www.editedforbias.com

Occupy Wall Street Protests in Zuccotti Park, bought for 168.9 Million?

Ed F Bias — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:32:25 +0000

Sad but true, anti-corporate protesters are corporate tools of the left…
- Protests start Sept 17th in private Zuccotti Park, near wall street.
- Sept 23rd U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the Department of Energy finalized a partial guarantee for $168.9 million loan to Granite Reliable Power, LLC.
- Granite Reliable Power, LLC by Brookfield Renewable Power, which is a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management of New York.
- Brookfield Asset Management owns One Liberty Plaza and Zuccotti Park and Major Bloomberg’s girlfriend, Diana L. Taylor, is on the Board of Directors of Brookfield Properties.
- Brookfield’s lobbying firm in DC was Oldaker, Biden & Belair.. any name in there look familar? Yes, Hunter Biden son of the VP but has changed to Heather Podesta & Partners … hmm another common name and coincidently wife of John Podesta’s brother.

Shhh don’t tell the protesters that they are the useful tools of the very corporate cronyism they claim to despise; their heads might explode. Of course, they do support the Administration run by those that voted for the bail-outs in the first place, so their ability to understand irony seems limited.

h/t freerepublic

Beware low bridge ahead…Constitutional views from the left

Ed F Bias — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:00:35 +0000

Today Mark Levin scared us all with a reading from Time magazine’s Managing Editor. I felt required to make sure this article was posted with the necessary and obvious rebutles. I was happy to see that a equally angered Conservative (@AaronWorthing) was faster at the keyboard than I and had already done the bulk of my work in his piece.

Please give him the courtesy of reading his post. He obviously spent a great deal of time finding the proper references to trounce the editor. This is precisely the kind of article and factual rebuttal that I wanted this site to bring to the fore. I still have not reached those lofty goals but still plan to build that platform. People like Aaron prove the will and articles like this one from Tinme continue to prove the need.

News Busters also covered this as well here.

Atlas Shrugged Part I (A review)

Ed F Bias — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:29:48 +0000

In summary, rushed.

It is kind of amazing that after having the rights for twenty years or so for a book that is 1000+ pages the movie really seems rushed.

The overall movie seemed to jump from scene to scene trying to get through the story but not really settling in on the main plot. I liked the shift from the 1950s to a much more modern version of the story. But this was left lacking, simply mentioning the headlines and moving on into the story. Continual reenforcement of the overall theme was sprinkled throughout but it seemed a background and none of it left a lasting impact.

The character development was lacking, almost believing that anyone that saw this movie already knew and therefore who cares. Dagney was stiff early on, seeming caught between just bad acting and trying to ply the stiffer stodgy persona of the early Dagney. Rearden was not as I would have cast him, but was likable. He seemed to be the focus of this film and did get a bit more development through family as well as business associations.

Though the character development was weak a few people stood out. Rearden’s wife Lillian was perfectly cast. And, though not a fit for my minds-eye, Ellis Wyatt was absolutely wonderful.

But the one on one interactions that cement the books themes in your mind were lost. Fransisco’s character was not as intriguing and mysterious as he needed to be. Though not key to this section, he needed to draw the interest of the viewers. And important scene with the professor connecting Fransisco, Ragnar and the yet unnamed was important enough to put in, but lacked the sadness and disappointment to connect it to the audience as valuable.

Readen’s defense in front of the court completely erased which surprised me. Maybe they could not do it justice by cutting it down and figured it was best left unsaid.

Once the movie shifts from the early stages to the building of the John Galt Line, the pace of the subject seems to catch the pace of the film. Though, I think it too could have been slowed. More detail on the impact of the men who vanish, the hoops jumped through and nearly impossible task. Make us want them to win, make it seem that they might fail. The relationship that builds between Rearden, Wyatt and Dagney was finally evident at Wyatt’s house but the story did not take us on that journey and therefore it was not a climactic as it could have been.

