I personally would rather die on earth than live on the moon. I mean seriously........what kind of life would that be??? I'd rather see the human race become extinct on earth, than to dirty up that beautiful orb in the night sky.
Printable View
I personally would rather die on earth than live on the moon. I mean seriously........what kind of life would that be??? I'd rather see the human race become extinct on earth, than to dirty up that beautiful orb in the night sky.
Really agreed, although it is a preference. But yea I suppose I'm very of the earth really. I want this planet which I have evolved by millions of years of evolution for, with all the things this body and psyche have for millions striven to accommodate. A single sun on an approximate 24 hour day. This dirt and all it is made up of. Etc.Quote:
I personally would rather die on earth than live on the moon. I mean seriously........what kind of life would that be???
Mortal on this planet? Sure, but even space hasn't exactly promised me immortality :) I can't say for sure I'd turn it down :~)
Anyway, I don't hugely object to funding space exploration (how about we take the money being spent on wars ....). It's just a bizarre focus if you are more the doomer type, and you are like: "woah things are deteriorating rapidly on all fronts, the human species may not even survive on earth much longer, and that is the focus!". But what can I say .... 2012 era U.S. governance and politics is completely out of touch, when it's not downright scary.
A very popular deep in the collective unconscious meme has always envisioned the elite escaping a trashed planet (see Neil Young's "After the Gold Rush"). Although no I don't actually posit that as super likely (and heaven knows I wouldn't want to get slammed for speculation). It's quite possible most of the space money is really just intended to be pork. How is that for a down to earth explanation? Or I think it is possible Newt actually is an off the wall dreamer sort, which he somehow manages to fit in the bounds of right wing conservative ideology, which is the most unlikely of places for it. His off the wallness is actually kind of enduring, makes him seem more genuine than the entirely 100% manufactured Obama. But should Newt be given power? Of course not.
It's the part about claiming the moon and declaring it a state that creeps me out; establishing a base some day may be inevitable.
I like what John Stewart had to say about it, which was. . . paraphrased --
Essentially, it's a great idea to get 13,000 in a moon colony and let them become a state, but it's entirely crazy to allow DC to become a state, you know, a place in the US with 5 times (or something) the amount of citizens as a potential moon colony.
DC should never be a state. As the seat of the federal government, and theoretical servant of the states, it would be inappropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
i'm thinking, then, that citizens that live in the city itself might be better served to belong to a state near-by so that they can vote on stuff. otherwise they get all taxationed without representation.
Actually, the entirety of Congress is charged with representing DC's interests as a federal enclave. Not just a few Congresscritters, but all. It may not be direct representation, but it is some pretty comprehensive representation.
well, having lived in and around Washington, D.C. for much of my life......if half a million people should not have the rights and votes others have, living in every other area of our country, then perhaps we should designate the buildings and institutions of the Federal government, as the "seat" of government, and allow all the rest of that area, and its residents to split up and partition the rest of the area of the District between Maryland and Virginia, (probably mostly the area would go to Maryland, since it's kind of carved out of the State of Maryland). The idea that hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people would have little representation for the area in which they live (they used to have NONE), seems ridiculous to me, especially since large numbers of the people living there don't even WORK for the Federal government.......and, as in many other things, a responsibility that is "everyone's" responsibility, often is "no one's" responsibility, and the District of Columbia has been ignored and poorly represented by the U.S. Congress, for quite a long time.
I'll post this here, for general interest, because it's always surprised me that a very large percentage of people are unaware of the fact that residents of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) do not have the same rights of representation as citizens in the other areas of this country. It's been a long standing thorn in the side of D.C. residents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric..._voting_rights
"Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from those of United States citizens in each of the fifty states. District of Columbia residents do not have voting representation in the United States Senate, but D.C. is entitled to three electoral votes for President. In the U.S. House of Representatives, the District is entitled to a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the floor of the House, but can vote on procedural matters and in House committees.
The United States Constitution grants congressional voting representation to the states, which the District is not. The District is a federal territory ultimately under the complete authority of Congress. The lack of voting representation in Congress for residents of the U.S. capital has been an issue since the foundation of the federal district. Numerous proposals have been introduced to change this situation including legislation and constitutional amendments to grant D.C. residents voting representation, returning the District to the state of Maryland, and making the District of Columbia into a new state. All proposals have been met with political or constitutional challenges; therefore, there has been no change in the District's representation in the Congress."
Mr. Gingrich is too late. The debt ceiling has already reached the moon. My hope is that government efforts in space will soon be eclipsed by private enterprise, which will have no constituents to pander to except shareholders.
Not that anyone should actually live there, but I think the US should claim the sun, not the moon. We could then start charging all the other countries for sunlight to help reduce the deficit we built up defending them. The powers that be could just replace the cabinet with the board of PG&E and it would be a done deal. To maximize profits we should also charge for moon light. It is, after all, just reflected sunlight. Kind of like pretty second hand smoke...mirrors optional.
ETA: It's the make it a state part I don't like. Love the idea of a revitalized space program. I think we need a new common dream (and goal), but we don't necessarily need to stake a claim everywhere we set foot.