Credit Where It's Due

As much as I hated the W. administration, I'm not thrilled with Obama either.

I gave the Bush crew credit when they did something right, all three times. That's only a slight exaggeration, but Bush's Supreme Court picks seem to have cerebral activity at least some of the time. W. & Co. understood that while we might not be in a Cold War, Putin has to be brushed back from the plate and maybe even hit with a pitch from time to time. They even sounded like the understood that taxes, all taxes, are bad and need to be minimized.

Unfortunately they liked to spend money as prodigiously and recklessly as Obama, don't let anyone fool you about that. Republican budget cuts? Show me even one budget proposed by a Republican administration OR a Republican majority in Congress that is actually smaller than the previous year's. If you can find one I'll eat a bowl of thumb tacks.

In true Orwellian fashion, in Washington spending more money is actually described as a budget cut. If you forecast that you'd spend, say, 10% more on the Ministry of Silly Walks and you only give them a 5% increase, you somehow slashed their funds by 50% even though you grew their allotment by more than the inflation rate. NPR will report about how walks may not be as silly as they could be ever again. Both parties do this and it is stupid and wrong.

So anyway, when the Republicans aren't trying to outspend Democrats or accidentally invading the wrong country, they can have their moments.

I know, there's the war on drugs and the odd position Republicans take on homosexuality. Hey, if we're all rugged individualists here, who cares if some guy decides to putt from the rough? And if you are big fan of committed, monogamous relationships, why shouldn't those dudes be able to get a piece of paper from the state formalizing their domestic relations?

For that matter, if someone wants to use IV drugs, that's an individual choice: you own your own body, if you want to load it up with heroin, good luck with your plans for life. In true Republican fashion, I don't want to pay taxes to subsidize your bad choices, so you might be surprised how low rock bottom gets, but you're free to find out.

But that's not what I came here to talk to you about, as Arlo Guthrie would say at this juncture. I came to talk about NASA.

NASA?

Yes, because Obama has done a few things right. Don't get me wrong, I think that boob is doing more harm that good, but since it's different harm than W., maybe things work out in the end.

First off, lightening up on the medical marijuana people was a good move. It's a half measure, what we really need to do is quit trying to legislate sobriety altogether, but stopping the DEA raiding state-legal medical marijuana dispensaries is at least a start. What if someone who didn't have cancer, or anything else wrong with them, got some of that marijuana and had a nice mellow evening eating too much in front of the TV? Gawd, that'd be horrible! Kick down the door and throw them in prison, let us pay for their housing while depriving them of their rights for a few years. That'll teach them to stick to beer.

Another thing I think Obama deserves credit for is deciding to cut the manned space program. I'm a model rocket hobbyist sometimes and I'm a big science fiction fan, to boot. You'd think I'd be all about NASA's manned missions. Go back to the moon. Man a mission to mars, etc.

But there are several problems with that: one, the whole manned mission thing might make since in 1969, but with robots, there's no need. We got shit-tons of science from mars with unmanned craft. Add astronauts to the mix and you just added a big-ass liability and you have to feed it, water it, and bring it back to earth.

The Space Shuttle was famously obsolete on its first mission, it takes that long for an outfit like NASA to get shit done. More efficient launch systems (single use, in all likelihood, the reusable stuff doesn't save nearly what we thought back in the 1970s) aren't developed because corporations with big payloads that need to get to orbit can get a tax-subsidized (not free, but not real cost) ride on the Shuttle.

Even NASA's staunchest defenders will say, 'Don't get me wrong, they waste a ton of money, but...'

Thing is, if the private sector has to figure out how to get this shit up there on their own, they will innovate. They will find cost savings. If a manned launch is required, they will hire someone willing and able to do that, such as Russia. If a manned mission is pointless, they won't pay for it because they aren't a government agency that can lose a fortune and claim success.

I know Obama did it for the wrong reasons, and I know it'll be a hard transition for some people, but in terms of access to space, the less Federal involvement the more access we'll get, long-term, and for less money. Throw it open to the profit motive and you'll be amazed at what is possible.

Now, if Obama could get the message that the private sector does a better job and for less, that would be a great day. For instance, healthcare...