The ending at Wyatt’s torch was powerful but it too seemed to jump and cut too quickly. The suspense of what had happened, where he was and the ultimate realization that he had done this himself should have shocked to audience. They seemed more confused and then remembered (those that read the book). The signpost was there but a tighter focus on Dagney’s realization, reading the sign and then a cut to the fire and then fade (or zoom) into the sign standing alone could have really driven it home. Another powerful moment lost.

Overall, I am glad the film was made, it needed to be done, I just wish it was more to my liking. My friend that was with me said that it could have been as powerful as the Godfather, or filmed like Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. I had to agree. It had the potential and missed it.

Not one to leave an opinion without a solution, I will endeavor to explain how it might have been improved. Many will say why, too late, leave the review and move on. I say no for two reasons. First this is only part one of three and improvements should be made to draw more crowds to the remaining films and not less. I also believe that there is still time to improve on the first film. It will have a DVD release. This could have scenes added or updated in an enhanced or editors version. This improved and longer version could then be released to theaters to coincide with th release of part two. Hell, if Lucas can change Star Wars, surely this could use a little refining on the edges.

1. Reshaping the overall environment.

One of the elements from the book that seemed to be deeply lacking was the disparity and destruction of the country and the need for men (and women) of great value. It was shown in the city street scenes but never really addressed directly. The government was interceding but those seemed more directed at Rearden then for the more altruistic social good.

a. One direct and powerful scene knits some of this together. The scene when Dagney is talking to the magazine stand owner. He talks about the economy, the busy people in the train station and their movement.

“I don’t like the thing that’s happening to people…I’ve watched them here for twenty years and I’ve seen the change. They used to rush through here, and it was wonderful to watch, it was the hurry of men who knew where they were going and were eager to get there. Now they’re hurrying because they are afraid. It’s not a purpose that drives them, it’s fear. They’re not going anywhere, they’re escaping. And I don’t think they know what it is that they want to escape. They don’t look at one another… I don’t know what it is that happening to the world.”

b. Another important moment is that the magazine stand owner gives her a cigarette. This one, then one with Fransisco (also dropped from the movie…or maybe that scene is later), ties together with the one being smoked by Hugh Akston. That linkage could have been shown to the audience with tight focus on the cigarette (or cigarette butts) letting them connect and be pulled in by something yet unknown.

c. They included the scene when, as the line is being built, the union boss tries to stop it from being run. But they left out her getting all of the volunteers. Could have been altered into a very short scene of her and Eddie walking towards the room talking about the need for volunteers, entering a room full of men ready to help, despite the unions wishes. A few handshakes and reconciliatory nods woudl have sufficed to enhance the need for these people.

d. When the train was pulling out of the station the tracks should have been lined with people. This was vivid int he book. Though the government had said it was not safe, people needed the line to work. They needed success. Bums, families, other workers, everyone along the line waving, holding signs to set the mood, then turning into a blur as the train came up to speed.

2. Concentrate on the one on one conversations.

I mentioned a few scenes above that I felt were lacking. The court scene and deeper understanding of Fransisco were the most glaring. But even the scenes that were present in the film did not pack the power and tension required. A slowed down deeper confrontation would help to draw the viewer into the scene and the characters. In a sense, it seems that the directors tried to change a deeply philosophical drama about political tensions into an action film. Thinking Godfather or Hitchcock for elements on how to do this well and draw you in.

Turning Budget Battle Lemons into Lemonade

Ed F Bias — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:28:38 +0000

The budget battle has shown weakness in the GOP leadership. It has shown they cannot negotiate under the barrage from the left and the mainstream media. They won elections stating they would get control of the budget. That they would start by cutting 100 billion from the 2001 budget. Then it turned into a prorated 61 billion, then down to a “negotiated” 38 billion.. or wait..then as AP points out, really about 20 billion. The political right wants to claim this as a victory. That we have changed the debate from increasing spending to cutting spending. That debate was won in the election, it was then lost with this compromise. Every time they defend this compromise they lose more votes.

A few simple questions. If the Democrats and Obama increased budgetary spending by over a Trillion dollars since 2008, why can’t almost all of that unspent money be stopped? Since the GOP controls the house, it techoncally can. But out of the Trillion in brand new spending they could only find 20 billion of real cuts?

