Archive for February, 2010

Sunday Views

Poem: Are You Content? William Butler YeatsThe Danger of Daily Aspirin — A Sexy Partner Can Make You Seem More Attractive — AF 447: the best experts to locate the wreckage — The perfect man is a geek with facial stubble… women’s secret turn-ons revealed — A Van Gogh is known to be authenticated — Wake-up call for teen pot smokers — Debenhams first with disabled High Street model — Converting Body Movements Into Electricity — Music Videos by Luz Casal

Are You Content?

I call on those that call me son,
Grandson, or great-grandson,
On uncles, aunts, great-uncles or great-aunts
To judge what I have done.
Have I, that put it into words,
Spoilt what old loins have sent?
Eyes spiritualized by death can judge,
I cannot, but I am not content.

He that in Sligo at Drumcliff
Set up the old stone Cross,
That red-headed rector in Country Down,
A good man on a horse,
Sandymount Corbets, that notable man
Old William Pollexfen,
The smuggler Middleton, Butlers far back,
Half legendary men.

Infirm and aged I might stay
In some good company,
I who have always hated work,
Smiling at the sea,
Or demonstrate in my own life
What Robert Browning meant
By an old hunter talking with Gods;
But I am not content.

William Butler Yeats

The Danger of Daily Aspirin


If you’re taking a daily aspirin for your heart, you may want to reconsider.

For years, many middle-aged people have taken the drug in hopes of reducing the chance of a heart attack or stroke. Americans bought more than 44 million packages of low-dose aspirin marketed for heart protection in the year ended September, up about 12% from 2005, according to research firm IMS Health.

Now, medical experts say some people who are taking aspirin on a regular basis should think about stopping. Public-health officials are scaling back official recommendations for the painkiller to target a narrower group of patients who are at risk of a heart attack or stroke. The concern is that aspirin’s side effects, which can include bleeding ulcers, might outweigh the potential benefits when taken by many healthy or older people.

“Not everybody needs to take aspirin,” says Sidney Smith, a professor at the University of North Carolina who is chairing a new National Institutes of Health effort to compile treatment recommendations on cardiovascular-disease prevention. Physicians are beginning to tailor aspirin recommendations to “groups where the benefits are especially well established,” he says.

Doctors generally agree that most patients who have already suffered a heart attack or ischemic stroke, the type caused by a clot or other obstruction blocking an artery to the brain, should take regular low-dose aspirin. But for people without heart disease, the newest guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force spell out much more clearly than before when aspirin should be administered.

The guidelines, announced last year, suggest aspirin for certain men 45 to 79 years old with elevated heart-disease risk because of factors like cholesterol levels and smoking. For women, the guidelines don’t focus on heart risk. Instead, the task force recommends certain women should take aspirin regularly if they are 55 to 79 and are in danger of having an ischemic stroke, for reasons that could include high blood pressure and diabetes.

The panel urged doctors to factor in conditions that could increase a patient’s risk of bleeding from aspirin, which tends to rise with age. The group didn’t designate a dose, but suggested that an appropriate amount might be 75 milligrams a day, which is close to the 81mg contained in low-dose, or “baby,” aspirin. The task force didn’t take a position on aspirin for people who are 80 and older because of a lack of data in this age group.

Other medical researchers dispute the idea that there should be different guidelines for men and women. Still, many experts agree that doctors may have been recommending aspirin to people for whom the risks might outweigh the benefits.

Aspirin acts as a blood thinner, which is believed to account for much of its benefit of protecting against heart attacks and strokes. But that same action, along with a tendency to deplete the stomach’s protective lining, can lead to a danger of gastrointestinal bleeding and possibly bleeding in the brain…

A Sexy Partner Can Make You Seem More Attractive

LiveScience – By Charles Q. Choi

If you wish to be alluring, you might want to pair up with a hot partner. A good-looking significant other will cause other potential mates to find you more desirable, new research suggests.

The results held more for women than men, who tend to find attractive ladies desirable no matter who they are intimate with.

While the findings might be especially helpful to singles, the researchers are interested in learning about the mysterious rules of attraction that apply throughout the animal kingdom.

Animals often choose mates by imitating the choices of others. For instance, female guppies typically prefer brightly colored males, but will switch to favoring drab ones if they see other females mating with them. Copying others could prove beneficial, especially for inexperienced individuals that mimic more experienced ones. Still, little is known about what underlies this behavior in any species.

Human see, human do?

To see if humans copy others as well, scientists had 30 male and 30 female volunteers who all described themselves as straight rate how attractive they found photos of 36 men and 36 women. The volunteers were then shown 144 pictures of men and women paired together and asked how desirable they would find long-term relationships with members of the opposite sex in the pictures.

Both male and female volunteers rated people in the pictures as more desirable when they were paired next to attractive companions, the scientists found. By using cameras to track eye movements during the experiments, the researchers also saw that when volunteers spent more time looking at a potential mate’s unattractive partner, they were less interested in that mate.

“Even though people were only asked to evaluate the potential mate in each photograph, they all spent a significant amount of time looking at the mate’s partner,” said researcher Jessica Yorzinski, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Davis. “Women spent more time looking at the partners that they found attractive, while men shifted their gaze back and forth more.”

In addition, while male volunteers were interested in attractive women regardless of their partners, female volunteers were more skeptical of attractive men if they were paired with unappealing companions. This difference might perhaps be rooted in how women are often choosier about mates then men.

“The men might have just had a higher level of interest in all potential mates, and were less discriminating than females would be,” Yorzinski said…

AF 447: the best experts to locate the wreckage

The U.S. Navy, U.S. researchers, German, two ships, submarines and sonar pocket start mid-March for a search campaign.

Le Figaro – Fabrice Amedeo 17/02/2010 (English Translation)(Emphasis mine)

They still believe. More than eight months after the disappearance of Flight AF 447 in the southern hemisphere, the investigators leave at sea to locate the wreckage of the plane and try to find the black boxes. For this operation, the last chance, the Office of Investigations and Analysis (BEA), responsible for the investigation, was attended by leading world experts and created a veritable “dream team”.

The new tracing campaign should begin in mid-March. After an initial campaign in the emergency in June to identify the signal of the black boxes, then a second also launched in haste in August to locate the wreckage, investigators here have taken the time to work in the best conditions. They left the position of bodies and wreckage of the plane which were recovered in June. They have studied the current and potential risks for a smaller narrow search area.

Different ocean models have been studied. The BEA also provided its own data by working with fishermen in the Gulf of Guinea, who threw sea buoys into the sea and their drifts has been studied. The result is a promising new research area is 2,000 km ² cons 17,500 kilometers ² that swept last August.

It is located northwest of the last known position of the Flight AF 447. This information is welcomed by the pilots of Air France who believe that their colleagues may have bypassed some of the delicate storm area of the accident to the north-west of its theoretical route.

Elle est située au nord-ouest de la dernière position connue du vol AF 447. Cette information est accueillie avec satisfaction par les pilotes d’Air France qui sont persuadés que leurs collègues ont contourné une partie de la zone orageuse délicate par la gauche et que la zone de l’accident est au nord-ouest de sa route théorique.

International collaboration

For the operational phase, the BEA has chosen to work with the U.S. Navy and did not play the card of national preference claiming responsibility in the services of two internationally recognized institutions: Geomar Germans and Americans of the Institute Woods Hole Oceanographic.

Two boats have been hired: The Seabed Worker, who belongs to a Norwegian shipowner, and Anne Candies belonging to U.S. company Phoenix International. The Seabed Worker host submarines pocket that can explore areas of deep rough at the rate of 5 square kilometers per day. The Anne Candies host teams from the U.S. Navy as well as “towed sonar. This type of material is adapted to scan sedimentary plains and can rake 100 km ² per day.

The BEA has given four weeks at sea to recover the aircraft and assemble its black boxes. The question is whether, if successful, the records will still be usable. BEA experts are optimistic. Black boxes have been recovered several months after other accidents.

The [black boxes] can withstand a shock of 3,400 g in the impact of the aircraft, at a temperature of 1,100 degrees for an hour in case of fire and an underwater pressure of 6,000 meters.

“This is one of the most complex that has never been mounted, said Jean-Paul Trodec, President of BEA. This is probably our last chance to retrieve the black boxes, because I do not see what we could do better. “

BEA Sea Search Operations AF 447 – A330-203 (PDF)(30 Pages)

The perfect man is a geek with facial stubble… women’s secret turn-ons revealed

By Daily Mail Reporter

Most women claim to be attracted to tall, dark and handsome men, but a new study has revealed that facial stubble and a geeky personality are their biggest secret turn-ons.

Despite complaining that it looks unkempt and feels rough to touch, the unshaven look on a man is actually a turn-on for 41 per cent of women.

A slightly geeky personality came second, proving that women really do like a guy who knows their stuff when it comes to technology.

A hairy chest was voted third, followed by a man who loves to read or cries at a soppy film.

Other secret turn-ons to feature in the top ten include grey hair, glasses and being a passionate supporter of a sports team.

But almost one in five would never admit what they really find attractive in a man to other people.

A spokesman for, which carried out the research, said: ‘Publically, girls will claim they want a muscly guy, who is hair free and manly enough not to show his emotional side.

‘But these results prove that they secretly want something different. It seems women really do like a guy who is able to show a softer side, or who is carrying a little bit of extra weight.

‘I’m sure it’s a relief to men all over the country to find out that women aren’t actually looking for that perfect guy.’

The poll of 2,500 women also revealed that 91 per cent would actually prefer a guy who had a few flaws over someone who is perfect.

And more than half would rather a guy who was soft and cuddly instead of toned and muscly.

Almost two thirds would prefer to be with a naturally hairy man, while 56 per cent like a guy with a little bit of stubble over someone who is clean shaven or has a full beard.

Women also prefer a guy who doesn’t spend too much time on his appearance, with 63 per cent saying they would like a man who got ready quickly rather than fussing over what he looked like.

Fifty-eight per cent of women even want a guy who doesn’t care what he eats over someone who is watching his weight and counting calories.

