Events in Honduras and Argentina point to a continent weary of socialism. by Guy Sorman
Last weekends ousting of Honduras president Manuel Zelaya, and the electoral defeat of former Argentinean president Nestor Kirchner in his bid for a seat in that nations Congress, may seem unrelated at first glance. But the Honduran military coup and the parliamentary victory of Argentinean pro-market parties are both signs of a profound evolution across Latin America. In 2003, the Kirchnershis wife Cristina is the current presidenthad joined a leftist revolutionary league led and financed by Venezuelas oil-rich dictator, Hugo Chavez. Joined in this same unholy alliance against the United States and economic globalization were Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, the latter governed by the former Marxist Sandinistas.
Zelaya of Honduras was on his way to joining this group. The coup that deposed him was not of the usual variety: the military acted on an order of the Supreme Court, which had ruled illegal a referendum the president was pursuing that would change the Constitution and allow him to remain in office. He has been replaced with the president of the Honduran Congress. For now, Zelayas ouster has put a halt to Chavezs attempted ideological annexation of Honduras. Likewise, Argentinean voters have demonstrated that they are fed up with the Kirchners populist, anticapitalist rhetoric.
Hondurans and Argentineans understand that Chavezism is dividing Latin America into two antagonistic camps. One has chosen the path of free markets, privatization, free trade, the rule of law, and regular turnover of political leadership. Initially led by Chile, this group now includes Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, and Santo Domingo. From the 1960s to the 1980s, these nations suffered greatly from poverty, civil war, military dictatorship, and the depredations of left-wing and right-wing guerrillas. Traditional oligarchies or revamped revolutionary nomenklaturas dominated the lives of the poor. After the Soviet Unions collapse in 1991, when Soviet and Cuban agents finally stopped manipulating events on the continent, many in Latin America began to see that stable democracy and free-market economics could eliminate civil wars and bring prosperity.
The pioneer was Chile, which restored democracy after the Pinochet era. And Chilean voters continue to elect nominally socialist presidents who are realistic enough to maintain the efficient, pro-market approach begun under Pinochet. Argentina under President Menem came next, in 1989. But Menemismo, a local imitation of Reaganomics, was disrupted by bad monetary management and excessive public deficits. After his 1995 election, Brazils Fernando Henrique Cardoso began dismantling a stifling state bureaucracy, and the nations economy took off. Cardosos nominally leftist successor, Ignacio Lula de Silva, has followed the same globalization strategy, with positive results: as growth trickles down to the poor in Brazil, as it did in Chile, social injustice has eased. In 2006, Peru turned in a free-market direction with the election of a former president (and former leftist), Alan Garcia. Other governments in the region, from conservative (Mexico) to socialist (Uruguay), now take for granted that free markets in the long run can cure the continents age-old woes: poverty, inequality, social unrest, and ethnic confrontation.
As former Brazilian president Cardoso puts it: They are now two Latin Americas, one which is still mired in the obsolete populist, revolutionary rhetoric and the other which has joined the modern world. The Hondurans and the Argentineans have now chosen to leave the old Latin America behind. For Chavez and his newly displaced cronies (he subsidized Zelaya and the Kirchners), this looks like the end of the party. Unexpectedly, it comes in the midst of an economic downturn: one would think that in a time of crisis, many in Latin America would reject capitalism. On the contrary, the economic crisis seems to favor conservative parties. Earlier this year, the Conservatives in Brazil won the local elections against Lulas leftist Workers Party.
The recent European elections revealed a similar right-leaning trend: only Greece rejected the Conservative parties for the Socialists. Latin Americans and Europeans seem to have decided that in difficult times, there is no room left for populist rhetoric: free-market advocates look like the better managers to bring the economy out of its current slump.
When evaluating the political upheavals and social movements in Latin America, however, one should not rely solely on Eurocentric categories. The revolutionary Chavez, for instance, cannot be understood entirely through Western European concepts like left or right, revolutionary or conservative. Many Latin American populist leaders also play the ethnic card. Chavez is popular among mixed-blood Venezuelans, who feeljustifiablylong oppressed by the white bourgeoisie. Evo Moraless leadership in Bolivia is perceived by many Indians as the revenge of their race against the centuries-long domination of the white elite. Still, one must also recognize that the economic failure of Chavezism in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua has demonstrated that the exploitation of ethnic resentment, as with class resentment, is not the way to a better future.
