Tag Archives: Obama

R.I.P. NASA– You Will Be Missed

I can’t believe this crap!  Okay, yes I can, but it still makes me sick.  Not only is this moron in the Oval Office (who shall remain nameless) trying to make us pay for everything from his ridiculous Cap-and Trade nonsense to healthcare for people in other states but now he is destroying what I consider to be one of the few worthwhile government institutions, one of the only ones (other than the military) which I might willingly pay for with my own money, NASA.

He is nixing the entire Constellation program; the only real hope we have of manned space-flight in the future since we have now decided to retire the existing space shuttle.  No more lunar-landers, no more moon bases for blasting terrorists from space and essentially no more NASA as we currently know it.  Space technology is not something you step away from for a few years to save some quick cash and then come back to when your student loans have been paid off.  If we do this now, we will never lead the way in this field again.

I did take a moment to think about this and say, “Well, with all the recent giant leaps forward in space flight from private companies, wouldn’t it actually make sense to turn our nation’s future extra-terrestrial ambitions over to the private sector,” and that might not be a bad idea but we are not there yet and I think we all know quite well that this means our future in space is going to be in the hands of the Russians and possibly the Chinese.  There’s a bright prospect!  The lives of our astronauts will now be entirely in the hands of a bunch of vodka-swigging commies who cannot even build an airplane that doesn’t burst into flames as the wings fall off upon leaving the runway.

Yes ma'am, it is technically strong enough to fuel our rockets... but what would we drink then?

That’s not the kicker though.  I was already incensed enough when I got to our socialist savior’s next plan for my beloved space agency.  “…the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change.”  AHHHH!  No! No! NO!!!  He is turning NASA into some inane bullshit think-tank so that the government can just create their own ‘data’ to support global warming without needing the UN to do it for them.  I give it two years before Al Gore is running things in Houston and we decide that we cannot even permit ourselves to hitch a ride to the ISS with the Ruskies because their shuttles are powered by highly-combustible fuel rather than rainbows and puppy-dog smiles.  Their going to start making the Tang from ground up algae powder and turn the freeze-dried meals into some gluten-free crap grown by a 3rd-world slave-driver who never passes one iota of his massive boosts in sale price along to the poor saps working the fields.

I thought we were all doomed down here on Earth already.  I thought our decades of free-wheeling, gas-guzzling, fancy-free living had already done so much irreparable damage to our planet that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 20 years and we would all be sinking into our respective watery graves like so many polar bears searching for their long-lost ice-floats.  If things are so bad down here, shouldn’t we be focusing our efforts ‘out there’?  Putting solar blockers in place, creating an artificial ozone, finding a new planet to colonize?  We all saw Moonraker, we can do this people!

I can’t take it anymore!  Somebody needs to derail this ‘good-intentions’ train that the world is on and get back to reality.  Wake up, you morons, the concept of ‘best intentions’ has no more place in the world of government than non-data-driven hypotheses has in the scientific community.

Democrats: The Party of Racism & Ignorance

So I am in a cab this morning on the way to the airport and the driver has on the local NY affiliate for National Public Radio.  I am not a big fan of NPR, if only because I have never understood why the few outlets of broadcast media being propped up by our federal tax dollars (NPR, PBS) have been so historically to the left of center in the political spectrum.  Given that the last two U.S presidential elections have been decided but such a markedly thin margin, does it not make sense that our nation’s media market reflect both ends of the political measure (or at least show some semblance of compromise between the two?)

But, in spite of myself, I admit that NPR does put out some genuinely interesting programming from time to time and the mere fact that it was the radio station selected by my cab driver is not what is irritating me at the moment.  What proved troublesome for me were the comments made during an interview of some Maine voters regarding their state’s recent presidential primary.

Specifically, the NPR representatives were asking African-American voters from the Democratic primary who they had chosen to vote for and, more importantly, the reasons why they had done so.  The selection of interviews was small (it was not a very long report) but nearly every one of the comments irked me to some degree.  It seemed as though, when asked for the reason they supported him, nearly every African-American Barack Obama supporter’s predominant reason for voting for this man was that he is black.