A Van Gogh is known to be authenticated

Small in size, the painting has been appraised by the museum in Amsterdam, raising emotions among art lovers.

Le Figaro – Valerie Duponchelle (English Translation)

A new Van Gogh? Since the case of Sunflowers and Garden Daubigny, the topic is hot among art historians. Especially when the table is considered “atypical” in the works painted by Vincent theorist of art and magic correspondent now in glory at the Royal Academy of Arts in London. So it was the excitement Wednesday at the Museum of Fundation in Zwolle, north-east of Amterdam. Its director, Ralph Keuning, formally presented an unknown, mullein “The Blute-fin, welcoming a” true picture “of Van Gogh, dated 1886. Recognized by the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, the oil paintings of small dimensions (55.2 cm × 38 cm) immediately triggered the emotion the more legitimate.

“It’s a little picture, but its significance is major. It belongs to the Parisian period of Van Gogh, who arrived in Montmartre in spring 1886, says the Figaro Louis Van Tilborg Investigator Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam who worked on this case study. It was then three windmills on the Butte, including the famous Moulin de la Galette by Renoir.  They were no longer grind but offered a view of Paris. This table, if peopled, may be surprised by his subject and his bill.  It is yet to autumn 1886 when Van Gogh experimented under the influence of Provençal Monticelli painted with harsh and bright colors. “

As with any valuable picture, its provenance was weighed.  “It was purchased 6 200 francs in 1975 in Paris at the Galerie Heim, Dirk Hannem, former director of Museum Boijmans Rotterdam.  This colorful character, fiery, was often optimistic in its acquisitions, seeing Rembrandt or other great masters. He donated his collection to the Museum Foundation. This reputation has been exaggerated enthusiasm against this table. We have closely studied since 2007, a technical point of view and style, before recognizing the hand of Van Gogh. “It is not the only inheritance.

Wake-up call for teen pot smokers

The Sydney Morning Herald – NICOLE OSTROW February 28, 2010

YOUNG adults who used marijuana as teens were more likely than those who didn’t to develop schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms, a seven-year Australian study found.

Those who used the drug for six or more years were twice as likely to develop a psychosis such as schizophrenia or to have delusional disorders than those who never used it.

Research involving more than 3800 young adults, released online by the Archives of General Psychiatry, found long-term users were also four times more likely to have psychotic-like experiences.

The findings, by the Queensland Brain Institute at the University of Queensland, build on previous research and shows that marijuana use is not as harmless as some people think, lead study author John McGrath said yesterday in an email.

The researchers quizzed 3801 young adults who were born in Brisbane between 1981 and 1984. The participants, whose average age was about 20, were asked about marijuana use. The researchers also measured whether those in the study had psychotic symptoms.

The study was the first to look at sibling pairs to discount genetic or environmental influence and still find marijuana linked to later psychosis, the authors said.

”This is the most convincing evidence yet that the earlier you use cannabis, the more likely you are to have symptoms of a psychotic illness,” said Dr McGrath, a professor at the institute, in a statement. ”The message for teenagers is: if they choose to use cannabis they have to understand there’s a risk involved.”

Researchers were looking for causes of schizophrenia, Dr McGrath said.

Of the 1272 participants who had never used marijuana, 26 (2 per cent) were diagnosed with psychosis. Of the 322 people who had used marijuana for six or more years, 12 (3.7 per cent) were diagnosed with the illness. Overall, 65 people were diagnosed with psychosis, the study said.

The researchers also found those who used marijuana the longest were four times more likely than those who didn’t to have the highest scores derived from a list of psychotic-like experiences.

Dr McGrath said even those who used marijuana for fewer than three years still had an increased risk of scoring higher than those who had not.

”Apart from the implications for policy makers and health planners, we hope our findings will encourage further clinical and animal-model research to unravel the mechanisms linking cannabis use and psychosis,” the authors wrote.

Those in the study were interviewed at the ages of 14 and 21, so the symptoms emerged between those two study periods, Dr McGrath said.

The study also showed that among 228 sibling pairs, those who didn’t use marijuana reported fewer psychotic-like delusions compared with those who used cannabis. That difference was statistically significant and reduces the likelihood that the psychotic problems were caused by genetics or environment, the authors said.

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

Debenhams first with disabled High Street model

Debenhams breaks the taboo of using disabled model in photography campaign.

Telegraph – By Hilary Alexander, Fashion Director

Shannon Murray, 32, who has been confined to a wheelchair, since breaking her neck as a teenager, will appear in the store’s display window photography and online.

The move follows an approach to Debenhams by Nikki Fox and Natasha Wood, both disability campaigners and presenters of the hit TV show, How to Look Good Naked, with a Difference.

Shannon will join three other models, Kate Fullman, a size 16 model, Tess Montgomery, a petite 5”4 model, and Tokumbo Daniel, a size 10 model who will all appear in photographs to promote the recently-launched ‘Principles by Ben de Lisi’ range which prides itself on its inclusivity. The collection starts at size 8 and goes up to size 20, with a specific petites range as well.

Debenhams is showing an increasing willingness to inject variety into the people modelling its clothes. The new campaign follows hot on the heels of the retail chain using size 16 mannequins in its windows.

Michael Sharp, Debenhams’ Deputy Chief Executive, said: “We cater for women of all shapes and sizes, young and old, non-disabled and disabled, so we wanted our windows to reflect this choice…

“Every woman deserves to look good and feel special – which is why there are styles to suit, fit and flatter every body shape in the new Principles range. I think that Shannon looks amazing,” added the designer, Ben de Lisi.

Shannon Murray complemented the retailer for supporting disabled models: “I think this is a fabulous step forward and I’m proud to be part of such a big move towards positive representation of disability in high street fashion.”

Debenhams says that it is committed to using disabled models in other photography; a second photographic shoot is being organised…

Converting Body Movements Into Electricity


It may not seem like it, but even the laziest of couch potatoes is a human dynamo. The act of breathing — of moving the ribs to draw air into the lungs and expel it — can generate about a watt of power. And if the potato actually gets up off the couch and walks briskly across the room, each heel strike can produce even more power, about 70 watts’ worth.

That energy could be put to work, charging a cellphone, say, or a medical sensor inside the body. The problem is how to harvest it.

Michael C. McAlpine of Princeton and colleagues have developed a promising approach for converting body movements into electricity. They have printed piezoelectric crystals onto flexible, biocompatible rubberlike material.

Piezoelectric crystals produce an electric current when bent and have many uses — the igniter on a gas barbecue grill being one of them. But highly efficient crystals of the kind that might be useful in the body are made at high temperatures that would destroy most plastics or rubbers.

The solution developed by Dr. McAlpine and colleagues, which is described in the journal Nano Letters, is to first make the crystals, in a series of narrow ribbons, on a rigid substrate of magnesium oxide. Then, after the substrate is etched away from the crystals, they are transfer-printed on a flexible biocompatible polymer, called PDMS.

Dr. McAlpine said his team had started building prototypes, in which tiny wires are deposited on the crystals so that the electricity can be harvested. The crystals are also covered with another layer of PDMS to protect them, and to safeguard the body since the crystals contain lead.

A first application might be in shoes, to produce enough power to keep a music player or phone charged. But the eventual goal would be to make a flexible power generator that could be implanted in the chest or elsewhere.



Today we are launching a bold and ambitious new space initiative to enable us to explore new worlds, develop more innovative technologies, foster new industries, increase our understanding of the earth, expand our presence in the solar system, and inspire the next-generation of explorers…

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden February 1, 2010


Ed Buckbee, journalist and former director of the Alabama Space and Rocket Center, has sent the following letter, bearing the signatures of astronauts Scott Carpenter, Gene Cernan, and Charlie Duke, representing the historic Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs.

Carpenter piloted the Aurora 7 Mercury mission in 1962. Charlie Duke walked on the Moon as lunar module pilot of Apollo 16 in 1972.  Cernan flew on the Gemini 9 mission in 1966, served as lunar module pilot on Apollo 10 in 1969, and was commander of Apollo 17, during which he became the last man to walk on the moon.  It’s easy to see why Buckbee calls them “The Real Space Cowboys.”

February 15, 2010

Dear Mr. & Mrs. America:

There has never been, and likely never will be, another government program that expedites technological innovation so much as the U.S. space program. There is not another program that has so successfully rallied a nation, inspired youngsters toward academic achievement or established the U.S. as the world leader in technology.

The manned space program has, in particular, been a source of our nation’s strength and character. But an Achilles heel in the form of our country’s executive branch threatens a mortal wound. Under the Obama 2011 budget, the U.S. will no longer ferry humans into space— no moon, no Mars. The source of much of America’s inspiration and spirit, the impetus for so much discovery, technology and imagination, is in jeopardy. The demise of America’s space program is just another step in the dismantling of our nation.

Where’s the vision put so eloquently in 1962 when President Kennedy said,” serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.” President Kennedy delivered a vision to the American public that demanded courage, imagination and follow-through. The long-term focus has always been to progressively conquer new frontiers. Certainly, that focus has been shared by both government and private enterprise but to withdraw government from manned space flight will surely obliterate those far-reaching frontiers and precipitously lower our nation’s preeminence in technology.

We are the only country to ever conquer the high ground, the moon. And now we are to give that up to the Russians and Chinese who are committed to having a permanent presence there? The national security implications are starkly real. From the high ground, foreign governments will have greater access to monitor U.S. technology assets in Earth orbit. Whoever controls the high ground becomes the world’s leader in technology.

We ask you to join those members of Congress who have the fortitude and courage to embrace the vision that has become part of our nation’s signature and who are advocates of returning to the moon and maintaining America’s leadership role in the exploration of space.


Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Astronauts

– Scott Carpenter

– Gene Cernan

– Charlie Duke

The Real Space Cowboys

Congress to dump Obama NASA plan

Flight Global – By Rob Coppinger

White House plans to axe NASA’s return-to-the-Moon Constellation programme and ground the Space Shuttle have sparked unified opposition from Congress, which looks determined to preserve a full spectrum of US manned spaceflight activities.

