PrezKennedy's Soapbox
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Ronald Reagan on a Dime?
In one of the boldest moves yet, Republicans in the House of Representatives have gone and introduced a bill that would call for replacing Franklin Delano Roosevelt with Ronald Reagun (Ronny Raygun) on our beloved ten cent piece. Before the real arguments begin, let me remind my visitors that Ronald Reagan is still alive, and that honoring a man who is still living doesn't seem to give it quite the significance it should.
Quote:
Supporters of the "Ronald Reagan Dime Act" said Roosevelt and his government-expanding New Deal represented decades past, while Reagan's conservative, anti-communist administration ushered in society as it exists today.
Triggering the dispute is a TV movie that depicts a doddering Reagan dominated by his wife, Nancy. The movie is being aired by Showtime after CBS canceled its plans to show it last month in response to pressure by Reagan supporters.
Does anyone else feel as though we pay our representatives too much to do so little? We are fighting two wars, combating hunger world-wide, recovering from a recession, and the House of Representatives has nothing better to do than waste time arguing about who should be represented on our money. Make it easy on yourselves Representatives, and call for a new fifty cent piece, or yet another dollar coin. Can you believe we actually pay these representatives $154,700 a year to work on legislation that is literally, worthless.
I am baffled at this. I simply don't know how it could be remedied. Fortunately Amendment 27 to the Constitution prevents our Representatives from spending their days (and our money) giving themselves raises. Do we need another amendment to the constitution? Something along the lines of "Congress may not waste it's time discussing worthless legislation" maybe? I really don't know... ¶ 11:07 PM 0 comments
In one of the boldest moves yet, Republicans in the House of Representatives have gone and introduced a bill that would call for replacing Franklin Delano Roosevelt with Ronald Reagun (Ronny Raygun) on our beloved ten cent piece. Before the real arguments begin, let me remind my visitors that Ronald Reagan is still alive, and that honoring a man who is still living doesn't seem to give it quite the significance it should.
Quote:
Supporters of the "Ronald Reagan Dime Act" said Roosevelt and his government-expanding New Deal represented decades past, while Reagan's conservative, anti-communist administration ushered in society as it exists today.
Triggering the dispute is a TV movie that depicts a doddering Reagan dominated by his wife, Nancy. The movie is being aired by Showtime after CBS canceled its plans to show it last month in response to pressure by Reagan supporters.
Does anyone else feel as though we pay our representatives too much to do so little? We are fighting two wars, combating hunger world-wide, recovering from a recession, and the House of Representatives has nothing better to do than waste time arguing about who should be represented on our money. Make it easy on yourselves Representatives, and call for a new fifty cent piece, or yet another dollar coin. Can you believe we actually pay these representatives $154,700 a year to work on legislation that is literally, worthless.
I am baffled at this. I simply don't know how it could be remedied. Fortunately Amendment 27 to the Constitution prevents our Representatives from spending their days (and our money) giving themselves raises. Do we need another amendment to the constitution? Something along the lines of "Congress may not waste it's time discussing worthless legislation" maybe? I really don't know... ¶ 11:07 PM 0 comments
A Date That Will Live in Infamy
Sixty two years ago on December 7th, Pearl Harbor was attacked by a massive Japanese force, and due to human error, it crippled an entire fleet, and sparked the United States' entry into World War II. Before September 11th, 2001, it was the bloodiest attack on United States soil when it took the lives of 2,390 people. Today we remember the victims, events, and the USS Arizona.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was only the beginning of a massive Japanese assault on United States territories and allies throughout the Pacific. For more information about World War II, check out the World War II Resources Page, also hosted on ibiblio.org. ¶ 11:04 PM 0 comments
Sixty two years ago on December 7th, Pearl Harbor was attacked by a massive Japanese force, and due to human error, it crippled an entire fleet, and sparked the United States' entry into World War II. Before September 11th, 2001, it was the bloodiest attack on United States soil when it took the lives of 2,390 people. Today we remember the victims, events, and the USS Arizona.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was only the beginning of a massive Japanese assault on United States territories and allies throughout the Pacific. For more information about World War II, check out the World War II Resources Page, also hosted on ibiblio.org. ¶ 11:04 PM 0 comments
Freedom Speech on the Internet... What is too Far?
