Star Wars: A new h... I mean the force awakens - episode IV sorry VII

Just let it in... 

A short while ago, in a place not too far from where Hot Fuzz was filmed... I thought of writing my first ever film review. There are a cornucopia of reasons why I haven't done a film review before. One, I don't know what the feck I am talking about. That pretty much sums it up. Utterly clueless. Like me (the man who can't even spell the words fashun cents) trying to buy myself clothes. I will stop there as that is I think the main crux of the matter. All other reasons pale into insignificance. If a film was an elbow, I would think it was an arse. That'll do.

JENS!

Anywho, this film. I am a fairweather Star Wars fan. J'adore les lightsaber duels, musical score, racing across the galaxy etc but I am a parsec or so away from being an expert.

Much like Jens 'I'll start a fight with anyone' Raitanen, thinking he can win any fight even if they outnumber and outmatch him, which happens every single time and he would get decked.

I was insanely excited for this film and although it didn't reach my extraordinarily high expectations, delicately perched on the top of the impossibly high shelf, in Uncle Bernie's mini library, I very much enjoyed it.

The acting was superb, the effects were spectacular and Daisy Ridley has now entered my elite "angel" realm, pushing down Rachel McAdams to fourth place. Stunningly beautiful, shucks!

However one thing was gnawing away at me like a waiter saying they have my favourite drink of Appletizer but instead they bring me a crowning turd in the waterpipe with some fizzy apple stuff supposedly masquerading as Yahweh's chosen drink (I am such a snob with this drink, apologies). 

This film, was eerily similar to episode IV. A droid is carrying crucial information to/about a Jedi in hiding. There is a rebel alliance/resistance that seem hopelessly outmatched and soon to be vanquished by an impossibly powerful death st... I mean weapon that AGAIN gets blown to smithereens after they ascertain its weak point. Deja vu? 

These guys are like bacteria with their multiplication!

I'm not finished. Another out-of-keel, dysfunctional and debilitated father-son relationship, some more great piloting but this time an all too easy infiltration of the base. No Jedi mind tricks at the disposal of Chewie and co and yet they waltz in planting bombs everywhere and then find my new love - one that could happen as she is my age and therefore attainable....... #daretodream.

Other things that got my goat: Not enough explanation on the First Order; how did they get so powerful without any resistance and how the hell did they get a death star on the best steroids money/credits can buy? 

Did potential future Mrs Mills, who I assume had no Jedi training whatsoever, get too powerful too quickly?

Mee saaa annoying as feck!

Don't get me wrong, I still liked it a lot. A deeply conflicted villain, the two youngsters just hitting the bullseye and as I type this I plan on seeing it again not just because of Ms Ridley's perfect face but because it was like a two hour freedom trip. 

This is my first and probably my last film review as I will probably be rebuked with ease by the three people who read this blog, up from one and 7/10. 

Future Mrs Mills....

I just feel JJ Abrams maybe wrote this as a nostalgia piece to the original trilogy with some new kids on the block and didn't dare to tread too far away from what is a proven success story, whilst veering far off the Jar Jar Binks prequels. Too much of a forward defensive shot and not enough footwork to set up those cover drives.

I don't know much, but I know that I love Daisy Ridley. Marry me please?

Is Formula One the dullest sport in existence?

Carrying on from my woefully unpopular, fantastically disastrous and viciously panned 'Is American Football the dullest sport in existence' blog from three years ago (a good friend of mine actually wrote a blog rebuttal as he was that incensed with it!), I have decided to give that garbage a run for its money with a brief rant.

Old JP

Last time I did one of these I was banned from the American Football section of several of the sport forums I frequent and received several death threats, with one particular nasty incident culminating in a horse's head being left at the bottom of my bed.
Lucky for me I don't have a horse, I think it was JP McAvoy's or Frankel's or Red Rum's?
Just throwing out my fluent horse knowledge there.

And now for something completely different...

'Boring'. 'Very boring'. 'Stabbing myself repeatedly with a pair of garden scissors was less painful'. 'Unwatchable' and 'I'd prefer to get the runs.'