A draft Congressional bill leaked to Flight International sets out the politicians’ alternate plan. It involves possibly extending Shuttle life to 2015, running competitive commercial crew and cargo programmes and continuing development of Constellation’s vehicles including a heavylift rocket designed to get astronauts to the Moon in the 2020s and then Mars.

In a heated hearing on Capitol Hill, President Obama’s NASA administrator Charles Bolden, a former astronaut and Shuttle commander, had to defend his deputy Lori Beth Garver and the president’s plan to shift NASA’s focus from missions to capabilities under the fiscal year 2011 budget request.

In the 24 February hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee’s science and space subcommittee one senator criticised Garver as the alleged author of the plan and budget, which the subcommittee’s members described as ending all US human spaceflight efforts with its retirement of the Shuttle fleet this year and cancellation of the Constellation.

Referring to the space programme as bipartisan, subcommittee chairman senator Bill Nelson of Florida says of the opposition to the Obama plan: “I have never seen [Congress] as unified as we are now.”

Much of the Congressional opposition to Obama’s plan stems from estimates pegging direct job losses from cutting Constellation, Shuttle and other programmes at 30,000, including 7,000 at the Kennedy Space Center.

Bolden told the hearing that the Obama exploration goal was Mars, but during the early February budget roll-out he said that the plan’s destinations would be decided by a “national conversation”.

23,000 now expected to lose jobs after shuttle retirement

KETK News –

VIERA — The local economic forecast tied to President Barack Obama’s proposed NASA budget keeps growing bleaker.

Revised projections now show that about 23,000 workers at and around Kennedy Space Center will lose their jobs because of the shuttles’ retirement and the new proposal to cancel the development of new rockets and spacecraft.

That sum includes 9,000 “direct” space jobs and — conservatively speaking — 14,000 “indirect” jobs at hotels, restaurants, retail stores and others that depend on activity at the space center, said Lisa Rice, Brevard Workforce president.

The organization’s earlier estimate of 7,000 direct jobs reflected just the retirement of the shuttle program. The updated numbers also include the cancellation of Project Constellation and other initiatives as outlined in the president’s 2011 budget, Rice said.

“Our unemployment rate is going to skyrocket,” she warned Thursday during a five-hour Brevard County Commission space workshop. Much conversation centered on the future of human space launches from KSC, and attendees heaped criticism on Obama’s strategy.

Mark Nappi is vice president of launch and recovery systems for United Space Alliance, NASA’s prime contractor for shuttle operations. As things stand today, he predicted that more than 4,500 of the company’s 5,500 Florida workers will lose their jobs. Geographically speaking, Nappi said 4,850 USA workers live in Brevard, including 3,250 in the northern half of the county.
Commissioners asked what the county can do to recruit commercial launch companies from California, Virginia, Texas and elsewhere.

“The market will drive where space vehicles are launched from,” Nappi said. “And if we believe in Florida that we have the birthright to spaceflight operations, we’re going to be the Pittsburgh of the steel industry and the Detroit of the car industry.”

State Rep. Ritch Workman, founder of the Florida Space Caucus, denounced “this horrible president’s budget.”

Workman said that even if KSC somehow lures five leading commercial crew transport companies — SpaceX, Orbital Sciences Corp., The Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin and Sierra Nevada Corp. — from other states, that would account for only about 2,400 jobs.

“And we’re talking about putting humans on private spacecraft. That is not going to happen for a decade,” the Melbourne Republican said..

Gov. Charlie Crist’s proposed budget includes $8.7 million for the development of the years-delayed Exploration Park, a proposed research complex that may someday employ 1,750 people, said Leigh Holt, county government relations manager. Crist’s budget also earmarks $3.9 million to refurbish Launch Complex 46, Holt said.

On Thursday, the county was scheduled to roll out an updated version of, a Web site that touts a pro-NASA letter-writing campaign. The site has picked up more than 11,100 fans on Facebook and nearly 200 followers on Twitter, county spokeswoman Kimberly Prosser said.

By a 4-0 vote, commissioners also decided to offer Pauley Management Inc. a new federal lobbying contract for space, transportation and other matters.

Highlights of NASA’s FY 2011 Budget

Top line increase of $6.0 billion over 5-years (FY 2011-15) compared to the FY 2010 Budget, for a total of $100 billion over five years.
Significant and sustained investments in:

  • Transformative technology development and flagship technology demonstrations to pursue new approaches to space exploration;
  • Robotic precursor missions to multiple destinations in the solar system;
  • Research and development on heavy-lift and propulsion technologies;
  • U.S. commercial spaceflight capabilities;
  • Future launch capabilities, including work on modernizing Kennedy Space Center after the retirement of the Shuttle;
  • Extension and increased utilization of the International Space Station;
  • Cross-cutting technology development aimed at improving NASA, other government, and commercial space capabilities;
  • Accelerating the next wave of Climate change research and observations spacecraft;
  • NextGen and green aviation; and
  • Education, including focus on STEM.

Cancellation of the Constellation program; and $600 million in FY 2011 to ensure the safe retirement of the Space Shuttle upon completion of the current manifest.

Earth and Climate Science

  • Increases by $382 million over FY 2010 enacted, and $1.8 billion over 4-years (FY 2011-14) compared to the FY 2010 Budget; 1,802 1,945 2,090 2,217 2,282
  • Re-flies the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, which is critical to our understanding of the Earth’s carbon cycle and its effect on climate change;
  • Accelerates the development of new satellites to enhance observations of the climate and other Earth systems;
  • Expands and accelerates Venture-class competitive PI-led missions;
  • Enhances climate change modeling capabilities to enhance forecasts of regional and other effects;
  • Operates 15 Earth-observing spacecraft in orbit and launches Glory, NPP, and Aquarius; and
  • Proceeds toward completion and launch of remaining foundational missions: LDCM (6/13) and GPM (7/13).

Closing the new frontier

Washington Post – By Charles Krauthammer

“We have an agreement until 2012 that Russia will be responsible for this,” says Anatoly Perminov, head of the Russian space agency, about ferrying astronauts from other countries into low-Earth orbit. “But after that? Excuse me, but the prices should be absolutely different then!”

The Russians may be new at capitalism, but they know how it works. When you have a monopoly, you charge monopoly prices. Within months, Russia will have a monopoly on rides into space.

By the end of this year, there will be no shuttle, no U.S. manned space program, no way for us to get into space. We’re not talking about Mars or the moon here. We’re talking about low-Earth orbit, which the United States has dominated for nearly half a century and from which it is now retiring with nary a whimper.

Our absence from low-Earth orbit was meant to last a few years, the interval between the retirement of the fatally fragile space shuttle and its replacement with the Constellation program (Ares booster, Orion capsule, Altair lunar lander) to take astronauts more cheaply and safely back to space.

But the Obama 2011 budget kills Constellation. Instead, we shall have nothing. For the first time since John Glenn flew in 1962, the United States will have no access of its own for humans into space — and no prospect of getting there in the foreseeable future.

Of course, the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will be turned over to the private sector, while NASA’s efforts will be directed toward landing on Mars.

This is nonsense. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But they cannot do it. It’s too expensive. It’s too experimental. And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high.

Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative “clean energy.” Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration.

As for Mars, more nonsense. Mars is just too far away. And how do you get there without the stepping stones of Ares and Orion? If we can’t afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon, how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles?

To say nothing of the effects of long-term weightlessness, of long-term cosmic ray exposure, and of the intolerable risk to astronaut safety involved in any Mars trip — six months of contingencies vs. three days for a moon trip.

Of course, the whole Mars project as substitute for the moon is simply a ruse. It’s like the classic bait-and-switch for high-tech military spending: Kill the doable in the name of some distant sophisticated alternative, which either never gets developed or is simply killed later in the name of yet another, even more sophisticated alternative of the further future. A classic example is the B-1 bomber, which was canceled in the 1970s in favor of the over-the-horizon B-2 stealth bomber, which was then killed in the 1990s after a production run of only 21 (instead of 132) in the name of post-Cold War obsolescence.

Moreover, there is the question of seriousness. When John F. Kennedy pledged to go to the moon, he meant it. He had an intense personal commitment to the enterprise. He delivered speeches remembered to this day. He dedicated astronomical sums to make it happen.

At the peak of the Apollo program, NASA was consuming almost 4 percent of the federal budget, which in terms of the 2011 budget is about $150 billion. Today the manned space program will die for want of $3 billion a year — 1/300th of last year’s stimulus package with its endless make-work projects that will leave not a trace on the national consciousness.

As for President Obama’s commitment to beyond-lunar space: Has he given a single speech, devoted an iota of political capital to it?

Obama’s NASA budget perfectly captures the difference in spirit between Kennedy’s liberalism and Obama’s. Kennedy’s was an expansive, bold, outward-looking summons. Obama’s is a constricted, inward-looking call to retreat.

Fifty years ago, Kennedy opened the New Frontier. Obama has just shut it.

Obama’s Move To End Constellation Prompts Industrial Base Questions

Space News – By Amy Klamper

WASHINGTON — Industry advocates are voicing concern with U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to cancel NASA’s Moon-bound Constellation program and the threat it poses to America’s aerospace work force and U.S. strategic missile arsenals, but Defense Department officials said the two agencies are forging a plan to sustain the nation’s solid-rocket motor industrial base.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) is among those railing against Obama’s proposal to scrap NASA’s plan to replace its space shuttle fleet with new rockets and spacecraft in favor of relying on commercial crew taxis to get astronauts to the international space station and back.

“This is not money-saving. This is having some kind of half-baked scheme that we can commercialize this,” said Bishop, whose district is home to ATK Space Systems, the Magna, Utah-based solid-rocket motor manufacturer that is building the first stage of Constellation’s Ares 1 rocket and major subsystems for its launch abort system. ATK executives told investors Feb. 4 that canceling Ares 1 would cost the company $650 million in contract backlog.

