Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, right, talks with David Moore following her office's refusal to issue marriage licenses at the Rowan County Courthouse in Morehead, Ky., Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2015. Although her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied, Davis still refuses to issue marriage licenses. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley)

Is Kim Davis defending Religious Freedom? No. Here’s Why…

There is no short of controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, and her continued denial of marriage licenses to homosexual couples. On face value, it may seem indeed, that Kim Davis is entitled “reasonable accommodation” for her sincerely held religious beliefs.

I don’t believe so — and it may not be for the reason you think.

Wether or not Kim Davis’ beliefs are “right” or “wrong” is of no moment, nor is the fact that they are “deeply held.” Indeed, I have no issue conceding the fact that anyone is entitled to believe anything they like; and I have no real problem with that.

Here’s where the reasonable accommodation issue loses integrity:

– The issue isn’t “hers,” it’s that of those she is refusing service to. If this were an issue of “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service,” or some other codified, specific law that can be pointed at — with reverence or dejectedness. Indeed, the ban that did exist no longer does, per the ruling of the Supreme Court.

– Mrs. Davis also had the ability to redress her grievances without violating law by allowing her deputy clerks to act in her capacity, while she brought the issue forward with the State government. Her failure to do so, and to simply say “No,” and pointing to her beliefs as a right to do so took the issue of “deeply held, sincere religious belief” out of the equation, and knowingly placed HERSELF in the mix — not her beliefs. Indeed, if her beliefs required her to not do such a thing, is she now legally able to discharge her office? As such, is she legally able [or even CURRENTLY STILL] the county clerk? Many public offices have a “capacity clause,” stating that if the officer in question is unable to discharge the office to which s/he took, that the individual is declared temporarily incapacitated, and the duty falls to that officer’s deputy. If that’s the case here, does her senior deputy clerk now act in her capacity — legally? That I don’t know, but an interesting thing to investigate. As a government employee specifically charged with issuing proper and legal marriage license, assuming that there were no other issues surrounding the validity of the request, ability to pay, or whatever — she’s willfully violated her contractual and even fiduciary duty to the State, and to her constituents.

– Governor Huckabee, and others on the side of Kim Davis, often cite the issues surrounding the Supreme Court’s “ability to write law,” and that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in “legislating from the bench.” This also doesn’t hold water for several reasons, but it stems from one very important supreme court case:

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court was confronted with a question surrounding federal appointments. In its review of the laws surrounding them, it determined that indeed, Marbury was entitled to his appointment and that his suit through the court system was a rightful correction to his grievance. This case established the process known as “judicial review,” a court test that grants the Supreme Court the ability to review a case, a law, a regulation or other question that the Supreme Court grants certiorari to; as a form of checks and balances on Federal, State and Local government regulation. Using the authority of Judicial Review, the Supreme Court trailblazed civil rights and fostered the safety of the people through overturning poll taxes [Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966], that random drug testing of students involved in intramural sports don’t violate their Constitutional rights [Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 2002], the “Separate but Equal” doctrine [Brown v. Board of Ed, 1954], the establishment of “Miranda Rights” [Miranda v. Arizona, 1966] and that the President is not above the law [U.S. v. Nixon, 1974]. The power of judicial review has allowed the courts to correct legislative errors or otherwise “fill in the gaps” where laws, the Constitution or other codified law stops, but injury can begin.

Often, pundits claim that judicial review isn’t constitutional, or otherwise “allowable” by law, because it allows for judges to effectively write law and legislate from the bench.  There is a Constitutional flaw in that logic:

– The Judiciary Act of 1789 [in the First Congress] was signed into law, which allows the Supreme Court to hear cases on appeal from State courts — Section 25 specifically states:

“And be it further enacted, That a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favour of such their validity, or where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or exemption specially set up or claimed by either party, under such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, statute or commission, may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States upon a writ of error, the citation being signed by the chief justice, or judge or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations, and the writ shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a circuit court, and the proceeding upon the reversal shall also be the same, except that the Supreme Court, instead of remanding the cause for a final decision as before provided, may at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once remanded before, proceed to a final decision of the same, and award execution. But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the before mentioned questions of validity or construction of the said constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities in dispute.”

