God Rigs Election: It's Bush In A "blowout"

[shereads]

Re: Re: And the Mars rebuilding contract goes to...

I'll start by saying I am for a base on the moon and for exploration of Mars. I am not, however a scientist. So perhaps someone can answer me this. Aren't oil, natual Gas and Coal by products of carbon based life? They aren't called fossil fuels because they are old are they. Assuming I am correct, isn't it debateable at best that Mars ever sustained large bodies of water for a sufficent period to foster life, Much less sustained life at one point?

Am I off base here or does Haliburton know something we don't? If I am not off base and we assume they don't know something we don't then this article sounds like about the flimsiest dodge I ever heard of to have the government pay for research into new drilling techniques.

-Colly

Bingo.

 

[shereads]

Is Dick Cheney Santa Claus?

Colly, here's the Washington Post story that Joe Conason was referring to.

Industry Hopes Soar With Space Plan
Energy and Aerospace Firms Have Long Lobbied NASA

By Mike Allen and Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 16, 2004; Page A01


President Bush emphasized American ingenuity, international cooperation and human destiny when he announced his new space policy this week, but the plan also reflected long-held ambitions of the U.S. aerospace and energy industries.


For years, they have labored to persuade NASA to pursue interplanetary voyages more aggressively, with companies standing to reap billions of dollars from the contracts and spinoff technologies that would result.

Industry officials said yesterday that they see a huge boon to business in Bush's "renewed spirit of discovery," which set a mission to Mars as a long-range goal after astronauts build a science base on the moon. Among the companies that could profit from the plan are Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Halliburton Co., which Vice President Cheney headed before he joined Bush's ticket.

"Going beyond the moon is big news for us," said Ed Memi, a spokesman for Boeing, which is NASA's largest contractor.

As an example of private industry's hunger for a Mars mission, Steve Streich, a veteran Halliburton scientific adviser, was among the authors of an article in Oil & Gas Journal in 2000 titled "Drilling Technology for Mars Research Useful for Oil, Gas Industries." The article called a Mars exploration program "an unprecedented opportunity for both investigating the possibility of life on Mars and for improving our abilities to support oil and gas demands on Earth," because technology developed for the mission could be used on this planet.

Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky expressed similar enthusiasm. "Today our people in Houston, our people at Cape Canaveral, at the Marshall Space Center . . . are talking to their counterparts at NASA -- at headquarters, at all levels," he said.

NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe said at a briefing Wednesday that officials will now determine to what degree Bush's exploration program, which must be funded by Congress, will be "industry-driven."

Private companies had pushed NASA for years to think big, to undertake more far-reaching programs, such as sending astronauts to the moon or Mars. But the agency resisted, its ambitions beaten down by years of declining budgets, industry officials said.

One industry official said the climate changed last October, when China put a man in orbit and announced plans to go to the moon. Suddenly, the official said, the White House seemed anxious to revitalize the U.S. space program, in effect telling NASA that "we're not going to let the Chinese take the moon and let us look like fools." NASA then spent weeks in drills to come up with an outline for getting U.S. astronauts back into space in a big way, using some of the broad ideas that companies had been pushing.

A senior administration official involved in the process said the impetus for the space policy review was Bush's desire to give NASA a clear mission after the Feb. 1 disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia.

"The president made a commitment that we will continue on our journey," the official said. "But as we looked at that journey, the question was, is there a specific goal? What is the vision? And the assessment was that it lacked a specific vision and goal. The president kept asking, 'To what end? The space station, to what end? The shuttle crews will continue to orbit the Earth, for what end?' And he said, 'What is the vision?' "

Whatever the plan's genesis, the aerospace industry has been hungry for the work. Many companies consolidated in the 1990s, with Boeing and Lockheed Martin emerging as by far the dominant contractors. One or the other oversees virtually every major NASA program, and a Boeing-Lockheed joint venture, the United Space Alliance, manages the space shuttle program.

