Privatizing Space Travel

I am 100% serious when I say Newt Gingrich's best idea - perhaps his only good idea - was the moon base. It's not even the moon base per se, so much as the idea that we should be looking to expand our knowledge of the unknown, and our presence beyond the borders of Earth. If we confine ourselves to a planet that we are killing, we don't have much of a future. Even when and if we stop killing the planet, we are going to use up its resources eventually, and even if we find a way to efficiently harness its renewable resources, one day the Sun is going to die. So long term, even if it is veryyyyy long term, we need to explore what else is out there.

This is not a new idea. If you accept the prevailing theory of Stonehenge then people have been doing it for at least 5000 years. Even if you believe Stonehenge was built by aliens, then you at acknowledge that there is more to the cosmos than us. Studying the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, and so forth has not only increased our understanding of our own world, but it has led to great technological advances that have benefited millions, many as spinoffs of NASA's quest to put a man on the moon.

NASA is a shell of its former self, and I will admit, I was mad at Obama - and still am to some degree - for his decision to axe the Shuttle program. I didn't think that there would be enough of a revenue stream to induce private companies to pick up the slack of sending people and cargo into space. I haven't been proven wrong yet, but at least one company is trying to make sure my prediction does not come true, and I am rooting for them.

Just this morning, a Space X rocket blasted off from Cape Canaveral attempting to make the first ever private trip to the International Space Station. If successful, the flight would mark a huge achievement for the private sector in space travel and exploration, and would open the way to more lucrative contracts from the government, thus providing a revenue stream - even if it is still public money - for space travel.

I want the United States to be the world's leader in scientific inquiry and exploration, especially in space, and I still want NASA to play a role. They do have half a century's worth of experience after all. But today's flight is a milestone for private space and aeronautics development that could potentially create new jobs and perhaps even open new markets, and we should all be rooting for its success.

Now where are those people that were accusing Obama of bloating government spending and ignoring private sector growth?

Doubling Down on Default

Remember last summer when Republicans took America hostage by refusing to raise the debt limit thus almost causing the country to default and leading to a reduction of America's credit rating. It was a national embarrassment hidden behind a facade of fiscal stewardship that itself is nothing but either a total misunderstanding of economics or a cheap political ploy to undermine the President.

Either way the episode was a debacle. America's image was tarnished as was our credit rating - although that little episode was a debacle as well. If no agreement can be reached by January 1st, additional tax hikes and across the board spending cuts will automatically go into effect. Republicans have already shredded their integrity in this ordeal, so it comes as no surprise that they have already passed legislation that will never go anywhere to spare the military from cuts, replacing those funds by cutting more from social programs. The Republican path to prosperity sure does involve the creation of a diminishing middle class.

Of course there is still plenty of time for the sides to reach a deal on the debt ceiling and future spending and revenues, but of course good ole John Boehner - I'm having trouble remembering why I used to think he was actually capable of compromise - has already promised to double down on defaulting, declaring that Republicans will not raise the debt ceiling unless every dollar is met by spending cuts for deficit reduction and, of course, increased revenue is off the table.

This ignorance and obstinacy has already cost America. Of course, Republicans are much less concerned with the welfare of our economy and our people than they are with winning control of government and protecting millionaires, so why not double down on a strategy that will further harm the economy and potentially derail President Obama's reelection bid? That's been the strategy since day one after all, and since the American people are not the priority of the Republican party, adding to our suffering is a trivial concern. Who cares if spending cuts hurt the economy if it leads to Mitt Romney's election?

Republican economic policy got us into this mess, and their strategies to get us out of it are nothing but a rehash of those ideas except pushed to an even further extreme. Ronald Reagan would be appalled. If Republicans could help govern responsibly, compromising while still advocating for ideas that would fuel economic growth - and they have those ideas! That is the irony of this whole thing, Republicans COULD contribute to the conversation, they just refuse to do so - then America would be better off. Alas, that political party has retreated to the fringe on both economic and social issues, and prefers to sit there while the country suffers rather than being part of the solution.

Doubling down on default may make John Boehner feel tough, and it may appeal to the lunatic Tea Partiers, but it's bad economic policy, and with any luck, bad political policy as well. America is sick of this protracted economic slump, and we know who is to blame. Telling us you want to take even more from us while protecting your super wealthy friends isn't going to win over anyone with any brains.

Thank you, Mr. President

It's about time. The President finally threw his weight around a non-issue that is, for some reason, an issue. It gets boring and repetitive to recite the preamble of the Declaration of Independence every time there is a need to talk about social justice, and you know how it reads anyhow, but really, it's 2012 and we are still debating basic human rights.

Obama's support for gay marriage today is an important, if belated step in the right direction. I distinctly remember my parents struggling to explain to me as a child why it was that six decades ago, black people in this country had to fight and sometimes die for basic rights. There are, of course explanations: a legacy of slavery and racism; etc; etc; etc. But there is no answer. Why did our society legally discriminate against people based on the color of their skin? There is no answer. Why, in 2012, do we still legally discriminate against people based on their sexuality? There may be explanations, but there is no answer. There can be no debate about a basic human right. We can debate the economy, or foreign involvements, or government spending. We cannot debate basic human rights.