I surf the internet a great deal, checking out interesting websites, hanging out on IRC (Internet Relay Chat), and talking with friends online. Through this much interaction with the internet, I've found places that are either questionable, or are truly pushing the bounds of "free speech" as it's called. I heartily believe in the First Amendment, but when it comes to technical knowledge with weapon making and bomb building, it's definitely gone too far. These days any disgruntled (teen/terrorist/freedom fighter/anyone else) can get on the internet and look up technical descriptions on how to make bombs and other weapons. One site even has an idiot's guide to making a hydrogen bomb, which they found on an internet newsgroup. Sure, it's not meant to be serious, but the descriptions and instructions are reasonably accurate. What if someone get serious and decided to make one? It would only take some persistance and a few months for them to have a working hydrogen bomb!
The first and foremost thing that needs to be done is to exercise some sense when posting on the internet. Not everyone who's reading has the same disposition you do towards something. That's why I don't have the link to that particular bomb making site located here, it would simply be bad taste.
The trouble with this is any laws made to bring down such sites could also be used to kill sites which would legitimately deserve their free speech. No one would visit the NAACP or ACLU sites if they had to censor everything to ensure conformance with government guidelines. I don't want another Ashcroft running the Justice Department ever again, which is why I have to take the stance that such websites needs to cover their own butts without the legal eyes of the country watching over them instead.
The never-ending question is "How much freedom, is too much freedom?" ¶ 11:03 PM 0 comments
I surf the internet a great deal, checking out interesting websites, hanging out on IRC (Internet Relay Chat), and talking with friends online. Through this much interaction with the internet, I've found places that are either questionable, or are truly pushing the bounds of "free speech" as it's called. I heartily believe in the First Amendment, but when it comes to technical knowledge with weapon making and bomb building, it's definitely gone too far. These days any disgruntled (teen/terrorist/freedom fighter/anyone else) can get on the internet and look up technical descriptions on how to make bombs and other weapons. One site even has an idiot's guide to making a hydrogen bomb, which they found on an internet newsgroup. Sure, it's not meant to be serious, but the descriptions and instructions are reasonably accurate. What if someone get serious and decided to make one? It would only take some persistance and a few months for them to have a working hydrogen bomb!
The first and foremost thing that needs to be done is to exercise some sense when posting on the internet. Not everyone who's reading has the same disposition you do towards something. That's why I don't have the link to that particular bomb making site located here, it would simply be bad taste.
The trouble with this is any laws made to bring down such sites could also be used to kill sites which would legitimately deserve their free speech. No one would visit the NAACP or ACLU sites if they had to censor everything to ensure conformance with government guidelines. I don't want another Ashcroft running the Justice Department ever again, which is why I have to take the stance that such websites needs to cover their own butts without the legal eyes of the country watching over them instead.
The never-ending question is "How much freedom, is too much freedom?" ¶ 11:03 PM 0 comments
Space Resources: Who owns them?
Resources and minerals from space could become incredibly valuable in the future. The question that some people are asking today is "Who will own these resources?" This question is actually one that could change the way the human race operates forever.
So, who do I think should own these resources once we have our permanent bases on the moon, asteroids, Mars and beyond? The people who operate them of course! Corporations should not own the resources per se, as that would simply make them even more powerful, and neither should governments for the same exact reason. The best way to explain how it all should work is to look back to the colonial times of America. The first colonial settlements were focused on making enough food for themselves, as well as trading resources with the motherland. This could be done in space as well. The first space colonists could mine resources and trade with businesses and governments back on Earth in exchange for food, water, technology, etc. It's important to keep the symbiosis otherwise one side will have too much power over the other.