This law alone forms the basis for judicial review.  Further is that of the Equal Protection clause [Section 1] of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

— Establishment Clause, First Amendment of the Constitution

– Of further note: there’s an obvious Establishment Clause violation here — but not just ON Kim Davis, but BY Kim Davis. As a government employee, holding an office she’s freely run for, and unwilling to resign from, by denying government services to a [seemingly] qualified constituent due only for religious reasons, SHE has raised an issue under the Establishment Clause, by forcing her religious beliefs on the constituents. Where do her rights as a religious adherent end, and her duty as a government employee begin? Indeed: in 2006, the conservatives on the court stated in Garcetti v. Cebalos, “when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”

To sum it up, does Kim Davis deserve to have her deeply held religious beliefs? Of course she does.

Does she deserve to enforce them on others through her elected office? No. This is an Establishment Clause violation.

Is the State or Federal government in violation of the Establishment Clause? No. She is an employee of a local government, and the government is charging her with a duty — not stating what religious beliefs she must or must not have.

Does Kim Davis belong in jail? No, I don’t think so. I think it was wrong [legal, and “a bluff,” perhaps — but one she called] to do so.

Is she the “new” Rosa Parks?   No.  She willingly put herself, as opposed to her beliefs, in the middle of this issue by letting herself get involved with the situation, as opposed to letting the government handle the issue on her behalf.  If a decision is “above your paygrade,” there’s nothing wrong with handing that issue to your supervisor and awaiting instructions.  Her supervisors are anyone from a county executive all the way up through the Governor.  She chose to simply “deny” her constituents.

Does she deserve an accommodation? Maybe. There are arguments either way — that she shouldn’t have to violate her religious conscience to carry out her duty. But on the flip side, if a Muslim banker found bank account interest distasteful and denied an interest bearing bank account to a non-believing customer, would people be so quick to defend him? If a Jewish teacher refused to read a paper because the subject included Buddhism and found it objectionable — is that right?

Further, if we put the shoe on a similar-sized foot — my computer handles my email.  Should my computer determine wether or not I should be able to read it?


IMF still very critical of US banking and financial system

When I was reading CNN this morning, I came across a story regarding a strongly worded report from the International Monetary Fund, the Bretton-Woods financial organization that exists to foster international trade and monetary cooperation around the world that, while it noted some positives, noted a lot of negatives in the financial system of the United States.

Most troubling was the fact that the “Big Banks” noted in the 2010 report issued by the IMF have since “gotten bigger,” by absorbing or otherwise acquiring smaller banks. Indeed, it noted two prime examples in JPMorganChase and Wells Fargo, two powerhouse banks which got even larger as it acquired smaller banks during and after the Great Recession that weren’t able to do as well, further increasing their already behemoth sizes. Said the IMF: “Large and interconnected banks dominate the system even more than before.”

Further troubling was the Student Loan market, which has exploded since the Great Recession, tripling in size since 2005 to $1.2 Trillion, per CNNMoney. When one considers students who are drowning in student loan debt may not have a healthy enough debt-to-income ratio to acquire forms of credit, such as unsecured credit, automobiles or even mortgages, the threat to the economy in the future that could be developing becomes quite clear.

Further concern was that of the “shadow banking industry,” per CNNMoney as well, which is the more investment-based banking that includes hedge funds and big-money insurance companies, now account for more than 70% of assets, per the IMF. One major danger to this is that these organizations are not banks, and therefore, are not subject to the same laws and regulation that more “Main Street Banks” or even “Wall Street Banks” are subject to; which open the gates on possible threats to Main Street consumers.

Even moreover, was the detail that even though the Dodd-Frank Act is approaching its fifth anniversary, it’s largely not implemented. Dodd-Frank, often cited as the greatest overhaul in the American financial system since the Great Depression, included many consumer protections, particularly in the mortgage and credit industries.

