Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Why Government Investment In New Technologies Is So Important

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need ~ Barack Obama (dob 8/4/1961) 44th POTUS (1/20/2009 to 1/20/2017). Excerpt from his 1/25/2011 State of Union Address.

Back during the 2012 primary season, a 1/23/2012 GOP NBC debate featured a Newt Gingrich moment that had him proposing the construction of a permanent base on the Moon. Newt said that by 2020 (the last year of his *snicker* administration provided he *snicker* served two terms), private sector businesses spurred on by government-provided prize money would accomplish the task.

At the time I wrote a short commentary of a humorous nature on Newt's proposal titled "A Winning Strategy: President Newt". (Follow the link to read my side-splittingly hilarious laugh-a-palooza from 4/3/2012).

Following this unlikely proposal by Newt (unlikely that we'd build a Moon colony and unlikely that we would have elected Newt preznit), astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson appeared on MSNBC with Martin Bashir to discuss how probable the building of a base on the moon by 2020 might be.

During the 1/26/2012 airing of Bashir's eponymous MSNBC program, Mr. Tyson pointed out that, aside from the technical and scientific hurdles that would have to be overcome, the political climate would have to change. Simply put, the political climate makes this proposal very improbable - or it would have been improbable if Newt had improbably been elected and we had actually pursued it.

Mr. Tyson went on to explain why government investment in new technologies is so important (something those on the Right who believe the "market" should decide don't cotton to).

NDT: There is rampant delusion out there about what the future will hold for us. One of the problems is, the expectation is that the private sector will just advance the space frontier. No, they're not going to advance the space frontier. Because the frontier of space is expensive, dangerous, with unknown risks and unknown costs. That is not ripe for capital markets to value, OK. The history of human exploration is one where governments take the first step. They pay for the first patents, they draw the maps. Government paid for Columbus' voyage. Magellan's voyage. Louis and Clark. That's who figures out what's going on out there. Then private enterprise comes in afterward. ...we are receding while the rest of the world is advancing. Because they realize the value of such investments. (MSNBC's Martin Bashir 1/26/2012: Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why the Newt Gingrich vision for space is too grand of an idea).

Conservatives HATE this idea, even though it is the model that has worked time and time again, as Mr. Tyson points out. Conservatives and Libertarians say this is government "picking winners and losers" and they strongly oppose it.

They object despite the fact that, without this model (where government leads the way when it comes to new technologies), the Internet would have never been invented (for example). The internet began with a government investment when "the US Department of Defense awarded contracts". Later, legislation championed by future president Al Gore led to the development of the interwebs as we know the series of tubes today (for which I thank him).

When I pointed out how crucial government investment is when it comes to new technologies (in the context of the green economy and the government loan program to support companies who invest in green energies such as solar), a whiny Conservative complained about "taxpayer funded gifts to wealthy investors and corporations".

But the evidence shows that when We The People intervene to "advance the frontier" (when the private sector is too timid to take the risk), the American people choose themselves as winners. When we fail to do this we chose to be losers (which is what the whiny guy I mentioned earlier would have us do).

The trick, of course, is to not let the corporations corrupt the system by bribing our elected officials in order to select them (the plutocrat business owners) as the winners. This crony capitalism problem is what greatly concerns Libertarians.

The solution, however, is NOT to do as Libertarians wish and give up because the wealthy special interests will always corrupt the system (that's what they say, at least). But it does not have to be this way! What we should do is reform the system (by getting rid of Citizens United and publicly financing elections, for example) and get down to picking the winners that will benefit We the People.

Unfortunately there is more and more of this defeatist Libertarian loser attitude going around today, and this is why other countries are surpassing us in the areas of green energy and high speed rail, for example [1+2].

Newt's campaign might have been a joke, but at least he was concerned about us losing our status as the cool country (despite being an uber-nerd), which we might have been able to recapture if gwb had not said NO to human-animal hybrids. If not for that bush decree we might have been on our way to a real Planet of The Apes! How cool would that have been? (Are "Humanzees" Possible?).

