So apparently Newt Gingrich is insane because he wants to establish a moon colony, but not because he wants war with Iran. You would quibble, perhaps with an Iranian war as a, uh, a policy position, but it would be completely sane, whereas a lunar colony, why, that's nuts!
19 comments:
Some infinite numbers are more infinite than others.
We're Jews out in space
We're zooming along
protecting the Hebrew race
We're Jews out in space
If trouble appears
we put it right back in its place
When goyim attack us
We give 'em a smack
we'll slap them right back in the face
We're Jews out in space
We're zooming along
protecting the Hebrew race
This isn't even news. When the "consumer advocate" Elizabeth Warren is in favor of bombing Iran ... er, "leaving every option on the table," should we be shocked that Newt "The Verdict of History" Gingrich is? Should we be shocked at anything?
(that rogue capital 'O' in 'Coldheart' will bug me tonight)
Newt's a lunatic.
Leonard wins.
And yes, it really is more insane to want a moonbase than a war. Wars are cheap by comparison.
Cost of Apollo Program: $170 billion in modern money. This got us 26 men who went to the moon and back. To put 14000 men on the moon might be 100x as much? Call it, oh, $17 trillion for Newt's Pander.
By comparison, the entire war in Iraq (and Iraq fought Iran to a stalemate, do recall) has been estimated as $1.9 trillion.
So Newt's Pander can be wildly estimated at roughly 10x as costly than knocking over a midsized country and occupying it for 7 years. And that, in an era of recession calling for fiscal responsibility.
NASA's body count might be a wee bit smaller. But by all means continue with the debit sheet analysis.
Newt, the new JFK. To the moon, to the pale blue moon!
can't both positions be insane?
Nony: Sure. But we should still compare the levels of moonbattery.
fish: obviously that is IOZ's point too, and it is a fine one so far as it goes. But just as obvious is that the American mainstream is utterly unconcerned with body count, at least as weighed against "national security".
What the fuck would we do up there anyway!? You can't grow anything. There is nominal promise of scientific advances. The colony would be completely dependent on earth - the solar system's first all-welfare celestial body.
Since it would serve no purpose aside from some nebulous aesthetic value, I say unto you: Next is the only candidate who promises to dedicate billions to performance art! Newt 2012!
Presumably you would mine helium 3 and send it back to earth to make better fusion reactors or better bombs.
And theres plenty of water there to grow stuff if you crack it out of the rocks.
Still the RoI is suspicious, and worse, the idea SOUNDS silly. so yeah, not gonna happen.
And there is a reason why the moon has so many craters
i don't want to live on the moon.
besides wouldn't that $17 trillion be better served terraforming Mars or something?
insofar as money is FAKE, and the Iranians to be deaded are real, Leonard, i'm with fish.
They don't even know it's christmas on the moon.
We could start an art colony up there, where apprentices could hone their skills by creating lunar landscapes.
We could also start a theme park whereby visitors could drive moon buggies past space junk left by Apollo "explorers." How does "Moon World" sound?
We're whalers on the moon
We carry a harpoon
But there are no whales
So we tell tall tales
And sing a whaling tune
I am so tickled that TWO people in this thread feel informed enough to discuss logstics re: the moon mission. Guys, also, the lunar day is 28 days so what if astronauts went insane from lack of sleep, or slept so long they grew really long beards and the beards kept falling into their soup? Stoopid pols!
Post a Comment