While not necessarily stated in the IMF report, it does bear mentioning that the Volcker Rule, named for Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, was not included in the verbiage for Dodd-Frank, which would prohibit the trading of depositor monies with the [Main Street] Bank off of the Bank’s own accounts — like those on Wall Street Banks; one of the catalysts of the 2007 Great Recession, per his own words.

Further risks cited by the IMF were that of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the common names for the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, government-sponsored entities in the housing industry. The IMF has noted that because the government still has direct control of these entities, which creates fiscal risk, it noted.

So… have we made progress overall? Or do some of the new minuses subtract against the positives we’ve made, leaving us largely where we were several years ago?

Good question. I honestly don’t know. [weighs hands] Consumers have a lot of new protections compared to a decade ago, thanks largely to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and even in the mortgage industry’s new “Closing Disclosure,” which streamlines three closing documents into one document that makes things a little easier to understand — eliminating some paperwork, and eliminating three separate pieces of paperwork in favor of one.

Further Reading:



Is Tenure important? Yes. Here’s why…

Tenure is one of the more controversial benefits offered to educators in the United States, in particular. Teachers who are “tenured” often are difficult to discipline constructively if they commit violations — even some severe violations.

But when examining the benefits, it becomes clear that Tenure is necessary for a classroom that is as little motivated by external politics as possible.

Consider the fact that Governors often appoint Regents to the University’s management board. This function allows the Governor to effectively control policy at a State school of learning, by and through his appointees to the Board of Regents. While this in and of itself doesn’t sound overly daunting, consider the following:

Consider an instructor teaching a course in a college the Governor appoints Regents to, and this instructor teaches philosophy contrary to the opinions of the Governor. The Governor finds this out, and wishes to see that this employee is somehow sanctioned; which he could theoretically do through his Regent appointees, because the Chief Executive of the State often has the power to “unappoint” individuals, as these individuals often serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The Regent could feel pressured to sanction the employee in some way, including not approving a new contract of which the employee is a part. Regardless of the issue, it gives one individual a LOT of power — that power being the Governor’s.

Without Tenure protections, teachers who teach “politically inconvenient” subjects or topics could find themselves in very serious trouble — and even fighting for their job. With this type of pressure in mind, is a teacher able to remain unbiased from external forces when building a lesson plan? Maybe so, maybe no.

Tenure helps deflect issues such as these — and allows the individual teacher to teach and conduct pedagogical methods or even politically or internally unpopular ideals, methods or philosophies, with a far diminished fear of retribution.  This allows the instructor to be influenced as little as possible by external forces, including shifting political views with the times, changes in administrative or executive leadership — both internal and external to the school, and other forces that drive education.

With these things in mind, what do you think?  Should teachers be as isolated as possible from forces outside the University or School System, or should they be directly held accountable — not the school?

I’ve always believed in holding the school accountable, so schools can error-correct themselves, particularly when it comes to more simple issues such as methodology, research or general practice.   [I’m not taking into account things such as gross dereliction, or showing up to work drunk, or other massive concerns where Tenure shouldn’t count as much, I’m assuming your average, every-day teacher].  Placing individual educators under the microscope of the public, or to forces outside the institution politicizes them — and that simple act causes a change in how the teacher will function, pure and simple.

Further Reading:

NYT: Tenure Firmly in Place, but Colleges Grow Wary of Lasting Commitments


Is this the official good-bye for RadioShack?

After being de-listed by the New York Stock Exchange and told they had defaulted on a note payable to Salus Capital, one of its larger creditors, RadioShack, a known, trusted brand in computers, electronics, radio and everything in between; will be known as one more thing in what is likely its final days: debtor-in-possession.

While filing for a reorganization bankruptcy [Chapter 11] as opposed to a straight liquidation [e.g., Chapter 7], it IS possible that RadioShack could emerge from bankruptcy with new owners and a new mission statement; but it’s just as likely the chain will be liquidated, and the property taken over for other business interests.

Entering into an agreement with Sprint and Standard General, RadioShack plans to sell upwards of 1500 of its stores to the Sprint/Standard General venture; and the fate of the remaining stores and operations, as of yet, remain anyone’s guess — and likely, left up to the Court or RadioShack’s major creditors.