What the hell kind of reason is that to vote for someone?  Casting your vote for one candidate or another based on the color of their skin is not only ignorant but it is also, by definition, racist.  I understand that many people (of all races) are excited to see the first serious African-American contender for the White House in our nation’s history but by making this man’s race into a selling point for his campaign you give legitimacy to the very racial differences against which you claim to fight.  Does this not fly in the face of the concept of all men, regardless of race, creed, age, socio-economic status, etc. being created equal?  Isn’t the point of equality to ensure that each of the candidates has a level playing field from which to woo potential voters?

This is not to say that such prejudiced votes are not cast by many other groups of people for many other reasons.  I know that Mitt Romney recently swept through the Utah Republican primary with nearly 90% of that state’s vote due, to a large degree, to the fact that Romney was the sole Mormon candidate running in a state known to be the Mecca of the Mormon religion; but that does not seem to be quite as knee-jerk of a vote as the African-American issue.  Mormons are a religious group whose family and social ideals are clearly defined by their adherence to the rules and norms of their church.  Moreover, they are a group in which membership is a matter of choice, not genetics.  To say the same about black people would be to imply that their entire race is predisposed to act a certain way.  That is, of course, not true and is also a racist sentiment.

Many African-Americans are obviously going to share some set of social norms and values as they are (for the vast majority) born into African-American families who pass on these traditions from one generation to the next (just as any racial, religious, family group does.)  Americans are not, however, voting to decide who should be the head of African-America or the leader of the Mormon religion; we are voting to decide who should run this nation and as much as I may be inclined to vote for a white Catholic from Massachusetts (as such a person would be wholly representative of my personal background,) I have never voted for anyone with the last name Kennedy because none of these people represented what I wanted for my political leadership or governance.

Perhaps the most disturbing sound-byte from the whole NPR segment came from an African-American woman who expressed her reasoning for choosing Hillary Clinton over Obama.  She stated that she “loves Obama” (without delving into any reason for this admiration) but that she was voting for Hillary because the New York senator has pledged to “double funding to black universities” if elected.

There are two serious issues with the sentiments expressed by this woman.  First, why is there such a thing as a ‘black university’ that receives any public funding?  This is an institution whose very goal is to further the progress of one specific racial group above all others in a nation where ‘all men are created equal.’  How does one justify that?  Such an institution is either attempting to unbalance the already level field of racial play in America or trying to advance a racial group which they themselves have determined to be inferior to the others in some way.  Can you even begin to imagine the outcry if someone attempted to start a ‘white university’ let alone secure its funding from tax dollars?  Those involved would be lambasted as evil racists and probably convicted of some sort of ‘hate-crime.’

The second issue I have with this woman’s reason for choosing Hillary is that she wants to see the funding for these ‘black universities’ doubled.  This begs many questions:  What is the deficiency in these schools that has caused them to need twice the funds currently allotted to them by our government?  Will doubling this funding really solve these problems or just set the stage for further financial increases down the line?  How much of an increase in funding will the public university system as a whole see under President Hillary?  How should I, as a Caucasian-, Hispanic-, Middle Eastern-, or Asian-American, feel knowing that my tax dollars are being set aside for group of people who wish to exclude me based solely on my race?

The bottom line here is that if you feel you have been disenfranchised in some way because serious candidates for the American presidency have always been white males then you should really have some sort of concrete evidence as to what you have missed out on.  With all the whining I have heard from the anti-Bush lobby over the past eight years about how the President duped the nation into launching an unnecessary war or how he is a moron incapable of leading anyone you would think that these people might be able to come up with a slightly better rationale for choosing our next president than race or gender.  If you don’t want to see our nation at war then why not choose Ron Paul, a former Libertarian candidate whose political ideals would certainly not have the U.S jumping into any overseas conflicts.  If you think that George W. Bush is an idiot then why not review the GPAs and IQ scores for each candidate and simply choose the one who is the most intelligent?  It’s odd that in spite of all the years of Bush-bashing and the current trend of voting along racial- or gender-lines I cannot recall a single instance of Bush being called ‘too-white’ or ‘too-male’ of a Commander-in-Chief.

In spite of voting for him in both elections, I do not agree with many things that President Bush has done over the past eight years.  I do believe, however, that I would be facing a much longer personal laundry list of issues with actions that Bush’s alternatives would have taken had they been residing in the White House.  That being said, I know that I can feel confident that I have made the correct decision each time I enter the voting booth by selecting the candidate who best represents my desired leadership style and personal values rather than someone whose skin color or chromosome make-up matches mine.