This solution would require a stronger world/solar system governing body that would have to have the power and resources to enforce laws system wide. Intra-solar space travel isn't too far off, and we need to start building the foundation for the future of the human race on and off Earth.
Does anyone else have any opinions on this? I'd like to hear from the visitors... I know you're out there. ¶ 11:01 PM 0 comments
Resources and minerals from space could become incredibly valuable in the future. The question that some people are asking today is "Who will own these resources?" This question is actually one that could change the way the human race operates forever.
So, who do I think should own these resources once we have our permanent bases on the moon, asteroids, Mars and beyond? The people who operate them of course! Corporations should not own the resources per se, as that would simply make them even more powerful, and neither should governments for the same exact reason. The best way to explain how it all should work is to look back to the colonial times of America. The first colonial settlements were focused on making enough food for themselves, as well as trading resources with the motherland. This could be done in space as well. The first space colonists could mine resources and trade with businesses and governments back on Earth in exchange for food, water, technology, etc. It's important to keep the symbiosis otherwise one side will have too much power over the other.
This solution would require a stronger world/solar system governing body that would have to have the power and resources to enforce laws system wide. Intra-solar space travel isn't too far off, and we need to start building the foundation for the future of the human race on and off Earth.
Does anyone else have any opinions on this? I'd like to hear from the visitors... I know you're out there. ¶ 11:01 PM 0 comments
Top 10 Technologies that need to Disappear... or Not!
Bruce Sterling over at Microsoft's bCentral has an article about 10 technologies that need to die.
In short form the list is as follows:
I'll skip all of his reasons and get right to the point.
He's dead wrong about both Manned Spaceflight and prisons. Both are important aspects of furthering human achievement in their own way. It can be argued that a prison isn't even a "technology". I can think of a much better technology to take its place, for instance "Biological Weapons" or "Chemical Weapons".
My biggest beef was with his "Manned Spaceflight" argument.
ONE HATES to see this dazzling technology go, but when one resolutely sets the romance aside, there's not a lot left. Thanks to decades of biological research, it's now quite clear that flying around the solar system is bad for one's health. Without the healthy stresses of gravity on one's skeleton, human bones decay just as they do during prolonged bed rest while muscles atrophy. Cosmic rays blast through spacecraft walls and human bodies, while solar flares will fry astronauts as diligently as any nuclear bomb. I won't mention the fact that spacecraft are inherently rickety and dangerous, because that's a major part of their attraction.
We have to start somewhere. We've been flying in space for a very short time, in relation to both modern history, and human history as a whole. We've come far in the past fifty years, or even a hundred. A hundred years ago we flew in a powered airplane for the first time, and less than seventy years later we landed men on the moon. It was expensive, but it was also an achievement that has brought tears to my eyes everytime I see pictures of Apollo 11 landing on the moon. Where can we go in another fifty years? Mars? Europa or Io? What about the moons of Saturn or Uranus?
I know that every single astronaut who boards the Space Shuttle knows they might not be coming back. My biggest question is this... Why can an astronaut accept that with courage and continue on when a politician who has never been anywhere near a rocket or the shuttle cannot? Instead of making more demands on NASA (and then cutting their budget), why don't the politicians work on keeping NASA well funded and staffed with the best and brightest? Sure, it's expensive, but it will most certainly keep the accident rate for space travel extremely low (which it still is by the way!)
Now before I drone on anymore about Manned Spaceflight, I'd just like to say that Bruce Sterling got most of them right... but he was by no means perfect on his selection. What are your selections? Any reasons why you picked them? Let me know by submitting a comment, or posting in the forum! ¶ 10:59 PM 0 comments
Bruce Sterling over at Microsoft's bCentral has an article about 10 technologies that need to die.
In short form the list is as follows:
- Nuclear Weapons
- Coal Based Power
- Internal Combustion Engine
- Incandescent Light Bulbs
- Land mines
- Manned Spaceflight
- Prisons
- Cosmetic Implants
- Lie Detectors
- DVDs
I'll skip all of his reasons and get right to the point.