While Bishop’s congressional district stands to lose 2,000 jobs under Obama’s proposal, the outspoken U.S. missile defense proponent said there is more at stake than northern Utah’s employment outlook. Shutting down Constellation, he said, threatens the nation’s ability to produce solid-rocket motors needed for ballistic missiles.

“It’s not a spigot you can turn on and off,” Bishop said in a Feb. 9 interview. “Once they’re out the door and in the unemployment lines, they’re not coming back.”

ATK and Sacramento, Calif.-based Aerojet are the only U.S. companies producing large solid-rocket motors for space launchers and strategic missiles.

Gary Payton, a retired military astronaut and former senior NASA official who serves as U.S. Air Force deputy under secretary for space programs, told reporters Feb. 4 the service was still assessing the industrial base impacts of canceling Constellation.

“We share an industrial base with NASA — on solids, liquids, range infrastructure and a work force,” he said during a media roundtable here organized by the Space Foundation. “So, with the cancellation of the Constellation program … we have got a lot of work to do with NASA to figure out how to maintain a minimum industrial base on liquid-rocket engines and solid-rocket motors.”…]

Related Links:

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearings Challenges and Opportunities in the NASA FY 2011 Budget Proposal

FY 2011 Budget
› FY 2011 Budget Overview (387 Kb PDF)
› Administrator Bolden’s Statement (68 Kb)
› Deputy Administrator’s Remarks at the OSTP Budget Announcement (68 Kb)
› Office of Management and Budget: FY 2011 NASA Fact Sheet→
› NASA Budget Details From OMB→
› Joint Statement From NASA Administrator Bolden and John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy (112 Kb PDF)
› Joint NASA-OSTP Factsheet (70 Kb PDF)

Final Report: Review of U.S.Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (PDF (157 Pages)

Huffington Post (Bill Richardson): Commercial Spaceflight: Creating 21st Century Jobs

Wash Times: GINGRICH & WALKER: Obama’s brave reboot for NASA

CNNi Report: Impeach Obama Save NASA Sign @ 1 of busiest Intersections in Houston

Denver Bus News: NASA could be rocketing to United Launch Alliance’s sweet spot

CF News: Congressman: Obama’s NASA Shakeup Breaks The Law

The Hill: Space start-ups see dollar signs in Obama’s NASA overhaul

Judicial Watch: NASA To Focus On Muslim Outreach

Associated Content: Obama’s Space Plan – a Conservative Argument

Orlando Sentinel: Organized labor attacks Obama’s space plan

Aviation Week: NASA Plan Falls Flat In Congress

Flopping Aces: Obama Plan to Kill NASA Rockets Will Kill 23,000 Florida Jobs

WSJ: Space Pioneer Burt Rutan Blasts NASA Plan

Knox News: Locals dismayed by space cuts

AFO: Scientist eyes 39-day voyage to Mars

American Spectator: Climategate: This Time It’s NASA

NASA Spaceflight: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV


National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(In millions of dollars)
2010 2011
Discretionary Budget Authority:
Science ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 4,503 4,469 5,006
Exploration …………………………………………………………………………………… 3,505 3,746 4,263
Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology ……………………………. 500 501 1,152
Space Operations …………………………………………………………………………. 5,765 6,147 4,888
Education …………………………………………………………………………………….. 169 183 146
Cross Agency Support …………………………………………………………………… 3,306 3,194 3,111
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration …………….. — 448 397
Inspector General …………………………………………………………………………. 34 36 37
Total, Discretionary budget authority …………………………………………………….. 17,782 18,724 19,000
Budget authority from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act …………….. 1,002 — —
Total, Discretionary outlays ………………………………………………………………….. 19,138 18,347 17,694
Memorandum: Outlays from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ……. 37 790 183
Mandatory Outlays:
All Other General Funds and Proprietary Receipts ……………………………. –6 –15 –15
Undistributed Intragovernmental Payments and Receivables ………………. –2 — —
Science, Space, and Technology Education Trust Fund ……………………… 1 1 1
Total, Mandatory outlays ……………………………………………………………………… –7 –14 –14
Total, Outlays …………………………………………………………………………………….. 19,131 18,333 17,680

Ambrose: Saluting our tea party saviors

Scripps Howard News Service – By JAY AMBROSE

Like a hero rescuing a damsel tied up and lying on the railroad tracks as a train approaches, the tea party movement has been trying to save America from runaway leftism. But this hero, instead of being applauded, is taking it on the chin from critics who will invent any calumny and revise any truth to make their case.

The movement consists of ignoramuses, it’s said. It’s a tool of the Republican party, some contend. The comedian Bill Maher, who thinks all Americans are stupid, calls it a cult. Its lineage is traced by a Prospect magazine article to Joe McCarthy and George Wallace. We’ve now had a tea party terrorist, we’re informed. Some critics point to kooks in the party and others to haters, and at the end of the day, we are all left to shudder in fear of this dreadful thing.

First, of course, it’s true that any movement with millions of followers will have some oddballs and worse in the mix. But anyone who has ventured to a rally or paid close attention to the speeches knows the tea party fringe does not come close to summing up the whole, that there is nothing racist in its rhetoric or accusatory in a McCarthy style.

A CNN poll tells us those involved are middle class, mostly middle aged or beyond and that 75 percent are college-educated. These are not uninformed citizens in pursuit of dingbat policies, but people mostly worried about a killer debt, President Obama’s spendathon tactics to resolve the recession and a health plan that would be unaffordable while giving us a society ever more run by Big Brother in D.C.

Most ‘tea party’ followers are baby boomers reliving the ’60s

LA Times Opinion – By Jim Spencer and Curtis Ellis, February 24, 2010

A poll debunks assumptions about the movement, showing that it’s largely middle-class, college-educated, white and male.

Oceans of ink, terabytes of blog space and an eternity of television time have been devoted to the latest object of media fascination, the “tea party” movement. Now (finally!), a poll conducted by CNN gives us some hard data on the Tea Party Nation.

Neither “average Americans,” as they like to portray themselves, nor trailer-park “Deliverance” throwbacks, as their lefty detractors would have us believe, tea partyers are more highly educated and wealthier than the rest of America. Nearly 75% are college educated, and two-thirds earn more than $50,000.

More likely to be white and male than the general population, tea partyers also skew toward middle age or older. That’s the tell. Most came of age in the 1960s, an era distinguished by widespread disrespect for government. In their wonder years, they learned that politics was about protesting the Establishment and shouting down the Man. No wonder they’re doing that now.

Look closely at the tea partyer and what you see is a famil- iar American genus: a solidly middle-class, college-educated boomer, endowed by his creator with possessions, opinions and certain inalienable rights, the most important of which is the right to make sure you hear what he has to say.

The tea party is a harbinger of midlife crisis, not political crisis. For men of a certain age, it offers a counterculture experience familiar from adolescence — underground radio, esoteric tracts, consciousness-raising teach-ins and rallies replete with extroverted behavior to shock the squares — all paid for with ample cash.

The partyers are essentially replaying the ’60s protest paradigm. (We’re aging boomers ourselves, so we know it when we see it.) They fancy themselves the vanguard of a revolution, when in fact they are typical self-absorbed, privileged children used to having their way — now — and uninhibited about complaining loudly when they don’t. It’s the same demographic Spiro Agnew called “an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

In a flashback of “turn on, tune in, drop out,” the partyers reject mainstream culture, don the equivalent of Che T-shirts that say “Don’t Tread on Me,” and join sects with trippy names like Oath Keepers, Patriotic Resistance and Freedom Force. Instead of getting themselves “back to the garden,” they get off the grid and, like the Bill Ayers crew, indulge in fantasies about armed rebellion against the establishment.

But the (often-overlooked) truth about the ’60s is that the great accomplishments we associate with the era — civil rights, putting a man on the moon — were made not by boomers but by the generation born before World War II, which accepted shared sacrifice and saw it as an expression of their belief in duty, honor and country, not as socialism.

At Woodstock, Haight-Ashbury and the marches on Washington, the boomers socialized rather than sacrificed. They made great theater, and the media couldn’t resist them. It still can’t.

The tea partyers’ pictures and sound bites are so good, no one cares that their math doesn’t add up: Cut taxes and the deficit but keep your hands off my Medicare; do something about jobs but don’t increase spending. Everyone understands it’s about something deeper.

Ah, tea partyer, we know ye well. One of your signs says “Listen to ME!” That’s all that’s ever really mattered — the original “me generation” grabbing the spotlight and the world’s attention by whatever means necessary. The rest, whether beads, bell bottoms or birther slogans, is just a means to the same end.

Jim Spencer and Curtis Ellis are Democratic political consultants based in Boston and New York, respectively.

Who are the Tea Party activists?

CNN Polling Center

Washington (CNN) — Activists in the Tea Party movement tend to be male, rural, upscale, and overwhelmingly conservative, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday also indicates that Tea Party activists would vote overwhelmingly Republican in a two-party race for Congress. The party’s GOP leanings, the poll suggests, may pose a problem for the Tea Party movement if it tries to turn itself into a third party to compete with the two major parties in this year’s general election.

“If the Tea Party runs its own candidates for U.S. House, virtually every vote the Tea Party candidate gets would be siphoned from the GOP candidate, potentially allowing the Democrats to win in districts that they might have otherwise lost,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “While the concept of an independent third party is extremely popular, most Americans, including most Tea Party supporters, don’t favor a third party that would result in a winner who disagrees with them on most major issues.”

According to the survey, roughly 11 percent of all Americans say they have actively supported the Tea Party movement, either by donating money, attending a rally, or taking some other active step to support the movement. Of this core group of Tea Party activists, 6 of 10 are male and half live in rural areas.

Nearly three-quarters of Tea Party activists attended college, compared to 54 percent of all Americans, and more than 3 in 4 call themselves conservatives.

“Keep in mind that this is a pretty small sample of Tea Party activists,” Holland said. “But even taking that into account, the demographic gaps that the poll finds between those activists and the general public on gender, education, income, ideology, and voting behavior appear to be significant differences.”

The poll indicates that about 24 percent of the public generally favors the Tea Party movement but has not taken any actions such as donating money or attending a rally. Adding in the 11 percent who say they are active, a total of 35 percent could be described as Tea Party supporters. That larger group is also predominantly male, higher-income, and conservative.

Some 45 percent of all Americans say they don’t know enough about the Tea Party to have a view of the movement; 1 in 5 say they oppose the Tea Party…

The Tea Party: “What’s In A Name?”

Huffington Post – Richard Greener Award-winning essayist

Shakespeare’s Juliet asks a vital question, especially for those with political ambitions and most especially for those easily spurred on by rants on cable TV. So it is that The Tea Party organizers are not the first people to take an unfortunate and inappropriate name for themselves. Everybody makes mistakes. Who decided to name a Canadian construction scaffolding company, “Mammoth Erections?” Or the gas station in Ohio that’s named, “Pee Pee Gas?” And how in the world did anyone ever name a Texas restaurant, “Fuk Mi Sushi Bar?”

So what were the people behind The Tea Party movement thinking when they choose their name? Yes, I know about the crazy guy on cable, but didn’t The Boston Tea Party also inspire them? Whatever their impetus, they made a big mistake. While they aren’t the first to make such an error, they are probably the most ignorant.

By calling themselves The Tea Party they felt they were aligning themselves with a popular, anti-government, anti-tax movement. The modern Tea Party obviously relished this closeness, this arm-in-arm association with great American patriots like John Hancock and John Adams. After all, hadn’t today’s Tea Party founders been taught that the original Boston Tea Party was a seminal event in the formation of this country?

American History is taught to all children from the youngest possible age. A simple look turns up books like “The Boston Tea Party” by Pamela Duncan Edwards with illustrations by Henry Cole. This book, like so many others on this subject, is written especially for youngsters, in this case for “ages 4-8”. At that age these kids are hardly in pre-school, yet they’re already getting their History.

Of course, the Edwards/Cole book presents The Boston Tea Party as a tax revolt, a spontaneous uprising by over-taxed, oppressed and unrepresented innocent colonists. Kids learn that the event was an activist, freedom seeking popular uprising, a political movement with deep roots in the colonial community. It was a precursor to an historic, democratic revolution. How admirable.

With this sort of History already in their minds, as soon as our children are old enough to be in school, The Boston Tea Party is right there in their curriculum. There are elementary, middle school and high school lesson plans aplenty. If you’re at all concerned about academic credibility and you are looking for a non-profit, academically credentialed lesson plan try the one offered by The National Endowment For The Humanities.

It’s a full-scale program of three 45-minute classes and it too presents The Boston Tea Party as a direct action by American colonists against the oppressive taxation imposed upon them by a distant English (German speaking) King and an uncaring foreign Parliament, before whom of course these same colonists had no representation. Hence the ideological battle cry of American independence: “No taxation without representation!” From early childhood we’re told this all began with the brave colonists who stood up to the biggest power in the world at The Boston Tea Party.

Who wouldn’t want to be a member of something called The Tea Party? And – despite its rather widely recognized sexual reference – who wouldn’t rejoice in being called a “Teabagger”? Pity the Tea Party organizers. Not the first maybe, but maybe the most ignorant. What if they knew the truth about The Boston Tea Party? What if they had any inkling at all about the other thing?

What is the truth? Yes, The Boston Tea Party was a reaction to The Tax Act of 1773. But, this Act did not place additional taxes on tea being sold to the colonists. The Act did not make tea in Boston or New York or Philadelphia or even in Natchez more expensive. It did just the opposite. After years of putting higher and higher taxes on everything including tea, the English Parliament finally relented in 1773 and eliminated all but the smallest levy against tea sold to the American colonies.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of rebellion – no doubt about that. Today it would instantly and unanimously be reviled and labeled a terrorist action. But, unlikely as it may seem, it was an action taken against lower taxes. For the Bostonians, if tea was now cheaper to buy why would the colonists be against it? Why protest cheaper tea?

The truth is – regular colonists did not carry out The Boston Tea Party. It was not the man on the street. Not Joe the Colonist. Quite the opposite. There were those in Boston and elsewhere throughout the colonies who were against cheap tea.

No, The Boston Tea Party wasn’t organized by oppressed and over-taxed, unrepresented colonists. Instead The Boston Tea Party was a special interest political action organized and led by those most hurt by the British Tax Act of 1773 – tea smugglers…

Tea Party aims to harness steam at convention


Sarah Palin is keynote speaker for event plagued by controversy, infighting

DALLAS – Some activists headed for the first national Tea Party convention say they’re hoping to transform the raucous, disjointed movement into a political machine that can get out the vote for candidates who favor limited government.

The convention opens Friday to take aim at all that tea partiers say is wrong with Washington, and Sarah Palin has been enlisted to help lead the charge.

The movement grabbed headlines last year with often highly charged protests against President Barack Obama’s health care reform drive, his $787 billion economic stimulus package and other aspects of his agenda.

It takes its name from the historic protest against British taxation, the Boston Tea Party, one of the triggers of the American revolution against colonial rule.

Organization for the convention in Nashville has been plagued by in-fighting, pullouts and criticism of an attendance cost of more than $500 and a glitzy dinner that evokes Wall Street rather than Main Street.

It also brings together activists who make for an awkward fit, mirroring wider divisions in a movement which seems united in little but its opposition to big government, especially under Obama’s Democrats.

Conservatives ascribe the movement to grass-roots frustration with the big spending ways of both Democrats and Republicans. Liberals counter that it is a Republican Party or corporate front.

“Some have tried to portray this movement as a commercial endeavor rather than the grassroots uprising that it is. Those who do so don’t understand the frustration everyday Americans feel when they see their government mortgaging their children’s future with reckless spending,” Palin wrote in an opinion published on Wednesday in USA Today.

Palin said she will donate her fee as keynote speaker at the convention to the cause and its candidates.

There is no reliable estimate of the movement’s nationwide numbers though strands of it are coming together under different umbrellas such as the National Tea Party Coalition.

Room to grow
Some want it to grow from boisterous agitation to a political machine that can get out the vote for candidates who subscribe to its view of limited government.

Activists interviewed by Reuters said they were targeting Democrats made vulnerable by Obama’s sinking popularity. All 435 seats of the House of Representatives and more than a third of the 100 Senate seats are up for grabs in November.

In the House, Colorado Democrat Besty Markey is frequently cited as a target while in Arkansas tea partiers in neighboring Texas have signaled their desire to send volunteers to campaign against Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election campaign.

They have said they may try to influence Democratic contests by pushing for conservatives within the party to win nominations to run for state or national offices. Activists have said they have their eye on the race in Connecticut to replace retiring Democratic senator Chris Dodd.

“What we are working to do is engage people in the process and we are actively recruiting people that have this limited government view. At the same time we are working on training them up to effect political change,” said Ken Emanuelson, who is on the steering committee of the Dallas Tea Party.

The Dallas group is organizing local activists by their zip or postal codes enabling them to their work such as voter registration drives in their own backyards.

Paul McGovern, 62, a small businessman in Irving, Texas, who is a volunteer with his local Tea Party group, said he saw the benefits of taking things to the next stage by organizing politically in many ways including on-line.

“Obama used the Internet to get elected but now it’s his own worst enemy because we’ll use it,” he said on the sidelines of a tea party leadership conference last weekend in Dallas.

The tea party movement has drawn a mixed bag of what critics might call malcontents, and such a structured approach may grate with libertarians among the faithful.

“It is inherently difficult to organize libertarians, which most of the Tea Partiers are,” said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

Doers vs. Undoers

Townhall – by Michael Gerson

WASHINGTON — Such is the zeal in portions of the tea party right that it is not enough to sweep out living members of the establishment such as John McCain. A brisk, ideological scrubbing must be applied to history as well.

So Glenn Beck, speaking recently at the Conservative Political Action Conference identified a great enemy of human freedom as … Teddy Roosevelt. Beck highlighted this damning Roosevelt quote: “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used.”

Ah, you don’t discern the scandal in this statement? Look closer. “This is not our founders’ idea of America,” explains Beck. “And this is the cancer that’s eating at America. It is big government — it’s a socialist utopia.” Evidently, real conservatives defend wealth that is dishonorably gained and then wasted.

The problem with America, apparently, is not just the Great Society or even the New Deal; it is the Square Deal. Or maybe Beck is just being too timid. Real, hairy-chested libertarians pin the blame on Abraham Lincoln, who centralized federal power at the expense of the states to pursue an unnecessary war — a view that Ron Paul, the winner of the CPAC straw poll, has endorsed.

Lincoln doesn’t need defenders against accusations of tyranny — the mere charge is enough to diagnose some sad ideological disorder. But the Rough Rider also does not deserve such roughing up.

TR picked a number of fights with conservative Republicans, fight-picking being his favorite sport. But Roosevelt hated socialism. “It would spell sheer destruction,” he said. “It would produce grosser wrong and outrage, fouler immorality, than any existing system.” Modern corporate capitalism, he believed, was inevitable, even admirable. But he also believed that overly centralized and unaccountable power in a capitalist system creates destructive clashes of labor and capital, rich and poor. So he busted monopolistic trusts, imposed health standards on filthy meat-packing plants and promoted a more professional, merit-based civil service.

Roosevelt’s progressivism could sound a bit like socialism. When courts struck down laws allowing strikes and limiting maximum work hours, Roosevelt warned, “If the spirit which lies behind these … decisions obtained in all the actions of the … courts, we should not only have a revolution, but it would be absolutely necessary to have a revolution because the condition of the worker would become intolerable.”

But it was Roosevelt’s political purpose to avoid a revolution. He sought to preserve the market system by regulating its health, safety and fairness. This is not laissez faire, but it is an authentic conservative tradition — the use of incremental reform to diffuse radicalism. And few today would wish to return to 19th-century labor, health and antitrust standards.

