The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

midibidi · 2004-07-10 22:14:41

I have a comment for the investigative team.

I have met with closed minds on my observation of Kasei Valles.

According to the MOLA Image published in January 2004 in National Geographic, the color coded MOLA image shows a small
"island" between two shorelines. There is a small "fingerlike" projection on the upper (?northern) side of the island that fits into a bay area located along the coastline of the (?western) shore.

... like it broke away, and geological turbulence swirled it away and filled in the cracks with lava. Perhaps expanded.

If you notice on the (?eastern) shore, the other side of the island would fit along it,
and another island located (?south) of the original island, would fit (?south) of the first island.

Do you see this?

Palomar · 2004-07-10 22:27:00

I'm afraid I might have come off a little too vehement in my last couple of remarks, after making them I kept thinking about one of Spock's lines in Star Trek 2, "You must learn to control your passions, they will be your undoing." While I do have quite strong opinions about this and other subjects, I've made them after a long time of careful consideration bsed on real facts, so I usually try not to look like an arm-waving lunatic screaming "I'm right, I have the truth!" I hope I didn't come off across like this.

*No, Mad Grad, I don't think you came off that way at all.

It's great to have a teen on the list who is well reasoned, objective and articulate like yourself. There's another young man around your age who hasn't been here in a while (from New Zealand), who also makes great contributions to New Mars...I wish he'd return soon.

The entire spectrum of age, experience, etc., is vital to discussion.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2004-07-11 12:06:09

Ahem. . . .

Palomar · 2004-07-11 20:02:30

Ahem. . . .

*Ahem what, dicktice? ??? ???

A hopeful reminder that you are (so far as we know) this forum's eldest contributor?

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-12 03:42:59

Hehehe, so... any one want to speculate about Bill's little rumor? If Kerry does open up with space policy, he could be talking about going straight to Mars, and forgoing the moon completely. Talk about excellent! The moon has already shown to be less of an ideal place to put a base, all we have to do is go to Kerry and tell him this.

If Kerry could answer back a "Bush moon question" with an intelligent retort about the superior aspects of Mars habitation, Bush would be screwed. Even if he does know a lot about the moon and the necessary requirements to set up a base there, his answers would still prove quite inferior to one who can point out that we know more about Mars than any other body in the solar system. (edit, except Earth of course!)

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1089625486

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-12 05:36:43

What a delicious scene you paint, Josh!
Most people here know I'm very wary of left-wing politics but, if Kerry's off to Mars, ... Hot Damn!! .. I'm goin' with him!!
:laugh: :band:

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-12 06:08:32

Excellent points, Shaun. Heresy to be sure, but undeniably valid observations.

And I noticed some knee-jerk responses condemning such an observation. We should all be aware that modern liberalism imposes many restraints all its own. Social boundaries don't just disappear, they're replaced by others.

Hmm, I almost hate going back to this, but...

Ahem, Cobra, the whole point of getting married is to have children? Cindy (And all others married), can you back me up here (Man, this debate is getting more competitive than evolution/creationism)? There are plenty of couples that get married and never, ever intend to have children, just as sometimes couples that aren't married do have children (Although usually not intentionally). Children is not the reason couples get married, it's something called love.

No, I did not say to the woman who is now my wife "will you marry me that our potential future offspring may have a stable family structure, be provided for and grow to become well-adjusted productive members of our society rather than leaches, criminals or otherwise undesireable degenerate elements?" But the basic sentiment was floating around. The institution of marriage exists for that reason. It's one of many cases where the reasons people do a thing are different than the reasons for that thing.

Another example: Many people join the Army to get money for college. Armies exist to kill people and destroy things. Focusing on 'getting people into college' rather than 'killing and destroying' is contrary to the purpose of the institution in question. If paying for peoples' college education is the goal one is working toward, starting something entirely different would be better than trying to change the existing institution to further that end, for which it was never meant nor suited to as a prime function. By the same token, a homosexual marriage is a completely different animal from the traditional heterosexual variety. A whole new class of union with the same benefits and obligations may be in order, but trying to rework the current institution to accomodate what should be an entirely new one only serves to damage both.

Government should not be in the marriage contract.
Leave it to the religious organizations and civil legal system.

This is essentially what I've been suggesting as a possible solution. If we remove government from the equation, then marriage becomes whatever the two (or more) parties want it to be. A purely religious ceremony could be all it entails, or a legally binding contract between the parties could be drawn up, as opposed to the present system involving a contract between two people and the state. This creates the least number and severity of problems.

Back to Mad Grad's points.

Okay, so you claim that there are no pro-Kerry arguments. This is quite an overstatement, Kerry has pledged that he will mandate that at least 20% of all American power will come from alternative sources by 2020.

How does he plan to achieve it? Mandating something isn't a policy without a plan for bringing about the result.

And, back on topic.

If Kerry could answer back a "Bush moon question" with an intelligent retort about the superior aspects of Mars habitation, Bush would be screwed.

Only with the hardcore space-advocate community. Hardly an electoral juggernaut. ???

clark · 2004-07-12 08:43:23

By the same token, a homosexual marriage is a completely different animal from the traditional heterosexual variety. A whole new class of union with the same benefits and obligations may be in order, but trying to rework the current institution to accomodate what should be an entirely new one only serves to damage both.

So Cobras, you seem to at least allow for something like marriage for homosexuals, but not the name itself? It wouldn't be called marriage, but it would have the same substance?

Politician. :laugh:

If Kerry could answer back a "Bush moon question" with an intelligent retort about the superior aspects of Mars habitation, Bush would be screwed.

Dude, this is a bad idea. Going straight to Mars will give us another Apollo redux. It will open Kerry up to being a Mars-loon who is just making something up to counter Bush grandstanding (which also means he can't really call Bush out on being out of touch with what people want from NASA).

If there is any substance to the rumour, here is what we will see:

Reoranization of NASA where the human exploration component is taken out, and set up as a distinct departmental agency. Let NASA do what NASA does well, which is robotic science and cutting edge research. Take the newly minted "Office of Exploration" and call is NOHE or some such thing and have it focus exsclusively on the aspects of Human related exploration (including biomedical sciences) with an emphasis on working with international partners to rebuild our credibility and prestige.

This will ensure that NASA science funding is not sacrificed for flag and footprints, and that actual, long term, human in space exploration can be sustained as a seperate agency and choice.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-12 09:04:33

So Cobras, you seem to at least allow for something like marriage for homosexuals, but not the name itself? It wouldn't be called marriage, but it would have the same substance?
Politician.

That's essentially what I've getting at, yes. The reason is simple and straightforward, if we create some new "civil union" quasi-marital arrangement for homesexuals, we will have marriage, the same as it has always been, and whatever we call the homosexual derivation of it. If we expand marriage to include homosexuals directly, we then have opened the door for all sorts of other inclusions that cannot be denied on any logically defensible grounds once that door is opened. The end result is to make "marriage" so inclusive and flexible as to be utterly meaningless. With a 'civil union' approach the homosexual community gets the same benefits and obligations as heterosexual marriages. If we redefine marriage to include homosexuals, in the end we'll destroy it for everyone.

So if that is acceptable, then let's abolish the legal basis of it right now and save ourselves a great deal of confusion and difficulty.

If there is any substance to the rumour, here is what we will see:...

et al.

Sooo... you think Kerry will call for the creation of a whole new agency for human exploration aspects in addition to maintaining NASA's current funding? ???

clark · 2004-07-12 09:18:24

So if that is acceptable, then let's abolish the legal basis of it right now and save ourselves a great deal of confusion and difficulty.

An amendment would preclude the possibility of a civil union as you describe. I fail to see how it's anyones business but the adults involved in the actual relationship. As such, we shouldn't preclude them from their individual choice. I would imagine that heterosexual couples could get civil union's- but what makes a marriage a marriage? A priest? We have homosexual pastors, and churchs that would offer the "civil union". It just dosen't make sense Cobra.

Sooo... you think Kerry will call for the creation of a whole new agency for human exploration aspects in addition to maintaining NASA's current funding?

It would take the funding involved with human exploration and research- the Shuttle, ISS, and the CEV. They would be funded seperately though, and run as seperate agencies. That way NASA wouldn't be playing a shuffle game with transfering monies from one area to another (which led to the Shuttle disasters and ISS failures... which will be the point Kerry makes, and points to in condemning plan Bush as just more of the same old NASA).

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-12 09:32:41

It would take the funding involved with human exploration and research- the Shuttle, ISS, and the CEV. They would be funded seperately though, and run as seperate agencies. That way NASA wouldn't be playing a shuffle game with transfering monies from one area to another (which led to the Shuttle disasters and ISS failures... which will be the point Kerry makes, and points to in condemning plan Bush as just more of the same old NASA).

While the basic idea has some merit, I'm just curious as to why you think Kerry will push it, or even bring up the issue? If he does, great, but somehow I just don't see it.

An amendment would preclude the possibility of a civil union as you describe.

And as I've repeatedly stated, I'm against an amendment.

I fail to see how it's anyones business but the adults involved in the actual relationship. As such, we shouldn't preclude them from their individual choice.

Which would be precisely the result of abolishing marriage as a legal institution. Let everyone figure out their own arrangements, anything goes between consenting adults and as far as insurance benefits and the like are concerned, the market will sort it out.

I would imagine that heterosexual couples could get civil union's- but what makes a marriage a marriage?

In the modern sense, legal recognition and access to a set of clearly defined benefits and obligations such as joint tax status, insurance coverage between the two parties, joint ownership of assets etc. A separate 'civil union' arrangement can grant this same legal status to a homosexual couple. By changing what marriage itself is, you open it to further and rapid expansion, creating a multitude of legal issues. Can a marriage include more than two people? Why not, if we just changed it to include same sex arrangements? Then can five people in a group marriage file jointly on their tax return? How many spouses are insurance companies obligated to cover? Don't think this won't come up in short order, it most certainly will.

If we create a new 'civil union' status we can head it off, or by dumping marriage as a legally binding contract it falls to the individuals. This middle ground of 'open marriage to gays, but no further and everything will be cool' is not based in reality.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-12 09:37:04

I can see it now...

Kerry creates the National Office of Human Space Exploration (NOHSE). Pronounced "nosey", it leads to mountains of cartoons depicting Kerry as the busy body of the Galaxy, constantly annoying our extraterrestrial neighbors with his peering binoculars. :laugh:

Seriously, I think splitting NASA into two groups would be an excellent idea.

clark · 2004-07-12 09:42:39

While the basic idea has some merit, I'm just curious as to why you think Kerry will push it, or even bring up the issue?

If I told you how I know, i would have to kill you. To be fair, the one eyed hobo didn't tell me, but I've been shining my crystal ball...

If he does, great, but somehow I just don't see it.

You don't see a lot of things that you should. Welcome to the valley of the blind my friend.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-12 10:38:01

Seriously, I think splitting NASA into two groups would be an excellent idea.

In theory the idea has merit, let all the 'human exploration' people focus on that while all the robot stuff is in its own exclusive camp. Everyone is more efficient, right?

Well, no. We're talking about government here. Now we'll have two red-tape bound agencies competing for the same launch services and the same money, and not communicating or working together very well.

If basic launch services can be privatized such an arrangement becomes more viable, but if we just split NASA into two agencies we'll in all likelihood paralyze what little capability we currently have. More government pencil-pushing is not the answer.

You don't see a lot of things that you should.

Last time someone told me that they were hallucinating badly. Something about snake trails in the cement, didn't make much sense.

clark · 2004-07-12 10:47:43

In theory the idea has merit, let all the 'human exploration' people focus on that while all the robot stuff is in its own exclusive camp. Everyone is more efficient, right?

Of course not. However, it steals Bush's thunder because this is exactly where his plan leads. Take a look at the reorganization proposals- it also includes a redefinition of NASA's mandate. In later years, the science portion will be divereted to NSF and other science departments. What is left will become federally funded researh centers like JPL.

The Office of exploration though will be driving everything, and the buidget suggestions rely on stripping NASA of science funding in later years to fund CEV production and human exploration programs.

By taking this route, prior to any actual implementation of Plan Bush, Kerry can sit back and say, "Bush is doing what I suggested." The Dem's can argue for implemetation of Kerry's suggestion as a requisite for funding of FY'05 for NASA. Bush will probably go along with it as it gives him what he wants- but it takes away his ability to argue the point that this is his idea.

If Bush fights it, then he will be called out every time the sciences get raided for CEV or any time an astronaut dies (due to poor funding of his stated objective).

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-12 11:07:04

Two points to consider though. First, what motivates Kerry to stake out a position that has limited chances of attracting support and a limited chance of alienating other supporters? What's he got to gain from it besides trying to upstage a minor Bush position.

