Last Friday, Pres. Bush nominated Michael Griffin as his new NASA chief to replace Sean O'Keefe, who left NASA to become chancellor at Louisiana State University. Liked by many members of Congress, Griffin’s confirmation by the Senate may be quick to come.
Bush’s choice comes just weeks before the space shuttle is scheduled to resume flights following the Columbia disaster that killed all seven astronauts during reentry more than two years ago.
But the space shuttle fleet is scheduled for retirement by 2010, as Bush and NASA have made plans to return to the moon. A new generation of spacecraft will transport astronauts and equipment to the International Space Station, which will serve as a space dock for ships going to the moon and, eventually, to Mars.
Griffin seems right for the job. He is a scientist and engineer, holding a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering and five master's degrees, in aerospace science, electrical engineering, applied physics, civil engineering and business administration. His bachelor's degree is in physics.
He has the right mix of space science knowledge and administrative talent needed to put NASA on track for the future. And that’s just what the beleaguered agency needs after suffering a number of failures over the past decade.
Although NASA has had several success stories, such as the two Mars rovers that are still operating on the surface of the Red Planet, it has also been plagued by embarrassing failures.
Griffin would also be in a position to reverse O’Keefe’s decision not to send a shuttle mission to repair the aging Hubble Space Telescope. It was an unpopular decision based on safety issues. But many experts believe that the risks are well within acceptable limits, given the extraordinary discoveries that have been the fruit of the Hubble mission thus far.
Bush is no friend to science and technology in general. But his devotion to the space program and to sending humans outside of Earth’s orbit for the first time in a generation is laudable. The biggest problem with his plan is that it stretches decades, when it should only stretch years.
With Griffin on board, it’s possible the timetable could be shortened. Last year, he joined eight other experts in writing a report that pushed for an even quicker retirement of the shuttle in order to accelerate work on a spaceship that could carry astronauts to the international space station and ultimately to the moon.
In 1962, Pres. Kennedy set a goal to send men to the moon and bring them back safely before that decade was out. At the time he set the goal, America was having trouble even sending unmanned rockets into space.
Yet we beat that goal by five months, despite the setback of the Apollo I disaster that killed three astronauts, including Hoosier Gus Grissom. But the public was behind that effort. With the Soviet Union ahead of us in the space race in 1962, we had someone to race against.
Today, there is no evil empire to spur us along. And the public has not been completely sold on the idea. Perhaps Griffin can start the processes of selling it.
Sending explorers back to the moon and to neighboring planets is the next logical step, the only step left really, in human exploration. The rewards would be huge, well worth the investment.
Griffin’s experience and background may be just the prescription for NASA’s return to a golden age of space travel, which will one day lead to colonization, not simply exploration. It’s a good first step.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Indiana House Boycotted by Crybabies
It’s a different legislative session, but the same old political games are still being played. This time it’s the democrats who want to play a game of kill bill. House democrats, who are in the minority this year, boycotted the General Assembly last week, potentially killing 130 bills.
Last year it was the minority republicans who walked out. That move eventually killed at least 40 bills.
But whether it is the democrats or the republicans who snarl the legislative process by not showing up to vote, the ploy is nothing less than childish and makes everyone involved look like a bunch of crybabies.
The democrats walked out in protest of republicans’ plans to pass a bill that would create a governor-appointed inspector general and another bill that would require a state ID to be shown at polling places during elections.
Democrats have every right to oppose those pieces of legislation. But the proper way to oppose them is to show up and vote against them. If they lose, they lose. That’s the democratic process.
But rather than show up and vote, knowing they would probably be defeated, they simply didn’t show up. Unfortunately, that means a quorum didn’t exist and business couldn’t be conducted. It was an underhanded and immature method of getting their way.
A similar situation happened last year when republicans walked out, preventing a vote on a same-sex marriage bill. The bill would have started the process of amending the state constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Two-thirds of House members must be present to conduct business. Although republicans are in the majority this year, they do not have the requisite two-thirds majority.
