It has come to my attention that many pundits on the right are calling Scott Brown a "traitor", or insisting that his willingness to cooperate with the Democrats makes him a "one-term" Senator. These remarks stem in part from Brown's vote against the GOP filibuster of a jobs bill, an action I do not believe deserves such criticism. While any sort of spending bill beyond a certain point seems to violate the "Small-Government" stance of many in the Republican party, at this point, with the recession over but employment stagnating, I think a small bill like this one is an appropriate measure.
Moving beyond the jobs vote, deriding Brown for being a moderate is uncalled for. The decidedly liberal state of Massachusetts elected Brown as a referendum against the most liberal parts of the Administration's agenda, and as the 41st vote against the current healthcare bill, Brown restored some semblance of balance to the senate. While Brown is a Republican, he is not a mouthpiece for the reactionary goals of the Tea Party movement, which may bother some, but a Republican of any leaning coming out of Massachusetts is good enough for me. In my opinion, Brown is doing the right thing. By breaking irrelevent filibusters, Brown is helping the Republican party shed its image as the "Party of No", and giving the moderate forces within the party a chance to shape policy. However, when push comes to shove, I am certain that Brown will vote with the party to block the key goals of the Liberal agenda, namely socialized healthcare.
Now, a topic I felt I must address is the recent death of Dawn Brancheau at the fins of Tilikum the orca. Animal rights activists and others have seized this opportunity to attack not only the use of animals in shows, but also the entire zoo/aquarium system. While I agree the system is due for some degree of self-imposed reform, I don't think that anyone will benefit from its complete dismantlement. First and foremost, Earth's biodiversity has been spared the worst in large part due to the presence of rare animals in zoos. In fact, two species of lion and one species of wild horse, among other species I am not aware of, exist only in zoo populations, and efforts to return them to their habitat would be (obviously) impossible had we not collected them for our enjoyment. Secondly, giving people the opportunity to see Earth's creatures firsthand helps people to imagine them as actual, living beings, rather than just distant pictures on a Discovery special, and does a lot more for conservation awareness than critics will ever admit. Conditions at zoos are tremendously better than the "tiny cages" that PETA crazies conjure up to win sympathy, but I admit that there is plenty of room for improvement. Animals need appropriately sized, natural environments in which to live, and it is the least we can do to give that to them in exchange for the priceless enjoyment they give us. I believe that larger parks, like Busch Gardens and Seaworld are doing an excellent job at providing this comfort to their animals, but smaller local zoos need support from their larger counterparts to ensure that we can maintain the highest standards for the animals we keep, enjoy, and protect.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
SCOTUS, POTUS, SOTU, NASA
My attempt at parallel structure in the title kind of fell apart after I realized the State of the Union Address didn't have a second S in the standard acronym. No matter.
At the beginning of last week, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in Citizens United v. FEC to declare certain limits on the ability of corporations and unions to contribute to political campaigns unconstitutional. Though this change is controversial, and not without problems, I believe it has its merits. First of all, Unions have been working the system since time immemorial. By manipulating union due payments from members, unions have been able to far exceed spending limits on political campaigns. Corporations, on the other hand, previously had no access to such extralegal methods. Now, the methods employed by the unions have been legalized, while corporations have gained access to the same. In addition, the court ruling seems to increase transparency in campaign spending. Corporations and Unions must now run independent ad campaigns and disclose in those ads who is sponsoring the campaign. This allows the American voter to see which organizations support which candidates. Other potential positives, like the ability for lesser known and third party candidates with unique solutions to seek out corporate and union sponsorships, may also come from this ruling. The negatives involved here are obvious. Many people believe that rising campaign costs are limiting people without immense personal funds from competing in elections; depending on how things go, this ruling could either contribute to that trend or even the playing field by giving less wealthy candidates the ability to partner with groups that support their ideals. While the issue of campaign costs is a very legitimate concern, the most prominently voiced issue is that of "foreigners dominating American politics", as Obama, in a dangerous rebuke of the Supreme Court, claimed during the SOTU. This issue is barely relevant, and is likely an attempt at rabble-rousing, as the only foreigners who could possibly benefit are those holding American companies, and even then the Supreme Court continues to uphold the ban on campaign spending by foreigners.
Overall, Obama's SOTU address seemed like an apology for the Health Care fiasco. Following Scott Brown's election, Obama has tried to distance himself from the more radical aspects (public option) of reform, and focused instead on the economy and the vital aspects (stopping "pre-existing conditions" from being a coverage issue) of his prize project. In addition, Obama went out of his way to support measures, like nuclear energy, that he had previously opposed, likely in an attempt to win support from the increasingly disenchanted Independents who helped him win in 2008. Though I support Obama's shift in focus, I believe it is a sign that he is wavering in his ideals in order to appeal to the American people and save his chances at re-election, a move that is sure to bother many on the Left who see such actions as treasonous.
