NASA Funding

02/02/10

The space geek in me is in conflict with the person who has applauded President Obama’s recent spending freeze. The plan to kill NASA’s $100-billion US plans to return astronauts to the moon is saddening for someone like myself who would really enjoy the site of astronauts setting foot on the moon. However, given the current economic crisis there is no doubt that the money could be invested more wisely. Before I move to the issue of how the money is going to be spent there is another issue that I find to be rather concerning. A simple question: why haven’t we (humanity) returned to the moon since the Apollo missions? What’s taking us so long? I would’ve thought that with all the technological advances we as a species have been through since the last moon landings that recreating those results wouldn’t have been that difficult. What’s worse is the billions of dollars ($4 billion annually on human space exploration) that have been spent have failed to put us on the moon. This spending is government waste at its finest. Perhaps the new proposals for the NASA budget can put us on the right path.

Redirecting the money into scientific research could help spur the innovation that is needed to give the American economy a boost. The technologies NASA seeks to develop would be used to send astronauts to a nearby asteroid, the moon, or the Martian moons. While that kind of proposal fills a certain space geek with excitement, it’s not long before I collect myself and see the problem with this idea. What NASA is proposing is taking humans further than the moon even though we haven’t been there in decades. Shouldn’t we aim for the moon before pouring billions into plans to send us to places we are even less likely to go to? I would be for the idea of the money going strictly into scientific research and then having the technology sold out to private companies that function more effectively than NASA, thus leading to a return to the moon, and journeys beyond, much sooner. Already, NASA has seven companies getting money to work on planning for some types of commercial spaceships. Given the obvious ineffectiveness of NASA programs to get humans back on the moon, increased support for the private sector would not only be a step in the right direction, but would also provide more economic stimulus. Putting humans back on the moon could be an event that unites humanity in working towards a common goal. We just need to re-examine how we plan to do it.

P.S. For those who always ask, “Why do we spend all this money on space exploration in the first place?” Simple, it goes right down to our simple human desire to learn more about our origins. For ages humans have been searching for the answers to our existence. Before we had science we relied on myths to tell us how we came to be. Now as we explore the deepest regions of space, we find ourselves coming closer and closer to the truth.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/02/02/tech-space-nasa-budget.html

Haiti's Leadership

02/02/10

Where is Haiti’s President? According to a CTV article, Preval has rarely been seen in public since the devastating earthquake struck the country. Unrest in the country is growing over the inactions of the Haitian government to work towards rebuilding the country.

“Many called for ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's return -- a familiar political refrain when things swing between bad and worse in Haiti”

However, it seems that his supporters might just be trying to use a devastating situation for political gain. Aristide was ousted in 2004 for allegations of corruption and drug trafficking. The fact that he is interested in returning to Haiti during a time of such great crisis, reeks of political opportunitism. I don’t think it’s a leap of the imagination to say that Aristide is more interested in personal gain than helping the people of Haiti.

Haitians are facing an unimaginably difficult situation, made worse by corruption inside and outside government. The absence of Preval from the seen over the past 3 weeks indicates a leader that is not willing to do what he can for his people. Unfortunately, the most prominent opposition party, Lavalas party, was lead by Aristide. Haitians seem to be stuck between a government that so far has proven useless to them in this situation and a party that has faced allegations of corruption and may only be seeking political gain.

I believe that until a strong, reliable government is put in place that any aid being sent to the country must go directly to the people. Governments need to cut out the middle man (the Haitian government) and give the aid to NGOs such as the Red Cross and UNICEF. Given the corruption that seems to be a tradition in the government of Haiti, any money that goes to them will likely not find its way to the people.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100202/haiti_tuesday_100202/20100202?hub=TopStoriesV2

Germany's Afghanistan Strategy

02/02/10

Germany’s shift in its Afghanistan strategy is a welcome step in the right direction. It follows the basics of counter insurgency theory.

The soldiers currently patrol the streets in their heavily armored vehicles and rarely come into contact with the local population. In the future, however, they will conduct all patrols and operations in cooperation with Afghan Security Forces and often travel on foot to show their presence to the Afghans

When fighting an insurgency having soldiers drive around in vehicles, never coming into contact with the local population, creates a distrust among the people towards the soldiers. Going out on foot gives the soldiers an opportunity to interact with the people and foster a better sense of cooperation. By getting to know the people, soldiers can learn who is on their side, and who supports the insurgency. As the local population grows more comfortable with the presence of troops, they will be more inclined to provide information regarding insurgent plants. This strategy was applied during the surge in Iraq and is detailed in The Gamble. From a military stand point it is the right move.