Do voters in Indiana really want their elected officials to boycott a vote? They get paid, with taxpayer’s money, to do their jobs. But when they refuse to even show up, they are not doing those jobs.
That means important legislation, such as a bill that would finally place all of Indiana on daylight saving time in the summer is in serious jeopardy. It also means legislation providing funding for a new stadium for the Colts is dead. Unless republicans in the Senate can find a way to tack on these bills as amendments, they’re doomed.
Unfortunately, the Senate has rules preventing unrelated bills from being added as amendments to other bills. There is still some hope for the stadium, because there are other funding bills pending in the Senate that it could be amended to. But it looks as though the daylight saving time bill will have to wait yet another year.
Gov. Mitch Daniels blamed House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, for sidetracking the legislative process. In a statement, the governor said, “I shouldn't be surprised that a throwback politician like Mr. Bauer would put party over jobs, reform, public safety, or the protection of children. But it's harder to understand why not one House Democrat had the courage or conscience to stay at work when he told them to walk off the job.”
It probably shouldn’t be hard to understand, given the nature of politics. But it still leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth to know that partisan politics can bring state government to a screeching halt.
Voters of Indiana deserve better than that. They want and need their elected officials to show up and do their jobs. And if they don’t, voters ought to demand that the esoteric rules that govern the General Assembly be changed.
Make a quorum 51 percent instead of two-thirds majority. That would end the walk-outs by those who have lost power but who are not ready to give it up just yet.
Last year it was the minority republicans who walked out. That move eventually killed at least 40 bills.
But whether it is the democrats or the republicans who snarl the legislative process by not showing up to vote, the ploy is nothing less than childish and makes everyone involved look like a bunch of crybabies.
The democrats walked out in protest of republicans’ plans to pass a bill that would create a governor-appointed inspector general and another bill that would require a state ID to be shown at polling places during elections.
Democrats have every right to oppose those pieces of legislation. But the proper way to oppose them is to show up and vote against them. If they lose, they lose. That’s the democratic process.
But rather than show up and vote, knowing they would probably be defeated, they simply didn’t show up. Unfortunately, that means a quorum didn’t exist and business couldn’t be conducted. It was an underhanded and immature method of getting their way.
A similar situation happened last year when republicans walked out, preventing a vote on a same-sex marriage bill. The bill would have started the process of amending the state constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Two-thirds of House members must be present to conduct business. Although republicans are in the majority this year, they do not have the requisite two-thirds majority.
Do voters in Indiana really want their elected officials to boycott a vote? They get paid, with taxpayer’s money, to do their jobs. But when they refuse to even show up, they are not doing those jobs.
That means important legislation, such as a bill that would finally place all of Indiana on daylight saving time in the summer is in serious jeopardy. It also means legislation providing funding for a new stadium for the Colts is dead. Unless republicans in the Senate can find a way to tack on these bills as amendments, they’re doomed.
Unfortunately, the Senate has rules preventing unrelated bills from being added as amendments to other bills. There is still some hope for the stadium, because there are other funding bills pending in the Senate that it could be amended to. But it looks as though the daylight saving time bill will have to wait yet another year.
Gov. Mitch Daniels blamed House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, for sidetracking the legislative process. In a statement, the governor said, “I shouldn't be surprised that a throwback politician like Mr. Bauer would put party over jobs, reform, public safety, or the protection of children. But it's harder to understand why not one House Democrat had the courage or conscience to stay at work when he told them to walk off the job.”
It probably shouldn’t be hard to understand, given the nature of politics. But it still leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth to know that partisan politics can bring state government to a screeching halt.
Voters of Indiana deserve better than that. They want and need their elected officials to show up and do their jobs. And if they don’t, voters ought to demand that the esoteric rules that govern the General Assembly be changed.
Make a quorum 51 percent instead of two-thirds majority. That would end the walk-outs by those who have lost power but who are not ready to give it up just yet.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Court will Decide on 10 Commandments
In a few months, the last word on whether or not the Ten Commandments can be displayed legally on public property will be heard. The Supreme Court debated the question brought in appeals to cases involving a Texas monument and a framed document in a Kentucky court, both depicting the text of the Ten Commandments.
