to NASA management. NASA didn't give itself the mission to go to the moon in the 1960's, either; it doesn't work that way. If you offered a plumber $90 to un-clog your kitchen sink and he demande
Re:Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, and NASA's budget hasn't "taken a hit" per-se, but the last time NASA was told to build a new space ship, congress at least gave them a 50% bump in funding for a few years for the extra cost involved in building it. Recently congress has done nothing of the sort, which leaves us with at least a half-decade without a space ship to fly. Here are some charts I generated last year to back that up: http://imgur.com/HE5kf.png [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As you well know, he's referring to NASA.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that NASA is paid for by taxpayers, and answers to the taxpayers via their elected representatives.
If the head of NASA wants to quit and work elsewhere that is his right. If every employee of NASA decides to emigrate to China, that is their right as well (though they are still bound to maintain confidentiality).
However, for the head of NASA to spend tax dollars on something that the elected leadership has instructed them not to do is insubordination.
NASA isn't a private company, and it doesn't have the luxury of dictating what its priorities are.
Imagine if the UK National Health System decided that doctors aren't being paid enough so they're going to start charging a fee to get priority service? As long as they're accepting government paychecks, they have to do what their supervisors tell them to.
Don't like your boss - then quit or be your own boss. However, you can't accept money from somebody and then tell them that they have no right to dictate your actions.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
>However, for the head of NASA to spend tax dollars on something that the elected leadership has instructed them not to do is insubordination.
True, but at this point Frank Wolf is just speaking his mind (AFAIK). Frank Wolf would prefer that NASA not cooperate with China, but that hasn't been written into the law.
And Frank Wolf is a member of the minority, too.
(Not that it wouldn't be in NASA's interest to humor the likely next chairman of the subcommittee.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the way that consultants in the NHS have their own private practice, where they take paying customers who don't want to wait on the NHS list? Or the fact that they take on patients from Private practice where private doesn't have the infrastruct
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if the UK National Health System decided that doctors aren't being paid enough so they're going to start charging a fee to get priority service?
They do. Through the AXA PPP system.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical American arrogance. You make it sound like Wal-mart is doing charity in China. On the other hand, they went there for cheap labors.
For the same reason, many seem to imply that cooperation or trade with China is just a favor to China. Time to look in the mirror with the US accuses others of not having an open and free market.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that NASA is paid for by taxpayers, and answers to the taxpayers via their elected representatives.
They sure haven't been answering to this taxpayer who has been saying for years that it's moronic to end the shuttle program before its replacement is even off the drawing board. I say all power to Bolden for doing what he has to to keep his agency going when the Bush and Obama administrations shoved him in a corner.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Is there some sort of space garrison we have to keep constantly staffed and stocked? Will the aliens come and get us if they realize that for a few years we don't have a shuttle program?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Given how much of the US budget is borrowed money, maybe he's simply going to work for the people who are actually paying the bills.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that NASA is paid for by taxpayers, and answers to the taxpayers via their elected representatives.
If the head of NASA wants to quit and work elsewhere that is his right. If every employee of NASA decides to emigrate to China, that is their right as well (though they are still bound to maintain confidentiality).
However, for the head of NASA to spend tax dollars on something that the elected leadership has instructed them not to do is insubordination.
If you had been awake in your Civics class you would know that NASA is under the executive branch. Congress does not lead NASA, its role is to raise money and pass laws. Telling NASA what to do is overstepping its bounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They could. But it would violate our treaties and not be signed by the President.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
The agreement for non-discriminating trade with all WTO members and our direct agreement on NTR with China would be two:
http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/dailybriefing/2002_02_01/Bush_grants_permanent_NTR.html [chinaeconomicreview.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
Everything is about trade.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To quote Bill Maher, "words either have meaning, or they don't."
Re: (Score:2)
Except that NASA is paid for by taxpayers, and answers to the taxpayers via their elected representatives.
Theoretically. Except that the elected representatives don't even answer to the taxpayers IRL (In Real Life).