Some of these are genuine quotes from genuine people like Sir Stirling Moss, two-time world champion Fernando Alonso and former world champion Jacques Villeneuve and a few unknowns like Sebastian Vettel, Daniel Ricciardo and Mr Jerry Halliwell, have said similar stuff. Others are from an unfunny, kooky blaggard...

The Grand Prix Drivers Association conducted a poll recently, with 215,000 petrol-heads in 194 countries taking part, and found that the sport was described as 'expensive, technological and boring.' 89% of participants said the sport should be more competitive. Somewhat of a scathing indictment.

Even F1 die hard fans admit the sport is in a rut. In 2014, the sport lost 25m TV viewers, the same year as the new engine rules began.
This certainly hasn't helped the chief executive of the Formula One Group, Bernie Ecclestone, sell this new era of formula one, something he describes as a 'crap product'. Ouch.

Helmut Marko, Red Bull's motorsport advisor, has bemoaned Mercedes' monopoly of the sport.
"If we are totally dissatisfied we could contemplate an F1 exit." A matter even Bernie sympathises with. One of the sport's biggest names leaving? Again not another glowing endorsement.
Even Lewis Hamilton admitted this lack of competition isn't healthy for the sport.

F1 is becoming a procession. Mercedes won 16 of 19 races last season, starting 18 on pole. Hamilton won 11 of those races and Mercedes set a record 11 first and second finishes in a season.

This year could be playing out in that very vein.
Mercedes' dominance is becoming as predictable as Jens Raitanen wearing this jumper on every occasion ever!

The racing community are crying out for putting an end to F1's dependence on downforce, the fact the driver's role is being cut down, a return to re-fuelling, a lack of overtaking and equalising engine performances.

"Let me just catch the start of the race," said Tenniscoachno1897650 (my old youtube name from when I was 14) senior.
This was his ploy to get out of washing the dishes after Sunday lunch; but he did do an absolute rip-snorter of one so no beef there. (Coincidentally beef was rarely on the menu.)
After the washing up was done, Papa Tenniscoachno1897650 would sure enough be snoring away after no more than four laps had been completed. Ahh good memories.

Kimi Raikkonen, a pretty cool mofo and voted the sport's favourite driver (obviously!), said this: "Racing itself should be more exciting again. I want more fights, wheel to wheel battles, but that isn't easy when you want to bring in sophisticated cars."

Listen to the guy!
He loves ice cream!

This is a drunk Kimi falling off a boat! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VW2oAkjcJ4                                                                                                            
                                     
 ... and he loves a bit of fancy dress!


 Change F1 or you may lose this guy and Jens!

A dying art: Ode to a single handed backhand.

One day, me and the imprints of departed souls John Keats and Walt Whitman had an hour to kill before our driving lesson in Aaaaaaalllllbans. It goes like this....

Adieu! Adieu! Thy plaintive single handed backhand fades,
Past the Federers, Stans, Gasquets, over the Karlovics and under the Raitanens,
Up the Henman Hill, (shove off Murray Mound); and now 'tis buried deep behind endemic coaching of prodigious juniors who learneth thine double handed backhand. Oh me! Oh life!

The single handed backhand (shbh). Shakespearian sonnets don't require as much artistry, inherent elegance and awe-inspiring beauty.
If James Earl Jones spoke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QTwPC3AgU4 - go to 1.06 for the best word ever pronounced!) whilst utilising this majesty - I think the universe would explode.

In years to come this poetic gem of a shot, might just be consigned to the pages of history, adorning the walls of a museum; next to the serve and volley exhibit, slowly accumulating dust.

Add caption

Marcus Aurelius, played by Richard Harris in 'Gladiator', once said:
"There was once a dream that was Rome a shbh. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish... it was so fragile."

Observe how fragile that shot is today.
Less than 20 players in the men's top 100 use a shbh (down from around 50 a decade ago) and incredibly, 97 female players used a two-hander. That could maybe be forgiven if a host of precocious juniors rekindled this aesthetic flourish. 

That isn't the case. The corresponding number in the boys' section shoots up to 95 double handers and 99 out of 100 in the girls' category. 