On second thought, high speed rail would definitely be a lot more gnarly, and more practical than a base on the moon (not that we couldn't do both). But Republicans hate high speed rail. Why? Because rugged individuals drive gas guzzling SUVs, that's why. Or coal rollers, which "are diesel trucks modified with chimneys and equipment that can force extra fuel into the engine causing dark black smoke to pour out of the chimney stacks... as a form of protest against environmentalists and Obama administration emissions regulations".

BTW, in regards to Gingrich being an "uber-nerd", how could he not be with a name like "Newton Leroy"? He also has several degrees in History and was previously employed as an assistant History professor before being elected to Congress.

Although he has had 3 wives, the 1st 2 of which *HE* dumped for a newer model. But that comes with the territory of being rich and powerful. You can be a nerd and get hot women. Not that I'm saying Callista is hot, only that she is surely hot when compared to Newton.

Footnotes
[1] China's Renewable Energy Revolution: What Is Driving It? (article excerpt) China is building a renewables energy system that is now the largest in the world. ... In terms of generating capacity, by 2013 China's WWS sources (water, wind and solar) accounted for... close to 20% of energy generated... China now has the largest electric power system in the world, rated at 1.25 trillion watts (TW), exceeding the US power system's capacity at 1.16 TW (and German at 175 GW). China added more capacity in 2013 sourced from WWS than from fossil fuels and nuclear sources combined. ...our conclusion is that in 2013, China's leading edge of change in its electric power system is moving in a green direction, away from fossil fuels dependence. (Article by John A. Mathews and Hao Tan. GlobalResearch 11/17/2014).
[2] China has the world's longest HSR network with over 16,000 km (9,900 mi) of track in service as of December 2014 which is more than the rest of the world's high speed rail tracks combined. Since high-speed rail service in China was introduced on April 18, 2007, daily ridership has grown from 237,000 in 2007 to 2.49 million in 2014, making the Chinese HSR network the most heavily used in the world. Cumulative ridership had reached 2.9 billion by October 2014. (Wikipedia/High-speed rail in China).

Video1: Martin Bashir and Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson discuss Newt Gingrich's intentions to colonize the moon by 2020, and to the funding of space exploration in general on MSNBC. Video posted to YouTube on 1/27/2012 (6:47).

Video2: With planet Earth in turmoil, Newt Gingrich leads a GOP-filled colony on the Moon. SNL 2/4/2012 (Season 37-Episode 13, Hosted by Channing Tatum).

SWTD #298

Easily Refuting the Argument That Global Warming is BS Because Scientists Previously Said There Would be Global Cooling

...many of those scientists are still alive, and they were absolutely convinced. I mean, if Al Gore had been able to in the 1970s, we would have been building huge furnaces to warm the planet against this inevitable coming Ice Age ~ Newt Gingrich (dob 6/17/1943) Republican representative from Georgia's 6th district (1979 to 1999) and the 58th Speaker of the House (1995 until resignation); A quote from 5/27/11, while Gingrich was "running for president" and claiming he was absolutely going to be the nominee.

Those stupid climatologists don't have a clue when it comes to predicting what may be in store for the future, climate-wise. First they said the planet was cooling and now they say it's heating up. What are they going to be saying next? Clearly this is undeniable proof that the majority of the world's scientists are nothing but a bunch of bumbling idiots, right?

Blogger Willis Hart believes so, and ridiculed the lamebrain researchers in an articulate and brilliant polemic that makes the case that they are wrong now because they were wrong then. Willis Hart, being a strong global warming skeptic, looks at the science critically, instead of believing what those lying scientists say as if it were gospel. This is because Willis is smarter than the average blogger. Fact is, he's a modern day Galileo, as evidenced by the following excerpt from his blog...

Willis Hart: ...magazine articles from the 1970s warning us about the dangers of global cooling and the coming of yet another ice age. And, yes, folks, some of the authors even seemed to think that the science was settled on it. ... None of this bullshit about a positive feedback loop or amplification. Nope, the planet is going to cool DRAMATICALLY and there ain't a blessed thing that increases in CO2 can do about it, period/end of discussion. I mean, is this unbelievable or what? (4/22/2013 AT 10:59pm).