However, for the head of NASA to spend tax dollars on something that the elected leadership has instructed them not to do is insubordination.
So? They are simply following the lead of their "leaders". They do whatever the hell they want, despite their constituents expressed desires, and then lie like rugs when it's time for re-election.
Imagine if the UK National Health System decided that doctors aren't being paid enough so they're going to start charging a fee to get priority service?
What does the UK Health System have to do with the US space administration? Besides, from some of the other comments I'm reading, that's exactly what they do.
However, you can't accept money from somebody and then tell them that they have no right to dictate your actions.
That's exactly what the American federal governme
Re: (Score:2)
When you screw someone over, don't be surprised if they go elsewhere.
To paraphrase a quote, Wait'll they get a load of China
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how is Congress screwing over NASA? This joker wouldn't have is job, much less an entire pseudo-branch of the government if it wasn't for Congress.
NASA stuff quickly gets into national security stuff. If you can put a man in that capsule, you can put a weapon in it. Congress should act swiftly and replace this joke of a director. Congress (for better or worse) runs the country, not NASA.
If Congress decides tomorrow to shut down every branch of NASA, it would suck; but, even then it would be the
Re: (Score:2)
"death throws" is that some kind of wrestling move?
Consumers like China, Americans don't :) (Score:3, Interesting)
Most consumer goods come from China these days, and we're told China's interests rarely intersect with the US?
Isn't this attitude a bit ... schizoid?
Or maybe, just dumb?
Re:Consumers like China, Americans don't :) (Score:5, Interesting)
lead paint in toys, inferior toys that don't meat U.S. quality standards, most items having a fake UL stamp of approval (this is important, look up the Underwriters Laboratory and see what they do as for why its so important as to whether or not the stamp is legite or not)...nah, they have our best interests in mind. Just because they supply our gadget craze, doesn't mean they have our best interest in mind
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because they supply our gadget craze, doesn't mean they have our best interest in mind
Who said anything about best interests? As a nation we clearly want cheap, toxic plastic crap, and China supplies it. From where I'm sitting it looks like an equitable relationship to me. It's not like the first time was free or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they supply our gadget craze, doesn't mean they have our best interest in mind
Who said anything about best interests? As a nation we clearly want cheap, toxic plastic crap, and China supplies it. From where I'm sitting it looks like an equitable relationship to me. It's not like the first time was free or anything.
This sort of shenanigans of screwing the consumer is anathema. Where could Chinese businesses have learned such unscrupulous practices?
Re:Consumers like China, Americans don't :) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Funding (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't feed your dog, don't be surprised when he looks elsewhere for food. This is what happens when the government fucks over the space program a million times. Maybe partnering with corporate ventures would be better for national security, but those are inherently driven by money. A government truly comitted to the idea of manned spaceflight though is more likely to be results oriented.
Re:Funding (Score:4, Insightful)
They had the money and they chose to blow it on Constellation
So, Tough.
Re: (Score:2)
They were ordered by Clinton and then Bush to work on a program to replace the aging Space Shuttle fleet, which needed retiring.
That program is Constellation. They didn't "blow" the money, they were told to come up with a bullshit cost estimate by bean counters when they were trying to create entirely new technology that involved all sorts of problems that we hadn't had to solve previously.
It's idiots like you that have made scientific exploration in the US fall so far behind.
Re:Funding (Score:5, Insightful)
They were ordered by Clinton and then Bush to work on a program to replace the aging Space Shuttle fleet, which needed retiring.
I'm with you so far...
That program is Constellation. They didn't "blow" the money, they were told to come up with a bullshit cost estimate by bean counters when they were trying to create entirely new technology
you don't need "entire new technology" for LEO, MEO, GEO, get to the moon or mars. If it was needed, nobody would have done these things.
that involved all sorts of problems that we hadn't had to solve previously.
Problems created by reinventing the wheel for the nth time...
It's idiots like you that have made scientific exploration in the US fall so far behind.