Why is this tragedy being allowed to happen? Long gone are the days when a 14yo Pete Sampras said (paraphrasing): "Be gone, thine left hand and torment me no more, I shall go it alone with righty!" - (basically he went from a double hander to a single to deal with the fast conditions.) 

Emmanuel Planque, the coach of Lucas Pouille, ranked 90, offers one explanation into the shot's decline. 
"The return," said Planque. "You can't return with a single handed backhand in these (slow, bouncy, spinny, homogenised, power and fitness dominated) conditions." 

You can chip a return like Stan Wawrinka does, a blocked return like Tim Henman did, or a reflex flick like only Roger Federer can.

Serb splits!

None of these however can get that consistency to go after a serve like a double hander can. Case in point Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Andre Agassi or Serena Williams.

It is a more compact shot. The extra hand provides extra support and strength, a key advantage when dealing with high bouncing balls (a tactic Rafael Nadal has done so well for years on end to Federer), and from a smaller swing it can generally create more power. All this is hugely advantageous to double handers.
Furthermore lighter rackets and polyester strings have all but killed off serve and volley too and bred the current, dominating, baseline tennis.

Don't take my word for it, take science's. In the 70's, Dr Jack Groppel analysed the biomechanics of both shots and concluded the shbh is more difficult to master.
It demanded more synchrony between the hips, legs, trunk, upper arm, forearm and hand - something that wasn't axiomatic in the latter three points for a double hander.

In the lightning fast 90's and decades gone by, the shbh was much more effective and commonly used. It was and still is easier to switch to volleying, execute a slice shot and requires one less step when reaching for a ball. They can be more powerful and can deal with lower balls better.
The tables have certainly turned.

Carlos Rodriguez, a former coach of Justin Henin - who possessed one of the finest shbh's the game has ever seen - was quoted in a New York Times article, saying that the shot will soon die out in the next five to ten years but not because it isn't effective.

In his view, its decline is due to impatient coaches and parents who aren't willing to take the extra time to learn the testing one-hander, as it may cause short term losses.

Dusan Lajovic, 25. Grigor Dimitrov, 24. Britain's Dan Evans, 24. Marius Copil, 24. Dominic Thiem, 21. I can't think of many other players who possess a shbh and are born after 1990. Yes there are a few but not nearly enough, just like red squirrels! Darn those greys! 
Tennis connoisseurs may not be able to dine on this shot for much longer as even Federer - who last year switched to a larger racquet in search of consistency - believes the future is a two-hander.
If Federer, widely regarded as the game's greatest ever talent, had to switch to a bigger frame, do youngsters have a shot with a shbh?

Djokovic's beloved former coach, Jelena Gencic, encouraged the Serb to adopt the shbh but he felt 'very weak' dealing with high balls to his backhand, and took up the two hander instead. Game, set and match to the double hander. 
You get the picture (One picture that lacks a shbh unfortunately).

Possible solution?
Speed up some of the surfaces, vary the size of the tennis balls (i.e. make them smaller and quicker) and dare I say put restrictions on string technology? That last one may be a tad extreme but desperate measures and all that!



The Northern White Rhino.

The Amur Leopard.

The South China Tiger and the shbh.
All beautiful things that are on the verge of extinction!

This cannot be allowed happen!

When is your sporting peak?

I shall start by paraphrasing some words from the British novelist Lawrence Durrell.
"There are three things to be done with a Roger Federer defeat. You can love him, suffer for him, or turn him into literature." (Yes I love Feds, but I'm not like a stalker or anything....)

Apologies in advance if I lurch alarmingly into the wallowing and pitiful cesspool that I was treading water in, for quite some time, after Federer's loss in the Wimbledon final, again.
What I want to discuss is the word "peak" doesn't necessarily mean when an athlete is at their most successful. Case in point the Swiss Maestro.