All is not lost in the debate. We can turn these financial debate dibacle lemons into lemonade. Leadership needs to come out and turn the argument in a new direction.

Starting, “this was the best deal we could get”, fine. “Now the rest of America can see what they’re up against. The Democrats have no desire to stop spending. Their drive for deficits to give kick backs to funding partners is insatiable. Many did not understand how entrenched they are in their special interests. You see it now. They have increased the deficit to almost two trillion dollars and as we see, have no will to stop.

There is no leadership in the Democratic Senate. Harry Reid refused to even bring it to a vote. They would not put their names on a plan and negotiate in good faith. Basic business management will tell you, leaders do not just bring problems; they also bring solutions. Harry Reid is has shown himself to be no leader.

Democrats do not care to stop the economy from the inevitable train wreck. They want to continue to spend regardless of the outcome. Some are saying that the concern over the deficit is overrated. Others believe inflation will allow us to pay this down with cheaper funds and take advantage of our creditors. They manipulate the inflation rate to avoid Cost Of Living Increases. For those in massive debt that may sound like a good idea but for those of you with investments, savings or are on a fixed income; this IS disaster.

Demagoguing these cuts as causing people to live on the streets, women without health care, dying children and the elderly… oh the humanity and destruction this … 20 billion will cause! We now see there is no seriousness in the Democrat party. If you think this obstructionist rhetoric was bad, the debate has only begun. This was a hard fight to even get them to agree to a minor adjustment.

So we move forward. We avoided a government shut-down and we saw the lack of leadership in the senate. But even that is that is demagogue. The government would have continued to run all essential services and provide the necessary safety net to those most needy. I remind you again because this fight is not over. We will make sure we clarify, in writing, the essential services we believe need to continue during a funding slowdown but the final choice is the President’s.

We fully expect to reach this point again, during the budget debate for 2012 and the increase in the debt limit. These are important issues that require tough choices and leadership. Democrats will say again we’re trying to put people on the streets and take food off their table. They will say we are trying to default on our debt. Once again, their true motive is to continue this new level of spending and continue to grow the federal government’s grip on every aspect of daily life.

We will not default on our debt. We have enough money to pay those bills. But we cannot allow continued spending at this rate. The credit card is maxed out we are paying the interest with another credit card. We will not simply extend the credit limit without major behavioral reforms. It is time we talk seriously about changing this game we play in Washington. If necessary we’ll slow down the functions of government. We will service our debt and continue essential services, but we will also make sure our current path is changed and the future of these programs and our economy is preserved.”

Immigration ought not be about proximity

Ed F Bias — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:51:43 +0000

I want to go a different direction. Why has illegal immigration not been fixed?

The answer is two-fold and in both parties: Corporate crony-ism and votes. Corporations want cheap labor and political parties want votes. People would not vote for higher prices and percieved “racism”. Therefore, politicians have no reason to fix the problem… or should I say “had” no reason?

Crime in border cities has grown, kidnappings and killings were profiled, debt became a major issue and unemployment doubled. Now, the voters that were willing to turn a blind eye to “cheap labor for cheaper goods” have seen the impact of their own selfish decisions. They are finally demanding accountability of their politicians and corporations. There are no jobs Americans will not do (watch Dirty Jobs a few times). There are millions of people here legally that need work. Those here from other countries will lose their “work visas” without “work” and students are graduating into a dead market. The costs of cheap labor are now hurting our economy and forcing us to rethink that which we ignored.

I agree with all the costs, the crime, the risks to our security, etc. But all of this was allowed to happen to keep cost of labor down. Let’s be honest about it. If we want cheap goods and cheap labor, create a worker program. But the cost of education, crime and unemployment may not be impacted by this in the least. We simply need to harden the border to illegal traffic, find the new normal and then create a managed worker program to satisfy the “need” within the constructs of our economy. Just like we do with legal immigrants today.

Note: Suggestions for a worker program are not restricted to Mexico. Why are all all the race-bating Democrats so against all other races and nationalities? Why not a worker program from Haiti, South America, Africa, the Western Block, China and or billions of other poor people throughout the world? Why do the people of Mexico, that are willing to ignore or sovereignty, get to benefit simply from their physical location? Let them compete on the world market in a guest worker program and you will be amazed how many millions want to be here, legally and work for a decent wage. In this case; crime, drug use and education will likely be improved.

