New Mars Forums

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Actually that war was between the United States and the United Kingdom, and the UK was fighting to keep her colony, which Canada was at that time. So tell me, do you want to keep your right as a British citizen? too late! There was no country called Canada back in 1812, it was a British colony, just like the other 13 colonies that became the United States.

In 1776 American revolutionaries tried to convince all 16 colonies to sign the Declaration of Independence. Yup, I said 16 colonies. There were 16 British colonies and 3 French ones. The revolutionaries didn't bother even trying to talk to the French colonies. 13 British colonies did sign, but 3 did not. The ones that didn't sign were Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Upper Canada. The last colony was later renamed Ontario. In 1812 the United States tried to conquer, subjugate, and annex Canada the same way Iraq did to Kuwait in 1990. They thought it would be easy, one American general said it would just be a matter of marching. They were wrong.

Canadians do not want an unnecessary fight, do not want to start a war. However, if attacked we will defend ourselves. Some Americans thought they would like to be free of British rule, willingly accept American rule instead.

Nope, will not. Officers of the British military at the time were aristocracy, arrogant and condescending. They thought Canadian militia was incompetent. At the start of the American war of independence, professional British soldiers kicked American ass. But eventually American soldiers learned how to fight. At the end of the war of independence, American soldiers could be out numbered 10-to-1 and still win. To do that the fight to be in forest, if in an open field the British still tended to win. So if they could defeat British soldiers so effectively, and Canadian militia is a joke, then they should be a push-over right? Wrong! You forget that assessment was the same arrogant condescending aristocracy you were fight for independence from. Why would you trust them? They found Canadian militia used the same tactics as American soldiers, effectively used cover. While British soldiers wore bright red coats with bright white leather ammunition bags and gleaming gold buttons, making excellent targets, the Canadian militia wore forest green coats, brown leather ammunition bags, and buttons make of bone. That was camouflage of the day. Furthermore, British foot solders were draftees from Scotland, Ireland and Wales, who really didn't want to be there and hated British aristocracy as much as Americans. They only reason they fought is they were drafted (British word is conscripted), they would be executed if they didn't fight. But Canadian militia were defending their homes, they were just as motivated as any American. In fact, when an American soldier fought against a Canadian, he may as well be fighting against himself. Oops! They didn't expect that.

Many citizens of the 13 colonies did not want to separate. They saw themselves as British citizens.

And they certainly didn't want to fight a war. So many citizens from the colonies moved north. Many moved to the mainland portion of Nova Scotia. Most citizens of Nova Scotia lived on the peninsula, there were only a handful on the mainland. But over 100,000 refugees from the 13 colonies flooded in. So many that the mainland was made a separate colony, it became New Brunswick. Many more moved to Ontario. After the wars America played games with the border, drew a big cut north into Canadian territory. British didn't want another war, so let America have it. Canadians were highly upset the British were so gutless. So the northern half of what is now the state of Maine was originally part of New Brunswick. Was populated by citizens who didn't want to be American. But after it became part of Maine, most didn't move again, they just stayed.

When Canada separated from Britain, we did it the Canadian way. Through negotiation, not war.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

We do have the same News Media by the way, the same liberals that run the while show, providing favorable coverage for the liberals and unfavorable coverage for the conservatives

Canada does have Sun media and a website called "The Rebel". It's very very very Conservative. The Sun had a TV news channel for a while, many called it Fox new north. But its ratings were not enough to stay on the air. Sun media does publish a tabloid newspaper every day; tried to be a major newspaper, not as bad as most American tabloids, but definitely isn't a broadsheet newspaper. The Sun is very biased in favour of Conservatives, and Conservative values. So don't assume all media is Liberal. Down south you certainly can't call Fox news "Liberal".

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Hillary Clinton is a Hawk?

Oh yea. She is. When Bill was president, Bill and Hillary tried to get the former Soviet republic of Georgia to join NATO. Very provocative. That ended with Russia playing games with treaties so that Russia could invade northern Georgia and the US did nothing. Just so Georgia would remain part of the Russian "sphere of influence". That war wouldn't have been necessary if the Clintons hadn't messed with a former Soviet republic. Did you see the New Hampshire debates during the 2008 primaries? That was the first debate, when all candidates for both major American parties were still in the race. Hillary was the only Democrat more hawkish than Obama. She supports military intervention in Syria, Iraq, others.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

You'd be surprised. Walmart supported Obamacare. The United States and Canada are one people and two countries, we speak the sam[e] language, so its not surprising that there is cultural overflow. Those Canadian Nationalists are such because they do not feel they could compete in combined US-Canadian elections if our countries were ever to merge. Canada has the population of California, I think if our two countries were combined, Canada would have at least the same amount of influence as California does, with such leaders as Ronald Reagan for instance. Canada even has its own version of "Hollywood" in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Canadian and American culture is not the same. It isn't readily apparent from watching TV, but any Canadian who has spent any time living in the US, more than just vacation, will tell you there is significant differences. I've heard Canadian reports who moved to the US to cover American politics comment that American culture is more different than you would think. So it's not just me.