The companies had counted on a huge jump in commercial space business from the telecommunications industry, but when the Internet boom went bust and when fiber optics replaced satellites as the medium of choice, commercial space launches evaporated.

Military space business picked up some of the slack, but the giant companies have pushed for more NASA work. Industry officials said they did not do an end run around NASA and plead their case directly to the White House.

The problem is funding. Although the extra $1 billion the president has proposed for NASA for the exploration project is a start, officials said, the agency will need more money to carry out the new goals. One industry executive said spending is likely to increase once the programs get underway.

That would fit a familiar pattern, said Phil Finnegan, an industry expert with the Teal Group aerospace consulting firm. Military programs traditionally start with small price tags and grow once Congress has bought in; NASA's international space station has done the same, he said.

The companies are ready with advice for NASA, though, about how to move forward at a politically viable pace. "We've been doing feasibility studies for some time on how to make an affordable, sustainable program," Boeing executive Mike Lounge said.

Halliburton's interest in Mars was first pointed out yesterday by the Progress Report, a daily publication of the liberal Center for American Progress. Administration officials scoffed at the idea that Halliburton had anything to do with the development of the space policy, which was headed by Bush's domestic policy adviser, Margaret Spellings, and Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser. Another administration official said Cheney did not take a lead role in the interagency work on the space policy but gauged support on Capitol Hill and served in an advisory capacity.

An industry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the oil and gas industry, including Halliburton, would benefit considerably from technology that was developed for drilling on Mars, including the tools, the miniaturization, the drilling mechanism, the robotic systems and the control systems.

"How to go up there and drill remotely, seal it off, make sure the well stays stable, analyze it, produce from it -- that has a lot of application right here," the official said. "If you go up and drill down several thousand feet, you've got to have the same types of safety equipment there that you're going to have here, or you'll blow your spacecraft off wherever it landed, if anything comes back at you out of the ground, like it does here."

 

[shereads]

Re: Is Dick Cheney Santa Claus?

"'The president kept asking, 'To what end? The space station, to what end? The shuttle crews will continue to orbit the Earth, for what end?' And he said, 'What is the vision?' "

I knew it. "The vision thing." Daddy learned some hard lessons and has been drumming them into his boy ever since. I hate being right all the time.



Of course, the timing is perfect. Speculation about Cheney's health (he's had three heart attacks) has many people assuming that he won't be on the Bush ticket. ("The RNC will play the Rudy card," I read somewhere. Another man who became an overnight hero for simply not falling apart after 9/11, and was instantly forgiven for his adulterous affair.)

So if Cheney is considering leaving the ticket, he has to pack his friends' stockings with as many toys as possible in the remaining time. He won't have the president's ear on a daily basis anymore, or be in the enviable position of being able to fire cabinet members who threaten to dissuade the president from "staying the course."

The Halliburton connection explains the sudden out-of-the-blue interest in NASA at the White House. Who the hell are these people, anyway, and why are they entitled to anything at all after stealing from us in Iraq?

Question for anyone here: What happens to the orbiting space station? Isn't it still years from completion? Are we bored with that already? How much have we invested in the project?

 

[shereads]

U.S. To Give Every Iraqi $3,544.99
Let Free-Market Capitalism Do The Rest

WASHINGTON, DC (theonion.com)—At a Monday press conference, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced a "change of plans" for the $87.5 billion aid package Congress approved in October: Instead of being used to fund an array of military and reconstruction operations in the Middle East, the money will be divided equally among Iraq's 24,683,313 citizens.

"Yes, we had planned to do all sorts of things with that money, like repair Iraq's power grid and construct new sewers and roads," Rumsfeld said. "But then we realized that, really, there's no reason for us to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure when the forces of free-market capitalism can do it with greater efficiency."