Because I want to reinvent the wheel and spend money on solving already solved problems?!
It's ok to 'refresh' the technology, my money is on Falcon launchers, and NASA should have gone DIRECT.
Then there's money to spare for the real important things: new experiments, space probes, space telescopes, etc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
you don't need "entire new technology" for LEO, MEO, GEO, get to the moon or mars. If it was needed, nobody would have done these things.
Oh, but we do need "entire new technology" for these in terms of human passengers. The summary says that the purpose of the trip is to discuss human spaceflight, and it seems only prudent to discuss alternates to Russia.
We might be able to handle close-in stuff with Russian partners and existing cargo rockets (separate launches because nothing exists that can transport both passengers and heavy cargo). However getting to, landing on, and leaving the moon or mars isn't plug-and-play. The Apollo program ca
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but we do need "entire new technology" for these in terms of human passengers. The summary says that the purpose of the trip is to discuss human spaceflight, and it seems only prudent to discuss alternates to Russia.
As you said, for LEO, etc, they could try and create a human rated Atlas V or Delta rocket
However getting to, landing on, and leaving the moon or mars isn't plug-and-play. The Apollo program can't be duplicated because the schematics and records are lost.
Yes, you're right. Going to the moon again is a big challenge and to Mars is an an order of magnitude more complex.
With the way things are going I don't see anyone matching the capability of the shuttle for decades, much less sending people to the moon or mars.
True, me neither. Very sad.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't feed your dog, don't be surprised when he looks elsewhere for food. This is what happens when the government fucks over the space program a million times. Maybe partnering with corporate ventures would be better for national security, but those are inherently driven by money. A government truly comitted to the idea of manned spaceflight though is more likely to be results oriented.
Uh huh, so why are "money driven" corporate ventures less "results oriented" than international partnerships? I doubt something like the International Space Station makes sense in terms of what it produces. International cooperation is one of the reasons it turned out that way.
Re: (Score:2)
So many posts are buying into the baseless assertion that China's budget has been cut. Where did this idea come from?
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for him.
Here is the thing: society that loses manufacturing jobs, loses the manufacturing sector, it then pretty much loses the need for engineering, and in reality in most of realities, engineering is what drives progress forward and it even drives the need for scientific advancement forward.
So society that stops making stuff, stops thinking of stuff as well. You can't be thinking without actually producing, even though those who really build/engineer and those who do basic science are different people and working in different institutions.
Lose your manufacturing economy and you'll lose your knowledge economy, or did you think you could have the cake and eat it too?
--
So this NASA move is basically a survival move, it's smart.
Re: (Score:2)
walmart has cakes on sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they're made in China and the sprinkles metabolize into GHB in your system, which would work out well for frat boys, except the frosting is led-based.
Re: (Score:2)
they make frosting out of LEDs? cool.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Fudge (Score:4, Interesting)
Big pile of fudge. USA is no longer manufactures the components, it assembles the final product, that is also 'manufacturing', but it really is not.
The proof is in this simple pudding: go to this site [tradingeconomics.com] and set the 'FROM DATE' to January 1992 and leave the 'TO DATE' as the current year.
This is the real USA economy in action.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what country you're referring to. The United States manufactures more than ever. It's the manufacturing engineering you mention, though, that has steadily reduced the number of people required to drive our manufacturing industry.
Re: (Score:2)
I commented on this, you can look it up yourself from the link there. Manufacturing in USA today means assembling in USA and the trade deficit, which shows where the economy is really going, is showing the direction very clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, didn't close a double quote in the previous post:
I commented [slashdot.org] on this, you can look it up yourself from the link there. Manufacturing in USA today means assembling in USA and the trade deficit, which shows where the economy is really going, is showing the direction very clearly.
