17,318,000,000. That’s a big number. But what if I put this in front of it? That changes everything. This is the amount of money that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration received this year from the government. That’s enough money to buy everyone in Middlesex County a Ferrari, purchase every NBA basketball team, or give every single person in Metuchen over a million dollars each. That a lot of cash. And NASA gets it by the truck load every single year. In the past 10 years alone, NASA has collected over 164 billion dollars. In their 50 year existence, it amounts to over 400 billion.
So what are they doing with all this money?
What does an organization that doesn’t help to fight crime or reduce poverty do with all that money?
What does an organization that doesn’t feed the hungry or shelter the homeless do with all that money?
What does an organization that doesn’t improve education do with all that money?
Well, I’ll tell you.
NASA has created something that you’ve all probably have seen on infomercials. It’s called Termperpedic. It’s a bed.
They have developed a revolutionary, breakthrough space suit that you can……… go to the bathroom in.
They even have created a state of the art… pen that can write in space. It cost over a million dollars to develop. Russia just uses a pencil.
So why would NASA make a bed, a porter potty space suit and an anti-gravity pen? It sounds like they have a lot of money to burn.
Some of the more obvious things that NASA invests its money in are two largest and most famous of the NASA projects. They are the Space Station and the International Space Station. 42% of their entire budget goes to funding these two projects. It is apparent that NASA puts an enormous amount of time energy and money into these projects, the bulk of which goes to making sure the astronauts can survive in space. The costs to engineer unmanned missions are considerably smaller, obviously provoke no deaths, can produce more and more accurate results, and can achieve equal or more than humans while in space.
So why do they continue to conduct manned missions?
Your guess is as good as mine.
So is the money that the government invests in NASA worth it?
I say No.
The fact that we can find out the number of stars there are in the universe or if a plant grew on Mars a million years ago is not practical information that can be applied to our lives on Earth. If the government took action to reduce the amount of money that NASA received annually, that extra money can be used for more important things in our country.
17 billion is a big number. I thing NASA can spare some change.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
NASA FUNDING STEPHEN PASQURELLO
Every year billions upon billions of taxpayers’ dollars are invested into NASA, and the overall benefits of the organization are not apparent to the average person. The immense masses of money that are consumed by NASA don’t seem to be justified by their findings and such discoveries are not practical to our lives on earth, nor does it improve our lives. The priorities of the government can be questioned when over ten billion dollars are poured into NASA’s funding each year while poverty and crime overwhelm the country and the nation’s massive debt increases by the second. Therefore it is imperative that the government puts into perspective what is really important and to decrease the budget that NASA receives as the needs of the country increase.
17,318,000,000. That is the number of dollars that NASA will receive this year and this is nothing out of the ordinary. In the past ten years alone, NASA has collected over one hundred and sixty four billion dollars. In the fifty years of existence, NASA has embarked on many different missions and projects, two of the most famous being the Space Station and the International Space Station. Combined, the two huge projects are funded by 42% of NASA’s overall budget. Since these two projects take up the bulk of the budget they are the most susceptible to criticism and for good reason. The projects are impractical and at too high a risk. Funding for the project can be considered “financially reckless” when the costs come out to $380 per American and the chances that the station will be damaged by existing satellites or other air born objects is 1 in 5. There is no foreseen use for humans to live in space, so why does NASA need to spend so much money on finding out if we are able to. Also just recently, the space shuttle the Discovery lost a piece of foam off of its fuel tank just after leaving Earth’s atmosphere but if the “shuttle was deeper in Earth's atmosphere, the chunk could have hit the orbiter with potentially catastrophic results.” This is one example where NASA messed up but got lucky and lives were not lost.
“Some scientists question why NASA has devoted so much time and energy to engineering projects to put humans in space. Manned space travel may be inspiring, opponents say, but it is largely impractical. The costs of outfitting a ship or station so that it can safely support humans are immense, and the risk of losing lives in space will always remain. Many experts believe that NASA's focus should be unmanned missions that, due to increasingly more sophisticated technology, can achieve and transmit important scientific results. They contend that NASA could develop technology to perform in space as well or better than humans, and at a much lower cost.” (NASA)
NASA has put an enormous amount of time, energy, and money into producing projects like the Space Station and International Space Station, the bulk of which goes into making sure that the astronauts can survive in space. The costs to engineer unmanned missions are considerable smaller, obviously provoke no deaths, can produce more, and more accurate results and can achieve equal or more than humans while in space.