Rumsfeld said that, while the U.S. public's desire to hasten the end of America's presence in Iraq is growing, continued insurgence against the occupation has rendered previous initiatives for political and economic recovery untenable. The situation prompted the Bush Administration to "think more creatively" about its Iraq policy.

"I assure you that our new plan for economic recovery is not only easier, it's better," Rumsfeld said. "If we simply step back and let the market do its thing, a perfectly functioning, merit-based, egalitarian society will rise out of the ashes. Probably some restaurants or hardware stores or something, too."

During the next six months, Rumsfeld said, each Iraqi man, woman, and child will receive a one-time payment of $3,544.91. On June 30, the transaction of all funds will be complete, and the sovereignty of a "brand-new, prosperous, secular, pluralistic, market-driven nation" will be handed to an as-yet-unformed government, probably one with a president and a congressional body of some sort.

"Heck, whatever form of democratic utopia comes out of this will be great," Rumsfeld said. "Why wouldn't it be? It'll be based on freedom of individual economic enterprise, and supply and demand will maximize consumer welfare."

About 100,000 citizens have already received their money, which was distributed in cash to circumvent the country's currently inadequate banking system.

The 14-member Allawi family in Tikrit received $49,628.74 Monday.

"I'm very excited," Ahmed Allawi said. "A free, unregulated market will swiftly and efficiently lead to the establishment of an array of fairly priced goods and services. Any day now, there should be something available to spend this money on. As for today, the open-air market down the street is still on fire."

Allawi was quick to assert, loudly and repeatedly, that none of his family's money was actually on his person.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Is Dick Cheney Santa Claus?

I knew it. "The vision thing." Daddy learned some hard lessons and has been drumming them into his boy ever since. I hate being right all the time.



Of course, the timing is perfect. Speculation about Cheney's health (he's had three heart attacks) has many people assuming that he won't be on the Bush ticket. ("The RNC will play the Rudy card," I read somewhere. Another man who became an overnight hero for simply not falling apart after 9/11, and was instantly forgiven for his adulterous affair.)

So if Cheney is considering leaving the ticket, he has to pack his friends' stockings with as many toys as possible in the remaining time. He won't have the president's ear on a daily basis anymore, or be in the enviable position of being able to fire cabinet members who threaten to dissuade the president from "staying the course."

The Halliburton connection explains the sudden out-of-the-blue interest in NASA at the White House. Who the hell are these people, anyway, and why are they entitled to anything at all after stealing from us in Iraq?

Question for anyone here: What happens to the orbiting space station? Isn't it still years from completion? Are we bored with that already? How much have we invested in the project?

The international space station was supposed to be a joint project. You may read international here as a joint soviet-Us project. With the total dismemberement of the old U.S.S.R. and the resulting decline in the already strained economic resources of the Russian state they have failed to be on time with any of their components. I think the basic idea behind the international pace station was to show the spirit of detente between the two earstwhile superpowers. With russian's precipitous decline it has become a less important project.

-Colly

 

[KenJames]

I love the idea of manned space exploration. But I love it because I'm not hungry and I'm not currently uninsured.

I think it's a luxury that should be indulged after we have run out of under-educated children, under-fed ones, and above all after we have solved the major issue that today's children will face as adults: the looming energy crisis that's inevitable once we have used up fossil fuels.

Nobody knows how to make new fossil fuels.

Why aren't we scrambling to spend research billions on sustainable energy sources.

Well, we know why. The status quo is the basis for a substantial amount of personal wealth for the people who run things.

But I mean rhetorically, why.

Anybody ever wonder why, with the technology advances that we've seen over the past few decades, it's not possible to create a car tire that is permanent?

Anybody wonder if it is possible, but would put a huge industry out of business, despite the savings to the environment and the saving of resources?

The argument that the money spent on space exploration would be better spent on Earth started at the dawn of the space program and has been going on ever since.

Many people I respect counter that the value of the technical advances due to space research has paid our space investment back many times over. The innovations in medical technology alone have saved millions of lives.