One Canadian political reporter pointed out that if Canada joined the United States, it would all vote Democrat. It would be so Democrat that the Republicans would have difficulty electing a president. Even Alberta, the heart of oil country and cowboys, a province called "Texas with snow". Calgary elected mayor Naheed Nenshi. The first Muslim mayor of a major North American city. Born in Toronto, raised in Calgary, so he is all Canadian. But he's Muslim, and his politics are left-wing.

There was never a set of principles defining manifest destiny, therefore it was always a general idea rather than a specific policy made with a motto. Ill-defined but keenly felt, manifest destiny was an expression of conviction in the morality and value of expansionism that complemented other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism and Romantic nationalism. Andrew Jackson, who spoke of "extending the area of freedom", typified the conflation of America's potential greatness, the nation's budding sense of Romantic self-identity, and its expansion.[10][11]

Yet Jackson would not be the only president to elaborate on the principles underlying manifest destiny. Owing in part to the lack of a definitive narrative outlining its rationale, proponents offered divergent or seemingly conflicting viewpoints. While many writers focused primarily upon American expansionism, be it into Mexico or across the Pacific, others saw the term as a call to example. Without an agreed upon interpretation, much less an elaborated political philosophy, these conflicting views of America's destiny were never resolved. This variety of possible meanings was summed up by Ernest Lee Tuveson, who writes:

A vast complex of ideas, policies, and actions is comprehended under the phrase "Manifest Destiny". They are not, as we should expect, all compatible, nor do they come from any one source.[12]

John L. O'Sullivan, sketched in 1874, was an influential columnist as a young man, but he is now generally remembered only for his use of the phrase "manifest destiny" to advocate the annexation of Texas and Oregon.
Journalist John L. O'Sullivan, an influential advocate for Jacksonian democracy and a complex character described by Julian Hawthorne as "always full of grand and world-embracing schemes",[13] wrote an article in 1839,[14] which, while not using the term "manifest destiny", did predict a "divine destiny" for the United States based upon values such as equality, rights of conscience, and personal enfranchisement "to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man". This destiny was not explicitly territorial, but O'Sullivan predicted that the United States would be one of a "Union of many Republics" sharing those values.[15]

By the way, movies are produced in Toronto as well. The movie "Suicide Squad" based on Batman bad guys was filmed in Toronto. Even Winnipeg has some movies filmed here.

I think you are moving to convergence towards the rest of us, so I will move a bit in your direction Tom.

Yes, that only makes sense, to do it smaller, at least at first.

O'neill's vision was inspiring, but it was also defiance of history and nature.  It was a good aspiration, but a bit of a deception, so now I better understand G.W's position.

We like to think of ourselves as much more powerful than we are.  For instance I can recognize that the substances cast off/excreted from my body are matter, I cannot make a spaceship out of it and fly somewhere.  I might have tanned leather with my Urine, simply because that was something discovered to work, and I might fertilize a patch of nature with my outputs, but sadly no spaceship emerges from my B.S. or my emissions

Take for instance my mining experience some 30+ to 40+ years ago, yes great minds figured out how to upgrade an ore economically, but nature had to lay that ore that we would upgrade into our laps in the first place.

We need to find humility.  Our abilities allow us to do more than is obvious to a mindless brute, but never-the-less, life is a gift to us.

From my point of view, we should always be thinking efficiency against necessity, and capability expansion.  Never excluding either one.

O'neill's concept presumed that the human race might bypass Mars, because crunching up asteroids into synthetic habitat would be so efficiently capable of satisfying human needs.  Probably too optimistic.

So, if humans make even a mini-habitat, do I get fat medically expensive potato chip eaters, lounging in sunlight emitting bad smells which servile (Secretly Evil) robots compliment them on, or do I get more?

