You might not know it from my last comments, but I'm a huge fan of space exploration. Frankly I think Clinton screwed up by not diverting shrinking military commitments and resources more into space exploration initiatives. But the effort just doesn't feel right with Bush. I just think he wreaks with too much corporate cronyism to make these efforts fair and productive. I'm not confident that research, engineering and development opportunities will land in the laps of those most competent to do the job. Also I wish these efforts could be more internationalized. We should set forth into space as a united people, not as individual nations. This effort should bring the world together. International co-operation is just not one of Bush's strong suits. Sadly, he's lost too many friends in the world.

Unfortunately, international co-operation means we foot the bill anyway. And as I said in my previous post, if a Dem had suggested it, it would be more right. Wake up and smell the LOX,(not salmon)! All politicians are in the business of rewarding their friends. And in many cases, they are the same friends the opposition has! Do you actually think campaign contributors expect nothing in return?

Here is another source on the Haliburton Mars stuff.

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnarch/010228-49.html 

On political contributions

Personally I give to support a candidate I believe

will be best for the welfare of my city, state or country. My hope and expectation is that that city, state or country and its citizens are better off as a result of that candidate representing us in office.

Corporate special interests make political contributions in the interest of their own bottom lines which benefits a very limited list of shareholders and senior executives in those organizations.

I don't deny that some of those resulting tax breaks and other corporate benefits can trickle down to some new jobs for regular people, but that is only at the discretion of these senior executives and only done as a necessity when demand for that company's products and services requires extra employment. Otherwise these breaks become a straight transfer of wealth to those at the top of the ladder with no main benfits to the welfare of our country.

So why don't we stop this transfer of our tax dollars into corporate interests. This contractual inititive between Geoffrey Briggs of NASA and Haliburton for Mar drilling is not money well spent in space exploration!!

Contracts and tax breaks like these with Haliburton which benefits Cheney and his friends but no one else. Is there a demand in the market for drilling on Mars?? HELL NO!!

We need economic policies that invest in stimulating consumer spending first, not business investment. This creates more customers for businesses and that increased demand that forces business to create jobs. If customers are there, investments will be made and jobs will be created to meet the demand. You can call it Supply side economics and the 1990's were proof that it works.

When demand for drilling on Mars becomes a reality and Haliburton proves its the best company to do the job from a fair pool of competitors on an open bid situation, I'll be ok with it.

dbguru

halliburton, which directly benifits the vice president because he receives differed compensation, was awarded many no bid contracts in iraq.

Iraq was expected but Mars????