Second, suppose he does so, it gets implemented, and he tries to take credit for it. Whether true or not, many people are going to believe that Kerry doesn't give a damn about space exploration/development. If he loses but the Dems get the proposal passed as a condition for funding NASA FY'05 they really have nothing, as most people will see it as Congressional Democrats supporting a Bush proposal, ie a win for Bush. If Kerry wins the election and enacts it, he will be A) actually starting a program he proposed solely to counter a Bush proposal, which falls under the old Reagan 'amazing what you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.' All the while intermediaries bring this up. :;): and B) spending money on space while many of his backing factions are clamoring for those same funds. He'll piss off a significant number of his supporters, some of whom view space exploration as a profound waste of resources. The big Kerry space coup just isn't there.

clark · 2004-07-12 11:22:09

First, what motivates Kerry to stake out a position that has limited chances of attracting support and a limited chance of alienating other supporters? What's he got to gain from it besides trying to upstage a minor Bush position.

Steal thunder from Bush. He isn't going to alienate his voters becuase it falls under his general stance- which is to sway those who might vote for Bush. He has to show that he can have that vision thing too. The Iraq war for example, he agrees with Bush on the action, just not on the implementation.

Second, suppose he does so, it gets implemented, and he tries to take credit for it. Whether true or not, many people are going to believe that Kerry doesn't give a damn about space exploration/development.

You don't honestly believe that Bush gives a damn, do you? Neither cares, leave it at that. They are both motivated by other issues, take advantage of it while we can. :;):

If he loses but the Dems get the proposal passed as a condition for funding NASA FY'05 they really have nothing, as most people will see it as Congressional Democrats supporting a Bush proposal, ie a win for Bush.

Well, here is the thing, by breaking out NASA from Human Exploration, it becomes that much easier to kill either one later on... if neither party cares, then you can see why they would both be willing to make a show of the whole thing to begin with.

If Kerry wins the election and enacts it, he will be A) actually starting a program he proposed solely to counter a Bush proposal, which falls under the old Reagan 'amazing what you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.' All the while intermediaries bring this up.

If enacted, it becomes easier to defund, or reduce the scope of the actual program. As long as it stays within a coherent NASA, you can't touch the budget there (too many entrentched interests). Splitting it up allows you to break that stranglehold.

B) spending money on space while many of his backing factions are clamoring for those same funds.

Yeah, and he will get to the human exploration funds, retain the science in NASA, and pay down the debt, or pay for social security. Bush could do the same thing (or at least the Republican Party could)

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-12 22:09:05

The idea about Kerry supporting a Mars Direct style mission is interesting. It seems that his campaign is all about doing one of two things:

1: Do the exact diametric opposite of whatever Bush does
-OR-
2: If that doesn't work, take the same stance, but point out flaws and make a better version.

Now, he's already pretended that he cares about the space program, so option 1 is unlikely. However, if he starts quotin' Dr. Z (Excellent nickname, almost makes me wish my last name was Zubrin or something with a Z) and brings up why we really don't NEED to return to the Moon to go to Mars, he'll make Bush look like a moron... again. There are plenty of reasons we should go back to the Moon, and plenty that we should go to Mars, but the two are not intertwined in any way. He can just take the stance of let's go somewhere we haven't been before.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-13 01:49:37

clark, I agree with your comments about what Kerry would do, I was thinking along those lines myself. That's why I said "habitation" rather than "mission." But I think that Mars itself may be used (or at least could be used) to say, "hey, that moon thing has been done before, buster!" I think most Mars enthusiasts would agree with me here that Mars is the best place to put a habitat. Perhaps we're biased, or perhaps we have tons of water, a relatively good atmosphere, plenty of natural resources, and yaknow, just facts to go by, but maybe we are just biased. :;):

I think I mentioned something along these lines way back when Kerry was nominated (or maybe it was before that, and with regards to a general Democratic nominee). The thing about American politics is that for whatever your candidate has, you have to have an equally intriguing opposing argument. Kerry seems to have one, apparently. The question is whether we as space advocates would agree with it or not. Especially we as Mars advocates. If Kerry is advocating Mars before moon, you better believe I'm on his bandwagon.

Anyhow, clark, you're cute when you speculate like this, heehee.

Algol · 2004-07-13 07:26:12

I dont want to drag the topic back into environmental discussions but i just read this article and had to post a link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3886275.stm]BBC - US pollution may damage UK health

lol

clark · 2004-07-13 08:37:06

Anyhow, clark, you're cute when you speculate like this, heehee.