He's dead wrong about both Manned Spaceflight and prisons. Both are important aspects of furthering human achievement in their own way. It can be argued that a prison isn't even a "technology". I can think of a much better technology to take its place, for instance "Biological Weapons" or "Chemical Weapons".
My biggest beef was with his "Manned Spaceflight" argument.
ONE HATES to see this dazzling technology go, but when one resolutely sets the romance aside, there's not a lot left. Thanks to decades of biological research, it's now quite clear that flying around the solar system is bad for one's health. Without the healthy stresses of gravity on one's skeleton, human bones decay just as they do during prolonged bed rest while muscles atrophy. Cosmic rays blast through spacecraft walls and human bodies, while solar flares will fry astronauts as diligently as any nuclear bomb. I won't mention the fact that spacecraft are inherently rickety and dangerous, because that's a major part of their attraction.
We have to start somewhere. We've been flying in space for a very short time, in relation to both modern history, and human history as a whole. We've come far in the past fifty years, or even a hundred. A hundred years ago we flew in a powered airplane for the first time, and less than seventy years later we landed men on the moon. It was expensive, but it was also an achievement that has brought tears to my eyes everytime I see pictures of Apollo 11 landing on the moon. Where can we go in another fifty years? Mars? Europa or Io? What about the moons of Saturn or Uranus?
I know that every single astronaut who boards the Space Shuttle knows they might not be coming back. My biggest question is this... Why can an astronaut accept that with courage and continue on when a politician who has never been anywhere near a rocket or the shuttle cannot? Instead of making more demands on NASA (and then cutting their budget), why don't the politicians work on keeping NASA well funded and staffed with the best and brightest? Sure, it's expensive, but it will most certainly keep the accident rate for space travel extremely low (which it still is by the way!)
Now before I drone on anymore about Manned Spaceflight, I'd just like to say that Bruce Sterling got most of them right... but he was by no means perfect on his selection. What are your selections? Any reasons why you picked them? Let me know by submitting a comment, or posting in the forum! ¶ 10:59 PM 0 comments
Yassir, He's Dead!!
Powell: yassir, he's dead
Bush: whos dead?
Powell: yassir
Bush: i asked you a question...
Powell: yassir... he's dead
Bush: who????
Powell: YASSIR!!!
Yeah... the old man bit the dust. I wonder what scumbag is going to take his place in the Palestinian cause. ¶ 3:10 AM 0 comments
Powell: yassir, he's dead
Bush: whos dead?
Powell: yassir
Bush: i asked you a question...
Powell: yassir... he's dead
Bush: who????
Powell: YASSIR!!!
Yeah... the old man bit the dust. I wonder what scumbag is going to take his place in the Palestinian cause. ¶ 3:10 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
One Cohesive Site
Well, I'm working on turning this into one site. All of my work is linked through this page now. I'll probably finalize the design and then copy the links over to the other sections of the site so that way it has a standard look and design. This was a pretty cool idea...
I can use this little cluster of blogs to make a website, and put some ads on it. I doubt I'll make any money, but who knows...
What to use this for... ¶ 8:30 PM 0 comments
Well, I'm working on turning this into one site. All of my work is linked through this page now. I'll probably finalize the design and then copy the links over to the other sections of the site so that way it has a standard look and design. This was a pretty cool idea...
I can use this little cluster of blogs to make a website, and put some ads on it. I doubt I'll make any money, but who knows...
What to use this for... ¶ 8:30 PM 0 comments
Top 50 Cities in the United States
To change the serious tone of this site for a little bit, here's a recent list of the top 50 fun cities in the United States. This is from Cranium Inc, a game maker. You might be surprised!
I was happy to see Chicago in the top 5, and amazed that Baltimore made the list at 13! Kudos to Minneapolis-St. Paul for being the top banana! Who would think there would be so much to do in the middle of Minnesota? :lol: ¶ 5:39 PM 1 comments
To change the serious tone of this site for a little bit, here's a recent list of the top 50 fun cities in the United States. This is from Cranium Inc, a game maker. You might be surprised!
- Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota
- Orange County, California
- San Jose, California
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Chicago, Illinois
- Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Washington, DC
- Oakland, California
- Salt Lake City-Ogden, Utah
- Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, Washington
- Portland-Vancouver, Oregon-Washington
- San Francisco, California
- Baltimore, Maryland
- Milwaukee-Waukesha, Wisconsin
- Denver, Colorado
- Detroit, Michigan
- St. Louis, Missouri
- San Diego, California
- Indianapolis, Indiana
- Cincinnati, Ohio
- Columbus, Ohio
- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Sacramento, California
- Nashville, Tennessee
- Las Vegas, Nevada
- Los Angeles-Long Beach, California
- Kansas City, Missouri-Kansas
- Nassau-Suffolk, New York
- Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina
- Omaha, Nebraska
- Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, Virginia
- Houston, Texas
- Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, Ohio
- Dallas, Texas
- Memphis, Tennessee
- Orlando, Florida
- Louisville, Kentucky
- Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas
- Riverside-San Bernardino, California
- Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, North Carolina
- New York, New York
- Boston, Massachusetts
- Hartford, Connecticut
- Austin-San Marcos, Texas
- Newark, Newark
- Miami, Florida
- Bergen-Passaic, Newark
- Fort Lauderdale, Florida
- Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona
- New Orleans, Louisiana
I was happy to see Chicago in the top 5, and amazed that Baltimore made the list at 13! Kudos to Minneapolis-St. Paul for being the top banana! Who would think there would be so much to do in the middle of Minnesota? :lol: ¶ 5:39 PM 1 comments
Evacuate Iraq?
After the recent surge in attacks against US troops occupying Iraq, most of the world has begun to wonder whether we will pull out or not. Bush had made a big deal about us staying until the end, and on this occasion I most certainly hope he sticks to his word. We can't afford to have Iraq blow up into something even worse. If we were to leave, a civil war would be imminent, and it has the potential to drag the whole region into the fight.
Unfortunately, I'm not one to trust George W. Bush that much. He's a man who answers a straightforward question by remarking that it's a trick question. Lately, few politicians in Washington D.C. know anything about the war in Iraq and how to deal with it. Are they really that stumped? The Bush administration has done a poor job (at best) when it comes to war planning. There isn't even a sense of closure in Afghanistan, and that was two years ago!
We need to secure Iraq, and if need be, send more troops. It will only do more to stabilize the region and ensure that any other countries who might harbor terrorists give it a second thought. We have a right to defend ourselves, but when we do it, we need to do it well!! ¶ 5:37 PM 0 comments
After the recent surge in attacks against US troops occupying Iraq, most of the world has begun to wonder whether we will pull out or not. Bush had made a big deal about us staying until the end, and on this occasion I most certainly hope he sticks to his word. We can't afford to have Iraq blow up into something even worse. If we were to leave, a civil war would be imminent, and it has the potential to drag the whole region into the fight.
Unfortunately, I'm not one to trust George W. Bush that much. He's a man who answers a straightforward question by remarking that it's a trick question. Lately, few politicians in Washington D.C. know anything about the war in Iraq and how to deal with it. Are they really that stumped? The Bush administration has done a poor job (at best) when it comes to war planning. There isn't even a sense of closure in Afghanistan, and that was two years ago!
We need to secure Iraq, and if need be, send more troops. It will only do more to stabilize the region and ensure that any other countries who might harbor terrorists give it a second thought. We have a right to defend ourselves, but when we do it, we need to do it well!! ¶ 5:37 PM 0 comments
Diebold Voting Machine Scandal
This was taken from http://why-war.com/features/2003/10/diebold.html
This was taken from http://why-war.com/features/2003/10/diebold.html
DIEBOLD TARGETED WITH ELECTRONIC CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Swarthmore, Pa. — Defending the right of a fair, democratic election, Why War? and the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons (SCDC) announced today that they are rejecting Diebold Elections Systems’ cease and desist orders and are initiating a legal electronic civil disobedience campaign that will ensure permanent public access to the controversial leaked memos.