6.04 billion, about 1/3 of NASA’s budget, is the amount that the FBI received in 2007 to protect our country. Crime in the country and attacks against the U.S. have proven to be a large problem in today’s world and the funds that the FBI gets to prevent these sorts of things are trumped by NASA’s. NASA has been asked by the government to plan more practical, less expensive projects and to cut staff by a small portion but they have failed to do so, stating that they would not be able to operate with a smaller annual budget and a smaller work force. They also have been asked to produce projects that will show more immediate effects rather than others that could take years to show any important information but they continue to demand large sums of money each year to pursue every idea under the sun. It is the responsibility of the government to protect its people in a way to make sure that the society benefits in some way from the taxes they spend. As of now the government fails to do that, considering that NASA does not affect the common, everyday people that make up our community and country.
As of today, April 21, 2008, the national debt of the United States stands at a tremendous $9,377,241,791,018 and since September 29, 2006 it has risen 1.53 billion dollars each day. It is an undisputable fact that this is a problem and it needs to be solved or it will only get worse. The only way for this problem to be solved is for the government to take a page out of its own book and conserve money to pay it off little by little. This will not be an instant solution but it will reduce the debt and eventual, in the very distant future will be able to be at a reasonable and maintainable amount. The reality is that if NASA was completely eliminated and the money they got was used to pay off the debt it would take over 500 years. (Assuming that they would save about 17 billion a year) The other truth is that NASA does not need that much money to operate, it can survive on a lot less than it claims to require.
Is the money that the government invests in NASA all be worth it? The fact that we can find out how many stars there are in the universe or if a plant grew on Mars a million years ago is not practical information that can be applied to our lives on earth. The effects or benefits, if any, are not apparent and do not help the world, as a whole strive to be a better, more advanced population. If the government took action to reduce the amount of money that NASA receives each year they could make a significant impact on our country. By redirecting this large sum of money, the government could make real changes by the means of relieving the harshness or poverty in America, lessen the intensity of crime, and slowly pay off the country’s steadily increasing national debt. It is not a question of if NASA can spend the money giving to them it’s, isn’t there more important things the money could be used for. I think NASA can spare some change.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hall, Ed. U.S. National Debt Clock. 22 April 2008. 21 Apr 2008
"Poverty:2006 Highlights." U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division . 21 Apr 2008.
"NASA Funding." Issues & Controversies On File 15 Feb. 2005. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 31 Mar. 2008.
"Space Station." Wikipedia. 2008. Free Software Foundation. 21 Apr 2008.
Every year billions upon billions of taxpayers’ dollars are invested into NASA, and the overall benefits of the organization are not apparent to the average person. The immense masses of money that are consumed by NASA don’t seem to be justified by their findings and such discoveries are not practical to our lives on earth, nor does it improve our lives. The priorities of the government can be questioned when over ten billion dollars are poured into NASA’s funding each year while poverty and crime overwhelm the country and the nation’s massive debt increases by the second. Therefore it is imperative that the government puts into perspective what is really important and to decrease the budget that NASA receives as the needs of the country increase.
17,318,000,000. That is the number of dollars that NASA will receive this year and this is nothing out of the ordinary. In the past ten years alone, NASA has collected over one hundred and sixty four billion dollars. In the fifty years of existence, NASA has embarked on many different missions and projects, two of the most famous being the Space Station and the International Space Station. Combined, the two huge projects are funded by 42% of NASA’s overall budget. Since these two projects take up the bulk of the budget they are the most susceptible to criticism and for good reason. The projects are impractical and at too high a risk. Funding for the project can be considered “financially reckless” when the costs come out to $380 per American and the chances that the station will be damaged by existing satellites or other air born objects is 1 in 5. There is no foreseen use for humans to live in space, so why does NASA need to spend so much money on finding out if we are able to. Also just recently, the space shuttle the Discovery lost a piece of foam off of its fuel tank just after leaving Earth’s atmosphere but if the “shuttle was deeper in Earth's atmosphere, the chunk could have hit the orbiter with potentially catastrophic results.” This is one example where NASA messed up but got lucky and lives were not lost.