All those few, however, seemed to be in attendance at CPAC, determined to sharpen an ideological debate. In the name of constitutional purity, they propose a great undoing. Not just the undoing of Obamaism. Undo Medicare and Social Security. Undo the expansive American global commitments that proceeded from World War II and the Cold War. Undo progressive-era economic regulations. Undo the executive power grab that preserved the union. Undo it all — until America is left with a government appropriate to an isolated, 18th-century farming republic.

This is a proposal for time travel, not a policy agenda. The federal government could not shed these accumulated responsibilities without massive suffering and global instability — a decidedly radical, unconservative approach to governing.

The alternative remains a reform conservatism, of which Teddy Roosevelt is a distinguished ancestor. Since the repeal of modernity is not an option, make modern institutions work. Update Medicare and Social Security to encourage market choices and ownership. Bust the public education trust with charters and competition. Diffuse radicalism with reform.

The debate between conservative doers and undoers is ideologically interesting, but in the political realm there is little debate. A candidate running recently in Virginia, New Jersey or Massachusetts on a Beck/Paul platform would have duplicated Ron Paul’s results during his 1988 presidential run. (Paul gained less than one half of 1 percent of the vote.) All the Republican winners in these states promised the reform of government, not its abolition.

But I fear that the undoers may resemble Teddy Roosevelt in one disturbing aspect. This I have against the Rough Rider: In the 1912 election, he betrayed his friend, William H. Taft, and his party by running as a third-party candidate. In his hubris, TR believed that neither party met his own exacting standards of purity. The attitude is familiar today.

Related Previous Posts:

Washington DC 9/12 Protest: Revolution Brewing From Sea To Shining Sea

Related Links:

Official Home of the American Tea Party Movement: Tea Party Patriots


The Insurgents Emerge

Once dismissed as an uprising on the fringe, the Tea Party movement has grown into a formidable political presence. This series looks at key players and the potential impact on policy and the midterms.

Sarah Palin: Top Tea Partier?
Democrats Approach Tea Parties With Caution
Cook: Health Care Is Obama’s Iraq
10 Races Where The Tea Party Movement Could Make A Difference
Davis: GOP Can’t Ignore Tea Party Movement
Pence: Republicans And The Tea Party
Grover Norquist On Tea And Taxes
12 Tea Party Players To Watch
Five Ways It Could Fail
The Tea Parties’ Populist Blend
Ron Paul: ‘It’s The Failure Of Government’
Brown’s Campaign Buoyed By Tea Party
Doug Hoffman: GOP, Tea Party Must Work Together
Too Big To Fail?

New America Media: Blowing off Tea Baggers as Racist Misses the Point

Oregon Commentator Blog: The Best Sweeteners of Tea

CMC Forum: The Tea Party Panic

Breitbart TV: Obama’s ‘BFF’ Likes Idea of Simple Booklets to Educate ‘Typical’ Tea Partiers

Wash Post: Coffee Party activists say their civic brew’s a tastier choice than Tea Party’s

SF Weekly: Letter to the Media: Stop Coddling Tea-Party Crazies

Examiner (Atlanta): Tea party movement fights political push back by Clinton machine

Human Events: Tea Party Identity Theft?

CNN: Tea Party activists to mark one year anniversary


“For years, I’ve been an admirer of John McCain,” said Romney in a statement. “Then we became competitors. Today, I’m proud to call him my friend.”

Mitt Romney Washington Post

John McCain Unveils New Branding Initiative by OVO

OVO Launches New Branding for Former Presidential Candidate John McCain’s Senate Race.

Phoenix, AZ (PRWEB) February 23, 2010 — OVO, a leading branding consultancy, today announced the launch of the new John McCain brand identity and Web site.

Senator McCain’s new branding capitalizes on his widespread name recognition, which affords him, unlike many candidates, to speak less about himself and more about national and state-level issues relevant to Arizona residents. The Web site in particular provides a forum for such discourse.

“We crafted the entire brand to assist visually in developing a meaningful conversation between Senator McCain and the people of Arizona,” stated OVO principal partner, Ryan Durant. “During the presidential campaign, many didn’t feel as though the large-scale format emphasized the ‘town hall’ approach to politics for which McCain is so well known. The information architecture and design of the new Web site and brand identity provide for him a ‘virtual town hall’ so-to-speak.”

Included in the new Web site is a prominent blog where “both sides” of the conversation are heard, timely issues are discussed, and there is even a wall of supporter videos, where individuals may produce and send in their own videos for inclusion.

“Political campaign marketing has traditionally been done exclusively by political marketers…” remarked OVO partner, Kyle Hildebrant. “Bringing in a branding company like OVO with a distinctly non-political approach was key to the rebranding effort—and a brave move. Credit Internet director, Corey Vale and the entire McCain staff. Collectively, we managed to come to a solution that is appropriate, but well crafted and distinctive. The overwhelmingly positive feedback we’ve received thus far is ‘proof of concept.’”

Durant added, “The political world had better take note of what the business world has known for years: The presentation of a message is as critical to its reception and resonance as the content itself.”

About OVO
OVO is a branding consultancy specializing in naming, visual identity and integrated marketing for businesses seeking to launch, grow or reinvent themselves. Recognized for their deep knowledge of brand positioning and a true advisory approach to client service, OVO provides branding from concept to implementation for clients in a broad range of industries. The agency’s strategic branding expertise spans disciplines from brand management, to naming, visual identity, advertising, collateral and interactive design. OVO’s founding philosophy is centered on design as a functional, relevant, compelling and clear cornerstone of serious brands—and ultimately “where brands are born”.For more information visit:

A closer look at McCain’s remarks on financial bailout

AZ Central – Wednesday, February 24, 2010

There’s a lot of buzz in Washington, D.C., over The Arizona Republic’s story on Monday reporting what U.S. Sen. John McCain said during a meeting with the newspaper’s editorial board. Just for the record, here is a transcription of McCain’s taped comments in response to a question about the bailout of the country’s financial system. Below the transcript are further comments from McCain in a brief telephone interview Wednesday morning; he sought to clarify what he had said at the meeting.

At the editorial board meeting:

Question: “Senator, was TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) a mistake, and in retrospect, would there have been a better way to deal with the financial conditions at the time?”

McCain: “Thanks for asking the question. The President of the United States called me up on the phone, I was on the campaign trail, and said, ‘Country and the world is on the verge of financial collapse. I need you to come back and help.’ And, I don’t know of any American, that when the president calls you and tells you something like that, that you don’t respond. And I came back and I tried to sit down and work with Republicans and say, ‘What can we do?’

“The financial bailout in itself, I think, was an idea that we had to employ if we were going to stop the financial collapse. But I was assured by (Federal Reserve Chairman Ben) Bernanke and (then-Treasury Secretary Henry) Paulson that the effort would be devoted to the cause of the fiscal crisis, which was the housing meltdown. That would be, the object would be, to stabilize home values. Obviously, that didn’t happen. They decided to stabilize the Wall Street institutions, bail out AIG, bail out Chrysler, bail out General Motors, and do things that — and GMAC, and Fanny and Freddie, of course, are still hemorrhaging money in incredible fashion.

“In my view, what they figured was that if they stabilized Wall Street, then Main Street — I guess it was trickle-down economics — that therefore Main Street would be fine. Well, we know what happened. Wall Street was fine and used our money, and now they’re making bonuses and obscene profits, etc. Meanwhile, the commercial banks: Estimates are that 300 of them will go — they are the lenders, they are the ones that make home loans — that 300 of them are going to go under this year. Meanwhile, the commercial real estate shoe has not dropped.

“So, I believe we had to take action. I believe the wrong action was taken. And people sometimes confuse that with the stimulus package. We had an alternative stimulus package, Republicans. I proposed it. $400 billion. That’s not chicken feed anywhere. But it had to do with small businesses, tax credits, with aid to small businesses in America, and to stabilize the home ownership situation. So I think something had to be done because the world’s financial system was on the verge of collapse. Any economist, liberal or conservative, would agree with that. The action they took, I don’t agree with.”

Interview on Wednesday:
The senator said his comments at the editorial board meeting gave the wrong impression that President Bush had asked him to return to Washington during the 2008 campaign to help address the financial crisis.

“It appears I gave that impression. I apologize for doing so,” he said.

“All I can say is, I have consistently said I came back because the president told me we were in a fiscal meltdown. It was my own decision. I apologize for my mischaracterization of it at the ed board. It was just a mistake.”

In addition, McCain said a blog has been posted to his “McCain 2010” Web site that supports his statements about being misled about the financial bailout. The post is entitled, “Senator John McCain & TARP: The Whole Story.”

McCain Team Hits Hayworth’s “Birther” Comments

Hotline On Call: By Reid Wilson

Ex-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R) stayed atop the conservative mind with a radio show on the biggest conservative talk station in Phoenix. But the show is proving a treasure trove of oppo research for his rival, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

McCain’s camp is taking a new angle on Hayworth, accusing him of being a birther for comments Hayworth made during his radio career. In a new clip, from July ’09, Hayworth says “questions continue” about Obama’s birth certificate.

“Equal justice under law: Doesn’t that include this president and his birth certificate?” Hayworth asked on the July 15 show, according to a recording the McCain campaign is sending to reporters.

“Mr. Hayworth can run from his record, but he can’t hide,” McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers said of the clip. “We welcome Mr. Hayworth attempting to shift positions on this issue, but he can’t obscure his real record as he backtracks. Facts are stubborn things, JD.”

McCain has been running radio ads critical of Hayworth’s record on spending, an indication, Hayworth told Hotline OnCall, that McCain is in “panic” mode. McCain has also distributed talking points on Hayworth’s record to friendly GOPers in AZ, another sign he’s taking Hayworth’s challenge seriously.

Hayworth’s team dismisses the controversy over his birther comments, attributing them to a need to stir up controversy on the radio.

“As a talk show host, it was J.D.’s job to provoke discussion, including on this issue since people were calling in about it,” said Jason Rose, Hayworth’s senior advisor. “Questions were asked when that topic was in the news. Those questions have been answered to the satisfaction of jd and most of america. The issue is closed.”

Rose also pointed to comments attributed to McCain in “Game Change,” a best-seller about the ’08 campaign in which the GOP nominee lambasts his fellow GOPers. “Frankly, I think Senator McCain’s birthing of profane and outrageous comments about Republicans in ‘Game Change’ are far more interesting,” Rose said.

The battle between McCain and Hayworth is shaping up to be a contest between the GOP establishment and grassroots conservatives. Hayworth has spent the early part of his campaign attending Tea Party rallies, while McCain has collected endorsements from influential conservatives and GOPers like Grover Norquist, Sarah Palin and Bill Bennett.

McCain also won backing from ex-rival/ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R), who called McCain essential to the Senate in a press release today.

“It’s hard to imagine the United States Senate without John McCain, especially in the critical times we find ourselves in, with double-digit unemployment, a mountain of debt imperiling future generations and a global terrorist threat from jihadists bent on destroying our very way of life,” Romney said in a press release today. “It is times like these that we look to leaders of character.”

RUSH:  Well, a lot of people are not gonna understand the point.  A lot of people are going to think I’m copping out here and so forth, which I’m not doing.  Look, I know everybody talks about me and how I do it. There’s a reason for that, and I have to be mindful of the position I occupy here, and I start commenting on other people that do this… You people have listened for a long time know I don’t do it.  They all comment about me but I don’t want to get distracted by those kinds of things.  But I will tell you something.  This day, when I got up and saw some things that happened and said, “Okay, yesterday, Obama committing suicide with his health care proposal,” this is suicide Tuesday.  I do not understand what Mitt Romney is doing, endorsing McCain.  The era of McCain is over!  And Scott Brown s voting for the jobs bill, this meager little $15 billion jobs bill? (sigh)

Folks, I hate to tell you this, but if you’ll go back and if you will review the tapes, the transcripts of this program, you will see. You will not find me being a giant, big-time, pedal-to-the-metal supporter of Scott Brown.  We’re talking about a Massachusetts Republican.  Now, I know he’s opposed health care, and we gotta continue to support him on that, and he’s opposed to cap and trade, and he hasn’t changed his mind. In fact there’s a story: “Scott Brown Fumes Over the New Health Care Plan.”  He wants no part of it.  But he did go along with this jobs bill, and he did say, “I hope my vote today is a strong step towards restoring bipartisanship in Washington.”  I must tell you, I’m not surprised by this.  It’s going to be a waste of energy if you get all bent out of shape and angry about it. Feel free to do it if you want to, but this is not that big a surprise.  Especially when you look. There are five other Republicans that join this thing, the usual suspects. You had Susan Collins voting for it and you had Olympia Snowe, because it says “jobs” on it.  It’s not a jobs bill on it but it says “jobs” on it and everybody wants jobs.  There’s not enough “laser-like focus” on jobs.  The problem is, this isn’t going to create any jobs but it’s gonna give all kinds of politicians the cover to say they support efforts to create jobs.  The only thing I would ask Scott Brown is: How do you say this, that he said at CPAC?

BROWN: My name is Scott Brown, and I’m the newly elected Republican senator from Massachusetts! (cheers and applause) Let me just say that one more time: I am the Republican Senator from Massachusetts. (cheers and applause)

BROWN: One Democrat said that, and I quote, there was “no way in hell a Republican was going to get elected to the seat once held by Ted Kennedy.” Well, here I am.

BROWN: For the big-government spenders I’m sure my election does not make them feel good at all, but for those who are interested in restoring the real checks and balances in Washington and bringing accountability and transparency back to our government, it feels wonderful.

RUSH: Now, he said that last Thursday. Yesterday he votes for the jobs bill and starts talking about wanting to restore “bipartisanship” in Washington. That’s not what got him elected. And he’s going to sit there and say at CPAC, “All the big government spenders, I’m sure my election doesn’t make ’em feel good.” I think they’re feeling pretty good right now on the jobs bill vote that he made. But again, I’m not spruced by it. He’s from Massachusetts. Folks, he is not a down-the-line conservative, and nobody ever said that he was. He’s a far sight better than Ted Kennedy. He’s a far sight better than having a Democrat in there. And he’s still makes a point here, this Boston Herald story: “Scott Brown Fumes Over Health Plan. … ‘If the Democrats try to ram their health-care bill through Congress using reconciliation, they are sending a dangerous signal to the American people that they will stop at nothing to raise our taxes, increase premiums and slash Medicare,’ said Brown spokesman Colin Reed in a statement.

“‘Using the nuclear option damages the concept of representative leadership and represents more of the politics-as-usual that voters have repeatedly rejected.’ While Brown’s office didn’t specifically reject Obama’s latest bill, there was no doubt Brown views the proposal as similar to earlier health-care plans backed by Democrats,” and then you have Mitt Romney endorsing McCain. Now, my little take here from little old me, is I think that Mitt Romney made a grave, grave error endorsing McCain. That’s not the future. I don’t know why he did it. (sigh) You know, after all, it was McCain joining forces with Huckabee that screwed Mitt in West Virginia and then later on down in Florida with Charlie Crist. So I think that was not wise. It was an error. I think Scott Brown made a mistake voting for the jobs bill. But, it is what it is. And this is why, folks, I don’t get close to these people. That’s why I don’t want ’em. They’re going to come and go, and I’m going to be here, so are all of us long after they come and go.


RUSH: All right, Mike, let’s head back here to the top of the audio sound bites. As I say, get my roster in order here. There we go.

All right, now, Scott Brown, folks, look, I predicted that this was going to happen, I predicted as much. I had a little hope that it was gonna take a little longer for Scott Brown to succumb to Potomac fever and all this bipartisan talk and so forth, but I tell you, I like Mitt Romney, but I think he’s risking his career over a guy, endorsing McCain, who is so out of step with what’s going on right now. McCain’s always conservative when he’s running for reelection in Arizona. The tea parties have produced a wave of conservatism that have swept Republicans-in-name-only aside. I understand Palin endorsing McCain. She’s got no choice. Loyalty, plus if she doesn’t the media will cream her, “Oh, he’s good enough to be president but you won’t endorse him to be Senator?” And it’s understandable Romney would endorse Brown, but I don’t understand Romney endorsing McCain. I just don’t think it’s going to fly. These endorsements are unnecessary. What is there to gain by this? Look, it’s unfortunate, but people are weeding themselves out of the process all the while engaging in this kind of behavior. So in one sense it has a cleansing aspect to it.

Bob in Hollywood, great to have you on the program, sir. Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh show.

CALLER: Yeah, hey, Rush. I’m a little upset. This Romney thing is news to me but the thing I was going to call about before, you know, this cloture vote, it’s a reminder that we cannot get too excited about the seats simply changes letters from D’s to R’s in November. You know, the GOP succumbing to any degree of what I would call McCainsian Regressive Syndrome is just poisoning to a conservative renaissance. Now, Scott Brown’s election may have driven this runaway truck into the gravel for the time being, but, buddy, we’ve gotta do an 18-point turn here, and it’s a long road back.

RUSH: That’s an excellent point, and I want to remind people of something. There is a conservative ascendancy out there and it is happening within the Republican Party, and that’s where it ought to remain, and that’s where the ascendancy should continue to grow. I want people to remember it took Ronald Reagan three times to get the Republican nomination. It took him three times, and over eight years to do it. Now, these kinds of things do not happen overnight, and they don’t happen just because there is a fervent, strong desire for it to happen. It has to happen because a bunch of people with the same principles and objectives aligning within the structure of, say, this Republican Party and taking it over, and if that doesn’t happen, all the rest of it is academic.

McCain vs. Hayworth: No Contest for Conservatives

Pajamas Media – By Andy Wickersham

In his Pajamas Media piece “Please, No More ‘Half-as-Much’ Republicans,” J. Robert Smith states that swapping out John McCain for J.D. Hayworth in the upcoming GOP senatorial primary in Arizona is a “nice bargain from a conservative’s viewpoint.”

It would certainly be that, and an analysis of the voting records of these two men from the Grand Canyon State via vote ratings from the American Conservative Union (ACU), National Journal, and the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) highlights just how good a bargain it would be.

Looking first at the ACU numbers, we see that Hayworth’s ACU lifetime rating of 98 is significantly higher than John McCain’s lifetime ACU average of 81. In fact, in John McCain’s 22 years in the Senate prior to last year, he was only able to equal or surpass Hayworth’s low-water mark of 88 (in ’03) three times (’94, ’95, and ‘96). What’s more, with the exception of 2003,  Hayworth voted with the ACU position at least 96 percent of the time every year he was in Congress — a feat that John McCain has only achieved once.

With respect to National Journal’s ratings, Hayworth’s average score for the 12 years he served in the House was 22 points higher than John McCain’s average rating over this same period (National Journal ratings are only available for McCain for this 12 year period, as he did not vote enough in ’07 or ’08 to receive a rating and scores are not available prior to ’95). To put this in perspective, this gap is greater than the 21-point margin in 2008 between Senators Sam Brownback and Arlen Specter. Additionally, just as it was with the ACU data, Hayworth’s least conservative year fairs very well against McCain’s average year. In fact, Hayworth’s least conservative score (78) is higher than any score John McCain has received from National Journal since 1995.

As for the ADA ratings, they too show that Hayworth is clearly the most conservative choice to represent Arizonans alongside Jon Kyl in the U.S. Senate. According to ADA statistics, McCain and Hayworth have voted against the liberal ADA position 85 and 96 percent of the time, respectively, over the course of their congressional careers.

However, as clear as this data shows the difference between these two men to be, the ideological gap between them is actually even greater, as the above analysis does not take into account that there are really two John McCains — the McCain of the late 80s and most of the 90s, and the oft-yielding maverick Republican that we have known since.

