How about they dump the International Space Station?  Or, the ‘trip to Mars?‘  Or even, the next time one of them wants to invade someplace, just say no?

Literally millions of people each year listen to NPR.  How many people will drive across the ‘bridge to nowhere’?

If NPR were like FOX news, they’d need extra rooms to store all the federal money.

Gee, if only they could find the nine billion they lost in Iraq marked for reconstruction. Apparently they can slash PUBLIC Broadcastings funding by a quarter but can’t find enough Republicans in Congress that give enough of a shit about NINE BILLION dollars that were “misappropriated”!

Okay kids, todays word is corruption and todays number is nine billion.

How about they dump the International Space Station?  Or, the ‘trip to Mars?’

Wow now, hold on.

The space program is the one thing I think we need to dump more and more funding into. Let’s face it, no matter how we conserve or what we do here, earth itself is a non renewable resource. Humankind is eventually going to become to big, we’re eventually going to use up too much, we might get struck by a stray asteroid or our sun may go supernova sooner than we think.

Sooner or later, we’re going to have to get off this rock and if we’re not ready, we’re fucked.

None of which has piss all to do with PBS funding, by the way. I love PBS, it’s where I first discovered Doctor Who and Red Dwarf among many other favorites. But if we need to get money from someplace, let’s not do it at the expense of the space program.

Mister Rogers is dead so they can finally get away with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sd7TcVH670

Does anyone have the stats for how much the administration gives to “abstinence only” sex ed programs and anti-abortion literature in poor countries?  I have afeeling it great elipses what they want to cut for PUBLIC BROADCASTING servuces used by millions every day.

I’ve got a great idea. Condom machines in every public building with the proceeds going to PBS. We’d be fucking for better TV. We could even have a fuckathon…..

How about they dump the International Space Station?  Or, the ‘trip to Mars?’

Even before I saw KPG’s post I thought NO.

There is a depressing trend to what Jeremy Clarkson identified as using baby incubators as a currency. i.e. every time a space shuttle is launched people will say ‘they should have spent the money on baby incubators/replacement hips/education’ etc etc.

If European Monarchs had said the equivalent (‘Do you know how many quail eggs I can buy for that, Mr Columbus’) the world would be a different place. 

It is a depressing trend since the 80’s that the reason for things to exist is to make profit.  Argue for the aesthetic, or to expand knowledge, and you are treated like an idiot. The pursuit of such was one of the contributions of Christianity to Europe.  Now ‘Greed is Good’.

PBS is one of those things under attack.  In Britain the BBC is funded by a tax called the TV licence- every home with a TV must pay £130 (about $200) p.a.  For that you can have as many as you like (in multi occupancy buildings it is one per dwelling).

I understand that to be taxed on owning a TV seems weird to Yanks.  But for that we get an independent broadcaster, for whom the charter is to inform, not just entertain.  While the main terresitial broadcaster here just goes down hill, the BBC does not rely on adverts (therefore viewing figures). It can therefore make programmes that do not need to reduce its commitment to a programme just to make it popular.  It makes programmes for minorities, it makes programmes that does not pander to the lowest denominator.  It is not held to ransom by the advertisers.

Murdoch (owner or Fox) owned press hate BBC. They bitch constantly about it being full of liberals.  Because the BBC is an obsticle to Sky (owner R Murdoch) dominating UK TV.

In 1982 That Bloody Woman complained that the BBC called British Troops in the Falklands British Troops, instead of calling them ‘Our Boys’. NO Maggie, thats not anti British, thats neutrality in reporting.The whole WMD thing in Iraq brought the BBC and the Government (who effectively provide the money) into conflict.  Bliar forced resignations from the Beeb for saying the WMD intelligence had been over stated by Shrub and Bliar.  Still no WMDs, still no contrition from Tone.

About the only thing I know about US PBS is Sesame Street (One Athiest, ha ha ha). But I believe when Business holds all the purse strings then democracy does not exist, however many times you vote.

KpG: “Condom machines in every public building with the proceeds going to PBS. We’d be fucking for better TV. We could even have a fuckathon…“

KpG, that is genius! 

To clarify, I am not anti-space-program, I am anti-boondoggle.  The ISS is producing NO science at this time, it just goes ‘round and ‘round.  There is a lot of hard science that needs doing, and robotic craft can do it at a tiny fraction of the dough we pour into manned flight. 

For what we pay to have people in orbit doing basically nothing but dusting and keeping alive, we could be funding a couple dozen really great science missions; find out what asteroids and comets are made of (may be important to our survival someday), various kinds of space telescopes, planetary probes, and an armada of Earth sensing satellites to give us more insight into climate, pollution, animal migrations, etc.

I’ve got a great idea. Condom machines in every public building with the proceeds going to PBS. We’d be fucking for better TV. We could even have a fuckathon…..

Sadie darling- fancy helping raise some money for PBS…

Waiy right there, LH. My idea, I get to use it to hit on Sadie first…..

Sadie, would you care to use me shamelessly for a good cause?