Founded nearly 100 years ago as Tandy Leather, its expansion into Radio and electronics in the early 20th century caused Tandy to take off. Becoming a trusted source for information and components for the consumer in an age where it wasn’t very feasible otherwise. While the United States was in the midst of the Great Depression, Tandy was listed on the New York Stock Exchange, with the ticker ‘TAN.’

RadioShack 80s-90s Logo

RadioShack 80s-90s Logo

Selling it’s first consumer-grade radio telephone in the mid 80s, and then reorganizing as a company of its own [spinning off the name ‘Tandy’ that it was formerly a division of], RadioShack entered into the publicly traded arena in its own right, gaining the NYSE ticker ‘RSH’ in 2000.

The 2000s were a time of great flux for RadioShack, changing its business model to what it thought consumers wanted, but unfortunately, it wasn’t able to do so. Often viewed as an “overpriced cell phone store,” after RadioShack made its business model depend on cell phone sales, and shifted away from having Sales Associates who were more knowledge-based to sales-based — as well as taking much of the responsibility of running day-to-day operations from the local stores and centralizing them in Fort Worth; what seems like a bunch of little decisions were seemingly a death sentence for the nearly century-old retailer.

Admittedly, this is personal for me — because I grew up in RadioShacks, particularly Store 6776 in Plainfield…  it was one of the delights of my trip to be able to be in the back room, seeing how the back office of RadioShack worked, read the training manuals, the geek courses that Associates took [before they got rid of that…] and feel like I actually worked there as a kid in a lot of ways.  It’s kinda like seeing the clubhouse you played in as a kid being torn down…

So… here we are. Does RadioShack live on… or die after a long, anemic spiral downward post-Bankruptcy? We’ll see.

radioshack questions

By scummingsvz Posted in think

Why can’t the US set a firm Space policy?

Particularly since the decommissioning of the Space Shuttle, the United States has had a very haphazard policy when it comes to space exploration.

More recently, the scaling back of space exploration makes sense, everything from budgetary concerns to the limits of technology are all justifiable points on pulling back and regrouping for ideas — but even then, the United States lacks a clear vision of where it wants to be in the future.

In his September 1962 address to Rice University, the newly minted Honorary Professor, President John Kennedy promised, “I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief.” In that speech, becoming one of the most iconic of the 20th Century…

“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”
— United States President John F. Kennedy, Rice University Stadium – 12 September 1962

Since we last left the Moon, and Apollo 17 returned to Earth, America has lacked a pointed mission on any manned mission below Low Earth Orbit. In cooperation with nations around the world, the International Space Station was established, and became a scientific outpost for people around the world, with Russia and America leading the way, united in cause, to continue exploration of space. But at only a couple-hundred miles above Earth, there’s only so much we can learn, before we once again leave the cradle of home, that is Earth.

The Orion program, launching the first human-rated spacecraft beyond Low Earth Orbit for the first time in nearly four decades, has driven the figurative “golden stake” into the ground as NASA puts it, for further space exploration, the vehicle exists… but a plan for it, however, seems to be less than clear. Sure, it’s supposed to take us to Mars… and to an Asteroid… but when? How? What crews? Have they begun putting together mission objectives? It doesn’t seem so.

With a bold, solid declaration, like that of President Kennedy’s 1962 address, America, and indeed the world, could unite in a common exploration goal. To me, today, we seem to be lurching from one goal to another, not exactly sure where we’re going next… can’t we get a solid, stated goal to go “somewhere” by “sometime?”


Hagel Out: A New Obama In?

Chuck Hagel was all but officially fired from his post today as the Secretary of Defense.

With the “shellacking” that the Democrats took in the Midterm elections this month, coupled with a fact that the move seems to be motivated by “Foreign Policy,” could this mean that there may be a strategy shift coming with the War on Terror — specifically, with ISIL?