One day, I'm sure I will struggle to explain to my children how it was that in 2012, the world's greatest nation, and one that was founded on equal rights for ALL people still legally discriminated against its own citizens because of their sexuality. Hopefully today's endorsement of gay marriage by the President, belated though it was, will bring America closer to being a country that actually espouses and embraces equal rights for everyone.

Romney, Chen, and Immigrants

Sometimes when you're thrown an alley, the only thing to do is oop it. Mitt Romney threw me a nice lob yesterday, so here's the inevitable throw down that follows such a pass:

Speaking in Virginia yesterday, Romney did what he does best, made a fool of himself. The man is almost too easy to make fun of, but yesterday rather than putting his awkwardness about his wealth on display, he chose to highlight his hypocrisy.

In his quest to be different from Obama on every issue, Romney took the administration to task for its handling of Chinese dissident Chen Gaungcheng, calling the whole episode "a dark day for freedom."

Then Romney really lit it up with this quote, "Aren't we proud of the fact that people seeking freedom come to our embassy to find it?"

Really Mitt? Is that what you're proud of? I find that comical since your stance on immigration is to deport all of those who came to our COUNTRY looking for freedom. I know, next time people try to cross the border let's send them all back home and refer them to the embassies in their native countries. American embassies all over the world will replace America itself as the beacon of freedom. We can build miniature versions of the Statue of Liberty atop each embassy, and just tell everyone looking for freedom and opportunity to go there.

Freedom is a great political buzzword, and I'm sure Romney thought he had a slam dunk with this one. But like most of his party, his rhetoric does not line up with reality. While Romney is busy predicting the death of freedom he is actively undermining at home with his bigoted and xenophobic views on the millions of Americans who came here looking for a chance.

What's the opposite of left?

Right of course, and in America, the far right. Communists are the eternal enemy, just ask Mitt Romney. We are still in an ideological standoff against a long vanquished foe. It makes sense that we would find communism abhorrent and off putting. Central economic planning failed in all manifestations in which it has been practiced, and the the authoritarian governments to which central economic planning are often inextricably linked are the antithesis of the freedoms we value.

We have watched these economic ideas fail in practice in societies all over the world. Even the most successful example of "communism" in China, is a complex hybrid of economic ideas that involves free enterprise, and not the monolithic, centrally-planned economic machine we associate with the term. Of course, usually when we quake in fear of the communist other what we are actually referring to is the Big Brother society of the USSR more so than a planned economy.

But for whatever reasons, the inexplicable specter of communism still looms. The American economic reaction, at least from the Republican party, has been a sprint to the right. If far left economic ideas failed, surely far right economic ideas must work. In lieu of central planning I give you the omnipotent invisible hand. This reactionary economic response is ironic and shows a glaring ignorance of history since communism was conceived of in response to free market practices that concentrated resources in the hands of few at the expense of many. Centrally planned economies do not work, but Marx was right - though hardly original - when he noted that if you screw people over they are going to get upset and do something about it.

Now we've come full circle, and Republicans are espousing the same policies that Marx believed - correctly - would lead to social upheaval. Deregulate, don't tax, embrace policies that will lead to the majority of the wealth in the hands of a few and assume that resources will trickle down to the many. Essentially, let those with the resources do whatever they want, and when they continue to accumulate more resources, a fraction of which trickle down to the masses, claim that we have reached the apex of economic meritocracy. We've been doing this for the past three decades and it hasn't worked, but hey, what of it? If far left ideas don't work, far right ideas must.

Of course we know this isn't the case either. The opposite of left is right, but the balance between left and right is what is needed in economics. The Occupy Wall Street Protestors - though relatively directionless - had a right to be angry. Economic inequality hits everyone and undermines our entire society. America's economic boom and growth miracle following World War II was carried by the largest and most prosperous middle class in history before the flawed supply-sided, Reaganomic policies were instituted in the 1980s.

We should want to live in a society with rich people, even with super rich people. Capitalism was not meant to be fair. If some people reap huge benefits from inventing, creating, or investing in something that benefits us all we should be happy for them and aspire to similar success. Greed is good insofar as it drives the system. But we should remember that the rich profited because they did something that helped everyone. No one ever got rich buying his own stuff, and if we concentrate all the money in the hands of a few who is going to consume? While we should not strive for income equality, we should certainly strive for less income inequality, not more of it as Republicans - and especially Mitt Romney's very confused and out-of-touch friend, Edward Conrad - would have it with their laissez faire policies.

The opposite of left is right. But just as we have seen historical evidence that the economic policies of the far left do not work, we now have 30 years worth of American history that show us the economic policies of the far right are not that much better. Perhaps we should do the prudent thing, embrace the more centralized policies that built up the middle class half a century ago when America's economy was truly strong, and put ourselves back on the path to real prosperity.