Latin America has long been described as the continent of magical realism by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, among others. Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Juan Peron, the Shining Path, the Sandinistas, and others have tried to play the magicians role. It worked, at least politically, so long as the people remained uneducated and ignorant. Today, while education remains a hurdle for many Latin Americans, greater numbers have become educated and informed. Global media and the power of migration have shown them the world as it really is. When given the choice, from Tegucigalpa to Buenos Aires, the people have opted for realism, without the magic. Economic opportunity through free markets may not be as seductive as ideological fantasy, but it is more reliable.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/21/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ironic that the United States is trying to walk down the road that these countries just left.
Im serious. Just as it is becoming clear that Barack Obamas presidency is floundering, the stock market is beginning to rise. If you look back at when it really started to tank, that tracks pretty closely with the moment it looked as if he might win the job. This morning it looks pretty bad for Barack and his spending programs and the market is jumping. Racist market
#2
This is a long-term disaster which will take 5-10 years before most people understand the fix we are in. Day to day fluctuations in the stock market are just "noise". Anyone who thinks otherwise is free to place a bet in a rigged game invest their money in the stock market.
#4
I think the market is skittish because of Iran. At some point the balloon will go up and nobody wants to be caught with their pants down. So they play it safe.
It was interesting to watch the Republican Party lose touch with America. You had a party led by conservative Southerners who neither understood nor sympathized with moderates or representatives from swing districts.
They brought in pollsters to their party conferences to persuade their members that the country was fervently behind them. They were supported by their interest groups and cheered on by their activists and the partisan press. They spent federal money in an effort to buy support but ended up disgusting the country instead.
It's not that interesting to watch the Democrats lose touch with America. That's because the plotline is exactly the same. The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.
This ideological overreach won't be any more successful than the last one. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday confirms what other polls have found. Most Americans love Barack Obama personally, but support for Democratic policies is already sliding fast.
Approval of Obama's handling of health care, for example, has slid from 57 percent to 49 percent since April. Disapproval has risen from 29 percent to 44 percent. As recently as June, voters earning more than $50,000 preferred Obama to the Republicans on health care by a 21-point margin. Now those voters are evenly split.
Most independents now disapprove of Obama's health care strategy. In March, only 32 percent of Americans thought Obama was an old-style, tax-and-spend liberal. Now 43 percent do.
We're only in the early stages of the liberal suicide march, but there already have been three phases. First, there was the stimulus package. You would have thought that a stimulus package would be designed to fight unemployment and stimulate the economy during a recession. But Congressional Democrats used it as a pretext to pay for $787 billion worth of re-elections pet programs with borrowed money. Only 11 percent of the money will be spent by the end of the fiscal year -- a triumph of ideology over pragmatism.
Then there is the budget. Instead of allaying moderate anxieties about the deficits, the budget is expected to increase the government debt by $11 trillion between 2009 and 2019.
Finally, there is health care. Every cliché Ann Coulter throws at the Democrats is gloriously fulfilled by the Democratic health care bills. The bills do almost nothing to control health care inflation. They are modeled on the Massachusetts health reform law that is currently coming apart at the seams precisely because it doesn't control costs. They do little to reward efficient providers and reform inefficient ones.
The House bill adds $239 billion to the federal deficit during the first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would pummel small businesses with an 8 percent payroll penalty. It would jack America's top tax rate above those in Italy and France. Top earners in New York and California would be giving more than 55 percent of earnings to one government entity or another.
Nancy Pelosi has lower approval ratings than Dick Cheney and far lower approval ratings than Sarah Palin. And yet Democrats have allowed her policy values to carry the day -- this in an era in which independents dominate the electoral landscape.
Who's going to stop this leftward surge? Months ago, it seemed as if Obama would lead a center-left coalition. Instead, he has deferred to the Old Bulls on Capitol Hill on issue after issue.
Machiavelli said a leader should be feared as well as loved. Obama is loved by the Democratic chairmen, but he is not feared. On health care, Obama has emphasized cost control. The chairmen flouted his priorities because they don't fear him. On cap and trade, Obama campaigned against giving away pollution offsets. The chairmen wrote their bill to do precisely that because they don't fear him. On taxes, Obama promised that top tax rates would not go above Clinton-era levels. The chairmen flouted that promise because they don't fear him.