In a rational world, we could easily readjust priorities to adequately fund education, eliminate hunger, provide affordable health care to everyone and still have an extremely aggressive space program.

We're nowhere close to using up fossil fuels. We have coal reserves which will last for thousands of years at our current rate of consumption. Canada has a thriving industry making gasoline from coal. Of course, using hydrocarbons for fuel produces greenhouse gasses and air pollution.

In the long term, the energy crisis will disappear. Researchers have been close to creating a sustainable fusion reaction for several years. They'd have succeeded by now if they had more funding. When the greed heads have milked the status quo for all it's worth, fusion research will get adequate funding.

 

[Quasimodem]

Just in case somebody CAN’T or WON’T read, let me reiterate, I am in FAVOUR of space exploration.

I deplore the hiatus in near space development that has taken place over the past thirty years. Had we decent leadership, there would be a space-born research centre at one of the Trojan points near Earth’s solar orbit.

At least, we would have a fully-built space station instead of the “mixed cosmonauts in a can” we have now.

I agree that aside from the primary goal, any space program will produce secondary and tertiary technology which will be equally useful in everyday earthbound applications. This has been proven by both the Gemini and Apollo programs from the past, and will undoubtedly prove to be similarly productive in the future.

What I am objecting to, is the asinine primary objective. Of all the possible areas of space, worthy of further development, constructing an airtight trailer park on the nearest dead planet falls impressively below an intelligent option. There is a limited market for more moon rocks!

The physical constraints to be overcome by a planetary-based space colony make it the least desirable method of space exploration. Under our present constraints, effecting a planetary liftoff remains the most difficult, and the most expensive, manoeuvres of which our technology is capable.

I have no problem approving of further space exploration. I only object to conducting said exploration with our leader’s (and/or planners’) heads up their collective asses.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Just in case somebody CAN’T or WON’T read, let me reiterate, I am in FAVOUR of space exploration.

I deplore the hiatus in near space development that has taken place over the past thirty years. Had we decent leadership, there would be a space-born research centre at one of the Trojan points near Earth’s solar orbit.

At least, we would have a fully-built space station instead of the “mixed cosmonauts in a can” we have now.

I agree that aside from the primary goal, any space program will produce secondary and tertiary technology which will be equally useful in everyday earthbound applications. This has been proven by both the Gemini and Apollo programs from the past, and will undoubtedly prove to be similarly productive in the future.

What I am objecting to, is the asinine primary objective. Of all the possible areas of space, worthy of further development, constructing an airtight trailer park on the nearest dead planet falls impressively below an intelligent option. There is a limited market for more moon rocks!

The physical constraints to be overcome by a planetary-based space colony make it the least desirable method of space exploration. Under our present constraints, effecting a planetary liftoff remains the most difficult, and the most expensive, manoeuvres of which our technology is capable.

I have no problem approving of further space exploration. I only object to conducting said exploration with our leader’s (and/or planners’) heads up their collective asses.

But Quasi,

If we don't build a moon base think of all those poor Japanese animators who will be out of work. I mean, the moon base gets blowed up in everyone of them!

-Colly

 

[KenJames]

Just in case somebody CAN’T or WON’T read, let me reiterate, I am in FAVOUR of space exploration.

I deplore the hiatus in near space development that has taken place over the past thirty years. Had we decent leadership, there would be a space-born research centre at one of the Trojan points near Earth’s solar orbit.

At least, we would have a fully-built space station instead of the “mixed cosmonauts in a can” we have now.

I agree that aside from the primary goal, any space program will produce secondary and tertiary technology which will be equally useful in everyday earthbound applications. This has been proven by both the Gemini and Apollo programs from the past, and will undoubtedly prove to be similarly productive in the future.

What I am objecting to, is the asinine primary objective. Of all the possible areas of space, worthy of further development, constructing an airtight trailer park on the nearest dead planet falls impressively below an intelligent option. There is a limited market for more moon rocks!

