ok, mars too.
and the space program in general.
all of the money being spent to wage wars could be spent on the space program (in addition to police, fire departments, education, environment, state and national parks, arts funding, after school programs, health care, alternative energy research, etc etc).
the space program, although funded, is under-funded.
in my opinion, at least.
nasa has some of the brightest, most remarkable people in the world, and they work for very little money in circumstances that are often quite rudimentary.
it just seems that with so many worthy programs (as listed above) in need of money that it’s kind of the wrong time to be overfunding the american war-machine, giving a $500 billion dollar tax break to the wealthiest of the wealthy americans, and subsidising the oil and coal industries…
i mean, call me crazy but i’d rather see government money go to cops and firemen and teachers and public defenders and park rangers and nasa employees and museums and etc than to the wealthiest 2% of americans who will benefit most from george bush’s tax cut.
just because i’m keeping my opinions about the war to myself (because there are so many people in harms way), it doesn’t mean that my opinion of george w. bush has changed. his domestic policy record is still utterly dreadful. and his foreign policy record is utterly dreadful (managing to alienate all of our allies and to reject the kyoto accords and to enact protectionist trade legislation and etc in the first 2 years of his term? that’s some pretty shitty foreign policy), too.
it would seem that to win the next presidential election all that someone would have to do is show up and draw attention to george w. bush’s past history and his record in office.

i still hope that the war ends soon and that suffering and loss of life are kept to a minimum for all involved. but i hope (even more fervently and because i’m concerned for the welfare of the united states and the rest of the world) that george w. bush will be roundly and soundly defeated in the next election.

it might be unpopular for me to say this, but a look at bush’s record in office would convince anyone that he really is the wrong man for the job.
moby

when formulating the white house position on cloning & stem cell research, george w. bush received a lot of advice from a bioethicist named leon kass. mr. kass teaches at the university of chicago, and, as far as his credentials are concerned, he’s amply qualified to offer his bioethical perspective on the issues of cloning and stem cell research. but the basis of his bioethical perspective is really troubling. much of his bioethical perspective is founded upon what he calls “”the wisdom of repugnance.”” which, to explain it simply, states that if a lot of people find something repugnant, then it’s probably unethical as well. to quote him “”in this age in which everything is held to be permissible, repugnance may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity.”” fine, insofar as ones sense of “”repugnance”” governs ones own personal conduct, but do we want something as subjective as an old mans sense of “”repugnance”” determining public policy? shit is repugnant. it’s not unethical. for many people tatoos are repugnant(not me, i have one). but tatoos are not unethical. many of the body’s functions are repugnant(bile production? digestion? farting? snot?), but it’s these “”repugnant”” bodily functions that keep us alive(without digestion and farting we would all die pretty quickly). one would be hard pressed to establish an objective ethical position based on something as subjective as whether or not something is “”repugnant””, yet this is what the bush administration and leon kass are attempting to do in formulating their position on cloning and stem-cell research. there are genuine and un-subjective ethical concerns regarding cloning and stem cell research, but i do believe that determining public policy based upon a conservative and personal idea of the “”repugnance”” of cloning and stem cell research is perilous, especially given the serious nature of these issues. -moby

just fyi, gail norton, bush’s secretary of the interior, has named a man who is a lobbyist for gas and oil companies as her frontman for formulating environmental policy in alaska.