Obama wins Nobel Prize

[vash23n]

I don't know a lot of people have claimed JFK was a great president and he had an affair too. JFK had a lot of flaws, but it seems he is popular for some reason anyway, maybe because he was young, cool, and assassinated. Anyhoo. I don't give a crap about Bill Clinton having had an affair. He did some good things while he was president. Most if not all presidents had some major personality flaws. Some of the "worst" presidents actually did some pretty good things even though they were scoundrels. Nixon, for instance, opened the doors to a China (I think) and another country I can't recall at the moment. He had some good policies before he got all paranoid. I think we forget that the presidents are human. We like that because they can relate to us and understand what we go through and where we come from. Unfortunately, it means they also make plenty of mistakes. I don't know if you can have it both ways, sure some have done worse things than others, but a president who was completely devoid of human nature would not be a very good representative of the people.

[Limewater]

In my experience, everyone who was alive was extremely excited when the declaration was made that we would land on the moon. We're talking about a time before VCR's, before everyone had a microwave, and our leader is saying we are going to put a man on the moon. Incredible.

Sure, it was incredible. I won't argue otherwise. That does not mean that it was worth doing, or that the money and resourced spent doing it could not have been put to a more practical use.

Plus many people were afraid of the Soviets so the trip to the moon and the space program in general was very popular. If people were willing to support it, why not go for it?

Because, as stated above, the money and resources dedicated to the endeavor could have been put to more practical use. Sure, going to the moon was fun and exciting, but it was also exceedingly expensive.

Additionally, it was taxpayer supported. Even if it was very popular, not everyone supported it. Yet, through taxes, they were forced to help fund it.

Look at Hannah Montana. She's popular, right? Well, lets just force everyone in the country to buy tickets to a Hannah Montana concert. Oh, you don't like Hannah Montana? You don't have to attend the concert, but you're darn well going to buy a ticket! Yay Democracy!

I am not sure if Carter won a nobel peace prize, but if he did it was probably for a lot of the things he did after his presidency. Isn't he very involved in Habitat For Humanity or something like that - he may have been the one who started it. Also he has done a lot for international relations, I think he met with Castro a while back.

Yes, he did win the Nobel Peace Prize, and yes, he did lend his celebrity to Habitat for Humanity. However, he didn't get the prize for Habitat. He got it for "to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development". However, it has been suggested that he got it primarily for not being Bush.

[crux]

Look at Hannah Montana. She's popular, right? Well, lets just force everyone in the country to buy tickets to a Hannah Montana concert. Oh, you don't like Hannah Montana? You don't have to attend the concert, but you're darn well going to buy a ticket! Yay Democracy

I agree with your position to the extent that NASA manages to spend an exorbitant amount of money on very little, but comparing a concert to a breakthrough like landing on the moon isn't remotely comparable. There was real science involved in both getting to the moon, landing on it, and exploring it. The same can't be said for any process of a Hannah Montana concert. Come on.

The enormous budgets of space exploration and certain experiments (I'm looking at you, Large Hadron Collider) have always been a subject I approach with hesitancy. On the one hand, every discovery we make is a catalyst for further discoveries. We can't say with any certainty what space exploration and studies of other planets and their moons may lead us to find. Proving the Higgs boson prediction could have enormous implications. On the other hand, we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars. On yet the other hand (my third hand), talking about money makes the assumption that they might spend it on something more productive instead. That's an enormous assumption. In the end I side with the advancement of science.

[Limewater]

I agree with your position to the extent that NASA manages to spend an exorbitant amount of money on very little, but comparing a concert to a breakthrough like landing on the moon isn't remotely comparable. There was real science involved in both getting to the moon, landing on it, and exploring it. The same can't be said for any process of a Hannah Montana concert. Come on.

The point of that illustration was simply to show how people who did not care for the moon landing were coerced into helping finance it. You, Luke, and vash23n may want to go to the moon. That's great! The unfortunate thing is that, in this great country, if you can convince enough other people that it's a good idea, you can then forcefully take MY money to help accomplish the goal.

That was the entirety of the point of my Hannah Montana illustration. I was not attempting to pretend that NASA only exists as a showpiece or that worthwhile things have not come out of the space program. I'm actually a big fan of unmanned space flight. I believe it is much more worthwhile than the manned program.