Diebold voting machines are used in 37 states and provide zero security against election fraud.
Earlier this week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation announced that it will defend the right of Online Privacy Group, the Internet service provider for San Francisco Indymedia, to host links to the controversial memos. Going one step further, Why War? and SCDC members are the first to publicly refuse to comply with Diebold’s cease and desist order by continually providing access to the documents.
“These memos indicate that Diebold, which counts the votes in 37 states, knowingly created an electronic system which allows anyone with access to the machines to add and delete votes without detection,” Why War? member Micah explained.
Although the reasons for individual engagement in the civil disobedience vary, the consensus between the two groups is that the public availability of these documents must be protected at any cost — they are crucial to the functioning of democracy.
Thus, through active, legal electronic civil disobedience, Why War? and SCDC will bring to light the usually silent acts of suppression and censorship. The result will be a permanent and public mirror of the memos: documents whose public existence challenges the assumed presence of democracy in America.
The documents are currently available here:
http://why-war.com/memos/
More information about the campaign of electronic civil disobedience:
http://why-war.com/features/2003/10/diebold.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation press release:
http://www.eff.org/Legal/ISP_liability/20031016_eff_pr.php
Media inquiries: media@why-war.com
There's a lot more damning evidence that suggests this company should be the last one in the country to be selling voting machines.
“If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.”
This alone would be enough for me to get on them and ensure they either get out of the voting machine business permanently, or they fry for interfering with government elections and election fraud. Maybe Bush didn't win afterall... maybe he just had these machines rigged... Where did that false sense of credibility go???
Domain Modification
It's likely this site will go offline for a day or two as domain redirection happens. You can reach it temporarily by going to http://osgaming.net/xoops/.
Stay tuned for more cool stuff!!
All set up now!!
¶ 5:31 PM 0 comments
It's likely this site will go offline for a day or two as domain redirection happens. You can reach it temporarily by going to http://osgaming.net/xoops/.
Stay tuned for more cool stuff!!
All set up now!!
¶ 5:31 PM 0 comments
NASA Slammed at Congressional Committee
Here's a little piece of an article I found while surfing the Internet, unfortunately I can't find the link to the source... so here it is minus a link:
Quote:
The whole point of leaving home is to go somewhere, not just to endlessly circle the block,” said Wesley Huntress, who was NASA’s space science chief during the 1990s.
He criticized the space shuttle and space station programs as too costly for what they deliver and encouraged U.S. lawmakers to view them as “the legacy of a long-past era in which the space program was a weapon in the Cold War” with the Soviet Union.
Alex Roland, a Duke University history professor and frequent critic of NASA’s human space flight program, urged lawmakers to support permanently grounding the space shuttle fleet and mothballing the space station until both systems can be operated with little or no human intervention.
Roland, who called the space shuttle “the world’s most expensive, least robust and most deadly launch vehicle,” said NASA’s priority ought to be building a new vehicle that can make the trip to orbit much more safely and affordably. “Before we can fly to Mars, we must first master flight to low Earth orbit,” he said.
Roland was joined in criticizing one of NASA’s main rationales for the shuttle and space station programs — that it’s about science — by a college professor who has seen his experiments fly on no fewer than three shuttle missions.
Does anyone else find it a bit stupid that a History professor is one of the most vocal critics of NASA? History is a great thing, and it's important to learn from one's mistakes, but I don't see how he has any professional credibility in making judgements on the space program in front of a congressional committee. As such, why don't they just pull a random person with a doctorate off the street and ask their opinion on what NASA should do in the future?
NASA surely needs to be pulled out of the Cold War era and into the 21st century, but complaining about it isn't the way to do it. NASA needs more money; if it had even a tenth of the defense budget to work with, NASA would be able to send a manned mission to Mars by 2010 or even 2008. This is why I believe NASA should be a part of the defense budget. It is the best hope for the future of humanity and the best we can do is chide the space program and slash it's budget year after year.