“Some scientists question why NASA has devoted so much time and energy to engineering projects to put humans in space. Manned space travel may be inspiring, opponents say, but it is largely impractical. The costs of outfitting a ship or station so that it can safely support humans are immense, and the risk of losing lives in space will always remain. Many experts believe that NASA's focus should be unmanned missions that, due to increasingly more sophisticated technology, can achieve and transmit important scientific results. They contend that NASA could develop technology to perform in space as well or better than humans, and at a much lower cost.” (NASA)
NASA has put an enormous amount of time, energy, and money into producing projects like the Space Station and International Space Station, the bulk of which goes into making sure that the astronauts can survive in space. The costs to engineer unmanned missions are considerable smaller, obviously provoke no deaths, can produce more, and more accurate results and can achieve equal or more than humans while in space.
6.04 billion, about 1/3 of NASA’s budget, is the amount that the FBI received in 2007 to protect our country. Crime in the country and attacks against the U.S. have proven to be a large problem in today’s world and the funds that the FBI gets to prevent these sorts of things are trumped by NASA’s. NASA has been asked by the government to plan more practical, less expensive projects and to cut staff by a small portion but they have failed to do so, stating that they would not be able to operate with a smaller annual budget and a smaller work force. They also have been asked to produce projects that will show more immediate effects rather than others that could take years to show any important information but they continue to demand large sums of money each year to pursue every idea under the sun. It is the responsibility of the government to protect its people in a way to make sure that the society benefits in some way from the taxes they spend. As of now the government fails to do that, considering that NASA does not affect the common, everyday people that make up our community and country.
As of today, April 21, 2008, the national debt of the United States stands at a tremendous $9,377,241,791,018 and since September 29, 2006 it has risen 1.53 billion dollars each day. It is an undisputable fact that this is a problem and it needs to be solved or it will only get worse. The only way for this problem to be solved is for the government to take a page out of its own book and conserve money to pay it off little by little. This will not be an instant solution but it will reduce the debt and eventual, in the very distant future will be able to be at a reasonable and maintainable amount. The reality is that if NASA was completely eliminated and the money they got was used to pay off the debt it would take over 500 years. (Assuming that they would save about 17 billion a year) The other truth is that NASA does not need that much money to operate, it can survive on a lot less than it claims to require.
Is the money that the government invests in NASA all be worth it? The fact that we can find out how many stars there are in the universe or if a plant grew on Mars a million years ago is not practical information that can be applied to our lives on earth. The effects or benefits, if any, are not apparent and do not help the world, as a whole strive to be a better, more advanced population. If the government took action to reduce the amount of money that NASA receives each year they could make a significant impact on our country. By redirecting this large sum of money, the government could make real changes by the means of relieving the harshness or poverty in America, lessen the intensity of crime, and slowly pay off the country’s steadily increasing national debt. It is not a question of if NASA can spend the money giving to them it’s, isn’t there more important things the money could be used for. I think NASA can spare some change.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hall, Ed. U.S. National Debt Clock. 22 April 2008. 21 Apr 2008
"Poverty:2006 Highlights." U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division . 21 Apr 2008
"NASA Funding." Issues & Controversies On File 15 Feb. 2005. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 31 Mar. 2008
"Space Station." Wikipedia. 2008. Free Software Foundation. 21 Apr 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
En el restaurant
En el fin de semana pasado, fui a un café en el centro de Metuchen. Me encante el restaurant mucho. El mesero fue bueno para la comida fue mejor. El mesero me trajo el menú immediamente. El mesero recomendó el plato del día. El plato del día fue bistec a la parrilla. Tuve el bistec y yo quiere la sopa de fideos. Comí la sopa de fideos primero. La sopa fue calor, para muy sabroso. Después de que comí la sopa, tuve el bistec. El bistec era muy rico y perfectamente cocinado. Comí rápidamente porque la comida fue muy deliciosa. Después los platos principales, comí los postres. Comí dos postres, flan de vainilla y fresas con crema. Después de la comida el mesero trajo la cuenta a mí. La comida era exquisita y yo deje la propina mucho y se lo recomiendo el café.