Last week, the administration announced a proposal to take Medicare spending decisions away from Congress and lodge the power with technocrats in the executive branch. It's a good idea, and it might lead to real cost savings. But there's no reason to think that it will be incorporated into the final law. The chairmen will never surrender power to an administration they can override.
That leaves matters in the hands of the Blue Dog Democrats. These brave moderates are trying to restrain the fiscal explosion. But moderates inherently lack seniority (they are from swing districts). They are usually bought off by leadership at the end of the day.
And so here we are again. Every new majority overinterprets its mandate. We've been here before. We'll be here again.
#1
The problem with the Republicans wasn't the conservatives, but the liberal Republicans, who tried to campaign on liberal issues. That, and Democrats helping the liberal Republicans get the Republican nominations.
These could happen because of "open primaries", and the Democrats all voted for McCain, because they cared less whether Hillary or Obama had the Democrat nomination, than that no conservative win the Republican nomination.
For their part, after the election, the liberal Republicans tried, and are still trying, to cement their hold on the leadership positions of the Republicans, by bringing up liberal Republicans to challenge conservative seats.
Because, as far as the liberal Republicans are concerned, they would rather support Democrats than conservative Republicans. And they do. Since before they were called RINOs, and were instead called "Country Club Republicans".
#5
Screw them. Conservatives don't give ground on a idea, they take it. We elected such emasculated idiots that they are afraid of saying whats right out of concern of the Democrats "feelins". SCREW THAT! Everytime I get an RNC letter I just shread it. They stopped representing me long ago.
#6
The GOP will nto fix itself unti it kicks Brooks, Will, and all the beltway-manhattan cocktail party conservatives and blue-blood country-clubbers to the damned curb.
On July 19th, a conference entitled "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam" took place as scheduled at the Hilton Hotel in Oak Lawn, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. There, in the heartland of a post 9/11America, Hizb-ut Tahrir, an international organization outlawed as a terrorist group in several European and Middle East countries, sponsored sessions focusing on strategies to end free enterprise and replace it with Shari'ah law.
Hizb-ut Tahrir is no academic think-tank simply examining public issues. It is an international group reported to have over a million members, including cells in more than 40 countries. It supports the Taliban and Hamas, sanctions suicide bombing and has called for the killing of nonbelievers. It has spawned terrorists for Al Qaeda, Hamas and Jemaa Islamiya; subscribes to the mantra that "jihad has to continue till the Day of Judgment;" and endeavors to replace existing governments with a worldwide Khilafah (Caliphate) or Islamic government under Shari'ah law.
It is remarkable enough that a conference of this nature by a group that advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government actually took place in an American city. Perhaps even more disturbing is the growing number of cancellations of events and conferences that feature the opposite point of view with material and speakers that seek to educate the public about the threat of radical Islam. Increasingly, our country's prized right to freedom of speech seems to operate in only one direction, providing plenty of opportunities for our enemies to speak openly against us, yet, placing a gag over any discussion about the radical Islam threat.
Here are some disturbing recent examples.
Posted by: ed ||
07/21/2009 07:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
In his four-and-a-half-hour confession before judge Tahaliyani, Ajmal Kasab gives a blow-by-blow account of how 26/11 was carried out.
THE KILLINGS
Mujhe gunah kabool hai (I admit my crime). We fired on the public at CST -- Abu Ismail and I. Ismail lobbed grenades and I fired with the gun. We went a little ahead and entered a hall where we had a skirmish with the police. After another exchange of fire, all was quiet. The photographs shown of us at CST are genuine. We went back towards the platform, crossed an iron footbridge and descended into an alley. I checked vehicles parked there so that we could drive off in one. The CCTV footage shown of us around those cars is correct. However, none of the cars could be opened and we proceeded on foot. Ismail and I loaded our AK-47s. On walking a little ahead, we saw a man running. I fired at him and Ismail fired inside a house.