What will NASA be like in 2020?
God only knows... ¶ 5:30 PM 0 comments
Here's a little piece of an article I found while surfing the Internet, unfortunately I can't find the link to the source... so here it is minus a link:
Quote:
The whole point of leaving home is to go somewhere, not just to endlessly circle the block,” said Wesley Huntress, who was NASA’s space science chief during the 1990s.
He criticized the space shuttle and space station programs as too costly for what they deliver and encouraged U.S. lawmakers to view them as “the legacy of a long-past era in which the space program was a weapon in the Cold War” with the Soviet Union.
Alex Roland, a Duke University history professor and frequent critic of NASA’s human space flight program, urged lawmakers to support permanently grounding the space shuttle fleet and mothballing the space station until both systems can be operated with little or no human intervention.
Roland, who called the space shuttle “the world’s most expensive, least robust and most deadly launch vehicle,” said NASA’s priority ought to be building a new vehicle that can make the trip to orbit much more safely and affordably. “Before we can fly to Mars, we must first master flight to low Earth orbit,” he said.
Roland was joined in criticizing one of NASA’s main rationales for the shuttle and space station programs — that it’s about science — by a college professor who has seen his experiments fly on no fewer than three shuttle missions.
Does anyone else find it a bit stupid that a History professor is one of the most vocal critics of NASA? History is a great thing, and it's important to learn from one's mistakes, but I don't see how he has any professional credibility in making judgements on the space program in front of a congressional committee. As such, why don't they just pull a random person with a doctorate off the street and ask their opinion on what NASA should do in the future?
NASA surely needs to be pulled out of the Cold War era and into the 21st century, but complaining about it isn't the way to do it. NASA needs more money; if it had even a tenth of the defense budget to work with, NASA would be able to send a manned mission to Mars by 2010 or even 2008. This is why I believe NASA should be a part of the defense budget. It is the best hope for the future of humanity and the best we can do is chide the space program and slash it's budget year after year.
What will NASA be like in 2020?
God only knows... ¶ 5:30 PM 0 comments
The Palestinians Think Bush is Mad... If it Was Me They'd be Right!
This comes after a recent bomb attack on diplomatic envoys...
"Palestinian authorities should have acted long ago to fight terror in all its forms," the statement said. "The failure to create effective Palestinian security forces dedicated to fighting terror continues to cost lives. There must be an empowered prime minister who controls all Palestinian forces — reforms that continue to be blocked by Yasser Arafat (news - web sites)."
On the West Bank, Arafat condemned the attack as an "awful crime" and said he had ordered an investigation.
But Bush and other U.S. officials took no public notice of Arafat's remarks. Powell told Qureia that the United States expected "full cooperation in investigating this heinous act and in bringing these murders to justice," Boucher said.
A bit low key for Bush, I would have used the attack to further push the idea that Yassir Arafat is not a man of peace and step down immediately. Since 2000 when the conflict started, Arafat has always paid lip service to the thought of peace. There have been statements from Israel that reflect the idea that perhaps it is about time that Arafat was sent into exile, or killed. While this is really unacceptable in the manner they speak of, an "accident" may do just as well. The man is not worth dealing with. At this point in time, my policy would state that the Palestinian territories are in anarchy and run by no one in particular. As such, they are not worthy for statehood, but simply a hotbed for terrorism and violence.
I know that not all Palestinians wish death on Israel and its allies, but they seem to be quite the minority.
Until next time, I'm signing off! ¶ 5:29 PM 0 comments
This comes after a recent bomb attack on diplomatic envoys...
"Palestinian authorities should have acted long ago to fight terror in all its forms," the statement said. "The failure to create effective Palestinian security forces dedicated to fighting terror continues to cost lives. There must be an empowered prime minister who controls all Palestinian forces — reforms that continue to be blocked by Yasser Arafat (news - web sites)."