En el fin de semana pasado, fui a un café en el centro de Metuchen. Me encante el restaurant mucho. El mesero fue bueno para la comida fue mejor. El mesero me trajo el menú immediamente. El mesero recomendó el plato del día. El plato del día fue bistec a la parrilla. Tuve el bistec y yo quiere la sopa de fideos. Comí la sopa de fideos primero. La sopa fue calor, para muy sabroso. Después de que comí la sopa, tuve el bistec. El bistec era muy rico y perfectamente cocinado. Comí rápidamente porque la comida fue muy deliciosa. Después los platos principales, comí los postres. Comí dos postres, flan de vainilla y fresas con crema. Después de la comida el mesero trajo la cuenta a mí. La comida era exquisita y yo deje la propina mucho y se lo recomiendo el café.
Monday, April 21, 2008
paper
NASA FUNDING STEPHEN PASQURELLO
Every year billions upon billions of taxpayers’ dollars are invested into NASA, and the overall benefits of the organization are not apparent to the average person. The immense masses of money that are consumed by NASA don’t seem to be justified by their findings and such discoveries are not practical to our lives on earth, nor does it improve our lives. The priorities of the government can be questioned when over ten billion dollars are poured into NASA’s funding each year while poverty and crime overwhelm the country and the nation’s massive debt increases by the second. Therefore it is imperative that the government puts into perspective what is really important and to decrease the budget that NASA receives as the needs of the country increase.
17,318,000,000. That is the number of dollars that NASA will receive this year and this is nothing out of the ordinary. In the past ten years alone, NASA has collected over one hundred and sixty four billion dollars. In the fifty years of existence, NASA has embarked on many different missions and projects, two of the most famous being the Space Station and the International Space Station. Combined, the two huge projects are funded by 42% of NASA’s overall budget. Since these two projects take up the bulk of the budget they are the most susceptible to criticism and for good reason. The projects are impractical and at too high a risk. Funding for the project can be considered “financially reckless” when the costs come out to $380 per American and the chances that the station will be damaged by existing satellites or other air bourn objects is 1 in 5.
NASA has put an enormous amount of time, energy, and money into producing projects like the Space Station and International Space Station to provide an environment for people to be able to live in space. This seems like an obscure objective when the costs to support a human in space are huge and the chance of death in space are still and will always be present. The costs to engineer unmanned missions are considerable smaller, obviously provoke no deaths, can produce more, and more accurate results and can achieve equal or more than humans while in space.
Something that is more obvious than what NASA is doing with tens of billions of dollars is that there is a serious poverty issue in the United States. It has risen for four consecutive years and shows no sign of letting up. According to the HHS Poverty Guidelines a family of four that has an income of $21,200 is not considered a poor family. When taxes, bills and food factor in, that number is substantially lowered and cannot provide adequate living conditions or the necessities to everyday life like school supplies or clothes. The fact of the matter is that with the standard of living set so low it proves that there are more people than the estimated 36.5 million people that suffer from the brutality of poverty than the government wants to admit and therefore no great actions have been or will take place. The harsh truth is that the families that are in poverty will stay in poverty because there is no real hope of escaping it, and the poverty rates will continue to climb unless something is done.
6.04 billion, about 1/3 of NASA’s budget, is the amount that the FBI received in 2007 to protect our country. Crime in the country and attacks against the U.S. have proven to be a large problem in today’s world and the funds that the FBI gets to prevent these sorts of things are trumped by NASA’s. NASA has been asked by the government to plan more practical, less expensive projects and to cut staff by a small portion but they have failed to do so, stating that they would not be able to operate with a smaller annual budget and a smaller work force. They also have been asked to produce projects that will show more immediate effects rather than others that could take years to show any important information but they continue to demand large sums of money each year to pursue every idea under the sun.