Don't you know, I get all dolled up for you. :;):

Perhaps we're biased, or perhaps we have tons of water, a relatively good atmosphere, plenty of natural resources, and yaknow, just facts to go by, but maybe we are just biased.

Oh, you have plenty of facts to go by. The only problem is that the average Mars nut seems more than willing to forget all the other facts that suggest going to Mars right now is not the wisest course. But yeah, you got "facts". :laugh:

. If Kerry is advocating Mars before moon, you better believe I'm on his bandwagon.

LOL! Don't hold your breath. At best, he will advocate the restructuring of NASA around human exploration and science in two seperate agencies.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-13 09:33:52

"People with lung disease, particularly asthmatics should keep an eye on ozone forecasts on Ceefax and in the papers so they can double their inhalers if the levels are likely to be high," he said.

Boy, I just love picking up the paper every morning and checking the ozone forcast! It's a good thing we got out of that nasty little Kyoto protocol thing. Now we can sell more asthma inhailers to those whiney little Brits.

Palomar · 2004-07-13 09:41:34

*I nominate this the strangest thread yet at New Mars.

Can it get any weirder? ???

Dicktice: Good luck.

Ian: Gave me a laugh (dark humor).

--Cindy

P.S.: Recent polls indicate Edwards on the Demo ticket is having little to no effect; also, Bush is seen as arrogant by more Americans now than before.

::edit:: Oh...45 minutes later a different headline from Yahoo! Now they're saying Edwards -is- boosting Kerry's campaign. Whatever...

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-13 12:44:38

*I nominate this the strangest thread yet at New Mars.
Can it get any weirder? ???

First line: Remember that there's another thread in "Human Missions" entitled "Cloth Diapers." As if that weren't enough, it's devoted to discussions on dry cleaning, childbirth, vaccination, goats, and yes, diapers. It all brings to the table the question of what either of these threads are doing here, but whatev.

Second line: Yes.

The fact is, neither of the two candidates are very good choices, and neither of them are crazy about the space program. For me, it comes down to a lesser-of-two-evils battle, and IMO Bush is more evil than Kerry. As for who wins the election, it's anyone's guess. As mentioned earlier, Bush is predicted to win by the guys who have been right every time these last two decades except in 2000, and you might be able to forgive them there, considering that Bush lost the popular vote by a million votes (Any signitures for a petition against the electoral college?). However, not one president has ever been re-elected with their approval ratings as low as Bush's. Who knows?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-13 13:05:50

The fact is, neither of the two candidates are very good choices, and neither of them are crazy about the space program. For me, it comes down to a lesser-of-two-evils battle, and IMO Bush is more evil than Kerry.

Evil Lite ???

As mentioned earlier, Bush is predicted to win by the guys who have been right every time these last two decades except in 2000, and you might be able to forgive them there, considering that Bush lost the popular vote by a million votes (Any signitures for a petition against the electoral college?).

The actual number is barely half-a-million, and irrelevant given our electoral system, which is itself a product of the underlying structure of our Constitution.

At any rate, if popular vote is to be the barometer, neither candidate got 50% (48 Gore, 47.8 Bush) and so neither could be said to have any mandate, though both did better than Clinton's 43% in '92.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2004-07-10 22:14:41

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#202 2004-07-10 22:27:00

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#203 2004-07-11 12:06:09

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#204 2004-07-11 20:02:30

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#205 2004-07-12 03:42:59

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#206 2004-07-12 05:36:43

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#207 2004-07-12 06:08:32

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#208 2004-07-12 08:43:23

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#209 2004-07-12 09:04:33

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#210 2004-07-12 09:18:24

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#211 2004-07-12 09:32:41

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#212 2004-07-12 09:37:04

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#213 2004-07-12 09:42:39

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#214 2004-07-12 10:38:01

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#215 2004-07-12 10:47:43

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#216 2004-07-12 11:07:04

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#217 2004-07-12 11:22:09

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#218 2004-07-12 22:09:05

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#219 2004-07-13 01:49:37

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#220 2004-07-13 07:26:12

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#221 2004-07-13 08:37:06

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#222 2004-07-13 09:33:52

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#223 2004-07-13 09:41:34

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#224 2004-07-13 12:44:38

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#225 2004-07-13 13:05:50

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Board footer