Jim Pinkerton has a very calm and reassuring tone when he suggests the coming Obama Scandals....which makes him seem so earnest in his concerns. His Fox News colleagues could learn a lot from him. Pinkerton presents the same nonsense as Sean Hannity but without the hysterics, he is capable of fooling more folks.

Good to see David Corn back, because he keeps Jim on an even keel, and for other reasons. I hope he gets to ask his question to President Obama some day soon. I do share everything that Jim thinks about what Star Trek represents, as well as his sense of loss after Apollo. I think he lays too much blame at the feet of "the environmentalists," but I'll grant there have been many lefty groups that hurt the space program, among other factors. I think we should have Jim do a diavlog with Steve Benen or Bill Simmon, where the entire hour would be shamelessly devoted to geeking out massively. Jim is a lot more pleasant to listen to when he's talking about his space-related dreams than when he's talking about his political nightmares.

... to David for bringing up Philip Zelikow's blog post discussing his (classified) dissenting memo against the Bush Administration's move towards instituting a torture policy. I urge everyone to read it, as well as David's post on the possible Cheney-directed cover-up. Also of interest are a couple of posts on TPMMuckraker from Zachary Roth, dated 21 April and 4 May. I should add that Jim deserves credit for not going into immediate defense/denial mode about this issue during the discussion. [Added] For some more background, here are videos of Zelikow appearing on Rachel Maddow's show on 21 April 2009: {Part 1 | Part 2} (via Spackerman)

Zelikow was interviewed on the Rachel Maddow show about a week ago. Not exactly a profile in whistle-blowing courage, but then the hardcore Bushies can make even John Ashcroft look like a human rights advocate. David has put his finger on why the whole torture investigation is so important, however, even beyond torture per se: If this specious, circular argument stands -- that I, the President, can do anything my lawyer tells me I can do, and Who-me, the lawyer, can skate because I'm just giving my honest opinion -- virtually Anything Goes, and there's no accountability for any kind of tyrannical shenanigans. We need to get to the bottom of this before the same trick gets pulled again by the next gang of Machiavellian operators, be they Democrats or Republicans.

Quoting Wonderment: Zelikow was interviewed on the Rachel Maddow show about a week ago. Not exactly a profile in whistle-blowing courage, but then the hardcore Bushies can make even John Ashcroft look like a human rights advocate.

Oops. I guess I was updating my post to add those video links at the same time as you were composing your reply. I'm less inclined to climb all over Zelikow for lack of courage on this one. He could have said nothing at the time, and he could have kept quiet after the fact. Especially when you start with the understanding that he worked in both Bush White Houses, what he has done ain't bean bag. I agree he comes off less impressively during the Maddow interview than one might like, but his FP blog post is pretty good.

David has put his finger on why the whole torture investigation is so important, however, even beyond torture per se: If this specious, circular argument stands -- that I, the President, can do anything my lawyer tells me I can do, and Who-me, the lawyer, can skate because I'm just giving my honest opinion -- virtually Anything Goes, and there's no accountability for any

Quoting bjkeefe: I do share everything that Jim thinks about what Star Trek represents, as well as his sense of loss after Apollo. I think he lays too much blame at the feet of "the environmentalists," but I'll grant there have been many lefty groups that hurt the space program, among other factors.

Jim Pinkerton is totally full of shit when it comes to environmentalists. Yeah, I heard some dumb shit in my dorm when I was a freshman too. Whatever. As if every Republican is David Duke. I'd wager, on account of general love of science and nerdiness, your average enviro is more pro-space than the average non-enviro, and is more pro-space than they can really justify. Pinkerton is so stupid he can't recognize his own goddam allies. Keefe, I'm putting you on the spot: Name five anti-space lefty groups. If there's many naming five ought to be easy.

Quoting claymisher: Jim Pinkerton is totally full of shit when it comes to environmentalists. Yeah, I heard some dumb shit in my dorm when I was a freshman too. Whatever. As if every Republican is David Duke. I'd wager, on account of general love of science and nerdiness, your average enviro is more pro-space than the average non-enviro, and is more pro-space than they can really justify. Pinkerton is so stupid he can't recognize his own goddam allies.

Keefe, I'm putting you on the spot: Name five anti-space lefty groups. If there's many naming five ought to be easy.

I don't think I can name five lefty groups whose missions begin and end with "stop the space flight madness," but ever since the Apollo program wound down, there has been no shortage of groups who prioritize other goals and frequently use NASA as a whipping boy. For example, groups concerned with addressing world hunger, housing shortages, and other manifestations of poverty, or who would like to see increasing education spending or more medical research, frequently yammer about "all that money we're wasting in space when we have problems to solve here on Earth." You also see groups who obsess about

"all that money we're wasting in space when we have problems to solve here on Earth."

My first published document was a letter to the editor of my hometown newspaper. I was 11 years old. The year was 1958. The subject was the US launch of Explorer 1. I proposed solving our problems here on Earth before venturing into space. So yes, I'd say a lot of leftists of my generation were decidedly underwhelmed by the space program. It began in Cold War fervor, was militarized and chauvinistic from the git-go, appeared to be a seamless extension of the WMD programs, and had characters like Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun at the forefront, hyping it. Very Strangelovian. We were wary of Big Government Science, Technology and Engineering. Hippies, feminists, civil rights activists and early environmentalists were not putting pin-ups of Neil Armstrong on their dorm walls. A prejudice? Maybe, but not necessarily an unfounded one. Having conceded that, blaming "luddites and environmentalists," as Jim did, is ridiculous. First of all, "environmentalist" is not a slur. Secondly, many of the skeptics have doctorates in various sciences or have devoted their lives to the development of various technologies. And finally, there is an ugly anti-environmentalist element among the pro-NASA lobbies

Quoting Wonderment: My first published document was a letter to the editor of my hometown newspaper. I was 11 years old. The year was 1958. The subject was the US launch of Explorer 1.