Do I get generation ships, or cycling spaceships, or way stations which serve a bigger purpose?  Or do I get lazy people increasing our rate of experienced flatulence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulence

20 October 2015 I posted this in another thread...

RobertDyck wrote:

Canada had a federal election yesterday. Amazing results! I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, our party won! We won big! Last election was a big loss for us. In 2011, the Conservative Party of Canada went from minority to majority, but our party lost so badly that the third party, the NDP, won more seats in the House of Commons that we did. That made the NDP the Official Opposition for the first time. Since Canada was founded, the Liberal and Conservative parties have been government or opposition; both parties have gone through major changes, but it has always been one or the other. The NDP is a socialist party, they've been third or worse since they were created. But last election they did very well, relegating our party to third position. This election we won. We went from third party to government, the first time in Canadian history a party did that. But we didn't just form government, we won a majority.

I have mixed emotions about this. I tried for the Liberal nomination in my riding, and do have support from the riding association (electoral district association), but it was manipulated at the provincial level. However, I believe in fiscal responsibility. The Liberal party was government from the September 1993 to January 2006, the Finance Minister got us out of an incredible mess. He cut spending, eliminated the deficit, reduced debt, reduced taxes. I still believe in that. Before the election campaign started, the current Liberal leader made statements in support of both the left-wing and fiscally-responsible factions of the party. However, during the current election campaign, the Liberal leader said he would increase spending and run a deficit. Conservatives had dramatically increased spending; starting the first day they were elected. The last Liberal budget included spending projections for that year and 5 years in the future. Conservatives claim they cut spending for this year, but if you project spending from the last Liberal budget to this year, their spending is still far above what Liberal spending would be. But the current Liberal leader wants to increase spending further?

If the Liberal party had won with a minority, there might have been a chance they would have listened to me. I would argue for return to fiscally responsible policies from the last time they were in power. But with this majority, they will implement their election platform. That means spend-and-deficit.

I've seen politicians twist things around to make a loss sound like a win. I guess I have to find a way to do this. My party won. The Liberal candidate who won in my riding/electoral district did not. She actually did well, received more votes that Liberal candidates in a long time. In 1993 the Liberal candidate got more votes; that was the last time the Liberal party unseated a Conservative government to win a majority. My riding is the only one in the city of Winnipeg that did not elect a Liberal candidate. The Conservative incumbent was unseated, the son of the previous NDP Member of Parliament won, unseating him by a slim margin: 34.26% vs 34.14%. He won by 51 votes. The Liberal candidate got 29.22% and the Green candidate 2.37%. So how do I turn this to my advantage?

Today, just after midnight 15 September 2016, Tom responded with...

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Liberal Press! Its not the Liberal Party that won, it was the Liberal Press. The Liberal Press controls the party agenda, it determines who gets elected, the Liberal Press is the same in Canada or the United States, and logic dictates that since the liberals like big government, they would coordinate the party agendas of both the United States Democratic Party, and Canada's Liberal Party, they will see to it that Liberal and Democratic Politicians that advocate for Unification of Canada, the United States, and of course the Mexicans, so they can get all those third world votes to cement their rule, and then they'll come up with a new flag for the North American Government, a new Constitution which cements their rule as the only party. The Media runs things, it has done most of the legwork for getting Hillary as far as she has got in the Presidential Election, and once she is President, they will control her, because if she doesn't do as they say, they will see to it that she is impeached, they got a lot of dirt on her that they've been holding back, she is their puppet, and if the Canadians aren't careful, she may end up being your President too! The Liberal Press doesn't want its puppet strings getting tangled, so they want only one puppet, and having only one country in North America makes things a lot simpler for them to control everything!

Canada has no desire to join the United States. We fought a war in 1812 to stay separate.

Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin said "The United States is our neighbour, not our nation." And there has been efforts by American press to control Canadian press. The first president of the CBC claimed executives from American media tried to give him orders. He just smiled and pointed out they don't own the CBC. The CBC was a bastion of Canadian culture, but has degenerated in recent years.

The Republican party strongly controlled the Conservative Party of Canada while Stephen Harper was leader. I met a group of former Progressive Conservative party members who jumped to the Liberal party when that party merged with the Reform party. The resulting merged party is simply called Conservative Party of Canada. One of those members told me the American Republican party paid for memberships to the Conservative party, and he still has the receipt for his membership to prove it. It's illegal for a foreign entity to interfere with Canadian politics. And party memberships are supposed to be paid by the member, not anyone else. That's a strict rule to prevent leadership candidates from buying delegates in the leadership campaign. And Conservative candidates and key campaign workers were sent to Conservative school in the United States. After all that there were attempts by the Liberal party to cozy up to the Democrat party, but they never were any good at it. Liberals in Canada are far too independent. Actually a lot of them are down right arrogant.