On July 3rd, what a heavenly day that was, an almost 34yo Federer put in perhaps his greatest ever performance, dismantling Andy Murray on Centre Court in straight sets.
56 winners. 11 unforced errors. 76% first serves. Tennis from another planet. An absolute privilege to behold.
It was up there with his lobotomization of Andy Roddick in the '07 Ozzy Open sf (lost 6 games), bagelling Lleyton Hewitt twice in the 2004 US Open final or ending Novak Djokovic's (YOU'RE AN AWFUL PERSON FOR STOPPING FEDERER WINNING SLAM NO 18! - sorry. Yes he was too good) 43-match winning run in the sf at Roland Garros (2011).

So let's submerge into the tenebrous waters of this murky issue.

Going by the stats in football, the optimum age to be a player in the World Cup is 27.5. This is around the accepted peak age for the sport.
Cristiano Ronaldo however had his most prolific goal scoring season aged 30, Zlatan Ibrahimovic in his 32nd year, Paulo Maldini, Teddy Sheringham, Pavel Nedved, Fabio Cannavaro, Andrea Pirlo and a littany of goalkeepers have all been credited as peaking in their early to mid thirties, Aberrations? Maybe. But experience and nous improves with age too.

In Cricket, Jacques Kallis, between the age of 33-37, posted his highest batting averages (67.90). This was akin to the likes of Kumar Sangakkara, Michael Hussey and Liz Hurley's former fella, most notably in the 2005 Ashes where Advanced Hair Studio's most famous client took 40 wickets, averaged 19.92 and scored 249 runs, aged 35.

The Klitschko brothers in boxing have said that they felt better than ever past 35 and rugby stars Paul O'Connell, Victor Matfield, Brad Thorne, Tana Umaga and a handful of England's 'Grumpy Old Men' 2003 World Cup winners, would probably concur. Dare I even mention the much maligned Justin Gatlin for his personal best times at the tender age of 32/33? Best not get into the drug issue this time.

Finally, a bit of study KNOWLEDGE from the Institute of Biomedical Research and Sports Epidemiology in la belle France. "The peak age of performance for athletes in track and field, swimming and (very randomly indeed...) even chess is 26.1."

It would appear that more often than not, an athlete's 'peak' will settle around the mid to late 20's.

Back to tennis!
The average age of the top ten in tennis has shifted from the early 20's in the 80's and 90's to the late 20's (likewise for the top 100), with nine of the top 15 ranked players in or past their 30th year - many of those hitting career highs well past the supposed peak age of bygone years.

At the end of 2007, Federer had accumulated an astonishing 12 slams at the age of 26. From 2004 to 2007 he won a staggering 316 matches and lost a paltry 24 times.
In 2008, mononucleosis and the "big four" came to the... fore and Federer's dominance appeared to have ended. 'Past his best', 'over the hill' and so on so forth.

One morning Federer awoke to find his forehand wasn't as deadly. His serve wasn't as pinpoint and his movement mirrored the QE2's turning ability. Fat chance! Look at 33yo Serena Williams for pity sake!

His younger opposition had improved significantly and had developed a baseline game to blunt the Swiss army knife.
His high risk game was being repelled by metronomic consistency and superior court coverers (not those lucky schmucks who rake in the wonga and occasionally have to get off their rumps and pull the court covers on if it rains).
The Swiss didn't have to adjust his game to win before, but in recent years he has had to a great deal.

Who else has been this successful in going from being brought up serve and volleying, to baseline dominance to hanging with the best athletes the game has ever seen. Not Johnny McEnroe. Not Mats Wilander. Not Pete Sampras when serve and volley was on the way out.

Yes his results weren't as good but that doesn't mean he himself had stopped improving. The game is faster now, players hit harder, move better, are more professional and the game has more depth.

Only when 30 came a calling, did the maestro appear to have lost a step. If you play a sport for hours on end you learn a thing or two in how to counter-act that.
This is what Federer has done.
His former coach Paul Annacone and Federer have said he is now a better player than before, certainly a more well rounded one.

Some may see this as something an impetuous pundit might say but there is merit in it when his serves are more accurate, possesses a more complete net game and is more tactically astute.
He now tries to shorten points, plays with even more variety and is trying to bring back s & v in an era where it's mad to do so with the rise of luxillon string technology - referred to as "cheat strings" by Pete Sampras when it was introduced over a decade ago.