Health care is a right?

Ed F Bias — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:30:51 +0000

So many Democrats refer to Healthcare as a right and justify the need to cover 100% of the American populous (including illegal residents) and to vilify those that appose their agenda. I oppose this bill in many ways but not the least of which is that healthcare IS NOT a right and in fact is in conflict with the Declaration of Independence.

“A right” is defined by our Declaration as “endowed by their Creator” unalienable due to their life and “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So is Healthcare an element of our right to Happiness or one not listed but still “among” those granted as a birth right?

Health equals Healthcare?

Though itmay seem logical that Health is an extension of Happiness. It does not hold as strongly when you consider that Liberty/Freedom and Happiness themselves are specifically listed. If my freedom and happiness is fulfilled by eating pizza and chocolate for breakfast with a cigar chaser, this would probably diminish my health. If I decide to continue this life-style and enjoy the 50 years of shorten life-span, is that not my right a free person pursuing my own happiness? I am not a fan of this destructive life-style. But I reject with vigor the government control and monitoring of individuals dietary intake.

Before you answer with the health care costs of such a diet, here is a basic truth. Everyone dies and everyone incurs the majority of those expenses in the later years of life. In this example those years will come earlier and more rapidly that the norm. This does not mean that the expenses would be any higher. Some studies indicate that the lifetime health costs are actually lower for the unhealthy versus the extended senior years of the continually healthy. This is likely because the unhealthy tend to die quite quickly of heart attacks and strokes. While the healthy eventually come down with cancer or degrade slowly causing extended long term care and/or hospice care. Again, I am mot promoting that government fatten us all up for heart attacks, but it might actually have a long term savings.

Healthcare is a service

So if health is not a right, is it healthcare that is the right? This would seem to maintain your freedom to do as you like but to be able to access healthcare to maintain your happiness. But in that “access” the problem arises. For you to require access for all Americans, you by extension must require other Americans to provide that service. You must also at some level require what services they must offer and in what locations. This requirement of employment, location, and including price, violates those Americans right to pursue their career chose, their freedoms and their own happiness. Allowing them to maintain their freedoms will create shortages in providers by price, specialty and location. In a free society, price is the agreed exchange of money for service at a rate that is deemed acceptable by both parties. No individual has the right to demand service from another American at a price of his own choosing. Therefore, no government established by the people and for the people should demand price and career controls over other Americans on their behalf.

Healthcare is not a right

Trying to make is so does not change this simple reality. So what we must do is endeavor to create a market in which access to services and unfettered competition create an environment in which the patient and the doctor can come to an equitable transaction at lower costs.

Changes are needed and control by insurance companies is no different than government control. I am a fan of HSAs and patient managed plans (see other posts) and believe it is headed in the right direction. It is not yet a complete solution but the contrary violation of the Constitution and the rights of one group of Americans for the benefit of another should be unacceptable to us all.

Do the two parties really differ on health insurance/coverage?

Ed F Bias — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:29:23 +0000

The short answer as with many large policy issues is “Absolutely and to the core of their policy direction.”

I am not talking about GOP arguments against Obamacare, their promises to repeal it or any new plans. I am talking about passed (past) legislation that can be reviewed in practice. I am talking about a comparison between the GOP HSA Healthcare plans and Obamacare. I talked about this before when I was investigating HSAs. I have since joined my HSA compatible plan and linked up my Health Savings Account.

Simply reading through the documentation, I was struck at how different this is from the discussions and legislative language of Obamacare. I think a side by side comparison of the basic philosophies in these two models is worth noting.

Health Insurance; what’s that?

At the core, an HSA is Health Insurance not a Health Plan or Health Coverage. In an HSA the premiums are low (mine less than $200 a month) and the deductibles are high ($3000). It covers only yearly exams until you reach that $3000 maximum and then it covers you 100%. Some plans have a 80/20 split window to another maximum out-of-pocket. I elected for the 0/100 to 100/0 option.