But here is the link [tradingeconomics.com] and if you go there and set the "FROM DATE" to 1992 and leave the "TO DATE" current, you'll see what I am saying.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
My MBA had lead me to believe that through leverage and synergy, not only can we eat the cake and keep it for later, we can also lend out the same cake to others who can in turn do the same, and moreover, the same can be done with the eaten cake which can again be leveraged. Moreover the cake having been eaten, futures contracts on anticipated fertiliser yields can be optioned and bundled with cake shares into massive derivative portfolios which can be sold to speculators adding to overall market liquidity.
There are naysayers who claim that all this cake eating will result in is a big pile of crap. But the smart MBA will have left the cake industry and moved on the the next victim^Hopportunity long before the tab needs to be picked up. Look at Carly Fiorina. After HP, she's moving into politics. Do you know how much money can be made by liquidating^Hleveraging^Hoptimising the US government? Think big, and let the markets decide the winners.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can do all that with the cake as long as it is federally guaranteed to give you the expected result either on its merits alone or by government bailing your investment out from a publicly funded bakery.
Unfortunately the public bakery is in huge debt, the people running it have spent all the money on a side business of military contracts by running very expensive wars, the chief financial officer of the bakery is printing IOUs at ever increased rate without actually having either flour or milk or eg
Re: (Score:2)
Lose your manufacturing economy and you'll lose your knowledge economy, or did you think you could have the cake and eat it too?
We don't manufacture so much as we used to but we still design stuff. The majority of that cheap crap we get from China was designed in the USA, and possibly adapted from existing designs in China. Indeed, a great deal of it is a direct copy of a product designed and sometimes even made in the USA, or in some other nation where they care about the quality of goods. Chinese knockoffs are often so faithful that they copy the flaws of the original product precisely. Remember, designer and producer have not had
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
We don't manufacture so much as we used to but we still design stuff.
- but China is also designing, every day, every factory has issues that are being addressed by engineers in the factories. This drives the need for more science. Also just because not EVERYTHING is outsourced yet, do not despair, one step at a time, one step at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
- but China is also designing, every day, every factory has issues that are being addressed by engineers in the factories. This drives the need for more science. Also just because not EVERYTHING is outsourced yet, do not despair, one step at a time, one step at a time.
Obviously copying is a way to learn how stuff is put together, so it's not like it's useless. And of course, there is new work being done in China. It hardly matters today where the knowledge came from. On the other hand, the copying habit will be hard to break and it's a habit that keeps you perpetually behind.
As our economy crashes, outsourcing will be reduced... But you won't be able to afford anything but food and tyvek coveralls with your earnings.
Re: (Score:2)
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)
RIGHT... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because when I think of pushing the boundaries, of reaching into space, exploring new techonolgies. I think google...
Someone here sees the web as FAR to important.
The INTERNET was a major technological development. Google is NOT. Oracle and Red Hat and Microsoft, none of them make anything real or research anything real. Producing another database is NOT what the knowledge economy should be about. Knowledge is stuff like new solar cells, bacteria that can produce oil, silkworms that poop spider thread. Not a new video codec.
The space race isn't going to be won by who has the best search engine but who can create the next generation rocket engine.
This research STILL happens in the US, but then turning it into production, the job of NASA, is being thrown away.
You are basically the same as the people who think: Banking is a large part of the economy, oh therefor it must be THE economy, ergo Wallstreet is all we need.
Honestly, if you think these companies are proof the US still has plenty of intellectual might (I think it does, but not because of these companies) then you are sadly mistaken.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Someone here sees the web as FAR to[o] important.
I'm not sure how you can say there's an overemphasis on modern communication (vis a vis The Interweb). The advancement of group communication among humans, is probably a bit more important than an specific domain of knowledge. This is due to the tricky dependence on utilizing and growing that knowledge by communication with other humans.
I might be in the minority, but I flat out disagree.
"Goes without Saying"? (Score:5, Informative)
“In fact" He says, "several recent NASA authorization bills have explicitly sought to place strict limitations on coordination with China.”