Time waits for no one unfortunately. You have more off days, as 18-time Grand Slam winner Martina Navratilova admitted, you don't recover as well and fitness levels can drop off.
Movement and footwork is everything now in tennis. The ability to give yourself as much time as possible, to be ready for that next ball is crucial.
Deficiencies in the weaponry of athletes as time ticks on but with time that allows them to become more complete.
In this sense Federer isn't as impressive as he used to be on a consistent basis. He rarely hits his rasping inside-out-forehand anymore. His groundstrokes are not as potent from match-to-match. But as the Murray victory showed, on his day he can be even better than when he was dominating around ten years ago.

Djokovic (HOW COULD YOU BEAT FEDERER YOU HEARTLESS MONSTER!?!?), Andy Murray, Rafael Nadal and Stan Wawrinka over the years have also all improved and for a 33yo Federer to hang with, and even beat them still, is testament to the ability of the old warhorse.

At one point, a 27yo Federer was 6-2 down in his head to head vs Murray. He now leads that head to head 12-10.
"Peak" Federer faced set points in the first and second sets vs Djokovic (known then at times as "Chokovic") in the '07 US Open Final, but somehow won in straights. They have improved a lot and Federer has had to as well.

The troughs for the tricenarian are more frequent, BUT... but the days of sunlit perfection allows fans to bask in the warmth and splendor of the sparkling aforementioned contests, even at the ripe old age of 33, going on 34.

Unless injuries take their toll on an athlete, I will not accept that athletes in predominantly skill based sports have to decline in their mid 20's. Obviously each case is different. But somebody's 'peak' and when they are at their most successful, aren't completely synonymous with each other.

When it clicked for the old timer, and admittedly those days are not nearly as frequent, Andy Murray and his legion of fans may reflect and think perhaps playing a Federer of 2004-2007 may have been an easier hurdle to navigate than Grandpa Feds of today...

The sorry plight of "Baby Feds".

WARNING: This blog, that nobody will read I hasten to add, should be taken with 1/17 of a pinch of salt. Permission to guffaw at me.

Grigor Dimitrov.
For much of 2014 he had it all.
A Wimbledon semi-final, having knocked out defending champion Andy Murray in the previous round, and his highest ever ranking of eighth to boot.
Well over 100,000 twitter followers - the most important trinket in life...
Bulgarian sportsmen of the year, beating out actress Nina Dobrev, the patron saint Ivan Rilski and Jens Raitanen, a bionic calf man of the gods who may or may not be Bulgarian.

Bulgarian?

A right munter of a girlfriend in Maria Shara.. Shaaarraaa.,. Sharon? Basically a hotshot Russian tennis player that nobody has ever heard of despite being the top female earner in sport. Fact.
A top 50 listing in many of  the "sexiest men" rankings, with the likes of people who don't play tennis - who cares then? - such as Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt and that guy who made Two and a Half Men even less funny.

Fast forward to 2015 and Dimi still has most of those things. Shara-hoo-ha is still dating the Bulgarian, now a top 10er according to MTV on their "hot" list and now over 200,000 instagram and twitter followers; that is deadly!

One thing he is unfortunately burdened with is his coach, Roger Rasheed. Scratch that, I've just checked, they have now parted company. Is there much point in this post? Nah. Well night folks....

No, I really do need to practice rambling/waffling (served up with cream)/writing again.
I digress ever so slightly.

Since his ground breaking run to the last four at SW19 last year, Dimi has seen his ranking slide from ocmn (eighth in Bulgarian) to rshwadboop (fifteenth in gobbledigook).

From beating Grand Slam winners and challenging at slams to losing in the first round of the French Open, falling meekly at this year's Wimbledon, failing to defend any of his 2014 titles (Acapulco, Queens, Bucharest) and accumulating a sizeable 13 losses already.

This was a guy tipped for greatness, not helped however by that tag of "baby feds" ever since he won the Wimbledon Juniors title in 2008, aged 17.