The physical constraints to be overcome by a planetary-based space colony make it the least desirable method of space exploration. Under our present constraints, effecting a planetary liftoff remains the most difficult, and the most expensive, manoeuvres of which our technology is capable.

I have no problem approving of further space exploration. I only object to conducting said exploration with our leader’s (and/or planners’) heads up their collective asses.

I mostly agree with your views.

I think a moon base is necessary, both from a knowledge standpoint and as a source for space station construction materials.

Mars expeditions make sense as a way of gaining scientific knowledge and developing deep space technology, which we will eventually need, although I don't see much use in a permanent Mars base.

Our leadership in the past thirty years has indeed sucked.

The dangerous, unreliable, expensive to build and even more expensive to operate space shuttle should have been replaced ten years ago with a reliable, economical single stage to orbit vehicle. We've had the technology for at least that long, but operating the shuttle sucked up all the money which could have been used for development.

Throw-away heavy lift vehicles like the Titan never should have been scrapped. That was a political decision to force us to use the overpriced shuttle for everything.

One of the biggest reasons no alternative for the shuttle has been developed is that prime contractor Boeing is making so much money operating it.

Most of all, NASA should have been given a reasonable budget, not pocket change, and forced to spend it wisely.

Big missions and lofty goals are important. The problem is when a single mission becomes the entire focus of a multi-year effort. When we reached the moon, that was the end of the mission. Period. No follow-up. We should have built on that, rather than taking a thirty year nap.

Unfortunately, I think Bush's new space initiative exists solely to distract us from his administration's failures and to give more money to his pet aerospace contractors.

 

[shereads]

Our leadership in the past thirty years has indeed sucked.

Failing to focus on space exploration isn't a sign of poor leadership - of which admittedly, we have had plenty.

It's a sign that every elected politician has to balance a thousand different budget issues and choose the ones that seem most urgent, either for humanitarian or political reasons.

I still maintain that while tens of thousands of children die on this planet each DAY from malnutrition-related causes, and while elderly people in this country have to choose between paying for prescription drugs and paying their utility bills (no, the President's Medicare plan is not going to solve that problem, just soften its rough edges a little) and while Social Security is in danger, and while we are polluting our ocean and air and fresh water supply and consuming the world's limited resources without knowing how we will replace them - space exploration is a luxury. An intellectual thrill that should be saved for a future generation that is fed, educated, and has medical care to the extent that those extra billions could provide.

For anyone who goes to bed hungry or cold tonight, and anyone who skips her heart medicine because she can't afford to turn the thermostat up and also buy the medicines her doctor prescribes, and to any working mother who can't afford to provide after-school care for her children and knows they're in the streets while she works to pay the bills, the idea of a Mars landing must seem like the rich and well-fed performing a mass circle-jerk.

 

[shereads]

Colly, I know you will say - and you'll be right - that diverting money from the space program wouldn't mean it would be spent to solve problems.

But the fact is, our leaders have a choice of where to spend those billions and if there is one glaringly obvious need that affects the entire world's near future, it's the need to find sustainable replacements for fossil fuels.

Solve that problem and half of the world's problems will go away. Pollution. Border wars in the Middle East and our need to be in the middle of them. The loss of the earth's last remaining reserves of pristine wilderness - and yes, I believe that even though I'll never visit the Arctic Natiional Wildlife Refuge or Antarctica, simply knowing that such places exist in a nearly-untouched form is as romantic and powerfully inspiring a notion as a man from my country walking on Mars.

We will drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge despite estimtates that completely stripped of its oil and natural gas deposits, it might be worth six months of energy to the U.S.

If we spent all of NASA's billions on researching sustainable, safe energy solutions, we would cure a lot of the world's ills. And have the luxury to explore space a generation down the road.

The likelihood of that happening, given the wealth the current short-sighted system produces, is practically zero. But since we're talking about our leaders' obligation to science and research, I propose that solving the world's energy crisis before it becomes a crisis is something we could do and the benefits of which are clearer than the benefits of space exploration.