When Bill Clinton was president, some young people started to ask why Canada and the US are separate countries. I was scared at that talk. Then George W. Bush got elected. That showed them why; ended all such talk. Now there's Donald Trump. Some people are excited that Hillary is a woman, but others like me are very concerned that she's such a hawk. The US definitely needs change, but Trump?

There have been efforts by many in the United States to absorb Canada. Primarily American corporate executives who want to treat Canada as part of the US. Walmart bought Wolco, a major Canadian retailer. Hudson's Bay Company aka HBC aka "The Bay" is an iconic Canadian company, originally a fur company since the 1600s. They're now owned by NRDC Equity Partners, parent company of Lord & Taylor and Saks Fifth Avenue. Zellers was a large budget retailer owned by HBC; they were bought by Target who promptly failed and closed. I don't think any of these companies are "liberal"; big "L" or small "l".

No, US media does not control Canadian media.

Canada had a federal election yesterday. Amazing results! I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, our party won! We won big! Last election was a big loss for us. In 2011, the Conservative Party of Canada went from minority to majority, but our party lost so badly that the third party, the NDP, won more seats in the House of Commons that we did. That made the NDP the Official Opposition for the first time. Since Canada was founded, the Liberal and Conservative parties have been government or opposition; both parties have gone through major changes, but it has always been one or the other. The NDP is a socialist party, they've been third or worse since they were created. But last election they did very well, relegating our party to third position. This election we won. We went from third party to government, the first time in Canadian history a party did that. But we didn't just form government, we won a majority.

I have mixed emotions about this. I tried for the Liberal nomination in my riding, and do have support from the riding association (electoral district association), but it was manipulated at the provincial level. However, I believe in fiscal responsibility. The Liberal party was government from the September 1993 to January 2006, the Finance Minister got us out of an incredible mess. He cut spending, eliminated the deficit, reduced debt, reduced taxes. I still believe in that. Before the election campaign started, the current Liberal leader made statements in support of both the left-wing and fiscally-responsible factions of the party. However, during the current election campaign, the Liberal leader said he would increase spending and run a deficit. Conservatives had dramatically increased spending; starting the first day they were elected. The last Liberal budget included spending projections for that year and 5 years in the future. Conservatives claim they cut spending for this year, but if you project spending from the last Liberal budget to this year, their spending is still far above what Liberal spending would be. But the current Liberal leader wants to increase spending further?

If the Liberal party had won with a minority, there might have been a chance they would have listened to me. I would argue for return to fiscally responsible policies from the last time they were in power. But with this majority, they will implement their election platform. That means spend-and-deficit.

I've seen politicians twist things around to make a loss sound like a win. I guess I have to find a way to do this. My party won. The Liberal candidate who won in my riding/electoral district did not. She actually did well, received more votes that Liberal candidates in a long time. In 1993 the Liberal candidate got more votes; that was the last time the Liberal party unseated a Conservative government to win a majority. My riding is the only one in the city of Winnipeg that did not elect a Liberal candidate. The Conservative incumbent was unseated, the son of the previous NDP Member of Parliament won, unseating him by a slim margin: 34.26% vs 34.14%. He won by 51 votes. The Liberal candidate got 29.22% and the Green candidate 2.37%. So how do I turn this to my advantage?

Globalization as-sold was to lift all boats and make everybody better off.  Globalization as-practiced-for-profit was merely outsourcing manufacturing jobs to slave labor economies.  Greed drove improper policies and approaches.  Money talks far too loudly in the halls of governments around the planet.

Service sector jobs generally do not pay a living wage.  That's how middle classes are being destroyed in most advanced countries.  That's why everybody not part of the ruling cliques is mad.  That deserved anger is why "nationalism" is on the rise again.  It's not so much real nationalism (excepting Putin's Russia,  for one),  it's really "anti-globalism".

Until the day arrives that we really can derive suitable construction materials from asteroids or other space objects,  all giant-by-today's-standards space projects are simply financially infeasible,  due to the surface-to-orbit transport costs.  This is true whether a national project,  or an international project.  That actually makes very little difference.