As of today, April 21, 2008, the national debt of the United States stands at a tremendous $9,377,241,791,018 and since September 29, 2006 it has risen 1.53 billion dollars each day. It is an undisputable fact that this is a problem and it needs to be solved or it will only get worse. The only way for this problem to be solved is for the government to take a page out of its own book and conserve money to pay it off little by little. This will not be an instant solution but it will reduce the debt and eventual, in the very distant future will be able to be at a reasonable and maintainable amount. The reality is that if NASA was completely eliminated and the money they got was used to pay off the debt it would take over 500 years. (Assuming that they would save about 17 billion a year) The other truth is that NASA does not need that much money to operate, it can survive on a lot less than it claims to require.
What it all comes down to is will the money that the government invests in NASA all be worth it. The fact that we can find out how many stars there are in the universe or if a plant grew on Mars a million years ago is not practical information that can be applied to our lives on earth. The effects or benefits, if any, are not apparent and do not help the world, as a whole strive to be a better, more advanced population. If the government took action to reduce the amount of money that NASA receives each year they could make a significant impact on our country. By redirecting this large sum of money, the government could make real changes by the means of relieving the harshness or poverty in America, lessen the intensity of crime, and slowly pay off the country’s steadily increasing national debt. It is not a question of if NASA can spend the money giving to them it’s, isn’t there more important things the money could be used for. I think NASA can spare some change.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"NASA Funding." Issues & Controversies On File 15 Feb. 2005. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 31 Mar. 2008
Hall, Ed. U.S. National Debt Clock. 22 April 2008. 21 Apr 2008
"Space Station." Wikipedia. 2008. Free Software Foundation. 21 Apr 2008
"Poverty:2006 Highlights." U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division . 21 Apr 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
In this analysis of Macbeth the author is stating that Macbeth does not have a single fatal flaw, he says that Shakespeare took the time to create very complex and complete characters and did not use the usual formula to bring his characters to life. The characters that Shakespeare creates are human-like and have many qualities that affect their decisions and actions in a realistic manor.
I agree with the author when she says that Macbeth may not have a fatal flaw, and that if there was one it is not so obvious as ambition, but rather that Macbeth is easily influenced and persuaded by his wife. If there were to be a fatal flaw within Macbeth it would be that he is too week minded, he lacks in his independence and he has no control over his emotions. This is all shown in act 2, scene 2 when Macbeth returns from murdering Duncan. Macbeth is week minded because he returns with the bloody daggers in his hands, he doesn’t remember to leave them at the crime scene as planed and he also seems to not notice the harsh insults from his wife, who attacks his man hood when she says “my hands are of your color, but I shame to wear a heart so white.” Macbeth also is lacking in independence since he must rely on Lady Macbeth to do what he won’t and fix his mistakes, like when she must return to the crime with the daggers. Macbeth has no control over his emotions since in act 2, scene 2 he is so emotionally unstable that he can’t even think straight or focus.
All of these factors contribute to the “push-over” personality of Macbeth. He is unable to make his own decisions and even when Lady Macbeth makes his decisions for him he still manages to mess up and stray from the plan. This well inevitably lead to Macbeths downfall because sooner or later he will twist the strings so much that they cannot be untangled by his puppet master, Lady Macbeth.
I agree with the author when she says that Macbeth may not have a fatal flaw, and that if there was one it is not so obvious as ambition, but rather that Macbeth is easily influenced and persuaded by his wife. If there were to be a fatal flaw within Macbeth it would be that he is too week minded, he lacks in his independence and he has no control over his emotions. This is all shown in act 2, scene 2 when Macbeth returns from murdering Duncan. Macbeth is week minded because he returns with the bloody daggers in his hands, he doesn’t remember to leave them at the crime scene as planed and he also seems to not notice the harsh insults from his wife, who attacks his man hood when she says “my hands are of your color, but I shame to wear a heart so white.” Macbeth also is lacking in independence since he must rely on Lady Macbeth to do what he won’t and fix his mistakes, like when she must return to the crime with the daggers. Macbeth has no control over his emotions since in act 2, scene 2 he is so emotionally unstable that he can’t even think straight or focus.
All of these factors contribute to the “push-over” personality of Macbeth. He is unable to make his own decisions and even when Lady Macbeth makes his decisions for him he still manages to mess up and stray from the plan. This well inevitably lead to Macbeths downfall because sooner or later he will twist the strings so much that they cannot be untangled by his puppet master, Lady Macbeth.