Obamacare and the health exchanges are Health Coverage with higher monthly premiums and co-pays. You pay each month into a pool to cover the majority of expenses. That pool is then used above and beyond your co-pay , 80/20, 70/30 or 50/50 split to pay the medical practitioner up to your out-of-pocket maximum. In most cases the total out-of-pocket maximum exceeds the $3000 I selected.

Tax Deferral

The HSA term itself really refers to the bank account (Health Saving Account) that you link to a high deductible (HSA compatible) health plan. The money that you put into that account can be used to pay medical expenses, buy prescription drugs, other medical services and over the counter medications. You can put whatever money you need into the account but the first $3000 is tax deductible (or pre-tax in the case of a payroll deduction). Note that the deductible and the maximum contribution are the same… this is not a coincidence. The short strokes: You use tax free money to pay your medical bills.

In traditional health care plans your monthly premiums and Flexible spending account contributions where also paid tax free.

Obamacare did not leave this untouched. The total cost of your health care plan is now part of your paycheck and you will be taxed (as income) on the coverage that exceeds the government regulation. Though this may not directly tax you on the payments you are making, it can have a tax impact if you have elected high valued coverage options.

Who is swimming in my Risk Pool?

In my case the HSA is individual insurance. If I have a huge outlay of expenses, I draw against my savings until the $3000 and then insurance covers the rest. If that expense has ongoing repercussions, my premiums could be raised or I could be dropped. This is simply a fact that my potential to repeatably cost the insurance company money in excess of my $2400 premiums has now been increased. Same as car insurance and those with frequent accidents.

Side note: I approve of the Obamacare goal to limit insurance companies from dropping people outright due to increased usage. I believe that some cap on year over year increases (due to usage [not inflation]) should be put in place. When I entered into this agreement with the insurance company, they agreed to take on some risk. They should not reserve to right to cancel at any time when that risk does not pay out. However, I also understand that they are a business and cannot be required to lose money year over year simply to benefit me. I think a simple 25% usage-based premium increase cap and a 3-5 year contract period should be in place. If after that time I am still a losing proposition they can set me free.

I also believe that some sort of shared risk pool should be created among insurance companies to mitigate these outlays (aka insurance for insurance companies). This will protect their business models, they likely do this today in some form.

I know it is possible to have HSA compatible plans in a corporate structure. This is a slightly larger to much larger pool that mitigates risk. This mitigated risk pool is usually a social contract entered into as a benefit* of employment.

*It is a benefit to those in the high risk area and a increased cost to those in the low risk pool.

Obamacare hopes to set up a larger more public risk pool among millions of US citizens. Asking healthy citizens to pay more to give coverage to the poor and provide coverage at a huge discount to the unhealthy and the currently uninsurable.

Basic Truth

In the final analysis the basics are this: Freedom and Individual choice (with individual risk) versus Government control and shared risk (with shared expense).

Arizona Shooting: More proof the media has lost control.

Ed F Bias — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:54:55 +0000

The horrible tragedy in Arizona has once again proven to me that the traditional media is lost.

Let me first condemn them for their biased coverage, their blaming of the Tea-party, Sarah Palin and all things “right-wing”. Even if the truth had been that the killer was a right-wing fanatic, there is no one to blame but the fanatic looking for a reason to strike. In this case, the evidence was easy to find. His own postings or his list of favorite books. A little more digging would have found his suspension from Pima Community College, his classmates or his failed military application [go ahead and follow-up but let me finish]. I do not believe this information was ignored, I believe it was not sought. And this is the main point.

The media today, awash in the Internet and unsure of their standing, has lost control. Seeing their traditional model destroyed by free content, blogging and ever-present public postings, they have jumped in full boar. This is not the answer. You cannot cover sensationalized and outright biased reporting by simply qualifying it with, “We have no proof” or “the story is still developing but…” You also cannot run a for profit business, employ professional journalists and compete on equal footing with free content. But they continue to try and do so and to try and beat the public to the stories. Like many failed businesses (especially of late) they try to compete and fail and then push for regulation of the alternative to regain their position (Atlas Shrugged anyone). This is the conflict in media today. The path they have chosen has to stop.