When we reached the gate of Cama Hospital, we saw that the wall was not too high and jumped over it. Ismail told me to wait while he checked the premises. I heard the sound of gunfire. Ismail returned and asked me to follow him. A man dressed in white was lying dead. I did not see his face. Another man was lying on a stretcher in a pool of blood. We went up a flight of stairs to the fifth floor. We stopped three persons in the ward, including a witness in the present case, and asked him to lie down so that we could frisk him. We then locked up five others, one of whom was lying in a pool of blood, in a bathroom, warning them not to make any noise. We went up to the terrace. As soon as we entered, we saw a man. I asked him to show us the way out. He indicated that policemen were around -- when we went down the staircase, we saw them for ourselves. I ran back and told Ismail.
He asked me where they were, but by then we could hear a commotion that the police had arrived. Ismail was near the door. He asked me to keep a watch on the terrace and asked for a grenade. I removed all the weapons from my bag and put them in Ismail's bag. Firing started. I kept a watch on the terrace. Then we started running downstairs and someone fired upon us. I returned fire and came down. Ismail went out first. We could see policemen near the gate, but they didn't notice us. Ismail said we should hide. There was a door near the wall, and a person was sitting outside the hall of the hospital. I warned him to keep mum, and we managed to get out of the hospital.
On the road, we saw a big blue vehicle coming towards us. We hid behind a small stall. The blue vehicle came nearer and Ismail lobbed a grenade at it. We then walked up to a bank and hid in some bushes. We saw the headlights of a vehicle, and as it came nearer to us there was firing from it. Ismail started firing back. I was injured on my right forearm, left wrist and right elbow. (Shows his injuries in court). My gun fell out of my hand and I also fell down. The firing continued, and Ismail walked towards the vehicle. He went to check it and kept firing on it. By then I got up and took my gun in my hand. I opened the doors of the police vehicle and found its occupants dead. We removed their bodies. Ismail started the jeep and I sat next to him. In the meantime there was firing on the vehicle but none of the bullets hit us. Ismail started driving with his left hand and firing with the other one. We took a right turn. Maine kaha main chal nahin sakta (I said I wouldn't be able to walk). Ismail said ' Tu hausla mat haar. Mujhe bhi goli lagi hai ' (Don't lose courage. I have also been shot). He said he had been shot in the knee. I could tell from the noise of the wheel that it had been punctured. We did not know the roads. We saw policemen in a motor vehicle, and on seeing weapons in our hands they started firing at us. We fired in retaliation and the cops left the spot to hide. We decided to stop a vehicle. A Skoda car, with two men and a woman in it, was passing, and we stopped it and made the occupants get out. I told Ismail that we should conceal our weapons somewhere so that nobody would be able to recognise us. We continued to drive on the same road and reached the same spot where we had hijacked the car. We saw the owner telling the police that it was his car. We started following a white car. A little ahead we could see barriers on the road. The white car went past them but policemen directed us to stop. I asked Ismail to slow down. A policeman came in front of the car. Ismail tried taking a U-turn. We could not understand anything and suddenly the wipers also started. Policemen came to the car, and one of them caught me by the collar. He pulled me out of the car. I was surrounded by policemen and one of them snatched my AK-47, which was in my hand. They started hitting me in my stomach and also with the butt of my gun. I did not fire. When I regained consciousness I was in hospital. I had not fired because I could not hold my gun.
HUM DUS THE (WE WERE TEN)
We travelled from Karachi in a small boat. Four persons came to see us off -- Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi, Abu Hamza, Abu Kafa and Abu Jundala. I did not know the others personally but I can tell their names. Abu Ismail (he was our boss), Abu Akasha, Abu Umer, Abu Shoaib, Abu Ali, Abdul Rehman Chhota, Abdul Rehman Bada, Hafiz Arshad and Abu Fadaullah, who had a finger missing. A small boat from Karachi transported us to a big boat, which we used to get on to the high seas. There were three people on the small boat. I only remember the name of Hakib. On the big boat called 'Al Huseini' we slept and said our namaaz. When it sailed there were seven people on it -- Murshad, Aqib, Usman... I don't remember the other names. Murshad was the boss.
We were looking for another boat and spotted one. At 4 pm, it was brought to 'Al Huseini' and we started loading it with oil, blankets, rations and other things. The remaining articles were thrown into the sea. Murshad asked the five crew members of the other boat who their 'naqva' (navigator) was, and Amarjit Singh Solanki said it was him. The other four were taken to 'Al Huseini' and Singh remained on board. Murshad told us to take blankets and go to sleep. He told Ismail to take Solanki's help in case of difficulty. A big GPS set was also given to Ismail, which we threw into the sea when we reached India.