My final topic for tonight is the changes to NASA's budget in Obama's 2011 budget. I support the idea of a goal-shift at NASA from a moon-oriented plan, to a broader deep-space effort as envisioned by the "Flexible Path" option proposed by the Augustine Commission and endorsed by the President. However, the plan Obama has laid out gives no clear outline for the development of manned vehicles, and it effectively ends the Constellation Program, abandoning the Ares I and V rockets and the Orion capsule that were in development (with billions of dollars spent already), and leaves the jobs of thousands of people working on the project in my home state of Florida in jeopardy, a situation that Obama assured them (in a visit to Canaveral during his campaign) would not occur (Space-related industries make up a huge part of Florida's economy). I have no issue relegating low-Earth orbit launches to commercial ventures, as I'm sure it will lower costs for NASA in the long run, but leaving plans for future exploration in limbo is just wrong. Back in the early 70's, budget issues led to the cancellation of the Apollo program and Von Braun's ambitious plans for further exploration. Now, 40 years later, we're still stuck piddling around in orbit, and we cannot let US government actions prevent mankind's spread to the stars again.
The recent focus shift was needed, but so is money. Obama's budget gives NASA several billion more dollars, but relegates a larger portion of NASA's overall spending to Earth Observation. This is a worthy cause, as NASA satellites have helped improve life on Earth in ways as varied as combating forest fires and monitoring Antarctic melt. But with something as vital to the future of mankind as NASA, there should be no trade-offs. The money allocated to Earth Observation should stay, but Congress, especially Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), a former astronaut whom I deeply admire as a public servant, must lead the charge by amending the budget to increase funding for Exploration. If budget issues remain, Obama's proposed spending freezes in other areas could be expanded, or *gulp*, a small tax of some kind could be created to bolster NASA's budget.
At the beginning of last week, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in Citizens United v. FEC to declare certain limits on the ability of corporations and unions to contribute to political campaigns unconstitutional. Though this change is controversial, and not without problems, I believe it has its merits. First of all, Unions have been working the system since time immemorial. By manipulating union due payments from members, unions have been able to far exceed spending limits on political campaigns. Corporations, on the other hand, previously had no access to such extralegal methods. Now, the methods employed by the unions have been legalized, while corporations have gained access to the same. In addition, the court ruling seems to increase transparency in campaign spending. Corporations and Unions must now run independent ad campaigns and disclose in those ads who is sponsoring the campaign. This allows the American voter to see which organizations support which candidates. Other potential positives, like the ability for lesser known and third party candidates with unique solutions to seek out corporate and union sponsorships, may also come from this ruling. The negatives involved here are obvious. Many people believe that rising campaign costs are limiting people without immense personal funds from competing in elections; depending on how things go, this ruling could either contribute to that trend or even the playing field by giving less wealthy candidates the ability to partner with groups that support their ideals. While the issue of campaign costs is a very legitimate concern, the most prominently voiced issue is that of "foreigners dominating American politics", as Obama, in a dangerous rebuke of the Supreme Court, claimed during the SOTU. This issue is barely relevant, and is likely an attempt at rabble-rousing, as the only foreigners who could possibly benefit are those holding American companies, and even then the Supreme Court continues to uphold the ban on campaign spending by foreigners.
Overall, Obama's SOTU address seemed like an apology for the Health Care fiasco. Following Scott Brown's election, Obama has tried to distance himself from the more radical aspects (public option) of reform, and focused instead on the economy and the vital aspects (stopping "pre-existing conditions" from being a coverage issue) of his prize project. In addition, Obama went out of his way to support measures, like nuclear energy, that he had previously opposed, likely in an attempt to win support from the increasingly disenchanted Independents who helped him win in 2008. Though I support Obama's shift in focus, I believe it is a sign that he is wavering in his ideals in order to appeal to the American people and save his chances at re-election, a move that is sure to bother many on the Left who see such actions as treasonous.
My final topic for tonight is the changes to NASA's budget in Obama's 2011 budget. I support the idea of a goal-shift at NASA from a moon-oriented plan, to a broader deep-space effort as envisioned by the "Flexible Path" option proposed by the Augustine Commission and endorsed by the President. However, the plan Obama has laid out gives no clear outline for the development of manned vehicles, and it effectively ends the Constellation Program, abandoning the Ares I and V rockets and the Orion capsule that were in development (with billions of dollars spent already), and leaves the jobs of thousands of people working on the project in my home state of Florida in jeopardy, a situation that Obama assured them (in a visit to Canaveral during his campaign) would not occur (Space-related industries make up a huge part of Florida's economy). I have no issue relegating low-Earth orbit launches to commercial ventures, as I'm sure it will lower costs for NASA in the long run, but leaving plans for future exploration in limbo is just wrong. Back in the early 70's, budget issues led to the cancellation of the Apollo program and Von Braun's ambitious plans for further exploration. Now, 40 years later, we're still stuck piddling around in orbit, and we cannot let US government actions prevent mankind's spread to the stars again.
The recent focus shift was needed, but so is money. Obama's budget gives NASA several billion more dollars, but relegates a larger portion of NASA's overall spending to Earth Observation. This is a worthy cause, as NASA satellites have helped improve life on Earth in ways as varied as combating forest fires and monitoring Antarctic melt. But with something as vital to the future of mankind as NASA, there should be no trade-offs. The money allocated to Earth Observation should stay, but Congress, especially Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), a former astronaut whom I deeply admire as a public servant, must lead the charge by amending the budget to increase funding for Exploration. If budget issues remain, Obama's proposed spending freezes in other areas could be expanded, or *gulp*, a small tax of some kind could be created to bolster NASA's budget.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