Under Rasheed in the past 12 months, Dimi has become more defensive (i.e. standing further behind the baseline, taking the ball later and looking to use his retrieval skills to win), his serve and return stats are almost twice as bad (aces, first serve win %, break point conversion) and he's bereft of confidence.

How do you solve a problem like Maria? She's doing fine. Grand slam finals, top five in the world - Dimi however is no longer a precocious youngster.
As he admitted: "I'm 24, I don't consider myself that young anymore. Hey wait that rhymes! Life is on the up!" (He totes said that bit).
"Last year was an eye-opener for me, it showed me what I was capable of."

Once touted as the brightest of his generation - Nishikori, Raonic (both in the top eight) Janowicz, Tomic, Harrison - the vicenarian is at an interesting, and potentially troubling, cross roads in his career.

He undoubtedly has the talent. What he may be let down by is his palpable fascination with off-court activities, daunting labels, racket tinkering and also the footwork of Bambi on ice.

Rasheed and Hewitt

In tennis, the term "mental strength" is used as much as a disgusting handkerchief, but it is very important. Something the Bulgarian admits is lacking from his game this year. Rasheed is known for obsessing over the physical side of the game. It's what brought Lleyton Hewitt a great deal of his success, along with luxillon strings and a surface homogenisation.

This fitness Dimi has, has made him lose sight of his considerable talent.
To have huge success with a single-handed backhand is a mighty task. Just a quarter of the men's top 100 ply their trade with one; less than ten on the women's top 100.
It requires greater timing, it's less consistent and less reliable, especially in the current conditions of baseline dominated, fitness conducive tour events.
Dimi's backhand has become no more than a rallying shot and without the power of Stan or the genius of Feds, he is at a distinct disadvantage to his peers at the top.

Despite this, his game brought him so very close to a Wimbledon final and the game's top five. The famed "big four" range in age from 28, to 29 to 33 and won't be around for an eternity.

Getting rid of Rasheed was undoubtedly the right move. Maybe even parting ways with Shara-what's her-face (say what?!) and focusing on tennis could help as well.

Annacone and the Swiss shanker

Try and steal Magnus Norman off of Stan Wawrinka? A "celebrity" coach such as Ivan Lendl, Darren Cahill, Brad Gilbert, Larry Stefanki or Paul Annacone?
He has by no means fizzled out and he still has time on his side. But he has to change something or he could end up like a less successful Richard Gasquet - tennis fans don't want that.

The 'final frontier' is accumulating dust. Time for a clean.

"When I first looked back at the Earth, standing on the Moon, I cried.” 
The words of Apollo 14 astronaut Ala Shepard on his time on the lunar surface 44 years ago. 

Precious moments like these, as Plato commented, compels the soul to look up and lead us from this world to another.
One such administration has allowed us to procure a morsel of this majesty as well as the greatest acts of discovery, innovation and inspiration that the human race has ever undertaken. 
This something is a force of nature like none other.
That force of nature is NASA. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

1961. NASA's first manned space mission, Mercury-Redstone 3, blasted out of the earth's atmosphere leaving its petty squabbles trailing in its wake and broadening our horizons like never before, as one expects when contemplating celestial matters.

The dreams of a nation and the Western world were being realised. 
Rewind a few years or so before and it was Russia, in the midst of the tenebrous Cold War, who had launched Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite, into space in 1957. 
The surprise success of Sputnik 1 - unbeknown to the US, was an intercontinental ballistic missile casing WITHOUT explosives - precipitated bedlam and consternation in the West.

NASA was founded by President Eisenhower the following year on the FEAR FACTOR that their great Soviet rivals would control the skies and beyond - and so the Space Race began. 

Despite the catastrophic Vietnam War, haemorrhaging money, campus unrest and the struggle of the civil-rights movement, in the world of science, a revolution was brewing. A cultural shift towards embracing science and the world of tomorrow, not just in a technological sense but also ecologically. A flurry of engineers, mathematicians, technologists, geologists and of course scientists bandied together to inspire the human race to leave earth, with destinations in mind.