From 1987 when John McCain first entered the Senate through 1997 his average ACU rating was a respectably conservative 88, but from 1998 through 2008 his average score fell to a less than stellar 73. To put this in perspective, only four current Republican senators have a lifetime rating that is less conservative than McCain’s average rating over this latter period (Snowe – ME, Collins – ME, Voinovich – OH, and Murkowski – AK). And the clear distinction between these two periods is such that McCain’s least conservative result prior to 1998 of 80 has only been surpassed once since (an 81 in 2000)…

Arizona – -( John McCain has gone out of his way to earn the ire of conservatives and gun owners in his 20-plus years as a U.S. Senator from Arizona.

Perhaps his crowning legislative achievement was so-called campaign finance reform, or the McCain-Feingold law. This law put the muzzle on organizations such as GOA, prohibiting any broadcast advertisements within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election that even mention the name of a candidate for federal office.

Not surprisingly, there is frequently a flurry of activity in Congress in the months right before an election, as politicians try to ram bills through at the end of a session. Forbidding criticism of sitting legislators during these crucial times (although media corporations were exempt) made McCain’s bill the perfect “Incumbent Protection” act.

McCain’s bill prohibited the most important form of speech the Founding Fathers meant to protect with the First Amendment — political speech — so it was welcome news when the Supreme Court recently repudiated much of the McCain bill as an assault on liberty.

But it should not come as a surprise that McCain does not want voters hear about what he’s up to in Washington, because the same person who holds the First Amendment in contempt would also like to run the Second Amendment through a shredder.

John McCain may have begun as a pro-gun legislator, but when he decided to become a gun control “maverick,” he went all out.

Since his conversion to a gun control advocate over the last ten years, McCain has favored a ban on small and inexpensive handguns and considered a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons).

In what was his boldest move against American gun owners, however, McCain authored a bill to that could only have been designed to close down gun shows. In addition to regulating all private sales at gun shows, his bill would have placed onerous licensing requirements on gun show promoters and would essentially have registered the millions of people who attend gun shows. Under the burdens of the McCain bill, no promoter in the country would put on a gun show and, if they did, gun owners would likely not attend.

Thanks to McCain, the inaccurate and misleading phrase “gun show loophole” became a part of the anti-Second Amendment crowd’s lexicon.

The truth is, there is no gun show loophole; firearms transactions are conducted the same inside a gun show as they are anyplace else.

In 2000, McCain became a spokesman for a gun control organization (now defunct) called Americans for Gun Safety, a group that advocated licensing and registering all gun owners. The group ran radio and TV ads with McCain supporting ballot initiatives in Colorado and Oregon that would impose McCain’s favorite restrictions on gun shows.

These ads were a way for McCain to “stick it” to gun owners, after a gun show bill stalled in the Congress.

“I think that if the Congress won’t act, the least I can do is support the initiative in states where it’s on the ballot,” McCain said in an interview.

In 2001, the group ran advertisements in movie theaters featuring McCain urging people to keep their guns locked up “for the sake of the children.” In the ads, he greatly exaggerated the risks of children gaining access to firearms in the home, and at the same time completely ignored the danger of having guns locked away if they are needed to thwart a criminal attack.

After the 2001 terror attacks, when Gun Owners of America and tens of thousands of commercial airline pilots were pushing legislation to arm pilots as a defense against terrorism, McCain prepared an amendment that would have replaced “firearms” with “stun guns.” GOA pointed out at the time how stun guns would not be effective against the type of attacks that could occur in a cockpit.

John McCain may pretend to be pro-gun (especially in election years) but he has plunged his dagger deep into the backs of gun rights supporters. He may fancy himself as a “maverick” in shining armor, riding to rescue the American people, but all the while he has trampled the Bill of Rights underfoot.

Thankfully, this year gun owners have a choice. Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who was “A” rated by Gun Owners of America in his twelve years in the House of Representatives, is challenging McCain in the 2010 Republican primary.

J.D. respects the Constitution and understands that the Second Amendment was put there by the Founding Fathers to always ensure that the people would have the means to preserve their liberty.

During his time in the Congress, J.D. Hayworth did not vote one way in election years and another way when in nonelection years. J.D. consistently supported the Second Amendment, and that is just the type of leadership gun owners in Arizona will vote for in November.

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is proud to endorse J.D. Hayworth for U.S. Senate and urges gun owners and sportsmen from across America to help defeat anti-gunner McCain.

Please visit J.D. on the web at to make the most generous contribution possible. Working together, we can win this fight and gain a Second Amendment ally in the U.S. Senate.


Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

Gun Owners of America

Related Links:

Hayworth Endorsed by Phoenix Law Enforcement Association

Pawlenty Backs McCain in Senate Re-Election Campaign

Obama rebuffs McCain attack at summit: ‘The election is over.’

PR Web: National Tea Party Group Endorses J.D. Hayworth Against John McCain for Senate

WA Today: McCain’s wife in pro-gay movement

ALIPAC: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC Endorses JD Hayworth for U.S. Senate

News Blaze: 77% of Tea Party Supporters Back Hayworth Over McCain

Hot Air: Limbaugh: Romney’s endorsement of McCain is suicidal

Real Clear Politics (GRETA VAN SUSTEREN): Interview with Senator John McCain

Real Clear Politics (The Situation Room): Interview with J.D. Hayworth

HotAir: New McCain ad: J.D. Hayworth, Birther

Politico: McCain, Hayworth release dueling polls

Politico: J.D. Hayworth camp: John McCain in ‘desperation’

LA Times: Running against GOP establishment, Rubio, Hayworth find allies among conservative activists

NYT: Press in Tow, McCain’s Challenger Demands Debates

Associated Content: To John McCain Re: The Dietary Supplement Safety Act DSSA of 2010. S 3002 Leave Us Alone!

AZ Daily Star: State GOP looking to close its primary to independents

Yuma Sun: Sen. McCain campaigns in Yuma

The Missile Defense Agency

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is a research, development, and acquisition agency within the Department of Defense. Our workforce includes government civilians, military service members, and contractor personnel in multiple locations across the United States. We are focused on retaining and recruiting a dedicated workforce interested in supporting our national security.

As we develop, test, and field an integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), the MDA works closely with the Combatant Commanders (e.g. Pacific Command, Northern Command, etc.) who will rely on the system to protect the United States, our forward deployed forces, and our friends and allies from hostile ballistic missile attack. We work with the Combatant Commanders to ensure that we develop a robust BMDS technology and development program to address the challenges of an evolving threat. We are also steadily increasing our international cooperation by supporting mutual security interests in missile defense.

The MDA is committed to maximizing the mission assurance and cost effectiveness of our management and operations through continuous process improvement.

Our Mission

The Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) mission is to develop, test, and field an integrated, layered, ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) to defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight.

National Missile Defense Act

It is the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as is technologically possible, an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense.
— National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38 signed by President Clinton)

Four Focus Areas of Missile Defense

  1. Enhance missile defense to defend deployed forces, allies and friends against theater threats
  2. Continue a viable homeland defense against rogue state threats beyond 2030
  3. Prove missile defense works
  4. Develop technologies to hedge against future threat growth

MDA Strategic Goals

In order to achieve our mission, the MDA is dedicated to the following goals:

  1. Enhance missile defense to defend our deployed forces, allies, and friends against theater threats
  2. Continue a viable homeland defense against rogue nation threats through 2030 and beyond
  3. Prove our Ballistic Missile Defense System works through a well-substantiated, comprehensive, and affordable BMDS test program
  4. Develop technologies to hedge against future missile threat growth
  5. Achieve a high-performing and accountable workforce through enhanced retention, recruitment, and individual development
  6. Expand international cooperation and development of missile defenses in accordance with national defense policy
  7. Maximize mission assurance and the cost effectiveness of the MDA’s management and operations through lean six sigma and other initiatives

History of the Agency

The Missile Defense Agency traces its roots back to the origins of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program. President Reagan launched this initiative in 1983 to develop non-nuclear missile defenses. The SDI consolidated missile defense programs that were scattered among several government offices and molded them into a coherent program under the management of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO).

As the technologies developed under the original initiative evolved, so did the organization responsible for their management. In 1993, the SDIO was renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 defined the mission for the BMDO, while the U.S. withdrawal the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002 lessened the restrictions to develop and test these technologies.

In 2002, the BMDO was renamed the Missile Defense Agency. We continued to research and develop hit-to-kill technologies, and, in time, began to test and field elements of the ballistic missile defense system.

To learn more about U.S. missile defense efforts from 1945-present, check out the History Resources.

Agency Logo Evolution

Funding Missile Defense

The funding for the Ballistic Missile Defense program is proposed by the President each year and considered by Congress. In addition, the Congress often provides language with guidance on the conduct of the Ballistic Missile Defense program.

David Altwegg on Fiscal Year 2011 Budget for Missile Defense Agency (DoD News Briefing)

News transcript of DoD News Briefing focusing on the 2011 budget.

Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview (pdf)

Historical Funding Chart (pdf)

Congressional Earmarks

Written Testimony and Public Statements

The Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)

Missile defense technology being developed, tested, and deployed by the United States is designed to counter ballistic missiles of all ranges – short, medium, intermediate, and long.

Since ballistic missiles have different ranges, speeds, size, and performance characteristics, the Ballistic Missile Defense System is an integrated, “layered” architecture that provides multiple opportunities to destroy missiles and their warheads before they can reach their targets.

The system’s architecture includes:

  • networked sensors and ground- and sea-based radars for target detection and tracking
  • ground- and sea-based interceptor missiles for destroying a ballistic missile using either the force of a direct collision, called “hit to kill” technology, or an explosive blast fragmentation warhead
  • a command and control, battle management, and communications network providing the warfighter with the needed links among the sensors and interceptor missiles

Missile defense elements are operated by United States military personnel from U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Forces Japan, U.S. European Command and others. The United States has missile defense cooperative programs with a number of allies, including United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Israel, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and many others. The Missile Defense Agency also actively participates in NATO activities to maximize opportunities to develop an integrated NATO ballistic missile defense capability.

Related Links:

MDA Video History

TMP Government Video

Branding Uncle Sam and progeny

TMP Government Redesigns