View Full Version : Stupid reporters who can't do math killed Bush's Mars plans
03-22-04, 11:12 PM
It's long but good. Basically boils down to this:
A gold-plated and unrealistic cost estimate from 1989 was accepted at face value nearly 15 years later, adjusted for inflation, then rounded up by nearly 60% by a reporter. Others then inflated it even more. And for weeks nobody in the media bothered to question it.
One of the reasons why I always have, and likely always will, hate journalists.
03-23-04, 12:26 AM
hmm well have you read bush's team of experts latest predictions on how much kerry will increase spending in the government? they are trying to spin that the average voter will pay 15 500 dollars more a year in taxes under kerry. thats why i hate spin doctors. those numbers are so twisted and meaningless it is sickening.
The media is having a curious tug o'war with itself these days that I just can't imagine being caught up in. With little of integrity left in American mainstream news media, there seems to be a power play going on, but I can't figure out who, exactly is behind it. Rupert Murdoch, to be sure, but I couldn't diagram the thing for your right now for the world.
But it's like the Dean flameout. The media made Dean a frontrunner. The media needed the insurgent candidate, and people like Al Gore rushed to the bandwagon and showed why the Democrats don't have the Oval Office and why they got walloped in '02. I'm of the opinion that the media manufactured the Dean juggernaut. After all, what happened when Democratic voters went to the polls? A return to the pre-Dean conventional wisdom: Kerry as a front-runner, some muddling of the pack, and keep your eye on Edwards. It would seem that the media tried to sway the election process.
So settled had the voters become perhaps in response to the Dean circus that the conventional wisdom was writ in stone.
Again we see the media, with your example, Stokes, pushing too hard in order to frame an issue to sell headlines and exert political influence.
The irony that I find in the situation is longer than would be worth explaining for "simple" irony.
03-23-04, 03:08 PM
No stupid Bush economic policy killed the Mars adventure:
Get a clue, the US cannot afford this. Not now not in the near or even distant future. There are MUCH more important things to do on Earth. Let the Chinese go.
03-23-04, 04:39 PM
hmm well have you read bush's team of experts latest predictions on how much kerry will increase spending in the government? they are trying to spin that the average voter will pay 15 500 dollars more a year in taxes under kerry. thats why i hate spin doctors. those numbers are so twisted and meaningless it is sickening.Indeed. "Investigative" journalists and partisan pundits are perhaps the most annoying subset if the entire journalistic complex in the United States. Also, brace yourself - this election year is going to be fucking bloody as hell. Get yourself to a vomitorium ahead of time for when the spin spins up.
Again we see the media, with your example, Stokes, pushing too hard in order to frame an issue to sell headlines and exert political influence.Yeah, that's basically my point. Ibid for the Dean corallary. He never really had a chance. That is dumb, but the same thing always happens for Social Security and Medicare. People take the biggest number they can find, and the politicians in favor often don't mind because then they can say that they are great supporters of the people or something. That is in part why I take all the "Social Security will go bankrupt in twelve minutes if we don't kill everyone who is over 45" stuff with a shitload of salt.
Hi, I didn't read the article.
Bush called for a new space initiative which would eventually bring us to Mars. He didnt say "ok were going to mars tomorrow"; it's an extremely long process. The first step in the process though is giving NASA some goddamn direction, prying them away from the current trend of autonomous exploration (paging EI_Sparks to thread 539911). The cost would be paid over a 20 to 30 year period. And hey, at 15 billion or so/year x 30 years = 450 billion. The money would be from existing NASA budget. Finishing off our commitment to the ISS and decomissioning the shuttle would also free up lots of money which would be put towards that goal.
The cost of 1 trillion was based off a bloated congress estimate from 1989 which used figures for then-current expensive technology which was then marked up arbitrarily with bad math by 1 reporter and then marked up even more by other idiots with more bad math. Also the 1989 figures were for a manned base on both mars and the moon for the 30 year period.
As for NASA not speaking up, NASA sucks when it comes to PR. That's why they need the kick in the ass so they can actually get stuff accomplished.
I know it's a lot of words, but maybe next time you could read the article.
03-23-04, 04:44 PM
Hi, I didn't read the article.
I don't have to read shit, the article means nothing. When you are $550 billion in the hole, a current account deficit growing faster then your economy, trade deficits with just about everyone, add on top of the demographic transition to a nation with a high dependcy load, then the "war on terror". This NASA crap really does seem rather laughable, and hopefully Kerry will cancel this utter mess. Even if the program cost $1 billion you don't have that money, and you won't for a very long time. I don't think most Americans would support economic collapse for a Penis enlargement program.
03-23-04, 10:40 PM
Undecided, you expect Stokes to treat you with respect when you talk to him like that? And you didn't even read his article and still commented on it?
Right now this thread is very close to getting closed. Turn this talk-fest around or else I'll lock it.