printOh the contradictions of being a Republican! Republicans, the ostensible party for market forces, were furious when BHO and his posse, who work against such forces, indicated that they were keen on privatizing aspects in the operation of NASA, the National Aeronautic Space Administration.
How do Repbulicans reconcile their desire to retain NASA as a state entity, in the face of new revelations about the main mission with which the Democrat-run state has charged NASA?
According to a top NASA official, speaking to Al Jazira, President Obama has charged him with “reaching out to the Muslim world and engaging much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science.”
Do Repbulicans think that a privately-run, for-profit space agency would set Muslim outreach as one of its goals?
‘D’oh!’ is not always for Democrat. 
Well, yeah, with Barack Obama running the government, a privately-run, for-profit space agency might indeed make Muslim outreach its primary goal. Would privately-run, for-profit corporations such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing make affirmative action a primary goal, even if it compromises the competence in their managerial and professional staffs? That should be rhetorical question, but yeah, they would and they do because it’s a condition of their government contracts. Bring in a new set of government contractors, and they’ll do whatever Uncle Barack tells them to do. This has nothing to do with privatization.
A private sector profit can now be made by launching satellites, but only because the taxpayers absorbed the initial development costs. If we require that space exploration be privately funded, then there won’t be any more of it. American businessmen can’t see past the end of the quarter, and there’s no short term profit in exploration.
I fail to see any constitutional or ethical justification to force people to pay for ANY manned space exploration, whether done by “government employees” or taxpayer-paid “private contractors”. [The idea, as I understand it—and as must be obvious—is that, if privatized, then privately funded.] if But then I don’t see why taxpayers are reaching out to the Moslem or Hindu or Jewish or Christian world either. Maybe I hold some ancient view that money belongs to the individuals and only in exceptional circumstances (such as arresting criminals who threaten lives and property) should it be taken for “public” purposes.
In the meantime, the taxpayer gets raped and political “debate” consists over fighting which color condom the rapist should wear.
OMG, or will that now change to “OMA”? In any event Sir Richard Branson has the most acceptable solution…Private Space Venture Entrepreneurialism. He has a location in New Mexico(?) and intends to have space flights on a commercial passenger basis. Purdue University has had an ASTRONAUTICAL ENGINEERING program for quite some time. And, just today, the local news in Florida was about the downsizing of NASA later this year. Yes, Ilana, there is a dearth of outcry for MORE PRIVATIZATION by Republicans. It’s the old SSDD strategy and we lose unless we frequently change the players.
Do Repbulicans think that a privately-run, for-profit space agency would set Muslim outreach as one of its goals?
There are enough of them that would not only think it possible, but would, Democrats leading them by the nose, make it law. And privately run, for profits (of the international sort), not only trod along with, but often promote the zeitgeist; a billion Muslims are a billion consumers after all.
Re: Myron’s comments. I agree that Entrepreneurs should be the driving force because they cannot just take our money without our consent UNLESS they cut deals with politicians who can vote subsidies into place. However, I do see a role for government involvement – the Military. The reality of the world is that there are those who want what you have or have an irrational desire or hatred to subjugate or murder you. And, as a libertarian / objectivist, I see government’s primary roles as external protection / internal policing / impartial judiciary. I am not an anarchist. As for space, whoever controls space will control Earth. What political entity or persons would you find acceptable for that? ps: G Pal – as a private entity, I would be free to choose those customers beneficial to me.
Dennis – all military operations can be done robotically or with remoted links. Manned exploration is 99% (or more) hyper-expensive Public Relations.
Ilana – it may be obvious to you and me that “private” SHOULD really means privately funded with private risk. However, Republican “privatization” in the (whorish) military/aerospace sector (where I work) means Blackwater mercenaries getting $300,000 salary for what they used to do for $ 40,000 as military. Taxpayers pay (or borrow from China or print $$) and the retired Generals and their retinue collect on Cost Plus Fixed Free goodies. Remember that Amtrak, Fannie Mae, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are nominally “private”.
As to Dennis’ point, about control of space=control of Earth; that was the rationale, as I understand it, for NASA’s beginning in the first place: the Space Race. We were not going to let the Soviet Union take charge of that realm. Manned spaceflight (government funded) inspired a generation of American technologists (many of whom were promptly dispensed with when the Cold War ended.)
I don’t know what the solution is, but replacing real goals and real challenges with “promoting diversity” and “outreach” funded by the taxpayer is a misuse of resources.
As one who also works in the aerospace/defense sector another word comes to mind, prostitute.