So, I guess the Hartster has finally refuted this global climate change bunk once and for all, right? Actually, no, not quite. Upon entering "Global Cooling" into the Wikipedia search engine, I was presented with the following...

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

The global cooling theory had LITTLE SUPPORT. That is in contrast to the current scientific consensus that says the planet is getting hotter (overall). The global cooling theory entered national consciousness via a 6/24/1974 Time magazine article titled "Another Ice Age?", but the theory didn't last that long, as this (additional) excerpt from the Wikipedia page on "global cooling" notes...

...scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide, and hlorofluorocarbons. Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979.

30 years of additional research have resulted in a scientific consensus forming around the present theory of global climate change (a theory that says overall temperatures are increasing). So, what Willis is saying is that because the scientific community some researchers got it wrong in the 70s, none of them can ever be trusted again? Yes, he is drawing that brain-dead of a conclusion.

According to Willis the scientific consensus among today's climatologists - a consensus reached after decades of additional research - it's all bullshit. And, that it's all bullshit is a conclusion Willis and the prior Republican nominee for president failed presidential candidate (and punchline) Newt Gingrich can agree on. Seriously, is Willis' denialism on this subject unbelievable or what?

Video: Remember when doctors recommended smoking? Using Willis' logic we can not trust doctors who now say smoking causes cancer!

SWTD #137, wDel #18.

Mitt Romney: A Destroyer of Companies & Jobs, A Vulture Capitalist, An Unethical Thief

Bain made billions by, as the Los Angeles Times writes, "firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits". In all, Bain bankrupted nearly one-quarter of the companies it invested in, often causing "substantial job losses", according to a new Wall Street Journal report ~ Scott Keyes, writing for ThinkProgres, in a 1/9/2012 article titled, "GOP Speaks Out On Romney’s Greed: He Likes Firing People, Bankrupting Them, And Taking All The Money".

Bane, definition: a person or thing that ruins or spoils; that which causes death or destroys life.

Bain Capital, definition: an investment firm founded by Mitt Romney that ruins or spoils people's lives; an investment firm that causes the death of jobs and destroys companies.

The following video is an excerpt from the 1/10/2012 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe". In the clip Newt Gingrich explains the issue he sees with Bain Capital. Below the video I've excerpted some of the dialogue from the interview that I'd like to address.

Gingrich (1:39 to 2:45): The question is, if you look at the Wall Street Journal report in the last day or two, if you have a company that cost 30 million dollars and they took out 180 million... and then it went bankrupt, they have some obligation, I think, to explain. Why did they take that much money out if it was bankrupting the company? I think that's just a fair question about process and judgment. I think people draw a very sharp distinction between investors who really want a company to succeed, and investors who basically take over the company for the purpose of draining out it's cash, and then walk out without any concern for the consequence.

I think Governor Romney is going to have to have a press conference at some point and explain what happened with these particular companies. Because they weren't just failures, they were just "oh, we went in, we invested, we lost money too". These were cases where they were making a LOT of money while the company was going bankrupt. I think you have to ask real questions about whether that's responsible management and the kind of management you want to see as president of the United States.

Gingrich (6:47 to 9:16): [responding to question: What are the specific concerns you have regarding his record at Bain Capital?] There was a company that they put 30 million dollars into that they, according to the Wall Street Journal, they got 180 million dollars. That's a 6 to 1 return. And the company went bankrupt. It doesn't seem to me like the owners were taking much of a risk. It doesn't seem to me like they were sharing in the problems of the workers. How could they, in good conscience, take 180 million dollars out of company that they invested 30 million in, and leave all the workers behind? What if they'd taken 60 million out, which would still have been a nice profit... would the company still be alive? Would the workers still have jobs? Would families still have paychecks?

I think there are at least three or four cases where it wasn't traditional capitalism. It's not, "I made an investment, the investment went bad, I feel sorry about it, but we all suffered". These are cases of, "I made an investment, I did really, really well. Sorry about the company going broke". I think people have the right to ask the question - is that the kind of management responsibility you want in a president. And is that the kind of attitude you want in a president. ... This is, "I invested in something, I got richer, they got broke". I think he's going to have to explain that model.