I proposed solving our problems here on Earth before venturing into space.

I can appreciate the sentiment, but I believe it's woolly-headed thinking. We will never even solve all of our problems in our own houses, let alone on our entire planet. Saying we should not move onward and upward until we do is a recipe for stagnation. We as a species would never have left Africa, or later Europe, if that was our philosophy. Besides, learning new things invariably helps with some of the problems at hand, and it is also the case that looking forward to new possibilities gives new hopes. I'm perfectly willing to agree that not every last cent should be spent on the space program. I am also happy to acknowledge a litany of complaints about NASA. To the first I'd say that we have a democracy for arguing about just such budget priorities. To the second I'd say NASA does a lot of good, despite its flaws, and also, that I'd really

I was a hippie when I was a kid, and I did, in fact, have posters of astronauts up on my walls. Right next to the big one of Jimi Hendrix.

Excuse me while I kiss the sky.

I dont think it is a coincedence that the US has lost interest in space exploration as it has become dominated by democrats. My guess is that it is republican types who historically have set out on the frontier, faced danger, fought savages and tamed nature. All is right in the new territories for a while, where the decency and honesty of the rugged indivdual is remembered and valued. Then the democrats arrive, with their unnecessary and costly requirements at the DMV inspection stations, and society regresses into the daily routine of competing interests and how I feel pronouncements. The solar system is the next frontier. Republican peoples should/will not wait for NASA to lead the way. The once great NASA has been overrun by people who dont think about building bigger and better exploration machines, who dont "work the problem".

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I dont think it is a coincedence that the US has lost interest in space exploration as it has become dominated by democrats.

My guess is that it is republican types who historically have set out on the frontier, faced danger, fought savages and tamed nature. All is right in the new territories for a while, where the decency and honesty of the rugged indivdual is remembered and valued. Then the democrats arrive, with their unnecessary and costly requirements at the DMV inspection stations, and society regresses into the daily routine of competing interests and how I feel pronouncements.

The solar system is the next frontier. Republican peoples should/will not wait for NASA to lead the way. The once great NASA has been overrun by people who dont think about building bigger and better exploration machines, who dont "work the problem".

It's a good thing the Republicans won the Presidency in '60, or we'd have never reached the moon!

Quoting AemJeff: It's a good thing the Republicans won the Presidency in '60, or we'd have never reached the moon!

Don't believe that liberal media lie. It was thanks totally to the great Richard Nixon that we were able to fake the Moon landings.

It's hard not to like Jim, despite the occasional glimpses of teh crazy that seem to get past the censor (as it were) from time to time. I do wonder, sometimes, whether he cultivates that impression for the perfectly rational purpose of sustaining his career as a commentator within the establishment of explicitly right-wing media. On the other hand, occasionally he really does come off as a true believer. I will say this - my earliest personal epiphanies were related first, to my lifelong love of science, science fiction, and the space program; and second (chronologically) to the idea of environmentalism - which I would characterize as a rational interest in a maintaining a sustainable, respectful relationship with nature. I see no conflict, here. My mom, btw worked on the Apollo program throughout its entire run. She was awarded a plaque with a medallion made from the metal of the (if I remember right) Apollo 8 command module, something of which she, and my entire family, is extremely proud. The company I work for is completing a piece of video hardware that, if it passes the radiation testing in the next couple of weeks (very likely, there are well known methods of design in this

Quoting AemJeff: It's hard not to like Jim, despite the occasional glimpses of teh crazy that seem to get past the censor (as it were) from time to time. I do wonder, sometimes, whether he cultivates that impression for the perfectly rational purpose of sustaining his career as a commentator within the establishment of explicitly right-wing media. On the other hand, occasionally he really does come off as a true believer. I will say this - my earliest personal epiphanies were related first, to my lifelong love of science, science fiction, and the space program; and second (chronologically) to the idea of environmentalism - which I would characterize as a rational interest in a maintaining a sustainable, respectful relationship with nature. I see no conflict, here.

My mom, btw worked on the Apollo program throughout its entire run. She was awarded a plaque with a medallion made from the metal of the (if I remember right) Apollo 8 command module, something of which she, and my entire family, is extremely proud. The company I work for is completing a piece of video hardware that, if it passes the radiation testing in the next couple of weeks (very likely, there are well known methods of design in this

Quoting AemJeff: It's a good thing the Republicans won the Presidency in '60, or we'd have never reached the moon!

JFK fought in combat in WWII. He is an honorary republican.

My guess is that democrats are responsible for everything good and pure in the world then republicans arrive and start molesting children and manufacturing meth

Quoting DenvilleSteve: JFK fought in combat in WWII. He is an honorary republican.

So what does the zero-combat record of Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush make them?

Quoting AemJeff:
Nevertheless, embarrassingly enough, with my foot and a half long pony tail I still look like a hippie, I'm still on the left, I still think that environmentalism is the only rational approach to a sustainable modern socety.

at some point, likely sooner than we are aware, the earth runs out of natural resources. How much cement, steel and other metals remain to be consumed in democrat make work projects? Machines could be designed to mine Mars and build giant ships the size of Texas that people would live on, orbitting the sun, just like they do on Earth. Free from federal authority, of course.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Machines could be designed to mine Mars and build giant ships the size of Texas that people would live on, orbitting the sun, just like they do on Earth. Free from federal authority, of course.

