Hacker News Reader

I agree with you to a large extent, but you're doing the same thing by making sweeping mischaracterizations.

For example, you mention 'Biden can spend a million dollars on one night hotel stays in Paris and London.' I looked into this, and indeed two one-night stays in each city totaled up to about that amount. But in each case, they booked out over 100 rooms. Now the VP certainly has an entourage of secret service agents and personal assistants, but the majority of those rooms were likely occupied by policy administrators of one sort or another there to meet their opposite numbers in Paris and London. This is why state visits are a big deal; on TV we just see handshakes and maybe a snippet of a speech, but all sorts of diplomatic work - trade negotiations, extradition discussions, etc. - takes place out of sight of the cameras. State visits are planned months in advance so that bureaucracies can coordinate the international dimension of their activities around them. A million bucks is cheap at the price if it advances economic progress.

Now you may not have noticed, but one of the more interesting things in the state of the Union speech the President gave last month was a commitment to a new US-EU Free Trade Agrreement, which would be the largest trade deal in history: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21439945 which would be worth hundreds of billions annually in increased economic activity. You bet I want the VP to take a bunch of policy wonks along with him when he goes overseas.

I think the first step in getting beyond tantrum politics is to address things on their merits and in their proper context, not in the form of zingers and stereotypes.

From what I know about Biden it would probably be better if he did not make these trips. He seems to be a very good politician but as I have learned more and more about him I seriously doubt he has the ability to make sound decisions. Not that he has a lot of competition in his profession.

How about we just send the experts next time.

Sorry I should have provided more background. Biden has been covered on HN extensively. No intention make a political statement just pointing out Biden's particularly poor decision making on issues I (we?) tend to care most about.

On privacy: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/joe-biden-private-em...

On IP: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110413/12094013882/joe-bi...

On major internet issues: http://gizmodo.com/5041044/vp-candidate-biden-is-no-friend-t... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html

Having been the beneficiary of a similar event (Cheney, in this case), the hotel/secret service generally clears the entire floor for the official for security purposes. I don't know if it's policy to clear the one above and below, but I was relocated to another hotel.

"The toddlers in DC are used to getting their way and free spending like crazy (thus the trillion dollar deficits)"

The great irony is that the party that was spending freely a decade ago is now talking about fiscal responsibility.

"The things we're free spending money on right now are disgusting."

I'm not partisan, but one party in particular is pushing for boosting the defense budget at the expense of the other priorities in this country.

The great irony is that the party that was spending freely a decade ago is now talking about fiscal responsibility.

And the other party was constantly complaining that too much was being spent? No, just the opposite: They were clamoring for more, whether it was "state and local aid", a more generous Medicare Part D and CHIP, extended unemployment benefits, special education costs... The list goes on.

And, by the way, the budget deficit in 2007 was, with two wars in full swing and all the Bush tax cuts in effect, a mere $158B.

I'll take a party that at least sometimes talks and walks fiscal restraint over one that still thinks we're not "investing" enough with $1T annual deficits any day.

Same. Democrats talking about how we don't spend enough has become almost pure insanity.

It's really not insanity. They truly believe that more government spending in the form of tax-cuts and funding (remember that the 2009 stimulus included a good portion of tax cuts) will produce more jobs, which will grow the economy, and thus increase the revenues from taxes. That is, short term spending for long term gain.

It may be a difference of opinion, but it's a justified opinion and thus not outright insanity. The conversation is never going to move until both sides try to understand each other in reasonable and non-extreme terms.

Both parties are to blame for the current situation, but every time someone comes out and talks about fiscal restraint I am bothered by the hypocrisy. Why weren't these people talking about fiscal restraint during the bush years?

"And, by the way, the budget deficit in 2007 was, with two wars in full swing and all the Bush tax cuts in effect, a mere $158B."

The budget deficit is where it is now because of the collapse which, to a very large part, was due to deregulation and other effects of the early 2000s. Bush was riding on the effect of the Clinton-era reforms.

> The great irony is that the party that was spending freely a decade ago is now talking about fiscal responsibility.

They control the House, which in turn controls the federal government's purse strings[1]. It's the only thing they have direct control over. Plus, the most vocal and influential wing of the party at present was elected in large part on an austerity platform.

[1] http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/

It's not clear droning the planet and having overwhelming force in our fighter fleet isn't where our priorities should be. Being the top dog militarily has been working pretty well for the U.S. so far.

Also, NASA has gotten so far away from its core mission that it deserves its budget to be cut. It used to be run by visionaries, but at some point it got taken over by scientists.

Yes, we must not pay the scientists, we must pay the visionaries! How can we have science without the visionaries to see the science and tell us about it?

Visionaries want to put a man on the moon for kicks and to fuck with the Soviets. Scientists want to figure out the soil composition of some random valley on mars. I posit that the former is more useful than the latter.

You don't think we kinda need both?