You can tell about where the feasibility boundary is today,  looking at the ISS with a suitably jaundiced eye.  It's a few hundred tons of stuff launched in 15-ton packages and docked together (not real assembly or construction in space).  It took an international effort to pay the $110+B bill (just the US portion).  A large part of that bill was the incredibly expensive transportation to orbit (around $60M-$100M per delivered ton).

From a propaganda standpoint,  the "fix" is in,  that we can never afford to take on a project that large in space,  ever again,  even as an international thing.  But that's a lie,  for using those funds on things other than space.  Such as wars for oil. 

The bill to build another ISS would actually be a lot lower,  and for two very good reasons:  (1) learning curve experience effects,  and (2) transportation to space that is more than a factor of 10 cheaper now for those same payload sizes. 

But,  building another ISS is not anything we should want to do,  because it's not really the space station we needed anyway! 

So,  if we build what we do need,  we won't get much learning curve benefit.  We do get the cheap transportation benefit,  which could make it affordable,  even without international partners. 

The station we actually needed would have had a giant centrifuge section turning at a practical speed,  for research into all the different levels of partial gravity.

The station we actually needed would have had an experimental work bay where we could test and develop technologies,  materials,  and procedures for doing real on-orbit assembly and construction,  not just docking. 

The station we actually needed would have had an experimental laboratory/factory section where we could have experimented with deriving useful materials from asteroids and other space objects,  and learned how to actually use those new materials. 

The station we actually needed would have had a biological life support experimental section where we could have better defined the long-term and short-term atmospheres suitable for all sorts of different missions. 

Among the hardware equipping the station we actually need would be a spectrum of space suits,  including mechanical counterpressure.  You cannot use a 7/16" or 11 mm wrench on the corresponding bolt,  with the ridiculously bulky and stiff gloves current suits have.  So,  how do you strip and solder a wire in zero-gee / vacuum?  How do you weld?  Etc,  etc,  ad nauseum.  THAT is construction!  Not what we did to build ISS. 

We could actually do this.  But if we do it now,  after all the years spent on shuttle and ISS,  it'll be past 2100 AD before we ever go to Mars. 

If instead you want to go to Mars now,  then you must figure out how to do it safely,  knowing about all those problems,  but not having any answers to any of them. 

And THAT puts you right back where we were in the 1950's,  just modernized to today's technologies and ground truth science.  You need a large expedition to multiple sites,  using an orbit-to-orbit transport equipped with multiple landers.  Everything must be suspenders and belt and armored codpiece; back-up upon back-up.  Leave an automated base facility when you return,  to tempt the next guys into going.

Simple as that.  And just as hard. 

GW

In comparison,  why would we ever want to build a space power satellite?  It costs a lot more to build,  the transmission loss problem is far worse,  we do not yet know how to build structures that large in space,  and not knowing anything about how to utilize space resources yet,  the cost is far higher still because we have to ship the entire mass up from Earth.  And there is the Murphy's Law inevitability of the errant beam direction problem.  Maybe later,  when we have learned to do those enabling things,  we might want to build one.  But not now.  Maybe elsewhere than Earth.  Who yet knows?

OK, so it's one, two, three and your out at the old ball game.

Granted, not technically proven for ability or efficiency, not proven safe (Many serious reservations on safety), and I will add, not after all competitive.  That is, three main reservoirs of oil at price remain, Russia, Persian Gulf, and USA.  All others may be screwed, fastly (New word) or over an excruciating period of time.  And then there are electric cars, alternative energy, and the demographic realities.

So, unless others who want to do the work prove otherwise, power on the Earth is the mode of the current time, and not beamed power from space.  We are in a different era.  Isn't it interesting how "Karma" plays out?  The M.E. should have been happy to have what they had, but instead they prompted a revision of reality which has gone against them to some extent.

Some have suggested asteroids, as a purpose.  What does that indicate?  Some asteroids are large and far away, and some are NEO.  I think that if there are companies that think that they can turn a buck, mining NEO's then let them have at it, we will then see what they can do.

Now the Moon, we will share, at least with non-zombies.  That is if we can ever prove our worth by doing what we want.

Similar surface area to the America's, and not dry bones after all.

The Marsies are horrified.  Shouldn't be, gonna get that too I think, if it all works out.

Why wouldn't the same rich people who are presumed to want to pay for a joy ride into sub orbital space, not want to walk on the Moon in a telepresence alternate body, and pay for it?

Why would not a university want to pay for a geologist to do the same thing on the Moon?
And of course aquisitioner entities, for the same or similar motives, bonded with the universities.

I see much to do.   I see that there may be many who do not have true hearts in this.

Done.