I'd definitely support that.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'd definitely support that.

Except, no I wouldn't, because if you wingnuts were living at the top of the gravitational well, within ten years you'd get it in your heads to start dropping rocks on the Earth, for Jesus.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: JFK fought in combat in WWII. He is an honorary republican.

Steve, I get the feeling you're not really trying here. Come on man, show us up with your rock-ribbed appeals to purity, decency and the Republican Way!

Quoting AemJeff: My mom, btw worked on the Apollo program throughout its entire run. She was awarded a plaque with a medallion made from the metal of the (if I remember right) Apollo 8 command module, something of which she, and my entire family, is extremely proud. The company I work for is completing a piece of video hardware that, if it passes the radiation testing in the next couple of weeks (very likely, there are well known methods of design in this regard) will be installed in the ISS. I just found out a week ago, that this piece of equipment contains a module for which I wrote some of the firmware. For a kid that at the age of ten watched the first video signal from the surface of the moon, and who knew, and was in awe of, some of the engineers responsible for implementing that video linkup - this is a huge fulfillment of a lifelong dream.

Nevertheless, embarrassingly enough, with my foot and a half long pony tail I still look like a hippie, I'm still on the left, I still think that environmentalism is the only rational approach to a sustainable modern socety.

I think Jim has

DenvilleSteve:

I dont think it is a coincedence that the US has lost interest in space exploration as it has become dominated by democrats.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Fox News's Sean Hannity (via):

HANNITY: Is it safe to say that Democrats were willing to protect pedophiles but not offer the same protection to servicemen and women? Is that an accurate statement?

KING: Sean, it is a matter of congressional record. Absolutely true -- beyond any doubt whatsoever.

I think space exploration is cool, and think there are several great things that come out of it (the most basic being our ongoing quest for knowledge.) But at the end of the day we have alot of areas to explore and problems to fix and I think it's about finding the right balance of our priorities. But I do think it fair, given the amount of scrutiny that Republicans love to rain on any large public project suggested by Dems, for us to turn that scrutiny around onto their pet-projects like space exploration and new weapons systems. For all the screaming and hollering about how cap&trade or the bailouts might not work, or be efficient enough therefore we shouldn't do them, well building space stations or a stronger telescope might not give us anything really practical either, and they sure as hell cost alot of $. But I love Jim's enthusiasm for space and would love to hear him do a diavlog with one of the SciSat guys, (maybe Sean Carroll?) to give him a chance to interview somebody who knows a bit about space. Jim

My guess is that it is republican types who historically have set out on the frontier, faced danger, fought savages and tamed nature.

Primitive racism duly noted, Steve. Since it was only a "frontier" to you, Steve, what if you run into some savages out there in space? Plus, last time I looked nature remains untamed.

The civilian casualties in Afghanistan or "Afpak" are a shameful blot on the Obama administration. The liberal media won't push it because they are in love, and the conservative media won't push it because they are open to charges to galaxy-sized hypocrisy. It's up to you independent investigative reporters. Skip the graft, David, and get onto the important stuff: innocent dead humans.

Quoting Wonderment: The civilian casualties in Afghanistan or "Afpak" are a shameful blot on the Obama administration.

The liberal media won't push it because they are in love, and the conservative media won't push it because they are open to charges to galaxy-sized hypocrisy.

It's up to you independent investigative reporters. Skip the graft, David, and get onto the important stuff: innocent dead humans.

Are you comparing casualty rates with a hypothetical zero or with an estimate of the deaths and mutilations that would be occurring if the Taliban were running things (executions, retributive mutilations, etc....) It seems to me that the moral calculus doesn't add up quite the way that you're implying.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I think space exploration is cool, and think there are several great things that come out of it (the most basic being our ongoing quest for knowledge.) But at the end of the day we have alot of areas to explore and problems to fix and I think it's about finding the right balance of our priorities.

What is more of a priority than the countering of the depletion of the earth's resources and destruction of the environment?? The harnessing of the resources of the solar system is nothing more than an enormous engineering project.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...can-factor.php

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I dont think it is a coincedence that the US has lost interest in space exploration as it has become dominated by democrats.

My guess is that it is republican types who historically have set out on the frontier, faced danger, fought savages and tamed nature. All is right in the new territories for a while, where the decency and honesty of the rugged indivdual is remembered and valued. Then the democrats arrive, with their unnecessary and costly requirements at the DMV inspection stations, and society regresses into the daily routine of competing interests and how I feel pronouncements.

The solar system is the next frontier. Republican peoples should/will not wait for NASA to lead the way. The once great NASA has been overrun by people who dont think about building bigger and better exploration machines, who dont "work the problem".

This brings to mind when George Bush announced an ambitious plan for a manned exploration to Mars and the DNC responded by mocking him for being 'out of touch' with 'normal Americans.' It was disheartening to see such a disregard for scientific exploration...especially from a party that contains a subset dogmatically linked to science

Quoting AemJeff: Are you comparing casualty rates with a hypothetical zero or with an estimate of the deaths and mutilations that would be occurring if the Taliban were running things (executions, retributive mutilations, etc....) It seems to me that the moral calculus doesn't add up quite the way that you're implying.

For once I agree with AemJeff. If our goal is to minimize human suffering, then we must remain committed to defeating an unbelievably brutal regime in the Taliban. The underlying objection to war, after all, is an objection to human suffering. If we could achieve the objectives of war without human suffering then what would be the objection? But if the failure to execute a war will result in greater human suffering then it is immoral to not pursue war.