The enormous budgets of space exploration and certain experiments (I'm looking at you, Large Hadron Collider) have always been a subject I approach with hesitancy. On the one hand, every discovery we make is a catalyst for further discoveries. We can't say with any certainty what space exploration and studies of other planets and their moons may lead us to find. Proving the Higgs boson prediction could have enormous implications. On the other hand, we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars. On yet the other hand (my third hand), talking about money makes the assumption that they might spend it on something more productive instead. That's an enormous assumption. In the end I side with the advancement of science.

I can't argue too much with your first two hands, but I will take issue with your third. No assumption that that money not spent on landing on the moon will be put to good use is necessary. Without the expense of the space program, they wouldn't have to take the money from the American people in the first place.

However, even assuming taxes would be taken anyway (which is a very fair assumption), the question of alternative expenditures is irrelevant. If you have five bad options, you have five bad options. The "least-bad" option is still not a good one. It's just less bad than the others.

[MrPopo]

However, even assuming taxes would be taken anyway (which is a very fair assumption), the question of alternative expenditures is irrelevant. If you have five bad options, you have five bad options. The "least-bad" option is still not a good one. It's just less bad than the others.

I disagree. If we are assuming that the taxes are being taken anyway then it stops being five bad options. They only become bad options if there is a sixth: don't take the taxes. But positing that we have the tax money already available then we are going to spend it on something. It could be defecit reduction, space program, military, or buying hats for everyone in America. Some of these are good options and some are bad (and I'm not going to get into the relative nature of good vs. bad). Now, if we start off with the money not being available yet, then the options become:

1. Do not take money
2. Take money for space program
3. Take money for hats
...

In which case positing that taking people's money is a bad thing then you do have a single good option and five bad options, of which one will be the least bad.

[Limewater]

I disagree. If we are assuming that the taxes are being taken anyway then it stops being five bad options. They only become bad options if there is a sixth: don't take the taxes. But positing that we have the tax money already available then we are going to spend it on something. It could be defecit reduction, space program, military, or buying hats for everyone in America. Some of these are good options and some are bad (and I'm not going to get into the relative nature of good vs. bad). Now, if we start off with the money not being available yet, then the options become:

1. Do not take money
2. Take money for space program
3. Take money for hats
...

In which case positing that taking people's money is a bad thing then you do have a single good option and five bad options, of which one will be the least bad.

Hmmm... I'm not sure I totally understand what you're driving at here. I do realize, however, that I did not completely clarify my assumptions in my final paragraph. Since crux said that the government would have likely spent the money on something else that was bad if not for the space program, I implicitly assumed this. However, I did not state it, and I probably should have.

I think we're in agreement that not taking the money from people in the first place is a "good" option.

However, where I get lost in your post is that you appear to be discussing relative goodness, but you then say that you don't want to the relative nature of good versus bad. From where I sit, that is exactly what you are discussing, but perhaps I am misunderstanding.

I do not see how those five bad spending options are only bad if the option of not taking the money in the first place is available.

[ZeroAX]

if you don't like how your tax money is being spend, you could always move to another country.

if you decide to be a part of society you'll play by it's rules. unless most people don't like those rules and they get changed (peacefully or otherwise)


but on the moon landing

1)it is true at the time it was pretty useless. Humanity didn't gain anything from it, besides some moon landing jokes in futurama walle ect.

2)you got beaten to the most useful ( and I mean REALLY earth changing useful) application of space exploration. The satelite. The entire space program of both the US and USSR was worth it just for these lovely machines, that helped create the internet, made communication around the globe possible, google earth, and of course gives secret agencies around the world the means to spy on us


3)I think the world preferred a stupid race to the moon to yell first, than you guys to start WW3 and fuck the planet up with nukes.

so for 2 and 3 yay nasa and whatever the russians called their's

[Hatta]

Basic research (which lunar exploration is) pays better dividends than any other investment. What we paid to go to the moon we got back many times over in advances in computers, rocketry, plastics, etc.

[pepharytheworm]

Hey Dylan I think you should change the title to "Political Debate Rant"

[Dylan]

Hey Dylan I think you should change the title to "Political Debate Rant"

I think I've already achieved that by including the name "Obama" in in the title.