"The number one financial rule in any project is: don't throw good money after bad money. It's gone. Don't make it worse. And from what I understand from the Constellation project, it was just not going to fly - not without pouring enough money and time into it to start from scratch. As a result, it makes sense to scratch it, even if this means short-term pain. "

You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the sunk cost dilemma. While sunk costs should not factor into business decisions from a psychological perspective, they most certainly be plugged into the financial analysis of a decision. When making a decision to proceed or cancel a project, you calculate the additional resources required to achieve the goal by continuing the project, or by starting a different project. But the key is that the goal must be the same. That is NOT the case here.

The goal of Constellation was to get back to the moon, and then to mars. The development of a heavy lifter was a necessary part of that process. The commission pointed out that the project had been underfunded and so, in order to make that goal, $X needed to be added to the Constellation budget. Given that that wasn't going to happen, the commission recommended changing the goal. They never said that we could reach the Moon/Mars cheaper if we scratched Ares and Orion; they said that we should not GO to the Moon/Mars. With the goal changed, the existing work done on Orion is wasted, since we don't need a heavy lifter like that too just play around in orbit.

I agree that we need a heavy lifter. But the cost to start from scratch will exceed the cost to finish Ares. But since the current administration doesn't believe we need a heavy lift capability, it really doesn't matter, now does it?

The car analogy I use is "What if the Pennsylvania Turnpike started charging Amazon directly because Amazon "uses" the road to get their packages to customers? This, despite the fact that Amazon has already paid UPS, and UPS pays the Turnpike for use of the road? No? How about this - shippers who pay extra get "expedited" access to the turnpike, and those who don't get "regular" access. Sound reasonable? Sure - until you find out that "regular" access means 1 tollboth, no EZPass, and "expedited" means plenty of booths with highway speed EZPass. Sure - you don't have to pay "extra" to get on the Turnpike, but the advantages of doing it are wholly wiped out by the longer wait times.

They are thinking of the same idiocy regarding guns, specifically ammunition. There are a number of proposals to serialize ammunition - the casing, the projectile, or both - and registering all sales so that evidence collected at a shooting can be positively identified. Just pick the casings off the ground, type the number into the database, and go arrest someone. In their mind, all shootings involve spraying a room with automatic gunfire and CSI is real. But the ways to evade this are ludicrously easy, like:

1) Uhh, revolver?
2) Go to a shooting range, grab a bunch of spent brass out of the garbage, scatter at crime scene - now you have bogus serial numbers AND partial fingerprints.
3) Reloading ammunition?

So the net effect is negative - likely no drop in crime, but more work and expense done by police. Ask the state of Maryland.

"Most of Mexico's problems would disappear if drugs were legal, and handled by prescription drug companies. No more black market. People could get their drugs from legal, regulated corporations just like getting any other drug, and Mexico would no longer have drug runners/cartels."

Ahh, no. If that was the case, why is there abuse and a black market in prescription drugs? Oxycontin, amphetamines, etc.

The demand for Schedule 1 and 2 substances isn't driven by their therapeutic uses; it is driven by their recreational uses. They are things a person doesn't "need" (unless they get addicted). They are things people "want". So putting them behind a lower wall will not address that latter demand.

The only way to address the problem of demand for these substances is to treat them as we do alcohol - regulate and tax the sales, and punish the BEHAVIOR of intoxicated people, not their state of intoxication. I can go to a store and legally buy alcohol, legally drink it, and legally get intoxicated, and even legally become addicted. But f I do something stupid WHILE drunk, it's still my ass.

On a side note, I'd LOVE to see the state stores in PA (and the ones in Mont. county, MD) sell wine, liquor, opiates, cocaine, and marijuana, all in packages with that little seal on them.

Regarding your first point, it should be noted that the postwar Luftwaffe was NOT the best air force out there, and was using the F-104 outside of it's original design intent - it was intended to be a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor, and not fly low altitude dogfights. The Canadians had some of the same problems. Other air forces had much better experiences with the plane.

That being said, should the Germans have bought it? Probably not. But the bribes Lockheed gave at the time weren't illegal, as you state - the FCPA was passed after they took place.

The F-104 was a pretty radical design which went counter to American design trends at the time. It was small, wickedly fast, and unforgiving, much like European sports cars of the era. But the US designs were trending toward larger and heavier, sacrificing maneuverability for protection and increasing speed by application of more power, similar to the 60's domestic musclecars. Witness the F-111, originally conceived as a fighter but it grew so heavy that it can only be used as a bomber/ground attack plane. It's small wonder the Italians seemed to love the F-104

"The Venezuelan president has a right a legal defense on unwarranted attacks on his reputation - if he is defamed then he can take the matter to court. This doesn't make him a dictator.