My Commentary: The "model" I think is, as Rick Perry first said, Vulture Capitalism. Granted, this may not quite be the modus operandi of Bain Capital. Many of the companies they took over went on to become successful. But I'd have a problem if they did this just once. In my mind it is basically thievery. A vulture picks from the carcass of an animal that is dead or dying. And this appears to be what Bain did.

If, in their judgment, the company could be turned around, they made the effort to do that. If, on the other hand, they determined that it could not, then they took advantage of the bankruptcy process to load the company up with debt, pay themselves with that borrowed money, and then laugh all the way to the bank with no concern at all as to whom they were shafting. I think this behavior is utterly deplorable and should be illegal. There should be provisions in the law that allow those who lost money to come after Bain to recoup it.

According to a 12/3/2011 LA Times article, "Bain expanded many of the companies it acquired. But like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy".

The Wall Street Journal, in the 1/9/2012 article referenced by Newt Gingrich, says one of their findings was, "that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors - yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains". However, "of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court".

Was it because the company, so burdened by the debt Bain forced them to take on (in order to pay them for their "services"), eventually went under? I think the facts say "yes". My question is, would an ethical person seek a profit so out of proportion with their initial investment that it put the company in danger of failing later (the unbelievable 600% return cited by Gingrich)? I say "no". In my opinion (at least some of) what Romney did at Bain Capital was very unethical... it may have been legal, but it was quite unethical.

Further Reading: Romney's Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In by Pat Garofalo, ThinkProgress 1/9/2012.

SWTD #103

Republican Cons and Carnival Barkers

We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers ~ Barack Obama (b. 8/4/1961) the 44th president of the United States (1/20/2009 to present) referring to those who question if he was born in the United States; in a press conference announcing the release of his long form Hawaiian birth certificate on 4/27/2011.

The first Republican presidential debate was held Wednesday 5/4/2011. I find this a little confusing, considering the fact that no Republican has OFFICIALLY declared that they are actually running. The Fox Nooz-hosted debate featured Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Gary Johnson. Except for Tim Pawlenty all of these "candidates" will drop out before the primaries. Hell, the majority of them will probably drop out before even officially declaring they are running. Ron Paul has announced that he'll be opening a campaign office soon, so I'm guessing he will declare, engage in a few more debates, and then drop out (as usual).

Absent from the debate were a number of individuals whom the media has been speculating about for awhile. It is my contention that these supposed potential candidates did not show up because they have absolutely no intention of running for president. They haven't said they aren't running though. In fact, they have made every effort to make it appear as though they MIGHT run.

The reason these fakers are working hard to maintain the illusion that they might run is because there is a significant amount of cash to be made collecting "campaign donations" from gullible right-wing voters. Of all the possibilities there are three I believe will definitely NOT run. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump will POSITIVELY not run. I'm convinced that two others, Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann will PROBABLY not run.

This is the second time Newt Gingrich has pretended there is a possibility he might run for president. Newt "I might run for president" Gingrich is a Conservative con man who was the first Republican who stumbled upon this money-making scam. As far as the 2012 election is concerned Newt says he is currently in an "exploratory phase". Newt wants to avoid pesky laws the federal election commission imposes on people who form exploratory committees. FEC rules state that, "If someone is testing the waters [by forming an exploratory committee] and decides not to run, testing the waters activity is not disclosed to the FEC".

A 2/28/2011 story from Politico revels that Newt Gingrich raised 14.5 million dollars in 2010 via his fundraising organization "American Solutions". A large chunk of the money people donated to American Solutions was then bequeathed to "The Gingrich Group" in return for "administrative services". The Gingrich Group is a consulting firm headed by... (wait for it) Newt Gingrich! What a nifty way to get around federal laws that prohibit potential candidates from simply pocketing donations - which is what the less-savvy flimflammer Christine O'Donnell did.