I'm not against space exploration. I love the idea. I'm deeply curious about the answers we'll find about our place in the universe. But I'm willing to live without those answers if it means our generation accomplishes one thing of immediate importance.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The dangerous, unreliable, expensive to build and even more expensive to operate space shuttle should have been replaced ten years ago with a reliable, economical single stage to orbit vehicle. We've had the technology for at least that long, but operating the shuttle sucked up all the money which could have been used for development.

Space only became a national priority when the military potential of the ultimate high ground was realized, back with sputnik. The government's interest in space has always been military. You really think those guys care about pure science? Once we saw that the Russians were not going to be racing us to the moon, the government kind of lost interest.

I've always assumed that the space shuttle was built to serve as a satellite-weapons deployment system, a task it was ideally suited for. I doubt there was a mission flown that didn't have a military objective. The Hubble telecope and all those school-kid experiments were just window dressing intended to mask the real purpose. I just find it very hard to believe that we spent all that money, life, and energy just so we could find out how beans grow in zero-gravity.

I don't think Bush is serious about this Mars thing in the first place. He's certainly not serious about basic science funding. We could use a few of those billions right here right now for medical and energy research. He'll fund a few billion for R&D for as long as he's in office, and the things will wither on the vine. I think it's a total dog-&-pony show.

On the other hand, now that the $500 billion missile defense system doesn;t seem like such a great idea, maybe it's just his way of throwing money at the defense contracters to keep them afloat, which as I understand it, was the only reason for Star Wars in the first place.

I'm really afraid that, barring some totally unforeseen new breakthrough in propulsion, space travel is yesterday's future. Like everyone having their own personal dirigible.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Space only became a national priority when the military potential of the ultimate high ground was realized, back with sputnik. The government's interest in space has always been military. You really think those guys care about pure science? Once we saw that the Russians were not going to be racing us to the moon, the government kind of lost interest.

Ah. You didn't read the Washington Post article, did you? The President learned that China had announced a plan to go to the moon and said "we're not going to let them make us look like fools."

No, we can do that without any help from the Chinese. I bet they're laughing their asses off, seeing how easy it is to manipulate this doofus. Next, China will announce that their leaders can rub their heads and their bellies in opposite directions at the same time...

I just find it very hard to believe that we spent all that money, life, and energy just so we could find out how beans grow in zero-gravity.

Well, Mister Smarty-Pants, when the earth has used up our supply of gravity and the rest of us are still enjoying freshly harvested beans, I guess you're going to want your share, aren't you.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, I know you will say - and you'll be right - that diverting money from the space program wouldn't mean it would be spent to solve problems.

But the fact is, our leaders have a choice of where to spend those billions and if there is one glaringly obvious need that affects the entire world's near future, it's the need to find sustainable replacements for fossil fuels.

Solve that problem and half of the world's problems will go away. Pollution. Border wars in the Middle East and our need to be in the middle of them. The loss of the earth's last remaining reserves of pristine wilderness - and yes, I believe that even though I'll never visit the Arctic Natiional Wildlife Refuge or Antarctica, simply knowing that such places exist in a nearly-untouched form is as romantic and powerfully inspiring a notion as a man from my country walking on Mars.

We will drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge despite estimtates that completely stripped of its oil and natural gas deposits, it might be worth six months of energy to the U.S.

If we spent all of NASA's billions on researching sustainable, safe energy solutions, we would cure a lot of the world's ills. And have the luxury to explore space a generation down the road.

The likelihood of that happening, given the wealth the current short-sighted system produces, is practically zero. But since we're talking about our leaders' obligation to science and research, I propose that solving the world's energy crisis before it becomes a crisis is something we could do and the benefits of which are clearer than the benefits of space exploration.