Zuloaga has a defense to the charges against him: if he can prove his statements were true, then he can get off. But if his allegations about Chavez are in fact just inflammatory lies, then he's in some serious legal shit."

Problem is, "defamation" is a civil claim, not a criminal one. And one does not get arrested for civil claims.

Oh, wait - in Venezuela it IS a criminal charge? My, how....convenient.

dammit, close tags, close tags....

"Remember, "Deep Throat" gave up classified docs to the press, he broke laws in order to get revenge on the President."

I'm glad you used Mark Felt as an example. He's a painful reminder that even those who clothe themselves in righteousness probably have a hidden agenda.

"Can we just accept that he's evil yet?
he's been making the effort to convince us all for a while but some people don't seem to want to listen."

It's called cognitive dissonance (I think). Chavez acts like someone people shouldn't like. But he opposes the US, which makes many sympathetic to him - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." So the same folks who like to trot out the "either for us or against us" mentality of the Bush administration wind up doing the same thing.

Chavez is a sonofabitch, but he's NOT "our sonafabitch". And for many, that makes him acceptable.

Rock Band:Pink Floyd - The Boxed Set.
Includes their entire catalog. If you can make it through the whole thing, you are declared God.
Bonus disc - The Wizard of Oz, both original and incorporated into the game.

I built a model of a nuclear power plant for my science fair project in 7th grade. I would have won (aside from the fact that it wasn't really an experiment), except that the nuns decided I COULDN'T have done it myself and my Dad had to have helped, so I was DQ'd. Fine. Whatever.

Next year comes around, and my teachers asks me what I'm doing for the science fair. "Nothing - I'm not doing it."

"Yes, you are."

"But it's voluntary!"

"Not for you it isn't."

So I decided to fuck with the teacher and titled my experiment "The Aerodynamics of Paper Airplanes". I made 2 types, and tested them using a gravity drop and a rubber band launcher. I wound up coming in second place, and got an award from NASA at the county event. I can't help but think the nuns were feeling some mixed emotions.

The difference is in opportunity vs. outcomes. The Constitution is based on the idea that people are entitled to the opportunity to achieve, or fail, at our undertakings. It does NOT guarantees that those undertakings be successful, or that other citizens be held responsible for the success of someone.

In that sense, every American already does have the right to health care - no government entity is stopping them from getting whatever healthcare they want and can pay for. If someone cannot afford it, why does that mean that they have the right to have someone else pay for it? And can force that person to pay for it at the point of a gun? One might argue that indeed people HAVE that right, but you'll notice that an actual debate about whether such a right exists is singularly absent from the current debate. THAT's the "sense of entitlement" being referred to - the idea that some should get what they want, payed for by others, without going through the bothersome process of asking for it.

"What's the point of being subversive if it's not forbidden?"

For the same reason that people still burn flags after SCOTUS said it was OK.

Wait, they don't burn flags anymore? But why wouldn't they....Ohhhhhh.

[rosanna_rosanna_danna]Nevermind[/rosanna_rosanna_danna]

They can amend their constitution, but they won't because their neighbors have long memories. They want to have a military but keep the appearance of pacifism.

"I call bullshit. European countries, Japan et al have perfectly capable REGIONAL armies. They can well defend their own countries (and to assist members of defensive groups). They don't mind extra assistance and assurance, but it is at most a nice-to-have, and at worst a political problem (with domestic leftist parties). "

First question: "perfectly capable" of what? Defending themselves now? Against what? Anything that would be a threat too big to buy off would also be too big for the militaries they have now. As for "members of defensive groups", I assume you are referring to Nato. If the US left Nato (a move I'm also in favor of), it would become a paper tiger. The British could shoulder the burden a bit, but the next time Nato "peacekeepers" are required, no one is going to show up.

I think you missed my point - I KNOW the current model is based on Cold War stategy, and the Cold War is over. The US should be out of many countries, but we're not. I propose that the answer is not American pseudo-imperialism but the fact that the governments of those countries don't WANT the US to leave. In addition to subsidizing their nation's defense, those bases pump enormous amounts of money into the local economy. If the bases were to disappear, that's thousands of workers laid onto the welfare system. We stay there for political reasons, not military ones.