Every year billions upon billions of taxpayers’ dollars are invested into NASA, and the overall benefits of the organization are not apparent to the average person. The immense masses of money that are consumed by NASA don’t seem to be justified by their findings and such discoveries do not directly correlate to us on earth, nor does it improve our lives. The priorities of the government can be questioned when over 10 billion dollars are poured into NASA’s funding each year while poverty and crime overwhelm the country and the nation’s massive debt increases by the second. Therefore the budget that NASA receives needs to decrease as the needs of the country increase and it is imperative that the government puts into perspective what is really important.
Friday, February 22, 2008
book review
A Drink Before the War is a thrilling mystery about two skilled private investigators Patrick Kenzie and Angie Gennaro who are hired by three politicians to retrieve documents supposedly stolen by a cleaning lady. Their task seems simple, but as the story progresses, things get more complicated and what seemed to be an easy job for the two investigators, turns into a disaster that no one saw coming.
Once the two investigators locate the cleaning lady, they uncover the stolen documents and it reveals a secret that triggers a war between the two most violent gangs in Boston. After they have the documents in their possession, they find themselves defending their lives while being targets of both gangs. The bulk of the novel concentrates on the investigators trying to escape the cruelty of the gangs. If they are caught by either gang with the documents, the horrors they would experience would be unimaginable. The gangs are not the only problems the two investigators have, though both are battling their own personal problems, as well as having to deal with three crooked politicians that aren’t what they seem. The documents are pictures, pictures of one of the Senators and the leaders of both gangs, and they aren’t pleasant. If released to the public, the city would erupt in chaos. Their personal issues also have an effect on the story. While Patrick deals with the emotional problems linked with his father’s death, Angie goes home to an abusive husband every night and returns to work every morning battered and bruised.
The two are torn between what they should do with the documents. They have three options. They could return the pictures to the politicians and let them get away with their suspicious acts or turn them over to the gangs which would guarantee their safety. They could also release them to the police, but that would anger the gangs which would lead to the deaths of the investigators and would certainly ensure they would not retrieve a pay check for their work. They knew it wouldn’t be easy.
The novel was constructed very well. Even with the complexity of the story, the author was able to present the details in an understandable fashion. The story was told with amazing detail, constructing an image that brought me right into the action. However, the violence might have been a little unrealistic for the time and place. Another thing that stood out to me was that, at times, the characters would stray from their own thoughts, and it seems as though the character takes the voice of the author, which unveiled his own social and political views on modern civilization.
Once the two investigators locate the cleaning lady, they uncover the stolen documents and it reveals a secret that triggers a war between the two most violent gangs in Boston. After they have the documents in their possession, they find themselves defending their lives while being targets of both gangs. The bulk of the novel concentrates on the investigators trying to escape the cruelty of the gangs. If they are caught by either gang with the documents, the horrors they would experience would be unimaginable. The gangs are not the only problems the two investigators have, though both are battling their own personal problems, as well as having to deal with three crooked politicians that aren’t what they seem. The documents are pictures, pictures of one of the Senators and the leaders of both gangs, and they aren’t pleasant. If released to the public, the city would erupt in chaos. Their personal issues also have an effect on the story. While Patrick deals with the emotional problems linked with his father’s death, Angie goes home to an abusive husband every night and returns to work every morning battered and bruised.
The two are torn between what they should do with the documents. They have three options. They could return the pictures to the politicians and let them get away with their suspicious acts or turn them over to the gangs which would guarantee their safety. They could also release them to the police, but that would anger the gangs which would lead to the deaths of the investigators and would certainly ensure they would not retrieve a pay check for their work. They knew it wouldn’t be easy.
The novel was constructed very well. Even with the complexity of the story, the author was able to present the details in an understandable fashion. The story was told with amazing detail, constructing an image that brought me right into the action. However, the violence might have been a little unrealistic for the time and place. Another thing that stood out to me was that, at times, the characters would stray from their own thoughts, and it seems as though the character takes the voice of the author, which unveiled his own social and political views on modern civilization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