KPG: Sadie, would you care to use me shamelessly for a good cause?

But of course, darling. Not only am I a devout fan of condoms, but I harbor many fond memories of PBS-viewing. 

So, in PBS-speak: You and me, baby, ain’t nothing but mammals...I’d finish, but that would involve another network entirely. Cable, at that.

EricP: … if only they could find the nine billion they lost in Iraq marked for reconstruction.

I heard about that. And it’s gone off the radar in favour of Positive GOP propaganda because of ... Positive GOP propaganda. Sounds kinda like circular logic similar to ... ??

LH: ... we [have] an independent broadcaster, for whom the charter is to inform, not just entertain…. It is not held to ransom by the advertisers.

We have ABC (about 10% of the viewers) & SBS (about 6% including all the soccer and minimal advertising on the hour).
No matter which party is in power they’ve both said the ABC is not objective as they ask the hard questions of all players whereas the other 3 commercial broadcasters just go for the sensational and lowest common denominator - which is what hoi polloi want - bread and circuses.

The US would have never seen Doctor Who without PBS. PBS’s airing of Doctor Who in years past is reason enough to give PBS all the money they want.

Qwerty: PBS’s airing of Doctor Who in years past is reason enough to give PBS all the money they want.

I saw a YouTube of an old Python interview on PBS that suggeted the same thing about them.

SBS (about 6% including all the soccer and minimal advertising on the hour).

They’re actually going to start using ad breaks soon.

Mick: They’re actually going to start using ad breaks soon.

Bummer. That’ll ruin Insight for me. 
Only ABC left ... for how long?

In Britain they increased the adbreaks in hour long programs to every 15 mins, from 20.  It means when they show old old programs it’s all cut wrong.

Classic quote form readers letters in Murdoch paper.  ‘When Sky show Star Trek it is an hour long, but only 45 minutes on the BBC.  Ehat are they cutting out?‘

The adverts, you pillock.

Of course the pro Sky paper didn’t point this out.

It did mean ‘24’ was a bit odd on the BBC though- it was actually ‘18’ (what did they do on the DVDs.

Many of my more liberal colleagues go into near convulsions when they read legislative factoids like this. I sometimes see their eyes flicker and jolt upwards, as they can hardly contain their emotions (bad American upbringing, again).

I do not get so much in a emotional fit as they.
I’m more calm.

Why?  Cause i know we live in a democracy, and in a few short years (months even?) these policies can be easily reversed.  We’ve been through cycles like this before.  Pick up a history book.

If the voters want it otherwise, so it shall be.
Now get back to work and stop freaking out, and vote locally and nationally (unlike most Americans).

Even before I saw KPG’s post I thought NO.

There is a depressing trend to what Jeremy Clarkson identified as using baby incubators as a currency. i.e. every time a space shuttle is launched people will say ‘they should have spent the money on baby incubators/replacement hips/education’ etc etc.

If European Monarchs had said the equivalent (’Do you know how many quail eggs I can buy for that, Mr Columbus’wink the world would be a different place. 

First of all, Columbus was an idiot.  It was the wrong time for such an expedition, Columbus was the wrong man for it and he didn’t even do what he set out to do… and we did such a good job with the land when we got it.

Secondly, the SPACE program isn’t the shuttle or the ISS.  All of those programs cost too much money, don’t bring back the science.  About the only thing they are are VERY expensive PR gimmicks.  Everything they do can be done better and cheaper by using other programs.  The probes we’re sending to Mars are bringing back tons of information and costing a tiny fraction of the money we’re spending on the shuttle and ISS, and don’t even get me started on the Manned Mission to Mars.  Manned space flight will be done by the commercial sectors and it will make money and will cost a tenth of what the government makes and make money to boot not to mention being more PR than they could ever have with the shuttle and ISS.

Certainly better to cut those programs than Public Television.

Manned space flight will be done by the commercial sectors and it will make money and will cost a tenth of what the government makes and make money to boot not to mention being more PR than they could ever have with the shuttle and ISS.

While “spaceflight” (think low-orbit oh!-ah!-neat! trips) it might be commercially viable, there’s no way in hell (note the lower-case “h”) flights to the Moon or Mars will be in the near or semi-long-term future.

There is not one insurance agency large enough, besides the USG, willing to back such missions.  The technology is so unproven for static, sustainable colonies/stations on their surfaces that any corporation would be insane to back such a venture.  The risk for catastrophic failure (“This is Houston Mars-America. Hello?  Mars-America? Hello? Anyone alive? Anyone?“) is way too high at this first-attempt stage.

This is why governments are often the first, and *then* corporations are second when it comes to space exploration. That’s a model we’d be wise to continue.

Thanks, Sordsbane. 

The one thing we don’t have for the Moon or Mars is a reason to go there.  Exploration may find that reason, and robotic exploration is orders of magnitude cheaper - and even more effective - than human exploration.  Why?  Because Mars is out at the extreme end of a very long survival probability curve.  By they time the astronauts get there (still faced with the return journey) they are spending 99.99% of their effort staying alive.  A robot has no such concerns.