Are you comparing casualty rates with a hypothetical zero or with an estimate of the deaths and mutilations that would be occurring if the Taliban were running things (executions, retributive mutilations, etc....) It seems to me that the moral calculus doesn't add up quite the way that you're implying.

Isn't that the same justification Bush proffered for the Iraq War? Once the WMD thing blew up in his face, so to speak, the neo-cons retreated to how evil Saddam Hussein was and how much worse off the Iraqis would be if he was still in power.

Quoting Wonderment: Isn't that the same justification Bush proffered for the Iraq War?

Once the WMD thing blew up in his face, so to speak, the neo-cons retreated to how evil Saddam Hussein was and how much worse off the Iraqis would be if he was still in power.

You're not rejecting the notion that Saddam was evil, are you? Let's not get hung up on semantics, lest you disagree with the notion of 'evil'. Saddam was an incredibly brutal warlord who killed upwards of a million people during his reign; his sons were serial rapists and murderers.

Saddam was an incredibly brutal warlord who killed upwards of a million people during his reign...

So was Bush.

Quoting Wonderment: So was Bush.

come now

Quoting Wonderment: Isn't that the same justification Bush proffered for the Iraq War?
Once the WMD thing blew up in his face, so to speak, the neo-cons retreated to how evil Saddam Hussein was and how much worse off the Iraqis would be if he was still in power.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't be a valid argument. Whatever the second order excuses were in one case, it has no bearing on the moral calculus elsewhere.

Whatever the second order excuses were in one case, it has no bearing on the moral calculus elsewhere.

Ok, I will keep it simple. Forget Bush. Obama should be talking to the Taliban, not bombing them with drones and causing "collateral damage" (i.e., death and maiming) to civilians. Also, I would ask you to contemplate the strategy of recent wars against Muslims waged by both Israel and the USA. In Lebanon and much more so in Gaza, it was clear that Israel was inflicting large casualties on the civilian population because they were determined to take only the most minimal risks for IDF troops. This is probably a lot of what will see in asymmetrical (automated) warfare in the future. The vastly superior technological power will risk say 1000 of the "enemy's" civilians in order to not risk one life of their own. As long as Obama can keep the US body count down, he risks relatively little politically by killing the natives, half a world away. This is even more obvious in a potentially unpopular war, as opposed to Israel's war on Gaza which was widely supported by Israeli voters. Civilian death is thus politically incentivized. Obama says

The alternative is no one doing the dirty work, a strategy which also has blood on its hands. Turning a blind eye to the suffering of foreigners doesn't suddenly become OK just because the alternative would also hurt people.

Quoting Wonderment: Isn't that the same justification Bush proffered for the Iraq War?

Once the WMD thing blew up in his face, so to speak, the neo-cons retreated to how evil Saddam Hussein was and how much worse off the Iraqis would be if he was still in power.

So what do you suggest be done about Afghanistan and Pakistan? Obviously civilian casualties are a blot but how are Radical Islamic forces to be defeated in that part of the world?

Imagine how great North America would be if asians and euros had solved problems at home before venturing abroad......
I think the poster (wall decoration, not person) that best expressed the 'wooly-headed' hate for NASA during the early seventies was the poster of Neil (or Buzz) walking on the moon with the caption 'SO WHAT?'. If I remember right, American women spent more during the same period for nail polish/lipstick and I doubt if that investment resulted in the same degree of technological advance.

So was Bush.

This reminds me of Niall Ferguson's moral equivilance of Japan and Germany to Great Britian and the US during WW2, which most thinking people (those aware of history anyway) shot to pieces.

It's a good thing the Republicans won the Presidency in '60, or we'd have never reached the moon!

The democrats of today are defintely down the road a piece from JFK. When you have loons applauding Jon Stewart for calling Harry Truman a war criminal, you have to realize there has been a shift.

So if you fight in a war, you become an honorary Republican?
That's funny, because I was just a second ago listening to Limbaugh say that Colin Powell isn't a real Republican and he might as well just become a Democrat.

I'm pretty sure people have been debating the morality of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ever since the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's not something a bunch of new, crazy leftists woke up in the morning and decided was wrong for the first time in history.

Quoting kezboard: So if you fight in a war, you become an honorary Republican?
That's funny, because I was just a second ago listening to Limbaugh say that Colin Powell isn't a real Republican and he might as well just become a Democrat.

And who can forgot that famous decorated WW2 bomber pilot who earned the Distinguished Flying Cross, George McGovern.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...can-factor.php

Nice.

So what do you suggest be done about Afghanistan and Pakistan? Obviously civilian casualties are a blot but how are Radical Islamic forces to be defeated in that part of the world?

Well, long story. Short version: Nonviolent conflict resolution. Diplomacy. Disarmament. Human rights. Aid. UN-type stuff. The US does not need to guarantee democracy-by-force, however, in every country in the world, or even in the countries whose natural resources we want to control. The first thing to do is decouple Al Qaeda-type stateless terrorist groups from national movements like the Taliban, Hizballah and Hamas. We can peacefully coexist with a lot of "radical Islamic forces," as long as they are not plotting attacks on us. The more harm we do to civilian populations now, the more they will despise us in the future, and the harder the peacemaking task will ultimately be.

Quoting Wonderment: Well, long story. Short version: Nonviolent conflict resolution. Diplomacy. Disarmament. Human rights. Aid. UN-type stuff.

The US does not need to guarantee democracy-by-force, however, in every country in the world, or even in the countries whose natural resources we want to control.