After playing artful dodger for several weeks on his continued tenure in the White House and at the Pentagon, he told PBS recently, “I’m immensely grateful for the opportunity I’ve had the last two years to work every day for the country and for the men and women who serve this country. I don’t get up in the morning and worry about my job. It’s not unusual by the way, to change teams at different times,” but added also that “I serve at the pleasure of the President.”

With these things in mind, do we now have a path that could lead to a ‘boots-on-the-ground’ policy when it comes to ISIL? Could there be a shift on defense policy coming — or is this just simply post-second-midterm-personnel reshuffling beginning?

I lean toward no on the last part of that question. It’s been noted that President Obama “asked” for his resignation — which is akin to a firing. Why request someone relieve themselves of their job if you have their confidence? Particularly in gridlocked-Washington. I think the following the confirmation of his successor, we may see some kind of drastic shift in Defense and Foreign Policy — particularly centered around the Middle East.   With the loss of the Democratic leadership in the Senate, confirmations will be interesting to say the least, and the hard-line that Obama is taking with Executive Action on Immigration seeming to push Republicans away, the ancient Chinese curse of “May you live in interesting times…” certainly seems apt today.

Signs of Pre-Revolution France becoming alarmingly apparent in America…


Storming of The Bastille by Jean-Pierre Houël

Continued income inequality… continued loss of political capital… wage stagnation… as these problems continue — they’ve alarmingly become worse — and with that, warning signs have begun to appear.

Back in the 18th Century, we had the French Revolution. Maybe you’ve heard of it. Jocularity aside, it was a time of political and social realignment in France that saw an end to established power and an economic and social liberalization that rapidly changed the face of the nation forever.

In a time where powerful oligarchies, the Church and economic elites ran the nation, the people themselves felt pushed out of the system, felt out of control and oppressed by the aforementioned elites. With them holding the political capital of the nation, the people turned against the ruling classes and gave rise to a liberal France, Napoleon Bonaparte and a shift in French history that’s seen and felt even today.

Fast forward to the United States of America in 2014. Still reeling from major political decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC and the Hobby Lobby case — where old power bases, such as religiously conservative institutions and “Old Money” continue to gain political capital in America; add to that stagnating wages, a growing income gap, a continued gap of benefits compared to the industrial/post-industrial world AND a continued rise in the wealth of the top 10% of America… and what do you have? You have a dangerous recipe for what sounds a lot like the French Revolution.

The New York Times published an op-ed of Steven Rattner, a Brown-educated presidential economic analyst, who illustrated that the income and wealth gap — already a chasm, continues to widen. The bottom 90% continue to lose as the top 10% continues to grow. Add to this mix the Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United and the Hobby Lobby case, along with mounting conservative pressure in America to resist a liberalization of the economy and way of life — such as same-sex marriage, and other liberal reforms.

Add to that the recent economic problems — and the near-collapse of 2007, which wiped out many jobs, and replaced them with jobs that often paid less, and required more work.  An abysmal recovery, that — while gaining traction, is doing so at an anemic pace, while the upper echelons of society continue to reap the benefits.

Sound familiar?

Could it happen tomorrow? Not likely. Could it happen if some kind of realignment doesn’t happen and the bottom-half of society isn’t allowed to catch back up? I think so. There’s gasoline being poured in what’s already a spark-filled room. Could it ignite?

Further Reading/Watching:

NYTimes Op-Ed: Rattner:

YouTube: Nick Hanauer: Warning to Plutocrats:


UK begins borrowing in Chinese Yuan — dangerous thing to do?

The Treasury of the United Kingdom has noted that it has begun trading bonds in the Chinese Yuan.

Why is this a concern? The concern is two-fold: one, the currency and economy is centrally planned and manipulated in the People’s Republic of China. Not only is this in direct contradiction of the free-market model of the Western world — and not only is this validated by the Western world by sovereign funds trading in yuan; but this is also a concern of the authoritarian regime having a bigger centrally-planned grasp on Western economies, that is supposed to be relatively free from governmental controls past base consumer and business regulation.