I'm not against space exploration. I love the idea. I'm deeply curious about the answers we'll find about our place in the universe. But I'm willing to live without those answers if it means our generation accomplishes one thing of immediate importance.

How bout we compromise rather than butt heads? What if we make them spend the first billions they get on producing a fusion reaction generator that works? It will solve your fuel and polution problems and will give my mars mission a viable power source to get them there. Deal?

-Colly

 

[Guest]

A JPL physicist once told me that the two major expenses of manned space travel are defying gravity and life support, and implied the rest was small change. We only need worry about the second item on earth but it seems we do a better job of it in space.

two bits from Perdita

 

[Quasimodem]

. . . I think a moon base is necessary, both from a knowledge standpoint and as a source for space station construction materials. . .

What?

You expect to find iron ore to produce steel on the moon? Are you going to smelt it there? Remember. You will have to import the oxygen from earth.

In the short run, all the moon base could become, is a photo op, before climbing back up the moon’s gravity-well to regain space, and continue space development.

If we ever do learn how to smelt metals in space, we would be better off mining the asteroid belt, than trying to drag heavy metal up from the moon’s surface.

Unfortunately, I think Bush's new space initiative exists solely to distract us from his administration's failures and to give more money to his pet aerospace contractors.

The most likely proposed use of the moon, of which I have heard, is the laying out of huge coloured plastic sheets, in a pattern, to turn the moon into a giant billboard.

Since this sounds like something Bush would endorse, I hope Bush’s Mooning of America is merely a boondoggle.

 

[shereads]

The most likely proposed use of the moon, of which I have heard, is the laying out of huge coloured plastic sheets, in a pattern, to turn the moon into a giant billboard.

Quasi, I'm glad you mentioned that, because I think that licensing the right to "brand" the moon is essentially no different than licensing a sports arena. In fact, now that the Orange Bowl is the Federal Express Tampax Coors Lite Orange Bowl, and the latest of Miami's many publically funded sports arenas is the American Airlines Miami Heat Arena, I've been thinking, Why stop with sports arenas?

Why not sell licensing rights and allow some tastefully displayed brand logos, to help defray the cost of virtually every taxpayer-built public facility?

The Kraft Foods Enterprise Space Shuttle.

The Budweister Freeway (a 100-mile stretch of I-95) would blend seamlessly into the Citbank Highway of the Americas.

The St. Louis arch could become the McDonalds' Golden Arches St. Louis Arch, and a permanent trust fund set up for its maintenance.

I'm in advertising, and I can tell you that clients would eat this stuff up. The moon billboard idea has been pondered for years. In fact, imagine its potential use as a political campaign billboard. BUSH/RUDY 2044, appearing first as just a mysterious hint of color on the surface of a quarter-moon, and gradually revealed to a fascinated world night after night. Primitive tribes in isolated parts of the world would be terrified, and that alone would be worth a fun movie.

EDITED to correct the America-centric nature of the post, by proposing the Guinnness Stout Chunnel, the Citibank Buckingham Palace Changing of the Guard (those things have to be a bitch of an expense to put on; I'm sure there are sponsors who'd love to help) and perhaps the Mahatma Rice Taj Mahal.

 

[shereads]

How bout we compromise rather than butt heads? What if we make them spend the first billions they get on producing a fusion reaction generator that works? It will solve your fuel and polution problems and will give my mars mission a viable power source to get them there. Deal?

-Colly

Call Halliburton and get their okay, and we'll shake on it.

 

[minsue]

Quasi, I'm glad you mentioned that, because I think that licensing the right to "brand" the moon is essentially no different than licensing a sports arena. In fact, now that the Orange Bowl is the Federal Express Tampax Coors Lite Orange Bowl, and the latest of Miami's many publically funded sports arenas is the American Airlines Miami Heat Arena, I've been thinking, Why stop with sports arenas?

Why not sell licensing rights and allow some tastefully displayed brand logos, to help defray the cost of virtually every taxpayer-built public facility?