Newt's phony presidential bids were covered by Rachel Maddow on 3/3/2011 with a story she called "He's Faking It". It turns out that pretending to run for president is only one of many Newt Gingrich scams formulated to separate Right-wing fools from their money. Newt also gives out "awards" in exchange for the modest fee of $5,000. Newt Gingrich wasn't a serious 2008 presidential contender and he will not be a serious 2012 contender either.

Sarah Palin, taking a cue from Mr. Gingrich, does what she can to maintain the mirage that a presidential run may be in her future. As long as there is a possibility she might run, interest in her books, speaking engagements, Fox News gig and reality program remains artificially high. If Palin were not MAYBE running for president would interest in the half-term governor who quit be as high? Would she be raking in quite as much dough? I think not. Pretending to run for president, while not actual work, pays very handsomely. Sarah Palin will not run for 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Some people believe Donald Trump might possibly maybe run for president. A recent public poll says Trump came in second behind Mitt Romney. The 4/4/2011 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that "21% of respondents said Romney was their pick for the GOP nomination, while 17% broke for both Trump and Huckabee. Newt Gingrich came in fourth at 11%, followed by Sarah Palin with 10%, Tim Pawlenty at 6%, and Michele Bachmann who received 5%". Does this mean that "Donald Trump should be taken very seriously by both the right and the left"? I say N-O.

A 4/6/2011 Talking Points Memo commentary alleges that Trump, "in an appeal to birthers, [is] questioning President Obama's citizenship". TMP's conclusion is that the "play to the party's edge may be paying off". Now that President Obama has released his long form birth certificate, Trump has switched gears and is suggesting that Obama's grades weren't good enough for him to get into Harvard.

Clearly Trump is attempting to appeal to the racist birther faction of the Republican party. The media loved discussing the issue (before Obama released his long form BC), because it was controversial and attracted eyes to their news programs. This is all about the free publicity - and electing a Republican (who isn't Trump) that will adopt Paul Ryan's "Path to Poverty" budget and significantly cut The Donald's taxes.

Whether or not this is a con (or self-delusion), it certainly illustrates the fact that The Donald has zero integrity. Donald should be ashamed of himself, although I seriously doubt he is capable of that emotion (he actually congratulated himself for bringing attention to the issue!). Donald Trump will not run for 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He'll drop out before May 16th when NBC announces whether or not Trump's Apprentice TV program will be returning for another season.

After reviewing the evidence I think the reason none of these fakers are ashamed of the humongous lies they're telling is because they're sociopaths. Ayn Rand Objectivists are PROUD of the fact that they don't give a crap about their fellow human beings. They call it "rational self interest". Republicans have, beginning with Reagan, moved steadily in that direction. Proof positive of this is their "Path to Poverty" 10 year plan which completely dismantles the social safety net; not to reduce the national debt, but to further cut taxes on the country's most wealthy citizens.

This is why Newt Gingrich trades in his wife every so often for a newer model; and treated each soon-to-be ex-wife extremely shabbily when he requested his divorces. Sarah Palin quit her governorship to make money because she doesn't understand the concept of public service and didn't give a damn that she'd made a commitment. Donald Trump is famous for his ego and (like Newt), dumping wives.

Now, I'm not saying that ALL conservative politicians are narcissistic lying pond scum, or that corruption and immorality can be found exclusively on the right side of the political spectrum, but a Democrat has never pretended he may run for president as a money-making scam. Also consider the fact that Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, thinks asking health insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions is the same as asking property insurance companies to sell someone insurance AFTER their house burns down. This is a supposed man of God, and he places profit over human lives!

This is typical of Republican indifference to the suffering of people who aren't them or their friends or family members. They believe are better than the average person (who Ayn Rand called parasites and lice), which is why it bothers them not in the least to lie about running for president in order to extract money from any sucker who will believe them.

Further Reading
[1] Trump is Not a True Conservative Transcript from the Glenn Beck Radio Program, 4/19/2011.
[2] Top Ten Reasons Why Sarah Palin is Running For President by Tony Lee, Human Events 4/13/2011.
[3] So, What Is A Presidential Exploratory Committee, Exactly? by Jason Linkins, The Huffington Post 3/23/2011.

SWTD #75