The first thing to do is decouple Al Qaeda-type stateless terrorist groups from national movements like the Taliban, Hizballah and Hamas. We can peacefully coexist with a lot of "radical Islamic forces," as long as they are not plotting attacks on us. The more harm we do to civilian populations now, the more they will despise us in the future, and the harder the peacemaking task will ultimately be.

I wonder what the endgame with the Taliban is going to be. Take a look at the winners and losers in guerrilla warfare. I think the pattern's clear: if your movement represents broad ethnic/national ambitions, and the other side isn't willing to use ethnic cleansing/genocide, you're going to win. There's ~13 million Pashtuns in Af and ~28 million in Pak. The Taliban are going to win. Maybe that means they'll rule the Autonomous Pashtun Province or something, maybe they'll get their own state, who knows. But if history is any guide we can't crush them.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I dont think it is a coincedence that the US has lost interest in space exploration as it has become dominated by democrats.

[...]

The solar system is the next frontier. Republican peoples should/will not wait for NASA to lead the way. The once great NASA has been overrun by people who dont think about building bigger and better exploration machines, who dont "work the problem".

Your abit of a loon Denville, despite that though, your post actually made me curious about something. You always here how universities have become outposts for liberals, but I wonder if there are certain subjects where conservatives hold majorities. I would be interesting to see some poll and/or study that broke down political affliations and support for various issues by major. I really have no idea what the results would be, as most people I know tend to be somewhat liberal towards social issues, but overall, apathetic to politics.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: This brings to mind when George Bush announced an ambitious plan for a manned exploration to Mars and the DNC responded by mocking him for being 'out of touch' with 'normal Americans.' It was disheartening to see such a disregard for scientific exploration...especially from a party that contains a subset dogmatically linked to science

That kind of bothered me to. I do think though that there are alot of other scientific projects that would be under NASA's purview that should be give priority over a man on mars project

Quoting cognitive madisonian: This brings to mind when George Bush announced an ambitious plan for a manned exploration to Mars and the DNC responded by mocking him for being 'out of touch' with 'normal Americans.' It was disheartening to see such a disregard for scientific exploration...especially from a party that contains a subset dogmatically linked to science

I dont think it makes sense to focus on sending people to the moon and mars. Much better to send machines and robots.

Quoting claymisher: And who can forgot that famous decorated WW2 bomber pilot who earned the Distinguished Flying Cross, George McGovern.

I just set me off a bit listening to David Corn recount his discussions with WH officials about their battle plans for Afg and Pak. Implicit in their fretting over using drones to attack the Taliban is a switch to manned attacks. You can argue that republicans leaders are no better, but the fact is the leaders of the democrat party are sending soldiers into battle, something they would never do themselves.

Corn, Pinkerton, and many of you are missing the boat on the "vision for the future." When Pinkerton compares Roddenberry to Lucas, it's in terms of Lucas's spiritual meritocracy to Roddenberry's wonderment for technology and space travel. But the real comparison should be to Roddenberry's secular humanist vision for human(/humanoid) cooperation. Ultimately, from the original series right on down to Voyager and Enterprise, the Trek franchise is about better people, not better technology. The technology and exploration help usher in this vision (think replicators eliminating poverty, transporters eliminating boundaries, exploration exposing us to new cultures and wonders), and often the shows and movies are about how people(s) fail in their goals to be Better Humans, but the technology is always secondary in Roddenberry's vision for the future. He stated he wanted to see us explore the solar system. He said:

First of all, I have no belief that STAR TREK depicts the actual future. It depicts us, now, things we need to understand about that. But I hope that STAR TREK will encourage other artists and other writers to work in this area. I think that drama is a powerful force we still do not use very well, especially in television....I don't ask that

Quoting Starwatcher162536: That kind of bothered me to. I do think though that there are alot of other scientific projects that would be under NASA's purview that should be give priority over a man on mars project

I think there's a point to be made for that (though I find the idea of getting a person on Mars to be way cooler than any other proposal, if only to have the opportunity to make arcane Robinson Crusoe on Mars references). The discouraging element was that many people simply don't appreciate the value of space exploration. There are a number of possibilities why--no Cold War and thus no enemy to 'beat' into space (memo to Osama: launch a plan to put an Islamic flag on Mars), the self-centeredness that has come from the increasing role of technology and user-generated websites in particular, etc.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I think there's a point to be made for that (though I find the idea of getting a person on Mars to be way cooler than any other proposal, if only to have the opportunity to make arcane Robinson Crusoe on Mars references). The discouraging element was that many people simply don't appreciate the value of space exploration. There are a number of possibilities why--no Cold War and thus no enemy to 'beat' into space (memo to Osama: launch a plan to put an Islamic flag on Mars), the self-centeredness that has come from the increasing role of technology and user-generated websites in particular, etc.

I'm at least in the 99th percentile of humans-in-space fandom, but I think the idea of trying to send a crewed mission to Mars at this point is foolish. It would be a waste of already sadly limited resources for what would amount to a stunt. When GWB trumpeted it, just as with his father before him, I thought it was plainly clear that he was trying for a cheap piggyback ride on JFK's historic challenge. Based on my reading of Collins, Kranz, and Chaikin, I am under

Quoting katemonster: [...]

Great post, km. 'Course, you're preaching to the choir in my case, but still, you said it well.