Now having said that, and having come off as an anti-space philistine, let me hasten to add that the other suggestions here are very good ones; the missing $9bn, bridges to nowhere, invading other countries that don’t need invading, etc.  It’s painfully obvious they’re cutting PBS funding just because they don’t like PBS.

Thanks, Sordsbane.

The one thing we don’t have for the Moon or Mars is a reason to go there.  Exploration may find that reason, and robotic exploration is orders of magnitude cheaper - and even more effective - than human exploration.  Why?  Because Mars is out at the extreme end of a very long survival probability curve.  By they time the astronauts get there (still faced with the return journey) they are spending 99.99% of their effort staying alive.  A robot has no such concerns.

Now having said that, and having come off as an anti-space philistine, let me hasten to add that the other suggestions here are very good ones; the missing $9bn, bridges to nowhere, invading other countries that don’t need invading, etc.  It’s painfully obvious they’re cutting PBS funding just because they don’t like PBS.

There are plenty of reasons to go to the Moon.  It’s full of raw materials that are practically lying there right on the surface.  Anyone who went there with that in mind would make several hundred percent profit from such a trip.  Mars is further away and we could probably do everything we need to do with robots, but it has the same potential, and so does any planetary body out there.  Once you get to Low Earth Orbit, you’re half-way energy (fuel) wise to anywhere else in the solar system…. And the survival probability curve has been grossly overexaggerated by too many people.

It’s not that their aren’t good reasons to go, or even good reasons to send people.  It’s that the government isn’t doing it for those reasons and they are spending way more money than they have to.  OUR money.  The government talks of putting a permanent base on the Moon but doesn’t say what for.  They want to send people to Mars, but they don’t say what they want to do that can’t be done by robots.  There are legitemate answers to those questions, but the gov isn’t using them.  They want another PR (look what we can do) gimmick.

But when they look for money, they try to cut PBS.  Like you said, it only makes sense when you see that they just don’t like it.

Good, then you surely have books of world history which show these events of concentrating power and total control of media have been precursors for two of the most tyrantic and destructive regimes there has been.

“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.“
-Joseph Stalin
Now compare that to your previous elections.

Secondly, the SPACE program isn’t the shuttle or the ISS.  All of those programs cost too much money, don’t bring back the science.  About the only thing they are are VERY expensive PR gimmicks.  Everything they do can be done better and cheaper by using other programs.

Saying that space exploration is expensive is total 100% pure BushShit.
For example whole Apollo project cost much less than war for liberating Iraq’s oil resources… and that includes taking inflation into account.

Also NASA’s whole budget is peanuts compared to what goes into “poor hands” of military industrial complex.
Then how about tax evasion of big corporations… some of your biggest corporations practically don’t even pay any taxes, they get “rebates” from government.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/107493main_FY_06_budget_summ.pdf

Saying that space exploration is expensive is total 100% pure BushShit.
For example whole Apollo project cost much less than war for liberating Iraq’s oil resources… and that includes taking inflation into account.

Also NASA’s whole budget is peanuts compared to what goes into “poor hands� of military industrial complex.
Then how about tax evasion of big corporations… some of your biggest corporations practically don’t even pay any taxes, they get “rebates� from government.

The space program isn’t using a large ammount of money when compared with the Defense Departments slice of the pie, sure, but when you consider that the Shuttle costs $1 billion per launch and does the job other systems can for $200 million ANUALLY, then yes, the Shuttle is expensive.  When you consider the billions of $$ put into the ISS so that they a place to do research they could do for a fraction of that on purpose built space craft we can launch with thirty-year old technology, then yeah, ISS is expensive.

If you want to look at the biggest spenders in the government, then I’d be happy to get together my notes and start listing them off and yeah, the DoD will probably be #1 thru #5 on my list, but NASA wastes money too to the tune of $$$ billions each year.  The shuttle program and ISS should never have been allowed to continue (at least not as they are) and even if our toad republicans are right and we can’t cut our defense spending because of the Iraq war, then there are still better places to get the money than by cutting public television and education.

Just as a BTW: To get the Apollo program started, they killed the X-15 project because they said that it cost too much money to run both programs, a project that the shuttle was supposed to use for development until they decided to start over from scratch (more wasted money) and a project that was largely the foundation for the success of Space Ship One.  That project was dead for almost twenty years.  The Apollo project WAS cheap, but if they had spent a little more money then, we’d be at least twenty years ahead of where we are now and wouldn’t be throwing $$$ billions into the shuttle.  So by all means, let’s let the government continue to run our space program.  They don’t spen all THAT much money.

The Apollo Project was the last thing they did right with the Manned Space Missions.  Seems to me that they’re getting dumber with age.  Their cost overruns keep getting bigger and their record of delivery on promised specifications keeps getting worse.  We really have TWO space programs, manned and unmanned.  The unmanned projects keep getting cut and somehow manage to keep their ships flying, and the manned missions get all the money and somehow manage not to deliver.  Gimme more of that.