Sought being the key word there, which means tried and failed...by him. He was the top Republican of the Appropriations Committee that wrangled for so long over NASA's budget early this year, the one that was stuck in limbo for months like a hung jury with some idiot hold-out. In actuality, the provision to bar space cooperation with China was defeated by a 4-9 vote on the grounds that there are many areas we can cooperate with China, and fear of military complications should not keep us from cooperating in scientific and humanitarian pursuits. Wolf is banking on the laziness of the media consumer to make is sound like this defeated motion of his is somehow still viable and/or supported policy.
Re:"Goes without Saying"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. I also love how the headline conflates "Congress" with "a single Congressman". It's nearly impossible to do anything that doesn't piss off at least one of the 435 members of congress.
Honestly, it sounds like Wolf is a blowhard how has his vendetta against China and doesn't care who he hurts pursuing it.
NASA really should work more with JAXA (Score:5, Interesting)
But if NASA really wants to cooperate with another space agency they should up their links with JAXA. Even though the Japanese have yet to put a man into space they have shown that it is possible to really turn around a flagging space program quickly. Before the launch of the Hayabusa in 2003 you could describe JAXA in one word: failure. As late as 2002 they were having troubles even putting a relatively basic satellite into orbit. However in recent years they have had two overwhelming successes, Hayabusa and IKAROS. They obviously know how to turn a stagnant space program around. Furthermore their interests and NASAs interests are much more in line than the interests of the US and China.
Re:NASA really should work more with JAXA (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't we just cooperate with everyone?
Re:NASA really should work more with JAXA (Score:5, Funny)
Can't we just cooperate with everyone?
"What are you? Some kind of communist?????"
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore their interests and NASAs interests are much more in line than the interests of the US and China.
[citation needed]
To expand on this: China and the USA have been in economic lock step for how many years exactly? I think you're assuming a conflict where none exists. China is our favorite trading partner. On the other hand, if Wolf is to retain his legions of knee-jerking conservatives, he has to say crazy shit like this on a regular basis, whether he believes it or not. (I don't know if he does or no, it's really irrelevant.)
Or put another way, the people making decisions on behalf of the USA and China h
Re: (Score:2)
Go right ahead. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"It would be ridiculous to say that politicians aren't also businessmen. Well, that seems to be all they're good at."
Judging by the plunging economy over the last decade, they suck at that too.
Re: (Score:2)
Why China? (Score:2)
Too Late Already (Score:2)
To be perfectly blunt here, NASA's head's stance is just mirroring what's already happening in the private sector. Over the next decade or two, all of the good graduates in engineering and physics and so on will all just go over to Asia and ignore the U.S. Much like how they did during the early part of the last century when there was a mass migration of brainpower from Europe to the U.S. They always follow the money and innovation.
He knows that unless something is done, NASA is dead in the water. But
Does anyones interest intersect with the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, other than the British government (not the people), who's interest intersects with that the of US? I don't know if anyone paid attention to the International Monetary meeting this weekend, but over here in the EU the general consensus is that the US is less and less relevant due to its complete lack of competent leaders, massive debts, and lazy, uncaring masses.
It’s simply amazing how your douchebag leaders can consistently complain about China’s growing aggressiveness to thwart direct US control over their country when no other country in the world has the audacity to stomp on others sovereignty as the US government has.
You people better get your shit together before you end up like all the other has been empires throughout history. Did I mention your leaders are D-Bags? So are our of course, but at least here, the people still can control them. ;)
Re:Does anyones interest intersect with the US? (Score:4, Informative)
Ah yes, we haven't had such paragons of statesmanship like Tony Blair or Silvio Berlusconi.
Honestly, the EU's opinion just isn't really relevant anymore, something which has been further underscored by its near economic collapse lately. Which is the reason that both the US government and US corporations are focusing more on Asia. A good article on the subject: Towards a Post-American Europe: a power audit of EU-US Relations [3cdn.net]
Some choice quotes:
In this report we argue that the real threat to the transatlantic relationship comes not from the remaking of America's global strategy, but from European governments' failure to come to terms with how the world is changing and how the relationship must adapt to those changes. Our audit (based on extensive interviews and on structured input from all the European Union's 27 member states) reveals that EU member states have so far failed to shake off the attitudes, behaviours, and strategies they acquired over decades of American hegemony. This sort of Europe is of rapidly decreasing interest to the US. In the post-American world, a transatlantic relationship that works for both sides depends on the emergence of a post-American Europe.