On the West Bank, Arafat condemned the attack as an "awful crime" and said he had ordered an investigation.
But Bush and other U.S. officials took no public notice of Arafat's remarks. Powell told Qureia that the United States expected "full cooperation in investigating this heinous act and in bringing these murders to justice," Boucher said.
A bit low key for Bush, I would have used the attack to further push the idea that Yassir Arafat is not a man of peace and step down immediately. Since 2000 when the conflict started, Arafat has always paid lip service to the thought of peace. There have been statements from Israel that reflect the idea that perhaps it is about time that Arafat was sent into exile, or killed. While this is really unacceptable in the manner they speak of, an "accident" may do just as well. The man is not worth dealing with. At this point in time, my policy would state that the Palestinian territories are in anarchy and run by no one in particular. As such, they are not worthy for statehood, but simply a hotbed for terrorism and violence.
I know that not all Palestinians wish death on Israel and its allies, but they seem to be quite the minority.
Until next time, I'm signing off! ¶ 5:29 PM 0 comments
Welcome to PrezKennedy.org (from the site)
This is the first of what may become many, many posts.
This website is dedicated to putting my views out to the general populace, and to prove that it does not take a multi-millionaire to run for President. Most of this country is run by hardworking individuals who wake up at 6 am, get dirty at work, and then come home to their families. It is not run by the millionaires, they simply skim the money off the top to buy more expensive cars, bigger houses, and a private jet.Our current President, George W. Bush, is one of those millionaires. Being the President of this country means it is his job to protect us, and to decide what is right for the 280 million people who call this country our home. He has done an abysmal job at home and abroad. By cutting taxes, he has sent our government hurdling into debt, just when it needs the extra dollars most; during a war in Iraq and a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan. He has made our country and our government into one of the most dangerous, not only to the rest of the world, but to our very own personal freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Why did I decide to start this project? Because I feel that I have more credibility in running the country than our current President. I have fifteen years to work out what party I am in, my specific viewpoints, and my career. In that time, there will be up to three new Presidents. This site will compare their views and actions with my own, so anyone who wishes can understand what I believe is right for this country and the people who live in it. Stay tuned, the party is just getting started ¶ 5:25 PM 0 comments
This is the first of what may become many, many posts.
This website is dedicated to putting my views out to the general populace, and to prove that it does not take a multi-millionaire to run for President. Most of this country is run by hardworking individuals who wake up at 6 am, get dirty at work, and then come home to their families. It is not run by the millionaires, they simply skim the money off the top to buy more expensive cars, bigger houses, and a private jet.Our current President, George W. Bush, is one of those millionaires. Being the President of this country means it is his job to protect us, and to decide what is right for the 280 million people who call this country our home. He has done an abysmal job at home and abroad. By cutting taxes, he has sent our government hurdling into debt, just when it needs the extra dollars most; during a war in Iraq and a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan. He has made our country and our government into one of the most dangerous, not only to the rest of the world, but to our very own personal freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Why did I decide to start this project? Because I feel that I have more credibility in running the country than our current President. I have fifteen years to work out what party I am in, my specific viewpoints, and my career. In that time, there will be up to three new Presidents. This site will compare their views and actions with my own, so anyone who wishes can understand what I believe is right for this country and the people who live in it. Stay tuned, the party is just getting started ¶ 5:25 PM 0 comments
Welcome to PrezKennedy's Soapbox
This is the first post of the archive for PrezKennedy's Soapbox. This will eventually archive all posts and mirror them as found on the original site. This is also an experiment in how to fully utilize the power of a site hosted on Blogger. Hopefully something interesting will come of it!
¶ 5:19 PM 0 comments
This is the first post of the archive for PrezKennedy's Soapbox. This will eventually archive all posts and mirror them as found on the original site. This is also an experiment in how to fully utilize the power of a site hosted on Blogger. Hopefully something interesting will come of it!
¶ 5:19 PM 0 comments