Public opinion polls indicate that a vast majority, 76 percent, of Americans have no problem accepting the placement of the religious symbol on public property. Some argue that the Ten Commandments provided the framework for modern laws and, therefore, also have a secular purpose.
The High Court justices seemed torn. One noted that the Supreme Court itself has a depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments on its building. Other justices wondered whether the line separating church and state had been crossed by these displays. But Sandra Day O’Conner, who often casts the swing vote in these types of matters, did not tip her hand at the hearing.
One problem for the High Court is to decide whether or not displays of the Ten Commandments on public land are so ubiquitous that it would be logistically difficult to ban them now. And strong public support for the displays might also have an effect on the decision.
That’s not the way it should be, though. Supreme Court justices hold office for life. The Constitution grants them life terms so that they will not cave in to pressure, either from the other branches of government or from the public, when forming their opinions. High Court decisions should be based solely on the law, the Constitution, and on past court decisions, not on the whims of a majority of the public.
But interpreting the Constitution can be tricky. The First Amendment says the government shall pass no laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” It also forbids any law that would prohibit the free expression of religion.
The question is often raised as to what the Founding Fathers meant. But they were vague on purpose, knowing that future generations would develop different societal norms than existed in 1787.
A more appropriate question would be, “What would the Founding Fathers say about religion if they were drafting the Constitution today?”
We can’t know that for sure, but the burden of deciding that has historically fallen upon the justices of the Supreme Court. They are all very learned men and women who, like the Founding Fathers, have what is best for the country as a whole in mind.
If the Constitution were drafted today, there is a good chance that the line separating church and state would be drawn very sharply. Government has no business meddling in, promoting, or hampering any kind of religious observation, including the symbols thereof.
Coins and currency should not say “In God we trust.” The Pledge of Allegiance shouldn’t include the phrase “under God.” And federal buildings should not display the Ten Commandments, a clearly religious symbol.
As one demonstrator in front of the Supreme Court put it, “My God does not need government help.”
Public opinion polls indicate that a vast majority, 76 percent, of Americans have no problem accepting the placement of the religious symbol on public property. Some argue that the Ten Commandments provided the framework for modern laws and, therefore, also have a secular purpose.
The High Court justices seemed torn. One noted that the Supreme Court itself has a depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments on its building. Other justices wondered whether the line separating church and state had been crossed by these displays. But Sandra Day O’Conner, who often casts the swing vote in these types of matters, did not tip her hand at the hearing.
One problem for the High Court is to decide whether or not displays of the Ten Commandments on public land are so ubiquitous that it would be logistically difficult to ban them now. And strong public support for the displays might also have an effect on the decision.
That’s not the way it should be, though. Supreme Court justices hold office for life. The Constitution grants them life terms so that they will not cave in to pressure, either from the other branches of government or from the public, when forming their opinions. High Court decisions should be based solely on the law, the Constitution, and on past court decisions, not on the whims of a majority of the public.
But interpreting the Constitution can be tricky. The First Amendment says the government shall pass no laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” It also forbids any law that would prohibit the free expression of religion.
The question is often raised as to what the Founding Fathers meant. But they were vague on purpose, knowing that future generations would develop different societal norms than existed in 1787.
A more appropriate question would be, “What would the Founding Fathers say about religion if they were drafting the Constitution today?”
We can’t know that for sure, but the burden of deciding that has historically fallen upon the justices of the Supreme Court. They are all very learned men and women who, like the Founding Fathers, have what is best for the country as a whole in mind.
If the Constitution were drafted today, there is a good chance that the line separating church and state would be drawn very sharply. Government has no business meddling in, promoting, or hampering any kind of religious observation, including the symbols thereof.
Coins and currency should not say “In God we trust.” The Pledge of Allegiance shouldn’t include the phrase “under God.” And federal buildings should not display the Ten Commandments, a clearly religious symbol.
As one demonstrator in front of the Supreme Court put it, “My God does not need government help.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)