THE TRAINING
Last year, when I was working as a decorator in Jhelum city, my colleague, Muzaffar, suggested that we turn to dacoity for better money. I left the job, went to Rawalpindi with him and took a room on rent. We decided to commit dacoity at a certain bungalow. I was roaming alone at Rawalpindi's Raza market when I saw some Mujahideens buying animal skins. From my childhood, I had been hearing of these Mujahideens. They are known by their long hair and beards. A few days later, Muzaffar returned and we both visited the same market and were discussing our plans to rob the bungalow. I repeatedly asked him where we would get the weapons and how would we pull it off. I told him then that I had seen Mujahideens at the market, and that we could get weapons training from them, to which he agreed. We found out where their office was, and went there. A man asked me what I had come for. I told him we had come for Jihad, so he let us in. One person asked me my name, address and asked me to return next morning with extra clothes.
We returned with our baggage and we were given a chit on which was written the address of a training camp in Muridke. Three weeks later, I was sent from there to another camp. In the evening we went to Buttal jungle, where I met Muzaffar. We were given 21 days of training. After his training was over, Muzaffar's brother took him back home but I was told that I was going for bigger training.
Here, I was taught exercises, operating weapons like AK-47, guns and pistols. Three months went by like this. My trainer Abu Abdul Rehman asked me to bring my identity card from my native Okara district. I visited an office in Model Town there and was asked to go to Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir. Once in Muzaffarabad, I was asked to look for Saeed Bhai's office. I told them that I had come for Daura-E-Khaas (special training), and filled up a form. The next morning, we reached a training camp, where Abu Maaviya was our trainer and trained me for three months in operating rocket launchers, grenades, AK-47s and other sophisticated weapons. Then I was sent to my Faridkot home. I was told to return to Saeed Bhai's office after a week, which I did.
Ten days later, Saeed bhai, Abu Kafa and Abu Hamza came there and selected 15 of us. We were taken to Muzaffarabad and then to Muridke. Kafa was with me and we were trained to swim. A month later, we were taken to Karachi's seashore from where we were taken in small boats to big ones. The idea was to check if we could adjust to the sea's rough weather or not, and to see if we suffered from sea-sickness. We were then brought back to the same place and then two days later, we were again taken to Muzaffarabad where we met Hamza.
Of the 15 of us, two had run away, while six were sent to Kashmir. So seven of us were left, to which three other boys were added, making us ten in all. Hamza had a separate room, to which he would call us in pairs. On two occasions, he showed Ismail and me movies and pictures of CST station on his laptop. We were then taken to forests, trained further in firing, and were brought back. Two days later, we were given trousers and T-shirts, and our photographs were taken and our fake ID-cards made. Kafa took us to Karachi and gave us small bomb kits. We were asked to note down the time when the bomb kit's battery would turn on.
We stayed there for more than 90 days. We were trained to use an inflatable boat. It is the same boat produced in court. In Karachi we stayed in the same house that was shown on Geo TV. Two or three days before November 22, 2008, Hamza again came and played the same CST video to us. We were given arms and ammunition. Those bags were transported to Al-Huseini.
Kafa took us to the Karachi shore where Al-Huseini was anchored. Lakhwi, Hamza and Abu Jundal joined Kafa on the shore, while we were to leave for Mumbai. Jundal Hindustani hai, unhonein hi humein Hindi sikhaaein . My wish is that you should end this trial and punish me.
I wanted to confess much earlier but could not do so as Pakistan had disowned me. Now Pakistan is saying that I am a Pakistani.
They are also going to prosecute the offenders. Don't ask me how I know all this. I just do. You should accept my confession and punish me.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/21/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
...Bob Wexler, who is currently in Israel for the third time since December, telling us that Israel 'will say yes' to a 'settlement freeze.' Mrs. Carl looked at the headline and said "why should we do that?" And I answered, "we won't. He can't vote here." Thankfully, neither of us has eaten yet, so there's no breakfast to be lost.