I won’t deal with the politics here, only to say that the successes of counter insurgency tactics in regards to politics in Iraq are less than ideal. It will be up to governments to form a plan that ensures political stability within Afghanistan. Without political stability, the military efforts will be meaningless.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/02/natos-third-largest-force-in-afghanistan-changing-its-strategy/

One Big Mess

01/02/10

Today President Barack Obama announced a nearly $4 trillion-US budget (effectively tripling the size of the deficit). Proposals in the budget include:

· AA spending freeze on some programs

· BBillions of dollars for job-creation measures and tax breaks, partly offset by tax hikes on high-income earners

· I Identified $20 billion in cuts

· Middle-class tax breaks would be extended, tax cuts oil companies, investment fund managers and individuals earning over $250, 000 a year will be continued, Obama

I do not know whether to feel sorry for Obama or just shake my head at ineffective leadership. You can either blame Bush (who doesn’t blame him for everything wrong in America today? Excluding the far far-right) and feel sorry for Obama. Or be critical for Obama’s inability to bring the two divided sides of Congress together in a time of crisis, thus shaking your head at ineffective leadership. I lean towards the latter. It’s typical in politics to blame the guy before you for the problems the country faces, even those problems, like a growing deficit, are the result of actions you supported. Now, I understand that Congress is bitterly divided and there will always be partisans who will turn oppose every action Obama takes (I’ll discuss this shortly), it doesn’t undermine the fact that as a leader, Obama appears to be rather weak. The last time there was a crisis in the country, Congress was united. Yes, I know, that unity did lead to a blind and dangerous patriotism that led to two wars. However, why can’t Obama, a preacher of hope, unite Congress to face a crisis that arguably affects more Americans directly than 9/11 did? I will say however, that this budget is an obvious step towards bipartisanship, even if it doesn’t succeed in uniting the country.

1) A spending freeze on some programs

a. It’s a good idea to put the freeze on programs while we figure out what programs are working and what aren’t

b. The right opposes it because they want outright spending cuts and say this doesn’t go far enough

c. The left opposes it because they feel that stopping the stimulus will only make things worse for the economy (keep in mind this is a freeze not an outright cut)

2) Billions of dollars for job creation measures and tax breaks, partly off-set by taxes on high-income earners

a. This is a proposal I’d want to see more detail on, as I am sceptical as to how jobs can actually be legislated into existence

b. Ideally this would be a measure that gives tax breaks and financial benefits to small and medium size businesses, the true backbone of the economy

3) I Identified $20 billion in tax cuts

a. Compared to the size of the budget this seems so insignificant

b. It also exposes another issue that is dividing Congress. On the one hand, America will eventually have to stop the stimulus spending and get its deficit under control, tax cuts are good for putting money back in the pockets of the people but, they aren’t good for bringing in revenue to clear up the deficit. Here we have the right who can’t face the reality that tax increases will be necessary to fix the deficit and a left that doesn’t want to accept that eventually this massive spending will have to be cut. This situation really flies in the face of the traditional, low taxes and cut spending vs. increase taxes and spend that is the usually divide of the political parties. Now the situation is, increases taxes and cut spending. Both sides are coming out unhappy on this one

4) Middle-class tax breaks would be extended, tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers and individuals earning over $250, 000 a year will not be continued

a. Simple, the left likes this, the right wants to see those tax cuts stay on

b. The problem: everyone’s taxes will be going up in the future

So there you have it, a budget that is clearly trying to please both sides of Congress. Sadly, without a strong leader and the will of both sides to come together, it’s just a big mess.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/01/obama-budget.html#ixzz0eJmhTEHI

Copenhagen, will it be enough?

Saturday October 24th marked the international day of climate action. The 350 initiative. The purpose of which was to say to world leaders that when they meet in Copenhagen in December, to craft a new global treaty on cutting emissions, they agree to cut emissions to 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. The event was "the most widespread day of environmental action in the planets history." Truly inspirational.

However, I do not believe that success at Copenhagen will guarantee a green future, for several reasons. First off is the idea that a treaty alone will not be effective, even if it does aim to cut emissions to that 350 level. The reason for this should be quite obvious, countries that sign on to a treaty may not necessarily live up to the standards of the treaty (think Kyoto), no matter how much the world pressures that nation to do so.