Quoting katemonster: Corn, Pinkerton, and many of you are missing the boat on the "vision for the future." When Pinkerton compares Roddenberry to Lucas, it's in terms of Lucas's spiritual meritocracy to Roddenberry's wonderment for technology and space travel. But the real comparison should be to Roddenberry's secular humanist vision for human(/humanoid) cooperation. Ultimately, from the original series right on down to Voyager and Enterprise, the Trek franchise is about better people, not better technology. The technology and exploration help usher in this vision (think replicators eliminating poverty, transporters eliminating boundaries, exploration exposing us to new cultures and wonders), and often the shows and movies are about how people(s) fail in their goals to be Better Humans, but the technology is always secondary in Roddenberry's vision for the future. He stated he wanted to see us explore the solar system. He said:

The technology, the space battles, and the exploration are fun, but Star Trek has really been a vision of how we can be a better society.

And how!

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm at least in the 99th percentile of humans-in-space fandom, but I think the idea of trying to send a crewed mission to Mars at this point is foolish. It would be a waste of already sadly limited resources for what would amount to a stunt. When GWB trumpeted it, just as with his father before him, I thought it was plainly clear that he was trying for a cheap piggyback ride on JFK's historic challenge.

Based on my reading of Collins, Kranz, and Chaikin, I am under the impression that we were pushing our technological capabilities to the limit to get a few astronauts to the Moon and back. With the exception of computers, it is also my impression that we have not made significant advances in being able to transport and maintain human life on such a journey. Feynman's appendix to the Challenger commission report certainly added to this feeling.

I would much rather see us work on (1) figuring out how to get people and material into orbit for significantly less money, (2) developing a working Moon base, and (3) developing a better transport for the Mars journey before we

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm at least in the 99th percentile of humans-in-space fandom, but I think the idea of trying to send a crewed mission to Mars at this point is foolish. It would be a waste of already sadly limited resources for what would amount to a stunt. When GWB trumpeted it, just as with his father before him, I thought it was plainly clear that he was trying for a cheap piggyback ride on JFK's historic challenge.

Based on my reading of Collins, Kranz, and Chaikin, I am under the impression that we were pushing our technological capabilities to the limit to get a few astronauts to the Moon and back. With the exception of computers, it is also my impression that we have not made significant advances in being able to transport and maintain human life on such a journey. Feynman's appendix to the Challenger commission report certainly added to this feeling.

I would much rather see us work on (1) figuring out how to get people and material into orbit for significantly less money, (2) developing a working Moon base, and (3) developing a better transport for the Mars journey before we

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I'd argue that the way to accomplish those goals is precisely to set an ambitious goal. I doubt we would've reached the moon when we did if JFK had not made it a very public priority. So we need another very public campaign.

Now, you're going to hate the second part of my post so you may wish to stop reading now:
Barack Obama never said to himself, "What can I do for my country?" Rather, he asked, "What can my country do for me?" Hence the myth of the poor public servant building up the lives of inner city Chicago residents, who was actually making decent money (for a fresh faced college alum) and building the groundwork for a career in politics, while creating lousy, failed programs. JFK risked his life for his fellow soldiers in the Navy; Obama, on the other hand, stabbed his mentors in the back, supported the corrupt party machine, and used dirty tricks to advance through the political circle. And it perfectly represents the current philosophy: "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."

I had already decided there was nothing to be gained

Quoting claymisher: Real space travel isn't going to happen until we have massive improvements in energy and propulsion. We'll know we're ready when we have more energy on Earth than we know what to do with.

Agree with the first sentence, don't agree with the second. We won't need a planet-sized store of energy to propel or sustain a spaceship capable of transporting people around the solar system. A good nuclear reactor ought to be able to do it, provided we can figure out how to harness it properly. Additionally, depending on how good we get at building self-contained environments, we wouldn't even have to worry that much about speed. In the latter case, we could get where we wanted to go with solar sails and a little bit of propellant for fine-grained course corrections.

That's only going to happen because of basic science research, and if it ever happens at all it won't be for a long, long time. Us talking about exploring space (manned) is like hunter-gatherers talking about landing on the moon.

Is there a Moore's Law type chart for energy or propulsion or something? Is this going

Quoting bjkeefe: I had already decided there was nothing to be gained in discussing politics with you. Sorry to say it looks like I was too narrow in my assessment.

Your hatred is so all-consuming you can't even stay on topic. Sad to see.

I don't hate Obama (I reserve hatred for the truly vile people of the world, such as Bin Ladin and Teodoro Obiang), I just find him to be a very poor leader and supremely undeserving of the office of the presidency. If you compare my rhetoric concerning Obama with the more splenetic rhetoric from the left toward Bush, you'll notice a substantial difference.

Good point. The Mars project is a far-out stunt proposed for PR purposes. I have yet to hear any ratonale for pooling a considerable quantity of our collective resources for a manned Mars mission beyond "sounds cool". Any return on that investment is likely to be spin-offs from the engineering work, which could be achieved from the same amount of effort expended on something that offers a more direct return as well. Space projects should be subject to the same cost/benefit analysis and decision making as any other collective action. Even the Moon base idea seems like a boondoggle. Consider the troubles the US has had just constructing the space station in low earth orbit, barely a hop, skip, and jump off the planet. Without the Russians to provide access and supply that station would likely have been a death trap for any inhabitants post shuttle disasters, and it seems questionable that it would have ever been completed. Had that happened during construction and expansion of an occupied Moon base ... . Even now that the station is nearly completed, my understanding is that there is considerable questioning as

Quoting cragger: Good point. The Mars project is a far-out stunt proposed for PR purposes. I have yet to hear any ratonale for pooling a considerable quantity of our collective resources for a manned Mars mission beyond "sounds cool". Any return on that investment is likely to be spin-offs from the engineering work, which could be achieved from the same amount of effort expended on something that offers a more direct return as well. Space projects should be subject to the same cost/benefit analysis and decision making as any other collective action.