An economic boom that was instigated by a cultural mindset of the future came from phenomenons such as the home, city, transportation and food of tomorrow enabled the US to reap the benefits of economic growth.
When the human race permits itself to dig deeper and broaden its horizons, those goals and dreams can pervade the ambitions of us all.

Take the consciousness to save the planet. This was brought upon us as a direct result of this public awakening towards science at the turn of the 1970's.
1) The Clean Air Act (2) Doctors without borders org. (3) Environmental Protection Agency (4) Clean Water Act (5) Earth day - to name but a few.  Back then governments provided that funding -without question as they had seen the huge, tangible benefits the space program had provided. 
Prosperity reigned supreme.

Like many things however, what caused the greatest exploration of human kind was instigated by war. Once Russia had lost the space race the US effort faded away like the abyss of a black hole. 
The dreams of exploration to Mars by the 1980's; died.

Today, the mindset is quite different. The seeds of inspiration are dying. Corporations promulgating rampant capitalism and phoney governments propagating the ways of the establishment under the rubric of aiding and abetting the masses. 
"We can't afford it" - is the common cry when talk of space travel is mentioned.
*Cough* NASA budget equates to half a penny on a tax dollar *Cough*. Excuse me.  
The bankers who almost solely caused the latest recession were given a $850b bailout; far greater than the entire 50+ running budget of NASA. That equates to two years of their asinine military spending; coincidentally lining the pockets of the military industrial complex, a crucial donor for so many corrupt politicians and lobbyists. 

The fact is, for every dollar the US spends on NASA, their economy receives eight-ten times that in return - and they have invested billions across the country. 
The Mars Rover landing, a $2.5b investment, was spent on Earth and not Mars - supporting more than 7,000 jobs in 31 states.
Outside of the US, the UK space sector has contributed over £9b to the economy and directly employs nearly 30,000 people - with future projects in rocket engines potentially creating 21,000 jobs. In the last decade there has been an average growth rate of 7.5% in the sector and secures a return of £6 for every £1.
This remarkable return is achieved with a paltry 44 UK Space Agency staff in 2011 - primarily based in Swindon - which is a fraction of the workers their French (2,400) and German (1,230) counterparts possess.
NASA has billions, UKSA has millions....
The Canadian, Russian and European space programs have undergone budget cuts and chronic underfunding, preventing them from funding probes and replacing ageing satellites.

The return on these investments are plain to see but unbeknownst to popular beliefs, a myriad of inventions from the space program are used daily by us all. Here's just ten of many more:

1) CAT Scanners - Now a cancer detecting technology, for NASA it started out as a way to find irregularities in space components (2) Insulation - protected space crafts from radiation (3) Cordless tools - drilling for moon samples (4) Long distance telecommunications - satellite communications (5) Memory foam - Aircraft seats and helmets to soften landings
(6) Solar energy (7) Shoe insoles (8) Smoke detectors (9) Workout machines - prevent muscle atrophy in zero gravity. (10) Water filter.
I really could go on.

Less than 1% of the US budget is designated for their space program and even less for those outside of the US. That tiny percent however contributes all of this. Imagine how much more could be accomplished with another percent and another, and another still. Deficits are in the stratosphere, is this an answer?

Space colonies? More crucial inventions? Alternative energy sources? Travelling to Titan's frozen, methane seas searching for life? Discovering the untold wonders of the cosmos? Perhaps see the omnipotent creator jamming with his fellow cohorts flitting in and out of a black hole in alternate universes? Why not?!

"The contemplation of celestial things will make a man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs" — Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 30 BC

Progress is being made and the mindset is changing, but slowly. There is such a long way to go to get close to the golden years of half a century ago or so.
However the scientifically literate numbers are growing with many indebted to the work of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Laurence Krauss, Bill Nye, Brian Cox among others for providing that platform as indefatigable raconteurs to this cause that releases a frisson of excitement in so many 

It's important and also mesmerising to realise that the atoms that created life on earth and the wonder of the infinite universe itself, all the planets, asteroids, black holes, nebulas, stars etc - that majesty, that magnificence and that which is awe inspiring..... is also in us! 
As Carl Sagan put it: "We are star-stuff".