#1
If the Obamanauts want a gesture of good intentions to the Paleos, the Israelis could move their people out of Gaza because that would... oh, wait. Never mind.
Walter Cronkite will be remembered for two things: a career that spanned six decades, during which he personified the 20th-century journalistic ideal of the newsman as an objective and authoritative purveyor of facts; and an incident in which he departed from that ideal, with far-reaching consequences for the country and the news business....
...in his own mind--and in the minds of many of his critics and admirers alike--the most important moment in his career came when he departed from the newsmans role to play editorialist. The occasion was a just-completed reporting trip to Vietnam, where he had reported on the Tet Offensive:
On his return, Mr. Cronkite presented a withering assessment of the prospects for a U.S. victory, one of the few moments during 19 years in the anchors chair when he swerved from his just-the-facts approach. It was said that President Lyndon B. Johnson remarked, If Ive lost Cronkite, Ive lost America.
At a 2006 news conference, Mr. Cronkite said, The editorializing that I did on the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and I think helped speed the end of that war, that was--that Im proudest of.
But Cronkites editorializing made him into part of the story. And Vietnam was not just any story; it was the central political and cultural conflict in America for several years beginning in the late 1960s. By taking sides, Cronkite compromised his role as a newsman. In the early 70s, on his own networks top-rated show, he was called commie Cronkite. To be sure, viewers were meant to take Archie Bunker for a fool, but the makers of All in the Family understood that their colleague in the news division had become a combatant in the culture wars.
Judged on his whole career, Cronkites reputation for integrity and trustworthiness was well-deserved. He was a great newsman. But his greatness, paradoxically, made the effect of his lapse much more damaging. It sowed confusion among younger reporters about the difference between reporting and commentary....No one doubts that Cronkite was sincere in his opinion about Vietnam, and the argument over its merits is beyond the scope of todays column. As a reporter, however, he had a duty to stick to the facts and leave opinions to others.
He almost always lived up to that duty, but the one time he manifestly fell short, it ended up having great and baneful consequences. Do you remember a few years ago when one of the networks declared the conflict in Iraq to be a civil war? Neither does anyone else. It was a transparent attempt to do to Iraq what Cronkite had done to Vietnam. It failed because viewers no longer trust newsmen the way they did in 1968. And it is a vicious circle: Without the authority that derives from that trust, reporters get careless about objectivity, weakening the audiences trust even further.
The glory of Walter Cronkites career is that he did more than anyone to earn his viewers trust and establish his professions authority. The tragedy is that he also did more than anyone else to undermine them.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/21/2009 08:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
As Ive said before, nothing sums up the seventies, and the awful guttering of the national spirit, than a pop song about Skylab falling on peoples heads. Skylabs Falling, a novelty hit in the summer of 79. It tumbled down thirty years ago this month, and didnt get much press, possibly because of the odd muted humiliation over the event. But it wasnt end of Skylab that gave people a strange shameful dismay. It was the idea that we were done up there, and the only thing wed done since the Moon trips did an ignominious Icarus instead of staying up for decades. So this wasnt the first step toward the inevitable double-wheel with a Strauss waltz soundtrack, or something more prosaic. Wasnt that the way it was supposed to work? Moon first, then space station, then moon colonization, then Mars.
If a kid could see that, why couldnt they?
What was stopping them?
Money, of course; a reason to do it; sufficient know-how. A proper adversary competing in the same arena. (The Reds werent heading for Mars, although that would have been an exceptional piece of propaganda. Not too many political systems have planets that match their ideological hue.) Institutional bloat. Cultural anomie. By the time we got our national mojo back in the 80s the culture had shifted, and the overculture was full of people whose hackles bristled when people started talking about national greatness, national destiny, as these were just code-words for whatever sort of warmongering madness that actor in the White House wished to bring down on our heads. But that was just part of it: mostly, I blame good special effects. Once we could experience space, and alternate near-futures in which we could see the great beyond in realistic ships piloted by Bruce Willis, the appetite for the real thing slaked off.