. .
Thus far, the Obama administration has seen European governments broadly living down to their expectations. It has found them weak and divided - ready to talk a good game but reluctant to get muddy. Seen from Washington, there is something almost infantile about how European governments behave towards them - a combination of attention seeking and responsibility shirking.
. .
These behavioural traits - a welcoming of dependence; a need for attention and reassurance; a desire to ingratiate coupled with a reluctance to take responsibility; and occasional self-assertion set against a more general disposition to play the loyal lieutenant - suggest a less-than-adult attitude on the part of Europeans to transatlantic relations. The term "infantilism" does not seem out of place - just as veneration of the transatlantic relationship less for what it can deliver than as an end in itself might unkindly be described as a sort of fetishism.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a better idea. Go fuck yourself.
Keep your friends close... (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. We're more likely to get better intel on what the Chinese are really doing by teaming up with them than being isolationist about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Scientific Progress (Score:3, Interesting)
I woke up this morning and read the news with the blue side of the stereo glasses: "Short-sighted fear-mongering populist pandering pointlessly nationalistic republican running for re-election attempts to derail human progress again."
Then I flipped to the red lens: "National hero fights valiantly to defend capitalism and national security against communist regime seeking to steal American jobs, overthrow American space technology superiority and likely launch weapon of mass destruction into orbit."
After I had my coffee, I took off the goggles and rubbed my eyes.
"The United States has moved forward with its planned defunding of an aging method of launching cargo into space, diverting all available funds to more fruitful robotic missions and more complicated manned spaceflight projects. Meanwhile, other nations and even private enterprises are developing their space programs. NASA is looking to avoid spending more of its limited resources by taking advantage of technology which is already under significant development by other technologically capable societies. With cooperation from every advanced space-faring nation, all of Human civilization stands to benefit from shared scientific developments made by each other's civilian and scientific programs."
I've considered the "you don't understand what the Chinese are capable of!" and the "we're funding an oppressive regime!" and the "you really think they're only using this for civilian technology?" angles, and I remain unconvinced that they carry any real weight. I'm willing to be convinced, but I stopped being mystified by big political words in high school, the Red Scare is a sad chapter of our history, the Russians' and subsequent space-faring nations' contributions to our own space exploration ambitions have been fruital for everyone and from the L2 Legrangian point at >60,000 kilometers, we are all just a single, interdependent colony of ants on the surface of a tiny ball of dirt.
O RLY? (Score:2)
Considering the Chinese already own many assets in the US it's more like he's visiting his landlord to re-negotiate the lease. ;)
Yeah, well think of it this way... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can no longer afford to ride the coattails of yesterday’s innovations; we have to identify and support the emerging technologies of tomorrow that will create American jobs.
The Chinese, Indians and other international competitors are actively monitoring new technologies and trends to support their firms. To date, we have not.
Are Americans willing to continue to sit idly by and allow the Chinese to dominate new industries at
Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (Score:5, Informative)
You'd win the bet. Wolf is a conservative congressman from Northern Virginia.
Here's a summary of his general viewpoint from Wikipedia: Wolf has a variety of ratings from advocacy groups. The National Rifle Association gives him a B+ and the American Civil Liberties Union gives him a 0%. Some other rankings include 0% from Clean Air Flow Energy, 100% from National Right to Life, 0% from the Human Rights Coalition, 17% from the National Educational Association, 5% from the League of Conservation Voters, 92% from the United States Border Control and 10% by the Alliance for Retired Americans. During the Bush administration, Wolf voted consistently the President's positions. For example, Wolf voted in favor of military action in Iraq in 2002. He also voted to make the Patriot Act permanent, opposed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants for wiretaps within the United States[citation needed], and supported the president in restricting congressional oversight for CIA interrogations.