Even the Moon base idea seems like a boondoggle. Consider the troubles the US has had just constructing the space station in low earth orbit, barely a hop, skip, and jump off the planet. Without the Russians to provide access and supply that station would likely have been a death trap for any inhabitants post shuttle disasters, and it seems questionable that it would have ever been completed. Had that happened during construction and expansion of an occupied Moon base ... . Even now that the station is nearly completed, my understanding is that there is considerable questioning as

You know, the real problem with colonizing space is that there aren't any resources to plunder and natives to enslave. Galactic imperialism won't take off until we find some aliens to exploit.

Quoting claymisher: You know, the real problem with colonizing space is that there aren't any resources to plunder and natives to enslave. Galactic imperialism won't take off until we find some aliens to exploit.

Or until an Alliance compensates with overpopulation by terraforming planets in another country, holding all of them together so that all can enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of true civilization.

The comments of the fox freindly blogger regarding free market and progress are misguided, especially as they apply to the big corporate (not small business) sphere. Big corporations and the unpraticeably-unfree monopoly-market are no friends to progress, and I would argue completely the opposite, they have retarded it, perhaps irretreivably. By beating our children over the heads with senseless advertising (which the public pays for at a "premium" on their products), they have corrupted our children and turned many of them into intellectually daft material consumerist who laugh at learning and know only the need to make money. In the meantime, by protecting "their" intellectual property robbed from hard-working scientists and our forebears through trade-secrets and patent-thickets, they thwart real innovation and progress. We need R&D in the universities where it belongs and cannot be corrupted or hidden by corporations. We need open-sourced and complete knowledge of any product or "trade-secret" for the public, which is "permitted" to make money from that public. We need patents and copyrights which cannot be bought our acquired through M&A but are the property only of their individual creators, and get released to the public domain after

Quoting citizenwatch: The comments of the fox freindly blogger regarding free market and progress are misguided, especially as they apply to the big corporate (not small business) sphere. Big corporations and the unpraticeably-unfree monopoly-market are no friends to progress, and I would argue completely the opposite, they have retarded it, perhaps irretreivably. By beating our children over the heads with senseless advertising (which the public pays for at a "premium" on their products), they have corrupted our children and turned many of them into intellectually daft material consumerist who laugh at learning and know only the need to make money. In the meantime, by protecting "their" intellectual property robbed from hard-working scientists and our forebears through trade-secrets and patent-thickets, they thwart real innovation and progress. We need R&D in the universities where it belongs and cannot be corrupted or hidden by corporations. We need open-sourced and complete knowledge of any product or "trade-secret" by the public, which is "permitted" to make money from that public. We need patents and copyrights which cannot be bought our acquired through M&A but are the property only of their individual creators, and get released to the public domain after

Quoting bjkeefe:
[...]

Agree with the half of the first sentence, not so much with what follows. It may be a long time, or it may not. A couple of breakthroughs -- whose "when" is impossible to predict -- could make all the difference in the world. Think about what the invention of the transistor did for computers, for example.

But your basic point is well-taken: we have to concentrate more on basic research, and forget about a big splashy mission until we are better prepared for it.

If we can ever figure out a way to mass produce true carbon nanotubes*1 , that's really all it will take to make a whole heap of stuff that seems outlandish now plausible. It would be a revolution of innovation on par, probably even greater, then was brought on by semiconductors. I mean, everyone knows about alot of the stuff that would be made possible by having a easily available material that has such an awesome tensile strength*2, but carbon nanotubes have some really interesting electrical properties as well, there are entire fields where a mass production of nanotubes would bring about crazy changes that the press never writes

Here is an excerpt from an article in from the January 17 issue of New Scientist:

Though still purely theoretical, this nanopump works thanks to the charge distribution on water molecules as they line up inside the narrow channel. The pump would not require any external pressure to drive the water through, and combined with the salt-excluding properties of nanotubes, it would offer a simple nanoscale desalinator. Yet it will require a source of energy to run, because energy is needed to hold the charges in place: water molecules moving through the channel will exert a force on them, and try to drag them out of position as they pass. The precise positioning and control of the charges will be difficult, Fang admits, but he hopes to find experimentalists who are up for the challenge. If they succeed, these gates and pumps could be useful in all kinds of ways. Hummer, for example, envisages using nanotubes as channels, gates, valves and pumps in nanofluidic circuits. These could move tiny quantities of chemical solutions around on chip-sized devices for medical and environmental diagnostics. They might also be useful for extracting or transporting hydrogen

I am asking for less control, not more. Big businesses do not have the right to prevent innovation to protect their own financial interest. I think also as consumers who are paying the bills, we need to exert control over mindless junk these guys clutter our brains with. That is not dangerous, it is common sense and our right. I do not think that is asking for too much.
Dangerous is forcing someone to do something or making no other choice availble. Such is the plight of the modern individual. Creators and inventors need to be free to innovate and build on those who have worked before them. This is not possible today. If you would like to develop a new drug for cancer, you are prevented from doing so by trade secrets. If you want to design a rocket with a "proprietary" titanium alloy, you cannot do so. If you want to find out how some kind of software works, you are not legally allowed to. Our culture cannot truly progress because people with money "buy ideas" or "buy inventors" without having a creative effort. They sequester it away preventing true competition and development. They

Quoting citizenwatch: I think also as consumers who are paying the bills, we need to exert control over mindless junk these guys clutter our brains with.