The media, a once respected group of high-profile professional journalists, are now over-paid bloggers in a New York office. What is required, and what should be learned from this tragedy, is not that 24-7 media is bad or evil, it just IS. It is the users that make it what it has become and the users that will make it what it will be. You cannot compete with sensationalism by trying to be more sensational and maintain any part of objectivity. There is a gaping hole in this country for well thought out, well researched and, yes, well debated content. The goal is not to compete on their terms (free and sensational) but to create a competitive and superior model to the one that exists today.

It would be self-serving to say that this is the model that I plan to create. But it is my blog. This is the reason I started blogging and why I don’t like the model to which I subscribe. I am working on a new model. One that I believe serves the needs of professional journalists and can compete head-to-head with the free content Internet that is here to stay. I look forward to the day when I can sunset this blog for the new and improved medium that will supplant this domain.

First Thoughts on Tax Compromise

Ed F Bias — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:49:19 +0000

When I heard that a compromise was reached, I expected to be disappointed. Disappointed that the GOP had caved. Disappointed that they did not hold their ground. This was not due to any leaks, just due to years of the same. In this case, I understand the GOP “excitement” in getting this done now. I am also heartened that even during the lam e duck session the President and Democrats seem to be listening to the American people.

“Everyone will find something in this compromise they don’t like”, never a truer statement.

The left will pick and choose at different tax cuts, and “breaks for the rich”. The GOP may have complaints over not being able to make these changes permanent. But my complaint is more on the overall package and the lack of clarity that it creates.

The first is the obvious temporary nature of the package. Any company sitting on cash, waiting for clarity in the economy and tax picture to expand or hire, has been given a small glimmer of light. But a two year plan is short-sighted and unlikely to create sustained growth. Short term goals can now be pursued and some projects scaled up and completed. But long term planning extends outside the two year window and still has long term risk. This pushes the tax fight to the next election cycle. Which I believe is exactly what both political parties wanted.

I understand the need to compromise and that in this session it is impossible to get a permanent extension of these tax cuts. But the side effect is that this compromise codifies the temporal nature of these cuts and leaves the overall economic picture a murky political football to be used by each party to manipulate the electorate and economy to their needs. This is not an environment for long term business planning. I believe that the GOP can solidify this win and get the American economy behind making these cuts permanent with a simple political maneuver.

Make the two year extension temporary but build in a permanent trigger. If this tax package does as the GOP expects, the economy will begin to grow and unemployment will drop and as a result tax revenues will increase, not decrease. The GOP should put this belief into writing and the law. If the tax revenues in all three categories (personal, corporate and capital gains) increases during the extension period (2011-2012)l; compared to the averages of 2009 and 2010; these rates become permanent. If, as the Democrats fear, these cuts hurt “cost us” tax revenue then a debate on the value of each should continue.

This trigger will signal businesses, large and small, that they once again are in charge of the economy and government is giving them the window they need to expand and turn this economy around.

The good and the bad

We seem to have unanimous agreement that increasing tax rates on middle and low income tax payers would be disastrous. What is even better is that we also have unanimous agreement that the Bush tax cuts were a huge benefit to low and middle income tax payers. The President even stated financial numbers confirming this. Democrats and the media that reveled in calling these “tax cuts for the rich” all through 2001, 2003 and up until 2010, have backed off their rhetoric. The GOP needs an “I told you so” moment, but I believe they are unwilling to do so and risk it being spun into sour grapes. This learning moment is likely to pass unfulfilled as so many are with these GOP lawmakers.

I was glad to hear the the “death tax” was included in this package. I was disheartened to hear the President’s disdain for families wanting to pass on their American dream as inheritance instead of as a government windfall. This tax is immoral anti-American and of all of the taxes this should have been made permanent.