Did I mention that this rather unlovable entity is a lawyer?
I found no evidence that Wolf has been authorized to speak for Congress in general.
Highlights something (Score:5, Insightful)
I've often made fun of the ACLU for being a little over the top on some things, but they are one of the few outspoken groups fighting the infringements against our freedoms and I am grateful for that. Except that second amendment one, they won't go near it. They will defend the rights of a violent felon, but not the man who shot him in defense of himself or his loved ones. So we are forced to look to a gun-manufacturers lobby to protect that right, and no matter how much individuals contribute, they won't match the manufacturers' contributions. If the ACLU stood up for all of our civil liberties and not a hand picked list, the NRA would fade to become a normal lobby group like orange growers or car makers. Hopefully that would lead to legislation that lined up more with the individual's best interest instead of the manufacturers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the roles of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizens have at least the theoretical potential of overthrowing the government if things get out of control. In almost every oppressive government that has come along, including ancient governments, denying the right of the ordinary people to possess arms has been consistently employed. It was a problem during the days of the American Revolution and the individual right to bear arms including firearms was one of the key things that formed Americ
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but you're probably right as only "Conservative Republicans" still care about separation of powers in our federal apparatus
You say that after eight years of Bush executive expansions and abuses cheered on by the republican party and voters and your head *doesn't* explode from the cognitive dissonance!!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that the third party that finally gains some steam is a bunch of assholes.
Re:No Cooperation, No way! Get a Klu (Score:2)
"In earlier days, they were known as the John Birch Society or Klu Klux Klan."
It's Ku Klux Klan. And they have as much in common with the Tea Party as the the Democrats do to the American Communist party.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it depends on with whom you are cooperating.
For example, the AFL-CIO has been cooperating with Chinese workers to organize them to try to raise their incomes and benefits. The GOP and their corporate masters are cooperating with the Chinese government to ma
Re: (Score:2)
Now, the observation was that Wolf is probably a hardcore conservative based just on that one comment. It's a valid bet to make and I wouldn't take the other side.
From Wikipedia: Congressman Wolf has also voted to deny funding to Planned Parenthood. He gets a B+ from the NRA and a 0% from the ACLU.
I think it's safe to assume the GP was correct calling Wolf a hard
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, hardcore conservatives get As from the NRA. Any random curmudgeonly jackass can get a 0% from the ACLU and try and cut off Planned Parenthood. Wolf is from my home state, although is not my representative. His district is west of DC, then goes out to WVA and that area. If he was really a hard-core conservative in the Tea Party sense, then I think he'd lose a lot of votes due to the number of defense contractors and other government employees who live in his district. They may like guns in a large p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, he's the normal "establishment republican," not the tea party kind of guy, at least from the dealings I've had with him (I'm sorry to say, I'm a former lobbyist). I think a lot of the tea party folk actually, honestly believe they could cut pork. Of course, that's mostly a delusion they'll be quickly disabused of if any of them actually win next month.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Random Curmudgeonly Jackass here:
Where in the Constitution does it say to fund Planned Parenthood?
Are fetuses massed on the Border? Are there Sleeper Cells?
Re: (Score:2)
Sarah Palin could be described accurately as off her rocker or as I call her, batshit insane...;
Wouldn't it be more constructive to at least attempt to counter the voters that want her elected by exposing her politics as lies and nonsense?
Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him.
Re: (Score:2)
this might be naive question, but why does it always have to be political? Don't get me wrong, I hate the Chinese government as much as anybody else, but why the issue with space cooperation?
What's to keep it from becoming another technology looting spree like when Loral Aerospace was launching stuff out of China in the 90s? If you don't "cooperate" with the Chinese government, it's harder for them to steal your stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
What could go wrong with helping an intensely nationalistic country that still harbors a grudge over the opium wars?