Sure, but we need the former to be in charge. In the modern NASA they are nowhere to be found. It's just scientists who want to work in their narrow little scientific domains. There is a place for that, but it shouldn't be NASA. Curiosity is cool, but it doesn't inspire the American people nor does it make the Chinese want to shit their pants. Historically, NASA has served both of those functions in addition to its scientific purposes.

Excuse me for being brash, but that's bullshit. The former is in charge at NASA, but they have to make the financial argument through the later.

You're right: Curiosity is cool. But you're also wrong because it did inspire the American people when it landed successfully, and it continues to inspire us with the data it sends back. Visionaries are the people taking 360 degree panoramic HD images from Mars and posting them online for free. NASA is not sending those images back because they serve any substantial scientific purpose, but because we flew a badass robot with a camera to Mars. Because we can.

And hey, while were up there, we might as well look for signs of water and life. Not because of some abstract scientific knowledge, but because what if there was/is life there?

That is visionary caliber stuff.

My dad remembers where he was in Bangladesh when we landed on the moon, 40+ years ago. I think I could poll a dozen people at my office and not get a single person who has even seen the Curiosity pictures. I'm not even sure I've seen them--nor could I tell you what number Mars rover we're on. The first time? Moderately inspiring. But this is like the fifth or sixth Mars rover and it's not the least bit inspiring now.

I remember where I was when Curiosity landed on the moon--I was glued to two monitors, one with a live stream of the control room, and one with a realtime simulation of the landing. Visionaries had the foresight to provide those to me.

If anyone hasn't seen the Curiosity pictures, or they're otherwise not inspired, that's not the fault of the visionaries--nor does it lessen their status as such. A group of really smart people got together and pulled off something incredible just because they could; just because we want to know what's out there.

Oh, and here you go, travel Mars: http://www.360cities.net/image/curiosity-rover-martian-solar...

I remember where I was when Curiosity landed on the moon

That's nothing, my parents remember when Lance Armstrong walked on the moon!

I think I could poll a dozen people at my office and not get a single person who has even seen the Curiosity pictures.

OK, let me rephrase an earlier comment someone made in the thread: we fly semiautonomous nuclear-powered robots with cameras to Mars, and make it seem like no big deal.

That last bit is the true triumph of the engineer. The hardest part is making it look easy.

Ask your grandparents how cool the first jet aircraft seemed at the time!

Being the top dog militarily has been working pretty well for the U.S. so far.

Define "U.S.", because you surely aren't talking about the population.

I surely am. The U.S. had an incredible run of prosperity from post-WWII to around 2000. That prosperity was enabled by American military hegemony. For most of that period, Americans consumed more than pretty much anyone else on earth--you think taking such a disproportionate share of the earth's resources happens without also having a disproportionate share of the earth's weapons?

We also incidentally live in the most peaceful time in history, largely as a result of American military superiority. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana.

For most of that period, Americans consumed more than pretty much anyone else on earth

I guess we have vastly differing definitions of well-being. I see a whole lot of addicts that will be very hard to re-integrate into a sustainable society.

you think taking such a disproportionate share of the earth's resources happens without also having a disproportionate share of the earth's weapons?

And of course, once you have the weapons you need to find things to do with them; like putting more of your own population in prisons than the whole rest of the world combined. But sure, war has done a great job of distracting the population from being fucked, and it pays off nicely for those fucking them; this much I'll grant. And then there's the widgets and gadgets.

Your connection between military superiority and putting lots of people in prison is wholly contrived.

The reason we put lots of people in prison is racial animosity. After segregation was declared illegal, all the middle class folks fled the cities, leaving urban cores ghettoized. Crime, naturally, went up as a result. Then we introduced the drug war, which got liberals ("just say no!" moms) and virulent racists (looking for a way to get blacks out of mainstream society now that segregation was over) on the same platform. Of course it was wildly popular, and the mainstream didn't care because the media portrayal was black people being put in jail for doing "black drugs" (crack cocaine). Then the police and prison unions got involved, and well now we have the situation we have today. It's really horrible and atrocious, but it has zilch to do with the military.

This reminds me of the Calif. Sate Park toilet paper debacle of 2010 [1]. Since followed up with a surplus of cash the State Park did not report to the state [2]. The priorities are indeed out of whack and taxpayers are getting screwed.

[1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/california-par... [2] http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/07/23/whats-next-for-the-...

Now they're being forced to make choices, and they're openly attempting to scare the public.

This is why I'm tempted to think the right answer is to look back at the White House and say, "OK, let's keep the sequester. More cuts."

Kind of a game of chicken, and maybe a course to self-destruction, but that doesn't stop me from thinking about it. Part of me says, "so maybe there's a little collateral damage today, but nothing we can't rebuild tomorrow." It's that way with building muscle mass. Bulk up, cut down. You lose a little muscle in the cut, but you get it and more back later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome