New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#51 Re: Not So Free Chat » Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ? » 2006-01-11 20:59:05
http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/art … /index.asp
Zemo's paradox has more to do with rate than distance, but serves to illustrate my point better, in that:
The Tortoise ignores the simple reality that Achille's will beat him in a race, and instead constructs a hypothetical situation wherein he (the Tortoise) and only he can win.
In short, the Tortoise proposes that instead of actually racing, he and Achilles engage in a theoretical race where the only possible victory belongs to the Tortoise.
It's "Bait & Switch", and ignores the fact that the theoretical victory only belongs to a Victor that is THEORETICAL.
Which serves to make my point even better.
Political Incrementalists (like Clark) don't REALLY want to accomplish ANYTHING. They just want to be involved in the process to the extent that they first get to define the means of achieving the objective in terms of it's increments, and then they want to define the size of the increments, and the timetable in which to accomplish them. Or not, but the circumstances of THAT failure will never be placed upon them as they are not interested in actual success; only theoretical "progress" toward it.
Like the prophet that is unconcerned with his failed predictions, the Political Incrementalist is unconcerned with the failure of their plans. They get involved early on, demand to be put in charge at a point in the process when their future failure is as distant as their (theoretical) success.
They are as unconcerned about actually accomplishing the goal as Mr. DeMuth was about walking from one end of the room to the other. And (like the Tortoise and any-other "flim-flam" artists) they attempt to persuade others to accept their theoretical construct instead of the world as it actually IS, and could be.
Maybe this is what & who (the "obsessives") Palomar/Cindy is referring to in her signature/tag.
#52 Re: Not So Free Chat » Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ? » 2006-01-11 14:12:44
I was of the impression that the reason we have a problem with illegal immigration on the Mexican border is because the border patrol was underfunded. That would indicate that Mars money was not going to the border patrol.
A commonly-held oversimplification.
Any thought or discussion that is not first predicated on the notion that the Mexican Government's First (and possibly only) Responsibility is to Care for the Welfare of Their Own Citizens removes the only solution from consideration before even the Problem Itself can be detailed.
The consequences of welding the seams of the Mexican Teapot will hurt the Mexican Government much more than it will hurt the US, and will also provide impetus for Them to solve Their problem.
Not only is an "explosion" necessary, it might also be fun to watch.
And so if it is the US Government's responsibility to invade the country of Iraq (which is on the other side of the planet) to establish a stable and economically self-sufficient democracy in order to maintain the quality of life of the US population, then certainly it is also the US Government's responsibility to accomplish those same objectives by invading Mexico.
And, unlike their Iraqi counterparts, they LIKE us. Even LOVE us.
Unlike the true Paranoid Arabic Xenophobes we are "saving", Mexicans have absolutely NO problem with assimilating themsleves into American Culture (or assimilating American Culture into themselves.
No one LOVES this country more than Mexicans. No one defends her freedom more readily, no one gives their lives more freqently. No one works harder for less money and no one gives up their own "cultural identity" faster, when it becomes an impediment to becoming a successful Americans.
And no one would be grateful for formally incorporating the stinking cesspool that is Mexico into American Statehood.
And while I agree that it is true that (to a great extent) it is their "Alphas" that make the swim, it will also be at least 2 generations before the benefits of that gene-splicing will be felt.
While the consequences of the loss of those Mexican Alphas will be felt in perpetuity, both to Mexico and their Northern Sugar Daddy.
#53 Re: Not So Free Chat » Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ? » 2006-01-11 09:55:07
I really don't remember it that way. I remember a lot of Public Discussion about Iraq being a bad idea as it would be "just like Vietnam", and I remember Bush saying something that sounded kind of just like Kennedy,
And I remember thinking that if Bush wanted to be like Kennedy and start a "war we couldn't win" (I don't think so, but many did and do) then at least we were going to Mars.
I guess I (like everyone else) am holding Bush responsible for what I think he said.
In order to get what you really want, manned space exploration needs to go a little slower, but a little further out... bit by bit.
While surfing for the actual transcripts of Bush's speech, I stumbled into another "Mars" web-site, and from there stumbled into some text where the Windbag-in-Charge posed the following question as a Straw Man:
"Why not spend that (Mars) funding on other things, like Social Programs"
And it doesn't really matter that he spent the rest of the boring article making the case in favor of (Mars) space exploration, as he had already forced the objective to take 3 giant leaps backwards by making the link between Space Exploration and the other Liberal Sacred Cow, Social (Welfare) Programs.
And there is a hard-wired limit of 2-medium-steps-forward to any written persuasive work; so the Windbag's objective was doomed even before it really began. And the damage is left behind for others to repair as best they can.
Because the only thing Liberals like more than Space Exploration is Social (Welfare) Programs.
I live with Mexicans. LOTS of Mexicans.