The Kraft Foods Enterprise Space Shuttle.

The Budweister Freeway (a 100-mile stretch of I-95) would blend seamlessly into the Citbank Highway of the Americas.

The St. Louis arch could become the McDonalds' Golden Arches St. Louis Arch, and a permanent trust fund set up for its maintenance.

I'm in advertising, and I can tell you that clients would eat this stuff up. The moon billboard idea has been pondered for years. In fact, imagine its potential use as a political campaign billboard. BUSH/RUDY 2044, appearing first as just a mysterious hint of color on the surface of a quarter-moon, and gradually revealed to a fascinated world night after night. Primitive tribes in isolated parts of the world would be terrified, and that alone would be worth a fun movie.

EDITED to correct the America-centric nature of the post, by proposing the Guinnness Stout Chunnel, the Citibank Buckingham Palace Changing of the Guard (those things have to be a bitch of an expense to put on; I'm sure there are sponsors who'd love to help) and perhaps the Mahatma Rice Taj Mahal.

The school district where I live has been having meetings with parent groups to discuss whether or not they should sell advertising space on the sides of the school buses, in the auditoriums, and on the computer screens. This is one of the richest school districts in the state, too.

- Mindy

 

[shereads]

Call Halliburton and get their okay, and we'll shake on it.

Oops. I didn't even realize that was ironic.

Sorry, Colly. Until you can talk to your boys and get Halliburton out of the picture, alternative energy sources are not likely to be a popular component of the Mars mission.

I'm just relieved that nobody has shown Bush the movie, 2010. When we get the mysterious warniing to leave Europa and Io alone, you've got to be curious about what they're hiding on those two moons of Jupiter. Cash? Vast oil reserves? Terrorists?

 

[shereads]

The school district where I live has been having meetings with parent groups to discuss whether or not they should sell advertising space on the sides of the school buses, in the auditoriums, and on the computer screens. This is one of the richest school districts in the state, too.

- Mindy

Hey, why not. Burger King is allowed to set up lunch kiosks at local schools since they found out that kids were sneaking off campus to eat there and having traffic accidents.

Why not extend our consumerism to every aspect of the life of every child? They wouldn't long to be at home in front of the TV set if they could see the same commercials at school.

 

[minsue]

Hey, why not. Burger King is allowed to set up lunch kiosks at local schools since they found out that kids were sneaking off campus to eat there and having traffic accidents.

Why not extend our consumerism to every aspect of the life of every child? They wouldn't long to be at home in front of the TV set if they could see the same commercials at school.

The nearest high school had a contract with Pizza Hut while I was there & I learned later that they also got a contract with Burger King. I'd hate to think what they've got going now...

- Mindy

 

[shereads]

What?

You expect to find iron ore to produce steel on the moon? Are you going to smelt it there? Remember. You will have to import the oxygen from earth.

What if we use it for dumping? We won't need oxygen then. Plus, garbage man will become one of the coolest careers.

 

[shereads]

I would have loved that.

The nearest high school had a contract with Pizza Hut while I was there & I learned later that they also got a contract with Burger King. I'd hate to think what they've got going now...

I know Americans are overweight and that we're supposed to encourage kids to avoid fast foods, but honest to God, Min, I'd have killed to have a Pizza Hut and a Burger King as an alternative to the government meat we used to be served. Yeesh. I've never smelled any other food-service environment that smelled like the cafeteria at my high school. I have no idea what food I was smelling.

I remember having lunchtime contests at school to see who could squeeze the highest number of oil drops out of a french fry. 7 was a record.

 

[shereads]

Hell, why stop with advertising displays in the schools?

Why not think big and sell naming rights to the schools themselves?

Burger King Pinecrest Senior High.

Captain Crunch George Washington Elementary School brought to you in partnership with Best Foods, Inc.

We might eliminate the need for an income tax altogether. Just take this free enterprise thing and run with it.