The United States is a prime example of this problem. Let's say that the treaty is passed, it is still up to individual governments in their countries to pass legislation that will allow them to meet the standards of the treaty. I do not think I am cynical in saying that the U.S. isn't going to pass effective environmental legislation anytime soon. First a brief aside, the U.S. is currently in the middle of a fierce healthcare debate, which has exposed some of the worst partisanship seen in a long time. While there does seem to be a general agreement on both sides that the healthcare system does need to be fixed, the divisions on how to fix it are great. Now imagine trying to get both sides together on climate change. An issue that many powerful figures in the U.S. still believe to be a hoax. The task of getting a strong climate change bill through, becomes nearly impossible, when you consider how difficult it has been for healthcare reform to be passed.

Alright, so let's assume that governments do pass effective legislation necessary to meet the 350 target. Will they be effectively enforced? As a current environmental law student I can say that, at least here in Canada, they likely won't be enforced as effectively as necessary. I am not opposed to the idea of regulations however, government has a really good track record in being completely incompetent. I can't help but think that the laws passed will be full of loopholes that could be easily exploited or could lead to unintended consequences. Environmentalists may not be happy when I say that we do actually have to consider industry, in order to protect the jobs of the working class. Any legislation passed will have to meet the goals of the 350 initiative while avoiding too much long-term (that word is key) damage to industry.

Finally, it may be time to realize that if we wait around for government to get their act together it could be too late. The massive turnout for the 350 day proves that their is a strong will among the people to take action on climate change. So the question is, what is everyone waiting for? There are changes we could all make in our daily lives, that don't require government regulation and involvement. If we the people begin to demonstrate in our own lives that we are willing to make changes, that will put greater pressure on government and industry to make their necessary changes.

The international day of climate action was without a doubt, inspirational. However, we should not idle by as we wait for government to take action. The time to act is now. Our actions can say to government and industry, we are making changes in our own lives, now it's your turn.

P.S. I figured it would be appropriate to provide a link to a site giving tips on how to be green, so here it is, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3915

I would also recommend the book, "It's Easy Being Green"

Racist? Yes. Bad Parents? Not Necessarily.

"WINNIPEG — A child custody battle begins Monday for two children whose parents are accused of teaching them that black people and other minorities deserve to die." http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/canada/2009/05/24/9554531.html

Truly, a horrible thing to teach a child but, should the child be taken out of the parents' custody? Maybe not. First off let me say that if the government decided that you can separate a family on the basis of racist teachings, families I know would likely be forced to go their separate ways.

"The boy’s father, meanwhile, is fighting back, saying the seizure of his children violates his freedom of conscience, belief and association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

I do agree with that statement. As much as I do not like the views of these two parents and what they are teaching to their children, those freedoms apply to everyone. Racists have as much freedom of conscience, belief and association as the people who criticize them.

But what of the children? you ask, surely such an upbringing will make it impossible for them to function within society? Well not necessarily, it is possible, that like all children they could come to reject their parents beliefs. I have rejected some of my parents beliefs (I should point out that, no my parents are not racist, as you might have been pondering as you read that last sentence). Through friends, teachers, and other community figures these children could take on views different from their parents.

"The girl was also told by her mother not to have any non-white friends or she would not have a mother anymore"

This statement certainly brings up conflict with my last point. I am opposed to the family being separated but, wouldn't the children's rebellion to their parents' views lead to a possible family separation? Yes it would, but it would be the choice of the family, not the government. I do not believe the government can start breaking up families on the basis that the parents are teaching their children ideas not accepted by the majority of society.

For those of you who did read the article I posted you are probably wondering if I am going to get to the issues of drug and alcohol abuse. Don't worry.

"The couple is also accused of abusing drugs and alcohol, physically abusing each other and failing to provide adequate care for their kids"

Here is the issue that I believe should determine whether or not they can keep their children. The focus should be on how they are as parents and how they treat their children. I believe that discussing the issue of a racism is a waste of time, for the court that is. If the children aren't being adequately cared for then yes, perhaps removing from the parents' custody is the best decision. However, if the parents are simply racist, then no it is not the best decision.

It's terrorism plain and simple.

I want to briefly discuss the murder of the abortionist Dr. Tiller and in particular the wording many in the media and others use to describe his killer. When people think of his killer the word's "anti-abortion extremist" come to mind. Personally, I think this is a euphemism for a single word that most people, especially in the press, are refusing to use "terrorist". Unfortunately, the West's image of a terrorist is someone who speaks Arabic and prays to Allah. This type of thinking is far removed from the reality that, both Christians and Muslims are capable of terrorism. Dr. Tiller was murdered by a man acting on a religious motivation, that is he believed he was defending the laws of his god and in doing so was doing what was best. His actions, violence for a religious motivation, is the definition of terrorism.