Further, a serious concern is the manipulation of the currency itself by the Chinese government. Quite often, it depresses the yuan compared to the United States dollar, to inflate the US’ trade deficit with the PRC. Inso doing this, while it may be doing it strictly for the sake of manipulating its debt compared to the US currency, the reserve currency of the world, as it sits today — is the United States Dollar; and devaluing its currency compared to the US Dollar manipulates its value across the board. Is the United Kingdom taking a willing part in letting the PRC government manipulate its own currency and economic status by taking the yuan on as an informal reserve?

Further Reading:

– China’s currency dream gets U.K. lift

Ebola Doctor

Americans with Ebola Released From Hospital… But…

The fact that the Americans who contracted Ebola and returned to the United States for treatment — and have now been released from the hospital after apparently recovering should be a cause for celebration. We now have a potential cure for such a devastating disease.

However, there are those who have said that it took Americans to get sick to come up with a cure for the disease. To a point, that’s kinda true — however…

The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method

As a scientist myself [admittedly in my own crack-pot, not-yet-a-REAL-doctor, amateur, Emmett-Brown kinda way], there’s one thing drilled into the psyche of every scientist: be it a surgeon, a researcher, a social scientist or a biologist: the Scientific Method. “Real” research takes time, indeed, often a lifetime’s worth of testing, re-testing, hypothesizing, re-hypothesizing, failures, and successes, before the fruit can be borne. Indeed, Albert Einstein’s own “Great work” which he died writing, is still being written even now by his successors! [That being a revision of general relativity, essentially.]

It takes a lot of work, a lot of time and a lot of effort to come up with true scientific data, particularly when it comes to that of real scientific progress, as opposed to an undergraduate paper being written the night before its due.

It *did* take Americans getting sick to get approval for the drug, “ZMapp” to be released, it would seem — but… it’s still untested. Its side effects, if any, are unknown. Could Ebola be completely wiped out of the body by the drug? Or, could the treatment be similar to how HIV is treated: where it can be functionally eliminated, but still “hide” in the body somewhere, and when treatment stops, the virus gains a foothold on you again. We simply don’t know.

The FDA’s “Compassionate Use” protocol allowed those who knew full-well the risks involved, indeed, scholars in the area themselves, to take part in treatment, knowing that further down the road could bring more problems. What if there is some side-effect that the medication has that winds up causing problems down the road? Could it be an unknown carcinogen? Could it degenerate the brain? That’s what painstaking research and the scientific method is all about — and that’s exactly why it takes years for drugs to be made available for everyone.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. Do “bad drugs” still slip through the system? Of course. But its BECAUSE of the system of test, re-test, test again, test repeating and re-testing the test results that people don’t die from new drugs every day. I herald the day that these people were allowed to go home and continue their recovery, indeed, I celebrate it — Ebola DIDN’T lose two of its most prominent soldiers fighting against it, and indeed, I’m willing to bet that these individuals may find a renewed determination in fighting this terrible disease because of their experience. But, it doesn’t mean that Americans get “preferential” treatment just-because. The rest of the world isn’t a petri dish for the American way of life. We care too — which is exactly why untested drugs don’t go to just “anyone.”


Asteroids are fine… BUT…

Have Americans Given Up On Space?
— Topic of Fareed Zakaria

Yes — and No.  The retirement of the Space Shuttle, without a conceivable and cemented-in-plans vehicle replacement, my fear is that the love of space has been lost in America — for now.

While the prospect of landing on an Asteroid, and even controlling its direction is a laudable and heady goal — it’s my feeling that this isn’t quite what people want to see.– at least in an exclusive goal.

new-mission-to-fly-by-mars_64718_600x450With this in mind, I believe an eye back to the Moon should be the most urgent goal, with a plan of permanent colonization, similar to the Space Station.  Indeed, not only could it serve as a model for an eventual Martian research colonization, but indeed, the Lunar outpost could serve as a “pit stop” on the way to Mars to pick up supplies previously launched.

A goal of settling the Moon with a research team, as a model for a similar Martian research colony could do a lot to buoy American and world confidence in the Space Program again; and the return to progress, as opposed to the perception of figuratively spinning our wheels in space exploration…

…what do you think?