I was not thrilled to hear of the extension of unemployment benefits. I believe we have simply turned unemployment into a replacement for the welfare state. We are paying people not to work. The longer they do not work the harder it will be get back into the workforce. How long until we have the debate about the fact that it is not enough money to live on, and the payouts must be increased? Unemployment is on track to become a working wage for those that are unwilling to work. That is a path to disaster. I understand that this and all social programs are a political third-rail and neither party is willing or able to discuss the social decay they themselves are creating. In the end, a growing economy and growing revenues will lessen the impact of these and give us the ability to roll these extensions back to a reasonable safety net.

I think the biggest and most necessary tax cut extension was captial gains. If this tax cut was going to expire, billions of dollars would have been removed from the market in the coming DAYS and the economy would have spiraled downward once again. This alone will solidify the gains in the market this year and allow those investments to continue to work for companies and individuals.

Those are my thoughts and first reactions to the stated compromise. I am interested in reading and learning from others as the debate continues. Let’s see where is goes in the next few days.

End of the Shuttle: We lose far more than we gain

Ed F Bias — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:06:39 +0000

The last Shuttle we be launched on Feb 26th, 2001. At this point the program is to be shelved.

U.S. Astronauts will no longer leave this planet and return to in from U.S. soil. We will have to coordinate our needs with Russia and other foreign countries. In many cases it is the needs created by pushing the envelop of development that lead to new solutions. It is not a stretch to say that without direct and local control, our needs and engagement in solution finding will be diminished. NASA states: As a result of shuttle research, the program alone has generated more than 100 technology spin-offs.

From NASA’s spin-off website.
• Miniaturized heart pumps save lives.
• Thermal protection system materials protect racecar drivers.
• Bioreactors help chemists design new therapeutic drugs and antibodies.
• Compact laboratory instruments allow faster blood analysis.
• Sensitive hand-held infrared cameras scan for forest fires.
• Rocket fuel helps destroy land mines.
• Light-emitting diodes treat cancerous tumors.
• Prosthetic limbs are lighter and stronger.
• An extrication tool removes accident victims from wrecked vehicles.
• Municipalities track and reassign emergency and public works vehicles.
• Law enforcement agencies can improve the resolution of crime scene video.

Yes these all cost money and space exploration is expensive. How much time and money woudl have gone to these developments without the needs in space travel? I would proffer that without an immediate need many of these items would never be invented in the first place. In most cases it is not the original need that meets an earthbound need. It is the vision of another scientist, with another problem, that is inspired by the first and makes the connection. Without the initial inspiration, that chain is broken and the advancement is unlikely to occur. As we separate ourselves from the direct needs to advance our program, we remove our ties to these inventions and rely on others to bring the inventions forward and provide us inspiration and information. I see this as a huge loss and a huge risk.

Beyond this impact is the emotional impact. The simple fact that it is not the U.S. and not our country that inspires the world. The direct costs may be deferred by the loss of national pride and energy is difficult to measure. As we say goodbye to our shuttle program, I would like to take you back to the words of Rush’s Countdown; [with attribution, "Dedicated with thanks to astronauts Young and Crippen and all the people of NASA for their inspiration and cooperation"].

Lit up with anticipation
We arrive at the launching site
The sky is still dark, nearing dawn
On the Florida coastline

Circling choppers slash the night
With roving searchlight beams
This magic day when super-science
Mingles with the bright stuff of dreams

Floodlit in the hazy distance
The star of this unearthly show
Venting vapors, like the breath
Of a sleeping white dragon

Crackling speakers, voices tense
Resume the final count
All systems check, T minus nine
As the sun and the drama start to mount

The air is charged
A humid, motionless mass
The crowds and the cameras
The cars full of spectators pass
Excitement so thick you could cut it with a knife
Technology…high, on the leading edge of life

The earth beneath us starts to tremble
With the spreading of a low black cloud
A thunderous roar shakes the air
Like the whole world exploding

Scorching blast of golden fire
As it slowly leaves the ground
Tears away with a mighty force
The air is shattered by the awesome sound

Like a pillar of cloud
The smoke lingers high in the air
In fascination
With the eyes of the world
We stare…

Take a listen to the power of these lyrics, Rush’s music, and the NASA audio again. Return to the previous track.

“Sadder still to watch it die than never to have have known it. ” – Neal Peart, Losing It.