Not "Hispanics", or "Mexican-Americans", or "Latinos", but by-God Spanish-only speaking, tomato-picking Economic Refugees from the 3rd-world Disaster Area that is our "Neighbor to the South".
American Conservatives can't decide if they want to increase funding to shore-up our porous borders or if they want to take economic advantage of the Cheap Labor that cross them. American Liberals only want to educate the refugees from that failed Political System into Economic Self-Sufficiency.
And if we do THAT, we'll NEVER get to Mars. Because, like Jay Leno says, (and with the aid of the Catholic Church) "they'll just make more".
And frankly, I don't care about the welfare of the Mexican People and their inability to improve their own living conditions in their own country NEARLY as much as I do seeing humanity land on another planet before I die.
The "bit by bit" strategy provides a political opportunity to each administration to become distracted, and/or to compromise the goal, the timing, or both. And I don't want MY Mars money being spent on futile social endeavors like "Trying to Educate the Mexican Populace Faster than they can Cross Our Borders" everytime the Political Winds blow the smell of Mama's home-made tortillas northward.
One of the best educational experiences I ever had was my 8th grade Algebra teacher, (Mr. DeMuth) when he told us about how another way of looking at infinity was by perpetually dividing the distance between two points (such as the distance between yourself and a wall) in half. As long as you only moved halfway between yourself and the wall, you would NEVER actually get there.
Incrementalists NEVER point to political goals that were only started before they were abandoned (usually due to lack of funding); much like prophets don't talk about predictions that DON'T come true.
Personally, I think the best way to guarantee the exploration of Mars is not by Mar's Direct or Incrementally, or any other means I have ever heard of.
I think the best way to guarantee the exploration of the Planet Mars is by first sending a very large Armored Column of M1A1 Abrahms Tanks straight from Ft. Irwin, CA to Mexico City.
Conquer Mars by invading Mexico first.
If you consider every arguement in favor of the American Invasion of Iraq, you will almost always find a more-compelling arguement for the American Invasion of Mexico.
Time prohibits me from detailing those parallels right now, but folks can feel free to list their own until I have the time to provide my own.
The secondary benefits of using Military Force to establish a Stable Democracy that fulfills it's Primary Responsibilty of Caring for it's Own Citizens should free up enough funding to pay for the exploration of Mars several times over.
And it's a much better idea than fractionalizing the distance between Earth and Mars in increments of 1/infinity.
Viva Mars ! Viva !
#54 Re: Not So Free Chat » Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ? » 2006-01-10 21:05:55
I'm 40 and grew up on classic science fiction. Remember grainy black & white pictures of someone walking around on the moon.
Remember Skylab. Remember thinking this new "Space Shuttle" idea was stupid and a waste of time. Wanted something more, bigger & better.
There's this line in "The White House" (or whatever that show is called) where the old man is complaining about how he felt gypped because he was raised on Buck Rogers and Rockets and Ray-Guns, all by the year 2000.
He was promised a Ray-Gun, and somehow got gypped out of it.
Me too. I got gypped out of real space travel and was handed the retarded booby-prize of unmanned missions and the Space Shuttle.
Then George Bush decided to invade Iraq. And VERY clearly, that at about the EXACT time I was looking at his first attempt and selling the idea of the War Against Iraq, Part 2, at the EXACT moment I was asking myself "Well, what do you think of this?" I remember CLEARLY (as I was reading his lips too) George Bush Part 2 said that we were going to go to Mars, and that we were going to do it within a decade.
I remember this because I clearly remember thinking "I KNEW John F. Kennedy. John F. Kennedy was a friend of mine. George Bush, Part 2, you're no John F. Kennedy.
But see, at the moment where I should have felt outrage, when I should have been tempted to take-up arms against the war-monger and imperialistic government of the the USA, I also remember thinking:
"Hey! We're finally going to Mars."
So with every report of dead US soldiers, with every allegation of deceit regarding the "Weapons of Mass Distraction", I have over the last few years kept clearly in mind what was MOST important.
We're finally going to Mars.
But you see, lately I've been sort of wondering about some things. Like, whatever happened to this promise of manned exploration of Mars.
I mean, he said it right ? I was hallucinating, having a PTSD episode or a psychotic break, right ? I'm not schizophrenic, so the issue of taking my meds isn't likely, but if I WAS schizophrenic, then the fact that I'm not taking my meds might be the explanation as to ...
WHY it is that I think that humanity is going to land on the surface of Mars, when I haven't heard a single word about the subject since the day I heard George Bush Part 2 make the promise.
I read George Orwell 1984, and so I understand the concept of the "memory hole". But it couldn't be REAL, could it? I mean, not with the book being published and everything.
But then why is everyone pretending that the President of the Entire Planet didn't promise all of humanity that we were going to explore Mars ?
Someone please help.