Robot exploration is very cool; Id like more. As someone noted elsewhere, we should have those rovers crawling all over the Moon, at the very least. Its just down the street. But think how much grander we would feel if we knew that our first mission to Jupiter was coming back next month. (Without the giant space-fetus.) How we would imagine our solar system, how each planet would feel like a blank page in a passport waiting for a stamp. Perhaps thats what annoys some: the aggrandizement that would come from great exploits. Human pride in something that isnt specifically related to fixing the Great Problems we face now, or apologizing for the Bad Things we did before. Spending money to go to Mars before weve stopped climate turbulence would be like taking a trip to Europe while the house is on fire.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/21/2009 06:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The problem with returning to the Moon is that NASA is caught up in reinventing the wheel. It loves to do basic research, but abhors the practical efforts needed for a long term, cumulative mission.
This means that the robots that should go to the Moon should not do much of any kind of basic research, but should instead mine hard rock tunnels, slowly and methodically, over the course of a year or two, so that when astronauts return to the Moon, much of their habitat will have been built.
Out of the vacuum, enhanced and cosmic radiation, extremes of heat and cold, and the very abrasive Lunar dust. By not having to bring their habitat with them each time they go to the Moon, they can bring much more supplies and equipment.
The robots would have to be nuclear powered, and once their mission was over, that nuclear furnace could provide abundant energy for the astronauts.
The robots' lander would be on a one way mission, so should be cannibalized for pressure doors, reinforcing rod, floors, walls and ceiling. Once mined, the tunnels should be reinforced with ceiling rods, then sprayed with sealant against micro fissures.
Once the pressure doors are installed, the cave could even be pressure tested for leaks. And once the astronauts had arrived, the robots could be used to tunnel for water ice.
you can bet this fat drunk b*stard gets the best of care possible. You? Not so much
With all the talk about how we could control health care spending by spending less on people in "the last year of their life", we seem to forget that the Ted-meister is exactly one of those people right now: with a malignant brain tumor, he's had surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and treatment for all the complications thereof. Under Obamacare, it's a safe bet that you and I won't get that consideration.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#7
Any wonder that Congress is exempt from Obamacare.
At the Rural Tour Town Hall yesterday in Reserve, Louisiana Sec. Sebelius was asked whether Obamacare would apply to Congress and Administration people and Sebelius ducked and dodged for a couple of minutes; the questioner then said "Answer the question," which was followed by a bit more evasion at which point the whole crowd called out "ANSWER the QUESTION".
#8
The amendment to make the provisions in the bill apply to Congresscritters and their associated parasites was quickly shot down, so there's yer answer.....
#9
Hey, at least the old farts get free mandatory euthanasia "counseling". we should be very troubled by Section 1233 of H.R. 3200. The section, titled Advanced Care Planning Consultation requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity.
Time to be "Going Home" you old commie hippies.
Via InstaPundit.
Posted by: ed ||
07/21/2009 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
think of Sol in Soylent Green
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2009 8:46 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"ANSWER the QUESTION"
It's about Power Baby!
It's never really been about fairness, equality, or justice.
#14
Does anyone have a link for the "Answer the Question" item? I couldn't find it on NOLA . com. I did find this tidbit, though. The VA hospital in New Orleans was closed just after Katrina hit in 2005. It has not been replaced. There are 39,000 veterans in its catchment area. A government which refuses to meet its current health care obligations now wants to vastly expand them.
#15
One has the feeling that the plans for spending less on people in "the last year of their life" advance the date of that "last year of life" sooner by several years.
#16
Anguper,
My wife was THERE. She reports the "Answer the question" item. The media were there too. For some reason they do not choose to report the item.
#17
AH and Glenmore, I found a link to chicago tribune with (some) tv footage here. It sure didn't make our everything sebelius kansas morning news channel heh, prolly 'caus we fall in the same line as our good neighbors to the east and south.
#19
Why do I get this idea that there is this insulated out-of-touch crazy circus going on in Washington and then there are the rest of us in the hinterlands?
#20
My wife was THERE. She reports the "Answer the question" item. The media were there too. For some reason they do not choose to report the item. I guess it's time for a little citizen journalism. Tape the meeting, type up a transcript, and post it online.
#21
Why do I get this idea that there is this insulated out-of-touch crazy circus going on in Washington and then there are the rest of us in the hinterlands?
Probably because it's been that way for most of the past century.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
It was interesting to watch the Republican Party lose touch with America. You had a party led by conservative Southerners who neither understood nor sympathized with moderates or representatives from swing districts.