But we do--that's what our on/off switch is for; we do it through the choices we make in movies, music, and television/radio entertainment. The unfortunate reality is that many, maybe even most Americans simply aren't interested in the type of high-minded cultivation that you idealize. That's why movie sequels dominate the box office, Britney Spears dominates the airwaves, and celebrity gossip shows abound. This is what the people want. I don't choose that entertainment, but it would be presumptuous of me to assert that my tastes are inherently superior (even though I think they are ) and thus should dominate the marketplace. The great thing about the free market is that we have outlets for those looking to actually cultivate their minds. That's why we have multiple CSPAN channels, NPR, etc.

Dangerous is forcing someone to do something or making no other choice availble.

There are basically two branches from that statement, one of which involves intellectual property law and the other of which involves media. Since I'm not too familiar with

I do not think Americans are not interested. I think they have been misled
into thinking the sciences are for silly geeks by the popular media, or worse is some kind of magical ability or understanding meant only for a few. The English language is made of 30,000+ words which people commonly use in all kinds of complicated grammatical constructions. It takes us time, but we all more or less learn it, and we all find it very interesting and rewarding and useful to communicate once we do. Einsteins General Theory (which is only a few pages) would not have the same computational complexity than the entire English language, if you did the math, so in theory learning that or any other number of advanced topics should actually be easier to learn by the average human brain than the English language. It is not that people are not able or could not be interested, it is just that they are being brainwashed into believing it is too difficult, or “not for them”, or not given enough time or opportunities to learn, or some other such nonsense by the

David Corn is a pimp.

Quoting citizenwatch: I do not think Americans are not interested. I think they have been misled

Come on, either you are an ex SDSer or you have a copy of the Port Huron statement in your office. Admit it!

into thinking the sciences are for silly geeks by the popular media, or worse is some kind of magical ability or understanding meant only for a few. The English language is made of 30,000+ words which people commonly use in all kinds of complicated grammatical constructions. It takes us time, but we all more or less learn it, and we all find it very interesting and rewarding and useful to communicate once we do. Einsteins General Theory (which is only a few pages) would not have the same computational complexity than the entire English language, if you did the math, so in theory learning that or any other number of advanced topics should actually be easier to learn by the average human brain than the English language. It is not that people are not able or could not be interested, it is just that they are being brainwashed into believing it

Even as a pre-Mars or pre- other human exploration prerequisite a Moon base as a mid to distant, pie-in-the-sky future staging base is questionable. Absent some likely benefit of having an off-planet base on the moon it seems at least as likely that that an orbital station that is self-sustaining or nearly so might be a better first step and perhaps better overall. Such a station would be both more accessable and would be without the penalty of existing at the bottom of another gravity well as a staging area for wider exploration. On the other hand, Moon basing might not further clutter up Earth orbit with ancillary garbage as much so the whole thing seems pretty blue sky speculation at this stage. However often Shatner and his video and celluloid decendants managed to hook up with sexy aliens, further human adventures in space don't seem to have a lot to recommend them as priority targets for our collective investments at this time. Only get so many chips. Better to bet them smart.

Quoting cragger: Even as a pre-Mars or pre- other human exploration prerequisite a Moon base as a mid to distant, pie-in-the-sky future staging base is questionable. Absent some likely benefit of having an off-planet base on the moon it seems at least as likely that that an orbital station that is self-sustaining or nearly so might be a better first step and perhaps better overall. Such a station would be both more accessable and would be without the penalty of existing at the bottom of another gravity well as a staging area for wider exploration. On the other hand, Moon basing might not further clutter up Earth orbit with ancillary garbage as much so the whole thing seems pretty blue sky speculation at this stage.

However often Shatner and his video and celluloid decendants managed to hook up with sexy aliens, further human adventures in space don't seem to have a lot to recommend them as priority targets for our collective investments at this time. Only get so many chips. Better to bet them smart.

Forget Shatner, Firefly is where it's at in terms of space travel.

I did not know what SDS or the Port Huron document was until you mentioned them. I will read more about them but no time right now. Sorry too, I think you misunderstood me when you believed I thought "the elites" should take over. I believe that very intellectually impoverished or unenlightened elites but regrettably powerful and wealthy elites have already taken over and have too much influence. I want less. To address your comments though, I think the average individual is capable of much more than is commonly thought. We place people in these inferior or feudalistic categories. There is ample evidence that casting people by genetics is inaccurate. Many of our great leaders came from very humble backgrounds (Lincoln, Eisnhower). And many of the entitled inheritors of the wealthy have ruined the family fortune or at least bismirched the name. I do not think it is any coincidence that some of the greatest scientist and thinkers had great teachers too. The Greek philosophers and Gauss' pupils are good examples. Also, historically, many scientist and artist were simply given time to think by either being rich (de Broglie), having rich patrons (Michaelangelo, da Vinci), or being in the clergy (Mendel). Just

I'm perfectly willing to agree that not every last cent should be spent on the space program. I am also happy to acknowledge a litany of complaints about NASA. To the first I'd say that we have a democracy for arguing about just such budget priorities. To the second I'd say NASA does a lot of good, despite its flaws, and also, that I'd really like to see more room made for the private sector to compete.

I am also somewhat uncomfortable with some aspects of the military's involvement in the space program. On the other hand, I don't see any realistic scenario for the foreseeable future where the military doesn't get a disproportionately large slice of the pie, so if they're going to spend some of their money on rockets and satellites, I'll say that's better than some other things I could imagine them buying, and I'll look forward to the spin-offs that we eventually get from throwing DoD dollars at problems.

Finally, while I don't like nationalistic fervor as a motivator for making progress in space, and do love international cooperation on these efforts, if what it takes to get the